Hypocrisy, n. The practice of professing beliefs or virtures that one does not possess.

[madbaker]

A few days ago, Arnold Schwarzenegger dodged allegations of sexual harassment and abuse of power in the cases (star to extra). To my mind, they were reasonably substantiated and established a disturbing pattern of behavior.

Womens' groups and general leftist groups attacked; Gray Davis suggested legal action might be appropriate. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, with its generally conservative outlook, downplayed the allegations and put an emphasis on Schwarzenegger's apology.

A few years ago, Bill Clinton dodged allegations of sexual harassment and abuse of power in the cases. To my mind, they were reasonably substantiated and established a disturbing pattern of behavior.

Womens' groups downplayed the accusations (I remember NOW, oddly enough, actually attacked his female accusers). The Wall Street Journal's editorial page frothed at the mouth about harassment and went into lurid detail.

As I see it, both sides reacted strictly according to ideology in each case. The underlying allegations didn't seem to matter. By the way, I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican.

Sigh. I'd be happy to debate responses as to why the cases are different. If you're just going to attack it from a political standpoint ("Schwarzenegger is a Republican and everyone knows they are hostile to women!" / "Bill Clinton is a Democrat and everyone knows they have no morals!") I won't dignify the comments with a response.

Comments

(sigh) did some research

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

I mis-remembered the Willey charges, since after 5 years I had thankfully forgotten the sordid details. She claimed that he propositioned her, dropped his pants, then physically prevented her from leaving the hotel room. She also alleged that he later retaliated by spiking her career. I would think that this meets the sexual battery definition.

My point was that both men abused their positions for sexual harassment purposes. I think that is wrong. (Duh.) However, I found that people's (and organizations') reactions differed in the two cases. Generally corresponding to political ideology, and I think that is hypocritical.

Re: (sigh) did some research

[scendan.livejournal.com]

I do agree that there seems to have been a degree of hypocrisy going around, probably on both sides. And I think that's unfortunate. I don't like the idea that Republicans might overlook Arnold's transgressions because they desperately wanted a Republican in office. I don't like the idea that a Democrat might whitewash Clinton's behavior either.

My memory of the impeachment deal was that there were not criminal sorts of charges applicable to Clinton. However, as you mentioned yourself, with five years that have gone by, my memory could easily be flawed. Frankly, I can barely remember what I had for breakfast, so I don't place great stock in my ability to recall.

If what you are citing is true, then it does seem as if there was some sort of behavior from Clinton that could be cited as illegal. I certainly never thought he was a saint, although I voted for him twice. My memory, possibly flawed, was that the main issue was that he earned the name "Slick Willie" rather than the issue being one of outright criminal behavior - just scummy.

So...I dunno. I don't make claim to having all the information on either issue. My summation will just be "I think both behaved like pigs."

But I do believe there should be a difference drawn between pig-behavior and criminal behavior, as defined by the law, and shown through the legal process. Do both Arnold and Bill fall into the criminal behavior category? That, I'm not sure about.

Still, I agree that a lot of sentiment seems to split along party lines, regardless of evidence, and that's a shame to lay at the feet of members of both parties.