Here’s how the cycle of sensationalism works: The Star, a supermarket tabloid, prints a trashy, old and unsubstantiated story about Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton having affairs with a former Miss America and four other women. The New York Daily News, New York Post, Boston Herald American and Fox TV pump the rumors into big headlines. The networks commendably avoid the story on their newscasts, but nonetheless send the video of Clinton’s response out to their local affiliates, many of which air it. Other newspapers and magazines get the gist through customs as a media story like this one. Every effort to discredit the tale just spreads it further. The final stage features a backlash, where the critics (not to mention the public) thoughtfully point out that while the press was figuring out who slept with whom, the country was going to hell.
Unpleasant as it is, this tawdry tableau now has a permanent place on the American landscape. That’s a sad but immutable fact of political life. No matter how much hand-wringing goes on in respectable precincts of the, Clinton was still asked the have-you-ever question last week by New Hampshire’s dominant TV station. His answer–“If I had, I wouldn’t tell you”–was fairly effective, but it’s unlikely he has heard the end of it. Given the absence of easy answers, it might be useful to offer a few clarifying questions:
As it happens, last week’s charges, a rehash of a 1990 lawsuit, seem bogus. They have been strongly denied not just by Clinton (“An absolute total lie”) but by the women linked to him. Snooping reporters have also come up dry. The man who filed the suit, a disgruntled former Arkansas state employee who was fired for making hundreds of unauthorized long-distance calls on behalf of the Nicaraguan contras, admits he’s out to ruin Clinton. He has been described even by Clinton’s Arkansas enemies as a nut, and his suit was thrown out of court for lack of evidence.
At the same time, it’s hardly a secret that political circles have been buzzing for months with rumors of Clinton’s past infidelities. At a Washington press breakfast last fall, Clinton and his wife, Hillary, acknowledged that their marriage has had its ups and downs. Their aim was to publicly put their troubles behind them-and to show reporters that their marriage was now strong.
When Gary Hart was caught during the 1988 campaign spending the night with Donna Rice, he got what he deserved. He had betrayed his supporters and staff by thinking with an organ other than his brain. The recklessness spoke to his judgment and maturity and was thus a legitimate campaign issue. But right now, anyway, Clinton’s case isn’t comparable, and not just because of the absence of incriminating evidence. Unlike Hart he didn’t lie about his past and dare reporters to follow him. Informal rules are obviously imperfect, but perhaps the line on adultery should be drawn at current conduct. Since he announced his candidacy, no one has charged him with jeopardizing his whole campaign with stupid behavior. More important, no one has explained why in Clinton’s case any of this is relevant to how he would conduct himself as president. In the end, that’s the only standard that really matters.
Probably not, though they could certainly harm it. Clinton and his aides have been preparing for this issue to surface, and they even hold out hope it will inoculate him. If the situation worsens, plans are underway for Hillary Clinton to step forward: her indignation is a formidable asset. There’s also the possibility of a backlash against the media. Voters angry at the press for anointing Clinton the front runner might now become angry at the press for peddling these stories. There’s precedent: backlash against a sex story helped elect Donald Riegle to the Senate from Michigan in 1976. And GOP operatives (one of whom provided advice to the Arkansas man making last week’s charges) examine bedsheets at their peril. If they insist on dwelling on the matter, equally unsubstantiated rumors about an old George Bush affair might resurface. Then we’ll really have an enlightened, high-minded campaign.
The danger to Clinton is the drip, drip, drip of the media water torture, where bad journalism drives out good and the tabloids set the pace. If the leads evaporate or continue to be totally unsubstantiated, the press pack will move on to devour someone else. On the other hand, if the story continues-especially if some publicity-seeking woman comes forward-the voters will be subjected to yet another Ambivalent American Morality Play, featuring that peculiar mix of puritanism, voyeurism, hypocrisy and disgust for the press.
