A Thought About Scandals....

They are about the contrast not necessarily the event itself.

Mark Barabak had another thoughtful piece this morning in the Los Angeles Times on scandals and their short shelf life the days. I think in some respects, he is right. Scandals, and their ability to shock, are not the same as they were before. Scandals, in and of themselves, are a demonstration of weakness in a candidate. He points to our President, the Attorney General in Virginia, and Katie Porter as three examples of “scandals” which have been less than fatal. The contrast was Gary Hart, who famously dropped out of the Presidential Race because of pictures of an extra-marital affair showing up. His point is, the atomized media landscape has undermined the effect of a scandal.

I think he missed a key point though. Scandals are scandals depending on the image the person projects and what the action of the person is doing relative to that image. For instance, the President, nobody would say, is a solidly upstanding and moral man. His life was so broadly published since his days in New York City, with multiple marriages, being a casino owner, bankrupt self promoter before resurrecting his career, so, the “scandals” he has projected are not “scandals” in the traditional sense. Scandals need a hypocrisy exposed.

Katie Porter, again, does not project an image of a woman who “clutches pearls.” She is pugnacious, and has been since her days in Washington. While her behavior is disrespectful and indicative of someone who would be hard to work for, as I predicted, these videos would not be fatal, but they would hurt. She pushed back and keep going in the gubernatorial election. Absent someone being a contrast or her behavior contrasting with her own projected beliefs (i.e. she was really a shill for big banks), she will ride out the “recordings” assuming no more come out and someone cannot offer a contrast.

What makes scandals “scandals” are they are “the confirmation of the lie.” Scandals are not behavior which is antithetical, they need the “behavior to be antithetical to the person committing it and what they profess to be.” A philander might be antithetical to us, but they are not necessarily to the image projected by the person, and if we see a confirmation of what they are, so be it.

Big scandals are where behavior is broader, like Barabak points out, against our social mores. Even so, Gary Hart, and John Edwards later, projected this “good guy” image, which was then undermined by their extra-martial affairs (Edwards was even worse because his wife was dying of cancer and he fathered a child with his other partner). Go back to Cal Cunningham in North Carolina to see where such a scandal could still ruin a campaign. He cheated on his wife with a campaign supporter, and did so in his own marital bedroom. That behavior was enough to end the campaign for the “good guy.”

Charlie Wilson is another famous story of a politician who constantly got into trouble, down to cocaine in a Vegas hotel room, with showgirls no less, while representing his constituents who were some of the most religious in the nation. How do you explain that paradox? They knew what he was and still elected him.

My point is, there has to be more than just an allegation or confirmation. That conformation has to (a) conflict with a narrative of the candidate and/or the electorate, and (b) has to pounced on by a candidate who offers a competitive picture to that person. Cal Cunningham was against Thom Tillis, who was enough of a known quantity to give those allegations root, and offer a reliable alternative. Katie Porter? Who is she running against and what are they doing to continue to drive the key point that she is unfit for office? Maybe it is the message of, “is it right to have someone, anyone, who treats their trusted employees the way she does? Leaders do not do things that way.” But, in and of itself, the tapes are repugnant but not fatal unless there is more. They are not a scandal, they are a “political hit” as we said when they came out.

With scandals, it is “the juicy,” the “hypocrisy” which really matters.

The expectation is we all have weaknesses. The expectation is “they” can find that weakness. The expectation is “they” can “turn” that weakness against you. “They” try to “tear you down” instead of “building themselves up.” We all expect scandals to be fatal but most are not, mainly because they are not really scandals, they lack the hypocrisy which makes the scandal a scandal. Not everything is Watergate. Stupidity, moreover, is not a scandal. In this climate, we have to elevate such events to be more because the candidates are so weak, and we have to compete for eyeballs. A true scandal should endure long past the publication. It should be a wound which is truly deep. It should be something which cannot be walked back from.

Dana Williamson and her illegal activity in Sacramento? The illegality is a scandal, even for someone as hard charging as her, because illegality is more than “playing rough,” it breaks the unwritten rules of politics. It is also the exposure of those who were supposed to be protected for personal greed. What other pieces are exposed for being “hypocritical,” where people projected an image and the reality shifts the image.

So back to candidates, if you are a good candidate, the scandal is a part of a contrast between you and the other. It is part of a narrative, but not the narrative. If you rely on the scandal in and of itself, you are not a good enough candidate. For Tillis, was it enough to put him over the top, affecting the key “soft” Cunningham voters? It is a part of a campaign but not a campaign in and of itself.

So, when you hear the word “scandal,” know it is a loaded term, one designed to get attention, but it fades if there is no true contrast to what the candidate is. If it fades, it was never really a scandal, so get on your horse and go do the work of winning a campaign. Raise yourself up.