Today’s Washington Post features a hit piece on Tucker Carlson. The attack begins on the front page and continues for three additional pages, all three of which are devoted exclusively to the piece.
The opening salvo reveals that Carlson did not cry when, in 2003, he visited a dungeon in Ghana where Blacks were held many centuries ago before being shipped to America for enslavement. That Carlson went on this trip at all, accompanied by the likes of Al Sharpton, with whom the Post says he developed a friendly relationship, shows that he is sensitive to the shameful history slavery and sympathetic towards Blacks.
That Carlson didn’t cry shows nothing. I didn’t cry when I visited Auschwitz.
That Carlson later said he didn’t feel guilt over what happened in Ghana centuries ago shows that he’s rational. Why should he have felt guilt?
The Post’s hit piece doesn’t get any more persuasive as it rambles on. The paper accuses Carlson of “time and again. . .look[ing] at an issue. . .through a racial lens.” This is rich. The whole point of Critical Race Theory and Black Lives Matter is to view issues through a racial lens.
Carlson is merely responding in kind. But for the left’s obsession with race and its efforts to remake America to benefit one racial group, Carlson probably would talk little about race.
The Post describes Carlson as “the voice of White grievance” and “the preeminent voice of angry White America.” But some anger is a reasonable response to the left’s agenda, which includes denying Whites college admission, jobs, government benefits, and more because of their race; claiming even as these denials occur, that Whites are “privileged”; and teaching children that there’s something wrong with “whiteness.”
Carlson chronicles these abuses. If the left would cease its racialist assault, he would have no reason to talk much about race.
The Post criticizes Carlson for echoing Trump’s “falsehoods” about the 2020 election. But the Post has never shown Carlson’s claims about the election to be untrue, as opposed to unproven.
What’s true is that there’s a stronger basis for believing that widespread irregularities tainted the 2020 election than there was for believing that Trump and Putin colluded during the 2016 election. Yet, Carlson’s lefty counterparts on cable talk shows pushed the “collusion” claim relentlessly for several years. So, come to think of it, did the Washington Post.
More generally, the Post highlights the strong rhetoric with which Carlson castigates the left. But Carlson’s rhetoric is no harsher than that of the leftist talk show hosts who, night after night, rip conservatives. If anything, he’s more restrained than these hosts were when they went after Donald Trump throughout his presidency.
Naturally, I don’t always agree with Carlson’s views. Nor do I always like the way he presents them. At times, I find it over-the-top.
On balance, though, Carlson is a more responsible prime time conservative controversialist than the contemporary left deserves, considering the radical racialist agenda it wants to impose on America and the hyperbolic rhetoric it employs in this pursuit.