Till cant cease, nothing else can begin.
—Thomas Carlyle
There are moments in American life when events lurch out of context, when the public is hurtled from dim awareness of a seemingly trivial news item into a maelstrom of moral reappraisal. That appears to be happening in the affair that the Washington press corps has predictably dubbed "Debategate."
The story first arose as a footnote to history: a terse report that a "briefing book" drawn up to help President Carter prepare for his 1980 campaign debate with Ronald Reagan found its way to Reagan's staff and was used to coach the Republican challenger. Journalists, who might well have disregarded the discovery as of scant consequence during the period when the new President was taking office, perceived high drama when the story surfaced in June. Washington was nearing the dog days of summer, and another campaign was beginning.
In the still, humid air of a capital without much news, reporters sniffed the sweet scent of skulduggery. At first a novelty item, the story grew into a revelation and took on a vitality almost irrespective of its merits.
It turned out that the Reagan team had acquired other Carter papers of unknown significance. Then the atmosphere turned ugly. Aides to the President contradicted one another. Reagan was hammered at a press conference because he would not condemn an event that he sincerely if unwisely labeled "much ado about nothing." As criticism of his ethical fumbling mounted, the President sensibly yielded to demands that his private campaign records be handed over to investigators from the FBI. Zealous accusers exulted that they might have unearthed another Watergate.
A few journalists and other political observers have tried to restore some sense of proportion to the affair. Columnist David Broder of the Washington Post, whose newspaper has been among the most heated in pursuit, last week deplored the unthinking usage of the suffix "gate" for matters that in no way echo the vast moral subversion of the Nixon era. Wrote Broder: "The mischief in labeling is that it sometimes distorts reality. On the basis of what is known now, not only is this not another Watergate, it is almost exactly the opposite." Reagan aides have talked to reporters. The President has ordered full cooperation with investigators. And he has pledged to dismiss anyone proved guilty of wrongdoing. Nothing could be further from stonewalling.
To be sure, a genuine scandal may yet emerge to justify reporters' persistence. Troublesome accusations are being made: that White House documents with national security classifications, not just campaign papers, may have been involved; that they may have been obtained by illegal or inappropriate means; that the Reagan campaigners may have got information from employees of the FBI and CIA (see NATION). Still, no specific claim of a crime has been lodged against the Reagan campaign, let alone proved. On the known facts, at least some of the ballyhooing of the briefing book caper looks less like vigilance in defense of liberty than like a case study in sanctimony.