‘I did not say this young man was lying. I said I cannot believe him. There is a difference.’

He knew that the young man was telling the truth, but the cognitive dissonance was just too great. In the end the conflict paralyzed him and he refused to help accomplish anything. We cannot know how many could have been saved had Justice Frankfurter been moved to action.

“Throwing someone under the bus” is when you KNOW of their wrong doing, and do nothing about it or facilitate it- but when exposed (a la Van Jones) you reject them, or when you use a person close to you to elevate your position by vilifying them (my grandmother is a racist).

To your your point, Polanski was a manipulator, it is part of the job of a director to manipulate. But being a director is just a job, leave it at work. You are incorrect in thinking he is not evil. There is a reason that even in the society within our society – a prison- those prisoners that are incarcerated for sexually abusing children receive from the other prisioners, the punishment that civilized society won’t meter out. Even criminals recognise that people like Polanski are the totality of the evil they do. Incurable, unrepentant murderers of childhood.

Mr. Prager misses a third point, the defenders that are Hollywood traders & sell-outs; trading their support for perhaps a future role, a favor, or repaying a favor, maybe not to Polanski but to one of his close associates. Prager wants to see it all as esoteric, but it is just as likely a good portion of them have set their “price”.

Interesting variation on that concept: didn’t some Hollywood dingbat argue the exact reverse – that great artists like Polanski necessarily have some degree of inner evil, which should be indulged because it helps them create great art

I have often heard it said that an artist needs to be able to confront his own inner darkness. I believe this to some extent. Almost all art relies on some form of tension in order to work. But there’s a huge difference between “confronting” or “acknowledging” one’s darkness, and acting on it.

That said, I think a lot of this can be explained by the simple “banality of evil”. The fact that Polanski was capable of this act does not mean that evil was the totality of his being. He made some great movies, and within Hollywood circles was probably a very likable guy, with a lot of friends.

Now, think about your friends for a moment. If one of them did something horrible, you’d probably have a tough time believing it. You would perceive a huge gulf between the likable and “good” person that you know, and the horrible person he would have had to be to commit the act. In order to reconcile these two disperate images, you’d have to do one of three things:

1. Decide he was, in fact, evil and “throw him under the bus,”

2. Deny the offense actually happened, or

3. Minimize the offense to something a “good” but fallable person might do. A “mistake”.

Most of Hollywood – probably led by people who know Polanski personally – has tended to go for options (2) or (3).

The creationist begins with a premise that is logically equivalent to the conclusion he seeks.

Yes, but for a “creationist” there is no need to explain the impossible/illogical/tautological/whateverical, he needs only to believe. But, but, but belief in Creationism is illogical! No, duh…

This is a very good explanation of rationalization in general and the circular logic used by Polanski apologists. Your first explanation, that of the artistic intelligentsia believing themselves to be Nietzchean overmen, is probably closest to the truth.

I must say, though, it’s more than a tad unfair to lump in creationists and opponents of socialized medicine with supporters of a child rapist. I get you’re trying to make a larger point, but it’s too harsh and too broad a brush for the others.

Interesting variation on that concept: didn’t some Hollywood dingbat argue the exact reverse – that great artists like Polanski necessarily have some degree of inner evil, which should be indulged because it helps them create great art?

Doctor Zero on October 6, 2009 at 8:43 PM

Interestingly, this is a common sentiment on the left across fields of endeavor. Consider, “to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs.”

I think the second explanation is the best one for Oprah Winfrey, who claimed it wasn’t a “rape-rape;” she doesn’t listen to anyone but liberals, and liberals have all got it in their minds that the sex was consensual — the girl was just a little too young. I suspect she still believes this… and believes that everyone on the right who claims it was more is simply lying to hurt a liberal icon.

Actually, Dafydd, I believe it was Whoopi Goldberg who bequeathed the concept of “rape-rape” to posterity. I distinctly remember Tweeting about it right after she said it, using only my elbows. To be specific, I said I didn’t see any reason why anyone should point a camera or microphone at her, ever again.

A great soul cannot be associated with the basest and most despicable of carnal crime; it’s impossible by definition.

Interesting variation on that concept: didn’t some Hollywood dingbat argue the exact reverse – that great artists like Polanski necessarily have some degree of inner evil, which should be indulged because it helps them create great art?