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

Our Conservative and Liberal Union
An american flag flying high in the sky
Photo by chris robert on Unsplash

Our Conservative and Liberal Union

How are Americans supposed to make a more perfect union when we can’t agree on whether we need to turn our cultural clocks forward or backward?

This question is among the more difficult that people can pose to their fellow countrymen. Not just because it has no obvious or easily agreed upon answer, but because it’s more likely to be asked during contentious times, like the one we are in today.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Anthem and the Civic Thread That Still Holds America Together

Baseball players place their caps over their hearts during the playing of the national anthem. Tacoma, Washington, USA.

Getty Images

The Anthem and the Civic Thread That Still Holds America Together

Each year, from the first buds of spring to the turning of autumn leaves, America is captivated by baseball. From Major League parks to Little League fields, from minor league stadiums to collegiate summer diamonds, the game transcends geography, generation, and ideology. Fans gather to watch today's stars and tomorrow's prospects, united by America's pastime.

Change has been abundant in the century since America celebrated its 150th birthday. Yet, as Field of Dreams reminds us, "There has been one constant throughout the years… baseball." Accompanying that constant is a nearly century-old civic ritual, forged in moments of national challenge and renewed before nearly every first pitch: the singing of the National Anthem.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two unrecognizable persons holding each other's hands

Political polarization changes relationships in profound ways. Explore the psychology of contempt, fear, extremism, and how to reconnect with loved ones.

Yana Iskayeva/Getty Images

The Permission Slip

There is a particular grief in hearing someone you love speak with contempt, different from anger or disagreement because it turns people into categories and places them beneath regard.

I felt it recently when a friend blamed immigrants for the country’s supposed decline. The bluntness shocked me, but the familiarity disturbed me more.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people sitting next to each other as one person works with clay.

Global civic education helps students build trust, navigate ambiguity, and work across differences. Research shows it can strengthen civic leadership and reduce polarization.

Photo Courtesy of Tilting Futures

Why Fixing Polarization Requires Students to Cross Borders

I've been running global civic education programs for twelve years, and I keep seeing the same pattern: college-age students arrive believing they know how the world works and that their perspective is fact. Months later, after sustained global engagement, they return home fundamentally different, with their walls down and having gained a visceral understanding that their perspective is just that: a perspective, not the truth.

There's a reason this transformation matters so much at this age. This is the moment when mental models solidify into frameworks about how the world works, about who deserves trust, and about what's possible across difference. But without exposure to people and cultures that have alternative perspectives, those frameworks harden into us-versus-them certainties rather than nurture curiosity, further entrenching the polarization that is fracturing our country. Too often this polarization is framed as a knowledge problem rather than a moral perception problem.

Keep ReadingShow less