The New York Times recently described Tucker Carlson as an “American nationalist” in the headline of a three-part series about the Fox News cheerleader.

But that's too harmless.

Carlson, who runs the political magazine with the highest ratings on American cable television, is an opportunist who has made a fortune as an apologist for anti-democratic ideas.

Just call him a racist to silence him, says the man with the schoolboy appearance, who lectures on the looming "replacement" of white Americans with darker people and claims that Mexican immigrants are making America "dirtier."

Carlson admonishes his viewers nightly that they are being betrayed by "they up there," that the Democrats wanted to "censor" and "silence" conservative voices in America.

He produced a documentary called "Patriot Purge," which portrays the storming of the Capitol as a staging of dark forces to "purge" Trump fans.

Now on his show, Carlson has claimed that Trump's 2016 election, horrified at their own loss, caused Democrats to invent a childish story: Putin put Trump in power.

That is why Biden now wants to overthrow the Russian government.

“Democrats have convinced themselves that Russia stole the American presidency that supposedly rightfully belonged to Hillary Clinton.

And that's why they're dragging us into a war with Russia," Carlson said.

The Democrats are not concerned with saving democracy or protecting a sovereign nation, but with revenge on Russia.

The Times called this "smirking headwind philandering," Carlson behaved "as a partner of his offended viewers in their victim role."

Fox News said it was particularly proud of Carlson's show "at a time when most media outlets are promoting only one perspective."

However, there is no indication that Carlson would have a real debate in mind.

In fact, his program's contributions revolve around nothing more than malicious malice against political opponents and the so-called mainstream media, which he describes as "brave little establishment defenders".

This is not about values, about political debate, about the challenges to democracy or even about people;

it's about whipping up fear and anger and resentment, because that brings quota.

Carlson exploits the divisive impetus that feeds social networks: what agitates trends.

The justification is the reference to free speech, for example when defending Vladimir Putin: After all, he has never threatened him with dismissal because he disagrees, according to Carlson, so he hardly has to hate Putin.

It is also thanks to Rupert Murdoch that he is allowed to play down such autocratic belittlement to an audience of millions. According to the Times, Carlson reports directly and who lets him do as he pleases.

That has consequences.

Carlson fuels an anti-democratic chic, which the Atlantic and Vanity Fair recently showed in pieces about the trend among young, educated conservatives who casually advocate despotism.

Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson has become Vladimir Putin's darling.