View this post on the web at [link removed]

[This column is available to all subscribers and those that visit. This column addresses a very important issue requiring expression of moral clarity on an issue impacting conservatism in America.]
⏱️ 5-Minute Read
A Statement That Should Not Be Hard to Make, Unless You Are The Heritage Foundation?
I condemn Tucker Carlson’s apparent attempt to normalize the racist, misogynistic, and antisemitic views of Nick Fuentes, who is a horrible person and should never be given a platform to spread his vile hatred.
What kind of moral clarity was missing for Kevin Roberts, the President of the Heritage Foundation to not say words like this?
Free Speech Is a Shield Against Government Power — Not a Blank Check for Public Platforms
When Americans talk about “cancel culture,” the phrase often becomes a catch-all. Boycotts, criticism, and actual government pressure are all lumped together. In a constitutional republic, such sloppy thinking is dangerous. It lets public figures hide behind the First Amendment instead of owning their choices.
The First Amendment does one thing: it restrains the government. It does not promise anyone a cable show, a platform, an audience, or immunity from criticism. It protects citizens from government censorship—not from the consequences of their words.
And yet, many on the political right—the people who should understand this—keep blurring the line.
The Tucker Carlson–Nick Fuentes Episode: A Case Study in Moral Failure
On October 27, Tucker Carlson chose to give friendly airtime to Nick Fuentes, a Holocaust-mocking, openly antisemitic figure. Carlson didn’t challenge him. He didn’t confront his record. He validated him. This wasn’t journalism. It was indulgence.
And when the outrage came, something revealing happened. Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts rushed to Carlson’s defense. Roberts said, “We won’t start canceling our own people or policing the consciences of Christians.”
He called Carlson “a close friend of the Heritage Foundation” and insisted that “their attempt to cancel [Carlson] will fail.”
Yet no government actor tried to silence anyone. No federal agency demanded the interview be removed. What actually happened is simple: conservatives across America raised their voices and expressed their outrage. That is judgment.
Government Censorship Is Unconstitutional. Public Rejection Is Democracy
Roberts’ framing blends two entirely different concepts: government censorship and civil society saying, “We’re not giving this a platform.”
Roberts even said, “I disagree with and even abhor things that Nick Fuentes says, but canceling him is not the answer either.” But no one asked the government to cancel Nick Fuentes. People don’t want to elevate him. That is discernment.
When donors question why a major conservative institution is defending a man who elevates an antisemite, that is accountability. When viewers tune out, that’s the free market at work.
The real coercion is the demand that people silence their own moral instincts for fear of being accused of “canceling” someone.
What Tucker Did Was Legal — That Doesn’t Make It Acceptable
The Constitution protects even speech that is ugly and offensive. That’s the deal. But constitutional protection does not imply acceptance.
The government may not punish speech, but people can reject it. Donors can walk. Viewers can turn the channel.
That is not cancel culture. It signals what a community rejects.
The Heritage Response: A Distortion of Conservative Principles
Instead of reinforcing this distinction, Kevin Roberts erased it. His video wasn’t conflicted—it was enthusiastic. His later “clarifying” statement read like damage control. Heritage should have taken the correct position: platforming Nick Fuentes is morally indefensible, and it should level criticism, not praise, at Carlson.
The Turning Point at Heritage
Conservatives pride themselves on personal responsibility. That principle doesn’t stop at public prominence. If the movement cannot distinguish between constitutional rights and moral obligations, if every criticism is labeled “censorship,” and if bad behavior is given a free pass simply because the offender is “one of ours,” then we have abandoned our ability to lead.
And now we see the consequences. A Heritage trustee, multiple members of its antisemitism task force, and at least one senior visiting fellow have stepped away. That is understandable, but it is sad for an institution with decades of honorable work in defending liberty and limiting government. As a Jewish conservative, I could not donate to or work at Heritage right now—not until it corrects course.
But the path back is clear. Heritage must publicly distance itself from Tucker Carlson for choosing to elevate Nick Fuentes. Anything less says the organization can’t draw even the most basic moral lines.
And any correction must be real. Heritage will need a concrete plan to disavow the interview, reaffirm its rejection of antisemitism and racism, and demonstrate—through action—that it intends to reclaim its historic place as a principled conservative institution.
Kevin Roberts could lead that effort. If he can’t, because of his personal loyalty to Carlson, then the Board has a responsibility to find someone who can.
So, Does It Matter?
A free society depends not only on protecting speech, but on the willingness of moral institutions to draw clear boundaries. The government should never censor Tucker Carlson. But civil society absolutely must be free to say that elevating a Holocaust-mocking antisemite crosses a line.
Institutions devoted to liberty and constitutional principles cannot stand mute. They must speak plainly and show that some values are non-negotiable. That is not cancel culture. That is what leadership looks like.
I have been a fan of the Heritage Foundation going back to my days as an activist with California Young American for Freedom in the late 1980s. I could be again. But that’s up the folks in charge over there, and if they plan on making this right.
References
The first X post of Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts [ [link removed] ] with his video in defense of Tucker Carlson, who was taking incoming fire for platforming Fuentes.
The second X post of Roberts [ [link removed] ], where he tries to address the controversy caused by the first post, but which severely misses the mark.
This is the actual Carlson/Fuentes “softball: interview….
This is Carlson interviewing Senator Ted Cruz. Putting this here as an example of what it looks like when Carlson is actually trying to jump someone he has an issue with.
Finally, my friend Ben Shapiro just shreds Tucker and Fuentes. But I am mainly putting this up because if you go to the 3:30 mark Ben starts showing actual clips of Nick Fuentes take are awful. Like you have to see it to believe it….
Please share this.
Thanks for being a discerning reader.
Jon

Unsubscribe [link removed]?