Zelenskyy's speech and the blind fury of the hard right

They're furious and they can't help but show their rage, but they're not telling you exactly why.

[Zelenskyy’s speech] represents the failure of a worldview, a strain of far-right authoritarian populism, that goes well beyond Ukraine. A whole lot of things have happened that — in Carlson’s mental universe — were not supposed to happen.

The above is a key part of an opinion piece by Greg Sargent at the Washington Post that’s worth reading in its entirety. The prompt for the piece was Tucker Carlson’s rage-fueled rant about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s momentous speech before Congress to thank the United States for standing with his country’s efforts to survive—and ask for that support to continue.

Carlson has all sorts of supposed reasons for his fury—Zelenskyy showing up to give his address in military fatigues is one, because we all know how important propriety, civility, and proper decorum is to the American right, especially regarding the proper attire for appearing on the House floor. Another is that Zelenskyy himself, by virtue of his biography as an entertainer, is inherently unworthy to be appearing in such a hallowed place—because, as we all know, the right only accepts the most qualified people with a longevity in public service as its presidential nominees. Yet another is that we should not be spending American tax dollars in Ukraine, but should be spending it at home. And while that may at least seem like the basis for a policy debate, it does not explain the blind rage and deep personal enmity that the modern American right has for Zelenskyy.

So what does? Before answering that, we have to answer exactly who “they” are. Traditionally, skepticism of state power and a reverence for small government have been hallmarks of conservative ideology, but that is rapidly changing: the uneasy alliance between the theocratic and white nationalist elements of the Republican Party and the small-government libertarians is breaking as the theocrats see America getting more secular, more liberal, less accepting of patriarchy, and more accepting of gender and sexual minorities with each passing generation. As Thomas Zimmer writes in his Substack, Democracy Americana:

The rise of these Catholic illiberals is indicative of a much broader realignment on the Right. What emerged as the modern conservative political project in the middle decades of the twentieth century was in many ways defined by an alliance between traditionalist and libertarian strands of anti-liberalism, united in the fight against “communism,” and more specifically: against any attempt at leveling traditional hierarchies of wealth, race, gender, and religion. But increasingly, the traditionalist wing wants out of that alliance – because they believe they have not gotten what the fusionist bargain promised. In this interpretation, there has been a lot of small government, deregulation, and free market – while the destructive forces of secular humanism and “woke” liberalism were allowed to advance almost unchecked.

These frustrated reactionary traditionalists believe the future of the Right lies in “National Conservatism,” which is the name they have given themselves and their new vision. The political project of the NatCons combines a euphoric embrace of nationalism with an unabashed commitment to mobilizing state power in order to impose what they see as the natural and/or divinely ordained order on the entire country. Democracy, it should be noted, is not exactly high on the list of priorities for these folks – or it is, but only as a problem, as the enemy.

This version of conservatism is ascendant and well represented, and the right wing gravitates not only to its aggressive use of state power, but also its focus on social issues—drag shows, transgender policy, anything and everything “woke,” critical race theory, and whatever the right wing’s next bugaboo will be in 2024. But national conservatism also knows that democracy is not likely to give them the power to reshape culture and society the way they want do, even the version as it exists in the United States which intentionally empowers rural conservative populations and disenfranchises urban areas. Their solution is to simply dispense with democracy altogether and rule by fiat. That’s why Hungarian autocrat Viktor Orban is the darling of the right wing and is a keynote speaker at CPAC, and why, as Zimmer explains, a number of these American national conservatives are literally moving to Budapest—so they can live where the government weather suits their ideological clothes.

But there’s another autocratic ruler who has become a darling of the right by embracing the same values. As I explained in a tweet amplifying Sargent’s piece:

🕷Dante Atkins🕷 @DanteAtkins

The right wing admires Putin because he's an autocrat blending hard state power with a national church enforcing patriarchal rigidity in a system where white people rule and others are allowed to live if they don't get in the way,--and that's what they want for the US as well.

Greg Sargent @ThePlumLineGS

One of the most disgusting right wing tropes about the Russian invasion of Ukraine is this: "You care more about Ukraine's border than our own." But that's more than just a slogan. There's a real worldview and ideology at work here, and it's everywhere: https://t.co/TUsgKcl8qD https://t.co/Dfo18majSH

Even back in 2009 when the right still mostly considered Russia a geopolitical rival as opposed to something to aspire to, Fox News couldn’t help but salivate over Putin’s shirtless horseback riding photos, comparing them favorably to the supposed lack of virility of then-president Barack Obama (I think they missed something in that comparison). Now, support for Putin is in vogue among the nationalist right. Last year, Ted Cruz shared a a Russian military recruiting video showing tough men doing macho military things, for lack of a better phrase, and compared it very favorably to a video from the, in the words of Cruz, “woke and emasculated” American armed forces that highlighted the diversity in backgrounds and perspectives of its recruits. When it was clear Russia would invade, it was Tucker Carlson himself who said at the outset that Putin wasn’t his enemy—people advocating for racial and social justice were. Donald Trump said that Putin’s invasion was “smart” and that he was “playing Biden like a drum.”

You get the idea. Putin, the ethnonationalist macho shirtless man wearing a cross necklace, was supposed to lead his distinctly anti-woke military to a rapid victory against a helpless Ukraine inadequately backed by a woke and emasculated American military, a senile President Biden and cheese-eating surrender monkeys in Europe.

For the right, that’s what was supposed to happen—and then the right would get to extoll the civic and military virtues of ethnonationalist autocracy and make the case that pluralism and social justice is for the weak. One problem: History happened instead. Ukraine survived Putin’s attempt to conquer it and, with the backing of superior American and NATO weaponry, is inflicting grievous losses and reclaiming its territory against a poorly trained force that is hollowed out by corruption and resorting to systemic war crimes in order to get the civilian population to buckle. Zelenskyy is a global icon of courage, freedom and democracy. Under President Biden’s (sometimes overly) cautious leadership, the United States has once again become the arsenal of democracy. Zelenskyy’s surprise flight to Washington and the roaring adulation he received from most of the US Congress was the pinnacle of this historic achievement.

The National Socia—I mean, National Conservatives can’t stand this outcome, and they will work to overturn it. Some of them will be forthright and honest about wanting Putin to win, but most of them won’t. They’ll couch it in terms of an expense we can’t afford and one that should be redirected to the Southern border. But the truth is, they want Ukraine to die because it means Putin winning and Biden failing. They want patriarchal autocracy to win, and pluralistic liberal democracy to lose. They may couch it in other terms, but they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it. Tucker Carlson speaks for them all.