The main fact, people, is that blacks in the U.S. commit crime in ridiculously higher proportions to their numbers. This is not racist illusion or guesswork. It is well-documented and observed to the point of being indisputable. Young black men especially contribute enormously to overall American crime. One recent statistic states, “Young black men, ages 15 to 24, while only 1 percent of the population, commit up to 20 percent of all violent crime.” The data found by the Department of Justice agree well with this statement in regards to homicide (link #1 below). At least half of the violent crime–including murder, rape, and robbery–can be assigned to blacks (link #2 below). Blacks are also imprisoned at 7 times the rate of whites and 33 times the Asian rate on a per capita basis (link #3 below).

You simply cannot have an educated discussion on American crime without at the very least implicating the country’s 13% black minority. For this reason, Bennett employed the black population in his hypothetical scenario on the perceived impact of abortion. The wheel that squeaks the loudest gets the most attention and the black variable in the U.S. crime equation is indeed weighty. Making his scenario even more reasonable is the fact that black women have the most abortions. So in his objection to abortion, he used the distasteful eugenic approach which theorizes that abortion reduces the number of black births which in return lowers crime rates. (Of course, the pundit Steve Sailer proves on his blog that abortion reduces neither conceptions nor births of those most likely to commit crime.) Plus, Bennett opined that such a eugenic theory, even if it were effective, is absurd and despicable.

Let me add by appealing to those not mathematically innumerate. Yes, it is true that crime would go down if America’s black population were to vanish. The truth stems from the higher-than-average crime rates of black Americans. The same applies to the country’s Hispanic population. However, the opposite would be true if Asians were to disappear. Since Asian crime rates are lower than average, eliminating the Asian population would only serve to raise the overall U.S. rate according to mathematical reasoning. For those who would accuse me of being racially biased, allow me to use another scenario. It is duly noted that whites in places such as Europe, Australia, the U.S., and Canada have higher rates of crime than, say, the Japanese in Japan. If a non-trivially sized, representative population of whites from Norway, Scotland, and Australia immigrated to Japan, Japanese crime rates would rise due to the new white inhabitants’ higher propensity for crime. Am I a racist lout who despises blacks and whites to make such incendiary assertions or am I simply a rational person who renders numerical logic based on well-received domestic and international statistics to form a conclusion? Maybe I just need a good class on political correction.

Link 1 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/proportiontab.htm).
Link 2 http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder101801.asp
Link 3 http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050918_crime.htm

No one argues the correlation with blacks in the U.S. and crime. But correlation isn’t causality. Saying that certain groups are the cause of society’s problems, so that the society’s problems would be reduced if they were gone (hypothetically of course – Bennett) is making that correlation a causality. No one argues that crime rates are higher in children that grow up under the poverty line. Crime is higher in the poor. But the argument that getting rid of the poor people would reduce the crime rate is invalid unless you honestly believe that if all the ‘non-poor’ people formed a society (without, for the sake of argument, every household that makes under $15,000), they would form a stable society of only middle class and rich people. It makes no sense. There would still be poor people in the society and those people would still end up with higher crime rates. You would just be moving the line where the crime rate sharply rose from lets say people in households under $15,000 to under $50,000. But overall, you can’t say that the rate of crime definitively will drop, only that the number will drop.

Just like you can’t say that the hypothetical abortion of blacks would drop the crime rate just because the crime rate is high in blacks. There is always an underclass in society, and 18 years after a hypothetical stoppage of new black people would still contain an underclass, it just would be filled with with a less proportion of black people. But whatever that new underclass was composed of (in 2001 of the nation’s 3.5 million children living in extreme poverty (

He was purposfully making a false statement, in response to a caller who was making a false and dangerous statistical comparison, in order to point out how that type of statement was dangerous.

And the media, like the fish they are, bit.

And many on this blog did too….

So, if all the other kids were jumping off a cliff…..

Yes, aborting males would reduce the crime rate…and if BB had said so, people would have laughed and thought ‘what’s for dinner’.

By referring to ‘black children and crime’ BB was touching upon a hypothetical that would make a lasting point to his listeners. He could have said ‘aborting every native American child will reduce child abuse’ and his listeners would have thought him ridiculous (not because the demographics are wrong – but because most of his listeners are not aware of/concerned about native American child abuse.).

Yes, the caller suggested that abortions (in total) were reducing money paid into Social Security. If you listen to an audio file of the conversation – you will understand that Bill noted this argument was not good – even accepting pragmatism. He hestitaed…said something about mostly poor children being aborted and economics (the listener was left to connect the dots)….and then made the counter ‘pragmatic’ argument about blacks, crime, and abortion. His conclusion was…pragmatism has no place in the abortion debate.

You ask, “So the question is why did he feel the need to go there? hmm” (referring to ‘blacks’)… Well, if somebody told me that abortion could be debated upon a purely socio-economic basis, absent morals, then I would reach for the most obvious socio-economic demographic I could find -to demonstrate the amorality of pure pragmatism.

The obvious socio-economic demographic that came to BB’s mind was….black crime. Nobody, within this blog, has suggested a better, more obvious example, of a purely pragmatic argument for abortion. Maybe ‘welfare abortion’ fits the bill – but it’s a fine line.

You said, “His comments have the funk of racism. And Maatkare, being a negro, has been offended.”

Try contemplating his argument. Forget about your race…just for a moment…and consider his words as he meant them. Abortion is immoral – every child is equal – no other fact is needed to argue the point.

Agree with Annette that Bennett’s racially tinged example, even if “technically” accurate would grate the wrong way with many blacks, and indeed might evoke memories of eugenic advocates targeting blacks for “culling”. Yes he should have known better and used a better example, and indeed missed a golden opportunity to slam liberalism for its support of abortion and the excuses made is some quarters for black crime. Some of his defenders should at least acknowledge that, rather than attempt to focus a defense on the “technical” accuracy of his comments.

But in the larger scheme of things Bennett’s comment really is irrelevant and trivial to the larger picture. It is amazing that such heat would be generated over a dubious example given on yet another forgettable talk show segment, but you can’t get one tenth of the press attention by pointing out the large numbers of black unborn being destroyed every year, or the fact that blacks lead others in abortion rates, or the indications that abortion itself is fueling black family instability, with negative effects (like crime) down the road. Should LaShawn lead off a blog article with such data how many posts would it draw? But come white conservative Bill Bennett, well then there is no end of attention. Putting Bennett on the couch is interesting, but ultimately a dead-end trail. The hard questions that should be asked about the main tracks of black life in poor communities are not being asked with enough intensity and attention. It is easier to obsess over Bill Bennet for many, than a several thousand dead blacks every year, caused by mostly black hands.

As for putting our racial baggage on the table and talking about it- a large part of media discourse resolves precisely around talking about racial baggage. But after all the noise and shouting, to what end? Racial obsessions of white people? Why make white people the center of attention yet again? Isn’t it better to focus on the real crisis of dead bodies in the black community, whether disposed of via “dumpsta” behind the clinic, or by “gangsta” on the corner?

Lets consider some other hypotheticals, based on fact, that have brought public figure widespread condemnation and ultimately cost them their jobs:

Suregeon General Jocelyn Elder: “Masturbation is something that is part of human sexuality and its part of something that perhaps should be taught.”

Ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young: for having met with a representative of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO, then considered a terrorist organization, and stating that such a meeting was critical to achieving lasting peace in the Middle East.

Perhaps blacks are not the only “People [who] have nothing better to do than blow the most mundane things out of proportion.”

So you’re using “Henry” now? Well, play nice, and I’ll let you stay this time. You know, it always amazes me how much people want to comment on this blog. They personally insult me, get the boot, and for reasons I’ll never understand, they always come back, usually under different names. Why are you people compelled? – Admin

Thought provoking. Thanks.

I confess; when overall crime (violent) is referenced in a United States socio-economic conversation, I give more weight to ‘welfare and inner-city black gang’ then ‘welfare and trailor-park white trash’.

If I am wrong, then my only offense is that I have not studied the numbers (and that I perhaps use insulting language to make a point). As you suggest, this does not make me a racist. But, it does leave a bad taste and a need for education/communication.

However, if I am right (and ‘welfare inner-city back gang’ violent crime is disproportionate to ‘welfare white trailer-trash’ violent crime) then…I am right. And the only thing you are left with is my insulting language (which I tend to distribute evenly.).

As to BB’s comments: I can see where, if statistics hold true, he could have said…

‘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 WELFARE 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.’

That is the only alternate hypothetical BB could have used with the same effect in rejecting pragmatic arguments on both sides of the abortion debate.

Interestingly, if BB had used the ‘every welfare baby’ hypothetical…he would probably still be accused of racism (does such a suggestion label me a racist?).

Cheers,
Andi

LaShawn Barber has an excellent and very thorough post on the reaction to William Bennett’s remarks. One point I’d like to make which I haven’t heard anyone else make: isn’t it ironic that by and large the people who are…

#91 Cobra said: As far as white conservatives wanting to defend Bennett, what is there explanation for high crime rates in Eastern Europe, Ireland, Indonesia, Thailand and India, since there is no significant negroid population in those areas?
—– You hardly need Bill Bennett to answer this one. As the man said above: “Bill Who?” High crime rates are caused by a number of things from poverty, to unstable conditions, to a lax criminal justice system that is more concerned with the rights of felons than their victims.
—– By the way, white people are less than sterling “role models” on the matter of high crime rates in US history, particularly groups like the white Irish. History shows that violence and crime was endemic in white Irish neighborhoods from New York to New Orleans. In some white Irish neighborhoods of New York, the police traveled only in groups of six, and police vans became know as “paddy wagons”. Alcoholism rendered many white Irish undesirable as neighbors or employees. When the white Irish moved into a neighborhood, typically older residents moved out, including “black flight”. In parts of 19th century New York, Negroes were preferred to the white Irish as tenants.
—– The same pattern by the way applies somewhat to white Southerners, as Thomas Sowell’s recent “Black Rednecks, White Liberals” shows. Much of what is bandied about as “black” behavior, from crude language to high rates of violence and substance abuse was part and parcel of the white Southern culture that enslaved blacks in the South, a culture marked by the same elements in the British Isles. Food for thought to those who think black dysfunction is something different or unique to blacks, and that “special” measures are needed to “solve” them- whether it be welfare dependency, affirmative action quotas or so-called “culling” by abortion.

#90 Evon: When Freakonomics came out there was much ado about its assertion that legalized abortion had reduced the crime rate. Now I learn that Black women are three times more likely to abort their babies than white women. Was this the message between the lines of Freakonomics and, because the book has a liberal tilt to it, was it ignored?
—– It will be ignored, because to raise such questions doesn’t equate with liberal assumptions as the the beneficial effects of abortion. The Frekonomics theory is shaky, and competing data (already posted) suggest an unsettling idea- abortion itself may be fueling black dysfunction (including crime), because of its effect on weakening black family structures. As Steve Sailer shows, the first generation of black kids that survived the abortion “culls” went on to be the most murderous of all. At the same time abortions were going up, black illegitimacy rates went up, as did black ensnarement in the criminal justice system. Whatever the mix of factors in these trends, they hardly show the supposedly “beneficial” effects of the abortion culture so highly valued by some whites, where blacks are concerned.

#99 Nate said:
La Shawn, I think the reason there is such anger among some about Bennett’s comments is because they reflect a disregard for Black lives. I firmly believe that Black people — individuals and families — need to get our acts together and work to stop, or at least lessen, crime, abortion, and incarceration among our people. That said, I don’t think it is fair to change the subject from Bennett to Black people. Dr. Bennett should be held accountable for his statements and actions. Furthermore, I think we set a dangerous precedent when we suggest that it is acceptable for respected leaders like Dr. Bennett to engage in public discussions pondering the positive effect to be realized by aborting every black baby in America and committing genocide against our race.
Agreed Nate that Bennett could have used a better, less racially tinged example, and lost an opportunity to make a hard hit on some much more significant points. I disagree though when you say Bennett’s comment reflects a disregard for black lives. He disavowed any “positive” impact from abortion in his comments as morally reprehensible, and his history, from anti-abortion to other initiatives suggests quite the opposite. In fact, the people showing the most disregard for black lives, are sad to say, blacks themselves. The proof is there to see every day- from thousands of unborn black children being aborted every year, to thousands of maimed and traumatized black crime victims. Focusing on Bill Bennett is really an irrelevance in the face of the trail of death and mayhem marking black communities.

Here is where Bill Bennett’s hypothetical will go wrong. He states his hypothetical as if black parents will simply go along with such a plan. I submit to you crime would actually skyrocket among all black age groups and classes. People who normally would not commit a crime would probably be charged with assault and in most cases of murder against anyone who performed the abortion or supported it in anyway. I asked some of my middleclass black male friends who are married and college educated how they would repond to this proposal. These are men who have never committed a crime in their life. They all stated that if their wife pregnancy were harmed in anyway they would do whatever they had to do to protect the life of that child even if it meant getting revenge. I also see black soldiers who are defending our Nation as we speak force to respond in a dishonorable way. Not only would these men respond in that manner, I dare you to see how that mother responds. Also let me throw in the grandparents, uncles, aunts and etc. People who normally would not commit a crime will act accordingly to what they perceived to be a hostile policy towards them. So if blacks would not simply go along with this plan, that means in a free country BIG GOVERNMENT would impose it’ self against the founding principles of our Nation which is something I am sure Mr. Bennett himself is against. My bet is that crime would actually increase in Mr. Bennett’s hypnothetical context.

However, I don’t agree totally with the abort and decrease in crime scenario because you would have to abort all pregnancies because you don’t think there would be an increase from another ethnic group?

The point was phrased in an unnecessarily incendiary manner, in a country with a legacy of racism.

It’s a bit like introducing holocaust denial into a conversation as “just a theory – not that I believe it.” You’re still managing to introduce the modest proposal.

…not to mention a hypocrite, who could use a dose of the “physician, heal thyself” bottle. But I can stand him today, because his fat mouth got La Shawn all riled up. And I LOVE La Shawn….

Worse, I’ve seen a few comments which seem to be deliberately twisting what he said into something he didn’t say in order to find something about which to be offended. With all the real issues out there that need solving, it seems a bit odd to try to create a bogus one.

I’m sticking by post #6. Nothing I’ve seen or heard since this story first broke has given me any reason to change my mind.