GOVERNOR CLINTON’S candidacynfor President, plagued as it’s beennby charges of marital infidelity and draftnevasion, has brought to the fore oncenagain the question of whether personalncharacter is relevant to fitness for publicnoffice. There are those to whom it isnobvious that private behavior is relevantnto public office. Others contend thatnpublic officials should be measured byntheir public acts and their private lives leftnalone. The latter position may have hadnsome validity in older and better days ofnthe Republic, when private life and publicnaffairs were distinct spheres of life.nThe fact that the bachelor Grover Clevelandnhad possibly, as a young man,nfathered an illegitimate child did notnaffect his capacity to execute the dutiesnof Chief Magistrate of the Union, becausenhe did not aspire to be anything morenthan a chief magistrate. That is, hensought nothing more than to execute thenlaws in keeping with his office, just as henhad done as sheriff of Buffalo, wherenhis duties had included that of hangman,nand as governor of New York.nBut the case is very different now,nbecause the separation of state and societynhas completely broken down. Whennthe state has its hand in our pocket, tellsnus with whom we may associate, threat-n• ens to regulate our spiritual life, and generallynsuperintends us from cradle tongrave, the private virtues of public officials,nor lack thereof, become significantnto us. This is especially true of thosenwho put themselves forward upon a politicsnof moralism. Martin Luther King’snlying and lechery might not invalidate hisnpublic position, but when his public positionnrests upon his role as a religiousnand moral leader whose chief business isnto break down the barrier between privatenmorality and public policy, then it doesnindeed become highly relevant. No onenis entitled to be a saint until they havenbeen examined by the devil’s advocate.nImagine the misery the Republic wouldnhave been spared if the private defects ofncharacter of John Kennedy and LyndonnJohnson had been widely known. Certainlynneither would have been electednhad the public been aware of what isnreadily known now. We have had, sincenKennedy, a politics in which public figuresnhave tried to carry the day by thenglamour of high moral purpose—^in whichnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSncase private character becomes extremelynrelevant. Since the Kennedys havenprospered largely through celebrationnof their glamour and virtues, we are entitlednto know the other side of the story.nThink what would have been saved to thenTreasury if the people had known innadvance about Senator Cranston’s methodsnof campaign finance. But, of course,nour great crusading media hid all thesenthings from us, not considering them relevant.nImagine the barrage of sensationalismnwe would have received if poornNixon, or Goldwater, or George Wallacenhad been guilty of 1 percent of the privatenmalfeasance of Kennedy or Johnson.nWe can always count on the media tonpursue their own agenda. Which is whynwe have seen a sudden rehabilitationnof Dan Quayle, as the media have realizednhis usefulness in putting down a reallyn”dangerous conservative like PatnBuchanan.nIn the meantime, we must insist thatnwe have complete information aboutnthose who put themselves forward fornpublic trusts. We want to know if our.nsurgeon drinks or is a homosexual, ifnSERIES OF Sm$nSm OF RECONCmNGnnnMAY 1992/5n