A Sleaze Overdose

LIKE "SLIME" and "grime," "sleaze" contains the sound of its meaning. Like "grease" and "squeeze," it's suggestive--onomatopoetic. Moreover, all of these are linked in another way--they have all come to have a political meaning.

Sleaze. Its derivation to this day remains uncertain, but the word is still a good one. According to Webster's dictionary, it is something that "wants firmness or texture of substance; flimsy." Mr. Webster, however, was obviously not a politician. "Sleaze" may mean "flimsy." but it also connotes crime: "illegal sleaze." for example, was used to describe a senator using government funds to buy his wife a trash compactor.

There's a second type of infraction: a not-so-greedy, behind-the-scenes type, which although legal is the product of the manipulation of rules. We can call this shady private practice, which doesn't involve public office, "legal sleaze."

Sleaze. It's a complex term and its meaning can be stretched a long way. But the differences are clear enough. Illegal sleaze is a direct assault on the public trust, while legal sleaze raises questions about whether a person merits that trust.

The best part of American political sleaze, however, is its bipartisan nature: Johnson or Nixon, Kennedy or Reagan--there always seems to be plenty of sleaze.

As the Ferraro/Zaccaro finance fiasco fades into the backround, it is clear that there is no illegal sleeze here. In fact, throughout the entire ordeal, illegal sleaziness was rarely, if ever, mentioned. But there is no denying that visions of such accusations were at least thought about. Legal sleaze, on the other hand, was suspected in some of Mr. Zaccaro's business affairs, in particular when he borrowed money from an estate as its executor. However, any possibility of guilt was neatly cleared away when a court order forced him to repay the money, and when he was removed as executor of the estate. The long-range result, however, was that the campaign stood still for two weeks for a prolonged and ultimately unincriminating scrutiny of the Zaccaro finances.

Although Zaccaro is not running for office, is it possible that he is guilty of legal sleaze? Can his wife be sleazified by "sleaze through association?" Is there sleaze in everyone's closet?

FOR WEEKS these questions took the place of a political campaign while the issues took the back seat. Because of Ferraro's political prominence, the affair cost the Zaccaros personally several hundred thousand dollars and is reported to have had a negative effect on their real estate business. Not surprisingly, businessmen who refuse to bear such scrutiny are being deterred from entering government service. Finding a successful businessman who has never "stretched" a bit on a tax form could keep one busy until the next election.

This point aside, it has become quite evident that the so-called "sleaze factor" has become the media's prime preoccupation in covering American politics, and more specifically in following political campaigns.

The Ferraro case provides a fine example. After two weeks of sometimes embarrassing, and more often confusing, haggling between Ferraro and the press, the Vice Presidential candidate finally put the issue to rest at a 90-minute press conference. More important, the conference had the effect of leaving the public to ponder whether suspicions of corruption had been aroused primarily by a sleaze-mongering press.

When it was all over, a New York Times editorial concluded that "nothing now known casts any doubt whatever on Mrs. Ferraro's capability to serve the nation as Vice President." The nation must still judge whether she is capable of doing the job, but she has proven she is not a crook. What is unfortunate is that we may never get a clear picture of of her political capabilities--the crucial issue for a potential leader--because the campaign has focused so sharply on the financial sideshow.

A question the press should concern itself with is whether even the suspicion of sleaze should be thrust into the spotlight, given the near impossibility of removing the taint of allegations. Reputations take years to build and minutes to destroy.

If vigilance is the cornerstone of democracy, then the press has certainly inherited the role of vigilante-but it mustn't confuse its mission. It has become masterful at uncovering sleaze, but unfortunately it appears to think it has carte blanche. Surely the public deserves to know which of its national leaders is corrupt, if there is evidence to show it. But it must also be remembered that muckraking makes great headlines and sells lots of newspapers. And this has too often become the primary concern of the would-be sleazebusters and their bosses.

There are headlines to be made. But the press should look a bit deeper than tax returns if it wants to find the real sleaze.