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:
Nick Fuentes warns he will cost JD Vance the 2028 election if he sides with israel first over America Firsters
— 𝐆𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐝𝐮𝐬 (@ImperiumFirst) October 31, 2025
"Cross that red line, and we will be your worst enemy politically." pic.twitter.com/kkzF14fZqD
⚠️ However, Nick Fuentes is a fan of Adolf Hitler.
— SirTD 🇺🇸🇬🇧 (@SirTD_Comments) October 28, 2025
See video.
"Grow-up! Hitler was awesome and cool!"
-Nick Fuentes.
cc: @RealKeriSmith @TheQuartering @j_t_starwars pic.twitter.com/HMxWfGDK9V
Nick Fuentes on VP Vance: “fat guy who’s married to a jeet and works for a gay CIA fed” pic.twitter.com/keJpTacDeD
— Max 📟 (@MaxNordau) October 31, 2025
"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.
"F*&k off, Jew!" The latest chant by white supremacist Nick Fuentes & his "Groyper Army" mucking it up in a Detroit parking lot after being kicked out of their venue (wonder why 🤔) pic.twitter.com/3FFNVclVwI
— Canary Mission (@canarymission) June 21, 2024
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.
Nick Fuentes defended Hunter Biden during the laptop scandal saying he was "cool" for allegedly raping his underage niece.
— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) October 31, 2025
There is absolutely nothing about him that reflects MAGA.
pic.twitter.com/C3cpXaFS2b
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?
"I will not vote for Trump." - Nick Chicco-Fuentes
— Lucky Teter (@TheMagaHulk) October 8, 2024
Fuentes then falsely claims that Trump wants unlimited immigration, a war with Iran, and unfettered abortion.
Fuentes is either a liar, a traitor, an asset, or all three. pic.twitter.com/ewS0D0LgV1
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.
Tucker’s lecturing on Christian Zionism and “heresy,” as if it isn’t rooted in biblical faith.
— Stella Escobedo (@StellaEscoTV) October 28, 2025
Jesus was a Jew. pic.twitter.com/tYnDp5C92A
"I dislike them more than anybody."
Or how about Sharia law?
Does Tucker Carlson know that the rape rate is zero in Muslim countries because if women report the rape they are… executed?!
— Jaimee Michell (@JaimeeUSA) November 2, 2025
I’m not going to be gaslit into believing defense of Sharia law is a normal or sane position for a conservative to hold. Sorry.pic.twitter.com/5aU1qSxhDB
Or feudalism over Liberalism?
Tucker Carlson: “Feudalism is so much better than what we have now.”
— Micah (@micah_erfan) August 24, 2025
pic.twitter.com/NaGGddpBvW
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.
Any person who supports, embraces, defends or white washes Nick Fuentes, is not & was never a friend of or on the side of Charlie Kirk. pic.twitter.com/V5NDEhXA9t
— Melissa Tate (@TheRightMelissa) November 5, 2025
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.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Nick Fuentes talking about how awesome the CCP is, "as long as they're not Jews." pic.twitter.com/ObN2k7cnu3
— James Lindsay, anti-Communist (@ConceptualJames) October 29, 2025
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.
"People on both sides are constantly screaming in my ear... demanding that I disavow - denounce - one of the other... It's just not ever going to happen. Not ever."@MattWalsh on the battle between Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson.
— The Megyn Kelly Show (@MegynKellyShow) November 4, 2025
Watch and subscribe:https://t.co/YJPxz5Gu8d pic.twitter.com/LyRGmH1QHP
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.
Victor Davis Hanson Slams Tucker Carlson for Platforming Extremists
— Andrea Shaffer, Anti-Marxist Warrior (@Andreafreedom76) November 4, 2025
"I've written a couple of articles and interviews about Daryl Cooper, the World War II revisionist. He's a crackpot." ~ VDH referring to one of Carlson's guests.
In a pointed segment on The Chris Salcedo Show,… pic.twitter.com/pyNGwtod9G
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.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member