In a recent monologue Tucker Carlson sparked a serious discussion among conservatives about the degree to which capitalism is good for America. He said things like

What kind of country do you want to live in? A fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don’t accelerate the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement. A country you might recognize when you’re old.


Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.

Beyond the debate about whether he was right, some conservatives have made comparisons between Carlson's economic views and those of distributists like G. K. Chesterton. Distributism is a conservative (often Catholic) alternative to socialism and radical free enterprise capitalism which emphasizes personal responsibility and property ownership for the working classes. Influential conservative blog theImaginativeConservative.com featured an article comparing Carlson to Chesterton saying

Despite being a century apart, both Mr. Carlson and Chesterton address the same ideas that threaten society: materialism, imperialism, feminism, and progressivism...

Rather than being condemned as a manipulative populist feeding the people’s paranoia, Mr. Carlson should be commended for voicing these concerns and putting them on the forefront and reviving optimism and humanity of distributism

Meanwhile, conservative talk show host Mike Church also saw distributism as very close to Carlson's viewpoint saying

You and I should pray those Ave Maria’s for Tucker’s conversion to The One True Faith; what an apostle for subsidiarity, solidarity and oh yeah, Distributism he will make.

Has Carlson ever spoken on distributism as an economic idea? Does he already see himself as in line with distributist thinkers, or does he see some flaw separating his ideas from theirs?

  • 2
    "Despite being a century apart, both Mr. Carlson and Chesterton address the same ideas that threaten society: materialism, imperialism, feminism, and progressivism" That's a pretty weird claim. This particular monologue did not address feminism or progressivism at all, and also neither of those ideas are a threat to society. Not to mention that it's kind of inflammatory to claim that they are threats. – John Jan 18 at 23:19
  • @John Right or wrong, Carlson's monologe is somewhat hostile to feminism "Now, before you applaud this as a victory for feminism, consider the effects. Study after study has shown that when men make less than women, women generally don’t want to marry them. Maybe they should want to marry them, but they don’t. Over big populations, this causes a drop in marriage, a spike in out-of-wedlock births, and all the familiar disasters that inevitably follow -- more drug and alcohol abuse, higher incarceration rates, fewer families formed in the next generation." – lazarusL Jan 22 at 15:55

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .