Herman Cain is a controversial figure and Pat Buchanan applauds that. Good for Pat Buchanan. Good for Herman Cain. Good for Republican voters. But this is very bad for Americans as we head into the heart of another election cycle with Barack Obama facing candidate X. (And I thought I didn't need to know algebra.) If we are going to allow race and its complex meanings to impact our discussions of the qualifications or lack thereof in candidates as we go forward then we better learn to not to walk away from or fear the conversation.
Let's be clear about this one: Both Buchanan and Cain made problematic assertions. Cain assumes that he knows what motivates a large group of people to vote one way or another. He finds evidence of "brainwashing" on the part of African American voters. Buchanan feels licensed, then, to respond with praise for his claims (I assume he thinks this license comes from Cain's position as an insider in the black community) about African Americans being brainwashed and adds an assertion about the "liberal plantation" that then gets read as (OMG!) racist.
More important than the questions: is this racist(?) or what is racist(?) or even who said what(?) is this:
We are living at a time when it is desperately essential that each voter looks for integrity and leadership in candidates. In order to find that integrity we need our mainstream media to do its work carefully and critically.
When Cain made the original claim, he should have been asked to explain exactly how he comes to these conclusions given some sets of, also, commonly held assumptions about the African American experience. He should have been asked to account for the role of and the need for the NAACP, affirmative action, the experiences of Rodney King, the burning of African American churches, the murder of civil rights leaders, the murder of Troy Davis, the every day lived experiences of many African American people as they face the quiet, habitual and exhausting micro examples of racism on a daily basis and what that means to the voting habits of particular groups as he comes to conclusions that are primarily decontextualized assumptions about socio-economic realities apparent to Mr. Cain today. If that is a complex sentence, it needs to be. These are difficult times. If we are going to lob names at people, let's really see the way their principles operate. I won't be voting for Cain, but he deserves a fair hearing and room to explain and explore his ideas. And we deserve more information as we make our way to November and the polls.
As for Pat Buchanan: Martin Bashir should have asked him to unpack the phrase "liberal plantation." If we're going to talk about race (which by the way is a concept disputed in science!) then let's really have that discussion. Pat Buchanan, too, ought to be given the room to extend the metaphor. Maybe it would be nice to have them explain their alliance as they sit in a room together with a willing journalist.
Let us not side-step and put our hands over our mouths in outrage or embarrassment, but instead admit that racism (without authentic racial distinctions) is alive and well in our discourse and our land.
Follow Donna Marsh O'Connor on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DonnaPea
Matthew Dowd: CEO of Self: Americans Are Hungry for Herman Cain's Brand of Leadership
I'm not as smart as I used to be. But back in the day (a long time ago), I studied African American Lit. We read a book called Invisible Man, by Ralph Ellison. The story is famous for its theme of a black kid who is only seen through the racial assumptions of the society around him. At times he tries to go with it and it gets him hurt. In the end he totally withdraws into a world of a thousand lights. Cain is being what white conservatives think he should be. I am an ex conservative. They talk great, but their bigotry is never ending and in plain sight. People like Cain, are black people under Klan sheets, but the sheet in this analogy is rhetoric. He talks like the racists, so they won't see him as black. Racism and bigotry are the cancer of the GOP and at this day and time, they totally into denial, and rejecting any cure.
Cain made a comment based on his observation and personal experience. I happen to agree with him. Unfortunately, many in the Black community don’t know their history and consequently have bought into the liberal/Democrat narrative. The Democratic party opposed the abolition of slavery, reconstruction, and Black suffrage. It was the Democratic party that instituted “Jim Crow†laws in the south. The KKK was founded by and for years was the terrorist wing of the Democratic party. It was primarily Democrats that opposed and/or filibustered civil rights legislation: the civil rights act of 1960 was continuously filibustered by 18 Democrats, but eventually signed into law by Eisenhower; the civil rights act of 1964 was also filibustered by Democrats before being revised and passed with the assistance of Republican senators. In fact, a greater percentage of Republicans voted in favor of civil rights legislation than Democrats, yet it’s the Democratic party that tries to lay claim to its mantel. The real tragedy is that so many in the Black community have bought the lie.
Given the percentage of Blacks who continue to support a party with a long documented history of opposing Black advancement, I’d say the use of the word “brainwashed†is pretty accurate.
http://www.HermanCain.com
1) Why is it so hard to be called racist? That is to ask, from where does it get its power? We need to own the fact that language provides us with limitations and possibilities. No matter who "screams the loudest" we all need to own up to this discussion.
2) Mainstream political discourse relies on our buying into the binary. In that sense, Cain argues that buying into the left is akin to "brainwashing" (I am giving him the benefit of my doubt, here) but I think of that as the habit of choosing between two. Ideally when we vote, we look at the realities of our material lives and who makes it possible for us to move forward. I note that you, as did I, list a series of historical events that lead individual people to make choices. While those lists, too, need some excavation, they reveal contradictions between espoused values and practices and policies as they are actually enacted.
Clearly you and I see differently. Though I think we might both agree that the choice of two is deeply, importantly problematic.
I stand by my argument: we need journalists to do their work; we need to get richer, deeper and more critical as we vet candidates, and we need to look for leadership and integrity or this democracy (so dangerously crippled already) will no longer be even an illusion.
On that point we are in agreement. The press has an important role to play in society: keeping politicians honest through objective reporting and promoting transparency by shining a critical light on governmental activities. In this endeavor the mainstream press has mostly failed. Had the press been as thorough in vetting Barack Obama as they were in investigating Sarah Palin...taking “dumpster diving†to a whole new level...the man would have never got pass the Democratic primary, let alone win the Presidency. There are a number of things in his background that would have instantly ended the career of any white conservative running for office had they been involved in a similar situation. And yes, leadership is an important attribute to look for in a politician (among other things) and a necessary component of democracy. Unfortunately, “leadership†is not among the attributes I would ascribe to the current administration...leadership is not exercised from behind.
Meanwhile, whenever poor White voters vote for the only party that wants them to stay poor, deny them (if they're unemployed) a fair chance at employment, and that wants to yank away their own health care and retirement security, those voters are hailed as selfless and patriotic.
The moral of the story is: If you want to be called patriotic, never vote for your own self-interest.
Unless of course you're rich.
The voting for their self interest comment is cute. So are you implying it's in their best interest to keep voting for the party that by design is perpetually keeping them poor? How is that in their best interest? It's certainly in the democrat party's best interest.
The great society was never designed to solve the problem of poverty. It was strictly meant to mirror the euopean social welfare model. The democrat party saw how these policies kept entire voting bloc eating out of the hand of politicians and wanted to replicate that here, so they did so.
After 45 years of the great society, poverty has exploded from 5% of population to almost 15%.
This election will be one for the record books. Do we vote for more government handouts and more poverty with Barack Obama, or do we vote for more opportunity?
We must demand REAL leadership… ‘new blood’ and FORCE common sense and responsibility on the invertebrate powers that be. Our voice must be united and very clear. Our message must be unequivocal.
I’m crazy about Herman Cain. I truly believe Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and Gary Johnson are just the people we need for the job of running this Republic. Any and all would be a God-send for our great nation. We need these fine men and women to stick together and BE the winning ‘team’. As a team they will be an unstoppable force for FREEDOM. Whoever is at the top of the list will need the others to fill important roles and cabinet positions so the positive changes, we need so bad, can be enacted. Times a wastin’!
Personal freedoms and an economic BOOM are needed now. These men and women (and the FairTax that Cain and Johnson love) can help us, help them, make it happen. Onward and upward America!
In fact if those European conservatives were here they would be democrats.
Ponder this thought. The social agenda that has been instituted in the U.S. and Europe over the past 70+ years never gets smaller, it only gets bigger. It is now at the point where it can no longer be sustained. As with death and taxes, government social programs are the closest thing to immortality.
It is not capitalism that has caused the global crisis. To the contrary, it is what made the imploding "socialist" programs possible. As capitalism represents the "golden goose," it is socialism that has undermined its health and now threatens its very life.
Here we are 45 years later. The bill they sold us was to reduce and eliminate poverty, yet poverty has flourished under the great society.
There is no way else to look at the failure of the great society except for dependency creates more dependency.
http://www.HermanCain.com
I appreciate your comments very much. It is a very sad day for us when there is so much mindless rhetoric being passed around with so little attention being paid to the reality of so many people in this country who are suffering and who need to be taken seriously. Cain should be ashamed of himself making such a comment when he has to know his comment is not truly based in a reflection of the reality of the people that he is characterizing.
The US Census provides the statistics to support the above argument.
http://www.HermanCain.com