It has been something to witness the character assassination in the lead-up to Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing and Friday’s scheduled committee vote. With scant evidence or testimony other than the accuser’s to go on, critics can only truly focus on one thing: Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s lack of “goodness.”
Somewhere along the way, modern-day society required that individuals in the public eye must be perfect in order to be considered good. This has been apparent as feminism roared its way from the 1st wave of voting rights and equal pay to this current 3rd wave dominated by gender wars and demands for special privileges. As a result, men are the enemy. While their every action is scrutinized, those in the audience, most especially women, are kept from similar examination.
This plan of action tends to apply standards to males that are rarely applied to their complementary counterparts. It’s this very ditch that the Kavanaugh opposition seems to be stuck in at present.
While a fair majority may agree that substantiated allegations would disqualify Kavanaugh from the high court, it’s less likely that they agree on those nonviolations that just constitute something “bad.” For example, the media is now concentrating on particulars of the judge’s high school and college years, like drinking habits and yearbook remarks, in an attempt to prove that young Brett wasn’t as solid of an individual as he’s claimed. But these secondary investigations aren’t so much evidence of wrongdoing as they are attempts to prop up the primary character attack.
How much does it actually matter if the same individual who dominates the current news cycle drank, sometimes in abundance, while in his late teens and early 20s? Does it matter if he was routinely dismissive of others, mainly females? Insomuch as these are directly connected to any evidence or eyewitness accounts of alleged sexual misconduct, they matter. Separately, though, they do not verify any sort of behavior beyond youthful immaturity. That the media cares a great deal about these items says much about their desperation.
Take for instance this observation from Katherine Miller of Buzzfeed News. Usually, such a clarification does not need to be made.
I really don’t mean this as a dunk, and obviously Kavanaugh is defending himself in strongest possible terms, but as an aside on the comment that he has “always” treated women “with dignity and respect” — none of us have done that, because we’re human.
— Katherine Miller (@katherinemiller) September 25, 2018
Because the situation surrounding Kavanaugh deals with absolutes, there is an urge to find a “gotcha” moment in his explanations. As a fellow human, I don’t expect that he’s treated every individual, male or female, with the utmost respect 100 percent of the time. However, his humanity doesn’t make him guilty of the charges against him. His imperfections aren’t really confessions of a predatory nature. Try as it might, the spotlight on these insignificant aspects of his life and personality won’t be able to pinpoint any culpability.
In this #MeToo era, there seems to be a hurry to revise the definition of a “good man.” If toxic masculinity is to blame for sexual abuse and harassment, then all men are either already at fault or one moment away from committing such transgressions. It’s not “if,” it’s “when” they’ll try to dominate a woman in some sort of non-consensual fashion. Right? At least that’s what the movement continues to tell us. This attitude toward men as potential predators walking among us not only expects the worst from them but also silently states that women aren’t as fallible. Such a perspective is damaging.
Since every one of us is an imperfect creature, it only follows that we can still be considered “good” by others while still possessing many flaws. From all accounts, Kavanaugh is a good, decent man who loves his family, treats others well, and serves as an impartial jurist. There is no need to follow up such a description with a reminder that he still makes mistakes of the personal and professional kind. As fellow humans, this is something of which we’re already aware.
It’s only natural that this or any nominee be under the microscope as they’re considered for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. But anyone desiring perfection will be disappointed with the human goodness they see before them. If so, they have only themselves to blame. Can Judge Brett Kavanaugh still be a good man who has made some immature decisions in this past? Certainly. The real question has always been, “Did he engage in the behavior that he’s accused of or not?” With the evidence (or non-evidence) before us, the answer is still, “no.”
In the court of public opinion, there seems to be no room for imperfections of the regular variety. As we’re seeing with the Kavanaugh situation, those stringent guidelines are muddying the waters and attaching criminal blame to the character of a good man who, like the rest of us, has been flawed all along.
Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog and a senior contributor at RedState.com.
