Losing the war

By winning a skirmish.  Here, we have pro-life Obama supporter Michael Wear explain why he voted for radically pro-choice Doug Jones.  Because Roy Moore is a sexual pervert child rapist.  Sure, there are other reasons, but let's face it, that was the albatross around Moore's neck that did him in.  Do we know that he is guilty?  Well, no.  But since obviously women never lie, and since it's also impossible to make credible false accusations, what other possibility is there?  That he wasn't proven guilty is almost proudly admitted by those who stamped the sexual pervert symbol on his forehead.

Thankfully, Christians, Catholics, religious leaders and pundits all agreed that presumption of innocence only exists in our courtrooms - for now.  Outside the courts, your butt belongs to, well, whoever thinks you're a freak and a sideshow to begin with.

With little effort, the progressive establishment convinced a respectable number of non-liberal leaders and voices to forgo the notion that proof, evidence or facts are needed before destroying a person's life.  We must accept a nation where if the press and the liberal establishment want a person destroyed, then destroyed he must be.  This whole presumption of innocence has got to go.  Outside of the courtrooms for now of course.  The courts will take care of themselves down the road.

This is what is called winning a diversionary skirmish while losing the war.  Personally, at this point, I hope Moore is guilty.  I hope he did assault a sixteen year old and try to have sexual relations with an underage girl.  Because if he didn't, the blood of  his ruined reputation is on the hands of every conservative, Republican, religious leader, pundit, apologist, and activist who rushed to build the scaffolding and tie the knot around his neck without all that pesky evidence and proof.

That is why, in contrast, I hear what Mary Franson is saying.

"A man's life was destroyed in AL. 40 years ago he met with minors alone and they recently accused him of horrendous actions. In the world of we must believe every sexual harassment claim, I would think my approach is beyond reasonable. All it takes is one perceived action and my life is destroyed. The life of my family is destroyed. That is a risk I will not take. I have spoken to numerous adults about this situation. They all agree that me meeting alone with minors is not appropriate."

She is backing out of a meeting with students.  And why not?  An accusation now, or fifty years from now, might be good enough to ruin her.  I've told my sons that, if I were them, I would draw a circle of protection around myself in the workplace, or any place, and not let women within five feet of me.  I certainly wouldn't be around anyone under age at this point.  After all, Moore was destroyed based only on accusations from events 40 years old.  No credible physical evidence was produced.  Testimony by friends of the accusers was used.  Evidence that they might have known Moore was all that was needed to make the accusations 'credible'.  Think on that.  All they had to do was show they might have known Moore, and it was enough to destroy him.

Many of the calls for Moore to step down came within 24 hours of the accusations being published, so his subsequent stumbling and bumbling had nothing to do with it.  Those who called for him to step down before he had a chance to respond wanted him to step down, and were fine with a nation where lives are ruined without proof or evidence.  Because for all the rhetoric and attempts to move it back to Moore's policy positions (for those even trying to justify what happened), it was nothing but saying we'll take anything to stop him, even if it means wrongful sentencing based on false accusations.

This is what happens when punditry replaces principle.  When McCarthy ran amok, it was enough that he was smacked down in the name of decency.  When you no longer have a nation with a concept of decency, no concept of common good or unity, no idea of morality or principles, then you no longer care if right or wrong is occurring, or justice is done. I echo the wonderfully delivered question by the late, great Raul Julia in the 1990 film Presumed Innocent.  Roy Moore's reputation is dead.  His career ruined.  He has been hung with a label as deadly as Communist or homosexual was in the 1950s.  But in the end, was justice done?

Or more to the point, in the end, do we even care?  Do the conservatives, Republicans, religious leaders, pundits, apologists and activists even care?  I fear we've seen individuals with no stomach to resist the coming storm take a larger step forward in sealing our society's fate than anything a Democrat, Republican, politician or president could hope to do in pushing us down a path toward the end of liberty and freedom.  Only if Moore is shown to be guilty can we hope for a different end.  And that's a disturbing thing to have to hope for.