Bill Bennett, racist, gambler, failed drug czar and, incredibly, author of something called The Book of Virtues, has gathered up his impeccable credibility and attacked the Pulitzer committee for awarding journalism prizes for reporting on secret CIA prisons and domestic eavesdropping.
The reporters, Bennett said, "took classified information, secret information, published it in their newspapers, against the wishes of the president, against the request of the president and others... I don't think what they did was worthy of an award — I think what they did is worthy of jail."
Bennett is — one can only hope — no longer taken seriously by most Americans. But his outburst is worthy of note because it is a slip of the tongue that betrays the real attitudes of the Bush Right. With all their talk of liberty and democracy, in their pickled little hearts they actually believe in an imperial presidency.
Bennett's phrasing was not accidental. The day journalists are beholden to the "wishes of the president" is the day we no longer have a free press. And the Republican Right doesn't believe in a free press. How can there be a fourth estate when there's only one estate — the executive, all-powerful and impervious to criticism?
First Bill Bennett revealed the Right's core racism by suggesting that crime would go down if all black babies were aborted (also cf. sweet, grandmotherly Barbara Bush's post-Katrina comments); now he's betraying its true, only halfheartedly hidden, monarchical ideal. Nicely done, Mr. B.
Appropriately, White House press secretary Scott McClellan's resignation this morning included the kowtowing due an executive who conceives himself as, in his own words, "the decider": "I have given it my all, sir, and I have given you my all, sir."
Indeed. Bush's imperial attitude has been evident for years. But with everything he's attempted going horribly wrong, the American public is waking up to it.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Michael J. West
There are some parts of this that are a little much, but there's at least one absolutely perfect point:
The day journalists are beholden to the "wishes of the president" is the day we no longer have a free press.
Beautiful.
2 - Bliffle
Can we assume that Bennett follows his own imperial dictum and , thus, that all his gambling, failing, race-baiting, etc., are according to the presidents wishes?
3 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Jon, no political leader anywhere believes in a "free press," unless he is the editor of the paper trying to sell papers.
4 - Christopher Rose
Try telling that to Silvio Berlusconi, Ruvy...
5 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chris,
I'd be happy to. But why should he listen to a scribbler from Jerusalem?
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Besides, Chris, Berlusconi is the owner of several papers, and TV stations, trying to make money.
7 - Jon Sobel
no political leader anywhere believes in a "free press"
Cynical but alas more true than false, Ruvy. They do usually pay lip service, though. In this sense, one could think of the Bush Administration as less hypocritical than most.
8 - Dave Nalle
There ought to be a reasonable middle ground here. Bennett is probably correct that the SOURCES who leaked classified information to these reporters ought to be jailed. The reporters, however, did not sign on for secrecy and are only doing their jobs. So give them the pulitzers and give their sources a jail cell.
That aside, your other comments are mostly laughable. To still be riding Bennett for racism and trying to apply that to the entire right is just a cheap and groundless smear tactic. Next you'll be comparing Bush to Hitler.
As for an imperial presidency, that sounds like a damned fine idea. It's the job of the president to do what he can to rule relatively autocratically and it's the job of Congress and the Courts to stop him. That dynamic of conflict and competition is what makes our system work.
Dave
9 - Nancy
You can't compare Bush to Hitler: Hitler was a lot smarter than W. Better edumacated, too. And certainly a better public speaker.
10 - Jon Sobel
Bennett is probably correct that the SOURCES who leaked classified information to these reporters ought to be jailed.
No, he's not correct. The sources were acting because the regular channels in their agencies that were supposed to be available for agents to report wrongdoing were in effect nonexistent. These sources were acting their consciences.
That aside, your other comments are mostly laughable.
But you're the only one who seems to be laughing. What does that tell you?
To still be riding Bennett for racism and trying to apply that to the entire right is just a cheap and groundless smear tactic. Next you'll be comparing Bush to Hitler.
Leaving aside your passive-aggressive Hitler evocation (you brought him up, I didn't), I'm "still riding" Bennett because with the passage of time people tend to forget why certain public figures lost their credibility in the first place. Bennett is the laughable one - yet he's still afforded a place to spew his idiocy, and, I guess, someone must be listening to him.
As for an imperial presidency, that sounds like a damned fine idea. It's the job of the president to do what he can to rule relatively autocratically and it's the job of Congress and the Courts to stop him. That dynamic of conflict and competition is what makes our system work.
Well, that's certainly an interesting interpretation of checks and balances. I thought it was the job of the president to carry out the laws enacted by Congress reflecting the will of the people. But what do I know? I only studied American history. You must be privy to some higher code not available to the rest of us.
11 - Steve
I'm with Dave on this one. Anyone who says Bennett is a racist based on his comment about black babies obviously doesn't know the context of his remarks, and therefore should not be making a comment on that issue! Would the articler like that if someone did that to him, I wonder??
12 - Jon Sobel
Steve: actually, before posting this I went back and reviewed the context of Bennett's "black babies" comment very carefully. The comments demonstrated a belief that blacks are more likely to commit crimes because of something inherent. If that's not racist, I don't know what is.
13 - chantal stone
I'm going to have to agree with comment #12...why specify "black" babies in the first place, unless he had something against black People.
14 - MCH
"Next you'll be comparing Bush to Hitler."
- Dave Nalle
No, because Hitler actually served his entire tour of duty in the military, without deserting.
15 - Dave Nalle
No, Jon. The context clearly shows that Bennett is aware that statistically more crime is committted by blacks. That's it. He chose to state it that way in order to shock and get people to think about it, and perhaps went too far.
And MCH, now that you've come out saying that Hitler was a great guy don't you think it's finally time to rethink your priorities?
Dave
16 - uao
Statistically, more crimes are committed by whites in the U.S. than any other group...
17 - Dave Nalle
Not relative to the percentage of the population, UAO. Blacks are 12.5% of the population and commit 26% of the crimes.
Dave
18 - uao
We've been down this road before.
It is a fallacy to claim "blacks commit 26% of crimes" for three simple reasons:
1) Crime statistics are not kept by the government or any state that breaks down crimes into the perpetrators' races, so any number that purports to be that total is completely false and fabricated.
2) "Black" cannot be defined any more than "White" can.
3) A black guy, white guy, and Asian guy rob a bank together; which race gets credit for the crime.
There is no statistic that measures crime by race. 26% is nonsense, based on nothing. Pity you'd use something as proveably false to further a point.
I heard 72% of all right wing rhetoists enjoy smelling their own farts in the bathtub; only 38% of blacks do.
19 - Jon Sobel
uao: thanks, you said it better than I could have.
Dave: I stand by my interpretation of Bennett's original comments, and here's why:
First of all, here's the Bennett quote: "...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..." Bennett hastened to add that he was not advocating such a thing and that it would be a horrible thing to do.
The context of the discussion was a purported cause and effect relationship between increased abortions and decreased crime (not race-related). In a strictly logical sense, and in context, Bennett, who opposes abortion, was making a reductio ad absurdum or slippery-slope argument, saying that if you justified an increased abortion rate by saying that it results in reduced crime - in other words, the ends justify the means - then what was to stop you from saying that since blacks (according to Bennett) commit more crimes, black babies should be aborted specifically?
But the underlying assumption there is racist, whether Bennett realized it or not. Leaving aside the question of whether blacks do or not commit crimes in out-of-proportion numbers, the simple fact is that a baby is a baby is a baby. Perhaps a baby born into poverty or a broken family is more likely to become a criminal (although I have seen reports to the contrary). But that is in no way related to the race of the baby. We are not contrasting inner-city youths with trust funders and Ivy Leaguers. We are just talking about babies.
I think Bennett's actual logic was that if you aborted more babies born into certain socioeconomic circumstances you'd end up with a reduced crime rate years later. That may or may not be true. But referring to "black babies" was incidental to the point he was trying to make - unless there is an underlying racial bias. Hence we must assume one.
20 - RedTard
uao,
Perhaps you should check your own facts and drop the spouting leftist propaganda.
"Crime statistics are not kept by the government or any state that breaks down crimes into the perpetrators' races, so any number that purports to be that total is completely false and fabricated."
I suppose the FBI, who reports these statistics for violent crimes, is totally fabricated or a front group for the KKK.
"'Black' cannot be defined any more than 'White' can."
Good, let's get rid of racial preferences, the NAACP, and Jesse Jackson and go back to a colorblind society. Also genetic tests are over 99.5% accurate at matching a person's self described race with genetic markers indicating their ancestry. Race exists, it can be genetically verified, of course I wouldn't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
Blacks commit more violent crime per capita, end of story. If you weren't living in a bubble of idiocy and had actually gotten out into the world and got some experience instead of spouting left wing garbage you might have the chance to actually learn a thing or to.
21 - Dave Nalle
UAO, do you find that just straight-out denying reality makes you feel better or something?
The Department of Justice compiles crimes from all the different law enforcement agencies and includes racial data, which is recorded at the time of arrest. The FBI also keeps an extensive database of crimes which includes racial information.
Your claim that data on this subject doesn't exist is just plain wrong, or else wilfully ignorant.
I'm quite willing to consider reasonable arguments on what those statistics mean, but to deny the existence of them is ludicrous.
Dave
22 - Dave Nalle
Dave: I stand by my interpretation of Bennett's original comments, and here's why:
Jon, so long as you agree that what you're putting forward is your interpretation then I can't really argue with you. There's no question that his statement could be perceived and interpreted in the way which you have. I think it's clear that his intent was not to be racist, but to make a point about the unacceptable nature of certain actions. If anything the statement was anti-racist, but you can choose to see it in a different light if that serves your purposes or makes you feel more comfortable.
Dave
23 - MCH
"And MCH, now that you've come out saying that Hitler was a great guy don't you think it's finally time to rethink your priorities?"
- Dave Nalle
That's not what I said, Nalle. I said that unlike Bush, Hitler completed his military service without deserting.
I realize that as a control-freak and manipulator this must be difficult, but don't put words in my mouth.
24 - Jon Sobel
so long as you agree that what you're putting forward is your interpretation then I can't really argue with you
Yes, it's my interpretation, based on what I think lay behind what he said. Not being in his mind - and recognizing that we don't even know everything that's in our own minds - it can only be that.
It was interesting reading back over this whole brouhaha, though - Bennett seemed to defend himself in every way one could think of, except by actually explaining the reasoning that led him to make his reductio ad absurdum argument in the first place. Or maybe he did, but I didn't see it in my quick research. Probably, rightly or wrongly, he considered the American public too dim to follow it. Maybe he learned his lesson from the first time and figured he could only get himself into more trouble if he tried to honestly explain himself.
25 - Jon Sobel
Race exists, it can be genetically verified
Actually, RedTard, there's a lot of scientific debate about this. I'll just quote Max Hocutt from the Independent Review. He criticizes various challenges to the concept of race, but says: "Racial distinctions do not cut very deep in explaining human variability." That's something on which I think most scientists do agree.