The Growing Conservative Schism and How to Avoid It

With last November’s election, the conservative Right in this country secured a massive victory. Donald Trump won the presidency handily, the GOP gained control of both the House and the Senate, and the Democratic Party was in disarray, with no one to bring them back to prominence. It appeared clear that the nation could look forward to years of Republican dominance. 

That’s not so clear anymore, because a schism threatens to tear apart the Right, one whose epicenter lies not in America but in Israel.

This rift has been brewing for years, especially since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel; the latest flashpoint occurred last week when Tucker Carlson interviewed provocateur Nick Fuentes. The actual content of the interview became irrelevant; the real argument was over Carlson giving a “platform” to a man many on the Right consider a neo-Nazi antisemite. But what escalated the internal fight was a video by Kevin Roberts, president of the conservative Heritage Foundation (which is known to be pro-Israel). In it, he did not condemn Carlson, although he made clear that he rejected antisemitism and abhorred many of the views expressed by Fuentes over the years. Roberts encouraged discussion of the issues rather than fostering a cancel culture on the Right. It was a reasonable and balanced statement, so of course people online freaked out.

And when I say “freaked out,” I’m not exaggerating. People were literally comparing Roberts’s video to the early days of Nazi Germany, saying statements like his (which, remember, explicitly condemned antisemitism) were the first steps to a new Holocaust. Pro-Israel conservatives tripped over themselves to condemn Roberts—and, most importantly, made sure to be seen condemning him.

The standard argument one hears whenever anyone criticizes Israel—or even allows criticism to be made without condemnation—is “this is how the Holocaust began.” To permit even the slightest criticism is to invite mass evil. Now, because it’s necessary these days in these debates, let me make something explicit: I do believe the Holocaust happened and was one of the worst evils ever perpetrated by man. Millions of innocent Jews were slaughtered in the most cruel and evil ways. Faithful Catholics of the time, such as Dietrich von Hildebrand, Servant of God Therese Neumann, and St. Maximilian Kolbe understood this in the moment and rightly resisted the Nazi regime. We absolutely don’t want to go back, as the saying goes.

Yet the way many seek to avoid another Holocaust is too simplistic and may even be counterproductive. It’s true that the Holocaust happened because the Jews were historically scapegoated and unfairly criticized and attacked. Few in early 1930’s Germany defended them as the scapegoating was intensified. But does that mean that no criticism of modern Israel, no matter how mild, should be allowed? I see three possible outcomes of such a policy.

The first possibility is that stifling any and all criticism of Israel prevents another Holocaust, just as supposedly intended. Criticism could escalate to attacks and full-fledged scapegoating, so by nipping the problem in the bud, the ultimate tragedy is averted. But that’s not the only possible outcome of this strategy.

A second, and more likely, possibility is that by refusing to allow even legitimate criticism of Israel, resentment grows against its protected status, leading to more, not less, antisemitism. People begin to wonder why Israel—and Jews in general—are considered off-limits, and frustration caused by this artificial boundary becomes fuel for antisemitic conspiracies. This, in fact, is exactly what is happening now.

A third possibility, which can happen in conjunction with the second, is that due to its impunity, Israel has license to commit gravely evil acts without fear of consequences. If Israel truly has unconditional support from America, then any and all limits are removed in its efforts to achieve its political goals. And since Israel, like every nation, is ruled by sinful men, it’s likely those men will cross moral lines if given free reign to do so. And this also is happening now, as all objective observers acknowledge.

Thus, by awarding Israel with a protected status in order to prevent another Holocaust, pro-Israel conservatives excuse current evils and increase the likelihood of causing what they purportedly seeks to prevent.

So how should conservatives handle the Israel issue, particularly in dealing with critics like Nick Fuentes? In a nutshell: we can—and should—criticize and even oppose Israel’s wrongs without endorsing Fuentes’s more extreme views. Two weeks ago on the Crisis Point podcast I detailed my own objections to him and his movement, and I made clear that I’m not a fan. In fact, the more I listen to him, the less impressed I am. He comes across as an immature kid seeking attention. When he says things like “I like Joseph Stalin,” he sure gets a reaction. I remember weird kids in high school who were like that. They were unpopular but desperate for attention, so to stand out they made the craziest statements. Fuentes’s crazy talk is particularly popular with young men who have been told their whole lives to shut up and conform to woke ideology.

Fuentes sometimes correctly diagnoses our country’s problems, but his solutions are typically childish and meant to appeal to his online audience, not to propose workable options in the real world. For example, during Carlson’s interview he advocated for “crushing the Left” and said Trump should have the Illinois governor arrested for resisting Trump’s immigration enforcement. That’s the type of thing that excites his followers, but it’s politically stupid. If Trump were to do such a thing, the backlash—not just from the Left, but from “normies”—would be immense. Not only would Trump fail to actually imprison Governor JB Pritzker, but he’d lose so much support that his whole agenda would fall apart. Yet it sounds edgy and leads to more clicks for Fuentes.

Of course, cancelling Fuentes, as many conservatives are doing, just gives him more influence, generating more attention for him. As I noted, the more I hear from him, the less impressed I am, and I think most people would come to the same conclusion. Cancelling him makes him appear more impressive than he really is.

Some have made out this looming schism as simply a generational divide. And it’s true that Gen Z is far more skeptical of America’s support of Israel than baby boomers, Gen X, and even millennials. But often those same commentators who emphasize the generational divide act as if we should indulge every desire of this younger generation in an effort to woo them. I can’t comment on whether that’s a good political move, but from a Catholic perspective, doing so would abdicate our responsibility toward them. Gen Z is right to be skeptical of Israel, but too often the members of that generation—particularly the men—use that legitimate skepticism to justify behaviors that are contrary to the Catholic Faith, such as true hatred toward Jews, as well as vile talk like that heard regularly on Fuentes’s show. 

Young people need to realize that opposition to Israel does not require the baggage that Fuentes brings. Those of us a bit older actually have seen a model for how it should be done: Pat Buchanan. Long before Fuentes was born, Buchanan gave intelligent, reasoned arguments against America’s support for Israel, yet always did so in a dignified and charitable manner. 

Both Buchanan and Fuentes are intelligent commentators, but Buchanan is wise while Fuentes is foolish. If the American Right wants to avoid a schism, I would recommend it follow the path of Pat Buchanan rather than either the Israel lapdogs like Ted Cruz or the immature provocateurs like Nick Fuentes.