{"id":5346,"date":"2005-09-30T17:44:32","date_gmt":"2005-10-01T00:44:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/?p=5346"},"modified":"2013-10-15T11:45:43","modified_gmt":"2013-10-15T17:45:43","slug":"morning-in-racist-rethuglican-america-an-intentionalist-perspective","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/?p=5346","title":{"rendered":"Morning in (racist Rethuglican) America: an intentionalist perspective"},"content":{"rendered":"

On his \u201cMorning in America\u201d radio show a few days back, Bill Bennett\u2014in the context of responding to a caller who\u2019d suggested that making abortion illegal would create more workers 20 years hence\u2014said<\/a>:<\/p>\n

But I do know that it\u2019s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could\u2014if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate<\/a> would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Predictably, the race baiters<\/a> sprung immediately into action, and, instead of trying to understand Bennett\u2019s point (which has nothing to do with anything inherent<\/i> to blacks\u2014and in fact, is an argument for just the opposite<\/i>), decided instead to seize upon the remarks robbed of their context and intent to charge Bennett<\/a> with racism and demand an apology<\/a>.\u00a0 (For the record, Bennett was merely referencing \u201cFreakonomics,\u201d<\/a> which posits the hypothesis that falling crimes rates are related to increased abortion rates decades ago\u2014a position which I take it he rejects).<\/p>\n

Sadly, prominent Democratic leaders<\/a>, pundits and lawmakers<\/a> have spearheaded <\/a>this smear campaign<\/a>, 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<\/i> 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.\u00a0 It\u2019s as if because his words, taken out of context, can<\/i>, to the uninformed, be taken to mean something they were never intended to mean<\/i>, his words are therefore useful insofar as they can be deployed to cause him public discomfort\u2014and, by extension, to taint the whole of the Republican party by association.<\/p>\n

And the White House, increasingly incapable of taking a principled stand<\/a>, provides these disingenuous race baiters with cover\u2014presumably still reeling from the last round of disingenuous race baiting, which came in guise of Hurricane outrage.<\/p>\n

None of this, given our partisan culture, is unexpected. But what gives these calculated and malicious rhetorical and performative ploys their political force <\/i>is twofold:\u00a0 first, the willingness (in this case on the part of Democrats and the press, and now, the White House) to consider Bennett\u2019s remarks outside of their argumentative context; and second, the idea that Bennett\u2019s words are still his beyond his intent to use them in a certain way<\/i>\u2014which simply echoes the old Judith Butler axiom that \u201cactions continue to act after the intentional subject has announced its completion,\u201d which, while true<\/i>, is nevertheless incidental, and becomes dangerous as an assertion when interpretation is released from the ground of appealing back to the speaker\u2019s intent.\u00a0 That is, what is at stake here is the role the subject plays in the \u201cmeaning\u201d of the act vs. the role played by contingency in giving that act its (subsequent) meaning(s)\u2014or, to put it more specifically, what William Bennett meant<\/i> vs. what his words can be made to look like they might mean<\/i> by those in whose interests it is to damage him.\u00a0 In short, they are taking ownership of his words, resignifying them, then using that resignification to taint Bennett with the charge of racism.<\/p>\n

All of which takes us back, of course, to our discussions of Allah in the swirly cone, the Flight 93 Memorial, and Captain Ed\u2019s use of \u201carticulate.\u201d Many of Bennett\u2019s critics don\u2019t particularly care<\/i> what he meant.<\/i> Instead, they care that what he said<\/i> can be shown to mean something other than what he meant if it\u2019s removed from context and resignified\u2014though they will then turn around and argue that he really did mean his comments to carry a racist component (either consciously or unconsciously<\/a>).\u00a0 Others will argue that, even if Bennett didn\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n

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\u2014that the marks \u201cmean\u201d something beyond some intention to turn them into language by providing signification.<\/p>\n

In this case, most of the criticism seems to me to be linguistically sound, though interpretively sloppy (and, in many cases, intentionally so).\u00a0 Because a fair, rigorous, and judicious reading of Bennett\u2019s comments in their original context suggest he is arguing that, for any number of reasons\u2014from a history of racial divisiveness to poverty to the crutch of the welfare state to failures in public education\u2014blacks are, statistically-speaking, more likely to commit crime (in Bennett\u2019s reading of crime statistics; others would argue that blacks are more likely to be targeted by law enforcement.\u00a0 But for our purposes, it is important that we understand Bennett\u2019s premises).\u00a0 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.\u00a0 But doing so would be morally untenable precisely because<\/i> the procedure would also eliminate a lot more<\/i> people who wouldn\u2019t<\/i>, 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.<\/p>\n

But why bring up race in the first place?<\/p>\n

Well, as Bennett himself tells ABC News\u2019<\/a> Jake Tapper:<\/p>\n

\u201cThere was a lot of discussion about race and crime in New Orleans,\u201d Bennett said. \u201cThere was discussion \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u20ac\u0153 a lot of it wrong \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u20ac\u0153 but nevertheless, media jumping on stories about looting and shooting and gangs and roving gangs and so on.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s no question this is on our minds,\u201d Bennett said. \u201cWhat I do on our show is talk about things that people are thinking \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u00a6 we don\u2019t hesitate to talk about things that are touchy.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bennett said, \u201cI\u2019m sorry if people are hurt, I really am. But we can\u2019t say this is an area of American life (and) public policy that we\u2019re not allowed to talk about \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00e2\u20ac\u0153 race and crime.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And Bennett is precisely right:\u00a0 fear of being branded a racist simply should not keep us from discussing racial issues\u2014though 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.<\/p>\n

Still, as it becomes more and more apparent that Bennett\u2019s argument was manifestly not informed by racism, however, and that his critics\u2019 intitial interpretations appealed to an intent on Bennett\u2019s part that they incorrectly gauged \u2014I 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.\u00a0 And indeed, such a procedure is already underway:<\/p>\n

Robert George, an African-American, Republican editorial writer for the New York Post, agrees that Bennett\u2019s comments were not meant as racist. But he worries they feed into stereotypes of Republicans as insensitive. \u201cHis overall point about not making broad sociological claims and so forth, that was a legitimate point,\u201d George said. \u201cBut it seems to me someone with Bennett\u2019s intelligence \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c2\u00a6 should know better the impact of his words and sort of thinking these things through before he speaks.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Like \u201cscratch\u201d<\/a> before him, George argues that, because other people could potentially misinterpret Bennett\u2019s meaning, Bennett himself should have been more careful<\/a> in choosing<\/a> his words.\u00a0 And such an argument effectively gives the interpreter power over the grounds of interpretation and relativizes language.<\/p>\n

But what would Robert George\u2014and scratch<\/a>, and all those who argue for the primacy of the signifier<\/a>\u2014say 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…?<\/p>\n

****<\/p>\n

update<\/i><\/b>:\u00a0 To their credit, both Matt Yglesias<\/a> and Brad Delong<\/a> defend Bennett.<\/p>\n

****<\/p>\n

update 2<\/i><\/b>:\u00a0 For those of you who wish to dismiss this kerfuffle as the consequence of a soundbite culture<\/a> 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\u2019ve 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.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

****<\/p>\n

update 3<\/i><\/b>: John Cole has more<\/a>.\u00a0 Be sure to read his comments, where you\u2019ll find every conceivable justification for calling Bennett a racist, most of which boil down to, \u201cbecause deep inside he probably is, being a Rethuglican and all.\u201d<\/p>\n

****<\/p>\n

update 4<\/i><\/b>:\u00a0 For a more thorough and thoughtful critique of Bennett (including a critique of my position), see David Schraub<\/a>.<\/p>\n

I think Schraub <\/a>is wrong\u2014for 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<\/a> 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.\u00a0 From a rhetorical standpoint, then, Jews would have carried the most associative weight, but that particular group doesn\u2019t fit the remainder of the analogy\u2019s terms.<\/p>\n

Because Bennett\u2019s argument is more to do with a type of statistics-based, morally reprehensible pragmatic utilitarianism than it is about race and criminality per se<\/i>, the association that Schraub foregrounds is less important to Bennett than his desire to make the moral point most forcefully.\u00a0 Or, to put it more succinctly, Schraub says Bennett was racially insensitive; I say he was rhetorically forceful.\u00a0 And my argument is that Bennett intended his argument to be understood as such.<\/p>\n

Still, a thoughtful piece from the pomo perspective.<\/p>\n

****<\/p>\n

update 5<\/i><\/b>:\u00a0 A moderate\u2019s defense<\/a>, from Michael Reynolds<\/p>\n

****<\/p>\n

update 6<\/i><\/b>:\u00a0 Bob Krumm<\/a> notes that (Freakonomics<\/i> author) Steven Levitt and John Donohue, in a paper published in Quaterly Journal of Economics<\/i><\/a>, do indeed link black abortion to a decrease in crime rates.\u00a0 Writes Best of the Web\u2019s James Taranto<\/a>:<\/p>\n

[…] 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\u2019s comments have caused such discomfort on the left.<\/p>\n

So why do we see this as a sign of political correctness\u2019s 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\u2019s and Wade Henderson\u2019s demands regarding Bennett, above).<\/p>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

****<\/p>\n

update 7<\/i><\/b>:\u00a0 Dan Riehl<\/a> suggests that my argument is dishonest.\u00a0 I give up.<\/p>\n

****<\/p>\n

update 8<\/i><\/b>:\u00a0 See my follow-up post here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On his \u201cMorning in America\u201d radio show a few days back, Bill Bennett\u2014in the context of responding to a caller who\u2019d suggested that making abortion illegal would create more workers 20 years hence\u2014said: But I do know that it\u2019s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could\u2014if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":9196393,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5346","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5346","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/9196393"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5346"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5346\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":51545,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5346\/revisions\/51545"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5346"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5346"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5346"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}