Recently, I wrote a column praising the lifetime work of Garrison Keillor [“Remaining cheerful in a grim world,” Recorder, Aug. 19]. Because much of his written work (especially his most recent, “Cheerfulness”) tends towards the philosophical and advisory, my praise might be interpreted as support and admiration for Keillor the person. I was reminded by good people that Keillor left Minnesota Public Radio in 2016 under a cloud because of accusations of workplace misconduct during the height of the #MeToo movement.

I actually know nothing of Keillor as a person or a workplace boss. After doing a bit of research about the incidents, I still know nothing about his true self other than there was not a pattern of complaints with multiple people charging the same thing. I do know that some men wholeheartedly lie about their actions, and that some women involved in complaints have either imagined or embellished stories for their own reasons.

I don’t know that either of those is the case with Keillor. I realize, from this and the multitude of other conflicts in the news, that second-hand information is often useless, and that even in a court of law, true guilt is hard to establish.

I also believe that if a person is a predator, there is more than one allegation. A man who uses his power in the workplace or fame in society to attack or demean women doesn’t do it once and then give up the practice. It is too much a part of his identity and he derives too much pleasure from his actions.

Is it OK to appreciate the art of someone who exhibits bad behavior in life? That’s a very important question to art critics, whose identity revolves around their reactions to works of art, like feminist Melissa Forbes who reviews a book titled “Monsters: A Fan’s Dilemma” in a recent piece in The New Yorker. In the review, she mentions a long list of worthy artists (men and women) who have clearly committed acts that range from harmful to brutal and inhuman. For the book’s author (also a feminist, Claire Dederer), and for myself, one of the worst is Miles Davis, whose jazz is inspirational and incomparable, and who admitted in a book to being a violent and longtime abuser of women.

Forbes and Dederer dissect the issue from every angle, revolving around the central question, “How do we separate the maker from the made?” In a final paragraph, she summarizes their conclusions: “Go ahead ... love what you love. It excuses no one.”

For me, the same question bleeds over into politics. I would like to dismiss Donald Trump for his execrable personal life, including multiple alleged sexual assaults, but it’s impossible to do so while retaining a deep love for the work of John F. Kennedy. Even cursory research on JFK’s multiple affairs and use of power to coerce or persuade women into sexual activity is stomach-turning. It appears that he was unable or unwilling to control his impulses, and no one asked or required him to.

The difference, I guess, is that Kennedy actually has a body of work. He led the Camelot dreamers in accomplishing a great deal: establishing the Peace Corps; pushing civil rights legislation hard enough that landmark legislation was eventually passed; inspiring and funding the space program; improving relationships with Latin American countries; and perhaps most importantly, inspiring several generations to believe in a democratically elected government and to work though it to achieve goals for all Americans and world citizens.

Article continues after...

Yesterday's Most Read Articles

Hotfire Bar and Grill to open Memorial Day weekend in Shelburne Falls

My Turn: Quabbin region will never see any benefits from reservoir

Orange Selectboard to consider defunding town libraries

Sounds Local: Greenfield’s own Elvis returns to sender: Travis Ledoyt brings ‘The Elvis in Me’ to Greenfield High School, May 25

The cool new ‘underground’ spot in town: Le Peacock in Shelburne Falls delivers on colorful décor, people, food and cocktails

Greenfield residents seek to donate combined 32 acres to city for conservation

Donald Trump’s only legacy, so far, is (possibly) making money for himself, and sowing and exploiting anger and discord among Americans. He has drained the swamp of all who disagree with him and replaced them with more swamp creatures whose only requirement is to swear allegiance to the King himself. Otherwise, he’ll “come after you.”

For Kennedy, I now dislike and disavow the maker of so much sexual mayhem in his career, but still honor the things he “made” in politics and government. For Trump, both the maker and the made are beyond distasteful, his political work a perfect reflection of the narcissistic and misanthropic sphere he inhabits.

There are multitudes of others whose lives (like all of ours) won’t hold up to intense scrutiny. But as Gandhi noted decades ago, “I find that we are all such sinners, it is better to leave the judging to God.” But we can and should judge people’s accomplishments in art and politics, and choose those that lift us up rather than drag us down.

Allen Woods is a freelance writer, author of the Revolutionary-era historical fiction novel “The Sword and Scabbard,” and Greenfield resident. His column appears regularly on a Saturday. Comments are welcome here or at awoods2846@gmail.com.