TheAgitator.com
Why Bennett Is News
Sunday, May 4th, 2003“We should know that too much of anything, even a good thing, may prove to be our undoing…[We] need … to set definite boundaries on our appetites.”
–The Book of Virtues, by William J. Bennett
Conservatives and rightist bloggers are trying to blow off the Bennett storm, claiming that “he never said gambling was bad,” or, “so what? gambling is legal where he gambled, so he’s not a hypocrite.”
William Bennett made himself a millionaire by clicking his tongue at the way the rest of us lead our lives. For $50,000, he’ll give a speech in which he’ll excoriate marijuana users, homosexuals, unwed mothers and other infidels for the poor choices they make. He embraces and champions the “Morality Czar” title the media has crowned on him. Therefore, he is an example.
And he is a raving hypocrite.
Bennett doesn’t get to duck the hypocrite label simply because gambling isn’t among the list of vices Williiam Bennett regularly scolds the rest of us for harboring — especially since the only reason it never made that list is because it’s the one vice William Bennett himself indulges.
Bennett decries the way drugs have devastated our communities (of course, most of the damage they’ve done, they’ve done preciesly because of policies Bennett embraces, and enforced as Drug Czar), and the way loosened attitudes toward sex have “unraveled our moral fabric” or some other such nonsensical metaphor.
Yet I’d submit that of all the victimless acts we’ve decided to pass laws against, gambling is one of the worst in terms of what it does to the people who choose to undertake it. Walk into a 7-11 in a low-income neighborhood and count how many poor people are in line for lottery tickets. Take a look at how much they spend when the jackpot rolls over to eight or nine figures. Or, take three steps off the Atlantic City boardwalk and observe the grime high-rollers like Bennett step over on their way to the casinos.
I’m a libertarian, so I’m opposed to laws against any activitiy that doesn’t take unwilling victims, including gambling. But if Bennett’s going to lecture us about the detrimental effects drugs and sex and rap music and video games have society, he’s a fool and a liar by omission to ignore the damage gambling does. His own organization published a study documenting that damage.
America’s self-appointed moral paradigm lectures inner city folk about the dangers of drugs, alcohol and extra-marital sex for $50,000 a pop, then blows that take on $500/pull slot machines, high stakes poker tables, pisses away $1.4 million in eight weeks, and we’re supposed to give him a pass because “he never said gambling was bad?”
Should the man who takes it upon himself to point out the bad decisions the rest of us are making really be able to tuck away a couple of vices for himself without scrutiny?
Bennett’s responses in the article are striking, both in that they reveal an addict in denial, and in the message they send to any unfortunate soul who ever took Bennett seriously as a moral compass:
“I play fairly high stakes. I adhere to the law. I don’t play the ‘milk money.’ I don’t put my family at risk, and I don’t owe anyone anything.” The documents offer no reason to contradict Bennett on these points. Bennett claims he’s beaten the odds: “Over 10 years, I’d say I’ve come out pretty close to even.”“You can roll up and down a lot in one day, as we have on many occasions,” Bennett explains. “You may cycle several hundred thousand dollars in an evening and net out only a few thousand….
“”You don’t see what I walk away with,” Bennett says. “They [casinos] don’t want you to see it.”
So if you’re poor, remember: “cylcling” hundreds of thousands of dollars in one night is fine, I guess, so long as you come out even — or, better, ahead — in the end. And Bennett wins regularly, so so can you! Keep hope alive! Gamble! It’s your ticket out of the ghetto!
Or does he?
But the documents show only a few occasions when he turns in chips worth $30,000 or $40,000 at the end of an evening. Most of the time, he draws down his line of credit, often substantially. A casino source, hearing of Bennett’s claim to breaking even on slots over 10 years, just laughed….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. “There’s a term in the trade for this kind of gambler,” says a casino source who has witnessed Bennett at the high-limit slots in the wee hours. “We call them losers.”
This quote is my favorite:
“I’ve made a lot of money [in book sales, speaking fees and other business ventures] and I’ve won a lot of money,” adds Bennett.
So in justifiying his high-rollin’ lifestyle, Bennett simply says “I’m allowed to gamble, because I’m rich.” And, of course, he’s rich because he’s made himself the chief spokesperson for vice and virtue in America. Bennett’s formula: get rich lecturing people about the poor decisions they make in their lives. Spend that money making the kinds of decisions that, if regular people made them, would make their lives even worse. When questioned, answer that your moral perch remains strurdy and unshaken, thankyouverymuch, because you’ve made lots of money telling people how to make decisions, so you can afford to make bad decisions yourself.
A fine lesson in circular self-validation.
More hypocrisy:
Despite his personal appetites, Bennett and his organization, Empower America, oppose the extension of casino gambling in the states. In a recent editorial, his Empower America co-chair Jack Kemp inveighed against lawmakers who “pollute our society with a slot machine on every corner.” The group recently published an Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, with an introduction written by Bennett, that reports 5.5 million American adults as “problem” or “pathological” gamblers. Bennett says he is neither because his habit does not disrupt his family life.When reminded of studies that link heavy gambling to divorce, bankruptcy, domestic abuse, and other family problems he has widely decried, Bennett compared the situation to alcohol.
“I view it as drinking,” Bennett says. “If you can’t handle it, don’t do it.”
Wow! Sounds like a pretty libertarian approach to public policy, Czar Bennett. Why not apply that same philosophy to, say, drug laws and sex laws, too?
Obviously, Bennett wasn’t much of an authority on matters moral in my book before all of this happened. But I don’t see how anyone can any longer put any credibility in him when it comes to making claims about what effects a particular victimless crime has on communities, or on “our society.”
You can’t on the one hand call for state action to save people from themselves when it comes to vices you don’t engage in, but then call for individual responsibility and restraint on those vices you yourself happen to enjoy. Well, I guess you can — Bennett does — but you can’t make both claims without looking foolish and leaving yourself empty of all credibility.
So c’mon conservatives….where’s the outrage?
UPDATE: Michael Kinsley has the best take I’ve read yet. Josh Marshall’s is good too, particularly this line about Larry King:
People end up calling him a ‘virtuecrat,’ a ‘culture warrior,’ ‘morality-watchdog’ or as Larry King naively but naively-aptly calls him, ‘Mr.Morality.” (Bennett always rankles at this, though Larry never seems to understand why. It’s a perfect example of Larry’s idiot-savantism, which leads him to get some things blisteringly right without quite seeming to know it.)
As apt a description of King’s charms as any I’ve read.
is this what they call a “fisking”? well done. beautiful. funny. no more to say.
Agreed. Well said.
In other news, I cannot comment on your site using Mozilla, my browser of choice, because the comments pop-up window does not have scroll bars. Presumably, it does this to Netscape and Phoenix as well. Works fine in IE 6. Just so ya know.
Lane–
I’ve complained about this too. I don’t think I’ve come across any other web site with this problem. Just so you know, though, the ‘page up’ and ‘page down’ keys work inside the comments window.
Radley writes, “Obviously, Bennett wasn’t much of an authority on matters moral in my book before all of this happened.”
If he would have put this at the top of the post, he would have saved my and his time. Radley doesn’t really care about Bennett’s gambling. He just hates anyone who says out loud that other people’s actions aren’t good. He’s can’t stand people who loudly declare what they think to be right or wrong. If you don’t agree with Bennett’s moral crusade just ignore him.
I would probably like Mr. Bennett’s views on social issues.
However, he is a neoconservative, so I would have a big problem with his views on war, foreign policy, and the state.
>And he is a raving hypocrite
Look, I’ve never had much use for our former Drug Czar either, and maybe this recent flap counts as karmic payback for his silliness on drugs, etc. But… show me a man who isn’t a hypocrite and, odds are, I’ll show you a monster. I think Radley understands this, thus the “raging” adjective.
Bennett’s response to this flap doesn’t strike me as either unreasoned or wildly wrong. Yes, it may annoy some people that he makes the rich/poor distinction, but so what? Is he wrong? Often, what would be destructive to the poor (e.g. playing $500 slots) is much more easily absorbed by the deep pockets of the rich.
Er, I meant “raving,” I really did…
Where does he get his morals from? I assume it is a Christianity thing, right? If not please forgive my post, but to paraphrase scripture, “why call attention to a speck in your brothers eye without first removing the plank which is in yours. The way I see it, if a person has any vices, albeit just one, he/she has no right to critique or damn another man’s vice. Some more scripture “let he without sin cast the first stone”. I know not too many people who post here give too much to religion, but as for me I get much peace in my life from my beliefs in Christianity. But the present state of affairs really scares me, I feel we are close to living in a country which a radical view of Christianity is the way our gov’t forms its laws and social norms. And I attribute this to a lack of seperation of church and state,ie religious special interest groups who do give money to candidates as well as endorse candidates. Being a Christian I find it hard to say that the USA could ever be morally scrupulous. To truly follow our values of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, we can not allow biblical morals to be instilled into our laws and way of thinking. Coming from a Christian I know this probably sounds ludacris, but I believe God gave all men “free will” meaning we all have a personal choice to follow his laws or not. It’s not up to our gov’t to tell us we should act or be a certain way. It’s up to each individual to decide what is in his/her heart. Sorry for the rant, but I get sick and tired of the religious right and their quest for a perfect Christian society. It will never happen and it in return ends up hurting more people through the financial distruction of imprisonment. What I put in my body and how I worship is no business of the gov’t. I must shut up now, I could go on forever. Please note however, these worldly men do not speak for all Christians even though they try to invoke our beliefs.
To tie that post into the article more, the bible says making money off another man’s loss is wrong. So if he is coming from a religous stance, he is nothing but a hypocrite.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I don’t quote that phrase because it does not belong to any one person. It belongs to all people.
This Bennett flap is way out of control. He is a private citizen persuing his own happiness at no one else’s expense. If you don’t like his books, don’t read them. If you don’t like his lectures, don’t listen to them.
Like any other industry, casinos are based on profit and loss. You win some and you lose some. Would you be so outraged if Bennett sat down at a friendly card table once a week among friends?
Man up, Radley. You’re stooping to the level of personal attack to further your ideology, and it is transparent. That is the tactic of liberals, of late, and it doesn’t become you.
You are, of course, entitled to express your opinion, and please keep doing so. It inspires further debate which is the linch pin of a free society.
Don’t think that I am some rabid Bennett fan. I am not. When I first heard the story, I was a bit disgusted. However, it’s his money to burn (or redistribute depending on how you look at it).
Anyway, I believe that this media hype over Bennett’s personal proclivities is unjust - a witch hunt, if you will.
Will
This is ironic… people are chastising Radley for giving Bennett a taste of precisely what he himself has built his career on. I say live by the sword, die by the sword.
It is not illegal to gamble in AC or Vegas…but then again it is not illegal to be a single parent, it is not illegal to have an abortion early in pregnancy, it is not illegal to fall in love with a person of the same sex.
If Bennett wants to comment on other people who make personal choices, its only to be expected that he should feel the heat of others.
If you folks don’t want to criticize Bennett for being a hypocrite on gambling, then how about the fact that he’s a f***ing liar. And an idiot. When asked about how much he’s lost he says he’s about even.
Yeah, right.
He “gambles” his money at high stakes slot machines and video poker. It is not only unlikely that that he would be even over the span of 10 years playing the stakes he does…. it is absolutely impossible. The percentage varies, but over the long term the casino will take anywhere from 1.5% to 15% of a gamblers money, more if you jump machines a lot. Those things aren’t “games of chance” for the casino.
Throughout this entire issue I have been haunted by one thought:
In order to criticize someone else’s behavior, must one have NO faults/vices/sins of their own? That’s the position most seem to be taking, and the notion frightens me.
Since we all have some issues in our past, I suppose none of us can criticize anyone for anything anymore.
As for Bennett, I am uncomfortable with some of his opinions, particularly regarding drugs, and I don’t care ONE BIT about his gambling habit, particularly if it is victimless (besides himself, of course). Frankly, I think the issue is grossly overblown. If you don’t like what he is saying, stop listening. That’s what I’ve chosen to do and it’s working nicely.
“So in justifying his high-rollin’ lifestyle, Bennett simply says “I’m allowed to gamble, because I’m rich.”"
Since he’s rich he can apparently wager a lot of money and not jeopardize the other things he wants to do with his life. No evidence has been offered to the contrary.
“And, of course, he’s rich because he’s made himself the chief spokesperson for vice and virtue in America.”
Um, how does one do that Radley? Can you do it? Were people snapping up his books because they thought he was a saint? He got rich off his writing by trading value for value and I fail to see how his gambling, or even hypocrisy, invalidates that.
Martin Luther King was a public moralizer. Do you dismiss him because he was a philanderer and a plagiarist? Unlike Bennett’s case, King’s vices weren’t victimless.
Gambling is not an offense against anyone. Moralizing is not an offense against anyone. Hypocrisy is not an offense against anyone. You’re mostly complaining about the wrong things.
Frank N: “If Bennett wants to comment on other people who make personal choices, its only to be expected that he should feel the heat of others.”
Yeah, it would be fine for Radley to say it was immoral for Bennett to gamble if that was what Radley thought. But that’s not what Radley thinks.
What’s odd is how much criticism Bennett’s getting from people who presumably think his gambling is his business.
Bennett is guilty of real offenses, none of which would be ameliorated if he abstained from gambling.
William Bennett
I’ve avoided the William Bennett story for a few days now mainly because I didn’t consider it to be news.
This column is a must-read on the subject.
A distinction that seems to be lost on some people commenting here is that Bill Bennett has been and will probably continue to be in a position to force his opinions on other people using the coercive power of government.
Sean Hackbarth, Roger, Will, I would love nothing more than to be able to ignore Bill Bennett’s moralizing, but some of it already codified into the law of the land. As John T. Kennedy pointed out on No Treason!, *that* is Bennett’s crime. The issue is *not* that Bennett gambled, and Radley never claimed it was. Jeez, did you people even read the post?
I’m FOR his gambling! I’m against everything else he does.
The other reason Bennett should be savaged over this is that he’s made a fortune from standing around and pontificating that there’s a direct link between someone’s private vice(s) and their fitness for public life — see e.g. his work on Clinton. If you want to be harshly judgemental on others’ private lives, don’t be surprised if your own life gets examined. I’m sure there’s a bunch of Christian bible quotes that probably sum this up pretty clearly.
“Drinking to excess is harmful. It can cost you your job, your marraige, and your health. One should not drink to excess.” There: I said it.
I also take an drink occasional drink. Does this make me a hypocrite? I don’t think so. Now, in anticipation of the next retort…
Do you think all alcohol counselors need to be teetotalers? What do they make their livings doing?
If you can’t grasp the difference between doing something occasionally and benignly, and doing something excessively and self-destructively, you need to get a grip.
This flap about Bennett is a silly.
Oh and by the way, what’s excessive for me, may not be for you.
Great piece
David says: “Oh and by the way, what’s excessive for me, may not be for you.”
That’s exactly the point, David….
I think Norm missed my point. I said “excessive FOR me”- not “excessive TO me”. I was not talking about my opinion; I was in reference to objectively excessive and self-destructive behavior. What constitutes that varies from individual to individual. To disparage Bennett for behavior that clearly was not destructive for him, just because it would be for you, smacks of class-envy of the worst kind.
Let me elucidate
While I’m not sure I completely agree with the ability of everyone to self-regulate (considering that 90% of the population are complete idiots), I will give you the claim that you can determine what is right for you. I feel the same about myself, although it would be imprudent for me not to question or analyze my own ability to do so. That is not the point I take to task. The point is that if you allow yourself to be responsible for self-regulation, you must allow all citizens that ability. The problem arises, as you said, when an individual decides for another what that individual is or is not capable of. To simplify, while *you* may be saying “excessive FOR me”, Bennett (and every other agent of the moral majority) is saying “excessive FOR me” when it comes to themselves *AND* “excessive TO me” when it comes to the rest of us non-lobbying taxpaying bastards.
Am I way off base or missing the point here?
No, I think we’re on the same page here. I too abhor the do-as-I-say, not-as-I do, self-righteous, Oral Majority idiots as much as the Womb-to-the-Tombers on the other side. I also agree that self-regulation of personal behavior is an essential component of freedom, (the fact that 90% of the population is incapable of it, notwithstanding). My thesis is that beyond some point, certain behavior is objectively self-destructive. (That is not to say that I think it should be illegal- I don’t, necessarily). I just have no problem with Bennett opining on what some of those behaviors might be, and then practicing those same behaviors at some sub-critical (for him) level.
As far as lobbying for certain ideas is concerned, all I can say is that WE, (Norm and David), don’t do it enough!
It seems clear that Green was intentionally misleading people by reporting that Bennett had lost $8 million, he says the net losses may be $1 million over 10 years.
$100K a year.
Bennett makes that much in two hours on the lecture circuit. Would you say your buddy had a problem if it took him two hours a of work a year to cover his gambling expenses?
http://www.no-treason.com/comments.php?id=P330_0_1_0
great page…im sure i’ll come back…best regards
カジノ
GREAT WEBSITE!!!! I spent the whole afternoon and part of an evening on here.There is just so much interesting stuff that you can’t tear yourself away.I appreciate all the hard work that goes in to making a site this good.
Online Casino reviews at 777 Online Casinos