Here's a nice piece over on Salon about Al Franken and the possibility that he will run for a Senate seat in Minnesota in the not-too-distant future. Of note is this quote from Jesse Ventura…
The moment [Franken] declares his candidacy, he has to go off the radio. He has to look forward to having his entire past exposed. He'd better come clean and be honest with it. If he's done drugs in the past, he better be honest about that. He better be honest about things he did at Harvard, if he has anything in the closet.
You know, I wonder how much stuff like that matters anymore. I mean, certainly "things in the past" get used by your opposition to try and convince people that you're a bad, immoral person. But how much did reports of past drug use and orgying hurt Arnold Schwarzenegger? How much did rumors of past cocaine use and dirty business dealings hurt George W. Bush? It's been a long time since Ted Kennedy had any trouble getting re-elected. And if Bill Clinton were to ever run for Mayor or Governor of New York, he'd win in a walk. For that matter, Jesse Ventura managed to get into office without being faulted for past steroid use and his violent past and all the lying and fakery that's involved in professional wrestling.
I'm wondering if the Conventional Wisdom isn't coming down to this: If you have a history of questionable deeds, a certain group will yell a lot about them and argue that it disqualifies you from public service…but those are people who weren't going to vote for you, anyway. Another group, who've decided to vote for you if for no other reason than your party affiliation, might not like what you've done but they'll decide it doesn't matter. (I am talking here of misdeeds that can be said to be truly in the past and largely victimless, like sexual escapades or drug use. I don't mean something like you killed a guy…) Given the choice of two, wouldn't you rather vote for the reformed drug addict and male hustler who shares your views, as opposed to the clean-cut ex-minister who wants to make everything you like illegal?
That leaves the middle…the otherwise undecided. Bringing up your sordid past might sway a few votes but does it make a huge difference to voters? I suppose in some parts of the country, some past deeds would matter a lot, but I sense the trend is moving towards people not caring. Arnold carried some pretty Conservative/Pat Boone districts of California. I think in some cases, it's a matter of us being so cynical that we presume everyone on our ballots has something shameful they're concealing. If it comes out that the candidate sold drugs to school kids and was sexually involved with a sheep, we say, "Well, that's not so bad…unless, of course, the sheep was a minor."
Two other things about the Salon article. One is that in it, he tells a joke that Buddy Hackett told him. It's the exact same joke that Buddy told me once at a party and which I quoted in this piece. Buddy sure got a lot of mileage out of that joke.
And the other thing is that it's on Salon. If you don't subscribe, they make your purchase a day pass or sit through tons of ads or trim someone's hedges or…well, I don't know what they make you do to read articles there. I subscribe. There's lots of great free stuff to read on the Internet but I still feel Salon is well worth the bucks.