Folks, I have been trying to put my finger on what happened to Tucker Carlson for quite a while.

Because something happened.

Millions of conservatives once watched Tucker every night on Fox News. Healthy disagreement inside a political movement is fine, especially over war and foreign policy.

But Tucker has moved far beyond disagreement.

He has planted himself alongside a group of former MAGA allies who appear determined to tear down President Trump, fracture the Republican coalition and build something new in its place.

And Victor Davis Hanson just gave the clearest explanation I have heard yet for why it happened.

ADVERTISEMENT

According to Axios, Carlson hosted Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie, Joe Kent and others at his home in Maine shortly before unveiling a ten-point vision for America. The group discussed a new political movement and reportedly urged Carlson to consider a 2028 presidential run.

Carlson stopped short of formally launching a party or announcing a candidacy. But the manifesto followed his public promise to help build a third party, and he described his ten points as a foundation for whatever political order comes next.

The plan calls for fairness, sovereignty, productivity, beauty, health, honesty, optimism, wisdom, decency and unity. Beneath those labels are proposals involving border enforcement, American manufacturing, food and health policy, government transparency, foreign influence, immigration and military policy.

The White House answered by calling Carlson’s circle a collection of turncoats who overestimate their influence. President Trump, it said, remains the unquestioned leader of the Republican Party and the MAGA movement.

Here is Tucker presenting that manifesto:

Hanson spotted the contradiction immediately: most of Tucker’s supposedly new agenda is already being advanced by President Trump.

Border security. Law and order.

Rebuilding American production. Cleaning up the food supply.

Challenging entrenched institutions. Rejecting DEI. Putting the country first.

ADVERTISEMENT

So why try to destroy the one political coalition actually moving those ideas?

That is where Hanson cuts through all the noise.

He says the project is politically incoherent. If Tucker’s new party pulled votes from the Republican nominee in 2028, it would not usher in a purer version of America First.

It could hand power to the very Democrats who oppose nearly everything Tucker claims to want.

Hanson walks through the history. Theodore Roosevelt’s third-party run helped Woodrow Wilson win in 1912.

Ross Perot complicated Republican hopes in the 1990s. Ralph Nader’s Green Party run became part of the razor-thin math surrounding Florida in 2000.

The lesson is brutally simple: third parties rarely win the White House. They usually damage the major party closest to them.

Marjorie Taylor Greene called the Maine gathering the beginning of a new movement:

But Hanson believes the real fuel here is personal grievance.

ADVERTISEMENT

Tucker once had extraordinary access to President Trump. He traveled with him, spoke with him directly and enjoyed the kind of proximity to power almost nobody gets.

Then came the break over Iran and Israel.

Hanson’s theory is that all that access created a false sense of influence. Tucker apparently believed the president should take his call, accept his advice and change course.

When President Trump did not, political disagreement curdled into something much uglier.

Watch Tucker discuss that falling-out earlier this year:

And then there is Israel.

Hanson argues that anti-Israel hostility has become one of the faction’s organizing forces. In his view, the obsession has grown so consuming that it now overrides political math, gratitude, shared domestic priorities and the danger of returning the radical Left to power.

In a transcript published by The Daily Signal, Hanson described Carlson’s political project as a potential spoiler operation. He said its most likely practical effect would be to hurt President Trump’s eventual successor in the 2028 election.

Hanson compared Carlson’s ten-point platform with the Trump Administration’s record and found the overwhelming majority of it already represented inside MAGA.

ADVERTISEMENT

He pointed specifically to border enforcement, law and order, opposition to DEI and the food and health agenda led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

He then turned to the people gathered around Carlson. Hanson argued that several had once benefited from President Trump’s endorsements, access or appointments, but became bitter after political disagreements or personal setbacks.

Finally, Hanson said hostility toward Israel and antisemitic anger are helping bind the faction together. He warned that their project could damage the agenda they recently called essential while delivering power to opponents who reject almost all of it.

I think Hanson nailed it.

Tucker did not suddenly discover that President Trump was governing like Joe Biden. He did not uncover some massive domestic-policy betrayal that made the Democrats a better option.

He stopped getting his way.

And instead of using his enormous platform to argue his case while helping preserve the only viable America First coalition in the country, he now appears willing to burn that coalition down.

Call it what it is.

Ego dressed up as ideology.

Watch the full video here:

Detailed Video Summary

The video opens with a discussion of Tucker Carlson’s ten-point political plan and the gathering at his Maine home. The host asks Victor Davis Hanson what he makes of the possibility that Carlson and several estranged MAGA figures are attempting to create a new political party.

Hanson begins with history. He argues that third parties almost never win the presidency and usually harm whichever major party is ideologically closest to them.

He cites Theodore Roosevelt’s 1912 campaign, Ross Perot’s runs in 1992 and 1996, and Ralph Nader’s Green Party campaign in 2000. In each case, Hanson focuses on the spoiler effect that helped the opposing major party.

From there, Hanson turns to Carlson’s agenda itself. He says most of its domestic planks overlap with policies already pursued by President Trump.

On crime, immigration, the border, American production and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s food and health agenda, Hanson sees Trump as far closer to Carlson’s stated goals than the Democratic opposition.

That makes the proposed third-party project self-defeating in Hanson’s view. It would weaken President Trump’s final years and damage a likely Republican successor such as JD Vance or Marco Rubio.

It could also help elect Democrats whose policies are far more distant from Carlson’s platform.

Hanson then asks what changed. He argues that Carlson and the other figures involved once benefited from President Trump’s support, access or appointments.

Carlson enjoyed unusual personal access to Trump. Greene was once a frequent Trump ally, Massie styled himself as an unassailable purist and Kent received a major national-security appointment.

Hanson concludes that the new movement is being driven by personal disappointment. Carlson opposed President Trump’s actions involving Iran and expected his advice to carry decisive weight.

When it did not, Hanson says that extraordinary access appears to have produced an inflated sense of importance followed by resentment.

He uses the contrast to make a larger point: commentators are free to argue with a president, but access does not give them command authority. A president hears from heads of state, senior officials, business leaders and countless advisers.

Being heard is not the same thing as being obeyed.

Hanson also says hostility toward Israel is a major force binding the faction together. He rejects the idea that Israel dictates the full range of President Trump’s foreign policy.

In his view, the movement’s fixation on one country has made its broader political strategy even less coherent.

The video closes with additional commentary from Daniel Schonbuch, who agrees with Hanson’s warning that a Carlson-led breakaway movement could split the Republican vote.

Schonbuch argues that such a split would make it easier for the Democratic Left to regain power and reverse the border, national-security and cultural policies that America First voters support.

My takeaway is the same one Hanson reaches: if a movement agrees with President Trump on the overwhelming majority of the agenda, destroying the coalition over the remaining disagreements is a grievance project.

And the people most likely to benefit are the people Tucker claims to oppose.

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.