Evidently “we” do! Or so claims Touré, an essayist and cultural critic, in an interview last night on Lawrence O’Donnell’s MSNBC show Last Word. While discussing the Herman Cain sexual harassment case, Touré opined: “[B]ut, I mean, I can’t go any further without pointing out that it’s yet another blonde white woman who’s accusing him of doing and saying things that are inappropriate. The instinctual fear in America of black men being sexually inappropriate or aggressive or dominating with white women is very, very deep.”
Some of you, I fear, thought I was writing somewhat tongue in cheek in this previous post when I predicted that we would be seeing exactly these types of comments. But as I noted in that previous post, because there is no evidence, at least not yet, by which to assess the competing versions of what happened between Cain and these women, the individuals involved immediately become symbols for broader debates about race and gender. Those who join in do so usually with an agenda to push, and with little concern for what is actually known, or more precisely how much is not known, about the actual incidents. For most of the participants, the facts become secondary and who one believes become a litmus test for one’s views toward those broader issues. Once the debate reaches (or sinks to) this level, both sides dig in for an all-out public brawl fought with increasingly vitriolic rhetoric. In the end, no one wins. Certainly this debate is not helping Cain’s electoral fortunes.
Already there are signs that, although most conservatives seem less than concerned by the accusations, recent survey results indicate others are reconsidering their support for Cain. In Iowa, Cain has seen his polling numbers drop 7 points in five days, while nationally, Romney has pulled ahead of him in some polls, and Gingrich has gained as well. The RealClearPolitics poll aggregator shows Cain losing almost 5 points in the last week to fall back into a dead heat with Romney, while Gingrich has surged into a close second. All this despite absolutely no conclusive evidence that Cain has done anything wrong.
Look, I don’t mean to dismiss the importance of having a public discussion about issues of race and gender. Nor do I mean to minimize the issue of sexual harassment. It’s unfortunate, however, that this discussion has to take place in the context of electoral campaign, in a manner that sheds more heat than light on an already contentious issue, and which may render a de facto guilty verdict on Cain’s candidacy without any real evidence on which to base this finding.
Perhaps I’m idealistic, but there has to be a better way to address these issues, one that elevates conversations about race and gender rather than see it descend into the swampland of cultural stereotypes…
Ok, maybe not.
Were I a Cain supporter, I might well have changed my mind because of his handling of the problem. It reflects on his electability, and his effort to brand himself as a ‘problem-solver’.
David – How should he have handled it, assuming he is telling the truth and nothing happened?
At a minimum Cain should have avoided contradicting himself, or appearing to, and the campaign should not have made assertions it couldn’t back up. I thought that was obvious.
Since you’ve asked, I’ll add some non-expert thoughts on how politicians should handle such matters.
In one of his books, Vincent Bugliosi says that when he questioned a witness as a prosecutor, he would also do the defense attorney’s cross-examination for him. Whatever he thought the witness might say that would damage his case, he would bring out himself.
Besides raising the prosecutor’s credibility, the lack of reluctance to reveal the damaging details makes each one seem a little less damaging. And by the time the opposition has its chance to dwell on them, they at least no longer have the emotional impact of a dramatic surprise.
Similarly, a political campaign should do the oppo research on its own candidate. It should gather the facts, then fashion coherent narratives that will hold up to scrutiny while minimizing damage, and get them out early. Any actual wrongdoing should be admitted and apologized for.
If there is something that the intended audience is expected to be absolutely unwilling to forgive, and the candidate still insists on running, then ‘modified, limited hang-out’ is the last resort. But Schwarzenegger got away with a lot more than Cain has been accused of, just by saying ‘sorry’.
If the campaign falls short of this ideal and gets surprised, the drill is the same. Get the facts, and be the first to complain if another party, such as the NRA, is blocking their release.
Well, I don’t think Cain or his supporters would concede either of your points – that he contradicted himself or that he made assertions he couldn’t back up. In any case, I think the issue may be moot – I suspect the Cain bubble is going to dissolve regardless of how these allegations are resolved. Last night’s foreign policy debate really brought home the potential consequences of electing a political neophyte President, and I think the Tea Party are having second thoughts regarding his candidacy. He has to hope that his 9-9-9 plan will keep him in the game because this is going to be primarily an election that turns on who can create jobs.