When Partisanship Trumps Principle: What the Graham Platner Scandal Reveals About Us

In recent days, the political world has been consumed by the implosion of the Senate campaign of Graham Platner of Maine. The allegations against him are serious, disturbing, and, if true, deeply disqualifying. It is entirely appropriate that they be investigated thoroughly and that there be accountability where accountability is warranted.

Yet as I have followed this story, I have found myself thinking less about Graham Platner and more about us. Because this story is not really about one candidate. It is about a dangerous habit that has become increasingly common in American political life.

For months, credible allegations about Platner's treatment of women circulated in news reports and public discussions. Yet only Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and some Maine party leaders questioned why Democrats were rallying behind him despite documented issues and controversies. His many supporters, including leading Democrats dismissed them, ignored them, or explained them away. There was the issue of his Nazi tattoo, his lying about it, his mistreatment of women, and his history of bizarre and troubling social media posts. Yet most Democratic leaders either remained silent or eventually supported him because defeating Senator Collins was considered politically important. Only on Tuesday, when a woman alleging sexual abuse came forward did opposition become widespread.  Sadly, it was only when evidence became overwhelming did many reconsider their support.

Yet before we congratulate ourselves for recognizing the problem, however, we should ask an uncomfortable question:

Would we have reacted differently if the candidate belonged to the other party?

Political scientists and psychologists have spent years studying this question, and the results are sobering. Again and again, researchers have found that people are far more likely to believe allegations of corruption, misconduct, or abuse when those allegations are directed at political opponents. The very same people are often far more skeptical when similar allegations are directed at politicians they support. In other words, many do not evaluate allegations objectively. We evaluate them tribally.

We see this phenomenon across the political spectrum. Republicans do it. Democrats do it. Conservatives do it. Liberals do it. The details may differ, but the tendency is remarkably consistent.

Why?

Part of the answer is that our political culture increasingly encourages us to see our opponents not merely as people with whom we disagree, but as existential threats. Once that happens, almost anything becomes justifiable.  If the other side represents a danger to the nation, then defeating them becomes the highest priority. Questions of character, integrity, and accountability are ignored when victory is the only goal.  And when that happens, we excuse behavior in our allies that we would never tolerate in our opponents because, after all, "the stakes are too high."

This is a terrible way to conduct politics. And it is not a new problem.

The Bible tells a famous story about King David (ll Samuel 12:1-15). After David arranged for the death of Uriah and took (Uriah’s wife) Bathsheba as his wife, the prophet Nathan confronted him. But Nathan did not begin by accusing the king directly. Instead, he told David a story about a wealthy man who stole a poor man's beloved lamb.

David immediately recognized the injustice.

“As God lives, the man who did this deserves to die!”  

Only then did Nathan deliver the famous words:

"You are the man."

David could see the wrongdoing clearly when it belonged to someone else. What he could not initially see was his own.

How often are we guilty of the same failing?

How often do we spot corruption, hypocrisy, or misconduct instantly when it appears in another political camp, while struggling to recognize it among our own allies? The health of American democracy depends on our willingness to answer that question honestly. I have often shared with this congregation my conviction that a strong and healthy American democracy is not only important for Americans. It is important for the entire free world. It is important for Israel. And the safety and security of world Jewry depend on it.

One of the reasons the United States has been such an extraordinary force for stability and freedom is that our system depends upon accountability. No individual, no party, and no movement is supposed to be above scrutiny. When we excuse misconduct because it advances our side's interests, we weaken that principle. When we apply one standard to our opponents and another to our allies, we undermine the very foundations upon which democratic society rests.

Our Rabbis understood this long before modern political science.

The Mishnah teaches that a priest may examine and diagnose all the spots of tzara'at—often translated as leprosy—except those on his own body.

The Rabbis were speaking about ritual law. But they were also recognizing a timeless truth about human nature. We are remarkably skilled at diagnosing the flaws of others. Our own flaws are often much harder to see. That is true in our personal lives. And it is certainly true in politics.

The challenge before us is not merely to demand accountability from those with whom we disagree. Anyone can do that. The real test of integrity is whether we are willing to demand accountability from those with whom we agree. Whether we are willing to hold our own side to the same standards we expect from everyone else.

The prophet Nathan challenged King David to do exactly that.

The Mishnah challenges us to do exactly that.

And perhaps this political moment requires exactly that as well.

As Hillel famously taught: "If not now, when?"