It is becoming evident as we round the corner of more than 10 women accusing one of our presidential candidates of sexual assault that some Trump supporters and surrogates have no idea what sorts of things are newsworthy. Some of them are using their own ignorance of the difference between sexual assault and sex to try to shame the media for reporting on the allegations.
Newt Gingrich’s uncontrolled implosion on the Kelly File last week was featured on more national news networks than just Fox, finding its way into the Washington Post, USA Today and CNN, to name a few. For those of you who haven’t seen the video, the former speaker of the house accused Megyn Kelly of being “fascinated with sex” after she asked him a question about the sexual assault allegations against the GOP nominee. This would be a relatively unremarkable exchange — plenty of male legislators are ignorant and dismissive of sexual assault — but Gingrich is not the first person to make this exact defense of, as John Oliver memorably put it, “America’s wealthiest hemorrhoid.”
Also recently on Fox, Dr. Keith Ablow published an opinion article rebuking America for being so interested in Trump’s remarks — much as Gingrich rebuked Kelly — and advocated the position that no one should report “on the sexual behavior of any public figure … unless the person has been convicted of a crime.” He believes this is the best course of action because “sexual behavior is not a reliable measure of character.” This is essentially a more eloquent reiteration of Gingrich’s point — the media shouldn’t talk about Trump’s accusers because it’s sensationalizing, and America is shamefully interested in the sex lives of public figures.
And it’s not just them. There’s also Rudy Giuliani, who wants to move on because it was a long time ago and it doesn’t matter anymore. And Nigel Farage, the real Mr. Brexit, who memorably said that it didn’t matter because Trump is “not running to be pope.” The only one of them who said what they really meant was Texas representative Blake Farenthold, who said he would “consider” continuing his support for Trump if Trump said that he likes raping women. The other responses are weak excuses — Farenthold's horrific statement at least was honest.
Let’s be clear. This matters. It may or may not be equivalent to Bill Clinton — personally, I am equally as inclined to believe his accusers as I am to believe Trump’s, particularly in light of what we know about his propensity for sexual harassment — but Bill Clinton is no longer in the running to be in a position of power in this country. His wife is, and unless I’m much mistaken, she has yet to be accused of touching anyone without their consent. So in this issue, you cannot accuse Donald and Hillary of being equally immoral. Their positions are not equivalent — this is not about her. Hillary Clinton is accused of being married to a predator — Donald Trump is accused of being one himself.
Yes, this is, in a way, about sex, although sex and sexual assault should never be conflated, as Ablow does when he says that we are "addicted to sex." If the women were accusing Trump of liking to be spanked, that would be a personal disclosure about his sex life that would be utterly inappropriate and have no bearing on his character. But when the revelation is that he may have sexually assaulted multiple women, it’s different. Sexual assault is not a fetish — it’s a crime. It absolutely has bearing on your character. Sexual assault is a crime of power — it’s a forcible subjugation of your victim. If someone who could be my president thinks he has the right to do that to multiple women, I have the right to know about it. The voters have a right to know if one of their presidential candidates feels so entitled to women’s bodies that he thinks he can “grab” them. So just because he doesn’t want the media to discuss it doesn’t mean that the media shouldn’t — it’s relevant to the decision we’ll be making in a week.
Yes, it was a long time ago. It still speaks to an entitled, predatory personality — one we shouldn’t want in the White House. I am willing to believe that in the last 10 years, he has changed his political opinions. Opinions change. But personality doesn’t change that drastically that late in life. An entitled 60-year-old predator 10 years ago is probably an entitled 70-year-old predator now. That means that the story has not aged into irrelevance, as Newt Gingrich would suggest.
Yes, he’s not running to be pope. But he is running to be the most powerful man in the free world, and that makes whether he has engaged in multiple instances of sexual assault important. Trump might not be the pope, or a choirboy or a paragon of moral virtue in any other way. But he is really in the running to hold a lot of power in the world — whereas the pope has virtually no global or domestic power over anyone except Catholics. A moral failing that would cripple the pope will glance off Trump because the standards for the pope are higher — but a moral and personality failing that speaks to impatience, entitlement and disregard for the safety and rights of other people is still one that should be considered by voters before we make our choice.
Yes, no one can prove that he did it. Most of Trump’s accusers are not filing charges, so they don’t have to. Trump does not risk jail over complaints not filed in criminal court. He is being tried in the court of public opinion (and, in one case, a civil court), not a court of law, and, as the New York Times’ lawyer pointed out, since Trump has already destroyed his own credibility on this issue, many people are inclined to believe the women over him. This is a case of he-said-she-said, and in my opinion, he has already said exactly what she is saying. He says he kisses women without asking them. He says he grabs them without their consent. Many women have come forward to confirm his story.
So, yes. We don’t know if it’s true. Trump is innocent until proven guilty — he should not be incarcerated for these accusations. Trump isn’t running for a position of absolute moral authority, just one with immense power in which his morals will matter. Trump said it a long time ago, but sexual assault doesn’t undo itself with time. Trump probably didn’t do anything Bill Clinton didn’t do, but he’s running for president and Bill Clinton is not.
None of these things make it not newsworthy. Given the volume of complaints and the position Trump is poised to assume, it would be irresponsible for the media not to tell us about his accusers.
So Trump’s defenders complaining about the media reporting on this might as well just go with Farenthold and admit it. You don’t care about or believe the accusations. That’s your right. Just as it is my right to have the media tell me things that could impact my life if your candidate gets elected.