The character question

By Jim Simon
Seattle Times staff reporter

"If you think I am fooling around on my wife, follow me."

-- Sen. Gary Hart, 1984 Democratic presidential candidate, to reporters

Thomas Jefferson's opponents published campaign handbills accusing him of keeping a mistress. In 1984, nearly two centuries later, Sen. Gary Hart's presidential campaign went belly-up after newspapers caught him spending the night with his girlfriend -- a p.r. disaster that was the result of Hart's famous challenge to reporters.

Standards do change with the times. In the 1960s, former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller's dreams of becoming president were seriously undermined by the fact he was in his second marriage. Today, the two most prominent flag-bearers for a Republican party that is trumpeting a return to traditional family values -- Presidential candidate Bob Dole and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich -- have both been divorced. Nobody cares.

But today, "character" is still a big deal.

Everybody agrees that those who lead us ought to have character. Defining what we mean by that is another matter.

In truth, most of us don't vote for a candidate simply on ideology or say, their specific plan to reduce the federal budget. We support candidates whose judgment we feel best about: Are they optimistic? Do they keep their promises? Are they sympathetic to the problem of others? Are their values similar to mine?

Politicians and elected officials are bound by ethics laws, usually governing campaign rules or conflicts of interest, to make sure they don't misuse their office to financially benefit themselves or friends. The state Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) can fine candidates or organizations that fail to report contributions, that violate contribution limits or, on very rare occasions, that lie in their advertisements. A few years back, top legislative staffers were found guilty by the PDC of using taxpayer money to run partisan political campaigns. Voters can look up records of candidate fines at the PDC.

But you can't look up character like a voting record.

Many campaigns research their opponents for sore points, scouring divorce files or checking records to see if they handed out public contracts to friends. Which, of course, brings up a circular question: Is digging up dirt on your opponent ethical? The media also puts candidates' personal lives under far more scrutiny than they once did, writing more frequently about character scandals.

Guidance for voters

Patrick Dobel, associate dean of the School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington, suggests that voters should be -- and usually, are -- aware that there is no neat correlation between how leaders conduct their private lives and their capabilities in office.

Personal missteps are usually forgiven once the media frenzy dies down, he says. When that kind of behavior is seen as an abuse of power or is related to an office holder's job, then it becomes a legitimate campaign issue. "In the end, I think voters are far better at understanding and piecing together the complexity that makes up a candidate's whole life than they are given credit for," he says.

Outgoing Gov. Mike Lowry presents a textbook case of how the issue of "character" can change a politician's career -- and how it rarely fits neatly in a bumper sticker slogan.

Lowry's political courage has attracted admirers even among those who don't share his liberal Democratic views. He continued speaking out on the need for a state income tax, for example, even though it has long been an unpopular idea with voters. During his 1992 campaign, Lowry didn't just talk about the need for campaign reform -- he refused to accept any contributions of more than $1,500.

But Lowry's chances for reelection probably went down the toilet last year, when the governor paid a $97,000 settlement to a former staffer who alleged that she had been sexually harassed by him. (Lowry denied any wrongdoing.)

Dobel said such charges -- true or not -- were far more damaging than revelations of a private extramarital affair might have been. That's because the allegations, if true, could have relevance to his job, for example by making Lowry's long support of women's issues seem hypocritical to some. Since the incidents also allegedly happened on the job, they left the impression with some that Lowry had abused his powerful position.

Copyright © 2000 The Seattle Times Company