Gambling Bill

Far be it from me to defend Bill Bennett, but his stance on gambling seems eminently reasonable. In 1995 he told The Las Vegas Review-Journal, "I've played poker all my life, and I shouldn't be on my high horse about it." According to an article in Saturday's New York Times,

he has said in the past that he does not consider gambling a moral issue. When his interviewers reminded him of studies that link heavy gambling with a variety of societal and family ills, Mr. Bennett said he did not have a problem himself and likened gambling to drinking alcohol.

"I view it as drinking," he said. "If you can't handle it, don't do it."

The real question is why Bennett does not take a similar view of, say, pot smoking.

Comments

[Eric Michaels]

Drawing a distinction between gambling and pot smoking because one is legal and one isn’t hardly addresses the issue here. Morality and legality are two different issues, and Bennett has consistently attacked legal behavior that he (the self-anointed czar of morality) finds sinful. In fact, if we Bennett took his new standard of morality — “If you can’t handle it, don’t do it” — and applied it across the board, he’d find himself looking a lot more benevolently at a whole host of activities he’s previously condemned.

[Sven]

I think he needs to sit down for a long talk with Dr. Phil.

[fyodor]

omnibus bill,

I’m not sure what’s “internal” about the Pope, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re speaking of freely chosen and non-coercive moral authorities.

Of course, we all have the right to follow whomever we choose to be our moral authority. Or not to choose one at all.

But just as obviously, the issue becomes different when you use the coercive nature of the state to enforce your own idea of morality.

And if Bennett’s ultimate argument for why his view of morality is the correct one is that the Catholic Church says so, well that doesn’t quite fit the requirements of Reason, now does it? And if the argument is basically that pot is illegal, isn’t that what the term “circular reasoning” was invented to describe?

I would say the point of Sullum’s question is well taken.

[Anonymous]

“It’s interesting to me that libertarianism, for many, has come to mean not only repudiating state controls on behavior, but internal controls as well.”

Dead wrong – that’s not what it means and that’s not why people are criticising him, if by “internal controls” you mean self-restraint.
Pot is illegal not because it magically appeared the the don’t do section of law books but because Bennett and his Carrie Nation friends have waged a campaign to get it there and keep it there.
I am willing to bet right now, in the style of those 20 year predictions in Wired Mag, that if Pot ever becomes a legal Big Business with its own lobby and thousands of employee-voters, then Mr. Omnibus Bill and his conservative pals will defend it as fiercly from “liberal, pious, PC meddling” as they currently defend tobacco & alcohol.
Now, since it is still legal to argue issues the way Bennett does i’d like to say the following – Tobacco, Pot, dancing, & rum should all be illegal but scotch whisky should not. As long as you can handle it of course.

[SM]

Opps – i did’nt mean to post anonymously.

[Sven]

If Bennett’s smart (which I highly doubt), he’ll turn the bruhaha into yet another huckster bestseller, entitled If You Can’t Handle It, Don’t Do It.

[JDM]

SM,

I don’t see how you could argue that Omnibus Blll s “dead wrong.” Look at the posts that get put up to this message board. Watch the glee with which the “libertarians” here tear down Bill Bennett, a small government conservative, because of the moral failings they claim shouldn’t matter, his espousal of which (oddly) are the reasons for their intense hatred of him.

Please continue to pretend that a “Reason” is a suitable title for a libertarian magazine. Perhaps “Relatavism,” or “Insecurity” would be more suitable title, considering the readership represented on this message board.

[SM]

“small government conservative”

Is there anything that spells bigger government, in so very many frightening ways, than the drug war ?
At least the neo-cons at the Weekly Standard dont even pretend that they are SGC’s anymore. You should stop doing it too, Mr JDM.

[DC]

My problem with Bill Bennett is not that he’s a pompous windbag and moralizer. I did’t really get worked up about Dr. Laura when her nudie pix were posted on the internet. I can turn the television or radio dial.

But as a relentless crusader to imprison 100,000s of fellow citizens for taking drugs, Bill Bennett is just not just another bloviator.

[Relatavism]

Methinks thou dost protest too much, JDM.

[fyodor]

JDM,

Somehow your buttons have gotten pushed. I echo Eric Hanneken from the other post on this issue and ask what particular posts are you objecting to? Nowhere do I read anyone saying that everything Bennett has ever said is now wrong or disproven, and if there’s a bit of snide humor, I’ve seen plenty more of it in previous H&R comment posts!

Hopefully whatever sarcasm I’ve offered myself has had its serious side as well. For instance, the whole question of “moral clarity.” It’s easy to believe in (and preach) moral clarity when your own moral steadfastness is based on disregard and dismissal of any opposing point of view.

[JDM]

“Is there anything that spells bigger government, in so very many frightening ways, than the drug war?”

In no particular order: Income tax, Social Security, Medicare, public education, public utilities, public transportation, corporate welfare, farm subsidies, child protective services in most states, growth management legislation…

[Sven]

Full disclosure: my moral compass comes from the Church of Cosmic Certitude, which permits man-on-dog (and dog-on-man sorry- does that freak you out? ) but absolutely, positively prohibits gambling.

[Croesus]

Well, the basic point is that Bennett has demonstrated that he’s a hypocrite (who isn’t?) and the he’s been hoisted by his own petard – in other words, he’s a modern day Pharisee.

[omnibus bill]

I am not really defending Bill Bennett here. Rather, I’m pointing out a lot of the idiocy involved in the attacks on him.

I think Bill Bennett is probably a pretty decent guy, and certainly would rather have him as a neighbor than Ralph Neas. That said, anybody who preaches morality and gambles loads, even if they are rich as Croesus and can afford it, has to be aware that they will be thoroughly Fisked, or Larry Flynted, for that matter, if anybody notices. (Which the New Republic did, BTW, in 1996; the Washington Monthly and NY Times articles are sort of a re-hash).

The fixation on hypocrisy is rather Stalinist; the way it is typically used is to smear somebody’s argument by repeatedly and sneeringly bringing up their personal failings. We are being told by the intelligentsia that we need to disregard Bennett’s arguments because he is a hypocrite. Funny, I don’t hear them getting after Michael Moore for claiming to be an environmentalist, while eating half the planet for breakfast. But I digress.

That lovely chap Michael Kinsley this morning wrote that Bennett ought to at least “have the decency to slink out of public life.” That’s funny, coming from a guy who thought it was perfectly okay for a president to bugger interns with Cohibas on taxpayer time, in the people’s house. I suppose that it was okay, because the prez never came out against rogering interns with foreign objects — so it wasn’t in any way hypocritical when he did it.

If you concede Kinsley’s point, that the only people with a right to criticize are the ones who are totally without hypocrisy, then you are left without anyone to speak about anything. The only people who could advocate against abortion, for instance, would be people who are lifelong celibates. The only people who could advocate for lower taxes are people who make no money, and therefore have no dog in the fight. And so forth.

In the end, the only people qualified to publicly criticize anything are those with no flaws, and those with no standards.

[fyodor]

omnibus bill,

Digress?? Hell, you contradict yourself!! You make the same ad hominen arguments you criticize in others!!

Oh, but that’s okay cause nobody’s not a hypocrite….

Look, whether or not someone’s hypocrisy negates their argument depends on the argument. When someone claims moral superiority, when someone argues that there’s a clear right and wrong and only the bad guys do wrong and not the good guys, the arguer’s own transgressions are valid fodder for what’s wrong with the argument. If Nick Gillespie were found to be fondling young boys, that wouldn’t negate his argument that war is the health of the state, but that’s because that’s different, he’s not claiming any sort of moral superiority!!!

Plus, you’re diverting the issue from Bennett to some of the folks who are criticizing him. Okay sure, maybe they’re probably guilty of the same sin, who cares? I’m no fan of Michael Moore, so I’d have no problem agreeing that his own unwillingness to meet with any and all interviewers belies his claim to moral superiority over those who refuse to meet with him. Howzat??

[thoreau]

omnibus bill-

The problem isn’t really hypocrisy. Sure, hypocrisy looks bad, but we all live in glasses houses and throw stones anyway.

The problem is the argument Bennett uses to defend himself: As long as he has his habit under control and isn’t harming other people we should stay out of it. It’s an argument that I agree with 100%. I just wish he’d show more sympathy to other people who use that argument, like, say, pot smokers.

[PLC]

I’m not sure how the question of legality gets tied up in morality. One could reasonable argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with gambling, while at the same time arguing that pot smoking is always immoral. There is no hypocrisy implied. Whether or not either activity should be legal has nothing to do with morality.

[joe]

The real question is why he considers losing millions of dollars to count as “handling it.”

[dude]

That’s called “denial.” I’m sure he thinks he can quit anytime. Anytime he likes. Just not today. But tommorrow. . .

[M. Turyn]

“The Bookmaker of Virtues”?

[fyodor]

“The real question is why Bennett does not take a similar view of, say, pot smoking.”

You obviously lack Moral Clarity.

[omnibus bill]

Perhaps because smoking pot is illegal? You know, render unto Caesar and all that?

It’s worth noting that the Catholic Church, to which Mr. Bennett apparently adheres, permits gambling, drinking, and dancing. If Bennett lost his ability to make moral criticism as a result of being a rich guy who goes and gambles (as Kinsley and Josh Marshall argue) then the Catholic Church has no moral authority, either. Likewise, the Pope — who we’ve seen take a few gulps of red wine during mass — is equally immoral.

It’s interesting to me that libertarianism, for many, has come to mean not only repudiating state controls on behavior, but internal controls as well.

[Jim N]

Joshua Micah Marshall has some great comments about this. I particularly like this one:

I think it’s entirely appropriate to report that Bennett is such a big-time gambler even if it would be inappropriate or simply irrelevant to report such information about most others. The reason, I think, scarcely requires explanation: Bennett spent the last dozen or more years not only being a big hawker of ‘morality,’ but also a prime advocate of the proposition that there is an unbroken thread connecting our private habits to our public selves and that we — the media, the chatterers, everyone — should happily pull on that thread and see what we find.

I cannot think of a public figure who has been exposed over some private embarrassment in recent years — save a few political allies, perhaps — for whom a self-satisfied Bennett has not happily hopped on to Larry King or Tim Russert or Chris Matthews and droned on with shallow, grandstanding moralism, eagerly wrenching this or that person’s private embarrassment into some cheap political point.

This isn’t a matter of payback or two wrongs making a right, just treating Bennett to the standard he’s made a living off setting for everyone else.

He has a few posts on this so keep scrolling.

PLC, could you clarify please? I agree with sentences 1 and 4 (at least when applied to personal, and not social, morality), but I’m not sure how 2 and 3 are connected to them.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Aw screw all your moralizing. The liberal press smells blood & they’re going to be chomping until somebody throws some stinkier chum into the water.

It’s amazing how many goddam puritans you can find in the DC city limits when there’s a good old-fashioned public stoning to be had.

[milkchaser]

I’m so glad to read the comments here taking Bennett to task. Reading his defenders on NRO & Townhall.com (Goldberg, Charen, Frum, etc) I was getting depressed.

But gambling may not have been an abuse for Bennett. He says he never bet the milk money, but he gambled a hell of a lot more than I ever spent on milk. Still, maybe for him it was not abuse as it so clearly is for others.

Likewise, many people who use marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, etc. do not abuse it. Okay, so maybe some do. But we currently do not have a rational drug policy. We have a moral drug policy and it is hypocritical moralizers like Bennett who lead the charge.

What Bennett has done is prove that morality can only be used as a basis for social policy when the vast majority of people agree to that morality. 99.999% of the people agree on what murder is and that it’s wrong. But the people are split on gambling, abortion, homosexual sodomy, pot-smoking and a list of other behaviors.

Moreover, it is impractical to stamp out an even moderately popular behavior (abortion could not be successfully outlawed even before it was legalized, the drug war is famously unsuccessful, gays? don’t ask don’t tell). So the situation we have now is, if Bennett says it’s okay then it’s okay and if he says it’s immoral then you go to jail.

No, I think those who shed blood for Liberty had something else in mind. Bennett has proven himself to be the Pharisee some of us always guessed he was. What we should take away from this is an appreciation for the destructiveness of divisive moralizing. One cannot and should not set social policy on the basis of majority
rule.

[joe]

Doug,

There are hundreds of nationally known political figures in Washington with vices at least as serious as Bennett’s. Why doesn’t “the liberal press” stone them? Answer: most of them don’t spend their careers lecturing about morality.

Not puritans, just people glad to see a particularly nasty bully getting his ass kicked.

[Just Asking]

I hear the anti-Bennett people constantly harping on the WAY he has conducted himself in public. He’s supposedly some kind of moralizing terrorist, horribly nasty to public figures who have been caught in scandals, a cross between Carrie Nation, Joe McCarthy and Comstock, “eagerly wrenching this or that person’s private embarassment into some cheap political point,” as Josh Marshall puts it.

Funny though, I never noticed that when I watched him all these years, and I’ve never seen any kind of detailed description of that kind of behavior. He’s always seemed pretty reasonable in his manner and in the points he’s made, from what I’ve seen. And I’d like to see an example of “some cheap political point” he’s made out of other people’s embarassments. The points I’ve seen him make haven’t been cheap ones.

Is the criticism of the way he’s been a public moralist a real criticism, or are some of you guys just mad at him because he criticizes something you like to do? If he acted any differently but took all the same positions on the issues of the day, would you still be just as mad at him? I suspect a lot of you would, but I could be convinced otherwise.

[Figueroa Yolanda]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 210.18.158.254
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 06:31:25
I like it very much, i should get one site like this too