For years, Ben Shapiro was the person I aspired to become, the example of what a young Jewish conservative could accomplish.
Before I ever wrote a column, he had already set the standard—nationally syndicated at 17, a Harvard Law graduate, and founder of one of America’s most influential media platforms. Shapiro balanced intellect with conviction, making conservatism understandable to an entire generation.
When I became the youngest nationally syndicated columnist at 16, Shapiro’s path gave me a blueprint.
He proved that youth could still mean seriousness, discipline, and unapologetic belief—that faith, logic, and ambition could coexist without contradiction.
Tucker Carlson, however, changed my understanding of authenticity. When I met him, he wasn’t the polarizing figure people argue about online—he was kind, curious, and fully present.
He asked questions not to perform, but to understand, and in a profession often driven by ego, that humility was striking. Carlson showed me that sincerity requires honesty.
Today, Shapiro and Carlson represent two sides of a widening divide on the right: intellectual conservatism and populist realism.
The result has been a purity war, where disagreement is treated as moral betrayal.
As a Jewish conservative, I understand why our community speaks out against antisemitism, but I’ve also seen the word misused, flattened into a political weapon that shuts down debate.
When criticism of foreign policy becomes indistinguishable from hate, the term loses meaning—and the fight against real antisemitism suffers.
What makes this conflict destructive is that it distracts from what actually matters. Families are still battling inflation that drains savings, crime remains high across major cities, and schools continue to fail students in reading, history, and civics. These are the issues that should define the conservative mission, not feuds over personality on social media.
Charlie Kirk understood that. Before his assassination, he tried to bring all factions together, recognizing that conservatism’s strength came from persuasion, not exclusion.
Under his leadership, Turning Point USA provided students with a forum to debate ideas freely, question without fear, and find common ground rooted in principle. Charlie reminded us that disagreement is not disloyalty.
My generation doesn’t need more division—it requires leadership that unites conviction with strategy. The purpose of conservatism has never changed: to defend liberty, strengthen families, and preserve faith. Those values cannot endure if the movement destroys itself from within.
The feud between traditional and populist conservatives is weakening the right and empowering the left. Progressives, despite internal divisions, unite around shared power; conservatives, by contrast, fracture over pride.
I refuse to pick a side. The movement needs both Shapiro’s discipline and Carlson’s authenticity. Intellectualism without empathy falls flat, while populism without structure becomes reckless. The right’s future depends on combining both—reason with passion, conviction with restraint.
Young conservatives must rebuild that bridge. Our goal must not be to decide who is right between Tucker and Ben—it’s to prove that both are essential to the same cause: preserving the principles that made America free, strong, and worth defending.
The post Gregory Lyakhov: For Young Conservatives’ Sake, Stop the Fighting on the Right appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.