I have previously raised concern over the treatment of Herman Cain by the media and Democratic activists because of his race. While I have strong disagreements with Cain, I find it discomforting to see how his race is such a preoccupation with Democrats. This weekend, I was taken aback by the statement of Democratic strategist and MSNBC analyst Karen Finney that Cain is “a black man who knows his place.”
Here is the full statement in context:
“One of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy,” Finney said. “I think he giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he’s a black man who knows his place. I know that’s harsh, but that’s how it sure seems to me.”
What is equally remarkable is Martin Bashir’s response: “Thank you for spelling that out.”
There is of course another possibility: Republicans supporting Cain might not be racist . . . anymore than Democrats who supported Obama. Republicans have previously had African Americans run for President. Alan Keys comes to mind. Like Russ Perot, Cain is billing himself as an outsider from the business world. I have criticized him in columns, but I do not see why he should be faced with constant questions over whether he is genuine or merely some put-up black guy for racist Republicans. Yet, there have been a steady chorus of such attacks directed at Cain.
Finney is described as “having more than 20 years in national politics includes four presidential campaigns, the Clinton White House, a New York Senate race, and first African American spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee.” No one would tolerate Republican attacks that she is a woman or African American valued by MSNBC for “knowing her place.” Yet, these attacks have gone on without little objection from Democrats. Indeed, MSNBC host Al Sharpton has questioned whether Cain is an “authentic black man”.
Cain for his part has called some of these attacks “racist.” Of course, not to be undone in the racist rhetoric, Russ Limbaugh has insisted that Herman Cain more “authentically black” than Obama.
What do you think?
Professor, I think you need to go read the Wikipedia page about the “southern Strategy.” When LBJ said, when he signed the civil rights act in 1964, that he’d lost the south for Democrats for 40 years, he was wrong. It’ll be more like a hundred. The reason Republicans win the south is because Republicans employ the southern strategy to win racist white votes. Further, you don’t see Democrats trying to stop minorities from voting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
“You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
“And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger”.–Lee Atwater
Bron:
“…I think you will find quite a few republicans voted for the civil rights act and quite a few democrats voted against it.”
That’s nice. So there were a few republicans who voted for the CRA. How about the tens of millions of Republicans who that were motivated by the Willie Horton ad? Why are nearly all Republicans in this country very motivated indeed about ‘welfare queens’ when welfare payments are a tiny percentage of our expenditures?
You are an apologist for a party of bigots.
If you modify the following from $600.00 to $5000.00 you have a description of why everything in elite world is SNAFU: “It has probably been many years since anyone has said “no” to Herman Cain. CEO’s are treated like maharajahs by their underlings. Men in $600 suits are reduced to saying, “Yes, sir. Great idea, sir!” after just listening to the most stupid idea they have ever heard. If the ass kissing continues unchecked, bad things happen. One is delusions of infallibility in the mind of the CEO. This leads to getting rid of people who question the bad idea or offer modifications to it in hopes of preventing disaster. The CEO is then left with a staff of “yes men” who only reinforce his ego.”
HenMan,
“It has probably been many years since anyone has said “no” to Herman Cain. CEO’s are treated like maharajahs by their underlings.”
This is precisely why I don’t think business is an appropriate selling point on the background of politicians. In fact, I see a business background as being and becoming increasingly a negative when it comes to office seekers. Statesmanship is a totally different skill set than being in business. It requires an ability to reach compromise, selflessness, the ability to set aside your own ego in the pursuit of solutions, to consider the whole picture instead of the narrow (and amoral) profit motive as the gauge of success or failure, and the ability to gauge and apply nuance to assessing and solving problems. These are skills that are often antithetical to being a successful businessman, but required to be a great political leader. A career in the Diplomatic Corps (at least before that idiot criminal Bush ran off a great many of the dedicated serious diplomatic types) is a far better background for developing the skills a great political leader needs than business is or ever could be.
Jill said:
“That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying race is being used as propaganda aimed at Democrats. The form it takes is called: “ego or pride up”. Please reread the post! Thanks!!!”
I’m sorry, but I still do not understand your point. I don’t see how saying something fairly reasonable is propaganda. And I don’t see how the Republican nominee leader being black does not have racial significance.
The Republican (or the Democrat) party machines simply do not let just anyone be a player for the nomination, and the only reason that Herman Cain was allowed into the race is because he is black and conservative. It certainly wasn’t the novelty of his ideas, or the care and preparation he has put into his platform.
The Democrats did not play the race card here – the Republicans did, so I think that Karen Finney, the reporter, had every right to analyze the blowback of a black Republican nominee backed by a party that has done everything it could possibly do over the past 60 years to marginalize black citizens, and to subtly inflame the racial prejudice of their overwhelmingly white base. Let’s face it – one has to be a pretty strange dude to be a black Republican. There are some real cognitive dissonance issues there, I would think, so I can see Finney’s remarks as sincere, not calculated.
I think a black Republican candidate who might become the nominee has interesting and novel implications, so I really can’t see how Finney’s comments would be interpreted as propaganda – even if they may well be wrong.
If you view Herman Cain as a black man, you will have a superficial understanding of Herman Cain. If you view Herman Cain as a corporate CEO, you will have a better understanding of Herman Cain.
It has probably been many years since anyone has said “no” to Herman Cain. CEO’s are treated like maharajahs by their underlings. Men in $600 suits are reduced to saying, “Yes, sir. Great idea, sir!” after just listening to the most stupid idea they have ever heard. If the ass kissing continues unchecked, bad things happen. One is delusions of infallibility in the mind of the CEO. This leads to getting rid of people who question the bad idea or offer modifications to it in hopes of preventing disaster. The CEO is then left with a staff of “yes men” who only reinforce his ego.
At the level of the factory, or the warehouse, or in Herman Cain’s case, the pizza store, the people who live in the real world and do the actual work will instantly recognize the bad idea for what it is- a bad idea. They know that to oppose the bad idea is to lose their jobs. They also know that implementing the bad idea will result in disaster for which they will be blamed. The result will be to quietly modify the bad idea enough to keep the business going and not let the CEO know that you did it. Again, letting the CEO believe that his bad idea is a great success only worsens the situation.
I have noticed in the Clown College debates that Herman Cain has a streak of arrogance lying just below the surface that comes out in the open when anyone questions his ideas. There are no flaws in his 9-9-9 plan- it’s just that YOU don’t understand it. It’s the CEO mentality at work. Unfortunately for Herman Cain, in the world of politics you can’t fire those who say “no” to your bad ideas.
Mitt Romney has the opposite problem. “You didn’t like my Massachusetts healthcare plan? Really? Well, I wasn’t too crazy about it myself. How about if we shoot all the sick people? Do you like that better? Yes? O.K., that’s my new healthcare plan.” (Subject to change at the next campaign stop)
It does have a lot to do with green if you can’t afford to buy the hand gun carry license which you can use to vote with. A student id does not cut it.
“While the laws are superficially colorblind, the effects are disparate.”
And why are the effects disparate?
The answer once again has more to do with green than any other color.
We had white flight from the democratic party in Texas.
Why?
We had white flight from the democratic party in Texas. Most of the democratic office holders are minorities.
“It’s the inherently charged nature of injecting race into the issue that makes the topic appealing to partisans from either side” (Gene)
I remember when Bill Clinton did it to Obama … and then got all pissed off when he was called on it.
Then Obama did it to Clinton and Clinton got all pissed off again because he claimed nobody called Obama on it.
While the laws are superficially colorblind, the effects are disparate.
**they’re
“Racist voter suppression”; again, ask who benefits from making this a racial issue instead of simply a color blind voter disenfranchisement issue?
Both parties do. Remove that tool from their toolbox and force them to address vote suppression period as the issue and you know what would happen? Both parties would miraculously quite raising the issue as much since their both guilty of gerrymandering and don’t want to draw attention to the skeletons in their own closet. It’s the inherently charged nature of injecting race into the issue that makes the topic appealing to partisans from either side when the issue should simply be denial of and malfeasance regarding the voting rights of citizens perpetrated by any politician no matter his political team of choice.
Gene H.
“eniobob
1, October 31, 2011 at 7:19 am
There is something about Herman Cain that does not feel right in the Black Community.I really can’t say what it is but its there.”
“The issue with Cain isn’t his skin color. It’s that his ideas are childish, geared toward protecting corporate criminals, and enhancing the revenues of the 1% at the expense of the 99%. He just another venal and not very bright corporate stooge based on his performance to date.”
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Racist voter suppression has become a partisan issue in many states including Texas.
“liberal and evangelical republicans”
I think one would be hard pressed to find Republicans who are both liberal and evangelical–unless, maybe, they have split personalities.
Spot on, Jill.
It’s funny how the issue of racism as propaganda comes up and immediately some people want to make it partisan. Racism, like corruption, is an ultra-partisan problem. The only way to effectively deal with the issue is head on and without the distraction of partisan politics. The two least relevant colors in this issue are red and blue. That’s a distraction from the issue just like it is a distraction from the issue of corruption. The relevant color in question is – again – green: who stands to profit off of playing the racial division game? The issue with Cain isn’t his skin color. It’s that his ideas are childish, geared toward protecting corporate criminals, and enhancing the revenues of the 1% at the expense of the 99%. He just another venal and not very bright corporate stooge based on his performance to date.
Propaganda working exactly as intended. People are engaged in name calling about who is more racist, Republicans or Democrats! Mission Accomplished!!!
Instead of working on the problems we face together as Republicans and Democrats (or none of the above), there is division. That Democrats are much purer and better than those awful Republicans seems to be the consensus opinion of the posters. That is “pride or ego up”, divide and conquer at work.
O.K., what about looking at things differently? Racism is a huge, destructive problem in this society. So lets work on it, together. One way to work together on racism is to work together on ameliorating the lives of everyone in our society. When racism arises, we confront it together. When sexism arises, we confront it together. When classism arises, we confront it together.
That’s not easy and many times it’s not going to be successful. But I guarantee working together has the elites scared shitless for a reason–it is the only way things will get better.