Everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, keep saying that “Herman Cain must answer the charges against him.” When he repeatedly says, “I didn’t do it. I don’t even remember these interactions with these women,” this isn’t considered answering.
But how is one to prove a negative? How is one supposed to prove that one is not guilty of something?
If someone walked up to you and said, “You killed my brother,” you’d be shocked. “What?” you’d say. “What are you talking about? How dare you make such an accusation? What’s going on here?”
Imagine if you were put on trial for breaking a law and your lawyer was informed, ‘Your client must prove he didn’t do it. The burden of proof is on him.’ This would be the antithesis of rationality, and what has always been the uniquely American form of justice.
Not so when it comes to sexual harassment, at least when a conservative (especially a black conservative) is accused of it. The onus of proof is on the one being accused.
But it’s not merely unfair to ask someone to prove a negative; it’s logically untenable. Liberals knew this full well when Bill Clinton was accused of various sexual harassment incidents, but that, of course, was entirely different. Bill Clinton was advancing the cause of liberalism and socialism, while Herman Cain is perceived, at least, as hampering it. Therefore, he must prove his innocence—not because of what he said to some woman, but because of what he dares to oppose in his political beliefs.
Since a negative cannot be proven, the person attempting to do so can only look foolish trying to do the impossible. That’s why Herman Cain ended up looking like such a fool. Any woman on earth could approach him, accuse him of something that went on when the two of them were alone, and when he denies it, say he’s lying. You have only your biases and prejudices to rely on when trying to figure out what the truth is. Beyond that, you’re simply never, ever going to know.
Nobody will say what I’m saying, because they’re afraid of being accused of advocating or tolerating sexual harassment, or denying it exists. Nonsense. Of course sexual harassment occurs. Harassment of all kinds happens when two people are alone. It’s not always sexual, and it’s not always a man victimizing a woman. Women harass men, and men harass men. Women harass women too, in various ways.
What’s a Republican voter to do about Herman Cain? People should file these accusations away but not make too much of them when deciding whether or not to vote for Herman Cain. I’m not defending Cain’s political views. Although I like the man compared to other politicians (not saying much!), his proposal of adding new taxes without confronting the problem of massive government spending is foolish, at best, will never pass and could not work even if it did. I have no vested interest or desire in seeing him win. But I surely don’t want to see him lose because he’s accused of something which nobody can ever prove. Even Bill Clinton ran into trouble not for sexual harassment per se, but because he was caught lying in sworn testimony which made him guilty of perjury.
The real problem with Herman Cain is that he’s a threat to the liberal, socialist establishment. The liberal, socialist establishment is a mean and unfair one, at the core. Liberals championed Barack Obama primarily for his race. Never mind that Obama is only half-black; he’s perceived as a fully black man and therefore he’s the “first African-American President.” This was a big deal to liberals when he won, and it’s the only thing they have left to champion given the miserable failure and disaster that has been his term in office. The idea that Herman Cain can come along and be black but — well, not think like a black man is “supposed” to think, is a moral obscenity too hideous for the typical liberal who works in government, academia or the media to contemplate. It undermines everything they believe, and they are having none of it.
Herman Cain might not have obtained the nomination anyway, and he probably will not get it now. Liberals claim to fear running against Mitt Romney, since he’s the only one who can supposedly beat Obama, but Romney does not threaten liberals the way someone like Cain does. Cain proves that it’s a fallacy that all blacks must be liberal and socialist, and in the process exposes the vicious fallacy that socialism actually is in the first place. Romney is nothing more than Obama-lite, and liberals know this. They don’t want to lose to him, of course, but they can live with Romney and easily defeat him the next time around, should he manage to win without the strong support of conservatives — something John McCain could not do, by the way.
If Herman Cain is guilty of anything unbecoming a President, we’ll never know, at least not from these pseudo-scandals of the last several weeks. And that’s the whole point. When you stand against the establishment, or even seem to do so in an importantly symbolic way as Cain does, you’re going to pay a price.