Bill Clinton, Roy Moore and the Power of Social Identity

Monica Lewinsky consistently and credibly testified that she was the one who pursued Bill Clinton. All allegations are not the same and the facts and nuances matter.

Being a former comedian and being a former public servant is not the same social role. The example between Franken and Moore, even if the harassing offense (barring assault) were equal, does not consider the important narrative of social roles. We, as a society, think crass sexual jokes are comedic. We think a judge's/public servant's behavior should reflect public trust. The former comic apologized and didn't make excuses about his former role. The judge denies the preponderance of evidence. The partisan lens (a euphemism for hypocritical) has nothing to do with this comparison. Because of the importance of context, this example fails to support the author's hypothesis.

What is sexual harassment? The definition seems to have been mistakenly expanded to include any word, action or glance that someone dislikes, finds irritating, finds uncomfortable. There are two forms of sexual harassment: quid pro quo harassment and hostile environment harassment. They apply to THE WORKPLACE (a business, a campus, etc.) and to workplace-related situations such as conferences wherein employees and management participate. A customer whistling at a woman walking through a bar may be irritating, but it is not sexual harassment. Al Franken's alleged action of touching a stranger's fanny at a state fair is not sexual harassment. However egregious Roy Moore's actions toward teen-age girls might have been, if there was no employment relationship (he wasn't her employer, her teacher, etc.) then "sexual harassment" is not the correct term for the former judge's behavior. The national press needs to do a better job of repleatedly explaining sexual harassment to the public. Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana

It's a matter of timing, and the person in question. JFK was beloved, Nixon was not. Bill Clinton was also, Roy Moore is not. Liking someone is a major factor in a person's decision whom to vote for. It's usually presented in the context of "would you have a beer with this "guy"? What is really about is the liking. That will get you away with a lot. With Hillary, she just was never liked enough. She paid the price for her hubby. In 1960, the press showed some discretion. JFK's exploits did not interfere with his duties as president, and so they were kept private. Americans are a very provincial country. They claim to be so holy, so puritanical, yet they seem prone to produce sexually deviants by the droves. Perhaps it is an American thing. Much ado about nothing, I say. What I've heard about Al Franken so far sounds ridiculous. A woman who talks sex with Howard Stern and poses for skin mags is "horrified" by Al's "groping", which the photo shows Al posing for the camera. Me smell something fishy here. The second accuser says Al grabbed her buttocks while hubby took pix. Really? Why did hubby not punch Al out? Please give me a break. Voters have a voice in the matter at the polls when they vote. Accusers can take these alleged oppressors to court. I could care less. I voted for JFK and would do so again. He was a good president if not a faithful husband. That business was Jackie's not mine. Who am I to judge? If it's good for the Pope it's good for me. DD Manhattan

I'll add this: The sub head to this piece contains "different interpretations of the same facts." However, in many cases of sexual misconduct, THE FACTS ARE IN DISPUTE. Accusations by themselves are not facts. In so many sexual conduct stories, only two people (and sometimes only one person) really knows what happened. This is not to mean that accusers are not telling the truth. But short of a court procedure, how do we in the public know fact from fiction or exaggeration? And even courts convict innocent people. Now we are engaged in a great civil He Said She Said war and some wonder if the situation will long endure with many people terminated from employment, many reputations ruined because of often unproven (and sometimes trivial or politically motivated) charges. Retaliation may seem sweet. Being falsely accused but unable to prove "it didn't happen" is not so sweet. Those who are making allegations might consider whether they would appreciate being accused of career-ending allegations. Not all allegations are equal. Accusing in anger that exaggerates one's emotional or ethical situation may have undesired consequences. If the facts and evidence are clearly, honestly presented, there may be few "different interpretations" ot deal with. And a significant problem arises when there are no consequences for those who tell tall tales that put someone on the Road to Ruin. Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana

The assertion that our identities dictate our realities implies that either there is no objective reality out there, independent of our various perceptions of it; or, if there is, we don't care about it. A more productive way to frame the issue would be to raise the question about which party (political or otherwise) has the best grasp of reality. I suspect the empirical evidence would show that Fox viewers and fundamentalist Christians have the worst grasp of reality.

Trying to be objective, it looks like the actions of each one fit in with the prevalent norms of their respective situations. The big difference is legal. Our laws say a 14 year old is not responsible for his or her own actions and requires the protection of the state. But make no such claim about power differentials.

I liked this article. I voted for Bill in 92 & 96. The allegations were out there. Like many, including the NYT, I discounted not = discredited) them. He won. In my view, that ended their significance. So I opposed the impeachment proceedings. I think he was a good President. Eight years of peace and prosperity work for me, even if in retrospect he was very lucky in his timing. The job of a President encompasses so much that impacts hundreds of millions of people whereas his sexual misconduct affected only a handful. I voted for neither major candidate in 2016. The allegations against Trump were out there. I had already decided not to vote for him so they didn't affect me. He won. In my view, that ends their significance. I hope he does as good a job in office as Bill Clinton and we can all enjoy the benefits. I do try to be consistent.

And then there were none. As I write this, Charlie Rose (with others to come) has been pulled from employment over allegations of sexual misconduct. Unfortunately, one's definition of sexual misconduct and its level of seriousness is not a matter set in stone. Should every person (I include the possibility of women as abusers/harassers) lose employment no matter the allegations? Should allegations be proven before someone is terminated? Can we separate allegations from those that are politically motivated? What should be done to determine if allegations are true or false? How can we decide if someone's claim of emotional damage is false or exaggerated? In a real, reasonable world where fairness counts (if it does count), is a "no tolerance" policy really possible? As more women come forward to #MeToo lists, should every male (or every man and woman) who has ever remotely done something that could be viewed as harassment or other abuse come forward and confess in the public confessional? Others have noted, and I ask here, what punishments are appropriate for misbehavior (apart from rape)? Will any men (will anyone at all) be left unscathed, since not only are human beings created to make mistakes (we're supposed to learn from them), but some mistakes or abuses are only that in the eyes of someone else? While acknowledging that harassment and other abuses have occurred (maybe since time began), at what point will the current steamroller have had enough rolling?

This is an explanation of human behavior, not an acceptable excuse for abusive and illegal behavior. There is no doubt that humans manipulate and cherry pick facts to fit their emotional beliefs. It is well documented. Logic and religion take a distant second or third place to social identity. The "social identity" excuse is why Donald Trump, the abuser in chief, could be elected President. Trump's behavior and locker room bragging about it are easily worse than Roy Moore and certainly Al Franken. Though Trump, with his billions could buy silence and threaten lawsuits and claim innocence is certainly as guilty as Moore and Franken, neither of whom will ever be convicted in a courtroom (therefore all 3 are "innocent" right? Wrong! Not proven guilty but not sinless in a real moral world.) Women, as a block, if you value your integrity and self esteem, it is time to start speaking up. All of you. 100%. Shenanigans like the majority of women voting for Donald Trump send a message to men that even most women don't believe the "rants of those left wing feminists". And apparently even to women they seem like rants until they themselves are treated that way. There is a long term picture in that women are going to have to stand up to as a united front in order to get a toehold against sexual humiliation and abuse.

This is not about "believes" it's about facts. "Believing" that the economy got worse while in fact numbers clearly prove that it got better is just plain stupid - or more mildly put: uninformed. "Believing" that Moore is innocent while all facts are pointing in the other direction is completely unacceptable. Twitterfinger over in the White House invented a pretty genius lie: fake news. That's genius, just call everything you don't like "fake news". I hope history will treat Twitterfinger over in the White House very unkindly for committing that crime. But back to the subject at hand: look at the facts, if the facts can't prove something well then it's "innocent until proven". But this is not like religion where you either believe or you dont. When it comes to those allegations of sexual misconduct we are not in religious fairy tale territory, it's not "I believe it" or "I don't", no: look at the facts no matter if your team is involved or not and then judge. Is it really that hard? I mean really?

Women (and their supporters) must make sure that sexual harassment, abuse and rape are NOT partisan issues. When Democrats or Republicans are excused from the consequences of their actions, whether because they take the right policy position on women's issues or because they are a reliable vote for tax cuts, women ultimately suffer. Women (and men) must not allow women to be demeaned or become the subject of abuse because someone calls them "trailer park trash" or a "bimbo eruption" or because they were once a playboy model; NO woman should be the subject of harassment, abuse or rape. Calling out a man for harassment or abusive behavior must be separated from the remedy or consequence; not every action requires a nuclear option, especially if the bad behavior does not involve criminal conduct and occurred many years in the past. We must be able to separate out conduct which is indefensible on the one hand, from the punishment of the offender on the other.

I am a democrat who has always been repulsed by Bill Clinton's facility for smoothly talking his way past all accusations of infidelity and sexual misconduct. A very sleezy guy who said in his state of the union address: " I did not have sex with that woman"' "that woman" has to be the most cruelly demeaning characterization of a female I have ever heard spoken by a holder of high office. "That woman", a young, powerless attendant alone with the most powerful man in the world must have been a really lowly creature to seduce our great leader. Yet he is still so popular with liberal women, and so stoutly defended by Hillary. How does she square that comment and that activity with her campaigning for feminist causes. Maybe because she is nothing without him?

OK! OK! OK, NYT, I give up! I will start reading the Times from cover-to-cover if you will stop printing ANY story about sexual harassment in any form or fashion, especially about politicians and sex. Yuck!.....OK?!?

CHOOSING BETTER LEADERS In this day of sexual harassment, fraud, profiteering, plutocracy, and rampant lying we propose some rules to judge by. We call them the "Wilderness Rules" since they come from the temptations of Jesus as he fasted in the wilderness: make bread from stones; sell loyalty for money, and use your personal power to get political power. These temptations are all aligned on survival of the ego in Buddhist terminology and they are important because survival is one aspect of evolution. But is it not as important as the other aspect–diversity–or the orientation toward the resilience and novelty that marks a healthy system. Asking these questions can help us choose better leaders and make a healthier society. In modern terms would the person in question: 1. use personal power to satisfy and appetite? 2. be more interested in optimizing personal profit than increasing employee wages? 3. use personal power to increase political power?

Granted that Bill, in his position should have used better judgement , but what Bill and Monica did was consensual. Moore stalking underage girls isn't. Although the picture of Franken looks like it was a planned skit, kissing her without permission, if true as she stated, isn't consensual. What Justice Thomas did to Anita Hill, without consent also isn't consensual. There are obvious differences in each case.

I think the allegations against Moore are far worse than those against Clinton because they involve individuals who were under the age of 18 at the time of the advances.

There should have been better pre-planning in the case of the basketball players and Roy Moore. If some of Trump's Staff had been "on the ball" so to speak, the President could have traded those three so-called basketball players for one Roy Moore. The whole world would have been a happier place.........

Ideology is the way individuals see the world, not very different with what Germans call Weltanshauung, a world view. This is what lead people to their political allegiances. Why is it so difficult then to understand that the divergent optics of social situations is a function not of politics per se but of the ideological responses to those social events?

He is innocent until proven guilty in court, so no jail time until then. But that doesn't mean we elect him to congress, or school principal, or girl scout leader...

Way back when this was all happening, we'd lived through Nixon's shame, but also his honor, when he resigned. I was just as adamant back then in my declaration that Clinton could only belittle his own honor by not resigning in the face of his actions and perjuries, but I was in a clear minority at the time, asking for an honorable behavior, when so many were more than willing to look the other way, joining Hillary in 'standing behind their man' and saying that 'character' didn't matter. And the times have not produced any further evidence that we have any honorable people in any state of power anymore. Instead, we have mendacious bigots who are being willingly supported by increasingly ignorant citizens, fed constant lies by biased media in corporate control.

"Democrats today may say their reaction to a similar situation would be different than it was in the 1990s — and Thursday’s revelation about Al Franken may give them a chance to prove it — but the power of social identities leaves room for doubt." Read the comments on Michelle Goldberg's column calling for Senator Franken's resignation and all doubts will be resolved. Liberals overwhelmingly forgive Franken for the exact same behavior that has heads rolling at NPR. Liberal feminists and evangelical Christians are in rare agreement: if one of their boys mistreats women he should be forgiven, or it wasn't really sexual assault in the first place. Now the other guy? Guilty! Diogenes still wanders in darkness.

The best way I know to overcome such biases is by means of legal reasoning. Lawyers search a library full of cases to find those with fact patterns most analogous to the case at hand. They then argue to the judge that their case law should control his or her decision because it offers the most relevant precedent. There is still bias in the process, but it is constrained by relevant facts, requiring that the court decision be justified in light of these facts. The internet is available to all. And relevant decisions and facts related to whatever you're analyzing can be found for almost every issue. Yet few news articles, few comments, and distressingly few editorials lay out or even reflect knowledge of past thinking and the relevant facts for the issue at hand. Such support can be found in 30 seconds once you've developed the search skills. Absent reference to precedent, most argument relies on cliches and seat of the pants reasoning. ("The middle class consistently votes against its interests." [When? Where? Why?]) An argument without facts is naked. Statistics are great but if you're dealing with abortion don't use righttolife.com or freedomofchoice.com. Use the CDC website or some other unimpeachable source. The internet is a fabulous resource. It's a terrible thing to waste.

Based on the numbers I have read (in the Times and other major media outlets), 40 percent of voters are "independents" or "swing voters." Yet their voices and opinions are frequently left out of articles such as this that want to stress identity-via-political party. I don't dispute the analysis based solely on Democrat/Republican voters. And I am sure that it is much easier to draw specific conclusions based only on the two major political parties (which apparently each make up 30 percent of voters); while including the independents could make conclusions more difficult. Nonetheless, 40 percent of voters is far too large a number to simply (and routinely) ignore.

"Social identity" is a contradiction in terms. "Identity" is what makes somebody unique, as in "identity card". You're using it to mean what groups somebody belongs to, which then requires you to give somebody multiple "identities". Orwell said in "Politics and the English Language" that muddled language can lead to muddled thinking and to muddled politics.

Bill Clinton was impeached. He was acquitted of the charges. Stop false equivocating.

Bill Clinton was a charm8ng pig concerning women. We have all seen many. Trump is a golden example. That does not qualify as an impeachable offense, nor does lying about having sex. That was sad and desperate by Republicans. Roy Moore has a long history of trolling young girls, and the evangelical right should have dumped him decades ago! Clearly, he has been a useful distraction for corrupt Alabama politicians. Why else would they encourage his childish antics over a hokey monument? Alabama voters should wake up and realize they have been snookered!

This is no place to validate "identity politics," but nice try. It is political convenience, not social identity. If it were identity, how could one ever understand what made the likes of Gloria Steinem come to the defense of Bill Clinton? Would the author mention Bill Clinton and Roy Moore in the same breadth had Hillary Clinton won the election?

If it is social identity that divides people based upon party affiliation, what explains the divergence between The National Republican Party and The Alabama Republican Party on Roy Moore? With the mounting accusations each day, and especially with his widely known reputation of having dated and hit upon many young women and girls at the local YMCA and his apparent love note to a 16-year-old, it appears that he is guilty of something. It is particularly hard to comprehend how people regardless of their social identities aren't outraged about sexual abuse of children, and especially the many women that have come to Moore's defense, citing God and their religious beliefs, even if he is ultimately found guilty of such reprehensible acts.

Do you mean I’ve been deceived by all the telenovelas where a woman has to slap a man who tries to kiss her—to prove that she’s a good woman—but then is overcome by passion?

My daughter is so fortunate to live in these times, when women are finally being acknowledged as more than just objects of pleasure and harassment. Being a keen student of history, my daughter was very clear in her mind that Bill Clinton was given a pass all these years, even by his own wife. Not to mention some of the deregulatory steps as well as welfare reforms he passed. Clearly he was distracted, we had been warmed about something like 9/11, but his administration did not pass it along to the next incoming administration strongly enough. On the economic front, Bill Clinton and his team were absolutely clueless as to how to manage the internet boom that left unbridled created a deep inequality between the old and new economies. They did not prepare their workers well enough for jobs that were then outsourced. Long story. But suffice to say, we are glad (as democrats) Bill Clinton is being scrutinized once again.

"34 percent of Republicans thought Mr. Clinton should be impeached...43 percent of Democrats thought a more reasonable resolution to the matter would be for Mr. Clinton to admit what he had done and apologize" Since there are far more registered independents than registered Republicans or Democrats, their opinions should be included. The stranglehold of these two archaic millionaire clubs on our political system is weakening - when will our media begin acknowledging that?

I am a Democrat. I agree that Bill Clinton's personal behavior was terrible. I'm not sure if anything can or should be done about it now. He is no longer President and will not be running for office in the future. I suggest that he admit what happened, apologize and ask for forgiveness.

I am confused regarding this article. Wasn't Bill Clinton's impeachment related to a consensual relationship? Al Franken's actions involved no consent. I do not see how they are similar. In regards to Bill's other actions before his Presidency, I understand the similarities.

Great article Lynn. I am a Trump supporter. I know I jump to his defense on many things I would have accused Obama of wrong doing. Its a cycle that needs to be broken. The question is, who will stop first: those on the Left and in the media with the outrageous, "the world's gonna end with Russia left atop the ash heap because of Trump" or those on the Right jumping to discredit every negative Trump story because he's A.L.W.A.Y.S. under attack for many things, not all, Obama did but with a liberal tilt? I think most people see the hypocrisy in their own ways. They just don't want to admit it. We are just constantly being inflamed and prodded by a media that seems to prey on people's fear so we are in a defensive state. Change the news to simple current events without the opinions from DC political commentators. Give historical context and both side's position from those actually involved and not some outsider's opinion. It just gets old and repetitive and we literally know what will be said every time. Again, both sides do this. Not blaming just the Left.

More smear-mongering hysteria over Bill Clinton. Liberals had good reason to defend Clinton - then and now. His personal life was thoroughly analyzed by his political enemies in the Whitewater farce and the worst thing they could come up with against him was that he lied about a consensual sex act. I realize people like to play both-sides, and it's now fashionable to believe all women regardless of evidence, but there's nothing illiberal or anti-feminist about skepticism and the rule of law. http://www.nationalmemo.com/reckoning-bill-clinton-dont-forget-starrs-70...

Re: "...In the 1990s, when President Clinton was facing numerous accusations of sexual misconduct, people’s reactions reflected their partisanship (though, long after the fact, liberals are starting to rue this)..." I am a survivor of a protected serial_pedophile... I NEVER thought Mr. Clinton should be impeached for gettin', done by M. Lewinsky! There BOTH adults, and unlike other allegations, Ms. Lewinsky hasn't, (as far as I know), alleged sexual assault... I ALWAYS thought Clinton should've been impeached / removed for stating., (on that infamous video...), that he "didn't have sex with that woman...", when his D.N.A. was, (allegedly), detected on Lewinsky's, ('blue'), dress! Lying under such circumstances is Nixonian / way, way, beyond anything I'm willing to put, up with, regardless! Meanwhile... I CAN'T imagine why any person would risk jail / civil suit(s) / the reprisal-potential from a person of, ('Ex_Judge X's 2'), Moore's religio-economic standing -/- social standing means, unless there was / were real incidents!

I would be interested to see a politics-based poll done on opinions of sexual assault in Hollywood for the sake of demonstrating if the political divide happening in regards to politician accusations extend to sexual allegations in general. Have things shifted to where a percentage of Republicans consistently believe that the accused is innocent until proven guilty or is it just a ploy to keep their party in office? Also, perhaps both the candidates that ran in the 2016 election have shaped the ways in which sexual assault is viewed now and moving forward. Obviously, Republicans put the distaste that they had for the matter in the 90’s to the side for the sake of Donald Trump and the actions of the opponent served as a catalyst for Democrats to speak out about sexual assault more vehemently than they did previously. Furthermore, the article states that Democrats have changed their views since Bill Clinton’s accusations, but there could be a possibility that the times could have had more of or equal of an effect on the viewpoints being held on the subject as the political affiliation does. This article, and previous, have stated that democrats feel remorse for defending Clinton’s actions in the 90’s and are not hesitating to admit that Franken is guilty, unlike the manner in which Republicans seem to be responding to accusations against members of their own party.