The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Heritage Foundation Scandal and the Growth of Anti-Semitism on the Right
Sadly, this trend runs deeper than a few "Groypers" and influencers.

Today, Princeton professor and prominent conservative political theorist Robert George resigned from the Heritage Foundation board in protest of Heritage President Kevin Robert's defense of anti-Semitic "influencer" Tucker Carlson and his support of Nick Fuentes, an even more virulent right-wing anti-Semite. George's resignation is the latest of a wave of departures from Heritage, including that of my George Mason University colleague Adam Mossoff, who wrote an eloquent statement explaining why he resigned from his position as a visiting fellow at Heritage.
For more detailed accounts of the Heritage controversy and reactions to it, see accounts by Cathy Young at the UnPopulist, and conservative Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby. See also David Bernstein's post about the recent Federalist National Lawyers' Convention panel that addressed the issue of right-wing anti-Semitism, including the Heritage incident.
As Young indicates, the rot at Heritage extends far beyond this one incident, and began years ago. George and Mossoff are far from the first to leave Heritage in reaction to its descent into illiberalism and bigotry. A number of leading Heritage scholars and policy analysts departed for similar reasons during the last decade, including fiscal policy expert Jessica Riedl (then known as Brian Riedl), and foreign policy analyst Kim Holmes (a former Heritage vice president).
I myself was a Heritage intern way back in 1994 (when I was a college student and Heritage was a very different institution). I would not work with them today, and I reached that conclusion years ago, based on their descent into illiberal nativism and nationalism. In December 2022, I turned down an invitation to contribute to the new edition of the Heritage Guide to the Constitution. I told the editor (who is my former student and current co-blogger Josh Blackman) that I was busy. That was true, in so far as it went. But my main reason was revulsion at Heritage's shift towards illiberalism and nationalism. If Heritage was still the organization I remembered from 1994, I might well have found the time to contribute.
Not wishing to provoke an unpleasant exchange, I shied away from fully explaining my reasons to Josh. I was wrong to do so. I should have told the full truth. I hope late is better than never, so I am doing so now.
Sadly, the problem here goes beyond the bigotry of a few "influencers" or the flaws of specific leaders at Heritage and some other conservative institutions. Rather, as Kim Holmes put it, this is the predictable consequence of "replacing conservatism with nationalism." A conservative movement that increasingly defines itself in ethno-nationalist terms as a protector of the supposed interests of America's white Christian majority against immigrants and minority groups cannot readily avoid descending into anti-Semitism, as well.
My Cato Institute colleague Alex Nowrasteh and I wrote about the connections between nationalism and bigotry in some detail in our 2024 article "The Case Against Nationalism." We are working on a follow-up piece that specifically addresses links to anti-Semitism and related current controversies surrounding the conservative movement.
In addition to right-wing anti-Semitism, there are also left-wing versions, some of which have also become more prominent in recent years. I wrote about some of them in a 2023 post on the roots of far-left support for Hamas. Right-wing anti-Semitism should not lead us to turn a blind eye to the left-wing varieties (and vice versa).
In his resignation letter from the Heritage board, Robert George urged Heritage to be guided by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, especially the idea that "that each and every member of the human family, irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion, or anything else…, is 'created equal' and 'endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.'" George is right to emphasize the importance of equal rights, regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion. Unlike nationalist movements focused on ethnic particularism, the American Founding was based on universal liberal principles. Those principles remain the best protection for Jews and other minority groups. Left and right alike would do well to recommit to them.
UPDATE: I have made minor modifications to this post.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
I guess Somin and Co are going to keep pushing this dumb narrative. That momentous event of some guy briefly refusing to cancel a guy who refused to cancel a guy who said some opinions that are quite common among Middle Easterners and Western leftists (its not like he's even going around saying Gas the jews or drawing schlomo cartoons.) is a right wing equivalent to the actual wave of physical violence that the Left has been committing the past several months.
I suppose the overarching 'lesson' is we can't hold the Left accountable for that little oopsie because the beam in the Right's eye of a guy not immediately canceling a guy who didn't immediately cancel a guy who has controversial opinions (or noncontroversial depending on what side of the bed Somin wakes up on) is just as bad.
Out of curiousity, in following MAGA mindsets, by "cancel" you mean "criticize", correct?
No, the complaints against Kevin Robert and Tucker Carlson are for failing to cancel others. So Somin wants to cancel them.
Again, by cancel, you mean Somin is harshly criticizing them, correct? And refusing to associate with them? So that's a bad thing to criticize and refuse to associate with anti semites?
Basically, the rule is this. Let's just say you've got Person A starting out, and Person B responding to them.
Person A says pretty much whatever they want. It could be completely hateful and objectively false, the most heinous, despicable shit imaginable. The sky is the limit! That's free speech, baby!
The correct way for Person B to respond is to just suck it up. Don't react, don't try to argue. Especially don't call Person A an antisemitic piece of shit, because to do so would be infringing on their rights. Specifically, their right to say whatever they want and not ever be called up on it.
Isn't free speech great?
Freedom of association is great, "canceling" as everyone demands Free Speech to be tied to, is simply not restricting speech. It is a reaction from statements and acts, not yelling fire in a lonely field. Understanding speech/ideas is best when understanding those ideas to their underlying implications, outside of the abstract or even those ideas including the speakers' actions and associations.
It is without controversy to call Fuentes a neo-Nazi. Socialists will always demand an ingroup to be made, if only in order to secure the structure of materials that are produced will reach those that influence others and secure their social standing. When people, like Tucker Carlson, flirt with socialism to such a disgusting degree, then people that hold conservative values ought to demand ostracism for such associations and entertaining such beliefs. History demands that consequence outright.
No, Somin is free to criticize Fuentes all he wants. But he does not do that, except for some name-calling. Instead he joins a movement to ostracize certain people for failing to properly disassociate with Fuentes.
Such ostracization seems like a sensible thing to do.
I don't think "cancel" means what you think it means...
Is it like "86"-ing???
Amos is part of that segment if the right that needs the left to be violent to justify their extremism.
Somin can get back to me when the Heritage Foundation takes a stand to “globalize the intifada” or chants “from the river to the sea.” Otherwise this garbage posturing is more thinly veiled Trump derangement. TDS is TDS whether from the left or establishment republicans. The left being particularly unhinged. Next the rant will segue to Project 2025. Then it’ll be more Epstein before we’re back to Russian collusion fraud.
People like Ilya are why right-wing antisemiism exists.
WTF?
Are you suggesting that right-wing antisemitism is justified because some Jews hold opinions the right doesn't like?
That's a new level of stupidity and obtuseness, even for you.
I'm sure there are also Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, teachers, doctors, engineers, Texans, etc. who have opinions the right disagrees with. So is it OK for the right to hate these entire groups?
Somin's opinion is not an isolated opinion. There is an organized Jewish movement to subvert conservatives.
Ok. You get a "moron" badge.
No, people like you are why right-wing antisemitism exists.
"that each and every member of the human family, irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion, or anything else…, is 'created equal' and 'endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.'"
This is something a majority of the commenters on this blog, and probably this thread, don't believe.
Neither did the people who wrote it, so what else is new?
Not a fan of the Founding Parents apparently. That being the case, I assume also not a fan of the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Leaving the question open, what exactly is this "America" that you're so proud of?
That has to be the first time that I've been accused of being proud of America.
My apologies. I had you confused with MAGA. I understand your point better now.
Said by the subject of a King.
Thomas Jefferson was the primary writer.
John Adams and Ben Franklin were on the writing committee with two others who didn't really do much. They both were anti-slavery. One of the last things Franklin wrote was an antislavery satire.
Jefferson was a slave owner. He didn't think whites and blacks were equal in many respects. As to believing the creator didn't endow everyone with rights, what he truly believed in his heart is unclear to me. He did talk about the evils of slavery, etc.
People granted that slavery violated natural law. They found various ways to excuse violating it, given the alleged necessity of the matter. Later, it became more likely for slave owners to say Jefferson's words were wrong, that slavery simply was right.
People granted that slavery violated natural law. They found various ways to excuse violating, given the alleged necessity of the matter.
Emphasis on "alleged." Slavery was only "necessary" to keep the planters rich. Long-run it was probably harmful to the southern economy.
Somin does not believe it either.
And pretty clearly you don't. So where does that leave us?
Oh, I believe it. I just believe that residing within the United States isn't one of those inalienable rights, that people are perfectly capable of enjoying those rights somewhere else. And that, if we're going to let them do so HERE, it better be in our interest.
The Bell Curve guy who thinks richer people tend to have more merit in our meritocracy insists he believes everyone is created equal.
Yeah, equal in the sense of rights and moral worth. In the sense of height, weight, intelligence, and so forth? Obviously not.
But being treated fairly and with due process if you happen to be in the U.S. isn't one of those rights? If you're suspected of not belonging, or your being here seems suspicious to somebody, well you've no right not to be brutalized? Is that how it goes?
Particularly if you're brown?
If you're here in the US illegally, being treated fairly and with due process involves being promptly deported. Certainly without brutality, but deported none the less.
Ilya is of the opinion that it is simply unconstitutional to have immigration laws. Not just that he wants more liberal ones, that not having any is legally obligatory. This colors everything he writes about immigration, he is simply incapable of ceding the legitimacy of any immigration regime short of open borders. The guy literally thought Biden was too restrictive!
Is immigration enforcement perfect? No. No law enforcement is perfect. But we don't as a consequence default to anarchy.
The left's objection to Trump's immigration enforcement isn't that it's brutal, that's an excuse. It's that it's enforcement.
The left's objection to Trump's immigration enforcement isn't that it's brutal, that's an excuse. It's that it's enforcement.
Telepathy again.
And wrong, again.
Speaking of being unable to cede legitimacy...
You just need to look at our border with Mexico, and how it was treated under Trump and Biden. Clearly, it was perfectly possible, with existing resources, to secure that border. Trump has done it twice, but the moment Biden came into office, it became unsecure again.
What other conclusion can we draw except that Democrats don't WANT the border secure?
‘ the moment Biden came into office, it became unsecure again.’
Vibes
And just because you don’t care about needless cruelty doesn’t mean it’s bad faith for people who don’t share your particular ease of dehumanization.
Statistics are not "vibes", would you please stop uttering that stupid word as though it were some magic spell that wins arguments for you?
You've seen the numbers before: Illegal crossings between the US and Mexico exploded as soon as Biden took office, and dropped back to nearly zero when Trump got back in office. That's not "vibes", it's evidence.
'unsecure' isn't about statistics, it's a subjective conclusion. IOW, you absolutely vibsed once again.
And the instant effect is also a sign you're out to lunch. No policy effect is instant; humans don't work like that. Plus, also, no policy you can actually point to.
And as I recall even your stats don't indicate what you think they do.
Why you need to tell yourself this story, I shall not speculate. But your confidence is not earned by it being grounded in facts.
And the instant effect is also a sign you're out to lunch. No policy effect is instant; humans don't work like that.
I've been explaining this to Brett for years. He doesn't get it, obviously, because he doesn't want to.
What other conclusion can we draw...
You could conclude that 1) immigrants base their decision on when to cross the border based in large part on the perceived risk, i.e. rhetoric, such as Trump's rhetoric that immigrants would be safe to cross the border under Biden and 2) Congress actually gave Trump tools and money that they withheld from Biden because Trump wanted Biden to fail.
Except, of course, that the changes in illegal crossings happened before Congress gave Trump any extra funding.
See #1, also 3) the steep decline in illegal immigration happened under Biden once he finally decided to (probably illegally) take matters into his own hands and 4) it's not clear to me we can even trust the numbers that Trump has been putting out, they're shockingly... artificial-seeming. And we know he has no compunction against futzing with the numbers.
That extra funding came alongside what ICE ramping up terror tactics.
And your stats are not great proxies for what you claim. They're the best you got - if you trust ICE. Which no one should at this point.
I know this is costless to you, and you assume anyone objecting to these means is in bad faith and actually just wants open borders.
"The left's objection to Trump's immigration enforcement isn't that it's brutal, that's an excuse. It's that it's enforcement."
You really have no idea what the left thinks.
And the fact that it's brutal doesn't seem to actually bother you at all. And that's something the left is concerned with. You distinguish between authoritarianism and totalitarianism. A regime of brutal enforcement isn't going to look too different, one way or the other.
If you're here in the US illegally, being treated fairly and with due process involves being promptly deported.
You omitted the part where you get to have a hearing that lets you challenge the allegation that you are here illegally.
True, and probably 95% of legal academics don't believe it! Of course, that won't stop them from hectoring and lecturing others about it when they think it suits their objectives. Robert George himself, though, is a good guy and believes this, I think. I don't know anything else about this Heritage situation specifically.
As usual, a Jewish supremacist professor is all in favor of Israeli nationalism, but completely against American nationalism. And he uses name-calling instead of rational arguments.
This is a Jewish power play for control of conservative institutions. Somin is not even a conservative.
Don't you mean "Jew" Professor?
You can tell, because he mentioned Israel this many times: .
Follow his links, and find many pro-Israel opinions. And lots of posts wanting to repopulate USA with non-Americans. Israel to remain Jewish nationalist.
I know we all look alike to you, but David Bernstein (who posts lots of pro-Israel opinions) and Ilya Somin (who does not) are different people.
Yes, Bernstein is pro-Israel, but he is not anti-American like Somin.
OK, Roger. So you get the "Blatant Antisemite" badge to put right next to the one for "Stupid Obnoxious Asshole."
Whenever I get push back from conservatives that anti-semitism is just a thing on the Left I can now point to the comment section at Volokh generally, and people like Roger in particular to make clear it's alive and well on the Right. Very alive. Though, then again, "well" may not be quite appropriate.
I certainly WISH it was just on the left. I'm getting tired of leftists claiming it's mostly on the right, though.
The frightening thing is that it's across the entire political spectrum.
So, the Holocaust is receding into the mists of time, and things are returning to a very regrettable "normal"?
Petro-dollars spread the influence of a particularly virulent strain of Islam?
More conspiratorial thinking all around?
Maybe it's just Israel fatigue, wishing they'd just go away even if they are objectively the good guys.
Maybe we can agree that antisemitism is very different on the left vs. the right. And I think that's why each side thinks it's "worse" on the other side. The style of antisemitism is more or less acceptable depending on which side you're on.
Antisemitism on the right is nationalism-adjacent. The right is very nationalism-friendly in general, they just argue about who gets to be on the inside vs. the outside. (Sound familiar, Brett?) So, someone like Brett who thinks brown people should be excluded are more sympathetic to the idea that maybe Jews should also be excluded, or at least can understand the logic. Those of us on the left find the whole concept of nationalism abhorrent, so antisemitic nationalists are especially horrific.
On the left, I think it must be said, there is such a thing as Islamic antisemitism. Obviously the right likes to take this as an excuse for their anti-Muslim bigotry, but it would be a mistake to pretend that it doesn't exist at all. But just like the left is allergic to nationalists, the right is allergic to Muslims, so the idea of antisemitic Muslims they find especially horrific.
Couple of things.
I don't have the impression that Brett wants Jews excluded.
I'm not sure I consider Muslims generally on the left. Is Farrakhan a leftist?
He endorsed Obama, for what that's worth. Not much, he's actually too far out there to be really aligned with a major party.
I also wouldn't consider Muslims to be generally on the left, nor generally antisemitic, nor generally anything else. Farrakhan is a right-wing antisemite for sure.
But what there is of left-wing antisemitism comes almost exclusively from antisemitic left-wing Muslims, and that's what freaks right-wingers out about it.
"So, someone like Brett who thinks brown people should be excluded "
Just to remind you, that would be somebody very unlike inter-racially married and living in a mixed race neighborhood Brett. So, probably bad example.
"so the idea of antisemitic Muslims they find especially horrific."
Well, I mean, it's been quite a while since you saw a genocide conducted against Jews by a Christian country, and a lot longer since you saw one that was actually driven by Christians. (The Nazis were typically pagans.) While there are active genocides against Jews (AND Christians!) in multiple Muslim countries, so, yeah? Maybe antisemitic Muslims ARE especially horrific, at this point in history in which we happen to live.
So far, you and Roger both agree with my basic premise. That's a good sign. (Not a good sign for America, but a good sign that I'm right.)
Roger is a good example of "someone like Brett who thinks brown people should be excluded." He's like you in that he thinks that there are properly "insiders" and "outsiders" in any society, including America (i.e. nationalist). Perhaps you think Muslims are part of the "outsider" group. Roger certainly thinks brown people are. Other right-wingers think Jews are. Does it really matter where you draw the line?
The Nazis were typically pagans.
No. They were typically Catholic or Lutheran. A few of the high ranking Nazis flirted with paganism, but the Nazis were overwhelmingly Christian. This should be unsurprising, since the vast majority, 90+%, of Germans were Christians.
Great, now "Cancel" Hakeem Jefferson, Priapism Slap-a-Jap, Mullah Ill-hand Omar and Ra-shit-a-Hijab.
I'll keep Alina Habba, she can take the next Surpreme Vacancy, they need more Catholics.
Frank
I'll use sexual terms so that you can better understand, Frankie. Pay attention, Frankie. We've been telling you from the start that you've been allowing yourself to be fisted by the very people that hate you.
Frank thinks he's the "right" kind of Jew, and so in any forthcoming Kristallnacht, his house will be safe.
My guess is that Frank IS the "right" kind of Jew -- Armed...
You seem to be getting ever more demented. Oh and is his name still Charlie Kirk, or has all that been forgotten?
"A conservative movement that increasingly defines itself in ethno-nationalist terms as a protector of the supposed interests of America's white Christian majority against immigrants and minority groups cannot readily avoid descending into anti-Semitism, as well. "
Beg questions much?
Which part do you think is incorrect? Is it possible to look at contemporary MAGA and not see a certain ill will towards immigrants and minority groups?
Question begging doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong. But he was definitely question begging there, incorporating the assumption that he was right into his premises. STARTING from the premise that MAGA is racially bigoted.
I would hardly claim that MAGA is as clean as the driven snow. It has its share of bigots and xenophobes, even if it's not defined by bigotry and xenophobia. I've never claimed the right was nice. I just fear them less than the left, because they're more authoritarian than totalitarian, they actually accept the idea of some things being outside the reach of politics.
They're not constantly raving about remaking society, outlawing private health insurance, disarming people, and so forth. They're largely OK with America remaining America, rather than subjecting it to some radical transformation.
Since I LIKE America, I find that attractive.
But, yeah, I wish there were a party out there that had the good points without the bad. It sure as hell isn't the Democratic party.
"They're largely OK with America remaining America of the 1850s, rather than subjecting it to some radical transformation."
FTFY
America hasn't been the America of the 1850's in, what, 175 years? So what sense does that slam make?
What sense does your claim make that they're not interested in radically transforming America when they are interested in radically transforming America?
They are not conservatives; they are reactionary Jacobins.
It has its share of bigots and xenophobes, even if it's not defined by bigotry and xenophobia.
But increasingly it is.
Yeah, in the same way the Democratic party is defined by Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakan, I suppose.
It's inevitable that a movement's foes are going to claim that it's defined by its worst members, that doesn't make it true.
Unsurprising choices on who you focus on for the worst of the Democratic Party.
“they actually accept the idea of some things being outside the reach of politics.”
This is not remotely true. They pass legislation on high school sports to keep like one person from competing. They’ve defended and advocated for sodomy and abortion bans. Any time there is some culture war story in the new their politicians are all over it. They’ve spent the last few months trying to demonize anyone who spoke ill of Charlie Kirk. Nothing isn’t poltici to them!
“They're not constantly raving about remaking society.”
This is also absolutely not true. Have you ever listened to Steven miller or followed the DHS Twitter account or republicans on immigration? The entire premise is about re-making America for gods sake their moto is Make America Great Again! They want to remake America to something they believed it was in the past!
“ outlawing private health insurance, disarming people”
AH there it is. It’s about your personal material concerns not the actual ideology of the party. Instead of pretending the republicans and conservative movement are something they’re not…just say that they don’t want to remake YOUR life. And it’s personally good for YOU to have them in power, regardless of what they do to other people.
Also fwiw: they want to disarm trans people so this isn’t true as a general matter either.
"AH there it is. It’s about your personal material concerns not the actual ideology of the party."
It's about YOUR conviction that the government is entitled to take over whole swaths of life, just because they involve money changing hands.
This isn't at all responsive to LTG's post, which is full of examples of MAGA taking over whole swaths of life.
You really are not doing a great job disabusing the notion that you really just mean YOUR life and no one else matters.
As is so often the case, you confuse assumptions and conclusions. That MAGA is racially bigoted is an observation, not an assumption.
Do you like America, Brett? You spend most of your time making some pretty radical complaints...about leftists making every institution leftist...about how no one is following BrettLaw...about how the economic numbers are fake...about all that inclusion that oppresses white guys.
You sure don't seem like you like this country, based on what you want it to be like and what it is.
Maybe, but it is rare for it to extend to Jews. Yes, maybe MAGA doesn’t rejoice in Mu slim supremacy in this country. Or millions of unassimilated, illiterate peasants from Central and South America flocking here for all the free government benefits.
The distinction is degree of assimilation. If a group fairly fully assimilates here, as Jews have, they are almost always accepted by your MAGA opponents. It’s ethnic groups like Muslims, believing in the inevitability of Muslims Supremacy, and a lesser role for Christians and Jews (and no role for lesser religions), etc, that MAGA doesn’t accept.
it is rare for it to extend to Jews
Evidently not.
ethnic groups like Muslims
Muslims are too various a group to be lumped together. Except by bigots.
This is just antisemitism differently directed. And there's enough history that a lot of Jews know who's always second on that list.
Though we coulda clocked you as a bigot the moment you started talking about 'degree of assimilation.' That's been the song of the American bigot for at least 200 years.
If a group fairly fully assimilates here, as Jews have
Assimilation requires both the identified group to attempt to assimilate and the larger group to accept the assimilation. That Jews are consistently more likely to be victims of hate crimes than any other ethnic group - with a one-year freak exception of Sikhs - even before 10/7 - effectively shows that the second condition has not really been met. There is other evidence, of course.
I still want an operational definition of "assimilate," and haven't gotten it.
If a group fairly fully assimilates here, as Jews have, they are almost always accepted by your MAGA opponents.
That's nice of them. What do I have to do? Get a pickup truck and a few guns. There have been those who disagreed:
It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
Yeah, it's nonsense.
A conservative movement can be "protector of the supposed interests" of American citizens, American culture (including Christian culture) and so on, without it being a racial thing. This is unavoidably adjacent to race, of course, but the detractors for many years have dishonestly tried to make that the focal point.
What else should a government be, if not an advocate for the interests of its particular citizens and culture?
What exactly is "Christian culture," and exactly why should the US protect it in some exclusive way?
The George letter says that Heritage should be upholding Judeo-Christian tradition.
There is no such thing as "American culture." I don't mean that in a Eurosnobby "Americans are all uncivilized brutes" sort of way; I mean that there are dozens, scores, or hundreds of cultures in America, not one culture that somehow is the official one that supersedes all the others.
I sort of disagree. I think there are some identifiable features of a distinctly American culture as a whole, but they're probably not things that right-wingers would necessarily find endearing.
"American culture....unavoidably adjacent to race, of course.'
Kinda showing your ass here.
Wouldn’t it have been nice for DB to have made this post?
Relocated.
This is essentially a reaction, by Somin, to the reality that fervently antisemitic Muslims are on the rise in the Democratic Party. And how does he, and others on the left, justify continued support of that party, when, it openly hates them more every year? By finding or inventing the rare individuals on the right who retain their historical biases.
We have long heard about self hating Jews. Part of it, I will suggest, is a result of the mental gymnastics being employed by them to stay loyal to a party that now openly hates them. What’s funny to me is that psychiatry and psychology are fields with outsized Jewish participation. Some self analysis is in order here, but the cognitive dissonance of Jews blaming MAGA for antisemitism after the election of a fervently antisemitic mayor of NYC, center of Jewishness in this country, verges on insanity.
"By finding or inventing the rare individuals on the right who retain their historical biases."
1. I wish it was rare. It's not as common as the left wants people to think, but it's not rare.
2. It's not, so far as I can tell, a question of retaining anything. I can think of multiple right-wing 'influencers' who have gone down this rabbit hole lately, who previously showed no sign of antisemitism. So they didn't retain squat, they developed it.
Tucker Carlson, Candice Owens. They originally showed no sign of being like this. Were they just hiding it? They were doing a darned good job of hiding it, then.
So, why now?
I don't want to downplay the extent of antisemitism developing on the right, even if it's still very much a minority viewpoint. But, equally, I'm not willing to pretend that the left doesn't have a similar problem. Calling antisemitism "Anti-Zionism" doesn't make it go away...
Tucker Carlson, Candice Owens. They originally showed no sign of being like this. Were they just hiding it? They were doing a darned good job of hiding it, then.
So, why now?
May I suggest one reason you may not like? Antisemitism has become more acceptable on the right, and being an antisemite may be seen as a shrewd career move.
They say that the Gaza War changed their views.
Some people might describe me as a "self-hating Jew," but the reality is that I don't hate myself. I just dislike Judaism and separated myself from it decades ago when I realized what it, and its people, were. Very few people in my life know of my background, as I tell people that I'm of English, German and Swiss descent to avoid outing myself.
I grew up in your typical upper-middle class Jewish family in Connecticut. One thing that most non-Jews are not aware of is how Jews talk about Christians when they don't think they're around.
Most American Jews hate Christians, and hate Christianity. It's sick, and evil, but their thought process is to fill America with Muslims and "others" to weaken the white Christian majority. A lot of conservatives are starting to realize this, which is why it appears that there is more "anti-semitism" on the right.
Wow. You are a huge loser.
Are you talking about yourself?
I'm very happy with my life. I'm married to a nice Protestant woman. She knows of my background but her family does not. We belong to a nice church with like-minded people.
You mean just because he has invented a completely fake background for himself, talking about things that have ever happened? (I say "invented," but he's totally unoriginal. History is replete with bigots pretending to know the Secret Agenda of Jews because they Used to Be One.)
I can assure you that Jews do not in fact do what he pretends.
Oh I dunno, LTG...being the gayest man on the Internet is winning something, at least.
And how does he, and others on the left,
Somin is now on the left?
Oh, come on, anybody who's been reading him for years who didn't realize that has been pretty oblivious.
....Brett "I'm a libertarian" Bellmore shows that he doesn't actually understand the difference between someone who is a libertarian as a matter of principle, and a partisan who is a boot-licker as a matter of expedience.
There are many things I disagree with vehemently with Somin on, because I think libertarianism, like communism, is something that is fine as a theoretical and analytical approach but fails in practice. But I have never doubted that he is sincere and consistent.*
...I mean, I s'pose there is some consistency in, "What Trump says today is what I believe, even thought it is the opposite of what he said yesterday and will contradict what he says tomorrow."
*Perhaps the only more consistent libertarian on the VC is Sasha Volokh, who once posted a piece about how, even if an asteroid was about to hit earth and extinguish all life, it would not justify infringement on property rights in order to save humanity.
What I understand is that the LP at least used to be a big tent, with both left AND right libertarians. Somin is, to the extent he's a libertarian, clearly a left-libertarian. I am, unapologetically, a right-libertarian. Albeit one who regards the libertarian movement as a political failure and dead end... In large part because of the affects of large scale immigration from less libertarian countries!
Somin is not a "Libertarian Party" partisan libertarian.
He is an actual, bona fide, reads books and understands the philosophy libertarian.
I know! Having core principles that aren't just "Derp, partisan politics!" must be a shock to you. But he reasons from principles, not partisan concerns.
Personally, I think that this leads to some dogmatic and inflexible positions. I'm closer to later Posner in terms of my philosophy. But I respect it a lot more than people who constantly shift their beliefs and principles to fit them into a partisan box.
Look at you, Brett. You've contorted your beliefs so far that it's hard to say you really have any.
You can guess where he comes out on almost any issue based on the principle: government interference =bad. And which candidates and party reflects that principle better for him shifts as the parties shift.
You get a Republican who embraces free trade and is not so fanatic about immigration restrictionism and he’d probably support them.
It's pretty easy.
Brett was always one of the ones to indulge in fantasies about "jack booted thugs" and people being herded into camps and unchecked executive power (lawless Executive Orders OMG!!!!!) during the Obama Administration. Conspiracies about how Obama (who, we need to remember, Brett was never sure was even born in America, because he wasn't there for Obama's birth) was itching to use the military against us blah blah blah. Also? KANT BELIEVE WUT GUMMINT SEZ!
Now? I mean .... people who worry about actual deployment of the military on US soil, or the total disregard of the truth, or, um, actual American citizens being rounded up and put in camps (due to, uh, MISTAKES) ... let alone all the rest ... and government by fiat of the Executive ... well, they are just suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, amirite?
No principles. Of course, at least he didn't write a book about how lawless Obama's use of Executive Orders was. Hard to live that down.
No, Somin's opinions are most easily predictable by his desire to repopulate USA with Third World migrants.
No. You are actually just a bog-standard right-winger who doesn't want to admit it. You are not a libertarian. You just like guns and want low taxes, and like to fancy yourself a contrarian. On every issue where you and Prof. Somin differ, he has the more libertarian position.
Look at it this way, Bruce. You have a party that this year alone has abused, insulted, marginalized, and generally punched down on nearly every minority group on earth except for White Christians. But you mean to tell me that with all this misanthropy, MAGA has an abiding love for Jews? Please. No one except yourselves are buying this.
fervently antisemitic Muslims
self hating Jews
psychiatry and psychology are fields with outsized Jewish participation
Yep, no antisemitism from this MAGA guy!
I'm interested in hearing Professor Blackman's views on this, especially since he has so heavily promoted the Heritage guide on this blog.
Well, I am sure that he would first need to identify who is a real Jew, and then reason from there.
(If you aren't capturing the reference, that's from a prior post where JB (in)famously gave himself the ability to determine who was a "real Jew" and thus make religious freedom cases easier.)
I started saying it as a Joke, as I initially ass-umed (the) Zoran Man-damn-he's candidacy to be, but the current Mayor of Terror-Anne, Alireza Zakani, isn't as Anti-Semitic.
Frank
What I know about this so far is that David Bernstein posted that headline where he accused the guy of being a supporter of ... this, but left out the part where the guy said "I disagree with, and even abhor" it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/10/30/crisis-on-the-right-as-heritage-foundation-president-roberts-seems-to-go-groyper/
I am Jewish. I used to be the General Counsel for the Christian Coalition of America. Right-wing antisemitism worries me, but left-wing antisemitism worries me more.
Because Muslims, right? So scary, Muslims.
Yes, it is mainly because of Muslims that anti-Jewish opinion is sharply rising in the Democrat Party.
I don't agree with Ilya Somin on multiple issues, but respect his consistency.
Consistently anti-American. Fuentes and Carlson are hated because they are pro-America.
There sure seems to be a lot more Jew-baiting today in American culture and politics, after the multi-decade interval of non-respectability of Jew-baiting on account of (say) the Holocaust.
I think this calls for a better response than for each side to say "their anti-Semites are worse than our anti-Semites."
"....defense of anti-Semitic "influencer" Tucker Carlson..."
skip...