Herman Cain is theoretically a great candidate for president.
He’s a smart, black, successful, conservative “outsider.” But as
the reality sets in, it’s clear that Mr. Cain is barely more ready
for the office he seeks than Sarah Palin (or Barack Obama) was four
years ago. Cain’s performance in a long interview on Monday
crystallized this view which has been forming in the minds of many
GOP voters in recent weeks.
Mr. Cain’s responses in Saturday’s Republican debate in
South Carolina — which focused on foreign policy — were a bunch
of platitudes about getting good advice before making a decision.
Frequently, his answers on topics that he doesn’t really know much
about focus on a few points of process, on getting quality advice,
on not needing to know everything in advance, and so on.
But this is the real world and these are dangerous times.
While the 2012 election will primarily be about jobs and the
economy, events across the Arab world and escalating tensions
between Iran and Israel — not least because of the
IAEA’s most recent
report about advances in Iran’s nuclear weapon
program — make foreign policy and national security expertise
critically important in our next president.
If there is anything America has been reminded of by
Barack Obama, it’s that the presidency is no place for on-the-job
training — and it’s even less so when potential nuclear conflict
is involved.
Herman Cain gave an interview to
the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel on Monday in which his
answers on questions about
Libya — and his further discussion with the
newspaper’s editors on broader foreign policy issues — sounded
like a student trying hard to remember the answers for a test he’s
been cramming for.
When asked
whether he agreed with President Obama on Libya, he said “OK,
Libya…” followed by ten seconds of awkward silence and then
“President Obama supported the uprising, correct?” A few seconds
later: “I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following
reasons…nope, that’s a different one…I’ve got all this stuff
twirling around in my head. Specifically, what are you asking me
that I agree or not disagree (sic) with Obama?” It wasn’t as bad as
Rick Perry’s 53 seconds trying to remember the Department of
Energy, but it was too close for comfort.
Cain’s discussion of
Iran was only marginally better. He started his
response on Iran by saying that the topography of Iran made a
military strike against the nation “not a practical, top-tier
alternative,” but two minutes later said that “stopping Iran may be
nearly impossible without direct military intervention…” It was
as if he was trying to show how smart he was by showing that he
knows there are mountains in Iran. But if Iran needs attacking, can
you imagine Benjamin Netanyahu wondering “Should we skip it because
there are mountains there?” Cain again reverted to his now-tired
theme of “I would get more input.” Unfortunately the input seems
needed not just before making a hypothetical decision but before
being able to adequately answer the newspaper’s question. And as a
trader, I had to chuckle when Mr. Cain said that “just announcing
the [energy independence] plan will cause the price [of oil] to
drop by nearly a third.”
Cain had a good sound bite ready when asked
whether public employees should be allowed to have collective
bargaining: “Yes, but not collective hijacking. If they have
gotten so much for so many years and it’s going to bankrupt the
state, I don’t think that’s good. And it appears in some instances
that they really don’t care.”
But his next statements combined inexperience with a very
bad idea. When asked whether he would favor collective bargaining
for federal employees, Mr. Cain responded, “They already have it
don’t they?” One of the newspaper staff in the room corrected him
with “No, they don’t,” to which Cain said, “They have unions.” Like
Rick Perry’s various gaffes, it would have perhaps been excusable
had it been a one-time (or even two-time) thing. But it
isn’t.
Overall, Cain was disturbingly open to collective
bargaining for government employees, leaving one to wonder where he
would draw the line as to what outcome from collective bargaining
would qualify as an “undue burden on the taxpayers.” If our bloated
federal bureaucracy is not already an undue burden on us, it’s hard
to imagine what is. And it’s impossible to imagine that adding
collective bargaining for federal employees would do anything but
make the situation exponentially worse.
On other issues, Mr.
Cain admitted that his support has dropped among women,
bemoaning having been convicted by some in the court of public
opinion, and reiterated his intent to “stay on message” as his only
way forward. And he
got very testy when asked about potential campaign finance
violations by his campaign manager, Mark Block, repeatedly telling
his questioners to change topics, and looking visibly angry when
asked whether he made money from a prior for-profit venture with
Mr. Block.
Cain did have a couple of good moments in his interview.
During discussion
of Paul Ryan’s entitlement reform plans, one of his questioners
asserted that the reforms would mean that “people would be paying
more money for their health care.” Cain initially responded “yes,”
but after a second of reflection changed his answer to “not
necessarily…because with the decision of how they spend it being
closer to the recipient, they’re going to make different decisions
on how they spend it.” A solid hit on that editor-pitched curve
ball.
When asked
about his experience (or lack thereof in political terms), Cain
came back to his usual answer of surrounding himself with good
advisors, but also said “my leadership style is totally different”
from President Obama’s and that he will be able to appeal to
moderates as well as conservatives by only proposing or signing
legislation that people can understand.
Back
on foreign policy, Mr. Cain was asked about President Bush’s
aim to promote democracy around the world. His response probably
fits well within the American mainstream: “Where there’s a
democratic movement going on, we will support that. If a country is
sitting over here minding its own business, and they’re happy with
what they have, no we’re not going to go in there and try to talk
them into democracy.”
And finally, when asked about the Supreme Court’s decision
to review Obamacare, Mr.
Cain declined to make a prediction but hoped they would rule
that “major portions of it are unconstitutional, especially the
mandate.”
Overall, too much of Mr. Cain’s performance was like
someone at a job interview arguing that his intelligence — which
wasn’t especially well demonstrated during the interview — is more
important than his experience. Were I hiring, a job applicant whose
answers were like Mr. Cain’s would not be invited back for a second
interview.
No doubt, Herman Cain’s performance on the Libya question
was the low point of his interview and his answers to some other
questions were better, but they were not all good — and certainly
not good enough. Like it or not, this is a job interview where
you’re judged by your biggest weaknesses, not your average over the
entire range of questions — not that he even averaged a B-minus.
And even on the questions where Cain does better than on foreign
policy, he comes across too frequently as parroting talking points
rather than answering from a true and deep understanding of the
issues of the day.
While I appreciate Mr. Cain’s efforts to go to school on
foreign affairs in his quest for the presidency, he is simply not
qualified — and not going to be by the time of this election — to
hold that office. To be sure, Herman Cain could be a more complete
candidate in four years just as Governor Palin is more well-versed
in areas of policy and principle than she was when the nation first
met her (though that still does not make her a candidate I would
favor).
But for the 2012 election, Herman Cain is simply not ready
for prime time. At this point, it’s not about sexual harassment
charges or cigarette-smoking staffers; it’s about the fact that
experience and knowledge actually do matter and — despite
favorable comparisons to Barack Obama at this time four years ago
— Herman Cain does not yet have enough of either to merit being
our president.
