As someone on the right of the political spectrum, I have recently despaired watching our conservative prime minister weighing the merits of handouts for chocolate factory tours versus canned fruit producers. The vacuous debate is a metaphor of sorts for the homoeopathically diluted debate currently taking place on the right of our public discourse.

It is of course difficult to define the range of views held under the banner of those who consider ourselves "right", as it spans conservatism and liberalism. But broadly, we can class our fundamental beliefs as follow: limited government, belief in the rights of the individual, and the desire to preserve the institutions that make our democracy function.

It’s therefore disappointing to see that basking in triumphalism from last year’s election victory, much of the right has now embraced demagoguery and negativity. In doing so, it promotes a reactionary trinity of discourse: anti-asylum seeker, anti-ABC , and anti-anthropogenic global warming. The right is also attempting to assert the primacy of the individual by attacking disadvantaged minority collectives, such as refugees or Indigenous Australians.

Intellectual and moral leadership is required to bridge the gap between populist policies, with which we must grapple as ardent democrats, and the promotion of fundamentals such as free markets and natural rights. Such strong leadership is currently sorely lacking, and yet conservative commentators continue to maintain a cheer squad for the party, with only a minority (such as the Institute of Public Affairs’ Chris Berg) willing to hold them to account.

The predictability of the right's rhetoric is also appalling: while by definition there cannot be the same wide-eyed ideas to engineer social change as the left, do Australians really want more Liberal ministers writing platitudinous books about families?

We know what is at stake. The left’s intellectual forces oscillate between technocratic, illiberal public policy and a reactionary and curious neo-primitivism, rejecting the benefits of technological advancements such as fracking and necessary workplace relations changes to compete in a globalised economy. We need to build the intellectual heft to prosecute the case against the propensity for government intervention.

I recently interviewed New South Wales Greens MLC Dr John Kaye, who joked of the capitalisation of the left: "if only we were united enough to deserve a single proper noun." I would argue that polarisation within a political movement is a good thing, as it aids the understanding of complex issues. The left’s inherent desire for solidarity is ironically what Australia’s conservative elite seems to possess.

The right should capitalise on this very strength, and depart from the intellectually lazy demagogic debates to focus on crucial threats to liberty and democracy (some of which are highlighted in the excellent new book Ruling the Void by the late Peter Mair, in which he describes how increasing public apathy toward politics is forcing politicians to retreat into institutions and is going to cause increasing electoral volatility).

One can also look to overseas to understand the extent of the poverty of Australia's conservative discourse. Leading US conservative columnist David Brooks does not cheer for the republicans but the virtues of his philosophical position, arguing that “the world is too complicated to be centrally planned”. In the UK, Tory ministers Jesse Norman and Daniel Hannan have written serious books on liberal and conservative thought which have prompted much-needed, healthy debates.

As many of the left devote their time to demonising capitalism, posting comments from their iPads, it is crucial that we continue to endorse its benefits and inherent morality. At a time of disaffection with the market, and as global debates on income inequality are gaining resonance, we must continue to remind people of what economist and historian Deidre McCloskey calls "the great fact": that capitalism has delivered a gigantic increase in incomes and standards of living since 1800, particularly for the poorest people worldwide. Foreign ownership of farms, and the natural shift of our economic base away from manufacturing are both positive things, and we cannot allow a selective fear of Chinese capital to flourish.



Another key area of neglect from the right has been extolling the virtues of civil society. French writer Alexis de Tocqueville’s famous observations of America in the 19th century noted that a vibrant civil society promotes the democratisation and revitalisation of society. Religious institutions are not the only nor the primary source, and the left is far better at embracing and promoting organisations such as Amnesty and St Vincent de Paul, which have been vital in illustrating the power of doing good for its own sake, and that the coercive power of the state is not inherently moral or effective. A strong civil society helps to keep government out of our lives, strengthens our interactions with the free market, and aides inclusiveness – none of which the Australian right is doing effectively.

Peter Mair has warned us of the impending battle for democracy and its institutions as we know them. It is time for critical discussion of the values of our movement so we may bring voters with us in a time of great change and volatility. The age of entitlement may be over, but now it is incumbent of those of us on the right to ensure a robust discussion of important and positive ideas.