What’s in a Name? A Senator names a White House staffer and a debate begins

We’re in week two of discussing Natalie Harp without focusing on the real issues around power

Shortly after the end of the first Trump administration, I found myself sitting with a group of Republican women discussing the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Why was it named after Monica? We wondered. She was an intern. I had been reflecting on the impeachment, the imbalance of power, how it was covered ceaselessly at the time, and about what I learned in high school from the coverage of the President of the United States (nothing good).

We were all around the same age and we agreed, from our perspectives, everything had been so wrong. All of it. I looked back at how President Clinton had used women in his defense, how he had lied and brazenly got away with taking advantage of a young woman’s admiration.

It’s happening again, they said.

The two women had both worked in the first Trump administration. They had the name of a young woman who was called on at odd hours, viewed with suspicion by other White House staffers, and viewed with concern by these women who hoped nothing untoward was happening.

The name of the young woman was NOT Natalie Harp.

Uncomfortable Questions

I was uncomfortable when I first saw people bringing up Natalie Harp’s name. First Sen. Jon Ossoff, then every news organization, then other candidates.

Not because Ossoff said anything wrong, per se. Somehow Ossoff seemed to dominate the news cycle by just mentioning that Harp flies with Trump on Air Force One. That’s really all he did, and it pales in comparison to what Republicans and grown men said about Monica Lewinsky, then just an intern in her early 20s.

President Trump with President Clinton in a photo released by the Clinton Presidential Library

I didn’t like the intonation, though. Anyone who has worked in politics knows there are power dynamics. I fear there are abuses of power again.

I’ve also worked with incredibly strong women who have been viewed with suspicion for merely having a job. There were implications that they got a job because of their looks, or because of the support of a man, when those women themselves were powerhouses.

I don’t know Natalie Harp, and I make no presumptions about her relationship with the President. I will only say the President is most certainly the more powerful person in this equation.

Protect the Boss

Most people I know from Trump’s orbit talk about a pressure to protect the boss, even if they question it later.

Among the women I got to know from the first Trump administration was former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham. She was not at the dinner described above. By the time I met her, she had moved to Kansas, living on a farm and taking care of animals in need. She was about as far away from politics as she could be.

By then, Stephanie had started telling her full truth. She had already written a book and later spoke at the Democratic National Convention. I wrote about how people turned on her for just telling her experience.

It’s like we all defend our teams, even when our team is wrong. Stephanie wasn’t in the position of defending a party or the people affiliated anymore. In fact, I wish more people had listened to her about Max Miller, now a Congressman, the former boyfriend Stephanie described in her book as abusive (I’ve never spoken to her about this; there’s now public litigation over an NDA, and Miller has denied the allegations). But years later Miller is under scrutiny after Bernie Moreno’s daughter, Emily Moreno, made domestic violence allegations against Miller, and tragically there’s now a toddler daughter involved.

On a podcast we did together, Stephanie did tell me about expectations in the first Trump White House, how she felt the need to wear high heels, to look a certain way, dress the part, look pretty. It’s all quite petty. And yet it’s so clear too little has changed for women (frankly of both parties).

Republican Hypocrisy

Do I think this President should come under investigation if he’s having an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate? Yes — and we’ve seen that before.

For all the outrage about Ossoff mentioning Natalie, I think of how many Republicans had no hesitation talking about “Monica” many years ago. Some, like current CNN pundit, maybe next Press Secretary, Scott Jennings should know better. Jennings has been particularly outraged at Democrats bringing up the name of a White House staffer but it was Republicans who used the name of a young woman, a young intern, throughout the scandal that led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

The problem is that these scandals rarely impact the person in power. If a scandal emerges it won’t be “the Trump Scandal,” it would be named after the woman. We’ve already seen it happening.

Would it change anything? President Trump has already been found liable for sexual abuse and defamation and still paid no real political price. I somehow doubt this would make him fall.

Call me old-fashioned but I hope that in this day and age we can have a more nuanced conversation about power, the balance of power, and the truth. One that’s frankly overdue.

I also wish our media cycles weren’t won in innuendo or ignorance. The news for the week included a reference to Natalie Harp, as well as South Carolina Senator Darline Graham not being able to answer a question about Taiwan. (Oh dear). Which is more important?

In that same debate with Graham’s Republican opponent, they were asked about Medicare. When the program’s hospital insurance trust fund runs out, there will be cuts. Both of them wanted to see Medicare preserved. Then how? Where will that money come from? That runoff election is today and I’m eager to see that debate continue with the Democratic nominee.

So I guess what I’d say about this whole Natalie thing is: if there’s anything there, sure, get to it. And name it after the one in power. But don’t turn a whole news cycle into waiting for a sex scandal instead of covering the real issues that affect Americans.