In your nasty face — a parable from the Ford-Kavanaugh Senate bout

29 September 2018

First, a premise about human imperfectability

John Derbyshire once wrote that:

The proper outlook of conservatives . . . is a pessimistic one . . .

Heady optimism about human nature leads directly to disaster.

Pessimism is bracing, like foul weather.

We pessimists, you see, are not only wiser than the smiley-face crowd; we are better people.

We are better people because we know that most of the improvements that can be made in human affairs must be made by ourselves — by individuals and small voluntary organizations.

Happy talk and wishful thinking are for children, fools and leftists.

It is with this perspective — except for Derbyshire's overly inclusive "leftist" part — that I approach what follows.

A metaphorical lance in their self-entitled balls — may be the only way

I struggled to find institutional merit in the Ford-Kavanaugh Senate Judiciary Committee hearing just past.

But, as the day closed, three elements of positivity had accumulated. These were instances of Derbyshire's "improvements made by ourselves."

A metaphor of rats — and not rats

The more psychologically perceptive and life-experienced among us can now reasonably draw a conclusion about Judge Brett Kavanaugh' judicial temperament.

He is a product of privilege so deep that:

he fails to comprehend entitlement's results on humility and soul

as well as

the partisan (and plutocratic) slant that privilege generates in him regarding societal operation.

This is exactly as his DC Circuit judicial record suggests. A rat of sorts.

We were also afforded opportunity to see Professor Christine Blasey Ford model a humble, less self-entitled opposite. A non-rat.

The Senate hearing became a morality play about our culture's inbuilt injustice and the reasons for it.

Of note, in appearing before an institution as corruptly inept as the US Senate, Professor Ford displayed over-the-top personal courage.

She's a worthy successor to the estimable Professor Anita Hill. Hill ventured the same thing in 1991, under the additional cultural handicaps of race and comparative youth.

So, who's lying?

Professor Ford is telling the truth.

I am not saying that Judge Kavanaugh is lying. It would be typical of youthfully drunken and elitist exploiters not to recall anything out of the ordinary in the situation that Ford described.

The perpetrator clan (and even some of its acculturated victims) would have no piercing reason to remember "stop thats" coming from their prey. The sane person in those mixes (here, presumably Ford) is often alone.

I say all this based on significant experience investigating sexual assaults. Some in exactly those settings.

Realistically speaking, the FBI investigation may not be able to substantiate her allegation. It has been a very long time. Memories fail. People were drunk. Politics intervene.

The Senate setting made this inquiry challenging

I can think of no institution less qualified to investigate sexual assaults than our elitist Senate. Even the House might have had a smattering of less experienced and, therefore, less committed partisans.

As a result, foreseeable partisanship preyed upon Professor Ford's admirable (but unwarranted) trust in institutions:

A reflexive rallying of pillage mentality Republicans defended their poster boy.

And a dose of equally clan-minded Democrats encouraged the pouncing posturing that occurred in Ford's support.

I cannot recall ever seeing such a large gathering of inquisitors that had less interest, and less procedurally endowed competence, in supposedly trying to acquire truth.

More broadly

The Senate's philosophical shallowness — and (now characteristic) lack of honorable purpose — were visible during the hearing.

Those traits say nothing optimistic about the quality of American leadership going forward.

But then — at day's end — a positivity tainted pessimism?

Aside from Professor Ford, the most uplifting event of the day was the combined intervention of Ana Maria Archila and Maria Gallagher with Senator Jeff Flake after the hearing.

In giving him a piece of their minds, they may have nudged his own toward common sense. He afterward supported an FBI investigation of Professor Ford's claims.

It is odd, these days, to see an American politician tacitly admit that his political adversaries have a point.

Flake's humanly hangdog look in the elevator, while listening to Archila and Gallagher says something. Could he be a politician with an occasionally accessible conscience? See that video, here.

Thus, there were two wins for displays of vulnerability during the Senate's otherwise depressing theater:

One for Ford, who (we can infer) did not feel a need to appear to be anything other than the mild person she is. That's exceptional in our "manufactured appearance is everything" times.

The other win was (arguably) Senator Flake. Who may have decided that visibly wobbling under the pressure of a just cause may not be such a disastrous thing.

There was also a small victory for democratic process. That's the one creatively initiated Ana Maria Archila and Maria Gallagher.

I came away from the day with those three sparks of cheer. Perhaps they registered only because American circumstances have been so continually dark.

I am (of course) not hopeful that Judge Kavanaugh's vitriolic partisanship will ultimately keep him off the Supreme Court. That would require too much integrity from a legislative body that stands for anything but.

I am, however, sure that the lone human examples mentioned above will inspire other people to similar resistance.

Strategy and tactics

My rat metaphor hints that an "in your nasty face" strategy may be progressives' best way forward in our oligarchical times.

For motivation, picture the self-entitled Kavanaugh's polar-partisan "Yalie" irritation. See the pertinent video, here.

And recall Senator Lindsey Graham's theatrically intended, on-the-ramparts defense of the Elite White Male Establishment. That clip, here.

Two more telling symbols of the (self-unaware) Pillaging Patriarchy are difficult to conjure.

Don't expect to counter these guys, without power of your own. In confrontations, it necessary to come with enough force to surely kick ass.

Sun Tzu or Chairman Mao it.

Examples of "guerrilla warfare" against the Establishment

Ana Maria Archila and Maria Gallagher enacted some of Mao's guerrilla advice. As he had suggested, hit the enemy where it is weak and/or least expects attack.

Say at an elevator, on video with witnesses, after a tiring day.

Or as Professor Ford did. In the midst of the enemy's strength. With a nationally televised demonstration of — "Y'all ain't squashed us yet."

That tactic, by the way, parallels General Võ Nguyên Giáp's willingness to lose major battles during the Vietnam War. Resulting in increased American casualties. Which eventually shifted US public opinion toward withdrawal.

The Patriarchy, even in the midst of its institutional strength, could not stop Ford's statement from reaching millions of television viewers. Thus, casualties taken in the midst of superior strength.

The moral? — Pessimistic realism sees an opening

The troops necessary to creating a more just society are out there. They're just waiting for soulfully committed leadership.

It's the soul part that has been lacking. Along with a determination to meaningfully stick it to the patriarchical oligarchy.

PeteFree.com

In your nasty face — a parable from the Ford-Kavanaugh Senate bout