The radical Right, realism, and the politics of conservatism in postwar international thought

Abstract

The rise of the radical Right over the last decade has created a situation that demands engagement with the intellectual origins, achievements, and changing worldviews of radical conservative forces. Yet, conservative thought seems to have no distinct place in the theoretical field that has structured debates within the discipline of IR since 1945. This article seeks to explain some of the reasons for this absence. In the first part, we argue that there was in fact a clear strand of radical conservative thought in the early years of the field's development and recover some of these forgotten positions. In the second part, we argue that the near disappearance of those ideas can be traced in part to a process of ‘conceptual innovation’ through which postwar realist thinkers sought to craft a ‘conservative liberalism’ that defined the emerging field's theoretical alternatives in ways that excluded radical right-wing positions. Recovering this history challenges some of IR's most enduring narratives about its development, identity, and commitments – particularly the continuing tendency to find its origins in a defining battle between realism and liberalism. It also draws attention to overlooked resources to reflect upon the challenge of the radical Right in contemporary world politics.

The Two Faces of the ‘Global Right’: Revolutionary Conservatives and National-Conservatives

“…Our focus in this contribution is on public philosophies , understood in the meta-political sense as broader sets of ideas aiming ‘to understand the purpose of government or public policy in light of a certain set of assumptions about the society and the market’ (Mehta, 2010: 27). While the literature on ‘thought collectives’ has predominantly focused on neoliberal networks (Mirowski and Plehwe, 2015a), we use this conceptual framework to contribute to scholarship on the intellectual lineages within the Global Right and the political alignments they facilitate (Alexander, 2019; Bar-On, 2021; Beiner, 2018; Bluhm, 2016; Buzogány and Varga, 2018; De Orellana and Michelsen, 2019; Deam Tobin, 2021; Drolet and Williams, 2021; Göpffarth, 2020; Griffin, 2000; McAdams and Castrillon, 2022; Teitelbaum, 2020; Trencsényi, 2014; Weiß, 2017). We argue that different intellectual lineages and thought collectives produce public philosophies with diverse consequences for policies and political alliances.…”

“…These findings are relevant for three literatures. First, we provide a complementary explanation of the emergence and the differences among Global Right actors by using history of ideas approaches that focus on intellectual traditions (Alexander, 2019;Bar-On, 2021;Beiner, 2018;De Orellana and Michelsen, 2019;Deam Tobin, 2021;Drolet and Williams, 2021;Göpffarth, 2020;Griffin, 2000;McAdams and Castrillon, 2022;Teitelbaum, 2020;Weiß, 2017). Second, we contribute to work on global networks of idea production on the radical right as part of supply-side approaches focusing on organisational and intellectual resources available to radical-right-wing populists (Caiani, 2018(Caiani, , 2019McAdams and Castrillon, 2022;Mammone, 2015;Ramos and Torres, 2020;Veugelers and Menard, 2018;Volk, 2019).…”

From critique to reaction: The new right, critical theory and international relations

“…These ideas and movements have attracted increasing attention in international political theory. Some have asked why there is no reactionary theory in IR at a time when awareness of these ideas is essential (Drolet and Williams, 2021; McKay and LaRoche, 2018). Others have begun to excavate the marginalized or forgotten lineages of radical conservative international theory, tracing their contemporary expressions, impacts, and implications (Abrahamsen et al, 2020; Drolet and Williams, 2018, 2020; de Orellana and Michelsen, 2019).…”

Towards great ethno-civilizations and spiritual empires? How the European New Right imagines a post-liberal world order

“…Jean-Francois Drolet and Michael Williams have recently claimed that in the light of recent events it is "vital" to engage with the "marginalized or forgotten lineages of radical conservative international theory" (2021). And yet, only a handful of scholars have so far taken interest in this aspect of far-right thinking (Abrahamsen et al, 2020;De Orellano and Michelsen, 2019;Drolet and Williams, 2018, 2021a, 2021bMackay and LaRoche, 2018;Tjalve, 2020). One reason for this relative paucity could be that far-right movements, parties, and pundits are often subjected to knee-jerk portrayals as nationalists.…”

“…The New Right is a polymorphous denomination that is understood in a variety of ways. To some IR-scholars, the New Right is an intellectual movement of thinkers from Europe and America (Drolet and Williams, 2018, 2021a, 2021b, to others, it includes both political parties and intellectuals from both sides of the Atlantic (De Orellano and Michelsen, 2019). Taken in this very broad sense, the NR is a tentacular movement with no ideological kernel, whose views on international order run the gamut from jingoist nationalism to fervent eloge of civilizations.…”