A Brief Response to Various Comments
One of the things I dislike about internet debates is that people argue with statements you didn’t make and then the debate continues around those arguments. Today, for instance, Dr. Helen—aka Glenn Reynolds’ Insta-wife—said of my Monday post on Herman Cain: “What Klavan is advocating is political suicide. He might as well have taken his playbook from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals where Alinsky’s fourth rule is ‘Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this…’” She goes on to cite an episode of the TV comedy Fresh Prince of Bel Air in which a candidate refuses to respond to low attacks and thus loses the election.
I respect Doc Helen tons professionally and like her very much personally and her remarks echo those of commenters that essentially assume I think Cain is guilty or shouldn’t fight back or that the remarks of his accusers should be taken at face value. (One fellow, to prove his point, accuses me of sexually harassing him and dares me to disprove it. On the contrary, it’s a night I’ll always remember fondly.)
But I neither say nor believe any of these things. I don’t know yet whether Cain is innocent or guilty. If he’s innocent, he should fight back like a lion. If anyone can fairly discredit his accusers, go to it. I always thought George W. Bush was far too gracious in his response to unfair attacks, and the republic was harmed because of it. And certainly no one can accuse me of suffering fools gladly myself.
But there’s a difference between allowing your opponents to hold you to their absurd re-creation of your standards and not living up to your standards yourself. Would we really ignore the homicidal sins of a right wing Ted Kennedy merely because he was right wing? Man, I hope not. It is precisely the folly of the left that they confuse their political positions with virtue and thus think themselves exempt from ordinary moral considerations. They riot, lie and even kill in the certainty that what they will achieve will be so wonderful as to justify them even in their foulness. I pointed to the foolishness of this point of view in my Monday post last week. I don’t now plan to adopt it in dealing with Cain or anyone.
Alinsky notwithstanding, we can’t live down to the standards of the left. A victory won on those terms is ultimately a defeat both for ourselves and the nation. Cain stands accused. The burden of proof is entirely on his accusers. But if they do make their case, I’m not going to change my values to save his neck.
Why respond to Comments? Why will Cain hold another press conference? Let it go.
We play hardball by gathering facts, responding to allegations, pointing out our opponents hypocrisy, and never giving them a pass for bad behavior. But if we have a politician who asks that we lower our standards for him/her then they need to go. Politicians are expendable. Never fall in love with them until they are out of office and can’t “grow.”
Perhaps the title of the Monday post (“Why We Should Be Unfair to Herman Cain”)was a bit of a red herring. The fact that the establishment media scrutinizes and smears conservatives far more than they do liberals IS unfair. The fact that conservatives still have to live up to their conservative values and ideals is NOT unfair. It is just what it ought to be. It is mere Christianity. And we have to be okay with that, come hell or high water. Unless we want to be merely Alinsky.
Mr, K,
Whenever I suppose I’m thinking clearly and am improving as a writer, I return to your posts and realize how much I have to learn. Your comparison of greed last week between keeping what is yours and wanting what is someone else’s was so succinct and spot-on that I haven’t stopped repeating it to my coworkers and friends in our discussions about OWS. This week, your analysis that you’ll never find the devil hanging on a cross was such a picturesque wrap up of the heart of your article that again I find myself practically “evangelizing” your material to my non-believing friends.
Keep up the good work. I find myself not only entertained, but informed, enlightened, and challenged.
By the way, I miss your Klavan on the culture video spots on PJTV. Hope they make a return soon!
God bless.
“The burden of proof is entirely upon his accusers.” But this is not a law court case. It is dirty politics, a malevolent, classic Alinsky any-means-to-the end strategy, just as Dr. Helen says. Cain’s response was following your counsel: ” It is up to them to prove it. Until they do, the law says I am innocent.” But the accusers have no intention of providing honest proof; in fact they (and you) are saying that it is up to Herman to rove himself innocent. Their premise is: “His refusal to provide absolute proof of his innocence is sufficient evidence that he is guilty as charged.” For them, that’s the beauty of their tactic: the charge alone is destructive enough to bring the opponent down,particularly one who could lose them a large block of the black vote. They can just pay a few campaign dollars to hired witnesses and walk away.
Your conclusion is bizarre. Here is a gutter-style political machine making deeply serious accusations, counting on a complicit MSM to inflame them, highly aware that the public response to a scandal is always against the accused and, once created, usually sticks, however false. Yet you believe it is Cain’s responsibility to stop, at a critical point in his campaign, hire investigators and lawyers to make his case, and sue? This, apparently, is what you mean by being “unfair.” It sure as hell is! It is Kangaroo Court procedure.
The difficulty with this argument is that it almost inevitably leads to “Yes, he grabbed her ass, but I like his position on the deficit, so I’m willing to overlook a few peccadillos…” which is what we all excoriate the Democrats for doing. How else is this going to play out? On balance, as it stands, I don’t believe any of the accusations against Cain, but if they were proven, conclusively (let’s say a security video, with multiple corroborating witnesses, for instance) then I wouldn’t want him to be the candidate of the Republican Party. *Perhaps* this is a put up by either the Democrats directly or a rogue individual or group (it’s weird that they’re all from when he was President of the unarmed NRA); in fact this is what I suspect. Until that emerges, or alternatively this turns into a he said/she said thing, we have to keep on our toes, and I think what Andrew K was saying was that in the meanwhile, the media was going to be “unfair” to Cain, treating this case with much more scrutiny, and the woman’s statement with less skepticism, than if he was from the other party. That’s par for the course, and I think in part his point is that we don’t want to elect the Republican version of Bill Clinton, even if we have such an individual in our ranks, and he’s the odds-on favorite to win the White House.
“The difficulty with this argument is that it almost inevitably leads to “Yes, he grabbed her ass, but I like his position on the deficit, so I’m willing to overlook a few peccadillos…””
Maybe it leads to that for you. For me it is merely a matter of waiting for actual evidence before I impose a penalty. We should be fair to Cain, because that is what is conservative.
“When Klavan ticked me off by announcing we should be UNFAIR to Cain, I thought he meant PJM should continue with its unsourced, yellow-journalist attacks on Cain.”
That isn’t what they’ve been doing, they’ve been reporting what’s happening.
Other than Mr. Klavan’s provocatively titled (idiotically titled?) piece, PJM has been fair to Cain.
If Mr. Klavan thinks we should not give his accusers the time of day until they have proof of something, we are in violent agreement. Taking that tack has nothing to do with abandoning any principles we should practice.
Andrew, No objection to this or the prior post, as far as they go. The next step that ought to be taken, has been taken, is to hold the left to our standards and by the implications they make against our spokespeople, theirs, too. Since the MSM is not going to join us in chorus when a lefty strays we must not only use new media but a tactic of the left that is more likely to rattle their chains; public protests. Yes, we find them relics of a bygone era. But the left believes in them. Fight fire with fire.
The point isn’t that this will be effective in curbing leftists tryst or incidences of corruption. The point is to make them come unhinged a little. Shake their domain. Rattle their effective, indignant denouncements.Shut them up.
Exactly. Our side should have a database of examples of leftist/MSM hypocrisy on our smart phones. Categorized. In response to any question about “these serious allegations” we preface our answer with an appropriate example of the media’s hypocrisy. Every time. They’d get the message.
the use of “sexual harassment” is a political tactic of the left and the press. if Herman Cain is facing a criminal charge then he is innocent until proven guilty. The same applies here. the media wants to make this into “she said she said she said…” but there are no criminal charges, only (the continuing) “The Herman Cain Sexual Harassment Allegations Scandal and Sideshow™”.
the press can kiss my black bass. The really big one I just caught. It set a record for how huge.
I suspect I’m a member of a small minority that has read “Rules” even once, and I’m quite confident that there aren’t any others that have read it several times and kept a heavily bookmarked copy on his desk and assigned reading it to his staff. So, I think I understand how one deals with Alinsky from the Right.
Just as it is often said of the Constitution, Rules isn’t a suicide pact. Conservatives can’t really use Rules for Radicals; just not enough of us will eat a bean dinner so we can go fart at a City Council meeting and think we’re achieving social justice by doing so. Conservatives need to understand Alinsky, and Mao, and Lenin, well, especially Lenin, because they inform our enemies’ playbook. And, yes, I did say enemy. Fifty years ago Republcans and Democrats were adversaries. As little as thirty years ago labor and capital were adversaries. In today’s world Democrats and labor are our enemies, and we really need to understand that being nice won’t make them like us.
The one rule, Rules for Conservatives Rule One is: NEVER GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT. Cain has handled this horriby and even today’s going all in is horribly fraught with peril; that lawyer should have counseled a whole lot more “weasel words” because they’ll find some girl who’ll testify about the wart and how one hung low. All it takes is money and the promise of fifteen minutes of fame.
I really don’t believe this came from the Left. I don’t believe this is some Democrat conspiracy. Somebody at the NRA or in one of the opposing Republican campaigns learned there were some allegations and settlements and they dropped a dime. The media are like Pavlov’s dogs on any allegations against a Republican and expecially sexual allegations against a professing Christian. They’re just being who they are. Cain’s people acted like the rank amateurs that they are and made it worse. His categorical denial is extraordinarily dangerous; sexual harassment is in the eye of the beholder. Propriety is in the eye of the beholder. The words should have been much more carefully chosen. I know lots here like the lack of professionalism, but it bites you in the a$$; sorry, the lawyers run the World.
In any event, Cain should have seen this coming. If he’s categorically innocent, he should have responded immediately with righteous indignation. If he’s guilty of at least some level of horn-doggedness he needed to immediately do an act of contrition and see how it played out. We don’t serve ourselves well by trying to become Democrats and defending our guy just because he’s our guy; we don’t wear it well. There’ve been some absolutely crazy posts on this subject. We don’t kick our people to the curb the way everybody kicked Ted Stevens to the curb as soon as he was indicted; any prosecutor can indict a hamburger and in DC, you can find a white guy guilty and sentence him to death for being a Republican. Let’s try to have some sense and neither give them what they want or engage in a suicide pact.
I do see a scenario where this Is(was)being instigated by the left…kind of a variation of the domino theory. It’s not insignficant that Cain is black and at least two of the women are white blondes.
You’re giving them more credit than they deserve. Either somebody at the NRA or who had been there at a time where they could know of the complaints dropped a dime to Politico or to one of the other campaigns. Of course once the leftwing media had it, they had the usual frenzy over it.
Is anyone pointing out that the Cain “S H” hoo-hah, is a blatant attempt to peel off social values conservatives from his support group?
The hard left, the MSM, the Fem-Nazis, the Eco-crazies, and MANY benefit takers in the ethnic minorities groups would never support him no matter what. Still they think he’s dangerous enough, and that the (probably) Christian Fundamentalists are gullible enough to use this disgusting character assassination methodology to knock him effectively out.
With all the problems against us, if this succeeds, we deserve to collapse.
There is no number of accusers I would accept as evidence with the likes of Gloria Allred standing behind them. Neither are anonymous, 3rd shadings of unknowable, unjudgeable accounts.
We know Clnton is guilty, there were bruises and contusions, and a white stain on a dress.
All we know about the accusations against Cain is that the GOP establishment and the Left will profit by his fall, and that there is no evidence against him yet.
Thanks again, Andrew. If what I heard from a reliable source a little over an hour ago play out, your posts today will prove to be prescient.
I have been thinking of one accuser, Bialek, and her scenario. How about hits interpretation?
Everything she says is true. She met with him, had dinner, he drives her to hotel. There, he grabs her crotch. “This is what you came for, isn’t it?” Then he forces her head to his lap. “You want a job, right?”
What she didn’t tell: “Get your wh*re a$$ the Eff out of my car. You are not getting a job from me like this, b****! I don’t give jobs to wh*res! And I don’t cheat on my wife! GTFO!”
Righteous anger. Teaching her a lesson. A bit of hubris on his part doing so, though. I could see it though, because I would be tempted to do it, myself. Women like her just p*** me off.
*this interpretation (typo)
And there’s a reason he’s running for President and you’re not. If you’re in a place where you can do things to and for people, you simply can’t let yourself be alone with political women; you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. If a woman wants something, you meet her in public if you want to discus it and in private if you want sex. You NEVER, NEVER, EVER meet with a political woman privately unless you want to have sex with her or want to be accused of having sex with her.
Well, of course, so I do not run for office. Cain wasn’t running then, either. I doubt it had even crossed his mind. So, my thought stands. I am picturing the situation, that’s all. I am coming up with a scenario in which she tells the truth, but not the whole truth.
And yes, I know this kind of stuff comes back to bite you in the backside. So, it seems, it has.
Andrew, love your stuff man, but …
In the real world, the good guys don’t necessarily win just because they play by the rules. The only moral high ground is winning.
We are up against people who would cheerfully ship us off to re-education camps. I can’t call them fellow citizens anymore.
We must use Alinski tactics on them.
Totally agree with Klavan here. In recent years, we have seen politicians on the right, most notably Palin, play the victim card and other cards normally played by liberals on numerous ocassions. Of course, we also have the commentators, like Rush, and others, playing the race card. I think they realized the utter folly of this tactic and have since backed off. This copying of liberals tactics is sickening to this conservative.
I will not even consider lowering my standards to get Cain the nomination. I’m old fashioned, I don’t believe in sending someone to the White House who has cheated on his wife. This is the Head of State, we can do better.
Amen! And, the truth about all of this may come out sooner than you expect. Keep the faith.
You’re a conservative? A conservative who disdains Cain, loathes Clarence Thomas, sneers at Sarah Palin, and craps on Rush. Big conservative.
“I’m old fashioned, I don’t believe in sending someone to the White House who has cheated on his wife.” You think you’re making fun of us, but we can see that you’re a little girl wetting her pants for giggling.
Or, as I said in response to your comment #28 on Dr. Helen’s “Why was Sharon Bialek Fired” post, you’re another white Democrat bigot. Go call somebody an oreo, Lefty.
“I’m old fashioned, I don’t believe in sending someone to the White House who has cheated on his wife”\\
Of the top four GOP candidates, other than Gingrich, who do you pretend that is?
Andrew, you are not at all the man I thought you were.
Then again PJM is not at all the organization I thought it was, particularly as evidenced by its recent page-view-whoring on the Herman Cain story. And you talk all lofty about higher standards! What a sick joke.
Luckily, I’ve cut my viewing down to every 3 days and should be completely weaned off the site in another week or so. Although there are some writers I will miss, I won’t reward PJM’s own brand of yellow journalism.
All the anyd professiona of high moral standards, “I will never lower myself to their level!” on display here carry the theme that Cain bungled his response, that he should have been ready with some snappy defense. Like what? I never once cheated on my wife, even on trips to Taiwan and Korea where the opportunities were constant. What would I do if I were accused of propositioning some woman or women? I’d do what Herman did: dismiss the charges as being so contrary to my character that they were best ignored. Beyond that, what could I do other than firmly and indignantly deny them.? Please explain the manner in which he could have been “better prepared.” If he had done so, you would be sanctimoniously saying, “There is something fishy about his having such ready answers.”
This whole thing is reminiscent of the Duke lacrosse team affair: the innocent hung out to dry, the skeptical keeping silent. You sayithat you are unwilling to defend his character based on his public record, against dubious accusations by a politicians infamous for their lack of moral principles, until such time as you have incontrovertible proof of his truthfulness. And you’re proud of that? At the very least you should stand with him, and express your scorn of his accuser’s tactics. There is no case for acting unfairly, even if you enclose it in apostrophes.
Poor example. Wait a day or three and then you will see how wrong you were.
That’s what they said about the Duke LaCrosse team. They were vindicated, but they paid a terrible price. All because people rush to judgment. He has a very good point, here.
I myself am not willing to withdraw my support based on this. I do not even question him on this. They have to have more than innuendo. I do not even reserve judgment or opinion. I fully support him until the facts say otherwise.
Bialek is a gold-digger, a woman of low character. Cain has loads of upright citizens speaking for him. This is not even a question for me. It is a smear.
…still waiting.
When Klavan ticked me off by announcing we should be UNFAIR to Cain, I thought he meant PJM should continue with its unsourced, yellow-journalist attacks on Cain.
Sorry I was such a hot-head.
Now I understand what Klavan actually means is that we should first find out what happened before we demand that Cain leave the campaign. Well, that seems FAIR, count me in!
I gotta try your fiction – in which order should the books be read?
Meanwhile, I think the Cain charges and those who level them will be discredited in short order.
Bialwk’s story has huge lacunae,And today the AP reports the obama administration employee who made harassment charges with bennett as her lawyer made them against her next employer the INS, too.
Mr Klavan, you a good man. But some of us are far more suspicious than you are and if I might parrot the Clinton defense – it doesn’t rise to the level of a crime – what I have seen so far in the media doesn’t rise to the level of honesty.
Exhibit 1 – The press reports two women accused Cain of sexual harassment and received settlements. We do not know if there were accusations or complaints. We do not know if what was claimed was sexual harassment or an unwanted comment. We do not know if Cain was the direct “perp” or the direct perp was someone who reported to Cain who thus was responsible for, and the complaint was that Cain did nothing about it.
Having said as much we must understand that all human behavior is deliberate. The press knows what I wrote above – hence what is their motive?
Now we have a detailed eye witness. Is it that only under the theory of where there is smoke there is fire that any real sense of urgency has been created? No. The press knows that if they control the smoke (e.g. whose smoke?) they can make you concede there is fire.
As of now here is some more smoke. The Hotel has no record of this woman booking a room and no record of Cain upgrading anyone’s room on the day in question. A detailed description of the alleged sexual encounter has been given and the purpose of it is that, if true, we have a case of predatory sexual harassment. Has anyone with experience in actual encounters of this type (e.g. in cars) ever came up against one with the mechanics necessary if the encounter is to be believed? Can someone put either there right or left hand and arm up a woman’s skirt AND with the other hand push her head into his crotch? Try it – people have. Either one or the other yes – both? Doesn’t sound right.
The lawyer has already failed to disclose that the affidavits have no details in them so the image or assumption that at least they corroborate her story fails. So we already know that the woman did not tell them a narrative as she told us, else they would be in the affidavits.
I will stop here. For this reason. The entire sense of momentum that I believe you are experiencing has been created and I can easily understand it if it weren’t for all the smoke.
On the contrary, it’s a night I’ll always remember fondly.
Well, at least now I know why you didn’t answer your phone.
Haterz gonna hate.
I agree that for a change we might act like adults. Instead of leaping and cheering any accusation from anyone for any reason, sit back, evaluate the stage and the actors on it and remain cautious before concluding that such and such is or is not “true”. In public discourse as against legal procedure, reasonable adults try to be fair, are not required to apply legal procedural restraints. Mustn’t forget the benefit of the doubt. Not only for the accused, but also the accuser.
As adults we have experience in the world and other people’s behaviours. But we need not be their catspaw. Recognise that the champions of the accusers in this instance are members of groups which have proven again and again and yet again that they have lied to achieve their goals which are not secret. They abuse the legal, and public discussions of this nation to obtain and maintain control over other peoples’ lives. And Americans are supposed to be independent not only in their government, but also in their character. Aren’t they?