Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Where’s Your Hill?
When Roy Moore was in the process of being brought down in the Alabama Senate race last December, the standard response from the establishment side of the GOP was, “Look, Moore is a nutcase. This is not a court of law. There is no due process or presumption of innocence. He’s not the hill you want to die on.”
When Alex Jones was purged off of social media the response was, “This is not a government action, but the actions of private individuals. Besides, he’s a nutcase and this is not the hill you want to die on.”
Enter Brett Kavanaugh. As his reputation is destroyed by the minority party suddenly the establishment is appalled. Why? Well, primarily because even though he was nominated to SCOTUS by Donald Trump, Kavanaugh is seen as “one of us,” one of the good chaps whose pedigree of private high schools, Yale and all the right government clerkships and appointments was beyond question.
Is this the hill now? When you surrendered all of that territory before, when you tucked your collective tails between your legs and ran like scalded dogs, now you want to turn and fight? Look what you gave up before. Like the Alabama race, proceedings in the Senate Judiciary Committee are not the equivalent of a court of law. The ideas of due process and presumed innocence you gave away in December are a little hard to reclaim now. When you look at all of the private, non-government entities behind this smear job, how can you rebuke them?
Principles are funny things. If you don’t apply them to the people you dislike then they are unlikely to be of any use when you really need them.
Published in Politics
Well, no, of course not. And I think people on the right (and many on the left) are correctly lambasting those who do so. But we’re talking about comparisons to someone like Moore… and it is weighing the evidence.
I keep bringing up people like Franken, Clinton. Heck, take Hillary Clinton. She was accused of quite a lot of stuff that wouldn’t be proved in a court of law, and that was enough for us. Rightly so – but we shouldn’t complain when others do the same. You are allowed to look at that stuff when deciding who to vote for.
Again, EJ is talking about “hills to die on.” That is the title of his post. How do we make the decision? It’s not simply a matter of “which side is this guy on.”
You do? Have you been defending Hillary Clinton? She’s been accused of quite a lot. Pay to play, the private server, etc… none of that has been proven. I think that these things are compelling; I think they are actually very compelling, but they haven’t been proven, and she certainly hasn’t admitted to them. I guess I’ve missed all those posts of yours where you jump to the defense of this person, considering the fact that you always do.
Oh, well… I wouldn’t say that just because a person disagrees with you about these things, that person is less smart. And I know you’re just expressing frustration, but I’ll take it literally and break it down. There are two ways to react to something:
Seems to me that tactic #2 is the better one. I’ve had my mind changed by lots of smart people.
Do you actually live your life by the standards that we demand of our legal process? How about the fruit of the poisonous tree? How about past convictions? Do you really ignore a person’s past when making decisions about that person?
I am not saying that we should not behave virtuously – I am not praising gossip or suggesting that we should succumb to a mob-mentality. I am not saying that we don’t give people the benefit of the doubt. What I am saying is that, when you are charged with making decisions about whether a person has met the burden of earning your vote, you need not hold yourself to legal standards. You are welcome to go with your gut. Remember, you owe these people nothing. They have no right to your vote. Yes, you should treat them fairly, and you should attempt to be as virtuous as you can – but don’t pretend like things that don’t meet strict legal standards are therefore irrelevant. They’re simply not.
When there is a witch-hunt, you don’t take the position that “witches are good” in order to defend the innocent or to correct the excess. You point out that innocent people are being swept up in the mess, and you demand higher standards.
What was the problem with McCarthy? It wasn’t that communism was good, and it wasn’t that communists don’t exist. The problem was that “communism” was being used as a cudgel to fight against political opponents who simply were not communists. The way to defend against that is not to pretend that communism is suddenly good, it is simply to demand higher standards.
I never suggested that… Of course, my past experience with that person is how I judge them. (By past experience I mean evidence, not gossip) I am saying that I don’t accept an accusation against someone offered without evidence, even if they have a questionable past or character. Just because Joe robbed a 7-11 and did time for it, it does not mean he should be assumed guilty of the next robbery without evidence. Especially when it is his rival who is accusing him.
I totally agree about how you decide who to vote for. Voting is based upon much more than cold evidence. But I won’t not vote for someone I would have otherwise just because of some unsupported accusations. I put accusations without evidence beyond the accusers word in the category of gossip, until evidence is offered. I refuse to use gossip as my criteria for judging people, or candidates. If that is living my life by the standards of the legal process, OK, but to me it is just common decency. No matter what a scumbag Joe may be, he deserves to be judged on the evidence.
You chose an unfortunate example, as we know all the witches were innocent… The ‘higher standards’ to which you refer are exactly what I mean. The standard must be somewhat higher than ‘She said it happened’. Even if your experience tells you the ‘witch’ is not a good person. Otherwise, you get the Crucible.
Right. I agree with all of that. Which is why, in response to EJ’s post, the answer is that yes, we defend Kavanaugh (based on all of those considerations), while we have zero reason to extend the same defense to either Alex Jones or Roy Moore.
Are you suggesting that there are no such things as witches? In the movies and in popular fiction, all of the witches were innocent – but the idea of a “witch hunt” is not that witches don’t exist, it is that good people are accused (on zero evidence) of doing bad things. Of course witches exist; we don’t deny the existence of witches, we simply require higher standards of proof. I’m not talking about silly movies, I’m talking about sincere fears that lead to manipulation, abuse, or unintentional overreaction. With this #metoo stuff, there are all 3 of those things. My other example – and perhaps more palatable to you – was communism. Did communists exist? Of course they did. Were they trying to undermine the United States? Of course they were. Did some people overreact, abuse and manipulate the problem, and take advantage? Yes, they did.
Do you consider Roy Moore to meet the definition of a child molester?
Not the same. Saying ‘I am not voting for Jones or Moore’ is a far cry from ‘I believe any and all accusations against them without evidence’.
People vote based on whatever works for them. But I will repeat, I would never let unsubstantiated accusations without evidence change my vote. If I wasn’t going to vote for Moore anyway, I can still object to accusations against him without evidence. And still not vote for him. But it would be wrong to run around calling him a child rapist etc because of that accusation just because I don’t trust or support him.
I don’t want to misunderstand you, but it sounds like your position is that because you think these guys are not worthy of your vote, they are fair game for any and all accusers. That they can be accused of anything, without evidence, and you won’t defend them because they are not worthy of defense. Innocence is not a factor to you, once they are in disfavor, they are just assumed guilty? Or at least you don’t care if they are guilty or innocent, they deserve the accusations anyway?
So you support the burning of actual witches? ( I’m just kidding.) My point is that all those who were executed as witches were convicted without evidence. Because they weren’t executed for believing in Wicca, but for casting spells and other such supernatural wizardry that just isn’t real. They were convicted, and tortured, and executed based on accusations of things that we mostly agree today are not even possible.
They may have been mean, evil, terrible people. But they were innocent of the supernatural stuff they were accused of. Did they deserve the punishment they got despite being innocent because they were not good people? Of course not.
I have no idea. And I don’t live in his state. I considered Roy Moore to be a person who could either earn or lose the voters of his own state on the merits, and I understood that they were considering a lot more than the things that the national media was focused on, regardless of the truth of those allegations. From what I did know, I found him to be unsavory enough that whatever benefit he could bring to the table was not worth having him tied to conservatism and to the republican party, as much for his record as a judge, and for his past behavior having nothing to do with women, as to do with anything else.
I took the position that he should not be referred to as a child molester by people simply because they didn’t like his politics, and he is perhaps a good example of people’s tendency to assume the worst simply because they don’t like the man. But a hill worth dying on? I think that if Roy Moore was an otherwise upstanding individual, and if the accusations against him were not in any way credible, backed up by anything else, or internally consistent, and if he had defended himself well, I likely would have spent more time pressing the point that we cannot let those sorts of allegations be the sole determining factor. But, unfortunately, they were not the sole determining factor, and he likely would have lost the election regardless, on his own merit.
Moore is a poor example of “smears” or “character assassination,” and Kavanaugh is a good example. Far from having anything in common, they are both excellent examples of why it is wise to pick our battles.
I believe the whole thing about Roy Moore was made up. But look at how fast he was abandoned by the Republicans. The accusations worked . . .
ok – I think we’re getting away from the purpose of the analogy. I am merely saying that, supposing witches are real, and supposing they are capable of doing what people think, it is not out of line for people to react strongly to that very real threat. I think we all agree that sexual assault is real, and that it is bad, and that we do not wish to hire public servants who engage in that sort of behavior.
The Bible talks about “bearing false witness” against your neighbor. It is referring to an old practice of simply gathering witnesses to lie about someone in order to take that person down, a competitor in love, or business, or maybe on a grudge. There is much on this topic in the Old Testament.
But, the problem with bearing false witness is that it is false. Our focus should be on the truth of the witness. It should not be our practice to say “well, this guy is on our side, so it must be false,” and it is even worse to say “well, this guy is on our side, so even if it is true, he must be defended.” At that point, we are essentially saying, not that the allegations are false, but that the thing being alleged is ok because this guy is on our side.
Yes, we should have high standards. Yes, there should be serious consequences for false allegations, especially blatantly partisan gamesmanship. But no, we don’t simply defend people because we perceive them to be on our side.
I think its important to carefully define what the hill worth dying on actually is. If I lived in Alabama, there is a strong possibility that I would not have gone to vote in the special election even before the allegations emerged. I don’t think defending Roy Moore and voting for him was a hill worth dying on, but I do think rendering 11th hour accusations ineffective is.
While I didn’t want Roy Moore to win both before and after the issues emerged, I thought it important that no one change their mind because of them. I remember having the through that I would not mind Roy Moore winning – despite my generally applicable dislike of him – if the take away was that these kind of allegations should be brought up in a timely fashion or disregarded. Maybe having 4-5 high profile alleged creeps be elected/nominated will force people to bring out their accusations in time for them to be dealt within the normal process.
I made this comment back when all of this started: that these 11th hour accusations are “[a] strange game” where “[t]he only winning move is not to play.” Once Grassley – whether his hand was forced by the Jeff Flakes of the world or not – did anything other than ignore the allegation, the path we are currently on was fairly predictable.
Disincentivizing 11th hour accusation, and not defending Roy Moore necessarily, is a hill worth dying on.
Actually, I am saying that we should not simply defend people because they are on our side. With Moore, there were a disconcerting number of people making excuses for the actual behavior alleged. It was characterized as: “he’s in trouble because he liked to date teenagers, but he had their parents’ permission.” Well… that may be principled inasmuch as your principle is that war-mentality of defending your side at all costs, but that is at the expense of other principles, more personal and more long-held principles. There are a disconcerting number of people who defend Trump on the same basis. Not that we need to support the good and decry the bad, but that we need to defend the behavior itself. That is essentially the line that EJ is asking you to cross. He would not have you defending Weinstein and Franken and Clinton against allegations that cannot be proven.
From what you’ve said above, your position is likely the same as mine. When a democrat is accused of sexual misconduct, I say the exact same thing I say when a republican is (acknowledging, of course, that there is a strong double standard that applies to people on both sides). I’m not going to pick Moore as a hill to die on any more than I am going to pick Franken as a hill to die on. I will simply maintain a consistent position – I’d like more than baseless accusations. But no more or less because the person is a conservative or a liberal.
You don’t think voters were turned off by anything else Moore did?
EDIT: Answered above.
I do agree. Just as nobody should be judged guilty because you oppose them, nobody should be judged innocent just because you support them. ( But both those statement begin with evidence, or you have no business judging at all! )
This thread is asking if we should have stood against this kind of accusation without evidence for those we may not have supported, ie, More and Jones, just on the grounds that the accusations were without evidence. I say yes, and I would include Obama, Clinton, etc. No evidence, and it is just gossip. Show me evidence, and I can make my own judgement.
That is different than making excuses. That is a whole different conversation. For example, with Kavanaugh, I have said that I don’t believe the accusation, but even if it were true it is something insignificant in my mind because it was done as a high school kid, and it was rather minor at that. Some may see that as making excuses but that isn’t my intent. My intent is just to point out that we expunge minor’s records for much worse than unwanted touching while drunk, so we should do so for this as well. (If it happened. Which I don’t think it did.)
If there is solid evidence that Roy Moore abused children, then judge away. I never saw anything like that, I saw accusations and a yearbook entry that proved nothing. Maybe there is more I don’t know about, I wasn’t all that caught up in it. But it sure looked like a smear to me. And it should have been called out and raised objections, even by those who didn’t support him because now that it was ignored, and it worked, it will be popping up again and again. As we have seen.
I agree with that. The other glaring difference is Roy Moore is a hillbilly. Kavenaugh is an Ivy Leaguer from an upper middle class background. Wonder if that has anything to do with it?
I understand your point but that also supposes that no one will ever deserve public shaming (or whatever) because then an innocent person may be shamed in the future. I like to think I can defend rigorously the person I perceive to be innocent and still not lift a finger to help a wacko conspiracy theorist.
I find discussions like those in this thread helpful to sharpen my thinking, especially if they’re in good faith and respectful. I agree with the reality that not all things are equal: who Moore, Jones, and Kavanaugh are and what they have done/stand for gets factored into how their situations are viewed, and it’s unreasonable to insist Republicans or anyone else cannot make distinctions between them to critics or among peers while still standing on an important principle. For instance, IMO Roy Moore was not a hill to die on for reasons in addition to the allegations against him. Brett Kavanaugh, on the other hand, has none of Moore’s other baggage or idiosyncrasies and is experiencing far worse (bigger scale in every way).
But as with complex things/people like President Trump, it’s important that the main thing remains the main thing. In this case, the point I made in my previous comment (#223) I consider a basic principle and one I see stated in various ways by different Ricochet members through the thread. We have more in common than not.
Then put these accusers under oath. If they claim to be Christian, they will realize telling a lie after swearing an oath to God to tell the truth puts them in Hell after death.
You don’t have to defend someone with moral failings on our side, but don’t you want people (flawed as they are) to represent us in Congress, the Supreme Court, or the Presidency if they support our positions and do the right thing when it comes to those positions?
I do.
Uh… I’m not sure about the hell thing, and certainly not everyone is a Christian.
other than that, I don’t think you’re disagreeing with me.
except to the extent that we talk about moral failings. If they don’t matter for our side, the don’t matter for the other side.
I pressed the question to illustrate your “one size fits” theory of who is, and who isn’t, worth defending. Moore is an undesirable. Ergo, calling him a “child molester” is a “poor example” of a smear because, apparently, it’s supposed to be justified by his other conduct. One man, one approach. Kavanaugh is a good man. Ergo, he’s a battle worth fighting. One man, one approach. The fact that calling Moore a “child molester” without recourse leads to calling Kavanaugh a “rapist” without recourse gets lost in such a neat, tidy approach.
I think you have misunderstood my point…
Perhaps. And I can understand that you’ve typed a lot of words here today, to your credit. But I responded to some of those words directly, using your own terms, so it could be that you’re misunderstanding mine.
Could very well be. I did not pay much attention to the controversy surrounding Moore, because I felt that it wasn’t really any of my concern (the voters of Alabama can make up their own minds). That said, my understanding was that he was unsavory as a political figure with respect to far more than whatever allegations may or may not have been credible. For that reason, he isn’t exactly the best example when it comes to what I’d call smear campaigns. To be honest, I’d say the same about Hillary Clinton. Certain democrats suggested that the only reason she lost was because certain information was leaked by hackers… well, there was a lot more for people to dislike about Clinton.
The idea behind a smear is that it is a last-ditch and very cynical sort of effort to undermine an otherwise respectable candidate. It’s not OK to smear anyone with false information, but when allegations come out, they are more or less credible based on what we already know about the individual. This goes both ways. A lot of people around here immediately jumped to his defense. The allegations were false, it was made up – scroll a few comments above this one and you see “I believe it was all made up.” Based on what? Based on the fact that some people perceive him to be “on our side?” because he supports Trump? Because he’s a republican? That is no better than the opposite – he must be guilty because he’s a dirty republican. Both extremes are equally ignorant, and equally foolish. You don’t jump to people’s defense just because they’re on your side, and you don’t pile on just because you dislike them. But a few too many people are claiming to be neutral somewhat disingenuously. I’ve listed several left-wing figures whose hills people “on our side” haven’t chosen to defend to the death. Just because the left is often blindly partisan doesn’t mean we need to be.
This will be somewhat repetitious, so sorry for that, but perhaps I can be clearer. Moore is clearly not a paragon of virtue, but he is also clearly not a “child molester” by any definition of that term prior to our present era of character assassination. I would not support Moore because he supports Trump or because the party needs Alabama. I would “support” Moore against charges of being a child molester because it’s symptomatic of the unjustified expansion and molding of a term that simply requires pushback. I’m unwilling to draw that “pushback” line simply because . . . Moore. And, IMO, there’s a direct connection to be drawn to Kavanaugh being termed a “rapist.” This may not be responsive to your point(s), but it’s how I see this “hill.”