People often scoff and laugh at fundamental truths. But their taking offense doesn’t make these truths any less self-evident.

Take a closer look at two social trends as illuminated by the judiciary hearings that resulted in the seating of Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court on Saturday.

- First, the intentional, coordinated attempt to destroy a superlative, as exemplified in a tweet posted briefly Saturday by a writer for the Stephen Colbert Show, Ariel Dumas: “Whatever happens, I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life.”

Was the allegation of sexual impropriety an attempt to tarnish Kavanaugh’s 35-year record of exemplary service? Possibly. Watch how quickly they try to forget Kavanaugh’s accuser, Professor Christine Blasey Ford, and change their narrative.

The assault on Kavanaugh’s character coincides with an ongoing campaign to erase criminal convictions from employment applications. In Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Wolf and Democratic House leaders have imposed “ban the box” regulations on state government job applications beginning July 1. Identical regulations are in effect in other states. In other words, leaders of the political party in Washington who insisted the FBI conduct a seventh review of Kavanaugh, who was found faultless in six previous background checks, are meanwhile generating state-level legislation absolving entry-level employees of felony convictions. It’s as if no distinctions exist between the best, the worst and the average. Everyone is the same — a defining characteristic of democratic socialism.

- Second, much has been said and written in recent years about “helicopter parents” — those who hover excessively and protectively around their children, preventing them from opportunities to grow up and develop coping skills.

It’s easy enough to ridicule helicopter parents. But today’s tension- and hazard-fraught world certainly justifies the behavior. A growing archive of scandals stands testimony to the fact we simply can’t trust our children in the care of individuals simply by virtue of their positions of authority.

It seems apparent these well-intentioned parents are trying to fill the role of chaperon. The question may be whether such a function is even possible in this modern age.

Yet, there is a greater question being asked now. Across the country, parents of teenage boys ask: “How do I protect my son from unfair prosecution? How do I keep him from being wrongly accused?”

An old-fashioned, trite answer for these parents: chaperone.

When the Rev. Billy Graham founded his evangelical ministry in 1950, he demanded that every male participant pledge never to be alone with any woman who was not his wife. It was a simple, fundamental rule that kept his ministry immune from scandal for more than 60 years.

Imagine Billy Graham accused of infidelity. You can’t. He never allowed the opportunity. Graham crafted his own immunity. He imposed strict disciplines.

At first glance, these two trending social conditions seem not to have much in common. Yet they do. They speak of reputation and personal character.

The implication of both is that the individual has net worth, which merits preservation and respect. Both begin with self-preservation and self-respect, because the political realm is not to be expected or trusted to initiate either.

— TAH