This is long, but very worthwhile. I would also note that one of the most common targets of the inquisition were ethnically Jewish men who had converted to Christianity (or whose families had converted before they were even born) who had achieved success in business. They were accused of secretly practicing Judaism by jealous business rivals and the Church/State authorities were eager to play along and torture "confessions" out of the accused because that would lead to the confiscation of all their assets (and the cancellation of outstanding loans). It was a dandy racket. The local lord or bishop would fatten his treasury and the less successful businessmen would rid themselves of a competitor.
We can see the same kind of thing happening here. If Cain is removed from the race it will benefit Romney, the less successful competitor for the GOP nomination, and the rest of the Republican establishment as well as the Democrat/progressive complex of elected politicians, unions (especially public sector unions), the mainstream media and academics.
Lincoln's "Living Dog"
By Jeffrey Lord on 11.1.11 @ 6:09AM
Herman Cain's a threat to both the left and the GOP
Establishment.
"A living dog is better than a dead
lion." -- Abraham Lincoln on the choice between
himself and Stephen A. Douglas
Well, well, well.
Or as Private Gomer Pyle used to exclaim:
"Surrrrrrr-prize, surrrrrr-prize, surrrrrr-prize!"
You know why all this flapdoodle over Herman Cain and
charges of sexual harassment, charges that Mr. Cain has flatly
denied? (Here in this Fox News
exclusive Herman Cain is what Abraham Lincoln
called a "living dog.")
A living dog? Yes, and we'll come back to this in a moment
because it bears directly on what's happening here. As Herman Cain
the "living dog" comes under the inevitable attack from the left,
if conservatives understand where they are, where they appear to be
heading, where they've been, it becomes easier (although perhaps
not easy) to understand what to do next -- and how and with whom to
do it.
There are two parts to this disgraceful attack. Both must
be examined to understand exactly what is going on with this
story.
Part One? History. And this history has two parts
within.
So let's begin -- and let's be blunt.
Let's recall in some detail how this racial game -- and it
is a racial game -- is played.
Liberals and the Democratic Party have a two
centuries long vivid and extremely graphic history of
racism. (Detailed previously
here ). From the almost thirty -- thirty! -- party platforms
that either supported slavery or segregation or chose to be silent
on the subject, to an alliance with the Ku Klux Klan, electing Klan
members to all manner of political offices federal, state and
local, not to mention supporting everything from lynching to the
racial quotas of today, racism has been the life blood of the
left.
Part and parcel of all this has been the fine art of
portraying black men as sexual predators. And dealing with these
black men so accused in a terrifyingly horrific fashion: they would
be lynched.
One could fill cyberspace with these stories, but perhaps
one of the more famous is the story of Emmett Till. PBS once did a
documentary
on the Emmett Till case and as the crescendo rises from the liberal
media lynch mob about Mr. Cain it is worth a look at what PBS notes
on its website about this particular issue.
Said PBS, no outpost of conservatism:
Some whites espoused the idea that black men were sexual predators and wanted integration in order to be with white women…. Lynchings were frequently committed with the most flagrant public display. Like executions by guillotine in medieval times, lynchings were often advertised in newspapers and drew large crowds of white families. They were a kind of vigilantism where Southern white men saw themselves as protectors of their way of life and their white women. By the early twentieth century, the writer Mark Twain had a name for it: the United States of Lyncherdom…. Lynchings were covered in local newspapers with headlines spelling out the horrific details. Photos of victims, with exultant white observers posed next to them, were taken for distribution in newspapers or on postcards. Body parts, including genitalia, were sometimes distributed to spectators or put on public display. Most infractions were for petty crimes, like theft, but the biggest one of all was looking at or associating with white women. Many victims were black businessmen or black men who refused to back down from a fight. Headlines such as the following were not uncommon:
"Five White Men Take Negro Into Woods; Kill Him: Had Been Charged with Associating with White Women" went over The Associated Press wires about a lynching in Shreveport, Louisiana."
Did you catch those two particular sentences above? These
two:
Most infractions were for petty crimes, like theft, but the biggest one of all was looking at or associating with white women. Many victims were black businessmen or black men who refused to back down from a fight.
To restate. Black businessmen who refused to back down from a
fight were lynched because they had been "looking at or associating
with white women."
And who is Herman Cain? That's right. A prominent black
businessman. A black man who is refusing to back down from a fight.
A black man who, quite obviously from his business career in a
largely white country, necessarily is "looking at or associating
with white women."
Now, bearing this history in mind, let's recall the second
part of this history -- the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky
episode.
Several years after the term "high-tech" lynching exploded
on the scene at the confirmation hearings of now-Justice Clarence
Thomas -- Thomas, recall, is a conservative black man married to a
white woman -- the American left had a mysterious change of heart.
After furiously insisting that "women tell the truth" in matters of
sexual harassment, and that the real story was that men didn't "get
it" -- Bill Clinton came along and liberals did… shocking, I know…
a 180.
As the damn broke on Clinton's sexual behavior --
including allegations of rape (from Juanita Broaddrick, a one-time
supporter), groping in the Oval Office (Kathleen Willey, another
supporter and White House volunteer), dropping his pants as
governor and asking state employee Paula Jones to "kiss it" --
liberals suddenly had a whole different world view.
Did I mention that Bill Clinton is a white man and a
liberal?
Sorry. Bill Clinton is a white man and a
liberal.
So what exactly were the responses back then in the day?
When the man in question was not a black conservative but a white
liberal?
Clinton's critics, fumed liberals, were uptight, religious
fanatics. A massive liberal campaign was launched -- directly from
the Clinton White House -- to discredit every single woman or
conservative who took issue with Clinton's womanizing. Clinton's
critics, scorned James Carville, were determined "to wash all
the sodomites and fornicators out of town."
Also from Carville the memorable gem "Drag a
hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what
you'll find." A reference, of course, to Paula Jones, who was
quickly deemed to be an unsophisticated redneck rube.
Of a sudden, not all women told the truth.
Kathleen Willey was trashed. Juanita Broaddrick filed a
lawsuit -- and was promptly audited by the Clinton-controlled IRS.
Paula Jones was humiliated, mocked and smeared from one end of the
country to the other for everything from her accent to her economic
and educational status. Liberals were ruthless. Absolutely totally
ruthless. And among other things, ironically established a
consensus that sexual harassment is no big deal.
Let's move on from history to politics.
To begin, what was Lincoln talking about? Why does Herman
Cain fit precisely Lincoln's "living dog" description? What do we
need to understand here?
Lincoln borrowed his point from the Bible (Ecclesiastes
9:4: "For to him that is joined to all the living there is
hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.") in his
fabled House Divided speech, using it to contrast himself with
Stephen A. Douglas. Said candidate Lincoln: "A living dog is
better than a dead lion."
By which Lincoln meant that a man who cares nothing for
the task at hand is what he termed a "caged and toothless" lion
when it comes to doing the job that needs to be done. Lincoln was
referring to Douglas's unwillingness to end slavery. In today's
world Cain is effectively using the same sentiment to illustrate
his differences with rival Mitt Romney and others -- President
Obama included -- on everything from how to approach changing the
tax code (Cain's 9/9/9 plan) to putting the brakes on the growth of
government and, most tellingly, refusing to buy into the dime store
New Deal mentality that has become a hallmark of Establishment
moderate Republicans.
As the polls show, Mr. Cain is gaining fans because of his
performance in the GOP debates. He is being perceived as a
potential "living dog" in the White House -- all teeth and energy
in tearing relentlessly into the problem. How, the question arises,
can a President Romney possibly oppose the growth of government
when he went out of his way as governor to increase it?
Demonstrating he not only didn't oppose the idea of big government
but that he now seems bent on
convincing the public they shouldn't care that
he doesn't care.
And how can the GOP Establishment in Washington be
committed to the task when so many feed off of that very same
government? Are not Romney and the larger GOP Establishment the
very embodiment of Lincoln's "caged and toothless lion"? Is not
Herman Cain -- his color quite aside -- a more serious political
threat to both the GOP Establishment and the Liberal
Establishment as opposed to just another political
competitor?
We are in the midst of a tremendous popularity surge for
Mr. Cain. Poll after poll is emerging both nationally and now in
Iowa showing him at the front of the GOP pack. Like clockwork, and
precision clockwork at that, now comes forth the allegation, an
"exclusive"
in the liberal media outlet Politico, of
"inappropriate behavior" that was "sexually suggestive." Years
ago.
Let's again be blunt. Mr. Cain is black. Were his female
accusers white? Politico doesn't say. Certainly the
Politico lists two white male reporters in the byline of
the Cain story. One,
Kenneth Vogel, is an ex-staffer for the far left George Soros
funded Center for Public Integrity, as noted here.
And the tie between the left and lynching, as PBS notes,
"black businessmen" who were "looking or associating with white
women" and "who refused to back down from a fight" is historically
airtight.
But whatever the color of Mr. Cain's accusers both the
pattern of this attack as well as the reason for it is crystal
clear.
You might call it The Meaning of the President
2012.
The presidential election of 2012 will mark the 48th year
since the defeat at the 1964 Republican Convention of the
then-dominant Republican moderates by conservatives. The avowed
complaint then from infuriated moderates was that conservatism
could not win elections, much less govern the country.
In practice, the loss of elections has since occurred when
moderates (Ford, Bush 41, Dole, McCain) headed the ticket. Close
election victories rather than landslides have resulted when the
nominee campaigned as a moderate (the "compassionate conservatism"
of George W. Bush). And under the command of both Bushes, from the
raising of taxes (in violation of 41's "read my lips" pledge) to
Bush 43's embrace of such as a Medicare prescription drug program
and education's No Child Left Behind -- the size and cost of
government has increased.
It seems altogether obvious that the size and cost of
government -- now with the country dangling precipitously over the
canyon of a $15 trillion debt -- will not decrease with a
Republican president until a flash point, a crisis, is reached
within the Republican Party itself. Reached, resolved and
passed.
To borrow from Abraham Lincoln: A party divided against
itself cannot stand. A conservative party that is led by a moderate
will eventually split asunder.
The GOP won't dissolve or disappear. But just as Lincoln
predicted of America in the middle of the slavery controversy, the
GOP will become all one thing or all the other. Either
conservatives will continue the party's evolution back into the
party of American conservatism it was at its founding, or moderates
will make moderation -- the idea of the dime store New Deal --
palatable everywhere into the farthest reaches of the
GOP.
Lest there be anyone who thinks the chances of the latter
are unthinkable, it would be important to think of party history
exactly in terms of these last 48 years since 1964. If one thinks
of the federal government as, say, a governmental version of the
popular movie franchise Transformers (described by Wikipedia as the
story of: "alien robots who can disguise themselves by
transforming into everyday machinery") a clearer picture of
what has been happening to the GOP for those 48 years can be
seen.
Some of the more visible "everyday machinery" that has
been transforming the robotic federal government into even larger
size with a costlier price tag has been welded on courtesy of the
moderation impulse of various Republican presidents.
Contemplate that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
now run amok in the Obama era was a creation of Richard Nixon. Or
that Bush 43 dismissed the Reagan idea of getting rid of the
growing bureaucracy that is the Department of Education as not
"realistic' of leadership and instead decided in favor of launching
an expansion of the federal government's role in education by
launching No Child Left Behind -- with no less than the late
"Liberal Lion" Senator Ted Kennedy as his partner. Not to mention
the Bush signing of McCain-Feingold and Sarbanes-Oxley.
And so on… and on.
The first GOP platform after 1964 -- 1968 -- found the
Republican Party that nominated Richard Nixon that year including a
plank titled "The Individual and Government" which
stated:
In recent years an increasingly impersonal national government has tended to submerge the individual. An entrenched, burgeoning bureaucracy has increasingly usurped powers, unauthorized by Congress. Decentralization of power, as well as strict Congressional oversight of administrative and regulatory agency compliance with the letter and spirit of the law, are urgently needed to preserve personal liberty, improve efficiency, and provide a swifter response to human problems.
But by July of 1970, a bare two years and four months later, the
Nixon Administration created the EPA -- by executive order. There
was not a single enabling piece of legislation from Congress
involved. The Nixon executive order opened the door to a massive
national intrusion of what the platform specifically said the GOP
opposed -- "an increasingly impersonal national government (that)
has tended to submerge the individual." Beginning operations in
December of 1970, EPA is now a federal behemoth employing almost
18,000 full-time employees, daily injecting into everyday American
life proposed rules and regulations on everything from global
warming to commercial boilers to private property.
In one recent case
cited by the Heritage Foundation, the problems with moderate
Republican presidencies is vividly illustrated.
Alaska small businessman Krister Evertson, who had never
had a run-in with the law in his life, was run off the road and
jailed by a SWAT team armed with automatic weapons. Why? Because he
had not used a properly approved EPA label he had never heard of
for a small shipment of sodium. Evertson wound up doing two years
in prison.
When did this happen?
That's right. In 2004 -- when the EPA was under the
administration of one George W. Bush.
Thus the "dime store New Deal" of moderate Republicans --
in this case from Nixon to Bush -- at work in practice. (Here is
Mr. Evertson's congressional testimony
from 2009.)
This is now a considerably polished approach by GOP
moderates. So run-of-the-mill routine that in his memoirs President
George W. Bush apparently never thought his signing of the
Sarbanes-Oxley "Corporate Responsibility" legislation was worth
mentioning. The compliance costs for American business from this
gem of Republican regulatory moderation were predicted to be $1.2
billion. In fact, they now hover in the stratosphere of $35
billion. And this from a president who ran on a platform with a
plank promising -- no kidding -- "Common Sense in
Regulation."
These few examples (and many more not mentioned here) show
precisely where conservatives and the Republican Party are now --
and where they will continue to head unless serious change is at
hand.
In effect the philosophical strategy or lack thereof that
has guided the Nixon, Ford, and two Bush presidencies over the last
48 years since that return to basics that was the 1964 Convention
has exactly built almost to specification a Republican Party which
has a conservative political foundation supporting moderate if not
liberal governments. Governments which in turn wind up creating
regulatory nightmares like the EPA or Sarbanes-Oxley and the
rest.
Which means conservatives watching the 2012 jockeying for
the Republican presidential nomination face a considerable task to
prevent the continuation of this trend. Plainly, Romney promises in
so many words that a Romney presidency would re-channel the
thinking of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and the father and son
Bushes. He honestly pretends to nothing else.
Leaving conservatives across the country knowing what must
be done. Yet struggling to understand how -- and importantly with
whom -- to do it.
What they are actually doing is examining the field for
Lincoln's "live dogs." Those who care strongly enough about the
changes they are promising and plan to look back in their farewell
address to the nation as they leave office with the satisfaction
they sank serious teeth into the task -- with results to show for
it.
Or, as Reagan himself put it in his farewell address to
the nation in January of 1989: "My friends: We did it.
We weren't just marking time. We made a difference."
Added into this mix, working hand in glove with the
dime-store New Dealers, is the drive by this or that Republican
consultant and lobbyist to convince conservatives they can't win
independent votes and simply shouldn't care that the next
Republican president would turn out like four of the last
five.
That means something must be done to stop the popularity
of Herman Cain.
Which in turn leaves a wide field of "suspects" for those
who would seek to torpedo the Cain campaign. No one yet knows the
source here, but in this day and age of the Internet it is
difficult to believe they will escape unrevealed.
Was the source a GOP consultant/lobbyist with ties to a
Cain rival?
Or was it a left-winger acting on the centuries' old and
well proven animus of the left for the uppity black man -- a hatred
that once summoned the noose of the lynchers? And now, if you are a
conservative black man like Herman Cain or Clarence Thomas before
him as opposed to a white liberal man like Bill Clinton -- makes
you the target for exactly that same animus. Except this time it's
a high tech lynching, fed to a couple of lefty white male reporters
at Politico.
Either way, one thing is clear.
Abraham Lincoln would recognize Herman Cain
instantly.
Why?
Because Herman Cain is exactly Abraham Lincoln's "living
dog" incarnate. Which makes him one very big, double-barreled
threat. To both the GOP Establishment, because of his outsider
views. And the left wing, because he's a black man with
conservative views.
What is this sexual harassment story really all
about?
Somebody wants that damnable living dog Herman Cain
rounded up.
And Politico is supplying the political
rope.
Explore Christian Blogosphere
|