Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog

It didn’t take long for the vultures who circle the fields of American politics to pounce on Herman Cain, with undocumented allegations that are drawn right from the playbook of dirty tricks. Clearly, if Cain was not perceived as a threat and a viable candidate, he would not merit such attention. And while attention for the leak has focused on the Rick Perry campaign (the old “staffer” leak), no one knows the provenance of the initial information – perhaps even from another campaign or even another party.
Two questions present: what if the allegations are false? And what if the allegations are true?
To date, the anonymous accusations boil down to what, at worse, is boorishness, and at best, a lack of chivalry. Even for the sexual harassment industry – and it is an industry – this is quite tame. Every decent person can recognize that unwanted physical contact between a male and a female is, and should be, a crime, and that persistent verbal harassment – pathetic attempts at humor or seduction – should be actionable. One can even subscribe to the notion that a “hostile work environment” can be created that justifies the involvement of the justice system.
But a one-time joke, or a spurned offer of romance, neither of which affects job performance, promotions, salaries or standing? It is easy to see why those are distasteful and objectionable, but much harder to see how the courts and lawyers should be involved. Attorneys are quite familiar with two notions – nuisance settlements and deep pockets – that are both inducements to litigation. For most cases and clients, especially when the allegations are mild and certainly when they are false but relatively innocuous, it is fiscally prudent to just settle for a small amount of money than to litigate – and even prevail – while paying a much greater amount in legal fees. It is just more cost effective to settle. (Back in the day, I represented a number of people who were innocent but pleaded guilty to non-criminal offenses and paid a fine, rather than pay a substantial amount to a lawyer – to wit: me – to defend them to the great moral victory. It simply made no sense to miss endless days of work and pay legal fees when the stakes were not that great.) A similar dynamic occurs in negligence cases, where insurance companies routinely settle “nuisance” claims when the cost of litigation is excessive. It is sad that the system works like that, but it does.
And businesses, like insurance companies, usually have deep pockets, which is the reason that they are sued for idle comments that bear a randy message and not your average construction worker whose random comments are far more lascivious but who lacks money to pay.
Fabricated sexual harassment claims in the business world are as common as fabricated sexual molestation charges are in divorce cases. They both have the advantage that the accusation is tantamount to a conviction, and the accused bears a presumption of guilt, not innocence. They are powerful weapons to wield, and the only inhibition is decency, a quality that is not as widely dispersed across society as we would like. An aggrieved spouse, like a disgruntled employee, can fire this arrow, and once it crosses the barest threshold of credibility – i.e., the accuser is not a raving lunatic – the accusations must be dealt with, defended, depositions taken, trials held or, most likely, settlements reached.
These Cain cases, settled as they were for incredibly small sums, fit this pattern well, with one additional wrinkle. The settlements are always accompanied by non-disclosure clauses, binding each side to silence. That is the point of the money – to make the case go away. It is therefore fascinating that allegedly, one of the alleged victims, has now offered to tell her story publicly, which she should, once she returns the money, with interest, to the National Restaurant Association that paid her.
All of the above assumes that the charges and claims are frivolous. What if they are not – what if each allegation is true and Cain is guilty of…we know not what but it certainly made some women “uncomfortable”?
I am not sure it means much of anything, although the sordid events tell their own side story. Clearly, a double standard exists in politics, wherein Republicans and conservatives are judged harshly for this type of misconduct, and Democrats and liberals are given a pass. Two words suffice, Bill Clinton, but some elaboration is necessary. Today’s news reported that the first three days of the Cain business generated some 50 stories from the major networks compared to just seven stories, total, for candidate Clinton’s three crude accounts in 1992 in their first three days. And Clinton’s accusers had names and faces. Senator Bob Packwood (R) was driven from the Senate because of his uncontrollable kissing disease; Senator Ted Kennedy (D) was re-elected to the Senate numerous times, and became a presidential candidate, after leaving a woman in his car to die, or something worse than that.
Of course, I don’t really mind the double standard, except when the accusers carve out an exemption for themselves. Then, their pursuit of moral excellence is expedient and hypocritical. And it is good to know that the accusations presuppose some moral norms, whose violation triggers some reaction. But it is still phony. Anyone can be sued for anything, and the story remains, even if dismissed, certainly if settled. There is no harm in suing, because in America, the loser is rarely assessed the costs of the other side, as is common in the rest of the world.
Assuming there was no physical contact, no groping, no intimidation, and no serial harassment – as the facts that have emerged to date reveal – then do these allegations (making some women “uncomfortable”) disqualify Herman Cain from the presidency ? It is hard to see why. This whole narrative challenges many of the feminist shibboleths, especially the equality of men and women. “Equal” is a poor term; men and women are different, not equal. One would laugh, out loud, at a man who claimed to be offended (and sued) because someone made him “uncomfortable.” In a normal world, whoever doesn’t like a joke, is allowed to say “that is not funny” and walk away, and whoever is crudely asked to a hotel room by a man not her husband is allowed to say, “Not if you were the last man on earth.” Those putdowns should end the discussion, and if there are no further consequences, should never give rise to litigation. That, of course, is in a normal world.
Our word is not normal, is exceedingly litigious, and many Americans have used lawsuits to enrich themselves or shield themselves from the consequences of their own actions. For example, an employee about to be fired can inoculate himself (or herself) from termination by making the appropriate charges. At worst, you can buy yourself a nice severance package and save your pride. It happens.
That is not to say that one’s private life should be off-limits when running for a public position. One’s private life often sheds light on one’s values and true personality. Those who discounted, for example, Bill Clinton’s cheatin’-lyin’ ways behind closed doors should not be surprised that he outright lied to PM Netanyahu (first term) when he promised Netanyahu that if he came to Wye and an agreement was reached, he could take Jonathan Pollard back with him to Israel. Clinton simply lied (this, first-hand knowledge, from a participant at Wye). A lying private life eventually maneuvers its way into one’s public dealings as well. And Clinton remains quite popular.
It is sad, but you could see this coming a mile away. It is one reason why many people – sensible people – eschew politics altogether. Because so much money and power is at stake, it often attracts people with character issues, and attacks from others with even greater character flaws. Cain has revealed himself to be, at best, a prudent businessman in settling and disposing these claims, and at worst, a lout, if not just a typical man. The first is his main qualification for the presidency, and the second is not at all a disqualification. The anti-Cain forces have come alive; but if he is to fail in his quest, let it be for his policies and experience, not for these piffles.

    Herman Cain has rocketed to the top of the polls for the Republican nomination for president, but unlike some predecessors, he has retained his position for several weeks. Most others wilted upon closer scrutiny. Cain persists, and here’s why:

    He is the ultimate outsider. While others – including the President – are running against Washington, most are part of official Washington, either working there (or aspiring to work there) for their entire public lives or being perceived as part of the Washington establishment for decades. Those without any true Washington connection – a Rick Perry, for example – present as so raw as to be ill-prepared for the Presidency.

    Washington as the political center of the nation is the most unpopular entity in the country, and Cain can rail against it credibly, as well as present an alternative locus of power. Cain has the aura of success, a golden touch in every venue he has worked. The American President is the CEO – Chief Executive Officer – of the country; a real CEO, and a successful one, would be a welcome relief from the amateurish ideologues who are now bankrupting the nation. Consider: it is highly unlikely that Cain spent his first three years as CEO of Godfather Pizza blaming its predicament on his predecessor. Like any CEO, he is judged by his performance, including responding to the challenges posed by what his predecessor did. Somehow, that is lost on the incumbent president.

    Obama, too, ran as an outsider, and indeed he was – outside any metric by which success is measured and outside the boundaries within which acomplishment is assessed. His victory was the perfect storm, and it is difficult to see how Obama can use the “inexperienced” label against Cain. Cain wears his outsider, “not-a-politician” badge quite naturally, although Rick Santorum cheekily asserted that Cain “is not a politician” because he has lost every election in which he has run. (Of course, Santorum, whose social issues campaign would be a popular banner in every election but this one, also lost his very last election, calling into question his own electability.)

     Herman Cain also has the life’s experiences that Obama lacks, even now as president. And he defuses at least partly one of Obama’s main strengths – the monolithic black vote that enabled Obama to carry most states along the coasts where black populations are concentrated. If Cain can peel away even a third of the black vote – along with some Jews who could not bring themselves to vote against a black man, but now can bask in the Cain cover – states like California, New York and New Jersey could become competitive. In the best case scenario, the black electorate could conceivably be re-aligned and its unthinking support for the liberal policies that have engendered a half-century of dependence and social collapse summarily ended.

   The truth is that Cain’s life story is far more typical of the average American black than is Obama’s – and far more inspiring. Obama grew up in relative privilege – a son of parents who each had doctorates, and with a Bohemian mother who sent him to live with white grandparents who were solidly middle class. He has no Southern roots at all (one reason why his affection for usin’ a Southern black accent when addressin’ black audiences is so grating.  I always vonder how he vould talk to a Jewish audience. I guess I’ll have to vait and vatch vhen it happens.) Cain grew up in relative poverty, with a mother who was a domestic and a father who rose to become a chauffeur – but, most importantly, both instilled in him the traditional American values of self-help, personal responsibility, the rewards of hard work and a loathing of the welfare state. Cain owes his success to his achievements despite the fact he was black; Obama’s victory came because he was black.

    Cain’s success story is a much more genuine one than Obama’s, who rode the perfect storm to victory never having achieved anything of note besides the publication of two autobiographies. I sense that the Obama people fear Cain even more than they do Mitt Romney, whom they will present – unfairly – as a symbol of the old ways, the “policies that got us into this mess,” etc. (Obama, interestingly, never fails to rail against the Bush bank bailouts of 2008, and always fails to mention that he voted for them as Senator and expanded them as President.) With Cain, the race card Obama acolytes play when the going gets tough recedes back into the deck.

    Herman Cain is also much more articulate than is Obama, and it is also a welcome relief to see people in politics who are not tethered to a teleprompter. (One priceless photo making the Internet rounds shows Obama not long ago speaking from a teleprompter, moving his head side to side as always from behind a podium, while addressing a … kindergarten class.) Cain, Romney and several other candidates just speak from the heart, and so Cain has a unique capacity to connect with people that exceeds Obama’s.

     Of course, unscripted also means prone to errors, and Cain has made his share of them. I watched and cringed when Cain stumbled on the “right of return” question Chris Wallace threw at him. Clearly, Cain didn’t know what it was – but he admitted as much the next day. But the CEO need not know every detail of how to make the widget – he just has to know who makes the widget, what a widget should look like and how it should work, and how it is to be sold to the public. He need not know, or pretend to know, the minutiae of every issue facing the government. What he needs to know is the broad direction in which he wants to take the country, and how every decision should advance the goals he articulates. He has to be able to set the tone for his underlings and the sprawling bureaucracy that will execute his policies, and know how to rein in officials who will try to thwart those same policies. Reagan was a master at this, and one senses Cain can be the same type of leader – one with good instincts, and honesty in implementation – and admitting failure and taking responsibility for failure. From that perspective, Obama is much more typical
of his generation, in which the blame for missteps and fiascos always lies
elsewhere. With Obama, not only does the buck not stop with him, it doesn’t
even enter his office.

       To be sure, none of this makes Cain the perfect candidate – there is no such creature – nor does it make him the likely nominee. He is such an outsider that it is difficult to see how he can defy the odds and win the nomination. Then again, it was impossible to see Obama, in 2007, as a plausible candidate for president, much less the eventual winner. He has to avoid playing the idiotic gotcha games of the modern media (“who is the Foreign Minister of Uzbekistan, and who preceded him?”). But a Cain-Romney ticket (even Romney-Cain) would be appealing, cut deeply into Obama’s base and, at this early stage, facilitate a Republican victory. I still maintain (as noted here two years ago) that Obama will ceremoniously dump (Crazy) Joe Biden in favor of Hillary Clinton, which will transform the dynamic of the race in unpredictable ways. It will add a “newness” factor that will rev up the Dem base.

      So will a Cain nomination do for Republicans, independents and disaffected Democrats, in either spot on the ticket. He also has the considerable advantage of being competent, compelling, a straight talker, and a non-politician – and someone who lives, and is proud of, the American dream. Anything can happen, in an era in which candidates are marketed like soap. Cain is a master marketer, and he has an engaging product to sell.