Jason Linkins has a good piece up over at Huffington Post about Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the support he has received from Bernard-Henri Lévy and Ben Stein.
Two of the World's Most Interesting Men, defending another Interesting Man, on the grounds that the privilege all enjoy makes the crime inconceivable on its face.
The vita is always dolce when you are an Interesting Man. And rape? This is not a crime that Interesting Men dismiss out of hand, necessarily. But it's a tawdry and declasse sort of thing that happens to downmarket people. It's not supposed to rile up the lives of the world's elite. Game recognizes game, after all. And shame? That's for lesser people. And so while it can be acknowledged that the possibility exists that DSK is the perpetrator of a crime (Levy: "I do not know what actually happened." Stein: "...it's possible indeed, maybe even likely, that he is guilty as the prosecutors charge."), the important thing to do right now is remind the world that in this life, Interesting Men are never supposed to experience shame, let alone experience it publicly. Isn't that the greater indignity?
I find the commentary by Stein posted in American Spectator especially interesting:
First of all he has a very clear opinion of what the arrest of one of the world´s most important man is all about:
this is a case about the hatred of the have-nots for the haves, and that's what it's all about.
He also has a very compelling argument for why Dominique Strauss-Kahn hardly can be guilty of what he is accused of:
In life, events tend to follow patterns. People who commit crimes tend to be criminals, for example. Can anyone tell me any economists who have been convicted of violent sex crimes? Can anyone tell me of any heads of nonprofit international economic entities who have ever been charged and convicted of violent sexual crimes? Is it likely that just by chance this hotel maid found the only one in this category?
As Jason Linkins comments:
How can you argue with this tautological reasoning? People who commit crimes tend to be criminals. But people who run the International Monetary Fund? THEY TEND TO BE THE HEAD OF THE IMF. And the whole idea of economists committing rape is just insane! The grand debate between Keynes and Hayek permit you no time for such pursuits.
There´s also the issue of the alleged victim - a hotel maid. This should tell you all of what you need to know about her lack of credibility. And if it doesn´t, Stein willingly explains:
I love and admire hotel maids. They have incredibly hard jobs and they do them uncomplainingly. I am sure she is a fine woman. On the other hand, I have had hotel maids that were complete lunatics, stealing airline tickets from me, stealing money from me, throwing away important papers, stealing medications from me.
I guess it can´t be repeated enough: People with power can almost ever be trusted. They have harmonious and stable personalities and ditto family lifes. They are not inclined to behave erratic. They don´t tend to have any narcissistic personality traits and they are never corrupted by power. They serve the world selflessly (especially leaders of idealistic non-profit institutions like the IMF).
The difference from the far too often lying-stealing and notoriously lunatic hotel maids could hardly be greater.
Criminals are criminals, economists are economists, and hotel maids may be lovable and useful, but are not really trustworthy. Let´s always remember that.