JONATHAN TURLEY: When journalists whine about #MeToo, they don’t mean Platner, too

JONATHAN TURLEY: When journalists whine about #MeToo, they don’t mean Platner, too

The #MeToo Divide

JONATHAN TURLEY - As the #MeToo movement continues to shape public discourse, a growing debate has emerged about how its principles are applied. While some people prefer the classic version of Coke, others advocate for the original Reese’s formulation. Similarly, the use of #MeToo in political contexts has sparked controversy, with critics arguing that its standards are being selectively enforced. New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor recently appeared on CNN to explain why Democrats can still support Maine senatorial candidate Graham Platner, despite multiple women alleging misconduct against him. Kantor emphasized that these accusations do not align with the traditional narratives of #MeToo, which have historically centered on power imbalances in workplaces.

Kantor's Defense

Kantor, who won a Pulitzer Prize for her investigative work on Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse, faced scrutiny for her stance. During the interview, she defended Platner’s candidacy by asserting that the allegations against him are not the same as the classic #MeToo cases. "These are not classic MeToo accusations," she stated. "They were mostly made in the context of consensual relationships. There are these, like, very sensational texts about sex. There are allegations from former girlfriends that are not — the way my colleagues reported them were not like classic abuse allegations," she clarified. This argument seeks to reconcile the movement’s moral authority with the political realities of the 2024 election season.

Context of Allegations

The claims against Platner include both physical and emotional abuse. A former girlfriend alleged that he physically assaulted her, even locking her in a room overnight. Additionally, he is accused of sending explicit messages to women and dismissing rape victims’ experiences. However, Kantor argues that these incidents, while serious, do not meet the threshold of the movement’s defining cases. She suggests that the nature of Platner’s relationships — often personal rather than professional — changes the dynamic of the accusations. This distinction, she claims, allows for a more nuanced interpretation of the evidence.

Comparisons to Kavanaugh

Kantor’s reasoning echoes the arguments made during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. In a statement that would have provoked fierce backlash if delivered during that controversy, she described Platner’s conduct as "mostly like being his boyfriend gave me a view into him and I did not like what I saw. His character was scary. He had this Nazi tattoo. Etcetera." This framing positions Platner as a figure whose behavior, while troubling, is less politically charged than the allegations against figures like Kavanaugh or Trump. By emphasizing Platner’s personal relationships, Kantor aims to downplay the severity of the accusations, suggesting that the #MeToo framework is being adapted for political convenience.

The Nazi Tattoo Factor

One of the key points Kantor raised was Platner’s Nazi tattoo, which she portrayed as a symbolic but not definitive marker of his behavior. She implied that while the tattoo might reflect his personal views, it does not necessarily indicate a pattern of abuse. This argument allows critics to focus on the more salient aspects of Platner’s story while sidestepping the broader implications of his alleged actions. However, the tattoo has become a focal point for opponents, who see it as a metaphor for his divisive and controversial character. This highlights how symbols can be used to either bolster or challenge narratives within the #MeToo discourse.

Fifield's Testimony

Lyndsey Fifield, a former partner of Platner, provided a detailed account of her experiences with him. She described how Platner physically restrained her, twisting her arm behind her back and shoving her into a bedroom before closing the door. "He told her to remain there until she was ‘calm,' " she recounted. These allegations, which blend physical and emotional elements, challenge Kantor’s assertion that Platner’s conduct is not as severe as classic #MeToo cases. Yet Kantor acknowledges that while there was one instance of physical contact, it still falls short of the systemic abuse seen in other high-profile cases. She frames this as a necessary trade-off for political progress, arguing that the movement’s focus should remain on broader societal issues rather than individual controversies.

The NYT Panel's Dilemma

Earlier in her career, Kantor had a different perspective on the #MeToo movement. She once grouped a range of controversies, from former Democrat Sen. Al Franken to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Jeffrey Epstein, under the umbrella of a shared cultural moment. "It felt like there was this period where discussion of #MeToo was actually pretty bipartisan," she noted. "Democrats like [Sen.] Al Franken were accused, but so were Republicans, like [Alabama Judge] Roy Moore. And also, a lot of these stories played out in the corporate arena, which is not particularly political." However, she now sees a shift in how the movement is being weaponized, with its principles becoming more partisan in nature. "The #MeToo movement has proven so durable and so self-correcting," she admitted, "but there was a moment after the Kavanaugh hearings where it all just felt like it had become impossibly politicized, to the point where it was almost preventing constructive conversation."

Irony in Rationalization

The irony of Kantor’s defense lies in its reliance on selective framing. While she champions the #MeToo movement’s ability to hold powerful individuals accountable, she simultaneously downplays the personal impact of Platner’s alleged behavior. This creates a paradox: the movement’s critics are accused of hypocrisy, yet its advocates are also accused of using it as a political tool. Kantor’s argument that Platner’s cases are "knockoffs" of the original #MeToo narrative underscores this tension. By distancing Platner from the classic examples of abuse, she allows Democrats to maintain their alignment with the movement while supporting a candidate who has faced significant backlash from women.

As the debate over Platner’s candidacy intensifies, the role of journalists like Kantor becomes critical. Their interpretations of the #MeToo movement can either reinforce its moral foundations or dilute its impact. In this case, Kantor’s defense of Platner’s political viability reflects a broader trend of adapting the movement to fit current political needs. Whether this represents a necessary compromise or a departure from its core principles remains a topic of discussion, particularly as the electorate weighs the balance between accountability and the pursuit of power.

Meanwhile, the narrative around Platner continues to evolve. While some focus on his alleged physical abuse and sexting habits, others highlight the symbolic weight of his Nazi tattoo and his public support for groups like Hamas. These factors complicate the picture, suggesting that Platner’s controversies are not confined to personal relationships but extend to his broader political stance. Yet Kantor’s argument persists: that the #MeToo movement, as it is applied to Platner, is a different beast altogether. This distinction, while convenient for political strategy, raises questions about the movement’s consistency and the standards it sets for accountability in the public sphere.

Ultimately, the #MeToo movement’s effectiveness depends on how its principles are applied. Kantor’s defense of Platner’s candidacy illustrates the challenges of maintaining a unified narrative in a politically charged environment. By emphasizing the context of consensual relationships and symbolic gestures, she allows for a more flexible interpretation of the movement’s goals. This approach, however, risks undermining the very essence of #MeToo — the idea that power imbalances and systemic abuse should be central to any discussion of sexual misconduct. As the campaign season unfolds, the question remains: can the movement’s integrity withstand the pressures of political strategy, or will it become just another tool for shaping public opinion?