June 26, 2026
Why did Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene leave the Republican party? | Geoffrey Kabaservice
Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene's exit from the Republican Party underscores deepening rifts between the "America First" faction and the MAGA base, driven by discontent over Trump's foreign policy priorities. Their departure raises stakes for the GOP, potentially jeopardizing its midterm prospects and hinting at a future where these factions may splinter further, possibly leading to a new populist movement. As both figures eye 2028, their influence could reshape the party's identity, challenging its cohesion amid ongoing ideological battles.

Stoic Response
Correspondence to a Roman Magistrate
From Seneca and Musonius Rufus: Reflections on Political Discontent
Noble Magistrate,
In these turbulent times, we observe the schisms within the political fabric of our Republic, akin to the discord sown among the factions of our own esteemed Senate. As the voices of Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene echo the sentiments of the populace, we must heed their warning. “About 70% of Republicans think that America’s culture and way of life have changed for the worse since the 1950s.” This statistic reveals a profound discontent that threatens the very unity of your party.
Moral Stakes of Division
The stakes are high, dear Magistrate. The departure of such influential figures from your ranks signals a rift that could weaken your party's prospects in the coming elections. Just as a ship without a steady hand can be tossed by tumultuous seas, so too can a political faction falter when its members are divided. The essence of our governance lies in the harmony of its parts; discord leads not only to the downfall of leaders but also to the erosion of the common good.
Practical Maxims for Unity
-
Foster Dialogue: Encourage open discussions among factions to bridge ideological divides. A Senate that listens is a Senate that leads.
-
Prioritize Common Goals: Identify shared values and aspirations that unite rather than divide. The strength of the Republic lies in its collective purpose.
-
Embrace Change: Acknowledge the evolving sentiments of the populace; adapt policies to reflect the needs of the people, lest they seek new paths.
-
Cultivate Loyalty: Build trust within your ranks through transparency and accountability. A united front is essential for enduring strength.
In your stewardship, may you find wisdom in these words, for the fate of our Republic may well depend on the unity you cultivate among its people.
Yours in service,
Seneca and Musonius Rufus
Article Rewritten Through Stoic Lens
A Stoic Perspective on the Republican Party's Current Struggles
The recent departure of Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene from the Republican Party serves as a poignant reminder of the ongoing ideological battles within American conservatism. This situation presents an opportunity to reflect on the cardinal virtues of Stoicism: wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance. Each conflict and success can be viewed as a test of virtue, guiding us toward a more measured response.
Wisdom: Understanding the Roots of Division
Carlson and Greene, once staunch allies of Donald Trump, have chosen to part ways with the Republican Party, citing a discontent with Trump's foreign policy priorities, particularly his stance on Iran. This departure highlights a significant ideological rift between the "America First" faction and the MAGA base. As Stoics, we must seek to understand the deeper implications of this division rather than react with outrage.
“I never understood it,” Carlson remarked about MAGA in a recent podcast. This statement reflects a struggle to comprehend the complexities of political allegiance and the shifting sands of ideology. Wisdom calls for a thoughtful examination of these factions, which represent different historical perspectives on American conservatism.
Courage: Facing the Challenges Ahead
The departure of these prominent figures raises the stakes for the GOP, potentially jeopardizing its midterm prospects. However, courage is required not only to face these challenges but to embrace them as opportunities for character development. Carlson and Greene's criticisms of Trump, including accusations of betrayal regarding Israel, serve as a call to engage in difficult conversations rather than retreating into divisive rhetoric.
Trump has labeled Greene a traitor and Carlson a “low-IQ person,” showcasing a lack of measured response. True courage lies in confronting these conflicts with integrity and seeking to understand differing viewpoints, rather than resorting to insults.
Justice: The Moral Imperative in Political Discourse
The accusations of antisemitism against Carlson and the broader critique of Israel's actions by Greene illustrate the necessity for justice in political discourse. Justice demands that we hold ourselves accountable for the words we choose and the narratives we promote. The call for a more nuanced understanding of foreign policy, as articulated by Carlson, invites a deeper exploration of moral responsibility.
Greene’s controversial labeling of Israel's actions as “genocide” and Carlson’s assertions of betrayal highlight the importance of justice in political dialogue. As Stoics, we must strive to engage in discussions that reflect our values and promote the common good, rather than merely seeking to win arguments.
Temperance: Gratitude Amidst Turmoil
As the GOP grapples with internal strife, it is essential to practice temperance, recognizing that both conflict and success are transient. The potential for a new populist movement or the reformation of the Republican Party in 2028 presents an opportunity for gratitude without attachment.
Carlson’s assertion that disillusioned "America Firsters" may abstain from midterm elections reflects a moment of reckoning. Instead of succumbing to despair, we should cultivate gratitude for the chance to reassess our values and priorities, regardless of the political landscape.
Conclusion: Embracing the Stoic Path Forward
The unfolding drama within the Republican Party serves as a reminder that political conflicts are not merely battles to be won or lost; they are tests of virtue. By approaching these challenges with wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance, we can foster a political environment that prioritizes character development over division. In the face of uncertainty, let us remain grateful for the opportunity to engage thoughtfully and meaningfully with the complexities of our political landscape.
Source Body Text
Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and former Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene – once among Donald Trump’s most prominent champions – announced recently that they have left the Republican party. Both rightwing superstars had feuded with the president throughout his second term, but their split was provoked by Trump’s war with Iran and what they viewed as his elevation of foreign affairs over domestic concerns like inflation and high gas prices. Although both have said that they will not support Democrats, their defection points to serious divisions within the Republican party that could weaken its prospects in the midterm elections and beyond. The Republican establishment has dismissed the pair as malcontents and Trump has reviled them with his usual insults, calling Greene a traitor and Carlson a “low-IQ person”. Other conservative commentators have claimed their critique stems from animus against Israel. Greene was the first Republican member of Congress to refer to Israel’s actions in Gaza as a “genocide”, and Carlson has charged that Trump betrayed the American people by allowing Israel to push him into going to war with Iran. Carlson’s criticism of Israel, coming on the heels of his softball interview with the white nationalist influencer Nick Fuentes, has provoked accusations of antisemitism that he has denied. Although Greene’s loopiness makes it difficult to take her seriously – who can forget her fulminations against “Nancy Pelosi’s gazpacho police”? – both Greene and Carlson merit consideration as potential 2028 presidential contenders. Their political strength lies in their influence with the “America first” faction of the Republican party, as opposed to the Maga faction dominated by Trump. Although Trump was long able to keep both factions in coalition, they represent different worldviews that correspond to different historical incarnations of American conservatism. The America First Committee was the leading pressure group in 1940-1941 campaigning against US entry into the war in Europe. Although it began as a nonpartisan movement, “America first” became associated with populist nationalism and the antisemitism of spokespeople like Charles Lindbergh. Trump, in reviving the “America first” label for his 2016 campaign, drew upon a deep and persistent strand in American political culture that fears becoming entangled in other countries’ wars and grievances, views immigrants with suspicion and hostility, and distrusts internationalist foreign policy as a project that benefits elites instead of the American people. Carlson, who has articulated the position of “America first” conservatives in terms that would have been recognizable to mid-20th-century isolationists like Senator Robert Taft, understandably feels betrayed by Trump’s decision to go to war against Iran. But Trump’s most resonant political slogan – “Make America great again” – looks back to different eras of conservatism from pre-second world war isolationism. Trump rarely defines when exactly he believes America experienced the greatness he has promised to recapture. But when pushed he invokes, first, the period of American military and industrial expansion in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and second, the decades after the end of the second world war when baby boomers like Trump himself were born. Trump’s Maga supporters have expressed nostalgia for America’s Gilded Age, when the country’s booming industrial base was largely protected from foreign competition and tariffs were the primary source of revenue for the federal government. But the late 19th century also marked the onset of American imperialism, with the annexation of the Philippines after the Spanish-American war – an action applauded by Rudyard Kipling in his 1899 poem Take Up the White Man’s Burden. Trump believes that a strong nation should dominate weaker ones and take whatever resources and territory it requires for its own greatness. Trump’s “Donroe Doctrine” echoes the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine’s claim to US regional hegemony, and his siding with Russia against Ukraine harkens back to that era’s belief that great powers could keep the peace by respecting each other’s spheres of influence. Trump shares the America firsters’ contempt for alliances and US global responsibilities. But Maga is not an isolationist creed, as Trump’s actions in Venezuela and Iran have demonstrated. The 1950s is the decade that marks America’s vanished utopia in the minds of many Maga supporters. In fact, a 2024 survey found that about 70% of Republicans think that America’s culture and way of life have changed for the worse since the 1950s, as compared with only 30% of Democrats who say the same. Republicans from both the Maga and “America first” factions express nostalgia for what they consider to have been a time of patriotism, religiosity and growing prosperity for blue-collar breadwinners. Their critics, unsurprisingly, charge that they want to return America to an era when minorities were largely invisible, gays and lesbians were in the closet and women’s possibilities were mostly restricted to marriage and childbearing. But Trump also relishes the memory of a time when America was by far the most powerful nation and wasn’t shy about using its power to order the world to its liking – which again hardly describes the isolationist vision of “America first”. “I never understood it,” Carlson said of Maga in a recent podcast interview. “I think there was a strong latent desire in the hearts of a lot of Americans to improve the country … but it was imprecise by design.” Trump’s charismatic incoherence – and the restraining influence of his more traditionally Republican advisers during his first term – allowed him to paper over the contradictions between Maga and “America first”. But it’s unlikely that any other 2028 Republican presidential candidate – and certainly not JD Vance – will be able to hold these factions together with anything like Trump’s success. “I’ve been a consistent defender for 35 years of the Republican party,” Carlson told his interviewers. “And if I’m out, then I think a lot of other people are out.” Disillusioned America firsters may sit out the midterm elections, particularly if instability in the Middle East continues to be a drag on the economy. It’s not impossible to imagine Carlson or Greene attempting to retake control of the Republican party in 2028, or even creating some kind of populist-isolationist third party. But it’s also quite conceivable that shared hatred of the left will continue to keep Republicans together despite their factional disagreements. Geoffrey Kabaservice is the director of political studies at the Niskanen Center in Washington, as well as the author of Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party