This article was first published in the Right to the Point newsletter. Sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox each week.
As anti-Israel protests roiled American universities in the wake of the Oct. 7 attacks, Bill Ackman became a hero in some conservative circles. Standing up against his alma mater, Harvard University, Ackman started writing about antisemitism and DEI, and his activism is believed to be one of the reasons that Claudine Gay resigned.
Ackman, the CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management, is a hedge-fund manager, a class of financiers that have been described as the villains of Wall Street. Not that conservatives have anything against people becoming successful and making money — they’re generally all for it, which is one reason Elon Musk was also warmly embraced by many within the GOP.
Ackman’s support for Donald Trump, articulated in a widely shared X post that offered 33 reasons the Democrats had failed America, drew him even more attention and followers; he now has 1.8 million followers on X and a recent Bloomberg profile referred to him as a “memelord.”
But like Musk, Ackman has suddenly found himself front and center in a brawl among conservatives who are increasingly eating their own, to the delight of Democrats. In the past week, Tucker Carlson has gone after Ackman with surprising vitriol, as has Libertarian-leaning Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald said Ackman had “wormed” his way into a professional tennis match by virtue of his wealth and connections, and Carlson derided Ackman’s — and other billionaires’ — worth to society.
“How did Bill Ackman get $9 billion? Bill Ackman, a pretty impressive guy? I know Bill Ackman. No,” Carlson said at a Turning Point USA event last week.
He went on to say: “Bill Ackman’s, like, well connected and super aggressive. That’s it. And I think, you know, well connected, super aggressive people deserve a fair living like everybody else, but if you’re accruing $9 billion because you’re willing to do anything, I don’t know why we have to pretend that’s good.”
There was more, and Ackman later called the remarks defamatory in an extended response he posted online, detailing the two men’s history and saying that Carlson owes him an apology.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was among those who weighed in online — Cruz recently having been verbally battered by Carlson himself.
It’s getting kind of wearisome, the public infighting by people who mostly share the same values. While vigorous debates are healthy (cue Megyn Kelly v. Ben Shapiro and any of The Free Press debates), the snark meter trends high in any exchange on social media.
For the record, Ackman considers himself a centrist, and has said in the past, “I care only about the truth. I will vote for and support whoever is best for our country regardless of their party affiliation.”
Ackman also posted a lengthy response to what has been dubbed “TennisGate” — what Greenwald lit into him about — after which one follower said, “Please, Bill ... like the serves that whizzed by, please let this one go.”
To that he nicely replied, “All done,” and for the sake of conservatism, let’s hope so.
Liberals open to speaking to conservatives again
In an essay in The New York Times this past weekend, a former speechwriter for Barack Obama suggested that it might be good for people of different political persuasions to talk to each other.
Really.
In his piece, entitled “Is It Time to Stop Snubbing Your Right-Wing Family?,” David Litt explained how he’d started keeping a certain distance from his wife’s younger brother because of their differing views, most importantly about COVID-19 vaccination.
“My frostiness wasn’t personal. It was strategic,” he wrote. “Being unfriendly to people who turned down the vaccine felt like the right thing to do. How else could we motivate them to mend their ways?”
He noted that others shared that view, including the writer of an essay in USA Today that said “It’s time to start shunning the ‘vaccine hesitant.’”
They didn’t mean to shun people so they wouldn’t be exposed to illness, but as “a form of accountability,” Litt said. In real life, this means, “We block those we disagree with online; we leave the group chat; we don’t show up for Thanksgiving.”
What finally caused Litt to un-shun his brother-in-law was not a moral reckoning, but the need for a surfing partner. In the ocean, the men discovered connections that were “tiny and unrelated to politics.” They discovered they liked each other.
Unfortunately, the heartwarming end to this story hit a snag when Litt said that there are some people so odious that frostiness is still the best policy. “If Stephen Miller wants a surf lesson, I’ll decline.”
And in one fell swoop, Litt completely undermines his argument for the sake of a punchline at a Republican’s expense. But the truce was nice while it lasted.
Recommended Reading
In a piece for Deseret Magazine, Maria McNair takes a look at the consequences of “news avoidance” — staying away from the news because it seems too depressing and out of our control. In doing so, we miss out on vital information that might be encouraging, such as with regard to climate change.
“Anxiety levels would likely not be so high, says (Emma) Varvaloucas, if more people knew ‘that the truly apocalyptic levels of warming that were possible even 10 years ago are widely seen as implausible now. So the really scary scenarios that (a United Nations panel) outlined for 7, 8, 9 degrees of warming, we’re done with them. We avoided them already’.”
If you haven’t read Ryan Burge’s powerful piece on what it’s like to close a century-old church, read it here.
Then, read his follow-up piece as the one-year anniversary of the church closing looms. Burge, one of the foremost researchers of the decline of organized religion, writes poignantly about the personal messages he received — some kind, some offensive — and what it’s like to sit in a pew at his new church, with his former congregation members near him.
The church I led closed a year ago. I’m not over it yet
Jay Evensen bids “goodbye to the TSA sock hop” but points out that airport security is still faced with a bigger problem than our shoes: our guns.
“During 2024, the agency intercepted 6,678 firearms at airport security checkpoints, and about 94% of them were loaded. That was actually a reduction over 2023, when agents found 6,737. For you statistics nerds, the TSA says it screened more than 904 million people in 2024. That means it found 7.4 guns per million people, as opposed to 7.8 per million in ‘23.”
The relief of keeping your shoes on at the airport
Endnotes
Semafor’s Ben Smith was in France for the Cannes Lion International Festival of Creativity when I tried to reach him to talk about whether Tucker Carlson’s interview with the president of Iran constitutes journalism.
He later replied to questions via email, saying somewhat apologetically, “on a plane.” While I was grateful for the response, it later struck me how the airplane — which used to be the last place where we had a legitimate reason for not being accessible — no longer offers that.
Yes, it’s miraculous that we can have internet service 35,000 feet in the air. But it’s also kind of terrible. I thank God every week for the Sabbath.
Meanwhile here’s a look at how conservatives reacted to The Wall Street Journal’s report that Harvard University is considering starting a center for conservative scholarship, a la the Hoover Institution.
As always, thank you for reading and being part of the Right to the Point community. You can email me at Jgraham@deseretnews.com, or send me a DM on X, where I’m @grahamtoday.