The Campaign and Herman Cain, II

With this post, I continue a short series consisting of my analyses of the Republican candidates for the nomination for President.  To recap, I’m limiting my discussions to three candidates: Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, and Rick Perry.  The structure of this series consists of a collection of posts concerning what I don’t like about the candidates and then a series of what I do like about them.  I’ll conclude with my endorsement of a single candidate.  At this point I’m in the series of what I like, and here I’ll talk about what I like about Herman Cain.

Business Experience: Mr Cain’s experience runs the gamut: he came up from the ranks, running individual restaurants, then a chain of restaurants, then a restaurant association, and finally a large corporation.  Cain also is fully capable of turning around failing businesses, and doing that without government handouts.  He rescued both Pillsbury’s chain of Burger Kings in the Philadelphia area and a failing Godfather’s Pizza corporation, returning them both to profitability.

His experience in business, also, is concrete: he didn’t come in at the top and learn business only from senior management’s perspective; he learned it from the small business perspective, also, with that individual restaurant experience.  Cain began with an actual working man’s experience.

Economy: On the whole, he’s got it right on taxes and on spending.  His 9-9-9 program has that serious flaw of a consumption tax, but the program reduces tax rates for both corporations and individuals.  Further, it greatly broadens the tax base so everyone does, indeed, “pay their fair share.”

He’s not afraid to cut, either: his opening move is an across the board cut which will reduce spending substantially, and with everyone’s ox being gored by the cuts, it’ll be difficult for anyone to resist without their being exposed as plainly addicted to spending for its own sake.  This is front and center on his campaign Web site:

Every federal agency, every government program and expenditure must be reviewed and revised with a keen eye and a red pen. Leaders should be willing to shrink budgets by target percentages….

On the matter of the nation’s debt, Cain is equally clear:

While both parties can claim some political victory in this compromise [to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for some trivial spending cuts], the American people got short-changed. The debt ceiling will be raised, opening the door for further debt ceiling and tax increases with no sign of treatment for the addiction to spending in Washington.

Communication: He’s plain-spoken with a sense of humor.  He’s fully capable of explaining his positions with brevity and clarity, as he’s shown repeatedly in the formats of the early primary debates.

Character:  Here is Cain in his own words:

One of the most important lessons Dad taught us was not to feel like victims. He never felt like a victim; he never talked like a victim.  And both of our parents taught us not to think that the government owed us something. They didn’t teach us to be mad at this country.

This, of course, is anathema to the incumbent Progressive government, which believes that government is the answer to every problem, and that America isn’t so hot, anyway.

First Amendment and Ego

Speaking for the sake of making a splash, or the exercise of power for its own sake in suppressing speech, aren’t exercises of a fundamental right or of a fundamental responsibility attached to that right except in the narrowest, most technical sense.

One example is Pastor Robert Jeffress, a senior pastor at First Baptist Church in Dallas, and his remarks about Mormonism.  Pastor Jeffress said this, in part:

Evangelical Christians should not vote for Mitt Romney because he’s a Mormon, therefore not a real Christian.  Historically, evangelical Christianity has never embraced Mormonism as a branch of Christianity. Mormonism has always been treated as a cult.

This view, that Mormonism isn’t Christian, and an extension of that view, that not being Christian, Mormonism is somehow bad (which does not seem to be included in any of Jeffress’ remarks), are well-known and long-standing.  And controversial.  So what are we to make of the timing of Jeffress’ remark, in the middle of a heating up Republican primary campaign season in which a Mormon has a significant lead and a fellow Texan is fading rapidly?  Did this remark add anything to the contest that wasn’t already well-known?  Did it clarify anything?

I think not.  I think it was simply a man wanting to be controversial for its own sake, and so he was going to speak, just because it’s his right to do so.  If this remark was simply an ego trip, then the good Pastor has committed the sin of pride.

Here’s another example.  Some days ago, the leadership of the University of Wisconsin-Stout decided to censor the speech of one of its professors.  This article contains a description of a more or less successful resolution to the censorship matter, and it carries links to the original case.  To summarize, University leadership took down a poster that Professor James Miller had put near his office as a tribute to a television series and the series’ lead character.  Why?  Because the leadership thought they could get away with it.  When Prof Miller responded with this poster, they took it down, too, and threatened him with jail if he persisted in exercising his rights.  This second time, they acted both because they thought they could get away with it, and because with their egos on the line, they thought they had to get away with it.

Again, this time from the censorship side, no useful purpose was served here.  The University leadership pretended to concern about posters promoting violence, but as Gregory Lukianoff points out in the linked article, the quote on the first poster was simply a demonstration of the concept of fair play—as this “leadership” would have discovered, had they bothered to investigate first, and shoot second.  And the second poster was simply a (highly warranted) response in defense of free speech.

Although the University has been forced to recant, sort of, the incident is demonstrative of the other side of this ego-as-free-speech question: I’m better than that; the law doesn’t apply to me.

The First Amendment isn’t about the ego trips.  It’s about being able to say something serious and be able to be heard, no matter how unpleasant the truth being spoken might be.  And censorship of speech has no place at all.