Candidates, Cops and Character Questions

Normally, a presidential campaign wouldn’t dovetail with a police department scandal. Two different animals, two different arenas. Two totally different sets of issues.

But notice how often the word “character” already has been mentioned during the still-young primary season. The press and pollsters are dying to know how much a candidate’s character--undefined as the word may be--matters to voters this year.

And when you get right down to it, what is the unfolding Los Angeles Police Department scandal about if not character?

In any race for the White House, it’s a sad commentary that the question even needs to be asked. “Of course, we want our president to have character,” is the automatic response.

But, obviously, the question takes on nuances in light of the Clinton presidency. Most voters laud his overall handling of the job while decrying his less-than-sterling personal behavior.

So, does character matter?

The LAPD scandal may answer the question for all time.

We’ve heard about “lack of oversight” in the chain of command.

We’ve heard about the “code of silence” that lets bad deeds go unpunished.

But when you cut through all that and ask what went wrong inside the LAPD, there’s one answer: people of questionable character behaved badly.

Rationales abound. Police work can be dangerous and frustrating and thankless. It’s maddening for cops to see criminals serve a fraction of their sentences. It must be dispiriting day after day to deal with social misfits.

Cops with character don’t succumb to that.

Cops without character do.

Everything reported about the Rampart Division scandal so far--from planting evidence to unprovoked shootings to falsifying reports--boils down to individuals failing the character test.

We could talk all day about a faulty chain of command, but the worst chain of command ever devised wouldn’t compel a person of integrity to violate the oath.

So, the short answer for the LAPD or any organization is that, of course, character matters. The absence of it can be catastrophic, as Los Angeles stands to learn.

Character matters whether it’s the police department or the dry cleaners or the elementary school or the newspaper. If you hire people of questionable character, don’t be surprised if, under pressure or temptation, they do something untoward.

Everyone concedes Bill Clinton flunked a character test during the Monica Lewinsky episode. And, based on his past behavior, we shouldn’t have been shocked that he did.

Yet, most of us have forgiven him. Or is it that we forgave him only because the country is doing well? Does that mean we care about character, but only “sort of”?

If so, what about wayward LAPD officers? Will we rationalize their misdeeds because they have a tough job? Will we “forgive” them because the crime rate has dropped in recent years?

I’ve forgiven Clinton but cannot forgive the cops.

I guess that means I see “character” in relative terms. I concede the point, which may say something about my character.

So be it.

We each arrive at our own judgments on such things, applying our own sense of proportion to public and private misdeeds.

That’s why the press is so enchanted with the “character” question this year. They want to see how important it is to voters in the post-Clinton era.

The candidates know it. John McCain has pledged to always tell the truth. George W. Bush says he got his dander up only after McCain compared his trustworthiness to Clinton’s. Bill Bradley needled Al Gore about fudging the truth and Gore bristled.

We all want character in the White House. We all want character in the police department.

Now, if we could only agree on exactly how much of it we want.

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821 or by writing to him at the Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or by e-mail to dana.parsons@latimes.com.