Image: Shutterstock.com
The Democrats have been in a panic survival mode ever since Joe Biden faded into a vegetative state, Kamala Harris seemed like the perpetual entitled DUI case who would yell “Do you know who I am?” and Taylor Swift could not make a dent into the cultural shift that was taking place.
The right was thriving on testosterone and a plain “I’m always right because daddy knows best” debating style. Obviously the next strategy of the left would have been to use the disagreements within the right against them plus the testosterone-driven, borderline narcissistic “I’m always right” debating techniques.
The most radical rightwingers right now are playing into the hands of the left. And more people are intensifying the effects by using or tolerating bad debating techniques. Very ironic to see men behaving even worse than just simple dogs trying to out-dominate each other with copy&paste pseudo-arguments. They often behave the same way they accuse many/all women of behaving: Emotional, irrational, entitled, and playing the victim.
One Coalition, Many Worlds
American conservatism has always been a coalition rather than a creed: libertarians and traditionalists, religious populists and business elites, national security hawks and localist federalists. For most of the post‑war period, that coalition functioned under a fusionist peace: low taxes and limited government for libertarians; anti‑communism and social order for traditionalists; strong defense for hawks; constitutionalism for everyone. That peace required boundary maintenance—explicit excommunication of extremist factions and a shared rhetoric of constitutional loyalty. Today those boundaries are porous, and the right contains unresolved, often explosive disagreements on first principles:
- How Hitler and the Nazis are viewed.
- What to make of the “Jewish world conspiracy” mythology.
- Preference for a free republic versus an authoritarian state.
- Women’s rights and social roles.
- White‑power ideology versus a pluralist, civic nationalism.
These disputes are not merely academic. They shape candidate selection, media incentives, donor strategies, and the movement’s moral credibility. They have weakened conservatism by splintering its audiences, sabotaging persuasion, and corroding institutional trust within the coalition itself. This essay maps each fault line, reconstructs the internal debates, and explains why the discourse has often been unproductive or dysfunctional, producing mutual delegitimations and a politics of permanent crisis.
I. The Spectrum of the American Right: A Quick Topography
Before addressing each fault line, it helps to outline the main families on the right and how they historically related to these questions.
- Fusionist Conservatives (Post‑war, “Buckleyite”): Free markets, anti‑communism, personal virtue; explicit repudiation of fringe racism and authoritarian sympathies.
- Religious Conservatives (Christian Right): Pro‑life, family policy, education control, sexual ethics rooted in scripture; views on race vary; strong skepticism of Nazism’s paganism and statism.
- Libertarians: Civil liberties, free enterprise, skepticism toward state power at home and abroad; typically anti‑authoritarian, anti‑racial collectivism.
- Neoconservatives: Militant anti‑totalitarianism, democracy promotion abroad, pro‑Israel; culturally moderate to conservative; opposed to antisemitism and Nazism categorically.
- Paleoconservatives: Emphasis on tradition, regionalism, immigration restriction, foreign‑policy restraint; internal variation on race and ethnonational narratives.
- National Conservatives / Populist Right: Economic nationalism, strong executive, culture‑war maximalism; heterodox on markets; ambivalent about procedural restraints.
- Alt‑Right / Explicit White Nationalists: Internet‑native movement valorizing hierarchy, race consciousness, and often flirtation with fascist aesthetics; openly hostile to classical liberalism and fusionism.
These families overlap and shift, but the typology clarifies why disagreements about Nazism, Jewish conspiracy myths, regime type, women, and race tend to activate different moral languages and produce cross‑accusations of betrayal.
II. How Hitler and the Nazis Are Viewed: Memory Wars on the Right
1) The Post‑war Conservative Settlement: Never Again, Never That
From the 1950s onward, the mainstream right defined itself against totalitarianism—communist and fascist. William F. Buckley Jr. famously policed the boundaries, ostracizing the John Birch Society for paranoid conspiracism and rejecting any apologias for fascism. This “Buckley Rule” did not only exclude Nazism as a moral abomination; it treated fascist methods—the cult of the leader, paramilitary politics, and ethnicized citizenship—as incompatible with the American constitutional inheritance.
2) The Paleocon and Nationalist Revisionist Temptation
Even within respectable conservatism, some voices re‑interrogated the Second World War settlement: Was interwar liberalism decadent? Did Allied bombing or denazification go too far? Were post‑war trials victor’s justice? Most of these arguments stopped short of Nazi rehabilitation, but they sometimes softened the unique criminality of Nazism, framing it as one more European illiberalism among many. Critics warned that such “revisionism” provided cover for more radical actors.
3) The Alt‑Right Flirtation and Backlash
The alt‑right deliberately trafficked in Nazi memes and aesthetics (swastika‑adjacent iconography, “1488,” “it’s okay to be white” provocations) to “own the libs” and bait mainstream conservatives into reactions it could then mock as “cucked.” In response, the establishment right denounced these aesthetics and sought to revoke platforms. The clash revealed a deeper divide: is liberal democracy itself the enemy? For the alt‑right, Hitler becomes a transgressive symbol of order and hierarchy; for mainstream conservatives, he is the paradigmatic enemy of ordered liberty.
4) Dysfunctional Debate Patterns
- Bad‑faith equivocation: Some nationalist influencers dismiss Nazi comparisons as “hysteria,” then wink at Nazi‑adjacent memes to keep a radical audience engaged—plausible deniability as strategy.
- Over‑reach and label inflation: Some mainstream actors brand any stringent nationalism as “Nazi,” collapsing distinctions and radicalizing the very audiences they hope to shame.
- Algorithmic escalation: Social platforms reward extremity; creators drift toward edgy riffs that blur moral red lines.
Result: Reputational damage to conservative causes; talent drain as serious thinkers refuse to share stages with flirtationists; recruitment of young men into aesthetics of transgression rather than constitutionalism.
III. The “Jewish World Conspiracy” Mythology: From Excommunication to Resurgence and Re‑policing
1) Mainstream Conservative Rejection
The post‑war right’s explicit stance treated antisemitic conspiracy theories as both false and morally repugnant. The movement’s pro‑Israel faction, Jewish conservative intellectuals, and Cold War alliances with Jewish communities reinforced this boundary.
2) Persistent Subcultures
Despite the boundary, subcultures—from militia zines in the 1990s to contemporary online fora—recycled the “Protocols” narrative in modernized forms: “globalists,” “cabal,” “bankers,” “Great Replacement” with Jewish masterminds. Some influencers exploit coded language (triple parentheses, “the bankers”) to signal hostility without explicit slurs.
3) Internal Conflicts and Litmus Tests
- Neoconservative/Christian Right Alliance: Often united in philo‑Semitic posture—religious solidarity with Israel, Holocaust remembrance, and rejection of antisemitic tropes.
- Paleocon/Nationalist Factions: Split between legitimate critiques of elite cosmopolitanism and slippage into ethnicized blame. Some leaders police edges; others tolerate “spicy” followers for reach.
4) Dysfunctional Debate Patterns
- Motte‑and‑bailey rhetoric: Broad critiques of “global elites” retreat to specific Jewish blame in niche channels; when challenged, speakers revert to the “motte” of generic anti‑elitism.
- Cynical platforming: Big‑tent organizers invite controversy merchants for clout, then plead ignorance when antisemitic riffs emerge, normalizing the discourse.
- Purity spirals: Pro‑Israel conservatives equate any criticism of specific Israeli policies with antisemitism; dissidents cry censorship, harden, and some drift toward actual conspiracism.
Result: Erosion of coalition trust; Jewish conservatives disengage; media/general public conflate conservatism with bigotry; recruiting college‑educated talent becomes harder.
IV. Free Republic vs. Authoritarian Temptation: Regime Preference on the Right
1) The Classical Conservative Ideal
American conservatism traditionally defends a constitutional republic—divided powers, federalism, civil liberties, judicial restraint paired with judicial independence, and cultural change mediated through local institutions (churches, schools, voluntary associations). “Order” is pursued within these structures.
2) The Populist Executive Turn
A growing faction embraces a unitary executive vision: a strong president who can override an unaccountable administrative state, use emergency powers broadly, and treat political opponents as existential threats. Some argue that modern liberalism has already weaponized institutions; therefore the right must respond in kind or lose the polity.
3) The Illiberal Minority
At the edge, a small but noisy set rejects liberal republicanism outright, favoring “Caesarism,” “integralism,” or a “post‑liberal” settlement that curtails pluralism to impose a comprehensive moral order. They valorize the efficiency of command over the frictions of consent.
4) Dysfunctional Debate Patterns
- False dichotomies: Critics of administrative sprawl are accused of fascism; defenders of constitutional brakes are accused of cowardice. Nuance—targeted reform without authoritarianism—gets drowned.
- Ends‑justify‑means moralism: Culture‑war stakes are described as apocalyptic; any institutional norm can be sacrificed for victory, poisoning future governance.
- Movement incentives: Donor and media ecosystems reward maximalist rhetoric; cautious institutionalists lose airtime and primaries.
Result: The right’s traditional rule‑of‑law brand decays; moderate voters fear authoritarian drift; constitutional reform proposals lose plausibility amid revolutionary talk.
V. Women’s Rights vs. Restrictive Roles: Gender as a Coalition Breaker
1) Shared Core and Divergence
Most of the right unites around pro‑life commitments and skepticism toward radical gender ideology. Divergences arise over women’s civic equality beyond abortion: workplace roles, education, family policy, and autonomy.
- Mainstream social conservatives defend equal dignity with distinct roles, favor family‑supportive policy (child tax credits, flexible work, parental leave via market or policy innovation).
- Libertarians prioritize non‑discrimination and voluntary arrangements.
- Traditionalist radicals romanticize patriarchal structures, oppose women in leadership, and minimize marital rape and domestic‑violence concerns as “feminist exaggerations.”
2) Post‑Dobbs Shockwaves
After the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, intramural disputes intensified over exceptions, criminalization, and support structures for mothers/children. Harsh rhetoric alienated suburban voters, while incrementalists were attacked as sellouts.
3) Dysfunctional Debate Patterns
- Signal vs. substance: Some factions prefer performative hard lines (total bans, punitive framing) over building durable majorities via support policies and exceptions; others overcorrect by minimizing core convictions.
- Online misogyny: A small but viral manosphere injects contempt for women into conservative discourse, tarring the broader movement.
- Litmus escalation: Every compromise becomes betrayal; coalition shrinkage follows.
Result: Electoral underperformance among women and independents; reputational damage; policy advances vulnerable to backlash.
VI. White Power vs. Civic Pluralism: Race and the Right’s Identity Crisis
1) The Fusionist Civic Nationalism
Post‑1960s mainstream conservatism adopted color‑blind, civic nationalism: equal citizenship, individual rights, opportunity via markets and culture, skepticism of racial preferences, and emphasis on social capital (family, church, work). This stance permitted a multiracial coalition.
2) The White‑Identity Reassertion
A fringe—and sometimes more—argues that demographic change ensures conservative defeat unless the right embraces white identity as a mobilizing principle. They reject color‑blindness as naïve and advocate explicit ethnopolitics.
3) Institutional Balancing Acts
Republican strategists seek working‑class multiethnic gains while placating segments fearful of cultural displacement. Policy debates over immigration, policing, and DEI become identity proxies.
4) Dysfunctional Debate Patterns
- Evasion and ambiguity: Leaders issue dog‑whistles to appease white‑identity activists while delivering inclusive messages elsewhere—breeding distrust on all sides.
- Over‑policing vs. denial: Some institutions purge anyone who questions DEI orthodoxy as racist; others deny any racism exists—both positions stifle credible problem‑solving.
- Grievance entrepreneurship: Influencers monetize outrage, ensuring permanent mobilization rather than coalition growth.
Result: Messaging incoherence; lost opportunities among minorities open to conservative economics/culture; media narratives fixate on fringe racism, overshadowing policy work.
VII. Why These Disagreements Weaken Conservatism: Mechanics of Self‑Sabotage
1) Fragmented Media Ecosystem and Incentive Misalignment
Right‑leaning media is disintermediated: cable, talk radio, podcasts, micro‑influencers. The economic logic rewards niche extremity and constant crisis, not coalition‑building. This splinters the audience into mutually suspicious tribes that punish compromise.
2) Donor and Primary Dynamics
Small‑dollar fundraising thrives on anger; major donors favor ideological purity or narrow policy wins. Primaries incentivize punching right/left rather than persuading the median voter. Internal disagreements become performances for patrons and base segments.
3) Organizational Decay and Trust Deficits
Think tanks, advocacy groups, and parties struggle to arbitrate disputes credibly. Veterans of movement institutions see boundary policing as necessary; insurgents brand it as gatekeeping. Mutual delegitimization replaces chartered mechanisms for sorting claims.
4) Intellectual Shortcuts and Myth‑Making
Conspiracy myths and Nazi‑adjacent aesthetics offer easy explanations and identity thrills; they displace serious policy. Debates devolve into symbol fights instead of institutional reforms.
5) Electoral Costs
Swing constituencies—suburban women, independents, upwardly mobile minorities—react badly to authoritarian talk, anti‑woman rhetoric, and racial tribalism. The movement’s policy brand is crowded out by its worst messengers.
VIII. Case Vignettes: How the Fights Played Out
1) Bircherism and Buckley’s Excommunication
In the 1960s, Buckley confronted the John Birch Society’s conspiracy claims, publicly exiling them to preserve credibility. The move cost short‑term activists but built a governing‑grade coalition. Today, similar policing is hesitant, fearing base backlash.
2) The Alt‑Right Surge (2015–2017)
As online platforms amplified edgelords, mainstream conservatives underestimated the reputational risk of sharing stages. The Charlottesville debacle forced belated separations, but damage lingered—media painted broad conservatism with the alt‑right brush.
3) Post‑Dobbs Realignment
Differences on abortion strategy exploded. States that paired restrictions with support policies (prenatal care, adoption streamlining) fared better; those that pursued maximal bans without messaging discipline encountered backlash.
4) Immigration Rhetoric vs. Policy
Hard rhetoric energized a base but alienated immigrant‑origin voters otherwise open to conservative cultural messages. Where GOP coalitions advanced a law‑and‑order + opportunity frame, gains were measurable; where race‑tinged language dominated, they stalled.
IX. Toward Productive Debate: Principles for a Functional Right
The right’s disagreements need not be fatal. But productive discourse requires guardrails.
- Reaffirm non‑negotiables: No flirtation with Nazism; no antisemitic conspiracy myths; constitutional supremacy; civic equality. Make excommunication predictable, not performative.
- Separate policy from aesthetics: Do not reward Nazi‑adjacent trolling with attention. Starve moral exhibitionism of oxygen; elevate substantive reformers.
- Institutionalize intra‑movement adjudication: Create cross‑faction councils that set standards for events, endorsements, and coalitions—transparent criteria, published decisions.
- Invest in women‑forward conservatism: Pair pro‑life aims with support infrastructure (childcare pluralism, workplace flexibility, maternal health), and police misogynistic rhetoric.
- Commit to civic nationalism: Pursue border security and law enforcement without ethnic essentialism; tell a multiethnic success story consistent with conservative virtues.
- Debate regime reform responsibly: Channel administrative‑state critique into legal, constitutional routes; resist authoritarian shortcuts. Fight for durable rules, not just wins.
- Fix incentives: Reward persuasion content; use donor leverage to defund outrage grifters; build platforms for policy craftsmanship.
X. Conclusion: Choose Standards or Be Chosen by Algorithms
American conservatism’s power has always flowed from its ability to marshal moral seriousness: limited government, civic virtue, and the dignity of the person under the rule of law. The contemporary right is losing that center as internal fights over Nazism, antisemitic conspiracy myths, regime type, gender, and race become identity theater. These disagreements are not only moral liabilities; they are strategic self‑owns that suppress coalition growth, forfeit persuadables, and invite state and corporate pushback.
The movement has a choice. It can set explicit standards, police them consistently, rebuild a credible civic nationalism, and debate hard policy without lapsing into authoritarian temptation. Or it can continue to oscillate between performative radicalism and defensive denial, letting algorithms, grifters, and outrage economics define what conservatism is to the country. The former path is hard—and slower. The latter ends in a smaller, angrier movement that wins internet skirmishes but loses the republic it claims to conserve.
