The reason doctors tell people not to scratch a rash is because doing so will likely trade near-term satisfaction for long-term discomfort. Yet you can’t ignore it completely, lest it be a symptom of a greater malady. So the question is: What does one do when the body politic develops a Tucker Carlson?

I have watched every iteration of the product known as “Tucker Carlson” over the course of his chameleonic career, and I have never seen him having less fun than he is right now. This is unfortunate, because misery loves company. And Tucker really wants company.

Carlson’s sense of humor and casual demeanor have been replaced by a ghastly forced cackle he uses to try to head off his increasingly unstable temper. The anger is the first public expression of Tucker Carlson’s entire career that is genuine. Every single conversation between Tucker and someone who doesn’t agree with him resembles Mel Gibson talking to that cop on the night of his fateful DUI.

Carlson has been pushed to the sidelines but, crucially, not out of the game entirely. So if we can’t ignore Carlson, what’s the level of engagement that makes the most sense?

The very first rule I would suggest is to engage him on the public’s terms. The public broadly sees Carlson as a shameless grifter. Does he believe the anti-Semitism he spews? Does he believe the Russian subway system is really a technological marvel? Does he believe that Winston Churchill is the villain of World War II?

I don’t know, but I think the anger and the Ursula the Sea Witch cackle are the product of a guy who knows how ridiculous he looks and sounds. One ought to engage Tucker with dripping condescension, not serious debate.

Second, reject the premise. We’re talking about Carlson right now because he made a big deal out of the fact that Sen. Ted Cruz admitting to not knowing the exact population of Iran. The clip made for good viewing in the age of social media, but the entire premise of Carlson’s approach to the conversation was idiotic: Ted Cruz is not advocating a full-scale war with Iran, certainly not an invasion and occupation and a plan to govern the Iranians from afar. He thinks it’s fair game to target the Iranian head of state because that man has been trying to kill our own head of state, Donald Trump, since at least last fall. Cruz believes dropping a bomb on a nuclear facility is not the same as invading and occupying a country, an inarguable premise when rendered in good faith.

Cruz, in other words, wants to act on what we know—we know where the nuclear facility is, we know the Iranians have been trying to kill Trump because we caught them and they admitted it, etc. The interview only makes Cruz look bad if you forget what they are actually arguing about.

And that is the key. Tucker’s entire shtick is predicated on avoiding what his guests actually think. Always keep that in mind when watching his show (or appearing on it).

Finally, understand specifically what Tucker is trying to do—that is, what he is trying to accomplish with this clown show. He sees that there is wide agreement in the Republican Party on an issue of great import: whether Iran should attain nuclear weapons. He’s on the wrong side of it. But he can’t argue that Iran should have nukes. So he needs to divide conservatives over something. He needs to make conservatives suspicious of each other. And boy is it easy to sow division in the American right if you’re able to get everyone arguing over Christianity.

And this is where I am still somewhat in awe of Tucker, where you can see the talent that he wastes on this dreck.

“As a Christian growing up in Sunday school,” Cruz told Carlson at one point, “I was taught from the Bible, ‘Those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed.’ And from my perspective, I’d rather be on the blessing side of things.”

Tucker’s response was, essentially: oh look at this Dispensationalist nerd over here!

A great many Christians interpret the verse differently, and many politically conservative, eminently decent people, defended their theology on Twitter. What ensued was a fight for the sake of fighting. I found some of the arguments interesting, actually, before I realized what was happening: Tucker Carlson had baited the right into an online debate over the meaning of a line in Genesis in order to crackup the consensus that had formed over the belief that the guy who tried to kill the U.S. president shouldn’t have nukes.

Dear fellow conservatives: Stop talking about something just because Tucker Carlson wants you to talk about it. No, he can’t always be ignored. But not every itch should be scratched.