THE SAVAGE STRUGGLE FOR POWER / SPECIAL REPORT: CAMPAIGN ’92 : Consensual Sex Shouldn’t End a Political Career

What began as a political coronation is quickly turning into a trial by fire. On Monday, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton was on the cover of Time. By Friday, he was fighting ugly tabloid stories, repeated in the mainstream press, about his sex life. The question today is not so much whether Clinton can manage the economy, but whether he can lead us to a new consensus on the line between what is public and what is private in politics.

There is a crude rule in politics that what goes up always comes down--as high as you fly is as low as you crash. The cover of newsweeklies is as often a kiss of death as a kiss. Walter F. Mondale discovered that in 1984. Weeks after Newsweek asked, on its cover, “Is Mondale Inevitable?” Gary Hart defeated him in New Hampshire and nearly knocked him out of the race.

Clinton discovered it this week. Why did the “smoking babe,” as she is crudely being called, emerge this week and not last? Is it a coincidence that the Arkansas governor is being tarred by many of the same news organizations that anointed him as the front-runner and treated him as the virtual nominee before a single vote was cast or 80% of America had even heard of him? Clinton got better press than any “unknown” presidential candidate in recent years. Until Friday.

Clinton has also been an effective candidate. He has done his homework, thought about why he wants to be President and come up with ways to communicate his views to political insiders, and perhaps even to New Hampshire voters, more cogently and more persuasively than his opponents. His emphasis on “personal responsibility” as the price of government benefits bridges the gap between Democratic liberals and conservatives. It is the most interesting answer on the table right now as to how Democrats can define a post-Reagan approach that wins the support of middle-class voters who felt they got short shrift from both ‘60s-style liberalism and ‘80-style conservativism.

It is these very strengths that make the focus on sex rumors and scandals so troubling. If the innuendoes cost us Clinton, they will cost us a candidate with a great deal to add to the debate in 1992, regardless of whom he has or hasn’t slept with.

The Hart precedent is the one many people are thinking of these days. In Hart’s case, it is sometimes argued (usually by the press) that it wasn’t sex but bad judgment that pushed him out of the race; not the fact that he had an apparent affair with Donna Rice, but that he denied the charges of womanizing, invited the press to follow him and then carried on anyway. That’s not exactly fair.

After all, it wasn’t Hart’s judgment about the Soviet Union, which has been better than most, or the economy, which was pretty good, too, that pushed Hart out of the race; it was his judgment about sex. And it wasn’t the public that made the decision as much as the press. In the days following the Rice revelations, Hart found he couldn’t talk about anything else. All the questions were about sex. And those questions he couldn’t answer.

No one can deny, after a year when Clarence Thomas and William Kennedy Smith dominated headlines, that sex is a matter of public concern. It is, and it should be. But lines must be drawn.

A man who sexually harasses his staff and employees has no business on the U.S. Supreme Court, or in the White House. Sexual harassment is an abuse of an employers’ power, made that much worse when the employer is a powerful man entrusted with public responsibility. Women put up with it because they need their jobs, and are afraid to take on powerful men. The public should not put up with it.

A man who forces himself on non-consenting women has even less business in public office. A man who refuses to heed a woman’s cries, or refuses to take no for an answer or takes advantage of a woman’s inebriation to force her to have sex with him is guilty of abusing women. Abusive conduct should be a clear disqualification from public office. Women sometimes put up with this behavior because they feel they have no choice; and sometimes they don’t. But voters do have a choice.

A man who cannot deal with women except as objects of sexual attention cannot lead our country. A man who discriminates against professional women, refuses to promote them or work with them in a non-sexualized and equal capacity should not be entrusted to appoint a Cabinet or staff the executive branch, let alone to make decisions about women’s rights.

Even if every word published by the Star about Clinton is true--and if it were, that would be truly unusual--there is not even a suggestion that he sexually harassed anyone, raped anyone, used force or employed pressure tactics. Throughout his public career, there has never been any suggestion that Clinton discriminates against professional women, or cannot take them seriously, or treat them equally. Ugly as the Star story is, it is a story of consensual sex between adults. And whether or not it’s true about Clinton, similar stories are almost certainly true about many, probably most, American politicians.

I remember asking a prominent political consultant what percentage of his clients he believed had engaged in an extramarital affair while running for election or reelection. His answer was 90%. I thought he was kidding. He wasn’t.

Should all these people be disqualified from public office? Is who they slept with more important than what they’ve accomplished as public officials, or what they believe in or where they would lead the country? Do we really want the rules of the game to be that the press can ask, the candidate should duck and lie and everything will turn out fine as long as none of the women involved needs the money or wants the attention that the tabloids can offer?

Some will argue here, as in the case of Hart, that it is not the adultery, but the lying about it--if Clinton is lying--that reveals unfitness for high office. But that is a disingenuous argument. The reason politicians lie about their private lives is because, in the current system, we extract an intolerably high price for telling the truth. The truthful answer is: none of your business. That is the answer the Clintons have been struggling to get out.

I am no defender of adultery in high places. I find the stories and the statistics painful. Being a politician’s wife is no easy business and, perhaps because I’m a woman, it’s the women in the stories whom I identify with. And the tactic of answering such charges by trying to throw mud at the women involved offends me almost as much as reading the stories does. It is an ugly exercise that just gives people one more reason to turn off entirely from politics. It is not what politics should be about.

Jacqueline Kennedy chose to stand by her husband. Hilary Clinton has chosen to stand by hers. That is her decision. Maybe she’s putting up with more than you would. Maybe not. No one knows the full story of anyone else’s marriage, and no one should try to find out. It is just not our business.

Character is always a factor in presidential choices, as well it should be. But character can and should be measured by public acts, not by delving into the details of a person’s private life, demanding a complete exegesis on who wronged whom in a marriage, or what the understanding is between two people. For voters who insist that a “perfect” marriage is a qualification for office, the Clintons have been honest. Theirs has not been perfect. And that’s where our right to know about a candidate’s sex life--short of rape, or harassment, or sex discrimination--should end. There are more important issues that need to be addressed, like who will do a better job leading this country out of recession or ensuring decent health care for all Americans.

Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, who has emerged as Clinton’s chief rival for the Democratic nation, voted against going to war in the Persian Gulf. He later called his vote a mistake. Fair enough. But it would be an ironic day in American politics if mistakes about going to war don’t disqualify a candidate from being commander-in-chief, while mistakes in your private sex life--if that’s what’s involved here--do.