Writes Mark Kleiman regarding the Rep. Jefferson situation:
Of course Jefferson’s corruption can’t hold a candle to either the DeLay/Abramoff connection or the Cunningham/Lewis/God-knows-who-else connection to crooked defense contractors. But it’s important for the Democrats in the House to demonstrate that they aren’t as tolerant of corruption as their counterparts across the aisle.
The problem is, as I noted before in passing, the relative depth of a given scandal is not the most salient issue for determining its political impact.
The thing that the Jefferson scandal has that the others don’t is videotape of a Congressman (allegedly) on the take. Further, the salacious factoid of $90,000 in cash hidden in the Congressman’s freezer screams “guilty.”
Like Cunningham’s sweetheart real estate deal, this is all very easy to understand.
What is the simple synopsis of the Abramoff scandal, which is potentially the most serious? And while DeLay lost his job over his legal woes, it still lacks the pizazz of money in the freezer.
As such, I have to wonder which of the scandals will have the most potential political impact. And I think that Cunningham and Jefferson both rate high on the public radar, and will be perceived by the general public as examples of bipartisan corruption.
My analysis is that all of this adds to a general dissatisfaction with politics, and makes the Democrats’ desire to run against corruption rather difficult.
In short my point is this: the depth of the scandal isn’t the issue in terms of political impact–like most things in electoral politics the relevant issue is how easily understood it is by the electorate. Influence peddling by Jack Abramoff on behalf of Indian casino interests is difficult to understand–taking bribes on videotape is extremely easy to understand.
May 23rd, 2024 at 12:50 pm
Scandal Simplicity, Not Severity, Most Important
Steven Taylor, noting the current argument by Democrats that the William Jefferson bribery scandal and others affecting that party pale in comparison to the DeLay and Abramoff scandals plaguing the Republicans, argues that this is not the most importan…
May 23rd, 2024 at 2:01 pm
Yep, it is the same with evolutionary theory and creationism. The latter is much, much easier for people to understand. So naturally their first inclination is to go with what they understand. It is comfortable, whereas evolutionary theory at best is hard work to understand, and at worst a direct threat (rightly or wrongly) to their belief system.
May 23rd, 2024 at 2:02 pm
Cunningham and Jefferson both rate high on the public radar
I may be a poor bellwether, but I have never heard of a Representative named William Jefferson, let alone any “scandal” involving him.
May 23rd, 2024 at 2:05 pm
Matthew,
It is a breaking story over the last couple of days.
See: http://poliblogger.com/?p=10010
May 23rd, 2024 at 4:09 pm
In The Tin Ear Department
I've been saying for a long time (well, long in blog years) that the "culture of corruption" meme was a two-edged sword that was very dangerous for the Democrats to try to use as an election tool. And there have been plenty of i…
May 23rd, 2024 at 6:52 pm
So, if it is breaking over the last couple of days, surely it is much too early to equate it with the Cunningham scandal on some sort of “public radar.”
May 23rd, 2024 at 8:36 pm
Fair enough–but I am not so sure how much Cunningham will be on the public radar either, save in SoCal.
My point, even if the metaphor wasn’t apt, is that this kind of scandal will be easily understood in the same way that the Cunningham scandal was, and likely will receive a great deal of publicity.
Again, the $90k hidden in the freezer + caught taking $100k on video tape + the raid of his congressional offices + the misuse of National Guard during the Katrina rescue = pretty good TV.
There is still his pending arrest.
All of this equals significant cable news fodder.