Is Tucker Carlson The Next Trump?

Eric Medlin

History instructor. Writer. Rising star in the world of affordable housing.

Related Post Roulette

60 Responses

  1. Oscar Gordon says:

    Tucker Carlson’s current position is that of Trumpian provocateur, but the idea that he could win the fanatical devotion that characterizes many Trump supporters is ludicrous.

    I don’t know, things move much faster these days. I wouldn’t call it ludicrous, maybe just unlikely.Report

  2. Chip Daniels says:

    There are around 75 million American voters who are desperately seeking a person like Trump, and there are thousands of Republican candidates and elected officials at all levels who are eager to oblige.

    While the Presidential nomination is a focus of concern, we can’t overlook the damage being done by the hundreds of Trumpist Congressmen and Senators, state governors and legislators.Report

  3. Philip H says:

    Carlson, like Trump is a master at the art of deceptive deflection. He stirs controversy to stir controversy. He doesn’t actually care about the outcome, and he has lawyers to hide behind who will defend him by reminding the court he is an entertainer. That whole “No reasonable person” schtick. He doesn’t truly care about his audience, but as Chip rightly notes, his audience believes he does. and they are looking for someone, including Trump himself, to resurrect the last chapter in the Civil War so we can settle white Male minority rule once and for all. Hence why the states are equally as important.Report

  4. Greginak says:

    I think there is a key difference. Tuck is a loudmouth troll now with all the positives and negatives. Part of that is the strong partisan like or dislike of him. Lots of got to know trump in the 80’s and 90’s as a mediocre businessman and less partisan loudmouth. He got big fame in reality TV so lots of people only knew him as a TV role and from his own sales pitch. Nobody will know the Tuck Man as anything other then lightening rod for hot and stirring the pot. He has no broad appeal.Report

    • Douglas Hayden in reply to Greginak says:

      The difference has always been that Trump spent thirty odd years desperately trying to make the celebrity A list, and finished it off with the Presidency. Carlson’s never made that effort.

      Now, if you want to talk Dwayne Johnson…Report

      • North in reply to Douglas Hayden says:

        I am dubious the Rock would be willing to run for the GOP nod and the Democratic Party is not suffering the same kind of institutional degradation that’d allow Dwayne Johnson to slip in and get the nomination on their side.Report

  5. Pinky says:

    I think the higher profile of Carlson mirrors the early Obama years better than the rise of Trump. During Obama’s first few months, there was no official Republican opposition. He had to attack someone, and the only voice being raised against him was FNC. Later, Dick Cheney reluctantly filled the role, then the Tea Party phenomenon appeared.

    I think DeSantis is filling the role of opposing voice and rallying cry today, while Tucker is filling the role of the left’s current Emmanuel Goldstein.

    A couple noteworthy differences between 2009 and today. The GOP doesn’t have a majority in either house, but the Dems have a very narrow margin. And Biden doesn’t seem to be pushing his agenda on the basis of personal charisma, so the necessary traits for the role of opposition are different.Report

  6. JS says:

    A “more competent” Trump wouldn’t be Trump.

    Trump was successful because of two oddly conflicting factors. First, his persona has been stage managed for decades as “competent businessman”. Including a lengthy TV show where, of course, he was edited to appear to be a competent, hard-nosed, pragmatic businessman. To anyone with the “run government like a business” viewpoint, or the “I want a deal-making pragmatic guy in there, to cut through all the red tape and politics” — that’s pretty compelling.

    But more so — and this is what drove turnout — that while Trump’s business image was pure PR, his racism, nativism, and airing of grievances was entirely authentic. And it showed. And that’s what really drove his popularity. He shouted out the things a lot of conservatives quietly thought, and he did so unapologetically. It made them feel strong and powerful and no longer a looked-down upon minority. (And of course the payoff for this is Tucker Carlson now goes on TV and talks about White Replacement).

    And you can’t fake that. And “a more competent Trump” wouldn’t have tried, because it was a two-edged sword that ended up cutting him far worse than it did his opponents — it got in the way of any agenda he had, cost him in the 2018 mid-terms, cost him re-election, and even cost the GOP the Senate in 2020.

    The GOP is going to try to field the “next Trump” for decades, just like they tried to field the “next Reagan” (and like Democrats tried to field the “next Kennedy”). It won’t work. And it’ll be damaging as hell to their brand, because the “next Trump” is, of course, loudly and unapologetically nativist and racist in a time where the GOP has basically lost the young, minorities, women, and is losing the suburbs because “Trump” doesn’t play well outside the GOP base.

    “The next Trump” is not going to be able to turn out the numbers Trump did for the GOP. he won’t be real. He won’t be “one of them” in the key way. But the “next Trump” will still turn out the opposition to Trump, and still drive away the Republicans that Trump did (and who were the reason Trump didn’t get re-elected in a year that the GOP saw massive gains in Congress)Report

    • Pinky in reply to JS says:

      Has Carlson ever said “white replacement”? I’ve heard he talks about immigrant voting in terms of replacement, but never anything about race.Report

      • Pinky in reply to Pinky says:

        Anyone?

        I found a funny CNN clip where they showed Carlson saying “replacement” then talked about how evil people are who talk about white replacement. But that’s basically the whole “between the sheets” fortune cookie thing, where you can make anything sound white supremacist if you just drop the word “white” into it.Report

          • Pinky in reply to North says:

            That article follows the pattern of the CNN piece. It says that Carlson didn’t say “white replacement” then talks about all the rotten people who do say “white replacement”. The difference between it and the CNN thing is that this one explains the differences. No one who reads this article should be confused about Carlson’s statements.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

              Dude, no one is confused about Carlson’s statements.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                How am I supposed to reply to that? “No, I’m not glue, you’re glue and I’m rubber”? I mean, bring an argument to refute the presentation in the Business Insider article.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

                What is the argument you are trying to present here?

                That Carlson is unfairly accused of trafficking in racial grievance?

                If so, that is laughably absurd.Report

            • North in reply to Pinky says:

              I don’t follow Tuck and don’t feel strongly on the subject but if this quote is accurate it seems like he came pretty close to literally saying white replacement so I can see why the fainting couch contingent has taken to their couches.

              “I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term ‘replacement,’ if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate — the voters now casting ballots — with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World but they become hysterical because that’s what’s happening, actually. Let’s just say it. That’s true.”Report

              • Pinky in reply to North says:

                I don’t follow him either, and it means nothing to me if he is or isn’t racist. It means a lot to me if people on these boards can make unfounded accusations of racism and the others don’t respond. See, right now I know that (a) Carlson is a racist , and/or (b) JS is a bad researcher, and/or (c) JS doesn’t prioritize the truth. It’s looking more to me like B and/or C. but if A is true I’ll admit it and criticize him for it.

                Consider the statement: “I want to buy a house in a good neighborhood”. Reasonable without the word “white” dropped into it, racist with that word dropped into it. The person who says that statement may mean it in a racist way, but I wouldn’t say that the statement is dangerously close to literally saying “good white neighborhood”.Report

              • North in reply to Pinky says:

                Sure, now if you could point out a third world country that is majority white that the US is bringing a lot of immigrants in from then I think you’d have a point but, to my knowledge, there isn’t one.

                The Tucker quote I posted from the article is both patently untrue and, if not blatantly racist, it has tiptoed right up to the bleeding edge of being blatantly racist. And, frankly, that ambiguity is part of Tuckers strategy to drive conversation about him. Perhaps he is more Trumpian than I give him credit for. I still don’t think he is going to have any success running for President if he’s dumb enough to try.

                Regardless of all that, Tucker Carlson has very peddled anti-vax nonsense which makes him human scum even if we acquit him entirely of the racism charge.Report

              • Pinky in reply to North says:

                What we’re talking about today isn’t his anti-vaxxiness or scumminess. We’re talking about whether he made a statement about white replacement, and if not, what that says about the people who claim he did.

                As a factual matter, the Democrats are not trying to replace the current-American voters with immigrant voters. Replacement is substitution. As a factual matter, many of the proposed policies of the Democrats would dilute the impact of the current-American voters with immigrant voters. But that also isn’t my point.Report

              • North in reply to Pinky says:

                I’m content with saying that Tucker Carlsons statement was blatantly false and was thinly veiled racism. Like I said before he wasn’t completely overt with it but I can see why the racially tender types took to their outrage mills.Report

              • Pinky in reply to North says:

                Is it fair to accuse someone of racism if he holds to a theory that has a racist analogue? Back to my example, if he wants to buy a house in a good neighborhood, should we consider that some white supremacists want houses in good white neighborhoods and treat that as evidence that he’s a racist? Typically no, but I can imagine the statement in a context where you could tell he meant it racially. But I would be a liar if I said he talked about good white neighborhoods. A listener has room to interpret a statement about good neighborhoods, but there’s no room to interpret a statement about good white neighborhoods. I don’t have the right to take the room for interpretation away from a listener if what I’m saying isn’t true.Report

              • North in reply to Pinky says:

                It is not fair I’d say.

                Now can we identify a third world country that is a major source of immigrants to the US that thus could provide the replacement “new people, more obedient voters” that is majority white in ethnic makeup?Report

              • Pinky in reply to North says:

                If it’s not fair, then why did you just do it by calling Tucker’s comment “thinly veiled racism”? That’s a comment you submitted 2 minutes after saying that it’s unfair to accuse someone of racism in exactly this situation. There are some people here who don’t seem to care if they’re being unfair, but I don’t recall that as a trait of yours.Report

              • North in reply to Pinky says:

                The second, larger, part of my comment was why. Unless we can identify a third world source of immigrants that’s majority white then Carlson’s quoted comment was thinly veiled racism the same as if he’d used the any other descriptive term that could only mean racial minorities while not literally saying racial minorities. Can you identify a major third world source of immigrants to the US that is majority white? I’ve not found one so far.Report

              • North in reply to Pinky says:

                Yes, though in your example there’re multiple interpretations of a good neighborhood; some of which do not include a racial component.

                Can we find multiple interpretations of Tuckers replacement quote, some of which don’t have a racial component? I’m not finding any third world countries that provide major sources of immigrants to the US that’re majority white. Can you?Report

              • Pinky in reply to North says:

                You’re demanding proof of non-racism about a statement that isn’t inherently racist.Report

              • North in reply to Pinky says:

                Not at all. I’m asking for an interpretation that isn’t inherently racist I suppose. Tucker said that Democrats/the left wish to import immigrants from third world countries en masse to replace existing voters. You and I have already agreed that it’s a patently false claim. So far so good.

                The only thing we’re disagreeing with is if there’s any element of racism to it. You raised the example of a person’s statement of good neighborhoods not being a racist term. I agree. Good neighborhoods could mean neighborhoods that are highly walkable, or neighborhoods that have nice parks or neighborhoods that have low traffic. All of these neighborhoods could be considered “good” with no racial component to them.

                Tucker talked about replacing current voters with “with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World”. Can we find a non-racial interpretation of that assertion? Can we identify a large source of third world immigrants to the US that lack a racial distinction from his white audience? I so far have been unable to do so. Therefore, I reason that “new people, more obedient voters from the Third World” is simply a clever plausibly deniable way of asserting replacement by Hispanic, Black or Asian people.Report

              • Pinky in reply to North says:

                That’s like saying any criticism of Obama is racial.Report

              • North in reply to Pinky says:

                I don’t see the parallel.Report

              • Pinky in reply to North says:

                Huh. It’s possible we may be using the term very differently.

                I consider something racist if it’s motivated by race. Do you consider something racist if it happens to result in differing impact across races?Report

              • North in reply to Pinky says:

                Disparate impact is a pretty complicated question so I can’t confidently say yes or no. I will offer that I do not subscribe to Pastor Kendi’s assertion that anything that has a disparate impact is immediately and obviously racist.Report

              • KenB in reply to North says:

                Can we find a non-racial interpretation of that assertion?

                Sure — if Third World means poor and thus much more likely to support a large welfare state and thus more likely to vote Democratic. I mean, he’s not voicing objections to higher immigration from Spain, right?

                I’m not saying there definitely isn’t a racial undertone but it’s not *simply* that and not *necessarily* that. Categorically linking this to “white supremacy” is bringing in your own priors.Report

              • North in reply to KenB says:

                Spain isn’t third world so Tucker is not objecting to immigration from there.

                And perhaps racial undertone is a better term than the “veiled racism” one I used. I think it’s pretty easy to see how the people screaming that it’s racist come to that conclusion considering that the entire category of people Tucker is calling out against consists of various racial minorities in this country.

                And, really, that is Tuckers schtick. Prance as close to that line as he can to delight/enrage his racially motivated fans/anti-fans while creating incentive for everyone who doesn’t fall into those categories to talk about him as they try and parse out if he’s tap danced over the line this time.Report

              • Pinky in reply to North says:

                So you know Lucy’s going to pull the football away, but you’re still trying to kick it? Have liberals tried questioning whether something is explicitly racist before calling it explicitly racist?Report

              • North in reply to Pinky says:

                I don’t pay any mind to Tucker; the only reason I hopped in is you were asking in general.

                As to liberals in general? No, no more than conservatives have thought about whether something is explicitly socialist before calling it explicitly socialist.Report

              • Pinky in reply to North says:

                …and when they do, and it’s not socialist, it makes them look untrustworthy. I prefer the term “statist”, which includes the regulatory impulse. I would argue, however, that socialism is on a continuum whereas racism refers to motive.Report

              • North in reply to Pinky says:

                Rest assured everyone would love to have a magic wand to control the discourse of the left (and the right) in their vast varied chorus of voices… and no one has it so both sides say idiotic things.

                As for statism, it’s probably got better explanatory power but it’s about as exciting to the masses as the word “policy” which is why the right overuses socialism. And now they’ve created an entire generation of people who call themselves socialists because if the right’s against it it must be good.Report

              • KenB in reply to North says:

                >Spain isn’t third world so Tucker is not objecting to immigration from there.

                That’s my point — Spain and Mexico are the essentially the same ethnicity, right?

                For the rest, it seems like you’re doing what I said, calling it racism because you already think he and his supporters are racist, not because of the specifics of what he said about this.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to KenB says:

                “…you already think he and his supporters are racist, not because of the specifics of what he said about this.”

                Yes, this is it exactly.
                We consider Tucker and his followers to be racist based on the entirety of their comments and the history of what and who they support.

                This is called “putting things into context” as opposed to cherry picking selected quotes.Report

              • North in reply to KenB says:

                Yes but immigration from Spain was not what Tucker was calling out. He was calling out immigration from the third world. As to priors? I have none, I make it a policy to pay as little mind to Tucker Carlson as possible.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to North says:

                Everyone here gets that Spanish and Mexican people are as alike as “English” and “American”, right?

                That, for example, the founders of the City of Los Angeles were a mixture of Black people, White people, indigenous people, and various mixtures of each.
                http://www.laalmanac.com/history/hi03c.php

                Asserting that Spanish and Mexican are the same is like saying Tupac Shakur was the same as Prince Charles because they speak English..

                Specific to this subthread, there is a long history of Spanish people as coding white whereas Mexicans code nonwhite.Report

              • KenB in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Asserting that Spanish and Mexican are the same

                Who did that? Not I. All I said was that they’re the same *ethnicity*. Wouldn’t most people from both Spain and Mexico check the “Hispanic” box in the list of race/ethnicity choices? Maybe I’m wrong, let me know.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to KenB says:

                No, they are very much NOT the same ethnicity.

                As I mentioned, English/ American.

                The Spanish colonized Mexico, and intermarried with the indigenous people. Also, Mexico experienced significant immigration from all over.

                So over time, the ethnicity of the people of Mexico diverged from Spain to where in the late 18th century (and even more so now) they are wholly distinct.

                This is why many people object to “Hispanic” which really only means “Spanish speaking”, and also why terms like “Latino” are not entirely accurate since it only means “From Latin America”.

                The root problem is that racism only deals in physical appearance, and subtle cues like language and accents.

                If you had curly hair, a broad nose and dark skin, you were “Negro” and it didn’t matter where your ancestors were from;

                If you have light skin and speak Spanish, you are a white European, whereas if you have dark skin and speak Spanish you are Mexican and therefore lower caste.

                So yeah, when a guy gets all angry over Mexicans but not Spaniards, it is coming from a place of ethnic hostility.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                I think it’s one of those things where you have to phrase it so that it’s praiseworthy and then it’s not racist.

                “Hey guys! There’s an Emerging Democratic Majority due to demographic change in the West! According to trends, whites *FINALLY* become a minority by 2044!!! Isn’t it great?!?!?”

                See? When you talk about the phenomenon as if it’s a good thing, then it’s something that you can talk about.

                It’s when you talk about it as if it’s a bad then, then it’s racist.

                It’s like the conspiracy theory about “The Great Reset”. Believe it or not, there are some people out there who are paranoid enough to believe that the World Economic Forum had a meeting to discuss rebuilding society and the economy in a sustainable way following the COVID-19 pandemic.

                Like, we’re talking *CRAZYPANTS*.

                You just have to know how to phrase it. Like, here’s how Wikipedia describes “The Great Reset“:

                The Great Reset is the name of the 50th annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF), held in June 2020. It brought together high-profile business and political leaders, convened by Charles, Prince of Wales and the WEF, with the theme of rebuilding society and the economy in a sustainable way following the COVID-19 pandemic.

                It’s all about how you phrase it.Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                I’m on record as saying that left liberals saying hateful things about white people is both racist and idiotic considering how they’re all old enough to have seen the demon of hypocrisy devour an ideology far older and more deeply rooted than their facile wokeism.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                I’m not talking about saying *HATEFUL* things about whitx people. I’m talking about saying *TRUE* things about whitx people.

                You can notice this phenomenon but you can only talk about it if it’s good.

                If you talk about it if it’s bad, then it’s racist.

                There should be a term for only being allowed to talk about particular phenomenae when you’re praising them.Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                One can say things that’re both true and hateful and usually the left, when various people on the left indulge in that foolishness, say something that is both.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                Well, there’s this weird phenomenon (perhaps you’ve seen it) where there is this weird undercurrent where something cannot be both True and Racist. Or both True and Sexist. Or both True and Whatever.

                It’s a real time-saver. It allows you to skip over the hard work of finding out whether a proposition is true and get down to the much easier work of determining whether it’s Whatever.

                After you determine that it is *NOT* Whatever, then you can get into the whole T vs. F thing.

                But if you hammer out that it’s fatphobic beforehand? Whammo. False.

                How dare you?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                I hold in my hand two pills, Neo….Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                I have seen it. I don’t subscribe to it.Report

  7. Jesse says:

    As I’ve said before, Donald Trump was the most well-known person to seriously run for President since Eisenhower.

    Tucker may be able to get the hardcore Trumpian base, but he’s not going to get the secular non-college educated low propensity voters that Trump got to turn out because he was on national TV a decade, with rich powerful celebrities telling him how awesome he wasReport

  8. Chip Daniels says:

    It may not be Tucker who is the GOP 2024 nominee, but to assert that he is too ridiculous, too extreme, too incompetent, too racist is to ignore the events of the past 6 years.

    Someone, regardless of how ridiculous and absurd, will win the 2024 nomination.

    And based on this week’s events, we can rule out with absolute certainty anyone who ISN’T absurd and ridiculous.Report

  9. LeeEsq says:

    I think Santis is a better bet for the next Trump if Trump doesn’t run in 2024 for some reason. He is a political figure already and doesn’t come across as “fancy” as Tucker can at times. The Republican press is already praising him for his attempt to swagger through the Pandemic. He has typical Trumpist positions, etc.Report

    • Pinky in reply to LeeEsq says:

      “Typical Trumpist positions” such as? That is to say, if you’re describing De Santis as a possible next Trump, in what way are DeSantis’s positions more like Trump’s than the average Republican candidate?Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

        They aren’t.
        DeSantis has the typical Republican positions, which are identical to the Trump positions.

        If you don’t believe me, just compare his positions to the 2020 Republican party platform.Report

  10. Rufus F. says:

    “Repeat after me: I do solemnly swear…”

    “*Swearing*? Is that what we want?… We want our elected leaders to *swear*?!?”

    “That I will faithfully execute…”

    “Executions?! So, liberals always tell us they’re ‘opposed’ to executions…. But are they really?!?”Report