The Price of Scandal

As sad as it is to say, the story is tried and true. Politician makes a grievous personal error and then denies it until enough evidence surfaces to make him admit the truth. Then comes the series of public apologies, perhaps a resignation, a period of “rehabilitation,” and finally a resurfacing as a new and changed man.

Of course one cannot think of modern political scandals without thinking of the 1998 Monica Lewinsky scandal. In that case, former President Bill Clinton’s attempts to conceal his in-office affair not only resulted in his impeachment, but also met heavy public scrutiny. Surprisingly enough, Clinton received his highest approval ratings during this seemingly tumultuous time.

More recent politicians have not been as lucky. Following his 2011 sexting scandal, which, like Clinton’s, sparked a media frenzy, Anthony Weiner effectively resigned from Congress and took a two-year hiatus from politics. In April 2013, he was back in the game and announced his decision to run for New York City mayor. The following July, however, it was revealed that Weiner had continued sending inappropriate pictures and messages a few times after his previous resignation. In contrast to the Lewinsky scandal, Weiner’s public appeal did not fare well amid this news. The month before the recent photos and messages surfaced, Weiner was leading in the polls. After the scandal broke, however, his favorability dropped more than 20 points. On September 10, he lost the mayoral primary, securing less than five percent of the vote.

Similarly, Eliot Spitzer’s 2008 prostitution scandal had dire consequences for the former New York governor’s career, who also resigned after the scandal broke. In the midst of his campaign for New York City comptroller, Spitzer’s August 12 approval ratings were less than promising, with 59 percent of voters sill viewing him in a negative light. Although his was a much closer race than that of Anthony Weiner, Spitzer too lost the September 10 primary to his component Scott Springer.

The question remains, then, as to what accounts for the disparity between these approval ratings. Why were Americans more willing to forgive Clinton’s indiscretions as opposed to those of Weiner or Spitzer? After all, Clinton could very well have been held to a higher code of conduct as the president of our nation. Ultimately, however, America was able to exonerate Clinton’s infidelity because, as president, he entered into the scandal with more supporters than Weiner or Spitzer could ever hope to secure as congressman or mayor.

As such, Clinton’s multiple apologies were enough to talk his way back into the nation’s good graces. In the case of Weiner and Spitzer, however, issuing an apology or taking a temporary hiatus from politics did not and will not suffice in securing the trust of Americans, especially so soon after their indiscretions. In the midst of his recent campaign, for instance, Weiner stated, “People who know me are still going to vote for me.” Unfortunately for him, many do not care enough to get to know him beyond his misconduct.

What these politicians don’t seem to understand is that Americans cannot and should not separate a personal indiscretion from political performance. Americans did not forgive Clinton because they felt his infidelity had no effect on his presidency, but because they were willing to rally behind their nation’s leader, believing enough in the sincerity of his apology to extend a second chance. With the release of recent inappropriate messages, Weiner has already violated whatever second chance he may have had. Spitzer attempted to play the second chance card, but ultimately needed to do more in order to make amends for his actions.

Recently, Spitzer has stated that “the public will not only forgive you but they will say, ‘Move on.’” While this may be true, I personally am not ready to forgive him or Weiner after a few apologies and a few short years of silence. Judging by the recent election results, the American public feels the same. Then again, were these men as critical to our nation as President Clinton was during his administration, perhaps they could have secured the public’s forgiveness in greater haste.

As for what the future holds, however, forgiveness is certainly not out of the question. Provided that no more scandals surface, Weiner and Spitzer’s images could continue to heal in the eyes of the public. Whether they chose to run again is another story. Who knows, for instance, whether Weiner’s decision to flip off a reporter immediately following his concession speech is an indication that he has thrown in the towel.

Even if Weiner and Spitzer continue their attempts to govern our people, I hope that their scandals mark a turning point in the conduct of our nation’s leaders. Moving forward, perhaps the cycle of political transgressions will no longer be tried and true. After all, I think I speak for many Americans when I say that I look forward to the day when elections focus more on a candidate’s vision for the country than their defense of an already-sullied character.

Aria N. Bendix ’15, a Crimson editorial writer, is an English concentrator in Quincy House.