Comments on: Dominique Strauss-Kahn: A Play in Three Acts?

By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:35:00 +0000

Richard, muddle is an understatement and it was clear with the arrest of DSK. He was the sound leader of a weakened Party and was lost. The Party then was torn between those who defended him no matter what, and those who actually addressed the implications of the case and what it said about the nature of public power and private life in France. That a Party of the left was attacking those who were critically discussing the arrogance of power and sexism indicated a deep problem. Your informed reply indicates that they do not now present a significant alternative to Sarkosy. But a NY Times piece today suggests that he could ride a wave of anti American sentiment and prevail. I don’t know which is correct.

What I do think that this is a case in which the general and difficult problem concerning the relationship between public and private needs to be considered. This is where academic theoretical concerns, such as the ones Dayan and I have been discussing, become pressing politically ones. The fact that there are socialists looking into a possible conspiracy between Sofitel and Sarkosy may be rational because there is actually a conspiracy, but I think it is a actually a worrying sign that they are burying their heads in the sand, revealing the dangers of conspiracy theory.

By: Richard Alba

Richard Alba — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 19:20:00 +0000

Jeffrey, The socialists are already in a muddle over how to handle DSK’s possible return, with two of the leading candidates, Francois Hollande and Segolene Royal, agreeing that party electoral deadlines can be postponed for his sake. In the meantime (according to Le Monde today), some of the party members closest to DSK are accusing the French firm that owns Sofitel of being somehow involved in the incident (and it does appear that someone high up in the company informed Sarkozy of the arrest an hour after it took place). This suggests to me that there will be a push to rehabilitate DSK as quickly as possible. But surely other socialists, to say nothing of voters in general, will see DSK as having been gravely damaged by the revelations about his sexual predation and luxurious lifestyle. It will be interesting to see if this new turn of events can be digested quickly by the Socialist Party.

By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 00:58:00 +0000

As far as the socialist party goes, the loss of DSK as a viable candidate put the party in disarray. If DSK came back and entered the race again, it couldn’t hurt. But there is probably not enough time. The continuing doubt about the case would exclude him as a viable candidate in the US. I am not sure about France.

By: Richard Alba

Richard Alba — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 16:37:00 +0000

Sorry, I see a mistake in my comment. I meant to say that the Socialists will have trouble uniting behind a candidate.

By: Richard Alba

Richard Alba — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 16:36:00 +0000

I think that, in the case of DSK, one should not rush to the opposite end of the pendulum swing and declare him innocent in the Sofitel episode. A lot has come out (especially in France) since his arrest that portrays him as a man who engages in risky behavior to add to his female conquests and who also is quite capable of using his position to extract sexual favors from those who are beneath him in organizational hierarchies or social position. Granted, the credibility of his accuser has been exploded, and in a trial where the outcome depends on one person’s word against another’s he will not be convicted. But there does appear to be significant forensic evidence, including vaginal bruising, to raise doubts about DSK’s story of consensual sex. It will be interesting to see whether he can be quickly rehabilitated on the French political scene. My own suspicion is that the collapse of the legal case against him is a disaster for the French Socialist Party, which will not have trouble uniting behind a presidential candidate because of DSK’s long shadow.

By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 12:33:00 +0000

As far as what happened in Sofitel hotel room, I go with Socrates. “I know that I don’t know.” But the dark shadow of a doubt surrounding the case makes it clear to me that DSK is not likely to be found guilty. I suspect Gary and I agree to that. But it should also be understood Strauss Kahn has been a victim of an accusation that has not been truthful. It appears that he may be innocent. I wouldn’t go as far as Dayan in asserting a conspiracy. Yet, the contention does not seem to be as outrageous now as it did when he first raised the issue in our personal conversations. Skeptical though I am, it is quite possible. But, yes, it is also possible that a perjurer also is a rape victim.

By: Gary Alan Fine

Gary Alan Fine — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 05:16:00 +0000

Whoa! Unless I am missing something, and missing quite a lot, I don’t see a need to rush to proclaim that DSK is “really innocence” in Jeff’s phrase. It seems at this point (based on current reportage) he will not be found guilty, and in that sense he will be innocent in the eyes of the law. True enough. But where is the conspiracy? His semen has been found on the clothing of this hotel maid. Are we suggesting that in her sly way, she forced DSK to ejaculate against his will. Do we find it plausible that the oral sex was her idea? (Not to mention his past instances of similar behavior). Do we believe that her handlers just happened to know just when DSK would naked in the shower? As the case is now presented, it appears that the accuser is no naif. And perhaps it tells us that if you are a con artist, you are fair game for a more powerful con artist. Perhaps they belong together forever in one of Jean-Paul Sartre’s cells in No Exit. But remember it is not only saints who get raped.

Perhaps DSK will not be found guilty – and so he will be innocent. But to suggest that DSK is a victim, well it makes me gag.

By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 22:38:00 +0000

I agree Rafael. I start with skepticism. But if there is evidence of conspiracy, I proceed accordingly. I worry that people explain too much with little through conspiracy theories, but of course know sometimes they exist and are quite consequential. A variation on the theme that even paranoids have enemies.

By: Rafael

Rafael — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 21:09:00 +0000

Yes, Jeff. And to amplify, “conspiracy” is today a synonym for foolishness, a stamp to dismiss people; sometimes for good reasons, as some people believe that Bush sent a missile to the pentagon on 9.11 and that NASA is hiding secret UFO technology. But this blurs real aspects of history and politics: Lincoln was assassinated by conspirators; Fujimori and company sat together to figure out how to get fraudulently reelected, etc. In general, I suggest that it is wrong to dismiss –in principle and as a matter of course– the possibility that a group of people may have sat together to frame others, or to commit political fraud, to damage the reputation of their opponents, to distort and hide information from the public (the tobacco industry comes to mind). I am not saying that this is a central aspect of politics. I am saying that political scientists, historians, journalists, voters may legitimately consider such possibility sometimes.

By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 19:31:00 +0000

Yes, Felipe. But although I always say that I am the last one to recognize a conspiracy, I also think it is important to clarify. There are conspiracies. It is important to recognize them once you have eliminated all other reasonable explanations for the matter in question, and conspiracies along with other explanations need to be supported by evidence and not merely conjecture. DSK’s case, in this regard at least, is not closed.