One man's vice is another man's virtue. Or so William J. Bennett would have us believe.
For years, Bennett has served as the nation's "morals monitor." His volume "The Book of Virtues" has been hailed as an American classic in a league with "Poor Richard's Almanac." He stumps around the nation shaking his finger at America's shaky codes of comportment.
But last week, Bennett got caught with his hand in the cookie jar — or, better said, the pot. Two sources disclosed he had lost $8 million gambling over the past decade, much of it in high-stakes, high-roller trips to Las Vegas.
To his credit, in Bennett's speeches to the choir he has never included gambling in his list of "things not to do today." He has been up-front about his taste for it. He says it relaxes him.
For a lot less money he could have hired Natalie Cole to sing for him.
No, the problem is people didn't realize Bennett was such a glutton for gaming. And gluttony, indeed, is a vice.
For Bennett, gaming has always fallen into the gray area of morality. And, indeed, moral behavior can have a sliding scale. For some, just playing with face cards is a sin. In "The Music Man," much was made of the ills of billiards, and the jury is still out on re-runs of "Baywatch."
Bennett's mistake, however, was his failure to realize that gambling may be just a personal choice and pastime for him, but for the people who listen to his speeches, gambling is not gray at all. It's all part of the wicked subset that includes drinking, smoking, drugs and carousing. And for the moment, the man is a walking example of why gambling is a danger.
Needless to say, Bennett has quickly backpedaled. In his latest statement he says, in effect, "There is nothing wrong with gambling and, besides, I've quit doing it."
The chattering classes on talk radio have also rushed to his defense. Some point fingers at the liberal left for always discrediting people with a moral vision by showcasing their personal lapses. That may be true, or it may not. But one thing's for certain: it works. When someone sets himself up as a referee of behavior, it takes just one miscue to topple him.
Bennett may yet weather the storm, of course. The fact he has never railed against gaming and his quick steps to turn the situation around may pull him through. For the moment, however, he finds himself in the same quandary Ronald Reagan fell into during the Iran-Contra affair. Bennett must either own up to being shifty, or own up to being a bit dim and clueless.
If he's smart, he'll play the clueless card.