Bill Bennet has apparently ruffled a lot of feathers recently by making the point that aborting all the black pregnancies in the land would reduce the crime rate. And the PC brigades are out in force attempting to cash in a little anti-conservative treasure. None of this is very encouraging, because everyone is thinking in terms of a broad fallacy. No one is bothering to make sense. Bennet obviously thought he was making a clear empirical point, using it to bolster a case that there are lots of things one could do to reduce the crime rate that would be more objectionable than simply putting up with crime. This was, in fact, one of the more subtle points of Seymour Martin Lipset's classic:
. Lipset's point being that it's our unwillingness to give automatic deference to authority that partly explains higher historical crime rates in the US, at least until Europe began to pass us in the robbery, burglary and home invasion category. And that if we changed that basic relationship to authority, the whole tapestry of our civilization could come unravelled... Compared to that, a high crime rate is a small price to pay.
Bennet's thinking probably went something like this: There's a high correlation between the percentage of black people in a population in the US and the crime rate. Therefore, if you reduce the percentage of black people you'd naturally expect the crime rate to drop. Makes perfect sense. It doesn't inherently have anything to do with race, because the same thing might happen if we reduced the percentage of short people provided there were some non-causal correlation between being short and being a criminal. And the not-so-obvious fallacy in this thinking is that the eventual crime rate of infants born today doesn't necessarily have any relationship to the current crime rate of their parents... especially if something fundamental changes. But it's not racist. It's just wrong. That is, believing that such a thing is coherent betrays a fundamental confusion in Bennet's thinking; but it's probably one that he shares with 99% of the public, including most blacks.
In the 17th Century, England was in the midst of a crime wave so destructive that it nearly ruined the culture. During that period there were many who believed that there was something about the cockneys that made them a "criminal class." People wrote a great deal about the phenomenon, as the prisons filled with convicts and the overflow were first placed on prison ships anchored permanently in the harbor. Then the ships filled, and the "assignment system" began to ship convicts to Australia, turning it into a continent-sized penal colony. England was in big trouble.
The meme is that we assume the conditions creating the present set of circumstances will continue to produce the same results even if the context totally changes. And clearly, for the kind of thing that Bennet talks about to happen there'd be a HUGE change in context. That's why his extrapolation makes no sense at all. If we're allowed to think in terms of a fundamental change in context it would be just as reasonable to propose that the generation of blacks born on this day will end up as law-abiding Rethuglicans who see Ronald Reagan as their role model, rather than Martin Luther King, perish the thought. I daresay Bennet didn't even have a "criminal class" theory to fall back on. He just lacked the imagination to extrapolate from a trend that's producing more and more middle class black people who eschew the basic assumptions made by their parents. I don't think Bennet was racist. Not even slightly. He was just unimaginative and uninformed. And ironically he seems to have lacked sufficient faith in his own conservative principles that he could imagine them being spontaneously adopted by a black population thoroughly fed up with the prescriptions of the social democratic Left, which hasn't done diddly for blacks in two generations.
And the other fallacy is the one spontaneously adopted by our self-righteous Left, who not only don't comprehend the fallacy in Bennet's thinking (ascribing it to racism simply because they like the sound of it) but fearfully seem to make the same assumptions he does: that one can expect the same trends we've always seen even when the context is totally upended. It's perfectly logical to say that if presently-assumed trends continue unabated then a reduction in the proportion of black people in the population will reduce the crime rate, all else being equal. That is, it's logical except for the fact that the presently assumed trends are totally hogwash. A trend continues until it runs into its operational limits. It then runs out of steam, and changes. And how it changes is notoriously unpredictable because there's a bit of chaos involved. No one knows what will happen. Not Bennet. Not me. Not even Dr. Shackleford.
And that's why beauty is sometimes a better guide to the future than numbers.
1
Now that is exactly the kind of dialog his statement should have created. A common sense refutation by a non-reactionary. Instead we got gasps and outrage.
Posted by: Oyster at October 01, 2005 05:39 AM (YudAC)
2
Bennett's remark was an abstraction, and a reductio ad absurdum, much like Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" for curing the famine in Ireland. Nancy Pelosi and Jesse Jackson may not be mental giants, but one has to believe they understand this--and choose, nevertheless, to use Bennett vilely to whip up their more-ignorant followers. It's typical of the kind of smear Democrats use against Republicans, and the liberal media uses against Republicans, shamelessly betraying their own total lack of ethics. In this case the underlying charge is doubly absurd, inasmuch as Bennett, despite many enormous changes from Democrat to Republican, academic to Reagan or Bush cabinet officer, and think-tank moralist to talk show host, has always and consistently maintained his vehement opposition to all abortion everywhere, in accord with the devout Catholic faith which everyone knows him to practice.
Posted by: Exguru at October 01, 2005 08:31 AM (M7kiy)
3
". And the PC brigades are out in force attempting to cash in a little anti-conservative treasure. "
Even dubya cashed in on the action. See? he does care about black people.
Posted by: actus at October 01, 2005 08:56 AM (Zi15r)
4
these comments and those by bennet don't "add" up. when one looks at raw numbers of crimes in U.S. and 'race' of those persons, you find the results don't point toward african american.
Posted by: richard at October 01, 2005 08:57 AM (53R3n)
5
Bennett's remark was an abstraction, and a reductio ad absurdum, much like Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" for curing the famine in Ireland.
Well yes, in terms of the spirit of the remark; which is why it wasn't "racist." But the relationship between humans and nutrition is largely fixed, while the relationship between blacks and crime isn't. It's his assumption that it is fixed that's fallacious.
Posted by: Demosophist at October 01, 2005 10:53 AM (QvodM)
6
Richard: I don't think he was looking at "raw" numbers. I think it was "disproportionate" numbers of black to white.
I thought Demosophist's response was pretty spot on.
Posted by: Oyster at October 01, 2005 10:56 AM (YudAC)
7
You kill off any subset of the population and crime will reduce.
What Mr. Bennett tried to do was to take the argument that abortion has reduced the crime rate to an absurd place on the field. I do not think it is completely unfair to attack the argument the way it is either.
I think even dunderheads like Jesse Jackson can figure out what the whole meaning of Bennett's comments were about. What is being attacked is the assumption that black==criminal, which is separate from the abortion aspect of Bennett's comments.
In the end we file this along with the case of Bill Cosby. Blacks may be able to use the N word but they can not offer thoughtful and substantial criticism either.
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at October 01, 2005 11:15 AM (hTZG+)
8
In the same manner, racism can be reduced in america by aborting all white children.
Posted by: customer at October 01, 2005 11:35 AM (J/bfB)
9
customer - genius comment!
Posted by: I spit on your grave at October 01, 2005 12:07 PM (BmtfW)
10
Just read what he said. No one should be defending this racist.
CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.
BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?
CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.
BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.
CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.
BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. 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. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
Posted by: I spit on your grave at October 01, 2005 12:47 PM (BmtfW)
11
I always thought putting drops of liquid acid on ATM bank deposit envelopes would help society get along. But then again, I've witnessed racism more in the mind than in action. Being white, it's always touchy trying to talk about race with someone who isn't white. It's almost like there's some sort of PC code where you're supposed to agree that whitey is the worst, etc. I don't buy that shit. It's like you're racist if you have a different opinion! For instance, I think that blacks bring racism on themselves in different ways, like kids thinking it's sly to be a menace, or people who use race as an excuse or crutch. The worst being the whole "Your ancestors enslaved my ancestors, so now I'm going to be a dick to you" thing. Depending on who's version of history you're believing in, it's obvious: Hate only breeds more hate. If Bennett is a racist, I wouldn't be surprised. He is guilty of saying stupid shit, but it's not like it hasn't been said before. Just recently the NYtimes had a pro-author review about a book called "Freakonomics" which had similar views about abortion and ghetto crime. Anyway, I'm going on tangents. We all know Kanye was wrong...Bush hates POOR people.
Posted by: osamabinhiding at October 01, 2005 12:53 PM (QMrot)
12
In the same manner, racism can be reduced in america by aborting all white children.
Hmm... That implies that whites are more racist than blacks, which isn't something I'd concede. My hunch is that there's no difference between the races on that score, so the
rate of racism probably wouldn't change at all. Of course there are those who define racism exclusively as an attitude of the dominant group, but that's easily seen through. I'm even skeptical that racism would be reduced if we got rid of all but one "race," because the term isn't really scientific so Hutu and Tutsi, Arab and Jew, see one another as racially distinct when the fact is otherwise. Race is in the eye of the beholder.
But it was a brain-teasing comment, that's for sure.
Posted by: Demosophist at October 01, 2005 02:47 PM (egnHl)
13
A couple of things.
It is clear what he is arguing and people want to focus on one tree from a whole forest.
Some years ago Rush got into trouble by saying something very similar. He said if a test came out where parents could tell if their unborn children had homosexual tendencies then a whole segment of the population would come out against abortion. This was taken to mean Rush favored the aborting of unbron gay children. Of course it isn't true.
What Bill Bennett is saying that utilitarian arguments for or against abortion end up in abusrdity.
Why isn't Margaret Sanger villified in a similar fashion?
Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at October 01, 2005 02:49 PM (hTZG+)
14
"In the same manner, racism can be reduced in america by aborting all white children."
I concur with Demosophist in his response.
I'll tell you, here where I'm from, I see more racism from the black folk. And most times it's born of paranoia. They expect most white people to be racist when they're not. I work for a restaurant and watched on more than one occasion when the manager has asked someone to leave because they've become confrontational. Sometimes it's white people and sometimes black. But everytime it's someone black, they cry racism. So yeah, it's a real problem. It's become a catchall reason for every grievance.
Posted by: Oyster at October 01, 2005 03:28 PM (YudAC)
15
labelling seems inappropriate when it isn't pushed by some agenda.
For example during Katrina in New Orleans the looting was excused by the media labelling the looters as "poor black people" now I have known quite a few poor people in my time but does that mean they steal when given the chance? No.
So why was there no outrage when they linked income -> criminal behavior ?
Playing the race card these days is almost synonymous with having a royal flush.
Posted by: dave at October 01, 2005 08:48 PM (CcXvt)
16
Bennet defended racial comments with falsehood.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509300008
Posted by: Screaming At A Wall at October 02, 2005 03:32 AM (BmtfW)
17
CUSTOMER:
Racism would not be reduced in America by aborting all white children. With blacks in the majority one would quickly find just how racist blacks are. Blacks are far more racist than whites. Look at Africa and the constant murders, rapes and attacks that continue. Whites are leaving for fear of the lives in massive numbers.
Look at any prison population. Take your ass to an all black area of town as see what happens. How many white muggers are arrested in New York City compared to black muggers.
How many blacks were attacked and killed in the superdome.
But whites were attacked by blacks for no other reason than they were white. One young man was beaten to death by the animals. Right in front of hundreds of so called (good)blacks. How many looters were white in New Orleans? And I'm not talking about those that were taking food and essentials. How many whites were shooting at the white people attempting to save black asses?
The truth is crime is rampant in black communities.
Me, I believe in accepting the truth and working on it from there. Denying the truth promotes the problem.
Your post is bullshit. Only accepted by candy assed black ass kissing liberals.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 02, 2005 10:01 AM (ywZa8)
18
I spit on your grave: I SPIT ON YOUR FACE.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 02, 2005 08:56 PM (ywZa8)
19
Racism would not be reduced in America by aborting all white children. With blacks in the majority one would quickly find just how racist blacks are. Blacks are far more racist than whites. Look at Africa and the constant murders, rapes and attacks that continue. Whites are leaving for fear of the lives in massive numbers.
Honestly, I don't see why blacks in a modern society would be inherently more racist than whites. Granted tribaly people are more "racist" in the sense that they stick to their own tribe. And as a rule tribal warfare has taken no prisoners. The Tutsi and Hutu rivalry, however, is no more nor less vile than the ethnic cleansing in Serbia-Herzogovnia, which was white on white. The reason North Americans (especially Canada and the US) are generally less racist than other peoples is simply that they're better protected from invasion, and have a culture that's more centered on ideology than ethnicity.
Of course, you wouldn't know than North Americans are generally less racist than other people if you listened to Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore.
Strictly speaking there isn't that much difference within western societies on "prejudice." They're all within a fairly narrow range. The two ends of the spectrum are Canada (least prejudiced) and Belgium (most prejudiced). And again the explanation is pretty straightforward. Belgium has been trampled by practically every power in every war since Charlemagne, while Canada (with a big menacing protector to the south) has almost never been invaded. It's purely a matter of which culture feels more secure. Has nothing to do with race.
Posted by: Demosophist at October 02, 2005 09:16 PM (0cPRt)
20
What Bennett should have said to avoid the charge of "racism" is that if you kill off all WHITE people then crime will dissapear.
But he chose blacks because his entire point was that a racist could easily make that argument, but that such arguments are morally reprehensible, according to Bennett.
Posted by: Carlos at October 03, 2005 08:06 AM (GbzDT)
21
There is no explaining such a moronic,racist,stupid remark by a hypocrite like the gambling,womanizing,steak and booze guzzling moron bill bennet. to call for the extermination of an entire race is outrageous. to think this idiot wrote a book "of virtues"while he was losing millions at the crap tables is bad enough,I dont think even david duke ever said such a stupid thing,what an imbecile!
Posted by: joe at October 03, 2005 08:39 AM (FWGcT)
22
Nothing joe says is the truth. " Bennett called for the extermination of an entire race". What a bunch of bullshit. Joe are you a liberal democrat black muslim? That is the only group ignorant enough to come up with what you said.
Gambling, womanizing, steak and booze guzzler. Hmmmm. Sounds like me. I didn't care much for Bennett until now.
So I take it the Joe doesn't gamble. I bet on all football games.
Joe doesn't like womanizing. So he apparently likes men.
Joe doesn't eat steak. A veggie freak.
Joe doesn't drink alcohol.
Joe attacks our republican leader.
Joe refers to David Duke as saying stupid things. But Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton he leaves out. Since Joe never brought these maggots up I now deduce that:
Joe is a black democrat faggot veggie freak that doesn't like beer.
WHAT A FRIGGING FREAK!
Posted by: greyrooster at October 03, 2005 02:22 PM (ywZa8)
23
to call for the extermination of the black race is outrageous.this imbecile who ghostwrote a book called"book of virtues"is so stupid,a steak and liquor guzzling(just look at his face and gut)womanizing gambler who spent the book profits at the craps table.Even David Duke never said anything so stupid.the man is an imbecile.period!
Posted by: joe at October 03, 2005 06:47 PM (dV2NF)
24
Joe, which part don't you understand? He did not "call for the extermination of the black race". He may have used a poor choice of words that others took wrongly. But he absolutely did not do what you suggest. You're going to have to do better.
Posted by: Oyster at October 04, 2005 07:16 AM (YudAC)
25
Oh, ferchrissake! Bennet was quoting a passage from a book . . taken in context, it was an anology, no more . . but as is the custom today, by so many, "let's lynch the mother******" for reading and quoting . . he stated that he didn't neccessarily agree with the passage, it was just to point out a point of view that some have . . .
And you have the Racists who make good money for being Racist, Jesse, Al and that group, then Pelosi and her whole far left whiners association, who wait for ANYONE to say something that will get them in front of a camera and a bank of microphones.
I don't pay much attention to Bennet or a lot of the far right, just as I think the whole Far left should be ignored to the point of "Termination" . . there's far too much emotion in Politics today, and that makes politics far less logical than it should be . .
my nickle . . .
Posted by: large at October 04, 2005 09:47 AM (Ny1Tj)
26
Joe is like any other liberal idiot. He refuses to admit the truth and continues on with his stupid comments. Again, must be a black democrat faggot veggie freak who doesn't like beer. A weirdo at best.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 05, 2005 06:32 AM (ywZa8)
27
Bush hates poor people? Ha, Ha. Well why do we need them. Down with the poor. They don't pay their share of taxes. Ha, ha. What a bunch of shit.
Posted by: greyrooster at October 05, 2005 06:34 AM (ywZa8)
28
You all are IGNORANT and you don't know half of what blacks go through on a daily basis. I'm used to racist comment like that (and yes, saying somebody must be a "black democrat faggot" is racist.It doesn't even bother me because there are some shitty ass people in this world that will get what they deserve when they die. "Unless you was me, how could you judge me, I was brought up in pain you can't touch me. Police pursued me, chased cuffed and subdued me, talked to me rudely, cause I'm young, black, and I'm living a movie, not living by rules." Yes there are some racist blacks, but they wouldn't be that way unless given a reason to. I've walked in stores and been literally followed everywhere I go, treated differently, yes because I'm black. But all blacks are not violent....I am in college on a full scholarship. Young, black and educated......AMERICA'S NIGHTMARE
Posted by: Melissa at October 10, 2005 06:10 PM (Al5t1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
