I take minty’s argument to be not so much that Bennett is a hypocrite for gambling per se, but that he’s a hypocrite for complaining that others are judging him on his private conduct when he’s made a career out of judging people on their private conduct.
The only problem with that interpretation of minty’s argument is that, insofar as I can determine, Bennett isn’t making such a complaint. If he is, of course, then I see the point.
I think this is the case. I have yet to see a quote from Bennett saying something like “how DARE you judge me on my private activities.” All I’ve heard him say is basically “my gambling doesn’t affect my abilty to pay my bills or tend to my family.” It sounds to me like Bennett recognizes that he is a perfectly legitimate target for moral judgment and isn’t complaining that others might find fault with his chosen activities (even if he personally disagrees with that finding of fault).
Bill, having dug his own grave, has decided to stop digging and is keeping his mouth shut. Mrs. Bennett, however, is certainly complaining about the scrutiny and criticism. She also claims her husband says he’s finished with the slots thanks to the attention that’s been drawn to it–not exactly the action of a person who’s perfectly happy to have it become public knowledge that he blows huge amounts of money in the casinos.
And while that “liquor store on every block” thing is an admirable strawman, Dewey, the truth is that Bennett’s organization gives every appearance of opposing gambling virtually per se. Hell, Bennett himself lists a bunch of facts about gambling in America (number of gamblers, money spent, etc.) in Chapter 5 (PDF file) of his Index of Leading Cultural Indicators 2001. And here’s another story from his organization, decrying “how state officials are allowing the fiscal crisis to corrode their principles where gambling is concerned.” Nary a word about gambling being okay as long as you don’t blow the diaper money or take out a second mortgage to play the slots.
At most, minty, you have shown that the organization he’s founded takes a slightly different position than he does. And the woman he married takes a slightly different position than he does. Now, I don’t doubt that in the green household, minty’s word is law, and mrs. green and you speak with but one voice.
I still can’t call a man a hypocrite based on what his wife says being in conflict with what he does, though. To qualify for the hypocrite label, both the behavior and the words must come from the same person.
So, too, with his organization. It’s not a committee of one. Even though he founded it, it is bound to reflect the views of others. You cannot call him a hypocrite based on what his organization says.
He’s a hypocrite if he:
Damns others for gambling, or
Says no one may judge him.
I have seen no evidence of either.
Julie
So is he a member of his community, or not ?
Is the pope Catholic?
As Bricker said, so what? And note that Ms. Bennett’s comments aren’t “the coverage of this issue is not legitimate;” no, it’s more like “I am sick of reporters calling, so Bill isn’t going to casinos anymore if he ever wants to see me naked ever again.”**
That same chapter lists facts on hours spent watching TV, movie attendance, computer usage, personal savings rates, music purchases and automobile purchases. Does that mean Bennett is per se opposed to TV, movies, computers, savings, music and automobiles? **
Do you even bother to read the articles you link to? That quotation is horribly out of context.
That article is about states raising taxes or enacting other revenue measures in lieu of restraining spending. The article’s point is that state government should cut spending rather than seek new revenue sources. The full quote of the portion you quote reads as follows:
The point of the article is not that gambling is bad – indeed, that quotation is the only place where gambling is even mentioned – but rather that state government officials are betraying their own personal principles in the search for additional revenue. Here, they cite White as someone who opposes gambling, but nonetheless supports using slots as a revenue measure.
Just FTR: that is what a credible charge of hypocrisy looks like.
If White was not opposed to gambling, the paragraph would not make sense. The article is charging White with hypocrisy, not arguing that gambling is morrally corrosive.
We get it, guys. You don’t think it’s hypocrisy because Bennett never specifically and unambiguously condemned gambling.
Whoopty-doo.
Me, I take the broader view. I look at a guy who’s whored himself to the cultural conservatives for a decade, kissed the ass of every right-wing busybody who can’t keep his nose out of his neighbor’s private business, snuggled up to their agenda without so much as a hint of reservation or qualification . . . and who has secretly blown $8 million on one of the main vices that his supporters oppose as a sign of the moral decay of America.
Check it out: The leader of the LDS Church writes a “Virtues” book of his own, lamenting America’s social ills, including $482 billion a year spent on gambling. Does Bennett take exception to that, say slow down there, pardner, there’s nothing inherently wrong with gambling? Hell no. He writes a book-jacket blurb praising the book to high heaven and saying that we need more leaders like Hinkley to “defend” all those “traditional beliefs [that] have been attenuated, ridiculed, and mocked.”
And how does Bennett defend his hobby of pissing money away into the hands of his friends’ enemies? By invoking the very principle that he and his busybody moralist buddies rountinely piss on in every other context: " . . . adults on their own time . . . ".
That’s what makes him a hypocrite.
Now, shall we discuss the hypocrisy of choosing to condemn or defend a sinner on the basis of his political orientation?
And you think book jacket blurbs indicate the person has read the book cover to cover? That’s almost adorably naive.
Not to mention that a book jacket blurb isn’t an in-depth book review. Haven’t you ever read a book that you liked overall, but disagreed with in places? **
So what? If responsible gambling doesn’t violate Bennett’s moral code, then saying adults are free to participate on their own time is perfectly consistent with Bennett’s view. Like I said, doubtless many of Bennett’s followers think drinking even a drop of alcohol is a moral failing. Would you similarly condemn this type of defense of Bennett’s social drinking in that context?
And another thing: a lot of people keep saying Bennett is some kind of nosy busybody. Outside of some fairly routine political positions (pro-drug war, pro-keeping prostitution illegal etc), all he’s really done AFAIK is written a couple of books on morality – books which no one is forced to read, much less conform their conduct to. Since when does writing “the world would be better if people acted in a certain fashion” equate to being a busybody?
(Having never read his books, that’s a serious question, BTW – I really do want to know how people draw that conclusion)
Sure.
In fact, I think that’s one of the worst expressions of hypocrisy there is, right along with condeming or defending an issue based on the political orientation of the beneficiaries. I’m thinking, as a good example, of the pious wailing of Republicans about the still-mired Estrada nomination, a wailing that seemingly forgets that they were doing the same, or worse, to Clinton nominees. The same tactic that’s now a despicable ruination of the advise and consent concept was, just a couple of years ago, a fearless stand for the integrity of the Senate’s role.
Probably deserves its own thread.
Only if you first establish that the condemnation or defense is based on political orientation rather than on the substantive merits of the charge.
DCU - I read Elvis1Lives’ post as a sort of hijack – I didn’t get that he was obliquely suggesting the defense of Bennett was based on political orientation. Certainly I’d say the same thing if, say, Maya Angelou, Ralph Nader, Al Gore, or Bill Clinton faced analogous accusations here. My defense of Bennett is based on the merits of the complaint.
Was this a general comment, Elvis1Lives, or a suggestion that my defense was based on politics?
OK then, Dewey, you tell us why you’re defending Bennett for his sins while, simultaneously in another thread, doing your utmost to explain why Clinton’s sins were actually a crime? Is adultery (and trying to weasel out of admitting it) on The Master List of Sins while gambling (and trying to weasel out of admitting it) is not?
You’re not getting it, or perhaps refuse to. Declaring that others should live by rules you cannot live up to yourself is hypocrisy. If he hadn’t written those books you’re minimizing, or made his living out of preaching against the things he does, then yes, it wouldn’t be anybody else’s business. But he did - he made it our business by telling us the things he did, even if we didn’t have to listen.
When Bennett lies under oath about his gambling, come back and talk to me.
Yeah, I remember that chapter in the Book of Virtues: “Lying Is Fine Unless It’s Under Oath.”
I eagerly await your empassioned defense of Bill Bennett, Elvis. Or are you going to give us another example of hypocrisy?
First, I haven’t seen any evidence that Bennett tried to keep his gambling secret. Second, the articles linked say that Bennett bought approximately $8 million in chips. They don’t say whether he won or lost, or how much. What we do know is that Bennett and his wife have both said that he did not lose more than they could afford. So your statement that Bennett “has secretly blown $8 million” is patently false, at least according to the evidence that I’ve seen.
Gee, minty, that was a particularly dishonest example of word-twisting.
Where has Bennett lied? He admits he gambles, and with large sums at that. He disputes the total of his losses over time, but that hardly amounts to a “lie.” You of all people should know that – if factual disputes constitute a “lie,” you’d be lying every time you plied your trade as a litigator.
FTR: Lying is bad (outside of surprise parties, troop movements, etc). Lying under oath is even worse.
DCU, I was reading this thread, and thinking, “Well, I disagree with DCU, but at least he puts forth cogent arguments and makes one think about multiple points of view.” Then you went and said this. Are you saying it’s okay to endorse something you have no basis upon which to recommend it? If you disagree with the content of the book, shouldn’t you decline to write an endorsement of it. If either or both of your hypotheses are correct, I would add another charge of hypocrisy to Bennett’s sheet.
Bennett said this in that book jacket blurb:
Sounds very much like both an implication that he read it, and that he agrees with the contents. That cracking sound you heard was the limb upon which you were edging yourself out.
As far as his argument that his gambling is not a problem because he pays the bills and looks after his family, why then is his wife reportedly upset? If everything were hunky dory in Bennett family land, shouldn’t her response be, “Yeah, that’s my Bill.”