The Strategy of Scandal
By Jack Moczinski
FEBRUARY 9, 1998:
Until the State of the Union address, President Clinton was presumed
to be finished. Polls came out that showed the public thought
he was a liar, and his approval rating dropped. However, in time,
it is becoming clear that the American people may forgive the
president as they forgave him in 1992 for the Gennifer Flowers
affair. People talked about the Bubba factor in 1992, and it has
re-emerged in 1998, but they can clearly separate the personal
actions of the president and the policy actions of the president.
They told us that they treat the president as the president but
also as a human being. We elected him because he's like us. The
country is in great shape, so what does it matter that the guy
is lonely?
Politicians in power in this country are approached by shady characters
all the time who are attracted to power. How many shady characters
do you run into in a year: a used car salesman, a woman of questionable
virtue, a manipulating relative? Afterall, none of us are innocents.
Should the president be?
The media feeding frenzy surrounding the story has been covered
with as much hoopla as an O.J. car chase or Princess Diana's death.
Shabby coverage by the media points to a desire for rapid reporting
that allows journalists and editors to break cardinal rules of
the trade by running headlines that assume the president's guilt
and failing to twice confirm sources. The media and the special
prosecutor drew the public's interest for the allure of a trashy
story, but in the end, the public decides the worthiness of this
story.
The actions of Special Prosecutor Ken Starr have raised questions
regarding the viability of the special prosecutor law that allows
an independent counsel to place a microscope on the president's
life and hold the president under constant inquisition. Would
Harry Truman have been able to govern if there were a four-year
investigation into the failed clothing business he ran as a young
man? Would Ronald Reagan have been able to govern if investigators
were presenting information to the public on his first divorce
or all the characters he hung out with in Hollywood?
The State of the Union speech, instead of being the last gasp
of a dying man, was Clinton's vindication. We've known this about
Billy Jeff Clinton: He's a Rasputin. He won't die, and injury
only makes him stronger and angrier. Opinion polls on the president
were through the roof after the State of the Union, and his campaign-style
tour of the nation to sell his new proposals is getting warm reviews.
It's incredible that pundits ignored history and actually thought
the guy would give up!
Clinton and the same advisors who produced his 1992 campaign understood
the distance in opinions between the public and Washington insiders.
Starr incorrectly thought Washington attitudes would fly with
the rest of America. Starr fought from a weak position and allowed
Clinton to win the initial battle of this war. Starr was working
under civil rules of evidence, which demand less than criminal
rules of evidence. This draws into question the legitimacy and
strength of wire taps, stings and consent laws guarding the taping
of phone conversations. Starr must have known that the evidence
collected in the investigation would have less impact legally
than they would in the court of public opinion. Starr's only choice
was to leak the information to see if the leaks would cause the
pipes to burst. He tried to get Clinton to flinch, but Clinton
realized that if he just sat back and weathered the crisis, he
could partially recover through the State of the Union address.
Also, the president is giving the story time to grow stale. We
all know from the Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers experiences
that focus eventually fades from the president to his accusers.
Soon after the State of the Union, the press trained their sights
on the special prosecutor, Lewinsky, Linda Tripp and others. Clinton's
people conveniently joined in with the press and began asking,
"Who is Monica Lewinsky?"
How much time does Clinton have and how far will his skilled political
team carry him? Lewinsky is only the show pony of this case. What
may have occurred in a consentual relationship between Clinton
and Lewinsky is not as legally compelling as what may have happened
with Kathleen Willey, who may have been sexually harassed by the
president.
Clinton has time, especially if we consider the only benchmark
of major president scandal, Watergate. People voted for Nixon
in 1972 over George McGovern months after the Watergate story
emerged. Voters didn't believe the scandal but as details followed,
they learned what a crook Nixon really was. The question is, if
something is there, how long will it be before the facts come
out, and will the public find the facts disturbing enough to change
their opinion of this man?
|