The Moral Conundrum of Supporting Biden

Democrats must wrestle with the question of hypocrisy if they go with Joe

The shoe is on the other foot, it seems, for Democrats: their benevolent “Uncle Joe,” on whom they pin their hopes for the upcoming election, has now been accused of precisely the kind of behavior they have railed against in the Republicans’ nominees, candidates, and of course the president himself. Gleefully, Trump supporters are wagging their fingers at their Democratic counterparts, saying, “Do you still think every woman should be believed?!” and “If we were so wrong to vote for a man like Trump, what does that make you if you vote for Biden?!”

I have no official party affiliation, but I typically vote Democrat, and fully intend to do so in the fall, in hopes of ousting what I consider to be a monstrously dysfunctional, toxic administration.

But I have to answer the challenges and accusations of hypocrisy honestly, or risk becoming that which I have been protesting for four years now.

And I can. We all can. It’s complicated, but the path is clear.

Walking Our Talk

No moral contortions to justify, excuse, or ignore this accusation. We have to apply the same standards to Joe Biden that we have to Trump, Cavanaugh, and the other candidates, appointees and office-holders who’ve been similarly accused. The accusation demands full investigation, both parties deserve due process. Ms. Reade must be protected from retribution for speaking up. Joe Biden must be protected from a false or politically motivated accusation.

And, should it be determined that he is guilty of the alleged crime, he should suffer consequences that are appropriate — one of which should be that he step down (or is removed) from his candidacy.

Where it gets complicated is how we respond if there is insufficient proof to either convict or exonerate, as so often seems to be the case in situations like this.

Then what?

It is important not to force a conclusion where none exists. We are going to have to be willing to live with ambiguity, if we want to maintain the moral high ground. Yes, we can vote for him, but we have to do so without denying that ambiguity.

We also can’t let him forget it. The message has to be, “Yes, we voted for you; but we see you, we will not forget.”

The reason to accept having to dwell in the gray area? We don’t want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The bottom line: he may be unsavory, but he’s better than the alternative.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is a reasonable, rational decision to make. Taking small steps toward something better is still forward progress, and accepting that we’re looking at baby steps instead of giant strides is merely being realistic, not hypocritical or corrupt.

It stops being reasonable when we stop acknowledging that our lesser evil is just that: flawed and, in some important ways, undesirable.

We must never stop speaking the truth of the situation, the whole truth. No convenient re-framing of facts to make our guy look better than he really is. No denial of verifiable truths. Those are the bridges we must never cross.

The Bigger Picture

Are we tired of this kind of thing yet?

I sure am. But how do we avoid it?

Here’s one idea: more women in public office.

Not because women are perfect. Everyone has faults and has made mistakes and will have something to answer for. But it doesn’t have to be these things, the sexual predation that’s become so normal in our male public figures of a certain age.

Cultural context may explain it. My father’s generation was raised to expect and take for granted a certain sexual privilege. I complained once to him, when I was a teenager, that a guy I went out with wouldn’t back off when I told him I didn’t want him to kiss me. My father explained, “Well, but of course he’s going to expect to get something for the price of the movie ticket he bought you.” I was stunned by his casual assumption that dating was a transactional equation in which I was being purchased.

My father loved me. He is a wonderful man. This was simply the cultural context he never had a reason to question — until his 15-year-old daughter schooled him. With this kind of framework being that generation’s credo from the cradle, when they and their sons are now in the seats of power for our nation, why would we expect anything other than the kinds of accusations we keep hearing about in our public leaders…who are men?

Women weren’t taught those standards of interaction with the opposite sex. They were taught other toxic things, to be sure, but sexual entitlement wasn’t one of them.

Before anyone starts yelling about vilification of men, let me rush to say that voting more women into office isn’t the only solution here. People of any gender can cross lines, or fail to set clear boundaries. It happens. So we also need to work on our communication skills about these things...for everyone involved.

We also need to work on how we raise our young people and what we teach them about being male or female and interacting with others. A tall order, and not one that can be legislated.

But some things we can work toward with legislation, helped along by a larger female presence in government: ensuring that anyone who feels violated is safe in speaking up about it; that they will be taken seriously by those in authority, not undermined in any of the myriad ways women so often are when they speak up and are quickly blamed for their own victimizations; that they are listened to and protected from retribution — which isn’t the same thing as being believed, by the way. We are a nation that believes in the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty, and we don’t want to give that up.

Man or woman, the rules must apply equally to everyone.

That goes for Republicans and Democrats, too.

The Final Equation

So am I in a committed relationship with the candidate running against Trump, knowing of his inappropriate touching past and now the alleged sexual assault? It’s complicated is the best answer. Frankly, it always was — he wasn’t my first choice — but now it is even more so. How he conducts himself going forward will matter a lot. But even if he really messes things up, if he is the alternative to Trump on November 3rd, I’ll vote for him.

Because alleged sexual assault isn’t his only baggage.

He also comes with good things, Democratic platforms for change that I believe in and want for our country. He brings hope for healing in the nation, repairing so much that has been broken by the current administration. His is the promise of better, not perfect.

No one will ever be perfect. Many great leaders in history have been deeply flawed people. Perfection is no prerequisite to the job.

Nor is it mandatory for us as an electorate. It’s all right if we misjudge things sometimes, don’t understand a situation, act based on limited information, and come to recognize our mistake and regret it. But if we deny the compromises we make, lie about our decisions and fail to honestly look at the truths before us — including and especially when they show the imperfections of “our guy” — that is the path to corruption, and delusional politics that will bring the American experiment crashing to its knees, gasping in the dust of an internal battlefield, destroyed from within.