It's a question few ask because so many already think they know the answer.
The most common explanation -- the hot take so hot it melted the conventional wisdom and forged a new concrete groupthink -- is that Kavanaugh was so angry because he represents White Male Entitlement.
The WME explanation is a form of allegory, not argument. In allegories, the characters aren't real people so much as metaphors for certain ideas. For instance, in "The Pilgrim's Progress" (1678), the main character is named Christian, and on his trek he encounters other abstractions in human form, such as Mr. Worldly Wiseman.
Kavanaugh is now Mr. White Male Entitlement, and as such, he is by definition wrong because that is his assigned role.
Over the weekend,
According to The New York Times'
This is all emblematic of one of the chief problems with our politics today, on the left and the right. We follow politics as if it were a movie or, in this case, an allegory, in which characters are denied human agency and assigned the task of merely personifying an idea or theme. Thus
I do not deny that Kavanaugh believes he is entitled to certain things. He may even at some deep psychological level think some of his entitlement stems from the fact that he is male or even white, though there is no evidence for that explanation. It has simply been asserted over and over until it has become a kind of dogma.
But couldn't the more plausible explanation be that he feels entitled to the job because, by all accounts, he is one of most qualified judges in America and has spent a dozen years on the second-highest court in the country?
Could he not also feel entitled to some measure of fair play? Before these allegations surfaced, Sen.
And yet we're supposed to believe his anger derives not from such accusations but from some abstract idea of white male powerlessness?
Kavanaugh's critics have fallen into an argument built on a narrative of bigotry. Men from his background have done bad things in the past, and since he fits the stereotype, he is a symbol of their collective guilt. Women have been treated horribly when they've made allegations, so now we must believe all women.
Never mind that there were times in America when "believe all white women" was the rule. When they made allegations against black men, it led to some unspeakable evils. "To Kill a Mockingbird" is in many ways a modern allegory about those times.
I am not trying to say that
Appeals to historical grievances, highbrow theories of the male psyche and pent-up resentments -- as interesting or as emotionally powerful as they may be -- are not all that relevant here. This isn't an allegory. It's the real world.