Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Reason.tv: Matt Welch on The Newshour with Jim Lehrer—Is criticism of Barack Obama's agenda based on race?
On Wednesday, September 16, Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch appeared on PBS' The Newshour with Jim Lehrer to discuss whether criticism of Barack Obama's politicial agenda is, as former President Jimmy Carter has asserted, due to racial animosity.
Approximately 15 minutes. Edited by Meredith Bragg.
Dello|9.24.09 @ 4:39PM|#
I have no problem with the part of Obama that's Black. I have a problem with the part of him that's President.
VM|9.24.09 @ 4:51PM|#
well done, Matt!
to your final point, don't forget that the code words the
opposition uses ("socialism") also distract from actual legit
objections.
Very well done, indeed. Congratulations on a very successful
interview!
ed|9.24.09 @ 4:54PM|#
Anybody notice that, of all the guests, only Matt was identified by his political philosophy?
Fist of Etiquette|9.24.09 @ 4:56PM|#
My gut feeling is that McWhorter and Belcher occupy a similar space with douchebaggery.
twv|9.24.09 @ 5:05PM|#
If anyone's a douchebag, it's Carter. McWhorter was basically correct, though, no? Or, that's how I judged it when I commented on it last week, here: http://www.wirkman.com/Wirkman/Netizen/Entries/2009/9/17_Opportunistic_racism.html
|9.24.09 @ 5:12PM|#
Nice job Matt. You comported yourself well. But your no Nick Gillespie (not that he's a friend of mine or anything). How I'd love to see Nick lay into the PBS home team with his unique brand of Eng. Lit. infused snark.
|9.24.09 @ 5:15PM|#
twv,
You couldn't be more wrong. Saying "some are racist, some are not"
may be technically correct, but doesn't do anything to advance the
debate.
Fist of Etiquette|9.24.09 @ 5:21PM|#
McWhorter was basically correct, though, no?
He is probably correct that racism won't stop any legislation, and
he is no doubt correct that he believes there is racism in
the opposition to Obama's policies. His particular phrasing
appeared to me (then and now) to be crafted such to make the
protesters' racism a given. That is douchebagism, at least
according to this viewer's gut.
chuck|9.24.09 @ 5:23PM|#
Anybody notice that, of all the guests, only Matt was
identified by his political philosophy?
The first guest was identified as a "Democratic pollster."
Gilbert Martin|9.24.09 @ 5:34PM|#
The anti-capitalist G-20 protestors are rioting in New York. The
are throwing rocks at the cops and rolling trash cans at
them.
Gee I wonder where all those handwringing MSM reporters and
commenters are who were so very worried about "racist" and
"violent" tendencies amongst the tea party demonstrators.
¢|9.24.09 @ 5:38PM|#
A wire story about the G-20 rock-hurlers that gratuitously notes
their overwhelming whiteness would be pretty sweet.
We got any moles in there?
Didn't think so.
24AheadDotCom|9.24.09 @ 5:41PM|#
Great job! MattW's earned his stripes - and probably a few more
Beltway cocktail party invites - with this appearance.
However, he said: The white resentment candidate in 2008 for
the Republican side maybe was Tom Tancredo. He got drubbed; he got
nowhere.
Now, if we actually put on our PBS/NPR Thinnking Caps, is that all
there was to it? Wasn't Tanc basically somewhere on the other end
of the spectrum from MattW vis-a-vis establishment support? Wasn't
the issue not so much what Tanc said as the fact that he was
consistently undercut by the MSM? Sure, he wasn't a great
campaigner, but didn't MattW's establishment buddies try to
marginalize him? (For one very small example, the NYT used a photo
of him on their blog that made him look like a toothless
yokel.)
Isn't MattW just another cog in the machine?
ll blow j|9.24.09 @ 5:41PM|#
"A wire story about the G-20 rock-hurlers that gratuitously
notes their overwhelming whiteness would be pretty sweet."
It's always hard to tell race with these guys. They tend to cover
their faces with the burka.
ll blow j|9.24.09 @ 5:49PM|#
(shakes head)
White people. Crazy motherfuckers:
http://reuters.scribblelive.com/Event/G20_Pittsburgh
ll blow j|9.24.09 @ 5:53PM|#
Why do these white G-20 protesters hate Obama's policies?
Because they're racists.
Nancy Pelosi|9.24.09 @ 5:55PM|#
"Why do these white G-20 protesters hate Obama's
policies?"
They don't frighten me. Dissent is patriotic.
ll blow j |9.24.09 @ 5:56PM|#
"I think links to porn are generally frowned upon here."
My apologies, little man.
Warty|9.24.09 @ 5:58PM|#
Don't misunderstand me. I love porn. Do you have any Japanese scat/puke porn plz?
Rich|9.24.09 @ 6:17PM|#
Cornell Belcher: "I think you can't separate ideology from
adverse racial attitudes."
Well, then, that settles it for the Democratic Pollster. Yo,
...
|9.24.09 @ 6:33PM|#
Seriously: can an admin remove the pr0n links? Linking to pr0n is something search engines look down on. They might think this site is about pr0n when as we all know they don't have any balls.
GILMORE|9.24.09 @ 6:47PM|#
I never watch glen beck (I dont believe in cable tv), but what
the hell is he doing to submarine his own constituency by saying
things like, "this president has a deep-seated hatred toward white
people and white culture"...? What the hell does that even mean?
Who do they think is on the other side of the tube nodding away,
and is that guy someone you want on your side?
If these guys wanted to try and avoid the 'racist' label, maybe
they could have avoided idiotic rhetoric like that? Its not even
about 'racist or not'; its just embarrassingly stupid.
|9.24.09 @ 6:53PM|#
"this president has a deep-seated hatred toward white people
and white culture"...? What the hell does that even
mean?
He means that Obama is a Marxist.
Mister DNA|9.24.09 @ 6:54PM|#
I never watch glen beck (I dont believe in cable tv)...
I can assure you, cable TV exists.
GILMORE|9.24.09 @ 6:57PM|#
Why do these white G-20 protesters hate Obama's
policies?
Watching the news hour now, and they interviewed some of the g20
protesters.
I dont think they worked too hard to find spokespeople for any
protesting 'organizations'... they just picked a gang of idiotic
unwashed squatter-punk anarchist types. They seemed like they were
whacked out on painkillers too. One rambled for like a few minutes,
and were like, "see....man, capitalism is just bad". The
correspondent was like, "but hey, shouldnt countries at least get
together and talk about policy from time to time?" and they just
blinked and gaped. "sure, I guess... cause then we can come and
harass them all at once" Saves on travel bills i guess.
It seemed pretty clear these guys were not political science
majors. For them it seemed to be a "dead-show" type situation:
we're here for the scene and the chicks and the getting tear gassed
man. I wear black; I got nose rings; I sport mad tattoos; this
protest shit is part of the whole getup. Whats with all these
political questions man?
They were all white males. (**Racist!)
GILMORE|9.24.09 @ 7:01PM|#
Mister DNA | September 24, 2009, 6:54pm | #
I never watch glen beck (I dont believe in cable tv)...
I can assure you, cable TV exists.
(fingers in ears) NYA NYA NYA!! Not listening!! THERE IS NO SUCH
THING!!
I am also trying hard to not believe the WB network exists.
Basically, I watch PBS until Bill Moyers or Masterpiece theater
comes on, then I rush to the perpetual mexican soccer match way off
in the UHF range. its soothing.
GILMORE|9.24.09 @ 7:02PM|#
\FTG | September 24, 2009, 6:53pm | #
"this president has a deep-seated hatred toward white people and
white culture"...? What the hell does that even mean?
He means that Obama is a Marxist.
Uh...
=/=?
all the marxists i've ever met are dumb white college kids.
or those G20 protest types.
Why not just 'say what he means'?
GILMORE|9.24.09 @ 7:07PM|#
just saw the intro to the discussion on TNH
Gee, my fist thought on the participants was, "one of these folks
is not like the others..."
You think they'd not leave Matt to be the one whitey
|9.24.09 @ 7:11PM|#
all the marxists i've ever met are dumb white college
kids.
It was a joke, GILMORE. Lighten up.
And Obama loves white people - especially with tartar sauce.
|9.24.09 @ 7:35PM|#
If I followed the arguments here,
1) if you don't criticize Obama 'cause he's black, that's
racist.
2) if you disagree with Obama's policies as policies, you're not a
racist, but
3) if you're white and disagree with Obama's policies, McWhorter
still feels you're subconsciously racist; there's no way to measure
it, but he's sure it's there
4) if you suggest that Obama's a racist, that proves you're a
racist
MNG|9.24.09 @ 7:45PM|#
"Is criticism of Barack Obama's agenda based on race?"
Well certainly some of it is, and certainly a lot of it is not.
Obama is seeking some big policy initiatives which would likely
make many on the right really mad even if he were purple.
|9.24.09 @ 7:55PM|#
What's funny here is that Instapundit is linking to a page that links to a pr0n site and that shows just how childish and despicable libertarians are. They can't engage in debate, they can only make comments that even Olbermann and his ilk would never consider making.
|9.24.09 @ 8:14PM|#
Triple token talks with black supremacists. I feel your an evil turd, it really doesn't matter what you believe.
|9.24.09 @ 8:16PM|#
Late in the conversation she uses a sexual slur..."teabaggers", instead of the accurate and correct "tea partiers"...to describe the opposition. I'd have called her on her slur right then! Who the heck does she think she is that she can use a sexual slur to refer to a significant part of the public?
Wacky Hermit|9.24.09 @ 8:24PM|#
Yeah, Robert, I noticed that too. It's rich how they assert that racism is in the eye of the minority and if the minority is insulted then it's racism, but then turn right around and use the epithet "teabaggers" which is patently offensive in the eye of the protestors. The same people who balk at "nappy headed hos" and don't like African-Americans being lumped in with welfare queens don't bat an eyelash at using a term like "teabaggers" or "feeling" as Mr. McWhorter did that all this hullabaloo is racist by default.
Mike DeSoto|9.24.09 @ 8:42PM|#
I never watch glen beck (I dont believe in cable tv), but
what the hell is he doing to submarine his own constituency by
saying things like, "this president has a deep-seated hatred toward
white people and white culture"...? What the hell does that even
mean?
It means that Obama is a balls-to-the-wall racist bigot who has
said things such as wishing he could somehow remove his "white
blood".
|9.24.09 @ 8:52PM|#
Most critics of this president are rational and reasonable. But when racism rears its ugly head, it must be identified and ostracized and certainly never ignored or explained away. Racism does exist on all sides of the political spectrum -- not just the far left. The David Dukes and Pat Buchanans of the world are still manuevering, manipulating, and seeking to co-opt power structures for their own perverse desires.
Paul|9.24.09 @ 9:11PM|#
Re: teabaggers, Ifill has since apologized.
What I really want to know, Matt, is has NPR apologized for not
sending a limo?
Paul|9.24.09 @ 9:12PM|#
The David Dukes and Pat Buchanans of the world are still
manuevering, manipulating, and seeking to co-opt power structures
for their own perverse desires.
David Duke lives in Austria.
|9.24.09 @ 9:14PM|#
People don't have a problem w/ Obama b/c he's black. People have a problem with him b/c he's RED.
|9.24.09 @ 9:21PM|#
The black commentators on the PBS show basically said,"I'm not saying that the President's critics are racists, but they're racists."
Tman|9.24.09 @ 9:52PM|#
Great Job Mr. Welch! You made a very important point, which is
that there are some justified arguments being made against the
spread of big government that are being ignored, and those that are
making them aren't a majority of racists, which is what Mr. Cahtah
absurdly proposed.
I suppose Matt could've asked the panel if they thought that the
black people attending the Tea Parties are a little racist too, but
I suppose that would be in bad taste.
I suppose.
|9.25.09 @ 1:54AM|#
Would Welch have interrupted McLehrer to complain that his audio was out? Huh? would he?
jester|9.25.09 @ 2:42AM|#
'even if he were purple.'
There's no telling now. Maybe someday he will go the way David
Carradine went.
jester|9.25.09 @ 2:58AM|#
Glenn Beck, unfortunately, has a paternalistic attitude of
'black people'. A lot of the right does. This is a key reason why
Beck has not reached the libertarian level that he sometimes
claims.
He believes that a 'black' person can be elevated to the level of a
'white' person if he learns the ways of the 'white man'. He
erroneously believes that every righteous invention of man was done
by 'white man'. White is a ridiculous division, the sort of 50/50
that ardent proponents of pure democracy consider their
domain.
A libertarian belives a human being (individual) inherently has the
capability regardless of genetic origin to reason. Mental
retardation and/or low intellect is not unique to any particular
genetic pool (beyond an artificially created small population), but
its existence neither proves or disproves any superiority.
Technology is an artifact of free trade NOT one of 'racial'
superiority. Superior political systems lead to higher wealth
standards that are independent of 'race'.
Rather 'superiority' is measured in technology and/or abundance and
is richest in human communities most subject to free trade and
often accidents of geography, but that modernly free trade has
shown the accidents to be more and more nonrelevant.
jester|9.25.09 @ 3:11AM|#
The fact that there are defenders both 'black' and 'white' of
both sides of the old ignorant status quo racial theories is no
surprise.
They both can reference back to the days of the Enlightment which
was heavy on advanced political theories but short on any
understanding of genetics because genetics did not exist.
Ironically, the political theory advances of the Enlightenment
allowed for human surpluses that created the ability to objectively
(and often subjectively) study humans from around the world.
Ironically, even the subjective studies such as phrenology which
set out to prove the superiority of certain 'races' eventually
proved themselves wrong.
|9.25.09 @ 6:50AM|#
Matt, on the whole you did a very good job. But the French have
an expression, "Staircase arguments", for those things you think of
only after the conversation is over and you're heading out the
door. When I look over the tape, three "staircase arguments" come
to mind.
First, Carter said "much" of the anti-Obama movement was motivated
by racial hatred. He offered no support for this assertion. It was
rankest slander, and he should have been called out on it.
Second, McWhorter spoke of "cliches" and "stereotyping", in
particular the stereotyping of females and minority candidates.
Well, stereotyping applies to white males, in particular white on
the right: and the stereotype is that we are bigots. We must
somehow prove, to leftists satisfaction, that we are not bigoted -
which is impossible, of course. We're guilty until proven innocent.
It's simply a way of dismissing criticism by stuffing the critics
into a box labeled "BIGOTS". In any political argument, you have to
give your opponent the assumption of good faith: and that is
precisely what the critics of the tea party movement are not
willing to do.
Finally, all the discussion has been about race, but what this
movement really is about is class. All of the members of the panel,
possibly excepting yourself, are members of what James Burnham
called "the managerial class": journalists, academics, people in
well-paid positions - in short, the sort of people who are selected
to appear on PBS, and the people who will benefit most from
Obamaization of the country. With very few exceptions, the tea
party participants are of the *managed* class. Perhaps it's because
I'm reading about the French revolution just now, but seeing them
side by side with images shot at the tea parties brings to mind the
clergy and nobility of France telling the peasants to shut up and
stay in their place.
Again, good show.
MNG|9.25.09 @ 9:00AM|#
"It's simply a way of dismissing criticism by stuffing the
critics into a box labeled "BIGOTS"."
Sort of like calling everyone who disagrees with you
"SOCIALISTS?"
huangzhixian35|9.25.09 @ 9:43AM|#
HTTP://WWW.ICFSHOP.COM =====FREE SHIPPING FREE======
BIKINI $25. OUR COMMITMENT,CUSTOMER IS GOD.
http://www.icfshop.com
All the products are free shipping, and the the price is enticement
, and also can accept the paypal payment.we can ship within 24
hours after your payment.
accept the paypal
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
our price:coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32coogi DG edhardy gucci
t-shirts $15CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes $35jordan dunk af1
max gucci shoes $33EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $15coach okely
CHANEL DG Sunglass $16.our price: (Bikini)coach chanel gucci LV
handbags $32.coogi DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $15.CA edhardy
vests.paul smith shoes $35.jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes
$33.EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $15.coach okely CHANEL DG Sunglass
$16
http://www.icfshop.com =====FREE SHIPPING FREE=====
I wish you a happy shopping and happy every day!
|9.25.09 @ 10:59AM|#
the far fringes of conservatism occupies the same space as racists? Ask "people of color" in Russia about their treatment. I guess that the communists are suddenly republicans. Sheesh
GILMORE|9.25.09 @ 1:33PM|#
how much of this discussion was completely hypothetical?
On review, the vast majority of points made that were based in some
kind of objective fact were all Matt's.
Almost everything else was pop psychology and subjective
interpretations
jester|9.26.09 @ 4:21AM|#
Sort of like calling everyone who disagrees with you
"SOCIALISTS?"
Well put MNG. Exactly.
|9.26.09 @ 4:37AM|#
I'd still like to hear more about Matt's claim that "a
lot" of the people at the 9/12 protest told him they "like"
Obama.
Does he imagine that more than a very small share of them actually
felt that way? Enough to support his claim that there were almost
no expressions of racial anxiety among them?
My own sense was that the dominant feeling toward the President was
intense fear & dislike. The marchers' signs &
message-bearing clothes, their responses to speakers' references to
him, etc, etc, all suggested he was in fact very widely &
strongly disliked. (And if I believed a tenth of the calumnies
against him they do, it'd be odd if I didn't feel the same way.)
These were not, for the most part, equable swing voters.
jester|9.26.09 @ 6:04AM|#
K,
I work with multi-racial gay couples. It's a different world now,
thankfully. Some even have adopted children. In Texas!
I like Obama as a person. Why not? He is no different than many of
my colleagues whom I esteem for various reasons.
As a libertarian, I find that I disagree with nearly everyone. If I
projected that into the friendosphere, I'd have no friends. I'd
certainly never get laid.
I don't fear our president. Sure he's out in left field, but at
least now most people recognize that. I am not particularly bright
but I you made me feel just a little brighter.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245