I’m a jersey-wearing, flag-waving Free Speech fanboy. As much as I detest the garbage spewed by odious, Nazi-adjacent hobgoblins like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, I’d die to defend their right to mispronounce it. If the price of Free Speech is conspiracy theories about “Jew math,” well, oy-frickin’-veh.

(Hmm. If Jews weren’t hated enough, tar-and-feathering ‘em with algebra ought to convert the final holdouts. Well played, Carlson. Well played.)

But Free Speech never meant freedom from consequences. Like Rush Limbaugh used to say in that Verbal Advantage ad-read, “People judge you by the words you use.” The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they made freedom of association a First Amendment-protected right: Implicit in Free Speech is the freedom to form like-minded groups. 

That’s freedom of association.

And implicit in freedom of association is freedom NOT to associate.

Recommended
West Coast, Messed Coast™ — That's the Smell of Corruption at Karen Bass' L.A. Homeless Authority Victoria Taft Elderly Man Killed at Norfolk Walmart for Calling Out Rude Teen Ashley McCully

All movements must police their ranks. It’s fundamental to survival. Otherwise, rivals will hijack their agenda. The suggestion that a movement — or a leading politician within a movement — must maintain an association with bad actors, saboteurs, and hostile propagandists is ludicrous.

If you don’t believe in freedom of disassociation, then you don’t really believe in Free Speech.

This brings us to Vice President JD Vance — and not just him. He’s the most prominent example, but in many ways, he’s also the victim.

Because antisemitism has exploded. The Katz is out of the bag: It’s already captured a gargantuan mindshare. Benjamin Netanyahu is the world’s most hated leader, more Americans sympathize with the Palestinians than the Israelis, and a supermajority (72%) of Democrats believe the blood libel lie that Israel is guilty of genocide.

Just as importantly, the alternative media “gatekeepers” who were Team MAGA in 2024 have hopped aboard the anti-Israel bandwagon. Some of the biggest, most influential names, too: Joe Rogan, Theo Von, Shawn Ryan, “Me Too” Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, Alex Jones, Dave Smith, and, of course, Tucker Carlson. Their reasons range from convoluted Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy theories to antisemitic tropes to the Iran War.

(And, of course, “Jew math.”)

It’s a vexing dilemma, because movements grow by addition. Not subtraction. And like it or not, millions of open-minded voters listen to these podcasters.

If they can be swayed by Candace Owens, Megyn Kelly, or Tucker Carlson, then surely they could be persuaded by JD Vance. So it makes sense to fight tooth and nail for this audience, right? 

Instead of simply walking away.

If we must cede ground on Israel to keep the Dems out of power, isn’t it worth it?

Besides, what’s so wrong with a big tent movement — or staying friends with bigots, antisemites, and political enemies? We found common ground in 2024; if we don’t burn all our bridges, perhaps we will again.

Which is the vice president’s position:

JD Vance is a dazzling debater, and one of his go-to rhetorical devices is strawmen. He framed the Tucker Carlson question as a matter of friendship: What’s so bad about valuing personal relationships? Isn’t it kind of admirable to place friendships above politics? 

I mean, wouldn’t the opposite be worse?

In a narrow sense, Vance is right. Blowing up families or ending lifelong friendships over petty political differences is insane. (And something liberals do far more than conservatives.) 

But in a larger sense, he’s wrong. Just as we judge you by the words you use, we also judge you by the friends you keep.

And if you’re friends with bigots, then it reveals something about your tolerance for bigotry.

Vance can argue that it also means he’s patient, loyal, and inclusive. Or that he’s being strategically pragmatic — and laser-focused on winning. 

Fine. Maybe he’s right.

But it still says something about his tolerance for bigotry.

Because, in an even larger sense, it isn’t a question of friendship at all. Few voters give a damn about someone’s off-radar personal relationships: We already know D.C. is an incestuous cesspool where everyone’s in bed with everyone else!

Politicians cosplay as partisan warlords when the cameras are rolling; behind the scenes, they’re sharing cocktails, backslaps, and dirty jokes. Second verse, same as the first.

So we don’t really care if Vance and Carlson are bosom buddies. Whatever. Follow your heart, bruh.

We care when a friendship has detrimental consequences.

Just like the Democrats didn’t give a rip about Hasan Piker yapping about Jews, Israel, and America deserving 9/11. It’s not new; Piker has been spouting antisemitic, anti-American gibberish for years. But because he commanded a large audience and rallied socialists to vote Blue, the Democrats turned a blind eye.

If his relationship with Abdul El-Sayed wasn’t jeopardizing a Senate seat, they STILL wouldn’t care!

Yet just like Piker is dragging down El-Sayed, Tucker Carlson is now dragging down the GOP. He’s dedicated his podcast to vilifying Israel, promoting antisemitism, attacking President Donald Trump (who just may be the Antichrist), and inflaming grassroots anger against the MAGA movement.

Which means he’s now an anti-MAGA propagandist.

Maintaining a personal friendship with an ideological opponent is one thing. Empowering him is something else entirely.

By refusing to condemn his beliefs — and insisting their friendship is so precious that jeopardizing it isn’t even an option — JD Vance has empowered Tucker Carlson. Vance’s words and actions have told the base that Carlson is worthy of our attention and loyalty, too.

And that’s perfect for Carlson’s click-for-cash profit model. 

It’s frustrating, because the smarter PR move would be lowering the profile of someone who’s actively using his platform to injure your movement. All Vance had to say was something like, “Tucker will always be a personal friend, but I stopped listening to his foreign policy advice when he stupidly called President Trump a slave to Israel. ‘Cause that’s just dumb — and life’s too short for dumb advice.”

Boom. You just disincentivized audiences from consuming his propaganda.

Instead, Vance did the opposite. He signaled to audiences that Carlson still deserves our support, loyalty, and friendship. Like he told UnHerd in late 2025, “The idea that Tucker Carlson — who has one of the largest podcasts in the world, who has millions of listeners, who supported Donald Trump in the 2024 election, who supported me in the 2024 election — the idea that his views are somehow completely anathema to conservatism, that he has no place in the conservative movement, is frankly absurd. And I don’t think anybody actually believes it.” 

The vice president went even further when he declared that America cannot be “subservient” to Israel this week. His choice of language — and the insinuation behind it — overlapped beautifully with Carlson’s favorite conspiracy theory.

Does this mean that Vance agrees with Carlson and is a secret Jew-hater? Of course not.

This is D.C. Politics makes strange bedfellows. Strom Thurmond and James Clyburn were good friends, too. Just because Carlson twists everything into a convoluted conspiracy theory doesn’t mean we should.

But it also means antisemitism isn’t a dealbreaker for JD Vance — and it’s perfectly fair for voters to factor that into their decision-making in 2028. Just like it’s perfectly fair for voters to factor in Abdul El-Sayed’s relationship with Hasan Piker.

They have the Free Speech right to say what they want.

And we have the freedom of association to walk away.

Recommended: Welcome to the Age of Psyops: From Gavin Newsom to AI Doomerism, Nothing Is What It Seems