So, here we are, in the middle of the most intense political debate this country has ever had about sexual harassment of women. And, on the partisan side of things, it looks like we might be headed to a draw.
Or, perhaps, much worse.
You would think that the Democratic Party, the party that has for decades made expanding opportunities for women a signature issue, the party that in fact actually nominated a woman as its Presidential candidates, would be leading the change on behalf of justice for abused women without fear or favor, in turn being able to count on election victory after election victory as a consequence. Think about the background against which all of which is unfolding. A Republican President who has no fewer than 19 sexual assault claims against him (and who knows how many others?). A Republican candidate in a special U.S. Senate race, the outcome of which may be crucial to Senate control and avoiding a legislative shutout, exposed as a serial pedophile. And who knows how many other GOP officials who are just waiting to be exposed, like this one?
Well, however many there are, it may not matter. The Democrats seem to be on the verge of surrendering every inch of territory on an issue that they should be able to publicly own effortlessly. The reasons can be summed up in two names: Al Franken and John Conyers.
Franken's story has been in the media for several weeks now; Conyers' misdeeds, on the other hand, have come to light more recently. But both of them, perhaps to varying degrees, have probably been bad actors in their treatment of women, based on the allegations against each of them. (Let me be clear on one point; while the allegations at this point are precisely that in the legal sense, I believe the women, in no small part because, as I have noted in a previous post, I know that it takes no small degree of courage to come forward and demand accountability with regard to sexual assault.) Conyers faces two accusers, including one with whom he reached a settlement paid for with public funds, while Franken is facing four.
And Conyers' story has been joined at the hip by a parallel story about non-disclosure agreements between members of Congress and those who have accused them of wrongdoing, raising additional questions about the potential misuse of taxpayer money and whether the public interest is served by such agreements. Perhaps it says something about how jumbled the politics of all of this has become that I agree with the National Review that, at some point, these agreements should be voided in favor of the accusers and their rights to a public confrontation.
What the situation shared by Franken and Conyers holds in common for both men is the reality that it severely compromises the ability of Democrats to not only hold Donald Trump, Roy Moore, and other sketchy Republicans accountable for their sketchiness, but also to otherwise advance the interests of women across the country (and indirectly, perhaps, around the world). Franken's situation, in particular, has provided several weeks of media fodder that has allowed Republicans to deflect, to some degree, the accusations against Moore in the special Senate race.
This latter fact has been part of the case that some journalists have made that Franken should leave the Senate immediately, even if that terminates the investigation currently being made into the allegations against him, and leaves his reputation in a (perhaps) undeserved limbo. What has strengthened that argument is that Franken's case is one of those rare instances in which Democrats can claim the moral high ground without paying a short-term political price. Franken's replacement would be appointed by a Democratic governor from a very large pool of talent, and the replacement would then have to survive a special election in a reliably blue Democratic state.
On the other side of the question of whether Franken should stay or resign are those who feel that due process is as much of a liberal value as is upholding respect for women. To deny Franken an opportunity to confront his accusers and ensure that the full story is told sets a dangerous precedent, one that holds the potential to turn the process of uncovering sexual misconduct into a weapon that could easily be deployed, fairly or not, against any public figure in the cross hairs of someone inconvenienced by that public figure. In fact, at least one writer has suggested that the accusations against Franken amount to a political hole card, one that needed to be played when the Moore story exploded.
So, what should Franken--and, for that matter, Conyers--do?
As much as part of me hates to say it, I ultimately come down on the side of those who feel that they should step aside, provided that the accusations against them are fully investigated and resolved. As citizens, they do not surrender their constitutional rights by being elected to public office. But the holding of public office, in and of itself, is not a right; it is a privilege afforded by the people to conduct their public business. That business has to be conducted in such a way that the appearance of impropriety, to say nothing of actual impropriety itself, must be avoided. The fact that we have a President who is shredding that standard of public conduct does not change the need to uphold that standard; if anything, it arguably amplifies that need, as well as the desirability of ultimately bringing him to account. And, in order to do so, Democrats must leave no areas of its political house out of order.
Yes, it means Franken and Conyers are effectively casualties of war. But that is how Republicans have redefined politics: as war conducted by other means. In war, there is no way to avoid casualties. And, in war, there is and can be no substitute for victory.
No comments:
Post a Comment