Tucker Carlson, a conservative commentator for Fox News, talks to Brown Political Review’s Annika Lichtenbaum. Carlson is co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Caller and formerly co-hosted CNN’s Crossfire and MSNBC’s Tucker.
BPR: Partisanship and political polarization seem to define Washington at the moment. How do you think we got here?
Tucker Carlson: Congress is dysfunctional, for sure. Part of that, though, is the byproduct of increased efficiency in American life. The same force that drives income inequality drives partisanship, and the system just does a better job of sorting people according to belief. Fifty years ago, there were a ton of conservative Democrats, and there were also quite a few liberals in the Republican party. Now, virtually all conservatives in politics are Republicans and virtually all liberals in politics are Democrats. So the parties are just more efficiently apportioned than they’ve ever been. And that has a lot of consequences. One of them is that there’s no common set of beliefs between the two parties. They just sincerely disagree on a lot of things. And you often hear people say that there needs to be room for compromise. Okay – but think through why there isn’t. It’s because the parties are split along pretty clear ideological lines. It’s not that they don’t want to get along, they just don’t agree!
BPR: The automatic budget cuts of the sequester were supposed to spur compromise, but it’s become an excuse for not negotiating. Do you think the sequester was a bad policy?
Carlson: Oh, I don’t know. Is it ugly? Of course. Is it like watching your parents argue? Yeah. I don’t like watching it. What would Washington be like without it? Would we be reaching deeper compromises that were better for America? I’m not sure. Again, the sequester was a tool that hasn’t turned out to be very effective. But I don’t think it’s the root problem. The root problem is that there’s just a divide.
BPR: Would you say that the Republicans and Democrats in Congress are more concerned with standing their ground than they are about the negative effects of doing so?
Carlson: Well, maybe sometimes. It’s a sign of dysfunction. Whenever you cut the budget mindlessly across the board, you’re basically conceding that you’re incapable of using your fine motor skills. It’s kind of embarrassing, but that’s not the root problem with America.
BPR: It’s been argued that the only two ways to completely balance the budget is either through cuts on entitlements or by increasing taxes. Do we need to have a conversation about these options?
At some point, somebody brave is going to have to stand up and say, “We’ve promised you this money. We can’t make good on that promise. I’m sorry, let’s negotiate.” Carlson: I don’t really think there’s any disagreement that the current entitlement system can’t continue. Neither party wants to admit that, because it doesn’t want to face voters. People love free stuff – that’s a bipartisan phenomenon. Republicans as well as Democrats want to keep Medicare and Social Security. But we can’t, because the math doesn’t work. It’s much easier to raise taxes than it is to cut social welfare spending. And that’s one of the reasons we have never cut entitlements at all, and we’ve raised taxes a lot. But at some point, somebody brave is going to have to stand up and say, “We’ve promised you this money. We can’t make good on that promise. I’m sorry, let’s negotiate.”
BPR: Why was there a split in the Republican party on Senator Ted Cruz [R – TX] regarding his efforts to defund the Affordable Care Act?
Carlson: It’s not really about Obamacare. The question is, if you control only the House and not the Senate or the executive branch, can you defund Obamacare? And the answer is no. So what can you do? The Republican electorate, the people who actually vote for Republicans, don’t trust the Republican leadership at all to do the right thing and to represent their views. They think they’re accommodating, they think they’re weak, they think they’re insincere. And of course, they’re completely right.
This is the flowering of resentment that’s been building up for years, going back to the Bush administration, among rank-and-file Republicans. Let’s say you’re a conservative Republican. In the last three months, you’ve watched Republican leaders in the House endorse the president’s NSA spying regime. The average Republican thinks that’s terrible, but the Republican leadership says, “No, that’s fantastic, good job!” Two weeks ago, you watch the president come out and say, “We need to bomb Syria.” That is something that nobody in America supports; yet the first people who came out and endorsed it were John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy.
So if you’re a rank-and-file Republican, you’re thinking, ‘These people are totally untrustworthy. They don’t represent me at all. There is no way I believe they’re going to try and do their best to get rid of Obamacare.” So into this jumps Ted Cruz, who’s only been in the Senate for eight-and-a-half months, and he stands up and he says, “You know what? I am completely sincere. I really do represent your views.” And everyone knows he can’t actually do anything to defund Obamacare, but your average Republican appreciates his sincerity. That’s what it’s about.
BPR: Any compromise with Iran on their nuclear program would necessarily involve reducing sanctions, which is something that Congress, not the president, has the power to do. Do you think Congress would be able to reach a compromise and reduce sanctions on Iran in exchange for a concession from President Obama?
Carlson: No, I don’t, actually. I really don’t. Because in the end, where’s the constituency for pulling back on sanctions? There just isn’t one. It may be the smartest thing to do, because it would give us leverage in the negotiations. If you’re a member of Congress, you’re not thinking strategically, you’re thinking about the next election. And do you really want to be the guy who voted to go easy on Iran? It’s just too easy to demagogue on that question.
And that’s why it’s so distressing to see the dumbness of the conversation on foreign affairs. This idea that we have permanent enemies, or for that matter, permanent allies – we don’t. We have no moral obligation to any other country on this planet, and we have no moral obligation to be at odds with any other country. We are, under certain circumstances, allied with other countries and in conflict with others. But those circumstances can change. Nothing is written in stone, nor should it be, because that would not serve American interests. We want the best deal for us that we can get – and that should be the only impetus behind American foreign policy.
BPR: What’s the number one lesson the GOP should learn from 2012?
Carlson: Don’t nominate lame candidates. I think the candidate matters. What can you actually change? Well, you can make sure that you don’t nominate people who are insincere or inarticulate or completely out of step with the country or unwilling to explain themselves. How hard is that? To nominate someone who can speak fluently? I think we should start there.
BPR: Is there someone you’d like to see nominated in 2016?
Carlson: I will say that Chris Christie is the most talented communicator I’ve ever seen. Chris Christie gives a better speech than Ronald Reagan; Chris Christie is the single best political speaker I’m aware of, ever. He’ll be a great candidate. I think there are some drawbacks, and his politics do not reflect mine – I disagree with him on a lot of things. But just as a communicator, I’ve never seen anyone who comes close to Chris Christie.