campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com
Gail Collins:David, we’re about to embark on back-to-back conventions, so let’s find something else to talk about besides the presidential race. Before the John Edwards affair recedes into history, should we discuss Lessons Learned? I know Americans have an irritating tendency to look for silver linings. (True, the building did collapse three days after it was finished. The good news is that now we have a much better appreciation of the importance of structural integrity.) Still, it’s better than moping.
I hope the mainstream media doesn’t decide that this means they should commit their limited investigative resources to trailing every allegation of political adultery The National Enquirer uncovers. We all have specialties in life — I’m good with letting The National Enquirer folks hang onto their niche.
As voters, our interest in which big names are sleeping around is real but limited. One limit is that you don’t torture also-rans. If Edwards had ever had a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee, this would have been a huge matter. He’d made his marriage a major part of his campaign — by the end, it was really the main thing he had going. Imagine the chaos the Democrats would be in right now if he had the nomination locked up.
But he never really did break through. This particular scandal was gaining legs just as he was losing credibility. I’d be shocked if editors had begun taking reporters off other assignments, like checking campaign donations, or trying to deconstruct the Obama and McCain economic programs, in order to prove that a guy who used to be in the race was also in the sack with a New Age videographer.
The obvious retort is that it’s not our job to judge who’s a serious candidate. (How many people running for Congress on the Free Will party line have demanded that you do a profile of them using that argument?) If somebody is running for president and taking campaign contributions from the public, he’s certainly asking for a high level of scrutiny. But just because a guy has delusions of grandeur, I don’t think it’s necessary to make his family miserable for no good reason.
It is ironic, however, that Edwards kept complaining we weren’t treating him like a serious candidate when that should have been the last thing he wanted.
By the way, I’m just back from vacation in Ireland. I decided to splurge and brought you a euro.
Happy August!
David Brooks:Gail, you’re back from Ireland, I’m back from China. I don’t know about you, but my first impression upon returning from abroad is usually a sense of humiliation. I flew through the magnificent airports at Beijing and Hong Kong to land in the dump that is Kennedy International in New York.
The airport is in shambles. There was no decent signage so it was hard to figure out what line to stand in, and the workers around the luggage carts and in the food stands were surly.
At least I had the John Edwards affair to divert me. My first impression is that the public reaction toward Edwards has been venomous. People who were quick to excuse and chuckle at Bill Clinton’s many, many affairs are treating Edwards like the devil incarnate for his one. Why is that? My semi-facetious observations are:
First, Democrats only defend adulterers as long as they are still useful for the party politically.
Second, people are much harsher toward those who cheat on an ailing Elizabeth Edwards than they are toward those who cheat on Hillary Clinton.
Third, after defending Bill Clinton many people were eager to realign themselves with the forces of marital rectitude.
Fourth, men are scum and male politicians are generally the worst kind. Edwards didn’t just cheat on his wife, he cheated on his kids. Any man who can commit adultery while the images of his small son and daughter dance before his mind is capable of narcissism beyond imagining.
But your point was about media investigations, and here I have to confess a bias. I’ve never been very impressed with personal scandals. I generally don’t write about them or care about them, and I think we in the news business spend far too much time trying to expose them. Here’s why.
Several years ago I moderated a panel with Dan Rostenkowski and Bob Packwood. It was one of those “Not Indicted, Not Invited” affairs. They were brilliant. Rosty, who fell victim to a minor financial scandal, and Packwood, who fell victim to a creepier sexual scandal, were superb legislators. Their descriptions of how legislation gets passed were subtle, intelligent and wise. We are much worse off as a nation not having people like that in high office. Yet they fell victim to scandal-mongers.
So no, I don’t think we should follow The National Enquirer into that swamp. But to be honest, I don’t think we should follow them into that swamp even if the candidate is still in the running. A quick word from some party elders would be my solution to this sort of sinfulness.
If you send me a euro, I’ll send you a 100 Chinese yuan. I don’t know which is more valuable now. But I’m pretty sure I know which will be more valuable in 50 years. |
