Shenanigans Like This

The confirmation process for Brett Kavanaugh who was nominated by President Trump to serve on the Supreme Court has been difficult to watch.  Most recently Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified publicly, alleging that the nominee sexually assaulted her when both were high school age.  Mr. Kavanaugh vociferously denied the allegations, also in a public testimony.

Senators will soon vote whether to confirm or reject the president's nomination, now that the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to submit the nominee for the full Senate's approval.  The committee, however, is asking for one more step to be inserted before the Senate votes:  investigation by the FBI.  The outcome when the Senate votes is quite uncertain.

I will not venture an opinion about what should happen regarding Kavanaugh's confirmation.  I do have several observations related to the matter.

1.  I relate to Ford's actions in a small way--not as a victim of sexual assault, but in another way.  It has to do with being honest when I'm asked by an employer what I know about a potential employee.
Occasionally, someone who is considering hiring one of my former students will ask for my input on the student's suitability for the job being considered.  Although I couldn't imagine many (or any) other circumstances under which I would reveal any dishonesty or lack of integrity that I've personally observed in a student, I will do so when a potential employer inquires about a specific person--only if it applies, of course.  I remember also adding a "big caveat" in one such case, saying that I have hope that the former student no longer lives like that, but what I know would give me pause about employing that person.

I believe Ford had a very similar experience after Kavanaugh was nominated.  She was privy to negative information regarding the nominee that was not public knowledge.  Under these extraordinary circumstances, she felt compelled to share that information for the sake of those who were considering Kavanaugh as an "employee."

2.  It's fair to consider the possibility that a person who once made serious mistakes has made better choices since then, and may have in the interim become a trustworthy individual.  See "big caveat" sentence above.

I think it's very possible that Ford, who ascribes despicable behavior to Kavanaugh, and the people who speak now of Kavanaugh as a person of great courtesy and integrity may all be truthful. I'm not sure how long a person's old sins should be held against them.  I do know that forgiveness is a Christian principle, but also, when the stakes are especially high, great caution is in order when decisions are being made that affect multitudes.

3.   A person who drinks freely, as Kavanaugh apparently did, is in a poor position to claim honorable behavior while inebriated.

In Japan, people who wish to save face for having behaved badly often pass if off by saying "I was drunk, and don't remember what I did/said."  It's notable that this may not have actually been the case, but it's so commonly understood that being drunk interferes with both memory and good behavior that it "works" as a pseudo-apology for what is too shameful to admit.

Kavanaugh would do well to acknowledge that drinking may have affected both his behavior and his memory.  If he had dealt with this a long time ago and gone as far as possible in making things right, I can't imagine that Ford would have had anything to bring up now.

4.  Kavanaugh was the only child of two lawyers.  He attended an elite private school.  It doesn't stretch my imagination in the slightest to visualize Kavanaugh as an arrogant young man with a strong sense of entitlement.  I don't know that for sure, of course, but his public presentation in his own defense certainly did nothing to discredit what I'm visualizing.  He still comes across like that.

5.  As a matter of personal integrity, it's a bad idea to reflexively defend someone whose life you really don't know, especially political figures whose image-stoking activity is well-known.  I find it incredibly embarrassing when I see otherwise good people (my people!) do this.

Right now it's Christine Ford and Brett Kavanaugh who are in the limelight.  Years ago, under similar circumstances, it was Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill.   I remember learning that Clarence Thomas' wife has a sister living in Hutchinson, and hearing her impressions of her brother-in-law made it hard not to see Thomas as being trustworthy--but the same was true of Anita Hill, who had no in-laws living in Hutchinson.  I feel the same way about Ford and Kavanaugh.  I feel sympathy with each of them.  Nevertheless I will not come out swinging in defense of them--or in condemnation of them either--because I don't know them, and all that . . .

6.  Any obstructionism going on in the Senate now is a repeat of the obstructionism that took place under the Obama administration when Merrick Garland was nominated for the Supreme Court.  Obstructionism, it seems, is an equal-opportunity option for partisan politicians.  Shenanigans like this are one more piece of evidence that steering clear of it all is an eminently defensible position.