To the Editor:

COMMENTARY has done a gross disservice to its readers in publishing William J. Bennett’s review of Ronald Dworkin’s Taking Rights Seriously [Books in Review, August 1977]. . . . The errors made in the review are numerous, but I shall mention only one as an example of the way in which Mr. Bennett consistently distorts and misrepresents Dworkin’s arguments.

Mr. Bennett tells us that Dworkin “says it is ‘absurd to suppose that men and women have any general right to liberty at all.’” He then goes on to say that Dworkin believes that there is evidence “. . . that the demand for and interest in liberty are psychologically damaging: for his authority he cites R.D. Laing, who believes that ‘the need to choose, which follows from liberty, is an unnecessary source of destructive tension.’” Mr. Bennett thus leaves the reader with the clear impression that Dworkin is an opponent of liberty, and that he would support an authoritarian regime which would free us of the harm which we suffer when we are left to make important choices for ourselves.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. A careful reading of the chapter from which these quotations are drawn (Chapter 12, “What Rights Do We Have?”) reveals the following two points: first, that Dworkin rejects a general “right to liberty,” which could in any case be of little value since the government is obviously justified in invading our liberty in a variety of ways (because every regulatory law restricts our liberty to some extent), in favor of a more firmly grounded right to certain fundamental liberties (such as those found in the Bill of Rights) which could not be set aside by the government “. . . in spite of the fact that the common interest would be served by doing so.” Secondly, Dworkin cites Laing on the psychological damage which liberty may do us in order to make it clear that this right to fundamental liberties does not rest on any assumption that liberty will make us happier, but on “grounds of political morality” which would hold even if people would be happier under authoritarianism. . . .

Robert S. Gerstein
Department of Political Science
University of California
Los Angeles, California

_____________

William J. Bennett writes:

Anyone reading my review would be left with the impression that I take Dworkin to be an opponent of a right to liberty. This would be the impression because it is what I said. It is true, and it is not difficult to understand. I never said or implied that Dworkin would support an authoritarian regime, and I do not see what my reason would be for saying so. Dworkin has enough problems without being accused of knavery.

Robert S. Gerstein would make a better critic of what I said if he were more attentive to what I said. I assume that my other “numerous errors,” mentioned but never identified by Mr. Gerstein, are, like the one above, to be found in other nonexistent passages in my review.