I’ve said all along that Bennett’s gambling could be properly described as immoral. I have no problem with that categorization. If you want to argue that Bennett’s gambling such large sums amounts to a moral failing, that the money could be put to better use, and that his frequenting casinos represents a poor example for others to follow, I have no dispute with your characterization. That is a perfectly valid line of criticism.
All I’m saying is his gambling isn’t hypocritical. He isn’t engaged in activities which he has condemned in any of his books or speeches.
And I’ve said that from my very post in this thread.
Call that tedious hair-splitting if you wish. I prefer to think of it as leveling the correct charge.
ArchiveGuy’s post is a nice criticism of Bennet but for the fact that it confuses a charge of morally suspect behavior with a charge of hypocrisy. The only thing where he’s got a reasonable shot at making a case for hypocrisy is point #2 – and even that is suspect, as the analogy to alcohol consumption demonstrates. One needn’t be a teetottler to condemn the rapid development of liquor stores or to take pause from increasing levels of societywide alcohol consumption.
I guess it depends on what your definition of “is” is? As in, is it the case that Bennett has attempted to establish himself as an authority on morality in America (see A Moral Compass, writings on “moral clarity,” aforementioned writings on the “death of outrage” and the “book of virtues.”)
If you agree that he presents himself as such, and since you have already agreed that his behavior is immoral, it matters not if he has never said, “gambling is immoral,” (disregarding for a moment the position his own organization takes on the topic). If a reasonable person regards his actions as immoral (and certainly DCU, you are nothing if not a standard for the “reasonable person,”) then he is hypocritical for dictating to others the morality of their behaviors while not comporting himself with the highest standards.
Furthermore, he spares no condemnation of others based on their past statements (or absence thereof) regarding a position on behavior. In fact, he calls for the judgment of the people, the loss of which he sorrowfully mourns. He may or may not have commented in the past on any number of behaviors; that would not make his doing them now any more or less hypocritical.
I’ll lay 10-to-One odds that Bennett won’t say a word for 6 months, then come squeaking out like Gary Condit or OJ Simpson.
Anyone? Anyone? Come on, you’re stealing food out of my kid’s mouth here!
(I swear, Dewey, I didn’t intend to single you out.)
This man was the Secretary of Education and makes it very clear in the introduction to The Book of Virtues that he believes in teaching by example:
“Aristotle wrote that good habits formed at youth make all the difference. And moral education must affirm the central importance of moral example.”
Can any of you say with a straight face that he could go into a classroom to talk about virtues and then encourage children to indulge their greed?
The first chapter in this book is entitled “Self-Discipline.” The first paragraph addresses self-control of “appetites”:“There is much unhappiness and personal distress in the world because of failures to control tempers, appetites, passions, and impulses. ‘Oh, if only I had stopped myself’ is an all too familiar refrain.”
Two paragraphys later he discuses Plato’s view:
“Plato divided the soul into three parts or operations – reason, passion, and appetite – and said that right behavior results from harmony or control of these elements.”
When he introduces Aesop’s fable of “The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs,” he says this:
“Here is Aesop’s classic fable about plenty not being enough, about what happens when ‘having it all’ becomes the motto of the day.”
That fable directly casts the subject of greed in an unfavorable light. It ends with the “moral” of the story:
“Much wants more and loses all.” – Aesop
Another of his selections concludes with the familiar words: “Never after that did King Midas care of any gold except the gold of the sunshine, and the gold of little Marygold’s hair.”
Still another selection by Tolstoy addresses the question “How much land does a man need?” Bennett introduces it with:
“This story by Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910), written in 1886, in its fundamental physical action is a marvelous metaphor for the need for us to set definite boundaries on our own appetites.”
The book is over 800 pages long and these quotations are from only the first 88 pages.
Maybe it is not so much the gambling that is unvirtuous for Bennett. But clearly he sees greed and a lack of self-discipline as immoral.
That makes him a hypocrite unless he was losing all of that money for the sheer pleasure of pushing coins into a slot.
With that said, I am also a hypocrite – as I suspect that most of us are about one thing or another. The Book of Virtues is excellent! But it is sometimes about morals that he still aspires to – not always the ones that he has mastered.
The very fact that his wife wants to hear “his side of the story” indicates that all of this is news to her. If the information is accurate, he did not confide his casino losses to his wife. Maybe he just didn’t want to bother her with revelations about his expensive hobby. Or maybe he would have had to confront his greed and appetite sooner.
I know a man who worked hard every day. He was good at his job and he was the first one there when the doors opened in the morning. He provided a good home for his wife and children and they attended private schools. That didn’t mean that he wasn’t addicted to alcohol. There is a definite parallel with Bennett’s habits.
Umm, I am no fan of Bennett at all, but these are not fair comparisons. Lets all enjoy the rich comeupance being received by Capt. Morals, but comparing him to a double murderer isn’t really fair.
How about Geraldo instead? Annoying, smug, and much disliked- ends up embarassing self to the great pleasure of many.
Actually, I suspect that is why – I think most gamblers enjoy gambling for the thrill of wagering on a game of chance. It isn’t greed – they know the house has the advantage, and they know it is unlikely they will end up ahead by the end of the evening. And it isn’t lack of self-discipline: Bennett never went into debt, never risked “milk money,” never put himself into financial jeopardy.
You do, however, have a point about setting an example for the young (indeed, that is Bennett’s proffered reason for stating he will stop gambling). Activities which are otherwise perfectly moral when done privately may well become immoral if continued in the public eye because of the example it sets, if I understand the Bennett world-view correctly. In one of these threads, someone used the example of cursing – there’s nothing wrong with it per se, but it’s not the sort of thing you do in front of the kids.
But my parents, good old Southern Baptists that they are, have money in the stock market. They even lost money in the stock market, like most people in the US the last 3 years. My parent’s have never gambled. It’s against their moral code. No doubt many of the people who bought Bill’s book and cheered him on his moral stances these last 20 years would be
[Claude Raines voice]shocked! shocked! [/Claude Raines voice*
to hear that Bennett gambled, much less lost as much as it appears he did.
Many of these people give hundreds, sometimes thousands, of their hard-earned dollars to charities, missions, homeless, etc. How would it look if Billy Graham revealed that he had been going to Vegas over the last 10 years and had lost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
From what I can tell Bill Bennett excuses his own level of gambling because it’s not hurting anyone, and that’s fine with me. Similarly he excuses his own level of drinking on the same grounds. That’s fine with me, too. However would he allow a gay couple to excuse their homosexual behavior by invoking the same “it’s not hurting anyone” clause? What about the occasional pot user?
I’ve never read any of Bennet’s books so I can’t claim any great depth of knowledge of him, so maybe he doesn’t consider vices things that don’t harm anyone else. If so, good for him. On the other hand if those who enjoy “sins” to which Bennett does not partake are not allowed the “it’s not hurting anyone” clause then he is a big, stinkin’ hypocrite, is he not?
It’s ridiculous to say that because Bennet left himself a convenient loophole for gambling that he is not a hypocrite. He has made a career of lobbing self-righteous moral judgements at any number of other activities which are legal and harmless. I would say that gambling is more harmful than pot smoking. It’s definitely more harmful than homosexuality (which is neither harmfu, nor illegal nor immoral).
He has condemned immoral behavior.
He is a degenerate gambler.
Being a degenerate gambler is immoral.
Ergo, he is a hypocrite.
There is that possibility that it wasn’t greed for money, but a craving for the high that comes with taking a chance. That’s where addiction comes in. By Bennett’s reasoning, if you are very, very wealthy, you can’t be a gambling addict.
It is also very possible that what he did hurt Mrs. Bennett. I know it would hurt me if my husband spent eight million of our money just to get high. Actually, hurt is not quite the right word for what I would feel.
I wonder if Bennett thinks that thrift is a virtue?
That’s a pretty huge leap. Lots of non-addicted gamblers enjoy the thrill that comes with wagering – that’s pretty much why AC and Vegas exist in the first place.
There is a fundamental difference between the two events.
In the case of $8 million invested in the market, it is fully possible to invest in a manner that bears no effective ressemblance to gambling. As such, the loss in and of itself would not be gambling.
Now of course someone can come back and say one is ‘betting’ on certain outcomes – if one is a rational investor (I admit a large supposition during the period 1998-2001) I don’t see this as gamlbing any more than simply living life is ‘gambling,’ i.e. making a bet I am not going to get run down by an al-Qaeda op tomorrower.
In re the subject, I think Sam Stone has made an insightful obs in the GD thread on the same subject.