Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson is no longer a friend of the Republican Party. Since his tumultuous exit from Fox News, he has drifted further and further away from the MAGA brand that once defined him. He’s not the only one: former Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and former Trump official Joe Kent both cut ties with the President. Now, Carlson wants to help form a third party that he can support in good conscience. However, Carlson is not very well-liked. The latest public opinion data from YouGov shows him at a 40% disapproval rating. Years of partisan pandering and sensationalism have granted him many enemies and weakened his credibility. And yet, in an era where the bar for competence and righteousness drops lower and lower, it may be worth hearing him out. He has ruled out running for office, but his fame allows him to reach a large audience and inspire discussion amongst Americans. His ideas, even if hollow or motivated by self-interest, may lead to a change in thinking and a meaningful alternative to the dominant parties. In an August video for his podcast, Carlson highlighted ten goals for America, or ten principles it should live up to. This manifesto of his is largely “vibes-based,” but Americans of all backgrounds may find it to be surprisingly agreeable. The first point, for instance, is treating all people the same, whether that be in schools, workplaces, or courts. He highlights the high-profile case of sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein as an example of how the nation has abandoned fairness to give certain individuals, often elites, an edge. He also targets diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, tying them to the same kind of unfairness that let a criminal of the highest order off easy. The rule of law and meritocracy embody American ideals held by the left, right, and center. DEI advocates may disagree that race-based policies are unfair, but they can at least agree that fairness is imperative. Most, if not all of us, would also agree that justice must never be denied. The United States will soon lose its status as a liberal democracy if its institutions and laws continue to deteriorate like this. Corruption in broad daylight erodes public trust, encourages further wrongdoing, and threatens the American way. The manifesto’s second point is sovereignty. He alleges that U.S. involvement in Iran is a direct result of our association with Israel and its need for control in that region. His reasoning is that were we fully independent and sovereign, we would have no need to get involved. This is arguably the point most important to him, as he has long been fixated on the isolationist America-first ideology. It’s practically guaranteed that any party formed by him will focus on this as its driving principle. Given widespread anti-Israel sentiment and general opposition to foreign intervention, many Americans may once again be on the same page as Carlson. The third and fourth points are productivity and beauty. Instead of investing in surveillance systems and peddling weapons of war, he believes the United States should use its resources to support agriculture and create art. In that spirit, he also asserts brutalist architecture and graffiti as issues that need to be addressed. One could argue we have bigger problems, but when a majority of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, we may need a multitude of changes across society and culture. His fifth point is healthiness. He brings up toxic food additives and addiction to prescription drugs, like Adderall, as examples of a deeply unhealthy nation. Health Secretary RFK Jr’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative promised action on public health issues, but MAHA supporters claim the administration has failed to live up to its word. A former advisor for RFK Jr’s 2024 presidential campaign likened the administration’s handling of this issue to “a blatant slap in the face.” Carlson didn’t bring MAHA’s failures to light, but he expressed a desire for progress in relation to the issue. Where he does confront the administration is with his continued crusade against the Iran War. The conflict has been the greatest source of friction between him and Trump, but it also gives him common ground with independents and Democrats. When speaking on honesty—the sixth point in his plan—he says that the administration lied about Iran’s nuclear capabilities and used it as a false pretense for war. Americans historically do not trust the government, and secrecy around events like the assassination of JFK has made it worse as time passes. Carlson says that politicians should stop telling bold-faced lies and that government documents on controversial events should be declassified in order to achieve an honest country. Optimism and wisdom are points seven and eight. He elaborates that optimism isn’t just choosing to be positive, but having a society that encourages looking ahead. Aging leaders with no care for the future or stock traders after their daily profit, he argues, aren’t who we want to hold power or dominate society. The future belongs to the next generation, and society should improve itself for their sake. As part of that forward-looking mindset, Carlson believes we should teach wisdom to children, namely about the world’s functionality and adulthood. The final two points are decency and unity. Carlson wants an America where kindness towards our neighbors is the law of the land. Though these are among his more respectable positions, he also criticizes sexual indecency and mass migration in the same breath. If he means to bring Democrats into his movement, he will have to get rid of or compromise on some of his more conservative views. A call for unity might not hold much water coming from someone who was once among the most incendiary figures in America, but his populist views and rebranding may grant him the means to bring people together. It’s hard to rule out that he may be an opportunist switching to the winning side; it would be a shrewd yet fitting
By Amaan Bhimani
Conspiracy theories alleging that the Moon landings from NASA’s Apollo program were fake have virtually no evidence to back them up. For the first time since 1972, NASA’s Artemis program saw a successful return of humans to the Moon and is poised to return to land on it in 2028. The vast majority of Americans believe that the original Apollo missions were worth the costs, and have long desired a return to the Moon’s surface. The Moon landings are widely regarded as one of the greatest breakthroughs in science—albeit with significant opposition. Specifically, a small but very vocal share of people, even in the United States, allege that they were fake. These conspiracy theories have been backed up with virtually no evidence, but belief in them nevertheless continues to grow. A look at the Apollo program in an international context is helpful in squashing these allegations’ credibility. During the height of the Cold War in the 1960s and 1970s, the United States and Soviet Union sought prestige for their economic systems via accomplishments in space exploration. The Soviet Union successfully conducted the first unmanned and manned missions into low-Earth orbit. President John F. Kennedy used this to urge the United States to be the first to send a man to the Moon. Although the Apollo mission was not without catastrophic failures, the Soviets acknowledged its success in accomplishing its goals in 1969. Proving the accomplishments of its primary nemesis fake would have severely improved the Soviet Union’s standing at such a pivotal moment in history. So, the fact that even the communist superpower refused to even try should be taken as a major concession gesture in the space race. And the Soviets were certainly keen on exposing American secrets: vast Soviet spy networks existed in the United States during the Cold War, which stole numerous American innovations in nuclear weapons, defense hardware, and even NASA’s space shuttles. Additionally, the space programs of Japan, India, and China have seemed to verify the presence of the Apollo missions’ abandoned landers on the Moon, giving Americans even more confidence in their country’s space exploration capabilities. Many deniers of the Moon landings also allege that if they had taken place, it would not have been decades since Apollo 17 in 1972 before humanity returned to its nearest celestial neighbor. The reason for this dearth of Moon landings has not been a lack of available technology, but rather a lack of will to return, the enormous cost, and the need for improved safety measures. The Apollo program cost over $300 billion after adjustments for inflation and took place during the peak of NASA’s share of Federal spending. Even excluding the notorious Apollo 13, the program’s missions came close to catastrophic failure countless times due to faulty engineering, and these safety margins would never be allowed on a space mission today. Furthermore, improvements in unmanned space probes have replaced the need for human missions beyond low Earth orbit, and the Moon appears to be no exception. The Artemis program has taken these flaws with Apollo into account in order to be more cost effective, which Americans should see as an award for their patience since 1972. Returning to the Moon is just the start of breaking new boundaries in space exploration. SpaceX, a private company, is also contributing to America’s manned space efforts. NASA hopes to establish a permanent base on the Moon by the end of the decade. Mars is the next frontier of human presence, and NASA is currently exploring the logistics of human missions there. Each of these will only gain the United States more respect, legitimacy, and cooperation as humanity strives towards the common goal of exploring our cosmic backyard—a determination that can be credited to the Moon landings. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole.
By Edward Kim
“If I hadn’t resisted, we wouldn’t have survived.” That is how Ani Avetisyan rightly justified her decision to defend her children and herself against Nasimi Musayev, an armed Azerbaijani soldier who had illegally crossed Armenia’s border. He held her children at gunpoint in their home in Shaki — a village in Armenia’s southeastern Syunik Province, roughly twelve miles from Armenia’s border with Azerbaijan. Avetisyan was at a hotel in the nearby town of Sisian when one of her children called to say someone had broken into their home. Avetisyan immediately phoned the police and drove to the village. In an interview with Azatutyun, the Armenian service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Avetisyan said she estimated the soldier held the children for about fifteen minutes before she arrived. While the children were left alone with Musayev, he spoke in a language completely foreign to them and took their phones right out of their hands. Avetisyan said that when she walked in, the soldier raised his rifle and fired at her, but missed his shot. As she moved closer, Musayev turned the weapon toward her son. Without hesitation, she grabbed hold of the rifle. The second shot cost her the thumb of her left hand and seriously damaged her other fingers. Musayev then threw Avetisyan onto a bed and began beating her. Despite her horrible injuries, she relentlessly fought back — at some point getting hold of a kitchen knife and striking him with it — as her teenage son hit the soldier from the side. Amid all this, she found her voice and instructed her daughter to open the gate. She tried to get her son out of the house as well, but he refused to leave her side. Avetisyan’s sister, Arpi Avetisyan, told Azatutyun in an interview that her nephew’s wrist was broken in the struggle. While instructing her daughter to leave, the soldier aimed the rifle at Avetisyan’s chest. Wounded as she was, she forced the barrel down with all the strength she had left, redirecting the third shot to her leg instead. Avetisyan explains that the bullet completely destroyed her knee. While Avetisyan was already on the ground when Musayev tried to shoot her again, instead, he found the rifle empty and tried to reload. The soldier ultimately fled and was caught shortly afterward, exhausted from blood loss, according to the village chief. When asked what she thought when she first learned someone was in her home, Avetisyan said there was nothing in her mind but her children. She had no idea the man was Azerbaijani — he never uttered a word to her. Avetisyan emphasized that it would have made little difference if she had known; all she cared about was her children’s safety. The police had every advantage in reaching her children first. Sisian’s police station, Avetisyan points out, is closer to Shaki than the hotel she drove from. Yet she reached the house before the officers, who arrived after the soldier had fled. Armenia’s prime minister, Nikol Pashinyan, faulted Avetisyan for not waiting for the police. His remarks implied that waiting would have resulted in a better outcome. He conceded that “maternal instinct is strong,” but told parliament that once officers are called, you wait for them to act. Armenia’s National Security Service said Azerbaijan sent a warning to Armenia on September 29 that a soldier had left his unit and might have crossed the border; both countries began searching for him. Given the warning, authorities should have treated the emergency call from Shaki with particular urgency. Knowing an innocent family could be in a life-threatening situation, they should have counted every second. The mere possibility should have been more than enough; the risk should have been impossible to overlook. Instead, the authorities failed at what they quite literally exist to do: protect. When even Armenia’s own defense minister acknowledged shortcomings in how the soldier’s crossing was handled, it’s hard to argue that Avetisyan should have trusted the system to arrive in time. Had she waited for them, as Pashinyan suggests, who would have stood between the soldier and the children? Who would have arrived in time to keep the children out of harm’s way? Earlier in the interview, Avetisyan put it plainly: if she hadn’t made up her mind at that exact moment, neither she nor her children would be here today. When she was asked about the prime minister’s remark, she said she could not have waited, as she had already called the police. Every second counted in that situation, and she made sure that none of it went to waste. The lives of Ani Avetisyan’s children were secured by acts that arose from the maternal instinct Pashinyan talked past. She took hold of a rifle that was aimed at her son, sent her daughter to open the gate, tried to get her son out of the house, and forced a rifle barrel away from her chest — all while being beaten. To treat that instinct as something to simply set aside overlooks a major reason they are alive today. Avetisyan’s determination to protect her children not only got her home before the authorities, but kept her fighting an armed soldier until he fled — with no rifle of her own. All she had was a severely wounded hand, a kitchen knife, and her teenage son at her side. Ani Avetisyan protected her children. Pashinyan faulted her for not waiting, as if relying on the police — who, as she highlights, failed at the simple task of arriving in time — was a plausible option. If Pashinyan places that much responsibility on the authorities, why couldn’t they carry out their duty properly? Why weren’t residents notified of such a great threat? Why was it so easy for the soldier to remain undetected? Why did Avetisyan have to take matters into her own hands — one mother with nothing but a kitchen knife, fighting an armed soldier? The answers all lead to the
By Maya Balmanukyan
Follow Us