If you are expecting me to give all the good reasons why FOX News\u2019 Tucker Carlson stands so high in the ratings, you will be disappointed. I pose the question because I simply cannot understand his appeal to anyone. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Obviously, my opinion of Carlson is not very favorable. It never has been. I used to cringe when he appeared as an occasional guest on FOX\u2019s morning show. Whenever he appeared, I knew I had time for a potty break \u2013 or grab the remote to another news outlet or even a TCM movie. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
I was honestly shocked with the folks at FOX gave him the primetime evening spot held by Bill O\u2019Reilly.\u00a0 Surely that would turn out to be a bad decision and corrected as ratings fell.\u00a0 Boy, was I wrong!\u00a0 Carlson actually rode the crest of the rating wave as cable news\u2019 top-rated program \u2013 occasionally taking over the spot held by Sean Hannity.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to some of the ratings, Carlson has been replaced as king of the news mountain by shows like The Five, Watters World, or Gutfeld \u2013 FOX\u2019s successful competition to the so-called \u201clate night comedians.\u201d Maybe that is because Gutfeld is actually funny, and the others have been undermined by both their own humorless woke standards and biases. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Regards of his relative position, Carlson remains a staple in the cable news top-ten list. It still mystifies me. So why do I not like Tucker Carlson? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It started when he first appeared on those morning broadcasts.\u00a0 I found him pompous, arrogant, and snarky.\u00a0 It was not always his opinion on a subject \u2013 with which I often agreed.\u00a0 It was that grating personality.\u00a0 His language exuded condescending arrogance.\u00a0 His tendency is to go into his squeaky chipmunk voice when he gets overly excited with his own words.\u00a0 And then there is that contemptuous mocking cackle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Carlson seems more interested in creating controversy by outrageous statements that are not necessarily true or logical. He seems to have his greatest appeal among the rabid more than the rational. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
But it is not all a matter of style. Although he holds and expresses some solid conservative views on occasion, Carlson is not a full-breed conservative. He manifests too many traits of an authoritarian nationalist. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
I should explain that while many on the left link authoritarian nationalism with conservativism, the two political philosophies are juxtaposed on the political continuum.\u00a0 No authoritarian philosophy \u2013 none \u2013 comes from the conservative right.\u00a0 We are the folks who hate big powerful central governments of any kind \u2013 communist, socialist, monarchy, dictatorship AND nationalist.\u00a0 We are small-d democrats \u2026 period.\u00a0 We want laws and policy to be the manifest will of the people, not the judgment of an elite ruling class.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Authoritarian nationalism is closely tied to isolationism. But America First does not mean America alone. Furthermore, conservatives know which side to be on in terms of the Ukraine War. That is a fight between a democratic Republic (not perfect, perhaps) and a maniacal authoritarian madman \u2013 and conservatives will always be on the side of democracy and individual rights over an evil dictator. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nowhere are Carlson\u2019s opinions more inconsistent with conservativism than his pandering to Putin. The madman of Moscow invaded a recognized independent and sovereign nation without cause \u2013 and is carrying out an unjust war with serial war crimes. Putin\u2019s actions are founded on an evil madness \u2013 and no good person or committed conservative can remotely approve or even acquiesce to Putin\u2019s invasion. Yet, Carlson uses every opportunity to justify it \u2013 and to condemn American opposition to Putin\u2019s dirty little war. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Perhaps the best example of Carlson\u2019s wrongness and irrationality is when he opposed American involvement in Ukraine \u2013 posing the rhetorical question, \u201cWhat has Putin done to me?\u201d He went on to say that those on the left have done more against him personally than Putin. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
I mean, how effing stupid is that? Using Carlson\u2019s argument, he could call for the release of all MS13 killers on the bases of \u2026 what did they do to him personally? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is part of my obligation to cover all the news \u2013 from all perspectives. That means tuning into Carlson occasionally. I usually wind-up cringing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Perhaps he bothers me even more than Rachel Maddow or James Acosta \u2013 who bothers me a lot \u2014 because Carlson is alleged to be on my side of the political divide. I know many of my readers are going to take strong exception to my criticism of Carlson. After all, he does have millions of viewers \u2013 about one percent of the American people. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is just that I do not understand why. I have always pointed out \u2013 correctly \u2013 that FOX presents far more balanced news, with panelists on both sides, than any other cable news network. That can be empirically proven. But it is a show like Tucker Carlson that creates the wrong image and gives rise to unjustified criticism of the network as a whole. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
I am not sure why they keep Carlson on the air \u2013 other than his high ratings. And I have never understood how he rose to that level in cable news. If I had been running FOX, Carlson would have been dropped from the morning show way back when. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, it is what it is. He is pulling down high ratings \u2013 and I am left to wonder why. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
So, there \u2018tis.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n