MANIFESTO OF THE PROGRESSIVE RIGHT-WING

            Have you ever had the impression that political systems never work in defense of the population but only to accumulate privileges for the members of the government itself and their close friends or supporters? This perception has been spreading among more and more people for a long time. Some, more radical, simply advocate the end of government, because they think that government serves for no purpose other than that: accumulating privileges for the rulers and a few close supporters. But if you, like the author of this work, find it impossible that a complex society with many millions of members and complex commercial relations happening by the thousands every day could exist without a government, perhaps you believe that it is worthwhile to rethink the State to transform it into something that promotes this and has effective mechanisms to prevent it from being divided up by opportunists.

            By clicking in the image of the cover you will be directed to the selling page where you can buy the ebook with the complete text. However, you can have a sample of it below. The two first chapters are here below.

            I chapiter one you will see definitions of words like "right-wing",  "left-wing", "conservatism" and "progressivism", which are largelly used in works about political philosophy or even in articles or comments about politics, but without the care of a clear definition of their meanings. Of course, there is a great dose of subjectivism and even divergence about the meanings of those words. This work, however, proposes its own definition and uses the proposed definition to build all the theory of its political proposal. By reading this chapter the reader will see that there is no contradiction in tne expression "progressive right-wing", although modern authors use to identify conservatism with right-wing and progressivism with left-wing.

          The second chapter describes the historic moment that exists today (beginning of XXIst century) and the reason for which - in the author's view - a progressivist right-wing movement (as it is defined by chapter 1) is necessary.

            The following chapters - which are only available in the complete wowrk - are a draft of the structure of a society which is organized based in the principles proposed by this movement. If it will work or not, only the future will say. But if you, reader, as the author, believe that the nowadays model has failed, you must also agree that we need to conceive a new model. This work is a starting point and a call for a reflexion. Above all, it is an invitation for other thinkers that accept the principles stated by this work to join the author for the conception of a more detailed project for this new society.

          May be you, reader, is one of those thinkers. So, if you feel inside yourself a call for such a building, you are invited to read at least the two chapters that are openet to the public, which are below. If they turn on a need to know more inside your soul, acquire the complete ebook and read it in full. May be you have some important contributions to add on this project.

            By clicking on the cover image, you will be directed to the sales page, where you can purchase a digital copy of the complete work. But you can get a taste of the work below. The first two chapters are in full below.

             In the first chapter, you will see definitions of words such as "right,-wing" "left-wing," "conservatism," and "progressivism," widely used in works on political philosophy or even in political articles and commentaries, but without the care of a clear definition of their meanings. There is, of course, a great deal of subjectivism and even divergence about the meanings of these words. But this work gives its definition and uses the stated definition to construct the entire theory it advocates. By reading the chapter, the reader will see that there is no contradiction in the expression "progressive right-wing," although modern authors tend to identify conservatism with the right-wing and progressivism with the left-wing.

            The second chapter describes the historical moment we are experiencing today (the beginning of the 21st century) and the reason why - in the author's view - a progressive right-wing movement (in the sense of these terms given by the first chapter) is necessary.

            The following chapters—which are only available in the complete work—are a draft of how a society organized based on the principles advocated by this movement would function. Whether it will work or not, only the future will tell. But if you, the reader, like the author, believe that the current model has failed, you must also agree that we need to conceive a new model. This work is a starting point and a call to reflection. Above all, it is an invitation for other thinkers who accept the principles set forth in the work to join in the project of conception of more polished projects for this new society.

            Perhaps you, the reader, are one of those thinkers. So, if you feel inside yourself a call to this construction, you are invited to read at least the two chapters open to the public  below. If something inside you ignites and a need to know more is born within your soul, acquire the complete work and read it to the end. Perhaps you have important contributions to add to this project.

1- Definitions

                   In texts that deal with political proposals, terms whose concepts are vague or controversial are often used. On many occasions, this is done intentionally by ill-intentioned politicians who intend to use beautiful but meaningless words in order to gain sympathy without, however, assuming any concrete commitment that can be demanded later. On other occasions, this happens purely and simply because they are made by people who are victims of the educational catastrophe that has befallen Brazil and even other countries in the world at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st one.

            The Progressive Right Movement does not want to be confused with any of these types of people. For this reason, this Manifesto begins with the precise definition of a series of terms used in politics whose definition is diffuse or controversial. The reader may use these same words with a meaning different from that which will be explained below, but he should bear in mind that, throughout this manifesto, these terms will be used ONLY in the meaning set forth here.  

1.1- Left and Right-Wing

I am glad of any political freedoms that are given me, but the freedoms I am interested in are not the political ones. I am interested in the freedoms I take.

(Robert Frost)

    The expressions Left Wing and Right Wing – in their political meanings – are the subject of much divergence and heated debate. In this manifesto, these terms are used to designate two forces that are at the same time opposite and complementary. A concept similar to the dichotomy of the “Yin”/“Yang” forces in Eastern philosophy.

             This concept is somewhat hermetic for Western culture. For this reason I prefer to compare these two forces to a magnet.

            In this sense, the “Left” is a force that values collectivism, a large State with many functions and individuals who are very dependent on the State to do whatever they want. The “Right” is an opposing force that values individualism, a small State with few attributions and great autonomy of the individual in relation to the State.

            Like a magnet, the force on the left – collectivism – and on the right – individualism – depend on each other to function. In a life in society, there is no way to have one of them without the other. Pure individualism can only be achieved by a person who decides to live alone in an isolated place where no one else lives. Something like a desert island. If two people go to that place and decide to cooperate to survive there, collectivism comes into play to define what is the individual property of each person, what is for common use and rules for sharing what is for common use. Pure collectivism on the other hand would be a single person who speaks and acts on behalf of the collective and all other people needing to ask permission from the person representing the collective to do whatever they want. To reach this stage, the leader must know all people individually and know at all times what each one is doing.

            A society cannot function in any of the ways described above. It needs to be in an intermediate state between these two extremes. But it can be closer to one side than the other. Or, more often, it can oscillate between one side and the other. But in any situation, both forces – individualism and collectivism – are always present. Although they are opposite, one depends on the other to exist. Just like the poles of a magnet.

            Any political proposal has elements of the Left and the Right. Occasionally, however, one of these forces predominates over the other. If elements of the Left predominate, the proposal is a left-wing project. If elements of the Right predominate, the proposal is right-wing one. If neither of them predominates, it is a centrist proposal. The analogy with a magnet demonstrates well how this works. In a magnet, the north pole does not work without the south pole and vice versa.

            There is a great degree of subjectivity in these assessments. Generally speaking, proposals that imply an increase in the State and the number of its attributions are left-wing proposals, and those that imply a decrease in the State and the elimination of some of its attributions are right-wing ones.

            The temptation for those in control of the State to increase their power and concentrate power in their own hands makes countries move progressively to the left. The instinct for self-preservation of public servants creates a barrier to the State moving in the other direction. Thus, as a rule, groups sympathetic to the left, when in power, create new powers for the State and new public institutions to take care of the new powers, but when forces sympathetic to the right come to power, they rarely manage to completely or partially extinguish these new institutions.

            By this definition, the “far left” would be a gigantic State with a population totally dependent on it for everything.

            “Far right”, on the other hand, would be the smallest possible State, that is, the absence of the State. The anarchist movement – which more recently came to be called “anarcho-capitalist” – advocates this. The curious thing is that historical anarchists claim to be a left-wing movement and modern “anarcho-capitalists” claim to be above the left/right divide. The Progressive Right movement understands that both are in fact the same thing and represent the most extreme form of the right-wing proposal possible, although in the author’s opinion it is an unfeasible proposal.

            The progressive right understands that human beings are social animals and a society needs a State. Perhaps – just perhaps – a very small society of a few hundred or a few thousand members with a subsistence agricultural economy can exist without a formed State. However, a society with millions of members containing large companies with many employees and manipulating cutting-edge technology cannot survive like this.

            The progressive right is a far-right movement, but not as extreme as the anarchist movement. It believes that a State is necessary and, since the State costs money, it is not possible to have one without taxes. However, the progressive right believes that it is possible – and desirable – to have a State much smaller than those that exist today. A very small State with very few powers and with mechanisms to hinder its growth, in order to put a brake on the temptation of those in power to increase the power they have. The expansion of the State or any proposal that implies increasing State spending depends on a plebiscite to be approved. The exception is in a state of war. But everything that was created that increases the State based on a state of war must be undone as soon as peace is reestablished.  

1.2- Conservatism and Progressivism

Today’s conservatisms venerate yesterday’s progressivists’ ideas

(Mark Twain, in a free adaptation)

            As in the previous case, these two terms denote opposing and complementary forces. Like those, these forces always go together and depend on each other to exist. Sometimes one prevails over the other, and sometimes the other prevails. This dichotomy between these two opposing forces is, however, more complex and difficult to understand than the one mentioned above. For this reason, much confusion has been created in the classification of people or movements into these categories. The analogy of the magnet also applies to this dichotomy.

            Conservatism tends to resist or slow down changes, aiming to preserve at least the essence of the existing situation. Progressivism, on the contrary, leads to change. Rapid and profound changes, questioning the essence of the situation.

            As in the case of the left-right dichotomy, neither of these forces exists in its purest form. Conservatism in its purest form would be the person being frozen in time. Nothing can ever change. If the circumstances around them change for reasons beyond their control, the person cannot adapt to the new situation because they are frozen in time. On the other hand, progressivism in its purest form leads the person to constantly question everything they were up until the previous moment. The progressive in its purest form is in constant denial of everything that happened up until the immediately preceding moment.

            It is clear that neither of these extremes is achievable. It is necessary to find something in between these two extremes to make life viable. As in the case of the right-left, society is expected to oscillate, sometimes approaching one extreme, sometimes the other, but always in an intermediate position between them. Also as in that case, the forces, although opposing, cooperate with each other.

            The conservatism-progressivism dichotomy is more complex than the right-left dichotomy because it applies to various aspects of a person's life. The right-left dichotomy only applies to the administration of a joint effort in which more than one person cooperates towards a common goal. This is not necessarily public administration. It can also be the administration of a company, association, etc. In any case, a left-wing proposal moves in the direction of centralizing power in the central administration and losing autonomy for those administered, while a right-wing proposal moves in the opposite direction. The conservatism-progressivism dichotomy, on the other hand, applies to almost all aspects of individual or collective life.

            If applied to the style of dress, for example. The conservative chooses a style – usually classic – and tries to always dress the same way: a suit if for a men or a long dress for woman. The progressive will want to change his style frequently, creating bold outfits and following the fashion. Or simply looking for shocking styles of clothing at every moment, just to look different from the “normal”.

            This can be applied to the arts, such as music. A conservative will value classical music, not necessarily the most well-known composers, such as Mozart, Beethoven, etc., but music in this style, even if it is modern. A progressive will appreciate modern music, with new rhythms, newly created instruments and rapid evolution, frequently changing his preferred style.

            There is a tendency for people to think that if someone is conservative or progressive, they are so in relation to all aspects of life. This is not true. A person can, for example, be progressive in the way they dress, wearing bold clothes and following fashion, and conservative in the arts, appreciating classical music or painting. There is no contradiction in this.            

            This work is a proposal for the organization of the State. Behavior, art, sexuality, forms of interpersonal relationships, etc. are not subjects addressed by this manifesto. More than that. The progressive right advocates that such subjects should not be State policy. Therefore, from this point on, when this work deals with the terms conservatism or progressivism, it should be understood that it refers to these forces applied to the organization of the State, unless there is express mention that it applies to another aspect of life. The agenda of customs, sexuality, arts, etc. is expressly excluded from any discussion in this manifesto because it is an express proposal that the State does not interfere in this type of matter.

            There is only one exception to the principle stated above. A single concession that the progressive right makes to the customs agenda: marriage. The progressive right advocates that any two or more people who wish to live together, whether or not involving sexual intercourse between the cohabitants, should have the right to do so, subject only to the following principles:

1. No one involved should be coerced or deceived about the conditions of the life together;

2. If one or more of the people involved is a minor, their parents or guardians must be members of the group or formally consent to the minors under their care participating in the group under the agreed conditions.

           Given the above conditions, any form of cohabitation must be tolerated and accepted. However, formal marriage can only be between a single man and a single woman, and family law only applies to formalized marriages. Even if a man and a woman marry for the purpose of forming a family, if the couple decides not to formalize the marriage, family law does not apply to this union. The principle behind this is that couples should have the right to choose whether or not they want the State to regulate or interfere in their unions. Those who want interference should register their marriages. Those who prefer the State not to interfere should choose not to register.

            But, as mentioned, this subject is beyond the scope of this work and will only be addressed occasionally, always without defending one position or another, when the subject is something other than the organization of the State. Thus, the progressive right is progressive only in relation to the organization of the State, because it understands that a profound change is necessary. And it should also be understood that it does not advocate constant change. As established by Mark Twain in the quote at the beginning of the chapter, the progressive right is progressive today, because its proposal is not and has never been implemented anywhere, at least not that the author is aware of. Once implemented and, if it proves to be efficient, the progressive right will become conservative, aiming to preserve the new regime that has been implemented.

            A brief example will help to understand how a progressive proposal becomes a conservative proposal. However, it should be noted that Twain called those who opposed conservatism “radicals”, not “progressives”. In fact, the term “progressive” with the meaning that is being used in this work is recent. For this reason, old texts that address this subject use Twain's nomenclature, calling those who oppose conservatives radicals. In this work, however, the term “radical” is used in another meaning, as will be seen later.

            The example in question is that of universal suffrage or women's suffrage. Until the early years of the 20th century, in Western democracies only men were given the right to vote. However, from the end of the 19th century onwards, there began a campaign for women's right to vote. At the time, only progressives (or “radicals”) advocated this. Protests were held in favor of this, some of them violent, and the progressivists of the time faced strong opposition from groups in power, not all of which used democratic or peaceful methods.

Over the years, women's suffrage began to be adopted in several Western democracies until, at the end of the 20th century, it became so normal that almost no one questions it anymore. Today (beginning of the 21st century), the proposal for women's suffrage is considered conservative. It is unlikely that a conservative would oppose it. What was a progressive proposal about 100 years ago has become a conservative proposal today. It is likely that if any political group proposes the end of women's suffrage today, it will be considered progressive.

            At the beginning of the 21st century, there has been a growing tendency to associate conservatism with the Right and progressivism with the Left. More or less as illustrated in the figure below:

            The progressive right movement does not see it this way. In the progressive right's view, the dichotomy between progressivism and conservatism (applied to the organization of the State) is independent of the dichotomy between leftism and rightism. Thus, all four combinations are possible.

            A well-known example of a progressive left is the French leader Emmanuel Macron. He is not the only one, but he is perhaps the most visible of them, worldwide. He implements a leftist agenda, in which he accumulates power for the central administration, leaving the population dependent on the government, while at the same time he is committed to promoting rapid and radical changes. Not only on the issue of sexuality, a movement in favor of “sexual minorities”, but also in changing the structure of the State. Profound changes to accumulate more power, to adapt to the globalist agenda, giving up sovereignty in favor of multinational organizations, such as the UN or the European Union, in addition to adapting legislation to accommodate these sexual minorities and abolishing the freedom of expression of those who oppose this. Radical changes in the structure of the State are needed to accommodate such changes and he is committed to them.

            At the opposite extreme, we have the conservative right. Of these, perhaps the greatest global leader is the current president of the United States, Donald Trump. He advocates a small state. This is quite evident in the first measures he has been taking in his second term, in which he has been cutting several expenses that he considers unnecessary (this work does not intend to go into the merits of the decision) and cutting expenses to make the state smaller. At the same time, he defends traditions, not only in relation to marriage, sexuality and religion – which the progressive right considers to be matters outside the scope of the state’s activities – but also the structure of the state itself, despite the abolition of several organs. He clings to the original structure proposed by the Founding Fathers, including with regard to the proposed abolitions, since they were not part of the original proposal for the founding of the United States.

            The conservative left is something that confuses political analysts at the beginning of the 21st century, but it exists. Its greatest representative is Russian leader Vladimir Putin. In fact, some political analysts recognize Putin as a conservative. But they generally get confused and point him as being right-wing because he is conservative.

            In fact, Putin expresses conservative views on religion, marriage and sexuality. However, as already stated, the progressive right considers these issues to be unrelated to the structure of the State, which is the proposal presented here. However, he also defends Russian traditions regarding the structure of the Russian State, which is what is important for this work. This is where modern political analysts get confused. What is the Russian tradition regarding the structure of the State? In the recent past, the communism of the former Soviet Union. In the slightly more distant past, the tsarist imperialism of emperors such as Peter the Great or Ivan the Terrible. THIS is the tradition that Putin defends in the field of the structure of the State. Both models, despite differences in several details, are highly concentrated in power, with the people extremely dependent on the central power. No small State. No abolition of organs. No individual autonomy. Analysts are right when they point out Putin as a conservative, but they are wrong when they point out that this conservatism is a model to be followed by the conservative right of Western democracies. Left-wing conservatism is as harmful as left-wing progressivism. From a certain point of view, even more so. It represents the return of Soviet communism with some elements of the expansionism of the Romanov dynasty. The right, whether conservative or not, should not have this as a model to follow.

            We finally come to the progressive right. This movement proposes profound changes in the organization of the State, but taking it to the right, that is, reducing its size and increasing the autonomy of citizens in relation to state administration. More than that. Implementing more and more ways to allow citizens to monitor the government. Creating barriers to prevent the government from hiding information about its actions from the people – the true owners of the State – and, mainly, so that the State increases in size or increases its spending without the EXPRESS approval of its legitimate owners – the citizens. The following chapters will present the proposals of the progressive right for how to implement such changes. At the time of writing, the closest the Progressive Right sees to this in terms of politicians of any standing is the current President of Argentina, Javier Milei.

            In fact, President Milei is taking Argentina down a path that the country has never taken before, and therefore with a progressive vision. Again, only the structure and functioning of the State is under analysis. The progressivism that Milei represents does not apply to issues such as sexuality, marriage, artistic expression or other aspects of life. It is a progressivism applicable only to the structure and functioning of the State, nothing more. Just as advocated by this manifesto. And, as he symbolized with his chainsaw, the innovation he proposed involved reducing the size of the State, therefore a progressive right-wing proposal.

            However, despite the fact that, in the understanding of this manifesto, he has a progressive right-wing role, he cannot be understood as a symbol of right-wing progressivism as advocated by this manifesto for two reasons:

1. He includes the agenda of customs in his actions and includes it in a way that is identified with the conservative right. The proposal of this manifesto completely excludes the agenda of customs with the sole exception of marriage, as explained above, as it understands that this subject should not be the object of a State policy; and

2. His changes are not structural as advocated by this manifesto but merely superficial, although in the direction advocated by it. As a result, a future government with a different political vision could easily undo the changes he is making.

            Therefore, there is no prominent politician who can symbolize the proposal of the Progressive Right. The only leader who can represent this proposal, modestly, is the author of this work.

            As you can see, there are four possible combinations: Progressive Left, Conservative Left, Conservative Right and Progressive Right. The characteristics of each were explained above. The following graph graphically shows the four possibilities and the leaders who represent each of them.

            The table above shows the four quadrants and the most representative leaders of each of them. On the upper left is the quadrant of the progressive left, one of whose most representative leaders is French President Emmanuel Macron. On the lower left is the quadrant of the conservative left, whose most famous representative is Russian President Vladimir Putin. On the lower right is the quadrant of the conservative right, whose most prominent representative is US President Donald Trump. Finally, on the upper right is the quadrant of the progressive right, which is currently modestly represented by the author of this manifesto.

            The author does not intend to compare his leadership or capacity for influence with that of the other leaders who appear in the table shown. It is clear that his leadership or global expression is negligible when compared to the others. However, there is no other leader who can express the ideas that are defended here. Therefore, despite the relative insignificance of the figure used to express this school of thought, there is no other that can be used. Not even that of the President of Argentina, as explained above.

            It is based on this understanding that the symbol of the progressive right was created, an arrow indicating the path to follow to the right and forward.

            The symbol shows the proposal to move to the right – to reduce the size of the State and increase the autonomy of citizens – but also to move forward – to seek an evolution in the current structure of the State, which is not functioning properly. But a structural change in the way it works is necessary, not just superficial changes like those that the President of Argentina is implementing in his country. The goal is to seek a system in which the rulers effectively represent the will of the people and the people effectively feel represented by their rulers. And mechanisms that prevent the formation of a new Deep State and also of a ruling elite that excludes the rest of society from access to positions of power and uses power to accumulate privileges for itself. The mechanisms proposed by the founding fathers of the United States did not work. We need to understand why they did not work and design another that does. And what is more, we need to be constantly vigilant in order to correct this new mechanism if it also stops working.

                    1.3 – Extremism / Radicalism / Fanatism 

¹⁵ I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

¹⁶ So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth

(Revelation 3:15-16) 

            These three words – “extremism”, “radicalism” and “fanaticism” – are often used as synonyms for each other. However, they are not synonyms. It is important to conceptualize the meaning of each one. Once again, the reader may use these words with meanings other than those that will be stated below. However, in this manifesto, these words will be used exclusively to mean what is stated here.

            “EXTREMISM” refers to a situation in which there are several gradations on a certain aspect. Typically the Right/Left dichotomy. It can be applied to other aspects but, since this is a political document, it is convenient that the example be related to a political issue. As shown previously, there are different levels of leftism or rightism. Any of these forces isolated from the other, both on one side and the other, are unattainable, so any political proposal has elements of both. An “extremist” proposal or project is one that is close to one of these extremes, where elements on one side or the other greatly predominate over the elements on the opposite side.

            “RADICALISM” refers to proposals that are rooted in the principles involved in the proposal being defended. “RADICALISM” refers not to the proposal as a whole but to one or more of the principles on which it is based. The “RADICAL” is rooted in the principle in question and, as such, is not willing to make any concessions in relation to the principle to which it is rooted. It may make concessions in relation to secondary aspects of the proposal it defends but never in relation to the principles.

            “FANATICISM” is an irrational attitude towards the defense of a thesis, proposal or project. “FANATICISM” does not necessarily manifest itself in relation to an aspect that contains gradations and may be closer to one side or the other, such as the left/right dichotomy, although it may also be present in relation to this. The “FANATIC” is not willing to defend his position with rational arguments. He defends it as a matter of principle that cannot be questioned in any way and, as a rule, is willing to use even violent or fraudulent means to implement the proposal he defends. The main characteristics of FANATICISM are 1) the absence of rationality. The fanatic is completely hermetic to rational arguments. The defense of his point of view is made above any argument and there is no way to dissuade him with arguments; and 2) the willingness to use any means, including violent or fraudulent means. For the fanatic, any means is lawful to disseminate or implement his proposal.

            As can be seen, these are quite different concepts. The progressive right strongly repudiates FANATICISM, which rejects rationality and induces the use of violent and fraudulent means, but embraces EXTREMISM and RADICALISM, which are unfairly identified as synonyms of the former.

            The progressive right is an EXTREMIST movement, as it proposes an EXTREME RIGHT-WING State, in the sense of being an EXTREMELY small state with EXTREMELY limited interference in the individual choices of its citizens. It is also a RADICAL movement in the sense that it sticks to its principles and does not make any concessions to them. The main principle to which the progressive right RADICALLY sticks is the principle of freedom with responsibility. The individual must be free to choose how to live his life and responsible for the consequences of his choices. This can only be achieved with an EXTREMELY small (extreme right-wing) State with EXTREMELY limited power to interfere in the lives of its citizens. It cannot be achieved with the absence of the State – anarchism or anarcho- capitalism as some prefer – because, as the progressive right understands, this is not feasible, at least not in a society composed of millions of citizens with a complex economy involving large companies and intensive use of high technology. Large and complex societies can only be made viable with a formed State. But it is possible to greatly reduce the role of the State and thus greatly increase the freedom of its citizens. And this is a principle that the progressive right defends RADICALLY. Freedom with responsibility for the citizen and the consequent withdrawal of the State from as many aspects of private life as possible is the ultimate reason for the existence of the progressive right movement, which makes no concessions to it. For this reason it can be classified as a RADICAL movement.

            But it must be made very clear that the conservative right also makes no concessions to FANATICISM. FANATICISM values irrationality and violent and/or fraudulent attitudes. The progressive right condemns irrationalism and the use of violent or illicit means as a way of gaining new followers or spreading its ideals.

            Having crystallized these concepts, which many authors use in a somewhat fluid or nebulous way, we can move on to understand the proposals of the progressive right in the following chapters. 

2- The Historic Moment

The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history

(Georg Hegel)

                 At the beginning of the 21st century, common sense is that democracy is a universal value and has always been present in the lives of citizens. At least in Western democracies, few challenge this perception. But it is false. Dangerously false. Democracy is NOT a universal value and has NOT always been present in the lives of our ancestors. Quite the contrary. It is an achievement, from a historical point of view, relatively, having existed for about 250 years. To understand it, it is necessary to go back in time to the mid-18th century.

            Until that period – the mid-18th century – European countries proclaimed themselves the cultural and economic center of the world. At the time, the main countries in Europe – Portugal, Spain, France, Holland and England – were absolutist monarchies. Even other European countries such as Poland, Russia, Sweden and Denmark also adopted this form of government, and the countries that did not adopt it – Germany and Italy, for example – were struggling to overcome feudalism and achieve absolutism, a more advanced regime than the one they had.

            Outside of Europe, the situation was not very different. In the Muslim world, although with its own coloration, absolutism was also the rule. In fact, there are still several examples of absolutist monarchies among Muslim countries to this day.

In Asia, countries such as China, Thailand, Burma, and India also practiced local versions of this regime.

            There were also some isolated societies in Africa, uncontacted tribes in the Americas and Oceania. But little is known about their structures and their influence on the history of humanity is practically nil.

    In absolutist monarchies, the power of the government, personified in the figure of the monarch, did not emanate from the people. The monarch justified his right to govern the country as a concession received directly from God. When he bothered to justify it. Divine Right is the source of his power and he has no explanations to give to his people, but only to God, who granted him the right to govern the country in question. Feudalism is no different from absolutism in this regard. 

            This was the situation until 1776. In that year, an English colony in America decided to revolt against the colonial government because of a decision that instituted a tax that the population of the colony considered abusive. Surprisingly, the colonists won a war with the greatest military and economic power of the time and thus gained their independence.

            Having won the war and having its independence recognized even by the former metropolis, the new country decided to set up a government on a basis that was radically different from anything that existed at the time. It is difficult to imagine today the magnitude of the challenge that the “founding fathers” of the United States had to overcome in order to build a form of government that was absolutely unparalleled at the time.

            The divine right of the ruler to exercise his power over the country and the people was, at the time, as natural and immediate as the idea that the government represents the people and should be chosen by them is today. Creating a new and completely unprecedented form of government without this paradigm that was used in practically the entire known world was a challenge of a magnitude that is difficult to imagine.

            But the inhabitants of the new country accepted this challenge. They then decided to build a form of government based, among others, on the following principles:

1. The government is of the people, by the people and for the people. Therefore, it must periodically listen to the wishes of the people through votes;

2. The person who exercises power must be changed periodically and chosen by the people through elections

3. Any member of the people may run for office and compete for the people's preference to be the next ruler

4. Power must be rotated so as not to allow a person or group to remain in power for life;

5. No one should have access to all power. Power must be divided into parts and the holder of one part must act as an inspector over the holders of the others;

            After the success of the young nation, the new system of government began to be copied. First, this new form of government became an inspiration and a pretext for independence movements that began to take place in the new world. Several other nations were formed from the independence of territories previously belonging to Spain and Portugal in the Americas, almost always using the new model of government as one of the alleged reasons for secession.

            Several new countries then emerged, most with government regimes copied from the model created by the American Revolution. These were very poorly made copies, but still, at least in appearance, they sold the idea that such governments represented the will of the people and were seen as morally superior to the absolutist monarchies that still existed. There was pressure for countries that did not adopt regimes with such characteristics to adopt them. Thus, gradually, Europe, especially Western Europe, began to adopt the new model. Some monarchies were overthrown and a republic was installed in their place. Others were modified so that the royal family remained in its place but its power in conducting the country's policies was reduced to almost zero. Thus we arrive at the current moment where, at least in Western Europe, in almost the entire American continent, in Australia, New Zealand, in the countries of South Asia that were strongly influenced by the West, and in some other countries in Africa and Oceania, the mentality has crystallized that the function of the government – any government – is to represent and materialize the will of the people. At least in appearance, this is how they work, and this image is sold by all these governments.

            In the beginning, this model worked well, and it was for no other reason that the United States established itself as a great world power, in the economic and military fields. But at some point, this began to go wrong.

            One of the declared objectives of the new system was to prevent the same people from always exercising power, and thus prevent power from being used to accumulate privileges for the class with access to it. This was the greatest criticism of monarchies. Two centuries later, what we see is that in all the countries that adopted this system, a political class has formed that is always in power. Politicians spend 40, 50 years holding positions of power. Sometimes they change positions. They go from deputy to senator, then governor, then secretary of state, minister, president. But they spend their entire lives exercising power.

            But that's not all. A small group of people in these democracies have taken over the right to always hold some position of power. In addition to the non-elective positions of the Deep State or swamp, as was denounced by President Donald Trump, there are also some less visible power schemes that put some parties more in the spotlight and ensure that the main positions of power and the majority of legislative posts always remain with these parties. Within these same parties there are other even less visible schemes to privilege some of their members so that the candidates, at least those with the greatest chance of winning, always remain in the hands of this privileged caste.

            With this, the biggest criticism that the new system of government made of monarchical regimes, namely that the people who held power were guaranteed that they would always be there and, therefore, had no incentive to improve their performance and serve the people better and better, satisfying their desires and needs, can now also be made of this new regime. Although, in theory, it is possible to replace people if they do not act in the best interests of the people, in practice a small closed group is always in power and knows that it will not leave whether or not it satisfies the people's desires or needs. The progressive right understands that the principles that generated the new regime implemented by the American Revolution are all correct. However, this first attempt to create a system of government based on these principles failed. This fact should not be a surprise. It is rare to get it right on the first try when trying to build something radically new. All lovers of freedom owe an eternal debt of gratitude to the founding fathers of the United States. However, we must have the greatness to recognize that the system they designed failed. It was a valid attempt. However, it is necessary to reevaluate the entire functioning of the model created to see where it failed in order to make a new attempt, because at the beginning of the 21st century we are living in the same situation that they lived in the 18th century. All countries in the world are governed by ruling elites who use their power to accumulate privileges and have created barriers to people outside the select group to which they belong from reaching positions of power.

            The system is flawed at its core. That is why, the movement understands, it cannot be fixed with superficial changes. It is necessary to reach the heart of the system. Go back to the beginning and build something new, as the founding fathers did. However, now we have something they did not have: the record of an attempt that failed. We now have a model on which to base the new proposal. We can see an attempt where the principles were applied and look for where the system failed in order to correct the flaws that are identified in the new attempt that is made.

            A conservative approach cannot accomplish the task, which is why this conception of the right necessarily needs to embrace progressivism. Throughout the following chapters, we will show several situations in which the conservative right and the progressive right reach different conclusions. But the main distinction is that the progressive right has an exclusively political agenda for organizing the State. Issues such as sexuality, culture, customs, consumer choices, sexual options, religion and other aspects of individual life are completely outside this manifesto. The progressive right advocates a small State and, therefore, such issues should not involve the interference of State power.

            One observation that should be kept in mind by all who embrace this movement: the goal is to change now to something that no longer needs to be changed. This is intended to be the second attempt to build a political system based on the principles of the founding fathers of the United States. Given the experience that we have today of the failure of the first attempt, the chances of success are greater if there is a serious attempt to correct the mistakes made in the first attempt. But it may happen that this second attempt also fails, either due to a problem that was not adequately anticipated or due to changes in the political environment caused by the emergence of new technologies or some other unexpected factor. The progressive right must remain vigilant and constantly evaluate its performance to see if the need for a new attempt to build a new system from scratch arises. The goal is to achieve a stable system in which the people truly feel represented by them and in control of the State, capable of knowing at all times what the State is doing in their name and effectively protesting against it if they do not agree with the decisions made by the rulers. The rulers must serve the people, never the other way around. If an attempt to implement a system along the lines proposed here evolves into the creation of a new ruling elite distanced from the people and the people lose the mechanisms to monitor and control the government, the progressive right must immediately seek a new government proposal and devise a third, fourth, fifth attempt, as many as necessary to obtain a government permanently at the service of its people and a people permanently in control of all the activities of the government that should effectively represent them.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

MÁRIO BARBOSA VILLAS BOAS was born in Volta Redonda, state of Rio de Janeiro, Brail in 1960. He graduated in chemical engineering at Federal University of Rio de Janeiro in 1984. Worked in PETROBRAS from 1985 to 2017 in the area of drilling fluids. During this period he graduated in masters in Mechanical Engineering also in the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (1994) and in Law in the State University of Rio de Janeiro (2002). In the area of law he worked in the most original judicial process ever initiated in Brasil. This episode is described in the book How I Tried to Kill the President, also written by the author..