Scandal!
What is a political scandal, how does it affect careers?
There surely can’t be a political party that lasted long and never suffered a scandal. None of the parties in New Zealand’s present parliament can say it’s been free of such embarrassments.
But NZ is comparatively boring. There’ve been some classic scandals around the world lately. In Italy, Giorgia Meloni’s culture minister Gennaro Sangiuliano resigned over an affair with “consultant” and influencer Maria Rosaria Boccia who allegedly wore camera-equipped glasses as she wandered around restricted spaces in Rome – and who posted the footage on Instagram for her 136,000 followers.
In the state of North Carolina, Mark Robinson, Republican candidate for state governor, has been outed by CNN for some “private” online activities. It’s alleged that Robinson, under a pseudonym, made offensive remarks on a porn forum, not least of which was his self-description as a “black Nazi”. This story has many surprising details, so read the original report. It’s been further alleged that an email address belonging to Robinson has been found on the data hacked from Ashley Madison, a website designed for extra-marital flings. NC is a critical state in the forthcoming election, and the scandal may boost turnout for Democrats, and suppress it for Republicans, and hence affect others on the ballot. Nonetheless, Robinson’s donors have gone all-in, and they still back their candidate, saying it’s fake news invented by liberal CNN with some help from AI. Robinson claims to be “the victim of high-tech lynching”. It’ll be interesting to see the voters’ verdict.
How much should people care anyway about what a political leader got up to in private? Or is the real problem hypocrisy? – the revelations differing markedly from the public persona and espoused values.
Donald Trump and Boris Johnson have shown that misbehaving and lying aren’t always barriers to success. Trump, whose whole life has been scandalous, has an unusual ability to make a political “virtue” out of it, as his unapologetic counter-attacks look (to enough people) tough and honest. And incivility from politicians may be rewarded by more attention.[i]
But what do we mean by “scandal”?
Political scandals arise from legal or moral norm violations, often concerning incompetence, inappropriate payments and appointments, or sexual misconduct. The frequency of scandals is said to be particularly high in the United States.[ii] If you really can’t get enough of this stuff, you can go to the New Encyclopedia of American Scandal.
A political scandal isn’t the alleged transgressive deed itself, the facts of which may be a bone of contention; it’s the prominent and persistent public communication about the allegations in the news cycle and on social media. Scandals often negatively affect a candidate’s chances of election, and they’re thought to erode political trust, especially trust in politicians as a group.
Up to a point, supporters of a leader who’s embroiled in scandal will find ways to defend him or her, often by motivated reasoning that discounts the accused politician’s degree of control over or responsibility for the event. Supporters may also minimise the blame by generalising: for example, “politics is a dirty game anyway”. Thus an individual scandal can have a spill-over effect, eroding political trust in general. But if the facts and their moral significance begin to outweigh the effort required to keep defending a scandal-mired politician, there comes a tipping point at which (former) supporters become disillusioned.[iii] Naturally, those who were already opposed to that leader will enjoy his or her embarrassment and downfall. What’s more, it’s newsworthy and it sells.
Another story
In 2010 the people of Toronto, Ontario, elected as mayor Rob Ford, then a 41-year-old who had previously served three terms as a city councillor. Ford was a fiscal conservative who wanted to lighten the load of government and to build subways instead of a planned light rail. He was known for bluntness, which his supporters took to represent honesty and authenticity, while his opponents found him erratic, abrasive and offensive. Amid numerous controversies, it became apparent that Mr Ford had a substance abuse problem and was sometimes intoxicated. Indeed, he had been surreptitiously videoed while smoking crack cocaine. After many denials, in November 2013 he admitted in public that he had smoked crack. There were sincere apologies and pledges to clean himself up and get on with the job of leading the city. But further revelations of intoxication and abusive behaviour emerged. Ford registered as a candidate for the 2014 mayoral election, but later withdrew and stood only for a seat on council. A new mayor, John Tory, was elected, while Rob Ford won back his local ward with 58 percent of votes. He had withdrawn from the mayoral contest due to the discovery of a tumour; he died of a rare form of cancer in March 2016. In the meantime, however, he had made global headlines for his extraordinary behaviour, especially his drug use.
Ford’s story could be retold as a tragedy of an outspoken civic leader who was brought down by addictions and defeated by cancer. However, his conduct was sometimes abusive, and drug and alcohol dependency is incompatible with mayoral responsibilities. These flaws brought into question the soundness of his judgement and his trustworthiness. He wasn’t setting a good example for others. In reply to an interviewer’s suggestion that, if he were an alcoholic, he might want to seek help, Ford may have been right to say, “I wasn’t elected to be perfect”. [iv] But he was dodging the question about alcoholism – and hence about his fitness for office – on the self-evident premise that there’s no morally flawless leader.
“I don’t feel betrayed by Sangiuliano. Only those dear to me can do that.”
[i] Frimer, J. A., Aujla, H., Feinberg, M., Skitka, L. J., Aquino, K., Eichstaedt, J. C. & Willer, R. 2023. ‘Incivility Is Rising Among American Politicians on Twitter’. Social Psychological and Personality Science 14 (2): 259–269, URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221083811 (accesed 7 June 2023).
[ii] FiveThirtyEight Podcast. 7 October 2022. ‘How Our Midterm Forecast Takes Candidates’ Scandals Into Account’. URL: https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/how-our-midterm-forecast-takes-candidates-scandals-into-account/ (accessed 10 October 2022).
[iii] von Sikorski, C., R. Heiss & J. Matthes. 2020. ‘How Political Scandals Affect the Electorate: Tracing the Eroding and Spillover Effects of Scandals with a Panel Study’. Political Psychology 41 (3): 549–68, URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12638; Close, C., J. Dodeigne, S. Hennau & M. Reuchamps. 2022. ‘A Scandal Effect? Local Scandals and Political Trust’. Acta Politica (electronic version), URL: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-022-00241-y (both accessed 6 October 2022).
[iv] Cale, D. 3 March 2014. ‘Ford on Jimmy Kimmel Live: “I wasn't elected to be perfect”’. Toronto Star, URL: https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/toronto2014election/2014/03/03/rob_ford_on_the_jimmy_kimmel_show.html (accessed 19 July 2023).
If Watergate broke today, Fox News etc would find a way to polish a turd & largely get away with it.
Thanks Grant. In many ways Trump has turned the tables here as it is only a scandal if it offends the moral/ethical code that we have come to expect from our political leaders and Trump simply doesn't play by the rules. He is a liar, abusive of minorities (and anyone whom he disagrees with), a convicted felon and demonstrates little loyalty for the consitution or respect for veterans who have served. Yet somehow this is attractive to a huge sway of Americans. "Or is the real problem hypocrisy? – the revelations differing markedly from the public persona and espoused values." - Yes. In this sense Trump is not a hypocrital political operator as he doesn't pretend to be an honest, inclusive respectful politician.
But while hypocrisy is often what can bring mainstream politicians down (and 'Partygate' probably did for Boris Johnson) I would suggest that hypocrisy is not the most important feature of leadership - Rather it is competence that matters most. It is what politicians actually do that matters rather than what they say. Effective politicians (that make a difference) typically don't promise what they can't achieve (or boast of their moral superiority), they simply get on with the serious business of governing competently.