I’m not losing much sleep over Tucker Carlson’s departure from Fox News; I’m not really a Tucker Carlson (or a Fox News) type of guy.
I found some of what Carlson said (and how he said it) to be off-putting.
But Carlson had at least one viewpoint that I appreciated; one that deserved some mainstream discussion – and which now may sink into obscurity in Carlson’s absence.
The viewpoint that maybe the US should exercise some restrain before blundering into the Ukraine conflict.
The funny thing is that the Carlson perspective I most appreciate is the one most universally condemned; both Democrats and Republicans are all-in on US intervention of some kind. Similarly both Democrats and Republicans were sick of Carlson’s naysaying.
“It’s a bad day for Vladimir Putin,” a Senate Republican aide said in reference to Carlson’s departure. “This takes one of the biggest critics of Ukraine war In Republican and conservative circles off the table.”
One Republican senator, speaking anonymously, echoed similar sentiments, telling The Hill that “Carlson’s departure from prime time would be a positive development for maintaining public support for the war.”
Senator Mitt Romney, who stands strongly in US support of Ukraine, given his belief that the Russo-Ukraine War is “one of the greatest demonstrations of good versus evil we’ve seen in our lifetimes,” was critical of Carlson’s influence.
“There have been some that have argued that he was setting foreign policy for the Republican Party, which I find to be bizarre. Certainly not for me…To the primary [Republican] voter, the active participant, the grassroot voter, he’s a person they listen to and has a big influence.” Romney added that “with regards to Russian and Ukraine [Carlson] was misguided.”
And that’s just what Republicans are saying.
But Tucker Carlson had a point
Mainstreamers dismissed Carlson as an isolationist – but there was some wisdom in Carlson’s perspective.
The US has spent billions on propping up the Ukrainian war effort – billions that could of course have gone towards domestic spending items, or even more strategically vital defense spending. The money invested in Ukraine has limited strategic upside – we’re foiling the Russian invasion, yes, but is that a vital US interest.
And to what cost?
Tucker Carlson was one of the only guys on television reminding the public that Russian possessed the world’s largest nuclear stockpiles. Intervention in Ukraine means risking a US-Russia confrontation, which would constitute an existential crisis for just about everyone on Earth. The chances of a nuclear exchange were low, yes, but they weren’t zero – and that’s too high.
And a byproduct of US spending in Ukraine is that it gives European nations further excuse to rely on the US for the defense of Europe. The simple fact is that Germany and Britain and France and the rest of them should be responsible for their own defense. And fortunately, they’re up to the task – they all have a significantly higher GDP than Russia and, fiscally speaking, have the ability to defend themselves against Russia who, it should be pointed out, has failed even to secure meaningful territorial gains against their under-funded, under-equipped Ukrainian neighbors.
Carlson spewed some nonsense. And maybe Carlson wasn’t correct in everything he had to say about Ukraine. But Carlson raised points that should be raised and he asked questions that people in government positions seemed to stop asking a long time ago.
MORE: Kamala Harris Is a Disaster
MORE: Joe Biden – Headed For Impeachment?
Harrison Kass is the Senior Editor at 19FortyFive. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.
