Posted on 05/08/2003 4:35:22 AM PDT by kattracks
NOT LONG AGO, liberals claimed that privacy was sacrosanct. Liberals like Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter and magazines such as the hyper-earnest Washington Monthly believed that we should judge a man by his public acts alone.
Well, now it turns out that Alter and The Washington Monthly believe exactly the opposite. In jointly reported articles written for their respective magazines, Alter (Newsweek) and Joshua Green (The Washington Monthly) take the position that what a man does in private is the measure of the man.
It was former education secretary and drug czar Bill Bennett, of all people, who persuaded them to change their position. Unfortunately, it wasn’t anything Bennett said; it was what Bennett did. He got caught gambling — a lot.
The stories allege that Bennett lost up to $8 million at various Las Vegas and Atlantic City casinos over a decade. Bennett disputes this, arguing that the authors don’t count how much he’s won over the years. But any way you slice it, the man gambled too much and has admitted as much in a public statement.
What I find so interesting is the glee — literal glee — from liberals who believe this is Bennett’s comeuppance. Usually, journalists defend prying into the privacy of public figures by citing illegality, lying, cheating, hypocrisy or the unfair victimization of an innocent party.
But in this case, no one has charged Bennett with breaking the law. He’s never lied. In fact, Time magazine reported on his gambling seven years ago, and many other outlets have reported on it since. Bennett never denied it. He’s in debt to no one, cheated no one and only his family could remotely claim to be a victim of Bennett’s gambling, though something tells me that the gleeful liberals aren’t particularly concerned about the Bennett kids’ inheritance.
As for hypocrisy, the articles don’t mention it. But defenders of the newsitorials claim it’s implied because he moralized about other people’s private behavior, even if he never moralized about gambling. They say that even though the Catholic church, to which Bennett belongs, doesn’t have a problem with gambling, Bennett’s still a hypocrite for indulging a vice.
This is all nonsense. First of all, I wish people would stop singling Bennett out as a moralizer. Look up the word. Moralizers are people who talk about morality. If you think liberals don’t do that, you’re not reading the newspaper.
Second, if you don’t consider a certain behavior a vice, you’re not a hypocrite for indulging in that behavior. You might be a sinner or even a criminal, but you aren’t a hypocrite. If I think murder is fine and then I kill someone, I’d be guilty of homicide but not hypocrisy.
If Bennett were a Baptist, he’d probably be a hypocrite for gambling. But he’s not a Baptist. He explains that he sees gambling like alcohol: If you abuse it, you have a problem, but just taking a sip — or pulling a lever — isn’t a big deal.
More to the point, no one has been able to explain why it would matter very much if he were a compulsive gambler or a hypocrite. Would he now be wrong about the perils of drug use? Does it mean he’s wrong about the war on terror? Are “Aesop’s Fables” — which appear in Bennett’s “The Book of Virtues” — now meaningless?
If he’s a compulsive gambler does that mean he was wrong to criticize President Clinton for perjury? When you think about it, hypocrisy — unconnected to other sins like larceny or corruption — may be one of the most annoying peccadilloes, but it’s also one of the least serious ones. I’ve always believed that.
But the liberals haven’t.
In his article, Green unfavorably compares Bennett to Bill Clinton during impeachment. Bennett gambled, which is legal in one form or another in nearly every state of the union. I see billboards for lotteries all the time. I’ve never seen one say, “Live the Dream: Get Jiggy With Your Interns.”
Moreover, Bennett’s not the President of the United States. He never promised the American people in a “60 Minutes” interview or anywhere else that he would never gamble again, the way Bill Clinton swore his infidelities were in the past.
Clinton stood plausibly accused of everything from sexual harassment and perjury to rape, brazen public deception and rank hypocrisy. And yet, The Washington Monthly and Jonathan Alter denounced any and all intrusions into Clinton’s private behavior as politically motivated, unfair, unjust and indefensible. But when they do it to Bill Bennett, it’s time for glee.
Maybe Bennett’s a hypocrite, maybe he’s not. But there’s no doubt about the hypocrisy of the liberals cheering as Bennett squirms.
Jonah Goldberg is the editor of National Review Online which is available at www.nationalreview.com.
The Left's mission is to devalue Bennett's message about virtue and how to live decently. It has no other tools for this effort except casting aspersions at the man himself -- because Bennett's message is a sound one.
I don't agree with the coercive aspects of Bennett's politics, but I respect the man, especially for admitting that he has a weakness. For the Leftist jackals of the Old Media who seek to ruin his reputation and besmirch his message, which is as timeless as the words of Christ, my contempt has only deepened.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
Jonah: please don't ever use this expression again. Thanks.
(kattracks, I realize ur not Jonah. Or are you..)
But Empower America, Bennett's organization, has taken a stand against legalized gambling in several states. And it's a bit of a stretch to call the wagering of $8 million just "pulling a lever".
If he's a compulsive gambler does that mean he was wrong to criticize President Clinton for perjury?
Bennett not only criticized Clinton for perjury, he criticized him for having an affair with ML. Having an extra-marital affair, just like gambling, is legal--distasteful, but legal.
When you think about it, hypocrisy unconnected to other sins like larceny or corruption may be one of the most annoying peccadilloes, but it?s also one of the least serious ones. I've always believed that.
Then I'd expect Goldberg to refrain from criticizing Democrats for being hypocrites from now on.
Having an extramarital affair with a subordinate when you're both in government jobs is not legal.
Then why was this charge not one of the Articles of Impeachment?
The true hypocrisy is attributable to the morally bankrupt left, who gnash their teeth at the mere hint of morality, but have now endorsed morality because it serves their purposes.
Even if you consider gambling a vice, as I do, it is on the level of drinking or smoking, not prostitution. Surely, our willow spined Republicans who have turned on Mr. Bennett aren't suggesting that you can't promote morality for society if you drink or smoke?
The moral, sodomite baby murderers on the left would love to limit public discourse on morality to the level of depravity in which they reside. Bashing Bennett, though allegedly you are of the same political party, places you even lower than the scum who originated this attack. Enjoy.
The left constantly attack morality that shines from religion from the cover of their godless darkness. We can't moralize because we are imposing our "religion" on others. Yet, because their god is not so easily identified, they can impose their "amorality" on us. This attack on Bennett is just another variation on their overall war against God, religion and freedom.
Exactly. It is the left that is paying that compliment in their convenient, subtle endorsement of the virtues that they are normally loathe to acknowledge. However, they have resurrected morality to serve their evil purposes...hypocrisy.
I have no idea. What I do know is that there are federal statutes against what Clinton did. They were posted here on FR at the time.
At every turn, call them the EVIL BASTARDS they are, and make them pay dearly.
Do not play pious wimp while the thugs trash your home.
NEVER NEGOTIATE WITH EVIL. KILL IT.
Do you think that the Articles of Impeachment were the extent of X42's crimes? They were just those that the House thought were a slam dunk conviction.
hyp•o•crite
Pronunciation: (hip'u-krit),
—n.
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
I guess this all hinges on your view on the morality of gambling. I don't have a problem with gambling, neither does Bennett's religion. I see nothing hypocritical here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.