Monday, February 9, 1998
Do as I say
MORALITY The jury is still out regarding whether or not
Americans
should care about the private lives of our leaders
By Pauline Vu
Daily Bruin Contributor
Under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, America ended the Great
Depression, changed the course of World War II and emerged as the
most powerful country in the world.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. won the Nobel Peace Prize, earned
national acclaim and led a movement that would forever alter the
social fabric of America.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy boldly challenged Communist power,
implemented a wide range of new social programs and won the hearts
of Americans everywhere.
All three were great and popular leaders of their time, and will
always be remembered in history for their strength, courage and
loyalty to their country.
And all three are said to have cheated on their wives.
In light of the recent scandals involving high ranking
government officials, the public must wonder what is more important
in a leader, his personal character or his governmental
leadership?
To some, it’s not a black and white issue.
"Morality is a very relative term, but private life and public
life are not always the same," said Netta Avineri, a first-year
undeclared student. "Just because someone is immoral in their
private life, it doesn’t mean they’re not going to be moral in
their public life."
Pastor Tim Seals of the United Lutheran Church agreed.
"There are people who are very good and upright morally, but
fail when it comes to public policy. There may be some folks who
are awful when it comes to personal morals, but succeed when it
comes to public policy."
Some people wonder why something like President Clinton’s
current scandal concerning former White House intern Monica
Lewinsky matters at all. As long as he succeeds in his role as
president, why should character matter?
However, in other opinions, character more than matters.
"Political leaders should be held to a higher standard than most
people; they’re in that position because they think they have
something more to offer. It’s part of their job," said Mia Lee, a
first-year history student.
According to Lee, if morality didn’t matter, then Richard Nixon
wouldn’t have been impeached – that was a moral issue as well. "You
expect your leaders to have integrity."
"When voting, I would take their personal life into
consideration," said Peter Dishchekenian, a fourth-year
neuroscience student. "I’d concentrate on their agenda and what
they’re hoping to achieve in office, but I would also consider
their personal life."
One reason why people feel character is so important concerns
the issue of honesty.
"You don’t want a president who’s going to lie to the American
people. If they just boldly lie to the entire country, it’s wrong.
Who says they’re not going to lie about anything else?" Lee
asked.
Political science professor Thomas Schwartz explained that this
was the reason the press has been so mercilessly hounding Clinton’s
private life.
"In Clinton’s case, the problem is not that he had a sexual
dalliance; if a few reporters had an inkling about it, they
probably wouldn’t have written anything." However, according to
Schwartz, the press is writing about it because he may have taken
it to such an extreme.
"Over and over he would lie about his past, and then backtrack.
Sex kept coming into it, in not just one but on many other
occasions, and he did not simply say, ‘When it’s a matter of sex
I’m not talking about it, or a matter of marijuana or draft dodging
or my personal investments.’"
According to Schwartz, Clinton’s downfall was that "he would
talk about it, and what he’d say was misleading."
Others feel someone in a position as high-profile as the
presidency must set an example of how to live. Often, these critics
believe that if the president is not held to same moral standards
as the rest of the world, it may affect how he leads his own
life.
Along the same lines, some feel that Clinton represents the
country and should honor that position.
Schwartz argues that, when evaluating the president’s character,
we cannot draw a line between his public and private life.
"It is their character, their ability to be trustworthy and make
reliable commitments that benefits the country," said Schwartz.
"If in private business or in amorous relationships they show
some character weaknesses, then we have some evidence that their
character as applied to the issues of public policy is not that
strong," he added.
Dishchekenian agreed that the president’s values affect his
position as a leader. "Politicians need to have an objective moral
standard, rather than a relative one. A lot of people can’t relate
to a relative one because it’s just based on yourself. There is a
consensus on what is right and wrong in general," Dishchekenian
said.
On the issue of religious leaders, there seems to be no
ambivalence.
Though some feel a political leader’s personal life was his or
her own matter, most people agree on the issue of religious
leaders.
"Yes, there has to be good character. Your lifestyle must be
commensurate with what you teach. As a leader of a religious
community, it’s important that my people know what my life is
like," Seals said.
Seals adds that "everyone has foibles."
Dishchekenian uses religious leaders to define a moral
standard.
Referring to religious leaders like Dr. King, he added, "the
presupposition is that no one’s perfect. However, they should try
and be blameless as best as they can in front of people while they
lead, and when they make mistakes, confess it and not conceal
it."
One politician decided to come clean about allegations made
against him – in the presidential election of 1884.
The Buffalo Evening Telegraph reported that Democratic nominee
Grover Cleveland had fathered an illegitimate child. Republican
members of Congress taunted Democrats with cries of, "Ma, Ma,
where’s Pa?"
Rather than deny the allegations, Cleveland admitted to it and
added that he was financially aiding the child and mother. The
public forgave him and he went on to win the presidency.
Others did not fare quite so well.
"In Gary Hart’s case the problem was not that he had a sexual
dalliance," said Schwartz. "The problem was everyone knew that he
messed around, but he went around doing it too often while bragging
too often that he was as pure as the driven snow. That’s why the
press went after him."
Immoral acts also took down such leaders as evangelist Jimmy
Swagger, for a scandal that connected him to prostitutes. Spiro
Agnew, Nixon’s vice-president, was forced to resign over charges of
tax evasion. And, of course, the most famous example is President
Nixon himself, who resigned from the presidency rather than face
impeachment proceedings.
Televangelist Jim Bakker was another leader whose adultery and
greed led to his downfall. After spending 20 years raising funds
for his $170 million-per-year business, the scandal of his adultery
with church secretary Jessica Hahn forced him from his post as
president of PTL Television. In 1987 he was arrested and spent five
years in prison for mail and wire fraud.
There are other leaders, however, who have succeeded.
"FDR is probably the clearest example of somebody who was still
successful in many ways as president despite his affair," Schwartz
said.
Roosevelt has constantly been named as one of the most
significant presidents in history. And Kennedy remained an
extremely popular president, says Schwartz, despite the fact that
the actual record of Kennedy’s presidency was one of failure after
failure.
In a time when marriage seemed more sacred, Roosevelt’s
long-time affair with his wife’s secretary, Lucy Mercer, did not
diminish his leadership ability, and Kennedy’s affair with
actresses such as Marilyn Monroe did not lessen his popularity,
probably because these affairs were better concealed then those of
politicians today.
Strangely enough, Clinton’s approval ratings have shot up
rapidly in the days after the allegations of his affair with
Lewinsky and his State of the Union Address. But this, said
Schwartz, means little.
"The approval ratings today mean nothing. The momentary
un-thought-out reaction to a survey question conveys very little
information except that in their environment, (voters) recently
heard some good news that has a certain appeal to them. This
doesn’t mean when they see how things work out in Congress that
they still like it."
What should be done about Clinton’s actions? the public wonders.
What will be done?
"I don’t think just because he had an affair he should be
impeached. I don’t think impeachment and his morality are that
related," Lee said.
Avineri compared Clinton to Nixon. "Nixon was saying, ‘Oh, I’m
above the law.’ That’s why he was impeached. But people are saying
Clinton needs to be impeached because he had sex with this girl?"
Avineri asked incredulously. He feels that Clinton’s extramarital
affairs should be a personal family matter, dealt with by him and
his wife.
Schwartz added his prediction. "It will depend on the evidence
that Kenneth Starr digs up. If the charge is true, the combination
of sex, lying and encouraging Ms. Lewinsky to lie is enough to
drive him from office."
Every president wants to be remembered favorably and leave a
legacy. As Schwartz said, "A second-term president isn’t playing to
the voters – he’s playing to the historian." Whether or not the
allegations are true, Clinton’s legacy may be one fraught with
scandal, pointed fingers and whispers.
"Clinton’s still young; in 20 or so years he’ll be reading the
history books and what they’ll say about him, and he’ll have some
pain," Schwartz said.
With reports from Katie Sierra, Daily Bruin Contributor.