Know When to Fold

It turns out Bill Bennett isn't a hypocrite; he's just a coward. After forcefully arguing that his gambling was not a moral issue, he has now promised never to do it again. "I have done too much gambling," he says, "and this is not an example I wish to set. Therefore, my gambling days are over."

Presumably, Bennett's vow of abstinence covers his friendly poker games with William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Robert Bork as well as his $500-per-pull slot machine and video poker sessions. Perhaps these three degenerates should also reconsider their sinful ways.

How much gambling is "too much" depends largely on one's financial means, and Bennett, who has earned millions from speaking fees and book advances, has insisted he could easily afford his trips to Las Vegas and Atlantic City. "I don't play the 'milk money,'" he told Newsweek. "I don't put my family at risk, and I don't owe anyone anything."

Nor does it seem that the time Bennett spent in casinos interfered with his family or professional life. It certainly did not keep him away from TV cameras and op-ed pages.

So in what sense was his gambling excessive? Apparently only in the sense that he gambled enough to generate gotcha articles in the press and scolding from self-righteous social conservatives (there was poetic justice in that, of course). "We were disappointed to learn that our longtime friend, Dr. Bill Bennett, is dealing with what appears to be a gambling addiction," said James C. Dobson, president of Focus on the Family. "One of the reasons Focus on the Family continues to be strongly opposed to any form of gambling is because it has the power to ensnare and wound not only its victims, but also those closest to them."

Was Bennett ensnared and wounded? Was his family? I've seen no evidence that his gambling, as opposed to publicity about his gambling, disrupted his life at all.

Indeed, if Bennett set a "bad example," it was by showing that it's possible to blow $800,000 a year in casinos and still lead a happy, productive life. Perhaps he worried that people of more modest means would try to imitate him and end up bankrupt. In this respect Bennett was like the well-adjusted pot smokers whom he condemns for encouraging drug use by others with less self-control. This logic also implies that moderate drinkers are responsible for alcoholism and that anyone who eats contributes to obesity.

"I view it as drinking," Bennett told Newsweek back when he was still defending his gambling. "If you can't handle it, don't do it." The new rule is the one underlying the war on drugs: "If anyone can't handle it, don't do it."

Comments

[Charlie]

I fear that now Bennett will use this to his self-righteous advantage. HE believed that what he was doing was innocent and harmless, but when he was shown that it was “really wrong” he gave it up! AND SO SHOULD YOU!!! We’ll hear a whole sob story of how he “built his life to support his habit” and to “fuel his denial.”

Mark my words, it’s coming. What more could the guy ask for but his own “redemption” story! I bet he makes a TON of money giving speeches and writing about this.

[MP]

It just makes me happy to see Bennett suffer while having someone else shove their morals down his throat. Maybe we’ll be even more fortunate and see him no longer get invites to be a talking head, and watch him fade away into the sunset.

[Steve]

So, do you assholes just love to kick someone when you find out they’re human? What a bunch of pricks. So now you gotta be perfect to try and show people something good? Kiss my ass for being a hypocrite, too.

[Lefty]

Moral absolutists like Bennett and the other Ayn Rand moonies have brought this on themselves. Their motto, “judge others like crazy but be prepared to be judged” is an impossible position.

Anyone who has had the microsope come down, either at work, at play or in politics knows many things we do in our daily lives can be judged, at best, ambiguously, at worst, damning, depending on the perspective of the observer. Absolutists draw the microscope more often – nobody likes a stuffed shirt.

[Joe]

Has anyone here READ the “Book of Virtues?” I confess I haven’t. Still, if memory serves, Bennett is Catholic, and I don’t think that the Church of beer, brat’s, and Bingo (I’m American) is really all that OPPOSED to gamblin’ or drinkin’… So much of this “fuss” at Bennett is contrived, I think. Unless Bennett said gambling is wrong,
I don’t understand many folks glee about this. If someone told me that they saw my priest with a beer in one hand, a fist full of cards in the other, and a stack of poker chips in front of him; I wouldn’t be demanding his recall.
People, Libertine/Libertarian/Liberal confuse ALL moralists with Jerry Falwell and so, when a “moralist” does something Falwell doesn’t approve of, the moralist is now a hypocrite. It doesn’t work that way. I’m a hypocrite if I say “I luv free speech, but the guv’mint outta put that thar Tim Robbins and his trollop Susan Saranwrap in jail fer opposin’ the war.” As long as I am not busy doing what I condemn I’m not a hypocrite. Jimmy Swaggert was a hypocrite, Jim Bakker (sp?) was a hypocrite. Did Bennett condemn gambling, if so HE’S a hypocrite, too. If not, to me, this is a non-story. I would agree he’s a coward for backing away in the face of the attacks.

[SM]

“Kiss my ass for being a hypocrite, too.”
Steve –

Two questions –
1. What’s your vice/vices ?
2. What moral science lessons do you have for the rest of us ?

High-lay-ri-us, Smithers …

[Sean]

There’s a rumor going around that Bennett ate meat as well, and I remember paganvegan high priestz telling me this was a sin against all of naturekind. So apparently he’s not that moral after all.

[fyodor]

Steve,

So do you really think Bennett is suffering from the bit of carping in a few of these posts anywhere near as much as people who got prosecuted under Bennett’s regime for victimless crimes? And if these posters are such assholes for criticizing someone they have a gripe with, what does that make you?
Sean,

Not sure what your point is, but what it says to me is that morals are pretty damn subjective, and I agree with that. If Bennett understood that and hadn’t been making a high-profile living off of being high & mighty, no one would give a damn that he gambled.

[mike]

So far Goldberg appears to be winning this argument. All libertarians hate those who try to tell us what to do with ourselves and so naturally dump on moralistic hypocrites. Get on the ball Reason People. Is Bennett a hypocrite or not. Specific references in his writings or speech, please. Drug War is not a good analogy, because he could say being moral is obeying the law, which he did.
Otherwise, we just have the “he’s a wimp” attack, which is irrefutable, that he backed off his favorite pleasure in the glare of the puritans’ scrutiny. That alone seems not so virtuous. But that’s quite a bit less than being weak.

[fyodor]

mike,

In the very strictest sense, no, he’s not a hypocrite, not for gambling, anyway. His defense and his quandry do help demonstrate what’s wrong with the things he has stood for in his life, i.e., the legal persecution of victimless crimes and the claim that there is one clear and true morality and that anyone who does not agree or who wants to understand others’ point of view has lost his “moral compass” or “moral clarity.”

Plus, when someone has persecuted people in such a way and has made a living off of such a philosophy, those who take issue with such deeds and ideas can’t be blamed all that much for finding a bit of humor in his predicament. It may not always be in the very best of taste, but it’s only human, just like Bennett’s vice is itself.

Having said that, I don’t want to give the impression that I necessarily agree with any and all criticism that has been leveled at him over this. I haven’t read it all, and in fact I haven’t read any of what’s been written in the mainstream press, so for all I know maybe there’s some truth to the claim that too much has been made of it by liberal papers and such, that’s entirely possible….

[MP]

I’d criticize Bennett more for being a wuss and stating that he is through with gambling than his supposed hypocrisy. But regardless, I just enjoy seeing him suffer, even from possibly unsound attacks, because I can’t tolerate people who want to use the rule of law to enforce their morals regarding issues of individual choice. I’m not particularly concerned with what causes him to shut up and go away, as long as he shuts up and goes away.

[Zev Sero]

This whole story reminds me of when Lieberman made his famous speech condemning Clinton for his adultery, and I saw attacks on him for being divorced. I was puzzled for a moment, until I remembered that certain Christian sects consider divorce immoral, and the idea seemed to be that if Lieberman is divorced (wrong according to this peculiar moral code) then he is in no position to condemn Clinton for adultery (wrong in most moral codes). It seemed to escape these people that Lieberman has never claimed to subscribe to any brand of Christianity – in fact he’s famous for not being any sort of Christian. The religion from which he derives his moral code is Judaism, which sees divorce as sad, but not at all immoral.

The Bible does not condemn or forbid divorce, any more than it condemns drinking or gambling or vulgar language (the oaths it disapproves of are promises, which one might then fail to keep), and it made no sense to attack Lieberman’s credentials as a stuck-up moralist on the basis of his being on his second marriage. Similarly, Bennett has every right to moralise in public, while gambling and drinking to his heart’s content, unless he has ever hinted that he regards gambling as somehow wrong.

[Anonymous]

Isn’t including the spread of legalized gambling, as a negative factor, in his index of cultural indicators a sign he regards gambling as less than virtuous?

[Todd Fletcher]

I never thought much of Bennett, now I think even less of him. Why can’t anyone stand up for themselves in public? I know it’s hard for us ‘regular folks’ to understand the hellish glare of the media spotlight, but his capitulation can only encourage these idiotic ideological witch hunts.

[SM]

Perhaps these three degenerates should also reconsider their sinful ways.

Bork especially. Did this affair have any impact on the “Index of Cultural indicators” ?

[dude]

Heh-heh.

[Fred App]

OK, so aside from that gambling thing, Bennett presumably is still a saint. No doubt there was no drinking going on at the friendly poker games. Or cussing. In fact, I’m sure any money he won went directly to charity.

When you get down to it, the whole Bennett episode should just teach us (and him) a lesson: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. You can find that credo in the original book of virtue.

[fyodor]

Zev Sero makes a good point. I would like to elaborate on what I think was a good but brief rebuttal from Mo.

I would raise the question, on WHAT BASIS do you criticize someone’s supposed immorality? If it’s on the basis of your own personal value system, ie that some things are good and some things aren’t INTRINSICALLY, well whether or not that value system is backed by some religious tradition or organization, you still run into the problem that it’s ultimately YOUR own value system. Why should anyone else give a damn?

Unless you can show some genuinely demonstratable HARM (preferrably to someone else, though to harm to yourself may be a valid issue for discussion in certain circumstances), what right does ANYONE really have to criticize the “moral” nature of others’ behavior–beyond, of course, the first amendment right we all have to blow as much hot air as we like?? (Note, I’m not suggesting putting anyone in jail for spewing bullshit, just pointing out that it’s bullshit!)

As Mo points out, as soon as you acknowledge the validity of other value systems, you’re talking the dreaded “moral equivalence!” But all morality IS equivalent unless you base it on something concrete and universal, such as actually harming others.

The fact that Bennett is being forced to defend his supposed immorality reflects the ultimate subjectivity of such moral judgments, which directly contradicts what he preaches. And the nature of the defense he has offered directly contradicts the laws he was in charge of enforcing.

That’s why on a gut level he appears to be a hypocrite, even though strictly speaking, no, he’s not exactly.

[fyodor]

Mo,

I read the Balko rant and he makes a very good point that defending Bennett on the grounds that he’s rich so he can handle it would contradict the “No Guardrails” philosophy as spelled out in a WSJ editorial and supposedly embraced by social conservatives.

But the article fails to name any particular individuals who actually contradicted themselves in this manner. So unless I’m a hypocrite because one libertarian is contradicted by what another has said, the social conservatives and Bennett are off the hook on this account unless you can cite specific examples of any of them supporting this philosophy and then excusing Bennett on the aforementioned grounds. Bennett’s excuse, that he can handle it, comes very close to this, but again, if he doesn’t include gambling as one of society’s guardrails, it would be tough to pin this on him directly without raising the broader issue of moral subjectivity versus that stupid compass thing….

[J. Leno]

Bennett said, “it?s a private matter and it?s nobody?s business but his own.? See that?s the difference between democrats and republicans. Democrats want to investigate your finances and keep their sex lives private and republicans want to investigate your sex life and keep their finances private.

[Mo]

While I don’t think what Bill did is bad, he is a hypocrite. Legal pornography doesn’t hurt any more than than legalized gambling (and casinos help fund it to boot). Besides he buys into the whole ‘No Guardrails’ thinking. Radley Balko wrote a good piece on it.

Besides isn’t saying “It’s not a sin in my belief system” the much dreaded ‘moral relativism’ that Bill preaches against?

[Steve]

For those of you who responded to my other post:

My point is that you are doing the same thing you accuse Bennett of. Your self-righteous indignation is appalling. If you think he’s so bad, whaddayasay ya set an example of how to be. Otherwise, I repeat….Kiss My Ass.

And yeah, I’ve got a vice or two. What a surprise that a human isn’t perfect.

[Jim]

Steve,

The point I think you’re missing, here, is that if Benett thinks gambling and drinking is OK, it’s hypocritical with respect to his beliefs about the validity of the war on drugs. Not in an obvious sense (he must feel they’re somehow different) but in the sense that many of us have been harping on for years about this, that there is no fundamental ditinction between the ‘illegal’ vices and the ones that are allowed by law and are somewhat socially acceptable.

Of course, the fact that he now has decided not to gamble, maybe he has realized that such behavior is not fundamentally different from that which he opposes, so maybe he’s not a hyprocrite any more. Doesn’t change the fact that his former behavior did reflect at least a cognitive dissonance, if not conscious hypocracy.

[Anonymous]

Eh, lefty? Come again? You linked Bill Bennett with the atheist Ayn Rand? On which planet do you live?