Setting the Record Straight

Herman Cain said he was “going to set the record straight now that somebody’s publically detailed an alleged incident of sexual misbehavior” and last night on Jimmy Kimmel, he asserted that “he’ll fight the latest harassment allegations head on because there’s not an ounce of truth to it.”

The fact he is speaking now, rather than last week, leads me to wonder if there was “an ounce of truth” in the other allegations—or at least documentation to substantiate unacceptable behavior, documentation he was hoping ghost accusers were unwilling to share with the public in a detailed, personal manner.

Now that voters can put a face with a story—a story which carries with it absolutely zero proof—does Herman Cain now feel he has a platform to speak out? Why were the previous settlements—accusations where some fault was acknowledged—completely disregarded? If he’s so utterly innocent, why not expose the terms of the agreement? Why not make himself transparent before a society who will ascertain the details whether he gives them or not?

If he wants to win the election, he will have to eventually come clean. While in some ways I applaud his desire to “stay on message,” I think a large part of his message must demonstrate integrity—a quality that is slipping away from leaders and role models alike.

If Herman Cain is truly an upstanding, respectable man, he needs to show us. Voters need to know who they are electing because we’ve been regularly disappointed by hollow facades. Lies flood the newswire until extra-marital affairs are unmasked by the prevalence of proof. People we came to trust bribe, threaten and promise luxurious opportunities to those who keep their secrets—that is until the media promises their secret-keepers more.

The media feasts on scandal like frenzied sharks because its audience demands and devours it. The exacerbation of suspicion sells magazines and advertising space, and the public consumes it as readily it consumes candy bars and big macs.

As much as I doubt Cain’s proclamation of innocence, my suspicion of the media generates a little bit of doubt regarding the allegations. Stories can easily spin out of control and venomous rumors can obliterate good reputations in a heartbeat. And because it is so easy to steal a few moments of fame, sensationalism often crowds out the integrity of truth. People are so bent on becoming “famous” or “heard” or “visible,” they choose to violate any honorable code of conduct in an effort to steal the spotlight. Perhaps these allegations stem from a deliberate effort to destroy him rather than reveal his character; perhaps they’ve been planted; perhaps the media made more of it than it should have—but perhaps not. After all, in this situation, all but one of the victims are remaining silent; all but one are spreading their message without seeking fame.

The fact the first three women didn’t want the spotlight leads me to wonder if there is something more at stake. I suppose it could be what Cain suggests—a democratic ploy to destroy his ratings. Or it could also be that they are good, moral women who want the world to know this leader is another dirty scoundrel. Perhaps the latest subject of these attacks, Sharon Bialek, is right—perhaps Cain sees nothing wrong with what he did. Perhaps he cannot admit wrongdoing because he doesn't understand that his behavior was, in fact, inappropriate.

Regardless, I keep coming back to the same conclusion—if Herman Cain has nothing to hide, then he needs to say more than “there isn’t an ounce of truth” to the allegations. He needs to own up to what happened, what was decided and why he settled. Did it happen because it was cheaper than fighting? Or did he settle because he violated the law? It’s going to come out one way or another. He can be a big person now, or he can cower later—or worse yet, if he really is innocent, he can look back and wish he would of shared the truth.