Senator Collins, white women, and intersectional fascism

October 5, 2018

A few moments ago, Sen. Susan Collins declared and defended her vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, all but guaranteeing his confirmation. Her excruciatingly long speech, loaded with gaslighting and propaganda, will be a permanent scar on her reputation. More than the “yes” vote itself, her speech will be remembered for legitimizing not only the confirmation of a sexual predator, but Republicans’ long-planned hijacking of the Supreme Court.

It’s important to note and remember how Susan Collins betrayed America today. But it’s also important to understand why, as a “moderate” white woman, her betrayal is only a symptom of a larger disease.

Race and the #MeToo movement

Annie Branigin at The Root recently highlighted a large discrepancy in reporting on Kavanaugh and his alleged sexual assault of Christine Ford (and others): While sites like CNN noted that “nearly half of voters” believed Christine Ford over Brett Kavanaugh, not all groups split equally on the issue. In reality, white women were far more likely to believe Kavanaugh than other women.

From The Root:

According to the Quinnipiac poll, nearly half (47 percent) of white women considered Kavanaugh to be honest. The numbers for black and Latinx voters? Just 7 percent and 34 percent, respectively. A plurality of white women did believe Blasey Ford (46 percent)—but it was nowhere near the majority, as was the case with black and Latinx voters.

Parsing out this data matters, because if journalists don’t, they can misleadingly run with narratives like the one in a recent article from the AP, which boldly declared in the headline: “Many women line up in support for Kavanaugh.”

White women are just more likely to support Brett Kavanaugh than other women. Note that this bias isn’t explained by the race of the accuser; Christine Ford, like Kavanaugh, is white. If women were biased toward believing accusers of the same race, you’d expect the opposite result (more white women believing Ford, and/or fewer women of color believing her).

So what’s going on here? Why is there such a racial discrepancy among women on whether they believe Kavanaugh or Ford? It appears tied to a larger racial discrepancy: White evangelicals are far more likely to support President Trump than any other group, even non-white evangelicals. About 80 percent of white evangelical voters cast their vote for Trump in 2016. Earlier this year, a Washington Post survey showed that fully 50 percent of white evangelicals agree that “immigrants hurt the economy,” compared to 25 percent of Latino evangelicals and only 22 percent of black evangelicals.

Trump’s strong support among white evangelicals includes evangelical white women:

White evangelical women without a college degree give Trump a 68 percent job approval rating, while those with a degree give him a much lower, though still positive 51 percent approval rating. Meanwhile, Trump’s approval among white, non-evangelical women without a college degree is 35 percent, just five points higher than the 30 percent approval rating he gets from white, non-evangelical college-educated women.

Author Carly Gelsinger notes that evangelical white women are trained to be subservient, even to think of themselves as property of God and their husbands. It’s among these white women in particular, those wanting to embrace a domestic role as “traditional housewives”, that you find those willing to embrace the white supremacist alt-right. The absence of white women at white supremacist rallies doesn’t mean white women aren’t white supremacists; it just means they believe their role is in the home. From NPR:

“It’s not the role of women to protect the borders, the nation, or the family. So we do not expect this of women, nor do we find it strange that they are less represented in something that we view as an innately male occupation: guarding territory,” said Tara McCarthy, a female alt-right blogger.

White supremacy movements have used the language of protection since the height of the KKK in the 1920s. The KKK rallied to defend white supremacy from the forces it perceived as threatening—namely immigrants and recently enfranchised African Americans.

It’s also worth noting that 1915’s Birth of a Nation, a film so abhorrently racist it triggered the rebirth of the then-dead Ku Klux Klan, prominently featured white women as plot devices; black men were threats to the purity of white women. In the film, the political message of “Equal Rights, Equal Politics, Equal Marriage” comes from the villains, and triggers one black man to try raping a poor innocent white woman. To save herself, she shouts “death before dishonor” before literally throwing herself over the edge of a cliff.

White supremacy and female purity have long been this intertwined. White supremacist men are the heroes and protectors of white women, not from other white men, but from other races who would corrupt the bloodline. Gelsinger notes that evangelical “purity culture taught young girls to bear responsibility for men’s lust.” However, among white women, I believe this statement should be modified slightly.

White purity culture teaches white girls to bear responsibility for the lust of white men. This is the key to understanding how conservative white women can embrace a President who repeatedly describes brown immigrants as rapists while simultaneously supporting Brett Kavanaugh through multiple sexual assault complaints. Brett Kavanaugh is a successful white man, and white purity culture says that if a white man makes sexual advances towards a woman, the woman was responsible.

Even Senator Lisa Murkowski, the lone Republican with the bravery and integrity to vote against cloture, described Brett Kavanaugh as a “good man”. I do not fault her for this, actions speak louder than words and her opposition to Brett Kavanaugh should not be diminished. I’m merely pointing out the political reality that, for a white woman to vote against Kavanaugh and hope to have a political future, she must still call an emotional, dishonest, privileged white man a “good man” while doing so.

Senator Collins gave the counterpoint today, demonstrating the ways a white woman can embrace and enable a white supremacist fascist movement that doesn’t respect white women.

Sen. Collins’ legacy-torching speech

It would’ve been one thing if she just took to the Senate floor and announced she was voting “yes” to confirm Kavanaugh, but Sen. Collins went much farther than anyone ever expected. About 45 minutes farther, to be precise. The full text of her speech is now available, and it wasn’t short. (Note: In some places the transcription seems inaccurate; in those places I’ve bracketed what I believe is the correct word.)

Rather than a line-by-line analysis, I think it’s worth discussing her speech by topic, especially to highlight the sheer hypocrisy and gaslighting on display. First, the policy problems with Collins’ speech:

  • Collins begins decrying that the Supreme Court nomination process has hit “rock bottom” with Kavanaugh, becoming “a caricature of a gutter-level political campaign than a solemn occasion.” This quickly seems ironic, as it didn’t take long to realize she was giving a deeply partisan political speech.
  • Early on, Collins asks the threshold question: What is the advice-and-consent duty of the Senate? Her answer invokes Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist papers, arguing that “the president has [broad] discretion to consider a nominee’s philosophy” and her “duty as a Senator is to focus on the nominee’s qualifications as long as that nominee’s philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought.” Back in April 2016, Collins met with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland and said afterward that he deserved a Judiciary Committee hearing. Failing to mention Garland here is a serious lie of omission, ignoring how her own party deliberately broke the Senate confirmation process.
  • Ordinarily, I would describe Collins ignoring the (lack of) Garland hearings as simply pretending the Garland thing never happened. Collins hinted at a limit to the Senate’s advice-and-consent role, which she described as applying to a nominee “as long as that nominee’s philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought.” When I first heard this, I thought it was to allow her to claim (if later asked) that Garland was outside “the mainstream of judicial thought.” However, Collins later invoked Garland to argue that Kavanaugh is a “centrist”, explaining that Garland and Kavanaugh voted the same way 93% of the time on D.C. Circuit cases they heard together. Doesn’t using Garland as the benchmark for the judicial mainstream means that, by Collins’ own standard, the Senate had an obligation to confirm Garland?
  • Collins declared that she cannot abandon “fundamental legal principles” of due process and a presumption of innocence in Senate confirmation hearings. But due process and a presumption of innocence both imply a nominee is entitled to confirmation, absent meeting a burden of proof to the contrary. Doesn’t that mean Collins believes Garland is entitled to a Supreme Court seat?
  • Earlier this morning, the American Bar Association announced that it was reopening its review of Brett Kavanaugh due to the lack of judicial temperament displayed at his confirmation hearings. (Everyone agrees Kavanaugh displayed poor temperament, even Kavanaugh.) Yet hours later, Collins declared on the Senate floor that “the ABA concluded that his integrity, judicial temperament and professional confidence met the highest standards.” Did Collins not know about the ABA’s announcement? Or did she just not care?
  • Collins finishes her speech with yet another condemnation of Supreme Court nominations becoming political: “It is particularly worrisome that the Supreme Court, the institution that most Americans see as the principle guardian of our shared Constitutional heritage is viewed as part of the problem through a political lens.” It’s impossible to address that problem without addressing her colleagues’ politically motivated refusal to hold hearings on Garland, which Collins just fails to do.

These all sound like technical legal arguments, and perhaps it’s not immediately obvious why Merrick Garland matters. But Collins is feeding the Republicans’ gaslighting narrative here, and that’s notable in itself. Republicans blatantly stole a Supreme Court seat, and the only reason to even bother is if you’re planning to change the makeup of the Court. Appointing a “centrist” who is 93% aligned with Garland makes no sense, they may as well have confirmed Garland in that case. Collins is distorting the political situation here, which means she’s probably comfortable distorting Kavanaugh’s political leanings as well. If Kavanaugh turns hard right and votes to overturn Roe v. Wade, I expect Collins to shrug and respond, He promised he wouldn’t!, even though he promised no such thing.

Make no mistake, Collins is legitimizing the political corruption of the Supreme Court here. That’s condemnable in itself.

Collins nearly finishes her defense of Kavanaugh on law and policy before making a blunt pivot to the sexual assault accusations. She mentioned Kavanaugh’s record and prior testimony (the “good man” argument) as she turned to the sexual assault controversy:

Despite all this, Kavanaugh’s record, and listening to 32 hours of his testimony, the Senate’s advice and consent role was thrown into a tailspin following the allegations of sexual assault by Professor Christine Blasey Ford.

From here it only gets worse:

  • Collins raises the allegation that “Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape” just to condemn it as “outlandish,” claiming that it was “put forth without any credible supporting evidence.” Julie Swetnick made those allegations in a sworn affidavit. She was not interviewed by the FBI or included in its new investigation, and she wasn’t interviewed by the Judiciary Committee. If you don’t look for something, you shouldn’t be surprised when you don’t find it.
  • Collins declared that she found Collins’ testimony “sincere, painful and compelling.” However, Ford testified that she was “100 percent” certain that Kavanaugh attempted to sexually assault her. Either Collins believes Ford that Kavanaugh assaulted her, or she doesn’t find Ford’s testimony sincere and compelling. It can’t be both.
  • As mentioned, Collins dismissed Julie Swetnick’s allegations as “outlandish” despite the fact that they were in a sworn statement (i.e., under penalty of felony). To undercut Ford’s testimony, Collins mentions “penalty of felony” three times, for the three people interviewed by the FBI who either said they weren’t at the party or that they don’t remember it. Whether Collins finds a statement made under penalty credible seems to depend on who’s making it.
  • Collins claimed that she “pushed for and supported the FBI’s supplemental background investigation” as “the right thing to do.” But she doesn’t address the limits on the FBI’s investigation at all, which is relevant since the FBI apparently ignored a number of witnesses, including people trying to contact the FBI.
  • She did comment that the Senate had an obligation to investigate “serious allegations of sexual assault.” Since she denounced Swetnick’s claims as “outlandish”, I guess she’s embracing the GOP’s circular logic: Allegations of sexual assault are not “serious” enough to investigate, unless they come with enough proof that you don’t need an investigation.
  • Collins declares that “the MeToo movement is real” and that it “matters” and that listening to sexual assault survivors is important. It’s hard to square that with her dismissal of Swetnick’s claims as “outlandish” without any attempt to investigate, or her declaration that Ford’s testimony didn’t change anything even though Collins found it honest and credible. Collins is effectively telling women across the United States that it’s important to speak up, but it won’t change anything.
  • Collins ends her observations on Kavanaugh’s character by declaring he “has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband and father.” This is the “good man” defense at work. Collins is effectively telling women that you won’t be found credible if you come out against a “good man,” even if that man throws emotional temper tanrums under oath and blatantly lies his way through.

It’s disappointing to see Susan Collins embrace toxic white male culture this way, but it’s impprtant to remember two things. First, while Susan Collins isn’t the only conservative white woman behaving this way (Joni Ernst and Cindy Hyde-Smith are helping to confirm Kavanaugh too), people are more disappointed in Collins because they didn’t believe she would endorse and legitimize such a blatant charade. Second, as Senator Murkowski demonstrated, not all Republican white women are willing to just rubber stamp someone like Kavanaugh. She needs to be remembered for her bravery as much as Collins does for selling out.

Righteous anger

Reaction to Collins’ speech was swift. Before her speech even ended, people were picking up on the terrible message she was sending, a few even noting the white supremacist implications:

In the end, brave women came forward, and it didn’t matter. Not for this vote. It’s important that women remember what happened here. Conservative white women, that basket of female deplorables, may still vote for Trump or for the GOP Senators who are about to confirm Kavanaugh. But there are plenty of women (including white women) who aren’t Trump supporters, and they are all very angry right now.