Bennett suggested his critics are racist: "I hit too close to what they believe, not what I believe"
Radio host Bill Bennett continues to modify his explanation for his controversial remarks that if "you wanted to reduce crime -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." As Media Matters for America has previously documented, Bennett initially defended his remarks by falsely claiming they were based on a theory endorsed by Steven D. Levitt, co-author of Freakonomics (William Morrow, May 2005).
Now, Bennett has offered a new defense -- liberals were outraged over his comments because they hit too close to home. On the October 5 broadcast of the nationally syndicated Focus on the Family radio program, Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson suggested that the "[reason] the left has reacted so viciously to you [Bennett] is that their own abortion movement is rooted in racism." Bennett agreed and expanded on these remarks by stating that "this is the sort of thing, I think, that was probably in their minds. On a conscious or subconscious level, that had something to do with the viciousness of the attack. In using this noxious hypothetical, I hit too close to what they believe, not what I believe."
Bennett further insinuated this belief while appearing on the October 5 episode of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto. In explaining his personal reaction to the controversy his words caused, Bennett commented: "I guess the irony is, I'm the pro-life guy. I don't advocate abortion for anyone, any group. ... And my critics are pro-choice, pro-abortion, but we'll clear the air."
But those critical of Bennett's remarks, such as Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-MI), have stated that their outrage was not focused on the issue of abortion, but, rather, on Bennett's linking of African-Americans and crime. On September 30, Conyers wrote in his weblog:
But what they [right-wing critics] miss is not the abortion "hypothetical" -- as absurd and tasteless as that is -- but Bennett's suggestion that African Americans are synonymous with crime. It is a text book case of stereotyping and racism, and cannot be explained away.
Conyers, along with 17 other members of Congress, are demanding that Salem Radio Network, which distributes Bill Bennett's Morning in America, suspend Bennett's radio program.
From the October 5 broadcast of Focus on the Family:
DOBSON: Well, we only have about a minute or so left for this segment, but the other reason, I think, the left has reacted so viciously to you is that their own abortion movement is rooted in racism.
BENNETT: That's right.
DOBSON: You know, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a profound racist, and she saw abortion in the inner city as a way of limiting the birth rate. So, the people who support Planned Parenthood and come from that philosophy are now attacking you for saying something that was completely a non sequitur.
BENNETT: Yes, and I know this history, and I have reviewed it and read it, and this is the sort of thing, I think, that was probably in their minds on a conscious or subconscious level, that had something to do with the viciousness of the attack. In using this noxious hypothetical, I hit too close to what they believe, not what I believe.
From the October 5 broadcast of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: Let me ask you while I've got you here, Bill. You've got a whole lot of controversy from remarks you made --
BENNETT: Yep, yep.
CAVUTO: -- about, uh, blacks and whether they abort and all. Were you surprised about the fallout you got?
BENNETT: I guess I shouldn't be surprised being in Washington, you know. But I was surprised at the intensity of it when it was so clear that what was I was doing was introducing an abhorrent hypothetical in order to shoot it down, which I did. I said, "Here's a hypothetical," and I said, "If you did this sort of thing, abortion on a large scale, it would be morally reprehensible." I guess the irony is I'm the pro-life guy. I don't advocate abortion for anybody, any group.
CAVUTO: Which you said.
BENNETT: That's right. And my critics are pro-choice, pro-abortion, but we'll clear the air. We'll straighten this out. And, you know, tell the truth.
CAVUTO: William, always a pleasure, thank you very much.
Can you say projection??
Oh my god.
Now THAT's funny.
Nice try Billy.
Bennett has his logic messed up. If what Bennett said was close to what liberals believed, then they would not have been mad about it. Rather, there would have been silence from the progressive community.
Furthermore, Bennett is a member of the CONSERVATIVE community, so when his crowd is uneasily silenced, does that mean they are racist? That would be a more logical statement to make.
If Bennett had said that liberals believe that black baby abortions would reduce the crime rate and the progressive community was quiet, then he might be able to say that the liberals are racist, but that was not the case at all. If liberals had made an uproar then MAYBE bennett could say they were just trying to save face. But Bennett was not speaking for the liberal community, he was speaking for HIMSELF so the man's most recent justification holds no water.
"If what Bennett said was close to what liberals believed, then they would not have been mad about it. Rather, there would have been silence from the progressive community."
You nailed it. This is one of my favorite argumentative methods, to show when someone sets up a fallacious "no-win" situation. If liberals were silent, then Bennett could say "you don't hear any outrage, so they must agree" (which is reasonable). Now if liberals express outrage, then they're projecting at their own collective racist subconciousness (uh, sure). So the next question, to Bennett or any of his apologists, is what exactly would be the proper response if Bennett's remarks were offensive? Is there one? If the answer to this question is either of the two choices listed above, you have your opponent cornered. One can't very well just say "neither" without proposing a third option, as that suggests that Bennett's remarks were not offensive (proving a negative - also opening the door to the concept that no outrage can ever be legitimately shown over any comment) and/or liberals have no reasonable way of showing that they are not racist (akin to the Salem witch trials - "if she floats she's a witch and we burn her, if she drowns then she isn't a witch").
Is MMFA trying to take Bennett out of context? Now, surely, they wouldn't do that, would they?
Also, straight from Wikipedia, comes this entry on Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood:
[She] was an American birth control activist and an advocate of certain aspects of eugenics. Initially meeting with fierce opposition in both areas, Sanger gradually won the support of the public and the courts for a woman's right to choose for family planning. Though her selective support of eugenics was less well received, Margaret Sanger was instrumental in opening the way to universal access to birth control.
I guess he hit too close to home.
by The Lonewacko Blog - Saturday October 8, 2005 12:28:11 AM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Are you kidding? Did you fail to read all the items on Bennett's statement on this website? His comment has been completely quoted ad nauseum.
What Margaret Sanger did or didn't do has nothing to do with Bennett falsely associating the color of someone's skin with their propensity to commit crimes.
And Media Matters including Bennett's full comments numerous times. Here they were paraphrasing him because his original comments are not the issue - it was his rude accusations that anyone who objected to his comments must be racist that was the issue.
Is MMFA suggesting that improving the social condition has not been used by the "pro-choice" crowd as a justification for abortion? Have any of you heard people say that women who are not prepared for parenthood become a burden to society if they are forced to carry a child to term? Or that we can use abortion to create a more pure race?
If not let me share a few quotes:
"Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents.......to breed out of the race the scourges of transmissible disease, mental defect, poverty, lawlessness, crime … since these classes would be decreasing in number instead of breeding like weeds....such a plan would … reduce the birthrate among the diseased, the sickly, the poverty stricken and anti-social classes, elements unable to provide for themselves, and the burden of which we are all forced to carry" ... Magaret Sanger
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble
"Responsible parenthood involves decades devoted to the child's proper nurture. To sentence a woman to bear a child against her will is an unspeakable violation of her rights: her right to liberty (to the functions of her body), her right to the pursuit of happiness, and, sometimes, her right to life itself, even as a serf. Such a sentence represents the sacrifice of the actual to the potential, of a real human being to a piece of protoplasm, which has no life in the human sense of the term. It is sheer perversion of language for people who demand this sacrifice to call themselves 'right-to-lifers.' "
— Leonard Peikoff
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:01:22 EDT From: PS333@aol.com Subject: Pro-life, pro-animal "I'm pro-animal and pro-life, if it can be a good life. However, when there is an undesired pregnancy, there is no reason to have it if it will end up in a trashcan or in prison. If you're so pro-life, go wait outside an abortion clinic and beg the women who go in to sign papers so that YOU and your almighty god-righteous heart can adopt their child when it's born, or are you not quite that willing? Animals have no choice. They have no birth control. People keep popping out unwanted children because of idiots like you, which leads to murder, school shootings, drugs and a deteriorating world when people could just have abortions and prevent it. People seem to have no problem stuffing down a hamburger which came from a cow which was murdered, but god forbid you have an abortion. I guess in your opinion it's okay to kill non-human animals, right? Dumbass."
Bill Bennett's hypothetical did indeed "hit too close to home"
Two of your quotes are from Margaret Sanger. Is she a critic of Bill Bennett? Let's stick to modern times, shall we? As for your other two examples, where do they mention race at all?
You do nothing to show that the rank and file of Bennett's critics are racist, which is the topic at hand. The idea that more abortions leads to lower crime is a seperate matter. That's exactly why Bennett's remarks were so outrageous! He could have made the simple argument that more abortions (or forced abortions, if he still wanted to argue ad absurdum) would reduce crime, but he injected race into it for no explicible reason.
- "Two of your quotes are from Margaret Sanger. Is she a critic of Bill Bennett? Let's stick to modern times, shall we?"
barbantio,
Try to keep up. MMFA suggests in their article that Bennett dreamed up on his own a link between race and social dysfunction. Bennett says he was pointing out the obserd by offering a hypothetical scenario. He says the over the top response of his critics is evidence that he "hit too close to what they believe".
Margaret Sanger is still a hero to hard core abortion advocates. If you don't believe that read what Planned Parenthood says about her on their website. [link to www.plannedparenthood.org]
They depict her as a visionary "social reformer" and praise her "out reach to the African American community". What evidence do they give for her "outreach"? The opening of a "family planning clinic" in Harlem. Never mind that her goal in offering "family planning" to the African American community was to create a "cleaner race"
"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race." Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12
"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock." Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.
"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems. Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
Do I believe that you and most of the people who drink this drivel from MMFA are racists? No. At least I hope not. But if Planned Parenthood and their ilk want people to really believe their only motive is to give women "the right to choose", and not to clean up society by terminating as many pregnancies in low income, primarily racial minority populations, why don't they distance themselves from Margaret Sanger instead of holding her up as an icon of their cause?
by free_spartacus - Sunday October 9, 2005 07:35:17 AM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That's a great link. I encourage everyone to check it out and also to do what you apparantly didn't do; read the entire page. There is an extensive discussion of Sanger's views on that page, including those with which the organization expresses disagreement, and also the lengthy list of quotes misattributed to Sanger or taken out of context to distort her message.
i would recommend that everyone go to the link provided by spartacus for planned parenthood and read it all the way through, because it notes that there have been false and distorted statements accredited to sanger that she didn't make. it also has this quote by martin luther king made in 1966: "there is a striking kinship between our movement and margaret sanger's early efforts". sounds like he thought highly of her.
"Margaret Sanger is still a hero to hard core abortion advocates. If you don't believe that read what Planned Parenthood says about her on their website."
And so I did! As did Wanderwoman, I read the entire page, and found it to be highly conflicting with your portrayal of Sanger. Congratulations, you just ripped the foundation away from your entire argument. It's hard to explain how people like Gandhi and MLK could respect her if she had views even similar to the ones you say, or how she would make an ideological enemy of Hitler for that matter.
Incidentally, even if one takes what now appear to be your out-of-context or possibly fabricated quotes at face value, all of her views or behaviors are not necessarily shared or admired by those who respect her groundbreaking efforts. The suggestion that her primary or sole purpose in advocating planned parenthood was racist, and therefore many people who run or even admire that organization today must also be racist at heart is just absurd.
People can argue for Bennett or against him all they want. The English language can be manipulated and distorted to serve just about any purpose. Can't everybody at least agree that Bennett had a slip of the mouth and is now on extreme damage control. We can all agree on that right? Why does he then have to go calling liberals racists. Is he tying to join the glorious ranks of Ann Coulter?
"Now, Bennett has offered a new defense -- liberals were outraged over his comments because they hit too close to home."
Seriously, what the hell is this. Didn't this guy say something wrong, and now he's calling me a racist, someones got to put a gag in this guys mouth for risk that he's going to keep saying these outrageous things, or maybe not. It could be amusing seeing just how much of his own foot he might eat before he relizes that it tastes like crap. I would think that his supporters would also want him to stop saying anything. If you strip away all the distractions and remember what all this is about you'll remember that it's about Bennett and what he said. He should be owning up to it. No one else should be making excuses or trying to explain what he meant. Bill, i'm waiting for a real explanation of your comment and now subsequent comments.......
No, MMFA is suggesting that his original comment was attacked not on the grounds he is claiming it was. He (not anyone else) equated blacks with crime. If you view it in context or out, he is the only one who mentioned race. He is the only one who drew the correlation between blacks and crime. I have seen very few say they think he was advocating aborting the entire race, but what he clearly did was equate blacks with crime. You could take the entire idea of abortion out of discussion and what he said is still offensive. "If we got rid of all black children, the crime rate would go down. I think the thought of doing this is a terrible one though"- no abortion mentioned in this statement. Are you telling me this is not a racist statement?
It is not a racist statement.
It was a politically incorrect statement. It was his example of a ridiculous analogy in response to the caller and the writers of freakanomics.
The libs are trying to paint anyone who says the crime rate is higher among blacks as racists. They try to claim that anyone who states this is a racist although nowhere did Bennett discuss if it is race, culture or poverty. Conyers has an unlimited deck of race cards but most of us are use to his game and ignore him.
The writers of freakanomics purposely left race out of their book because they said race was unreliable in statistics. Why would you not want to break "poverty" up into racial categories? Of course, this was a social decision, not a statistical decision. They just didn't want being slurred as racists as any author does that brings race into a discussion.
Your prognosis stems from speculations and right-wing conceptions of political correctness and has nothing to do with the facts.
The authors of Freakonomics indeed did comment on race. What they determined was that Race is not an important part of the abortion-crime argument
[link to www.freakonomics.com]
"In other words, for most crimes a white person and a black person who grow up next door to each other with similar incomes and the same family structure would be predicted to have the same crime involvement."
So instead of getting on your high-horse and denouncing political correctness, as you have time and time again in these discussions about Bennet, maybe you should take a long hard look at the characterisations you are making about Black people and whether those characterisations are unfair.
Not that you care but here are a few problems with your argument.
A. Margaret Sanger isn't a modern liberal leader. B. She didn't discuss abortion. C. Her remarks are taken wildly out of context. Note that she didn't use feeble minded and crazy interchangeably with Negro. Her comments on exterminating the black race refer to blacks natural fear of a white woman who encouraged birth control. But she encouraged it for everyone. Notice she said breed out of the race not breed the race out. PP doesn't even support that anymore.
One more time, for those who don't understand, are want to try to distract from the real issue: It's not about abortion. It's about Bennett "knows" if you you got rid of black babies, the crime rate would go down. He "knows" this. He is saying that blacks, on a genetic level, are pre-disposed to be criminals. That's racist. And that's what the uproar is about. He didn't need to inject race into this, Freakononmics didn't talk about race, he did. I believe he's a racist, and it's not because I think he wants to abort black babies, it's because he "knows" if we did, crime would go down.
Margaret Sanger is a distraction. That she was a racist with whether I believe abortion should be kept legal. That would be like me taking up smoking, for the simple reason that Hitler was violently opposed to it, and he was.
Just because you share a principle with someone, doesn't mean you abandon it because they hold a principle that is reprehensible.
by Handsome Pete - Saturday October 8, 2005 10:25:47 AM EST
Pete-He is saying that blacks, on a genetic level, are pre-disposed to be criminals. That's racist.
Response: Yes, that would be racist if that's what he said. Thats your interpretation, not the only one. My interpretation of what he said was that blacks are more prone to committing crime because they are not yet operating on an even playing field in our society. It has nothing to do with genetics, it is the societal structure that we are working to correct. He used blacks because they have historically been the oppressed group, IMO.
by Handsome Pete - Saturday October 8, 2005 10:25:47 AM EST
Pete-He is saying that blacks, on a genetic level, are pre-disposed to be criminals. That's racist.
Response: Yes, that would be racist if that's what he said. Thats your interpretation, not the only one. My interpretation of what he said was that blacks are more prone to committing crime because they are not yet operating on an even playing field in our society. It has nothing to do with genetics, it is the societal structure that we are working to correct. He used blacks because they have historically been the oppressed group, IMO.
---------------------------
Explain to me again: how you can be sure that aborting all black children, who have not been subject to our "societal structure" , will reduce the crime rate. If Bennett advocated taking black children at birth, and raising them in wealthy two parent families to reduce the crime rate, he could have used Freakonomics to support his proposal. His statement (that aborting all black babies would IN FACT reduce the crime rate) assumes that black babies are predisposed to commit crime.
That's rascist.
by Ezsuds - Saturday October 8, 2005 12:04:24 PM EST -----------------------------
I don't agree with Bennetts conclusion, but I also don't agree with people who think he made the comment based on the genetic makeup of blacks. He was looking at the current crime stats and projecting them forward, IMO.
"I don't agree with Bennetts conclusion, but I also don't agree with people who think he made the comment based on the genetic makeup of blacks. He was looking at the current crime stats and projecting them forward, IMO."
by bruce1ace ----------------------------
Bennett is assuming that unborn black babies will commit crime at current crime rates for black people. How does he know??
It's just prejudice.
"He was looking at the current crime stats and projecting them forward"
Where do you get this? I haven't read that he mentioned anything about stats. Even if he had, it's a racist stance to take from those stats. They do NOT show that aborting all black babies will reduce the crime rate.
Bruce, if he had elaborated in your manner at the time he made the comments, or since in defense of them, I might be inclined to believe that. However, he has not, to my knowledge. He and his defenders are bobbing and weaving, distracting and misleading, bringing up Margaret Sander, "Hey look, she's a racist", always trying to draw the argument back to the abortion angle of it. I, and a lot of other people, are not buying it. That's not why people are angry with his comments, and YOU know that. He has not said, "Look, what I meant to say when I said I know crime would go down if we aborted all black babies is this..." and until he does, I will believe he's a racist, and even then, I don't know if I'd be swayed, because he has spoken from the heart.
I love how liberals paint the argument.
All black crime statistics are invalid due to manipulation by the white power structure. Therefore, any mentions of black crime rate being high is racist.
If someone says that 18 years ago, aborting black babies would have decreased the crime rate they would be racist because the statistics are invalid and therefore could only infer that genetically blacks are criminals.
Now I know why Levitt and the gang avoided mentioning race. They didn't want tarred and feathered by their liberal friends.
I keep seeing this undertone of these discussions that Bennett’s statement is statistically true or would be equally true independent of subgroup selected for eradication. I do not agree.
Each instance where the woman did not agree to the abortion would be would be at least a count of kidnapping, of performing a medical procedure without consent, violation of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and of course of genocide. Unless each of the aborted people would go on to create a variety of crimes at the state, federal, and international level, then the argument that the statement was statistically valid is not true.
I know there are other issues people are arguing, but I had to get that out.
What? Where did he indicate ANYTHING like this?
"because they are not yet operating on an even playing field in our society"
He mentioned nothing about where they stand within society. You rethug apologists sure do like to reach to keep yourself blind.
"I don't agree with Bennetts conclusion, but I also don't agree with people who think he made the comment based on the genetic makeup of blacks. He was looking at the current crime stats and projecting them forward, IMO."
I think the problem isn't that Bennett's remarks are completely undefendable - they aren't. While the comment was offensive because it injected race where it really wasn't necessary, if Bennett had just given something even similar to a sincere apology and said what others are attributing to him, it would not be so bad. I honestly wasn't very upset about the quote at the time because while I realize how racist the comment sounds I understood how else he might have meant it. By saying that he was thinking about the looting and etc. from New Orleans, that doesn't really say that he only singled out black babies because of economic conditions. He could have very simply said what you have said here, and I would have accepted that. He gives a horrible attempt of an apology, essentially saying "sorry if you're offended, but too bad". Then he lies about his inspiration from Freakonomics, and suggests his critics are the real racists. Quite honestly, even though I thought the comment was outrageous on the surface, only since then have I started to believe that he may really be a racist. I, and I think many other people gave him a chance to explain, and he didn't do a very good job.
Bennett's present difficulties are symptomatic of what the country is belatedly beginning to discover about so-called conservatives like Bennett, Bush, O"Reilly, Limbaugh, the Congress, etc. When it comes to taking personal responsibilty for their actions, they don't.
It should be obvious to anyone that Bennett screwed up by letting his guard down and revealing something about himself: his default color for crime is black. Instead of apologizing and taking personal stock, as one might reasonably expect from a man who instructs the nation about virtues, Bennett instead becomes part of a right-wing media enabling machine whose goal is the decidedly unconservative one of keeping Bennett from accepting responsibility for what he said.
Bennett's cretinous attempt to deflect his own views onto liberals is laughable, but it raises a fair question. How many Americans in general, of all colors and ideologies -- have black as their default, subconcious color for crime? Wasn't it during the 1980s (?) that Jesse Jackson described walking down a street, maybe at night, hearing footsteps behind him, and being relieved that it was a white man?
Did Bennett reveal something that is true not only of himself, but of Americans across the ideological (even racial) spectrum? Would we want to admit it to ourselves, as so many of us want Bennett to fess up? But since conservatives make such a big deal about accepting personal responsibility, the point I take from the Bennett imbroglio is a minor one: he is yet another reason (among so very many) to reject the conservative claim to the moral high ground.
As I read the posts here, I am reminded of the key points in a book I read while taking a Cultural Anthropoloy course in the mid-70's: Man's Most Dangerous Myth - the fallacy of RACE.
Yes, by Ashley Montagu. It is a fine book and he spent his entire life pointing out the idoicy of people like Bennett. Bennett is no friend of the marginalized. As Sec. of Education, when a study he had requested began to show that being taught in two languages was better for children, Bennett cancelled the study and tried to squash the report. He has no virtues that I can see.
Blacks are not more prone to committing crime than whites. Especially if you include slavery, jim crow, housing and employment discrimination, lynching, oppression, exploitation, kidnapping and genocide as crimes, the greatest number of major crimes in the history of this nation have been perpetrated by whites. Since those who committed and commit such atrocities, as well as those who defend such practices, would never categorize such offenses as crime the statistics are skewed. But crimes to man they are nonetheless.
Now if you had aborted all white babies from 1619 on, the rate of slavery would have been reduced to zero. Of course that would have been a morally reprehensible thing to do but your slavery rate would have been reduced.
Now debate whether this white criminal propensity is due to your genetics or environment and perhaps some of you more obtuse individuals will begin to understand the problem with Bennett's immoral statement and your common assumption that blacks are 'more criminal' than whites.
No Bennett, YOU are the clearly the racist here. You said what you said and no one can change the meaning. Not even paid pundits ...
"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."
[link to mediamatters.org]
Let's look at what Bennett said. He clearly pointed out how terrible such actions would be. The part that bothers me is that he qualified it. He said, "but your crime rate would go down." He pointed out what he believes is a BENEFIT TO ABORITING ALL BLACK BABIES!
Furthermore this supposed benefit is not even true because in order to believe it is true, you must also believe that black people are INNATELY more prone to crime than other races. This is the true racist message that Bennett tried to get across originally.
So is this Bennett's attempt to turn this whole thing around and start attracting Black people to the Republican Party?
I don't think it's working. He might want to switch tactics.
This issue illustrates yet again that America hasn't come to terms with it's racist past, race is still a loaded issue, and we have great difficulty talking about it.
In Bennet's defense, he did give a sincere sounding apology. If you listened to one of the first posts from the ABC? reporter you heard it.
Blatant racism is out of fashion, so we've adopted some code phrases in our political discourse to express the same old ideas in indirect ways. It allows folks who still hold the old sterotypes to talk about them and maintain plausible deniability. We all know what they mean, but the usage of these new phrases causes a lot of mistrust, particularly about the Right. When we decide to call a spade, a spade, we can at least start to talk honestly. Not only is racism long established here, the ....psychology? of racism goes deep. An incredible belief system about race was built up. Neither Black nor White can be expected to be healed so quickly. We can legislate behavior, there's no legislating our hearts.
Bennet linked into one of the oldest and most powerful stereotypes - Black folk are dangerous. But ya know, he never explicitly said it. I've heard he has done some good work with Black youth. There are some malicious racists out there in positions of high power and influence - I just don't know if Bennet is one of them.
"Jackson has often made the claim that blacks are discriminated against in the criminal justice system so if he really believed and understood what he was saying he should know that he has little reason to fear black more then white."
The concept that blacks are discriminated against in the justice system is not mutually exclusive to the idea that poverty affects blacks in disproportionate numbers and is a major factor in crime. Both can be valid concepts simultaneously.
"It seems Jackson, as demonstrated by this comment, has some issues he has to deal with himself about buying into the stereotype."
Possibly so, but he could also be speaking to the saturation of the stereotype and how it affects everyone. While it does sound bad, I recognize that there are possible explanations for his comments just as I recognized there were explanations for Bennett's (except Bennett didn't provide much in that regard). Since there is no context for the remark at all, it is difficult to tell at this moment. I'm trying to be fair to both parties, and mainly taking issue with CJ's assertion that Jackson believes that black people are more dangerous by reason of genetics.
BENNETT: That's right. And my critics are pro-choice, pro-abortion, but we'll clear the air. We'll straighten this out. And, you know, tell the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I am pro-life and anti abortion and I believe his comments were racist and his ( and Dobson's ) attempts to deflect the blame onto his critics are bogus .
What a bunch of double talking C-R-A-P. Hey Bill, next time you say something really stupid try explaining it by saying "I must have misunderstood what I said."
People on this site go around in circles and by the time you figure it all out the original argument is lost. Did not Bennett say that the crime rate would go down if every black baby was aborted.....If certain people on this site need an explanation on why this statement is both inaccurate and insensitive then whats the point of trying to convince them anyway. I dont care what Jesse Jackson said and what was taken out of context, he's not the person in question and neither is Sanger. Does it hurt that bad to admit that a conservative made a mistake? Instead of wasting your time trying to figure out ways to apologize for him and bring up scenarios that would justify the statement,figure out why its so important to justify it in the first place.
People on this site go around in circles and by the time you figure it all out the original argument is lost.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You are absolutely right, the tactic of the opposition on this site is to diffuse the argument until it's hard to even remember where it started. I am much too distractible and fall for this tactic way too often. Thanks for bringing the discussion back where it belongs.
The tactic here is to shout racist everytime a conservative discusses race. The tactic is to smear Bennett with a charge that he said blacks are genetically predisposed to commit crimes. He didn't say that and when Jesse says a similar thing then he gets a pass because he expressing his "feelings".
"The tactic is to smear Bennett with a charge that he said blacks are genetically predisposed to commit crimes. He didn't say that and when Jesse says a similar thing then he gets a pass because he expressing his "feelings"."
Bennett has had ample time and opportunity to defend himself. I personally did not scream about racism as soon as this phrase passed through his lips, and I wish so many people hadn't either. The problem is that when one is talking about such a delicate subject one needs to be very clear about what one is saying and why they are saying it, or it will appear to be prejudicial. That's just the current nature of the topic, and both Bennett and (I suspect) you are old enough to be aware of this. Bennett's example was unnecessary and careless, at best. He put himself in this position by making the comment without explaining himself, then gave a half-hearted apology and said he was thinking about the looters in N.O. Well, that doesn't really answer the question as to whether he thinks it's related to poverty or genetics, nor did it show that he was overly concerned about the emotions or opinions of black people. Then he lies about Freakonomics and accuses his critics of being racist. This defensive lashing-out doesn't answer the question either and certainly doesn't make one feel like giving him the benefit of the doubt. So for you to come in here and accuse people of "smearing" him is disgusting. He did this to himself, he's had plenty of chances for amends, and people have every right to think at this point that he just might be a racist.
As for Jackson, you are putting way too much stock into an out-of-context quote. The subject of his speech was black-on-black crime, obviously something he has been greatly concerned about. Was there a firestorm over this comment? Did he possibly leave his audience wondering if he was racist? It's sort of hard to tell without seeing it in context, don't you think? I would discourage people from interpreting and condemning any comment like Bennett's immediately, without a chance for explanation. In turn, I would discourage you from assuming Jackson's meaning, considering A)we don't see the context, B)it is more understandable with the topic of the speech in mind, C)there was no great backlash over it (correct me if I missed it), and D)whether you like him or not he has spent his life fighting for the black community, so it's much harder to assume he's harboring bigoted thoughts. Fair enough? We can't even be sure there's anything to give him a "pass" over here, while Bennett clearly made a serious mistake even if you're being charitable to him.
So, as a right-winger might sum up, quit your "whining" about how Bennett is a "victim" here. He should take "personal responsibility" for his own comments.
It is more than just on this site, it is the general strategy of the Republican party. When you look at the Hannitys, Coulters, Limbaughs, etc. in recent events it is clear that is their intent. The other part of this is to NEVER admit to the mistake. This is where the Democrats have to rework their response to attacks by the right. They need to realize that the right has made admitting a mistake the same as admitting defeat. The time to accept blame is done; the time to accept another’s contrition is over. The right must be nailed for every misstep they make and it must be mentioned every time that person is in the news. George Bush= Katrina mistakes. Rove= Plame outing. Chaney= "Fuc- Off" Republicans have the House the Senate and the White house. They have set the rules, now Democrats have to start playing by them.
This may have been brought up before, but it seems so disingenuous to me that Bennett and the right are actually trying to spin this as though he was just throwing it out as a hypothetical.
What's "hypothetical" about, "I DO KNOW that...(etc)? He emphasised "DO" as a statement of fact from his point of view, not as a far-flung hypothetical that he would then blow out of the water. Add to that, he never DID blow it out by saying that, "Of course, it WOULDN'T lower your crime rate."
The other glaring thing is that they want to concentrate on the fact that the guy's anti-choice, like that means something in the discussion. Obviously, the guy doesn't advocate aborting all black babies, or any other babies. I don't know anyone who's spoken out against him that's even made such a claim against him. Bennett and the right-wingers set that straw man up themselves for an easy knock-down, in order to try to deflect the conversation away from the REAL point.
Well, anyway... just throwing in my two cents...
Notice how white supremacists switch the debate which is solely about the racist nature of a statement made by Bennett to some fabricated 'quote' of a decade ago tied to Jesse Jackson. Now the debate is not about Bennett but Jesse Jackson, the Ku Kluck's favorite scapegoat.
Neat trick but Jesse Jackson is off topic having nothing to do with this latest perverted utterance by the immoral Bennett.
"Notice how white supremacists switch the debate which is solely about the racist nature of a statement made by Bennett to some fabricated 'quote' of a decade ago tied to Jesse Jackson."
Let's not label anyone as a white supremacist here without good cause, please. As far as I see they are reacting out of partisan interest, not out of any racism in their own hearts.
Bennett may be immoral (gambler) and I don't know if he is perverted, and his statement may have been insensitive, but it wasn't racist and his career work of fighting to keep black babies from being aborted and his work with underprivileged black children shows he is not a racist.