Welcome

In the first part, all governance is driven by a moral law; so if we desire good governance, we then must demand and/or enact a verifiable moral law. In the second part, by Pascal's wager do we possess convictions for the Christian faith by the substance of early Church martyrdom. A person doesn't die for something they don't believe in, and the early Church resolutely proclaims the resurrection of Christ.

The benefits you gain by denomination, are typically drowned out by a stubborn spirit that is contrary to both good politics, and the example of the Samaritan [Luke 10:30-37]. With that being said, I am Lutheran sympathetic.

Suppose there is a court case  where person A is prosecuting person B for theft; and of this case, there exists no truly good evidence to convict person B of theft (even if person B has in actually committed the crime). If person B were secular, he would have incentive to lie for the gain of the court withholding punishment, as there largely exists little to no intrinsic moral law to be honest, whereas if person B were non-Secular, they would at least even ever so slightly, be motivated to repent and confess as a means of both being at peace with one's conscience with morality, and escaping punishment as outlaid by one's faith. If we follow logical approximations of truth, we would at minimum desire an outlined moral law: Christianity being favoured as the perfect truth between retribution (Ephesians 5:11, Matthew 7:2), and mercy (Matthew 18:21-22).

Short answer: The Right. Best described as a conservative Autocrat; being very similar, but not identical to Metaxism, especially without the Freemasonry.

Long Answer: The Left through the conviction of vehicles like critical race theory, demands aggressive correction and retribution as a means of ensuring fairness for all, as a way of ensuring a higher ideal. The Right's appetite is consistently manifested in a higher ideal as a means of preserving previously bestowed rights or customs; denying practices in pursuit of a largely extrinsic moral law. The Left and Right both desire a higher moral law, but the manifestation of that desire is resolutely different. Personally, I believe that the two positions proclaim the same truths, but with different rhetoric. I prefer to focus on similarities without sacrificing one's ideals; so as a means of organically mending the two together to further our strength. It's to everyone's benefit to desire a conviction that's driven not by callous calculation, but by a real sincere ancient faith that outlines idealistic consequences.

The left preach the wiles of the avaricious rich, and the right proclaim the vice of the flesh. The two positions operate within the same philosophical framework of idealism, and this is a truth that will ultimately lead us towards furthering our common strength. Of course for me as a Christian, common strength isn't the fount of all truth, but we are burdened to have it, lest we are ruled by those who are worse than us. Plato speaks on this in the Republic.