Last fall, the Republican National Committee called on its Democratic counterpart to return Harvey Weinstein’s political donations on the very same day the New York Times exposed his decades of sexual misconduct. Now, however, when it comes to Steve Wynn’s contributions, RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel is asking for due process, saying this week, “There is an investigation that’s going to take place. He should be allowed due process, and if he is found guilty of any wrongdoing, we will absolutely return 100 percent of that money.”
McDaniel argued Wynn, unlike Weinstein, denies the allegations, and should thus be afforded a thorough investigation. But even in the initial Times report Weinstein through his lawyer “denie[d] many of the accusations as patently false.”
To be fair, as #MeToo subsequently barreled through the highest levels of several industries, much of the media relearned and recommitted to the value of due process. We’ve learned a lot since this all began.
I believed right away in October, and I believe today, that returning Weinstein’s money was the moral choice for politicians and groups that had benefitted from his contributions. I believe the same about Wynn. But at the time, I remember at least some of the bloodthirst for the DNC to return its dirty money stemmed from a totally accurate assumption that they would be making the same demands of Republicans — and in even more dramatic terms.
This reminded me of a moment in the Washington Examiner’s recent editorial board interview with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. In offering a reasonable and persuasive explanation for reversing course on whether to end the filibuster, Cruz said, “I think if the Democrats ever regain the majority, they’ll end legislative filibuster. That’s where their conference is. And it doesn’t make any sense for it be a one-way ratchet — for us to have our hands tied and for them to be able to pass with a simple majority.”
Again, we see the mere anticipation of bad faith actions from the opposite party at least partially governing how one party conducts its business. That’s a weird place in which to exist.
None of this is to naively suggest our politics are coarser and nastier than ever before, but simply to wonder whether we’re increasingly allowing our principles to be dragged to a lower standard based on presumptions about how our political opponents would act in similar circumstances. Maybe the argument in certain cases is reasonable. But on the whole, is that an acceptable system?
