In recent interviews, Tucker Carlson has echoed the sentiments of a growing number of conservatives who, deterred by the conscripted nature of socialism and suspicious of the excesses of capitalism, are taking an honest look at Republicanism’s banner of puritanical capitalism for capitalism’s sake. Speaking with the Atlantic’s Elaina Plott last month, Carlson relayed his philosophical journey and how, as time has gone on, he finds himself more attracted to policies such as those of Elizabeth Warren, who he says reflects “economic patriotism.” This interview comes after an impassioned monologue on his show recently where he chastised private equity shops and our market climate as “vulture capitalism.”
His skepticism of the marketplace to fairly advocate for the “working man” and his own well-documented past of insistence on culture and the importance of collective identity may have led him to accidentally and inadvertently land upon distributism as his current working philosophy of the economy. Though, as his interview with indicates, he may only have this mindset temporarily as he finds himself constantly evolving in his thinking — it’s worth noting that Carlson presently echoes what has been rumbling on the outskirts of mainstream conservative thought since the 2008 financial crisis: Capitalism’s excessive nature has a tendency to be exploitive, underserving, and lacks the ability to account for traditional tenets of national or communal identity.
This suspicion is fascinating coming from a Fox News host who notices a Trump base that echos sentiments of nationalism but is coincidentally left behind by a party who holds as a core tenet the very market force that may be impoverishing them. Carlson’s access to elites and wealth has given him a unique viewpoint into the polarity between the Georgetown cocktail-hour types and the salt-of-the-earth types in the Heartland.
Distributism is an economic theory rooted in Catholic teaching, which stresses decentralized market power, local businesses and culture, and private property. The idea is that society functions more effectively (not necessarily efficiently) if productive assets are distributed widely, leading to the preservation of culture and the increased dignity of local workers.
As manufacturing jobs bled from the United States due to lower production costs overseas over the past 40 years, communities dependent on these jobs were depleted with losses both in livelihood and sense of purpose. In part to recapture these jobs and the sentiment of Reagan-era values, the slogan “Make America Great Again” flourished in 2016 as a hat tip to a time where the U.S. was an industrial giant as much as it was a military might and a cultural hegemon.
Economic nationalism became a rallying cry at Trump events. But it seems the crux of Carlson’s discomfort in “America First” capitalism resides beyond winning trade wars and making foreign governments pay their fair share for international institutions, but when money is repatriated to the U.S. and increases wealth at home that this wealth serves a common good — one where communities can sustain themselves to preserve local heritage, ideals, etc.
“America First” policy only thrives if it avoids monopolistic tendencies and fills the coffers of the many, not the few. For Tucker and others, a sin of capitalism is that it can’t resist its demons.
In the flaming carcass of those it leaves behind is a masked-over cellophane of culture — a sterile afterthought of capitalism, in Carlson’s and some conservatives’ view. In part, they go hand in hand. Politics is downstream from culture, but capitalism is the dam on the river.
Carlson isn’t alone in his focus on those forgotten by modern politics and economics. Hillbilly Elegy by J.D. Vance was an epitaph to rural folks and Appalachian communities hollowed out by opioids and modern market changes. Perhaps the most fascinating cultural commentary from a religious perspective came from Rod Dreher in his book The Benedict Option, which posits that in this dystopian post-faith world, perhaps Christians would be better served to operate in small communities away from the rest of the world in hopes of preserving traditionalism and what little is left of belief.
I imagine this call will only grow as urbanization increases, wealth disparities spread, and traditional culture becomes more and more replaced by unencumbered commercialism and corporate profits — the rapid transition will only alert people more easily to how far we’ve strayed and how many people find themselves on the business end of an economy spearheaded against them.
Carlson’s thought experiment tracks a noticeable disparity many have observed: Capitalism has been forgiven time and again, and socialism remains the prodigal son we never want to return home.
I wonder if there’s an economics of meaning we can hold to before we lose entirely who we are.
Tyler Grant (@TyGregoryGrant) is a Young Voices contributor who completed a Fulbright Fellowship in Taiwan. He writes movie reviews for the Washington Examiner.
