She said. Then he said. Now what will senators say?

The battle over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination has reinforced divisions in the United States over sex, politics, power and law

 

At the beginning of the day, she was asked if she was sure that he was the one who sexually assaulted her 36 years ago. “One hundred percent,” she said. At the end of the day, he was asked if he was certain he had not. “One hundred percent,” he said.

One after the other, Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh sat in the same chair before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, separated by less than an hour but a reality gulf so wide their conflicting accounts of what happened when they were teenagers cannot be reconciled.

With millions of Americans alternately riveted and horrified by the televised drama, Blasey and Kavanaugh left no room for compromise, no possibility of confusion, no chance that they remembered something differently. In effect, they asked senators to choose which one they believed. And in that moment, these two 100 per cent realities came to embody a society divided into broader realities so disparate and so incompatible that it feels as if two countries are living in the borders of one.

It has become something of a cliche to say that the United States has become increasingly tribal in the era of President Donald Trump, with each side in its own corner, believing what it chooses to believe and looking for reinforcement in the media and politics. But the battle over Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination has reinforced those divisions at the intersection of sex, politics, power and the law.

Senators emerged from Thursday’s hearing bitterly split into those tribes, with Democrats persuaded by Blasey’s calm and unflustered account of being shoved onto a bed, pawed, nearly stripped and prevented from screaming for help, while Republicans were moved by Kavanaugh, who bristled with red-faced outrage and grievance at what he called an orchestrated campaign to destroy his life.

US Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh is sworn in before testifying at the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Photograph: TOM WILLIAMS/AFP/Getty Images
US Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh is sworn in before testifying at the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Photograph: TOM WILLIAMS/AFP/Getty Images

By Thursday night, only a few of the 100 who will decide Kavanaugh’s fate remained undecided, searching for answers where none were readily available. “There is doubt,” said Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. “We’ll never move beyond that. And just have a little humility on that front.”

It was surely the most explosive and surreal confirmation hearing since Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill in 1991. A nominee for the Supreme Court was asked if he was “a gang rapist” and a blackout drunk, while defending himself by describing how long he preserved his virginity. His accuser described him “grinding into me,” covering her mouth and fearing that he “was accidentally going to kill me”.

Unlike Hill almost 27 years ago, Blasey (51), a psychology professor in California, was treated gingerly by the committee Republicans, who feared looking as if they were beating up a sexual assault victim and handed over the questioning to an outside counsel, Rachel Mitchell, who never meaningfully challenged her account.

For a dozen days, Blasey had been an abstraction rather than a person, the focal point of one of the most polarised debates in a polarised capital without anyone having seen her, met her or heard her. But Thursday, she became very human, telling a terrible story about Kavanaugh in compelling terms that brought many women to tears and transformed the battle for the Supreme Court.

She came across as Everywoman - an Everywoman with a Ph.D. - at once guileless about politics yet schooled in the science of memory and psychology, “terrified,” as she put it, to be at the centre of the vortex. By the end of her testimony, even Sen. Chuck Grassley, Republican-Iowa, the committee chairman, thanked her “for your bravery coming out”.

At this point, at the White House, on Capitol Hill and in Republican circles around town, there was despair. Even Kavanaugh’s friends acknowledged that she had come across as powerful and credible. Text messages with words like “disaster” rocketed around town as Republicans began thinking ahead to what would happen after the nomination was withdrawn or rejected. Liberals began arguing that Kavanaugh should even step down from the appeals court where he currently serves.

But when Kavanaugh (53) showed up in the same hearing room, it was a different nominee than the mild, overly rehearsed jurist who was interviewed on Fox News earlier in the week. Encouraged by Trump, he ripped up his original opening statement and embraced Thomas’s approach of confrontation and anger, appealing to his tribe by adopting the narrative of the president who nominated him and the base that supports him.

While careful not to directly attack Blasey, Kavanaugh practically shouted at the senators, calling the confirmation process a “circus” and “national disgrace” and blaming the questions about his history on a conspiracy to “destroy my good name” fueled by “pent-up anger about President Trump” and “revenge on behalf of the Clintons”.

Christine Blasey Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Photograph: MELINA MARA/AFP/Getty Images
Christine Blasey Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Photograph: MELINA MARA/AFP/Getty Images

Suddenly, the Republican senators who seemed so defeated just minutes earlier roared back to life with righteous indignation on Kavanaugh’s behalf and dispensed with the outside counsel, taking over the questioning for themselves. Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican-South Carolina, the only Republican who had aggressively defended the judge in the hallway, now led the way in the hearing room with a scathing assault on Democrats sitting a few feet away. “What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life,” he railed at them. Turning to Kavanaugh, he said, “You’ve got nothing to apologise for.” Then addressing the wavering Republican senators whose votes will determine this confirmation, Graham said, “To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you’re legitimising the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.” The messages were directed at two audiences - one was Trump, who had backed Kavanaugh but left open the possibility, however unlikely, that he might pull the nomination if he believed Blasey, and the other was the clutch of three or four senators whose votes seemed genuinely in play.

Trump responded immediately after the hearing with a full-throated endorsement of Kavanaugh and a call to confirm him. The swing votes, however, remained uncertain and huddled together into the night. With a narrow 51-49 majority, Republicans could afford to lose only one of their own if they could not pick up any Democrats.

The Judiciary Committee was scheduled to meet Friday morning to vote, with Flake the deciding vote, and Senate Republican leaders planned to move the nomination to the floor perhaps by the weekend, in anticipation of a final vote by early next week. If Kavanaugh seemed doomed at midday Thursday and revived by the end of the day, anything could still happen before the final vote, especially if additional allegations continue to pile up.

Whether or not he is confirmed, however, the battle will not end there. With Election Day barely five weeks away and some voters already casting early ballots, Kavanaugh’s case will play out in the court of public opinion. Even before the hearing, a Fox News poll showed more people believed Blasey than the judge.

Democrats hope that outrage among women will drive them to the polls to help them take control of Congress on November 6th. Republicans recognise that the confirmation of a nominee accused of sexual assault would be a political liability but hope to energise their conservative base by focusing on what they characterize as a left-wing character assassination campaign.

In the end, the public will weigh in. One tribe will win. The other will lose. But they will not meet in the middle. – New York Times

The Irish Times Logo
Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber.
SUBSCRIBE
GO BACK
Error Image
The account details entered are not currently associated with an Irish Times subscription. Please subscribe to sign in to comment.
Comment Sign In

Forgot password?
The Irish Times Logo
Thank you
You should receive instructions for resetting your password. When you have reset your password, you can Sign In.
The Irish Times Logo
Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.
Screen Name Selection

Hello

Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.

The Irish Times Logo
Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber.
SUBSCRIBE
Forgot Password
Please enter your email address so we can send you a link to reset your password.

Sign In

Your Comments
We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Standards. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or by filling out this form. New comments are only accepted for 3 days from the date of publication.