One of the complications of the job I have is that the Internet makes it impossible for anyone who works primarily in print to be terribly timely. A newspaper columnist in 2018 can't expect to be on top of the news cycle; to do that you need a megaphone to pick up at a moment's notice, as well as a ready audience.
In the '80s, things probably changed just as quickly as they do now, but our attention spans weren't quite so attenuated. Something that happened on a Tuesday might still seem relevant on a Sunday. But these days--well, you guys might well know more about what happened to Brett Kavanaugh than I do.
When I started writing this column on Friday, I was waiting for a guy to come and switch my Internet service over to a fiber optic network, and wondering if Jeff Flake was really moved by those women who confronted him in the elevator. He says he wasn't, but maybe he was. If you want to be cynical about it--and you probably do--you have to consider that he's probably contemplating a presidential run as a Republican challenger to incumbent Donald Trump.
At the time, I thought by today it was likely Kavanaugh would have made it through the committee and might have been confirmed by the Senate along strictly partisan line. Now, on Sunday afternoon, his confirmation doesn't feel like a sure thing at all.
But we still have to get through Monday. And it is obvious that anything can happen. By the time you read this, Lindsay Graham might be the new attorney general. Rod Rosenstein might have been shoved out. Ronan Farrow might have the goods on BoJack Horseman. Something new and shiny will inevitably be dandled on the horizon for us to chase after. It's crazy time, ladies and gentlemen.
So the only sensible thing to do is to stay away from the white-hot topical and try to take a longer view on things. Like have Supreme Court nominees always drawn such partisan rancor? No, they haven't; with some notable exceptions (Robert Bork, Merrick Garland) the president usually gets the nominee he wants confirmed with a minimal amount of fuss and bother. Even this president didn't have much trouble getting Neil Gorsuch approved.
But then, usually the nominee and those charged with vetting him at least pretend to be above politics. Supreme Court justices aren't supposed to be ideological warriors, they're not supposed to be outcome focused. They're supposed to interpret and apply the law, to serve as a check on the other two branches of government.
Ideally, we wouldn't know how they voted.
That's all Pollyanna-ish drivel these days, but in a better world our Supreme Court would be comprised of open-hearted individuals taking their oaths and responsibilities seriously without looking to achieve certain political goals. Justices shouldn't see a given case as an opportunity to correct societal ills; they should listen to the merits of the legal arguments presented and do their best to apply what they understand as the law. And while the Court can (and should) accommodate a divergent range of opinion--a Ruth Bader Ginsburg and an Antonin Scalia can honestly differ; disagreement isn't necessarily treachery--what we don't want is a partisan with blinding tribal allegiances. My party right or wrong is bad enough in the House and Senate.
In a better world, what we'd be discussing now is whether Judge Kavanaugh could rise above his partisan history. Prior to these hearings, I would have assumed he could. People often grow into the jobs they are given, but his demeanor under pressure has not been reassuring. Even if he believes his current troubles are the revenge of Bill and Hillary Clinton, a prudent candidate would probably not given voice to such a paranoiac idea.
A wiser man would have shook the hand of Fred Guttenberg, father of a slain Parkland student, and maybe pulled him close enough to drape an empathetic arm around his shoulder.
But Kavanaugh didn't do those things. Maybe he didn't do what women have accused him of doing, either. Maybe he's been treated badly, because it's for certain he can't prove he didn't get blackout drunk and fumble roughly (or try to rape) a teenage girl when he was in high school. And he shouldn't have to.
But credible accusations by serious people who have come forward despite certain consequences shouldn't be dismissed, either. Contrary to the people on TV and Facebook who seem to think inquiry is fruitless, we can sometimes find things out. We can ask questions, get answers (or non-answers), look at contemporary notes, scare up a few witnesses, hook people up to polygraph machines, read books and magazines, and generally do other things to collect information.
Our information will be subject to interpretation. Some of us will disagree about what this information means.
But it's better than guessing. It's better than throwing up our hands and going, "Oh, well, who knows what the truth is anyway?"
And sometimes we all wish that the information didn't indicate to us what it does. Sometimes it's hard to be brave and true about what the information says. We don't want to believe that someone we love has been unfaithful to us. We don't want to believe that the coach of our favorite football team isn't a wonderful role model for young people.
We don't want to believe that our hero is a jerk.
So maybe sometimes we don't look too hard at things. We don't want to know how sausage is made, because sausage is delicious. If someone tells us greed is good and that the selfish pursuit of self-interest is the best way to make the world a sweeter place, we might want to believe that, despite what the buzz-killing information whispers in our ear.
First principles are first principles. If Adolf Hitler tells you that mean people suck, he's not wrong because he's Adolf Hitler. The world is full of complication and contradiction, and bad people can do good things and vice-versa, though you probably can't do too many bad things and remain a good person.
It doesn't matter what you feel. Or at least it shouldn't matter more than what you can perceive. There's no good reason for not wanting to know stuff except that the truth scares you.
And being scared of the truth is no way to live.
------------v------------
Philip Martin is a columnist and critic for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at pmartin@arkansasonline.com and read his blog at blooddirtandangels.com.
Editorial on 10/02/2018