I'm a bit left of center, politically. That means I can't stand crazy lefties or crazy righties. But I'm also open to intelligent lefties and intelligent righties. This is not the first time, but it was Bret Stephens, one of those really, really intelligent righties who outdid himself in today's Times. I expect his analytical skills to be superb because he's a grad of the UCHicago, especially since there are two of these analytical thinkers in my own family. That's a statement of bias.
So, I'll tease you, hoping that you follow the link to his commentary on Blasey vs. Kavanaugh...
The title is completely revealing: "This I believe about Blasey v. Kavanaugh." And, of course, the first two sentences nail the content. "I have absolutely no idea what, if anything, happened between Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford at a party in Maryland in the early 1980s. Unless you were at the party, I believe that you don't either."
Toward the end of his commentary, he goes here: "I believe whatever report the F.B.I. produces will be imperfect. I believe that a Senate hearing, whatever form it takes, will be imperfect. At this point, I believe that every conceivable alternative is worse." And he concludes: "I believe in letting the chips fall where they may. I believe the republic will survive either way."
Good analysts are, first and foremost, problem solvers. They like to find solutions to issues. What makes them efficient problem solvers is their ability to take a problem, break it down into pieces, find solutions, using a hypothesis-driven approach and pull it all back together. Stephens is the example, par excellence.