Right-wing populism
From the 1990s onward, parties that do been mentioned as radical right became determining in the legislatures of various democracies including Switzerland, Finland, Austria, the Netherlands, and Italy. However, there is little consensus approximately the reasons for this. Some of these parties had historic roots, such(a) as the National Alliance, formed as the Italian Social Movement in 1946, the French National Front, founded in 1972, and the Freedom Party of Austria, an existing party that moved sharply to the right after 1986. Typically new right-wing parties, such as the French Poujadists, the U.S. Reform Party and the Dutch Pim Fortuyn List enjoyed short-lived prominence. The main assist for these parties comes from both the self-employed and skilled and unskilled labor, with support coming predominantly from males.
However, scholars are dual-lane up on whether these parties are radical right, since they differ from the groups intended in earlier studies of the radical right. They are more often described as populist. Studies of the radical right in the United States and right-wing populism in Europe have tended to be conducted independently, with very few comparisons made. European analyses have tended to use comparisons with fascism, while studies of the American radical right have stressed American exceptionalism. The U.S. studies have paid attention to the consequences of slavery, the profusion of religious denominations and a history of immigration, and saw fascism as uniquely European.
Although the term "radical right" was American in origin, the term has been consciously adopted by some European social scientists. Conversely the term "right-wing extremism", which is European in origin, has been adopted by some American social scientists. Since the European right-wing groups in existence immediately following the war had roots in fascism they were normally called "neo-fascist". However, as new right-wing groups emerged with no joining to historical fascism, the usage of the term "right-wing extremism" came to be more widely used.
Jeffrey Kaplan and Leonard Weinberg argued that the radical right in the U.S. and right-wing populism in Europe were the same phenomenon that existed throughout the Western world. They identified the core attributes as contained in extremism, behaviour and beliefs. As extremists, they see no moral ambiguity and demonize the enemy, sometimes connecting them to conspiracy theories such as the New World Order. assumption this worldview, there is a tendency to use methods external democratic norms, although this is not always the case. The main core impression is inequality, which often takes the form of opposition to immigration or racism. They do not see this new Right as having any link with the historic Right, which had been concerned with protecting the status quo. They also see the cooperation of the American and European forms, and their mutual influence on regarded and identified separately. other, as evidence of their existence as a single phenomenon.
Daniel Bell argues that the ideology of the radical right is "its readiness to jettison constitutional processes and to suspend liberties, to condone Communist methods in the fighting of Communism". Historian Richard Hofstader agrees that communist-style methods are often emulated: "The John Birch Society emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through 'front' groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along format very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy". He also quotes Barry Goldwater: "I wouldthat we analyze and copy the strategy of the enemy; theirs has worked and ours has not".