There is something about a political sex scandal that brings out the worst in our body politic. Our baser instincts get shifted into overdrive, and we all instantly become psychologists trying to delve into the mind of the man (always a man) on the hot seat. We inquire, or rather demand, to learn the most specific and intimate details of a public figure's most private life. It also gives us an opportunity to shed our core convictions in service of 'our side' against' theirs. You can contrast MSNBC's approach to the Anthony Wiener situation to the Cain situation; a man's private life should be private versus hey look at this new rumor!!! And for an example from the other side of the isle, see John Derbyshire saying, in reference to Cain, that sexual harassment does not exist, yet arguing a decade ago that he hated Chelsea Clinton because she didn't hate her father for his extra curricular activities (and say what you will about Clinton's dalliances, but no one disputes that they were consensual).
This brings us to our nation's current sex scandal, that of Herman Cain's. There is a detail that has been overlooked, which is still possible in our age of instant virtual punditry. But first a point of fact - the original case as laid out by Politico is indisputably true. That case, to review, is that two women, in separate instances, accused Cain of sexual harassment while he was the head of the National Restaurant Association. They received a payment, signed confidentiality agreements, and left for other employment. This case is not an accusation, it is a fact, as confirmed by Cain (after initially trying to pretend he didn't remember, a story which managed to last a few hours).
In a clear demonstration of partisan loyalty, Cain has not lost much support. Top conservatives have rallied to his side and his fundraising has skyrocketing in the last week. That will no doubt change in the days to come. Even if no more information surfaces, Cain's clear inability to deal with a situation he knew was coming is ample demonstration that he is manifestly unqualified to be the President of the United States. He had a decade to come up with a response to this case. God forbid he becomes President and is confronted with the news that China has sucessfully tested their first atomic weapon. And that doesn't take into account the question of if we, as a nation, want another sexual harasser in the Oval Office.
Now to the important issue of these two instances of claims of sexual harassment. They are all too typical of these kinds of allegations made against powerful men. Cain was a successful CEO, a man who had made a splash among conservative beltway insiders by taking on President Clinton directly over the later's health care reform proposal, and lead an important trade association. While leading this organization, he is accused, twice, of sexual harassment. The two women involved do not run to the press nor the prosecutor, but seek to handle the matter internally, motivated by some loyalty to their employer. And what results? The women are paid off, forced to sign an agreement by which they can't discuss the matter, and then shuffled out the door.
To recap: a powerful man is accused twice of sexual harassment, and the women harassed are the ones pushed out the door. What's more, Cain has for the past several days been all over the media violating his confidentiality agreement. He even had the nerve to question one of the woman's competency at her job. Yet the two women are still bound by their confidentiality agreement, and have to go begging to the National Restaurant Association in the hopes that they can come forward and tell their side of the story. This makes Cain a schmuck no doubt, but more importantly, it shows just how imbalanced our system of justice can be when the accused is a man of power.
No comments:
Post a Comment