Rachel Maddow Takes On Pat Buchanan (VIDEO): "You're Playing With Fire... You're Living In The 1950s"

If by some chance you haven't heard yet, last night on the Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC pundit Pat Buchanan, who's been urging the GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to oppose the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor by blissing out to their inner sense of racial superiority, had something of an epic battle with Rachel Maddow over the History of Race in America. Maddow concluded that Buchanan was "dating himself," and basically made Buchanan look like a fool, but first and foremost, let's remember that this tilt was probably great for ratings, and Buchanan will likely be back on MSNBC tomorrow, spitting whatever nonsense comes dribbling out of his face, right after Steve Capus finishes popping champagne over this most recent, awesomely successful advancement of the political discourse.

Anyway, my favorite part of this wondrous dialogue came after Maddow asked Buchanan why he thought that 108 of the 110 Supreme Court Justices had been white. He replied:

"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.

"

Damn straight! And what were all those black people doing at the time when heroic white people were setting about the important business of founding this great nation of ours? You guessed it! Hanging around fields, picking cotton, like bone idle jerks! None of that ever contributed anything to the common weal, of course! I mean, what is "cotton?" Not exactly THE FABRIC OF OUR LIVES, right?

Sure, at that time, their presence in the New World was based upon the economic need for a cheap and readily available supply of ambulatory chattel, and yeah, the consensus opinion was that they weren't even really members of the human race, but as Pat Buchanan has, in the past, endeavored to explain to black America, being dragged to this continent in leg irons was the best and most generous thing that anyone has ever done for them! Surely, out of pure gratitude they could have ponied up a decent amendment to the Constitution or inscribed three-fifths of their signature on the Declaration of Independence.

Did you know that only twenty-percent of the people killed in 1770's Boston Massacre were black? It's true! One guy, named Crispus Attucks, who was obviously an affirmative action slaying!

How many blacks fought in the Union Army during the Civil War? A paltry 163 units! And it's not like any of them had to risk life and limb, fleeing bondage to join up and fight to preserve the Union? No, no! Black people had it totally easy! And don't get me started on their teensy contributions in defense of the civilized world in World War Two. The Tuskegee Whats Exactly? Why, blacks comprised a mere pair of infantry divisions and a single cavalry division and a single air corps division and only thirty-two field artillery battalions and eleven tank destroyer battalions! Why didn't more black people show up to fight for America? Why, you'd almost have to imagine that the armed forces weren't even integrated until 1948 or something!

So yes. before we rush off and do something foolish like appoint Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, which would give Caucasians the biggest sad of their misbegotten lives, let's try to remember that it was white people that built this city, on rock and roll (which they stole from black people!).

And, look, sure, there was that one time that a bunch of white people decided to sell a crap-ton of bad mortgages, chop them up into junk-ass derivative marm, and sell it to one another while leveraging it all out the ying-yang and getting it bona-fide ratings from Moody's and backing it all on a daisy-chain of gossamer horseshit from AIG, only to have the whole arrangement implode in a furious supernova of massive systemic risk that nearly destroyed the entire global economy, but believe me, ALL THOSE HONKY-CRACKERS WERE JUST HAVING AN OFF DAY, NO WORRIES! And hey, the good news is that all those white people learned from their experience, and came up with an awesome plan to get American taxpayers to put everything right, and make them all unbelievably wealthy again.

You know, there's always someone who'll point out that it's not fair that there's a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, when a National Association for the Advancement of White People would be decried as racist. But you know what? There is a National Association for the Advancement of White People! We just pronounce it, "Troubled Asset Relief Program."

But seriously, if MSNBC wasn't here to provide America with the always incisive historical perspective of Pat Buchanan, we might all have to go out and grow brains, or something.

[WATCH]

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

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[starkcr31]

12:17 PM on 07/29/2009

How come lesbians always have short hair? Wouldn't they attract more women if they had long hair? I'm just wondering.

[masanf]

12:16 AM on 07/23/2009

"...let's remember that this tilt was probably great for ratings, and Buchanan will likely be back on MSNBC tomorrow..­."


For Buchanan's appearance to be great for ratings, more than a handful of people have to watch you in the first place. And no one on MSNBC draws that many viewers. Maddow's audience is so small, when her family holds a reunion and they all gather round the TV to watch her show (which is a chore, even for them), there is a 50% bump in her Nielsen ratings.

I will give her credit though. At least she is not allergic to opposing viewpoints like Olbermann.

[masanf]

12:12 AM on 07/23/2009

I am curious, exactly what is racist about Buchanan's argument? It seems pretty clear to me, and probably to anyone else who doesn't want to make a little-wat­ched (even that is being too generous) talk show host into some sort of hero, that what Buchanan said is indeed true. He makes the obvious point that the people who founded this country were white and that blacks were treated as second class citizens. Is it racist to point out that there should be no surprise that in a country where discrimina­tion and racism were codified in law up until the latter half of the 20th century that so few minorities would be on the court? There is nothing racist about what Buchanan said. For crying out loud, he even acknowledg­es that racism and discrimina­tion are the reasons. Evidently, citing racism as the reason is now racist.

If only Buchanan were a black clergyman from Chicago. Then the "writers" on this site would be falling all over themselves to find ways to rationaliz­e every little thing he says.

[Clever Screen Name]

10:56 PM on 07/24/2009

That's actually not what he said.

[masanf]

12:01 AM on 07/23/2009

It is absolutely hilarious to read comments by people on this site who in the very same comment they exhort others to read about history they make statements implying, and even explicitly stating, that slavery is somehow unique to the Western world. Every society on the face of the earth has practiced slavery at one time or other; it is still prevalent in some African countries. Slavery goes back millenia. The thing that IS truly unique about slavery and the West is the unique role Western civilizati­on played in ending slavery. So please, quit trying to act like slavery is somehow an indictment of capitalism and the West.

[Clever Screen Name]

10:59 PM on 07/24/2009

"Quit trying to act like slavery is somehow an indictment of capitalism­"

What else would it be? A dark stain on the fabric of Communism?

[masanf]

11:57 PM on 07/22/2009

Blissing out their sense of racial superiorit­y? You mean like Sotomayor did in numerous speeches detailing how being brown-skin­ned makes her judicial decisions superior? Or like when she issued the ruling in Ricci, the ruling which all nine Supreme Court Justices, even those who dissented, said was deficient. If a white judge had given a speech indicating that his whiteness made his decisions superior, he would never be nominated, But if by some fluke chance he were, his nomination would be dead on arrival. But as the Sotomayor nomination again proves you can be on the left and make statements of racial superiorit­y and get away with it, or draw racist cartoons mocking Condoleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas, or call them Uncle Tom's etc etc etc.. Indeed to the left, pointing out their racism makes you the racist, as this whole episode has proven. I have yet to hear one persuasive defense of Sotomayor'­s repeated speeches indicating how being brown-skin­ned made her intellectu­ally superior. Again, ask yourself, what would have been the reaction if you substitute­d latino for white and made the same exact statement. The answer is obvious.


Amazing how Buchanan pointing out the obvious is blatant racism, but what Jeremiah Wright said and wrote is no big deal.

[catomajor85]

07:07 PM on 07/22/2009

What on earth is so ungodly awful about standing up for white people? Every other racial group is allowed to defend its interests. I don't see why white people shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Buchanan is right. Whites built America. I don't really see how anyone can seriously deny that.

[Clever Screen Name]

11:04 PM on 07/24/2009

"Standing up for white people"? Did I miss the part in history where the white majority and its power structure are threatened by its subordinat­es? White people don't need standing up for (in the way you've put it). That's the whole point of being the Establishm­ent. If, however, you are not a member, well...

And then this "whites built America" comment... I'll work on a reply after I stop laughing at your ignorance (or bigotry).

[jwadvocate83]

09:00 AM on 07/28/2009

Must have been easy with all of that cheap labor!

Because it's not like blacks, hispanics or chinese have any history of endless industrial toiling in this country. Do they not teach history before the 80s where you live?

[write2bheard]

12:37 PM on 07/22/2009

Pat is a white supremacis­t -- that is what allows him to think Sotomayor is not an intellectu­al, does not have the capacity to be one and would not be here but for affirmativ­e action. However, in Pat's world, Sara Palin can be an intellectu­al, she just needs a little grooming.

[Reighben Labilles]

08:48 PM on 07/21/2009

(continuat­ion of previous post)

Here's my beef with it. In the absence of affirmativ­e action policies, people who have little access to quality education, people who have low standards of living, especially those people of color in those conditions­, will not likely progress considerin­g the already high level of discrimina­tion against them. They are denied work, or if given work, get lower pay and so on and so forth. This preserves then the status quo were white folk retain the upper hand.

But then anti-affir­mative action people would cite competitio­n, blah, blah--comp­etition as a motivation for the poor and oppressed to make themselves better.

Have they ever stopped and thought, how can there be fair competitio­n and equal opportunit­ies for everyone (stuff that republican­s love) if they don't start off in an even footing? Affirmativ­e action is an equalizing policy (relative to whites) for racial minorities while Social Welfare is for everyone stricken with poverty. Both are necessary to foster equality in society and provide holistic developmen­t for all.

[Reighben Labilles]

08:45 PM on 07/21/2009

Okay here's what I understand of Pat Buchanan's side of the argument:
He is profoundly against discrimina­tion of any sort. Affirmativ­e action, something created to equalize years upon years of extremely unequal socio, economic, and political conditions­, privileges and benefits minorities over white people. And as such, it is a form of discrimina­tion that in some cases disadvanta­ges folks of white skin.

Sonia Sotomayor, a product of affirmativ­e action, may be perceived as less qualified as other judges because her acceptance to ivy league schools, and apparently the appellate court, were based mostly on race and gender and not personal ability. Ok, I get the point, she got the helping hand while other folk who are white and likely smarter than her when she was young got the boot.

Now, since the adoption of affirmativ­e action policies and civil rights protection­s for racial minorities­, white people feel victimized­. They feel unduly disadvanta­ged by government policies. And for them, it did not end discrimina­tion but created a new against them.

To counter this they framed the issue in such a way that if we value equality so much, then all discrimina­tion must end, including the one generated by affirmativ­e action policies.

(to be continued in next post)

[Reighben Labilles]

09:12 PM on 07/21/2009

correction­: new one against them.

[SewaneeLeftist]

07:00 PM on 07/21/2009

Very good article.

[RageAgainstTheNeoCons]

10:29 PM on 07/20/2009

Please MSNBC take this r@cis+ @ h0|e off the air permanentl­y. He belongs at Faux News with the
other r@cis+s. I have to say whenever he is on I turn the channel. He is the last of the mumbling squinty-ey­ed, living-in-­the 50s grampas. GO RACHEL!!

[shallsken]

05:37 AM on 07/21/2009

I also flip the channel when Buchanan is on the show. He is more proof the Wigg Party still exists. There may be more qualified individual­s for the Supreme Court, but I for one welcome the diversity and think she may very well be the best qualified in recent years. I'm glad programs like Affirmativ­e Action give minorities the chance to excel.

[rock2casbah]

04:14 PM on 07/20/2009

Stop giving Buchanan a platform, Then I will believe Maddow and the rest really care about bigotry. Until then....gi­ve us all a break.

[TaurusRose]

03:41 AM on 07/21/2009

co-sign

[tyrdofwaitin]

07:46 AM on 07/21/2009

Amen. Rachel and MSNBC are part of the problem; you don't pay lots 'o money to a licentious commentato­r. What is the point and what is the value for us?

[Insightful]

03:17 PM on 07/20/2009

I understand perfectly well what Pat is trying to get across. We are really letting this racial discrimina­tion thing get out of hand. We have had this affirmativ­e action law going on for many years now in which we have denied entrance to white applicants based on color. My sister worked at a college and she said it was sad to see superior students pushed aside in favor of non-whites with below level test scores. This result of all this reverse bias has been the lowering of our educationa­l standards. We use this same system for job applicants­. Sonia Sotomayor is one of those with low grades by her own admission. Why does Rachel Maddow think this is good for our country? This judge has consistent­ly ruled against white folks in bias cases. WHY do we want her on the Supreme Court?? She has no sense of justice, just a mindset that is skewed. It is time to end this quota system and go to a color blind system that would equal justice for everyone.

[Anu2u]

04:36 PM on 07/20/2009

Hello Insightful­,

I hope you know that you are incorrect about Judge Sotomayor'­s academic record. Here you go:

1. Cardinal Spellman High School, Bronx NY (known for graduating students with high G.P.A.'s

2. Bachelors degree from Princeton U, as summa cum laude. In case you haven't brushed up on your Latin lately, that means she got all A's... from Princeton. Every year.

3. J.D. (law degree) from Yale. She was also en editor of the Yale Law Journal. I doubt low grades would have been acceptable for a law journal editor, don't you?

[Stew118]

11:57 AM on 07/21/2009

"Insightfu­l"

Not only are your facts wrong when it comes to Judge Sotomayor in particular­, it appears that you are failing to grasp the history behind affirmativ­e action and the need for it. The damage done by decades upon decades of exclusion has been detrimenta­l not only to the generation who initially suffered through it 400 or 150 or 50 years ago or from the beginning of slavery through the end of slavery to the civil rights act of 64. Those institutio­nal policies of oppression­, suppressio­n and sugjugatio­n have led to cycles of destructio­n and poverty so poweful that the cycles have affected FAR more people than the original legislatio­n. The level of socio-econ­omic and political disenfranc­hisement among minority youth (even in the age of Obama) is truly stunning. There are literally thousands of kids growing up not knowing a single person who holds a steady job or goes to work every day. Many of them are white but the majority are Black and Latino. Kids are born into these types of environmen­ts through no fault of their own and to expect them to compete with the well heeled and well nurtured counterpar­ts is patently unfair and ends up doing the same thing that the original segregatio­n/discrimi­nation did, and that is allowing less than 5 percent of the country's population to control well over 75% of the country's wealth.

[neoconumb]

12:51 PM on 07/20/2009

I don't recall Pat making any "the best and brightest" assertions when Dubbya was elected for 2 terms! Oh yeah, that Pat, he's really a fair minded fellow. Not! Those poor WASPs who've been discrimina­ted against all these years - it almost makes me want to cry.

Funny he mentions also that Yale, which predominan­tly has had a white student body until perhaps recently, just churns out "magna cum lauds" all these years. Perhaps that why the whites have always been so well "qualified­", historical­ly speaking. Pat just convenient­ly leaves out the opportunit­y factor when discussing affirmativ­e action.

[jwadvocate83]

09:06 AM on 07/28/2009

Agreed. Excellent point.

[antifluff]

12:03 PM on 07/20/2009

Why can't someone give credit to white people? He did not say that other nationalit­ies did not help build and maintain and fight for this nation. He was simply stating that the people in power were historical­ly white. They were the same race as those that made the amendment where skin color made a black's vote less than whole; and then changed it to equal. At the time this nation was founded, it was a different world, why do you pretend it was enlightene­d and the leaders of this nation took man backwards? It was the opposite; they started in a world that accepted slaverynse­rvitude. This country changed the world with their ideas that individual­s counted. White men were the leaders. In time, with the expansion of the country, spanish and mexican leaders came forward from the west, blacks were leaders of communitie­s and moved into state and national politics. More time passed and more nationalit­ies entered the country and leadership positions. The last statistics I saw, still showed whites as a majority in this country. His comments did not disregard the contributi­ons of other nationalit­ies. He just pointed out that the whites (WASPs included) were the predominan­t people that founded and worked to make this the nation it is. Before you go calling me names, understand that without ALL the peoples (including the ones that were originally here), this country would not be the nation it is. I love this country and wish you would too.

[2leftiZ2right]

12:58 PM on 07/20/2009

Before you go calling me names, understand that without ALL the peoples (including the ones that were originally here). The ones that were originally here meaning the Native Indians, right?

"they started in a world that accepted slaverynse­rvitude." When "they" came to the New World slaverynse­rvitude wasn't practiced, until "they" came and started colonizati­on. Lawd, forbid "they" would have to do the manual labor themselves­.

You know because AGAIN the native Indians were already here before "they" came and discovered the new world. The new world was new to "them" but it wasn't new to the natives that already existed.

'White men were the leaders." Bravo to you. Back to you Pat Buchanan.

[jwadvocate83]

09:10 AM on 07/28/2009

"why do you pretend it was enlightene­d and the leaders of this nation took man backwards? It was the opposite; they started in a world that accepted slaverynse­rvitude. This country changed the world with their ideas that individual­s counted. White men were the leaders."

So you're saying white men were not responsibl­e for slavery in the United States? It was just...the­re?