Why Antisemitism is a losing strategy for the conservative movement

The death of conservative icon Charlie Kirk has prompted more than mourning. It has triggered a profound reckoning about the future of the American conservative movement, one that played out in real time at Turning Point USA’s recent AmericaFest convention.

Just three months after Kirk’s assassination, the organization he co-founded became the venue for an intense debate over a fundamental question: Should conservatism remain a coalition with clear moral boundaries, or should it become a broader movement that tolerates racists, antisemites, and conspiracy theorists in the name of “free speech” and “not canceling anyone?”

Ben Shapiro and Vivek Ramaswamy argued unapologetically that there is no place in conservatism for figures who traffic in antisemitism, racial hatred, or dangerous conspiracies. People like Nick Fuentes, Candace Owens, and Tucker Carlson, or those who excuse and legitimize them. On the other side were those who insisted that even open bigots belong in this broader coalition, warning that drawing lines would fracture the movement.

A movement without moral boundaries is hollow. Incorporating figures who reject the core values of America is both unethical and politically disastrous.

Shapiro put it bluntly from the Turning Point stage: “The conservative movement is also in danger from charlatans who claim to speak in the name of principle but actually traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty, who offer nothing but ire and despair, who seek to undermine fundamental principles of conservatism by championing aggravation and grievance. These people are frauds, and they are grifters, and they do not deserve your time.”

Nick Fuentes is not a misunderstood provocateur. He is an open racist, Holocaust denier, and antisemite who promotes propaganda rooted in hatred and conspiracy. His worldview is fundamentally opposed to the principles of America: equality under the law, pluralism, individual liberty, and constitutional democracy.

When Tucker Carlson gave Fuentes a platform in October 2025, it triggered a crisis at the Heritage Foundation. Heritage president Kevin Roberts defended Carlson, believing he was standing for free speech and against “cancel culture.” Instead, he triggered the very fracture he claimed to want to avoid. Multiple trustees resigned, staff revolted, and an antisemitism task force severed ties with the organization. The controversy overshadowed Heritage’s policy work and damaged its credibility as a serious institution. This is what happens when institutions prioritize tribal loyalty over principle; the damage is not merely reputational, it’s structural.

When conservatives like Ben Shapiro draw these boundaries, the attacks rarely engage the substance of the argument. Instead, they descend into identity politics, accusations that Shapiro’s position is driven by his Jewish identity, or that he and others like Bari Weiss are “Israel-firsters” with divided loyalties.

This is one of the oldest antisemitic tropes in history, repackaged for the digital age, and it should alarm anyone who cares about a healthy conservative movement.

What makes this moment especially revealing is how disconnected online outrage is from political reality. A recent Turning Point USA poll of AmericaFest convention attendees found that over 85% consider Israel an ally of the United States. That is an overwhelming consensus.

Yet if you spent your time only on certain corners of X, you might think Israel is wildly unpopular among young conservatives. That perception is a manufactured reality.

Foreign adversaries like Russia, Qatar, and China have learned a hard truth: conservatives remain one of Israel’s strongest bases of support. So, they target that support relentlessly. Through bot networks, coordinated disinformation campaigns, and amplification of extremist voices, they seek to fracture the right by pushing antisemitism into conservative spaces and reframing it as “anti-establishment” or “America First.”

Figures like Fuentes, Owens, and Carlson serve as integral pawns in this ecosystem of deception.

President Trump did not return to the White House in 2024 by mobilizing extremists. He won because of a measurable shift among moderates, particularly suburban women, Latino voters, and a growing share of Black voters. According to Pew Research, Trump drew nearly even with Kamala Harris among Hispanic voters, losing by only 3 percentage points.

Voters remain pragmatic. They care about stability, equal opportunity, and decency.

This is where defenders of figures like Fuentes, Owens, and their ilk fundamentally misread the political map. These voices shrink the electorate rather than expand it.

Shapiro captured this dynamic when he mocked the endless conspiracism that now passes for courage:”  ‘Just asking questions,’ something my 5-year-old does... When grown men and women spend their days ‘just asking questions,’ without seeking real answers, they’re seeding distrust.”

Suburban women do not see this racist or antisemitic rhetoric as edgy or brave. They see instability. Latino voters, many of whom are deeply religious, family-oriented, and patriotic, do not view racial grievance politics as “America First.”

There is no hidden army of voters waiting to be activated by embracing extremists. There is, however, a large bloc of persuadable Americans who will not tolerate ugliness masquerading as authenticity.

Every time conservative leaders are evasive about antisemitism, they make it harder to hold these voters and easier for Democrats to caricature the entire movement as intolerant.

President Trump himself has been unequivocal on this point. When asked by The New York Times whether antisemites belong in his coalition, he replied plainly: “I think we don’t need them. I think we don’t like them.” That clarity reflects an understanding that movements win by drawing lines, not erasing them.

Serious movements draw lines. Winning coalitions require trust. And trust cannot coexist with hatred.

We have seen what happens when identity politics consumes a movement. The left allowed grievance, racial essentialism, and purity tests to hollow out liberalism, replacing genuine progress with intolerance disguised as virtue. Conservatives capitalized on these political errors throughout the 2024 campaign.

Now some on the right are flirting with the same mistake.

The paradox of the “big tent” is that it only remains standing if it has sturdy poles and clear boundaries. A tent with no structure collapses under its own weight. Similarly, a political coalition that refuses to exclude anyone, no matter how toxic, will eventually repel the very voters it needs to win.

The Turning Point poll also showed that a majority of attendees believe “radical Islam” is the greatest threat facing the West. Israel is a key strategic ally in this fight. Maintaining support for Israel is both sound foreign policy and good politics.

True conservatism is about preserving American values, democratic institutions, Western civilization, and embodying the moral clarity that allows a pluralistic society to thrive.

The future of conservatism will be shaped by leaders who understand that strength comes from principle. A big tent is only meaningful if it stands for something.

And a movement that cannot say no to antisemites will eventually lose the right to say it stands for America.

The choice is ours. Will we rise to meet it?

Adam Milstein is an Israeli-American “Strategic Venture Philanthropist.” He can be reached at adam@milsteinff.org, on Twitter @AdamMilstein

This op-ed is published in partnership with a coalition of organizations that fight antisemitism across the world. Read the previous article by Coby Schoffman.