Too often, political motivation pushes elected officials and other players to forsake the truth all in an attempt to help one’s side. This tendency is not specific to a single issue or party.
The nature of the ongoing Kavanaugh debacle is such that the full set of facts will most likely never be known, given the time that has elapsed and the lack of substantive or corroborating evidence. Because of that, we’re mostly left with assuming that one individual is correct and the other is either lying or misremembering a decades-old incident.
During a Wednesday interview with news outlets, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., said of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, “I believe her. I believe what she said. It rings true to me.”
It’s one thing to look at what has been presented in the absence of hard facts, admit that there is no way of knowing, and declare that your prejudices have led you to a final, yet shaky, conclusion. It is another entirely to state, “it rings true to me” as if your bias can be considered anything close to impartiality. In fact, it’s very dangerous and entirely incorrect to place the label of “truth” on what is strictly opinion. We saw a similar defense of the unknown when author Michael Wolff stated, “If it rings true, it is true” in defending his mess of an anti-Trump tell-all book, Fire and Fury.
What does “ringing true” even mean? Is objective truth no longer even a factor in these fiercely partisan times?
While “personal truth” is a highly suspect and flawed idea, it is even more disconcerting to know that there are cases when hard evidence is dismissed or buried in an attempt to spread a narrative. A recent incident involved the New York Times and U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley. An article detailing Haley’s alleged purchase of $50,000 curtains, on the backs of taxpayers, sent detractors into blame mode. But the truth was actually in front of our noses, though hidden well below a headline. She had nothing to do with the decorating decision of the former administration. As Haley said on Thursday, the Times knew all along.
“She said that reporters…’knew the facts but released the story anyway.'”
“Haley said that despite a clarification by the Times, and that the true origin of the curtains was buried several paragraphs down in the story, the ‘damage was done.'”
The distinction between believing someone and declaring truth without any evidence, and possessing evidence and creating your own version of the truth from it, is quite stark. But there are similarities, too. Both scenarios are clearly presented as fact-based missions. In these muddy waters where feelings are often the only guide, this type of behavior is met with growing acceptance. That is to our detriment.
To a larger point, this penchant for blind belief (for or against) when it comes to women is a risky precedent to set. It is possible to be concerned with the actual truth and still respect the females involved in a given situation, no matter the outcome. At the end of the day, women and their rights are equal to men – at least that’s what I’ve been told. This is impossible to achieve if we casually regard evidence-free situations with the label of truth while dismissing fact-filled ones because it best suits our final goal.
Believing women should not involve politicizing things at every turn. Furthermore, the #MeToo movement should never be about blind belief. The correct route focuses on facts, not just something “ringing true,” and that matters most of all.
Depending on your perspective, women may be viewed as entirely helpless or fully independent. Yet neither assumption bestows the sort of respect due to females. If society as a whole is to treat women better, it must work to dismiss automatic reactions to their perceived behavior and focus on concrete truth, instead.
Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog and a senior contributor at RedState.com.
