CNN's Jonathan Klein: Bennett "had explained himself very clearly and well" on controversial remarks
SUMMARY: In a New York Times article, CNN president Jonathan Klein asserted that recent hire Bill Bennett "had explained himself clearly and very well" regarding his September 2005 comment, in which Bennett said that "you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." However, Bennett has defended himself by falsely claiming that the topic "was a matter that had been under discussion in articles and newspapers and in some discussions of books."
In a February 13 New York Times article on Jonathan Klein's "small victories" since becoming president of CNN's domestic operations 14 months ago, Klein asserted that recent CNN hire Bill Bennett -- who is also a radio host and former Reagan administration secretary of education -- "had explained himself clearly and very well" regarding his September 2005 comments, in which Bennett said that "you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." As Media Matters for America has noted, on the January 26 edition of CNN's The Situation Room -- his first appearance since being hired by CNN -- Bennett defended himself by falsely claiming that the topic "was a matter that had been under discussion in articles and newspapers and in some discussions of books."
As quoted in the Times article, Klein also described Bennett as "a guy who has some very evolved thoughts and is not afraid to express them."
The controversy began on September 28, 2005, when Bennett told a caller on his radio show that "you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." Bennett added it "would be ... a morally reprehensible thing to do," but nonetheless insisted "your crime would go down." In the initial defense of his remarks, Bennett claimed that his comments were taken out of context and that they were based on a 1999 Slate.com online discussion between Steven D. Levitt, co-author of Freakonomics (William Morrow, May 2005), and right-wing columnist Steve Sailer. Media Matters reported that, at the time, in the Slate discussion that Bennett cited, Levitt had actually said the opposite of what Bennett claimed: "None of our analysis is race-based because the crime data by race is generally not deemed reliable." In addition, Levitt specifically rebutted Bennett's claim that his remarks stemmed from Levitt's work. In a September 30, 2005, response, Levitt said: "Race is not an important part of the abortion-crime argument that John Donohue and I have made in academic papers and that [co-author Stephen J.] Dubner and I discuss in Freakonomics."
During the January 26 appearance, Situation Room host Wolf Blitzer asked Bennett about his controversial comment. Bennett reiterated the same defense; though speaking more generally, he said that "this [controversial scenario on race, crime, and abortion] was a hypothetical, obviously, that was a matter that had been under discussion in articles and newspapers and in some discussions of books."
From the February 13 article in The New York Times:
Among the reasons some CNN staff members had puzzled over the hiring of Mr. Bennett were his incendiary comments, on his radio show last fall, that "you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." Mr. Bennett had also characterized such a proposal as "impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible." Mr. Klein said last week that Mr. Bennett, in responding to the controversy, "had explained himself very clearly and well," and was "a guy who has some very evolved thoughts and is not afraid to express them."
Can you really explain that one away? They should stop writing articles about it. Bennet's remarks are racist, plain and simple. He may be an "evolved" racist... but a racist all the same.
He was the first to recognize that the racists of his ideological bent, and who are his audience, needed to "dress up" their racism to make it acceptable, just as Dubya decided he needed to embrace the rhetoric of "compassionate conservativism".
The racists and hard-hearted greedheads of the right are unelectable. That's a fact. If they are honest, they couldn't be elected dogcatcher. So they have to LIE.
And LIE they do, with Limbaugh being the first national voice to modify racism to make it appear "acceptable" to polite society.
One example.
Affirmative Action has a goal: to open doors to opportunity for ALL which were previously shut due to discrimination and racism.
Racists, of course, HATE Affirmative Action.
How to oppose it, without overtly revealing racism?
Limbaugh started saying that AA indicated that Liberals "believed blacks incapable of succeeding on their own." Blacks are thus told they should RESENT AA, because it treats them as inept and weak.
Then, by OPPOSING AA, the Rightwing could be presented as a CHAMPION of having belief in blacks' capability of "making it on their own" and "without help".
This appeal to "personal responsibility", of course, does not recognize the conditions that made AA necessary in the first place. There were NO opportunities for blacks AT ALL in many regions, where there were NO jobs available, and a 100% WHITE preferrence for hiring. If Limbaugh were chained to his desk, then told to "make it on his own" to the medicine cabinet in the bathroom, he would learn how ludicrous this rightwing tactic is in reality.
This is called "framing". The Rightwing Racist doesn't have to change a thing, in order to oppose policy which seeks equal treatment for all, and SUPPORT a status quo of discrimination and racism. It's just a matter of rhetorically shifting the emphasis of the program AWAY from the TRUTH: It was a necessary opening of shut doors --- and TOWARDS an emotional and intellectually bankrupt line of rhetoric that SHAMED blacks if they felt they needed help.
Bennett is of the Limbaugh school of rhetoric, ordinarily, but his racism causes him to inadvertantly stray from the new sanitized rationalizations for supporting racist policy. The problem is, these racists talk and joke amongst themselves, and it becomes a conversational conditioning. Then, when they're in public, they slip up and reveal themselves.
Then, it becomes a matter of loudly denouncing everyone who notices their racism as racists themselves. It makes no sense, but that is how the game is played these days. They think it works, but in reality, it only works with the Dittoheads, who believe as they do already.
While I certainly concede that racism unfortunately exists in the United States and throughout the world, I will disagree that Bennett falls into that category. IMO, racism is a product of one of two things, stupidity or evilness. I would not put Bennett in either of those two categories.
Bruce: You say, "IMO, racism is a product of one of two things, stupidity or evilness. I would not put Bennett in either of those two categories."
RESPONSE: Racism is a product of several things, foremost among them FEAR. Elitism and a feeling of entitlement as "superior" is the overriding personal motivation, but fueling these beliefs about how things should be is a FEAR that control is being lost, and FEAR that lost status will result in failure as a person, and indeed, will lead to failing one's FAMILY.
"Stupidity" might lead one to be a racist, but more likely IGNORANCE (which is NOT stupidity) will lead a person to operate on gut impressions, mainly of lost "status" by the elevation of "coloreds" (and women, of course) to equal status.
EVIL, to the Christian, means operating outside the teachings of Christ, who said to "love your neighbor as yourself." Thus, racism is EVIL in Christiandom.
So, is Bennett stupid? Nope, not necessary for racism. Is he EVIL? As a longtime rightwinger, he will have to discuss his policy positions of scorning the poor, the ill, the weak, and equal treatment with his maker. My guess: He won't prevail.
Does Bennett demonstrate an elitist's feeling of entitlement coupled with fear of lost status? Without any doubt. All he lacks is a powdered wig.
I think you are defining prejudice more than racism with your fear example, but it might be splitting hairs. I'm looking at a definition of racism that would say that one race is superior for genetic reasons. That type of thinking is stupid, or ignorant as you say, probably both. A lot of people tried to pin Bennett with that due to his comments but I don't agree with that assessment.