ANDREW CUOMO’S EXIT: A TALE OF TWO PARTIES – ONE REPUBLICAN, ONE DEMOCRAT - YOU CHOOSE

Two things happened Tuesday, August 10, in which Democrats – and the nation – could take

pride. First, the U.S. Senate passed President Biden’s $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill. Second, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced his resignation in the wake of a sexual harassment scandal. The infrastructure deal isn’t done. The bill that passed the Senate may not clear the House unless Biden and his allies can pass a companion $3.5 trillion “human infrastructure” bill through budget reconciliation. That means we’ll have opportunities for talking about infrastructure for months.

We want to talk about the Cuomo development now! It showed the fundamental difference in our

two major political parties. Cuomo’s situation provided an apples-to-apples comparison of how Democrats and Republicans handle sexual harassment. Both have faced exams on sexual

harassment charges against one (or more) of their stars. With Cuomo’s announced departure, Democrats, in our view, passed their test. Republicans flunked the same exam numerous times.

The fact of this starkly different result makes even clearer just how much our political system has changed, and not for the better. The parties look like they evolved in separate societies; that they didn’t come from a common tradition in which decency, civility, accountability, and dedication to the rule of law triumph over the imperative of retaining power.

The Cuomo Challenge

Andrew Cuomo hails from a powerful political

family. He’s accomplished a great deal in politics on his own. His father, Mario Cuomo, served three terms as New York governor, perpetually flirting with running for president and delivering eloquent convention speeches in 1984 and 1992 that stirred Democratic hearts nationwide. Andrew Cuomo served as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Clinton administration, New York attorney general, and nearly three terms as New York’s governor. He’s been an immensely effective political operative, to the point of leaving office with an $18 million campaign war chest. He’s, also, been known as someone you don’t cross in New York politics.

Despite the fear Andrew Cuomo once struck, there he was on August 10 announcing he’d  step aside,

effective 14 days later. He left to a chorus of “Amens” from local, state, and national Democrats. Unfinished business remained: (1) post-resignation impeachment proceedings that could permanently bar him from office; (2) criminal investigations; and (3) civil suits brought by his alleged harassment victims. Legislative leaders appeared genuinely divided over the first question. They must consider Cuomo’s potential complicity in a nursing home scandal and ethical

transgressions involving a book deal. They found themselves torn between moving on and a desire for accountability. Some former prosecutors thought the criminal cases might go away. The civil suits, however, will go forward and probably get settled when Cuomo pulls out his checkbook.   

 

Democratic Unity

Democrats forced Cuomo from office. First, fellow Democrat, Attorney General Letitia James,

conducted the investigation and authored the damning report that forced his hand. Second, New York’s political leadership quickly called for Cuomo’s resignation. They’re all Democrats – U.S. Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand,  New YorkCity Mayor Bill de Blasio, and strong majorities in the state legislature. After the James report, they all said Cuomo should leave.  Third, President Biden weighed in early, asserting that if the James investigationproved the allegations against Cuomo, he should resign. Biden restated that position once the report came out. It showed credible evidence supporting the allegations of 11 women who charged Cuomo with offensive touching, creation of a hostile work environment in his office, and other transgressions. 

The Democratic unity left Cuomo no running room. Nobody defended him. As legislative impeachment machinery moved into high gear, Cuomo ran out of options. Timing represented the major surprise in the August 10 resignation announcement.  Many expected he’d leave eventually, but most observers thought the combative Cuomo would fight long and hard in an effort to hang on as long as he could.

 

And Republicans?

As suggested, we believe the most important aspect of the Cuomo resignation story resides in the difference between how Democrats reacted to his difficulties versus how Republicans handled similar situations. First, of course, there’s former President Donald Trump. Must we reiterate the facts of the Access Hollywood tape and the Stormy Daniels payoff? Those Trump sins (and others) were arguably worse than Cuomo’s, but Republicans stood by him.  Had Republican leaders abandoned Trump in October 2016 after the Access Hollywood tape emerged, the nation likely would have been spared the disaster that was the Trump presidency.

Then, there are the Republican second stringers like

Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz, accused of sex trafficking in underage girls, and Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, who allegedly helped cover up sexual abuse allegations in the Ohio State University wrestling program while he coached there. In each instance, Republican members of Congress and other GOP elected officials stood by these bad actors or remained silent, which is as bad (or worse).

We’ve said we think America needs two viable political parties arguing over ideas and policy.  We’ve also said we don’t need this Republican Party because it’s not interested in character ideas or policy, only in keeping power. The Cuomo affair demonstrated that we have one party that will police itself in the name of fidelity to our values and institutions.  The other party, as currently led and configured, won’t do that. It deserves that special place in hell for those who thrash those cherished values and institutions.  

                     

Sexual Harrassment: Beyond Being Against It

Few issues have stirred up politics, business, entertainment, or general culture like sexual harassment has recently.  The #MeToo movement sprang up after sexual misconduct revelations against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein.  Allegations followed against television hosts Matt Lauer and Charlie Rose, Minnesota Senator Al Franken, Michigan Congressman John Conyers, and Alabama senatorial candidate Roy Moore.  Two Presidential aides, speechwriter David Sorensen and Staff Secretary Rob Porter, departed the White House after their former wives charged them with domestic violence.  Meantime, #MeToo gathered momentum as actresses wore black to events like the Golden Globe Awards ceremony in support of the movement, which encourages women to come forward and report incidents of sexual harassment.

No woman or man should have to endure unwanted sexual advances to get a part in a film, work in a bakery or a congressional office, pursue an educational opportunity, or serve in the military.  Hopefully, we can agree on that basic premise.  We state unequivocally our intolerance for any form of sexual harassment.  

Anything past that simple statement, however, puts us in line for sociological, political, and legal debates about (1) the definition of sexual harassment; (2) the appropriate forums for sexual harassment victims, that is where do we decide the fate of alleged harassers; (3) what differences do or don’t exist between sexual bad acts; and (4) due process rights for alleged perpetrators.  Despite the complexity, we’ll dive briefly into each topic as a prelude to further discussion in coming weeks and months. 

What is it, anyway?

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines workplace sexual harassment as “unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.” The Commission notes that unlawful conduct creates “an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.”  Some sexual harassment claims turn on proving a quid pro quo in which continued employment, career path, and/or pay depended on willingness to submit to sexual demands.   

The EEOC scheme is good as far as it goes, but it doesn’t cover every situation.  Men who make unwanted advances on dates, for example, may not have job-related power over women.  The Catholic Church’s sex scandals involving priests and children don’t fit into the EEOC paradigm.  The workplace definition doesn’t work in all instances, the reason Henry argues we should focus on sexual misconduct.  Sexual harassment, for example, seems too tame a term for the allegations against Moore.  Though he denied the charges, many voters apparently believed the assertion he molested young women, some mere children when he allegedly initiated intimate contact with them.

Who decides?    

In the Rob Porter case, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly privately encouraged Porter to ride out the storm and even issued a public statement declaring him a “man of integrity.” Kelly, however, likely knew of the allegations for more than a year.  Only after photos surfaced showing one of Porter’s alleged victims with a black eye did Kelly back off support for Porter.  Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, apparently without knowledge of the facts, contended Porter shouldn’t quit and labeled his accusers “morally bankrupt.”

The Porter, Moore, and Franken cases raise the question of how to resolve sexual harassment complaints involving office holders.  Is the voting booth enough, as in Moore’s case?  What role should disciplinary mechanisms of legislative bodies play?  That might have been the vehicle in Franken’s case until he resigned under pressure from some of his Democratic colleagues perhaps seeking political advantage in the public relations war.  How much does it matter if the alleged transgressions occurred before being elected to office, as in the case of President Trump?  How do we balance the rights of the alleged victim and the electorate’s freedom to elect who it wants, despite harassment allegations? Right now, like most people sorting this out, we have more questions than answers. 
             

Are all Sexual Bad Acts Equally Bad?

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), a Senate leader on sexual harassment issues, recently declined to distinguish between sexual harassment and sexual assault saying, a line must be drawn and “none of it is okay.”  The implications of her view led Bill Maher, host of "Real Time with Bill Maher" to push back.  He said, “Justice requires weighing things.  That’s why Lady Justice is holding a scale and not a sawed-off shotgun,” adding, “I’m down with #MeToo.  I’m not down with #MeMcCarthryism.”

Senator Gillibrand’s position appears to make any number of sexist acts someone finds offensive worthy of scorn.  She said, “None of it is okay.” In the interest of not trying to take on too much right now, we’ll let Gillibrand and Maher speak for themselves, but recognize that their conflict marks an important flashpoint in the debate.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent or Just Guilty

Related to the pushback point remains the question of what happens to people accused of sexual harassment?  Is the mere accusation of sexual harassment a death sentence for the alleged harasser’s professional life?  In the interest of encouraging women to come forward with their stories without fear of being disbelieved, should a presumption of guilt attach?  Or, do we follow the traditional presumption of innocence until proven guilty, as in every other criminal or quasi criminal matter? What process is due in sexual harassment situations?  What is fair?  
   

These points only scratch the surface on this issue.  We’ll have more to say later. Perhaps you have thoughts now – do share!