

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Republicans appear to be paying no price for turning the Kirk event into a right-wing, Christian nationalist, white supremacist MAGA political rally.
The memorial services for Charlie Kirk last week and for Senator Paul Wellstone in 2002 illustrate how much our political culture has changed over the past two decades.
Both men were charismatic figures on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Wellstone died in a plane crash. Kirk was murdered on a college campus. Wellstone was an elected official. Kirk was a political agitator. They both lived interesting lives. But what’s fascinating is how their respective supporters, their opponents, and the media reacted to their deaths and, in particular, to the memorial services organized to eulogize them.
Wellstone, a former community organizer and political science professor at Carleton College, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1990, defeating a Republican opponent with a grassroots campaign that included clever TV ads emphasizing his low-budget operation and his high-energy activism. He won reelection six years later. At the time, he was the Senate's most progressive member (Bernie Sanders was not yet in the Senate) and was known as the "conscience of the Senate."
On October 25, 2002, Wellstone (along with seven others, including his wife) died in a small plane crash, one week before the election in which he was running for a third term. Minnesota law required that Wellstone’s name be stricken from the ballot and replaced by the Democratic Farmer Labor Party. One day after the crash, the DFL selected former Vice President Walter Mondale as its Senate candidate.
On October 29, Wellstone’s family and friends organized a public memorial event at the Williams Arena in Minneapolis (the University of Minnesota's basketball arena), which was broadcast live on national TV. High-profile Democrats (including former president Bill Clinton) and Republicans (including Senator Trent Lott) as well as Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura (an independent) attended the service, but only Wellstone's family and close friends spoke at the event.
Their remarks were not vetted or scripted. One of the speakers was Wellstone's close friend and former campaign treasurer, Rick Kahn. He began his speech as a conventional eulogy, but it shifted into a call to action, suggesting that the best way to honor Wellstone's memory was to keep organizing: "We’re gonna organize, we’re gonna organize, we’re gonna organize, we’re gonna organize, we’re gonna organize, we’re gonna organize!...[T]ogether, we can and will continue to fight every one of his fights; and together we can and will achieve great victories in Paul Wellstone’s name.’’ Kahn then rallied the crowd by urging them to "keep Paul Wellstone's legacy alive" by helping Mondale win the Senate election.
Republicans immediately attacked the Democrats for turning the memorial service into a political rally. They demanded "equal time" on TV to counter the event's messages. Former Republican Minnesota congressman Vin Weber said, ‘‘The DFL clearly intends to exploit Wellstone’s memory totally, completely and shamelessly for political gain. To them, Wellstone’s death, apparently, was just another campaign event.
The Republicans were particularly rankled that two weeks earlier, Wellstone was among the 21 Senate Democrats (out of 50) to vote against the authorization for the use of US military force in Iraq, a key component of President George W. Bush's rally-round-the-flag response to the 9/11 bombing. They also knew that if the GOP candidate (former St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman) defeated Mondale, it would flip the Senate, so they orchestrated a full-scale attack on the Democrats for politicizing the Wellstone memorial event.
The media echoed the Republicans' (as well as Ventura's) attack on the Democrats for “politicizing” the memorial event. The orchestrated backlash worked. A poll conducted by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune a few hours before the memorial service found that Mondale was leading Coleman by eight points. But on election day, Coleman won by 2.2%. His victory ended the Democrats' one-seat majority in the Senate. On election day, Republican Tim Pawlenty won a three-way race for Minnesota governor, while the GOP flipped one House seat and made gains in the state legislature.
Some journalists and professors began describing what occurred as the "Wellstone effect." For example, after Senator Ted Kennedy, the key proponent of universal health insurance, died in 2009, Rush Limbaugh warned that Democrats would turn his memorial service into a "Wellstone memorial on steroids." NBC News observed that ‘‘Anyone addressing the health care bill at the [Kennedy] service will tread a fine line between taste and politics...The dangers of politicizing a memorial event were illustrated by a 2002 memorial for Sen. Paul Wellstone."
The memorial service for Charlie Kirk (at a football stadium in Glendale, Arizona) was obviously a political rally by MAGA Republicans to turn Kirk into a martyr for their cause, to keep his legacy and his right-wing organization Turning Point USA alive, and to exact vengeance and whip up anger against Democrats, liberals, "the left," the media, and all those Trump views as his opponents. Kirk held no office, but he was close to Trump and Vice President JD Vance. His final speaking tour (which included the Utah event where he was killed) was clearly intended not only to build the MAGA movement but also to help Republicans win the 2026 midterm House elections that Trump is worried they could lose.
Trump used his 40-minute speech to highlight campaign talking points like tariffs, crime in Chicago, and fear-mongering about the unproven consequences of Tylenol as well as to call for revenge against his opponents.
“Charlie Kirk truly was ... he was a missionary with a noble spirit and a great, great purpose,” the president said. “He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent and I don't want the best for them.”
Several speakers praised Kirk’s mission to carry out a conservative Christian vision of the United States. “We always did need less government,” said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. “But what Charlie understood and infused into his movement is that we also needed a lot more God.”
Tucker Carlson even compared Kirk’s murder to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
The most vitriolic remarks came from Stephen Miller, Trump’s key consigliere, who the previous week vowed to avenge Kirk’s death by “go[ing] after the left-leaning organizations” that, he claimed, “are promoting violence in this country.”
At Kirk’s memorial service, Miller -- a foaming-at-the-mouth fanatic -- declared: “Erika [Kirk's widow] is the storm. We are the storm. And our enemies cannot comprehend our strength, our determination, our resolve, our passion."
“Our lineage and our legacy hails back to Athens, to Rome, to Philadelphia, to Monticello,” Miller continued. “Our ancestors built the cities. They produced the art and architecture. They built the industry,” he said, pulling “us out of the caves and the darkness into the light."
“We built the world that we inhabit now, generation by generation, and we will defend this world,” he added.
Addressing “the forces of wickedness and evil,” Miller thundered. “You have nothing. You are nothing. You are wickedness, you are jealousy, you are envy, you are hatred. You are nothing. You can build nothing. You can produce nothing. You can create nothing. We are the ones who build. We are the ones who create. We are the ones who lift up humanity."
“You have no idea the dragon you have awakened,” he warned, as the MAGA movement will strive to “save this civilization, to save the west, to save this republic, because our children are strong, and our grandchildren will be strong, and our children’s children’s children will be strong. And what will you leave behind? Nothing, nothing.”
Even if one believes that Paul Wellstone's friends and family, acting out of grief, erred in politicizing the 2002 memorial service, nothing said at that event reflected the kind of hate-mongering, venom-spewing, and demonizing of opponents that we saw at the Kirk memorial, which was like a combination of a religious revival meeting and a KKK rally. Our culture has come to accept as normal the kind of hysterical rants and raves espoused by Kirk's friends and colleagues, including Trump, Vance, and Miller.
Moreover, after the Republicans and much of the media ganged up to condemn the Wellstone memorial, the Democrats paid dearly. In contrast, Republicans appear to be paying no price for turning the Kirk event into a right-wing, Christian nationalist, white supremacist MAGA political rally.
Unlike the Republicans' backlash against the Wellstone memorial service, which they claimed was illegitimate and even illegal, today’s Democratic leaders, liberals, and the mainstream media seem intimidated from telling the truth about the memorial service that echoed and honored Kirk's outrageous views, which, polls show, are strongly opposed by most Americans. The failure of current Democratic leaders and the media to challenge this apocalyptic, white supremacist, Christian nationalist fever is part of the problem.
"No dog whistles, no plausible deniability," wrote one historian. "It's a show of power and an another attempt to make this look and feel normal."
From start to finish, Republican nominee Donald Trump's campaign rally at Madison Square Garden on Sunday night was a torrent of bigotry and fascistic rhetoric, with the former president and a bizarre lineup of preceding speakers trashing Puerto Ricans and Palestinians, condemning the press, and casting their political opponents as a satanic "enemy from within."
The New York City event, held on the second to last Sunday before the November 5 election, amounted to a closing pitch for a candidate who has pledged to wield the power of the federal government—including the U.S. military—against those he views as obstacles to his ascent to power and his political project, which includes a large-scale deportation campaign, massive deregulation for industry, and another round of tax cuts for the wealthy.
"When I say the enemy from within, the other side goes crazy," Trump said Sunday, characterizing Democratic nominee Kamala Harris and other party leaders as mere "vessels" for the "radical left machine," which the former president called "massive, vicious, [and] crooked."
"It's just this amorphous group of people. But they're smart and they're vicious. And we have to defeat them," said the Republican nominee, who falsely claimed the U.S. is an "occupied country" facing a "migrant invasion" that only he can stop.
"It's just this amorphous group of people ... they are indeed the enemy from within" -- Trump is indulging in Infowars-level conspiracism pic.twitter.com/Bdf6bCIQJr
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 27, 2024
While the rally featured familiar bloviating from Trump about crowd sizes and other petty obsessions—as well as absurd speakers such as Hulk Hogan and Dr. Phil—historians and other observers were horrified by what they described as the authoritarian ambitions that were front and center and shamelessly expressed Sunday night.
"The point here is that fascism is on full display, openly: no dog whistles, no plausible deniability," said Kathleen Belew, an associate professor of history at Northwestern University whose work has focused on the white supremacist movement in the United States.
"It's a show of power and another attempt to make this look and feel normal," Belew added. "And it will not just magically disappear after the election, regardless of the outcome. In fact, it might be worth thinking through the very likely possibility that this kind of display suggests that this candidate and this movement don't care that much about the outcome."
One journalist called Trump's event "the most overtly fascist mass rally in New York since 1939"—referring to a pro-Nazi rally held that year at Madison Square Garden—and criticized media coverage of the former president's remarks, pointing to a now-changed USA Today headline as a particularly stark example.
House Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-La.) appearance at the rally made clear that Trump and the leadership of the Republican Party are in sync as the GOP pursues full control of Congress on November 5 and lays the groundwork to enact the former president's agenda.
"We gotta get the congressmen elected and we gotta get the senators elected, because we can take the Senate pretty easily, and I think with our little secret we're going to do really well with the House. Right?" Trump said late Sunday, pointing to someone in the audience—possibly Johnson.
"He and I have a secret," Trump added, in remarks carried live by all three major cable news networks. "We'll tell you what it is when the race is over."
Other speakers at the rally included far-right pundit Tucker Carlson, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and billionaire Elon Musk, who has funneled roughly $118 million into the 2024 campaign in support of Trump.
"I'm not just MAGA," Musk said, pointing to his black hat. "I'm dark, gothic MAGA."
If you're not gaming out this scenario in your head, you are doing it wrong.
We should already be talking about what it would be like, if Donald Trump wins the 2024 election, to live under a developing autocracy. Beyond the publicized plans of those around him to gut the federal civil service system and consolidate power in the hands of You Know Who, under Trump 2.0, so much else would change for the worse.
All too many of us who now argue about the Ukraine and Gaza wars and their ensuing humanitarian crises, about police violence and extremism in the military here at home, about all sorts of things, would no longer share a common language. Basics that once might have meant the same thing to you and me, like claiming someone won an election, might become unsafe to mention. In a Trump 2.0 world, more of our journalists would undoubtedly face repercussions and need to find roundabout ways to allude to all too many topics. A moving opinion column by the New York Times’s David French, who faced threats for his writing about Donald Trump, highlighted how some who voiced their views on him already need round-the-clock police protection to ensure their safety and that of their family.
We are entering a new and perilous American world and it’s important to grasp that fact.
I often think about the slippery slope we Americans could soon find ourselves on. After all, from the time Vladimir Putin became Russia’s president in 1999, I spent 20 years traveling to his country and back, working there first as an anthropology doctoral student and later as a human rights researcher. I’ve followed Russian politics closely, including as a therapist specializing in war-affected populations, asylum seekers, and refugees. Friends and colleagues of mine there have faced threats to their safety and their careers amid a Kremlin crackdown on public discussion after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, and several fled the country with their families in search of safety and a better life.
To be sure, there are many differences between the United States, with its robust democratic tradition, and Russia, which only briefly had competitive elections and a free press. Nonetheless, my experiences there offer a warning about how a Trumpian version of top-down rule could someday stifle any possibility of calling out state-sponsored violence for what it is, and what it might feel like if that’s our situation here someday.
Tucker Carlson’s Moscow
On first look, far-right journalist Tucker Carlson’s recent visit to Moscow, covered exuberantly by Russia’s state media, might seem like an example of an American tourist’s naïve glorification of another country’s luxuries. Carlson marveled at the fancy tilework of the city’s subway system, visited the national ballet, and noted that you can buy caviar cheaply at the local grocery store. He also pointed out that Moscow’s pristine streets had no homeless people and no apparent poverty.
In the gilded halls of the Kremlin palace, he interviewed President Putin for more than two hours. Despite his guileless expression, Carlson occasionally appeared flummoxed as Putin lectured him endlessly on Russian history and the centuries-old claim he insisted Moscow has on Kyiv as its protector from aggressors near and far. Of course, he never challenged Putin on his rationale for invading that country (nor did he refer to it as an invasion) or any of the Russian leader’s other outrageous claims.
I’m of the school of thought that considers Putin’s Russia exactly the sort of anti-woke paradise the MAGA crowd craves. Anyone of Carlson’s age who grew up during the Cold War and turned on his or her television in that pivotal period when the Berlin Wall fell should certainly know that all of Russia doesn’t look anything like what he was shown. He should also have known about the recent history of economic “shock therapy” that drained Russian public services of funding and human resources, not to speak of the decades of corruption and unfair economic policies that enriched a choice few in Putin’s circle at the expense of so many.
Of course, something had to happen to turn the Moscow that Carlson saw into a sanitized moonscape. If you haven’t been following developments in Russia under Putin, let me summarize what I’ve noticed.
Protesters — even many going to opposition leader Alexei Navalny’s recent memorial service — have been arrested or at least intimidated when appearing to sympathize with anything that’s not part of the Kremlin’s official pro-Putin ideology. Many groups, from Asian migrants to the homeless, have either been rounded up by the police or at least relocated far out of the view of tourists of any sort. In fact, the imprisoned American journalist whom Carlson briefly gestured toward emancipating, Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, had written on the practice of zachistki, or mop-up operations by the Russian authorities that, for instance, relocated homeless services to the outskirts of Moscow, far from public view. Of course, Gershkovich is now imprisoned indefinitely in Russia on charges of espionage for simply reporting on the war in Ukraine, proving the very point Carlson so studiously avoided, that an endless string of lies underscore Putin’s latest war.
What’s more, amid sub-subsistence wages, housing shortages, and the thin walls of so many city apartments, ordinary Russians are not always able to engage in the “hard conversations” that conservatives like Alabama Senator Katie Britt boast of having in their well-furbished kitchens. After all, neighbors are now encouraged to denounce each other for decrying Russia’s war. (You could, it seems, even end up in prison if your child writes “no to war” on a drawing she did for school.)
There are very personal ramifications to living in an autocracy with which Tucker Carlson and, of course, the Orange Jesus himself are signaling their agreement when they entertain the views of leaders like Vladimir Putin or call Hungarian autocrat Viktor Orbán “fantastic.” They’re signaling what their end goal is to Americans and, sadly enough, it’s not particularly far-fetched anymore to suggest that, someday, we won’t even have the freedom to talk about all of this with each other.
The Thing That Cannot Be Named
Tucker Carlson at least did his homework. He clearly knew that you couldn’t describe the war in Ukraine as an unprovoked Russian invasion, given that country’s carefully crafted censorship laws.
Since his February 2022 invasion, Putin has referred to it as a “special military operation” focused on the defense of Russia from NATO and the “denazification” of Ukraine. During that first spring, the Russian president signed a law forbidding journalists from even calling the invasion a “war,” choosing instead to frame the killing, displacement, abduction, torture, and rape of Ukrainian citizens as a surgical rescue operation provoked by the victims themselves. Broader, vaguer censorship laws were then passed, further limiting what Russians of all stripes could say, including one against “discrediting the army,” which imposed stiff fines and prison sentences, and more recently, property confiscations on anyone deemed to have said anything negative about Russia’s armed forces. While the thousands of arrests made may seem modest, given Russia’s 146 million people, it’s still, in my opinion, thousands too many.
The Russian leader’s perverse framing of his unprovoked war is undoubtedly what also allows him to admit that hundreds of thousands of Russians have been killed or wounded so far, something he couldn’t otherwise say. In a country suffused with right-wing Christian nationalism, it also certainly helps his cause that most of Russia’s war dead come from remote, poor, and predominantly minority regions.
This is the sort of muddling of meaning and motives that autocratic leaders engage in to justify deaths of all kinds. American equivalents might be what the MAGA crowds do when they blame the January 6th far-right assault at the Capitol, aimed at police and lawmakers, on the “Antifa,” or extreme leftists, without disputing that people were hurt. Or consider then-President Donald Trump’s comment that far-right white supremacist Charlottesville rioters and counter-protesters included “very fine people on both sides” — no matter that one such fine person plowed down a counter-protester in his car, murdering her, or that certain of those “fine” white supremacists espoused anti-Semitic conspiracy theories considered by some an incitement to violence.
For their part, Russians of various political stripes enjoy an ancient tradition of using dark humor and irony to engage in the kinds of conversations they really want to have. Take as an example the way progressive journalists like those at the news stations TV Rain and Novaya Gazeta (since banned from operating) began discussing the war in Ukraine as “the thing that cannot be named.” Eventually, however, sweeping censorship laws prevented even workarounds like those.
It’s not a small thing to live in a place where you can’t say what you want to for fear of political persecution, especially when you’ve grown up in other circumstances. A good friend of mine who came of age after the fall of the Berlin Wall and led a prosperous, happy life in St. Petersburg, fled the country on the last train out of that city to Helsinki, Finland, her young child in tow. Her goal: to start life over from scratch and avoid having to raise her child in a place where he would be brainwashed into thinking Russia’s armed forces and police were infallible and beyond critique. I suspect that many of the hundreds of thousands of Russians who joined her in fleeing the country weren’t that different.
Imagine raising a child whose unquestioning mind you can’t recognize. (That goes for you, too, Trump supporters, because — count on it! — once in office again, he would undoubtedly move toward ending elections as we know them, not to speak of shutting down whatever institutions protect our speech!)
America and the Lie that Begot Other Lies
Events in recent years indicate that Americans — particularly those in the MAGA camp — have grown inured to the public mention of armed violence. Who could forget the moment in 2016 when candidate Trump boasted at a campaign rally before winning the presidency that “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters”? As racially and politically motivated violence and threats have proliferated, so many of us seemed to grow ever less bothered by both the incidents themselves and the rationales of those who seek to encourage and justify them.
My own adult life began as Vladimir Putin consolidated power in Russia, while former President George W. Bush launched his — really, our — disastrous Global War on Terror, based on lies like that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, we’ve spilled all too little ink here on the nearly one million people who died across our Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African war zones since 2001 (and the many millions more who lost their lives, even if less directly, or were turned into refugees thanks to those wars of ours). And don’t forget the more than 7,000 American troops (and more than 8,000 contractors!) who died in the process, essentially baptizing our national lies in pools of blood. And how could that not have helped normalize other lies to come like Trump’s giant one about the 2020 election?
Thankfully, in this country we can still say what we want (more or less). We can still, for instance, call out the Pentagon for underreporting the deaths its forces have caused. In other words, something like the Costs of War Project that I helped to found to put our lies in context can still exist. But how long before such things could become punishable, if not by law, then through vigilantism?
Yes, President Biden is arming Israel in its gruesome fight against Hamas while providing only the most modest aid to Gaza’s war-devastated population, but we can still hold him to account for that. If the 2024 election goes to Donald Trump, how long will that be true? If we don’t get to the point right now where all of us are calling out lies all the time, then every Trumpian lie about violence — from Republican members of Congress calling the January 6th rioters “peaceful patriots” to The Donald’s claim that he would only be a dictator on “day one” of his next presidency (a desire supported by a significant majority of Republicans) — will amount to lies as consequential as the 1933 burning of the Reichstag parliament building in Germany, which Hitler’s ascendant Nazi party attributed to communists, setting the stage for him to claim sweeping powers.
We are entering a new and perilous American world and it’s important to grasp that fact. In that context, let me mention a Russian moment when I did no such thing. I still feel guilty about a dinner I had with human-rights colleagues in 2014, including a Russian activist who had dedicated his career to documenting political violence and war crimes committed under successive Russian leaders from Joseph Stalin to Vladimir Putin. I was sitting at the far end of the table where I couldn’t catch much of the conversation and I joked that I was “out in Siberia.” Yes, my dinner companions graciously laughed, but with an undercurrent of discomfort and tension — and for good reason. They knew the dangerous world they were in and, in fact, that very activist has since been sent to a penal colony for his work discrediting the actions of the Russian armed forces. My joke is anything but a joke now and consider that a reminder of how quickly things can change — and not just in Russia, either.
In fact, oppression feels closer than ever in America today and verbal massaging, joking, or willful ignorance can only mask what another Trump presidency could mean for us all.
"If you want to see Trump's and the GOP's vision of America's future, just look at what Orbán's done to Hungary," said one observer.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is set for a Friday meeting with former U.S. President Donald Trump, an admirer—and potential emulator—of the far-right European leader as progressive voters in Europe, the United States, and dozens of other countries push back against a surging worldwide wave of "soft fascism."
Trump—who has all but officially secured the Republican presidential nomination—will welcome Orbán to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida for what's being described as a "strategy session" ahead of upcoming elections in both the United States and European Union, where far-right parties are poised for major gains in the European Parliament.
"Orbán is the textbook example of why autocrats are often much more dangerous the second time in office."
Orbán spoke Thursday on a panel with the head of the Heritage Foundation, the influential conservative think tank that fawns over the prime minister's "European values," and his demonization of progressives and shared bogeymen including Hungarian American philanthropist George Soros. Critics have sounded the alarm on the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, which has been described as a "far-right playbook for American authoritarianism" in a second Trump term.
Conspicuously absent from Orbán's agenda is any meeting with Biden administration officials, a rare situation given Hungary's NATO membership.
"While the present liberal administration in the U.S. may not actively seek to strengthen ties with Hungary, there is undeniably a growing interest in Hungary among U.S. conservatives," Balázs Orbán, the prime minister's unrelated political director, told The Guardian. "Prime Minister Orbán is visiting the United States to strengthen these relationships."
As Orbán—who has ruled Hungary for 14 years over four terms—consolidates his power by systematically eroding democratic institutions and strengthening his Fidesz party and its parliamentary supermajority, Trump and many Republicans have embraced his brand of populist autocracy. Orbán has spoken to adoring audiences at Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) events in Texas and Budapest, the Hungarian capital where then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson interviewed him while relocating his show for a week.
"Orbán has become a role model for many American politicians, particularly those in the GOP's Sedition Caucus," Thom Hartmann wrote Thursday, referring to the 147 Republican U.S. lawmakers who tried to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in service of Trump's conspiracy theory that the contest was rigged by Democrats and the so-called "deep state."
Trump and many of his supporters are drawn to Orbán's open racism—which includes embraces of eugenics and the "great replacement" theory—xenophobia, homophobia, and Christian nationalism, as well as his aversion to helping Ukraine defend against Russian invasion. Like Trump, Orbán is also an oligarch, with a net worth estimated in the hundreds of millions of graft-boosted dollars, and under whose rule Hungary has been ranked as the E.U.'s most corrupt country.
"Orbán is well on his way to staying in office for the rest of his life."
"There is a great man, a great leader in Europe—Viktor Orbán," Trump—who has infamously praised some of the world's dictators—said in a speech last month. "He is a very great leader, a very strong man."
The admiration is mutual. Speaking last month, Orbán said that "we cannot interfere in other countries' elections, but we would very much like to see President Donald Trump return to the White House and make peace here in the eastern half of Europe. It is time for another 'Make America Great Again' presidency in the United States."
The European Parliament has condemned Orbán's rule as less than democratic, calling his government a "hybrid regime of electoral autocracy." Others have called it a form of "soft fascism." Orbán calls it "illiberal democracy," touting its universal appeal to international conservatives, including U.S. Republicans and their fixation on "owning the libs."
"Hungary is actually an incubator where experiments are done on the future of conservative policies," Orbán said at CPAC Budapest. "Hungary is the place where we didn't just talk about defeating the progressives and liberals and causing a conservative Christian political turn, but we actually did it."
While there has been some recent pushback—most notably in Brazil, Colombia, and Chile—observers are warning of the dangers of a still-ascendant right as voters prepare to head to the polls this year in the E.U. and in countries from Mexico and India to Indonesia and the United States.
In the case of the U.S., Protect Democracy editor Amanda Carpenter warned this week that "Orbán is the textbook example of why autocrats are often much more dangerous the second time in office."
"They learn from their mistakes, shortcomings, and—above all—the things that caused them to lose power previously. Orbán is well on his way to staying in office for the rest of his life," Carpenter added. "On that too Trump aims to do the same."
Hartmann wonders whether Orbán is "going to be instructing Trump in how to destroy a democracy," having "already pulled it off in Hungary."
"If you want to see Trump's and the GOP's vision of America's future, just look at what Orbán's done to Hungary," he added. "Forewarned is forearmed. Spread the word."
The far-right pseudo-journalist knows exactly what he’s doing and dances to the Kremlin’s tune, not because he is a useful idiot, but because he's a useful ally.
Journalists play a vital role when it comes to informing the public on world affairs. To that end, there’s no way around interviewing murderers, war criminals or autocrats consumed by power – or even those that are all three things. Power must be held accountable no matter what.
As such, the fact that Vladimir Putin has agreed to an interview aimed at the Western media is fine from a journalist perspective, as we’re in dire need of answer, which only the Russian president can provide.
Why did he refer to the Crimean Peninsula as Ukrainian in 2008 – only to follow this statement with an invasion six years later? How long are political opponents like Alexei Navalny or foreign correspondents like Evan Gershkovich and Alsu Kurmasheva supposed to languish in prison? Does the president still deny that Russian soldiers have been committing war crimes in Ukraine – and does he have any news about the investigation into the assassinations of Boris Nemtsov or Yuri Shchekochikhin?
Unfortunately, the designated interviewer, Tucker Carlson, won’t be asking any of those questions. If his interview with Viktor Orbán, Putin’s fellow Hungarian strongman, is anything to go by, it’s safe to say that Carlson will be lobbing softballs at Putin while conducting an interview that hardly qualifies as journalism.
If Vladimir Putin is to be interviewed, it should be done by a reporter with extensive knowledge of Russian politics, who can push back on the claims laid forth by Putin, who dares question a brutal autocrat.
Can Carlson even be called a journalist? In a 2020 trial his defense rested on an argument that his talk show doesn’t contain ‘actual facts’, but is rather built on ‘exaggeration’ and 'non-literal commentary.’ In his days as FOX News host he eagerly admitted that we would often lie to get his point across, which eventually became untenable, even to FOX, which booted him following a lawsuit against the network’s dissemination of the big election lie, which Carlson spread while admitting in private to believe none of it.
Tucker is no real reporter, but a conservative front-line warrior with the vague resemblance of a journalist. This is exactly why the Kremlin has chosen him to interview Putin instead of the BBC’s Steve Rosenberg, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, or any of the myriad of journalists that have tried to arrange a sit-down with the Russian president. Tucker’s recent claims that no other Western reporters had tried to talk with Putin was, of course, yet another lie, this time so glaring that even the Kremlin’s spin doctor, Dmitry Peskov, dismissed it publically.
Tucker has repaid the benevolence of the Kremlin by going on a wild propaganda tour of Moscow, where a visit to The Bolshoi and the capital’s metro was followed by a bizarre statement that Russia had achieved “wonders of civilization” that "Americans can't even dream of!" This might come as a surprise to the 20 percent of Russians still living without sewage systems or the hundreds of thousands trying to survive a harsh winter without heating, as the Russian war machine eats a progressively larger part of the state finances. Perhaps a few obvious questions to the president is hidden somewhere in these calamities? But to an ideologue like Carlson, those kind of boring details matter little to none, as he coasts through his well-designed propaganda tour of the capital. In Carlson’s words Russia is "doing very well” – no further probe warranted. Meanwhile, the Russian propaganda machine churns every second of his visit into TV segments.
So why has Tucker Carlson gone to Moscow at this point in time? To amplify the conservative agenda back home. His controversial talk with Putin is all service to one of his favorite viewers, Donald Trump, who has decided to freeze US politics completely ahead of the election. Trump hopes to manufacture a crisis, be it on the border to Mexico, another wave of inflation or more chaos in Ukraine. In lieu of an actual policy platform, Trump’s road to the Oval Office runs through fear-mongering and panic, and with MAGA loyalist Mike Johnson as speaker, further US aid to Ukraine is a long way out. Vladimir Putin desperately wants Republicans to seize control of all three branches of government in November, and sees an interview with Tucker as a boost to the objective of installing a less hostile Trump government in power, thus allowing him to continue his pillage of Eastern Europe in peace.
Carlson’s trip to Moscow has been sharply condemned across the board in the liberal parts of the Western establishment. While several EU politicians have called for sanctions on the ideologue cosplaying as a journalist, Hillary Clinton has described him as the Kremlin’s useful idiot.
But here, Clinton is mistaken. Tucker is no idiot, as this implies he is merely a pawn on a geopolitical chess board; the curious reporter eying a scoop as a return to relevance. Carlson knows exactly what he’s doing and dances to the Kremlin’s tune because he is a useful ally.
Like the Kremlin regime, Carlson wants to dismantle the Western-liberal world order and roll back progressive victories: the LGBT+ movement, equality among genders and races, and female reproductive rights. These are the main adversaries for both Carlson and Putin, whose reactionary right-wing fantasies unite them across continents.
If Vladimir Putin is to be interviewed, it should be done by a reporter with extensive knowledge of Russian politics, who can push back on the claims laid forth by Putin, who dares question a brutal autocrat. In short all the things Tucker Carlson isn’t. As the Kremlin’s useful ally said himself in 2019: Why shouldn't I root for Russia? Which I am.
As long as the U.S. continues to manufacture conditions ripe for mass migration in Latin America, news readers must come to grips with how today’s journalism coaxes Americans into hating migrants.
“Yahtzee!! We’re full,” wrote Florida state operative Perla Huerta, once she had tricked enough desperate migrants to fill two Martha’s Vineyard-bound planes (CNN, 11/15/22). In the days leading up to her celebratory text, the recently discharged Army counterintelligence agent scoured San Antonio gas stations, churches, and McDonald’s parking lots for asylum seekers who would believe her when she promised them employment and three months’ free rent in Boston (Boston Globe, 9/19/22). All they would have to do is get on a plane.
By September 12, 2022, she had convinced nearly 50 migrants, mostly Venezuelans, to depart Texas. On September 14, they landed unheralded, not in Boston, but in Martha’s Vineyard—an affluent island community largely closed for the season, and wholly unprepared to accommodate the aircrafts’ precious cargo.
Immigration attorney Rachel Self told the MV Times (9/15/22) that
not only did those responsible for this stunt know that there was no housing and no employment awaiting the migrants, they also very intentionally chose not to call ahead, to any single office or authority on Martha’s Vineyard…. Ensuring that no help awaited the migrants at all was the entire point.
Huerta had lied. And it was a sadistic, labor-intensive, and costly lie, designed to overwhelm “sanctuary destinations” (The Hill, 9/16/22) and thereby draw attention to the politician orchestrating and bankrolling the airlift: Florida governor and GOP presidential hopeful Ron DeSantis (CNN, 9/17/22).
But, as Matthew Gertz of Media Matters (9/15/22) tweeted, “When GOPers do depraved stuff, it’s worth looking for the Fox host who suggested it.” It appears that DeSantis was taking notes when former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson declared on primetime TV (Fox, 7/26/22):
Next stop on the equity train has got to be Martha’s Vineyard…They are begging for more diversity. Why not send migrants there in huge numbers? Let’s start with 300,000 and move up from there.
Characterizing human beings as pests that ought to be dumped onto others is regular programming at Fox, which unapologetically peddles white supremacist conspiracy theories (CounterSpin, 5/27/22), promotes alarmist anti-immigration rhetoric (Media Matters, 5/23/23), and portrays migrants as boogeymen (Washington Post, 12/18/18).
However, this is far from a Fox-exclusive phenomenon. Established media—both conservative and centrist alike—treat the subject of immigration with stunning callousness. FAIR’s Janine Jackson (CounterSpin, 8/2/23) noted:
Reporting evinces nowadays an implicit acceptance of the goal of border “management,” keeping things “under control,” keeping immigrants’ efforts to enter from “surging.” The way we’re to understand that the U.S. is doing things right is if there are just fewer people trying to enter.
The problem is not simply that media buy into sensationalist accounts of immigration. When the news amplifies anti-immigration hysteria, asylum seekers are drained of their humanity. Their mere presence constitutes a “crisis,” their desperation amounts to an existential threat, their movement must be sanctioned and scrutinized. In the public imagination, they are no better than monsters.
As long as the U.S. continues to manufacture conditions ripe for mass migration in Latin America, news readers must come to grips with how today’s journalism coaxes Americans into hating migrants. Only then can we begin to treat immigration rightfully—as a natural part of human history, to be celebrated rather than feared.
Turning migrants into monsters is simple. According to philosopher David Livingstone Smith in his book Making Monsters: The Uncanny Power of Dehumanization, all it takes is a combination of a physical and cognitive threat. Grizzly bears, he noted, may gnash and claw at us: They are physically threatening. But they are not monsters, because they are part of the natural order.
A singing rose, on the other hand, challenges our conception of normalcy: It is metaphysically threatening. But it is not a monster, because it cannot hurt us.
It is only when the physically and cognitively threatening intersect (think zombies, werewolves, or Chucky dolls) that a monster is born. And this is precisely what media do to migrants.
Despite women accounting for a little over half—51%—of U.S. migration, national magazines play up the “bad hombres” archetype by picturing Latino migrant men at far greater rates than their female counterparts.
In their 2018 research, Emily Farris and Heather Silber Mohamed analyzed ten years’ worth of immigration coverage in Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report. They revealed that media have a “general tendency to frame immigrants in a negative light, consistent with a ‘threat’ narrative but inconsistent with actual immigrant demographics.”
For example, while the vast majority of migrants—77%—are in the country legally (Pew, 8/20/20), the study found that news media overwhelmingly display photos of asylum seekers crossing the Southern border or cooped up in detention facilities, thus implying criminality (Washington Post, 7/27/18).
In another instance, despite women accounting for a little over half—51%—of U.S. migration (Migration Policy Institute, 3/14/23), national magazines play up the “bad hombres” archetype by picturing Latino migrant men at far greater rates than their female counterparts. This disparity fortifies the “physical threat” mirage, as the perception of Black and brown men in the U.S. is often blighted by the assumption that they are intrinsically dangerous (Atlantic, 1/5/15).
This stereotyping is enforced when right-wing outlets work tirelessly to prove a nonexistent correlation between violence and heightened immigration. The trend is latent in the conservative media pandemonium surrounding the MS-13 gang:
In reality, the most recent estimates suggest that less than 1% of U.S. gang membership can be attributed to MS-13 (Washington Post, 12/7/18), and native-born U.S. citizens are over twice as likely to be arrested for violent crimes as undocumented immigrants (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 12/7/20). Despite that, these headlines represent only a drop in the right-wing fearmongering ocean (Media Matters, 6/30/21, 4/29/21, 8/6/19).
Media scare tactics are not without consequence. According to a 2021 study, the preponderance of negative immigration news has engendered outgroup hostility toward asylum seekers and ingroup favoritism toward the native-born. It’s no wonder that many Americans have begun to believe it when the likes of CNN (Media Matters, 12/20/22), the New York Times (FAIR.org, 5/24/21) and Time (FAIR.org, 6/2/23) deem the arrival of migrants a “border crisis.”
But the real crisis at hand is the wanton depiction of migrants as physical threats.
Anti-migrant animus is now part of the zeitgeist, and Donald Trump is the poster child. “Everything’s coming across the border: the illegals, the cars, the whole thing. It’s like a big mess. Blah. It’s like vomit,” he said in a characteristic 2015 speech (HuffPost, 8/25/16). Trump likening asylum seekers to inanimate objects—like “vomit” and “cars”—is indicative of the dehumanizing language that afflicts contemporary immigration discourse.
Media follow suit, discussing migrants as if they were devoid of human qualities. Valeria Luiselli (Literary Hub, 3/16/17) observed that “some papers and webpages announce the arrival of undocumented children like a biblical plague. Beware the locusts!” Fox News’ Todd Starnes (Media Matters, 8/7/12) once actually compared undocumented immigrants to “locusts.”
A scholarly investigation (Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Winter/08) into media representations of migrants asserted that there are two principal metaphors:
When the nation is conceived as a physical body, immigrants are presented either as an infectious disease or as a physical burden. When the nation is conceived as a house, immigrants are represented as criminals, invaders, or dangerous and destructive flood waters.
Heavy-handed right-wing media are more likely to employ the “disease,” “burden,” and “invasion” tropes when referring to migrants:
But water metaphors abound in both conservative and centrist sources:
The water metaphors may be poetic, but they are insidious. In the 2014 fiscal year, the U.S. saw a marked increase in unaccompanied Latin American minors hoping to reunite with their parents beyond the southern border (Vox, 10/10/14). A linguistic analysis (Critical Discourse Studies, 8/12) of New York Times and LA Times’ coverage of the child crossings found that “surge” appeared 91 times, “flood” 21 times, and “wave” 14 times. The study remarked:
This water-based terminology establishes a metaphor that represents immigrants as floods. Consequently, these representations call upon ideologies of immigrants as natural disasters who should be dealt with in an inhumane fashion.
As Livingstone Smith wrote:
When we accept the view that some group of people are less than human, we have to overrule the evidence of our senses. At this point a problem arises, because even though a person has accepted that these others aren’t human, they can’t stop themselves from recognizing the other’s humanity. The belief that these people are human coexists in your brain with the belief that they’re subhuman.
The impossibility of migrants being simultaneously human and—as media have convinced many—subhuman generates a cognitive threat. The dissonance between the two statuses challenges our conception of natural order. And, thus, Livingstone Smith’s monster-making formula is complete; the media has provoked within us an unjustified hatred for migrants by successfully casting them as monsters—an affront to our safety and sense of reality.
In describing the demonization of Black men in America in 1955, James Baldwin wrote: “And the strain of denying the overwhelmingly undeniable forced Americans into rationalizations so fantastic that they approached the pathological.” Likewise, today it is virtually impossible for Americans to accept migrants as human when the news persistently degrades, brutalizes, and distorts their image. But not to accept them as such is to deny them their “human reality,” their “human weight and complexity.” It’s not a fictional caravan of monstrous migrants we should beware of; it’s the monster-makers in U.S. media.
It was the spiritual equivalent of a World’s Ugliest Dog contest, each contestant was more unappealing than the next—with the exception of the biggest ugly dog of them all, who had bones to pick elsewhere.
The 2024 Republican primary officially kicked off on August 23—my birthday—with its first presidential debate. It’s been comical to see headlines about the debate’s “biggest highlights.” Biggest highlights? Were there that many to choose from? You could make a more appealing “highlight” reel from a dentist’s video of the bacteria in your gums.
Pundits might describe the debate as a circus. That’s unfair to the Big Top. It wasn’t a circus. It was the spiritual equivalent of a World’s Ugliest Dog contest. Each contestant was more unappealing than the next—with the exception of the biggest ugly dog of them all, who had bones to pick elsewhere.
(A friend of my wife’s once had an astonishingly ugly dog, with a body like a moldy potato and a Picasso-esque nightmare head. He had eyes in different quadrants of his face and a single tooth that might have been passed around by the Furies of Greek mythology. But I digress.)
They say unhinged, lying, and hateful things while pursuing policies that hurt and kill.
While the GOP candidates had a certain vulpine quality, they seemed to lack the empathy inherent in canines and some humans. Their mirror neurons have rusted over so badly they must look like old beer cans in sea water.
Their words and demeanor were, by any objective standard, abnormal. Their presentation was utterly detached from real people and real-life problems. And yet, they were taken seriously by pundits and politicians. That reflects a deep social psychosis, a detachment from reality so profound it would call for clinical treatment in a human being.
I didn’t watch the debate on my birthday—what a grim augury for the year that would have been—but now I have. I will live with these memories forever. Seeing these characters arrayed from left to right was like those M.C. Escher drawings of staircases where, no matter which way you go, you’re always headed down.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump in the White House as he accepted the resignation of Nikki Haley as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, on October 9, 2018, in Washington, D.C.
(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)“I think it’s time for an accountant in the White House,” Nikki Haley told the audience, which means she’s cornered the vision thing. “Our kids are never going to forgive us” for emergency Covid-19 spending, she added, a statement that’s not only implausible but requires our kids to be alive.
I saw Haley address a conservative women’s dinner a while back. Her speech was typical right-wing red meat, the kind she served up when she ran for governor with the backing of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. Haley hewed to xenophobic tropes, dismissing the United Nations as a “club” and diplomatic norms as “a culture.”
“When I first came to the U.N.,” Haley said, “I told my colleagues that the United States was taking names. Taking names of the countries that didn’t have our back.” That seems like an unnecessary bookkeeping chore. Why not put down the pencil and pad and just look up the countries we’ve bombed and sanctioned?
The media loves to treat Haley with legitimacy because she’s a former U.N. Ambassador. But she was reprimanded in that job by a federal ethics watchdog for improperly endorsing a political candidate as a political appointee. An independent ethics group also called for an investigation of Haley’s flights on wealthy executives’ private jets, a perk whose value she reportedly failed to fully disclose.
And yet, for all her extremism and questionable ethics, Haley can still seen like a class act—at least, compared to the other guys. Like, for example...

Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie speaks.
(Photo: AP/Rich Schultz)
Him again? We’ve seen his schtick before. Sure, it’s fun to hear him attack former President Donald Trump, although he didn’t do much of that in the debate. And yes, he’s funnier and slightly more watchable than the others, but that’s because he makes fun of people. He’s the political equivalent of Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog. But Triumph is funnier and has better politics.
Back in 2012 I wrote about Christie’s hostility to women, his servility toward lobbyists, and his overall nastiness. Please don’t make me do it again. Christie displayed utter contempt toward working people that year, insulting the jobless and the elderly. As governor, he was a bully and probably corrupt.
Nothing has changed since then, except his newfound tendency to insult other Republicans. He should stick to that.

Vivek Ramaswamy speaking at an event in West Palm Beach, Florida.
(Photo: Gage Skidmore/ via Wikipedia)
Back in 1961 in Utica, New York, there was a little kid—we’ll call him “Brucie”—who went from house to house singing a song called “Artificial Flowers” for all the moms in their kitchens. If that sounds like it might be a bad song, friend, you don’t know the half of it. It was about a poor little orphan girl who survives by selling those flowers—but not for long, what with (spoiler alert!) winter coming on and all. All the moms would “ooh” and “aah” over crooning little Brucie.
All of ‘em except my mom, that is. Her face, God love her, was a grim mask as she endured the maudlin tune. The compliment she finally mustered was transparently insincere. Not that it mattered. Brucie was extremely pleased with his performance; the possibility that anyone else might feel differently never crossed his mind.
Which brings us to Vivek Ramaswamy.
Christie said Ramaswamy “sounds like ChatGPT,” which was probably the truest thing said all night.
Ramaswamy is a salesman, a hustler, a pitchman. What he sells is as artificial as the orphan girl’s flowers. Sure, he hits all the right buttons for a conservative crowd, which means he says things that are clinically insane. But who knows what he really thinks? He’s all nerve ends, and the signals coursing through each one of them spell out “always be closing” in Morse code.
Also, he’s a phony. “My parents came to this country with no money 40 years ago,” he said. “I have gone on to found multibillion-dollar companies.” He leaves out the part about his father and mother being well-to-do professionals during his childhood—his father as an engineer and patent attorney for General Electric and his mother as a psychiatrist—and he omits his fancy education at a private high school, Harvard, and then Yale Law School.
Vivek constantly says things like, “I’m not a politician. I’m an entrepreneur.” That’s like the flu product whose advertising says it was “invented by a teacher, not a doctor.” It sounds good until you think about it for a second.
An entrepreneur is the last thing we should want for a president. That is, unless you think the problem with our politics is that there’s too much substance and too little salesmanship...
Christie said Ramaswamy “sounds like ChatGPT,” which was probably the truest thing said all night. But Vivek doesn’t just talk like an AI output. His entire being seems like something you’d get by typing a few phrases into an AI program—phrases like “insufferability incarnate,” “unwarranted self-love,” “Dr. Sardonicus death-rictus smile,” “the kid everybody hated in junior high,” and, “what’s with the hair?”
Said young Vivek:
“This isn’t that complicated, guys, unlock American energy, drill, frack, burn coal and embrace nuclear, put people back to work by no longer paying them more to stay at home, reform the U.S. Fed, stabilize the U.S. dollar, and go to war.”
With that sentence, Ramaswamy finally outpaced Mike Pence in the category of “Most likely to portray the Antichrist in a direct-to-video movie.”

Former Vice President Mike Pence gives a speech.
(Photo: Gage Skidmore/flickr/cc)
Mike Pence did the right thing on January 6. But then there’s the rest of his life, which shouldn’t be left out of the conversation. Besides, obeying the law doesn’t make somebody qualified for the presidency. It doesn’t even make them a good person, necessarily. Deterrence theory relies heavily on fear of punishment, and if there’s one thing that shines through Pence’s personality it’s fear of punishment—divine and otherwise.
Pence has a long record of right-wing extremism and the forceful insertion of his private religious beliefs into the public sphere.
Poor ol’ Mike was his usual joyless self in the debate. He isn’t just wrong; he’s also, unfortunately, quite dull. (His court testimony, however, should be interesting.)

Senator Tim Scott speaks with then-President Donald Trump in 2017.
(Photo: The White House/ via Wikipedia)
“I regard all life as sacred,” Tim Scott says via his website. Then he says, “I will rebuild a military so lethal and powerful that our adversaries will fear us and our allies will respect us.”
And yet: Scott maligns lifesaving programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as “the entitlement state” and says things like, “We have to wrestle this beast to the ground.” Apparently, some lives are more sacred than others.
That privileged group includes insurance executives. While calling to tame the costs of “entitlements,” Scott sided with other Republicans to protect the siphoning off of Medicare funds to private wealth under the so-called “Medicare Advantage” scheme.
For all the hype—if you can call Scott’s sporadic coverage “hype”—it turns out he’s just a typical Republican.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks in North Carolina.
(Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)Do we have to? Oh, okay. Everybody knows what he’s been up to in Florida, so we’ll stick to his debate performance.
It was sad.
On Wednesday night, DeSantis mentioned yet again that he was “deployed with the Navy SEALS in Iraq.” Naturally, that left everyone with the impression that he was a Navy SEAL. He wasn’t. The elite-educated DeSantis served as an attorney, not a combat soldier.
By choosing his words carefully enough to leave a false impression without actually lying, DeSantis sounded like a fighter but demonstrated what he really is: a lawyer.

Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson speaks before a meeting of the Republican Party of Orange County.
(Photo: Leonard Ortiz/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register via Getty Images)Somebody said that Asa Hutchinson seems like a decent man.
You mean the Asa Hutchinson who pandered to Islamophobic bigotry by pledging to close his state to innocent Syrian refugees? The Asa Hutchinson who, after serving in the Department of Homeland Security, made a million dollars with a secretive company that trades with that department? The Hutchinson who carried out a hasty and chaotic spree of death row executions in his state soon after taking office, almost certainly killing at least one innocent man? Who urged businesses not to comply with mandated protections to public health and worker safety and dictatorially forbade local communities from democratically deciding how to protect their own health?
You mean that Asa Hutchinson?
“Decent” is not a synonym for “occasionally takes a break from doing execrable things.”
Nah.

Donald Trump speaks
(Photo: Michael Vadon/flickr/cc)As the debate groaned on, Tucker Carlson released a one-on-one interview with Donald Trump where, like any good wingman, he made his alpha pal look good by making himself even less attractive. Carlson lobbed extremely crazy statements to Trump, whose responses—being merely very crazy—looked sane by comparison. But crazy is as crazy does.
Incidentally, these comments aren’t personal. Nikki Haley and her compatriots were very nice at that dinner. Some of the Republican senators and representatives I’ve met have been nice, too. Hey, I was on Tucker’s program once and I even liked him, just as I’ve liked other Fox hosts. (Not you, though, Hannity.)
But their public personae are—politically, historically, existentially—who they really are. And what they really are is bad. They say unhinged, lying, and hateful things while pursuing policies that hurt and kill. It’s insane to treat them like serious political figures. That our media and political cultures do so reflects a profound societal sickness.
If Trump doesn’t lead his party again next year, one of these yo-yos probably will. The fact that the Democrats could lose to them—which they could—says more about the state of our nation than many of us would ever care to know. That’s understandable. After all, to see insanity is to risk becoming insane yourself.
PS: I apologize to ugly dogs everywhere, including my wife’s friend’s dog. He was a good boy.
The lifting of the veil on Carlson's true views of Trump and the MAGA movement is a major outcome of the Dominion settlement.
Things seemed hopeless for those wondering if Tucker Carlson of Fox News—who used his show to promote white supremacist hoaxes (Independent, 7/20/22) and degrading statements about immigrants (The Hill, 9/23/21)—would ever be held accountable for spewing hate on air. An advertiser exodus (New York Times, 6/18/20) and calls for his deplatforming from mainstream organizations (Anti-Defamation League, 5/25/22) seemed only to solidify the frozen-dinner heir's position as cable news' top-rated host. Last year, Carlson's show "averaged 3.32 million viewers, nabbing the biggest audience in cable news among viewers ages 25 to 54," according to the New York Post (4/24/23).
"He's the tent pole of the entire prime time line-up," said Reece Peck, author of Fox Populism: Branding Conservatism as Working Class. "He helps the other shows, people stay to watch after Tucker and before Tucker."
And in a flash, he was gone (NBC, 4/24/23). After Fox News settled with Dominion Voting Systems for nearly $800 million over the network's repeated lies about the company fixing the 2020 presidential election for Joe Biden, I noted (FAIR.org, 4/20/23) that the last-minute agreement was still a form of accountability for the network, even if the settlement sum was half of what Dominion sought. (Carlson's departure took $700 million from Fox's stock value in the 30 minutes after it was announced. The stock recovered somewhat, but was still down half a billion dollars at the closing bell.)
Indeed, the damaging discovery process preceding the trial date might have done Carlson in. The Washington Post (4/24/23) reported that "it was Carlson's comments about Fox management, as revealed in the Dominion case, that played a role in his departure from Fox, a person familiar with the company's thinking told the Post."
Dominion said Carlson's departure was not a condition of the settlement, according to the LA Times (4/24/23), but the paper did say that Carlson's comments "that turned up in the discovery process for the case may have also played a role in" his departure.
The LA Times also said that sources within Fox said that Carlson's departure is related to a separate, hostile work environment lawsuit brought by his former head of booking, Abby Grossberg, who alleges "that male producers regularly used vulgarities to describe women and frequently made antisemitic jokes" (New York Times, 4/24/23).
The texts exposed Carlson for who he is, a pompous, rich media elitist who gives not one single damn about MAGA voters and hates their king.
The discovery process of the Dominion case revealed numerous texts from Carlson—whose entire persona at Fox News rests on the wave of the Make America Great Again movement—showing his intense dislike of Donald Trump (New York Times, 3/8/23). "What [Trump is] good at is destroying things" was among one of the key texts, but everyone's favorite, of course, is Carlson saying of Trump, "I hate him passionately."
No, Carlson's on-air racism (Independent, 4/13/21; ADL, 4/22/21), transphobia (New York Post, 12/28/22), xenophobia (Washington Post, 12/15/18), admiration for authoritarians (FAIR.org, 8/3/21, 10/20/21), and flirtations with antisemitism (Daily Beast, 10/11/22, 12/23/22) were never the problem for Fox News. If The Washington Post's report that the Dominion texts were definitive is true, it's poetic justice: The texts exposed Carlson for who he is, a pompous, rich media elitist who gives not one single damn about MAGA voters and hates their king, only cynically using Trump's political popularity for his own media grift. That lifting of the veil, the end of the conceit for a corporation whose entire modus operandi is disguising its ruling-class politics to sell faux populism to its viewers, is a major outcome of the Dominion settlement.
But what is to become of Carlson? Surely he won't drift quietly off into obscurity. The right-wing media machine, with its growing community of news sites, podcasts, and Substack newsletters, is a gold mine for anyone who can draft a sentence linking any conservative grievance to the word "wokeness." Carlson sold his stake in the Daily Caller (New York Times, 6/10/20), the news site he helped found, but the possibilities for rehabilitation are seemingly endless.
Bill O'Reilly once reigned as the star of Fox News until his ouster due to sexual harassment accusations (New York Times, 4/19/17), and today he is but a mere afterthought. But he was an aging relic before an explosion in Trump-fueled media. Today, a fresh-faced Carlson, still an emblem of MAGA rage, has the world as his oyster where he could perform untethered by corporate restraints, although without as much reach as cable news.
"His star will never shine as bright as it did at Fox."
"It's not beyond the realm of possibility that he could reinvent himself, but I think Fox is center stage, everything flows from its framing, from its agenda-setting, and it has the most influence over Republican politicians," Peck said. "Even with Newsmax and [One America News Network], it's really hard to match the respectability you get from being on a cable dial."
"His star will never shine as bright as it did at Fox," he said.
Fox is going to survive, valuing the audience that made the network what it is today, even if a little less hate is going to be pumped onto the mainstream American airwaves at primetime. "Fox has survived the loss of its biggest stars before," Peck said.
But Carlson's departure is a reminder that while the fight against Fox's worst hatemonger often seemed fruitless, the Goliaths are, in fact, vulnerable.
If Fox News has seen any kind of light in jettisoning its most hateful voice, it’s the light of the almighty dollar.
Tucker Carlson got fired!
Many liberals are celebrating, calling it a reckoning—a win for racial justice and decency. With this bombshell revelation, some might even believe that Fox News has finally gotten religion and seen the error of its ways. It's better late than never, they say. Salvation is always possible.
But if Fox did find religion, why did it take so long? Religion is not something that is found overnight. It is a conversion that moves us when it takes hold at the core of our being. It's hard to believe that Fox has suddenly seen the light and come to the conclusion that the blatant racism, hatred, and xenophobia that the network has trafficked in for so long is not something they want to continue. Does Fox News want us to believe that it has seen the light and knelt at the altar of repentance because it finally jettisoned the leading and most incendiary voice of racial hatred?
Why now?
True religion requires clear directional change. Repentance requires amends.
Why has the network at this moment felt a need to jettison Tucker Carlson from his throne? Fox had no problem previously with the racism, xenophobia, replacement theories, conspiracy theories, and the blatantly white supremacist tropes spewing from his mouth each evening. The network not only did not have a problem with Carlson's lies, half-truths, and propagandist rhetoric, it benefited enormously and from what was the cornerstone of ratings and advertising dollars. If Fox suddenly found religion, it was a different religion than the voice Paul heard on the road to Damascus that caused a radical change of heart. It was a different religion than the bright light of revelation from heaven that makes one turn away from one's complacency and complicity—from slavery, Jim Crow, unabashed and unchecked capitalism, and patriarchy.
At best, the kind of religion Fox found was the $787.5 million judgment agreement kind of spirit. It was not the fear of fire and brimstone and souls burning in hell. It was not the inability to live in one's own skin and sleep at night while doing nothing to stop the extrajudicial execution of Black and Brown in their own homes and neighborhoods or to stop refugee children from being separated from their parents and held in concentration camps at the U.S.-Mexico border. At best, the payout of nearly $1 billion to Dominion Voting Systems, and the other legal threats looming, is Fox's interpretation of dangling over the fires of hell.
If Fox has seen the light, even just the light of financial salvation, then it will purge itself not just of Carlson, but of all of the minions of hell that continue to pollute its airwaves with the filth of hatred, racism, and white supremacy. Why fire Carlson but continue to offer airtime to white supremacist ideologues like Laura Ingraham and Maria Bartiromo, who have each engaged in the same distortions that Carlson is guilty of? Why exchange one divisive and hateful personality for another? True religion requires clear directional change. Repentance requires amends.
Can you imagine if it had been a Black or Brown person on the air spewing anti-white rhetoric, embracing hate-filled divisive ideologies, and fanning historical flames of the country's tendencies towards violence? How long will they be allowed on the air?
The very same day that Fox ousted Carson, CNN fired Don Lemon. Was the exact same day timing of the firings—weeks after Lemon said that Nikki Haley was "not in her prime" and CNN sent him to sensitivity training—a coincidence? Perhaps it was a joint sacrifice to the Gods of ratings, the almighty God of the dollar by networks who claim to be arch-enemies but are part of the same system.
"Fox News without Tucker is basically a wet paper towel: fragile and functionally useless," said one media expert. "They will try and get their footing back fast, but don't let them."
Less than a week after avoiding a trial regarding its election lies with a $787.5 million settlement, Fox News announced on Monday that its top-rated prime-time host, Tucker Carlson, is leaving the network effective immediately.
Carlson's final show was Friday evening, and he closed the broadcast by telling viewers, "We'll be back on Monday," suggesting he wasn't aware of his imminent departure.
"Tucker Carlson Tonight" played a key role in the defamation lawsuit filed against Fox by Dominion Voting Systems, which accused the network of spreading misinformation about its election software as its hosts and guests repeatedly claimed votes cast for former Republican President Donald Trump in 2020 had been "flipped" for Democratic President Joe Biden.
Carlson had been expected to testify in the case before it was settled just before the trial was scheduled to begin last month. While claiming on-air that questions about the validity of the 2020 election results were part of "legitimate discourse and inquiry," uncovered text messages between Carlson and his producer showed that he found Trump's claims about the election "disgusting" and "destructive."
In addition to promoting lies about Biden's victory, Carlson spent his 14-year tenure at Fox News—as a contributor, panelist, co-host, and starting in 2016 as host of his own prime-time show—attacking immigrants and asylum-seekers, advancing the white supremacist "Great Replacement Theory," and urging police to crack down on racial justice protesters.
Economist Robert Reich noted that Carlson's exit does not mean that the network will "start telling the truth."
While Fox News has given no indication that its other hosts, commentators, and guests will stop promoting similar ideas, consumer rights watchdog Public Citizen President Robert Weissman called Carlson's departure "flat-out great news."
"Anything that reduces the reach of this purveyor [of] hate, racism, reaction and authoritarianism is a positive step for America and the world," he said.
With Carlson gone, said U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Fox News officials "just need to take out the rest of the trash."
Angelo Carusone, president and CEO of Media Matters for America, said Carlson was likely pushed out because he had become "toxic" for the network, even as it relied heavily on him and his millions of viewers.
"Fox News without Tucker is basically a wet paper towel: fragile and functionally useless," said Carusone. "They will try and get their footing back fast, but don't let them."