LISTEN HERE:
Tuesday morning witnessed a significant event with former Fox News anchor, now in charge of an up-and-coming media company, Tucker Carlson, approximately responding to the triumphant performance of the leading Republican presidential aspirant, Donald Trump, in the recent Iowa caucus.
By the end of the caucus count, Trump clinched the majority votes with a resounding 51 percent. With a runner up share of 21.2 percent, Governor Ron DeSantis from Florida took second place, while ex-Governor Nikki Haley from South Carolina closely followed in third position holding 19.1 percent of the total votes.
Echoing a sense of nostalgia, Carlson posed, ‘What if we return to the good old-fashioned way of conducting elections, the way we did not so long ago? Let’s imagine that scenario. It would unfold quite traditionally. All eligible citizens would convene on a designated day to cast their votes in person. The process would involve presenting a valid ID proof, followed by manually recording your selection on a paper ballot. The concept of electronic voting machines would be absent, and drop boxes or absentee ballots would be a thing of the past.
Ep. 65 What the results in Iowa mean. pic.twitter.com/fVAObbJWIB
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) January 16, 2024
The individuals handling the voting process would likely be familiar faces from your own community, your neighbors, not personnel affiliated with tech moguls like Mark Zuckerberg from the west coast. When it comes to the ballot, it would be solely up to you, the citizen, to decide who gets listed, echoing the true spirit of a democracy. No judicial figure would have the jurisdiction to influence your voting preference. Once your vote has been cast, hindrance in the vote counting process would be strictly prohibited. Ultimately, the results would be declared within a few hours… reminiscing the old-school American way. Considering all these, what would be the outcome if we returned to this method?’
Subsequently, Carlson stated that the electoral success of Donald Trump was unquestionable. ‘At this juncture, it’s difficult to visualize anyone but him as the Republican nominee. His victory wasn’t merely a win; it was a sweeping conquest by an unparalleled margin. Trump’s supremacy in the Iowa caucuses was marked by a prodigious 30-point lead. This margin exponentially exceeds the previous record set by Bob Dole in 1988.
The results from that night were indisputably unambiguous. It wasn’t just a simple victory but rather a staggering upset. Trump’s triumph in Iowa could be likened to the ruthless prowess of the Vikings over the Irish coast, leaving nothing but devastation in their wake. One could say, only the ashes of burnt huts remained.
Evidently, Carlson’s remarks paint a vivid picture of the modern political landscape, further amplified by Trump’s historic success. His wide margin garnered awe and shock alike, reinforcing his dominant position in the race.
Do bear in mind that these observations are all reflective of an inherent desire to recapture the essence of traditional voting. In this suggested scenario, polling stations would revert to local community hubs, fostering a sense of familiarity and trust among voters.
Even as we consider these points, it’s important to highlight the continued evolvement of voting processes. It’s equally crucial to interpret Carlson’s rhetoric within the larger backdrop of the changing dynamics in the U.S political arena.
In this re-imagined scenario, there’s a high value placed on manual voting, devoid of electronic gadgets or absentee ballots. There’s also an intriguing question of what impact this ‘return to roots’ might have on the voting populace and the election outcome as a whole.
Insightfully, Carlson’s discourse opens up conversations around the desirability and feasibility of such a return to traditional electoral process. It also poses the question whether such a change might serve to redefine political successes, as witnessed in the case of Trump’s overwhelming victory.
In Carlson’s vision, the independence of voting citizens is greatly emphasized, with the power of candidate selection resting solely in their hands; away from any undue judicial influences. This is a reaffirmation of the democratic ideals that prioritize citizens’ voices in choosing their leaders.
Furthermore, legalities surrounding vote counting in his discourse symbolize a transparent process, instrumental in determining election results promptly. It indirectly points to the importance of trust in the voting system and assures the voter that their vote indeed matters.
Reflecting on Trump’s astonishing victory, Carlson seems to allude to a future in the Republican party that’s decisively molded by Trump’s ideology. Given such an impressive performance, Trump’s standing as the nominee is challenging to contest.
By comparing Trump’s victory to the Vikings’ infamous annihilation of the Irish coast, Carlson not only highlights the magnitude of this victory but also underscores the political narrative of domination and power. The imagery suggests a surprising yet overwhelming influence that is impossible to coerce.
As the discourse on America’s political future continues, Carlson’s remarks provide food for thought on various aspects, including the democratic process, individual voter autonomy, and how the echoes of the past reverberate in the present, shaping unique triumphs like that of Trump in the Iowa caucus.
