7

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.

and

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?

  • 4
    "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 '19 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 '19 at 15:55
2

First, allow me to me to dispute the comparison. GK Chesterton was a philosopher and an academic. Whatever one might think about his worldview, his opinions were carefully considered, thoughtfully composed, and thoroughly reasoned. Tucker Carlson is a media pundit, whose job it is to speak ex tempore on a wide variety of topics, often with an eye towards the kind of sensationalized advocacy that draws FOX viewership and drives ratings. With all due respect to Carlson, nothing he has ever said is in the same intellectual league as Chesterton's work.

And yes, please note (for the record) that I personally find Carlson's work repugnant. I see him as an adult man with the intellectual, emotional, and moral standards of a pubescent boy. But this comment aside, I am trying to be respectful.

This isn't to suggest that Carlson is ignorant of the issues or of the philosophical underpinnings of conservatism. Carlson is steeped in the conservative worldview, and part of his skill as an ex tempore speaker is his reflexive grasp of the coarser aspects of conservative philosophy. Just as we can find people on the far left who can talk in endless bullet points about Marxism without any real understanding of Marxist theory, Carlson likely pulls out many of Chesterton's ideas without fully realizing he is doing so, because individual parts of Chesterton's work have become free-floating (unattributed) ideas within the conservative community. That is a normal part of community worldviews: ideas may start at "Chesterton said that...", but over time they progress to "Someone said that..." and eventually end up at "It's true that...", and thus become fixed points of ideology, eschewing the philosophical context they are derived from.

It's unlikely Carlson would delve deeply into the philosophy of Distributism. I'm sure if he were asked to look into it, he would, but he would approach it in a piecemeal "I agree with this; I disagree with that" mode which is consistent with ex tempore speaking, but inconsistent with real philosophical thought. I cannot imagine Carlson spending the weeks or months necessary to get a firm grasp on Chesterton's work, and then returning to give a coherent analysis of it on his show; that is not what Carlson does. If we see Chesterton mirrored in Carlson's speech, it's because Chesterton's ideas are deeply infused with the conservative ideology that Carlson speaks from. I see no sense in reading more into it than that.

| improve this answer | |
  • 3
    Not much of this is responsive to the question. – Keith Payne Mar 26 at 18:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .