The Hyperion Chronicles

the Hyperion Chronicles
“Always on the lookout for some ultra-hardcore midgets, if you know what I mean”

#370 Political Scandals

I was thinking about the scandal problems the Bush Administration is having lately. Republicans seem to have forgotten (just as Democrats did under the last tenant) that problems in the organization always go back to the leader. If you’re in a restaurant with bad service, out of food, and dirty; it speaks to poor management.

I’d also like to say that I understand the whole “outing” someone as a CIA spy, in this case, seems murky. Clearly Valerie Palme (the CIA agent) and her ambassador husband had their own political agenda against Bush. (Not to mention the fact that Palme drove to work to Langley—CIA headquarters, for 6 years; one wonders if there really was a secret to “out.”) I also understand that politics at this level is virtually a blood sport, played for keeps.

But in general (and just to make clear; I’m talking about hard-working field agents here), the secrecy of an agent’s identity is serious business These are people often risking their own lives, their families’ lives—or worse—to gather information and help the American cause. These agents are invaluable. (As proof look no further than the inherent difficulty in placing agents in Al Qaeda.) Bottom line: outing those agents could be catastrophic and even though I realize the current situation is not cut-and-dried, it wouldn’t bother me if Bush wanted to make an example and execute some people. (Then again, when am I not in favor of that?)

However, I didn’t bring this up to anger Conservatives or vent my blood-thirsty spleen. I started mulling over how it seems like two-term presidential Administrations have many more corruption/scandal problems. I came up with a theory for you. First however, let’s look at the data. I looked at the 20^th Century since the previous one is so different. It may be that mass-media has the most profound effect—so really that means we should focus on 1960 and on, but still, we want to be thorough. This is still an ongoing theory.

Anyway, Teddy Roosevelt had one and a half terms, and had his share of problems, but not really scandal. Wilson lied in his reelection campaign (about staying out of Europe), and then immediately made plans to enter the war. Wilson had a stroke towards the end of his second term, and the last few months many scholars think his wife actually ran the country.

(Aides would come to her and inquire about a matter and Mrs. Wilson would go into the president’s room alone and return a few minutes later to impart what the President had supposedly said.)

Harding was considered the most scandal-plagued presidency in decades (which may have been the result of picking bad advisors), but luckily he died before it all came to light. Coolidge took over and won reelection, and not much about him. Coolidge wasn’t a big fan of being president, and reportedly only worked 4 hours a day. I must say, that seems pretty sensible, and might benefit a few latecomers. Hoover, a one- termer, was unfairly blamed for the stock market collapse and the onset of the Great Depression, but his administration wasn’t scandal-plagued.

Franklin Roosevelt was elected four times and he did more to abuse the powers of the Executive Branch than any president in history. I can almost make my case on him alone.

Truman basically served two terms, and there wasn’t a whole lot of scandal associated with him. (More than one reputable biographer alleges Truman was basically a political criminal back in Missouri, but then again, what successful politician from the South doesn’t have that in his background?)

Eisenhower had a mostly clean image. He was a war-hero, which may have led to his two easy victories, or maybe I’m just looking to explain holes in my theory, since there wasn’t much scandal there.

I consider 1960 the start of Television being a major presence in American political life, so I think these presidencies are really where we should be looking:

Taking Kennedy/Johnson as a two-term administration, there was plenty of corrupt dealings going on there, enough for its own column and then some. Next came Nixon, and I think we know how that went.

Carter followed, and thought a times incompetent and paralyzed with indecision, not to mention being the most disliked president in 50 years by the long-term White House staff (which counts big in my book), Carter’s administration was relatively scandal free.

Next came Reagan. Again, there were major problems in the second term (Iran Contra). Another case of bad friends, although one wonders if that isn’t almost always the case. (Not to mention the fact that even the most ardent Republican has to wonder if Reagan wasn’t beginning to slip into illness back then.)

Whatever you thought of Bush the Elder, he ran a clean administration. Then came Clinton’s people, and their ethical hegemony. (Here I refer not to Clinton’s lying under oath, which is bad, unforgivable and shouldn’t be tolerated no matter what the reason, worthy of impeachment, but rather the stuff with national security and China, Indonesia and the Enron mess, and the Wag-the-Dog approach to military action in the Sudan and Kosovo. In many ways Monica Lewinsky was the best thing to happen to Clinton, as it took the spotlight from the real treasonous stuff.)

Now Bush.

Looking at the record, I think we see at least a general trend for 2 term Administrations to be more scandal-ridden. They are three competing theories as to why.

Often I hear in the Media by the Talking Heads the idea floated that 2^nd term presidents lose their mandate (and thus clout) and are unable to focus on their agenda, and therefore more open to these snafus.

Another theory is that often these matters take time to come to light, and a two term president has twice the time for the Media to pour over every detail and look for dirt, or similarly, presidents have twice as long to screw up.

There’s likely some truth in both theories. However, I have another pet notion: We all know it’s incredibly hard to scale that mountain and become president. Then men who make it are usually tougher and more ruthless than others; or at the very least have more ruthless people.

It’s just as hard if not harder to scale that mountain again for reelection. Call it the stomach to go through it all again, or just the willingness to do what’s necessary and destroy your opponents, but I think a two term Administration is more likely to be the kind of cut-throat group of people would do these things in the first place.

Just a thought.

Hyperion
November 23, 2005