One could argue that Carlson is a committed anti-neocon and one could, I suppose, argue that because he opposes some foreign wars which Carlson believes do not relate to America's national interests, that makes him an appeaser but to argue that he is an "appeasement monkey" for the left is an accusation too far.
If anything he is well to the right of where most people believe him to be. He truly believes in an international conspiracy against America as conducted by the Davos crowd and American elites. That means he is opposed to the military-industrial complex and its wars which he believes is inspired by these elites.
I have yet to see evidence that he is an appeaser of communist China or that he would acquiesce passively to invasion of Taiwan by China. Rather, he thinks that our misguided policy in Ukraine only extends that war and that works against our interests, enfeebles us and makes Taiwan and, by extension, America more vulnerable.
He relates Biden's policies on the border, his war against energy, his systematic violation of civil liberties as part of a plan to destroy America. He is hardly a monkey of the left when he is so motivated.
One can argue that he is misguided in his assumptions about Ukraine, but to argue that he is a tool the left is simply ridiculous.
Two of the media pundits whom I admire to listen to are Tucker Carlson and Mark Levin. Oddly, Carlson has been accused of being an appeaser for his opposition against these wars that he believes enervate America while Mark Levin can perhaps credibly be charged with shaping all foreign policy for the protection of Israel. These conflicting views certainly shape their foreign policy positions and clearly set them at loggerheads on foreign policy but their domestic policy beliefs are almost otherwise in perfect alignment.
In my judgment, one can hold either of these contrary foreign policy positions and nevertheless carry on as a bona fide conservative.
