What follows is a REALLY long Neo-Aristotelian criticism of Malcolm X's last speech a week before he passed. You might want to get some snacks.

The 1960’s were a very turbulent time in American history, particularly in Black American history. The 1950’s and 1960’s encompassed a struggle against segregation for Black Americans, a struggle which saw the formation of organizations such as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) , the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the “Nation of Islam”(NOI) movement. Each of the varying organizations were distinguished from the other by their philosophical beliefs in how the goal of equality would be reached.

Situation

The Nation of Islam movement rose to notoriety behind one of its chief advocates, a fiery young man named Malcolm X. Malcolm X was instrumental to the NOI because of his speaking ability, his keen intellect, and his courage in doing what he felt needed to be done. For many who lived through that era, he was a polarizing individual. The general perception of him among White America was that he hated all Whites and wanted to kill and remove them. His ideals of self-defense were touted as calls to violence by most of the media, and many of the Black American leaders in the Civil Rights movement were in favor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s ideology of non-violent protest.

As a member of the Nation of Islam, Malcolm X taught and believed that Black Americans, if they could not attain to freedom and justice, should fight for it “by any means necessary”. However, near the end of his life, Malcolm X experienced an interesting change of heart. After being taught by Elijah Muhammad (a central leader in the Nation of Islam) that the white man was a “blue-eyed devil” who, being inherently evil, could never come to know God (Allah) or even be a Muslim, Malcolm X rejected this belief after an educational trip overseas. His rejection of this belief, coupled with his discovery of hypocrisy on the part of Elijah Muhammad, and growing tensions within the organization, led him to reject the entire belief system of the Nation of Islam and convert to the Sunni sect of Islam. His turning away resulted in the Nation of Islam threatening his and his family’s life on numerous occasions.

On February 14, 1965, Malcolm X gave his last public speech in Ford Auditorium. Previous to this speech, on August 28, 1963, a massive peaceful protest had been staged in Washington, which culminated in Dr. King’s famous “I Have A Dream” speech, which called for equality and justice non-violently. This protest led to more and more Black Americans throughout the South mobilizing for equality non-violently. Though no longer a member of the Nation of Islam, it was no secret that Malcolm X did not belief in peacefully standing by while violence happened around him. In fact, Ebony magazine published a picture of Malcolm X shows him standing in his house, with an M1 carbine, peering out of the window of his home. Malcolm was known for his stance that violence should be met with violence.
The morning before his speech, an attempt had been made on Malcolm’s life and the life of his family. The home that he, his wife and his children lived in was firebombed while he and his family slept. Malcolm was able to escape, along with his family, but only with a few clothes and other possessions. The firebombing took place in February 14, 1965. That night, Malcolm was scheduled to speak at the Ford Auditorium, in his hometown of Detroit. This was the last speech that he gave outside of New York before he was assassinated on February 21, 1965.

Rhetor (Speaker)

Up until the point when Malcolm X left the NOI, he had been solely speaking about their beliefs in his speeches. These included beliefs that white men were creations of a scientist called Yakub, and that Black people shouldn’t just be segregated, but that they should separate entirely from America and form their own nation independent from the American government. However, after he and the Nation of Islam parted ways, Malcolm, in his speeches and in interviews and conversations with friends, showed that his personal philosophies had changed greatly from those displayed in his previous speeches. He himself said he had been a “ventriloquist’s dummy” for the Nation of Islam for twelve years, and he regretted that what he had said and done as a “Black zombie”. Malcolm X had come to realize two things: that all white men were not devils, nor did they all have ill intent towards him and the Black race, and secondly, he’d come to realize that the general public viewed him as racist and hateful because of his time spent as the sounding piece of the Nation of Islam. Further, Malcolm no longer sought for the complete segregation of the Black race, but rather, for integration and equality, as evidenced by his reaching out to the leaders of the Civil Rights movement in 1964, an action he had until then refused to take.
The change in Malcolm X’s viewpoints led to him fighting to change his image, often blaming his previous actions on Elijah Muhammad’s interference. For instance, in 1964 when he reached out to leaders of the civil rights movement he was quoted as having said that Elijah Muhammad had previously prevented him from supporting their cause.

Auditors

The event at which Malcolm X spoke that night was actually an awards ceremony called the "First Annual Dignity Projection and Scholarships Award Night" sponsored by the Afro American Broadcasting Company. According to the program from that night, Malcolm X was the scheduled keynote and final speaker for that evening. The program goes on to state that the Afro American Broadcast Company was “an African American organization that was formed in 1964 primarily to produce radio programs that ‘met with our approval as spiritually free black people’ . The organization began in 1964 to produce and distribute its own radio programs about the African American experience to radio stations throughout the northeastern United States. The organization was formed in response to dissatisfaction in the African American community with the content and character of radio programs produced about African Americans on "white radio stations". The purpose of the event held that Valentine's Day in 1965 was to raise money by selling tickets to the event itself. The money was to be used to provide scholarships to Afro American youth to enter the field of ‘mass communications’. Malcolm X was particularly interested in supporting the African American media at this time because he recognized the importance of his speeches being accurately reported to the public by the media.” (http://www.flickr.com/photos/muycool/2566957647/)

The audience in attendance was one, that according to the program, felt that many of the Civil Rights leaders were “venal and subservient”, and while there is no visual documentation to ascertain the makeup of the audience, undoubtedly, the event itself can help us draw the conclusion that the men and women in attendance were supporters of the Civil Rights movement, the majority of which were undoubtedly Black Americans. It’s to these individuals that Malcolm addresses his speech, and his choice of phrasing and diction only serves to affirm this conclusion. As Malcolm himself states in the speech, he is very relaxed in his tone. He uses several colloquial terms, such as “Good night!” He quotes Bible verses, although he himself is Muslim, which would lead one to believe that he is appealing to Black civil rights activists since the overwhelming majority of them, particularly those that believed in nonviolent protests, were professed Christians.

Invention: Ethos (Character)

Malcolm X begins to build his ethos from the very start of his speech. At the start, he begins to construct a character with an appeal to the pathos of the audience. His first few sentences deal with the attack on his life, which he uses constructs as a means to build upon his own ethos, or character. He mentions that his wife and children were also in the house that was attacked, but that his wife, and particularly his children, understood what he was doing and would rather he continue on his course than “grow up in shame and in disgrace”. Here, Malcolm X is painting himself as a person who will not even let fear for his own life or the lives of his own family to stand between him and his goals, and what he believes to be right.
Next, Malcolm X takes steps to build his ethos in the eyes of his audience. He alludes to the Nation of Islam as the “Black Muslim movement”. This choice of words aligns him more with his audience, since it removed the religious aspects of the Nation of Islam and lowered it to being simply a “movement”, which carries the connotation of it as being a fad, or something that was popular and served a purpose, but would fade as soon as that purpose faded. Also, many of his audience used the term “Black Muslim movement” to describe the Nation of Islam, either derisively or otherwise.

As Malcolm continues speaking, he constantly establishes his ethos by connecting himself to his audience. In another instance, he acknowledges that he is a Muslim. Then he carefully makes an interesting distinction. Instead of using this to set himself apart, by mentioning what he doesn’t believe about the Christian faith, he instead highlights the monotheistic commonality of the two faiths. Malcolm X tells the crowd that he believes in the God who created the universe. He then clarifies the use of the word Allah, saying simply that the Jews called him Jehovah, and “if you could understand Hebrew, you’d call him Jehovah too. If you could understand Arabic, you’d call him Allah.” Here, logos or logic is used to support the established ethos of Malcolm’s character of being similar to his listeners. They believe in the same God, and if they spoke a different language, or were under a different government, they would both presumably be Muslim.

Logos (Logic)

As he establishes his connection to his audience, Malcolm X then refers to an “African revolution”, one that frightens not only the United States, but France and Great Britain as well, since “there are so many people of African ancestry within the domestic confines or jurisdiction of these various governments.” Interestingly enough, Malcolm doesn’t refer to these people as “citizens” of these governments, which would be the case in the United States. By referring to all people of African ancestry as merely residing within the confines of the various governments, he is removing the barrier of nationalism. His intended audience is Black Americans who are struggling for equality in their own country. Malcolm X skillfully removes any allegiances to America or nationalistic tendencies of his listeners by grouping them all together as being of African ancestry and all within the confines of some ruling power.

Malcolm X then pauses to talk about his travels throughout Europe and Africa, and how he had seen the unity and industriousness of Africans around the world that he had not seen in Black Americans, specifically how many of the Black Americans in other countries had turned their backs on the struggles they had left behind. He then contrasts them with the South African refugees he’d met in Ghana, who were still concerned with their compatriots back home. Here is a skillful enthymeme on Malcolm’s part. By comparing the struggles of South Africans with that of Black Americans, Malcolm unites all Black Americans, though during that time there was a divide between the two, in fact, a divide that Malcolm himself addresses later in his speech. Here, the central theme of Malcolm’s discourse, however, is unity, not just nationally, but globally, and by establishing this contrast, he first presents the unspoken idea that Black Americans not in America are still related to the ongoing Civil Rights struggle by proxy, and then by contrasting them with the South Africans in Ghana, he reinforces the idea that they too are just as much a part of a struggle for what he termed “human rights”.

Malcolm continues to call for global unity among those of African descent when he mentions that any one of the members of the audience in attendance could “look as much Congolese as a Congolese does.” He goes on to ask how they would answer for their government’s action in the Congo. This again is an enthymeme, one that places the audience in a strange place. Malcolm X is asserting that because one is American, he supports everything the American government does by default. In fact, he says that they would be unable to say otherwise without going to an extreme to prove they didn’t support US actions in the Congo.

This same enthymeme makes one of Malcolm X’s second points: returning violence with violence in what he terms self-defense. From a civil standpoint, this is an extremely foolish strategy. Blacks in America during the 1960’s were a true minority, both in numbers and in terms of power. However, from a global perspective, one in which those of African and Hispanic decent were a majority, this was a legitimate strategy. Malcolm X never paints this philosophy in the context of the Civil Right movement, however, focusing on the global perspective. When he mentions the violence of the US, every time he mentions their violence domestically, it is in conjunction with their “brutality” overseas. Even in the example he mentions of an incident of violence, in which a sheriff attacked a Black woman, he mentions that he himself was overseas when he saw it. He paints an interesting metaphor of brute force as a “language” and then applies it to the concept of negotiations between two people who don’t speak the same language. As he suggests, understanding and communication can only come about when brute force is met with brute force, but he skillfully phrases it almost playfully when he says, “once you know his language, learn how to speak his language, and he'll get the point. There'll be some dialogue, some communication, and some understanding will be developed.” His point is made even more strongly by his account of the warning he wired to George Lincoln Rockwell. This real life account of violence producing results emphasizes this idea of brute force as a language. Again, when speaking of violence in this context, Malcolm X addresses it almost playfully, ending the statement saying jokingly that he “hasn’t heard from Rockwell since”.
Malcolm X’s continues to call for unity when he condemns the press and the government’s manipulation it. Malcolm first highlights the hypocrisy of the press in its depiction of him, by recalling an anecdote in which a white woman after having spoken to him for thirty minutes is shocked to discover that he is Malcolm X. He uses the story to emphasize his statement: “No matter what the [white] man says, you better look into it”. Later in his speech he again criticizes the press and its handling of the Harlem riots, clearly showing his listeners the bias in how the riots were reported. Then he highlights how a similar bias was shown by the press in its coverage of the bombing of the Congo. Again, Malcolm X is emphasizing the similarities between people of African descent, and deemphasizing the geographic and cultural distance between Black Americans and their African counterparts.

Organization

Malcolm X was fully aware of the popular perception of him. Many viewed him as a racist who advocated violence, no better than the White men he actively condemned. In this speech, we can see that instead of just establishing his character at the beginning and then presenting his logical persuasion, he starts off establishing his character and then continues to establish his character throughout the entire speech. Some of this may be to offset the inflammatory nature of the speech itself, or even just part of a campaign by Malcolm X to revamp his image, but in either case, the decision to continue building his ethos is clearly a conscious one, and not by chance.

The speech itself, in the speaker’s effort to promote a global world view often gives examples of a local nature, then compares those to examples of an international level. This again builds into his overall theme of unity among “people of African descent”.

Style

Malcolm X’s style reveals his intended audience. His use of colloquial phrases, the calmness of his delivery, coupled with the simplicity of his words helps him reach his intended audience. As aforementioned, Malcolm X uses several colloquial terms in his speech, and is extremely conversational in the way he talks. He even mentions that he likes to speak in an informal or relaxed manner, since as he says, “Whenever you and I are discussing our problems we need to be very objective, very cool, calm, collected.” Several times, Malcolm calls those in the crowd “brothers and sisters”. This phrase itself invokes the idea of unity, painting a picture that all of those of African descent, and their sympathizers were all united as if by blood.

Delivery

Video of this speech isn’t available, however, there is audio preserved of it. Listening to the audio of Malcolm X speak, several things stand out. His voice is of a calm nature, which he uses to support the enthymeme he creates stating that approaching things and appearing calm is approaching them rationally or logically. Throughout his speech, the audience can be heard laughing and applauding in response to Malcolm X’s speech. No doubt this speech was tailored to mirror the popular speeches of Southern Black ministers in its informality, wit, and smoothness.

Conclusion

Was Malcolm X truly effective in reaching his audience? At first, one is inclined to say no. History has painted Malcolm X in a cruel light, as a man who was an advocate of violence, a man who wanted to see the destruction of the entire White race.

However, as you listen to the audio of his speech you can hear the audience applauding many of his talking points. One of the main goals that Malcolm X had in this speech was to humanize himself, to remove the image of a man filled hatred and bile towards the White race, and replace it as a man who was willing to fight when he deemed it necessary for survival. As you listen to the audience’s reaction to his speech, it’s clear that he accomplished this goal. They are not silent, or quietly listening to what he has to say, but they are applauding and even laughing at the way he says it. I believe that any Civil Rights activists who were in attendance at this speech would come away with the idea that Malcolm X wasn’t a man advocating violence and murder, but a man who would fight against it unflinchingly in order to protect his family and his people.

As far as creating a sense of unity for those of African descent, it’s harder for one to determine whether or not Malcolm X was truly successful with that goal. Whether or not anyone in that audience viewed the world in a different way is difficult to ascertain. The argument could be made that just by sharing what he did with each member of that audience that he was able to alter their perception, but as we look back through history, we can see that often times the struggle for equality in America, though it members of that struggle frequently made use of the African continent as a symbol, has been focused solely on America. If the focus of this speech was to move

Everybody’s got an opinion. And there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, dare I say, that not only should everyone have their own opinion, but they should be proud to voice it and articulate it. However, there is a difference between fact and opinion. For instance, if I hold a ball in my hand and let it go, it will drop to the ground. That’s gravity. It’s a fact. There’s nothing I can do to change that. It’s not based on my perception, my position in life or even on my previous experience of letting balls go. (…phrasing) That’s a solid fact, so much of a fact, that we call it a law. The law of gravity. Now take for instance the statement: “MF Doom makes good music.” Now we have an opinion. You see that varies from person to person. That’s not a law. I can think of multiple people who don’t like MF Doom, and I can respect that. In fact, I can even understand why they don’t like him. He’s really not for everyone. I enjoy him because of how intricate his rhyme schemes are, and how dedicated he is to keeping them that way. His “punchlines” are hidden within a complex rhyme scheme. I dig that. I also understand it’s not easy to listen to.

However, my understanding someone else’s opinion, even if I don’t hold it, isn’t what validates the opinion. The person validates it. Which says everything that should be said about opinions. If all it takes is one person to validate an opinion, how much value can an opinion really have? I’ll answer that question with another question: if you have a million dollars, would you consider yourself rich if EVERYONE else had a million dollars? Your answer is probably yes. Funny thing about the economy though. If everyone had a million dollars, the value of the dollar would be much lower. That’s kind of how value works. Well, every human alive has an opinion. Which means it’s really not worth much. Those individual opinions might mean a lot to each individual person, but in the grand scheme of things, opinions have no real merit or intrinsic value.

Remember how I said at the beginning that everyone should be proud to voice and articulate their opinions? I firmly believe that, particularly if you come to that opinion through some means of research or life experience. If you feel that Domino’s is the best pizza ever, because they treated you well, or maybe because you’ve actually sat down and taste tested all the other available brands of pizza and for some reason you found Domino’s superior, you can climb to a rooftop and shout It until you’re hoarse and blue in the face. But guess what? It’s still just an opinion, and at the end of the day, whether a billion people agree with you, or no one does, it’s still just an opinion. You can’t add any more value to it, just as no one can take any value away from it. My disagreeing with your opinion doesn’t detract from the value of it or the person who holds it. I just don’t agree. It happens.
That having been said, I’ve found, in my opinion, that there’s no real reason to debate over opinions. Nothing can be gained from it. I can understand debating over facts, the validity of scientific studies, and so forth, but opinions? Not really worth it. And I’m not saying that I feel the practice of dialectics isn’t beneficiary, but the pure practice of that form of reasoning involves the two participants to argue both sides, not to stick stubbornly to one side emotionally. I suppose, in the spirit of fairness, one can postulate that theories are really just opinions masquerading as facts, but in the cases of theories (well…good theories at least) they can be tested, either through experimentation or observation. How does one test that a rapper is better than another? How does one determine that Beethoven’s 9th was better than his first or his second symphonies? Sure we can say, that in our opinion that the 9th was better because of the emotion it conveys, or how he bent the constraints of his era to convey that emotion, but I’m pretty sure that it’s entirely subjective. Somewhere there’s a person how hears that symphony and thinks, “Not feeling it, B.” And that’s okay. You’re going to have some people like that. By the same token, there are people who hear a song or artist that I find appalling and they defend it to the death. Fine. Let them have their opinions. You see if we all just accept that we have differing opinions and that debating over them is pointless, the world would be a better place. And isn’t that ultimately more important than proving that what we think is “right”?

Cultural Pride, Equality, And The Need For Voices

Context is an amazing thing. The most amazing thing about context is how few people actually understand it. This hit me as I watched Elon James White get assaulted on Twitter for his comment that black GOPers who say things like “liberal plantation” or “Democrat Masters” have already lost their argument. I chuckled when I saw it, and then went about my day. Hours later, Elon was STILL debating people in his mentions. For those who don’t know, Elon James White is a comedian and political commentator. He has a podcast called Blacking It Up and does a YouTube show called This Week in Blackness. At some point, someone called Elon racist. Their argument? They felt that Elon would say it was racist to have a show called This Week in Whiteness, so by association, This Week in Blackness must be racist.

When I saw that, I had to take a second, because I have some very militant thoughts from time to time. No scratch that, I have some very Afrocentric thoughts from time to time, to be more precise. You see, my entire life, I’ve been struggling to accept who I am. I’ve always felt as if I didn’t truly fit in. Some of that comes from being bullied, and some of that comes from the way I was raised, as well as having some body image issues, etc. But some of that can be attributed to being black. I was told growing up that being black meant that I would be harassed, that police, authority figures, and society in general would look at me differently. My first reaction was to deny that. Why would they? Why would anyone be derisive of me because of my skin color? I’m a good-looking, well-spoken and respectful young man. Surely, here in America, I would be judged not by my appearance but by the content of my character, right? Time has proven me wrong in that regard, very wrong. As a young black man growing up in the South, I have learned that no matter what I say, what I accomplish, I will forever be “the black guy” to some people.

But that doesn’t mean I should reject who I am. I AM a black man. I can’t nor do I want to ever change that. Being black has given me a perspective of this nation that few of us truly get the chance to have. Standpoint theory argues that those who are in the minority from a power standpoint have a better understanding of the world of minorities than those who are of the majority. In other words, as a black man, I understand being black more than someone who isn’t. Even if someone were to pull a Jane Goodall and live among the black people as they did, adopt their mannerisms and way of life for years, at the end of the day, their knowledge, nay their perception, would still be lacking compared to a standard black person. I personally agree with this, since I have seen what oppression looks like. I know what it feels like to have someone look at me with eyes full of hatred. Not only do I know that feeling, I embrace that as part of being Black. Do I hope the world changes one day? Of course I do. I want peace and harmony as much as the next man. But at the same time, those experiences have helped shape my perception, and have helped form the lenses at which I look at the world. I am black. And I’m okay with that.

Part of being black entails understanding that as a minority, your personal culture and history isn’t protected by the majority. They say that the victors write the history books, and they (who I imagine must have been victors, since we still know this quote) were definitely correct. I’m not accusing the majority of trying to erase the minority’s history, but as I stated, their perception of reality differs greatly from that of someone who is a minority. So the complete history of what shaped and continues to shape blackness in America may be cleaned up. Take Martin Luther King, Jr. versus Malcolm X for instance. Both men were great leaders and visionaries, who gave their lives willingly for what they believed in. One has his own day and recently had a statue erected to him. The other? Where is his statue? Where is his day? Malcolm X played a great role in influencing what shaped black culture, as did the Nation of Islam. But that role has been minimized and swept into the back page in history. Were it not for black people trying to keep that history alive, (Spike Lee, Chuck D, etc) where would it be? There needs to be a voice for the minorities, otherwise their history would be erased. Who better to provide that voice than the minorities themselves? As I’ve mentioned, minorities understand their plot far better than a majority looking in, no matter how great.

Does this “voice” mean that black people who are proud of themselves and their heritage hate everything non-black? No, of course not, no more than Scottish or Irish-Americans wearing kilts does, or Italian Americans or German Americans or Chinese=Americans embracing their culture does. In short, my being proud of who I am doesn’t make me less of an American, nor does it make me hate you for not being me. That’s ridiculous. However, as a Black American, when I see something that I can clearly tell is racism, (and remember standpoint theory? I have a clearer perception of that particular reality) yes, I WILL point it out as such. Now, I’m willing to admit that a lot of things are decried as racist that shouldn’t be, but by the same token, racism still exists. And until we as a society no longer tolerate discrimination of any sort, racism is going to be around. Racism doesn’t stand apart from the spectrum of discriminatory hate, on the contrary, its part of it.
Having said that, White America, if you want to start a show called “This Week In Whiteness” go right ahead. I should warn you, though, that it might not do very well. You see, the market for news and history shows about White America is flooded. For instance, we all know how white men rushed overseas in World War II to stave off evil. The “greatest generation” they’ve been called. However, this is the same generation that casually forgets to mention the black soldiers and what they had to endure. Soldiers like the Tuskegee Airmen, who had to be exceptional just to get a chance to fight. Soldiers like my grandfather, who was injured in World War II but never received a commendation for it because his commanding officer was white. Soldiers who could risk their lives for their country, but couldn’t get food from the front of a restaurant when they got back. History somehow forgets to mention these soldiers. And while we’re at it, what about the first and second generation Asian Americans who were rounded up and put into American concentration camps after Pearl Harbor? How many of these stories were in the news in the 1940’s? My point? White America gets enough press. It doesn’t NEED more voices, though if you wish to join the chorus, please feel free. However, minorities in America? We need all the voices we can get. The alternative is to forever be forgotten. I owe more than that to my future children.

"Launch Me Bro!"

Every rock concert I've been to, inevitably, a small white girl, or a small white guy, will ask me to "launch" them. For those who are unaware what "launching" is, it's how one begins to crowd surf. You find a strapping young man, and you ask him to physically throw you above his head onto the surging crowd. Now as a person who has a bit of a sadistic streak, I will not refuse a small white guy's request to be "launched". Four hundred years of oppression and racism demands that I throw him. I generally pick a spot that has one or two people in it, and then after yelling "fore", I launch the hapless fool straight at that spot. There've been times when I have actually felt/heard the sound that the "launchee" made as they came in contact with the ground, and I have to say, it is a brand of satisfying that can only be experienced, not told. In the case of the small white girl, I don't do this. Because I'm pretty sure throwing small white girls into the air is what got Rodney King beaten up the second time.

I say all of this to make a specific point: every so often, you meet someone who has that look in their eyes. You can tell that they are about to ask you to launch them. For years (and in some cases, all of their lives) they have dreamed about this moment, and they are so close they can taste the glory and splendor that is their goal. They WANT it, and dare I say, they even CRAVE it. That hunger can be seen in their eyes. And all you can do, really, is, well, launch them. Throw them out into that void and wait and see what happens. Sometimes, the crowd rushes underneath them, and then holds them up to the sky, and for that brief two or three minutes before security pulls them down and then throws them out of the concert, they get to live like rockstars. Of course, other times, they plummet to the earth in a painful and ironic commentary on what it really means to be alive.

I used to think that it was just a lot of crazy white kids looking for thrills because their own lives weren't exciting enough, but after some real thought, I've realized that all of us want to be "launched". We want to have the courage to "throw" ourselves after our dreams. We may fail, and even if we attain our goals, they may be short-lived moments of glory. But don't you want to be able to say that you leaped? That you boldly went forth where few others have gone? Really isn't having the courage to leap a success in itself? I think so. So...launch me bro!

How Herman Cain Almost Became President

Herman Cain is no longer a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination. I have mixed feelings about this personally. First, as a normal, rational human being and a man of my word, I’m relatively thankful. I pledged some time ago that if Herman Cain got into office, I was going to immediately emigrate to some other nation. I even went so far as to say that being jobless and homeless in some other first world country would be equal to or greater than living here with a job under Herman Cain’s steady guidance. Yes, I realize how ridiculous that statement is. Let’s not dwell on that, or on how myopic that really makes me look. Instead, let’s attempt to answer a question that no doubt many of us have asked ourselves over and over again: how did Herman Cain get so popular?
First and foremost, let’s address the fact that Herman Cain is indeed a black man. His conservative stances don’t negate that, despite what some commenters on various blogs would have you believe. I’m pretty sure when “they” are out lynching black people, “they” don’t stop to ask the lynchee’s opinion on the government’s fiscal responsibility, or whether or not a woman has the right to an abortion. (For the record “they” is the unnamed force which apparently still exists and lynches people. Ask Clarence Thomas for more details. I think I’m being sarcastic with that, it’s getting hard to tell) At any rate, the main demographic that Herman Cain had to cater to might have seen their parents or uncles or even older siblings spit on or speak derisively of Herman Cain and “his” kind (again to clarify, I’m talking about black people) at some point in time. So how did he suddenly manage to get them all to rally their support around him, even after the first and second allegations of sexual harassment emerged?

I have a theory, and of course, I’ll be sharing it here.
What’s the best part of waking up? Most of you can finish that sentence by saying it’s “Folgers in your cup”. What spells relief? R-O-L-A-I-D-S. Tyson’s feeding you, like family, especially if you feel like Chicken tonight. Otherwise, you may find yourself eating a bowl of Nut-N-Honey. These are all slogans that stick with us, even years after the products themselves disappear. You can’t even buy a bowl of Nut-N-Honey, I looked. All I got were really strange looks and one weird offer from a guy in van behind the supermarket. Anyway, the point I’m trying to make is that the generation that Herman Cain targeted grew up even more inundated with slogans than my generation. Our mothers, fathers, uncles and aunts all grew up with slogans. Slogans that may not have really told you anything about the product (what exactly are Folger’s flavor crystals) but either because of saturation or just sheer catchiness, kept those products in the front of your mind when it came time to make a purchasing decision.

Fast forward to Herman Cain and his 9-9-9 plan. How many of us really understood what that was about at first? Did he even bother to explain it in detail? Only after I sat down and did a thorough internet search did I find a legitimate analysis of the dangers of the 9-9-9 plan and what it would do to the poor and middle class in our country. Even then, there were people speaking up about the plan, but the general attack on Herman Cain was never his financial plan to save America from its debt crisis, or his COMPLETE lack of inexperience. Why? Because no one ever looked into his plan. It was a slogan. A jingle. Is the best part of waking up really Folger’s in your cup? Does Tyson really feed you like family? Do you feel like Chicken Tonight? No. In each of the slogan’s cases, we never really question the assertions made by ads, simply because they’re ads. Herman Cain was almost magically able to hide his ineptitude behind an ad, behind his slogan that was simple and easy for everyone to remember. The other plans were complicated and involved taxing this percentile this percentage unless they were this and that and the other. Herman Cain’s simple and easily remembered plan rang true with a lot of the core demographic of the GOP, and so they hopped on board. And for several glorious months, Herm could do no wrong. It was amazing. One of the most ill-conceived campaign advertisements I have ever seen was released (one that I personally think Herman Cain released to derail his own campaign) and people loved it. He and his advisors chose one of the cheapest Casio produced songs I have ever seen as his campaign music, full of synths and slow patriotic style singing and still the older constituency of the GOP rolled with it. And why? I theorize it was because he had a slogan, and his slogan was catchy and it was simple.

As we move deeper in the 21st century the role that adverts and jingles played has greatly diminished thanks to DVR, TiVo and streaming digital media. Now we watch our television largely commercial free, and we enjoy our music in much the same way. The generation growing up now will never know the magic that is a good jingle. Which may actually be a good thing.

And for those who think the 9-9-9 plan wasn’t all bad, I would like to point out this one fact. Herman Cain thought that to best way to shield the impoverished from his plan was to create “zones” where impoverished people who lived there would exempt from the income tax. Essentially, he wanted to group all the poor people together in an area, and then make it financially impossible for them to leave that zone or area unless they substantially increased their income. Thanks, Herm.