I have no idea if Cain is guilty or not. Since he’s famous and has lots of enemies and competitors, I suppose the dial points slightly in favor of innocence. The reason that is only “slightly” is that my experience with powerful men is that a great many simply have never met a woman they did not try to screw. Anyway, Lawrence Auster points out the hypocrisy and willful forgetfulness of the”pile on” that Cain is now being subject to:
Let’s say it was 1950 and we learned that a man running for president had engaged in such an act 15 years earlier—suddenly putting his hand up the skirt of a woman not his wife and pulling her head toward his lap, and then stopping when she told him to stop. That’s certainly crude and objectionable behavior for a 50 year old man in a leading position in society, a corporate CEO and all that. She came to him asking his help in finding a job, and he used the situation to cop a feel and try to start something with her. If it were 1950 and this came out it would be seen as disqualifying. He was also seeking an adulterous relationship, which would certainly have been disqualifying by the standards at that time.
But in post-Sexual Revolution America, in which the whole country is bathed in invitations to every kind of sexual indulgence, on what basis do we object to such behavior (apart from the adulterous aspect of it)?
So what we have here is yet another instance of anarcho-tyranny. On one hand, our society surrounds us in sexual imagery, it liberates and encourages every kind of sexual activity, it says that all behavior between consenting adults is not only permitted but is a fundamental liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. That’s the anarchy part. On the other hand, in certain selected circumstances (selected by liberals and feminists when it suits their political purposes), we claim that if a man makes a single crude come-on to a woman, it is a horrible act that disqualifies his character and disqualifies him for political office. That’s the tyranny part. Tyrannical liberals play this double game, and naïve conservatives are only too eager to oblige.
Furthermore, even the adulterous side of the condemnation of Cain is questionable, because we’re not just in post-Sexual Revolution America. We’re in post-Bill Clinton America. How can Cain’s alleged crude gesture and attempt to start an adulterous affair back in 1996 be an objection to his presidential candidacy, given that we elected, in 1992, a man who was known to have been involved in non-stop adulterous activity through his entire marriage, including lots of activity of the woman’s-head-in-man’s-lap variety, who, moreover, continued to commit adulterous behavior in the White House, yet he is now honored as an elder stateman? Such contradictions cannot be allowed to stand. Conservatives and traditionalists may have a principled basis to object to Cain’s alleged behavior and even find it disqualifying, but liberals do not.