The Post-Truth Counter-Insurgency is Upon Us

President Trump has been assailed as a post-truth president since the presidential election campaign two years ago. We now have soon-to-be New York State Senator (unless somehow a Republican manages to win in deep-blue New York) Julia Salazar who has unashamedly lied about her past, her faith, her very identity. And we have commentators in much of the mainstream media insisting that Professor Ford’s story of the attempted assault must be true because it feels true, because it’s representative of other women’s experiences regarding sexual assault.

The Post-Truth Counter Insurgency is upon us. Or in other words, any tactic is fair game in a cultural war. Whether it's Saul Alinsky or Steve Bannon they're following. Especially when it comes to Judge Kavanaugh's hearings.

We now have more stories emerging. It took awhile but these new stories, if even partially true, would make it impossible for GOP Senators like Collins, Murkowski, Flake, and Corker to vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. But beyond trying to see if these new allegations are credible, we now have Democrats and the Resistance and MeToo working overtime to make sure that these latest allegations don't even have to pass the test of reasonable probability of being true in order to force Kavanaugh to withdraw his nomination or to force enough GOP Senators to vote him down.

Let's start with Deborah Ramirez's story that comes to us in a New Yorker article by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer. How to write about somebody being a .... Dork .... at a party in their frosh year? Look, I went to university in the late 70's and graduated in 1980. I was never part of the crowd that went to parties like the one described by Ramirez, but a scenario like what the article describes could have happened and did happen in those days. It's so granular and detailed that it's either well-written fiction for a smear job, or, something possibly similar to Ramirez's recollections did occur.

But here's the thing. Ramirez seems to have been "in on the joke" at the time, and then when it seemed that Kavanaugh was going to become a Justice of the Supreme Court:

She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh's role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh's role in the incident.

She apparently had had a plastic one waved at her beforehand and when Kavanaugh or someone exposed themselves Ramirez reportedly said something like "That's not a real penis" and then pushed Kavanaugh away. Very detailed for someone who was drunk some 35 years ago. If there was corroborating evidence or witnesses, this would effectively end the nomination process, which it might do anyway. But in fact, people supposedly there claim to have no memory of the incident. Kavanaugh himself has denied the incident ever occurred. Here's the Washington Examiner's Becket Adams:

In summary: Ramirez is "confident" that Kavanaugh exposed himself in college during a drinking game. She wasn't "confident" of this until she "assessed" her memories 30-plus years later and talked it over with a lawyer. Every person named by Ramirez as being present at the party disputes her story. Even her close friend since college claims she never once mentioned the alleged incident. The only corroborating witness is an anonymous source who claims he heard about the supposed misconduct from another source. The New Yorker never even confirmed that Kavanaugh was at the party.

Not only that, the NYTimes ran a story saying that Ramirez herself expressed doubts to the articles authors about who the man was who supposedly exposed himself to her. In other words, we have serious doubts on the part of the supposed victim about who or perhaps even whether the event occurred. And once again, no corroborating witnesses. Here's the NYTimes:

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

There is also another story that Michael Avenatti says a new client of his is willing to testify about. The client is not Deborah Ramirez and the story details supposed gang rapes of drunken women at parties by Georgetown prep school teenagers. Kavanaugh was supposedly part of that gang according to the claims.

If you're doing everything possible to keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court, it won't matter if Avenatti's story turns out to be very exaggerated or completely false, and to have nothing to do with Brett Kavanaugh. It doesn't matter if it's credible or verifiable, (and 35 years later neither is really possible), because you see this as MeToo burning down the patriarchy and its supposed attendant perverse privileges. Just airing the story, whatever its veracity, is enough proof for the pro-choice anti-Trump crowd.

These stories will end up being similar to the Russia Collusion theories in that they both divide America into skeptics and believers, regardless of the evidence. But in a sense, these latest stories are far more divisive than accusations of somehow collaborating with Putin. They go to the heart of the mores and values of America's citizens and how they live their lives. Because these ugly accusations have been raised, they should be examined with a reasonable and critical eye. That, however, is impossible in today's climate. These wounds, whether imagined or real or some mix of the two, whether denied or manipulated, will further divide. Whatever narrative wins out is not the main issue, it's the damage that that narrative will cause to social cohesion and the ability of society to come together around at least a minimum core of key values.

The Civil War has really started now. It is cultural, but it is bloody and divisive and cuts across kitchen tables and family homes, through neighborhoods, towns, cities and states. Not sure how America's going to reconstruct afterwards, because that's still a long ways off. And we're in the middle of a crucial battle that's not nearly finished yet. Never mind the war.

Posted by Keeley at September 25, 2018 12:46 PM
Comment #431914

Their unabashed hatred is making the Democrat Party irrelevant.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 25, 2018 3:25 PM
Comment #431915

If the Democrats don’t think that this will come to bite them in the A$$ in the future they are sadly mistaken. Every judge every cabinet member they nominate if they regain the Presidency will be put under a microscope. They are starting a firestorm they will NOT be able to control. Every little rumor of misdeed will be brought to light. Sorry democrats but you just opened up a can of worms that you will regret for a long time coming.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 25, 2018 3:45 PM
Comment #431929

After what the repubs did to president Obama’s selection for the SCOTUS you guys sound downright pathetic, especially you KAP.

When the current administration is known around the world for it’s capacity to lie without conscience, to insult without shame and to project onto others what they themselves are culpable for you guys, Royal KAP and others here on WB, don’t have a leg to stand on. Every time you comment your integrity takes a hit.

That is why this is the age of post truth. Your inability to remember your own actions just a few short years ago makes you the laughing stock of the world. Only you guys believe the different talking points you try to give wing to.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 25, 2018 8:48 PM
Comment #431930

Hatred! You of all people Royal should be ashamed of yourselves after the hatred you have shown the past 8 years. You conformed to the group, you swallowed the propaganda whole without a seconds thought and didn’t recognize your own hatred yet you expect others to believe you are the one to claim you see hatred in others! Get over yourself. You are once again swallowing conservative propaganda whole without a second thought.

Conservatives lets take a trip back into time. Lets go all the way back to the Obama administration, for you guys who don’t believe time or we existed prior to the Trump administration get over your stupidity then join the real world.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 25, 2018 9:07 PM
Comment #431933

J2, what the republicans did with Garland is child’s play compared to what democrats are doing to Kavanaugh. J2 you have people on your party that are abusers, rapist, groopers but you look the other way so when you say someone is pathetic I hope you are looking in a mirror because it is people like you who are pathetic.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at September 25, 2018 9:27 PM
Comment #431954
Conservatives lets take a trip back into time. Lets go all the way back to the Obama administration, for you guys who don’t believe time or we existed prior to the Trump administration get over your stupidity then join the real world. Posted by: j2t2 at September 25, 2018 9:07 PM

That link doesn’t work.

Confimation bias(cont.) wiki
People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain
attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

Posted by: ohrealy at September 26, 2018 9:18 AM
Comment #431957

“After what the repubs did to president Obama’s selection for the SCOTUS”

The actual truth is that they didn’t hold confirmation hearings or a vote.

What’s the leftists post-truth on what happened?

Posted by: kctim at September 26, 2018 11:40 AM
Comment #431962

Oh please kctim, you damage your integrity with you inane justification of repubs who refused to do their jobs as Senators.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 26, 2018 5:35 PM
Comment #431964

“You are once again swallowing conservative propaganda whole without a second thought.”

Please don’t attempt to speak or think for me j2t2. I understand what it means to be politically, socially, and economically conservative. I choose what I believe based upon my study and life experience.

I have read much about our “Founding” and Founding Fathers. I understand why they constructed our constitution the way they did. I understand their hopes and prayers for our young Republic. I honor them and their values. They were conservatives as am I.


Posted by: Royal Flush at September 26, 2018 6:04 PM
Comment #431965

The Democrat Party has been hijacked and nearly consumed by soul-less men and women. We now have a political party that is consumed by hate, greed and lust for power.

The bounds of morality, logic, common sense, and legitimate lawful action has been breached by these sub-humans. I use this word advisedly. Those wishing for examples please make a request.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 26, 2018 6:11 PM
Comment #432003

MY integrity, J2? LOL

I didn’t post any commentary or BS trying to justify anything. I simply posted the truth of what actually occurred.

Deflection is more damaging to integrity than the truth could ever be.

Posted by: kctim at September 27, 2018 8:17 AM
Post a comment