Skip to comments.Tucker Carlson Has Sparked the Most Interesting Debate in Conservative Politics
Posted on 01/11/2019 8:13:59 AM PST by ek_hornbeck
Last Wednesday, the conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson started a fire on the right after airing a prolonged monologue on his show that was, in essence, an indictment of American capitalism.
Americas ruling class, Carlson says, are the mercenaries behind the failures of the middle class including sinking marriage rates and the ugliest parts of our financial system. He went on: Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.
He concluded with a demand for a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders dont accelerate the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement.
The monologue was stunning in itself, an incredible moment in which a Fox News host stated that for generations, Republicans have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars. More broadly, though, Carlsons position and the ensuing controversy reveals an ongoing and nearly unsolvable tension in conservative politics about the meaning of populism, a political ideology that Trump campaigned on but Carlson argues he may not truly understand.
(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...
The most obvious points of conflict are over mass immigration: traditionalists oppose it because it changes the character of the nation, fiscal conservatives and neocons support it because it provides an underclass of foreign serfs and peasants to replace uppity American workers. We see the same conflict on the tariff vs. free trade (outsourcing) issue and between America-first vs. nation-building foreign policy.
I thought it was great monologue, and I agree with him.
Part of the reason this country has gone downhill is because of people whose only goal in life is to collect as much money as possible before they pass away. Consequently, just about everything we buy these days is cheap garbage and our quality of life has deteriorated a LOT in the last half century.
Now if we could only find two liberals intelligent enough to “spark a debate” on liberal politics. Right now all we’re getting is liberal retardism.
Globalist corporatism is what Tucker was talking about, not American capitalism.
Huh. I saw Tucker last night and his opening monologue sounded much like the one in this article. But he finished up with the fact that his monologue was sarcasm. Did Tucker give a monologue on Wednesday like this? Or did Vox just not add the sarcasm tag?
Net: godless, amoral capitalism *IS* a problem.
Years ago one Northern argument against slavery was that Southerners just wanted cheap labor now Southerners (more conservative now) argue that Northerners (libs and GOPe) want cheap labor via illegal immigration.
Capitalism will never go away. It is a natural state of business.
Socialism will always die under its own weight wherever it pops up.
The ‘elites’ of both systems are the ones that profit the most from it.
The capitalist system promotes class movement of your own making.
The socialist system locks you into a class and makes you a prisoner of it.........................
As a breakdown of party membership I'd say it is 90% to 10% "cultural" vs. "globalist". Globullists are a tiny fraction of the party but control all the power in the party. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.
As we see liberalism wreaking havoc on families and society.
It’s not capitalism that is the problem but rather globalism. Capitalists who are also Nationalists understand their responsibility towards “the people” and the nation.
The country needs a moral revolution. A market-based economy is a good thing. Private property is a good thing. But a society focused just on consumption of material goods is not a healthy society.
Making it safe for banking.
That’s the goal of both parties. Government Sachs anyone?
Their are citizens that love their stocks and Wall Street more than they love their country. That is fact.
Left unsaid, is the old rule: ‘You can’t legislate morality.’
It has to come from somewhere other than government. In other words, good upbringing.
They have changed their practices to a global business market.
The US is just one small country so we no longer matter to them.
These businesses keep all the benefits, safety, security, stability, of doing businesses from inside the US but they no longer care about the US.
Elected “conservatives” have been far too concerned with giving the business community everything on their wish list over the past four decades. They have not paid nearly enough attention to cultural rot and decay.
Indeed, giving business absolutely EVERYTHING on their wish list is NOT good for the overall health of society.
One does not have to be a flaming Socialist to admit that.
Cultural conservatism is a dead issue right now, because the culture has moved so much, there is little left to conserve.
We need to ROLL BACK much of the changes. We need to be concerned about our own nation more than those who are not of our nation.
An opposing view, from Robert A. Heinlein:
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded here and there, now and then are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.”
“This is known as ‘bad luck’.”
- Robert Heinlein
While I often disagree with Heinlein, there is a large element of truth in his observation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.