And here comes the first contradiction. If Mitsotakis has managed to dominate the political scene since 2016, it is precisely because of this triangular strategy, one that can pierce through the liberal center, hold together the backbone of his own political camp, and build terms of alliance even with center left audiences on the basis of government stability. He describes himself as a liberal. And very recently he has been repeating, with some vigor, that he is also center right. To keep pursuing this strategy, he needs to explain his own legislation convincingly. If he also wants to shift that strategy, he needs to disown it. And it is exactly within this contradiction that space opens up for Antonis Samaras and other forces to level harsh criticism rooted in right wing skepticism, in an environment that is especially favorable to them.

Mitsotakis cannot head into elections easily without balancing this duality, meaning being able to shape a liberal agenda, settle such issues, and at the same time operate along the three pillars he laid out at DEth: liberalism, patriotism, and a social agenda. If his strategy becomes lopsided, meaning he disowns every liberal arrangement of his own while also trying to distance himself from right leaning audiences, his own signal and message will grow increasingly blurred. And a rhetorical commitment to matters of homeland or border defense, themes also vulnerable to right wing rhetoric, will not be enough on its own. If, on the other hand, he genuinely wants to build the terms of political dominance, that comes at a cost and requires forward moving steps that defend everything his own government brought forward. Shifting the debate toward such cultural and values based issues, as things stand, favors whoever can more easily and persuasively make the loudest case.