Once an influential iconoclast at the helm of Fox News, Tucker Carlson has had to carve his own way since his departure from the network in April of 2023. This journey has largely been a success for the media maverick, accumulating tens of millions of views with each episode of his new show, but just as with his time at Fox, it has not been without controversy.

The facade of his conservative dissident persona first began to crack for me late last year when Carlson got into very public online squabbles with other conservative-leaning media figures over his moral equivocation of Ukraine and Russia and Israel and Hamas. And over false and petty claims that figures like Ben Shapiro would see the United States send his children to war.

His fervent and often justified talking points about the United States caring more about helping U.S. defense companies maintain their bottom lines instead of helping its own citizens with inflation or illegal immigration – a critique of the government for prolonging the conflicts to benefit special interests – slowly shifted into justification for the instigating forces: Russia and Hamas.

Carlson, like Candace Owens, picked up on talking points from far-left and far-right basement dwellers about Israel being an apartheid state – a claim not supported in truth¹ or fact. Those talking points include a line of thinking that supposes that since the state discriminates against Christians and Muslims, the actions of Hamas (on October 7th and before and after) were understandable if not justified.

Then, earlier this year, Carlson made the bold move of interviewing sitting Russian president Vladimir Putin. His questions seemed pointed and critical. He seemed to have a genuine pro-American, anti-Russian interest, and fears from some of his troubled followers were, for at least a moment, abated.

That contentment lasted perhaps a day. Soon after the interview, Carlson took to the streets of Moscow and began praising its glory to his American audience. He remarked on the cleanliness of the streets, the ornate detail in the subway decor, and, most bafflingly of all, the affordability of food in Russian grocery stores… as purchased through his much more valuable American dollar. Carlson should consider brushing up on the topic of exchange rates, it seems.

And throughout this entire period, Tucker began spouting new rhetoric about the legitimacy of the Allies’ fight in World War II. He went beyond raising questions that many have asked themselves: Were the bombings at Dresden necessary? Did the United States have to drop the atomic bombs? He began outright objecting to the moral rightness of the Allies all together. Just like with the conflicts raging today, Carlson began drawing moral equivalence between two sides that could not be more closely construed to Tolkien-esque good and evil.

Now, just yesterday, Carlson hosted a historian “truther” to discuss this “real” history of the second world war. The historian suggested that it was Churchill not Hitler that was the real villain of the war, suggesting that the Nazis did not want to kill the Jews, but, due to mismanagement, they had to kill them. A perusal of this man’s X account makes where the point of view of this man comes from suddenly obvious; it comes from the view of a man who finds dictatorial, fascist control more appealing than modern day society.

He would see authoritarian control of life, family, land, and commerce before he sees the wavering ills of today's free society.

Today’s society is rife with many ills – many of which show only signs of worsening rather than subsiding. But if the wrong side had won in World War II, where would our churches be that you so greatly (and rightly) revere? Gone. Torched and paved over. Hitler was no friend of religion, just as any socialist isn't. For the state is their god, and the only one they deem you right to worship. The parents’ rights that you so strongly advocate for? Your children would be captured by a different ideological indoctrination – instead of a “woke” one, a fascistic one. At least here you can take your kids out of a public school or move to a different state. Would a statist like Hitler let you enjoy such liberty? You hate mainstream media outlets acting as the PR department of the U.S. government? So do I. How, then, would it be when the government outright owns all of the networks? No more guests bringing dissenting voices to the programs. There is no Scott Jennings or Juan Williams in an authoritarian state.

Tucker Carlson would have you believe his words are wisdom; a request resting on the accumulated trust that sound, good-faith criticisms have generated over his storied career. But what respect can we have for a man who, out of one corner of his mouth, would preach to you of the greatness of the United States and importance of today’s conservative causes while, out of the other corner of his mouth, champion perspectives and powers that would see both of those things wiped out?