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
Why do I read the comments? Good lord.
Well done, Mr. Savodnik. This was a great piece.
If I am being "honest" (pun intended) a few things need to be addressed with this mini- podcast episode. It is definitely below the standards of what I enjoy about Honestly.
1) I have not watched the TC interview nor do I plan to - however, Peter suggests that interviewing Putin was somehow outside the bounds of a journalist code of ethics - breaking news... every major newspaper wanted that interview. Criticizing the content is one thing but actually getting the interview is quite another.
2) The broadside against people who may vote for the GOP as solely homophobic and misogynistic is totally out of line and something I would expect to see in the Guardian or Mother Jones. Americans who will ultimately vote for Trump (or RFK) are not voting because they agree with his family values - they vote for the GOP because they are view the metastatic cancer of DEI, the forever wars, illegal immigration, decades of condescension from the coastal elites, and so on.... are a greater threat to America than a single individual. It is that simple.
3) Peter needs a history lesson. He seems to think that only Trump and the GOP are coddling dictators. False. The Obama administration made it foreign policy goal #1 to re-engage with Russia and Putin. This is a fact. He spent two terms seeking rapprochement. He allowed Putin to finish the Georgian invasion, invade Crimea and Donbas, and enter the middle east. Remember the hot mic? Remember the debates with Romney? Foreign policy goal #2 was Iran. The largest exporter of terrorism and Obama releases billions of dollars just so they will start a negotiation.
I don't know if engaging with Putin is right or wrong, but I know that to end wars, you need to engage both sides at some point.
4) Finally, on the notion that TC spoke negatively about the US on foreign soil and presidents killing people. Agreed. I don't like it. However, I spent a lot of time in the Middle East in 2009 and Obama routinely spoke to Arab audiences and apologized for America. It was wrong then so TC is not the first by a long shot.
Just being honest.