In his interview with the Editor-in-Chief of The Economist, Carlson allegedly offers a masterclass — at the bare minimum — in how to respond to what come across as not only archaic opinions but downright laughable ones.
But Carlson’s framing throughout this interview (and his broader pivot on Israel) should be understood for what it is: a protection of the American imperial project.
Key in this part of the interview is not just how Carlson pushes back against the propaganda of “Israel has the right to exist,” but that we clearly see his worldview, and thus his political project: to continue to uphold the supremacy of “Western civilization.” Israel, in this framing, becomes the aberration — not the landing point, not even the symptom.
But Israel is not an aberration; it is the culmination.
Israel is the culmination of a Western colonial agenda that has always sought power, profit and resources through the degradation of the human body — whether through the indignities of poverty, hunger or mass murder.
As I say in the video above (which is far from exhaustive) I can appreciate many of his interjections — where he makes them and to whom he directs them — but that does not take away from the fact that it is people like him who are stepping in to construct the “alternative” narrative in the mainstream. People who are violently anti-immigrant, pro-American violence at home and abroad — just done “right.” His worldview includes the ‘great replacement theory’, the preservation of White civilization (he has repeatedly discussed the ridiculous claim of ‘white genocide’) and the ridding of his ‘homeland’ of specific types of immigrants and refugees. His adulation of Russia is his belief in its
He is a funnel into an ideology that still rests on Western (white) chauvinism.
And I don’t blame people for listening to him. I blame the intentional failure of every part of our system in this country to push back against this because they were too invested in the annihilation of an entire people.
It is also important to note who is allowed to become the critic — and who is not.
Ta-Nehisi Coates, when asked by ABC anchor Tony Dokoupil (a Zionist whose children live in Israel) whether he believed Israel had the right to exist, gave a clear and succinct answer that condemned the entire Israeli project and connected it to the violence of the American project. Coates, in his response that no state has a right to exist and that Israel already does exist making the question a moot question, indicts the system of Israeli apartheid, occupation and genocide explicitly. And that’s exactly why following this interview, he was not meaningfully engaged again in mainstream news after that.
Tucker Carlson’s critique upholds American myths and power — and can be safely dismissed as right-wing fodder.
Coates’ critique doesn’t and cannot.
