By Ben Shapiro
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Was a 14-year-old girl molested by Alabama Senate
Republican candidate Roy Moore, or is she lying? It’s a yes-or-no question.
Was a 16-year-old girl sexually assaulted by Moore, or is
she lying? Again, it’s a yes-or-no question.
Finally, do you believe that there are conditions under
which a child molester should sit in the United States Senate? Again, this
question is binary.
Yet many conservatives seem to be seeking a third answer
to all three of these questions, mostly to avoid giving straight answers.
Let’s begin with the first question: Did Roy Moore molest
a 14-year-old girl? Did he meet her at an Alabama courthouse, get her phone
number, pick her up from her mother’s home, and drive her to his own, proceed
to undress her and touch her sexually, then force her to touch him? Or was this
all made up?
Moore says it’s all made up; the alleged victim, Leigh
Corfman, says it happened. So, here’s what we know. We know that Corfman and
her mother were at the courthouse at the time in question; we know that Corfman
apparently has told others over the years about the incident; we know that she
didn’t want to talk about the experience publicly but was convinced to do so by
the Washington Post; we know that
three other women have come forward stating to the Post that Moore attempted to date them when they were between the
ages of 16 (the age of legal consent in Alabama) and 18; we know that a former
Moore colleague said it was common knowledge that Moore liked to date
high-school girls when he was in his 30s; we know that Corfman says she voted
for President Trump.
We also know that Moore has denied the allegations; we
know that Moore says he didn’t “generally” date teenagers when he was in his
30s, adding, “I’m not going to dispute anything, but I don’t remember anything
like that”; he has threatened to sue the Washington
Post for running the story; he claims he “never talked to or had any
contact” with Corfman. We also know that these claims surfaced only 30 days
from a heavily publicized election.
You get to decide whether Corfman’s claims are credible,
or whether Moore’s denials are. Or you can say that you don’t have enough
evidence to make a judgment — which is making a default judgment against the
credibility of claims as they currently stand.
Now, the second question: Did Roy Moore sexually assault
a 16-year-old girl named Beverly Young Nelson in 1977? Here’s what we know. We
know that Nelson claims to have worked at a restaurant and met Moore there; we
know that he signed her yearbook; we know that she quit the restaurant; we know
that she claims he brought her into his car and then groped her breasts and
grabbed her by the neck, attempting to force her head down into his crotch; we
know that she, too, claims to have supported Trump.
We also know that Moore denies the allegations and says
that the alleged victim’s lawyer, Gloria Allred, is a publicity hound.
Now, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the
claims against Moore are credible. (I believe they are, for the record.) Let’s
ask the final question: Does it matter enough that Roy Moore has been credibly
accused of child molestation for him to possibly lose his Senate seat to a
Democrat?
A few conservatives say yes: the National Review editorial board, Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R., Ky.,), Senator Mike Lee (R., Utah), Senator Cory Gardner (R.,
Colo.), and some others. But the more common response seems to be no: Other
considerations take precedence over Moore’s alleged crimes.
This argument takes three specific forms.
The first argument: Moore hasn’t been convicted of
anything, and due process requires us to consider him innocent until proven
guilty. This argument is empty, because our decision to vote for or against a
particular candidate doesn’t require due process — Hillary Clinton wasn’t
convicted of anything, either, except in the minds of the public. Due process
determines whether you go to jail. The public determines whether it thinks
politicians ought to be handed power.
The second argument is supposedly pragmatic: Democrats
routinely pooh-pooh the crimes and misdeeds of their own candidates, so
Republicans would be at a systemic disadvantage if they were to clean their own
slate. But this, again, supports the notion that the people can’t be trusted —
that the people will overlook crimes in order to get what they want. More
commonly, scandal-ridden candidates end up on the outs with voters. Just ask
Hillary.
Finally, there’s the third argument, which is the most
honest and also the most morally horrifying: David Horowitz’s argument that
Democrats are so disgusting that even if Moore did it, he wouldn’t care,
because the Democrats must be stopped. This binary thinking would justify a
vote for anyone who votes the right
way on legislation; President Trump could have literally shot someone on Fifth
Avenue, and Horowitz would have supported him. In this view, character doesn’t
matter at all and we aren’t destroying the social fabric of the country when we
prize policy outcomes over basic decency. In fact, the Horowitz angle holds
that basic decency can be ensured only by desired policy outcomes: All that
matters is politics.
This argument goes too far. If we’re really at the point
in American politics where political opposition requires electing credibly
accused child molesters, then we ought to put down ballots and pick up guns.
Any evil so grave that we must elect sexual abusers to stop it is an evil that
merits a violent response.
How will Republicans decide on Roy Moore? Perhaps they’ll
convince themselves that Moore is innocent; perhaps they’ll convince themselves
that the ends justify the means. Or perhaps they’ll make an objective judgment
about the allegations against Moore and remind themselves that character still
matters in life and even in politics.
I pray for the latter — and for a write-in candidacy for
Jeff Sessions, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment