On his podcast earlier this month, Tucker Carlson laid out 10 ideas that he said should undergird American life and politics. It sounded, as Axios put it, very much like a “manifesto” — perhaps for a new political party or a presidential run — but the ideas themselves were devoid of the usual policy pablum about “entitlement reform,” “energy independence” or “help for working families.” Instead, Carlson focused on big-picture, philosophical topics like fairness, wisdom, healthfulness and productivity.
There was one item on the list that caught my eye: beauty. “Beauty is ennobling,” Carlson explained. “Being around beautiful things makes you better. Being around ugly things, being bombarded by ugly things, objects, a landscape denuded of trees filled with dollar stores, bad architecture, disposable crap all through your house and your life and your office — that does not make you better.”
Carlson (whom I used to work for at The Daily Caller) is not the only person on the right concerned with beauty these days. President Donald Trump, a Carlson ally-turned-nemesis, also thinks and cares about aesthetics. A lot. Here is a president who has spent loads of time and political capital fixing a reflecting pool, building a new ballroom, promoting an “Arc de Trump,” painting statues gold, and devising plans to renovate Dulles airport and the Kennedy Center. Maggie Haberman of The New York Times has estimated that about 70% of his mind is dedicated to renovations.
The downsides of all this are clear. Trump’s taste is vulgar and gaudy, and it probably says something about the state of his presidency that he at times seems more focused on his ballroom than on Iran. As for Carlson, in his comments on beauty, he (as is his habit) went a little far, suggesting that there’s a nefarious dimension behind our current state of affairs: “Why were some of the prettiest buildings in America torn down all across the country within the space of 10 years in the 1960s and then replaced by some of the ugliest buildings — concrete, brutalist architecture? Why is that?”
And yet, here’s the thing: At the broadest possible level, both Trump and Carlson are right.
You don’t have to be a psychologist or a sociologist to suspect that being constantly exposed to clinical, sterile, anxiety-inducing environments — soulless cubicles, graffiti, suburban sprawl — has an impact on our psyches, our souls. This is the subject of countless novels, movies and other works of art.
And the impact spills over into politics. One of my favorite quotes comes from author James Howard Kunstler. During a TED Talk two decades ago, he said: “We have about 38,000 places that are not worth caring about in the United States today. When we have enough of them, we’re gonna have a nation that’s not worth defending. And I want you to think about that when you think about those young men and women who are over in places like Iraq spilling their blood in the sand, and ask yourself what is their last thought of home? I hope it’s not the curb cut between the Chuck E. Cheese and the Target store! ’Cause that’s not good enough for Americans to be spilling their blood for.”
At this point, you’re probably wondering what constitutes beauty. Like pornography, it’s hard to define, but you know it when we see it. While the definition may be subjective, it historically has something to do with symmetry, authenticity, order, harmony, proportion, quality, craft and refinement.
Traditionally, aesthetics are best left to individuals, local communities, zoning boards and homeowners associations. But in a lot of places where poor or middle-class Americans live, it feels like the authorities are asleep at the wheel.
As a result, I suspect that Carlson is tapping into some deep concerns that are vexing real Americans. His argument about beauty, I’m guessing, would appeal to a much broader audience than the political junkies who watch cable news and the Sunday morning shows.
Putting forward such a platform is unusual for a would-be politician in today’s world, but while these ideas may seem a bit intellectual or abstract, they are actually practical, even parochial. We never really get to vote on whether a new billboard is placed by our house, whether the graffiti stays up under the bridge, whether suburban sprawl appears on the edge of town, or — increasingly — whether some hideous data center is built near us (and noise pollution also qualifies as “ugly”). But voters should proactively get to exert more of a voice on these questions, as opposed to being retroactively told: That was discussed during last week’s county commission meeting. And if no one else is going to make that demand, then perhaps it falls to a podcaster turned (maybe) politician.
Of course, it’s worth asking: Who decides what’s beautiful? And where are the redlines? Pink flamingos? Garden gnomes? Nickelback albums? Carlson’s solutions — “Do not build another ugly public building, period” and “Do not use disposable materials to crowd our landscape with soul-destroying crap ever again” — sound simple, but in practice they raise more questions than they answer.
So yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it’s hard to police taste. And sure, there are, perhaps, bigger fish to fry. Still, if you made me dictator for a day, my greatest temptation would be to use eminent domain to tear down the hideous sprawl — the fast-food restaurants, the vape and tattoo and palm-reading stores — I have to drive through on my way to a charming West Virginia downtown area full of shops and farmers markets. This would improve the quality of my life immeasurably more than almost anything happening in Washington.
Such things are seen by libertarian types as beyond the scope of limited government. But that kind of sentiment, once mainstream in the Republican Party, seems increasingly out-of-touch. And perhaps there’s a reason for that. If you’re a conservative, what is more important to conserve than beauty?
Matt K. Lewis is a NOTUS Perspectives columnist.
To get the latest columns from Matt — a center-right voice who puts intellectual honesty above partisan hackery — sign up here.
More from NOTUS Perspectives:
Why the R-Word Is the Defining Slur of the Trump Era