Do Sexual Harassment Offenses Merit Pariah Status?

Deserved or not, charges of sexual harassment have recently sunk the reputations and careers of well-known American personalities from Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly to Hollywood titan Harvey Weinstein to prominent TV host and anchor Charlie Rose.  Even the long ago many allegations of sexual misconduct by Bill Clinton are getting a fresh and sympathetic reconsideration by segments of the American public which previously dismissed the charges as mere political assaults engendered by “the right wing conspiracy”. 

But does the nearly universal condemnation of those accused constitute an over-reaction and, in some instances, an outright injustice?

Leave aside the reasonable assumption that not all of the allegations are true or are without exaggeration or embellishment.

“Sexual harassment” has been used in the media as if the term encompassed non-contact sexual conduct (e.g. solicitation and comments) as well as indecent exposure (open bathrobe) and forced sex (fondling and rape).

That is not correct.  The first activity is rude, boorish and ill-mannered.  The latter two are much more.  They are crimes everywhere.

Thus Weinstein - notorious among the movie set for his serious sexual peccadillos is forced out of his company, while Rose –accused of placing an unwanted hand on a young woman’s upper leg – is terminated by various employers.

Was the response appropriate?  Did Rose deserve the same treatment as Weinstein? 

These questions are posed without the slightest intention of belittling the offensiveness and seriousness of the presumed or admitted conduct.  But one gets the sense that some commentators believe perpetrators have, by their conduct, forfeited their previous status as respected members of society for their positive contributions.

This is not a question of political perspective.  Unlike the Bill Clinton era when liberal orientation earned a pass from the media, the targets span the ideological spectrum from Bill O’Reilly and Roger Ailes to Alex Baldwin and Harvey Weinstein.

Is the “sin” of sexual harassment of such magnitude that it overwhelms the accomplishments of one’s life thereafter?  Is the stain so penetrating that it obliterates now and henceforth recognition of positive efforts?  Note that I am not referring to criminal behavior.

[Some view, in like mind, a positive view of slavery two hundred years ago as unpardonable and is the sole basis for judging a person’s worthiness – hence one hears calls by a few to tear down monuments to certain of the nation’s founders.]

A case in point:  Kevin Spacey has long been viewed as an outstanding actor (most recently as the lead in the popular House of Cards series), yet he has also admitted to “inappropriate contact” with an underage male.  The immediate response was the cancellation of his future appearances on the program.  Why?

What did one have to do with the other?  Was there hypocrisy indeed in Spacey with his now tarnished character, playing the role in the series as an upright, moral President of the United States?  Hardly.

Spacey’s “Frank Underwood” is a thoroughly venal, amoral chief executive who embodies seemingly only the worst character traits.

Yet now, Spacey and other accused miscreants are to be “cast out” in the Biblical sense as lepers – as pariahs.  Maybe Spacey’s actions, if criminal,  warrant that.  But what of non-criminal harassers?

“Overreaction” seems too mild a description for what is happening.

 

 

Moral Preening Versus Political Effectiveness

The liberal media, of late, has been flowing with effusive commendations for Senators Jeff Flake, of Arizona, and Bob Corker, of Tennessee, because they have been highly critical in public of President Donald Trump. 

Both Senators, neither of whom is running for re-election, termed the incumbent President, in so many words, to be unfit to serve as the nation’s chief executive. 

Whether such assessments are correct, from a political perspective, are irrelevant. 

Such comments would have had relevance prior to President Trump’s election last year but not now. 

For a serious politician, who intends to serve policy objectives as opposed to ego gratification as a priority, actions and words are intended to serve the desired end.  [I readily recognize that, for one to be in politics, ego gratification is certainly a motivation but the serious politician recognizes the fleeting nature of such satisfaction and focuses on the public policy matters that motivated him to get involved in politics in the first place.]  Thus, the fair question to ask of Senators Flake, Corker and others who have voiced similar sentiments against the president is what do they think they are accomplishing? 

The Sensible Conservative suggests that their opinions as to the President’s fitness are best unsaid.  Last year’s election, by the people of the United States, placed upon Donald Trump the label of “fit to serve”.  Some critics have cited the 25^th Amendment to the Constitution as providing authority for the President’s removal.  Reliance on that Amendment would require a determination that the President is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of this office”.  Inability to perform is hardly the same as fitness to serve.  In any case, given the fact that the amendment requires the approval of a “majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such body as Congress may by law provide”, that is realistically impossible, given the current composition of Congress.  

As for those who suggest the even more extreme measure of impeachment, “unfitness” does not fall within the standard of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. 

Thus, the sharp criticisms made by the Flakes and Corkers of the Republican Party would seem to serve no political purpose.  In fact, they may further harm America’s standing in the world.  To be sure, Donald Trump has a way of saying things that make the President  seem to be petty and nasty when confronted with criticism.  To that extent, at least, the President is contributing to the negative opinion held of him by many fellow Americans as well as those outside the country.  But there is no benefit for America to be served by Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, etc., contributing to the negative opinion already held of the President.  They are simply making the President’s job even more difficult than it already is due to the President’s own missteps. 

Thus, it is very difficult to justify the conduct of Jeff Flake and Bob Corker as serving any appropriate purpose.

Unless they were unaware that their conduct would have no positive impact on the situation they lament, the sole explanation for the attacks on President Trump is moral self-righteousness.  Such preening does indeed attract plaudits from the left but that’s hardly justification for their public statements.  [The same might be said for George H.W. Bush’s quoted comment that Donald Trump is a “blowhard” but the 41^st President has not been in a position to influence American politics for decades.]

In sum, to criticize the President publicly for his perceived inadequacies is a foolish thing to do.  Donald Trump craves, plainly, adulation.  To influence the President in a positive way would seem to mean that GOP politicians should focus on his positive actions and ignore those that aren’t going to be changed by attacks and criticism.  A pat on the head and a few complimentary words will go a long way in encouraging Donald Trump to make the right decisions for the country.

Back in the Saddle – More on the Meaning of Statues

 Unfortunately, The Sensible Conservative fell off his horse several weeks ago and has spent the last few weeks recuperating.  As this posting shows, I’m back in the saddle.

                                       *                  *                  *

In the interim, I note that the controversy over the presence of statues of prominent Americans who possessed flaws (namely they owned and/or supported slavery at some point in their lives) continues. 

Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice weighed in on the question by observing that erasing symbols of America’s past would be counter-productive because their removal would eliminate reminders of American History that should not be repeated. 

Although Ms. Rice has a point, she misses the greater significance of memorials which can sometimes be more than historical notes. 

The Washington Monument  and the Jefferson Memorial are more than merely outdoor displays of museum items having no current significance. 

In fact, such physical reminders should reflect our present day respect for past deeds and current values  such as the establishment of this exceptional country (arguably without George Washington as our military leader and first president, the United States , itself would never have come into being) and Thomas Jefferson’s memory today still speaks of American values like freedom and the rights of man. 

By viewing these memorials in such a fashion, one is focusing on the reasons for their presence:  the positive aspects that they represent.  Statuary is not meant to glorify the subjects as perfect human beings.

If perfection were the litmus test that each memorial must satisfy, it goes without saying, none would exist. 

In that respect, it’s ridiculous to suggest that the visual recognitions of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S. Grant etc. were put up in honor of their deficiencies, whatever they might have been.  Such memorials, if you will, were constructed despite those deficiencies, not because of them. 

To think otherwise is to suggest, for instance, that the national holiday for Martin Luther King and the innumerable displays  of recognition are to honor  him for his many instances of adulterous behavior instead of his substantial contributions to the non-violent Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s.  (Likewise, the same might be said about John F. Kennedy, another notorious philanderer.)

Simply put, the Washington Monument honors the Father of our country, not the Mt. Vernon slave owner.