Royal scandal

Presents an insider's report on how the private lives of public people, whether candidates or kings, affect the true quality of leadership. Scandal surrounding the British Royal House of Windsor; Divorce of the Duke and Duchess of York; Coverage from the tabloids; What the Windsor affair gives us; The effect on the quality of leadership; The courage to make subtler judgments; More.

By Somon Sebag Montefiore, published on July 01, 1992 - last reviewed on August 26, 2009

History shows that libertines have provided the world with some of its best rulers. Take Louis XIV or Catherine the Great. Mazarin or Potemkin. Metternich or Talleyrand. Edward VII was an admirable diplomat of tact and wisdom, who kept Europe's powderkeg at peace until his death in 1910. Today, neither Franklin Roosevelt nor David Lloyd-George (known as "the goat" for his libidinous athletics) would have likely been elected, because they had mistresses. Thus the scrutiny of Bill Clinton's "character" provokes two questions: Is such a leader unelectable under our present system of trial-by-tabloid in the name of so-called "morality?" And why are America and Britain ruled by this mania?

I believe it is the result of the division of the role of ruler between mystique and administration. In antiquity, the ruler (such as an Augustus or an Alexander) possessed the amoral mystique of a pagan god and the supreme power of an administrator. In our parlane, the King was thus a star and a minister. Later, the two were separated. In modernity, this division was the foundation of democtratic freedom. The ruler is an ordinary man in gray suit who must begave better than his subjects. The modern gods are the stars of a media, who vary from the rich, such as the Kennedys, to the demigods of sport, film, TV and music. These stars are above morality. They do not need to behave like us ordinary mortals. The combination of the two halves, stardom and politics, is the basis for the cult of personality that is mark of dictatorship. Saddam Hussein, for example, is both star and ruler, god and man.

However, this division has played into the hands of a press that cannot judge the worthiness of its public figures. Is it not at least possible that there willl only be true freedom of choice when a Gary Hart of a Bill Clinton can admit openly that they had affairs--and continue to run?

This is not to say that an immoral private life is anecessary criterion for the great ruler. On the contrary, it is incidental. The press has the awesome power to destroy, but lacks the sober responsibility to decide when the affairs of private lives warrant their hypocritical with hunts. Thus, we judge public officials on the wrong aspects of their private lives. The fact ofadultery is notin itself necessarily significant However, its circumstances may be damning, because it may reveal a flaw--weakness or bad judgment--that constitutes a valid reason not to vote for a leader. Let me give three examples in Britain and America.

Britain's 1963 Profumo scandal was arguably justified in terms of state security, because the the Minister of Defense, John Profumo, was hte lover of a call girl, Christine keeler, who was also the lover of the Soviet Air attache. And the lied about it, which confirmed his bad judgment.

Cecil Parkinson was Mrs. Thatcher's her apparent as PrimeMinister. He impregnated his mistress, Sarah Keays, a House of Commons researcher. In a nauseating display of moral outrage by the Blue Rinses, he was forced to resign. The real point is that the man who might have been the next Premier weakly promised to marry a woman when he was already married--and was not even capable of using elementary birth control. After all, if a man cannot commmit adultery properly, how can he possibly run a country?

Similarly, Governor Clinton's sin may not bethat he had an affair, but that he had an affair with a woman with as little class as Gennifer Flowers. And did he give her a job in the state bureaucracy?

THE COURAGE TO MAKE SUBTLER JUDGMENTS

What is the solution? How can we break this vicious circle of witch hunting? Regarding politicians who admit adultery and continue to run, the press should ask if it reveals defects that would affect their performance as leaders. The answer may be yes or it may be on. Thiswill take courage on the part of both press and politician, as well as on the voter, who must eventually decide.

But it takes considerably less courage on the part of the press--and yet no such courage has so far been evident. Editor's traditional answer is that their role is simply to give the people facts and make no judgment. This is didingenously modets. A glance ay any investigative report on any of the candidates in any newspaper shows this not to be true: all investigatuive stories have a slant. Is not the analysis of news precisely the job of those editors?

As far as the politician is concerned, the courage to be honest is a far more real test of the ability to govern than is lifelong fidelity or church attendance. Governor Clinton is the first amn to (almost) admit it--and still be running. This is (almost) to his credit.