OPINION:
Now that he’s been convicted in New York of one count of rape and one “criminal sex act,” we can’t say precisely where the case of Harvey Weinstein will end — although long tenure in prison seems a safe bet. No recent court decision has been met with such universal approval as this week’s guilty verdict for the one-time king of Hollywood and full-time sexual predator. And Weinstein still faces criminal charges in California.
Still, in all the coverage of the Weinstein trial, one small detail in the larger saga seems to have been brushed aside: To the extent that Harvey Weinstein was known to the public, it was almost as much for his political activism as his moviemaking — and his politics were decidedly partisan.
When Weinstein fell from grace, the Democratic Party lost one of its most prominent and conspicuously generous supporters. If, during the past quarter-century, Weinstein’s money and time had been spent supporting Republican causes and candidates, would the press have consistently failed to mention that history? The question answers itself.
Remember, in 2017, when The New York Times published its first story about his sexual predations and misconduct? Weinstein issued an apologetic statement that had all the earmarks of damage control: He explained that he had come of age in the 1960s and ’70s — “when all the rules about behavior and workplaces were different” — but now realized the error of his ways and the urgent “need to be a better person to learn about myself and conquer my demons.”
He must have guessed, at the time, that expressing contrition with some well-chosen phrases would do the trick and, putting icing on the cake, ended his statement with a pledge designed to excite his fellow Democrats. “I’m going to give the [National Rifle Association] my full attention,” he declared, predicting that his activism would compel its leader to quit. “And I’m making a movie about our president,” he added. “Perhaps we can make it a joint retirement party.”
Of course, it didn’t work; the burgeoning #MeToo movement saw to that. At the same time, however, his status as the Democrats’ most prominent — certainly glitziest — philanthropist somehow got lost in the details.
Read the post-verdict stories and commentary about Weinstein and you’ll be hard pressed to find any mention of his relentless fund-raising for senators such as Elizabeth Warren, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Boxer and Kamala Harris; or the hundreds of thousands of dollars he contributed over three decades to the California Democratic Party, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Not to mention the serial words of praise from high-profile admirers such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and Barack and Michelle Obama.
We mention all this not to embarrass these prominent Democrats, who may not have known the truth about their friend, but to suggest that the silence about Weinstein’s politics is no accident, and the old double standard is alive and well in the media.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.