Conservatives' Double Standard
Andrew Barret's fine post asking, "Is Herman Cain Pro-choice?" deserves more attention, since it points to a glaring double standard in the conservative community, especially here at Ricochet.
Again and again we hyper-parse every Romney utterance from the last 17 years, looking for any contradiction, confusion, or evidence of insincerity. But here Cain is utterly incoherent -- he's pro-life yet believes the choice of abortion should be left to families, not bureaucrats. Huh? (And if you accept Diane's defense in the comments that he was speaking only of cases of rape and incest, then check out this, which is even more spectacularly confused.)
Thought experiment: What if Romney were saying such things -- not 17 years ago, but today, like Cain -- would we give him a pass? Good grief -- of course we wouldn't. I dare say Prof. Rahe would be on him like white on rice -- as he should.
And, natch, Cain has "clarified" his remarks (I guess), just as he's had to do repeatedly in the campaign, and conservatives have moved on. Nothin' to see here. Let's get back to parsing Romney.
Careful, Mitt. You're held to a much higher level of scrutiny than your nearest competitor. A warning, but also a compliment.
- Comment (121)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: Conservatives' Double Standard
I'm not calling Reagan anything. I'm just correcting the history you're trying to present.
I respect the fact that the abortion issue isn't important to you. I even respect the fact that you might be pro-choice. I'm genuinely sympathetic to the fact that the issue makes you uncomfortable to discuss and that you wish it weren't a part of presidential politics. You share something with David Brooks and many "squishes" in that regard. I sympathize because there are issues where I don't agree with the GOP as well, and I don't care for how the party deals with them. However, saying that abortion is something the Republicans should forget about because it is a loser for them just isn't factually accurate, its helped them win many elections, nor morally defensible to people who see unborn fetuses as human lives.
What's more, you don't have to be religious or even believe in God to believe that life starts at conception.
Edited on Oct 21, 2011 at 12:46pmAug '11
Re: Conservatives' Double Standard
BThompson
I respect the fact that the abortion issue isn't important to you. I even respect the fact that you might be pro-choice. I'm genuinely sympathetic to the fact that the issue makes you uncomfortable to discuss and that you wish it weren't a part of presidential politics. You share something with David Brooks and many "squishes" in that regard. I sympathize because there are issues where I don't agree with the GOP as well, and I don't care for how the party deals with them. However, saying that abortion is something the Republicans should forget about because it is a loser for them just isn't factually accurate, its helped them win many elections, nor morally defensible to people who see unborn fetuses as human lives.
What's more, you don't have to be religious or even believe in God to believe that life starts at conception. · Oct 21 at 12:45pm
Edited on Oct 21 at 12:46 pm
Fair enough. Let's leave it at that.
May '10
Re: Conservatives' Double Standard
Ed G.
And here I've been thinking that you're much more charitable than that. Is it really so inconceivable to you that he's sincere in his candidacy and desire to become president and serve his nation? · Oct 21 at 11:51am
Yes, of course. But then he'd either have to be culpably naive or hubristic, in my view.
I also think it's perfectly possible that the other idea--namely the idea that he never thought he'd get the nomination--is compatible with a sincere desire to serve. One way to serve is to get your ideas out in the public forum and to use them to challenge the other contestants and the status quo.
I had a friend (now departed) who once ran for President as a pro-life Democrat. He never thought for a minute that he'd win, or that he could serve well if he did win. His goal was to try to get Democrats to listen to the pro-life cause. It was a good and worthy thing to do.
Edited on Oct 21, 2011 at 1:53pmFeb '11
Re: Conservatives' Double Standard
BThompson
???
I have no idea how you can say that. Other than the Supreme Court the person in government who can most directly affect this issue is the president via his Supreme Court appointments. What the president believes about his issue is directly relevant to his authority and how he'd use it. · Oct 21 at 11:58am
Edited on Oct 21 at 12:00 pm
A president may get one or two supreme court picks and those picks may actually have an impact. Or not.
Feb '11
Re: Conservatives' Double Standard
Basil Fawlty: But he's not just saying that the president has little actual power to do anything about it; he's saying that the president shouldn't do anything about it. And Obama has found the president has plenty of power to push his pro-abortion views through HHS regulations and the like.
Ed G.
Basil Fawlty
Tom Paine:
Cain gave a standard answer: he's personally pro-life, but politically, he feels that the President of the United States cannot preclude other people from making their own choice. .....
Yes. He gave a standard answer. The problem is that it's standard for Nancy Pelosi. Does the "personally opposed but others can make their own choice" line also work with things like slavery?
Not quite Nancy Pelosi. It isn't a renunciation of the pro life movement to admit that the president has little actual power to do anything about it.
I'm operating under the assumption that Tom Paine's description above is an accurate representation of Cain's view. I'll need to do more research on the matter.
Re: Conservatives' Double Standard
Scott Reusser: What if Romney were saying such things -- not 17 years ago, but today, like Cain -- would we give him a pass? Good grief -- of course we wouldn't. I dare say Prof. Rahe would be on him like white on rice -- as he should. . . .
Careful, Mitt. You're held to a much higher level of scrutiny than your nearest competitor. A warning, but also a compliment. ·
You are right that I subject Romney to closer scrutiny than Cain, and I do so with good reason. Everything that Romney says is carefully calibrated, calculated, and poll-tested. He is a pro, and I mean that as a compliment. I regard him as shifty and, at the deepest level, hostile to rolling back the administrative entitlements state, and I have attempted to make the evidence leading me to this conclusion as clear as possible.
Cain, on the other hand, is an amateur. I have praised him for his eloquence; I believe that his instincts are conservative; and I have consistently expressed doubts as to his competence. The incoherence of his statements on 9-9-9, on negotiating with terrorists, on abortion reinforces my concern in that regard.
Feb '11
Re: Conservatives' Double Standard
katievs
Ed G.
And here I've been thinking that you're much more charitable than that. Is it really so inconceivable to you that he's sincere in his candidacy and desire to become president and serve his nation? · Oct 21 at 11:51am
Yes, of course. But then he'd either have to be culpably naive or hubristic, in my view.
I'm pretty sure I know the answer already, but: how so? Is it that disagreeing with your view on prior political experience as a requisite means that one is culpably naive or hubristic?
Mar '11
Re: Conservatives' Double Standard
Well, Scott, it looks like that closer scrutiny of Cain you asked for might come sooner rather than later:
Cain's Plan: It's Now "9-0-9" For The Poor
I really do want him to succeed, to at least give Romney a good run for his money, but his latest utterances aren't very encouraging.
Edited on Oct 21, 2011 at 2:23pmRe: Conservatives' Double Standard
In many ways, the storm over Herman Cain's remarks parallels storms that George H.W. Bush and Dan Quayle faced over comments they once made when each was asked what he would do if a daughter/granddaughter became pregnant and had an abortion. Basically each said he hoped there wouldn't be an abortion, but he would support his child/grandchild in the end. That's a perfectly reasonable answer.
Mr. Cain has not been as clear as he ought to be. Still, if people give him the benefit of the doubt, it because they think he's honest. He conveys that he's prolife, and says he would appoint judges that interpret the Constitution properl, oppose federal funding of abortion and funding for Planned Parenthood. In an update at National Review, he says that people are misconstruing his answer -- that he was speaking about what a president can and cannot do.
He's now accused of being someone who is "personally opposed but." Perhaps. But he doesn't sound like it. I find him believable. I may end up supporting Gov. Romney, but I don't often find him believable.
Oct '11
Re: Conservatives' Double Standard
I think Cain tries so hard to answer the questions "not like a politician" it gets him into more trouble than he can handle.
Dec '10
Re: Conservatives' Double Standard
It’s the misrepresentations.
A governor’s son in the most concentrated big-industry, most big-union influenced states, runs for high office for the past 17 years, first against the Kennedy dynasty, now brushes off half of his chronological and professional life like so many snowflakes with mittens.
CNN Western Republican Debate, Las Vegas, 18OCT11: “having spent my life in the private sector…”
Bloomberg/WaPo Debate, Hanover, NH, 11OCT11: “I spent my entire career working in the private sector…”
Are those disqualifying falsehoods? No. Is he a prevaricating establishment GOP insider sketching the portrait of a Main Street guy from Paint Creek? Yes. Worse, why try to convince everyone he’s not Wall Street?
In one article, Romney's Guilty Republican Syndrome, WSJ says everything that needs to be said. Brilliant: “How can he demonstrate a principled understanding of capital and job creation when latching on to Mr. Obama's own trademark $200,000 income cutoff? …Romney: "For me, one of the key criteria in looking at tax policy is to make sure that we help the people that need the help the most."
Please, a Leviathan slayer, not an enabler.
Re: Conservatives' Double Standard
My fear -- and I have expressed it with some frequency -- is that Cain is in over his head. I wanted Governor Mitch Daniels and Congressman Paul Ryan to run because I believed that they would be up to the challenge.
I hoped that Rick Perry would be up the job. I feared that he was nothing more than "a Texas hot dog" and said as much on this site. I think better of him now that I know more, but he has not yet persuaded me that he is up to the job, and I suspect that he is not. I have always thought that about Herman Cain and still think it. I would like to think that he will get his act together. I doubt, however, that he will do so -- which means that, once again, we will be saddled with a managerial progressive -- Obama restrained by competence.
Jun '10
Re: Conservatives' Double Standard
I have a theory: Romney is from Massachusetts, he speaks and acts like a New Englander. Therefore, we assume he's at best a Rockefeller Republican, if not an actual liberal, so when he speaks the language of a true conservative it sounds inauthentic to our ears.
Cain sounds like a Georgia Baptist preacher, and Perry like a cocky Texan, so we assume at heart they must be authentic conseravties. Whenever they say something moderate or liberal we rationalize it as a big misunderstanding.
May '10
Re: Conservatives' Double Standard
Ed G.
katievs
Ed G.
And here I've been thinking that you're much more charitable than that. Is it really so inconceivable to you that he's sincere in his candidacy and desire to become president and serve his nation? · Oct 21 at 11:51am
Yes, of course. But then he'd either have to be culpably naive or hubristic, in my view.
I'm pretty sure I know the answer already, but: how so? Is it that disagreeing with your view on prior political experience as a requisite means that one is culpably naive or hubristic? · Oct 21 at 2:17pm
It has nothing to do with my view.
It has to do with having a just appreciation of what is entailed in the job. Either he lacks that appreciation and is therefore dangerously naive, or he thinks he's great enough to tackle any job, regardless of his inexperience, which would be hubristic.
Jun '10
Re: Conservatives' Double Standard
Bingo. Then there's the Mexico City Policy, put in place by Reagan to block foreign aid to groups that perform or promote abortions. Clinton rescinded it, Bush restored it, and Obama rescinded it again all by executive order.
There's also budgetary issues like defunding Planned Parenthood. At minimum I want a candidate who is committed to not spend one cent of my tax dollars on funding or promoting abortion, who respects the conscience rights of health care workers, and does not seek to force employers or insurance plans to pay for it.
May '10
Re: Conservatives' Double Standard
Paul A. Rahe
Cain, on the other hand, is an amateur. I have praised him for his eloquence; I believe that his instincts are conservative; and I have consistently expressed doubts as to his competence.
First, thanks for not taking offense at my reference to you in the post -- I gambled that a little provocation was necessary to get the post to the main feed.
Re Cain's instincts, one worry is that his answers, especially in that Stossel exchange, actually betray a liberal instinct, as he inadvertently (instinctively?) made a rather eloquent argument for the Pelosi position at one point.
And his other most recent gaffe -- with Blitzer, about "seeing himself" freeing all Gitmo detainees in exchange for one American -- also betrayed a liberal instinct, perhaps. He should have had a knee-jerk "no", and then qualified from there -- if qualification was even necessary.
Oct '11
Re: Conservatives' Double Standard
There's an alarming similarity between the left's treatment of Obama in 2007 and the smooth path many on the right would like to pave for Cain.
Cain's ignorance of America's role in the world seems to be complete. He gives us a marketing slogan for an economic plan. What the heck are Cain boosters trying to do, nominate Chauncey Gardiner? We elected a cipher last time - look at what happened.
If we nominate Mr. Cain, Barack Obama will beat him like a gong.
There are only two potential nominees with the intelligence, depth, and experience to hold the presidency: Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. Neither is perfect. I'd strongly prefer Newt (did you hear his recent speech at the FRC?), but he'll never overcome his negative public perceptions. Time to suck it up, people. We're either going to run Mittens or we're going to get clobbered.
Be patient. Let's nail down both chambers, some more governorships, and more state houses and officers. That'll be enough to keep Mitt in line. It took over a century to dig this hole - it'll take some serious effort and discipline to dig out.
Re: Conservatives' Double Standard
That statement alone is worth a column to clarify, Bill. I may need a neck brace after trying to follow that one. Or are you just referring to the general election and not the primaries?
May '10
Re: Conservatives' Double Standard
A funny sentence. No rush.
Something touchy for you to consider, Peter: Is it possible we are patronizing Cain? You kind of hinted at the possibility, I think, in the podcast with Thomas Sowell when you were introspecting over the possibility that maybe, just maybe, your own enthusiasm for him might be identity based.
What I had in mind at the moment of writing was a long back and forth between Prof. Rahe and James of England over whether Romney made Romneycare "the" issue in 2008, or "an" issue, or not much of an issue at all. There was parsing aplenty, imo.
Add a long discussion here over Romney's use of the word "hypothetical" in the Bloomberg debate. The stakes: whether he grasped Econ 101 with respect to the Euro crisis.
Or an examination of his statement "I'm running for president for heaven's sake" in response to his illegal lawncare guys. Struck me as rather silly.
Or whether his acceptance of global warming means acceptance of the need for intrusive gov't action.
Etc.
Apr '11
Re: Conservatives' Double Standard
Tom Paine
katievs
No, wrong. It's much more than that. Much, much, much more. · Oct 21 at 11:05am
To you, it is. And I respect that.
But you don't decide elections; independent voters do. And they don't like all this God-and-abortion talk. ·Edited on Oct 21 at 11:12 am
I think you are describing gormless "undecided voters". True independent swing voters who aren't down-the-line conservatives or Liberal Fascists actually might be balancing, say, Cain's tax proposals against their pro-abortion sentiments. They notice "God-and-abortion talk".
Katievs is right. Someone who believes it is unjust not to protect the life of the unborn is far more likely to believe it is unjust to treat your income and wealth as what the government allows you keep. Also, look at Cain's list of what pro-abortion actions he would keep the Federal government from taking.