Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:04:06.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2021

Jean-François Drolet Open the ORCID record for Jean-François Drolet [Opens in a new window]  and
Michael C. Williams
Jean-François Drolet*
Affiliation:
School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom
Michael C. Williams
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, Canada
*
*Corresponding author. Email: j.drolet@qmul.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

ConservatismRadical RightRealismGeopoliticsDisciplinary HistoryRace
Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , July 2021 , pp. 273 - 293
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the British International Studies Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Abrahamsen, Rita, Drolet, Jean-François, Gheciu, Alexandra, Narita, Karin, Vucetic, Srdjan, and Williams, Michael, ‘Confronting the international political sociology of the New Right’, International Political Sociology, 14:1 (2020), pp. 94–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tjalve, Vibeke Schou (ed.), Geopolitical Amnesia: The Rise of the Right and the Crisis of Liberal Memory (Montreal: McGill & Queens University Press, 2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 McKay, Joseph and LaRoche, Christopher, ‘Why is there no reactionary international theory?’, International Studies Quarterly, 62:2 (2018), pp. 244–54Google Scholar; Drolet, Jean-François and Williams, Michael, ‘Radical conservatism and global order: International theory and the new Right’, International Theory, 10:3 (2018), pp. 285–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Some exceptions are Welsh, Jennifer, ‘“I” is for ideology: Conservatism in international affairs’, Global Society, 17:2 (2003), pp. 165–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hall, Ian and Rengger, Nicholas, ‘“The Right that failed”? The ambiguities of conservative thought and the dilemmas of conservative practice in international affairs’, International Affairs, 81:1 (2005), pp. 69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nau, Henry, Conservative Internationalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015)Google Scholar.

3 Orellana, Pablo De and Michelsen, Nicholas, ‘Reactionary internationalism: The philosophy of the New Right’, Review of International Studies, 40:5 (2019), pp. 748–67 (p. 749)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 However, see Compton, Andrew and O'Tuathail, Gearoid, ‘Intellectuals, institutions, and ideology: the case of Robert Strausz-Hupé’, Political Geography, 15:6/7 (1996), pp. 533–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Deudney, Daniel, Bounding Power (Princeton University Press, 2007), pp. 232–43Google Scholar. See also Robert Vitalis, ‘Not-So-Protracted Conflict: The War Over the University of Pennsylvania's Foreign Policy Research Institute and the Rise of the Militant Right in U.S. National Security Studies’ (unpublished manuscript, 2020).

5 Guilhot, Nicolas, ‘The realist gambit: Post-war American political science and the birth of IR theory’, International Political Sociology, 2:4 (2008), pp. 281–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Daniel Bell (ed.), The Radical Right (New York: Double Day & Company, 1964 [orig. pub. 1955]).

7 Shklar, Judith, After Utopia: The Decline of Political Faith (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Nicholas Guilhot provides a superb assessment of this move across history, IR, and political theory in After the Enlightenment: Political Realism and International Relations in the Mid-Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), pp. 5–17, though he understates the role played by militant conservatism.

8 Mannheim, Karl, Conservatism: A Contribution to the Sociology of Knowledge (Abingdon: Routledge, 1997 [orig. pub. 1936]), p. 84Google Scholar.

9 See also Kirk, Russell, The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Elliot (New York: BN Publishing, 2008 [orig. pub. 1953]), pp. 8–9Google Scholar; Scruton, Roger, A Dictionary of Political Thought (London: Pan, 1982), p. 408CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nisbet, Robert, Conservatism (Milton Keynes: The Open University, 1986), p. 34Google Scholar; Welsh, ‘“I” is for ideology’, pp. 165–85.

10 See Roger Eatwell and Noël O'Sullivan (eds), The Nature of the Right (London: Pinter Publishers, 1989).

11 Freeden, Michael, Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 333Google Scholar.

12 Ibid., p. 339.

13 Muller, Jerry Z., ‘Carl Schmitt, Hans Freyer and the radical conservative critique of liberal democracy in the Weimar Republic’, History of Political Thought, 12:4 (1991), pp. 695–715Google Scholar.

14 Ibid., p. 697.

15 Herf, Jeffrey, Reactionary Modernism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Dahl, Göran, Radical Conservatism and the Future of Politics (London: Sage, 1999)Google Scholar; Toplin, Robert, Radical Conservatism: The Right's Political Religion (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006)Google Scholar; Jane Coaston, ‘When conservatives turned into radicals’, New York Times Magazine (31 October 2017), available at: {https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/magazine/when-conservatives-turned-into-radicals.html} accessed 15 July 2018.

16 George H. Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945 (2nd edn, Wilmington DE: ISI Books, 2006 [orig. pub. 1976]), pp. 30–73. See also Gottfried, Paul, Conservatism in America: Making Sense of the American Right (London: Palgrave, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 William F. Buckley, ‘Mission statement’, National Review (19 November 1955), available at: {https://www.nationalreview.com/1955/11/our-mission-statement-william-f-buckley-jr/}.

18 Ibid.

19 Hofstadter, Richard, ‘The pseudo-conservative revolt’, The American Scholar, 24:1 (1954/55), pp. 9–27Google Scholar.

20 Lipset, Martin Seymour and Raab, Earl, The Politics of Unreason: Right Wing Extremism in America, 1790–1970 (New York: Harper & Row, 1970)Google Scholar.

21 See the essays collected in Bell, The Radical Right. See also Wolfe, Alan, ‘Sociology, liberalism and the radical Right’, New Left Review, 1:128 (1981), pp. 3–27Google Scholar.

22 William F. Buckley, ‘The party and the deep blue sea’, Commonweal, 55 (24 January 1952), pp. 390–6 (p. 353). See also Gottfried, Conservatism in America, p. 10.

23 Lyons, Gene M. and Morton, Louis, ‘School for strategy’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 17:3 (1961), pp. 103–06CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Ibid., p. 105.

25 Jeffrey H Michaels, ‘Waging “protracted conflict” behind the scenes: The Cold War activism of Frank R. Barnett’, Journal of Cold War Studies, 19:1 (2017), pp. 70–98; Giles Scott-Smith, ‘Bill and Ed's Big Adventure: Cold warriors, William Fulbright and right-wing propaganda in the US military, 1961–62’, Histoire@Politique, 35 (May/August 2018), available at: {www.histoire@politique.fr}.

26 Nash, The Conservative, pp. 81–2; Paul Gottfried, The Search for Historical Meaning: Hegel and the Postwar American Right (Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1986/2010 [orig. pub. 1986]), pp. 66–82; Compton and O'Tuathail, ‘Intellectuals’.

27 Gottfried, Paul and Fleming, Thomas, The Conservative Movement (Boston: Twayne, 1988), p. iiiGoogle Scholar.

28 Compton and O'Tuathail, ‘Intellectuals’; Ole R. Holsti, ‘The study of international politics makes strange bedfellows: Theories of the radical Right and the radical Left’, American Political Science Review, 68:1 (1974), pp. 217–42; Mircea Alex Platon, ‘“Protracted conflict”: The Foreign Policy Research Institute “defense intellectuals” and their Cold War struggle with race and human rights’, Du Bois Review Social Science Research on Race, 12:2 (2015), pp. 1–33.

29 Strausz-Hupé, Robert and Possony, Stefan, International Relations (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950)Google Scholar.

30 David M. McCourt (ed.), American Power and International Theory at the Council of Foreign Relations, 1953–54 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2020).

31 ‘Three of the men who serve as Goldwater's advisors’, New York Times (31 March 1964), available at: {https://www.nytimes.com/1964/03/31/archives/three-of-the-men-who-serve-as-goldwaters-advisers-goldwater-gets.html}.

32 Mark Bassin, ‘Race contra space: The conflict between German geopolitik and national socialism’, Political Geography Quarterly, 6:2 (1987), pp. 115–34.

33 Hans W. Weigert, ‘Haushofer and the Pacific’, Foreign Affairs, 20:4 (1942), pp. 732–42.

34 These visions remain influential on the postwar radical Right; see Kevin Coogan, Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist International (New York: Autonomedia, 1999).

35 We leave Walsh aside, since he died in 1956, having suffered a series of strokes since 1952. For accounts, see Patrick McNamara, A Catholic Cold War: Edmund A Walsh, S. J., and the Politics of American Anti-Communism (New York: Fordham University Press, 2005); Geroid O'Tuathail, ‘Spiritual geopolitics: Father Edmund Walsh and Jesuit anticommunism’, in Geopolitical Traditions: Critical Histories of a Century of Geopolitical Thought (New York: Routledge, 2000), pp. 187–210. On geopolitics more broadly, see Lucian M. Ashworth, ‘Mapping a new world: Geography and the interwar study of International Relations’, International Studies Quarterly, LVII (2013), pp. 138–49.

36 The ‘sudden and amazing interest in German geopolitics’ (Hans W. Weigert, ‘Haushofer and the Pacific’, Foreign Affairs, 20:4 (1942), pp. 732–42) is examined in Fredrick L. Schuman, ‘Let us learn our geopolitics’, Current History, 29 (1942), pp. 161–5; William T. R. Fox and Annette Baker Fox, ‘The teaching of International Relations in the United States’, World Politics, 13:3 (1961), pp. 339–59; and more broadly, Udi Greenberg, The Weimar Century: German Emigres and the Ideological Foundations of the Cold War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015).

37 Robert Strausz-Hupé, Geopolitics: The Struggle for Space and Power (New York: Putnam, 1942), p. 140.

38 Ibid., p. 220.

39 Platon, ‘“Protracted conflict”’, pp. 14–20.

40 Robert Strausz-Hupé, Balance of Tomorrow: Power and Foreign Policy in the United States (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1945), p. 108.

41 Ibid.; Robert Strausz-Hupé, ‘Review of James Burnham Containment or Liberation’, The Annals of the Academy of American Political and Social Science, 288:1 (1953), pp. 154–6.

42 Robert Strausz-Hupé, The Zone of Indifference (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1974 [orig. pub. 1952]) excerpted in William R. Kintner and Robert Pfaltzgraff Jr. (eds), Strategy and Values: Selected Writings of Robert Strausz-Hupé (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books), pp. 12–13.

43 Robert Strausz-Hupé, William R. Kintner, James E. Doughgerty, and Alvin J. Cottrell, Protracted Conflict (New York: Harper, 1959).

44 Robert Strausz-Hupé, ‘Protracted conflict: A new look at communist strategy’, Orbis, 7:1 (1958), pp. 6–17 (p. 31).

45 Strausz-Hupé, The Zone, p. 19.

46 Ibid., pp. 69–108.

47 Ibid., p. 26.

48 For different assessments, see John P. Diggins, ‘Four theories in search of a reality: James Burnham, Soviet communism, and the Cold War’, American Political Science Review, 70:2 (1976), pp. 492–508; Samuel Francis, James Burnham (London: Claridge Press, 1984); Daniel Kelly, James Burnham and the Struggle for the World (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2002).

49 James Burnham, The Managerial Revolution (New York: John Day Co., 1941).

50 James Burnham, The Machiavellians, Defenders of Freedom (New York: John Day, 1943), p. 269.

51 Ibid., pp. 223–5.

52 James Burnham, The Struggle for the World (New York: John Day, 1947), p. 12.

53 Ibid., p. 182.

54 See Strausz-Hupé's supportive ‘Review of James Burnham’.

55 James Burnham, Containment or Liberation? (New York: John Day, 1953), pp. 130–1.

56 James Burnham, ‘Is communism folding up?’, National Review (13 July 1965), p. 631.

57 James Burnham, ‘The weakest front’, National Review (1 June 1965), p. 499.

58 Robert W. Merry, ‘James Burnham: Reagan's éminence grise’, The National Interest (July/August 2014), pp. 56–66 (p. 62)

59 James Burnham, The Suicide of the West (New York: Encounter Books, 2004 [orig. pub. 1964]), p. 333

60 Ibid., pp. 334–5.

61 Vitalis, ‘Not-So-Protracted Conflict’, p. 12.

62 Weyl, Nathaniel and Possony, Stefan, Geography of the Intellect (Chicago: Regnery, 1963)Google Scholar.

63 Ibid., p. 241.

64 Ibid., pp. ix–x.

65 Ibid., pp. 248–90.

66 Ibid., p. 250.

67 Ibid., p. 247.

68 The phrase is from Benda, Julian, The Treason of the Intellectuals (New York: Transaction Publishers, 1927)Google Scholar.

69 Weyl and Possony, Geography, p. 261.

70 Ibid., p. 262.

71 Morgenthau reviewed the book in guardedly negative terms. See Hans J. Morgenthau, ‘Review of: Law without Force, by Gerhart Niemeyer’, Iowa Law Review, 27:2 (1942), pp. 350–5. Reinhold Niebuhr criticised it as exemplifying the limits of natural law thinking in his The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011 [orig. pub.]), p. 163.

72 Hermann Heller, Sovereignty: A Contribution to the Theory of Public and International Law, ed. David Dyzenhaus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019 [orig. pub. 1927]).

73 Niemeyer, Gerhart, Law Without Force (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1941), pp. 1–26Google Scholar.

74 Ibid., pp. 58–103.

75 On whether Niemeyer was ‘in’ IR, it is worth noting that in the early 1950s he published two articles in International Organization and one in World Politics. From 1956 onwards, however, he published almost exclusively in conservative international affairs outlets, preeminently Orbis.

76 Gerhart Niemeyer, The Loss and Recovery of Truth, ed. Michael Henry (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine's Press, 2013 [orig. pub. 1993]), p. xii.

77 Philadelphia Society, ‘Gerhart Niemeyer Obituary’, available at: {https://phillysoc.org/collections/tributes/tributes-to-gerhart-niemeyer/gerhart-niemeyer-obituary/}.

78 Weaver, Richard, Ideas Have Consequences (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948)Google Scholar.

79 Gerhart Niemeyer, ‘This terrible century’, in Niemeyer, The Loss and Recovery of Truth, ed. Henry, pp. 135, 198; Voegelin, Eric, The New Science of Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952)Google Scholar.

80 Niemeyer, ‘This terrible century’, pp. 86, 417–21.

81 Ibid., p. 51.

82 Ibid., p. 151.

83 Ibid., p. 155.

84 Ibid., p. 457.

85 Ibid., p. 177.

86 Ibid., pp. 157–8, 406–14.

87 Greif, Mark, The Age of the ‘Crisis of Man’: Thought and Fiction in America, 1933–1973 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015)Google Scholar.

88 Schlesinger to Morgenthau, Hans J. Morgenthau papers, Library of Congress, Box 5, Folder 3, 23 March 1954. In his Memoirs, Vol. 2: 1950–63 (New York: Little, Brown), p. 100, George Kennan recalled that Burnham's ‘Containment and Liberation [sic]’ was ‘a well-written and persuasive book aimed largely at myself and the doctrine of containment’, and that ‘I might not have viewed it with such alarm’ if it had come only from ‘extremists … but it had by this time made deep inroads on the opinions of people who could not be relegated to that category’.

89 Hans J. Morgenthau, ‘About cynicism, perfectionism, and realism in international affairs’, Politics in the Twentieth Century, 2 (1958 [orig. pub. 1945]), pp. 127–30.

90 Ibid., p. 130.

91 Ibid.

92 Ibid.; Scheuerman, William E., ‘Realism and the Left: The case of Hans J. Morgenthau’, Review of International Studies, 34:1 (2008), pp. 29–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93 In a review from which the heading for this section is taken, he charged E. H. Carr with the same failing. Morgenthau, Hans J., ‘Review: The political science of E. H. Carr’, World Politics, 1:1 (1948), p. 130CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

94 Burnham, The Machiavellians, p. 637.

95 Schlesinger similarly charged that Burnham was a ‘romantic Machiavellian’, not a realist. See Diggins, ‘Four theories’, p. 498.

96 Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations (New York: Knopf, 1985 [orig. pub. 1948]), p. 174.

97 Ibid.

98 Thompson, Kenneth W., ‘Review of James Burnham's Containment or Liberation?’, American Political Science Review, 47:4 (1953), pp. 1194–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99 Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr, ‘WWIII: Review of James Burnham's The Struggle for the World’, The Nation, 164 (5 April 1947), p. 399.

100 Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr, ‘Middle-aged man with a horn’, New Republic, 128 (16 March 1953), pp. 16–17.

101 See Hans J. Morgenthau, The Concept of the Political, eds Hartmut Behr and Felix Rosch (London: Palgrave, 2012 [orig. pub. 1932]); John Herz, ‘Looking at Carl Schmitt from the vantage point of the 1990s’, Interpretation, 19:3 (1992), pp. 307–14.

102 Bell, Duncan (ed.), Political Thought and International Relations: Variations on a Realist Theme (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Williams, Michael C., The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Guilhot, After the Enlightenment.

103 Pells, Richard H., The Liberal Mind in a Conservative Age: American Intellectuals in the 1940s and 1950s (New York: Harper & Row, 1985)Google Scholar.

104 Goldman, Eric F., Rendez-vous with Destiny: A History of Modern American Reform (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1956), p. 334Google Scholar.

105 Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr, ‘Reinhold Niebuhr's role in political life’, in Reinhold Niebuhr: His Religious, Social, and Political Thought, ed. Kegley, Charles W. (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1984), pp. 190–222 (p. 221)Google Scholar.

106 Rice, Daniel, ‘The fiction of Niebuhr as a political conservative’, Soundings, 98:1 (2015), pp. 59–83 (p. 61)Google Scholar.

107 Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr, The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1949)Google Scholar; Nuechterlein, James A., ‘Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., and the discontents of postwar American liberalism’, Review of Politics, 39:1 (1977), pp. 3–40 (p. 10)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

108 Herz, ‘Looking at Carl Schmitt’, p. 313.

109 Herz, John, Political Realism and Political Idealism (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1951), pp. 132–53Google Scholar.

110 Morgenthau, Hans J., The Purpose of American Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), pp. 296–7Google Scholar.

111 Ibid.

112 Ibid., p. 33. On Morgenthau's ‘conservatism’, see Ish-Shalom, Piki, ‘The tryptich of realism, conservatism, and elitism’, International Studies Review, 8:3 (2006), pp. 441–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scheuerman, ‘Realism and the Left’.

113 Hofstadter, ‘The pseudo-conservative revolt’.

114 Bell, The Radical Right.

115 Schlesinger, ‘Middle-aged man’, pp. 16–17.

116 Guilhot, After the Enlightenment, p. 17.

117 Bessner, Daniel and Guilhot, Nicholas, ‘How realism waltzed off: Liberalism and decision-making in Kenneth Waltz's neorealism’, International Security, 40:2 (2015), pp. 87–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

118 Rebecca Alder-Nissen and Ayse Zakarol, ‘Struggles for recognition: The Liberal international order and the merger of its discontent’, International Organization, Online First (2020), pp. 1–24; Zhang, Chenchen, ‘Right-wing populism with Chinese characteristics? Identity, otherness and global imaginaries in debating world politics online’, European Journal of International Relations, 26:1 (2019), pp. 88–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

119 These include the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Hoover Institution, RAND Corporation, the International Strategic Studies Association, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the FPRI, which is still active today.

120 Stahl, Jason, The Right Moves: Conservative Think Tanks in American Political Culture Since 1945 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.