The real problem with Herman Cain (not alleged sexual harassment)
It would not be accurate to say that I’m officially and completely off of the Herman Cain train, but put it this way: The train is in the station, the doors are open, and my hand is on my bag. And it is absolutely nothing to do with today’s breaking story about alleged sexual harassment in the 1990s. That may well be a contemptible smear; nothing is easier than launching such stories, and nothing is more difficult than substantiating them (or, indeed, defending oneself against them).
Herman Cain is hated and feared by liberals because he is a conservative black man. And the natural instinct of conservatives is to support him in the face of attacks by enemies who are so nasty, incoherent and just plain wrong. But that noble reflex should not blind the same people to the legitimate problems Herman Cain has from the opposite perspective. I’ve already expressed serious concern about his garbled answers on life issues, i.e. abortion. Yesterday on the CBS show “Face the Nation” he was given a chance to spell out his position. From the transcript of the interview conducted by old Bob Schieffer:
Schieffer: You have also said stated several positions on abortion. I want to get this settled for you once and for all. Where do you stand on the issue that is so important for so many Americans? At one point you said you were against abortion period, but at another point said in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at stake, you would leave that to the families to decide. So is that your position? In other words, that you’re pro-life with the exception of rape, incest, and when the health of the mother is at stake?
Cain: I am pro-life from conception, period. And if people look at many speeches that I have given over the years, that has and will still be my position.
Schieffer: But talk about those exceptions.
Cain: Pro-life from conception period. That piece that was pulled out was taken totally out of context when we were talking about those exceptions.
Schieffer: So in other words you would not even believe in abortion if rape, incest, or the health of the mother was involved?
Cain: Correct. That’s my position
Schieffer: That is now your position. Alright.
Cain: Thanks for helping me clear that up.
Yeah, thanks a lot. What exactly has been “cleared up?” Pro-life conservatives are—or should be—concerned not with what Herman Cain’s personal beliefs about abortion are, but with what policies he would pursue on the issue as president. That was the enormous area of confusion created by his interview a couple of weeks ago on CNN. Cain made the same statements about being unequivocally opposed to abortion in all circumstances—and then blew it all away by saying that the ultimate decision was for a woman and her family, etc etc, and that government had no role in it. That is otherwise known as the pro-choice position. He attempted to backpedal from that after the fact by talking about the nomination of judges to the Supreme Court who share the philosophy of Clarence Thomas. That is vital and good but it’s also seriously insufficient in addressing the concerns of most pro-lifers, including Yours Truly.
Cain’s apparently woeful and persistent lack of understanding as to how this issue breaks down and as to what’s important (policy) and what is far less important (his own inner personal feelings) is disturbing. It’s true that Schieffer asked him about his own “position,” but Cain ought to know very well that it is what he would do as president that matters to voters. Earlier in this same interview he actually boasts that he was laying the groundwork for his presidential campaign a full year before he made his announcement in May. And yet, in all of this time he hasn’t figured out how to clearly answer a question about his views on what has been the dominant social issue in American politics of the past thirty-plus years.
Instead of hearing how Herman Cain feels deep in his own private soul about abortion, I think pro-lifers would like a whole lot more to hear specific commitments on issues like the Mexico City policy (whether U.S. federal funds can go to organizations abroad that promote abortion) and the question of federal funding to scientific research that destroys living human embryos. These are issues that would be on his desk as president, and there are more where they came from.
But maybe the truth is that we have heard Herman Cain’s position on life issues. Maybe the answer he gave so straightforwardly to Piers Morgan is what he believes, after all: Herman Cain opposes abortion, but the government should have nothing to do with ensuring the protection of what Herman Cain considers to constitute human life. If so, everything he’s said since then has been disingenuous waffling.
Either way, and anyway you cut it, this is bad, bad, bad. It also contributes to a sense that on other issues, too, Cain has not taken the time to master the details, and is trying to cover that up by waffling around after the fact. On his 9-9-9 plan, he took great heat for the notion that those below the poverty level would now pay a 9% income tax. Lo and behold, he discovered that his plan for the poor was actually 9-0-9, with no income tax. He didn’t change it, he said; it was like that all along. Yet I had read what was on his website regarding the plan, and had not noticed this provision at all. I thought that quite to the contrary, the whole point of the 9-9-9 plan was that everyone would have “skin-in-the-game.” It would be much harder for Congress to hike taxes when everyone in the entire country was paying the same flat and transparent rate. If the plan needs retooling, fine: retool it. But the only non-politician in the race should not be blowing his credibility by flip-flopping and displaying an almost Romneyesque relationship with the truth.
|
|
Conservatives love Herman Cain’s fantastic life story and great personality, and rightly so. My increasing concern, however, is that Herman Cain is also so enamored of his own life story and personality that he thinks those things alone should earn him the presidency. It’s not enough.
