We’ve come to a turning point in American politics, where every disagreement leads to not only a squabble between two parties but even within political parties. Nowhere has this been more evident in recent months than in the public clash between two of conservatives most influential voices: Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro. Their feud erupted in late 2025 when Carlson hosted Nick Fuentes––an outspoken antisemite, Holocaust denier, and self-described white nationalist––on his podcast for an extended and largely unchallenged interview. The tension peaked at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest, where Shapiro sharply criticized Carlson and others as “grifters” and “charlatans” who traffic in conspiracism and moral imbecility by platforming figures like Fuentes.
This fracture is symptomatic of the deeper fissures within conservatism: between populism and principled conservatism. While such debates can be healthy, they’ve shown to devolve into personal animosity that weakens our shared goals.
President Trump’s two terms delivered outright victories for conservatism. His Supreme Court appointments helped overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022, allowing conservatives to further the fight for life in their states. He also shifted the Republican Party toward the working class, delivering the United States gains in trade, energy independence, and border security. Yet these successes have not come without costs of his leadership. Many traditional conservatives and Evangelicals have grown uneasy with the movement’s crass tone and decorum.
A recent event illustrates the point. On Easter Sunday, amid escalating tensions with Iran, President Trump posted on Truth Social an expletive-laden warning that Iran must reopen the Strait of Hormuz or they will face devastating consequences and declaring the nation’s people would be “living in Hell.” The rhetoric drew sharp criticism even from within MAGA ranks. Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene condemned what she saw as an unprovoked escalation that contradicted “America First” priorities, calling for peace and warning against broader war. Such moments highlight real unease over Trump’s foreign policy and the coarsening of public discourse.
I don’t think the answer to this fracturing is to suppress debate or abandon populist energy, but rather to restore civic charity––a principled commitment to attacking the ideas and not the people. The late Justice Antonin Scalia embodied this virtue. With his signature eloquence and Italian-New York accent, he often declared: “I attack ideas. I don’t attack people.” That spirit was able to produce a genuine friendship with his ideological opposite, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, without compromising his convictions.
Civic charity is not weakness; it is strength rooted in conservatism’s foundational commitment to truth, beauty, and goodness. Conservatives have largely held the line on truth, defending biological reality against gender ideology and rejecting the atrocity of critical race theory. We continue to champion the beauty of God’s design for marriage and family, as organizations like Katy Faust’s Them Before Us who advocate for children’s rights to their natural mother and father. And we uphold goodness through a proper understanding of justice; we prioritize victims and deterring evil while the left emphasizes criminal “rehabilitation” at the expense of public safety.
That said, modern-day conservatism is not without its own flaws. Too many on the right have softened on the sanctity of life. And our movement has sometimes prioritized viral moments over principled conservatism. Most critically, we have underinvested in forming the next generation of thoughtful conservatives. Speaking as a Gen Zer, I remember vividly how conservatives provided a vital refuge beginning in 2016 for those of us navigating the transgender hysteria and critical race theory in our schools. For the first time, many young people felt heard from the likings of Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, among others. Yet in recent years, that refuge has too often offered catharsis without deeper discipleship. Conservatives have reacted against left-wing excesses but failed to disciple young conservatives in our principles––natural law, limited government, subsidiarity, and ordered liberty––that underpin our conservative beliefs.
This vacuum has contributed to the appeal of edgier, more reactionary voices like Fuentes. When principled conservatism appears stale or compromised to disillusioned youth, fringe elements without principles fill the void. Recognizing this is not self-abasement; it is intellectual honesty. The rise of such figures stems partly from the failures on the left, social media incentives for clicks, and genuine grievances, but also from our own shortcomings in formation and persuasion of the next generation.
To thrive in the coming decade, conservatives must recalibrate. This begins with self-evaluation: acknowledging reactionary tendencies where they exist, while recommitting to our first principles. It means investing in thoughtful engagement that goes beyond mere opposition to the left. We should model Scalia’s approach: strongly critiquing dangerous ideas (whether from the progressive left or the “reactionary right-wingers") without descending into ad hominem attacks on individuals.
Civic charity does not require being naive. Some public figures merit scrutiny when their actions reveal profound moral and policy shortcomings. Now, while there isn’t a guarantee that the left will follow us by restoring decorum in political discourse, we must embrace our principle of civic charity. By leading with intellectual honesty and personal decency, conservatives can appeal to those who truly decide elections––moderate voters. Conservatives cannot win by merely countering the left’s destructive policies, but we can win by demonstrating the superiority of our ideas.
If conservatives once again embrace civic charity as a virtue, it will serve as both a principle and a strategy, where we can reunify conservatism, persuade those who are open to persuasion, and rebuild a conservatism worthy of America’s admiration.
