What is the Matter with Bill Bennett?????

Bennett's Critics Prefer to Misunderstand Him

By Jonah Goldberg
Oct 7, 2005

Until we were so rudely interrupted by President Bush's latest Supreme Court pick, we were having an illuminating squabble over Bill Bennett. And since Bennett's remarks on his radio show have already morphed into something of an urban legend in many quarters, I think they're worth revisiting.

A quick recap: Bennett got a call from a listener suggesting that Social Security was in financial straights because so many taxpayers had been aborted after Roe vs. Wade. The caller was making an ostensibly pro-life point. But Bennett, also a pro-lifer, objected. That's not the way you should look at abortion, he said. Such utilitarianism is a distraction and morally unreliable. He cited the book "Freakonomics," by University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt, which argues, among other things, that the increase in abortions since Roe vs. Wade has contributed considerably to the drop in the crime rate.

And then Bennett offered the infamous hypothetical, saying: "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."

Now, many of you probably know all of this so far. But some probably do not because you've heard about this second hand. And Democrats and many liberals have been trying to distort what Bennett said. Former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe: "The point he was trying to make, I guess, he said, you know, if you were to go out there and kill the black babies, the crime would go down." Ted Kennedy and a predictably long list of others have called him a racist. Radio host Ed Schultz said: Bennett is "out there advocating the murder of all black babies."

There are too many ways in which this anti-Bennett backlash is cheap and tawdry to discuss here. (Though I should note that a considerable minority of liberal writers who loathe Bennett refuse to participate in the witch hunt.)

My first objection is more of a delicious irony. Notice how so many righteously offended liberals keep referring to fetuses as people. In The New York Times, Bob Herbert proclaims that Bennett considers "exterminating blacks would be a most effective crime-fighting tool." Schultz and McAuliffe say Bennett wants to exterminate "babies."

Funny, I thought the bedrock faith of pro-abortion liberals is that fetuses aren't babies. Isn't it interesting how this lynchpin of liberal morality evaporates the moment an opportunity to call Bennett a racist presents itself? Talk about utilitarianism.

Many Bennett stalwarts have spent a lot of time defending him on the grounds that what he said is actually true. Since black crime rates are disproportionately high, they reason, eliminating the next generation - as horrific as that would be - would reduce the overall rate. In response, some liberals have put on their Karnak the Magnificent hats and tried to rebut this by trying to predict what would really happen under the Bennett hypothesis. Tax rolls would go down, schools would close, etc., etc.

All of this is a grand exercise in futility and absurdity. Of course, no one knows what the real repercussions would be if you aborted every black baby in America. One repercussion would probably be civil war or revolution, as nearly the entire black population of the United States, along with large majorities of white pro-lifers and pro-choicers, righteously and legitimately took up arms to prevent the government from committing genocide. And, I should add, one of the guys shouting "Lock and load!" would undoubtedly be Bennett himself.

Which raises the point missed by so many Bennett detractors, often deliberately. His argument wasn't about race at all. His point was to discourage even pro-lifers from demeaning the cause by making abortion into an acceptable governmental tool for social policy.

Bennett was sincere when he said that aborting all black babies simply to lower the crime rate would be "ridiculous, and morally reprehensible." He could have just as easily said to the caller: "Hey, look, we could save a lot of money on skyrocketing education costs if only we aborted the mentally impaired and learning disabled. But you know what? Ends cannot justify the means of murdering the unborn." It would be silly to waste a lot of time trying to rebut him by saying, "Well, actually you wouldn't save that much money."

The former philosophy professor picked a hypothetical that he thought would make the horror of such utilitarianism obvious to everybody. Murder a whole generation just to lower the crime rate? Disgusting!

Bennett's real mistake was in thinking people would be mature enough to get it.

Ahh. You weren't saying Bennett was having trouble keeping a job, or couldn't speak very well. You were suggesting the comment he made, if made by someone else, perhaps even in a low level position, would cause that person to be fired? Was that your point?

Rosen: Media malign Bennett

October 7, 2005

The breaking news last Friday morning was that some prominent public figure - obviously an outrageous, hateful racist - had made the following statement: "If you wanted to reduce crime, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." Who could say such a thing? Why none other than William Bennett, we were told, former Secretary of Education under President Reagan, noted academic and author. Gadzooks! Liberals must be right - conservatives are bigoted and mean-spirited.

It's been said that a lie can travel halfway around the world before truth puts its shoes on. This is a classic example of that phenomenon and the culpability of the media in spreading the word. It ought to become a case history of bias, malice and irresponsibility studied in every journalism school in the country. The only thing outrageous about this entire incident is that Bill Bennett has been unfairly and maliciously maligned.

Some of the media types who jumped on this story early offered the explanation that they didn't initially have all the facts, although they could have gotten them easily enough had they done a little research before rushing to judgment. Perhaps they didn't want all the facts. The story was just too juicy and damaging to a conservative icon to pass up.

While Bennett's out-of-context quote was traveling halfway across the world, it took me about 30 minutes to explain, on my radio show that morning, what had actually happened. In this case, truth took as much time as a centipede putting on its shoes.

For openers, the second sentence of the Bennett quote was often conspicuously absent: "That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down." Next, it's essential to understand why he was going down this path to begin with. This is where it gets really interesting.

On his national talk show, Bill Bennett's Morning in America, the topic was abortion. A caller, an abortion opponent, was attempting to enlist nonbelievers to the cause with a utilitarian argument: If all those potential taxpayers aborted since Roe v. Wade were among us, we'd have more revenue to fund Social Security today. Bennett discouraged "tricky" arguments like this, urging the caller to focus on moral, pro-life opposition to abortion. Noting that utilitarian arguments can cut both ways, Bennett referred to an example from the book, Freakonomics, about the possible connection between abortion and the documented reduction in the crime rate. Some have argued that the crime rate dropped because of better police work. An alternative theory might be that since violent crimes are committed inordinately by young males, the drop in the crime rate was due to a reduction in the population of young males 18 years after Roe v. Wade.

And since the crime rate among young black males is higher than among young white males, Q.E.D., aborting black babies could result in a reduction in the crime rate. Now, it's idiocy of the highest order to claim that Bennett is advocating any such policy. Bennett is morally opposed to abortion for anybody, black or white. His point, in this exchange with a talk radio caller, was precisely not to make such arguments!

Regarding the outstanding book, Freakonomics, I recently interviewed Steven Levitt, the co-author, on my radio show. He's an economics professor at the University of Chicago, who was just honored with the John Bates Clark Award as the best economist under the age of 40. In Chapter 4: "Where Have All the Criminals Gone?" the authors explore the difference between correlation and causality, using abortion and crime statistics. (Sidebar: "Cock-a-doodle-doo economics" is a term used to deride claims that an economic outcome was caused by a merely coincidental, not causal, policy. The expression refers to the rooster's notion that his crowing in the early morning is what causes the sun to rise.) Levitt's illustrative academic exercise about abortion and crime rates leaves readers to draw their own conclusions about causality. Levitt, like Bennett, is most definitely not advocating abortion as a policy to reduce crime rates.

Predictably, the usual suspects jumped all over the Bennett remarks for political gain, either ignorant of or mindfully distorting the context. Race baiters Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton beat their chests. Democrat demagogues Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy piled on. They and the rash journalists who rushed to judgment all owe Bennett an apology. Fat chance.

Ticomaya wrote:

Ahh. You weren't saying Bennett was having trouble keeping a job, or couldn't speak very well. You were suggesting the comment he made, if made by someone else, perhaps even in a low level position, would cause that person to be fired? Was that your point?

Yes.

kelticwizard wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Ahh. You weren't saying Bennett was having trouble keeping a job, or couldn't speak very well. You were suggesting the comment he made, if made by someone else, perhaps even in a low level position, would cause that person to be fired? Was that your point?

Yes.

Much the same way someone who used the word, "niggardly" might get fired, I suppose.

Rosen: Media malign Bennett

October 7, 2005

The breaking news last Friday morning was that some prominent public figure - obviously an outrageous, hateful racist - had made the following statement: "If you wanted to reduce crime, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." Who could say such a thing? Why none other than William Bennett, we were told, former Secretary of Education under President Reagan, noted academic and author. Gadzooks! Liberals must be right - conservatives are bigoted and mean-spirited.

And since the crime rate among young black males is higher than among young white males, Q.E.D., aborting black babies could result in a reduction in the crime rate. Now, it's idiocy of the highest order to claim that Bennett is advocating any such policy. Bennett is morally opposed to abortion for anybody, black or white. His point, in this exchange with a talk radio caller, was precisely not to make such arguments!

"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."

Predictably, the usual suspects jumped all over the Bennett remarks for political gain, either ignorant of or mindfully distorting the context. Race baiters Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton beat their chests. Democrat demagogues Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy piled on. They and the rash journalists who rushed to judgment all owe Bennett an apology. Fat chance.

Bennett has to step down from the company he actually co-founded a few years ago for his remarks. Meanwhile, Finn tells us how exasperated he is that people would be so stupid as to object to Bennett's remarks.

As Cyclopticorn, Slappy and others have been trying to say in plain and simple language, there is a certain level of social skill that is required when dealing with the public in a melting pot country such as ours. Just some things you don't say which most people who deal with the public easily recognize. Common sense, really.

Making up a proposal to forcibly abort all black babies, even for the purpose of coming down against it, is one of those things that anyone with a lick of sense doesn't do in public. The fact that Bennett actually found some merit in the idea-albeit overbalanced by the moral consideration-just makes it all the worse.

I would say that anyone who speaks as Bennett does would have difficulty keeping even a low-level job dealing with the public, such as selling slacks in a Sears menswear department or selling wrenches in a hardware store.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

My bet is that any passage in Mein Kampf that discusses the forced abortion of a class of people, was not followed by the author's expressed opinion that such a plan would be ridiculous, impossible and morally reprehensible.

i haven't managed to read it in its entirety--have you?--but you probably win the bet. that doesn't change the fact that forced abortion of black babies is a genocidal idea--the 'hypothetical' is 'close' to a 'final solution' as parados put it. the comparison is with Bennett's proposal, not between Bennett and a historical figure.

You and others conveniently ignore the fact that Bennett clearly expressed that such a "genocidal idea" was ridiculous, impossible and morally reprehensible.

It's hard to comment about this disclaimer, since he hasn't provided any detail as to why it would be ridiculous, impossible and morally reprehensible. Impossible legally? Ridiculous from a PR perspective? Morally reprehensible from a pro-life position?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

You and others conveniently ignore the fact that Bennett clearly expressed that such a "genocidal idea" was ridiculous, impossible and morally reprehensible.

no, i haven't. tico asked me about that, and this is what i wrote:

Quote:

It's hard to comment about this disclaimer, since he hasn't provided any detail as to why it would be ridiculous, impossible and morally reprehensible. Impossible legally? Ridiculous from a PR perspective? Morally reprehensible from a pro-life position?

hypothetically, he could consider it sensible, feasible, and moral to pay black women to undergo sterilization, which would make him a kinder, gentler version of He-who-must-not-be-named.

You are going to have to come up with far more of a persuasive argument, if you want anyone to take seriously the notion that Bennett calling the approach impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible was an intellectually dishonest smokescreen.