ResCon1

Kevin Roberts’ Defense of Tucker Carlson Poses a Political Danger to Republicans

Kevin Roberts’ Defense of Tucker Carlson Poses a Political Danger to Republicans

By John R Guardiano on November 14, 2025

Jew-hating antisemites have hurt the Democrats, politically, and they will hurt the Republicans, politically, as well if they are allowed into elite conservative circles.

If you want to find a Jew-hating antisemite on the left, go to an Ivy League college campus. If you want to find a Jew-hating antisemite on the right, go the dark web.

This has been true for at least the past decade, and it speaks to the relative influence of Jew-hating antisemites within the Democratic Party and the relative lack of influence of Jew-hating antisemites within the Republican Party.

Simply put, right-wing Jew-hating antisemites have little or no influence within the Republican Party. Left-wing Jew-hating antisemites, by contrast, have a lot of clout and influence within the Democratic Party.

That is why today, significantly more Republicans than Democrats support Israel. Indeed, “Democrats,” reports Pew Research, “are much more likely to express unfavorable opinions of Israel than Republicans (69% vs. 37%).”

Kevin Roberts and Tucker Carlson. Unfortunately, thanks to right-wing influencer Tucker Carlson and Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, that may be changing. Jew-hating antisemites may be gaining a foothold on the elite right and within the Republican Party.

That’s the upshot and the danger of the brouhaha over Carlson’s friendly interview of Nick Fuentes, a self-avowed pro-Nazi fan of Adolph Hitler, and Roberts’ subsequent defense of Carlson’s friendly interview of Fuentes.

As we’ve reported, Jew hatred within the Democratic Party kept Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro from being selected as the party’s 2024 vice presidential nominee.

The question now is whether Jew hatred within the Republican Party will sink the GOP’s prospects in 2028: by forcing the party to accommodate right-wing Jew-hating antisemites, who are anathema to the overwhelming majority of voters.

The question, sadly, is not academic or theoretical; it is all too real. Pew Research reports that young Republican voters (under age 50) have grown increasingly hostile to Israel. Indeed, within this age cohort, negative views of the Jewish state have jumped from 35 percent three years ago to 50 percent today.

“Conservatives in Washington, D.C.,” reports Rod Dreher,

have been saying to me that the influence of neo-Nazi Holocaust-denying livestreamer Nick Fuentes has taken off among Gen Z congressional and administration staffers.

One older insider put the number of Fuentes fans and fellow travelers, so-called Groypers, in these Washington circles at “30 to 40 percent.”

[…]

I ran the “30 to 40 percent” claim past the conservative Zoomers I spoke to in D.C.; every one of them affirmed it.

Politics and Morality. This is alarming. Allowing Jew hatred to fester within the elite, mainstream right would, of course, be a moral abomination. It also would be politically catastrophic for conservatives and the Republican Party.

Simply put, there is no political constituency in conservative America for rank bigotry and Jew hatred. Espousing or countenancing bigotry and Jew hatred also will repel most voters, left, right and center.

In this respect, Republicans have a distinct political advantage over Democrats. As we noted last fall:

The hard and difficult truth is that Jew-hating anti-Semites are now an important constituency and activist base within the Democratic Party. Democrats are wary of alienating this constituency because they need its votes and its political activism during the election season.

For this reason, the Dems ruled out Josh Shapiro as their 2024 vice presidential nominee. As a pro-Israeli Jew, Shapiro never had a chance.

Pro-Israeli Jews are welcome in the Republican Party; but given demographic trends, and given elite conservative indulgence of Jew-hating antisemites on the right—i.e., Roberts’ indulgence of Carlson—for how long will this be true?

Gatekeeping. To be clear, there is no reason to believe that Roberts is a Jew-hating antisemite; quite the opposite. He is, by all accounts a good, tolerant and fair-minded family man.

However, the upshot of Roberts’ defense of Carlson is that he is giving Jew-hating antisemites a place on the elite, mainstream right, and that cannot be tolerated—at least not if Republicans want to command the moral high ground, win elections, and effect a governing majority.

The bottom line: Jew-hating antisemites are an integral part of the elite, mainstream left. They mustn’t become an integral part of the elite, mainstream right.

Feature photo credit: Right-wing influencer Tucker Carlson (L) and Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts (R), courtesy of ABC News and The New Republic (David Paul Morris/Bloomberg/Getty Images), respectively.

‘Extreme’ Political Rhetoric Doesn’t Explain Why Charlie Kirk Was Assassinated and Donald Trump Was Nearly Assassinated

‘Extreme’ Political Rhetoric Doesn’t Explain Why Charlie Kirk Was Assassinated and Donald Trump Was Nearly Assassinated

By John R Guardiano on September 14, 2025

A deep-seated spiritual malaise and mental health crisis, not extreme or apocalyptic political rhetoric, explains the rash of political violence that has engulfed America.

The horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old conservative political activist, husband and father of two infant children, has ignited an intense debate about who and what is to blame for this latest act of political violence in America.

The right blames the left and the left blames the right, and both the left and the right blame political speech and debate, which supposedly has gotten too hot, too heavy, and too heated.

“We need to cool things down and lower the temperature,” say the statesmen on both the left and the right.

Sorry, but this is simply and empirically untrue. We Americans have always argued vigorously and passionately, and with military or martial metaphors that suggest an existential struggle between good and evil.

Political Rhetoric. “We stand at Armageddon and we battle for the Lord,” declared then former President Theodore Roosevelt on the eve of the 1912 Republican National Convention.

“Never before in all our history have these [moneyed] forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today,” intoned Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt in a 1936 address at Madison Square Garden. “They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”

Yet despite our extreme or apocalyptic political rhetoric, political violence in America has been the anomaly and not the norm. Indeed, peaceful but passionate argument and debate has been the hallmark of American democracy.

What is different today is that we are in the throes of a deep-seated spiritual malaise and mental health crisis—aided and abetted by the Internet, smart phone and social media—that is giving license to horrific acts of political violence which span both the left and the right, and which target both the left and the right.

Political Violence. Consider, for instance, what we know about the assassins who murdered Charlie Kirk and Brian Thompson, the CEO of United Healthcare.

And consider what we know about the assassins who attempted to murder President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, during the 2024 presidential campaign, and Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Arizona) in Tucson, Arizona, Jan. 8, 2011.

What do these assassins and would-be assassins all have in common? Four things stand out. There are four red flags or telltale signs, none of which are necessarily or inherently political.

Independently and in and of themselves, each of these red flags may not mean much. But when taken together, they can create a toxic mix and give rise to a demonic murderer ready to kill.

First, the assassins and would-be assassins are young, inexperienced and immature men in their twenties. They are single and unmarried. Married middle-aged men with five children are not committing acts of political violence.

Second, these men often live online and are immersed in the dark web, where they marinate in toxic, antisocial ideologies, which allow them to self-isolate and feed their neuroses and paranoia.

According to Utah Governor Spencer Cox, the Charlie Kirk assassin was submerged within the “deep, dark internet, the Reddit culture, and those other dark places of the Internet.”

The Brian Thompson assassin was not, it seems, involved in the dark web. However, he was heavily influenced by the “Unabomber” manifesto and became increasingly isolated from friends and family in the weeks and months leading up to his assassination of Brian Thompson.

Third, these men are mentally ill and have a deep spiritual void. Some are sexually deviant, with decidedly non-traditional sexual proclivities.

The man who attempted to assassinate Rep. Giffords, for instance, was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. The Charlie Kirk assassin is reportedly involved in an intimate relationship with a biological male who is a transgender female, and the couple live together.

Four, these men all seem to be very bright. The Brian Thompson assassin is an Ivy League graduate of the University of Pennsylvania. He majored in computer science and earned both a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree. The Charlie Kirk assassin scored in the 99th percentile on his ACT college entrance exam.

Clearly, the problem is not extreme or apocalyptic political rhetoric. The problem is external to politics, although it manifests itself in the political domain through acts of horrific violence against political actors or alleged political actors.

What, then, is to be done? Unfortunately, there are no quick or easy solutions to the rash of political violence that has engulfed America.

Gun control clearly won’t work. The Charlie Kirk assassin used a perfectly legal and commonplace bolt-action rifle.

But even if he had used an illegal firearm, there are an estimated 400 million to 500 million civilian-owned firearms in the United States. Even the most draconian gun control would never succeed at confiscating these weapons from the American people.

Given the sheer volume of firearms in the United States, assassins will get their weapons, gun control or no control.

Then, too, there are so-called “ghost guns” or 3D-printed firearms, such as the one used by the Brian Thompson assassin. Good luck trying to stop these weapons from being produced.

The only solution that I can see to this apparently endemic problem of young maladjusted men lashing out murderously is what Governor Cox wisely recommended: People need to get offline and connect on a directly personal and not virtual level.

Too many of us, especially too many of our young people, are wrapped up in our phones to the neglect of more meaningful and healthy personal relationships.

This means that if you know a young person who may be falling to the dark side, reach out to him. Establish a personal connection. Engage him in conversation or athletic activity. Your intervention may well save a life or lives.

It also means banning cellphone use in elementary and secondary schools. This to stop student isolation, loneliness and bullying, while encouraging student socialization, engagement and interaction.

I know this is a less than satisfactory answer. It doesn’t promise a clear, clean cut and decisive solution to a deeply worrisome problem. But not all deep-seated cultural problems are amenable to quick-fix public policy solutions, and the rash of political violence in America is one such problem.

The solution lies not in federal legislation, but with us, the American people. Each of us, individually and as a family unit, must act to create and affirm a culture of connection and community that will save our young men and prevent them from going to the dark side.

And we mustn’t limit or curtail political speech. Heated political argument isn’t the problem. We need more and better speech, not less. As Charlie Kirk wisely put it, “When people stop talking, that’s when bad things happen. That’s when violence happens.”

Talk more, not less. And talk directly—one-on-one, in groups and in-person—not online. Therein lies the only way to stop the rash of political violence that has engulfed America.

Feature photo credit: Charlie Kirk and Brian Thompson, courtesy of Nelson Griswald.

President Trump is the Greatest Obstacle to Peace in Ukraine

President Trump is the Greatest Obstacle to Peace in Ukraine

By John R Guardiano on August 17, 2025

Trump’s policy of appeasement enables Putin to shun American peace overtures and to continue Russia’s war on Ukraine.

In his second term as president, now nearly seven months old, Donald Trump has adopted a policy of appeasement toward Russia and its President, Vladimir Putin.

This is an undeniable statement of fact. And the Alaska summit clapping, red carpet welcome, and presidential limo ride are the least of it. That’s theater.

More substantively, Trump has had every reason to turn the economic screws on Putin and escalate arms shipments to Ukraine. Yet each and every time he has flinched and given Putin a pass. Why?

Trump fears that if he speaks honestly and candidly about Putin, intensifies economic sanctions against Russia, and commits to a Ukrainian military victory, that that will anger Putin and force the Russian dictator and war criminal to spurn his peace overtures.

For this reason, Trump has worked, instead, to appease and placate Putin, but with no demonstrable results or movement toward peace.

This is unsurprising. Appeasing genocidal dictators who lust for territorial conquest never works. Appeasement doesn’t satiate the dictator’s appetite for territory and power; it whets it. Winston Churchill understood this; Donald Trump does not.

The Reagan Precedent. Or, to take a more recent example, when Ronald Reagan entered office in 1981, he did not appease the series of Russian dictators who then led the Soviet Union. He publicly opposed them and waged a cold war against them.

Reagan also waged hot wars against Russian proxy forces in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola, and elsewhere.

Yet despite his tough talk and tough action—or rather, because of his tough talk and tough action—Reagan ultimately secured historic arms control agreements with the Soviets, while bringing about the demise of the Soviet Union. And Reagan achieved this without any direct confrontation or war with the Russians.

Reagan called it “peace through strength” and it worked. Trump insists that he, too, believes in “peace through strength”; but his policy toward Putin and Russia tells an entirely different story. It tells a story of weakness and appeasement.

Unfortunately, because Trump has adopted a policy of appeasement, Putin has no real reason or incentive to negotiate in good faith. After all, he faces no serious military or economic consequences for stringing Trump along.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio insists that this is not true. Every single sanction that was in place when Trump was sworn into office Jan 20, 2025, remains in place, Rubio says.

Maybe, but Trump administration enforcement of those sanctions has been lacking, and the Russians have increasingly found ways to avoid and evade these sanctions. Plus, there is a lot more than can and should be done to punish Russia so as to force Putin to negotiate in good faith.

As the Kyiv Post reports:

A new and damning report from the minority staff of the U.S. Senate Committees on Banking and Foreign Relations alleges that the Trump administration has “abruptly halted” the economic pressure campaign against Russia, a move that is said to be undermining Ukraine’s leverage and emboldening the Kremlin.

Titled ‘Dropping the Baton’, the report, reviewed by Kyiv Post on Sunday, claims that after three years of consistent and rising pressure from the United States and its G7 partners, the new administration’s “pattern of inaction over the past six months is clear.

The document, prepared for Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), presents four main findings, building a case that the US is failing to use sanctions and export controls to help achieve a “just peace in Ukraine.”

The report states that the administration has allowed pressure to “dissipate” despite a growing number of Russian circumvention efforts and has stood by as evaders, particularly in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), have profited from their support for the Kremlin’s war machine.

The bottom line: despite his insistence that he earnestly wants to end the war and stop the killing, the truth is that President Trump is the greatest obstacle to peace in Ukraine. The president may mean well, but his policy of appeasement does nothing to foster peace.

To the contrary: appeasing Putin is giving the Russian dictator and war criminal newfound hope that, if he can just hang on long enough, he might yet prevail and win in Ukraine.

President Trump needs to disabuse Putin of this notion and dash any hope of a Russian victory. This means adopting a true policy of peace through strength.

Specific Measures. It means punishing economic sanctions, secondary economic sanctions, rigorous enforcement mechanisms, intensified military arms shipments to Ukraine, and an unwavering commitment to ensure that Ukraine wins and Russia loses.

Then and only then will Putin recognize that he has no choice but to end his war, stop the killing, and negotiate a real and enduring peace.

Then and only then will Trump become the peacemaker and not, as he is now, the greatest obstacle to peace.

Feature photo credit: Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, courtesy of the National Post. Photo by John Mahoney, Post Media, Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images.

Tucker Carlson’s Real Target Is Not Winston Churchill; it’s Ukraine

Tucker Carlson’s Real Target Is Not Winston Churchill; it’s Ukraine

By John R Guardiano on September 15, 2024

Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper want to rewrite the history of World War II so that they can justify appeasing Vladimir Putin today.

Tucker Carlson’s plaudits for an obscure crackpot writer, Darryl Cooper, who argues that Winston Churchill, not Adolph Hitler, is the “chief villain” of World War II, have been widely condemned and rightly so. The historical narrative that Cooper presents is riddled with glaring errors, not the least of which is a basic timeline or chronology of events.

Indeed, as historian and Churchill biographer Andrew Roberts points out:

Cooper’s first argument was that Churchill “was primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did, something other than an invasion of Poland.” Yet in the moment that Adolf Hitler invaded Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg at dawn on May 10, 1940, Winston Churchill was not even prime minister.

Unless Mr. Cooper is arguing that from his position as First Lord of the Admiralty—the head of Britain’s navy—Churchill was somehow able to force Hitler to unleash Blitzkrieg in the West, his first argument falls to the ground.

But the bigger question that has not been addressed is: why, at this moment in time, is Carlson elevating and promoting the false and inaccurate notion that Winston Churchill is the “chief villain” of World War II?

Ukraine. The answer is not hard to discern. He is doing so because of Ukraine.

“I’m just highly distressed,” Carlson told Cooper, “by the uses to which the myths [sic] about World War II have been put in the context of modern foreign policy, particularly the war in Ukraine.”

Churchill, remember, was a fierce critic of the British government’s policy of appeasement in the years leading up World War II. He warned repeatedly of the grave and gathering Nazi German threat. Hitler had to be stopped, not appeased, Churchill argued.

Carlson and Cooper, by contrast, are modern-day appeasers. They want to appease Putin. They recognize the obvious parallels between Europe in the 1930s and Europe today.

They understand quite well that if yesterday’s appeasers can be vindicated and Churchill vilified, then it will be easier for today’s appeasers to prevail in Ukraine and in other parts of Eastern Europe (the Baltic States and Poland), which Putin views as rightful parts of a new Russian empire.

As Faulkner famously put it, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

Myopic Critics. Yet, inexplicably, even critics who heap opprobrium on Carlson and Cooper feel compelled to downplay or deny this obvious fact.

For example, in an otherwise superb takedown of Cooper’s false and inaccurate history, Mark Antonio Wright writes:

I will go ahead and concede at the outset Carlson and Cooper’s complaint that the “Munich 1938: Churchill vs. Chamberlain and the Appeasers” dynamic has been used and abused in the post-war period, often to our detriment. Not every foreign adversary is Adolf Hitler, and not every international negotiation is Munich 1938.

This is obviously true, but Wright concedes too much. He ignores the obvious parallels between Nazi Germany and modern-day Russia. He ignores the echoes of Adolph Hitler in Vladimir Putin. He ignores Russia’s horrific war crimes and attempted genocide of Ukraine.

1930’s Style Appeasement. In truth, Putin’s Russia is attempting to conquer and subjugate Eastern Europe, just as Hitler’s Germany tried to do in the 1930s and ’40s. Then as now we heard all of manner of excuses for appeasing the fascist aggressors. But the appeasers were wrong then and they are wrong today.

As Yale historian Timothy Snyder has observed, our present-day historical moment is similar to that of 1938:

This is 1938, but Czechoslovakia [read: Ukraine] has chosen to fight… So you have an imperfect democracy… [that], when threatened by a larger neighbor [read: Russia], it chooses to resist. In that world, where Czechoslovakia resists, there’s no Second World War.

Snyder’s argument is that we can avoid a great powers war with Russia in Europe if we learn the lesson of the 1930s and stop Russia in Ukraine. A Russia that has subsumed Ukraine, he explains, will be a far more formidable enemy to combat, just as Nazi Germany was a far more formidable enemy to combat after it had subsumed Czechoslovakia.

Modern-Day Appeasers. Carlson and Cooper see this obvious historical parallel even if Wright and other critics choose to ignore it. But unlike most of us, and unlike most historians, Carlson and Cooper don’t care.

They don’t care about Europe, especially Eastern Europe. They believe, erroneously, in a fortress America that can largely ignore what happens in Europe.

Their erstwhile ally, Trump Vice Presidential nominee JD Vance, agrees with them. “I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another,” he said when running for the Senate in 2022.

Indifference and History. But their indifference to the fate of Europe is contrary to the British and American historical experience. It runs counter to our historical understanding. Churchill cared and Franklin Delano Roosevelt cared because they understood that the fate of Britain and the United States is inextricably linked to the fate of Europe.

Carlson and Cooper think differently. That’s why they are attempting, unsuccessfully, to rewrite the history of World War II and to cast Hitler as misunderstood and Churchill as the villain.

The implications of their historical analysis for what is transpiring in Ukraine today are clear and frightening, and we ignore these implications at our peril.

Feature photo credit: Darryl Cooper and Tucker Carlson, courtesy of their online Twitter interview.

Why Kamala Harris Won’t Select PA Gov. Josh Shapiro as Her VP

Why Kamala Harris Won’t Select PA Gov. Josh Shapiro as Her VP

By John R Guardiano on July 23, 2024

Shapiro’s Jewish and pro-Israel, and for a critical mass of Democrats today, that’s disqualifying.

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro is one of the greatest political talents in America today, and he would be the strongest vice presidential nominee for Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party.

Shapiro is a popular and successful governor 18 months into his first term from a critical battleground state, Pennsylvania, that Harris almost certainly must win if she is to win the White House.

Yet, it is beyond certain that Harris will not select Shapiro. Why? Because he’s Jewish, pro-Israel, and has been critical of the pro-Hamas, Jew-hating protests that have rocked some American universities and municipalities ever since the October 7, 2023, massacre of Jews in Israel by invading Palestinian terrorists.

The Democrats’ Divide. As New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg points out, the Democratic Party today is divided between more traditional Democrats who support Israel and more radical, “progressive” Democrats who do not.

“Choosing Shapiro,” she warns, “who is ardently pro-Israel and outspoken in his condemnation of the recent campus protests, would rip those wounds open again.”

CNN’s John King made a similar point when he noted that choosing Shapiro would pose “some risk” to Harris and the Democrats. King did not elaborate or explain what the risk would be, but it is not hard to figure out.

As a pro-Israeli Jew, Shapiro could cost Harris votes in Michigan, another critical battleground state that she needs to win. Michigan is home to a large Muslim immigrant population; and, in these communities, there is, sadly, a lot of Jew hatred.

Their Political Calculation. So, the obvious question is: would Shapiro cost Harris more votes in Michigan than he might gain her there and in other swing states? And is the electoral vote balance more likely than not to be favorable to the Harris if he is the VP nominee?

Moreover, the energy and passion in the Democratic Party, certainly since October 7, is on the pro-Hamas, Jew-hating left. Does nominating Shapiro as VP dampen or extinguish this passion and energy, which Kamala needs for a close, hard-fought campaign?

The hard and difficult truth is that Jew-hating anti-Semites are now an important constituency and activist base within the Democratic Party. Democrats are wary of alienating this constituency because they need its votes and its political activism during the election season.

Congressional Appeasement. Domestic political concerns certainly explain why more than 50 House and Senate Democrats—including Vice President Harris in her Constitutional role as president of the Senate—plan to boycott Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress tomorrow.

Elected Democrats are eager to signal to their anti-Israel, Jew-hating base that they, too, are frustrated and angry with Israel because of its war in Gaza.

Appeasing bigots, of course, is nothing new for the Democratic Party. Democrats did the same thing in the middle of the 20th Century, when the accommodated racists and segregationists as an integral part of their New Deal and Great Society political coalition.

No to Shapiro. So although Shapiro no doubt would appeal to swing voters, independents, and even some Republicans in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, he is too politically toxic for core Democratic constituencies and voting groups—namely, the hard, “progressive” left, which despises Israel, and the Jew-hating anti-Semitic left, which despises Jews.

Will this change over time? Maybe, but maybe not.

What is certain is that, in 2024, Shapiro has no future in the Democratic Party. He will have to wait at least four years (and probably longer) before Democrats will ever consider him for national political office. His selection as VP ain’t happening this time around, in 2024.

Feature photo credit: Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, courtesy of the Palm Beach Post (Kathryne Rubright).