Yes, I will continue to write about Kavanaugh, and no I won’t stop until this whole sorry saga is over one way or another.
The Kavanaugh saga continues to intrigue, to mesmerise me, because it is a moment in time when it sorts the men from the boys, the cowards from the courageous.
First, we had Matt Damon, who in an attempt to redeem himself in the eyes of Hollywood threw Brett Kavanaugh under the bus by playing him in a not-funny-at-all Saturday Night Live sketch that I am not linking to.
Damon mocked Kavanaugh for being angry, because you know being accused of attempted rape and gang rape is hilarious. This by the way is from the same man who built his career around Harvey Weinstein and said on TV once that if anyone ever made such an allegation against him he would fight to clear his name for ten years even if it cost 10million dollars. Damon would pursue a ‘scorched-earth policy’ to clear his name yet one year later mocks Kavanaugh for doing the same. I always admired Matt Damon, so seeing one of the few decent guys in Hollywood wither and die before your eyes was a blow.
Then we had Hugo Rifkind, who in a cowardly and disgusting piece of journalism admits that ‘even if Ford’s accusations remain unproven, Kavanaugh’s mere presence in this gross, fratboy milieu ought to be enough to bar him from spending the rest of his life as a wise elder of America’.
So there you have it – Rifkind couldn’t give a damn about whether or not the specific allegations are true. Kavanaugh was a type, a fratboy type and therefore he should be barred from a position that he is eminently qualified for, has worked all his life for, was nominated for by the President and therefore is entitled to take.
I always find it fascinating when men want to dispose of due process. I can understand why the women will do it, why they go around with their ‘I believe her’ T-shirts (if they haven’t been printed yet they will be soon) but the men? It leaves me dumbfounded. The cynic in me believes that perhaps it is a cowardly attempt to ingratiate oneself with the new feminist power base, or perhaps it is some kind of mating strategy, or perhaps pure idiocy or plain old immorality – enjoying kicking a man who is down. Who knows, but it is telling.
Rifkind also says: ‘For him (Kavanaugh), you can tell this seems an astonishing, even violating development. Since when were these the rules? Think of Prince Hal and his cry of “this loose behaviour, I throw off” on becoming a man. “I have been a good judge,” he said, sounding bewildered. “A lifetime of high-profile public service . . .” Doesn’t that count for anything? In a word, no.’
There it is in black and white. The new mob totalitarianism. First, I want to say that this misrepresents what Kavanaugh said about his youth but let’s just go with Rifkind’s new world shall we. Let’s have a glimpse of what this new mob totalitarianism would be like.
In this world, your decades-long good behaviour both professional and personal, your good character would count for nothing if you behaved poorly in youth (Rifkind does not say it must be criminal wrongdoing – poor behaviour is enough.) There is no time limit – you can be destroyed at 40, 50, who knows? And what counts as youth – university, school, who knows? This is what a totalitarian state looks like: any allegation, about any wrongdoing at any time, no matter how old could be made and destroy your life in an instant. Boom.
So you just wait, day in day out putting your head down waiting for the knock on the door, the point of the finger, the tweet about you don’t know what: he did it. That man over there. He did it a long, long time ago and being a good husband, father, lawyer, ‘a lifetime of public service’ counts for nothing in Rifkind’s world. What a terrifying, immoral, despotic place that would be.
I could go on but I won’t. As the days progress the cowards are exposed. As the mob marches on, some men stand up to it and others grab a pitchfork. Matt Damon and Hugo Rifkind are two such men.