Graham Platner in the Court of Public Opinion
Not Guilty, Not Guilty, Guilty.
A few weeks ago, Jenny Racicot accused former Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner of rape. Twenty-four hours after Politico published her account, the Platner campaign collapsed. Endorsers withdrew their support, once-sympathetic leftist commentators called for Platner to drop out, and the campaign volunteers demanded a new candidate. Not everyone felt this way. Some commentators pushed back on the Politico story, contesting Racicot’s veracity, and warning this could be another bad-faith attempt by the political establishment to erase a candidate they couldn’t defeat fair and square. Such suspicion is warranted. The media overly criticizes and diminishes candidates who criticize Israel and billionaires. Graham Platner’s populist platform put a target on his back, no different from the one worn by Zohran Mamdani, Darializa Avila Chevalier, and every other insurgent left challenger. So I’m not surprised some hesitated to ditch Platner and waive the White Flag on the populist campaign.
While skepticism of media attacks and establishment sabotage is warranted, the court of public opinion judged Graham Platner fairly over his short political career. When earlier accusations were raised, Maine voters and Platner supporters refused to disavow him over half-baked assertions or prejudiced prosecutions. But when an accuser came forward with a credible allegation with supporting evidence, the court of public opinion changed its mind and decided it was time for him to go.
Due Process
One of my pet peeves is when people call for “due process” during social accusations. Calls for Graham Platner to receive due process are misplaced. He has none. Not because of the severity of Racicot’s allegation, but because due process is not a social right. It is a limitation on the government, requiring that individuals be given the right to a fair and speedy trial before being deprived of life, liberty, or property. If Jenny Racicot presses charges against Platner, then he’s entitled to due process. But she hasn’t pressed charges. Rather, she shared her story to inform Maine voters about her experience with their potential next Senator. Politics is a social process, not a judicial one. Platner has no legal right to be a Senator. He has a right not to be slandered. But given Racicot’s persuasiveness, I doubt that’s what’s happening. Due process is a crucial plank of a free society. The government should have to jump through hoops and clear a high bar before it puts anyone in a cage. If anything, America doesn’t have enough due process. Public defenders are underfunded and overworked, leaving them unable to properly defend their clients. The profession has largely been reduced to helping poor Americans plead out to avoid inhumane sentences, which is as far from a fair trial as you can get. Trump’s fascist deportation regime rests on depriving suspected undocumented Americans of due process. There’s a severe lack of due process in the United States. But not when it comes to Senatorial candidates.
Graham Platner is not on trial. He ran for Senator. There is no formalized process to determine whether this allegation is sufficient to disqualify Platner as the Democratic nominee. That’s because the decision to support, oppose, or remain ambivalent toward a politician is not a single declarative decision. There’s no final verdict handed down by a jury empowered with the state’s monopoly on violence. In social situations such as this, every individual is free to judge for themselves. The court of public opinion isn’t a single court — it’s millions of them, continuously in session inside the minds of every Maine voter and national critic.
The Court of Public Opinion
Since the start of the MeToo movement, the conversation of how to protect vulnerable people, especially but not exclusively women, from powerful predators, who are especially but not exclusively men, has taken a backseat to the secondary discussion of MeToo “going too far.” Despite Harvey Weinstein being convicted in an actual trial with due process, The Free Press has taken up the mantle of defending the sexual predator as part of its anti-woke ‘journalism.’
