Hollywood liberals under fire: The Polanski debate gets political

It was surely only a matter of time. The noisy partisan divide that seems to infect everything in America today -- from what health care plan you want to what car you drive -- has surfaced again. As soon as commentators started weighing in on Roman Polanski's arrest over the weekend in Switzerland, the debate over whether the filmmaker should be made to stand trial in Los Angeles for his 1977 rape of a 13-year-old girl quickly turned into a series of shouting-match-style denunciations, with conservatives casting Polanski defenders as despicable, soft-headed liberals.

I know because I've been reading my mail, which has been running about 100-to-1 against Polanski. And since I wrote a column that most people interpreted as a defense of Polanski, the mail was also running 100-to-1 against me. I took the position that if California is so broke that it can't properly fund its public schools, assist the elderly and infirm, or even keep criminals off the streets, then when it came to priorities, I was a lot more worried about my kids' and my parents' health and welfare than having the district attorney's office launch a costly legal battle against a 76-year-old man living in Paris.

I didn't say Polanski should be pardoned or let off the hook, since what he did was reprehensible. He is guilty as charged. I did say that we should concentrate on doing a better job of tracking down the bad guys who are breaking the law right now in our own backyard. The response to my argument was divided, to say the least. People inside Hollywood nodded their heads in agreement. People outside of showbiz were outraged. 

"I guess 'art' is more important to you than justice!" wrote Dezi Cardenas. "You are a predictable left-wing moral relativist and idiot," said Lou Bricano. "I know society allows excess for artists, musicians and other talented people, but there was a little girl involved," wrote Lionel Baker. "If this was a 76-year-old truck driver who was arrested for the same crime, would you feel the same way?" "Remember," said Richard Morris, "when the scum of the earth wins an Academy Award, it's still the scum of the earth."

I knew I'd hit a new low when James Gragg said he was so upset that he was writing a letter to the editor for the first time, "and I read all of T.J. Simers' articles." He added, "If there was one thing I thought was completely impossible it would be that no journalist in the world would defend a pedophile. I was sadly mistaken." 

I wasn't surprised that people were incensed -- I get mail from people frothing at the mouth about the size of IMAX theaters and crazed with disgust that PG-13 comedies have curse words in them. We live in an age where everyone is angry about everything. But I was taken aback by how many letters viewed the Polanski issue through a political prism -- if you weren't full of outrage over his crime and subsequent flight from prosecution, then you were a yellow-bellied lefty, always willing to come up with some new excuse for the loathsome behavior of the chic Hollywood elite. 

So once again, we have a right-versus-left divide, with Hollywood, teeming as it is with Prius-driving liberals, being easily tossed into the lefty camp. To hear conservatives tell it, Polanski represents the classic example of the decadent artist who gets a free pass from liberals, the same liberals who'd be the first to express outrage against greedy Wall Street predators or Catholic priests accused of pedophilia.

Is it possible they have a good case? Keep reading:

If you make a sweep of the conservative blogs, starting with Andrew Breibart's Big Hollywood site, you'll find lots of scathing and sarcastic denunciations of liberal moral relativism, with most of the ammo directed at the pro-Polanski screeds at the reliably liberal Huffington Post. Also not to be missed is Deceiver's take down of Whoopi Goldberg's hapless "the difference between rape and rape/rape" Polanski defense.

As it turns out, the Huffington Post isn't firmly in the Polanski camp at all. The website does offer some all-too-predictable hair-splitting, notably by the famous Parisian egghead Bernard Henri Levy, who managed to cook up a pro-Polanski petition, signed by everyone from Milan Kundera and Salman Rushdie to Mike Nichols and Diane von Furstenberg. But it didn't take me long to find all sorts of posts decrying Polanski's actions. Screenwriter Michael Seitzman was full of contempt for Polanski defenders, saying "if we're going to let rapists off the hook because of their tragic histories, we should open the prison doors right now." And C. Nicole Mason, an assistant professor at NYU, also weighed in against Polanski, saying "I'm shocked by the outpouring of support from celebrities and others."

So I think the Huff-Po bashing is way off base. But for the sake of argument, let's accept the basic precept of the conservative argument, which admittedly has some firm ground to stand on. Liberals do have a soft spot for bad-boy artists, from the days of Charlie Chaplin and Chuck Berry to Robert Downey Jr. and Oliver Stone. Let's face it, when rap musicians start shooting each other or beat up their girlfriends, it's always Bill O'Reilly, not Keith Olbermann, who's red-in-the-face ticked off about it. And yes, its true -- Teddy Kennedy barely got a slap on the wrist for his inexcusable behavior at Chappaquiddick. 

Conservatives believe in crime and punishment. Law and order. So they're the ones who are especially outraged that Polanski not only did the dirty deed but fled the country and avoided prosecution. If you commit the crime, do the time. Liberals, as a rule, lean more toward "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit." They simply don't have the same primal urge for vengeance, although I guess that means I have some conservative DNA running through my veins, since I'm certainly overjoyed to finally see O.J. in the slammer.

Liberals tend to forgive more easily than conservatives. For years, one of the great villains to the left was G. Gordon Liddy, a conservative wingnut who freely acknowledged (in his autobiography) making plans to kill journalist Jack Anderson, based on a somewhat literal interpretation of a statement by his onetime boss, Richard Nixon, who said, "we need to get rid of this Anderson guy." It was Liddy who helped engineer the fabled break-in of Democratic National Committee headquarters that led to the Watergate scandal and the Nixon resignation. Liddy was convicted of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

And what was the heated liberal reaction to Liddy's evil deeds? President Jimmy Carter, the ultimate squishy moral relativist in the eyes of the right, commuted Liddy's sentence to eight years ("out of the interest of equity and fairness") while LSD guru Timothy Leary, who'd once been arrested and prosecuted by Liddy, cheerfully went out on the lecture circuit with his former adversary to make some quick dough. Liddy now makes his living as a radio talk show host, where he periodically advises good honest citizens -- as he did several times in 1994 -- how to fend off agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, saying that if the agents come armed, people should "go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests."

We don't need to worry about Liddy anymore -- he's obviously been rehabilitated. But not Polanski. He hasn't served his time. He skipped town, sensing, as most people involved with the case have since concluded, that the judge had his own agenda and was going to bring the hammer down on him. But worrying about judicial fairness when it comes to a sexual predator would inject a layer of complexity into this affair that most people don't want to hear. Call it justice or call it vengeance, but people are town-hall-style angry that Polanski got off scott free, just as they are mad at the bankers on Wall Street who got bailed out -- after socking away millions in profit -- while regular folks got the shaft. 

It's liberals who are always accused of being too worried about fairness, but when it comes to Roman Polanski, it's conservatives who are playing the fairness card. If you're guilty of raping a 13-year-old girl, it's never too late to pay the price.

Photo of Roman Polanski leaving a Santa Monica court on Oct. 25, 1977, by Nick Ut/AP.

Comments

[Meg]

Like so many hangovers from the 70’s: watergate, vietnam – this case has a generational component to it. It you are under 35 (which I’m sure many in the prosecutor’s office are) you did not experience the loosey-goosey 1970’s that so many of these Polanski apologists experienced.

People under 35 grew up in an era where they were told: NO MEANS NO, drugs are bad, sex can kill you. They also experience a world with zero tolerance: corporate drug tests, teens prosecuted for statutory rape when having sex with each other, very real consequences for what might have been considered “youthful transgressions” of the past.

The rules have changed for the generation that is taking over the reigns in America – these Hollywood dinosaurs may not realize it yet, but they have.

[T]

This is obscene. Is drowning puppies not a liberal stance too. Three skeevy directors and a hand full of sycophants does not a liberal cause make.

[Karen Schell]

"the debate over whether the filmmaker should be made to stand trial in Los Angeles"

Mr. Goldstein, that is incorrect. Polanski pled guilty to the crime; when a defendant pleads guilty there is obviously no need for a trial. What he faces if remanded to the US is sentencing for the crime that he long ago pled guilty to, not a trial.

[Lani]

I drive a Prius, and live in Los Angeles, but I'm not a liberal. President Obama will lose in 2012 if he doesn't start being a more hands on President, and actually participate in writing the legislation. He can't win without the Independent voters, and we're becoming more unimpressed with him, that is why in polls he is losing our support.

He should really take his mind of f of the Olympics being held in Chicago, and start fixing our Economy, and finding out where our money went to? I haven't seen much change from him than Bush.

[Nick]

Patrick - You certainly can't trust Hollywood's opinion as having any true basis. One perfect example of this is that dope, Sean Penn, who runs out gallivanting with the like of scum like Hugo Chavez. Hollywood is a joke when it comes to social and political issues.

Personally, I think Polanski should be brought back to US and executed for his crime; he is a worthless scum pedophile. There should be no sympothy for the likes of him and his kind. They are animals that need to be put down.

Nick
www.wastedcarbon.com

[Jayne]

A couple of points: (1) prosecutors make sentencing recommendations, but judges do not have to follow them. If Polanski thought judicial misconduct was taking place, his attorneys could have raised that objection and appealed his sentence. But he skipped town beforehand, so the rumors of judicial misconduct are unproven. (2) Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape of a 13 year old child. When and if he returns, he will be sentenced for this conviction. There will be no trial, just a sentencing hearing, and the victim need not appear. (3) the prosecutor has the option to bring a new charge for fleeing the jurisdiction, and if he does, there will be a new trial for that charge. (4) I'm waiting for the child psychologists and Dr Drews of the media to weigh in on the long term consequences of statutory rape on 13 year olds - which is why Polanski pled to. (5) Just because a victim forgives her perpetrator, doesn't mean the sentence is vacated. Many rape victims and domestic violence victims forgive their perpetrators, and do not wish to be subject to further court appearances. Yet prosecutors make their decisions (and are paid out of tax payer funds) to pursue justice, not to pursue the victim's wishes. Just my opinion.

[Morgan]

I don't see this as a black & white conservative/liberal issue, but more of a Hollywood vs everyone else issue. I work in a VERY liberal/lefty office of about 35 people and over the past 3 days the general topic has been how out of touch with reality the actors and directors who jumped to Polanksi's defense are.

That these creative people are willing to forgive 1)drugging and anal rape of a child and 2) fleeing the country because Polanski is a great director, a holocaust/manson survivor, and the victim forgives him (after receiving a settlement) is astounding. The general tenor since his re-arrest seems to suggest that if you make great movies then you have a license to commit sexual assault, and if you don't get that then (in the words of Deborah Winger) you are "a philistine". Seriously, Hollywood?

Perhaps this is actually a time were non-Hollywood liberals who value the rights of women, and conservatives who value the rule-of-law can come together and unite over Hollywood's baffling moral waffling.

(On a sidenote: why would Wes Anderson choose to involve himself in the Free-Polanski fray by joining the Zurich petition when he has a CHILDREN'S MOVIE coming out in a few weeks, whose box office is dependent on Mr. & Mrs. Flyover taking their kids to the film? Baffling.)

[coprogirl]

Well, the statute of limitations renders this whole thing ridiculous. After 32 years, arent't there bigger and more topical fish to fry? I'm with Mr. Goldstein on this one.

[Peter Lee]

I'm a liberal - I want to get health care from the government cradle to grave - but this piece is nonsense and full of strawmen arguments. It's ridiculous to boil it down to liberals = nuance versus conservatives = black & white, as you do, Patrick Goldstein. If that's not a black and white argument, I don't know what is.

This is about one thing: rule of law. And that's an ideal that liberals care about very very deeply and passionately. It's why we liberals get upset about torture and Guantanamo Bay and prisoners who are imprisoned indefinitely with flimsy access to courts when the sovereign deigns to throw them a crumb. And it's the rule of law that Polanski's flight from justice that upsets liberals like me so much. Goldstein pulls out of thin air his conclusion that "most people involved with the case have since concluded, that the judge had his own agenda and was going to bring the hammer down on him." Who are these "most people"? People who watched the Polanski documentary? Members of DGA? The ONLY people who's opinion matter - judges, appeals court judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys - have had their opinions short-circuited because Polanski fled. The ONLY venue where the allegations of judicial misconduct can be fairly adjudicated, where all parties can make their arguments pro and con, is a courtroom. Not a stadium-seating theater or a newspaper column.

I'm one liberal who's all for chasing Polanski down, not out of bloodlust or lack of empathy or unwillingness to forgive but because I care passionately about the rule of law. And the rule of law applies both to Guantanamo detainees and ordinary crime victims AND criminals. No exceptions. Crime and punishment is settled at court, not the public opinion polls or by newspaper columnists.

[Chuckio]

coprogirl, Please do a bit of research before you post nonsense. The statute of limitations refers to the length of time that someone may be prosecuted after the comission of a crime. Polansky was prosecuted and fled before sentencing.