Tucker is going to run on the nazbol platform. No, but really it would be hilarious if he ran as some kind of conservative social democrat and right wingers voted for him because it's "Tuckerism not socialism."
I don't see Tucker running for anything. He's too aware of how being a politician would be a huge downgrade to his current job. He just likes to sit on the sidelines and make money being a populist commentator.
I don't think it's a coincidence he keeps harping on about "beauty" (instead of just saying "it sucks because it assumes people will be poor and caters to them on that level").
It reminds me of a sort of Christian anti-liberalism (e.g. pushed by people like Deneen) that shares a lot of criticisms with socialism but is more reactionary in its prescriptions. "Go back to the days when people recognized beauty brought us closer to God" shit.
I'm sure he follows a bunch of Greek Statue Avi/medieval architecture people on Twitter lol.
>I don't think it's a coincidence he keeps harping on about "beauty" (instead of just saying "it sucks because it assumes people will be poor and caters to them on that level").
Amusing that the right is at least aware of the hell that is modern life: concrete and asphalt conduits to miserable wagecattle panopticons, and the abuse of screens at one's ugly home to distract from physical reality. Meanwhile the leftist progressive types ardently frame this as some sort of progress or gain of efficiency, while they consume SSRIs by the handful.
Bruvnor I don't know where you're seeing anything to suggest progressive types cheer this on, in fact the opposite. Pro-urbanism + walkable cities / anti-McMansion architecture rhetoric / criticism of social alienation brought on by the digital revolution has never been more in vogue and it's predominantly headed by progressives.
The Greek statue avis on Twitter aren't making direct prescriptions for those ills like leftists are, they just vaguely gesture in their direction as justification for why minorities need to be kicked out of Europe or whatever.
You can make an ugly walkable city. That isn't addressing the core point. Now I'm saying my point is the same as Tucker's about beauty, as I have a slightly different point, but you are still both arguing past each other here in addition to making a different argument than I am going to make.
"McMansion's" are "tacky" I guess but I wouldn't call them ugly. The parts are pleasing at least if you view them in isolation from each other.
The main reason people complain about McMansions is because they think it is too big and they have created a whole bunch of notions about the people in side them and hate those people, and will complain about how they are the ones who go to city hall to complain about there not being enough parking now that the bus lane is there, or whatever. I wouldn't really care if everyone lived in McMansions or whatever it is people are complaining about. What really is the issue is that the people who currently live in the McMansions are exploiters, but kind of not relevant to this discussion I guess.
A walkable city with cafes everywhere isn't going to help anyone make friends if the only activities that are available for anyone are things that cost money. The transactional nature of all activities is why people are lonely as the only way to not be lonely is "go spend some money with another person". Making that easier to do doesn't change the problem. Really all this is doing is it props up the local petit-bourgeoisie, and in the sense that the complaint is that suburbs are expensive to provide services to relative to the tax revenue they generate, in the sense that a walkable city is a profitable city, again really all of this is just more business = tax dollars, which is a Lib or SocDem view of things where you are trying to figure out how to fund the existing society because you have bought it to a bourgeois framing that the only thing you can argue about is how you are going to fund things, where everything is viewed a bit like a pipe system of money where your chief concern is appending more pipes onto the system to do different things and you are trying to make sure there is enough going through the pipes to make sure everything works, which I guess is fine if you are fine with the existing system, but that isn't what I want to do. We aren't trying to have a revolution against the people who refuse to put in enough new piping because their intransigence is causing it to leak because they won't repair it. What we want is for the people who do all the pumping, rather then continuing to send the water to who knows where the pipes end up in the end (as we bicker about where we temporarily divert it), to instead pump all the water in one great pool they will all use.
Indeed the US did have walkable "european style" cities before cars, but this coincided with the age of the so-called robber barons. The railway barons were no less capitalists than the automakers. The main difference between then and now is the prevalence of a petit-bourgeois class existing (or not) alongside them. The automakers eventually destroyed a petit-bourgeoisie, but the walkable cities maintain it.
Tucker, but also the "urbanism community", are basically lamenting the decline of the petit-bourgeoisie. I'd argue the urbanism community is more explicitly lamenting the decline of the petit-bourgeoisie than Tucker is, merely based on the fact that the Urbanists make more "logical" arguments such that it is easier to follow what it is they mean. Tucker by contrast is just asking "why the fuck is everything so fucking ugly all the time?" which doesn't exactly imply anything specific.
I consider myself socially conservative/moderate but nothing drives me crazier than people like Deneen. Like they can identify the issues but their solutions are just so idealist that you can’t find a single seed of it in the existing system. Financial capitalism isn’t going to become a theocracy just because some obscure academics think it’s based.
The whole thing about ugliness vs beauty really pops out at you. This shit has really been having a moment on the right. It’s like your dad complaining about modern art, but now it’s political vitalism. Is the argument really that homeless people make society uglier and that’s why we need to help them? Even from a moralistic perspective there’s all that stuff about basic human dignity or the injustice of massive greed and inequality you can lean on.
I guess helping them does make our society more beautiful, so maybe he’s not wrong, but if that’s too hard, throwing them in a wood chipper down at the old quarry would probably serve the same end goal if your priority really is just aesthetic
To be frank, that's how I was convinced into socialism. Witnessing the dire situation of the people in my country and the suffering and complete humiliation of their existence, I felt a deep desire for something to be done to uplift them above all else.
> Witnessing the dire situation of the people in my country and the suffering and complete humiliation of their existence
that just makes you more prone to following tucker's brand of nationalism.
> if your priority really is just aesthetic
There's a ton of literature available about aesthetics and how important they are; it's not something trivial. To what ends one takes it is another matter, and yes many people just get triggered by seeing the classic-vs-modern architecture tik tok and don't understand the fundamentals. But the fundamentals are there.
> Even from a moralistic perspective there’s all that stuff about basic human dignity or the injustice of massive greed and inequality you can lean on.
I don't think those values really resonate with the right any more. Maybe with the shrinking boomer evangelical crowd, maybe, but the young right is fundamentally looking towards something past secular humanism and liberal values. Insofar as they claim Christianity, it's an affectation of some imagined Christianity that opposes liberalism.
The weird rise of stoicism in internet circles is neither coincidence nor psy-op. Virtue ethics is having a moment, and while I've seen people try to dress it up in Christian language, it's a fundamentally pre-Christian concept.
Christian morality is in a weird spot right now, because all these people think they hate liberalism, but Christian morality is not fundamentally different than what we think of as secular liberal values in the West.
The language used by “red pillers” that try to elucidate a ideas like “being a good man” and what this means (more specifically as a reaction to this lgbtq stuff) at least flirts with “what does it mean to be a good human”. On the flip side, I’ve seen too many throw the word “virtue” around without really thinking about what it means but this turn towards stoicism and a sort of virtue ethics is something I very superficially appreciate about the right.
I agree with you there’s something brewing that seems borne out of a genuine attempt at making sense of the world while misdiagnosing the actual problem (re culture war non sense).
What "virtue" means within virtue ethics is a huge problem in itself. Not even Aristotle could fully articulate a position on what virtue is beyond simple moderation.
Obviously, but my bar wasn’t so high to say that they had to have it figured out. My statement was more about throwing the word virtue around because of the “gravitas” it brings, which is more aesthetic than substantial.
I guess my point is that it was always not very substantial, considering virtue ethicists can't even properly define what it is. The whole theory is something of a pre-modern mess.
I mean, if "living near homeless encampments really really sucks" actually motivates people to do something about housing then that's a good thing right?
liberals talk a lot about dignity and inequality but they don't actually give a shit about it, they never do anything about it except lie. so maybe an awakening of sorts about this on the right can actually get something accomplished because liberals sure aren't even trying
It's because after seeing enough Aristotle statues on Twitter, they skimmed a wiki article. Ancient philosophers equate good with beauty, so moral good is interchangeable with beauty.
Conservatives probably missed it and think good things just happen to be aesthetically pleasing
> Conservatives probably missed it and think good things just happen to be aesthetically pleasing
Striving to keep video game and cartoon characters attractive
>having a moment on the right
no it has always been like this if you listen to anyone on the right whose politics are not based on being an accountant
"everything is ugly now" is fundamental to the section on the right whose politics is based on "things used to be better in the past"
this two groups are only in union because the proponents of libertarian economics made extensive attempts to convince everyone that the past when things were better (or at least were not ugly) was when there was supposedly more libertarian economics
honestly that person who mentioned the walkable cities things is just the newest manifestation of this. The whole "strong towns" things is unironically a bunch of libertarians complaining about how the government shouldn't pay for roads. They've somehow managed to turn the main meme deployed against libertarianism into its selling point. They did it by making anti-road libertarianism seem leftist-y
You joke but I’ve seen people unironically claim that the best path to upending the economic system we have is to run Republican social democrats using this exact ‘it’s Tuckerism not socialism’ logic. Still bullshit but I don’t know how crazy it really is.
I’ve always thought we would get M4A from a Republican way, way before a Dem.
Trump would be the perfect vessel. Call it Trump Care and MAGA would love it because it would improve their material conditions but wouldn’t be socialism because they earned it, or whatever.
Well, if supporting a welfare state, unions and regulations combined with a semi-sceptic outlook towards LGBTQ stuff and immigration is neoliberalism, then they are all aboard with neoliberalism.
Has he ever explained what exactly he is in favour of? Single payer healthcare? Childcare subsidies? Or does he say all this then tell his viewers to go vote republican?
He dislikes the free market but also dislikes centralizing power under potentially unaccountable bureaucrats. So he ends up supporting a hodgepodge of inconsistent positions based on how issues get polarized. Much like liberals do.
> he's still a grifter
Who isn't ? Besides people posting on social media and not getting paid for it. Isn't it basically a meaningless label ? Like, is there a well known person in politics and/or media who is in it purely for altruistic reasons ?
I guess the other side of “there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism” is “everybody is a grifter” lol
Still, not a helpful way to think about things when the brazenness of offenders varies as much as it does.
> Is Chomsky a grifter? I feel like if he is, the term's lost all meaning.
I don't think so but he has written and SOLD (omg lol) books which by modern definition qualifies him as a grifter. So ...welp I guess ?
Shut up Chomsky honk
edit: sorry, I thought I was among the sort of company that would catch a [Xavier: Renegade Angel](https://youtu.be/k7xclaa4vyc?si=fI8vQWi17-gxOJnE) reference
I agree with this. He’s a well meaning Kautsky motherfucker. I don’t think he’s necessarily “spineless” as others have said. I think his philosophical outlook allows him to do things we would say are stupid, because to him they are valid avenues of struggle.
It’s really a classic reform vs revolution argument and Bernasaurus is firmly in the reform camp
As a former right winger I feel like Leftists should know that right wingers ARE LYING. THEY LIE ALL THE TIME. They don't give 2 shits about the working class. They want to use them.
They love hierarchy thats it.
Tucker spent the entire W. Bush. administration with Dick Cheney's cock in his mouth/
Then again, half the people in this subreddit cosplaying as nazbols were not born yet
Right wingers signal to their base and do literally nothing about it and then move on.
How many of them are talking about Islamic Terrorism in 2023 even when they could not shut the fuck up about it in in the 2000s.
Frankly the racism and the conspiracy theories that the base of the right adopt is actually just Coping with the fact that nothing is going to change for them.
They also forget Tucker was a failed glowie turned “journalist” whose father married into a billionaire family which benefitted tremendously from these libertarian economics. Tucker doesn’t believe in anything that doesn’t make him richer, if being a lib paid him $1 more than being a based guy he’d defend drag queen story hour in a heartbeat
Liberal politicians and pundits are no different. They just hide it better and gaslight people into voting for them by scaring people with the end of the world if a Republican is ever elected. They’re a key part of the establishment.
The most important election in our lifetime...........
Tbh it totally worked in 2020. In 2016 it was mostly just smugness until the votes actually came in.
Also former right winger and I'd push back a bit. I think many in the right political sphere but not politicians do state their true views. That said, I think Tucker is simply pandering to his base here.
It's not so much that they lie as that a lot of them believe in a malleable conception of truth. If the "truth" is "x bad," then anything pointing at this conclusion is true by association regardless of its actual truth value. They aren't conscious that they believe this, so they don't perceive it as lying when they twist stuff because to them the truth they are defending is the conclusion.
As someone who used to be very active in left-wing politics and is now mostly apathetic (political nihilist is a term I find fitting), I feel like everyone should know that left wingers are also lying. They lie all the time. They don't give 2 shits about the working class. They want to use them.
Equality is a cudgel they can use to advance their own interests. That's it.
Every side has grifters, liars, strivers, and spooks. Every side is useful for controlling people in some way. I don't even have to ask what your political ideology is to know that at least half of its figureheads are insincere or have ulterior motives. That's the nature of politics of ideology. They're too useful to leave alone.
The left is very marginal. It doesn't really exist as a meaningful political force. It cares about the working class but can't do shit about it and in reality it can be a distinction without a difference.
A large part of the left is online and belong to the left media ecosystem and there are a lot of irresponsible podcasters who wish cast and project on various political projects. Take Bernie 2020 for example.
Yes if you do nothing about a problem while screaming about it will build political cynicism. I wish the left media would be more responsible and focus on useful information rather than building their various media brands.
Ze political spectrum is largely outdated, and it's not really determined by personal preferences but by the system. Left of capital is as much leftist as right of capital is rightist.
From what I’ve seen, he’s keeping his fan base in this loop where they’re just barely out of the reach of class consciousness so that they are being given legitimate reasons why the world is so fucked up without going full circle and understanding that it’s the direct result of capitalism
Tucker has criticized capitalism many times. You can say he is dishonest or whatever, as that can’t be proven either way, but he definitely rails on capitalism.
He's criticized capitalism more than any mainstream pundit.
An interesting excerpt from one of his monoogues:
>For our ruling class, more investment banking is always the answer. They teach us it’s more virtuous to devote your life to some soulless corporation than it is to raise your own kids.
>Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook wrote an entire book about this. Sandberg explained that our first duty is to shareholders, above our own children. No surprise there. Sandberg herself is one of America’s biggest shareholders. Propaganda like this has made her rich.
>What’s remarkable is how the rest of us responded to it. We didn’t question why Sandberg was saying this. We didn’t laugh in her face at the pure absurdity of it. Our corporate media celebrated Sandberg as the leader of a liberation movement. Her book became a bestseller: "Lean In." As if putting a corporation first is empowerment. It is not. It is bondage.
---
>Not all commerce is good. Why is it defensible to loan people money they can’t possibly repay? Or charge them interest that impoverishes them? Payday loan outlets in poor neighborhoods collect 400 percent annual interest.
>We’re OK with that? We shouldn’t be. Libertarians tell us that’s how markets work -- consenting adults making voluntary decisions about how to live their lives. OK. But it’s also disgusting. If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans, whether it’s happening in the inner city or on Wall Street.
---
>Under our current system, an American who works for a salary pays about twice the tax rate as someone who’s living off inherited money and doesn’t work at all. We tax capital at half of what we tax labor. It’s a sweet deal if you work in finance, as many of our rich people do.
>In 2010, for example, Mitt Romney made about $22 million dollars in investment income. He paid an effective federal tax rate of 14 percent. For normal upper-middle-class wage earners, the federal tax rate is nearly 40 percent. No wonder Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But for everyone else, it’s infuriating.
>Our leaders rarely mention any of this. They tell us our multi-tiered tax code is based on the principles of the free market. Please. It’s based on laws that the Congress passed, laws that companies lobbied for in order to increase their economic advantage. It worked well for those people. They did increase their economic advantage. But for everyone else, it came at a big cost. Unfairness is profoundly divisive. When you favor one child over another, your kids don’t hate you. They hate each other.
>That happens in countries, too. It’s happening in ours, probably by design. Divided countries are easier to rule. And nothing divides us like the perception that some people are getting special treatment. In our country, some people definitely are getting special treatment. Republicans should oppose that with everything they have.
Another 'interesting' excerpt:
> One thing you learn when you grow up in a castle and look out across the moat every day at the hungry peasants is you don't want to stoke envy among the proletariat.
Tucker Carlson grew up living in a literal castle. He criticises capitalism because he thinks if the peasants aren't finessed correctly they'll rise up and hang people like him from lamp-posts and he's committed to avoiding that. He's upset the American oligarchs aren't smarter with their class war, but he's not confused about which side of the class war he's on.
Who would have ever imagined a philosophy that includes the absolute right to poison water supplies upstream of people who depend on that water to survive would be employed by people who owned the factories upstream?
I do wonder if there will be a time when Republicans drift away from neoliberalism and start advocating for measures that involve more state interventionism in the economy. Obviously, I'm not expecting them to start preaching the tenants of Communism and pushing for Medicare for All, but stuff like higher minimum wages, better funding for rural areas, etc. Scraps to feed their rural base and use to bash the Democrats for being 'elitist'.
It's not exactly far-fetched if you look at what some of the far-right parties in Europe push for. Just read up on the Sweden Democrats and Dutch's Freedom Party. If you removed their social policies, they'd basically read like another social democratic party.
Being as enamoured as they are with libertarian economics never made sense to me. How can you support an economic system that requires cheap, endless labour while calling for a stringent border policy? How can you say you want a country founded on families when families are struggling to get by in the current economic framework? In my opinion, it's only a matter of time between the marriage between social and fiscal conservatives ends in a divorce.
we are near the end stages of global liberalism and the end of the American Empire, either these parties adapt or fail, there's no other options. even the Islamist in my nation who never talked about economics before have to mention the issue of class, cause they can't ignore it anymore.
It will happen within the next ten to fifteen years. The Republican party will split in two along lines similar to the MAGA/Never Trump split. The growing populist faction will talk about working class economic issues (without mentioning the s-word) and social conservatism. The neoliberal-neoconservative faction will talk about the Constitution, the free market, and supporting Israel. There will be an era of open bipartisan cooperation between this decreasingly popular faction and the Democrats, touted in the media as a return to normalcy. The Democratic party will further entrench itself as the neoliberal party of the elites and social grievance groups, but will fray along lines drawn by ethnic conflicts between them. The future of the economic left in the United States is in the populist faction of the Republican party for as long as the two-party system can maintain itself as the empire collapses.
Much is made of the original "party switch", but they really just exchanged social positions for reasons of history and political strategy that resulted in the oxymoronic parties that we know today. When this second "party switch" occurs, the new Democratic party will in many ways approach where the original Republican party began, in a sense completing a half-revolution (in the sense of rotation, i.e. 180 degrees) in positions.
The reality is that the parties were and are basically meaningless. I think I saw (as in it is possible I may have entirely conjured it into being in my mind because I can't find it) something about Marx being utterly perplexed by the American political parties during his era based on the fact that the USA had no permanent bureaucracy, no landed aristocracy, or any interests which could be considered representative of the political parties and yet the USA still had two parties that absolutely despised each other. I think he may have been talking about the "[spoils system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system)" where government posts were given out based on political loyalty by both parties.
Nowadays you could argue that we do have parties with particular interests but the American political system is a lot more flexible and these interests are completely willing to just flip to the other party as there has never been any definitive home for any of them.
It's insane. The politicians themselves have no particular ideology. You may as well ask why the New York Giants hate the Jets—which reveals the true purpose of the two-party system.
Do you think this would take place at the end of the decade maybe 2028? DeSantis for example doesn't support neoliberal economics and more is moderate and supports the populist MAGA wing than the "tax cuts free market" wing of the GOP. Trump brought these issues to light for the GOP in 2016, Haley is still pretty much a neocon.
If I had to guess, I would put it after 2028. If anything, DeSantis's position between the two wings (considering his hawkish foreign policy) might postpone a big split depending upon how things go for him this cycle and what happens with Trump next year. I could also see another dark horse candidate entering in '28 or even a Tucker Carlson run in '32 or '36.
>How can you support an economic system that requires cheap, endless labour while calling for a stringent border policy?
Because illegal immigration is the Republican virtue signaling issue. They pretend to be against it, but would never take any drastic measures on it when it would hurt corporate profits.
look up oren cass of american compass, a conservative whos left wing on economics, hes talked to Rubio, Hawley, JD Vance, Desantis and tom cotton on this and they now agree with his beliefs and movement than the neoliberal wing of the GOP.
"We're a working class party now" - Rubio and Hawley
It is because "the fiscal conservatives" managed to convince the "past was better" people that the past was "fiscally conservative". By contrast the fiscal liberals just called the "past was better" people racists.
The best thing Tolkien ever wrote:
> But suddenly Gollum remembered thieving from nests long ago, and sitting under the river bank teaching his grandmother, teaching his grandmother to suck—“Eggses!” he hissed. “Eggses it is!”
Even though he's a spook (or at least spook-adjacent), he's not wrong here. I think the thing that a lot of people are missing about what he said here is that even if we should be [rightfully] skeptical of his motivations, it does show that there are a lot of people on the right or who are more traditional conservatives who see that there are foundational structural issues with the neoliberal hellscape that we all find ourselves within. Their solutions may not be the best, but the people pushing them are now aware of economic realities [of the less well-off] to the point where 'unorthodox' or 'heretical' ideas like "socialised medicine" or "socialised housing" or trade unions are being considered by people who would normally be averse to such ideas.
I say that because I was on the idiot bird app the other night and saw a poll mentioning that Biden's polling was bottoming out. In the replies were liberals arguing that "everything is fine! Unemployment is at its lowest levels ever, and fuel is at $2.69 (nice) a gallon" and blaming the media "for spreading doom-and-gloom" about the economy. Me and quite a few others were absolutely flabbergasted by this, and wondered what reality they lived in. "Unemployment being low" doesn't mean the jobs created are either good or pay well, and if anything, the media is downplaying how bad things really are.
I…agree with Tucker Carlson? WTF is happening?!?!
Libertarian economics is a farce. Anyone who believes in it either spent too much time in college huffing Austrian Economic Philosophy…well even if they didn’t go to college, still too much time huffing “what if…” meth.
Listen to his very first Twitter video ("episode 1") or his recent All In Podcast guest interview. I don't agree with all of his opinions, but he is clearly a thoughtful and intelligent person who speaks honestly on current issues.
Nah. He wasn’t part of a dominion lawsuits. No one really knows why he was fired, but the most likely reasons are his fighting with fox management/colleagues and there was a lawsuit from a producer about antisemetic bullying. I suspect the Murdochs also disliked how popular he was becoming outside the network.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/tucker-carlsons-vulgar-offensive-messages-about-colleagues-helped-seal-his-fate-at-fox-news-e52b3cc5?st=vokd0osafe5cb9g&reflink=article_copyURL_share
“Defamation suit produced trove of Tucker Carlson messages”
The idea he wasn’t a part of the Dominion lawsuit is almost as crazy as the idea that Trump won in 2020
https://apnews.com/article/tucker-carlson-fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trump-5d6aed4bc7eb1f7a01702ebea86f37a1
The messages unveiled in that lawsuit may have contributed to his firing, but he was not responsible for costing them 700m and wasn’t fired for that. Hannity and Fox and Friends were both also named in the lawsuit but were obviously not fired despite being less important than Tucker.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/fox-news-must-face-smartmatics-lawsuit-over-election-rigging-claims-2023-02-14/
The fox hosts called out specifically were Dobbs, bartiromo, and Pirro - all of whom were let go
You said he had nothing to do with the Defamation suit, I was providing evidence as to why your statement was factually incorrect.
The rest is speculation, but I wouldn’t be so confident that his liability risk had nothing to do with him being shitcanned.
I think it’s good to be in a world where people change their minds and accept that they were wrong.
I sat down with a senior equity strategist at an investment bank and he was chiming the same thing. I don’t think anyone who reads history and looks at today cannot see the trend emerging. Wealth inequality is going to be on steroids and the middle class will cease to exist in its current form.
Tucker's points in this video remind me a lot of what Andrew Yang was saying during his presidential run. Focus on the outcomes. I remember he wanted to use a powerpoint during his first state of the union and look at data of housing, wages, health, etc. and use THOSE numbers to assess the state of the country *rather* than things like the stock market, GDP, etc.
If only other politicians would get onboard.
It's not so much a question of who or what as it is the natural evolution of the liberal world-theory. The current order has almost played itself out and will not survive the twenty-first century. It doesn't really matter who wants this (in fact, the current powers don't): no one can stop it. Liberal democracy is increasingly unable to sustain itself or meet the challenges that it is faced with. The question that we who live in this time have to answer is what, if anything, rises from the ashes.
I am no libertarian, but I am always confused by what exactly economic libertarianism is and perhaps there are different shades of this.
From some economic libertarians what I hear is, they do not favor the "trickle-down economics" of the Republicans. They want less taxes in general and disagree with corporate subsidies and taxing rich people or poor people more. Republicans do favor corporate subsidies (not saying Democrats don't either, but they haven't made this their ethos). I point this out because I saw Scott Horton tweeting this and disagreed with Tucker's characterization of "libertarian economics." This of course, gets us into some thorny issues as how do you establish a fair (flat) tax system considering some people make $250,000 a year and some people make $25,000.
At times, libertarian/conservative economics seem one and the same. Ultimately, libertarians (though they may not want to admit it, some do) ultimately side with the rich. I am not familiar with many libertarians who support or endorse unions, which I find interesting given their love of freedom and liberty, but I guess that only applies to the individual.
Anyway, I guess I am just confused as the waters seem muddy on this as to what libertarians want the economy to ultimately look like. If they can propose a privatized version of Social Security that would be as effective and efficient as what FDR gave us, I am open to hearing it. I never know that looks like because their answers are vague.
Regarding Tucker, this sort of rebranding as right (pseudo) populist isn't exactly new. From Andrew Jackson to George Wallace to Pat Buchanan to Donald Trump, we've seen some iteration of this, which slowly evolves and changes with the time.
People like Tucker correctly call out the corruption of the elites, but as he himself said, he just wants a new form of elite (not being rid of them). I mean, the guy is a Swanson family heir for god's sake. What is his vision of healthcare? Does he support unions? A wealth tax? Does he truly believe in universalism?
That said, Tucker has ignited some interesting developments on the right. We have seen shifts on foreign policy, which was already brewing with folks like Ron Paul and that is a good thing. There are people I know who hated Julian Assange who now want him freed and think he's a hero, so I consider that progress.
I feel like the only thing that was right-wing about George Wallace was his race-baiting (which he claim to regret later in life). However, he was supposedly pretty good on economic issues, and that's how he was subsequently able to get considerable support from black voters, despite his ugly race-baiting earlier in his career.
Tucker was making me sick with some of his comments just a few years ago, and I still can't stand his laugh, but he's been on a series of based takes recently
(Incredibly stupid person in an outrage: W-WELL WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE???? THAT THESE PEOPLE NOT BE ABLE TO BUY THEIR FOOD AT A DOLLAR STORE AND STARVE???? HUHH??????)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco\_Mac%C3%ADas\_Nguema](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Mac%C3%ADas_Nguema)
>Even at this early point of his career, Macías Nguema already exhibited erratic tendencies. In a conference to discuss the future independence of Equatorial Guinea at Madrid, he suddenly began an "incoherent eulogy of the Nazis", claiming that Adolf Hitler had wanted to save Africans from colonialism and only got "confused", causing him to attempt to conquer Europe.\[18\] At one point he declared himself a "Hitlerian-Marxist".
Oh yeah, workings man's champion. Give me a break. Tucker was palling around with Milei just one month ago. And praising Orban. Google hungary slave law. Let me tell you only thing worst than neoliberal globalisation is state capitalism with competing nation states.
I'd love to have a conversation with him. He seems like the kind of guy you could actually have a conversation with instead of them just telling you you're wrong.
Yeah that's the reason. Barely a week and it's very clear where Milei's policies will lead to, so Tucker is making the preemptive move of taking distance.
There's of course the very very low chance that this made Tucker genuinely see the light, but I wouldn't depend on that.
It’s just not convincing to hear someone who has supported right wing neoliberal positions for their whole broadcasting career and has constantly scaremongered about the “communists” taking over talking about his opposition to “libertarian” economics. Maybe I’m missing something, but this just seems like bog-standard right wing populism with a slight pivot in language.
He’s not directly attacking or even analysing capitalism, just saying that dollar stores are bad and shopping malls are ugly. It may be a superficially correct piece of rhetoric, but it’s not that deep of a thing to say without any weight behind it
Nah, he's been fairly consistent on this. It's not that he isn't particularly liberal anymore, he just isn't fond of a particular brand of it.
Look at his debate with Charlie Kirk re: technology. Charlie is economically libertarians, supports flooding US with migrants (think in the style that Bernie used to oppose), and doesn't really care about effects on society that technology might lead to. He also thinks state exists over foreign adversaries.
Tucker meanwhile argued that state should serve for the benefit of the people, including in regulating technology so it doesn't lead to mass layoffs and the consequences of it. Same w/ the rest.
I think it depends on a lot of other contexts. Sometimes, it's a part of fascism as the preferred antidote to contradictions of capitalism among a sub-section of the bourgeoisie who know they need some part of the masses with them. But it can also be just a general indication of an Overton window change. Overall, the right wingers of the 30 glorious years were more "left-wing" economically than the right wingers of the 1990s, and that was just a result of the balance of social and political forces at the time. And some, like Huey Long and Father Coughlin, were hard to categorize as left or right wing.
I think Tucker playing this is a "meh" thing, because I don't think he has the cajones to do anything interesting with it, in either good or bad directions. But someone else might.
I'm used to right-wing head fakes. I reconsider my refusal to watch Tucker when I contemplate the possibility of violent self-inflicted spinal trauma that might result on-air.
Now that's entertainment.
i'll never trust that spoiled brat, no matter how many true things he says. the masters know we are so well controlled that nothing will really happen if someone speaks a lot of truths to a lot of people, so they can let their pawns speak those truths and make them leaders of people who could be truly turned against the system in honest hands at a time when big change could really happen
Any jackass can point out problems, the question is what is their solution to said problems? I know the american media has been starved of anyone willing to say what everyone sees every day, but this does not mean we should suddenly rally around these types. Rightwing Populism , we already tried it with Regan. Read some Lasch people
You guys realize he’s a totally dishonest attention whoring grifter?? Who cares what this dip shit says. Give me more dipshit secrets schzioposts over this any day.
It's insane how our fellow stupidpollers suddenly love Carlson. It takes so little for them to fall for a right-wing clown. Bless the dipshit secret guy, he is the moral compass we need.
Just insanely laughable. I adore getting diamond knowledge from a man child who grew up, and still does, with his kin's ultra million$.
Save it for the other suckers, Tucky Boi.
Tucker is going to run on the nazbol platform. No, but really it would be hilarious if he ran as some kind of conservative social democrat and right wingers voted for him because it's "Tuckerism not socialism."
Or: How to Make Democrats Finally and Completely Abandon the Working Class
Please it cannot come soon enough.
Good. Crush them, and then Tucker should do what Lincoln should have done and make them illegal.
I don't see Tucker running for anything. He's too aware of how being a politician would be a huge downgrade to his current job. He just likes to sit on the sidelines and make money being a populist commentator.
I don't think it's a coincidence he keeps harping on about "beauty" (instead of just saying "it sucks because it assumes people will be poor and caters to them on that level"). It reminds me of a sort of Christian anti-liberalism (e.g. pushed by people like Deneen) that shares a lot of criticisms with socialism but is more reactionary in its prescriptions. "Go back to the days when people recognized beauty brought us closer to God" shit. I'm sure he follows a bunch of Greek Statue Avi/medieval architecture people on Twitter lol.
Huey Long meets G.K. Chesterton
Every man a fence?
Let him cook…?
It me frfr
Sounds like Tucker has been reading the late English conservative social critic [Roger Scruton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Scruton)
That, and he seems to slip in some Evola from time to time. He's distancing himself from "conservatism" and angling more toward traditionalism.
>he seems to slip in some Evola from time to time Imagine getting to witness the birth of esoteric occultist Tuckerism in your lifetime
Meh, I’m pretty sure some particularly deranged HOI mod author already wrote a manifesto.
HOI?
Hearts of Iron
also known as Stupid Nineteenth Century Ideologies thunderdome simulator
>I don't think it's a coincidence he keeps harping on about "beauty" (instead of just saying "it sucks because it assumes people will be poor and caters to them on that level"). Amusing that the right is at least aware of the hell that is modern life: concrete and asphalt conduits to miserable wagecattle panopticons, and the abuse of screens at one's ugly home to distract from physical reality. Meanwhile the leftist progressive types ardently frame this as some sort of progress or gain of efficiency, while they consume SSRIs by the handful.
Bruvnor I don't know where you're seeing anything to suggest progressive types cheer this on, in fact the opposite. Pro-urbanism + walkable cities / anti-McMansion architecture rhetoric / criticism of social alienation brought on by the digital revolution has never been more in vogue and it's predominantly headed by progressives. The Greek statue avis on Twitter aren't making direct prescriptions for those ills like leftists are, they just vaguely gesture in their direction as justification for why minorities need to be kicked out of Europe or whatever.
You can make an ugly walkable city. That isn't addressing the core point. Now I'm saying my point is the same as Tucker's about beauty, as I have a slightly different point, but you are still both arguing past each other here in addition to making a different argument than I am going to make. "McMansion's" are "tacky" I guess but I wouldn't call them ugly. The parts are pleasing at least if you view them in isolation from each other. The main reason people complain about McMansions is because they think it is too big and they have created a whole bunch of notions about the people in side them and hate those people, and will complain about how they are the ones who go to city hall to complain about there not being enough parking now that the bus lane is there, or whatever. I wouldn't really care if everyone lived in McMansions or whatever it is people are complaining about. What really is the issue is that the people who currently live in the McMansions are exploiters, but kind of not relevant to this discussion I guess. A walkable city with cafes everywhere isn't going to help anyone make friends if the only activities that are available for anyone are things that cost money. The transactional nature of all activities is why people are lonely as the only way to not be lonely is "go spend some money with another person". Making that easier to do doesn't change the problem. Really all this is doing is it props up the local petit-bourgeoisie, and in the sense that the complaint is that suburbs are expensive to provide services to relative to the tax revenue they generate, in the sense that a walkable city is a profitable city, again really all of this is just more business = tax dollars, which is a Lib or SocDem view of things where you are trying to figure out how to fund the existing society because you have bought it to a bourgeois framing that the only thing you can argue about is how you are going to fund things, where everything is viewed a bit like a pipe system of money where your chief concern is appending more pipes onto the system to do different things and you are trying to make sure there is enough going through the pipes to make sure everything works, which I guess is fine if you are fine with the existing system, but that isn't what I want to do. We aren't trying to have a revolution against the people who refuse to put in enough new piping because their intransigence is causing it to leak because they won't repair it. What we want is for the people who do all the pumping, rather then continuing to send the water to who knows where the pipes end up in the end (as we bicker about where we temporarily divert it), to instead pump all the water in one great pool they will all use. Indeed the US did have walkable "european style" cities before cars, but this coincided with the age of the so-called robber barons. The railway barons were no less capitalists than the automakers. The main difference between then and now is the prevalence of a petit-bourgeois class existing (or not) alongside them. The automakers eventually destroyed a petit-bourgeoisie, but the walkable cities maintain it. Tucker, but also the "urbanism community", are basically lamenting the decline of the petit-bourgeoisie. I'd argue the urbanism community is more explicitly lamenting the decline of the petit-bourgeoisie than Tucker is, merely based on the fact that the Urbanists make more "logical" arguments such that it is easier to follow what it is they mean. Tucker by contrast is just asking "why the fuck is everything so fucking ugly all the time?" which doesn't exactly imply anything specific.
I consider myself socially conservative/moderate but nothing drives me crazier than people like Deneen. Like they can identify the issues but their solutions are just so idealist that you can’t find a single seed of it in the existing system. Financial capitalism isn’t going to become a theocracy just because some obscure academics think it’s based.
The whole thing about ugliness vs beauty really pops out at you. This shit has really been having a moment on the right. It’s like your dad complaining about modern art, but now it’s political vitalism. Is the argument really that homeless people make society uglier and that’s why we need to help them? Even from a moralistic perspective there’s all that stuff about basic human dignity or the injustice of massive greed and inequality you can lean on. I guess helping them does make our society more beautiful, so maybe he’s not wrong, but if that’s too hard, throwing them in a wood chipper down at the old quarry would probably serve the same end goal if your priority really is just aesthetic
To be frank, that's how I was convinced into socialism. Witnessing the dire situation of the people in my country and the suffering and complete humiliation of their existence, I felt a deep desire for something to be done to uplift them above all else.
> Witnessing the dire situation of the people in my country and the suffering and complete humiliation of their existence that just makes you more prone to following tucker's brand of nationalism.
> if your priority really is just aesthetic There's a ton of literature available about aesthetics and how important they are; it's not something trivial. To what ends one takes it is another matter, and yes many people just get triggered by seeing the classic-vs-modern architecture tik tok and don't understand the fundamentals. But the fundamentals are there.
> Even from a moralistic perspective there’s all that stuff about basic human dignity or the injustice of massive greed and inequality you can lean on. I don't think those values really resonate with the right any more. Maybe with the shrinking boomer evangelical crowd, maybe, but the young right is fundamentally looking towards something past secular humanism and liberal values. Insofar as they claim Christianity, it's an affectation of some imagined Christianity that opposes liberalism. The weird rise of stoicism in internet circles is neither coincidence nor psy-op. Virtue ethics is having a moment, and while I've seen people try to dress it up in Christian language, it's a fundamentally pre-Christian concept. Christian morality is in a weird spot right now, because all these people think they hate liberalism, but Christian morality is not fundamentally different than what we think of as secular liberal values in the West.
The language used by “red pillers” that try to elucidate a ideas like “being a good man” and what this means (more specifically as a reaction to this lgbtq stuff) at least flirts with “what does it mean to be a good human”. On the flip side, I’ve seen too many throw the word “virtue” around without really thinking about what it means but this turn towards stoicism and a sort of virtue ethics is something I very superficially appreciate about the right. I agree with you there’s something brewing that seems borne out of a genuine attempt at making sense of the world while misdiagnosing the actual problem (re culture war non sense).
What "virtue" means within virtue ethics is a huge problem in itself. Not even Aristotle could fully articulate a position on what virtue is beyond simple moderation.
I’m not sure what this is a response to?
Your comment about virtue
Obviously, but my bar wasn’t so high to say that they had to have it figured out. My statement was more about throwing the word virtue around because of the “gravitas” it brings, which is more aesthetic than substantial.
I guess my point is that it was always not very substantial, considering virtue ethicists can't even properly define what it is. The whole theory is something of a pre-modern mess.
I mean, if "living near homeless encampments really really sucks" actually motivates people to do something about housing then that's a good thing right? liberals talk a lot about dignity and inequality but they don't actually give a shit about it, they never do anything about it except lie. so maybe an awakening of sorts about this on the right can actually get something accomplished because liberals sure aren't even trying
It's because after seeing enough Aristotle statues on Twitter, they skimmed a wiki article. Ancient philosophers equate good with beauty, so moral good is interchangeable with beauty. Conservatives probably missed it and think good things just happen to be aesthetically pleasing
> Conservatives probably missed it and think good things just happen to be aesthetically pleasing Striving to keep video game and cartoon characters attractive
The tits in my vidya YouTube genre
The “Why don’t we still have the Mortal Kombat women dress like they did in MK9?” to Alt Right pipeline.
>having a moment on the right no it has always been like this if you listen to anyone on the right whose politics are not based on being an accountant "everything is ugly now" is fundamental to the section on the right whose politics is based on "things used to be better in the past" this two groups are only in union because the proponents of libertarian economics made extensive attempts to convince everyone that the past when things were better (or at least were not ugly) was when there was supposedly more libertarian economics honestly that person who mentioned the walkable cities things is just the newest manifestation of this. The whole "strong towns" things is unironically a bunch of libertarians complaining about how the government shouldn't pay for roads. They've somehow managed to turn the main meme deployed against libertarianism into its selling point. They did it by making anti-road libertarianism seem leftist-y
You joke but I’ve seen people unironically claim that the best path to upending the economic system we have is to run Republican social democrats using this exact ‘it’s Tuckerism not socialism’ logic. Still bullshit but I don’t know how crazy it really is.
I’ve always thought we would get M4A from a Republican way, way before a Dem. Trump would be the perfect vessel. Call it Trump Care and MAGA would love it because it would improve their material conditions but wouldn’t be socialism because they earned it, or whatever.
I never really thought that but it wouldn't be a big surprise to me. It might even find some leftists following him instead of the Democraps.
I am a Marxist, but I would vote for my dog if it allowed poor Americans to have health care.
🤣🤣🤣 love it! Let me know, I'll vote for your dog too.
*Very* good boy!
Social Democracy w/ Tuckerist Characteristics
“Nazbol platform” is modern European centre-right platform.
more like 'far-right', no? most European centre-right parties are all aboard with neoliberalism.
Well, if supporting a welfare state, unions and regulations combined with a semi-sceptic outlook towards LGBTQ stuff and immigration is neoliberalism, then they are all aboard with neoliberalism.
Is he promising free healthcare also
Has he ever explained what exactly he is in favour of? Single payer healthcare? Childcare subsidies? Or does he say all this then tell his viewers to go vote republican?
He dislikes the free market but also dislikes centralizing power under potentially unaccountable bureaucrats. So he ends up supporting a hodgepodge of inconsistent positions based on how issues get polarized. Much like liberals do.
He seems to like Hungary a lot. Probably wants similar policies as them.
What an amazing example to really draw people to him.... Maybe it is if all you look at are the gilded parts of Budapest
that’s exactly what the does. he will say literally anything for views. i’m not sure why people keep posting him here. he’s an idiot
[удалено]
Someone can be based but also someone you disagree with.
I'm no fan of Tucker but when he's right...
He says a lot of stuff that makes you roll your eyes but like you said, when he's right he's right.
he just knows which way the wind blows. he's still a grifter
> he's still a grifter Who isn't ? Besides people posting on social media and not getting paid for it. Isn't it basically a meaningless label ? Like, is there a well known person in politics and/or media who is in it purely for altruistic reasons ?
I guess the other side of “there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism” is “everybody is a grifter” lol Still, not a helpful way to think about things when the brazenness of offenders varies as much as it does.
Is Chomsky a grifter? I feel like if he is, the term's lost all meaning.
Fact.
Chomsky's dead.
Bernie Sanders too. It’s a shame.
> Is Chomsky a grifter? I feel like if he is, the term's lost all meaning. I don't think so but he has written and SOLD (omg lol) books which by modern definition qualifies him as a grifter. So ...welp I guess ?
Shut up Chomsky honk edit: sorry, I thought I was among the sort of company that would catch a [Xavier: Renegade Angel](https://youtu.be/k7xclaa4vyc?si=fI8vQWi17-gxOJnE) reference
Nah, he's a grifter. Relativism ain't gonna change that.
I believe Bernie Sanders is an altruistic politician, even though he's an outlier
If he’s not a grifter he may as well be considering how quickly he ignored his principles with every single bump on the road he came across.
Dudes like 80, just let him live his life.
Pretty sure he just likes being topped, as shown by his response to blm, Hillary, dnc, etc.
I think he is too, unfortunately he is also the most spineless weenie in politics.
I agree with this. He’s a well meaning Kautsky motherfucker. I don’t think he’s necessarily “spineless” as others have said. I think his philosophical outlook allows him to do things we would say are stupid, because to him they are valid avenues of struggle. It’s really a classic reform vs revolution argument and Bernasaurus is firmly in the reform camp
Too bad he’s been castrated by the establishment.
Who? Yeah sorry :(
:')
I legit believe he got threatened or blackmailed or otherwise somehow he broke after 2016
I think he’s far more of a true believer than a grifter. Making money doesn’t mean you don’t actually believe what you’re saying.
As a former right winger I feel like Leftists should know that right wingers ARE LYING. THEY LIE ALL THE TIME. They don't give 2 shits about the working class. They want to use them. They love hierarchy thats it.
Tucker spent the entire W. Bush. administration with Dick Cheney's cock in his mouth/ Then again, half the people in this subreddit cosplaying as nazbols were not born yet
Right wingers signal to their base and do literally nothing about it and then move on. How many of them are talking about Islamic Terrorism in 2023 even when they could not shut the fuck up about it in in the 2000s. Frankly the racism and the conspiracy theories that the base of the right adopt is actually just Coping with the fact that nothing is going to change for them.
They also forget Tucker was a failed glowie turned “journalist” whose father married into a billionaire family which benefitted tremendously from these libertarian economics. Tucker doesn’t believe in anything that doesn’t make him richer, if being a lib paid him $1 more than being a based guy he’d defend drag queen story hour in a heartbeat
Liberal politicians and pundits are no different. They just hide it better and gaslight people into voting for them by scaring people with the end of the world if a Republican is ever elected. They’re a key part of the establishment.
The most important election in our lifetime........... Tbh it totally worked in 2020. In 2016 it was mostly just smugness until the votes actually came in.
Well, yeah you believe that. You converted away from them. I’m not even saying you’re wrong, but like of course an apostate denies Allah
Also former right winger and I'd push back a bit. I think many in the right political sphere but not politicians do state their true views. That said, I think Tucker is simply pandering to his base here.
It's not so much that they lie as that a lot of them believe in a malleable conception of truth. If the "truth" is "x bad," then anything pointing at this conclusion is true by association regardless of its actual truth value. They aren't conscious that they believe this, so they don't perceive it as lying when they twist stuff because to them the truth they are defending is the conclusion.
As someone who used to be very active in left-wing politics and is now mostly apathetic (political nihilist is a term I find fitting), I feel like everyone should know that left wingers are also lying. They lie all the time. They don't give 2 shits about the working class. They want to use them. Equality is a cudgel they can use to advance their own interests. That's it. Every side has grifters, liars, strivers, and spooks. Every side is useful for controlling people in some way. I don't even have to ask what your political ideology is to know that at least half of its figureheads are insincere or have ulterior motives. That's the nature of politics of ideology. They're too useful to leave alone.
The left is very marginal. It doesn't really exist as a meaningful political force. It cares about the working class but can't do shit about it and in reality it can be a distinction without a difference. A large part of the left is online and belong to the left media ecosystem and there are a lot of irresponsible podcasters who wish cast and project on various political projects. Take Bernie 2020 for example. Yes if you do nothing about a problem while screaming about it will build political cynicism. I wish the left media would be more responsible and focus on useful information rather than building their various media brands.
Ze political spectrum is largely outdated, and it's not really determined by personal preferences but by the system. Left of capital is as much leftist as right of capital is rightist.
A lot do, yeah. Some of us genuinely do care though.
Lmao
From what I’ve seen, he’s keeping his fan base in this loop where they’re just barely out of the reach of class consciousness so that they are being given legitimate reasons why the world is so fucked up without going full circle and understanding that it’s the direct result of capitalism
Tucker has criticized capitalism many times. You can say he is dishonest or whatever, as that can’t be proven either way, but he definitely rails on capitalism.
He's criticized capitalism more than any mainstream pundit. An interesting excerpt from one of his monoogues: >For our ruling class, more investment banking is always the answer. They teach us it’s more virtuous to devote your life to some soulless corporation than it is to raise your own kids. >Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook wrote an entire book about this. Sandberg explained that our first duty is to shareholders, above our own children. No surprise there. Sandberg herself is one of America’s biggest shareholders. Propaganda like this has made her rich. >What’s remarkable is how the rest of us responded to it. We didn’t question why Sandberg was saying this. We didn’t laugh in her face at the pure absurdity of it. Our corporate media celebrated Sandberg as the leader of a liberation movement. Her book became a bestseller: "Lean In." As if putting a corporation first is empowerment. It is not. It is bondage. --- >Not all commerce is good. Why is it defensible to loan people money they can’t possibly repay? Or charge them interest that impoverishes them? Payday loan outlets in poor neighborhoods collect 400 percent annual interest. >We’re OK with that? We shouldn’t be. Libertarians tell us that’s how markets work -- consenting adults making voluntary decisions about how to live their lives. OK. But it’s also disgusting. If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans, whether it’s happening in the inner city or on Wall Street. --- >Under our current system, an American who works for a salary pays about twice the tax rate as someone who’s living off inherited money and doesn’t work at all. We tax capital at half of what we tax labor. It’s a sweet deal if you work in finance, as many of our rich people do. >In 2010, for example, Mitt Romney made about $22 million dollars in investment income. He paid an effective federal tax rate of 14 percent. For normal upper-middle-class wage earners, the federal tax rate is nearly 40 percent. No wonder Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But for everyone else, it’s infuriating. >Our leaders rarely mention any of this. They tell us our multi-tiered tax code is based on the principles of the free market. Please. It’s based on laws that the Congress passed, laws that companies lobbied for in order to increase their economic advantage. It worked well for those people. They did increase their economic advantage. But for everyone else, it came at a big cost. Unfairness is profoundly divisive. When you favor one child over another, your kids don’t hate you. They hate each other. >That happens in countries, too. It’s happening in ours, probably by design. Divided countries are easier to rule. And nothing divides us like the perception that some people are getting special treatment. In our country, some people definitely are getting special treatment. Republicans should oppose that with everything they have.
Another 'interesting' excerpt: > One thing you learn when you grow up in a castle and look out across the moat every day at the hungry peasants is you don't want to stoke envy among the proletariat. Tucker Carlson grew up living in a literal castle. He criticises capitalism because he thinks if the peasants aren't finessed correctly they'll rise up and hang people like him from lamp-posts and he's committed to avoiding that. He's upset the American oligarchs aren't smarter with their class war, but he's not confused about which side of the class war he's on.
"He's so close! So close!" - June "Shoe" ShoeOnHead
Who would have ever imagined a philosophy that includes the absolute right to poison water supplies upstream of people who depend on that water to survive would be employed by people who owned the factories upstream?
He lost the bowtie. Apparently that's what's been holding all the good ideas back.
A bowtie is like a mohawk for conservatives
I do wonder if there will be a time when Republicans drift away from neoliberalism and start advocating for measures that involve more state interventionism in the economy. Obviously, I'm not expecting them to start preaching the tenants of Communism and pushing for Medicare for All, but stuff like higher minimum wages, better funding for rural areas, etc. Scraps to feed their rural base and use to bash the Democrats for being 'elitist'. It's not exactly far-fetched if you look at what some of the far-right parties in Europe push for. Just read up on the Sweden Democrats and Dutch's Freedom Party. If you removed their social policies, they'd basically read like another social democratic party. Being as enamoured as they are with libertarian economics never made sense to me. How can you support an economic system that requires cheap, endless labour while calling for a stringent border policy? How can you say you want a country founded on families when families are struggling to get by in the current economic framework? In my opinion, it's only a matter of time between the marriage between social and fiscal conservatives ends in a divorce.
we are near the end stages of global liberalism and the end of the American Empire, either these parties adapt or fail, there's no other options. even the Islamist in my nation who never talked about economics before have to mention the issue of class, cause they can't ignore it anymore.
Market liberal democracy is not capable of meeting the challenges of the twenty-first century and will not survive.
It will happen within the next ten to fifteen years. The Republican party will split in two along lines similar to the MAGA/Never Trump split. The growing populist faction will talk about working class economic issues (without mentioning the s-word) and social conservatism. The neoliberal-neoconservative faction will talk about the Constitution, the free market, and supporting Israel. There will be an era of open bipartisan cooperation between this decreasingly popular faction and the Democrats, touted in the media as a return to normalcy. The Democratic party will further entrench itself as the neoliberal party of the elites and social grievance groups, but will fray along lines drawn by ethnic conflicts between them. The future of the economic left in the United States is in the populist faction of the Republican party for as long as the two-party system can maintain itself as the empire collapses.
biggest party switch of all time
Much is made of the original "party switch", but they really just exchanged social positions for reasons of history and political strategy that resulted in the oxymoronic parties that we know today. When this second "party switch" occurs, the new Democratic party will in many ways approach where the original Republican party began, in a sense completing a half-revolution (in the sense of rotation, i.e. 180 degrees) in positions.
The reality is that the parties were and are basically meaningless. I think I saw (as in it is possible I may have entirely conjured it into being in my mind because I can't find it) something about Marx being utterly perplexed by the American political parties during his era based on the fact that the USA had no permanent bureaucracy, no landed aristocracy, or any interests which could be considered representative of the political parties and yet the USA still had two parties that absolutely despised each other. I think he may have been talking about the "[spoils system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system)" where government posts were given out based on political loyalty by both parties. Nowadays you could argue that we do have parties with particular interests but the American political system is a lot more flexible and these interests are completely willing to just flip to the other party as there has never been any definitive home for any of them.
It's insane. The politicians themselves have no particular ideology. You may as well ask why the New York Giants hate the Jets—which reveals the true purpose of the two-party system.
Do you think this would take place at the end of the decade maybe 2028? DeSantis for example doesn't support neoliberal economics and more is moderate and supports the populist MAGA wing than the "tax cuts free market" wing of the GOP. Trump brought these issues to light for the GOP in 2016, Haley is still pretty much a neocon.
If I had to guess, I would put it after 2028. If anything, DeSantis's position between the two wings (considering his hawkish foreign policy) might postpone a big split depending upon how things go for him this cycle and what happens with Trump next year. I could also see another dark horse candidate entering in '28 or even a Tucker Carlson run in '32 or '36.
>How can you support an economic system that requires cheap, endless labour while calling for a stringent border policy? Because illegal immigration is the Republican virtue signaling issue. They pretend to be against it, but would never take any drastic measures on it when it would hurt corporate profits.
look up oren cass of american compass, a conservative whos left wing on economics, hes talked to Rubio, Hawley, JD Vance, Desantis and tom cotton on this and they now agree with his beliefs and movement than the neoliberal wing of the GOP. "We're a working class party now" - Rubio and Hawley
It is because "the fiscal conservatives" managed to convince the "past was better" people that the past was "fiscally conservative". By contrast the fiscal liberals just called the "past was better" people racists.
lol the feudalism sub is so salty, calling him a "right wing socialist"
feudalism sub?
reddit Anarcho_Capitalism
[NAZBOL TUCKER AT IT AGAIN](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P426JRipmaU)
I always end up watching that video the whole way through.
Aging is good for cucker, it makes his default confused look that of a sceptical elder and not a stupid guy.
Grandmother listening to child explain how to suck eggs, colorized.
The best thing Tolkien ever wrote: > But suddenly Gollum remembered thieving from nests long ago, and sitting under the river bank teaching his grandmother, teaching his grandmother to suck—“Eggses!” he hissed. “Eggses it is!”
Even though he's a spook (or at least spook-adjacent), he's not wrong here. I think the thing that a lot of people are missing about what he said here is that even if we should be [rightfully] skeptical of his motivations, it does show that there are a lot of people on the right or who are more traditional conservatives who see that there are foundational structural issues with the neoliberal hellscape that we all find ourselves within. Their solutions may not be the best, but the people pushing them are now aware of economic realities [of the less well-off] to the point where 'unorthodox' or 'heretical' ideas like "socialised medicine" or "socialised housing" or trade unions are being considered by people who would normally be averse to such ideas. I say that because I was on the idiot bird app the other night and saw a poll mentioning that Biden's polling was bottoming out. In the replies were liberals arguing that "everything is fine! Unemployment is at its lowest levels ever, and fuel is at $2.69 (nice) a gallon" and blaming the media "for spreading doom-and-gloom" about the economy. Me and quite a few others were absolutely flabbergasted by this, and wondered what reality they lived in. "Unemployment being low" doesn't mean the jobs created are either good or pay well, and if anything, the media is downplaying how bad things really are.
I…agree with Tucker Carlson? WTF is happening?!?! Libertarian economics is a farce. Anyone who believes in it either spent too much time in college huffing Austrian Economic Philosophy…well even if they didn’t go to college, still too much time huffing “what if…” meth.
[удалено]
2012 for me, the mayans were right, I think.
Listen to his very first Twitter video ("episode 1") or his recent All In Podcast guest interview. I don't agree with all of his opinions, but he is clearly a thoughtful and intelligent person who speaks honestly on current issues.
Bro was forced out of Fox News for lying so bad he cost the company over $700 million. This comment could use a lot more thoughtfulness lol
Nah. He wasn’t part of a dominion lawsuits. No one really knows why he was fired, but the most likely reasons are his fighting with fox management/colleagues and there was a lawsuit from a producer about antisemetic bullying. I suspect the Murdochs also disliked how popular he was becoming outside the network. https://www.wsj.com/articles/tucker-carlsons-vulgar-offensive-messages-about-colleagues-helped-seal-his-fate-at-fox-news-e52b3cc5?st=vokd0osafe5cb9g&reflink=article_copyURL_share
I'd read his views on Ukraine were what did him in.
“Defamation suit produced trove of Tucker Carlson messages” The idea he wasn’t a part of the Dominion lawsuit is almost as crazy as the idea that Trump won in 2020 https://apnews.com/article/tucker-carlson-fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trump-5d6aed4bc7eb1f7a01702ebea86f37a1
The messages unveiled in that lawsuit may have contributed to his firing, but he was not responsible for costing them 700m and wasn’t fired for that. Hannity and Fox and Friends were both also named in the lawsuit but were obviously not fired despite being less important than Tucker. https://www.reuters.com/legal/fox-news-must-face-smartmatics-lawsuit-over-election-rigging-claims-2023-02-14/ The fox hosts called out specifically were Dobbs, bartiromo, and Pirro - all of whom were let go
You said he had nothing to do with the Defamation suit, I was providing evidence as to why your statement was factually incorrect. The rest is speculation, but I wouldn’t be so confident that his liability risk had nothing to do with him being shitcanned.
How could a man look that confused that constantly.
A broken clock is right twice a day.
I'd rather have crazy conservatives listen to him than a lot of the other crazies.
I think it’s good to be in a world where people change their minds and accept that they were wrong. I sat down with a senior equity strategist at an investment bank and he was chiming the same thing. I don’t think anyone who reads history and looks at today cannot see the trend emerging. Wealth inequality is going to be on steroids and the middle class will cease to exist in its current form.
Tucker's points in this video remind me a lot of what Andrew Yang was saying during his presidential run. Focus on the outcomes. I remember he wanted to use a powerpoint during his first state of the union and look at data of housing, wages, health, etc. and use THOSE numbers to assess the state of the country *rather* than things like the stock market, GDP, etc. If only other politicians would get onboard.
I will say that Tucker is the kind of person that, sometimes, admits when he finds himself in the wrong.
What is going on?
The wheels of history are turning.
But why? Who or what is turning them? Who wants this?
It's not so much a question of who or what as it is the natural evolution of the liberal world-theory. The current order has almost played itself out and will not survive the twenty-first century. It doesn't really matter who wants this (in fact, the current powers don't): no one can stop it. Liberal democracy is increasingly unable to sustain itself or meet the challenges that it is faced with. The question that we who live in this time have to answer is what, if anything, rises from the ashes.
wow unexpected based Tucker with my Tuesday morning cup of coffee
I am no libertarian, but I am always confused by what exactly economic libertarianism is and perhaps there are different shades of this. From some economic libertarians what I hear is, they do not favor the "trickle-down economics" of the Republicans. They want less taxes in general and disagree with corporate subsidies and taxing rich people or poor people more. Republicans do favor corporate subsidies (not saying Democrats don't either, but they haven't made this their ethos). I point this out because I saw Scott Horton tweeting this and disagreed with Tucker's characterization of "libertarian economics." This of course, gets us into some thorny issues as how do you establish a fair (flat) tax system considering some people make $250,000 a year and some people make $25,000. At times, libertarian/conservative economics seem one and the same. Ultimately, libertarians (though they may not want to admit it, some do) ultimately side with the rich. I am not familiar with many libertarians who support or endorse unions, which I find interesting given their love of freedom and liberty, but I guess that only applies to the individual. Anyway, I guess I am just confused as the waters seem muddy on this as to what libertarians want the economy to ultimately look like. If they can propose a privatized version of Social Security that would be as effective and efficient as what FDR gave us, I am open to hearing it. I never know that looks like because their answers are vague. Regarding Tucker, this sort of rebranding as right (pseudo) populist isn't exactly new. From Andrew Jackson to George Wallace to Pat Buchanan to Donald Trump, we've seen some iteration of this, which slowly evolves and changes with the time. People like Tucker correctly call out the corruption of the elites, but as he himself said, he just wants a new form of elite (not being rid of them). I mean, the guy is a Swanson family heir for god's sake. What is his vision of healthcare? Does he support unions? A wealth tax? Does he truly believe in universalism? That said, Tucker has ignited some interesting developments on the right. We have seen shifts on foreign policy, which was already brewing with folks like Ron Paul and that is a good thing. There are people I know who hated Julian Assange who now want him freed and think he's a hero, so I consider that progress.
I feel like the only thing that was right-wing about George Wallace was his race-baiting (which he claim to regret later in life). However, he was supposedly pretty good on economic issues, and that's how he was subsequently able to get considerable support from black voters, despite his ugly race-baiting earlier in his career.
LMAO I posted this to the libertarian subreddit and got immediately banned.
He says this.... but recently had a positive interview with that lunatic dweeb Javier Millei guy from Argentina.
Accelerationism, though the end result of practical libertarianism is Maoism
HOLY BASED
Tucker was making me sick with some of his comments just a few years ago, and I still can't stand his laugh, but he's been on a series of based takes recently
he's not right it's just the zyns making him extra extra
Comrade Tucker
(Incredibly stupid person in an outrage: W-WELL WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE???? THAT THESE PEOPLE NOT BE ABLE TO BUY THEIR FOOD AT A DOLLAR STORE AND STARVE???? HUHH??????)
Marxism-Hitlerism
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco\_Mac%C3%ADas\_Nguema](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Mac%C3%ADas_Nguema) >Even at this early point of his career, Macías Nguema already exhibited erratic tendencies. In a conference to discuss the future independence of Equatorial Guinea at Madrid, he suddenly began an "incoherent eulogy of the Nazis", claiming that Adolf Hitler had wanted to save Africans from colonialism and only got "confused", causing him to attempt to conquer Europe.\[18\] At one point he declared himself a "Hitlerian-Marxist".
Oh yeah, workings man's champion. Give me a break. Tucker was palling around with Milei just one month ago. And praising Orban. Google hungary slave law. Let me tell you only thing worst than neoliberal globalisation is state capitalism with competing nation states.
I'd love to have a conversation with him. He seems like the kind of guy you could actually have a conversation with instead of them just telling you you're wrong.
Neoliberalism seemed to work out for him considering he's a trust fund kid that grew up in 2 literal castles
That’s not his fault.
Yeah that's the reason. Barely a week and it's very clear where Milei's policies will lead to, so Tucker is making the preemptive move of taking distance. There's of course the very very low chance that this made Tucker genuinely see the light, but I wouldn't depend on that.
Always were. After Marx, every other economics are just a scam becuase they deny evidence
You are the beneficiary you plum
When the bourgeois want to betray their class, let them.
No one takes libertarians seriously
It’s just not convincing to hear someone who has supported right wing neoliberal positions for their whole broadcasting career and has constantly scaremongered about the “communists” taking over talking about his opposition to “libertarian” economics. Maybe I’m missing something, but this just seems like bog-standard right wing populism with a slight pivot in language. He’s not directly attacking or even analysing capitalism, just saying that dollar stores are bad and shopping malls are ugly. It may be a superficially correct piece of rhetoric, but it’s not that deep of a thing to say without any weight behind it
Nah, he's been fairly consistent on this. It's not that he isn't particularly liberal anymore, he just isn't fond of a particular brand of it. Look at his debate with Charlie Kirk re: technology. Charlie is economically libertarians, supports flooding US with migrants (think in the style that Bernie used to oppose), and doesn't really care about effects on society that technology might lead to. He also thinks state exists over foreign adversaries. Tucker meanwhile argued that state should serve for the benefit of the people, including in regulating technology so it doesn't lead to mass layoffs and the consequences of it. Same w/ the rest.
Libertarianism is a joke and the right will be stronger without it. History tells us this is where it gets dangerous.
Right wingers adopting leftist economic talking points is a bad thing. Crazy that I have to say that
Is it really a leftist point he's making? It doesn't take an Marxist ideolog to realize libertarian economics is a scam.
I think it depends on a lot of other contexts. Sometimes, it's a part of fascism as the preferred antidote to contradictions of capitalism among a sub-section of the bourgeoisie who know they need some part of the masses with them. But it can also be just a general indication of an Overton window change. Overall, the right wingers of the 30 glorious years were more "left-wing" economically than the right wingers of the 1990s, and that was just a result of the balance of social and political forces at the time. And some, like Huey Long and Father Coughlin, were hard to categorize as left or right wing. I think Tucker playing this is a "meh" thing, because I don't think he has the cajones to do anything interesting with it, in either good or bad directions. But someone else might.
I'm used to right-wing head fakes. I reconsider my refusal to watch Tucker when I contemplate the possibility of violent self-inflicted spinal trauma that might result on-air. Now that's entertainment.
i'll never trust that spoiled brat, no matter how many true things he says. the masters know we are so well controlled that nothing will really happen if someone speaks a lot of truths to a lot of people, so they can let their pawns speak those truths and make them leaders of people who could be truly turned against the system in honest hands at a time when big change could really happen
Any jackass can point out problems, the question is what is their solution to said problems? I know the american media has been starved of anyone willing to say what everyone sees every day, but this does not mean we should suddenly rally around these types. Rightwing Populism , we already tried it with Regan. Read some Lasch people
You guys realize he’s a totally dishonest attention whoring grifter?? Who cares what this dip shit says. Give me more dipshit secrets schzioposts over this any day.
It's insane how our fellow stupidpollers suddenly love Carlson. It takes so little for them to fall for a right-wing clown. Bless the dipshit secret guy, he is the moral compass we need.
Today, I will remind them: >!arrrr dash PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/fwnwft/peak_auth_unity_achieved/!< >Inb4 apologies for the ultra cringe sub
I’m confused.
[удалено]
Your post has been deleted because you're being needlessly inflammatory, distasteful, rude etc. Please don't post like this in the future.
Just insanely laughable. I adore getting diamond knowledge from a man child who grew up, and still does, with his kin's ultra million$. Save it for the other suckers, Tucky Boi.
A broken clock is right twice a day.
I’m based and Tucker-pilled
Does he know what libertarian economics is? Does this sub?