As millions of Americans are, I have been conflicted listening to the testimony of two human beings. I have been disturbed by the cacophony of conflicting and angry insinuations, recriminations and cynicism — “on both sides.” And I have been not at all surprised by the deep, national conflict that has arisen as a result.
Yes, the word “conflict” does lend itself to etymology in this case and, yes, I am referring to the sad predicament, to put it mildly, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh find themselves in.
It is perhaps because of my own internal conflict and, at times, anger, disgust and disappointment that I have held my peace on this issue.
But, for whatever it is worth, here I go.
First, what I believe:
I sincerely believe that Dr. Ford is telling the truth to the best of her recollection. She did so with grace, humility, clarity and meticulousness, void of rancor, hyperbole and the demonizing of others – not even her alleged attacker. Her memories may be vague and incomplete, but the core of what happened to her 36 years ago are as fresh in her mind as if had happened 36 days ago.
Most sexual attack survivors and subject experts attest to the fact that time does not alter, diminish or erase the memories of such trauma.
As Margaret Talbort sees it at The New Yorker:
Decades’ worth of research about the trauma of sexual assault made a difference, too. Ford spoke with disarming directness and vulnerability, occasionally using the language of research psychology, her field of scholarship…“The level of norepinephrine and the epinephrine in the brain a neurotransmitter released when a person is under stress —“encodes memories into the hippocampus. And so the trauma-related experience is locked there, whereas other details kind of drift.” It might have been a little technical for the Judiciary Committee, and most of the time Ford spoke much more colloquially. Still, invoking the workings of memory and trauma in such cases is now commonplace. When Senator Dick Durbin remarked, “A polished liar can create a seamless story, but a trauma survivor cannot be expected to remember every painful detail,” he was providing a social and psychological context that is far more recognizable to Americans today than it was in the past.
I also believe that Dr. Ford is convinced that Brett Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge, were the attackers. Most Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee and even the President admit that Dr. Ford is “credible” about her experience, but say they do not believe the Supreme Court nominee is the attacker.
If I totally believe Dr. Ford, it must follow that I do not believe Judge Kavanaugh.
With a caveat, that is exactly so.
The caveat — the “benefit of the doubt” — is that heavy drinking may have both precipitated the sexual assault and caused Kavanaugh’s memory lapses.
Perhaps this explains why Kavanaugh went to extremes to deflect, play down and even make light of his (beer) drinking binges.
He became extremely belligerent and insulting towards male and female Senators who would dare to press him on this. Witness his response to Senator Amy Klobuchar when she asked Kavanaugh if he had ever had so much to drink that he might not remember all or part of what happened: “I don’t know. Have you?,” he angrily snapped at her.
Kavanaugh displayed similar evasive and possibly perjurious behavior when questioned about his misogynistic high-school year book entries bearing on his attitude toward women – and toward his honesty.
Since Kavanaugh emphasized and embellished his studious “choir boy” high school and college years, many have come forward to describe a totally different young Kavanaugh: a hard-partying, aggressive and abusive heavy drinker.
More recently, a North Carolina State University professor, Charles Ludington has claimed that while he and Kavanaugh were classmates at Yale, Kavanaugh “often got so drunk he became belligerent and, on one occasion, instigated a fight that led to the arrest of a fellow student.”
Part of Ludington’s statement published in the New York Times reads:
Brett was a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker. I know, because, especially in our first two years of college, I often drank with him. On many occasions I heard Brett slur his words and saw him staggering from alcohol consumption, not all of which was beer. When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.
The New York Times has since provided additional information on the September 1985 altercation at a local bar in New Haven, CT., including police reports.
Ludington says that he would take his information to the FBI.
The FBI is presently conducting what will hopefully be a thorough investigation.
The FBI findings may corroborate professor Ford’ accusation, or may vindicate Judge Kavanaugh or may prove inconclusive.
What is conclusive, however, is the Judge’s less than candid, under-oath performance during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearings about his drinking habits and his choir boy claims.
More important and even more conclusive are Kavanaugh’s vengeful, rage-filled, hyper-partisan attacks against Democrats -– including outrageous conspiracy theories — clearly indicative as to what kind of Supreme Court Justice this intemperate man will make if appointed to what should be an impartial, disciplined, lifetime position in the highest court of the land, accountable to the people and not to the President who nominated him or to the Senators (and the party) who confirmed him.
Certainly, a monumental and historic “conflict” in the making.
ADDENDUM:
My good friend expresses similar thoughts (and beliefs) as in my conclusion, in verse form:
Brett Kavanaugh couldn’t even make the selection to a trial jury
Given his clear political biases shouted with fire and fury
So why would you think he would be a proper selection to highest court in the land?
Any defense or prosecuting attorney would immediately challenge this angry man
Who clearly harbors deeply held political biases and lacks a calm judicial temperament
Forget any potential sex, truthfulness and drinking issues, he’s too volatile to give a fair judgment
Like the Senate Committee reiterated time and time again, their hearing wasn’t a legal affair
It was a job interview, plain and simple, and Judge Kavanaugh had plenty of time to prepare
Now did he simply and calmly state his objections to some allegations and offer some proof?
No, he went off the track with a vicious partisan attack: just angry words and a temperament aloof
Now no one blames him for being upset: but he just exploded and exposed his grudges
Now there are mature ways to express this emotion: like you would expect from seasoned judges
Someone who can back away from explosive situations and calm them; not add to the fire
A dispassionate outsider free from prejudice: not someone who reacts by calling others a liar
Now I don’t know anything more than anyone else about the “She said; He said” stalemate
I hope an investigation will clear up some of the questions at an early date
But at the end of the day, whether they’re clarified or not
Judge Kavanaugh has already proven to me: that he is not the judge I thought him to be
For he has shown to me to be an emotionally unstable individual with disqualifying biases political
With a record of such partisan leanings that his elevation to the high court would be error historical
Given his short falls it is clear that he could not even qualify to serve on a jury
Much less join the Supreme Court for life where he could exercise his political biases with fire and fury
