      |
|
|
 |
|
« Back to How Should We Handle Scandal? main page    Transcript for: How Should We Handle Scandal?Think Tank Transcripts: How Should We Handle Scandal? Joining us to sort through the conflict and consensus are: LarrySabato, professor of government at the University of Virginia andco-author of 'Dirty Little Secrets: The Persistence of Corruption inAmerican Politics'; Suzanne Garment, resident scholar at the AmericanEnterprise Institute and author of 'Scandal: The Culture of Mistrustin American Politics'; Elizabeth Drew, author of 'Showdown: TheStruggle between the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton White House';and Gil Troy, professor of history at McGill University in Montrealand author of the forthcoming book, 'Affairs of State: The Rise andRejection of the Presidential Couple.' The topic before this house: How should we handle scandal? Thisweek on 'Think Tank.' America loves a good scandal. American politicians aim to please.In the 1920s, the Harding administration was tarnished by charges ofbribery in the Teapot Dome scandal. In 1884, after it was revealedthat Democratic nominee Grover Cleveland had fathered an illegitimatechild, Republicans chanted, 'Ma, ma, ma, where's my pa? Gone to theWhite House, ha, ha, ha.' And Grover Cleveland was ... elected. Of course, in 1974, President Richard Nixon resigned because ofthe scandal which became known as Watergate. Since Watergate, majorscandals and firestorms have exploded at an apparently escalatingrate, driven by congressional hearings, newly created independentcounsels, investigative reporters, and public interest groups, all inbusiness to expose wrongdoing, a view that has been advanced by ourpanelist Suzanne Garment. Recent allegations and revelations about President and Mrs.Clinton have sent the scandal industry into overdrive, raising someimportant questions, including, to what extent are these scandalsmedia-created and media-driven? When is a scandal important and whenis it trivial? And have Americans accepted scandal? After all, arecent poll showed 56 percent of Americans believe President Clintonintentionally abused power by obtaining FBI files, but the same pollalso found that 56 percent of the public approve of the job PresidentClinton is doing. And lastly, how should American voters handlescandal? Larry Sabato, has the playing field in the school for scandalchanged in recent years? MR. SABATO: I think it's changed enormously, at least in therecent decades. It used to be that the media refused to air or printrumor without a substantial body of proof or evidence. Now rumor isaired and printed with abandon. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Elizabeth Drew. MS. DREW: I agree, Ben. I think the bar has been lowered againstwhat gets into print and even goes out on the air. I think probably areal low was hit over the Gary Aldrich book. And I think a lot ofnews organizations -- MR. WATTENBERG: The Gary Aldrich book -- tell us what that one wasabout. MS. DREW: Oh, the man who's always described as 'a former FBIagent' -- I mean he was one -- who was assigned to the Bush and thenthe Clinton White House published a book that had a number of -- ashe had to admit -- unsubstantiated rumors in it. And a certain amountof that, in fact a great deal of that, got into the, quote,'legitimate,' unquote, press as well as on television. And I think anumber of news organizations are going through little sessions ofself-criticism now, and those that aren't should. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Gil Troy. MR. TROY: Nineteenth century press was filled with rumors, it wasfilled with bile, it was filled with scandal. I think what's changed,though, is the context in which we do it. We tend to respect thepress more, we tend to believe them more, and we also don't haveother experience with politics. We don't vote as much, we don't marchas much, we don't have party identity, and so we don't have mediatinginfluences to dilute the scandal. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Suzanne Garment. MS. GARMENT: It has changed. Every generation sets its own rulesfor scandal. We have lowered the bar in modern times, and we're inthe process now of deciding whether we want to raise it again. MR. WATTENBERG: But you have also written that the structure ofscandal generation has changed, that we have institutionalized what-- why don't you just explain that to us. MS. GARMENT: It's true that today there are many more institutionswith the capacity to uncover alleged wrongdoing, publicize it, punishit, so that you have more sources of possible scandal news. What wecan do about it, though, if we don't like the results, is to changethe way we view the information that these institutions produce. Thepress is the first place where those decisions get made. MR. WATTENBERG: Elizabeth, the point was made on this Gary Aldrichbook that true blue reporters, probably even you, use anonymoussources. Why was it so terrible for Gary Aldrich to use anonymoussources? MS. DREW: Because of what he purveyed and, as he said, reallywithout many sources at all. I mean, in the end, the most squalidthing he purveyed -- which I don't want to repeat on the air, I'm notgoing to be part of his transmission bell -- he had to admit, hefinally said, 'Oh, that was some speculation that needs to bepursued.' I mean, that's no standard at all. If Gary Aldrich walked into a respectable newsroom -- if he had --and said, Look, you know, I've got it that President Clinton didthis, and this and this happened, then they'd say, Well, because hehas no credentials as a journalist -- I mean, I think you have tomake some distinctions here. MR. WATTENBERG: Well, you say he has no credentials. He spentallegedly 30 years as an FBI investigator. Now, he would say that'sas good credentials as Bob Woodward has or Elizabeth Drew. MS. DREW: I don't think so. I mean, I'm not qualified to be an FBIagent. I don't -- in any event, I said he didn't have goodcredentials as a journalist. Or even if somebody came into one ofthose papers that was their own person who had something that wasreally so unusual, took the whole subject way beyond where it hadbeen, he'd be questioned by his editors. MR. SABATO: I think Elizabeth Drew makes the right distinction asfar as the Gary Aldrich book is concerned. You can divide that bookinto two main pieces. One is credible, and that is relying on hisexperience as an FBI agent over 30 years and I believe 5 years in theWhite House, when he talks about the difficulty in getting theClinton people to go through security clearance to get their properclearance to view classified information. Those charges are serious,and I believe him because he has the background to make those sortsof distinctions. But the other part of the book is absolute trash. It regards rumoras being fact, as Elizabeth has noted. He relies on just a singlesource for the most outlandish and scurrilous part of the book. MS. DREW: If you have not been questioned on the validity of whatyou do, if you've built up a reputation over the years, people trustyou. And if you've shown yourself unworthy of trust, they don't. It'sa character question. MS. GARMENT: You know, the book -- MR. WATTENBERG: We will return to character. Go ahead. MS. GARMENT: Oh, right. No, the book raises another question aswell, even apart from veracity. There are some things that he sawwith his own eyes. We should probably assume that they're true. Andyet they raise the question of whether they're important enough to bereported, or reported as evidence as moral turpitude, which is whathe's doing. MR. WATTENBERG: What do you think? I mean, he says that he knowsfirst hand that the Clinton original White House staff sought toavoid FBI investigations. MS. GARMENT: That's pretty important. What may not be so importantis all his observations about the dress habits of various Clintonstaffers or what kind of Christmas ornaments Mrs. Clinton decided toput on the White House Christmas tree. MS. DREW: If she did. MS. GARMENT: That's right. For sake of argument, assume she did.There's still the question of whether it's evidence of anythingmorally significant. MR. TROY: But I actually think that's the heart of the book.What's really going on is a culture clash between an older culturethat this FBI agent represents, a rock-rib Republican culture, and acounterculture, the 'McGovernicks' as Newt Gingrich called them. Andthat's what really kind of makes the scandal interesting, and that'swhat makes it significant. MS. GARMENT: It makes it both interesting and significant. Whetherit's morally significant is another question. MR. SABATO: It's trivial, though, Gil. I mean, that kind ofinformation, while I agree with you, it can be fascinating at onelevel, it's trivial and it doesn't really feed into the basicdecision that Americans are going to have to make in November. MS. DREW: I have a little problem with lumping all theaforementioned things into scandals. They are of such different scaleand of such different importance. I mean, I will resist till my lastbreath using the suffix -gate on anything other than Watergate, whichwas the real name of the place where the little burglary occurredthat started the whole thing. Watergate was a constitutional struggle. It was very, very highstakes over very important things, like the Fourth Amendment. And Idon't think we can throw -- and I wouldn't even call it a scandal, ina way. It was bigger than that. MR. WATTENBERG: The Fourth Amendment is search and seizure? MS. DREW: Yes, search and seizure. And here are these people,hired by people connected to the White House, going in and raidingsomebody's psychiatrist's file. That's about as scary as it can get. MS. GARMENT: Scandal is one of those words that are circular. Thatis, scandal is what scandalizes us. And you've pointed to thedifference between the constitutional struggle and the Christmas treeornaments, and I think it's that lack of discrimination that probablymarks us the most of all. MR. TROY: The populous. Millions of people are fascinated by this.Why are they fascinated by this? Because they impute a certain kindof significance to these issues, and I don't think it's just trivial.I think that people -- you know, in 1996, there's going to be agenerational clash going on between Bob Dole and Bill Clinton, andboth of them are going to try to trigger all kinds of associationssaying, what do I stand for? Who am I? And it gets to kind of thefundamental questions of democracy, who do we want as a leader andwhere do we want to go? And it also gets to one of the crucialquestions of our time, which is since the 1960s, our consensusculture has been splintered. We're not quite sure where to go, we'renot quite sure what we believe and we're trying to recreate somecommon value, and the unfortunate thing is that we have to do it in aworld where the media is so central. MR. SABATO: Well, Gil -- oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Susan. Well, no,Gil, what you're saying is true in the sense that you're talkingabout the character issue, and it is important to focus on thecharacter issue, I agree. But look, the distinction that I'm tryingto draw here and I think some others are trying to draw is that themedia ought to focus on aspects of character for which there's asubstantial body of proof or evidence, that false allegations have nobusiness being given air time or being given print space innewspapers. MS. DREW: Or unsubstantiated. MR. SABATO: Unsubstantiated rumors and allegations. MR. TROY: Journalists have always been scavengers on a certainlevel, with all due respect, and I think the difference is the way weview it. MR. WATTENBERG: As opposed to academics, Professor Troy, right? MR. TROY: Oh, we're just pompous -- MR. WATTENBERG: You're pompous. Okay, right. MR. TROY: We have different character flaws. But what I'minterested in is why is that voters so focus on the media, and Ithink it's because, you know, we don't interact with each other incommunities anymore, we don't interact with each other even over theradio talking about what's going on. We sit and we experience thingsthrough television, through a newspaper, and so there aren't theseother mediating influences, there aren't these other to dilute ourexperience with the media and with scandal. And so as a result, wespend far too much time focusing on journalists, we spend far toomuch money paying them to lecture and we spend far too much -- MR. WATTENBERG: Careful, careful. MR. TROY: -- and we end up respecting them when we've made themthe centers, the stars of our political arena. And as a result, ourpolitical arena is suffering. MS. GARMENT: It's true that as other institutions have declined,the press for some people becomes the only bulletin board in town. Soany flaws that are there are magnified in their effects. MR. TROY: And journalists have this mantle of objectivity. I mean,in the old days of the partisan press, if I was a Republican, Ibelieved what I read in the Republican paper, and what I learned wasthat Democrats were scoundrels, but I also learned that theRepublicans were heroes. And we also -- we've kind of lost heroes inour world. We don't have people kind of building them up. MS. DREW: I think if you look at the polls, though, the approvalpolls, journalists are way down there with politicians and sometimesconfused to be the same thing. I don't think it's -- MR. WATTENBERG: Down with used car salesmen in a lot of -- MS. DREW: It's just plain there. I think we're getting a littleastray. If you could look at how many people read newspapers even. SoI'm not sure that it's -- journalists as stars may raise someproblems, but I don't think that one. MR. WATTENBERG: Elizabeth, is the character issue on whateverpolitician, not necessarily President Clinton, is that a legitimateissue, or should voters say, it's content, stupid, and I agree withClinton; maybe he's a scoundrel, maybe he's not, but I like him? Orshould they say, any candidate, not President Clinton, he is morallyflawed, and as Gil says, morally flawed in a certain way, coming outof this counterculture, whatever it is, and therefore character isdestiny, and content? MS. DREW: I wouldn't begin to tell the voters how important thisshould be to them, nor would I suggest that character is somethingthat you can only decide on based on these, quote, 'scandals.'Character is also how you deal with issues, and it's a verysubjective thing and voters are going to decide, you know, I don'tlike that guy because -- and he may be saying something or she may besaying something that doesn't have to do with scandals. Maybe theythink somebody is too slick, to take a wild example. (Laughter.) Or to take another one, maybe they think somebody is sort of tooout of it and, you know, not up to date. There's a whole amalgam ofthings that I think make up character well beyond anything -- MR. WATTENBERG: And these are very legitimate concerns for avoter. MS. DREW: Of course they are. MR. WATTENBERG: That they don't just vote on how they stand onwelfare or how they stand on foreign policy. MS. DREW: Well, but Ben, what I'm saying is you could also say howthey stand on welfare can even be, in some people's minds, acharacter issue. MR. SABATO: It's a combination. I think for most voters, it's acombination of their judgment about the candidate's character andtheir agreement or disagreement with the candidate's positions on keyissues. I mean, most people weigh all of these matters in making uptheir mind, and that's perfectly legitimate. In Bill Clinton's case, my point to the Clinton critics, thepeople who are spreading many of these scurrilous rumors, is look,there's plenty already on the record about Bill Clinton, bothpositive and negative, in the character arena. I go back to what thegreat political scientist V. O'Key (ph) said. He said, 'Voters arenot fools,' and they really aren't. They take all of this informationand they weigh it and they balance it, and in the end, they reach aresponsible judgment, in most cases. MR. TROY: One of the great ironies of the Clinton administrationis that in 1992, he tried to make the election a referendum onissues. And he said, 'It's the economy, stupid.' Let's not focus onissues -- let's not focus on character, let's not gossip. And I thinkin the last three, four years, what we've seen is a resurgence of thecharacter issue because he in his presidency has somehow linked thecharacter flaws with some of the policy flaws. Joe Klein in'Newsweek' wrote this great piece on the politics of promiscuity, howBill Clinton's need, his desire, his compulsive push constantly toseduce people, both one on one and also fellow leaders, has led to acertain kind of sloppiness in foreign policy, a certain sloppiness indomestic policy. And that is a point where you can't quitedistinguish between character and policy, so I think we -- MR. WATTENBERG: Have the American people with this explosion ofscandalmongering, have they become more accepting of it -- those pollresults we showed where the majority of people think Clinton didsomething wrong on the FBI files and yet say, I'm going to vote forhim. MS. DREW: Well, let's see how this evolves over the summer andinto the fall. You could make the case, and I sort of think it, thatif the problems from Whitewater, from the files, from other thingskeep accruing -- and we don't know that, then I think there will bean erosion of his standing. Look, the election is being fought overthe undecideds. An awful lot of people have decided long since thatClinton is flawed, but I prefer his ideas about government, I preferthe direction he wants to go. Others have made up their mind theycan't stand him and nothing can talk them into it. But I think we're in a fluid situation. Might there come a pointif there is too much that comes out that is credible where this groupthat's going to decide the election throws up their hands? I don'tthink we can sit here today and say. MR. WATTENBERG: Just tactically, from the Republican point ofview, the more they can drive this scandal, the more it keeps Clintonon the defensive and off message. MS. DREW: But they have to be careful. It looks like they'reexploiting it. MR. WATTENBERG: Right. MS. DREW: It can backfire. MR. WATTENBERG: They have a very good -- I'm sort of surprisedthat they are not concentrating -- or the appearance that they arenot concentrating on I'm a conservative, he's a liberal, here's whatconservatives believe, here's what liberals believe, because that'sthe natural advantageous terrain for the Republicans. That's how --the obvious way to run a campaign right now. MS. DREW: Wait for the fall. I think you're going to see a lotmore of that. But that doesn't mean -- what I said before when I saidthey have to be careful -- that doesn't mean that importantRepublicans aren't egging on certain committee chairmen, that they'renot floating around a lot of information around town. If you want tohear some good rumors, call a Republican. They've got, you know, somevery interesting ones. But they're sort of, you know, affecting theatmosphere. MR. WATTENBERG: So Suzie, you wrote a book about this. Did theDemocrats do the same thing when there was a Republican president? MS. GARMENT: Oh, sure. (Laughter.) I mean, the post-Watergate risein the incidence of scandal was partly a matter of Democrats gettinga real kick out of being able to beat up on Republicans when RonaldReagan took over in the executive branch. And there is an element ofpayback now. MR. WATTENBERG: So this is -- are we agreed that this is abipartisan phenomenon, depending on who's in and who's out, whose oxis gored, anybody will take advantage of these new conditions? MS. DREW: No. No, because then you'd have to say there is aWhitewater equivalent, you know, in every administration or there's aWatergate equivalent. I don't think you can do that. MR. SABATO: Although certainly both parties do, obviously, takeadvantage when they're in the majority. MS. DREW: Sure. MR. SABATO: And that's happening now. But it's also true if youtrace back, with the exception of Watergate, which was the superscandal of all time, at least for this century, even greater thanTeapot Dome -- with the exception of Watergate, scandal really hasdetermined very, very elections. And if Bob Dole wins, it isn't goingto be because of scandal. MR. WATTENBERG: I want to come back to that, but why was Watergatesuch a monumental scandal when in point of fact what drove Watergatewas perjury, obstruction of justice, just the same things that peopleare alleging about Whitewater and travelgate and filegate and allthis kind of stuff? MS. DREW: Oh, Ben, I don't want to get into a debate over it.There's not much time. If Whitewater turns up certain kinds ofactions once the Clintons, and I say the Clintons, were in thepresidency. So far, that's not the case. It might be. You had a criminal conspiracy being run out of the Oval Office.You had serious obstruction of justice. You had -- as I said, it wasa challenge to the Constitution. MS. GARMENT: The underlying offenses in Watergate are not assignificant -- I'm sorry, in Whitewater -- are not as significant asthose in Watergate. If, however, you find out that there has been anabuse of the FBI to taint the reputation, indeed to indict andemployee of the FBI for political purposes -- an employee of theWhite House for political purposes, if you discover that somethingreally terrible has gone on with the FBI files, then you are talkingabout the same classes of offense. That's still an if. MR. TROY: It's interesting how distorted things have become. Wecan't distinguish in some ways between Watergate and Travelgate and-- MS. DREW: I can. MR. TROY: -- Whitewatergate because there's this constant bleedingfrom the media that everything's a scandal, everything's sensational.And there's the other very unfortunate phenomenon of thecriminalization of political difference. Politicians lie, politiciansoccasionally obstruct the correct processes of government. Thatshouldn't mean that they should therefore be hauled in front ofcongressional committees, hauled in front of a special prosecutor,given six-figure legal bills. Many of these differences should befought out in the political arena, but not in the criminal arena. AndI think in the last 20 years, there's been this unfortunate mixing ofthe two, which makes everything equivalent. And it shouldn't be, Iabsolutely agree with you. MR. WATTENBERG: Gil, let me ask you a question. You are writing abook about presidential couples, presidents and first ladies. Iswhat's happening to Hillary Clinton, is that fair game? MR. TROY: Nancy Reagan would think so. Many of the first ladieshave often been punching bags for America. All kinds of anxietiesabout women, all kinds of anxiety about unelected people seizingpower close to the presidency have come out and have led many of thefirst ladies to be pilloried. And Hillary Clinton has repeatedly saidthat. She kind of takes some solace in the fact that other firstladies have been equally beaten up, and sometimes I think she uses itas a way of excusing some of her own morally questionable actions. MR. SABATO: And you know, you have to remember, even taking intoaccount the Eleanor Roosevelt example, there never has been aco-presidency until now. I mean, they have advertised it as such, andI think in many respects there is a co-presidency. MR. WATTENBERG: They have not really advertised it as aco-presidency. MR. SABATO: Oh, 'two for the price of one,' absolutely in 1992. MR. TROY: In 1993, I think there was a co-presidency. But let'stalk about this six months from now, when my book comes out. MR. WATTENBERG: Is it fair for people to -- I'm sure theRepublicans are going to come to this. They're going to say, Look, ifyou elect Clinton, whether we like it or not, we are going to gothrough two or three years of big public hearings about thepresident, about the first lady, about Whitewater, about Paula Jones,about everything. Do you really want to live through that? Thereforevote for the other guy. Is that legit? MR. TROY: Of course. That's perfectly legitimate. I mean, you cansee the storm clouds gathering. But, you know, the public will takethat into account. They'll weigh the alternatives, and we'll see whatthey decide in November. MR. TROY: Bill Clinton campaigned with his wife. At a certainpoint right before the 1992 convention, he made sure to bephotographed on the cover of 'People' magazine with his wife anddaughter in a group hug to show that he was a family man. I can thinkof no American politician who hasn't posed with the family at onepoint or another, who hasn't in some ways brought character intoplay. I think they all do it, and I think it's because we want to usethat as a way of sifting through all these claims and as a way ofunderstanding is this a man or woman we trust? MR. WATTENBERG: All right. Okay, thank you, Elizabeth Drew, LarrySabato, Suzanne Garment, and Gil Troy. And thank you. Please send your questions and comments to: NewRiver Media, 1150 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20036. For 'Think Tank,' I'm Ben Wattenberg. ANNOUNCER: This has been a production of BJW, Incorporated, inassociation with New River Media, which are solely responsible forits content. 'Think Tank' is made possible by Amgen, recipient of thePresidential National Medal of Technology. Amgen, helping cancerpatients through cellular and molecular biology, improving livestoday and bringing hope for tomorrow. Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation andthe Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Back to top  Think Tank is made possible by generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, the Dodge Jones Foundation, and Pfizer, Inc. ©Copyright Think Tank. All rights reserved. 
  Web development by Bean Creative. |