Post Left Whitewashing of Tucker Carlson's Racism Uses MSNBC Playbook
Members of a faux-progressive ideological cohort are copying the liberal program used to launder Bush's reputation to excuse the Fox host
Allies of Tucker Carlson are working hard to distract the public from the Fox News host’s culpability in spreading racist conspiracy theories, adopting the same tactics they sneer at from liberals.
In the wake of the Buffalo massacre, where white supremacist Payton Gendron murdered 10 people in a racist attack, Carlson has come under fire for hyping the same Great Replacement conspiracy theory the shooter cited in his manifesto. The two men used nearly identical language to describe the topic, putting Carlson in the hot seat.
Now, five days after the shooting, a competing narrative is being pushed. According to certain figures in the fringe post-left conservative movement, the issue is not that Carlson referred to the conspiracy—it’s that he did so in response to Democrats and other liberals bringing it up first.
Their argument claims that because Democrats and liberals have noted in the past that a changing demographic electorate could pay dividends for the party, Carlson’s racist rhetoric around immigration and warnings of racial replacement are simply reactive. It’s a deceitful argument and blame-shifting that allows Carlson and his right-wing allies to sail above the controversy, and has one goal: changing the conversation from Carlson to the dishonest semantics of “who started it.”
Social media influencer Glenn Greenwald was, perhaps unsurprisingly, among the first to deploy the tactic. “The Democrats and their leading strategics for years have been arguing that immigration will change the demographic make-up of the country—by replacing conservative voters with more liberals ones,” he tweeted, “and that this will benefit them politically.” Conspiracy theorist Jimmy Dore told his audience that the Great Replacement has been pushed by the Clintons, not Carlson. And The Hill’s Briahna Joy Gray said that Carlson, who is “fastidiously race neutral” with his language, was right about the fundamentals of the conspiracy with respect to the Democratic embrace of demographic change.
Their aim is clear—to thoroughly water down and whitewash the reality of the American right. If it sounds familiar, it should, because it’s exactly what liberal media figures, primarily on MSNBC, have been doing for George W. Bush for years.
A real accounting of Bush’s time in office would make the former president a pariah, at least in left-of-center circles (one hopes). But liberal commentators like Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O’Donnell instead did the opposite, making Bush out to be a cuddly statesman type. The Trump era provided the opportunity for folding the right-wing pundits who hyped up the war and the officials who waged it back into polite society. Just look at MSNBC superstar Nicolle Wallace, who served in the Bush White House press office.
It all gets a bit confusing for the average viewer. With no one there to remember exactly what was done and when—by, in other words, taking the same obfuscation strategy used by Carlson’s ally to confuse the issue—liberals made sure that the former president’s image was ready for rehab. It’s worked, today Democrats love Bush and look back on him fondly.
Comparing the post left with their liberal counterparts is antagonistic, to be sure. There are few people they hate more. But the right-wing laundering approach is virtually indistinguishable. All that’s changed is who’s in power on the right, and who on the liberal-left are willing to help conservatives dissemble about their real beliefs and sell themselves as respectable, serious commentators. Same old story.
Earlier this week I hosted a panel discussion on Carlson’s shared ideology with the shooter and the way commentators like Greenwald are running defense for him.
And today, I talked to journalist Walker Bragman about the George W. Bush nostalgia machine.
If you would like to support my work, please consider a paid subscription
Find me on Twitter and Facebook
Email me at eoinhiggins@gmail.com
This is a real stretch.
High immigration is good for a a country with a booming economy and jobs (new Dutch Republic, 1800s USA, new unified Germany, etc) and it is terrible for one with a crumbling economy or extreme internal problems. High immigration could have massively helped the USSR after the population stagnation in the Stalin years. Europe has been in a migrant crisis for a decade now and it has caused mass social unrest, economic woes, and government destabilization in places like Sweden, UK, France, etc. It was one of the primary causes of Brexit. You even have historic examples like Rome where rampant immigration in a society which could not afford it contributed to their downfall. The USA has clearly been in a "fall of Rome" type scenario for a while but it's clearly closer to a manufactured demolition or coup rather than it is an organic decline.
Leaders of countries have used this fact to destabilize and undermine the authority of other rival countries. Belarus forcing migrants from the middle east into Poland's border is a recent one. Poland has been struggling economically for years and many Polish MPs are critical for the EU for basically forcing them to leave their borders wide open. If the rate of immigration exceeds what a country can handle, then those responsible are encouraging a hostile scenario.
I watched a few videos about this last week and Briahna was the only one who actually had a rational and nuanced take on the topic. She provided historical context on the anti-immigration and pro-discrimination society most of the US was for the majority of the last 100 years. While also pointing out that whats he saying actually has truth to it - it could just be perceived as insensitive by certain demographics or inflammatory to others. People are being replaced - the billionaires in society just got away with the largest wealth transfer in world history. It's class war not just in one nation, but all over the globe. And it's pretty clear that the rampant immigration policy in the US from DHS is intentional - they want to destabilize all local authority, so the corporatism can consolidate all power and bleed everyone else out. One of many tactics which is working great for them.
Being hysterical (which most talking heads have been over this) over some words which could have been said slightly better isn't helping anyone. Screaming about media manufactured "racism" or "fascism" for 4 years makes people lose their minds, and they wind up electing someone who is actually a segregationist and implements actually fascist policies. It can and should be called out when it occurs, but stretching just waters it and down and it ends up losing all meaning.
It was ironic this week waiting for Ilhan Omar to scream about the US military intervening in Somalia this week right after the election. Which was basically her call to fame for the last x years. But hearing crickets. Why's that? Because it's fake outrage. While the "anti-war progressives" (same ones cheering another $40bil in contracts for Raytheon probably) are busy REEEEEing about Tucker Carlson dogwhistles, the military industrial complex invades yet another third world country and they don't have a fucking clue. It's amazing how easy it is to dupe people nowadays.