NRO's Goldberg defended Bennett, falsely claiming "his argument wasn't about race at all"
In his October 7 syndicated column, National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg defended radio host and former Reagan administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett, who linked African-Americans, abortion, and crime (as exposed by Media Matters for America) and later falsely claimed that his comments were merely a reference to an argument put forth by Steven D. Levitt, co-author of the book Freakonomics (William Morrow, May 2005). Goldberg claimed that "[Bennett's] 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." But Bennett specifically singled out blacks, linking them to crime and introducing race into an on-air discussion that had previously centered on the relationship of abortion to crime and the solvency of Social Security.
Bennett made his controversial remarks in response to a caller who asserted that "lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30 years" would be enough to preserve Social Security's solvency. Bennett's rejoinder was apparently inspired by the claim that legalized abortion has reduced crime rates, which was posited in Freakonomics. But Levitt and co-author Stephen J. Dubner argued that the children not born due to abortion would have been more likely to grow up poor and in single-parent or teenage-parent households and therefore would have been more likely to commit crimes; their argument did not address the subject of race. In fact, in a 1999 Slate.com online discussion that followed the release of a preliminary version of a 2001 paper by Levitt and John J. Donohue III on which the argument in Freakonomics is based, Levitt specifically noted that "[n]one of our analysis [of abortion and crime] is race-based because the crime data by race is generally not deemed reliable." In a September 30 response to Bennett's remarks, Levitt reiterated: "Race is not an important part of the abortion-crime argument that John Donohue and I have made in academic papers and that Dubner and I discuss in Freakonomics."
The core of Bennett's argument was not about race. He used an example (possibly not the best choice of an example) to make a point. If everybody would focus on that point (the fallacy that less abortion = secure SS program makes as much sense as black abortions = reduced crime) them maybe the discussion could go forward in a way as to benefit society. But you believe what you want to believe and continue to rant and rave, keeps the base fired up.
The core of Bennett's argument was not about race. He used an example (possibly not the best choice of an example) to make a point. If everybody would focus on that point (the fallacy that less abortion = secure SS program makes as much sense as black abortions = reduced crime) them maybe the discussion could go forward in a way as to benefit society..-by oscar the grouch
***
I do not in any way buy this new deflection created to defend Bennett’s indefensible assertion. He may very well have been debunking the theory but in doing so he chose to make a genetic link between race and crime.
However I do agree that the concept that abortion has this side benefit of lowering the crime rate is ridiculous and based on a study that made a leap by picking out one item and say since it happened during this time period it effected what happened during that period; ignoring the fact that there were so many other factors and variables that probably resulted in the rise and fall other then abortion.
I suppose you could make the supposition they did but I don’t think the study proved their hypothesis.
But the mistake in this argument by Goldberg and others is that it is some liberal idea of how to push abortion is also ridiculous. Except for maybe a small faction of wackos pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. I think you will find most think it is not something you should promote and believe it should be rare…a choice one makes when the other options are not acceptable for the person. Pro-choice is just what it says PRO CHOICE.
Perhaps once those on the right stop claiming pro-choice people want to encourage and promote abortion we can actually have a discussion on the subject that will benefit society.
Just as they mischaracterize "pro-choice" as being "pro-abortion", even to the point that saying we WANT these abortions to happen, they mischaracterize themselves as being "pro-life". If they were truely PRO-life, they would be promoting gauranteed access to healthcare, and gauranteed access to food and shelter. Being pro-life, they would be pro-environment. Toxic pollutants, radiation, etc. shortens lives and even kills outright. They would also be openning their wallets to pay for all this. Instead, these same people will work to suppress wages by fighting prevailing wage laws; they will promote tax cuts and promote corporate welfare while reducing welfare for people, weaken environmental laws, etc. Their policy decisions and actions are in opposition to their declaration of being "pro-life".
Perhaps once those on the right stop claiming pro-choice people want to encourage and promote abortion we can actually have a discussion on the subject that will benefit society.
by lostlogic - Friday October 7, 2005 08:14:27 PM EST
I recall recently there was a promotion in Floriduh that for an extra fee, one could purchase a license plate that said "Choose Life." The extra revenue that would be brought in would go to help fund a woman's shelter or something along those lines. Some of the pro abortion groups objected and there was, of course, the requisite legal challenge. Of course some Federal Judge, appointed by Clinton or Carter no doubt, ruled in favor of the PRO ABORTION group and even the mildest of PRO LIFE admonishments was eliminated.
I don't know about you, but that sure seems to be PRO ABORTION to me and seems to fly in the face of those that would suggest that people who are PRO CHOICE want abortion to be rare when ANY effort to offer women a different choice is villified as being ANTI CHOICE. Reality just does not support your assertions.
carramba is lying about the florida license plates. the judge did not rule that the "choose life" plates couldn't be sold. the suit was about using license plates to promote a political message. but those bringing the suit lost, and the plates are still sold. liar.
but those bringing the suit lost, and the plates are still sold. liar.
by mefirst - Monday October 10, 2005 09:26:19 AM EST
I will defer to your knowledge that the plates are indeed sold, I am misinformed and pleasantly surprised. Liar might be a bit strong, but not unexpected given the source. That being said, the point remains the same. A subtle message on a license plate intended to hopefully encourage women to take a different course was OPPOSED by those, according to you, that wish to see abortion as rare and DO NOT encourage abortion itself, merely support the choice for women. It seems inconsistent with the original assertion.
"of course some federal judge, appointed by clinton or carter, no doubt..." you're the one that presented it as an absolute fact. if you didn't know, you shouldn't make the statement. and i wasn't arguing about the sale or meaning of the license plates. i pointed out your lie.
"The core of Bennett's argument was not about race."
And? So that makes it not a racist statement? What are you talking about? Just becuase it wasn't his point to be racist doesn't mean he wasn't throwing a racist ideal out there. Intentionally or via slip.
what ? bennett specifically mentioned black babies ... and yet it wasn't about race ? if it weren't abour race, wouldn't he have just said "babies" ?
do they think we're that stupid ?
I guess you didn't read the online discussion all the way through. If you had, then you would have noticed on the second page that the subject of race was brought up and actually defended as a possible factor in the debate. But that would go against MMFA and their Leftist agenda.
"If you had, then you would have noticed on the second page that the subject of race was brought up and actually defended as a possible factor in the debate."
By whom, now? I didn't see Levitt doing any such thing, unless I simply missed it, and it was his argument that abortion reduces crime. If Sailer did so, that doesn't help your case at all.
Hey Goldberg ... You Lie! Bennett said what he said and you can't change that, period.
The only reason this putz even gets the time of day from the GOP propaganda apparatus is because his mom helped set up Clinton. He's just another talking points sounding board for the Right.