Bill Bennett: "You could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down"
Media MattersBENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. 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.
First the gambling, now the rambling.
Using Bill Bennet's logic wouldn't aborting all babies eliminate crime altogether?
More from Media Matters..
Well, I guess so...Bennett's remark was apparently inspired by the claim that legalized abortion has reduced crime rates, which was posited in the book Freakonomics (William Morrow, May 2005) by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. But Levitt and Dubner argued that aborted fetuses would have been more likely to grow up poor and in single-parent or teenage-parent households and therefore more likely to commit crimes; they did not put forth Bennett's race-based argument.
What could possibly cause someone to air a view like that in public? Even though he qualified the statement it still opens him up to criticism from all fronts.
It's like saying if we killed all of the poor people in the world there would be no poverty. In a sordid, twisted way there may be some truth to it but why publicly hypothesize about something that extreme and reprenhensible?
You forgot to hightlite that part, too, Dan.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.
I guess he's just commenting on the book Freakonomics, which has caused a huge stir and is a national bestseller. Obviously, there are some controversial topics in there, but the author Steven Levitt offers some fascinating data. It's a great book IMO. Still, most public figures have wisely (for their careers anyway) stayed away from the topic.
Ah, okay, not a Bennet original, thanks.
Sounds like interesting reading.
Incarcerating criminals has reduced the crime rate. Incarcerations up; crime down. It's that simple...
Levitt is a University of Chicago economist who has been recognized as one of the top young economists around - for good reason. He is willing to probe into data and tackle questions that are tricky. His data and analysis suggests a high correlation in the decrease in the crime rate with the passage of Roe v. Wade, and several other correlations that are present suggest some causality.
Last edited by scott; 09-28-2005 at 07:49 PM.
Love the blog scott. How's the contest coming?
Oh, and does this Levitt character also ascribe to the so-called "Roe Effect?" Which, to paraphrase, states that since most pro-abortionists are Democrats and most children adopt the ideological bent of their parents, they have aborted themselves into being the minority party...perhaps in perpetuity.
Thanks - I try to have fun with it. I never would have thought blogging would be any fun, but it is a good avenue to discuss completely pointless topics.Love the blog scott. How's the contest coming?
The "Roe Effect" as you described is not something Levitt comments on, but I would imagine that he doens't "ascribe" to it because the logic of the arguement, while seemingly sound on the surface, doesn't dig deep enough. To me, it's similar to a "let gays get married to each other so they can be bred (via non-breeding) out of existence" argument - which doesn't hold much water. Back to the "Roe Effect" in a minute while I go off on a tanget about what Levitt suggests.Oh, and does this Levitt character also ascribe to the so-called "Roe Effect?" Which, to paraphrase, states that since most pro-abortionists are Democrats and most children adopt the ideological bent of their parents, they have aborted themselves into being the minority party...perhaps in perpetuity.
Levitt is known for not really ascribing to anything other than what data suggests - that those to-be-children that are aborted are more likely to grow up in environments that have demonstrated a higher propensity for crime - more specifically, poverty, single-parent households, and low maternal education demonstrate high correlations with the propensity for crime.
Now, as for the "Roe Effect" as a possible explanation for the Democratic party's fall from power... voter participation rates among the demographic the aborted children would likely have belonged to is fairly low, so to say that abortion is lowering the Democrat's voter base is quite a reach. Across generations, we see that as people grow older, then tend to be more conservative and less liberal (hence the phrase that goes something like: "If you aren't a liberal at 25, you don't have a heart. If you aren't a conservative at 45, you don't have a brain.") If we took cross sections over the past 100 years of the American population, we would see that older populations, especially those in their 30s-60s tend to lean more towards the more conservative party. Not surprisingly, the Republican's current "rise to power" has coincided with the aging of the American populus. Since America will continue to be on an aging trend in the next 10-20 years, it would not at all surprise me to see the more convservative party (currently the Republican party) to grow in power in that time period. I think the "Roe Effect" is a cute theory, but one without much merit.
September 30, 2005
White House Criticizes Bennett for Remarks on Race
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:02 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House on Friday criticized former Education Secretary William Bennett for remarks linking the crime rate and the abortion of black babies.
''The president believes the comments were not appropriate,'' White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
Bennett, on his radio show, ''Morning in America,'' was answering a caller's question when he took issue with the hypothesis put forth in a recent book that one reason crime is down is that abortion is up.
''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,'' said Bennett, author of ''The Book of Virtues.''
He went on to call that ''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.''
Responding later to criticism, Bennett said his comments had been mischaracterized and that his point was that the idea of supporting abortion to reduce crime was ''morally reprehensible.''
Bennett was education secretary under President Reagan and director of drug control policy when Bush's father was president.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but that seems to be his point.Using Bill Bennet's logic wouldn't aborting all babies eliminate crime altogether?
This sounds like a lot of PC hubbub over nothing. I mean, obviously if you reduce the population growth the crime rate will go down. Just because he said "black" makes his point wrong?
I love William Bennet
" "black" makes his point wrong"
Of course. An aborted person commits no crime, but an aborted BLACK person commits even less crime. See the %age of blacks in US population vs see the %age blacks in prison population, is his point. Not only do blacks commit more crime, but once they are in prison, they cost $30K/year to keep them there. That $30K is wasted when it could be given to the rich + corpts in tax cuts.
Aborted blacks = less crime, while aborted whites = a sin.
And as Barbara Bush would say, let's abort the blacks because they would be "underprivileged anyway".
Repubs, ya gotta love how they stick their feet in their mouths.
Like I said, I think all of you are missing his point altogether and are rushing to interpret the statements of a conservative pundit in a way that makes it seem like what he said was racist.
He was giving an example of a morally reprehensible thing to do. He said it himself.
Last edited by Spurminator; 09-30-2005 at 11:23 AM.
If it's so 'morally reprehensible' then why did Bennet mention it in the first place? Especially right now, after African-Americans suffered so disproportionately to Hurricane Katrina. It was a really insensitive thing for Bennet to sayHe was giving an example of a morally reprehensible thing to do. He said it himself.
"only ... example of a morally reprehensible thing"
BS. His example of eugenics, of selective abortion based on black race as a crime reduction strategy, to improve the USA is reprehensible. His example is NOT harmless. It's pure, unmitigated racism, no matter how slyly he slips it in, apparently disowing it but really not at all.
How about this:
If we wanted fewer corrupt Repub administrations spending the federal government into disaster, no bogus wars of choice, we could abort all Repub and red-state babies. That would be "impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do". And they are all "over-privileged" anyway. But it would work. It's JUST an example.
So if we wanna reduce bad dancing in America we should abort all white babies?
Keep in mind, its the liberals who want aboriton kept legal. Its the liberals who want the murder of of innocent unborn infants. Its the liberals who say "what about the rights of the woman" but never say any thing about the rights of the unborn woman in the pregnant mothers womb. In other words, this comment wouldnt have occured if abortion was illegal.
WTF??? His comment would have still occurred regardless. Abortion is not the issue, it's him saying that if there were less black ppl, there would be less crime.
"its the liberals who want aboriton kept legal."
Murphy, you cretinous, ultra-violent, sub-human robot.
Repub, evangelical, red-stater, conservative women and girls ALSO have abortions. They, and their husbands/parents, are damn happy they can have it cheaply down the road (not overseas) and that it was legal, rather than with a coat-hanger and illegal.
Now you will erroneously conclude that I am a militant pro-abortionist.
Because he was discussing a study that he found to be morally reprehensible, and giving a comparative example to illustrate how morally reprehensible it is.If it's so 'morally reprehensible' then why did Bennet mention it in the first place?
You still don't get it.His example of eugenics, of selective abortion based on black race as a crime reduction strategy, to improve the USA is reprehensible.
It was an illustration. Not a suggestion.
It's like if we're having an argument over health care illegal aliens and I (taking the pro-Health Care side) say "Why don't we just shoot Mexicans at the border? Then we wouldn't have to worry about any of our taxes helping illegal aliens."
Am I suddenly a racist for using that point to argue against my opposition?
dam it's freaking tense in here today.. must be because of the Yanks / Bo Sox's series this weekend..
go yanks!!!!
yes, if you consider that statement a "point"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
