John B. Marek is a storyteller with dirt under his nails who weaves tales inspired by a lifetime immersed in nature. His insightful essays and award-winning fiction delve into the complexities of sustainable living, the heart of rural communities and the thrill of outdoor adventure. You can find more of his writing at johnbmarek.com.
The 1980s were a golden era for television, giving birth to iconic shows like “Cheers” and “Magnum, PI.” However, the decade also produced its fair share of puzzling hits, among them the glamorous crime drama “Hart to Hart.” I don’t claim to be an expert on the intricacies of the show’s narrative structure, but the plots of the handful of episodes I saw went like this: The Harts, wealthy socialites, attend a party or event, and someone mysteriously dies. The Harts then solve this mystery using their skills as … rich people. I’m reasonably sure that within their social circles, there were many conversations like this:
Honey, I’m working on the guest list for the Halloween Gala. Do you think we should invite the Harts?
I don’t know, dear; it seems like every party they show up to, someone is murdered.
Yes, that is a troubling trend, but they’re such a lovely couple and generous benefactors of our charity.
Do what you want, Muffy, but don’t expect me to clean the blood off the walls this time.
The inexplicable success of the series, which ran from 1979 through 1984, is an apt metaphor for the twists and turns of the 1984 presidential election, where fortunes shifted as dramatically as any prime-time plot. While Robert Wagner and Stefanie Powers were solving crimes as Jonathan and Jennifer Hart, a real-life political drama was unfolding on the national stage. The 1984 presidential debates between incumbent Ronald Reagan and challenger Walter Mondale offered a narrative arc worthy of a made-for-TV movie.
In the first presidential debate 40 years ago this week, Reagan’s performance was notably lackluster, leading to concerns about his age and mental acuity. Much like a struggling TV show facing cancellation, Reagan’s campaign found itself in need of a ratings boost. And just as “Hart to Hart” had defied expectations to become a hit, Reagan managed to turn the tables in the second debate. With a mix of charm, wit and well-prepared zingers, Reagan dominated the second encounter. His memorable line, “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience,” not only diffused concerns about his age but also showcased his trademark humor. His debate performance helped secure Reagan’s landslide victory in November.
Just a few years later, in a storyline that would likely have been rejected by “Hart to Hart” writers as too absurd, another Hart took center stage. This saga centered around Sen. Gary Hart, a rising star in the Democratic Party and a frontrunner for the 1988 presidential nomination. Hart’s campaign was derailed by allegations of marital infidelity, a controversy that would reshape political journalism and set new standards for candidates’ personal lives. The scandal began when reporters from the Miami Herald, acting on an anonymous tip, staked out Hart’s Washington, D.C., townhouse. They observed a young woman, later identified as Donna Rice, entering the residence on a Friday evening and not leaving until late Saturday night.
When confronted with these observations, Hart vehemently denied any impropriety, famously challenging the press: “Follow me around. I don’t care. I’m serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They’ll be very bored.” This defiant statement would prove to be a critical misstep. Shortly after, a photograph emerged showing Hart sitting on a dock with Rice on his lap aboard a yacht amazingly named “Monkey Business.” (Seriously, you couldn’t make this stuff up.) The image and earlier stakeout observations created a media firestorm that Hart’s campaign could not withstand. He withdrew from the race just days after the story broke.
The legitimacy of the Hart scandal remains a subject of debate. Where there’s smoke, you’ll often find fire. Still, the evidence for an inappropriate relationship between Hart and Rice was circumstantial. And, given today’s political landscape, the notion of a bit of hanky-panky derailing a presidential candidate seems rather quaint. On the other hand, Hart’s challenge to the press could be seen as an invitation to scrutinize his personal life, and knowing about that scrutiny, sitting with a half-naked woman on your lap on a boat called Monkey Business does not demonstrate outstanding judgment.
Regardless of one’s stance on the legitimacy of the scandal, its impact on American politics is undeniable. The Hart affair marked a shift in how the media covered politicians’ personal lives, ushering in an era of increased scrutiny and blurring the lines between public and private spheres.
In the end, the Gary Hart scandal, much like an episode of “Hart to Hart,” captivated the nation with its mix of glamour, intrigue and moral ambiguity. But unlike the neatly resolved plots of the TV show, the real-life political drama left lasting questions about privacy, media ethics and the nature of leadership and morality in the modern age.