Partisanship Over Policy at the Heritage Foundation

In one encounter, a member of senior management approached a scholar to challenge the scholar’s stance on a policy issue, referencing a conflicting position taken by Fox News host Tucker Carlson on the air. The scholar recalled saying, “I don’t watch Tucker’s monologue anymore.” The senior staffer allegedly replied, “Well, you ought to watch it, because the people who pay your salary watch it.” This ethos may have made its way into the policy shop’s output, which increasingly resembles public positions taken by Carlson on topics ranging from election integrity to big tech.

The storming of the Capitol was another sensitive topic for senior management. Coffey recalls being required by management to remove a Twitter post condemning the January 6 Capitol riots.

I miss the days when conservative media pundits (i.e Rush Limbaugh) would base many of their arguments/positions from the sound, conservative, scholarly work of the Heritage Foundation. Fast forward to today, in order to be relevant to the spirit of the MAGA age, the Heritage Foundation is expected to conform their political policies to partisan populist media pundits such as Tucker Carlson who isn’t necessarily interested in being factual (When Fox News/Carlson was sued for slander (McDougal vs. Fox News) a few years ago, Fox News lawyers successfully made the argument that “Carlson’s statements…are constitution protected opinion commentary that should not be reasonably understood as factual.” )

I find that Tucker uses many of the same linguistic devices that the Doctor of Democracy employed - sarcasm, satire, hyperbole, etc.

With what substantive areas do you disagree with Tucker? Or do you disagree with the manner in which he communicates his message?