Shaming accusers is no longer a default. What changed?

Public scrutiny is focused on the allegations against Eric Swalwell, not the women who came forward

- KATY BUTLER GUEST CONTRIBUTOR

THE lightning-fast downfall of Eric Swalwell is a testament to the astonishing, often-denigrated “soft power” of public shame.

Swalwell was shamed out of politics in recent days after being accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct. He ended his campaign for California governor and resigned his House seat representing a district in Northern California. Prior endorsers, funders and staff members fled. In a reversal of age-old cultural patterns, public revulsion and scrutiny focused mainly on the accusations about his behavior, and not on the women who accused him. As French women chanted outside the trial of the wife-raper Dominique Pelicot and his numerous accomplices, shame is changing sides.

No court or agency has validated or disconfirmed the women’s claims, first reported by the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN. They include the serious charge that he sexually pursued and later had unwanted sex with an unnamed woman, then a 21-year-old employee in his regional office, when she was too drunk to consent. We know only her side of the story. Before resigning from Congress, Swalwell publicly acknowledged “mistakes in judgment,” apologized to his wife and vowed to fight the charges, which he called “false.” He had earlier threatened to sue the women for defamation.

But Swalwell could not erase what had been said or avoid consequences of those accusations. And, without prejudging the particulars of his case, that’s a good thing.