Ranting on...Katie Hill's Resignation

Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA)

I am frequently asked in my real life (where I am a bit more demur about talking about politics, but am someone who will discuss it when it's in a conversation) if I'd ever consider running for public office.  My answer is always, emphatically, no.  This wasn't always the case.  I think when I was in high school and maybe a little bit of college & was starting to campaign for different public officeholders that this could be something I'd be interested in, wondering what it'd be like to be that person on the platform rather than the person decked in their buttons, handing out fliers and registering people for volunteer shifts.  But as time went on, I saw what happens to public figures.  Their innermost details, their family's innermost details, are brought out in the most sordid way possible, and they have to stomach intense scrutiny, frequently unfairly.  I look at someone like Hillary Clinton and wonder how she doesn't cry herself to sleep every night, considering the treatment she's gotten through the years as if she's not a human.  I'm a pretty boring person, all things considered (the most exciting thing I did in the past month was get pneumonia and take myself out on a date night at the Cheesecake Factory...for the record those two things were not related), but I wouldn't want to subject myself to that kind of intense scrutiny, and particularly wouldn't want my family to have to endure such discussion.

This is what first went through my head when I was trying to make sense of my feelings about Rep. Katie Hill's, a first-term congresswoman from California, decision to resign this past weekend after allegations that she had an affair with a staffer (and possibly multiple staffers).  Hill confirmed a relationship with a campaign staffer prior to being elected to Congress, which feels on the surface enough to warrant a resignation.  After all, Hill was in a position of power and it was inappropriate to have a relationship with a subordinate, even if it seems to have been consensual (because a relationship with a boss cannot ever be entirely consensual).  Hill's decision appears unprompted by calls from colleagues to step down (meaning no one has to be the "Kirsten Gillibrand" who is blamed for her resignation in the way that Al Franken's resignation turned out), and it likely keeps the seat blue, which is important for any Democrat leery about losing this seat, since Hill had to beat an incumbent to win it in the first place.  Secretary of State Alex Padilla and State Rep. Christy Smith, both Tier 1 recruits, are supposedly exploring the race (Smith in fact entered the race today), and either one would start out as the prohibitive frontrunner, particularly if former Rep. Steve Knight decided not to run.  As someone who donated to Katie Hill last year (which I did), it is of some reassurance that her brief tenure in Congress will not simply revert her seat back to the Republicans, because ultimately any one congressional seat is bigger than any specific person.  That congressman, whether they be Katie Hill or Al Franken or Ruben Kihuen, represent hundreds of thousands of people, and their vote in Congress impacts 300 million people, and possibly 7 billion depending on the bill.  It's always worth remembering that when discussing an individual's rights and "fairness."

But there's more to this, which makes my stomach churn in thinking that Hill is resigning under these exact circumstances.  For starters, most of the focus on Hill's resignation has not been on her affair with a campaign staffer, but aspects of her marriage.  Purportedly (I'm not going to search for them and I'm not going to look, but enough media sites are claiming it's true that I feel I can say this with confidence) her ex-husband has leaked nude photos of her as they go through their divorce.  It's also worth noting that the staffer that Hill has admitted to having an affair with is a woman, and that there seemed to have been a polyamorous aspect to her relationship with her husband.

This feels, quite honestly, like a contributing factor as to why she is resigning, which is wrong.  Hill's sexuality and the specifics of her relationships are none of our business, and not how we should be picking our representatives.  The fact that her husband would supposedly behave in such an immoral way (not to mention illegal way, considering "revenge porn" is against the law in California) makes her having to give up her seat in Congress feel wrong, and the sort of thing I wish wasn't happening.  I don't support Hill having an affair with a staffer, and that's probably enough to warrant a resignation because we should hold our elected officials to high standards (being a member of Congress is a privilege, it's not a right), but since it feels more like she's resigning to save her family embarrassment from her divorce proceedings more than because of the actual affair, I feel gross that this is happening.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

It's particularly appalling because it doesn't feel like both parties treat these sorts of discretions the same way.  Democrats have almost uniformly had members of Congress either resign or retire when faced with a scandal.  In recent years Al Franken, Elizabeth Esty, John Conyers, and Ruben Kihuen all either resigned or retired.  While there have been Republicans who have declined to stay in office in the face of a scandal in recent history (Tim Murphy, Blake Farenthold, Pat Meehan, and Chris Collins all come to mind), it's worth remembering three very specific figures in the GOP still hold powerful seats in DC, and all have committed crimes considerably more damning than Hill's relationship with a staffer.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) is currently under indictment for using campaign finances for personal expenses, as well as for using his campaign funds in connection with five extramarital affairs with lobbyists and congressional aides...he's still in office.  Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), a physician, had affairs with his patients, pressured his mistress to have an abortion despite publicly being pro-life, and threatened his ex-wife with a gun (and also pressured her to get two abortions)...he's still in office.  And then there's a man who has been accused by his ex-wife of assault, has been accused of sexual harassment, misconduct, or assault by 25 women, would be charged with obstruction of justice according to a former FBI Director were it not for his office, and is currently under investigation for illegally trying to use foreign aid to help his reelection campaign and damage the campaign of one of his likely presidential opponents...and, as I suspect you may know, Donald Trump is still in office.

What Hill did was wrong, but we (and the media) need to take a hard look at ourselves when we punish someone like Hill for what she did, but are willing to look the other way for Hunter, DesJarlais, and Trump.  Is it sexism, or just the expectation that Democrats should have moral higher standards that makes Hill leave office while these men who committed more heinous offenses get to keep power?  I don't have the answer, but I really wish more people would ask the question.