Was there ever a time when people trusted politicians? Given the United State’s democratic system of governance, the men and women that preside over our daily lives are supposed to be the few among us who are capable of leading America toward prosperity. While mankind is rife with destructive inadequacies and backward tendencies, a select few are destined to rise above the fray to become models of excellence. It is these people who are supposed to possess both the definable skills and knowledge that are required to be effective leaders, as well as the more obscure, intangible qualities that enable them to deal with the unpredictable. We entrust them with the responsibility to guide the most ignorant among us safely down the road of life. This outlook on the United State’s leadership, however, is far removed from the realities we see today.
Ask any ordinary citizen to characterize their feelings of their elected officials or politicians and they will surely outline a different perception. Tales of political scandals have become an all too common phenomena, with years of precedent ingrained into the consciousness of the public. Any good that our elected officials do are blunted by a persistent suspicion of their next actions. We have to constantly ask ourselves, “Are we being duped?” The popularity of candidates and those already in office is quieted by the prospect that they too will someday betray the public’s trust. How can you blame Americans for their pessimism? There is a storied history of betrayal.
Every few weeks a new report is leaked professing that a prominent political official has committed some sort of transgression. Whether it is illegal drug use, marital infidelity, or financial violations, those in public office have become notorious for their less-than-moral behavior. Tales of madams, bookies, lobbyists, corporate cohorts, and illegitimate children are just some of the more agitating headlines. While some cases involve only unverifiable allegations and rumors, there have been countless instances where elected officials were verifiably guilty. In fact, one can draw up a laundry list, including: Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Newt Gingrich, Eliot Spitzer, Ted Stevens, Mark Foley, Mark Sanford and Rod Blagojevich. The list goes on, encompassing those at the federal and state levels, encircling both major political parties. In this matter no one is able to claim moral superiority. In an age of career politicians, very few can state that their hands are clean. Over the years, far too many accounts exposing disturbing professional and personal information have made people doubt the promise of the virtuous political leader.
Not all elected officials leave office and go into exile, carrying the scarlet letter of a scandal into obscurity. Sometimes we forget about certain transgressions, believe them to be mistakes, or choose to accept the person’s apology and move on, allowing them to continue their public service. Perhaps we have lowered our expectations to the point that no one expects perfection. An individual can often restore their image and make up for their past, seemingly reprehensible activities. In this area there exists interesting case studies of how politicians have been successful in restoring their corrupted images. While some have held strong to claims of innocence, others have thrown themselves on the mercy of the public, revealing even the most intimate of personal details and conceding imperfection.
It is clear that if faced with a scandal, the best public relations strategy is complete honesty. In this age of “gotcha” journalism, there is little chance of hiding one’s skeletons indefinitely.
Honesty as the best policy is not just some naïve saying straight out of Aesop’s fables. The fact is that elected officials face even more recourse when they are caught red-handed in a lie. If one is caught doing something scandalous and then subsequently caught lying about it, only the most shrewd of individuals can hope to survive – Not all politicians are Bill Clinton. By being honest and getting out in front of the tabloid fervor quickly, one is capable of controlling the way that their indiscretion is framed. If a political figure does not swiftly reveal the information, people will dig for it. Claiming the right of privacy on even the most intimate of family issues is not enough to deter the prying public.
A wise professor once told me that if you find yourself having done something wrong, you ought to “hang a lantern on your problems.” By exposing all of the details and the context of the transgression on their own terms, an elected official assumes control of the issue by sitting in the driver’s seat. This prevents news reporters, editorialists, and bloggers from running with the story and thereby magnifying it exponentially. Once the media digs into an issue, any possibility of control over the situation is lost. Additionally, the individual will also have to live with the demons of dishonesty. If an individual, however, exposes everything that he or she has done immediately and directly to the public, the abrasive inquiries by the media may subside.
Overall, this tactic allows for the process of retribution and eventual forgiveness to begin more quickly. Delaying the inevitable punishment by withholding the truth will only cause the perpetrator to suffer greater consequences in the future. Since Watergate took down Richard Nixon, the nation’s media-journalism establishment has assumed an unrelenting approach in investigating every detail pertaining to the lives of public servants. Doubting that the truth will surface is to ignore the fate of dozens of previously exposed politicians.
My plea to all elected officials is: Should you find yourself on the precipice of a scandal, immediately concede responsibility. Not only is it a more virtuous thing to do, it is strategically beneficial for the maintenance of one’s career in politics. We live in a forgiving society, where people are given second, sometimes third, chances. The requirement for this forgiveness, however, is a full confession. One cannot allow the perception to exist that they are hiding something or that they are working to spin the situation toward a more acceptable conclusion. We have come to expect that our public officials are less than perfect people who do make mistakes. These mistakes can be accepted so long as the situation is handled properly. Being forthcoming may even be appreciated by the public as a breath of fresh air. Instead of lambasting the offender, they will cheer him or her upon their return from rehab or counseling. To maintain any semblance of credibility the obvious advice is to not become involved in such damaging scandals. But if you do, do not evade the situation.
