Editor’s Note: Julian Zelizer is a history and public affairs professor at Princeton University and co-host of the “Politics & Polls” podcast. This January, Norton will publish his new book, co-authored with Kevin Kruse, “Fault Lines: A History of the United States Since 1974.” Follow him on Twitter: @julianzelizer. The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author. View more opinion articles on CNN.
Professor Christine Blasey Ford’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday may be the only thing standing in the way of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. At this point, only the power of her testimony may be able to affect the outcome of Kavanaugh’s nomination for a seat on the highest court.
This is because Republicans have not been serious about investigating this matter. While Ford claims that Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted her at a high school party, Kavanaugh maintains his innocence. And top Republicans seem to be taking his side.
While they will listen to Ford’s testimony, their minds are likely made up. Just this weekend, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told supporters of Kavanaugh not to worry – “We’re going to plow right through it,” he said.
Then Sen. Lindsey Graham, a senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said on Fox News on Sunday that “unless there is something more, no, I’m not going to ruin Judge Kavanaugh’s life over this. … But she should come forward, she should have her say, she will be respectfully treated. … I’m not going to play a game here and tell you this will wipe out his entire life.”
And, after a few days of relative quiet, President Donald Trump has ramped up his attacks on Ford’s character and questioned the credibility of her accusations. “Why didn’t someone call the FBI 36 years ago?” Trump asked, as he defended his Supreme Court nominee.
Evangelical leaders, according to The New York Times, want the Senate to vote soon. Pastor Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Dallas said he didn’t know who was telling the truth, but that Democrats’ only “interest is in delaying and derailing this confirmation.” Online and on air, far right media has provided a massive platform from which to smear Ford’s good name – even going so far as to smear the wrong Professor Ford as “troubled.”
And the conservative legal operative Ed Whalen, also a friend of Kavanaugh, unleashed a bizarre Twitter-storm claiming this was all a case of mistaken identity – a conspiracy theory for which he later apologized.
The proposed process does not suggest serious concern within the GOP, either. There is no FBI investigation being conducted. And, as of now, there will be no additional witnesses called before the committee. In a matter that usually requires more information than just the testimony of the people involved, it appears that Republicans are closing the door to a thorough examination of all the facts and evidence.
Alabama Democrat Doug Jones offered some tough words for McConnell and any Republicans who follow him lock-step. On Saturday, Jones tweeted: “I’m a former US Attorney. If a judge/juror made a public statement that their mind was made up before all testimony is in, the trial would be prejudiced & I’d move for mistrial & have the judge removed. Mr. Leader, is this the message we want to send to victims of sexual assault? The last time I read the Constitution, it said our role was to advise and consent, not to ‘plow right through’ the confirmation process.”
So all that is left will be Ford’s testimony. Can she alone have the kind of impact that might sway Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine on her final vote?
She can. In our televised age, Ford’s testimony can still become a powerful moment to counteract the campaign to discredit her. It is quite different to hear and see people tell their own stories than it is to read about an event through a third person account. This is especially true in an era when partisan media outlets color stories through their own political lens.
In addition to Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Ford’s testimony will be a critical moment in the unfolding history of #MeToo. We will learn if the movement has had a tangible impact on national politics. The way that the senators treat her testimony and the way in which they frame their questions will tell us a great deal about whether Washington has been listening to large swaths of the electorate who want sexual assault treated in a serious manner.
Will the Senate Judiciary Committee repeat the horrific performance in 1991 when Anita Hill – rather than Clarence Thomas – became the focus of questioning, or will they actually use the testimony to determine whether this sexual assault occurred and whether Kavanaugh lied during his testimony?
There have been numerous moments when the performance of a person mattered during congressional hearings. In 1954, the attorney representing the US Army, Joseph Welch, deployed his cool and contained demeanor to help expose the reckless ways of the red-baiting Senator Joseph McCarthy. “Have you no sense of decency, sir?” Welch asked with the cameras covering them.
Watching Ambassador George Kennan tell Sen. William Fulbright’s committee, “I think our military involvement in Vietnam has to be recognized as unfortunate, as something we would not choose deliberately if the choice were ours to make all over again” in 1966 was as powerful as any campus protest in shaking middle class confidence in Lyndon Johnson’s war.
And former White House Counsel John Dean’s revelations to the Watergate Committee in 1973 gave a human face to the people inside the White House machine who had concluded that things were very wrong in the Oval Office.
When Lt. Colonel Oliver North appeared before the Iran Contra committee in the summer of 1987, he helped turn the tide in favor of President Ronald Reagan. Although the congressional investigation had produced damning evidence about how high level officials had subverted the laws prohibiting US support to the Nicaraguan Contras, North won over the public – swept up by “Ollie-mania” – through a patriotic performance, whereby he excited many Americans who concluded he had only been attempting to do what was best for the country.
When Hillary Clinton appeared before the House Benghazi committee in 2015, her 11-hour performance did more than anything to dispel the continued scandal-mongering among Republicans and boost her chances in the Democratic primary.
The odds that anything will shake the ferocious partisan drive of congressional Republicans are very slim. But Ford’s account of this alleged horrific incident should not be dismissed. There are some indications that the jury in a congressional hearing is the public – as they have considerable ability to sway senatorial votes. Even in an era of smartphones, social media and Twitter feeds, the power of actual people to impact the national conversation remains immense.