This week, two impassioned statements captured the tone of the American culture wars rekindled by the #MeToo movement. The first came from Lili Bernard, one of Bill Cosby’s best known accusers, who spoke with reporters after a Pennsylvania jury found Cosby guilty of three counts of aggravated indecent assault. She thanked the jury for a verdict that was “not just a victory for the 62 of us publicly known survivors [but] for womanhood, and it is a victory for all sexual assault survivors. Female and male.” She added: “I feel like my faith in humanity is restored.”
Shortly afterwards, at the conclusion of the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, himself a former lawyer, provided a near perfect counterpoint to Bernard as he fulminated against his Democratic colleagues on the Senate Committee. “What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life,” said Graham, his face visibly colouring, “hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020,” Mocking the idea that Kavanaugh behaved like a sexual predator in High School but then suddenly reformed thereafter, Graham concluded: “This is the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics.” He then told Kavanaugh that he would be voting for him and “you have nothing to apologize for.”
It is worth noting that Bernard’s comment followed a retrial, after a year’s delay, and a verdict that only symbolically addressed dozens of sexual crimes that allegedly took place over decades. By contrast, Graham’s outburst came at the end of a minor delay in a confirmation process that Senate Republicans have tried to rush through in the most disingenuous manner despite intentionally stalling a similar hearing under President Obama for months. As Graham’s anger reached a comical crescendo, it was increasingly hard not to feel that what he really meant to say was: “We have nothing to apologize for.”
Commenting on the Kavanaugh hearings for The Guardian, Rebecca Solnit notes: “We know there is virtually nothing a straight white man can do to discredit himself, especially if he has elevated status. We routinely see plagiarists, domestic violence perpetrators, liars, thieves, gropers and incompetent men put forward as reliable sources and respectable citizens.” Pointedly, she adds: “while Ken Starr took sexual assault very seriously when he led the Whitewater investigation into Bill Clinton … he overlooked sexual assault when, as president of Baylor University, he was responsible for protecting female students. In 2016 the university fired him for a ‘fundamental failure’ to respond to sexual assault allegations.” And yet, somehow Starr has now become a credible character witness for Kavanaugh, telling one news site: “I’ve known him since 1994. I’ve worked alongside him – this is so wildly out of character.”
It is not clear where this tug-of-war between the ancien regime of America’s cultural and political life and the new wave of social justice activists will end. The former, emboldened by Trump, nevertheless seems aware of the fragility of its tenure. The latter, heartened by triumphs over pusillanimous corporations – which now seem willing to sacrifice anyone who jeopardizes a brand or tarnishes an institution –also knows that this moment, with its unique possibilities could vanish if men like Trump continue to impose their will. The clash between these tendencies shows that America’s inward turn after Trump’s election has reinvigorated its democracy. And if the Kavanaugh hearing finally redeems the mistakes and disappointments of the Thomas hearings a generation ago then perhaps, this time, the revolution will be televised after all.
