He said it during his interview with Mike Huckabee, a while ago: “Can you feel the resentment? Because it’s real.” Of course, resentment exists in every society and is based on different factors. But, when it comes to Carlson, I would argue that he nurtures it, feeds on it, exploits it. It has been the emotion he has tapped into for years, fueling his rise in power.

Guilty, until proven innocent

During his interview with Mike Huckabee, Carlson fired one accusation after another about Israel. The American ambassador was forced to respond to each and every one of them, which Ben Sales referred to as an endless game of Whac-A-Mole. And, as was shown, most of what Carlson argued was baseless. It is the hallmark of the conspiracy theorist. Instead of offering sound evidence, the conspiracy theorist simply lobs accusations and forces the object of his ire to defend himself.

When it comes to Israel, Carlson continues to push the boundaries further and further. He suggested DNA testing for Israeli Jews; he argued that Mossad operatives had been arrested in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, leading to the latter even refuting his claims; he suggested that Charlie Kirk had been assassinated by Israel, without offering any evidence; he claims that Christians are persecuted by the State of Israel, again without offering evidence; he recently called Israel one of the ugliest countries in the world, that had not contributed anything beautiful, since 1948 – there is a strong and concise rebuttal offered by an Egyptian man, who had studied in Beirut which easily refutes Carlson’s baseless claims.

This is Carlson’s modus operandi. He never has to offer any evidence, he simply speculates and accuses. It forces the other to constantly defend himself. But this is not the first time he has done this.

In the past, he railed against COVID-19 measures, arguing that the pandemic was not nearly as severe as assumed. As his evidence, he presented two American doctors, who claimed that the pandemic was relatively benign. But in 2023 HuffPost published some of his chat messages with fellow conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who had been on trial for his baseless theories about the Sandy Hook school shooting. As a consequence of the court case, Alex Jones’ phone and its contents were made available to the plaintiff’s attorney. It was shown that both Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson had initially taken the pandemic seriously, with Carlson even trying to persuade President Donald Trump to take more stringent measures. When that did not happen, both Jones and Carlson made an about-face and started railing against the pandemic.

Another example would be his claim that the 2021 Capitol attack was a false flag operation, carried out by undercover FBI agents in the crowd. Another conspiracy theory, while the involvement of far-right organizations such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers was documented. But, again, Carlson operated according to the profile of the conspiracy theorist. He asks numerous questions, sows doubt, and makes unfounded claims. It shows that he is not a journalist either, despite presenting himself as one.

Platforming is not journalism

His good friend Megyn Kelly once told him that she did not want to platform Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was why she did not want to interview him. After all her years in the business, Kelly still does not understand what journalism is, apparently. She should have interviewed Netanyahu – assuming he would have accepted the invitation – what exactly is wrong with that? If she had, she could have done her homework, reviewed his rhetoric, his policies, and then scrutinize them. She could have asked him tough questions, there was no reason for her to placate him and ask him questions that would be to his benefit. But this remark alone shows that Kelly, Carlson or Candace Owens, run political platforms. They can do this, of course, there is freedom of speech, which in the United States is arguably even more liberal than anywhere else in the Western world. But they are political activists, not journalists, as is shown by the fact that they apply a critical attitude when they interview people they detest – Carlson interviewing Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee would be good examples – while providing uncritical platforms to people they approve of – Carlson interviewing Darryl Cooper, Ian Carroll, Matt Walsh or Joe Kent.

Other examples of platforming have been provided by Carlson, when he interviewed Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian or Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani. In each of these cases, Carlson provided his guests with platforms to explain themselves, without critically questioning any of their statements. That is not journalism, it is marketing.

Another favored tactic by Carlson is his constant disclaimers to prove that his views are not extreme. He inserts these into every discussion he has on his show. In general, Carlson uses hollow statements, such as that he cannot be a bigot, because his Christian religion prohibits it; or that he likes Jews and is moderate when it comes to Israel. But these remarks are the necessary disclaimers, a shield offered against the accusation that inevitably follows when he immediately launches into tirades and hurls invectives. Clever, but flimsy.

Apart from his anti-Israel rhetoric, he applies it in other instances, too. The example I will use is his recent conversation with Matt Walsh about Native Americans.

I really like you, but …

A video of the abovementioned conversation is published on YouTube on the Tucker Carlson Network. You can watch it yourself, but the comments made about Native Americans follow the same playbook.

During the conversation, Walsh ventured into the character of the United States and claimed that the label “Native Americans” should be reclaimed. Walsh and Carlson both stated that they loved Native Americans and their history and culture. It was fascinating even. This is the disclaimer being offered, the prelude that provides cover for the real message.

Walsh took the lead. He argued that Native Americans are not native to the United States at all, because the country was built by overwhelmingly white people of European descent. Therefore, Matt Walsh is a Native American – he tried to strengthen his argument by stating that a Comanche is native to Comanchería. Walsh continued, by citing evidence that the ancestors of Native Americans had migrated to the Americas from Asia. And he concluded by arguing that before Europeans had made their way to the Americas, Native Americans had slaughtered each other, conquered each other, raped each other’s women, and forced each other into slavery. This was the extent of Walsh’s history lesson. Carlson, as expected, simply praised Walsh as an intellectual who had contributed much to right-wing politics.

First of all, it is odd that Walsh feels the need to reclaim the term “Native American,” because the various aboriginal peoples of the United States did not invent this term in the first place. They usually refer to themselves by their own names – for instance, the Comanche call themselves Numunuu – or even by the collective term “American Indian.” The reason Native American was created in the twentieth century, was to introduce a term that was more accurate than the term Indian, which was also used in a derogatory way. Of  course, the term is not perfect, but neither is Mizrahi Jew. Used to denote Jews from the Middle East and North Africa, the latter is not exactly east of Israel or Europe. Moreover, a number of Jews from the region would prefer the term Sephardic.

Secondly, if Comanches are not “native” to the United States, because they were not part of the country created in 1776 nor of the ethnic background of those who established it, the same can be said of many white Americans. Can all of them trace their ancestry to the people who fought the Revolutionary War? Moreover, in the nineteenth century nativists existed too, yet they tried to exclude other whites as foreigners, simply because they were Catholic.

Thirdly, there is no problem with engaging in debate about the complex history of the different peoples of North America. A vast scholarship has been produced and continues to be expanded, full of debates and different angles. To return to the Comanches, historian Pekka Hämäläinen refers to Comanche and Ute slave raids against Apaches in the eighteenth century in his book Comanche Empire; wars between different tribes, for instance over resources, did occur. Tribes could be sedentary, nomadic or a combination of both. In his book Theater of a Separate War Thomas W. Cutrer analyzes the military campaigns of the American Civil War west of the Mississippi River. He describes the involvement of Native Americans as well and the reasons why some supported the Confederacy, others the Union, and still others tried to remain out of the conflict all together. For instance, Cutrer explains strong Cherokee support for the Confederacy as originating in slave ownership, as well as grievances over the Trail of Tears.

On the topic of slavery, Walsh ignores the history of Indian enslavement in North America. Historian Andrés Résendez discusses this topic in his book The Other Slavery. There he points to the fact that colonial Americans in Virginia and Georgia actually had Native American slaves, before these were eclipsed and replaced by Africans; that Spanish colonials and Mexicans engaged in the enslavement of Indians and moved on to use other systems, such as debt peonage; and that nineteenth-century Americans who moved into the West could be either outraged by Indian enslavement or actively partook in the process.

Finally, Comanchería, the example used by Walsh, did not expand into the United States, it was the other way around, of course. Comanches would become American citizens and have contributed to American society, for instance its armed forces. An example is provided by historian William C. Meadows in his book Comanche Code Talkers of World War II, which describes the contributions made by Comanches to the war effort in Europe.

These examples show that Native American history is complex. Discussing it has obvious merit, but that is not what interests Walsh and Carlson. Instead, the comments made by Walsh deliberately reduce Native American history to a story of slaughter, rape, and slavery, which is completely devoid of nuance. But the necessary disclaimer offered by Carlson and Walsh is meant to deflect the inevitable criticism of their anti-Native American bias; and Carlson makes use of similar disclaimers when he assails Israel.

A modern version of Karl Lueger

Antisemitism was once coined the “socialism of fools.” I would argue that this is exactly what Carlson knows and he uses it to his advantage. He knows how persistent and enduring antisemitism has been throughout the ages and how potent its toxic message can be in politics. In fact, I would argue that he is a modern echo of Karl Lueger.

When it comes to the nineteenth-century Austrian politician, some have offered arguments that he was not an antisemite. The evidence presented is that Lueger had a few Jewish friends whom he treated well and the fact that Stefan Zweig even called him decent, despite his vitriolic rhetoric – though, Zweig’s views were inherently nostalgic, written in reflection upon a past that preceded the Second World War. But that is the same weak argument applied by far-left activists who use antisemitic rhetoric when referring to Israel, by pointing to their colleagues of Jewish Voice for Peace to absolve themselves of the accusation. The fact that they associate with a few anti-Zionist Jews does not prove that they are not antisemitic; rather, it proves that these Jews are the exception to the rule.

Karl Lueger, as has been demonstrated by historians, knew very well how to tap into feelings of resentment among Christian lower classes, by blaming Jews for their position in society. Lueger built his base around this sentiment, by tapping into resentment and harnessing it. He railed against Jews endlessly, blaming them for every ill in Viennese society. Because of his antisemitic and anti-Czech sentiments, the Habsburg Empire repeatedly dissolved the Viennese city council and called for new elections; Lueger won every time. In fact, it was Lueger’s antisemitic platform that made Theodor Herzl realize that Jews were in danger across Europe, as explained by Shlomo Avineri in his book Herzl. All of these sentiments are echoed again today, though usually the word “Zionist” is applied to evade the accusation of antisemitism.

If the horseshoe fits…

Tucker Carlson, of course, is a far-right agitator. He is not simply right-wing, his rhetoric exposes his far-right tendencies. And Carlson, just as Lueger, does the same thing. He keeps saying that he has Jewish friends and that he is not an antisemite – well, Richard Wagner had Jewish friends, too. But that does not excuse him of his antisemitic behavior. Not surprisingly, Carlson has managed to use a scapegoat that even garners support among the far left, the opponents of his political views.

This bridge that exists between the far left and the far right has been described as the horseshoe theory. Deborah Lipstadt neatly explained how despite differing political views, adherents on both sides have a lot in common, with anti-Israel activism being the strongest example. How else would you describe Marjorie Taylor Greene taking a picture with activists from CodePink? Or Carlson’s diatribes about Israel being praised by left-wing figures such as Shaun King and Mehdi Hasan? It is here that the far-left and far-right find the bridge that prevents them from tearing into each other completely.

Getting closer to the 1930s

There are no dictatorships in the Western world yet and no laws have been adopted that restrict Jewish political or economic rights. But extremist rhetoric now is similar to the platform successfully applied by Karl Lueger into the 1900s.

On the far right, you see voices from Nick Fuentes to Myron Gaines, praising Nazi Germany; on the far left, you have influencer Hasan Piker lamenting the fall of the Soviet Union. Today, the far right continues to assail moderate conservatives, while the far left verbally assaults social democrats throughout the West. The message is clear: extremism is the only way.

When Myron Gaines ridicules the Shoah at a Turning Point USA event and is not removed in the name of free speech, that is a sign; and when in Europe you see protests organized with Communist slogans, that is another sign. Ideologies do not die, they hibernate. And now, in the twenty-first century, Nazism and Communism are increasingly normalized. Moreover, left-wing and right-wing extremists both embrace conspiracies about vague systems that are supposedly controlling people; they both assail moderates in their political camps; they both consider Israel the cause of all their ills; they both excuse or openly praise autocracies; and they both preach revolution.

Historical analogies present many difficulties. Therefore, I would not adopt a deterministic line and argue that what followed after the age of Karl Lueger will happen now. However, if these forms of extremism are not countered with critical scrutiny, but are excused or even adopted for politically opportunistic reasons, the future will not produce more moderate voices; instead, tapping into and fueling resentment will foster more extreme agendas.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)