November 14, 2017

"It’s fair to conclude that because of Broaddrick’s allegations, Bill Clinton no longer has a place in decent society."

"But we should remember that it’s not simply partisan tribalism that led liberals to doubt her. Discerning what might be true in a blizzard of lies isn’t easy, and the people who spread those lies don’t get to claim the moral high ground. We should err on the side of believing women, but sometimes, that belief will be used against us."

Writing in the NYT, Michelle Goldberg struggles to figure out what to say.

If I had to guess what her point is, I think it's maybe: I want to be principled, but I hate to empower my enemies to use my principles against me.

But it might be: I want to be practical, and it's just not practical to look unprincipled (not since Hillary lost the election anyway).

123 comments:

Scott McGlasson said...

There was a blizzard of lies about the Duke Lacross case too, but that didn't seem to matter.

Michael K said...

The attacks on Bill Clinton are the battle prep for going after Trump on the anonymous women who accused him.

This is a two fold strategy. Get the Clintons off the stage and another topic to attack Trump now that the Russian thing is failing.

rehajm said...

Michael is absolutely right. This is battlefield prep for the major offensive.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

...and the people who spread those lies don’t get to claim the moral high ground.

You're right. You don't.

mccullough said...

Blizzard of lies is like fog of war. Her column is a blizzard of fog.

sparrow said...

The timing of this serves Dems: the only way to a principled stance is to take a stand when it's not convenient. It's too late to adopt it now. Dershowitz is the most principled lefty I know of, he frequently calls out left and right when they stray. This posturing is too easy at this moment. It would have had weight (and taken courage) last fall.

buwaya said...

The problem is the concept of "decent society".
There is no longer anything of the sort.
It is all crimes, impunity, opportunism, and of course hypocrisy.
And an invocation of decency is simply propaganda.

Bay Area Guy said...

"Journalist" Nina Burleigh:

“I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

Shorter Michele Goldberg:

Bill Clinton raped and sexually harassed women -- but we turned a blind eye because we liked his politics.

buwaya said...

"Dershowitz is the most principled lefty I know of,"

And yet he, too, went with Clinton to Epstein's island.

West Texas Intermediate Crude said...

There was a time when it might have been appropriate to vote for an honorable person as a representative, and trust that he would do the right thing for me and my country.
Now, the logic is reversed.
I evaluate if he or she will do the right thing, i.e., not vote for policies that will continue and accelerate the destruction of our civilization, and trust that he (or now, she) will be honorable.
If he or she is not honorable, I will work to replace him or her with someone who is. I will never vote for anyone, however honorable, who is on the wrong side of our civilization.
That's why I voted for Trump (after my favorite Cruz lost in the primaries), and that's why I would vote for Moore if I lived in Alabama.
Moore is very unlikely to vote for policies that I disfavor, and has essentially zero chance of fondling anybody I care about (assuming for the purposes of this discussion that he is as guilty as we know that Bill C., John K., Ted K., and numerous other Democrats are and were).

Kansas City said...

Interesting, but I think the D's sudden concern about Clinton's conduct is mostly because they are done with Hillary and want to push her away. Plus, some value in helping to go after Trump and Moore and payback for Wienstein and other Hollywood and media guys.

No reason to think there is principle at issue here. Little remaining political value in protecting Bill and a strong desire to be done with Hillary.

Martin said...

How about, "Since Hillary refuses to leave, the hive mind has decided to give her a push. And we have all agreed not to embarrass each other on 25 years of being whores and covering for him."

And maybe to more effectively go after Moore.

And maybe to revive the Access Hollywood tape and associated accusations against Trump, soon or in 2020.

If Ike and Nixon and Reagan and Bush and McCain and Romney could become nostalgia-tinged elder statesmen once off the main stage and there are new Republicans to destroy, they can certainly do the same thing in reverse to one of their own who has become an embarrassment.

tcrosse said...

This is a two fold strategy. Get the Clintons off the stage and another topic to attack Trump now that the Russian thing is failing.

Exactly. Two birds, one stone.

hombre said...

I don't get it. The leftmedia say Moore is not fit to be a Senator, but Bill Clinton was fit to be President?

Dems and GOPe are just wonderful folks.

Earnest Prole said...

In The Atlantic:

Feminists saved the 42nd president of the United States in the 1990s. They were on the wrong side of history; is it finally time to make things right?

sparrow said...

"Dershowitz is the most principled lefty I know of,"

And yet he, too, went with Clinton to Epstein's island.

Didn't know that. As the Bible says: "put your trust in no man"

tcrosse said...

OTOH they might find that it's better to have the Clintons inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in. That may be why Obama appointed Hill SOS.

Khesanh 0802 said...

It's interesting in this reiteration of Bill's sins most of the writers leave out the one that we absolutely know to be true and took place in the work place - Monica. Why not start with Monica and work back. Clearly that case indicated a well-established pattern of behavior that with any reflection would lead one to believe the other accusers. Hillary is a co-conspirator in all these cases. Her "concerns" for women's rights so much hypocritical horse-puckey.

Matthew Sablan said...

Khesanh: Monica is 100% consensual; to include her with the accusations of rape muddies the water. He lied to her and potentially used his position as president and her as an intern to seduce her. But... she consented and was an adult (even if a young adult.)

No reason to let that get in the way of the rape allegations.

Unknown said...

“....now that the Russian thing is failing.”

In what reality?

Mike Sylwester said...

Michael K at 3:18 PM

The attacks on Bill Clinton are the battle prep for going after Trump ... now that the Russian thing is failing.

A very astute comment.

Matthew Sablan said...

On the other hand, the Lewinsky story does highlight that Clinton will lie, and lie frequently, about his behavior with women. So, it is a useful data point in the discussion, but it shouldn't be the lead.

Matthew Sablan said...

"In what reality?"

-- This one, barring some new bombshell. Don't worry; you can join the other dead end conspiracy nuts convinced we didn't go to the moon or that Pearl Harbor was an inside job.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

If I had to guess what her point is, I think it's maybe: I want to be principled, but I hate to empower my enemies to use my principles against me.

To me it's more like: I don't want to lose what little credibility I've got, but I just can't bring myself to admit I was wrong about Bill Clinton, dammnit!

pacwest said...

Howard, you sound like the typical CA pussy. Come up to AK and we'll teach you how to go brown bear hunting with a knife :)

Jupiter said...

"We should err on the side of believing women, but sometimes, that belief will be used against us."

Talk about a woman's right to have it both ways. This lying POS erred on the side of disbelieving women, using that disbelief to protect a rapist in order to advance her own sick political goal of untrammeled baby-murder. Now she is saying that women should be believed, even though we have to recognize that they will sometimes be lying. And she says that a policy of believing women who lie about men will be used against "us". What does she mean by "us"? Has she got a strap-on in her pocket?

This woman is the best argument yet for repeal of #19. She should not be allowed to speak, let alone vote.

Matthew Sablan said...

"But we should remember that it’s not simply partisan tribalism that led liberals to doubt her. Discerning what might be true in a blizzard of lies isn’t easy, and the people who spread those lies don’t get to claim the moral high ground. We should err on the side of believing women, but sometimes, that belief will be used against us."

-- I don't remember a lot. But... I'm pretty sure it was just simply partisan tribalism that led liberals to doubt Broaderick at the time. Well, that and coordinated character assassination like looking up if she had given any other guys blow jobs or if her soon-to-be ex-husband was maybe beating her. Imagine a woman today having her character destroyed in such a way to protect someone who accused them of rape. It wouldn't happen.

Unknown said...

As time goes on, you Trumpists and rightists have become desperate to create your own reality, it’s become pathetic.

“This one, barring some new bombshell. Don't worry; you can join the other dead end conspiracy nuts convinced we didn't go to the moon or that Pearl Harbor was an inside job.”
— — — — — — — — — — —
“Secret Finding: 60 Russian Payments "To Finance Election Campaign Of 2016”

The FBI is scrutinizing more than 60 money transfers sent by the Russian foreign ministry to its embassies across the globe, most of them bearing a note that said the money was to be used “to finance election campaign of 2016”

On Aug. 3 of last year, just as the US presidential election was entering its final, heated phase, the Russian foreign ministry sent nearly $30,000 to its embassy in Washington. The wire transfer, which came from a Kremlin-backed Russian bank, landed in one of the embassy’s Citibank accounts and contained a remarkable memo line: “to finance election campaign of 2016.”

That wire transfer is one of more than 60 now being scrutinized by the FBI and other federal agencies investigating Russian involvement in the US election. The transactions, which moved through Citibank accounts and totaled more than $380,000, each came from the Russian foreign ministry and most contained a memo line referencing the financing of the 2016 election.“

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonleopold/secret-finding-60-russian-payments-to-finance-election?utm_term=.bvxdjw73P#.ofyJ2L8dg

“The Secret Correspondence Between Donald Trump Jr. and WikiLeaks
The transparency organization asked the president’s son for his cooperation—in sharing its work, in contesting the results of the election, and in arranging for Julian Assange to be Australia’s ambassador to the United States.

Just before the stroke of midnight on September 20, 2016, at the height of last year’s presidential election, the WikiLeaks Twitter account sent a private direct message to Donald Trump Jr., the Republican nominee’s oldest son and campaign surrogate. “A PAC run anti-Trump site putintrump.org is about to launch,” WikiLeaks wrote. “The PAC is a recycled pro-Iraq war PAC. We have guessed the password. It is ‘putintrump.’ See ‘About’ for who is behind it. Any comments?” (The site, which has since become a joint project with Mother Jones, was founded by Rob Glaser, a tech entrepreneur, and was funded by Progress for USA Political Action Committee.)“

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-secret-correspondence-between-donald-trump-jr-and-wikileaks/545738/

Matthew Sablan said...

Or maybe that was another woman the Clintons destroyed. Hard to remember and keep straight.

John Lynch said...

The Dems may think they are going to get Trump, but casting a wide net catches a lot of strange fish. The final result may be bringing the Clintons to justice and letting Trump go. Trump is still President. The Clintons aren't. Trump can depend on the support of his voters, while the Clintons can't. The advantages that preserved the Clintons now work for Trump.

Matthew Sablan said...

Uh... considering what we know of where money went (Facebook, Fusion GPS), it would indeed be a new bombshell to find out that Russia sent money to Trump. It would be new.

As for Assange contacting Trump Jr... big deal. Media personalities routinely coordinated stories with Clinton. That's how the left plays the game, so I can't be surprised that Assange tried the same. Come back when there's actual material, and stop trying to derail this thread. Like always happens on threads that are bad publicity for the left. The cafes exist for random topic hopping; stop acting in bad faith to disrupt the conversation.

Mike Sylwester said...

For the sake of democratic government, we need to develop much more restraint in trying to remove politicians from office by means criminal investigations and prosecutions.

Unfair as it might seem sometimes, elected officials must enjoy prerogatives and immunity. Otherwise, we will be ruled by prosecutors and by a Deep State.

The establishment of special counsels and special prosecutors is pernicious. Every time, it is pernicious. It never, ever ends well.

You would think we would have learned our lesson about that by now, but the election of Donald Trump has returned us yet again to this pernicious abuse of our political system.

These sexual-harassment accusations are pernicious too. It is becoming a devious method of removing elected politicians from office. A hysteria is developing.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Spare us. The left doubled down on accepting, ignoring and waving Clinton corruption away.

Gotta crack some eggs.

Mike Sylwester said...

Unknown at 3:58 PM

The FBI is scrutinizing more than 60 money transfers sent by the Russian foreign ministry to its embassies across the globe, most of them bearing a note that said the money was to be used “to finance election campaign of 2016

Robert "The FBI White-Washer" Mueller sure is spending a lot of his time leaking government secrets to journalists.

Man in PA said...

The Clintons took $145 million in bribes from Russians and "Unknown" is worried about an email from Assange to Trump, Jr. Talk about "desperate."

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Is it ok to talk about creepy Joe Biden. Or is he still protected.

How about Mr Chakra, Al Gore.

FullMoon said...

Unknown said... [hush]​[hide comment]

As time goes on, you Trumpists and rightists have become desperate to create your own reality, it’s become pathetic.


I am always curious to know , in what way, exactly, has Trump made you haters life worse. Not what he "tried to do", or what he "is going to do".

What particular thing has happened to lower the quality of your life?

Kevin said...

As time goes on, you Trumpists and rightists have become desperate to create your own reality, it’s become pathetic.

From the one poster on this thread who ignored the actual topic to post about something else.

#irony

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"(not since Hillary lost the election anyway)"

This, entirely.

The Democrats shredded their credibility, burned the shreds, and buried the ashes. And now they want Republicans to pretend that the Democrats still have credibility? No. Now go fuck off.

buwaya said...

In other words, "decent society" is unfit for decent society.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The false reality you created, Unknown, is the reality where Bill Clinton isn't a rapist.

Unknown said...

“The false reality you created, Unknown, is the reality where Bill Clinton isn't a rapist.”

That’s not my reality, speak for yourself.

Michael said...

The Russians bought the election for $30,000. Well fucking done comrades.

Sebastian said...

"Monica is 100% consensual" Did you pay attention during company harassment training? Off to reeducation with you.

Michael K said...

Blogger Unknown said...
“....now that the Russian thing is failing.”

In what reality?


Earth reality.

Sebastian said...

"I want to be principled, but I hate to empower my enemies to use my principles against me." Nicely put, by the way.

What they will do in fact is to double down and use their new-found "principles" against Trump et al. The earth is not nearly scorched enough yet.

tim in vermont said...

I guess they finally figured out why the Access Hollywood tape got so little traction.

buwaya said...

"I am always curious to know , in what way, exactly, has Trump made you haters life worse. Not what he "tried to do", or what he "is going to do".

What particular thing has happened to lower the quality of your life?"

Good point. You could make a case (I have) where the previous admin can be said to have suppressed the recovery from the crash of 2008, with international benchmarks, etc. This can be blamed on several things, notably increase in regulatory burden, suppression of domestic investment, etc. Trump has caused no such problem yet.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

Granted, as far as the best stats go, he hasn't had a revolutionary effect yet, just more of the long slow improvement. Granted employment is a lagging indicator. But as for causing suffering, except psychologically among his opponents ?

And for GDP -

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

Nothing there either. Not bad, historically, but not great.

rhhardin said...

This all falls under indiscretions.

If it's crime, charge it at the time. Otherwise forget it.

tim in vermont said...

And since Hillary has done everything that they are accusing Trump of regarding Russia, they may have to come clean on that too.

But Trump so far is not accused of forcibly raping a woman after luring her to a hotel room, and the article never mentions the witness who found Broaddrick crying and bleeding with torn clothes, this is sort of a "modified, limited hangout."

Earnest Prole said...

Something both Michelle Goldberg and Althouse's commenters could afford to learn: If you apply your principles only against your political enemies, they aren't really principles are they?

Khesanh 0802 said...

@Unknown You two references above are supposed to be damaging to Trump. How? From what we have learned from Brazile Clinton's campaign was set up to conceal the consolidation of contributions to state organizations into funds for Clinton. As for Trump Jr. See Matt's clear explanation at 1604.

Otto said...

This not about women, black or white but about truth and the law. But in this age of deconstructionism we don't believe there is such a thing as truth and justice.Just ask Ann.

Khesanh 0802 said...

For Unknown who so enjoys referrals to fonts of knowledge like Buzzfeed: The best news of the day Justice Dept. to Weigh Inquiry Into Clinton Foundation

buwaya said...

" If you apply your principles only against your political enemies, they aren't really principles are they?"

In war, there is no room for principles.
In this case there are two tribes at war over pragmatic interests.

Assertion of principles is just a tactic.

Khesanh 0802 said...

Oh, Unknown, the above reference is from the always accurate NYT.

tim in vermont said...

"Something both Michelle Goldberg and Althouse's commenters could afford to learn: If you apply your principles only against your political enemies, they aren't really principles are they?"

Lol. For twenty years it was nuts and sluts, now it's the right that needs to learn this. Fuck you.

tim in vermont said...

Just a couple days ago, commenters here were admonishing us that Clinton had denied it.

Michael K said...

Alinsky rules have been the standard for the past 25 years.

As our government has become more corrupt under their influence, the alternatives shrank considerably,

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

Remember in November how the Democrats offered up Hillary as their candidate and now it's all on us and we should be ashamed.

RonF said...

Why now? Why not 30 years ago?

Gahrie said...

Khesanh: Monica is 100% consensual; to include her with the accusations of rape muddies the water

I get your point...but Monica's consent was meaningless and Bill Clinton himself signed the law that made it so. His actions were de jure sexual harassment despite her consent.

tim in vermont said...

Imagine Bill prowling the West Wing, no way this gets written.

tim in vermont said...

"Why not 30 years ago?"

He was a winner then.

RonF said...

Matthew Sabian said:

"Monica is 100% consensual; "

The most powerful man in the country invites a young woman working for him to perform fellatio on him in their workplace, and you say it was 100% consensual? I invite you to contact the HR office where you work, put the hypothetical case to them (i.e., don't tell them it's Clinton and Monica) and see what they say. One thing they'll say is "It's sexual harassment, and rather extreme at that." Another thing they'll say is "He would be fired if we found out." And feminists routinely classify that kind of thing as rape.

tim in vermont said...

Monica comes under the heading of "And if you are the president, they will even blow you!"

Notice that the New York Times not bothered, because Democrat!

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

Squirrel!

tim in vermont said...

Let's talk about anything else but the New York Times coming out of their bubble after decades of enforcement of the silence of Clinton's victims. I bet that this is the only thing that they ever covered up for Democrats though.

Unknown said...

“Squirrel!”

In your head? Give it some nuts.🥜

Unknown said...

“Monica is 100% consensual; to include her with the accusations of rape muddies the water.”

Just like when Trump asks Comey if “he can let Flynn go”. Comey felt like this was an order, coming from the President. When a powerful person asks you or pressures you into doing something you don’t want to do, and you do it, you haven’t consented, you were coerced, isn’t that the way it goes? It takes an inordinate amount of guts to say no.

Earnest Prole said...

Assertion of principles is just a tactic.

Those who believe in nothing will believe anything.

tim in vermont said...

Talk about anything else but this!

tim in vermont said...

"Those who believe in nothing will believe anything."

Where were you for the past couple decades?

Earnest Prole said...

Where were you for the past couple decades?

Like Lenin, you have no fixed principles. Unlike Lenin, you're stupid enough to say so.

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

Go ahead, make your case that I have no fixed principles.

tim in vermont said...

If it has to do with Trumps accusers, you can read all about my lesser of two evils comments going way back, and binary choices.

Rob McLean said...

"If you apply your principles only against your political enemies, they aren't really principles are they?"

A big chunk of most people's principles are "my side good, other side evil". So, why would one use their principles against their friends? It's their enemies who need to be destroyed, right?

buwaya said...

"Like Lenin, you have no fixed principles. Unlike Lenin, you're stupid enough to say so."

Lenin won. And Lenin did state, quite often, that principles were irrelevant to victory. He had a way with that sort of speech.

Bismarck was even better at it, and much less nasty.

Earnest Prole said...

Lenin won.

And so did Stalin. What's your point?

buwaya said...

"What's your point?"

There is no substitute for victory - Douglas MacArthur

Earnest Prole said...

There is no substitute for victory.

I guess we all better polish up on Stalin's principles then.

Rabel said...

Bill never thought he'd be one of the eggs in the omelette.

Goldberg should be careful, that thing about striking at a king comes to mind.

Earnest Prole said...

A big chunk of most people's principles are "my side good, other side evil". So, why would one use their principles against their friends? It's their enemies who need to be destroyed, right?

My principles = R always good, D always bad. Strangely, even my Republican friends find me not only untrustworthy but boring.

gregq said...

"I want to be principled, but I hate to empower my enemies to use my principles against me."

If your enemies can't "use your principles against you", then they're not actually principles.

A principle is a rule you follow even when you don't like the outcome. The fact that Democrats (and the Left in general) don't have principles, and can't even conceive of wanting to have principles, is one of the major reasons why I'm not part of the Left.

Earnest Prole said...

Whenever conservatives try to sound like Leninists, they end up sounding like pickup artists who are actually still virgins.

Gahrie said...

Whenever Progressives try to sound like Leninists, people die.

Earnest Prole said...

Whenever Progressives try to sound like Leninists, people die.

As Douglas MacArthur said, "That's not a bug, it's a feature."

tim in vermont said...

Meanwhile, for decades, the New York Times enabled the silencing of Bill's victims, made an example of them so that Harvey Weinstein's victims could clearly see what was possibly in store for them if they spoke out, and it's Republicans who need the lecture today.

Drago said...

Gahrie: "I get your point...but Monica's consent was meaningless and Bill Clinton himself signed the law that made it so."

True, but in Bill Clintons defense he knew that those laws apply only to Republicans. Not to good democrats like himself.

Which is why every lefty on these boards spent the last 25 years defending Billy boy and attacking his accusers.

Matthew Sablan said...

I mean, everything people are saying about the power disparity rape/harassment angle is true.

But is that *worth* arguing over when you can just say, "Yeah. But, here he actually beat up a woman and raped her." Seems to me picking the fight over Monica just puts your point in a weaker position, and which is why the left focused solely on it for years, downplaying it with "just sex Move On." Let Monica go, and focus on the things everyone is slowly coming to realize were actually crimes.

tim in vermont said...

Seems to me picking the fight over Monica just puts your point in a weaker position, and which is why the left focused solely on it for years, downplaying it with "just sex Move On."

Which is why they bring her up every time. But in this case, it is sort of interesting, because the New York Times didn't seem that interested in Monica in this editorial, did they? Which is pretty funny, because she is the closest analogue to "They let you grab 'em by the pussy." Even the feminists at the NYT and the Atlantic don't seriously care about it, obviously.

tim in vermont said...

Plus it's sort of funny how the NYT coddles their readers by leaving out graphic sworn testimony by two witnesses who could easily have been put in prison for lying if Bill could have just proven he was someplace else, the graphic testimony of these two women of the violence and planning of it all.

Michael K said...

Just before the stroke of midnight on September 20, 2016, at the height of last year’s presidential election, the WikiLeaks Twitter account sent a private direct message to Donald Trump Jr., the Republican nominee’s oldest son and campaign surrogate. “A PAC run anti-Trump site putintrump.org is about to launch,” WikiLeaks wrote. “The PAC is a recycled pro-Iraq war PAC. We have guessed the password. It is ‘putintrump.’ See ‘About’ for who is behind it. Any comments?” (The site, which has since become a joint project with Mother Jones, was founded by Rob Glaser, a tech entrepreneur, and was funded by Progress for USA Political Action Committee.)“


OMG! Progressives pissed at Hillary wanted to help Trump !!!

OMG! OMG! OMG!

Thanks, Inga. I needed a laugh.

buwaya said...

Yes, you should learn Stalins principles.
Thats where things have got to.
This is not the USA you were born in.
If you still think so you havent caught up.

Its interesting to study the progress of revolutions. Its always a process of stripping away illusions of limits, of ideals, of ethics and propriety, one by one and group by group, from the most impractical and saintly to the compromisers of one sort or another, each gotten rid of by the relentless logic of the situation. Until you get down to the raw Stalin, who cleans up all that dross wholesale.

Michael K said...

What we are seeing is a Gramscian nightmare. The young have been cleansed of their Bourgeoise culture.

Now, Marxism can take its place. They know nothing. No history.

The Pope Benedict was replaced by a Jesuit, the present Marxist Pope.

I had never heard of a Pope "resigning " before. The left has emptied all the Catholic colleges of religion.

Now, it is time to empty them of history and culture.

It is the only good thing I can think of about being old.

buwaya said...

Stalin was not all that amusing a fellow, but he could be genial, and even a kidder, and apparently could genuinely be "off the click".

Lenin was less so, quite a bore apparently, 100% shop-talk.

Hitler was even more of a bore, but had much more variety in his material.

buwaya said...

One day, I hope before I die, someone is going to tell us why Benedict resigned. There is a reason still undisclosed.

Possibly related to finances I think. The clue may be in what happened to the Knights of Malta subsequently, taken over by German financial types with Papal backing.

FIDO said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
buwaya said...

Interesting article of Hendershott in City Journal.
I can add a bit - the timing, of when the rot started at Catholic universities, is likely much earlier.

I go back to the Philippine experience (yes, I am a bore about this, but it matters, as these were US government policies). As it happens, being as it was a new colony in 1899-1905, US officials surveyed the existing Catholic universities there and said much the same things as Hendershott cites John Ellis, in his complaints about US Catholic colleges in 1956, that the programs lacked secular qualities of intellectual rigor and "excellence".

Given that there was also political conflict with the US occupiers as it was, re Church lands, the Church gave in and brought in American (and German) clergy and new religious orders to create more American-style institutions. This was the Philippines of course, and natural conservatism of the place, plus the lack of any incentive to ape secular institutions for the sake of "upward mobility", prevented the degree of rot we see in US Catholic institutions. I can reference here Da Costa on his history of the Philippine Jesuits, and various official and private accounts of US officials. Quite a lot are online.

The American official education establishment, Harvard and Yale men, even in 1899, looked askance at an education that featured Augustine and Aquinas.

Earnest Prole said...

Yes, you should learn Stalins principles.
Thats where things have got to.
This is not the USA you were born in.
If you still think so you havent caught up.


Do you have any idea how dopey this sounds? I'm old enough to remember hearing your exact words from a leftist in the late sixties or early seventies, except that Lenin was his prophet and not Stalin. Years later his type was captured perfectly in Forrest Gump:

“Jenny, things got a little out of hand. It’s just this war and . . . that lyin’ son-of-a-bitch Johnson! I would never hurt you, you know that.”

wildswan said...

This what Juanita Broadrick said happened:
Then he tries to kiss me again. And the second time he tries to kiss me he starts biting my lip … He starts to, um, bite on my top lip and I tried to pull away from him. And then he forces me down on the bed. And I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him ‘No,’ that I didn’t want this to happen but he wouldn’t listen to me. … It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to ‘Please stop.’ And that’s when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip. … When everything was over with, he got up and straightened himself, and I was crying at the moment and he walks to the door, and calmly puts on his sunglasses. And before he goes out the door he says ‘You better get some ice on that.’ And he turned and went out the door.” ...

Three weeks after the alleged assault, Broaddrick participated in a small Clinton fundraiser at the home of a local dentist. Broaddrick said she was “in denial” and felt guilty, thinking that she had given Clinton the wrong idea by letting him into her room. When she arrived at the event, she says, her friend who had picked the Clintons up from the airport told her that Hillary Clinton had asked if she would be at the event. Broaddrick says Bill Clinton did not speak to her at the event, but Hillary Clinton approached her, took her hand, and said "I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate what you do for him.” When Broaddrick moved her hand away, she says, Hillary Clinton held on to her and said, "Do you understand? Everything that you do." Broaddrick says she felt nauseated and left the gathering. Broaddrick says she interpreted the incident as Hillary Clinton thanking her for keeping quiet."

Why should this be allowed and enabled by feminists and by the NYT? At last they are asking themselves why they gave up their principles. But, I notice, they only ask among themselves. The deplorables aren't to comment in any way. If we comment our moral leaders will have to give up their principles because they see our comments as "using their principles against them", as deplorable Alinskyism. Or in other words, they are embarrassed and don't know what the strange feeling is and feel panicky.

jaydub said...

The left's discounting the Lewinski affair has always been particularly disingenuous to me. Sure it was consensual in that Lewinski agreed to the proposition, but it also lent credence to the prior allegations because it showed Billy Bob to be an exceptionally horny hound dog who came on to subordinates and who would risk everything for a quickie. Suppose Monica had not consented to servicing the boss, would she have been assaulted instead and then destroyed in much the same way as were Paula, Kathleen and Juanita? How many other women were propositioned by Billy Bob when he was governor or President, but declined his advances and were pawed/manhandled on the way out the door (like Kathleen)? How many others did not come forward because they needed their jobs or were afraid they would, themselves, be destroyed by the Clinton machine (like Kathleen and Paula)? By defending the indefensible all these years perhaps Michelle Goldberg should wonder about her own standing in decent society.

FIDO said...

Michelle Goldberg CliffNotes Version

Republicans weaponize lies about sex. (Ignore the McCain behind the Curtain)

Leftists had some quibbles which excuse their disbelief even though we never insist on little things like evidence for Title IX harassment and rape complaints

Our Faustian Bargain had all but crippled Feminism and our silence on Bill Clinton in the current climate is making us and the media look even worse.

Therefore, despite the fact that there are incredible numbers of people saying the exact same thing, I will, GRUDGINGLY concede that Brodderick is probably telling the truth. Maybe.

And therefore, I suggest ABSOLUTELY NOTHING be done to poor Bill Clinton, who is a cast out of society, shunned with invites to commencement addresses, the mansions on Martha's Vinyard and let us not forget the trips to Thailand with a known (CENSORED!)


If that is 'shunned by decent society', get me some of that!

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inkling said...

Quote: Writing in the NYT, Michelle Goldberg struggles to figure out what to say. If I had to guess what her point is, I think it's maybe: I want to be principled, but I hate to empower my enemies to use my principles against me.

To state the obvious, if your opponents cannot use your "principles" to change your behavior, you have no "principles," You merely have a self-inflating definition of yourself.

Chris from MD said...

So is Menendez going to be kicked out of the Senate? Now that Clinton is finally persona non grata and everyone says Judge Moore is not fit based an alleged 30 years ago behavior. Here we have a sitting Senator indicted for bribery and a participant in sexual allegations on the 'Lolita Express' and Epstein's island. Surely those allegations should be enough to have him replaced.

Chris Hendrickson

tim in vermont said...

Meanwhile Bill is seriously mad at Hillary now for losing, and calling up Gloria Steinem for cover. "What ever happened to the 'one free rape' rule?"

Jack Sherman said...

https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2017/11/10/truth-nros-katherine-timpf-has-a-quick-reminder-about-sexual-predators/

And Michelle Goldberg is human garbage

TheThinMan said...

In October 2006, the New York State Government Ethics Committee found Comptroller Alan Hevisi guilty of corruption. He was running for reelection and every major NY paper except the Daily News (yes, even the Times) endorses the Republican candidate. It was clear that, if elected, Hevisi would not be able to serve (criminal charges pending as well) but would have to step down and be immediately replaced by a Democrat to be determined. What happened? New Yorkers voted in a landslide for the crook! 53%-39%. New Yorkers just could not get their hand to pull the lever for a Republican, no matter the circumstances! But if Moore is elected, you’ll hear plenty of New Yorkers going on about the stupidity of Alabamians.

Bruce Hayden said...

I don't think that it is fair to equate Monica Lewinski with the other women involved. The problem is that that relationship was voluntary. Lewinski wanted Clinton's sexual attention, while Paula Jones, Broderick, etc did not. Either of those would get a CEO fired these days. With Lewinski, there have always been women who were sexually attracted to power. To alpha males. Why the NBA tells its players to bring their own condoms, and why some of its players have had sexual relations with thousands of women. Power turns on some women, and Lewinski seemed to be reveling in the fact that she caught the sexual interest of the most powerful man on the planet. She was the one showing sexual interest by exposing her thong. Contrast this with Paula Jones who felt pressured by the most powerful man above her in the organization she worked for to give him a blow job. Something that Lewinski did voluntarily. There have always women who traded sex for power or advancement. Who slept the way to the top. Or at least tried to. It is only sexual harassment by the more powerful of the two involved, because it puts pressure on the other (typically) women in the organization to have sex with the boss too, and is unfair to both the unwilling women and the men there because they won't or can't compete on the same level for advancement. While the Lewinski relationship was a bit off color for Clinton, it was only really questionable legally when viewed from that overzealous definition of sexual harassment. Both were adults, and it was purely voluntary. The problem was that Clinton lied about it under oath in the Paula Jones case, where he had been credibly accused of real sexual harassment.

Bruce Hayden said...

I have always felt a little sorry for Lewinski. She appears to have been on a lark, having the time of her life. Fresh out of college, and able to gain the sexual interest of the President. Conspiring with him to circumvent his wife and her many minions in order to meet. And to do all sorts of dirty things in the Oval Office. Much better than all her friends who got real jobs. Much more fun. And, then it all came crashing down - to the point that most of two decades later, her name is still being used for BWs. A youthful indiscretion that may be with her for the rest of her life.

Michael K said...

What is going on with Bill Clinton is battle space preparation for next year in the midterm election.

The whole sexual harassment hysteria is coming up at a time when the Russia gambit is failing. It might even entangle Hillary and her minions.

It has unfortunate similarities to the "recovered memories" hysteria and, before that, the day care hysteria.

Neither of those mass delusions ensnared politicians but they did get some successful people involved, one of whom finally ended the hysteria by successfully suing the perpetrators of the case involving him.

In the first third-party repressed memory lawsuit to go to trial, Gary Ramona successfully sued his daughter’s therapists for implanting false memories of sexual abuse. (See discussion of Holly Ramona case, supra.) Following his daughter’s accusations of sexual abuse, Mr. Ramona had suffered the breakdown of his marriage and family and the loss of his job. He also faced civil charges of child sexual abuse. The trial court recognized that, as a matter of public policy, the defendant therapists owed a legal duty of care not only to the patient but also to the patient’s immediate family. In May 1994, the jury awarded Mr. Ramona a half million dollars and specifically found that the defendants were negligent in providing health care to Holly Ramona and had implanted or reinforced false memories that her father had molested her as a child.

Insurance companies stopped offering malpractice coverage for "repressed memory therapy" and the hysteria disappeared overnight.

The trouble with the present hysteria is that movie actors and politicians are"public figures" and probably unable to sue the accusers whose claims are shown to be false.

tim in vermont said...

I just heard that Moore was driving home drunk from a party and he drove off a bridge and left a girl named Mary Joe to drown! How can we seated him now? Oh wait, the producer is shouting in my ear-piece to shut up and dragging his finger across his neck! Teddy Kennedy? Never mind!

tim in vermont said...

Oh shit.. I think I just lost my job.

phu nhut said...

Spa ở Thủ Đức chuyên điều trị làm đẹp chăm sóc tắm trắng da,nám, Trị mụn,Xóa xăm, phun xăm ,Triệt lông vĩnh viễn,sẹo hiểu quả uy tín giá rẻ ở Thủ Đức
Spa thủ đức,
spa uy tín ở thủ đức,
spa trị mụn ở thủ đức,
spa tốt ở thủ đức,
spa trị mụn tại thủ đức,
spa ở thủ đức,

RonF said...

Bruce Hayden said:

"A youthful indiscretion that may be with her for the rest of her life."

The left loves to deride what they call "traditional morality", generally based in America on what you read in the Bible. But if you take a good look at what you read in there and then a good look at what happens if you go outside those bounds, it turns out that a lot of it is just sound practical advice.

RonF said...

Bruce Hayden said:

"Power turns on some women"

Bruce, you have an extra word in there that reduces the accuracy of the statement. Guess which one it is?

JAORE said...

What he did to Monica was vile and sexual harassment (even if she consented). But it may not have been illegal enough to pursue.

Broaderick and Willey were subjected to far worse if their stories are true. But there was never a trial, so some on the left can continue to deny.

However there WAS a trial of Clinton:
Bill Clinton lied under oath and attempted to coerce another witness to lie under oath. The lies were to deny justice to a (relatively) powerless woman suing her very powerful employer (at the time) for sexual assault.

He lost his law license and paid out (IIRC) $850,000.

I weep that this is so rarely mentioned.




Micha Elyi said...

"OMG! Progressives pissed at Hillary wanted to help Trump !!!"----Michael K

Look again. The web site was named Put In Trump Dot Org. Hidden in plain sight. Hah ha.

"...Pope Benedict was replaced by a Jesuit, the present Marxist Pope."--Michael K

Pope Francis is not a Marxist and socialism* remains a heresy. Don't believe everything you read in the New York Times, it has no magisterial authority. Also, does the phrase "Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect" mean anything to you?

"I had never heard of a Pope 'resigning' before."

Such has happened before. You can look it up.

* the real kind--Marxism, Stalinism, Leninism, Hitlerism, International Socialism, National Socialism, Maoism, Chinese Socialism, and such like--not the cheap hyperbolic accusation often heard in American political discourse