Twenty Years Ago
5-8-87 . . . There was shocking political news this morning. Gary Hart, acknowledged Democratic frontrunner in the 1988 presidential sweepstakes, withdrew from the race because of the growing scandal concerning his extramarital affairs. Hart was found to have spent a weekend with a young woman [Donna Rice] in his Washington townhouse. The media badgered him until finally, this morning, at a news conference, he called it quits. Now the Democratic nomination is up for grabs. Of the many issues being debated in the press, the one I find most fascinating is that of relevance. Some people say that Hart’s extramarital affairs are politically irrelevant, something that people either don’t need to know about or shouldn’t know about. I disagree. Politicians are not just bundles of positions on the issues; they are living, breathing human beings with moral characters, personalities, and attitudes. As a voter, I want to know a great deal about these things. They help me assess a candidate’s ability to deal with unforeseen crises and handle tense situations.
As for Hart in particular, I believe that the recent incident with the young woman sheds light on several important characteristics: fidelity (to his wife, and generally), trustworthiness, and honesty. Rather than admit that he had been unfaithful, he attacked the press and denied wrongdoing. Then, this morning, he continued the assault and refused to be humble, claiming that candidates for the presidency should be immune to certain sorts of scrutiny. He called the press “hunters” and the candidates the “hunted.” Usually, I’m the worst critic of the press, but in this incident they did a good job. It’s a dirty world, American politics. Candidates should be scrutinized, probed, analyzed, questioned, and observed so that we, the voters, can make an informed decision at election time. So long, Gary Hart. I now expect things to get interesting. My current favorites are Paul Simon of Illinois and Joseph Biden of Delaware, both liberals. [Biden is running for president again, 20 years later.]
It was payday, so I drove to school to pick up my check. On the way, I stopped at the law-school library to copy three articles for my presession course [Sex, Ethics, and the Law]. Here’s what I’ve decided to do. First, I’ll select five or six topics. I’ve tentatively decided on (1) marriage; (2) childbearing; (3) homosexuality; (4) pornography; (5) violence; and (6) nudity. Ideally, I’d present three perspectives on each topic: liberal, conservative, and radical. Most of my students, I suspect, will be liberals, the sort who claim that the state should not criminalize sexual activities unless they harm or offend others. The conservative and radical views would then constitute two kinds of criticism of the liberal position. But there just isn’t time to do all of this in forty-five hours, at least if I hope to cover six topics, so I’ve decided to emphasize the radical position. We’ll start with Joel Feinberg’s liberal framework and then ask whether it is adequate to a range of issues: adultery, group marriage, abortion, sodomy, pornography, rape, and so forth. I’ll tell the students in advance that we’ll be examining primarily the radical position. Today I copied three articles written by feminists.
