I normally write on foreign policy issues. However, I was struck by the furious Twitter reaction which met Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show on Wednesday evening.
At specific contention was Carlson’s linking of the second impeachment of former President Donald Trump to the death of George Floyd. Carlson suggested that both circumstances reflect a concealment of the facts by anti-conservative movements in media and politics. Carlson asserted that George Floyd, the black man whose May 2020 death while being arrested sparked nationwide protests and riots, did not die as a specific result of police criminality. Instead, Carlson suggested that “the autopsy showed that George Floyd almost certainly died of a drug overdose, Fentanyl.” The Fox News host says that the issue of fentanyl in Floyd’s system was disregarded by the media, and that this helped fuel the nationwide riots.
Carlson exaggerates when he says that the autopsy shows Floyd “almost certainly” died of fentanyl. Still, I find it ridiculous that his words are now being used as a casus belli for his removal from television.
Much of high-profile Twitter evidently disagrees. The left-wing commentator Carlos Maza declared, “Cannot overstate how important it is to get Tucker Carlson off the air. The damage he does to this country every night is immeasurable.” George Takei, of Star Trek “Sulu” fame, called on Fox News to fire Carlson. The liberal activist Amy Siskind said Carlson’s words were “so dangerous.” Allowing Carlson on-air, Wajahat Ali said that the Murdoch family (who own Fox) “are the true villains of democracy and truth all around the world.” Carlson had proved himself “deeply evil,” said another critic.
Really?
For a start, the fentanyl argument is at least a legitimate line of credible commentary. The medical examiner’s report into Floyd’s death indicates as much. It reports, “How injury occurred: [Floyd] experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s).” The medical examiner goes on, however, to note Floyd’s “other significant conditions: Arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease; fentanyl intoxication; recent methamphetamine use.”
It’s tempting to focus on the act of restraint “by law enforcement” as being the sole operative cause of Floyd’s death. But I can near guarantee you that officer Derek Chauvin’s defense team will be referencing those “other significant conditions” at his trial. They will believe that doing so can expand on the jury’s sense of reasonable doubt as to Chauvin’s guilt. The point: Carlson’s argument is certainly a point of legitimate commentary on a matter of public import.
To emphasize, I do understand why Carlson’s comments are controversial. What I do not understand is why these comments are a cause to purge him. I certainly do not understand why Carlson’s comments are “dangerous.” Unless, that is, we believe our fellow citizens — millions of who watch Carlson’s show each night — are incapable of watching his commentary without resorting to violence as a consequence of it. And if so, why don’t conservatives apply the same logic to left-wing broadcasts? Considering socialism’s historically vested appetite for devouring lives and societies, shouldn’t we warn that pro-socialist arguments are “dangerous?” Shouldn’t we want to ban them from TV?
No, we should not. We should not, because we should recognize that our society benefits immensely by allowing private interests to speak and other private interests to listen. The listeners can then either keep listening or tune out if they so desire.
The most inane thing about the demands to purge Carlson is the degree to which they perfectly match Carlson’s sustaining narrative. Namely, his presentation of a powerful, overly-represented elite, who doesn’t simply disagree with many conservatives but is actively disgusted by them. So disgusted, that is, that this commentariat can watch a 90 second TV segment and demand, “Cull him, for he hath sinned.” The arrogance here, of a few demanding the speech of one and the purged choices of millions, is quite striking. To those who question the purge, to borrow from Shakespeare’s recital of Caesar, its supporters would seem to respond simply, “But I am constant as the northern star.” Ironically, the purge crowd’s strategy bears some remarkable similarity with Russian propaganda narratives. The Kremlin’s narratives match a pretense of righteous disdain to the maximized recirculation of the same anger-driven arguments.
The Federalist’s Emily Jashinsky examined the ban-Carlson movement back in 2018, but her key point sustains today. This isn’t about civic protection, but rather a desire to “intimidate the media out of expressing ideas they decide are objectionable.”
Let’s allow Fox News and its viewers to decide whether Carlson should be on-air, not Twitter.
