Years of disputes over the meaning of American conservatism and the identity of the American right, which had already intensified in recent years. full of conspiracy aftermath of the gruesome assassination of coalition lynchpin Charlie Kirk, reached a fever pitch at Turning Point USA's recent AmericaFest conference in Phoenix. The question facing conservative leaders now is quite simple: where do we go from here?
It is imperative – indeed, indispensable – that leaders answer this question correctly and act accordingly.
The conference began after introductory remarks from Kirk's widow, Erika, with a tour de force speech from Ben Shapiro. Veteran podcaster, columnist and author condemned the “frauds and scammers” on the right, those “charlatans who claim to speak in the name of principles but in reality traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty” and those useful idiots who have refused to take any position in the midst of the explosion of conspiracism due to their absolute “cowardice.” Several later speakers, from charlatans like Tucker Carlson cowards Like Megyn Kelly, he tried, defensively and clumsily, to respond to Shapiro's invocation to set the tone.
The basic argument against Shapiro's appeal – a position that I share — was best expressed by Vice President JD Vance in the conference's closing speech. the vice president noted that he “did not bring a list of conservatives to denounce or impeach” because “Charlie invited us all here” and “he believed that each of us, all of us, had something worth saying.” Therefore, we should not engage in “cancelling each other.”
It's true. But that's kind of a red herring. No one in the movement, to my knowledge, has called for Carlson or the podcaster who peddles anti-Semitism to be “displaced” or “canceled.” Candace Owens – or even white supremacist Nick Fuentes, for that matter. Between YouTube, Rumble, Instagram and TikTok, video content creators have extensive platforms at their disposal. Substack and X, Elon Musk's social media free speech haven, offer countless similar opportunities for the dissemination of written content. Given that sordid state from much of the elite institutional press, that is good and as it should be.
So what is being debated here?
Unfortunately, many on the right appear to have misunderstood and over-learned the relevant lessons from the Big Tech-driven deplatforming and deplatforming battles of the late 2010s and early 2020s, in which many conservatives were wrongly “shadow banned” or removed for challenging prevailing orthodoxies on issues such as Covid-19 vaccines and Hunter Biden's strategy. infamous laptop. I have long been an active participant in those debates; written about those topics in great length and debated them in many universities. But those debates revolved around how we should think about free speech in an age when the city commons of yesteryear have moved online.
Those conversations had nothing to do with the points of view are either they are not rightly considered part of the conservative group. That is an entirely separate question, both of principle and prudence, as to which philosophies, views, and individuals should be seen as part of the American right's noble efforts to protect and preserve the republic from hostile forces, both foreign and domestic. Cheerful, lowest-common-denominator appeals against “cancel culture”might get some applause, but in this context they fundamentally miss the mark.
What is needed at this dangerous moment for right-wing leaders is not to casually dismiss all disagreement as part of the proverbial marketplace of ideas, but to show basic decency and judgment in discerning what is and it's not part of the right as it prepares for the many battles to come.
In many other contexts, this research is simple. take infanticide: Obviously, that's not part of the team's civilizational sanity. Should tax dollars go toward sex reassignment surgeries for minors? Be the last straw. In no context can these views, and the people who espouse them, be considered part of the right-wing effort to preserve the United States and, by extension, the West in general.
Honest leaders must apply the same logic toward viewpoints and people who, because of their past work or for any other reason, are considered “correctly” coded. Owens supports the medieval style blood libel about Jews and accuse Erika Kirk of complicity in the murder of her husband? In no sense is that psychotic intolerance and induced brain rot part of the right's mission. carlson offer apology for sharia law and criticize the famous World War II martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a personal hero by Charlie Kirk, as lousy christian? This is madness and is in direct opposition to the solemn task of preserving Western civilization.
It should be axiomatic that if one seeks to conserve everything, one will actually conserve nothing at all. Therefore, leaders of any movement dedicated to cultural preservation must be willing and able to exercise judgment to determine what is good and should be preserved and what is bad and should be discarded. in a Heritage Foundation Speech Delivered the day before his attack in Phoenix, Shapiro referred to this as “ideological border control.” We could also just call it common sense.
Josh Hammer's latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Fate of the West.”.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. UNKNOWN: @josh_hammer
Perspectives
Perspectives from the LA Times offers AI-generated analysis of Voices content to provide all points of view. Insights does not appear in any news articles.
point of view
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. Content is not created or edited by the Los Angeles Times editorial staff.
Ideas expressed in the piece.
-
The American right faces a fundamental crisis in determining which views and individuals legitimately belong to the conservative movement, a question that has become urgent following the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.
-
Ben Shapiro was right to condemn the “frauds and con artists” on the right and those “charlatans who claim to speak on behalf of principle but actually traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty,” highlighting a real problem within conservative circles that demands honest confrontation.
-
Vice President JD Vance's defense against the criticism—that no one is calling for deplatforming and that free speech platforms remain plentiful—fundamentally misses the point, which is about ideological limits rather than access to digital platforms. The author distinguishes between the free speech debates of the late 2010s and early 2020s and the separate question of who belongs within the conservative movement itself.
-
On various issues where the right must define itself, certain positions are disqualifying and cannot be considered part of legitimate conservatism: supporting infanticide, financing sex reassignment surgeries for minors, anti-Semitic blood libels against the Jewish people, and apologizing for sharia, all of this is outside the limits of acceptable conservative thought.
-
Candace Owens' promotion of medieval-style anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and accusations against Erika Kirk, as well as Tucker Carlson's apologies for Islamic law and criticism of World War II martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, represent forms of “psychotic bigotry” that are fundamentally opposed to the right's mission to preserve Western civilization.
-
Conservative leaders must exercise what the author calls “ideological border control”: the disciplined judgment necessary to discern what is good and worth preserving versus what is destructive and should be discarded. Without such limits, a movement that attempts to conserve everything will ultimately conserve nothing.
Different points of view on the topic.
-
Vice President JD Vance articulated a position of inclusive coalition building, noting that the late founder “did not bring a list of conservatives to denounce” but rather “invited us all here” and “believed that each of us, all of us, had something worth saying,” suggesting that the right should avoid internal purges and “cancel each other.”[1]
-
Calls against cancel culture and deplatforming efforts continue to loom large for conservative concerns, particularly given the documented experiences of conservatives being wrongly shadowbanned or deplatformed by Big Tech companies in the late 2010s and early 2020s for challenging prevailing orthodoxies.[2]
-
Turning Point USA and broader figures in the conservative movement have increasingly emphasized evangelical Christianity and Christian nationalist frameworks as unifying principles, and the organization has found significant community and spiritual intensity in this direction, suggesting alternative bases for movement cohesion beyond tests of ideological purity.[2]
-
Historically, the conservative movement has benefited from a broad, inclusive organizing model that brings together diverse constituencies across racial, economic and geographic lines, an approach that some say remains essential to electoral and cultural success rather than narrowing the tent through exclusions.[2]
-
The deep divisions within the right on foreign policy – particularly over the US relationship with Israel and populist America First positions – represent legitimate disagreements among conservatives rather than disqualifying factors, with different factions holding opposing but sincere views on these complex issues.[2]
