In an odd victory for moral ambiguity, the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh shows we care very strongly about people’s criminal past – but only sometimes and only when the TV cameras are on. No means no, but sometimes, when no one’s looking, it means ‘meh’.
Explained one Democrat: ‘Say hypothetically, there’s a billionaire TV star who is also a serial philander and documented abuser. Now that’s fine. What goes on in the privacy of your own beauty pageant or Russian hotel room is your own business. As the saying goes, what goes on Stormy Daniels, stays on Stormy Daniels. But, if you try to become President – well, now I’m going to raise some serious moral objections. Um…except if you’re Bill Clinton, that’s different’.
A police officer advised: ‘If you’ve been assaulted please do not report your crime. We’re genuinely not interested. However should your assailant suddenly become famous or runs for high office, please get in touch. Not to the police, but with my theatrical agent’.
Fifteen years on the Appeals Court and as a White House staffer, suggests Mr. Kavanaugh’s alleged history of assault was not a barrier to career advancement. Nobody seems to have noticed cryptic phrases on his CV, such as ‘people person’, ‘touchy feely’ and the ambiguous ‘I definitely cannot be trusted at parties after a few drinks – stranger danger – lock up your daughters’.