Ok, let me comment on the transcript.

CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.

Here Bennett is confronted with a caller who postulates an apparently upcoming pro-life argument: If abortion had not been legalized in 1973, then the tax income would have been much higher these days. Bennet realizes that this is an unethical point of view and searches for a way to make this clear to the caller. He also remembers the issue as raised in Freakonomics and will gonna try to connect things. He also realizes that convincing this caller may require some going-along with the caller first.

BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?

CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

Bennett hopes that the argument about the costs should be troublesome for the caller and make the caller doubt the own argument. Now, Bennett brings in the issue as described in Freakonomics. The economists who wrote that book indeed state that abortion disproportionately occurs among single women. Bennett doubts that by saying "No".

CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

BENNETT: 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 --

In order to prevent a conflict with the caller (remember he wants to convince the caller), Bennett searches the middle by implicitly stating "so we both don't know". This further undermines the caller's arguments without embarrasing the caller. Then he makes clear to the caller that the tax-argument should not be used by the pro-life movement. Then he explicitly brings in the issue as raised in Freakonomics. I think that at that moment the caller breaks in.

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.

Bennett takes the opportunity, given by the caller, to make clear to the public that he too thinks the statistics are wrong. But at the same time he wants to criticize those (who may be hypothetical or real politicians or scientists) who think that pro-abortion is an adequate solution with regard to crime and poverty, a solution that must be promoted by politicians. Bennett obviously thinks it's unethical and that politicians ought not promote such solutions. He decides to use an extreme example in order to make this point of view very clear.

By using this extreme example, he apparently has been 'politically incorrect', which is in this case not the same as 'politically wrong'. (The word 'wrong' is what I should have used previously instead of 'insane'.)


>Peter,
>
>>May it be the case that we are here confronted with an example of 'politically incorrect' language? Which is not necessarilly the same as 'politically insane'.
>
>Could be, but I've heard no one say he was "politically insane." Just guilty of extremely poor word choice.
>
>>Are words as he used only permitted by scientists, esp. philosophers? Who, afterall, need to postulate such hypotheses, in order to discuss them with colleagues.
>
>Who has ever said that these words should only be used by philosophers??? You're missing the point, Peter... Mr. Bennett wasn't discussing these ideas with colleagues... it was on the public airwaves for all to hear. Like it or not, accept it or not, believe it or not, this does make a significant difference as to how the words will be received. I may be overreaching here, but I think that's probably true in most, if not all, cultures?
>
>>May it be the case that things 'sounded' as if, because you are prejudiced and oversensitive?
>
>No, not at all... in fact I detest the entire concept of PC-speak. Noticing how he phrased his dialogue is something that most native English speakers would probably pick up on. It smacked very much of someone telling a blatantly racist joke, then realizing no one's laughing and trying to backpedal by saying something like, "but I'm not a racist" or "I've got friends who are Jewish/black/etc."
>
>Making a repugnant statement, then backing away from it a few sentences later doesn't erase the original shock or ease the minds of those of us who may find ourselves wondering if maybe it's a symptom of deeper issues.
>
>Personally, considering how influential the man was in our government, I'm hoping it was just "foot in mouth disease."
>
>>And were you, or weren't you aware of the existence of the issue as explained in Freakonomics?
>
>Existence of the issue as described in the transcript, yes... similar theories have been advanced many times in the past. Specifically how it was explained in Freakonomics, no. But then again, I'm not following the relevance of your question. I certainly don't believe I have to read the book to understand that the wording of his statement about aborting black babies -- even with his subsequent disclaimer -- was not a wise one.