I was trying to think of an apologia as bad as the case being presented for Kavanaugh, and this one came to mind. It’s kind of an unfair comparison, though, since they’re amateurs. It also ends up being hilarious, which is kind of redeeming.
Rod Blagojevich‘s is up there as far as completely incompetent–instead of one apologia, he went to a whole bunch of outlets, played the victim, kept promising he would answer the charges, but didn’t do it in any of the interviews during which he insisted on his innocence. It isn’t clear that there was a good strategy for him, though, as the damning tape was easily available, his argument that what he did wasn’t so bad would seem like splitting hairs to most people, and, most important, even before that tape was released and he was accused he had an unbelievably low approval rating.
A lot of people make fun of Jimmy Swaggart’s weepy apologia for having been caught with a prostitute after having driven a stake through Jim Bakker, but it was actually quite effective. At that point, he was trying to persuade a pentecostal audience for whom weeping is a sign of sincerity, and he cited David (a really problematic citation), and many people were willing to accept his repentance. The larger organization was willing to accept his repentance, and, in fact, the resolution faltered over issues of money and authority. He was able to hang on to much of his sources of wealth and power, however, because his apologia made all the right moves, especially the comparison to David (at least until the second incident with a prostitute.)
Richard Nixon, Dan Harmon, Tiger Woods, and Mark Sanford all managed effective apologia, through a one-time deflection, an authentic act of restoration, a persuasive claim of rebirth and redemption, or an insistence on repentance and refusal to talk about it more.
Of course, for me the most obvious would be the defense of slavery, which was surprisingly lame, but those rhetors didn’t have the expert advice available to Kavanaugh et al.
But, really, the obvious comparison is every apologia Trump has made. Kavanaugh’s defense is incompetent in exactly the way that the GOP apologia have been since 2016. It’s a doubling down.
Trump’s response (and the GOP response since they decided to submit to Trump) has been pretty straightforward demagoguery: we don’t need to argue about whether what [anyone who criticizes us–Dem, GOP, Martian] says is true because we can show [anyone who criticizes us–Dem, GOP, wimmins, actual Vietnam Vets] have bad motives for making that argument. And their argument can be dismissed because they can be identified as out-group. And they’re out-group because they aren’t rabidly and irrationally loyal to the in-group. Duh.
What we’re saying is that they’re bad for being loyal to their group, but we’re good for doing that. So, for these people, political action isn’t about policy argumentation; it’s about performing loyalty to the in-group.
Let’s be clear: for many defenders of Kavanaigh, this argument isn’t about what is “true” in the sense of a reality that exists outside of group factionalism. And that’s crucial.
Imagine that someone makes a claim: A is/leads to B.
Kavanaugh is a person with poor judgment.
How do you determine if that claim is true?
One way, the demagogic way, is to ask whether he and/or his defenders are in-group or out-group. If you identify Kavanaugh as in-group, then his critics are out-group, and you condemn them by saying they have bad motives. That’s actually kind of weird: you’re saying that what they’re saying is false because they’re out-group. But that has a wobbly major premise: people with bad motives might still be truthful.
For people who find this way of arguing (you are wrong, because you have bad motives, and I know that because you are out-group) they think they can reason from group identity because, for them in-group/out-group is all that matters. In-group members tell the truth, and out-group membrers don’t. People who reason that way are stupid.
When you’re more concerned about the truth, and you think truth and in-group beliefs aren’t necessarily the same thing, then the important question is whether a way of arguing is a way you would think good if you made it. If you’re willing to be a reasonable person, then the important question is whether you are holding the in-group to the same standards as you hold the out-group. Or, in other words, whether you are following Christ.
And, in my experience, no argument for Kavanaugh can meet that standard.
So, let’s just say, none of these people get to claim they’re following Christ unless they want cats to laugh.
Let’s set aside their rejection of what Christ said (while many of them claim to be Christian [not that I’m angry about that, not at all]), and, they never identify Trump as Christian on the basis of his doing unto others as they would want done unto them. They claim he’s Christian because he’s getting them the political agenda that conservative Christians believe to be Christian.
To be blunt, conservative Christians have never been able to make that argument, since American conservative (especially Baptist) Christianity has, thus far, supported slavery, lynching, segregation, anti-miscegenation laws, prohibiting gays from teaching or adopting, dumb claims about race and evolution, “gay” marriage, and, if my math is right, marital rape. [If people want, I can provide the links, but this isn’t really news to any reasonably informed person.]
But, here’s the important point: Kavanaugh’s defenders can make all sorts of arguments. None of them are very good. But the one argument they cannot make is that they are doing unto others as they would have done unto them.
So, let’s just stop pretending that supporting Kavanaugh has anything to do with supporting Christ.