On his “Morning in America” radio show a few days back, Bill Bennett—in the context of responding to a caller who’d suggested that making abortion illegal would create more workers 20 years hence—said:
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.
Predictably, the race baiters sprung immediately into action, and, instead of trying to understand Bennett’s point (which has nothing to do with anything inherent to blacks—and in fact, is an argument for just the opposite), decided instead to seize upon the remarks robbed of their context and intent to charge Bennett with racism and demand an apology. (For the record, Bennett was merely referencing “Freakonomics,” which posits the hypothesis that falling crimes rates are related to increased abortion rates decades ago—a position which I take it he rejects).
Sadly, prominent Democratic leaders, pundits and lawmakers have spearheaded this smear campaign, which I suspect they see as merely one more move in the give-and-take of the political game; because I refuse to believe that they actually think Bennett to be racist (although some likely do), and so they are instead playing gotcha by putting him on the defensive to force him to meta-justify remarks that they know had no racist intent. It’s as if because his words, taken out of context, can, to the uninformed, be taken to mean something they were never intended to mean, his words are therefore useful insofar as they can be deployed to cause him public discomfort—and, by extension, to taint the whole of the Republican party by association.
And the White House, increasingly incapable of taking a principled stand, provides these disingenuous race baiters with cover—presumably still reeling from the last round of disingenuous race baiting, which came in guise of Hurricane outrage.
None of this, given our partisan culture, is unexpected. But what gives these calculated and malicious rhetorical and performative ploys their political force is twofold: first, the willingness (in this case on the part of Democrats and the press, and now, the White House) to consider Bennett’s remarks outside of their argumentative context; and second, the idea that Bennett’s words are still his beyond his intent to use them in a certain way—which simply echoes the old Judith Butler axiom that “actions continue to act after the intentional subject has announced its completion,” which, while true, is nevertheless incidental, and becomes dangerous as an assertion when interpretation is released from the ground of appealing back to the speaker’s intent. That is, what is at stake here is the role the subject plays in the “meaning” of the act vs. the role played by contingency in giving that act its (subsequent) meaning(s)—or, to put it more specifically, what William Bennett meant vs. what his words can be made to look like they might mean by those in whose interests it is to damage him. In short, they are taking ownership of his words, resignifying them, then using that resignification to taint Bennett with the charge of racism.
All of which takes us back, of course, to our discussions of Allah in the swirly cone, the Flight 93 Memorial, and Captain Ed’s use of “articulate.” Many of Bennett’s critics don’t particularly care what he meant. Instead, they care that what he said can be shown to mean something other than what he meant if it’s removed from context and resignified—though they will then turn around and argue that he really did mean his comments to carry a racist component (either consciously or unconsciously). Others will argue that, even if Bennett didn’t intend his argument to carry a racialist component (beyond using it as a hypothetical to make a moral point), he nevertheless should have known that some people would interpret his comments incorrectly, and so should have been more circumspect in making them.
The first argument is linguistically sound insofar as it ascribes to Bennett a particular intent; the second argument is linguistically corrupt, in that argues for some inherent meaning in the signifier—that the marks “mean” something beyond some intention to turn them into language by providing signification.
In this case, most of the criticism seems to me to be linguistically sound, though interpretively sloppy (and, in many cases, intentionally so). Because a fair, rigorous, and judicious reading of Bennett’s comments in their original context suggest he is arguing that, for any number of reasons—from a history of racial divisiveness to poverty to the crutch of the welfare state to failures in public education—blacks are, statistically-speaking, more likely to commit crime (in Bennett’s reading of crime statistics; others would argue that blacks are more likely to be targeted by law enforcement. But for our purposes, it is important that we understand Bennett’s premises). And from that premise, he suggests that, if a society wanted a pragmatic and morally untenable way to reduce crime, it could begin aborting those more statistically likely to commit crime. But doing so would be morally untenable precisely because the procedure would also eliminate a lot more people who wouldn’t, statistically speaking, fall prey to the criminal lifestyle; and so in order to correct a complex statistical issue in a way that is pragmatically expedient, society would be sanctioning something that is morally repugnant.
But why bring up race in the first place?
Well, as Bennett himself tells ABC News’ Jake Tapper:
“There was a lot of discussion about race and crime in New Orleans,” Bennett said. “There was discussion – a lot of it wrong – but nevertheless, media jumping on stories about looting and shooting and gangs and roving gangs and so on.
“There’s no question this is on our minds,” Bennett said. “What I do on our show is talk about things that people are thinking … we don’t hesitate to talk about things that are touchy.”
Bennett said, “I’m sorry if people are hurt, I really am. But we can’t say this is an area of American life (and) public policy that we’re not allowed to talk about – race and crime.”
And Bennett is precisely right: fear of being branded a racist simply should not keep us from discussing racial issues—though that is precisely the practical effect in a culture where the levelling of such charges is easy and carries with it almost no consequences for the person doing the accusing, even if the accusation is made in bad faith, or is based on the flimsiest of pretenses.
Still, as it becomes more and more apparent that Bennett’s argument was manifestly not informed by racism, however, and that his critics’ intitial interpretations appealed to an intent on Bennett’s part that they incorrectly gauged —I expect they will begin shifting their condemnation toward the linguistically corrupt notion that the signifier, divorced from intent, is nevertheless the responsibility of the utterer. And indeed, such a procedure is already underway:
Robert George, an African-American, Republican editorial writer for the New York Post, agrees that Bennett’s comments were not meant as racist. But he worries they feed into stereotypes of Republicans as insensitive. “His overall point about not making broad sociological claims and so forth, that was a legitimate point,” George said. “But it seems to me someone with Bennett’s intelligence … should know better the impact of his words and sort of thinking these things through before he speaks.”
Like “scratch” before him, George argues that, because other people could potentially misinterpret Bennett’s meaning, Bennett himself should have been more careful in choosing his words. And such an argument effectively gives the interpreter power over the grounds of interpretation and relativizes language.
But what would Robert George—and scratch, and all those who argue for the primacy of the signifier—say if I were to seize upon their linguistic position to argue that, for instance, a rape victim should have known better than to wear a low cut blouse, or that a Muslim who was accosted should have known better than to wander into an area heavily effected by the 911 attacks…?
****
update: To their credit, both Matt Yglesias and Brad Delong defend Bennett.
****
update 2: For those of you who wish to dismiss this kerfuffle as the consequence of a soundbite culture about which Bennett, as a political pro, needs to be more cognizant, let me remind you that the way we find ourselves in a soundbite culture to begin with is that we’ve traded context and original intent for brevity and the kind of resignification that comes when an editor decides what to show us is representative of an original utterance. Part of this is the nature of the media beast; which is why it is so important that we be able to trust those who are doing the initial interpreting for us.
****
update 3: John Cole has more. Be sure to read his comments, where you’ll find every conceivable justification for calling Bennett a racist, most of which boil down to, “because deep inside he probably is, being a Rethuglican and all.”
****
update 4: For a more thorough and thoughtful critique of Bennett (including a critique of my position), see David Schraub.
I think Schraub is wrong—for one thing, his argument proceeds from the idea that, because Bennett could have chosen other social groups besides blacks to make his same point (eg., aborting males or poor whites would likewise reduce crime), that he chose blacks bespeaks a tendency to reify certain unflattering associations between race and crime at the expense of pointing out just how unexceptional the association is; but it is contextually far more likely, at least from my reading of the argument, that he chose that particular example to heighten the moral hideousness of the premise, and history has taught us to associate the prospect of selective extermination with race or tribe rather than gender or social class. From a rhetorical standpoint, then, Jews would have carried the most associative weight, but that particular group doesn’t fit the remainder of the analogy’s terms.
Because Bennett’s argument is more to do with a type of statistics-based, morally reprehensible pragmatic utilitarianism than it is about race and criminality per se, the association that Schraub foregrounds is less important to Bennett than his desire to make the moral point most forcefully. Or, to put it more succinctly, Schraub says Bennett was racially insensitive; I say he was rhetorically forceful. And my argument is that Bennett intended his argument to be understood as such.
Still, a thoughtful piece from the pomo perspective.
****
update 5: A moderate’s defense, from Michael Reynolds
****
update 6: Bob Krumm notes that (Freakonomics author) Steven Levitt and John Donohue, in a paper published in Quaterly Journal of Economics, do indeed link black abortion to a decrease in crime rates. Writes Best of the Web’s James Taranto:
[…] whereas Bennett rejects the idea of reducing crime by aborting black babies, Levitt and Donohue argue that that is exactly what has happened over the past three decades, as a result of liberal policies. If they are right, there is, to say the least, a fundamental tension between blacks and pro-abortion feminists, two of the core components of the Democratic coalition. No wonder Bennett’s comments have caused such discomfort on the left.
So why do we see this as a sign of political correctness’s decline? Well, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, we kept hearing from our liberal friends that what this country needs is an honest discussion of race. Of course, liberals who call for a discussion of race never actually want it to be honest. Rather, they want to engage in the old familiar ritual in which blacks air their grievances, white liberals trumpet their moral superiority, the rest of us shut up and listen, and dissenters are shamed and silenced (see John Conyers’s and Wade Henderson’s demands regarding Bennett, above).
Our sense, however, is that this old ritual no longer has the same power it once did, and that as a result, liberals actually are getting the honest discussion about race that they have long demanded. If so, their worst fears are coming true.
****
update 7: Dan Riehl suggests that my argument is dishonest. I give up.
****
update 8: See my follow-up post here.
first!
Jeff, I was hoping you’d get to this false scandal. And I knew you’d look at it exactly as you have. I don’t know if you heard the entire segment where Bennett made this remark, but I did. I listened to the entire call.
A caller called in to make a point that he heard that if there hadn’t been so many abortions since it was made illegal there would be more American taxpayers alive who would be paying taxes that we wouldn’t be having a budget problem.
Bill went on to say that it was folly to try to analyze much from such data. To punctuate his point, be brought up the new book Freakonomics where the economist/author “proves” that based on opportunity cost analysis the abortions that have been happened since abortion was made legal has brought the crime rate down significantly. Bill disagreed with the findings of this!
To then make the point that extrapolating from such “missing Americans” claims on abortion data (with the example using the Freakonomics claim on crime rate reduction and abortions) was folly by pointing out that the criminal class is a vast majority from single-mother households. And then pointed out the fact that Black American households right now are massively single-mother households. Put one, two, and, three together into a sweeping claim… voila… instant controversy from those taking it out of context.
If folks are offended that abortions reduced crime, or even disagree with that outcome, take it up with the author of Freakonomics.
Perhaps a better defense is to argue that Bennett is using a reductio ad absurdum argument to undercut the morality of the original statistic showing an indirect correlation between abortion rates and crime? After all, if we aborted all babies, crime as well as any number of other social ills would clear up in a matter of decades. But many–even on the left, outside of the most devoted environmental advocates–might consider this a prryhic victory.
Jesse Jackson said once, and I’m paraphrasing, that it bothers him that he can be walking down the street at night and hear people behind him, then look around and be relieved that those people are white.
It’s a sad—but indisputable—fact that blacks are disporportionately involved in crime. Does that mean it’s open season for racists? Of course not. Does it mean blacks are inferior? Of course not. But one thing it certainly means is that mentioning that fact does not necessarily make you a racist.
A preacher rose with an angry red face. “Someone in this congregation has been spreading a rumor that I am a member of the Klu Klux Klan. This is a
horrible lie and one that a Christian community cannot tolerate. I am embarrassed and do not intend to accept this. Now, I want the party who did this to stand and ask forgiveness from God and this Christian Church family.”
No one moved….
The preacher continued, “Do you have the nerve to face me and admit this is a falsehood? Remember, you will be forgiven and in your heart, you will feel glory. Now stand and confess your transgression.”
Again all was quiet….
Then slowly, a drop-dead gorgeous blonde with a body that would stop traffic rose from the third pew. Her head was bowed and her voice quivered as she spoke. “Reverend, there has been a terrible misunderstanding. I never said you were a member of the Klu Klux Klan. I simply told a couple of my friends that you were a wizard under the sheets!”
Right on, Jeff. I’m disappointed in the WH’s condemnation of Bennett’s remarks too (which I didn’t even know til I visited your blog
)
But one thing it certainly means is that mentioning that fact does not necessarily make you a racist.
Apparently it does if the speaker is conservative and the listener is liberal/leftist.
On a tanget related to this subject… the uproar certainly might be considered a victory for the pro-life rhetorical position that abortion is killing a human life.
Isn’t the point that you’re asking for trouble when you are talking about essentially the extermination of a major ethnic group in this country? Yes, I understand what Bennett was getting at and no way do I really think he was suggesting anything insidious. But with the state of the media in this country (as pointed out elsewhere, CBS News felt compelled to somehow tie Rush Limbaugh into this), shouldn’t you be VERY VERY careful? It doesn’t matter that you are absolutely right about something if you are undermined in the process of doing it.
This story is similar to the time some city manager said that, to save money, the city would have to learn to be more “niggardly.”
I think the guy got canned for saying it. How insensitive, they cried.
I don’t know when we became a propaganda-based society that runs on a never-ending supply of punditry and bullshit, with total disregard for things like truth and facts.
I blame Woodrow Wilson.
Another race “scandal”, maybe a bit smaller in scale.
There is nothing left for Bill Bennett to do but apologize, as did Sen. Durbin. “I apologize if anyone misunderstood what I was saying”.
Let’s see, SP. By your logic, we should never say anything that would have a chance of being taken out of context (a sentence cited out of it’s contextual paragraph), or misinterpreted by ones political opponents or, better yet, hijacked by ideological opposites.
I guess we should give up on the idea of discussing crime, poverty, race, abortion, adoption, illegitimate children or any of the other social ills that infect us.
My local newspaper is already adopting your philosophy. If they do not have a picture or artist’s sketch of a suspected perp, the include a description (height, weight, hair, eyes & identifying marks), yet they couch the ethnicity of the individual in terms such as, “light skinned or dark skinned”, when a description of “black male or Hispanic male or white male” would be definite. PC gone haywire.
Thanks, Jeff
I have a radical Leftist troll that leaves rambling remarks on my blog and last night, without source, she said Bennett has said “aborting black babies will make crime go down.”
Even though I don’t listen to Bennett’s show (geez, I like SOME quiet in the wee morning hours) I knew that there was more to the story.
Thank you for your post and analysis. This reminds me of the poor guy who was forced to resign his government job because he used the word “niggardly” in a memo.
:::sigh:::
Let me throw a change-up. Even if we rightly stipulate that the left and the MSM are creating a scandal from nothing, this doesn’t excuse Bennett from stepping on an obvious landmine–perhaps intentionally. Based on the transcript of the interview, nothing seems to require Bennett to address the question of black abortions specifically. Returning to Jeff’s delightful semiotic meringue, one might legitimately ask why a political pro like Bennett would make such a rookie mistake (or veteran gamble) in an interview like that when trouble might have been so easily avoided. If we read some conscious/unconscious intentionality into his unnecessary linguistic meandering, does this make us Frenchy philosophes?
I have to say, Bennett’s critics are being rather niggardly with their extensions of good faith discourse.
Oh crap. I just a word that has absolutely nothing to do with race, but which ignorant idiots might mistake for such… looks like I’m a racist.
Rep. Bobby Rush has introduced legislation condemning Bill Bennett. As if Congress doesn’t have anything else better to do.
BTW – If you remember, Bobby Rush is a former Black Panther. Of course, he’ll never get condemned for that.
Aww, dammit. Phinn beat me to it.
Jerk
Your update 2 not withstanding, it was still a pretty darn unwise thing to say.
Well, let’s see. The vast majority of people who are going to hear this story on the news tonight don’t read blogs. They’re just going to run with the quote. It’s going to get endlessly twisted.
No, I’m not saying you can’t talk about these issues. But, really, talking about aborting black people? You’re not in the least bit surprised someone might take that and run with it? Does discussing that highly speculative question, even in the context of analyzing another’s work as with Freakonomics, really accomplish anything? Does the question of aborting black people really need to come up at anytime, ever???
MWS
The fact that you have identified it as an obvious landmine would indicate that you have given in to those who would rip from you your right to discuss ANY issue on ANY terms you desire. The question is, why would you let them do that?
How sad that in todays society we have come to indentify a well spoken man in terms of someone who (except the black man of course) can offend the least amount of people. – Paraphrased from someone else who is not me.
Bill Bennett made a good point, but I’m more of a gambling man than he is, so let me up the ante. In just two generations we could solve every social problem America faces if we’d simply abort every unborn child. Maybe it sounds crazy–or maybe the Rovian mind control device under my skin is just starting to get to me (*pick, pick*)–but I think a zero-tolerance policy against pregnancy is just what we need.
Only because we all pretend to be offended by it, or else refuse to ignore those who are offended by it when they are offended by something that doesn’t mean what they think it means.
Sorry. That just lends credence to the whole underlying idea that what they take something to mean is just as important as what it does mean. That’s dangerous. I reject it.
I agree that most of the criticism of Bennett is wrongheaded and dishonest. But I think Bennett did himself a disservice by using race in an offhand way in a complex argument on a different topic. If he had suggested that aborting all babies of unwed mothers not living with the baby’s father would lower the crime rate I don’t think we would be talking about this. But suggesting (as he did) that a future generation of black Americans will commit a disproportionate amount of crime requires a lot more discussion than he gave it. It is not simply an empirical observation.
Jeff
It doesn’t matter what Bennett said or meant to say
IT’S ALL ABOUT THE PERCEPTION.
ahem…. just like the pink locker room at Iowa is suddenly causing some profs and students to go balistic over it’s obvious demeaning of women and gays.
Jaysus, where’s a mackerel to slap these idiots when I need one?
But it exactly is! Blacks make up about 12% of the population of the country, yet are incarcerated at the rate of 50% of the prison population. Black children are born to unwed mothers at the rate of 68%. With these statistics (empirical) what he says is exactly correct.
It’s not empirical because it projects into the future. But it projects into the future based on trend data, and so is the next best thing. For purposes of making the hypothetical argument, it is perfectly acceptable to rely on current trends, even if we can’t know for certain that such trends will continue. After all, the hypothetical is itself dependent on the validity of the current trends.
The irony here is that Bennett was in fact defending Blacks against the very charges liberals are trying to suggest he was making. And he uses some of Levitt’s own assertions in developing the hypothetical.
The topics are related in the just the way Bennett juxtaposed them. So I reject the idea that his example was inapposite.
Nice work Commies, draw attention to the reason Planned Parenthood was founded in the first place.
It wasn’t a question at all.
The point Bennett was making was that abortion is wrong, and more specifically, is not justified by its economic consequences.
To demonstrate this point, he made an analogy to aborting all blacks.
This analogy depends entirely on the idea (which he expressly stated) that aborting all blacks would be wrong regardless of its economic consequences.
In other words, his point depends entirely on a proposition that is precisely the opposite of what he is accused of saying.
Somehow, I woke up and we’re living in Orwell’s 1984. Jesus H. Christ!
Dude, that’s pretty offensive to non-christians and even some christians. I think you should apologize. The correct words are now ‘Double plus ungood’. Please update your dictionary.
A Modest Proposal: Why abort all the babies when they could feed all the starving people in New Orleans & surrounding areas?
What crystal ball are you using to empirically collect those statistics from the year 2020? I agree that one can make the argument that factors like the marriage rate are likely to make these statistics worse in the future. But Bennett didn’t make that argument (because he was busy making another one).
It’s precisely this sort of jerk off argument (which we are forced to have by the relativizers and resignifiers) that really sours a lot of folks to political and cultural discourse.
When its a dead lock certainty nowadays that at some point you are going to be deliberately misinterpreted and taken out of context in an effort to circumvent honest discussion of difficult political/social/cultural issues, lots of folks just retreat to ideological echo chambers where they won’t experience that indignity. The downside is that their ideas don’t get challenged and sharpened by their ideological foes who do engage in honest debate.
Anyone who listens to Bennett with anything approaching an open mind knows this guy doesn’t have a racist bone in his body and is one of the most low key, non-shouter, anti-O’Reilly guys on the friggin’ radio dial. Likewise, anyone that listened to the exchange knows that Bennett was illustrating the dangerous nature of his caller’s thought process on arguing abortion politics by demonstrating how that thought process could be used against him and in a really pernicious manner.
This isn’t even some sort of rocket science and the fact that its even a topic of national conversation says something ugly about the level of our current political discourse.
Defense Guy (& Jeff in latest response):
I’m not questioning Bennett’s right to speak so much as whether it was right of him to speak in that way. If one’s goal is to inform or pursuade, then usually one steers clear of any issues that might distract from the main point. Bennett’s decision to specify “black” didn’t assist his arguement in any way, so why did he bother? If his real point was to highlight the hypocrisy and oversensitivity surrounding racial discourse, then he should/could have framed this argument in different terms.
In point of fact, a well-spoken man is the man who gives little offense–while remaining able to challenge the prevailing opinion. He is able to argue issues in whatever terms his opponents choose and thus gather the best chance to change minds. Being too willing to offend is no more virtuous than being too willing to take offense.
Double plus ungood!!
I think this comment over at OW’s place sums it up best:
What Bennett actually meant doesn’t matter at all, because “everyone” with a heart just knows you can’t say these things. At least if you are white and republican that is. It almost makes me wonder what the fuss is all about anyway. Most of the folks screaming their heads off about this are already convinced that white republicans are racists anyway. I wonder what Robert Byrd’s Kleagle hood would have to say about this…
Really Dave Munger I was just going to point out the obvious. Isn’t this the basis on which Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood was founded, encouraging the poor and blacks to not have children by every means necessary including abortion, in order as to manufacture a just and prosperous society without crime and poverty?
Oh I forgot, Margaret Sanger never existed and it’s all about a women’s right to choose.
This post was linked by Glenn Reynolds a little while ago.
One of the reasons Bennett comes off as more racist than the Freakonomics guys – and plenty of people called them racists also – is that Levitt and Dubner listed a series of groups that share disproportionately high abortion and crime rates. Without imputing anything to Bennett, when he chose to only propose aborting black babies would lead to lower crime, he dug his own grave. It made “black” a proxy for all of the other linkages between high abortion and high crime groups and that is a racist shorthand, even if the statement was not made with racist intent.
Whoops. Too quick to hit send.
That said, Bennett is already getting it far worse than he deserves and its going to continue for a while.
Uh, Bennett was engaged in a real-time conversation with a caller to his radio program. The authors of Freakonomics were authoring a book.
Think that, and not some sort of imputed racist “shorthand” might explain why Bennett mentioned only “blacks” and didn’t list a bunch of other “groups”?
Geez.
Apparently, one should steer clear of logical reasoning and syllogisms as well.
But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself, since its function, like the poster, consists in attracting the attention of the crowd, and not in educating those who are already educatedor who are striving after education and knowledge, its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect.
–Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol I., Ch IV: War Propaganda
Because aborting all blacks is obviously wrong, regardless of its economic consequences. That was his whole freaking point.
And it’s indicative of current leftish politics that everything is about root causes, and nothing is about personal responsibility. See, it’s always someone else’s fault. Never your own. Unless you’re a white non-liberal type.
I’m with Beck. It was a mistaken thing to say given the state of race relations. Just because you should be able to say something doesn’t mean you should say it. It echoes one of your “Yin and Yang” posts, Jeff. It’s like, do you want the marriage or do you want the privilege of always being right? Because sometimes you have to choose which battles are important if you want to go forward with the relationship.
I listen to Bennett most mornings, enjoy his show, and admire his Socratic teaching style. He’s my favorite.
It made his argument. It drove home the point. Which, were we to concentrate on IT and not its opposite(thanks to sloppy reasoning and ill-informed accusations driving this story), perhaps we’d be able to actually solve problems rather than showing just how much we care about problems.
Huh? First, I think it was part of his point, but only an incidental one, to “highlight the hypocrisy and oversensitivity surrounding racial discourse.” But I find it astounding that you are suggesting that had it been Bennett’s primary argument, he would have done better to present it more sensitively.
Yes, Fred. But you shouldn’t expect an NAACP Image Award when the first thing that comes to mind for “criminal” during your on-air conversation is “black.”
This incident is a good example that is closer to the boundary between PC and good taste than the “articulate” dust up.
IMO, Bennett is a sanctimoneous blowhard statist who is a lightening rod for a lot of folks beyond the dailyKos Kool-Aide brigade.
His remarks in context, while likely true, were unnecessary to make his point. I concluded that his remarks were in poor taste. The response by the diversity whores (and their cheerleaders in the media), however, were much worse than what Bennett said.
The problem is that the context and frame of this incident will only reienforce the PC agenda. For that, Bennett should be condemed for the buffoon he is.
Face the facts, this nicotine junkie put his chips on the hard eight and got creamed. There are many battles to take stands, this one is a loser, just like the Tzarist asshole who shat all over himself.
Other than that I agree with everything else.
We’re now able to destroy people’s reputation based on false accusations simply because we’ve capable of doing so, since the ground for interpretation has been annihilated.
What could be more important? I’ve written many posts suggesting what this kind of thinking can lead to. To me, this is one of THE biggest battles we face. Because it’s assumptions will inform hundreds of other local battles that could very well be lost, should we surrender here, before we even begin fighting them.
Jeff, your readers notwithstanding, most of the public is never going to make it through your argument, even if they were willing to approach the topic neutrally. If you have to take a couple of paragraphs to explain that what Bill Bennett said really isn’t racist, you’ve already lost. I’m certainly not saying that’s right, but Rev. Jackson will have the crowd at fever pitch before you can get the first paragraph out. I so look forward to Ed Gordon’s News and Notes on the drive home tonight.
We’re doomed. Doomed! DOOMED!
Turing word: progress, as if.
Jeff, this is a pretty impressive post, but totally unnecessary. All you had to do was write “Mendoooza!” See, all better.
Still, just for the record, I think we should codify our conversations, especially on matters of race and politics.
We can break it down into “Things white folks are never allowed to say no matter their true intent and no matter the factual content of the thing said”, “things hisapnics are never allowed to say no matter their intent and no matter the factual content of the thing said,” “things hottentotts are never allowed to say no matter their intent or the factual content of the thing said,” etc. etc.
There should be a volume for every race, creed, religion, ethnic group, tribe, political association, coffee klatch, Rotarians Club, Book Club and Church group. That way, at least we’ll all know before hand what we are allowed to say and what we aren’t.
Of course, we still can’t codify what each of us should actually think, but technology is advancing…maybe one day.
We agree. But Howard Dean <objects</a>.
We agree. But Howard Dean objects.
http://www.californiaconservative.org/?p=1052
I think it’d be great if folks like Bill would continue to speak their mind.
I think it’s be even greater if they did so in person to some of the people they like to shock.
I wonder if Bill would be as brave. Remember, anyone can say anything they like to make a point. They can use all kinds of wild sounding rhetoric. So can the other side.
Funny how Bill Bennett can say what he likes, but if someone like him who had a “D” next to his name used some similarly outrageous sounding comment taken way way out of context, I’m sure eveyrone on Bill’s side would be screaming murder by now.
Ah partisanship. So nice to see it in bloom this fall!
I’m not saying the example was not relevant. I’m saying it was presented sloppily and incompletely. He didn’t say, “If present trends continue we know that if …” or “Suppose we were sure that if…” or even “Given the rate of out of wedlock births I do know that it’s true that if…” He just said, “But I do know that it’s true that if …” If he was teaching a philosophy class he wouldn’t let a student get away with calling that statement hypothetical.
Fred wrote: “In point of fact, a well-spoken man is the man who gives little offense”
So we should judge how well-spoken somebody is by whether or not the PC thought police are offended?
The reduction ad absurdum would, I suppose, be the silence necessary to avoid offending Muslims.
We’re seeing the gradual changing of the formerly Libertarian-oriented and small government Republican Party into a big-government politically correct party similar to Canadian and European traditional Conservatives. They’re so gun shy of the media wing of the Democratic Party that they’re letting them frame the issue and are apologizing instead of fighting back.
We’re going to pay down the line, after they’ve allowed the enemy to redefine what is politically acceptable to deny or assert. The end game is neutered and politically defensive classical liberal parties of the aforementioned places, in favor of big-government parties that try to compete with the leftists on their own turf, with the media stacked against them.
When Oliver Willis defines himself by the non-sequitur like kryptonite to stupid, and a website calling itself Axis of Logic can’t grasp why The Independent cancelled their premium subscription for reposting Robert Fisk’s “hidden” columns (copyright—that means I have the right to copy it, yes?), I think that we’re dealing with the old maxim:
Maybe Occam needs a chainsaw….
Jeff, it’s the dumbing down of thought.
Just like Jack Grant arguing that it was the responsibility of the speaker/writer to ensure that his words are not/cannot be misinterpreted.
Lazy ass white people…
That’s the dumbest comment I’ve seen in a long time, def stoopid fool.
But not surprising.
Incidentally, just watched former DNC chair Terry Mcauliff totally mischaracterize Bennett’s argument; but more disturbing was the Republican spokesman who said that Bill Bennett was insensitive and, though not a racist, probably wishes he could have his words back.
This is precisely the WRONG reaction. And it makes me truly despairing of where we are in this country—on both sides of the political divide. We’re so concerned with perception that we lack the balls to fight for truth.
Republicans and conservatives should be forcing Bennett’s accusers to answer for their condemnation of a statement that debunks the thinking behind certain racial demography. But instead they fear they can’t make people understand—that it is easier just to apologize and try to put it behind us.
I’m absolutely dispirited by the reaction I’m seeing here among some Republicans—which is to distance themselves from his comments, a move that reinforces the (false) fact that he said something wrong and (intentionally or not) racist.
That’s how we surrender language. And soon we will reap what we have sown.
I’m moving to Idaho and building a compound.
Will any of those who twist and distort the context of Bill Bennetts words publicly say,”… he nevertheless should have known that (we will) interpret his comments incorrectly,(for our own political purposes) and so should have
been more circumspect in making them”? I take a large inhale; I hold…
William Bennett is no moral arbiter of anything in my book. As drug czar (liar in chief) he lied about Dutch murder rates vs American tomake the drug war look like a good thing. When corrected by the Dutch Ambasador his answer was – silence.
Any one who supports Republican Socialism: price supports for terrorists and criminals has no credibility in my book.
What did he really mean? If a man is a professional liar (as every drug czar must be) who can tell?
Oh, Jesus. He’s talking about the future based on current trends. That by necessity makes it hypothetical and predictive. No need to engage in preemptive metacommentary to make it so, or else we’d never get anything out.
Another attempt at “gotcha.”
You know, if we aborted all white babies it would for all intents and purposes eliminate NASCAR and scrapbooking in a matter of decades.
Another absurd argument.
You’re presuming Bennett is racist because he says he’s not. Fine. You’re entitled to your opinion, but that doesn’t mean I’m compelled to take it seriously.
Jeff, you are spot on, except for Idaho. Me, I’d choose Montana.
Reminds me of a contest in the Washington Post to replace the “bad old name” with a “new better one”.
“idaho” becomes “Udaman”.
M. Simon, that post was a parody right? Don’t get me wrong, I favor legalization of almost all controlled substances and the cessation of the drug war myself, but knowing I agree with you is very nealry enough to make me rethink my position.
Republican Socialism? Price supports for terrorists and criminals? Care to specify an instance? What are you talking about?
And how does that have anything to do with what the man actually said? As far as what he really meant, he said it in his orginal comment. Abortion of all black children would be a horrible, morally repugnant thing. Are you saying that’s not what he meant? Or are you saying you get to decided what he meant. Or are you saying it doesn’t matter what he meant. This is just something white boys can’t say.
You know, Al, I’ve never much cared for NASCAR, and I really hate scrapbooks. What does that say about me?
The Pack is in full hue, Bill Bennett should know better to make statements without being able to
“Prove he is not a Camel”
Because one thing is certain whatever a conservative or libertarian speaker utters it will be distorted and edited into GUILTY.
Corvan,
That just means you got out. And I can refer to you as a “house whitey”.
Stop pretending. You’re hurting your people.
(I realize I’ve made a lot of assumptions here. If you happen to be ‘that other thing that shall not be spoken’, I apologize)
Cheers
Hmm, let’s see . . .
Jimmy the Greek – made a statement about the athletic abilities of black players = RACIST
Howard Cosell – “monkey” remark, complimentary to a black player = RACIST!
John Rocker – made a handful of comments about punks, thugs, and the like = RACIST! (although he never said anyone he was talking about was black)
Rush Limbaugh – said McNabb was “overrated” = RACIST!
Captain Ed – Called a black man “articulate” = RACIST!
Stacey Campfield – quotes Dr. King on his site, tries to get information about minority concerns from the Tennessee Congressional Black Caucus, is denied membership because he’s white = RACIST!
Bill Bennett – the remarks discussed here = RACIST!
Katrina – big hurricane = RACIST!
50 Cent (or any other rapper) – uses the word “nigger” repeatedly on his albums = {insert cricket chirping sound effect}
Just some highlights . . . I’m still waiting for that guidebook that explains it all.
Why does anyone even try to understand this shit anymore?
TW: “very”
fucking stupid
House whitey, hunh? I kind of like the sound. maybe I’ll use that as my screen name from now on.
I probably should qualify that last post. I should no better than to post when I’m pissed, I’m just sick & tired of the entire country (and most of all, our “leaders”) walking on eggshells to appease less than 15% of the American population.
Or more accurately, to appease a handful of self-appointed “spokesmen” for that 15%. I personally think most blacks don’t give a shit about any of this, but a lot are duped into a type of groupthink by the race-baiting bullshit dealers like Sharpton, Jackson, etc.
There’s no immunity. I am sick of the cockism in the locker room after morning basketball. I hear the mutterings. I see the finger pointing.
I’m more than just a penis.
corvan,
Any prohibition regime is a price support mechanism for criminals. Ever hear of Alcohol Prohibition? They probably don’t teach it in schools any more.
The rule is when a man misspeaks and when informed of his error he doesn’t retract then nothing he says need be trusted.
In this case his premise is probably correct. However, he could have stated it as abortion in general instead of saying abortion of blacks. The man is not only a liar but stupid in the political arena. His point is lost among the howls.
That said, I do not think government ought to be in charge of women’s vaginas.
“Some of my best friends have dicks like that”….
Bullshit!!
It’s cockism – plain and simple.
I got it. Does that make me bright – or take me down to his level? What he is saying is that the “War on Drugs” keeps drugs in short supply which artificially boosts the costs of said drugs, thus both propping up the price and putting more $ in the pockets of drug suppliers. He inserts “terrorist” as he believes that terrorists are active in the drug business, raising funds for terrorist activities.
Do I get a gold star?
http://blackgenocide.org/planned.html:
“Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn’t that genocide?”
Sounds to me like Bennett just extrapolated that 35%.
“This shower’s full”……..
Fuckin’ cockists.
Am I the last one to ponder a connection between “Like Kryptonite to Stupid” and “Stuck on stupid?”
Jeff,
I doubt Bennet is a racist.
All I pointed out was that because he is a known liar you need not trust anything he says without corroboration.
Why pick on blacks? Stupid tactics. Just point to the book in question and give the stats. Generally available abortion reduces crime. If the book references blacks – quote the book.
The man is inartful in his choice of words. As liar in chief (drug czar) the MSM never called him on his lies. My guess is that he expected the same treatment on this subject: silence.
It is really too bad that he speaks for the Republicans. Had he been outed as drug czar no body would pay him any mind. Which is exactly what he deserves.
M. Simon,
So you think what he said is probably correct, but you’re mad at him for something he said during the GWH Bush Administration so he’s a racist. I’m sorry, but that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
The drug czar is a stupid position. And I’ll critisize Bennet, and all the other Czars for taking the stupid job and pretending it accomplished anything, but I won’t use it as an excuse to lable them something they’re not-racist.
Look, I know that eliminating the drug war, legalizing most controlled substances, then taxing them and regualting them is good health policy and sound fiscal policy as well. Bennet’s opposition to that is plain wrong, and in my book, none to bright.
That’s no excuse to call him racist on this. Hell, even his own words aren’t enough to label him racist.
What we’re arguing about here is who is going to set the agenda of every public debate from here on out and how that agenda is going to be set.
Will the meaning of the spoken word lie totally in the province of the listener’s imagination or will the actual words themselves have any say whatsoever in their interpetation. When I look at it that way, and if not for Jeff I wouldn’t have, I have to defend Bennett. Even if he’s full of beans about all sorts of other stuff, and from what I hear, a pretty lousy card player.
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?… Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?…The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinkingâ€â€not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.” -1984
Bill Bennett speaks truth to power, and for that he must be silenced. The Bureau of Justice Statistics says:
Bummer, dude.
rls,
You are right. And terrorist do deal drugs. FARC in South America. The Taliban when they controlled Afghanistan. etc. You can google more instances.
BUT – what he was saying was that it DID NOT necessarily reduce crime. Read the whole thing.
Might have helped. Bennett made a flat assertion about the behavior of a future generation of blacks. He stands unfairly accused of racism – as if he was basing his prediction on the theory that blacks were genetically more disposed to crime. A little metacommentary might have headed this off, or at least make it easier to smack down the misrepresentations of what was said. AS far as not getting anything out, he owns the mic.
corvan,
I did not say Bennett was a racist.
All I said was that you cannot trust him to tell the truth. And that he supports a program that some say is the cause of 85% of the crime in America. And that terrorists use to support their activities.
If you think I accused him of racism you are projecting. Or your imagination is working overtime.
But OK. I’ll bite. What evidence do you have that he is not a racist? We already know he is stupid (or inarticulate) and a liar.
If you have independent evidence (beyond the current example) I’d like to see it. Since you brought the subject up.
BTW I am a strong supporter of Bush (mostly) and the current dust up in Iraq.
If Bill had said “if you aborted every male baby in this country, then the crime rate would be less”, no one would have said a word.
Way to go. You have taken the exact same position as Newsmax.com. I suggest you throw a party.
What Bennett said was racist, pure and simple. You can spin it however you want, but I am not buying it, and neither will the large percentage of Americans who don’t read you or Newsmax.
This is also a good time to remember that Bennett is a degenerate gambler, a habit–while legal in some places–has proven again and again to be a seed for all kinds of other crime.
Perhaps a better example would have been for Bennett to suggest we abort all Republican degenerate gamblers.
M. Simon: And your point is what, precisely?
That criminals traffic in illegal activities?
That terrorists wouldn’t commit violent acts if drugs were legalized?
The legal prohibition of murder raises the cost of contract killings. Price supports for murderers?
Foolish argument, IMO.
And I don’t intend to hijack the thread into a discussion of drug politics. Laws on the books are expected to be enforced, or repeal the laws.
If we aborted every Democrat baby, the crime rate would be less. Why don’t we do that?
I’d like to be reasonable about this.
Instead, I must offer the following:
GAY ABORTED NEGRO COCK OF POTENTIAL CRIMINALITY!
Whoa, did Kos bleed over here? So the man is a gambler and has lied at some point in the past and is thus to be vilified. OH NOES! THAT MAKES HIM DIFFERENT FROM EVERY POLITICIAN EVAR!
Richard Bennett,
You’re using incarceration stats. You should look at the National Crime Victimization Survey’s stats of race of offenders as reported by victims. The figures will be reasonably similar. But they’re better indicators. I’d do it myself, but I just don’t have time now.
rls 05:40 PM,
The way to deal with the issue then is to quote the book and refute it.
BTW I agree the book is dubious. Correlation is not causation. Any thing short of a direct link is dubious.
I’m reminded of a recent graph I saw showing an inverse correlatioin between global warming and piracy. Something about Pastafarians. You can look it up.
Forbes,
My point is that drug prohibition works like alcohol prohibition. Ever hear of alcohol prohibition?
But hey. Maybe a doctor’s look at why people use drugs (with evidence) might sway you. Doubtful. Worth a try.
Grand Rounds 29 Sept ‘05
Propagandists “rely for the most part on repetition, supression and rationalization – the repetition of catchwords which they wish to be accepted as true, the supression of facts which they wish to be ignored, the arousal and rationalization of passions which may be used in the interests of the Party.”
— Aldous Huxley, Propaganda in a Democratic Society, Brave New World Revisited (1958).
Perhaps one of the Democrats here can show me one single way in which the operatives and promoters of the Democratic Party have not, in their handling of this Bennett matter, fulfilled each of Huxley’s criteria.
Har! Har! I needed a laugh.
Defense Guy:
That reminds me of an incident Dinesh D’Souza recounted in one of his books. He was speaking at a university, puncturing all the racial quota hypocrisies abroad there, when a questioner in the audience objected. The questioner asserted something to the effect that D’Souza was only saying those things because his brown skin shielded him from charges of racism. D’Souza says that he answered with a question, why does skin color give or withold permission to talk about these issues?
Turing = gives, as in What gives with all this walking on eggshells crapola anyway, race-wise?
M. Simon, the entire debate is about whether Bennet’s statements were racist. But you claim that I brought it up? Then you demand I prove that Bennet isn’t a racist, but you won’t take the man’s own words as evidence? I’m sorry, I agree with you on the war on drugs and on the war on terror, but in this instance you have let your hatred of Bennet cloud your judgement.
Forbes,
You are so right that laws on the books must be enforced even at the cost of public order which crime laws are supposed to enhance not degrade. Well I’m all for degrading public order until we are smart enough to figure this one out. You can never have too many criminals fighting turf wars on our streets except when you have too many criminals fighting turf wars on our streets. Let me know when you get tired of drive bys. We knew how to stop them once. Evidently the vaunted Republican historical sense has atrophied since 1933.
Oh and Forbes. We jail drug dealers to keep drugs from adults and children. Is it working? Is anyone who wants them having trouble getting them? Kids say pot is easier to get than beer. Why is that?
BTW tobaccois ananti-depressant. A good substitute for pot which is an anti-depressant. So now we know why Bennett had a smoking problem.
In any case – I have brought up the drug war only to show that Bennett is a liar. So far no one has refuted that point. So we can take it as a given.
Thus as a Republican (and I’m from the libertarian wing and an AVID war supporter – you can look it up – try my posts on LGF to start or have a look at my blog – or look at my anti-Kerry pro Swift Boat stuff on Captain’s Quarters) Bennett deserves my support because even though he is a liar he is on my team.
Excuse me. I’m a partisan. But not that much.
BTW I was hell on wheels on Trent Lott for his inadvertent racism supporting Strom Thurmond – published on Sierra Times – not exactly a left wing site. The article got quite a few replys – mostly supportive of my position.
Again – is Bennett a racist? I have no evidence so let me say no. Is he inartful in his choice of words and a liar. Yes.
Let me add hippocracy for wanting to jail folks for what he got away with in his youth. As is Bush and quite a few other Republicans. And Clinton and quite a few other Democrats.
So Bennett is no racist. Woopeee. Why am I not impressed?
[…] same thing applies today. Because of people like you (William Bennett, Christina Hoff-Summers, etc.) the crude haters like JD and Thor are a stronger force in American […]
[…] same thing applies today. Because of people like you (William Bennett, Christina Hoff-Summers, etc.) the crude haters like JD and Thor are a stronger force in American […]
[…] does nothing much more than vindicate every argument I’ve ever made on this site about how language functions — and about the dangers of allowing for the appropriation of hermeneutics […]
[…] example discussed more than once here would be that of Bill Bennett, who was lashed as a racist for having had the gall to point out — in critiquing an argument […]
[…] not just idiots like Oliver Willis or the folks at Think Progress, but also Bill Kristol, the White House, and many on the right side of the sphere who were up in arms over a memorial designed to resemble […]
[…] the subject was [someone other than me, as well]: Tony Snow, or Captain Ed, or Larry Summers, or Bill Bennett, and on and on and on. THAT is the way I oppose such behavior, not by engaging in its […]
[…] was especially critical of this maneuver during the left’s attack on Bill Bennett, noting at the time that we as a country were reaching the point where the only conversations we […]
[…] Amendment — to do so if the person in question happens to be a white conservative like, say, Bill Bennett or Tony Snow or Rush Limbaugh, et […]