Bennett's remarks are obviously racist, but he is probably referring to the NYT bestseller _Freakonomics_ where the authors argue that, controlling for all other factors, the ability of women to decide if they want a child was important in reducing the number of unwanted children whom, they argue, are children more likely to commit crimes. So legalizing abortion is, according to them, the single factor that can explain the reduction of crime rates in the 1990s USA. (Notice that the very popular book's title isn't mentioned in the story nor is its author who has appeared on talk shows to explain his ideas for months.)
If the hypothesis is at all plausible (or even remotely provable) it would be a very good argument for the pro-choice movement to bring up (and maybe they have) in relation to the discussion about the general well-being of society. This is a slippery slope, though, b/c one of their arguments for keeping abortion legal is that making it illegal would limit the possibilities for women who have limited means to be able to get them safely. So the implications lead quickly to Bennett's rhetorical position: there are certain people (poor or black) who abortion is being legalized for; therefore their ability to do this is a sort of self-selected eugenics, which we should support this because it helps all of "us" since there are fewer of "them" to commit crimes. (These premises may be out of order and missing a few steps, but it won't be hard to make them seem logical, which is all that punditry requires.)
That this assumes the black and poor are the most likely to commit crimes (tacit in the original study) or that the crimes they commit are more dangerous or detrimental to society than the crimes commited in corporate boardrooms or the oval office...well these are definitely off the table for discussion. Even in the mainstream critiques of his position, these will remain unexamined. Notice that the real crime was that he said something "outrageous" and "he should know better" than to say them. What is outrageous about it will probably not get discussed since the purpose will be to make him look bad rather than challenge anyone's assumptions.
I don't know how calculated Bennett's remarks are, but they could easily lend creedence to a pro-life position and I wouldn't be surprised if the inevitable right-wing defense of him and his logic harps on this above all else. Their rhetorical position will be that liberals, in supporting abortion, are actually tacit supporters of a racial eugenics (something white supremacists have said for years, though from a different, less politically viable position.) Bennett's original, racist articulation will be ignored, the focus will shift to abortion (qua eugenics) advocates and he will retain his legitimacy as the arbitor of "values," one of which is the "culture of life." Again, I don't know if he's that smart, and it would be a gamble nonetheless: then again, Bennett is obviously not one to shy away from a good wager.
UPDATE:
Here's one of the first
UPDATE:
Here's one of the first
Christian Wire Service/ -- The following is a statement from Rev. Dr. Johnny M. Hunter, DD, National Director of the Life Education and Resource Network, L.E.A.R.N., the nation's largest African-American pro-life group:
"It is absolutely hypocritical of people who call themselves pro-choice to criticize William Bennett for his comment when they have been pushing abortion down the throats of the black communities for years. If a news agency plays only a part of Bennett's speech to paint him as a racist, it is a desperate attempt to fan the flames of racial uneasiness in this nation at the expense of black children. Bennett stated that it is 'morally reprehensible' to abort black babies to reduce crime and that statement was ignored. What is also ignored is the fact that Planned Parenthood, following the agenda of its racist founder, Margaret Sanger, does consider aborting blacks to be helpful to society. Which is worse, one who talks about the wrongness of aborting black babies or the one who aborts black babies?"
1 comment:
The gentlemen may be right from the scientific point of view given the right amount of data and the employment of the correct analytical methods.
What we ought to concern ourselves with is the general socio-economic circumstances that might have led to such a correlation being true and seek to eradicate them.
These remarks, in themselves, are not ‘racist’ but indicative of the racism and class deprivation that might render the correlation true.
His failure to extrapolate the abortion of fetuses is also indicative of the psychological undercurrents of american society. People are products of systems. It is the system that requires lynching.
btw. why are americans always complaining about the pits they fall into and never think about the machinery that creates them? A highly adolescent phenomena these americans. 'Adolescent', as in being an illustration of the traits that are supposed to characteristic of children and adolescents - egocentric, ethnocentric, not entirely capable of appreciating the various forms of interrelationships and taking correlations as cause-effect, etc. A hallmark of the Juvenile State of America lies in its inability to discuss just about anything unless it is related to american interests or purely from an american perspective. Personally, i've never come across an american site/blog that discusses issues that have no obvious relation to its own interests and from the other's perspective. It's no wonder that they could possess the right amount of intelligence quotients to elect a president who produces a phrase, "You are either with Us or against Us." That's another one - low in empathy. Well, most of them anyway.
http://the-heretic.blogspot.com
Post a Comment