{"id":38550,"date":"2018-10-09T18:46:01","date_gmt":"2018-10-09T23:46:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/162.144.72.159\/~jordapq6\/?p=38550"},"modified":"2018-10-09T18:46:01","modified_gmt":"2018-10-09T23:46:01","slug":"notes-on-my-kavanaugh-tweet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.jordanbpeterson.com\/political-correctness\/notes-on-my-kavanaugh-tweet\/","title":{"rendered":"Notes on my Kavanaugh Tweet"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"
\nThis week (October 5, 2018), I responded to a Twitter thread consisting of a conversation between Bret Weinstein, the American biologist and evolutionary theorist who was once (before the controversy<\/a>) a professor at Evergreen College, and his brother Eric Weinstein, Managing Director at Thiel Capital, and the man who coined the term Intellectual Dark Web<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Bret stated his belief that there was no good way out of the present Kavanaugh conundrum: \u201cboth outcomes are completely unacceptable.\u201d I took that to mean that failing to confirm Kavanaugh would\u00a0 (1) dangerously embolden those who (1) believe that we should dispense with the presumption of innocence for those accused of sexual misconduct (\u201cbelieve all survivors<\/a>\u201d) and (2) provide a victory to those inclined to weaponize such accusations for personal or political gain; while confirming him would place someone on the Supreme Court whose every judgment would be employed by the grievance industry for decades into the future as a more evidence for the utter corruption of the white male patriarchy and contribute in that manner to continual civil unrest.<\/p>\n

Eric then stated, in response, \u201cwe need a genius healer we just don\u2019t have.\u201d<\/p>\n

I asked myself a question, after reading these posts: \u201cIs there an alternative to confirming or not confirming Kavanaugh?\u201d When a choice appears starkly binary, a third path appears impossible, by definition — but might possibly still be worth seeking. I tried to place myself in Kavanaugh\u2019s position, while generating a potential answer (and think that I can do so with some justification, having been publicly identified as reprehensible by many people\u2014prominent journalists, activists, and academics among them).<\/p>\n

I thought, \u201cHe can\u2019t withdraw, prior to the nomination, because his reputation has been savaged so badly that withdrawal would not only mean loss of the Supreme Court nomination, but demolition of his entire career and future life.\u201d So the only way for Kavanaugh was forward, through the FBI investigation, on to the nomination hearing, and the hope that he would be\u2026 what? Cleared? Not cleared, because it is too late for that, even given the favorable or at least not damning FBI report. A large percentage of the American public does not believe that he is an appropriate choice for the highest bench position in the land (51%, according to NY Mag: https:\/\/nym.ag\/2RwLUGt<\/a>, citing a CNN poll). I\u2019m not claiming, necessarily, that CNN\u2019s poll is reliable. It doesn\u2019t matter. What matters is that there is very widespread opposition to his candidacy, much of it generated not by people’s belief in his innocence or lack therefore but by their objection to the manner in which both parties handled the nomination process.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not a good thing when there is general discomfort with the manner in which something as important as the naming of a new Chief Justice is undertaken. It doesn\u2019t bode well for the stability and peace of the state (and perhaps–perhaps–there is nothing more important to preserve than that).<\/p>\n

So I thought, \u201cWhat might I do in such a position?\u201d Withdrawing, prior to a full investigation, did not constitute an acceptable option. But it\u2019s not clear that accepting the position, given the scale of opposition to my candidacy (\u201cmy,\u201d in my simulation of his situation). So what if the FBI cleared me, I received the nomination, but then decided that it might be best for medium- to long-term peace and the good of the country if someone who shared my views but who had not been contaminated, rightly or wrongly, by the horrors of the nomination process in question be put forward as a candidate in my stead? Objections to that might include:<\/p>\n