Earlier this week during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain gave his explanation as to why a majority of blacks vote Democrat. According to Cain, blacks who don't vote Republican are brainwashed. In addition to being insulting, Cain's comments are one of the reasons why most blacks have no use for the GOP. Apparently, he cannot comprehend the reality that there are blacks who think differently than he does. Cain is indicative of many conservatives in that he's unwilling to take a hard look at the Republican party and entertain the possibility that GOP policies, attitudes towards minorities, etc. could be why most blacks vote Democrat.
Herman Cain is very useful to conservatives because when he makes derogatory remarks about a majority of blacks, non-black conservatives feel they have license to say it too. Both Bill O'Reilly (see 2nd clip below) and Pat Buchanan have backed up Cain's assumptions about blacks who vote Democrat. Rep. Allen West serves the same capacity as Cain because he's made similar comments.
Watching the GOP's attempts at obtaining the black vote is akin to a Wile E. Coyote/Road Runner cartoon. With each feeble effort, they go over the proverbial cliff... crashing to the ground leaving a cloud of dust. Meep, Meep!
Cenk Uygur and Jayar Jackson of The Young Turks give their take on Herman Cain's comments.
Bill O'Reilly discusses Cain's remarks with liberal Fox "News" contributor Jehmu Greene
23 comments:
Malcolm and I do not see eye to eye on most things political, this is an exception.
It's one thing to have politicians who are bought off by central bankers, it's another matter to have one of the bankers as president. I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone trying to reason with conservatives who despise the Fed, but want to nominate one of its members. I shutter to think what such a man would do to this country.
Trestin: I was made aware of your thoughts on whether or not Herman Cain is presidential material when you commented on a previous post I wrote.
Here's the question though: Do you agree with Cain's comments about African Americans being brainwashed? Whether your answer is "yes" or "no", I'd love to hear why you feel the way you do.
Thanks for providing such valuable information.
All that and a dollar will get me nowhere.
Consider yourself to be privileged to have one of the most useless blogs you'll find on the Internet! As well having one of the most racist, shallow minded blogs on the internet, but you do a great job in disguising it as diversity.
Anon: Is that the best you can do? That was pretty weak and pathetic. Be sure to pay your fare at the troll booth.
Malcolm, I can't count the number of times I've heard white conservatives claim that A.A.s are "brainwashed" and that the Democrats have "suckered" them into staying in the Democratic Party.
It is the most patronizing claim to give such a blanket statement.
I counter this hogwash with the obvious: That people who claim this are saying, in effect, that the African American community doesn't know what's good for them, and that the GOP does and it wants them to come to their party and discover the joys of being a conservative.
The conservatives--Cain included--who claim that people are brainwashed cannot come to terms with the fact that A.A.s have examined both parties and understand that the Democratic Party serves their best interests.
All we have to do is look at the GOP's newest love hunk, Gov. Perry, [N!99erland] to understand what lies beneath the veneer of inclusiveness in the GOP.
Cain has to live with that and try to explain it away.
I think every segment of society has been brain washed in one way or another. If we were not susceptible to suggestion companies would not spend billions in advertising. Anyone who has studied things as basic as Pavlov's dog knows this to be true.
Have African-Americans been brainwashed? Yes, but they are not the only ones. Cain is out of line because he is insinuating that African-Americans have been brainwashed more than other groups. I think our whole society has been reconditioned by the corporate media. The way the groups are targeted varies, but each group is be sold snake oil.
Shaw: I'll bet when you offer your counter argument to white conservatives about blacks who vote Democrat, you can hear crickets chirping. Also, when we consider conservatives and their hatred (some of which we know is race-based) toward President Obama, it's going to be even harder for the GOP to win over blacks.
Trestin: Thanks for answering my question.
Thank you so much for writing about this news story. It's been something that has concerned me since I heard about it.
Candy: Thanks! I don't know if you saw it, but Herman was on "The View" earlier this week. He came across as a personable guy. When they asked him about the "brainwashed" comments, he didn't backtrack. I wish they had asked these follow up questions to Herman: Have you considered the liberal point-of-view? If not, doesn't that make you (by your definition) brainwashed?
There has to be a reason when around 90% of any voting bloc continuously votes the same way, despite any results or lack thereof.
"Brainwashed" is a tough way to put it. It's bordering on hyperbole for a guy like me, and obviously outright outlandish for people who do stick with the D every single time no matter what.
But I think Cain's presence does embolden some people to speak about a topic which really deserves to be spoken about: Why does the overwhelming majority of ANY group vote one way and one way only?
To my knowledge, we do not see this anywhere else. Even those rich, evil bankers don't side with Republicans so decidedly.
It's perfectly understandable that some people view the more liberal view in America and decide to side with that. But in such large numbers?
It's worthy of debate, any way you slice it.
Josh: As I've stated previously, I'm not overly impressed with the Democratic party. However, the GOP has never given me a reason to vote Republican. In fact, they've gotten worse in the last few years. Many blacks I know feel the same way. Comments like those made by Cain, O'Reilly, and Buchanan only hurt the GOP's efforts to win the black vote.
You say it's "obviously outright outlandish for people who do stick with the D every single time no matter what". Would you say the same for those who vote strictly Republican?
Considering the GOP's stance is basically to protect the rich and to hell with everybody else, I'm willing to bet that those bankers you cited more often than not vote R.
For diehard partisans who only vote Republican no matter what? Damn right I would.
I'm a right-leaning guy fiscally and liberal-leaning guy socially. I don't do partisan. It's no secret I despise one party while the other just annoys me, but I'd say the exact same about people who clung so tightly to the Republican party - the GOP faction.
But in terms of what the GOP is doing for the black community, this is where ideology plays an enormous role.
A lot of people firmly believe that politicians shouldn't be singling groups out to do anything for them. It's everyone or it's no one.
The type of politician/party I want will look at the black community, the bankers, the religious folk, the gay community, and every other special interest in between and make it clear that discrimination is a bad thing for America, even if it's like ESPN's First Take and only discriminating to be somehow supposedly helpful.
Preference is the wrong approach. It breeds the belief that there should be preference. And by that token, I think--and many, many others think--Cain's onto something - I just don't think "brainwashed" is the way to put it.
It's definitely not a racial thing to want something specifically for your group. Politicians have been giving it to Wall Street the the religious community and other groups for years. And the more they give, the more people want, and the special interest is seriously backfiring.
Is it not? I mean, if things are improving from politicians playing favorites and doing things specifically for certain people, I'd love to see the results.
Maybe the inclusive approach is the way to go.
Anyway...
RIP Al Davis! (Great DI opp there, with Al hiring Art Shell when everyone else shrugged their shoulders.)
Josh: I'm not saying you fit into this category, but I've heard conservatives say that minorities, gays, etc. want special treatment. They view equal treatment (which is all we want) as something being taken away from them. At any rate, unless the GOP gets serious about courting the black vote, they shouldn't even bother.
As for the late Al Davis, he broke ground before the Art Shell hiring when he named Tom Flores the head coach in 1979 (the first Hispanic coach in the NFL). As you may know, although Art Shell was the first black coach in the modern era of the NFL, he wasn't the first overall. Fritz Pollard (who was named the co-head coach of the Akron Pros in 1921) holds that distinction.
I understand what you're saying, although I'm not sure that's all people want.
But I would point out that enforcing equality isn't actually equality. To right inequality through force, you must force inequality.
That's my personal beef with government intervention on any level. And for black voters or gay voters or Latino voters or any voters who feel they're not "equal" and want government to right it, I would bring up two points.
1: "Equal" is this age is relative, specifically when speaking of any group, as we walk through this world as individuals, no matter how much we may feel emotional attachment to others.
Unless we want to be comrades, of course. lol
2: Equality comes through hearts and minds, not necessarily through legislation.
As far as the relationship between loyal voters of any stripe and politicians, I have a very simplistic way of viewing it. If I wanted to be a career politician, who would I have to convince and what would I have to convince them of?
Problem solved = cushy career.
And as we all notice, there are a lot of damn career politicians and people who are in "politics" for years, just not elected office.
I'm sure a lot of it is the cynic in me, but it's in the interest of the preacher of keep the faithful faithful. What's a shepherd without a flock?
Josh: You're implying that minorities want more than just equality. What do you think we want beyond that?
Your take on government enforcing equality is one I've heard from various others on the right. If you weren't a straight white male, do you think you'd be willing to sit idly by and wait for people to do the right thing in the name of equality?
You're implying that only straight white males are treated equally in this society.
You'd really have to show me evidence of everyone else being treated unfairly in this society before I could answer that.
I've heard that argument brought forth many times, and it's usually more ideological than anything provable.
I can't speak for the black community or any other community, including the straight white male community. Neither can you. Neither can any one person. None of us can speak for anyone else.
None of us know what it's like to by anyone or anything but ourselves. Unless you have some telepathy going on. In that case, I think you can find some riches out there.
So this is where the ideologies bump heads. And there's no sense in carrying on a discussion after that, because it hits a wall.
The wall is too damn thick and too damn tall, and it's not quite ready to be torn down yet. Maybe one day, but not yet.
David Hasselhoff might come sing on it.
A guy like me says it's the pushing of the belief that there's inequality, whether class or race, that causes people to buy into that and put more faith in government to change it than they put in themselves to change it.
And I imagine you'd tell me something along the lines of people would succeed on their own if society was only fair and gave them equal opportunity to do so.
All I can say is that we've been trying it the latter for nearly 60 years in America. And where are we?
We're back to blaming wealthy people for all the world's ills - still a version of the "man."
Maybe it's time we give it at least a 4-year trial run to see if things will improve the other way (I don't necessarily mean R over D, but people over government).
I don't see where it would hurt to find out.
I honestly do not see anything else government can do to improve the plight of people that they haven't already done. At this point, I believe government is the problem that's hurting us all.
Lastly, to your initial line: Yes, I do believe a lot of people, minority or otherwise, want government to do for them instead of doing for themselves.
To me, that's far from a racial thing, and that's why I say Cain's being a little hyperbolic with the "brainwashed" bit. I believe it's an American cultural thing, where a lot of people feel their situation should be better, so they find someone or something to blame when it's not. And they always vote for the big-spending politician willing to take more money from people to give it away to others.
Josh: Since you swung and missed on the point of my last question, I'll try to be more clear. I'm not saying that only straight white males have equality in this country. What I am saying is that it's generally easier to be a straight white male. Think of it this way. If you're the New York Yankees, it's going to be easier for you to win The World Series than a team with less money to spend. However, this doesn't mean a team like the Milwaukee Brewers (with less than half the payroll of the Yanks) can't win it all.
As for people who feel their situations should be better, they don't always vote the way you implied. They often vote for the politicians who use the Southern strategy or a variation of it... even if it's against the voter's very own interests.
I swung and missed yet you're saying the exact same thing that I thought you were saying. So I don't get the "missed." It looks like a homer to me - inside the park to boot.
I just don't buy for a second that it's "easier" to be anything when it comes to race or sexual orientation.
I'll subscribe when speaking of class in a capitalist society.
I'm sure it's easier to grow up with money and a private education and to be advantaged. And while there are more advantaged white people--because there are simply more white people---there are also more disadvantaged white people than anyone else in the nation.
For every minority living in the PJs or a run-down ghetto somewhere, there are half a dozen trailer parks and mountain hollows full up with whites who would say "WTF!? to any race or orientation-specific hogwash.
No. I don't buy that for a second.
Like I said: This is where ideologies bump heads.
Maybe it's time to give that way of thinking a short break after so many decades. I mean, it's illogical to supposedly know the problem yet not be able to fix it after so long. It suggests that what was identified as the problem was not the problem.
A break may be in order. Just a short one. What's the harm?
If things get better bereft of government, then it's good for everyone. If they don't improve or get worse, then we can go back to having government at every conceivable level micromanaging the lives and communities of the downtrodden.
Look at how all that government intervention has paid off for America's Natives. Yikes.
But, to reiterate, I'm not saying vote GOP either. Screw them.
All I'm saying is let's try it without the government involvement.
Call it a new-wave social experiment - to see how people do without the intervention. Why wouldn't every progressive thinker love to jump aboard that train?
(Rhetorical. They wouldn't, because then there go a lot of livelihoods.)
Josh: There is a difference between saying only straight white males are treated equally and them having it easier. If you can't grasp that distinction, I don't know what to tell you. Since I have no interest in a drawn out back and forth about whether or not one group has it easier, let's drop it.
To bring the conversation back to the topic of this post, it would be interesting to poll those disadvantaged whites you mentioned. I'd love to find out if there are patterns to how they vote.
By the way, I'm the only one allowed to use baseball metaphors over here! >:D
I let you have your baseball thing last time.
You said something to the effect of, "You saying Schultz apologizes often is like saying Sandy Koufax threw no-hitters often."
I had a little itch there and wanted to point out that in the context of baseball and no-hitters. he actually did throw them "often."
But baseball is your thing! :P
And maybe I misunderstood you. But it seems to me that saying straight white males have it easier is the same as saying that they're the only people treated equally or favorably.
I'm not attempting to drag it on here; just clarifying what I took from it is all.
The folks I have personally met up through the hills and in the hollows don't care about politics and most don't vote. I obviously can't say that for all, but all the many people I've met in bad situations are too busy trying to make ends meet. They don't really put their trust in government to help.
I say it's good they don't. If they voted R, we see already that voting D doesn't help. If they voted D, we see that voting R doesn't help.
If disadvantaged white voters do display patterns of only voting for Republicans in such astronomically large numbers (to scale), I hope Herman drops the "brainwashed" on them too.
But you and I both know that our society doesn't separate "white" as a group to take those types of numbers, at least not nearly on the same level we use "black" and "Latino" and other minority groups to somehow separate people at every turn.
"White" is the universal implication in America. It's everything else that's still held separate from it.
Josh: We'll have to agree to disagree on whether Koufax's 4 no-hitters translates to "often". >:D
The same goes for the difference between straight white males having it easier vs. them being the only group that receives preferential treatment. Although I think I explained the difference, you still don't see the distinction. Maybe it boils down to semantics. At any rate, it's no biggie.
I see a difference. I'm not trying to play the contrarian for the sake of doing so. I just think it's too negligible a difference in the context of what we're talking about--equality vs. inequality--to be considered that "different." That's all.
However, I don't begrudge anyone's position that minorities have it tougher.
One of my favorite lines from The Sopranos was when Ralphie was talking to Father Phil after his son got stuck with that arrow, and when the Father was attempting to make sense of the pain, likening the father-son relationship between God and Jesus, Ralphie replies, "Not like this," as to say his pain was greater.
We probably all feel that sometimes. But for everyone who would say or think "You don't know what it's like to be me," the other person can turn it right back around.
The real issue is that it's hard for a whole hell of a lot people. Calling people brainwashed doesn't help it a bit. So to end this on topic, Cain didn't need to go that route.
Attempting to marginalize people because you feel they'll never support you is not a way to get them to support you. So wise up, Herman.
Josh: In this post, I intended to say that it's not a winning strategy for Cain to insult a group of people whose votes he covets. I'm glad to hear you say it.
Post a Comment