Is William Bennett a hypocrite?

Great Debates
61

Thanks to Dewey, El Jeffe, IzzyR, and others for saying what I so inartfully tried to say earlier – that we don’t know what his actual losses were because the article only addresses his losses, and doesn’t talk about his winnings. We know that Bennett wired $1.4 million into an account to cover losses – which is a serious chunk of change by any measure – but we don’t know how much that account has in it now. We know that Bennett drew $350,000 worth of chips on one day, but we don’t know if he walked out the next day up $350,000 (or more). It’s an incomplete picture.

Caveat: I have a hard time believing that anyone can “break about even” on slots or video poker over the course of ten years because the machines are programmed to pay out slightly less than they take in. I’d be surprised if he didn’t lose at least 2 to 5% of his gamblings. Of course, I’d also be surprised if he lost more than 50%.

But more than that, it’s irrelevant. Whether he lost $8 or $8 million doesn’t make his gambling any more immoral. And to my knowledge, noone here is contending that gambling itself is immoral.

So he’s hypocritical because he never criticized himself, despite the fact that he didn’t think what he was doing was wrong? Do you really expect to convince anyone with that argument, or are you just typing it to distract yourself from the glare of your own hypocrisy – namely, criticizing Dewey and El Jeffe for defending Bennett and attacking Clinton because there’s no difference between the two, while you attack Bennett and defend Clinton.

62

Who said anything about reasonable doubt? I’m talking about ordinary, everyday, healthy skepticism. Pretend you’re from the state of Missouri for a second and say “show me.”

In any event, don’t go making factual claims that are, at best, unproven.**

Even if we presume the loss estimate is perfectly accurate, this need not be the case. As ElJeffe noted, cognitive dissonance is a real phenomenon. **

Large losses != compulsive gambling. As I’ve noted repeatedly, I’ve had professional dealings with wealthy guys who routinely blew six figures in Vegas and AC. They weren’t gambling addicts. They just had a lot of scratch. **

I really don’t see why. I doubt this story would be any different if Bennett had been a more successful casino patron. The issue isn’t how much Bennett lost, it’s how much he routinely put at risk. Given that, why would Bennett admit to being a high-stakes gambler but lie about his losses?

63

Dewey, IMHO Bennett would be entitled to decide for himself what moral standards he should carry out in his life, subject to the teachings of his own faith and his willingness to adhere to them, and always presuming the legality of his choices.

He elected to identify himself with, and become publicly vocal in behalf of, groups that are seeking to restore their (IMHO mythical) image of an America of traditional values by urging those values on the public in no uncertain terms.

And one of those values is that gambling is immoral. He’s “hoist with his own petar’” by making both those choices – to publicly condemn values he doesn’t agree with while violating those he claims to be the spokesman for. It is no excuse that he had adequate money left after gambling – the act itself is contrary to the moral code that he claims to be representing. His personal moral code is his own business – but if he claims to be an adherent of and spokesman for a given code, it’s incumbent on him to live by that code. “For with the measure with which you judge, you also shall be judged.”

64

The news accounts of his losses may be far off the mark, but if he has admitted he has made large bets at the casinoes for a number of years and states he’s about even, it’s a lie. You don’t need to be a Ph.D. in math to realize it.

I have not reached a judgment, but I suspect he does have a problem and he is in denial.

65

So now one has to be 100% in favor of every single position of every group one is affiliated with lest he be cast as a hypocrite?

66

No, he’s hypocritical for preaching rules of conduct to the rest of us that he’s been unwilling to live by himself. Is that unclear?

Nice try, but a straw man still the same. I have never, AFAIK and please show me otherwise if you can, advocated judging different people by different standards, in fact I’ve tried to make it clear to people like you that to do so is hypocritical. Do you disagree with that?

I do not judge Clinton by more lenient standards than Bennett. Both are sinners, like you and I and everyone else, whose sins would not normally be anyone else’s damn business outside their own families. Show me where I have suggested otherwise, while bearing in mind that only one of those two has made a habit and career out of trying to establish moral standards that he claims all should live up to and be judged by. It is that that makes Bennett a hypocrite, as already explained clearly enough. Clinton, while a sinner, is not a hypocrite, at least on a similar order of magnitude. You need to explain, though, why you and the other posters you mentioned judge Bennett by more lenient standards than Clinton.

Dewey: “So now one has to be 100% in favor of every single position of every group one is affiliated with lest he be cast as a hypocrite?” Class, can you all name this logical fallacy?

67

Depends on what the definition of “definition” is, doesn’t it? How about this: Judge me by the standards I have claimed others should follow, not what you have tried to bluster away. There’s nothing more appropriate to judge the self-declared (and widely acclaimed, too) conservative Chief Arbiter of Morality by than the standards he himself has declared, is there?

Now try to address the issue, not avoid it.

68

But that’s the argument being made: that because Bennett is affiliated with organizations that, among many other things, takes a dim view of gambling, he is a hypocrite. The implication is that Bennett’s association with such groups is tantamount to approval of every detail of their agenda. And that is silly.

Surely, for example, one can be a member of the Republican or Democratic parties without endorsing every plank of the party platform. The Republican Party Platform includes strong statements against abortion. Does that mean a Republican woman who elects to have the abortion procedure is a “hypocrite” solely on the basis of her political affiliation? Even if she has spoken out publicly in favor of other, non-abortion-related “family values” aspects of that platform?

69

According to the Salon website, the first chapter of William Bennett’s “Book of Virtues” is titled “Self-Discipline.” In it he identifies what he perceives to be the decline of civil society resulting from self-indulgent, given-to-excess, and otherwise wasteful and profilgate attitudes and practices.

In his written statement released yesterday he admits to gambling too much.

He’s taken a public stand against doing anything “too much” and yet he admits to doing just that viz gambling.

Mr. Bennett is a hypocrite.

70

“It’s not a problem. I can quit any time I want to.”

We shall see.

71

The problem with the apology put forth by DCU et al. on behalf of Bennett is that morality cannot be defined with consideration to one person. Morality as a construct inherently involves the behaviors of a person in the context of a group or society. If a solipsistic definition of morality were tolerable, one need not take the time to construct it. Clearly, those who commit acts to be judged by others almost invariably have some justification that makes such acts acceptable within their own personal ethic. For example, many criminals do not hold themselves responsible for their actions. “He got shot because he did not give me his wallet when I demanded it. It is his fault, not mine that he is dead.”

Bennett established himself as an arbiter of morality; clearly from his writings he intended general conduct and societal discussion (and condemnation) of behavior to be appropriate. In fact, he feels it to be a crucial element of the functioning of the republic, and the death of outrage is an indicator of the downward spiral of our society.

As such, simply because he never listed his own vice as a vice others should not engage in does not remove the hypocrisy of an arbiter of morality and virtue engaging in an act that is generally construed as immoral and less than virtuous. One who presents himself as an authority cannot dabble in morality.

I have despised Bennett in the past because the type of morality and moral education that he pushes is proscriptive regarding specific behaviors, and is clearly immersed in conservative dogma. This pushes out of general understanding and application a more appropriate type of sociomoral education, which is based in the works of Kohlberg and Piaget, and teaches a process of decision making regarding appropriate behaviors rather than developing a list of good and bad things.

Bennett is a hypocrite.

72

ElvisL1ves:

My God, you can cut the irony with a knife. What is so hard about this?

The standards that Bennett endorses have never included anything that would declare gambling immoral. Thus, you can’t claim that he’s a hypocrite for gambling, because he never said you shouldn’t. At best, you can claim that he endorsed moderation, and gambled too much, so he’s a hypocrite for not acting in moderation. But then, what do you mean by “too much”? He never was in financial jeopardy, and I’ve yet to see evidence that his gambling negatively affected his family’s life, so by what standard was his gambling “too much”? You can argue that the money could’ve gone to better causes, but that’s a pretty weak argument. And the same argument could be made against any non-essential purchase made by any person, any time. Was the money wasted? Well, if it brought him happiness, and he felt it was worth it, then no - it wasn’t wasted.

The best you have to go on is a retroactive claim of “I gambled too much”, which still doesn’t demonstrate hypocricy. It’s much as if I were to endorse keeping fit, and someone were to point out that I could stand to lose a few pounds. I say, “Well gee, you’re right - I’ve eaten too much junkfood. I think I’ll stop.” Is that hypocricy? No, it’s the exact opposite - upon being made aware that I eat too much, I decide to quit, to bring myself in line with the philosophy to which I subscribe.

If you’re going to moralize the hell out of Bennett, you’re going to need a better argument than that.
Hentor the Barbarian:

Considered immoral and less than virtuous by who? By you? Certainly not by Bennett.

So you despise Bennett because he had the gall to say that some things are good, and some things are bad, rather than teaching moral relativism? I think it’s really sad that those on the left (and this may or may not include you, Hentor) show such hatred for those who would stand up and claim that some things are right, and others are wrong. Is having moral standards really that repugnant to some people? What am I missing, that I can’t see why someone who tries to endorse virtue should be ridiculed as a prude, as “conservative”? That Bill Clinton has such a rabid fan base is starting to make a lot more sense to me.
Jeff

73

And neither Bennett nor I nor anyone else in this thread have suggested that condemnation of Bennett’s gambling would be inappropriate. I think Bennett would be the first in line to say that societal discussion of the propriety of his conduct is a beneficial thing.

All I’ve suggested is that hypocrisy is the wrong label to affix to this particular story. **

I heartily disagree. You cannot hold Bennett liable for a moral code he has never endorsed. You can argue that Bennett’s code should include condemnations of gambling, but you can’t say he is saying one thing and doing another when he has never condemned the thing his is doing.

I also note that responsible gambling is hardly construed as “immoral” by anthing remotely approaching general consensus. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church – whose doctrine informs much of Bennett’s philosophy – does not condemn it, and indeed promotes it from time to time, albeit with smaller stakes.

74

So did you just not understand virtually the entirety of my post, or are you intentionally avoiding the point? Bennett never wrote “The Book of Bill Bennett’s Virtues.” He didn’t say, “Do as I do.” He says “Do as we all should do, and loudly castigate those who don’t.” Just because he doesn’t eat custard filled doughnuts, Dunkin Donuts still sells them by the truckload.

I won’t hold it against you that you are ignorant of various moral reasoning frameworks, but I will hold it against you that you start railing about them without seeking clarification first. Why don’t you define moral relativism, and compare and contrast it with sociomoral reasoning as described by Kohlberg. Perhaps you mean something different than I understand you to mean when you use the term. However, you have hit the nail on the hypocritical head - one cannot engage in delineating the bad things we should not do without appearing hypocritical to be doing another bad thing.

And before you go further with that argument, explain how his recent statements, and those of his wife, suggest anything other than it is not a virtuous action even in his own calculus. If it were, they both should be saying, “Yeah, so what?” As in: “Bill Bennett, you eat carrots! Mrs. Bennett, did you know this?” “Yeah, so what?”

They are not.

75

I’ll admit to being confused.

Say I go on TV and rail against something I consider immoral. We’ll pick something that most of us would agree is immoral: child molestation.

Okay, so there I am, railing against child molestation. I’m saying that child molestation is immoral. I’m claiming that people who molest children are immoral people.

I eat chicken. I eat a LOT of chicken. PETA would say that’s immoral.

Am I a hypocrite for eating chicken?

If I associate in my quest against child molestation with a group that’s against child molestation AND against eating chicken, am I a hypocrite for eating chicken?

I’m having a tough time following the logic. It’s probably my fault, I’ll admit.

Julie

76

H the B:

I understood, I just wholeheartedly disagree. You simply cannot declare someone guilty of hypocricy for doing something that you think they should have said was wrong. If Bennett didn’t say gambling was wrong, then he’s not guilty of hypocricy, by definition. The point remains that the only logical way to establish what Bill Bennett thinks is right or wrong is to look at what Bill Bennett says and writes.

You seemingly “railed” against the notion that there are definitive notions of right and wrong. The opposite of “there are absolute rights and wrongs” is “there are no absolute rights and wrongs” - ie, moral relativism, or the idea that moral standards are defined only by society. For example, if enough people decided that murdering babies was okay, then murdering babies would be considered moral. This, I reject. If Kohlberg is more nuanced than this, then I apologize for seemingly denigrating him, and I would welcome a quick synopsis (if possible) of his theories. If that’s not possible, then I’ll make an effort to try and hunt down his work, so I can judge for myself.
Jeff

77

You can cut the willful ignorance with a dull knife. Read the friggin’ OP then:

Then you can read Michael Kinsley’s fine summation before you continue.

But what argument does Bennett have to moralize the hell out of us?

Not at all, and if you’d been trying to absorb what you’re being told, you’d know that. The repugnant part is condemning others for not meeting standards that you yourself refuse to meet.

If you’re missing anything, it isn’t for lack of being told, amigo. He isn’t ridiculed for being a prude, or “conservative” (another assertion you can’t back up), but for hypocrisy, for refusing to abide by standards he is willing to condemn others for not abiding by. What else is unclear to you?

That the condemn-Clinton movement had no moral standards behind it whose followers were willing to uphold regardless of the politics in question was clear at the time, became clearer with the indignation about inquiries into GW Bush’s dissolution, and is even clearer today with the examples of persons such as yourself.

78

Jeff:

If Bennett doesn’t think gambling is wrong why has he decided to quit?

As I said earlier, I see that he’s either a hypocrite or a coward. But I see his “offense” as pretty slight, as had never made gambling a huge issue in his moralizing. Had he embezzled money in order to gamble, or something like that, then he’d be up there with some of the world class hypocrites.

79

But being against the extension of casinos doesn’t mean one is against gambling or casino gambling.

I am against having a McDonald’s on my corner. That doesn’t (I think) make me a hypocrite for getting a Cobb salad at McDonald’s.

Not wanting something everywhere doesn’t mean that you want it nowhere.

Julie

80

I’m not Jeff, but I have a possible answer (or two).

Bennett is in a position where he has no good options. If he says, “Gambling is okay,” then people call him a hypocrite who can’t handle the criticism leveled against him.

If he says, “Gambling is no okay,” then people call him a weak hypocrite who can’t even abide by his own moral code.

If he says, “I’m not going to stop,” then people ask why someone who doesn’t drop his “immoral” activity should be allowed to preach at them for theirs.

If he says, “I’m going to stop,” then people crow that he must have thought it was wrong all allong and is doubly hypocritical.

I’ve stopped doing things that bother people even when I enjoyed them and didn’t see anything wrong with them. Sometimes, I’ve stopped to get the other person to shut up. Other times I’ve stopped because it wasn’t a huge deal and meant more to the other person than to me.

(I would be interested in a straw poll. How many participants in this thread have a real moral issue with gambling?)

Julie