Political scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in a way no speaker ever could.
It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words. The same is true of political scandals. The incessant media coverage, the often graphical images and description serve to arouse the public and draw attention to crucial issues which could otherwise have gone unnoticed.
Consider the most famous political scandal of the 20th century – Watergate. Many politicians have accused Nixon of a degree of iniquity before the scandal had broken. Some have excoriated him for the tactics he allowed the army to use in Vietnam while others have impugned him for his hawkish foreign policy stands. However these invectives have done little to convince the American public of Nixon’s moral characters. Watergate, on the other hand, despite perhaps not being fully understood by many, nonetheless had a resounding effect. The media coverage it received, along with the bipartisan condemnation it received, rallied the American people against Nixon and pressured him to step down shortly after.
The fact that scandals often highlight the ethical character of leaders has again proved itself with the Monica Lewinski scandal which embroiled the Clinton presidency. Despite significant foreign policy achievements, such as the signing of the Oslo Accords and bringing an end to the war in Yugoslavia, ultimately the Clinton years were remembered for the scandal involving Mr. Clinton and his intern Monica Lewinski. This surely is for good reason, the fact that Mr. Clinton would engage in sexual relations with a White House employee, while having no direct effect on his presidency or the American people, nonetheless revealed a degree of moral depravity few would like to see in a president.
Nevertheless, a reasonable person may argue that often times scandals quickly become fertile ground for conspiracy theories and quickly become detached from their orignins. This has clearly been evinced by the scandals plaguing the presidential campaign of Hilary Clinton. First Ms. Clinton has been accused of negligence when serving as Foreign Secretary during the takeover of the American consulted in Benghazi. Then a breach of her email server revealed a number of communications which took place over a private server. While certainly a security threat, this was but by no means an illicit act. Together these served to paint Ms. Clinton as inherently corrupt and quickly sprouted a panoply of other conspiracy theories. These included absurd allegations that she was in some way connected to a child-smuggling operation in Washington DC. The conspiracy theory was even named in such a way as to allude to previous political scandals – Pizza gate. The vast amount of such theories meant that discerning the truth became increasingly difficult and assessing the true nature of Ms. Clinton nearly impossible. Ultimately many associate her ultimate political downfall to these allegations.
While this argument has merit, it fails to account for the fact that the wide array of conspiracy theories surrounding Ms. Clinton may not have been a cause of the previous scandals embroiling her but simply manifestations of her public perception. The Benghazi and email scandals have already convinced the American people of her moral depravity that it became easy to believe and satirize by the further conspiracy theories. Yet the causality, whether the conspiracy theories affected her perception or vice versa, is hard to ascertain.
Scandals have proved an important tool in bring public attention to pressing political issues. Yet more importantly these have acted as a powerful tool in exposing the true nature of many political leaders. As such, despite soiling the reputation of many, they have nonetheless been beneficial to the political system and have served to move the hearts of citizens better than any orator.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 317, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
... for his hawkish foreign policy stands. However these invectives have done little to co...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 699, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...y few would like to see in a president. Nevertheless, a reasonable person may ar...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1125, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun associate seems to be countable; consider using: 'many associates'.
Suggestion: many associates
.... Clinton nearly impossible. Ultimately many associate her ultimate political downfall to thes...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, so, then, while, as for, as to, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.4196629213 40% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 58.6224719101 123% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3235.0 2235.4752809 145% => OK
No of words: 604.0 442.535393258 136% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.3559602649 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.95746018188 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79466422482 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 318.0 215.323595506 148% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.526490066225 0.4932671777 107% => OK
syllable_count: 1026.9 704.065955056 146% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.2370786517 138% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.9185216976 60.3974514979 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.535714286 118.986275619 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5714285714 23.4991977007 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.10714285714 5.21951772744 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 5.13820224719 311% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.128339696549 0.243740707755 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0369689992317 0.0831039109588 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0370335407807 0.0758088955206 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0677108614157 0.150359130593 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0255801473966 0.0667264976115 38% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.1392134831 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.8420337079 85% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.1639044944 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.31 8.38706741573 111% => OK
difficult_words: 177.0 100.480337079 176% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.