William Bennett
Today and Regrettably, Another Victim of Terror
By Jeff Koopersmith

May 5, 2003 -- NEW YORK (apj.us) -- Many of you who read my columns -- friends, business associates, political enemies and the rest -- may be surprised that I rise today to the defense of William Bennett.

I admit that I believe Bennett is so dangerous to our culture that I wrote a book, "Corrobillusion," ferociously attacking him not only for his own book, "The Death of Outrage" but for relentlessly foisting his prescription for "family values" on the rest of us, using his atrocious attacks on Hillary and Bill Clinton for their human frailties --attacks that nearly destroyed their young daughter Chelsea. Mr. Bennett did not blink an eye as he wrote his venom, knowing full well that it might hurt not only the President and his wife, but also their marriage and their daughter.

In "Corrobillusion", I posited:

"Who was Mr. Bennett to tell us how to conduct our lives?"

The book was not published -- because it was so vitriolic.

And I learned a lesson then: be more tolerant and understand that anger and personal attack result in nothing much more than zero.

Bill Bennett, one time Drug Czar, past Secretary of Education, and counselor the neoconservative right, remains a dangerous man -- but not from his personal life or habits, but from his endless proselytizing.

There is a difference, and I draw that distinction today.

Let me mention that I too was viciously attacked this week -- by a perfect stranger, who for some reason wanted or continues to want to destroy my reputation.

This is not the first time someone has attempted such a campaign directed against me, and surely it will not be the last.

When one puts himself in the public eye -- no matter how small those pupils -- one sets himself up to be unbearably disparaged.

Usually this is accomplished with half-truth, attacks on one's personal habits, attacks on one's family, and attacks on one's friends.

That is what happened to me.

Someone contacted most everyone I know and hold dear -- and through carefully crafted innuendo, questions asked but not answered, and downright terrorism, caused much damage to me and people I love.

He telephoned former partners, friends and others demanding answers to questions they could not answer.

He asked them to give him "dirt" about me.

He cajoled them and even threatened them.

He was and may continue to be relentless.

I will not be joining him, or people like him, in attacking Bill Bennett for his private gambling habits this week.

It is tempting of course -- but it is not apposite, relevant or appropriate.

Mr. Bennett's troubles began with a story written by someone I respect deeply, Joshua Green, the editor of Washington Monthly. Katherine Q. Seelye in The New York Times picked up the story.

It was about Mr. Bennett's high-stakes gambling.

Both pieces were a terrible display of hypocrisy -- attacking a man as being a hypocrite, not for his unworthy opinions, but for his personal imperfections.

Joshua Green titled his piece "The Bookie of Virtue" -- an iniquitous headline, as nowhere in this piece does he accuse Mr. Bennett of being a bookie -- a criminal taker of bets. Green writes that Bennett "has made millions lecturing people on morality -- and blown it on gambling."

Frankly, I do not see the connection -- unless of course one sees gambling as "immoral" and ergo Mr. Bennett as "immoral."

Mr. Bennett himself does not see gambling as immoral.

Mr. Bennett's intellectual debauchery does not stem from gambling -- it stems from his desire to influence, to do good -- but only as he defines it. Therein lies his sin -- not in whether he gambles away his money.

I have no moral outrage about gambling. While I do not approve of the way state governments run lotteries and lure the poorest of Americans with huge ad campaigns to sucker them into trying for a shot at millions of dollars on multimillion-to-one bets, it is, in the end, up to us to buy a lottery ticket or not.

Mr. Green seems to think that revelations he uncovered showing Mr. Bennett may have lost as much as $8 million in Las Vegas and Atlantic City casinos is somehow proof of Bennett's hypocrisy.

It is not.

It is only proof that Bill Bennett is human, and may be proof that Bill Bennett does not think gambling is immoral. Nothing more, nothing less.

Green uses Bennett's gambling to outline the fact that Bennett is combative, haughty, unforgiving, sermonizing, and that he attacks liberals as less moral than conservatives. While all these things may be true about Bill Bennett, they have nothing whatsoever to do with his $500 a throw bets on desert and oceanfront slot machines.

That is his business and his business alone.

Joshua Green also attempts to link Bennett's personal neoconservative money machine to his gambling by writing:

"His relentless effort to push Americans to do good has enabled Bennett to do extremely well. His best-selling The Book of Virtues spawned an entire cottage industry, from children's books to merchandizing tie-ins to a PBS cartoon series. Bennett commands $50,000 per appearance on the lecture circuit and has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from such conservative benefactors as the Scaife and John M. Olin foundations."

True, Josh, but his ability to earn money from moralizing has nothing to do with his gambling.

The true question to ask is whether those people who buy Mr. Bennett's books or give him millions in funding will continue to do so. The answer should be yes, unless they too are hypocrites -- foisting their own sense of morality on Bennett himself. For Mr. Bennett is human, with all the elements that make us imperfect creatures.

Mr. Green goes further, remarking that "during Bennett's years as a public figure" casinos have expanded to 28 states and that in Maryland the Governor is trying to install slot machines to fill revenue shortfalls. Is he suggesting that Bill Bennett is responsible for these excesses?

I am not sure this is fair. I have not read Mr. Bennett calling for the crap-tabling of America.

While Green points out that people who live near casinos are more prone to get into trouble through too much gambling, he fails to make me understand why Bill Bennett has some responsibility here.

Green also indulges in the same terrible crafting of guilt-by-innuendo by writing

"Indeed, in recent weeks word has circulated among Washington conservatives that his (Bennett's) wagering could be a real problem."

Huh? A real problem for whom? Mr. Bennett? The conservative movement? President Bush?

It seems to me that gambling is legal, and that there are no restrictions on how much one spends in this pursuit or on the risk inherent. While it is bad enough to cite "Washington conservatives" as a source without naming them, it is even worse to suggest a "real problem" when the problem itself is never clearly defined. This is tactic used by neoconservative pundits all the time -- and should be avoided.

The "real problem" is truly self-defined, thus far, by Mr. Green and Ms. Seelye and others who use Bennett's "weakness", as they define it -- to humiliate him. What they should do is discredit him for his unworthy principles -- and one of them is not "don't gamble even when you can afford it."

In fact, Mr. Bennett does not deny he gambles for high stakes. He claims that over the years he has come out even. He even says he gives a chunk of his winnings to charity.

I am not sure what "documents" Mr. Green relies on to tell us that Mr. Bennett is not winning, but instead losing.

But again, so what?

I think the only thing amusing about Mr. Green's piece was the fact that Mr. Bennett claims to be a "machine" person.

I had to laugh, thinking of the glorious virtuoso, William Bennett, sitting on a tacky bar stool in front of a groaning, clanging, siren-blowing slot machine -- like an Oklahoma City grandma pushing those tokens and bringing down the "bandit's" arm.

Yet, in a way, it made Bennett more appealing, more human.

I am glad he is not flawless.

To his credit, Joshua Green does link Bennett's "Empower America" nonprofit moral crusade to anti-gaming rhetoric, and this is a problem that Mr. Bennett should straighten out. The group has, by publishing an editorial by its co-chair and former presidential candidate Jack Kemp, attacked lawmakers who push state-sanctioned gambling, and has, in its entertaining "Index of Leading Cultural Indicators" reported that nearly 6 million Americans are problem or pathological gamblers.

Mr. Bennett claims that his gambling is not a problem or pathological inasmuch as it neither imperils him nor his family.

I buy that.

Joshua Green suggests that Bennett's gambling has hurt him because it has "profoundly undermined the credibility of his word on this moral issue."

I strongly disagree. Gambling becomes a moral issue only when it harms others. It appears that the very wealthy Mr. Bennett has not undermined his family or himself by winning and losing millions over the years. Few men can gamble to the limits Mr. Bennett allows himself. Nevertheless, for him, betting large amounts is far less troubling than a welfare mother betting two dollars in a state lottery that gives her almost no chance of winning.

To gamble or not is his personal choice from privilege.

As Mr. Bennett has said in the past, he does not consider gambling a moral issue. "If you can't handle it, don't do it," he said, comparing alcoholism to gaming.

Whether others believe that gambling is a moral issue is inconsequential when addressing Mr. Bennett's supposed hypocrisy in this instance. What is important is his view on the subject. Whether or not his views are "convenient" is a matter for Bill Bennett, his wife, and his priest to mull over.

Others in Mr. Bennett's overzealous proselytizing crowd have publicly disdained gambling. Yet Bennett has not. To my mind this dismisses these attacks on Mr. Bennett's private gambling as hypocrisy because his gambling does not publicly confute his own stated positions.

Now, if only Bill Bennett could see clearly that his attacks on Bill Clinton and others who, like Bill Bennett today, suffer under private but painful lapses are truly and awfully the pinnacle of hypocrisy

Perhaps now Mr.Bennett will see that his vicious assault on the Clinton family were unwise.

Moreover, for those of us writing from more moderate or compassionate philosophies -- I suggest we be more careful lest we be rightfully accused:

"Look who's moralizing now."

JEFF KOOPERSMITH is a political consultant, opinion research authority, policy analyst, and self-described "dissident lobbyist."