Skip to content Skip to footer

#MeToo Could Become a National Reckoning — If the New House Treats It Like a Financial Crisis

The 2018 midterm elections represented the first electoral referendum of the #MeToo era.

Brenda Gutierrez and Tarana Burke march at the Take Back The Workplace March and #MeToo Survivors March & Rally at Producers Guild of America on November 12, 2017, in Beverly Hills, California.

The 2018 midterm elections represented the first electoral referendum of the #MeToo era.

More than 500 women ran in primaries for federal office, a pipeline that ultimately led to a record number of women set to take office.

Even so, it also reveals how far women are from achieving parity in politics – they are projected to hold barely more than a fifth of seats in the House and Senate. For comparison, that’s less than in Iraq, where the post-Saddam Hussein Constitution sets a 25 percent minimum for female representation in the national assembly.

In a way, it reflects the ways in which the #MeToo movement, for its many achievements, has thus far stalled at the federal level. After a year of headlines involving sexual misconduct in a variety of industries, Congress has not passed a single piece of legislation on harassment.

With Democrats poised to take over the House but not the Senate, the question is now whether Congress will finally roll up its sleeves to tackle the root causes of the #MeToo crisis.

Crisis Management

In many ways, the #MeToo crisis is similar to the financial collapse of 2008.

That crisis was a slow-moving train wreck, the accumulation of years of morally bankrupt conduct that companies were willing to overlook in favor of what appeared to be larger business concerns.

As I argued in a recent law review article, the #MeToo crisis resulted from a similar slow buildup – companies failed to adequately respond to workplace harassment, permitting harassers to continue to rise up the ranks, while victims saw their careers sidelined.

But in both cases, it was about more than just bad people making bad choices and covering their tracks. Business decisions, like board games, are constrained by the rules of the game. If players figure out a way to “hack” the rules or decide there is more to be gained by breaking them, their behavior probably won’t change without changing the rules.

Just as brokers peddling subprime loans were enabled by bad business practices and regulatory gaps, employer indifference to harassment was made possible by out-of-date harassment laws that gave companies a free pass.

The #MeToo crisis also raises concerns about how companies handle discrimination complaints and whistleblowers – since internal processes for doing so are often the same as for harassment.

Diverging Paths

In some ways, though, the #MeToo crisis succeeded where the response to the financial crisis fell short.

Consumers who lost their homes to foreclosure never saw much in the way of justice – though a few bankers went to jail, the biggest fish did not. #MeToo, by contrast, brought the chickens home to roost for countless men with a track record of harassment.

On the other hand, the financial crisis produced more political scrutiny into the systemic factors that caused the problem. Congress held numerous hearings on its root causes. Lawmakers also created a commission. These efforts culminated in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

By contrast, the #MeToo movement has produced no federal legislation and not even a hearing – unless you count the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation. Current legislative proposals are mostly focused on whether employers can keep harassment secret.

It’s fair to regulate the cover-up. But eventually, we’ll need to tackle the crime.

Time for CSI Congress?

Political commentators have noted that Democratic control over the House will mean more oversight of the executive branch – and in particular, investigation of ethics violations and the president’s own conduct and financial dealings.

But committees can also hold hearings to gather information from experts and inform legislation. As hard as it may be to imagine after the explosive Kavanaugh hearings, they need not be bitterly partisan.

Here, Congress could take a cue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which reconvened its task force on workplace harassment over the summer. I testified at the meeting and was struck by the good faith efforts of all stakeholders – including businesses, a union representative and lawyers from both sides – to examine the issues in depth and assess different legislative proposals.

The task force itself also represents an admirable model of bipartisan cooperation, co-led by Acting Chair Victoria Lipnic, a Republican, and Chai Feldblum, an appointee of President Barack Obama.

In separate press conferences after the election, both President Donald Trump and potential soon-to-be-speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed some hope that they could work together on certain issues – though #MeToo does not seem to be among them.

Nevertheless, it’s worth at least trying to extract #MeToo from the culture wars and treat it like a serious policy issue. As odd as it sounds, we should treat it more like a financial crisis.

We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.

As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.

Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.

As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.

At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.

Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.

You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.