An Open Letter to Mr. John McWhorter

My respect and admiration of the author, and friend of Glenn Loury, Ph.D., once ran quite deep. Sadly, that is no more – not that it matters.

Dear Sir;

This is an open letter to you to express my utter disappointment in remarks recently made by you in conversation with Mr. Glenn Loury.¹

True, you don’t know me from Adam, and it is likely you could not care less what some rank amateur writer in west Texas thinks. Nonetheless, while it is your right to speak your mind, abhorrent as your sentiments may be, it is my right to condemn their content as expressed, and to call you out on the hypocrisy betrayed by them.  

It is absolutely crucial that the content of my remarks in this letter are focused on your words, attitude, and thoughts expressed both verbally and by implication on your part, and inference on mine.

Extraordinary effort is being made to keep this focused on what was said and not who said it, lest the criticism lose its validity.

Allow me to first express disappointment in myself for considering you to be an honest liberal. Meaning that while one’s political and ideological orientation may be decidedly leftward, one is able to appreciate that of another whose might be relatively conservative, and perhaps even do so with respect toward such, if not for the right to be so. More specifically, yours seems to be that of the modern-day partisan Democrat, and mine is less the modern-day conservative and more libertarian, or in the tradition of the classic liberal. 

Clearly, I made a mistake in that I severely misjudged your character. The mistake lies in my assumption that you were possessed of any.

It is lamentable that someone as well-educated, as well-spoken as yourself, and who has so benefited from the opportunity to make his living in the world of academia, and the media with the freedom to speak and write freely without risk to his livelihood would be so intolerant of the same toward others as is demonstrated by your clear disdain and hostility toward President Donald J, Trump, the only one to take up the plight and the cause of those of us in fly-over country, and by extension that same hostility and disdain toward each of us, personally.

Per your remarks in the following transcript² excerpted in block quotes below, you have revealed yourself to be little more than a puerile (your own word, by the way), petty, small partisan Democrat hack at best – and it is tragic that an education by the Quakers turned out to be wasted on someone like yourself. 

---

Glenn Loury stated:

...it exemplifies a turn in American political and legal culture that I think is ominous…It's injurious to the culture of political competition in the country…a precedent has been established…I have a bad feeling about what that, a foreboding about what that entails.

You replied:

...I know what you mean about the precedent. We can't just think about this now. What's the new pattern going to be…But to be honest…Trump is such a unique phenomenon that a little bit of vigilante justice or bending the proprieties, [is understandable]...because he's truly a hideous person. A monstrous prospect as somebody who [would] be running this country for a second time.

...it's clear that Bragg wanted to get him. And when Bragg gives an interview about it in 30 years with White Air, some interviewer is going to say, most people say it was politically motivated. Was it? How do you feel? And he's going to say, of course it was. And I think I did the right thing. And I'm going to agree with him.

I think Bragg did the right thing, even if it sets a precedent that would be used against somebody who I approve of, because social history is messy.

So, your comments indicate that it is acceptable – even earning your enthusiastic approval – to not just deny a citizen of the United States (in this instance a duly and fairly elected former president, no less) of his constitutional rights to due process, and a fair and speedy trial but also to name him as the defendant in unlimited civil and even criminal litigation, subject him to “legal” courtroom trials (that almost make the show trials that took place in the former Soviet Union seem legitimate) in a naked attempt to bring him to personal financial ruin, rob him of his good name, and possibly imprison him unlawfully if it is someone of whom you disapprove, or just don’t like, for any reason. If that is not true, feel free to correct me – otherwise, your inner Andrey Vyshinsky is showing.

Recognizing and seemingly accepting the fact that such a dangerous precedent could cut both ways is little more than a fig leaf that allows you to justify the irreparable harm that this instance of lawfare against a US citizen has wrought.

Freedom of speech is a most wonderful thing, and it is refreshing that you take full advantage of it, otherwise, you wouldn’t be able to reveal yourself to be but a highly educated, well-compensated useful idiot, toeing the leftist Party line, ‘Orange Man – Bad’ narrative.

He's an immoral person with no respect for or interest in other people and often an outright scorn for other people explicitly expressed. which he tries to reflect in actual policies. He was reined in somewhat, but the fact that all these things were even floated, his behavior with overseas leaders, his cult-like devotion, not only to Putin, but the idea that he and Jong-un fell in love, et cetera, where it's all about his narcissism, even when it's about international geopolitics, is pathetic, it's embarrassing, and it's dangerous, and just in general, To have a president who's incapable of paying attention to detail or policy, where everything is really just all about him and to an extent beyond that of any president I can think of in history. You know, all of them, of course, have to be about themselves. But Trump is a gorilla. I think to have the country run by somebody who can't pay attention and surrounds himself with sycophants.

One can only conclude that either you consider the current occupant of the office of President of the United States, or President Trump’s predecessor, to be a paragon of morality or if not, then Trump must be exceptionally immoral in comparison to others who have also held the office.

Presumably, that would include one Bill Clinton, who was not only unfaithful to his wife on several occasions, but was so with a young girl nearly three decades his junior in the Oval Office and then lied about it until he could do so no longer. Let’s not forget JFK, and his multiple extramarital affairs of which Marilyn Monroe was merely the latest in a long line of paramours.

Is Trump any more flawed than any of his predecessors? If not, then why are his flaws, peccadilloes, or proclivities so much worse? Assuming that you are able to provide a reasoned response, I would love to hear it.

But his idea is that the Mexicans who were sent here are these rapists and bad people and vermin and we need to get rid of them. And I honestly don't know what he's talking about. I listen to this and I think, what facts, what tendencies is he basing this particular character on? characterization of immigrants on. You can be anti-immigrant, but this vision that he comes up with is just this ridiculous cartoon. And here he is with all of his charisma and influence and money, teaching other Americans to think that way about something that, as far as I can see, is a video game fantasy. I don't even know what he's exaggerating. Do you? What are these rapists? What is he talking about?

A “ridiculous cartoon”? A “video game fantasy”? Really? You don’t have to like the characterization, but instances of violent crime such as assault, rape, and murder that are committed by illegal aliens, are like roaches – for every incident that you see or know of, there are likely hundreds or thousands that are unseen. Need some examples? Here:

Kate Steinle in 2015, and Mollie Tibbetts in 2018 are two of the most notable, that were actually reported by the propaganda apparatus, but if you need some more recent, how about this account of an illegal alien raping a thirteen-year-old girl in broad daylight; or two of these subhuman creatures repeatedly assaulting and then murdering twelve-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray, in Houston, Texas? Would you like one a little closer to home? See this account of the most violent rape and murder of one Rachel Morin.

To answer your question, these are the rapists. These are the animals about which Trump speaks. 

John, I’ll pay you $1,000.00 cash to visit the parents of that thirteen-year-old girl, or the parents of Jocelyn Nungaray, or the surviving family members of Ms. Morin, and tell them that the threat these illegal aliens pose to other Americans, their families, and their children is exaggerated.

Perhaps your view of the rest of the country doesn’t extend beyond the Hudson River, in which case perhaps you could direct your attention to that of Jhoan Boada, who flipped both middle fingers after being released upon the dropping of charges of assaulting a police officer in Times Square as part of a gang³ – or is this the kind of upstanding illegal alien you would like to see welcomed into this country? If so, perhaps you’d like to personally welcome him to your community. Perhaps you could open up your home to him, let him stay with you and your family.

Let’s not forget the number of members of MS-13 now in the US terrorizing the communities they’ve invaded.

But there are a lot of bad hombres right here who were born in the United States, too. And I don't see that the bad hombres are disproportionately represented among the people who trudge across the border trying to open a little store, make a decent living. And I think it's a baby boy with a violent fantasy…

Please spare me the shameless attempt to create a moral equivalency. To call attention to those being committed by these animals is not to excuse the same committed by US citizens. At one time, such impudent whataboutism would have been thought to be beneath you, but there it is, on full insolent display.

The difference, as if it needed to be spelled out, is that any crimes committed by illegal aliens are that much more egregious because they are not supposed to be in this country in the first place. Hence, it is not such a stretch, nor is it at all fallacious to conclude that had they not been here, the crime would not have occurred, and an American would not be the victim of such an assault, rape or murder. You don’t see disproportional representation because you choose not to.

This vision of, “people who trudge across the border trying to open a little store, make a decent living.” is every bit the stuff of “video game fantasy” (to use your description) of which you accuse Trump vis-à-vis his description of illegal aliens crossing over the southern border from Mexico.

This, along with the rate of violent crime, not to mention the resurgence in cases of smallpox, tuberculosis, polio, rubella and a host of other diseases that had been all but eradicated until Biden opened the floodgates letting in carriers of such pestilence, thereby re-introducing third-world health problems to a society which had been largely free of them. 

Oh, there are times I almost wish I could. Or somebody else would.

Just what is it that you almost wish you could do, John? Just what is it that you wish somebody else would?

You clearly can’t bring yourself to say it, which says more about your instinct for survival and self-preservation as it seems that you feel it would be professional suicide for you to verbally express what you are thinking, and that it would be beneficial were someone to assassinate Trump.

It would seem you perceive that there are those on your side of the proverbial aisle who would consider verbalizing such a thought as being beyond the pale, which is so quaint because the left, of which you are a proud, card-carrying member, has abandoned all decency, and decorum.

Your attempt to distance yourself from such vile, vitriolic commentary (courtesy of your bi-weekly conversations with Glenn Loury) with a non-apology is pathetic.⁴

As Glenn points out:

...in this clip from our most recent conversation, you’ll see him apologize for making the statement without quite taking it back.

No, you shouldn’t say it anywhere. You ought to be enough of a grown-up to perish such a thought before it even occurs to you. No, it is not the smaller side of you – it is the larger side of you, now – in fact, it is you.

Glenn Loury deserves a much better, a much more intelligent, and might I add, a much more ethical intellectual sparring partner with more than a quantum of personal integrity, than yourself. 

You ought to be ashamed – and you ought to be extraordinarily grateful that Glenn counts you among his friends.

---

Thank you, dear reader, for your indulgence.

…until next time.

---

1. John McWhorter – Inside the Ibram X. Kendi Collapse

2. GL: Yeah. Okay, John, you must be celebrating over there. Donald J. Trump has been convicted of 34 counts of felonious behavior in a New York City courtroom by a jury of his peers. He's now a felon, a convicted felon awaiting sentencing. Have you broken out the champagne?

JM: No, because it won't make enough of a difference. It makes him a hero to his fans. And there are a certain number of people who apparently feel that if he, you know, if an appeal can't happen or if an appeal doesn't work, which it won't, then they can't imagine pulling the lever for a convicted felon. But it's not enough.

GL: Oh, you're quite so sure that...you're sure he's going to lose [Trump] on appeal?

JM: I read that an appeal would be highly unlikely to go through just on the formal grounds. There's just nothing to appeal. And so if there isn't, how many people would that turn? And from what I can see, not enough to change the situation that we're in. I only got a tiny bit of gratification because my sense of popping out the champagne would be less about whether it would make a difference with the election, but it brought him down a little bit. And that's kind of puerile, but I didn't really get that either because, frankly, he'll just see it as injustice and persecution against him. He did seem to be shocked at first, and I can barely square that with my sense of him. It seems like it actually hurt him that this jury, and he knows it's a jury from New York City, which doesn't like him, that this jury actually did convict him, and so completely. But only for a second. And then he was back to his old self. Do you find it momentous news? I found it dramatic. I followed the trial closely. I found it interesting.

GL: I find it momentous, but not in the same spirit that you just voiced. I find it momentous in that it exemplifies a turn in American political and legal culture that I think is ominous. It is a clearly politically motivated abuse or opportunistic exploitation of the legal framework in order to accomplish that political goal, which is preventing this guy from being elected president of the United States. And I think that that's debasing the currency. It's poisoning the well. It's injurious to the culture of political competition in the country. And this is not the last we're going to hear of it. Not just in this election cycle, a precedent has been established. And, you know, I have a bad feeling about what that, a foreboding about what that entails. Plus, as you say, I think the net effect, I mean, he's wasted scores of millions of dollars in the aftermath of the conviction. He's not a single person who was going to vote for Trump before that, or very few, very few who would have voted for Trump before our election, going to be persuaded by the label felon. The anchors at the networks are telling their Republicans, come on, can you still support him now that he's a convicted felon? Which the answer is, of course I can, because I think the conviction was bullshit. I mean, if he had done 34 assaults or carjackings or embezzlements or whatever, that would be one thing. But this is bullshit, is what they're going to say to themselves, rightly, in my humble opinion. So this is not the last we have heard of this kind of thing. And lawfare is not a healthy development, in my opinion.

JM: Glenn, I know what you mean. And I had a feeling you would feel that way about it. Yeah. And I know what you mean about the precedent. We can't just think about this now. What's the new pattern going to be? But to be honest, and I think you'll find this familiar, I think Trump is such a unique phenomenon that a little bit of vigilante justice or bending the proprieties, I understand it because he's truly a hideous person. monstrous prospect as somebody who should be running this country for a second time. And presumably thinking of himself as not being responsible for being reelected again, although he's made his noises about trying for a third term.

GL: What's so monstrous about him, John? He was president for four years. We survived. Where's the monstrosity? I'm not sure I get it.

JM: Well, I think everybody knows what I was going to say. Bragg, I agree that this is politically motivated. It's clear. There's so many other people who have done things like what Trump did in this case, where nobody bats an eye, you wouldn't have a case. Yeah, it's clear that Bragg wanted to get him. And when Bragg gives an interview about it in 30 years with White Air, some interviewer is going to say, most people say it was politically motivated. Was it? How do you feel? And he's going to say, of course it was. And I think I did the right thing. And I'm going to agree with him. What was so monstrous about Trump? I mean, need we even pretend? He's an immoral person with no respect for or interest in other people and often an outright scorn for other people explicitly expressed. which he tries to reflect in actual policies. He was reined in somewhat, but the fact that all these things were even floated, his behavior with overseas leaders, his cult-like devotion, not only to Putin, but the idea that he and Jong-un fell in love, et cetera, where it's all about his narcissism, even when it's about international geopolitics, is pathetic, it's embarrassing, and it's dangerous, and just in general, To have a president who's incapable of paying attention to detail or policy, where everything is really just all about him and to an extent beyond that of any president I can think of in history. You know, all of them, of course, have to be about themselves. But Trump is a gorilla. I think to have the country run by somebody who can't pay attention and surrounds himself with sycophants, It's not a good situation.

GL: The country was run by this hideous person that you speak of, this dangerous person, for four years. And the ship didn't crash and sink. You know, we did okay, frankly. I mean, the pandemic came along. I don't think you're going to blame that on Trump. Are you? I thought the economy was doing kind of okay. the world didn't suddenly become on fire with war all over the place because Trump was president. I mean, sure, of course you can criticize him about his policies, but I don't see this hideousness. I see a guy who's hit a note in American politics in this first part of the 21st century. And, you know, I - politics as usual, and I don't see anything exceptional about Donald J. Trump, exceptionally evil. I mean, compared to Hillary Rodham Clinton, compared to Joseph Robinette Biden, these are politicians. They have pluses. They have minuses. They have fans. They have detractors. They have flaws. They're evil. Is Trump evil? You think he's evil? Do you think he's a racist? You had a column recently about suppose he had said the N-word, in which I thought you even downplayed the instinct to latch on to Trump malapropism as indicative of his moral turpitude or something like that. Did I read you incorrectly? 

JM: He's a casual bigot. I've never found that terribly interesting. Many people would be surprised at how little I've actually written about it. He's elderly and ignorant and of a certain time and place. I'm sure he's said the N-word quite often, but it's not surprising and it's not the important point. However, evil? No. To be honest, that assigns to him an agency I don't think he has. He's mentally five. But that really scares me. And also, Glenn, don't you think that with him trying to subvert the election and not apologizing for it and basically all but saying that if he doesn't win, it couldn't possibly be legitimate? Again, that's the reasoning of a five-year-old. And you think that it's appropriate that somebody who incited that riot and won't apologize for it should get another term? To run the country?

GL: No, I'm on the record saying that he should have stepped down after he exhausted his options in the courts after 2020 and that his willingness to look for extraordinary means in order to inhibit the due inauguration and installation of the winner of that election as president was deeply problematic and you could even argue disqualifying. I said I was wrong about Trump After that, because I think the lack of deference to the unwritten rules about how you conduct yourself in this office, which is a trust that each person who occupies the office has bestowed upon them. And I think Trump abused that trust. in his post-election behavior in 2020, early 2021. And yeah, I have a problem with that. I just said I was voting for him. But I do notice that he's ahead in the polls in a lot of places. And I also noticed that Joseph Robinette Biden doesn't happen to be free from taint of the sort that people are quick to ascribe to Trump. And I'm just struck by by this narrative, this narrative that we're going to save democracy by preventing the people of the country from voting for somebody whom they want to vote for, that our best arguments are we can't have him elected again. Not we have a vision. Not here's our program. Not vote for this. It's vote against that. And, you know, I find that not especially flattering to the other side who are opposing Trump. If he's that bad, it shouldn't be so hard to persuade the voters of North Carolina, of Florida, of Arizona, of Michigan, of Minnesota, of Wisconsin, of Pennsylvania, of Ohio. It shouldn't be that hard to persuade the voters. It is hard, and that makes me think, well, maybe it's that the other side is very weak and they're grasping for a narrative, not that this guy is as bad as people say he is.

JM: Glenn, this is important, something we've touched on before. Part of the way that Trump gets to those people is with this staple aspect of his message. which is very anti-immigrant. And so there's this idea that the immigrants who come here are bad people. Like it's not just that he has a problem with immigrants coming and possibly lowering wages of poor Americans, which they do to an extent. I think that the economics are clear about that to an extent. But his issue is that the ones who come here And yet he never said all Mexicans are rapists. That's sloppy. But his idea is that the Mexicans who were sent here are these rapists and bad people and vermin and we need to get rid of them. And I honestly don't know what he's talking about. I listen to this and I think, what facts, what tendencies is he basing this particular character on? characterization of immigrants on. You can be anti-immigrant, but this vision that he comes up with is just this ridiculous cartoon. And here he is with all of his charisma and influence and money, teaching other Americans to think that way about something that, as far as I can see, is a video game fantasy. I don't even know what he's exaggerating. Do you? What are these rapists? What is he talking about? 

GL: Here's the kindest construction I can imagine that could be put on this. All immigrants are not bad. In fact, the country is a country of immigrants. And even recent immigrants and even those who have come without documentation, their ranks are full of great people who are going to contribute a lot to the country. But that doesn't exhaust the set of people who are walking across our border without being properly vetted and without being authorized. Among them... could be, this is the kindest construction that I can put on it, so-called bad hombres, so-called bad actors, criminals, people who are not going to love our country and who are not going to contribute, but who are going to operate to our detriment. We don't know who's who. We've got an open door. That's not an acceptable way to run a country. I'm not saying this is the kindest construction I can put on it. I put it in the first person. I'm not saying don't have immigration. I'm saying be in control of who it is that you allow to enter your country. Period. We don't have that control. The worst case scenario without that control is a lot of bad hombres. There are some bad hombres. There are some examples we can point to. You know, so. Yep. Get control of the border. Get control of it.

JM: That's very kind, Glenn. And of course, there's some bad hombres, yes. But there are a lot of bad hombres right here who were born in the United States, too. And I don't see that the bad hombres are disproportionately represented among the people who trudge across the border trying to open a little store, make a decent living. And I think it's a baby boy with a violent fantasy. And it's utterly unprecedented. I mean, even Pat Buchanan in all ways would behave better if he had made it higher up. I mean, I know there are people with that kind of sentiment, but also he didn't. You know, the country rejected that. And yet Trump has a certain magic charisma. I think Bragg did the right thing, even if it sets a precedent that would be used against somebody who I approve of, because social history is messy. And I think Trump is really like an asteroid, you know, hurtling toward the planet. It's an embarrassment. 

GL: You live in Queens, right? 

JM: I do. 

GL: That's not too far from, was it in the South Bronx where Trump held a rally that drew people? A very, very large and enthusiastic crowd of many people of color and so forth in your hometown. What do you make of that?

JM: I like how you make it near where I live. Depends on what you call near, but yes, I take what you mean. Glenn, most human beings are, um, don't follow politics closely. I don't follow politics as closely as I should. Most human beings don't follow it that closely. Most people are buying their groceries, most human beings. And so that's why Warren Harding was elected because he was good looking. This goes way back. He was a bad president too, but nothing like this Trump. And so, of course, a lot of people, especially guys, are going to like the cut of his jib. He's great to listen to talking. And you figure this is a guy who I want in office because he's going to protect us. And also, there are a lot of immigrants, partly taught by him, who have that feeling that the people who are trying to come in now are going to take our jobs and or there's something wrong with them. Trump helps to foster that idea among people who are, you know, the immigrants themselves or descendants of them. So that's how I would explain it. And of course, charisma is always going to be part of it. Ronald Reagan, I used to love watching his speeches. You know, this frankly vacant person saying things, none of which I believed. And I remember thinking, what an orator this guy is, what magic there is about him. Trump has it too, but he's five years old and he's a horrible, amoral human being. We can't have him. Oh, there are times I almost wish I could. Or somebody else would. We can't have him. You really don't feel that?

GL: No, I don't. I don't. I think it's very interesting. And I'll be watching quite closely to see how things develop. Because he's on a path to winning the election the way you stand right now. Yeah. And what does that say about the country for you, given your assessment of how disastrous it would be for you?

JM: No, you don't[…no]. Charisma always matters. But this time the person who has it is a moron and a near violent one. It's an unusual situation. So it's not that the country deserves a Trump. It's that especially with social media, he can get out there so much. He's dangerous. It shouldn't have happened. No, it doesn't say that the country is a country of people who are about to all become little Victor Orbans. It's the man's charisma and social media, and also in this case, the fact that Biden is such a weak opponent. If there were a magic person that the Democrats have been able to run, if there was an Obama, or if there were somebody really interesting, if there was a Kennedy who actually made sense, then this would be different, but social history is messy.

3. https://www.foxnews.com/us/illegal-migrant-flips-middle-fingers-charged-attacking-nypd-times-square

4. Did John Really Say What I Think He Said?