Don't look for Bill Bennett at the video poker machines anymore; after Newsweek published an article on his gambling habits, he announced that he's giving it up. As it happens, there's been reports of Bennett's choice of hobbies before, but this time he's decided to publicly state that he's cashing out for good.

Why is this news? Well, some people remember that Bennett served as George Bush's "Drug Czar" and Reagan's secretary of education, so at the very least he's a minor political figure; but most people know him best as the author of The Book Of Virtues. Interest seems to be coming from the fact that a moral crusader like Bill has engaged in what some see as a definite vice.

Is there a contradiction here? To act morally means conforming to set standard of right behavior. Some fundamentalist religions certainly agree with the values promoted by Bennett's books, while believing that gambling is wrong. The faith-based arguments against games of chance are many, but not all beliefs want gamblers tarred and feathered; after all, church sponsored bingo, raffles, and cake-walks, are still popular. There's a huge difference between supporting one's church or synagogue by losing your laundry money, and plunking down four-figures a session in a Trump Casino. But there isn't enough to make pinning Mr. Bennett with a charge of hypocrisy an easy task.

The slippery nature of morality makes this a bit complicated. Yes, Bennett never explicitly stated that gambling is wrong, and the fact his peers have doesn't make him a liar; but it does beg the question: Just what morality does he ascribe to?

Determining what's moral has traditionally been the province of organized religion. All the major faiths of the world spend a good deal of effort on teaching the difference between right and wrong Over the past couple of centuries, secular humanists have even entered the ethical fray. Even libertarians have ethics -- to them, victimless crimes shouldn't be considered immoral, but the abrogation of civil liberties by the government should. In theory, faithful people ascribe to the standards of behavior taught to them by their leaders. In practice, we each have a complex, ever-shifting set of standards we live by. Some people think that littering is ok, for example, if there's no garbage can within arm's length; but they would never throw trash on the ground if they were standing next to one. No moral conflict, no psychological unease.

So perhaps Bill follows his own moral code, in which it's ok to blow 15 large at a slot machine, but homosexuality and recreational drug use are evil. He doesn't have to believe that all "vices" are created equal after all. But if he thinks that gambling isn't so bad, why did he decide to publicly state that he's quitting?

Perhaps it's for public image reasons; we've already mentioned that his peers don't all support gambling, and he has a vested interest in not alienating them. But maybe he believes that gambling is wrong and continued to do it anyway.

The latter explanation is the far more interesting one, but leaves us with the same question: Why did he decide to quit only after this article was published? Why does anyone stop engaging in immoral behavior once he's been exposed, whether he's a public figure or not?

It's nothing less than the once most powerful weapon against immorality that our biology ever devised: Shame. It ranks right up there with the fear of eternal torment. You can always repent on your death-bed, but it's shame you must live with until you get there.

Bill Bennett should be well aquatinted with the concept. Someone who rails against the permissiveness of society isn't necessarily suggesting that adulterers be dragged out into the street and stoned by an angry mob. No, the fact that society doesn't universally look down upon certain segments of the population is the problem these people perceive. If society doesn't threaten to shame people into ceasing their immoral behavior, then shame can no longer be an effective weapon against vice.

A few fundamentalists want their virtues to be enshrined in the laws of the land. This is because they recognize that society is no longer willing to heap enough shame on someone to keep us all on the straight and narrow. Some of our laws exist to do just that, but only for things that we've been able to come to a consensus on, like murder and rape. The arguments, for all their furor, are really about demarcation; which acts should be punished by the government, and which are none of their business?

However, regardless of our Puritanical roots, Americans dislike the idea that someone is shoving their beliefs down everyone's throats, especially if they use the government to do it. Unfortunately, if one can't use the government to enforce a favored moral standard, one must bring the case to the society at large, and that's no easy task. You have to be very vocal. Like Bill Bennett, for example.

To attack the permissive society, you must at least try to pursue two closely related strategies. First, you must define what you dislike; Bennett has certainly done that. Secondly, and in order to succeed, you must get the majority of society on your side. You not only have to point to something, and call it evil, you must convince others that you're right. If you can do this, then society will become less permissive -- that is, it will not permit people to commit those things you dislike. If the law won't do the job, then shame must.

Pushing a moral agenda on society means accepting the fact that people have to be shamed into behaving correctly. Bennett has now felt the fury of shame brought to bear against him, which may be why he thought publicly announcing that he's not going to gamble anymore was necessary. Following this train of thought -- does it now appear that he's a hypocrite? If you squint and tilt your head a little, it just might.

-B. C. Silvia