Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:05] Speaker B: Of we the People, tackling current issues, both political and legal, with common sense.
As we the People, we must bring common sense back to make our lives better.
Only on NOW Media tv.
[00:00:23] Speaker A: Good evening, and welcome to we the People.
Tonight, we're looking at something very specific and something that is unfolding in real time.
A growing fracture inside the MAGA movement over the war in Iran.
This is not speculation. This is not social media news. This is being reported across major outlets, including the Associated Press and ABC News. And it is now visible, not just in commentary, but but in data, in public statements, and in political positioning. I am Alina Gonzalez Dockery, your host.
You have prominent voice putting Tucker Carlson openly criticizing President Trump's decision to strike Iran.
Quote, Carlson, this is not America First. This is something else entirely. Using language that is not measured, not cautious, but definitive, Carlson has described the strikes as disgusting and evil and has argued that the conflict does not serve American interests.
At the same time, you have senior Republicans like Senator Ted Cruz publicly responding with equally strong language, calling Carlson an intellectual coward and warning that his rhetoric is dangerous.
And layered on top of that, you have new polling showing that while support for President Trump remains extremely strong among Republicans, there is significant hesitation, particularly when the question shifts from airstrikes to escalation and from escalation to ground involvement.
Support drops significantly when the conversation shifts, and that sustained involvement is what we're looking at.
So tonight, we are going to do something very deliberate.
We're going to separate perception from reality.
And though some will say one's perception is the reality, that perception is most likely being manipulated. And we're going to get into that.
We are going to look at what is actually happening inside this movement, what is being reported, what the numbers show, and why. The war in Iran, of all issues, has become the point where agreement begins to strain within the MAGA movement.
This is not simply a political disagreement.
This is a test of definition, because this is not what MAGA has been showing for the past decade.
To understand that this is a test of definition, we have to start with the facts. According to reporting from the AP coming out of CPAC this week, support for President Trump among conservatives remains extremely high, well into the 80% range.
So let's establish that clearly at the outset, this is not a movement that is abandoning its leader.
This is not what is happening.
But in the same reporting and in the broader coverage of the Iran conflict, you begin to see something different.
You begin to see open disagreement, not about Trump himself, but about policy, most specifically foreign policy and even more Specifically about how far the United States should go in a conflict with Iran.
Now, this is where the polling becomes critical, because it gives us a clearer picture of what people actually think beyond the noise of commentary, beyond those like myself on podcast, newsreel or even on TikTok AP. NORC polling shows that while roughly 70% of Republicans support Trump's handling of Iran, overall that support is not uniform across all potential actions.
60% support airstrikes.
It's easy, it's quick, does not contain actual boots on the ground.
But that's where it shifts.
When the question goes to sending ground troops into Iran, the number drops significantly to 20%.
That is not a small difference.
That is not just a small dip in the.
In the ratings, and that is not a statistical fluctuation.
That is a hard line.
And that line tells you something very important.
It tells you that the agreement inside the movement has limits. It tells you that support exists, but it is conditional. And it tells you when that the issue moves from controlled military action to prolonged involvement, people begin to reassess, especially those within the America first versus Make America Great Again and Trumpism, because this is where the conversation is changing.
For years, the MAGA movement has been defined by a high degree of alignment, particularly around the concept of America First.
That phrase has been used consistently and has carried a general understanding. Prioritizing American interest, reducing foreign entanglements, and avoiding prolonged international conflicts like we just got out of in Afghanistan, regardless of how debacled that was.
But what happens when the United States engages in a conflict that begins to look like the kind of involvement that America first was meant to avoid?
That's what's being asked now, not quietly, not behind the scenes, but very publicly.
And this is where the fracture begins, because now you are no longer asking whether people support Trump. You're asking what they believe that support requires.
And those two very different things.
Now, let's widen the lens, because this is not just internal to one movement.
When you look at broader polling across the general population, you see a similar pattern of hesitation.
The Associated Press reporting indicates that a majority of Americans believe US Military action against Iran has gone too far, that it's time to scale down.
At the same time, Americans still recognize that Iran is a serious threat.
And there is absolute concern about Iran's nuclear capabilities.
And there is concern about the global stability, especially when dealing with someone as a terrorist organization and regime like Iran's.
But there's also concern and hesitation is just too soft of a word about escalation, and it is creating tension people can support the objective, preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons while questioning the method and the scope of the response.
And that tension is now showing up both inside the MAGA movement and across the broader public.
And now let's bring in concrete example of how this debate is moving from policy into the public area.
Joe Kent, former counterterrorism official, resigned over the Iran policy just last week and then almost immediately took the argument into the media space, but not the traditional media forum where news is reported.
According to reporting from the AP and the Washington Post, Kent has been actively trying to rally opposition to the war within conservative circles, including through high profile interview with Tucker Carlson.
And in that interview, Kent argued that key voices were not allowed to fully present opposition to the strike and that internal debate was limited and that the decision did not reflect the core principles that many supporters believed they were voting for.
Now, whether you agree with that or not is not the point here.
The point is that the disagreement is no longer internal. It's no longer going behind closed doors. It is now out in the open into the public.
It is now part of the media conversation. And once that happens, the nature of the debate changes significantly because it's no longer just about policy.
It becomes about narrative.
It becomes about how that policy explained, interpreted and understood by millions of people.
And that is where this moves into the next phase of the conversation. Because once a political disagreement enters the media space, particularly in today's environment where we have media access 24 7, it doesn't just stay a disagreement, it gets amplified, shaped. It gets framed in ways that can influence how the public understands the issue itself.
And one of the central figures in that process right now is Tucker Carlson.
So when we come back, we're going to look at that more closely.
It is not a personal attack on Tucker Carlson and it's not just what he is saying, but we're going to look further into how he is shaping the conversation and why his role in this moment matters.
Because when you're seeing the barbs going, being flung back and forth, one thing is for sure, Tucker Carlson has a huge platform and he is utilizing it.
But there are others that are utilizing their platforms to manipulate, without facts, without accountability what the public perception is.
So when we return, we're going to jump into this.
Stay with us after this. Commercial break.
Welcome back. Are you enjoying what you're seeing on we the People? Well, you can catch we the People and other Now Media TV programs on the go in an app on iOS or Roku, you prefer the podcast version, then go to NowMedia TV and find all of your programs in both Spanish and English right there, ready for your listen. A great way to fill your commute every day.
Welcome back. Before the break, we laid out the fracture.
Not a collapse of support, but a strain inside the MAGA movement over the war in Iran and what does it mean to be America first?
So now we're going to look at the second layer of this because once a policy disagreement moves out of the internal discussions and into the public arena, it changes, it becomes shaped, it becomes amplified and increasingly it becomes driven by the voices that carry it to the public.
And right now, one of the most influential voices in that process is, is Tucker Carlson.
Now let's be very clear about how we approach this.
This is not about personality.
You can love them, you can hate them, you can be in between, it doesn't matter. That's not what I'm here for.
And this is not about whether someone or whether I like or dislike Tucker Carlson.
But what it is about is influence.
It is about understanding his influence and others that are in his position.
See, what the reporting shows is that Carlson has not taken a neutral position on this issue. He is not reporting as if he were a journalist.
He is a political commentator. He is taking full on what his opinion is and making it as in fact, he loves to say, I know the truth, this is fact.
But is it?
I mean, there's no doubt Tucker Carlson takes a clear position and he has taken it in very strong terms.
As I noted earlier, he has described the Iran strikes as disgusting and evil.
He has argued that the conflict serves interests outside of the United States. And I quote, this is Israel's war. This is not the United States war. So he's laying full on blame onto Israel.
Not a first time that he has come against Israel.
And in other appearances he has framed the war as inconsistent with what voters understood America first to mean.
Now that matters for two reasons.
First, because of the language.
When you use words like disgusting and evil, you're not simply offering analysis.
You are making a moral judgment. And that is what Tucker Carlson is doing. He's making a moral judgment.
And moral language carries weight.
It hits hard, it hits at home with some people.
It evokes emotion.
It tells the audience not just what to think, but how to feel about what they are seeing.
And second, it matters because of the platform.
Carlson is not operating within traditional media constraints.
He is speaking directly to an extremely large audience through long form interviews, through direct to consumer platforms, without the kind of editorial structure that typically accompanies traditional broadcast journalism. And yes, that does include msnbc, cnn, Fox News, News Nation, and Newsmax, just to name some. Off the cuff.
See, his unrestricted platforms changes how information is received because in that environment, his narrative is not moderated, it is not constructed.
And that's where the difference is.
So let's look at what construction actually looks like.
Carlson has not limited himself to commentary. He has conducted a series of high profile interviews with figures who reinforce his framing of the conflict.
That includes his interview with Joe Kent, who, as we discussed, resigned over the Iran policy.
And he used Carlson's platform to argue that key voices were excluded from internal decision making.
But he goes beyond that.
Carlson has also conducted interviews with international figures, including Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and other foreign voices critical of U.S. policy.
Now again, whether one agrees with those interviews or not is not the point.
The point is what they do.
They expand the frame of the conversation.
They introduce perspectives that are not typically part of mainstream US political coverage. And that can be a positive.
It also allows Carlson to present a version of the conflict that differs significantly from official narratives. Again, different perspectives, different points of view, different opinions, different. These are all good. That is something that we the people desire more of, allowing for differing opinions to occur.
And that does have an effect.
But when that opinion, when those perspectives are based on a personal belief or moral system, that's where things are really, truly changed. Because when an audience is exposed to a consistent set of arguments, reinforced through multiple interviews delivered in long form conversation, it shapes how that audience understands the issue.
When language becomes the absolute, it doesn't just inform, it directs.
And that is exactly what Tucker Carlson is using his platform for.
To direct the conversation in the manner in which he wants it. To direct the conversation, for the people to be influenced by his words, by his interviews, to find agreement with his point of view with no pushback or very little.
Now let's look to the response, because this has not gone unanswered. In fact, the pushback has been immediate and at times very sharp.
Senator Ted Cruz has been one of the most vocal critics.
He has publicly criticized Carlton using language that is not measured, stating Tucker Carlson is an intellectual coward, a kook, and in other commentary, describing him as one of the most dangerous voices shaping public opinion on this issue.
Now again, this is not routine disagreement.
This is one influential conservative voice challenging the credibility and the influence of another.
And that tells us something important. It tells us that this is not just a debate about Iran.
This is about a debate who gets to define the narrative around Iran and other future policy positions.
Because at this point, both sides are not just arguing policy, they are arguing legitimacy of the other's opinion.
Carlson is arguing that the war itself is illegitimate, that it does not reflect American interests, that it contradicts the principles of the movement.
His critics are arguing that his framing is illegitimate, that it distorts reality, that it undermines U.S. interests, and that it misleads the public.
So now you have two competing claims, not just about the facts, but about who should be trusted to interpret those facts.
And this is where the conversation shifts again, because this is no longer just about Tucker Carlson.
This is about a broader change in how political information is being delivered.
We are moving away from a system where information is filtered through institutions, edited, verified, presented in structured format, and towards a system where individuals with large platforms can deliver information directly to large audiences in real time.
And that creates a different dynamic because now trust is not placed in the institution, it is placed in the individual. It is placed on the influence of that individual.
The audience is no longer asking, what is the official position? They are asking, who do I believe?
And that answer to that question can be, can vary dramatically.
So yes, some will trust Carlson, some will trust Cruz, some will trust neither.
But the result of the same, you can no longer have a single shared narrative. You have competing narratives, each with its own audience, each with its own interpretation, each with its own internal logic.
And that has consequences. Because when people are operating from different narratives, they are not disagreeing on conclusions, they are disagreeing on the foundation.
And that makes resolution more difficult.
Now, let's bring this back to a broader contrast, because what we are seeing here is not unique to this issue, but is especially visible in this issue because of the stakes.
We are talking about war, we are talking about decisions that affect American lives, global stability, long term geopolitical outcomes.
And at the same time, we are watching those decisions being interpreted, framed and debated through a media system that is faster, more direct and less structured than anything we have seen before.
In that combination, high stakes plus high speed information plus high impact personalities creates a very different kind of political environment.
So when we step back and look at this moment, we have to recognize that Tucker Carlson is not just a participant in the conversation, he is a driver of it. Not alone, but significantly.
And the response to him is not just disagreement. It is an attempt to challenge the influence. It's an attempt to really challenge his character. And that brings us to the next question. Because if influence is shifting, if credibility is shifting, if trust is shifting, then what does that mean? For how Americans understand what is happening. And that is where we go next, because in this next segment, we're going to expand this beyond one person and look at how different voices across the spectrum are raising similar concerns about information in itself is being shaped. So stay with us after this.
So for tonight, we've walked through two very specific things.
First, the structure inside the MAGA movement over the war in Iran.
Second, the role that Tucker Carlson is playing in shaping how that fracture is being understood.
Now we're going to take the next step because if we stop at Tucker, we miss the bigger story.
You may be asking what could be bigger than this? You got infighting between Trump, Ted Cruz, and Tucker Carlson, big personalities duking it out.
The concern about how information is being shaped is not limited to one person and it is not limited to one political perspective.
Let's start with what we're seeing inside the conservative movement.
We've already discussed the response from figures like Senator Cruz, who has been very direct in his criticism of Tucker Carlson.
But Cruz is not alone.
Across policy circles, national security voices and institutional Republicans, there is a consistent concern being raised. And that concern is not simply, we disagree with what Tucker saying. We don't like what Tucker's saying.
The concern is the way this argument is being presented may be misleading the public about the stakes involved in our involvement with these strikes in Iran.
That is a different level of criticism because now we are not talking about policy disagreement. We are talking about credibility, credibility of the source. We are talking about whether the public is receiving a complete picture or a very selective microcosm of that picture.
Now, let's bring in another layer, because the concern is not coming only from other conservatives. It's not coming from the White House.
You're also seeing voices outside that ecosystem raising similar questions.
Bill Maher is one example.
Now, again, let's be clear about why he matters here.
As I'm sure many of you know, Bill Maher, Dan, does not agree with conservatives. Now, he has come out and said, okay, I can agree with this or I can see this point. He's actually has been meaningfully debating both sides. But he's not in lock steed with conservatives.
But he has been making a broader point about how media and personalities are shaping public perception.
Mart has repeatedly raised concerns about what he sees as the breakdown of shared reality and the tendency of audiences to gravitate toward voices that reinforce what they already believe.
People aren't just disagreeing anymore. They're living in completely different realities.
And that overlaps directly with what we are seeing in this moment.
Because now the issue is no longer simply what is happening in Iran, what is the White House saying about what is occurring geopolitically.
The issue is how are Americans being told to understand what is happening in Iran.
And that is where this becomes a structural conversation.
Because what we are seeing is a shift, a shift away from institutional mediation and toward the personality driven interpretation, the influence we move from trusting systems to trusting individuals that only are within our bubble of agreement.
No longer looking for the debate, not looking for, I mean maybe there was never non biased journalism, but not looking for the facts or the data to support either side. It's a microcosm.
So let's further define that clearly because there was a time not that long ago when Americans received political information through a relatively small number of sources that would be through, and this is before 24 hour news. So it would be through news sources, presidential speeches and other senator congressional members who would have stated the, say, a state of the public address, Major networks, established publications, structured reporting environment. That's how it used to be.
And again, those systems were not perfect.
Though I have to say, there was accountability, there was structure, there was actual rules in place for how people were supposed to be reporting the news. That has shifted, especially in the last decade, if not more so.
But what the traditional news source was before became propagandized, before it was 247 did provide something important.
They provided a shared baseline, a common starting point for understanding events and reporting on the events, not always editorializing those events.
Now that has changed.
Today information is coming from everywhere. Pick up your phone, pick up, you know, open an app, go to x, go to TikTok, go to, go to Snapchat or wherever and you will be inundated by influencers and people reporting or giving their opinions.
And now we have the advent of podcasts, independent media platforms, social media, direct to audience personalities.
And those sources are not all operating under the same standards. And that includes Tucker Carlson who left a, a somewhat traditional based media outlet to this open podcast, open platform that he has created.
They are not all presenting the same information.
They are not all prioritizing the same facts.
And that creates a very different environment.
Because now instead of one shared narrative, you have multiple competing narratives, each one with its own distinct audience, each with its own framing, each with its own conclusions. And that leads to something very important.
It leads to competing realities.
So now let's connect that back to what we were seeing in this specific situation.
On one side you have a narrative that says the United States is acting to prevent a serious threat, that it is necessary to for use of force against Iran, that strength and deterrence are required, much like what Ronald Reagan used to say, peace through strength.
On the other side, you have a narrative that says this is an unnecessary escalation, that it risks drawing the United States into another prolonged conflict that has nothing to do with America, and that this does not reflect the original promise of America first or promotes more of that isolation.
And those narratives are not just being debated.
They are being delivered through entirely different channels, with entirely different framing to entirely different audiences. And that matters because when people are consuming different information from different sources, they are not forming different opinions.
They are forming those opinions on different foundations.
And that makes for a deeper divide, not because people are unwilling to agree, but because they are not starting from the same place.
So now let's go one more layer, because this is where the conversation becomes even more relevant to what is happening right now across the country. We are also seeing how reporting itself can shape the national conversation.
Take for example, recent reporting on TSA and ICE coordination.
The New York Times reported on data sharing practices between TSA and immigration enforcement. That reporting was then picked up by other outlets. It was discussed, it was debated, and then something else happened.
The story moved to social media, and once it did, it took on a different life.
It became visual, it became emotional, it became immediate.
The policy is complicated, but the moment is simple.
So let's look at an example, reporting high, involving a mother and child, which was captured on video and widely circulated because everybody has a camcorder.
Now, again, the underlying policy question is complex. It involves data sharing, security protocols, immigration enforcement.
But that is not how most people experience the story.
Most people experienced it through the video, through the image, through the emotional reaction.
And that is exactly the point. Click baiting, viral moment.
What we are seeing is not just information being delivered.
We are seeing information being transformed as it moves through the system.
It is not about reporting on what the actual events had because we don't know what the backdrop is. Most of the time, it's a truncated video, a snippet of what it's going to be able to further someone's opinion or point of view, From policy to reporting to imagery to amplification.
But by the time it reaches the public, it is no longer just a set of facts, it is a narrative.
And that narrative shapes perception.
And again, perception can become reality.
So now bring that back to our conversation about Tucker Carlson, because again, he's not the only one doing this.
He is one example of how Narratives are built, delivered and reinforced, but the same process exists across the entire media environment. Which brings us to a critical point. We are no longer just dealing with this agreement. We are dealing with fragmentation, fragmentation of information, fragmentation of trust, fragmentation of interpretation. And that is what makes this moment different, because when people no longer share the same same baseline disagreement becomes harder to resolve, not because of unwillingness, but because we are working from different versions of reality.
So when we step back and we look at everything we've discussed, the fracture inside the movement, the influence of Tucker Carlson, the response from figures like Senator Ted Cruz, the broader concerns raised by voices like Bill Maher, the way reporting like the TSA and I story moves through the system, what we are really seeing is a transformation, not just in politics, but in how information itself is understood. And that leads directly into the final question. Because once information becomes fragmented, once narratives compete, once perception begins to diverge, we have to ask ourselves, are we actually as divided as it feels, or are we experiencing division and in a way that is being intensified, being manipulated by the system delivering the information?
And that is where we're going next after this. Commercial break.
Welcome back to we the People.
Tonight, we have talked through this step by step.
We started with the reporting showing a real fracture inside the MAGA movement over the war in Iran.
We looked at the role Tucker Carlson is playing, not just as a commentator, but as a voice showing how the fracture is understood.
We examined the response from figures like Senator Ted Cruz and the broader concern about influence and credibility.
We go from Tucker's disgusting and evil and Cruz retort, intellectual cloud and kook.
And then we widen the lens to look at how information itself is being delivered, how stories move, how they evolve and how they are experienced by you and I, the public.
So now let's bring it all together, because the most important question is not is there disagreement? Because, yes, there is profound disagreement.
That part is abundantly clear.
The reporting supports it. The polling supports it, the public statements support it.
So you got to ask, what is the real question?
Well, it's this.
Why does the disagreement feel as large as it does? Why is it that when you go out to dinner with friends, they say, oh my God, we are so divided?
Because when you look at the underlying facts, you see something more nuanced.
You see a MAGA movement that still overwhelmingly supports Donald Trump, as reflected in reporting from cpac.
You see Republican voters who largely support airstrikes but are far more hesitant about escalation, particularly when it comes to ground troops.
You see a broader American public that is concerned about Iran, but also believes in large numbers that military action may have gone too far.
So the data tells you something important. It tells you that this is not a country divided into two rigid extremes. It tells you this is a country working through a very complicated issue with mixed viewpoints.
And yet that is not how it feels.
It feels sharper.
It feels more extreme.
It feels like a much deeper divide and one that we seem to be furthering every day.
And why is that?
And this is where we have to look at how the information is being delivered and consumed.
Because what we are seeing is not just disagreement.
We are seeing disagreement moving through a system that amplifies the most intense version of it.
What spreads is not always what is most accurate. It is what is most compelling.
It is that clickbait. It is for that viral moment, sometimes.
Donald Trump, our president, has utilized social media masterfully since he first appeared in 2015 because he realized that that clickbait, that little nuance, people will continue to move through that point.
So let's go back to the examples.
Tucker Carlson calls the war disgusting and evil. Even states that we are fighting this for Israel or this is because Israel influences us if we're being control.
And that clip spreads because it's an emotional moral statement. Disgusting, evil.
Then you have Ted Cruz calling Carlson an intellectual coward, a kook.
Not exactly the most learned opinion to contradict Carlson's. But it spreads because it gathers the emotion. It captures people's attention.
And what the public sees again and again is not a full range of discussion. It is the sharpest edges of is that little bit of sound bite, that little part of the video without any context before or after given to create emotion.
Now, take the TSA and ICE reporting, depending on who you're viewing, and I'm talking about even regular people on TikTok. If you watch certain influencers, depending on what you're viewing, you get a totally different viewpoint of what is occurring in our airports today.
So what is the underlying issue?
Is the underlying issue data sharing between TSA and immigration, because that's always been occurring, is just not being reported.
But it's more complex than that.
The complexity comes in the involvement of policy, security, immigration, law.
But that is not how most people are experiencing what we're experiencing.
They experienced it through a moment, a video, a story involving a mother and child at an airport that has been widely circulated.
And that moment became the story, not the policy.
The moment, that perfect moment that was captured in. In video.
And that is how the system is working today.
A policy exists.
It is reported. It is then captured in a specific moment that is visual, emotional, immediate.
And that moment is what spreads.
So bring that back to the war in Iran, because the same process is happening with that international issue.
It's the ex. There is actual policy, there is military strategy, there is intelligence behind what is happening. And yes, this is affecting geopolitics as we know it today, and it is going to change it and evolve it.
And then there's the version that reaches the public, which is shaped by clips, statements, sound bites, interviews, emotional words of evil, coward.
And those are not neutral. That is not reporting. That is not journalism. It is manipulation of perspective to reach a broader audience and to ensure that that singular opinion is caught.
They emphasize conflict, they emphasize certainty, they emphasize strong language, because that's what captures the attention of the public.
And over time, that shapes perception.
It creates a sense that everyone is firmly on one side or the other.
You're either with us or you're against us.
And when the data suggests something more complicated, we're not just reacting to events, we are reacting to how those events are presented to us.
This does not mean that division is not real. There is division, but it also doesn't mean that there's not a resolution or an ability to agree, to disagree, or to come to some common ground.
Let's be very clear about that.
There is real disagreement, especially when it comes to how the Iran war is being conducted or why we're even involved in it. There is real disagreement as to how the shutdown is being dealt with in the role ISIS playing.
There is real concern about the direction of the war.
And there is real tension and inside the mag of movement, a political movement that has not been seen in modern politics.
And there is real criticism.
There's real criticism of voices like Tucker Carlson and how immigration and security policies are being implemented. All of that is real.
But the way it is experienced, the way it is being shaped, that matters.
Because when the strongest version of every argument is what people see, it can make the divide feel larger, more absolute, more final than it actually is. And that has consequences, because perception influences behavior.
It influences how people vote. And yes, we do have the midterms coming up November.
It influences how people react, how they are acting out against authorities. And we've been seeing that. It influences how people engage with each other and with institutions.
And so when I asked tonight whether this country is divided, the answer is yes.
But when I ask whether that division is being intensified by the way information is being delivered and consumed, that answer is also yes.
And that is where we are not just in a political moment, but in an informational moment where what people believe is shaped not only by facts, but by how those facts are presented, repeated and amplified.
And understanding that is critical because if you don't understand how the information is being shaped, it becomes much harder to understand what is actually happening. What is the truth of what is the reality?
I'm Alina Gonzalez Dockery, and this is we the People. Thank you for joining me tonight.
