First, Fox News host Tucker Carlson tangled with Colonel Ralph Peters and was accused of being the second coming of isolationist leader Charles Lindbergh. The following night Carlson had Max Boot, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations on. Boot is an advocate of military intervention in Syria, something that Carlson abhors. The Fox News host let Boot have it in a particularly savage, personal way as the video below shows.
Who is Max Boot?
Besides being a fellow at the CFR, Boot regular writes articles for such publications as The Weekly Standard, The Los Angeles Times, and the New York Times.
He is a historian of some note, having authored a number of books. His most recent book is called “Secret Armies,” a study on guerilla warfare.
Boot favors American engagement in world affairs and, from time to time, military intervention. However, he was a critic of both President George W. Bush’s and President Barack Obama’s reliance on conventional military power. Boot supports training and arming locals and having them fight American enemies with air and special operations support, the strategy being employed in Syria and Iraq. He was an opponent of Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election.
What had Carlson so exercised?
The interview with Boot, which was more like a high-tech beating administered on national television, has to be seen to be believed.
Carlson was clearly irritated by being compared the night before to a man that many regarded (in the view of some erroneously) as a Nazi sympathizer. Perhaps he was taking out his ire on Boot, though the scholar was not the one making the comparison.
Carlson has become well known for bringing on dubious characters and treating them with snark.
His best-known tactic is to assume a gape-mouthed expression of astonishment as they prattle nonsense. However, since Boot is a respected scholar, albeit someone with whom Carlson disagrees, this gambit simply would not do. Hence, the Fox News host savaged Boot in a personal way, interrupting him and never allowing him to complete a thought.
The result was not a debate or even a frank exchange of views. It was a thrashing, straight up. Boot never knew what hit him.
Was the result compelling television? That judgment depends on what one is looking for. If one desired a debate on the issues, even expressed with passion, then one had to live with disappointment. If one was eager to watch the television equivalent of WWE, with the equivalent of body slams and pile drivers, then the interview was popcorn worthy.
