Skip to content

63 search results for "Carlson Orban"

A brand new Vlad

It’s becoming a bit uncomfortable for Putin fans to express their adoration for their man what with all the atrocities and genocide and all. But never fear, they still have an authoritarian hero to celebrate:

Increasingly, the right has also decided to launder its Putinism though their support for Putin’s leading European ally, Viktor Orban.

Image

Conservative Rod Dreher has long flirted with anti-Ukrainian and pro-Russian propaganda:

But this week he tweeted:

The newly re-elected Hungarian strongman has made no secret of his position on the war.

In his victory speech Sunday night, Orban lashed out at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who had urged Budapest to do more for its neighbors, placing the Ukrainian leader in a constellation of perceived leftist and liberal enemies of his Christian nationalist project. Orban said his triumph came despite the efforts of the “left at home, the international left all around, the Brussels bureaucrats, the [George] Soros empire with all its money, the international mainstream media, and in the end, even the Ukrainian president.”

This is what the folks at CPAC are celebrating

Even as the bodies are still being gathered in the suburbs of Kyiv, as the death toll of children mounts, and Putin continues to target civilians in his campaign of genocide, CPAC has decided to go ahead with its festival of Orbanism.

April 5 (Reuters) – America’s most prominent conservative gathering, founded on ideals of personal liberty and limited government, convenes in Budapest next month to celebrate a European leader accused of undermining democracy and individual rights.

The May meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is seen by some Republicans as a test of how closely American conservatives are willing align themselves with a global movement of far-right, Russia-friendly strongmen embraced by former U.S. President Donald Trump.

As it often does, CPAC is following the lead of the right’s entertainment wing. Tucker Carlson has emerged as Orban’s leading American fluffer, broadcasting from Budapest last year, and airing a fawning interview of the new avatar of illiberalism.

In the last few nights in Budapest,” mused Tucker Carlson, US rightwing media star, “I’ve run into a number of Americans who have come here because they want to be around people who agree with them, who agree with you. Do you see Budapest as a kind of capital of this kind of thinking?”

While Orban’s appeal may be elusive to those of you who think that liberal democracy defines the West, his attraction for Tucker and other elements of the right is obvious. A substantial faction of the conservative movement now regards his government “which censors LGBT content, demonizes immigrants and ethnic minorities, extols the virtues of the traditional family, and feuds constantly with the supposed globalists of the European Union” as a political model.

In other words, Orban gives them that sweet autocratic dopamine hit they so desperately crave, without the whole rotting corpse, war crime, genocide thing.

This is who they have become.

I hate to say it but it looks increasingly possible that France will vote in Marine LePen, which is crazy. That will probably break up NATO and if that happens, all bets are off.

On underestimating adversaries

Screen grab from Syrian State Television via U.S. Naval Institute.

“Signs don’t vote” is campaign-ese for dismissing armchair partisans’ need for planting a candidate yard sign on their lawns. In recent cycles, national campaigns that once gave away the clunky advertising now charge money for them early and distribute the few free ones so late in the campaign that it makes partisans nervous that their favs’ campaigns are floundering.

The quantity of Trump signs sprouting outside city limits in 2016 so alarmed one early Bernie Sanders supporter here that he paid to create and distribute a couple of thousand small Hillary Clinton signs.

“Do you think Trump can win?” Democrats asked nervously as November approached.

Don’t worry, we said. Signs don’t vote.

We should have listened to H.L. Mencken‘s riposte about underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

In similar fashion, Andriy Yermak from Ukraine Ukrainian President Zelensky’s office warns against underestimating the brutality of the Russian army the way people underestimated Ukrainian bravery. Russian atrocities mount as the port city of Mariupol is “reduced to ashes.”

Russian attacks, Yermak writes in the Washington Post, have

… left hundreds of thousands of residents without food, clean water, electricity and communications. More than 1,200 civilians have been murdered. Russia violated an agreement on a humanitarian corridor almost before it began. This is how it wages wars. It did it in Grozny in 1999 and in Syria in 2015. Now, it is doing it in Ukraine. This is a scorched-earth campaign to wipe Ukraine — its people, its culture, its history — off the map.

What the two tales have in common is our tendency to misread opponents until it is too late. Clinton did. (I did.) Or else not to learn our lessons. See: Grozny and Aleppo.

Dan Pfeiffer in his newsletter this morning cautions that the American far right’s fondness for Vladimir Putin “is closer to mainstream GOP thinking than many would have you believe.” He proposes four reasons the right cannot quit Putin:

1. Addicted to Strength: The concept of strength is the axis on which Republican politics has long rotated. Every Republican political campaign is about portraying the GOPer as strong and the Democrat as weak. This is why so much hay was made of Michael Dukakis’s tank photo op. Republicans worked hard to undermine John Kerry’s military service, and pushed false narratives about the health and cognitive abilities of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. The type of strength and how it is used is irrelevant. When strength at all costs is emphasized at the expense of empathy, compassion, and morals, Putin can become the ideal leader for a morally bankrupt political party.

2. An Apocalyptic Mentality: The public tends to gravitate towards strongman-like figures out of fear. And fear is a central feature of Republican messaging. Watch any GOP campaign ads or consume Right Wing media and experience a constant stream of apocalyptic imagery. America is under ceaseless assult from immigrants, terrorists, criminals, and an array of non-White bogey men and women. Partly, this is a political strategy designed to keep the shrinking, mostly White GOP in a rabid state. According to a January NPR/Ipsos poll, 47 percent of Republicans strongly agree that “America is in crisis and at risk of failing” compared to 29 percent of Democrats
The driving force in the politics of fear is that before too long White people will represent a minority of Americans and the dominant political position that many believe is their birthright is at risk. Putin’s restorative nationalism is appealing to this segment of the population. His death grip on power and aims to restore the Soviet Union is essentially a platform to Make Russia Great Again. Supporting Trump doesn’t necessarily equate to becoming a political apologist, but the sentiments driving the very Far Right to embrace Trump above all else are the same sentiments causing the folks to side with Putin right now.

3. White Power: There is something grossly ironic about the America First movement idolizing a former KGB agent trying to reestablish America’s greatest adversary. But “America First,” really means “White America First.” As Emily Tamkin wrote in the New York Times: “Many of the admirers of the world’s strongmen on the American right appear to believe that the countries each of these men lead are beacons of whiteness, Christianity and conservative values… The white nationalist Richard Spencer has referred to Russia as ‘the sole white power in the world.’” Matthew Heimbach, a founder of the Traditionalist Worker Party, told The Times in 2016, “I see President Putin as the leader of the free world.” As the nomination of Trump indicates, the White nationalist fringes of the Republican Party are the tail that wags the dog. If you are skeptical about the central role of race, ask yourself why the Far Right loves Putin and Orban but disdains Xi Jinping of China? Pay close attention to what they are saying today in order to be prepared for tomorrow.

4. The Perverse Incentives of the Internet Attention Economy: Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, and Tucker Carlson have a lot in common. One of these commonalities is an inherent understanding of how to get and maintain attention in a media ecosystem powered by outrage. There is financial and political incentive to say outrageous things that generate backlash. You get attention for what you said and then you get to scream “cancel culture” when people get mad. The anger and outrage fuels the algorithms pushing your content to even more people, lining your pocket and increasing your political power. So, if you are looking for someone to blame, feel free to add Mark Zuckerberg and other tech folks to your list.

Maya Angelou is perhaps over-quoted on believing when people show you who they are. Mencken’s quote is often forgotten. Trumpism and Jan. 6 and vote-rigging legislation and Putin-philia have shown us again and again who many of our neighbors are and we fail to believe them. That’s on us. Like Russia, they keep waving it in our faces.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 4th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.

Tucker’s act

Eric Wemple charts the changes over his two decade career. It seems clear to me that he’s always been nothing but a performer who puts on a good show. Now that I think about it, I should have known that from the bow tie:

Back when Tucker Carlson practiced his punditry on MSNBC in the 2000s, he held Russia in low esteem. “The bottom line here is that freedom of the press is disappearing in Russia,” Carlson said in August 2005, after Russia barred ABC News staffers over the network’s interview of a Chechen rebel leader. Carlson agreed with a fellow pundit’s assessment that a “reinstatement of the Russian police state” is afoot; he said that Russia and China “have very different goals from our goals,” that Vladimir Putin was “in league with our enemies,” and that action should be taken against Russian entities doing business in Iran.Opinions to start the day, in your inbox. Sign up.

That was then.

These days, Carlson is providing comfort to the Russian president in what the host on Tuesday night termed a “border dispute” with Ukraine. Addressing the Biden administration’s determination to oppose Russian aggression, Carlson said, “You’re going to win an important moral victory against dastardly old Vladimir Putin, who is much, much worse than Justin Trudeau, just so you know.”

“So you can feel good about that, because — because,” snarked the host. “Let’s see, come to think of it, why would you feel good about that?”

As with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the building blocks for Carlson’s Russophilia — or at least Russoindifferentia — have been lining up for several years now. Sohis propagandaduring this crisis shouldn’t shock his devoted, polemic-accustomed audience.

In November 2019, Carlson was discussing the impeachment of President Donald Trump, which involved U.S. military aid to Ukraine meant to assist in its fight with Russia in Crimea and the country’s east. “Why do I care what is going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia?” Carlson asked. “And I’m serious. Why do I care? Why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which I am.”

Just before that show concluded, Carlson issued a retraction: “Earlier in the show, I noted that I was rooting for Russia in the contest between Russia and Ukraine. Of course, I’m joking. I’m only rooting for America.” Several days later, however, he clarified where his allegiances stood: “I don’t think that we should be at war with Russia. And I think we should probably take the side of Russia if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine. That is my view,” said Carlson.

Perhaps looking to subtweet Carlson’s whitewash, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow later that week rummaged through an inventory of Russian atrocities: annexingCrimea;helpingNorth Korea evade sanctions; bombing hospitals and civilians in Syria to prop up an authoritarianregime; doping Olympic athletes, “then sabotaging the whole worldwide anti-doping infrastructure”; interferingwith the 2016 U.S. presidential election; exportinghigh-end organized crime; and, of course, killing Kremlin critics.

There’s little chance those outrages escaped the notice of Carlson, who’s easily the best-read, best-informed troll on cable news. He understood the horror of Russia back in his MSNBC days and understands it these days, too.

Which is to say, Putin hasn’t changed; Carlson has. A convincingexplanation for his embrace of Putin — as well as of Hungary’s strongman, Viktor Orbán — comes from the Atlantic’s Anne Applebaum: “The aggrieved Americans who now find their way to Orbán or Vladimir Putin also dislike their own country, albeit for different reasons. They cannot abide its racial diversity, its modern culture, its free press.”

The core of Carlsonism is a roaring contempt for immigrants, whose alleged crimes he hypes and who he says make this country “poorer and dirtier.” Now compare that platform with Putin’s position: “This liberal idea presupposes that nothing needs to be done. That migrants can kill, plunder and rape with impunity because their rights as migrants have to be protected,” Putin told the Financial Times.

Ideological affinity poured out ofCarlson’s on-air lecture Tuesday, in which he blasted “permanent Washington” for its anti-Putinism.

“Why do I hate Putin so much?” mocked the host. “Has Putin ever called me a racist? Has he threatened to get me fired for disagreeing with him? Has he shipped every middle-class job in my town to Russia? Did he manufacture a worldwide pandemic that wrecked my business and kept me indoors for two years? Is he teaching my children to embrace racial discrimination? Is he making fentanyl? Is he trying to snuff out Christianity?”

The message: Putin is no worse than American liberals and various other malefactors.

Perhaps the simplest explanation, however, is just that Carlson isshowing off his extremist bona fides for MAGA viewers. Say stuff that no one else is saying, no matter what; out-Trump Trump; watch the ratings spike.

Consider how Carlson fared when he was voicing less autocratic thoughts. The low-rated MSNBC program that featured him as a reasonable-yet-combative conservative went through “two names, four time slots and multiple formats” before network executives dumped it in 2008.

On this Thursday’s show, Carlson finallybowed to programming realpolitik. With Russian forces blasting their way through Ukraine, the host struck a new tone, calling the Russian action “awful” and saying, “Vladimir Putin started this war. So whatever the context of the decision that he made, he did it.”

But history — and everything we know about Carlson — instructs us not to be fooled. Don’t forget that he denounced the violence of the Capitol riot on the night of Jan. 6, 2021, then adjusted andadjusted until he was casting the rioters as persecuted freedom fighters.

Tucker Carlson has morphed into an unreasonable nihilist who boostswhite nationalism, autocracy and whatever other lunacies are left in the Fox News cupboard. That formula has made his program the No. 1 show on cable news; it’ll mark its sixth baleful year on air this fall. Don’t expect Putin to stay the bad guy that long.

The problem with this is that showboaters like him are often successful in politics.

A Very Confused Republican Party

It’s always distasteful to speak about war and peace in political terms but it’s just as inevitable. Politics are involved whether we like it or not. And in America for the past 60 years or so, it has usually broken down on predictably partisan lines. The hawks have tended to be on the right and the doves tended to be on the left, with some notable exceptions in both cases. Centrist Democrats have often been hawkish and on occasion we would see left wing Democrats support humanitarian interventions and far right Republicans agitating against war from an isolationist viewpoint.

But over the last quarter century we’ve seen those lines break down, particularly on the right.

Back in the 1990s when NATO intervened in the Baltics many of the usual hawks were suddenly unwilling to support military action as they usually did (and had just done a few years earlier in the first Gulf War) because they just couldn’t get worked up about a strongman dictator committing genocide in Europe. In that respect, they resembled their “America First” forebears in the 1930s. And after decades of support for all wars, big and small, in the name of anti-Communism, this stance came as something of a shock. One of the GOP congressional leaders at the time, Rep. Tom Delay, R-Tex., an aggressively hostile right-winger, remarked on the House floor:

“Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly. We must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy is formulated by the Unabomber.”

Hard right Senator Trent Lott, R-Miss., actually said “give peace a chance.”

Not long after that came 9/11 and the entire GOP reverted back to its usual warlike attitudes, supporting the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq under a Republican president with savage fervor, cheering on the “Shock and Awe” bombing campaigns and enthusiastically supporting torture and rendition. (Of course, the enemies in those cases weren’t their kind of guys, if you know what I mean, like Serbian dictator Slobodan Milošević.)

Then after years of endless jingoistic warmongering, the GOP seemed finally to run out of gas in 2016 when they voted in Donald Trump who swaggered around on stage like Benito Mussolini but also promised to “end the forever wars” suggesting that America’s adversaries would simply swoon and surrender at the mere sight of his manly visage. At the same time, he and his followers, were likewise swooning over Russian leader Vladimir Putin, a man they’d been warming to for over a decade, largely on the basis of his muscular domestic leadership, which they greatly admire, and as a continuation of their domestic opposition to Democratic President Barack Obama. 

The leadership of the Republican Party stood silently by as President Trump basked in extravagant flattery and flamboyant pageantry from dictators and tyrants around the world who knew they had the man’s number. It was so very easy to get him to do their dirty work for them, they had no need to take action. He was more critical of his own country than they were.

Now that Trump is out of office, the Republicans are confused and off balance when it comes to Vladimir Putin. They want to say he is a bad man taking advantage of a feeble Joe Biden but it’s uncomfortable because they like him so much. More importantly, their own Dear Leader does too. As Salon’s Igor Derish reported on Tuesday, Donald Trump finally weighed in with his views on the Russian invasion of Ukraine on a podcast.

“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. … We could use that on our southern border.”

He also called him very savvy, which echoes the words of his former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who has been extolling Putin’s virtues to anyone who will listen, including Russian television:

And then there’s the MAGA Muse, Tucker Carlson, insisting daily that Vladimir Putin is nothing more than a docile pussycat, even as he declares Canadian president Justin Trudeau to be a ruthless authoritarian tyrant. Last night he suggested in his usual oleaginous way that mean people on Twitter are worse than a dictator who poisons and imprisons his political adversaries.

Still, some elected Trumpers don’t seem to have gotten the memo:

Meanwhile, Ohio GOP Senate candidate J.D. Vance says “I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another,” while Pennsylvania GOP Senate candidate Mehmet Oz declares “Putin is a thug who has violated the sovereignty of a free country…The U.S. and our allies must take immediate actions to cripple his regime.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy both railed against Biden’s “appeasement” while GOP Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney blamed it all on Donald Trump:

“Former President Trump’s adulation of Putin today — including calling him a ‘genius’ — aids our enemies. Trump’s interests don’t seem to align with the interests of the United States of America.”

Trump activist Candace Owens, went the other way:

I can’t help but be reminded of a very famous speech by former UN Ambassador during the Reagan administration, Democrat Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who spoke at the 1984 Republican Convention and said her fellow Democrats “always blame America first.” Conservatives often referred to liberal critics of American foreign policy as the “blame America first crowd”, even as recently as 2020 in the Wall St. Journal — long after Donald Trump infamously said, “there are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?” when questioned about Putin’s penchant for killing his enemies. Now the Wall St. Journal is running op-eds with headlines like “How the U.S. and Europe Lost the Post-Cold War.”

The Republicans are confused about who they are in many ways and they are all over the place with their reaction to this aggression by Russia. But the rest of us shouldn’t be. The various factions in the party have one thing in common and only one thing: oppositional partisanship. If the Democrats are for it, they are against it and vice versa.

But there is a very strong strain within that group that really, really likes a white, nationalist strongman, whether it’s Slobodan Milošević, Viktor Orban or Vladimir Putin. That group is gaining power within that coalition and they are yearning for someone with more Putinesque gumption than the aging brand name in a baggy suit and red tie they had to settle for. I sense there are quite a few young up and comers who are closely observing this phenomenon and will be ready to deliver when the time comes.

Salon

Tucker’s Propaganda Program

Last week the highest-rated show on cable news was Fox News’ “The Five,” a gossipy round table of smart-alec right-wingers led by the network’s recently promoted to primetime pundit Jesse Watters, best known as Bill O’Reilly sidekick who stalked people on the streets and harassed them for profit. But last week was unusual. Normally, the highest-rated show on Fox News is “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” 

I doubt, however, that Carlson has anything to worry about. His is the most popular Fox News show most weeks and his influence on Republican Party politics is matched only by former president Donald Trump himself. And lately, Carlson’s been outdoing himself with appalling, provocative commentary that must make Trump feel very much off of his game.

This week he hosted COVID crank Alex Berenson, who shared this outrageous lie with the Fox News audience:

“The mRNA COVID vaccines need to be withdrawn from the market. No one should get them. No one should get boosted. No one should get double boosted. They are a dangerous and ineffective product at this point.”

Carlson didn’t refute that blatant lie. In fact, he said it was demonstrably true that the vaccines don’t work. It doesn’t get any more shockingly irresponsible than that.

Of course, Carlson’s long history of racist rhetoric is well known. He has relentlessly pushed the “Great Replacement Theory” lamenting that the Biden administration is trying “to change the racial mix of the country — in political terms, this policy is called ‘the great replacement,” the replacement of legacy Americans with more obedient people from far-away countries.” Former KKK leader David Duke was thrilled to hear him endorse this theory, which he and everyone else recognize for exactly what it is.

So it was a bit rich to hear the white nationalist Carlson condemn “identity politics” over President Biden’s promise to name a Black woman to the Supreme Court, shedding crocodile tears about how it harms the women who are being considered while suggesting that George Floyd’s sister be nominated because Biden allegedly requires no qualifications except race and gender. That’s a lie. Biden said:

“I’ve made no decision except the one person I will nominate someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity. And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court. It’s long overdue.”

Apparently, Tucker Carlson doubts that such a person exists. In fairness, Carlson isn’t the only right-winger making this grotesquely racist critique, but nobody can do it with the slithery unctuousness that he can.

It’s pointless to mention the shameless hypocrisy in these complaints by noting that presidents of both parties going back decades have taken diversity into consideration with their appointments, from naming the first Jews and Catholics to the first Black justice to the first woman among others. Carlson and his cronies didn’t say a word when Trump promised to name a woman to the court or when he picked the highly inexperienced Amy Coney Barrett but, of course, she isn’t Black.

Equally disturbing, as Salon’s Jon Skolnik reported, Carlson’s views on the possible Russian invasion of Ukraine (he often parrots the Russian government line) have taken the activist base of the GOP by storm. Here’s more from Axios

GOP offices have been fielding numerous calls from voters echoing arguments they heard on Carlson’s 8 p.m. ET show. Carlson has been telling his viewers there is no reason why the U.S. should help Ukraine fight Russia.

Even Democratic offices have been fielding these calls from Carlson’s viewers. Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.) tweeted that he got “calls from folks who say they watch Tucker Carlson and are upset that we’re not siding with Russia in its threats to invade Ukraine, and who want me to support Russia’s ‘reasonable’ positions.”

Russian state TV is impressed but reportedly concerned that Carlson might be going too far:

Carlson told Axios that he doesn’t care if people call him a Russian pawn (or in old-fashioned parlance, “useful idiot”) because he doesn’t speak Russian, has never been to Russia and is not that interested in Russia. That is probably true. He seems to be much more interested in what the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent has dubbed “an alignment with a kind of right-wing Internationale, a loose international alliance of authoritarian nationalists who despise liberal internationalist commitments.”

The modern right’s romance with Putin is nothing new, of course and Carlson certainly didn’t invent it. All the way back in 2015 I wrote about Donald Trump’s embrace of the right’s Putin fever which had been building for some time. He’s not the only one who loves a strong man.

Carlson’s real affinity is for Viktor Orbán, the president of Hungary who has the distinction of being the progenitor of the modern “soft fascism” that Carlson and many of the thought leaders of the right are so taken with these days. Last summer I wrote about Carlson taking his show to Budapest and he is planning another trip soon. While he was there he put together a “documentary” for his streaming show called “Hungary vs. Soros: The Fight for Civilization” which Media Matters described as “a ham-handed propagandist screed that heavily recycles the same antisemitic tropes that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán used to get reelected in 2018.” As Media Matters’ Andrew Lawrence quipped on Twitter, “[it] could be a thread on daily stormer but its actually the centerpiece of fox news streaming platform.” It’s that bad.

Here are a couple of short clips to give you the flavor.

He also spends a great deal of time extolling the virtues of Orbán’s push for women to have as many children as possible so as to preserve the purity of the “legacy” Hungarians rather than depending on immigration for labor. The visuals are chock full of white children everywhere. No wonder Carlson feels so at home there.

Everyone says that it’s all about ratings for Tucker Carlson and nothing more, that he pushes the envelope for attention. I’m sure that has a lot to do with it. He clearly is reveling in his celebrity and power. But this obsession with Orbán is obviously driven by something more than that. There is just no way that the same Fox audience that whines about Dr. Seuss and loves Donald Trump is really all that interested in some Hungarian politician.

No, Carlson has a game plan and he’s using his platform to promote a specific brand of white nationalism for his own purposes. What those purposes are is unknown. But as long as he continues to push this propaganda on the most-watched news channel in the country, there’s a good chance we’re going to find out what it is. And I don’t think we’re going to like it very much. 

Salon

One year ago today

Photo by Blink O’fanaye via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0).

One year ago today, thousands of President Donald Trump’s supporters, “average” Americans by several surveys, overran thinly manned police lines, fought hand to hand with hundreds of U.S. Capitol police, broke windows and doors, entered the building chanting “Hang Mike Pence,” and interrupted the electoral vote counting process for hours. Security teams evacuated members of the House and Senate to secure rooms. Staffers sheltered in place. Insurrectionists sacked the building as the world watched in horror on live television. At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, the president watched it intently on TV for hours and resisted pleas from family, aides, and members of Congress to stop it.

To this day, Republicans sworn to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution resist efforts to define for history the events of January 6, 2021, and to bring to justice those whose machinations led to the violence.

It was the first time in over 200 years that the building had been occupied, and then by foreign enemies. People died. Over a hundred police officers suffered injuries both minor and severe. Several officers later committed suicide.

Former president Jimmy Carter wrote Wednesday in the New York Times that Trump and promoters of his stolen-election lie have relentlessly stoked animosity to set American against American and to undermine faith in the electoral process.

Carter cites the Survey Center on American Life from February:

More than one in three (36 percent) Americans agree with the statement: “The traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.” Six in 10 (60 percent) Americans reject the idea that the use of force is necessary, but there is significant partisan disagreement on this question.

A majority (56 percent) of Republicans support the use of force as a way to arrest the decline of the traditional American way of life. Forty-three percent of Republicans express opposition to this idea. Significantly fewer independents (35 percent) and Democrats (22 percent) say the use of force is necessary to stop the disappearance of traditional American values and way of life.

“The view that the political system is rigged against conservatives and people who hold traditional values is also widespread, particularly on the political right,” the survey reports.

But what do Trump’s overwhelmingly white-Christian followers mean by traditional American way of life? What America do they want to make great again? That is an open secret.

Researchers studying the insurrectionists at the University of Chicago estimate millions of Americans make up the insurrection movement:

In the CPOST polls, only one other statement won overwhelming support among the 21 million committed insurrectionists. Almost two-thirds of them agreed that “African American people or Hispanic people in our country will eventually have more rights than whites.” Slicing the data another way: Respondents who believed in the Great Replacement theory, regardless of their views on anything else, were nearly four times as likely as those who did not to support the violent removal of the president.

CPOST/Truman Foundation, April 6, 2021.

But by “more rights than whites,” respondents really fear equal rights with whites. And that Trump’s MAGA insurrectionists find unacceptable. That violates their traditional understanding that in this country, white Christians rule. All others should know their places and stay in them. “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression,” goes a familiar expression.

The overwhelmingly white, middle-class and employed, 30% white-collar, and two-thirds over age 34 Americans behind the insurrection movement are experiencing status anxiety in this diversifying nation of immigrants. They feel oppressed, as if something is being taken from them: their economic, social, and religious dominance of others.

CPOST PowerPoint.

Millions of these nominal Americans, then, would accept using force to maintain that traditional arrangement. Even to the point of rejecting American democracy and replacing it with de facto if not de jure one-party rule. And with an autocrat in the White House.

One year ago today, thousands of Trump supporters acted on that belief. MAGA insurrectionists attempted a coup, egged on by the outgoing president, his allies and his aides, and predicated on the fiction that their white-nationalist president had the election stolen — from him and from them — by the diverse population encroaching on their turf.

The greater problem, then, is that many flag-waving neighbors no longer believe in the democratic principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Democracy for them is disposable, contingent on whether or not they can control the outcome of elections.

The Declaration of Independence states that “all men [persons] are created equal.” But have polling operations surveyed U.S. opinion on this foundational American tenet? By generation, by gender, by economic quintile, race and party? Because by their words and actions, insurrectionists and the Republican Party express their rejection of political equality as an American ideal.

Ask Republican candidates this fall if they believe “all men [persons] are created equal.” Watch them hem and haw. Ask again. If they agree, their base will disown them. If they dissemble, make them own it.

Fox News recently spent a week in Hungary lauding autocrat Viktor Orbán. Donald Trump just gave Orbán his enthusiastic endorsement for his reelection (that is not in doubt). What the insurrectionists want, what Carlson wants, what Trump wants, what Republican leaders across this country want is the appearance of democracy without the substance.

Therein lies a tale.

The dining hall staff was setting up for a Board of Trustees dinner.

The university was still nominally Baptist when I attended. Alcohol was forbidden on campus. Thus, I was stunned when after my Friday dinner shift I spotted a pallet in the kitchen stacked with cases of champagne. What?

Beside the pallet were glass racks filled with champagne glasses. Nearby were shining ice buckets.

One of the cases was open. I pulled out a bottle to examine.

Sparking Catawba. Non-alcoholic. Green bottle. Punt on the bottom. Wired and foiled cork on top.

The high-rollers would have a “champagne” toast that evening. There would be all the ceremony and trappings of the champagne ritual but without the fizzy alcohol. Their celebration would be within official rules, but phony.

Once Republican-led state legislatures reengineer election machinery nationwide, we will still have Fourth of July picnics, American flags, Pledges of Allegiance, the Star-Spangled Banner, and fireworks. Even elections. All the trappings of a democratic republic. Only without the democracy. It will still be the United States of America, but a Sparkling Catawba version.

That, after all, is what many conservatives always wanted: a tidy, monochrome U.S. with everything and everyone else in their proper places, and perfectly designed to keep them there.

That was the goal of the violent insurrection one year ago today.

MAG(A)yar Hero

Trump reaching out to his authoritarian soulmate today.

I’m not sure it means much to anyone but Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon but that’s ok. Trump needs to keep their types on board too.

The Washington Post reports on the endorsement and the election:

Former president Donald Trump made an unusual endorsement in a foreign election on Monday, offering his “Complete support” for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a right-wing populist leader accused of undermining the country’s democracy and moving toward autocracy during more than a decade in power.

Six opposition parties have coalesced around Hungarian opposition leader Peter Marki-Zay in a bid to oust Orban, who has championed “illiberal democracy” and become a pariah among European Union members, in parliamentary elections planned for the spring.

During the past decade, Fidesz, Orban’s political party, has introduced a new constitution that weakened judicial independence and human rights protections. Orban has also curbed the rights of journalists and expanded government control of the media.

In 2019, the Washington-based think tank Freedom House downgraded the status of Hungary’s democracy from “free” to “partly free” — a categorization shared by countries like Pakistan, Singapore, Ukraine and Zimbabwe.

I think we’re right on their heels.

Most MAGA voters have never heard of Orban. (I’m sure Trump has a limited understanding of what he’s about as well and I’d be curious to know which of his advisers told him he should do this.) But the “intellectual” extremists of the American right wing, from Carlson to the CPAC organizers to Federalist society are watching Orban very carefully. He has turned Hungary into a modern neo-fascist country without ever firing a shot. This election may be their last chance to turn it around.

The Nat-Con threat

I have been writing about the Bannon-style “intellectual” underpinning of Trumpism but there’s a complimentary line of thinking out there and, to be honest, it’s actually worse. Here’s an account of a recent meeting of the National Conservative Conference and if you read it (or scroll to the bottom) you may be surprised by who wrote it. I have picked it up about half way through:

The first great project of the national conservatives is to man the barricades in the culture war. These people have certainly done their homework when it comes to cultural Marxism—how the left has learned to dominate culture and how the right now needs to copy their techniques. If I’d had to drink a shot every time some speaker cited Herbert Marcuse or Antonio Gramsci, I’d be dead of alcohol poisoning.

Hawley delivered a classic culture-war speech defending manhood and masculinity: “The deconstruction of America depends on the deconstruction of American men.” Listening to Hawley talk populist is like listening to a white progressive Upper West Sider in the 1970s try to talk jive. The words are there, but he’s trying so hard it sounds ridiculous.

Another speaker, Amanda Milius, is the daughter of John Milius, who was the screenwriter for the first two Dirty Harry films and Apocalypse Now. She grew up in L.A. and wound up in the Trump administration. She argued that America needs to get back to making self-confident movies like The Searchers, the 1956 John Ford Western. This was an unapologetic movie, she asserted, about how Americans tamed the West and how Christian values got brought to “savage, undeveloped land.”

This is about as dumb a reading of The Searchers as it’s possible to imagine. The movie is actually the modern analogue to the Oresteia, by Aeschylus. The complex lead figure, played by John Wayne, is rendered barbaric and racist while fighting on behalf of westward pioneers. By the end, he is unfit to live in civilized society.

But we don’t exactly live in an age that acknowledges nuance. Milius distorts the movie into a brave manifesto of anti-woke truths—and that sort of distortion has a lot of buyers among this crowd.

The first interesting debate among the NatCons is philosophical: Should we fight to preserve the classical-liberal order or is it necessary to abandon it?

Some of the speakers at the conference were in fact classical liberals, who believe in free speech, intellectual debate, and neutral government. Glenn Loury gave an impassioned speech against cancel culture, the illiberal left, and the hyper-racialized group consciousness that divides people into opposing racial camps. Loury asserted that as a Black man he is the proud inheritor of the great Western tradition: “Tolstoy is mine! Dickens is mine! Milton, Marx, and Einstein are mine!” He declared that his people are Black, but also proudly American. “Our Americanness is much more important than our Blackness,” he said, before adding, “We must strive to transcend racial particularism and stress universality and commonality as Americans.” This is the classical-liberal case against racial separatism and in favor of integration.

But others argued that this sort of liberalism is a luxury we cannot afford. The country is under assault from a Marxist oligarchy that wants to impose its own pseudo-religious doctrine. If you try to repulse that with pallid liberalism, with weak calls for free speech and tolerance, you’ll end up getting run over by those who possess fanatical zeal, economic power, and cultural might.

Yoram Hazony, the chief intellectual architect of national conservatism, is an Orthodox Jew who went to Princeton before moving to Israel. He argues that you can’t have a society that embraces government neutrality and tries to relegate values to the private sphere. The public realm eventually eviscerates private values, especially when public communication is controlled by a small oligarchic elite. If conservatives want to stand up to the pseudo-religion of wokeism, they have to put traditional religion at the center of their political project.

Another Israeli political philosopher at the conference, Ofir Haivry, argued that Americans shouldn’t delude themselves into thinking that a nation is built out of high-minded liberal abstractions, like the Bill of Rights. A nation is, instead, a cultural tradition, a common language, a set of rituals and beliefs, and a religious order—a collective cultural identity.

The history of Judaism demonstrates, Haivry argues, that you don’t need a state or a political order to be a nation.

For his part, Hazony argued that the American cultural identity is Christian—and has to be if it is not going to succumb to the woke onslaught. If 80 percent of Americans are Christian, Hazony reasoned, then Christian values should dominate. “Majority cultures have the right to establish the ruling culture, and minority cultures have the right to be decently treated,” he said. “To take the minority view and say the minority has the ability to stamp out the views of the majority—that seems to me to be completely crazy.”

The problem in America, Hazony continued, is that LGBTQ activists today, like American Jews in the 1950s, are trying to expel Christianity from the public square. This threatens to render the public square spiritually naked. Wan liberalism collapses in the face of  left-wing cultural Marxism. “Eliminating God and scripture in the schools … was the turning point in American civilization,” Hazony said. “Above all else we’ve got to get God and scripture back in the schools.”

Another interesting debate among the NatCons is political and economic. Conservatives have lately become expert culture warriors—the whole Tucker Carlson schtick. This schtick demands that you ignore the actual suffering of the world—the transgender kid alone in some suburban high school, the anxiety of a guy who can’t afford health care for his brother, the struggle of a Black man trying to be seen and recognized as a full human being. It’s a cynical game that treats all of life as a play for ratings, a battle for clicks, and this demands constant outrage, white-identity signaling, and the kind of absurd generalizations that Rachel Bovard used to get that room so excited.

Conservatives have got the culture-war act down. Trump was a culture-war president with almost no policy arm attached. The question conservatives at the conference were asking was how to move beyond owning the libs to effecting actual change.

Christopher Rufo, the architect of this year’s school-board-meeting protests against critical race theory, argued that conservatives had erred when they tried to slowly gain power in elite cultural institutions. Conservatives were never going to make headway in the Ivy League or the corporate media. Instead, Rufo argued, they should rally the masses to get state legislatures to pass laws embracing their values. That’s essentially what’s now happening across red America.

My old friend Rod Dreher of The American Conservative argued that because the left controls the commanding heights of the culture and the economy, the only institution the right has a shot at influencing is the state. In these circumstances the right has to use state power to promote its values. “We need to quit being satisfied with owning the libs, and save our country,” Dreher said. “We need to unapologetically embrace the use of state power.”

This is where Viktor Orbán comes in. It was Dreher who prompted Carlson’s controversial trip to Hungary last summer, and Hungarians were a strong presence at the National Conservatism Conference. Orbán, in Dreher’s view, understands the civilizational stakes of the culture war; he has, for instance, used the power of the state to limit how much transgenderism can be taught to children in schools. “Our team talks incessantly about how horrible wokeness is,” Dreher said at the conference. “Orbán actually does something about it.”

This is national conservatism pursued to its logical conclusion: using state power to break up and humble the big corporations and to push back against coastal cultural values. The culture war merges with the economic-class war—and a new right emerges in which an intellectual cadre, the national conservatives, rallies the proletarian masses against the cultural/corporate elites. All your grandparents’ political categories get scrambled along the way.

Will it work? Well, Donald Trump destroyed the Reagan Republican paradigm in 2016, but he didn’t exactly elucidate a new set of ideas, policies, and alliances. Trump’s devastation of the old order produced a grand struggle on the right to build a new one on Trumpian populist lines.

The NatCons are wrong to think there is a unified thing called “the left” that hates America. This is just the apocalyptic menace many of them had to invent in order to justify their decision to vote for Donald Trump.

They are wrong, too, to think there is a wokeist Anschluss taking over all the institutions of American life. For people who spend so much time railing about the evils of social media, they sure seem to spend an awful lot of their lives on Twitter. Ninety percent of their discourse is about the discourse. Anecdotalism was also rampant at the conference—generalizing from three anecdotes about people who got canceled to conclude that all of American life is a woke hellscape. They need to get out more.

Furthermore, if Hazony thinks America is about to return to Christian dominance, he’s living in 1956. Evangelical Christianity has lost many millions of believers across recent decades. Secularism is surging, and white Christianity is shrinking into a rump presence in American life. America is becoming more religiously diverse every day. Christians are in no position to impose their values—regarding same-sex marriage or anything else—on the public square. Self-aware Christians know this.

Finally, there is something extremely off-putting about the NatCon public pose. In person, as I say, I find many of them charming, warm, and friendly. But their public posture is dominated by the psychology of threat and menace. If there was one expression of sympathy, kindness, or grace uttered from the podium in Orlando, I did not hear it. But I did hear callousness, invocations of combat, and whiffs of brutality.

One big thing the NatCons are right about is that in the Information Age, the cultural and corporate elites have merged. Right-wing parties around the world are gradually becoming working-class parties that stand against the economic interests and cultural preferences of the highly educated. Left-wing parties are now rooted in the rich metro areas and are more and more becoming an unsteady alliance between young AOC left-populists and Google.

NatCons are also probably right that conservatism is going to get a lot more statist. At the conference, Ted Cruz tried to combine culture-war conservatism with free-market economic policies—free trade and low taxes. Marco Rubio countered by, in effect, arguing that you can’t rally cultural populists if you are not also going to do something for them economically. Cultural populism leads to economic populism. Rubio’s position at least has the virtue of being coherent.

Over the past few decades there have been various efforts to replace the Reagan Paradigm: the national-greatness conservatism of John McCain; the compassionate conservatism of George W. Bush; the Reformicon conservatism of the D.C. think tanks in the 21st century. But the Trumpian onslaught succeeded where these movements have so far fizzled because Trump understood better than they did the coalescence of the new American cultural/corporate elite and the potency of populist anger against it. Thus the display of Ivy League populism I witnessed in Orlando might well represent the alarming future of the American right: the fusing of the culture war and the class war into one epic Marxist Götterdämmerung.

Sitting in that Orlando hotel, I found myself thinking of what I was seeing as some kind of new theme park: NatCon World, a hermetically sealed dystopian universe with its own confected thrills and chills, its own illiberal rides. I tried to console myself by noting that this NatCon theme park is the brainchild of a few isolated intellectuals with a screwy view of American politics and history. But the disconcerting reality is that America’s rarified NatCon World is just one piece of a larger illiberal populist revolt that is strong and rising.

That was written by David Brooks. If he’s freaked out by it I think the rest of us should be terrified. These are his people.

Worse than “worst-case scenario”

Whether Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Republican Party or whether the Republican Party is the political arm of Fox News has remained an open question for some time. But while public attention focused on Capitol Hill’s budget battles, the pandemic and its discontents, and missing White women, Fox’s Tucker Carslon has settled the matter: the Republican Party is the political arm of Fox News.

That was not Mehdi Hasan’s thesis in his commentary Tuesday, but that is the conclusion one might draw. Republican politicians are indeed following Carlson’s lead in bringing the Neo-Nazi “great replacement theory” to the masses. Hasan lays out a string of mass killings inspired by the racist campfire tale of scary brown people comin’ ta git ya. Or at least, to replace ya.

Among Republicans the nods and winks are gone. Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) are just three Hasan highlights as promoting rhetoric associated with replacement theory.

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1443009509711130630?s=20

Hasan explains the threat:

I don’t know if I can overstate this point, but this is a deeply dangerous moment for America. Millions of people every night are watching cable hosts endorse a once-fringe, Neo-Nazi conspiracy about migrants and black and brown people and Jews. Millions of people are voting for politicians who used to be afraid to say the stuff out loud, but are now happily and proudly doing so. We know where this obsession with great replacement theory ends — with people being killed, in synagogues, and mosques, in Walmarts. This is not a story anyone should be telling. 

As the nation’s sane fight to end the Covid pandemic, and the nation’s most heavily propagandized do the virus’ bidding, one wonders what happens when Fox News’ political arm takes full control of the government. Should Republican state legislatures further gerrymander state and federal districts, and should they gain control both of the federal House and Senate after 2022, and through manipulation of 2024 election results return Donald Trump to the Oval Office, it might be them comin’ ta git the rest of us.

Constitutional scholars and democracy advocates who gamed out worst-case scenarios ahead of the 2020 election “were too quick in retrospect to dismiss the outrageous as unlikely to happen in a country like the United States,” writes the Washington Post’s Ashley Parker. Then Jan. 6th happened. Now they must contemplate what a Trump 2024 run might mean:

One real risk, they say, is that four years after the failed Jan. 6 insurrection, Trump and his supporters emerge in 2024 more sophisticated and successful in their efforts to steal an election.

“For me, the scary part is, in 2020, this was not a particularly sophisticated misinformation or disinformation campaign,” said Matt Masterson, who ran election security at the Department of Homeland Security between 2018 to 2020. Referring to some of the outlandish conspiracy theories of ballot fraud posited in the wake of the 2020 election by Trump’s allies, he added: “We’re talking about bamboo ballots and Italian satellites and dead dictators.”

In the future, Masterson said, these sorts of falsehoods are going to become more advanced and nuanced — exploiting genuine areas of confusion in the electoral system — and thus harder to combat.

A Trump victory, however affected, or a Trump acolyte winning office and backed by a Republican congress might mean ” the new president, intent on strengthening his own position and punishing critics, begins remaking the political and electoral system, using legal means to consolidate power and erode democratic institutions,” Parker writes:

“We often think that what we should be waiting for is fascists and communists marching in the streets, but nowadays, the ways democracies often die is through legal things at the ballot box — so things that can be both legal and antidemocratic at the same time,” said Daniel Ziblatt, a professor at Harvard University and the co-author of “How Democracies Die,” who is working on a successive volume. “Politicians use the letter of the law to subvert the spirit of the law.”

But that scenario is more academic and less bloody than the one Hasan foreshadows and Carlson actively foments. Carlson’s GOP would remodel the U.S. to resemble Viktor Orbán’s Hungary where the authoritarian leader’s thumb already weighs heavily on the electoral scales.

With the armed revolt threshold breached on Jan. 6, additional violence is not unforseeable. The former president himself employed eliminationist rhetoric against immigrants and asylum seekers.

Two years ago, a scene of a church massacre from Kingsman: The Secret Service was shown at a conference of Trump supporters and doctored to show Trump slaughtering political adversaries. Trump himself has openly suggested whistle-blowers should die:

A federal judge ruled in April 2017 people were injured as a “direct and proximate result” of Trump’s comments. ABC News in August found “at least 36 criminal cases where Trump was invoked in direct connection with violent acts, threats of violence or allegations of assault.”

Parker concludes:

“These are soft guardrails that have constrained politicians in the past, and what the Trump administration has made clear is that we need to harden those guardrails,” Ziblatt said.

But, he added, he worries that some are still too squeamish to come to terms with the potential threat U.S. democracy faces if Trump attempts to regain power.

“If you look at how democracies get in trouble in other places, it’s how executives once in office abuse their office, and I think people just don’t want to think that Trump could get back into the presidency,” Ziblatt said. “There’s a way in which we’re not trying to think of the worst-case scenario, which is Trump gets reelected, but I think what we’ve learned is you have to prepare for the worst-case scenario.”

Ziblatt, Parker and the Washington press corp remain too squeamish to consider the kind of worst case Hasan imagines. But I remember just where I was when news got out of the Rwandan genocide. Most Republican politicians may themselves be too squeamish to go there, but Fox-inspired armed thugs have proved they are not.

Update: Fixed a date in “Trump 2024 run.”

Tuck’s dream

Greg Sargent has a great analysis of Tucker Carlson’s interview with Viktor Orban this week:

The first segment of Tucker Carlson’s long-anticipated Fox News interview with Viktor Orban has now aired, and it did not disappoint: It provides a deeply unsettling glimpse into the true nature of the authoritarian nationalist future that Carlson and his fellow travelers envision for our country.

An ugly tension sits at the core of Carlson’s conversation with the Hungarian leader. Carlson fawns over the “free” nature of Hungarian society — contrasting it favorably with the supposed repression of widespread anti-liberal yearnings in American society — while saying little to nothing about the autocratic nature of Orbanism.

In this lurks a sort of dream combination: ethno-nationalism secured via autocracy.

The interview’s central feature is Carlson gushing over Orban’s virulently anti-immigrant policies and demagoguery. Orban describes these as urgent to defending national identity, defined as his country’s “population” and “culture” and “language” and “tradition” and “land,” a right of defense dictated by “God” and “nature.”

Orban also castigates liberal internationalist Western leaders for wanting to intermingle “Muslim” and “Christian” communities, describing the latter as “original inhabitants.” Orban declares that his country decided “not to take that risk.”

Throughout, Carlson treats this vision of national identity as fundamental to Hungary’s success. He even suggests that in Hungary, people are freer than in the United States.

Here, Carlson says, you’ll be silenced by Silicon Valley or hounded from your job if you dare criticize the “orthodoxy” of liberal internationalism and social liberalism — that is, if you yearn for association with a national identity that is culturally insulated and unsullied by socially liberal threats (like “transgender athletes”) to traditional conservative values.

“Who’s freer?” Carlson asks. “If you’re an American, the answer is painful to admit.”

Yet, as Ishaan Tharoor notes, Carlson often has little to say about the autocratic nature of Orban’s rule. Indeed, in Thursday’s broadcast, he blithely dismisses international observers criticizing it as tools of U.S. and liberal internationalist hegemony.

This tension — declaring America a less free society based on paranoid notions of sinister forces repressing anti-liberal-internationalist yearnings, while embracing the autocratic nature of Orbanism — is central to grasping the Carlsonist right’s true dream future.

Though Carlson won’t say it this way, autocratic rule is preferable to democracy because the former, he imagines, is the only route to the closed, ethno-nationalist, culturally reactionary society he wants for the United States. What Carlson and his ilk cannot accept, and are fighting their rearguard action against, is that open, liberal internationalist societies are and can be legitimately democratic creations.

The future he wants:

“If you care about Western civilization and democracy and families,” Carlson declared this week from Hungary, “you should know what is happening here right now.” He decried the “ferocious assault” on these things by globalist leaders, which Orban has heroically rebuffed.

As Jonathan Chait says, what’s striking is Carlson’s assertion that the defense of democracy requires embracing illiberalism and autocracy. This is an open declaration of an actual vision of what American self-rule should look like.

Orban’s slow destruction of democracy has been widely chronicled. See this Zack Beauchamp piece, which details how facially democratic wins have been followed by a slow autocratic capture of institutions:Today, political scientists see Hungary as a textbook example of something called “competitive authoritarianism”: a kind of autocratic system where elections happen and aren’t formally rigged but are so heavily stacked in the incumbent party’s favor that the people don’t have real agency over who rules them.

Orban openly declares that this illiberal, autocratic turn is not incidental, but essential, to securing the vision of national identity and self-determination he trumpets.

It’s been widely observed that Carlson speaks for a much larger movement on the right that idolizes Hungary to express deep dissatisfaction with immigration, diversification and secularized multiracial democracy at home. Jeet Heer calls this “authoritarian tourism.”

Or as Anne Applebaum puts it, U.S. right-wingers yearning for an Orbanist American future are motivated by dislike of America’s “racial diversity, its modern culture, its free press,” while dreaming of a “white-tribalist alternative.”

The American right’s vision of Hungary and Orban’s own presentation of it have been highly mythologized, as Applebaum shows. But in a way, the reality is unimportant. The aspiration toward that valorized vision of nationality, as well as the open resolution to secure it via illiberal antidemocratic means, is what Carlson admires.

Indeed, for Carlson and friends, what’s truly galling about our open society, receptivity to immigrants and increasing diversity is that it has in large part been secured democratically.

The Great Replacement:

Carlson recently stirred controversy by declaring that Democrats want to “replace” native U.S. citizens with “more obedient voters from the Third World.”

Carlson piously insisted this was race neutral: He merely wants to preserve democracy against “foreigners,” whose presence “dilutes” the voting power of U.S. native citizens by definition. But in saying this, Carlson treated it as given that immigration undermines the integrity of our self rule.

Yet the decision to allow in more immigrants is one that is made democratically, by our legitimately elected representatives. The decision to enlarge the polity to include outsiders, even if it changes our demographic makeup and influences future elections, is one the polity makes democratically about itself.

But for Carlson, this outcome is unacceptable. Only nefarious elite manipulation can be to blame for this. If majoritarian democratic outcomes result in these things, democracy has become self-destroying and no longer legitimate.

The problem, then, is American multiracial democracy itself. Mythologized Orbanism, or ethno-nationalism secured via competitive authoritarianism, is producing a “freer” society — the future the Carlsonist right truly wants.

I hve not had the opportunity to watch this yet. But judging from all I’ve read and written about this twisted relationship, this sounds right. I’m not entirely sure what Carlson’s up to but I have concluded that it’s real. He’s a cynical jackass, but I think he’s now a true believer. And it’s extremely unnerving that he has millions of people following him.

Can't find what you're looking for? Try refining your search: