locussolus - Political motivations

Political motivations
Ezra Klein over at Not Geniuses points out the new heights of hypocrisy surrounding the accusations of sexual misconduct by Schwarzenegger and their similiarity to charges against President Clinton. I've been all too aware of the bizarre reversals on both sides in my own conversations, and I'm glad to see others have been too.

By the way, Ezra also links to this impressive interview of Dick Morris by the talking dog.

posted by paul goyette on October 06, 2003 at 11:38 PM

comments
The big difference is that Schwarzenegger's gropees did not consent to be harrassed, while Clinton got a very consensual hummer.

Of course if you believe the Scaife funded accusations about Clinton killing Vice Foster, raping Katherine Wiley, etc.. then they are the same. I happen to believe that's all hooey.

posted by bigoldgeek on October 07, 2003 at 02:24 PM

Exactly - there were plebnty of allegations that Clinton assaulted women - which is all we have for Mr Schwarzenegger so far.

Also, even though Ms Lewinsky may have consented to the sexual relations with Clinton, I think it's pretty much accepted among feminists (me incl) that "consent" isn't fully possible where there's a power imbalance, especially one so skewed as president-intern. Of course, nobody was saying this at the time, because their political interests were at stake.

posted by paul on October 07, 2003 at 04:20 PM

We just had comment meltdown. I typed a long rebuttal here, but it disappeared.

Quick summary as short as possible- Lewinsky chased Clinton not the other way around, Arnold admitted his misbehavior when he apologized, the power imbalance issue is hooey because the potential consequences for Lewinsky were minor, and I don't think you can absolve a person of their actions without a much more severe level of coercion. To do so is to say women have no responsibility for their own actions which I would argue is as anti-feminist as you can get. I said it better before. Let me know if you recover the entry.

posted by bigoldgeek on October 07, 2003 at 04:57 PM

Sorry... I lost another comment above and had to repost too. Don't know what's going on...

I have to disagree with you on the whole power imbalance issue... I certainly don't see any reason to blame the whole thing on Monica Lewinsky. Clinton took advantage of the situtaion when he should have been a mentor and a role model, so to some extent he must be blamed. A person in that position of power doesn't have to "chase" to instigate things. Doesn't matter whether we're talking about a male or female...

You're right that Arnold admitted some things, but parts of it have been denied (he actually refused to deal with anything on a case-by-case basis until after the election) so it's not clear that he admitted to having committed assault, or just having been in consenting relationships. No, I won't be surprised if it turns out that he did terrible things, but it's pretty hard at the moment to separate the truth from the political invective.

posted by paul on October 07, 2003 at 05:08 PM

Well, here are the allegations. Do they sound credible?

Re: Lewinsky, I think you avoid the main issue which is that if you absolve a person (I'll avoid gender) in an inferior role of responsibility for their actions, you set up a victim as victor mentality that treats the inferior as actual inferior person, with no control over their actions.

How far is it from "I was just following orders?"

Besides, If I remember right, I believe the first outright flirtatious gesture was the infamous "Wanna see my thong?" from Lewinsky. She knew what she was doing and what she wanted.

posted by bigoldgeek on October 07, 2003 at 11:26 PM

Actually BOG I think you're the one avoiding the main issue, which is that folks on both sides of these scandals chose their positions without regard for consistency on the issues, but looking only at whether the person involved is a Democrat or Republican. Folks get so wrapped up in their political affiliations that they become ideological contortionists. Anyone who can't see that Clinton is sick manipulator of women who has at least some culpability in the Lewinsky case is a little too highly invested in him as a political figure. And to suggest that the allegations against Schwarzenegger sound more credible than those leveled at Clinton is a completely political statment - there's no reason at all to say that except political bias.

posted by paul on October 08, 2003 at 07:46 AM

Sorry, I just don't believe that's the case here. Of course Clinton has some culpability in the Lewinsky affair. He should have rebuffed her advances. I simply don't believe that you can absolve her of any responsibility whatsoever simply because he's more powerful than she is. That insults women, in my opinion. You have the power to walk away.

And yes, the Schwarzenegger accusations sound more reliable than the Clinton ones. There's also the fact that Schwarzenegger apologized and said he'd "behaved badly toward women". I'll take him at his word for that, just as I believed Clinton when he said he'd "caused pain in his marriage".

posted by bigoldgeek on October 08, 2003 at 09:56 AM

Assassination is the extreme form of censorship.

posted by Schlesinger Diana on December 11, 2003 at 01:10 AM

Underestimation is a two-way street.

posted by Ferguson Sandy on December 21, 2003 at 02:22 AM