Shameless

Bill Clinton taught me an important lesson.  This occurred during the Monica Lewinski scandal.  Even after the stained dress came to light, our president insisted that he had not had sex with “that woman.”  What was more impactful, however, was the way that he said it.

Clinton went before the American people without a shred of shame.  Whereas most men would have been embarrassed to have been caught with their pants down in the oval office, he acted as if nothing untoward had happened.  Monica might have been an intern and he the president, but what was the problem?

Contrast this with Richard Nixon.  Once the tapes began trickling out, he went before the public to declare that he was not a crook.  This didn’t work, in large part, because Nixon looked as if he had done something unethical.  Unlike Clinton, who would laugh things off, Nixon could not hide his discomfort.

What lesson does this impart?  It is this.  People conclude that someone has done something shameful not just from the act, but from the way that he (or she) responds to exposure.  If a person does not appear to be ashamed, that is, is shameless, it is generally assumed that there must have been nothing to be humiliated about.

Most people, when caught in a lie, become red-faced.  They begin stumbling over their words and would like nothing better than to disappear from sight.  The shameless, in comparison, are bold.  They greet ridicule and skepticism with confidence—and even humor.

Barack Obama is a master of this tactic.  Hence when he was embroiled in the IRS scandal, he did not run away or become flustered.  Instead he brazenly told the public that there was not a smidgeon of corruption—and then he chuckled.  Nor, when he lied about ObamaCare, did he feel compelled to apologize for his deceit.

So well does this strategy work that it has become an integral part of contemporary politics.  Now that we are in the middle of the political silly season, shamelessness has become as common as cold weather in winter.  Candidates on both sides of the aisle are obviously addicted to it.

Consider Hillary Clinton.  She learned her trade at the foot of a master.  Hence when she is asked about her server or the top secret e-mails that she sent or received, she insists that she is one hundred percent sure that she will not be indicted.  And then she gives her patented horse whinny.

The trouble is that although she is shameless, she is not effortlessly so.  Altogether too loud and adamant, she does not sound innocent.  Nor, with her face thrust forward in a feminine imitation of General Patton, does she look innocent.

Donald Trump is much better at this sort of audacity.  For example, he can stand before an audience and boast about having gone into bankruptcy four times.  Not once does he allude to the people who lost their jobs or the creditors who were cheated.  These fiascoes are all about him and how he came out with his fortune intact.

Nor did having lost in Iowa embarrass him.  Despite his initial modesty, he quickly reverted to form and insisted that he had won after all.  Clearly, the Donald is never a loser—even when he loses.  Indeed, if need be he will cover up a defeat with vulgarity.

Of course, Trump is not alone.  Cruz, Christie, and Bush have all been caught in whoppers that they pretend are truths.  While some of these are more brazen than others, nowadays political expediency evidently demands a large measure of shamelessness.

So who is at fault?  Although the politicians are obviously not choirboys, the real guilt—dear Brutus—lies with us.  If we, the American public, cannot see through this lack of integrity, we will continue to get what we deserve.  If we allow ourselves to be fooled, wouldn’t some of the candidates be fools not to try to deceive us?

Who then should be feeling shame?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University