There are many types of capital. Everyone knows about economic capital, which is what the economy is all about. Some have certainly heard of "cultural capital" or "social capital".
In my view, there is also "moral capital".
This concept has two aspects: The most important is that someone with a lot of moral capital is in a position to dictate to others on ethical issues. So he or she can be what you might call a moral authority.
Moreover, this person is ideally in the position of being morally unassailable himself, because an attack on such an authority would itself be morally reprehensible.
Who possesses the most moral capital in Western societies today?
The answer is given by sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning in their book "The Rise of Victimhood Culture": it is the "victim". This is the only way to explain why so many people today do all they can to be perceived as victims themselves (which is incomprehensible in cultures where values like "honour" or "dignity" are central).
Those who manage to impose a narrative in public in which they themselves - or their own group or community - are recognised as victims is automatically a moral authority, can morally condemn others and is him- or herself protected against attacks, because anyone who attacks a victim thus becomes a "perpetrator" or "offender" and immediately discredits him- or herself.
I'm inclined to agree with your observations, and would further assert that when it comes to self-identified liberals or conservatives, neither side appears to have a monopoly on presenting themselves as victims.
It (moral culture) is a prime example of covert circular reasoning.
True Moral Capital could only be established as being measurable, if there was such a thing as an accepted moral median, by which and to which all other acts could be compared and measured, the ethic equivalent of 0 degrees centigrade, below which things are less moral and above which thing are more moral.
However, most medians are measure of energy or matter, things that demonstrably axiomatic, tangible and measurable, they are objective in the true sense of the word.
Morality and ethics are not; they are both abstract and very, very subjective.
Therefore, Moral capital would have to be based on something similar such as "cultural capital".
Cultural capital is based upon a perceived and flexible set of phenomena derived from artistic cannons, legal principles, and accepted social norms the general underlying principle of the concomitant civilization.
Typically, these are boiled down to simple aphorisms such as
These are then judged as good or bad and made in to the median morality of the time, however each of these good or bad is open to corruption by focusing on one aspect of society and universal application, to make them not the median but the baseline AND the border that must not be breached
For example and respectively, the above can be made be seen as
Once this is established, we have as you say, the absolute moral line, which is morally right absolutely and is thus become ineffable, making the act of critiquing it an obviously immoral act.
In the words of Richard Nixon "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."