How Obama is riding out the Democratic storm of scandals
From Tom Daschle’s taxes, to Charlie Rangel’s apartments, to Rod Blagojevich’s hair, scandals have recently shaken the Democratic Party. Yet polls show that President Obama and the Democratic brand remain relatively untarnished by this long train of embarrassments. His widespread pre-existing popularity has certainly helped Obama limit the fallout from his colleagues’ transgressions, for scandals are much more likely to stick to a party on the rocks. But Obama has not just relied on his own popularity to weather the recent string of scandals. Certain types of scandals, particularly those involving public-trust violations and those with incredibly bad timing, may not allow for such a strategy. Obama and the Democrats have recognized this and have made aggressive efforts to isolate the scandal-makers and contain the damage.
Insulated by Popularity
The importance of Obama’s popularity is not to be underestimated, of course. A high-profile scandal can deal a knockout blow to an unpopular political party. Days before the 2006 midterm elections, with the Republican brand already tarnished by Jack Abramoff and Scooter Libby, former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) was exposed for sending explicit messages to underage Senate pages. These scandals, mixed with President Bush’s low approval ratings, created a disastrous climate for congressional Republicans. As former Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.), a fellow at the Institute of Politics, told the HPR, “When Abramoff hit, President Bush’s approval rating was a little above 20 percent. This just makes it easier for scandals to stick.”
On the other hand, Bill Clinton remained broadly popular throughout the Lewinsky scandal, and, according to Ramstad, “he still would have been reelected if he could have run again.” So, context does matter. Scandals hit the already unpopular far harder than they do the well liked.
Timing is Everything
But even Obama, with his high favorability ratings, did not attempt to weather the controversy over Tom Daschle’s unpaid income taxes. Maralee Schwartz, former political editor of the Washington Post, told the HPR that Daschle’s withdrawal of his nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services highlights the effects of bad timing. Coming on the heels of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s own tax issues, and in the midst of a recession that has made the public more sensitive to the excesses of the very wealthy, Daschle’s confirmation would have cost a good deal of time, energy, and political capital, even if ultimately successful. Daschle and Obama were sharp to recognize this and they astutely decided to back away from a high-publicity fight.
But timing can also work in a scandal-ridden politician’s favor. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), who is currently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, might have been saved, or at least maintained, by good timing. Rangel’s alleged ethics violations began to surface in July 2008, and the revelations continued throughout the fall. Conveniently for the Congressman, the media and the public were preoccupied with the presidential campaign. As Schwartz told the HPR, “If it isn’t in the middle of the things people care about at the time, scandals aren’t as likely to have much sticking power.”
Violations of Trust
Not even pre-existing popularity or good timing could have saved former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who is accused of trying to sell Obama’s vacant Senate seat. In the end, Schwartz said, “the American people hate feeling like they’re being taken advantage of.” When someone like Blagojevich comes along, the only proper political response is to immediately treat that person, and all who remain loyal to him, as politically toxic. Democrats executed this maneuver very effectively in the days after the scandal broke. They immediately isolated Blagojevich and initially refused to seat his Senate appointee, Roland Burris. Eventually, Democrats realized that a drawn-out fight over the appointment might generate even more negative publicity, but Burris continues to be plagued by allegations of impropriety and his Democratic colleagues show no signs of mounting any defense of him.
This response is a sharp contrast to that of the 2006 Republicans, who failed to quickly distance themselves from Foley and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas). The Democrats have clearly learned from their counterparts’ mistakes and have dealt with their own recent corruption scandals very successfully.
