The Politics Of Scandal

I have recently become a devotee of the ABC series SCANDAL which is a fictionalized version of what I can only hope be a a fictional character charged with "fixing" problems created by political players.  The show has sparked a conversation with several of my friends over the need and necessity of such a person in the political realm.

Fictional President Fitz "Flandering Fitz" Grant and Unfortunately All To Real Olivia Pope

My dear friend pointed out that since the beginning of power, there has been a need to maintain that power through rough means i.e lying about affairs, covering up affairs, killing off those who find out about affairs and the like.  I contend that those not cunning or smart enough to remain out of need for rough measure ought to be taken down by the very rough measures they seek to employee.  If you believe Shakespeare, even Caesar was warned to "Beware the Ides Of March," and look what happened to him.

Take the John Edwards case as a study in my philosophy.  Did Edwards really think that he would get away with fathering a child out of wed-lock AND the subsequent cover up.  The Romans had a word for that: Hubris. In an age of 24/7, tell-all books, and insta-celebrity, would any high profile politician honestly think they would be able to cover-up an affair? Much less a child from?  The last President who could and did successfully hide his affairs was John F. Kennedy, and he just barely did.  Need I raise Bill Clinton as further evidence of my case?

I purpose that those foolish enough to see the Edwardes or Kennedys of the world and think 'That won't happen to me" ought not be elected to high office.   Thus those same people ought to be caught be any means (above board or below) and run out of office.   And what kind of paradigm does a falandering politician place the rest of us in when the most we are going to hear of them is bad?  Suddenly, we are left to hang on to the tiny morsels of good they do. Thus who attempt feebly to defend Kennedy say "We look at what he did in the Cuban Missile Crisis" or Clinton buffs saying "He balanced the budget and overcame poverty to become President." Good evidence for just how good those Presidents were, but I argue they could have been better if they had not had to put out the fires in their personal lives.

Clinton and "That Young Lady"

There is one President which I can hold as beacon in my argument for a clean cut President that was even more successful because he was able to keep his pants zipped.  Besides being a devout and square Freemason, Harry S. Truman never had to hire the likes of a Olivia Pope (the main character in SCANDAL).  Truman was notorious for being a prude, and was known for running away from situations where he might be alone with a women not his wife.  There was the infamous photo of Truman playing a piano mounted by Lauren Bacall in 1945, but that is the only known scandal of the female variety Truman faced.  The photo was staged and a far cry away from any meeting Bill Clinton might have had with "that young lady, Ms Lewinski."

Truman and Bacall

By no means am I trying to preach morality, but Presidents should content themselves with the political conquests possible for a person in such an office and let those of a bedroom nature alone.  It is better for the office (or in Clinton's case the office furniture) and better for the American public.  Energies devoted to the covering up of scandal are not energies devoted to leading the free world.  That being said, SCANDAL is a thrilling show that is perfect for the political junkie who needs a fix of intrigue with a less than subtle hint of immorality.