Scandal And American Politics In The

21st Century Busby

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/scandal-and-american-politics-in-the-21st-century-bu
sby/
Scandal and
American Politics in
the 21st Century
Robert Busby
Scandal and American Politics in the 21st Century
Robert Busby
Scandal and American
Politics in the 21st
Century
Robert Busby
Department of History and Politics
Liverpool Hope University
Liverpool, UK
ISBN 978-3-030-91637-4
ISBN 978-3-030-91638-1
(eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91638-1
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2022
 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps
and institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: © Alex Linch shutterstock.com
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Dedicated to my daughter Anna
Acknowledgments
With thanks to everyone who has assisted and supported me through the
creation of this work. This book would not have been possible without
the support and patience of my wife Louise, and my daughters Mia
and Anna. Through the challenges of a pandemic lockdown, travel bans
and closed libraries the path to publication has been very different to
the norm, but I could not have created this work without the unerring
support of my parents and my family.
Many thanks to my colleagues at Liverpool Hope, and to those who
now work in pastures new, but continued to offer support and assistance.
In particular, thank you to Michael Holmes, Catalina Montoya Londoño
and Danny Rye, and my esteemed colleagues in the History, Politics and
International Relations team for being supportive through challenging
and unconventional times.
This work would not have been possible without the patience and
consideration of Ambra Finotello and Punitha Balasubramaniam. Many
thanks for taking the time to create a solid and reassuring path to
publication.
vii
Contents
1
Introduction
1
2
Scandal: The Causes, the Problems and the Outcomes
15
3
Twentieth Century Issues: The Lessons of the Past
45
4
Spitzer: The Downfall of a Governor
75
5
John Edwards: The Chaos of the Cover-Up
107
6
Mark Sanford: Hiking in Appalachia
139
7
Anthony Weiner: The Perils of Social Media
173
8
Donald Trump: The Teflon Don
201
9
Conclusion
225
Index
237
ix
About the Author
Robert Busby is a Senior Lecturer in Politics at Liverpool Hope
University, Liverpool, United Kingdom. His past publications include
monographs on Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair and Clinton and
the Lewinsky Scandal. He has also published in the fields of political
marketing and communication.
xi

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The presence of scandal in politics is a familiar aspect of the contempo-
rary environment and a common feature of media coverage. Having been
a prominent feature of twentieth century politics the unraveling of scan-
dalous episodes and investigations into private lives of political figures
continues into the twenty-first century with little sign that the lessons
of past episodes have been learned. This in many ways is a dilemma.
Those involved in scandal, or even faced with allegations of scandalous
wrongdoing, commonly face a profoundly negative experience, experi-
encing personal and political damage that affects not only the individual
involved in the event, but also family members, staff aides and the wider
political establishment. Scandal has become an established part of the
political environment. It can also be regarded as the consequence of
human failings, highlighted in this particular realm because of intense
media scrutiny. Any expectation that scandal politics will fade from the
political narrative may therefore be misplaced and it could, and should,
be considered an issue which is a consistent feature of the political land-
scape. As a consequence, the focus on scandal as a political genre shows
no sign of diminishing in its frequency, its spectacle, or in shaping partisan
political accusations of errant behavior or wrongdoing.
The candidacy and election of President Trump in 2016 might have
offered a contrast to the predictable scandal fare. The election of a busi-
ness tycoon to office may have suggested that a contrast could have
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
1
Switzerland AG 2022
R. Busby, Scandal and American Politics in the 21st Century,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91638-1_1
2
R. BUSBY
been drawn between those in the frequently errant political elite, and
those from elite business circles. Alas, from the outset of Trump’s candi-
dacy allegations of wrongdoing surrounded him, culminating with covert
recordings of Trump emerging in the latter stages of the campaign. This
was later compounded with allegations of infidelity, of collusion with
Russia and a host of minor indiscretions which created an atmosphere
where speculation and allegations of wrongdoing were more frequent
than not. Trump responded, in a now familiar combative manner, with
allegations of wrongdoing and scandal by Democrats, his predecessors,
and members of his own staff who had left their office or had been sacked.
This reached a highpoint in 2020 with numerous allegations by Trump
that there existed an array of conspiratorial forces working against him
(Timm 2020). From the earliest days of the Republic to the twenty-first
century, scandal has acted as a negative lure for attention in the public
sphere, not losing its luster for capturing popular attention on some of
the most corrosive aspects of politics.
Discussion of scandal as a meaningful force within politics has become
ever more popular in academia. Far from being a trivial and distracting
side issue, its impact on the political realm, its ability to usher in a rapid
change of officeholder and its ability to capture public attention gives it
an important location in the study of the causes and consequences of its
impact on politics. Significant concentration has been given to the role
of the media in disseminating scandal issues (Entman 2012; Thompson
2000). There is also a focus across a range of different scandal genres,
from those involving the highly visible presidential office (Barberio 2021),
to those which address the plethora of sex scandals in modern American
politics (Dagnes 2011). This work seeks to add further to the litera-
ture on scandal. It has two primary objectives. The first is to examine
the evolution of scandal as a political feature in the twenty-first century.
The evolution of the internet, social media and the expansion of means
through which to learn about and contribute to scandal politics presents
a very different environment to that even of the 1990s. The Weiner
scandal, discussed in Chapter7 of this book, involved a sex scandal in
which there was no sex and the key players in the scandal did not meet
face to face. The indelible electronic footprints left on social media in
the twenty-first century have changed the he-said she-said dynamic of
human interaction to one where electronic imprints are wheeled out as
proof of personal indiscretion. A second aim of this work is to consider
the impact of damage control strategies on the standing and legacy of
1
INTRODUCTION
3
those involved in scandal and to look at strategies of image restoration,
an important dynamic in cultivating improved public standing in politics
(Benoit 2015). While allegations of scandal politics might at one point in
time have led to a significant decline in standing, potential loss of office
and the end of the political career, the efforts in the twenty-first century
by individuals embroiled in scandal to resurrect their fortunes and run
again for political office suggests that the impact of scandal may not now
be what it once was. Rather than being a decisive issue which cast an indi-
vidual into the political wilderness it could now be interpreted as more
of a rite of passage which only serves to blemish a political career rather
than terminate it. This is not always the case, but the cases of Weiner and
Spitzer serve to show that within a short period of time scandal politics
can be accommodated back into a political resume and used as a means
of redemption when trying, unsuccessfully in both of those cases, to seek
further political office. Mark Sanford however, discussed in Chapter 6,
proved to be more successful in the aftermath of wrongdoing. Trump
also, when caught out with the Access Hollywood tapes, faced charges
that the level of outrage that they might cause could lead to the termi-
nation of his campaign. Ultimately, they made little if any difference
to his political standing among his supporters and the damage limita-
tion strategy invoked by his campaign strategist Steve Bannon diverted
attention onto prior scandal allegations made against President Clinton.
Damage limitation is an important part of the scandal dynamic. There
are a range of decisions to be made about how to address charges of
wrongdoing. In the examples and case studies used in this work there are
a range of strategies utilized including resignation, the use of a cover-up,
trying to ride out the scandal, and the simple rebuttal of the allegations.
Given the frequency of scandal it might be assumed that there exists a
raft of familiar measures which can be deployed to mount an effective
public relations effort to offset the charges of wrongdoing. However,
scandal is unpredictable. Given the reticence of those who are charged
with wrongdoing to openly confess their actions scandal politics and
damage limitation frequently operate against a backdrop of incomplete
information, cover-ups designed to mask action and a discrepancy of
the information available in the public and private realms from multiple
participants. The institutional framework of scandal with its revelation,
investigation and prosecution aspects are familiar procedural aspects of
scandal. But a defense can also be mounted to mitigate against each of
these procedures, to minimize their impact, to offer a rebuttal against
4
R. BUSBY
the charges and change how each element is viewed in the public realm.
That more political figures appear able to accommodate scandal into their
political careers may serve to suggest that damage control strategies are
now more effective in offsetting charges of wrongdoing and in presenting
to the public an alternate interpretation of moral wrongdoing.
Damage limitation works against a backdrop of several variables.
The standing of the officeholder involved is an important aspect. Past
pronouncement and actions may serve to stress a sense of hypocrisy when
wrongdoing is uncovered. As discussed in Chapter 4, Eliot Spitzer had
previously acted against prostitution in the state of New York, only later to
be held to account for using an escort service. John Edwards had champi-
oned the cause of women’s rights, only then to be caught fathering a love
child and trying to conceal his personal activities while his wife endured
a battle with cancer. Consistency and predictability are core aspects of
creating and sustaining public trust, and the sudden exposure of action
which appears to distort or destroy a previously established image can
lead to doubt about the authenticity of the political figure. The evolution
of scandal in the twenty-first century may however serve to demonstrate
that this can work in an inverse form too. The election of Trump to the
presidential office, given his tumultuous private life and understanding of
his previous marriages, changed the scenario. When tales of indiscretion
arose when Trump was President there was little public outrage, little
in the way of a questioning of his moral standing or of the position of
his marriage. While it can be asserted that the revelations concerning his
private life regarded personal action which took place sometime before he
seriously considered running for political office, the detailed revelations of
his private actions emerged when he was in office, and were highlighted
in a prominent fashion as his lawyer, Cohen, was involved in congres-
sional hearings where transactions regarding non-disclosure agreements
were discussed. That there was no pronounced movement in the opinion
polls because of the revelations might be put down to public indifference
with this type of revelation in the contemporary era. However, it may
also be attributed to the fact that Trump carried forward a reputation as
a womanizer and the consistency of information in this regard contributed
toward an understanding of him as a political figure whose action, rather
than countering prior understanding, simply reinforced it. The scandalous
reputation therefore may be considered contingent on the reputation of
the individual and public understanding of prior consistency of action,
whether in a virtuous or deviant way.
1
INTRODUCTION
5
The notion of scandal frequently posits the dynamic of the event at
the foot of one person, and that their individual actions are the driving
force behind its cause and outcome. In power scandals while the account-
ability may rest with the highest occupant of the political establishment
frequently the actions of juniors or subordinates are the driving force
behind scandal and those who shape the unfolding events. In Watergate
and Iran-Contra the limited control over the unfolding scandals by Nixon
and Reagan respectively suggested that while the accountability might
rest in the Oval Office the driving force behind the evolution of events
lay with those with significantly less political influence. Whether it be
Gordon Liddy in Watergate, or Oliver North in Iran-Contra, the evolu-
tion of scandal appeared to rest as much with their actions as with that
of Nixon or Reagan. In terms of damage limitation the actual power that
can be influenced from the highest political office looked very limited and
while public relations exercises were enacted they looked to be problem-
atic from the start. Nonetheless there are lessons to be drawn from these
power plays. The efforts of the Reagan White House to distance the Pres-
ident from the scandal accusations using plausible deniability, that it was
feasible that Reagan was left out of the chain of authority and communi-
cation regarding the diversion of funds from the Middle East to Central
America, suggests that there are viable strategies that can be utilized to
minimize damage, and that lessons can be learned which accept wrong-
doing but prevent the matter from becoming catastrophic. Following the
revelations Reagan mounted ‘Operation Comeback’, a public relations
exercise designed to reassert notions of presidential authority (U.S. News
and World Report 1987, 18). The lack of control via established power
structures is starkly evident, and the fallout and exacerbation of scandal
politics from third party involvement is a pronounced aspect of the
contemporary scandal playlist. Watergate and Iran-Contra firmly placed
scandal at the forefront of politics, and soon added attention was given
not only to the potential abuse of power, but to the issue of individual
personal wrongdoing in moral terms.
In keeping with power scandals, episodes where there is a violation
of personal morality also retain the opportunity for an individual to lose
control of the unfolding of events and to find themselves very much at the
mercy of the actions of others. The spouse of the individual involved in
infidelity or moral wrongdoing is a particularly important figure. Whether
they stand by their partner, accompany them to public events and to
press conferences, or distance themselves on account of their own careers
6
R. BUSBY
and standing, is now an important part of the interpretation of the likely
evolution of scandal politics. Not only is there a moral dilemma involved
here but there is also the incentive to seek personal redress for the nega-
tive public image that is projected as scandal unfolds. The incentive for
personal profit via magazine and television appearances for those involved
in scandal can offset the efforts by the perpetrator to try to advance
a dominant descriptive narrative of the events, and lead to competing
interpretation of how scandalous events unfolded, who was at fault, and
influence whether the establishment and public retain trust in the perpe-
trator of the events. In many of the episodes discussed in this work,
the appearance of unity among the staff of the political figure under
scrutiny quickly crumbled when the detail of scandal activity unfolded.
In this regard the understanding of damage control becomes much more
a case of damage limitation, with the opportunity to control the words or
actions of others involved in the episode significantly limited.
This book looks at a range of prominent scandal episodes in the
twenty-first century and looks at the efforts by those involved in scandal
to defend their position, control unfolding events and, in some cases,
resurrect a political career. It commences by looking at some of the key
theoretical understandings of what a political scandal is, how it is mani-
fested and disseminated and what its impact is on the broader political
environment. Rather than being self-contained issues which are frivolous
and marginal to mainstream politics, scandal has a detrimental impact on
the impressions of the integrity of political figures and on the credibility
of the political establishment. The mere use of it as a term of reference
for a political event pushes it to the fore as a political weapon which can
be used to inflict partisan political damage on opponents, even if there is
little in the way of hard evidence to prove a case. The theoretical under-
standing of scandal and the volume of literature on the topic has increased
significantly. In the latter twentieth century focus was generally on indi-
vidual cases of power abuse and they were dealt with as products of errant
individuals who had abused their authority. The creation of the reve-
lation, investigation and prosecution cycle, with Independent Counsels
ready to investigate potential wrongdoing, and with investigative jour-
nalists ready to tail political figures to address allegations in their private
life has pushed scandal to the fore as a regular political event. However,
the prevalence of scandal may now have caused something of a numbing
regarding messages about political malfeasance and wrongdoing. This
1
INTRODUCTION
7
takes the existing understanding of scandal as having a pronounced nega-
tive impact into a new realm, that significant elements of the American
public have grown tired of the revelations, believe more often than not
that political figures will engage in private moral wrongdoing, and that
there is a decline in the outrage and shock that revelations can create.
This can be incorporated into the broader efforts to enact damage limi-
tation, by dismissing allegations as yet another media investigation into
a subject where public interest has waned, and the political impact that
scandal revelations may have had diminished.
Initial consideration is given to the scandal politics of the late twen-
tieth century. While the dynamics in the way scandal is investigated,
reported and uncovered have changed significantly with the evolution of
the internet age, there are lessons to be learned and contrasts drawn from
previous prominent scandal events. Consideration here is given initially to
both power abuse scandals and then those involving violations of personal
morality. The legacy of significant scandals like Watergate of 1972–1974
and Iran-Contra of 1986–1987 served to shape understanding of the
hidden dynamic of politics, where major events and undertakings could
be hidden from public view. The enormity of events was only open for
public scrutiny when political figures were held to account or threatened
with legal action. There is also an opportunity here to view how polit-
ical figures dealt with the allegations of wrongdoing. Scandal in the late
twentieth century had significance. Watergate led to charges of impeach-
ment and Nixon’s resignation, Iran-Contra witnessed the largest ever one
monthly fall in presidential job approval poll statistics. They also created
several precedents. It is arguable and plausible that precedent had already
been set and that a detailed study of the history of the Republic gives a
number of episodes which can be used as foundations for the study of
modern scandal. However, with the evolutions of the communications
age, live television coverage of press conferences, televised hearings and
the detailed and forensic focus on both institutions and individuals scandal
changed into an increasingly public rather than largely private spectacle.
The legacy of the media coverage of Watergate and of the scandal itself,
including the repeated use of the affix ‘gate’ for virtually any interpreta-
tion of political wrongdoing, is testament to the importance of that event.
The late twentieth century was important not only for the power scan-
dals, but for matters of personal morality. With a change of orientation
for investigative journalism and the private lives of political figures under
8
R. BUSBY
increasing scrutiny, interpretations of wrongful moral activity by promi-
nent political figures appeared to have pronounced consequences. Gary
Hart withdrew from a run for the presidency having been caught in an
extra-marital affair in 1988. The dalliances of Bill Clinton, when both a
Governor and President, are well known, and pushed scandal to the fore
as a focus of political interest. They suggested that political figures were
to be held to account publicly not only for the power that they held and
how it was used, but also for their private conduct. Damage limitation
strategies had to be crafted not only to address perceptions of the misuse
of power, but also now to address private moral lapses and matters which
were tangential to the bureaucratic operating of the political office.
The chapters which reflect on scandals of the twenty-first century look
at the causes of the scandal, the efforts by the perpetrator to address the
initial fallout, and the damage limitation strategies that were employed to
mitigate damage to reputation and political office. Given that there are
numerous events that can be grouped together into the genre of scandal
a selective choice has been made as to which episodes to address. In order
to try to get as full a picture as possible of the impact of scandal, consid-
eration has been given to some of the more prominent scandals, and
attention has also been given to a range of different offices. As much
as it is frequently desirable to concentrate on the presidential office the
breadth of media coverage and online discussion now presents oppor-
tunities to examine scandals with detail at state level. Interest in this
has been additionally highlighted with documentaries such as Client 9,
looking at the Spitzer scandal and Weiner, a fly-on-the-wall examination
of Anthony Weiner’s effort to resurrect his political career. This type of
material not only provides additional information about scandal politics,
but again raises scandal as a subject area as a significant aspect of politics,
which has the lure and public interest to feature on the most prominent
of media platforms and receive popular acclaim.
The first case study under consideration is that of Eliot Spitzer,
Governor of New York and a person of sound political reputation
and credibility, who resigned from office following investigation into
electronic transactions regarding an escort agency in New York. The
unraveling of his political reputation had significant repercussions. His
position in trying to regulate aspects of financial activity on Wall Street
had led to him having a draconian reputation, and his political confi-
dence had seemingly masked a completely different personality in the
private realm. As with the other examples in this work the position of his
1
INTRODUCTION
9
spouse was deemed important to the evolution of this scandal. Acting as
a barometer of the position of their marriage Spitzer’s wife was pivotal in
making the damage limitation strategies work, particularly with respect
to the political comeback that Spitzer would seek to make at a later
time. The Spitzer case is particularly instructive in scandal politics as he
took considerable time to discuss the causes, consequences and personal
considerations on the matter following his fall from grace. Rather than
being the conventional political confession, his lengthy interviews and
reflections on what scandal allegations meant for contemporary politics
gave an insight into revised meanings and understandings of scandal at
this time. That Spitzer decided to run again for political office is testa-
ment to a new notion that even a short time after a pronounced and
highly visible scandal episode there may now be opportunities for indi-
viduals see this type of episode as a temporary inconvenience rather than
the termination of a political career. However, caution has to be exercised
here as Spitzer was unsuccessful in his endeavor to hold public office once
again and the impact of the legacy of scandal is taken into consideration
in an examination of his new bid for office.
Focus thereafter turns to the politics of North Carolina and John
Edwards. His prominence as a Democrat Senator of note, a vice-
presidential candidate with John Kerry in 2004, and as a prospective
presidential candidate for 2008 put Edwards to the fore as a figure of
public note and reputation. While initial rumors about Edwards’ private
activity circulated online, there appeared little enthusiasm to follow up on
the speculation and although claims are made in this work, as in others,
that scandal is one of the prime lures for media and public interest, this
did not seem to initially apply in conventional terms at the outset of this
episode. The Edwards scandal is one where the many offshoots from the
initial action and wrongdoing proved well-nigh impossible to control and
the eventual unraveling of the detail of the events proved particularly
injurious to Edwards’ standing. He was portrayed as unfaithful to his
wife, hypocritical regarding his past positions on women’s rights, having
ill-served his political aides and of being evasive and creating mistruths
which would be exposed when those around him decided to give their
own individual interpretations of events. While damage limitation strate-
gies are often enacted with haste and urgency, that Edwards had time to
consider his next move, across several months, demonstrates that even
10
R. BUSBY
the most astute political figure in conventional times can have their judg-
ment clouded and their decision making compromised when caught in a
number of ever increasing moral and strategic dilemmas.
Anthony Weiner’s experiences with scandal are well known on account
of the documentary Weiner. Ordinarily the personal problems encoun-
tered by a Congressman from New York might only make some minor
political ripples, but in this instance the genre of scandal politics was
changed significantly with Weiner’s impact on the understanding of the
relationship between social media and scandal politics, in conjunction
with his impact on the 2016 presidential election. This scandal was not
the first time that the influence of electronic communication had played a
prominent role in scandal politics, as is discussed in a number of the chap-
ters of this work. However, Weiner was embroiled in a unique sex scandal,
where he never met the person he was communicating with, did not have
a sexual relationship and had tried, unsuccessfully to his cost, to mask his
identity. Weiner’s partner, Huma Abedin, played a significant and influen-
tial role in shaping media and public perceptions of this scandal, and her
role as an aide to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton served to give this
scandal a wider political impact. As with Spitzer, Weiner tried to mount a
political comeback and minimize the impact of the legacy of scandal on
his political reputation. However, his repeated actions, in keeping with
those which caused him problems in the first instance, meant that scandal
haunted his political career during the attempted comeback and ultimately
with further errant action on his part, ended up with failure. What started
as a promptly deleted Twitter message ended up terminating a promising
political career, created a legacy tarnished by scandal and a spell in prison.
In many respects Weiner’s damage limitation efforts are a prime case study
in how not to manage scandal politics.
Mark Sanford created concern when he went missing from his office
when serving as Governor of South Carolina. It transpired that he had
left the country when conducting an extra-marital affair. Sanford’s case
proved to be an unusual one. He was widely condemned, by both Repub-
licans and Democrats for his actions, his marriage broke down and he was
subject to attempts to impeach him. However, he soldiered on in office,
saw out his term and seemed to go against all conventional wisdom given
the predicament he found himself in. Remarkably, he then, even given
the controversy surrounding his personal conduct, went on to be elected
to the federal Congress and in 2019 announced his intention to seek
the Republican nomination for the presidential office. That effort was
1
INTRODUCTION
11
unsuccessful. Nonetheless Sanford showed that revelations surrounding
an extra-marital affair, and a seeming disregard of the responsibilities of
office, could be accommodated in the evolution of his political career. His
damage limitation efforts were haphazard and frequently erratic, but they
worked. Chapter 6 considers why Sanford was able to mount a rear-guard
defense of his position and offset widespread criticism of his personal and
political conduct.
The final chapter of this work considers the candidacy and presidency
of Donald Trump. By the time of his election to office, and certainly
through his term in office the use of the word scandal as a descriptor for
his personal action, prior activities and political agenda became almost
a daily fare. This chapter, rather than trying to cover every claim of
scandal, focusses in on two specific charges of moral wrongdoing on the
part of Trump. In the first instance consideration is given to the Access
Hollywood episode which occurred during the presidential campaign of
2016. The disclosure of explicit private recordings, released in the pivotal
closing weeks of the campaign, appeared to have fatally damaged Trump’s
chances of electoral success (Loofbourow 2020). Media commentary
signified that they entailed the final nail in Trump’s electoral coffin and
that a Clinton landslide would follow. Yet, through strategic and prompt
management of the situation the event was in part turned to Trump’s
advantage, by casting his words as merely that, words. This contrasted
with the more stringent allegations made against former President Bill
Clinton at this time. The orchestration of this rear-guard action changed
the narrative at the time and while Trump’s comments created a media
firestorm there appeared little to show that public opinion had changed
in any significant way, suggesting that the damage limitation strategy here
worked.
The second case study involving challenges to Trump’s credibility
occurred when he was President. Rumors surfaced of infidelity at a time
prior to his decision to engage in politics. Allegations made by Stormy
Daniels about a formerly discreet liaison, which had been covered by
a non-disclosure agreement, created significant media interest, brought
Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen to the fore, and ultimately led to
congressional hearings where images of payment cheques served to prove
that significant sums of money had been paid to buy the silence of Daniels
and another participant in the scandal allegations, Karen McDougal.
Again however, the revelations made little impact on public opinion. Far
from being the bombshell information that had dogged presidents like
12
R. BUSBY
Bill Clinton, there appeared to be a flippancy regarding the Daniels alle-
gations. The evidence of payment was clear to see, the allegations were
both salacious and detailed, and there was sufficient coverage of the issue
in the media. However, it appeared as though the American public had
little interest in the matter. In part this may be on account of the number
of allegations of wrongdoing targeted at Trump, and that this scandal
allegation just fitted into a broader narrative. It may also be the case that
this type of activity and revelation was part and parcel of what might have
been expected of Trump.
The range of cases discussed in this work highlight the commonality
of the problems created and addressed by prominent political figures.
There is a clear contrast in how scandal allegations and charges have
been managed by different political figures on the defensive and, conse-
quently, how there appears to be no simple single route to political or
personal redemption. This makes the lure of invoking allegations of scan-
dalous behavior, whether substantial or not, a tempting weapon to utilize
in seeking to destabilize the position of opponents. It is easy to argue
that those embroiled in scandal are deserving of the investigations and
prosecution that follows, however the fact that the fallout from scandal
is much wider, entwines individuals who had no part in the creation of
the initial furore, and overall casts a negative shadow on politics gives
scandal a wider meaning than that of a morality play focussed on an indi-
vidual. Its continuation suggests that individuals fail to heed the lessons
of the past, and make assumptions that they will not be caught, or that
the scandal fallout can be managed in a private capacity. As evidenced
in this work, the abrasive experience of scandal in the twentieth century
has continued into the twenty-first century. Indeed the challenges of
addressing scandal allegations have become more challenging as the elec-
tronic footprint left via private communications and transactions has often
provided hard indelible evidence of wrongdoing.
References
Barberio, Richard P. 2021. Presidents and Political Scandal: Managing Scandal
in the Modern Era. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Benoit, William L. 2015. Accounts, Excuses and Apologies: Image Repair Theory
and Research, 2nd ed. Albany: State University of New York.
1
INTRODUCTION
13
Dagnes, Alison. 2011. Sex Scandals in American Politics: A Multidisciplinary
Approach to the Construction and Aftermath of Contemporary Political Sex
Scandals. Edited by Alison Dagnes. London: Continuum.
Entman, Robert M. 2012. Scandal and Silence: Media Responses to Presidential
Conduct. Cambridge: Polity.
Loofbourow, Lili. 2020. “The Moment That Should Have Changed Every-
thing.” Slate, October 7. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://slate.com/news-
and-politics/2020/10/trump-access-hollywood-tape-revisited.html.
Thompson, John B. 2000. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media
Age. Cambridge: Polity.
Timm, Jane C. 2020. “Trump Versus the Truth: The Most Outrageous
Falsehoods of his Presidency.” NBC News, December 31. Accessed July
12, 2021. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-versus-
truth-most-outrageous-falsehoods-his-presidency-n1252580.
U.S. News and World Report. 1987. “Can ‘Operation Comeback’ Work?” U.S.
News and World Report, January 26: 18–20.

CHAPTER 2
Scandal: The Causes, the Problems
and the Outcomes
The prevalence of scandal in American politics, at all levels of govern-
ment, provides ample opportunity for an exploration of the causes and
consequences of moral wrongdoing in contemporary politics. The visi-
bility of scandal episodes allows for an appreciation of public opinion not
only on individual scandals, but as an aggregate accumulation of doubt
in political figures and the legitimacy of the political system over time.
While one might have considered that the legacy of scandal politics would
mean that lessons could have been learned from the actions of those previ-
ously involved in scandal, there appears no sign that the torrent of scandal
or allegations of moral wrongdoing have led to changes of behavior, or
of a greater ability to contain the fallout through improved public rela-
tions actions. Across the span of presidential history and at state and local
level there have been scandals involving corruption, moral wrongdoing,
the abuse of power and financial irregularity. Scandal politics operates
around a central concept of a moral violation of an aggregate public
understanding of contemporaneous moral acceptability. Its prevalence in
the twenty-first century, even given the enduring legacy of Watergate
and the impeachment of President Clinton, is testament to its ability
to endure irrespective of the impact it has had on people and political
institutions. In the era of Trump, allegations of wrongdoing and the
misuse of power continued unabated. However, there appears to be a
subtle societal change which suggests that wrongdoing might not be the
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
15
Switzerland AG 2022
R. Busby, Scandal and American Politics in the 21st Century,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91638-1_2
16
R. BUSBY
political ball and chain it once was assumed to be. Indeed, the changing
nature of scandal in the Trump era may be quite pronounced as the
outcomes of the 2018 mid-term elections may suggest. ‘Representatives
Duncan Hunter and Chris Collins campaigned this fall while out on bail
for felony charges. Representative Greg Gianforte had been convicted
of misdemeanour assault. Senator Bob Menendez’s trial on bribery and
fraud charges resulted in a hung jury. How did voters respond? All four
were re-elected last month. Mr Menendez by 10 percentage points’ (Lerer
2018).
An examination of American political scandal throws up a number of
challenges when trying to identify whether strategies of containment can
be employed so as to minimize the personal and political damage that
they seem to create. Across time expectations of political figures change,
moral values within society are prone to evolve, and a range of factors
such as the perceived nature of the personality of the individual caught
up in the matter is presented in critical detail by the media. What scan-
dals do have in common is an ability to draw attention to the plight of the
individual and focus public attention on the failings of those who are both
politically accountable and already in the public eye. This makes damage
limitation strategies difficult as it is well-nigh impossible to address the
scandal episode without a contextual backdrop of popular expectations
of the political figure already having been molded in the public domain.
What does appear to be a new evolution of scandal is that it now appears
not to mark the end of a political career or be viewed as an insurmount-
able problem. Rather, as many of the case studies in this work suggest, a
re-accommodation into the political theater is possible and scandal poli-
tics may now merely mark a temporary failing in a political career, rather
than the cause of its termination. This is of course not always the case,
as the failings that led to the scandal episode in the first instance may
be inherent in the individual involved, Anthony Weiner being the prime
example, but nonetheless there does appear to be a change to the impact
of scandal politics and an understanding of it in the twenty-first century.
Moreover, it has become more of a bi-partisan weapon to deploy. The
concepts of a strong Republican moral standpoint, prominent particularly
during the 1990s as a reaction to Bill Clinton, has made way from a more
widespread utilization of scandal politics as a political weapon. Apostolidis
and Williams (2017, 793–794), analyzing sex scandals and their manage-
ment argue, ‘While Republicans cast themselves as the keepers of moral
virtue during the Clinton years, sex scandals have become a decidedly
2
SCANDAL: THE CAUSES, THE PROBLEMS AND THE OUTCOMES
17
more bi-partisan affair in the ensuing years. Since that time there has
been an unrelenting stream of revelations comprising the reputations of
an ever-growing list of elected officials.’ As a means of political attack,
often irrespective of whether an individual will lose their office, allega-
tions of scandal retain an appeal, with a knowledge that suggestions of
impropriety will receive media attention.
Concepts of Political Scandal
Discussion of political scandal covers a wide remit and media, political
and academic consideration has been given to a whole range of trans-
gressions which might be collected together under the term of behavior
or action which violates a moral standpoint and is assumed to be scan-
dalous. Actions of criminality, corruption, infidelity and lewd behavior or
commentary have been brought together to give the understanding of
political scandal an elasticity of meaning and usage. In part this has been
to the convenience of those who wish to use the concept of scandal to
cause injury to political opponents, and in part this use of the term in an
elastic format has an air of convenience for the media. It can be used to
convey, through simplistic usage, an expansive understanding of wrong-
doing. It is simple, immediate and accusatory. In the instances addressed
in this work the core realm of investigation involves cases of allegations of
moral wrongdoing in the realm of infidelity and sex in politics, although
the importance of power violations is clear from the fallout and legacies
of both Watergate and the Iran-Contra scandal.
There are different types of political scandal and they appear to
have different public impacts. Thompson (2000, 9) identifies three main
genres as those involving sexual activity, financial impropriety and those
involving an abuse of power. In a research paper for the American Political
Science Association Doherty et al. (2011) tested hypothetical scenarios
of supposed wrongdoing by an imagined political figure and then asked
a sample about their understandings of the severity of the wrongdoing.
The poll sample was presented with four case scenarios of wrongdoing;
tax evasion combined with power abuse, tax evasion but with no abuse
of power, infidelity which included an abuse of power and infidelity but
with no abuse of power. The sample was asked about whether they would
vote for a person in these circumstances in an election, and how they
felt the individual was doing their job. They were also asked about what
they thought of the hypothetical person as an individual character. The
18
R. BUSBY
respondents to the scenario considered the abuse of power to be the most
harmful action. The sample also found that infidelity without abuse of
power was the least harmful or problematic action of those suggested.
This outcome makes for an interesting and important contribution to
contemporary understandings of scandal politics. Yet even if sex scandals
are considered lesser ills to those involving transgression of power there
still exists a pronounced capacity to have a detrimental impact, ‘Scandals
however, have other important effects, namely, political and moral sanc-
tions. Scandals put in motion the politics of shaming, actions that publicly
damage individual reputations an serve as social reminders that regardless
of their legal resolution, certain acts still constitute moral transgressions’
(Tumber and Waisbord 2004, 1145). Sex scandals are frequently those
which receive most media and public attention, largely on the grounds
that financial dealings can be complex and laborious to understand and
sex scandals are relatively easy to relate to and comprehend. For example,
the Whitewater scandal involving Bill and Hillary Clinton received rela-
tively little public interest when contrasted with the sex scandals that
Bill Clinton was accused of when a Governor and President (Rosenstiel
1994). The ability to relate to the predicament faced by those involved
in sex scandals may serve to indicate an ability to show dissatisfaction but
also, importantly, understanding and forgiveness. As discussed later in this
chapter there is also, dovetailing into this, changing expectations of the
moral position of figures who hold positions of power, and a differenti-
ation of expectation that they may act in a different way to that of the
general population.
There are a range of definitions in the wider sense of the word scandal
and how it can be applied to society and a range of cultural, social
and sporting episodes. Addressing the plethora of scandals in New York
across a number of years, Colin Harrison (2012) in New York Magazine
pinpointed the origins and applicability of the word. He argued ‘But what
is a scandal? The etymology is suggestive: The French scandale, from Old
French. Means “cause of sin”; the Latin scandalum means “trap, stum-
bling block, temptation.” Perhaps a basic definition is in order: A scandal
involves unseemly conduct that results in the destruction of a reputation.
Someone’s position in society changes for the worse. The fall must appear
irreversible. Suffering is necessary. As is humiliation.’ In addressing the
meaning of political scandal Thompson (2000, 13–14) has identified five
core elements which can be utilized to address an episode of scandalous
behavior or accusation. They are; the transgression of a moral position,
2
SCANDAL: THE CAUSES, THE PROBLEMS AND THE OUTCOMES
19
the existence of ‘secrecy or concealment’, a disapproval of the action
in question by non-participants, a condemnation of actions in public
and a deterioration of the standing and reputation of those involved. In
exploring these themes with respect to the evolution of scandal there is
a procedural aspect to scandal, with the evolution of each episode devel-
oping over time, and each having a role to place in buttressing the other
areas and pulling them together as a package which can then serve to
create a more potent combined force than any of the singular compo-
nents. The original act or violation of a moral standpoint is only one part
of a greater picture, and the substantive action is commonly a trigger for
the more potent and explosive areas where scandal develops in its proce-
dural form. There are additional considerations arising from this model
when applying it to scandal cases. The importance of third-party factors
cannot be underestimated. Although public opinion does not necessarily
have a direct role to play as scandal episodes unfold, unless they happen
or are uncovered during an ongoing election period, it is an important
barometer in seeking to gauge the popular understanding of this type
of political action. Poll statistics give some indication at the degree of
outrage caused by scandalous activity, or at least give some indication
to those who are investigating or prosecuting scandal that an ongoing
pursuit of the matter is a worthwhile venture.
While this work looks primarily at damage limitation strategies and
efforts at image restoration across a range of different political offices
and geographic locations, it is important to recognize from the outset
that there are different types of scandal and these entail different levels
of public attention and different political ramifications. For example, in
looking at damage limitation actions during presidential scandals Basinger
and Rottinghaus (2012, 291) identify that presidential level scandals are
located within a specific and unique office and one where responsibility
cannot be placed elsewhere, arguing, ‘We define a presidential scandal as
allegations of illegal, unethical, or immoral behaviour by the president, a
senior administration official, or a nominee that comes to light during the
president’s term in office and that occurred before or while the individual
occupied office.’ Consideration is given to scandal problems encountered
by President Trump and also at offices beyond that of the presidential
office, and how scandal has a pervasive and important presence across a
range of political offices in the United States.
The prevalence of allegations of sexual malpractice and infidelity in
the contemporary period gives an insight into how scandal theory might
20
R. BUSBY
accommodate the changes in the nature, coverage and prosecution of
such actions. This has not only been in the realm of politics, but has
now become a prominent feature of the twenty-first century, further
heightened with the advent of the #metoo movement in recent years.
Thompson (2000, 120) argues that sex scandals entail ‘a transgression
of prevailing norms or codes governing the conduct of sexual relations.’
In the digital age, with expansive understandings of sexual relationships
and sexual orientation there are questions as to why sex scandals retain
such prominence in the contemporary period when moral codes tend
to be elastic and are prone to rapid alterations of their understanding.
Entman (2012, 194) queries the very foundation of the sex scandal as
an issue to alter the political balance within society, questioning whether
the personal actions of an individual can be accentuated at the expense
of more pressing public and political issues. The disclosure of private
sexual activity can bring about political benefits for those who seek to
expose them, as an opponent’s political credibility can be diminished and
questions of their being fit for office raised in the public domain. In the
most severe realm of political scandal there are questions of legality and
personal conduct. In the case of Anthony Weiner, former Congressman
for New York, his interactions via Twitter with a minor resulted in a prison
sentence. However, most allegations in the realm of sexual misconduct
occur with accusations of infidelity by married individuals, of a betrayal of
trust and expectation. Dependent on the prior political and moral stand-
point of the individual this can frequently lead to claims of hypocrisy as
experienced by Eliot Spitzer. The range of political figures of an elite
standing who have been outed as having had affairs, children with a
partner outside of marriage or have simply hidden questionable personal
action is a long one. Across the entire scope of American political history,
from Jefferson to Roosevelt to Clinton, the prevalence of sexual infidelity
has been pronounced. Against this backdrop two core questions arise.
Firstly, if sexual scandal is commonplace across the entire remit of Amer-
ican political history then is there any novelty in presenting the American
public with information that might be more expected than not? Secondly,
against the backdrop of changing moral values, does the allegation of
sexual activity outside of mainstream convention retain its ability to shock
and cause popular concern over political credibility and legitimacy? The
more normalized and reported the private actions of political leaders, the
lesser the impact that it might have in provoking discontent in the public
sphere.
2
SCANDAL: THE CAUSES, THE PROBLEMS AND THE OUTCOMES
21
Mark Sachleban (2011, 50), argues that there are five types of sex
scandal which culminate in different outcomes and have differing levels of
severity. He pinpoints them as: non-scandalous liaisons, personal failings,
scandals rooted in irony, professional failings and finally those involving
an abuse of power. Sachleban considers that some consensual sexual
encounters may remain relatively discreet and have little or no political
consequence. Others may be quantified as personal failures, whereby there
is a recognition of wrongdoing, but no political consequence of note of
the action undertaken. Scandal as irony arises when an individual who
has previously mounted a campaign founded in some context on moral
standing is outed as having double standards with respect to their actions,
such as happened with Spitzer in New York. Scandal as a professional issue
arises when an individual is compromised in their job, as happened with
Clinton advisor Dick Morris and, as an abuse of power, when the position
held is used to exploit or take advantage of another person, as was alleged
against Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. Each of these compo-
nent elements can morph into another dependent upon the action taken
to address the initial action, or changing interpretations of the severity of
the actions involved.
Media Coverage and Scandal Politics
In making scandal meaningful in the public realm it has to be conveyed
to a populace who feel that the story matters and are willing to give the
matter sufficient attention so that the political establishment feels that
there can be political gains occurring from the event. There are also inter-
ests in scandal for the media as an institution. Thompson (2000, 78)
considers that there are four core reasons why scandal politics is media
oriented. These are that financial gain that can be made, that political
objectives that can be satisfied, the perceived role of the media as enter-
taining a guardian and watchdog role in politics, and the presence of
competition within the media realm. Denton considers there to be an
important interaction between media coverage and the shaping of public
opinion. He pinpoints two prominent schools of thought concerning the
level to which scandal might have an influence on political debate (quoted
in Entman 2012, 5). An objectivist school considers the level of publicity
and outrage created by scandal to match the severity and moral viola-
tion of the substantive action in question. The more severe the moral
violation, the more severe the public reaction, the elite political reaction
22
R. BUSBY
and the condemnatory media coverage. By contrast a constructivist stand-
point suggests that public reactions are key, with the barometer of public
opinion being the appropriate and primary method through which to
gauge the level and impact of scandal material. However, consideration
is given to the nature of public engagement. In simple scandal scenarios
there may be a relatively easy opportunity for public understanding of
the core issues and a reflection of the level of wrongdoing. However,
given the common complexity of scandal, disputed actions and interpre-
tations, and the frequent efforts to cover-up prior actions, it remains a
challenge to simply deduce that the degree of public outrage is always an
appropriate barometer. In most scandal scenarios public opinion reflects
elite commentary on the severity of the wrongdoing when it is examined
in political and legal circles. There can be deviations. Public interest of
consequence in a case like the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal appeared limited
in terms of an impact on Clinton’s job approval. However, the elite crit-
icism of Clinton did translate into critical personal perceptions of him
on account of his personal excesses. The problem presented with Trump
is that in at least one of the case studies addressed in this work, the
Access Hollywood case, the annoyance caused by his action and rhetoric
was evident at the elite level and in the media, yet it seemed to do
little to derail his campaign and, coming close to the election, did not
result in him losing his core support. Elite criticism did not translate into
condemnation across the board and Trump appeared to sustain support
irrespective of what he said or what he did. It appeared to be the same
issue with the Stormy Daniels case. Negative media coverage did not
materialize into disastrous opinion poll ratings.
One of the emergent features of news consumption in the twenty-first
century however is its acquisition through a range of disparate sources.
The changing nature of news consumption in the digital age has led to a
much more fractured route through which to gather political information,
including that of political scandal. Similarly, the pace of news, with live
posting of material gives less opportunity for scandal stories to hold indi-
vidual sway in a saturated news environment. While the televised coverage
of Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals transfixed a significant viewership
in the 1970s and 1980s, the sheer choice of channels now dilutes concen-
tration on political matters and alters the means and way through which
scandal politics may now work. It is also possible as Trump strategist
Steve Bannon did during the Access Hollywood scandal, as discussed in
Chapter 8, to accelerate the number of stories in the public domain and
2
SCANDAL: THE CAUSES, THE PROBLEMS AND THE OUTCOMES
23
make it more difficult to dwell on one particular issue across time. That is
not to say that there are not means to gain a significant understanding of
scandal dynamics through both old and new media. Additionally, docu-
mentaries made about the Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer scandals
were prominent on popular platforms online and gave those two scandals,
at the least, a more pronounced longevity and prominence.
There are additional considerations regarding the prevalence of scandal
and the covert activities of political figures. The prevalence of sex scan-
dals in particular can lead to a number of assumptions about why they
persist into the twenty-first century and why they seem to still harbor
such political and media prominence. It might for example be attributed
to a political class who assume themselves to be above normal standards of
morality or, on account of the political power that they have, individuals
who forget that in moments of impulsive action that there are political
consequences to their private liaisons. There is however a different angle
to view the material from and it appears to have resonance with public
perceptions. A PEW Research Center/Washington Post survey found that
most Americans believed that political figures got caught in sex scandals
because they were under greater media scrutiny in this area than those
of the general population (Rosentiel 2011). A 57% majority thought that
elected officials got caught because of added media scrutiny, whereas only
19% thought that political figures had lower moral standards. Of that 19%,
13% thought that power had caused the individual to alter their moral
compass and only four per cent thought that politics attracted individuals
to the profession and to office who entertained alternative moral stan-
dards. The sample also showed close results between men and women in
their responses and also suggested across all age groups a similar under-
standing as to why people were caught in these scenarios. In this instance
more thorough media attention concentrated on the private action of
elected officials that led to a perceived likelihood of greater exposure of
scandal.
The type of media coverage is an important factor in shaping how
scandals are elevated into the public domain and are covered. This is not
merely an issue for the mass media, but now also with respect to online
coverage. There is also, as the chapter in this work on the John Edwards
scandal highlights, a hierarchical notion of the coverage of scandal. In
that instance many media outlets were skeptical of covering the initial
outlines of the scandal on the grounds that it was a core focus of investi-
gations for the National Enquirer, and they did not want to be associated
24
R. BUSBY
with the type of story that that particular publication carried. Additionally,
outlets were less inclined to pursue the story as it was not given promi-
nent attention on the Drudge Report website. The level of coverage is
also considered important as to whether and how scandal issues might be
addressed. In considering scandal coverage and how it might be covered
Newmark and Vaughan (2014, 119) posited five factors which explained
the nature of scandal coverage: ‘(a) political culture, (b) the nature of the
scandal, (c) the prominence of the official(s) involved, (d) the severity of
the scandal, and (e) reform-based, state institutional factors that might
influence coverage indirectly.’ These factors are significant as they serve
to shape a number of the reactions to scandal politics.
The written press in America are not only important for the selec-
tion of stories which might be considered scandalous in nature, their
ability to agenda set, but are also significant in the partisanship they
display in attacking or defending the conduct of public officials. In an
expansive analysis of newspaper coverage of political scandals Puglisi and
Snyder Jr. (2011) considered 32 scandals and their coverage in 200 news-
papers. Their conclusions point to the importance of partisanship as a
feature of the slant taken in newspapers regarding the scandalous activity.
They found that ‘…there is a strong correlation between the partisan
leaning of newspapers as measured by their endorsement behaviour and
the partisan bias in their coverage of political scandals. Specifically, Demo-
cratic -leaning newspapers – i.e., those with a higher propensity to endorse
Democratic candidates in elections – give significantly more coverage to
scandals involving Republican politicians than scandals involving Demo-
cratic politicians, while Republican-leaning newspapers behave in the
opposite way’ (Puglisi and Snyder Jr. 2011, 947). They also found that
newspapers with bigger circulation numbers gave more time to scandal
as a political theme. While newspaper circulation has been in signifi-
cant contemporary decline this still gives a powerful political mandate in
shaping how scandal is covered, where the detail might be best observed
and how political figures themselves see the written press as an actor in
scandal scenarios. It also perhaps adds light to the approach of President
Trump to allegations of scandal and wrongdoing. Viewing both the New
York Times and the Washington Post as pronounced political adversaries,
his repeated attacks on their credibility was a strategy which had little to
lose, would not change the type of coverage that afforded him, but might
engender his political base to discount the allegations on blatant partisan
grounds.
2
SCANDAL: THE CAUSES, THE PROBLEMS AND THE OUTCOMES
25
There also exists other motivations for the exposure of material of
a sexual nature. Revelations can prove financially profitable for at least
some of the individuals who are involved in them. For example, Gennifer
Flowers and Stormy Daniels both released kiss and tell memoirs, and
entertained media prominence and considerable public attention when
revelations were made of their liaisons with Clinton and Trump respec-
tively. Media profitability and the lure of salacious material may also prove
to be an allure in trying to publicize the private. It is possible to consider
the prevalence of scandal politics not to exist as the outcome of indi-
viduals who have stooped to erroneous personal acts, but rather as a
development of an effort to make money from the revelations and exploit
a contemporary market place rooted in the commercialization of private
activity.
The Impact on Public Opinion
Scandals have a pronounced impact on public opinion, and shape politics
beyond the direct impact on the individuals who have been charged or
implicated with wrongdoing. Scandals draw negative reactions. There are
a number of issues which impact on the variations of public opinion with
respect to scandals and frequently it is difficult to wholly isolate scandal
activities from broader conceptions of support or alienation for a polit-
ical figure with respect to the job that they do. What is beneficial about
scandal politics is that attention is given to a specific event which invari-
ably draws public interest, focusses attention on a narrow series of actions
and can be presented in a widely disseminated unfolding narrative.
Public opinion is a factor which might directly shape the actions
of those in power, and condition the reaction of the political estab-
lishment to the revelation of scandal oriented material. In large part
the antagonisms of past political scandals have shown this to be true
when previously covert information has been fully exposed in the public
domain. The revelations of Watergate and Iran-Contra brought about
significant downward movements in the realm of job approval and
personal approval. Widespread anger prompted Congressional investi-
gation and legal proceedings. Similarly personal scandals such as those
involving Edwards, Spitzer and Weiner all resulted in widespread public
and political condemnation and a legacy of a heavily tarnished reputa-
tion. In looking at the impact of public opinion on scandal in the Trump
era there appears to be something of a change. The moral construct of
26
R. BUSBY
behavior, and of how it translates into political damage appears to have
evolved. In the immediate aftermath of an interview in 2018 with the
actress Stormy Daniels, with whom Trump had a discreet liaison, a poll
sample for Morning Consult/Politico (Easley and Yokley 2018) found
that a majority of those surveyed thought that it was common for a pres-
ident of the United States to have had an extra-marital affair. Among all
voters 52% considered it common while 37% considered it uncommon.
For Republicans 58% considered it common, with only 30% considering
it uncommon. The Republican figure, believing that it was common, was
higher than that for Democrats, 44% and Independents, 54%. In some
respects this may assist in prompting an enhanced understanding of a
tolerance of the discussion of Trump’s private life and his history with
women. The more frequent the expectation of infidelity, alongside the
exposure that it has regularly entertained, the less surprised and bothered
the public is.
One of the more pronounced problems of the frequency of scandal
politics is that it can prove to be detrimental to the wider political
system, increase cynicism among the electorate and given the prominence
of discussion about scandal politics, particularly that rooted in sexual
activity, cast a negative impression of political representatives (Weeber
2009, 43–44). The demise of political credibility is therefore wider than
that just ascribed to the behavior of one errant individual, and incor-
porated with broader societal changes and modernization, the faith of
individuals in the political system becomes strained (Dalton 2004). In
a consideration of scandals and political support Maier (2011) articu-
lates a number of schools of thought on the effects of scandal on public
opinion, mainly from the perspective that scandal politics has negative
consequences. However, he also pinpoints a functional theory for polit-
ical scandal, that it can be positive for politics as it serves to cleanse the
political system of those who threaten it and it can generate more faith
in the political structure as a whole (Maier 2011, 285). The wider conse-
quence of scandal might be considered to be a marginal consideration as it
frequently appears that the perpetrator of the events is the biggest casualty
of their own errant wrongdoing. Yet the outcome of scandal is commonly
negative to a political structure which is, on account of the frequency of
scandal, saddled with a reputation of the abuse of power, lax moral stan-
dards and of infidelity. There are a number of possible understandings of
the impact of scandal and its consequence. Thompson (2000, 234–241)
advances four core possible perceptions; that scandal is inconsequential
2
SCANDAL: THE CAUSES, THE PROBLEMS AND THE OUTCOMES
27
to politics, that there are changes but they are minor and the political
norm is retained, that scandal deviates attention from more pressing polit-
ical matters, and that scandal enhances an understanding of politics as it
draws in a number of people who would not normally be interested in
politics and enhances political accountability. Entman (2012, 194) also
argues that the exposure of scandal enhances voter decisions and that
it further exposes political figures for who they actually are rather than
the commonly crafted image that presents political figures of being of
good character. In part this is reflected by President Ford’s post-Watergate
declaration on the restoration of credibility to the American system. In
his remarks following his taking of the oath of office he declared, ‘My
fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over. Our Constitution
works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here
the people rule.’ (Ford 1974) Nonetheless the broader evidence suggests
that scandal coverage is detrimental and that its continued presence as a
prominent political feature does not serve politics well.
Issues such as hypocrisy have an impact on public evaluations of office
holders when allegations of wrongdoing have been proven. McDermott
et al. (2015) argue, ‘The public views a politician who commits a hypo-
critical misdeed in office as a less competent representative. These findings
demonstrate that politicians caught in a hypocritical scandalous act face
a significantly tougher road with voters than those whose conduct is
“merely” scandalous.’ This appears to be a common feature in the evolu-
tion of scandal, with public pronouncements, often having been made
across long and esteemed political careers, being brought to bear on
those who are deemed guilty of transgressions. With the immediacy of
media recollections of past statements it makes it very difficult for polit-
ical figures to distance themselves from past commentary or positions.
Ironically, it appears that in many of the cases of moral transgression
individuals strayed into areas where they had made a precise point of
previously upholding stringent moral values. Eliot Spitzer had taken a
stance against prostitution, only to be undone by his linkages with an
escort agency. John Edwards had been a prominent advocate of women’s
issues, only then to betray his wife who was battling with cancer. Mark
Sanford had been critical of the moral standing of Bill Clinton. Scandal
episodes cannot be taken as events which are disconnected either from
the past of the figures embroiled in the event, or how that legacy shapes
prevailing public skepticism about the standing of the individual. In a
28
R. BUSBY
reverse context a popular familiarity with an individual who has been asso-
ciated with personal transgression, proven or otherwise, provides little of
a shock or a demise in expectation as it might be considered that there
was already a consistency of behavior in that particular realm (von Siko-
rski 2018, 3109). Donald Trump when both a candidate and President,
was accused of activity which might ordinarily contribute to a demise in
his standing, and yet, partly on account of expectations of his use of blunt
language and past knowledge of his personal life, there existed little new
to add to the narrative concerning his personal behavior.
The Unfolding of Scandal
The repetitive nature of scandal politics has often been perceived as an
unwanted and negative distraction from the conventional political narra-
tive. They have come to be so frequent and commonplace there that
now seems to be a pattern and process through which they arise, are
addressed and then reconciled. Jethro Mullen (2013), writing for CNN,
in the midst of the Weiner comeback from his Twitter scandal and run for
the Mayor of New York, argued that scandal invoked a strong feeling of
deja vu. Mullen identified a five-fold process for the unfolding of scandal
and how these had become the structural spine around which scandal
episodes unravel. They entailed; a series of publicly aired allegations in
the media, a denial process in which outrage is expressed at the nature of
the allegations, an episode of admission and contrition, a period of polit-
ical fallout which varies on whether the individual in question decides to
ride the scandal out or to resign, and then a relatively new dynamic to the
twenty-first century scandal in particular, the effort to mount a political
comeback. This can happen either when the incumbent who transgresses
seeks re-election, or when an individual decides to return to the political
fray after the immediate impact of scandal has diminished. The frequency
of scandal and the procedure of revelation, investigation and prosecution
has led to direct comparisons about how they share the same core compo-
nents which quickly become embedded as part of scandal and media
narratives. The institutionalization of scandal procedures are now familiar
in the unfolding of events. Gamson (2001) argues ‘One can discern, both
within others’ accounts of sex scandals and in the cases considered in
what follows, and increasingly common set of moments in mass-mediated
sex scandals following a common scandal script: accusation or revela-
tion, broadcast, denial and/or confession – and frequently, a comeback
2
SCANDAL: THE CAUSES, THE PROBLEMS AND THE OUTCOMES
29
or attempted comeback. Just how that script is constructed and what
it might be doing, remains understudied.’ This work seeks, in part, to
address that gap.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 279. Many months after the death of Dr. Rittenhouse, the same
licentious writer who publicly charged him with being an Atheist,
declared, in the same public manner, what was equally untrue. He
asserted, not only that Mr. Rittenhouse “volunteered as president of
the Democratic Society, in Philadelphia,” but that “he himself signed
the inflammatory resolves against the excise-law, which encouraged
the malecontents to rise in open rebellion.” The fact is, that the
“inflammatory resolves” referred to, were entered into by that body,
on the 8th of May, 1794; and were not signed by Mr. Rittenhouse,
but by another person, as “President pro tem.”

280. The Abbé le Blanc (or the writer who assumed that
appellation) names, of this metaphysical tribe, Hobbes, Lord
Shaftesbury, Tindal and Collins, all Englishmen; though his own
country has long been the superlatively prolific soil of infidelity in
religion, and chimerical theories in every department of science:
such philosophers abound in France. He observes very justly,
however, that “there is nothing so improperly made use of, as the
name philosopher.” See Le Blanc’s Letters on the English and
French Nations.

281. The legislature of Virginia, in their first session after the

resignation of the Commander in Chief, passed the following
resolution:—

“Resolved, that the executive be requested to take measures for

procuring a Statue of General Washington, to be of the finest marble
and best workmanship, with the following inscription on its pedestal.

“The general assembly of the commonwealth of Virginia have

caused this statue to be erected as a monument of affection and
gratitude to George Washington, who, uniting to the endowments
of the Hero, the virtues of the Patriot, and exerting both in
establishing the Liberties of his Country, has rendered his name dear
to his fellow-citizens, and given the world an immortal example of
true glory.”
 This resolution was afterwards carried into effect: the statue which
it decreed was executed by Houdon, and occupies a conspicuous
place, in a spacious area in the centre of the capital at Richmond, in
Virginia.

282. Chief-Justice Marshall, in his Life of George Washington.

283. “If the example of all the republics that have preceded us did
not authorize the hope, that history will not find us guilty of
ingratitude, but only of delay, the national neglect of the memory of
Washington would be sufficient to repress every sentiment of
patriotism and public spirit. Of this neglect, aggravated by the
solemn steps taken by congress to obtain a right to remove the body
of the Founder of our Liberties to a place of public and honourable
sepulture, and the abandonment of that right when obtained, it is
painful to speak—nor is it necessary. There is not wanting a general
sentiment of the disgrace which the nation suffers, while the body of
Washington rests upon a trussle, crouded into a damp and narrow
vault, in which the rapid decay of the wooden support must in a few
years mingle his ashes with those of his worthy but unknown
relations. Exertions not altogether worthy of the object, but such as
the present fashion of finance authorizes, are made, to give to his
memory that honour in other cities, which is denied him in the
metropolis of the Union.” [See the Ann. Oration delivered before the
Society of Artists, in Philadelphia, in May, 1811, by B. H. Latrobe,
Esq.]

284. Mr. B. H. Latrobe, in speaking of the great improvement in

architecture recently manifested in Philadelphia, notices the peculiar
advantages derived to that city, from the valuable marbles in its
vicinity. “The beautiful marble,” says he, “with which this
neighbourhood abounds, and the excellence of all other building
materials, give to Philadelphia great advantages in this branch of the
fine arts.” (See Mr. Latrobe’s Annual Oration, delivered before the
Society of Artists, in Philadelphia, May 8th, 1811.) The correct taste
and superior skill of this gentleman, as an Architect and Civil
Engineer, are well known in the United States. In Philadelphia, the
Bank of Pennsylvania will, more especially, remain a lasting
monument of his talents in architectural science, as well as of the
excellent quality of the marble (for such purposes) of which that
edifice is constructed.

285. The Right Hon. David Stewart Erskine, is the present Earl.

286. John Napier, called Baron of Merchiston, in Scotland, was the

eldest son of Sir Archibald Napier, of Merchiston, and was born in
the year 1550. As Lalande, in his Astronomie, observes—“he
deserves to be celebrated in a book on Astronomy, for his invention
of Logarithms, which he published in 1614. He had,” continues Mr.
Lalande, “at first concealed the principle of this discovery: but Kepler
soon penetrated it; and the son of Napier, in an edition of his father’s
work, which he published, explained the ground of the principles.”

The son here mentioned, Sir Archibald, was promoted to the

peerage by Car. I. in the year 1657, and was ancestor of the present
Lord Napier.

An account of the Life and Writings of the Inventor of Logarithms

was published by the Earl of Buchan. W. B.

287. See this Postscript, in the Appendix.

288. The Abbé Raynal. The Count de Buffon had conceived an

opinion, which he endeavoured to establish by ill-founded
arguments, that the animals common both to the Old and the New
World, are smaller in the latter: that those peculiar to the New World,
are on a smaller scale: that those which have been domesticated in
both hemispheres, have degenerated in America: and, that, on the
whole, this portion of the world exhibits fewer species. But Raynal
went further: he has applied this “new theory” (as Mr. Jefferson calls
it) of the ingenious French Naturist, to the race of men, descendants
of Europeans, in America. Mr. Jefferson has shewn the
erroneousness of these theories, founded on palpably mistaken
facts.
 289. See Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia, written in the year 1781.

290. A considerable portion of this letter, in the beginning, is

occupied with matters of business.

291. Mr. Bond must have been mistaken, in the date he has
assigned to the election of Dr. Rittenhouse; or, perhaps, the date of
the diploma has reference to the time of nomination: the variance in
these dates is, however, unimportant.

The diploma, which is in Latin, being done on copper-plate, is in

the usual form. It has the signatures of eight of the Fellows of the
Society, besides those of the President and one of the Vice-
Presidents.

292. The continuation of the 6th volume of the American

Philosophical Transactions (published in 1809) contains various
observations on the Annular Eclipse of the 3d of April, 1791, made at
Greenwich, Paris, Cambridge in New-England, Philadelphia, and
George-Town in Maryland. A recapitulation of the results of the
longitudes of Philadelphia and Cambridge, west from Paris, is made
from the Transit of Venus, in 1769; the Transits of Mercury, in 1782
and 1789; this Annular Eclipse of the Sun, in 1791, and a Solar
Eclipse, in 1806; the mean results of which, give

The of W. from 5h 01″,2

Long. Philadelphia, Paris, 10′.
Do. of Do. 4. 53.
Cambridge, 53

These observations were communicated to the Philosophical

Society by Don Joseph J. Ferrer, of Cadiz, a very respectable
astronomer, and a foreign member of the Am. Philos. Society.

293. In the annular eclipse of the sun, on the 3d of April, 1791, as

observed at Philadelphia by Mr. Rittenhouse, the formation of the
ring is stated at 6h 46′ 11½″ A. M. true time; and its rupture, at 6h 50′
28″. “I have,” says Mr. Lalande (in his Additions, 1797,) “reduced the
conjunction of it to 7h 41′ 19″, and the difference of meridians 5h 10′
3″, greater by 7″ than that given by Mr. Rittenhouse. This duration of
the ring, gives for the latitude in conjunction 44′ 57″, which confirms
the value of the diameters of the sun and of the moon, that I have
given in the 3d edition of my Astronomy, and the diminution that I
make in the eclipses, 3½″ for the ray of the sun, and 2″ for that of the
moon. I have subtracted one minute of the time marked in the third
volume of the Transactions of the Society of Philadelphia, for the
formation and the rupture of the ring; but this correction was pointed
out to me by the termination of the eclipse, as well as by the
difference of meridians, which was ascertained by the Transit of
Venus over the Sun.”

294. Mr. Lalande was first appointed to that station, in the year
1761. “The College of France,” heretofore styled “The Royal College
of France,” was originally founded in the year 1530, by Francis I. but
letters patent were issued in favour of it in 1772, by the unfortunate
Louis XVI. The present edifice, finished in 1775, gave new activity to
the ancient establishment; and Lalande viewed it, when he wrote his
Astronomie, as having been one of the best schools in the world for
the sciences, but principally for astronomy.

295. The original letter was politely presented to the author, by his
venerable friend, the profound Lawyer and distinguished Patriot to
whom it was addressed. On that occasion, Governor M‘Kean
expressed himself in terms of the highest respect and kindest regard
for the memory of Dr. Rittenhouse, as one of his friends, whom,
while living, he greatly valued for his talents and esteemed for his
virtues.

296. Dr. Rush has observed, in his Eulogium on Rittenhouse, that

“There was no affectation of singularity in any thing he said or did.
Even his hand-writing,” said he, “in which this weakness so
frequently discovers itself, was simple and intelligible at first sight, to
all who saw it.” As a specimen of this, a fac simile of the letter in the
text is presented to the reader.
 297. The first of these, in the order of time, was his eldest brother,
the writer of these memoirs; the other was his uncle, Dr.
Rittenhouse.

298. In a letter written to the Rev. Mr. Barton, in Sept. 1755, when
the writer was little more than twenty-three years of age.

299. The extract from a letter to one of his friends, which Dr. Rush
has quoted in his Eulogium on Rittenhouse, furnishes additional
testimony, if, indeed, any were wanting, of the exalted sense of
Divine Goodness, that was entertained by our pious philosopher:
“Give me leave,” says he, “to mention two or three proofs of infinite
Goodness, in the works of Creation. The first is, possessing
goodness in ourselves. Now it is inconsistent with all just reasoning
to suppose, that there is any thing good, lovely or praiseworthy, in
us, which is not possessed in an infinitely higher degree by that
Being who first called us into existence. In the next place, I reckon
the exquisite and innocent delight, that many things around us are
calculated to afford us. In this light, the beauty and fragrance of a
single rose is a better argument for Divine Goodness, than a
luxuriant field of wheat. For, if we can suppose that we were created
by a malevolent Being, with a design to torment us for his
amusement, he must have furnished us with the means of
subsistence, and either have made our condition tolerable, or not
have left the means of quitting it at pleasure, in our own power. Such
being my opinions, you will not wonder at my fondness for what Mr.
Addison calls The Pleasures of Imagination: they are all, to me, so
many demonstrations of Infinite Goodness.”

That such were also the sentiments of one of the greatest

philosophers of the seventeenth century, a man alike celebrated as a
profound Mathematician, and a learned and pious Divine, is
apparent from the following passage, in the first of Dr. Barrow’s two
Discourses on the Goodness of God.

“Every pleasant object we view, every sweet and savoury morsel

we taste, every fragrancy we smell, every harmony we hear; the
wholesome, the cheering, the useful, yea, the innocent and
inoffensive qualities of every thing we do use and enjoy,” said this
excellent person, “are so many conspicuous arguments of Divine
Goodness.”

A. Mr. Mallet, in his Life of Lord Chancellor Bacon.

300. Rush’s Eulog. on Ritt.

301. Ibid.
 THE CONCLUSION:
COMPREHENDING
A RETROSPECT OF THE LIFE
OF
DAVID RITTENHOUSE,

WITH

A DELINEATION OF HIS CHARACTER.

“It has been the fashion of late years,” says his eloquent Eulogist,
[302]
“to say of persons who had been distinguished in life,—when
they left the world in a state of indifference to every thing, and
believing and hoping in nothing,—that they died like Philosophers.”
Rittenhouse did not, indeed, die like a disciple of that new
philosophy, referred to by the Eulogist,—like some of those modern
pretenders to illumination, who have been struggling to resuscitate
all the maddening dreams and absurdities of the Pyrrhonists of old:
His last hours were similar to those, which graced the departure from
the world, of a Newton and a Boyle, with very many illustrious
Christians besides, who truly deserved the name of Philosophers;—
for, “he died like a Christian, interested in the welfare of all around
him—believing in the resurrection, and the life to come, and hoping
for happiness from every attribute of the Deity.”[303]

By his last will and testament, which was not executed till the day
preceding his death, Dr. Rittenhouse disposed of his estate in a very
equitable manner, between Mrs. Rittenhouse and his two daughters,
besides making a liberal provision for an amiable widowed sister, so
long as she should live.

It appears, from an estimate of his estate made by himself, (and

supposed to have been drawn up about a year before his death,)
that all the property he ever acquired, independently of his
patrimony, which he valued at one thousand pounds, actually cost
him only 13,525l.:[304] and the whole of his estate was estimated, at
the time of his decease, at scarcely twenty thousand pounds. When
it is considered, that the talents of this very extraordinary man were
actively and industriously employed more than forty years, from the
time he attained to manhood, during many years of which period, he
was engaged in various public occupations, and some of them
lucrative; that he was prudent and exact in all his transactions,
private as well as public, and economical in his domestic
expenditures; and that his family was small;—when all these
considerations are taken into view, they furnish matter of surprize
that he should not have accumulated a larger fortune! Indeed the
moderate amount of the estate he left, affords reasonable grounds
for supposing, that he devoted more of his property to purposes of
beneficence, than the world had any opportunity of becoming
acquainted with.

Dr. Rittenhouse survived both his sons-in-law; and their widows[305]

are his only remaining children. He constituted these daughters, with
Mrs. Rittenhouse, the executrices of his will.

The remains of our philosopher were deposited, agreeably to a

desire he had expressed long before his death, beneath the
pavement within the small Observatory which he erected many years
before, in the garden adjoining his house; and over the body was
placed a plain slab of marble, inscribed only with his name, the time
of his decease, and his age. Although it was intended that his
interment should be attended by his family-connexions alone,—in
consequence of which, no other persons were asked to the funeral,
—a numerous body of his friends voluntarily presented themselves
on the occasion, as a mark of their respect for his memory. The Rev.
Dr. Green was one of the number; and this clergyman, being then
the pastor of the congregation in which the deceased had often
attended divine worship in the latter years of his life, delivered a
short but appropriate address to a surrounding auditory of mourning
and afflicted friends.—“This,” began the reverend orator, pointing to
the tomb of our philosopher, as just described,—“This is,
emphatically, the Tomb of Genius and of Science! Their child, their
martyr, is here deposited,—and their friends will make his Eulogy, in
tears. I stand not here, to pronounce it; the thought that engrosses
my mind, is this;—how much more clear and impressive must be the
views, which the late Spiritual Inhabitant of that lifeless corpse now
possesses of God,—of his infinite existence, of his adorable
attributes and of that eternal blaze of glory which emanates from
Him,—than when she was blinded by her veil of flesh! Accustomed,
as she was, to penetrate far into the universe,—far as corporeal or
mental vision here can reach,—still, what new and extensive scenes
of wonder have opened on her eyes, enlightened and invigorated by
death! The Discoveries of Rittenhouse, since he died, have already
been more, and greater, than while he lived.[306] Yes; and, could he
address us from the spiritual world, his language would be—

“All, all on Earth is shadow, all Beyond

Is substance; the reverse is folly’s creed.”

Proceeding with a fervid expression of many excellent and pious

sentiments, excited by the occasion and well adapted to it, the orator
thus concluded:—“Filled with these reflections, let us go from this
Tomb, and resolve to aim at the high destiny of our nature. Rightly
aiming at this, we shall fill up life with usefulness and duty; we shall
bear its burdens with patience; and we shall look forward to its close
with pleasure: we shall consider death but as the birth of a new and
nobler existence,—as a dark but short passage to the regions of
eternal day; and, in the very agony of our change, we may exclaim in
triumph,—‘O Death, where is thy Sting! O Grave where is thy
Victory!’—Thanks be to God! who giveth us the victory, through our
Lord Jesus Christ.”
 Dr. Rittenhouse was, in his stature, somewhat tall; in his person,
slender and straight; and although his constitution was delicate, his
bodily frame did not appear to have been, originally, weak: his gait
was somewhat quick, and his movements in general were lively;
insomuch, that it is probable he possessed a good deal of corporeal
activity, in early life.

His face was of an oval form; his complexion, fair; and his hair,
which in his latter years became thinned and whitened, was brown.
All his features were good: his forehead was high, capacious and
smooth; his eyes, which were of a greyish colour, were alike
expressive of animation, reflection and good nature, and well placed
under full, arched brows; his nose was large, handsome, and
inclined to the aquiline; his mouth, well-formed, though a little
prominent, and corresponding with the general character of the face;
and his chin, broad and strong. In short, his whole countenance was
indicative of intelligence, complacency and goodness, even after its
characteristic marks had been in some degree impaired by sickness
and years. Dr. Rush observes, that his countenance was too
remarkable to be unnoticed. “It displayed,” says the Doctor, “such a
mixture of contemplation, benignity, and innocence, that it was easy
to distinguish his person in the largest company, by a previous
knowledge of his character.”[307] Such were, upon the whole, the
figure and appearance of David Rittenhouse; but more particularly, in
his earlier life: and, as thus described, he was generally considered
an handsome man.

Many indications of the respect and esteem entertained for the

memory of this distinguished man, appeared soon after his death:
among others may be mentioned the following.

Mr. Adet, then minister plenipotentiary from “The French Republic”

to the United States, and resident in Philadelphia, addressed a letter
on the subject of Dr. Rittenhouse, under the date of “19th Messidor,
the 4th year of the French Republic” (answering to the 7th of July,
1806, of the Christian Calendar,) to the writer of these Memoirs. This
gentleman—who was represented to be a man of considerable
attainments in science, and was besides a member of the American
Philosophical Society, professed, in that letter, a great desire to
make the name of Rittenhouse known in his country,—for so he
expressed himself; meaning, for that purpose, (as he said,) to
transmit “to the National Institute of France an historical notice of his
life and labours.” With this view, he accompanied his letter with a list
of queries (twenty-five in number,) requesting the Memorialist to
furnish answers to them; which was accordingly done, in a succinct
manner: but whether the information the answers contained was
ever applied to the purpose for which the querist stated them to be
designed, the answerer has never ascertained. He will, however,
conclude his observations on this part of his subject, with barely
remarking, that the last of the proposed queries is in these words
——“How did he bear the approaches of death?—did he die like a
Philosopher?”

It is a matter of general notoriety, that Thomas Jefferson, Esq. of

Virginia, (late President of the United States,) succeeded Dr.
Rittenhouse in the Presidency of the American Philosophical
Society; having been first elected to that station on the 6th of
January, 1797, while he officiated as Secretary of State, and during
his residence in Philadelphia. Of this appointment, Mr. Jefferson was
duly notified, by a letter addressed to him by the Secretaries, in
behalf of the society: and, in his reply to that communication, the
president-elect paid a just tribute of respect to the character of his
great and virtuous predecessor, in these concise terms:—“Permit me
to avail myself of this opportunity of expressing the sincere grief I
feel, for the loss of our beloved Rittenhouse. Genius, science,
modesty, purity of morals, simplicity of manners, marked him as one
of nature’s best samples of the perfection she can cover under the
human form. Surely no society, till ours, within the same compass of
time,[308] ever had to deplore the loss of two such members as
Franklin and Rittenhouse.”

In England, the talents of Dr. Rittenhouse were well known, and

his worth duly appreciated. Of this, no better evidence can be
required, than the spontaneous admission of him, by the Royal
Society of London, into a Fellowship of their illustrious body. But, as
a further proof of the high respect in which his character was held in
that country, the obituary notice of him, which appeared in the
European Magazine, (a periodical work of merit and taste,) for July,
1796, is inserted in the Appendix.

Besides other evidences which appeared, soon after the decease

of our most distinguished philosopher, demonstrate the high
estimation in which his character was held, by some eminent men in
official stations, several private gentlemen of worth and erudition,
have, long since, continued to manifest a laudable disposition either
to erect, or to institute, some respectable and suitable memorial in
honour of his name: and it can scarcely be doubted, that a grateful
sense of his exemplary virtues, his transcendent talents and
important public services, will yet effect the accomplishment of some
such patriotic design. An honourable effort of this kind by a number
of liberal and public spirited gentlemen of the county of Chester, in
Pennsylvania, has recently been made: and notwithstanding the
failure of the attempt, it is due to the merit of those individuals who
were most zealous in their endeavours to accomplish the object, to
notice their benevolent intentions on the occasion. In the autumn of
the year 1811, the sum of nearly eight thousand dollars was
subscribed, towards the purpose of erecting and endowing an
Academy within the borough of West-Chester. Doctor William
Darlington, with some other friends of literature and science in his
neighbourhood, proposed to name the designed institution “The
Rittenhouse Academy:” but as the establishment of a similar one, in
a distant part of the same county, was at the same time
contemplated; and, as the subscriptions to that proposed to be
established in West-Chester, were, in the first instance, chiefly
obtained in different parts of the county, for an institution then
proposed to be called “The West-Chester Academy”—thus locating
its situation exclusively to that borough; it was not deemed expedient
to vary the chartered name of this Academy, when it should be
incorporated, from the one by which it was originally designated.
 Such were the causes of the disappointment, in relation to the
proposed Rittenhouse Academy: but they are evidently such as
cannot in the smallest degree detract from the meritorious intentions
of those gentlemen, who were desirous of giving the institution, in
West-Chester, that respectable name; nor are they less indicative of
the respect which was intended to be shewn to the memory of
Rittenhouse.

In addition, however, to the evidence which has been tendered by

others to the exalted merits of our Philosopher, the memorialist is
happy in having an opportunity to introduce, on this occasion, the
testimony of a gentleman who was very long and intimately
acquainted with Dr. Rittenhouse—and, consequently, well knew his
worth as a man. This representation being likewise made by a
person whose conspicuous attainments in similar departments of
science, and arduous employments in practical pursuits of the same
description, render him eminently qualified to judge of his deceased
friend’s talents, he is by these means enabled to form a just estimate
of his character. The person here referred to, is Andrew Ellicott, Esq.
a gentleman with whom the writer of these Memoirs has been in
habits of intimacy and friendship, many years. The information on
this subject, communicated by Mr. Ellicott, being in the form of a
letter addressed to the memorialist, he has given that communication
a place in the Appendix.

That Dr. Rittenhouse had failings, cannot be questioned; since, to

possess them, is the lot of every individual of our species. But his
foibles—of whatever description they may have been—may be
compared to some opaque spots, minute in size, which the prying
eye of the astronomer has discovered to exist even on the glorious
orb of the Sun; although these little maculæ are scarcely discernible
by the generality of observers, by reason of the surrounding
splendour of his beams: so, the diminutive failings which may be
supposed to have existed in the character of our philosophical
luminary, were rendered almost imperceptible, by the resplendency
in which his great and numerous virtues were enveloped. It was said
of that sublime artist, Sir Joshua Reynolds, by the late celebrated
Edmund Burke, that he did “not know a fault or weakness of his, that
he did not convert into something that bordered on a virtue, instead
of pushing it to the confines of a vice.”[309] Dr. Rittenhouse, in like
manner, was perfectly uncontaminated by any vice; while “his virtues
furnish the most shining models for imitation:” and, in regard even to
his foibles, the declaration of his Eulogist, just quoted, that his virtues
“were never obscured, in any situation or stage of his life, by a single
cloud of weakness or vice,”[310] may be fairly received in the same
liberal sense, as Mr. Burke’s expression concerning his worthy
friend, Reynolds.

If a retrospect be now taken of the whole Life of our Philosopher,

in whatever points of view it may be contemplated, the following
characteristic traits will be found to be faithfully delineated; although
it is at the same time acknowledged, that the portrait is still too
incomplete to afford a perfect resemblance to the excellent character
of the original.

In his temper, Dr. Rittenhouse was naturally placid and good-

humoured; yet sometimes grave, and inclined to pensiveness. He
was occasionally, though seldom, animated by a considerable
degree of warmth: but he did not suffer himself to be influenced, on
any occasion, by impetuous passions; nor did any man ever possess
a temper more placable. His general deportment was gentle,
unassuming and cheerful; such as corresponded with his modesty of
disposition and the delicacy of his feelings.[311] He possessed a good
share of constitutional firmness of mind; and was seldom either
much or long depressed, by such misfortunes or afflictions as bore
chiefly upon himself: still, however, the great benevolence of his
temper rendered him extremely sensible to the sufferings of others.
The bodily infirmities of such as came within his more immediate
notice, and the privations occasioned by helpless indigence, more
especially of aged persons, often experienced in him a consoling
friend and a liberal benefactor; provided they appeared to be objects
worthy of charitable assistance. But where the sufferings or wants of
others evidently resulted either from confirmed inebriety or other
vicious habits, or from indolence or censurable improvidence, he
was not accustomed to extend the hand of charitable bounty with the
same cordiality. His means of affording pecuniary assistance to such
of his fellow-men as needed it, were circumscribed by bounds of
moderate extent: yet, in proportion to his resources, his acts of
charity were laudable in their degree, as well as in regard to the
objects of his benevolence, and entirely destitute of ostentation: they
were dictated both by the humanity of his heart and a sense of moral
duty.

Notwithstanding the predominating mildness of his disposition, he

was capable of being roused on some occasions, to pretty strong
emotions of indignation; and nothing would excite these feelings in
his mind more readily, or in a higher degree, than instances of great
cruelty, oppression or injustice, whether of a public or private nature.
[312]

His long continued habits of contemplation and study, and his

seclusion from the busy world until the full meridian of life, created in
his mind a fondness for tranquillity. This disposition, co-operating
with his humanity and love of justice, made him a friend to peace;
insomuch, that he deprecated a state of warfare, even in cases
attended by colourable pretexts of right and expediency, for
engaging in it. Hence, he could not refrain from attaching to the late
warlike Sovereign of Prussia, “the mighty Frederick,” the appellation
of “Tyrant of the North and Scourge of Mankind;”[313] believing, as he
did, that this monarch was more influenced by an unfeeling personal
ambition and thirst of military fame, than either by the justness of his
cause or a desire to promote the happiness of his subjects.

With such feelings and such views of the subject as these, our
Philosopher could not consider that as a justifiable cause of war,
which has not for its object, either the defence of a country against
an hostile invader, or the security of the state and the support of the
liberties of the people, against treasonable domestic insurrections.
[314]

His habits and manners were such as comported with the honest
sincerity of his heart, the amiable simplicity of his whole character,
[315]
and the nature of his pursuits in life. He loved quiet and order,
and preferred retirement to the bustle of the world: and these
dispositions endeared to him the comforts of domestic society. He
considered ambition, pomp and ostentation, as being generally
inconsistent with true happiness. His sentiments respecting luxury
are expressed in very energetic language, in his Oration: he viewed
it as the constant forerunner of tyranny; and both, as being,
eventually, the means of destroying useful science, though
professing to be its friends. Yet he was far from being inimical to that
mutual “exchange of benefits,”[316] which is effected by means of
foreign commerce; or to those intercourses of society, which
augment our rational enjoyments: he was, in truth, a friend to
beneficial trade, and approved of those “social refinements, which
really add to our happiness, and induce us with gratitude to
acknowledge our great Creator’s goodness.”[317] But he justly
distinguished between that sort of commerce with foreign nations,
that conduces to the well-being of mankind, and such as is obviously
immoral in itself, or deleterious in its consequences. Of both these
latter descriptions, he considered the slave-trade; a traffic, against
which he bore his testimony more than thirty-seven years ago: and,
as Dr. Rush has emphatically observed in respect to what he had
advanced in favour of Christianity, “the single testimony of David
Rittenhouse,” on the the one side, “outweighs the declamations of
whole nations,” on the other. Commerce of an injurious nature, he
viewed to be such as ministers more to the debauching luxuries of
mankind, than to their necessities, conveniencies and substantial
comforts.

No man had less of “the gloomy spirit of misanthropy,” than Dr.

Rittenhouse: his whole life evinced, “with what ardour,” to use his
own words, “he wished for the happiness of the whole race of
mankind.” And, that he detested penuriousness, the contemptuous
manner in which he has treated the character of the miser, in his
Oration, is sufficient to testify. A manly spirit of independence, on the
one hand, and a disposition, on the other, to partake rationally of
what are called the good things of the world, induced him to pursue,
in his style of living, a middle course, between extreme parsimony
and a prodigality equally censurable. He was therefore, an
economist. “His economy,” as Dr. Rush has justly remarked, even
“extended to a wise and profitable use of his time:” for he was, when
most in health, an early riser; and devoted much of his time to
reading and other studies, when not otherwise engaged or usefully
employed. So inestimable did our Philosopher deem this gift of
heaven to man, that, says his Eulogist, he observed on a certain
occasion, “that he once thought health the greatest blessing in the
world, but he now thought there was one thing of much greater
value, and that was time.”[318]

Though rather plain and simple than otherwise, in all his domestic
arrangements, he lived well,—in the common acceptation of the
phrase. Nor was he in any respect deficient in that decorum in his
personal appearance, and in the modest appendages of his
household, which corresponded with his character and station in
society. There was not the least affectation of any thing like parade
or splendour, in his manner of living. In his dress he was remarkably
neat, correct and gentlemanlike: his house, with its furniture were of
a corresponding style of propriety; the mansion itself, with every
thing appurtenant to it, seemed to denote its being the residence of
good sense, elegant simplicity, and genuine comfort.

Neither the delicate state of his constitution, nor his almost

unceasing employment, either in business or study, when enjoying
his ordinary portion of health, permitted Dr. Rittenhouse to participate
in the society of his friends, at his table, in that manner which an
hospitable disposition and a desire to mingle in the conversation of
estimable men, led him to wish. Yet he occasionally had a very few
friends to dine with him; and on those occasions, he avoided every
thing that could bear the least appearance of ostentation. He
received, however, frequent visits in the evening, from persons
whom he respected and esteemed,—at the time of taking tea, a
beverage which was very grateful to him. It was on such occasions,
more particularly, that he would unbend; he would then bear his part
in reciprocations of amusement, as well as instruction, with great
good humour, sometimes even pleasantry, if he were tolerably well.
“As a companion,” says Dr. Rush, “he instructed upon all subjects:”
an observation, of which the Writer of these Memoirs has, indeed,
very often experienced the correctness; and there have been few
men, perhaps, who ever had an opportunity of knowing his
communicative disposition, from a personal acquaintance with him,
that have not been either gratified or improved by his conversations.

But the same causes that prevented his seeing his friends, beyond
the circle of his family-connections, at his own table, as often as the
sociability of his temper must have prompted him to do, imposed on
him the necessity of very frequently declining the acceptance of
invitations from others; more especially, for large dining parties, and
companies of formal visitors: his habits of great temperance, a
dislike of much ceremoniousness, and an economical disposition of
his time, were further inducements to his declining, very generally,
such invitations.

In domestic life his whole conduct was perfectly exemplary. No

man was ever a better husband or father, or a more indulgent
master; nor was there ever a kinder relative. He educated his
children very liberally; and in the society of these, together with his
wife, a woman of excellent understanding, he enjoyed in an high
degree, and for some years, the delights of a rational and endearing
intercourse. In this little family-society, he experienced a large
portion of domestic happiness, no otherwise alloyed than by the
bodily sufferings he occasionally endured. And, as Dr. Rush
observes,[319]—“when the declining state of his health rendered the
solitude of his study less agreeable than in former years, he passed
whole evenings in reading or conversing, with his wife and
daughters.”—“Happy family!” exclaims his Eulogist, “so much and so
long blessed with such a head!—and happier still, to have
possessed dispositions and knowledge to discern and love his
exalted character, and to enjoy his instructing conversation!”

In his friendship, as in all his social affections, he was perfectly

sincere; for, his ardent love of truth led him to detest every species of
dissimulation. He was warmly attached to many estimable
characters, among those with whom he was acquainted; and he
enjoyed, in return, their friendship and respect: besides which, he
possessed in an high degree the esteem of all his fellow-citizens, to
whom his name and character were well known. With not a few
persons, who were either distinguished by literature and science, or
by ingenuity, and information on general topics or particular subjects
of useful knowledge, he was in habits of intimacy: in the list of these,
might be placed several of the most eminent and dignified characters
in America.

Dr. Rittenhouse’s epistolary correspondence, even with his

personal friends, was by no means extensive: indeed the most of
these, after his removal to Philadelphia, were there his fellow-
citizens. His almost incessant employment, either in public or private
business, occupied his time so fully as to allow him little leisure,
when in the enjoyment of health; and sensible of the repeated
inroads which the privation of this blessing made on his profitable
time, he was covetous of every hour, in which his industry could be
most conveniently as well us usefully engaged. He therefore, like the
celebrated Dr. Bradley,[320] published little. Possibly, too, this
circumstance in relation to both these great astronomers, may have
been, in some degree, occasioned by similar motives, a natural
diffidence in their own faculties, extraordinary as others knew them
to be. The English philosopher is even said to have been
apprehensive, that a publication of his works might prove injurious to
his reputation; and, therefore, he suppressed many of his papers:
but whether our astronomer made preparations for publishing any
large systematic work, in his favourite science, cannot be
ascertained; the probability however is, that he did not, for want of
time and health to engage in such an undertaking.

That the world possess so few of Dr. Rittenhouse’s philosophical

papers, is a matter truly to be regretted: because records extensively
promulgated, of the results of his numerous and laborious
researches, concerning the most sublime and interesting operations
of nature, would, beyond any doubt, have greatly added to the stock
of human knowledge. And this regret is enhanced by the reflexion,