Thoughts on McWhorter vs. Coates and McWhorter on Israel-Palestine:
John McWhorter’s persistent antagonism toward Ta-Nehisi Coates reveals more about McWhorter’s intellectual limitations and personal grievances than it does about Coates’ actual work. Time and again, McWhorter presumes—without substantive evidence—that Coates is intellectually unsophisticated, oblivious to nuance, or, worse, ignorant of the complexities of the issues he writes about. This assumption is not only unfair but demonstrably false; Coates’ writing is marked by deep introspection, historical precision, and an eyes-wide-open engagement with the world.
That said, Coates is not beyond critique, and neither is his stance on McWhorter. While McWhorter often misrepresents Coates’ arguments, Coates has, at times, been dismissive of McWhorter in a way that skirts serious intellectual engagement. Coates’ critique of McWhorter often casts him as a kind of useful contrarian—a Black intellectual whose primary audience consists of white readers eager to be reassured that racism is no longer a major structural force in American life. There is truth to this assessment, particularly in how McWhorter is embraced by certain circles that seek to downplay racial inequities. However, Coates’ critique can sometimes veer into suggesting that McWhorter’s work is wholly illegitimate or merely performative, which underestimates the extent to which McWhorter is motivated by his own intellectual convictions, however flawed they may be.
McWhorter’s belief that systemic racism is often overstated does not necessarily make him an apologist for white complacency, as Coates sometimes implies. McWhorter is at his best when arguing that cultural and linguistic factors—not just systemic discrimination—play a role in racial inequality. Even if one disagrees with McWhorter’s conclusions, there is value in grappling with the questions he raises. Coates, for all his rhetorical and intellectual strength, sometimes dismisses these questions out of hand, treating McWhorter’s position as self-evidently wrong rather than engaging its strongest points. This allows McWhorter to paint Coates as unwilling to debate, which in turn strengthens McWhorter’s appeal to audiences who believe the “woke left” is intolerant of dissent.
Still, while Coates’ critique of McWhorter has its limitations, McWhorter’s critique of Coates is far weaker. Instead of engaging with Coates’ arguments in a meaningful way, McWhorter assumes, without evidence, that Coates lacks intellectual depth. This is simply not true. Coates does not write in absolutes; his work, from Between the World and Me to The Message, displays an awareness of history’s contradictions, the moral ambiguity of certain moments, and the ways in which racial and economic structures perpetuate power. For McWhorter to characterize Coates as simplistic or unaware is itself a simplification, a failure of close reading, and a transparent attempt to diminish Coates’ intellectual credibility without engaging his arguments in good faith.
Even more telling is how small McWhorter sounds when he critiques Coates. His criticisms often come across not as dispassionate intellectual engagement but as the barbs of a man personally wounded. This is especially evident in McWhorter’s responses to Coates’ critiques of him—critiques that, rather than being unfair, merely expose McWhorter’s ideological commitments and blind spots. Rather than substantively engaging with these critiques, McWhorter reacts as though personally affronted, as if Coates' success in framing these issues more compellingly is a professional injury rather than an intellectual challenge.
But beyond the personal resentment McWhorter seems to harbor, his presumption that Coates lacks intellectual depth—without having even read his work—carries subtle but deeply ironic echoes of racism and classism. That a Black man—one who has written extensively about language, history, and racial complexity—would so reflexively dismiss another Black intellectual as incapable of handling complexity is precisely the kind of unspoken gatekeeping that Black thinkers have faced for generations. McWhorter, who has built much of his career arguing that racism is overstated, appears blind to the fact that his own treatment of Coates mirrors the ways in which Black intellectuals have long been dismissed as lacking “rigor” when their arguments disrupt dominant narratives.
This is one of the first times I have taken seriously the notion—often leveled at McWhorter by his fiercest critics—that he plays the role of a racial contrarian for the comfort of white audiences. I have long resisted this characterization because, at his best, McWhorter raises worthwhile questions about culture, language, and racial identity that should be engaged rather than dismissed. However, his refusal to read The Message before critiquing it is not just intellectually lazy—it suggests an active unwillingness to engage in serious debate with a fellow Black intellectual. The fact that he assumes Coates’ argument must be simplistic before even reading it is not just a failure of intellectual rigor; it is an embrace of the same knee-jerk dismissal that white conservatives use to undercut Black scholars whose work centers racial injustice. That McWhorter cannot recognize this—or worse, refuses to acknowledge it—undermines the integrity of his broader project.
This pattern extends beyond Coates and into McWhorter’s broader approach to moral complexity. Nowhere is this more evident than in his response to the Israel-Palestine conflict, where he assumes, as he often does, that what is not complicated must be complicated. In the wake of Hamas’ attack and Israel’s response, McWhorter adopts a stance of equivocating detachment, suggesting that those who take a clear moral stance are missing the nuances of history. But in doing so, he ignores the vast moral imbalance of the situation—the indiscriminate bombardment of civilians, the historical weight of occupation, and the overwhelming power disparity at play. This refusal to acknowledge an obvious asymmetry of justice is not intellectual rigor; it is a failure to grasp—or an unwillingness to state—what should be clear.
In the end, both Coates and McWhorter are capable of intellectual blind spots, and their ongoing tensions reflect broader debates about the role of race, culture, and structural power in American life. Coates’ tendency toward race essentialism can be limiting, just as McWhorter’s skepticism of systemic racism can be dismissive. But the crucial difference is that Coates, whatever his flaws, engages deeply with history and argumentation, while McWhorter too often defaults to condescension and outright dismissal. His preemptive critique of The Message—before even reading it—proves that he is not engaging in a genuine intellectual debate but rather in an ongoing performance of grievance.
McWhorter, of course, does not need to agree with Coates. But his refusal to approach Coates with even the most basic level of intellectual fairness does not reflect well on him. If anything, it suggests that his engagement with race and culture is less about seeking truth and more about settling scores. That irony—that McWhorter, in his rush to dismiss Coates, unwittingly reproduces the very gatekeeping he so often decries—is the most damning evidence yet that his work should be approached with skepticism.
This was a throughy enjoyable medley of perspectives. John asked Glenn what motivated him to write a confessional auto-biography. Glenn obfuscates and disembles. The truth is that he needed to exorcise his demons. We hope he was successful. John should consider exorcising his TDS before it settles in as a psychosis. Glenn is easy to like and I found myself being drawn towards John, TDS excepted. Like many other subscribers I support John's perspectives vis-a-vise the Israel / HAMAS issue. One can't be half pregnant and so too, the Palestinians must live in peace with Israel or not at all. We stand with Israel. The George Floyd beatification with Minnesota AG, Keith Ellison, based upon the Radley Balco essay, is total BS. Glenn and John couldn't take the heat, and Balco essay gave them the opportunity to backoff. Shame on them. Now that we've had the opportunity to review a range of their perspectives, I can understand why they are friends. Glenn is a brilliant economist and John a brilliant linguist. I repeat again they are both fine men.
Never in the eight years since I found The Glenn Show would I have guessed that Glenn would be the one opposing Israeli military action while John backs it.
I enjoyed this medley - much of it was new for me as I’m a somewhat recent subscriber though I have tuned in occasionally for several years. I finally upgraded my subscription around the election because as a non-deranged but firmly anti-Trump lib I was genuinely hungry to hear a perspective that is fair but challenging to my views. I know Glenn is not a Trump supporter per se but I appreciate his perspective on the matter. It’s funny I usually agree with McWhorter on the face of things more often, but I love the fair and evenhanded way Glenn thinks about issues. I actually think he’s better at straw-manning the legitimate arguments of those with views opposed to his own. It’s a rare talent and a mark of a great intellectual I believe! He clearly has such genuine and passionate curiosity about the world. I regret that future generations of students won’t get to learn from him in the classroom but I hope he enjoys his retirement. Happy New Year and thanks for all the great conversations that model a positive way to disagree!
You complement each other in thoroughly delightful ways. This is my favorite podcast; I regularly agree with each of you on aspects of the issues simultaneously. You're also sort of the "poles" of my own range of thought on a lot of matters.
Looking forward to listening to this compilation! Disagree with you both as I might, I always enjoy your spirited conversations. Happy New Year, Glenn and John!
Thoughts on McWhorter vs. Coates and McWhorter on Israel-Palestine:
John McWhorter’s persistent antagonism toward Ta-Nehisi Coates reveals more about McWhorter’s intellectual limitations and personal grievances than it does about Coates’ actual work. Time and again, McWhorter presumes—without substantive evidence—that Coates is intellectually unsophisticated, oblivious to nuance, or, worse, ignorant of the complexities of the issues he writes about. This assumption is not only unfair but demonstrably false; Coates’ writing is marked by deep introspection, historical precision, and an eyes-wide-open engagement with the world.
That said, Coates is not beyond critique, and neither is his stance on McWhorter. While McWhorter often misrepresents Coates’ arguments, Coates has, at times, been dismissive of McWhorter in a way that skirts serious intellectual engagement. Coates’ critique of McWhorter often casts him as a kind of useful contrarian—a Black intellectual whose primary audience consists of white readers eager to be reassured that racism is no longer a major structural force in American life. There is truth to this assessment, particularly in how McWhorter is embraced by certain circles that seek to downplay racial inequities. However, Coates’ critique can sometimes veer into suggesting that McWhorter’s work is wholly illegitimate or merely performative, which underestimates the extent to which McWhorter is motivated by his own intellectual convictions, however flawed they may be.
McWhorter’s belief that systemic racism is often overstated does not necessarily make him an apologist for white complacency, as Coates sometimes implies. McWhorter is at his best when arguing that cultural and linguistic factors—not just systemic discrimination—play a role in racial inequality. Even if one disagrees with McWhorter’s conclusions, there is value in grappling with the questions he raises. Coates, for all his rhetorical and intellectual strength, sometimes dismisses these questions out of hand, treating McWhorter’s position as self-evidently wrong rather than engaging its strongest points. This allows McWhorter to paint Coates as unwilling to debate, which in turn strengthens McWhorter’s appeal to audiences who believe the “woke left” is intolerant of dissent.
Still, while Coates’ critique of McWhorter has its limitations, McWhorter’s critique of Coates is far weaker. Instead of engaging with Coates’ arguments in a meaningful way, McWhorter assumes, without evidence, that Coates lacks intellectual depth. This is simply not true. Coates does not write in absolutes; his work, from Between the World and Me to The Message, displays an awareness of history’s contradictions, the moral ambiguity of certain moments, and the ways in which racial and economic structures perpetuate power. For McWhorter to characterize Coates as simplistic or unaware is itself a simplification, a failure of close reading, and a transparent attempt to diminish Coates’ intellectual credibility without engaging his arguments in good faith.
Even more telling is how small McWhorter sounds when he critiques Coates. His criticisms often come across not as dispassionate intellectual engagement but as the barbs of a man personally wounded. This is especially evident in McWhorter’s responses to Coates’ critiques of him—critiques that, rather than being unfair, merely expose McWhorter’s ideological commitments and blind spots. Rather than substantively engaging with these critiques, McWhorter reacts as though personally affronted, as if Coates' success in framing these issues more compellingly is a professional injury rather than an intellectual challenge.
But beyond the personal resentment McWhorter seems to harbor, his presumption that Coates lacks intellectual depth—without having even read his work—carries subtle but deeply ironic echoes of racism and classism. That a Black man—one who has written extensively about language, history, and racial complexity—would so reflexively dismiss another Black intellectual as incapable of handling complexity is precisely the kind of unspoken gatekeeping that Black thinkers have faced for generations. McWhorter, who has built much of his career arguing that racism is overstated, appears blind to the fact that his own treatment of Coates mirrors the ways in which Black intellectuals have long been dismissed as lacking “rigor” when their arguments disrupt dominant narratives.
This is one of the first times I have taken seriously the notion—often leveled at McWhorter by his fiercest critics—that he plays the role of a racial contrarian for the comfort of white audiences. I have long resisted this characterization because, at his best, McWhorter raises worthwhile questions about culture, language, and racial identity that should be engaged rather than dismissed. However, his refusal to read The Message before critiquing it is not just intellectually lazy—it suggests an active unwillingness to engage in serious debate with a fellow Black intellectual. The fact that he assumes Coates’ argument must be simplistic before even reading it is not just a failure of intellectual rigor; it is an embrace of the same knee-jerk dismissal that white conservatives use to undercut Black scholars whose work centers racial injustice. That McWhorter cannot recognize this—or worse, refuses to acknowledge it—undermines the integrity of his broader project.
This pattern extends beyond Coates and into McWhorter’s broader approach to moral complexity. Nowhere is this more evident than in his response to the Israel-Palestine conflict, where he assumes, as he often does, that what is not complicated must be complicated. In the wake of Hamas’ attack and Israel’s response, McWhorter adopts a stance of equivocating detachment, suggesting that those who take a clear moral stance are missing the nuances of history. But in doing so, he ignores the vast moral imbalance of the situation—the indiscriminate bombardment of civilians, the historical weight of occupation, and the overwhelming power disparity at play. This refusal to acknowledge an obvious asymmetry of justice is not intellectual rigor; it is a failure to grasp—or an unwillingness to state—what should be clear.
In the end, both Coates and McWhorter are capable of intellectual blind spots, and their ongoing tensions reflect broader debates about the role of race, culture, and structural power in American life. Coates’ tendency toward race essentialism can be limiting, just as McWhorter’s skepticism of systemic racism can be dismissive. But the crucial difference is that Coates, whatever his flaws, engages deeply with history and argumentation, while McWhorter too often defaults to condescension and outright dismissal. His preemptive critique of The Message—before even reading it—proves that he is not engaging in a genuine intellectual debate but rather in an ongoing performance of grievance.
McWhorter, of course, does not need to agree with Coates. But his refusal to approach Coates with even the most basic level of intellectual fairness does not reflect well on him. If anything, it suggests that his engagement with race and culture is less about seeking truth and more about settling scores. That irony—that McWhorter, in his rush to dismiss Coates, unwittingly reproduces the very gatekeeping he so often decries—is the most damning evidence yet that his work should be approached with skepticism.
This was a throughy enjoyable medley of perspectives. John asked Glenn what motivated him to write a confessional auto-biography. Glenn obfuscates and disembles. The truth is that he needed to exorcise his demons. We hope he was successful. John should consider exorcising his TDS before it settles in as a psychosis. Glenn is easy to like and I found myself being drawn towards John, TDS excepted. Like many other subscribers I support John's perspectives vis-a-vise the Israel / HAMAS issue. One can't be half pregnant and so too, the Palestinians must live in peace with Israel or not at all. We stand with Israel. The George Floyd beatification with Minnesota AG, Keith Ellison, based upon the Radley Balco essay, is total BS. Glenn and John couldn't take the heat, and Balco essay gave them the opportunity to backoff. Shame on them. Now that we've had the opportunity to review a range of their perspectives, I can understand why they are friends. Glenn is a brilliant economist and John a brilliant linguist. I repeat again they are both fine men.
Never in the eight years since I found The Glenn Show would I have guessed that Glenn would be the one opposing Israeli military action while John backs it.
I would have. Glenn is almost always right.
I enjoyed this medley - much of it was new for me as I’m a somewhat recent subscriber though I have tuned in occasionally for several years. I finally upgraded my subscription around the election because as a non-deranged but firmly anti-Trump lib I was genuinely hungry to hear a perspective that is fair but challenging to my views. I know Glenn is not a Trump supporter per se but I appreciate his perspective on the matter. It’s funny I usually agree with McWhorter on the face of things more often, but I love the fair and evenhanded way Glenn thinks about issues. I actually think he’s better at straw-manning the legitimate arguments of those with views opposed to his own. It’s a rare talent and a mark of a great intellectual I believe! He clearly has such genuine and passionate curiosity about the world. I regret that future generations of students won’t get to learn from him in the classroom but I hope he enjoys his retirement. Happy New Year and thanks for all the great conversations that model a positive way to disagree!
You complement each other in thoroughly delightful ways. This is my favorite podcast; I regularly agree with each of you on aspects of the issues simultaneously. You're also sort of the "poles" of my own range of thought on a lot of matters.
Happy New Year to you both.
Looking forward to listening to this compilation! Disagree with you both as I might, I always enjoy your spirited conversations. Happy New Year, Glenn and John!