Larry, You know I have the utmost respect for you. I am not going to tell you that you are wrong; you are entitled to your opinion. I am, however, going to explain mine—not to be confused with Joel’s, whose opinion on this topic I don’t speak for. I just hope you will hear me out and think about what I am saying. We can agree to disagree on this and that is okay. I just hope you will look at this from my perspective before you decide. Conservatism is not just belonging to the same coalition. Conservatism, as I see it, is a commitment to constitutional government, individual liberty, equal citizenship, and limits on political power. We believe in enumerated powers. Not enumerated virtues. We believe in limited government. We believe in America—a country founded as a covenantal constitutional republic where our rights come from God. Not government. Someone’s history of fighting the Left, or even championing conservative causes for their entire life, does not determine whether they are fighting for those same causes today. The reputation of a publication and the conservative voices it employs explain why people trusted it. But they never warrant blind trust. Dismissing the substance of someone’s argument because they are agnostic or because they used to vote for Democrats distorts moral judgment. Leviticus 19:15 commands impartial judgment, and Deuteronomy 16:19 forbids distorting justice through favoritism. We cannot demand protection against our opponents’ abuses while excusing the same abuses when our allies commit them. Political allegiance does not exempt us from God’s standard of justice. Allegiance, and even years of fighting common causes with people who claim to be the true defenders of Christianity, family, and nation, do not place their claims beyond scrutiny. That scrutiny applies to every claim, not just claims from people outside our coalition. Criticizing the Left is not enough. Past service establishes neither the truth of present arguments nor the legitimacy of current conduct. The question is: what are these people defending today? Yes, we all have the Left in common, but that is not enough. If it were, we would have accepted white nationalists like Richard Spencer and David Duke into our ranks long ago. We would also accept Dugin, multipolarity, capital-T Traditionalism, Catholic integralism, and full-blown Christian nationalism like that espoused by Joel Webbon. We don’t accept those people and ideas, do we? Some profess Christianity. Others share our opposition to the Left. Neither establishes agreement about what we should conserve. We may even agree with some of what they believe, but we have never supported them. Why? Because we fundamentally disagree with them on what we want to conserve: freedom, liberty, and equality. Individual rights. Freedom of speech. The jurisdictional boundary around the human conscience. My faith is of the utmost importance to me. I know Christianity is true. I want everyone to find Christ. But someone’s disbelief in God does not invalidate evidence he produces about a political movement. His unbelief does not erase the things he says that are true. Likewise, professing belief in God does not make someone truthful, conservative, or morally righteous. Jesus explicitly warns in Matthew 7:21–23 that invoking His name is not the same as doing His Father’s will. James 2:19 makes clear that acknowledging God’s existence is insufficient. Christianity itself gives us reasons to reject religious profession as a substitute for examining conduct and ideas, no matter who presents them. Constitutional conservatism requires more than defeating Democrats. It requires an account of legitimate government: what power may do, what it may never do, and which rights remain protected when exercising those rights inconveniences the governing coalition. I have fundamental disagreements with what many people in the “New Right” believe—and, even worse, what they try to pass off as conservatism. I can give you many examples. I would be happy to talk to you about this offline as well, but I will give you one I think is crucial. Tucker Carlson has done more damage to the conservative movement in the last two years than anyone on the Left could have dreamed of. He has spewed Russian propaganda for two years and waged war against Christian Zionists. He has called us a brain virus and heretics, and painted us as responsible for genocide. He has made a mockery of Charlie Kirk’s legacy. He has peddled every lunatic antisemitic conspiracy theory and brought on supposed conservatives who have proceeded to trash Cruz, Huckabee, Trump, Bondi, Hegseth, Johnson, Graham, and conservative after conservative who is pro-Israel. He has elevated Candace, Fuentes, and J.D. Vance. He has elevated Deneen, postliberalism, and esoteric occultism. The people who refuse to call him out—even after his newsletter supported El-Sayed, and after he said he would never vote for Republicans, wanted them to lose, and called Trump the Antichrist—are Sean Davis and Mollie Hemingway. Look through their history. They have been silent on Tucker and his two-year campaign of destruction against conservatives who believe in Israel’s right to exist. Sean Davis attacks people who point this out as running an op against J.D. Vance. Mollie weighed in to help eviscerate James Lindsay because he and so many other pro-Israel conservatives here were outraged after NatCon speeches in which we were lectured by people who had not spoken out about Tucker. You should listen to them for yourself. I have spent two years fighting against antisemitism and for the truth about Israel, only to be called a Groyper follower of James Lindsay. For what? For calling them out on their hypocrisy. Do you think I am a Groyper? Someone who blindly follows cults of personality? James Lindsay has pointed this out and brought the receipts: the theories, political influences, and concrete examples of how conservatives had somehow morphed into anything but. He’s not the only one. Many of us here scream about it into the void. Sean Davis has explicitly framed criticism of Tucker as an op against Vance. Mollie Hemingway has done the same. How does one reconcile that? I have included one-hundredth of the things many of us have been opposing for two years. I have so much to say on this topic and how unfairly it is portrayed—not by you, but by an entire cohort of people who are choosing to use their reputations and earned trust to avoid standing up against something I think will tear the Right in two, while turning on those of us who, at great cost, wake up every day and fight back. Look at what Yoram Hazony has said to me. Do you think I am a Groyper? Do you think I am not a conservative? There is a subset of people riding their goodwill to change the conservative movement, hoping no one will notice. That is their right, but they should at least do it honestly. A lasting movement needs a positive vision for America: constitutional government, equal citizenship, protected conscience, truthful institutions, and authority constrained even when our preferred candidates win. An alliance organized solely around defeating the Left cannot supply those foundations. Without them, its direction will depend on whichever personality commands the most loyalty. A house built on a rotten foundation will fall, and the people attacking Levin, Cruz, Huckabee, and even Trump himself are undermining that foundation. Some of us have been warning about this transformation for two years; others much longer. I have been one of them. Understanding it requires examining what people defend now. A reputation earned two years ago cannot answer for today’s arguments, and yesterday’s allies cannot decide which principles we are permitted to defend tomorrow. We should challenge destructive ideas within our movement. We should expect respected publications and personalities to answer substantive criticism. If we do not have the wherewithal to criticize our allies, when are they are repeatedly wrong we have already lost as a movement.