Last month while on a podcast Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy jr. said he was “not scared of a germ” because he had once “snorted cocaine off of toilet seats.”
The statement did not go unnoticed. A major health advocacy group, Protect Our Care, called on Kennedy to resign. Critics argued the comment was irresponsible and undercut confidence in his public-health leadership.
But Kennedy is showing no signs of stepping down from his office. He hasn’t apologized nor has he issued a statement to clarify that admission.
There was a time in American politics when scandal could end a career. Watergate drove President Richard Nixon from office. Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky led to impeachment. Other officials resigned after accusations of corruption, abuse of power or personal misconduct. But today, political scandal often seems less like a fatal blow and more like a temporary storm.
That shift is the focus of “Scandal: Why Politicians Survive Controversy in a Partisan Era” by University of Houston political scientist Brandon Rottinghaus. In the book, Rottinghaus argues that scandals still matter, but they do not land with the same force they once did. Whether a scandal sticks now often depends less on the severity of the allegation and more on the political environment surrounding it.
Rottinghaus traces the change from Watergate to the present, concluding that polarization, partisan loyalty, distrust in the media and the spread of misinformation have all weakened the public’s response to scandal. In a deeply divided political culture, many voters are less likely to punish misconduct by politicians they support and more likely to dismiss accusations as partisan attacks.
That helps explain why some scandals linger while others fade. Allegations that reinforce what voters already believe about a politician can damage a career. But when partisan identity is strong, supporters often look past even serious accusations if they believe the politician is advancing their side’s broader political goals. Rottinghaus argues that, in many cases, members of a political party may even tolerate or embrace bad behavior from their own side while taking outrage in scandals involving the opposition.
Texas offers no shortage of examples. Rottinghaus points to high-profile controversies involving former Gov. Rick Perry, former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay and Attorney General Ken Paxton as evidence that scandal remains common, even if the political consequences have softened. He says the public is now inundated by social media and the 24-hour news cycle, leaving many voters overwhelmed and more likely to retreat into partisan camps rather than weigh allegations on their merits.
For Rottinghaus, the larger concern is not just the survival of individual politicians, but what that survival says about democratic accountability. Scandals, he argues, serve as warning signs of ethical or legal wrongdoing. If voters and political parties stop treating bribery, abuse of office or exploitation as disqualifying, then one of democracy’s traditional checks on misconduct may be fading.
Guest:
Brandon Rottinghaus is the author of “Scandal: Why Politicians Survive Controversy in a Partisan Era.” He is a University of Houston political scientist.
"The Source" is a live call-in program airing Mondays through Thursdays from 12-1 p.m.
Leave a message before the program at (210) 615-8982.
During the live show, call 833-877-8255, email thesource@tpr.org.
This interview will be recorded live Thursday, March 19, 2026, at noon.
