At 16, I became a nationally syndicated columnist for a major conservative outlet. My work earned attention because the conservative movement has traditionally valued arguments, evidence, and new ideas rather than identity categories. The movement’s credibility rested on the belief that merit – not age, race, or background – determined whose voice shaped the debate. That principle allowed young people like me to contribute without relying on anything other than the substance of our work.
As my columns expanded to some of the largest conservative platforms in the country, the responsibility of that role grew with them. A movement grounded in constitutional principles cannot tolerate rhetoric that undermines those principles. The conservative coalition now faces an internal split that extends beyond disagreements over foreign policy or strategy. It concerns whether the movement will remain anchored in individual dignity and constitutional equality or drift toward language that portrays conservatives as indifferent to those commitments.
The antisemite label
The debate surrounding Tucker Carlson shows why clarity is necessary. A large segment of the right has labeled him antisemitic because of his criticism of US foreign policy, including his skepticism of American support for Israel. That assessment is inaccurate. Carlson’s position stems from a non-interventionist philosophy, not from hostility toward Jews.
I strongly disagree with Tucker’s approach because it overlooks the strategic realities facing the United States and its partners. However, disagreement over foreign entanglements never establishes antisemitism. I have met Carlson, and he treated me with respect. His arguments develop from an ideological framework rather than hostility toward a religious minority. Mislabeling ideological disagreements as bigotry weakens the ability to confront actual antisemitism.
That distinction becomes clear when evaluating figures like Nick Fuentes. His statements – including Holocaust denial and claims that Jews cannot participate fully in Western societies – reject the foundational assumptions that have guided conservative thought for generations.
The Constitution protects individual rights, not demographic blocs. A movement that emphasizes meritocracy cannot tolerate rhetoric that targets an entire minority on the basis of ancestry or religion. Fuentes’s views fall outside any framework consistent with constitutional principles. Foreign-policy arguments belong in a political party; explicit antisemitism does not.
Islamophobic rhetoric is a problem
A parallel problem has emerged with Islamophobic rhetoric inside certain parts of the right. For decades, conservatives distinguished radical Islamist ideology from the millions of Muslim Americans who live peacefully as productive citizens.
That distinction disappears when candidates use phrases like “dirty Muslims,” now a slogan used by a candidate running in Texas’s 31st Congressional District. This language does not address national-security concerns or ideological threats. It targets individuals solely because of their religion.
A movement that opposes DEI for reducing citizens to identity groups cannot adopt its own version of identity-based hostility. Conservatives spent years building arguments against policies rooted in racial or group-based reasoning. That framework shaped Republican opposition to affirmative action, DEI mandates, and the spread of Critical Race Theory. It also informed the conservative response to the surge of antisemitism after the October 7 attacks, when Jewish students faced open hostility on campuses across the United States.
The conservative movement gained credibility by arguing that government and society should evaluate individuals by their actions, not by their demographic characteristics. Abandoning that position now – whether for online visibility or factional appeal – would weaken the movement at a moment when clarity is essential.
The failures of progressive institutions on antisemitism remain well-documented. Universities, media outlets, and political leaders routinely excuse or minimize antisemitic rhetoric. But pointing to those failures never removes the conservative responsibility to address problems within our own coalition. Movements maintain credibility by enforcing internal standards, not by comparing themselves to their opponents’ worst behavior.
If conservative principles weaken, the distinction between serious policymaking and performative outrage collapses. A movement that aims to govern must preserve the boundaries that define it.
Internal disagreements over Israel, immigration, or national security strategy will always exist, and they can strengthen the coalition by refining its arguments. They cannot, however, override the fundamental commitments that shaped modern conservatism: constitutional equality, individual responsibility, and the belief that citizens should not be judged for characteristics they cannot control.
Antisemitism and Islamophobia violate those commitments. They undermine the values that allowed me – and many others – to enter public debate based solely on the strength of our ideas. A movement grounded in the Constitution welcomes every American who aligns with its principles. Race, faith, and background never defined conservative membership. Character and conduct did.
Young conservatives, in particular, bear responsibility for protecting that standard. The movement’s credibility depends on its willingness to reject rhetoric that conflicts with its core commitments. If we fail to uphold those principles now, the movement loses the clarity that made it trustworthy – and the foundation that allowed new voices to contribute to its future.
The writer is a nationally syndicated columnist for Townhall Media and Newsmax. His writing regularly appears in publications such as The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, The Hill, and several other prominent outlets.