Tucker Carlson and the turning point for right-wing antisemitism
Carlson’s “recent show with Cooper, however, crossed a different line. As such, it ought to provoke the sort of reaction that would seriously impinge on his ability to maintain his grasp on influence with people who matter, such as the Trump family and mainstream politicians.” - JNS
- 537 views
People have paid enough money to Tucker to allow him to amass a wealth of over $50M and this is the junk that he promotes.
Conservatives were quick to distance themselves from Candice Owens over her comments in regard to Jews and Israel. I would expect a similar response to Carlson. I would also hope those on the left would put further distance between Ilian Omar and so many reporters on the left (especially the New York Times) who are also anti semitic.
...that Carlson said anything nice about Cooper, as any decent journalist ought to know "what kinds of credentials does this guy have, and how does what he's saying square with what we know for sure from history?"
For example, his comments regarding the Holocaust--the suggestion that Hitler only started murdering Jews because he lacked food to feed them due to embargoes and such--fly in the face of what Hitler himself wrote in Mein Kampf.
Put bluntly, if one's work cannot stand a test that should be able to be applied by any ordinary high school student, one is entitled to be called many things, but "historian" is not one of them. And in the same way, Carlson--who missed not only this but also Putin's use of Hitler's excuse for invading Poland ("they didn't give the Nazis the Danzig Corridor!")--misses the cut as both historian and journalist.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
At Breakpoint…
They do not focus on Tucker Carlson’s folly, but were at least willing to name him.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I struggle with where this party is going. I grew up in the 80's and 90's Republican party and you wouldn't be caught dead calling your self a conservative, Republican or anything remotely right leaning if you were sympathetic with Hitler and especially sympathetic with Russia. But instead Carlson is fine touting that Churchill was the bad guy, or doing his exposes in Russia about how good Russia really is and how we have it all wrong in America. Where are we going?
How is the party going a direction just because some individuals that were once a mainstream part of that party have now gone off into the weeds themselves? Do we wonder where fundamentalism/conservative evangelicalism are going because someone like Josh Harris started espousing things that don’t align with them? We’ve had plenty of former supposed Christians “deconstruct” without blaming Christianity.
Maybe Tucker Carlson represented Republicanism to some. Maybe Candace Owens did for some too. Some may have looked toward Reagan (and I personally still consider him a good example of the Republicanism I knew before I became an independent), but really we should be looking towards principles, not people. David Duke started out a Democrat, and later became a Republican, but that doesn’t make the Republican party representative of his values.
The Republican party certainly has it’s issues (less, in my mind, than the Democrat party has), enough that I decided to not be part of any political party, but let’s not try to tar the whole with the beliefs of a few extreme outliers. I know almost no Republicans who are anti-semitic, or believe that Churchill was the bad guy in WWII, outside of those celebrity examples. I don’t see those positions taking hold in any of the Republicans I know or see around me, in spite of the fact media is trying to use a couple of high-profile examples to tell you that’s the case.
Dave Barnhart
"some individuals"? Maybe. But very influential within the party. Tucker Carlson is credited in getting JD Vance on the ticket. Elon Musk has a good relationship with Tucker Carlson, and both espouse similar ideas, and both are very close to the head of the Republican party, Donald Trump. The Republican party leadership as a whole has been influential in driving a softer stance on Russia from the Republican party. Are there still Republicans strongly opposed to Russia? Yes. But surveys have been conclusive that it has become softened under Trump (2016 and on).
There is quite a lot of evidence of the direction of the party.
- Changes to the platform
- Increased involvement of persons and groups with views that used to be excluded as fringe (Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk, Steve Bannon… still influential, from federal prison.)
- Legislators like MT Greene, Lauren Boebert, Josh Hawley.
- Acceptance and influence of a guy like RFK Jr.
- The head of the party
The new right now controls the party, and it is not the old right.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I didn’t say the party hadn’t changed since Reagan’s time. In fact, I definitely agree that it has, hence my no longer belonging to it. All of the major parties have changed during my lifetime. Everything changes.
What it has not (at least yet) become is largely anti-semitic or supportive of the idea that Hitler wasn’t a threat for Europe and that Churchill was the bad guy for opposing him forcefully. The fact that some high-profile people now support these things does not, by itself, indicate that the party accepts them as well.
No group is defined by extreme beliefs of some of the adherents. Paul called such “Christians” false teachers, rather than decrying Christianity just because those people named it. In the same vein, I don’t have to believe that Tucker Carlson or any other “influential” example define the whole of Republicanism by their beliefs.
Dave Barnhart
Dave,
I am not so sure what Tucker Carlson said is viewed as an extreme belief? Trump, Vance and the Republican party has not condemned what he said. Plenty of moderates have condemned it as well as Democrats. But much of the new core of the party is not speaking out against Tucker or ostracizing him. I originally viewed the ideas as a bit fringe, but I am increasingly shocked on the silence from the halls of power within the Republican party.
Why waste time with fringe beliefs? I don’t think I’ve ever heard a single pastor I’ve had come out and say “there is no such thing as a Christian prostitute.” Why would he have to? The idea is so obviously false, that even if someone appearing in the media claims they are such, you don’t have to waste time saying otherwise. I’ve also not heard any pastor I know say that people who claim the moon landings didn’t happen are liars. They are, but again, why even try to go there? Unless people in the congregation are causing division about fringe positions in the church, simply preaching the Word will cover things like lying or saying “Lord, Lord” while not keeping the Lord’s commandments.
If any of Trump’s advisors or people he picks for positions in government should he win the election later espouse white supremacy or other off-the-wall crazy fringe positions, he can deal with it at that time. If he stands up now and says he doesn’t believe that, I think it would look worse for him, because many would wonder why he even needs to mention it at all… The media still intentionally misquotes the “very fine people” line. He doesn’t say anything about that unless asked, either directly or indirectly about his views on media dishonesty, because there’s no reason to go there. He’s already made his position clear.
Unless Trump is thinking about giving Tucker a position in a future Trump administration (clearly a bad idea), he doesn’t need to say anything about him. Having to make statements disavowing every crazy thing people who claim to be aligned with you say is a losing game, and there’s no reason to play.
Dave Barnhart
Increasing drift toward extremism of a variety of kinds has been evident in the GOP over the last 8 years or so.
Much of it is of the “we’re too busy fighting to bother about truth” variety, but when you’re ignoring truth in favor of “winning,” extremist stuff is going to find its way into your rhetoric at times.
This recent example of the “who cares about truth” disease increasingly infecting the right….
Soon enough, congressional Republicans were contributing to the virality of the claims. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas tweeted an image of two kittens, captioned, “Please vote for Trump so Haitian immigrants don’t eat us.” “Protect our ducks and kittens in Ohio!” the Republican House Judiciary Committee’s X account shared alongside an AI image of former President Donald Trump hugging the two animals. (From The Dispatch)
But the silence of GOP leaders on Tucker Carlson is quite meaningful. Tucker has like millions of viewers. Nothing he does is trivial for the GOP. The reasoning that what he promoted was too extreme to be worth mentioning doesn’t hold up. Silence in this situation sounds like affirmation, whether it is or not. They know that. They don’t care.
Edit to add:
Because he is so ego-driven, Trump is increasingly vulnerable to manipulators who flatter him. NPR has photo evidence that he flew to the debate with Laura Loomer.
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/10/nx-s1-5107932/laura-loomer-presidential-debate-donald-trump-2024 She is yet another right wing conspiracy nut. As far as I know, she hasn’t been an anti-semitic sympathizer, but who can guess where unhinged types like that are going to go next? And these are the sort that Trump increasingly listens to and will probably try to staff his administration with, if he gets that opportunity. … more relevant to the original point, these are the types that increasingly influence the GOP.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I see what you are saying Aaron, but I still believe that even discussing those fringe ideas helps give them more life than they currently have.
https://poe.com/p/Why-do-people-use-the-phrase-Im-not-going-to-dignify-that-with-a-response
Pertinent section:
The phrase “I’m not going to dignify that with a response” is commonly used when someone wants to convey that a question or statement is inappropriate, offensive, or unworthy of a response. By using this phrase, the speaker is indicating that they believe engaging in a conversation about the topic would only give it more importance or credibility than it deserves.
Personally, I don’t think that phrase even needs to be said. Ignoring fringe ideas will almost always be the better way to handle it, unless, as I said, it becomes unavoidable. I don’t think the Tucker situation is in that category yet.
Tucker Carlson used to be mentioned to me all the time by my Fox watching friends (I read Fox articles, but don’t watch.) Now, he is pretty much never mentioned by anyone I know, and I only run into him online. He simply doesn’t have the reach he once had, and if the recent interview denigrating Churchill is indicative of where he is in general right now, he can stay in the shadows of the internet. There is no way his current following is even a significant fraction of his previous viewership.
Dave Barnhart
Fringe ideas? I was blown away that the leading presidential candidate of the greatest country in the world, used what little precious time he had on the debate stage to propogate that one of the key drivers for better immigration control is to stop them from eating our pets. Was it a fringe idea? I would argue yes before last night. But in one fell swoop it become one of the key talking points for immigration control and it was further enforced by a whole cadre of Republican leaders after the debate. So is it fringe right now? I would argue no. I just don't recognize this party anymore.
>>I was blown away that the leading presidential candidate of the greatest country in the world, used what little precious time he had on the debate stage to propogate that one of the key drivers for better immigration control is to stop them from eating our pets.<<
I didn’t watch the debate last night. If Trump wasted time on this, then he blew an opportunity to talk about the real issues with mass illegal immigration. I haven’t spent any serious time on the “eating pets” accusations being bandied about. Even assuming those reports are completely false (so far, all I’ve been able to find after just now looking this up is that the police have no credible reports that it’s happening), there are plenty of problems in this country having to do with open borders.
My former party (indeed all Americans) should be concerned about the apparently uncontrollable illegal immigration. Trying to claim outrage because people like Trump, Cruz or Vance are apparently reposting/quoting information they haven’t verified is simply misdirection. None of the current candidates can hold a candle to many of those from the past. That’s a sad fact of life. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t still clear choices between them.
Dave Barnhart
Discussion