Hello! I'm about to dig into a few books that have been on my list for some time. I share them at the bottom as reference. As you can see, I'm somewhat methodical in my selection and course of books.
If I were to identify my political perspectives it may be something akin to an RFK sense of humanism with a Kissinger acceptance of realpolitik.
I highly enjoy the work of Jason Stanley (How Propaganda Works was life changing) and I found Jonah Goldberg provocative. I'm looking for well researched books. I don't give a rat's ass for salacious gossip drivel writing. Most of all, I'm interested in 1. educating myself on historical events and 2. Having a broad perspective.
That being said, the way I've structured my reading list below is to start with some meta perspective, improve my familiarity with propaganda tactics, then go into some modern views on American political processes before jumping into geopolitics.
I'd welcome any perspective and advice you may have, as well as suggestions on some highly esteemed right wing thinkers (and a compelling book they wrote) to be sure I'm maintaining perspective here. Thank you.
If you want to understand an argument, one of the most helpful things you can do to give yourself a well-rounded opinion is to, as you are doing, pick up a few well-known titles for a thorough read. Just as important as this first step though is then understanding the critiques of the texts you just read. To pick an example from your list, Fukuyama's End of History already got a lok of flak on publication and for the past 10-15 years has really been taught at universties more as a "look how quickly things change and could end up being wrong" text than a seminal work of still-relevant thought. Even Fukuyama himself has serious doubts about his own thesis due to events I won't mention here (20 year rule).
But this applies to pretty much every text dealing with history, particularly older ones. To give an example, a few years back i decided to read Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. It's well received, sells many copies to this day and was written by one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century. However, not even a nobel laureate of Russell's stature is above bias and preference. He was a man devoted English analytic philosophy and resultantly does not really paint a fair picture of e.g. 19th century continental philosophy.
To pick on Russell a bit more, whilst an incredibly talented man who stood at the pinnacle of a number of different fields, he was not a historian, similar to many others on your list (e.g. Rawls, Macchiavelli, Chomsky, Kissinger, Brzezinski). Whilst there is nothing wrong with reading a book about history about someone who is not a professional historian, I caution you that their reading of history might serve purposes that are not strictly academic. Generally many of the above mentioned have very strong moral or political views, and it comes to reason that they will see history from the perspective of their own politico-ethical view.
If you are interested in International Relations/Political Theory or something akin to that, then that is fine as the historical narrative in a way is just a backdrop to a logically thought out argument. However, if you go into such a book with the express intent of understanding a specific historical time-period, you'd likely be much better served finding a more neutral (but not necessarily dry!) book written by someone with a professional background in History.
I therefore come back to my first point - try to get a feel for what others are saying about the book you are reading. It's incredibly easy to find professional critiques of pretty much anything nowadays, Google Scholar is your friend!