The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Marc Lamont Hill's O'Reilly Mistakes

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Marc Lamont Hill's O'Reilly Mistakes

By Jeffrey Lord on 8.19.09 @ 1:04PM

One of the regulars on Bill O'Reilly's show is Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, who will be joining Columbia University's faculty this fall.

An amiable liberal, Dr. Hill is always earnest and occasionally provocative with his take on things racial. While his sparring with O'Reilly is frequently interesting, and Hill is doubtless a smart guy, when he makes as many factual errors in one night as he did last night discussing a Specter health care reform town meeting in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, he should be called out.

Dr. Hill apparently attended Specter's meeting (I was outside talking to the crowd, Hill was inside). In discussing this with O'Reilly he made three factual errors, using his mistakes to attribute racism to the crowd. This is wrong.

Mistake # 1: Apparently there were "birthers" in the Specter crowd, those who have this thing about questioning Obama's legitimacy to be president based on his supposed birth not in Hawaii but outside the U.S. Dr. Hill than laid this at the feet of racism, saying that such an allegation only pops up against the nation's lone black president.

This is not true. Chester Alan Arthur, the nation's 21st president, was born (so it was insisted) in Vermont. In fact his father owned a farm some fifteen miles over the border in Canada. When Arthur ran as James Garfield's running-mate in 1880, a New York lawyer named Arthur Hinman was hired by Democrats to investigate. Hinman claimed Arthur came to America from Ireland when he was fourteen, and hence was not eligible to be on a presidential ticket. When this proved to be a political non-starter, the allegation was changed to say he was born in Canada. As with Obama, the allegations were dismissed after investigation by reporters of the day. Still, they were made repeatedly. Hinman would go on to publish a book entitled, How A British Subject Became President of the United States.

So Obama is in fact not the first president to face this treatment, and Arthur was your basic portly white guy Republican. The allegations Hill says he heard in Lebanon were not unique and not racial.

Mistake #2: Hill attributed the age of the protesters -- in their 70s and 80s -- and the fact that "30 or 40 years ago" they were voting Republican as a sign of racism. This is stunningly bad history.

Lebanon is a solidly Republican area. It is that because Central Pennsylvania was a huge source of support for Abraham Lincoln, the Republican Party of which he is viewed in these parts as the founding father -- and which was decidedly pro-civil rights. Indeed, during the 1960s, the two prominent Republicans in Pennsylvania -- U.S. Senator Hugh Scott and Governor William Scranton -- were huge liberal Republican supporters of civil rights and both very popular in Central Pennsylvania. To impute racism to people who would have been among their strongest supporters and who voted Republican because they self-identified with Lincoln is egregiously bad Pennsylvania history. Dr. Hill should know better.

Mistake # 3: Dr. Hill was upset because people in the Specter meeting referred to President Obama as "that guy" or "that man." Surely Hill should know that Franklin Roosevelt's critics famously referred to him derisively as "that man in the White House."

If Obama supporters want to tout the President as another FDR, it is silly to attribute precisely the same kind of criticism FDR received, right down to the derogatory nickname, as something racial. It is, in its own uniquely American fashion, extremely presidential.

Here's hoping Dr. Hill cracks the books a bit more before he says things like this on O'Reilly.

View all comments (10) | Leave a comment

Pete| 8.19.09 @ 1:19PM

I saw that show last night and I am happy for the corrections. I hope O'Reilly reports on them. I thought he handled Dr. Hill pretty well. The guy is so biased, he can't think straight. It makes him look like a clown, much like Geraldo talking about illegal immigration.

Ammo Guy| 8.19.09 @ 2:14PM

I’ve seen Hill on many programs and he can’t help but view life thru his racially tinged viewing glass. He reminds me of the Woody Allen character in Annie Hall who saw anti-Semitism behind every remark or situation…save for the fact that Hill is not even remotely funny, except as a caricature. I know Columbia is delighted to have him, but I’m sure that every pale student in his class will have to toe the party line in order to get a good grade.

Michelle| 8.19.09 @ 2:38PM

Hill may be an amiable liberal but he lies through his smiles. The faster he speaks the more he lies: It's so annoying I tune him out.

Nobama| 8.19.09 @ 2:42PM

Pete--you're right! Geraldo does look like a clown when he's talking about ILLEGAL immigration. I thought he was going to throw a chair at O'Reilly during one of their 'discussions'.

Oldefarte| 8.19.09 @ 2:59PM

All Americans with 'COMMON SENSE' know [or should] that blacks and liberals use the words RACISM, DISENFRANCHISEMENT, DISCRIMINATION, GENTRIFICATION, etc as 'one word' labeling/branding because their ususally too stupid to rationally/logically argue their inarguable positions. To attempt to provide reasoning to their words is ludicrous--------you just have to accept them as lunacy!!!!!

SOT| 8.19.09 @ 3:14PM

Mr. Hill was so far off base last night . . . I also was at the town meeting in Lebanon and the crowd was mixed: young/old; male/female; and many races. I heard no talk of anyone's race. People were talking about the government taking over the health care, and spending like there is no end to our money. We understood "those people" to mean our representatives and president. We do not trust "those people!" - with our money and even less with our health care. There is nothing racial about any of this!

curmudgeon| 8.20.09 @ 6:45AM

"Lamont" is an anthropologist of education, whatever that means. In all likelihood, that means he's an absolute ignoramus. But no doubt that's a racist observation.

Your Majesty| 8.20.09 @ 9:45AM

If Obama birthers are racist, then are Trig Palin birthers sexist?

One additional point about Central PA: the region's Republicanism is, in no small part, also a decades-long reaction to the corrupt Democrat machines of Philly and Pittsburgh. PA's large cities have soaked its rural areas for longer than Obama has been alive -- and often to line the pockets of big-city pols. (Perhaps Dr. Hill believes farmers are racist for thinking Philly state senator Vince Fumo's recent conviction was long overdue.)

The good folks of Central PA rightfully resent being soaked and suspect that more government means they'll have to bend over yet again.

Corve DaCosta| 8.21.09 @ 11:04AM

I watched the show and I came away with the same thing. I thought he blabbed most of the segment and did not come with any facts. He referred to racism like it was going out of style. There is no way every claim he can blame racism and hate on Obama. The fact is this is a topic that people are passionate about and will get riled up. Dr Hill wow.....

Tomi Johnson| 8.22.09 @ 2:03AM

In 2000, the racial makeup of Lebanon, PA was 85.50% White, 3.23% African American, 0.28% Native American, 1.02% Asian, 0.10% Pacific Islander, 8.11% from other races, and 1.76% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 16.43% of the population. I would have to go to the town to see if folks there are racist or not and would have to examine who is in leadership roles and also who runs the newspaper, chamber of commerce, school board, etc. As far as racism in America goes, whites are trying to blame blacks for pulling the race card and using reverse discrimination to turn away from civil/human rights. In my opinion, the US will never be post-racial because of its history and institutional hierarchy. What we have to do is try to respect everyone and honor MLK more that paying lip service to equality.