Franken’s Accuser Presents: A Perfect Rationalization #42, The Hillary Inoculation, or “If he/she doesn’t care, why should anyone else?”

I haven’t seen such a perfect example of Rationalization #43 since Bill Clinton was caught with his pants down, a blue dress within range and a good cigar.

In case you haven’t perused the Ethics Alarms Rationalization List lately, and if so, shame on you, Al Franken’s accuser’s interview today on “Good Morning America” (if you don’t watch “Good Morning America,” good for you) laid the foundation for a virtual #43 orgy.

This rationalization description one is fun to read now, written as it was long before Hillary’s two candidacies for President, and the current Washington, D.C. leg of the Harvey Weinstein Ethics Train Wreck.

42. The Hillary Inoculation, or “If he/she doesn’t care, why should anyone else?”

This is a complex, hybrid rationalization that draws upon the warped and corrupting logic of “Everybody does it,” the Biblical rationalizations, Comparative Virtue (“there are worse things!”) and a few others to reach an absurd argument that nevertheless sometimes carries the day.

One example that will live in infamy, and the inspiration for #42’s title, was Bill Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky scandal, which exposed him beyond all doubt as a liar, a power abuser, a hypocrite and, incidentally, an adulterer, not that anyone was surprised at that. His wife, First Lady Hillary Clinton, prominently defended her husband, somehow keeping her feminist creds at the same time, a neat trick. She knew which side of the bread her butter was on, as the saying goes: her loyalty was going to pay off more than righteous indignation. Thus she obfuscated, spun and lied for Bill, and gave his defenders this jaw-dropping argument, which they used liberally:

“If Hillary is willing to forgive him, why shouldn’t we?”

Let us count the ways. Why?

1. Because her relationship to him is as a wife to a husband, and ours is as citizens to a national leader. The standards are different, the stakes are different, and the consequences of the betrayal of trust are different.

2. Because the seriousness of an ethical or legal violation is not defined by who chooses to tolerate or forgive it.

3. Because her decision to ignore, forgive or tolerate may be the product of bias, self-interest, or other non-ethical considerations that make the decision unreliable, untrustworthy, and a poor template for the response of others, as well as societal standards.

4. Because she may be wrong, mistaken, or a fool.

5. Because we each are responsible for making our own ethical judgments, and to delegate those judgments to a third party, especially to a third party who is not objective or likely to be affected by conflicts of interest, makes neither logical nor ethical sense.

[Hmmmm. Caught two typos there, and also needed to make an edit. I guess I haven’t read the list lately. Shame on me.]

 Leeann Tweeden, as we all know now, accused Senator Al Franken of groping and kissing her without consent during a 2006 USO trip to the Middle East. Today the radio host appeared on “Good Morning America”and told host Robin Roberts that her goal in coming forward  was to empower other assault victims to share their own stories. She emphasized that, however,

“I didn’t do this to have him step down. I think Al Franken does a lot of good things in the Senate. You know, I think that’s for the people of Minnesota to decide. I’m not calling for him to step down. That was never my intention.”

The Save Al Franken Chorus on the left had already pounced on earlier statements by Tweeden to the same effect to argue that this mitigates Franken’s conduct. That’s #43, and it’s wrong. Of the five reasons listed in the Rationalization, the last four are apply. Once society knows the facts of an event involving wrongdoing, what the victim wants the consequences to be is completely irrelevant, and should not be part of the evaluation process at all. Similarly, it would be extraneous to the matter if Tweeden demanded Franken’s resignation, or his ritual castration, or any other punishment.

As I just posted, I happen to agree with her conclusion that Franken should not be driven from office….but not because that’s what she wants. We shouldn’t care what she wants.

 

16 Comments

Filed under Ethics Train Wrecks, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics, Law & Law Enforcement, U.S. Society, Workplace

16 responses to “Franken’s Accuser Presents: A Perfect Rationalization #42, The Hillary Inoculation, or “If he/she doesn’t care, why should anyone else?”

  1. Is it Rationalization 42 because Bill Clinton is the 42nd President, or is that just a happy coincidence?

  2. My, oh my, how quickly and easily Democrats get off the hook!
    What a shock.

    • ”(HRC) somehow keeping her feminist creds at the same time, a neat trick.”

      She had help.

      • luckyesteeyoreman

        I won’t hold my breath, but I am hopeful that more accusers of Franken will speak out. I can’t believe, and won’t believe, that his encounter with Tweeden was his one-and-only (or his most egregious).

        • Know what’s really fucked?

          Some Lefty X-Chromosomal Units are condemning Bill Clinton (Mika Brzezinski) or are saying he should’ve resigned (U.S. Senator Kirstin Gillibrand [D-NY])

          What a bunch of happy horseshit! Has anything new surfaced about the former Serial-Sexual-Predator-In-Chief?

          And why this sudden revelation and ardently vocal desire to right wrongs from a time long past, there was no opportunity to do so on a more timely basis?

          Or is it because they don’t want raging, Karmic hypocrisy to take a big, wet bite out of their pampered pandering asses when they go after Moore, The Donald, and sundry other perverted Righty dicks?

          Think they feel there’s nothing to lose, ergo, no down side by trying to look like they’re doing the right thing well after the expiry date?

          Do they think no one’s paying attention? Sonofabitch, I sure the hell hope you are!

          BTW, it’s been said that smarter people are more goddamn likely to curse?

          Ain’t that the shits?

          https://nypost.com/2017/08/28/smarter-people-are-more-likely-to-use-curse-words/

          • I need more smarts too, DAMMIT! Who the fuck is that Perez guy? – thinking he’s so smart, so much smarter, and trying to lead the way to making all those in his party such smarter sonofabitches, that by January 2019 their shit won’t stink no more? They’re so good at anti-virtuesignaling!

          • joed68

            “Some Lefty X-Chromosomal Units are condemning Bill Clinton (Mika Brzezinski) or are saying he should’ve resigned (U.S. Senator Kirstin Gillibrand [D-NY]”

            Are they really? Oh wow! You know who else does this sort of thing? Children. Have you ever been shocked and amazed at how readily your kids act like you were born yesterday or can’t remember 5 minutes ago, and how sincerely they appear to believe that?

  3. Mike

    Franken got his office thru vote fraud. This opportunity to remove him needs to be used.

  4. A.M. Golden

    “Once society knows the facts of an event involving wrongdoing, what the victim wants the consequences to be is completely irrelevant, and should not be part of the evaluation process at all”

    That comment identifies the big problem now with high-profile conduct that may be criminal. From Roman Polanski to Officer Darren Wilson, our society increasingly defines the seriousness of the offense to be defined by how the victim feels about it. Polanski’s accuser doesn’t want him imprisoned, Trayvon Martin’s parents want Zimmerman to be imprisoned, Michael Brown’s parents want Wilson to be drawn & quartered and now Al Franken should not have to resign.

    The latter, of course, begs the question: What did she think was going to happen when she made this public? Has the climate of the last month made no impression upon her? Did she think good ole Al Franken would be spared what other accused jerks haven’t been spared? Is she incredibly naïve?

  5. Sue Dunim

    New Rationalisation part a) and part b,)

    A) it’s ok because he’s ba Democrat.
    B) it’s ok because he’s a Republican.

    See https://latest.com/2017/11/al-governor-i-believe-roy-moore-molested-and-abused-children-but-ill-vote-for-him-because-hes-republican/

    “I believe in the Republican Party, what we stand for, and most important, we need to have a Republican in the United States Senate to vote on things like the Supreme Court justices, other appointments the Senate has to confirm and make major decisions,” Ivey said, according to AL.com. “So that’s what I plan to do, vote for Republican nominee Roy Moore.”

    “I certainly have no reason to disbelieve any of [Moore’s accusers],” she said. “

    It’s difficult not giving credence to all the dergatory stereotypes about Alabama when there’s so much evidence confirming every one of them.

  6. joed68

    I heard her description of the event in question, and it certainly didn’t sound like it was no big deal to her, or that she was willing to let him off the hook.

  7. Matthew B

    Left off your list:

    6. It lends far more credibility to Juanita Broaddrick’s claim that Bill raped her and used his office to block the investigation and prosecution.

  8. Isaac

    You have to be a Democrat to have ever said THIS, without irony, and still end up a U.S Senator in 2017, defended and beloved by the Left:

    “I just don’t like homosexuals. If you ask me, they’re all homosexuals in the Pudding. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in Philadelphia.” -Al Franken

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.