Should There Be a Statute of Limitations for Political Candidates?

A candidate is being asked to drop out of a Primary because he physically abused his wife in the early 70s when he was a college student.

What do people think?

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/22/archie-parnell-south-carolina-abuse-602660

Wow.

We've all made mistakes in the past, some of which are much bigger in society's eyes than others. Abuse is a big one, and this sounds like pretty serious physical abuse.

Parnell knew he has this in his background, and somehow decided he could go ahead and run for public office. If he had gone on record as saying that this was part of his background at the very outset and given a full account of how he has tried to make amends and correct his behavior and seek forgiveness and redemption since then he might have a chance.  But it sounds like he was hoping that this incident would stay safely locked away in the past and only admitted to it when he was caught.  I think he displays some hubris which I find unsettling in a potential legislator.

From a pragmatic political viewpoint I think the South Carolina Democrats did the right thing.  This man's record (and his dishonesty about it) is a liability if he were to squeak through the primary somehow. 

Maybe in an ideal world anyone who wants to run can run, knowing that most (or all of their secrets will be found and laid bare for the voters to see.  In that kind of situation, only those who own up to their pasts and demonstrate (or fake) sincere regret and repentance would be able to succeed.  

So I don't think a "statute of limitations" for a past transgression is appropriate, but the individual's behavior since then and willingness to take ownership is worth more.

It sounds pretty bad, actually.  The word "mistake" get overused into meaninglessness in public discourse.  That's not a word I'd use for this kind of thing.  Who knows but I don't think explosive violent raging like that is a one time thing.  I don't know anyone who smashed his way into a home violently so he could beat up his spouse.  

LOST said:
A candidate is being asked to drop out of a Primary because he physically abused his wife in the early 70s when he was a college student.
What do people think?
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/22/archie-parnell-south-carolina-abuse-602660

I don't know if statute of limitations is the appropriate term for a political contest which is really a popularity contest.  Still, if Parnell really has changed his ways since he was a college student then why not let the voters decide.  A lot of people have done things in their youth that they regret and have grown up to be decent people.

Why should the right to decide be taken away from the voters?

BG9 said:
Why should the right to decide be taken away from the voters?

 Good point.  It's kind of like term limits where I want to limit only to the politicians I don't like.

I think you need a better example for for the proposition.   Like episodes that fall into the youthful indiscretion/immaturity category.  Somehow this scenario popped into my head (I didn't do this):  It comes to light that on Spring break XX yeas ago, candidate and his friends wrecked a hotel room in a party that got out of control, and he got arrested.  That would have no bearing on my thinking about a 50 year old candidate.  What your guy in the example did, in contrast, gives me the creeps.  Him I would not vote for.

bub said:
I think you need a better example for for the proposition.   Like episodes that fall into the youthful indiscretion/immaturity category.  Somehow this scenario popped into my head (I didn't do this):  It comes to light that on Spring break XX yeas ago, candidate and his friends wrecked a hotel room in a party that got out of control, and he got arrested.  That would have no bearing on my thinking about a 50 year old candidate.  What your guy in the example did, in contrast, gives me the creeps.  Him I would not vote for.

I think the question is should Parnell be disqualified by the voters on Election Day or by party committees.  

tjohn said:

bub said:
I think you need a better example for for the proposition.   Like episodes that fall into the youthful indiscretion/immaturity category.  Somehow this scenario popped into my head (I didn't do this):  It comes to light that on Spring break XX yeas ago, candidate and his friends wrecked a hotel room in a party that got out of control, and he got arrested.  That would have no bearing on my thinking about a 50 year old candidate.  What your guy in the example did, in contrast, gives me the creeps.  Him I would not vote for.

I think the question is should Parnell be disqualified by the voters on Election Day or by party committees.  

 Let the voters decide. That’s the democratic process whether we love it or not. 

ElizMcCord said:

 Let the voters decide. That’s the democratic process whether we love it or not. 

Well, if y'all read the article that's pretty much what's likely to happen. The party is calling for him to bow out and he is refusing.  I don't think they can force him off the ballot, but he lost an important endorsement and his campaign manager resigned.  His election is thus significantly hobbled.

It's kind of like the clown* running for Congress as a Republican in Illinois: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/meet-arthur-jones-the-illinois-republican-nazi-candidate-for-congress.htm.  He's almost assured a loss in the general election but he won the Republican nomination fair and square so the Republicans can't get rid of him.

*No offense to clowns, including to Stephen Lough who is running against Parnell in the SC Democratic Primary.

Isn't the real concern of the Party here that had Parnell won the primary election and then had this information revealed, the chances of victory would have been virtually nil?  As someone wrote above, had he owned the behavior and apologized for it from the beginning, this might not have been an insurmountable problem.

tjohn said:

BG9 said:
Why should the right to decide be taken away from the voters?

 Good point.  It's kind of like term limits where I want to limit only to the politicians I don't like.

I’d love to slap some of the more “mature” Dems with term limits. That’s a big part of the reason there’s no bench. We’ve got all these incumbents that aren’t going to be primaried but they also have zero national appeal. 

RobB said:

I’d love to slap some of the more “mature” Dems with term limits. That’s a big part of the reason there’s no bench. We’ve got all these incumbents that aren’t going to be primaried but they also have zero national appeal. 

 Feinstein in California is a great example.  Her jet black hair aside, she is about a million years old and, while her conservative brand of politics may have been an ok fit with the California electorate back in Pete Wilson's day, she is seriously out of step with the voters in what is arguably the most progressive state in the Union.

The O.P. is not about term limits. It is about holding a candidate responsible for actions that took place years and even decades ago.

"Parnell used a tire iron to break the window of an apartment where friends of his then-wife were protecting her from him, records show, after which he struck her several times and then beat her again later in the evening."

shoshannah said:
"Parnell used a tire iron to break the window of an apartment where friends of his then-wife were protecting her from him, records show, after which he struck her several times and then beat her again later in the evening."

It's up to the voters.  Some people actually do become better people when they grow up.

tjohn said:

shoshannah said:
"Parnell used a tire iron to break the window of an apartment where friends of his then-wife were protecting her from him, records show, after which he struck her several times and then beat her again later in the evening."

It's up to the voters.  Some people actually do become better people when they grow up.

 I had understood the OP to mean a "statue of limitations" in the mind of voters, not something that allows the powers that be to keep info from voters or, conversely, disqualify a candidate without voter input.  In that sense, yes, its up to the voters.

I'm not sure this is the kind of behavior that is fairly captured in moral term, i.e. "get better."   Yes, people change although not often, at least not dramatically so, and some kinds of behavior are deeply pathological and/or compulsive.   We all bring our personal experience and knowledge of the world to things like this and mine says this is in the latter category.  If I found out someone in my personal orbit did something like that - and its not a single "that" but a multi-episodic rage over a period of time (violent breaking and entering, first beating, second beating etc.) - I'd probably keep my distance.  

bub said:

tjohn said:

shoshannah said:
"Parnell used a tire iron to break the window of an apartment where friends of his then-wife were protecting her from him, records show, after which he struck her several times and then beat her again later in the evening."

It's up to the voters.  Some people actually do become better people when they grow up.

 I had understood the OP to mean a "statue of limitations" in the mind of voters, not something that allows the powers that be to keep info from voters or, conversely, disqualify a candidate without voter input.  In that sense, yes, its up to the voters.
I'm not sure this is the kind of behavior that is fairly captured in moral term, i.e. "get better."   Yes, people change although not often, at least not dramatically so, and some kinds of behavior are deeply pathological and/or compulsive.   We all bring our personal experience and knowledge of the world to things like this and mine says this is in the latter category.  If I found out someone in my personal orbit did something like that - and its not a single "that" but a multi-episodic rage over a period of time (violent breaking and entering, first beating, second beating etc.) - I'd probably keep my distance.  

How many people have stopped drinking because they come to understand that alcohol turns them into Mr. Hyde?  Would you shun those people?  I do understand that some things are not outgrown (e.g., pedophilia from what I have read), but other things are outgrown.

What if he had killed his wife?  With the tire iron in his hand, it doesn't sound like that was out of the question.  

Wife beating is a bridge too far.  I wouldn't vote for this guy and I wouldn't want my party to encourage other people to vote for him either.  

tjohn said:

bub said:

tjohn said:

shoshannah said:
"Parnell used a tire iron to break the window of an apartment where friends of his then-wife were protecting her from him, records show, after which he struck her several times and then beat her again later in the evening."

It's up to the voters.  Some people actually do become better people when they grow up.

 I had understood the OP to mean a "statue of limitations" in the mind of voters, not something that allows the powers that be to keep info from voters or, conversely, disqualify a candidate without voter input.  In that sense, yes, its up to the voters.
I'm not sure this is the kind of behavior that is fairly captured in moral term, i.e. "get better."   Yes, people change although not often, at least not dramatically so, and some kinds of behavior are deeply pathological and/or compulsive.   We all bring our personal experience and knowledge of the world to things like this and mine says this is in the latter category.  If I found out someone in my personal orbit did something like that - and its not a single "that" but a multi-episodic rage over a period of time (violent breaking and entering, first beating, second beating etc.) - I'd probably keep my distance.  

How many people have stopped drinking because they come to understand that alcohol turns them into Mr. Hyde?  Would you shun those people?  I do understand that some things are not outgrown (e.g., pedophilia from what I have read), but other things are outgrown.

 I would not shun people who beat alcoholism.  Like I said, we make our judgments about these things based on experience and knowledge.  A is not B is not C and so on.  What this guy did was way out there and scary, even within the universe of domestic disturbances.  He wouldn't get my vote.  

Should we have the right to be forgotten or whatever they call it in the EU such that a Google search won't turn up things we did 30 years ago?

Klinker said:
What if he had killed his wife?  With the tire iron in his hand, it doesn't sound like that was out of the question.  

 If he had killed someone he would not now be a candidate. He'd be dead, in prison or a convicted felon.

There are programs for spouse abusers just like those for alcoholics. If a spouse abuser went through such a program and was, 40 years later, a "recovering abuser" would that disqualify him?

I really do not know the answer.