Addendum to "Tucker Carlson: 'You sort of wonder, like, where are the dads here?'"

He does tell us, but...

Thanks to all for the thoughtful comments on my post about Tucker Carlson and particularly to Jeff Morgan for bringing this piece by Carlson from about 6 years ago to my attention. It confirms what I and others suggested. The video is brief, and it gently pushes the limits of what conservative MSM like Fox News will permit. He cites the standard behavioral and social problems caused by “fatherlessness” in the abstract, as conservatives often do. He even goes a bit further than others by asking what are the causes and mentions welfare (briefly). He does not blame fathers themselves (as many do) with the lie about fathers “abandoning” the children that have been taken from them, but neither does he dare to say a word about the main cause: a government machinery surrounding family courts that exists for no other purpose than to remove fathers from their families. Clearly he knows the dangers, pushes up to the limits permitted by the professional conservative political class, and no further. He thus managed to hang on at Fox for 5 more years.

Worse commentaries by less principled and more self-righteous conservative pundits are analyzed in my new book (chapter 6).

Perhaps it is also worth noting his title. His aim is to explain “the decline of men”. So it is not just a recitation of the ills of fatherlessness but an approach to the larger weakening of men in America. Again, is there code here? I do not know, but I think Carlson is to be encouraged rather than excoriated (at this point).

---

[Original post:]

Tucker Carlson is appropriately indignant that public school teachers are using their classrooms to sexualize schoolchildren. He seems genuinely perplexed as to why we allow such an obviously disgusting practice and especially why “parents” allow this to be done to their own children. Frustrated, he adds:

Adults are not allowed to get involved in the sex lives of children unless they’re the parents of those children, period. … I am just against, across the board, creepy teachers talking to other people’s children about those children’s sex lives. That is totally wrong. … I think it’s a crime, and I don’t think any normal father would put up with that. And you sort of wonder, like, where are the dads here, saying, “You talk to my child about his sex life one more time, I’m gonna hurt you”?

Does he really not know? Can such an intelligent commentator on public affairs really be so clueless about “the biggest social issue…facing America”? I realize that the word “parents” still invokes images of two-parent families in suburban houses, as in 1950s television series. Does he really not know that very few such “parents” exist anymore and the few that do remain do not put their children in public schools?

Does he not know — to answer his question — that the dads have either been thrown out of their homes by welfare agencies and divorce courts or were never allowed in in the first place or are so intimidated and emasculated by the possibility of being ejected that they can do nothing to protect their children from this and worse? Many are not allowed even to see their children or know what happens to them in public school, let alone rescue them from it.

I suspect he does know, when he stops to think about it. I think he knows, because for years his commentaries have been laced with little asides indicating that he knows — and cares. He also interviewed Dennis Hannon and Jeffrey Younger, both of whose sons were ordered to be castrated and physically turned into girls by feminist judges. (Neither interview led to a larger investigation of why courts can issue such orders.) In fact, I am certain he knows, because, years ago, he invited me onto his public broadcasting show to discuss my first book on the systematic elimination and destruction of fathers by family courts. That was just before he was dismissed from that network, and the interview never took place. Nor did any other.

So why is he perplexed and why does he persist in this illusion?

Clearly, he is afraid. He may also be a little embarrassed that he has conspicuously never investigated this. Many of us see Carlson as a cut above other journalists, even dissident ones. But in this case he adamantly refuses to “go there”. And he is not alone. The almighty and lucrative divorce juggernaut terrifies far above any other government operation: far more than the FBI, CIA, or Homeland Security. It is the most repressive government machinery ever created in the United States, and it operates with no scrutiny precisely because it intimidates — and yes, emasculates — even the most stout-hearted men, including politicians, journalists, academics, and other public figures with more to lose.

Elsewhere, Carlson himself expresses the impact not just on fathers themselves but on the most powerful men throughout our society, including Republican and conservative politicians, who often talk big about “manhood” and scold others for their alleged deficiency of it, but who are themselves too feminized to act against the government officials and policies that undermine it, even though scrutinizing the abuse of power is their job: “They’re weak,” Carlson says. “They’ve decided, ‘The other side is ascended.  The Left is winning.  I’m not gonna push any buttons that might infuriate them.’  They’re not lion-hearted.” 

Tellingly, he adds, “The only ones who will do it are women.”

Tucker Carlson does an excellent job of telling us all about the foolish and destructive things being done by leftists in power. (I think most people would surely agree that sexualizing and mutilating children tops the list.) Where he has been less successful is telling us why they are allowed to get away with it and how we can stop them. Destroying men, fathers, and masculinity is more than a tangential reason, and he surely realizes this or he would not drop so many hints about it.

Carlson stands at a threshold. If he can summon the courage to answer his own question with the depth he applies to say, the joys of rural life, he will have earned the gratitude of not only Americans, but the world. If not, it may be time for us to find another journalist in shining plaids.

If you want to read more analysis of this kind, you can find it in my new book, Who Lost America? Why the United States Went "Communist” — and What to Do about It — available from Amazon.

Stephen Baskerville is Professor of Politics at the Collegium Intermarium in Warsaw.  All his books and recent articles are available at www.StephenBaskerville.com.