Here’s a link to an interview with Herman Cain on Libya. It’s painful to watch –worse, in some respects, than Rick Perry’s “oops” moment in last week’s debate. There’s no need to pile on Cain, whose campaign is in the early stages of a collapse. Let me instead make a point about the importance of competence and professionalism in politics.
Let me rise in defense of the “establishment.”
It was clear months ago Cain wasn’t up to the challenge of running for president. On some issues he was uninformed (like the Palestinian “right of return” and our war strategy in Afghanistan); on others he embraced stands that were unconstitutional (saying he would impose a “loyalty proof” on Muslim Americans and not appoint Muslims to his cabinet or a federal judgeship based solely on their religion); and on still others he embraced mutually contradictory positions (see his comments on abortion and trading GITMO prisoners for hostages). No matter; for some conservatives, Cain was the real deal, “authentic,” the antithesis of the slick, establishment politician. His slip-ups made him more appealing because they made him more human, more like us.
That line of argument is about out of steam.
What we’re (re)learning is that substance matters and mastery of issues is something to be prized, that governing experience can be a virtue and sloppiness and shallowness can be costly. And I’ll add this gentle reminder as well: not everyone for whom the conservative “establishment” has concerns is, based simply on those concerns, worthy of praise. Even conservatives living in the Beltway, as alien and removed as they are from “real” America, might be able to detect flawed candidates when they see them; and they may even be able to resist the temptation to pretend those flaws are really strengths and mediocrity is really excellence.
The interview is only painful if the viewer is a professional politician or adviser to politicians. So, of course, Peter is frustrated by Mr. Cain. Mr. Cain is neither of those things. He does not have the polish, the pizazz, and the wonderful sound-bites that the pundits are ever searching for. So what? n nHere’s what I find attractive about Mr. Cain. He’s honest, even in the interview you can see that he wants to be sure he and the interviewer are on the same topic and point. He’s a man who built himself up and is where he is by his own work. He has been married to same woman for decades (despite the allegations currently swirling about) and she defends him. (I believe our society has dismissed all to readily marital longevity as if marriage should be replaced with serial monogamy of short times between trysts.) n nMr. Cain, despite Peter’s comments, is someone we can identify with. He shows the rest of us, the non-pundits, that one can compete with the professionals on the national stage. To my mind, the mere fact that he’s in the race, and he’s running the course, is an inspiration to the rest of us. n nYes, he has his problems. Yes, he could be better prepared. And yes, he can seem uninformed. Although I remember when Mr. Obama told his audience “I’m tired,” “I’ve been to all 57 states,” and he was given a pass. And Mr. Obama was not so well-informed either. n nBut those issues aside, Mr. Cain will be remembered as showing the rest of us that we all have the chance to run the race. The course is not just for professionals. I don’t care how he does, the fact he’s running the race is enough. Keep up the pace! n
This sounds curiously like the Roman Hruska argument in favor of nominating a mediocrity (was it Harold Carswell?) to the U.S. Supreme Court, something like "there's a lot of mediocre people out there; don't they deserve a little representation too?" Well yes, they do: that's what Congress is for. But mediocrities don't belong on the Supreme Court (or anywhere else on the federal bench, for that matter), and they sure don't belong in the Oval Office. n nHerman Cain seems like a nice enough guy, but as a businessman, he was neither a single-minded visionary (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs) nor a financial mayven who made a new fortune on every transaction (Warren Buffett, David Geffen). Pillsbury appointed him to run Godfather's Pizza after he had made his reputation as a Burger King regional manager; two or three years later, when Cain and other Godfather's Pizza managers sought to take the company private, GP's value had declined sharply since Cain had been named CEO. Not exactly a world beater, right? n nLet's face it, if conservatives weren't obsessed about finding a black conservative to counter the current President — and insulate them from charges of racism in opposing this Administration — Herman Cain would be some guy who lost a GOP Senate primary in Georgia a number of years ago (2004?). No one in the current field of candidates is without flaws — and Haley Barbour would be a far better choice than anyone presently in the race — but that's no reason to nominate someone as obviously unqualified as Cain.
"Mr. Cain will be remembered as showing the rest of us that we all have the chance to run the race." n nYes. All of us millionaires and CEOs of massive corporations have a chance to run the race. He's just like me.
Speaking of the "establishment". So naturally the supercommittee (a stretch of the constitutional legislative process in the first place) is apparently inserting a farm bill (read: additional spending / subsidies) into its bid for austerity. Now why would anyone be cynical about how our betters govern us?
"substance matters and mastery of issues is something to be prized" — I don't think when critics of the establishment are talking, this is what they are aiming at. They are focusing on things like SilentCalvin pointed to. If the establishment were seen as running things well, it would be praised rather than attacked… n nI agree dumping the failures of Washington on the lap of each individual whose had a career in it is unfair. Voting for someone just because he is an outsider isn't the way to cast a vote. n nHowever, if I look at it too long, "substance matters and mastery of issues is something to be prized" it starts to remind me too much of what the liberals and media have been trying to sell us for so long: That the masses should step aside and let the really smart people run things. That what we need is a guiding elite to herd us where we should go because they know best. n nTheir track record just isn't good enough to support that. Carter was supposed to have been the most intelligent president since I don't know when. Obama too. Look what they brought us…