 |
| Christine Blasey Ford |
I’ll let the FBI investigate the facts of the Kavanaugh-Ford
sexual assault controversy. They are detectives, and I’m not. I’m a public speaking and
debate specialist. So, let us chat for a moment about the tone that Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford took
in their opening statements during Judge
Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Viewed as a persuasive public speaking event, there is a lot more to their tone
than meets the ear.
Ford had accused Kavanaugh of assaulting her
with apparent attempt to rape during an unsupervised party when they were students at prestigious private high schools. Kavanaugh categorically denied
the charge. Each of the two witnesses tried to establish credibility by
projecting a certain persona, a kind of character. But they were
establishing character in different ways to different audiences. Ford appealed to
liberal thought patterns; Kavanaugh appealed to conservative thought patterns. So,
they talked past one another.
 |
| Kavanaugh being sworn in |
Ford tried very hard to stay calm; she expressed a
certain amount of diffidence, laid out the facts as she understood them, and
expressed respect to the committee. Liberal and mainstream commentators
reacted favorably and found her testimony convincing. Conservative commentators
felt that she projected the image of being an obvious liar manipulated by the
Democratic Party. In contrast, Kavanaugh came out swinging. He was loud and
boisterous. He was quite vague about facts. His contradicted himself once in a while. He launched personal attacks against the press and the Senate
Judiciary Committee’s Democrats.
Dr. Ford read
her statement quietly from a prepared typescript, which she said she wrote
herself. Her tone seemed deferential, even self-effacing. She confessed to
being “terrified.” She emphasized that “I have been accused of acting out of
partisan political motives. Those who say that do not know me. I am a fiercely
independent person and I am no one’s pawn.”
She said that, after the alleged attack, “For a
very long time, I was too afraid and ashamed to tell anyone the details. I did
not want to tell my parents that I, at age 15, was in a house without any
parents present, drinking beer with boys. I tried to convince myself that
because Brett did not rape me, I should be able to move on and just pretend
that it had never happened.” She explained that, years later, “I thought it was
my civic duty to relay the information I had about Mr. Kavanaugh’s conduct so
that those considering his potential nomination would know about the assault.”
Later, when asked questions, she continued to
speak clearly but quietly. She noted that the Republican majority had appointed
a “professional prosecutor” to question her but said that she hoped “to be able
to engage directly with each of you.” She welcomed any questions.
Kavanaugh read
his prepared remarks, which he also said he had written himself, in a clear, firm tone. As his statement continued, he
became louder and louder. He complained about the 10-day delay before the
hearing was scheduled. He protested that “Since my nomination in July there's been a frenzy on the left to come up
with something, anything to block my confirmation.” (Despite the histrionic language,
he was clearly right that most Democrats opposed him from the start.) He cited
witnesses who claimed to have no memory of the alleged attack. He denied
attending the party at which the attack supposedly took place.
His protests continued: “Since my nomination in
July there's been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything to
block my confirmation. Shortly after I was nominated the Democratic senate
leader said he would, quote, oppose me with everything he's got.” He said that
“When I did at least okay enough at the hearings that it looked like I might
actually get confirmed, a new tactic was needed.” He reviewed his political and
legal career in detail, including a discussion of his work with President Bush.
“This has destroyed my family and my good name.” He said that the “two-week
effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit.” When Democrats
asked him questions, he often interrupted and changed the subject.
A column
in USA Today notes, correctly,
that Kavanaugh made sweeping statements while Ford was careful to say when she
was sure of her facts and when she was not. Both witnesses have been accused of
having memory gaps, and their opponents have freely called both of them liars. The
FBI is now investigating, and maybe they will give us more certainty as to the facts.
Social media comments about both witnesses have been many and vicious.
In the 1950’s, the great conservative theorist Richard
Weaver noted that liberals tend to argue from premises about specific facts
and circumstances, while conservatives work from definitions and categories. On
a different tack, cognitive scientist George
Lakoff shows that conservatives value strong leadership (he calls it a “strong
father metaphor”), while liberals value compassionate leadership (Lakoff calls
this the “nurturing mother metaphor.”) Exactly so. Ford was calm, reasonable,
and interactive. She expressed concern for the committee members on both sides.
She spoke carefully and quietly, as if to persuade by reason. In other words,
she spoke in a way that liberals find persuasive, and liberals endorsed
her statement. Yet conservatives seemed to think that her calmness and
diffidence reflected weakness, a weakness that would make her easy for
politicians to manipulate; a weakness that would make her an easy target for them to attack.
In contrast, Kavanaugh spoke in sweeping
generalities, made wild, implausible accusations, and spewed out unproven
conspiracy theories. He gave at least as many facts as Ford, but many of those
facts, such as his church-going habits and his weightlifting schedule, had
little to do with the immediate question. Conservatives loved it: he looked
strong. He sounded strong. His anger showed conservatives that he was strong. Conservatives
felt that his anger reflected his justified indignation at the injustices that
Democrats were wreaking upon him. Of course, to liberals, his anger showed that he was
becoming unhinged.
Who was right? I think we’ll know more once
the FBI finishes its work next week. At the same time, temporarily putting aside the
evidence, angry diatribes have never convinced me. During my long career as a
university professor, I occasionally encountered outraged students. Few of them
even made sense as they raged at me. A student turns in a paper. I look on the
Internet and quickly find that the student copied chunks of the writing.
Plagiarism like that is, unlike a long-ago sexual assault accusation, an
open-and-shut case. The student’s guilt is absolute. Here is the paper;
here is the source. They are the same, and what else could be relevant? Yet some
students flew into a rage: “I’m a Christian, and Christians don’t cheat,
so how dare you accuse me?” Or, “I never copied anything; this is nonsense; I’m
going to appeal.” Kavanaugh’s response reminded me of that kind of exchange. He raged about things of which he was not even
accused. Then, again, we university professors are trained to think in terms of
circumstance and cause and effect, and we pride ourselves on being nurturing,
so how would you expect me to react?
The point is, Ford and Kavanaugh both spoke in
styles that their supporters would like, but which would predictably enrage
their opponents.
Kavanaugh photo: US Senate Judiciary Committee website
Ford photo: US Congress, via Wikimedia
No comments:
Post a Comment