The Final Word on Bill Bennett
This is not the final word on Bill Bennett because what I have to say is so profound that it will put and end to all other discussion. It is the final word on Bill Bennett because I have taken so long to comment on it.
Bill Bennett, as I assume you know, served as the Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan. He later served as the first “drug czar” under George H.W. Bush. Is it just me, or is it odd that the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy is called the drug czar? Shouldn’t a drug czar head up an international narcotics cartel? Is there something we should know? Bennett is also the author of “The Book of Virtues,” which is ironic from someone who has lost a reported $8 million gambling. Bennett now hosts talk radio program called “Morning in America.” It might as well be called “I Kissed Reagan’s Ass.”
[For those of you too young or out of touch to remember, “It’s Morning in America” was a catchphrase of the Reagan campaign. During that time, many of us felt that we were mourning in America. We had no idea how bad things would get 20 years later. Bennett calling his show “Morning in America” is the same as Rod Paige launching a radio show called “Compassionate Conservative.” Look it up.]
[By the way, yet another of my gripes against our current president is that he’s ruined the word “compassion” for me. It is now a synonym for “political bullshit.” In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, a number of ads have used “compassion” in their copy. I always respond badly. Thanks, George.]
Anyway. Set the Wayback Machine Sept. 28, 2005. I know, it’s not that way back. A caller to Bennett’s program linked the problems with Social Security to abortion. According to the caller, the number of babies aborted since the Roe v. Wade decision would be enough to fund Social Security. Bennett pointed out one of the fallacies in his argument, which is the assumption that these people would all be “productive citizens” (i.e. wage earners). [Another point, which Bennett did not point out, is that not many more than a third of those people would be old enough to be paying into the Social Security fund.] Bennett then made the point that it’s dangerous to use such arguments to oppose abortion because “it cuts both ways.” “It” being, in this case, a scalpel, I imagine. To support his point, he mentioned the book “Freakonomics,” whose authors draw a connection between the decline in crime and the rise in abortion. Bennett said he didn’t think their statistics were necessarily accurate, but then went on: “But 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. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.”
Oh, the hue and cry.
Needless to say, condemnation was quick and furious. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and representatives from countless civil rights groups demanded an apology. By the next day, even the White House had joined the fray, saying the comments were “not appropriate.”
Bennett refused to apologize. The next day, he characterized his statement as a “thought experiment about public policy,” and went on to say “I entertained what law school professors call ‘the Socratic method’ … I suggested a hypothetical analogy while at the same time saying the proposition I was using about blacks and abortion was ‘impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible,’ just to ensure those who would have any doubt about what they were hearing, or for those who tuned in to the middle of the conversation.” This is the short form of the Socratic Method. In the true Socratic Method, Bennett would have made the argument and led his listeners to recognize that it was “impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible.” But who has time for that on talk radio?
The following week, Bennett issued his own battle cry when he addressed the Bakersfield Business Conference. He began, “I have been slandered, defamed, misrepresented and libeled.” Them is the definition of fighting words. He went on, “So today, although I cannot apologize for what I said and meant, which when understood in context ought not be objectionable, I regret that people have misrepresented my views so that they have been the cause of hurt, controversy, and confusion.”
I understand Bennett’s anger at being characterized as a racist. He does not believe himself to be a racist, and no one likes to be accused of something of which they believe themselves innocent. (Most people don’t like to be accused of things of which they know full well they are completely guilty, but that’s another matter.) And while I don’t believe his words were mischaracterized, I do believe they were misunderstood. And in the case of folks like Reid and Pelosi, willfully so. It should be obvious to even the leftest leftist that Bennett did not call for aborting black babies.
Which doesn’t mean he is not a racist. His comments most certainly are.
Bennett’s statement is racist because it equates blacks with crime. This becomes even more apparent when you look at the conversation in its entirely. Bennett says, “one of the arguments in this book “Freakonomics” that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up.” His caller interjects, “Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.” Bennett continues, “Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know.” Bennett clearly says that he does not agree with the premise in “Freakonomics.” He then goes on to say, “But 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.” I don’t see any way to read this other than, “Abortion is not responsible for a drop in crime, but aborting black babies does result in a drop in crime.”
Granted, this was an off-the-cuff comment. Bennett broadcasts every weekday morning for three hours, and much of what he says is off the top of his head. But that is part of what makes it telling. Bennett doesn’t have to qualify his statement, because to him it is so obviously true. Blacks ate the overwhelming cause of crime: he knows it and so does his audience. When called on to apologize, he points to his statement that, “That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do.” He completely misses the point – as do most of his opponents – that what is objectionable is not a call for black abortions, but the unquestioned assumption that black abortions – versus all abortions – would reduce crime.
A subtle distinction? Perhaps. Apparently too subtle for both Bennett and his foes.
Bill Bennett, as I assume you know, served as the Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan. He later served as the first “drug czar” under George H.W. Bush. Is it just me, or is it odd that the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy is called the drug czar? Shouldn’t a drug czar head up an international narcotics cartel? Is there something we should know? Bennett is also the author of “The Book of Virtues,” which is ironic from someone who has lost a reported $8 million gambling. Bennett now hosts talk radio program called “Morning in America.” It might as well be called “I Kissed Reagan’s Ass.”
[For those of you too young or out of touch to remember, “It’s Morning in America” was a catchphrase of the Reagan campaign. During that time, many of us felt that we were mourning in America. We had no idea how bad things would get 20 years later. Bennett calling his show “Morning in America” is the same as Rod Paige launching a radio show called “Compassionate Conservative.” Look it up.]
[By the way, yet another of my gripes against our current president is that he’s ruined the word “compassion” for me. It is now a synonym for “political bullshit.” In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, a number of ads have used “compassion” in their copy. I always respond badly. Thanks, George.]
Anyway. Set the Wayback Machine Sept. 28, 2005. I know, it’s not that way back. A caller to Bennett’s program linked the problems with Social Security to abortion. According to the caller, the number of babies aborted since the Roe v. Wade decision would be enough to fund Social Security. Bennett pointed out one of the fallacies in his argument, which is the assumption that these people would all be “productive citizens” (i.e. wage earners). [Another point, which Bennett did not point out, is that not many more than a third of those people would be old enough to be paying into the Social Security fund.] Bennett then made the point that it’s dangerous to use such arguments to oppose abortion because “it cuts both ways.” “It” being, in this case, a scalpel, I imagine. To support his point, he mentioned the book “Freakonomics,” whose authors draw a connection between the decline in crime and the rise in abortion. Bennett said he didn’t think their statistics were necessarily accurate, but then went on: “But 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. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.”
Oh, the hue and cry.
Needless to say, condemnation was quick and furious. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and representatives from countless civil rights groups demanded an apology. By the next day, even the White House had joined the fray, saying the comments were “not appropriate.”
Bennett refused to apologize. The next day, he characterized his statement as a “thought experiment about public policy,” and went on to say “I entertained what law school professors call ‘the Socratic method’ … I suggested a hypothetical analogy while at the same time saying the proposition I was using about blacks and abortion was ‘impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible,’ just to ensure those who would have any doubt about what they were hearing, or for those who tuned in to the middle of the conversation.” This is the short form of the Socratic Method. In the true Socratic Method, Bennett would have made the argument and led his listeners to recognize that it was “impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible.” But who has time for that on talk radio?
The following week, Bennett issued his own battle cry when he addressed the Bakersfield Business Conference. He began, “I have been slandered, defamed, misrepresented and libeled.” Them is the definition of fighting words. He went on, “So today, although I cannot apologize for what I said and meant, which when understood in context ought not be objectionable, I regret that people have misrepresented my views so that they have been the cause of hurt, controversy, and confusion.”
I understand Bennett’s anger at being characterized as a racist. He does not believe himself to be a racist, and no one likes to be accused of something of which they believe themselves innocent. (Most people don’t like to be accused of things of which they know full well they are completely guilty, but that’s another matter.) And while I don’t believe his words were mischaracterized, I do believe they were misunderstood. And in the case of folks like Reid and Pelosi, willfully so. It should be obvious to even the leftest leftist that Bennett did not call for aborting black babies.
Which doesn’t mean he is not a racist. His comments most certainly are.
Bennett’s statement is racist because it equates blacks with crime. This becomes even more apparent when you look at the conversation in its entirely. Bennett says, “one of the arguments in this book “Freakonomics” that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up.” His caller interjects, “Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.” Bennett continues, “Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know.” Bennett clearly says that he does not agree with the premise in “Freakonomics.” He then goes on to say, “But 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.” I don’t see any way to read this other than, “Abortion is not responsible for a drop in crime, but aborting black babies does result in a drop in crime.”
Granted, this was an off-the-cuff comment. Bennett broadcasts every weekday morning for three hours, and much of what he says is off the top of his head. But that is part of what makes it telling. Bennett doesn’t have to qualify his statement, because to him it is so obviously true. Blacks ate the overwhelming cause of crime: he knows it and so does his audience. When called on to apologize, he points to his statement that, “That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do.” He completely misses the point – as do most of his opponents – that what is objectionable is not a call for black abortions, but the unquestioned assumption that black abortions – versus all abortions – would reduce crime.
A subtle distinction? Perhaps. Apparently too subtle for both Bennett and his foes.
posted by John Bliss at
9:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home