Yesterday’s essay about the nineteen (19) women who’ve accused President Trump of sexual misbehavior can be summarized with the following:
19 different women have accused President Trump of sexual misbehavior
Women lie about being sexually assaulted between 2-10% of the time ((As I wrote in the previous essay, I’m going to use the word “lie” here in an effort to keep things as simple as possible, and potentially keep the eyes of as many conservative readers as I can; in reality, it’s likely that people who make inaccurate accusations do so for a host of reasons, not all of which are reducible to intentional, malicious lying, the most recent attempts by Project “Veritas” to con the Washington Post notwithstanding.))
If 10% of the 19 accusers are lying, then 17 different women have been treated in sexually inappropriate ways by President Trump
Beyond the very obvious, what does that last fact in the above list mean? Does it matter—or, In what way does it matter—that the highest elected official in our country has more allegations of sexual misbehavior than the number of games in an entire NFL regular season?
Asked another way, Is character relevant to serving in public office? Because we all know Trump’s character is as black and dirty as mud—he’s a serial philanderer who has a demonstrated and repeated history of treating women like mud, and, at age 71, little of that is likely to change. ((And we’re just talking about his treatment of women here, not his demonstrated history of business misdealings, his equally demonstrated history of racial profiling, or the various other ways he’s demonstrated himself utterly incompetent for this position.))
Asked yet another way, Is the absence of solid character an acceptable exchange for desired electoral outcomes? If you’re a conservative, do you accept that your vote goes to a man who has sexually mistreated at least—and, based upon statistical averages, at minimum—17 different women because in return you get Neil Gorsuch, lower corporate taxes, and the potential to pillage public lands?
Lest I seem one-sided, If you were a Democrat in the 90’s, did you accept Bill Clinton’s sexual dalliances and subsequent disingenuousness in exchange for certain policies you found desirable?
Asked yet another way, How much gut-wrenching, self-deceiving worming is required of an individual voter to make such an exchange? How much dissonance does one have to ignore in order to accept voting for such electoral outcomes, and what, if anything, does that do to the character of the person who makes that bargain, both as an individual and a member of a society?
Curiously enough, we’ve got a real-time example of that very conundrum happening as I write this essay: Alabamans are voting in a special election where one candidate is accused by multiple women of sexually assaulting them when they were teenagers, and the other candidate is accused of being a Democrat.
And so, dear readers, we’ll see you later for another round of this ongoing saga.