When a former “comrade in arms” in the policy/political arena has an abrupt change of mind/behavior, two things happen. One sits in bewilderment at how they are now expressing themselves, and those with positions on the other side of the aisle function as if you personally are responsible for every misguided act/statement of the subject person. With my personal desire to be an honest broker of opinions, I must call out Tucker Carlson for his multitude of errant comments and his blatant anti-Semitism.
Many people evolve politically over the years. David Horowitz was a significant voice in the Republican arena who recently passed away. His story is about being a Communist in his youth and then evolving to being a bastion of conservative thinking and a founder of the Freedom Center that is carrying on his life’s work as part of his legacy. The difference is David, a friend of mine, did not devolve into hatred for anything other than a failed political philosophy.
Yes, I was proponent of Tucker Carlson when he was on Fox News. Tucker was the only show I regularly watched on Fox News other than Special Report which is the network’s excellent hard news show. It reminds me of watching Huntley-Brinkley and Walter Cronkite when I was growing up. Brit Hume, who hosted the show from its debut in 1996 until 2008 and is still a stellar contributor, was the best anchor I have ever seen since David Brinkley. I had a chance to tell him that personally while attending a Christmas party at the V-P’s house. Bret Baier took over and is doing marvelous things with the show while maintaining its hard news manner.
Tucker was the best interviewer I have ever seen on a news show. I have an intense disdain for reporters who ask leading questions beginning with the likes of “Don’t you believe…?” That was not Tucker’s style. He asked a question and allowed his guest to express their thoughts. He would then ask follow up questions from there. He was clearly not doctrinarian. His policy ideas diverged from mine regularly and I liked that. I was never interested in being part of the “amen chorus” of a show like Sean Hannity’s.
As I have expressed previously, I am a believer in William F. Buckley’s epic takedown of anti-Semitism in his National Review issue of December 30,1991. I lost my copy, so I obtained an electronic copy from the good people at NR. The entire issue is dedicated to the subject, but it is best known for Buckley’s analysis of Pat Buchanan. Buchanan was running for President and did so in 1992. Buckley’s thesis was simple but devastating. If you have an outsized focus on Jews and Israel with constant criticism while ignoring the hundreds of malevolent events in the world, you are anti-Semitic. Buchanan did and currently so has Carlson.
The excuse does not hold up that he is just criticizing the Israeli government. If you are criticizing Israel and criticizing Israel and criticizing Israel, you are an anti-Semite. A friend texted me just yesterday asking why people are criticizing what is going on in Gaza and ignoring what is going on in the Sudan. I called him and asked if he had seen that 33 people died the day before in the inexplicable border war between Thailand and Cambodia. The list of world issues people and the UN ignore while focusing on Israel is never-ending.
The good people at NR did it again. They published Tucker Carlson’s Dark Turn | National Review Though the author, James Kirchick, who is no William F. Buckley (but who is?), he does quite an admirable job detailing the misguided behavior of Tucker Carlson. Time after time Tucker gives forum to someone who expresses anti-Semitic thinking and then joins in by not countermanding them but rather agreeing.
A couple matters to point out. Tucker apparently does not understand the difference between murder and killing. He believes the God in whom he believes through the Bible does not allow murder. Murder is wrong. Killing someone like Pol Pot is not murder and a just God does not argue against that. He also argues that the Old Testament and the New Testament are different for Christians, and they believe in the New Testament. Last time I checked, they believe in both. That is evidenced by Christians being the biggest purchasers of Dennis Prager’s Rational Bible series which explains the first five books of the Bible.
One other thing: his focus on Neocons. John Podhoretz was in my home years back addressing a Jewish Republican audience. He was asked to define “Neocon.” John had particular expertise on this issue since his mother and father were among the small group who started the movement. His answer was simple, “Jew.”
Like my friends at PragerU having to cope with Candace Owens having gone totally “off the rails,” I am called to task to weigh in on Tucker. I think it is because these people must defend so many ill-minded people amongst their ranks that it is an act of deflection. But do not ask me anymore about Tucker. There is no defense for him.
