Bill Bennet, former United States drug czar and author of
moralistic rants, such as “The Death of Outrage,” is
just one example of how harmful and hypocritical it is for major
public figures to involve themselves in questions of personal
morality.
Bennet admitted he has a gambling problem and has lost an
estimated $8 million in casinos over the last decade. This
revelation shocked and saddened many who had seen Bennet as one of
the main figures in the movement to inject moral issues back into
political discourse.
However surprising and tragic Bennet’s transgressions may
be to his supporters, they also show how dangerous it is for
individuals in public places to hypocritically take a “holier
than thou” approach when dealing with other people’s
personal actions. Drug Czar Bennet argued for harsh punishments for
drug users (who do not harm other people), in effect attempting to
save drug users by incarcerating them. This policy destroyed the
lives of many non-threatening individuals who made the poor but
personal decision to use drugs.
But, even more importantly, Bennet felt it was appropriate to
prohibit other people from engaging in a certain behavior he deemed
wrong and to punish them based on this judgment. However, Bennet
was unwilling to have the same standard applied to himself. When
confronted about his gambling problems, Bennet told Newsweek,
“It’s never been a moral issue with me.” Surely,
drug use is not a moral issue for many drug users, especially those
who do not harm others. Still, Bennet did not hesitate to advocate
imprisoning other people because he judged drug use as something
immoral that should be prohibited.
He turns a personal question into one of public morality but
recoils when other people seek to apply his own standards to him.
But Bennet is not alone in his views.
Senator Rick Santorum, R-Pa., is another example of a person
seeking to make questions of personal morality a public issue.
Santorum recently railed against homosexuality, stating that it
“undermines the basic tenets of our family and our
society.”
Certainly, Santorum is entitled to hold his own opinion on this
subject. However, Santorum hoped to impose this view on others,
saying that the Supreme Court should not overturn laws barring
homosexual conduct. In effect, Santorum believes he has the right
to regulate the private conduct of people, even when it has no
consequence for the rest of society. Santorum argues that although
sexual relationships might be private, homosexuality, adultery and
other forms of sexual conduct falling outside of the societal norm
are harming society as a whole and must be stopped by
authorities.
Certainly, we cannot say there should be no moral regulations or
that people must be perfect to pass judgment on any issue. Most
laws and regulations reflect a moral view or consensus that a
particular activity is right or wrong and is harmful to other
people. Laws forbidding rape, murder and Enron-esque financial
transactions obviously all fall under this realm. Clearly, such
laws cannot and should not be repealed. However, on matters of
personal conduct, which affect few outside parties, such a
consensus is much harder to reach.
After all, many people might feel that drug use is wrong. But
how does a person’s private drug usage affect the public?
Certainly, such behavior is harmful to the individual who engages
in it. Yet it is hard to argue that someone who is not in the
presence of such activity is truly harmed by it.
Matters of sexual conduct are similar. Unless they involve a
minor, who has not reached a stage in which sufficient
decision-making skills have been developed, no one outside of those
engaged in consensual activity is involved. Certainly, people have
their own views on what they consider acceptable. The fact is that
the private conduct of others is simply none of their business.
Ultimately, the incursions into privacy that people like Bennet
and Santorum have advocated are dangerous for another reason: They
give the government greater power, which can certainly be very
dangerous. One only need examine Nazi Germany or communist China to
realize that when a state becomes too powerful and exercises too
much control over the lives of its citizens, it becomes a threat to
its citizens.
Permitting a war on drug users or monitoring the sexual conduct
of consenting adults undermines the freedom of every individual.
Bennet’s predicament has exposed the hypocrisy of intervening
in the private conduct of other people, and will hopefully serve as
a lesson to all those who advocate such interference.
Bhaskar is a second-year political science student. E-mail him
at sbhaskar@media.ucla.edu.