I usually like Guy Farmerâs columns, but his Oct. 13 column (âWhat we learned from the Kavanaugh fiascoâ) shocked me. It was a full-out, angry, partisan, âgrumpy old man,â âwhatâs wrong with these women,â Lindsey Graham rant thatâs beneath him. As an old man with five daughters, I feel the need to defend the old men.
Farmer began by telling us what âweâ learned from Kavanaughâs hearing, starting with, ââŚwe learned many Democrats believe women always tell the truth about sexual assault and sexual harassment while men always lie.â
What! Thatâs not what I learned. I learned Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was a compelling witness and Kavanaughâs denial was impassioned and often compelling as well. Her testimony rang true to me and I felt Kavanaugh âdoth protest too much.â
Farmer continued, âWe also learned men accused of sexual crime are guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Moreover, men can be convicted without any corroborating evidence or testimony, thereby turning American justice and jurisprudence upside down.â
Nope, thatâs not what I learned, either. Sure, some men can be ruined by false accusations from women, but that pales in comparison to the 81 percent of women who have experienced sexual harassment (including from a lot of powerful old men) and the 20 percent who have been raped, or the millions who kept their mouths shut, knowing what would happen if they did say anything about powerful old men (anyone thinking about Trump mocking Dr. Ford?).
And finally, Farmer continued, âWe learned a mere unsubstantiated allegation can ruin a personâs life and brand them as a sexual predator forever.â
No again. Dr. Fordâs âunsubstantiated allegationâ might have been âsubstantiated,â but the Republicans didnât want that. Yes, Jeff Flake suggested it and Trump said the FBI was going to do it, but it didnât happen with Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford not interviewed and 30 to 40 others who wanted to give testimony ignored at White House direction.
Farmer also brought up Kavanaughâs âalleged lackâ of judicial temperament, asking, âWell, how would you react if someone accused you of being a serial rapist? Was he supposed to sit there like a meek, mild âgirly manâ (thanks, Arnold) while they called him a drunken rapist?â
Ignoring the fact no one called Kavanaugh a âdrunken rapistâ (and I watched every minute of the hearing), hereâs what I would have done: I would have watched my accuserâs testimony (Kavanaugh said he didnât) and then gave me response. Instead, Kavanaugh spent that time writing out an angry response.
And hereâs what I would not have done: As a self-proclaimed impartial judge, I would not say, âThis whole two weeks has been a calculated and orchestrated hit, fueled with apparent pent up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. And millions of dollars in money from outside, left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus!â And, as an impartial judge, I certainly would not have said, âWhat goes around comes around.â Remember, he wrote these words â they didnât just roll off his tongue in anger â without (supposedly) watching her testimony.
But what it ultimately comes down to for me is what I know about Kavanaugh lied about. In his nomination speech, he said, âNo president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.â And, in his swearing-in speech, Kavanaugh said to President Trump, âIâve seen firsthand your deep appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary,â adding the Supreme Court is ânot a partisan or political institution.â Those statements are lies.
Farmer likes to say what âweâ learned. Well, over a long life, hereâs some things I have learned: What people say in anger is what they truly believe; if people will lie about some things, theyâre capable of lying about anything; and what men are like when theyâre drunk is what theyâre truly like. When Kavanaugh writes âwhat goes around comes around,â he means it. And another old man, with no âdeep appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary,â knows he will.