There’s no defending Tucker Carlson

There comes a point when a political commentary brand ceases to be a heterodox platform and descends into a poison in the body politic and an open electoral liability. For Tucker Carlson, that Rubicon was crossed years ago.In February 2024, Carlson traveled to Moscow for an over-two-hour puff-piece interview with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, and recorded himself fawning over a Russian supermarket, insinuating that Russia’s oligarchic, postcommunist trash heap of an economy is superior to free-market capitalism. In September of that year, Carlson interviewed pseudo-amateur historian Darryl Cooper, praising him as “America’s best and most honest popular historian.”Cooper argued, among other things, that Winston Churchill was the real villain of World War II, the Holocaust was simply caused by Germany’s inability to manage conquered populations, and that the Nuremberg Trials were essentially a “sacrificial ritual” for the modern international order. Carlson offered no serious pushback. Carlson has engaged in Hitler and World War II revisionism several times since, culminating in his thorough and embarrassing beatdown at the hands of former British MP and Cabinet official Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg last week. Carlson attempted to push his familiar line: Why should Britain care about standing up to Russian aggression when it faces domestic decline? He went so far as to challenge the necessity of Britain fighting World War II in the first place, asking whether the United Kingdom was truly better off for resisting the Nazis.Rees-Mogg, hardly a liberal internationalist, simply and methodically dismantled Carlson’s arguments. He argued the obvious historical truth that the U.K. fought a moral war for its own survival against an authoritarian menace that would have eventually invaded anyway.When Rees-Mogg pointed out that without resisting Hitler, “we’d be speaking German,” Carlson sneered, “Who cares?” It was a devastating moment. It proved that Carlson’s worldview is not a principled, noninterventionist critique of foreign policy. It is a cheap, edgelord moral equivalence that cannot distinguish between good and evil. As Rees-Mogg (generously) observed, Carlson was “verging on defending Hitler.”If this sounds like common sense, congratulations. You aren’t insane, or worse. Despite all of the flaws of modern Britain, from the mass importation of Muslims and the widespread rape and societal degradation that predictably followed, to authoritarian speech laws, it is a far freer and infinitely more moral society than Nazi Germany. You can criticize the decisions of French leaders from Charles de Gaulle to Emmanuel Macron, but their (many) sins pale in comparison to those of the Third Reich and its Vichy France puppets. It turns out you can criticize Western governments, something that would get you killed both in 1940s authoritarian states as well as modern dictatorships, without relitigating World War II.There is an unholy political instinct on the populist fringes where the same figures eager to sanitize Putin’s actions in Ukraine are now attempting to soft-pedal the history of Adolf Hitler. My friend and colleague Andrew Donaldson likes to call this the “Molotov-Ribbentrop Party.” The term is perfect for Carlson and his ilk, as he not only excuses Russian imperialism and massages the Nazis, but also, due to his obsession with the state of Israel, praises the modern-day Islamo-fascists in Iran and Qatar.TUCKER CARLSON QUESTIONS IF BRITAIN SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT IN WW2: ‘IS THE UK BETTER OFF?’This brings us to Vice President JD Vance and the broader postliberal Right. Up to now, certain parts of the populist movement have treated Carlson as a political kingmaker who could validate their ideas to millions of disaffected voters. Insomuch as this was ever the case, it certainly is not now. While echo chambers on X or Rumble may praise Carlson’s provocative takes and conspiracism, arguing that nations should bow to invasion and that the wrong side won the Second World War is radioactively toxic slop, electorally. Hitler, rightly, remains the worst-polling historical figure in the United States.The best time to kick Carlson to the curb was several years ago when he abandoned free-market principles in favor of Bernie Sanders-style leftist populism. The second-best time was after he began his attempts to sanitize Hitler over two years ago. The third-best time was right before Kevin Roberts of Heritage Foundation launched his ill-advised defense of Carlson last year, and the fourth-best time is right now. Vance and the postliberals would be wise to listen to the vice president’s (former) friend, bestselling author Rod Dreher, and realize who and what Carlson has become. Enough is enough.Brady Leonard (@bradyleonard) is a writer, musician, and host of The No Gimmicks Podcast.