"Never help the enemy by criticizing your allies!"
"No enemies to the right" (NETTR) is a terrible philosophy that makes us weaker, not stronger.
I am a conservative. Among other things, I believe in lower taxes, limited government and protecting the unborn. I am a Republican because, for my entire lifetime, the Republican Party is the most effective vehicle for advancing the policy agenda I support. I am not a Republican because I desire to be in a social clique. I could not possibly care less about advancing the interests of the Republican Party as a social organization.
But for the last thirty years, I have been urged more times than I can count to embrace "party unity." For most of that time, the pleas for "unity" have come from moderates who want conservatives to embrace moderate candidates when they win primaries. In a development that should shock no one, that very often did not apply to moderates who were upset when conservatives won Republican primaries. You will notice this is a theme that many "MAGA Republicans" have now embraced.
"MAGA" does not believe in party unity. The movement started as opposition to the Republican establishment, and "MAGA" loyalists have continued attacking Republicans for the last decade. Donald Trump himself regularly attacks his fellow Republicans, and the most viciously personal attacks from the most devoted "MAGA" accounts on social media are reserved for Republicans who crossed, "betrayed" or even disagreed with Trump. If they followed their own advice, I could respect them while still disagreeing with the position. I do not respect the pleas for "unity" from hypocrites, whether "MAGA" or moderates.
(Keep in mind, of course, that there are also "MAGA" and moderate Republicans who are consistent in their pleas for party unity, and this criticism obviously does not apply to them.)
Setting aside the hypocrisy, the argument for "party unity" is often founded on the premise that the Democrats are terrible. Some of this is unjustified hyperbole, but some of it is legitimate criticism. Would it be better to have a Republican in Office X or a Democrat in Office X? If you are an ideological conservative, the Republican would be a better choice most of the time. But pointing to the other side and saying "they are bad" only goes so far. At some point, Republican politicians, conservative activists and conservative thought leaders do need to be held accountable for their behavior. We should not excuse every irresponsible word or action simply because "he is on my side."
Yes, there are times when conservatives police their own side too much, often from a desire to appear "fair" or principled. I have personally been too critical of my fellow Republicans and conservatives from time to time. The answer to that, however, is to honestly examine what criticisms are fair, not to refuse to ever criticize any conservative on anything. Total loyalty to anyone in "the tribe" is how a cult behaves. Even the Apostle Paul rebuked the Apostle Peter when Peter sinned, and the Holy Spirit recorded that rebuke for all eternity in Holy Scripture. (See Galatians 2:11-14.)
So yes, conservative infighting should be mixed with grace, and steel-manning people's arguments when possible. But if conservatives live in an echo chamber where no one ever disagrees with each other, our ideas and arguments can never be improved. Disagreement with our allies, when we can do so without personal animosity, does not make us "weaker" against the Left. It makes us more prepared to oppose the Left. Furthermore, sometimes there are legitimate bad actors on the Right who should be opposed. Just because someone claims to be "conservative" does not mean we should accept them unconditionally. Discernment is hard work and it is messy, and we will sometimes be wrong. That does not mean we should abandon it.