Doug Lief Lief is a third-year English
student with no stake to moral high ground whatsoever. Sermonize
him at [email protected]. Click
Here for more articles by Doug Lief
In William Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar,”
Cassius describes the populace as walking between the legs of the
giant colossus Caesar and looking up. Today, we treat our leaders
in much the same regard, demanding that they not only be men of the
people, but concurrently larger than life. The result is a
hypocritical need for our leaders to be pure as snow, wherein we
demand perfection of inherently imperfect people and fault them for
their failure to live up to this standard.
Recently it was revealed that Reverend Jesse Jackson fathered a
child out of wedlock. In many papers, including this one, he was
criticized for it. Many declared that it was impossible for him to
be a preacher given his indiscretion.
The question isn’t whether or not we should judge Jackson,
but in what arena he should be judged.
As a husband and father, Jackson is clearly lacking. As a
preacher, he should be mindful of the decalogue. In these areas,
morality is a key issue. As a spokesman for the ideals of
liberalism and the Democratic Party, however, there is absolutely
nothing wrong. If he wants to speak out on the needs of the
disenfranchised or poverty in the African American community, who
he sleeps with is totally irrelevant to a discussion of social,
political or economic issues.
 Illustration by JARRETT QUON/Daily Bruin We apply a
stricter moral standard to our current leaders than we do to the
giants of the past. One overused example is Thomas Jefferson. The
same man who penned the words “All men are created
equal” also had children by his slave Sally Hemmings. But are
we to consider the Declaration of Independence complete bunk
because its author could not match his own ideal? Such an action
would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Going even further back, according to the Old Testament, God
often argued with and chastised Moses for various wrongdoings. Not
that he was nefarious by any means, but if someone who goes in the
biblical top three (depending on your faith) cannot cut it one
hundred percent of the time, what hope is there for even a nice guy
like Colin Powell?
There is an unfair tendency for us to discount the message
because of the messenger. The pool of viable messengers becomes
frighteningly small when we make moral perfection the price of
admission. Admittedly, the power of words becomes stronger with the
virtue of the speaker. That does not excuse wasting 40 million
tax-payer dollars on a fishing expedition to find out who the
president is passing notes to in class (as we know all too well
from the Lewinsky scandal).
There has been a so-called “moral majority” in this
country for a long time. Somehow, the Republican Party has managed
to co-opt this image, the fallacy that right-wing conservatives
hold a monopoly on decency. During Clinton’s impeachment
trial, however, Larry Flynt published enough hypocritical dirt on
the likes of Bob Barr and Bob Livingston to remind us that
political ideology is no barometer for behavior.
Should the sex lives of politicians, liberal or conservative, be
subject to public scrutiny? The answer is not a simple yes or no.
We should be concerned if a politician is engaged in criminal
behavior, of which sexual crimes (rape, pedophilia) certainly
qualify.
Yet inquiring about whether or not someone had an extramarital
affair is out of line. It serves no function but to embarrass that
person and thereby decrease the efficacy with which they defend
certain viewpoints. Furthermore, asking such questions encourages
them to lie. If some reporter asked you if you had been cheating on
someone, would you immediately throw your hands in the air and say,
“Well, you got me!”?
The American populace is often wishy-washy when it comes to
their opinion on this issue. A platform that worked for George W.
Bush during his campaign was his refrain of “changing the
tone” in Washington, a sentiment that rang true with many
voters. At the same time, however, coverage of scandal receives
record television viewership. Voters are turned off by negative
campaigning, but turned on by controversy.
Instead of recognizing the human nature of politicians, we
instead allow religion as a substitute. Not that a little piety is
a bad thing, but it cannot be the only currency of leadership
ability we accept. Ideally we would all be happier if politicians
could approach issues as a quiet sensible debate. In reality,
politics is a down and dirty dogfight, and I do not believe that
the winning dog can so readily shake off the blood of his fellow
combatants. Given the nature of the beast, I want a dog that can
win his fight and doesn’t have to apologize for the KO.
I do not suggest as a solution that we supply the vices of our
leaders, or that we always look the other way. I also cannot expect
that we can shed our human impulse to glean a kind of morbid joy
from the road accidents we witness on “Meet the
Press.”
What I do suggest is that the news media take responsibility for
paying attention to the relevant political issues. I grant you the
ins and outs of Bush’s tax plan are not as juicy as Jesse
Jackson’s adultery, but unless Jackson’s kid grows up
to rear-end you on the freeway, the president’s monetary
policy will have a far greater impact on yours ““ and
everyone’s ““ life.
For too long the news media has determined their content based
on what the people want to see, rather than what they need to know.
This is evidenced by polls showing that far too many people get
their news from Jay Leno and Jon Stewart than from more legitimate
sources. As the old saying goes, if it bleeds, it leads.
Unfortunately, social security won’t bleed for a while, so it
never rises high in the national conscience.
If you ask someone to name an important piece of legislation
passed during the nineties, the average person will not be able to
name one. I would bet you, however, that they would remember the
name of Amy Fisher, be able to tell you her nickname of “Long
Island Lolita,” and name the other participants of that
story. This is because the news media chose to put far more
attention on one New York assault case than on a nationally
pressing issue like gun control or the futile drug war.
Much as we rely on representatives to make policy in our
Republican government, we also rely on representatives to inquire
about it and criticize it by proxy. Too often we send vampires to
gather our information. In doing so, the wounds they inflict damage
our political process and infect our national conscience. Simply
put, public officials’ private lives come to us on a
need-to-know basis, and we do not need to know.
When we probe dark areas, we should not be surprised at what we
find. When we find a person’s vices, we unnecessarily let it
taint their virtues. To rephrase “Julius Caesar”
(certainly a relevant work to the topic of character
assassination), the evil that men do lives after them; the good is
oft interred with their bones; so let it not be with Caesar.