I think everyone who’s observed American, indeed, Western politics is aware that whenever a strong economic left winger comes along the attacks on him are almost always primarily about violations of “woke”.
Corbyn was attacked for anti-semitism, when he might be the most anti-racist person on the Earth. The idea that he was anti-semitic was laughable on the face, he’d be the first person putting his body on the line if there were actual threats to Jews.
What was remarkable about the smears against Corbyn is that the guy is practically a Saint. He’s as pure as driven snow or aquifer water run through a triple filter.
Not everyone is. Al Franken did some inappropriate things, though none of them rose to the level where he should have stepped down.
Woke is used because it works, especially sexual harassment allegations. It doesn’t just work against the left. New York Governor Cuomo was taken down for sexual harassment, which I always found hilarious, because this is a guy whose policies killed thousands of people during Covid when he stuck Covid patients in old folks homes. That’s gross negligent manslaughter, in my books, and he should have gone to prison, not just lost his job, but it was the sex stuff that took him down.
That doesn’t mean the Democratic establishment wanted him gone. Oh no. They supported him to the hilt against Mamdani in the NYC elections. Anything can be forgiven if you serve corporate interests, nothing can be forgiven if you don’t.
Platner’s the latest target, and man is he ripe. There’s the skull and crossbones tattoo: Nazi symbology which he got as a soldier twenty years ago.
They attacked him on that. It didn’t work. It didn’t work for the same reason attacks on Trump didn’t use to work: because Platner appears very anti-establishment (and unlike Trump, probably is.) He’s a left wing economic populist. This is from the top of his policy page:
So out came the sexual allegations. First the fact that near the start of his marriage he sent texts to women. That caused marital issues (surprise!) but Platner and his wife got counseling. Platner’s wife, Amy Gertner:
“It makes me really angry, disappointed,” Platner’s wife, Amy Gertner, said in a direct-to-camera video Platner’s campaign released Saturday night. “And I find it really shameful that there’s a group of media outlets and people who are willing to spread gossip instead of talking about real issues that Graham is running on.”
One might wish to discount this: political wives are famous for publicly dismissing scabrous behaviour. But it was years ago, and she has stayed with him.
Of more interest, I think, is this:
The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal reported that Gertner told Platner’s campaign about the sexually explicit texts last year, near the start of his Senate bid. Her disclosure came during a conversation with campaign officials about potential opposition research into Platner, the two outlets reported, with the Times citing a former senior official in Platner’s campaign and the Journal citing people familiar with the matter.
I believe this falls under “the call came from inside the house!” Platner and his wife were foolish enough to trust Democratic officials, not realizing that the Democratic party is the opposition, far more than the Republicans.
Now we have the New York Times, doubling down:
Amid the turmoil, Mr. Platner worked the phones, rolling through calls to ex-girlfriends who might publicly acknowledge that while he may have been a bad boyfriend, he was, in fact, a decent guy.
In interviews with The New York Times on Wednesday, several women did just that, describing Mr. Platner as a fun and caring partner, and saying they felt safe with him. Some remain friends with him to this day, years after their relationships ended.
But in extensive conversations over the past two months, three other women who had been romantically involved with Mr. Platner offered a far more complicated assessment, describing volatile and “toxic” relationships that were unsettling and at times emotionally wrenching.
Mr. Platner could be charming and charismatic, they recalled in interviews, but also demeaning to women and, in at least one case, even physically threatening. He drank heavily and was regularly unfaithful.
OK. Sounds like some of his ex-girlfriends like him, and others don’t. But there’s no allegation of rape or assault, only “once physically threatening” and you know that if there were, they’d have run with it.
I don’t think Platner sounds like the greatest guy with women, but I think it’s also unlikely you’ll find many people, men or women, who have had multiple relationships and all their ex’s don’t have anything bad to say about him. I also don’t think that any of this is disqualifying for office.
Serious war crime allegations, since he was a soldier, would be. A pattern of corruption in business would be. “Has, on occasion, been a jerk to women and unfaithful” is laughable. Neither FDR nor JFK were faithful, their behaviour was far worse than Platner’s, and FDR, at least, was arguably the best President America ever had for ordinary citizens.
But for whatever reason, Americans take allegations like these much more seriously than gross corruption, bribe taking, insider trading, or mass murder.
Or—they did. Because so far this doesn’t seem to be working against Platner. Americans are finally getting their priorities straight again: certainly rape or assault should be disqualifying (though neither were for Trump), but sexual immorality? Please.
The woke attack takedown, perfected and used for a couple generations now, is beginning to fail. Voters are looking at the actual issues and thinking “actually, I care more about the fact that I can’t afford rent, food, gas and healthcare.”
In this I finally see some hope that Americans voters might be growing up. For may years now Americans have basically gotten the politicians they deserve, with some exceptions. To deserve better they have to stop being suckers. The takedown of Thomas Massie by the Israeli lobby was a bad sign. The failure, so far, to take down Platner is a good one.
What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.
The evidence on AI’s effect on those who use it has been coming in, and it’s not good. While it doesn’t effect everyone, it seems to effect most people, and the worst affected, it seems, are the young. Olds have the advantage of growing up in world where they had to learn how to do things themselves. To be sure, phones and social media seem to have had a negative effect on attention span and learning ability, but AI is yet another assault, and it hits the young hardest.