The RPs Debate Gambling: The RP’s Closing Argument

The RP: Closing Argument

[The RP’s Provocation, Artur Davis’s Rebuttal #1; Ron Granieri’s Rebuttal #2; Natasha Dow Schüll’s Analysis; Spectrum Gaming Group’s Analysis; Jason Grill’s Rebuttal #3; The RP’s First Defense; Jason Grill’s First Response; Artur Davis’ First Response; David Host’s Rebuttal #4]

I’m going to resist the urge to rebut David Host’s full-throated defense of trickle-down economics — we will leave that for another day.

I’ll close instead on a harmonizing note.  Too often the two sides of the gambling debate are boiled down to self-righteous moralists versus selfish libertarians.  (Indeed, more often the media focuses on the politics rather than the underlying policy debate.) In fact, whether we are discussing casinos, sports betting, or even a state lottery, there are valuable and valued moral arguments on each side of the issue.

With gambling, much like any issue, it is critical for both sides to lower their volume and understand the legitimate thoughts of the other.  Through civil dialogue, this is one issue where the possibility of finding common ground is real and reachable.

Perhaps that vision is a pipe dream.  But as long as The Recovering Politician exists, we will find it worth pursuing.