The Civil War on the Right
An objective explanation of our conflict
On Monday, Ben Shapiro released a comprehensive condemnation of Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes on his show. The latest in a series of intra-conservative bickering, you may wonder why–in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the ensuing unity that followed–the Republican Party has devolved into a conflict with itself. Let me explain.
The conservative movement’s civil war is a struggle between a declining institutional establishment and an insurgent populist culture reshaping the future identity of the American right. This fight did not begin with Nick Fuentes or Tucker Carlson. Though high-profile, the interview is merely the latest front in a sweeping ideological conflict within the conservative movement, and there have been numerous flashpoints in 2025 alone.
There exist two parallel political societies in the conservative movement. There is the definitive Old Right, which is mainly every major conservative figure who was shaped by pre-Trump politics and still views the world through that lens, and the New Right, which is anyone who sees and operates under the changes in political reality since Trump was first elected. Not every conservative exists squarely within one of these two camps, but there are numerous major figures who do.
These two groups are True Believers of their respective worldviews. Because of this, they function as political adversaries, yelling past each other indefinitely. Neither will be convinced by the other. Importantly, the New Right has a significant advantage in political momentum. Their view of politics is more effective post-2016, and they are not burdened by an extensive legacy to justify.
The Old Right, on the other hand, has more institutional power. They consist mainly of people who “played the game” for decades, occupying think tanks and beltway institutions, radio shows and legacy media. This has been a historical advantage for projecting their views to the public, but also leaves them with a multi-decade legacy which they must justify.
It is this legacy that is problematic. Every war for influence begins with legitimate grievance, and you would be naive to suggest that the New Right does not have legitimate grievances with the Old Right. The common refrain is “what use was your conservatism” or “what have you conserved.” The Old Right held institutional power for decades, yet over the last 10-20 years, from losing cultural ground on marriage and education to failed opposition against Obamacare, the traditional conservative resistance has proven ineffective and, in some cases, counterproductive. The most prominent example: despite huge efforts to do so, they were totally incapable of preventing the rise of Trump.
Facing this conflict, the Old Right has tried to retain its influence and relevance. Unfortunately for the Old Right, their power is concentrated in legacy institutions which are rapidly losing market share. The rise of social media, independent media, and an entire new demographic of politically involved Americans has led to a structural decrease in their influence. Indeed, I believe that new forms of media are already of equal relevance to legacy media in modern politics, and this trend is likely to continue unless both types find innovative ways to work together.
This fight to retain influence leads the Old Right to fall back on an old playbook: in their attempt to combat the influence of rising figures, or excise legitimate tumors such as antisemitism, or counter false narratives, they deploy their institutional megaphones to decry voices on the New Right. There are multiple problems with this.
First, this is stylistically similar to the Left’s cancel culture, where puritanical excesses have delegitimized accountability. On the Left, they’ve canceled people for “microaggressions” while letting those chanting “from the river to the sea” roam free on campuses. Similarly, establishment conservatives’ purity purges, like demanding public outcry for figures like Matt Walsh for not toeing the line, are a core part of the reason they will fail. New Right conservatives view this as part of the legacy of the Old Right’s failures, and resent them for it.
Second, and equally as important, the Old Right does not adequately understand the new spectrum of conservative thought, and ultimately, does not truly understand the New Right. They frequently make sweeping generalizations in their condemnation, which dilutes impact and turns otherwise sympathetic voices against them. Oftentimes, these condemnations are seen as major overreactions and do not garner as much support as years past. Indeed, some of the figures they decry are not even truly of the New Right, yet they are treated as a binary evil all the same.
This overreaction cycle is self-reinforcing. Each scornful tweet or monologue degrades their support among young conservatives, who see it as “boomer scolding.” This demographic is driven by Rogan-style podcasts, bubbling cultural anger, and traditional views on masculinity, not white papers or Fox News segments. Worse, they seem to lack younger transformational figures. There’s no “young Ben Shapiro” because the spark—edgy, viral, unscripted—demands escaping the Old Right’s filter bubble. Associate with it and you’re tainted by association: irrelevant, out-of-touch, and (most importantly) complicit in past failures.
Thus, though the establishment can have good intentions, almost all of their prominent figures and institutions are losing influence with the newer wing of the conservative movement, and they are setting ablaze the funeral pyre that’s lighting the way to their own replacement.
In this vacuum, people like Fuentes succeed not because of inherent appeal but because the Old Right’s condemnations meet deaf ears. Take the Young Republicans incident from earlier this year, when a leaked New York State YR groupchat revealed antisemitic memes and deportation jokes. The national organization didn’t handle it discreetly; they elevated it to a national story, suspending leaders and giving no quarter, even for private conversation. This was “Taking A Side.” The organization behaved like the Old Right, thus alienating those sympathetic to the more free-speech tolerant New Right as well as those who would expect some institutional loyalty. Many young conservatives were already favoring Turning Point and even smaller Young Republican splinter groups, and this will only accelerate that trend.
Fuentes exemplifies this trap. He himself will never be a de facto Pillar of the New Right. He has too many clips that are overtly toxic, too many examples of attacking allies like J.D. Vance (whom he once praised but now critiques for “selling out”). His America First niche weaponizes legitimate grievances like cultural erosion and immigration concerns with an antisemitic flavor. But he’s not the next mainstream figure. The real threats to the Old Right are the mainstreamable successors: polished influencers that blend populism with policy and avoid the toxic rhetoric Fuentes is defined by. Even if groyper numbers are small, some of their mainstream ideas will exist in a New Right whose resentment of the failures of the Old Right outweighs the moral condemnation of the toxicity of Fuentes’ rhetoric.
Therefore the New Right tolerates Fuentes and others like him as chaos agents–or even a moral obligation to free speech–while they consolidate. The Old Right, by conflating Fuentes, and the very real and worrying rise in nazism and antisemitism with the whole of the New Right, shoots itself in the foot as they watch their hold over critical demographics fade with time.
So, how does the Old Right reverse this? First, an understanding that the past is the past. References to anachronisms like William F. Buckley does not help. Every reference to Buckley is just a reminder to these people that their views were sidelined and heterodox for decades. Even if they just began to believe in them this year, or this last few years, it “feels” like decades in the wilderness.
Second, cloaking the movement in MAGA-red does nothing. Trump, in his current phase, is a fading symbol. The New Right understands that we are discussing the future of politics, not the past. MAGA is a decade old, and is a movement spawned by a single figure off of the strength of generational charismatic leadership. Cling to MAGA, and you’re repeating the neocons’ mistake of riding a wave past its crest.
Third, the Old Right must save some of its indignation. The principled stand against hate may be morally admirable but it’s playing into the cycle of self-immolation that’s actively empowering their enemies. The tendency to make sweeping accusations against those who do not deserve it and overuse of moralizing rhetoric is doing them no favors. Without tangible social and political capital, the Old Right will have no way to contribute to political discourse.
The only way forward for the Old Right is to become new again. They must focus on empowering a new generation who can build a legitimate movement that reflects the political realities we live in, with a better understanding of the movement as a whole. They must do a difficult thing: cede some of their influence, legitimacy, and platform to new voices.
They must also own up to their legacy and acknowledge grievances: address wage stagnation, housing crises, immigration issues, and cultural alienation head-on. Target genuine toxins like explicit bigotry, but ally with the 95%. Embrace new media platforms and develop new leaders. Adapt or fail.
The Old Right does not have to make these changes, but the truth is that they will lose if the status quo continues. Everything comes to an end, political movements especially so, and changing nothing and expecting a different result is political suicide & intellectual insanity.
If the Old Right cannot make peace with the world it helped build, the New Right will inherit it by default. There is a way forward, but it begins with accountability and a genuine commitment to looking forward and not backward.