Cain deserves some credit for addressing his critics and offering a substantive answer about China as a security threat, confirming reports that he has been cramming on foreign policy, but he still wasn't completely coherent or informed. Unfortunately, the fact that his campaign manager offered an inaccurate clarification also indicates that the foreign-policy team surrounding him may still be weak, despite his own growing knowledge. He may or may not, in this campaign, have time to integrate his crash courses in foreign policy into a coherent message about America's global role.

FOUR days ago, Herman Cain stated in an interview with PBS's Judy Woodruff that he thinks China is a potential military threat to America: "They've indicated that they're trying to develop nuclear capability, and they want to develop more aircraft carriers like we have." This created the unfortunate impression that Mr Cain was unaware that China has had the bomb since 1964. Mr Cain's chief of staff, Mark Block, then took to Fox News with the claim that Mr Cain had meant to allude to a Chinese intention to develop nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers. Today National Review online's Patrick Brennan patiently explains that China has had nuclear-powered submarines since 1974, and has no current plans to build nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. He concludes:

I have nothing new to say about Herman Cain's patent inadequacy to serve as president of the United States that hasn't been said before. Mr Brennan strikes the right tone of reserved contempt. Anyone who requires "cramming" and "crash courses" on the basic shape of the world outside the United States' borders should not have the gall to run for president in the first place. But it's fairly obvious that Mr Cain will not be the Republican nominee; the scorn being heaped on him from all quarters will ultimately prevent him from winning the nomination.

I think, however, that too little scorn has been heaped upon the people who have made Mr Cain the current front-runner in the Republican primaries: likely voters. Journalistic conventions generally mitigate against directly castigating average people for their poor choice of leaders. Instead, we are meant to castigate the leaders, or to complain in diffuse terms about the state of the polity. Amy Davidson's blog entry in the New Yorker is a case in point:

How did we get to a point where the future of the Republic may depend on the inner workings of the National Restaurant Association? Is it wrong to wish that, in a serious political story with comments attributed to unnamed “senior association officials,” the association in question might have to do with national security or education or anything but fast food?... Who benefits from all this? Maybe Perry, whose campaign Cain accused of leaking the story, or Mitt Romney, the Perry campaign's suspect; maybe the Democrats... But it's just not good for our country's political culture, which looks ever more degraded. One doubts it's even good for our pizza industry, and we used to be proud of that.

I agree with the sentiment, but quibble with the tone. It's elegiac; it avoids finger-pointing. It seems to me that it is worth identifying those responsible. Herman Cain is a clown. His candidacy is turning the American presidential campaign into a circus. The people responsible for this situation are the people who say they want to vote for him.

I find, in other words, that this whole issue keeps directing my attention back towards a fundamental problem: I have to share my polity with large numbers of silly people who are not equipped to make reasonable decisions about political issues. Even after Mr Cain loses the nomination, I must live with the awareness that the people who voted for him are out there, waiting to vote for some even more ridiculous clown down the line. I am aware that they feel the same way about me. However, they are wrong, and I am right. As evidence, I present the fact that they say they support Herman Cain for president.

(Photo credit: AFP)