Because you said the Emperor had no clothes.
August 23, 1999
Commentary
Answer the Question
By William J. Bennett, author of two forthcoming books, "The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators" (Doubleday) and "The Educated Child: A Parent's Guide" (Free Press).
Whether George W. Bush ever used cocaine is now Topic A in official Washington and in much of America. There is a media frenzy about whether the Texas governor should answer the "cocaine question"--and what the costs are to him if he does and if he doesn't. Welcome to the world of presidential politics 2000.
There are important political and substantive matters involved here, but it is important first to make a point about a glaring double standard in much of the media. Earlier this year Juanita Broaddrick made a specific, credible allegation that Bill Clinton had raped her 21 years ago. Mrs. Broaddrick's charges are supported by at least five witnesses to whom she described the alleged rape within hours or days. Mr. Clinton was apparently in Little Rock on the day Mrs. Broaddrick claims he assaulted her. And there does not appear to be any financial, political or legal incentive for Mrs. Broaddrick to lie.
That's quite a lot, and yet the only response from the president--a pathological liar who was found in contempt of court for giving "false, misleading and evasive" answers--was a statement by his lawyer calling Mrs. Broaddrick's charge "absolutely false." "Beyond that," he said, "we are not going to comment." And that was that. Amazingly, the media (with very few exceptions) accepted that answer and let the story die. Most journalists not only did not want to investigate the matter further, they did not even press the president to answer the charges in more detail. There was no zeal, no persistence, no appetite to pursue the story.
Today, with George W. Bush at the forefront, one may fairly ask: Whatever happened to "scandal fatigue"? It appears that many reporters have gained their second wind.
That said, what are we to make of Mr. Bush's refusal to respond to "gossip and rumor" and "prove a negative," his declaration that "it's time for some politicians to stand up and say enough is enough" and put an end to the kind of politics that is "destroying people's reputation with gossip"? What about his point that public confessionals by baby boomers send a bad signal to children by giving them grounds to engage in harmful behavior?
The governor's arguments are certainly defensible, and in some respects admirable. After all, in this instance there is no specific allegation, no person who has come forward and accused him of having used cocaine. His belief that the press should actually have a credible allegation--a name, a place, a time, an actual circumstance, real evidence--has merit. He is right that politicians deserve a zone of privacy. And the cult of confession that characterizes so much of our modern times is a problem and often a distraction from more serious business.
While granting all of this, I still think Mr. Bush ought to answer the question. He has already crossed a threshold of sorts in denying having used cocaine during (at least) the past 25 years. By so doing he has conceded the legitimacy of the question in some form. The issue is now less about privacy and more about chronology.
Mr. Bush has talked about other personal and private matters, including his faithfulness to his wife and his past drinking, which makes it more difficult to invoke a general privacy defense as a shield. And as a practical matter, it is not at all clear that refusing to answer this question in any more detail than he has will prevent the press from asking him, or other candidates, other questions about their past.
There is also this: Fairly or not, the governor's qualified refusal to answer the question is leading most people to conclude that he did use cocaine--a conclusion that will have much the same effect on young people as would his admission. If it is widely assumed that by not answering the question he is acknowledging that he used drugs, then he is defeating his stated purpose in refusing to comment.
It is entirely possible, of course, that Mr. Bush has never used cocaine. (He has reportedly given private assurances to some top supporters that he has never used hard drugs.) If that is the case, it seems to me that the most responsible and prudent thing for him to do now is to set the record straight. If he didn't use any drugs, that's the end of it. If he did use drugs, he should admit what they were, assure people he is telling the truth and, if he has used drugs, express his remorse, explain what he has learned and why he is a different man today, and say that he didn't want to get into this and wishes he hadn't been forced to. He could remind the public of the principle he was trying to defend, but say political circumstances forced his hand.
An honest declaration would serve him, and the nation, well. Why? Because although in most circumstances normal human frailties and personal failures should remain genuinely private matters, we have also deemed that some matters--drug use is one of them--are not strictly private. Mr. Bush understands this, which is why he rightly answered a Dallas Morning News reporter who asked how he would fill out to a standard government questionnaire used in background checks that ask potential employees about drug use. That questionnaire has nothing to do with "gotcha" politics; it has everything to do with a settled consensus on what we deem to be a relevant criterion for those applying for positions in government service.
During the 1992 campaign, Mr. Clinton was asked whether he had ever used drugs. He responded to the question with a thoroughly Clintonesque (that is, evasive) answer, and we drew conclusions from it. But at the time I don't recall anyone claiming the question itself was inappropriate. I believe Mr. Bush is a far better and more direct man than Mr. Clinton, and so we ought to expect a far better and more direct answer from him.
A person running for president of the United States should answer whether or not he has ever committed a felony. Candidates are not morally or legally bound to answer that question, of course, but people will then draw conclusions from their refusal to answer.
If Mr. Bush admitted he did use cocaine more than a quarter-century ago, what might the political effect be? It obviously depends on what exactly we are talking about: How often did he use it? In what circumstances? I think it is likely that Mr. Bush could both withstand the admission and remove what is now an enormous distraction to his campaign.
On this whole matter a contrast with President Clinton could serve the governor well. What we have learned about Mr. Clinton is that the man is the child, not in the sense that childhood family traumas made him what he is, but rather that he has never grown up, has remained irresponsible and has not exercised the self-discipline appropriate to his age and level of responsibility. He is now manifestly corrupt. On the other hand I believe Mr. Bush is a man who has grown up, matured, changed his life and his past ways. His Christian conversion is by all accounts real. As governor, husband and father he has acted--and is acting still--in a dignified and honorable way. And so his past mistakes are not likely to be viewed as telling us much about the present man and the discharge of his public duties.
It is important in this regard to note that even if a person admits that, for example, he did use cocaine in the distant past, it should not automatically disqualify him from seeking high public office. Cocaine use is of course a serious matter--but how serious depends on facts and circumstances. No reasonable person will argue that past mistakes--even serious past mistakes--are always dispositive of present questions. Sometimes they are. Sometimes they are not. But in a free society that is something the public will often have to decide.
And how ought we to do that? When it comes to determining whether past private conduct is relevant to those now in public life, it requires, as ever, a thoughtful balancing. On the one hand we recognize that saintliness is not a prerequisite for political leadership; on the other hand we know that there is often an intimate connection between private life and public character. There is no hard and fast rule that we can apply to the endless number of scenarios and circumstances that arise. We simply have to take them as they come, and rely on reasoned moral judgments, experience and common sense. Such matters require the application of general principles to particular facts.
Some final things to keep in mind: We should take a man in the totality of his acts. We should recognize that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future. And we should want as our president a person of good character, candor, integrity.
From all I know about George W. Bush, he meets that standard. But he should answer the question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
URL for this Article:
interactive.wsj.com |
