Marc's Blog

Marc's Blog

Marc Lamont Hill vs. Laura Ingraham

31 Comments

On Thursday, I squared off with conservative pundit Laura Ingraham on Larry King Live. We discussed a range of issues, including immigration, racism, corruption, and the effectiveness of the Obama Administration. Thoughts?

31 comments

  1. Andrea - August 1, 2010 2:47 pm

    Laura’s qualities are limited to bullying and her big mouth. I admire you for being diplomatic. Obviously, her arguments are scripted via The O’Reilly Factor. It never ceases to amaze me how the faces of conservative politics look pretty (Palin, Ingraham) but never actually make points. Thank you for standing up to neo-nazi politics. I’m Mexican-American, and it disgusts me how politicians continually refuse to address real issues, such as the depletion of our economy or the laissez-faire attitude regarding big business that leads to the impoverishment of countries like Mexico (as you pointed out). One day, when the youth finally unites, we’ll get these old, narrow-minded men and women out of Congress. Thanks Dr. Hill for your efforts!

  2. Mike - August 1, 2010 3:48 pm

    Outstanding. You are a pleasure to watch, even for those who disagree. Great, civil, logical discussion. I wish you were conservative. You’d be a hero over here!

  3. Michael - August 1, 2010 9:26 pm

    Professor Hill You were reasoned and adroit when out duking Ms Ingraham during each topic covered as evidenced by TSH Ingraham retreating into pure reaction rather than clear analysis I was so impressed i had to find your interview on line and succeeded,.You are a most clear thinker and i would welcome collaborating with you on policies shaoping in which i am involved.
    More on this later All the BEST .

    Michael

  4. Natalie - August 1, 2010 10:49 pm

    Marc,
    You are a class act and brilliant, don’t ever change. You always let everyone finish what they are saying no matter who it is and no matter what they are spuing. I enjoy learning from you.

  5. Rodman L Singleton - August 2, 2010 12:29 pm

    To me these comments evince why factionalism is such a dangerous institution. It allows us to laud the most impoverished arguments made by our allies, and ignore the greatest points made by those we normally disagree with. I agree on Marc’s broader argument that the immigration legislation passed in Arizona is mean-spirited and a product of xenophobia and racism. However, Laura Ingraham’s contentions shouldn’t all be relgated to vacuous rants. Despite the fact that I empathize with the humanitarian and “American” tenets that our country’s priority wuth the immigration clean-up seems to be abandoning, there are practical reasons that prevent us from taking the most heartfelt actions. Nations are businesses, among everything else. There are many, grossly, negative implications to our economic welfare if the Left has its way in reforming policy. Most of the cliche arguments used on the Right to scare Americans about the impact of illegal workers aren’t empirically substantiated, but the proposals like amnesty and nationalization en masse present major issues that are simply common sense.

  6. Lisa - August 3, 2010 8:38 am

    I just so happened to catch this, (because I rarely watch Larry and refuse to allow Faux to be played in this house) and all I could think of was: Why are you (a professor) matched up with HER? If Larry wanted a true debate, why not pick someone on the right that had equal intelligence and not some parrot repeating what they spew on Faux? I thought it wasn’t fair to you to be matched up with that woman who obviously can’t match your intelligence or debating skills! (Of course, now I just realized that they probably couldn’t find an intelligent professor that leans right!) As always Marc, you need to find a forum outside of Faux Lies.

  7. Bishop Carroll Johnson - August 4, 2010 9:23 pm

    I always enjoy your appearances and watched tonight on O’Reilly regarding the ethics charges on the Black representatives. I think it would be helpful in these discussions about motivation to explore the role of the National Legal & Policy Center led by Ken Boehm. They describe themselves as a “conservative watchdog organization” and have been able to refer allegations to the ethics committee, the IRS and FEC. In the past they have targeted not only Rangel and Meeks but list as their accomplishments investigations of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

  8. anna kakazu preble - August 7, 2010 5:50 pm

    I am so disappointed that Laura could not present a more respectful observation on mixed politics. She has NO RIGHT TO DICTATE how a mixed person should identify themselves. She is utterly unable to distinguish between identifying as Polish& Irish (all European “caucasian”) from mixed “race”, which is new to white america considering the laws banning “interracial” marriage. The politics of being “interracial” is much more complex and more recent than the politics of identifying culturally as Irish in the United States. I identify as asian, which is often questioned by white americans because as far as THEY can see, they see a mixed person.

    All individual’s identity is fluid, internal, and organic. The audacity of a white american to dictate that a mixed person should only identify as mixed, so that we can fit into their mental comfort zone, is further imposition upon my freedom as an american.

    Also, thank you for bringing up NAFTA in regards to immigration politics, and thank you for reminding her of the one-drop blood law of the past (funny how short some people’s memory can be!).

    I grew up in the era of “green card marriage” myths which were vicious and harmful attacks against members of my family, so for me the two issues overlap. I do hope next time Laura can engage in a debate she is more polite and quits interrupting and distracting with interjections while the other person is still speaking.

  9. Hapi Bey - August 9, 2010 3:14 pm

    My comment is simply this: Well done.
    You are truly a credit.

  10. Doug - August 12, 2010 10:04 pm

    Great debate Mark. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Keep up the good work.

  11. Kevin - August 12, 2010 10:45 pm

    To Larry King and Dr. Marc Hill, who is Laura Ingraham and why would you be having a discussion of this magnitude with her? All of the innuendos and non sequitur remarks from her only serves to downplay the issues instead of embracing them in order to get to the root of problems and find plausible solutions. She seems more intent on entertaining the audience through the ridicule of others who dare to disagree with her positions. It is shocking that someone with a JD can speak so crassly, but then again she is a “typical” lawyer, inherently opportunistic and quite versed in making frivolous arguments designed to inveigle her audience. Apparently the show has only succeeded in creating a more divisive and less united America. What if we put politics; which is a figment of a righteous group phenomenon aside, would it be possible to have a rational discussion with reasonable results?

  12. Alan - August 13, 2010 12:58 am

    You must be great with kids. I found it harder to stay reserved in the comfort of my own home than you seemed to in studio in the face of such unreasonable emotional outbursts. Larry wasn’t moderating much either. Good job, much to learn from.

  13. Alan - August 13, 2010 3:36 am

    Marc I truly enjoyed the arguments you made. Laura tried to argue even though you agreed with her and in giving intelligent discussion she resorted to speaking over you. She had a crowd that would cheer for emotional points she made rather than intellectual ones. I was highly impressed and hope to see you on CNN more.

  14. michael - August 13, 2010 9:01 am

    watched the show last night, and I think you ate mrs. Ingraham food. It was evident that her arguments were a repetition of ridiculous talking points that have no merits. You are an articulate and cool individual, honestly It must take a lot to commentate with the Fox News crowd, since all their arguments are baseless and are the arguments are centered around a hate for the Obama administration. I realize that they do what they do because the more hate the spew the more popular they grow. Fox news is not a real news channel, each day they circle around the same talking points.

    - They blame obama for everything
    - they scare conservatives into thinking the sky is falling abruptly
    - they villafy ( make villain) of any and all democrats to make it appear that somehow every seperate action done by domecrats is part of a bigger agenda to steal this country away from white people

  15. Christina Whitehurst - August 13, 2010 10:31 am

    Dr. Hill, A 3am re-run of the larry king live show with your debate woke me out of my sleep this morning. I must say I was thoroughly impressed with the way you thoroughly answered and respectfully debated each point. I am an immediate fan. I was so confused by the Laura Ingraham that I didn’t know what to think. Why is it that she cannot agree when you both agree on something, the immigration debate for example she started her response by restating the beginning of yours…..and then said that she didn’t agree? What in the world? This is why no one can work with the conservatives they have a one track mind and cannot even see when we are playing for the same goals during portions of this war….It was highly frustrating again frustrating enough to wake me up at 3am. Thank you for all of the constructive insights you shared. I am enlightened and inspired.

  16. Michelle - August 13, 2010 11:30 am

    Dr. Hill, I watched you for the entire programme (all the way from Jamaica), but you were so distracting with you sexiness, I could not concentrate! I hope I’ll get to see it again!! …this time I’ll not look, i’ll just listen :-)

  17. Byron - August 14, 2010 3:57 pm

    See this is what I mean when I say reactionary politics ( a parties inability to execute on policy issues and execute policy itself)…what happen to the bipartisanship that the right was arguing during the election? The GOP needs to disagree to help balance their defeats in the last few elections including the scandals of the New York Governor and the Bush administration. I say poppy cock…Marc I like the Socratic method of dispute and redutio ad absortum to expose these arguments GOP is calling policy faux pas and bad government.

  18. Lyle - August 15, 2010 1:23 pm

    I searched your websight to find out where you went to college and what you have for degree’s to no avail. I also watched your Larry King show with Laura Ingraham and find most of the above comments disengenuous to say the least. Item: Sarah Palin was more then a mayor of “Mayberry” or have you not remembered she was the Governor of the largest state in the Union. Alaska. In place of pointing fingers, why not do something constructive for the black minority children and families re: sinjgle parents, teen age pregnency etc. When will African/Americans become just Americans like the rest of us? In place of being an activist for entitlements why not self reliance and pride in one’s self. I know they don’t teach that conservative viewpoint in college(I am a grad)but perhaps that is what is wrong with our education anyhow. You talk very fast and have a myopic view of the USA. Seem racially divisive. (See Obama)

    Just my thoughts.

  19. Sharon J - August 19, 2010 11:45 am

    Laura is a catty , silly woman. Thanks for bringing up the fact that many first ladies have had social justice issues that they focus their attention on while in the White House. Nancy Reagan’s work against drug abuse was a great example. Thanks for pointing that out.

  20. Natalie - September 18, 2010 3:15 am

    She seemed to be unwilling or unable to actually engage is any true debate with you. Each of your coherent arguments was met with a smirk and a piece of irrelevant information that sounds like something a fifteen-year-old might say. I’m sorry you weren’t matched with someone who actually wanted to engage with you at your level. Either way, it’s fine. You regularly inject sanity into the public conversation of politics and I appreciate that, no matter who you are talking with. You also say a lot of truthful things without being self-righteous, which is hard to avoid. Excellent work, I hope Fox and CNN keep having you on.

  21. Joan Moore - September 21, 2010 5:06 am

    Mark doesn’t win debates. He just talks non-stop and drowns out the other person. It’s like listening to a chihuahua bark at the postman. Most of his points that he tries to SHOVE down the throat of others are ridiculous and stretch defenses.

  22. Blair E. - September 26, 2010 4:48 pm

    Wow she actually has a crowd behind her Applauding her rebuttals. Serious Manipulation tactics. This Tea Party Movement media campaign is an interesting strategy against Obama’s internet campaign. Its scary though because many of the candidates they they promote drink there on Kool-aid and have great chances to win elections.

  23. Blair E. - September 26, 2010 4:56 pm

    The Marlon Brando Question was an interesting tactic as well. She is Trivializing Marcs creditability and competance by asking a bizaar question right in the middle of a serious debate. As to say the things that Marc is saying require this responsce. She actually manipulates the debates monitor…shes a sneaky one.

  24. Blair E. - September 26, 2010 5:01 pm

    Mark could have exploded her right there by identifying(exposing) outrightly her decisive manipulation tactic because it was so obvious. Simply pointed it out and than returning to the current issue before she could run all the time off the clock. King Should have stopped her from doing that. My question is why isnt king stopping her from doing that.

  25. Blair E. - September 26, 2010 5:04 pm

    Ohh ho she just implied Oreily is a body language expert. Id like to see the certificate.

  26. Blair E. - September 26, 2010 5:11 pm

    This is Crazy She actually invokes the crowd to cheer at the mention of sarah Palin. Mark if you wanna win any debates with these Manipulative Slicksters your gonna have to stay up for 5 days straight. ya heard.

  27. Blair E. - September 26, 2010 5:11 pm

    This is Crazy She actually invokes the crowd to cheer at the mention of sarah Palin. Mark if you wanna win any debates with these Manipulative Slicksters your gonna have to stay up for 5 days straight. ya heard.

  28. Blair E, - September 26, 2010 7:07 pm

    Lauras Manipulation time line:

    1:06-1:13 Minimization: This is a type of denial coupled with rationalization. The manipulator asserts that his or her behavior is not as harmful or irresponsible as someone else was suggesting, for example saying that a taunt or insult was only a joke.

    **Laura minimizes The Gates situation**

    1:13-1:18 Lying: It is hard to tell if somebody is lying at the time they do it although often the truth may be apparent later when it is too late. One way to minimize the chances of being lied to is to understand that some personality types (particularly psychopaths) are experts at the art of lying and cheating, doing it frequently, and often in subtle ways.

    **Laura tells a Lie. the issue was already Big that’s what created the need for a response from the president (Notice How her speaking patterns esculate at around 1:15 I’d call that Fast Talking cleary breaking her speech pattern)**

    1:19-1:22 Generalizes- “I think A LOT OF PEOPLE are really disappointed”
    ***You think? Are you sure and A LOT of people? How Many? For this Shananigan Ill ad another manipulative practice:**
    Lying by omission: This is a very subtle form of lying by withholding a significant amount of the truth. This technique is also used in propaganda.

    1:22-2:04 this part Just gets Ugly she uses and is party of several manipulation tactics. It looks like Marc is fed up by 2:04 and Combats another Bold face Lie. “Obama Didn’t answer the question.” Haha did you catch that. And another Lie implying that Bill O’Reilly is a Body language Expert. Also implying that Barbara and Obama were debating when they weren’t; that’s a lie.

    2:08 2:50 Marc rebuts gets it going but Laura uses more tactics:

    **She dismisses everything Hill says and focuses on White supremacy and its definition. She Bates Mark into discussing white supremacy instead of debating the issue 2 more tactics**

    Feigning confusion: Manipulator tries to play dumb by pretending he or she does not know what you are talking about or is confused about an important issue brought to his attention
    **2:38 Laura says White Supremacy as if that word itself confuses her and is foreign (Maybe it is though but if it is shes not qualified to be on this forum in the first place)**

    ** 2:39-2:44 “whatever you wanna call him” straight up old school diss of the president. I bet a lot of her followers would like to say the same offensive things to the chief of state. I guess they can do it vicariously through her. They don’t need to agree with any of her points, of which she has made none. They just need to wanna diss the president.**

    2:58 The non sequitur debate:
    Non Sequitur- a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said…Merriam Webster Dictionary
    **at about 3:00minutes Laura says that is not a nonsequiter it is a fact. She either does not know what non sequiter means or she knows that her audience doesn’t and is using this as another method to build contension. Either way it still hurts you if your debating her.** I had to look non sequitur up myself.
    3:12 **Not sure if she ever said it was a racial issue or not. So much double talk I lost track and it appears that mark did too. That’s all shes trying to do create the appearance that mark has lost track.**
    Denial: Manipulator refuses to admit that he or she has done something wrong. **and than at around 3:18 another tactic**
    Diversion: Manipulator not giving a straight answer to a straight question and instead being diversionary, steering the conversation onto another topic
    And at 3:24 **she gets nasty another tactic saying Hilarious and other undermining terms and jesters.**
    Shaming: Manipulator uses sarcasm and put-downs to increase fear and self-doubt in the victim. Manipulators use this tactic to make others feel unworthy and therefore defer to them. Shaming tactics can be very subtle such as a fierce look or glance, unpleasant tone of voice, rhetorical comments, subtle sarcasm. Manipulators can make one feel ashamed for even daring to challenge them. It is an effective way to foster a sense of inadequacy in the victim.
    And at 3:26 She nods her head down and to the left. I have no clue what that means but it was not a natural movement. Was someone calling her or did her neck itch or what?
    #:28 Mark says, “Laura Pointed to the election of a black president as evidence that white supremacy no longer lingers” Laura says I never said that. Mark Never said “she said that” he said she pointed to it. Now its time to argue what she said. You cant tell a person what they said unless you rewind the film and watch it. More denial and another Tactic:
    Playing the victim role (“poor me”): Manipulator portrays him- or herself as a victim of circumstance or of someone else’s behavior in order to gain pity, sympathy or evoke compassion and thereby get something from another. Caring and conscientious people cannot stand to see anyone suffering and the manipulator often finds it easy to play on sympathy to get cooperation. **Plus she interrupted This is debating on “CRACK”
    3:37:3:50 Cant argue Statistics can you laura.
    3:53 Realizes Mark stuck in a shot on Republican Policy
    4:03 Mark Ends statement with separation of terms racial and rasist.

    4:03-4:09 Tatic: Feigning Confusion
    4:09 You said a lot of things but the number one thing **Takes ownership of Hills statement Chucks it and says but the number one thing**
    Says “AS Americans” and begins crowd manipulation tactics When did she start speaking on behalf of all Americans. Im an American citizen and I don’t feel that way:

    4:10-4:35 Playing the servant role: Cloaking a self-serving agenda in guise of a service to a more noble cause

    And that’s all I got…or all I can break down right now. Heres the link I used to identify the intimidation practices
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation

    Did some reading up on Laura looks like she wrote speeches for Ronald Reagan and has years of media experience plus a degree from Dartmouth. Im pretty sure she knows what shes doing.

  29. Blair E, - September 26, 2010 7:14 pm

    Repulblicans pundits are not trying to debate any issues their main objective is to sway public opinion and thats it.

  30. Leigh - September 28, 2010 4:55 pm

    Dr. Hill:
    I doubt this will be published, but I will at least voice my opinion. I have sent you a private message regarding an issue on race with American Indian people. What frustrates me is those to the left want to yell and scream about race but it seems for only a select group. How many folks attend sporting events (ALL races) where the mascot is American Indian? How many of those folks (again ALL races) dress in Indian “headdresses,” paint their faces, hold signs that read “Scalp the Indians?” I could go on. Who plays for the Washington Redskins (a mixture of races) and think nothing of that word? Some schools still have mascots called “The Savages.” I wish you would speak about this because American Indian people are invisible to most Americans (this includes ALL races). Until this issue is addressed, when most talk about race, it goes in one ear & out the other. I love what fmr Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell says. He said, “If dependency on the govt is so good, why is it so bad on the reservation?”

  31. Eniola - November 4, 2010 9:50 pm

    Dr. Hill, you seriously need to teach a debate class or something because you are sharp! And even though I enjoyed the entire segment, the part that really got me laughing was the “Can they clap for me? No one’s clapping for me Laura” lol. That was hilarious! Keep up the great work!

Have your say