Analysis of the Clash Between Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens
The escalating clash between Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens highlights a significant rift in conservative media and ideology. Shapiro, a co-founder of The Daily Wire and an outspoken Orthodox Jew, has taken a firm stand against Owens’ controversial remarks regarding Israel and antisemitism. His recent comments signal a critical juncture in their relationship—one that began with ideological differences and has now entered the realm of personal attacks.
Shapiro’s latest remarks, calling Owens’ statements “RETARDED,” exemplify the intensifying animosity between the two figures. This outburst reflects the broader context of their disagreements on Israel and Jewish identity, particularly following inflammatory events in the Middle East. The October 7 attack by Hamas and Israel’s military response marked a turning point that exacerbated their feud. Long-standing tensions have erupted into public disputes that reverberate across conservative circles.
Owens has increasingly positioned herself against mainstream conservative thought, aligning her rhetoric with controversial fringe elements. Her claims, such as suggesting Israeli involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, reflect a departure from typical conservative dialogue. This has drawn backlash not only from the Jewish community but also from many within the conservative base who once regarded Owens as a leading voice.
The formal severing of ties between Owens and The Daily Wire in November 2023 was a pivotal moment, underscored by a statement from the platform’s CEO. Owens’ declaration of being “finally free” indicates a conscious shift away from institutional constraints that previously shaped her narratives. Yet, her statements regarding financial motivations reveal her continued struggle within the ideological framework she seeks to redefine.
Shapiro has remained consistent in his condemnation of antisemitism, attempting to delineate between valid criticisms of Israel and outright antisemitic tropes. He has faced scrutiny about whether such distinctions accommodate genuine concerns among younger conservatives regarding foreign influence. His efforts to uphold a clear boundary are crucial not only for his credibility but also for the broader conservative movement. Statements like, “Candace, if you feel that taking money from The Daily Wire somehow comes between you and God, by all means quit,” reflect his insistence on principle over financial ties.
Owens’ framing of her departure with religious overtones—”One cannot serve both God and money”—embodies her rejection of what she perceives as hypocritical stances among fellow conservatives. Her alignment with themes of “globalism” and conspiratorial rhetoric has garnered her a devoted following despite the alienation from mainstream conservative institutions. Her social media presence allows her to persist in influencing an audience segment that feels disenfranchised by traditional conservative elites.
The ideological divide is palpable. Shapiro’s unyielding defense of Israel contrasts sharply with Owens’ increasingly conspiratorial narratives. The fallout from their feud has implications beyond personal grievances; it impacts the very foundations of conservative dialogue. This division has led to observable consequences: Owens faced suspension from YouTube and exclusion from speaking engagements, highlighting concerns over the normalization of extremist views in conservative rhetoric.
The rise in antisemitic content in right-wing social media underscores the potential dangers of the narratives being buoyed by figures like Owens. These narratives fuel further division, creating a breeding ground for hate and misinformation that undermine the principles many conservatives hold dear.
Moreover, personal accusations between the two have escalated tensions, as seen in discussions surrounding Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk’s death. Shapiro’s assertion that Owens is promoting “vile” conspiracy theories regarding Kirk adds fuel to the fire of their acrimonious relationship. Owens’ denial and her labeling of Shapiro as “completely deranged” illustrate the depth of animosity that has developed.
As Shapiro and Owens continue to engage in this ideological battle, they represent broader currents within the American right. The stakes are high: the clash over ideas, affiliations, and historical interpretations not only shapes individual careers but also has the potential to redefine the trajectory of the conservative movement. Owens remains undeterred, and Shapiro shows no signs of retreating. Their ongoing conflict, fraught with personal and ideological implications, serves as a litmus test for the future of conservative thought in America.
"*" indicates required fields
