Beyond the Spectacle: Examining the Frightening Implications of Tucker Carlson's Interview with Putin in the Wake of Navalny's Death
Recently, in a surreal, unprecedented affair—one that would almost be humorous if not for its frightening implications, former right-wing news pundit Tucker Carlson traveled to Moscow for a lengthy sit down interview with Russian despot Vladamir Putin. The immense significance and impactfulness of this interview arises from the very reality of such an unlikely meeting occuring, the nature of discussion itself, the motives and responses of the actors involved, and the events that transpired soon after.
Visual Credit: Political Digest File Photo
First and foremost, such a meeting taking place between the leader of a global great power and a former news host turned media personality, in which contemporary and salient political issues are discussed, would have seemed at the least strange. When considered in the context of worsening U.S.-Russia relations under the Biden administration—which haven’t seen Biden and Putin meet face-to-face since the summer of 2021—this meeting seems to point towards a dangerous shift in political diplomacy, representation, and authority. While political pluralism and internal ideological discordance have been historical pillars of American society, the realm of foreign affairs was one in which American power and representation were projected unilaterally through the presidential administration. Of course, lobbying and debate surrounding presidential imperatives in foreign affairs were constant, but ultimately, the voice of the American people presented in meetings with other world leaders was that of the democratically elected president.
We now, however, find ourselves at a time where the U.S. president and Russian leader have not met for over two years, and yet that same Russian leader was willing to sit down for a detailed political discussion with an internet personality whose platform centers around vocal criticism of the sitting U.S. president. Such a scenario, one that would have been unfathomable thirty years ago, is now reality. A reality in which the increasingly globalized nature of information and communications technology has created an environment where this is a plausible outcome; an unelected media spokesperson can score an interview with the leader of a country, both in the midst of a widely denounced war on the global stage and in severe political tension with his home country.
Of course, Vladimir Putin is calculated, and this was a strategic decision. He saw an opportunity to weaponize American fragmentation, and transmit his narratives through Carlson in an effort to maintain and exacerbate civil and political division in the West. Carlson, as a vehement critic of Biden and the Democratic platform, was all too happy to sit idly by while Putin disparaged the current state of the West, painting an image of growing weakness and cultural deterioration in an effort to disenchant the American populace with their leadership and the state of their country. Internal division, while integral to democracy, also creates weakness—Putin recognizes this. Carlson’s motivations were simpler; landing an interview with Vladimir Putin is a monumental journalistic achievement, one that will bring him fame, money, and importance. Thus, Carlson, whom Former Wyoming Republican congresswoman, Liz Cheney, aptly titled “Putin’s useful idiot,” was content to lob Putin soft questions while he spun his twisted narrative and presented his personal perspectives as fact, subjecting Carlson to various patronizing lectures on politics and history. Carlson was later challenged on why he neglected to question Putin on the difficult and salient issues surrounding his sustained suppression of free speech and political opposition in Russia—most notably the imprisonment and suspected prior attempt at assassinating Alexei Navalny, Putin’s most prominent domestic critic, anti-corruption activist, and Russian opposition leader. Carlson’s response to such criticisms was:
“I have spent my life talking to people who run countries, in various countries, and have concluded the following: That every leader kills people, including my leader. Every leader kills people, some kill more than others. Leadership requires killing people, sorry.”
These words, and the flippant nature with which Carlson spoke them, are harrowing in their own regard. But, only four days after Carlson dismissively asserted that “leadership requires killing people,” Russian prison services reported Alexei Navalny’s sudden death at the age of 47. Russian authorities claim natural causes, but the truth is clear to anyone willing to see it. Now, Carlson’s careless words echo back in a much more haunting light, taking on a terrifying new meaning. They represent the consequences of prioritizing partisanship over ideological principles; the cost of even the slightest acquiescence to injustice. Conservatives, in their increasing polarization away from “the left,” have grown sympathetic to Putin on account of his traditionalist values, and his vocal disapproval of what he sees as radical progressivism in the West. Thus, “right-wing” advocates have been willing to accept blatantly authoritarian, undemocratic, and unjust acts of tyranny by Putin in an effort to further oppose the common enemy of the “left”—sacrificing foundational principles of right and wrong upon which free American society is built. Any concessions to autocracy are detrimental; not one inch can be given in the global fight for freedom, democracy, and justice for all. Carlson’s interview, dangerous declaration, and the tragedy that followed are a painful demonstration of this.
When I look around, I see a world in moral resignation. A world in which outspoken champions of freedom and justice are murdered into silence, where world leaders wag their fingers in faint reproval, the public exudes an exasperated sigh, sometimes projecting a half-hearted display of outrage and disbelief, and then life moves on. Some, driven by misguided partisan alignments, even explicitly condone such acts.
“Leaders kill people.”
As I perceive an environment permeated by hopeless acceptance, amongst a populace stripped of its ideological integrity, I cannot help but be reminded of the closing lines of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s landmark work of great American fiction, The Great Gatsby. In these ever relevant words, the narrator characterizes human nature to that of “boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.” Navalny was a man swimming against the current, fighting nobly and tirelessly out of moral conviction for what he believed in, against forces far more powerful than he could hope to overcome. And in the wake of his murder, I see a world prepared to reluctantly accept the tyranny of a cruel and evil dictator committed to violence, expansion, and consolidation of power at all costs. It is in my most negative moments, mired in cynicism and disgust, I fear we are a world destined to repeat the failures of history—to be borne back ceaselessly into the past.
I hope—for myself, and for generations beyond—I am wrong. I think Navalny himself would say I am. He believed in the uncompromising fight for change. Once, in a video to his supporters, he declared that "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good people to do nothing. So don't be inactive…You're not allowed to give up.” So, I urge good people, regardless of partisan orientation—left-wing and right-wing, Conservative and Liberal alike—to do something, to be active, to not give up. Remove the tinted glasses of party politics and stand for the principles of freedom and justice whenever and wherever they are threatened. History will not reflect well on those who fail to do so.
Julian (he/him) is a third-year Politics student, Philosophy minor, and Editorial Board member at Political Digest.