admin
Mark Levin’s public tirade against Tucker Carlson was ugly, personal, and exactly the kind of infighting that hands Democrats and the mainstream media a gift. Levin didn’t merely disagree on policy — he went after Carlson with profanity and nicknames, a nastiness that corrodes the credibility of conservative voices and distracts from the real battles ahead. This isn’t robust debate; it’s theater that weakens our side at a time when the country needs steady, serious argument.
Tucker Carlson told Megyn Kelly he’d even reached out after the assassination of Charlie Kirk trying to broker a truce with fellow conservatives, only to see that goodwill repaid with public escalation. Carlson said he called Levin and Ben Shapiro to ask that they halt the attacks and preserve unity in a moment of national grief, a reminder that men of influence should pick up the phone before they pick a fight on national radio. That attempt at reconciliation makes Levin’s subsequent language even more puzzling and damaging to the movement.
At the heart of the row is more than personalities: it’s an argument over foreign policy, the use of loaded labels like “neocon,” and how we talk about sensitive subjects like antisemitism. Those are important debates; conservatives should be hashing them out with facts and philosophy, not with sneering personal assaults that echo the worst of the left’s smear machine. We can disagree about how America projects power without turning every disagreement into a vendetta that the other side will happily exploit.
Megyn Kelly — who sits between the old media and the new right — publicly pushed back on Levin’s approach and warned that taking rhetorical violence this far is dangerous for the movement’s health. Kelly’s voice matters because she’s seen both the cost of wrecked reputations and the price of reckless rhetoric, and when conservative leaders throw gasoline on internecine feuds, the result is fragmentation and loss. Conservatives should thank anyone on our side who tells the truth plainly when our own are going too far.
Let’s be clear: toughness and conviction are virtues, but so is discipline. Levin’s eruption — calling a former colleague names and issuing veiled threats — isn’t courage; it’s counterproductive grandstanding that risks alienating persuadable voters and softening our message. Pundits who aim to lead must understand influence is earned through reason and consistency, not by performing for a base while the rest of the country watches and shrugs.
None of this requires us to paper over real differences. Carlson’s skepticism about foreign entanglements and Levin’s fierce defense of Israel are legitimate policy positions that deserve fierce but civilized contest. What we cannot tolerate is conservative personalities brawling in public in ways that distract from the existential threats to our economy, our borders, and our liberties — those are the fights that actually matter to hardworking Americans.
Patriots who love this country should demand better from our own leaders and commentators: argue the issues, call out hypocrisy, and hold one another accountable — but stop the mudslinging that hands the enemy victory by default. We need unity of purpose, not unity of personality; vigorous debate, not viciousness. If conservatives want to win the next battles for America, that starts with showing the country we are serious, sober, and above the petty infighting that has hollowed out so many institutions.
