DRUGS AND POLITICS

The Questioning Of Gov. George W. Bush, And His Answers, Suggest There Must
Be A Better Way To Evaluate Candidates

On one hand, Americans have an aversion to mucking around in people's
personal lives, even politicians' dirty linen. On the other hand, we want
our elected officials to be strong and honest and, if not pure, at least to
represent our highest values.

The issue of drug use by candidates for public office cuts both ways. There
are lots of opinions about it.

Some of us don't care much as long as the guy doesn't plan on tossing around
the nuclear football after imbibing an array of banned pharmaceuticals.
Others would throw the rascal out of office for one (inhaled) puff of marijuana.

More than a few on either side of the issue would rather do violence to the
questioners of politicians' private lives than to the practitioners of those
lives.

The case of what went up George W. Bush's nose, or didn't, presents an
imperfect laboratory for exploring these matters.

On the basis of nothing more than rumors, and Bush's continued evasions, the
press badgered the man until he began constructing an ever-expanding
timeline of abstinence stretching back to his 28th birthday. This drug-free
quarter century seemed to assuage most people's anxiety.

The notion of "youthful indiscretions" is useful to the Bush campaign,
although canny observers didn't fail to note that such charitable
distinctions hadn't stopped Bush from boasting about toughening Texas' drug
enforcement.

After stonewalling for years about illegal substance abuse in his past, Bush
suddenly jumped over the wall himself. Sounding like a Clinton protegE9, he
answered the question -- but never fully. That opened him up to the charge
of telling the truth selectively -- which is a kissing cousin to flat-out lying.

It all depends on how you define the time period of drug use, he said
between the lines.

That bit of equivocation is worse than whether he used cocaine when he was
27 years and 11 months old. It would be much better if he had continued to
say his past is private and none of your business.

As for the general question of drug use by would-be presidents, voters have
the right to know what substances a candidate has used recently -- say in
the last decade. That seems a safe span to assure that we won't get a drunk
or druggie in the White House who might start a war, give away state
secrets, be subject to blackmail or fire cabinet secretaries for laughs. As
for prior periods, that's history -- and best left at that.

The press has a legitimate role in asking questions that pertain to fitness
to hold office. Prying into youthful indiscretions is best relegated to
Geraldo or the tabs, for whom facts are optional beasts.

Delving beyond fitness to serve invites politicians to tell little white
lies such as "didn't inhale" or draw convenient boundaries of time around
the answers. Neither of which does much good for our national enlightenment
or morale.