In the ominously titled "The Kavanaugh Standard: A defeat based on these accusations will divide the country for a generation," Daniel Henninger, the Wall Street Journal's deputy editorial page director, levels an astonishingly garbled argument. Its thrust:
"If the Kavanaugh nomination fails because of the accusations made against him by Christine Blasey Ford and others, America’s system of politics, indeed its everyday social relations, will be conducted in the future on the Kavanaugh Standard…. The Kavanaugh Standard will hold that any decision requiring a deliberative consideration of contested positions can and should be decided on just one thing: belief. Belief is sufficient. Nothing else matters."
Henninger leads with this indignation, which forges what we might call The Henninger Standard: A good argument made against adversarial political forces may and probably should include a staggering indifference to facts on the ground, which may then result in an upside-down argument — but what the hell, one's biased readers aren't likely to ask questions. Such as … In the Kavanaugh case, which side has persistently called for an FBI investigation into accusations made by Ford and others? The answer is Ford, others, and Senate Democrats. Which side has repeatedly refused an investigation, thereby insisting that Kavanaugh's nomination should be decided on belief alone? Senate Republicans.
Continues Henninger:
"In fact, the Kavanaugh Standard would have less intellectual content than liberalism’s previous judicial gold standard—agreement with the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade."
How does one become a WSJ deputy editorial page director? It helps if one can write a sentence such as the one above without acknowledging that conservatism's judicial gold standard is disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.
Next by Henninger:
"For a political cynic, like Chuck Schumer or Dianne Feinstein, all these considerations [such as intellectual content] are pointless and irrelevant. Just win, baby…. If Democrats regain control of Congress and the presidency, this is how they will govern—with belief alone sufficient as justification for imposing policy."
When President Reagan was presented with weighty evidence (by OMB Director David Stockman) that supply-side economics would create immense deficits, his reply was, Well, let's wait and see. In brief, belief. Not intellectual content. For nearly 40 years now, belief in the virtues of supply-side economics has ruled Republicans fiscal policies. That is how they have governed — with belief alone. (Although I doubt they really believe in supply-side economics.)
On a related note, Henninger writes that
"it is clear that the political and academic left are contesting centuries-old standards of evidence. Liberal jurisprudence and its arguments with conservatives … is being displaced by a Democratic left … that prefers rough justice. Rough justice is what the political left and the media left, notably the New Yorker and New York Times, is meting out to Brett Kavanaugh."
By "rough justice," Henninger essentially means a denial of fairness, which, he implies, conservatives would never abide. They simply did not tolerate, for example, Donald Trump's relentless campaign of birtherism. Nor did they gather in 2009 and decide to obstruct everything the new Democratic president was about to propose. Right?
In the larger scheme of things, whatever the WSJ's Daniel Henninger believes is unimportant. But the WSJ's deputy editorial page director helps to set argumentation standards for the right. It would be further helpful, then, if Mr. Henninger were to structure his arguments on that which he claims the left has abandoned: intellectual content, evidence, deliberative considerations, sound policies and fairness.