Isn’t That Enough?

As the scan­dal swirls around Her­man Cain,Vic­tor Davis Han­son comes to Cain’s defense in The Nation­al Review. Yes, in terms of what we know (or what I know at this writ­ing), Cain seems guilty only of being a bor­ish lout.* And yes, Clin­ton got away with work place sex­u­al harass­ment (prob­a­bly because Mon­i­ca did­n’t complain).

It is not like­ly that the Democ­rats are behind the scan­dal. I do not know how Glo­ria Allred and Sharon Bialek got togeth­er, but it is cer­tain­ly pos­si­ble (like­ly in my book) that Ms. Bialek sought her ought and pol­i­tics is not at issue. Beyond that, most Democ­rats would be glee­ful to see Cain get the Repub­li­can nomination.

Mr Han­son writes:

Cain also wins greater scruti­ny, not exemp­tion, because he is black — or at least a cer­tain sort of black. In addi­tion to his con­ser­vatism, his voice, bear­ing, gram­mar, and dic­tion, even his showy black cow­boy hat, both­er lib­er­als in much the same way that Joe Fra­zier was not Muham­mad Ali and Clarence Thomas was not Ani­ta Hill.

Mr. Han­son, Cain’s con­ser­vatism, his mar­ket­ing approach to pol­i­cy (9,9,9), and his dis­dain for for­eign pol­i­cy ( Ube­ki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan) are more than enough for us to not like Her­man Cain. His col­or has noth­ing to do with it.

Hat tip: Kevin Drum

Update: ABL at Angry Black Lady Chron­i­cles does the work to take down Mr. Han­son’s defense of Cain much more thor­ough­ly than my lazi­ness allowed above.

*Though we do not have any details of the com­plaints about him when he was head of the Restau­rant Association.