It would be interesting to see you flesh that out accurately.
It’s an impossible and counterproductive standard. No huge and powerful institution will ever be composed of the pure. It’s contrary to the fundamental nature of powerful institutions.
Good post.
Your heart seems to be in the right place but, again, it ignores history of humans and institutions.
Her accusation doesn’t involve any sexual component. Just run of the mill over-aggressive quasi-jerkish behavior.
iiandyii is right.
I’ll add my own version as to why Al Franken should resign, for a number of reasons.
What he did was wrong, morally if not legally.
By remaining in office, Franken damages the brand of the party. At best, it appears that it’s ok when a Democrat does it. At worst, we are engaging in a weird debate about how much sexual impropriety is enough to be problematic.
If he remains, he is a distraction. Let’s keep the focus on Trump and the Republicans moving into the mid-terms please.
I hear a number of people making excuses for Franken that sound very similar to what people say about Moore and other male perps: it was only once, it wasn’t that bad, it was a long time ago, why didn’t she come forward sooner, he does a lot of good things, and even he’s apologized. Let’s be honest: He is part of a larger problem in society about how women are treated, in this case how they are treated in the workplace. I understand that he’s “one of us” and that people like him. I liked him too. He needs to go.
We can agree or disagree on whether he should resign (as it looks like a pattern is emerging, I’m switching to the “resign” camp), but my problem with iiandyiiii’s scheme is that it says being a leader of the KKK is a forgivable offense, but any sexual inappropriate act will earn you a scarlet letter for life, and no redemption is possible. That, to me, is ridiculous.
I think I see what you mean. My interpretation of iiandyiiii’s stance was that improper thoughts and beliefs were not disqualifying, provided that subsequent behavior demonstrated disavowal. Deeds would result in a different consequence.
Thoughts versus deeds is the basic line I was taking away.
I agree in principal that redemption ought to be possible for most crimes (let’s except those that carry a lifetime sentence), but I have a hard time believing that sexual offenders ever really change. I admit that may be my own quirk. Do we have any stats on that? I will try to find to find some.
That is not at all what he is saying. There is a big difference in admitting your wrongs of your own volition and working to change yourself because you know its wrong, and pretending to be contrite once you’ve been caught because it is politically advantageous. It has nothing at all to do with one being a racist and the other a sexual harasser, it has everything to do with the nature of their change.
That’s not my position; I may be misunderstanding the extent of Byrd’s past (I thought he was a member of a local KKK group in his late teens/early 20s). If he was a part of any racist incidents of violence or intimidation, then I’m not sure if repentance and apology would be enough.
However, I’m not as confident, nor have I put as much thought, to my position on the appropriate response to past racism as I am for past sexual assault (even relatively “minor” incidents of sexual assault), so for now I’ll only continue to remark on what I think the party should do with regards to sexual assault.
I’m still kind of amazed that “sexual assault = you shouldn’t be a Senator” strikes so many people as unrealistic or unachievable. Yes, sexual assault (and especially the “minor” instances like forced kissing and groping or faux-groping) is unfortunately very prevalent, but is it really so prevalent that we won’t be able to find decent candidates who haven’t sexually assaulted anyone?
And “safeguards”? Any? If BelieveWomen moves from a good slogan for a worthy cause to a strictly enforced principle, well, then what? If the woman says “X” and the guy says “Not X” and there is no objective evidence…?
Not saying I have an answer, 'cause I don’t. But somebody should, seems to me.
I don’t think Franken necessarily has to resign, but he probably ought to for the good of his state and the causes he seems to support.
Yes, this too. Thanks.
The honest thing to do would be to admit that we don’t know that the accusations are true. This is exactly the rushing to judgement I was scoffed at earlier for warning against. No matter what happens people will be looking into this and we while we may never have definitive proof we will know more about these claims in the future than we do right now.
That’s true even if there is no ethics investigation. Right now I think that’s still the thing to do though if there continue to be new credible accusations then I would agree that Franken had become a distraction from important issues and should resign, even if innocent, for the good of the country.
Did you read my earlier link to the WaPo article on Byrd’s Klan activities? (Post #750) It doesn’t seem like it.
Byrd wasn’t just a “member”. He founded the local chapter, recruited the members, and was elected leader of the chapter (“Exalted Cyclops”). He disavowed the Klan when he was running for office and his membership became a major liability for him.
That may or may not change your assessment of Byrd (which is something of a digression for this thread anyway). But there’s no sense in just repeating bogus information when more accurate information is out there.
I don’t see how talking about the sexual behavior of elected representatives has really helped this country. When JFK was president, every reporter and politician in Washington knew of his private romps with Marilyn Monroe and others, and nobody dared talk about it publicly. Since the Gary Hart scandal we’ve been obsessing non-stop over who’s having sex with whom – our country is a lot worse off in 2017 than it was in 1987. I’m not suggesting there’s a cause and effect relationship between these two things, but rather that our efforts at public piety have not only failed in helping us elect better people to high office but also in terms of being a distraction from issues that really matter. In the cases of both Al Franken and Roy Moore, I wouldn’t vote for either one. I hope others wouldn’t either. But Republicans are going to support their guy and their war on the poor no matter what. So what are the rest of us supposed to do?
Be better. And we are absolutely better off living in a country where women feel safe enough to come forward with accusations against powerful men, it is ridiculous to think the old way was better.
I already said I might have been wrong on the facts about Byrd, and yes, it’s a digression. While you’re at it, care to respond to my post #743?
Haven’t heard anything yet which leads me to think he should resign.
Let the Senate decide whether they think this behavior is worth investigating and, id so, what penalty they feel appropriate afterwards. And let the voters decide if they wish to attempt recall (if that is possible) or to elect someone else.
I clearly acknowledge that these allegations strongly suggest AF is an imperfect human being. I do not see how they establish that he is unfit for his position, and I do not see what beneficial results would come from his prompt resignation.
Some moral failings might render a Senator unfit. In my book, an unwanted kiss and a buttgrab don’t come close.
Of course there’s a way for him to remain in office dishonorably: he can refuse to resign, and the senate can refuse to expel him.
Right but you then repeated incorrect facts without an apparent source.
Octopus already responded above. To his post I would add that the likelihood that you’ll get the entire Democratic Party to consistently do anything of this sort over 15-20 years as a strategic move is very low - there will always be people who disagree, whether in general or in specific instances. Since your strategy has a long term payoff which requires this type of long-term consistency, it’s doomed.
The only way you’ll get that kind of consistency is if the attitude and political climate of the entire country changes (e.g. I don’t know if this guy would survive with just a censure these days). But that’s not a strategic process as you’re advocating.
Same conclusion if your mother/wife/sister/daughter were on the receiving end of unwanted attention? How would you justify your reasoning to them it that were the case?
What incorrect facts did I repeat? I agreed with a post that was attempting to characterize the thought behind my argument, not anything about Byrd in particular.
But that’s an entirely different criticism – you’re just saying it’s not feasible. Do you think my strategy is a good idea to aspire to, or a bad idea?