After being ridiculed for answers in interviews that seemed to reveal a stunning ignorance on certain foreign policy matters, former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain declared to a supportive audience last week, “We need a leader, not a reader.”
As far as I understand, it is not a zero-sum game. Why can’t we have someone who reads voraciously, so they know the intricacies of the crises America faces, and also has the ability to lead? The professorial class is often the object of derision for good reason, but that doesn’t mean we should want our leaders to pride themselves on their ignorance and promote it as some kind of merit badge.
I imagine Mr. Cain has heard of Winston Churchill. Churchill was inarguably the greatest leader of the 20th century. He stood up to Nazi Germany and inspired the British people to fight on, at times by themselves, against momentous evil. I think it is fair to say that the great Churchill proved himself to be a leader.
He was also tremendously well read. I can’t recommend highly enough a visit to Churchill’s beloved Chartwell estate outside of London. There, you can see Churchill’s library, where you can just imagine him sitting and consuming books. He also wrote there. He was a prolific author of acclaimed histories, including his six-volume history of the Second World War, which helped him secure the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1953. His works were a far cry from the type of nonsense many of our public figures routinely foist on the reading world.
Contra Cain, Churchill testifies to the fact that leadership and knowledge are not and should not be treated as conflicting ideals.
From what we know, Cain was a successful businessman, which proves false the nasty slanders promulgated by some on the left that he is unintelligent. But business intelligence does not always translate into success in the political world.
Given the option, America needs far more excellent businessmen like Cain than brilliant politicos. The former are more valuable to society and our economy. But when choosing a president, you can’t have someone who seems not only ignorant of important issues surrounding America’s relations with the world, but somewhat uninterested in them.
Anyone can make gaffes, but Cain has gone beyond merely misspeaking. He has made a steady stream of erroneous and befuddling statements. I don’t care if he knows the name of the leader of Ubeki-beki-beki-stan or what the neoconservative movement is. But he has to demonstrate a threshold understanding of the military conflicts that American sons and daughters are fighting in order to not be laughed off the presidential stage.
But what is perhaps most troubling is Cain’s refusal to even enunciate a position on many of these key conflicts. He merely says he will consult experts as president, as if that is an acceptable answer for a serious presidential contender.
What’s somewhat ironic is Cain says his foreign policy philosophy would be governed by the slogan, “Peace through strength and clarity.” Clarity is good, but if there is one thing Cain is often not, it is clear.
In fact, he is often incomprehensible, simultaneously taking stands on both sides of an issue while steadfastly insisting he is making sense.
Take his conflicting stance on abortion, where he said in multiple interviews that he was pro-life and that people shouldn’t be free to abort. But when asked in these interviews whether there are any circumstances in which abortion should be legal (i.e. rape, incest, etc.), he said that he didn’t think the government should be involved in that decision. Huh? His answers left his interlocutors simply baffled.
Or take Libya, where his position seems irredeemably convoluted.
Or take when he said that he is for public sector union collective bargaining, but not the outcome of what supporting such a policy is.
Or take when he said early in his campaign that he wouldn’t appoint a Muslim to his cabinet because he would be afraid they would spread Sharia law. Facing criticism, he sought to clarify the statement by arguing that he meant to say he wouldn’t appoint a “jihadist” — but why in the world would he even be considering a “jihadist” for his cabinet!?
Cain has had plenty of time to do his homework. He evidently has chosen not to — at least not well enough — and he is now retaliating by bashing reading for campaign cheers, which some may not consider the maturest move.
This country faces some mounting challenges that can only be handled by someone who, at the absolute minimum, can both lead and read. By his own admission, Cain believes one of those basic qualifications is unnecessary. Unfortunately for him, “9-9-9” is not a sufficient answer to every question.