The maddening cycle of Whataboutism and allegations of sexual misconduct in partisan politics
As sure as the sun will rise in the morning, it's inevitable that if allegations of some form of sexual misconduct rocks the political world, the conversation will inevitably deteriorate into a pissing match between partisan factions as to who is more hypocritical as to who to believe about who else.
"Sure, you believe Brett Kavanaugh's accusers but what about Al Franken's accusers?"
"Yeah well you believe Al Franken's accusers, but what about Donald Trump's accusers?"
"Well you might believe Trump's accusers, but what about Bill Clinton's accusers?"
And it all gets repeated, so forth and so on, without any resolution or even attempt of a resolution to the debate. It's all just to see who is the bigger partisan hypocrite.
And on the opposite spectrum from that, you also inevitably end up with people who desperately don't want to be labeled hypocrites, so they'll take an absolutist position that either a) anyone raising allegations of sexual misconduct should automatically be believed regardless of partisan affiliation, or b) any allegations of sexual misconduct levied against a political figure should naturally be distrusted for reasons of ulterior political gain by the opposing political party.
My question is, can we do better than this?
And the answer is, of course we can. It can't get much worse.
There are certain truths that should be universal:
1. There will be high profile individuals in politics who will engage in varying acts of sexual misconduct of varying degrees, regardless of political affiliation;
2. There also will be efforts to falsely smear high profile individuals in politics by accusing them of sexual misconduct, regardless of political affiliation;
3. Regardless whether the ultimate situation falls into #1 or #2 above, those raising allegations of misconduct should not automatically be believed, but they should be allowed to be heard in good faith;
4. When considering whether to believe whether or not to believe accusations, things such as whether the accuser has any known connections to politically motivated individuals (especially ones with a reputation for dishonesty or political tricks) should be part of the conversation, as well as whether the accused was known to engage in a pattern of behavior that might make the subject accusations more believable;
5. Only once sufficient facts are known about accusations should you consider whether or the accuser is believable or not;
6. Guard against confirmation bias on your own part but also realize that the other side is just as likely to be susceptible to confirmation bias as well;
7. There are no sacred cows in anything, but that doesn't mean everyone is automatically on the same level playing field in terms of credibility; and
8. Due diligence is key. Always.
It's not easy, I admit, but it's critically important to always remain objective when faced with these allegations.
I'll be completely honest. I haven't made up my mind as to whether I believe Christine Blasely Ford. I still want to hear more facts. But I do believe she deserves to be heard in good faith and without judgment or retribution.
Donald Trump's behavior and general character, as well as his own recorded words, certainly lend credibility to accusations levied against him; however, with that said, after hearing facts I find some of the people accusing him to be more credible than others. I have to take each claim on case by case basis.
Someone like Juanita Broaddrick I do not believe. But I do force myself to separate my admitted respectful feelings towards Bill Clinton when considering her claims. When one considers the fact that she would automatically be engaging in perjury one way or another if she were to now go under oath and claim she was assaulted by Clinton in 1978 (as she had sworn to the opposite earlier), it cannot be ignored. Nor can the fact that she has gone the extra mile to smear women who are raising the same claims as she has simply because of the partisian affiliation of the accused.
I guess the bottom line is that each case is unique and should be considered on a unique, objective basis via the known facts apart from shallow biases.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Just got hit on Facebook in a discussion about Kavanaugh with "What about Bill Clinton or Al Franken"?
