Where Are the Good Guys?

Politically, for a variety of reasons, I’m a Democrat.  I’m to the right of them on some criminal justice issues in particular, but basically the middle-left is where I live.  What I've noticed from fellow Democrats over the years is more than just a sense that our policies better serve a greater number of Americans, particularly ones who are struggling, dispossessed, or outside the mainstream.  Rather, I've sensed a conviction that Democrats really are the “good guys,” the ones truly looking out for the weaker among us, the underdog and the excluded.  Our political excesses might be foolish or overprotective, but they aren’t cruel or callous as GOP excesses can be.  While I recognize the self-serving nature of this rhetoric and fully understand its limits, I do think there’s a point to the claim; hence my choice in American political affiliation.Interestingly, I don’t usually see the same kind of virtuous confidence- this sense of helping their fellow man in need- in Republicans, at least outside the religious context.  Politics is this town’s industry, and I trade views regularly with Republicans. They are smart, good-hearted people for the most part and very charitable personally.  I also find them not happy with but more tolerant of the suffering and inequality that freer economic dynamism brings about; they believe in equality of opportunity, not outcome.  They don’t like unfair prejudice, but they also distrust liberal fixes like “political correctness.”  They’re not the party of the dispossessed- they’re the party of prosperity, and those not afraid to chase after it with hard work and perseverance.  So be it.  My party is supposed to be the one that stands up for those who can’t stand up for themselves.  Call that patronizing or call it noble; it’s what I’ve heard for years and to an extent it’s what I believe.So why have so many Democrats and other liberals literally laughed off the accusations of sexual assault made against Al Gore by not one but three massage therapists, most notably the one in Oregon?I want to be clear: I have no idea if the allegations are true.  I’ve speculated more forcefully about the guilt of others in this space because I had more to go on.  I’m aware that the National Enquirer, a tabloid, broke the story.  I understand the lack of physical evidence and the decision not to pursue the Portland case.  I understand why her concomitant civil case has raised eyebrows.  I understand that some of what she alleged seems objectively bizarre.  I’m a prosecutor at heart, but not a zealot.  So I understand the concerns of those who doubt or seriously question Gore’s guilt.What I don’t understand are some of the remarkably cruel and foolish comments coming from people on this issue, and particularly from people normally associated with the left.  A blogger named Tom Scocca from Slate.com brought this up poignantly late in June when he listed a few choice comments about the Oregon masseuse from readers of TPM, or Talking Points Memo, the left-leaning blog on news and politics.   It goes way beyond TPM, though; hundreds of similar ones followed the first Huffington Post article on the subject.  Many insinuate that she’s a sleazebag out to shake down Gore for money.  Because, you know, that happens constantly to rich and powerful men.  Never mind that, as my friend Jaclyn Friedman noted in a great piece a couple of weeks ago, the vast majority of wealthy, playboy types never experience a sexual assault accusation; Tiger Woods and Eliot Spitzer, whatever else they’ve done and been accused of, haven’t been accused of anything non-consensual.But in furtherance of this paranoia (some have suggested the accusations are a conservative plot) and in apparent support of a liberal they greatly admire, too many on the left are furthering time honored rape myths: If the complaint were valid, she would have 1) run screaming from the room immediately upon escaping his advances, 2) swiftly summoned law enforcement and related facts clearly and chronologically, 3) never considered seeking to drop charges despite immense and complex pressure most of us couldn’t imagine, and 4) presented herself from the start as a self-possessed, well adjusted, near-perfect member of the middle class or better.  And of course (as Scocca highlights) there are those who insist, with a breathtaking combination of stupidity and viciousness, that a superstar like Al Gore would never have the need or desire to sexually assault some old hag massage therapist in the first place.These are the good guys?  These are who make up the party of tolerance, compassion and inclusivity?  Maybe that’s only true for some of them until someone in that category accuses a powerful liberal icon of a terrible act. To be fair I've seen blowback from liberals and feminists in particular against this nonsense.  But I'm seeing too much of it to begin with from people who claim to be better and more open-minded.Again, I don’t know if the allegations are true.  There isn’t a lot to go on from an evidentiary standpoint in the Oregon case, and the burden of proof is an unrelenting master for the prosecutor.  So be it.  But from a common sense standpoint, if there are three women from Tokyo to the US maintaining similar allegations, it’s at least fair to ask how often lightning strikes.  In any event, using this serious accusation as a font for jokes is deeply cruel.  Dismissing it with baseless assertions about "what real victims do" is foolish.And the sentiment of “it’s gotta be false because she’s too old and ugly and he’s too cool?”  Such verbal venom is exactly the reason a survivor friend of mine once told me that most women don’t report sexual assault because they’re too damn smart to do so.