A shame-faced politician in a well-tailored suit walks up to a podium with his wife and supporters dutifully lined up behind him—it doesn’t bode well. It’s usually a sign that an explanation or apology of sorts is imminent. Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, Richard Perry…the list is endless.
EVERYWHERE AND HEREA shame-faced politician in a well-tailored suit walks up to a podium with his wife and supporters dutifully lined up behind him—it doesn’t bode well. It’s usually a sign that an explanation or apology of sorts is imminent. Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, Richard Perry…the list is endless.
Jefferson Smith, candidate for Portland mayor, enacted this very scene a few weeks back—and yes, there was an explanation.
Smith hastily organized a press conference when reports surfaced of a 1993 assault case involving him and a 20-year-old student.
The police report states the woman accused Smith of assault at a party and only dropped the charges when he settled the matter out of court, according to The
Oregonian. Smith claimed it was self-defense.
He left a lot of questions unanswered, making it highly doubtful we’ll ever know what really happened. This isn’t the first time, however, he’s taken the walk of shame.
Last November he apologized for punching an opponent in a basketball game, and this past summer he acknowledged garnering seven driver’s license suspensions.
A growing pile of embarrassing missteps is emerging, and I wonder what effect this will have on his campaign (if any).
When it comes to politicians’ sketchy pasts, it’s kind of par for the course—an inevitable part of campaigns these days—which is why it’s so surprising that candidates don’t just ’fess up from the very beginning.
Surely, Smith knew there was the potential for the assault case to be dredged up. Why didn’t he just air his dirty laundry and admit he needed some help with the spin cycle?
People expect their politicians to be above that kind of behavior. Leadership in this country is synonymous with impeccable character and high moral standards.
When those are called into question, we rethink their qualifications—and in some cases, their careers are ruined as a result.
What about those politicians who, before the era of the Internet and media explosion, lived similarly imperfect lives and at the same time occupied positions of political power?
John F. Kennedy, for example, or Martin Luther King Jr., both of whom were rumored to have been unfaithful to their spouses. If they had lived today, would they have faced a different public response? Well, just ask Herman Cain.
We live with the illusion that there’s something uniquely special about our politicians—that in order to have reached their heights, they must be pretty close to perfect. Perhaps we don’t explicitly believe this, but our shock at their every indiscretion is proof that we do.
The question is, should we? Should we expect higher standards from our elected officials, or accept them for the human beings that they are? Is there a difference between “private” and “public” conduct when you’re a public servant?
Obviously, there’s no simple answer. On one hand, character matters. It just does. Honesty isn’t divided into public and private. You either tell the truth or you don’t. Further, if I’m expected to adhere to traffic laws, so should my mayor.
On the other hand, some of the greatest people in history were severely flawed—Winston Churchill, Pablo Picasso. It doesn’t mean they didn’t make amazing contributions to society.
But let’s get one thing straight. Apologies for “being caught” are a sham and no one wants to hear them.
If, instead of expecting perfection, we expect honesty and vulnerability—allowing our politicians to put all their imperfections on the table and own them from the very outset—then maybe the agonizing walk of shame could become a thing of the past.
As for Jefferson Smith: Buy a bike already!
