Kristol's first attempt to deal with Judaism itself, not in the negative context of anti-Semitism but as a religion in its own right, appeared in Commentary a few months later. His review of Basic Judaism by Milton Steinberg, a prominent Conservative rabbi, was accompanied by a prefatory editorial note by Cohen identifying the reviewer as "one of the younger writers who has been concerning himself with religious thinking" and who, the editor assures the reader, would surely "disclaim any ‘representativeness' for his religious views." Kristol's review required this apologetic preface because it was a severe critique of the mode of Judaism represented by Steinberg — a mode no doubt congenial to many of Commentary's readers, including, perhaps, Cohen himself.

"How Basic is Basic Judaism?" is the question posed in the title of the review. All too basic, Kristol regretfully replies, because this is a Judaism so watered down that it could accommodate almost any religious sentiment. Steinberg addressed his book to those "groping to establish rapport with the Jewish tradition, standing at the synagogue's door ‘heart in, head out'." Describing himself as just such an "unsynagogued" person, Kristol finds that this mode of Judaism gives him no entry to the synagogue by way either of heart or of head. Although he appreciates Steinberg's existential, communal, and moral intentions, the "element that is wanting" in his creed is sin — not the doctrine of original sin, which, Kristol says, has no place in Judaism, but "the fact of ƒsin." Steinberg's version of Judaism can see the evil in individual wicked men or nations, but it misses the "full and menacing stature" of this human propensity, preferring instead "to dress itself up in the clothes of 19th-century liberalism in order to attend a 20th-century execution." Replacing religion and theology with social philosophy and political democracy, it creates a "sociopolitical liberalism, with divine sanction to boot." "What are we to make of a rabbi," Kristol asks, "who claims for the Mishnah and the Talmud that they guarantee the workers' right to strike — thereby providing Holy Writ with the satisfaction of having paved the way for the National Labor Relations Act!"

These and other articles in Commentary written by Kristol in his late twenties are strikingly expressive of the neo-orthodoxy he brought to religion in general and Judaism in particular — and strikingly prescient of the neoconservatism that would later reject political and social liberalism in favor of a more rigorous, realistic view of both politics and society. The articles also remind us that "neo", in Kristol's sense, is not the mediating, moderating, compromising principle it is sometimes made out to be — not a half-way house between religion and secularism or between conservatism and liberalism, but rather a bold and challenging view of religion and politics alike.

As if Kristol's review of Steinberg had not been provocative enough, his article in 1952, "Civil Liberties — A Study in Confusion," about the liberal response to Senator Joseph McCarthy, was far more so. The article contains a much-quoted line about the American people: They know, wrote Kristol, that Senator McCarthy, like them, is unequivocally anti-Communist, but they know no such thing about the spokesmen for American liberalism. This created a storm of controversy, complicating Kristol's position as managing editor (which he had since become). Combined with tensions with the editor, this prompted Kristol's resignation from Commentary later that year.