A few days ago I tried to define the “building right” as opposed to the right as a movement of shysters, profiteers and golden youth.
If this were to happen, it would for the first time make sense of the alternation (or competition) between the right and the left.
The right would build power plants, build factories, introduce new technologies, push engineering curricula into schools, etc., in short, the country would get richer. In the hustle and bustle, it would not pay enough attention to other important things – especially taking care of those left behind somewhere on the margins.
The left would pay a little less attention to new factories and power plants and see to it that those who are not economic winners are taken care of. It does not matter whether the cause is disability or laziness. If the government suffers from or even encourages the kind of educational patterns and social feedback loops that create laziness, then it is up to the government to deal with it. With the understanding, of course, that laziness is treated differently than disability, and that part of that treatment may include the judicious use of the cane. However, a clear and measurable goal must be to return people to productive lives.
But at the moment we have neither such a right nor such a left. The current right is not a building right, but a free-market right. This means that its agenda is to redistribute what has been created under left-wing governments. That is why every right-wing government hands over a country poorer than the one it took over. The current Czech government will be no exception. And this right would like to be replaced by a left that is trying hard to keep people in the patterns of behaviour and thinking that cause poverty. What would be the point of such a rotation?