You know you’re having a bad week as a politician when one scandal knocks a another scandal you’re involved in off the front page. Welcome to Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s world right now, and where he’ll end up in it, nobody knows.
In case you missed it, Northam and abortion-loving Democrats were in the midst of trying to justify his comments earlier in the week accepting the concept of legal infanticide when a medical school yearbook photo turned up on social media, showing the governor-to-be either in black face or wearing Ku Klux Klan garb. Yes, this was another Hader Gotcha: conservatives were looking for dirt under very old rugs. Northam confirmed that it was indeed him in one of the two costumes (but not which!) and issued the now familiar “this is not who I am now” apology:
“I am deeply sorry for the decision I made to appear as I did in this photo and for the hurt that decision caused then and now,” Northam said in his statement. “This behavior is not in keeping with who I am today and the values I have fought for throughout my career in the military, in medicine, and in public service. But I want to be clear, I understand how this decision shakes Virginians’ faith in that commitment. I recognize that it will take time and serious effort to heal the damage this conduct has caused. I am ready to do that important work. The first step is to offer my sincerest apology and to state my absolute commitment to living up to the expectations Virginians set for me when they elected me to be their Governor.”
It was immediately clear that this would not suffice. Northam is a Democrat, after all, and that is the party of race-baiting. Republicans weren’t likely to let Northam talk his way out of this either, not after he won his close 2017 gubernatorial election against Republican Ed Gillespie with the assistance of a jaw-dropping TV ad ad linking Gillespie to the white nationalists who marched in Charlottesville and showing the GOP candidate trying to run down minority kids in his car. Although the ad was not a product of his campaign, Northam refused to condemn it, and his campaign reported it as an “in-kind contribution.” The campaign also sent out a mailer tying Guillespie to white nationalists.
What Republicans say about the yearbook photo doesn’t matter, however. Northam’s own party turned on him, with his Democratic predecessor Terry McAulliffe, the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus, and the Democrats in Virginia’s state legislature all calling on him to resign.
After all, casually endorsing infanticide is easy to defend to the hard-core Democratic base, but wearing a tasteless costume 38 years ago while a student is unforgivable.
Wait…what?
The instant issue might be moot in a few hours, as the betting is that Northam will resign, but your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day’s question will remain:
Should Ralph Northam’s 1984 yearbook photo require him to resign as Virginia Governor?
In a comment yesterday, Chris Marschner gave his answer to the quiz before it was asked. Here is his succinct Comment of the Day:
I would like to say we should be setting an example on evaluating stupid things done in college rather than seeking retribution for Kavanaugh.
The photo of Northam in med school should not be an indictment of current character. I don’t want to hear apologies of any sort other than “it was stupid and I should have known better”. We should be evaluating people on the totality of behavior since the “bad” behavior. Atonement cannot be made if coerced. It can only happen when it is voluntary.
If Northam should step down it should not be for some sophomoric photo in a college yearbook, it should be for admitting he is willing to sacrifice an innocent life in order to get the liberal female vote.
Chris was prescient: many conservatives are relishing this as perfect “hoist with their own petard” moment for Democrats who resorted to using Brett Kavanugh’s high school year book inscriptions to impugn his character as an adult judge, and who argued that an unsubstantiated account of an unsuccessful sexual assault at a high school party constituted evidence that the judge was a sexual predator. The two episodes are not analogous, however. Northam’s questionable conduct is proven and admitted; Kavanaugh’s was neither. Northam’s conduct occurred when he was an adult, at 25; Kavanaugh was a minor when the alleged misconduct recurred. Sexual assault is a crime, though what was recalled and alleged by Dr. Blasey Ford would virtually never result in an arrest or charges. Wearing Klan costumes or blackface was and is entirely legal.
There are many reasons to enjoy Governor Northam’s current problem, as well as his party’s. Northam ran a hateful and divisive campaign (“Donald Trump is a narcissistic maniac, and I will do all I can to keep his hate out of Virginia.”), and watching him resign in disgrace would be highly satisfying. The Democratic Party’s double and triple pretzelized standards are too ridiculous to even try to make sense out of. Last week, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing in which a representative of the NAACP testified in support of a new federal mandate that would allow all felons vote, as well as to run for office, such as Governor of Virginia. Murderers, child rapists, bank robbers, drug dealers, all would be welcomed by the NAACP—just not candidates who wore tasteless costumes at Halloween parties decades ago.* Somehow, given their party’s previously declared standards, both of Virginia’s Democratic U.S. Senators have not called for Northam to resign, though Democrats forced GOP Senate leader Trent Lott to leave the Senate for telling the ancient and senile Senator Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday that the U.S. would have been a better place if his third party run for the Presidency had succeeded. Is there any chance that Senators Warner and Kaine wouldn’t be screaming for Northam to resign if he were a Republican? Of course not.
This is all static and bias, however. The question remains whether we should judge current day officials by their conduct or words from decades ago.
*I will use the term “tasteless” rather than “racist” to describe a Klan costume until someone explains to me why that costume should be interpreted any differently than other costumes evoking historical, literary or mythological villains. Blackface is obviously a taboo now, but breaking taboos is not the same as being racist.
Ethics Alarms 
when it is placed in context with him apparently having the nickname of coon man in medical school and refusing to shake the hand of a black opponent in a debate recently, it makes him out to be worse than a racist. It makes him out to be a hypocrite. It makes him out to be a vote whore. To him, the black man is not his friend, is not his colleague, and he’s not even his neighbor. the black man is his pawn, to be used as long as he can get votes. This is the same reason he was pushing late term abortion. He doesn’t give a damn about women generally. He doesn’t give a damn about reproductive freedom. but, he knows that the numbers for late-term abortion are off the charts with women, especially young and single women, who are more interested in having an awesome f*** with no consequences than anything else. They are also his pawns to be used until another bigger block of votes becomes available. I’ve said it many times, and I’ll say it again, and I’ll keep saying it until someone slaps tape over my mouth, that if it were not for double standards, the left would have no standards at all.
that alone is reason enough for him to need to resign, since he will be a liability for the party going forward based on that. However, I think the question of his own parties treatment of the other side is relevant. If this had been a Republican governor who have done this stupid and racist thing in the past, Northam would be among the loudest voices baying for his removal, and you know he wouldn’t accept the b******* apology that this was not who he was now. Nothing more than that person’s resignation and retirement from public life in absolute disgrace would satisfy him. As a result Northam needs to resign, retire from public life, and disappear into the dark pit of disgrace where all the other racist pigs and hypocrites belong. in Dante’s inferno, the hypocrites are doomed to pace their circle of hell forever weighted down by hooded robes that are made of lead, but killed it on the outside so they appear dazzling. He needs to be measured for a gilded lead robe to replace his white one.
Steve-O-in-NJ wrote, “it makes him out to be worse than a racist. It makes him out to be a hypocrite.”
Sorry Steve but your logic escapes me; a racist is far, far worse than a simple hypocrite.
P.S. Steve; show me a racist that’s not a hypocrite.
You might have to go back a decade or two, but the Mississippi folks who killed the civil rights workers would be an example. They were racists and they didn’t try to hide it, who else would pull over a car, call the occupants “nigger-loving Jew boys” and murder them?
Steve-O-in-NJ wrote, “You might have to go back a decade or two, but the Mississippi folks who killed the civil rights workers would be an example. They were racists and they didn’t try to hide it, who else would pull over a car, call the occupants “nigger-loving Jew boys” and murder them?”
Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.
Sorry but being blatantly open about being a racist and violently murdering others based on that racism does not show that the person is not a hypocrite it just shows that they are racist and a murderer; they are the scum of the human race.
I think that someone is openly racist, that’s bad, the person is full of hate. However, I think someone who is a racist, but hides it in the hopes of getting support from the very people he hates, as is the case here, is worse because he is both hateful and deceptive.
No Republican would ever get elected governor of a large purplish state without this coming out before the election. A yearbook? How did this get missed for so long?
In fairness, I never heard of medical schools having yearbook pages like this, but still…
My assumption is that the best defense is “I use to think and be a Republican.”
Except that the KKK has historically been mostly Democrat members…
As far as I can tell this photo is just keeping in line with the underbelly of the Democrat obsession with race.
”As far as I can tell this photo is just keeping in line with the underbelly of the Democrat obsession with race.”
Yet watch as they issue Favorite Son Bill Maher another pass for this.
Seriously, does the breezy aplomb with which it passes his lips give any Lefty pause?
Beat me to the post by about an hour!
Yes.
Still Spartan wrote, “Yes.”
Why yes. Neither of those costumes prove he’s has ever been or is now a racist they only show obvious insensitivity and ignorance. If we destroy the lives of everyone that’s ever been insensitive or ignorance we’d all have no life.
When it comes to insensitivity and ignorance, social justice warriors need to look in their own mirrors.
A bit of bad grammar in that, but you get the idea. Gotta proof read more often.
I’ll answer for Spartan, who is trying to stick to monosyllables so as not to be drawn into Ethics Alarms debates, which she finds annoying.
Yes, because she’s being consistent, or thinks she is. She believed that Bret Kavanaugh was credibly and definitively marked as an adult sexual predator based on a single account , 35 years old, and politically motivated, of a clumsy high school attempted super-grope. If three decades isn’t enough to assume someone has grown up and learned to be civilized about sex, it isn’t enough to assume they’ve grown up about race and sensitivity to racial hot buttons.
So “yes” is an attempt at consistency. Never mind that neither “costume” proves racism. Never mind Northam’s conduct and record over the last 30 years. Nver mind that the anti-Kavanaugh argument was indefensible.It’s a bad logic slippery slope.
So what you’re really saying is that her comment isn’t based on ethics at all, but politics the inability to dodge the “All credibly alleged bad acts are eternal, can be proven by the presence of even a marginally credible accuser, and youth is no excuse” position she took in the Kavanaugh hearings.
Got it.
I’m afraid so. She can’t vote “no” on Northam without disavowing her position on Kavanaugh, which was completely indefensible ethically. A yes on Northam can be defended—the photo would have defeated Northam if it had been revealed during the campaign, for example, so one could argue that he was elected under false pretenses; or the photo, fairly or not, cripples his ability to govern—but the position on Kavanaugh is unconscionable.
You ass. This has nothing to do with Kavanaugh. I have a very strict “no racists” policy. Weeks ago — pre-Scandal — I got in a Facebook debate with one of my conservative friends on this same issue and he ended up unfriending me. Blackface = racism. This has always been the case. And 25 years of age is way too old to be making excuses about youth. There is a photo page in my high school yearbook with pictures of the social party group — its name was Klan, with a K. This group was all white. I thought it was racist at the time and said so and refused to join even though I could have been a member. This isn’t hard.
Still Spartan wrote, “Blackface = racism.”
Regardless of context?
Furthermore:
Nigger = racism; regardless of context?
Honky = racism; regardless of context?
Ape = racism; regardless of context?
Brownie = racism; regardless of context?
Coconut = racism; regardless of context?
Cracker = racism; regardless of context?
Coon = racism; regardless of context?
Paleface = racism; regardless of context?
Red Neck = racism; regardless of context?
Teapot = racism; regardless of context?
Toad = racism; regardless of context?
WASP = racism; regardless of context?
Wigger = racism; regardless of context?
Yes to most of these. If I say, “Hey kids, look at the cool toad on our deck,” and I am, in fact, referring to a toad, then it is not racism. Again, this is not hard.
Still Spartan wrote, “Yes to most of these. If I say, “Hey kids, look at the cool toad on our deck,” and I am, in fact, referring to a toad, then it is not racism. Again, this is not hard.”
Where’s the rule book?
When does context matter and when doesn’t it?
Are you the arbiter?
Including this usage, I’ve used the word nigger three times, do you honestly think I’m a racist for using it? Be honest.
Still Spartan,
Using the progressive social justice warrior “logic” that you profess to be the only acceptable logic, you must immediately label me a racist because used the word nigger in my question to you. Oops, I used it again.
How dare I use that word! Twice!
How dare I not understand that any usage of that word means I’m a racist!
How dare I question your emotion based logic.
1. Of course it has SOMETHING to do with Kavanaugh. If one relieves, as one should if the idea of “fairness” resonates, that decades old conduct, even misconduct, should not be used as to judge an individual later, then both the judge and the governor deserve the same benefit of the doubt, with doubt being greater in the case of the judge, since he was younger, and because the evidence was far weaker. But you condemned the judge anyway. How could you not condemn the governor, if you embrace life-long stains as definitive?
2. Ok, blackface = racism, but what’s blackface? I went into great detail on the Fred Asataire post abut why Fred’s homage to John Bubbles/Bill Robinson was NOT racist, but an homage. Why does young Nothham doing the same regarding Michael Jackson is racist? Was Spike Lee’s use of blackface racist?
3. For some reason you are irrational on this topic. There’s no evidence that Northam-Present is a racist, just that he’s a fool. I’m trying to lead people who have been confused by emotionalism and kneejerk judgments through this ethics thicket, and you start name-calling. Jeez.
Jack Marshall: “I am going to continue to say what you’re thinking, because it is the narrative that I want to hear.”
Who is irrational exactly?
For the record, when I first heard of the Northam yearbook photo, my first thought was of Franken, not Kavanaugh. So yes, I am consistent in holding my leaders to higher standards, even if it means tearing down people in my own party.
Fred Astaire could have done an homage to his friend by simply doing his routine. No blackface necessary. So, whether or not good intentioned, still racist.
This …. is … not …. hard.
It’s apparently hard for YOU. How would anyone know Fred was saluting a black dancer? He was constantly emulating Bubbles, among others, but nobody knew. Sure, Franken’s another example, an official who also shouldn’t have been forced to resign, especially since HIS “crimes” were when he was a comedian. But it’s not in the “distant past” category, is it? He wasn’t a kid or a student. You’re cherrypicking to avoid confronting the issue.
What? What did race have to do with him paying homage? Was there only one black dancer ever? How Fred Astaire is wearing black face, it MUST be Bubbles. Here’s a way to pay homage — show film of your heroes dancing, and then attempt the same dance, without blackface.
You are now completely incoherent. It’s called MAKE-UP. If someone wants to pay homage to Groucho Marx, they wear a greasepaint moustache. To quote you, this isn’t hard.
I’m going to tru to bring you back from the Moon, since I know you usually think more clearly than this. You’re arguing that black make-up is taboo,, not that it’s racist. To be racist 1) the user would have to intend to denigrate blacks 2) the audience would have to interpret it that way, and 3) the theoretical offended party would have to see it that way. The Asataire “Bojangles” number misses all three, ergo, not “blackface,” and not racist. You are really arguing that because the original blackface in minstrel shows was inspired by racism, it doesn’t matter now what the intent or effect is. This is pretty typical leftist cant these days—it’s how teachers have lost their jobs for using the word “nigger” to discuss the word “nigger.” Absolutism is always “easy” because it ignores real nuances and complexities—it’s easier to be self-righteous that way.
Using “blackface” does not prove racism, and if such an act was based on racism 30 years ago, it doesn’t make the individual a racist now.
I don’t think make-up should be used to change skin tone. I think people who think there is nothing wrong with that are either ignorant or being deliberately obtuse about the history of blackface in this country. If you think that makes me irrational, well, I’m okay with that.
Well alrighty then! That’s a statement of a taboo. Nothing wrong with that position, if one likes absolutism. Then, as you say, it’s easy. Never means never. I can respect that perpective, though I am certain that it’s misguided.
This whole discussion about progressives and social justice warriors jumping to conclusions about racism really intrigues me.
I think the pattern of behaviors that progressives and social justice warriors have shown us is that their emotions are controlling their thinking which has led directly to their emotions trumping any possibility of critical thinking. This is one of the ways that cults brainwash their victims and then redirect their thinking to suit the needs of the cult. Progressives and social justice warriors are no longer individuals and they don’t even know it, they are part of a brainwashed hive mind.
🙂 COTD?
Should Ralph Northam’s 1984 yearbook photo require him to resign as Virginia Governor?”
No.
It’s interesting watching progressives using social justice warriors to eat their own. They aren’t too blatantly hypocritical when they’re applying their rediclous new lifetime you shit in your diaper historical social standards to control society with fear of intimidation.
Social justice warriors don’t allow their targets the freedom to prove they’ve evolved unless your last name is Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, et al.
Why? I’m curious to hear your reasoning. I don’t necessarily disagree, by the way.
As I stated above in my reply to Still Spartan…
Thank you. For the record, I agree with your take.
The thing that I find most interesting about this is that it recalls another incident from a few weeks back: that of the Muslim physician who, while in medical school, made comments suggesting that she would deliberately mis-treat Jewish patients. There was discussion at the time this this was disqualifying with regard to the practice of medicine.
Is the racism expressed in the photograph really that different? We are not talking about the actions of an adolescent; we’re talking about someone who went through college and did sufficiently well as to be admitted to medical school. This photo would have been taken when he was at least 23 years of age. To me, this suggests that if Northam was still practicing medicine it would (or should be) disqualifying.
However, his vocation these days is a possible exemption from that. I actually had less of a problem with his comments interpreted by many as advocating for infanticide; there are babies born with deformities that are essentially incompatible with life, and it’s seems reasonable that the goal of providers in such events would be to make the infant as comfortable as possible until the inevitable happens. If Northam made a comment indicating that an infant that’s potentially viable be denied care, that’s a different story – but if he said that, I haven’t heard the comment.
The Democratic Party, state and national, may take it upon themselves to defenestrate Northam, but in my view this is really up to the voters of Virginia to decide next time the seat is up for re-election. And it may be unethical of me to feel this way, but I think I’d rather have him stay right where he is, as a shining example of the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party machine.
And so would Republicans, of course. But can the Democrats allow that? In a purple state like Virginia, I think not.
I would look at it this way. Northam owes a duty of loyalty, and is responsible to:
a. Virginia;
b. His family;
c. The Democratic Party;
d. The American public.
A decision to resign could be based on one of the following or close variations thereof:
One:
Two:
Three:
Four:
One and two, or variants thereof, would be ethical.
One and two will be the “official” reasons, but four will be the real reason. At this point Northam will be a distraction at best and a liability at worst for his party as long as he remains in office. The Democratic Party is very good at sticking together and not at all hesitant about throwing someone who is going to keep their cause from advancing under the bus. Northam is just lucky the House of Clinton is no longer as powerful as it once was, or he’d be told he had three choices: resignation, car accident, or suicide.
Alas, I suspect you’re right.
You forgot ‘small plane crash.’
From his wiki page: He went on to Eastern Virginia Medical School, earning his M.D. degree in 1984.
Black face or KKK outfit, in the early ’80s? By a guy who clearly had political aspirations at the time? His father and grandfather were judges. The guy is clearly a dope or a garden variety tidewater white guy in charge.
Let him stay. Does Virginia provide for recalls? Let Virginians have the guy they elected until he’s either recalled or voted out next election. Or maybe he’ll win another term?
This reminds me of a really aggravating bumper sticker I saw on a neighbor’s car yesterday which says “Impeach the Moron.” Is this really the kind of Kangaroo democracy we want?
I might agree with the bumper sticker if the moron was the one who was elected.
Just for the record, Northam can’t run for re-election. Virginia doesn’t provide for a second consecutive term for governors. He could run again after four years under a different governor. Mills Godwin did it long ago, first as a Democrat, than as a Republican.
Is there a recall provision?
I don’t believe there is a recall provision in the State Code for the recall of a statewide official; there appears to be for local officials. Recall and referenda statutes are pretty complex.
I suspect legislators are not terribly enamored of them. Hah.
One trick that has occasionally been used is to resign in favour of a stooge for the last few weeks of a term, so that the resigner can run again as a technical non-incumbent. This sort of thing is well enough known in Latin American countries to have earned its own name, “continuismo”, and one of Paul Newman’s later films has him as a southern governor who plays that trick.
It’s what the “resistance” wants, and the media has been pushing for, and what I’ve been sacrificing myself and my blog to oppose the best I can.
It’s also what the same people who want it and are pushing for it would and did twist themselves up into pretzels to avoid if and when their guy was in office. Leave Bill alone, he’s got important work to do as president!
John Kass once wrote a column explaining how those defense of Bill Clinton made Donald Trump’s candidacy possible.
It wasn’t that long ago, and it reads just like I thought it would.
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnkass/2018/02/16/bill-clinton-the-nobody-nobody-sent-n2449765
I realize I never did answer your quiz in my first comment.
No, he should not be required to resign. His actions are protected by the First Amendment, the incident occurred a long time ago and he demonstrably doesn’t hold racist attitudes today. Requiring public officials to resign over even overt acts of racial insensitivity committed decades before they went into public service is unethical.
Such a policy encourages abuse, false claims based on politics, and general mayhem that is more harmful to our Republic than helpful to our social dynamic.
I think there should be an ethics statute of limitations considered. It seems we’ll be needing one going forward.
I just saw another thing: The quote below the picture of the people in blackface and the KKK hood (Northam is now claiming he is not one of the two in the picture):
He’s gotta go. We can’t have beer drinkers in positions of public trust, it’s too much like Kavanaugh.
Plus he’s white and he’s old. Clearly he’s got to go. (At least he didn’t go to a Catholic boys’ high school. And he didn’t go to Yale. So he’s got that going for him.)
Might someone photo-shop in a game-changer MAGA hat…?
No one’s trying to track down the progeny of the…um…dirty-faced coal miners in the Phoenix restaurant wall photo and harass them into submission.
Mercifully, the talented Rashaad Thomas was able to discern that which the rest of us lack sufficient prescience to notice.
It’s what John Leo called Stealth Racism, something so surreptitiously reprehensible that it fiendishly escapes notice…until someone (Thomas) sufficiently WOKE manufactu…I mean identifies it.
For this kind of conduct, we should not.
Only if they have an (R) after their names.
”Only if they have an (R) after their names.”
Welp, Herr Freud said there were no mistakes…
A la Sparty: no.
Agree
This generation only has to worry about old yearbook photos, imagine what teenagers today will be going through when they enter politics!!!!! Their entire lives are recorded in posts on Facebook and images on Instagram. What kind of people will be able to make it through adolescence and early adulthood without some public image or post that in the current climate would block their political career? Are the types of people who do make it through the same types of people who make good leaders?
My kids, for example. Being raised conservative, with rural ties, experiences, (my daughter can drive a tractor at 16!) and values. No social media, FULL STOP. I fought about that over the past decade, and only recently they have come to thank me for the foresight and protection.
The trouble is, I might have to disown a politician in the family. The shame of the thought alone pains me even as I write this!
For all those seeking to make race a central part of their strategy to gain a position of power over an adversary or to suggest their own virtuosity, please aknowledge your own bigotry before you demand your pound of flesh.
Civil rights “icon” John L Lewis is often said to be in the forefront of civil rights issues is also a leader in this movement to continue racial tension through his own behaviors.
Lewis and others fan the flames of intolerance and bigotry by boycotting th SOTU address and routinely claiming implicit racism in all things Republican; especiallyTrump. Where was Lewis’s call for tearing down statues of Robert Byrd in the past. What is going on now is Lewis and others are simply exercising their muscle to push the systemic racism narrative because society has, ironically, systemically moved beyond beliefs in racial supremacy.
These power moves are the equivalent of lynchings except these are economic in character. The effect is the same put fear into all those you hate because of their race. Make them give you respect whether deserved or not. Make them jump when you say so. Make those who don’t look like you afraid to criticize you.
How many have claimed to have evolved on an issue like gay rights and marriage in a relatively short period of time. Did they not hold bigoted attitudes before but after an epiphany they are now in good graces. Why can people who were anti-gay have past sins forgiven but once labeled a racist always a racist.. This is the exercise of power wielded by one race over another. That is the definition of racism.
As for Northam, he is not my governor but had he run in MD I would have worked my tail off to keep him out of the Capitol. To me he is an opportunist who will say and do whatever to get elected.
Has John Lewis opposed any civil right?
No, he just began Donald trump’s term by declaring him a racist and not a legitimate President, and led a boycott of his inauguration by the Congressional Black Caucus. I’d call that continuing “racial tension through his own behaviors.”
Update?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6660879/Democrat-Virginia-Governor-DENIES-hes-racist-yearbook-picture-featuring-blackface-KKK-robe.html
Even worse, the article reveals Northam evidently allowed himself to be photographed in front of a … gasp … Corvette! He may even have owned … gasp … a Corvette! I bet he even wore zipper boots at one time. He’s not only a racist, he’s a sexist!
ooops. Didn’t see the sexist ‘Vette in Jack’s photo. Never mind.
Jack has grown since then… he regrets owning a ‘vette, and is a good woke FORD man now!
🙂
Some have commented on Northam’s ability to govern now that this photo has emerged.
If there is no indication of racial animus in his approach so far why should a 35 year old photo indicate he would impose adverse policies to blacks?
In his apology he speaks of the hurt the photo caused then and now. Wait a minute! The hurt he caused occured 35 years ago. Someone else who dredged up this photo and those making money by distributing it or gettung clicks are responsible for delivering hurt feelings now. The tree that fell in the forest years ago may have made a noise then has made no noise since so lets be clear, repeating or publishing insensitive materials creates the hurt now.
No, the picture in the yearbook should not require Northam to resign.
But…
But, the aftermath is making it more clear that he should resign.
Although he was an adult at the time the picture was published, we don’t know the actual origin of it nor when it was taken. And, one incident, 34 years ago, should not by itself be cause for eternal condemnation.
But… Now, Northam who already apologized for being in the picture says it is not him in the picture. Those two statements, if they are true, tell me that he knows he is the kind of person who could have been in the picture or maybe a number of such pictures. That would be a pattern and not a one-time mistake.
But… There allegedly are other incidents of racist behavior. If true, those incidents also would show a pattern.
But… Many on the left and the right are calling for him to resign, and that certainly diminishes his ability to serve effectively, a marker for resignation.
No more buts, just a finally: Too often we make a decision too quickly. We saw it happen with the Buzz Feed story, with the Covington kids story, and with many others, where people rushed to form a judgment. So, the temptation here is to answer the question that was not asked: ‘Should Northam resign?’ It’s sure looking like he should, but, the original question was whether the yearbook picture should require him to resign. My answer to that question still is no.
History is littered with examples of people engaging in despicable behaviors yet rehabilitating themselves to be welcomed back. Should Northam pay the penalty of exclusion for an action that happened 30 years ago? With Kavanaugh, the attempt was made with very sketchy evidence. Not so in this case, but 30 years? Seems an element in the left is wishing to place Northam in the same place as Al Franken for whom I have a high level of sympathy. A zero tolerance? I wonder if Northam was Black and had 30 years ago poked fun at White’s would he have the same end result? I doubt it. My assumption is the bleating will continue until Northam is driven into exile. Northam was stupid, impulsive, and lacked judgment. I am capable of all three in just a few minutes – just ask my wife – The Lovely Cynthia.
No. They need to base his merits on what he’s done as an elected official of Virginia. If he’s doing a bad job, vote him out. Take a lesson from the Kavanaugh hearings and leave the yearbook photos in the past.
I concur.