Let me begin by stating that, despite my disagreement with everything he proposes and nearly everything he says, from all I know of Herman Cain's life story, he is to be admired. His father worked 3 jobs so he could own his own home, and his mother was a cleaning lady. Cain earned a masters degree in computer science, worked as a ballistics analyst in the Defense Department, turned around Burger King and did a leveraged buyout of Godfather's Pizza that he later sold for a profit.
Having come from where he did, Cain deserves a great deal of credit for what he has achieved in his life. Having come from where he did, he ought not to be criticized for "sitting out the civil rights movement". He kept his head down, worked hard, probably reminded by his parents that he was going to have to make it in a society that was strongly tilted against him.
Although Cain has zero foreign policy experience, so do all of the Republican candidates except Jon Huntsman. Unless there are skeletons in his closet, he probably is not going away in a flash, as did Bachmann and Perry.
Herman Cain has staked out a unique position in the Republican presidential contest. Those who credit his verbal skills, his status as not being a politician, his claims of being a businessman with solutions, and, more recently, the marketing simplicity of his 9-9-9 proposal, are not wrong, but overlook the main point.
Herman Cain's appeal is that he provides the rightwing a free pass on their racist heritage and lingering impulses in a way that no one else can. This is a very important group in Republican politics. He enables a sizeable swath (how large is truly unknown) of them not to feel put upon, lectured to, or looked down upon for those feelings.
In politics, as in life, people rarely remember what you say; they do remember how you made them feel.
Herman Cain makes them feel good.
Like Christie, he talks tough -- but, unlike Christie, he can give a stirring speech. He all but says that black people have only themselves to 'blame' for their economic condition. He sounded an abrupt retreat just for using the word 'insensitive', describing Rick Perry's disgusting racist name for his family's ranch. He talks states rights. He went to an all-black college (OK by those folks, he did not "take the place" of one of theirs, and he knew his place), allowing those with deep segregationist proclivities to feel "separate but equal" is not as evil it has been cast by the media and federal government. He showed them where his gut was when he said that a Muslim could not serve in his cabinet -- it did not matter that he backed down, he made the connection and affirmed their beliefs.
Most importantly, Cain grew up in the South. He did not get the relative benefits of his parents having moved north or west, where racial barriers were not so high or overt. And, he made it.
As he delegitimizes the civil rights leaders and blacks' preferences for the Democratic Party, he absolves white people for their treatment of blacks. Slavery, most everyone now admits, was evil, disgusting and morally wrong (its biblical OK notwithstanding). But, Jim Crow, legalized subjugation... Herman Cain's message is that they should not feel badly about it, and thus there is nothing to remedy.
How will Cain respond when asked the inevitable question about displaying the confederate flag? If he says, as I predict he will, that it is up to each state, and that it represents a culture and a heritage in which some people take pride, he will have won the white Southern vote and created a firestorm in the process. Watch for it. It will bigger than anything else in the Republican primary and will be discussed for months. [Imagine a Jewish president of Bavaria defending flying the swastika in front of the parliament as part of the "heritage of the area in which some people take pride"].
Since Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights laws in the mid-1960s, predicting that the Democrats would lose the South for at least a generation because of it, the party of Abraham Lincoln marched right into previously forbidden territory with their 'Southern strategy', providing winks, nods and thinly-veiled assurances to white voters that they are really on their side, and that blacks (and their supporters) were uppity, arrogant, undeserving, demanding and receiving special treatment at their expense.
The media that chronicle and expose them, and politicians that impose upon them, are their enemies. Not just opponents, but enemies, denying their legitimacy, their right to be heard and heeded, and rule.
And, the latter -- rule -- is key. The Civil War destroyed their way of life, including their mastery over black people. The compromise of 1876 ending reconstruction was rapidly followed by the passage of the Jim Crow laws that re-established white rule and, more importantly, black subjugation. The Civil Rights movement upended that 80-year-old tradition, and they have been fighting back ever since.
Just a few examples -- Governor McConnell (R-VA) remembering the Civil War without a single reference to slavery; Senator Trent Lott's (R-Mississippi) reference to better times had people elected Strom Thurmond; even the jovial (and non-racist) Ronald Reagan's attempt, withdrawn only when the media howled, to provide federal aid to a college that outlawed interracial dating.
Although white Southerners and their fellow travelers vehemently opposed Barack Obama's candidacy (Obama lost by huge landslides in Kentucky and West Virginia to Hillary Clinton), even they might have been surprised at the depths of their visceral reactions to pictures of Barack Obama actually occupying the White House. He went to Ivy League schools, he speaks better than they do, he taught law -- the idea that he did this without massive, unfair, help from a system that is still punishing them does not register.
All they perceive Herman Cain having done is make pizzas. Obama cooked up inner-city organizations to get something from them. If Cain became wealthy making pizzas, that is not so difficult to embrace. Don't expect Cain to tout his Masters Degree in Computer Science from Purdue, one of the country's top engineering schools. He will prefer to be thought of as the guy who grew up in Georgia, went to an all-black college, and made a lot of money selling pizzas.
It is why the opposition to the president could be so blatantly anti-American (preventing the American people from working so that Obama can be shown to fail), and so obviously violent (arriving at rallies with firearms). Disloyal, unpatriotic, violent -- all true, but they do not stick. That it has found a welcoming home at a major network, FoxNews, is a national disgrace.
And, of course, the examples with respect to President Obama are "TNTC" (too numerous to count). John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, Mitt Romney's father in Mexico -- but whose birth was questioned when they ran for president? George W. Bush stole the 2000 election -- but whose legitimacy was questioned when he won a near-landslide? Although he had almost no contact with his father whatsoever, Gingrich and Huckabee claimed Obama is best understood as a Mau Mau. George W. Bush read from printed speeches and was unable to handle follow-up questions -- but whose intelligence is impugned because he "uses a Teleprompter" despite being able to handle complicated questions and follow ups, by speaking complete sentences and arranging them in paragraphs? Get the "getting special help" element of that?
Herman Cain's candidacy allows those who believe they are entitled to rule because it is "their country", not racial or ethnic minorities', off the hook for their backlash against feeling disenfranchised and unfairly treated. And, if he peels off just 5% of the black vote that would otherwise go to Obama, he makes the general election that much more challenging.
Herman Cain may be the Republicans' great white hope.
Follow Paul Abrams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pabrams2001
Anand Reddi: Global HIV/AIDS Treatment Funding at Risk Under Mitt Romney
He also called conservatives "disloyal, unpatriotic, violent." These accusations are entirely unfounded. If we are to apply these labels to anyone, they ought to be applied to leftists. Opposing President Obama's far-left agenda does not make someone unpatriotic. Carrying a handgun legally does not make a person violent. If you want to see violence go to an "Occupy Wall Street" protest (if you want to call it that). If you want to see unpatriotic people, go to a far-left rally where they burn the American flag and say bad things about America. Only one side has people who burn flags for heaven's sakes.
I am so tired of this childish vitriol coming from the left.
Once again I would urge you to look up the word violent in a dictionary. Carrying guns, calling the president a tyrant, and quoting Thomas Jefferson, are not violent activities. Is this really that hard to understand? Furthermore, these are not illegal activities (not that you made this claim but, unjustified violence is illegal so, in a way, you did imply this). Only a liberal would argue that exercising constitutional rights (second amendment) and quoting our founding fathers amounts to violence or creates a “violent atmosphere.” I mean, do you realize how absurd that argument is?
On many issues, smart people like us can have valid disagreements. This is not one such issue since an objective definition of violence exists. I'm taking a logic course now and so I will observe that your premises do not support your conclusion. I will try to remember to bring this up in class tomorrow and see what my professor says. I know she's a liberal but I also know that there is no way she would approve of your argument. I'll get back to you.
n paragraph 2, "patriot 23" references my words "disloyal, unpatriotic, violent". This time he says that I called conservatives those labels. Again, I mentioned "opposition to the President". I am not sure I would call those people "conservatives". But, let us take up the words. "Violent" i handled above. What about "disloyal, unpatriotic"? Perhaps you are older than me or have a better memory, but I cannot recall a single instance in our past when one party--Republicans--stated as their primary objective, above all else, to deny re-election to their opponents and shown their willingness to injure the American people to do it, opposing policies they themselves promoted in the past. If you don't believe that--just look at the letters anti-stimulus Republicans wrote to the Administration asking for money for their districts because it would create jobs. And, if you need further proof, why is it that every member of Congress opposes closing a military base in their district? They always, always, always refer to the loss of jobs.
Now, if you (patriot 23) truly believe that your freedom and opportunity is best secured by major corporations because they have your interests at heart, that is your right. Just don't come crawling for handouts from the rest of us when they bring down the whole economy because they were just so intersted in your welfare.
You have not even attempted to justify calling members of the "opposition to the president" violent. Do you know what violent means? Seriously, do you really think that carrying guns in a legal manner and opposing the president qualifies as violence? What an entirely unreasonable point of view to have. Look up the word violent in the dictionary and then get back to me.
It seems as if you are letting hatred get in the way of rational thinking. I know you like Obama and can't possibly understand how any normal person could be opposed to him (and thus we're labeled as violent, unpatriotic, etc.). But Obama and America are not the same thing. Besides, I highly doubt you used this same vitriol to describe actual death threats and violence that occurred frequently at anti-Bush rallies. They were patriotic though right? I don't know why I am even trying to reason with you to be quite honest.
It is like the chicken and egg paradigm...which comes first.
Have you ever wondered that if other African Americans did not fight for their rights, Herman's dad (not to mention Herman himself) would NEVER have made the so-called "progress" and "pulling-yourself-up-by-the-boot strap" praises which you showered on him?
Next time, try to limit yourself to a course of history which you are most familiar with and not one which you attempt to "analyze" from the sidelines.
ASSUMING, no other candidates enter the race, Romney will get the nom and then be defeated by BO. You heard it here first....maybe.
The Tea Party was labeled as racist and yet the Republican leading in the polls........ and BEATING Obama in a head to head race 43% to 41% ............ is Cain ......
The Tea party was cast a right wing terrorists yet there have been few "incidents" at the many Tea Party rallies and few, if any, arrests. In contrast the OWS protests have resulted in nearly one thousands arrests in NYC alone with hundreds more throughout the US.
ONCE AGAIN the liberal media spin has been PROVEN WRONG and you Paul go WAY OUT on a limb in an attempt to explain why ........... unbelievable.
Every day I read articles on race and separating people by color and every SINGLE article is written by a democrat/progressive. Just WHO is keeping this race rhetoric alive??? Who is truly racist and who truly sees people by the color of their skin??
And even granting everything Paul Abrams says, Cain just isn't up to the job of running the most huge and complex country in the world.
You’re making judgments upon someone's economic status. Blacks are more likely to be poor, and presumably you judge them accordingly, rather than look into the system that drives this. Based upon your expressed attitudes, I assume you also judge poor whites, and look at them as losers rather than investigating ways to overhaul the system to make it more equitable for them too?
Does it ever occur to you that under the current inequitable economic system, that most people will NEVER SUCCEED like Cain has? How is this good?
There’s more than one way to define success. In America we tend to look at money first and only secondarily at other modes of success. Because most minorities are poorer than most whites, therefore minorities are generally "less able" to succeed. It’s a self-fulfilling feedback loop.
White conservatives who see the world this way love Cain because he fits their need for reality to conform to their ideology. Rather than undergoing a redefinition of success, they like the system as it is and ignore the real damage it does.
If Cain is nominated for the Presidency and Democrats don't vote for him, it's because they're racist.
I agree with most of what you say, but that sentence is up for debate. It assumes Cain will be the republican candidate for president (not going to happen), and then it assumes that people who hate Obama because he is black, will suddenly find it in their hearts to vote for Cain. Again, not going to happen.
You would also be very hard pressed to find that 5 percent of the African American community that would vote for a republican candidate, does not matter if it Cain or not.
Now why on earth would that come to mind?! Something deep inside that knows a windup record player when it sees it, I guess.
.