Bennett's Betting
"Working his way down the list of other people's pleasures, weaknesses, and uses of American freedom, he just happened to skip over his own. How convenient."—Slate's Michael Kinsley on morals maven/hyper gambler Bill Bennett.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
JDM-
Bennett has every right to offer his opinion in public. He has every right to say to people “I think you would be better off if you lived accordign to these precepts.” He has every right to say that gambling is OK as long as you don’t let the habit get out of control.
HOWEVER, Mr. Bennett is engaging in a habit that some people (for reasons good or bad, rational or irrational, fair or unfair) think is immoral. Now, when defending his habit, he offers the argument that it’s fine to gamble as long as you don’t do it to excess and don’t hurt yourself or anybody else.
I completely agree with Mr. Bennett’s defense of gambling, and I hope for his sake that he continues to have fun without hurting himself. However, his defense of gambling could be just as easily applied to marijuana, adult pornography (NOT child porn), rap music, and other things that Bennett condemns and often says that the state should regulate.
All I want from Mr. Bennett is a little explanation of why it’s OK for consenting adults to gamble but not OK for consenting adults to smoke a joint.
fyodor,
Fun is fun, and if that’s all you’re doing, have at it. Not everyone posting here is the same.
thoreau,
That’s wll well and good. The posters I was referring too are not so well reasoned.
JDM,
Which posters were you referring to?
Jim:
Show me some evidence the Bill Bennett has engaged in conduct that he considers immoral, and I’ll concede that he’s a hypocrite. Making an issue of the fact that he engages in conduct that others find objectionable is a non-starter. After all, if everyone who gambles but opposes drug legalization is a “hypocrite” (read: 90% of the people in any casino at any given time), then the word has lost all meaning.
xlrg-
The hypocrisy is not in his conduct. He thinks gambling is OK for anybody, not just himself, so he does it. More power to him. I’m sure the casino employees all thank him for it.
The hypocrisy is in how he defends himself: He has no problem using the argument “If my habit is under control and I’m not hurting anybody else then it’s nobody else’s business.” He never explains why that argument only applies to gambling and not to rap music, pornography (excluding child porn, obviously), and pot.
I’m not sure about rap music, but purchasing pornography pretty clearly hurts others. Demand for porn drives supply. Supply provides the weak and momentarily lost ample opportunity to utterly destroy their lives.
This story just completely baffles me…why is gambling considered so immoral? Mind you, I don’t gamble at all; it seems pretty useless & boring to me. But it really seems that Bennett’s hobby is not inconsistent with his quest for a more “virtuous” America.
Of course, The Weekly Standard is rushing to defend Bennett, because, you know, “[h]e certainly hasn’t made a career out of condemning gambling.” And, “while [some of Bennett’s critics are] castigating Bennett for gambling today [They are? I thought it was for hypocricy.], they were staunch defenders of sin-magnet Bill Clinton just a few years back.” Well, I guess we all owe Bennett an apology.
As would the complete legalization of drugs….
So what types of personal activity should the government be allowed to ban/regulate, and which types of behavior should be outside the scope of law?
For the record, I am not suggesting that pornography and drug use are moral actions, but we all know how “well” government works…
I’m more afraid of a non-hypocrite; I believe the President and A.G. to be completely sincere men, and the public respond to that regardless of the value of what they’re sincere _about_ (not quite Christian Reconstructionism, but sort of a secular version of it where both the very religious and the very wealthy are seen as basically “elect”, the rest of us here and all foreigners as “preterite”, and America as God’s Champion in the world).
B.B. is an elite and considers himself above his own ramblings much like many of those who make laws and set moral high bars. Not leading by example but by the boot.
The reason Bill Bennett is a hypocrite is that he has made a career out of high-minded declarations of what is right and wrong, and how even victimless and consensual acts hurt society at large. He also made much hay out of our culture’s love of instant gratification. In a casino, there is nothing more instantly gratifying than video poker and slots: no strategizing, no poker face, no numerical analysis.
Gambling may not be unvirtuous, but $8 million wasted on one-arm bandits points to something akin to vice.
I happen to agree with David — I don’t consider gambling to be immoral. But, then again, I’ve never held myself up to be The Authority on Morality. The fact is, the same excuses that Bennett uses to justify his gambling are the same ones he won’t let others use to defned their so-called sins. Basically, Bennett is hypocritical because he picks and chooses what he considers moral: If it’s my vice, it’s OK; if it’s someone else’s, it’s not.
Reminds me of Mel Brook’s definition of tragedy and comedy. Tragedy is when you fall on your ass; comedy is when someone else does.
“Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die.”
I haven’t had a good hit of schadenfreude like this since Jim Bakker. Ooooh yeah. Makes my spine tingle.
A few months ago, it came out that Pat Robertson ownes race horses. Once again, nada from the right wing commentariat.
The difference between Bennett’s scandal and Clinton’s? Those of us flailing away at Bennett don’t want to bring him up on crimininal charges or remove anyone from public office.
When deciding what number to play, does Bill use his Moral Compass??
The only hypocrits here are all the social libertarian types who rail against the Bill Bennett types for even claiming that there is such a thing as morality, then castigate him for his own moral failings. This is nothing but jingoistic piling on.
I’ve seen Bennett on TV 2 or 3 times, and other than that, I don’t know anything about him, but I would think that libertarians would agree that if he makes an argument, it should be evaluated on its merits, and wouldn’t embarass themselves with
this type of ad hominum nonsense.
What you’re actually doing is arguing Bennett’s case by claiming his immorality disqualiies him from public discussion.
JDM,
Aw, c’mon, libertarians just like to have fun, too! And it’s only human nature to have a little fun at the expense of those who have propped themselves up as moral guardians when they’ve shown themselves to have their own moral failings. And it happens every time!
Jacob Sullum addresses the issue in a more properly libertarian manner two posts above this one, if that’s more to your liking.
But still, Bennett’s example demonstrates why it’s absurd to claim that morality is an absolute and that those who don’t think so have lost their Moral Compass or Moral Clarity. Morality is obviously quite subjective. Just ask around and you’ll find that everyone has their own view of it. How more subjective can that be?
Bennett can gamble all he likes as far as I’m concerned. And he has the right to speak on issues all he likes. But the fact that he is very actively engaged in an activity proscribed by the traditional notions of morality that he claims has all the answers helps to bely the validity of his own argument. When it comes to moral posturing, ad hominen attacks aren’t entirely out of line.
PLC and JDM, couldn’t the same argument be applied to gambling?
“Supply provides the weak and momentarily lost ample opportunity to utterly destroy their lives.”
Jim N.,
Which is of course why they have re-hab clinics for those addicted to gambling.
Jim N,
Yes.
Great site! Keep it running!
???
Hi, just popped in here through a random link. Cool site, keep this good work up 🙂
Online Casinos information