Morality, Me Too, & Lessons from ‘Date Mike’

“Hi, I’m ‘Date Mike’… nice to meet me.”

There’s a paradox that most of us are aware of, but few fully understand, when it comes to certain admirable character traits. Some things in life have a proportional relationship with the amount of effort you put into them. Learning to play an instrument, getting in better shape physically, developing a skill, etc. Our success or failure with any of these pursuits is proportional with the amount of effort we put into them.

But there are other things, more intangible but just as real, that seem to have an opposite relationship with overt effort. The ‘Happy Hour’ episode of The Office gives a good example of this. Steve Carell’s character, Michael Scott, has been set up on a date by one of his employees. The first part of the episode consists of him acting normally, just being himself, resulting in the date going pretty well. It turns out, Michael is actually a pretty likable guy when he’s just being himself. But the minute he realizes that he is on a date, he completely changes his demeanor. He changes how he wears his outfit, dons a ridiculous hat, and refers to himself as “Date Mike.” He then proceeds to behave in the most over-the-top way possible, all in an attempt to be “cool” and impress his date. Predictably, this try-hard approach has the opposite effect, and the date ends in disaster.

There’s something about being cool that you can’t fake. The harder someone tries to be cool, or likable, or interesting, the more likely it is to backfire. The same is true in relationships, as 38 Special so eloquently put it in their staple for any classic rock playlist:

“Just hold on loosely, but don’t let go. If you cling too tightly, you’re gonna lose control.”

There’s just something about these characteristics that if you have them, you don’t need to constantly declare their presence in your life. Someone who is a good and honest worker doesn’t need to verbally convince you of this fact. The same goes with humility, character, or integrity. The individuals who exude these admirable traits do so without needing to continually advertise them. Imagine the opposite, someone who always felt compelled to tell you “I’m a good person. I have integrity. My morals are excellent.” Would you take such claims seriously, or would they seem strange, and perhaps even a little suspicious?

Playing ‘king of the hill’ on the moral high ground

For decades, the political Left and Right went back and forth, engaging in one long round of ‘king of the hill’ on the perceived moral high ground of our society. Issues like crime, voting rights, war, sex, music, video games, poverty, freedom of speech, abortion, and drugs were all used for each side to display the superiority of their morals. Policy arguments shifted from outcomes and efficacy to moral superiority, and whoever could make the more compelling case for their policy being the one that made you a “good person” would win the day. Without getting too much into the weeds, I would argue that sometime in the early 90’s, the Right decisively lost their respective position on the moral high ground. There’s a lot of reasons for this, and discussing them isn’t the purpose of this essay. But simply put, I believe that when the Right decided to fight losing battles in the culture war, such as attacks on video games, rap music, and different sexuality, their losses were symbolic of losing the moral argument, also. Issue by issue, the Right chose unpopular cultural positions, resulting in a de facto expulsion from publicly-acknowledged real estate on the moral high ground. All the Left needed to do was fill the vacuum, which they were more than happy to oblige.

Since embracing their role as the moral arbiters of society, the Left has leaned heavily into moralistic rhetoric as their go-to argument for policy proposals. This has proven to be an effective strategy, both for gaining support, as well as silencing dissent. Arguing that your position constitutes the only virtuous one is an excellent shortcut around such details as whether or not “facts” support your claims, and has proven effective for thousands of years. The power of the Holy Roman Empire was established with similar authoritarian means, until the advent of the printing press brought about the Protestant Reformation. Once the people were able to decide for themselves if the Bible supported the Vatican’s claims, the Church lost its monopoly on morality, and ability to unilaterally declare themselves the sole arbiters of virtue.

But occupying the moral high ground by default isn’t the same as earning it, and one can only rule by force for so long. Sooner or later, advertising your own virtue will yield the opposite effect. As the saying goes, “reality bats last,” and the rubber must meet the road. This moment, right now, is that time for the ideological Left. Reality is approaching the plate, and it has a hell of a swing.

The Me Too movement was founded on an important principle- the principle that women should be heard, and should live in a society where they feel comfortable sharing their stories of abuse. A society where they know they’ll be taken seriously, and that through victims collectively speaking out, those who would perpetrate such acts would know they’re time is up, and they will not get away with it anymore. The prosecution of Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey were but a few examples of the victory the Me Too movement brought the victims of sexual abuse. No longer could the powerful hide behind their power. Here, moral outrage was warranted. Society had failed these women for far too long- but that was going to change. From now on, women would be heard, they’d be believed, and justice would be served. Or so we were told.

As much as I’d like to make this article some indictment of the Left exclusively, I can’t. In all reality, for every handful of leftists who jumped on Julie Swetnick’s claims that Brett Kavanaugh was running a ring of gang rapists, there’s an equally unprincipled individual on the Right promoting similarly dubious accusations against Joe Biden, including stories about things he supposedly said at events during which he was never present.

Did the Left set the stage for all of this in their egregious treatment of Brett Kavanaugh? Absolutely. Are there individuals on the Right currently doing the same thing with accusations against Joe Biden? You bet. And it’s absolutely sickening.

This is the part of the article where I’d planned on laying out an argument for the Left’s abandonment of the moral high ground, and how the vacancy was open to any principled folks who felt like leading by example. But honestly, I don’t think it’s possible for truly principled individuals to ever have that opportunity. Maybe the moral high ground has been vacant for a long time now. Maybe the ideological Left and Right have simply constructed their own little man-made hills, on which they build their respective Towers of Babel. They take pot shots at each other from their ideological enclaves, all while the truly principled position sits vacant. The only visitors to this long-empty space pass through out of pure happenstance. They don’t seek to occupy it, nor is power their aim. They just happen to be there, because that’s the type of people they are. Worthiness is a byproduct, not the end goal. And it’s their worthiness that prevents them from ever trying to occupy the moral high ground as a means of acquiring power. The truly good don’t advertise their goodness. They just… are.

“You met me at a very strange time in my life” Edward Norton tells Helena Bonham Carter in the final moments of the 1999 classic ‘Fight Club.’ Just like Marla Singer, you, dear reader, have met me at a strange time in my life. My cynicism over the divided nature of our country is at a bit of an impasse. My only options are to succumb to apathy and indifference, or continue to try and make things better, even if that seems like the most futile of missions. I’m not ready to give myself over to apathy just yet, so right now my only other idea is this: can we all agree to just cut the bullshit from now on?

Here is a tweet from Lisa Bloom, a prominent lawyer on the left (who also happened to represent Harvey Weinstein):

“I believe you, Tara Reade.

You have people who remember you told them about this decades ago.

We know he is “handsy.”

You’re not asking for $.

You’ve obviously struggled mightily with this.

I still have to fight Trump, so I will still support Joe.

But I believe you. And I’m sorry”

And here is a quote from an article written by a sexual assault survivor, recently published on NBC’s website:

“So come November, I’ll do what LaCasse has said she will do — vote for a man I believed sexually assaulted Reade. And it will turn my stomach. But while we deserved better than Biden, no one deserves another four years of Trump.”

The author is referencing an interview Business Insider conducted with Lynda LaCasse, a former neighbor of Tara Reade. LaCasse has gone on the record in confirming that Reade told her back in the mid 90’s about an incident with Joe Biden, and was “devastated” by it at the time. LaCasse detailed how difficult the experience was for Reade, and then concluded that she still intends to support Joe Biden, despite her belief in Reade’s accusation.

There’s also the Huffington Post article from a few days ago. In it, the author lays out a similar sentiment, this time articulated by an anonymous Democrat strategist:

And then there’s a third option that combines the two.

“It sucks that everyone can’t just say, ‘Yeah, I believe Tara Reade and I’m going to vote for Joe Biden,’ because that’s the only morally defensible position here,” said a Democratic strategist who requested anonymity to speak freely.”

No. No, no no, no no. Unequivocally, no. That’s what I mean about cutting the bullshit. You don’t get to admit you believe Joe Biden molested a staff member, and also that supporting him is “the only morally defensible position.”

You can say “I believe Tara Reade, but winning is more important than justice.” Or, “I believe Tara Reade, but my hatred for Donald Trump exceeds my outrage at Joe Biden for molesting a staff member.” But what you don’t get to do is argue for a zero-sum position that is devoid of all moral clarity, and do so from the self-proclaimed moral high ground. That is the BS that we can no longer tolerate.

Here’s what I propose: can we just say to both the Left and the Right “You care about winning. I get it. Some of your policies might have a moral component with which I agree. But that’s usually more of an accident than a goal. You both care about winning more than anything else. And you’ll both use whatever weapon you can against the other, including the potential pain of victims. You’ll politicize and weaponize and grandstand as much as necessary, all in the name of winning. Not in the name of justice, or principle, or making the country a better place, but in the name of winning. And maybe you think that winning means you’ll be able to achieve justice, or make the country a better place. But that’s an end to which you view any means as justifiable, including means that are antithetical to everything you claim to stand for.”

Enough is enough. To every person on the Left who represents the positions of the articles mentioned above, I have two things to say:

1) I respect your honesty. To say you’ll vote for someone you believe is a sexual predator, because they’re still not as bad as the alternative in your view, is truly the epitome of having the courage of your convictions… even if those convictions are totally and completely morally bankrupt.

2) From now on, you have forfeited your right to argue positions on the basis of morality. You can argue expediency, or efficacy, or anything in between. But trying to make your case from a position of superior morals is no longer an option for you.

The same goes for people on the Right who try to argue that Donald Trump is actually a Bible-believing Christian, and that he never cheated on his wife with a porn star, or ever acted improperly with women. Or worse, those that argue President Trump is like a modern day King David, because David also committed adultery. Your membership to the “Superior Morals” club has also been revoked.

Ayn Rand once said “The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.”

I half agree with her. Evil wins because compromising on basic principles is extremely easy to do, especially when those principles never mattered much to you in the first place. There’s been a vacuum of principle in our body politic for a long time. And perhaps, that’s a good thing. We probably shouldn’t be looking at contestants in a national popularity contest to be our guides in staking out difficult and principled positions. Are all politicians immoral opportunists? I highly doubt it. But are enough of them like this, so as to warrant caution being exercised against the whole lot? Yeah. Probably.

So let’s cut the crap, and start calling BS where we see it. The woman who wrote the article for NBC said that voting for Joe Biden will “turn my stomach.” It shocks me that it doesn’t turn her stomach more to admit that she’d do such a thing while also believing Reade. I know people on the Right who don’t believe Reade, but are still sharing story after story about what a creepy rapist Joe Biden is. Both of these positions are what turns my stomach, and I hope it turns yours, too.

The irony in the ‘Happy Hour’ episode of The Office is that “Date Mike” did indeed impress someone. It wasn’t his date, but rather the manager of the restaurant they were visiting. Michael starts seeing this woman, and it’s later revealed that she’s married, and cheating on her husband with Michael. That’s the kind of person who actually responds to the try hard approach of advertising how awesome you are- someone who knows it’s a lie. They know it’s not true, but will go along as if they believe it anyway, because it makes them feel good to pretend for a while. But make believe can only last so long. Reality bats last. And there are many on the Left whose hypocrisy is about to have a grand slam of righteous indignation hit over their heads, and straight out of the park. #Timesup, indeed.

Author’s Note: When I asked her to give me some feedback after reading this article, my wife’s first response was “You don’t need to cuss so much.” She might be right, and I made a few edits accordingly. That said, if any of you have a better description for the perspectives posited in the articles I mentioned besides “cynical and morally impoverished bullshit,” please submit them in the comments below!