No Enemies to the Right? Thoughts on Christian Political Engagement

The mantra “no enemies to the right” (NETTR) has popped up recently in the Very Online evangelical circles I frequent. It’s sometimes associated with “Christian nationalism” or the “New Christian Right.” But more often, it’s simply a mood that pervades certain segments of Twitter. In this essay, I’ll describe NETTR in what I consider its most plausible form before explaining why I think it is not only theologically wrong but politically counter-productive.

What Is NETTR?

“No enemies to the right” consists of three basic ideas:

The Left is an existential threat.
Consequently, Christians are morally obligated to oppose the Left.
Since opposition to the Left will be weakened by criticizing people to the Right, Christians should not publicly criticize people to their Right.

Since this last point is key, I’ll expand on it in detail. Proponents of NETTR argue:

Conservative criticism of allies reinforces the Left’s framing. Take racism. If conservative Christians constantly denounce racism, even in the abstract, these denunciations merely strengthen the Left’s push to make racism an issue of central political importance.
Conservative policing of allies strengthens the Left’s stereotypes. Using the same example, when a non-racist conservative calls attention to a racist conservative, even to repudiate him, it merely reinforces the idea that “Conservatives are racist.”
Rightward criticism is a distraction. If the Right’s main political goal is the defeat of the Left, then any time spent critiquing the Right is a distraction from that goal.
Ignoring fringe elements on the Right makes the mainstream Right look sane by comparison. Conversely, expunging the far-Right makes the mainstream Right look more extreme than it actually is.
The Overton window (i.e. the set of ideas/claims that are considered “socially acceptable”) has shifted so far left that we should not oppose anyone who wants to move it to the right.

One point that NETTRs have made repeatedly is that the Left has long employed these very principles. For example, progressive politicians rarely denounce organizations like Antifa. You don’t see them regularly repudiating the latest LibsOfTikTok video. You don’t see them engaging in month-long struggle sessions with conservatives who are demanding that they renounce Queer Theory and all its works. Given the apparent success of the Left’s approach, some conservatives are asking “Why can’t we do this?”

So what are my concerns about NETTR? Oddly enough, they mirror my concerns about “woke evangelicalism.” Hence, a brief digression.

NETTR and Wokeness

Around 2018, I began reading and writing extensively about critical theory, the ideology that undergirds “wokeness” both in the culture and in the church. Soon after I began, I faced growing criticism from fellow evangelicals that normally followed the following progression:

First, when I explained the central ideas of critical theory, I was told “no one believes these ideas.” Next, when I showed that many people did actually believe these ideas, I was told “ok, but no evangelicals believe these ideas.” When I provided concrete examples of professing evangelicals who subscribed to these ideas, I was told “those are just fringe figures.” When I pointed out that these figures actually had large platforms and that these ideas were leaking into mainstream evangelicalism, I was chastised that “wokeness is a bogeyman” and that my concerns were a “distraction from real problems” and that “you’re just a white-adjacent racist.”

My experience is not unique; many conservative evangelical readers witnessed exactly this same progression. What happened is clear in retrospect:

Evangelicals who were concerned with “justice issues” found political allies on the Left. These political allies had imbibed ideas drawn from critical theory that were clearly incompatible with Christianity. Yet, because they were their allies, “justice-minded” evangelicals grew defensive. They downplayed the severity or even the existence of these problems. They circled the wagons. When pressed to draw clear theological lines that would distinguish them from secular progressives, they refused. All the while, the bad ideas festered and the result was theological decline and, on occasion, outright apostasy.

Five years later, I find myself with the same concerns with respect to conservative Christians and I’m hearing the same rejoinders: “no one believes that,” “no evangelicals believe that,” “those are fringe figures,” “you’re distracting from real problems,” “you’re just a regime-adjacent liberal.” Perhaps most ironically and alarmingly, I’m hearing conservative Christians invoking a critical analysis of “power dynamics” to “see through” the claims of “regime-adjacent theologians” and expose them as mere bids for power, a method of reasoning once invoked solely by the Left.

Thus, I’d like to make both a theological and a practical case for rejecting NETTR. To be clear, I am not arguing that Christians should not oppose the Left or that we should not have political allies. I’m not arguing that the Right is just as big of a threat as the Left. I’m not arguing that those who remain silent about some sin or some person thereby necessarily endorse that sin or that person. And I’m certainly not arguing that Christians should ever bind other Christians’ consciences with regard to how often they must speak about every topic.

My argument is that Christians 1) should explicitly recognize dangers to their Right, 2) should not refuse to publicly criticize people to their Right, and 3) should publicly draw clear theological lines that exclude “right-wing” sins.

Theological Arguments

Obligatory Criticism

One important objection to NETTR is that the Bible consistently models and indeed commands public criticism of a range of figures for a range of sins.

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).

Turning to the New Testament, Christians are commanded to “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (Eph. 5:11). In 1 Tim. 5:20, Paul writes: “As for [elders] who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.” Note that neither of these commands circumscribes the sins in question or the people involved. When Peter sinfully withdraws from the Gentiles, the apostle Paul writes 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).

It is possible to respond that Christians should seek first to confront fellow Christians privately (Matt. 18) or to resolve disputes within the church (1 Cor. 6:1-8). However, proponents of NETTR can’t claim to be opposed to public rebuke if they are willing to publicly rebuke the sins of Christians and non-Christians to their Left. But is this purely political distinction biblically justifiable? Could Paul have said to himself “Peter has sinned grievously, but his public exposure would provide ammunition to the Left, so I will remain publicly silent”?

Guarding Souls

A second major issue is how a policy of NETTR will affect other Christians, especially young ones. To their credit, proponents of NETTR acknowledge that all sin should be rejected. However, they believe that sin “to the Right” should be rebuked privately rather than publicly.

However, this restriction will have an inevitable effect on how Christians assess sin. Flip the scenario for a moment. Imagine a church that never publicly rebuked abortion and never publicly rebuked pro-choice politicians. Even if the church spoke privately about abortion, its public posture would inevitably affect its members’ views on abortion. At a minimum, they would think abortion was not nearly as serious a sin as the sins that did warrant public critique and frequent attention.

In the same way, when a Christian, especially a young Christian, is immersed in an environment which never publicly issues rebukes “to the Right,” he will wrongly assume these sins are not as sinful. This is a major problem. Christians are commanded to consider how their own actions will impact their brothers and sisters in Christ (1 Cor. 8:9, 1 John 2:10, Rom. 14:13-15), and these commands apply to our political engagement.

Which Right?

A related problem involves categorizing people using the simplistic category of Left/Right. In reality, there are many different large-scale political alignments that transgress the Left/Right binary. Where exactly do Libertarians fit? Log Cabin Republicans? Independents? How do you classify groups in other countries? Hindu Nationalists? Wahabi Muslims?

Or consider individuals like Andrew Tate. I was encouraged to see dozens of conservative Christians explicitly condemn him after his interview with Tucker Carlson. But is this consistent with NETTR? Tate is certainly not a fan of the Left. And while he’s currently more known for his misogyny than his politics, what would happen if he began supporting conservative political candidates? Would proponents NETTR immediately mute their criticism, despite the fact that he’s dangerously influential among young people?

What about Nick Fuentes, the far-right figure and former CPAC member?

What about Bronze Age Pervert and various non-Christian members of the dissident right?

Proponents of NETTR have to draw arbitrary lines around certain figures who are “to the Right” and thus shouldn’t be publicly criticized. Where does the Bible offer any support for making this distinction?

Theology Governs Political Engagement

Finally, our theology must take precedence over and govern our political engagement in at least two ways.

First, the idea of “no enemies to the Right” is intended to express a purely political principle. However, political principles bleed very easily into our theology, as we saw when it came to the “woke” movement. Proponents of NETTR often treat their non-Christian political allies with far more emotional warmth and friendliness than co-religionists who may not share identical political concerns but with whom they are 95% theologically and ethically aligned. I struggle to find any biblical warrant for this disconnect. The New Testament consistently divides humanity into the two categories of Christian and non-Christian (“believer/unbeliever,” “church/world,” “sons of light/darkness,” “saved/lost”), and it commands Christians to love one another like family. The idea of a Christian who feels more affinity with non-Christians than with Christians is completely foreign to the Bible.

Second, Christians must acknowledge that we will never be as successful at politics as secularists (whether on the Right or the Left) because we will always be constrained by our theology. For example, it might be (and probably is) empirically true that outright lies would secure us more political power than truth. Similarly, it might be the case that turning the other cheek and offering forgiveness to our enemies will make us look “soy” and “cringe” to the based Right. But Christians are not called to unconstrainedly maximize our political effectiveness; we’re called to obey God’s commands. The two are not identical. As a result, I wince when Christians assume that we should be overtly imitating the strategies of the radical Left, which seems to have no such constraints on its behavior.

Theological Summary

In summary, I’ve argued that Christians should reject NETTR for various theological reasons. To be clear, I’m not making the case that prudential considerations are never relevant. We are not obligated as Christians to call out every sin committed by every person all the time. We naturally and rightly comment primarily on the evils that are particularly pertinent to our lives, to our local church, to our local community, or to our nation. This kind of theological triage is unavoidable. But it is based on an entirely different reasoning than “no enemies to the right.”

It is one thing to say “I tend to publicly challenge the sins/people that are most relevant to my community.” It is entirely different to say “I refuse to publicly challenge certain sins/people because of the political implications.” Christians can accept the former, but must reject the latter.

I’d add here that it’s important to consider the effect of social media bubbles (see Figure 1). No one is ever speaking to “the culture as a whole.” Instead, you are only speaking to the subset of people who are actually listening to you. And, on social media, the people listening to you are very likely share your cultural and political outlook. Therefore, somewhat paradoxically, the more you speak out against the Left, the more you will attract an audience that already rejects the sins of the Left and needs to hear warnings about other sins!

Figure 1. Both A and B are speaking counter-cultural messages that are needed within their local, physical communities. But A and B inevitably attract like-minded people on social media. Hence, their messages are conformist within their social media bubbles.

In this section, I’ve argued that NETTR is theological impermissible. If I’m correct, then the question of whether it is politically savvy is entirely irrelevant. Let me repeat: if my theological reasoning is correct, then it doesn’t matter if NETTR “works”; it must be rejected. That said, in the next section, I’d like to show why I’m skeptical that NETTR does work. I’ll argue that NETTR is an imprudent strategy likely to backfire and to weaken Christian political influence.

Practical Arguments

In the last section, I argued that a posture of “no enemies of the right” (NETTR) is theologically impermissible. In this section, I will argue that even if NETTR were theologically permissible, it would not be politically prudent.

Asymmetric Warfare

In assessing the effectiveness of NETTR, it’s crucial to recognize that there is a drastic cultural asymmetry between conservatives and progressives. Currently, the Left controls most of the levers of power in news, entertainment, and education. This fact has serious implications. For example, I noted in the first section that progressive politicians rarely denounce radical groups like Antifa. Part of the reason this strategy is successful is that they can be confident most reporters will not hold their feet to the fire and demand such a denunciation. In contrast, any politician who, for example, declares himself a “Christian nationalist” can virtually guarantee that the same reporters will seek out the most reprehensible, fringe example of a self-identified “Christian nationalist” and make him the poster child of the entire movement.

This double standard is unfair, but it certainly exists and we dare not ignore it. Whatever success the Left has achieved using “no enemies” tactics, we simply cannot assume they will yield the same success for the Right.

Purity Spiral and Division

Second, a “no enemies” strategy will lead almost inevitably to a purity spiral. Consider a conservative coalition that, miraculously, has uniformly agreed to adopt a posture of NETTR. Any such coalition powerful enough to challenge the Left will have to include a range of perspectives, even if they are all conservative. But what will happen when the rightmost members of the coalition begin criticizing the leftmost members for being “Left-adjacent”?

As per the rules of NETTR, these “Left-adjacent conservatives” cannot push back publicly because that would be “punching right.” Yet it seems unlikely that any group would willingly take part in a coalition that forced them into role of perpetual whipping boy. Consequently, they will either 1) move right, 2) leave the coalition, or 3) mute any opinions which would draw the ire of the extreme right. Regardless of which option they choose, another group will take their place as “Left-adjacent” and will be forced to make the same choices: leave, shut up, or move right.

These are the dynamics of a purity spiral. Wherever “no enemies” tactics are employed, the most radical, fringe groups are empowered and eventually co-opt the movement. Ironically, we see precisely these dynamics on the Left, which is being forced to embrace ideas that would have been unthinkable to the average liberal 30 years ago. When conservatives argue that we should embrace the tactics of the Left, are we willing to go wherever those tactics lead?

Views Versus Windows

Third, in NETTR circles, many people discuss the Overton window, that is, the range of opinions that are considered “acceptable” in polite society. NETTRs rightly observe that the Overton window has shifted dramatically to the left over the last few decades. Ideas like “same-sex marriage should be illegal” that were once widely-held are now considered unacceptable. To “reopen” the Overton window to conservative ideas, many NETTRs believe we should refuse to oppose Right-wing ideas, even extreme ones that we strongly disagree with. So, for example, we might be personally opposed to outlawing non-Christian religions in the U.S. But, they’d argue, if the widespread discussion of this idea shifts the Overton window such that it’s possible to speak more freely about the Christian roots of our nation, that’s a net win.

However, the width of the Overton window is not all that matters. What matters far more is which positions people actually hold within the Overton window. Thus the practices that widen the Overton window can actually work against shifting people’s actual views. See, for example, Figure 2 below. Imagine some fringe group is arguing that we should reinstitute blasphemy laws and gains enough of a following that the Overton window actually shifts. However, at the same time, most people are so repulsed by this view that their own views move left. This is not a win. You now have a wider Overton window but no chance of actually winning elections or influencing public policy.

Figure 2. Fringe ideas can shift the Overton window right while simultaneously driving actual people left.

While shifting the Overton window is helpful, it is not nearly as important as changing people’s beliefs.

Persuasion

Finally, NETTR creates serious obstacles to persuasion. The Very Online concept of a “normie” is important here. A normie, in this context, is someone who unquestioningly believes whatever is widely accepted as obvious common sense. For example, a 21st century American normie conservative believes that democracy is good, freedom is good, racism is bad, and fascism is bad. Of course, many liberals and non-normies believe these same claims (and these claims are true!). But what typifies a normie is that these beliefs are unthinkingly accepted as premises with little if any critical engagement. The normie is just “going with the flow.” In this way, the vast majority of people of every political persuasion are normies, which means that any successful political movement (especially one that takes place within a democracy) will have to persuade normies.

Consider, then, what is likely to happen when a committedly NETTR coalition makes an appeal to a normie. Again, let’s use the example of a candidate who self-identifies as a “Christian nationalist.” The candidate himself might have beliefs that are good and reasonable. The normie may even be persuaded by his arguments. But the instant a normie Googles the phrase “Christian nationalism,” he will find entire books written by prominent scholars about how “Christian nationalism” is fundamentally racist, sexist, fascist, and theocratic. And if a NETTR politician is publicly asked whether he repudiates the views of someone on the far-right, he will have to respond with silence. How is that silence likely to be interpreted by the average “normie”?

Thus far, I’ve been assuming benign intentions. But what happens when progressives discover that NETTR conservatives will never publicly disavow the views of the far-right? A major obstacle to convincing the average normie of the dangers of Queer Theory or CRT is that they’re constantly told that every conservative is a hate-filled, sexist white supremacist. When it comes to removing this obstacle, NETTR binds your hands because public rightward criticism is prohibited.

Speaking personally, I’ve had a great deal of success in convincing evangelical Christians of the dangers of critical race theory precisely because I explicitly and sincerely denounce racism. My open, consistent rejection of racism opens up people to my analysis who would otherwise have been closed to it. Conversely, proponents of CRT have a much harder time smearing me as a racist when I’ve been thoroughly transparent and outspoken about my beliefs for as long as I’ve been speaking about this topic.

Practical Summary

NETTR is sometimes positioned as a bracing realpolitik, a needed corrective that will overthrow Leftist hegemony. But I’m more inclined to think that the widespread embrace of NETTR will lead to division, right-wing purity spirals, and tribalism. More importantly, I’m not convinced that it will produce actual wins on the ground. Indeed, from my (admittedly limited) vantage point, the main effect of NETTR has been to alienate huge swaths of vehemently conservative anti-Leftist Christians. If NETTR conservatives manage to elect their preferred candidates and recapture formerly progressive institutions rather than to simply fracture the conservative movement, I will revise my practical (though not my theological) assessment. But until then, I’ll remain skeptical.

If you’re a Christian who finds NETTR appealing, I hope you’ll reconsider. I’m not condemning you. I’m not calling you a racist/sexist/fascist. I’m not questioning your motives. I’m just urging you to think about the theological and practical implications of your posture. Most of all, I’m urging you to draw clear theological lines so that you (and others) are not tempted to downplay the errors of your political allies. We saw this danger in the “woke Left.” Let’s not repeat it.

Related resources: