While the media keeps hoping for “breakout moments” in the Democratic presidential debates, what I have not seen (since I refuse to watch) is the highlights only confirm my belief debates serve little or no value in helping us understand how any aspirant to the Oval Office will behave once there.  I hate to keep repeating myself, but debating is not in the executive job description.

A better test is to give candidates an issue or an opportunity and ask them to come back in 24 hours with their 10 minute address to the nation what they would do and why.  Or set up “moot White House,”  which presents candidates with a series of facts, asks them to analyze the available information and recommend a course of action.  Does that sound familiar?  Students at any medical, law or business school in America would recognize this as the “case teaching method,” a derivative of Socratic learning.

A student’s grade is not dependent on “the right answer.”  There are always multiple courses of action, each with pros and cons.  The test is one of process.  How well have students based their choice on reliable information?  What data points have they questioned?  How have they used the information?  And, sometimes, where is the information insufficient to make a rational choice?  The doctor orders another test.  The lawyer says find more evidence.  The CEO calls for additional market research.

When it comes to process, there is one thing we know about the current White House occupant.  He has none.  He ignores intelligence and acquits Vladimir Putin of attacking the country’s electoral process.  He is flattered by a Saudi crown prince and chooses not to pursue the murder of a U.S. resident.  Name a West Bank settlement “Trump Heights” and he backs Benjamin Netanyahu’s election eve promise to annex Palestinian territory along the Jordan River Valley.

The last thing America needs is four more years of haphazard policy making based on flattery, deference to donors or playing to one’s base.  Yesterday, we learned Donald Trump does not have a monopoly on this careless and indiscriminate approach.

Welcome to Dr. ESP’s class in government policy making.  Today’s teaching case involves an op-ed in the New York Times which previewed a forthcoming book by two of its reporters about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.  In the article Sandra Garcia highlighted claims the FBI may have been restricted in pursuing leads of Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual misconduct in college including a previously unreported incident at Yale.  The following excerpt covers this latest allegation.

The authors also said they uncovered a second, previously unreported incident involving similar behavior by Mr. Kavanaugh at a different party in his freshman year.

The excerpt said that a classmate, Max Stier, who now runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about what he had witnessed but that the bureau did not investigate.

The excerpt cites two unnamed officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier, who has declined to discuss the episode publicly. Justice Kavanaugh has declined to answer questions about it, according to the excerpt.

Not unexpectedly, Trump tweets in defense of Justice Kavanaugh.

He is an innocent man who has been treated HORRIBLY. Such lies about him. They want to scare him into turning Liberal!

You are a candidate for the Democratic nomination to oppose Trump in 2020.  How do you respond to this incident?

In less than 24 hours we find what several of the potential nominees thought was the prudent course of action.

Elizabeth Warren on Twitter:
Last year the Kavanaugh nomination was rammed through the Senate without a thorough examination of the allegations against him. Confirmation is not exoneration, and these newest revelations are disturbing. Like the man who appointed him, Kavanaugh should be impeached.

Beto O’Rourke:
Yesterday, we learned of another accusation against Brett Kavanaugh—one we didn’t find out about before he was confirmed because the Senate forced the F.B.I. to rush its investigation to save his nomination. We know he lied under oath. He should be impeached.

Julian Castro on Twitter:
It’s more clear than ever that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath. He should be impeached and Congress should review the failure of the Department of Justice to properly investigate the matter.

Cory Booker on Twitter:
This new allegation and additional corroborating evidence adds to a long list of reasons why Brett Kavanaugh should not be a Supreme Court justice. I stand with survivors and countless other Americans in calling for impeachment proceedings to begin.

Kamala Harris on Twitter:
Brett Kavanaugh lied to the U.S. Senate and most importantly to the American people.  He must be impeached.

Bernie Sanders on Twitter:
The revelations today confirm what we already knew: During his hearing, Kavanaugh faced credible accusations and likely lied to Congress. I support any appropriate constitutional mechanism to hold him accountable.

Statement from Pete Buttigieg:
It’s appalling to learn that the GOP curtailed the FBI investigation.  This was a Senate confirmation hearing controlled by the Republican majority for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.  The American people deserve to know who was involved in that and we must get answers fast as to why witnesses with key information were not interviewed.  Kavanaugh should resign and if he doesn’t, the House should impeach him.

In contrast,  Amy Klobuchar and Joe Biden express concern but advise caution in jumping to conclusions.   Both call for further investigation without demanding impeachment.

Amy Klobuchar on ABC’s “This Week”:
I strongly oppose him, based on his views on executive power which will continue to haunt our country, as well as how he behaved, including the allegations that we are hearing more about today. My concern here is that the process was a sham. I don’t think you can look at impeachment hearings without getting the documents … and the attorney general is shielding documents.

Statement Issued by Joe Biden:
This weekend’s report in the New York Times raises again profoundly troubling questions about the integrity of the confirmation process that put Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court in the first place…We must follow the evidence to wherever it leads.  Doing this the right way is critically important in getting the truth and restoring the American people’s faith in their government.

Teaching cases are usually written about events in the past.  Therefore, they include an epilogue which covers what the principals did at the time and the impact of their actions.  While it is too early to assess the impact of the Times report or the reactions, we do have information which might have been helpful at the time statements were being issues.  Late Sunday, the Times issued the following Editor’s Note to the original article:

An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book’s account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.

Critics of the Times article also point out Max Stier, the original source of the new allegation was a member of the legal team who defended Bill Clinton during his impeachment while Kavanaugh was part of Kenneth Starr’s investigation of Whitewater.  Neither of these facts prove or disprove the new allegations against Kavanaugh.  But they are relevant.

Let’s go back to my classroom.  Of the seven “students” above who called for resignation or impeachment, I would have expected either Biden or Klobuchar to ask, “On what factual information in this case are you making that determination?”  If they responded, “The Times article,” the next question should be, “How do know that it’s accurate?  The alleged victim is named.  Do you know what she said about the incident?    Wouldn’t you want to know? Aren’t you concerned she is not quoted in the article?”  And, “Is the source unreliable or biased?”

Which brings me back to the title of today’s post.  We certainly do not need four more years of Trump.  Neither do we need his Democratic replacement to mimic his decision process.  Reaction to real-time situations, not debates, tell us how candidates will govern not just how they campaign.  That is not to say I equate any of the “Kavanaugh Impeachment Seven” with Donald Trump.  But on this day, in this situation, they failed the test.  And we cannot afford four more years of seat of one’s pants, base-pleasing policies and actions regardless of who sits behind the Resolute Desk.  This could be the “breakout moment” we did not get in the debates.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP