Herman Cain and Electability
I'd like to hear folks here at Ricochet react to Byron York's interesting piece on Herman Cain's straw poll victory in Florida. In particular, the following dynamic that York highlights provides an almost ideal context in which to discuss what 'electability' amounts to:
- Cain is unelectable, so I won't vote for him.
- Wow, Perry blew it.
- Cain's speech was brilliant. (Don't dare compare this to President Obama. The difference between rhetoric and empty rhetoric is categorical. The former moves one to a particular point of view; the latter excites enthusiasm about nothing in particular.)
- I don't care if he's unelectable, I'm voting for Cain.
- Cain wins; most are happy.
- Republican commentariat spins it as a win for Chris Christie, express desire to get rid of straw polls, &c.
Of course, straw polls can be meaningless. This one isn't. Cain will now get much more media attention, at least for a few days. And one of the obstacles in the way of electability is, after all, lack of media exposure. Another obstacle that many will argue is insurmountable is lack of political experience. Cain's response is one that in these days of Tea Party influence proves effective with a noteworthy lot: how's that whole electing experienced politicians working out for you so far?
I'd elect Cain in a heartbeat. While I'm still young enough to at times maintain a two-fisted grasp on naivete, I'm at least wise enough to consider the wisdom of others. Is there anything that makes Cain matter-of-fact unelectable? Or is it possible that the national electorate could mirror the evolution of the Florida straw poll delegates without that being a gross error?
- Comment (93)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Herman Cain and Electability
I love how Cain's overwhelming straw poll victory messes up the Tea-Party-is-racist narrative. But count me among those who think his inexperience puts him out of the running.
Politics isn't business. For one thing, there's no opposition party in business. There's also no hostile media. No war department; no international relations.
Part of me loves that Cain got in the race; another part finds it worrying. Is it naiveté or hubris, or both, that makes him think that his success in business is enough to prepare him for the Presidency?
Dec '10
Re: Herman Cain and Electability
Cain is absolutely electable. He radiates core principles and mega-watt leadership abilities. Our country is in desperate need of genuine leadership and Cain is the real-deal.
In 1980, Reagan was said to be unelectable because he was a dangerous, wild-eyed cowboy. You already know what Cain would say about that, "how did that work out for you?".
Edited on Sep 25, 2011 at 1:40pmMay '10
Re: Herman Cain and Electability
jetstream
In 1980, Reagan was said to be unelectable because he was a dangerous, wild-eyed cowboy. You already know what Cain would say about that, "how did that work out for you?". ·
The issue, at least for many, isn't "electability"; it's experience.
Reagan had been President of the Screen Actors Guild and Governor of California.
There's just no comparison.
Aug '10
Re: Herman Cain and Electability
Trying to think of a more innocent interpretation, here's the best I can do: Perhaps he is honestly convinced that what the country needs is someone with the problem-solving skills he thinks he has acquired in the business world, but whose soul hasn't already been corrupted by politics. In a sense, I'm suggesting he might be convinced that at least one form of naiveté could be a virtue right now. Would that be less worrying to you? or still a manifestation of a vicious sort of naiveté?
Jan '11
Re: Herman Cain and Electability
He is clueless on foreign affairs and foreign policy which, despite the fact those topics never get raised in the debates (rolls eyes), is still the presidents number one area of responsibility.
Mar '11
Re: Herman Cain and Electability
I'm a big Cain fan, but the BThompson's point is a valid one. However, with the right people around him, including someone with a lot of foreign policy experience as VP (i.e. John Bolton), that shortcoming can be mitigated. Besides, he can't be worse than what we've got.
I believe his biggest problem would be that he'd get as much pushback from his own party's establishment wing as he would from the Democrats, and he'd get nothing done that he wants to get done.
Edited on Sep 25, 2011 at 2:39pmDec '10
Re: Herman Cain and Electability
katievs
jetstream
In 1980, Reagan was said to be unelectable because he was a dangerous, wild-eyed cowboy. You already know what Cain would say about that, "how did that work out for you?". ·
The issue, at least for many, isn't "electability"; it's experience.
Reagan had been President of the Screen Actors Guild and Governor of California.
There's just no comparison. · Sep 25 at 1:53pm
Katievs, in 1980, no one really cared that Reagan had been a governor - it just wasn't a factor, it was sort of a footnote. Reagan won the election because of his core philosophies and historic vision for America. Just like now, the country was in desperate need of leadership. I spent a lot of time with the Reagan campaign that year.
It's my opinion, Herman Cain's leadership potential could surpass Reagan's by quite a bit. Remember, leadership is all about setting the strategic vision and making the best decisions based on available information and circumstance. Based on my own experience with leadership under a range of difficult environments, what I see in Herman Cain looks like the real-deal.
May '10
Re: Herman Cain and Electability
Hegesias
In a sense, I'm suggesting he might be convinced that at least one form of naiveté could be a virtue right now. Would that be less worrying to you? or still a manifestation of a vicious sort of naiveté?
No. Still a manifestation of the kind of naiveté that would be extremely damaging in the President of the United States.
May '10
Re: Herman Cain and Electability
jetstream
He radiates core principles and mega-watt leadership abilities. Our country is in desperate need of genuine leadership and Cain is the real-deal.
Business leadership is not the same as political leadership. It's a different sphere of life, calling for a different set of skills and a different body of knowledge and experience.
That seems to me an absurd claim. The fact that he had won election, and successfully and conservatively governed the largest state in the nation didn't matter?
May '10
Re: Herman Cain and Electability
Would anyone think Cain's success in business qualifies him to be manager for the New England Patriots? How about Academic Dean of MIT?
Mar '11
Re: Herman Cain and Electability
I fear leadership by anyone who thinks government can be run like a business. Newt is guilty of this. So is Romney. I am not sure if Cain is.
Dec '10
Re: Herman Cain and Electability
kaitevs - you really don't understand the meaning of leadership. For example, I voted for Reagan in 1980 and worked for the Reagan campaign, saw a lot of the campaign from the inside. You clearly weren't old enough to do either, and yet, you are lecturing me about the context of the 1980 election. Here's some leadership guidance. A good leader with no experience or knowledge about a subject would ask a lot of questions instead of making naive or incorrect assumptions.
Reagan won the 1980 election because of his core philosophies and his historic vision for America. If credentials mattered then the peanut farmer would have won because he was the President at the time of the election. The 1980 election was a contest of philosophies and ideologies about the direction of America - it was a contest for the soul of the country. The fact that Reagan had once been the governor of CÅ was of little import and his role as the president of the SAG was a big negative and the basis for ridicule by the MSM.
Cain could easily succeed as a Dean at MIT or manager of an NFL team - it's about leadership.
Edited on Sep 25, 2011 at 7:57pmApr '11
Re: Herman Cain and Electability
I want to like Herman Cain, but...here's what I wrote about him on another thread:
Cain for Fed or Treasury would be just fine. But for VPOTUS? While I understand and somewhat agree that he might be a politically expedient pick, absolutely not. Isn't anyone bothered by his rather un-American religious litmus test? (If this has already been discussed at Ricochet, my apologies, and please point me in the right direction to get up to speed.)
Apr '11
Re: Herman Cain and Electability
katievs
jetstream
Katievs, in 1980, no one really cared that Reagan had been a governor - it just wasn't a factor, it was sort of a footnote. Reagan won the election because of his core philosophies and historic vision for America.
That seems to me an absurd claim. The fact that he had won election, and successfully and conservatively governed the largest state in the nation didn't matter? · Sep 25 at 4:13pm
No, katievs, vass you dare, dahlink?? During the campaign Reagan was given the courtesy title "governor", but his two terms as governor didn't figure prominently in his propaganda. The big issues were the Soviets in Afghanistan and stagflation vs. Reagan's anti-Communism and supply-side economics. I suppose Reagan's experience contributed to some people's comfort with him, but with Carter's astonishment and disappointment with Soviet aggression, the Teheran "hostage crisis", the economy, and Carter's general waspish fecklessness, challenging RR as "inexperienced" was a non-starter.
May '10
Re: Herman Cain and Electability
Who's lecturing whom?
Aug '10
Re: Herman Cain and Electability
Katievs, Palin's success as a governor doesn't qualify her to manage an NFL team, &c., so that's a red herring. Nor does Alaska have a war department or international relations. Looking for other distinguishing characteristics between Palin and Cain in what you've said so far, that leaves dealing with an opposition party and hostile media--in the face of which Palin quit (her detractors will say).
I think one thing people like in the idea of a business man as President is the ability to approach economic policy from an insider's perspective. When considering legislation, Cain could think of how it would have affected his businesses. One effective means to dealing with an opposition party at least should be articulating that perspective forcefully. And the reports of how he won delegates over in Florida suggest he at least has retail-political skills.
I'd like to underscore a thousand times I'm not the cheap-shot Palin detractor I play above. (R. Craigen's suggestion on Rahe's thread strikes me as fantastic.) I'm just interested to hear your defense of what will inevitably have to be defended ad naseum if she runs.
Dec '10
Re: Herman Cain and Electability
katievs
Who's lecturing whom? · Sep 25 at 8:22pm
katievs, I was there!
May '10
Re: Herman Cain and Electability
Dwight D. Eisenhower had no elected political experience; lot's of management experience, executive temperament, and his foreign policy experience was leading an international coalition. He also was smart enough to choose experienced sharper people to advise him on other areas.
I don't know if Cain will continue to demonstrate an ability to learn quickly enough to lead the free world, but we should consider it. At least he "gets" the country, and it's problems. Does Mitt? It may come down to that...
Jun '10
Re: Herman Cain and Electability
For national leaders, commonsense cures a multitude of ailments. Every President is unprepared, because for the most part, unforeseen events end up controlling the nation's agenda. Look what happened to GW Bush. They don't lead events. Events lead them. So, the important thing is, they know what it is that they don't know. Obama's problem is, he thinks he knows everything. That's why he was willing to pick a complete imbecile for a running mate. VP talent didn't matter, so Obama picked impeachment insurance instead.
Apr '11
Re: Herman Cain and Electability
Truly the only way from here to know if he is electable or if he has leadership, is to see what he does with this bump. Rick Perry jumped in, is a proven governor, received frontrunner status, but can't seem to be properly prepared for the obvious questions he is going to be asked in an important national debate. What does that say about his ability to adapt to difficult circumstances and his preparedness.
He seems poised, confident and given his background, has the ability to get the job done. Have any politicians gone on to run successful businesses? I can't think of any off hand but I'm sure they have or were they told they needed business experience.