A friend posted his reaction to Fox pulling Tucker Carlson’s show off the air by saying that he will shed no tears over his departure. Why? Because Carlson didn’t advocate individualism, free markets or limited government but represents “right-wing tribalism” and a push for conservative big government. Several other people expressed their agreement for my friend’s position.
Why do I bring this up here? Why should Objectivists or libertarians care? I’ll get to that later but first want to give my initial thoughts on Carlson’s silencing.
My opinion of Carlson isn’t quite as negative as my friend’s. I won’t shed tears for Tucker either but for a different reason. He probably will land on a platform where his audience will be even larger (like Joe Rogan who has an audience at least three times larger than Carlson’s) and will make much more money. (However, will he have as much influence?) What bothers me is how Democrats such as Chuck Schumer and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) openly called for taking Tucker off the air and, for whatever reason, Fox complied. (I’ve heard various theories what lead to his sudden silencing. My guess is that it was a combination of factors.) I find it interesting too that Schumer or AOC aren’t demanding Fox to remove Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham or Jesse Watters. It bothers me that I haven’t seen much dismay among those who posted on my friend’s Facebook page about Carlson. I don’t feel bad for Carlson; I’m more concerned about the concerted effort to silence people who question the dominant narratives.
Despite his flaws, Tucker played an important role in challenging and questioning many of the narratives pushed by the Left and their media cheerleaders. He questioned or revealed Biden's financial ties to China (Tony Bobulinsky interviews), DEI's (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) adverse impact on meritocracy in the fields of airline piloting, medicine and corporate America, the incestuous relationship between pharma, government and media in pushing the vaccines and lockdowns while silencing and de-platforming doctors who disagreed, and the shady collusion between the various Federal agencies and Twitter (plus other social media platforms) to suppress mostly conservative voices. (Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi, who Elon Musk recruited to produce the “Twitter files,” call this relationship the Censorship Industrial Complex. Shellenberger and Taibbi have been guests on Tucker’s show.)
None of the other mainstream media outlets said a peep about Bobulinsky or the Twitter files. Carlson’s shows on the January 6th protest/riot revealed a different version than what we were told by other media; his revelation of video on what happened when Jacob Chansley [“QAnon Shaman”] was inside the Capitol ultimately led to his release from prison. Chansley’s lawyer didn’t have access to this video before Carlson’s show.
Yes, Carlson has questioned our involvement in the Ukraine war, has talked about the claims of Zelensky’s corruption and the lack of accounting for how the funds and military hardware we sent are being used. Even if we endorse supporting the Ukraine militarily, concerns about Zelensky’s regime and lack of accounting for what is being done with our military equipment shouldn’t be minimized or ignored.
I'm not saying Carlson is an individualist or even a free marketer. I'd say he is a conservative populist. I know from watching Carlson he believes we have a uni-party government consisting of elites who impose laws and regulations that affect us but not them. So, OK, Carlson could argue that these perks for the elites should be stopped. Agree. But since the elite control the levers of government is that likely? Probably not. So, I speculate that Carlson argues instead for policies that could benefit the middle class. In principle, I disagree because it doesn't address the cause of the problem. As a practical matter, I don't like the idea, but I don't think it's cause to claim Carlson is the enemy and a Luddite.
According to Megyn Kelly, Carlson wasn't fired. His show was taken off the air while Carlson is still under contract which was renewed in 2021 and expires in 2024. There is speculation that this was done to muzzle Carlson so that he won't influence the 2024 election. In any case, Carlson and his executive producer supposedly contacted a lawyer to work out a deal with Fox to end his contract.
In evaluating Tucker Carlson, we need to weigh his positives and negatives. Others have covered the negatives, so I won’t repeat them here. I’d narrow Carlson’s positives to two themes. One, his concern over the breakdown of civilization. Two, his desire to protect free speech. (They are interconnected.) We can yearn for someone advocating individualism to take his place. I don’t see anyone coming to the rescue, and I’m not holding my breath! Meanwhile you can tell that, despite his flaws, Tucker was effective when you see the paroxysms of glee his departure has spawned on the left.
You've heard the saying that the perfect is the enemy of the good. It seems that some Objectivists think we should dump (or dump on) Carlson because isn't a perfect representative of our side and therefore there is nothing good about him. To me this is like the position Rand and some of her followers took about dealing with libertarians. I recall that they chastised David Kelly for giving a talk at a libertarian event.
What can we learn from Carlson’s influence? He argued strongly and with moral conviction against the trends such as the push to favor diversity over merit. Whether or not we agree with Carlson’s moral principles we can see that his passionate moral stand made a difference. Objectivists certainly have moral passion on their side! Moreover, Carlson marshalled facts and arguments, leavened with sarcasm and mockery, to punch holes in the various narratives. It’s not enough just to claim you have the moral high ground. You need to build up to that moral high ground with facts and logic.
