The Growing Cost of “No Enemies on the Right”
The political principle of “no enemies on the right” has become increasingly problematic in today’s polarized landscape. This approach, which encourages right-wing solidarity regardless of ideological differences, originally served as a defensive strategy against left-wing criticism. However, its practical implementation has evolved in troubling ways. As moderate conservatives refuse to criticize or distance themselves from extremists, they inadvertently provide cover for increasingly radical elements. This tactical choice may appear advantageous in the short term by presenting a united front, but the long-term consequences are becoming more severe as extremist positions gain legitimacy through this implicit acceptance.
The reluctance to police the boundaries of acceptable right-wing discourse has allowed fringe ideas to migrate toward the mainstream. When respected conservative voices remain silent in the face of extremism, they create a permission structure that normalizes previously unacceptable positions. This pattern is particularly evident in how conspiracy theories once limited to the margins now receive tacit approval from established conservative figures. The refusal to draw clear moral and ideological lines doesn’t merely accommodate existing radical elements—it actively encourages further radicalization by suggesting there are no boundaries that cannot be crossed while still maintaining right-wing credibility.
Recent political developments have demonstrated how this approach undermines the very institutions conservatives traditionally sought to preserve. By embracing or tolerating anti-democratic sentiments for tactical advantage, the movement risks sacrificing its foundational principles. The increasing tolerance for rhetoric that questions election legitimacy, justifies political violence, or embraces authoritarian solutions represents a fundamental shift away from conservative values like institutional stability and constitutional governance. This transformation reveals how the “no enemies on the right” approach has moved beyond strategic positioning to become a substantive ideological compromise.
The personal and political costs for those who do criticize right-wing extremism highlight how entrenched this principle has become. Conservative figures who speak out against radical elements frequently face intense backlash, professional isolation, and accusations of betrayal from their own political allies. This enforcement mechanism creates powerful disincentives against principled dissent, effectively silencing internal criticism that might otherwise serve as a corrective force. The movement thus loses its capacity for self-regulation and ethical boundaries, as those who might advocate for moderation calculate that the personal price is simply too high to justify speaking out.
This dynamic creates a troubling asymmetry in American political discourse. While the left frequently engages in public criticism of its extremes, the right increasingly treats any internal criticism as betrayal. This difference doesn’t merely reflect tactical choices but reveals divergent understandings of political ethics and responsibility. The refusal to acknowledge problematic allies transforms from a defensive posture into an affirmative embrace of previously unacceptable positions. What began as reluctance to assist ideological opponents has evolved into active protection of extremism, fundamentally altering the character and direction of conservative politics.
As this principle becomes more deeply embedded in right-wing political culture, its price—measured in damaged institutions, eroded norms, and compromised values—continues to rise. The movement faces a critical choice between maintaining this approach despite its escalating costs or recommitting to defining clear ethical and ideological boundaries. The outcome of this choice will significantly influence not just the future of conservatism but the health of democratic governance itself. Without a willingness to identify and reject extremism within its ranks, the right risks becoming defined by its most radical elements, sacrificing both its historical principles and its capacity to participate constructively in democratic society.
