The recent rumpus over Herman Cain’s confused abortion stance seems to merely be a symptom of a larger problem: Cain just isn’t ready for prime time.
This realization has been a long time coming. Confusion over his abortion stance was merely the latest in a long line of confusing comments. First, he said he wouldn’t be comfortable appointing a Muslim to his cabinet (he later walked that back) — then he was visibly unfamiliar with the Palestinian “right of return” — and more recently — he said he would approve trading all the GITMO detainees for one American soldier (he later said he misspoke).
Those were some of his most serious mistakes; there have been others.
For example, he said he wouldn’t support Rick Perry (even if he were the Republican nominee) — he sided with a small town in Tennessee that wanted to stop construction of a Mosque — and he caused minor contretemps by saying he wasn’t familiar with the term, “neoconservative” (I think this one was much ado about nothing).
The flap over his incoherent abortion stance is merely the latest example — though it might be the most costly, inasmuch as it risks angering and alarming an important bloc of Iowa voters.
So how does a front runner for the Republican nomination in 2012 get tripped up over the issue of abortion?
And what is to account for all these mistakes?
In some cases, a gaffe is just a gaffe. We all make mistakes, and those who speak frequently (and in the public) are more likely to be caught doing so. When Cain confused the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution, for example, that’s probably just one of those mistakes anyone could have made (that he was lecturing people on reading the Constitution, probably didn’t help, though).
In other instances, it is blatantly clear that Cain lacks some significant knowledge. That seemed to be the case when he was visibly unfamiliar with the term “right of return” on “Fox News Sunday.”
We all have knowledge gaps — and voters will excuse a few instances of it — until it becomes a pattern.
An even more concerning problem, in my estimation, is the notion that Cain has perhaps not wrestled with some deep philosophical questions that are front and center in the American political debate.
This was evident when he seemed to flip-flop over the question of whether or not it was okay to kill al-Awlaki — a militant who also happened to be a U.S. citizen. Either answer to that question is intellectually defensible — good people can disagree — but it’s important for a presidential candidate to at least have a consistent stance.
And, of course, Cain’s lack of a coherent worldview was on full display when he essentially made a pro-life and a pro-choice argument on CNN the Wednesday night.
It’s easy for one to simply declare himself, “pro-life” — but the real work begins when one is forced to defend it — and to confront the difficult implications that entails. The question of exceptions is, of course, especially difficult for some to square.
Has he done that work?
Having been a public speaker, radio talk show host, and a columnist, one might assume that Cain would have already been forced to do this kind of intellectual work.
But I doubt it.
Public speakers give the speeches they write. Columnists often pick what they want to write about. And radio talk show hosts are kings of their domain; they pick the topics — and the can always cut-off a questioner they don’t like.
Upon reflection, it occurs to me that — to the degree in which I have a coherent worldview — it is largely the product of having to defend my positions on MSNBC. As a frequent guest on the cable network, I knew I would face smart, liberal hosts and guests who would challenge my assumptions and conclusions. They would not allow me to rely on platitudes. I could not charm them with my personality.
Being in this somewhat adversarial environment forced me to be introspective. I had to regularly ask myself some questions about my beliefs, including: “What are the implications of my viewpoint?” — “Is this inconsistent with my other values?,” and — “If I say this, what will be their response?”
The exercise was not always pleasant, but it forced me to confront inconsistencies and uncomfortable facts which I might otherwise have brushed under the intellectual rug. (By the way, this is an argument for sending your conservative child to a liberal university).
My guess is that Cain has not, until now, faced such scrutiny, and thus, has not endured such self-examination. Clearly, he has developed some crutches that have, up until now, allowed him to escape tough questions. For example, when he’s in hot water, he tends to fall back on saying that the question under debate should be left up to the states or the families to decide. This is a popular bromide — and it is sometimes correct.
On other occasions — such as questions over our involvement in Afghanistan — he simply says he would ask the “experts.”
Those answers might have been acceptable when he was a long-shot candidate, but not now that he is a front runner. My guess is he has gotten by on his likability, charisma, and natural leadership qualities.
Now, that’s just not enough.