Reform Party of California Commentary

Political party self-interest vs. the public interest

San Diego democratic mayor Bob Filner has been the subject of sexual harassment innuendo that spans a number of years, including specific allegations that arose since he became San Diego’s mayor in December of 2012.[1] A respected former city council member and prominent San Diego citizen, Donna Fry, publicly accused the mayor of behavior that, if true, could amount to criminal assault and liability for civil damages.[2] Such behavior included publicly touching one woman and separate instances in private of touching and crude comments toward others. According to the women involved, none of mayor Filner’s acts were wanted or consented to.

Part of the context is months of behind the scenes activity by some of mayor Filner’s supporters who tried to persuade him to change his behavior, which he publicly[3] and allegedly privately[4] said he would do. The San Diego democratic party apparently was aware of mayor Filner’s history because his vetting as candidate was reported to include inquiry about his past behavior toward women while he was in congress. His reported response was that he had never been sued for sexual harassment and that was the end of the vetting process on that issue. The San Diego democratic party went on to endorse his candidacy for mayor, which he won in 2012.

Mayor Filner has made contradictory and strange public statements. In a taped pubic apology, he said that he had failed to respect and intimidated women he encountered in the course of his official duties. He also said that he would change his behavior.[3] In a later statement he asserted that he did not sexually harass any woman. Mayor Filner refuses to resign, arguing that he is innocent and is entitled to due process. Initially, the democratic party in San Diego was unable to either ask for mayor Filner’s resignation or issue a statement of support, with a split reported to be between younger and older party leaders.[5] After more women the party reconsidered and now asks for his resignation.

This sex scandal differs fundamentally from those associated with recent scandals that ensnared Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Anthony Weiner and Mark Sanford. In all of those cases, whatever relations there were between the male politician and his female partner(s) was consensual. In Filner’s case, there was no consent by any of the women. A legal finding of criminal guilt or civil liability would come from a “he said, she said” court trial. Until that happens, the law presumes that mayor Filner is innocent until proved otherwise.

There are some lessons to be learned here. The standards of evidence needed to find guilt or liability in court do not necessarily apply to what is needed to form opinions in politics. It is fair to ask what, if anything, can or should a political party in this situation do. To the Reform Party of California (RPCA), this is a matter of ethics in service to the pubic interestnot culpability in a court of law. Obviously, for the democratic party in San Diego, it was about something other than what one would think was common sense ethics. The democrats were desperate to get a democrat in the mayor’s office. Because of that, they endorsed him for mayor despite knowing his unsavory history toward women.

The problem is that party affiliation should not play any significant role. It should not have taken this long for the issue to surface like this, which is an embarrassment to the people of San Diego. Under the circumstances here, assessment of whether mayor Filner is fit to serve should not depend on party affiliation. Parties should consider the public good, or in this case at least the safety of women.

In the case of president Clintion’s affair and subsequent impeachment, party affiliation strongly affected partisan opinion. His perceived fitness to serve split mostly along party lines. The extent of a party split in mayor Filner’s case is less clear but there is no reason to believe that it is insignificant. Unless there is other relevant, non-public information, the San Diego democratic party should never have endorsed Filner if they took ethics as something more than simple guilt or innocence in lawsuits. In RPCA opinion, that was a mistake engendered by party self-interest. A sad reality of two-party politics is that acceptable behavior standards often, maybe usually, varies depending on party affiliation. The public interest clearly lost out to political self-interest in this case.