By: De’sean Markley, Staff Writer
In a past issue of the Paladin, Cameron Lugo highlighted that America is a deeply partisan nation. He elaborates that this polarization makes it difficult to discern fact from fiction, and that Americans generally will align with the respective opinions of their parties. He clarifies that the Kavanaugh hearing was not incited by “virtuous” concerns for Kavanaugh’s suitability to serve on the Supreme Court, but rather to push political agendas. At the surface level, the argument seems to identify as centrist dogma that almost distances itself from both progressives and
conservatives. There is a clever use of duality—in
which I mean the argument jumps between opinions on both sides—which gives it the façade of appearing centrist, when it is simply just another brand of conservatism.
This is not to suggest that the argument is in support of
Kavanaugh or Ford. It does not make that clear, and frankly it is irrelevant. This argument is consistent, however, with other conservatist arguments the focus of the Kavanaugh case is shifted from the totality of Kavanaugh’s actions to how it is a political agenda incited to disrupt his nomination, such as the claim that it was never about discerning his suitability. To be clear, I am stating that the Kavanaugh hearing and Dr. Ford’s accusations did not truly become political and based on political alignment until conservatives prompted it. In short, these are merely distractions or justifications for conservatives to maintain their denial of his suitability and his sexual assault.
There is no physical evidence that proves Kavanaugh’s guilt, and that has remained a prominent contention in arguments for his innocence. Over the course of the investigation— an investigation that was essentially forced onto Kavanaugh after he, and the progressive party, adamantly attempted to prevent it from occurring—two other women emerged and detailed
negative experiences with Kavanaugh during his college years. In addition, there IS physical evidence of Dr. Ford speaking about the issue in 2012 and 2013 long before it became a Supreme Court issue. In addition, Dr. Ford’s polygraph dictates, by its measures, that she was telling the truth. While polygraphs are not scientifically accurate, Kavanaugh has expressed
in his own words that he approves of polygraphs.
Still, the evidence is not in Dr. Ford’s testimony, but rather Kavanaugh’s and the conservative parties’ reluctance to allow a legitimate investigation. It begs the question of his innocence. Afterall, if he was undoubtedly truthful, then why was there so much effort to prevent this matter from being pursued? As I looked at it, conservatives essentially heavily restricted
or blocked chances of investigation and insulted and demeaned the accusers. Of course, there is also Kavanaugh’s behaviors during the trial that are revealing, as he devoted most of his time to blaming the progressive party for conspiring against him and attacking his character through a series of shrieks,
yells, and cries (literally).
It is difficult for me to believe Kavanaugh’s innocence
on the premise of his behavior. The argument that should be made is not about partisanship or polarization, because these arguments distract and shield the truths of the case. What we need to elaborate on are the testimonies of the women that have stepped forward, Kavanaugh’s own testimonies, and the behaviors of all involved. Once we do that, I believe that we can come together on a conclusion, and, in my opinion, determine Kavanaugh’s guilt.