Toward a Unified Theory of Scandal-Naming

We need to update our scandal lexicology: Is it a -Gate or a -Ghazi?

Weeds and trash around the rear entrance to the Watergate Hotel in Washington, DC, June 11, 2012.
National Journal
Alex Seitz-Wald
Jan. 15, 2014, 9:23 a.m.

THE WA­TER­GATE — Since a Wash­ing­ton hotel and of­fice com­plex lent its name to the most im­port­ant polit­ic­al crime in Amer­ic­an his­tory 40 years ago, “Wa­ter­gate” has be­come syn­onym­ous with scan­dal. The suf­fix “-gate” has been af­fixed to dozens of scan­dals large and small (and very small), from Cli­mateg­ate, which rolled back dec­ades of pub­lic-trust-build­ing on the sci­ence of glob­al warm­ing, to Nip­pleg­ate, the in­fam­ous Su­per Bowl “ward­robe mal­func­tion,” to Fajit­ag­ate, an in­cid­ent in­volving three off-duty San Fran­cisco po­lice of­ficers and a bag of steak fajitas that led to the top­pling of two po­lice chiefs.

And “-gate” long ago es­caped the bounds of Amer­ic­an polit­ics and the Eng­lish lan­guage. Column-inch-lim­ited head­line writers in Ar­gen­tina, Azerbaijan, Canada, Fin­land, Ger­many, Italy, Mex­ico, Po­land, South Africa, and es­pe­cially the UK have all im­por­ted “-gate” for their own homegrown scan­dals. Many in­volve sports. Some in­volve bo­lognese sauce: The Montreal res­taur­ant com­munity was rocked last year by Pas­tag­ate, when Québéc’s lan­guage en­for­cers warned an up­scale res­taur­ant to stop us­ing Itali­an words like “pasta” on its menu in­stead of the French equi­val­ent. Very few rise near the level of Wa­ter­gate.

We need a new term for these sub-gate scan­dals.

As Brit­ish so­cial sci­ent­ist James Stanyer has noted, “Rev­el­a­tions are giv­en the ‘gate’ suf­fix to add a thin veil of cred­ib­il­ity, fol­low­ing ‘Wa­ter­gate’, but most bear no re­semb­lance to the painstak­ing in­vest­ig­a­tion of that par­tic­u­lar piece of pres­id­en­tial cor­rup­tion.” (Dis­clos­ure: Na­tion­al Journ­al’s of­fices are loc­ated in the Wa­ter­gate com­plex, which, by the way, gets its name from the nearby mouth of the C&O Canal and/or a dis­con­tin­ued sum­mer con­cert series.)

In fact, this de­grad­a­tion of scan­dal may have been the point of “-gate’s” cre­ation. Former Nix­on speech­writer cum New York Times colum­nist Wil­li­am Safire was the first to de­tach “gate” from “wa­ter” as early as Septem­ber 1974, and he went on to coin many more “gates,” in­clud­ing some of the big­gies: Briefingate, Travel­gate, White­wa­ter­gate, among a dozen or so oth­ers.

As Columbia Journ­al­ism School’s Mi­chael Schud­son and oth­ers have ar­gued, Safire’s cor­nu­copia of “-gates” were an at­tempt to dis­tance him­self from Nix­on and min­im­ize Wa­ter­gate as just one of myri­ad quo­tidi­an bur­eau­crat­ic in­dis­cre­tions and silly tabloid scan­dals. Safire ba­sic­ally ad­mit­ted as much years later, say­ing his fa­vor­ite “-gates” were for minor scan­dals, like Double­billings­gate, which in­volved some con­tract­ors double-billing the gov­ern­ment.

Mean­while, it works the oth­er way around too. “Turn­ing a scan­dal in­to a ‘gate’ has of­ten been an ef­fort to use the emotive power of lan­guage for polit­ic­al ad­vant­age,” Schud­son ex­plains. This is ba­sic­ally Dar­rell Issa’s full-time job as chair­man of the House Over­sight Com­mit­tee — to hang a “-gate” on as much of the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion as pos­sible.

These cri­ti­cisms are noth­ing new. Journ­al­ists and lin­guists have con­demned the re­duc­tion­ism of “-gate” since at least the 1980s, and yet new scan­dals get gated all the time. It’s a con­veni­ent heur­ist­ic. “All you people com­plain­ing about the use of -gate as an all-pur­pose suf­fix for scan­dals have nev­er tried writ­ing a head­line, have you?” Politico Magazine Deputy Ed­it­or Blake Houn­shell tweeted this week. Safire him­self un­der­stood this: “The for­mu­la­tion with the -gate suf­fix is too use­ful to fade quickly,” he wrote in his polit­ic­al dic­tion­ary.

While it’d prob­ably be ideal to ban­ish “-gate” en­tirely from the journ­al­ist­ic lex­icon, that’s clearly not go­ing to hap­pen. So maybe the next best thing is to add a second (or even third) suf­fix for less­er scan­dals that don’t rise to “-gate” level im­broglio.

Of course, try­ing to de­term­ine what makes one scan­dal “real” and an­oth­er not is likely a fool’s er­rand in post­mod­ern Wash­ing­ton, where truth is mostly re­l­at­ive. Try­ing to value scan­dals on their mer­its leads to what might be called Scan­dal Math. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, once said that Benghazi was big­ger than if you put “Wa­ter­gate and Ir­an-Con­tra to­geth­er and mul­tiply it times maybe 10.” John Dean, Nix­on’s former White House coun­sel, mean­while, wrote a book al­leging that George W. Bush’s “secret pres­id­ency” was “worse than Wa­ter­gate.” These things are too re­l­at­ive and tricky to weigh fairly.

We need a more em­pir­ic­al cat­egor­iz­a­tion. For that, we can turn to Dart­mouth polit­ic­al sci­ent­ist Brendan Nyhan, who has one of the most widely cited the­or­ies on polit­ic­al scan­dals. In a nut­shell, he ar­gues that scan­dals are a co-pro­duc­tion of the me­dia and the op­pos­i­tion party, and only form when both are on board. No me­dia buy-in, no real scan­dal.

Take the scan­dal du jour, New Jer­sey Gov. Chris Christie’s clos­ing of toll lanes on the George Wash­ing­ton Bridge. At first, Demo­crats cared, but the na­tion­al me­dia did not. But when emails emerged last week show­ing clearly that Christie aides planned the traffic delays to ex­act polit­ic­al re­venge, the is­sue sud­denly be­came a “-gate,” with wall-to-wall press cov­er­age and the full aura of scan­dal.

So what would we call the con­tro­versy be­fore the emails leaked? We need something that has all the met­onym­ic value of “-gate,” but none of its con­nota­tion of vera­city. Something that tells read­ers, “Some people are try­ing to make this a scan­dal, but we’re not sure yet.”

There are count­less par­tis­an pseudo-scan­dals on both sides that could po­ten­tially lend their names, but one ob­vi­ous choice is Benghazi. It’s already be­ing widely com­pared to the bridge clos­ings both iron­ic­ally and not (see: Fox News, Karl Rove, Re­pub­lic­ans), with many dub­bing the Christie con­tro­versy Bridgeghazi.

The 2012 ter­ror­ist at­tack on the U.S. dip­lo­mat­ic post in Libya was a tragedy, but a year and half of in­tens­ive con­gres­sion­al, ad­min­is­trat­ive, and journ­al­ist­ic in­vest­ig­a­tion have failed to pro­duce any com­pel­ling evid­ence that it was a scan­dal, at least in the way Re­pub­lic­ans talk about it when they talk about #benghazi.

“-Ghazi” also shares con­veni­ent lin­guist­ic par­al­lels with “-gate.” They’re both scan­dals that typi­fy their cat­egory; they’re both loc­a­tion names; they both start with the let­ter “g”; and they are both short enough to be used in head­lines and at­tached to nouns identi­fy­ing the scan­dal.

The George Wash­ing­ton Bridge lane clos­ings star­ted as a “-ghazi” and then be­came a “-gate.”

Last year’s IRS con­tro­versy, on the oth­er hand, moved in the op­pos­ite dir­ec­tion. It looked very bad at first, but as new data emerged, it was clear there was no real scan­dal and the me­dia lost in­terest. Non­ethe­less, the al­leged tar­get­ing of tea-party non­profit groups re­mains very much alive among con­ser­vat­ives (it was huge shot in the arm to some groups). It was a “-gate” and then be­came a “-ghazi.”

The Obama era is chock-full of “-ghazis” — Solyn­drag­hazi, Obama­Phoneghazi, New­Black­P­an­ther­sghazi, Um­brel­laghazi, and of course Benghazi — but few “-gates” (Snowdengate and Web­siteg­ate, come to mind). A “-gate” doesn’t ne­ces­sar­ily re­quire high-pro­file scalps or big policy change, but it must be widely re­garded as a scan­dal and be treated in the main­stream me­dia as such. “-Ghazis,” on the oth­er hand, are a par­tis­an fix­a­tion whose ig­no­miny and im­port­ance are self-evid­ent and un­ques­tion­able to de­votees but largely ig­nored by the rest of the world.

Par­tis­ans, of course, will con­tin­ue try­ing to turn “-ghazis” in­to “-gates” un­til Ro­bot­In­sur­rec­tiong­ate makes the is­sue moot some­time in the not-so-dis­tant fu­ture. But journ­al­ists should at least try to hold the lin­guist­ic line un­til then.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
7 REPUBLICANS ON STAGE
Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
2 days ago
THE LATEST

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.

Source:
×