ARC Conference: The Right’s Divide on Ukraine and Aid
From Ukraine to foreign aid, the Right is split between the values of Christ and the values of Nietzsche
Photo by Alex Fedorenko on Unsplash
Last week, I attended the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) Conference, a global gathering of conservative thought leaders, Christian intellectuals, and populist right-wing politicians. With 4,000 delegates at London’s Excel Centre, the event buzzed with excitement and energy.
Speakers ranged from Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage to Jordan Peterson and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, each shaping the discussion on the future of right-wing politics. Some speakers, particularly those from the Christian conservative tradition, emphasised family values, moral duty, and national identity as essential pillars of Western civilisation.
A defining moment of the conference was when David Brooks, conservative columnist for The New York Times, condemned Trump for his incompetence as well as for abandoning Christian values such as concern for the weak, the poor, and the marginalized. Examples, he gave included capitulating to Putin over Ukraine and eviscerating a crucial foreign aid program fighting HIV in Africa. For this, Brooks was met with boos from Trump-aligned populists in the audience, exposing a key divide within the Right-wing movement.
This divide is best understood as a clash between Christian conservatism and what can be called the Nietzschean Right. The Christian Right, influenced by traditional morality and Western Judeo-Christian values, prioritizes charity, humility, and a moral duty to protect the weak. In contrast, the Nietzschean Right, drawing inspiration (consciously or unconsciously) from Friedrich Nietzsche, rejects moral universalism in favour of power, self-reliance, and national strength.
In his book The Antichrist, Nietzsche argued that Christianity weakens society by elevating compassion for the weak rather than embracing the will to power. He saw self-sacrifice and humanitarianism as forms of slave morality, celebrating instead the strength and dominance of the powerful. Today, echoes of Nietzsche’s worldview can be found in the America First movement, national populism, and certain strains of right-wing ideology that prioritise strength over compassion.
Morality, in Nietzsche’s view is not universal but is created by those in power. He also rejected egalitarianism and charity in favour of dominance and achievement. This is very much embodied in the current Trump administration which seeks to maximise American power at the expense of allies and assert dominance over weaker nations. This divide between the Nietzschean Right and the Christian Right influences key political debates today, such as foreign aid to Ukraine.
On the issue of Ukraine, many Christian conservatives see defending its sovereignty as a moral imperative. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is viewed as an unjust violation that is in breach of international law. Additionally, Russia’s many recorded war crimes and attempts to destroy the Ukrainian people are seen as a moral outrage deserving of retribution.
The Nietzschean Right, however, presents an alternative moral framework. War is seen in terms of great power politics and Putin’s strength is admired. Ukraine, meanwhile, is viewed as weak and corrupt, despised for its dependence on Western aid. Such a worldview explains Trump’s admiration for Putin and unwillingness to include Ukraine in peace negotiations with Russia.
Similarly, while Christian conservatives view humanitarian aid as a moral obligation, the Nietzschean Right sees it as a weakness – giving money away to weaker nations rather than fostering self-reliance. This is a complete rejection of the teachings of Jesus, who emphasized the importance of self-sacrifice through both His teachings and actions. Parables such as the Good Samaritan, for example, teach us to love our enemies and care for the stranger even at a personal cost.
Can these two branches of the Right be reconciled? At face value, they seem fundamentally opposed. The values of the Nietzschean Right are a complete rejection of the principles underpinning traditional Christian conservatism: human dignity, moral duty, and concern for the weak. Yet it’s important to remember that there is also a spectrum of opinion on the Right and politicians do not always put themselves firmly in one camp or the other.
Ronald Reagan, for example, combined a strengthening of national power with moral leadership. Following a catastrophic famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, Reagan provided over $1 billion in emergency aid, saving many lives.
Reagan understood that true strength lies not just in military power but in moral leadership. Just as he saw supporting anti-communist movements as a moral imperative during the Cold War, today’s conservatives should see supporting Ukraine as a defence of freedom against authoritarian aggression. Turning our backs on Ukraine would be a betrayal of the very principles Reagan championed, principles that defeated the Soviet Union without surrendering moral responsibility.
Conservatives and moderates must stand together against authoritarianism and make the case for compassion and moral duty. This means supporting Ukraine’s fight for independence and providing safe and legal routes for genuine refugees. It also means showing kindness to the world’s poor and boosting our humanitarian efforts in the developing world. To abandon our moral obligations at this critical moment will mean abandoning the very core of who we are as a civilisation.