Today the Washington Post pointed out analytics that showed interest in the Benghazi hearings was largely older, whiter men. That may have a bit to do with the demographics of people working inside the Beltway who would be most likely to tune in, but it won’t be the final determination of whether this scandal has legs.
One of the reasons Watergate remains so ubiquitous in American political is that its unique moniker has kept it alive. When political scandals erupt, the suffix “-gate” is immediately added. No one references the Teapot Dome scandal that way.
Linguistically, the Benghazi scandal has that potential. Too many lavish, taxpayer-financed vacations for the President? Travelghazi. Donors receiving special access to the President in exchange for campaign cash? Sounds like a “Donorghazi” program. And you can throw in Cubaghazi for that one couple that raised a bunch of money for the President and then magically got to go to a country that normal schlubs aren’t allowed to go to.)
It won’t be testimony in a stuffy hearing room that gives the administration’s misdirection gravity beyond the halls of Congress.
One thought on “Benghazi and Cultural Stickyness”