I wish more people would heed Kathleen Parker’s remarks in the Washington Post:

While many were horrified by Graham’s anger, I found it as cleansing and refreshing as a dip in the River Jordan. His points, meanwhile, were compelling.

Point 1: Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., sat on Ford’s July letter alleging the sexual assault until the eve of a scheduled committee vote on Kavanaugh. If she hadn’t, there would have been ample time to investigate the claim and conduct interviews, which Grassley did as soon as he knew of the letter in late September.

Point 2: If not for a leak that was likely from the Democratic side, Ford’s anonymity, which she deeply wanted, could have been preserved. But this wouldn’t have served the Democrats’ seeming strategy of delay or their apparent hope for an emotion-packed display.

Kavanaugh’s suffering was epic. By all accounts, he has lived his adult life as a model citizen, an exemplary husband and father, a beloved teacher and coach and an admired judge. Yet, our esteemed senators found it necessary to parse inscriptions in his high school year book. Read yours lately?

Dr. Ford has been treated worse by the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee than she alleges she was by Brett Kavanaugh who has been treated just as shabbily by them. Government by emotional outburst does not lead to good places. Neither does hailing women’s emotional outbursts as signs of sincerity while condemning the emotional outbursts of men as signs of weakness.

There is one underlying fact in the story of Christine Ford’s accusation of Brett Kavanaugh that is undisputed and that is that in the Washington suburbs of 35 years ago there was a culture of entitlement, excess, and irresponsibility. The parents of the young people engaging in excessive teenage drinking and promiscuous sex were absent, disinterested, and complicit and they were the people governing the country. If you can’t keep your own house in order, how in the heck can you be expected to look after the people’s business?

Does anyone seriously think that things are better today? If anything they’re probably worse.

In her Wall Street Journal column Kimberley Strassel lays out what might be thought of as the case for the defense:

The Ford-Kavanaugh hearing consumed most of Thursday, and unsurprisingly we learned nothing from the spectacle. Christine Ford remains unable to marshal any evidence for her claim of a sexual assault. Brett Kavanaugh continues to deny the charge adamantly and categorically, and with persuasive emotion.

Something enormous nonetheless has shifted over the past weeks of political ambushes, ugly threats and gonzo gang-rape claims. In a Monday interview, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski noted: “We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified.” Truer words were never spoken. Republicans are now voting on something very different and monumental—and they need to be clear on the stakes.

To vote against Judge Kavanaugh is to reject his certain, clear and unequivocal denial that this event ever happened. The logical implication of a “no” vote is that a man with a flawless record of public service lied not only to the public but to his wife, his children and his community. Any Republican who votes against Judge Kavanaugh is implying that he committed perjury in front of the Senate, and should resign or be impeached from his current judicial position, if not charged criminally. As Sen. Lindsey Graham said: “If you vote ‘no,’ you are legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.”

The stakes go beyond Judge Kavanaugh. A “no” vote now equals public approval of every underhanded tactic deployed by the left in recent weeks. It’s a green light to send coat hangers and rape threats to Sen. Susan Collins and her staff. It is a sanction to the mob that drove Sen. Ted Cruz and his wife out of a restaurant. It is an endorsement of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who kept the charge secret for weeks until she could use it to ambush the nominee with last-minute, unverified claims. It’s approval of the release of confidential committee material (hello, Spartacus), the overthrow of regular Senate order, and Twitter rule. It’s authorization for a now thoroughly unprofessional press corps to continue crafting stories that rest on anonymous accusers and that twist innuendo into gang rapes. A vote against Brett Kavanaugh is a vote for Michael Avenatti. No senator can hide from this reality. There is no muddy middle.

The stakes go even further, to the core of this country’s principles. To vote against Judge Kavanaugh now is to overthrow due process. Contrary to Democrats’ claims, due process is not constrained to courts of law; it is central to employee discipline, professional standards of conduct, even evictions of tenants. It is owed to any individual in a civilized body politic. Under due process, the accuser has the burden of proof. Ms. Ford has not met the evidentiary standard even of a civil proceeding, the preponderance of evidence—yet this case is more significant than any that has been dealt with in a court of law for ages. How the Senate votes now will reverberate to all levels of society. A “no” vote on Judge Kavanaugh is an authorization to renew calls for a Justice Clarence Thomas to step down. It is an authorization to derail the life of any white-collar manager or blue-collar crew boss who is ever subject to a single uncorroborated allegation.

And this is to say nothing of the federal judiciary. Democrats know that if Judge Kavanaugh goes down, Republicans will have no time to install a replacement before the midterm elections. The ultimate goal is to take over the Senate come November and keep the high court at a 4-4 deadlock until 2020, when they hope to regain the presidency, and then sway the balance of the court for a generation.

There is a corresponding case for the prosecution. The prosecutors would say that confirming Kavanaugh condones rape and perjury and demeans women.

I cannot adjudicate between these positions and I’m glad that I don’t have to. In my writings on this subject I have tried to be fair, objective, clear-eyed, and even-handed. Some will view that as cowardly or mealy-mouthed.

I have one thing to add. In their handling of this matter the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have victimized both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh and they have done if for their own purposes. It could have been avoided. Dr. Ford was clear in her testimony that she did not expect that her letter that kicked all of this off would be made public or that she’d have to testify in public. That is entirely due to the actions of members of the Congress and their staffs and they should be ashamed of themselves.

I’ve now read a number of editorials and more commentary on the hearings. The New York Times and the Washington Post both want an FBI investigation or outright rejection of Kavanaugh. The Wall Street Journal thinks he should be confirmed.

In her opening remarks Sen. Dianne Feinstein turned to the trope that the hearings weren’t a criminal trial but a job interview. IMO that characterization falls short. I’ve conducted scores of job interviews and been interviewed myself multiple times. None of them has ever been conducted in the media or resulted in character assassination but that’s very much what has happened.

I would support the calls for an FBI investigation if Sen. Feinstein would commit in advance that if the investigation failed to corroborate Dr. Ford’s story, she’d vote to confirm Kavanaugh. An investigation that changes no votes is merely a delaying tactic. My advice: pecca fortiter. If you’re going to be rawly partisan, do it boldly.

The FBI isn’t an Article I agency; it’s an Article II agency. Consequently, President Trump could direct the FBI to conduct an investigation; the Congress cannot do so.

I did not listen to the hearings yesterday and I have not read the transcripts. I have read some news coverage and a few remarks from the blogosphere. Based on the little I heard both Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh gave sincere and compelling testimony.

My impression is that Democrats and Republicans heard very different things with very little intersection between the two. Republicans have tended to promote the criminal legal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” as the standard of proof. In response Democrats have promoted the standard of civil trials—preponderance of the evidence.

Unless I am mistaken by either of those standards Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed. The only quasi-rational standard against it would be the precautionary principle and if that’s the standard to be applied it’s unclear how any elected or appointed official could meet it.

The award for comedy writing this morning goes to neo-Ottoman Recep Tayyip Erdogan for his offering at Foreign Policy. One might think that a piece titled “How to Fix the U.N.—and Why We Should” might contain some ideas on how to fix the U. N. and why it should be fixed but, alas, it does not. His complaints about the United Nations are that a) it hasn’t completely stamped out “atrocities” or ended world hunger and poverty:

The main reason for the U.N.’s current troubles is the Security Council’s failure to keep its promise of promoting peace and security around the world. From Bosnia and Rwanda to Syria, Yemen, and Palestine, the U.N.’s top decision-making body has neither prevented atrocities nor brought to justice those responsible for heinous crimes. On the U.N.’s watch, authoritarian regimes around the world have used conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction against innocent civilians. Some regimes have even carried out genocide without facing consequences. The U.N. has also failed the millions of children who suffer from extreme poverty and malnutrition and, as Turkey knows all too well, has been unable to take necessary steps to ease the suffering of refugees.

and b) the U. S. is just too influential, darn it:

At a time when global leadership is desperately needed, it is crucial to improve the United Nations rather than destroy it. If the great powers are unwilling to assume responsibility; if a handful of countries that reap the benefits of the existing international system do not want to commit to reform; and if some of the U.N.’s architects, including the United States, continue to damage multilateralism by taking increasingly unilateralist steps, it will be time to redefine global leadership. We must end the monopoly of a small number of nations and promote the collective leadership of countries that aim to resolve key global challenges. If the great powers prove unwilling or unable to act, the community of nations—under the umbrella of the United Nations or other organizations—must do what is necessary.

My inference is that he is angling for a seat as a permanent veto-wielding member of the Security Council for Turkey.

Most of the “atrocities” to which he points are being perpetrated by United Nations member states against their own people. Evil as that is, the purpose of the U. N. is not to act as a global policeman, punishing infractor states. It is to prevent war between states.

He neglects to mention that in some cases (Rwanda) U. N. “peacekeeper” forces stood idly by while genocide took place. In other cases “peacekeeper” forces actually perpetrated atrocities—the perpetration of child sexual abuse by “peacekeeper” forces and U. N. officials is appallingly high. In Haiti cholera, previously unknown on the island, was apparently inflicted on it by U. N. forces from South Asia. At least that’s what the genetic analysis of the cholera in the subsequent outbreak that killed thousands suggested.

I’ve made a number of suggestions for reforming the U. N. over the years. For example, I think that there should only be one permanent seat on the Security Council for European countries (a critique blunted somewhat by Brexit). I also think that the number of permanent seats on the Security Council should be expanded to include a South American and an African country. I would suggest Brazil and Nigeria as the obvious candidates. That wouldn’t do much to remedy the U. N.’s impotence but it might gain it increased legitimacy.

Another modest proposal of mine is to limit membership in the U. N. to countries that subscribe to the U. N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That would prevent such travesties as the membership on the
United Nations Commission on Human Rights of notorious human rights abusers.

In the end I think that the universality of the U. N. is in conflict with its ability to perform its missions adequately. World government requires more consensus than we have at present.

If the Democrats take control of the House, impeaching Trump will be for the House Democrats what repealing the PPACA was for House Republicans during Obama’s terms of office. If the Democrats also take control of the Senate, I’m not really sure whether Trump will be impeached an removed or not. In many ways for Democrats not taking control of the Senate might be a better outcome for them than taking control of it.

If the Democrats fail to take control of the House, the bile we’ve seen for the year and a half will pale in comparison. Every imaginable excuse will be deployed to explain the failure. Russian interference, fraud, voter suppression, the whole kitchen sink. Everything except that they didn’t have the votes.

You cannot have civic virtue in the absence of personal virtue and you cannot have public virtue in the absence of private virtue. Stop excusing behaviors in your allies that you condemn in your opponents. We either need much, much more virtuous politicians or we need to lower the stakes. I think it will be easier to accomplish the latter than the former.

At the Wall Street Journal Daniel Henninger remarks:

Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to replace Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court is a watershed event that will define America’s politics for years. If the Kavanaugh nomination fails because of the accusations made against him by Christine Blasey Ford and others, America’s system of politics, indeed its everyday social relations, will be conducted in the future on the Kavanaugh Standard. It will deepen the country’s divisions for a generation.

The Kavanaugh Standard will hold that any decision requiring a deliberative consideration of contested positions can and should be decided on just one thing: belief. Belief is sufficient. Nothing else matters.

That’s the reason I alluded to The X-Files in an earlier post, a reference to the poster above Fox Mulder’s desk in the show, emblazoned with the caption “I Want to Believe”. Mr. Henninger has come around to my view of the matter.

The editors of the New York Times declaim:

It’s a horrific unfairness, for example, that for generations, untold numbers of American girls and women have had their lives “derailed” by sexual abuse, to use the term of one of Judge Kavanaugh’s accusers, Christine Blasey Ford, while the boys and men who abused them — maturing, telling themselves they’ve set aside boyish ways, eliding, avoiding, forgetting — chugged along toward successful careers and public acclaim.

It would also be unfair if Judge Kavanaugh is innocent of such abuse, if he is a thoroughly honest and decent man, and yet is ultimately denied a seat on the Supreme Court because of the allegations against him.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is not a court of law, and the public can’t expect its members to reach an irrefutable conclusion about what happened. Yet it is now up to these senators, who have so far been putting political calculation well ahead of the interests of justice, to give a nation in tumult over these charges the demonstration of higher purpose and moral seriousness it so desperately needs. If Judge Kavanaugh’s name is, in the end, to be cleared, the only path is through a thorough and fair investigation of the allegations against him.

That last paragraph exemplifies why I have believed that the testimony of both appointee Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser, Dr. Christine Ford, deserve to be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Anything less would be broadly interpreted as an attempt at silencing Dr. Ford. The testimony is a political necessity.

However, it’s hard for me to rationalize the FBI’s opening a new investigation. The FBI has conducted six investigations of Mr. Kavanaugh to date. Nothing resembling the allegations against Mr. Kavanaugh have appeared in any of them. Private acts could perhaps have remained a secret for 36 years but is it credible that the public acts now being alleged would not have been uncovered by a competent FBI? The coherent positions are either that the FBI is competent to conduct such investigations, in which case the investigation has already taken place, or it is not, in which case an investigation would be irrelevant.

In the past I have referred to “doing the right thing”. At the Wall Street Journal Holman Jenkins says that doing the right thing would mean Sen. Dianne Feinstein “cleaning up her mess”:

You don’t need the FBI. Private investigators are available. Opposition researchers can be hired—just not the Fusion GPS kind, who specialize in producing anonymous, unsubstantiated slurs rather than checking them out.

The Senate Judiciary Committee and the Democratic Party have ample resources. In fact, Democrats can still do something to repair the damage, in partnership with Senate Republicans. If Mrs. Feinstein weren’t so narrowed by her life in politics that she can’t see a bigger picture, she would already have owned up to her failure in this regard and tried to clean up the mess.

After all, she is the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. She could refuse to participate in Thursday’s hearing. She could demand that it be called off. She could point out the obvious: A hearing in the absence of any attempt by the Senate to seek verifiable facts against which to measure the vague memories of accusant Christine Blasey Ford can only be a “he said, she said” travesty, a modern-day gladiatorial contest in which tribal loyalty and the loudest shouting will substitute for truth and justice.

Whatever the truth of Mr. Kavanaugh’s teenage behavior, this is not a creditworthy exercise in advise and consent. Judge Kavanaugh evidently feels obliged to go along rather than have a refusal be interpreted as guilt. He will be subjected to cross-examination by Senate Democrats in which he will be forced to admit that he drank beer in high school and went to parties. This will be more than enough for Sen. Mazie Hirono, who has already determined that Judge Kavanaugh is a liar because he’s a man, and a rapist because as a judge he might uphold democratically enacted restrictions on abortion.

Republicans are stuck playing for the mildest possible political disaster, which means pushing through Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation even while the allegations remain unresolved. But Republicans won’t, for fear of increasing their jeopardy with women, subject Ms. Ford to the cross-examination that would be requisite in any truly fact-finding forum. They likely won’t even challenge her behavior since the allegations surfaced, which has clearly seemed more aimed at conveniencing Democratic strategy in the midterms than at putting her testimony before the senators so they can assess it.

Mrs. Feinstein so far has behaved as we expect politicians to behave on most occasions: as if there is no consideration higher than what she must do to assure her re-election. But she’s 85 years old. She doesn’t need another term in the Senate. She doesn’t need one more ritual of incumbency validation.

Since the glaring absence here is any context of facts in which her fellow senators can weigh the accusation that Sen. Feinstein allowed to be sprung on Judge Kavanaugh at the last minute, she should be the one to request that the nomination be briefly put on hold. She should propose that Democrats and Republicans jointly sponsor an investigator to take a week or two to question anybody and everybody who might have been present at the alleged party or know anything about the history of Judge Kavanaugh and Ms. Ford.

Mrs. Feinstein could even agree, as a gesture of expiation and good faith, to support Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation if the investigation yields no information to support Ms. Ford’s claim.

I cannot conceive of any such course of events. Can you? This is yet another case in which the situations of the two political parties are not symmetrical. The confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh does not hold the same sort of meaning for Republicans that it does for Democrats, hence the way that Democrats are responding. From their perspective it is a situation of life and death.

Opponents of Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court should be careful of what they wish for. Neither of the two standards, beyond reasonable doubt nor the preponderance of the evidence, supports their preferred outcome. Only the precautionary principle does and it’s hard for me to envision any nominee who could pass that standard.

In 1950 popular historians Will and Ariel Durant published The Age of Faith, another volume in their series on the history of civilization. That was their characterization of the European Middle Ages. Have we entered another age of faith? In Europe that spawned religious wars that killed millions.