When Democrats, at the end of the 20th century, decided that President Bill Clinton’s relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky failed to disqualify him from the presidency, they set in motion a personal ethics-free zone for future national leaders. The left argued that Clinton’s peccadillo should be overlooked because he had done so much good by advancing women’s rights and defending civil rights. A generous interpretation could posit that if it were an affair only, two consenting adults had engaged in a personal relationship, and each would have to answer to spouses or partners. Clinton used his office to force a young and impressionable intern into sexual acts that many find embarrassing to talk about in public. At a minimum, Democrats should have demanded his resignation after investigators from the Justice Department and Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr uncovered evidence proving his abuse of office. Instead, his party, far and wide (except for Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut), defended him, while his wife offered the incredible explanation that a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was trying to bring down her husband.
In 2012, the Republicans nominated Mitt Romney to oppose President Barack Obama. The GOP felt strongly that they had nominated a man of impeccable character. In rapid succession, the Democrats attacked him as a louse, the veritable skunk at the garden party who represented everything bad about American business. As Jim Geraghty, in National Review, details, first, a Democratic activist group ran an ad suggesting he had given his workers cancer, a bald-faced lie. Next, Senator Harry Reid circulated a rumour that Romney had not paid taxes in 10 years. Months later, when confronted with this obvious lie, all Reid could say was, “Romney didn’t win, did he?” After that, the Obama team put out a false report that Romney had committed a felony and lied on his filings with the Federal Election Commission. After that accusation fell short, a member of Obama’s campaign, Stephanie Cutter, promised Romney he would not be getting an apology. Finally, to top it off, Gail Collins of the New York Times wrote about Romney putting a dog in a crate on top of the family car as they travelled on vacation over 100 times, attempting to make Romney look uncaring, detached, and unsympathetic. The lesson learned: nominating a good man means little, and false stories quickly shred a man’s reputation. Having a good person with sterling character seemed to matter little to the national media or the Democrats. If the left intended to turn GOP nominees into the devil, then character mattered little. Why not, thought many Republicans, just cut to the chase and nominate someone willing to win at any cost?
In 2016, enough GOP primary voters were convinced of this that a nominee with a backstory of scandal, corruption, and predation made it to the top of the heap. Facing ugly chatter, innuendo, and serious charges, Donald Trump raced ahead and achieved the nomination of the Republican Party for president. In defeating Hillary Clinton, he put to rest the idea that morality mattered in national politics. Clinton had her own struggles with the truth, but Trump’s reputation should have disqualified him on ethical grounds. His 2016 victory reinforced the idea that winning was not only important but the only thing (apologies, Vince Lombardi).
By 2024, with President Joe Biden sidelined, the Democrats thought they had the moral upper hand with prosecutor and Vice President Kamala Harris. As Geraghty contends, “They were convinced Kamala Harris was smarter, wiser, and more experienced. What’s more, she was ‘joy.’ She was ‘brat.’ No less a world-renowned moral authority than Taylor Swift had endorsed her. As Democrats often told the country, it was the prosecutor versus the felon. In the minds of those on the political left, Trump had long-since morally disqualified himself with his performance in his first term, his refusal to accept his defeat in 2020, his incendiary remarks leading up to the January 6 riot, and the multiple criminal investigations of him.” Nominating a ‘better person’ didn’t matter then, and it doesn’t now. Despite the recriminations, Democrats saw no hypocrisy in creating an industry of lawfare against Trump while excusing the former president.
That brings us to 2026 and the recent Democratic primary in Maine, where Democrats have nominated Graham Platner to take on Susan Collins, the Republican woman who has represented the state since 1996 and seeks a record-setting sixth term. The party, outraged about Trump, has dismissed Platner’s Nazi tattoo, his sexting of other women, his abuse of former girlfriends, and his presence on Kik, where the freshly minted candidate kept an anonymous, sexually explicit account on the platform. As Eliana Johnson of the Free Beacon notes on The Commentary podcast, Platner self-admittedly talks about what a jerk he is when he drinks but still walks around with a beer in his hand. Indeed, the hypocrisy may not have peaked, but it surely has reached a new height. When Brett Kavanaugh sat in front of the august body of senators Platner hopes to join, he had to answer questions like, Did you ever get black out drunk? How many beers did you have? Do you like beer? How about Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth promising never to put another drop of alcohol on his tongue?
Platner hails from a rich family. Kids make poor decisions, and everyone deserves a second chance, but Platner has not reformed. He continues to be someone who would never have been considered, much less nominated, thirty years ago, maybe even twenty years ago, Bill Clinton notwithstanding. The Democrats lit a match when they excused Bubba because, like JFK, he had become too politically valuable to kick to the curb. Republicans have followed suit with Trump, much to the chagrin of the national media and public networks across Europe and Canada. Texans recently nominated a scandal-plagued candidate, Ken Paxton, in Texas, where sat a perfectly acceptable Republican in Senator John Cornyn. There are other swampy creatures on the ballot or about to be nominated, including another Democratic contender in the Michigan Senate race. Until voters draw the line, the parties will keep arming their campaigns with candidates that appeal to the base, are divisive, and reflect the growing effort to create safe seats. The caveat is that statewide races change the playing field. Collins supports Trump about 90 per cent of the time, a lot better than Platner ever would, but Trump still only gave her a lukewarm endorsement. Whether she can once again overcome internal opposition while also being called a Trump toady remains to be seen.
Bottoming out the character qualifications may have seemed like a good idea when Clinton’s literal behind needed covering. Today it produces a lot of little emperors who have no clothes, no ethics, and no shame. Hard to imagine that we could look back at the Nixon saga and find comfort in his party’s actions to force him from office. Regardless of how prudish and self-righteous our woke culture has become, the partisanship has forced a win-at-any-cost mentality to overwhelm any sense of decency. Platner may be Maine’s next Senator thanks to Democrats’ hypocrisy, but it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who has cheered on the Clintons or supported Trump.
Dave Redekop is a retired elementary resource teacher who worked part-time at the St. Catharines Courthouse as a Registrar until being appointed Executive Director at Redeemer Bible Church in October 2023. He has worked on political campaigns since high school and attended university in South Carolina for five years, earning a Master’s in American History with a specialization in Civil Rights. Dave loves reading biographies.
