# Is William Bennett a hypocrite? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 4, 2003, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-william-bennett-a-hypocrite/173049 "2003-05-04T18:12:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-william-bennett-a-hypocrite/173049/101 "2003-05-07T16:53:39Z")
“it’s participating in activities – any activities – for which you lack the financial resources that is immoral.” Then Bill Gates must never committ immoral acts, no? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-william-bennett-a-hypocrite/173049/102 "2003-05-07T17:03:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by plnnr \* > \*\*Then Bill Gates must never committ immoral acts, no? \*\* I wouldn’t know. Anyway, read my post – I never said that acting financially irresponsibly was the _only_ immoral act one could commit. Certainly, say, adultery is immoral regardless of the financial consequences. I just noted that financial irresponsibility could transform an otherwise morally neutral act into an immoral act. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-william-bennett-a-hypocrite/173049/103 "2003-05-07T18:37:07Z")
But adultery doesn’t pass the “doesn’t harm anyone else” test because there is a strong possibility even probability that your spouse and/or children will get hurt and hurt badly. That’s why I used gay lovers and occasional pot smokers in my example. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-william-bennett-a-hypocrite/173049/104 "2003-05-07T19:13:53Z")
Well, whatever. Unless one of the Bennett defenders responds to the argument from _Slate_ that **DoctorJ** posted, I’d say this party’s over. This is a minor digression, but **Sam** , the [Washington Monthly](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0306.green.html) piece was clearly referring to where Bennett stood at the end of the night, not how many chips he fed into the machine: > [@](#): > > Bennett had been spotted at the new Mirage Resorts Bellagio casino in Las Vegas, where he was reputed to have won a $200,000 jackpot. Bennett admitted to the Times that he had visited the casino, but denied winning $200,000. Documents show that, in fact, he won a $25,000 jackpot on that visit–but left the casino down $625,000. > > Bennett–who gambled throughout Clinton’s impeachment–has continued this pattern in subsequent years. On July 12 of last year, for instance, Bennett lost $340,000 at Caesar’s Boardwalk Regency in Atlantic City. And just three weeks ago, on April 5 and 6, he lost more than $500,000 at the Bellagio in Las Vegas. The other thing is that I find that 1% house take rather improbable: even at $500 a pull, Bennett’s arm would have fallen off before he’d have been able to lose that sort of money at that sort of rate of return, since you’d have to bet $1M - 2000 pulls - to lose $10K, on average. And his losses were frequently an order of magnitude greater than that. Besides, slots and video poker are generally conceded to be two of the most addicting forms of gambling. It’s hard to imagine that the casinos wouldn’t want to take greater advantage of that than indicated by a 1% take. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-william-bennett-a-hypocrite/173049/105 "2003-05-07T20:39:56Z")
> [@](#): > > _RTFirefly:_ > Well, whatever. Unless one of the Bennett defenders responds to the argument from Slate that DoctorJ posted, I’d say this party’s over. I’ve never been one to let a party die, so why don’t we let Jonah Goldberg, one of the people criticized in Saletan’s Slate article, [respond for himself](http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp): > [@](#): > > My friend Will Saletan argues that Bennett’s defenders (me included) are wrong to say Bennett’s not a hypocrite because Bennett criticized upscale recreational drug users. I’ve heard this fifty times now from emailers and radio show hosts and it’s still a bogus argument. Gambling is not drug use and drug use is not gambling. Saletan asserts that making the moral hazard argument about smoking pot condemns Bennett for not upholding the same standard for gambling. That’s a fine point if Bennett ever considered the two things morally, legally or psychologically equivalent. He never has – or at least none of the Washington Monthly’s and Newsweek’s researchers have been to prove he has. Saletan is simply asserting that they are equivalent in both objective reality and in Bennett’s own heart. They’re neither. Smoking pot is illegal almost everywhere in the United States. Using illegal drugs is – duh – illegal everywhere. For this comparison to be apt and for Bennett to be a hypocrite A) gambling would have to be illegal B) Bennett would have to support its illegality C) Bennett would have to have condemned gambling the way he’s condemned drug use. > > I’m consistently amazed by these liberals who simply assert that gambling is a terrible moral failing and destructive social force simply because, it seems, Bill Bennett does it. Where were Saletan, Kinsley, Green, Marshall and Alter before? Why have they never condemned gambling if they think it’s such an obvious sin? Comparing illegal drugs and legal gambling is an apples and oranges comparison, and not just because one is legal and one is illegal (though that is a huge distinction since Bennett is in effect saying that the state has the authority forcibly to prevent you from doing one but has no authority to stop you from doing the other). They are also different because they are simply different things. Simply to assert they are the same and then hijack rhetoric from an apple and apply it to an orange doesn’t work. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-william-bennett-a-hypocrite/173049/106 "2003-05-07T21:37:58Z")
Just lost a reply in cyberspace. Let me try again: > [@](#): > > I’m consistently amazed by these liberals who simply assert that gambling is a terrible moral failing and destructive social force simply because, it seems, Bill Bennett does it. Where were Saletan, Kinsley, Green, Marshall and Alter before? Why have they never condemned gambling if they think it’s such an obvious sin? Liberals have never had a particular stance on gambling. We’re not judging Bennett by _our_ standards, anyway, but by _his_. That’s the point. > [@](#): > > Comparing illegal drugs and legal gambling is an apples and oranges comparison, and not just because one is legal and one is illegal (though that is a huge distinction since Bennett is in effect saying that the state has the authority forcibly to prevent you from doing one but has no authority to stop you from doing the other). Bennett’s been pretty clear that morality should inform legality, and not the other way around. So the legality issue is bogus. Making marijuana, prostitution, and gay marraige _legal_ would not make them _acceptable_, let alone _right_, in Bennett’s view. One must explain why gambling differs _fundamentally_, not legally. > [@](#): > > They are also different because they are simply different things. Simply to assert they are the same and then hijack rhetoric from an apple and apply it to an orange doesn’t work. Everything’s different from everything else. No shit. Now, are the differences _germane_? That’s like saying, “because I said so.” Now, back to the top: > [@](#): > > My friend Will Saletan argues that Bennett’s defenders (me included) are wrong to say Bennett’s not a hypocrite because Bennett criticized upscale recreational drug users. I’ve heard this fifty times now from emailers and radio show hosts and it’s still a bogus argument. Gambling is not drug use and drug use is not gambling. Just did this one. > [@](#): > > Saletan asserts that making the moral hazard argument about smoking pot condemns Bennett for not upholding the same standard for gambling. That’s a fine point if Bennett ever considered the two things morally, legally or psychologically equivalent. He never has – or at least none of the Washington Monthly’s and Newsweek’s researchers have been to prove he has. Here’s the crux. Bennett hasn’t been carving out nice drug-specific arguments; he’s been assserting moral principles that _naturally apply to addictive behaviors generally_, and applying them to drugs. Unless his defenders can show why those principles somehow don’t apply to the specific behavior of gambling, then it must be assumed that they do. No such effort has been made. > [@](#): > > Smoking pot is illegal almost everywhere in the United States. Using illegal drugs is – duh – illegal everywhere. For this comparison to be apt and for Bennett to be a hypocrite A) gambling would have to be illegal B) Bennett would have to support its illegality C) Bennett would have to have condemned gambling the way he’s condemned drug use. Been here, done this too. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-william-bennett-a-hypocrite/173049/107 "2003-05-07T22:01:53Z")
Goldberg avoids the point. The point is not whether gambling is or isn’t bad. The point is not whether Bennet has said it is or isn’t bad. The point is that Bennet is now, for the first time, finding himself part of a moral outgroup: not from liberals, but from his own camp. How does he react to anti-gambling conservatives? With the “responsible adults” line that he’s many times rejected IN PRINCIPLE when other outgroups have used it. To that argument, he’s always maintained that, no, even if you are somehow able to handle these things without trouble, it still degrades and hurts society. So, at issue is not whether gambling is right or not (or the silly idea that the liberal critics are suddenly anti-gambling). The issue is: some people, people in Bennet’s own camp, think gambling is immoral, **regardless** of whether it can be done responsibly or not, regardless of its legal status. Bennet is giving them a response which he’s rejected countless times in other situations, not on any specific case for why something specific is immoral, but on the principle of the “responsible adults” excuse. And pointing out the question of legality is particularly silly, since the whole issue in most of those debates was “should drugs be legal or not.” ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-william-bennett-a-hypocrite/173049/108 "2003-05-07T22:10:44Z")
> [@](#): > > My friend Will Saletan argues that Bennett’s defenders (me included) are wrong to say Bennett’s not a hypocrite because Bennett criticized upscale recreational drug users. I’ve heard this fifty times now from emailers and radio show hosts and it’s still a bogus argument. I seem to hear this sort of things a lot these days. When confronted with a difficult question someone will say, “I’m so tired of hearing this lame question again and again.” That answer is, of course, not an answer at all but a plea to stop asking the question. Its real intent is to diminish the question and the questioner’s status. If a question gets asked over and over again, it’s a good bet that it’s because ther has not been a very good answer to it yet. > [@](#): > > Gambling is not drug use and drug use is not gambling. No one has said that, however many have drawn the quite legitimate analogy between the two. > [@](#): > > Saletan asserts that making the moral hazard argument about smoking pot condemns Bennett for not upholding the same standard for gambling. That’s a fine point if Bennett ever considered the two things morally, legally or psychologically equivalent. He never has – or at least none of the Washington Monthly’s and Newsweek’s researchers have been to prove he has. Saletan is simply asserting that they are equivalent in both objective reality and in Bennett’s own heart. So if I decide that killing, say, a Black man is not _in my own heart_ as morally reprehensible as killing a white guy then I should get a get-out-of-jail-free pass? More to the point, wouldn’t this mean that none of Bennett’s writing apply to anyone view things differently _in their own heart_. Now I’ve not read Bennett’s books, but I’ll wager that somewhere in there he rails against those who suggest that there are not moral absolutes. > [@](#): > > Smoking pot is illegal almost everywhere in the United States. Using illegal drugs is – duh – illegal everywhere. For this comparison to be apt and for Bennett to be a hypocrite A) gambling would have to be illegal B) Bennett would have to support its illegality C) Bennett would have to have condemned gambling the way he’s condemned drug use. It sure seems to me that Bennett’s whole shtick is about virtues and morals and not about the law. For someone to suddenly claim that since it’s not illegal it’s OK flies in the face of everything Bennett claims to be about. > [@](#): > > I’m consistently amazed by these liberals who simply assert that gambling is a terrible moral failing and destructive social force simply because, it seems, Bill Bennett does it. No one I’ve seen has claimed that gambling is a “terrible moral failing” to them, but they have claimed that anyone who sees homosexuality and pot smoking as moral failings has some explaining to do if they don’t include their own vices of choice in the “moral failings” list. > [@](#): > > Comparing illegal drugs and legal gambling is an apples and oranges comparison, and not just because one is legal and one is illegal (though that is a huge distinction since Bennett is in effect saying that the state has the authority forcibly to prevent you from doing one but has no authority to stop you from doing the other). They are also different because they are simply different things. Simply to assert they are the same and then hijack rhetoric from an apple and apply it to an orange doesn’t work. You know, **Dewey** and others on this board have put forth some articulate and well reasoned defenses of Bill Bennett, but this guy!.. Wow!!! It’s like shooting ducks in a barrel. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-william-bennett-a-hypocrite/173049/109 "2003-05-07T23:04:03Z")
> [@](#): > > _RTFirefly:_ > Bennett hasn’t been carving out nice drug-specific arguments; he’s been assserting moral principles that naturally apply to addictive behaviors generally, and applying them to drugs. Unless his defenders can show why those principles somehow don’t apply to the specific behavior of gambling, then it must be assumed that they do. No such effort has been made. But he was making drug-specific arguments. You’re the one that’s trying to apply them to a different field, so the burden is on you to prove that they should apply to the behavior of gambling. You’ve pointed out that they’re both addictive, so I’ll respond to that below. > [@](#): > > _RTFirefly:_ > Bennett’s been pretty clear that morality should inform legality, and not the other way around. So the legality issue is bogus. Legality informs us on public opinion. The fact that drugs are illegal, and gambling is not, informs us that the public sees that the addictive and other harmful results of drug use are much worse than the harmful results of gambling. Thus, our society has chosen to draw a rather radical distinction between the two – drug abuse is absolutely prohibited, and gambling is not just legal, but state-sanctioned and even encouraged. Bennett’s point was that marijuana use empowers the drug trade and gives rise to a culture that leads people to use more powerful – and hence more deadly – drugs. That doesn’t apply to gambling. Habitual drug use poisons the body and damages the mind and leads to death. That doesn’t apply to gambling. There aren’t “gateway” games of chance that lead to “more deadly” games of chance. People don’t start with keno and build up to russian roulette. (Although I do admit to nearly killing myself during one 48 hour stretch in Vegas, but that was due more to the combination of alcohol and sleep deprivation than the poker and blackjack). The point, naturally, is that drug use and gambling are radically different in terms of their harmful and addictive qualities, and that American society as a whole sees this. Heck, caffiene is addictive, too. So is Bennett a hypocrite if he drinks coffee? Is he enabling a culture that leads to caffiene addictions? It’s ok to go to radical lengths to prohibit drugs because of how harmful they are. Gambling is not nearly as harmful. In the words of Jules from Pulp Fiction, “Ain’t the same ballpark, ain’t the same league, ain’t even the same fuckin’ sport.” Those differences of degree are why it’s ok to oppose “enabling” the abuse of illegal drugs, but those arguments don’t apply to anything that enables the gambling or coffee cultures. Incidentally, I’m for the legalization of most drugs. I just find much of the critique of Bennett (with whom I usually disagree on matters of social legislation) to be disengenuous and logically unsound. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-william-bennett-a-hypocrite/173049/110 "2003-05-07T23:12:20Z")
> [@](#): > > _Apos:_ > The point is that Bennet is now, for the first time, finding himself part of a moral outgroup: not from liberals, but from his own camp. How does he react to anti-gambling conservatives? With the “responsible adults” line that he’s many times rejected IN PRINCIPLE when other outgroups have used it. To that argument, he’s always maintained that, no, even if you are somehow able to handle these things without trouble, it still degrades and hurts society. Many of the social conservatives with whom I’ve spoken on this issue have brought this up. They are disappointed that Bennett spouted the libertarian “I can handle it” line that he’s battled against so many times. But Bennett also said that he considers himself an example, and because of that, he’s going to stop gambling. So he didn’t just spout the line, he toed the line. I think that’s pretty different from the usual “I can handle it” response. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-william-bennett-a-hypocrite/173049/111 "2003-05-07T23:35:26Z")
> [@](#): > > _Goldberg:_ > Gambling is not drug use and drug use is not gambling. > > _bnorton:_ > No one has said that, however many have drawn the quite legitimate analogy between the two. His point is that the analogy doesn’t hold because the two are, in fact, different. > [@](#): > > _bnorton_ > So if I decide that killing, say, a Black man is not in my own heart as morally reprehensible as killing a white guy then I should get a get-out-of-jail-free pass? More to the point, wouldn’t this mean that none of Bennett’s writing apply to anyone view things differently in their own heart. I have no idea what you’re getting at here. Suffice to say, the answer to your question is no. Murder is illegal regardless of your feelings on it, and gambling is legal regardless of your feelings on it. Goldberg was simply pointing out that people can’t say Bennett is hypocritical simply because his stance on drugs, if applied to gambling, would make him a hypocrite. The reason you can’t say that is because Bennett (along with much of the rest of American society) doesn’t see the two as equivalent. > [@](#): > > _bnorton:_ > Now I’ve not read Bennett’s books, but I’ll wager that somewhere in there he rails against those who suggest that there are not moral absolutes. He does. > [@](#): > > _bnorton:_ > For someone to suddenly claim that since it’s not illegal it’s OK flies in the face of everything Bennett claims to be about. As far as I can tell, nobody – least of all, Bill Bennett – is claiming that gambling is moral simply because it’s legal. And I don’t think Golberg was advancing that argument either. He’s saying that the situation between “actions that enable illegal drug use” is not equivalent to “actions that enable legal gambling.” > [@](#): > > _bnorton_ > No one I’ve seen has claimed that gambling is a “terrible moral failing” to them, but they have claimed that anyone who sees homosexuality and pot smoking as moral failings has some explaining to do if they don’t include their own vices of choice in the “moral failings” list. Why? What is the similarity between homosexuality, drug use, and gambling that says that everyone that opposes one must oppose them all? > [@](#): > > _bnorton:_ > Wow!!! It’s like shooting ducks in a barrel. Reload. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-william-bennett-a-hypocrite/173049/112 "2003-05-08T00:36:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Age Quod Agis \* > **But he was making drug-specific arguments.** Was he really? What’s drug-specific about the ideas in: > [@](#): > > As drug czar in 1989 and 1990, he constantly emphasized that anyone who patronized that addictive industry was responsible for its victims. On Meet the Press, he advocated mandatory sentences for “recreational, yuppie” marijuana users, blaming them for “the murder and mayhem in Washington, the fact that we have babies now being born addicted to cocaine. … These people are accessories to all those things, and they need to start paying a price.” He told the Wall Street Journal that the “casual user … is driving the whole enterprise.” He told USA Today, “For your middle class or your yuppie user, let’s do what they do in Phoenix: Weekend in jail, counseling program, and you pay the cost of it.” He criticized celebrities who admitted to past drug use, warning that such disclosures gave kids the idea that “you can do drugs and still be rich and successful.” Switch “gambling” for “drugs”, and substitute “children with no roof over their head because Daddy gambled away the rent money” for “cocaine babies”, and we’re home free. > [@](#): > > You’re the one that’s trying to apply them to a different field, so the burden is on you to prove that they should apply to the behavior of gambling. What burden needs to be met? It’s right out there. Burden’s in your court to show it’s different. > [@](#): > > Legality informs us on public opinion. The fact that drugs are illegal, and gambling is not, informs us that the public sees that the addictive and other harmful results of drug use are much worse than the harmful results of gambling. Thus, our society has chosen to draw a rather radical distinction between the two – drug abuse is absolutely prohibited, and gambling is not just legal, but state-sanctioned and even encouraged. Cool! Now we get to decide what is virtuous by majority vote. I hereby put you in charge of the resulting upcoming revision of Bennett’s books. Since the American people are now overwhelmingly opposed to laws against sodomy, whether or not they’re gay-specific, I guess Bennett now feels that homosexual sodomy is A-OK for those who can handle it. At least, that’s the direct implication of your claim. But since it’s false, that undermines your contention. > [@](#): > > Bennett’s point was that marijuana use empowers the drug trade and gives rise to a culture that leads people to use more powerful – and hence more deadly – drugs. That doesn’t apply to gambling. Gambling used to lead to mob violence, until they legalized it. So I can’t see why not. > [@](#): > > Habitual drug use poisons the body and damages the mind and leads to death. That doesn’t apply to gambling. It doesn’t apply to marijuana or homosexual relations, either. And IIRC, he was talking about marijuana. [quote] > [@](#): > > The point, naturally, is that drug use and gambling are radically different in terms of their harmful and addictive qualities, and that American society as a whole sees this. He was talking about _marijuana_, which is either nonaddictive or very mildly addictive, depending on who you talk to, and isn’t any more lethal than the booze that Bennett drinks. > [@](#): > > Heck, caffiene is addictive, too. So is Bennett a hypocrite if he drinks coffee? He would be if he adopted your wilderland of progressive rationalizations. > [@](#): > > It’s ok to go to radical lengths to prohibit drugs because of how harmful they are. Again, he was talking about **marijuana** , which isn’t particularly harmful. It’s a gateway drug because it - surprise! - shares a common distribution system with other, more deadly illegal drugs. > [@](#): > > Gambling is not nearly as harmful. It was, when it was run by the mob. And still is, when people bet with illegal bookies and can’t pay up. ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-william-bennett-a-hypocrite/173049/113 "2003-05-08T00:43:43Z")
To tie up my own loose end… **Hentor** , thanks for the synopsis on that moral theory. Sounds quite intriguing, and I’m going to find some more info on it. I won’t respond to it too much here, for fear of unnecessary hijack, other than to say that it sounds like something in which I could agree with the theory, but not necessarily the application thereof. I’ll reserve final judgement until I find a more thorough discussion of it. Oh, and **Age Quod Agis** , between your quoting of a Goldberg piece, and your masterful defense thereof, you’re my new SDMB Hero of the Week. Kudos! Jeff ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-william-bennett-a-hypocrite/173049/114 "2003-05-08T00:53:06Z")
Oh, a reader responds to Jonah at that link **AQA** provided earlier: > [@](#): > > Bennett has spent a good deal of time condemning television, movie, and music producers for activity that is perfectly legal, but nevertheless, destructive of the things Bennett stands for. Gambling, lotteries and casinos in particular, have been shown (by the National Gambling Impact Study, for example) to increase crime, bankruptcy, domestic abuse, suicide, and divorce. Bennett’s immediate reaction to this controversy, “If you can’t handle it, don’t do it,” is to me too similar to the common rejoinder when people such as him criticize television producers, “If you don’t like it, turn the channel.” One more point. While I love Bennett, and will continue to do so, Bennett has chapters in his books entitled, “Self-discipline,” “Work,” “Industry and Frugality,” and “Honesty.” Gambling, even if one can afford it, seems to me to be contrary to these principles. If one believes the drug comparison somehow fails, I can’t see how this one does. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-william-bennett-a-hypocrite/173049/115 "2003-05-08T01:05:32Z")
> [@](#): > > But Bennett also said that he considers himself an example, and because of that, he’s going to stop gambling. So he didn’t just spout the line, he toed the line. I think that’s pretty different from the usual “I can handle it” response. So… are you conceeding the point? He said something that stood against his principles, and then backed off under criticism. If he’s toeing the line in the way you state, then he’d be implicitly admitting that what he did was wrong: even as a responsible adult, he was setting a bad example for others in precisely the way we’ve been talking about. Still doesn’t change the fact that his reaction when the chips were down was to appeal to a theory of social aresponsibility that he’s spent a lifetime decrying. And while the cry is almost certainly going to be “well, he stopped it, why are you still harping about it?” that too is not exactly the Bennet approach. Remember the whole death of outrage complaint? How we amoral hussies are just willing to let poor conduct, like Presidential adultery, go without raising a hue and cry for days on end? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-william-bennett-a-hypocrite/173049/116 "2003-05-08T02:40:41Z")
Not germane to this debate, since it’s just pile-on, but a pretty funny promotional offer nonetheless: [http://www.thestranger.com/specials/bennett.html](http://www.thestranger.com/specials/bennett.html) ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-william-bennett-a-hypocrite/173049/117 "2003-05-10T23:31:15Z")
This editorial at FoxNews is pretty spot-on, not about attecking Bennet, but rather on the problems that cultural conservatives face in both trying to defend Santorum’s philosophy and Bennet’s gambling. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86238,00.html](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86238,00.html) ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2003, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-william-bennett-a-hypocrite/173049/118 "2003-05-11T02:19:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Age Quod Agis \* > **His point is that the analogy doesn’t hold because the two are, in fact, different.** But that’s _exactly_what an analogy is: a comparison between two dissimilar things. > [@](#): > > I have no idea what you’re getting at here. Suffice to say, the answer to your question is no. Murder is illegal regardless of your feelings on it, and gambling is legal regardless of your feelings on it. Goldberg tried to defend Bennett by saying that the activity in question was not a sin _in Bennett’s heart_. Even you admit that Bennett touts the idea of moral absolutes, so just because someone does’t consider something wrong _in their heart_ that doesn’t mean, to Bill Bennett anyway, that it’s not immoral. You seem to want to make a big deal out of the fact that Bennett’s gambling was legal. Homosexual behavior is legal in some states and not in others. Do you think for a second that Bennett would say that gay sex is only immoral in those states where there are sodomy laws? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-william-bennett-a-hypocrite/173049.md?page=5)