Ron Beaty's 'defense'
Redemption? Transformation? Rehabilitation? Really?
A recent Voice (Ron Beaty's depraved words, and conduct) reported horrific details about former County Commissioner Ron Beaty; threats to rape and kill his ex-wife, promises (with her name attached) to assassinate elected officials including the President of the United States. My recounting was written because Beaty is running again, yet many people have no idea of the words and actions that sent him to federal prison.
That piece offered material from federal court filings. I did not explore more recent activities, social media posts — none criminal or as outrageous but some still disconcerting. So all the evidence dated back to the early 1990s.
Beaty responded with a document he called, “In Defense of Redemption: The Case for Ron Beaty’s Candidacy.” Here’s how it begins:
“In the discourse surrounding public figures and their past mistakes, society often faces a conundrum: how do we balance the scales of justice with the potential for personal redemption? The critique levied against Ron Beaty by Seth Rolbein merits a thoughtful counter-narrative, one that champions the transformative power of time, the human capacity for change, and the democratic principle of second chances.”
***
This is a profound reaction, and Beaty’s response deserves serious acknowledgement. I’ll also accept at face value that he wrote it, though my cynical mind sees constructs of Artificial Intelligence (referring to himself in the third person, the semantic structures). But regardless he put his name to it, that’s what matters most. Hey, people can use speechwriters.
Beaty continues:
The Passage of Time and Personal Growth
“Three and a half decades have elapsed since Ron Beaty’s conviction, a significant expanse of time in any human life. This period is not merely a marker of time passed but a testament to the possibility of profound personal transformation. Human beings are not static; we evolve, learn from our mistakes, and, more often than not, strive to contribute positively to society despite our past. To hold Beaty’s actions from 33 years ago as the immutable measure of his character today is to deny the very essence of human development and the concept of rehabilitation.”
***
Again, this is compelling — at the surface. But what has Ron Beaty done to “evolve” and redress his outrageous acts? He has not committed himself to helping others who might be deranged, alcoholic. He did not pursue a career in social work or use his own example as cautionary.
The only times he brings up this history is when he is called out.
It’s not sufficient to say that he is rehabilitated because he has not threatened to kill and rape since, and obsessively runs for public office. He has created no semblance of a redemptive path. And so:
***
The Principle of Redemption in Public Life
Public office is, at its core, a service to the community, and those who serve should indeed be held to high standards. However, an integral part of these standards should be the recognition of redemption. Our legal system, flawed as it might be, operates on the principle that once a debt to society is paid, an individual has the opportunity to reintegrate and contribute. If we, as a society, claim to believe in this principle, it must extend to all areas of life, including politics. To deny Beaty the chance to serve based on old transgressions is to perpetuate a cycle of punishment that our justice system supposedly moves beyond.
***
No one is denying Beaty “the chance to serve.” As a convicted criminal, he still has the right to run.
People can decide that someone capable of what he did, someone who has not offered high-profile regret or redress, is not qualified to represent this community.
If they don’t vote for him because of this, that is called exercising civic judgement.
His own actions, not theirs, is what would create the “denial” of his opportunity to “serve.”
***
Transparency versus Stigmatization
While transparency is crucial in politics, there’s a fine line between informing the public and perpetuating stigma. Rolbein’s article, while highlighting Beaty’s past, risks veering into the territory of perpetual stigmatization. Yes, voters should know about candidates’ histories, but this should be balanced with an understanding of who the candidate is now. Has Beaty shown through actions, community involvement, or character over the last decades that he has changed? If so, this narrative should hold weight alongside his past.
***
This is repetitive, already discussed. But one thing should be added: There is no “fine line” between informing the public and perpetuating stigma. Truth is not “stigma.”
***
The Democratic Right to Choose
The essence of democracy lies in choice. The citizens of Barnstable have the right to decide whether Beaty’s past disqualifies him from representing them. This decision should be based on a complete picture, not just the shadows of his history. If voters are aware of his past and still choose to elect him, this reflects a community’s belief in redemption and their right to select their representatives based on current merit, not just past errors.
***
Ron Beaty is not a candidate of redemption. His time at the county was not focused on the transformative power of forgiveness, nor are his many social media posts. He instead is mimicking the politician he admires:
At one point, maybe tongue in cheek but maybe not, Beaty floated the idea that Cape Cod National Seashore should be re-named Trump National Seashore.
***
The Message of Forgiveness
Embracing Beaty’s candidacy sends a powerful message about forgiveness, a virtue that holds societies together. It says that we are a community that believes in the capacity for change, that we value redemption over retribution. This message could inspire others who have erred to contribute positively, knowing that their past does not irrevocably define their future.
***
This is after-the-fact fabrication. His political positions have never espoused or even suggested forgiveness as a driving force in public life, nor has he offered himself as an example of healing compassion. How can someone who celebrates Donald Trump’s idea of America say he believes in “redemption over retribution,” so therefore people should vote for him?
This is impossible to accept or understand — short of calling it hypocrisy.
***
Critique of Rolbein’s Approach
Rolbein’s approach, while perhaps well-intentioned, might inadvertently serve to stifle the potential for societal reintegration of individuals who have made significant mistakes. By focusing predominantly on Beaty’s past without equally highlighting his journey since, the article misses an opportunity to engage in a more nuanced discussion about forgiveness, growth, and the role of former offenders in public life.
***
That nuanced conversation is one I’ve had with many people. In this case it’s Beaty’s cause to champion, which has never happened. If he were to do so, then would come questions of content, issues, policies, political skill. Fast forward: Beaty has shown no leadership or vision.
Given that, to be urged to vote for him as a way of proving Christian forgiveness is to be … manipulated.
***
Conclusion: A Call for Balanced Judgment
In conclusion, while acknowledging the gravity of Beaty’s past actions, it is imperative to consider the man he has become. His case asks us to weigh the heavy sins of the past against the possibility of a redeemed future. A vote for Beaty, if based on an informed choice, is not a dismissal of his history but an affirmation of his journey since. It is a testament to the belief that people can change, that time can heal, and that every individual deserves the chance to prove their worth anew. In the democratic process, let us not forget the power of redemption and the strength it takes to rise from one’s failings to serve the community. Let this be the measure of Ron Beaty’s candidacy, not just the shadows cast by a decades-old conviction.
***
Ron Beaty’s candidacy is bereft of progressive ideas, unless you think a notion like killing every white shark is “balanced judgement,” and “transparency” is substance.
That said, his response deserves to be taken seriously, because his argument espouses the most important ethos of all; compassion.
Beaty cloaks himself in this noble goal, urges others to forgive and redeem him. Yet his personal conduct offers nothing to embody that, no examples, no proof of his own transformation, no laudatory public accomplishments or expressive goals.
Perhaps I need more compassion — hell, I always do. But here are true words that apply to this “defense”:
Manipulation. Hypocrisy.
Haven’t subscribed yet? With all due respect, why not? Make it possible to see a Voice and support good reporting, strong perspectives, unique Cape Cod takes every week. All that for far less than a cup of coffee. Please subscribe:
https://sethrolbein.substack.com/welcome
And if you are into Instagram, want to see some additional material, maybe share the work, here you go:
Good job, Seth! Too obvious for me that no way did he write any of that. For me he remains exactly the same as he's always been. Thankful I could make the choice to never vote for him.
I've kept an eye on Mr. Beaty since he started writing homophobic letters to regional papers in the early/mid 1990s. (The Martha's Vineyard Times, which I was then working for, actually printed a couple of them. We had to talk the then-editor into publishing a response with "name withheld" because the then-editor didn't understand how using the writer's name could have repercussions for their school-age kids. Editor's wife helped set him straight.)
Beaty's arguments in favor of his redemption remind me much too much of the sort of "born again" fervor common in certain Christian circles. They assume that the slate can be wiped clean based entirely on one's say-so. Maybe that's enough for any deity that's listening, but for an aspiring public servant it falls seriously short. What I'm looking for is something along the lines of AA's 12 steps. This involves acknowledging one's shortcomings to another person, making amends to those one has harmed, and changing one's behavior. AA has a term for those who bypass the middle 10 steps and jump straightaway from the 1st (realizing you have a problem) to the 12th (telling everybody about how you've solved it): the word is "two-stepper." I do believe it applies to Ron Beaty.
If Beaty has truly seen the light, there are plenty of ways to be of service to the public, and to make amends for harm done in the past, without running for office. His actions will do far more than his words to demonstrate his reformation.