To continue with the Cain bashing [although since I think the criticism is entirely deserved the connotations of 'bashing' may miss the mark] in reference to the man's apparent absolute dearth of both knowledge of or interest in foreign policy and foreign affairs [when you hear him talk about these things it's not hard at all to imagine that the highest, most involved level of exposure he's had to these subjects comes from an associate's second hand retelling of a Rush Limbaugh rant] and in regards to the upcoming debate devoted to related issues - I've read some expressing hope that Cain is taking his shortcomings in this area seriously and consequently sitting down with a few good books to study up in earnest preparation for the event - because of course the important thing here is not that he actually know what the hell he's talking about but rather that he knows enough so as to effectively pretend that he knows what the hell he's talking about. There's no way not to be disturbed by this - not just by the naive arrogance of Cain himself, but possibly even more so by his supporters who actually seem to have convinced themselves that any of this makes any sense whatsoever.
This is not a skill set one simply acquires over a fortnight of book browsing - knowledge of and a keen sense for historical tendencies, military affairs and macro strategy, foreign policy and 'great game' politicking are not things one simply adopts one day as sort of an unwilling concession in pursuit of a something else - these abilities and insights are developed over time, through practice and dialectic, by people who actually care about the subjects and understand the dire import of them - to imagine it is somehow otherwise as a convenience in service of rationalizing a dubious political agenda is flat out nuts, crazy, utterly delusional.
It's the exact mistake people made with Obama - and now republicans think it sane to repeat the error viz Cain? Has the country lost its freaking god damn mind?!
The vulnerabilities and limitations of democracy seem to be becoming increasingly exposed - maybe we're just going through a bad patch - but if a polity loses, either through its own flaws or from a lack of meaningful choice, the ability to elect leaders who, because of their applicable knowledge, skills and experience, actually have the capacity to serve the interests of the country well, then how is survival possible? It isn't I'd think - unless through some indeterminate metamorphosis - an evolutionary step, possibly - but every change brings with it winners and losers and there's no guarantee we'd belong to the former.
It's not a good thing for the supposed greatest nation on earth that a year removed from the election it's already clear that the only tolerable option for next occupant of the White House is Mitt Romney, a guy who wins - a guy who, if he wins, does so simply because he's the least bad of the lot. Not a good thing at all.
