Speaking of rigid, studiously reasonable sounding political hacks, Brooks, predictably, viewed the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford and the fierce rebuttal by Brett Kavanaugh as basically a wash, one’s opinion of who was the victim breaking down 100% along tribal lines.
Along tribal lines, of course. Nothing to see here, boys and girls. Alan Dershowitz had the same observation, as did so many others in their tribe. There is no such thing as truth to a tribe who believes that outraged impudence is a wholly appropriate substitute for candidly answering questions at a hearing. Good people on many sides, on many sides, no doubt, no doubt.
The angry man is an outraged victim of a vast conspiracy, the woman, although credible and reasonable and refusing to speculate about things beyond the details of the traumatic experience she was relating — well, your opinion of who was more credible and who testified more compellingly will break down along tribal lines.
“Truth before justice” is David Brooks’ motto  — and there is truth on both sides, there appears to be, according to David Brooks. None of us can know who is more truthful, and therefore who we believe must break down along tribal lines. If you supported Clinton, you hate Kavanaugh. If you hated Clinton, you love Kavanaugh. There is no way, at present, that any of us can know which of the two was actually more truthful, or even who demonstrated better character. Thus Spake David Brooks.
Unless of course, you impartially apply Judge Martha Kavanaugh’s famous test: ‘Use your common sense. What rings true? What rings false?’
If you apply this test, Brooks, and compare the ring of Blasey Ford’s meek but firm description of events and the ring of Kavanaugh’s raging contempt for the very accusation and still conclude it all depends on your tribal allegiance, I must conclude that your tribe, the assholes, is finally beyond redemption. But, of course, that only confirms my membership in the enemy tribe, proving your point. Don’t give me that smug smile, Brooks, go wash your ass instead, eh?
I would be fascinated to hear Judge Martha Kavanaugh’s unguarded opinion on the application of her now famous test to the testimony of her son and his accuser.
 Though to understand exactly what that dramatic-sounding credo actually means you’d need a mind as deep as David Brooks’ finely tuned, elegant thinking machine.