NOT SO VIRTUOUS

Habit Doesn't Change Validity Of Message

Some who have not liked his virtues-promoting message have been nothing
short of gleeful that William Bennett has been exposed as a big-time
gambler, but they ought to concede a couple of points, starting with this
one: The validity of an argument is not dependent on the conduct of the
person making it.

Bennett, a former education secretary and anti-drug chief, has made the
case in books, speeches and TV appearances for responsibility and avoidance
of those vices that are humanly degrading. While there is room to dispute
some of his particulars, the case is one that needs to be made; America,
for all its wonders, sometimes seems to be flirting with decadence. At any
rate, the proper tests for what he has said are such things as logic,
evidence and wealth of understanding. On those grounds, Bennett has done well.

It is certainly true that Bennett, by gambling apparently huge amounts of
money over the years, stands as a counterexample of his thesis that
behavior should be temperate. But here is a second point: If only the
unblemished preached virtue, virtue would only seldom be preached. After
all, who among us are without fault? And even people with the most grievous
faults can often see that their faults are just that, grievous. Although he
did not completely abide by them, Bennett seems to have been sincere in his
stances. Hypocrisy resides in insincerity.

Yes, he should have understood that his seemingly excessive gambling
exhibited dubious values and could someday be used to undercut his
credibility, and it has to be a disappointment for many who have applauded
him that he did not exercise more self-control. Having paid a price, he now
says he will not gamble again. Maybe so, but don't bet on it. Old habits -
even bad ones - are hard to break.