TUT, TUT, TUCKER.
Ninety percent of the time I find myself in agreement with Tucker Carlson, but in an era of virtue signaling and name-calling to shut up the opposition, Tucker sometimes uses the same tactics for his own positions.
The first issue in this article is his view on the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and future possibilities.
Now, I have no problem with his isolationist stance, or in questioning the wisdom of sending troops, or of keeping troops there. All that is fine and proper.
But Tucker always says, "Everyone in Washington wants war." If you disagree with him or the issue-sycophants he brings on to support his claim, you, too, "WANT WAR!". "WARMONGER!" he'll cry, echoing the Left's "RACIST!" slander.
It is a tactic, not an argument. He wants you to shut up, and just as those labeled racists and nazis and homophobes are silenced by the accusation, so does the warmonger label brand you an evil person who has no place in the debate. What sane person wants war? None would.
Historically, there have been people who "wanted war". Kaiser Wilhelm. Mussolini. But few others I can think of. Consider most of the evil people of history, such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro. They would have foregone war if they could have achieved their ends by other means. I do not mean by that they would have eschewed violence, they wouldn't have, but if their followers could have not died in war, it would have been just as well with them.
Suggesting the use of military force is not the same as "WANTING WAR!". Sometimes it is precipitous, sometimes it is too late, sometimes it is for deterrence. Was Reagan "WANTING WAR!" when he sent troops to Grenada? Was Thatcher a "WARMONGER!" for the Falklands war?
And Carlson has said we should not have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq because the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. This ignores the fact that Al-Qaeda was an enemy of the government of Saudi Arabia, not an arm of it. And applying that standard means Carlson would have opposed America entering WWII against Germany. Only Japan attacked us, by what right did we then oppose Hitler?
I support Nation Building once a war is over. Carlson does not. I'm not sure he even knows what he means by Nation Building, he's never defined it in any way I'm aware of. But see my article Nation Building for a thumbnail sketch of what I refer to.
The second issue is about his claims of amnesty.
What is amnesty? My Webster's defines it as "a general pardon for offenses against the government".
The pardon power held intrinsically by any government executive does two things: first, it forgives the penalties for whatever offense was supposedly or actually committed, and, second, it removes the individual from the judicial system on that offense. After a pardon, the judge cannot come back and retry the individual or order his penalty reinstated.
Mayors have this power regarding city laws (forgiving parking tickets, for example), governors for state laws, and our president for federal laws. Note, importantly, it has no strings attached: it is a forgiveness, period.
Attaching strings--adding conditions--makes it not a pardon, but a probation. Individuals on probation might have the charges eventually erased (essentially a pardon), but they must do and not do certain things: pay restitution, show up for hearings, not commit more offenses, etc.
Amnesty is the same as a pardon, but applies to a group, not an individual.
The bills that would address DACA (the Dreamers) and Illegal Aliens already here never are an amnesty. They always have conditions that must be abided by. Gang members are often not eligible, there is a time span before the "amnesty" applies to the individual during which certain acts or most crimes are disqualifying, and often they must pay a fine. That's a probation, not an amnesty.
So why does Carlson and others (Ann Coulter comes to mind) cry "AMNESTY!" when the bills come out? Because it's akin to the Progressive cries of "RACISM!" on anything they disagree with; it stops the discussion. If you disagree with Tucker's take on these bills, you are just for amnesty, that's it, end of story. No amount of nuance, no consideration beyond that matters--once you are labeled "FOR AMNESTY!", no-one on the Right need listen to you anymore; you're for non-citizens before citizens, you put profit before the good of the people. You are a bad person.
That those on the Right resort to such tactics should bother all Conservatives. We should be better than the Left, not adopt their methods. How we win is as important as winning. Unfortunately, Carlson and others believe, on immigration issues and issues concerning war, the ends do justify the means and truth can be sacrificed for power.
It is sad to see.
Ninety percent of the time I find myself in agreement with Tucker Carlson, but in an era of virtue signaling and name-calling to shut up the opposition, Tucker sometimes uses the same tactics for his own positions.
The first issue in this article is his view on the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and future possibilities.
Now, I have no problem with his isolationist stance, or in questioning the wisdom of sending troops, or of keeping troops there. All that is fine and proper.
But Tucker always says, "Everyone in Washington wants war." If you disagree with him or the issue-sycophants he brings on to support his claim, you, too, "WANT WAR!". "WARMONGER!" he'll cry, echoing the Left's "RACIST!" slander.
It is a tactic, not an argument. He wants you to shut up, and just as those labeled racists and nazis and homophobes are silenced by the accusation, so does the warmonger label brand you an evil person who has no place in the debate. What sane person wants war? None would.
Historically, there have been people who "wanted war". Kaiser Wilhelm. Mussolini. But few others I can think of. Consider most of the evil people of history, such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro. They would have foregone war if they could have achieved their ends by other means. I do not mean by that they would have eschewed violence, they wouldn't have, but if their followers could have not died in war, it would have been just as well with them.
Suggesting the use of military force is not the same as "WANTING WAR!". Sometimes it is precipitous, sometimes it is too late, sometimes it is for deterrence. Was Reagan "WANTING WAR!" when he sent troops to Grenada? Was Thatcher a "WARMONGER!" for the Falklands war?
And Carlson has said we should not have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq because the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. This ignores the fact that Al-Qaeda was an enemy of the government of Saudi Arabia, not an arm of it. And applying that standard means Carlson would have opposed America entering WWII against Germany. Only Japan attacked us, by what right did we then oppose Hitler?
I support Nation Building once a war is over. Carlson does not. I'm not sure he even knows what he means by Nation Building, he's never defined it in any way I'm aware of. But see my article Nation Building for a thumbnail sketch of what I refer to.
The second issue is about his claims of amnesty.
What is amnesty? My Webster's defines it as "a general pardon for offenses against the government".
The pardon power held intrinsically by any government executive does two things: first, it forgives the penalties for whatever offense was supposedly or actually committed, and, second, it removes the individual from the judicial system on that offense. After a pardon, the judge cannot come back and retry the individual or order his penalty reinstated.
Mayors have this power regarding city laws (forgiving parking tickets, for example), governors for state laws, and our president for federal laws. Note, importantly, it has no strings attached: it is a forgiveness, period.
Attaching strings--adding conditions--makes it not a pardon, but a probation. Individuals on probation might have the charges eventually erased (essentially a pardon), but they must do and not do certain things: pay restitution, show up for hearings, not commit more offenses, etc.
Amnesty is the same as a pardon, but applies to a group, not an individual.
The bills that would address DACA (the Dreamers) and Illegal Aliens already here never are an amnesty. They always have conditions that must be abided by. Gang members are often not eligible, there is a time span before the "amnesty" applies to the individual during which certain acts or most crimes are disqualifying, and often they must pay a fine. That's a probation, not an amnesty.
So why does Carlson and others (Ann Coulter comes to mind) cry "AMNESTY!" when the bills come out? Because it's akin to the Progressive cries of "RACISM!" on anything they disagree with; it stops the discussion. If you disagree with Tucker's take on these bills, you are just for amnesty, that's it, end of story. No amount of nuance, no consideration beyond that matters--once you are labeled "FOR AMNESTY!", no-one on the Right need listen to you anymore; you're for non-citizens before citizens, you put profit before the good of the people. You are a bad person.
That those on the Right resort to such tactics should bother all Conservatives. We should be better than the Left, not adopt their methods. How we win is as important as winning. Unfortunately, Carlson and others believe, on immigration issues and issues concerning war, the ends do justify the means and truth can be sacrificed for power.
It is sad to see.