William Buckley again proves that, agree or disagree, his columns are always provocative. His take on the Jayson Blair controversy is perhaps the first by a conservative that doesn't reflexively blame affirmative action for the fiasco; in fact, he brings up two obvious issues that would mediate against that argument, that Blair is an immensely talented writer (albeit a dishonest one) and that the stories he was writing were real (it was the quotes and sources that were fabricated). It is a useful tonic to the conventional wisdom now emerging, that somehow this problem never would have happened with a white reporter.

His second column, on the Bennett gambling controversy, has been widely disseminated in the blogosphere for his prediction that Mr. Virtue is...objectively discredited. He will not be proffered any public post by any president into the foreseeable future. He will not publish another book on another virtue, if there is any he has neglected to write about. It is possible that the books written by him on the subject, sitting in bookstores, will work their way to the remainder houses.

OUCH !! What isn't commented on is Buckley's more important point, regarding Bennett's right to a private life and the advocacy of "virtue". The whole notion that casinos are now trading the gambling records of patrons to the fourth estate strikes me as contemptible, and I'm glad that he agrees. His more important point, though, concerns the glee which many of my compatriots on the left have expressed concerning this whole sordid tale. Even granting the rather banal point that Bennett is a hypocrite, I have yet to hear a compelling argument that everything Bennett believes in should now be discredited.

What is the larger point about hypocrisy, anyway? For example, if Pope John Paul II has a secret wife and children, his hypocrisy would speak to the unnaturalness of the Church's policy towards sex, marriage by priests, etc. In other words, it would concern a policy within the Church that has nothing to do with morality, vice, or anything beyond the fact that it was imposed centuries ago to prevent clerical leaders from passing church property on to their descendents. The hypocrisy would reflect how wrong the policy is, not vindicate my unrelated positions on choice and contraception. No one could plausibly believe that because the Pope had been shown to be a hypocrite on this one issue somehow discredits the Church's teaching on the Immaculate Conception.

Gambling is clearly not like that. A significant percentage of people view it as a vice, and, as with drinking, most people believe that it is wrong if done to excess. In a not-altogether convincing article last weekend, Frank Rich argues that Bennett's downfall stems as much from his destination (Las Vegas) as his choice of vices, since he could play the slots to his heart's content in Delaware, rather than in a city that still celebrates the memory of Bugsy Siegel, and in which Crazy Horse II is one of the most popular tourist destinations.

Still, one can oppose gambling and still have difficulty walking away from a blackjack table. William Bennett is no more discredited now, on this or any other issue, than he was two weeks ago. More to the point, Bennett should not be discredited because he is a hypocrite who preached virtue while practicing vice. He should be discredited because he was an unforgiving, bigoted, sanctimonious, partisan scold, a fact that was not changed by the events of the last two weeks.