Platner

""I would vote for a comatose Democrat before I would vote for Susan Collins . . . " --Maine resident

This is the elephant in the room, hence impossible for this benighted substack to ignore.

I read the original Politico article that blew up the Platner campaign and a couple of other bits, nothing comprehensive or deeply researched. A few rumors have filtered out that vilify the woman. I will ignore them.

Basically we don’t know what happened, and neither do you, though something clearly did. Does it rise to an importance that justifies the termination of his campaign? It depends on exactly what happened. If a crime was committed, Platner should be prosecuted, which would make him unable to campaign.

There is a spectrum of possibilities between bad breakup and outright, violent sexual assault. If a crime was committed, that would justify timely prosecution and punishment. In any case, the threshold for political collapse of a non-incumbent is far short of criminal procedure, and that’s where we are.

For the record, my view of the entirety of previous anti-Platner commentary, before the coup de grace, tattoo included, is that it was one enormous, stinking pile of bullshit.

The most dubious principle bandied around, prevalent in popular delusions common to all points on the political spectrum, is that it matters whether or not an individual is qualified or virtuous. It really doesn’t matter. We could wish in our politics it was otherwise, but it is not. Particularly in a legislature, an individual’s qualifications mean little. There are rare persons whose own unique qualities lead them to great achievements, both good and bad. Such persons are few. Lyndon Johnson was one, Bernie Sanders is another, but so is Trump. Qualifications do matter for leadership positions, where an individual’s authority dominates that of his political cronies.

People like to say, “I vote for the individual, not the party.” Ha-ha. No you don’t! First of all, you never know the individual. Secondly, their impact owing to their individuality in a huge, complex political system is marginal. There are exceptions, but they are rare.

For most, the only important datum is party identification, not personal qualifications. Any public official has staff and/or family that compensate for his or her deficiencies. Whether you like what Ronald Reagan was up to or not, he was rumored to remain in office at the end of his second term beset with Alzheimers. The nation did not fall apart. Another of the walking wounded was Senator Diane Feinstein of California. Now Mitch McConnell’s health is in question, not to mention the president’s.

Even with Platner’s downfall, we may not have lost an extra D vote in the Senate. It ain’t over yet. As elections roll around, I keep thinking that the state of the nation is so awful people will have to come around and give us a blue wave. Or maybe the state of the People is so awful we are doomed. I’m uncertain. It is not even obvious that we will have an honest election.

The question of “Why now?” — why the victim here waited so long to speak out, just a week before an important political deadline — has a plausible answer. I’m not saying I believe it, but it is not incredible. The explanation is she was interviewed for the New York Times article a few months ago, along with a few other women. The Times focused on the most dubious witness against Platner — a full-fledged Republican Party operative and co-founder of “Women for Kavanaugh" — and neglected the others, one of whom provided the killer testimony two weeks ago. She says she was distressed to be left out of the Times article and was faithful to the qualifications dodge I noted above, as are many. Not a crime. A huge boo-boo, if you believe her professed political beliefs.

A better question is why wait for four or five years to report a crime. Obviously it was the success of Platner’s campaign. For his victim, apparently it was fine for Platner to keep walking around, by her lights a continued threat to women of his acquaintance, but not if he was a senator. This could be argued either way. As a senator under close scrutiny, he could have been more risk averse. On the other hand, the power in his position would have made him less vulnerable. I’d say the latter is more likely. We seldom see senators taken down by sex scandals. It happens, but not I would guess as often as it might under a different justice system.

Apparently the victim was shepherded into her bombshell by a shaky so-called “influencer” by the name of Cheyenne Hunt, a self-described progressive and presumably a woman not for Kavanaugh, who has made a cottage industry of sinking Democratic politicians. Her other big scalp was the obviously slimy Rep. Eric Swalwell. Evidently there is little misogyny to expose on the Republican side. Hunt’s professed goal is for Democrats to attain the moral high ground. In other words, to lose endlessly.

The moral high ground can be a foggy place. It helped to replace Al Franken, a pretty good senator, with someone nobody can name. The Franken indictment was rubbish. Why does our side think we can keep spotting points to the Republicans?

It’s amusing, to me at least, that the moral high ground is also a common objective among ultra-lefts in Democratic Socialists of America. For them, moral purity is found in condemnation of any politics short of defund the police and other fanciful pursuits. There is virtue in simplicity, but some comrades abuse the privilege.

As for “Women for Kavanaugh," come on!