When Bill Clinton burst on the presidential scene in the ’90s, so did his promiscuity. Lurid details of sexual affairs spanning decades became national news, adding to the buzz of corruption charges lingering around the Clinton camp. During a “60 Minutes” interview in the wake of the Gennifer Flowers scandal, Hillary had a choice: Admit the truth and leave the cheater, or deny. Hillary chose a third option.
“You know, I’m not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette,” she said. “I’m sitting here because I love him, and I respect him, and I honor what he’s been through and what we’ve been through together. And you know, if that’s not enough for people, then heck — don’t vote for him.”
And just like that, personal morality began its departure from the list of character qualities the media deemed relevant to the presidency. The Clintons didn’t deny the affair; they simply said it didn’t matter, and that’s reverberated through American politics ever since. It’s impossible to believe that a thrice-married playboy whose sex life was publicized on the cover of the New York Post could ever be considered for the presidency without Bill Clinton and his cigar. But that’s the way the story goes, and it’s changed our media coverage ever since.
As we enter 2020, I think it’s worth doing a media-wide reality check and agree on what personal matters are off-limits. After all, cable news has spent the better part of the Trump administration letting a porn star who had a consensual one-night stand with the president describe graphic, intimate details about the encounter. Now, as the Willie Brown issue enters the national conversation along with Sen. Kamala Harris’ bid for the Democratic nomination, the media is sure to pull back.
Monica Hesse at the Washington Post argues that the Willie Brown affair is off-limits in a piece titled, “The unique harm we cause when we dissect a powerful woman’s love life.” Okay, if reporters were digging around for lurid sexual details about adolescent relationships, I’d obviously agree. By post-Clinton standards, we’re not supposed to care about what a candidate does consensually — though Juanita Broaddrick would like her apology now. But the affair between Brown and Harris has nothing to do with sexual morality and everything to do with corruption. It matters if a politician used personal relationships, romantic or platonic, to profit off of taxpayer money and take career shortcuts.
In the same manner, it matters if a politician offered a professional or financial favor in exchange for sex from a subordinate. And of course, more than anything, allegations of sexual assault or complicity matter in evaluating politicians.
So the media can’t engage in a clown-nose off-and-on routine and rewrite the rules for the Harris affair. Sex may not matter, but corruption does. If not, why did you give one damn about Stormy Daniels?
