Well, it appears that Tucker Carlson has finally gone medieval. In a recent conversation on The Tucker Carlson Show between Carlson and Auron MacIntyre, podcaster at TheBlaze and author, Carlson made the claim that the feudalism of the Medieval Ages was far better than what we currently have today. “I completely agree, feudalism is so much better than what we have now,” Carlson states, “because at least in feudalism the leader is vested in the prosperity of the people he rules, right? You know if all your serfs die, you starve.”
Whether it’s feudalism or neo-feudalism, both fundamentally reject the ideals of our nation’s constitutional republican order and the principles of the free market.
Carlson’s unusual embrace of feudalism came during his talks with MacIntyre over what they see as the collapse of the “American Empire,” whose elites have manipulated the system in their favor by engaging in various exploitative measures. These actions — including forever wars, multiculturalism, the opening of mass migration, and unrestrained free trade — in the eyes of Carlson, have allowed the elites to exploit the average American at the cost of losing control of the nation they rule.
But how do all these grievances tie back to Carlson’s unusual support for feudalism? Well according to Carlson in his introduction, it’s simply a lie told by the elite that feudalism is bad. “Today, I want to talk about how they lie to you,” Carlson said in his introduction, “They just lie. [cackles] You’ve probably been told, for example — I certainly was, this is just how it is in America — that feudalism was a bad thing. But is it?” Carlson went on to state, “England’s famous villain, King John, may have been a bad guy — who isn’t? — but he didn’t import 10 million illegal immigrants, did he? He didn’t kill anyone with fentanyl.”
Though Carlson’s embrace of feudalism appears to come from a place of deep frustration with the status quo, his sentiment about feudalism is not something incidental. Interestingly it is tied to a rather peculiar notion that has taken root in recent years.
For some time now, there has been a growing concern within some political and intellectual circles about the notion of an apparent rise of neo-feudalism. Now some of you might be asking yourself, “What is neo-feudalism and what distinguishes the old feudalism with the new?
Well, feudalism, arising around the 5th century and lasting through the 13th and 14th centuries, was the dominant social, political, and economic system of the Medieval period. Under the feudal system, the ruler (the king) would distribute his land (known as fiefs) as rewards to the nobility (lords, dukes, barons) in exchange for their loyalty and services such as protection, counsel, collection of crops, and money. This nobility would then have peasants or serfs who would live on the land, pay rent, and farm it in exchange for protection, a share of the crops, and small amounts of money.
Though this quick recap of feudalism offers a basis for understanding Carlson’s statement, we still haven’t addressed what neo-feudalism is nor its differentiation with the old one. Well fortunately for us, Joel Kotkin sought to address both these questions. In his 2022 article “Our Neo-Feudal Future” for First Things, Kotkin describes how today’s conditions regarding an “emerging class structure” has enabled a new feudal order to arise. “In this new order,” Kotkin writes, “there are two ascendant classes: the oligarchs and the clerisy. And there are two classes struggling to serve the ascendant classes, and to maintain for themselves a decent standard of living: the yeomanry and the new serfs.”
Kotkin highlighted the wealth gap between today’s rich and middle class which has grown significantly since the 1970’s, allowing for the “oligarch class” to rise, much like the nobility of old. Who are the Oligarchs? According to Kotkin, they are the likes of Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Bill Gates and these oligarchs have aligned themselves with today’s secular clerisy.
Who are the new clerisy? “They are journalists, entertainers, credentialed professionals, and teachers,” Kotkin states, “they provide the images, narratives, arguments, and artworks that reinforce the binding outlook, and they police dissenters as vigilantly as did the Inquisitors of old.”
Like the ways in which the Catholic clergy supported the landowners of the Middle Ages, today’s oligarchs and secular clerisy have managed to secure an alliance. This alliance, as stated by Kotkin, is “unified in their progressive outlook on all things social and cultural.” Kotkin makes clear in his analysis that this rising neo-feudal order threatens the very foundations of today’s political order, as well as those being exploited, the middle and working classes.
Though the notion of returning to feudalism or embracing neo-feudalism may be alluring to those, like Carlson, who believe that such an hierarchical arrangement may serve as a means to solving the chaos of today, it would no doubt be as devastating for today’s society as it was then. Was feudalism the vibrating society as Tucker may think it was? Well history shows that wasn’t the case.
For starters, there wasn’t any social mobility under feudalism. As Paul Meany from the Foundation for Economic Education wrote, “under feudalism, wealth was decided by birth and status.” In simple terms, it was the luck of the draw for you the moment you were born that determined where you’d end up in the hierarchy of things. If you’re born to the king, you won the jackpot. If you’re born in the nobility, you’re still in a good place. If you’re born as a peasant or serf, well you’re outta luck. “In a society dictated by caste and status,” Meany wrote, “one’s condition in life is beyond his or her control.” If one’s conditions are outside their control, there isn’t any incentive to pursue higher goals or advance in status.
Secondly, feudalism was an incredibly violent system. Adam Smith in his magnum opus, The Wealth of Nations, wrote about how the feudal system led stronger lords to use violence to control weaker nobles, challenge the rule of kings, and claim more power and wealth. “After the institution of feudal subordination, the king was as incapable of restraining the violence of the great lords as before,” Smith said, “they still continued to make war according to their own discretion, almost continually upon one another, and very frequently upon the king; and the open country still continued to be a scene of violence, rapine, and disorder.”
Thirdly, feudalism brought about economic stagnation. Unlike today’s market economy that enables property to be transferred freely and new markets to arise, the feudal system restricted ownership and prevented new markets due to the feudal practices of primogeniture — the act of the firstborn claiming all the inheritance of the parents — and entails — the prevention of the selling or transferring of land to anyone else. It was the stagnation caused by these practices that eventually led to the Founders and Framers to abolish the practices of primogeniture and entail as a means to defend private property rights and expand economic opportunity.
Carlson forgets that even if we returned to the feudal system under neo-feudalism, it would create a system of more exploitation not less. The late historian Clarence Carson, in 1967, warned of the detrimental and exploitative nature of neo-feudalism. “The New Serfdom comes in many ways: in heavier and heavier taxation, in restrictions and controls upon property, in the manipulation of the money supply to impel us to use it in ways the bureaucracy has determined are beneficial,” stated Carson, “the rigidities and inflexibilities of feudalism are revived and promise to become permanent features as government control and regulation.”
Whether it’s feudalism or neo-feudalism, both fundamentally reject the ideals of our nation’s constitutional republican order and the principles of the free market that have allowed Americans to decide their own destiny and prosper unlike any other people. It’s because of the free market that allowed those that once lived under feudalism to achieve a level of prosperity and human flourishing that was unprecedented. Even more so, it’s because of the Founder’s vision of a civil society ruled by a free and independent people, using the wisdom of Western civilization, to launch the greatest experiment in mankind’s history.
No one is saying what we have is perfect, yet its far superior to the Feudalism that Tucker defends so much. So, to answer Tucker’s statement, was or is Feudalism better than what we have now? Absolutely not.
READ MORE from Hunter Oswald:
The New Marxists and the Red Menace