Read on Twitter
So I think this is a legitimate concern: Today's youngest candidates grew up with many their bad acts & comments memorialized online. I am still thinking about this article, for example, and the implications are really troubling: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/16/style/blm-accounts-social-media-high-school.html https://twitter.com/BMarchetich/status/1297612955433885697
And I don't have a perfect answer here. The passage of time is one factor, as is the age the child was, as is the severity of the act (if someone shot up a school at 12, would we argue that that's all in the past when the ran for office at 19? I suspect probably not!).
But I am very frustrated to see men defending a person who ruined two girls' lives - sexually humiliating one, abusing another to the point where she attempted suicide - when those same men went after prominent women in politics for things those women believed as high schoolers.
Hillary being a "Goldwater Girl" as a teenager was a common attack on her, including from at least one of the specific men who went to bat for Coleman. Kirsten Gillibrand was criticized for interning for her state senator by a man who is now says childhood acts are off limits.
So it just strikes me as odd that what a middle-aged politician believed as a minor several decades earlier is more relevant and worthy of coverage and criticism than a pretty extreme act a teenage politician actually committed as a minor a few years earlier.
It almost feels like it's not about the "principle" but something else entirely. It's still important to discuss the principle, and I am glad we're doing it, because similar cases are going to come up again and again. But those advocating clarity & consistency haven't offered it.
I should add here that I'm also frustrated seeing so many feminists and progressives suggest that what a person did at 12 in fact defines him for life -- that Coleman's actions were so sociopathic and so wrong that he's obviously A Bad Person and always will be.
And the "he was a kid" analysis is tough given that by any reasonable measure other than the legal definition of majority age he's still kind of a kid. Surely if someone does something heinous at 17 and 11 months we don't memory-hole it as soon as they turn 18.
But it's also just not true that people who commit certain kinds of crimes are guaranteed to reoffend or must be remorseless sociopaths. It is just not true that what a person did at 12 tells us everything we need to know about them as an adult.
It is certainly true that youth = incomplete development of impulse control and ability to think far into the future, and the internet = perfect conditions for bullying.
There is a huge difference between "you shouldn't hold this office" and "you should go to jail," one that was repeatedly and frustratingly conflated by Coleman's defenders. But also, a punitive society with little capacity for forgiveness creates the conditions for incarceration.
How we talk about "you shouldn't hold this office" does matter - is it punishment for what you did at 12, or is it taking into account whether you have grappled with your bad acts, been fully accountable, and demonstrated greater understanding and empathy?
To me, the issue is that everything in Coleman's life pointed to the conclusion that he had not done the work. He technically apologized, but minimized his actions. He ran for governor at 17, which struck me as remarkably hubristic and unaware of his own abilities, then ran at 19
He told the relative of one of his victims that she needed to just move on, because he had (must be nice!). Clearly, in my view, not an appropriate person to be in a position of public trust. But we can come to that conclusion without concluding he is a bad person forever.
And I do sincerely worry that this idea that the bad thing you did or said will define you forever because actions have consequences is... not really the way we want to live. Especially when we're talking about the actions of children.
Anyway, I am debating writing a piece on this that isn't limited by character count, but anyone who tells you these questions are easy or standards are clear has not fully grappled with just how complicated these cases can be.
The right is extremely punitive, except when it comes to its own members' actions, especially when those actions involve mistreating women. The left is better at holding its own accountable, but it can also be extremely punitive for wrongdoing, and also incredibly inconsistent.
I do worry that as we have -rightly!- decided certainly words & behaviors are unacceptable, we have not imagined adequate options for accountability, growth, and acceptance back into the fold. This is for good reason: Many of us have long born the brunt of being told to forgive.
Christian systems, for example, of confessing one's sin and being forgiven have worked very well for people with power and less well for, say, women. I understand the resistance to redemption because it has so often meant saying "lady shut up about abuse, he's sorry."
But in rejecting the confession/forgiveness/redemption model of justice we've latched onto a punitive one: That there are victims and perpetrators, what matters is the experience & desire of the victim alone, and anything short of jail time / state action isn't a real punishment.
And indeed it's true, not getting elected to office is not a punishment. But we should be thoughtful about how we act within our own movements, and whether how we mete out justice reflects how we want things done. Or at least that we let these questions be messy and complicated.
