Much has been written and said about the sexual assault allegations that Tara Reade, who was a staffer for then Sen. Joe Biden, has made against him. (I will not here recount the specific details of Reade’s various allegations; they are widely available online.) Republicans are positioning this news as “evidence” of Biden’s pattern of behavior. Not surprisingly, they are also comparing Democrats’ response to Reade’s allegations against Biden to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. They say that Democrats in general, and #MeToo activists in particular, are actively ignoring Ms. Reade due to their “hypocrisy.”
Do Democrats and #MeToo activists have double standards? Are Republicans, most of whom are usually very skeptical of such allegations, being political opportunists? The answer to both questions is, of course, “yes.” I don’t know whether Joe Biden is guilty. Neither do I know whether Brett Kavanaugh is. What I do know is that their guilt — partially because it is so difficult to prove (or disprove) — tends to be less important to most people than supporting their respective political parties. In effect, one’s view of their guilt or innocence is a type of Rorschach Test.
Both men, unlike non-politicians such as Harvey Weinstein or R. Kelly, are in positions to wield substantial power over hundreds of millions of Americans (or, in Biden’s case, could again be in such a position). In fact, depending on the candidate in question, the office he or she is seeking and the specific allegation(s) against him or her, political considerations increasingly are superseding candidates’ moral failings in determining whether we support them. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I have supported Biden’s candidacy since he announced it. My position has not changed.)
To be fair, some devotees of #MeToo have called for Mr. Biden to step aside, but they are clearly in the minority. Barring a yet-to-be-seen circumstance, he is going to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for president. This has caused me to reflect on the fact that, in recent years, pundits have wondered aloud whether former President Bill Clinton, given what we now know about him, would be as successful a politician today as he was decades ago. My answer to that question, until relatively recently, was “no.” Yet, following the rise of President Trump, my answer has become “it depends.” As I’ve admonished my Republican friends, their staunch support of Trump has resulted in their forfeiture of the right to be critical of virtually any candidate for virtually any reason short of murder. They have handed Democrats the quintessential “what about…” defense. (Most Republicans won’t understand the depth of this mistake for at least a couple years, but there undoubtedly will be several waves of “a ha” moments to come.)
Still, in the end, this isn’t really about Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Brett Kavanaugh or any other individual. It’s about acknowledging that people (myself included) value some things more than we value, well, our values — at least the ones that we publicly espouse. It would be easy (and perhaps somewhat inaccurate) to view our inconsistencies merely as hypocrisy. I am reminded that the word “hypocrite” is taken is from a Greek word that means “actor.” I’m not cynical enough to believe that the champions of #MeToo are merely “acting” like they care about punishing those who commit sexual assault; in fact, I believe that most of them care a great deal. Nonetheless, they sometimes sacrifice their convictions on the altar of political expediency. (In Biden’s quest against Trump, I completely endorse this sacrifice.)
The problem is the activists’ reluctance to be intellectually honest. Most people readily understand — and readily forgive — reasonable exceptions to most rules. But most people don’t readily accept contrived excuses for (temporarily) abandoning certain principles, even when it is in pursuit of the greater good. This reality is magnified by our seemingly intractable partisan divide.
Just as I am willing to accept certain contradictory behavior from liberals, I take seriously conservatives’ concerns about the life-altering role that mere allegations (of various types) can play in derailing peoples’ careers or even their lives. In fact, as a Black man who has a Black son, I find ample reason to be concerned specifically about allegations of sexual assault — for at least two reasons.
First, I will not ignore America’s history regarding such allegations against Black men and boys, and the deadly results thereof. Second, I am very much aware of — and disgusted by — the tendency of “women’s movements” to be racially insensitive, racially exclusionary or just plain racist. (As we commemorate the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment this year, it is important to remember that certain leaders of the women’s suffrage movement were explicitly against Black women gaining the right to vote.) On a related note, it is no accident that more than half of white women voted for a proud misogynist in the 2016 presidential election, whereas nearly 100% of Black women voted against the proud misogynist who is also a proud racist.
The bottom line is that public officials and private citizens should take seriously all allegations of sexual assault. As the father of two daughters, I would hope that people would support them if they were to make such a claim. (And God help the perpetrator if I came to believe that he was guilty.) But it’s critically important in all such cases to embrace a consistent evidentiary standard — at least if activists want their movement to be credible. By all means, judges and juries should take into account the shameful history of victim-blaming, and they should punish every guilty perpetrator to the law’s full extent. But justice demands that we do our best to be certain that the accused are actually guilty before dispensing said punishment.
Finally, it’s understandable that activists devise pithy phrases or memorable aphorisms to get their point across. But we need to recognize that “the power of language” cuts two ways. While rallying cries like #MeToo and “Believe Women” are formidable exclamations, it is not uncommon for substantive, life-altering causes to be reduced to platitudes and sloganeering. (This is what the enemies of racial equality do by quoting a single well-worn, out-of-context phrase from Rev. King’s incomparable “I Have A Dream.”) The ultimate goals of any movement become threatened when the slogan becomes the end of the argument rather than its starting point. Admittedly, that can be a very fine line to navigate, but the stakes are too high for the message to get lost in the marketing.
Larry Smith is a community leader. Contact him at larry@leaf-llc.com.
