So rings the many voices on the many media platforms of our age. Consider this one:

Christine Blasey Ford, I believe you. I believed you before I knew who you were, before you revealed your name. I believed you before the details of sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh were revealed.

Goldie Taylor recounts her own trial with coming out after sexual assault, and how the circumstances of her situation led her to wait many years before coming out against the man who had assaulted her.  It is precisely her personal experience which leads her to believe that Christine Ford must be telling the truth.

Now I don’t doubt that it is possible that Mr. Kavanaugh may have done what Professor Ford alleges; the idea that a drunk 17-year old might forcibly try to have sex with a girl at a house where liquor is flowing to all and no adults are at home is not to me too terribly unlikely, even though the alleged behavior is a serious wrong.  The fact that Mr. Kavanaugh has a choir-boy reputation publicly does not change the fact that he is a fallen male with a broken sexuality (at some level just like the rest of us).  Mix in liquor and youth (according to Professor Ford’s account, while all were drinking a beer, he had come to the party drunk), and nothing good would happen in that situation, choir-boy or not.  So no one, outside of the three individuals allegedly directly involved, should question whether this could have happened.  Yet, the counter must also be considered.  Women can, and do, make false allegations, for a whole host of reasons.  The idea that “they would never lie about this,” is no more believable than the choir-boy would never have done this, after all, he’s been really nice to women since.  In a fallen world, men and women will harm each other for many self-serving reasons. So to believe Christine Ford, or Mr. Kavanaugh, when you don’t actually know what happened in that room (or even if they were in a room), seems to me to be motivated by preconceived biases.  And unfortunately, many of these biases which are based on how you hope his nomination goes.

Ms. Taylor’s political bias seems to come out later in the article,

“Unfortunately, I also believe congressional Republicans will not abandon the Kavanaugh nomination— this, despite multiple allegations of perjury, his lack of financial transparency and his failure to disclose the lion’s share of his records. They will dig in.”

Now despite what may be bias on Ms. Taylor’s part, that does not mean that Professor Ford’s allegations aren’t true.  But we have three people alleged to have been in this room, and only these three people could know what happened.  The two men have categorically denied it happened, contrasting Professor Ford’s claims that it did.  It gets even harder because of the alcohol.  It’s possible that all three now believe what they are saying.  Prof Ford relates that they were stumbling against the walls upon leaving.  Is it possible that they were so drunk they don’t remember the violence she alleges?  Is it possible that her memory of the circumstances doesn’t match reality when she was drinking also?

One of the things we’re told about sexual predators is that they usually don’t stop.  Where there is one incident, if not corrected, there will be more.  This is where Mr. Kavanaugh’s choir-boy reputation does have bearing.  At this point–and we’ll get to this soon, we are very far along the process–there is no pattern of behavior that would lend creedance to her allegations.  Aside from this one claim, we have no indication that he is anything but an upstanding person and a man you would want mentoring your daughters.  I do not doubt the veracity of the many women who have already come to his defense, seemingly without bias. For Christians, we should take seriously any accusation of violence, especially against those more vulnerable.  But we also must not be naive to think that there could be other things going on. Ultimately we need the wisdom of Solomon in these “he said, she said” cases.  And Solomonic wisdom is in short supply these days.  I certainly don’t have it.  So like most, I will reserve judgment as to the veracity of the charge.

Yet, I’m doubtful I will be presented with any other facts that could turn this away from a “he said, she said” situation.  If the Democrats had more, surely they would have played this card much earlier.  And this gets us to what I feel much more certain about.  What is now happening is a travesty, and certainly a clear exploitation of Professor Ford’s story for political gain.  What the Democrats have done, by delaying release of information that may be relevant to Mr. Kavanaugh’s reputation, has precisely to put us in this position where both sides are going to be bloodied and look bad.  At this point, whether Mr Kavanaugh did or did not sexually assault Professor Ford, unless we can know for sure (which is highly doubtful), we will ultimately have further hostility and anger in our public discourse.  There is going to be a large (and avoidable) social cost because of the way Ms. Feinstein and the Democrats have played this.  If Mr. Kavanaugh is confirmed (which I believe likely) one part of the population will forever say that the Republicans condone sexual assault, whereas if he is denied the position, a large part of the population will equally say that Democrats will stoop to any level for political gain.

So what should have been done?  There was a time when Professor Ford’s allegation could have been made and removed Judge Kavanaugh from consideration for at least this particular nomination.  There were many other qualified names on Mr. Trump’s list.  Further, if Ms. Feinstein had done what she ultimately did (release the anonymous allegation), then it would have allowed further public consideration which would have in no way jeopardized the President’s desire to have someone in place by the time of the new court session.  But if the goal all along is not seeking justice for someone sexually assaulted, then this is sheer exploitation of Professor Ford for political purposes.  And this is even if her allegations are true–they may not be.

Which leads me to a prediction and further analysis.  I suspect we will see an ugly week, complete with political theater (since Prof Ford is now willing to testify), and if no further witnesses or strong corroborating evidence comes forth, Mr. Kavanaugh will be confirmed on schedule.  Indeed, this is an imperative.  If what would eventually be determined to be an unprovable allegation is sufficient to derail any Supreme Court nominee, the Republicans have lost the ability to name conservative justices.  There will be no end to the scurrilous* charges that will come forth. So when Justice Kavanaugh is seated, what have the Democrats really gained by their handling of this serious allegation?  First, they will use this in the never-ending “Republicans hate women” campaign.  There will be no limit to those that will see Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation as proof of what Democrats have always claimed.  So chalk one large political point up to the Democrats.  Second, they now have cover for the red state Democrats to say no to Mr. Kavanaugh with some measure of protection. They will likely say something to the effect of

“I think the president has a right to nominate qualified candidates, and Mr. Kavanaugh may have been a good man.  But there is no way in good conscience that I could vote for a potential rapist on the Supreme Court.  If the Republican Senate were not so partisan and allowed a reasonable investigation into these serious allegations, I might have been able to vote for Mr. Kavanaugh.

Chalk up a second political point for the Democrats.

But are there long term harms to the Democrats?  I think so.  First, given the progressive reliance on the judicial process, their historical success has been on “turning” (or growing as they might say) a justice once confirmed.  Republicans have a sad history of appointing major disappointments to the court, as in Justice Kennedy.  Yet this treatment will likely harden Mr. Kavanaugh, if anything.  I doubt he will “grow” in office.  Second, let’s think about how political partisanship has worked out in the past, with information released for maximum political points.  There is little doubt that Democrats had the tape of Mr. Trump’s infamous “locker room talk” far earlier than they released.  Further, I strongly suspect that He would not have been able to recover from that tape if it had been released during the primary campaign.  To a large degree, Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for a Trump presidency.  Since they thought he was the easiest to beat, they kept their powder dry.  But if they were concerned about women, they could have destroyed him during the primary.  So the lesson learned?  While the Democrats scored their points today, it may be at a cost they have not imagined:  a justice now completely hostile to their agenda.

However you slice it, this is an ugly, ugly result.  One that could have, and should have, been avoided.

* This in no way means the current charges are scurrilous.  Simply that if unprovable charges are sufficient for derailing a conservative nominee, you have just created the incentive for all sorts of lies to be brought forth in the future.