HOME / chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics.

St. Linda's Passion

Timothy NoahPosted Tuesday, Jan. 9, 2001, at 6:20 PM ET

At the press conference announcing her withdrawal from consideration for labor secretary, Linda Chavez presented various people who testified to her lifelong habit of helping others; she complained about the Washington "game of search and destroy"; and she chided the press for distorting her relationship with Marta Mercado, the illegal immigrant from Guatemala who lived with her for two years during the early 1990s. Asked if she had made any mistakes, Chavez answered, "I made the mistake of not thinking through that this might be misinterpreted." Then why was she withdrawing? Because "I am becoming a distraction."

RSS

But why was she a distraction? Because she had lied about her relationship with Mercado. The closest Chavez came to admitting this at the press conference was when she said, "I did not volunteer" to the Bush administration that she'd once harbored an illegal alien. (To her credit, Chavez owned up to having always had a strong hunch Mercado "was here illegally.") Amazingly, Chavez managed to get out of the press conference without having to substantiate her claim that the housework Mercado did for her (Mercado now attests that it was fairly extensive) did not constitute labor, hence did not require Chavez to pay Social Security taxes in addition to the several thousand dollars she provided Mercado in cash, room, and board. Chavez also successfully avoided answering her neighbor Margaret Zwisler's accusation (attributed in the Jan. 9 Wall Street Journal to "those familiar with Ms. Zwisler's version") that Chavez had told her she "didn't plan to raise the subject of Ms. Mercado" with FBI investigators.

Apparently, Mercado really did enter Chavez's life as someone to help. The people who referred Mercado to Chavez initially were Peter Skerry, a political scientist who specializes in the study of identity politics, and his wife Martha Bayles, a journalist and critic. They are friends with Chavez (and also--full disclosure--with Chatterbox; Chatterbox has never met Chavez, however). Skerry and Bayles had a housekeeper who had a friend from Guatemala who was staying with her. The friend--Mercado--allegedly had an abusive alcoholic husband in Guatemala and was in a bad way. The housekeeper had kids of her own and couldn't put her friend up forever. "I knew she had a big house, and I knew she had taken people in," Skerry told Chatterbox. Also, "Linda was savvy, and she would know her way around either social service agencies or the bureaucracy. She sort of got things done." Chavez agreed to put Mercado up.

Clearly, though, the helping hand Chavez offered evolved into some sort of employer-employee relationship. That isn't so awful, either. Paying housekeepers under the table was a dicey but still fairly routine practice within Washington's political community until its illegality became the basis for withdrawing Zoe Baird's nomination for attorney general in 1993. If Chavez had straightforwardly said, "Look, I broke the law way back when everyone else did, and I'm sorry, but I straightened up my act after the Baird affair when the whole country was forced to learn what the law was and to consider the moral consequences of breaking it," she probably could have defused the situation. (This is especially true when one considers that the relationship grew out of an act of undeniable generosity on Chavez's part.) Instead, Chavez maintained, dishonestly, that Mercado had been just a houseguest.

Chatterbox hesitates to make too much of Chavez's lie given her withdrawal today. But Chavez's air of persecution about the whole affair is another lie, one that should be answered. What's more, the evil of mendacity is too prominent a theme in Chavez's column for Chavez's own lapse to be ignored. To wit:

The problem is the president lied, as he has on so many important occasions in the past. But this time, it was not a little lie, not some prevarication about his sexual peccadilloes, nor even perjury in a civil court--all of which we've come to expect from this mendacious man. No, this was a big lie. A lie from beginning to end. A lie repeated over and over again ...

--"Our Liar in Chief," April 25, 2000

Gore's problem isn't so much what he did, but what he said. He lied--over and over again--to investigators, to the media, to the American people.

--"It's the Lying, Stupid," March 17, 2000

[B]eing believable and being truthful are two different things. Bill Clinton has mastered the art of believability, which is what makes him such a dangerous liar.

--"Believable and Truthful Are Two Different Things," Sept. 23, 1998

[Clinton's] approval ratings still hover in the 60 percent range, even as two-thirds of Americans say they don't believe the president is telling the truth about his relationship with Lewinsky. But like a patient who may not want to know that cancer is eating away at his body, the American public can't afford to avoid the truth indefinitely.

--"When Truth Is of the Highest Odor," Aug. 4, 1998

Bill Clinton has led a charmed life, fooling most of the people--including, I believe, himself--most of the time. But it can't go on forever.

--"Sometimes Bubba Actually Tells the Truth ... As He Sees It," May 20, 1998

E-mail Timothy Noah at .

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.

COMMENTS

Reader Comments From The Fray:

[Notes from the Fray Editor: Discussion here on whether Chavenize should replace Bork as the verb of choice when commenting on lost careers. And click here for a comparison between The Fray and Washington.]

Chavez is gone. That is no loss to anyone except for Ms. Chavez, since she had no base of support and no known expertise in the labor area. Her replacement will be farther to the right and will be confirmed.

The big winners are Ashcroft and the religious right. Ashcroft is less likely to draw a serious fight now, since the Democrats have drawn enough blood for the time. Ashcroft, unlike Chavez, stands for something, and if he had been rejected could not be replaced by anyone farther right. And Attorney General is a much more important position than Labor. Looks good for him and his folks, and bad for those Ashcroft doesn't care for: non-Christians, supporters of abortion rights, criminal defendants (especially bad for innocent defendants charged with death penalty crimes) and African-American judicial candidates.

--History Guy

(To reply, click here.)

Hypocrisy reigns. What Ms. Chavez is accused of doing is about as serious, and not as potentially harmful, as running a stop sign. It does call to mind an urgent need to begin an intensive campaign to close off all borders to illegal immigrants, expel those already here and severely punish all who aid them in any way. The only way to get rid of our silly, unproductive immigration laws is to rigidly enforce them. With huge numbers of "respectable" Americans going to jail, the construction industry grinding to a halt, and millions of citizens forced to learn how to cook, clean, mow grass and cut leaves, we'd see sensible immigration policies and laws pronto.

--Leo McLean

(To reply, click here.)

I am sure you will get responses throughout the day and week to the effect that Slate is too liberal, reminders of how Bill Clinton was worse, and so on. The real problem is found in your assessment that Chavez' failure to comply with the laws that she would have administered as Secretary of Labor is no big deal because paying workers under the table was a dicey but common practice until the Zoe Baird affair. What this reveals (again) is the real problem with Slate, not that you are or are not liberal, but that you are the same kind of Washington insiders that you pretend to cover. You are from the same social class. There really are two Americas: "inside the beltway" and "everyone else." We mere citizens who are not Washington insiders are the ones who must obey the endless laws and regulations that Washington dreams up.

As a mere paltry tax accountant who has spent untold hours explaining employment and labor regulations to the everyday folks who must find the time and money to comply, I can tell you that the laws for the most part are OK, they are for the benefit of everyday workers. Yes, there is paperwork and cost. Yes, you factor all that in when you hire someone. Yes, there are plenty of people to help you with the details. If you can't afford it, maybe you should not be hiring anyone. We don't have a God-given right to have employees. Most Americans have to do their own housework.

Spare me the b/s about Ms. Chavez and her many acts of compassion. People like this, of both parties, know how to take advantage while couching it as a magnanimous act. DC historically has had one of the larger unemployment and poverty rates in the country. Surely your well-connected friends can find some long-time American citizen to hire. It will simply not be as cheap as they would like. As for the law being vague or confusing, (a claim Zoe Baird's defenders and others have made): the law has been crystal clear since the Reagan Administration passed it. The intent of the law was known to anyone with any connection to labor or tax law. Zoe Baird was a very high-priced lawyer married to a very high-priced lawyer. Linda Chavez is an expert on labor law according to the Bush team. It is time for the everyday Americans to hold every public servant like this strictly accountable, regardless of party affiliation.

--Attitude

(To reply, click here.)

(1/9)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES