Now that the dust has settled on the Zoe Baird affair we can ask what lessons did we learn? Was it that right prevails over wrong?
I'm a bit more cynical. I learned that a certain class of people view adherence to the law completely differently from the rest of us. I was struck by the number of prominent folks, including media personalities and pundits, who didn't lift an eyebrow over Zoe Baird illegally employing a Peruvian couple to tend to her child care and domestic needs.
Prominent seems to be the key word, especially for those inside the beltway. It's as if there's a club where all the beautiful people are members and they come to each other’s aid in times of attack, regardless of whether the accused is a card-carrying democrat or republican, liberal or conservative.
Consider the political pundits who appear on the TV talk show, The McLaughlin Group. I was anxiously awaiting their eating crow this past Saturday because they all agreed on the previous week's show that, unless something new came out about Zoe Baird, she would be confirmed as Attorney General. They had minimized her knowingly breaking the law by hiring illegal aliens and failing to pay social security taxes. This was going to be interesting to see, I said to myself.
Imagine my surprise when the "Group," except for Eleanor Clift, blithely admitted that they had misjudged the public's reaction to Baird's transgression but had continued to minimize her action. One member likened it to jaywalking.
To steal from the Clarence Thomas affair: They just don't get it!
If the prominent ones among us would place themselves in the shoes of everyday citizens, perhaps they would come to a different conclusion. The basis for disqualifying Baird is so clear that it is startling that so many don't see it. If nothing else, at the most basic level, the issue is and should be about symbols.
Someone involved in a defense contractor scandal should not serve as Secretary of Defense. Someone who hasn't filed income tax returns should not be your next Commissioner of Internal Revenue. And someone who has admitted food stamp fraud should not be the Secretary of Agriculture and proceed to administer the very laws that she or he broke.
++++
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M.Ed.
Approximately 380 words.
© 1993