OOne of the grim lessons of the #MeToo movement and its long backlash is this: Whether someone finds an allegation of sexual abuse credible depends largely on their preconceived notions of the man accused. When a woman comes forward with an account of mistreatment by a man—be it degrading bullying, brutal rape, or any of the other humiliations and violations that fall on the broad spectrum in between—the listener’s reaction is fairly predictable. If they hate the accused, they will believe his accuser. If they like him, they will say it’s bullshit.
Unfortunately, this rule applies even to women who call themselves feminists. It applied to Gloria Steinem, the famous feminist now in her 90s who defended Clinton in the New York Times in 1998 when he was embroiled in a spate of sex scandals and abuse allegations. She dismissed the allegations against him as trivial and argued implausibly that she would have interpreted similar allegations against Clarence Thomas differently. Most famously, this rule applies to Bill Clinton’s wife, the liberal feminist icon Hillary Clinton, who stood silently by her husband through all the allegations against him – and maintained her feminist credibility despite her loyalty to an allegedly violent man I can only describe as dog-like.
People who like Bill Clinton or find him convenient for their own ends have long downplayed the numerous allegations of sexual harassment and violence he has faced from at least four women. They claim that Paula Jones, the former Arkansas state employee who sued Bill Clinton for sexual harassment after the then-governor took her to his hotel room, propositioned her and exposed himself, is lying – even though Jones has several corroborating witnesses and even though her story has not changed in more than 30 years.
They claim that Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who testified that Clinton raped her in a hotel room in 1978 when he was Arkansas attorney general, is also lying – even though Broaddrick, like Jones, told several people about Clinton’s assault at the time.
They claim that Monica Lewinsky, the 22-year-old unpaid intern with whom Clinton had an affair in the White House when he was 49 and the most powerful man in the world, technically consented to the sexual acts Clinton asked her to perform – an insistence that betrays a shockingly simple-minded and deliberately obtuse understanding of sexual ethics.
They repeat Clinton’s denial of wrongdoing in all of these cases against all of these women. At least, that’s what they say when they even acknowledge the allegations against Bill Clinton’s conduct. Most of the time, they ignore them – as Bill Clinton did, as his wife Hillary Clinton did, and as Bill Clinton’s popular legacy seems to do.
Bill Clinton’s supporters ignore his accusers because they can. The dignity of these women, their equality, and their right to control their own bodies are less important to them than their appreciation for Bill Clinton – less than whether he delivers a few votes, delivers a quick-witted line on TV, or looks good in a suit.
On Wednesday night, the third night of the Democratic National Convention, the entire party ignored these women as they roused Bill Clinton, a multiple-accused alleged sexual harasser and rapist, to Chicago’s United Center. The former president was given a prime-time speaking slot, paraded like a trophy and applauded like a hero.
Aren’t these people embarrassed? Haven’t they at least noticed the hypocrisy? After all, the 2024 election is quickly becoming a gender election: the boorish Trump, the disgusting, sex-obsessed JD Vance and the radical anti-abortion Republican Party are turning the election campaign into a referendum on the status of women in American society. Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate who is seeking to become the nation’s first female president on Election Day, has taken on the struggle of women – not only in the symbolism of her candidacy, but also in the tenor of her commitment, in which she advocates for women’s “freedom” to control their own bodies and their own lives.
These are noble goals that Democrats can be proud of pursuing. But they are out of proportion to the celebrations for an alleged rapist, the pomp and subservience for a man who allegedly regularly sexually harassed women who worked for him and had an affair with an intern young enough to be his daughter. Sexual abuse is also a violation of women’s freedom – women’s freedom to live, work and participate in public life without the threat of sexual violence. Bill Clinton has made it clear that he does not respect this kind of gender-based freedom.
The call for freedom for women from rape, abuse, and harassment has always been the least popular and most politically charged feminist cause. Abortion has always been a more attractive political issue to male voters. Misogynistic men—in a tradition that stretches from Playboy founder (and alleged rapist) Hugh Hefner to Barstool Sports founder (and alleged sexual assaulter) Dave Portnoy to former President (and alleged rapist) Bill Clinton—have long supported abortion rights, in part because they understand abortion not as a matter of women’s fundamental freedom and dignity, but as a matter of men’s increased sexual access to women and reduced responsibility for the resulting pregnancies.
These prurient, sexually self-righteous misogynists are not all Republicans—rape and its defense have always been a bipartisan concern—but they are not the kind of voters Democrats should be courting. A trade that gives women the right to terminate a pregnancy in exchange for men’s right to rape, harass, and abuse women is not acceptable. We can do better: We can strive for a version of America in which women are truly free and equal, endowed with the same bodily sovereignty, self-determination, and sexual autonomy as men. That is not the world Bill Clinton represents, and it is not a world that a party that insists on celebrating him can deliver.
Bill Clinton has been out of office for nearly three decades. In that time, his once rosy status as a liberal hero has thankfully faded, even if his alleged history of sexual abuse has not played a sufficient role in the reassessment of his reputation. Liberals today rightly look back with horror at Clinton’s crime bill; his devastating welfare cuts were punitive and cruel, hitting women and children hardest. He created a vision of a conservative Democratic Party less committed to its principles than cynically abandoning them for a shot at power.
His vision of change has failed, and his political project has proven morally bankrupt. It’s not clear whether he can even win many votes; a large portion of the American electorate is now too young to remember his presidency, apart from the sex scandals. It’s time for the Democrats to send the old man home. And tell him to keep his hands to himself.
