In Defense Of Grubby Partisanship

Avi: Tucker Carlson has said he’s been trying to get Mamdani on his podcast ever since his moment on the debate stage last year when he wouldn’t commit to visiting Israel. Mamdani has declined so far, which seems prudent to me, given the political risks for him specifically, and also responsible, in his case, to avoid tapping into a particularly combustible anti-Israel crossover appeal.

But should the strategic and moral calculus be different for Graham Platner? He lives in the same state as Tucker and apparently Tucker wants to meet him. Do you think it’s a good idea for Platner to do the interview? How much should he push back?

Become a member

I think very few Democrats would be well advised to seek or accept engagement with Tucker Carlson. That isn't to say they should act like Carlson has cooties, or that every potential encounter with him will tar them, while normalizing him. It’s because, in addition to being a terrible bigot, Carlson is incredibly dishonest. So it’s not just that his interlocutors have to prepare for an adversarial encounter (something most Democrats aren’t especially good at anyhow) but also one where they’re likely to end up looking foolish if they come in unprepared.

This isn’t an appeal to purity. Go on Rogan, go on Fox News. Carlson’s show exists in a much more treacherous realm. Any Democrat who chose to accept his invitation would have to be confrontationally transparent about why, right to his face, in real time: You’re a liar and a bigot and a bad actor, but I want your audience to hear why I think that, and why they should support me anyhow, directly from me.

Mamdani will go on Fox and Rogan, but he won’t go on Carlson, and for good reasons, some general, some particular to him. If you’re a left-of center Israel critic, but worry that anti-Israel progressives (including, perhaps, Mamdani in the past) have made too much common cause with right-wing antisemites, you can take heart that Mamdani is policing that boundary pretty vigorously.

Platner seems like the kind of person who could pull off a successful confrontation with Carlson, assuming that’s how he feels about the situation. If so—then sure, accept the invitation and bring receipts. If Platner sees Carlson as no different from Rogan, or, worse, as a worthy influencer on the merits, that’d be a huge red flag.

Share Off Message

Bartlomiej: Seeing how Orban was finally beaten only by a disillusioned man from his own political camp, instead of liberal opposition:

Let’s say that in 2028 Trump decides not to contest the next elections. However, instead of accepting Vance as the Republican candidate, he forces Donald Trump Jr. (analogous to what is happening in Brazil). Vance understands that he has no chance for presidency, as even the idiot son is before him in Trump’s eyes, and defects from the MAGA camp. Would you support a “national salvation”, “grown up” Vance-Fetterman ticket?

Devil would be in the details: Would Trump Sr. be too deranged or enfeebled to effectively steer Jr.’s candidacy and presidency? Who’s Jr’s running mate? What’s their stated agenda? Are Vance and Fetterman running on an explicitly anti-authoritarian, anti-corruption platform, or do they just want to rebrand Trumpism? Would Fetterman be a credible internal check (with his own team, and delineated authority), or did Vance pick Fetterman to create the illusion of bipartisanship, while banking on Fetterman’s impairment to make him a non-player character in the administration?

In principle, though: yes, I’d be willing to vote for a Vance-Fetterman ticket in a hypothetical two-way race against an even more depraved ticket.

Many facets of policymaking and political strategy are nuanced and complicated, but I wish more people on the left and in the center would grok that some things are simple. And voting for harm reduction is one of them.

Let’s break this down a little further...