The Founding Fathers versus Tucker Carlson

By Brian Patrick O'Malley

The ideals of America's Founding Fathers confront the fears of modern populism. George Washington wanted Americans to welcome people of "all nations and religions." Television commentators like Tucker Carlson expect Amercans to fear "demographic change."
The book also finds points of agreement. M

• Language: English
• Publisher: Nonagon Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Jul 4, 2019
• ISBN: 9780997525700

Book preview

Chapter 1: Carlson v. Madison

For James Madison, it was simple: Majority rule works if there is no majority. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. Minority rights are safer if a country is big and diverse. A great variety of people makes an unjust combination of a majority very improbable, if not impracticable.[1]

James Madison was the main architect of the American Constitution in 1787. Madison then joined John Jay and Alexander Hamilton as a coauthor of The Federalist Papers, a series of essays that explained and promoted the Constitution in 1787 and 1788. For these efforts, Madison is known as the Father of the Constitution.[2]

Fox News show host Tucker Carlson doubts the value of diversity. In his book Ship of Fools, Carlson implied that it makes no difference whether a group is diverse or uniform. Carlson wrote that diversity is a neutral factor in life, inherently neither good nor bad.[3]

James Madison thought diversity was essential for freedom. Religious liberty benefited from American religious diversity, For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.[4]

Diversity also protects civil rights. Madison knew the federal government will derive its power from society, but society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger.[5]

In January 2018, Carlson appealed to a speech by Rep. Kevin McCarthy (Republican-California), Majority Leader of the House of Representatives. McCarthy said, We did not survive, grow and become the most powerful civilization in human history because we were focused on our diversity.[6]

McCarthy was wrong. On several occasions, George Washington called the United States a home for all nations and religions. Promoting America to potential immigrants, Tench Coxe boasted of America’s diversity: Almost every sect and form of Christianity is known here—as also the Hebrew church. None are tolerated. All are admitted, aided by mutual charity … and cherished by the laws. James Madison, of course, was obsessed with diversity.[7]

Madison drew inspiration from French philosopher Voltaire. After his 1726-1728 exile in England, Voltaire wrote Letters on the English (1733). Voltaire marveled at the Royal Exchange, where Jew safely trusts gentile, and the [Anglican] Churchman depends on the Quaker’s word.[8]

Voltaire formulated a theory based on the British. The Frenchman wrote, If one religion only were allowed in England, the Government would very possibly become arbitrary; if there were but two, the people would cut one another’s throats; but as there are such a multitude, they all live happy and in peace.[9]

Madison also felt religious uniformity makes oppression easy to impose, and mistakes easy to make. Groups whose members are too alike have more confidence in bad ideas. As Madison phrased it, Union of Religious Sentiments begets a surprizing [sic] confidence. That undue confidence makes easy the Execution of mischievous Projects.[10]

On the September 7, 2018 edition of his show on Fox News, Tucker Carlson Tonight, Carlson asked …how precisely is diversity our strength? Carlson wanted any defense of diversity to be specific.[11]

James Madison believed resistance to British policy was possible only because of religious diversity. In 1774, Madison wrote from his home in Virginia to a friend in Pennsylvania, If the Church of England had been the established and general Religion in all the Northern Colonies as it has been among us here … it is clear to me that slavery and Subjection might and would have been gradually insinuated among us. If Americans all had the same religion, Madison believed they would easily submit to a bad idea.[12]

A 2014 study confirmed Madison’s suspicions: diversity makes for better ideas. Richard B. Freeman and Wei Huang looked at more than two million scientific papers by U.S.-based authors from 1985 to 2008. The coauthors considered the ethnic diversity of the surnames on each research team. Diverse teams wrote articles that were more interesting to other scientists than work by uniform teams.[13]

Articles by teams with diverse surnames (a mix, perhaps, of Jewish, Chinese and French names) were quoted and cited more often by other scientists than research from teams with uniform surnames, whether the surnames were all-Chinese or all-English. Regional diversity also makes a team better. Papers by teams cooperating from different regions of the country created more scholarly buzz than articles by teams based in one city.[14]

Contrary to Carlson’s assumption, diversity is not a neutral factor in American life. Whether a group is diverse, or uniform does make a difference. Yet another study confirmed it: A study of 4,302 students in 26 California middle schools measured the relative balance of four groups—Latinos, Asians, blacks and whites.[15]

Children felt less-bullied in schools with a near-equal balance of three or more groups. With a diverse student population, children also felt less lonely. As Voltaire would have predicted, students felt more vulnerable in schools with an overwhelming majority of one group. If a school was dominated by a near-even split of two groups, students did not necessarily cut one another’s throats, as Voltaire phrased it, but a two-way split does feel less friendly than a mixed multitude.[16]

Jewish history also confirms the theories of Madison and Voltaire. Historian Salo W. Baron concluded that Jews are safer in countries where Jews are not the only minority: If a state embraced a number of ethnic groups, the ‘alien’ character of the Jews was much less pronounced. Gershon David Hundert explained that Poland was a paradise for Jews because Poland was a multi-lingual, multi-ethnic and multi-religious state. In Poland, Poles were not even a majority![17]

From the sixteenth century into the eighteenth century, Poland and Lithuania formed a single commonwealth. Linguistically, Poland had communities that spoke Lithuanian, German and Belarusian. Yiddish and Hebrew were just two more languages. Religiously, Poland had Catholic Poles, Orthodox Ukrainians and Muslim Tartars. Judaism was just one more religion. In Poland, Jews did not stand out for being different.[18]

If Jews were a nation’s only minority, however, their difference stood out. Their solitary dissent seemed to call out for punishment. In Yemen and Morocco, Jews were the only native non-Muslim religious minority. Shariah (Islamic Law) required a state to tolerate non-Muslims. Morocco and Yemen, however, imposed the harshest conditions for toleration in the Arabic-speaking world. It was no surprise to historian Norman A. Stillman that Jews in Yemen and Morocco were notorious hard drinkers.[19]

Tucker Carlson wants a specific reason that diversity is good. There is a specific reason: The more diverse America is, the safer it is for Jews. The more diverse America is, the better it is for Muslims and Hindus, Protestants and Catholics. Any minority is less freakish, the more minorities we have. The best security is to have so many minorities there is no majority at all.

Carlson wants to defend American tradition. The best American tradition, however, is open to people of all nations and religions. George Washington and James Madison offered an inspiring ideal. Tucker Carlson offers anxiety.

Chapter 2: Naked Deformity

The United States needed the Constitution to fight one major threat—an overbearing majority. Promoting the Constitution in The Federalist Papers, Madison wrote, Complaints are every where [sic] heard … that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party; but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority. (In the eighteenth century, interested meant self-serving.)[20]

Madison feared a majority as much as he feared a king. Madison believed, Wherever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done. Wrong was as likely to come from a powerful & interested party as from a powerful and interested prince. Madison warned, "Wherever the