Introduction
This article analyzes the evolution of the contemporary New Right and the National Conservatism movement, both of which seek to replace liberal proceduralism with a model of an active, community-oriented state.
The reader will discover how the Hungarian model serves as a laboratory for American conservatives regarding the protection of national identity and the family.
The text examines the boundary between illiberal politics and an authoritarian system, pointing to the possibility of peaceful alternation of power as the key test of democratic legitimacy.
The Hungarian Model as a Practical Alternative to Liberal Democracy
Unlike neoreaction, which is a theoretical experiment in the concentration of sovereignty, Viktor Orbán's model operates within existing state structures. Its logic is based on decoupling democracy from liberalism.
The framework posits that the state cannot remain neutral toward culture and family. It utilizes a majority mandate to actively reproduce the nation, making Hungary a blueprint for American conservatives.
Examples include pro-family and migration policies, where the interests of the community take precedence over individual liberty. For the New Right, this is proof of the feasibility of a state that does not apologize for its conservative objectives.
Democracy as the Possibility of Peaceful Alternation of Power
Simple majority rule differs from a democratic system in that the latter must guarantee a real possibility for the opposition to assume power. Democracy is not merely the result of a single election, but an iterative system.
Democratic backsliding occurs when structural changes limit political competition and the independence of oversight institutions. However, not every conservative reform constitutes authoritarianism.
The ultimate test is whether those in power are capable of relinquishing it after a loss. The 2026 elections in Hungary demonstrate that even a deeply restructured state can undergo a process of peaceful alternation.
National Pluralism as an Alternative to Liberal Universalism
National Conservatism opposes the universalism of a liberal empire with a pluralism of self-governing nations. While liberalism protects the diversity of individuals, NatCon protects the right of communities to preserve distinct ways of life.
In economic terms, this means moving away from free-market globalism in favor of protecting the domestic industrial base and labor. The state becomes an instrument for achieving national goals rather than merely a 'night watchman.'
In the US, these ideas translate into the administrative practices of a second Trump administration and the actions of JD Vance. Cultural warfare is replaced by administrative technology—for example, through the dismantling of DEI programs or the oversight of cultural institutions.
Summary
The fundamental dispute between liberalism and National Conservatism is a conflict between two fears: the fear of concentrated power versus the fear of the dissolution of community.
The introduction of illiberal policies does not automatically signify an authoritarian regime, provided that mechanisms of accountability and competition are maintained.
Ultimately, it is not ideological manifestos, but the willingness to surrender power that constitutes the strictest test of any movement's democratic nature. The real question remains whether the new architecture of the state will serve the nation regardless of who is currently in power.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does Viktor Orbán's illiberal model of the state differ from neoreactionary theories, and what is its logic?
Unlike neoreactionary theories, which delegitimize the democratic mechanism and strive for an ownership model, Viktor Orbán's model is based on utilizing a majority mandate within the democratic system. Its logic consists in separating democracy from liberalism, where the state is not neutral but actively protects the interests of the national and Christian community in the areas of culture, family, and borders.
How does ordinary majority rule differ from a democratic system in the context of the opposition's ability to take power?
The difference is that majority democracy focuses on the question of who currently governs. Constitutional democracy, on the other hand, expands this perspective to include whether there is a real possibility for someone else to take power in the future.
How does the concept of pluralism and the state in National Conservatism theory differ from the liberal model?
National Conservatism opposes liberal universalism with the pluralism of nations, understood as a diversity of self-governing political communities rather than a diversity of individuals within a single system. Unlike the liberal model, it assumes the right of nations to organize their lives according to their own tradition and religion, and supports a strong but limited nation-state as an alternative to supranational homogenization.
How does the economic approach of National Conservatism differ from classical free-market conservatism?
Unlike classical free-market conservatism based on laissez-faire and globalization, National Conservatism treats the market as an instrument subordinate to national goals. It allows for state intervention in the economy to protect the domestic industrial base and support work, family, and strategic security.
In what way do Hungary's family and constitutional policies serve as a model for American conservatives?
Hungary serves American conservatives as proof of the feasibility of a policy in which the state actively promotes the family and the national community instead of remaining neutral. This model is treated as a laboratory showing that a government can make conservative values the central point of its legitimacy and actively shape social institutions.
How can one distinguish between a conservative restructuring of the state and actual democratic regression?
Distinguishing a conservative restructuring of the state from democratic regression is based not on the content of policy, but on the conditions of competition and accountability. The constitutional criterion arises when changes limit the citizens' ability to realistically replace those in power, reduce independent centers of control, or create permanent, asymmetric conditions for political competition.
Does an illiberal system, in which the rulers rebuild state institutions, have to be by definition an authoritarian system that prevents a change of power?
No, an illiberal system does not have to be authoritarian by definition and does not logically exclude the possibility of the ruling party losing. Systemic categories concern the quality of rules and institutions, rather than a metaphysical impossibility of changing power.
How does the National Conservatism movement translate its theories into the practice of state-building, and what is the significance of the concept of national identity in this process?
National Conservatism translates its theories into practice by building a coalition infrastructure that connects theorists with politicians and staff to influence state institutions. A key role is played by the concept of 'thick' national identity (encompassing history, religion, and culture, among others), which is intended to increase the civic solidarity necessary for the functioning of redistributive systems and national defense.
What is the fundamental dispute between liberalism and National Conservatism, and how can it be verified in practice?
The fundamental dispute between liberalism and National Conservatism is based on opposing theories of risk: liberalism fears the concentration of power and the dominance of the majority over the individual, whereas National Conservatism fears the dissolution of the community and the loss of the capacity for self-governance. In practice, this can be verified by analyzing the proposed institutions intended to simultaneously ensure the agency of the community and the possibility of legal opposition.
How do the ideas of the New Right translate into specific administrative actions in the USA after 2025?
The ideas of the New Right translate into the practice of power through the introduction of appropriate personnel, language, and tools into the state apparatus in areas such as migration, universities, and anti-DEI issues. However, the implementation of these demands in Trump's second administration is not a simple execution of a program, but rather the result of an intertwining of New Right ideas with the president's personal convictions, traditional Republican demands, and administrative pragmatism.
To what extent do JD Vance and Project 2025 represent a real takeover of power by the New Right ideology?
Project 2025 is interpreted as a transition from theory to the logistics of seizing power, and JD Vance as a political sign of post-liberal and nationalist ideas entering the center of the executive. Vance's significance manifests primarily in the normalization of New Right language and personal and organizational transmission, rather than necessarily in the full programmatic transmission of every administration decision.
How are the ideas of the New Right translated into specific administrative actions in governing practice?
The ideas of the New Right are translated into practice through the use of executive instruments to reverse the actions of the previous administration, including federal DEI programs. Cultural rhetoric is converted into administrative technology, manifesting as changes in legal doctrine, employment policy, federal contract terms, and the conduct of supervisory investigations.
How are conservative ideas implemented in administrative practice, using higher education and cultural institutions as examples?
In higher education, this is implemented by increasing control over the accreditation system, promoting intellectual diversity, and making funding and grants conditional on compliance with anti-discrimination regulations. In cultural institutions, it occurs through administrative oversight of historical narratives in museums to promote national heritage and avoid interpretations deemed ideologically distorting.
How does the New Right attempt to seize control over knowledge and state administration in practice?
The New Right seeks control over knowledge by regulating AI systems, introducing requirements for 'ideological neutrality' and the 'pursuit of truth' in language models used by the government. In the realm of administration, it attempts to change the philosophy of governance, among other things, by moving thousands of policy-influencing positions into a new category (Schedule Policy/Career), which weakens procedural safeguards against employee removal.
Does the conservative US Supreme Court automatically approve all illiberal decisions of a New Right president?
No, the conservative Supreme Court does not automatically approve all presidential decisions. An example is the case of Trump v. Barbara, in which the court rejected a regulation restricting the acquisition of citizenship by children born in the USA.
How do specific US administrative actions in 2025–2026 reflect an illiberal model of the state?
These actions manifest in the securitization of migration through the declaration of a state of emergency and the involvement of the military, shifting the issue of borders from an administrative area to the level of sovereignty defense. This model also reflects illiberal tendencies in the pursuit of building a 'unified American identity' through the assimilation of migrants and the affirmative role of the state in promoting religion as a public good.
How is the New Right redefining the role of the state in the economy and administration, moving away from the traditional conservative pursuit of limiting government?
The New Right is moving away from the goal of limiting government in favor of a selectively active state that intervenes in strategic economic sectors and trade in the name of national security. Instead of reducing structures, it focuses on building state capacity and taking control of the state apparatus to effectively implement changes through technical decisions.
Does the introduction of illiberal policies by the New Right automatically mean the transformation of the state into an authoritarian regime?
No, the introduction of illiberal policies does not automatically mean the transformation of the state into an authoritarian regime. The distinction between policy content and the political system is crucial, as the authoritarian nature is determined by the structure of political competition and accountability, rather than the philosophy of the actions themselves.
How can one fairly evaluate the actions of the New Right without falling into the trap of ideological bias or blindly accepting authoritarianism?
To fairly evaluate the New Right, one should take its strongest arguments seriously (so-called steelmanning) and acknowledge that it may be responding to real problems, such as the ideological asymmetry of institutions or the lack of democratic accountability within the bureaucracy. Therefore, the key is not the existence of the movement's diagnoses, but the assessment of whether the proposed solutions are proportional to the diagnosed problems.
