Democracy and its manipulations. Plus: Reagan the rapist

Saudi Arabia's "Arab Spring"? Thomas Friedman interviews Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and seems mightily impressed.

Unlike the other Arab Springs — all of which emerged bottom up and failed miserably, except in Tunisia — this one is led from the top down by the country’s 32-year-old crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, and, if it succeeds, it will not only change the character of Saudi Arabia but the tone and tenor of Islam across the globe. Only a fool would predict its success — but only a fool would not root for it.

In other words, democracy is a gift to be bestowed from on high; it is not the birthright of the common people. Or so we're supposed to believe.

If Thomas "The World is Flat" Friedman applauds what's going on in Saudi Arabia, that's a sure sign: We're in trouble.

The problem with the "Arab Spring" outside of Tunisia was not street-level democracy. The problem was that the rebellions were manipulated by outside forces hoping to remake the Middle East. Even so, the world is better off without Mubarak, and would be better off without Sisi. Only a "bottom up" rebellion managed to do away with the former; only a "bottom up" rebellion can get rid of the latter.

Republicans may do what Dems may not. I do not doubt Billy Baldwin's assertion that Trump crudely hit on his wife, but the claim will not make much of an impact. As I've said before, the "Believe Women" movement can hurt only Democrats, because Republicans protect their own at all costs, while Dems love to prove their virtue by attacking other Dems. The Republican electorate does not care about women's issues except to the extent that they can be used as a cudgel against liberalism. Hence, a national debate about the harassment of women -- however laudable -- can harm only Democrats, not Republicans.

I'm not saying that such a debate is unnecessary. I'm saying that, at this moment in history, you should have no illusions about what this debate is doing to the Democrats' chances of taking control of either the Senate or the House. You should also understand that the Republicans have unlimited funds to pay for smears.

It’s disturbing to see Americans still falling for the same dirty tricks we fell for the entire 2016 election season. We have the benefit of hindsight now and a cavalry of expert citizens educating us about propaganda and how to counteract it. Yet time and again, we are let down. Our media fails us. In their desperation for clicks they hop on any bandwagon that appears lucrative. And our people fail each other. They suspend critical thinking skills to line up on “sides” that don’t even truly exist.

Historical double standard: Did you know that an actress named Selene Walters claimed that Ronald Reagan raped her in the early 1950s? At the time, Reagan was the corrupt head of the Screen Actor's Guild, and thus held power over Walters. (Why do I say "corrupt"? The answer is in a book called Dark Victory by Dan Moldea.)

According to Kitty Kelley's biography of Nancy Reagan, Ronald Reagan had spent an evening pestering Walters while she was on a date with someone else. Later, he barged into her apartment...

"I opened the door," Walters told the magazine. "Then it was the battle of the couch. I was fighting him. I didn't want him to make love to me. He's a very big man, and he just had his way. Date rape? No, God, no, that's [Kelley's] phrase. I didn't have a chance to have a date with him."

Walters--like Broaddrick--did not file charges. And Kelley maintains that Walters shared contemporaneous accounts of the encounter with friends.

When Kelley's book was first published in 1991, neither Ronnie nor Nancy denied the allegation. People magazine tracked down Walters, who confirmed the story. (Walters died earlier this year.)

In the early 1990s, Walters had absolutely nothing to gain from besmirching the former president. She had retired from public life. No-one offered her any financial inducement to speak against Reagan. I have not been able to confirm that she told the rape story to anyone else (as Kelley claims), but I did find that Walters quit acting in the 1950s because she was tired of powerful men in Hollywood expecting her to be "easy." (It should be noted that she did have a "party girl" reputation in the early 1950s.)

Of course, there were some extremely salacious rumors about Nancy's time in the film business. Are the stories true? I'm not sure, but I tend to think so, if only because Nancy got steady work despite being a demonstrably untalented actress.

By any rational standard, the Selene Walters accusation is far more credible than is Jaunita Broaddrick's claim against Clinton. Broaddrick has changed her story; Walters did not. Broaddrick decided that she was raped only when it became clear that Republicans would funnel big bucks to anyone who dirtied Bill Clinton's name. At the same time, any woman who defied the Republican smear-mongers would get the Julie Hiatt Steele treatment (also known as the Susan McDougal treatment).

Consider the following two questions:

How many articles have you read recently demanding a reassessment of Bill Clinton?

How many articles have you read demanding a reassessment of Ronald Reagan?

The preceding two questions should tell you the hidden truth about the Believe Women movement: Even the liberal press keeps harping on Clinton while allowing Reagan's sins to vanish down the memory hole. When was the last time a writer recommended that you read Dark Victory? Why doesn't Kathleen Sibelius try to cobble together a ramshackle pseudo-argument blaming Nancy Reagan for Ronnie's rape of Selene Walters? Why have Democrats allowed the Republicans to get away with creating an entire library of books portraying Reagan as a man of unimpeachable character?

The current national-conversation-turned-witch-hunt was never about fairness or equal treatment. It should have been that, but it wasn't. The Believe Women movement is an astroturf campaign, an artificially-induced explosion of rage-gasm. Psy-war specialists have weaponized feminism against liberals -- and ONLY liberals.

Why did Franken apologize? As far as I am concerned, he should never have offered his latest statement. Leeann Tweeden is a right-wing monster whose story has come apart at the seams. I would not believe that woman if she said "Hi, my name is Leeann Tweeden." This investigation proves that Tweeden was working hand-in-glove with Roger Stone, Alex Jones and the Breitbarters.

(By the way, why is it considered acceptable for her to grab ass without permission, as photographs prove she did?)

The Menz claim was always ridiculous on its face: No man is going to grab a married woman's rear while her husband snaps the photo.

The Arianna Huffington story was pure smear, backed by an anonymous writer (no doubt well-recompensed) who claims to have been present on the occasion. Mr. Anonymous also claims to know what Arianna was really thinking. He also tells us that Arianna herself is to be disbelieved: She committed the sin of defending a Democrat.

The most recent accusations were anonymous claims that Franken inappropriately touched two female rear ends during photos (as might easily occur by accident). I was not surprised to see these hazy accusations "washed" through Zachary Roth, who once wrote a book I admire. The psy-warriors love to use people like Roth -- who, I am sure, wrote in good faith -- to bestow credibility on an otherwise weak claim. (The term "legitimacy smuggling" is entering our political argot.)

Franken responded to all of this with a weak, mushy apology which does not actually admit that he did any of the claimed behaviors. I think he took that course of action for two reasons:

1. He thinks that this is the best way to put the matter to rest, and

2. He knows that liberals stupidly bought into the Big Lie that "Women are never untruthful."

As I said in an earlier post:

If Franken was smeared, why did he apologize? He had to. Leeann Tweeden could have said "Al Franken turned me into a newt" and Franken would have had no choice but to say: "I'm extremely sorry for turning Leeann into a newt. In recent times, we've all learned a great lesson about male privilege and non-consensual animal transformation."

(Why didn't that last line go over better? I thought it was pretty funny.)

I would have counseled Franken to respond in a different fashion. Bill Clinton's lawyer's offered a brief, factual rebuttal to the latest round of "Bill the rapist" accusations. A lawyer can offer a whisper-subtle reminder that a false accusation may result in legal action. That, I think, is the best approach -- if you have the money to pay a lawyer.

Speaking of the Clinton claims: You may be interested in this tweet from Richard W. Painter.

20 years ago Paula Jones got help with her Supreme Court briefs from some of the best lawyers in America. Some worked without pay and without their law partners even knowing about it. Who were these early champions of "women's rights"?

Responses:

And one of her lawyers was Kellyanne Conway's husband.

He is married to Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump. They were introduced by Ann Coulter.[6]

They were more interested in bringing down President Clinton. Spare me “They we’re in it for the woman”

The real victim was Susan McDougal. Ken Star, actually put her in jail. Her ticket out, was to follow their narrative and say she slept with Bill Clinton. She refused to lie. She was the GOP's political prisoner. I visited her in Little Rock jail. Outrage GOP still at it today.

Believe the right women. Believe Susan McDougal. Believe Julie Hiatt Steele.