Joan Walsh at Salon nails it: We liberals will stop rejoicing in the fall of moral cops like William Bennett as soon the conservatives decide to stop being moral cops.
Meanwhile, like Walsh, I'm looking forward to the day Sen. Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum gets his comeuppance. I hope the sleaziest tabloid reporters alive are right now slithering through his past, trying to find an element of his personal life that will reveal a moral hypocrisy of some kind or another. If someone is taking up a collection to finance such an investigation, please let me know--I'm eager to donate.
If conservatives don't want to be subject to this kind of scrutiny, they can act like the libertarians so many of them claim to be and stop preaching at us and stay the fuck out of our bedrooms and focus their attention on important matters of public policy. Until then, they deserve everything they get.
Anyone know where Santorum went to high school? Did he ever get a boner in the gym showers? Inquiring minds want to know...
Article comments
1 - Phillip WInn
Santorum has no defense, and I don't claim to be any sort of expert on Bradley, but has he ever actually made statements that indicate a desire to police morality? I've never read his book, but I've had it described to me as designed to help people who want to instill good values in their own or their children's lives, not a criticism of society's ills.
Perhaps I'll read it and see if Bennett does fit the definition of a moral cop, but that hasn't been my impression up to now. Perhaps my impression was wrong.
2 - Phillip Winn
On reflection, Bennet was the national drug czar, and all of those guys are wrong-headed, but I'm not sure I'd single him out based on that. Even the liberals who make it into that position seem to lose their minds.
3 - Brian Flemming
Phillip--
Just one detail of many: As drug czar, Bennett advocated mandatory jail sentences for casual pot smokers.
He strongly felt that even minor lapses of morality deserved strong and swift punishment, because these minor lapses fed an atmosphere of permissiveness that eroded our culture in general.
He felt that the public humiliation of Bill Clinton was justified on these grounds. In fact, he was upset that the nation was so forgiving of Clinton and considered that forgiveness proof that the nation was headed downhill, morally.
But, obviously, a little ($8M) gambling is okay, even if his own organization says that gambling is one of the forces eroding the moral fiber of the nation.
He deserves everything he's getting and more.
4 - Phillip Winn
As I recall it, the "broken windows" theory is also responsible for New York's revival as a city, so the theory itself (that an attitude of permissiveness toward small crimes leads to an increase in overall crime, even violent crime) is not a bad one.
The problem as I see it with Bennett's position as drug czar is in seeing marijuana posession as a crime. It is a crime, and that's the problem. But it's a problem for a bunch of politicians on both sides of the aisle, as I mentioned.
Let's see if I can spell this out clearly: Gambling is legal, if immoral (a debatable point, but not easily by the time you gamble as much as BB has). Posession of marijuana is illegal, even if otherwise not immoral (again a debatable point). If one accepts that an illegal act is, by virtue of its illegality, immoral, then Bennett's positions have been so far 100% logical and straightforward, if wrong.
I'm bothered by the conflation of immorality with illegality. I don't believe it is immoral to gamble small amounts of money for entertainment. I don't think it should be illegal. However, I can't deny that the places in which I've lived with legal gambling seemed seedy to me, so I don't mind it being illegal in some places. Perhaps it's just me. Perhaps legal gambling is the best thing ever and the fact that video poker machines in every restaurant turns me off is a personal hangup. Whatever.
The point is that when someone is in a position to enforce the law and it is against the law to commit a certain act, one isn't necessarily acting as a "moral cop" when one insists on a penalty for breaking the law. That the law shouldn't be is true and confuses the issue.
Ack, it's been a long week and I'm tired, so I may not be expressing myself well.
I'll rephrase my question: Do Bennett's (I earlier said Bradley, sorry) books or public statements advocate official policing of morality unrelated to already-illegal acts? That's what I really meant the first time.
5 - Steve Rhodes
This is the guy who wrote the Book of Virtues (which is an animated series on PBS which his buddies keep trying to cut because they wrongly think it is too liberal). He gets $50,000 a speech to talk about morality.
Jon Katz wrote a good book called Virtuous Reality: How America Surrendered Discussion of Moral Values to Opportunists, Nitwits, and Blockheads Like William Bennett. My copy of the book is in storage unfortunately. I've been meaning to email him since this story broke.
Henry Jenkins has written about taking on Bennett over his distortions:
"William Bennett just asked us if we can make meaningful distinctions between different kinds of violent entertainment. Well, I think meaningful distinctions require us to look at images in context, not looking at 20 second clips in isolation. From what Bennett just showed you, you would have no idea that THE BASKETBALL DIARIES was a film about a poet, that it was an autobiographical work about a man who had struggled between dark urges and creative desires, that the book on which it was based was taught in high school literature classes, and that the scene we saw was a fantasy which expressed his frustrations about the school, not something he acts upon and not something the film endorses."
And now Bennett's defenders say his gambling was taken out of context.
6 - Brian Flemming
Phillip,
You are conflating Bennett and Santorum.
Santorum's crime: Advocating that the government police our private lives.
Bennett's crime: Advocating that BENNETT police our private lives. Not with the force of law, but just with his very loud, judgmental self.
Santorum deserves to lose his leadership position--he's advocated a role for government that is anathema to the vast majority of Americans, and possibly even most Republicans, although it's very difficult to tell from the reaction of most Republican leaders.
Bennett, on the other hand, deserves public ridicule and condemnation. Because, whatever specious distinctions one can draw ("Well, he never specifically condemned gambling"), he had no problem dishing out ridicule and condemnation based on the private behavior of others (both illegal and, in his view, immoral). He appointed himself America's moralist.
Had he not made a point of judging all of the rest of us, he wouldn't deserve any of what he's getting. He would deserve to be able to go have his gambling problem in peace.
7 - Phillip Winn
Brian, You are apparently conflating my views with views you've heard others espouse, because I only asked a question - a question you have not answered, and a question I think is important.
You began this exercise by referring to William Bennett as a "moral cop". I pointed out that my impression of Bennett before this latest revelation that he's a hypocrite was not of a "moral cop" but as someone who suggested that we would be better off if we chose to live virtuous lives. I never read a hint of condemnation in any of his articles, only encouragement.
But then again, I never read his books, so I asked a question of anybody with actual knowledge of Bennett prior to the brouhaha to fill in the gaps. You've not done so yet, choosing instead only to add to the mud-slinging and name-calling.
I do think he deserves a certain amount of ridicule. I'll add from the perspective of a member of the mythical "Christian Right" that I've long considered him to be a rubber-stamper interested primarily in money. That is, I'm not sure how much he was involved in the creation of his original Book Of Virtues, but the follow-on editions appear to have generally been written or compiled by others, with his name added to the cover to ensure it sells well.
But I'm not running down a list of his failings. I generally avoid such exercises because they're pointless and because I suspect few (or none) of us could withstand such scrutiny ourselves.
So you've called him a "moral cop," "America's moralist," and "judgmental" and said that he committed the "crime" of advocating that he himself "police our private lives" as well as "dishing out ridicule and condemnation."
All I'm asking is whether this is actually true and can be supported with any references, or is it simply your projection based on his religious beliefs or association with others or whatever. Is that not a question that deserves an answer?
8 - Brian Flemming
Phillip,
You wrote:
So you've called him a "moral cop," "America's moralist," and "judgmental" and said that he committed the "crime" of advocating that he himself "police our private lives" as well as "dishing out ridicule and condemnation."
All I'm asking is whether this is actually true and can be supported with any references, or is it simply your projection based on his religious beliefs or association with others or whatever. Is that not a question that deserves an answer?
Yes, it is. You may answer it by entering the term "William Bennett" in a search engine.
This is similar to the technique one uses to answer the question, "Is the sky blue?"
9 - Phillip Winn
I did as you suggested and came up with two broken links (the first two!), some media transparency stuff that didn't answer the question, and I gave up. You're the one assigning labels, so it should be easy for you to explain why, right?
You don't seem to be able to understand the distinction of what I'm asking. Or you understand and are choosing to pretend not to so that you can avoid answering the question. If there's a third possiblity, I can't think of it.
You used words with meanings, Brian, and I'm asking you to substantiate those words and labels you used. I'm not denying the labels, nor am I asking a stupid question. Don't appeal to the "everybody knows" argument or send me to Google - put your HTML where your mouth is. Where are your sources?
Please note, I started asking this expecting a link or two in response backing up your assertion. As far as I know, you're right. I'm not saying he hasn't set himself up as a moral cop, I just wondered if there is any evidence that he's done so. The longer you go on without answering the question, the more I start to suspect that the evidence doesn't exist, and you were just pulling the labels out of your butt.
Gee whiz, Brian, this should be a cakewalk for you. In addition to the gambling thing, Bennett used to smoke cigarettes (a habit he was required to kick before becoming drug czar) and he obviously has a problem with gluttony as well. His hypocrisy is nearly unbridled, but instead of enjoying the irony of that, you shoot your mouth off making over-the-top accusation and dancing in glee because of things you "know" but amazingly now can't demonstrate with even one link.
Until I see some evidence, I'm going to have to assume that your labels were false and your basis for jubilation hollow.
10 - Brian Flemming
Phillip,
I have no idea what you're asking. "Moral cop" has no official definition. It's a term I used to describe a guy who is so presumptuous as to lecture all of America (through books, organizations, and endless talk-show appearances) on the issue of morality. That is, unlike you or me, he chose to present himself as an expert on the subject and to judge others (Clinton, those who didn't condemn Clinton in strong enough terms, Gore, casual drug users...)
You seem to be reflexively defending the guy, as you did with Santorum. So far, according to you...
1) Rick Santorum has no significant power in Republican politics.
2) The Christian Right is not a strong force in Republican politics.
3) Bill Bennett was never "judgmental" and never acted like "America's moralist."
4) The Bush Administration did not tell a single lie in the run-up to the war on Iraq.
All four of these positions deny that the sky is blue. You've (correctly) backtracked on the first assertion. If you're unwilling to acknowledge that there is overwhelming evidence against the other three, I can't help you.
11 - Phillip Winn
And with your cute ad hominem list, you've yet to demonstrate:
1) How the so-called "Christian Right" has had any real power within American politics (my actual assertion, please get it right) since Pat Robertson's failed presidential campaign.
2) Even a single link showing any point at which Bill Bennett suggested anything other than voluntary actions people might take to improve their own lives or the lives of their children.*
3) Even a single lie President Bush has told since becoming President.
What you call a reflexive defense started with an honest question to which I expected a simple answer. It has only grown into a "defense" as you have continued to show yourself completely incapable of supporting your initial assertion. For all I know, Bennett has in fact suggested legal enforcement of morality and therefore qualifies as a "moral cop".
Now you backpedal and try to claim that words like "cop" don't actually have any meaning whatsoever, but that anyone who holds a strong opinion on any subject is a "cop." So are you a "leftist cop," then? Or just a "make statements with no support, then pretend to misunderstand requests for a tiny shred of evidence backing up those statements -cop?"
Cop *does* have an official definition. A cop is "One that regulates certain behaviors or actions." Regulates means "To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law." So combining those with the defintion of moral means that a "moral cop" is "One that controls or directs the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character according to rule, principle, or law."
Regardless of how many times he has been paid to speak at various voluntarily-attended events, or how many books to which his name has been attached (I mentioned earlier that I don't know how many he's actually been hands-on with, but I suspect few or one or none), or how many organizations for whom he has been a spokesperson or figurehead, I don't see anything in his history that suggests that he has ever had the power or the inclination to act as a "moral cop."
I won't reciprocate with personal vitriol, nor will I presume to understand your motives in making the statements you make. Above all, I certainly won't expect an apology for your misstatement(s).
Far from defending the guy, I've listed two more reasons why I think Bennett is a hypocrite (smoking and gluttony, remember). That's one reason more than you have, and unlike you I just provided evidence. I think the guy is a pompous windbag, and I think that anyone who pronounces on other people in the general sense (rather than on a specific situation, where sometimes judgement is called for, but without personal animosity) is bound to be hoist on his own petard at some point. That's why I'm pretty quick to see the possible bright side of any situation - whether the target is a Republican or a Democrat.
So far, based on your list, I'm apparently 3-for-4. Considerably better than your record! :)
* I'm sure that at least one such statement must exist, simply because nobody goes as many years as Bennett has without misspeaking. That you haven't been able to produce one speaks volumes toward such an isolated incident (which must exist, right?) being just that - a misstatement. I certainly haven't seen a pattern.
12 - Doctor Slack
To Phllip:
Re: The "so-called Christian right."
Are you seriously claiming to be unaware of the influence of right-wing religious groups like the Christian Coalition and the Southern Baptist Convention on the current administration?
I mean, given the extreme prominence of things like the "faith-based initiatives" (which the Coalition championed), the assignment of reconstruction duties in Iraq to religious groups, and the statements of Administration officials -- we can (most charitably) conclude you're kidding yourself if you're seriously denying their existence or importance. Asking for proof of whether the Christian Right has "any real power in American politics" is frankly a little like asking for proof that water is wet... or, as Brian notes, that the sky is blue. Do massive amounts of influence with key Administration figures and a large part of the core Republican voting constituency not qualify as "real power" in your view?
Re: Bill Bennett and the joys of semantics
"Moral cop" as used in the Salon article and by Brian is very clearly not a reference to literal policing (or the aspiration to same). So clearly, in fact, that it's hard to see your focus on the precise semantics of "cop" and "moral" together as anything better than a strawman argument (though it's worth noting that even the definition you've carefully assembled does not include formal coercive authority; that's something you have to add in after the fact).
So I understand Brian's impatience with you, and he does not, in fact, owe you any species of apology, despite your attempts to insinuate the contrary.
I would go a little farther than Brian on this, though. Bill Bennett's career has been spent as a lobbyist -- that's why Empower America exists. The religious slant on this lobbying has been particularly on view in the area of education (the subject of many of his screeds). In that arena he has explicitly called, more than once, for the restructuring of public institutions in accord with (his interpretation of) traditional, Christian morality, most recently in an attempt to defend controversial remarks by Rod Paige.
Re: The lies of Bush
I can't speak for Brian on this issue, but I recollect posting some material of interest to a recent thread about this. You may want to scroll down in the comments section, near the end.
13 - Brian Flemming
Phillip,
I fail to see how this list of your claims...
1) Rick Santorum has no significant power in Republican politics.
2) The Christian Right is not a strong force in Republican politics.
3) Bill Bennett was never "judgmental" and never acted like "America's moralist."
4) The Bush Administration did not tell a single lie in the run-up to the war on Iraq.
...constitutes an ad hominem attack.
I apologize for not getting your claims exactly right. I don't quite see how the Christian Right could be a significant force in Republican politics and not be a significant force in American politics, though. Republicans control the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Any significant force on the Republican Party would be a significant force in American politics at any time, but especially now. But if you disagree, so be it.
So, to re-state your claims:
1) Rick Santorum has no significant power in Republican politics.
2) The Christian Right, while a strong force in Republican politics, is not a strong force in American politics.
3) Bill Bennett could not plausibly be described as having ever presented himself as someone "who controls or directs the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character according to rule, principle, or law." But if he ever did, it was a misstatement.
4) The Bush Administration did not tell a single lie in the run-up to the war on Iraq.
Let me know if I got these wrong. I will re-draft them again to try to make them more accurate to your views.
Doctor Slack,
Thanks for the contribution. You are a far more generous educator than I am, and have been for some time.
14 - Jim Carruthers
I didn't read the comments, didn't read the original posting, but I am with Ken Layne in that anybody who would lose that much money on slot machines is a creepy loser.