Voters Look at Policies, Not Principle

So whatever happened to the American custom of choosing a president based on old-fashioned notions of character and trust? “I always vote for ‘the man,’ ” people used to say.

As recently as Ronald Reagan’s presidency, Americans told pollsters they disagreed with many of his conservative positions but were voting for him anyway because they respected and had confidence in the man.

Polls now show the opposite. People admire Bob Dole and are voting for President Clinton.

A Times poll of American voters in August found a large plurality (48%-34%) believing that Dole “has more honesty and integrity” than Clinton. But by an even bigger margin (17 points), they were supporting Clinton. A Field poll last month found California voters giving Dole much higher marks than Clinton for good “personal character” (55%-39%). But by a whopping margin (44 points), they said that policy positions are more important that personal character.

Clearly, American voters decided four years ago that a presidential candidate’s personal life--”alleged womanizing,” we called it euphemistically--was a matter between two spouses and really not important to the country.

Now people are shrugging off questions about the president’s public character: Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater. Also the recently alleged pardon dangling, Asian influence peddling, political money laundering. Dole is shouting that it all amounts to a White House “sleaze factor.”

People don’t seem to care.

*

Perhaps, I thought, there were metaphors for contemporary American values in the two recent baseball incidents.

In one, the all-star second baseman for the Baltimore Orioles spit in an umpire’s face and still was allowed to participate in the league playoffs. The American League didn’t have the guts to suspend him immediately and, naturally, neither did the Orioles’ management. Baltimore fans gave the player a standing ovation.

In the other, a 12-year-old boy reached over the fence at Yankee Stadium and swatted a ball from the outfielder’s grasp and into the bleachers. An umpire erroneously called it a home run, leading to a Yankees’ playoff victory. The news media and Yankee fans celebrated the kid as a hero. “Angel in the Outfield,” screamed a headline. It didn’t seem to matter that the boy had interfered with play in a championship game.

What’s happening to our ethics?

I posed the question to a prominent ethicist, Michael Josephson, founder and president of the Josephson Institute of Ethics based in Marina del Rey.

“I don’t think people are making moral judgments anymore,” he said. “They’re making judgments as to what advances their own interests, putting expedience over principle.”

Orioles fans stand and applaud their star despite his crude act. “They think, ‘He may be a bum, but he’s my bum,’ ” notes Josephson. In New York, any sense of fair play is secondary to the scoreboard and, across America, everybody loves a cute kid.

“Every kid’s going to be looking for the same opportunity,” Josephson predicts. “Don’t be surprised if the next kid throws his glove at the ball. We send messages with what we celebrate and tolerate.”

There’s a home fan ethic in politics, as well. Partisan Democrats are likely to be in denial about any Clinton “sleaze”--just as loyal Republicans get amnesia about Iran-Contra.

*

But something else also is happening, Josephson says. Americans are being inundated with information. Politicians are more scrutinized than ever and the public is becoming immune to shock. The tolerance level is rising.

“Politicians aren’t lying more than they used to. They’re being caught more often,” the ethicist says. “There’s a callousness growing in the country about the whole idea of untruths.”

When Gary Hart was caught “womanizing” in 1987, it ended his political career. Within five years, Josephson points out, “people were asking, ‘Am I going to disqualify everybody who has had an affair? Or smoked marijuana or not paid a nanny tax? I can’t afford to do that.’ We get over certain stuff. . . .

“The reality is the public accepts flaws in politicians as they do in their family and friends--as long as they’re not disqualifiers. If somebody’s an out-and-out crook and gets convicted, that surpasses the tolerance level.”

He adds, “It’s one thing to say people think Dole is more honest. Do they think Clinton is so dishonest they can’t vote for him?”

No so far. As the ethicist indicates, voters this fall aren’t making moral judgments. They’re choosing up sides based on their own perceived interests. Using that criteria, they do trust Clinton and have confidence in the man--to protect them from the radical right and House Speaker Newt Gingrich.