Tucker Carlson, David Brooks, Rupert Murdoch, And Religion
[Murdoch's} management of News Corp and Fox Corp had become increasingly erratic and one of my sources described him as a “crazy old man.”
In particular, it was Tucker Carlson’s frequent invocation of religion and his own religious faith that unnerved Murdoch and left him aggrieved. On Tuesday, Vanity Fair reported that Tucker’s widely acclaimed speech at the Heritage Foundation 50th anniversary gala was a major factor in Murdoch’s sudden decision to terminate him. The speech had religious overtones, and Carlson spoke of the current political moment as being a spiritual battle of good vs. evil. . . . A source told the outlet “that stuff freaks Rupert out. He doesn’t like all the spiritual talk.”
The Vanity Fair story also mentions a dinner Carlson attended in late March with Murdoch and his then fiancée Ann Lesley Smith (Smith, 66, would have been Murdoch’s fifth wife). Tucker was allegedly Smith’s favorite host and once described him as a “messenger from God.” The two apparently discussed religion at the dinner, with Smith at one point pulling out a Bible, leaving Murdoch “freaked out.”
A week after this dinner, Murdoch called off his engagement. A month later, Fox fired Carlson.
That a 92-year0-ld multibillionaire should be freaked out by talk of religion somehow brings to mind the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, but we'll let that go. This did send me to seek out just what it was that Tucker said at the Heritage Foundation gala that so freaked the man out. The text can be found here. In fact, although he alludes to religious issues in his speech, he avoids focusing on them -- but he does give a few insights into his background:
The people remain noble and decent. So far as I can tell, I still live here. I’m never leaving. We have good people. We have terrible people in charge. And not just of our government, but of the institutions that I grew up in, the Episcopal church, my high school [presumably the exclusive private school he attended], I can just go on and on and on. They’re all run by weak people.
But in summing up, he goes specifically out of his way to avoid religion:
So, if you want to assess, and I’ll put it in non … And I’ll stop with this. I’ll put it in nonpolitical or rather non-specific theological terms, and just say, if you want to know what’s evil and what’s good, what are the characteristics of those?
And by the way, I think the Athenians would’ve agreed with this. This is not necessarily just a Christian notion, this is kind of a, I would say, widely agreed-upon understanding of good and evil. What are its products? What do these two conditions produce?
Well, I mean, good is characterized by order, calmness, tranquility, peace, whatever you want to call it, lack of conflict, cleanliness. Cleanliness is next to godliness. It’s true. It is.
I think a Roman Catholic like Bp Barron wouldn't disagree with this, and nor would an ordinary Catholic who'd paid attention in catechism class. The virtues fall into two categories, theological and natural, and the latter are prudence, temnperance, fortitude and justice -- which have also been called the Aristotelian virtues, so Carlson is completely right in saying they extend beyond Christianity into classical thought. There's nothing specifically religious about them, although if you venture into subjects like natural law, you run into the question of why these are virtues and how this whole scheme came into being.And Carlson goes no farther in his talk than to say he was raised Episcopalian and is still married to his high school sweetheart, the daughter of an Episcopal priest. Bible thumping is not Episcopal style, but we may also infer that whatever he is now, he isn't the same sort of Episcopalian as, say, Alissa Heinerscheid, the former Bud Light marketing VP. He goes no farther in his Heritage Foundation address than to say nice things about natural law.
We don't know for sure if this was what freaked Mr Murdoch out, and at this stage, we don't even know the precise contractual nature of Mr Murdoch's revenge, except that the religious angle, however minimal, is a current and credible explanation. But I'm drawn to the context of remarks by David Brooks on the PBS News Hour on Friday of the same week Carlson was sidelined:
On Friday’s “PBS NewsHour,” New York Times columnist David Brooks stated that he likes President Joe Biden’s soul of America messaging because the election is a contrast “between a moral vision and an amoral realism” that is represented in the idea that “We’ve got to take care of [ourselves].”
. . . "I think Biden’s instinct is just very different, that we have to have — we have to be a good country, and we have to be good in defending democracy. We have to be good on race. We have to be good on fairness. We have to be good to the marginalized. And so, I think there is — unlike other presidential elections, there’s really a contest between a moral vision and an amoral realism. And so, I think he’s right to highlight that difference.”
Brooks's reference to the "soul of America" is to the September 1, 2022 "Dark Brandon" speech Biden gave in front of Independence Hall.
A main theme of the speech was Donald Trump and his political allies, so-called "MAGA Republicans", who Biden described as a threat to the country and democracy. He contrasted them against "mainstream Republicans" who he portrayed as less extreme. Biden expressed his support for the both the Department of Justice's and the FBI's investigation into Trump.
The Wikipedia piece quoted him as sayhing, "Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic." The effort here is to portray Trmp as the representative of a deviant fringe outside normal social parameters. The difficulty is in how Biden himself seeks to define the mainstream, for instance in his more recent statement in support of transgenderism:
Transgender Americans deserve to be safe and supported in every community – but today, across our country, MAGA extremists are advancing hundreds of hateful and extreme state laws that target transgender kids and their families. No one should have to be brave just to be themselves.
Let me be clear: These attacks are un-American and must end. The bullying, discrimination, and political attacks that trans kids face have exacerbated our national mental health crisis.
. . . I want every member of the trans community to know that we see you. You’re each made in the image of God, and deserve love, dignity, and respect. You make America stronger, and we’re with you.
From a religious, or indeed even a scientific-materialist standpoint, surgery and hormone treatment to alter a person's sex is a chimerical fantasy. Dressing in clothing associated with the opposite sex for sexual gratification is deviant behavior. Using terminoiogy like "soul" or "image of God" in this context is dishonest. The Roman Catholic catechism (and traditional Protestant belief) says God is neither male nor female but is traditionally referred to as "He" and "the Father". Human beings are made male and female in the image of God. You don't mess with this stuff any more than you mess with the rest of natural law.What's clearly going on right now is an attempt to rewrite natural law, which will always be vain and in many ways blasphemous, but David Brooks, the token "conservative" of state-supported media, is in favor of it, and he says this is what the next election will be about.
Nobody can predict, but the initial omens suggest that the plebs as a whole isn't buying this, either in the Bud Light fiasco or Murdoch's revenge against Tucker Carlson for freaking him out over remarks that are deliberately not even religious. I don't think David Brooks is paying attention. The two issues have brought about two major corporate crises. If this is what 2024 will be about, the initial signs aren't good for the elites.
