The Swalwell Scandal Exposes The Problem Democrats Do Not Want To Talk About
If Eric Swalwell was privately known inside Democratic circles as a problem long before this scandal exploded, then the real scandal is not just his collapse. It is the culture of looking away...
You can listen to this post on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. It’s available on your favorite podcasting app, or you can find it here. Our afternoon content is typically for our paid subscribers. Certain columns, like this one, are made available to all of our readers.
⏱️ 5 min read
The Instant Outrage
Once the allegations against Swalwell became public, the Democratic response was immediate. Elected officials, political allies, and major labor backers moved quickly to distance themselves. CTA and SEIU withdrew their support. Within days, a man widely seen as one of the leading Democratic contenders for governor had suspended his campaign and then announced he would resign from Congress. He is now facing a House Ethics probe, and it is hard to ignore the likelihood that this is a major reason he is resigning from Congress. He is also facing a criminal investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney, while new allegations have now been taken to Los Angeles authorities.
That part was predictable.
Democrats have spent years branding themselves as the party of women, the party of accountability, the party that says victims must be heard and powerful men must face consequences. So once the allegations were out in the open, there was no room for hesitation. Publicly, they had to run from him.
But that is not the real story.
The real story is what so many people are now saying privately: nobody is surprised.
The Whispers Before The Fall
As I have called around to people I have known for years, including Democrats and Democratic-aligned insiders, I keep hearing versions of the same thing. He always seemed creepy. He liked the girls. He was arrogant. He acted like the rules did not apply to him.
That is the part that should make every Democrat nervous.
Because if those kinds of sentiments were widely held in political circles before this went public, then we are looking at something uglier than one politician’s implosion. We are looking at a system of moral cowardice.
To be clear, private chatter is not the same thing as proof of a crime. Rumors are not facts. Not every person would have known the same things, and not every person would have known enough to act. But if a meaningful number of insiders believed Swalwell was reckless, predatory, or dangerously entitled, and still supported his rise, then the Democratic establishment has a much bigger problem than one disgraced politician.
It has a character problem.
The Party That Looks Away
This is the question Democrats do not want to answer: how much bad conduct gets tolerated, ignored, rationalized, or quietly managed when the accused is politically useful?
That is the real test of moral credibility. Anybody can denounce a man after the headlines hit. Anybody can issue a statement once the cameras are on and the consultants have workshopped the language. Anybody can pretend to be shocked once the political cost of silence becomes too high.
What matters is what people did before it was safe.
If insiders had concerns about Swalwell’s behavior, why was he still being elevated? Why was he still treated as a rising star? Why were powerful unions and elected officials prepared to help make him governor right up until the point when doing so became impossible? More than 55 former staffers signed a letter urging him to resign after the allegations surfaced. That fact alone raises an unavoidable question: how large was the circle of people who understood that this man was a serious problem?
And if that circle was larger than Democrats now want to admit, then silence was not just cowardly. It may have allowed damaging conduct to go unchecked longer than it should have.
Selective Morality Is Not Morality
This is where the Democratic brand collides with Democratic behavior.
A party cannot spend years lecturing the country about believing women, protecting women, and holding powerful men accountable, then act as though whispered warnings, obvious red flags, and private misgivings somehow do not count. If the private reaction now is that nobody is surprised, then many people clearly suspected enough to be wary when it still mattered.
Instead, the pattern appears painfully familiar. Keep quiet. Avoid conflict. Do not make waves. Tell yourself it is hearsay. Tell yourself it is not your problem. Tell yourself there is no point in stepping in. Then, once the story breaks, perform outrage in public and call it principle.
That is not principle.
That is public relations.
And it comes with a human cost.
If insiders were privately warning one another while publicly looking away, then the natural question is whether that silence allowed harmful behavior to continue longer than it otherwise would have. That is what makes this bigger than a campaign scandal. This is not only about hypocrisy. It is about the price of hypocrisy.
So, Does It Matter?
This is not just an Eric Swalwell story. It is a story about institutional corruption of the moral kind.
The Democrats who now want credit for cutting ties should first answer a harder question: where were they before the scandal became public? Where were the brave statements then? Where was the concern then? Where was the urgency then?
The truth is that political tribes often protect their own until they no longer can. Democrats are not unique in that. But Democrats are the ones who have built so much of their identity around the claim that they are different, that they are better, that they take women seriously and hold men accountable.
If what many insiders are saying now is true, then they did not live up to that standard. They failed it.
And if they do not face that honestly, then the next time they lecture anyone else about character, accountability, and standing with women, a lot fewer people should take them seriously.