I've been thumping my noggin over this one all week. Here I was picturing the Republican attack dogs as pouty, bumbling and greedy when I found out they're actually cold, calculating and evil. Real evil is never like movie evil; real evil looks more like Ted Baxter than Nosferatu the vampire.
The Lewilleytrippjonestarr affair isn't about smearing the President, it's about trying to close the gender gap -- the statistic that shows most women are immune to Republican attack ads and actually use some kind of rationale to choose candidates.
I first spotted the fangs just this week (hence the sore head), when the oxymoronic "Republican women" of Congress came out swinging over Kathleen Willey's severely tainted testimony. Their wails weren't about the President, they were about the Democratic Party.
How dare the Democrats not come to the defense of this potentially-harassed WOMAN perjor? they asked. And how shocked they were that any Democrat would stoop so low as to point out Willey's history of lies, fraud, and verbal assaults -- because she, after all, is a WOMAN!!!
Later in the week, the President's attorney Bob Bennett sent up a trial balloon about playing what's-good-for-the-goose-is-good-for-the-gander with Paula "You don't send me flowers" Jones's past. Republicans immediately donned their fresh-out-of-the-box civil rights marching shoes and stomped on what they called a "blame the WOMAN" tactic.
The cap came at the end of the week, when a lawyer for Jones made this statement:
"...in defendant Clinton's eyes, WOMEN are purely to be degraded, purely to be chased, dominated and conquered."
The subtext to all of these events, of course, was "Hey LADIES! Look, we Republicans are finally saying something positive on a WOMEN's issue! Say that with me: Republicans, positive, WOMEN! Now take back the gender gap, please, oh please, oh please..."
Unfortunately for the gender-gapped party, they've never taken the time to listen to women in the past, and they're not hearing them now. The message Republicans think they hear from the Women's Movement is, "Men are all predators, women have carte blanche, no responsibility, always right, nyah, nyah, nyah."
This is a myopic misreading of real, important messages.
There are countless instances in our history where real attacks on women have been excused by sexist judges, jurors, and reporters because of the real or perceived character of those women. To combat this, the Women's Movement is certainly not saying "Give us an unfair advantage," or "Let us win every time, even if we're lying." The movement is saying "Give us justice."
When a woman is assaulted, no past or present behavior on her part can justify the assault. Even if she wore "those" clothes, and had "that" look on her face, and you can produce a football team to testify to her abundant sex drive, you can't trump the fact that she's been assaulted. No way, no how.
If there is no evidence that someone was assaulted, and there IS evidence that the accuser is a fraud, has lied about the incident, and is prone to wild accusations, sex doesn't and shouldn't afford that person any special immunity.
Republicans don't see a difference between those two cases, so let me try to clear it up. In the former, the man is saying, "Yeah, I had my way with her, but she's a slut, so I get a free ride." In the latter, the message is, "No, that didn't happen. Here's why you shouldn't believe her." There's no way to justify the first, but the second can be for real.
The focus, in all cases, should be on justice. It is not justice if credible evidence is discounted because it comes from a man (even if that man is the President). It is also not justice if an assault victim's status is discounted because of her own behavior.
Here's a fun hypothetical situation from the Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, ironically prepared under the direction of future Justice Clarence Thomas in 1988. (I don't get credit for the research here -- this was dug up by Jeffrey Rosen in the 12-19-94 issue of The New Republic.)
Example--Charging Party (C.P.) alleges that her supervisor made unwelcome
sexual advances toward her on frequent occasions while they were alone in
his office. The supervisor denies this allegation. No one witnessed the
alleged advances. C.P.'s inability to produce eyewitnesses to the
harassment does not defeat her claim. The resolution will depend on the
credibility of her allegations versus that of her supervisor' s.
Corroborating, credible evidence will establish her claim.... Her
allegations would be further buttressed if other employees testified that
the supervisor propositioned them as well.
So what's on the table in a he-said/she-said case? Not either party's sexual history, their clothing, their minty breath or "that" look on their face. In fact, even a lack of witnesses for one side or the other is off the table. What's on the table, legitimately, is their credibility.
Has Kathleen Willey told the same story for the past however many years about this incident? No, she clearly has not, and has even sworn to two opposite versions. Does that affect her credibility?
Has she made serious accusations falsely? Sure has. Ask Josephine Abbott or Anthony Lanasa (see below). If you believe Linda Tripp (and if you're a Republican, you might), there's another voice that says Willey made serious accusations falsely. Does that affect her credibility?
Is Willey capable of fraud? Check out any of the stories floating around about Lanasa v. Willey and Abbott v. Willey (Salon did a great piece on this, "Slick Willey". Does that affect her credibility?
These facts are relevant, legitimate, and important to (here's that word again) justice. They're not being used to excuse an attack, they're being used to refute one.
As the Republicans try to make this a case to close the gender gap, they're just making the case that they still don't get it.
If this suicidal irony continues, look for a Republican senior citizen to sue Clinton for kicking over her wheelchair, a Republican schoolchild to sue Hillary for stealing his lunch money, and a Republican salmon to sue Al Gore for water pollution.
Search American Politics Provided by Hot Bot |
