Years ago, Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson got into it over self-driving trucks. Shapiro defended the free market to do its thing. Carlson said he it would serve the common good to not allow self-driving trucks because it’s the most popular job for high school educated men and putting 10 million workers out of a job would have too high a social cost. But where do we draw the line on this? What about the men who developed the self-driving tech and their families? Should they not be allowed to sell and profit from their work? Are truck drivers better than engineers? Don’t engineers have families too? And what about other industries? Should podcasting not be allowed to exist because it puts journalists and newscasters out of work? Should Uber not be allowed to exist because it puts taxi drivers out of work? The men at Uber have families too, presumably. Should homeschooling be outlawed because it puts teachers out of work? Should Musk’s purchase of Twitter have been blocked since the first thing he did was fire a bunch of people? Are we supposed to stop all technological innovation because it disrupts the job market?
Every one of these issues has multiple sides to it. When the government regulates industries in the way Carlson suggests, it ends up picking winners and losers. It puts Americans against each other and makes lobbying Congress the key rather than hard work and creativity. Whoever has the biggest lobby can protect their industry – while harming others. The economy becomes a political war zone. As Sowell says, government actions always have unintended consequences. There are no solutions, only trade-offs. In the example above, truck drivers win but the engineers and technicians developing self-driving vehicles lose. On what basis does the state use the force of the sword to tell engineers they cannot bring their product to market? There has to be a better way. I usually like Tucker but I think he got this one wrong.
—
I could be wrong, but I do not think Carlson’s take on outlawing self-driving trucks is accurately representing the way someone like Pat Buchanan viewed this issue. I do not remember Buchanan ever pitting American workers against each other. Rather, he pitted American workers vs. foreign workers. For example, if we passed a law that China could not buy land in America, I would have no problem with it. In fact, I would support it. We are not obligated to include China in our market. A free market does not require globalism. When Buchanan opposed “free markets” in the 1990s, “free markets” were a stand in for globalism – exporting jobs and industries to other parts of the world where labor is cheaper. I do not object to Buchanan’s point. Whether or not America should engage in trade with other nations is distinct question from being committed, in principle, to free markets within our nation. The reality is there is no global free market because other nations do not play by the same rules, e.g., they subsidize certain industries making it impossible for the American worker to compete. Americans should be able to work at jobs that pay wages commensurate with the American way of life. America should engage in trade agreements with other nations that serve American interests. American workers should have to compete with other American workers, but not with every other worker in the world. A nation’s government has an obligation to its own people, first and foremost. A government that does not serve its own people is worthless.
There are many ways America could force the issue and bring manufacturing back home, even without using tariffs (which are just taxes, usually passed on to the consumer). For example, in the name of national security, the American military could adopt a policy that it is only going to buy semiconductors and other products that are made in America. We would see many industries reshore quickly; the military is a big enough customer to make it happen. American workers and the American military would be serving one another. In the name of health, we could require all food products that can be produced in America to be produced in America if they are going to be sold here. American farmers can compete with one another in the free market, but why should American farmers have to compete with every farmer in the world? This is the proper form of economic nationalism. A free market inside the nation, and carefully calculated trade agreements with other nations when they have some product we simply cannot produce here.
There are other systemic changes that would be easy to make that would go a long way to fixing the affordability crisis in our nation. Drop CAFE requirements for cars altogether. They’re not needed at this point; cars are fuel efficient enough and customers can decide how important fuel economy is to them when they make their purchase. Make more car safety features optional rather than required. We need cheaper and less complicated vehicles on the market. Lower regulation on construction, especially new home construction. Do not allow corporations to buy properties zoned for residential homes (this can be done at the state and local level; free market folks are generally fine with zoning laws). Do away with unnecessary environmental regulations. Allow college loan debt to be included in bankruptcies. Get the government out of funding college loans and let either private banks or the colleges themselves grant loans. I guarantee colleges would quickly lower their prices and stop offering worthless degrees that have no ROI if students could get out the loans in bankruptcy. Deregulate insurance industries enough to allow for more competition, especially in the health insurance market. Require hospitals to provide transparent pricing up front so people can make rational decisions about healthcare. And so on. Most of our economic problems stem from too much government intervention in markets, too much socialism, or too much crony capitalism (which is just cleverly disguised socialism). We need markets that are regulated morally and wisely, not capriciously controlled by those who have the politicians in their back pockets.
Further, poor loans should be distinguished from business loans (as in the Torah). Let the market set the interest rate rather than the fed. Make money printing illegal, or set it at a very, very low inflationary rate so wealth is protected. Do away with the Fed.
Promote families by giving massive tax breaks to married couples with children. Get divorced for illegitimate reasons? Lose your tax breaks. Have a child out of wedlock? You don’t get the same tax credit as married couples. States should eradicate no fault divorce, family courts should be more fair to fathers, and stay at home moms with little ones should get tax breaks.
We need massive welfare reform. We are creating an culture of dependency. We have too many people gaming the system.
To save US taxpayers money, cut off most foreign aid. Help should only be given to foreign nations when it serves an obvious American interest. This is not isolationism; it is prudence and stewardship. Ban foreign lobbying. Severely limit immigration – or stop it altogether, at least until deportations are complete. End the H1B program. Make energy independence a bedrock of American policy. Use nucelar power. Why buy foreign oil when we have our own? We just enrich our enemies. Regulate lobbyists for corporations (along with foreign nations) so that Congressmen represent their people, not the highest bidder. Set term limits; no more career politicians. The argument against term limits is that Congressmen can develop skill in statecraft over time – but since that’s obviously not happening, put hard limits on terms. Ever served in Congress? Then you cannot become a lobbyist. Find useful work to do after your time in Congress is over. Give the President a line item veto, including budgets presented to him. Continue on with DOGE to eliminate government waste. Again, this isn’t that hard, if we have the will to do it.
We can fix the things that are wrong with the economy. We can encourage personal virtue and family formation. We can have a proper country again. Why don’t we do it?
—
It’s always risky to comment on Trump because what he says one day, he might contradict the next. Trump is fluid on many issues. But as of mid-November 2025, there are a few things we can say.
The shine is definitely wearing off Trump. That’s not to say he has failed; the results have just not been spectacular. He has done many good things and many questionable things. He has made some very odd moves recently that reek of instability or desperation. He’s reversed course on H1B (though some of the issue here is poor messaging, not policy). He has not really improved the economy all that much. The tariffs, which I was skeptical of, have not really altered much. The 50 year mortgage proposal, at best, preys upon the economic illiteracy of the populace and benefits the bankers. The government purchasing a stake in public companies is a real problem on all kinds of levels. The deportations of illegals are good, but it was always going to be difficult, especially with so much resistance coming from other layers of government, so it’s unlikely that we remove as many as Trump promised. He has rejected pro-life principles on IVF and abortion drugs. It’s hard to see what “America first” really is at this point. He keeps throwing crazy stuff against the wall to see what sticks. Burying the Epstein files is another strike – though there are signs maybe the files will be released after all. We will see.
On top of that, and worst of all, he has continually attacked genuinely good men, like Thomas Massie and Ron Paul. Most politicians in DC are corrupted; those two men are not. Trump has to be able to handle disgareement from men who are otherwise allies and friends. He also threw a loyal supporter to the curb in Majorie Taylor Greene (much as he did years ago with Jeff Sessions).
I still support Trump, all things considered. I want him to succeed. I appreciate the good he has done. But I was hoping his second term would be more than a “better than the alternative” kind of thing. Yes, he has done some good things with the war on drugs. He’s made good faith efforts on the war front – though he’s also said some crazy things there. There has been a little economic progress and maybe there will be more on the affordability front, though it hasn’t happened much yet. I like how Trump and Hegseth have removed DEI from the military and elsewhere. But overall this term has not been as effective as I would have hoped. Trump got off to a good start, but he’s fizzling out right now.
—
What about Tucker Carlson’s recent controversies?
After spending some time with Tucker Carlson at the 1819 News event, I think I understand him much better. I have an observation and a couple tentative conclusions.
A observation: Tucker is eminently likable. He has strong opinions, but he is gregarious and curious – a wonderful combination. He has courage. he is sincere. He loves America. He is a Christian. I wish he was better theologically grounded, but of course I think that – I’m a pastor. I don’t know about his church situation, but I think God is very much at work in his life. He understands spiritual warfare and has experienced it. He
A couple tentative conslusions:
First, Tucker is still very much a conservative and other conservatives are making a mistake trying to cancel him or push him out. He’s uncancellable anyway. Interviewing guys like Darrel Cooper and Nick Fuentes is really just Tucker giving the middle finger to the mainstream, especially the mainstream media, that drove him out. I don’t even know how much Tucker knew about those guys before interviewed them (based on the questions he asked and didn’t ask) and I think he’s fine with the reaction they caused. In his interview with Megan Kelly, reading between the lines, I think he’s a little bit embarrassed by the Fuentes interview, but I don’t think he really cares that much. Interviewing figures like Fuentes is his way of striking back at an establishment that struck out at him. You can call it unwise or foolish, but I think one of Tucker’s deepest principles is free speech. Everyone should get their say. No one should be censored or canceled. Again, whether or not it’s wise for Tucker to use his own platform to promote these guys is a very valid question but I do not think it would be right or fair to assume that he agrees with them. If I had his platform, I would choose different guests and ask harder questions. But assuming Tucker is promoting these kinds of men because he agrees with them is a mistake. I think he’s just interacting with popular figures to see who they are and what they’re about. In the case of Fuentes, his strategy is obvious: He wants to know why millions of young men follow this guy. I don’t know if his interview settled that question, but given how wide the generation gap is right now, it could at least help some older folks better understand how young men see the world we have bequeathed to them.
Tucker has made it pretty clear in a number of places he is not some kind of Nazi or groyper. He is not an antisemite. (See especially his 1819 News podcast with Bryan Dawson.) He does have strong opinions on American foreign policy and he believes Israel’s influence and special treatment have done a lot of damage to America. I would guess he sees the basic divide in American policy as “Israel first” versus “America first,” and to him America first is all that matters. He’s a patriot who wants what’s best for his country.
That brings me to my second tentative conclusion. Tucker’s driving principle at this point is “America first” no matter what. I think this explains everything he’s doing. I think it’s also why so many in the establishment despise him. He sees 98% of our politicians as utterly corrupt and compromised. He’s frustrated with a conservatism that has not conserved anything. He rightly asks what good a government is if it does not serve the interest of its own people. He’s committed to free market capitalism but not at the same level as “America first” so if he has to sacrifice market principles for the good of Americans, he will do so. This is what separates him from other conservatives such as say, David Bahnsen, who holds free market economics as a core guiding conviction (as conservatives of previous generations generally have). I don’t think this puts Tucker outside of the conservative movement. In fact, I think he represents a large swath of conservatives at this point. He’s fed up with corrupt elites who control a system that no longer works for most Americans. He’s especially sympathetic with a plight of young men in today’s culture. Interviewing men like Fuentes and Cooper is just the way of giving the establishment a strong push back. It’s a way of screaming, “Do something about this problem!” Because guys like Fuentes are “America first,” and that’s all that really matters to Tucker, he will have a conversation with them. I’m sure he sees that as common cause enough to bring them on his show.
In my view, free enterprise and commitment to a moral free market should continue to be cornerstones of a conservative and Christian political philosophy. I do not think right-wing central planners will be any more successful than left-wing central planners. Economies just don’t work that way. If self-driving trucks can do the job of human drivers more efficiently and safely, I’d be reluctant to give government the power to outlaw the robo-trucks (like Tucker would). And I say that as someone who does not care for self-driving vehicles. Economies are constantly evolving to adapt to new technologies; stopping the technology is rarely the answer. But I also think we can make a lot of economic adjustments that would greatly enhance and encourage things like housing affordability, marriage, and childbearing. I also think that going forward, the case for giving billions of dollars in support to Israel is going to have to be based on pragmatic and prudential grounds, not theological grounds. That’s what Tucker got right in his interview with Ted Cruz. Tucker is certainly right that our Israeli-driven new foreign policy got us into all kinds of unnecessary wars – and might do so again. Tucker regrets having supported those wars and I suppose some of his current modus operandi is him doing penance.
While Tucker and Trump have criticized one another at times. I think they’re still very much on the same side, and I think Vance is even closer to Tucker in terms of ideology. So despite the attempts to cancel Tucker, I do not think he’s going to go away; if anything his popularity and influence will continue to grow. Tucker fears that Trump‘s failure to fix the economy and the immigration issue faster is going to come back and haunt him and the Republican Party, and I think he might be right about that. As the election results from earlier this month show, the Democrats might be down, but they’re not out. And it remains to be seen if another Republican candidate besides Trump can pull in the same broad coalition of voters. The next Democratic presidential candidate (likely Gavin Newsom) will probably moderate a lot Democrat positions on things like transgenderism and immigration. The move back towards the center will be in rhetoric only, not reality, but it might be enough to pull the election. Whether or not Trump‘s MAGA victories can establish a new beach head or just be a minor speed bump in America’s continued drift into hyper-liberal progressivism remains to be seen. But there’s no question that a lot of the optimism that came with Trump‘s election victory in ‘24 is wearing off very quickly. Tucker is bringing radicals onto his show is, if nothing else, a way to remind Republicans that they still haven’t addressed the biggest political and social crises in our land and time is running out.n Unfortunately, Republicans do not seem to be getting the right message.
As for Tucker‘s conspiratorial leanings, well, I don’t have enough information to agree or disagree. He certainly seems to be in a position to know a lot more than most people. Maybe he’s connecting dots in a reasonable way, maybe not, but the number of unsolved mysteries, so to speak, that cast a shadow over our culture and politics right now is incredibly alarming. Tucker is doing his best to bring attention to these issues, whether it’s 9/11 or Thomas Crooks or the Las Vegas or any number of other incidents, and I think he’s right that the American people deserve answers.
A friend asked me the other day, “Do you encounter more conspiracy theorists than you used to?” I replied, “Everyone I know is a conspiracy theorist at this point.” There are good and bad sides to this. On the one hand, we can be controlled by a desire to know things that aren’t really our job to know or are beyond our ability to know with reasonable certainty. Chasing the latest conspiracy can become a distraction from the real work God has assigned us to do.
On the other hand, far too many “conspiracies” have been proven true in recent years, especially since COVID. People have understandably lost all trust in our major institutions, from mainstream news sources to physicians to the three letter government agencies. Our elites have failed us – and they failed us because they are foolish and wicked. They should not be trusted; our ire at them is well-earned and well-deserved. We need new leadership — the kind of turnover among society’s elites that Hannah prayed for in 1 Samuel 2, and got.
TPC Pastor's Page 