OPINION:
What once lurked on the margins now claims the center. Tucker Carlson’s friendly interview with Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes was not journalism. It was the normalization of hatred.
Mr. Fuentes used Mr. Carlson’s platform to rail against “organized Jewry,” praise Josef Stalin and revive the oldest conspiracies about Jews and power. Mr. Carlson nodded and smiled while Mr. Fuentes spoke. He agreed that supporters of Israel suffer from a “brain virus.”
That moment mattered far beyond Mr. Carlson’s studio.
The Heritage Foundation, one of America’s most respected conservative institutions, refused to denounce it. Kevin Roberts, its president, defended Mr. Carlson and attacked a “venomous coalition” of critics. He said the controversy involved pressure on Christians to show “loyalty to Israel.” It did not. It involved moral judgment.
The word “venomous” itself carries an ugly echo. For centuries, antisemites have depicted Jews as serpents, poisoning societies from within. From medieval blood libels to the serpent imagery of Nazi propaganda, that metaphor turned an ancient biblical story into a weapon. To hear a modern leader invoke it while defending a man who platformed a Holocaust denier is not only careless but also chilling.
For me, this is personal. I grew up in Washington political life around Heritage. We young Reaganites saw Heritage’s Mandate for Leadership as the instruction manual for the Reagan Revolution. When I later interned on Capitol Hill and then served as a young staffer in the George H.W. Bush administration, I spent countless hours at Heritage events, lectures and policy discussions. It felt like a second home, a place that honored ideas, debate and integrity.
In the years after 9/11, I again found myself in its conference rooms and strategy sessions as Heritage served as a hub of planning and resolve in a new era of American leadership. More recently, I welcomed a renewed partnership through work on the Abraham Accords and efforts to confront antisemitism. That makes its current descent even more painful to watch.
Heritage’s decision to defend Mr. Carlson marks a dangerous turning point. An organization that once modeled moral seriousness now tolerates moral confusion. The one that built its reputation on defending Western civilization now aligns itself with those who undermine it.
This controversy is not about free speech. Messrs. Carlson and Fuentes may say whatever offensive things they please. The real question is whether serious institutions will elevate them. Heritage spoke in defense of the indefensible. By portraying outrage over antisemitism as an attack on Christianity, it turned truth inside out and gave legitimacy to anti-Jewish racism.
Conservatism once understood the need for moral boundaries. William F. Buckley Jr. drew those boundaries when he exiled the John Birch Society, Patrick J. Buchanan and other antisemites from the movement. He knew that a philosophy unwilling to protect its own perimeter would destroy itself.
Too many self-proclaimed defenders of tradition have forgotten that lesson. They confuse grievance with conviction and call cowardice courage. Their creed of “no enemies to the right” is not strength; it is surrender.
Some have tried to reframe this moment as a fight against “cancel culture.” That argument is hollow. Drawing moral lines defines character. Refusing to draw them defines collapse.
The results are already visible. Antisemitism, once confined to the fringe, now circulates in right-wing chatrooms, youth movements and think tanks. Bigotry poses as authenticity. The word “globalist” replaces “Jew.” Hatred pretends to be patriotism.
This creeping moral fog has consumed some of the very institutions once known for clarity. Heritage, which helped define American conservatism for half a century, now stands at the center of that fog.
It pains me to say it, but a relationship that began for me over four decades ago now stands on the edge of breaking. If Heritage cannot right its ship, that long relationship will end. Institutions that trade moral clarity for populist rage do not endure. They go the way of the Liberty Lobby and Lyndon LaRouche, into the ash heap of irrelevance and hate.
Heritage can still change course. It can declare that Carlson’s indulgence of antisemitism violated every conservative ideal. It can acknowledge that Mr. Roberts’ defense of him disgraced the institution. It can reaffirm that fighting antisemitism is not partisan but civilizational.
That change requires more than press releases or personnel shifts. It demands repentance and a public acknowledgment that Heritage damaged its credibility and must rebuild it through action.
Mr. Roberts now faces his defining test. Leadership means correcting your own, not flattering them. It requires loyalty to truth before loyalty to tribe. It means rejecting those who praise Adolf Hitler because moral integrity leaves no alternative.
Heritage once produced that kind of leadership. Its founders believed that ideas shape history and that principled conservatism must stand against tyranny, relativism and hate. That legacy will survive only if Heritage chooses to do so again.
Antisemitism is not a culture war argument. It is a civilizational toxin. Every society that tolerates it eventually collapses under its own weight. The same fate awaits any political movement that excuses it.
Mr. Roberts and Heritage must decide whether they still believe in moral clarity. They can stand for decency, admit error and reaffirm that antisemitism never belongs in conservative thought. Or they can let their silence define them as collaborators in decline.
The choice is plain, and the world is watching.
• William C. Daroff was the chairman of Ohio Young Americans for Freedom in the 1980s and is currently CEO of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the recognized central coordinating body representing 50 diverse national Jewish organizations on issues of national and international concern. Follow him on X at @Daroff.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.