Matt Welch on The Lehrer News Hour Tonight, Around 6.20PM, Talking About Obama, Dissent, and Racism

Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch will be on PBS "The News Hour With Jim Lehrer" tonight, around 6.30pm, discussing Obama, dissent, and racism.

Consult local listings for a station.

UPDATE: Transcript here.

Here's video:

Comments

[Joe M]

Eastern?

[Paul]

Wow, Matt, what's next... Leno?

[Warren]

HOLY CRAP!
When did Reason graduate from Red Eye?

6:30 you say? What time zone? And isn't that "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer"?

[Matt Welch Makes Me Sleepy]

As a decades long regular viewer of the News Hour, I am actually somewhat impressed.

I plan to watch. Hope it doesn't make me sleepy.

[Suki]

Sick 'em Matt!

[$]

Graduate?

Housewives-of-leisure and "I don't have cable, man" tie-dyed cockbags aren't an eager untapped market for libertarian opinion.

[Suki]

Housewives-of-leisure and "I don't have cable, man" tie-dyed cockbags aren't an eager untapped market for libertarian opinion.

But they are prime Cosmotarian candidates!

[sage]

Sorry, I Tivo'd The Ultimate Fighter to watch tonight. It's the heavyweights!

[Fist of Etiquette]

Are you allowed to say "welfare queens" on PBS???

[Fist of Etiquette]

Ha, McWhorter is going down the path that it's a given the anti-Obama sentiments are racism, but that fact is okay because it's not important. How very clever.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Let's face it, Welch is standing out like a sore thumb in this group. A very racist sore thumb.

[aaron]

Are you allowed to say "welfare queens" on PBS???

Apparently you are allowed to call people "teabaggers."

[Suki]

Hey guys, how about a better play-by-play (or is that play-buy-play on a big-L site)?

I am out enjoying cheap wine and happy hour food with beloved and they won't put that show on for us 🙁

[Paul]

Matt, just a tip:

I hear if you don't ask for it specifically, they send a Town Car, not a limo.

[BoscoH]

What ever happened to McNeil? Now that guy has a lot of privacy!

[Fist of Etiquette]

Apparently you are allowed to call people "teabaggers."

Yeah, I caught that. But she did add the "or whatever" at the end, which is requisite in polite company.

[SIV]

Jim Lehrer? Now my 77 y/o mother can see Matt Welch.Watch out, she screams at the TV when Mark Shields and David Brooks are on.

[Paul]

But she did add the "or whatever" at the end, which is requisite in polite company.

No, you're supposed to say "not that there's anything wrong with that".

Example: That guy's nothing but a fuckin' teabagger... not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Janeane Garofalo]

Are you allowed to say "welfare queens" on PBS???

That's racism, straight up.

[liberal law firm]

Obama, dissent, and racism.

[James Ard]

Matt, you're sticking out like a sore thumb. But excellent 30 seconds!

[hmm]

How can you argue with tinctures and gut feelings?

Racist, the new white guy stereotype every white person running for office has to overcome.

My palm and forehead can't take this.

[hmm]

"What Jimmy Carter said about the Teabaggers."

I wonder what side of the fence the host falls on? It's hilarious she let that slip.

[Suki]

Are you allowed to say "welfare queens" on PBS???

Is that sexist or genderidentificationist? I need a guide or something.

[Fist of Etiquette]

I need a guide or something.

No guide needed. All paths should lead you directly to outrage and indignation.

Welch at least got the point out there that the giant game of Pin the Racist Tag on the Protester is simply a way of marginalizing those protesters and ignoring their concerns.

[hmm]

That whole panel really was like watching a dog lick its butt.

-Racism is everywhere.
-Everyone who is not us is racist, but it doesn't matter.
-Racism is some ever changing social structure and we get to decide when and how it changes arbitrarily.

[Hazel Meade]

Can I see a video clip of tht after the fact?

[Hazel Meade]

Housewives-of-leisure and "I don't have cable, man" tie-dyed cockbags aren't an eager untapped market for libertarian opinion.

I don't have cable OR broadcast, I download all my TV from the internet.

[Warren]

Matt comported himself well. Unfortunately the segment setup was essentially, "Given that all white people are racists, discuss the racism of these particular white people."

[Big Bird]

Matt comported himself well. Unfortunately the segment setup was essentially, "Given that all white people are racists, discuss the racism of these particular white people."

Welcome to Public Broadcasting!

[ed]

Didn't see it, but Matt should have begun, per an earlier comment today, "President Obama, who is black, not that there is anything wrong with that..."

[alan]

Good closing argument, Matt. It may have been just a little better if you mentioned how livid those who are being accused of racism are about these attacks. Or, how obviously cynical the claims made by the likes of Maureen Dowd are, but you did well enough without that thrown in.

I liked McWhorter's 'even if we take the worst as a given, so what? What do these ambiguous claims of racism bring to the table' argument. There may have been an underscoring, 'and I'm tired of these white liberals who can't argue on the substance of a matter trying to use me as both a battering ram and a shield', but I admit that is just my gut feeling of what he was alluding to in his responses.

The Princeton lady was a hoot, as she spoke in allusive code the entire time. What I took from her message was, 'if we call it racism, it must be racism.' She seems to be the type who would yell racism if you were arguing against socialism, or Federal Reserve policy, or if she didn't care for your position on the actual composition of Ice XV.

[Brett]

The Princeton lady basically said Matt, b/c he's white, isn't allowed to decide what is and is not racism. Case closed, let's move on.

My wife said she felt like she was in a public school staff development meeting.

[oh no not this again]

Did mcworty have two teeth pulled?

[Fist of Etiquette]

Can I see a video clip of tht after the fact?

You don't want to see it. Pretty much like watching a white kid get beaten up on a school bus.

It may have been just a little better if you mentioned how livid those who are being accused of racism are about these attacks.

I disagree. The panelists were getting off on how dispassionate and above-it-all they were being (no "value judgements" about the racists' racism there, just observing it from their sociological duck blind), so no need to paint the racists as overly excitable, to boot.

[Suki]

The Princeton lady was a hoot, as she spoke in allusive code the entire time. What I took from her message was, 'if we call it racism, it must be racism.' She seems to be the type who would yell racism if you were arguing against socialism, or Federal Reserve policy, or if she didn't care for your position on the actual composition of Ice XV.

I hope she doesn't see my comments about Alice on another thread or I may be blacklisted!

[Matt Welch]

Pretty much like watching a white kid get beaten up on a school bus.

Was I the white kid in that scenario? Didn't feel like it; I thought it was way more tame & cautious than Air America. Also, I literally had (and still have) no idea about the races of anyone I was talking to.

[Fist of Etiquette]

No, Matt, you weren't the white kid. You did great. I knew I should have clarified that. I think reason (small r) was the white kid. But the fact that it was so tame made all the more maddening.

I'm pretty sure your fellow panelists knew that the more they see racism everywhere, the more they get to be on TV. If only you had clinically noted that...

[jester]

There is only one race of humans, Homo sapiens sapiens. If anyone has a trinomial for another extant race (or subspecies) of humanoid, please provide it.

[todd]

Matt-
Why didn't you call her our on the tea-bagger comment? Do most in the media not know how insulting it is or do they not care since nobody calls them on it?

[hmm]

I think Matt did well. The panel was set up to favor the everyone is racist for not liking Obama theme currently running through media. It was tame, but the underlying theme was the same as what you hear on Air America without the overt calls of racism. Instead we got everyone is racist, racism is some amorphous thing that we(we being the claimants of racism) know when we see it, at one guy that thinks everyone is racist, but it doesn't matter. I think the Poverty Law Center model has been taken mainstream. Racism everywhere that accounts for everything, make that check out to The P,O,V,E....

The academic Princeton lady did make me laugh.

[jester]

Maybe because Matt isn't petty?

[jester]

Of course, 'good cop, bad cop' has since entered the equation now that the Administration has officially distanced itself from Carter's comments.

[Fist of Etiquette]

I just realized... am I one of those people who see race baiters everywhere? And, if I am, how much you suppose I can make from appearance fees on the news show circuit?

[alan]

jester | September 16, 2009, 9:20pm | #
Maybe because Matt isn't petty?

Well, Princeton Lady was pretty. Did you see her get a little pensive at the very idea of the white dude having an opinion on the topic. What is he doing here Her nose wrinkled like Elizabeth Montgomery on Bewitched. Adorable.

However, you know that when someone speaks that elliptically, they likely have some serious passive-aggression issues. She would be awful on the relationship front. You would need a trained counselor at your side at all times just to translate her for you.

[alan]

jester | September 16, 2009, 9:23pm | #
Of course, 'good cop, bad cop' has since entered the equation now that the Administration has officially distanced itself from Carter's comments.

Awesome. I love Good Cop, Bad Cop. It is the greatest show ever.

[Matt Welch]

Why didn't you call her our on the tea-bagger comment?

I honestly didn't notice it. And had I did, I wouldn't have said anything -- you've got three 30-second bullets in that format; don't want to waste one whining about the kind of language that would be considered tame in the Reason office.

[jester]

so...Matt might be petty after all given the proper time slot.

[jester]

Princeton Lady: pretty! Matt: petty?

[Mari Dupont]

Matt did libertarians proud, but let's face it, the Gang of Three (Four?) got away with murder. But if he channeled Jonah Goldberg--who has some great retorts about "proving" racism,-- he'd never be invited back.

I'd love to see Nick in this situation; he wouldn't be able to contain himself.

[Suki]

I'd love to see Nick in this situation; he wouldn't be able to contain himself.

That is why he is always cloaked in leather.

[jester]

Jonah Goldberg: Jew or not a Jew, You make the call!

Matt Welch: Gimme a break!

[jester]

Meant to add: Not a level playing field exactly.

[alan]

jester | September 16, 2009, 9:47pm | #
Princeton Lady: pretty! Matt: petty?

I thought it odd at the time that you would make a comment about Matt being pretty, but honestly, I was thinking of how pretty the Princeton Lady was while reading your remark so I read that into it. It was my gut feeling, and I went with it.

[jester]

No worries, Alan. Nothing wrong with infatuation with TV personalities outside of stalkerdom. Given the rampant accidental ellipses that create alternate messages here, you shouldn't need to even cover your tracks.

[Paul]

I thought it was way more tame & cautious than Air America.

Matt, what we really want to know is, did they send the Town Car or the limo?

[Paul]

Oh, and President Carter can go fuck himself. Two times.

[Paul]

I literally had (and still have) no idea about the races of anyone I was talking to.

I just saw the clip. Everyone was black 'cept you. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Paul]

I felt strangely uncomfortable with John McWhorter's message. It boiled down as thus:

Yes, it's all racism. It shouldn't matter because it won't derail the larger issues at hand: the president remaining in office, re-election, healthcare reform. But it's all racism.

[Suki]

I just saw the clip. Everyone was black 'cept you. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

So Matt was whitie keepin' them down? Did he wear a top hat, monocle, and crack a whip?

Just skip to the part about tying the Princeton chick to railroad tracks!

[jester]

Paul,

It is not racism, it is protectionism perhaps. Get your terms straight. A minority can never be 'racist'. What's your problem. Can't you read?

[Schempf]

Matt,
What does it feel like to be the Token?

[Paul]

jester: there is no such thing as racism. It's ethnicism. Or something.

[Crid [CridComment @ gmail]]

Matt, do they pay you for that? Why shouldn't they?

[jester]

Close Paul. Insensitivity.

[Suki]

Matt, do they pay you for that? Why shouldn't they?

I thought guys usually paid for that?

[Matt Welch]

Matt, what we really want to know is, did they send the Town Car or the limo?

I walked.

[Matt Welch]

Matt, do they pay you for that? Why shouldn't they?

No. They pay regular commentators, almost certainly, but not one-time or even sporadic guests.

As for should/shouldn't, it's what the market will bear, right? Television stations know that people like me would rather be on television than not (speaking less personally here, more from the vantage point of promoting Reason & our work). So they don't need the extra carrots to lure us.

[alan]

I felt strangely uncomfortable with John McWhorter's message. It boiled down as thus:

Yes, it's all racism. It shouldn't matter because it won't derail the larger issues at hand: the president remaining in office, re-election, healthcare reform. But it's all racism.

One problem in this forum was no one, except Welsh particularly in his last segment could say anything in a straight forward manner.

McWhorter's argument was too carefully arranged to the point that the two of us have entirely different interpretations of what he said. We likely had a different set of expectations to rely on.

I noticed McWhorter the under title showing he was with the Manhattan Institute, Linda Chavez's outfit, so I was expecting something along old fashioned domestic policy Neoconservativism coming from him.

I expected a dialectical argument that would have a clincher at the end that supported a position that you would not expect given the set up. This is the Irving Kristol rhetorical style.

Something like:
'In my gut, Joe Wilson is a racist, and in my gut I see some racism out there in the Tea Party movement, but at the end of the day, the racism is so ambiguous, and not institutional, it doesn't matter. At the end of the day, Obama is still the most powerful man in the world . . .' At least that is how I read it.

[Joe M]

Probably everyone already found it, but the show is online.

[jester]

"And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of a belief among many white people"

Gwen Ifill, what exactly is a white person, you stupid race-baiting cunt?

A: The mere expression of melanism. So why do you obsess on it.

[Joe M]

Wow, reading/listening to it now, they're all completely full of it. Quotes like...

But I personally feel that, for example, Joe Wilson would not have yelled the way he did if the president in an alternate universe had become, say, John Edwards. It's just a -- but it's a gut feeling. We can't know.

...shows how full of it they are.

[jester]

Thanks Gwen for what we already know:

"GLENN BECK, Fox News host: This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. I don't know what it is."

Glenn is a douchebag! Amazing news!

[jester]

Cornell Belcher: I mean, I'm not making a value judgment of it.

I SAY BULLSHIT.

[JB]

'if we call it racism, it must be racism.'

It's what plants crave!

[jester]

John McWhorter: "it's a gut feeling"

But you go ahead with it. Good job asshole.

[jester]

Cornell Belcher: I'm not calling them racists in a way that's making a value judgment of them.

Yes and that's what you should do if you have substantive evidence to lump sum call them that. So substantiate or don't comment.

You got a PhD for that shit?

[jester]

"I'm not calling them racists in a way that's making a value judgment of them."

Cornell, please, share with us how on earth you pull that off!

[jester]

"reverse discrimination"

I have never understood this term. Discrimination is discrimination. Ted Kennedy, Al Gore and George H W Bush get their kids into Ivy Schools whereafter 'affirmative action' kicks in. This is NOT 'reverse discrimination.' This is oligarchic excess.

[Suki]

Probably everyone already found it, but the show is online.

Everybody but me! Thank you!

[jester]

CORNELL BELCHER: I think the president needs to focus on passing health care.

Wow! Cornell. You are a douchebag.

[Jeffersonian]

Isn't the color we need to worry about more a shade of red than black?

[Suki]

Isn't the color we need to worry about more a shade of red than black?

The Black/Red alliance is never positive.

[jester]

Jeffersonian,

I'ts pink, the color of corporatism. Red is way too bold.

[joshua corning]

Watch out, she screams at the TV when Mark Shields and David Brooks are on.

Why? After Gigot left it is just two guys agreeing with each other.

[Valhalla]

Alan:

"Something like:
'In my gut, Joe Wilson is a racist, and in my gut I see some racism out there in the Tea Party movement, but at the end of the day, the racism is so ambiguous, and not institutional, it doesn't matter. At the end of the day, Obama is still the most powerful man in the world . . .' At least that is how I read it."

Me too. Glad to know I'm not the only what who heard what I thought I heard.

I do think Belcher protested too much about not making value judgments. I don't trust that he was telling the whole truth...

The Ivy League lady didn't bother me one bit.

And Matt Welch did an excellent job. My main objection to Carter's comments is that he maligned an entire, large, and dare I say "diverse" group of people in order to discredit their concerns and shift the focus from the health care debate to something else.

[Rimfax]

Thanks, Matt, for not wearing the 12-foot-long necktie. I think you did well. I found the entire panel to be very pleasant and thoughtful, rather than judgmental or combative.

And, yes, Matt, you were one of two who'd have passed the paper bag test. The other one was the very cute Politics and African-American studies professor.

On the other hand, you were right on the median in terms of nerdiness.

[Jim Treacher]

Why didn't you call her our on the tea-bagger comment?

Because it just means she's a teabaggee.

[matt2]

John McWhorter:

"...we don't have the psychological tools yet" (to determine whether people are being racist)

But don't worry, we'll be able to detect thought crimes before too long.

[junior]

Did the pretty princeton lady say that things are racist when black people say they're racist, and white people can't define racism but can and will be accused of racism when black people decide they're racist?

Isn't that a long way to go in order to say "shutup you racist!".

[Mango Punch]

Nice job Matt,

You clearly were against the grain of their target audience, but held your own coherently. I'm also happy you got to have the last (second to last) word.

[mitch]

Matt Welch is like John Carter or Conan, willing to wade right in and fight entire armies.

[Nick]

When is Newsweek going to run a cover saying,

"We're All Racists Now?"

[Michael Ejercito]

The Princeton lady was a hoot, as she spoke in allusive code the entire time. What I took from her message was, 'if we call it racism, it must be racism.' She seems to be the type who would yell racism if you were arguing against socialism, or Federal Reserve policy, or if she didn't care for your position on the actual composition of Ice XV.

I wonder how she would react if someone equated support for stricter gun control laws with racism.

[Thomas]

matt2 @ 9:20am

Why did it take 16 hours of discussion here for someone to point this out?

[Attorney]

Did the pretty princeton lady say that things are racist when black people say they're racist, and white people can't define racism but can and will be accused of racism when black people decide they're racist?

Pretty much. And I'm sure she has some convoluted theory of why this does not mean that the Ricci plaintiffs get to define what's racism as it's targeted at them.

[BeesInTheBrain]

Since according to MELISSA HARRIS-LACEWELL, racism gets redefined by black people themselves. So I think we have to listen to racially marginalized people tell us what these expressions mean for them as citizens."

I think the proper thing to do would have been to ask if anyone of them were willing to provide their contact information so next time all signs could be verified as non-racist beforehand. Or even more helpful would be if they could publish "The White Boys Rules For Non-Racist Protest" so that the protesters wouldn't be so quickly marginalized because they were white.

[Neu Mejican]

Hmmm...

Lot's of very defensive responses to what was a pretty tame and thoughtful discussion.

For instance, an assumption that SOME of the protesters are PARTLY motivated by racsism, or asserting that, based on research, there is an overlap between conservatives and the group of people in our country with the most racial-adverse attitudes is taken as an accusation that ALL opposition is TOTALLY motivated by racism.

Instead, I saw a group of people who think about the issue of racism in our country saying...well, there probably is some racism in the crowd at these rallies, but it really isn't the central issue and can probably be ignored so that we can focus on the policy debate.

[Neu Mejican]

As for who gets to define "racist," I think there is an argument to be made that the one who feels marginalized is the one who gets to decide if a statement makes them feel marginalized. I don't think they get to decide if the person saying it is racist, just that they find the expression offensive.

[Joe M]

Nick said:

When is Newsweek going to run a cover saying,

"We're All Racists Now?"

They already did.

[Neu Mejican]

Markus Kemmelmeier, Authoritarianism and its relationship with intuitive-experiential cognitive style and heuristic processing, Personality and Individual Differences, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 12 September 2009,

Abstract:
Two studies examined the relationship between authoritarianism, cognitive style and heuristic processing. Focusing on Epstein's (2003) cognitive-experiential self-theory, Study 1 shows that authoritarianism is related to Epstein's dimension of faith in intuition, but not need for cognition, even when controlling for individual differences in need for structure. Study 2 confirms that authoritarianism is related to greater heuristic processing. The discussion suggests ways in which individual differences in cognitive style and heuristic processing may account for established effects of authoritarianism.

Okay, a bit off-topic, but seemed interesting.
I wonder what the relationship between authoritarianism and race-adverse attitudes is.

[Sean W. Malone]

"As for who gets to define "racist," I think there is an argument to be made that the one who feels marginalized is the one who gets to decide if a statement makes them feel marginalized. I don't think they get to decide if the person saying it is racist, just that they find the expression offensive.

While I generally agree that the marginalized person gets some say in the process, it seems like a really terrible idea to give them the "majority" say.

Imagine if we reduce this to a smaller-scale social dynamic. Surely we've all known people who - for whatever reason - believe that the tiniest slight reflects another person's deep-rooted resentment against them. How many times do people get in their heads about what other people are thinking of them, imagining these scenarios where everyone is out to get them in one way or another, when the reality is that most people simply don't care enough to spend much time thinking hateful things.

I mean...

Is it really that wise - especially given the racial history of the US - to put even most of the weight of deciding who is & who isn't racist on people who have ever reason to be pre-disposed to seeing it in everyone?

Isn't it much wiser to have a specific, objective standard of recognizing actions which help us define what constitutes racist behavior - and just generally oppose the more obvious bits whenever possible. I mean, it's obviously already highly unpopular - continuing and expanding the trend of ostracism.

[Sean W. Malone]

Also - Neu, that abstract seems like the least shocking thing I've ever heard, coming from a libertarian perspective.

Supporters of authoritarian are more likely to gauge truth on the belief in their own emotional intuition at the expense of more serious critical reasoning... I'm so surprised.

[Neu Mejican]

Sean W.,
That's why I thought ya'll would want to read it.

While I generally agree that the marginalized person gets some say in the process, it seems like a really terrible idea to give them the "majority" say.

That's why I said what I said. The person who feels marginalized needs to be listened to and allowed to define/express their feelings about HOW IT MAKES THEM FEEL.

That does not determine the intent of the person sending the message. It provides information about how the message is being received. If the sender is NOT racist, you would expect them to reformulate to clarify their message.