The history of politics is rife with scandal. Whether it be sex, drugs, or even just embarrassing revelations about one’s inner circle, politicians are regularly accused of misconduct. But the fact that a scandal occurs does not necessarily indicate a politician’s misbehavior. Scandals are merely a proxy for grievances and often reflect the extent to which partisanship polarizes the political environment. This is the key insight from a sobering paper by Dziuda and Howell.
Whether it is the bribes that fueled the Gilded Age, the Watergate break-ins that led to Nixon’s resignation, or the Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920s, corrupt behavior undermines public confidence in government and leads to a loss of public goods. The people suffer as they are deprived of things like education, infrastructure, and health care. In the long run, the corruption warps policy and the economy.
The authors offer an explanation for why political scandals happen: namely, a politician’s aligned party has an incentive to shield the politician from allegations of misconduct and the opposing party has an incentive to raise them. The result is a he said-she said cycle where the voters learn little about politicians’ true nature. And the politicians suffer little to no punishment as they know their party will always have their backs. In this climate of polarization, scandals become more frequent and less informative about a politician’s behavior.