Tabby Thursday
Steven L. Taylor
·
Thursday, February 26, 2026
·
5 comments
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored
A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on
Twitter and/or
BlueSky.
The far-right Nazi-adjacent faction’s approach to Israel is deeply weird. Essentially, commentators like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens complain about Israel’s treatment of Christians. They also do this with Russia-Ukraine, where there’s certainly an element of anti-Semitism against Zelensky, but at least those are actual majority-Christian nations. In contrast, Christians make up about 2% of the population of Israel proper, less in the West Bank, and almost nonexistent in Gaza. None of this is to suggest, of course, that there isn’t a conversation to be had about the much-overlooked impact of the conflict on the Christian minority in the region. But that’s not what Tucker and his ilk are doing. What they do is make the plight of Christians the entire crux of their commentary, and basically ignore the plight of Muslims or Jews, as if they don’t count. OCLM = Only Christian Lives Matter.
The Tucker-Huck showdown really highlights the fact that the pro-Israel and anti-Israel factions of the right are both simply different flavors of Christian nationalism.
Given that, why the hell pick specifically him to Israel?
@Kylopod: On that topic, I had meant to include link to the podcast Straight White American Jesus in this topic. It is the Feb 23 ep and can be found on this page.
Wow, a rare misstep. Finally, a reason to be angry with the Admin.
Needham’s criticism of the tariff decision is spot on. Only the three liberals managed to just look at what the law said, and what it didn’t. Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett used it to strengthen the Major Questions doctrine that John Roberts just made up three or four years ago. Thomas, Alito, and Boof stuck with their usual Unitary (Republican) Executive doctrine that Trump can do whatever he wants.
Needham didn’t mention the new Roberts Doctrine that Trump can do whatever he wants for a year before we in the Court are forced to do our duty. And she didn’t mention that this is not, as usually presented, a case of loyalty to Trump v fealty to the law. The Major Questions “doctrine” is aimed at restricting presidential power along with bureaucratic power. Why did Roberts apply it against a GOP? For the six GOPs it’s loyalty to a GOP prez v loyalty to their Federalist Society/business interest sponsors. FFS Leonard Effing Leo drove one of the cases challenging the tariffs. And nobody seems to have addressed the idea that Trump can declare an emergency any time he feels like it.