On his national radio program earlier this week, Bill Bennett said something that’s getting him into a lot of trouble. Andy McCarthy sets up the situation.
In the course of his Morning in America radio show on Wednesday, Bennett engaged a caller who sought to view the complexities of Social Security solvency through the narrow lens of abortion, an explosive but only tangentially relevant issue. Specifically, the caller contended that if there had not been so many abortions since 1973, there would be millions more living people paying into the Social Security System, and perhaps the system would be solvent.
Bennett, typically well-informed, responded with skepticism over this method of argument by making reference to a book he had read, which had made an analogous claim: namely, that it was the high abortion rate which was responsible for the overall decline in crime. The former Education secretary took pains to say that he disagreed with this theory, and then developed an argument for why we should resist “extensive extrapolations” from minor premises (like the number of abortions) in forming major conclusions about complex policy questions.
It was in this context that Bennett remarked: “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.” Was he suggesting such a thing? Was he saying that such a thing should even be considered in the real world? Of course not. His whole point was that such considerations are patently absurd, and thus he was quick to add: “That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do.”
It was also an idiotic thing to say, because what will (and is) being reported is that Bill Bennett said if you want to lower the crime rate in this country, abort all the black babies. Never mind that Bill Bennett is pro-life (or anti-abortion, or however you’d put it). Never mind that he said that would be “impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible”. Bennett should have known the media (courtesy of David Brock) would pick up only the “abort black babies” remark.
He should have known this because we are not allowed to have an open discussion of race in this country. It’s not the government that stops us, it’s the politically correct among us. Louis Farrakhan can claim the levees in New Orleans were blown up intentionally and the media ignores it. Congressman Charles Rangel can call the President a modern-day Bull Connor, and the media ignores it. Kanye West can claim the President doesn’t care about black people, and there’s no outrage. But make a crude but valid point (that criminals in this country are disproportionally black) and you’ll be vilified. It doesn’t matter if you’re Bill Bennett or Bill Cosby… you’re not allowed to point that out without consequence (unless of course you’re going to blame that fact on white people).
How do we get beyond this? How do we be able to have a serious discussion on race in this country? For starters, it helps if you don’t make statements as easily manipulated as Bennett’s have been. But we also need the media to be a help, not a hinderance to having an honest discussion. If someone makes a ridiculous statement, point it out, regardless of skin color.
Again, as a talk show host, I think Bennett made a mistake. I don’t think he’s racist, I certainly don’t think he was advocating abortion, I really don’t think he was advocating genocide. I think he tried to make his point in a really dumb way. Anytime you have to go on national tv to try and explain your remarks, you’ve made a statement that could (at least) have been phrased better. But the issue goes far beyond Bill Bennett. The larger question is why do people like Bennett get grilled for what they say when Charlie Rangel gets a free pass?
a-1 loan companyloan 457 programsreview aim loanloans connecticut home 125insurance mortage 5.5 no loans homebusiness 504 loansbad 7000 loan creditloan rates 80 20 mortgage Map
This may get me called a racist, but here is my attempt to answer the question:
When the media recognizes that racism is NOT limited to whites, Republicans, conservatives but also to blacks, Democrats and liberals. I have to say that I have observed MORE racism coming from the black leadership than I have ever seen from whites.
More importantly, it is important for everyone, blacks included, to also recognize that the media does not castigate those on the left for their racist remarks. The media’s castigation only seems to be directed toward the right.
Perhaps when political correctness is ignored and people recognize and are unafraid to speak the truth about WHO are really the racists, we may see an improvement in race differences.
At the risk of sounding racist( don’t you just hate it when white people have to preface a statement like that?) I think it’s because Rangel, Farrakhan and West are all black. Most people will tell you only white people can be racists, so talk like this from a black person is viewed by the media as free speech. No white person could question in a national forum what these 3 said, and have a career in media after doing so. Some may disagree and say it’s “reverse-racism,” but that is viwed largely as “getting even with The Man,” aka Whitey, Cracker, etc. I personally do not believe in such a thing as “reverse-racism.” Racism is racism, period. If you are denied a job due to the color or your skin, it’s racism. If a white man gets bumped out of a job that is given to a “person of color” simply because that person is non-white, that is racism, but no one complains, because complaining would seen as being rascist.
This will come to the surface more and more now that hispanics are outnumbering the blacks as the dominant minority. The question is, in 50 years, when the white population is the minority, will the laws that protect and favor minorities today protect our grandchildren then?