The Heritage Foundation’s Struggle Session

“Christ First, America Always, and open debate free from cancelation!” That’s what Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, said should be the three pillars of authentic right-wing conservatism, in a video where he defended his friend, Tucker Carlson, who is under attack for the crime of having a conversation with a fellow native-born American about what is in America’s national interests.

Tucker Carlson interviewed right-wing influencer Nick Fuentes on his show in late October. The outrage mob responded predictably by calling for Carlson’s head.

Kevin Roberts quickly defended Carlson in a two-minute video. Roberts said his loyalty was to “Christ first, and America always,” that he had no intention of canceling Carlson or Fuentes. He added that “the venomous coalition” attacking Carlson is “sowing division,” and “their attempts to cancel him will fail.”

In these remarks, Kevin Roberts took conservative rhetoric about the sanctity of the free exchange of ideas seriously. Unfortunately, he would soon learn that this puts him in the minority.

Upon seeing Roberts’s video, nearly every member of the conservative chattering class followed the same script: First, sing a paean to the free exchange of ideas, but then distinguish Carlson’s interview as flattery, or even tacit endorsement, of Fuentes—not a genuine free exchange.

“I am all for dragging these bad ideas out into the sunlight for full exposure,” said Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon, on the Piers Morgan Show. “But Tucker Carlson is not pushing back and denouncing these bad ideas, he is mainstreaming them. He is not confronting them.”

Carlson, according to Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire, “decided it was important to smooth over Fuentes’ views, water them down, and make them more palatable for a general audience.” Shapiro characterized this as “fluffing” and “glossing,” as opposed to engaging in a true free exchange of ideas.

Conservatism Inc. commentators, of course, rarely put their money where their mouths are.

When libertarian comedian Dave Smith invited Seth Dillon to “give it a shot” and interview Fuentes himself, Dillon quickly changed the subject. Ben Shapiro did the same when Megyn Kelly confronted him with a clip of Tucker Carlson’s response to his critics. “Interview Fuentes yourself,” said Tucker. “I’ll give you his cell and you can interview him as you like.” Shapiro has yet to take Carlson up on that offer.

If these Solons of conservatism believed their own script, they would all show Tucker how it’s done and interview Fuentes themselves. That they refuse to do so shows they do not believe their own claptrap about a free exchange of ideas.

When Kevin Roberts distinguished himself as a true defender of free exchange, and enemy of cancel culture, Conservatism Inc. pounced.

Ben Shapiro indicted Roberts for “betraying the principles and history of the Heritage Foundation” by defending Carlson’s “fluffing” of Fuentes.

Noah Rothman, senior writer at National Review, accused Roberts of “evading direct engagement with the subject by swearing off cancel culture.” Roberts, according to Rothman, “is arguing against a point no one made.”

Rothman’s old boss and podcast cohost, John Podhoretz, devoted an entire episode of the Commentary magazine podcast to Roberts’ statement. “I don’t like him [Roberts] saying we’re trying to cancel Tucker or Nick Fuentes,” Podhoretz clarified. “I want them ostracized. I want them removed from the conversation.” Gee whiz, what a distinction!

In a previous episode of the Commentary podcast, Podhoretz explained ostracism, “where a person is cast out of a community which in the ancient days of ostracism, in nomadic tent life, you were basically being put to death.” Podhoretz continues, “fear of ostracism was a fear of death.” Yikes!

Podhoretz’s distinction between ostracism and cancelation is absurd. Cancelation implies ostracism from polite society, which entails conversations in the public square—like the one had between Carlson and Fuentes. 

Conservative podcaster Dana Loesch hilariously said, while interviewing Roberts, “I don’t think anyone wants to cancel Tucker Carlson.” She evidently doesn’t follow the Commentary podcast. When Roberts began pushing back against that manifestly absurd claim, Loesch pivoted back to Carlson’s words.

According to Dana Loesch, Tucker Carlson was the venomous one “sowing division” by characterizing Christian Zionism as a “heresy.” This claim is equally absurd.

Recognizing a pre-existing division is not creating it. Like Catholicism versus Protestantism, the division between mainline Christianity and Christian Zionism predates Tucker Carlson.

As disingenuous as Conservatism Inc.’s criticism was, the pressure they exerted was palpable.

Reports of turmoil within Heritage circulated as several high-profile staffers resigned. Commentators speculated whether Heritage board members would withdraw donations, or remove Roberts. Internal leaks poured out of Heritage about staffers’ disgust with their head honcho.

Roberts called an emergency all-staff meeting, which was filmed and subsequently leaked to the press. Roberts apologized to the entire Heritage staff for his supposedly horrific words and then opened the floor for comments and concerns.

What transpired was a lengthy struggle session where one Conservatism Inc. veteran after another denounced Roberts for his defense of Carlson, berated him for allowing Carlson and company into the conservative movement, and implored him to expel Carlson and company from the movement as soon as possible—just as Bill Buckley expelled the Birchers.

One member of Heritage’s anti-Semitism task force politely but sternly informed Roberts that half the words he used while defending Carlson were, in fact, anti-Semitic—Go figure. This is particularly rich, because the man who established the anti-Semitism task force was none other than … Kevin Roberts.

Roberts, after this lengthy browbeating, limped back to his office to film an apology video. He apologized for all the anti-Semitism that he unknowingly put into his earlier video, and for failing to challenge his friend Tucker Carlson.

It is unlikely that this apology will stop the hue and cry, especially when Roberts never issued a clear disavowal of Carlson and, indeed, referred to Carlson as “my friend, Tucker Carlson.”

Apologizing was not the correct response, primarily because Roberts did nothing wrong, secondarily because apologies encourage, rather than satisfy, grievance mongers.

Roberts would do well to watch Mark Levin’s rant at the recent Republican Jewish Coalition retreat. Levin cited a litany of alleged anti-Semites who, according to him, need canceling—his term—which includes Tucker Carlson, but also Roberts’ hero Pat Buchanan.

Even if—especially if—Roberts throws Carlson to the wolves, the canceling will not end there; it will continue, and Roberts will spend the rest of his career canceling one friend and hero after another. It is likely that Roberts will be forced to further kowtow to grievance mongers by funding more task forces designed to avenge their perceived slights, which will only perpetuate cancel culture (the racism and transphobia task forces will demand more public sacrifices). 

There is, however, still time for Roberts to avert this dark fate.

Roberts should reaffirm his initial defense of Tucker Carlson. He should do this not simply to save his own skin or a political movement, but to save America. Indeed, if native-born Americans cannot have frank discussions about what constitutes America’s national interests, then America is no longer a sovereign country.

Furthermore, if anyone objects to us—native-born Americans—discussing or debating what constitutes our national interests, they are not one of us. Just as Bruce Jenner will never be a real woman, they will never be a real American. You may consider that hurtful or racist or sexist or anti-Semitic or whatever, but guess what? Facts don’t care about your feelings. 

https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/the-heritage-foundations-struggle-session