Rachel Maddow Duels With Pat Buchanan On Affirmative Action (VIDEO)

Scroll down for video

Rachel Maddow got into a fierce argument with Pat Buchanan about affirmative action and the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor on Thursday night.

The epic battle included accusations, interruptions, and strong feelings with Maddow incredulous that Buchanan could not bring himself to admit that discrimination might play a part in the fact that 108 out of 110 U.S. Supreme Court justices have been white.

Buchanan said he considered Sotomayor unqualified and called her an "affirmative-action appointment" by Obama. When Maddow pressed him on why he was critical of affirmative action, Buchanan launched into a vigorous defense of whites who have been discriminated against.

When asked why the overwhelming majority of justices have been white, Buchanan declined to explicitly cite discrimination, but explained that "White men were 100% of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100% of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close to 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This has been a country built basically by white folks, who were 90% of the nation in 1960 when I was growing up and the other 10% were African-Americans who had been discriminated against. That's why."

When Maddow asked whether the reason that 108 out of 110 justice were white is because "white people deserved to have those positions," Buchanan answered: "A lot of people get up there for a lot of reasons."

An incredulous Maddow continued: "I would hope that you would see that picking 108 out of 110 white justices of the Supreme Court means that other people are not being appropriately considered... and the reason we have affirmative action is you recognize that the fact that people were discriminated against for hundreds of years means that you sort of gamed the system unless you give other people a leg up..."

When Buchanan began to interrupt her, Maddow said, "Hold on, I let you talk for a long time."

Story continues below

Later, Buchanan compared the historically white make-up of the Supreme Court to an all-black track team or all-white hockey team, asking Maddow, "Why do you assume discrimination simply because you got one component on the Supreme Court... Where's the genius who is a woman who you think is a genius? Go for her..."

When Buchanan referenced the white firefighters who Sotomayor ruled against in a court ruling, claiming that they "are victims of that evil affirmative action," Maddow replied, "I couldn't disagree with you more."

Later, Buchanan attacked Maddow for being out of touch and seemed to slam judges who support affirmative action when he stated, "You know what they ought to do? They ought to defend the rights of white working-class folks."

Maddow cut him off and snapped, "I don't need a lecture from you about whether or not I know, what I think about working class Americans... For you to privilege race... and say that what we need to tap politically is white people's racial grievance, you're playing with fire and dating yourself."

Watch the video:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Comments

[jrutle]

Buchanan is a relic who is unable to appreciate the changing demographics of America. Sotomayor is a good choice to be a Supreme Court Justice because she has proven herself to be a capable jurist who is reflective of our American experience.

[flyovercountry1]

pat had some of the right answers with wrong supporting arguments....I work in a field that is dominated by white male small business owners, therefore the peripheral industries that support this group of white male small business owners, will also be dominated by white males. Bottom line: People prefer dealing with their own kind, not always fair, but true. Minorities/women have to compete for several generations to break the cycle that has been built over hundreds of years. There is no way that a women or a minority could compete in my world. Not because of their skill set but because of the playing field is tilted to white males.

Look around you.....white males still dominate. They build businesses and create jobs. Women and minorities must do that in order to get recognized and respected in the biz world.

[IWantTofu]

There was a great Saturday Night Live skit where a young white couple found an "authentic" 1950's icecream palor/restaurant and thought is was great. They inivited their friends, a black couple to the restaurant, and the owner refused to serve the black couple, pointing out to the sign that said they didn't serve colored people. The owner explained that the restaurant was trying to be as authentic as possible. Shows how the perspective of good and bad, right and wrong in these arguements are shaped by the different racial groups' experiences.

If you're from a group that has been privilaged by the "rules", you naturally feel that it's "unfair" when someone tries to change the rules, no matter what the reason.

[independentjukebox]

What were the high school scores of your god Reagan, pat
Or of many of your Jesus freak pals in the senate and congress?

If you want to have a threshold as the barrier of entry, to allow a person into your exclusive thought club, which was dependent upon grade level achieved through academics, then 50% of your republican appointments on the Supreme Court would fail that bar.

[hoopesaz]

50%? Some examples?

[IWantTofu]

Pat's problem is that he focuses upon the fraction of the time that white males may have been discriminated against (rightly or wrongly) and minimizes the majority of discrimination against minorities and women creating a false equivalence, and using that as a basis for arguing against redressing institutional racial bias.

[numbnuts]

That pretty much nails it.

[pumpkin]

That is exactly right.

It's amazing to me how some of these white men scream in horror at the very thought of being discriminated against. I only wish they screamed even half as loudly at the actual discrimination of everyone else.

[gettingitright]

Absolutely right. Pat and his ilk don't care about discrimination at all unless this alleged discrimination affects white males. Then they do try to create this "false equivalency" without regard to the context and the many variables that impact on these different shades of discrimination. You can't just flip the races and make it seem like they're the same issue. They're not. To ignore the complexity of the racial dynamic is to pretend they don't understand when they really do.

[VSamuels]

Yes, but the evil isn't mainly defined by the actions here of Pat Buchanan alone, it is the management folks (who we do not see) who may hold these same views, that feel that this sort of framework is the one they wish to discuss these issues. There are many brilliant men and women of color who could be a part of this discussion, but their presence is eliminated from the discussion. This then results, in the aforementioned 'false equivalence' becoming the starting point for a large portion of the viewing audience who themselves are familar with this subject being discussed in this way. Those who could argue against its false are kept at bay, thus eliminating to some the acknowledgement that there is another way of seeing this very complex issue.

This is power and this is the Status Quo. This is the real purpose of a Pat Buchanan and the men and women who feel it necessary to have him come on and do the yeoman's work of 'distracting'.
He like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity serve this same purpose within the system, they lay down false markers and shield arguments in fallacies, so that those desiring change and progress are unable to deposit the real equivalencies into the public sphere.

These are new KKK, they just use words instead of ropes, bombs and violence to segregate society.

[JustJoy7]

I think it's time for MSNBC to get rid of Pat Buchanan. They have tortured their loyalist much too long with this man. If they insist on keeping their "Uncle Pat" as they refer to him, it's time we leave them. Enough is enough.

[AprilPA]

I do like Maddow making Buchanan look foolish.

[idisVA]

Why try to make this guy relevant.

[Lee1981]

Ok, honestly after 3 years of law school, as a minority I can affirmatively state that NO ONE gets on LAW REVIEW or any journal b/c of affrimative action. Sigh...

[Michael Martinez]

Why is everone so surprised about Pat's racist attitude? During the immigration debate last year, he was on MSNBC when he stated...and I am paraphrasing here...that by not controlling the borders or passing some strong anti illegal immigration legisiation that "Americans need to decide what color they want this country to look like".

It was then that I realized he was a racist. In the last few days, Pat was getting close to really telling it like he believed but he finally let loose on Maddow. I was waiting and it finally happened--Pat Buchannan is not only a racist but he is also totally against the rights of people of color, women and gay individuals. It's a wonder he doesn't show up on TV with a white hood over his head.

[Janel]

I watched the debate. Rachel was the clearly the winner. Pat's arguments were pathetic. He was obviously pandering to those who are nervous about Obama.

[IWantTofu]

I'm an Asian American who has worked as a professional for serveral decades on the East Coast, where in many of the companies I've been at, I've been the only professional who was not a white male (lots of woman secretaries, minority cleaning people and technicians, etc.). I can attest that many of my co-workers and former co-workers who are white males would clearly disagree with you and say that Pat won the debate.

[yphili184]

Wow I always new Pat was conservative but this could easily be the keynote address for a skinhead rally.
Any slight respect I had for him has been completely diminished!

[learntofly]

The guy actually tried to promote racial superiority on air - using flimsy weak arguments.

[nvr2late]

I thought Rachel was fantastic. Pat has needed someone to take him on.
Go, Rachel.

[LemonMeringue]

Also this country was built on the backs of people of many races and ethnicities and nationalities. Immigrants made this country what it once was, before the neocons took it down.

[willynel]

The Intercontinental Railroad was in large part built by minorities.

Crispus Atticus was one of the first people to die for our country's freedom.

One of his sister's most revered heroes is a woman (Margaret Thatcher).

Women kept this country going in WWII back home. Without them, we lose the war because we simply would not have had enough supplies to fight it.

The First Iraq War was won with an African-American Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and by a largely integrated fighting force.

Get a clue, Pat. The world is moving on without you. Either deal with it or slink away.

[willynel]

Correction: Trancontinental Railroad

[LemonMeringue]

Buchanan uttered many falsehoods.

It is not true that only white people died at Gettysberg. Many, many Negros fought and died in the civil war.

[learntofly]

Agree with you. Pat's an educated man - He knew he was spouting false info. Looks like he sees nothing wrong in using people by lying to them to create a made-up (and twisted) sense of racial superiority. He is one very low, weak person.

[outofhere]

Pat is a member of the Confederate Sons of America so he looks at the Civil War in a different way.

[IWantTofu]

The way they look at the Civil War is that they didn't lose.

[dutch163]

whoa..Pat is wrong on so many levels
but blacks did fight (and die) in the civil war

[yphili184]

And the Revolutionary war too!

[IWantTofu]

And World War II (the big one!).

[IWantTofu]

We had a segregated military in World War 2 (and earlier wars). To pick a battle where (perhaps, because I'm not sure he is correct in his statement) mainly white males fought, and to ignore other battles where blacks or Japanese Americans served admirably, and sometimes were slaughtered by the enemy, to make the point that it was white males that built and protected this country is misleading and disingenuous at best.