Like many others, I can’t quite let go of the Bill Bennett story. It’s not because I don’t know what I think about the essentials. Bennett’s privacy has been unfairly violated, he has not been shown to be a hypocrite in any direct sense, and this is a non-story. If Bennett believes gambling does not hurt the broader society but consensual gay sex and pot-smoking do, he’s entitled to that opinion, and entitled to engage in his own private “vices” if he so wants. My minor disappointment, in fact, is that he caved into the puritanical pressure and agreed to give gambling up. But my major disappointment is that I haven’t found anywhere in Bennett’s enormous oeuvre any articulated defense of this crucial distinction between the societal effects of gambling and those of other private, consensual behaviors, like living with another man, or smoking weed, or watching porn. (Don’t give me the lame “weed’s illegal” argument. So is gambling in many states. I want to see an argument about why it should be illegal in the first place.) I see nothing wrong with any of these activities, and indeed would defend anyone’s right to seek such pleasures (and, boy, are they pleasures) in their own time and their own homes. That’s why it’s right to defend Bennett’s privacy in this case. But when, of course, was the last time Bill Bennett defended anyone’s privacy? Hasn’t he spent a career arguing that privacy should be foregone for the public good? Doesn’t he believe that all private activities are dependent for their morality and legality on their effects on society as a whole? (Radley Balko nails this point home.) Hasn’t Bennett even defended the public shaming and stigmatization of “sinners”? (He has certainly argued that gay people should be stigmatized, while promoting untruths about them to boot.)
THE SANTORUM GULF: Let me remind you in this respect of Senator Santorum’s broader political philosophy, a philosophy endorsed by Bennett:
The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we’re seeing it in our society.
Now let me remind you of Bill Bennett’s initial response to the gambling question: “If you can’t handle it, don’t do it.” Isn’t there a vast, gaping discrepancy there? Bennett doesn’t have to defend his private conduct. It’s none of our business. But he really does have to explain why gambling doesn’t hurt the broader society, while porn movies, pot-smoking, or gay sex somehow do. Until he does, then he won’t get out from under this cloud.
The Dish 