Hot Air: The Bizarro World of MTG, Tucker, Candace, and the Woke Right
Summary:
Author David Strom argues that figures like Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes, and Andrew Tate represent a “woke right” that weaponizes conservative language while promoting anti-liberal ideologies. He defines “woke” not as leftist ideology but as a Critical Theory tactic that redefines terms to undermine prevailing culture.
Strom contends these figures falsely claim the “conservative” label while actually opposing Classical Liberalism’s core principles of individual rights and liberty. Tucker Carlson receives particular scrutiny for praising feudalism, Russian society, and Sharia law while platforming antisemitic voices like UN official Francesca Albanese (sanctioned by Trump’s administration). The author notes Carlson has shifted from warning about Sharia law to celebrating it, and gives favorable treatment to figures like Fuentes (who admires Stalin and Hitler) over Ted Cruz.
The article argues these personalities coordinate attacks on traditional conservative positions—MTG promoting Code Pink, Owens targeting TPUSA, Tucker advocating abandonment of American allies for “Islamist slave states and anti-American dictators.” Strom warns they’re redefining “conservative” as “reactionary,” embracing absolutist governments and class-based systems fundamentally opposed to American constitutionalism.
The author concludes these figures are “enemies of Classical Liberalism” using the “conservative” label deceptively, much like leftists misusing progressive terminology, and should be rejected by genuine conservatives.
The Troubling Transformation: How Tucker Carlson,
MTG, and Candace Owens Departed from Conservative Principles
An Investigative Analysis of the “Woke Right” Phenomenon
In recent months, a peculiar phenomenon has emerged within conservative circles: prominent voices who built their reputations defending traditional American values now promote ideologies fundamentally at odds with classical liberalism and constitutional principles. This investigation examines whether David Strom’s characterization of Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Candace Owens as representatives of a “woke right” holds up under scrutiny.
Defining the “Woke Right”
Before examining specific cases, we must understand Strom’s framework. He argues that “woke” isn’t exclusively leftist but describes a tactical approach: weaponizing culturally resonant terms by redefining them to undermine existing structures. The “woke right,” by this definition, appropriates “conservative” branding while advancing anti-liberal positions.
Traditional American conservatism, rooted in classical liberalism, emphasizes individual rights, limited government, and equality before the law. The question becomes: Have these three figures maintained fidelity to these principles, or have they adopted opposing worldviews while retaining conservative credibility?
Tucker Carlson: From Conservative Commentator to Authoritarian Apologist
Tucker Carlson’s evolution represents perhaps the most dramatic departure. Once a standard-bearer for conservative media, his recent positions raise serious questions about his ideological moorings.
The Russia Problem
Carlson’s February 2024 Moscow visit produced content that stretched credulity. His breathless praise for Russian grocery stores—presented as evidence of superior living standards—ignored basic economic realities. Russia’s GDP per capita stands at approximately $15,000 compared to America’s $76,000. The poverty rate in Russia exceeds 12%, with significant regional disparities masked by Moscow’s showcase development.
His subway tour celebrating Soviet-era infrastructure included this revealing comment: “Why can’t we have this?” The answer involves brutal historical context: Stalin’s metro construction relied on forced labor, with thousands of workers dying in the process. Celebrating these achievements without acknowledging their human cost demonstrates either profound ignorance or deliberate deception.
More concerning was Carlson’s treatment of Putin during their interview. Rather than pressing Russia’s autocrat on documented war crimes, political assassinations, or the imprisonment of dissidents like Alexei Navalny (who would die shortly after in suspicious circumstances), Carlson provided a largely uncritical platform. When Putin launched into a rambling historical lecture, Carlson sat passively, failing to challenge obvious propaganda.
The Feudalism Endorsement
Perhaps most alarming is Carlson’s open embrace of feudalism. In multiple appearances, he’s stated: “I do really prefer the feudal model—it’s the model of all time” and “Feudalism is so much better than what we have now. At least the leader is invested in his people’s prosperity.”
This isn’t a rhetorical flourish; it’s an ideological confession. Feudalism represents everything American conservatism opposes: rigid class hierarchy, inherited privilege, absence of social mobility, and the elimination of individual rights in favor of obligations to overlords. The American Revolution was explicitly fought against such systems.
That a prominent “conservative” voice now advocates for a pre-Enlightenment social order should alarm anyone committed to constitutional principles. Conservative philosophy, whether Burkean traditionalism or libertarian individualism, never includes nostalgia for feudal arrangements.
The Sharia Reversal
Carlson’s transformation regarding Islamic law proves particularly jarring. Video compilations show him warning against Sharia implementation in Western nations during his Fox News tenure, describing it as incompatible with liberal democracy. His recent pivot celebrates aspects of Sharia governance, particularly regarding gender relations and social control.
In a November 2024 segment, Carlson praised low reported rape rates in Muslim-majority nations, failing to mention that many such countries don’t recognize marital rape, often blame victims, and sometimes punish women who report sexual assault. This isn’t cultural sensitivity; it’s propaganda that obscures severe human rights violations.
His association with Andrew Tate—a self-proclaimed misogynist who converted to Islam partly due to its patriarchal structure and now faces human trafficking charges—further illustrates this trajectory. Carlson’s platform provided Tate sympathetic coverage, treating credible criminal accusations as persecution rather than serious allegations worthy of journalistic scrutiny.
Platforming Antisemitism
Carlson’s recent interview with Francesca Albanese represents a watershed moment. Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur for Palestinian territories, has made statements including:
- “The U.S. is a nation founded upon genocide.”
- America is “a state built on racism and colonial violence.”
- U.S. policy reflects a “racist colonial worldview.”
The Trump administration sanctioned Albanese for her positions. Yet Carlson devoted extensive airtime to an admiring interview, uncritically presenting her views. This follows a pattern of providing favorable coverage to figures who promote conspiracy theories about Jewish influence, including hosting Darryl Cooper, who described Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II and downplayed Nazi atrocities.
When mainstream conservatives criticized these choices, Carlson dismissed concerns as attempts to silence dissent. But there’s a difference between controversial perspectives and platforming Holocaust revisionism and contemporary antisemitism without pushback.
Marjorie Taylor Greene: Conspiracy to Collaboration
Representative Greene’s political journey proves equally troubling. Initially elected on hard-right positions, she’s recently aligned with organizations antithetical to conservative principles.
The Code Pink Alliance
Greene’s promotion of Code Pink, a far-left anti-war organization, represents ideological incoherence. Code Pink has consistently opposed American military operations, supported adversarial regimes including Iran and Venezuela, and advocated positions fundamentally opposed to conservative foreign policy.
When Syria’s Assad regime was accused of chemical weapons attacks against civilians, Code Pink questioned the evidence and opposed U.S. response. When Hong Kong protesters fought for democracy against Chinese oppression, Code Pink sided with Beijing. These aren’t simply anti-war positions; they’re systematic alignment with America’s adversaries.
Greene’s embrace of this organization—attending their events and amplifying their messaging—contradicts her supposed “America First” nationalism. Genuine America First conservatism doesn’t require supporting organizations that consistently undermine American interests and values.
Attacking Fellow Republicans
Greene has increasingly directed her fire at conservatives rather than progressives, finding a particularly comfortable platform for Republican criticism on liberal networks like CNN, where her attacks on GOP leadership receive enthusiastic amplification from hosts typically hostile to conservative causes. Her willingness to tank conservative legislative priorities suggests motivations beyond principle, as she’s discovered that attacking fellow Republicans from the right generates favorable coverage from left-leaning media outlets eager to exploit Republican divisions.
During recent budget negotiations, Greene threatened to oppose bills addressing border security and defense appropriations—supposedly conservative priorities—unless her specific demands were met. This isn’t legislative maneuvering; it’s sabotage that empowers Democratic positions while claiming conservative credentials. Her CNN appearances criticizing Republican strategies provide progressives with ready-made soundbites to undermine conservative unity, demonstrating how her brand of confrontational politics serves Democratic interests more effectively than advancing conservative policy goals. When liberal networks celebrate a supposed conservative’s attacks on her own party, it reveals not courage but alignment with forces fundamentally opposed to conservative success.
The Conspiracy Theory Problem
Greene’s history with conspiracy theories—from QAnon associations to suggestions that California wildfires were caused by “Jewish space lasers”—wasn’t merely youthful indiscretion. These weren’t isolated statements but patterns revealing either profound credulity or cynical engagement with extremist subcultures for political advantage.
While she’s attempted to distance herself from earlier statements, her recent associations suggest the underlying worldview remains. Her alignment with figures promoting antisemitic narratives and her willingness to embrace fringe theories about American governance indicate continued detachment from reality-based conservatism.
Candace Owens: From Rising Star to Destructive Force
Owens’ trajectory may be most disappointing. Once celebrated as an articulate young conservative voice, her recent behavior suggests either grifting or genuine radicalization.
The TPUSA Campaign
Owens’ attacks on Turning Point USA, the organization that initially elevated her profile, reveal troubling patterns. Rather than substantive policy disagreements, her campaign appears personal and vindictive, aimed at destroying an organization that promotes conservative principles on college campuses.
Her accusations against TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk and other leaders have escalated to conspiracy theories about organizational finances and political motivations. These claims, offered without evidence, damage conservative infrastructure while serving no apparent ideological purpose beyond personal grievance.
The Antisemitism Question
Owens has increasingly promoted narratives about disproportionate Jewish influence in politics, media, and finance. While she frames these as legitimate criticism of specific policies or individuals, the language and framing align with classic antisemitic tropes.
Her defense of Kanye West’s openly antisemitic statements, her promotion of theories about “dual loyalty” among Jewish Americans, and her characterization of Jewish organizations as sinister forces manipulating American politics all cross lines from legitimate criticism into bigotry territory.
When confronted, Owens employs the familiar defense: she’s merely asking questions others fear to ask. But the questions themselves—“Why do Jews control so much?”—aren’t neutral inquiries. They’re loaded premises designed to validate preexisting antisemitic narratives.
The Christian Nationalist Embrace
Owens has increasingly promoted Christian nationalism—not merely Christianity’s role in American culture, but explicit advocacy for Christian supremacy in governance. This differs fundamentally from conservatism’s emphasis on religious liberty for all faiths.
Her statements suggesting America should be explicitly Christian in law and policy, that non-Christians cannot truly be American, and that pluralism represents civilizational decline all contradict constitutional principles. The First Amendment’s religion clauses exist precisely to prevent government establishment of religion or religious tests for citizenship.
Update:
Wow. @thatsKAIZEN says he spent 20 hours coming through Candace’s claims of “things not adding up” & found that “they DO actually add up”
Here is what he found:
3:03 – Claim 1: The Hospital Claims
8:29 – Claim 2: The Ambulance
11:44 – Claim 3: FBI Leadership Changes
13:43 -… pic.twitter.com/BlOjccJaes— Melissa Tate (@TheRightMelissa) December 11, 2025
The Coordination Question
Strom suggests these figures coordinate their messaging. Evidence supports concerning alignment:
- They regularly promote each other’s content
- They target similar enemies within conservatism
- They employ parallel rhetoric, attacking “establishment” conservatives
- They share platforms and audiences
Whether through formal coordination or organic alignment around shared grievances, their collective impact undermines conservative political success. When supposed conservatives spend more energy attacking Ted Cruz than progressive Democrats, something has gone fundamentally wrong.
Why This Matters
The “woke right” phenomenon isn’t merely internecine conservative squabbling. It represents potential ideological realignment with serious consequences.
Intellectual Corruption: When “conservative” becomes synonymous with authoritarianism, feudalism, and religious supremacy rather than liberty, limited government, and constitutional principles, the term loses meaning. This semantic corruption makes coherent political discourse impossible.
Electoral Consequences: These figures’ extreme positions and conspiracy theories alienate persuadable voters. Suburban moderates who might support conservative economics or traditional values recoil from antisemitism, Putin apologetics, and open misogyny.
Institutional Damage: Organizations like TPUSA that cultivate young conservatives face attacks from figures claiming conservative credentials. This infighting weakens the infrastructure necessary for long-term political success.
Foreign Policy Implications: Carlson and Greene’s sympathies toward authoritarian regimes undermine bipartisan consensus against America’s adversaries. If conservatism becomes associated with Russian or Chinese interests, it cannot effectively compete for governance.
The Defense
Defenders argue these figures courageously challenge conservative orthodoxy, asking uncomfortable questions that establishment voices ignore. This defense fails on multiple levels.
First, many “uncomfortable questions” aren’t actually questions but loaded premises designed to validate extreme positions. “Why can’t we discuss Jewish influence?” isn’t a genuine inquiry when premised on antisemitic assumptions.
Second, challenging orthodoxy requires offering superior alternatives. Feudalism isn’t an improvement over constitutional republicanism. Sharia law doesn’t enhance women’s rights. The Russian autocracy doesn’t model good governance.
Third, courage requires truth-telling that risks personal cost. These figures gain audiences, wealth, and influence through their provocations. That’s not courage; it’s profitable contrarianism.
Conclusion
Evidence substantiates Strom’s core argument: Carlson, Greene, and Owens have departed from conservative principles while retaining conservative branding. Whether through genuine ideological evolution, cynical grifting, or psychological radicalization, they now promote positions fundamentally opposed to the American constitutional order.
Carlson’s endorsement of feudalism and authoritarianism contradicts everything conservatism represents. Greene’s alliance with far-left organizations and conspiracy theory promotion undermines conservative credibility. Owens’ antisemitism and attacks on conservative institutions serve no legitimate ideological purpose.
The conservative movement faces a choice: embrace these figures and their authoritarian, anti-liberal positions, or reaffirm commitment to constitutional principles even when doing so means internal conflict. The movement’s future credibility depends on choosing correctly.
Conservatism survived William F. Buckley’s purge of the John Birch Society in the 1960s and emerged stronger for rejecting extremism. Today’s movement must demonstrate similar courage, recognizing that not everyone claiming conservative credentials deserves acceptance within the tent.
The stakes extend beyond factional disputes. At issue is whether American conservatism will continue representing constitutional governance, individual liberty, and equality before law, or whether it will devolve into reactionary authoritarianism wrapped in patriotic rhetoric.
Strom’s analysis proves uncomfortably accurate: we’re witnessing the emergence of a “woke right” that weaponizes conservative language to advance anti-conservative goals. The only remaining question is whether mainstream conservatism will recognize and resist this threat before it’s too late.