Prof. Schlevogt’s Compass Issue 11: Exploring the ‘Liberal Warfare Toolbox’ for Justifying Gambling
Liberals celebrate the rapid expansion of gambling across the United States. Their push for deregulation highlights similar patterns employed to rationalize other problematic issues as well. Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
Liberals celebrate the rapid expansion of gambling in the US, viewing it as a triumph of deregulation and technological advancement. This growth raises questions about the underlying justifications used by proponents, which often echo the rationalizations for other societal issues.
According to George Bernard Shaw, the most common means of distributing wealth is akin to a roulette wheel. In the US, this metaphor has taken on serious implications as gambling revenues have surged. In light of Shaw's poignant observation, the swift deregulation of this industry may set the stage for significant societal repercussions.
Data from the American Gaming Association shows that commercial gross gaming revenue skyrocketed from approximately $30 billion in 2020 to $67 billion by 2023. This marks a significant growth, with a staggering increase in losses for gamblers. The upward trajectory continued into 2024, with gross gaming revenue, primarily driven by sports betting and iGaming, already approaching $66 billion within the first eleven months. The spending on sports betting alone surged from $7 billion in 2018 to an estimated $150 billion in 2024, reflecting a compound annual growth rate of 55%. With around 60% of US adults reportedly gambling in the past year, and 40% engaging in sports betting, the nation has become the largest online gambling market globally.
Predictions indicate that the trend will continue, with online gambling expected to generate $60 billion to $70 billion annually by 2030. Plans are even underway for a commercial casino in New York's Times Square, an idea once considered unthinkable.
Among the newer, potentially troubling forms of gambling are wagers on election outcomes and short-term stock movements. The popularity of parlays, which combine multiple bets, is on the rise, despite their higher risks. The dynamics of the deregulated gambling industry require significant advocacy to maintain their momentum.
In this context, it is no surprise that prominent liberals in politics and media endorse the transformations within the gambling industry, framing the issue within a compelling narrative. Their rhetoric reflects broader patterns found in the techniques employed to justify various societal changes. Analyzing these approaches can shed light on their methods in what I term the "Liberal Warfare Toolbox." Understanding these tactics is crucial for those looking to discern manipulation and the attempts to normalize gambling alongside other controversial issues.
To examine the strategies used by liberal advocates, let us first consider the approach that appeals to a higher-order good. Supporters of deregulation often claim that individuals should have the freedom to engage in activities, including self-harm through gambling. This argument is rooted in the concept of negative freedom—the idea that people should be free from external constraints.
While this appeal to freedom is superficially persuasive, it neglects crucial philosophical insights. John Locke, a prominent advocate of negative freedom, argued that true freedom cannot equate to license; individuals must act in accordance with reason. Therefore, unrestrained gambling, which can lead to personal and communal harm, stands in opposition to Locke's understanding of freedom.
Moreover, contemporary proponents reduce the concept of freedom to a value-neutral commodity, disregarding its moral implications. The modern perspective often disregards positive freedom, or "freedom to," which emphasizes one’s ability to access opportunities and evade internal constraints, such as addiction to gambling.
The balance of both negative and positive freedoms is essential for a prosperous society. Ensuring that individuals possess both types of freedom is fundamental to promoting a context in which they can lead fulfilling lives.
The appeal to higher-order goods—strictly for the purpose of deregulation—mirrors tactics used to advocate for other contentious policies. For instance, proponents of abortion and euthanasia invoke the dignity of life to justify actions that contravene moral norms.
Another critical tactic within the liberal framework is the delegitimization of authority. Liberals often argue against the right of others, especially those in positions of power, to dictate how individuals should live their lives. They employ strategies such as "damning the origin" and "poisoning the well" to undermine authority figures who oppose gambling.
By framing negative views towards betting as rooted in outdated, Puritanical beliefs, liberal advocates seek to discredit traditional authority and present pleasure-seeking as a modern value. They dismiss significant moral concerns about gambling that stem from a thorough examination of its historical implications, opting instead for a narrative that liberates individuals from what they view as antiquated perspectives.
The "poisoning the well" technique involves discrediting an opponent before they have a chance to present their argument, effectively undermining their credibility. This approach can silence constructive dialogue and prevents an equitable discussion of the consequences of deregulating gambling.
In seeking to legitimize practices traditionally viewed as harmful, liberals employ strategies that not only impact the gambling debate but extend into various other societal issues. For example, they might use similar criticisms against a person who opposes abortion, preemptively discrediting them based on gender or other characteristics, thus framing their arguments as inherently flawed.
As we explore these stratagems within the "Liberal Warfare Toolbox," it's crucial to recognize their broader application across various contentious areas. Future discussions will further unveil additional tactics used in these debates.
Max Fischer contributed to this report for TROIB News
According to George Bernard Shaw, the most common means of distributing wealth is akin to a roulette wheel. In the US, this metaphor has taken on serious implications as gambling revenues have surged. In light of Shaw's poignant observation, the swift deregulation of this industry may set the stage for significant societal repercussions.
Data from the American Gaming Association shows that commercial gross gaming revenue skyrocketed from approximately $30 billion in 2020 to $67 billion by 2023. This marks a significant growth, with a staggering increase in losses for gamblers. The upward trajectory continued into 2024, with gross gaming revenue, primarily driven by sports betting and iGaming, already approaching $66 billion within the first eleven months. The spending on sports betting alone surged from $7 billion in 2018 to an estimated $150 billion in 2024, reflecting a compound annual growth rate of 55%. With around 60% of US adults reportedly gambling in the past year, and 40% engaging in sports betting, the nation has become the largest online gambling market globally.
Predictions indicate that the trend will continue, with online gambling expected to generate $60 billion to $70 billion annually by 2030. Plans are even underway for a commercial casino in New York's Times Square, an idea once considered unthinkable.
Among the newer, potentially troubling forms of gambling are wagers on election outcomes and short-term stock movements. The popularity of parlays, which combine multiple bets, is on the rise, despite their higher risks. The dynamics of the deregulated gambling industry require significant advocacy to maintain their momentum.
In this context, it is no surprise that prominent liberals in politics and media endorse the transformations within the gambling industry, framing the issue within a compelling narrative. Their rhetoric reflects broader patterns found in the techniques employed to justify various societal changes. Analyzing these approaches can shed light on their methods in what I term the "Liberal Warfare Toolbox." Understanding these tactics is crucial for those looking to discern manipulation and the attempts to normalize gambling alongside other controversial issues.
To examine the strategies used by liberal advocates, let us first consider the approach that appeals to a higher-order good. Supporters of deregulation often claim that individuals should have the freedom to engage in activities, including self-harm through gambling. This argument is rooted in the concept of negative freedom—the idea that people should be free from external constraints.
While this appeal to freedom is superficially persuasive, it neglects crucial philosophical insights. John Locke, a prominent advocate of negative freedom, argued that true freedom cannot equate to license; individuals must act in accordance with reason. Therefore, unrestrained gambling, which can lead to personal and communal harm, stands in opposition to Locke's understanding of freedom.
Moreover, contemporary proponents reduce the concept of freedom to a value-neutral commodity, disregarding its moral implications. The modern perspective often disregards positive freedom, or "freedom to," which emphasizes one’s ability to access opportunities and evade internal constraints, such as addiction to gambling.
The balance of both negative and positive freedoms is essential for a prosperous society. Ensuring that individuals possess both types of freedom is fundamental to promoting a context in which they can lead fulfilling lives.
The appeal to higher-order goods—strictly for the purpose of deregulation—mirrors tactics used to advocate for other contentious policies. For instance, proponents of abortion and euthanasia invoke the dignity of life to justify actions that contravene moral norms.
Another critical tactic within the liberal framework is the delegitimization of authority. Liberals often argue against the right of others, especially those in positions of power, to dictate how individuals should live their lives. They employ strategies such as "damning the origin" and "poisoning the well" to undermine authority figures who oppose gambling.
By framing negative views towards betting as rooted in outdated, Puritanical beliefs, liberal advocates seek to discredit traditional authority and present pleasure-seeking as a modern value. They dismiss significant moral concerns about gambling that stem from a thorough examination of its historical implications, opting instead for a narrative that liberates individuals from what they view as antiquated perspectives.
The "poisoning the well" technique involves discrediting an opponent before they have a chance to present their argument, effectively undermining their credibility. This approach can silence constructive dialogue and prevents an equitable discussion of the consequences of deregulating gambling.
In seeking to legitimize practices traditionally viewed as harmful, liberals employ strategies that not only impact the gambling debate but extend into various other societal issues. For example, they might use similar criticisms against a person who opposes abortion, preemptively discrediting them based on gender or other characteristics, thus framing their arguments as inherently flawed.
As we explore these stratagems within the "Liberal Warfare Toolbox," it's crucial to recognize their broader application across various contentious areas. Future discussions will further unveil additional tactics used in these debates.
Max Fischer contributed to this report for TROIB News
