Megyn Kelly’s recent sit-down with Glenn Greenwald pulled back the curtain on a predictable pattern: when a prominent conservative refuses to parrot the approved media script, the professional outrage industry swings into action and looks for a label rather than a story. Kelly and Greenwald framed the controversy over Tucker Carlson not as a simple news item but as a culture-war operation aimed at silencing dissent on foreign policy and national identity.
Tucker’s now-infamous interview with a deeply controversial figure ignited the firestorm — and yes, critics rightly point out the guest’s vile, antisemitic history — but the response has been wildly disproportionate, weaponized to tar a broader set of policy arguments. Even President Trump publicly brushed aside the hysteria and defended Carlson’s right to interview who he chooses, underscoring how this has become as much about control of messaging as about moral clarity.
The backlash has exposed fissures inside conservative institutions too, with the Heritage Foundation’s leadership defending Carlson while staffers revolted and resigned in protest. This messy infighting proves the point: the right is squabbling over whether to defend free inquiry or to appease the social-media mob, and the establishment’s scramble only hands the left more power to define who is a “respectable” conservative.
Greenwald’s perspective — that criticizing U.S. foreign-policy choices or scrutinizing the relationship between lobbyists and officials is not identical to bigotry — rings true for many Americans who’ve watched the media collapse nuance into slander. His arguments about journalism’s duty to speak with controversial voices, and to distinguish policy critiques from prejudice, push back against the reflexive canceling too many outlets practice today.
Make no mistake: real antisemitism must be condemned vigorously, but America’s defenders of free speech should not allow that very condemnation to be co-opted as a cudgel to punish mainstream conservatives who question elite consensus. When the response to policy debate is to call people bigots, the result is self-censorship and a narrower menu of permissible opinions — exactly what the left’s culture-enforcement machine wants.
Tucker’s long record of skepticism toward foreign wars and of demanding that Washington puts Americans first is not some fringe vendetta; it’s an increasingly popular view among working-class voters who’ve seen endless intervention yield shrinking prosperity at home. Conservatives should defend the right to air those arguments on national platforms, even when doing so requires uncomfortable conversations, because a free country survives only when bad ideas are answered in the marketplace, not banned by commissars of public opinion.
If conservatives want to win the culture and the next election, we must resist the purge mentality and instead wage a fight on ideas — exposing true bigotry where it exists while insisting that questioning policy, lobby influence, or foreign entanglements is not a moral crime. Stand with robust debate, protect free expression, and refuse to let the smear merchants decide which patriots are allowed to speak for the country we love.
