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.
Bennett said nothing that you could compare to Margaret Sanger's views.
This is very well written. I can't believe how the left is using it. Okay, I can believe it, but I find it despicable.
I would have. Williams be absolutely wrong. It's ridiculous to say abortion is wrong then continue on and say well if we did then crime would drop and if only done for those reasons, morality aside.
Yes he was being clumsy. Sounded to me like he was tired and wanted the show to end to me.
"Sadly the white house has validated the attacks on Bennett."
I am so mad at McLellan I could shit nails. Can someone with credentials contact that frigginidiot and set him straight. It is obvious he doesn't do a lick of research/prep for his daily whitewash!
Honest to God, if I were to confront McL right now, I would slap his face. (Or is it McClellan?) who cares, he is an idiot.
>Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, thought much the same thing as Bennett.<
Not very educated are you? Bennett was making his point to show how wrong Sanger was.
"Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, thought much the same thing as Bennett."
Just what did Bennett think? If you are saying that he believed that the crime rate would diminish were all black babies to be aborted, you are a PIG and do not understand (purposely, I suspect) what he said. He specifically denounced the remark. He did NOT agree with it.
Bill Bennett is no racist, but the statement was dumb. I watched Hannity and Colmes last night, and my impression was Dr. Bennett is tired, very tired.
Considering the amount of money he makes in his talk radio show, it's hard to feel sorry for him making a dumb statement. I for one, however, am disgusted by the pile on attitude of the shameful liberal democrats.
I'm also disappointed in the White House's comments, but I'm not surprised. They, the White House, Colin Powell, and Condelezza Rice did the same thing to Trent Lott when he made the praising and joking comments about the 100 year old retiring Strom Thurmond.
Bill Bennett ain't no racist.
Trust me.
Somehow, I think that if Bennett had said you could abort every white male in this country and your serial killer rate would go down....or if he had said you could abort every white male in this country and your white collar crime would go down, the silence from those who are bitching now would be deafening.
"Bill Bennett is no racist, but the statement was dumb. I watched Hannity and Colmes last night, and my impression was Dr. Bennett is tired, very tired."
When you are having an intellectual discussion on a subject, you are bound to argue for or against the issues raised in the subject! Bennett did NOT raise the race issue, it was the theme of the argument presented in the book.
You see, the whole problem is the term 'intellectual discussion'. Most libs can't thing in those terms and, based on some of the comments on this thread, it seems many Freepers can't either.
Let me guess..you're mostly white and/or asian.
I don't believe he is. I just think he was tired or something. It's weird to say something is wrong but then say but yes if you abort crime rates will go down. I abhor abortion and no matter who it is or whatever they're doing, I just don't even go there. It was a weird statement.
That's actually funny.
Bennett was saying the discussion (from the book Freakonomics) that abortion is bad because, saying so many working bodies were not born that we can't support Social Securtity, is not a good way to promote Pro-Life.
He stated that using this could cause people to take the opposite stance.
If all black babies were aborted, it would lower the crime rate. (Notice how wacky it sounds? He has explained that he took the most ridiculous example he could think of). He then stated the reprehensable, etc.
His crime was using the word, "Black".
I get the same thing when I talk like my sister. When I go with her to get a good deep conditioning at her favorite shop, I forget I'm not black.
Then I get around other people who don't know what my family ties are. I find myself sounding like those old liberal whites in the 60's. You know, "Some of my best friends are black." types.
I'm saying, "You know, my sister, my nieces, my husband's nieces, my Great-Niece and........all black!" (it sounds stupid doesn't it?)
The only thing with me is that I'm actually related to my family. I'm not parading them out to prove I'm not a racist.
I do understand the racism in the country. But it's hard sometimes to be forced to think about color so as not to offend someone.
I don't see black. I see the color I have to pay a tanning bed shop for.
It would not surprise me a bit to see a column from Walter Williams in the next few weeks defending Bennett. This is PC BS from the poverty industry, IMO. If he had said "you could abort ALL babies and the crime rate would drop", no one would have given it a second thought.
I agree with you, too. I don't think Bill Bennett is a racist. But there's no getting around that he made an unfortunate comment.
I heard his statement on the radio and I just have to respectfully disagree with you. I don't think he's a racist but I do think the comment was a little 'off'.
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.