Gauging by people’s responses, people do not understand my position on the issue, so I am going to try one more time.
I could not care less if Bill Bennett gambles. At all. I also don’t care what he puts in his mouth, whether it is a penis or a joint or a double cheeseburger with extra cheese and double the mayo. I don’t care if he gets divorced or has an affair. I don’t care if he tells white lies so that his wife feels good about herself. I don’t care if he ever steps into a church. I don’t care what he does in his spare time, as long as it is not hurting someone else. And I most certainly am not running around in positions of power attempting to criminalize what he does in his past time, while pretending to be a pristine man of virtue.
In essence, I am willing to let Bill Bennett decide what is best for Bill Bennett. Why isn’t he decent enough to allow me to decide what is best for John Cole?
The answer, of course, is because he is a loud-mouthed moralizer who thinks he knows what is best for everyone, and he wants to put his idea into practice with the force and backing of the federal and state governments. I understand that I am just a loudmouth.
Brian
I have to agree with you on not really caring what Bill Bennett does with his life.
I never really cared what he though I should do with mine either. Which is why I just can’t understand why anyone cares about any of this at all!
barney gumble
Like I saw over at talkingpointsmemo.com
“no one likes a stuffed shirt. Are people happy to pile on when someone so preachy takes a hit? Yes, of course, they are.”
And let’s not forget the self appointed moralist was silent on Newt, Hyde, et. al. Republican immorality doesn’t count.
Robin Roberts
Evidently, the fact that he hasn’t moralized on gambling doesn’t slow you down at all.
HH
Marshall and Kinsley ought to be ashamed of themselves… it’s one thing to make the charge, especially of this nature, it’s another to out-and-out profess glee in doing it.
redheadedstepchild
Hey Robin,
Cole explained his position on Bennett in regards to the fact that Bennett never moralized about gambling. It is a pretty clear case of Bennett ignoring gambling because HE LIKES TO DO IT. The guy is a hypocrite.
JKC
“Marshall and Kinsley ought to be ashamed of themselves… it’s one thing to make the charge, especially of this nature, it’s another to out-and-out profess glee in doing it.”
C’mon, HH. Give me a break. Bill Bennett is a pompous, hypocritical gasbag. I seem to remember a lot of Republican glee over Monica Lewinski (and some Democratic glee, too, from the Joe Lieberman wing). Ken Starr seemed to spend eight years on the verge of making a mess in the front of his pants over Bill Clinton’s sex life, and Bennett had no qualms about throwing himself onto the pile.
So count me among the group enjoying the sight of Mr Virtue twisiting in the wind…
Mike the Analyst
Actually, I prefer InstaPundit’s take on it this way:
“HMM. IF IT’S NEWS WHEN A MORALIZER TURNS OUT TO BE A HYPOCRITE, then why isn’t this story getting more attention?
New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, an outspoken advocate of campaign-finance reform, has been hit with one of the biggest fines ever imposed on a member of Congress by the Federal Election Commission — for violating campaign-finance laws.”
Why not, indeed?
Steve Malynn
John, when I left OCS (officer Candidate School, USMC) to go finish college, my platoon’s Drill Sergeant, GySgt Garza (Gunnery Sergeants are Marine Corps Gods), gave the platoon one piece of advice (besides “never trust a f**king civilian”): “you gotta believe in f**king something.” He meant, and we understood, that if you did not believe that there was some higher authority that would call you to account you would not succeed as a leader of Marines. This was non-sectarian advice to look outside of your own desires as a guide to how to act.
Gunny Garza used a lot less words than Bill Bennett, and not having a Phd and a law degree as Bennett does, Gunny Garza only had hard knocks and not a familiarity with literature to offer as examples. Carping about his gambling is on the same level on carping on his smoking habit (which he also gave up). Bill Bennett has not decided what is best for anybody, he has been a cabinet member, Dept of Ed and “Drug Czar”, following and enforcing an elected president’s policies. Bennett has published and spoken about the need for a public morality, not about legislating his morality. Obviously, Bennett is not a libertarian, but isn’t is a bit harsh for a libertarian to play the gotcha game with no substance, especially when Bennett’s vice is legal, has caused no harm, and especially when you echo Marshal, Kinsley, Alterman, Atrios in essentially meaningless attacks (and certainly attacks they hope spill over onto all Republicans, and this administration specifically, by association).
You don’t like what he writes, don’t buy is. You don’t like what he says, change the channel. You’re glad he’s been taken down a peg, look to your own conscience, but don’t buy into the crap being peddled by Marshal, Kinsley, Alterman, Atrios.
HH
So the defense is “some Republicans did it, I was very upset at them for it, so it’s okay for me, Kinsley, etc.” Sorry, it doesn’t work that way, it just makes you as bad as the people you condemn. I took no joy in what happened then and have no tolerance for those who take joy in this now.
JKC
“Obviously, Bennett is not a libertarian, but isn’t is a bit harsh for a libertarian to play the gotcha game with no substance, especially when Bennett’s vice is legal, has caused no harm…”
Of course, ol’ Bill forgets that “has caused no harm” bit when it comes to other people’s vices…
I suspect that Steve Malynn’s old friend Gunny Garza wouldn’t have asked any of his charges to do anything he wasn’t willing to do himself. Too bad ol’ Bill doesn’t have the same respect for the rest of us imperfect mortals that he loves to lecture.
HH: Actually, the lesson here is “sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.” If the dimmer lights in the Republican Party want to throw mud, they can’t whine and run crying to Mommy when someone throws it back at them. Unfortunately for the tone of civil discourse in this country, most conservatives I’ve encountered aren’t as welcoming of alternate viewpoints as Tacitus or the host of this fine establishment.
Robin Roberts
To claim that Bennett is a hypocrite for engaging in conduct that he hasn’t condemned is a rather new definition of hypocrite. To paraphrase from The Princess Bride, I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
HH
Again, you’ve decided to base valid discourse on the “dimmer lights.”
JKC
Robin: If Bennett had condemned gays, pre-marital sex, and the occasional blow job, but hadn’t mentioned adultery because he was doing his best friend’s wife, would that spare him from the charge of hypocrisy too? Your argument seems to lead to the kind of moral relativism that social conservatives love to accuse liberals of.
HH: I hope you didn’t read that to mean that the Republican Party is entirely composed of “dim lights.” I consider blowhards like Bennett, Limbaugh, and Tom DeLay to be “dim lights.” Your “brighter lights” include people like Gerald Ford, John McCain, and Bill Buckley.
JKC
Robin: If Bennett had condemned gays, pre-marital sex, and the occasional blow job, but hadn’t mentioned adultery because he was doing his best friend’s wife, would that spare him from the charge of hypocrisy too? Your argument seems to lead to the kind of moral relativism that social conservatives love to accuse liberals of.
HH: I hope you didn’t read that to mean that the Republican Party is entirely composed of “dim lights.” I consider blowhards like Bennett, Limbaugh, and Tom DeLay to be “dim lights.” Your “brighter lights” include people like Gerald Ford, John McCain, and Bill Buckley.
John Cole
Steve- I understand your point, but rejecting Bill Bennett’s attempts to force feed me and others HIS values is hardly nihilism- I believe in plenty of things, chief of which is that I think I am best suited to determine what is right for me.
If Bennett had condemned gays, pre-marital sex, and the occasional blow job, but hadn’t mentioned adultery because he was doing his best friend’s wife, would that spare him from the charge of hypocrisy too?
Ching Ching.
JKC
To amplify what John said: I have no problem with a Jerry Falwell spouting off, even if I disagree with everything he stands for. He’s a preacher, and presumably is preaching the Gospel as he understands it. I have no problem with that: I’m free to follow his advice or ignore it.
But when someone’s moral perspective is wrapped in the power of the State, then there’s a problem. Fundamentalist Christians like to whine about how they’re discriminated against. What if orthodox Jews in NYC used their political clout to ban bacon cheeseburgers? Or if Muslims in Chicago banned dogs? We’d all howl… and rightfully so.
HH
There is such a thing as taking the high road to show that you’re not a “dim bulb” like those you attack… that’s my point. McCain? On foreign policy, maybe. Ford? Not exactly the first name that comes to mind for anything. Buckley? At least he’s on the right side on the “drug war.”
HH
Volokh’s thoughts, as always, are worth a read.
HH
Oops here is the link…
http://volokh.blogspot.com/2003_05_04_volokh_archive.html#200249942
Steve Malynn
JKC, your hypothetical is a straw man – mainstream moral positions regarding gay, premarital and non-reproductive sex are essentially that those conducts are promiscuous, just as adultery is sex outside of vows. Thus the sin is of a kind. Gambling is not seen as the same as drug use by the law or by the majority on whose behalf the law has been legislated.
John, while I agree with you on many things, I fail to see how Bennett has any state authority, and I fail to see him force feeding anything to anyone. Did he enforce law as “drug czar”, yes, and he can be fairly criticized for his conduct of that public office, but his gambling habits have nothing to do with his decade past office, and nothing to do with the virtues he espoused, or sins he condemned. If there is any evidence of avarice or gluttony I have not seen it.
Volokh has it right, as HH posts.
JKC
Steve-
I know a fair number of gays in commited, monogamous relationships, just as I know a fair number of straight people who’ll jump anything of the opposite gender, wedding vows or no.
And if non-reproductive sex makes me guilty of promiscuity, well… guilty as charged. My condolences to your wife.
RHJunior
Dude…
So are you.
Your problem isn’t with Bill Bennett’s “hypocrisy,” it’s with the fact that he’s said things about morality that prick your conscience.
JKC
“Your problem isn’t with Bill Bennett’s “hypocrisy,” it’s with the fact that he’s said things about morality that prick your conscience.”
Hmmm… if that’s aimed at me, your psychic powers aren’t as good as you think they are.
The rector at my church has said things about morality that have pricked my conscience. The rantings of a gluttonous, nicotine-addicted compulsive gambler are good for a laugh, nothing more.
To quote some 2000 year old guy… “Remove the log from your own eye, then worry about the speck in your neighbor’s”
Steve Malynn
JKC, your friends in committed monagamous relationships are to be commended. But you fail, purposefully, to address the point, Bennett’s gambling is not immoral as a matter of the doctrine of the church he attends. Again, point to an attack by Bill Bennett which contradicts his professed morals.
And, when forfeit of any valid argument you fall back on character assination, just as Kinsley, and now Saletan. As Stanley Kurtz points out at NRO, the mainstream in America makes a moral distinction between drugs and gambling, which disctinction is detailed in the laws regarding each. Ignoring the distinction in order to attack Bennett (as a proxy for the next available conservative) smacks more of envy as to Bennett’s ability to afford his vice. Oh, and tobbacco is still legal also.
JKC
Steve-
I certainly don’t mean to indulge in character assasination. I was probably over the top in calling Big Bill as many names as I did. Puritans do that to me…
I think Stan Kurtz makes a moral distinction between gambling and drug use. I’m not sure Americans do. Americans like to gamble, and they like to use drugs. (Most popular drug in the US for recreational use: EtOH, aka alcohol.) Both gambling and drinking are of no risk to society when done carefully and in moderation: a problem with either leads to all sorts of tragedy.
But getting back to Big Bill: one can’t set themselves up as a national Moral Leader and hide behind the dodge of not declaring your own personal vices to be sinful. “Gambling’s not immoral because I never claimed it was immoral” is a circular argument, smacks of moral relativism, and runs contrary to every position Bennett has taken in public life.
Steve Malynn
JKC, thats bull. Josh Marshall points out that Bennett dislikes being portrayed as a “Moral Leader”, he’s specifically set out as a messinger collecting good examples provided by others. As to circular arguments, that point would have weight if there was a consistant datum: that is if in the tradition from which Bennett derives his morals considered gambling sinful. Catholicism does not. Bennett is a professed practicing Catholic, if there is an observation that he has violated Catholic doctrine point it out. That Baptists wish to ban gambling does not mean that a Cathilic Moralist draws the same conclusion. That is Kurtz’ latest argument, that Bennett’s detractors are purposfully ignoring the disctinction: while Bennett is in the mainstream regarding the legality of drinking and gambling, other moralists would draw the line differently. It is valid to argue to convince the majority to come to your view, it is not valid argument to say: that Catholic over there is a hypocrit because he does not act like a Baptist.