The Cost

In a similar vein at the Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass writes:

Democrats had their chance. And many were silent and many others were loud and public in their trashing of women to benefit Clinton. And it appears that Roy Moore is a sexual predator as well. So, 30 years from now, will the Republicans who defend him remind us that character counts?

What is lost in all this isn’t mere political advantage. And it’s not the chance to forge human suffering into a weapon and use it to bash the brains out of political opponents so that your side, not the other side, may grab the levers of government power and win great treasure.

What is lost isn’t the hysterical rantings of tribal partisans using the Moore allegations to trash the GOP while conveniently and cynically ignoring the Clinton history and the Democrats trashing women.

That kind of selective raving can be read on almost every news site now. All that is about is winning and shaming the other side. It’s all about pure tribalism and clicks on a news site. It brings no light.

Republicans see this, and they dig their heels in; they take their swings and the Democrats take their swings, and it gets even worse.

So what is lost when partisans are sent out to conveniently lie, to trash a woman for telling us what happened to her at the hands of powerful men?

And what happens when, in our desire to win at politics,we grab eagerly at such silky partisan lies and devour them as if they were nourishment in our political fights?

What is lost is decency.

America has lost too much decency already. We can’t afford to lose any more.

So go away, Roy Moore. Just go away.

The solution is to muster your courage and draw the line even when it hurts your side. Even when it hurts your career. Today we don’t just need profiles in courage. We need profiles in decency. That’s how low the standards of behavior have fallen.

And understand just where you’re drawing the line.

25 comments… add one
  • Modulo Myself Link

    This is not a partisan issue. Louis CK, Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, the awful Wieseltier–they’re all on the left. Louis CK rumors have been floating around for years, and I’ve known a lot of women who hoped that they weren’t true, because they loved his show. Guess what?
    They were true and the supposedly liberal media ran them. Powerful men are going down everywhere. Roy Moore happens to be one of them. To make this out to be unfair because of Bill Clinton requires an insane defensiveness.

  • Andy Link

    Steven Tyler had a good post at OTB recently about how it’s basically impossible to replace Moore at this point, even though the party leadership would like to.

    At this point I think it’s likely the Senate will refuse to seat him should he win.

  • Andy Link

    MM,

    I think the issue was that Clinton was defended while he was in office including by prominent feminists like Steinem. Only now that he’s not in power anymore and the Clinton brand is fading, is there talk on the left about reevaluating his past transgressions. It’s similar for Moore now – many in the GoP are making excuses for him just like liberals did for Clinton.

    But I don’t think Moore is being unfairly treated. I’m not partisan and hope they are all exposed for their wrongs. Clinton’s is just coming much later than it should have.

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    In no particular order, Mitch McConnell, Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, Roy Moore, Luther Strange, Jeff Sessions are all about to get their just rewards for a job well done for the year by having a new Democrat senator (from Alabama!).

    Its a pretty darn high chance that all but 1 of the above will be out of their current job by the time the next Senator from Alabama is sworn in.

  • sam Link

    I don’t think the Senate can refuse to seat him, Andy (Powell v McCormack, 1969). I t can expel him, though.

  • TastyBits Link

    I have not seen an outpouring of support for or condemnation of Roy Moore by Republicans or the right. Many were in “don’t rush to judgement” mode, but the Sean Hannity interview has moved most into “unless he can provide credible evidence he is toast” mode.

    If the Senate could ensure that he would not be seated or expelled, I could see voting for him, but that would still be odious.

    If he is the “God fearing” man he portrays himself as, he would remove himself from the race and publically confess. Somehow, I doubt he will.

  • Modulo Myself Link

    Andy,
    There were a lot of crazy accusations against Clinton (Mena, Vince Foster, the nutty FBI guy who wrote that book) but Broaddrick was not one of them, and the idea that it was defensible to disbelieve her because of the times is wrong.

    That said, the people who have been trying to deal with men and the power men have are all on the left. In my world, it’s the center of the universe.

    With Trump and then Moore, it’s difficult not to see the opposite happening. People just not caring at all about power. Just mention the Clintons and it’s all normal. Which is rather scary.

  • Andy Link

    Sam,

    I don’t know the details of that – it’s just a possibility I’ve heard batted around.

    Also, here’s the OTB post I mentioned earlier:

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-roy-moore-case-and-the-nature-of-us-political-parties/

  • Gustopher Link

    I stand by my assessment that I would sooner vote for a child molester than a Republican, for any office with a significant impact. I would own up to it, seeing it as the lesser of two evils, and try to replace the child molester with a better, non-child-molesting Democrat later, but I would fill in the little bubble on my ballot. There are too many things where it makes a difference — children’s health insurance for instance, as CHIP has remained unfounded for roughly 45 days now.

    I can accept and understand, and even approve of pro-lifers who feel they have to hold their nose with a vice grip and vote for the child molester. If you think abortion is murder, and you need to stop a massive number of murders, a little child molesting on the side is regrettable but minor.

    I cannot understand those who are willfully ignorant, or so partisan that they will decide they approve. And that’s where a lot of people are.

  • Gray Shambler Link

    Gustopher:
    Kudos to you for caring about children’s health. I would like to respectfully point out that Republicans care as well, they just don’t believe the Federal Government is the best vehicle to achieve that end.
    Two caring parents, an extended family, a sharing church, an active lifestyle, and then, and only then, as a backstop financially, the Federal Government, maybe.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Gray Shambler

    Would Republicans be more willing to ensure children are healthy than a child molester? No, but we can be certain that the pedophile will do everything to ensure the little rugrats are as healthy as possible.

  • steve Link

    No, no no. This is wrong for so many reasons. Just a few.

    1) I will argue my points strongly (sometimes incorrectly) and believe I am usually right, but I know, as should we all, that I am wrong about some stuff, I just don’t know what. People who disagree with me might actually be the ones who are correct.

    2) Character matters, a lot. A person of good character will try to do the right thing. They are influenced by their prior beliefs, so their right thing may not be my right thing, but at least it can be a principled decision. Most of the time that is as much as you can ask for.

    3) This is the fu**ing internet. Stop and look around. Remember the people you met and worked with today. Unless you live in a pretty unusual part of the world, at least some of them had different political beliefs than you hold. Most of those were still pretty decent, good, hardworking people.

    4) If you really hate people who hold opposing political opinions so strongly, you are being manipulated by something or someone. As wiser people that i have said, we really all are much more alike than we are different. People with bad intent dwell on the differences to push us towards hating each other. Dont let them do it.

    Uhhh, sorry. Will stop. Just fell through the soapbox.

    Steve

  • steve Link

    Oops, the above rant is in response to

    “I stand by my assessment that I would sooner vote for a child molester than a Republican, for any office with a significant impact.”

  • I figured.

    My only reaction to it was “and people wonder why I think we’re drifting towards civil war”.

  • Guarneri Link

    There is no way any of us knows whether the accusations are true. “she seems believable” is just as flimsy as waiting 40 years and umpteen campaigns to come forward. It’s all pure speculation.

    It’s also not reflective of some recent downward trend in decency. The tactic is old as can be, and reminds one of the LBJ story about calling his opponent a pig effer. ” We can’t prove that.” “I know, but I just want to see him deny it.”

    And the band played on……

  • Gustopher Link

    Steve: policies affect far more people than personal conduct in nearly every case, and our system of government survives flawed individuals at most every level.

    Yes, a child molester would be a terrible person to have in government — but he would also quickly be isolated, and likely removed from office, or not re-elected.

    I would vote for a child molester before a Republican because I have faith in America, and the institutions of government.

    I would not have voted for a Trump — whatever he is — for President even if it was a Democrat, unless the Republican was truly horrible. He has the wrong temperament, believes conspiracy theories, is very stupid, and now has access to nuclear weapons with no real controls on his ability to use them. He’s also a sexist pig, very comfortable with racists and lines his pockets, but those are minor sins in comparison.

    So, there are limits. But, a child molester? Our Republic can weather that.

  • Gustopher Link

    Also, America is at a crossroads. The direction we go in shouldn’t come down to whether one man touches 14 year olds.

    Make no mistake, I think the Republicans are dangerously wrong, but if I were a Republican in Alabama who thought Democrats were dangerously wrong, I would vote for the child molester and hope to get rid of him as soon as possible — bring on another special election.

  • Andy Link

    Gustopher,

    Interesting, let me see if I’m understanding this.

    You say you have faith in America and its institutions, but it seems that faith ends when there’s a risk of electing someone you believe has the wrong policies. And the someone, according to your comment, includes anyone who is a “Republican.”

    Republicans are such a threat that the most morally repugnant type of criminal – an adult who sexually exploits and assaults children – is a better choice assuming they have the correct policy views. I suppose, then, that policies protecting children from child molestors are not high on your priority list.

    Furthermore, I think you assert the other side of the coin is correct – that Republicans should favor a child molestor over electing Democrats who hold wrong policy views.

    Do I have that right? If so, the incongruence is pretty stark.

  • Gustopher Link

    Andy, policies affect far more people that a single person’s behavior. There is no incongruence here, just a focus on a larger picture.

    Addressing systemic problems has a greater affect than addressing specific problems, where the system is large.

    For instance, the likelihood of child abuse (mostly beating, but also sexual abuse) goes up with family financial stress — bankruptcy, unemployment, etc. This is a well known correlation, with a statistically significant increase. In a nation of 350 million or so people, a set of policies that reduce stress on families is going to result in fewer children being abused than most Senatorial candidates can manage.

    I’m not saying that the specific incident doesn’t matter, just that the systemic problems are worse. Pursue both simultaneously, deferring to addressing systemic problems when there is a conflict.

  • Andy Link

    Gustopher,

    The incongruity is about your stated faith in America and its institutions compared with your argument – that our country and institutions are strong enough to have violent criminals leading them but not strong enough to have Republicans leading them because Republicans have bad policies (in your opinion).

    In short, faith doesn’t amount to much if it ends where the disagreement begins.

    Anyway, I disagree completely with your thesis. There is a lot more to governing well than cold and calculated partisan technocracy. Character matters. Leadership matters. Perhaps most importantly, process matters, since how we achieve policy ends should bring political legitimacy which is something every government needs. The ends do not justify the means for long.

    Political legitimacy is also the foundation of our institutions. Legitimacy is what gives people faith in them, faith in our system generally and, ultimately, faith in our country as a whole. I don’t see how one can foster political legitimacy if one believes that the political opposition are worse for the country than child molestors. That’s the kind of argument that precedes the required dehumanization one sees before civil war, ethnic cleansing or violent political purges. It’s something I’ve seen and studied first-hand and it doesn’t end well. Unfortunately, more and more people are adopting that view.

  • There is a lot more to governing well than cold and calculated partisan technocracy.

    If only the Democrats stood for “cold and calculated partisan technocracy”! What they stand for is old fashioned pay to play machine politics under the guise of technocracy.

  • CStanley Link

    What I find the most shocking (and appalling) about Gustopher’s utilitarian political views isn’t that he’s a utilitarian (there might even be extreme cases where I could agree, at least to the extent of excusing character flaws, not pedophiliia.) No, the most absurd part is that he believes Democratic Party policies are significantly better than Republican Party policies to any degree that would even come close to justifying this kind of calculation.

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    On the subject of the post; if there were standards of decency, I suspect a big portion of Congress, the bureaucracy and Washington DC would have to resign.

    Is it me only but the same power dynamics that scandalizing Hollywood also exist in DC?

    That’s not to excuse any of this behavior. I am getting ready to enjoy the fireworks in DC when the dam breaks a la Weinstein.

    Moore may just be the appetizer.

  • steve Link

    This supposed utilitarian approach just doesn’t work. When you put people of bad character into positions of authority something will go wrong. They might vote the way you want, maybe, but then they might also accept bribes, sell secrets, enable crime, etc. In order to win a few votes in the short term, you probably risk losing future elections, to say nothing of actual harm being done.

    Steve

  • Andy Link

    Edwards – Weiner 2020

Leave a Comment