Sounds of the Righteous Brothers

By Laurence I. Barrett/Washington

When a hot breeze of scandal blew away Gary Hart's candidacy, the other contenders felt a chill of apprehension. Would each be asked, as Hart was in his last press conference, whether he had committed adultery? Would evasion stamp a politician with Hester Prynne's scarlet letter?

Last week nobody put the brutal A question directly to any of the remaining candidates, but TV talk-show hosts and newspaper reporters came close enough by demanding to know whether the inquiry was a legitimate campaign issue. Many of the candidates danced around this hand grenade, waiting for it to become yesterday's news. "The debate," said Richard Gephardt's campaign manager William Carrick, "is going through an awkward phase, a cartoon phase." But even if the sex angle goes stale, candidates will have to spend considerable time on broader ethical issues.

Democratic Senator Joe Biden, on CNN's Larry King Live, wondered if relentless interrogation along personal lines would "make politics like a circus." Emphasized Biden, whose strong family life has been a political asset for years: "I don't have anything to worry about in the sense that there is a culpable act in my background or that I have a promiscuous life- style."

On NBC's Meet the Press, Democrats Gephardt and Jesse Jackson came down on opposite sides. Gephardt argued, "You answer the questions you are asked," & even intrusive ones. Lechery deserves discussion, he said, because "I don't think that's the way we want our leaders to act. I don't think that's a good role model for the country." Jackson insisted that Hart had been correct in ducking the adultery question. A candidate's morality, he said, should be judged by his stands on issues such as South African policy and the contras as well as bedroom behavior. Intimate inquiry is legitimate, Jackson contended, only when "some illicit relationship was having some bearing on national interest or national security."

For Jackson, a Baptist minister with strong support in black churches, the issue is particularly touchy because for years he has been the subject of unsubstantiated rumors. Some of his backers worry about his vulnerability on "character" questions. As Hart's campaign was collapsing two weeks ago, several advisers met with Jackson in Chicago. According to one of his aides, they discussed possible tactics in the event similar questions were raised about Jackson, and he was warned against any appearance of impropriety.

There was disagreement among Republicans as well. When the New York Times last week polled 14 candidates asking how "hypothetical" contenders, pure and impure, should answer the A question, responses spanned the spectrum. Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole said once a politician has declared for the presidency, he sacrifices his right of privacy. Congressman Jack Kemp, who has had to deny 20-year-old rumors of sexual misconduct, rejected the Times inquiry as "beneath the dignity of a presidential candidate." Vice President George Bush warned the press against "unseemly inquiries into private behavior." Pat Robertson, the other Baptist clergyman seeking the presidency, said national candidates should be held, at the very least, to the same standards of conduct as U.S. Marine guards stationed at the Moscow embassy.

The nation's reawakening concern with ethics puts a higher political premium than ever on personalities who can come across as trustworthy. Arizona Democrat Bruce Babbitt says he senses a "groping quality" among voters. "What people seem to be saying," adds Babbitt, "is 'This time around we want to have a direct feel for who the candidates are, how they make decisions, what their priorities are in their personal lives."

Democratic Pollster Geoffrey Garin cites a related requirement: "In 1988, the watchword is sincerity. Does the candidate mean what he says? Is he leveling with me?" But neither Jimmy Carter's Sunday School platitudes nor Ronald Reagan's "Morning-in-America" syrup will suffice this time because voters have been disappointed too often.

Sensitive to this, most of the candidates, like cereal distributors, stress high fiber content. Babbitt's new TV ads in Iowa depict him as tough on the Mafia, polluters of the environment and Wall Street speculators. One 60-second spot contains three references to honesty and truth. Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, capitalizing on his Mr. Clean record, tells voters, "Our children have a right to an America where integrity is the watchword. They deserve better than the sight of Wall Street insiders being led away in handcuffs or government officials who use public life mainly to make contacts for private life." Bush, in the first of a series of speeches laying out his principal themes, emphasized similar points, even at the risk of seeming disloyal to fellow Reaganauts. "Our own Administration has been the victim of individuals who haven't had the judgment or integrity to put the public's business above their own selfish interest," he told students at Albion College. "Greed is not a legitimate force in this society."

With so many candidates sounding like virtuous, angry populists, it is doubtful that any one of them can collect heavy dividends from the theme of righteousness alone. Similarly, marital fidelity by itself is not going to be a big draw. Instead, these will probably prove to be what pollsters call "threshold issues" -- standards to which the candidates must measure up simply to stay in contention. Some candidates will have more difficulty than others. Nevada Republican Paul Laxalt, for instance, was once part of his state's gambling industry and is still pressing a libel suit against a newspaper chain, which, he claims, falsely implied his involvement in casino skimming. Robertson suffers indirectly from the turmoil among fellow televangelists and directly from an accusation that in 1951 he used political influence to evade combat duty in Korea. But for all of the contenders in both parties, the scandals of 1987 provide some clear guidance for 1988: keep your spouse in camera range whenever possible and maintain a high indignation level against offenders of all kinds.