Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What I Wrote
I’ve tried not to engage my nearest and dearest on political subjects lately. It didn’t work out so well when I tried this before (cue image of middle-aged woman banging her head against a brick wall and coming away disoriented and exsanguinating) Still, having been (accidentally?) included in a text-message chain between some friends and family members deploring Kavanaugh, I was provoked into responding. Not in a text-message (c’mon, people: have you ever known me to be brief?) but in a nice, long email (appended below).
Let me know your thoughts…
Published in PoliticsFIRST:
Far too many people do not appear to understand what a law enforcement background check entails. (Judge Kavanaugh has undergone six of these, conducted by the FBI).
For example, just to become a Maine State Trooper (not a circuit court judge or anything so exalted) all sorts of people are interviewed, in writing, by phone and/or in person: parents, siblings, spouses, ex-spouses, lovers, ex-lovers (going back to college or even high school) high school teachers, college professors, coaches, drill instructors, landladies, former classmates, former roommates, bosses, co-workers, neighbors, friends, rivals and enemies… And of course, in the past decade or so, the internet is also searched, by people who know what they’re doing, with what are often embarrassing if not disqualifying results.
Investigators take these background checks extremely seriously. (Side note: How sure are you that your past could hold up under such scrutiny?)
The investigations carried out by the FBI should therefore count as very strong evidence that Kavanaugh is who and what he claims to be. But even without the sixfold imprimatur of the FBI, It would be virtually impossible to make a circle of wagons tight enough to conceal the kind of lurid behavior that Kavanaugh has been accused of. It’s not that it doesn’t exist; rather, when it exists, people know about it. Louche, lascivious or predatory men (alcoholic or otherwise) over time become well-known for being so. Everyone knew about Harvey Weinstein. Everyone knew about Ted Kennedy’s “waitress sandwiches”; everyone knew Bill Clinton didn’t just boast about grabbing women, he actually grabbed them. And raped at least one.
SECOND:
Unless we don’t really #believewomen?
Well? Do we?
Consider the case of Victoria Price and Ruby Bates.
These two young women claimed to have been gang raped on a train.
The accused were young black men.
The alleged crime took place in the American South, in 1931, under Jim Crow.
Once accused, arrested, and jailed, the young men — soon to become famous as the Scottsboro Boys — were threatened with a lynch mob that #believedwomen. The defendants had to be transferred to a different jail for their own protection, and then watched over by the state militia lest the champions of women enact their own merciless and mindless justice.
The trial of the Scottsboro Boys was obviously unfair; the defense inadequate, the women’s testimony inconsistent and contradictory. Nevertheless, you will be happy to hear that the young men were found guilty.
Their case was appealed, retried, appealed, and retried.
The victims testified and endured cross-examination. The defense attorney — can you imagine? — introduced evidence of their promiscuity and poor character. Decades later, Ruby Bates recanted, but Victoria Price never did, insisting as late as 1976 that she had not lied. “I’ve told the truth all the way through, and I’m a gonna go on fighting ‘til my dying day or ’til justice is done.”
Should we #believe her? How about all the other white women who claimed to have been abused or assaulted by black men during the Jim Crow era? Maybe Emmet Till really did make his female victim feel threatened and marginalized by whistling and ogling?
Women don’t lie about these things, after all.
Do we #BelieveWomen or selectively believe the ones whose stories fit and support a larger narrative or serve a higher cause?
It’s not hard to see what the higher cause is in the case of Kavanaugh. Here is a big ol’ hint from the mailing, sent to me by some hero at the Democratic HQ under the hashtag #VOTEPROCHOICE:
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Deborah Ramirez. Julie Swetnick. We believe them. We honor their courage. And we need to support them directly so they can speak their truths until Brett Kavanaugh is defeated, impeached, or indicted.
#VOTEPROCHOICE has been in D.C. all week, engaging in protest and nonviolent civil disobedience as part of a coalition led by the Center for Popular Democracy, Women’s March, and Housing Works.
On Monday, I was arrested (again) outside of Senator Susan Collins’ office; these elected women need to be reminded what’s at stake for all women.
Which is it? #Believewomen or #VoteProChoice?
Doesn’t our credulity depend on “what is at stake? “
What is at stake in the Kavanaugh Hearing? It’s not retroactive sympathy for the experiences of inebriated girls at 1980s-era keggers, or the lingering trauma thereof. The hashtag, the history, and the rhetoric of the Democrats make it perfectly clear that the Democrats solicitude for and interest in Judge Kavanaugh’s accusers has little or nothing to do with abuses or assaults committed against them in particular or against women more generally.
It has everything to do with the fact that Kavanaugh is (correctly) believed to be a constitutional originalist who may opt to overturn what even Ruth Bader Ginsburg disdained as a lousy bit of jurisprudence.
Long before Dr. Ford’s allegations landed on Di-Fi’s desk, let alone were made public, the Democrats had already declared themselves hell-bent on defeating Kavanaugh’s appointment by any means necessary. For reasons best known to its collective self, the Democratic Party has decided that nothing matters more than preserving Roe v. Wade.
Certainly, Dr. Ford doesn’t matter: if Kavanaugh was a progressive, Dr. Ford could have produced actual evidence — a stained blue dress, a corpse in a submerged car, or even a few actual, you know, witnesses — and nonetheless her accusations would never have been allowed to interfere with the career of a Champion of Women’s Rights. Didn’t Democratic Senator Hirono come right out and say it was the fact of Kavanaugh’s being “very much against women’s reproductive choice” that made her believe him capable of attempted rape?
Had Dr. Ford been a conservative who accused a progressive judge, the accusation would have been ignored. (After all, the #BelieveWomen crowd back in Scottsboro weren’t interested in the rapes of black women, were they?) If #ShePersisted, someone would, by now, be calling her a loony or a stalker and maybe an advisor would crack a joke about “dragging a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park” to explain her true motivations.
Recall, here, that in an interview during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, a feminist, author, TIME magazine contributor, and White House correspondent said, “I would be happy to give [President Clinton] a blow job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.” By the time of Nina Burleigh’s interview, numerous women had come forward to accuse Clinton — with evidence and witnesses — of sexual assault and rape, including Juanita Broadrick whose claim was (and remains) far more credible than anything put forth by Ford, Ramirez, or Swetnick. She was not #believed. She was (and is) ignored, dismissed and reviled.
Cui bono? Why is abortion (on demand and without apology) so important to Feinstein, Hirono, Warren, Schumer and, for that matter, Collins? It could be feminist principle, I suppose.
I would suspect, however, that their principles are undergirded just a bit by the enormous sums (about $10 million a year for the past five years) that Planned Parenthood has poured into political races — PP’s contributions dwarf those of the National Rifle Association, who are claimed to have Republican lawmakers’ “balls in a vise,” in the charming phrase of Bill Maher.
And let us briefly recall that, unlike Planned Parenthood, the NRA is purely an advocacy group; it doesn’t actually sell guns.
Planned Parenthood stands to lose millions should Roe be overturned, and millions more should the question of abortion be returned to the states and a citizenry that has consistently been shown to be far more ambivalent on the issue than either Planned Parenthood or the Democratic Party.
Whatever the reason for the Democrats’ selective and cynical “outrage,” the results are dismaying. So no, I don’t #believewomen. I don’t believe Diane Feinstein or Kamala Harris, for example, though I do believe all of the women who testified to the good character of Brett Kavanaugh. I believe his wife and daughters, colleagues, the women he mentored and encouraged without expecting Clintonesque favors, and the many, many women who were questioned by FBI agents charged with the intensive investigation of all things Kavanaugh.
As it happens, I find Kavanaugh himself far more believable (not to mention kind and humane) than his accusers but that is completely immaterial to the Democrats.
I would fervently hope that, should any of our children enter into politics, they never endure (or, God forbid, inflict) a process as hypocritical, destructive, mendacious, mercenary, and just plain mean as this revolting exercise.
This is true, isn’t it? And, paradoxically, they are also the most fair-minded people (as a group) that I know. Just spent a couple of days with 2-300 female state troopers, with lots of conversations about Subjects of Interest. They’re so open-minded tolerant, willing to consider new data. On the way home, I got the group-text. Strange juxtaposition.
By the way, the biggest difference between female troopers and male troopers attending a conference is that the female troopers will get up and dance. I’m trying to imagine a group of male troopers dancing with each other…
Superb!
Wow!
As to this?
Any member of the SJC has no business not knowing this and taking it seriously.
I’m with Sundance: Cold Anger.
Applause, applause!
I am so afraid we’re getting the fate we deserve. We’ve adapted Marxist philosophy of class struggle to race, to sex, to sexual preferences, etc.
And we’ve replaced our American sense of fair play with legalistic parsing. We’re kings of it here. “Don’t talk to me about due process, this isn’t a court of law! It’s a (Senate race, court nomination, cabinet nomination)!”
Amen! These are not simply/only legal concepts, they are concepts of justice, truth, and reason.
Due process in a confirmation hearing etc. is not due process in a court of law. I need not have a presumption of innocence before the background checks are in; I also need not take statutes of limitations into account. But after the background check, at that point, it becomes a different question: if people opposing confirmation present a witness, I have no reason to believe a witness whose story has not been investigated and the partisan evasion of an investigation is itself useful information. If there is reason to suppose that the OP is wrong and Kavanagh’s vetting should be questioned, I’m open to hearing it.
But people lie. People think they can get away with stuff, and without the proper investigation of their story are more likely to do so. I didn’t favor Kavanagh, but not because I thought the FBI had missed something six times. Ford sounded plausible at times, but her story was deliberately presented without vetting, and vetting it now supports the desire to postpone the vote.
A Kagan or a Sotomayor can have a clean background check and I might still oppose confirmation for other reasons having nothing to do with “guilt” or “innocence.”
Yes, but mark the story arc of Robespierre: 18 months from regicide to his final kiss by Madame la Guillotine.
Play punk or speed metal and you’ll have them pogoing or slam dancing all over the floor.
I want everyone I know to read this. I have a son and a grandson. And it’s not their fault they were born white. I wish I could rub dye into them or hide them safe somewhere. It’s so wrong, what’s going on.
Thank you, Granny Dude.
Frankly, I think news reporters ought to know this, and take it seriously.
Presumably they did pass rigorous background checks. They were also amply credentialed. As Senator Graham pointed out, a number of Republicans voted to confirm them, not because they shared the views of these judges, but because they believed that the high bar of qualification for SCOTUS had been reached, and the President’s prerogative must therefore be upheld.
The Democrats were under no obligation to be happy about Kavanaugh, nor must they vote to confirm. One could expect that they would use whatever legal and traditional means exist to persuade the President to choose a nominee more to their liking—primarily by persuading him that the voters would prefer a “moderate.” Or they could pull procedural tricks to buy time ( e.g. Merrick Garland).
I assume the Republicans would’ve done the same had Hillary been the one choosing SCOTUS justices.
What I find most fascinating is that they genuinely believe his guilt becauses it is politically convenient. Judging someone’s sex life is just an excuse for partisan politics but they believe in it when it is politically convenient.
And when it fits into the story we have learned to tell. I’m finding that most (all?) of my friends are only picking up bits and pieces of this saga. Hardly anyone has read even a single, complete NYT article about it, let alone kept up day after day. (The corrections are, of course, missed entirely). So the storyline matters a lot. It’s a little like a Mad Libs game, where the template has been set ahead of time, and the media just offers up variants on the nouns, verbs and adjectives.
This is how (I think?) a single episode in which two very drunk boys at a long-ago party may or may not have done something to a very drunk girl has blossomed into “he ran a gang rape conspiracy” and “he shouldn’t be coaching little girls’ basketball because he’s probably a child molester too.”
A great many people won’t hang in long enough to even grasp, let alone understand, the entire story line. This is a world of instant gratification, of sound bites and Tweets, one in which “our truth” matters a hell of a lot more than “the truth.” And in which people no longer wish to engage with anything that fussles their boogie or makes them uncomfortable, or causes them to re-think their own cherished “truth” (since each of us is the center of not only our own universe, but the be-all and end-all of human history and achievement, our own cherished “truth” is the most important thing evah, donchaknow?).
So there are those who block out, ignore, refuse to address, or simply dismiss, anything that doesn’t comport with their truth of the moment, or which gets in the way of their immediate gratification or validation of their own world view. This happens, let’s face it, on both sides of the aisle, but is endemic on the Left.
My hero du jour is Chuck Grassley, a simply dreadful public speaker, and an old white man to whom no-one on the other side will give the time of day, who has delivered a blistering response to that doddering old socialist, Bernie Sanders. Sanders sent a letter to Grassley asking that the FBI probe be expanded beyond the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh, to include an examination of whether Kavenaugh lied in his testimony to the Judiciary Committee. And so, the slippery slope commences . . . .
Grassley rightly points out that Sanders announced, within 24 hours of Kavanaugh’s nomination, that he would vote against Kavanaugh, and asks if something has changed. The text of his letter (I don’t care which of his aides wrote it; the important thing is that Grassley sent it) is here. A taste of it can be found in the sentence, “Your public statements clearly reveal how unimportant it is to you to review any facts related to this nomination.”
To millions of Americans, though, it won’t matter. But either the Right hangs together on this matter (which seems possible), or the Right will hang separately. I think the chances of the Right hanging together are increased when its elected representatives show some moxie. Good for Grassley.
Speaking of immediate gratification, disregard for the truth, and forgetting everything in fifteen minutes: I heard on the radio this morning someone asking Comey his opinion on the Ford investigation. Comey! I’ve been supportive of giving Ford leeway, but I’m getting to the point where it’s not enough for Kavanaugh to be confirmed and everyone else to simply move on. The perpetrators – and enablers – of this would-be totalitarian farce need to be exposed and pay an appropriate price for what they’re doing. For some it will simply be loss of reputation as a serious human being worthy of influential media or political spots. For others it might include election losses. God willing, let it be.
Here’s Rachel Mitchell’s report. She believes the case is even weaker than a he said/she said. Personally I don’t understand what took so long. I think it might be time to stop treating Ford so gently and start asking whether she was put up to this or if she decided to play the hero all on her own. Because remember: it’s ok to punch (metaphorically or otherwise) a nazi. And Republicans are certainly that, according to lefties, not even legitimate enough to be left in peace to eat dinner in public. By any means necessary, as all lefty, fascistic movements believe even as they vigorously deny it.
The left has gone insane. Or back to the mean, depending on your perspective.
N & D UPDATE: well, so far this is not working out as I’d hoped. One loved one “skimmed” what I wrote, and is mad at me anyway.
Writing a solid, evidence-buttressed essay turns out not to be the way to heal and strengthen already-tender, dinged-up relationships. Who knew?
Thanksgiving dinner will be interesting.
Yup.
I hate when my head breaches the surface from my long journey from the bottom of the void. Then a loved one steps on my fingers and pushes down on my head. ;)
It’s not all their fault, though.
I got this from an online Psychology Today article. I revert to the item in bold a bit (!) too often…for instance, by responding to tweets with a three-page email. I mean, I do tend to be a bit of a firehose, especially when I’m riled up.
“The moral of the story
If you want to enjoy healthy relationships
when you are talking politics with your friends (and with lovers as well) and you are going to engage in a political discussion, remind yourself early and often to stay cool.
Keep your ears open so that you can listen for what makes sense in what others say. Treat what others say respectfully, listening in the best possible light to their differing perspective.
Add your own thoughts without downgrading others’. Again, keep your voice quiet and neutral. Avoid arguing, persuading, or stumping for your perspective. Just calmly put your thoughts out on the table. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
If you want to be especially persuasive, talk less and instead ask questions. The best question begin with How or What, e.g., What is most important to you as you pick whom to vote for as President? What’s your understanding of what each candidate would do about that issue? How did you feel about …..?
Asking people to explain their concerns often leads them to reassess more effectively than barraging them with information from your perspective. In addition, understanding their concerns enables you to focus your comments on the informatin that might make a difference to them.
If when you’ve been talking politics you can end with a conclusion about ways in which you both are right, you have earned a gold star. Wear it proudly, feeling good that your political discussion skills will protect your relationships and that you have been a fine contributor to the democracy which makes our country so very special.”
I want to protect my relationships and be a fine contributor to the democracy which makes our country so very special, don’t I?
MASVSA.
I’m glad to see Rachel Mitchell’s report in a source many will consider “reputable.” It is an amazing description of Prof. Ford’s information, though probably too lengthy for @katebraestrup ‘s (aka GrannyDude’s) relatives.
I had seen the report earlier via a link from Instapundit, but it was at a site about which I knew nothing, so I was a little skeptical. The timeline recited in Rachel Mitchell’s report is also fascinating for documenting how deceptive and uncooperative Sen. Feinstein and her staff have been.
Thanks for amplifying my point. Do Americans really care? They want fairness. It’s in our national DNA. They don’t want parsing. “Well, being fair and demanding evidence is really only for the courts” is not a winning approach for these things, nor is it a winning attitude for elections. “Hey, people! We’re the party of mostly fair play when it suits us!” Tell me about those First Principles again.
More turkeys than usual? Make sure the soup course is Senate Bean!
See Trey Gowdy’s convocation address to Liberty University. Starts at 7:50 on video.
I will!
And I’m thinking, as an exercise, to try to re-imagine my email as a Constructive Conversation.
Sometimes a constructive conversation can’t get started until after the point(s) of contention is (are) laid out.
I can only say thank you. You have boiled down everything that has been making me furious this week and tied it up with a neat bow.
It wasn’t brief but it seemed pretty complete!