It is both sad and ironic that, 250 years after the revolt against George III, the British monarchy is teaching its former colony lessons about accountability. While elite impunity is rampant in the US – from a president who conspired to steal an election, to the “Epstein class” – the man formerly known as Prince Andrew is facing both shame sanctions and legal consequences. The same is true for a towering member of the British establishment, the man still known as Lord Mandelson. Just what explains the difference?
Being shamed is not the same as being convicted in a court of law – a difference that those pushing back against #MeToo and other supposedly woke movements never failed to emphasize. But both can be crucial for upholding norms of decency as well as democracy. Successful shaming depends on someone credibly accused of misconduct being part of groups whose approval matters to them. Larry Summers might well be resigning from Harvard because it would just have been too uncomfortable to face students and colleagues who might have voiced their disapproval of the attitudes revealed in the Epstein files. By contrast, certain Republicans appear to feel utterly unashamed, no matter how cruel or racist their utterances, because constituents do not seem to mind or because they can safely keep away from any unpredictable encounters (after all, GOP congressmen systematically cancel town halls).
