Episode Overview
Podcast: The Political Scene | The New Yorker
Episode: Twenty-Seven Years After Anita Hill, Brett Kavanaugh Faces a #MeToo Moment
Air Date: September 21, 2018
Host: Dorothy Wickenden (Executive Editor, The New Yorker)
Guest: Jane Mayer (Staff Writer, The New Yorker; Co-author of Strange Justice)
This episode explores the striking parallels and key differences between the current controversy surrounding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh—accused by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford of sexual assault—and the landmark 1991 Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings. Host Dorothy Wickenden and Jane Mayer provide analysis of Senate reactions, the role of gender and partisanship, the significance of the #MeToo movement, and potential ramifications for both the confirmation battle and American politics more broadly.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. The Allegation Against Kavanaugh and Political Fallout
- Timeline & Allegation: Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has accused Brett Kavanaugh of drunkenly assaulting her at a party when she was 15 and he was 17. (01:16)
- Senate Response: Most Congressional Republicans continue to support Kavanaugh, typically dismissing Ford's claims as political or partisan in nature.
- Notable Quote:
- “Well, he didn’t do that and he wasn’t at the party. So, you know, there’s clearly somebody’s mixed up.”
— Orrin Hatch, Senate Judiciary Committee (02:00)
- “Well, he didn’t do that and he wasn’t at the party. So, you know, there’s clearly somebody’s mixed up.”
2. Historical Parallels to Anita Hill’s Testimony (1991)
- Echoes of the Past: Jane Mayer notes the “eerie number of echoes” between the Hill/Thomas and Ford/Kavanaugh cases, especially in timing (both emerged after hearings had ended) and the Senate’s initial unpreparedness (04:46–05:53).
- Women’s Advocacy: In 1991, a coalition of female House members demanded a hearing for Hill, catalyzing public outcry and forcing the Committee to act.
- Committee Composition: In 1991, the Judiciary Committee was all-male; no female Republicans are on the Committee in 2018. (06:15–07:17)
3. FBI Investigation—Then and Now
- 1991: The FBI conducted a short investigation into Anita Hill’s case, after public pressure (06:03).
- 2018: Despite calls from Blasey Ford, her attorney, and Democrats, the Trump White House refused to request an FBI probe into Kavanaugh’s past, without which the FBI won't act. (07:17)
4. Political Calculus and the #MeToo Context
- Shifting Landscape: Trump’s political operatives have kept him “quiet” due to the sensitivity of the issue and loss of moderate female support.
- Quote:
- “This is not just a dicey issue for Kavanaugh. It's a very dicey issue for Trump to weigh in on.”
— Jane Mayer (07:53)
- “This is not just a dicey issue for Kavanaugh. It's a very dicey issue for Trump to weigh in on.”
- #MeToo Movement: The conversation contrasts the 2016 election aftermath (when Trump was elected despite many allegations) with the current climate where the #MeToo movement has increased scrutiny and changed the political stakes (08:26).
- Female Senators’ Influence: The confirmation hinges on moderates like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski—not on the Committee, but “their proxy,” Jeff Flake, demands Blasey Ford be heard (09:04–09:57).
5. Standards for Credibility and Political Consequences
- What Could Derail the Nomination?
- The credibility of accuser vs. accused is central.
- Evidence of a “pattern of behavior” would be damaging (10:02).
- A key third party: Mark Judge, present at the alleged event, but so far refusing to testify (10:54).
- Quote:
- “Generally, what matters a lot is if there can be shown to be a pattern of behavior that undercuts the denials.”
— Jane Mayer (10:02)
- “Generally, what matters a lot is if there can be shown to be a pattern of behavior that undercuts the denials.”
6. The Legacy of 1992: Year of the Woman
- Female Political Mobilization: After the Hill hearings, 1992 saw a wave of women run for Congress, including Dianne Feinstein and Patty Murray (11:51–12:47).
- Current Moment: 2018 sees another record number of women candidates; female senators are pivotal in this nomination battle.
7. Dianne Feinstein’s Handling of the Allegation
- Controversy: Feinstein protected Ford’s anonymity as per her wishes, but some Democrats felt blindsided when allegations emerged after the hearings (13:06–14:13).
- Quote:
- “Others have suggested that when those allegations reached her, she sort of just took it and locked it away in her desk and that she should have...investigated it more and maybe shared it with the rest of the Democrats on the committee who were outraged when they learned of it.”
— Jane Mayer (13:15)
- “Others have suggested that when those allegations reached her, she sort of just took it and locked it away in her desk and that she should have...investigated it more and maybe shared it with the rest of the Democrats on the committee who were outraged when they learned of it.”
8. What Happens Next?
- Uncertainty and Volatility: Breakthroughs in evidence could force the FBI or White House to reconsider; “facts will tip the balance.” The timeline is tight; Republicans are pushing for a rapid vote, echoing the rushed Hill-Thomas proceedings (14:13–16:15).
- Quote:
- “We’re at this incredibly volatile moment where pretty much anything could happen. But I think it'll be facts that will tip the balance here.”
— Jane Mayer (14:24)
- “We’re at this incredibly volatile moment where pretty much anything could happen. But I think it'll be facts that will tip the balance here.”
- Historical Omission: In 1991, other women with allegations never got to testify due to Senate haste.
9. Partisan Double Standards and Senate Stagnation
- Persistence of Key Players: Many senators (e.g., Grassley, Hatch) involved in Hill’s 1991 hearing remain influential, raising questions about institutional change and persistent double standards.
- Quote:
- “Isn’t it amazing that there are so many senators, such as Grassley and Hatch, who were responsible for the terrible treatment of Anita Hill, who are still in the Senate doing it all over again?”
— Jane Mayer (16:54)
- “Isn’t it amazing that there are so many senators, such as Grassley and Hatch, who were responsible for the terrible treatment of Anita Hill, who are still in the Senate doing it all over again?”
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
- “There’s kind of an eerie number of echoes of the two, which is kind of incredible because there’s so much time in between them.” — Jane Mayer (04:58)
- “This is not just a dicey issue for Kavanaugh. It's a very dicey issue for Trump to weigh in on.” — Jane Mayer (07:53)
- “Generally, what matters a lot is if there can be shown to be a pattern of behavior that undercuts the denials.” — Jane Mayer (10:02)
- “We’re at this incredibly volatile moment where pretty much anything could happen.” — Jane Mayer (14:24)
- “Isn’t it amazing that there are so many senators, such as Grassley and Hatch, who were responsible for the terrible treatment of Anita Hill, who are still in the Senate doing it all over again?” — Jane Mayer (16:54)
Timestamps for Key Segments
- 01:16 — Overview of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation and Senate reactions
- 04:46 — Jane Mayer on parallels to Anita Hill’s case
- 06:03 — FBI’s limited investigation in 1991; current White House refusal
- 07:53 — Trump’s and Kavanaugh’s political calculus
- 09:04 — Influence of moderate female senators
- 10:02 — Patterns of behavior as critical evidence
- 10:54 — Mark Judge’s refusal to testify
- 11:51 — Aftermath of Hill/Thomas: Year of the Woman
- 13:15 — Controversy over Dianne Feinstein’s actions
- 14:24 — The uncertainty of what happens next
- 16:54 — Persisting Senate double standards and lack of institutional change
Summary
This episode provides a nuanced, historically informed look at how the Kavanaugh confirmation battle mirrors and departs from the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings, illustrating the slow pace of institutional change and the evolving power of women and #MeToo in U.S. politics. Jane Mayer, drawing on decades of experience, asserts the centrality of believability, the role of precedent, and the heightened political stakes for both parties in an era when old and new patterns of power, testimony, and gender meet head-on in the nation’s most consequential confirmation process.