Who is Tucker Carlson?

I don’t like Tucker Carlson. And I am quite certain he would not like me. What disturbs me about this projected mutual ambivalence is that it characterizes the very thing I dislike about Carlson; namely, that so much of our global social currency is founded not on intelligence but upon the animal attraction of tribalism and contempt.  The variance of reported opinions of Carlson is so patent that the only predictable theme of his divergence is self-advancement for personal interests, unmistakably nothing to do with moral and legal fundamentals. In short he is a stage performer with an understandable hope for attention (he’s reputedly a 53 year-old worth $40M).  It explains his incremental descent over time from cerebral commentary to comic nightly entertainment. It governs how he thinks and talks, neither of which is learned, both of which are appetizing to those devoted to obloquy as a relieving OTC prescription. He’s the cheap medication for self-approbation without having to know or ask the ingredients.

  • CNN (2000–2005)
  • PBS (2004–2005)
  • MSNBC (2005–2008)
  • Fox News (2009–present)

FOX NEWS is no more or less legitimate than a gentleman’s club or a gay bar. The choices reflect only that; viz., choice not universal truth.

Jeremy Bentham (1748—1832) was the father of utilitarianism, a moral theory that argues that actions should be judged right or wrong to the extent they increase or decrease human well-being or ‘utility’.

Utilitarianism promotes “the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.” When used in a sociopolitical construct, utilitarian ethics aims for the betterment of society as a whole. Utilitarianism is a reason-based approach to determining right and wrong.

Where Carlson’s gusto looses its allure is his patent or latent insinuation that his choices are for everyone. Even the most categorical conservative knows this is not true. But rationality does not impede these radicals. They are bullies at heart which means proclaiming victory by any strategy.

The utilitarian model, though not perfect, at least allows self-expression whether for example Christian, Jewish or Muslim without insisting upon rival adherence.  Carlson is so far removed from logic that if he could get his face in the trough he’d eat his own brains. His is a purely visceral reward.

Don’t get me wrong I have nothing against gentlemen’s clubs or polygamy but neither do I have any intention to impose those respective mandates on others.  If a woman who is a rape victim wishes to bear her child, I am not about to prescribe abortion. Nor do I think totalitarianism is the answer to moral code. Utilitarianism at least removes the bully factor and shares the privilege of control with others.

As common as it is to say so, the public mask of miscreants like Carlson is driven entirely by money. Like all circus clowns he’s in the business of making money. I strongly doubt that even the most assiduous clown is remotely preoccupied with moral issues. Instead they’re vying to keep to the surface of an ever-evolving employment and commercial transaction. The in-house preliminaries to stepping onto the public stage likely have nothing whatever to do with universal beneficence. And you can bet he knows the hand that feeds. Though I doubt he imagines his pitiful demise at those same hands. But his is a deprivation few shall mourn (that is, apart from himself for himself).

Carlson is not particularly well-educated. While clearly not a prerequisite at FOX NEWS and by no means an overt disadvantage in general, it does however prejudice his capacity for recognition and application of rationality and social obligation especially for one such as he who pretends to be a spokesman for ethereal social justice both nationally and internationally. He is reminiscent of a cereal box pastor with questionable credentials. What ever happened to Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye?

Carlson’s Trinity yearbook describes him as a member of the “Dan White Society”, an apparent reference to the American political assassin who murdered San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. After college, Carlson tried to join the Central Intelligence Agency, but his application was denied, after which he decided to pursue a career in journalism with the encouragement of his father, who advised him that “they’ll take anybody”.

To be clear the offensiveness of Carlson is not his acting skills or his rhetoric; rather I am repulsed by his pretence. As a commoner he is no worse than most of us. But I suspect he is unaware of his lack of authenticity. His ring leader’s costume has discoloured any purity he might conceivably possess. There are people – not the least of whom is Trump – who have swindled people of value for money.  Carlson is a bottom-dweller searching for and grasping at any scraps for consumption. I find it unsettling to watch his twisted facial features as he gathers enough of his limited intellect to decide upon what appearance to adopt in another of his fitful deliberations.