The partisan politics of child molestation
Last partisan post, I hope. But then I'm not sure there's anything else anyone could possibly add that could possibly be worse. According to ABCNews.com
GOP Staff Warned Pages About Foley in 2001
By MADDY SAUER and ANNA SCHECTEROct. 1, 2006 -- A Republican staff member warned Congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.
Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor.
Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff."
...
Several pages for members of Congress tell ABC News they received no such warnings about Foley, R-Fla.
What the Sam Hill were they thinking anyway? What could they *possibly* have been going through the supervisor's minds? "We hate their parents so we don't care who molests their children?" How about "Solicit man-boy sex from a *Democrat?* What kind of perverts do you think we are?" Or maybe "'Democrat' parents had nothing to worry about since a good Republican like Mark Foley would only want sex with his own party's children?"
The whole sorry mess is hard to deal with but unless someone can evidence that the children of Democrats were similarly warned then this kind of partisan callousness just takes the cake.
Where does it say that only Republican kids were warned? I can't seem to find where that is implied. I don't think Congressional pages are separated by party afiliation.
[See next comment. --fl]
Ahh my bad, nevermind. I read the article.
Anyway, I feel like a bad liberal saying this, but I didn't think it was *that* horrible. Certainly completely innappropriate. The first thing that I thought of when I read about Foley was the fact that he's been hiding his sexuality for *years* because of his political afiliation... That must be somewhat psychologically damaging. Not trying to make excuses, but it's an interesting fact in the scandal.
[I think it's a matter of legality vs. developmental psychology. Yes, a 15 or 16 year old is physically mature and in earlier centuries, including part of the 20th, might already be married and a father. I would argue, however, that from a psychological and social standpoint a 15 or 16 year old is only about half-way through their sexual and personal identification process. Whereas we're fairly well tuned to working out those processes with our peers, the intervention of an adult can disrupt parts of that development, leading to the necessity to more work in adulthood. So legal or not I don't think it's a good idea. Add in that Foley was introduced to them in a custodial dynamic and it gets even more problematic. Thanks, Alice. --fl]
As a partisan Republican, there is absolutely no excuse for this kind of behavior - regardless of party affiliation.
He has resigned, but I believe he should be fully prosecuted for enticement of a minor. As should (D)Gary Studd and any other member of society who violates these laws.
[And, I'm sure you'd agree, so should anyone who supports feel-good wedge-issue laws so shallow he himself doesn't feel constrained to obey them. Both parties are guilty of that. But only Foley was a serial boy-molester who's antics were wallpapered by a surprisingly large circle in his party leadership and hidden from opposition leaders. Thanks, Allen. --fl]
Alice:
It's important to remember that sexual orientation is NOT the issue here. The issue is that Foley is an adult - and one in power - and the page is not.
[Yup. Whatever one might think of homosexuality (and I think it's unobjectionable) they're no more interested in children, even older children, than heterosexuals. Most heterosexuals aren't interested, therefore most homosexuals aren't interested. Thanks, Amber. --fl]
Anyway, I feel like a bad liberal saying this, but I didn't think it was *that* horrible. Certainly completely innappropriate. Comment from Alice
I included the quote from Alice's comment, because it echoes the opinion I found in the commentary on the ABCnews.com story quoted above:
While few would dispute the damaging effects of child sexual abuse, some would argue that the pages, although technically minors, are not as susceptible to such psychological damage as would a younger child would be. Therein lies the risk that the real issues here will be overlooked. Foley's homosexuality is not the issue, as Amber pointed out above. The issues, as I perceive them, are three-fold: (a) the endangerment of a minor, (b) the abuse of power, and c) the cover-up of the endangerment and the abuse of power.
Is the commenter at ABCnews.com wrong? I think so, but would appreciate it if someone could cite an article or study that documents the effect of abuse on adolescents of the same age as the pages. I have found many articles and papers on the effect of child sexual abuse (CSA), but none that specifically describe the effects on adolescents. Thank you.
[I agree with your three points though I might quibble about the intended meaning of the first since, in my estimation, seduction of an adolescent by an individual too old to qualify as a peer can have psychological and social consequences that would not accrue were the seducer also an adolescent. (I think you might have meant, instead, that he procured alcohol for them.) I agree that a more proper term than pedophilia would be ephebophilia -- sexual fixation on post-pubescent adolescents of either gender. And in my posts, anyway, I've spoken of Foley not as a pedophile -- since as far *as we know* he only hit on older male children -- but as a pederast. Thanks, Kochanie. --fl]
My problem is - if SOMEONE KNEW he was a problem, why was he still THERE?!
[Whatever the answer might be it wasn't that they were too busy protecting the country, defending liberty, or understanding arithmetic. Thanks, Shay. --fl]
Shay:
The three rules of politics: compromise, compromise, and compromise. I doubt if we will ever know the the true details, but the thought process of Those That Knew (TTK) may have been something like the following.
(1) Foley has an unfortunate attraction to male adolescents, but it is a *manageable problem.* He wouldn't have gotten as far in politics as he had if he didn't keep his attraction in check.
(2) He strengthens the popular and fundraising appeal of the Republican Party. Saving children from online predators is a cause that will appeal to many voters, not just those who are of the conservative camp. As a concrete accomplishment, his direct involvement with legislation designed to curb online predation would be a good hook for any fundraising campaign that employs the family values theme.
A calculated risk, as all decisions of this sort are, whether in business, government or academia. I do not know if Foley had the backing of any significant contributors, either organizations of individuals. If he did, TTK would have second thoughts about urging Foley to resign if that would result in the loss of financial backing.
[Nicely summarized, Kochanie. Thanks. --fl]