morality
Sexual scandal in politics has always been attended by hypocrisy, most frequently on the part of the media in their efforts to justify the public ventilation of private activities.
When a British minister of defence, John Profumo, bedded a prostitute and was caught, the British press justified its prurient coverage of the scandal on national security grounds. Christine Keeler was busily fornicating with the Soviet defence attaché at the same time and, on the grounds that she might have been a conduit for the betrayal of state secrets (which was improbable and certainly never proven), Profumo was forced out of office.
Similarly, the almost pornographic coverage of the United States’s “Fornigate” scandal is justified on the grounds of a “cover-up” — White House correspondents insisting that they have no interest in President Bill Clinton’s sexual activities, but justifying their preoccupation with the subject on the grounds they have a “duty” to investigate in order to discover whether the president “lied” to the courts and the nation.
In South Africa the media have offered no excuse where the scandal surrounding FW de Klerk is concerned. The former state president has resigned from political office, and there is quite clearly no justification for the current exposure of details about his private life, other than prurience — the enjoyment of gossip which is common to all humanity
Back in the US, the public is not only showing itself appreciative of the gossip emanating from the White House, but is signalling that it recognises the hypocrisy of its own media’s appeal to the “national interest”.
Recent opinion polls show that, since the sex scandal developed, Clinton’s popularity rating has soared, while at the same time more than 50% of the population believes that he did have an affair with the young intern, Monica Lewinsky. In other words a large section of the population seemingly believes their president lied to them, but they do not give a damn about it.
Hopefully this reflects, not a wholesale abandonment of principle, but a recognition by the American people that there are lies and lies; that when the media stick their noses in areas which are not their concern the people are prepared to be more forgiving when their president fails to tell the truth. “Ask no questions, tell no lies.”
It can be speculated that the recent disclosures about the secret life of John Kennedy brought it home to the US that it is not necessary for a politician’s private life to be pristine in order for him (or her) to be a leader. Some may quarrel about Kennedy’s leadership qualities, but he remains a hero in US political mythology, despite the rampant sexuality which is fast becoming part of the legend.
He is reputed to have startled the former British prime minister, Harold Macmillan, with the observation that he had to have sex once a day, or else he suffered from terrible headaches. He is also said to have enjoyed copulating with prostitutes in the bath, ducking their heads in the water as he approached a climax, because it triggered a vaginal spasm which increased the enjoyment of the moment … at least for the president.
Even his death can be attributed indirectly to sexual activity. It has been claimed that shortly before his assassination he tore a groin muscle while having extramarital sex in the White House swimming pool and was fitted with a brace locking him in an upright position. When the first bullet hit him in the neck at Dallas, the brace kept him in a sitting position, facilitating the second, head- shot which killed him.
It should be noted that Jacqueline Kennedy seemingly connived at these extramarital activities with which the president staved off his headaches.
The American investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh, in his recent book, The Dark Side of Camelot, recounts how on one occasion the first lady was setting places at a White House banquet and made room next to her husband for a young woman, remarking to Gore Vidal: “She’s very beautiful. Very stupid. She’s just arrived from England, so Jack will have first crack at it.”
There are grounds for some suspicion that Hillary Clinton is similarly accommodating where her husband’s extramarital activities are concerned. And if the ladies have no objection, why should the electorate ?
Where De Klerk’s affair is concerned we do not even know whether it was sexual. But even if it was, most South Africans no doubt would be happy to forgive … if judgment were required of them.
There are, seemingly, exceptions. One is De Klerk himself, who seems intent on flagellating himself for his “sin”. The other is Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education which this week accepted, with alacrity, De Klerk’s resignation as chancellor on the grounds that his lapse in morality made him unfit for the post.
De Klerk’s record of responsibility for the implementation of policies which destroyed the lives of millions had no relevance to his fitness for the chancellorship. But he falls in love and he is a pariah. Which brings us back to our original point, that hypocrisy has long been the hand-maiden of sexual scandal.