In Defense of Bill Bennett

Bill Bennett is a hypocrite, a loathsome fungus on the tree of American politics, a man who has worked unceasingly to make America a worse place--when he's not publishing the work of others under his own name, or rolling the dice at Las Vegas while claiming that America's poor would be rich if only they had the righteousness and moral fiber than he does.

But Bill Bennett is not afflicted with genocidal fantasies about ethnically cleansing African-Americans. The claim that he is is completely, totally wrong. This:

I cite: Bill Bennett on abortion and race: The Right is becoming ever more open about the genocidal fantasies that guide its policies: Link: Bill Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black ba ... [Media Matters].

Addressing a caller's suggestion that the "lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30 years" would be enough to preserve Social Security's solvency, radio host and former Reagan administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such "far-reaching, extensive extrapolations" by declaring that if "you wanted to reduce crime... if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies "would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do," then added again, "but the crime rate would go down."

is simply wrong.

Bennett did not "concede" that "aborting all African-American babies 'would be... morally reprehensible.'" That was his point. His caller said: "Abortion is bad because it has worsened the financing of Social Security." Bennett says: "Stay focused. We're anti-abortion not because we think that abortion is a means that leads to bad ends like a higher Social Security deficit; we're anti-abortion because abortion is bad; make arguments like 'abortion is bad because it increases the Social Security deficit' and other people will make arguments like 'abortion is good because it lowers the crime rate' and we'll lose sight of the main point."

Bennett is attempting a reductio ad absurdum argument.

Never attempt a reductio ad absurdum argument on talk radio. You can't keep exact control over your phrasing in real time, and so somebody is bound to think you are endorsing the horrible absurdity that you are rejecting.

(And, while we're at it: never get involved in a land war in Asia; do not read My Pet Goat when death is on the line; never play poker with a man named 'Doc'; never accept a battle of wits where iocane powder is a factor; never blithely download and install a file from Microsoft without carefully, carefully researching what it will do beforehand; never get involved in an argument over Noam Chomsky; and never post about human genetics on you weblog.)

Comments

[wcw]

Hooey. Bill Bennet's denotated point may have been that abortion is reprehensible, but the attitude his statement connoted was deeply racist and overtly genocidal, and he deserves every iota of opprobrium he gets.

At this point, by far the best thing I can say about the man is that he has patronized dominatrixes. While his wife may see it as infidelity, I applaud the openmindedness he showed. If only it hadn't been the only time in his life that he'd been anything but a poster boy for the worst aspects of North American conservatism.

[RSA]

I agree that Bennett's goal was a reductio, but his example was deeply tinged with racism. Imagine someone talking about violence in the Middle East and saying, "You could kill every Jew in Israel, and there would be less violence in the Middle East. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your level of violence would go down." Should such examples be taken as pure abstractions? I doubt that Bennett's listeners do.

[Buce]

"Never attempt a reductio ad absurdum argument on talk radio." File that with:

Never draw to an inside straight.

Never make a ground invasion of Moscow in winter.

Make water at every opportunity.

[PQuincy]

Ah, it's nice to see that phillipics are making a comeback (sort of). After all, how else could one characterize a "defense" that starts by describing its subject as a "loathsome fungus". Marvellous!

By the way, was Bennett's tactic described above a "reductio-ad-absurdum"? It doesn't seem to be one: rather, he was rejecting prudential justifications of what is, for him, a moral-ontological stance. His way of doing this was to demonstrate (in his lights) that once you admit ANY prudential justifications of a moral crime, you in effect allow ALL prudential justifications: and then it's no longer a moral issue.

I happen to think that his line of thought, while consistent, is one-sided: in the end, we resolve all difficult decisions in ways that consider both morality and prudence (though we are sometimes loth to admit it)--but that's a separate point.

But I'd appreciate a real logician explaining whether or not this was reductio-ad-absurdum.

[LowLife]

It certainly sounds like he was saying that the existence of blacks are raises the crime rate. I know that he was argueing something else in a sophisticated manner and I admit that the statement wasn't a plea for genocide but it was patently racist.

[ricardo]

Hey Brad,

I think "wcw" 's comment is right on the money...

Look at it this way...vis-a-vis this nutcase abortion comment and forget the "but it would be wrong" qualifier Bennett tacks on the end...suppose the speaker substituted "Jewish" for "African-American" or "black"...logically the statement still makes sense - the crime rate goes down (while the scenario just proposed is conveniently disowned) - but wouldn't you get just the slightest inkling of a feeling that the speaker is someone whose politics is more appropriate to anschluss-era Europe???

It gives me the creeps that anyone is hypothesizing like that on the airwaves in the States...

[notyou]

Let's ignore race and assume that criminality (the kind of criminality that besets african-american communities and causes them to be blamed for high crime statistics) results from poverty. Would killing the poor improve the stats? Would the improvement last?

[KevinNYC]

The Freakeconomics argument does not mention race. Bennett makes that leap. The first thing he associates with black people is crime.

This is also coming up post-Katrina tons of latent racism has been bubbling up past the pot lid.

[n.o.t.l.f]

ou wanted to reduce crime... if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.

Unless, of course, Bill Bennett had his way and abortion was outlawed. Then, ironically, the crime rate would go through the roof with all these black babies being aborted.

I don't know if his 'point' was areductio ad absurdum, but it was heavy on the absurdum.

[Cranky Observer]

> It certainly sounds like he was saying that the
> existence of blacks are raises the crime rate. I know
> that he was argueing something else in a sophisticated
> manner and I admit that the statement wasn't a plea for
> genocide but it was patently racist.

Low hits the nail on the head. Whether or not his argument is racist/immoral, the underlying assumption he used to build his point was "more black people = more crime". That is an indefensible and evil idea.

Cranky

[paul]

"Never get involved in a land war in Asia; ..."

Don't forget,

"Never get involved in an argument over Gunter Grass."

[eriposte]

Brad,

Your defense of Bennett is totally off the mark.

Bennett said:
"...you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down..."

He could have just as easily said the following without changing the point he was trying to make:
"...you could abort every baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down..."

See the inclusion of the word "black"? It was a racist dig which aimed to convey the impression that its only (or largely) blacks who commit crimes. In a country with a white majority - with a large percentage of criminals being white, why would Bennett choose to refer only to blacks?

This is the kind of crap that does not need a defense and should not be defended.

[rilkefan]

I defended the DeLong position last night, and my interlocuter said, "It doesn't matter what Bennett thinks, there are some things which can't be even mentioned". We had the same discussion about Summers's remarks - it didn't matter if what he said is actually true if the suggestion is sufficently harmful to many people.

[Ugh]

Bill played the slots, not craps.

That is all.

[realist]

if bill bennett had been aborted, we wouldn't be wasting valuable blog time on him.

[realist]

bill bennett is not a fun-guy.

[Saheli]

Note that Professor DeLong never said Bennet wasn't racist. Merely that he doesn't harbor genocidal fantasies. There's a lot of room between racist and genocidal fantasies.

[Zach]

@Kevin in NYC

I think you have it backwards, I think the first thing Bennett associates with crime is black people.

@Notyou
That is basically the argument put forth in Freakonomics. They argue the reason for the tremendous drop in crime in the 90s was a result of legalized abortion.

[dogfacegeorge]

Maybe Bennett's a racist; I don't know. What I do know is that the bookies have made him a 2-1 favorite in the stupidest man alive competition.

[dogfacegeorge]

And, liking the odds, Bennett bet on himself to win.

[realist]

remember bennet's piece about u.s. student test scores? he used statistics to show that the test scores of u.s. white students ranked highest in the world, but when students of other races were added, the u.s. test scores didn't rank in the top ten. what point was he making then, and is it the same point he's making now?

[Slocum]

"The fact that he expressly referred to black babies means he consciously associates black people with criminal activity..."

Oh, Christ, so do I. And so do YOU, dear fellow commentator (if you have a brain in your head and a minimal bit of honesty) And so, for that matter, do black activists who, correctly, understand that one of the biggest problems facing black America is that such a high proportion of its young men have committed crimes for which they've been incarcerated. It just doesn't do ANYBODY any good (blacks, least of all) to pretend we haven't noticed that high rates of crime and incarceration are a tragedy for African Americans.

[wkwillis]

You mean that Americans of European descent score higher than Europeans of European descent or just children in European schools? Europeans have a lot of immigrants these days. Sweden has 15% immigrant children in their schools, just like America.

[richard]

There is no point in defending an evil political enemy, even if some argument can be constructed that he's been falsely accused. There are much better uses for our energies.

>>one of the biggest problems facing black America is that such a high proportion of its young men have committed crimes for which they've been incarcerated>>

Be careful not to confuse (1) who commits crimes and (2) who gets incarcerated.

[Emma Anne]

"Isn't it pretty much conventional wisdom that African-Americans commit a larger share of crime per capita than whites do, whatever the reasons for that may be (Poverty, Oppression, lack of education)? "

What is racist isn't noticing current crimes rates. What's racist is assuming that blacks will *always* have higher crime rates. That babies born now and in the future are doomed by their race to be criminals.

[Mike]

"Oh, Christ."

Now slocum has added religion (AND 'rhetorical testosterone') to all the race AND class 'hot air' in here...

[ESOTH]

I like free speech. Bennett is free to engage in harmful speech, and we are free to call him on it. Bennett is talking shop with a political compatriot, a compadre, an ally and kindred spirit. He's relaxed, among friends, hair down and talking freely, and that is what bubbles up because that is the way he thinks. If we were going to use preventing abortions as a revenue tool, assuming, for the sake of this exercise, that these newly viable fetuses would all turn out to be productive citizens (read, white) then, logically, allowing abortions could be used to prevent some opposite thing. Now what is the opposite of revenue generating breedstock? Well criminals are a drain on the economy, so bingo! the black babies pop into Bennett's hideous mind. Bennett gets a pass on Brad's Blog, but he'd be fired if he were a color commentator for the MLB or NBA.

[robert waldmann]

And never ever ever use MSN messenger to argue about Noam Chomsky's genes with an Asian man named 'Doc' who snorts iocane powder off the horns of his pet goat.

by the way, what is iocane powder ?

[Slocum]

"Be careful not to confuse (1) who commits crimes and (2) who gets incarcerated."

Are you suggesting that there's NO relationship between criminal activity and incarceration rates? That young black males are no more likely to commit crimes and that their far greater rates of incarceration are due solely to a racist criminal justice system? If so, how do you account for the high rates of crime victimization in poor black communities? Do you suspect non-blacks are sneaking into those communities at night in large numbers to commit crimes?

"What is racist isn't noticing current crimes rates. What's racist is assuming that blacks will *always* have higher crime rates. That babies born now and in the future are doomed by their race to be criminals."

Higher rates of criminal behavior among young black males are not new phenomena. We certainly can all hope that things will improve so quickly that a young black boy born in 2005 will be no more likely to commit a crime end up in prison than the national average in 20 years, but if the last few generations are any indication, the problem probably will not be completely solved by then.

[Slocum]

"by the way, what is iocane powder ?"

It is odorless, tasteless, and dissolves instantly in liquid and is among the more deadly poisons known to man.

It's a Princess Bride reference (scroll down to 'The Battle of Wits'):

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/6665/script.htm#4

[slink]

worthy of a gonzo gong :

"Bill Bennett is a hypocrite, a loathsome fungus
on the tree of American politics,
a man who has worked unceasingly
to make America a worse place
when he's not publishing
the work of others
under his own name
or playing the slots at Las Vegas ...."

[Stormy]

Two stupid birds with one stone: Reductio ad absurdum

What I cannot understand must be consequence of Divine Design. Because I cannot understand how my lawnmower functions—enough to fix it--, therefore God has clearly had a hand in designing my lawnmower.

[Angry Blue Planet]

"God has clearly had a hand in designing my lawnmower."

Not only that. Bill Bennett clearly had a hand in designing my manure spreader.

[Buce]

"Be careful not to confuse (1) who commits crimes and (2) who gets incarcerated."

Seems to me there is some scope for inquiry here. E.g., tis commonly said that most criminals are stupid. True of those that commit stupid crimes. The interesting criminals are the imaginative sociopaths who know how to cause illimitable damage while operating in the white space around the letter of the law.

[Jacob Davies]

As many others have already said, I don't think all those criticizing Bennett failed to notice his underlying point. I certainly realized what he was trying to say when I read the Media Matters story, but it was still a disgusting & reprehensible comment. That he was trying to make some other point is not a defense.

[realist]

it's not just race with mr. bennett.

William Bennett, Gays, and the Truth
Mr. Virtue dabbles in phony statistics.
By Walter Olson
Posted Friday, Dec. 19, 1997, at 12:30 AM PT

"This is tough news. It's not pleasant to hear," said former Education Secretary William Bennett on ABC's This Week Nov. 9. "But it's very important, and it's part of telling the truth." The occasion for tough-but-needed truth telling: Bill Clinton's first-ever presidential speech to an organized gay-rights group, the Human Rights Campaign. Clinton had conferred respectability--wrongly--on the gay quest for approval when in fact, said Bennett, he "should tell the truth on this one": Homosexuality "takes 30 years off your life." The average life expectancy for gay men, Bennett declared, was just 43.

[just pete]

Its a mistake to conclude higher rates of criminality among blacks or black youths. Take some time to examine the legal system or even the weak and propgandistic FBI reports and you will see that you are in error.

What can be referred to correctly is higher rates of enforcement and prosecution. Think of how many crimes GW has committed in his life and tell me where he fits in the crime statistics?

[mattfwood]

30 years off your life. That's a good one. That's like the Bushies arguing that social security reform would do more to help African Americans, who usually die off before cashing in. THAT, as much as anything, demonstrates how the right thinks.

Staffer: "Sir, this 'special interest group' seems to be dying off earlier than normal, white people are. Should we investigate the problem?"

Moral Leader: "Nah. Let's just call them immoral, blame them for their own problems, and throw them a bone in the entitlement process."

[pebird]

It's more of an argument reductio bull shitium

[Slocum]

Its a mistake to conclude higher rates of criminality among blacks or black youths. Take some time to examine the legal system or even the weak and propgandistic FBI reports and you will see that you are in error.

OK, so then how do you account for higher rates of crime victimization in poor black communities? Or is that a 'myth' too?

[Isla Palma]

Damn, I was sure this was my year to win "Stupidest Man Alive." Maybe next year!

[moab]

Brad is wrong, Bennett's statement is genocidal in that it supports racist conceptions of the inferiority of blacks. The comment is clearly, unambiguously racist. Bennett equates the color of a fetus's skin with an increased propensity to commit crime, implying that blacks are predisposed to crime (for some unnamed reason). It is true that crime committed by blacks exceeds those of other races in this country, but there may very well be mitigating reasons for this, such as a racist society that considers them inferior and a justice system that is tainted by this racism, and poverty. Overt racist factors may not be responsible for all of the increased crime (conviction) rates of blacks, but it certainly accounts for a good part of it, if not all. Bennett doesn't mention any of this. He equates skin color with propensity to commit criminal behavior rather than concern himself with the myriad causes of crime.

It may not be a call to genocide but it is an attempted justification for it. To me, that is a distinction but not a meaningful one.

[captain]

moab: well-put. It's also important to note that saying it about *potential future babies* has a very different connotation than saying it about people alive right now; whereas we can feel pretty safe with certain demographically-based characterizations (if not their ascribed causes) like "the black community witnesses a greater per capita incidence of crime" suggesting that killing those yet to be born WILL lower the crime rate indicates a belief that nothing can or will change no matter what else people do. It's also a subtle point, but it's the one that pisses me off, and it's not only racist but utterly callous besides.

Do these people make bets to see who can get away with the most outrageous statement on a broadcast? Because it's so goddamn dumb lately that I'm convinced they've got to be doing it on some kind of bone-headed frat-boy dare.

[realist]

here's proof that bennett is not a racist. in this excerpt from an article he wrote, he bravely stood up for white equality.

"To see Ms. Gratz's case — and so many others like hers — as simply coincidental is to ignore the race-based policies used at the University of Michigan. Michigan's policy actually rewarded admissions points to applicants who were black and Hispanic. On a scale of 150, race counted for 20 points — more than personal achievement and SAT scores combined. In fact, a black student was 174 times more likely to be admitted to the Ann Arbor campus than a white student: That is disparate impact. But far worse, it is taking race into account to convey a right or privilege as well as to deny a right or privilege, and the word for that is, plainly and simply: racismTo see Ms. Gratz's case — and so many others like hers — as simply coincidental is to ignore the race-based policies used at the University of Michigan. Michigan's policy actually rewarded admissions points to applicants who were black and Hispanic. On a scale of 150, race counted for 20 points — more than personal achievement and SAT scores combined. In fact, a black student was 174 times more likely to be admitted to the Ann Arbor campus than a white student: That is disparate impact. But far worse, it is taking race into account to convey a right or privilege as well as to deny a right or privilege, and the word for that is, plainly and simply: racism."

[Unstable Isotope]

Bennett's comments were extremely vile and racist, and the fact that he said we shouldn't do it does not nullify anything that he said. That he isn't explicitly calling for genocide is the best thing you can say about his comments.

What Bennett is doing, which many commenters have noted, is one type of racism. While it is true that African American men are more likely to be incarcerated (I'm not sure this means they commit more crime, after all Ken Lay is still walking free.), he's conflating some with all. It's a short jump to note it is more likely to saying all African American men are criminals, and should be treated with suspicion. It's a short hop to racial profiling and internment.

[rj]

Shorter Bill Bennett: I'm not genocidal -- I'm a racist.

[CapitalistImperialistPig]

Brad - "Bill Bennett is a hypocrite, a loathsome fungus on the tree of American politics"

As a fan of mushrooms and mushroom culture, I take strong exception to this invidious comparison of fungi to Mr. Bennett.

[piotr]

Dear CapitalistImperialistPig: you should notice that beside fungi that are delicious there exists also other that are either poisonous, or have awful taste, or stink, or look obscene. E.g. stinkhorn stinks, is slimy and resembles a phallus. Nobody here compared Bill Bennet to boletus mirabilis.

[John Emerson]

Rilkefan:
'I defended the DeLong position last night, and my interlocuter said, "It doesn't matter what Bennett thinks, there are some things which can't be even mentioned". We had the same discussion about Summers's remarks - it didn't matter if what he said is actually true if the suggestion is sufficently harmful to many people.'

Basically, what Bennett said was fighting words. It was a defect of tact, or perhaps an insulting slip of the tongue (like the Republican Congressman's "Barney Fag" remark, which even if inadvertent was a Freudian slip).

"If we aborted all Jewish babies, we'd have a lot fewer shyster lawyers and Hollywood scumbags."

And so on.

In the context of the things being said about NOLA survivors, it's especially bad.

[CapitalistImperialistPig]

John E - "If we aborted all Jewish babies, we'd have a lot fewer shyster lawyers and Hollywood scumbags."

Nah. We could replace those guys easily with WASPs. And we could probably find some Indians to replace the surgeons. Violinists and physicists might be harder.

[J Thomas]

"The interesting criminals are the imaginative sociopaths who know how to cause illimitable damage while operating in the white space around the letter of the law."

Somehow, the first time I saw that it looked like "...to cause illimitable damage while operating in the white house...". I can't imagine why.

[donna]

Doesn't Bennett have gambling to do? Why is he on the radio? To support his gambling habit? Would more abortions put an end to gambling, too? Inquiring minds want to know....

[CodeBaloo]

>> It certainly sounds like he was saying that the
>> existence of blacks are raises the crime rate. I
>> know that he was argueing something else in a
>> sophisticated manner and I admit that the statement
>> wasn't a plea for genocide but it was patently racist.

> Low hits the nail on the head. Whether or not his
> argument is racist/immoral, the underlying assumption > he used to build his point was "more black people =
> more crime". That is an indefensible and evil idea.

I see "indefensible" and "evil", but what is conspicuous by its absence is "incorrect".

Elsewhere, I see "racism" and "genocide", but again, I don't see "incorrect".

This just illustrates one of the reasons progressives' opinions in America are often immediately dismissed: because too many liberals are so driven to prevent hurt feelings they simply ignore the elephant-in-the-room facts. Better to lie and spare some feelings, they think, than tell the obvious truth and upset someone.

It's great (noble, even) to work toward a dreams of a better future -- one where the lions lays down with the lambs -- but not at the expense of refusing to accept or even acknowledge the realities of the now.

Data exist. Data is an objective, equal-opportunity offender. Ignoring it does not make it go away.

Kudos to slocum for being honest... and challenging most of the rest of you to recognize that you're lying to yourselves.

[Slocum]

"If you don't acknowledge it you are living in denial, which is worse. To believe that the civil rights movement eradicated or substantially reduced the racism of this society is fantasy. It just made it impolite to express your racism."

One would think the question of whether and to what extent the civil rights movement reduced racism in this society would be open to debate -- perhaps it might even be considered an empirical question. But, no, apparently not--rather if one does not have the 'correct' beliefs about this (e.g. that little or nothing of significance has changed) then one is in denial and, therefore, a racist.

Gack. As much as I can't stand the Bill Bennets, Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs of this country, this kind of PC crap is one of the main reasons while I doubt I'll ever count myself a member in good standing of the left.

[Buce]

"It just made it impolite to express your racism."

You know-/if/ the CR movement accomplished nothing else, and /if/ it accomplished this--then it accomplished no small thing. Hypocrisy and shame can be great inhibitors; they can raise the marginal cost of certain kinds of unconstructive behavior.

[John Emerson]

IF Slocum and CodeBaloo had been aborted at birth, we'd have fewer trolls today, but it would be wrong to do that!

And further, it's incorrect to even talk about it. So I won't say anything, because I'm PC.

[CodeBaloo]

> IF Slocum and CodeBaloo had been aborted at birth,
> we'd have fewer trolls today, but it would be wrong
> to do that!

> And further, it's incorrect to even talk about it. So
> I won't say anything, because I'm PC.

Mr. Emerson:

Perhaps my understandings of a blog comments section and a "troll" are in error.

I thought a blog comments section was for readers to offer thoughtful comment on/response to the post they had just read.

I thought a troll was a person who cruised, or "trolled" online chats and discussions for the purpose of abusing the medium by posting comments intended solely to provoke other participants.

Again, perhaps my understandings are wrong. If so, please forgive me for pointing out that I offered a thoughtful (albeit apparently contrary) comment on/response to the post. You, on the other hand, responded to my thoughtful comment with a comment intended solely to provoke other participants.

Hmmm. *I'm* a troll? Interesting.

Anyway, I stand by my original post that the data speaks for itself. Is Bennett insensitive? Racist? Rash? Certainly, maybe, and absolutely. Based on the record, are his statements incorrect? Nope.

His point was, I believe, to demonstrate what he believed to be the absurdity of an idea presented in Freakonomics. Who knows... maybe he even knew it'd create an uproar when he said it, but no one but him knows his motive.

[derek]

Bennett isn't a racist because he didn't say it would be morally reprehensible to kill all black babies: as you point out, he did. No, what makes Bennett a racist is that he didn't say it wouldn't work: the crime rate would *not* go down.

In fact at the end of his argument he affirmed his belief. I quote:

"you wanted to reduce crime... if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. [...] the crime rate would go down."

That's not me cutting and pasting wrong, that's Bennett saying twice that if you aborted all black babies, the crime rate would come down, and that's a racist belief.

Now brace yourselves, because I'm going to have a pop at Americans now. The fact that so many white Americans completely failed to even notice that element of Bennett's argument is an indication of how deep racism goes in American society, left and right alike. The Katrina debacle was another. America, your ass is showing.

[derek]

Also, you forgot to say: you can tug on Superman's cape, but don't try that shit with Batman.

[come on!]

1) Distinguishing law enforcement from criminality is crucial to any argument discussing relative rates of crime in the "black" and "white" communities. Think of the disparity in sentences assigned to possession/dealing of crack vs. powder cocaine. Which, now that I think of it, isn't even so much an enforcement issue as it is the very definition of what constitutes criminal behavior.

2) In any case, the notion that aborting ALL AFRICAN-AMERICAN BABIES (for chrissakes) would result in a reduction of crime is incredibly asinine. Consider the civilizing force of parenthood. Any parents out there? Calm down a bit when you suddenly found yourself saddled with a level of responsibility you never dreamed possible? Focus in a little, didya maybe?

The reality of a program that would literally abort all African-American pregnancies would constitute blatant genocide. Its literal instantiation would immediately (and for a long time to come) greatly increase the sense of hopelessness and irrationality in the world, especially among the "black" community, but very much also among the "white" community. Within the community, nothing would make sense anymore. Crime would fucking SKYROCKET.

Bill Bennett is a racist. He does indulge in genocidal fantasies. Worst of all, he's a fucking moron.

[Paddy Carter]

strikes me that one or two people do not seem to understand what reductio ad absurdum means.

[Oberon]

"Never try teaching a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

[John Emerson]

Codebaloo: My psot was a reductio ad absurdum, you see. Or maybe a litotes. One of them figures of speech.

[J Thomas]

How did we get to the point that jpeople are wasting their time arguing whether or not Bennett is a racist?

Don't you guys have anything important to do? Why aren't you out getting Bush impeached or something?

[Slocum]

"The reality of a program that would literally abort all African-American pregnancies would constitute blatant genocide. Its literal instantiation would immediately (and for a long time to come) greatly increase the sense of hopelessness and irrationality in the world, especially among the "black" community, but very much also among the "white" community. Within the community, nothing would make sense anymore. Crime would fucking SKYROCKET."

Aarrghh! It's a friggn' thought experiment intended to be both absurd and horrifying. In that, it is squarely in the tradition of Swift's 'Modest Proposal'. Or do you think that, even though Swift didn't really MEAN that the Irish should eat their children to have written such a thing, even as a satire, was a sign of Swift's deep anti-Irish racism?

What Bennet is saying is that EVEN IF it were effective (in the manner suggested by Freakonomics) to have a policy of encouraging the aborting of children statistically more likely to grow to commit crimes, we should still find this absolutely appalling.

What Bennet is saying is that the Freakonomics notion, that easy access to abortion may reduce crime (with the implication that it therefore may be more acceptable because of that effect) is ghastly. That it is a real-life version of Swift's modest proposal in action. That it does not differ greatly from the idea of 'preferentially' aborting black children because they're more likely to grow up to commit crimes.

From Bennet's perspective, the idea of aborting black babies to reduce crime is (or should be) gruesomely unthinkable. That is why he used that example (and why it is an effective example).

Damn. If I hang around you lot long enough, I'm afraid Bennet is going to start looking better.

[Niels Jackson]

Look: Mr. DeLong, who obviously doesn't like Bennett, is willing to be fair here. And he's exactly right. Bennett wasn't arguing for the elimination of black babies. He was holding that up as an example of a BAD AND IMMORAL ARGUMENT, so that he could explain to the caller why you don't judge the rightness or wrongness of abortion based on speculation about what the aborted babies would have done if they grew up.

Some people are saying, "Well, gee, isn't it racist to assume that black people would commit crimes?" As an individual matter, yes, it would be racist to assume that any individual black person is a criminal. Absolutely. But as a *statistical* matter, there is absolutely no question that the black population is responsible for a disproportionate level of crime. It's not just a matter of regular cocaine vs. crack cocaine, as one commenter suggested, nor is it a matter of increased policing in the black community. Homicide rates are one area where nearly every crime is extensively investigated, i.e., it's not that anyone ignores substantial numbers of homicides in one community or another. And there too the rates are vastly disproportionate. One very typical federal report [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/viocrm.txt] says: Black males had the highest homicide rates (72 per 100,000 population), followed by black females (14 per 100,000), white males (9 per 100,000), and white females (3 per 100,000).So the black male homicide rate is 8 times the white male rate, and 24 times the white female rate. There is no dispute about this fact. (By far, most of the victims are other blacks, by the way.)

So while Bennett could have added even more caveats, he was pretty much right.

[rea]

"His point was, I believe, to demonstrate what he believed to be the absurdity of an idea presented in Freakonomics."

The Freakonomics argument is tht many of the factors that lead people to obtain abortions--single parent, poverty, lack of desire for another child, etc., are essentially the same factors that lead children to become criminals.

Bennet is using "black" as a proxy for these factors, and that's a racist assumption.

[Touche...]

[George Orwell]

Slocum,

I think the great majority of commentators on this topic understand that Bennett was trying to make an argument against abortion. That's not the issue.

The issue is that he was not making "A Modest Proposal" arguement. Swift's arguement was against the inherent racism of the time - Bennett's arguement is not against racism, it is against abortion.

He does not in fact acknowledge the inherent racism of his arguement. He just doesn't see it when he says it. To him, it's perfectly all right to group all Blacks in a group of either criminality or poverty.

This is exactly the type of thought process which Swift attacks in "A Modest Proposal." And that makes what he said racist, no matter what crime statistics say.

[CodeBaloo]

We interrupt these comments for a completely unrelated note...

A nod of accomplishment to Mr. DeLong. This was my first visit to your blog. I happened to follow a link to this post offered in a discussion forum. And similar to the makeup of that discussion forum, I've noticed that while there are _widely_ varying views among the commentors here, almost none posted the typical blog "Well, CodeBaloo, if you don't agree with me, you're just a doo-doo head dummy brain" comment. Most replies are thoughtful and well-presented. That you attract such an audience, Mr. DeLong, says a lot about the quality of your posts.

And now we return you to your regularly-scheduled comments, already in progress...

[just pete]

Slocum, you are the one maintaining and repeating political correctness. You even repeat the distortion that people who support individual rights and the rule of law become defined as "the left" merely because they oppose the republicans.

What is your point about crime victimization? I noticed that you didn't respond to my argument, but go ahead, tell me your theory of how the same politically contrived crime statistics support your theory of ethnic morality. Don't just attack and run, give a brief synopsis of why you think blacks are more immoral than whites.

[Rich]

Could it be that Bennett was just putting forward the most reprehensible idea possible to show how stupid the caller's argument was?

I think this entire pile on Bill Bennett thing is stupid, especially when there are so many real issues, regarding people with real power, doing real bad things, that the media should be talking about. Every second that CNN dedicates to this entire idiotic "he said, he thinks, he implies" argument is a second not dedicated to "he did" stories about how the right is actually rotten to the core.

[PQuincy]

@derek

You commented: "The fact that so many white Americans completely failed to even notice that element of Bennett's argument is an indication of how deep racism goes in American society, left and right alike."

There's truth in this, and I got distracted by the shiny ornaments of "what kind of argument was it" and missed the extra loathsomeness of Bennett's analogy. Even if Brad is right on the argument, (and even if we accept that Bennett is not a genocidal maniac), the callousness and inhumanity of statement deserved to be front-and-center.

I apologize.

It's not that "there are some things that can't be mentioned": rather, IMHO, there are some things that humane persons MUST recognize are loathsome, racist, and profoundly hurtful. And a humane person, in my book, decides that the shiny baubles of a clever argument are never worth "playfully" saying such a thing. It's not political correctness that's at stake: it's moral character -- precisely what Bennett evidently lacks.

[Niels Jackson]

Rich -- you're exactly right. Bennett didn't bring up "black babies" because he wanted to put down black people. He brought it up so as to demonstrate what horrible arguments could be made IF you start analyzing abortion based on speculation about who is getting aborted. AGAIN PEOPLE: AS DELONG OBSERVES, BENNETT WAS DELIBERATELY POINTING OUT AN IMMORAL ARGUMENT. Only a moron would think that Bennett *agreed* with the immoral argument when his WHOLE FREAKING POINT was to condemn it.

[George Orwell]

Niels,

You miss the point: Bennett's arguement is about abortion; it's not about racism. And that's the problem.

If you argue abortion is bad in and of itself, what does that have to do with the color of your skin? But that's not what Bennett argued. He argued that it would be immoral to abort all BLACK babies. By arguing that, he makes an assumption about blacks. And that assumption is that they are different from whites in some fundamental way that that difference can be quantified. That's where the problem is. His remark is inherently racist.

He may not consider himself a racist; but he believes Blacks are sufficiently other. It is an inherently racist arguement.

Again, whether he believes in the morality or immorality of his arguement is beside the point of this discussion. The question is, is Bill Bennett a racist. Given the evidence, one has to say, "yes, he is."

Now, whether he would act upon his innate racism is a separate question and one that I would answer with "yes, he would, just not in the most extreme sort of action."

Which brings up another question: If you are acting on your innate beliefs, how do those beliefs shape public policy when you are in a position to do so?

[Slocum]

"What is your point about crime victimization?"

Sigh. The point is that unfair, selective prosecution or unfair conviction of black defendents cannot account for the fact that black people living in predominantly poor black neighborhoods suffer far greater rates of victimization. The only possible rational explanation for that is that their neighbors are more likely to commit crimes.

"I noticed that you didn't respond to my argument, but go ahead, tell me your theory of how the same politically contrived crime statistics support your theory of ethnic morality."

I don't see an argument. And I proposed no theory of 'ethnic morality'.

"Don't just attack and run, give a brief synopsis of why you think blacks are more immoral than whites."

Do you mean, why are blacks more likely to commit crimes than whites? I don't have any special theories, just the conventional ones -- poverty, lack of opportunity, self-perpetuating culture in which crime is considered quasi-acceptable and, to some extent, even glamorous. It should go without saying, but I don't believe blacks have any inherent propensity toward criminal behavior, rather any group of human beings growing up in such circumstances would exhibit similar tendendencies.

[John Emerson]

Slocum, Bennett's bona fides for making grisly but ultimately well-intended hypothetical speculations about black babies are not in place.

I'll repeat my opinion that the problem isn't the facts of the case or even what Bennett was trying to say, but the tactless example Bennett chose to make his point. I think that unless one is very sure of one's standing in a community (or willing to antagonize them) you shouldn't make casual offhand hypothetical references to aborting all of their babies. Especially granted, as I've said, the recent context, when a shockingly large number of commentators have been blaming the black victims in N.O.

[realist]

is it possible that bennett, hannity, o'reilly and limbaugh are decent human beings, who have discovered that there's a lot of money to be made by publicaly acting like caustic pricks?

[George Orwell]

BTW, Just thought of this: But a more immoral arguement against abortion (which is what Bennett was trying to argue against) would be: "If we aborted every (put a number here) pregancy, then crime would go down."

The arguement as Bennett wanted to make it would still hold.

[alan aronson]

"Bill played the slots, not craps.

That is all."

If you play craps you have to interact with other people.

[Michael Carroll]

PF

your wrong because young people committ more crime than older people so yes in fact Aborting avery nth pregnancy would cause the crime rate to go down.

[Niels Jackson]

Since when do you have to have "bona fides" for pointing out that a particular style of argument (consequentialism) would encourage other people to make horrible and immoral arguments? That's all that Bennett was doing. It was a goddamn stupid thing to do, if only because so many other people are too goddamn stupid to understand an argument. As DeLong point out, they think that if you demonstrate a reduction ad absurdum, you yourself are to be blamed as if you had made the absurd argument in seriousness.

[paul]

Building on previous comments by George Orwell, Rich (September 30, 2005 at 02:36 PM) and Neils Jackson: I did not hear the broadcast, but I suspect that Bennett was not making any assumptions about blacks. Rather, he was making a presumption about his listeners' beliefs, i.e., that blacks are inherently more criminal than whites. To make the case against abortion as clear as possible to his listeners, he was willing to assume a situation that they would find plausible and in which abortion would have some practical benefits of which they were likely to approve. Even in this case, he was saying, abortion is wrong.

My point, if correct, says nothing about the decency of Bennett's belief, statement, or action (i.e., the argument he chose to make). It is only a hypothesis about his own beliefs (i.e., who he believes listens to him, rather than about blacks) and about the action he chose based on them.

[George Orwell]

Please let me know those obvious reasons, because it looks to me as though you are making an assumption about a whole group of people.

Given random selection of pregancies to be aborted, I don't see how the Crime Rate wouldn't go down just as efficiently.

[a different chris]

>From Bennet's perspective, the idea of aborting black babies to reduce crime is (or should be) gruesomely unthinkable.

No, the idea of aborting black fetuses is what bothers Mr. Bennett. Once the pop their little nappy heads out of the womb, they are clearly well on their way to becoming criminals and Mr. Bennett is a solid supporter of applying the death penalty to these, well, let Mr. Murray step in here and explain what the fundamental problem with "these people" are.

Slocum, I always thought you were a bit of a dunderhead when it came to Iraq, but I never disliked you until now. We don't want you as part of the "left", thanks.

>Bennet said the crime RATE would go down, and in that he would be correct.

Only if, in their future, their blackness was still a pretty straight shot to poor schools and politically abandoned neighborhoods. Do you think it will be, and why do you think that?

[a different chris]

>so many other people are too goddamn stupid to understand an argument.

It's funny when 90% of the people here make it clear that they understand what Bennett's argument (the abortion part) was, and go on to explain how the construction of his argument was racist...

And the guy that clearly can't understand their arguments is the one calling everybody stupid. Mmm. Kay.

[george orwell]

Okay; I understand the social engineering behind it (we should just call it what it is - eugenics), but then we still haven't removed the issue of race from Bennett's remarks.

He could just as easily have said "if you aborted all poor babies, the crime rate would go down." Or is there something I'm missing here?

[pebird]

The point isn't that Bennett is racist (too broad a category) or that he created an absurd, extreme example - it's the CHOICE he made to do so.

Remember, Bennett is a politician - he knows about language, he knows about the media, he is not just a guy speaking extemporaneously. He has been around the block a few times.

When you look at this - you have to be struck by the choices he made.

Why aborting black babies - because it was an easily identifiable group - saying "if we aborted all gay babies we wouldn't have AIDS", wouldn't work because it raises the question of how/when someone is gay. Saying "aborting all feminists" wouldn't work for similar reasons.

Even, "aborting all Jews, we wouldn't have ..." wouldn't work because of the choice of religion vs. ethnicity - no, for the sake of his argument he had to select a characteristic that was clear, unambiguous and a non-choice of the baby in question - gender couldn't work, so race was clearly the card to play.

But why black babies, why not "if we aborted all Hispanic babies, we wouldn't have wetbacks", or "if we aborted all Irish babies, we wouldn't have alcoholics or poets" - all of those examples are weak - no for maximum effect, it had to be black babies.

Finally, why crime rates? Why not poverty rates? Why not education (since he was an education-kind-of-guy). Why not sickle-cell anemia? Why not jazz? Why not rap? No, it had to be crime, again to have maximum effect for his audience.

Plus, the speed with which he came up with this is astounding - not written down thoughtfully in an article, but spontaneous, as if this is was sitting in his unconscious waiting for the right time to erupt. Maybe he was still angry about the hits the adminstration has taken on Katrina/New Orleans.

Bennett now claims his words were taken "out of context". He better get used to a few days of people trying to dissect his words and figure out exactly what context he was working on.

[A. Zarkov]

CodeBaloo:

Your concept of a troll is correct. Nevertheless some people (like Emerson) have a different concept. They feel a blog site like this one is for like-minded people to give each other mutual support. A dissenting voice is not welcome. Others feel differently and like well-expressed contrary opinions. One occasionally comes across people who feel there is a unique “correct” answer (usually theirs) to many questions of social policy and regard dissenters as either stupid or evil. The Communist Party took this position, and would try to silence dissent while publicly extolling the virtues of free speech. They felt they knew the truth and anyone to the contrary was the enemy.

[Michael Carroll]

Neils,

Go over your next door neighborhs house and make a reductio ad absurdum argument over dinner about how horrible it would be if you raped his thirteen year old daughter every night. See how well that goes down.

Now as your neighbor is pounding your face into a pulp, put yourself into his shoes for a second. Is the real reason your getting the living crap beat out of you that your neighbor is "too goddamn stupid to understand an argument?" Or is it that your "too goddam stupid" to know how to make one?

[Michael Carroll]

I'll admit when throwing the word "stupid" around it would help if I could spell.

[Julian Apostate]

Having been raised by a single mother makes you:

32 times more likely to run away;
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders;
14 times more likely to commit rape;
9 times more likely to drop out of high school;
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances;
20 times more likely to end up in prison.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think the fatherless child-rearing rate within the black community is upwards of 60%, while it's around 20-25% for whites (which was about the same rate within the black community when Sen. Moynihan wrote his controversial memo). If I'm not mistaken, of all the socio-economic factors alleged to be responsible for criminality, having been raised by a single mother is the most tightly correlated with actual criminal behavior. Bennett should know all this, and this is what he was probably trying to get at. But the fact that he confounded that with simply "being black," even though the problem is obviously far more severe in the black community, absolutely tells us something about where he's coming from.

[Nietzschean]

In searching for a home for my family, I have found that race is a fairly reliable proxy for crime. If I avoid neighborhoods where most of the residents are black, I am also avoiding neighborhoods with high crime rates. Do you think I'm racist? Do I care?

[Michael Carroll]

Nietschean

No you probably don't care if your kids never meet a Black person face to face until their thirty. They will grow up learning everything they know from TV, Rap Videos and Talk Radio. Much worse everything else they learn will probalby be from you.

No you probably don't care but your attitude is F'ing up our Country.

[simon]

For a non-black American politician to say this was silly. What he said was factually correct though, as near to certain as anyone can determine - no black babies = less crime (presumably in 15 years or so) which I think almost everyone knows to be true, whether they think it should be said or not. Current black Americans' crime rates are around 7 times white Americans' rates, whether the difference is environmental, genetic or both, that has been true a long time and is unlikely to change substantially within the next 15 or 20 years.

[Niels Jackson]

Bennett should have phrased it this way:

"You shouldn't argue against abortion on the theory that the aborted babies would have grown up to contribute to Social Security. That's not the sort of thing that makes abortion right or wrong. Once you start down that road, there are all sorts of people out there who will happily argue that when impoverished and single women -- including many black people -- have abortions, that cuts down on the number of future criminals. And it would be morally reprehensible even to mention the supposed benefits of aborting black people. Since you don't want to lay yourself open to that sort of reprehensible argument, don't even start down that road in the first place."

That's all that Bennett was trying to argue, but phrasing it that way would have avoided all the reactions to the soundbite about "aborting black babies."

Again, as for the notion that Bennett was racist in linking crime to black people -- well, look at the statistics. As a statistical matter, black people commit about 8 times as many murders as whites. So if the number of blacks went down, so would the murder rate. BUT AGAIN -- Bennett chose that example ONLY because it was the most "morally reprehensible" argument he could think of for abortion.

[Realish]

"Slocum, I always thought you were a bit of a dunderhead when it came to Iraq, but I never disliked you until now. We don't want you as part of the "left", thanks."

God, I may vomit.

Slocum, you're no troll, you're making a perfectly reasonable argument, in the face of a tide of self-righteous PC bullshit, and I thank you for it.

Look, people, the reason blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes is a legacy of racism, ongoing social and economic discrimination, a culture that has fetishized the very pathologies that discrimination causes, and on and on. We all know this. All progressives want to change those circumstances. I'm pretty sure we all, including Slocum, agree on this.

But none of that changes the fact that blacks do, as a matter of empirical fact, commit a disproportionate number of crimes. If you wiped them out, you'd reduce the crime rate. If you wiped poor people out, you'd reduce the crime rate. If you wiped out children of single mothers, you'd reduce the crime rate. If you wiped out young men, you'd reduce the crime rate. If you wiped out corporate executives, you'd reduce the rate of white-collar crime. Of course, that's not a good reason to wipe anyone out -- which is exactly what Bennet was saying.

I'm sure Bennet is probably a racist in some subconscious way, like many, many Americans (including many purported lefties). But to suggest that he was in any way endorsing genocide is just fucking stupid.

(That said, hey, if we can score political points by publicly bashing him, I say go for it. I have no scruples left about that sort of thing. But what we say publicly and what we really believe are distinct.)

I looked up Bennett's "About me" on his website. His degrees were in philosophy, plus he got a law degree. He was Secretary of Education under Reagan and drug czar under Bush I. Now he's a pundit with his own 3-hour republican radio show.

You don't need to dissect one of his arguments to know he's evil. His history is enough for that.

So why are people here so busy arguing the subt rcise precisely to get attention, to take the heat off somebody who ma