The Tara Reade Conundrum, How Do We Proceed?

The Democratic Party, which has, over the past few years built and hardened a core image reflecting and amplifying the Me Too movement, is faced with a challenge that it may not know how to handle; an increasingly virulent accusation that its nominee committed a sexual assault on a staffer some 27 years ago. Joe Biden, through his campaign and surrogates, denies the claim; Tara Reade, the accuser, continues to press her allegation and develop a supporting narrative. Mr. Biden has not publicly addressed the situation at this time.

The question that we need to ask is this: what now? How do we, the partisan public being exposed to all of this, proceed?

The issue poses a number of perplexing challenges. For the media, the usual questions that journalists need to resolve in order to proceed with this sort of story have been murky at best. For allies of Mr. Biden, the juxtaposition of support for a man who has been nominated as their standard-bearer with the prominent mantra of “Women Must Be Believed” is complicated. For the Biden presidential campaign, the situation presents a host of losing choices with no clear path to a positive result. Even the Republican party has some challenges — how do you attack Joe Biden on a subject that your own candidate is highly vulnerable — but history indicates that potential accusations of hypocrisy won’t cause hesitation regardless.

So, let’s unpack this thing and see what we can learn from the existing perspectives.

From a journalistic standpoint, the evaluation of whether or not to publish an accusation is a difficult one, without a perfect answer. Ideally, you’d like to see a pattern that confirms the accusation; no such pattern exists here, at least not that has come to light. You’d like to see a consistency in the accusation; again, not present here, since the initial claims were tangibly different. You’d like to see some contemporaneous evidence… here, while it seemed not to exist previously, it has appeared to emerge to some degree. There is only the barest of threads to consider publication, and in previous eras, it would never have been considered.

The media must (and unquestionably will) continue their investigation, hopefully without coming to a conclusion of convenience. They have an obligation to account for the reality that the attention given to their investigation itself could lead to false accusations and attempts at exploitation; they have to remain rigorous and stick to their processes. They must avoid any premature conclusions, and provide information without judgment. Sadly, that’s not the recent history of the media; the reverse has been by far the more common, and portions of the media will undoubtedly succumb again.

Reasonable Direction

From a campaign perspective, there appears to be only one reasonable direction to take. They must send out Mr. Biden to address it directly, respectfully but openly. They need to create as much transparency as they can reasonably do, without pandering to their opposition by supporting fishing expeditions. They achieve no benefit by giving the media and the opposition a clear shot at their back as they continue to avoid the matter; they must face it head-on, and deal with the result. If there truly is no fire behind the smoke, they need to trust that the outcome will represent that.

Joe Biden has been a public figure for 50 years, from his selection for the New Castle County Council in 1970, to his election to the Senate in 1972. He’s run for office constantly, seven times for the Senate, three times for President, ultimately emerging as Vice President without any suggestion of this issue. The vetting that occurred, particularly prior to his selection as VP, was exhaustive, invasive, and numerous. The opposition research has been equally aggressive, also without result. That this emerges today, essentially for the first time, is problematic… but must be held in that perspective.

From the candidates’ advocates’ point of view, the challenge is almost greater. They have to rest their support — assuming that their own beliefs lead them to continued involvement — on process and clarity. The process is to state that, while they believe that the victim gets the benefit of the doubt, there are reasonable requirements that must be met to affixing the attack to the accused, and as of yet, those aren’t present. They have to leave open the possibility of future revelations because to preclude them would be to make a sham of everything that they’ve held others to. They have to express respect for the accuser, and support for investigation… and then, they need to hold their breaths and count on the extended history that they know.

Various Movements, and Constituencies

There is one cautionary element that should be noted: the party, the various movements, and constituencies that it encompasses, must guard against the knee jerk reaction to the singular accusations that seem inevitable in this exposed media times, at the risk of gutting the already thin ranks of potential leaders prematurely, and making public service toxic as a pursuit. Throw out the bums, but create some level of specific resilience where warranted.

Which brings us back to the issue of our own perspective, our own way of moving forward…

The only meaningful posture that can be suggested here is that it is too early to presume anything. The argument against accepting the accusation at face value are fairly straightforward and somewhat compelling — there are no related accusations over a 50-year public career; this specific claim has morphed over time (admittedly not uncommon for victims of sexual abuse); a vast and comprehensive history of vetting has failed to reveal this, or any similar case, in decades of opposition research and attack. The argument for the accuser is equally simple, though at present not quite as compelling: there is no evident value to the accuser of bringing this charge; there are at least the suggestions of contemporaneous sharing of the event; and, sadly, we have far too much recent history of well regarded, even iconic personalities disappointing us and violating our trust.

The Drumbeat of Painful Revelations

It is the final point — the drumbeat of painful revelations — that rules the day, and forces caution. A generation ago and forever before that, we made a terrible error in dismissing the claims of true victims, enhancing their pain and loss; the price we must pay for those failings is the holding of our collective breaths, the shift away from an assumption of innocence until proven guilty that would have previously been called an American truism.

The fuse of antagonistic investigation has been lit, and it will burn to the point of either an explosion, or fizzling out; we have no alternative but to proceed in support of our personal objectives while watching as it moves down to its base and waiting cautiously for the outcome. To become stationary, potentially for a resolution that might never come, is to guarantee a specific and negative outcome.

That discomfort, even pain, is the least that we have earned as a culture and a nation through our history.