WashPo has a nice piece on Herman Cain’s use of humor—and his insincere apologies after people point out to him that his humor isn’t always that funny.
Jonathan Capeheart writes:
Herman Cain likes to say “America needs to get a sense of humor.” …But Cain has used humor throughout his improbable campaign not only to paper over deficiencies in policy knowledge but also to jab at critics. Jabs that are so stinging, hard-edged and unbecoming a potential president that he almost always has to walk them back — kind of.
After referring to Nancy Pelosi as “Princess Pelosi,” Cain said yesterday,
“I apologize for calling her ‘Princess Pelosi,’ if that’s the biggest story you all have, okay?” Asked to explain why he apologized, he said, “So you all will stop asking me about it, okay?”
This is the same tactic Cain used when his hardy-har-har over electrifying a border fence that would kill illegal immigrants who touched it was deemed unfunny. First, he apologized saying it was a joke. Then he apologized while standing by his electrified-fence position. “I just don’t want to offend anybody,” he said at a press conference in Arizona on Oct. 17.
An electrified fence. Nice. Next time I see Mr. Cain, I’m going to make a joke about slavery and see how that goes over. Then I’ll apologize “to anyone who was offended,” as they say.
And Capeheart provides one other example. After he was asked on TV if he would ever consider hiring celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, Cain responded:
Uh…you almost made me say something that my handlers say you should not say…but let me put it to you this way: I can’t think of anything that I would hire her to do! Ok (laughter) I can’t think of a thing.
Okay, Herman, we get it: You wouldn’t pay her to have sex with you. Calling Dr. Freud.
Capeheart concludes with a point with which I couldn’t agree more:
Given the way Cain has run his campaign, handled his response to very serious and multiple allegations of sexual harassment against him and his obvious lack of policy depth, there’s no way he should be in serious contention for the Republican nomination for president.
So why is he leading in the polls?
I don’t entirely understand how Cain got there-this brand of nasty Republican humor, which its admirers inappropriately describe as candor, probably has something to do with it—but I can understand why the current controversy isn’t hurting him. The hard-core Republicans who are really paying attention to the campaign so far have such an us-vs.-them mentality, such a culture of opposition, that they take attacks on a candidate, no matter how unserious or flawed he may be, as attacks on themselves. It’s learned but unthinking behavior: Anything that they’re against, we must be even more passionately for. So not only will I make jokes about sexual harassment—I’ll write Herman Cain a check!
And you wonder why Obama has trouble getting anything done: He is dealing with adults who have the emotional intelligence of children. And not just in Congress.
As I watched the debate two nights ago, I heard candidates throw out these strikingly aggressive assertions of what they’d do. I’ll repeal Obamacare on day one! I’ll fire Ben Bernanke! Let Italy collapse—who gives a damn! I’ll get rid of every EPA regulation in existence! I’ll throw out Dodd-Frank!
(Because, you know, why would we regulate the financial industry?)
And I wanted the debate moderators to say, What is it exactly about Obamacare that you object to? Why would you fire Ben Bernanke specifically? Do you seriously believe that every EPA regulation is wrong? Rick Perry, when you say that the EPA needs to be “rebuilt,” what the hell are you talking about?
(All right, that last one may be unfair, due to its implicit assumption that Rick Perry has the faintest idea what he’s talking about.)
Instead the “moderators” let the candidates get away with dispensing such puerile red-meat platitudes, and the ominous mob audience—was I the only one slightly worried for Maria Bartiromo’s safety after she asked Herman Cain about sexual harassment?—hooted and hollered at every bloody scrap tossed its way.
I was thinking last night about how much the GOP venerates Ronald Reagan and re-imagines him as a warm, grandfatherly figure. (The truth, of course, was more complicated.)
I think that if Reagan were alive and he saw the crowd react to Maria Bartiromo with hissing and boos, he’d be astounded—and appalled. I can even imagine Reagan using a light touch to disarm (as it were) the crowd, and turn those hisses into laughter and cheers. He was good at that. It would have been nice if someone on that stage had rebuked the crowd, no matter how gently. Had Cain done it, he would shown a flash of stature.
It consoles me somewhat to believe, as I do, that this immaturity will cost the GOP profoundly in next year’s elections. But really, I’d prefer for the country to have two healthy, mature, serious political parties. The situation we’re in now—it may in the short term be good for the Democrats, but it’s not good for the country.
