They wanted more of a debate on the topic but had few prominent allies in the media - except for Carlson.Īnother important undercurrent here is, of course, feelings about “wokeness” and the social justice movement in general. Some on the left are more skeptical, fearing it will just result in a bigger, deadlier war, and want this aid rolled back. Most mainstream Democrats and liberals wholeheartedly support Biden’s policy of arming Ukraine, arguing it’s a righteous defense of an invaded country against a foreign aggressor. The discourse over the Ukraine war is a trickier issue. It’s fair to question whether right economic populism will ever amount to much more than rhetoric. Dayen nodded to this viewpoint in his editor’s note, saying he thinks right populists have “attempted to co-opt” the topics of “corporate predation and war.” Some argued that this was an example of the old left fantasy of a “red-brown alliance” between the left and fascists, something that never ends well for the left. The desperate pandering of Tucker Carlsonīut critics of this viewpoint argue that Carlson’s economic rhetoric is phony - that, like Trump and like historical fascists, he pandered with phony populism for the cause of advancing an authoritarian and bigoted agenda that likely wouldn’t even do much about corporate power. Stoller, who defended the Prospect piece, has faced similar controversies over his attempts to work with Sen. This is the argument Glenn Greenwald has made in explaining his willingness to appear on Carlson’s show, and his increasing friendliness toward the populist right generally (once viewed as a crusading journalist of the left, he is now loathed by many of his former allies). They’re deeply troubled by the bipartisan US foreign policy establishment, and they think both parties remain far too corrupted by corporate power - and both those viewpoints got an airing on Carlson’s show.Ĭarlson, as I’ve written, did indeed break from the traditional GOP establishment on both of those topics, offering commentary that sounded quite different from that of other Fox hosts like Sean Hannity. They tend to believe the greatest threats to the country do not fall so clearly along party lines and aren’t getting enough attention. Naturally, if you believe this, any praise of Carlson or effort to find common ground with him sounds repulsive.īut some leftists think these claims about Carlson (which resemble claims made about Trump) are overhyped, as is the culture war in general.

He is believed to be not just a participant but a ringleader in a movement that threatens marginalized people’s rights and very existence. Some call him a “ white nationalist” (and indeed, white nationalists have frequently praised Carlson for finally letting arguments they’ve long made into the mainstream). The mainstream view of Carlson on the left is that he is a uniquely dangerous figure. Or are issues like challenging the US foreign policy establishment or corporate power important enough that it’s worth finding some common ground with people who espouse bigoted views - even people who espouse them quite loudly and often? Why some on the left feel a little drawn to Tuckerism - and why others find that so abhorrent Tucker Carlson was doing something different - and darker - than most Fox hosts That is: Are social justice politics - combating racism, sexism, xenophobia, and bigotry - so important that any enemy of that project, especially one with views as virulent and influence as immense as Carlson, should be declared anathema? The Prospect article and the responses to it have brought a long-simmering tension within the liberal-left coalition to a boil. The American Prospect has long championed a progressive agenda, with alternately wonky and crusading bents, and has helped launch the careers of many now-prominent journalists - including Bouie, Marshall, and others who are now up in arms.

“This is the only piece on the left trying to understand how Tucker Carlson fit into policy discourse,” anti-monopoly activist Matt Stoller tweeted. (Dayen soon issued a semi-apologetic editor’s note, saying the piece “fell short,” that he bore responsibility, and that he’d publish a response from other staffers soon.)īut, Dayen’s contrition notwithstanding, some on the left defended the piece. New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie called the article “shoddy and unconvincing,” said Carlson’s show “was praised by literal nazis for its messaging,” and tagged the Prospect’s top editor, David Dayen, to ask why he published it. “Disgraceful and stupid,” Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo tweeted.

What we know so far about Tucker Carlson’s shocking Fox News departureĪuthor Zachary Carter called the article “generally revolting.” Writer Kathleen Geier opined that the Prospect writers either must be “too dumb” to notice Carlson’s bigotry or shared his views.

Josh marshall twitter ukraine