The Man of Virtues Has a Vice (Bill Bennett gambles)

Newsweek ^ | 1/2/03 | Jonathan Alter and Joshua Green

[Callahan]

May 2 — In his best-selling anthology, “The Book of Virtues,” William J. Bennett writes: “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.”

DOES BENNETT? The popular author, lecturer and Republican Party activist speaks out, often indignantly, about almost every moral issue except one-gambling. It’s not hard to see why. According to casino documents, Bennett is a “preferred customer” in at least four venues in Atlantic City and Las Vegas, betting millions of dollars over the last decade. His games of choice: video poker and slot machines, some at $500 a pull. With a revolving line of credit of at least $200,000 at each casino, Bennett, former drug czar and Secretary of Education under Presidents Reagan and Bush, doesn’t have to bring money when he shows up at a casino.

(link for full article)

[zoyd]

And just who gets to decide what is a good use for my money? You are sounding very much like a liberal troll, my friend. If it is my money, it is up to me to decide how I want to spend it. If I choose to build a bonfire with it, that is up to me.

No offense, but I really don't think you understand the point I'm making. If you don't 'get the funny' that Bill Bennett is America's Moralist Number One, and would tell you what is moral and what is not all day long, then you just don't get the punchline.

[george wythe]

I'm confused. I don't see where his personal gambling hobby was a sin to others. I don't recall him telling others not to gamble

If you think that a compulsory gambler is a good example of a "conservative Christian," there is little I can do to help with your confusion.

[Kahuna]

Yes and sorry, I was implying that the return percentage is over millions of spins. A random generator number in the chip determines the win/loss for each spin. You are also right that playing $300 a pop dramatically raises the casino hold.
Statistically, video poker would be a much better play for a skilled gambler using his loyalty card and taking advantage of comps.

[Warhead W-88]

Well, you should try Bridge again. There is a gambling aspect to it, and, when you're actually playing a hand, it is NOT cooperative; it is you alone against your two opponents.

Stuff like doubling and redoubling can make a hand pretty interesting, gambling-wise-- even if you're just playing for points, you still "gamble" when you double and redouble.

[Warhead W-88]

I mean, if you like the "stare down" aspect of poker, it's lots of fun in Bridge when an opponent says "Double" and you stare right back at him and say "Re-Double."

[discostu]

Yes and no. I think morality is superior to the laws and it is our duty as a society to make laws moral and also to understand which parts of morality are best enforced without laws (I'm a big proponent of bringing back shame and ridicule as a punishment and getting rid of lots of laws for things that should be handled more informally). But, all that being said laws are important to the health of a society and willful disregard for laws is bad because it quickly translates to willful disregard for our less formal societal rules (the ones we should be enforcing with shame and ridicule). IMHO drug laws are stupid and should go away, this isn't the kind of thing best handled by laws it's best handled by shame and ridicule; but it's the law of the land and the vast percentage of America that disregards those laws help contribute to a general lawlessness and a society that doesn't respect the rules or each other (pot kettle confession, I've never met a speed limit I couldn't blow away).

Your example would seem to be a closed loop, but it really isn't. Where did he get those seeds? What happens when he runs out? What happens when he has too much? Any paraphenalia? There aren't many closed loops in the world.

While it is against the law it is immoral to do drugs. We must also ask whether risking long term imprisonment for "fun" can truly be considered non-addictive non-destructive behavior. Now the root of the immorality is that we've gone out of control with idiotic nanny state laws, but nobody is putting much effort into controlling that particular set of immoral behavior.

[Ichneumon]

Who sodomized 'em? I thought Bill C. was into oral not anal.

In some views oral sex is itself sodomy, as can be the insertion of, um, foreign objects.

Cigar, anyone?

[MississippiMan]

I don't see what the big deal is...it's legal and he can afford it. So what?

First, he's a Republican, so he's a natural target for every member of the mainstream media. Tack on the fact that he has been one of the leading proponents of old-fashioned morals and values over the past decade or so, often criticizing (rightfully so) a society whose moral fabric is unraveling more by the day. With all that in mind, you don't see the problem in slots at $500 a pull?

When you put yourself out there as a champion of the things that he has, you better keep your nose TOTALLY clean. And I hate to tell you, but habitual gambling isn't considered clean by most folks. And if he's a high-roller at that many casinos, rest assured he has a habit.

MM

[discostu]

I might. I'm sure I could find a bridge club around here somewhere. They're probably at the casino though ;)

[zoyd]

Feeding an addiction is immoral, having some legal non-exploitive fun once in a while is not immoral. That's my point. He's not hurting anybody in anyway including himself therefore it is NOT immoral.

We agree in principle here, I think, on a lot of this, but my point in in reference to Bennett's view of morality, Bennett's beliefs about 'what hurts somebody'. Bennett has a very BROAD view of harm when it comes to 'vices' he doesn't indulge in. As Drug Czar, as the compiler of 'Virtues', as a bobbing head on tv anytime a moral topic comes up. It's just that his BROAD view of morality (broader than yours or mine, it sounds like) gets mighty narrow when it comes to the vice of gambling.

True, HIS losses aren't ruining someone else's family, but then again, John Doe's coke use isn't ruining my family either. But Bennett would argue that Doe IS a harm to EVERYONE, to SOCIETY, and that IF YOU INDULGE IN BEHAVIORS LIKE JOHN DOE, THEN YOU ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE PROBLEM. Now, I don't particuarly subscribe to that belief, because I think that if you want to smoke a joint and watch the Simpsons after dinner, then you shouldn't risk jail for it. But that's not Bennett's position. And, in this instance, it's had the effect of turning Bennett-liking, moralistic folk into instant libertarians, arguing for personal freedom and the ability to have a vice so long as 'it doesn't hurt anyone'. I just find that ironic.

[realpatriot71]

I may not always agree with Bennett either, but come on!, who doesn't like to shoot some craps every once in awhile

[sinkspur]

Mr. Morality doesn't seem to examine his own vices and habits as critically as he does your vices and my vices.

Gambling is a "vice" only if it consumes your entire life and harms yourself or your family. Clearly it's not doing that.

I like Bill Bennett, but I don't take my moral direction from him. Do you?

[Ichneumon]

I read this, at first, as "gambling on sex before marriage."

Reminds me of an unintentionally funny line from a woman I know. She was reflecting on the several times she had had unprotected sex when she was young, but had managed not to become pregnant. Without meaning to pun, she said, "I guess I was just f***ing lucky".

[aruanan]

The only important questions here are: 1. Is it his own money? 2. Does he pay his debts?

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

I would love to hear a valid explanation of what makes gambling worse than anything else that money is spent on that exceeds life's bare necessities.

If I pay my bills; pay my taxes; give to church or charity, but still manage to tuck away a few thousand dollars for leisure, what difference does it make if I take a cruise or go to Vegas? It is money spent for recreation and nothing else unless I cross some line of morality.

While excessive gambling can certainly become problematic, so can a zillion other things done in excess.

The amount of money spent for recreation is also relative. Two hundred grand to Bennett is likely equivalent to two thousand (or less) for most uf us.

My gosh, they search and search to find any morsel, don't they?

[Stone Mountain]

Your example would seem to be a closed loop, but it really isn't. Where did he get those seeds? What happens when he runs out? What happens when he has too much? Any paraphenalia? There aren't many closed loops in the world.

Marijuana can be cloned quite easily. It is true that for the first plant, the seeds or plant would have had to be obtained somewhere, but all additional crops can bepropagated from that original. I take your point that true ideal cases like the one I proposed are difficult and if you look hard enough, there will be few closed loops. Still, in California, there are clubs where users can obtain plants or seeds legally (as far as CA is concerned) and grow their own crops.

While it is against the law it is immoral to do drugs.

So is it moral for a medicinal grower in California to do drugs? (Legal state-wise, illegal federal)

[Stone Mountain]

And, in this instance, it's had the effect of turning Bennett-liking, moralistic folk into instant libertarians, arguing for personal freedom and the ability to have a vice so long as 'it doesn't hurt anyone'. I just find that ironic.

Of yeah. This has been my favorite part of this whole discussion by far! Hilarious! : )

[zoyd]

Gambling is a "vice" only if it consumes your entire life and harms yourself or your family.

Recreational drug use is not a vice? Prostitution is not a vice? So, if you like picking up hookers once every couople months, but it's not harming yourself or your family, it's not a vice?

Interesting definition. Are you a libertarian? I think our conceptions of a 'vice' are different. Drinking alcohol is a vice, but millions of people do so without any harmful repercussions. Smoking even one joint is a vice, even though it will have absolutely no effect on your family or you. I'm not picking a fight -- I honestly think our defs of 'vice' differ.

Again, judging from Empower America's work against gambling, and finding no pro-gambling stories in 'Virtues', I just honestly think that if Bennett didn't have a love of gambling, he wouldn't hesitate for a minute to call gambling a vice, and something harmful to the family. One only need point to the loser gamblers who've lost their life savings in pursuit of a 'rush' in order to cement the idea that gambling has addictive qualitites as destructive as many 'illegal' drugs.

[ClassicConservative]

I don't see what the big deal is...it's legal and he can afford it. So what?

Gee, when did the issue of "legal" excuse a moral stance? If gambling is inherently immoral, then the issue of legality is moot.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Recreational drug use is not a vice? Prostitution is not a vice?

Weak argument.......apples and oranges