Substance Vs. Sex

The country was mired in deep economic gloom, and neither the president nor any of his challengers seemed up to the task. The leading Democratic candidate was a governor with a promising but modest national reputation, derided by influential columnists as a playboy. Sometime earlier, when his marriage foundered, he had started an extramarital affair with his wife's social secretary. But fortunately the year was 1932, not 1992, the affair stayed secret and Franklin Delano Roosevelt went on to be elected president.

The case of Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton is obviously not identical to that of Roosevelt, or Dwight Eisenhower, or John F. Kennedy or any of the many other American presidents who have been reported to have engaged in extramarital affairs. It differs by circumstance and level of substantiation (the presidents' infidelities are better documented than Clinton's). But the biggest difference is simply that none of the others is running for president today. Sally Hemings, alleged to be Thomas Jefferson's black mistress, was never booked to appear on the "Sally Jessy Raphael" show. Grover Cleveland, whose 1884 campaign survived his confession of having fathered an illegitimate child, never had to answer intimate questions from "60 Minutes" in front of millions of beer-sogged viewers.

Once again last week, anyone turning on the TV felt like a voyeur. The Star, a supermarket tabloid with a reputation for sleaze, paid tens of thousands of dollars to a cabaret singer named Gennifer Flowers in exchange for her claim that she had a torrid 12-year affair with Clinton, who until now has been the odds-on favorite for the Democratic nomination. The article is riddled with demonstrable inaccuracies, and both Clinton and his wife, Hillary, denounced it. But the central charge-that audiotapes indicate Clinton did have an affair of some kind with Flowers-nonetheless kicked off another of those now classic media sex carnivals, with Clinton as a more compromised Clarence Thomas and Flowers as a less credible Anita Hill. Or is it Patricia Bowman? The social-sexual TV iconography grows confusing, as Topic A across the country moves from harassment to date rape to the inner sanctums of a political marriage.

When the Clintons' defense rests, the press itself will inevitably be forced into the dock, where it will be subjected to withering cross-examination from the public. "I suspect the institution of the fourth estate is in more peril than Bill Clinton," says Mike McCurry, an aide to Sen. Bob Kerrey.

Instead of waiting for credible evidence of whether the audiotapes trumpeted by the Star were in fact incriminating, the mainstream press-first gingerly, then eagerly-leaped into the fray. The stories were justified on the ground that the entire political and media world was paralyzed by this bombshell. That was true enough; the whole stinking mess could hardly be ignored. But the fact remained that nearly every self-respecting news organization in America was having its chain yanked by a publication whose cover headline the previous week was ROSEANNE LOSES 40 POUNDS ON NEW DIET-AND SO CAN YOU.

And to think that this was shaping up as the Year of Substance. Much of the early success of Clinton's campaign has derived from his specifics on issues, which impressed both the press and party activists around the country. This is not just a ploy for policy wonks. Most voters can't be bothered with details, but the idea of substance has been selling big politically at a time when people are desperate for some real answers to the nation's seemingly endless list of problems. The new political boast in New Hampshire is, my position paper is longer than your position paper. Injust two weeks the Clinton campaign has already received more than 200,000 requests for "A Plan for America's Future," his booklet of policy proposals. Against all expectations, Paul Tsongas is also running strong in New Hampshire, and Tsongas says it's because he and Clinton are the only ones laying out a road map for the future. "Those who aren't doing as well as expected [meaning Kerrey, Jerry Brown, Tom Harkin] are less substantive," Tsongas says. The joke in New Hampshire, his press secretary adds, is that when you offer a 20-point plan on an issue, someone always stands up and asks you for the 21st point.

How much does that "substance" weigh against traditional definitions of "character"? Because his depth on the issues helped make him the front runner, Clinton has become the symbol of substance as a reason to vote for someone for president. But now he is also the symbol of sex as a reason not to vote for someone. In that sense, the role played by the people of New Hampshire is even more vital than usual this year. They are selecting not just a president, but the context into which future presidential campaigns will fit. If Clinton tumbles from first in the polls and finishes third or fourth in the Feb. 18 primary, then it will be clear that the extramarital-sex issue is just as crippling as so many assume. On the other hand, if he survives, and voters see his past marital problems as just one of many matters to consider in making a choice, then perhaps obsession with the adultery question will lessen in the future.

Notions of character and morality are not quite as fixed in American politics as they might seem. Divorce was seen as a political career killer-until Ronald Reagan came along. Lying is also a slippery area. It's more acceptable in policy-for instance, Reagan's claim that he wasn't trading arms for hostages-than in more personal matters. No matter how well he handles the issue on TV, if Clinton is found to have lied about the double life that Flowers alleges, he's in big trouble.

What's working in Clinton's favor-and could possibly inoculate him against such charges for the rest of the campaign-is that these stories arose in the tabloids. The man who brought the lawsuit that sparked them, Larry Nichols, admits he has no direct evidence. "I may have misconstrued what was going on. If I did, I owe America an apology," Nichols said shortly before dropping the lawsuit. Gennifer Flowers also has credibility problems. Among them:

Flowers says she met Clinton when covering a political story for KARK-TV, a Little Rock station where she says she worked for two years. But a KARK spokesman says Flowers covered only fluff stories, not politics and not Clinton. Records indicate she worked there less than one year.

Flowers claims she met Clinton at the Excelsior Hotel in 1979 or 1980. The hotel didn't open until late 1982.

Flowers claims Clinton called her on Dec. 11, 1991, and told her to call him after 11 p.m. at the Governor's Mansion. But records show that Clinton was campaigning in Chicago and Florida that day and spent the night in Washington.

Flowers claims to have been part of an opening act for Roy Clark's band and to have joined the band's U.S. and European tours. But her own booking agent says she exaggerated her role.

Flowers claims in Arkansas newspaper profiles to have worked on the TV show "Hee Haw" as one of the cleavage-baring "Hee Haw" girls. But a "Hee Haw" spokesman says she wasn't on the show.

Flowers claims to have taken 50 hours of classes at the University of Arkansas. There is no record of her having attended the school.

Flowers claims to have been Miss Teen-Age America, 1967. She wasn't--that year, or any other.

Clinton must do more than refute one tabloid story (and the others that are likely to emerge). In vowing that he has overcome past marital troubles, he may have humanized himself and won points for upholding the institution of marriage. But his past behavior also undermines the message of "personal responsibility" that has been an appealing part of his campaign. In that sense, sex and substance can never really be separated. But private life is only one issue, and should rarely be the main one. Whatever happens to the Clintons, the state of their union isn't more important than the state of the union, the America beyond the bedroom.