It was too good to be true. A battle of wits between two of America’s sharpest legal minds set Democrat against Republican in a public hearing that ended in mutual appreciation. When Democrat senator Diane Feinstein grilled supreme court nominee Amy Coney Barrett about her judicial voting record, her interpretation of the law and her capacity to exercise sound judgment, Barrett’s intelligence was revealed in all its glory. She cited case law, stuck to the script, never deviated from legal precedent and refused to be drawn on personal faith. After she had been tested for four days, Feinstein remarked: “This is one of the best sets of hearings that I’ve participated in.” And then all hell broke loose.
Public reason opposition is as essential to democracy as good government. Without it, democracy descends into chaos. By recognising Barrett’s quality of mind and character, Feinstein demonstrated the kind of noble opposition that fills the spirit of democracy and deprives the lesser angels of rage.
The liberal media made its choice between nobility and rage by treating Feinstein like a class traitor for her civilised conduct towards Barrett. Within hours of the hearings ending, the media drummed up anger about her fair-minded collegiality with Republicans. Twitter filled with odious twits demanding her resignation. Her crime was being kind to colleagues whom the politically correct deem subhuman because they are conservative.
The mainstream media did little to raise the tone of debate. The Independent ran a piece citing several sources critical of the congresswoman. Some called for her to step down from leadership of the Democrats on the judiciary committee. But the article did not include any sources speaking in support of the embattled politician. US political reporter Griffin Connelly wrote that while Feinstein had pressed Barrett on issues, her “insistence on maintaining utmost decorum did not project the strongest Democratic front against Ms Barrett’s confirmation and lent the hearings an air of bipartisan legitimacy”. He noted Feinstein was “outwardly cordial” and “even commended” the committee’s Republican chairman for his leadership of the hearings.
Before the liberation movements of the late 20th century, being courteous and exercising personal restraint signified emotional maturity and differentiated civilised society from primitive culture. When we were young, manners were taught as a non-negotiable rule. There was rarely an explanation for why common courtesy was important but falling short was met with a swift response from parents or teachers.
The decline in good manners is seen as a peripheral issue in politics, and in some circles it is celebrated. Among modern feminists, being the worst possible version of a man is proof of liberation. It is one reason why Barrett seems so alien to women of the modern left.
There are of course many individual exceptions and Feinstein demonstrated what real feminism looks like by acknowledging Barrett’s intellectual capability even as she disagreed with her politics. However, the descent from lady to lout is generally viewed as evidence of a woman’s empowerment.
Veteran liberal media such as CNN aided the anti-Feinstein argument by helpfully sowing doubts about her mental faculties. Or, as Manu Raju put it: “Feinstein, 87, has come under growing scrutiny … given her more genteel style of politics … as the oldest senator in the chamber, she also has faced growing questions in the Capitol about whether she can handle the responsibilities of the job.” Did CNN suggest issues with Feinstein’s age-related performance before she was unfashionably cordial to conservative colleagues?
The mainstream left press was bad enough, but the arguments become more unhinged the deeper the dive into pop culture. Sadly, mummy blogs and teen mags are where many women and girls go for their news. Consider an op-ed on PopSugar, a site that boasts millions of readers worldwide. Kylie Cheung accused Feinstein of “upholding white supremacist patriarchy” because she supported Barrett. She spoke favourably about her family, congratulated chairman Linsday Graham and gave legitimacy to the confirmation process. Cheung believes Barrett would have a “devastating” impact on women’s reproductive choices because in 2006, her signature along with about 1200 others was attached to an ad sponsored by a pro-life group that opposed abortion on demand. However, Cheung provides no evidence relevant to the judicial hearings; namely, whether the nominee’s personal views have had a demonstrable impact on her judicial responsibilities.
Make no mistake, this is not a win for feminism.https://t.co/QW3aWl923m
— Teen Vogue (@TeenVogue) September 26, 2020
Teen Vogue was on the bandwagon with an op-ed piece that framed Barrett as bad for women. Kaylen Ralph claimed a woman earning impeccable legal credentials does not matter if she dissents from what Ralph terms “women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, or voting rights … equal pay laws, paid sick leave, or any of the policies American women … need”. Ralph does not provide for her claim that Barrett does not value rights and cannot hope to sustain the hypothetical claim that she would vote down “any” policy women need.
Contrary to popular opinion, the evidence is that Barrett has executed her judicial responsibilities without prejudice. The hearings demonstrated her fitness for the role of Supreme Court justice. Despite the fact, Feinstein reversed her civilised stance after the PC backlash against her and joined the Democrats’ adolescent rebellion by boycotting Thursday’s Senate judiciary committee vote. Vice-presidential hopeful Kamala Harris went low by describing Barrett’s nomination process as a “sham”. However, the 184-page record of the hearings reveals the conservative is eminently qualified. Harris and her comrades could not lay on a glove on her.
The treatment of Barrett and Feinstein illustrate how far feminism has fallen from its original aim to elevate the brightest of women on merit and without prejudice. The hostility against Barrett for being white, Christian and a mother of seven reveals modern feminism as a caricature of 19th-century sexism where women were judged by skin colour and reproductive ability. Reversing the order of prejudice by categorising white skin and devoted motherhood as crimes against feminism does not bring women closer to equality. It simply creates a new hierarchy that, without challenge, will result in new forms of discrimination. We are better than that.
More Coverage
Join the conversation
Israel left with few choices as Iran raises nuclear threat
With no real stake in the outcome, the Albanese government is urging Israel to halt combat operations so Iran has more time to build nuclear weapons. The war is moving rapidly to a decisive moment.
Read more
Close the Gap and a new dawn awaits Indigenous people
I remain proud that the Albanese government delivered on the PM’s election night commitment to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and our promise to First Nations people to take the voice to a referendum.
Read more