National Review Online
Monday, April 27, 2020
We do not know whether the accusations that Tara Reade
has leveled against Joe Biden are true or false. That is a question of evidence
and of inquiry that might be answered as time rolls on. We do know, by
contrast, that the double standard that has been exhibited by Biden’s campaign
and by the political press in tandem is a national disgrace. Both culturally
and legally, due process must be habitually applied to nobody or to everyone.
If, upon the most frivolous and protean of pretexts, it is routinely accorded
to one faction while being denied to another, it is effectively lost.
Though he has not deigned to address it directly, Joe
Biden insists that he is innocent of the charge that he digitally penetrated an
intern back in 1993. “It is untrue,” his communications director says. “This
absolutely did not happen.” If so, we hope that this incident has taught Biden
that his previous approach toward accusations of sexual assault was dangerous,
illiberal, and ultimately untenable. During the summer of 2018, with Brett
Kavanaugh under the national spotlight, Biden was unequivocal in his demand
that Americans must believe women as a matter of unwavering reflex. “For a
woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally,” Biden
argued, “you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence
of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether
or not it’s been made worse or better over time.”
Biden took a similar line when, as Barack Obama’s vice
president, he was tasked with overhauling the manner in which sexual assault
cases were evaluated on college campuses. Per the Chronicle of Higher
Education, “the sweeping Title IX changes that have transformed higher
education would not have happened without Biden’s support.” By “transformed,”
the Chronicle means that Biden was responsible for lowering the standard
of evidence so drastically — and expanding the definition of sexual misconduct
so dramatically — that accused students were left with no realistic chance of
clearing their names. Summing up the approach he had taken toward Title IX in a
2017 conversation, Biden put it simply: “I believe you.” Why, we must ask,
should his own accuser not be granted the same privilege?
Similar questions must be posed to the media, which have
displayed an extraordinary and unjustifiable double standard in this case, and
which, despite the best attempts of the New York Times editor Dean
Baquet, have failed spectacularly to account for it. Two years ago, when
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was accused of teenage sexual misconduct,
the press focused breathlessly on the charges, reporting without caveat
anything that came across the transom. Nothing was too ridiculous to repeat —
including the claim that Justice Kavanaugh had been involved in a “gang-rape”
ring — and what little hard evidence was available was willfully supplemented
by weaselly “opinion” pieces in which it was insinuated that the experiences of
other people confirmed the specific accusations against Kavanaugh himself.
Worse still were the presumptions that undergirded the media’s focus. For some
writers, the mere fact that Kavanaugh had been accused was sufficient to tank
his nomination, given the “cloud” that it would allegedly create around his
tenure. For others, the vehemence of his denial was an indication of his guilt
and unsuitability. Yet more took the view that there was no need to presume innocence
at all, because Kavanaugh was engaged not in a criminal trial but in a “job
interview.” The affair represented a nadir of American journalism.
Given that the evidence is stronger in this case than it
was in Kavanaugh’s — we know, at least, that the accuser and accused have met
— we must ask why the same rules are not being applied in this instance. Joe
Biden is hoping to be president of the United States. Might not a “cloud”
follow him around, too? Biden has not only denied the charges categorically,
but he has demanded that the press “diligently review” and “rigorously vet”
them. What, when compared to his “I believe you” mantra, should this tell us
about his character? Is a presidential election not a “job interview,” too? And
if, as was the case in 2018, the venue of the alleged assault tells us a great
deal about the likelihood of its veracity, might we expect to read a slate of
pieces outlining what it was like to be a female intern in the Senate in the
early 1990s?
We are of the same view today as we were in 2018, and as
we were before that. We believe that sexual assault is a hideous crime and
that we should punish only people who are guilty of it. It is monstrous when
the perpetrators of evil get away with their acts. But it is also monstrous
when the innocent lose their good names. Our preference for due process derives
from a desire to avoid either outcome.
More practically, we believe that our political system
itself benefits strongly from the presumption of innocence. If the mere introduction
of an accusation is sufficient to prompt a candidate’s withdrawal, the
incentives for false charges will grow legion. Joe Biden is a hypocrite and an
opportunist, but that is no reason to treat him any differently than we would
treat anybody else. If he has truly changed his mind on this most important of
questions, we welcome him into the fold. As Biden now argues, Tara Reade’s
accusations should be “respectfully heard” and “rigorously vetted.” And, if the
evidence does not rise to the level, the man at whom they are aimed should be
assumed not guilty. But we will not get to that point with one side throwing a
blanket over the story and muttering, “well, this time he’s one of ours.”
No comments:
Post a Comment