Listen now (64 min) | John McWhorter is back! In our first post-midterms show, we run down our thoughts about the election and partisan politics, wokeness in the theater world, and black antisemitism, among other topics. Let’s get into it. After some introductory food talk, we get into the midterms. John was glad to see that the
I believe it was last year I asked, how John could so accurately articulate the issues of woke culture and yet be adamant about "never, ever," voting for a Republican. That is, specific Republicans who offer policy solutions to address the very issue(s) with which John would agree. It makes no sense to me.
Although I agree with the examples John cited about the reprehensible behavior of some election denying republicans, etc., surely, all of them don't subscribe to that behavior. I was just as disgusted over the chaos, looting, burning and defund the police hysteria that occured in 2020 when the democrats played down the severity of these events. This is why I am a center-right independent, not accepting foolishness on either side.
I applaud John's thoughtfulness however, I wish he would really explain how is it possible that his race writings square with the sentiment on the Right but his voting habits on the Left dismantles every heterodox position he purports to believe. I'm confused.
I abhor both political establishments and extremism in both camps. Plenty of insane positions held by both parties. If we have to debate only in reference to the extremes the discussion doesn't move forward. You may find democrats as the worse option in general, but given who many of the republican candidates were in this election it hard not to view them as largely extreme on positions around abortion and denying the results of 2020 elections.
While I feel the criticism here toward John are mostly fair I also find Glenn's "democrats ruined x-city" facile, giving no mention to long practiced neoliberal policies in those cities that greatly contributed to their downward trajection since the industrial period. A consequence of both parties. It is not simply a matter of extreme liberal attitudes toward policing, wholeness, or gender ideology that brings down Detroit. I'm not sure why we can't have a party that views police and jails as necessary but also seeks to keep them in check and improve them, cares about educating and families, and sees keeping certain guardrails around corporate power/financial institutions (i.e. not selling out a working class population) as important, while supporting labor too.
Does anyone see the glaring anomaly here? John is glad that the red wave is no more than a ripple, and in the same breath, is upset that racial grievances in the theater world are being weaponized. This man is capable of understanding the finest nuances in linguistics, yet can't see what's staring him in the face. The elephant in the room is getting bigger by the day, but John is determinedly oblivious to it. There are indeed none so blind as those who will not see.
There was a time when the GOP could accept reality and govern well that includes admitting that problems exist and act legislatively to regulate people to reduce the harm, such as in their support of the Endangered Species Act. This ended with Reagan and America's love affair with failed ideologies of libertarianism and conservatism that posited that the market solves problems while government creates them. This is ass backwards as shown by the improvements in environmental quality, worker and consumer safety, reduction in bank failures and financial crises when proper regulation was put in place.
The fact is that the Democrats are a better choice and more capable of proper governance than the GOP is. John is correct, better is better, and that is the choice that democracy provides, so let's go with it.
There is no more benefit of the doubt from me, no more pushing aside your absolutely repulsive anti-Republican hypocrisy, no more second chances and certainly no more excusing you as being anything other than a polished, tarted-up version of Charles Blow at heart! The fact that by continuously voting Democrat you egregiously turn a blind eye to the VERIFIABLY devastating Democratic policies(on multiple levels) has destroyed your credibility with me, but more importantly, my respect for you as a fucking human! Because of people who vote like you, innocent people in our country will most certainly DIE! And to hear you, in your elitist, NYC arrogance and political hubris, just dismiss all Republicans out of hand makes you NO better than the very Leftists you pretend to abhor....No, John....deep down, where it truly matters, you’re no better than them! At least they have the stones to make their views known publicly while you cleverly obfuscate your views with a sprinkling of ‘anti-wokism’ thrown in to fool your readers off the foul scent of your true self. You’re just a tad slicker and a little more nuanced but where the rubber actually meets the road you’re nothing but a smooth talking, snake-oil salesman masquerading as a good guy all whilst contributing to the spiraling downfall of our country. You won’t be bamboozling me anymore, and by the looks of the comments from many other readers, they’re onto your loathsome grift as well.......Shame on you!
This is a disturbing interpretation of his comments. Unfortunately it seems good faith debate isn't possible here when it comes down to political party affiliation. I wonder if it would not be more productive to make some space for him having different views on some issues while also overlapping with yours on the others.
Respectfully AGL, the bottom line is John’s Democratic vote, along with the rest of all Democratic voters is quite literally resulting in financial ruin and actual unwarranted deaths in our country! There is NO room for nuance here. What makes his oily presentation even worse is he surreptitiously espouses grounded, Conservative views on many topics yet at the end of the day votes for the very people creating the destruction he allegedly reviles! That is precisely the definition of hypocrisy on an existential level!
Good points. Before I read that book ten years ago, I had many questions for why I could not relate to many blacks once I had stepped into an inner city public school setting in Northern New Jersey many years ago. It was after beginning my grade school life in a private school surrounded by working class whites and Hispanics. Black Rednecks and White Liberals answered a lot of questions for the many problems I had socially. I was a lot more comfortable with my teachers than with the children around me. For high school, I was back in the private education sector, but many of the kids came from the same inner city neighborhoods. So I continued to struggle socially.
But I see that time frame now as a great educational experience. I never assimilated because of my home life and the relationship I had with my teachers. I did witness what that subculture did to many black kids around me, especially the males. They were more focused on being racially authentic than developing themselves (READ SHELBY STEELE). And they paid the price. Even back then the black card was so subjective that it became a losing hand before you realize it. Nothing has changed since then except technology.
When black intellectuals declare that-"there are millions of ways to be black," then war is inevitable. That's why you see the many feuds that take place in politics, business, entertainment, academia, and journalism. Watching the uncivil discourse that contains name calling and racial slurs remind me of that public school I mentioned above. For me, there is something very disturbing about watching adults behave like children in a schoolyard because they want to display their racial authenticity. It's Sowell's analysis on full display. It seems that the "vendetta" is part of black identity even at the highest levels. Back and forth they go like the Hatfields and McCoys!!!
10:52 Expressing thoughts via speech is essential for participation in the US Senate. Walking is not. Both Fetterman and Walker should have dropped out of their respective races to make way for more competent candidates.
5:50 I know that people from the state pronounce "Nevada" the way John did, but I prefer to pronounce it like the Spanish word. I also refuse to pronounce "llama" like "lama."
4:03 The fact that Congress won't be able to get much done is why I'm satisfied with these election results. I wish Congress were better at doing its job, but AFAICT, neither party currently wants to do anything worth doing.
Good grief. I’m not sure I can continue after the beginning remarks. Those “sensible” Democrats who voted for a president with dementia, a brain damaged man and a dead man. The continued denial of election integrity, while Hillary speech was all about Republicans stealing the 2024 election and Trump being the “illegitimate” President. Giving out grace to those who carry your torch John .. the hypocrisy is disgusting. Thanks “sensible” Democrats for making this single mom’s life more difficult and at the same time cratering the housing market (also my career)..need unemployment to be 6% to get that ”we don’t have inflation” issue down said the sensible Dems, meanwhile the sensible Pres continues to pat himself on the back for “creating” jobs.. “MORE THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT” no less. So. Sensible.
John, as the resident word-nerd, I'm shocked at you.
I believe you are simply wrong (deluded?) to "throw a bone to the woke" by coining the word "inequity" as a name for undesirable disparities. Don't the woke have enough human bones and skulls on their pile from their numerous captures over the years?
I have always cringed whenever you've tried to smuggle in "equity" as an alternative, on TGS. But i let it pass before. To hear you now elaborate a defence of this word— and from your perch as a stickler of etymology!— is severely disappointing.
As Glenn points out, inequity is not merely descriptive but a normative term, and a slippery one at that, since its only apparent criteria is any present disparity with a link to past wrongs, however tenuous. First, think about its logical, literal opposite: "Equity", THE core tenet of DEI ideology. Yet this term itself is fraught with inconsistencies. As is clear to anyone with common sense, "equality of outcome" is a categorically impossible goal, owing to its indefinitely revisable scope. That's why DEI fanatics are far more likely to define Equity (if they actually define it at all) as a "removal of barriers", a definition even more pernicious in its ability to justify employment for retinues of social-workers, "researchers" and consultants.
Which takes me to my second complaint. Your proposed word, "inequity," is already a term in common usage in those very same crucibles of corrosive identity politics, IE the nonprofit-sphere, and corporate social engineering. I should know; I actually work in one.
In the woke captured culture-industry in which I work, "racial equity" is hailed as a North star for some of the most important work for "society" to do today. It's the foundational principle, in whose service tens of millions of dollars are marshalled. And yet, in my frustration, I've tried almost weekly to get anyone to offer a simple, precise definition of "racial equity/inequity", and suddenly it's like these people can barely string a simple, coherent sentence together.
They instinctively repair to a vague salad of analogies and political slogans that betrays the vacuity at the heart of their project.
John, it's one thing for you to use their language. But, for god's sake, don't you do their dirty work for them, by bolstering it in with cool-headed sophistication that is your brand. I repeat, if someone like you throws them that bone, it will be another reason for them never to stop beating us over the head with it.
I largely agree with where you're coming from, that "equity" is a vacuous term used to smuggle in a noxious ideology.
But with a lot of these things I do wonder if it's possible to work in reverse. That is to say, instead of infecting liberal ideology with woke nonsense, is it not possible to infect woke nonsense with liberal ideology? If enough people adopted a meaning of "equity" that served some useful purpose, it would defang the sorts of people who want to brand any statistical disparity as evidence of discrimination.
So much of our language has been captured and redefined that it's easy to forget that the original meaning of the phrase "Stay woke" was a legitimate cultural expression speaking against actual racism. Why can't we take all of these words back for use by sensible people?
I believe it was last year I asked, how John could so accurately articulate the issues of woke culture and yet be adamant about "never, ever," voting for a Republican. That is, specific Republicans who offer policy solutions to address the very issue(s) with which John would agree. It makes no sense to me.
Although I agree with the examples John cited about the reprehensible behavior of some election denying republicans, etc., surely, all of them don't subscribe to that behavior. I was just as disgusted over the chaos, looting, burning and defund the police hysteria that occured in 2020 when the democrats played down the severity of these events. This is why I am a center-right independent, not accepting foolishness on either side.
I applaud John's thoughtfulness however, I wish he would really explain how is it possible that his race writings square with the sentiment on the Right but his voting habits on the Left dismantles every heterodox position he purports to believe. I'm confused.
I'm like John as far as the two major political parties go. I feel no obligation to explain why I'm not voting for The Party of Trump.
In the end, fwiw, it ain't about a man named Trump.
Democrats may not be able to say what a woman is, but they would never make one die rather than have an abortion. My vote stays with the Democrats.
I abhor both political establishments and extremism in both camps. Plenty of insane positions held by both parties. If we have to debate only in reference to the extremes the discussion doesn't move forward. You may find democrats as the worse option in general, but given who many of the republican candidates were in this election it hard not to view them as largely extreme on positions around abortion and denying the results of 2020 elections.
While I feel the criticism here toward John are mostly fair I also find Glenn's "democrats ruined x-city" facile, giving no mention to long practiced neoliberal policies in those cities that greatly contributed to their downward trajection since the industrial period. A consequence of both parties. It is not simply a matter of extreme liberal attitudes toward policing, wholeness, or gender ideology that brings down Detroit. I'm not sure why we can't have a party that views police and jails as necessary but also seeks to keep them in check and improve them, cares about educating and families, and sees keeping certain guardrails around corporate power/financial institutions (i.e. not selling out a working class population) as important, while supporting labor too.
Does anyone see the glaring anomaly here? John is glad that the red wave is no more than a ripple, and in the same breath, is upset that racial grievances in the theater world are being weaponized. This man is capable of understanding the finest nuances in linguistics, yet can't see what's staring him in the face. The elephant in the room is getting bigger by the day, but John is determinedly oblivious to it. There are indeed none so blind as those who will not see.
I agree with John 100%. No caveats.
There was a time when the GOP could accept reality and govern well that includes admitting that problems exist and act legislatively to regulate people to reduce the harm, such as in their support of the Endangered Species Act. This ended with Reagan and America's love affair with failed ideologies of libertarianism and conservatism that posited that the market solves problems while government creates them. This is ass backwards as shown by the improvements in environmental quality, worker and consumer safety, reduction in bank failures and financial crises when proper regulation was put in place.
The fact is that the Democrats are a better choice and more capable of proper governance than the GOP is. John is correct, better is better, and that is the choice that democracy provides, so let's go with it.
John, THAT’S IT!
I’m DONE with you!
There is no more benefit of the doubt from me, no more pushing aside your absolutely repulsive anti-Republican hypocrisy, no more second chances and certainly no more excusing you as being anything other than a polished, tarted-up version of Charles Blow at heart! The fact that by continuously voting Democrat you egregiously turn a blind eye to the VERIFIABLY devastating Democratic policies(on multiple levels) has destroyed your credibility with me, but more importantly, my respect for you as a fucking human! Because of people who vote like you, innocent people in our country will most certainly DIE! And to hear you, in your elitist, NYC arrogance and political hubris, just dismiss all Republicans out of hand makes you NO better than the very Leftists you pretend to abhor....No, John....deep down, where it truly matters, you’re no better than them! At least they have the stones to make their views known publicly while you cleverly obfuscate your views with a sprinkling of ‘anti-wokism’ thrown in to fool your readers off the foul scent of your true self. You’re just a tad slicker and a little more nuanced but where the rubber actually meets the road you’re nothing but a smooth talking, snake-oil salesman masquerading as a good guy all whilst contributing to the spiraling downfall of our country. You won’t be bamboozling me anymore, and by the looks of the comments from many other readers, they’re onto your loathsome grift as well.......Shame on you!
This is a disturbing interpretation of his comments. Unfortunately it seems good faith debate isn't possible here when it comes down to political party affiliation. I wonder if it would not be more productive to make some space for him having different views on some issues while also overlapping with yours on the others.
DEATH is not negotiable!
Respectfully AGL, the bottom line is John’s Democratic vote, along with the rest of all Democratic voters is quite literally resulting in financial ruin and actual unwarranted deaths in our country! There is NO room for nuance here. What makes his oily presentation even worse is he surreptitiously espouses grounded, Conservative views on many topics yet at the end of the day votes for the very people creating the destruction he allegedly reviles! That is precisely the definition of hypocrisy on an existential level!
UNACCEPTABLE!
Good points. Before I read that book ten years ago, I had many questions for why I could not relate to many blacks once I had stepped into an inner city public school setting in Northern New Jersey many years ago. It was after beginning my grade school life in a private school surrounded by working class whites and Hispanics. Black Rednecks and White Liberals answered a lot of questions for the many problems I had socially. I was a lot more comfortable with my teachers than with the children around me. For high school, I was back in the private education sector, but many of the kids came from the same inner city neighborhoods. So I continued to struggle socially.
But I see that time frame now as a great educational experience. I never assimilated because of my home life and the relationship I had with my teachers. I did witness what that subculture did to many black kids around me, especially the males. They were more focused on being racially authentic than developing themselves (READ SHELBY STEELE). And they paid the price. Even back then the black card was so subjective that it became a losing hand before you realize it. Nothing has changed since then except technology.
When black intellectuals declare that-"there are millions of ways to be black," then war is inevitable. That's why you see the many feuds that take place in politics, business, entertainment, academia, and journalism. Watching the uncivil discourse that contains name calling and racial slurs remind me of that public school I mentioned above. For me, there is something very disturbing about watching adults behave like children in a schoolyard because they want to display their racial authenticity. It's Sowell's analysis on full display. It seems that the "vendetta" is part of black identity even at the highest levels. Back and forth they go like the Hatfields and McCoys!!!
38:05 So, they're not all women. Some are trans women.
30:07 So, the actors are acting? Who'd a thunk it?
10:52 Expressing thoughts via speech is essential for participation in the US Senate. Walking is not. Both Fetterman and Walker should have dropped out of their respective races to make way for more competent candidates.
5:50 I know that people from the state pronounce "Nevada" the way John did, but I prefer to pronounce it like the Spanish word. I also refuse to pronounce "llama" like "lama."
4:03 The fact that Congress won't be able to get much done is why I'm satisfied with these election results. I wish Congress were better at doing its job, but AFAICT, neither party currently wants to do anything worth doing.
Yes, we are functioning despite Congress, not because of Congress. So the fact that they are in limbo for the next 2 years is a major relief.
John is just downright snooty.
Good grief. I’m not sure I can continue after the beginning remarks. Those “sensible” Democrats who voted for a president with dementia, a brain damaged man and a dead man. The continued denial of election integrity, while Hillary speech was all about Republicans stealing the 2024 election and Trump being the “illegitimate” President. Giving out grace to those who carry your torch John .. the hypocrisy is disgusting. Thanks “sensible” Democrats for making this single mom’s life more difficult and at the same time cratering the housing market (also my career)..need unemployment to be 6% to get that ”we don’t have inflation” issue down said the sensible Dems, meanwhile the sensible Pres continues to pat himself on the back for “creating” jobs.. “MORE THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT” no less. So. Sensible.
John, as the resident word-nerd, I'm shocked at you.
I believe you are simply wrong (deluded?) to "throw a bone to the woke" by coining the word "inequity" as a name for undesirable disparities. Don't the woke have enough human bones and skulls on their pile from their numerous captures over the years?
I have always cringed whenever you've tried to smuggle in "equity" as an alternative, on TGS. But i let it pass before. To hear you now elaborate a defence of this word— and from your perch as a stickler of etymology!— is severely disappointing.
As Glenn points out, inequity is not merely descriptive but a normative term, and a slippery one at that, since its only apparent criteria is any present disparity with a link to past wrongs, however tenuous. First, think about its logical, literal opposite: "Equity", THE core tenet of DEI ideology. Yet this term itself is fraught with inconsistencies. As is clear to anyone with common sense, "equality of outcome" is a categorically impossible goal, owing to its indefinitely revisable scope. That's why DEI fanatics are far more likely to define Equity (if they actually define it at all) as a "removal of barriers", a definition even more pernicious in its ability to justify employment for retinues of social-workers, "researchers" and consultants.
Which takes me to my second complaint. Your proposed word, "inequity," is already a term in common usage in those very same crucibles of corrosive identity politics, IE the nonprofit-sphere, and corporate social engineering. I should know; I actually work in one.
In the woke captured culture-industry in which I work, "racial equity" is hailed as a North star for some of the most important work for "society" to do today. It's the foundational principle, in whose service tens of millions of dollars are marshalled. And yet, in my frustration, I've tried almost weekly to get anyone to offer a simple, precise definition of "racial equity/inequity", and suddenly it's like these people can barely string a simple, coherent sentence together.
They instinctively repair to a vague salad of analogies and political slogans that betrays the vacuity at the heart of their project.
John, it's one thing for you to use their language. But, for god's sake, don't you do their dirty work for them, by bolstering it in with cool-headed sophistication that is your brand. I repeat, if someone like you throws them that bone, it will be another reason for them never to stop beating us over the head with it.
I largely agree with where you're coming from, that "equity" is a vacuous term used to smuggle in a noxious ideology.
But with a lot of these things I do wonder if it's possible to work in reverse. That is to say, instead of infecting liberal ideology with woke nonsense, is it not possible to infect woke nonsense with liberal ideology? If enough people adopted a meaning of "equity" that served some useful purpose, it would defang the sorts of people who want to brand any statistical disparity as evidence of discrimination.
So much of our language has been captured and redefined that it's easy to forget that the original meaning of the phrase "Stay woke" was a legitimate cultural expression speaking against actual racism. Why can't we take all of these words back for use by sensible people?