There’s no defending Tucker Carlson
There comes a point when a political commentary brand ceases to be a heterodox platform and descends into a poison in the body politic and an open electoral liability. For Tucker Carlson, that Rubicon was crossed years ago.
TL;DR
- Tucker Carlson's political commentary brand has become an electoral liability.
- Carlson conducted a puff-piece interview with Vladimir Putin and praised an interview with pseudo-amateur historian Darryl Cooper, who presented revisionist views on WWII and the Holocaust.
- Carlson engaged in Hitler and WWII revisionism multiple times, including a debate with Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg where he questioned Britain's decision to fight Nazis.
- Rees-Mogg dismantled Carlson's arguments, stating Britain fought a moral war for survival and that resisting Hitler prevented subjugation.
- Carlson's dismissive response of 'Who cares?' when told the UK would be speaking German if they hadn't resisted Hitler, showed a lack of moral clarity.
- The article criticizes the populist fringe's tendency to sanitize Putin's actions and soft-pedal Nazi history, labeling it the 'Molotov-Ribbentrop Party'.
- Carlson's actions are seen as a significant electoral risk for figures like JD Vance and the postliberal Right.
- The article suggests that aligning with Carlson is electorally toxic, as Hitler remains the worst-polling historical figure in the US.
- The author advises JD Vance and the postliberals to distance themselves from Carlson, noting that the best times to do so were years ago, and the current time is also opportune.