HE SAID, SHE SAID, ROCKS THE SENATE

Politicians are experts at avoiding any meaningful confrontation. They spend years learning to put off dealing with the difficult, they learn to obfuscate in order to confuse potential critics. They become experts at shifting blame. Rarely are they forced to confront an unavoidable genuine moral dilemma. But, on Monday if all goes as scheduled, the Senate Judiciary Committee may face the ultimate awful, an unavoidable moral dilemma in which all participants will lose.

Next Monday (Sept. 24th), the Republican nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh may confront Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a prominent Palo Alto University psychology professor, before the Committee. Dr. Ford has publicly accused the Supreme Court nominee of what amounts to attempted rape when he was seventeen and she, fifteen. This alcohol fueled assault, during which she claims to have feared for her life, was interrupted by a youthful Kavanaugh friend, ironically named Kurt Judge, who drunkenly threw himself down on both of them. Judge later published a memoir of his school days appropriately entitled Wasted (Wasted should have an instantaneous sales revival).

So, the Senators must face a “he said, she said” confrontation about an event which occurred thirty six years earlier. Both parties are from prominent, well-off families. Both went to expensive prep schools. Both moved on to highly successful careers. Kavanaugh hardly faces a blushing school girl or under educated parlor maid. His accuser, before the committee and on national television, promises to be truly formidable.

Inevitably this confrontation will be compared to Anita Hill’s 1991 appearance before the same committee to accuse Supreme Court nominee, Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. Judge Thomas was, in that case, ultimately approved and remains on the Court today. Members of the Judiciary Committee recognize that the committee, back in 1991, hardly covered itself with glory. And, in the newly sensitized #MeToo era, they will be under additional pressure to demonstrate greater deference to Christine Blasey Ford than they ever gave to Anita Hill.

We cannot at this point know what will unfold at Monday’s hearing (or, if both the nominee and Dr. Ford will, in fact, appear). We can, though, think about some of the political ramifications of an event like this during an election year. Clearly the Republicans, already on the defensive because of an unpopular President from their party in the White House, have the most to lose. But, Democrats, particularly those in Republican leaning states, have a lot to lose too.

Off year elections, particularly ones held two years after a new President takes office, often become referendums on the new President’s performance (as a woebegone Bill Clinton illustrated after he lost his House Majority in 1994). President Trump has clearly worked to hold his male dominated rally inspired base. He has made no effort to appeal to women. His past romantic history, his treatment of all his wives, indeed his whole persona, are not things designed to attract women. So, an appealing appearance by an aggrieved Christine Blasey Ford, before Republican Senators perceived as being critical of her, can only add to the Republican problem with female voters. The fact that those women will be part of a larger movement of well educated suburban dwellers to the Democrats can only add to Republican woes.

The hearing will create particular challenges for the Senate’s Republican women. If real proof is offered that the sexually charged incident occurred as Christine Ford described it, then there is a reasonable chance that Kavanaugh would be forced to withdraw with no vote taken. Absent such proof, with both of the principals appearing creditable, the Committee would be likely to support the nomination and send it to the whole Senate for a vote. With the whole Senate nearly tied at 51/49, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska (two female moderates in a sea of Republican conservatives), may face a difficult choice. If they vote against Kavanaugh they will earn the wrath of fellow Republicans in the Senate as well as Republican voters across the country. If they vote for Kavanaugh, they anger a universe of watching women and potentially effect not only the outcome of their own elections but the elections of others.

Think about the situation for Democratic Senators if Kavanaugh does not drop out. Let us say that Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh both testify, and the Judiciary Committee approves Kavanaugh anyway and sends the recommendation to the whole Senate for a vote. What then? There are three “moderate” Democratic Senators (Joe Mancin of Kentucky, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota) all from Trump states and all up for election, who will feel enormous pressure to vote for Kavanaugh. Trump supporters in their states will demand that they do. If the Republicans give the nominee all of their fifty one votes, then those three Democratic Senators will be off the hook. They can vote for or against his nomination without being responsible for his appointment. But, if the two Republican women vote no and Kavanaugh’s success depends on votes from the three Democrats then they have to make a possibly career ending choice.

Altogether, the appearance of Christine Blasey Ford makes things more difficult for the nominee and for the all the Senators of both parties. The Senators may have to face gut wrenching choices but those choices are gut wrenching because women now have real political power. In 1991, Anita Hill was treated badly by Senators from both parties. That is unlikely to happen again in 2018. This year’s confrontation may cause some pain for some Senators, and for a Supreme Court nominee, but the fact that a thirty six year old complaint must be taken seriously can be seen as positive. It does show that, for women in this country, real political progress has been made.

H.J. Rishel

9/19/2018