These are just some thoughts that have been running through my head recently. It will probably be semi-rantish, so I apologize for that.
In political discourse, there are two primary possible systems, a system of morality, and a system of immorality.
A system of morality first constructs a moral system, then applies that system to condemn or approve of actions.
A system of immorality first condemns actions or ideas, and then either constructs a moral system to justify the condemnation, or piggybacks off of the language of another, or several other moral systems.
The problem with systems of immorality in political discourse is that the moral systems they construct tend to be internally inconsistent, illogical, or simply ill-developed. The ones they piggyback off of lose their meaning, because when the language used by one moral system is used by a different system, two meanings are created. Confusion ensues.
Certain words have become practically undefinable in the political sphere: human right, liberty, equality, all of the big ones. They can mean whatever people want them to mean, because they have been adopted by so many movements and causes that they have lost their original meaning(politically).
Unfortunately, it appears to me that systems of immorality are becoming more and more common in our discourse. What I think are two of the best examples is the environmentalism and animal rights. Both have clearly defined what they are against; on the one hand, environmentalists oppose harming the environment, though I have yet to see a clear definition for harm. On the other hand, animal rights activists are opposed to what they consider to be the cruel and inhumane treatment of animals.
However, from what I have read, neither movement has clearly defined and justified what they think should occur, in other words, created a moral system. I have yet to see an internally coherent, logical and non-political justification for why the environment is valuable independent of humans, or why animal life should be treated as human, or for that matter, what the environment or animals actually are.
An example of the climate this creates is the concept of anti-incumbency. In the United States, numerous people are opposed to Obama's presidency. That is how they define their political stature, as opposed to what he does, without providing meaningful, and workable alternatives, or explaining why they are opposed.
The same thing occurred during Bush's presidency. What seems to matter to people is not if you have a better plan, so long as you are filled with righteous anger against obvious wrongdoers.
By the way, I realize that my political leanings probably bias my analysis of the situation. I am a rather strong liberal, by the European definition. Here in the States, where that word has been stolen by Progressives, I would be called a libertarian or a classical liberal.