Because it simply wouldn’ be a day here at Balloon Juice without a contentious flame-war thread, let me post this piece from the Opinion Journal:
Hypocritical Hypotheticals
On “Fox News Sunday” yesterday, Juan Williams joined the attack on Bennett. The way in which he did it made our jaw drop, and let us count the ways. This is from the Factiva transcript (alas, not available publicly online); “Brit” is Brit Hume, who was defending Bennett:
What’s clearly wrong is if you wanted to say, oh, gosh, you know, [1] maybe we should have abortions for every woman who has a history in her family of mental illness or anybody who has a disabled child, or [2] let’s get rid of all the Christians, they certainly have been involved in lots of wars. [3] How about the Jews? You know what? [4] We have trouble with older people in this country. Clearly, they, you know, cause a great burden on our Social Security system. Maybe we should do away with some of these older people.
You know, Brit, it really speaks to a deeply racist mindset to imagine America somehow as better off if we didn’t have those black people around and all those racial issues and all these–you know, so many of these blacks end up in jail, as if they’re criminals because they’re black. . . . He certainly said it to me. That’s what . . . I heard, Brit. . . .
Brit, if I’m sitting here on a national talk show and I say, you know, [5] maybe if we killed off these white people, we wouldn’t have so many mass murders in America, you’d say, Juan, are you out of your mind? . . .
Words have meaning, Brit. . . . I think what you’re misunderstanding is it’s the idea that he gave voice to this notion. If you were in a Nazi regime and said [6] you know, gee, you know, a lot of these Jewish people have businesses and they dominate the academy, and therefore wouldn’t it be better–that’s not a good idea, Brit. Not a good idea to give voice to.
No fewer than six times in a 10-minute segment, Williams did exactly what Bennett did that so offended him–namely, offer an outrageous hypothetical to illustrate a point. We’re no more offended by Williams’s doing so than we were by Bennett’s, but Williams’s hypocrisy is simply mind-boggling.
Pretty much.
Slide
let me use a phrase from the last election, “you just don’t get it”. And I’m not going to even try to explain it. Once again, I hope the right continues to defend Bennett’s comments. It tells us all where you guys stand.
Jack Roy
Oh, gawd, this again? Why is it suddenly newsworthy that people get antsy about the vague implications of uncareful sentiments uttered in racial overtones that could mean something but probably don’t? Last I checked that’s been true for… ever.
Oh, sorry, it’s flamewar time. I mean: You, sir, are everything that’s wrong with America. And the jerk store called and they’re running out of you. And I slept with your wife.
Nikki
Gee, ain’t Juan Williams on ya’ll’s side?
Stormy70
NO. He is a whiny lib and his anti-semitic ravings make him sound like a lunitic. He has issues with the Jews. He does not play for my team. Bleh.
The Irascible Richard Bennett
Fox has Williams and Mara Liasson on to make liberals look bad, but Juan is playing it too well.
Stormy70
Me spell gud.
Josh
Note that Stormy70 apparently thinks that Juan Williams is antisemitic, presumably because of his use of hypotheticals in the quoted piece, when the point of that very piece was to point out that Williams was doing the exact same thing that Bennett did.
John S.
Color me unenthusiastic over how your ‘team’ views the Jews.
JPS
Stormy70:
Interesting–I’ve tended (for reasons I no longer specifically remember) to think of Juan Williams as a pretty reasonable guy. (For a LIB’RUL!) I rarely agree with him, but have a general impression of him as thoughtful and fair. To what issues with Jews are you referring?
es
When did it become hypocritical to demonstrate by example that someone said something wrong? Strange definition of hypocrisy.
jobiuspublius
I’m reading Bennets own words and the following is what they say.
Bennett does not think it is accurate that:
Bennett knows, i.e., does think it is accurate and precise, that:
Aborting all black babies is an increase in abortion, which he first said does not reduce crime, then he thinks it does, if it’s all black babies. The differance? Race. Bennett made a racist statement thru that ridiculas and absurd contradiction not a point, not a reductio ad absurdum. He believes that racist statement, therefore, he is a racist.
Bennett’s statement is a slippery slope fallacy:
Or, Appeal to Ridicule:
RSA
Here’s another interesting hypothetical statement that Williams (not a liberal in my judgment) might have used:
Lott didn’t get away with calling this a hypothetical question, even though he followed up, much later, with “Segregation is a stain on our nation’s soul… Segregation and racism are immoral.” For Lott, it looked like backtracking, while for Bennett it was all one hypothetical statement. Interesting similarities and differences.
John Cole
I tend to agree. I think he is frequently wrong, but not because he is a political hack or a dishonest lout. He is a straight shooter and in general he is pretty top of the heap as far as tv talking heads go.
SeesThroughIt
Hahahaha! “I’m telling you, jerk store woulda smoked that guy!”
I might–might–be willing to cut Bennett a little slack (and still, only a little) if A) he weren’t such a total dick, and B) the modern history of conservative Republicans and Strom Thurmond-style Dixiecrats-turned-Republicans vis-a-vis race weren’t so, erm, unsavory. I don’t think Bennett is an all-out “kill all nonwhites and non-Christians” racist, but he sees no problem with equating crime and Blacks, which is certainly disturbing.
es
When was the last time a fetus committed a crime?
srv
As token parody-liberal on Fox, yep.
Celcus
Bennett clearly and in no uncertain terms stated that he believes if Blacks did not exist, crime would be lower. He then stated that aborting them would be a reprehensible thing to do. I am really sorry, but I do not see how the latter statement mitigates the former in any fashion.
jobiuspublius
Bennett pulls the rip cord.
Sinequanon
OH! FOR! CRYING! OUT! LOUD! ARGH!
Sojourner
Mara Liasson is a moderate Republican. Look it up. Juan Williams is a lightweight – not sure what he stands for.
The reality is that Fox rarely lets a serious lefty on the show. David Corn used to appear every now and then but he was too smart for the hosts.
The Irascible Richard Bennett
The reality is serious lefties have been hard to find since the fall of the Soviet Union permanently destroyed the lefty program’s economic basis. So these so-called lefties we have today are indistinguishable from Buchanan righties.
Defense Guy
In spite of the fact that most serious players know that Bennets comments were not racist in intent or even in passing, many still seem willing to portray them as such.
Suppose we were to have a serious discusion about race in the US. Do you suppose for a second that this would be helpful to the speakers on the left? No, they need to keep this as an outrage issue, because if it ever does come to pass, it will not be in their best interests.
That the man is not even slighly racist somehow does not enter into the discussion. Why is that?
Sinequanon
I’m returning the favor.
You are an obvious paradox masquerading as an ox-y-moron.
Sinequanon
David Rossie
Taranto is being disingenous,
Williams’ hypotheticals are obviously for argument’s sake. They aren’t opinionated claims like Bennett’s was. We should’t bother with the PC left, but Bennett deserves what he gets. He’s a communicator for Christ’s sake. He should know better…
DougJ
Richard Bennett does the old me better than I did. You know you’ve jumped the shark as a “conservative” when you make constant comparisons between liberals and the Soviet Union. It’s really the right-wing equivalent of comparing conservatives to fascists.
BlogReeder
jobiuspublius, you kinda missed the piont. You don’t think this is a ‘reductio ad absurdum’ but you don’t prove it. Could it be because then it wouldn’t be a fallacy? Maybe he said ‘black babies’ in response to the caller? What if he said ‘George W. Bush babies’ instead, and the caller was a barking moonbat with terminal Bush Derangement Syndrome? His hypothetical would lose some punch.
ppGaz
Not really. You’re funny. He’s just ridiculous. His entire schtick consists of “ha ha ha lefties are cheesheads ha ha ha”. Is calling him a horse’s ass permissable here in a FLAME WAR thread?
Not that anyone would do that.
Clever
Hey, at least everybody gets to be racist. That’s all Bill really wanted…people able to speak their mind without having to think about the gravity of what they say. I mean, come on! It’s just a private conversation between Billy and the reporter and that guy with the TV camera. And the TV guy doesn’t say much, so you wont get argument from him, right? Just like reality TV, its supposed to be real. All Billy did was keep it real!
It’s just not cool to keep pointing out how ill-thought out the statement was though. It is just completely hypocritical…especially when a black guy talks about aborting white people…thats just over the line.
/That was fun.
jobiuspublius
Grasshopper DougJ, I supplied a link explaining reductio ad absurdum as my proof. I do see that I failed to supply links for ridiculous and absurd. Please accept my appologies for the omission.
In any case, let me explain. In a reductio ad absurdum proof, an accepted conclusion contradicts the premise, thereby showing the premise to be false. In Bennett’s argument, the conclusion agrees with the premise but disagrees with Bennett. I’m sorry, but, Mr. Bennett has not, yet, risen to the importance whereby the world is judged according to him. I’m sure he will ascend to that soon enough. In the mean time, we will have to wait patiently. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.
jobiuspublius
Fooking moderation! My comments hate waiting for fooking moderation.
jobiuspublius
Crap, the moderation police caught me again. I’m not a radical damn it!
Gray
Yeah, what’s the difference between Williams’ arguments and Bennett’s? The difference is that Williams didn’t say ‘But I do know that it’s true’.
“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.”
This was an idiotic statement by Bennett and it can’t be defended. If he had any sense of decency left, he would apologize.
jobiuspublius
Yes, Gray, but you are leaving out the contradiction that FUBARed Bennett’s argument.
Bennett could have saved his butt if he had acknowledged it, disavowed it, and appologized. Instead, he’s throwing all sort of spin and tangents and people happily follow him. He may not get on the college circuit with this nonsense, but, I bet he will get a book deal.
Tim F
Assuming that by ‘y’all’s side’ you mean liberals, no. Juan Williams represents perfectly your average Fox “liberal,” that is to say a centrist c-lister who couldn’t hold up his side of the famous Great Taste – Less Filling debate.
His stint at NPR, where he represented the Republican viewpoint more often than not, ended after a show where he insisted on finishing George Soros’s sentences. When the guy just finished bringing down twelve or so Asian financial markets practically singlehandedly you let him take as long as he wants to finish his sentences.
Williams has earned the O’Reilly Award for stupidity in broadcast journalism many times over. For that alone he represents Fox better than he represents any particular political persuasion.
Tim F
Hm, twitchy with the paste key today.
Lines
New book out on the shelves today:
“How I Survived the Liberal Attack Squads”
by William “I ain’t a black man” Bennett
TallDave
Hehe, good point. I saw that segment and that never occurred to me.
If Juan were a Republican we’d see people claiming he said:
“we should have abortions for every woman who has a history in her family of mental illness or anybody who has a disabled child”
“we should do away with some of these older people.”
Lines
In other news, Juan Williams was caught stealing chairs from the set. A shocked Bill Bennett was caught saying “but, but, you’re bleck!”
Another Jeff
I don’t know if this was your intention, but if that was a reference to the scene in Lethal Weapon II where Danny Glover and Pesci are at the South African Embassy saying that Danny Glover wanted to move to South Africa, it was good stuff!
I’m not gonna say that I laughed so hard that i spit coffee on my keyboard because that expression is way overused in the blogosphere, but it was funny nonetheless.
Don
If you do not understand the difference between offering up an insensitive hypothetical when talking about a different subject and offering up examples of other possible insensitive musings when talking about an insensitive musing… well, I don’t know how to make you understand. Calling it “the same thing” as Bennett was doing is simply inaccurate.
Daren L
I don’t know where to start with that post John. Juan was not making as I heard “thought expirements” as Bennett’s statements were described by conservatives, he was demonstrating how ridiculous it is that these semi-true, quasi statements would never be uttered by a conservative in a discussion because of either the self-interest of not insulting your own or because other groups aren’t as easy targets as African-Americans. The simple case is that I just don’t see any “thought expirements” out there by white people about white people. But at every turn we’ve got conservatives from Charles Murray to Bill Bennett to Trent Lott who’ve got nothing but blacks on their mind; when they begin looking at the problems within their own race, maybe I won’t be so offended by them constantly looking at the problems within my own.
scs
Fox has no liberals on? Who are all those people on Hannity and Colmes, the ones that Hannity debates. Who was that Janene (sp?) Garafolo character that he used to debate a lot? Or the leftie professors and rap stars that O’Reily debates? Who is Bob Beckel, or the head of the Dem party (forgot his name) that is on a lot? And while I don’t know if Juan or Mara, are liberal in their personal lives, they sure act like (moderate) liberals on TV. How many conservatives are on CNN? Really how many liberals are on MSNBC, now that I think about it. Anyway, its not a dem/rep ratio contest. Its about choices. If you don’t like Fox, don’t watch it. But don’t slander other people who want to watch it.
You all have to admit, CNN and especially MSNBC packs their line-ups with blow-dried former models as announcers. Even just the regular Fox announcers are always just a little more lively and quirky to watch, not so darn DULL, and that’s why, among other reasons, their ratings have taken off.
jobiuspublius
OK, let’s have that serious discusion. Here it comes. Ready? Go:
Don
I’m pretty sure that when only one person says something and then the matter is closed that’s not a ‘discussion.’
SeesThroughIt
Wow, that was fun. And easy.
Defense Guy
Very nice, both of you. You did exactly what I would expect, change the subject or not take it seriously.
BlogReeder
Obviously, when Bennett said “if you wanted to reduce crime…abort black babies” is what is causing shrill hysterics. Is he a racist because he said that? Or statistically are more criminals apt to be black? I tried a Google search to get such a number but I ran across this:
Bureau of Justice Statistics It’s amazing how this site bends over backwards to prevent such a conclusion. In Violent Crime: National Crime Victimization Survey questions are asked:
So we know racially who the victims are. However
So it’s more important to know that violent crime is committed by strangers? Why do they lead the second point with age statistics?
jobiuspublius
It is when it’s this simple:
Sometimes, when a rational person becomes a little too serious, a little theater of the absurd is a good thing. But, I do prefer http://www.crooksandliars.com to control the dosage.
jobiuspublius
BlogReeder, I see your trap.
The problem with that statement is that it is not related to the Freakonomics argument which Bennett is tarring, nor reductio ad Bennett(another fallacy first discovered ~5-7 decades ago). It’s an appeal to ridicule, a fallacy, not reductio ad absurdum, an argument.
As someone already pointed out, Bennett is talking about two different types of abortion. Freakonomics is not. Therefore Bennett is not arguing with anybody but himself and using Freako to take the fall.
How interesting that Bennett is riling up the Black People = Crime crowd while the dominant party is noticing that fewer blacks in LA means more election vitories for the dominant party in LA.
Don
jobiuspublius, something may be so pointless as to be unworthy of a discussion or the parties on either or both sides incapable of actually having a discussion. I concur. However one person cannot simply proclaim something as true and table the matter and claim it’s a discussion. It’s not a discussion, it’s a monologue. Claiming that there’s an exchange of ideas in such an event is dishonest and pointless.
ppGaz
But think of all the second-rate blogs that would not exist, eh?
jobiuspublius
Don, I agree.
The Irascible Richard Bennett
I didn’t say anything about “liberals”, I was talking about The Left, which does include socialists.
Try again.
jobiuspublius
This is a nice lesson for Bennett’s appologists
The Irascible Richard Bennett
It comes down to this: Do blacks commit more crime, per capita, than other American ethnic groups, yes or no?
If your answer is “yes”, then Bill’s comment was appropriate. If your answer is “no”, you’re an idiot. If your answer is “yes, but…” I’ll take that as a “yes”.
jobiuspublius
According to Peterson:
Not all … but most of them lack moral character. Look what they did to the [Louisiana Super]dome. In three days, they turned the Dome into a ghetto.
And:
[Insert ID link here]
jobiuspublius
There is a little more to B. Bennett’s statement than that, R. Bennett. Do you think he was making a reductio ad absurdum? Where is the rest of it?
Let’s look at what B. Bennett enables:
Deep six the illusion of race and Evil Clown Crackers have nothing. We’ll be able to address issues directly. We’ll all be better off for it.
The Irascible Richard Bennett
You’re dodging the question.
jobiuspublius
You’re one to talk.
The Irascible Richard Bennett
Come on, answer it so we can move on.
jobiuspublius
I do not accept your frame, R. Bennett. I has little to do with B. Bennetts statement, which I find more interesting.
The Irascible Richard Bennett
Bill Bennett said: “you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down…”
True or False?
SeesThroughIt
“To be honest, we were kinda lukewarm on Bennett, but we find his No Reproduction for Blacks ideas stimulating and wish to learn more about them.”
OK, I’m kidding. And exaggerating. Sort of.
jobiuspublius
What I fail to understand is the insistance in using the discredited and antiquated language of skull metrics in the post-modern era. How good of a problem solving tool has it been over the years?
The Irascible Richard Bennett
You’re still dodging.
jobiuspublius
You’re stuck on stupid.
The Irascible Richard Bennett
Better that than to be stuck in lying, as you are.