The Graham Platner lesson: Being a ‘fighter’ is not always a virtue in public life

The suspension of Democratic candidate Graham Platner’s campaign for U.S. Senate in Maine, following a series of revelations about his sordid past behavior culminating in a serious allegation that he had raped a woman, is an occasion to take stock of what we value in candidates for public office. The case for Mr. Platner’s candidacy seemed to be less about policy differences with Gov. Janet Mills, whom he defeated in the Democratic primary on June 9 after she had already suspended her campaign, and more on his appearance of toughness. Mr. Platner presented himself as a salt-of-the-earth working man ready to take on both President Donald Trump and what he saw as an aging and overcautious Democratic Party establishment. His service in the Marine Corps and his career as an oyster farmer ostensibly made him “relatable” to many working-class Mainers. In conversations with progressive friends who supported Mr. Platner with varying degrees of ambivalence (but did not live in Maine themselves), the word I most frequently heard was fighter. He may not be polished, these friends said, but we need fighters like him to resist Mr. Trump’s authoritarianism with uncompromising force. (My friends did not acknowledge that many of Mr. Trump’s supporters excuse his most outrageous behavior in the same terms.) Indeed, the political consulting firm that launched Mr. Platner’s candidacy bore the name Fight Agency. It is legitimate to prefer a progressive outsider to a more moderate politician. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont who had been one of Mr. Platner’s staunchest backers before the allegation of rape, twice ran strong campaigns in Democratic presidential primaries powered by this appeal. And I keenly feel the need for prophetic opposition to Mr. Trump’s relentless degradation of American public life—although, bearing in mind the examples of stalwart “Never Trump” conservatives such as Tom Nichols and David French, I am wary of suggesting that one needs to move further left in order to more strongly defend democracy. But it is another thing to invoke the virtues of being a “fighter” as a reason for overlooking the breathtakingly poor judgment required to get a tattoo of a “Totenkopf” skull-and-crossbones symbol that is associated with Nazi views as a young man and to make no effort to ascertain its meaning. And even before the accusation of rape, there was no excuse for any of his defenders to overlook the first allegations of abuse toward women. Before the rape allegation, which Mr. Platner has denied, some of his defenders brushed off the accusations of abuse and even insulted those who were troubled by them. In early June, The New York Times reported on allegations that Mr. Platner had abused a former girlfriend; in a follow-up report, the Times noted that the progressive commentator Matt Stoller took to X to denounce “HR lady politics,” in a post that has since been deleted. (It is difficult to let slide this gratuitous insult; my experience as a young professional is that H.R. employees are among the kindest people in the world.) The independent journalist Ken Klippenstein went even further, suggesting that Mr. Platner’s critics might be anatomically deficient (specifically comparing them to “smooth” Ken dolls). Other commentators acknowledged Mr. Platner’s flaws but insisted that no matter how egregious his behavior, unseating the Republican incumbent, Susan Collins, and working toward winning the Senate for Democrats was more important than distaste for an individual candidate. I have opposed Mr. Trump from the beginning of his first presidential campaign because I see him as seriously deficient in the character required for a position of public trust (and because of his administration’s spectacularly cruel treatment of immigrants and refugees). But opponents of Mr. Trump who excuse the misdeeds of another man manifestly unfit for public office have lost their moral standing to criticize the president. To dismiss allegations of violent and abusive behavior as irrelevant to a candidate’s fitness for office, and to attack people who voice concern with that behavior, is to contend that integrity and character no longer matter in public life. Arguing that Mr. Trump is worse is not a defense. If the worst actors in public life become the new standards of acceptable behavior, then politics will no longer be a noble vocation of working for the common good of all of God’s children. We will be left only with a raw contest for power and a grisly race to the bottom in its pursuit. Viewed this way, the ugly attack on “H.R. ladies” is part of a rebellion against the idea that we owe kindness to others. “H.R. ladies” stand in for the authority figures—at home, at school, at church and in the workplace—who remind us that there are rules for how we ought to treat others, and that we should be guided by a spirit of charity and respect. The writer and political strategist Marisa Kabas wrote that Mr. Platner’s campaign “has revealed that, for some progressives, the important markers of a candidate who displays ‘positive masculinity’ are primarily aesthetic, with little concern for whether or not the man in question actually lives the values he presents.” On an even broader level, the main lesson of Mr. Platner’s campaign may be that when we celebrate aggressiveness and belligerence in politics, turning “fighting” into a prized value, we will see ever more aggressive and less benevolent candidates. In contrast, Pope Leo XIV reminds us that the point of public life is communion rather than conflict. In his Fourth of July message to the United States, Leo exhorted us to foster “a public discourse marked by moderation, respect for the views of others and an ongoing effort to find common ground in promoting the cause of peace and reconciliation, at home and abroad.” To promote moderation in public discourse need not mean renouncing our cherished beliefs, or automatically tacking to the center; many Mainers who supported Mr. Platner seem to have done so out of a genuine belief that he might contribute positively to Maine’s common good. But our choices in public life, including the candidates we support and the manner in which we express that support, should be guided by a desire for the peace and reconciliation of which Leo spoke. We should not be seeking a “fighter” who can eviscerate our perceived enemies on our behalf, but instead look for someone who can “pursue the truth in love” in order to build a common good in which we can all share. Mercifully, Mr. Platner’s campaign has come to an end. For those of us committed to a politics that reflects the fullness of Catholic social teaching, his Senate bid is a reminder that the end of participation in public life is not dominating a foe. It is, as Leo noted, making manifest the peace and reconciliation of the Gospel on this earth by building a community that cherishes the dignity of every person. We must go about this mission with fearless devotion to our principles. But we must do it without cruelty or contempt.