Expecting any level of ideological consistency from partisan political actors is a fool’s errand; even so, the amount of sheer hypocrisy generated by the Graham Platner scandal is striking.
In response to fresh allegations that Platner, the presumptive Democratic candidate for Senate in Maine, was abusive in his past relationships, conservatives who in the past have been correctly discerning of the motivations behind certain sexual misconduct claims are now heralding these accusations as all but confirmed. In fact, they have assailed The New York Times, which published a detailed story about Platner’s dating history and alleged violent episodes, for not going further in its indictment. Meanwhile, many Democrats who gleefully and uncritically embraced the “believe all women” mantra of the #MeToo era are broadly dismissive of the Times story, even though the evidence of wrongdoing is arguably more compelling in this case.
What do I mean by that? The central accusation unfurled by the Times comes from Lyndsey Fifield, who dated Platner from 2013 to 2015. Fifield is a Republican activist, which is probably enough reason for some people to be dismissive of the claims: Her partisan reasons for raising issues about Platner’s behavior and character are obvious. Nevertheless, Fifield claims that Platner often grabbed her, dragged her, and shoved her during arguments and when he was drinking; he once “twisted her arm behind her back, shoved her into a bedroom and held the door closed from the other side so she couldn’t get out,” she told the Times. Fifield denied that he ever seriously hurt her, instead characterizing his behavior as “rough.”
In an appearance on MSNBC last night, Platner strongly denied that any of these altercations took place, though he has conceded to being a bad boyfriend in the past and has chalked this up to psychological trauma from his service as a U.S. Marine. The Times could not corroborate this part of Fifield’s narrative, though she claims she provided them with ample sources who could do so. In a post on X, Fifield slammed the Times for failing to include accusations of sexual assault allegedly made by other women.
“The journalists I trusted who convinced me to share a story I never wanted to tell methodically delayed and twisted this into a gift to the Platner campaign,” she wrote.
Supporters of Platner do not see it this way. Progressive commentator Cenk Uygur castigated the Times on X, calling the paper a “gossip rag” engaged in hyping up a “bullshit story.”
So conservatives are mad that the story doesn’t go harder against Platner, and Democrats are mad that it exists at all. That might lead an independent-minded person to conclude the story is right on the money, but I actually see some merit in both sets of criticisms. Fifield says that she provided corroboration that isn’t sourced in the story, and that she was told there were sexual assault victims who would go on the record. Instead, the Times focused on other past relationships they describe as “unsettling and at times emotionally wrenching.” But that’s unfair: No person accused of “emotionally wrenching” behavior can possibly disprove it, since it’s entirely subjective. Focusing on those elements of Platner’s behavior seems unfair.
The Times is on firmer ground when it effectively catches Platner in a lie with respect to his tattoo. Platner has claimed he had no idea the skull tattoo that marked his chest for 20 years was associated with Nazism, but Fifield provided the Times with fairly compelling proof that he did in fact know. Platner lying about that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s lying when he unequivocally states that the physical abuse did not take place, but it arguably speaks to his credibility.
Of course, all of that is beside the point if one applies the standards of the #MeToo era, which were simply that all women should be believed when they make an accusation of assault or sexual misconduct. This was, of course, the standard applied by progressive activists, Democrats, and many in the mainstream media when they considered Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation against then Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. For example, Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.), a progressive Democrat and major supporter of Platner, cited the believe-all-women ethos when he called on Kavanaugh to withdraw in 2018.
I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.
I believe Deborah Ramirez.
I believe Anita Hill.
Brett Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court.
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) September 28, 2018
Note that Khanna has not called on Platner to drop out of the Senate race—even though there is still time for Maine Democrats to select a different candidate—and even intends to continue campaigning with him.
That’s one prominent example of Kavanaugh/Platner hypocrisy, but there are countless others, including Sen. Ed Markey (D–Mass) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D–R.I.) and leftist commentators Krystal Ball, Kyle Kulinski, and Emma Vigeland. These people all believed Blasey Ford was telling the truth about Kavanaugh, even though there was no corroborating evidence whatsoever that he groped her; indeed, there was no actual evidence that the two had ever met. With Platner and Fifield, the fact that they dated for two years—and the relationship was at times very toxic—is not even in dispute.
While it would be a good idea for everyone to move away from the excesses of the #MeToo era, don’t expect partisans to do so consistently. The frustrating truth is that both sides are perfectly willing to overlook huge red flags when evaluating their own people; when it’s somebody from the other team, though, the rules will be applied mercilessly and with blinding moral fervor.
