A New York Times report shows how Tucker Carlson mainstreamed white nationalism, established a power base at Fox, and fobs himself off as a member of the "elite" who understands the masses
It seems liberals like to use too many words as opposed the right wing that uses way too few. I find the right wing to have learned a great deal about marketing and they use it well to their advantage. They have a very few underlying beliefs on which they keep harping and using strong language, bragadocio style and reference to raw power is what they sell. The lies are enveloped in this emotionality. The power of the Right/GOP is now such that it is useless to expect any factual reference in their mantra.
My main problem, though, is the left/liberal factor as it has its own lies and false belief systems. The Right seems to have a healthy distrust of government agencies where the Left only seems to want bandaid approaches instead of examining the structural issues of power. Recently a man, clearly right leaning, claimed his love for this country. Stopping him bluntly I pointed out that he does not like this country at all but only the ideology we were all taught. This stopped him dead in his tracks as he suddenly saw the difference and thanked me for that insight. This is a lesson both left and right need to examine as both sides live in a state of mythology and so miss the reality that all our needs are actually the same. If we could accomplish this shift in understanding and begin to look at power relationships then maybe we would/could have a meaningful analysis with a platform for the structural changes in power that we really need.
What I think the expose so far shows, especially in today's installment, is that it scarcely matters that it's Tucker Carlson saying it. E.g., there is nothing about him per se that adds cultural capital to the message of the show. He's the anti-Cronkite, in this sense: he could be replaced by someone else tomorrow who, if capable of the basic skills required (to speak somewhat off the cuff and yet reliably reproduce the same points, etc.) could be almost anybody as long as they weren't too much a somebody who signified in tension with the message. What matters is that he is voicing the interior narrative of the audience, telling them that they are the real Americans, that they are the real victims, that they are the greatest and most righteous people. As long as the message is delivered consistently, forcefully and without complications, anybody can be the messenger.
It seems liberals like to use too many words as opposed the right wing that uses way too few. I find the right wing to have learned a great deal about marketing and they use it well to their advantage. They have a very few underlying beliefs on which they keep harping and using strong language, bragadocio style and reference to raw power is what they sell. The lies are enveloped in this emotionality. The power of the Right/GOP is now such that it is useless to expect any factual reference in their mantra.
My main problem, though, is the left/liberal factor as it has its own lies and false belief systems. The Right seems to have a healthy distrust of government agencies where the Left only seems to want bandaid approaches instead of examining the structural issues of power. Recently a man, clearly right leaning, claimed his love for this country. Stopping him bluntly I pointed out that he does not like this country at all but only the ideology we were all taught. This stopped him dead in his tracks as he suddenly saw the difference and thanked me for that insight. This is a lesson both left and right need to examine as both sides live in a state of mythology and so miss the reality that all our needs are actually the same. If we could accomplish this shift in understanding and begin to look at power relationships then maybe we would/could have a meaningful analysis with a platform for the structural changes in power that we really need.
What I think the expose so far shows, especially in today's installment, is that it scarcely matters that it's Tucker Carlson saying it. E.g., there is nothing about him per se that adds cultural capital to the message of the show. He's the anti-Cronkite, in this sense: he could be replaced by someone else tomorrow who, if capable of the basic skills required (to speak somewhat off the cuff and yet reliably reproduce the same points, etc.) could be almost anybody as long as they weren't too much a somebody who signified in tension with the message. What matters is that he is voicing the interior narrative of the audience, telling them that they are the real Americans, that they are the real victims, that they are the greatest and most righteous people. As long as the message is delivered consistently, forcefully and without complications, anybody can be the messenger.