 |
| Illustration by Mark Olmsted |
However after much thought, I think that evil is the most accurate term to describe GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain. He's also a lying, shameless hypocrite.
Cain is older than I am and he grew up in the Jim Crow south. Born in 1945 in Tennessee, his family moved to Atlanta, Georgia where he grew up. I don't have to question whether or not Cain's life was impacted by segregation and racism. His mother worked as a cleaning woman, and his dad held three jobs as a barber, janitor, and a chauffeur at the same time in order to make ends meet. Cain grew up poor and black in the deep south; he couldn't avoid experiencing racism.
Atlanta's Antioch Baptist Church North, of which Cain is a member, is a liberal black church with a congregation of 14,000 and an annual operating budget of more than $5 million. Antioch is known for hosting a "who's who" of civil rights activists as guest speakers. (The CNN Belief Blog, Eric Marrapodi & John Blake, The Liberal Church of Herman Cain, 10/18/11.) A recent article in the CNN Belief Blog includes interviews with some members and former members of the church who know Cain. It seems that many do not agree with his politics and avoid conflict by not discussing their differences. (Id.)
I don't buy for a moment that Cain really believes that the GOP has the best interests of low income people on their radar, and he fully knows that a disproportionate number of poor people are African-American and Hispanic.
Rev. Frederick Robinson, former associate pastor at Antioch Church, and a friend of Cain, is quoted as stating, “He knows there’s racism in the tea party, but he’ll never say that because they are his supporters. That bothers a lot of people, but he plays to that base not because he’s a sellout but because he’s a politician.” (The CNN Belief Blog.)
I say it's because he is a sellout, a hypocrite, and evil. Cain knows firsthand what racial apartheid means and yet he offers electric fences with sufficient voltage to kill those attempting to cross the border as a solution to unwanted immigration. He then tries to dismiss it as a joke. Let's suppose that Rick Perry made a joke about lynching black folks, anyone laughing yet?
A lot of Cain's popularity comes from his skin color. There is nothing that annoys some white people more than having attention called to any racist behavior exhibited by any white person. The immediate response is typically, "I'm not a racist." Witness the response to thoughtful analyses by writers, white and black, about the role race plays in the level of vitriol directed at Obama since his first day in office. Many appear incapable of hearing the messages, which generally are not accusing whites of intentional racism but are instead questioning perceptions and expectations that may be grounded in harmful racial stereotypes.
Cain is a black man who says what Tea Party types want to hear. He blames poverty on the laziness of those who are poor. He proclaims that Obama is a socialist out to destroy the country. He advocates killing illegal immigrants rather than letting them cross our borders. He thinks that all social welfare programs just make people lazy and greedy and would eliminate them under his watch. What's not to love if you're a Tea Partier?
Magically, whites who are uncomfortable with any discussion of race and who consciously or subconsciously promote racist attitudes can say with proud defiance, "I am not a racist, after all I support Herman Cain."
Prostituting the heritage of black people's oppression in this country for his political gain is shameful and yes, that makes Cain evil and dangerous. His repeated affirmations that issues of race are figments of the imagination of people of color undermine the progress that has been made in honestly and openly addressing the legacy of racism in this country. He insults the memory of all those who fought and died in the struggle to defeat Jim Crow and promote equality. His head should be bowed in shame over his minstrel show act performed for the gleeful Tea Party crowds that hang on his every word.
Why label Herman Cain as evil? Because he is indifferent to the needs of others, indifferent to the suffering endured by those who came before him and fought for the liberties that allow him to run for office. He takes no responsibility for his words, using them to further incite those who oppose the very concept of social justice. In the words of Elie Wiesel, "Indifference, to me, is the epitome of evil." It is indifference, the refusal to act to prevent injustice, that provides evil with the fertilizer that it needs to grow.
I've said this before elsewhere but I'll say it again: Cain is not running for president. He's a con man. This entire thing is a huge con job. His campaign bought $100,000 of his own book! He's on a book tour and he's fleecing his 15 minutes for all its worth. I'm shocked anyone takes him seriously.
ReplyDeleteHis 9-9-9 plan was cribbed from Sim City. He once suggested a moat around the U.S., now it's an electronic fence. No, he was kidding. No, he wasn't. His favorite ice cream is "black walnut," which doesn't even exist. He wants his Secret Service codename to be "Cornbread." His church embraces Malcolm X -- the same Malcolm X that not too long ago Republicans were claiming is Obama's real father.
You cannot make this shit up. This is performance art, and the suckers are the media, pollsters, pundits and Republican voters who seriously think this guy is for real.
Suckers are born every minute and they've all moved to America to take part in our elections.
I, too, am amzaed that Cain is regarded as a viable candidate. And why more Blacks aren't exposing him for the poser he is is doubly bothersome. (And last, but not least: with all due respect to Southern Beale, Hershey's does make a fine black walnut ice cream :-)
ReplyDeleteI agree with SoBe that this guy is a huckster, milking his 15 minutes for all it's worth. I doubt he sees himself as a viable canidate but he must be overwhelmingly giddy to see how well his dog and pony show is doing.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, there are people actually considering him as a presidential candidate and the media is interviewing him as if he is a serious candidate so it would probably be a mistake to not put his feet to the fire early on and hold them there until he squeals.
This guy is not just a disgrace to his race but a disgrace to humanity. The Rev Robinson says he's not a sellout, he's a politician - I would say not true, he is a politician and a sellout of the worst kind; I am reminded of how my father was arrested by the communists in his native country. He was caught helping people escape over the border into Germany after WWII, not by an observant police but because there was a fellow citizen amongst one of the groups who was a plant. He came back and gave evidence against Dad.
Herman Cain is an malevolent opportunist who will throw his hat in the ring of whatever party prevails.
Rocky,
ReplyDeleteYour dad is a hero.
I don't often use the word 'evil' because it's hard to separate it from a religious context I don't want anything to do with, but it's so much easier to type than all those long epithets and embarrassing obscenities I can't resist tossing in.
Sheria,
ReplyDeleteAnd that's another blockbuster post.
Tutti,
ReplyDeleteI would agree that Cain is in the strictest sense not to be taken too seriously as a candidate. He has precisely as much chance as I do of ever becoming POTUS. And I'm a large extinct predatory lizard with a walnut-sized brain, so there you have it. A lot of these so-called candidates are probably just trying to sell some books and get a teevee spot with you know which cable station.
Part of what's going on is due to the fact that nobody really likes "Mittens" and they're annoyed that he's going to get the GOP nomination anyway. The media will play up any damn fool as an opponent to Romney -- it spikes ratings for those who actually watch the Republican debates and goings-on.
But at the broadest level, what Cain is tapping into IS worrisome -- his popularity is a marker of just how vile the so-called Republican base has become. They were always useful idiots, but now they're leering, vicious, empowered idiots and they won't be satisfied with anything less than Satan with a pitchfork and a red cape for their nominee. The Pizza Man isn't that, but it seems the 'Baggery take him for a reasonable approximation because they're cheering him on and he's obviously loving every minute of it.
I have no problem with that old metaphysical term evil; my definition of it is "willingness to take kindness for weakness and exploit it ruthlessly." That's the ideology of the contemporary Republican Party: kick them all when they're down; steal from the poor to give to the rich; if you're suffering, you're a loser and it's all your fault and we're going to go out of our way to make you suffer still more. If you're from somewhere else, we hate you. I could go on, but it's just too sickening.
Under Captain Fogg’s recent post, I left a comment expressing some hesitancy to characterize Herman Cain as “evil.” On one hand, I did not want to detract from his life accomplishments or his courage as a cancer survivor. Give the man his due, I thought.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I recognize the eliminationist rhetoric as you and Captain Fogg have pointed out – a rhetoric that characterizes the opposition as a disease, a plague – an evil to be eradicated. Very troubling! As David Neiwert states: “Eliminationism has always been the signature of trait of fascism, a manifestation of its embrace of the myth of national rebirth through the fiery destruction of the existing order.” If Neiwert describes Nazis and fascists, he also describes today’s Tea Party and their billionaire benefactors.
Yet, there is an uncomfortable contradiction that underlies such discussions that gives me pause. When we condemn radical political hyperbole and characterize it as “evil,” do we travel the same path, the logical conclusion of which inevitably leads to eliminationism? Or am I over-intellectualizing?
We condemn books titled Liberalism is a mental disorder with righteous indignation and condemn covert and overt racism hurled at our President; yet we have flung similar vituperation at former presidents, sometimes justified, sometimes extreme and dishonest.
Politics are often described as a rough and tumble contact sport, and we half expect rhetorical excess to be part of the game. Yet, I wonder if tit-for-tat oratory serves our purpose. Take wedge politics, for example. Its purpose is to divide and conquer by turning coalitions of people with common interests into ineffectual fragments.
Recently, this story caught my attention Tea Party co-founder expresses support for Occupy Wall Street:
“The problem with protests and the political process is that it is very easy, no matter how big the protest is, for the politicians to simply wait until the people go home,” financial blogger Karl Denninger observed. “And then they can ignore you.”
Denninger has been complaining for some time that the Tea Party was hijacked by the Republican establishment and used to protect the very prople [sic] it had originally opposed. A year ago, he wrote, “Tea Party my ass. This was nothing other than the Republican Party stealing the anger of a population that was fed up with the Republican Party’s own theft of their tax money at gunpoint to bail out the robbers of Wall Street and fraudulently redirecting it back toward electing the very people who stole all the ****ing money!”
My point: If we want to win this argument and the 2012 election, we need a larger coalition of people with common economic self-interests. We defeat our purpose if we allow ourselves to be suckered by wedge politics and turn away folks like Karl Denninger.
Returning to the subject of Herman Cain, yes, he betrays the legacy of the civil rights struggle and the goals of MLK. But is he evil, or merely another iteration of the eccentric old uncle whom the family hides away in fear of being shamed?
While I am by no means married to this comment, I offer it for consideration and debate.
Octo, Cain is far from the eccentric uncle hidden away in the attic to protect the family reputation. Cain foments hate with his careless comments. He blesses those who embrace their bigotry, makes them feel comfortable with their prejudices because after all, Cain is a minority and he says that it's okay to be anti-Muslim, kill immigrants, and declares that black people are ignorant and brainwashed into support those liberal Democrats. He does all of this in spite of what he knows to be true about the nature of bigotry and its destructive impact on both the bigot and the object of the bigotry. He chooses to play this game. I call that evil.
ReplyDeleteI also don't believe that his campaign is afake. I think that he's dead serious. This isn't his first attempt to run for public office. He sought the Republican nomination for Georgia's senate seat in 2004. He considered running for the Republican presidential nomination against George W. Bush but says that he changed his mind because it became clear that Bush was the "chosen one."
I don't think that he will get the GOP nomination but I think that the harm that he is doing to this country is serious. Herman Cain is choosing to undermine the very foundations of the civil rights struggle in which so many of us have engaged for generations. He offers a palatable version of blackness to those who prefer to pretend that racism in America is a fantasy invented by Al Sharpton. Cain's message undermines the gains that have been made in race relations. I call that evil.
Dear Sister,
ReplyDeleteI cannot dispute your logic. Point taken. Recently, I have been thinking of avoiding polarizing rhetoric and being more reserved in my comments. Perhaps my concerns about polarizing rhetoric do not belong under this post. Yet, taking a contrarian’s approach certainly helps clarify matters.
Your loving and faithful brother.
I think the eliminationist rhetoric point is always a valid general issue – it doesn’t mean we can’t call our opponents evildoers, or, for that matter, one-trunk-inheriting slaves, saucy sirrahs, prating knaves or any other Elizabethan epithet that comes to mind. It just means we shouldn’t add, “git a rope” or “shoot ‘em dead,” or play the demagogos like Mark Antony supposedly did to get revenge for his slain pal Julius: “Mischief, thou art afoot, / Take thou what course thou wilt!" To mock or parody – even savagely – is not necessarily to dehumanize, though care should be taken in that regard. I’ve said many a time that the so-called Left has long since lost its capacity to put the most contemptible “conservative” elements in their rightful place, to dismiss them and make them so ashamed of themselves that they feel like illiterate, mean-spirited children (which is what they are) and shut the hell up for a good five or ten years at a stretch.
ReplyDeleteThe president is somewhat constrained by the great dignity of his office (and by the fact that millions of American latent-racists wouldn't tolerate an "angry black president"), but we ordinary types aren't -- I’m with George Carlin – I don’t want to talk to these stupid sons of snitches, I want to crush them. Just not with my hind paws – I mean at the ballot box.
DIno,
ReplyDeleteYou mean more ink and less camouflage?
Octo you are a darling brother. I like you just as you are and don't think that you need worry that you are using polarizing rhetoric and I certainly would not have you be more restrained in your comments. Just be your charming and true self.
ReplyDeleteFrom the post: ". . . GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain. He's also a lying, shameless hypocrite."
ReplyDeleteThat's actually redundant. When you say "GOP presidential candidate," you've said "lying, shameless hypocrite." The two have gone together like peanut butter and jelly for decades. ;)
Southern Beale wrote: "Cain is not running for president. He's a con man. This entire thing is a huge con job."
Absolutely right. This gig raises him money and stature in the short run and pumps up the fees he can charge as a speaker, the price of the book he will surely write, and future paychecks.
It's the same lucrative con game Sarah Palin has played for nearly four years.
Herman Cain is not worse than Ron Paul. I would like to say he is also no worse than Bachmann or Perry, for example, but I cannot. While either of those two could ultimately be as detrimental to the nation if they became president, I think they believe some of what they say, especially Perry.
ReplyDeleteHerman Cain does not mind that his tax plan, the main plank in his platform, is so regressive that at the debate he was called out for its negative impact on the poor (all politics, but legitimate, nonetheless), by others who admire regressive tax plans.
Ron Paul implies that we should cut out a trillion dollars in entitlements and “give that back” to the people, so they can donate it to charities that would then help the impoverished with it because charities are “better at it.” Ron Paul is a blatant liar. He intentionally tries to trick voters.
I would choose the religious stupidity of Perry over either of those two. I believe he is a demon who believes in hell, which is somehow more dignified.
There are two conflicting motivations here: to be better than they are, to remain objective, fair rational, dignified and above the anger. The other is to survive.
ReplyDeleteRush, the other day, damned Obama for "sending troops to wipe out Christians in Africa" What he really did was to send 100 men to help defeat a terrorist group whose atrocities include the rape, torture and murder of countless people.
Does anyone really think that politely discussing, rationally debunking such rhetoric will dissuade Limbaugh's legions from following a man who gets rich by praising evil? People like Limbaugh -- like Cain and Bachmann and all the lesser devils won't be reasoned away or go away when politely asked. You don't reason with barbarian invaders nor are their followers amenable to being reasoned with. I'm a bit tired of the introspection and self-flagellation. Do we want to be rid of them or do we not?
Actually even Ron Paul has come out against the Idiot Cain's tax scam as "too regressive."
"Does anyone really think that politely discussing, rationally debunking such rhetoric will dissuade Limbaugh's legions from following a man who gets rich by praising evil?"
ReplyDeleteCapt., I strongly suggest rarely posting and commenting on Limbaugh, politely or otherwise. That's because every time those of us opposed to him and his kind go to the trouble of pointing out the obvious about him, we generate buzz for him. Limbaugh isn't a politician; he's a business. The more reaction he gets, the more publicity/buzz he gets, the more entrenched he becomes, the more money he makes and the more his dittoheads adore him and are bound to him.
A big reason Limabaugh's listeners are so loyal and pleased with him is because they know he makes us feel outrage and disgust. They're into spite. They're bullies like he is. They revel in his ability to get under our skin.
All of which is why Limbaugh literally makes it his business to say outrageous things like that statement about killing Christians in Africa. He doesn't really care if Obama sends a full Marine division to Africa, or who he sends them to go after. What Limbaugh does care about is pandering to his listeners' prejudices and resentments, and generating outrage in people on the left. He cares because doing those things adds to his fame, wealth and job security.
I still think Cain should get the nomination. Cain and McCain would make a nice pair of bookends.
ReplyDelete