July 4, 2021

If you thought that all of the white nationalist House Republicans were gone after Steve King was ousted from Congress in 2020, then think again.

Earlier this week, it was revealed that Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) will be doing a fundraising event with Nick Fuentes, host of the “America First with Nicholas J. Fuentes” episodic livestream, who has notoriously made antisemitic, racist, and sexist comments. Fuentes has been designated as a white nationalist by the Department of Justice. Lest one believes that my description of him is an exaggeration—and that Fuentes is merely a controversial, yet ultimately reasonable, figure—all they must do is watch the video of him denying the Holocaust or calling Matt Walsh, a conservative commentator who works for Ben Shapiro, a “shabbos goy race traitor.” Fuentes has also expressed the belief that racial segregation in the U.S. was a good thing and that women should not be allowed to vote.

That Rep. Gosar, a sitting member of the U.S. House of Representatives—who has subsequently denied having any knowledge of the upcoming fundraising event—has decided to associate with Fuentes and his bigotry is extraordinarily concerning. It should be condemned not only by elected Republicans, but also by anyone who identifies as a conservative, for one critical reason: a conservative embrace of Nick Fuentes would discredit and doom the movement. That Fuentes should be condemned simply on the basis of his bigoted language and views goes without saying. But in the context of what it means for conservatives to embrace someone who holds such despicable views, the stakes are even higher.

If conservatives want to fight for a better country—one where we champion limited government, free markets, strong communities, and equal opportunity—then it is thoroughly counterproductive to allow Fuentes and his followers a seat at the table.

No rational person should take seriously a movement that makes room for people who long for the days of racial segregation. If Republicans and conservatives want any chance at regaining the support of moderate and suburban voters—the exact people who have been recently shifting ever-more to the left—then alienating them by embracing the fringes is not helpful in any way.

If Republicans and conservatives want any chance at regaining the support of moderate and suburban voters—the exact people who have been recently shifting ever-more to the left—then alienating them by embracing the fringes is not helpful in any way.

While some populist conservatives say that we do not need those voters to succeed electorally—they envision a new multiracial coalition that is united against “the elites”—accommodating legitimate and obvious racism could also stand to drive away those voters as well. After all, it is pretty hard to have a “multiracial coalition” when white nationalists are not unequivocally condemned.

This is not to say that conservatives should not be bold in our rhetoric and policy prescriptions—we should. Rather, it is simply to argue that overt racists and antisemites are neither a part of the conservative vision nor helpful to our success.

Some people who are critical of this idea (the president of the New York Young Republicans Club, Gavin Wax, for example) will contend that stigmatizing Fuentes and Rep. Gosar would mean playing the left’s game for them. They argue that conservatives should not be the business of canceling people with whom we disagree, and it is not necessary to agree entirely with someone in order to allow them into our movement.

However, it is important to note that keeping Fuentes and his supporters out of the conservative movement is not an enactment of “cancel culture.” In fact, to believe that this is a prime example of cancel culture in action would be to have a fundamental misunderstanding about what cancel culture actually is.

Every movement and society has certain limits to what speech we consider socially acceptable. The real question is about where those lines should be drawn. Conservative critics of cancel culture are correct that the window of acceptable speech—the Overton Window—has become far too narrow in our political culture and national institutions, to the point that it is excluding mainstream conservative voices and even left-leaning heterodox voices. But the answer to an overly restricted Overton Window is not to get rid of it completely. The truth is that in the same way that it is dangerous to compress the window of acceptable speech too far, it would be equally foolish to believe that there should be no limit whatsoever.

In today’s society, it should not be supremely controversial to suggest that white nationalism should fall outside of our limits of socially acceptable ideas. U.S. history since the 1960s has been, in part, characterized by a country-wide reckoning with our discriminatory and racist past. To believe that voices who advocate a retrogression to those backward times should be given just as much legitimacy as any other view is absurd.

Moreover, those views are an affront to our most deeply held beliefs as Americans. In our Declaration of Independence, Jefferson writes that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Nothing being pushed by Fuentes or his “groypers” lives up to this founding ideal.

Conservatives have the ability to shape a bright future for our country. But if we discredit ourselves with outdated and immoral ideologies and people, then nobody should be surprised when we find ourselves on the losing side of the battle for America’s soul.

Jack Elbaum is a rising sophomore at The George Washington University. His writing has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, and Newsweek. You can contact him at jackelbaum16@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @Jack_Elbaum.