“The first is absolution — not only for Platner, but for every nominee or candidate, Republican or Democratic, with a blemished personal history — on the grounds that we elect or install people in high office to achieve the results we desire, not to serve as paragons of moral rectitude. If nothing else, this could make our politics less repellent to talented if imperfect people who now steer clear of public service because they don’t want to put themselves or their families through the inevitable media inquisition that comes with every campaign.
“The second is consistent judgment of anyone, Democrat or Republican, who falls far short of clear and unyielding standards of moral conduct. Perhaps this will finally re-erect the political barriers that formerly prevented shameless people, our current president not least, from degrading our politics and setting a putrescent example of what is — and what isn’t — necessary to reach the high places of American life.
“What ought to stop is what we have now: inconsistent standards selectively applied according to our political bias.”
What a nauseating, unethical, cynical position. I decided that Bret Stephens didn’t deserve serious attention (or respect as a conservative) back when he advocated the elimination of the Second Amendment, but this is worse. His op-ed is also deliberately dishonest: critics of those (like me ) who impose ethical analysis on public figures frame such judgments as “moralizing,” because that can be (wrongly) attacked with Biblical cliches, like “Judge not, lest ye not be judged,” and “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” I placed both of these out-of-context admonitions in the Ethics Alarms rationalization list.
The issue isn’t moral conduct, but ethical conduct, principles and values. The public will not and cannot “get the results they desire” if the leaders they elect cannot be trusted. That is the question, and the one aspect of a candidate’s character that must be present. There is literally nothing about Platner, his past, his career, his personal life, and his statements that suggests anything other than he is completely untrustworthy as well as having no qualifications to be in Congress other than having two arms, two legs and a head.
Moreover, Stephens’ ignorance of society, leadership, role models and how society evolves is horrifying and unconscionable. “The fish rots from the head down” isn’t a nursery rhyme, it is true, and has been proven true of governments and societies throughout history. The United States of American has survived this long because the Founders understood that leaders had to be, or at least appear to be, of exemplary character. George Washington was the template. Unethical leaders create unethical societies. This was one of my main (heh: I typed “Maine” first) arguments against the Republican Party nominating Donald Trump in 2016, with posts like “A Nation Of Assholes: The Ultimate, Undeniable And Crucial Reason Donald Trump Must Never Be President.” The U.S. was spectacularly lucky with Trump, but there were always aspects of his career and character that suggested that he wouldn’t be completely incompetent as President. Platner has absolutely none. He makes Donald Trump seem like George Washington by comparison.
Stephens’ second “good” is even less good, if that’s possible. So the Democrats’ cynical embrace of a walking, talking piece of human excrement because packing the Supreme Court and knee-capping democracy is their object of lust should make it more difficult to elect people like Donald Trump in the future? Stephens reveals himself to be a Presidential history ignoramus.
We have had plenty of Presidents who could be called “shameless,” prime among them one of the men whose face is on Mount Rushmore, Thomas Jefferson. Andrew Jackson killed people who insulted him. He was also an unapologetic racist regarding Native Americans. Grover Cleveland paid someone to take his place in the Union army, fathered a child out of wedlock, and probably did so by raping that child’s mother. I might vote for Graham Platner over Woodrow Wilson if that nightmare choice was ever necessary. FDR may have been the most ruthless, conniving, Machiavellian POTUS of all. Richard Nixon committed treason. Barack Obama used his special status as the first black President to wreck U.S. race relations, which I regard as a lot worse than Donald Trump plastering his face and name all over the place and authoring tweets that read like they were written by a 10-year-old. If nothing else, Joe Biden is shameless.
There were valid, justifiable reasons to elect Donald Trump, and the fact that the party he opposes is trying to put a man like Graham Platner in the U.S. Senate was one of them.
[Relevant: see here.]
At least Stephens’ last statement above is true: “What ought to stop is what we have now: inconsistent standards selectively applied according to our political bias.” This blog has only been maintaining that since its inception, because it should be obvious to anyone. We don’t need to risk having a creep like Platner in the Senate to learn that lesson.
Notice: With this post, I am officially designating the Graham Platner candidacy an ethics train wreck.
Ethics Alarms 
Platner scored approximately 72% of Dem votes, according to the Bangor Daily News. 100% of votes have been counted (eat THAT, California).
Shocking? Well, not really. According to the Independent Voting Project, there are approximately 1 million registered voters in Maine. That includes approximately 326,000 registered Democrats and 351,000 registered independents.
Platner’s 72% victory was earned with roughly 136,000 votes. In other words, less than 14% of registered voters pulled the lever for him. And here he is.
Loathsome as Platner is, to me this is less an indictment of Platner and more of an indictment of the primary system used in so many places in the United States (at least Platner scored big enough to avoid the ranked choice voting system progressives conned the state into approving – the Governor’s races for both parties and the D nomination for the Second CD are going through that preposterous bullshit as I type this).
Platner wasn’t some organically-rising state pol when all of this started. He was recruited by out-of-staters with the Democratic Socialists of America. I’ve seen reports that they initially had their eyes on someone else but went for Platner because their first choice carried baggage that oppo research indicated would be problematic. Gosh, but I’d like to know what THAT jerk did if Platner was seen as the safer choice!
As has been proven many times now, primaries attract only the most highly-motivated voters, and that’s what produces wingnut candidates like Graham Platner and Marjorie Taylor Greene. And, arguably, Donald Trump.
So much for democracy, eh? No wonder the Founders didn’t trust it. Maybe it’s time to revert to the smoke-filled rooms.
I tried to find out what the % of eligible voters voting was. 14% is disgraceful.
I remember, years ago, that people on the right were upset that a conservative survivor of a school shooting, Kyle Kashuv, had his offer of admission to Harvard rescinded because of his previous liberal use of racial slurs for black and Jewish people. I think it was even a little contentious here, but I remember saying that I didn’t mind the rescinding, because not everyone gets to go to Harvard, and there were probably a near infinite number of applicants with equal qualifications that didn’t have a documented history of racial slurs.
This is almost an identical situation – Even fewer people get to even run to be senators backed by major political parties, there has to be a nearly infinite pool of people to draw from, you’d figure you’d be able to find one or two without Nazi ideations. Except that there were some, they’re right there… In the loser’s columns. This would be like Harvard specifically tapping Kashuv over one of the other candidates despite knowing about his moral failings. It’s indefensible.
Many moons ago, I decided that universal suffrage wasn’t a good thing. Too much liberty and a focus on equality will destroy a nation from within. Our nation came close to achieving a balance that never happened in any major nation, but many people do not really have a deep moral core. They just adjust to whatever is around them.
Look at OnlyFans. If we let the market decide full stop, this is what we get. Every person is not qualified to vote or hold public office, but I fear we are on the downward trend now. Trump seems like a blip to me. I think we are going to get more outrageous public candidates and a more biased judiciary before things get better
Platner is almost everything Democrats claim to hate. Mamdani is similar in an ideological sense because he believes in Islam, which isn’t consistent with western civilization and is at odds again with what the left claims to believe.
I think the biggest problem is that the Democrats hate Donald Trump (and Republicans in general as a close 2nd). Platner is anti-Trump (as is Mamdani) so his myriad issues are just things they “little h” hate, as opposed to Trump, who they HATE!!
I wonder if the Democrats look at Platner the way we did the Soviets during WWII, perhaps a relationship of mutual interests destined to shatter when Platner is no longer needed to oppose Trump.
Jeeeez, Josh! I write these things, and nobody reads them…that’s exactly the argument James Carville made, discussed here.
Criticism duly noted Jack.
Seems like an obvious political calculation though. You could be even more cynical and say the Dems can use Platner as a way to show they aren’t intolerant of people who have “redeemed” themselves. Look, we aren’t in favor of cancel culture. We nominated a former neo-nazi womanizer!
Stephens is simply Trump deranged. The tell: “shameless people, our current president not least.” The inability to say or write anything without bring up “Trump!” is the first symptom on the list.
Interesting. Using AiM’s numbers, Platner’s “74%” win was done with approximately 6.8% of the registered Democrat voters in Maine. [It would be even less is those registered as Independent are allowed to vote in the Dem primary. Maybe half of the 6.8% since there are slightly more Independents than Dems, essentially doubling the pool.] The bottom line is: can the incumbent draw enough of those of the Dem-Indy pool who voted for other than Platner (including those who abstained) to win in November?