By Edwin Cooney
Last week, in an attempt to be fair, I reminded my fellow progressives (liberals, if you must) that when judging the sins of youth, as opposed to the sins of adults, we progressives usually weigh them on different scales. Therefore, I asserted, we should remember that 17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh shouldn’t be evaluated the same way that we evaluate 53-year-old Judge Kavanaugh. The problem with that analysis is that confirmation to high public office isn’t a legal process, it’s a political process — or it has increasingly come to be that. Confirmation to high public office is equivalent to a job interview.
That being the case, those charged with the task of hiring someone for this position must keep in mind not only our national welfare, but the way any potential public servant’s background and experience affects it. Even more to the point, since 1969 and 1970 when President Nixon’s first two nominees to the Supreme Court, Clement Haynsworth and Harold Carswell, were turned down by an overwhelmingly liberal democratic Senate, ideology has been a key factor in the United States Supreme Court confirmations. Since 1991 when President George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to fill the seat of Judge Thurgood Marshall, Supreme Court nominees’ personal behavior (past and present) have had much to do with each nominee’s likely approval.
Thus, in this “Year of Our Lord 2018,” more than at any time in history, election and appointment to high public office has become increasingly downright personal.
We need only to look back two years ago to know such is the case. What Democrats too conveniently forget is that Hillary Clinton’s reputation was as much a factor as Donald Trump’s during the 2016 campaign. Trump, however, had the ultimate advantage of being a change to national leadership when many Americans, especially in key electoral states, were looking for “change” every bit as much as progressives were looking for “change” in 2008 when we voted for Barack Obama. Hillary was an old candidate even though in actuality she is 16 months younger than President Trump. We’ve known Hillary since 1992. Thus, a good portion of those who voted for Mr. Trump were simply tired of Hillary. So, as we sometimes do with our sweethearts, we often look for “a change” even though we may eventually discover that we are the ones who need to change - not our sweethearts.
Therefore, it’s not too surprising that the personal history and character, as much as any political or ideological factor of those we appoint or elect to high public office, matters as much as any public or civic experience or activity.
Last Thursday, Americans saw and evaluated the behavior of two people as they testified before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee. Christine Blasey Ford testified that she was the victim of Brett Kavanaugh’s juvenile drunken status and teenage sexual appetite thirty-six years ago. Dr. Ford made her case in opposition to his nomination utilizing only what she remembers of her experience, and her subsequent feelings about his behavior toward her. Her testimony, though tearful and vague at times, was absent of name calling or of any purely political judgment. As likely as it appears to be that Dr. Ford is a liberal, she didn’t expound as a liberal. Her testimony reflected a state of feeling that is foreign to most males who, after all, remain the most powerful movers and shakers of American society. Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony, on the other hand, was righteously angry and exceedingly precise. All aspects of his victimhood, unlike Dr. Ford’s, are well known to him. No reasonable person should deny him of his right to be angry, but the form of his anger was quite revealing.
Had Judge Kavanaugh simply denied her charge, even as he presented his calendar as evidence of his innocence, he could not have been faulted for vigorously defending himself. Unfortunately, the tone of his testimony was that of a temper tantrum. Not daring to fault Dr. Ford’s presentation, he proceeded to attack the vehicle of that testimony — namely, the “left wing of the Democratic Party,” thus politicizing his victimhood and hers.
Even more telling was his unwillingness when appealed to, to publicly ask the White House to order even a time-limited FBI investigation of Christine Blasey Ford’s agonized charges. His behavior was pretty much the same as that of Clarence Thomas’ 27 years ago when he responded to Anita Hill’s charges by counter-charging her testimony with the assertion that he was the victim of a modern racial lynching.
As for heroes, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was front and center. I don’t know many people, especially women, who would be willing to publicly reveal such an intimate humiliation no matter how healing it may be. Even more admirable is her willingness to bear the inconveniences, threats, and insecurities that have accompanied her soul-destroying teenage humiliation. Senator Jeffrey Flake’s decision to support the Kavanaugh nomination on the floor of the Senate only on the condition that there be an FBI investigation indeed does him credit.
Regrettably, both political parties represented on the Judiciary committee came across as being more interested in appealing to their constituencies than they were in looking out for the future security and safety of the whole public. This tendency is lately being called tribalism which values party loyalty above even truth. I call it the Sovietization of American politics.
Finally, I’m optimistic enough to believe that the forthcoming FBI investigation will sustain Dr. Ford and, as a result, Judge Kavanaugh will not be confirmed by the United States Senate as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
When the Clintons were in the White House, conservatives insisted that individual morality was the mainspring of our democracy. Now that the nation is free of the Clintons, individual morality has been replaced primarily by fear and political payback.
It’s my guess that much of the anger that led to the 2016 defeat of Mrs. Clinton will, very soon, turn its wrath on those who so arrogantly stirred it up and unleashed it. Perhaps President Trump is becoming aware of that possibility since he has decided to order the FBI investigation. As I write this, there have not been any angry tweets or caustic comments emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. In fact, the president’s silence has been almost deafening. His behavior has been downright gentlemanly!
Perhaps the president realizes that there is a severe price to pay if you defame the sensibilities and the feelings of nearly half of humanity.
Therefore, I’m guessing that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s bravery may well have begun to tip the scales, perhaps ever so slightly, on we males’ treatment of our ladies!
Hence, from way, way out on that proverbial limb…!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment