When news broke about Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s long-running affair with a Spanish language television reporter, my first thought aside from the fact that it was a tragedy for his children and a true bummer for the soon-to-be ex-wife was that it didn’t much matter to the rest of us. How Villaraigosa wrecks up his personal life shouldn’t greatly affect his public duty.
I was wrong. These things just don’t play out like they did a few years ago.
I miscalculated the intensity of today’s press obsession with such affairs (excuse the pun). Oh sure, the days are long dead when, for example, John F. Kennedy’s serial dalliances were known by reporters but went unreported. But I thought we were still in the era when such matters get reported and then are summarily dropped, unless state secrets got compromised.
Instead, in recent years we entered the next era, a time in which the Paris-ification of personal matters apparently compels reporters to shout impertinent questions (“Is she pregnant?”) at press conferences about potholes. And it apparently requires pundits to probe the psychology of a woman who would date a series of politicians.
Not only are such questions more pointed, but they’re relentless and persistent. In other words, this won’t be dropped in a gentlemanly fashion. In the past, we would have been shrugging off Villaraigosa’s misstep at this point in the news cycle and moving on to our next obsession; instead, we’re being reminded about Villaraigosa’s 1994 affair when his wife was battling cancer, and about his two children out of wedlock.
The danger for Villaraigosa is that this intensity doesn’t allow the public time to go into the forgive-and-forget stage. We are forced to consider again and again whether his judgment is poor and whether his chronic personal blunders are a symptom of some psychological flaw. The more we’re forced to think about such matters, the more likely we’ll grow weary and then angry and less forgiving. As that happens, we’ll be more likely to question Villaraigosa’s judgment at every turn.
(Evidence that Villaraigosa’s judgment is poor was demonstrated when he said his girlfriend was a “consummate journalistic professional.” Of course, professional journalists even those who aren’t exactly consummate don’t sleep with their sources and then report on them. Although those who do sleep with sources probably do get better stories.)
If Los Angeles had a strong-mayor form of government, it would matter less how the public regarded him. He could bury himself in the tasks of governing. If he could get things done in what used to be the smoke-filled back room, he could still be quite effective.
However, Los Angeles has a weak-mayor form of government. As such, the main role of the mayor is to be a leader. He is supposed to be a salesman, a lobbyist, a conciliator and a spokesman. He’s the city’s public face, its defender and its chief advocate. As such, to be effective, he must have what’s come to be called gravitas he must be honorable and have clear judgment. We need to believe him and trust him.
He may have lost a lot of all that. More in his audience will now be less inclined to listen to him and rally ’round his cause. Instead, more will snicker and challenge his judgment.
His personal missteps will be costly. Not only to his career, but to the city as well.
Charles Crumpley is editor of the Business Journal. He can be reached at
[email protected]
.
