The fight over Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation as Supreme Court Judge was a peculiarly United States affair. But it raised wider questions pertinent to any society, including our own. Although these are too broad to explore adequately in a short article they deserve reflection.
The charge brought against Kavanaugh invites reflection on what past actions and allegations should disqualify a person from holding public office and particularly judicial offices. And in a society where increasingly traces of our past actions will be indelibly recorded, what scope should there be for remission and wiping the slate clean of past offences?
Kavanaugh's case involved a plausible but unproven allegation of sexual assault as a teenager. Had the allegation been brought to trial and Kavanaugh convicted, it would seem reasonable that he should be disqualified from high judicial office despite any reform of life in following years. The importance of good reputation in the office might override any personal growth. But to disqualify him on the basis of an unproven allegation would surely set a dangerous precedent for subsequent nominations.
The broader question of whether a good society should make people, whether rich or poor, future street sweepers or future judges, carry forever the taint of their youthful misdemeanours is more taxing. Social media allows our critics to retrieve more easily past actions of which we may have repented and is generally unrelenting in destroying our good name after uncovering them. Gentler values of compassion, tolerance and forgiveness, the lubricants of a good society, can easily leak away. What kind of a society will this harshness of judgment encourage?
The second question that bears reflection concerns the kind of campaign launched against Kavanaugh to prevent his confirmation and its implications for a good society. In it the Democratic Party was supported by popular movements with an ethical commitment to respect women by preventing sexual violence against them and defending women's right to abortion.
The campaign began by focusing on Kavanaugh's judicial record, but after Christine Blasey Ford's allegations were leaked and she made them public, it moved to destroy his reputation. The question concerns the implications for society if this second stage of the campaign becomes general and accepted.
This may be illustrated by a counter example. Suppose that in Australia a female former Labor minister and human rights activist was appointed to the High Court by a Labor prime minister who was pushing through controversial human rights laws. It