Platner, Kamala Harris, and the framing of acceptability
A moralist, a realist, and Platner walk into a bar...
With Ro Khanna, Hasan, Krystal Ball, Bernie Sanders, and AIPAC Tracker withdrawing their Platner endorsements, let’s address the Platner Predicament.
Background: Jenny Racicot alleges she was violently raped while Platner was drunk. Her case is solid. She says she didn’t speak up earlier because she agrees with Platner’s politics, while affirming that she doesn’t approve of the man himself. I believe the claim that’s made; I believe Platner is a rapist.
A Review of the Candidates
The GOP, especially of late, is highly selective about when to make an election about bodily autonomy and rape. I’m all for making this election about that, so let’s reason within that frame since it’s being circumstantially imposed on us now.
In the blue corner, we have a guy suffering from PTSD (not brought up in defense — it’s literally what the victim said) who lost control under the influence of alcohol (also from the victim’s texts) and who
violently raped her
In the red corner, we have a woman who
voted to enable Bush to start the Iraq War;
voted for the America-backed Saudi-led bombing of Yemen, with 10,000 dead;
sought to undermine the JCPOA because it would stop the Iran War, which Collins is seemingly committed to;
voted against the war powers resolution to stop Trump in Iran which resulted in another 10,000 dead (and did so on March 4, 2026, March 18, 2026, April 15, 2026, April 22, 2026);
voted to stop the Epstein doc release in September of 2025 literally providing cover for men who rape girls;
supports the genocide in Palestine in which 120,000 are dead (nearly 50% women and girls), while
supported the defunding of UNRWA leading to mass starvation,
tried to stop you from boycotting Israel by making it punishable with a 20-year prison sentence. Just one enforcement action against women would result in them potentially being imprisoned for 20 years.
Some may point out we’re comparing something Platner did personally with something Collins enabled politically. While this frame is conventional, the difference is immaterial. If you don’t want moral accountability for the decisions you made when in a position of power, then relinquish that power — obviously. The King doesn’t get to direct his army into doing a heinous act while pleading that it wasn’t his sword at play. This is also why RICO exists. People demand accountability from those that use political power in organizations to do criminal things.
The Endorsement Predicament
So where do you go with this? Ideally, Platner would be serving time and getting mental health treatment. Not to be outdone by the strong arm of justice, Susan Collins should be swinging in front of The Hague ten times over. We never get anything that remotely resembles justice. The best we get is primary challenge or a flipped seat and on that note our system is replete with endorsements on the grounds of either principles or realist outcomes. These endorsements are supposed to at least guide how the government is reformed. Let’s review these grounds for endorsement.
Moralism is what directs people to have a spine and stand on something while realism is what tells people to stomach their “moralist objections” and think practically. The moralist analysis here is simple: rape isn’t genocide. Genocide is worse. This isn’t an open debate, it’s a settled matter in international law. Genocide is its own thing. It’s the “crime of crimes.” You can’t prevail in an argument if your foundation is that rape is morally equivalent to murder. Murder is a more serious crime than an assault, even one of a sexual nature. Similarly, intentionally killing one person regardless of reason has to be a lesser crime than intentionally killing all people you perceive to be related to them. Any moralism then must oppose genocide first. When choosing between two culpable candidates, the seriousness of the crime each is implicated in is the thing that governs the choice, and genocide is simply the greatest moral evil. Genocide is the “Red Line” which reduces all candidates to a single issue without which there can be no further moralism.
Conversely, realism demands you assess the effects of your actions and project your ideas onto the inescapable flawed system that exists. The realist would look at the value in potentially flipping the Senate which is huge and would effectively turn Trump into a lame duck president. Realists wield slogans like “both candidates have the same policy on Israel, but one of them supports trans inclusion in the military.” Or, some other such nonsense.
The establishment hates moralizers
Now let’s recap some more recent events than the alleged Platner rape of Racicot in 2021.
In January 2024, the US Senate voted against a resolution by Senator Sanders to force the State Department to make a determination as to whether or not Israel violated Palestinian human rights. That vote failed 72-11. That is, 72 Senators were so unconcerned about the genocide that they voted against Sanders’s resolution to demand an official finding as to whether or not it was occurring. This is after December 2023 when the ICJ case was opened, drawing the world’s attention to it. When it came to a crime far more sinister than rape, almost 90% of US Senators were indifferent. That’s how low the bar is.
And of the eleven that wanted the determination from the State Department, zero would oppose Schumer’s reelection, which all but ensured silence and the continuation of the genocide. Again, that’s how low the bar is.
Also of the Democratic base, in January of 2024, a poll by the Economist and YouGov showed 50% of Democrats believed Israel was committing a genocide in Gaza. And in a climate with 50% of Democrats convinced a genocide was taking place, these “realist” Democrats — now calling Platner unelectable — thought they could run Harris? By the numbers, I’d rather be in Platner’s shoes than Harris’s. How many joined the demand for an open convention against Biden and Harris when 50% of Democrats thought Israel was committing a genocide? For me, it makes the whole thing feel like selective outrage.
Conclusion
Here is where I’m going with it. Even granting the allegation in full — granting he did exactly what she says — put Platner at a table with Schumer, Jeffries, Biden, Harris, Matthew Miller, HRC, Fetterman, Karine Jean-Pierre, and Linda Thomas-Greenfield, all of whom are culpable in the crime of genocide, Platner would still be the most morally defensible person at that table. That’s not a compliment to him — it’s an indictment of everyone else sitting there. The people who mocked and belittled anyone who moralized about Harris’s genocide in her campaign against Trump are now demanding everyone moralize about Platner in his campaign against Collins.
Regardless, if you think Platner should drop out because of the allegation of rape, then just remember come 2028 that we should abandon Newsom, Josh Shapiro, Kamala Harris, and Mark Kelly — or whatever genocide-apologist prevails in the primary. Genocide will always be more sinister than rape. And when 77% of Democrats believe Israel is committing a genocide (up from 50% in January of 2024), we’re talking about another order of magnitude in voter salience.
I’ll part with this: if the machine can push out a rapist in 24 hours, then let’s get Newsom out of 2028 before Friday. If we’re on the same page, I like this direction and welcome the moralizing. Good riddance. If not, why are we allowing genocidal war-mongers to tell us who to vote for again? Chuck Schumer getting unanimous approval by the same Senators calling for Platner to drop out, that’s a bit rich. The entire Senate can follow Platner on the way out.
