The Essentials Of a Washington Scandal Enron Has Possibility. But Something's Still Missing.
By Paul Farhi Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, January 16, 2002; Page C01
It's still early, but, yes, it's possible. If everything goes to form, and everyone executes according to the playbook, this one could go all the way: The collapse of Enron Corp. could turn out to be another Incomprehensible Washington Scandal.
An IWS is one of those events that, like Halley's comet, periodically lights up the sky. It fascinates some and disappoints others -- but it mostly baffles everyone else.
In the beginning, you understand the basic plot of an IWS. Somebody in high office allegedly did something he wasn't supposed to do. But soon the leaked memos start colliding with the press conferences, which pile into the transcripts and the congressional hearings. Lawyers and spokesmen materialize.
Soon, you've lost it. The simple story becomes so barnacled with facts and accusations, so encumbered with major and minor players, that the core is no longer recognizable. You struggle to keep pace, but it's not long before you're being lapped by the field.
By definition, an IWS is so convoluted that it is understood only by participants, partisans, lawyers and a few very nerdy journalists -- all of whom are paid to pay attention anyway. An IWS involves allegations about things that might have been said, on dates that are in dispute, by people who may or may not have had the legal authority to do what they (allegedly) did. All IWSes inspire congressional hearings, although early in the process the hearings take place before panels with names like the House Subcommittee on Intra-government Affairs, Federal Rules and Oversight Operations Management.
A new IWS erupts about once every 18 months, give or take, which means Enron's timing could be just about perfect. IWSes rarely overlap, the media and political classes' endurance being what it is. The Asian Fundraising Scandal followed Filegate, which followed Travel Officegate, which followed Whitewater, which followed the House Post Office Scandal, which followed the HUD Debacle, which followed the Savings & Loan Scandals, which followed Iran-contra. And so on back to Teapot Dome.
What with its destroyed documents, suspect accounting reports and eye-glazing concepts like "off-balance sheet partnerships," Enron is halfway to classic IWS status. Almost every IWS involves money, but not money alone. It also needs some Byzantine connection (or plausibly imputed connection) to some kind of official influence-peddling. This distinguishes an IWS from a Simple Washington Scandal (SWS), which is usually about sex, and therefore not especially perplexing (everyone understands sex, or thinks they do).
So: Wilbur Mills's fling with stripper Fanne Fox was an SWS, as was Gary Hart's friendship with Donna Rice, as were Bill Clinton's problems with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. Bob Packwood's personnel-management techniques were an SWS, as were Clarence Thomas's movie preferences. Gary Condit's relationship with Chandra Levy was an SWS, but with an asterisk: It involved sex and the suspicion of violence.
Perhaps the easiest way to tell a bona fide IWS from an SWS is by the media that cover it. CNN, the New York Times and The Washington Post take on both kinds (although they are much later to an SWS than an IWS). The National Enquirer and the Star were all over Lewinsky et al., but don't expect to read much about "off-balance sheet partnerships" in them.
Further, there are few, if any, telegenic props associated with an IWS. There is never a stained dress or a yacht called Monkey Business. There are, mostly, memos.
We'll know for sure when Enron has become a full-blown IWS when it achieves the following milestones of every true IWS:
. A catchy name. All IWSes require a spiffy nickname. So far, Enron hasn't gotten there, but there have been some rudimentary attempts.
The media continues to shorthand Enron as "the biggest corporate bankruptcy in U.S. history," which is accurate, but hardly headline-ready.
New York Times columnist William Safire, pointing to the failings of accounting firm Arthur Andersen, dubbed this aspect of the story "Andersen-gate," "-gate" being the predictable suffix for every IWS and SWS since Water-.
The Democratic National Committee last week was floating "Enron-omics" as a way to disparage the Bush Administration's tax and budget initiatives. Alas, this falls short, too, if you're trying to gin up an IWS. The "-omics" suffix ("Reaganomics") merely suggests a style of policy, not corruption. If it turns out someone illegally cut corners, maybe this one will become known as "End-ron."
. Buzzwords. No IWS is fully realized until certain legal and quasi-legal phrases start flying: "subpoena," "grand jury," "special counsel," "nolo contendre." We're not there yet. All we've been able to muster so far are the hoary soporifics of every two-bit D.C. dispute: "conflict of interest," "appearance of a conflict of interest," and the unlovely "suggestion of the appearance of a conflict of interest."
. Regrettable catchphrases. One of the great subsidiary values of an IWS is that it sometimes throws off a preposterous or startling catchphrase. Again, Enron is not fully developed enough to generate entries into the rhetorical pantheon that includes "I'm not a potted plant," "No controlling legal authority," and the ultimate: "I am not a crook."
. The Lawyer as Character. Count on the media to elevate some unglamorous, balding guy in a baggy gray suit to the status of Righteous Crusader for Justice, or at least Colorful Rogue during a long-running IWS. Brendan Sullivan got there during Iran-Contra. David Boies made it during the Microsoft antitrust trial (technically, not an IWS, but very close). No sightings on Enron yet.
. The Dragon Lady. Even the dreariest IWS eventually coughs up one or two semi-glamorous women to enliven the proceedings. The woman in question may be a key player, or she may hold a minor role. Doesn't matter. Either way, she's bound to look good next to all the balding lawyers in baggy gray suits. Remember Fawn Hall, Deborah Gore Dean, Susan McDougal and Mo Dean?
. The Non-Denouement. Quick: What was the result of every IWS of the past 15 years? Surely, after all those special prosecutors, all that media coverage, all that distracting government focus, there was some outcome. Wasn't there?