The longest government shutdown in history—and one of the stupidest—is thankfully ending. But the political warring over stupid ideas is hardly over. Both sides are busy with foolish internal fights.
In the past few weeks, Democratic congressional leaders insisted the shutdown was good politics for their party. The longer it went on, their argument ran, the more Democrats were likely to win the battle for public opinion.
The leading advocate for the idea that the more Americans suffered, the better it was for Democrats was Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. He told Punchbowl News that “every day we’re getting better and better as the message sinks in more and more deeply.”
The pugnacious New Yorker wasn’t alone. Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) said that because of the shutdown “the Democratic Party looks powerful for the first time all year,” while House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D., Mass.) said it “is one of the few leverage times we have.”
Deciding that the shutdown with its misery and discombobulation was good politics wasn’t the smartest call. Saying it out loud raised expectations that Democrats would prevail in their main demand: the extension of Covid-era ObamaCare subsidies set to expire at year’s end.
Instead, seven Senate Democrats and Sen. Angus King (I., Maine), who caucuses with Democrats, voted with Republicans Monday to end the shutdown. This triggered a ferocious backlash among Democrats angry that they didn’t win any concessions from the GOP after all. Many are calling for Mr. Schumer to resign as leader for this ill-fated stunt. Even after sweeping election victories last week, Democratic strategists say the party is back to “disarray.”
But Democrats can comfort themselves that at least they aren’t alone. Conservatives are likewise embroiled in bitter internal fighting over an idea even more stupid than Mr. Schumer’s shutdown: dispatching the welcome wagon for Holocaust denier and white nationalist Nick Fuentes.
Here’s the context: Tucker Carlson, on his popular podcast for populists, conducted a grotesquely sympathetic interview with Mr. Fuentes in late October. Mr. Fuentes had previously called Adolf Hilter “cool,” claimed the Holocaust was “exaggerated,” said rape is “just so not a big deal,” and asserted that “white people have a special heritage” and are “justified” in being racist. These views went unchallenged by Mr. Carlson, as did Mr. Fuentes’s praise for Joseph Stalin.
Instead, Mr. Carlson excoriated American supporters of Israel, particularly bashing “Christian Zionists” for their “heresy.” I was on the list of Israel supporters who he said suffer from a “brain virus” and whom he dislikes “more than anybody.”
Soon after, the Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin Roberts, posted a video in which he said Mr. Carlson would “always be a close friend” of Heritage. He then castigated “the venomous coalition attacking” the populist media figure for interviewing Mr. Fuentes and urged conservatives to focus “on our political adversaries on the left, not attacking our friends on the right.” Mr. Roberts’s actions have roiled Heritage and unsettled many on the right who once respected the foundation.
Given that Mr. Carlson’s journey into a vile and very weird world has been well documented, it’s no surprise he’d treat Mr. Fuentes with kid gloves. But why did Mr. Roberts leap to Mr. Carlson’s defense for playing pattycake with a neo-Nazi?
