What happened at AmFest was widely described as a “civil war on the Right.” That description might capture the heat, but not the substance.
What actually played out was different moral frameworks colliding on the same stage, each assuming the others were playing the same game, when they are on different playing fields.
The clash between Ben Shapiro and Steve Bannon made this unusually clear.
Shapiro’s speech called out Tucker Carlson and other right-wing media personalities, but the substance of his speech was about duty. At the climax, he spoke about obligations - what people with microphones owe their audiences, and what audiences owe themselves. He spoke about truth, about principle over personal feeling, about responsibility for consequences, about evidence rather than insinuation, and about the obligation to offer real solutions rather than theatrical outrage. He ended where he began: with truth, insisting that victory built on anything else is hollow.
It was a striking moment because it sounded almost old-fashioned. Shapiro was not trying to define who belongs to a movement, as he was accused of. He was trying to define what makes political speech legitimate in the first place.
Bannon’s response came from a different universe. He did not engage Shapiro’s argument at all. Instead, he shifted the frame entirely. This was not, he said, about principles. It was about power, loyalty, and who represents MAGA and who does not. Shapiro, in this telling, was disqualified not because his claims were false, but because his allegiance was suspect. This makes him, in Bannon's words, a "cancer."
One side is asking, “Is this true, responsible, and principled?” The other is asking, “Are you with us or against us?”
Whatever one thinks of Shapiro, his argument fits squarely within the classic conservative tradition. That tradition has always been suspicious of mass passions and concentrated power, including power exercised by one’s own side. Edmund Burke warned that a representative who sacrifices judgment to popular opinion betrays his duty. Russell Kirk described conservatism not as a rigid ideology but as a way of seeing - one that requires discernment. William F. Buckley Jr. defined the conservative role as “Standing athwart history, yelling 'Stop'.”
That worldview assumes that thinking critically, demanding evidence, and resisting tribal pressure are virtues. Loyalty is not the highest good; judgment is.
Bannon and his allies, by contrast, are not articulating classic conservatism at all. They are advancing a newer far-Right vision centered on identity and power. In this framework, America is not simply a constitutional nation with a shared civic inheritance. It is a civilizational project with a defined Christian cultural and religious core. Politics becomes boundary enforcement. Dissent, even principled dissent, becomes a threat to be neutralized rather than an argument to be answered.
And Jews are not treated as full equals in a movement based on making America Christian. When Bannon said, "This is about power politics and what Charlie Kirk believed in to the core of his being—that America makes decisions for America, and Americans make decisions for America," he's implying that Shapiro is not qualified to be part of such decisions.
Here is the irony: despite the rhetoric, neither of these positions actually represents MAGA as practiced by Donald Trump.
Trump’s MAGA was never classic conservatism, but it was also never simple isolationism or civilizational purity. It is transactional. Trump cares about leverage, credibility, and outcomes. He opposes endless wars not because force is always wrong, but because wars without leverage, objectives, or exit conditions are bad deals. When he makes threats, he expects them to be believed.
That is why the reaction from many self-described MAGA supporters to the U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities was so revealing. The objections were framed in moral language - “we don’t want to start an endless war” - but they ignored the actual logic Trump had articulated for years. Iran’s nuclear program was central. Red lines were drawn. A deadline was announced. Credibility was explicitly on the line. Following through was not a deviation from MAGA logic; it was the logic.
And in fact, the feared escalation did not occur. Deterrence worked. Which only sharpened the question: if even successful enforcement is condemned as illegitimate, then what exactly is being conserved?
The major break between classic conservatism and the other two is that the former is skeptical of unbridled power and unlimited loyalty while MAGA and the Christian identity Right demand them.
This is why everyone now seems to be talking past everyone else. They are starting from entirely different assumptions about what politics is for. Classic conservatism asks whether speech is true and responsible. MAGA asks whether actions preserve leverage and credibility. The Christian-civilizational “America Only” Right asks whether an action serves identity preservation and internal cohesion.
They use the same slogans, but they are not answering the same questions.
The open question is not which side won a particular exchange. It is which of these moral frameworks will define the future of the Republican Party - and what happens to those whose framework loses. Movements built on loyalty abandon principles. Movements built on identity exclude those who don't fit. Movements built on power without constraint become autocratic. Yet those built on principles might not win elections in today's hyper-partisan environment.
The fracture is already there. The only question now is whether anyone is willing to name it honestly.
|
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
 |
Buy