_(cropped).jpg)
August 2, 2025
by Jasmin Koso
In a world dominated by relativism, marketing, and political calculation, Candace Owens seems almost like an anachronism. She resembles a biblical prophet more than a modern commentator. She does not care about appearances, she does not tone down her words, she does not try to please everyone; she speaks what she believes to be the truth – often in a shockingly blunt manner.
In today’s public discourse, it is extremely rare to hear someone speak the language of conscience rather than interest. This is precisely the core problem politicians have with Candace Owens.
The Socratic Aspect
Socrates was a thorn in the side of the Athenian elite because he refused to play their game. Instead of being an opportunist, he sought the truth, even if it meant being sentenced to death. Owens behaves similarly: instead of obediently following the line of a team – left, right, pro-Israel – she asks uncomfortable questions.
It is as if she asks:
“If you claim to stand for freedom, how do you justify killing children?”
And for this, like Socrates, she pays a price.
The Voice of John the Baptist
John was no diplomat. He did not beg, he did not flatter. He spoke directly, even when told to be silent. When Owens declares,
“What you are doing in Gaza is satanic,”
it echoes John crying out:
“Repent, for the axe is already at the root of the tree.”
She does not care if she loses a contract, a friendship, or a platform. She is concerned with truth and justice – not relative, but divine.
A Kantian Moment
Immanuel Kant argued that a moral person acts in such a way that their action could become a universal law. One does not tell the truth because it is convenient, but because it is a moral necessity. Owens, when she criticizes Israel, does not choose a “side” out of interest but says:
“When someone kills and starves children, I cannot justify it – even if I lose everything.”
This is the categorical imperative in practice: act morally, period.
The Dostoevskian Cry of Conscience
In characters like Ivan Karamazov or Prince Myshkin, we encounter a pure conscience that refuses to reconcile with a world of lies and compromise. Owens seems to echo Ivan Karamazov when she looks at Gaza:
“If the price of the world is one tortured, starving child, I reject that world.”
This is not politics. It is a moral drama. A Christian woman watches the death of children and cannot remain silent – because silence would be complicity.
Candace Owens is not sinless. At times she is too harsh, sometimes misinformed, often emotional. She has made statements in the past (such as downplaying the significance of slavery or racism) that deserve serious criticism.
Thus, yes, she may be a moral voice, but not in a sterile, ideal sense. Rather, she is an authentic person who makes mistakes yet speaks from deep conviction and is willing to pay the price. Such people are rare – and often misunderstood.
Moreover:
She may be one of the few voices who speaks not to be right, but because silence would mean betraying her soul.
She pays for her convictions. Opportunists do not abandon well-paid positions in mainstream conservative media. She lost her contract with The Daily Wire and clashed with powerful conservative figures like Ben Shapiro because she refused to retract her words about Israel.
If she were an opportunist, she would have softened her tone, said “that’s not what I meant,” and smoothed things over – but she didn’t.
There is a constant ethical dimension to her messages. Regardless of the topic – Black Lives Matter, transgender issues, Israel, pharmaceutical corporations – she speaks from an ethical or spiritual standpoint, not an ideological one. This does not mean she is always right, but it does mean she speaks from conscience, not strategy.
She does not change direction with the wind. She has lost status on the right. Many on the left still reject her because of her previous stances against feminism, immigration, and BLM. She has no safe base. That is not the behavior of a manipulator; it is the behavior of a person internally consistent.
Perhaps she cannot be easily categorized because she belongs more to the realm of morality than politics. And perhaps only in ten or twenty years will we truly understand what she was telling us.
