THE NATION : Running for Office? Kiss Your Privacy Goodby : Society: A candidate gives up the right of privacy when he enters public life. Everything about his personal life is relevant to the public interest.

Ayn Rand wrote, “Civilization is the progress toward privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public.” If so, have our presidential campaigns moved away from civilization and toward savagery? And have the lives of our public officials descended into barbarity?

During the campaign, there were frequent complaints about the emphasis on the candidates’ personal conduct and even assertions that their “right of privacy” was violated by an aggressive media digging for lurid stories. And last week, President-elect Bill Clinton complained vehemently about his lack of privacy?

Yet was this campaign so invasive? Did the presidential race involve more prying into the candidates’ private lives and more personal attacks than ever before? Not by a long shot. The Federalists accused Thomas Jefferson of being the son of a whore and of keeping a black “concubine.” John Quincy Adams’ supporters accused Andrew Jackson of adultery, bigamy, drunkenness, slave trading, cock fighting, embezzlement and murder. Yes, murder. Martin Van Buren was accused of wearing corsets and looking like a woman. The Republicans tried to help James G. Blaine’s 1892 campaign by circulating a rude song about Grover Cleveland’s illegitimate son and labeling Cleveland a “gross and licentious man.”

The 20th Century seemed to bring a “gentleman’s agreement” that neither side would mention the subject of sex. Richard M. Nixon, for example, never used it against John F. Kennedy. Adlai E. Stevenson never used it against Dwight D. Eisenhower. No one ever used it against Franklin D. Roosevelt.

With Gary Hart all that changed. Hart challenged the press to follow him, and they did. What they found ended his presidential hopes. Four years later, we had Gennifer Flowers and reports of a Republican Jennifer.

Fortunately, neither report seems to have had much effect on the campaign, and the second presidential debate suggested that people wanted to hear more about the issues than the candidates’ personal lives. Did that reflect the views of all the people? Not likely. In the future, we’ll inevitably face this question again--and again. Reporters want juicy stories, and people want to read them. Publishers want to sell papers. TV stations want ratings. And why shouldn’t they? But isn’t there a limit? Doesn’t a presidential candidate have some right of privacy?

“Right of privacy.” What curious and potent words those are. They mean such different things in different contexts. They’re the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe vs. Wade that abortion is a matter of a woman’s personal choice. They’re often used--inappropriately--to allow a performer to collect for the commercial use of his name or likeness.

But the most common use of the term right of privacy is still the right to be left alone. This can apply even to a public figure. Alfred A. is a superstar in action-adventure films. His career is widely discussed in the press and so is his hobby of racing motorcycles. Clearly, the media can report anything about Alfred’s films, his races and just about anything he does. After all, Alfred has embraced the media and asked for its attention. As a “public figure,” he has no right of privacy.

Or does he? Suppose Alfred has a secret. Suppose he is gay. He’s discreet, he’s not seen at gay bars, no one has ever seen him in public with a male date. Almost no one knows. But a supermarket tabloid prints a story captioned “Macho Hero Is Gay.” Alfred’s studio cancels his next picture. His career looks doomed.

The story is true, but isn’t there anything Alfred can do? Maybe there is. After all, Alfred’s never made that part of his life public. His sexual preference was something he never even discussed. Does the public’s need to know what goes on in the privacy of an actor’s bedroom outweigh his interest in keeping his sexual preference to himself?

This is an issue on which reasonable minds can differ--and do. Yet in this situation, it seems Alfred’s interest in privacy is entitled to more weight than that of the public in getting such information. Alfred never made his sex life a public matter, and it isn’t directly relevant to matters he does make public, such as his acting. A great deal of weight can’t be assigned to the public’s desire to be titillated by what Alfred does behind closed doors. And Alfred’s strong interest in keeping that conduct private is obvious. Balancing those interests, I would carve out a part of the life, even of a superstar, and allow it to remain private. That part might be limited, but it should be there.

Now let’s up the ante. Bob C. is a presidential candidate. He’s bright and capable and, quelle surprise, he’s got a mistress--Lola. Like Alfred, Bob is discreet. He never appears with Lola in public and never mentions their relationship. It’s private, unlike the rest of his life, which he’s made very, very public. Is Bob in the same position as Alfred? Can he keep his sex life private while making public his church-going and love of baseball?

If the press hadn’t revealed his adventures, Hart might have been President today. But, Hart’s is an easier case. If he had the right to keep his adultery private, he waived it by challenging the media to follow him. Moreover, Hart’s actions occurred while he was a candidate and after his challenge. It shed light on his judgment, not just his morality.

But what about Bob? He stopped going to Lola’s apartment before the New Hampshire primary and he never issued any challenge to the media. Suppose the press finds out. Can they run the story, or does a presidential candidate have some limited right of privacy that allows him to keep a discreet affair private? Can’t Bob make the same argument as Alfred?

It’s become politically correct to criticize the media for exposing a candidate’s sexual peccadilloes. But no one seems to have done much hard thinking on the subject. The question breaks down into two parts. What can the media do and what should they do? Can the media report Bob’s affair, and, if so, should they?

Let’s take the “can” issue first. Bob has a strong interest, just like Alfred, in keeping his liaison secret. But the public has a far stronger interest here in learning the truth. There’s more at stake. It’s no longer just prurient curiosity. It’s a factor that may well influence their vote for President. A poll taken earlier this year showed 13% of the people would not vote for a man who cheated on his wife. Some of our finest Presidents have been seriously adulterous. But, if a substantial number of voters would disqualify a candidate for that kind of behavior, can we really say that they should be denied the information? I can’t.

And besides, when Bob announced that he was entering the presidential race, didn’t he make everything about himself fair game? Certainly, there’s a stronger argument that Bob put his entire life in the public domain when he ran for President than that Alfred did when he chose to become an actor.

Even if we’re prepared to eliminate a discreet affair from the things that can be reported about a presidential candidate, where do we draw the line? What if the candidate is a masochist, who likes to be tied up and beaten? Is that a “secret of the bedroom” that the public can’t be told? That information may not be important in the case of an actor; but, realistically, isn’t it important in the case of the man who may be the next President?

“Well,” you say, “that’s deviant behavior.” Maybe so, but defining what is “deviant” is going to be hard. When we’re talking about a presidential candidate, the public interest is just too great to permit such distinctions. There should be nothing about a presidential candidate that can’t be reported. Sorry Bob; but, in my book, you’ve got no right of privacy at all.

OK, what about the second question? Given that the media can report Bob’s dalliance, should they do it, or should they keep it to themselves? This is a tougher question and one that involves a journalist’s personal standards and subjective views.

Bob can be a great President despite is roving eye. Isn’t it better to have a President who’s privately a rake, but skilled in his public dealings than one whose private life is unassailable, but whose public performance is flawed? Why destroy Bob with a story that’s basically irrelevant to his ability to govern and lead? Won’t most highly qualified people refuse to run for office if their sex lives are going to be investigated and widely reported? Sure. And that’s clearly not in the public interest.

That being so, I can understand a reporter who wants to concentrate on other areas, wants to avoid digging for stories about illicit love.

But, sometimes, these stories just come along, get unearthed even without digging. What then? If 13% of the American people say they won’t vote for a candidate who’s committed adultery, can a responsible journalist deny them that information once the story is uncovered? Do we want the media deciding what facts the public should know about when they vote and what facts should be kept from them?

Certainly, the media can de-emphasize the importance of sexual misconduct, put it in perspective with all the other elements that go into choosing a candidate, even urge the voters to overlook a discreet but illicit affair. But hush it up? I don’t think so.