Posted on 09/30/2005 6:24:29 PM PDT by veronica
Bill Bennett stresses our morality…and pays the price.
In the course of a free-wheeling conversation so common on talk-format programs, Bill Bennett made a minor point that was statistically and logically unassailable, but that touched a third rail — namely, the nexus between race and crime — within the highly charged context of abortion policy.
He emphatically qualified his remarks from the standpoint of morality. Then he ended with the entirely valid conclusion that sweeping generalizations are unhelpful in making major policy decisions.
That he was right in this seems to matter little. Bennett is being fried by the PC police and the ethnic-grievance industry, which have disingenuously ripped his minor point out of its context in a shameful effort to paint him as a racist. He’s about as bigoted as Santa Claus.
Here’s what happened. In the course of his Morning in America radio show on Wednesday, Bennett engaged a caller who sought to view the complexities of Social Security solvency through the narrow lens of abortion, an explosive but only tangentially relevant issue. Specifically, the caller contended that if there had not been so many abortions since 1973, there would be millions more living people paying into the Social Security System, and perhaps the system would be solvent.
Bennett, typically well-informed, responded with skepticism over this method of argument by making reference to a book he had read, which had made an analogous claim: namely, that it was the high abortion rate which was responsible for the overall decline in crime. The former Education secretary took pains to say that he disagreed with this theory, and then developed an argument for why we should resist “extensive extrapolations” from minor premises (like the number of abortions) in forming major conclusions about complex policy questions.
It was in this context that Bennett remarked: “I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose — you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.” Was he suggesting such a thing? Was he saying that such a thing should even be considered in the real world? Of course not. His whole point was that such considerations are patently absurd, and thus he was quick to add: “That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do.”
Bennett’s position, clearly and irrefutably, is that you cannot have tunnel vision, especially on something as emotionally charged as abortion, in addressing multifaceted problems. It is almost always the case that problems, even serious ones, could be minimized or eliminated if you were willing to entertain severe solutions. Such solutions, though, are morally and ethically unacceptable, whatever the validity of their logic. The lesson to be drawn is not that we can hypothetically conceive of the severe solutions but that we resolutely reject them because of our moral core.
This is a bedrock feature of American law and life. We could, for example, dramatically reduce crimes such as robbery and rape by making those capital offenses. We don’t do it because such a draconian solution would be offensive to who we are as a people. But it is no doubt true that if we were willing to check our morality at the door, if the only thing we allowed ourselves to focus on were the reduction of robbery and rape, the death penalty would do the trick.
We are currently at war with Islamo-fascists, and our greatest fear is another domestic attack that could kill tens of thousands of Americans. The attacks we have suffered to this point have been inflicted, almost exclusively, by Muslim aliens from particular Arabic and African countries. Would it greatly reduce the chance of another domestic attack if we deported every non-American Muslim from those countries? Of course it would — how could it not? But it is not something that we should or would consider doing. It would be a cure so much worse than the disease that it would sully us as a people, while hurting thousands of innocent people in the process.
The salient thing here is the moral judgment. But, to be demonstrated compellingly, the moral judgment requires a dilemma that pits values against values. Remarkably, Bennett is being criticized for being able to frame such a dilemma — which was wholly hypothetical — but given no credit for the moral judgment — which was authentically his.
Statistics have long been kept on crime, breaking it down in various ways, including by race and ethnicity. Some identifiable groups, considered as a group, commit crime at a rate that is higher than the national rate.
Blacks are such a group. That is simply a fact. Indeed, our public discourse on it, even among prominent African Americans, has not been to dispute the numbers but to argue over the causes of the high rate: Is it poverty? Breakdown of the family? Undue police attention? Other factors — or some combination of all the factors? We argue about all these things, but the argument always proceeds from the incontestable fact that the rate is high.
The rate being high, it is an unavoidable mathematical reality that if the number of blacks, or of any group whose rate outstripped the national rate, were reduced or eliminated from the national computation, the national rate would go down.
But Bennett’s obvious point was that crime reduction is not the be-all and end-all of good policy. You would not approve of something you see as despicable — such as reducing an ethnic population by abortion — simply because it would have the incidental effect of reducing crime.
Abortion, moreover, is a grave moral issue in its own right. It merits consideration on its own merits, wholly apart from its incidental effects on innumerable matters — crime rate and social security solvency being just two.
“[T]hese far-out, these far-reaching … extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky,” Bennett concluded. It was a point worth making, and it could not have been made effectively without a “far-out” example that highlighted the folly. Plus he was right, which ought to count for something even in what passes for today’s media critiques.
What a mess.
He didn't. A reporter asked a question about Bill Bennett, and near as I can tell, the White House looked beyond the reporter and his stupid question.
It is Amazing reading people on FREE REPUBLIC telling Bill he should watch what he says. The Hell with that. Speak your mind people, it will set you free. I Hate Liberals. That feels good, I am free.
He involved him when he said "the President believes ..."
Yes! The WH was wrong. Dumber almost than anything Bennett said because it gave credence to the slippery left.
Yeah? And?
How? The left has no credence or moral high ground from which to take this non-starter of an issue any further. I say non-starter because it took the left 2 days to get their act together. It's faux outrage, no matter what the White House says or doesn't say.
He was STILL saying that he believed aborting "every black baby in this country" would make the "crime rate would go down.”
Even though he opposed abortion.
I can't believe the contortions the author is going through to try to defend Bennett on this.
It was a stupid inflammatory thing to say.
Thank you!
I can't believe those who think this sort of rhetoric is perfectly OK for politicians or public officials.
So why involve the President in a no win situation if you can avoid it?
AMEN!!!
It was an assinine thing for a politician to say.
Posting HTML
He's not a politician, he is a philosopher. And, no, it was not assinine. It's about time that conservatives, no matter what the stripe, stopped worrying about what the other side says. I'm done w/liberals telling ME what to talk about. Political Correctness is done in my book. Tell it like it is. If you don't like the heat...... get out of the kitchen. Repubs need to get some SPINE.
If we have reached the absurd point where decent, honorable men like Bennett can't speak the un-PC truth about a "sensitive" issue such as the disproportionate crime rate for a certain minority group, then we may as well forget ever solving any of the nation's societal/cultural problems. The first step toward correcting a bad situation is admitting that there is a bad situation in need of correction.
The fact that a large number of people are offended by what Bill Bennett said in it's entirety, which was the truth by the way, is what bothers me the most. I frankly believe there are bigger fights to be won than to sit around, wring my hands, and wonder what the White House will say or do over something that was said on a radio show.
Ewwww! What an excellent reply!
Say it again, louder.
No hand wringing here. Something will come along to move it out of the spotlight and it will be forgotten.
My feelings exactly. The leftist baby-killers and sexual perverts can get away scot free with the most outrageous slander against conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, but we are taken to the woodshed for making a truthful statement that might offend the delicate sensibilities of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
Enough of that nonsense, after this example of feigned outrage for cynical political purposes over an innocent remark by a decent man I'm ready to take off the gloves and fight these hypocrites tooth and nail for the soul of this nation. We conservatives aren't the people who are trying to force acceptance of outright infanticide under the euphemism of partial birth abortion on a nation which has consistently opposed that horrible, unGodly atrocity by a 75-25 margin. We aren't the people who are trying to force acceptance of blatant sexual deviancy and perversion on our society. We aren't the people who are trying to keep black Americans on the liberal political plantation in spite of the social, moral, and economic damage it is doing to the members of that group.
IOW, we aren't the immoral, dishonest, untruthful sector of American society, the liberals are. Why would we ever join that gang of hypocrites, libertines, and liars in condemning a good Christian conservative like Bill Bennett for speaking the non-PC truth? Get a grip people, and stop consorting with the enemy. Bennett did nothing wrong and has nothing to apologize for. Situational ethics are antithetical to true ethics, telling the truth is NEVER wrong but telling a lie is ALWAYS wrong and lies are the stock in trade of our leftist enemies.
Why is it a mess? I hope the brilliant and blunt Dr. Walter Williams chimes in on this matter. I think I know what he will say...
Bennett should NOT be one bit surprised that he is getting flamed over words taken out of context. That is what liberals do, pervert, lie, accuse, destroy, distort, enslave, play act, I could go on and on and on.
Liberals have no standards of morality, they are as "gods" and they "FEEL" good when they can destroy any who aspire to have morals.
But I heard he was using the Socratic for of argument to discuss a question posed by a caller. NOW REALLY , JUST HOW MANY IN THE MEDIA EVEN KNOW WHO SOCRATES WAS?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.