I think we also need to consider all aspects of the two incidents.
First the Studds incident took place in about 1973 (based on the person involved being 27 and saying that it happened a decade before). That gives us the first three facts in the Studds case.
Time of incident 1973.
Age of youth at the time, 17.
Time of exposure for discussion, 1983.
So what was different about the incident?
Well, I can tell you that in 1973 if it had become known some eyebrows might have been raised over the fact that it was a homosexual relationship but that would have been about all.
There were no IMs, were no emails. Hell, in 1973 I doubt that there was even a single computer on Capitol Hill, much less one in Congress.
Evidence would have been either individual testimony, possibly some personal letters (although since they were never brought up it is likely there were none) or things like the travel records for the overseas trip.
What was different about the exposure?
Congress immediately censured Studds.
It was a decade after the fact. There were no complaints from the parties that were involved. Studds immediately admited that it was an error in judgement and went back to his constituents.
The person involved also spoke out in support of the relationship and of Studds.
His constituents listened to his explanations and then re-elected him.
That is not the case with Foley.
The question that I think needs to be asked is somewhat different than just looking at the media.
If Foley had behaved as Studds did when confronted, how would his consituents reacted?
If Studds incident were exposed today, how would the constituents of Studds react?
Is the difference between how the two cases played out one of changing demographics and perceptions of the US population in general, one of regional differences among constituents, based on the different ways the two Congressmen handled themselves or based on a change in the adversarial system we call Government?
Aslan is not a
Tame Lion
™ Version 4.2
