Comment on Lindsey Graham's Recent Behavior

Lindsey Graham

It has caught many people's attention that Senator Lindsey Graham has been acting strangely lately.  Graham is a moderate Republican (from South Carolina, no less!), a close friend of John McCain, a relentless hawk, especially where Russia is concerned, and a strong Trump skeptic.  He has condemned Trump on numerous occasions and taken accusations about Trump and Russia very seriously.

And then, after a few rounds of golf with Trump, he professed himself to have been converted, praised Trump to the skies, condemned the Russia investigation, and even called for a criminal investigation of the persons involved.  Now the honeymoon is apparently over, as Trump shot down Graham's proposed compromise on immigration, and Graham is forthrightly condemning his actions.

What gives?  There are several theories on why the Trump-skeptical Graham suddenly became such a fan.

A Trump charm offensive.  Maybe Trump turned on the charm and totally won Graham over.  By all accounts, Trump's public persona -- overbearing, obnoxious, relentlessly self-promoting, and unable to focus for more than a few minutes on anything other than his own self-aggrandizement -- is exactly what he is like in private, too.  How could anyone possibly be won over by that?

Fear of a primary challenge.  My immediate thought upon hearing Graham become such a fan was to wonder if he was up for election in 2018, in which case he would need to be seen as a fan in order to survive the primaries.  But the answer appears to be no, Graham is not up for reelection until 2020.  So much for that.

Planning ahead against a primary challenge.  Maybe Graham is thinking ahead until 2020 to the 2020 election, recognizing that traditional Democratic constituencies turn out in higher numbers in Presidential election years than off-years and decided he should start shoring up his Republican base. It is possible.

Hope for a Cabinet position.  Trump is on the outs with both his Secretary of State and his Attorney General.  Some people suspect that Graham is sucking up in hopes of getting one of these posts.  But Trump seems strangely unwilling to fire either official despite their differences.  And besides, given how he treats his Cabinet Secretaries, why on earth would Graham want to subject himself to that sort of abuse, at the cost of ending his Senate career?

Blackmail.  We know that the Russians hacked both the Democrats and the Republicans, but only released the Democratic e-mails.  Does that mean they are holding the Republicans' e-mails in reserve for blackmail?*  It seems likely.  But would the Russians share such information with Trump?  Successful blackmail depends on not revealing the secret so long as the victim submits.  Trump is the type who couldn't keep  his mouth shut if you sutured it, which makes him a terrible blackmailer.  But even more significantly, Graham's current open anger at Trump is hardly consistent with him being blackmailed into surrender.

So I have a new theory as to Graham's strange infatuation with Trump.  He was sucking up in an attempt to win Trump's support for his immigration bill.  It didn't work.  I guess Graham's future behavior should reveal whether this hypothesis is correct.

____________________________________
*Someone objected that it seems unlikely that Republicans would openly e-mail anything blackmailable. But I don't think they would have to be discussing any actual crimes.  Simply trash-talking Trump and plotting to prevent him from being nominated would be more than enough to bring the Orange Demagogue's rage down on their heads and wreck their political careers. 

A Note on Sexual Harassment Claims

Look, as before, I am weighing in on this subject a little late and not saying anything that hasn't been said before, but it seems to me that the "Me Too" movement, in insisting that believe women who make accusations, is making the same mistake as the anti-date rape movement on college campuses -- it is conflating two different things.

What does it mean that me should believe woman who say they have been harassed (or date raped)?  What it should mean is that if woman comes asking for compassion, empathy and support, she should be believed and supported without conditions.  Friends, family members, therapists, and others in her support system should not fact check; they should not ask for proof; they should not tell her all the mistakes she made along the way and the things she could have done differently.  They should simply accept her pain as she expresses it and give her the support and encouragement she needs.

But that is when there is only one person involved.  There is no real cost, after all, to supporting the accuser emotionally.  But when it comes to punishment against the accused, that is a different matter altogether.  So when a college is deciding whether to expel a student, a human resources department is deciding whether to discipline an employee, when an insurer is deciding whether to pay out a claim, when a newspaper is deciding whether to publish an accusation, a lawyer is deciding whether to file a sexual harassment suit and (in the most extreme cases) police and district attorneys are deciding whether to arrest and bring charges, automatically believing the accuser without fact checking is a different matter altogether.

Anyone who doubts this need only consider Washington Post's report on Roy Moore.  It carried conviction because it was thoroughly researched with names, dates, places, events corroborated by other sources, contemporaneous confirmation and so forth.  When one of the accusers proved to be false, planted to make the paper look bad, reporters caught her by doing fact checking.  When the accused is facing consequences (including hostile publicity), this sort of fact checking should always be done.

Nor does it do to say that false accusations are very rare, especially against men who are able to retaliate.  There are at least three reason.

First, the accused has rights as well as the accuser.  In case of criminal charges, civil damages, or even a hostile story in the press, these are legal rights protecting against unjust prosecution, civil action, or libel.  In the case of firing or expulsion, it depends on the terms of the school admission or employment contract, but even if there is no legal right at stake, there is a moral right to be considered even if there is no legal right.

Second, with a movement now afoot to believe accusers, it will become easier to make accusations, even against very powerful men.  Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, Harvey Weinstein, Roy Moore, John Conyers, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer and others have been toppled, as well as less famous men.  But as it becomes easier for real accusers to come forward, it becomes easier for false ones to come forward as well.

Third, when it comes to politicians, there are definite incentives to make false accusations.  Jaime Phillips  of Project Veritas approached the Washington Post with a false accusation against Roy Moore in order to undermine the real accusations.  Roger Stone somehow got advance word of the first accusation against Al Franken.  And unknown persons forged a sexual harassment suit against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.  So clearly there are incentives here to make false accusations.

So what do I propose instead?  Unconditional compassion and empathy for any accuser who wants compassion and empathy and nothing more.  Even if the accusation is false, no one is harmed by a little misplaced compassion and empathy.  But a process of investigation for an accuser who wants any sort of action taken against the accused.  The rumor mill is a good place to start.  It has become clear, for instance, that Roy Moore's penchant for underage girls was an open scandal in his home town, to the point that shopping malls were on the lookout for him.  Likewise, it was common knowledge among women on Capitol Hill that they should not get into an elevator with John Conyers.  And there were plenty of rumors among people in the know about Charlie Rose and Matt Lauer as well.  This should probably not be sufficient (it certainly is not admissible in court), but it is a good source of leads to investigate.  An actual rape leaves medical evidence.  A traumatic experience leaves psychological evidence, confidences is real time, etc.  Making sure people were in the places at the times they allege does not prove anything, but it can disprove.

It is also true that milder instances probably do not leave evidence.  In the case of Al Franken and Leeann Tweeden, there was ample evidence that they were in a raunchy skit together in the USO, and that he is photographed groping her.  Most of the other cases were pinching bottoms in a photo op and the like.  We can prove or disprove that they were at the place and time together and did a photo op.  But an unwanted pinch or kiss is probably not possible to prove or disprove with any confidence. So no doubt there will be milder cases that go unpunished. But let's face it.  There are milder cases of just about every sort of misconduct possible that go unpunished.  That is simply common sense in recognizing that not all offenses are equal.