This article contains notes from my debate on “No Enemies to the Right?” (NETTR), moderated by Chris Rufo. Charles Haywood and Nate Fischer argued for the affirmative; Michael Young and I argued for the negative. The recording can be found here.
Opening statement:
I’d like to thank Nate and Charles for joining Michael and me tonight, and I’d like to thank Chris for inviting us.
How did I become involved in this discussion? Like all of us here, I’m deeply concerned about the influence that critical theory and “wokeness” are having on the church and the culture. My main goal for the last six years has been to show both Christians and non-Christians that critical theory and wokeness are false, unbiblical, and extremely dangerous. However, in response to the threat of wokeness, a number of conservative Christians have argued that we need to adopt a strategy of “no enemies to the right” or “NETTR” for short. I think this strategy is a tremendous mistake. I’ll argue that “no enemies to the right” is both theologically impermissible and practically counterproductive. It is immoral, it will compromise and corrupt a Christians who embrace it, and it will make it infinitely harder to actually combat wokeness.
Note: I am not claiming we have to constantly gatekeep fellow conservatives. I’m not insisting that we should constantly kowtow to progressive sensibilities. I’m not saying we need to clutch our pearls whenever the Left calls us names. But we do need to have actual standards and apply them consistently. We need to make our opposition to racism and sexism and antisemitism very clear. We can’t refuse to rebuke sin and error publicly just because it’s committed by our political allies.
What is NETTR?
Before I offer a critique, let me clearly define our terms. Since Charles Haywood coined the phrase “no enemies to the right” and described it at length in a 2022 essay, I’ll quote him verbatim. He wrote:
Winning… means the total, permanent elimination of all Left power, and, even more importantly, the total discrediting, both on a moral and practical basis, of all Left ideology…. If we begin with the end in mind, we see that any firepower directed at the Right is necessarily antithetical to the goal of destroying the Left. Any contentious discussion with those on the Right, wherever exactly they may fall on the spectrum of “not Left,” should instead be done privately and be strictly tactical, to agree on how may we cooperate to achieve our joint ends. We may occasionally choose to ignore some on the Right, as charlatans, simpletons, or fools, or simply too different, even malevolent, in their beliefs, but attacking them publicly only serves to make it harder to reach our end.
This definition of NETTR contains two main elements: 1) no public rebuke 2) contentious private discussion must be “strictly tactical…to agree on how [to] cooperate.” Note in particular the absolute prohibitions offered by Haywood: any contentious public discussion is prohibited and even private disagreement must be strictly tactical. Both these stipulations are unbiblical.
Theological problems with NETTR:
1) The Bible requires public rebuke:
In the Bible, Christians are commanded to publicly expose and rebuke wickedness, regardless of its source. For example, Paul writes in Ephesians “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (Eph. 5:11). In 1 Timothy, he writes, Paul writes: “As for [elders] who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. (1 Tim. 5:20). Prov. 13:20 says “Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm.” The Psalms are filled with warnings not to stand with scoffers or sit with mockers (Ps. 1:1).
We’re also given numerous examples of leaders being publicly rebuked. The Old Testament prophets were absolutely scathing in their public denunciations of public figures, not only the kings of pagan nations (“enemies”) but also the kings of Israel (“friends”). Nor did they only rebuke wicked Israelite kings; they also rebuked generally good kings who were “on their side.” For example, when David committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband killed, Nathan the prophet confronted him face-to-face (the fact that this confrontation is recorded in the Bible indicates that it was not intended to be kept quiet). The public nature of David’s punishment is explicitly mentioned: “You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel” (2 Sam. 12:12). When Peter sinfully withdrew from the Gentiles, the apostle Paul wrote that he “opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned” (Gal. 2:11). He also calls attention to the public nature of his rebuke: “When I saw that they were not following the truth of the gospel message, I said to Peter in front of all the others…” (Gal. 2:14).
Think about all these examples. Wouldn’t King David’s political enemies have benefited from revelations of his murder and adultery? Wouldn’t Peter’s enemies have called his leadership into question when he was publicly rebuked by a fellow apostle? And yet, this is what God requires from us. As Christians, our first thought can’t be “Will this action help destroy the Left?” Rather, it has to be “What has God commanded?” We simply can’t let pragmatic concerns overrule moral and theological concerns.
Let me push that reasoning even further. If our sole political concern is destroying the Left, why stop at “not punching right”? Why not actively lie? Why not engage in graft and bribery to gain power? Why not blackmail rival politicians? A strategy can be practically successful but morally impermissible.
2) The Bible requires rebuke, not mere tactical discussion
Not only does NETTR, as defined by Haywood, prohibit public rebuke, it also demands that “Any contentious discussion with those on the Right…should instead be done privately and be strictly tactical, to agree on how may we cooperate to achieve our joint ends.” Again, the Bible doesn’t permit this restriction. Here are just a few verses that obligate us to rebuke sin:
“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him” – Luke 17:13
“I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.” – 1 Cor. 5:11
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.” – Matt. 18:15
“Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt.” – Lev. 19:17
In all these cases, we are seeking the restoration of someone who sins. We desire their good. We’re not out to get them. We’re not trying to destroy them. But we’re also not simply trying to hold our alliance together. We’re not just trying to figure out how they can continue in sin while we defeat the Left. For example, if a fellow Christian or even a non-Christian friend is a thief or an adulterer or an abortionist or openly racist, my primary thought needs to be: “This is sin and I need to warn him so that he can repent.” Of course, even in private relationships, I am not obligated to constantly bring up everyone’s sin. But NETTR says something different. It says: “No, you can’t have that hard conversation at all: ‘Any contentious discussion with those on the Right… should be done privately and be strictly tactical, to agree on how may we cooperate to achieve our joint ends.’” This condition is incompatible with numerous biblical commands.
Let me give a concrete example: imagine you discover that some major figure on the right, whom you know personally, is a pornographer. He sex traffics girls and then makes pornography. When you speak to him personally, your discussion cannot be purely tactical. It cannot strictly be about how his actions will make it harder to defeat the Left. You can certainly talk to him about that. But your primary concerns have to be for God’s glory, his soul, and the grievous harm he is doing to others.
3) The Bible requires us to protect our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Here’s a final consideration that flows out of my first two points: we need to be concerned about young Christian men. Many young Christian men are sick of wokeness. I sympathize. But in response, they’re increasingly turning to non-Christian sources within the Dissident Right or the manosphere. What kind of message does it communicate if we never repudiate these figures publicly? Sure, we may privately deplore Neo-Nazis and alt-right pornographers. But does the 17-year-old kid who’s devouring Andrew Tate videos and Bronze Age Pervert essays know that? If we never publicly rebuke ideas or people “to the Right,” then they’ll wrongly assume these errors are not serious, or are not even errors. Again, this means that “no enemies to the right” (or NETTR) is impermissible. Racism within the alt-right and sexism within the manosphere are evil even if they “own the libs.” I will not let some redpill pick-up artist pimp become a role model to my sons or to other young men in my church because I refuse to rebuke them publicly. Christians have no authority to give one group a pass because they are our political allies. God detests unequal weights and measures (Prov. 20:10). We can’t send a message to young Christians that you can be as immoral as you want as long as you’re conservative.
If these theological arguments are correct, then NETTR is impermissible for Christians. Full stop. It doesn’t matter how successful NETTR is as a political strategy if the Bible forbids it. We cannot sacrifice our obedience on the altar of political expediency.
Practical problems with NETTR:
Entirely apart from theological problems with NETTR, I’m highly skeptical that NETTR will actually defeat the left for three reasons: it plays into the hands of progressives, it will alienate moderates and even fellow conservatives, and it will produce a purity spiral.
4) NETTR plays directly into the hands of progressives.
Progressives routinely insist that conservative Christians are deeply sexist and racist. That’s their narrative. There are entire books written about how “white evangelicalism” is all about power, privilege, racism, and patriarchy: Butler’s White Evangelicalism Racism, Du Mez’s Jesus and John Wayne. So if I were a progressive and I saw a conservative Christian turn a blind eye to actual racism and sexism among his political allies because of NETTR, I would be overjoyed. They would be playing directly into my hands. I would stick a microphone in front of the most racist, sexist, belligerent self-identified “Christian nationalist” or member of the “New Right” I could find and I would make him a poster child for the movement. And then I would throw a party as I watched all the “no enemies to the right” Christians put their heads down and go silent because they refused to publicly denounce an “ally.” This is a huge tactical blunder and a totally unforced error.
To complain that the Left never disowns its radicals and to therefore assert that the Right should do the same is to ignore the vast asymmetry between the Left and the Right in our culture. Progressives overwhelmingly control media narratives and elite institutions (see, for example, this survey finding that less than 2% of Harvard’s faculty identify as conservative). The Left can ignore its radicals because it can count on sympathetic journalists to ignore or downplay the existence of these radicals. We don’t have that luxury. We will be painted in the worst possible light by the majority of the media. Conservatives can lament the unfairness of this asymmetry, but we’d be foolish to ignore it.
5) NETTR will alienate moderates.
In his interview with Jon Harris, Charles talked about the political tradition of John Adams, which argues that politicians must be men of personal virtue and high moral standards. Haywood disagrees with this tradition and believes that, especially in a post-Christian age, it is imprudent and even suicidal. However, this sentiment absolutely still exists among some large segment of the U.S. electorate. There are people who do not view politics as purely transactional and who believe that personal character is extremely important. So how will these people feel when they see NETTRs refusing to punch right? When journalists insist that the most odious members of the Far Right are representative of the entire conservative movement, how will the median voter respond to complete radio silence from Christians who have embraced NETTR? What are they likely to conclude?
6) NETTR will cause a purity spiral.
Within any coalition, even a conservative one, you’ll have a spectrum of belief. But if people are only allowed to punch left, then the only one who will escape punching will be the crazy guy at the extreme right, the Nietzschean internet troll with a Pepe the Frog tattoo and an anime profile picture. That’s not going to be a stable coalition. Everyone will eventually leave except Pepe. That’s not how you win elections.
Does a WWII Analogy Justify NETTR?
I’d like to close by responding to an analogy which is frequently invoked to justify NETTR. It is argued that we are justified in adopting NETTR in the same way that the U.S. was justified in muting criticism of Russian allies to defeat the Nazis in WWII.
There are numerous problems with this analogy.
First, it begs the question. If I catch my 8 year old stealing cookies from his sister and he says “It’s ok because we’re at war” I’ll be pretty skeptical. He can’t just throw around that analogy to justify his behavior. He has to provide evidence that his actions are actually proportionate to the existential threat posed by his sister.
Moreover, the behavior of most proponents of NETTR demonstrates that they do not really believe this analogy. During wartime, all kinds of otherwise morally forbidden actions become permissible. For example, it can be morally permissible during war to lie, to seize property, and even to kill. So if NETTR is justified because “we’re at war” then you’d also have to justify lying, stealing, and even killing progressives by exactly the same reasoning. Are you ready to do that?
Second, even if we were actually at war, that wouldn’t justify NETTR when it came to private individuals! Perhaps, during WWII, it would have been imprudent for President Truman to publicly denounce Stalin. But it doesn’t follow that it would be impermissible or even imprudent for a pastor or an individual Christian to publicly denounce Stalin. If a pastor in 1944 saw that a number of the young men in his church were reading communist propaganda and wearing hammer and sickle T-shirts, he absolutely should have repudiated Stalin publicly.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I’d urge Christians to reject NETTR. Rejecting NETTR does not mean we ought to destroy anyone on the Right (or the Left) who steps out of line. It doesn’t mean that we should constantly gatekeep the conservative movement, that we should adopt the Left’s framing, or that we should be try to curry the favor of progressives. But it does mean that we can’t absolutely prohibit public criticism of figures on the Right on purely pragmatic grounds. We’re to judge ideas and behaviors based on God’s standards. We can engage others with prudence and charity, but we cannot wink at their sin simply because they’re our political allies.
Related articles:
Neil Shenvi - Apologetics 