Political Scandal and American Pop

Culture: Sex, Power, and Cover-Ups

Jim Twombly
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/political-scandal-and-american-pop-culture-sex-power
-and-cover-ups-jim-twombly/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook Loucas

https://textbookfull.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-
loucas/

The Progression of the American Presidency Individuals

Empire and Change 1st Edition Jim Twombly (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-progression-of-the-american-
presidency-individuals-empire-and-change-1st-edition-jim-twombly-
auth/

Speaker Jim Wright Power Scandal and the Birth of

Modern Politics J Brooks Flippen

https://textbookfull.com/product/speaker-jim-wright-power-
scandal-and-the-birth-of-modern-politics-j-brooks-flippen/

Presidents and Political Scandal: Managing Scandal in

the Modern Era Richard P. Barberio

https://textbookfull.com/product/presidents-and-political-
scandal-managing-scandal-in-the-modern-era-richard-p-barberio/
Premodern Rulers and Postmodern Viewers : Gender, Sex,
and Power in Popular Culture 1st Edition Janice North

https://textbookfull.com/product/premodern-rulers-and-postmodern-
viewers-gender-sex-and-power-in-popular-culture-1st-edition-
janice-north/

Political Entrepreneurship How to Build Successful

Centrist Political Start ups Josef Lentsch

https://textbookfull.com/product/political-entrepreneurship-how-
to-build-successful-centrist-political-start-ups-josef-lentsch/

American Pop 1st Edition Wright Snowden

https://textbookfull.com/product/american-pop-1st-edition-wright-
snowden/

Henry Kissinger and American Power A Political

Biography 11th Edition Thomas A. Schwartz

https://textbookfull.com/product/henry-kissinger-and-american-
power-a-political-biography-11th-edition-thomas-a-schwartz/

New Approaches to Latin American Studies Culture and

Power 1st Edition Juan Poblete

https://textbookfull.com/product/new-approaches-to-latin-
american-studies-culture-and-power-1st-edition-juan-poblete/
Political Scandal and
American Pop Culture
Sex, Power,
and Cover-Ups

Jim Twombly
Political Scandal and American Pop Culture
 Jim Twombly

Political Scandal and

American Pop Culture
Sex, Power, and Cover-Ups
Jim Twombly
Elmira College
Elmira, NY, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-01339-4 ISBN 978-3-030-01340-0 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01340-0

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018957439

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2019
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
information 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, express 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: © John Rawsterne/patternhead.com

This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
This work is dedicated to the heroes and heroines of late-night comedy, who
toil to drink from the firehose and help us to understand the foibles of our
public officials.
 Acknowledgements

First, and foremost, I wish to thank my wife, Denise King, who right
from the start encouraged me to write this book, especially when
I would note that there didn’t seem to be a good fit from the availa-
ble works for my course on scandals. Denise was also my first and last
reader before I hit “send” on the manuscript and made many useful con-
tributions to the product. Charlie Mitchell, friend, colleague, and boss,
provided a sounding board for many of the ideas and assertions made
in the book and in some cases helped to shape the wording. As Provost
at Elmira College, Charlie helped to make for a more productive writ-
ing environment and his staff, Kitty Ravert and Cheryl Baumgartner, in
particular, helped to make it happen. Thanks also go to Michael Armato
of Albright College for his helpful suggestions in reviewing the orig-
inal proposal. Jerry Zremski, Washington Bureau Chief of The Buffalo
News and friend, provided a reality check on a key scandal. The team
at Palgrave Macmillan, particularly Michelle Chen and John Stegner,
were very helpful. Without Michelle being intrigued by the idea, this
work might never have happened. Last, thanks to Holly Popple, Elmira
College class of 2019, for her help in compiling the index for this work.
As usual, these folks were all a great help, but any errors in interpreta-
tion, analysis, or judgment are all mine.

vii
 Contents

1 Introduction and Definitions 1

2 Watergate and Its Legacy 13

3 Koreagate, Abscam, and Iran-Contra 27

4 From Monkey Business to Monicagate: Hijinks on the

High Seas, Whitewater, a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy,
and the Rise of Fox News 41

5 Governors Gone Wild: Buying Sex, Selling Senate Seats,

and Hiking the Appalachian Trail 55

6 What’s in the Water on Capitol Hill? 77

7 Clinton Scandals—Twenty-First-Century Version,

But Not Bill 97

8 Drinking from the Firehose: Trump, Social Media,

and Late-Night Comedy 115

ix
x    Contents

9 A Conclusion 133

Bibliography 141

Index 151
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction and Definitions

Abstract This chapter takes a brief look at the history of the intersection
of political scandal and pop culture starting with the editorial cartoon
era, with particular note of Grover Cleveland and the work of Thomas
Nast. A definition of pop culture which focuses on transmission of an
idea or symbol to a large audience via a contemporary mechanism is fol-
lowed by a definition of scandal that dismisses ordinary corrupt behavior
from the more narrow construction of scandal used to focus the discus-
sion in subsequent chapters.

Keywords Thomas Nast · Grover Cleveland · Pop culture · Scandal ·

Corruption · Political machine

Before there was Twitter or Comedy Central, or even TV, radio, or pho-
nographic recordings, we had a pop culture. For politics, one of the
main creators and influencers of pop culture was the editorial cartoon.
Just as The Daily Show provides a four times a week skewering of our
political and journalistic “somebodies,” newspaper and magazine edito-
rial cartoons did the same on a regular basis prior to the development
of electronic media. While Donald Trump may feel bullied by the “fail-
ing media’s” “fake news” portrayal of him and that late-night talk show
treatment of him, whether by Trevor Noah, Stephen Colbert, Jimmy
Kimmel, John Oliver, or Samantha Bee, is more than unfair, he would
feel much the same as Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall did as the target

© The Author(s) 2019 1

J. Twombly, Political Scandal and American Pop Culture,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01340-0_1
2 J. TWOMBLY

of a ruthless onslaught of attacks at the hands of editorial cartoonist

Thomas Nast. According to Hess and Northrup (2017), Tweed sought
to pay Nast to leave the country for a while and go study art in Europe.
As far as we know, Trump has yet to offer such a deal to any of his late-
night nemeses.1
One of the most notable political cartoons of the late nineteenth cen-
tury is the one that jabbed at Grover Cleveland for his alleged prom-
iscuity. The cartoon, titled “Another Voice for Cleveland,” depicted a
small child in the arms of his mother declaring “I want my Pa!” This car-
toon, in The Judge on September 27, 1884, along with a popular cam-
paign song that echoed the refrain Cleveland’s opponents used—“Ma,
ma, where’s my pa?”2—were a part of the popular culture of that fall and
were that period’s equivalent of today’s late-night talk shows.
It was, however, Nast’s repetitive depiction of Boss Tweed in his
editorial cartoons that cemented the image of the typical political boss
in the minds of Americans using the most popular medium of the day.
Nast’s drawings were so well-known that it is said that one satirical image
of Tweed grabbing two symbolic youngsters by the scruff of the neck
to demonstrate his cruelty to the poor led to his detention on kidnap-
ping charges. While the modern images of the donkey and the elephant
as representative of the two major parties has become an indelible part of
our culture, both can be traced back to representations made by edito-
rial cartoonists—the Republican elephant being credited to Nast in 1874
and the Democratic donkey to an anonymous artist in 1837 (Hess and
Northrup 2017).
Later depictions of the same political machine—whether Tammany
Hall or its Republican counterpart—further fortified what we all believed
a political machine looked like and how it operated. This was in spite
of the fact that political machines were perhaps as varied as the environ-
ments from which they grew. Certainly, they all had a set of common
traits and that is perhaps why Nast’s drawings and later Broadway musi-
cals, were so easily recognized by so many readers and playgoers.
Fiorello!, a musical opening on Broadway in 1959 was based in large
part on the book Life with Fiorello by Ernest Cuneo (1955), popular-
ized the story of the reform-minded Republican Congressman from New

1 As of July 2018.
2 The retort from Cleveland’s supporters was “Gone to the White House, ha, ha, ha.”
 1 INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS 3

York who later became that city’s mayor. With songs like Politics and
Poker and Little Tin Box, the play describes, with humor and great relata-
bility the processes of politics, contributing to the public’s understanding
of how the system appeared to work—even if it was an erroneous, cari-
caturized view. Still, the presence of Tammany Hall and its Republican
counterpart were part of the everyday life of those interested in politics
regardless of the city in which they lived. This was, I would argue, not so
much a scandal as ongoing corruption—ongoing for decades. How is it
possible that it isn’t a scandal? We need a definition of our terms before
we begin examining the relationship between scandal and pop culture.
We also need to ask ourselves the proverbial chicken and egg question—
which comes first, scandal or pop culture?
Since we are looking at one subject (political scandal) as a part of
another larger one (popular or pop culture) it is perhaps most appropri-
ate to define the larger subject first. Following a definition of pop cul-
ture, I will provide a definition of political scandal, particularly how it
will be used in this study. One aspect of that definition will be how we
should differentiate “scandal” from, and I hesitate to say it but, “ordi-
nary” corruption.

Pop Culture Defined

Popular culture, or “pop culture,” is a somewhat loose term and any dis-
cussion of it needs to include a definition so that the participants under-
stand what exactly is being discussed. This is particularly important for
this discussion since we are addressing what it takes for a political scan-
dal to become a part of pop culture. For most of us, pop culture would
include a range of things from music to food to fashion to comedy and
so forth.
David Haskell (2015) of Wilfrid Laurier University argues that “cul-
ture” refers to both the operational mechanisms of a society and its
“aesthetic elements.” Pop culture as defined by Haskell, has a large
audience, is “novel,” has a “regular formula,” and makes successful use
of all available media. Given this final component, we could argue that
pop culture is highly dependent on the media available at the time of its
emergence. For example, Tammany Hall corruption in New York City
in the early twentieth century was given a pop culture treatment decades
later with the success of the previously mentioned musical, Fiorello! and
Congressman Anthony Weiner’s behavior was given comedic treatment
4 J. TWOMBLY

on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Internet memes that
appear on such outlets as Facebook, Twitter, and others are another cur-
rent form of the pop culture treatment of political scandal.
There are any number of definitions of pop culture, many of which
focus on younger consumers at the time of the phenomenon. One gen-
eration’s pop culture includes the Beatles, while a more recent genera-
tion’s pop culture includes Beyoncé. Tim Delaney (2007) notes this fluid
nature of pop culture and asserts that “[a]s the ‘culture of the people’,
popular culture is determined by the interactions between people in their
everyday activities: styles of dress, the use of slang, greeting rituals and
the foods that people eat are all examples of popular culture. Popular
culture is also informed by the mass media.” Delaney also notes that
there is an ability of pop culture to transcend local custom and culture.
“Popular culture,” he points out, “allows large heterogeneous masses of
people to identify collectively” (121).
According to Dominic Strinati (2004), eminent social scientist
Theodor Adorno (1991), best known in political science for his work
on the authoritarian personality, thought of aspects of popular culture as
a form of “social cement” that holds society together. Hermes (2005)
makes a similar observation noting the bonding aspect of pop culture.
He writes: “popular culture makes us welcome and offers belong-
ing” (3). Bonding, according to Hermes is about creating a common
experience, but also about community building and our ability to reflect
on the manner of the bonding experience. It is the discourse in which we
engage over the contents of pop culture where true democratic discourse
takes place. Hermes argues that discourse in pop culture may be more
important to democracy than discourse within government.
For our purposes, pop culture is the advancement of ideas or events
through various forms of entertainment and media. Certainly, Liesbet van
Zoonen (2005) cautions that we should not rely too heavily on enter-
tainment as the basis of pop culture. She warns that important aspects
of pop culture may be ignored if we only focus on entertainment. Pop
culture, she notes, is often associated with “opposition to elite affairs
and politics” (10). To be sure, though not “entertaining” in their own
right, Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party movements fall within this
non-entertainment category of pop culture. I would add there has to be
something of a lasting effect of that advancement. Watergate is indeli-
bly imprinted in our collective consciousness by the use of its last syl-
lable to identify an overwhelming number of subsequent scandals.
 1 INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS 5

NBC’s Saturday Night Live (SNL) was key to a similar imprinting

regarding the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. And, it was not just Anthony
Weiner’s woes that became a part of our pop culture through Comedy
Central’s nightly “fake news” shows, but Eric, Christopher Lee, Mark
Sanford, Eliot Spitzer, and others all became punch lines for new jokes
because of either Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert. It was most likely that
the nickname “Tickle Me Massa”—deriving from the popular children’s
toy “Tickle Me Elmo”—started with Colbert. Perhaps most ironically as
well, when Sanford attempted a political comeback (and was successful)
it was actually Colbert’s sister who challenged him in the general election
for a seat in Congress.

Scandal Defined
In recent years, there have been many TV viewers who, if you mentioned
the word scandal, would immediately conjure up a mental image of
Kerry Washington’s “Olivia Pope” character, her high heels clicking in
the hallways in the White House or engaged in tawdry sex scenes with
Scandal’s president. While the series was widely popular and served as a
mainstay of the numerous TV shows produced and created by Shonda
Rhimes, it almost certainly overstated the extent of scandal present in
our politics, and its fictional “B-613” security agency may have contrib-
uted to popular belief in a so-called deep state.
American politics recently has undergone what some might consider
an extraordinary number of scandals involving elected officials and their
advisers. Perhaps it is not so much that this period of American political
history is any different from the past, but that we are just far more aware
of scandals. This awareness is heightened by technology that turns every-
one with a smartphone into a pseudo-journalist and anyone with a com-
puter and Internet access into a pundit. Certainly, some politicians have
not helped their own causes by their misuse of the same technology (e.g.,
Congressmen Christopher Lee and Anthony Weiner, among others).
Some of these scandals have become much more a part of our
pop culture, perhaps through their very ability to persist in “the twit-
terverse,” on Facebook, on YouTube, or just out there in the techno-
logical ether. Or, do they become part of our pop culture through
more traditional means—entertainment? The cable network Comedy
Central has been front and center in the indelible etching of scandals like
“Tickle-me Massa” forever in our collective consciousness. Yet, Comedy
6 J. TWOMBLY

Central is still a relatively modern form of entertainment, existing only

on cable television and the Internet. While not focusing on any single
contemporary scandal, the subjects of scandalous politicians and dark
conspiracies about how the government is run have been in front of large
television audiences weekly in the popular show Scandal on a much older
form of entertainment—broadcast television. In this preliminary work,
I seek to begin defining political scandal as pop culture with end of both
determining how scandals get to be a part of our pop culture and what
possible impacts the pop culture aspect of scandal have for democratic
politics.
Like Justice Potter Stewart’s view of obscenity,3 we all know a scan-
dal when we see one, whether it involves sex, money, or power, but
can we clearly define so it is not like art or obscenity? Vocabulary.com
(n.d.) defines scandal as “a disgraceful event” or “disgraceful gossip
about the private lives of other people.” Similarly, Merriam-Webster.com
defines scandal as “an occurrence in which people are shocked and upset
because of behavior that is morally or legally wrong” or “something that
is shocking, upsetting, or unacceptable.” Certainly, traditional and new
media engages in what some might consider “disgraceful gossip about
the private lives” of our public figures—whether in politics or entertain-
ment. Such gossip, unless it rises to the level of more substantial allega-
tions, is not the focus of this discussion.
What then constitutes “a disgraceful event,” “behavior that is morally
or legally wrong,” or “something that is shocking, upsetting, or unac-
ceptable”? Recent history provides and an ample supply of such events,
ranging from the Clinton-Lewinsky Affair to members of Congress post-
ing near nude or nude photographs of themselves on the Internet, to
governors selling seats in the US Senate to other governors traveling out
of state to be with escorts, and more.
Brendan Nyhan (2015) observes that most definitions of scandal
are “evidence-based” and are thus difficult to measure and classify. As
such, scandals are defined more by their context, particularly the time at
which they occur. For example, one could argue that Bill Clinton could

3 In the 1964 Supreme Court case of Jacobellis v Ohio (378 U.S. 184 1964), Stewart

claimed that he could not clearly or easily define “hard core pornography” “but I know it
when I see it.”
 1 INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS 7

never have “gotten away” with his affair(s) unless there had been the
Gary Hart–Donna Rice affair. Because Hart was one of the first presi-
dential candidates to have such private behavior splashed across the front
page the way it was, and the resulting apparent regret by the media and
the public, there was a different context for what Clinton did. Is scan-
dal then merely to be defined in the same way as Associate Justice of
the Supreme Court Potter Stewart thought of pornography—“I know it
when I see it”? Perhaps we can do better.
For the purposes of this discussion, I’d like to offer a more specific
definition of political scandal. A political scandal is any event or exhibition
of behavior by any candidate, elected official, appointed official, or political
party officer that advances a personal agenda (sexual, monetary, or related
to the maintenance of power) that could, if known by the public, bring
harm to their public position. A “routine” divorce or other family mat-
ter may not qualify by this definition. John Thompson (2008) offers a
working definition very similar to the one offered here. He suggests that
“scandal refers to actions or events involving certain kinds of transgressions
which become known to others and are sufficiently serious to elicit a public
response” (p. 13—emphasis in original).
Thus, the everyday activities of political machines and greedy politi-
cians do not necessarily fit the definition of a scandal for our purposes.
Too often, the public dismisses this work-a-day corruption as “the
way things are done.” In 2012, The Economist noted a report by Dick
Simpson of the University of Chicago that “documents a pattern of
crime that has become synonymous with the Chicago or Illinois ‘way’
of doing things.” This “Chicago Way” was depicted in the movie The
Untouchables (1987) about how a federal law enforcement officer should
expect to have to deal with local organized crime figures. More recently,
episodes at the end of the USA Network TV series Suits 7th season make
similar references and have spawned a spin-off series. The Economist
(2012) goes on to note that at the time they published their piece, four
out of the last seven governors of Illinois had been convicted of corrup-
tion and that between 1976 and 2012, one-third of Chicago’s aldermen4
had been convicted of one form of corruption or another.5

4 Alderman is the title used for members of Chicago’s city council.

5 The Economist story notes that during that same time, no mayors were convicted.
8 J. TWOMBLY

Similarly, the movie Lincoln6 makes reference to bringing in some

men from Albany (New York) to do the dirty work in lobbying members
of the US House of Representatives to vote for the 13th amendment.
The reference is treated as though it is the most ordinary of observa-
tions. Audiences today would still see accuracy in that depiction from
1865. In 2016, a candidate of New York State Senate—Elaine Phillips—
made a claim that challenges the reputation of Illinois. On Facebook,
Phillips noted that “more than 30 current and former state officeholders
have been convicted, sanctioned or accused of wrongdoing — more than
any other state” (Clark 2016). Politico rated the statement as true.7
While residents of these two states are familiar with the everyday bad
behavior of their elected and appointed government officials, it takes
something more for the behavior to rise to the level of scandal as we are
defining it here. Certainly, Blagojevich’s attempt to sell the US Senate
seat just vacated by Barack Obama as he ascended to the presidency and
Eliot Spitzer’s use of high-priced call girls rise to our standard because
they are not ordinary and not just about feathering one’s nest. Yes, you
could make the point that Blagojevich’s actions were in that category,
but his brazenness and the fact that it was the about-to-be-president’s
former seat makes it beyond ordinary.

The Aims and Organization of the Rest of the Book

Throughout the rest of the book, these two definitions will be employed
to help understand two key things. First, does the event we may all see
or media tells us is a scandal actually fit our definition of a scandal? We
will likely find that some “scandals” are not really so scandalous. Second,
to what extent does our working definition of pop culture help to
determine if the scandals presented (and others like them in past or the
future) have actually become a part of our pop culture? To be sure, “run
of the mill” corruption probably does not meet these standards; per-
haps only if there is an unraveling cover-up, would any corruption come
close. I would argue that there is one additional component to test if the
scandal has truly become a part of our pop culture—is there a lasting

6 The movie was based, in part, on the book Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin

(2005).
7 New York still lags behind Illinois in numbers of former governors who can be classified

as convicted felons.
 1 INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS 9

impact? Has the scandal’s coverage in the news or treatment by enter-

tainers or those in social media provided us something sufficiently mem-
orable that the mere mention of that thing (a song, a parody, a joke,
an Internet meme, or some other symbol) recalls for us both the details
of the scandal and how it changed our culture? In other words, has
Watergate’s “smoking gun” been replaced by Lewinsky’s “blue dress”?
Further, is there something about the type of scandal (financial, sexual,
or power) that may help to determine how easily a scandal may cross
over into lasting pop culture? I would argue, and hope to support via the
evidence, that it is the sexual scandal that has the greatest likelihood of
crossing over into pop culture, followed by the power scandal, and then
the financial scandal. The financial scandal, however, would likely need
an unraveling cover-up to help it become a pop culture phenomenon,
lending credibility to the old adage that “the cover up is worse than the
crime.”
Using the frame of these two definitions and the event histories to
follow, this work will seek to assert the positive and negative impacts
of scandal as pop culture on our democratic politics. Certainly, broader
public knowledge can lead to a better-informed electorate, but such an
electorate made cynical by the apparent abundance of scandalous behav-
ior could end up making poor electoral choices. Similarly, such overex-
posure could lead to not just poor choices, but a desensitized electorate
that becomes apathetic and uninvolved. Neither of these downsides is
good for democracy.
In Chapter 2, I will provide a brief summary of Watergate and dis-
cuss its place in pop culture. Of particular interest here will be the com-
edy of David Frye and his use of the medium of the period (late 60s
to early 70s) of the comedy album as a vehicle for entering Watergate
into our collective psyche. Similarly, some treatment will be given to the
extent to which late-night comedy of the time treated the Watergate
scandal.
Treatment of Koreagate in Chapter 3 is important, not so much for
the extent of the scandal, but for it being the first time the suffix “gate”
was used to indicate that it was a scandal. Thus, the lasting impact and
legacy of Watergate is forever assured with many subsequent scandals
being similarly named (e.g., Lewinskygate or Monicagate, Troopergate,
Hookergate, Russiagate, and so forth). Naturally, more of our knowl-
edge of Abscam as pop culture comes to us much later, decades after the
fact, with the movie American Hustle.
10 J. TWOMBLY

From Whitewatergate to Monicagate, there was much about the scan-

dals of the 90s that was worthy of admission to our pop culture. Hillary
Clinton’s multiple defenses of her husband’s behavior comparing her-
self to country singer Tammy Wynette or creating the idea of a “vast,
right-wing conspiracy” were certainly as pop culture-worthy as her ever-­
changing hairstyles. So too, such treatments of a different kind of First
Lady detracted from her attempts at breaking the older molds of her
role. Part of the problem for the Clintons was this relatively unique cir-
cumstance of a First Lady who was trying to be a bit different, advocat-
ing for women’s rights, leading the effort to reform health insurance/
care, and being involved in other policy debates, while at the same time
having to appear in a role defending her husband. Thus, in Chapter 4
we see the attempt to change pop culture (the perceived role of a First
Lady) adding to the underlying fuel that would later feed the media
frenzy over the Lewinsky Affair.
In Chapter 5, we will see how two governors, from New York and
Illinois, respectively, made black socks and perfect hair an impor-
tant part of our culture in the first decade of the twenty-first century.
Song parodies of the 1960s hit “Love Potion Number Nine” became
a popular stream or download on the Internet as a result of New York
Governor Eliot Spitzer’s adventures and his wiretap transcript identity as
Client #9 became widely known. Similarly, videos of Illinois Governor,
Rod Blagojevich’s Elvis impersonation nearly broke the Internet. By
this time, in the middle of the first decade of the twenty-first century,
the Internet was beyond its infancy and social networking web sites like
Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter were becoming a part of our everyday
life and culture. Certainly, these initial instances of political scandal being
transmitted to the public via these vehicles would not be the last time
and would be just a small example of what would come later. Neither of
these perpetrators used this emerging vehicle in the behavior that would
be their undoing.
Chapter 6 tackles the question of how less broadly known, more ordi-
nary bad behavior by members of Congress gets elevated to the level of
scandal and thus enter into our pop culture. As with the explosion of tel-
evised news sources, the exponential increase in late-night talk/comedy
has made it easier for a local punch line to quickly go national. What
might be a local story about a badly behaving member of Congress can
go quickly from page one of the local newspaper to the main joke in a
nightly comedic monolog.
 1 INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS 11

Chapter 7 demonstrates that scandal is not the sole purview of males.

This chapter examines the foibles of a different Clinton—Hillary. Here
is where we may see more evidence of the backward flow of causation.
That is, this chapter will examine the extent to which Hillary’s existing
pop culture status (left over from the 90s) may have inflated the reality of
her bad behavior into a scandal, rather than the scandal creating the pop
culture by itself.
In Chapter 8, we will take a look at the impact of exploding social
media on the proliferation of scandals and of pop culture references.
Orange skin color, poofy comb-overs, and small hands became part of
the repertoire of description for the 45th president, even before he won
the election. This chapter will seek to determine if Trump drove pop cul-
ture or if he just successfully rode the wave.
Lastly, Chapter 9 will attempt to first summarize the line of thought
in the previous chapters while also trying to make sense out of what an
increase in scandals means for pop culture and what an ever-changing
field of pop culture will impact how we, as citizens and voters, perceive
our elected representatives.

References
Adorno, Theodor W. 1991. The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass
Culture. New York: Routledge.
Clark, Dan. 2016. “Yes, New York Has More Corrupt Officials Than Any Other
State.” Politifact New York. September 19. Retrieved on July 21, 2018 from:
http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/sep/19/elaine-
phillips/new-york-has-been-most-corrupt-state-decades/.
Cuneo, Ernest. 1955. Life with Fiorello: A Memoir. New York: Macmillan.
Delaney, Tim. 2007. “Pop Culture: An Overview.” Philosophy Now: A Magazine
of Ideas. Retrieved on July 21, 2018 from: https://philosophynow.org/
issues/64/Pop_Culture_An_Overview.
Economist. 2012. “The Chicago Way: Capital of Corruption.” Print Edition,
United States. February 12. Retrieved on July 21, 2018 from: https://www.
economist.com/united-states/2012/02/25/the-chicago-way.
Haskell, David. 2015. “Definition of Popular Culture—A Tutorial.” Wilfrid
Laurier University—Laurier Brantford—Faculty/Staff Listing—David M.
Haskell—RE 220–Religion and Popular Culture—Definition of Popular
Culture—A tutorial (Link to course no longer active.).
Hermes, Joke. 2005. Re-reading Popular Culture. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
12 J. TWOMBLY

Hess, Stephen, and Sandy Northrup. 2017. American Political Cartoons: The
Evolution of a National Identity, 1754–2010. New York: Routledge.
Jacobellis v Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964).
Kearns Goodwin, Doris. 2005. Team of Rivals. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Nyhan, Brendan. 2015. “Scandal Potential: How Political Context and News
Congestion Affect the President’s Vulnerability to Media Scandal.” British
Journal of Political Science 45: 435–466.
Strinati, Dominc. 2004. An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture. 2nd ed.
New York: Routledge.
Thompson, John. 2008. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Zoonen, Liesbet van. 2005. Entertaining the Citizen: When Politics and Popular
Culture Converge. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
 CHAPTER 2

Watergate and Its Legacy

Abstract The Watergate scandal—the break-in and cover-up—is the

starting point of the discussion as many observers of subsequent scandals
seek to elevate or emphasize particular scandals by appending “gate” as
a suffix to the scandal’s name. The events and “appeal” of Watergate are
summarized and presented to demonstrate how the definitions provided
in Chapter 1 can be applied to other scandals.

Keywords Watergate · The Washington Post · Richard Nixon ·

Johnny Carson · David Frye · Dick Cavett

In the middle of 2018 and nearing the middle of the first four years of
the Trump Presidency, American politics and American pop culture are
in the midst of great change. This turmoil is heightened by the presence
of social media and a president who uses it to “go public”1 at any time of
the day or night and without prior notification. Many analysts and opin-
ion leaders argue that the actions of President Trump threaten the very
fabric of our form of government or our system of politics. Even with

1 “Going public” is a mechanism first described by Samuel Kernell (1993) in a book of

the same name in which presidents make use of available media to bring their message
to the public with as little mediation by the press or pundits as possible. Earlier versions
included the use of press conferences and direct addresses—either from the White House
(the Oval Office or some other venue) or perhaps a joint session of Congress.

© The Author(s) 2019 13

J. Twombly, Political Scandal and American Pop Culture,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01340-0_2
14 J. TWOMBLY

such an “existential threat” to our politics, it may take some time before
we begin to use aspects of these “scandals” to name future events.
Prior to our current circumstances, one scandal emerged to provide
us with a pop culture reference to “elevate” the importance of a scandal.
Watergate, the break-in and the cover-up, has provided us with an apt,
easy handle to identify scandals or parts of a scandal that may need our
added scrutiny or may be used in an attempt to falsely identify some-
thing as a scandal. For example, a scandal involving lobbying efforts by
the Korean government was labeled Koreagate. Similarly, most of us who
were old enough to appreciate the reference know immediately what is
meant when someone mentions “Monicagate” or “Lewinskygate.” More
recently, President Trump has attempted to brand his false claim that
the FBI was spying on his campaign as “spygate” in an effort to make it
seem more significant and nefarious than the activities the FBI was actu-
ally investigating.
So what was it about Watergate that made it this touchstone of poli-
tics and pop culture?

The Appeal of Watergate

This chapter provides a brief summary of Watergate and discusses its
place in pop culture. Of particular, interest here will be the comedy
of David Frye and his use of the medium of the period of the comedy
album during the late 60s to early 70s as a vehicle for entering Watergate
into our collective psyche. Similarly, some treatment will be given to the
extent to which late-night comedy of the time treated the Watergate
scandal.
In addition to Frye’s comedy, lasting images from the movie All the
President’s Men (1976) sear the investigation into our minds. I mention
the movie as opposed to the bestselling book of the same title, because
the film reached a far greater audience and gave us the lasting, near hor-
ror show, image of “Deep Throat”2 in the shadows of a parking garage.
The ongoing live TV coverage of the various hearings brought us not just

2 The nickname was given to Bob Woodward’s key source, whose identity remained

secret until 2005 when Mark Felt, Associate Director of the FBI, came forward, by one of
the editors at The Washington Post. The nickname had the added bonus, humorously, to be
the same as the title of a well-known pornographic movie around the same time.
 2 WATERGATE AND ITS LEGACY 15

the images of John Dean’s testimony, but Howard Baker’s line, “what
did the president know and when did he know it?” This question got
new life from Representative Barney Frank during the House Judiciary
Committee hearings into the impeachment of Bill Clinton when he
pleaded with his colleagues not to let the proceedings degenerate into a
question of “what did the president touch and when did he touch it?”
To bolster the narrative evidence, I will attempt to examine the con-
tent, or at least the reporting of the content of late-night talk show mon-
ologues. What did Johnny Carson have to say? What were his guests
saying? What was Dick Cavett doing with the material on his show?
While the answers to these questions will provide some clue regarding
the everyday conversations of Americans, I suspect that Frye, live TV,
and All the President’s Men had a more lasting impact.
Watergate also had relatable characters, and as Congressional hearings
often preempted daytime soap operas, the characters involved in those
hearings took the places of the leading characters in the soap operas.
There was John Dean, who became the heroic whistleblower, whose sup-
portive wife sat behind him while he testified. Maureen Dean became
as much a player in the drama as any of the others, and keeping with
the pop culture of the time, many reporters and viewers were fixated on
“Mo” Dean’s appearance and demeanor. Howard Baker became a fea-
tured player in the drama, with his memorable line concisely framing the
whole investigation. The Senate Committee Chair—Sam Ervin—took
on his own celebrity status and cashed it in a short time later with his
performance in an American Express commercial, with his signature
line: “I’m just a country lawyer.” As a nation, we were transfixed by the
unfolding drama of it all. Who would emerge as the next character? What
would Woodward and Bernstein write next in The Washington Post?
In many ways, Watergate’s legacy goes well beyond the politics of the
saga, the near impeachment of a president, and the laws passed to try to
prevent its happening again. It also transcends the lending of its last syl-
lable to many subsequent scandals and the endless comparisons by those
who seek elevate any given scandal to a higher level of importance or
agency. How often have we heard the line “it’s worse than Watergate”?3
Watergate has become the standard by which later scandals have been

3 This was also the title of a book by Watergate participant, John Dean (2004): Worse

Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush.

16 J. TWOMBLY

measured, whether in political impact or as a central component of our

pop culture. In some ways, Watergate is limited by the technology of the
time—to comedy albums and TV variety shows—but when looked at in
the context of its time, no other scandal since has come close. After all,
how many subsequent scandals nearly threatened the underpinnings of
our democracy? Only one other since has gone further, resulting in the
impeachment of a president, and that one, it could be argued, was highly
charged with partisanship. Future scandals may have a wider and further
reach because of cable news or the Internet, but Watergate captivated
the nation like no other scandal before or, perhaps, since. There was no
sex involved in the Watergate scandal, no allegations of infidelity, but
somehow this more mundane incident blew up to be about attaining and
maintaining power, the abuse of government to do so, and then covering
it up. The unfolding multifaceted scandals of the Trump era may rival it
or surpass it, but only time will tell.

Watergate Summarized
There are essentially two aspects to Watergate, both of which are part
of a much larger attempt make use of the apparatus of government for
political ends. The larger picture includes the creation of an enemies
list, using the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to audit political ene-
mies, using the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licensing
process to punish news operations critical of Nixon, using one part of
the intelligence community to thwart the investigation of another, and
more. More specifically, this work will focus on the particular aspect of
the break-in at Democratic National Committee (DNC) Headquarters
at the Watergate Hotel and Office Complex and on the cover-up of that
and its related activities.
On Saturday, June 17, 1972, five men were arrested at the DNC
offices in the Watergate Complex. They had burglarized the office and
apparently had bugged phones. They were also in possession of large
sums of cash and were in contact with other individuals via walkie-talk-
ies. It was later discovered that this was not their first break-in to the
offices; they were there to repair a faulty listening device they had placed
on an earlier visit. An unknown reporter for The Washington Post, Bob
Woodward was sent to cover the arraignment of the burglars. His later
 2 WATERGATE AND ITS LEGACY 17

partnership with another young, hungry reporter—Carl Bernstein—

would produce some thorough journalism with bombshell story after
bombshell story that would eventually spur action by first the Senate,
later the House, and finally a special prosecutor to investigate and resolve
the issues raised by the break-in and cover-up.
Certainly, Nixon, and his Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman, created
an environment in which aides and campaign workers thought that this
behavior was not only necessary to ensure Nixon’s success, but that it
was perfectly appropriate. If all that had happened was that these five
individuals and their two “supervisors”—E. Howard Hunt and G.
Gordon Liddy—were tried and convicted for the break-in itself, it is pos-
sible that Nixon would have survived the political and legal storm cre-
ated by the scandal. It is certain, however, that once the cover-up was
discovered and began to unravel, Nixon would suffer grave political,
if not legal, consequences. The turning of White House Counsel John
Dean against the rest of the Nixon team, the discovery of the tape-re-
corded conversations, and the drip, drip, drip of new evidence of the
White House seeking to cover its tracks led, inevitably, to the House
Judiciary Committee’s votes to impeach Nixon.
There was never any doubt that a group of individuals supportive of
the president broke into the DNC’s Watergate offices on multiple occa-
sions. What was uncertain was whether they had any connections to
either the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) or the White
House itself. As Woodward and Bernstein continued their investiga-
tive reporting, other reporters joined the hunt and a bit of competition
developed between leading newspapers like The Washington Post and The
New York Times. And, as Congress began to pay closer attention to pos-
sible connections between the burglars and the president or his agents,
we began to understand that these break-ins were a part of a much larger
conspiracy that had links to CREEP and the White House. More and
more the question became: How high up did the links go, especially in
the White House? Rather quickly, we became aware of slush funds of vast
sums of money being used by the burglars and also to make hush money
payments to them after their capture. This revelation was followed by
the information about high-ranking CREEP officials controlling those
funds, including some officials who were still technically part of the
administration.
18 J. TWOMBLY

The admission by Alexander Butterfield4 before the Senate Select

Committee on Presidential Campaign Practices that taping equipment
existed to capture all conversations in the Oval Office became the key
mechanism by which the testimony of others, like John Dean, could
be verified. It was from these taped conversations we learned many
things, including the destruction of a myth—we found out that presi-
dents can curse with the best/worst of us and we added a new phrase
to the pop culture lexicon—“expletive deleted.” Perhaps the singularly
most important revelation gained from the tapes came rather late in the
game and after the House Judiciary Committee had voted three articles
of impeachment5 out of committee and to the full House for consider-
ation. It was during the Judiciary Committee’s consideration of these
articles of impeachment that some Republican members of the com-
mittee had said he would need direct evidence of a crime or the equiv-
alent of a “smoking gun” to vote to impeach Nixon. Around the same
time, in the case of US v Nixon, the Supreme Court ordered that the
tapes be turned over to the trial court with jurisdiction over the other
crimes committed surrounding the burglary. In a tape of a conversation
between Nixon, Chief of Staff Haldeman, and Domestic Policy Adviser
John Ehrlichman on June 23, 1972 (six days after the arrests), Nixon
agrees to have the Director of the CIA urge the FBI to back off from its
investigation because they were venturing into issues of national security.
This conversation amounted to a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Before the House could take a formal vote on the articles, Nixon met
with the Republican leadership of both chambers and was informed that
he no longer had sufficient support in the House and that any vote there
to support him would look purely partisan in nature, and that he no
longer had sufficient support in the Senate to avoid a guilty verdict. On
August 8, Nixon announced he would resign the following day at noon.

4 Butterfield held the title of deputy assistant to the president and was later named to be

Federal Aviation Administrator. He had left the White House for this second position in
March 1973, but while in the White House was responsible for overseeing the installation
and operation of the voice-activated recording system in the Oval Office.
5 Five articles of impeachment were considered by the House Judiciary Committee, but

only three garnered the majority vote necessary to send them to the full chamber. Nixon’s
resignation cut short any vote by the full House on those three articles.
 2 WATERGATE AND ITS LEGACY 19

Was Watergate a Scandal?

Recall that in Chapter 1, a scandal was defined as “any event or exhi-
bition of behavior by any candidate, elected official, appointed official,
or political party officer that advances a personal agenda (sexual, mon-
etary, or related to the maintenance of power) that could, if known by
the public, bring harm to their public position.” Certainly, if we focus
solely on the break-in at DNC Headquarters, it is not clear if the defini-
tional standard is met. Yes, specific lower-level CREEP officers and their
agents could be said to meet the standard. However, the larger question
is would the public really care? Before the nation knew the extent of the
involvement of high-ranking White House officials, the public didn’t
think much of Watergate. In a 2015 report on public opinion as the
scandal unfolded, The Washington Post cited polling by Gallup from the
time of the Watergate scandal (Bump 2017). In April 1973, only 31% of
the public viewed Watergate as very serious and 53% saw it as “just poli-
tics.” Fourteen months later, just two months shy of Nixon’s resignation
the numbers had shifted and it was only 42% that saw Watergate as just
politics with 49% considering it very serious.
Clearly, as multiple investigations uncovered more and more details
about who may have authorized the break-in and who authorized and
orchestrated the cover-up, the American people began to pay more
attention to the events and to grasp the seriousness of them. The same
story by Philip Bump notes that the public, though relatively unaware
of the details of the Watergate story, may have been tiring of news cov-
erage as early as September of 1973. Over the late spring and summer of
that year, with wall-to-wall coverage of the Senate Watergate Committee
hearings, the percentage of the public that thought Watergate was
receiving too much media attention jumped from 40% in July to 50% in
September.
We could argue then that as the level of severity of the affair—that
is, the higher up it seemed to go—it moved from “just politics” or as
we have been discussing—ordinary corruption—to the level of scandal
by virtue of who was involved. Thus, as the events changed from being
just a break-in by potentially overzealous campaign workers and we
learned of slush funds, hush money, and cover-ups at the highest levels,
Watergate moved from “a third rate burglary” to a major political scan-
dal. So, by the definition offered in Chapter 1, Watergate does indeed
meet the criteria to be categorized as a scandal.
20 J. TWOMBLY

Has Watergate Crossed Over into Pop Culture?

The simple and fairly obvious answer to the question posed by the sec-
tion title is yes. Books, movies, entertainment television, and comedic
treatments of the events and personalities involved in the events of the
break-in and cover-up would certainly qualify Watergate as part of our
pop culture. What specific evidence exists to support this claim? Recall
that, I noted that one aspect of a scandal’s ability to become a part of
our culture is to have a lasting impact. Having lent its last syllable to
the identification of numerous subsequent scandals or “wannabe” scan-
dals no doubt qualifies as a lasting impact. In 2018, as this book goes to
press, President Trump is using the “gate” suffix in an attempt to gain
credence for his claims about the embedding of an FBI informant in
his campaign as not just being a scandal, but a “worse than Watergate”
scandal.
One interesting bit of pop culture was how the Nixon years over-
lapped with the popularity of comedy record albums. And, it was not
just an overlap, but one comedian had it all timed perfectly. David Frye
was an impressionist who made his living doing impressions of elected
officials,6 Hollywood personalities, and broadcast journalists. He would
combine these impressions into comedic takes on the news, and in one
case, he made a tongue-in-cheek prediction about where Watergate
would lead. Though eventually Frye’s comedic interpretation of how the
Watergate scandal would unfold proved correct, especially in terms of
Nixon’s own legal culpability, local affiliates of major broadcast networks
refused to run commercials for the album, Richard Nixon: A Fantasy.
Citing the possibility that customers might be offended by the album’s
content, The Miami News (1973) reported that retail outlet Woolworth’s
decided not to carry it. Certainly, Frye was thought to be popular
enough to matter for these media outlets and retailers to be concerned.
Prior to the release of Richard Nixon: A Fantasy, Frye was one of the
top acts on TV for a number of years. According to the Web site IMDB.
com, Frye first appeared on television in 1963 and on higher rated shows

6 Frye’s impersonations, imitations, impressions, or whatever you prefer to call his per-

formance, serendipitously highlighted Nixon, but included Lyndon Johnson, Hubert

Humphrey, Spiro Agnew, Bobby and Ted Kennedy, and George McGovern. He later added
Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Al Gore, and Jesse Jackson. In addition to all these political
figures, Frye did imitations of numerous Hollywood and TV personalities, including noted
broadcasters like Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley.
 2 WATERGATE AND ITS LEGACY 21

like The Smothers Brothers’ Comedy Hour, Rowan and Martin’s Laugh
In, The Ed Sullivan Show, The Kraft Music Hall, The Dick Cavett Show,
The Mike Douglas Show, The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson,7 and many
others. These shows were in both prime-time and late-night slots.
It is said that Johnny Carson would steadfastly avoid dealing with
politics in his monologue or through the selection of his guests, to the
extent it was possible. His political humor tended toward the stumbles
any politician could make and was more generic in nature than the late-
night comedy of today.8 According to Matea Gold of The Los Angeles
Times (2010), Carson “was viewed as a bellwether of public opinion:
His jokes about Watergate marked a turning point for President Nixon.”
When the acknowledged “King of Late-night” turned his comedic
weaponry loose on Nixon and his Watergate-related troubles, that was
when everyday Americans became more fully aware of what Watergate
was and what it meant to our politics (Goldstein 2017). In that same
piece by Goldstein in The National Review, noted conservative column-
ist and radio talk show host, Dennis Prager said that Carson’s ability to
poke fun at whomever was in power, equally and regardless of party,
made it difficult to discern his personal political outlook.
Watergate, in fact, may have helped to change the American comedic
landscape. Russell Petersen (2008) wrote “In a way, Watergate democ-
ratized political comedy. It turned satire—or rather, what looked like
satire—from a dish enjoyed only by the cognoscenti into a buffet open
to all; from what closed Saturday night into something as inescapable as
elevator music” (34). For the truly discerning observer, there were hints
as to Carson’s political thinking through interviews in which he criticized
the government for employing students to report on campus subversives
for having supported aspects of the civil rights movement. But, it was

7 Frye made three separate appearances on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson in

the second half of 1973, on August 6, August 27, and October 10. This last date is a mere
10 days prior to the infamous Saturday Night Massacre, in which Nixon removed Special
Prosecutor Archibald Cox, Attorney General Elliot Richardson, and Deputy Attorney
General William Ruckleshaus.
8 One such set of jokes involved his regular references to Secretary of Agriculture Earl

Butz, who Carson regularly called Earl the Pearl (McMahon 2005). One mention in par-
ticular referenced a comment Butz made when asked what he thought about the Pope’s
latest comments about birth control. Butz responded to reporters by saying (in an Italian
accent): “He no playa the game, he no maka the rules.” Carson only had to repeat the
comment verbatim to get a laugh during his monologue.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
THE GUEST HALL IN A
CHINESE HOUSE,
WAN HSIEN, SZE CHUAN.

Every good house has its guest hall, and every invited guest knows
his place in it. A Chinaman is wretched in a foreign house because
he does not know his place in it. Etiquette prescribes everything in
China, and no matter who or what the visitor may be, he knows
which chair to take. No matter who may be present, he is never
disturbed or distressed; and when tea or pipes are introduced he
enjoys them as though he were in his own house, and both host and
visitor are perfectly at their ease.
 THE GUEST HALL IN A
CHINESE HOUSE,
WAN HSIEN, SZE CHUAN
A CHINESE VILLAGE

On the Min or Fu River, above the point where it runs into the Upper
Yangtze. The black-and-white architecture of the villages reminds
one constantly of Switzerland and the Tyrol. As to the village, it is by
no means lacking in organisation. Every village consists of a group
or groups of families with their head men, and over the head men
are the district magistrates. The family is the centre of everything.
The members are bound together by the strongest ties, and the
family is responsible for the individual. The people have quite a
genius for self-government, and every village is self-governing,
having its privileges, which no one dare interfere with.
A CHINESE VILLAGE
A FARMHOUSE IN
THE HAKKA COUNTRY,
SOUTHERN CHINA.

An illustration of the Patriarchal system. When a son marries and

brings home his wife, he literally brings her home—that is, to his
father’s house; but a new gable is added to those in existence, and
the house increased for the accommodation of the new family, a
custom which has its counterpart in Italy and other parts of Europe
to-day.
 A FARMHOUSE IN
THE HAKKA COUNTRY,
SOUTHERN CHINA
A MARKET PLACE
OR MARKET STREET
IN SZE CHUAN.

All through the Empire province of Sze Chuan, the western

province of the Yangtze Basin, markets are held in the market street,
specially reserved for the purpose. On market days the street is
crowded by thousands of people, the tea and other shops are
overflowing, and the noise and shouts of the bargainers are
deafening. The shops are generally owned by farmers in the
neighbourhood, who let them for the use of merchants on market
day. On other than market days they are like deserted villages. No
one is to be seen but the caretaker and his family, who are shown in
the photograph with the inevitable dog and pig and buffalo. The
building on the right is a temple.
 A MARKET PLACE
OR MARKET STREET
IN SZE CHUAN
THE COBBLER.

A very important personage in China. He deals, however, with

men’s shoes only. The women wear tiny satin or brocaded things
which they mostly make and mend themselves. They are from two to
three inches long, and with hard-working women in the fields the feet
never extend four inches. The Chinese practice of binding the feet of
girls is very old. It is, of course, only a fashion, but it has the sanction
of great antiquity. A girl with her feet the normal shape would stand
no chance of getting married. The binding process begins very early
—between four and five generally, though sometimes it is postponed
to a later date, when the process is much more painful. The four toes
are doubled under the foot, and the large toe folded on the top.
When bound together a sort of club-foot or hoof results, but the
women manage to walk in spite of their deformity. To a western eye,
the movement resembles a waddle rather than a walk.
THE COBBLER
CARRYING LIQUID
MANURE
TO THE FIELDS,

In the great fertile plain of Sze Chuan, where four crops a year are
taken off the ground, this is an enormous industry. The Chinese
cannot afford any waste; everything must go back to the ground. We
seek to get over the deterioration of the land by changing the crops.
In China the same crops have been grown on the land for a
thousand years, and it shows no signs of deterioration.
CARRYING LIQUID
MANURE
TO THE FIELDS.

Photo: G. S. Haya.