What shade of gray would you say this is?
Considered in isolation, and without the help of a photo manipulation platform to tell you the precise CMYK values, it’s hard to say. We reach naturally for points of comparison. It’s lighter than a slate gray, we might say, but darker than a gainsboro gray. Cooler than warm gray but warmer than cool gray. Is it lighter than light gray?
Maybe? Probably? Let’s take a closer look:
That’s our custom gray on the left, and light gray on the right. So it’s just a smidge lighter than light gray, but we can only tell when we put them right up close. Put it up against a different gray, and it looks darker rather than lighter:
This is of course a metaphor.
When it came out last week that Al Franken had sexually harassed and assaulted Leeann Tweeden, people naturally reached for the most obvious point of comparison: the other Senator/Senate candidate recently accused of sexual assault, Roy Moore.
Some people have claimed that Moore and Franken are similar. They both have used their power to violate the boundaries and consent of women. Others have claimed that they’re dissimilar: that when you put Franken’s behavior up against Moore’s systematic stalking and molestation of girls as young as fourteen years old, he might as well be a saint.
But is Moore a useful point of comparison? It’s not like Franken’s running against Moore. And “the ideal public servant” is not all that useful either. After all, no public servant is perfect.
So what is a useful comparison for Franken’s behavior? Given that the question on everyone’s lips is whether Franken should resign, I submit the following point for comparison: the minimum acceptable standard for a US Senator.
Only 15 Senators have ever been expelled from Congress, the majority for making war against the United States by supporting the confederacy. A larger number have resigned rather than face expulsion. Most of these cases were about bribery and corruption, but some were due to sexual misconduct. Take for example Bob Packwood of Oregon, who resigned when the Senate Ethics Committee unanimously recommended his expulsion for gross sexual misconduct. The chair of that committee, none other than Mitch McConnell, spoke about it four years later during the Clinton impeachment:
During the Packwood debate, we made the tough choice. And, I have to say, that decision was one of the most difficult things I have ever had to do in my career in public service. To recommend expelling from the United States Senate a colleague, a member of my own party, and most importantly, a friend with whom I had served in the Senate for over a decade.
We sent a clear message to the nation that no man is above the law. That no man is so important to the well-being of our strong and prosperous nation that we have to compromise the fundamental, founding principles of truth and justice. We chose to rise above, not sink below. Rather than change our standards, we changed our Senator.
Let me also make a political point, here. We Republicans were aware during the Packwood debate that we would likely lose that Senate seat if Senator Packwood was removed from office. So, we had a choice: Retain the Senate seat or retain our honor. We chose honor, and never looked back.
I think that the United States Senate has a clear choice today. Do we want to retain President Clinton in office, or do we want to retain our honor, our principle, and our moral authority?
For me, and for many members in my impeachment-fatigued party, I choose honor.
What happened? Twenty years later, McConnell has chosen dishonor over and over again, not least by supporting the leader of his party, Donald Trump, who has been accused of assault and harassment by 15 different women and has been caught bragging about harassing women on tape. Perhaps if you asked McConnell, he’d say that Democrats started the moral race to the bottom by refusing to hold Clinton to the same standard as Packwood. But what is the “standard” to which Packwood was held? One could likely articulate a standard for behavior that Clinton passed while Packwood fell short of.
Packwood and Clinton and Moore and Franken are all different people who committed different types of wrongs. The same is true of Trump, and Dennis Hastert, and Anthony Weiner, and the many other elected officials who have been accused or convicted of harassment, assault, or abuse. The question is not how they compare with each other but how they measure up to our standards for public officials, and whether we are strong enough to enforce our standards when people fall short.
I believe that our elected officials should be held to high standards. Specifically, I believe that any type of sexual assault, abuse, or harassment should be disqualifying. I am open to the idea that those who have done these things in the past and have made reparations should be able to hold office, though I’m not aware of any official or candidate who meets that description. I’m also open to the idea that those accused deserve an impartial investigation, although the strength of the evidence against both Moore and Franken make that point moot.
This is all a very long-winded way of saying I think Franken should resign, but I think it’s worthwhile to sketch out the framework through which I came to that conclusion, so that I can hold myself to it in the future.