<![CDATA[Antisemitism]]><![CDATA[Conservatism]]><![CDATA[Donald Trump]]><![CDATA[Republican Party]]>Featured

No Enemies to the Right? Wrong! – HotAir

admin
November 6, 2025
0Points
0
0
No Enemies to the Right? Wrong! – HotAir

Is it, or should it be true that in order to win, we should follow the principle that there are “no enemies to the right?”

On its face, the principle makes sense. After all, elections are won by adding together enough voters and voting blocs to get a plurality of the vote. Unless you have more voters than the other side(s), you lose. So if you see a group of voters who might be persuaded to vote along with you, it makes sense to either appeal to them or, at the very least, not criticize them. 





This is the essence of some conservatives’ arguments that the critiques of Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, and Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts are counterproductive. Some would toss Candace Owens into the mix, but fewer because she now just seems kooky to people. 

At least I hope so. 

There are a number of problems I see with this seemingly plausible argument, morally, intellectually, and electorally, where the rubber meets the road. 

First, let’s get this out of the way: Nick Fuentes is not a conservative, nor is he somebody who could (at least reliably) be included in the Republican coalition even if we wanted him to be. He is a racist, authoritarian, antisemitic bottom feeder who says he is on “Team Hitler,” admires Josef Stalin, attacks JD Vance for marrying his wife, and who literally campaigned against Donald Trump in the last election. 

He’s not only a scumbag, but he spends a lot of time trying to kick people OUT OF the Republican coalition because they don’t fit his model for what America should look like. 

Anybody who says “no enemies on the right has to explain why this is not a declaration of enmity TO the right:





“No enemies on the right?” Nick Fuentes is not on the right, and he has declared himself to be an ENEMY of the right. Anybody who defends him as a potential ally is an idiot or disingenuous. 

Which brings me to the next problem: coalitions are indeed additive, but they are also subtractive. Allowing people like Nick Fuentes anywhere near the entrance to our big tent means that others will exit it, and quickly, too. Voters rarely sit down and read through your policy platform; they evaluate you and the people around you. 

Think about your reaction to the election of Jay Jones. It has little to do with what Jay Jones will do as Attorney General, and everything to do with what you think of his character. And much of the anger about his election is about what it says about the Democrats who voted for him or endorsed him. 

It says a lot about Abigail Spanberger and the Democrats who supported Jones that they did, and nothing good. In my piece yesterday about the election of Jones, that was my point: voting for Jay Jones was a symptom of moral degeneracy. In other words, the “no enemies to the left” principle says something bad about the people who hold that view.  





What does it mean to gain the whole world but lose your soul? If winning is so  important that you ally with Jay Jones or Nick Fuentes, have you not forfeited a chunk of your soul?

We need to win a significant number of moderate voters, and as skeptical as many of you are that they exist, they really do. What would it say to them if we ally with Nick Fuentes? Nothing good. 

Admitting the Groypers into our coalition in order to “win” is a fool’s errand, because we lose large parts of our coalition on the other side. 

Yet another point that gets glossed over in the “no enemies to the right” argument: Nick Fuentes and, in this case, Tucker Carlson as well, clearly don’t adhere to that principle. They spend an awful lot of time critiquing conservatives. If “no enemies to the right” is the principle, why does that only apply to people who don’t admire Hitler, Stalin, or Sharia law? 





For instance, Tucker—confessing to noted antisemite Nick Fuentes who talks about how cool Hitler and Stalin were and how Jews should be expelled from America or even killed—says he hates Christian Zionists, who are a massive part of the Republican coalition. 

“I dislike them more than anybody.” 

Or how about Sharia law?

Or feudalism over Liberalism?

I’m pretty sure that it is Tucker criticizing conservative principles much more than the other way around. It’s not like conservatives didn’t go out of their way to embrace Tucker, both when he was at Fox News and after he left. It’s just that Tucker has decided that conservatives are as bad as liberals, and he wants something else. Something more like feudalism and theocracy instead of our Constitutional system of government. 





So I dissent from the idea that we must remain silent or even embrace people who call themselves conservatives when they attack our principles. It’s like arguing with hardcore libertarians who insist that it is their way or the highway. Fuentes is not a conservative in the least, and Tucker used to be one but has moved on. 

We can criticize them, and should. 

Now Matt Walsh has a simpler argument for why he refuses to criticize Tucker: he is a personal friend, and it would be disloyal to do so. That, to me, makes sense. 

But that is not a political stance. It’s more like asking a wife to testify against her husband. We all understand that there are personal limits when it comes to adherence to higher principles. 





“No enemies to the right” is a slogan, not a practical or political principle. Some people say it because they think it is good politics, which it is not, or because they actually want these people in the coalition, which is bad. 

I expect my liberal friends to disavow the Mamdanis and Jay Joneses who are in their coalition because it is immoral not to. On a practical level, Republicans intend to hang Mamdani around the neck of every Democrat running for Congress next year, because they have him in their coalition. 

Right?

Well, both the principle of rejecting evil ideas when they arise applies to us as well, and the practical effects of not doing so apply to Republicans as well. 

I don’t want to have to answer for Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes, or the new Tucker Carlson. I don’t recognize myself in them. 



Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.

Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.





Source link

admin

Related Posts

1 of 3
Copyright © 2025 nationalconservativemovement - .
Copyright © 2025 nationalconservativemovement - .