Katherine Stewart, Below Reproach: Scandalogy in the Postmodern Presidency

Defining Scandal
"In order to determine scandal’s impact on the presidential institution, it is first necessary to differentiate scandal from corruption. Corruption is the “abuse of a public role or trust for the sake of some private benefit.” (2) In other words, corruption occurs when a public official uses her office to violate some law or code of conduct for private gain. Moreover, corruption occurs regardless of whether it is eventually exposed. One reason scandal definitions are so problematic is that they can change the entire nature of the theory. Larry Sabato and Glenn Simpson assert that major scandals— megascandals—are rare and happen only about once every fifty years. But their definition is faulty. It shifts from graft to corruption to scandal and is vaguely defined. The authors admit they look broadly at corruption, defining it as a “significant impairment of integrity in the conduct of public affairs, or unlawful or unethical wrongdoing in the course of campaigning or governing.” (3) There are two problems with this definition. First, this definition is too broad for corruption, which requires private benefit. It is so expansive it includes anything that impairs the integrity of public affairs or campaign misdeeds. This definition would include a fringe candidate who never held public office who forged their petition. This is hardly a megascandal, and really has no impact on the institutions. Second, this definition is too narrow. It does not include Iran-Contra because it dealt with foreign policy. More than anything, graft, corruption and scandal are not interchangeable terms, and the authors use them so. Unlike corruption, scandal does not require private benefit or the use of one’s public role. Instead, scandal involves the transformation of the potentially scandalous into the perceived scandalous. It is, in the words of Anthony King, the “eruption of the private realm into the public.” (4) This transformation potential scandal to perceived scandal requires the existence of two 3 key factors: morality and exposure. The moral element involves the violation of community norms. (5) In other words, the behavior fails to conform to a normative standard of conduct, thus exceeding the boundaries of what is thought acceptable by society. Scandal by definition also requires exposure. Here, the media plays a crucial role in disclosing the scandal to the public, making it clear that wrongdoing has occurred. (6) The “fourth estate” can also take on an active role and frame the scandal or initiate it via investigations. Thus, scandal is simply exposure of a politician’s actual or perceived misdeeds. These actions needs not be illegal, nor must they be proved conclusively to have occurred. A failed scandal can circulate as rumor and innuendo, but requires some legitimate offer of proof and general exposure before it rises to the level of scandal. Scandal, therefore, combines morality with exposure. Theodore Lowi concurs with this definition, stating that “Scandal is corruption revealed. Scandal is breach of virtue exposed.” (7) 

Why Scandalogy (8) is Important
Scandals are a permanent legacy to future presidents. They restructure the presidential institution. The unique dynamics of a presidential scandal can tell us a lot about the transformation of the institution in general. John Logue posits that scandals “can be used as a tool to understand the institutional configurations that permit it and the political cultures that tolerate it. Scandals are a recurring illness in the body politic.” (9) In the past forty years, scandals have come about in significantly new ways. Scandals were usually the inevitable result of corruption or misdeeds revealed. Now, they are often the result of concerted, well-financed efforts by opposition parties to attack a president. Therefore, they emerge after a period of intense partisan conflict. Thus, the two requirements for scandal are a free press—to ensure exposure—and competitive political parties". [source]