Last week, Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny joined a long line of ordinary and noble people who were and are the victims of Stalinist tyranny and now Russian authoritarianism.
Just 10 days prior, Tucker Carlson interviewed Putin, Navalny’s nemesis—and soon to be murderer—in a two-hour conversation at the Kremlin. The name Alexei Navalny never came up.
Then, when Carlson appeared onstage at the World Government Summit in Dubai and was asked why he hadn’t pressed Putin about Navalny, he replied: “Every leader kills people. Some kill more than others. Leadership requires killing people.”
Carlson went on to talk about how wonderful the Russian capital was, how it was “so much nicer than any city in my country.” (All onstage in a country that runs on indentured servitude and sharply curbs freedom of expression, mind you.)
Today, Free Press senior editor Peter Savodnik explains why Tucker Carlson—and so many on the American right—are confused about Putin’s Russia, and about what Navalny—a hero of our darkening century—died for. Putin is a warden of the deepest of deep states. So why does Carlson and his lot believe he’s worthy of admiration? And how did so many on the American right succumb to the same idiocy and myopia that grip so many progressive identitarians?
The way the left and the right arrived at their own brand of anti-Americanism was different, Peter argues. But the outcome is the same: this is exactly what the Kremlin wants.
For further reading on Navalny's death, check out:
Alexei Navalny Lived and Died in Truth, by Bari Wiess
Navalny’s Letters from the Gulag, by the Free Press
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Characterizing Tucker’s interview with Putin as “sycophantic“ doesn’t seem accurate. There’s an argument to be made about whether Tucker is playing the “useful idiot“ to Putin, but I think that the way he conducted his interview – where he did in fact challenge him on multiple issues including the detention of a journalist – kept Putin talking in a way that other interviewers haven’t managed. I suspect that can lead to interesting insights into Putin’s current thinking, etc. if one can get past the pearl clutching rhetoric on Tucker being the one to conduct the interview.
I also think that the equivalence being drawn between the anti-Americanism on the left and what this author is calling anti-Americanism on the right is shallow, and lacks any serious analysis. It’s a comfortable position for many on the left to claim that the right is “just as bad“, but there are places where that truly falls flat, including in this piece.
Hmmm. I love TFP for not telling us what & how to think. I was seriously distracted by the language used as Peter “explained” what & how we are to think! I probably agree with much of what he says, but would rather hear facts & background, rather than opinion stated as fact.