Hello, friends,

Trigger warnings for sexual assault, rape, pedophilia, suicide, murder, and all that shit, here.

By now, you’re probably heard the news that California Congressman Eric Swalwell stands accused of serious crimes. Some of this amounts to ‘less significant’ things like grooming staffers, while some of it is flat-out “got her so drunk she couldn’t consent” rape.

Swalwell put out a video last night claiming he committed no crimes, but has made ‘mistakes’ that are between him and his wife.

You do the math on what hedging he’s doing in anticipation of future lawsuits and/or criminal charges.

Most people can agree that the man has to be punted, but an argument I’ve seen creep up on the internet - and, to derail the thought, this is not an argument made exclusively by men - is that this amounts to a sort of ‘unilateral disarmament’ and a ‘circular firing squad’ mentality amongst Democrats who have punished people like Al Franken and Swalwell and Cuomo, all while Republicans have - well, you know how they handled the Epstein Files, right?

And I want to say up front that I’m not blaming anyone for being frustrated for the obvious double standards that Democrats have to live under while Republicans get to be rapists all they wish! Far from it. I think it’s very easy to be angry at that double standard. I know I am.

But the answer isn’t to blame Democrats for doing the right thing most of the time: It’s to blame Republicans for doing the wrong one, and to convince those watching that Democrats are sincere in their willingness to do the right thing.

I want to defuse one of the most common things I’m seeing on the internet to start with: That Swalwell’s accusers were somehow picky and/or choosey in their timing of their complaints. This is a common theme among those who want to doubt what survivors have said: It’s always, “This is just being done to ruin a career!” “This is just because he’s running for…” “Why didn’t they come forward sooner?”

To swat this aside: We live in a society where it is almost impossible for women to obtain justice when they are sexually assaulted or otherwise wronged. Virginia Giuffre, one of Jeffrey Epstein’s most widely-known trafficking victims, quite famously said she wasn’t suicidal only to “commit suicide.” Andrew Cuomo quite famously sued his accusers for their medical records - using New York State funds!

Be honest with yourself: Would you want that kind of scrutiny or personal risk? Ambitious men who are threatened are known to do reckless, dangerous things. The media will pick you apart, and if you go to trial your entire life is under scrutiny.

Wouldn’t you just find it easier to sit on it, create some psychic distance between “when it happened” and “when you report it,” and wait until you’re ready - if you ever are? Some people aren’t ever.

So let me tell you a story I rarely talk about. I want to say up front that I don’t hold anyone to blame, and I won’t go into detail as it’s not exclusively my story to tell, but I’ve been at the “Too drunk to consent” point in my life. I want to stress that I’m not blaming them for it. In fact, I’m grateful to them for helping me through the likely alcohol poisoning I had.

But, yeah, even though I’m okay with it, it’s still not a great feeling for a lot of reasons, you know? And this is a situation where I would have consented, otherwise. As if that makes everything better.

Do you see how that’s kind of complicated and might take some time to work through, if it’s ever fully worked-through?

Swalwell’s victims? Given the totality of what he’s accused of, the answer is, “No, they would not have.”

Then there are the more ‘basic’ challenges like the vast power disparity between a Congressman/Gubernatorial Candidate and his staffers. Michael Trujillo, a Democratic Strategist, claims Swalwell fired at least one intern for declining his advances (editorial note; I chose this Bluesky reposting because it has alt-text, but it also has editorialization that I can certainly sympathize with). When your extremely powerful boss makes a pass at you, can you really decline if you don’t want to risk losing your job?

In a better world, victims should feel safe coming forward, but since we haven’t made a better (let alone perfect) world, they should come forward when they can.

And speaking of extremely powerful bosses…

So we all know Bill Clinton, right? Former President? Husband of former Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton? Has a whole Wikipedia page talking about his numerous sex scandals? That guy!

I’m not the first to think of this connection - I swear I saw it somewhere last night on Bluesky that I can’t find, now - but remember how everyone knew in 2016 that Donald Trump was connected to some really messed up sex scandals? “Grab ‘em by the pussy,” I believe, was the term? I dunno, correct me if I’m wrong in the comments, I guess.

It’s not hard to see how that should have been a clear-cut disqualifier for Trump, right? He even went out of his way to make a little apology video for it. But why wasn’t it such a disqualifier that it would have put Clinton - oh.

People are, for better or worse, certainly drawing comparisons between Swalwell and Bill Clinton. And while I’m not personally inclined to transitive-property the sins of the husband to the wife, it’s not like Bill ever faced real consequences for what he did wrong.

So any time anyone would have taken a moral high ground on Trump’s advocates, they could just reply, “What about Hillary and Bill? What does it say about her?” And even though that is total bullshit because it’s the kind of what-aboutism and both-sideserism that doesn’t contribute anything useful…

…That doesn’t mean it didn’t convince some people, “Yeah, both parties are terrible when it comes to sex scandal tolerance, let me vote third party instead.”

What I’ve just described is often summed up as a “purity test.” And Democrats kind of hate purity tests. “Why should we worry about aiming for a 100% record when Republicans don’t even care about it except when they can use it to impugn us?”

And that’s a damn good question. I have an answer.

Because, Democrats, we aren’t arguing to convince Republicans. We’re arguing to convince the people watching us argue with Republicans that our arguments prove worthy of earning their vote.

Purity testing is its own topic, really, so let me give you another one. I see variants of this one all the time: “Why should we care if Gavin Newsom ‘isn’t perfect’ if he’s better than Trump?“

And that’s a damn good question. I have an answer.

Because ‘Isn’t Perfect’ harms people, even if it doesn’t directly harm you.

See, ‘isn’t perfect’ typically refers to Gavin’s well-documented willingness to sacrifice the Transgender community in the pursuit of power. Or, as I’ll call it, “Gavin Newsom is a transphobe.” Never mind that he had the likes of Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro on his little podcast, proving he’s a friend to Fascism.

Now, this article isn’t about Gavin Newsom. If (and, I presume, when) the time comes, I’ll have a lot more to say about him. But I bring him up now because the argument is the same: If Republicans can be so morally bankrupt, why should Democrats focus on “purity tests?” instead of “What wins?”

And, to be clear, there are some things that are far more acceptable to be “impure” about. For example, Joe Biden didn’t support Medicare For All, which you can learn more about here. I did not like that Joe Biden didn’t support Medicare For All, and I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary, but when push came to shove I voted for Joe Biden in 2020. Why? Because despite his “impurity” on an issue I care a lot about as a medically frail person, the ultimate distinction is that Medicare For All is far more a “How best to deliver healthcare?” issue than, say, “How does the candidate feel about marginalized populations?” or “Is the candidate a sexual abuser?”

Disagreements about healthcare policy? I’m fine with those. I’m gonna vote for someone else in the primary, but I can hold my nose and vote for that in a general election. Bigotry against marginalized people and rampant sexual abuse accusations? Fuck outta here - if you nominate someone like that, you deserve to fucking lose.

Remember: We aren’t arguing to convince Republicans. That’s not what this is about. They checked out a long time ago. Their moralizing about sin is because they want to police others, not because they care about victims. At best, some of them might peel away if an argument that suits them is made. Redemption is possible, but it also requires both a willingness to change and effort to fix one’s past misdeeds.

We’re not simply trying to peel Republicans away; we’re trying to activate those who are disgusted with the entire political apparatus.

We’re arguing to convince people who read the Epstein files and are rightfully outraged only to see Democrats doing very similar shit and going, “Hey, wait a minute.” We’re arguing to convince Queer people that they should vote for a candidate - and votes are never, ever owed to a candidate. In a Democracy, it’s a candidate’s job to earn votes.

“Now,” you might argue, “Democrats aren’t perfect, but they’re better than Trump!”

Not if the outcome is pretty much the same, and are we really going to get into degrees of distinction between what Swalwell’s accused of and what Trump’s accused of? Cuz there ain’t many.

Let me diffuse a bit: In most cases, I’d agree: Democrats aren’t perfect, but they’re better than Trump and the Republicans as well. Most Democrats I might not agree with on a lot of things, but I can vote for. It’s sort of the nature of politics - while votes have to be earned, no candidate is going to be perfect to every voter unless they’re the one running for office.

And I’m the kind of person that believes voting is part of one’s civic responsibility. If you want to live in a free society, well, nothing is truly “Free” and it kinda costs your time to go vote a couple times a year in elections large and small alike. Ideally, it also costs your time to stay at least somewhat up-to-date with the news, even if you aren’t on the bleeding edge. Lastly, it costs some degree of personal compromise, because - I don’t know if this is a surprise to anyone still reading - we live in a society. We live with and at the mercy of others, even if we really wish we were strong independent island-nations or whatever.

Without society, well, we’re fighting each other for caves to live in and spots to gather fruits and veggies and animals to hunt because technology is impossible.

Since we’re all reading this on the internet, yeah, there are costs. We have to accept that we won’t win every battle.

But that also means we have to pick our battles. If we’re not going to be perfect on healthcare, on the environment, on reparations for the many crimes our nation committed (the Native American Genocide, the enslavement of Africans, and, oh, the list goes on), on railroads and other infrastructure, on education, on housing, on feeding people, and all the very important stuff that reduces and ameliorates harm…

…Then the least we can do is be as close to perfect as possible when it comes to not creating more harm.

That means no sex pests, no bigots, and the like.

Thus, Eric Swalwell must go, even if Republicans would never do the same.

It’s about “us,” not “them.”

Jesse Pohlman is a science-fiction/fantasy author and political commentator from Long Island, New York. He’s a recovering Social Studies/ELA teacher among other things. You can follow him on Bluesky here, and his webpage is here. His next book, “Locker’s Rebellion,” a fantasy story centered around Queer liberation, is coming soon!