By Alexandra DeSanctis
Tuesday, April 14, 2020
Writing yesterday in the New York Times, columnist
Michelle Goldberg exemplifies how not to opine on politics if you wish to be
taken seriously by any significant percentage of your readers.
“What to Do With Tara Reade’s Allegation Against Joe
Biden?” is the title of her most recent column, and the subheading: “A sexual
assault accusation against the presumptive Democratic nominee is being used to
troll the #MeToo movement.”
Contrast this tone with the one Goldberg employed in 2018
when writing in response to sexual-misconduct allegations against Supreme Court
nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The title of that column? “Pigs All the Way Down,” and
the subtitle: “Kavanaugh and our rotten ruling class.”
Goldberg opened that September 2018 screed by recounting
Deborah Ramirez’s allegation against Kavanaugh and, to her credit, noting that
the New Yorker had failed to find a single eyewitness to corroborate the
claim. But that fact made little difference to Goldberg.
“Regardless of what happens to Kavanaugh, however, this
scandal has given us an X-ray view of the rotten foundations of elite male
power,” she wrote. “Despite Donald Trump’s populist posturing, there are few
people more obsessed with Ivy League credentials. Kavanaugh’s nomination shows
how sick the cultures that produce those credentials — and thus our ruling
class — can be.”
She went on to describe Kavanaugh’s high school,
Georgetown Prep, as “a bastion of heedless male entitlement” and to note his
involvement in a fraternity and a secret society as evidence of his
participation in a “piggish milieu.” She also mentioned his time clerking for
appeals court judge Alex Kozinski, who later resigned after multiple accusations
of sexual harassment. The insinuation of this litany is obvious: If not in fact
guilty of what his accusers alleged — a possibility Goldberg declined to
mention, despite the overwhelming lack of credible evidence — Kavanaugh was at
least guilty by association.
But in her latest column, considering Tara Reade’s recent
sexual-assault allegations against Joe Biden, Goldberg is markedly less
strident. “Must Democrats, for the sake of consistency, regard their
presumptive presidential nominee as a sexual predator?” she asks. Her answer
is, in essence, of course not.
“No one, looking at what’s been reported about Reade and
Biden, can claim to have more than a hunch about what happened,” she writes, a
far cry from how she wrote about Kavanaugh with far less evidence to go on.
Goldberg takes great pains to detail Reade’s “wacky
political views,” saying Biden’s accuser “seems almost engineered in a lab to
inspire skepticism in mainstream Democrats.” Though she permits that the
accusation might be true regardless, her column is far more concerned with
defending Democrats from the Republican charge of hypocrisy.
“If [Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford] had been so
inconsistent in telling her story, feminists might still have believed her, but
they likely wouldn’t have made her a cause célèbre, and Democrats on Capitol
Hill never would have invited her to testify publicly,” Goldberg says.
This is perhaps the weakest moment in an otherwise weak
column — she ignores, as does anyone who persists in believing the
anti-Kavanaugh narrative, that there was never a single piece of evidence that
Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh even met or were in the same place on the night in
question, let alone that he assaulted her. Reade, by contrast, evidently knew
Biden because she worked for him. Unlike Blasey Ford, she told at least one
friend at the time that Biden had assaulted her.
It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact necessary, to
investigate Reade’s story for the sake of finding the truth. Conservatives
would be wrong to wield against Biden the same unfair standard that Democrats
used against Kavanaugh. But with this column, Goldberg has joined her employer
in giving their political ally a free pass after using accusations with far
less merit to denigrate a political opponent.
No comments:
Post a Comment