Could Bennett's gambling carry a message about, um, gambling?

I was away from the office, indulging a slavish addiction to yard work (not, I hasten to add, my only bad habit), when news broke about William Bennett's overgrown taste for gambling. I can't resist reacting to some of the predictable reaction Bennett's embarrassment has inspired.

A good example came from the Chicago Tribune. Noting that Bennett, the high-profile "moral crusader" and author of "The Book of Virtues," will inevitably be diminished by revelations that he has "lost some $8 million in high-stakes gambling over a decade," the Tribune editorial page mused that if damage occurs "it won't be because (Bennett) had a weakness for gambling. No, Bennett is far more vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy."

Syndicated columnist Richard Roeper strummed the same chord by rhetorically asking Bennett: "[H]ow can you rant against other destructive habits when you can't control your own?"

The Minneapolis-based Star Tribune, saying it would "refrain from harsh words," offered a suggestion: "You (Bennett) conduct your life. Let us conduct ours."

What we have here is the reflexive modern response whenever people who have dared to uphold principles of personal morality are found to have personal weaknesses. That response is to demand, not that the wayward sin no more, but that they moralize no more.

We moderns are positively eager to forgive vice. It is standards we find intolerable.

It doesn't much matter whether Bill Bennett's franchise as a virtue promoter is devalued. But there is danger in the contemporary notion that moral hypocrisy is the worst of all vices, to be avoided even if it means no one speaks up for virtue at all.

A distinction needs to be made between (1) "hypocrisy" in the sense of promoting values one truly does not really believe in, and (2) "hypocrisy" in the sense of simply being unable to live up to standards one believes in.

This second sort of "hypocrisy" — falling short of an ideal one aspires to — is nothing more nor less than the human condition, or anyhow the condition of a human being who has private ideals.

There seems to be an unspoken rule in modern life that no one is qualified to proclaim the beauty and importance of private virtue — or, if you like, to "rant against destructive habits" — who is not personally free from all such failings. Of course, this means that no one is qualified to uphold moral aspirations — which may suit modern liberationist leanings just fine.

The healthier view, surely, is that we should all be "hypocrites" of this kind. We should all be aspiring to, and acknowledging, standards of virtue that are, at the moment, beyond our strength — just as the math student strives to solve problems that currently confound her, and just as the body builder seeks to lift a weight that yesterday he found too heavy.

All this said, I am quite willing to criticize Bennett. But I'm inclined to find fault with his prodigal gambling, not his genteel moral crusades.

Gambling, perhaps I should note, is just about the only harmful habit-forming behavior I have difficulty understanding. It's particularly baffling in Bennett's case.

What's troubling about Bennett's having squandered $8 million on slot machines is that doing so was surpassingly stupid in every way — and not least because of the risk Bennett ran of eventually being exposed and disgraced. Why would a tolerably intelligent man do such a thing?

What's more, Bennett claims that losing a true fortune gambling has not put his family at risk — that it is financially unimportant. This leaves one wondering: Where's the thrill?

If a man is so rich that losing millions doesn't matter, what is the excitement in gambling, especially on slot machines, where little challenge or glamour is involved?

This little-noted mystery speaks, no doubt, to the powerful addictive pathology of gambling. Apparently, gambling's hypnotic force can even enslave a person who has every reason to resist it and no rational motive for finding the slots alluring.

Maybe Bennett, oddly enough, is teaching another ethical lesson here, through the eloquence of his very weakness. Maybe the moral of this story is that commercial gambling is a cruelly exploitive enterprise of frightening power. What's certain is that it victimizes many people, who, unlike Bennett, cannot afford their losses.

Perhaps American society should reconsider the choices it has made about gambling in recent decades. That might be an even braver response to Bennett's story than relishing his humiliation.

Just when we thought there as nothing more to say about the Bennett gambling story....here comes a fresh take on the subject.

Very interesting. I agree with darn near everything the author wrote.

You know I agree too!

My problem with Bennett was not so that he touted high standards or morality and virtue, but that he did it in a condescending way. He wagged a finger (figuratively), just as a president wagged (actuallly)a finger at us when explaining his not having sexual....well you know.

Bill was never one to say "well we all have our failings", but more to the we have all failed and I have found the way. He was like a preacher who cried from the pulpit that theft was bad, and yet counted the collection himself and skimmed some from the top.

We should all encourage a higher example. We should all strive for it ourselves. Actually, that is our failing as well as Bennett's.

We love to wag a finger at everyone but ourself. The failings are everyone elses fault. If only you would clean up your act, more world would be better. Sometimes the finger needs pointed at ourselves. Bennett should have done the same.

This leaves one wondering: Where's the thrill?

Casinos like to indulge their big ~~customers~~suckers. It may be that Mr. Bennet liked the attention and level of service the casinos gave him. It probably "feels" different to be "given" a very luxurious hotel suite than to simply rent one, even if the latter option would be cheaper.

Solidarity for Bennett!

"Hey, Arlen, whazzzup?"

"Orrin, good to see ya. How are you enjoying Atlantic City so far?"

"It's great, man. This idea of conservatives giving more than lip service to Bill Bennett is a blast. Can you believe it? Half the Senate is here gambling millions in a show of solidarity."

"Well, Arlen, I think it was a stroke of genius, but it wasn't me who thought of it. I got the idea from Carville, actually."

"You gotta be kidding me."

"No, not at all. See that long line over there?"

"Yeah."

"That leads into Monica Lewinsky's room The Democrats are showing loyalty to Clinton."
____________________________________

My problem with Bennett was not so that he touted high standards or morality and virtue, but that he did it in a condescending way.

I think this is particularly true when it came to his opinions on substance abuse. I am thinking the Drug Czar has no clothes.

Apparently, gambling's hypnotic force can even enslave a person who has every reason to resist it and no rational motive for finding the slots alluring.

This angle has bothered me from the begining. It seems to be assumed that this is a "problem" with Bennet. Maybe it is, he has not given any indication one way or the other. My guess has always been more along the lines of what you said -

Casinos like to indulge their big customerssuckers. It may be that Mr. Bennet liked the attention and level of service the casinos gave him. It probably "feels" different to be "given" a very luxurious hotel suite than to simply rent one, even if the latter option would be cheaper.

It's kind of like going to a Go-Go bar, the bottom line is that you are paying top dollar for pretty girls to treat you nice. For most people neither one is a "problem", just some harmless fun.

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.