Share

In the dynamic landscape of conservative thought, a recent online skirmish between Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens over the Israeli-Hamas conflict represents more than just a disagreement among high-profile figures. It signals a seismic shift in the tectonic plates of “Conservative Inc.” This rift isn’t just about differing viewpoints on a foreign conflict; it’s about the evolving nature of conservative thought and the battle for its future direction.

Shapiro, a stalwart of conservative commentary, is known for his staunch support of Israel and a foreign policy that aligns closely with the traditional Republican establishment. His reaction to Owens’ opinions on the Israeli-Hamas conflict reveals a deep-seated fear among the old guard of losing their grip on the conservative narrative. Owens, on the other hand, represents a growing faction within the conservative movement that is questioning long-held orthodoxies and advocating for a more nuanced approach to foreign policy.

Candace Owens’ stance on the Israeli-Hamas issue reflects the sentiment of a significant portion of young conservatives. This demographic is increasingly wary of foreign interventions and the potential entanglements they bring, such as a possible direct conflict with Iran in the wake of Hamas’ fall. They are questioning whether the traditional Republican foreign policy stance, often echoed by figures like Shapiro, genuinely serves America’s best interests or simply perpetuates endless overseas commitments.

RELATED: The Nashville Manifesto: A Troubling Case of Selective Transparency

This debate goes beyond the specifics of the Israeli-Hamas conflict. It’s a microcosm of a larger ideological struggle within the conservative movement. On one side, there’s the traditional, interventionist approach, represented by figures like Shapiro, who align with the older, establishment Republican figures. On the other side, there’s a growing call for a more restrained and pragmatic approach to foreign policy, championed by voices like Owens, who resonate with a younger conservative audience.

Ben Shapiro’s reaction to Candace Owens’ views can be seen as symptomatic of a broader anxiety among established conservative voices. There’s a palpable fear of losing control over the conservative narrative to a new wave of thinkers who aren’t afraid to challenge the status quo. Owens’ nuanced take on the Israeli-Hamas conflict, and her broader skepticism of foreign intervention, taps into a sentiment that’s gaining traction among young conservatives.

The core of this debate is about the future trajectory of conservative foreign policy. Should it continue down the path of interventionism, with its inherent risks and entanglements, or should it adopt a more cautious and measured approach that prioritizes American interests and avoids unnecessary conflicts?

In essence, what we are witnessing is the fracturing of “Conservative Inc.” This isn’t just a battle of egos or a clash of personalities; it’s a pivotal moment in the evolution of conservative thought. As the movement grapples with its identity and direction, the outcome of this ideological struggle will shape not just the conservative narrative but potentially the future of American foreign policy.

For those of us committed to the conservative cause, this is a moment to reflect and engage. It’s an opportunity to reassess our stances and ensure that our foreign policy aligns with the principles of pragmatism, restraint, and, above all, the national interest. The future of conservatism depends on our ability to adapt, evolve, and embrace the diversity of thought within our ranks.

NEXT: Introducing “America Second”

Share