Un-United Colors of Bennett

If you're here, you've heard about the whole flap about my good friend (*cough*), William Bennett. Probably. For the people who havn't heard, on a talk radio show, he casually mentioned that if you aborted all the black babies, it would lower the crime rate. Obviously, that started a shitstorm of unimaginable proportions. Everybody and their dog is trying to back away from the guy. (And for good reason..I might add). There's a small amount of people that are saying that he was just making an argument, for argument's sake, and that he's anti-abortion for crying out loud.

What was racist about it, was that he casually linked race to crime. Very casually. It was almost chilling. If you were having an academic discussion, then you might bring up that yes, the incarceration rate for blacks is quite a bit higher than it is for whites. Yes, you could have that discussion.

But then you would need to follow up on that discussion. And talk about how being part of the underclass has much more to do with being convicted of a crime. Notice that I didn't say committing a crime. That's important. Because quite a few people do comit crimes of some sort. The white girl gets treatment. The black male gets hard time. That's a reality.

So the real question is not if Bennett is a racist or not. The real question, is Bennett an asshole who's complaining about the things that he is helping to create, or is he legitimate in his role as a moralist.

Well..to get an answer, I did a Google search on a variety of issues. The reality is, Bennett doesn't really say much about anything that doesn't go on inside of the home. So I kept on looking. And I found the website for a group that he founded, Empower America. He's not on the board of directors now, for some reason. (Could be fall-out from all of his personal scandals) but it's safe to say that they're still heading in the same direction. Or at least they were. If he's changed his views on things, he's not made them public.

So...where does Bennett stand (as much as I can tell), on structural morality? What does his old group think about providing health care to all citizens? Well...let's start here.


Congress needed to reform Medicare to create real choice and competition and to slow the rate of growth in Medicare spending without resorting to increased co-payments and provider cuts. This new legislation represents a serious missed opportunity to save the Medicare system. This legislation will make the real job of Medicare reform harder rather than easier.

Well..let's parse this..shall we? (BTW, #1. This was written by Dick Armey. #2. This is pretty typical of the stuff on that particular part of the page). They want to create "real choice and competition". That means privitize. As well, they want to slow the growth in Medicare spending, but don't want to limit the payments, or increase the co-payments. Although I suspect that last part is an outright lie, as in other parts of health-care reform they mention that if people have to pay for things outright, they'll use less, driving costs down.

The only thing left is cuts. Probably massive cuts. Of course, increasing the co-payments, or switching to health savings accounts or something..well that's a cut as well. So Bennett and his crew think that the stress on American citizens is a good thing. Glad we've gotten that straighted out.

Oh and one more thing. From a wonkish point of view, what they want won't work. It's well known that a lack of primary care, which would be caused by assholes like these people, actually increase demand for more intensive (I.E, Expensive) medical procedures. It'll actually increase demand going up the curve over not only just the long-term, but the medium term. Any short-term savings will quickly..very quickly evaporate.

On to the second leg of the structural body, economic policy. They say they're "pro-growth", and the general trend is that they're also anti-inflation, again, I'll parse what these codewords mean. It's quite simple. They believe that the main way to keep a strong economy is to keep wages as low as possible. They believe the main way to keep a strong economy is to hurt people. People shouldn't have any rights, or any recourse to address their grievences. They're just consumers. Not citizens. They're very much for "tort reform". I'm not totally against that, to be honest, I just think that for corporations much more has to be taken into the criminal jurisdiction.

That's the whole tone for everything. They just want the machine to keep on grinding, and all the bones and sawdust to fall out the bottom. They just don't care. Nothing on an increase in the minimum wage. NOTHING. They just don't care. They want to eliminate welfare, not make it that people who want to work can find good jobs that are going to give the chances and oppurtunities. Because they just don't care.

It's all a machine to them, to keep well oiled, and keep on printing the greenbacks. It's not citizens. It's not even human beings to them.

And yet, this...thing has the audacity to complain about the lack of moral virtues in society? The fucking nerve of him. People don't want to be treated like tools to be used then spit out. They want to be respected. To be appriciated. And that's what is seriously lacking in society today. And Bennett, and his crew. They oppose this. Because it would be difficult.

And I suspect, because then in the relativly crime-free culture we would have, they'd have nothing to feel self-rightous about.