I have written about the Bennett gambling fiasco here, here, and here. I shouldn’t have wasted my time, and instead should have just directed you to Arthur Silber’s joint, because he says everything I wanted to the way I wanted to.
So when the question of hypocrisy is raised in connection with the recent revelations, most people are viewing the issue precisely backwards. It obviously isn’t the case that Bennett railed against the evils of gambling, while privately gambling away millions of dollars. What is notable is that Bennett did not rail against the “private” behavior of gambling — while at the same time, he did rail against the sins of drug use, the strong inadvisability (in his view) of legal recognition of same-sex marriage, and other similar “sins.” And the point is simply this: if you proceed from a consistent recognition of individual rights, there is no principled method by which to distinguish among these various behaviors — and, again, unless someone violates the rights of others, these behaviors should be outside the bounds of governmental concern altogether.
But it is Bennett himself who advocates government intrusion into what ought to be private concerns. Because he has no principled approach to these matters, however, he advocates governmental regulation of those behaviors he personally views as “wrong,” while exempting those behaviors of which he approves. And we now find out that he also exempts those behaviors that he himself engages in. As someone might say: how convenient.
Just beautiful. Go read the whole thing and hit his tip jar.
Steve Malynn
Silber’s critique is a pure libertarian one. The only problem is that Bennett has a principled non-libertarian approach to these matters: he is advocating generally the precepts of the Judeao Christian morality as specifically expoused by his particular division: the Catholic church. More specifically, Bennett is arguing (1) specific conduct that has been legislated against should remain illegal, and (2) elected and appointed officials should be publicly accountable for the morality of their conduct – through informal public censure or formal legal proceedings depending on the conduct.
Bill Bennett may not be your cup of tea, but he is not a hypocrit, except in the sense of pure hyperbole: “if you disagree with me you must be one.” If Bennett claimed to be a libertarian, then he would be false to everything he stands for publicly, and that would be a contradiction. Bennett is a Catholic Republican, that is enough of a burden,believe me.
John Cole
Bennett is a Catholic Republican, that is enough of a burden,believe me.
Hehe.
JKC
For the sake of argument, let’s pretend for a moment that Big Bill’s not a hypocrite.
Why, then, does a certain branch of the Republican Party feel freedom is great when it comes to ripping off consumers and investors, polluting the environment, and owning a small arsenal, but is a sudden danger when it comes to sexual behavior between consenting adults?
Arthur Silber
Aw, thanks, John. I appreciate it. Wish some people took your kind advice about the tip jar. Oh, well…Thanks again!