Well, hasn’t this been a week! The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of federal Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court — as rigidly stylized and foregone as any ancient Japanese Noh theater — broadcast live, have elicited millions of passionate responses from Americans of all stripes and persuasions.
The judge — probably to his surprise, and clearly to his discomfiture — has been accused of attempted rape by Christine Blasey Ford, a California psychology professor, while he was in prep school. His defense against the charge has broadened into questions about his alcohol abuse while in university. His defense against those suggestions has raised the specter of perjury before Congress.
Not surprisingly, most of the comments in the various media — especially Facebook — have to do with the credibility and deportment of the accuser and accused. And despite the heated debate over what evidence there is, millions of us are certain, apparently, of the facts of the matter. Thousands more have darkly suggested the influences of éminences grises, from the Koch brothers to George Soros.
The committee’s Republican chair has (clumsily, as it happens) pushed for a quick, positive resolution of the hearings; the Democratic minority has been desperately scattering tacks on the tracks, as if they might make a difference.
Only the public shaming, in an elevator, of Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., by an outspoken victims’ advocate and abuse survivor, seems to have led to a timeout, pending an FBI investigation.
Meanwhile, the major presumed beneficiary of Kavanaugh’s appointment, the president, waded into the muddy waters and attempted to limit the investigation to the most venial of the charges against the nominee.
Through it all, the cameras and the microphones in the hearing room have focused mainly on the chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and his cohorts. This, in my opinion, is a prime example of media bias; for in those elderly faces many of us see the specter of the Anita Hill inquisition, in 1991.
Some of those same faces were there even so many years ago. The travesty of that hearing echoes still, and the sting of that injustice still smarts. The media may be trying — perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not — to remind us of that long-ago miscarriage.
There’s been a major shift in the climate, however, since the Hill hearings. Millions of women, empowered by a growing presence in government and business, are now demanding either a seat at the table or, at least, a serious hearing by those at the table. In addition, people like Grassley and me — male, old, entitled and white — are on our way out. Our numbers are shrinking in relation to those of other ethnic backgrounds, and in a few years, if we live, we’ll be well into the minority.
Some of us take this in stride and, for the sake of our society and nation, even welcome it. Many others do not.
When my wife and I were getting started in the late 1950s, she couldn’t open a bank account, checking account or charge account without my co-signature. I’m still chagrined that I didn’t object, but I was still living in the patriarchal universe, where men took care of women, doled out an allowance for household expenses, and made their decisions for them, as well.
There was also a tacit understanding, reinforced by thousands of years of society, religion and tradition, that men were the superior, rational partners in a relationship. It wasn’t until I’d managed to work myself into bankruptcy that my wife’s talents and potential were allowed to blossom. She remained a force of nature until the day she died.
Virginia Slims cigarettes, encouraged in 1968 by a nascent women’s lib movement, made a reference to equality with its popular slogan, “You’ve come a long way, baby.” Its unwitting sexism was shortly exposed by the riposte, “I’m not a baby, and I haven’t come a long way.”
It’s hard to believe that the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee aren’t aware of the swiftly rising tide of women’s activism: pink pussy hats and marches, #MeToo, and the toppling of prominent men by credible sexual harassment charges.
But sexual politics isn’t their game. They’re thinking of at least one important case about to come before the Supreme Court for which they need a conservative vote, and Kavanaugh’s problems are for them an important, but distracting, sideshow, a logjam. By the time you read this, the jam may have been broken — along with many hearts — but the pressure and anger will remain.
Considering that pressure on its Republican members, it’s easy to see their decision to re-enact Pickett’s Charge: Head for that little spot on the ridge; forward, and damn the artillery.
And it’s easy to divine the source of their anger: When you’ve been a respected patriarch and Brahmin for so many years, it’s upsetting to be challenged by those beneath you — especially when, as Gen. Hood once complained despairingly of Chamberlain’s 20th Maine, they just won’t go away! — and the world as you know it is shifting beneath your seat.
Whatever its outcome, this current battle at the gates will subside, we’ll live with its outcome, and we old guys will soon slide slowly off into a well-deserved oblivion.
Willem Lange can be reached at willem.lange@comcast.net.
