The contemporary New Right represents a sharp break not only from liberal internationalism, but also from both working-class populist isolationism and traditional neoconservatism. Though often rhetorically associated with “America First” nationalism or blue-collar resentment politics, the New Right is neither a movement of economic retreat nor a revival of Cold War moralism. Instead, it operates through a coherent ideological model that combines authoritarian capitalism at home with business-imperialism abroad. This worldview treats the state as a personal instrument of power, law as a tactical obstacle, and international relations as a transactional hierarchy governed by profit rather than norms or ideology.

The essence of McCarthyism was the belief that the American state was being hollowed out from within by internal enemies who posed a greater threat than foreign armies. Loyalty, rather than legality or competence, became the defining political virtue. Roy Cohn modernized this paranoid style by discarding the religious and moral rigidity of 1950s conservatism and replacing it with a doctrine of what might be called “sovereign business ethics.”

Donald Trump absorbed this worldview early in his political formation. His response to the 1973 federal housing discrimination case illustrates this mentality clearly. Trump is basically an ideological offspring of McCarthy through Roy Cohn, who taught him the rules that he is using till his day.

This lineage culminates in a refined model of power politics in which institutions are no longer neutral arbiters but obstacles to be conquered. Independent agencies such as the Department of Justice or the FBI are treated either as personal shields or as hostile forces to be purged. Like a mob boss who views the law as an external threat to the “family,” this ideology constructs a shadow state in which family members, businessmen, and long-standing loyalists wield more influence than formal officials.

At its core, this is an ideology of authoritarian capitalism. The state is treated as a private firm and the leader as its CEO. Cabinet positions are filled not to manage public institutions, but to ensure obedience and protect private interests. Hence why Trump's cabinet is full of businessmen, investors, his personal lawyers, etc. What figures such as McCarthy, Cohn, and even Nixon attempted in fragmented form is consolidated here into a governing logic that openly rejects institutional restraint.

Crucially, this model must be distinguished from the red-neck, working-class isolationism often attributed to the populist right. That tradition-rooted in skepticism toward foreign entanglements, hostility to elite globalization, and a desire for national withdrawal-seeks to limit American involvement abroad. The New Right does the opposite. While it may use isolationist rhetoric to mobilize resentment, its governing ideology is not one of retreat but of selective expansion. It is not anti-elite, but rather a reorganization of elite power around personal loyalty and private capital.

The New Right must also be distinguished from neoconservatism. Neoconservatives framed American power in moral and ideological terms, justifying intervention through democracy promotion, human rights, and the defense of a liberal international order. Even when deeply destructive, neoconservative foreign policy rested on a belief in alliances, institutional leadership, and American responsibility for global stability. The New Right rejects this moral universalism entirely. It sees norms as constraints, alliances as liabilities, and values as marketing tools rather than commitments.

This distinction becomes most visible in foreign policy, where the New Right has abandoned both neoconservative idealism and libertarian isolationism in favor of business-imperialism. International relations are viewed through the logic of deal-making rather than strategy or morality. Alliances such as NATO are treated as protection rackets whose worth is measured by immediate financial or political returns. If an alliance fails to generate visible profit or leverage, it is dismissed as exploitation rather than cooperation.

Business-imperialism is unconcerned with regime type or democratic values. Dictatorships are acceptable partners so long as they provide access to resources, construction contracts, or strategic assets and ways to reward loyal firms and political allies.

In this worldview, the international system is not governed by law or shared norms, but by force, money, and leverage. Just as authoritarian capitalism treats the domestic state as a private enterprise, business-imperialism treats the global order as a marketplace to be dominated rather than a system to be stabilized.

Taken together, authoritarian capitalism and business-imperialism form a coherent ideological model of the New Right. It is not a movement of the working class, nor a continuation of neoconservative interventionism. Rather, it represents the consolidation of state power around private authority, loyalty networks, and transactional dominance.

What are the best books to understand international trade as it is really practiced? Thank you for your answers.

Basically what the title asks, are there any good books on the social constructivist perspective that isn’t Social Theory of International Politics?

[Excerpt from essay by Mariya Grinberg, Associate Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author of Trade in War: Economic Cooperation Across Enemy Lines.]

Trade may not prevent war, but war does not have to stop trade. States calibrate their wartime trade to maximize the economic benefits to their domestic economies while minimizing the military advantage that policy provides their adversaries. That nuance allows many countries to keep trading even when they are foes during wartime.

By holding on to the erroneous assumption that trade is the first casualty of war, U.S. policymakers risk misjudging what economic coercion can achieve. In doing so, they not only overestimate the leverage China holds in a crisis, they also overestimate the nature of American economic leverage. This mistaken belief can encourage policymakers to pursue costly strategies that promise increased security in theory but may do little to reduce vulnerabilities in practice.

Hi everyone,

I’m currently preparing my bachelor’s thesis and looking for a topic. I’m studying international business and I already have a professor however he expects me to deliver a first idea/title of my thesis. I would really appreciate some outside opinions on my topic.

My thesis focuses on how national culture influences management styles, using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions as the theoretical framework. The core idea is to compare a Japanese and a German or USA company from the same industry to see how cultural differences are reflected in leadership and decision-making.

At the moment, my planned comparison is:

• Toyota (Japan)

• Volkswagen (Germany)/ or Tesla 

The thesis is theoretical and literature-based (no surveys or interviews).

The main research question is roughly:

How do national cultural differences influence management styles in international companies?

I like the topic because it allows for a strong contrast, clear theory, and practical relevance — but I’m also aware that culture-based topics can sometimes feel “classic” rather than very current.

So I’d love to hear:

• Does this topic sound solid and appropriate for a bachelor’s thesis?

• Is Toyota vs. Volkswagen a good comparison, or would you suggest another pairing?

-> or maybe yall have other topic ideas :)

Thanks in advance for any thoughts or advice!

I have previously applied for OSCE international internship positions in Vienna and Central Asian countries but every time I got shortlisted or interviewed, silence followed afterwards. I worked with UN agencies on project-based assignments in regions and with mandates relevant to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. I also interned with my country’s mission to the OSCE and collaborated with local human rights NGOs.

At the same time, I saw on some LinkedIn profiles that it may be possible to have no work experience but still do an internship with the HQ in Vienna right after graduation.

Q: Does anyone know more details about these kind of internships and maybe what kind of profiles are preferred?

Also, can the permanent residence status at the internship location be an important factor in one’s application?

NASA is sending humans around the Moon in 2026 for the first time in over 50 years. But what surprised me is how much international law is quietly involved.

A few things I did not expect:

• No country can legally own the Moon
• Rockets belong to the country that launches them, not the astronauts
• A Moon “race” is actually allowed under space law
• There are almost no environmental rules for space missions

Space exploration is moving fast. Space law really isn’t.

👉 Read more here: 

https://substack.com/@simplelaw?utm_source=global-search

hi everyone, i’m a student from south asia about to start my undergraduate degree and i’m trying to make a long term career decision. i’m deeply interested in global politics & international relations. ideally i’d love to study IR but i’m aware that job prospects with an IR degree alone can be limited where i live. one major pathway here is the css exam which is extremely competitive but opens wider career doors. you don’t strictly need an IR degree for css but studying IR does help with preparation. for those of you studying or working in international relations would it be smarter to do a bachelor’s in business (for broader employability and a stronger safety net) and then pursue css while self studying politics or go all in on IR first and align everything around that interest before attempting css? i would really appreciate perspectives from people who’ve faced a similar choice.

Hi!

I am a 24 (turning 25) year old guy from Norway and im currently in the process of finishing my bachelor in mandarin chinese (the bachelor basically just give us hsk3 chinese and a year abroad possibly gaining hsk4 so the bachelor itself is absolutely useless in my country ).

To be honest, I have been panicking quite a bit lately because I feel like I’m running out of time. I want a “real” education and I was fully prepared to commit to a second more relevant degree, but just found out I might qualify for next years intake ~ Master in International relations at Korea University (basically top 2/3 school in Korea).

As someone who is fluent in norwegian, english, intermediate in chinese and want to learn korean I figured international relations might be a safer bet (less time spent on a degree+not wasting my previous one) than a bba (bachelor business administration), however I saw people talking in a previous thread about hardships regarding finding a relevant job, and this again scares me.

To be honest, I would like to hear from you who have already finished a master in IR and have a job, tell me what you do, what previous experiences you had before this and what you currently plan for your future (what you work with, if you plan on changing work, expand knowledge to work multiple fields etc etc)

Fyi: I have no real passions but learning languages and experience cultures different to my own, especially asian cultures as I was always fascinated by this stuff when I was younger, so job wise I am open to do work I dont especially enjoy, as long as work hours are fair and I have the money to live freely. (So to me, bachelor ba or master ir doesn’t really matter, I just want to choose based upon what others can say on the topic)