Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Jonah Goldberg: The right and left need to control the radicals in their own parties

Opinion

Jonah Goldberg: The right and left need to control the radicals in their own parties

From left, congressional candidate Claire Valdez, congressional candidate Brad Lander, Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and congressional candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier raise their hands during a Get Out the Vote rally at King's Theater on June 18, 2026, in New York.

(Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images/TNS)

It’s starting to sound like we’re in the middle of the Spanish Civil War.

For those of you who forgot, the Spanish Civil War was the great prequel to World War II, in which the combatants were proxies for the Communists and the Fascists. Stalin’s Soviet Union supported the former, Hitler’s Germany aided the latter.


President Trump and the GOP have decided to run against “Communism” in the coming midterms. In his Fourth of July speech Saturday, Trump referenced the Communists in our midst nearly a dozen times. “Our warriors did not fight communism on battlefields across the world, only to have that menace rear its ugly head right back here in America,” he said. “We’re not going to let it happen.”

A few days prior, the president argued that the Communist menace here at home amounts to “the biggest threat to our country, including World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, September 11th.”

Before you claim the right started it, we should note that we are years (or even decades) into a long-running effort to label Republicans, conservatives and especially Trump as “fascists.” Numerous books and countless op-eds and magazine articles have been written in support of this claim. In October of 2024, then-Vice President Kamala Harris was asked by CNN’s Anderson Cooper, “Do you think Donald Trump is a fascist?”

Harris responded, “Yes, I do. Yes, I do.”

Of course, the right-wing habit of calling the left “Communist” and the left-wing habit of calling the right “fascist,” hardly started with Trump either, so let’s restrict ourselves to the current brouhaha.

Democrats and various news outlets have pushed back on Trump’s communist charge, contending that even the most hard left Democrats in the news — mostly members of the Democratic Socialists of America — are not Communists, but merely democratic socialists, of the sort popular in Europe and Nordic countries. “Democratic socialists are willing to have themselves voted out of power,” historian Michael Kazin told ABC News following last year’s election. “They believe that once you have a democratic socialist society, people will like that society, but if they don’t want to keep it, then they can go back to a more capitalist society."

Kazin is right about the difference between social democracy and Communism. But I don’t think that settles the argument as much as a lot of people think.

The DSA website is chock-a-block with positive references to Karl Marx. Within the DSA network are organizations like the “Liberation Caucus,” “Red Star,” the “Communist Caucus” the “Marxist Unity Group” and so on. They don’t merely offer positive references to Marx, Mao, Lenin, et al., but affirmatively cite them as authoritative voices. I particularly enjoyed the section, “Common Misconceptions About Mao.”

If all these people are just Swedish variety “social Democrats” why is it impossible to find DSA references to foundational Swedish social democrat Hjalmar Branting, but easy to find references to Marx and Mao?

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has called for embracing “the warmth of collectivism.” Congressional candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier, who recently won a Democratic primary in New York, has in the past praised numerous Communist dictators and lamented that her local bookstore didn’t offer the collected works of Stalin. She deleted past social media posts along these lines and now insists she’s merely a democratic socialist.

Avila Chevalier might even be telling the truth. But I ask you: If a Republican candidate had a paper trail of being a dedicated, well-read and doctrinaire Nazi but only disavowed this past to run for office, would you take their word for it?

Also: Would news outlets run cover for them explaining the differences between outright Nazism and softer forms of “democratic fascism.”

It’s a stupid question — and we know the answer, because the right has a similar problem. Not all of those books and articles about the right’s flirtation with fascism are paranoid. Numerous Republicans have played footsie — or even had dinner with — avowed Hitler fan and occasional Holocaust-denier Nick Fuentes. Mark Robinson, the GOP’s 2024 gubernatorial candidate in North Carolina once described himself as a “Black Nazi.” Vice President JD Vance has run cover for GOP staffers who texted “I Love Hitler.” The Jan. 6 riot was certainly fascistic.

Here’s my hot take: Everyone making allowances for Nazism or Communism should be ashamed of themselves.

But here’s more practical advice. If you’re a journalist, stop providing cover for one side. And if you’re a fairly normal center-left Democrat or center-right Republican, worry less about the idiots and radicals in the other party, and start doing something about the ones in your own.

This Spanish Civil War stuff is mostly embarrassing cosplay. Most Americans reject the extremes, but if people won’t call out extremism in their own party, they’re not actually against extremism.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.


Read More

The Reward — Angela and James: An American Dynasty

Ring–Fitzgerald Homestead, Will County (1987). A house still true to its original form, carrying forward the Rings’ steadiness, aspiration, and good citizenship across five generations.

Photo courtesy by Patrick Fitzgerald.

The Reward — Angela and James: An American Dynasty

They got an early start; the morning light came on fast. The Ring siblings were headed to the Joliet depot with young Angela in tow — the same depot where Lincoln’s funeral train had passed in silence thirty years earlier. Now they were bound for the White City, forty miles northeast. The Columbian Exposition was a turning point for both Angela and America. Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, pitched just outside the fairgrounds, rivaled the Exhibition itself.

One photograph captured it all. Taken in a fairground photo booth, the Ring siblings stood in their summer clothes, huddled around eleven-year-old Angela. Their faces were bright and open — a single moment preserved in time. Determined to outshine the 1889 Paris Exhibition and its Eiffel Tower, Chicago answered with George Ferris’s great wheel. At night, the city glowed, outlined in electric white light.

Keep Reading Show less
The Knicks and the Practice of Us

Jalen Brunson #11 of the New York Knicks celebrates with the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy during the New York Knicks Championship ticker tape parade and victory rally celebrating winning the 2026 NBA Finals on June 18, 2026 in New York City.

(Photo by Angelina Katsanis/Getty Images)

The Knicks and the Practice of Us

I didn’t grow up anywhere near Madison Square Garden. My childhood unfolded in the Midwest, far from New York’s tangled boroughs and yellow cabs. My father brought the city with him, tucked in the vowels of his accent and the teams he rooted for. He was a Jersey boy at first. Then, a reluctant Midwesterner. Geography, though, never truly loosened its grip. In our house, sports allegiance wasn’t a choice. It was inherited—an expectation passed like a family recipe. Or a story retold until it blurs into fact.

For my father, and then for me, the Knicks were never just a team. They were a test of endurance. Before I could distinguish a pick-and-roll from a triangle offense, I understood Knicks loyalty: you waited. You hoped in public, persisted when heartbreak was routine. Knicks fandom was boot camp for disappointment. The main skill was getting up after being knocked down.

Keep Reading Show less
Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

People gather over a giant Declaration of Independence

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images.

Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

As America approaches the 250th anniversary of its independence, I am more in the mood to protest than to celebrate. Does that make me unpatriotic? The answer depends on how we understand “patriotism.” For a nation that is founded in revolution, let’s affirm a deeper and more profound love of country, a civic patriotism celebrative of our larger ideals including pluralism, dissent, and a commitment to social change.

Two Types of Patriotism

Keep Reading Show less
A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together
Political polarization
Polarization and the politics of love

A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together

As we face ever-growing partisan polarization in American society, the need for large-scale action becomes increasingly urgent. As James Coan and I have written about in the Fulcrum during my time at More Like US, there are approaches grounded in a significant body of social psychological research that can help address this rapidly growing problem, namely different variations of social contact theory, especially vicarious contact. Until recently, much of the research and thus much of the basis for our articles has been focused on applying social contact theory to other problems facing society: prejudice against members of the LGBTQ community, individuals with autism, and immigrant schoolchildren, among other examples.

It was therefore exciting when last fall I saw the publication of an article in Political Science Research and Methods titled "Content That's as Good as Contact?: Vicarious Intergroup Contact and the Promise of Depolarization at Scale." The study, conducted in 2022 in conjunction with YouGov, finally attempted to measure the effectiveness of indirect contact as a path to depolarization, primarily through the vicarious experience of productive political conversation. Encompassing over 2,000 participants gathered from a nationally representative sample recruited by YouGov’s online panel, the study looked to test affective polarization, measured attitudinally, and interest and investment in depolarization, measured behaviorally. To this end, the study tested multiple media interventions, namely a 50-minute Braver Angels documentary featuring a “Red-Blue” depolarization workshop; a 50-minute placebo nature documentary about wildebeest migration; a 5-minute version of the Braver Angels documentary; a second 5-minute version that emphasized partisan misperception correction; and a pure control group, with no treatment.

Keep Reading Show less