A Need for Balance.

On the cover of our magazine is our institutional maxim: "Ideas Over Ideology, Principles Over Party." One principle that supersedes party is that presidents ought not to squander their moral authority. Without it they can't govern effectively. Therefore it is precious, something to be protected, nurtured, and revered.

Donald Trump squandered plenty of moral authority when he endorsed Roy Moore for U.S. senator from Alabama, notwithstanding credible allegations that Moore sexually abused teenage girls when he was in his thirties. In endorsing Moore, Trump said essentially that reprehensi-bly immoral behavior doesn't matter if the political stakes are high. And they were very high, as Republicans had merely a two-member advantage in the Senate (now, in the wake of the Alabama vote, that will be a one-member advantage).

Of course the president took pains to hang his hat on Moore's denials of any such behavior. But, based on the number and nature of the allegations, it's almost inconceivable that he was set up. Besides, this isn't a court of law; it's a political arena, and the question was whether men under such clouds, even absent definitive proof, should be sent to the United States Senate. That was a question the people of Alabama had to face.

But Donald Trump didn't have to face it. By endorsing such a man under the specter of such allegations, he demonstrated a moral obtuseness even greater than usual. Of course it's true that Americans for years have been "defining deviancy down" as Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously put it. But that's no excuse for presidents to yield their moral obligation to resist that phenomenon in their official and private actions. They represent the country, which calls for solemnity.

Another principle on our minds of late is the sanctity of due process when people come under the kind of scrutiny that could destroy their careers and reputations. We noted with interest the recent New York Times piece by law professor and political activist Zephyr Teachout in which she expressed discomfort with the fate of Minnesota Senator Al Franken after allegations of sexual misconduct surfaced about him.

Some seemed serious, and definitely warranted an Ethics Committee inquiry. But the precipitating revelation--a photo in which he seemed to be simulating fondling the breasts of a sleeping woman--appeared to be more of a gag than any kind of attack. Juvenile? Certainly. But he's smiling into the camera, clearly not trying to get away with anything. And yet the outrage poured forth. When some 35 senators banded together in calling for Franken's resignation, it struck Teachout as an "effective ouster." Neither due process nor proportionality seemed to be observed.

Teachout proposes a system in Congress for investigating and adjudicating such allegations, with possible sanctions being a call to resign or for censure. But she draws an important distinction between political candidates and sitting legislators. In elections, voters have a responsibility to make judgments with whatever facts are available, whereas condemning a sitting lawmaker calls for official actions that should be made "judiciously." A lawmaker's relationship with his constituents shouldn't be interfered with lightly, as it seemingly was with Franken.

We're in a new world in matters of sexual abuse. It's not going to be tolerated in the future as it was in the past, and that's to be welcomed. But the issue is fraught with danger. Presidents who take the matter lightly are likely to squander moral authority, and they deserve censure. But lawmakers who gang up on colleagues before the facts are in may be erring on the other side. The country should proceed firmly here, but with care and deliberation.