Comments on: American Nationalist Part 1

American Nationalist Part 1

storybored — Sun, 01 May 2022 18:53:24 -0800

How Tucker Carlson Stoked White Fear to Conquer Cable.

Part 2: How Tucker Carlson Reshaped Fox News — and Became Trump's Heir. Part 3: Inside the Apocalyptic Worldview of Tucker Carlson Tonight.

By: Theta States

Theta States — Sun, 01 May 2022 19:08:21 -0800

It never fails to blow my mind that most influential person in USA media is an unapologetic white nationalist. Hell, most of the runners-up for that title of "most influential" all seem to echo this exact same type of fascism. I feel very bad for people I know in the USA, but mostly I just have to ignore what goes on down there and pray they don't bomb more countries while I'm not looking or find new exciting ways to grind trees into cash like Cyrel Sneer.

By: swift

swift — Sun, 01 May 2022 19:30:42 -0800

I imagine Tucker Carlson, in his Maine flannels this morning, reading the piece on himself in the New York Times and texting "that's $3 million in exposure I don't have to pay for" to his soon-to-be-announced campaign manager.

By: potrzebie

potrzebie — Sun, 01 May 2022 19:32:40 -0800

Ya he posted a happy pic on Twitter of himself with the NYT with his face on it. I mean it's not like the NYT doesn't know this is the exact kind of coverage he has wet dreams about. They just...printed it anyway.

By: sjswitzer

sjswitzer — Sun, 01 May 2022 20:02:37 -0800

The other media outlets need to stop referring to and thinking about Fox as a "sister network." They are no such thing at all. But all networks kowtow to capital, some more than others. Regardless, Fox is the worst bar none. The rest are terrible too in their own ways.

By: virago

virago — Sun, 01 May 2022 20:32:12 -0800

For anyone who can't access the first article in the series, here's a free link to it from a subscriber (me). Perhaps other NYT-subscribing MeFites will share free links to the other two articles. The Times provides only five gift links a month (why so stingy? The Post gives 10!) and I don't want to waste all of mine on Tucker. I already have to share a state with the prick, and hear his platitudinous paeans to Maine's working people (even as he showed no compunction about siccing his fans on a working person who had the misfortune of being a freelance photographer on an entirety innocuous assignment for The Times). I'd like to come back on the idea that The Times shouldn't be covering Tucker. This is someone who gave unquestioning support and publicity to an authoritarian foreign leader during said strongman's recent (and victorious) reelection campaign. It would be irresponsible for The Times not to cover Carlson.

By: geoff.

geoff. — Sun, 01 May 2022 20:47:19 -0800

Links without paywall: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 is a multimedia showcase that doesn't work without Javascript. I highly recommend installing one of these plugins and not have to deal with any of this ever again, as sites that bypass paywalls come and go: Bypass Paywalls for Chrome Bypass Paywalls for Firefox

By: JmacDotOrg

JmacDotOrg — Sun, 01 May 2022 20:49:44 -0800

I agree that this was worth covering. The Times published a print version of this series in its Sunday A-section today; I read most of it, and took in the startling graphics. I have always vaguely thought that Carlson was just the latest iteration of the Bill O'Reilly / Sean Hannity thing, and so paid him no more attention than I did them. So, I had no idea what a singular force he's become, and just in the last few years. (I also didn't know that he broadcast from Maine now... sheesh.)

By: Popular Ethics

Popular Ethics — Sun, 01 May 2022 22:28:28 -0800

"new exciting ways to grind trees into cash like Cyrel Sneer" Reaching for the late 80s Canadiana references, nice. I will now always visualize Carlson with a gonzo nose.

By: soundguy99

soundguy99 — Sun, 01 May 2022 23:17:32 -0800

"that's $3 million in exposure I don't have to pay for" to his soon-to-be-announced campaign manager. He's already the power behind the throne, why would he bother going through the hassle and expense of actually running for office? Rush Limbaugh made a bazillion dollars & spent decades steering the Republican Party and the conservative gestalt sitting on his ass in a radio studio, regardless of who was actually in office. He didn't need to be elected to wield enormous power and influence, and neither does Tucker.

By: netowl

netowl — Sun, 01 May 2022 23:29:56 -0800

There's also Last Week Tonight's take. This was before Tucker started directly promoting "replacement" theory, and the really hard-core anti-vaxx BS. It's amazing to think how much of a death toll he has, and how little he seems to care.

By: They sucked his brains out!

They sucked his brains out! — Sun, 01 May 2022 23:35:11 -0800

It's a tough choice for journalists/CBS. Either you don't cover the Nazis, to avoid giving them free media, or you do, and you give them free media. Tough choice.

By: kliuless

kliuless — Mon, 02 May 2022 00:34:09 -0800

What is neo-reaction? - "Or perhaps I should rephrase that question: what would neo-reaction be if it were presented in a more coherent analytic framework? ... Here is a list of propositions, noting that these are an intellectualized summary of a somewhat imagined collective doctrine, and certainly not a statement of my own views:"[1,2,3]

"Culturism" is in general correct, namely that some cultures are better than others. You want to make sure you are ruled by one of the better cultures. In any case, one is operating with a matrix of rule.
The historical ruling cultures for America and Western Europe — two very successful regions — have largely consisted of white men and have reflected the perspectives of white men. This rule and influence continues to work, however, because it is not based on either whiteness or maleness per se. There is a nominal openness to the current version of the system, which fosters competitive balance, yet at the end of the day it is still mostly about the perspectives of white men and one hopes this will continue. By the way, groups which "become white" in their outlooks can be allowed into the ruling circle.
Today there is a growing coalition against the power and influence of (some) white men, designed in part to lower their status and also to redistribute their wealth. This movement may not be directed against whiteness or maleness per se (in fact some of it can be interpreted as an internal coup d'etat within the world of white men), but still it is based on a kind of puking on what made the West successful. And part and parcel of this process is an ongoing increase in immigration to further build up and cement in the new coalition. Furthermore a cult of political correctness makes it very difficult to defend the nature of the old coalition without fear of being called racist; in today's world the actual underlying principles of that coalition cannot be articulated too explicitly. Most of all, if this war against the previous ruling coalition is not stopped, it will do us in.
It is necessary to deconstruct and break down the current dialogue on these issues, and to defeat the cult of political correctness, so that a) traditional rule can be restored, and/or b) a new and more successful form of that rule can be introduced and extended. Along the way, we must realize that calls for egalitarianism, or for that matter democracy, are typically a power play of one potential ruling coalition against another.
Neo-reaction is not in love with Christianity in the abstract, and in fact it fears its radical, redistributive, and egalitarian elements. Neo-reaction is often Darwinian at heart. Nonetheless Christianity-as-we-find-it-in-the-world often has been an important part of traditional ruling coalitions, and thus the thinkers of neo-reaction are often suspicious of the move toward a more secular America, which they view as a kind of phony tolerance.
If you are analyzing political discourse, ask the simple question: is this person puking on the West, the history of the West, and those groups — productive white males — who did so much to make the West successful? The answer to that question is very often more important than anything else which might be said about the contributions under consideration.

By: kliuless

kliuless — Mon, 02 May 2022 01:01:06 -0800

@davidshor: "Large fractions of the American electorate report sympathy for highly authoritarian forms of government, with support being mediated strongly by education level among both white and non-white voters."

By: taz

taz — Mon, 02 May 2022 01:06:50 -0800

[Paywall derail deleted; please take this to Metatalk if you'd like to discuss.]

By: j_curiouser

j_curiouser — Mon, 02 May 2022 01:33:52 -0800

i deeply felt carlson's career was over after stewart's takedown. rarely been more wrong about anything. ok, equally really wrong about trump '16.

By: mathiu

mathiu — Mon, 02 May 2022 01:50:05 -0800

Here's part 3 with a gift-link

By: fortitude25

fortitude25 — Mon, 02 May 2022 04:13:04 -0800

i deeply felt carlson's career was over after stewart's takedown . Yeah, seconded. Meanwhile, Jon Stewart's new show is struggling to draw viewers.

By: gimonca

gimonca — Mon, 02 May 2022 04:53:40 -0800

Who are the advertisers that he makes money with? Is there a boycott? Seems like there could at least be an effort to reduce his funding to oligarch handouts?

By: zenzenobia

zenzenobia — Mon, 02 May 2022 05:25:19 -0800

The money, as I understand it, is mostly from cable company contracts. Since cord cutting is a trend, a streaming Fox channel will give him a nice soft landing. Possibly on a My Pillow.

By: ricochet biscuit

ricochet biscuit — Mon, 02 May 2022 05:26:08 -0800

It never fails to blow my mind that most influential person in USA media is an unapologetic white nationalist. And that this person's resting expression is a baffled squint, like an orangutan inspecting the Magna Carta.

By: eviemath

eviemath — Mon, 02 May 2022 05:37:58 -0800

In an important contrast, however, an orangutan probably has a better understanding of the basic ideas in the Magna Carta, and would only squint at it due to not particularly knowing how to read. Carlson, meanwhile, has the opposite problem.

By: ricochet biscuit

ricochet biscuit — Mon, 02 May 2022 05:39:39 -0800

Merely a simile. I think Ticker here is even smarter than the craftiest orangutan.

By: eviemath

eviemath — Mon, 02 May 2022 05:56:55 -0800

I think there's an important distinction between crafty and smart to be made there. As I understand it (from the Stewart and John Oliver backgrounders), Carlson had sufficient family money to stick with the whole pundit thing until he eventually found a version of it that has been working for him. He seems to have sufficient skill in the sort of backstabby politicking that it takes to get ahead in the modern right wing media ecosystem, but his show's success depends a lot on people in the background at Fox "News", and whenever he has tried to debate actual ideas, before he mastered the whole shtick of not ever getting into a discussion with real, non-straw people with opposing views, he wasn't very good at it. As "smart" is traditionally considered, he's not dumb but he's not that smart either: he doesn't have extensive background knowledge and he's not that quick on his feet in an unplanned debate. Being in media related to public events for his whole career means he probably has a little bit more background knowledge by now than your average person who doesn't especially follow politics, but I've seen no indication that he can synthesize that coherently. All of his rants that I've seen clips of contain some really quite weak to nonexistent or inaccurate logical reasoning. Which, admittedly, is likely not reflective of his own beliefs - it is also my impression that he has a great deal of contempt for his audience and doesn't think that he has to bother providing them with logically plausible arguments (which may be true to some extent, though from extended family members who are fans, there also seems to be an element of knowing the arguments aren't fully sound but appreciating the emotion he conveys and feeling in on a joke against The Libs partly because the arguments are so logically weak (which requires quite a bit of ignoring of or complete unfamiliarity with actual centrist to left-of-center people, assuming that Carlson's contempt is aimed at The Libs and that they are sharing in that with him)). Anyway, that isn't to say that he can't now synthesize a logically coherent understanding from what he knows about the news and world events, but he didn't display much skill at that back when he was trying to be a more straightforward or honest political pundit, so it would have to have been a skill that he picked up in the background as he was developing his current public persona.

By: eviemath

eviemath — Mon, 02 May 2022 06:00:51 -0800

The Trump comparison is probably fairly accurate: he's not all that smart, but he is very good (now, though it took Carlson longer to find it than it did Trump) at his one skill, and has been useful enough to smarter people in the background that he's had the financial and political backing and opportunity to develop a bit of a cult of personality around that one skill, which has now given him a fair amount of power of his own.

By: RonButNotStupid

RonButNotStupid — Mon, 02 May 2022 06:26:04 -0800

Thank you for that analysis, eviemath. It completely answers the "Why Tucker?" questions I had because there's always some part of me who's unable to not think of him as that buffoon wearing a bow tie in the Stewart Crossfire appearance. I think that buffoonish quality also lets him slip under the radar a bit. When he started, it was difficult to not think of him as just the twit they found to replace Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck after their respectively ignominious falls from the Fox pantheon. I distinctly remember thinking "Oh, Fox must really be at the bottom of the barrel if they're giving the guy from Crossfire a show". But as you said, Tucker was in it for the long haul and Fox had the resources to make sure he succeeded.

By: Selena777

Selena777 — Mon, 02 May 2022 06:27:37 -0800

Who are the advertisers that he makes money with? Is there a boycott? There's been a well publicized and fairly effective campaign (by I believe Color of Change and Sleeping Giants) to call out his sponsors and he's lost quite a few, to the point where Fox - perhaps Lachlan Murdoch himself - is making an ideological choice to continue to run his show even if it means they're not fully realizing potential profits from prime time ad slots despite the ratings.

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Mon, 02 May 2022 07:03:15 -0800

I wonder if some of his base could be peeled off by pointing out that he used to be employed by the left-wing, anti-American CNN.

By: Flexagon

Flexagon — Mon, 02 May 2022 07:18:43 -0800

TC was already and always playing the game (of politics and life) at the lowest difficulty setting. Then he doubled down on the easiest, laziest dodge there is—telling lies to people who are already eager to believe them. It's distressing to think there are more than enough of such people to guarantee his success.

By: Abehammerb Lincoln

Abehammerb Lincoln — Mon, 02 May 2022 08:10:40 -0800

I hear a lot about how the other side is afraid. And I truly hope they are and are suffering mightily from it. I hope it gnaws their guts and keeps them awake at night. But they're not afraid, they've always acted like this, they acted like this when they held 100% of the power. What they are is assholes.

By: delfin

delfin — Mon, 02 May 2022 08:24:05 -0800

There was a time when I considered if I could do something like this. I am a writer by trade, and a rather talented one when I put my mind to it. Even in the 90s, it was glaringly evident that an insincere person could rattle off angry, rabble-rousing propaganda and make a rather good living from it whether they actually believed a word of it or not. It would stamp my ticket to any theoretical Hell to participate in something like that... but if the John Birchers of America were going to financially support their favorite authors anyway, could I divert some of that in my direction? A few things stopped me from pursuing that line of inquiry. One, first and foremost, being a predator is bad enough: training and encouraging predators to trod upon the weak and needy is even worse karma. Two, I'd probably have gotten shot ten minutes after recanting... and Three, I'm not strong-willed enough to read off contradictory bullshit and pass the Opus the Farmer test regularly.

By: j_curiouser

j_curiouser — Mon, 02 May 2022 08:43:24 -0800

@eviemath ...he probably has...more knowledge by now than your average person...but I've seen no indication that he can synthesize that coherently. terrific observation. not an especially high bar, but yeah, you and i have superior language skills and complexity of thought. could we say, as trump is "a poor person's idea of a rich person", tuck is "an incurious uneducated person's idea of a smart person*?" i haven't witnessed the show in the presence of his fan club in a while (hi mom & dad & sis & ...), but another phenomena is tuck getting super angry somewhere around the right words. note the moment he prompts the audience for agreement. the nods are delivered on time. as with trump, he has some kind of mesmerizing quality for the fans, be it through some kind of subconcious neuro-linguistic levers or something else. (á la The Mule) *also a racist, fascist, white nationalist.

By: freecellwizard

freecellwizard — Mon, 02 May 2022 08:58:17 -0800

Delfin, Search Party season 4 has a great side plot where Elliott (who is gay) agrees to become a regular on a Fox-like right wing show because $$$$. It's comedic but it addresses that idea of abandoning your morals as a pragmatic personal win.

By: lalochezia

lalochezia — Mon, 02 May 2022 10:40:35 -0800

perhaps Lachlan Murdoch himself - is making an ideological choice to continue to run his show even if it means they're not fully realizing potential profits from prime time ad slots despite the ratings. A short term loss on investment for long term gains; gains in favorable tax structure, regulatory environment, compliant genuflecting politicians of all stripes, plus of course, the personal gratification at seeing the pulping of your enemies (i.e. enemies of of unfettered racialized externality-dispersing capitalism), is always a smart business move.

By: flabdablet

flabdablet — Mon, 02 May 2022 11:03:53 -0800

"You're a millionaire, funded by billionaires" I have such a crush on Rutger Bregman.

By: ricochet biscuit

ricochet biscuit — Mon, 02 May 2022 11:14:38 -0800

he is very good... at his one skill, and has been useful enough to smarter people in the background I am reminded that in mid-2001, before The Tragic Events Of, and before Dennis Miller jumped into the deep end, Miller observed that George W. Bush had the foresight to surround himself with smarter people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut.

By: box

box — Mon, 02 May 2022 11:23:15 -0800

I had to repeatedly stop and take breaks to even make it through part III. Whatever the Times is paying the people put that together, it's not nearly enough. (Also, buried in the notes, I think the composition of the 'Ruling Class' collage is interesting. You get Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, but not Bill. The Squad, plus Cori Bush and Keith Ellison. In addition to a bunch of tech billionaires, the non-politicians include such powerful people as Stephen Colbert, Lena Dunham, Kathy Griffin, and Bill Nye (also LeBron James, Colin Kaepernick, Don Lemon, Joy Reid, and Oprah Winfrey). Last but not least, the Republican Ruling Class members that Tucker mentions most are John Bolton, Jeb Bush, Liz Cheney, James Comey, Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan.)

By: eviemath

eviemath — Mon, 02 May 2022 11:49:46 -0800

Thanks for that link to the Bregman interview, flabdablet - that was priceless! (And further solidifies my opinion, expressed above, or Carlson.)

By: flabdablet

flabdablet — Mon, 02 May 2022 12:03:17 -0800

that was priceless Indeed. That point where you can hear Carlson's brain suddenly go all "wait, what?" as it dawns on him that Bregman has just called him out personally is just .

By: kmartino

kmartino — Mon, 02 May 2022 13:29:57 -0800

I tend to believe, more than religion, more than political party, more than race, more than gender, more than sexuality, more than nationality, you can predict who someone is going to vote for if you can get them to answer one simple question: "Do you watch Fox News nightly?" It's power in political influence is greater than any other media, or source of information. Tucker's befuddled and angry look reflects a large population of people who are angry at the state of the world, and who do not understand why things are they way they are, and are looking for people to blame. That's his audience. It was Trump's too. It's good the NY Times did their research here, but in the end - it won't reach the audience it needs to. They just pissed into the wind, while Tucker got some more influence thru grabbing attention.

By: i used to be someone else

i used to be someone else — Mon, 02 May 2022 13:53:05 -0800

I wonder if some of his base could be peeled off by pointing out that he used to be employed by the left-wing, anti-American CNN. his viewership can't be arsed to call him out on a week-to-week basis, and it's not like the right tends to give a shit about hypocrisy in the first place. carlson's show gives them a full hour's worth of the five-minute hate; why should it matter if it's against eastasia or eurasia? ironic, given how much of that base claims the left is the one with the whole minitrue newspeak shit

By: Gelatin

Gelatin — Mon, 02 May 2022 14:02:33 -0800

Tucker's befuddled and angry look reflects a large population of people who are angry at the state of the world, and who do not understand why things are they way they are, and are looking for people to blame. That's his audience. It was Trump's too. Part of Carl'son's job is also to deflect that blame from the ultra-rich who are actually responsible for much of the state of the world, in ways that go far beyond whatever culture war distraction the right wing noise machine haps picked this week.

By: wittgenstein

wittgenstein — Mon, 02 May 2022 14:19:53 -0800

I have said this in thread after thread, but the Democrats really underestimated the damage Fox could do. I'm not sure what they could have done about it in the 90s - maybe nothing, but now it's certainly too late.

By: subdee

subdee — Mon, 02 May 2022 15:04:58 -0800

You get Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, but not Bill. Because he has a chip on his shoulder about women, and the audience loves it when he goes after the women also.

By: subdee

subdee — Mon, 02 May 2022 15:15:02 -0800

The graphic under "Show Format" showing the shift away from having guests who disagreed / a debate formate, to only having other Fox news commentators whose role is to agree and support the narrative, is really striking. Of course it's because he's a terrible debater and his ideas don't sound nearly as convincing when there's someone else on the show who can sound like a TV debater, like he does, but sound like that while presenting opposite facts and opinions. From the second link: As "Tucker Carlson Tonight" became more toxic to advertisers, it also began featuring fewer guests who disagreed with the host, and more guests who simply echoed or amplified Mr. Carlson's own message. It wasn't just that liberals didn't want to debate him, though some now refused to appear on the show, as Mr. Carlson complained during a Fox appearance last summer; Fox was learning that its audience didn't necessarily like hearing from the other side. "From my discussions with Fox News bookers, my takeaway is that they've made the judgment that they just don't do debate segments anymore," said Richard Goodstein, a Democratic lobbyist and campaign adviser who appeared regularly on Mr. Carlson's show until the summer of 2020. It's the same phenomenon from the post about twitter bots, who found (much more on the Right than on the Left) a close-knit network effect of like minded people echoing and amplifying each other's opinions. Also appreciated all the juxtapositions between Tucker Carlson's segments about how they "want to shut you up" and all the times he personally threatened other FOX employees who spoke out against something he said on his show, even when they said it to HR and not to him, or commented without naming him. Who is it that wants to shut out the other voices, again?

By: subdee

subdee — Mon, 02 May 2022 15:25:02 -0800

My dad, the tankie, likes to repeat the line that the cure to bad speech is more speech. Don't repress the speech, show all of it. Good speech will win out when all speech is aired. But that's not the format of the show... (TBF, it's probably not the format of a lot of shows on the left or that are focused on straightforward policy reporting, either. Like on Newsy, most of the segments are filmed from the position that of course the government should be multicultural and work to benefit all the constituents, and here is a new government program and what it is trying to do and what the experts have to say about it. They don't have people on just to show the other side of that position, that the government shouldn't be running programs based on science and expert analysis to increase people's wellbeing.) In other words it's not like Tucker Carlson is obligated to give space on his own show to the opposite side. It's just a bit hypocritical, but no one cares about of course. I think the Russian section in the third article (the slideshow) is weak, by the way, and the longform article talking about the links between Tucker Carlson and Viktor Orban (and his dad getting hired as a consultant for the Orban government) is much stronger. It's insinuating in that NYT way, but I think it's worse to insinuate when you can't fully back it up. There's much more to the story there probably, especially the link with his alt-right edgy writer Naff.

By: storybored

storybored — Mon, 02 May 2022 17:16:26 -0800

There's been a well publicized and fairly effective campaign (by I believe Color of Change and Sleeping Giants) to call out his sponsors and he's lost quite a few, to the point where Fox - perhaps Lachlan Murdoch himself - is making an ideological choice to continue to run his show One of the surprising things I learned from the articles: "Blue-chip advertisers would never return to the show in force. But thanks in part to the large audiences he could provide for those advertisers who remained, and the premium prices Fox could charge them, Mr. Carlson's ad revenue began to recover. Every year since 2018, "Tucker Carlson Tonight" has brought more annual ad revenue to Fox than any other show, according to estimates by iSpot. Last May, after promoting the white supremacist "replacement" theory, Mr. Carlson had half as many advertisers as in December 2018 but brought in almost twice as much money."

By: subdee

subdee — Mon, 02 May 2022 19:27:45 -0800

The one thing I gotta say, the repeated line "they don't care about you" has some kernal of truth to it. I don't think most politicians or policy makers who live in coastal places really care about the middle of the country. Look at what's happening with radioactive hydrofracking waste in Ohio. Or the industrial ghost towns and bad water in Michigan. Or all the shantytowns in Texas... Or for that matter, all the Black youth killed by policeman who keep their jobs afterward. I mean, it's a truism that most politicians don't really care and they just want to put their name on things and look good. You can't convince me that Tucker Carlson cares, when he's killing people by repeating the COVID lies when he definitely knows better. But "the politicians don't care about you" and "the rich don't care about you" is a line you hear from everyone, all sides of the political spectrum. I can see why it would have power.

By: zenzenobia

zenzenobia — Mon, 02 May 2022 20:03:31 -0800

.....though I'm one of the "they" and, like a lot of us, live about as far from the ocean as it gets. We are everywhere and so are those jerk faces. (I mean, the guy lives in Maine, apparently?)

By: flabdablet

flabdablet — Mon, 02 May 2022 20:37:15 -0800

"the politicians don't care about you" and "the rich don't care about you" is a line you hear from everyone, all sides of the political spectrum In my experience, the painting of all politicians as equally useless is absolutely a right wing trope, as is deliberate obfuscation of who the actual wealthy are under a thick layer of confected culture war fury against "elites".

By: subdee

subdee — Mon, 02 May 2022 21:01:17 -0800

Right wing trope maybe, but pervasive. I hear it all the time from my husband, the Bernie supporter, and his friends. (Not arguing this isn't the deliberate Right strategy tho, I agree that it is. But it's also a lot of people's actual experience/interpretation, in an understanding the global rise of populism kind of way.)

By: flabdablet

flabdablet — Mon, 02 May 2022 21:18:20 -0800

Far far more common for it to be a matter of interpretation rather than experience, because propaganda works and cynicism is a fashionable way to ape worldliness, especially among the young. When somebody expresses that opinion to me in personal face to face conversation, my usual response is to ask them which politician they most recently had personal dealings with. Nine times out of ten the answer is "none". And in those cases where the impression of uselessness is indeed based on direct personal experience and the politician in question has indeed revealed themselves as a time serving empty suit, nine times out of ten they'll have been on the Right - if not of the generally accepted political divide, then certainly of their own party. Some of this is undoubtedly due to the circles I move in myself; I don't spend a lot of time rubbing shoulders with the kind of person whose measure of the usefulness of a politician is their degree of willingness to be and stay bought.

By: The_Vegetables

The_Vegetables — Tue, 03 May 2022 07:48:23 -0800

In my experience, the painting of all politicians as equally useless is absolutely a right wing trope, as is deliberate obfuscation of who the actual wealthy are under a thick layer of confected culture war fury against "elites". I don't get why people push back so much on this. Is California better on any local issues, or just tent-pole national issues? New York? If they are so much better, then why did they both just lose a congressional seat? NYC is financial capital of the US and California is the tech capital. Shouldn't they be welcoming? I'm not saying adding congressional seats means Florida is better, but the differences are smaller than one might imagine. At the federal level, they don't care. The middle of America gets highways and schools for federal funding - anything else is peanuts. Is that really all that is needed?

By: zenzenobia

zenzenobia — Tue, 03 May 2022 09:47:34 -0800

The neoliberal project was to turn government away from providing a safety net and commonly-shared institutions toward the support of growing business enterprises and wealth. The messaging was "individuals are responsible for themselves, there's no such thing as society, markets will figure it out." When you have been told your whole life you're responsible for yourself and the remaining social welfare programs are designed to be shitty by privatizing bits of it (this AI program means you won't need staff, give us your money) or starved (we have a system and the people in it care, but they are doing eight people's jobs and can't do it well and burn out) you are inclined to think "they" don't care about you. But the question is how you understand who "they" are and why these systems have broken down. Tucker's "they" tends to include anyone with a college education or left-wing leanings, all of whom are designated elite no matter how powerless they are.

By: Oyéah

Oyéah — Tue, 03 May 2022 13:50:47 -0800

I have never watched (expletive,) utter a word, never heard him.

By: flabdablet

flabdablet — Tue, 03 May 2022 18:48:26 -0800

I don't get why people push back so much on this. I push back on it because "no matter who you vote for, a politician always gets in" is a meme whose voter turnout suppression effect skews young, and skewing the vote older also skews it Right. I perceive no need to help those vicious unprincipled gerrymandering fucks perpetrate and perpetuate the very electoral theft they never tire of accusing the Left of engineering. There is a qualitative difference between the two wings of the US Permanent Corporate Power Party, in that the Democratic wing is the only one that has a Left faction. The only way to empower that faction is to vote for it where available and hold your nose and vote Democratic wherever it isn't. And the only way to get it available in more places is to engage young people in discussion of actual political ideas, not to spread cynical disinformation designed specifically to make them give up expecting and actively demanding better representation. Fucker Carlson understands this instinctively, which is why he devotes as much time as he does to painting AOC as a member of an uncaring, out of touch elite. Nothing scares a right wing carrion feeder worse than a visibly principled, well organised, energetic, effective young leftist apart from a visibly principled, well organised, energetic, effective young leftist woman.

By: flabdablet

flabdablet — Tue, 03 May 2022 20:45:02 -0800

I have never watched (expletive,) utter a word, never heard him. I recommend seeking out a few clips of his work on YouTube. There's a pleasure to be had from this activity akin to that of picking out and sniffing at the cheesy bits under the corners of one's own toenails.