The Atlantic

The Pernicious Double Standards Around Brett Kavanaugh’s Drinking

Thursday’s Senate hearing served as a reminder of the blithe impunity afforded to those privileged enough to have whole systems invested in their success.
Source: Andrew Harnik / Reuters / Shutterstock / The Atlantic

On Thursday, the testimony delivered by Brett Kavanaugh to the Senate Judiciary Committee took a turn that was at once unexpected and, the past week being what it has been, deeply predictable: Sheldon Whitehouse, the senator from Rhode Island, used a portion of his allotted questioning time to ask the Supreme Court nominee about the definition of the “devil’s triangle.” For most Americans who came of age in the same rough decades as Brett Kavanaugh, the term—included, along with Kavanaugh’s self-identification as a “Renate Alumnius” and references to kegs and ralphing and boofing, on Kavanaugh’s yearbook page—would seem an obvious reference to a sexual act. Kavanaugh, however, told the committee that his definition of the term was different. “Devil’s triangle,” he insisted, was merely a drinking game.

“Three glasses in a triangle,” Kavanaugh said. Like quarters.

If “devil’s triangle” is a game that, indeed, involves bouncing coins into cups, there was, as of Thursday afternoon, seemingly no evidence of this on the internet, when people watching Kavanaugh’s hearing, inevitably, checked. No evidence, that is, until shortly after Kavanaugh testified as to his personalized definition of the term. At that point, congress-edits, the Twitter bot that tracks updates made to Wikipedia pages from congressional IP addresses, recorded a change made to the Wikipedia entry for “Devil’s Triangle”: “‘Devil’s Triangle’: a popular drinking game enjoyed by friends of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.”  

The edit might have been a clumsy joke; it might have been a flimsy attempt to corroborate an explanation, would seem to defy common sense. Either way, it was fitting: Thursday’s hearing, in its , was its own kind of clumsy joke, precisely because of its transparent display of reason-defying entitlements. The event—the raw but measured testimony of Christine Blasey Ford, followed by the rage-fueled indignations of Brett Kavanaugh—was a testament to the corroborative effects of power: the ease with which those who chair committees and run countries can rearrange the facts of the world until they conform to, and allegedly confirm, the tales told by the powerful.

You’re reading a preview, subscribe to read more.

More from The Atlantic

The Atlantic4 min read
Apocalypse Not
The great operational question before us is not “Is Joe Biden too old?” The question is “Do you trust the delegates to the Democratic convention in Chicago to replace the present ticket with a supposedly more winning ticket without ripping their part
The Atlantic1 min read
Eustasy
At 90 most of her is thinning, her mind a sheet of paper with perforations. Yesterday she asked five times what year was it exactly? when she bought the car that she still drives and did that year begin with a 19? When the voting signs pop up in the
The Atlantic5 min read
What Color Is a Hot Dog?
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Two years ago, I had a conversation that I have thou

Related Books & Audiobooks