(Note: "Manet" in this philosophical context most likely refers to Pierre Manent, a towering French political philosopher and student of Raymond Aron who writes extensively on the nation-state and the crisis of modern liberalism. Looking at the situation through a Fortin-Manent framework yields a fascinating critique of both Carlson and his left-wing critics).Here is how a Fortin (and Manent) framework breaks down, reshapes, and ultimately critiques the assertion that "Carlson's anti-Zionism is flawed because it is rooted in isolationist nationalism rather than human rights":1. The Critique of the Left-Wing Alternative: The Myth of "Human Rights"Left-wing critics attack Carlson for failing to base his anti-Zionism on a universal "human rights" framework. A Fortin-Manent analysis would argue that the left-wing critics are operating on a flawed, uniquely modern illusion.Fortin's View on Rights: Fr. Fortin famously held the Straussian position that "natural human rights" are a modern, artificial invention distinct from classical or medieval Christian thought. In books like Human Rights, Virtue and the Common Good, Fortin argued that modern human rights language strips society of the classical pursuit of virtue and the common good, replacing them with radical, atomized individual claims.The Application: Therefore, Fortin would not blame Carlson for failing to appeal to "human rights." From a Fortin perspective, progressives who base their anti-Zionism on universal human rights are building their critique on shifting sand—an abstract, modern construct that lacks true moral and philosophical anchoring.2. The Critique of Carlson: A Degradation of True Patriotism into Pagan NationalismWhile Fortin would reject the left's "human rights" framework, he would be equally, if not more, critical of Tucker Carlson’s isolationist nationalism. Fortin’s study of St. Augustine’s City of God provides the exact weapon for this critique:The "Transpolitical" Citizen: Fortin noted that Augustine viewed Christianity as fundamentally "transpolitical." Christians must be loyal, patriotic citizens of their earthly home, but they must always identify their true homeland with the Heavenly City.Carlson’s Pagan Error: Carlson’s "America First" isolationism borders on what Fortin would consider a return to pagan civic religion, where the preservation, comfort, and material wealth of the specific political regime (the nation) become the highest moral good. By opposing alliances or interventions purely because they "don't benefit the American working class," Carlson reduces foreign policy to a transactional, materialist calculation. Fortin would argue that this completely discards the Christian duty toward a transcendent justice that looks beyond one's own borders.3. The Manent Connection: The Problem of the Nation-StateIf we introduce Pierre Manent’s philosophy into this, the critique becomes even sharper:The Necessity of the Nation: Manent argues that the nation-state is the only political form capable of sustaining actual human democracy and agency; global "human rights" bodies have no real political teeth. In this sense, Manent might sympathize with Carlson's desire to protect the American political community from over-extended globalism.The Crisis of Zionism: However, Manent also notes that Israel is the ultimate, hyper-concentrated expression of a nation-state. For Carlson to retreat into an "America First" nationalism while aggressively disparaging Israeli nationalism reveals a deep philosophical contradiction. Carlson praises the concept of borders, ethno-cultural cohesion, and sovereign survival for the West, yet attacks Israel for doing the exact same thing within its own borders.Summary: The Dual CritiqueA Fortin-Manent perspective alters the debate entirely:Against the Left: They would argue that criticizing Carlson for lacking a "human rights" focus is useless, because abstract human rights talk is a hollow modern substitute for true classical virtue.Against Carlson: They would argue that Carlson’s isolationism is not "Christian," but a form of secular, materialist tribalism. By stripping foreign policy of any transcendent moral obligation to the wider world and viewing everything through a lens of strict national self-interest, Carlson succumbs to the very modernity he claims to fight.
(Note: "Manet" in this philosophical context most likely refers to Pierre Manent, a towering French political philosopher and student of Raymond Aron who writes extensively on the nation-state and the crisis of modern liberalism. Looking at the situation through a Fortin-Manent framework yields a fascinating critique of both Carlson and his left-wing critics).
Here is how a Fortin (and Manent) framework breaks down, reshapes, and ultimately critiques the assertion that "Carlson's anti-Zionism is flawed because it is rooted in isolationist nationalism rather than human rights":
1. The Critique of the Left-Wing Alternative: The Myth of "Human Rights"
Left-wing critics attack Carlson for failing to base his anti-Zionism on a universal "human rights" framework. A Fortin-Manent analysis would argue that the left-wing critics are operating on a flawed, uniquely modern illusion.
- Fortin's View on Rights: Fr. Fortin famously held the Straussian position that "natural human rights" are a modern, artificial invention distinct from classical or medieval Christian thought. In books like Human Rights, Virtue and the Common Good, Fortin argued that modern human rights language strips society of the classical pursuit of virtue and the common good, replacing them with radical, atomized individual claims. [1, 2]
- The Application: Therefore, Fortin would not blame Carlson for failing to appeal to "human rights." From a Fortin perspective, progressives who base their anti-Zionism on universal human rights are building their critique on shifting sand—an abstract, modern construct that lacks true moral and philosophical anchoring.
2. The Critique of Carlson: A Degradation of True Patriotism into Pagan Nationalism
While Fortin would reject the left's "human rights" framework, he would be equally, if not more, critical of Tucker Carlson’s isolationist nationalism. Fortin’s study of St. Augustine’s City of God provides the exact weapon for this critique: [1]
- The "Transpolitical" Citizen: Fortin noted that Augustine viewed Christianity as fundamentally "transpolitical." Christians must be loyal, patriotic citizens of their earthly home, but they must always identify their true homeland with the Heavenly City. [1]
- Carlson’s Pagan Error: Carlson’s "America First" isolationism borders on what Fortin would consider a return to pagan civic religion, where the preservation, comfort, and material wealth of the specific political regime (the nation) become the highest moral good. By opposing alliances or interventions purely because they "don't benefit the American working class," Carlson reduces foreign policy to a transactional, materialist calculation. Fortin would argue that this completely discards the Christian duty toward a transcendent justice that looks beyond one's own borders.
3. The Manent Connection: The Problem of the Nation-State
If we introduce Pierre Manent’s philosophy into this, the critique becomes even sharper:
- The Necessity of the Nation: Manent argues that the nation-state is the only political form capable of sustaining actual human democracy and agency; global "human rights" bodies have no real political teeth. In this sense, Manent might sympathize with Carlson's desire to protect the American political community from over-extended globalism.
- The Crisis of Zionism: However, Manent also notes that Israel is the ultimate, hyper-concentrated expression of a nation-state. For Carlson to retreat into an "America First" nationalism while aggressively disparaging Israeli nationalism reveals a deep philosophical contradiction. Carlson praises the concept of borders, ethno-cultural cohesion, and sovereign survival for the West, yet attacks Israel for doing the exact same thing within its own borders.
Summary: The Dual Critique
A Fortin-Manent perspective alters the debate entirely:
- Against the Left: They would argue that criticizing Carlson for lacking a "human rights" focus is useless, because abstract human rights talk is a hollow modern substitute for true classical virtue. [1]
- Against Carlson: They would argue that Carlson’s isolationism is not "Christian," but a form of secular, materialist tribalism. By stripping foreign policy of any transcendent moral obligation to the wider world and viewing everything through a lens of strict national self-interest, Carlson succumbs to the very modernity he claims to fight.
Comments