print

Philosophers at the throne:
the intellectual genealogy of American national conservatism

Ismagilova A.T.,

Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences; HSE University, Moscow, Russia, Ismagilova.A.T@hse.ru

ORCID: 0009-0000-9777-2522 | RESEARCHER_ID: LRT-8927-2024

Article received: 2025.09.15 17:58. Accepted: 2026.02.04 17:58


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2026.03.09
EDN: GAMVFD

Rubric: Political discourse

For citation:

Ismagilova A.T. Philosophers at the throne: the intellectual genealogy of American national conservatism. – Polis. Political Studies. 2026. No. 3. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2026.03.09. EDN: GAMVFD (In Russ.)

The publication was prepared within the framework of the Academic Fund Program at HSE University (grant № 26-00-089 “Assessing the impact of domestic political polarization on the foreign policy of states and associations of the collective West in the medium and long term: challenges and opportunities for Russia and China”). The author would like to thank B.G. Kapustin and B.I. Makarenko.

Abstract

This work aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon of national conservatism as an intellectual and political movement that emerged in opposition to liberalism and now plays a significant role in the transformation of the American political landscape. Drawing methodologically on the general theory of scientific and intellectual movements (developing Thomas Kuhn’s approach) and on the concept of intellectual genealogy (in the form of Michel Foucault’s discursive organization of practice), the study traces the development of national conservatism through an analysis of the discourse produced by its representatives. National conservatism has consolidated a broad network of intellectuals of various persuasions—nationalists, post-liberals, federal reformers, and constitutionalists. This coalition, possessing a significant institutional infrastructure, has achieved considerable success, influencing not only public debate but also concrete political processes. The right-wing revolution of national conservatives has several key aspects. First, it is a struggle against the hegemony of liberal globalism, associated with a unipolar world order known as Fukuyama’s end of history. Second, it is a break with the fusionist status quo and outdated forms of conservatism, which is referred to as “defusionism.” Third, national conservatives are initiating a fundamental reform of political and bureaucratic institutions, including the abolition of elements of the “deep state,” considered dead and counterproductive. National conservatives’ primary interest is focused on regime change—a process they have already largely succeeded in initiating by shaking the existing status quo. The electoral success of national conservatives poses new challenges for the conservative revolution.

Beyond preserving the existing coalition, a key focus remains ensuring the victory of candidates like J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio in the 2028 U.S. presidential election. Alongside maintaining political power, there is a need to move from abstract ideological discussions to concrete actions aimed at supporting the family and promoting the national good, as interpreted by the Natcons and based on the principle of prudence. Thus, national conservatism not only opposes the predominant form of liberalism but also actively promotes systemic reforms and a rethinking of the institutional structures (foundations) of the modern state.

Keywords

national conservatism, intellectual genealogy, anti-liberalism, Trumpism, structural conflict, radicalization, de-fusionism.

Altinors, G., & Chryssogelos, A. (2024). Beyond populism and into the state: the political economy of national-conservatism. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 26(4), 995-1014. https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481241246538

Anderson, P. (2000). Renewals. New Left Review, 1, 5-24.

Borg, S. (2024). A ‘natcon takeover’? The New Right and the future of American foreign policy. International Affairs, 100(5), 2233-2245. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiae178

Bornschier, S. (2010). Cleavage politics and the populist right. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1998). Acts of resistance: against the tyranny of the market. New York: The New Press.

Bourdieu, P. (2003). Firing back: against the tyranny of the market. New York: Verso.

De Vries, C. (2018). The cosmopolitan-parochial divide: changing patterns of party and electoral competition in The Netherlands and beyond. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(11), 1541-1565. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1339730

De Wilde, P., Koopmans, R., Merkel, W., Strijbis, O., & Zürn M. (Eds.). (2019). The struggle over borders: cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

DeMuth, C. (2019). Trumpism, nationalism, and conservatism. Claremont Review of Books, 19(1), 32-41.

Deneen, P. (2018). Why liberalism failed. London: Yale University Press.

Deneen, P. (2023). Regime change: toward a postliberal future. New York: Sentinel.

Dreher, R. (2017). The Benedict option: a strategy for Christians in a post-Christian nation. New York: Sentinel.

Frickel, S., & Gross, N. (2005). A general theory of scientific/intellectual movements. American Sociological Review, 70(2), 204-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224050700

Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond left and right – the future of radical politics. Cambridge: Polity.

Goodhart, D. (2017). The road to somewhere. The populist revolt and the future of politics. London: C. Hurst & Co.

Hazony, Y. (2018). The virtue of nationalism. New York: Basic Books.

Hazony, Y. (2022). Conservatism: a rediscovery. Washington: Regnery Gateway.

Heywood, A., & Laing, M. (2025). Politics. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2018). Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage. Journal of European Public Polic, 25(1), 109-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1310279

Hooghe, L., Marks, G., & Wilson, C.J. (2002). Does left/right structure party positions on European integration? Comparative Political Studies, 35(8), 965-989. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041402236310

Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S., & Frey T. (2008). West European politics in the age of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roberts, K. (2024). Dawn’s early light: taking back Washington to save America. New York: HarperCollins.

Varga, M., & Buzogány, A. (2022). The Two Faces of the ‘Global Right’: Revolutionary Conservatives and National-Conservatives. Critical Sociology, 48(6), 1089-1107. https://doi.org/10.1177/089692052110570

Bauman, Z. (2005). Individualized society. (Russ. ed.: Bauman, Z. Individualizirovannoe obshchestvo. Moscow: Logos).

Foucault, M. (1996). Nietzsche, genealogy, history. (Russ. ed.: Foucault, M. Nitshe, genealogiya i istoriya. In Filosofiya epokhi postmoderna: Sbornik perevodov i referatov (pp. 74-97). Minsk: IKrašiko-Print).

Fraier, H. (2008). Die Revolution von rechts. (Russ. ed.: Fraier, H. Revolyutsiya sprava. Moscow: Praxis).

Gottfried, P. (2016). Paleoconservatives: right pariahs of America. Notebooks on Conservatism, 3(1), 77-84. (In Russ.)

Hayek, F.A. (2018). The constitution of liberty. (Russ. ed.: Hayek, F. Konstitutsiya svobody. Moscow: Novoe izdatel’stvo).

Inshakov, I.A. (2022). Modernity as a time for utopia. Politeia: Analysis. Chronicle. Forecast, 1(104), 7-23. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2022-104-1-7-23

Ismagilova, A.T. (2024). National conservatism on the path to institutionalization. Russia in Global Affairs, 22(6), 24-43. https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6439-2024-22-6-24-43. (In Russ.)

Kapustin, B.G. (2019). Rassuzhdeniya o “kontse revolyutsii” [Reflections on the “end of the revolution”]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Instituta Gaidara. (In Russ.)

Kapustin, B.G. (2024a). On the metaphor “revolutions are the locomotives of history.” Polis. Political Studies, 3, 50-73. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2024.03.05

Kapustin, B.G. (2024b). Obuzdanie negativnogo [Taming the negative]. Yerevan: Fortis Press. (In Russ.)

Mannheim, K. (1994). Diagnosis of our time. (Russ. ed.: Mannheim, K. Diagnoz nashego vremeni. Moscow: Yurist).

Mezhuev, B.V. (2021). “Tocqueville’s choice” and “Benedict’s choice”: conservative thought in search of “post-liberal alternative. Notebooks on Conservatism, 4, 110-116. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24030/24092517-2021-0-4-110-116

Mohler, A. (2024). Liberalenbeschimpfung. (Russ. ed.: Mohler, A. Protiv liberalov. Moscow: Silene Noctiflora).

Sokolshchik, L.M. (2021). American conservatism and the challenge of contemporary populism: theoretical and ideological aspects. Polis. Political Studies, 1, 78-93. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.01.06

See also: