Obama. Which is it: Arrogance or Confidence?

They say that if you can back it up, it isn’t bragging. This is why when Babe Ruth called his shot and then blasted a home run exactly where he said he would, he wasn’t boasting. He was merely telling it like it was.
What then of Barack Obama? Is he being arrogant or merely confident in sticking to a gold-plated political agenda? When he tells us that he intends to pursue his health care initiative despite recent setbacks, does this indicate that he knows something the rest of us do not—or that we know something he doesn’t?
Since the difference between arrogance and confidence is the same as that between bragging and truth telling, what Obama is doing depends upon whether he can back up his words with deeds. As of now, it looks like he is in the process of being hoist by his own petard.
Consider this. Obama’s election owed a great deal to his attitude. The very confidence he exuded in claiming that he would produce beneficial changes inspired much of the electorate with a corresponding confidence in him. People took heart in his self-assurance and rewarded him with victory.
But then came governance and his self-certainty was tested in a very different venue. Now the questions were could his “stimulus” legislation hold unemployment under eight per cent and/or would his health care plan provide universal coverage while simultaneously lowering costs. So far the answers seem to be: No.
This leads us to the next question. Is Obama less intelligent than many of us originally believed? Have his apparent mistakes been due to a lack of smarts or something else?
The answer here is clearly in the negative. Our president is one of the most intelligent people ever to hold his office. Indeed, the problem is not a dearth of brains, but a shortage of wisdom.
Despite having declared that he is not an ideologue, Barack Obama incontrovertibly is one. Thus, in continuing to pursue deficit-based policies, he has revealed himself to be a true believer in Keynesian economics. Likewise, in insisting that global warming is an imminent threat, he refuses to acknowledge mounds of counter-evidence.
Yet the difficulty with being an ideologue—which is to say someone so deeply committed to a particular belief system that he cannot recognize when it has been disconfirmed—is that this can lead to serious errors.
Obama’s arrogance—and it is arrogance—stems from an inability to see beyond his personal convictions. As an ideologue, he refuses to entertain ideas outside his settled opinions. As a result, despite his intelligence, he cannot see what is plainly there to be seen.
This is why, after repeatedly claiming to be open to good ideas emanating from every direction, virtually the only ideas he credits are those coming from the left-wing of the Democratic Party. It is why he continues to call the Republicans the party of No irrespective of the many proposals they have put on the table.
Sadly for him, arrogance, as opposed to a justified confidence, is apt to be his undoing. Once people realize the emperor is unclothed, they are unlikely to remain inspired by mere words. If anything, they are liable to feel betrayed, with the unfortunate consequence that his reputation for genius will be impossible to recover.
As for Democratic office holders, if they continue to be mesmerized by Obama’s assurances that his political magic can save them from an electoral disaster, they may be sorely disappointed. In this case, they too will be the victims of misplaced arrogance.
Confidence is a good thing. But if confidence is to remain that, it must be tempered by reality. Those currently running the show in Washington D.C. seem to have lost track of this simple truth.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Living in a Tree—Environmentalist-Style

The movie Avatar has been a great success. And deservedly so. It is a festival for the eye and an inspired effort at myth making. Most of those who have attended a showing, including this writer, have enjoyed the ride. Utterly absorbing and strangely moving, it weaves a spell to which few are immune.
And yet there is something odd about this adventure—or rather the implications of its message. Avatar is not just a myth; it is an environmentalist myth. Its plot taps into a storyline straight out of environmentalist fantasies.
These are, it must be said, also progressive fantasies. For many years now, when teaching social theory at Kennesaw State University, I have used the Disney version of Pocahontas to illustrate the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau believed that the American Indians were “noble savages.” He also believed that the rest us would revert to their elevated condition if we gave up the corrupt trappings of civilization.
In the future, I plan to use Avatar to make the same point. Its central characters, the Na’vi, are even better at demonstrating the supposed advantages of being innocently in touch with nature. Theirs, after all, is a world in which every living thing is either physically or spiritually attached to every other living thing.
More than this, it is a world in which respecting the inviolable rights of every living thing produces an unselfish happiness and complete personal fulfillment. Thus, in surrendering oneself to the good of the whole, the individual acquires the opportunity to fly on the backs of pterodactyl-like creatures.
Much of this feels correct because it recapitulates long-established human legends. One of these is the myth of the “hero.” This is the universal tale of the unpromising youth who eventually proves his merit by performing a difficult deed of immense worth. In the movie, the hero tames the most terrifying beast of them all and then leads the people to victory over heartless invaders. For this he is rewarded with total respect and unquestioned leadership.
Another myth is that of resurrection. In the end, the physically crippled hero dies only to be reborn in a better and stronger body. But in order to achieve this, he must first relinquish his fears and allow the spiritual strength of the community to work its magic on his immobilized frame.
If this sounds wonderful—as to many it must—consider some other implications of this environmental primitivism. First, the Na’vi live in trees. They literally sleep in hammock dormitories in the bowels of immense trees. Is this actually something we want to do? Is living in a tree really superior to residing in modern houses?
Second, probably due to the lack of privacy in these trees, the heroes make love out in the middle of the forest. We the viewers have already learned of the dangerous predators lurking in these verdant jungles, so the question becomes: Is this safe? Will the wolf-like creatures respect their vulnerability while in the throes of coitus? How many of us would be willing to take the chance?
Finally, the victory of the Na’vi over the invaders, who incidentally are technologically advanced despite having deforested their home planet, comes because of magic. The faith of the hero somehow rouses hordes of wild creatures to come to the rescue of the embattled innocents. Their spiritual connectedness produces success that unassisted bravery could not.
What makes this so remarkable is that contemporary environmentalists routinely portray their preservationist commitments as deriving from rational science. Nevertheless, the filmmakers, when their heroes are in danger, resort to fairy-tale enchantment to vindicate a primitive lifestyle.
The bottom line is that environmentalism is itself a form of religion. It too relies on a faith that it cannot justify in purely scientific terms.
Worse still, as Avatar implies, environmentalism encourages us to embrace a way of life that is neither self-sustaining, nor particularly comfortable. Only a magical suspension of disbelief could make it appear so.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Politics Turned Upside Down

Think about it!
The political parties seem to have traded places. Where once the Democrats were the party of the people, they now seem to be the party of Big Government. Similarly, where once the Republicans were the party of big government, they have apparently transformed into the party of the People.
Consider how the parties began. The Democrats were founded by Thomas Jefferson. He adamantly opposed large government and sought at almost every turn to reduce its size. His ideal was a nation of yeoman farmers who managed their own affairs on their own plots of land. The goal was therefore to prevent the government from interfering with their freedom.
The Republicans, in contrast, got their start under the auspices of Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, a Federalist, believed in a more robust central government. He sponsored a central bank and the federal assumption of state debts in the hope that this would promote economic growth. Later on, Henry Clay, then designated a Whig, promoted what he called the American System intending to do the same. He believed that government sponsored roads and a federal university would promote commercial development.
Today things are remarkably different. Nowadays it is the Democrats who sponsor additional government programs. Thus, they want Washington to administer health care and to coordinate an aggressive energy policy. Nor do they have any compunctions about increasing federal spending to prime the economic pump. Indeed, to hear them tell it, this is the central duty of any government.
The Republicans, to the contrary, favor decentralization. They intend to cut federal spending and to delegate greater authority to the states. Likewise, if they get their way, government regulations will be reduced so as to allow individual citizens more latitude in making independent decisions. To hear them tell it, the less government the better.
Further evidence of this switch can be found in the party’s attitudes toward ordinary people. The Democrats seem to have lost faith in them. As the party of big government, they are supported by trial lawyers and crony capitalist companies such as General Electric. Ordinary citizens, however, when they take to the streets to protest government actions are derided as “Astroturf.” They are dismissed as airheads and potential terrorists.
Now it is the Republicans who express more faith in the common Joe. They disparage the pointy-headed intellectuals who run things from Washington, showing instead a preference for the man and woman on the street. If you ask them, regular Americans are more prudent in spending their own money than are government functionaries. They do not have to be protected from themselves as the Democrats repeatedly allege.
How then did this happen? What brought about this political world turned upside down?
The culprit seems to the Industrial Revolution. Paradoxically, the economic growth that the early Federalists favored has altered the emphases of the respective parties. It has changed their fundamental focus because it has changed the nature of the society they supervise.
Where once the United States was primarily agricultural, nowadays it is post-industrial. As a result, new theories arose to protect people against this threat. Perhaps the most important of these was the collectivism inherent in socialist systems. These promised to tame industrialists by making them subservient to the people. Since elected representatives were smarter and better situated than ordinary folks, they would act as stand-ins for their constituents. Their decisions would, therefore, be more democratic by being more elitist.
The Republicans, in contrast, noticed the changes in how post-industrialism was organized. They realized that proprietor-entrepreneurs no longer ran big companies. Instead professional managers had taken over. As importantly, most new jobs were being created by small business owners. It was, therefore, these more professionalized individuals who had to be cultivated. Their decisions, because they were closer to ground-level, were more sensible than those of far-away bureaucrats. So too were the choices of ordinary people who were the best stewards of their own resources.
Putting all of this together, it is evident that the political landscape has become quite different from what many people suppose. Today, it is the Democratic politicians who are arrogantly dedicated to centrist policies. Meanwhile, it is Republican politicians who are liable to be the sons and daughters of working people. More fundamentally, this is the reason the little people are beginning to gravitate toward a party that was once perceived as scorning their interests.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Avatar—The Rest of the Story

Avatar was a feel-good movie. Not only was it visually stimulating, but it was emotionally inspirational as well. Once more the good guys—the underdogs—won; and they did so in rousing style. Surely we should all be moved to emulate their environmental purity. If we do, perhaps we too can presumably share in the benefits of a simpler lifestyle.
Then again, there may be a small problem. History has not been kind to “noble savages.” In the movie they came out on top, but what we saw may only have been Part I of a longer tale. As the radio commentator Paul Harvey used to say, there may be a “rest of the story.”
Hopefully some of us remember the sage of George Armstrong Custer. He, it will be recalled, went out into the wilds of Montana to tame the rebellious plains Indians. Tribes, such as the Sioux, refused to be confined to bleak reservations; hence they fought to retain their traditional way of life. If it were up to them, they would continue to hunt the buffalo whether or not the United States government approved.
Custer may have been sent out to enforce the dictates of his superiors, but he quickly ran into a buzz saw. Much as was the case in Avatar, an aroused people, despite their technological inferiority, banded together to defeat the trespassers. In their rightful indignation, they descended on Custer’s troopers and wiped them out.
But that, of course, was not the end of the Indian Wars. The rest of that story involved a larger military expedition that returned to finish the job Custer started. And they did. The Indians won a battle now and then, but they did not win the war. There were simply too many Americans and they were too well armed.
One imagines that if there was a real Pandora, and it harbored huge deposits of “unobtainium,” those who coveted it would soon return. Only this time they would do so having learned lessons from their previous complacency. First, they would assign a less supercilious leader to the expedition. And second, they would come better armed, with more appropriate weapons.
Instead of a low level attack, they would probably devise a stand-off strategy. As a space-based power, they would surely utilize this superiority. Having learned the central importance of the Navi’s sacred tree, they would attack it from a distance. Deploying nuclear weapons, or at least the equivalent of a blockbuster bomb, they would obliterate this icon with a missile shot launched form thousands of miles away.
Since this would completely annihilate the primitive Navi’s home-court advantage, the war would be as good as over. Given the small numbers of defenders, they would no more be able to resist renewed hostilities than could the Sioux.
This is not an unusual story. It has recurred many times during the course of human history. In England, for example, the Romans were able to conquer the less technologically advanced Celts despite indigenous resistance. Queens Boadicea was able to lead the Iceni to several bloody victories, but in the end, the Romans rallied. They mobilized their military machine and crushed the locals with merciless efficiency.
By the same token, the Khoi-San found they could not resist the Bantus, the Mamalukes could not expel Napoleon, and the Australian Aborigines could not defeat the British. None of these represented romantic victories for the underdog. In each case superior numbers and/or superior technology eventually told.
The point is that primitivism, no matter how environmentally friendly, is doomed. It cannot compete with better weapons that are better organized. This may not be fair, but, as even Jimmy Carter recognized, life is not fair.
Like it or not, if we take Avatar too seriously and retreat into the woods to be closer to nature, we too will ultimately be exterminated. The movie tells us that the Earth invaders earlier destroyed their own green planet, but if they did, they had not done so at the expense of their technological capacities. As a result, they, and not the Na’vi, were likely to be the eventual winners.
Environmental romanticism has its entertainment value, but heaven help us if we take its lessons too seriously. If we do, we too may wind up seriously dead.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

The Mis-Educated Class

The results of the Massachusetts election to replace Ted Kennedy were startling. Not only did Republican Scott Brown emerge victorious, but a breakdown of who voted for whom showed an odd pattern.
What became clear is that while blue-collar workers favored Brown, upper-middle class types residing in neighborhoods adjacent to universities such as Harvard preferred Martha Coakley. They chose her liberal principles over the more conservative leanings of her opponent.
New York Times columnist David Brooks has of late been describing the Coakley crowd as the Educated Class. These are the same folks he not long ago dubbed Bobos. The term Bobo is itself a contraction for Bourgeois Bohemians. In this, Brooks alludes to the superior educational credentials of the new upper middle class.
The Bobos, and presumably the Educated Class, owe their enhanced status to their cultural expertise. Having gone to school longer, and generally accumulated better grades than their rivals, they take pride in knowing more about how the world works than their less accomplished peers. As a result, they assume that their political choices are better informed and more expert.
Not to put too fine a point on the matter, these social leaders are inclined to be liberal in their thinking. From their perspective, conservatives are ill-educated dupes who are too ignorant to make good decisions. Rather, they assume that they are themselves “the best and brightest,” and hence that others would do best to follow their lead.
In fact, the bobos are better educated than most. But this is not saying much. Their education has unfortunately led them astray. As quick learners, they readily absorbed what they were taught, but what they were taught was often a gross distortion of the truth.
Higher education has always harbored biases, but today these increasingly tilt left. In disciplines such as my own—namely Sociology—the ratio of liberals to conservatives is thirty-to-one. That’s right thirty-to-one. In other words, a sociology student can go through an entire college career without ever hearing a cogent conservative opinion. In disciplines such as English and Anthropology the situation is not much better. In History and Political Science it is only marginally so.
To give a sense of the climate on college campuses, several months ago, as the two of us walked down a hallway, a colleague informed me that the debate over global warming was over. There were, in this professor’s emphatic opinion, no serious climate scientists who disputed this conclusion.
I, however, having recently read up on the subject knew he was wrong—and said so. But what of the students at his mercy in the classroom. Many must simply have accepted his authority. Others might have wished to question him, but feared being crushed for their trouble. The message would be clear, i.e., there was only one acceptable position for an educated person.
Or consider that fact that many of my colleagues are unabashed neo-Marxists. They may call themselves “conflict theorists,” but their allegiances are in no doubt. These professors openly advocate the elimination of private property. In their view, this would hasten a utopian society in which everyone becomes equal to everyone else.
But how would this idealized society operate? Has anyone ever seen a society from which property ownership has been eliminated or where everyone has equal status? No matter! These authorities assure their students that the fault lies with a selfish elite, which, after it is tamed, will be unable to staunch progress.
In the end, many of our best students wind up thoroughly brainwashed. They become committed to leftist verities—assuming not only that these are scientific, but also morally superior.
To describe such folks as an Educated Class is in a certain respect apt. Nevertheless, it is also misleading. They may be learned, but they are not genuinely knowledgeable. What they think they know is, in fact, an artifact of the cultural leanings of their teachers.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Why Not a “Responsibility Agenda”?

The game has changed!
Ever since the election of Scott Brown, everyone—with the possible exception of Nancy Pelosi—understands that it may be impossible for Democrats to enact comprehensive medical reform or cap-and trade legislation. Brown’s extra senate vote seems to have barred the way to the Obama administration’s fondest liberal dreams.
It has not, however, diminished the president’s budgetary ambitions. He still plans to spend trillions of dollars the nation does not possess. While he claims to understand that there must be fiscal restraint, he essentially hopes to shut the barn door only after the horse has long departed.
As a consequence, the Republicans must be the party of No. While they have put forward many proposals for improving health care and energy consumption, as of now their primary objective has to be to prevent the majority from tearing down what generations of Americans have built.
Nevertheless, in the long run this will not be enough. An opposition party that intends to become the governing party must also have a positive agenda. As George Bush the elder learned, it needs to offer a “vision,” i.e., a far-reaching proposal for enhancing the national well-being.
Most Republicans understand this. Even so, they have had difficulty articulating an inspirational program. Some have suggested resurrecting a version of Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America, while others have recommended a revision of Obama’s proposals. George W. Bush, of course, mistakenly believed that an appeal to freedom would do the job.
Unfortunately none of these approaches has demonstrated the candle-power to elicit voter excitement. It may, therefore, be necessary to rethink the party’s fundamental agenda. Although the underlying conservative goals of freedom, democracy, a market economy and family values remain valid, how these are implemented, and as importantly how they are packaged, can use tweaking.
One possibility is for Republicans to support a personal responsibility agenda. As the party that believes in decentralized governance, it should more forcefully advocate the individual competences that make for improved personal decisions. Reshaping the national focus away from what the government can do for its citizens, to what they can do for themselves, will ultimately make for a happier and more productive populace.
Like it or not—quite in opposition to the movie Avatar—ours is a mass techno-commercial society. As such, if it is to function more productively, it must foster a host of knowledgeable choices at the local level. Indeed, were these to be supplanted by a bevy of government dictates—as was the case in the late lamented Soviet Union—it too would die of terminal stupidity.
Although Barack Obama does not appreciate this truth, he is politically shrewd enough to recognize that most Americans value personal responsibility. As a result, he says he does too, while, in fact, pursuing the opposite. Time and again, he proposes government programs intended to rob others of private initiative.
The supreme irony here is that in concentrating ever more responsibility in the hands of the federal government, he and his minions have been utterly irresponsible. They have been sloppy planners, corrupt delegators, and reckless fiscal stewards. In short, they have been driving us all—at breathtaking speed—to the poor house. And doing it with our money,
The alternative must, therefore, be an appeal to voters to take back control over their destinies. They must be encouraged—which is to say, given the courage—to face life more reliant on their personal abilities and decisions.
This is something politicians can do. They cannot provide the all-inclusive protections that Democrats promise, but they can nurture an awareness of our shared need to become better custodians of our respective futures. Personal responsibility has to be more than a cliché. It must become a commitment to which each of us, including our political leaders, are dedicated.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Mr. Monk Goes to Washington

The series has come to an end. There will be no new episodes of Mr. Monk on television. The nation’s most famous obsessive-compulsive detective has gone into retirement. Those of us who loved him will miss him. But not to worry. He has metamorphosed into a new form. He has now taken the shape of any number of Democratic legislators.
One of the repeated conceits of the television series was that Mr. Monk was frequently distracted by his need for symmetry and order. Rather than follow clues, he would be diverted by his desire to create perfectly square sandwiches. When his colleagues protested, he would assure them that everything was okay; and that they “would thank [him] later.”
Today it is congressional Democrats who are saying the same thing. Their need to pass comprehensive health care legislation has blinded them to the consequences of their actions. Just as with Mr. Monk they have lost their ability to prioritize rationally because they are so fixated on a particular goal.
The current legislation passing through congress is deeply flawed. It simultaneously raises taxes, hikes insurance premiums, damages health services, and blows the lid off the federal deficit, but they express no alarm. Instead they assure their constituents that these are wonderful bills; hence when fully implemented, the voters will thank them for their compassion.
This tunnel vision is so extreme that not only does Mr. Monk come to mind; so does something Abraham Lincoln said. As most school children learn, Lincoln observed to a White House visitor that “you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
Nowadays the “some of the people” you can fool all of the time seem to be liberal Democrats themselves. Or rather, it seems to be the case that liberals are prepared to fool themselves virtually all of the time.
Mind you, it is not that their logic and eloquence are so persuasive as to be irresistible. Conservatives, and more recently moderates, have managed to remain unmoved. No, it is the liberals who are fooled because they want to be. So intent are they on achieving a specific end that they remain oblivious to contra-indications.
Congressional Democrats have been lobotomized by their own obsessions. They are easy marks for self-deception precisely because they so want to believe. Rather than assess the effects of what they are doing, they routinely persuade themselves that all will turn our well—no matter what.
Even when it seems likely that the next congressional election may witness many of them marching off a cliff, they refuse to change direction. They would apparently rather suffer the equivalent of political death than relinquish their cherished obsessions.
The problem, of course, is that their compulsions may soon result in untoward consequences for innocent bystanders. This is not a TV show where a happy ending is guaranteed. Some people will lose their jobs and some pay higher taxes. Some may even die prematurely.
But none of this matters to Washington’s Mr. Monks. They are convinced that they know best, even when backing a legislative monstrosity of epic proportions.
Some of these unintentional Tony Shaloubs have read the political tea leaves and decided it is time to retire. Others have not yet awoken from their self-induced stupor. The real issue, however, is whether the public will wait to see if they will eventually thank these lawmakers.
The protests from the hinterlands have already been fairly vociferous. But they may have to be more so, that is, if they are to piece through the mental disorder with which some of our leaders seem afflicted.
Either that or come next November there will have to be a wholesale political house cleaning. People may need to be sent home from Washington so that they can recover from the muddle into which they have fallen.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Lese Majesty—Off with Their Heads

Not many people are familiar with the phrase “lese majesty.” It is part of our hoary past. Once upon a time, when kings ruled the earth, this was a serious offense. Merely criticizing a sovereign could get a person thrown in jail or detached from his or her head. To violate the dignity of a monarch was simply not allowed.
Times have changed, but, as Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) recently discovered, apparently not that much. A virtual firestorm broke out when he called the President of the United States a liar during his address to a joint session of congress. Wilson quickly apologized for his breach of decorum, but this wasn’t enough for Nancy Pelosi. She demanded that he be disciplined on the floor of the House.
This once more demonstrates the manipulative skills of Barack Obama. With his back against the wall after a summer of angry town hall meetings, he trumped his opponents by calling upon a prerogative of his office. His critics had expected him to defend his health care program with logical arguments. They were prepared to refute these, but not an emotional effort at checkmate. This latter enabled him to cross them up.
Obama understood that he could get angry at his opponents in a way that they could not with him. The very nature of his position entitled him to a respect not due them. Thus, he was permitted to “call them out” in a manner they could not directly challenge. Coming from him, anger was righteous indignation, whereas from them it was impertinence. In other words, he could call them liars, whereas they had to be careful in how they returned the compliment.
The situation is similar to that between a parent and a child. A parent can get angry at a child in a manner the child cannot reciprocate. To do so would disrespect the parent. As a result, a person with lesser power must be wary when criticizing one with greater power. For the former, the tone of voice matters just as much as the validity of the complaint.
This said, the president of the United States has been lying to the American people. Indeed, he continues to lie to them. Wilson was correct in accusing Obama of falsity when claiming that illegal immigrants would not be covered by the health care legislation as then written. He would have been equally correct had he challenged the president’s assertion about the costs of his favored program or whether it would lead to a single payer system. His problem was that he was a pygmy going up against an outraged giant. As long as the leviathan was deemed legitimate, he possessed an advantage it would be difficult for anyone to overcome.
Obama, it turns out, is an expert in communicating emotional messages. With his reassuring baritone voice, he can make it sound as if he is protecting people at the very moment that he is reaching into their pockets to steal their last penny. His comportment, rather than the content of his statements, allows him to pull off this magic trick.
Dog owners understand what is involved. They are aware that they can utter the most horrible threats to their pets as long as they do so with a smile on their face and sweetness in their inflection. They can literally promise to kill the animal and it will respond by wagging its tail and slobbering all over them.
Sad to say, many members of the American public are in danger of being reduced to a similar status. Despite on-going protests against a take-over of the one sixth of the economy, many people continue to trust the president. They still ask that his office be respected regardless of how draconian his programs.
The remedy for this timidity is for people to listen to what the president says. The substance of his messages, and not their emotional packaging, should determine their attitude. When he promises to spend trillions and still cut the deficit, they should be wary. When he claims that he will not interfere with anyone’s current medical insurance, but then endorses a multitude of legislative regulations, they should think twice.
The worst thing that enlightened citizens can do is be complicit in cutting off the heads of those who “tell truth to power.” To insist on absolute respect for a president merely because he threatens those who disagree with him, would sound the death knell for democracy.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Is Liberalism a Flying Saucer Cult?

It was an intriguing question. What would happen to a religious cult that predicted the end of the world when the world was not destroyed on the predicted date? Would the believers go into shock? Would they suddenly realize that they were in error and abandon their faith? Or would they react otherwise?
The answer was the latter. In a classic study conducted over half a century ago, the social psychologists Leon Festinger and Stanley Schachter were in for a surprise. As they reported in When Prophesy Fails, members of these groups find a way to rationalize their mistakes. They decide perhaps that they miscalculated the date, or that the space aliens took pity on the human race, or that their own faith forestalled the catastrophe.
True believers have a way of believing no matter what the facts. When these contradict their predictions, they merely alter the predictions. Paradoxically, rather than be embarrassed, they become more committed. Instead of hiding away in shame, they intensify their proselytizing efforts.
But isn’t this what we have seen with liberals? Haven’t they found a way to rationalize their failures? When they do not deliver on their promises, they merely offer bigger and better ones. Rather than back off, they become more vocal and more certain in what they predict.
Consider the Great Depression. When Franklin Roosevelt’s spending programs did not restore prosperity, his acolytes explained that he had done “too little, too late.” They insisted that bigger government programs would surely do the trick. Indeed, they are still making such claims. Today, of course, they predict that unprecedentedly large “stimulus” packages will bring renewed growth.
Or what about poverty? Didn’t liberals institute a War on Poverty? According to them, providing the underprivileged with larger welfare checks and greater training opportunities would to lift them into the middle class. Only it didn’t. Liberal programs actually increased the number of people on the dole.
And how about Progressive Education? Wasn’t that supposed to improve student’s performances by allowing them to initiate their own projects? Except that this is not what happened. In the real world, math and reading scores went down. Rather than leading the world in educational achievement, the United States fell to the bottom of the pack.
Even in crime, liberal prophesies failed to come true. Liberals told us that poverty was the root cause of crime. They also said that punishing law-breakers labeled them as criminal and therefore encouraged further crime. They answer was to defend the rights of the accused. In this way, we would stop “blaming the victims.” And yet this approach also failed. In fact, under liberal tutelage crime rates skyrocketed.
Still liberals do not give up. Now they want to throw more money at schools and at welfare. They especially want to chuck tons of money at health care. Medicare and Medicaid are going broke (as is Social Security), but they are not alarmed. President Obama, with a straight face, promises that he will find the required funds by reducing waste and inefficiency.
The trouble is that no liberal administration has ever made good on any such promise. They have always managed to spend more than forecast and to spend much of this on political allies—such as labor unions. Why should this time be different?
One of the most amusing spectacles of the Bush administration was when liberal reporters badgered Bush to admit that he had been mistaken about Iraq. The irony was that these same journalists never admit their own errors. Nor do liberal politicians. Obama could not even bring himself to acknowledge that the Iraqi “surge” succeeded.
As true believers, we can expect nothing less from liberals. They are essentially waiting for the flying saucers to land and bring lots of goodies. But fear not, when the date of their predicted arrival comes and goes, they will have a ready explanation. They will tell us that they have not done enough, but next year—or maybe the year after—the millennium will finally arrive.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Obama and Company: The Best and the Brightest?

By their own testimony, liberals tell us how smart and compassionate they are. They assure us that they are better than the rest of us and therefore worthy of trust. They know what we need and are so kindhearted that they can be counted on to deliver it.
This attitude has existed for centuries. Going back at least as far as Rousseau, those on the left have described themselves as intellectuals—and sometimes as the “intelligentsia.” Thus, Woodrow Wilson was billed as a brilliant college professor, while Franklin Roosevelt was able to promise the nation he knew how to get it out of the Great Depression because he was advised by a “Brain Trust.” John Kennedy said about the same in boasting that he was counseled by “the best and brightest.” Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer; Bill Clinton was a super-smart policy wonk, and even Al Gore and John Kerry had better college grades than George W. Bush.
In contrast, Republicans have been dismissed as dim, immoral or weak. Calvin Coolidge was so silent that he never saw the depression coming. Herbert Hoover was too out of touch to do anything about the economic downturn when it arrived. And while Dwight Eisenhower may have won a war, as president he was a slow-witted grandfather, far less sharp than Adlai Stevenson. Richard Nixon, it is true was smart, but would you really want to buy a used car from him? As for Gerald Ford, he played football once too often without a helmet, whereas Ronald Reagan was so dense that he depended upon others to provide his scripts. George Bush the elder, of course, was a wimp who did not even know what a supermarket scanner was for.
Now we come to Barack Obama. He, as opposed to George W. Bush, is supposed to be a genius. Bush was a softheaded evangelical who barely managed a C average at Yale, while Obama was an honor student. He is also articulate, well informed, and can think on his feet. Moreover, by his own acknowledgment, he “gets it,” where John McCain did not.
Indeed, Obama is very intelligent. He is quick to grasp an issue and clever in his responses. Even his opponents recognize that his campaign was well organized and that he was flexible enough to overcome a series of setbacks. Indeed, the very magnitude of his electoral victory is deemed evidence of his superior mental acuity.
Nevertheless, Obama is not wise. He may be bold, audacious and cunning, but his judgment is seriously lacking. Obama is an ideologue. He is a true believer. Although he fooled the nation into believing he was a moderate, he is committed to far left solutions to most social problems. When he decides what to do, his conclusions are regularly clouded by a dedication to predetermined answers.
Obama tells us that he must radically transform education, medicine, and energy before he can solve our economic woes, but this has nothing to do with reality. He tells reporters that taxing charitable contributions at a higher rate will not reduce giving, yet high school students know this is ridiculous. Even his “best and brightest” advisors, such as Tim Geithner at the treasury, absurdly maintain that dictating the executive salaries of private companies is not a radical change.
Intelligence divorced from common sense is never sufficient. It may be impressive, but it is dangerous. The problem is that it can facilitate programs that turn a recession into a major depression and the most prosperous capitalist society in history into a second-rate outlier of Europe or China. It is surely not enough to confer legitimacy on a band of extremists who often do not seem to know how to shoot straight.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

When Did Truth Become Optional?

Years ago, after Bill Clinton issued his famous denial of having sex with Monica Lewinsky, I was surprised by the reaction of many of my Kennesaw State University students. Instead of being outraged by his deceit, a significant number of them declared that what he did was “no big deal.” As they explained, “everyone lies and everyone cheats.”
Some of them went even further and insisted that all politicians lie. It was merely business as usual. Besides, everybody lies about sex. Sophisticated people understood this and therefore made allowances for the president.
As time has revealed, this turned out to be the first line of defense against indignation at Democratic party deceit. The second line came into play when no weapons of mass destruction were discovered in the wake of the Iraq War. Soon it became an article of faith among liberals that George W. Bush had lied. For seven straight years, this was their mantra. Why, he was a bad as Hitler.
Among his detractors, it did not matter that Bush initially believed WMDs would be found. That he had not intentionally told an untruth was considered irrelevant. He was wrong and so he must have lied. Evidently he was a bigger liar than Clinton and therefore Republicans were more dishonest than Democrats. In other words, the other side was phonier than their own.
Today we are confronted with an unending series of falsehoods, this time coming from Barack Obama and his administration. And once more the response has been to claim that the other side is worse. Thus, Republicans are now loudly accused of spreading misinformation—for example, about the dangers of proposed health care legislation. The public is said to have been deceived by a barrage of propaganda that is worse than anything emanating from the president’s supporters.
Meanwhile, the president’s opponents have been remarkably polite in answering such attacks. For the most part, they have refrained from calling him a “liar.” In an effort to demonstrate respect for Obama’s office they have resorted to language such as “disingenuous” and “hypocritical.” Even though there was no corresponding delicacy with respect to Bush, they have sought to avoid accusations that they are violating the president’s dignity.
Sadly, despite the fact that there is little doubt the president is a serial prevaricator—a fact that even moderates have come to appreciate after a summer during which he and his allies have defamed their critics as un-American mobsters—the tolerance of his dishonesty remains. While there can be no question that he was less than candid in asserting his administration would be “bipartisan” and “transparent,” calling these “lies” continues to be out of bounds.
Unfortunately this squeamishness has a huge downside. It amounts to nothing less than accepting dishonesty as legal political tender. Truth has become optional. Just as with my students, fewer of us seem outraged when it is utterly disregarded. Indeed, when it wins a political point it is considered clever. It is merely “spin” that has worked.
The tragedy in all this is that, as the political scientist Francis Fukuyama has observed, a mass democracy cannot remain viable when people no longer trust most strangers. Once others are allowed to lie with impunity, it becomes dangerous to place confidence in police officers, supermarket clerks, or even passersby on a crowded street.
Unless this trend is reversed, the United States may eventually descend into the chaos of a Somalia. Fortunately, there is a way out. Ordinary citizens must not only express their explicit disapproval when lied to, they must punish those who do the lying. When these others are politicians, the best way to accomplish this is at the polls. The rascals deserve to be thrown out rather than rewarded with further accolades.
It simply cannot be the case that we stand idly by while it becomes correct to say that “everyone lies and everyone cheats.”
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Yes, Obama is Transparent; Transparently Dishonest

Scarcely a week goes by when the president of the United States does not tell several whoppers. He stands before the television cameras and blithely states a series of blatant untruths. He lies and lies, and then he lies some more. The mystery is why the public is not completely scandalized by this performance.
The latest of his falsehoods, of course, concern the cap-and-trade legislation recently passed by Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic poodles. Obama tells us these will create work when they will actually cost us millions of jobs. He further says that the price of this unnecessary social engineering will be modest, whereas it will be excessive. Then he has the audacity to declare that the debate over global warming is over, when it continues to heat up.
Earlier the president assured the nation that he believed in pay-as-you-go policies at the very moment he was proposing trillions in additional unfunded spending. Likewise he insists that he believes in transparency at the same time he urges congress to pass legislation no one has read. No doubt, these latest bills will include the equivalent of his previously “shovel ready” projects.
Conservatives, to be sure, are outraged by this hypocrisy. Having endured a “bipartisanship” that repeatedly excludes them from policy discussions, they realize that this president is not a man of his word. They understand full well that extremist measures are being rushed into law in the hopes that this will avoid close scrutiny.
Liberals, certainly left-leaning liberals, are, in contrast, delighted by what they see. As true believers who agree that only collectivist solutions can save the nation from inequality, they detect no dishonesty. No matter how manifest Obama’s rationalizations, they give them credence. Indeed, they add justifications of their own. No doubt, if the president’s policies exploded in his face, they would hasten to praise the psychedelic colors of the blast.
No, the mystery of why more people are not offended by this festival of deceit is to be found in the middle of the political spectrum. The question is, Why are moderates inclined to allow this cynical demagogy to go unquestioned? Don’t they realize that it violates the premises upon which our democratic institutions are founded?
The answer has several parts. First, moderates won’t allow themselves to recognize the president’s mendacity because they don’t want to see it. Having voted for the man, they are on record as believing his many promises. To suspect him now would be to admit their earlier error; something most people are reluctant to do.
Second, they do not want to give up hope. As The Shawshank Redemption proclaimed “hope is a good thing.” Maybe “the best thing.” Why would they want to renounce it? Much better to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and allow him the time to fulfill his many pledges.
Third, there is the emotional message the president communicates. Just as Bill Clinton convinced many people that he had nothing to be ashamed of in the Lewinsky affair by being publicly shameless, Obama does the equivalent by being relentlessly earnest. In gracefully, and sincerely, espousing his various falsehoods, he conveys the message that they are true. The ease, and indeed the elegance, of his delivery implies that he has nothing to be embarrassed about; hence that he does not fear being caught in a lie.
Lastly, there is the issue of race. Sadly many people agree with Janeane Garafolo that challenging the president’s words is tantamount to racism. They fear that if they are affronted by his mendacity, they will be accused of prejudice. Yet in capitulating to this sort of intimidation, they make it impossible to engage in an honest debate. The logic of honoring the race card is that the president can never be wrong and hence must never be contradicted.
This said; lies are lies. It may seem mean-spirited to point this out, but the truth is the truth. Moreover, only if we as a nation have the courage to stand up for the facts, can we preserve ourselves—and our democracy—from descending into a morass of deceit and failure. It is the truth that will save us, not a polite acquiescence in dishonesty.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Self-Righteousness on Steroids

Liberal Democrats have jumped the gun. They have raided the medicine cabinet even before their health care reforms have passed congress. Their self-righteousness is so robust it must be drug-induced. Indeed, only a severe overdose of steroids can possibly explain such muscle-bound moralizing.
To hear them tell it, either the House or Senate versions of government-based health care are necessary to save the republic from medical disaster. These public benefactors energetically insist that a drastic overhaul is essential to reduce unsustainable health costs and to provide universal medical services. Indeed, without these changes, the specter of death will continue to haunt the nation.
Come to think of it, didn’t congressman Alan Grayson plainly assert that Republicans want sick people to die? Didn’t he also claim his adversaries have no plans to help the disenfranchised? Then again didn’t the president of the United States earlier suggest that physicians willingly cut off patients’ feet in order to make an extra buck? According to him, doctors too are insensitive boors.
Democrats, especially those who support the public option, are, in their own opinion, quite otherwise. By their testimony, they are remarkably compassionate. They both care and have the courage to do something about their concerns. Whatever the polls may indicate, they will do what is right for their constituents. Once and for all, they will break through the unproductive debates of which their opponents are so fond.
Senator Debbie Stabenow put the matter quite succinctly. She asserted that health care should never be a matter of profit. Moreover, so far as she was concerned, only the government is sufficiently disinterested to offer genuinely benevolent assistance. Another Democratic commentator described governmental health care as being in his party’s DNA. Certainly, ever since the Roosevelt administration died-in-the-wool Democrats have dreamt of completing FDR’s mission.
Put all this together and liberal smugness has gone into over-drive. Unfortunately, this is not without consequences. Their self-righteousness apparently explains the inability of liberals to perceive obvious truths. A belief in the correctness of their own ambitions prevents them from listening to what others say or even from considering the implications of their pet projects.
First, there is the fantasy that Republicans are the party of “No.” Time and again Republicans are said to have no ideas of their own—even as they are pleading for tort reform and interstate insurance policies. Or is it merely that bad guys (those opposed to Democratic reforms are surely bad) cannot possibly have good ideas.
Next, there is the problem of busting the budget. Deficit projections are so immense that it is difficult to fathom the damage they will do. Former senator Everett Dirksen once claimed that “a billion here and a billion, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.” Today it is a trillion here and a trillion there that is adding up. Taking so much money out of the economy can only cause a roaring inflation while simultaneously depriving the private sector of essential investment funds.
Then there is the problem of just plain lying. Republicans have called balancing the budget by “taxing for ten years, but spending for six” as a bait-and-switch or Ponzi scheme. But whatever it is, it is not honest. The only way that Democrats can pretend as much is by convincing themselves their program is so “good” it deserves to be defended by a bodyguard of lies.
Self-righteous people are generally unaware of their limitations. They are so transfixed by their presumed rectitude that they see little else. It is therefore up to the rest of us to recognize what they cannot. However passionate they may be they are not Mark McGuire. They are not hitting home runs. To the contrary, they are repeatedly striking out. As a result, we cannot allow them to win the game based solely on a self-inflated opinion of their moral worth.
Next year, let’s bench them so that they have the opportunity to get the drugs out of their system. They may not appreciate it, but it will be for their own good.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Political Malpractice

My wife Linda Treiber and her colleague Jackie Jones, both of whom teach at Kennesaw State University, have been doing research on medical error. Among their more interesting findings is that most nurses feel very guilty when they make a medication error. Even years after a relatively minor transgression, they agonize about giving a patient the wrong drug in perhaps the wrong dosage.
Nurses know that their mistakes can be a matter of life and death, hence they fret about the harm they might have done—even when they have done none. Similarly, doctors in training are regularly reminded about how serious their errors can be. While it is assumed that they will make some, they are also urged to learn from these so that they are not repeated.
How ironic is it that politicians who today presume to remake our health care system seem to have no such qualms. Many appear to feel no guilt when they make a mistake and a great many appear to learn nothing even when they make the most horrendous blunders. Whether this is from naiveté, incompetence or malfeasance, they persist in repeating their errors, irrespective of how damaging these have been.
Exhibit A is congressman Barney Frank. As the economist Thomas Sowell has amply documented, Frank was largely responsible for our late financial crisis. His insistence that lenders make mortgages available to under-funded homebuyers was indirectly at fault for the subsequent wave of defaults.
Yet Frank is unrepentant. He is still urging that home loans be made to improvident borrowers. Because he believes that everyone deserves to own a home, he sees no reason why an inability to make a significant down payment should hamstring their efforts to obtain one.
His colleagues in congress are as bad. They have recently voted to impose draconian regulations on financial institutions. Eager to find a scapegoat for their own malpractice, they had no difficulty in sloughing the guilt over onto a likely whipping boy. Who, after all, has sympathy for bankers?
Not long ago Frank himself had an embarrassing, and revealing, moment. When his male partner was discovered with marihuana, Frank expressed astonishment. He wasn’t aware of this indiscretion because he was utterly unfamiliar with the substance. Despite his nearly seventy years, he had apparently never encountered the stuff.
Still, is there anyone who believes that Frank is this unsophisticated? If so, they must be the same folks who thought that Bill Clinton never inhaled. By the same token, does anyone believe that Democratic members of congress are unaware of their role in the financial crisis? Or is it just that they are too naive to realize the consequences of their actions?
Even more significantly, do members of the liberal establishment seriously suppose that an escalating federal deficit will have no negative effects? Do they really believe their rhetoric about how spending additional trillions of dollars will save us money? Have they never heard the dire warnings about potential national bankruptcy?
Or is it that they feel completely innocent no matter what harm they impose? More probably they have idealistically convinced themselves that they have done none. Many apparently believe that their shenanigans will actually do the country good.
In which case, they are more than naïve. They are guilty of willful ignorance. Unlike doctors and nurses, they refuse to learn from their mistakes. Nor do they learn from the mistakes of their predecessors. Whether they acknowledge it or not, Franklin Roosevelt did not get us out of the Great Depression by spending money like a drunken politician. In fact, he extended the national agony by a full decade.
So the question is: Does the current crop of national Democrats intend to do the same? If so, they are indeed guilty of political malpractice. In contrast to doctors and nurses, however, they cannot be sued for negligence. They can only be retired when they next come up for re-election. Let’s hope they are.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Pelosi’s Poodles: They Can Bark, But Can They Bite?

They call themselves blue dogs, but they never told us what breed they represent. Now we know that many of them are poodles. To be more precise, they are Nancy Pelosi’s poodles. When she says jump, they say: How high? Then they perform exactly as instructed irrespective of the consequences to the nation or their constituents.
Sadly, the House of Representatives has been converted into a large circus tent. Everywhere one looks on the Democratic side of the aisle, one encounters well-trained animals and/or gyrating clowns. Totally absent, however, are independent judgment and courageous statesmanship. It does not seem to matter to these tribunes of the people if, for the sake of party unity, they bankrupt millions of ordinary Americans.
This is the lesson of the recent midnight vote to approve one of the worst pieces of legislation ever to make it to the floor of congress. The Pelosi/Obama health care plan, despite never having been read by the overwhelming majority of those who voted for it, just squeaked through on the strength of deeply ingrained habits of obedience.
And then—amazingly—once it passed, Nancy’s throng of yapping lap dogs cheered. Evidently entranced of the validity of well-rehearsed talking points, they were convinced that they had made history. And perhaps they had. Never before had such an expensive bill, one that also reduced medical services to the elderly, passed during a deep recession.
To judge by the gubernatorial elections that preceded the vote by mere days, many of Nancy’s poodles were cheering for their impending demise. As of now, it looks probable that many of them will not be returned to Congress next November.
So why did these theoretically mature adults act so self-destructively? Why did they support what the public seems neither to want or need? As importantly, although these compliant legislators proved that they can make themselves heard, will they also prove to possess the mandible strength to make their bites felt?
The immediate reaction of several influential senators indicates that the House bill will be dead on arrival in the Senate chamber. So why did the poodles take a chance on endorsing a measure that is both unpopular and likely to fail? Why did they so loudly proclaim what is both inept and disliked—especially after having earlier passed a similarly unpopular cap-and-trade energy bill?
Two answers seem likely, both of which can be traced to Nancy and Barack Obama. These are arrogance and ideological purity. A third reason may also be simple naiveté. Both Nancy and Barack seem to believe what they are peddling. They are so deeply committed to government provided health care that they will do whatever it takes to advance the cause. Coupled with an unbridled belief in their own abilities, they cannot help but push forward.
But why did so many of their team-members decide to follow them over the cliff? Why did so many who clearly had their doubts about the wisdom of making this political statement fall into line?
Could it be that they were victimized by their own propaganda? After decades of liberal half-truths about the benefits of public sponsored medical treatment, many legislators may have come to believe them. Despite tons of evidence to the contrary, they may have felt like hypocrites had they voted against their party’s effort to implement a long-held ideal.
If so, they sold their souls for the sake of childlike idealism. Instead of using their heads, they mindlessly conformed to a set of principles that are liable to have horrendous implications.
The bottom line is that we, the American people, must now hope that our nation can evade the rabid bite of Pelosi’s pack of pusillanimous poodles. These legislators were whipped into line by the ideological arrogance of their leaders, but we had better hope that we can resist such pressures. Only when these radical liberals have been defanged—as by electoral defeat—will we be able to rest easy. Only then can we be sure that they will not bludgeon us into accepting their misguided ideals.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Obama and the George Burns Presidency

George Burns was a clever man. He was more than a wry comedian; he was also a perceptive observer of the human condition. One of his more famous observations was that the secret to acting was sincerity. At this he would pause, then tellingly add, “if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”
Our current president is a master at faking sincerity. He is among the most articulate chief executives the nation has ever had, but more than this he is also among its most earnest. It almost always sounds as if he means every word that he says. Whether he is delivering a speech, or speaking off the cuff to a Jay Leno, there is conviction in every syllable he utters.
The problem is that Obama has trouble with the truth. His predecessor habitually stumbled over his words, whereas Obama does the same with the facts. He seems content to arrange these anyway that he pleases. Thus, he has a habit of making up numbers. He does what Mitch Snyder, the late homeless advocate, did, albeit with less candor.
Two decades ago Snyder was asked how many homeless there were in the country and he replied that there were three million. This became the official figure repeated in the press for years to come. Even when the census bureau reported that it could find only three hundred thousand, its numbers were suspected. Media experts assumed that the government had a vested interest in minimizing the problem.
Eventually an enterprising reporter asked Snyder where he got his figure. At this point, something unusual occurred. Snyder was honest. He told the journalist that he had made it up. Because those who had originally asked had wanted an answer, he decided to give them one. Obama regularly does something similar, but he is far less up-front about it.
How many times has the president told the nation that his stimulus package would produce, or save, three to four million jobs? How many times has he declared that his green energy program would create five million unexportable jobs? Obviously he has done so many dozens of times—always with complete sincerity.
Yet where did he get these figures? Even his own economists, if they are being honest, have to admit that he made them up. Economic predictions are notoriously unreliable; nevertheless the president presents them with a conviction that sounds as if it were grounded in irrefutable facts. There is a stentorian quality to his voice and a straightforward look in his eye that are difficult to contradict.
Nonetheless, he is faking it. He is making promises designed to elicit support, not predictions that will later be subjected to rigorous test. Count on it; if the numbers do not add up as currently stated, they will be revised without any acknowledgement that there has been a revision. The president will simply count on voters having short memories.
In the meantime, he will rely on a time-honored formula for persuading people that something is in their interest. He will continue to repeat his fictitious numbers with an undiluted conviction. He understands that even blatant lies are believed if they are reiterated frequently enough. Such is the way that an aura of sincerity is created.
And what will be the reaction of the American public? Will our response be the one that Burns predicted? Will we be taken in and confer on Obama the success that he desires? And if we do, will there be a penalty awaiting us down the road?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Obama’s Magical Mystery Tour

By almost all accounts, President Obama’s European and Mid-East tour was a rousing success. Almost everywhere he went he attracted adoring crowds. Ordinary Europeans loved him. They found him both exotic and down to earth. The heads of state with whom he dealt were less impressed, but they too were prepared to work with him.
The mystery of his tour, however, was what he intended to accomplish. One of his central messages was apparently that the United States deserves to be loved. It has sometimes behaved arrogantly, but was now prepared to be more modest. It would, in his person, be a partner, rather than a bully. The goal was collaboration, not domination.
What Obama seems to have forgotten is that he is president of the United States, not a rock star. Whether he wishes to be or not, he is the chief executive of the world’s lone remaining super-power. As such, he is automatically the first among equals. And as the first, he will not always be loved; that is, once he stops apologizing for his country.
Militarily the United States is still the strongest country in the world, while economically it remains so dominant that when it sneezes the rest of the world catches cold. Other nations look to it for both defense and economic leadership. They often criticize America, but this is an indicator of their dependency, not of our nation’s bad behavior.
A homely analogy should make the point. When couples with children divorce, their offspring usually reside with their mother. She feeds and clothes them, and tucks them into bed at night. Their father is generally a weekend visitor. He takes the kids out for a Sunday meal, or perhaps on a trip to the circus, then returns them to her care.
As a result, he is frequently an object of adulation. The kids openly express their devotion for him, whereas she is more apt to be criticized for being a nag. From her point of view, this is grossly unfair. After all, she does the heavy lifting, while he gets the party-time. Why should he receive so much praise?
The reason is fairly simple. It is because she is the one who is there, rain and shine. Every day she proves her dependability. He, on the other hand, is only intermittently present. In a certain sense, he has abandoned his children. Getting angry with him might convince him to stay away, whereas mom can be safely attacked. She has demonstrated that she will be there even when her kids tell her that they hate her.
The Untied States is like a custodial mother. Even when other nations kick it around, it remains constant. Far from failing to listen, it has been more respectful of their needs than any previous super-power. There is no reason to apologize, only a need to understand their pique.
We cannot, for instance, expect gratitude. We have saved European bacon from two hot wars, a cold war, and are currently defending it from Islamic terrorism. In this, we protect them, but at the same time reveal their inability to protect themselves. Naturally, this makes them feel weak—and people resent feeling weak. As a result, they carp rather than praise.
The lesson of this paradox is that the leader of a strong nation must lead. He needs follow in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt. They all implemented policies that were occasionally unpopular. Their goal, however, was to do the right thing, and especially to safeguard American interests. It was not to be loved.
Obama and his team must ask themselves if their objective is approbation or effective leadership. If it is the latter, they need a little more starch in his skirts and little less ingratiation.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Marching Backwards—Why Progressives are not Progressive

During last year’s primary campaign, Hillary Clinton confessed that she preferred to be considered a progressive rather than a liberal. In this, she is not alone. Many liberals feel the same way. They think of themselves as enlightened advocates of a new and more socially rewarding epoch that is just around the corner.
As the direct descendents of Karl Marx, most liberals are convinced that they are on the right side of history. They assume that their policies must inevitably prevail and that when they do we will all share in a more just, more satisfying, and more productive future. In their less guarded moments, they even conceive of this future in utopian terms, with total equality and universal love having become the norm.
There is only one thing wrong with this vision. It has nothing to do with reality. Liberals are not progressive; they are regressive. Liberalism is reactionary and seeks to return us to a romanticized past, not to cope with the actual challenges of the techno-commercial world we are destined to occupy.
Consider the evidence. President Obama tells us that he intends to relieve our current economic distress, but where does he find his inspiration? As most of us know, he finds it in Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration. For him, The Great Depression was a halcyon period when big-time spending and government control were the prescription for what ailed us. Of course, those days were the better part of a century ago.
Then there is the liberal Democrat mantra about how our worst problems were created by greedy capitalists. They, not over-reaching federal regulators, intentionally precipitated the present housing crisis. This attitude, however, harks back even farther in time. Marx would have been proud of the accusation. He too believed that greedy business people were at the base of almost every social problem. He too wished to see them overthrown
But the looking backwards is not finished. As the Middle Ages came to an end, monarchs across Europe sought to extend their control over the nations they ruled. This was the era of absolutism when Louis XIV of France famously proclaimed that he was the state. He, and his peers, thought of themselves parental figures who had the right—indeed the duty—to manage everything they possibly could. They knew best, and it was therefore up to the governed to obey.
Among other things, these absolutists distributed monopolies to their favorites. Only a friend of the king could import herring or acquire land in Virginia. Now Obama is the one distributing government favors. Despite claiming that he didn’t want to control the automobile industry, he is currently prompting his minions to turn over controlling interests in GM and Chrysler to his buddies in the UAW. He has similarly encouraged Timothy Geithner to extend his tentacles into every crevasse of the financial industry, whether invited or not.
Come to think of it, hasn’t Obama appointed Czars to control everything from the environment to drug enforcement? Imagine what he will be able to do if he gets his hands on the health care industry or the energy sector of the economy.
But there is still more of this liberal marching to the rear. How many people remember Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic nominating convention where he said, “we must…rise or fall as one nation; [our] fundamental belief [must be] that I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper.” In other words, Obama and his colleagues want to be our keepers. This, of course, brings us back to Biblical times. Perhaps he thinks of himself as the new Moses.
Actually, it takes us back even farther to hunter-gatherer times. Liberal leaders seem to think of themselves as village elders who are responsible for protecting us from ourselves. In their view, they have the expertise and the maturity, whereas the rest of us are like children who need to be led by our betters.
Liberals have told us many lies, but perhaps none is bigger than the canard that they are progressive. They are nothing of the sort. They do not have new ideas, but merely very old one’s that they have skillfully repackaging as innovative.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Looking Forward—Why Most Conservatives are Not Conservative

Conservatives are supposedly against change. According to liberals, they haven’t had a new idea since Calvin Coolidge proclaimed that the business of America is business. Why, if it were up to these right-wing fuddy-duddies, we would still be wearing high-button shoes.
This, however, is complete nonsense. Whatever the conventional wisdom may say, most modern conservatives are actually forward looking. If “conservative” means being opposed to change, then American conservatives are not conservative. In fact, they are more progressive than most progressives.
Contemporary conservatives may honor tradition, but they do not stand pat on it. To the contrary, they believe in building upon the best of the past. They perceive the valuable contributions of our ancestors as a foundation upon which to construct further improvements.
Let us see what this adds up to. The four pillars of conservatism, i.e., the four principles upon which conservatives agree, are these. They believe in freedom, in democracy, in market economics and in family values; none of which is mired in the past. All, in fact, look toward the future.
Consider the case of democracy. Conservatives favor decentralized government. They universally support institutions that allow individuals to make decisions for themselves. Instead of delegating more power to Washington, they prefer that authority to be exercised closer to home. This, they assert, permits a flexibility that better suits the needs of ordinary people. How then is this a conservative idea? Doesn’t it actually foster novelty and responsiveness?
Then there is market economics. Conservatives are alleged to be friends of big business. But they also support small business. What they truly favor is not bigness, but the opportunities and creativity inherent in capitalism. They remember (in a way most liberals do not) that this system has produced greater wealth, and distributed it more broadly, than any other economic arrangement in the history of the world. In what way is prosperity a conservative phenomenon? Maybe it isn’t.
Next come family values. Conservatives do have a warm spot in their hearts for families. They believe in stable marriages. They also encourage parents to commit to raising their own children. Far from endorsing a patriarchal dictatorship in which men exploit women, most “conservatives” realize that the modern family is a companionate affair, where husbands and wives cooperate in establishing “a haven in a heartless world.” They know that loving families protect the interests of all concerned. There is nothing conservative in this except the conservation of human happiness.
Finally, we come to the most important conservative principle of all. If equality is the master value for liberals, freedom is the master value for conservatives. They insist that ordinary people be allowed the room to control their personal destinies. As such, conservatives are pleased to live in a nation that guarantees liberty for all. They are happy to honor a two hundred year old constitution that incorporated a Bill of Rights from the outset.
Is freedom a conservative idea? Does it prevent people from changing? Far from it! Freedom gives us the room to make changes. Freedom allows people to experiment in all sorts of directions; directions that may not have been contemplated by their forebears.
To be blunt, freedom is a progressive idea. Indeed, it may be the most progressive idea extant. Freedom allows people to innovate and to adjust. Coupled with democracy, market economics, and family values, it liberates the human soul to expand and to embrace an ever better future.
If the notion that liberals are progressive is one of the greatest frauds perpetrated on humankind, then the canard that conservatives oppose progress has got to be the second greatest fraud. Sometimes language misleads us. We get fooled into believing that a word characterizes that to which it is applied. This, unfortunately, has been the fate of the label “conservative.”
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Lies, Lies, Lies: Blizzards of Lies

If you do not recognize when you have been lied to, you will be lied to.
If you are not upset when you have been lied to, you will be lied to.
If you confuse truth with fiction, you will be lied to.
The result is that we have been lied to—time and time again. Indeed, scarcely a day goes by when we are not bombarded with further political lies.
Let us start with one of the biggest whoppers. Time and again we have been assured that half a trillion dollars of the projected costs of healthcare reforms will be covered by eliminating waste, abuse and fraud. But when has this ever happened? In particular, when has a Democratic administration significantly reduced either waste or fraud? In fact, the current crew has not even been able to curb these with respect to the subsidies for first time homebuyers. Its watch dogs have been perfectly happy to see these awarded to illegal immigrants and four-year olds.
Does anyone seriously believe that there will not be similar, even larger, health care overruns or that these will be financed by inflation and/or additional taxes? Then again, maybe the costs will be with offset by fines or user fees?
And how about those shovel ready projects? Do you remember the trillion-dollar stimulus package had to be passed unread within twelve hours lest these ventures be delayed? Unfortunately someone apparently mislaid the shovels. Or maybe they never existed. And what about those million jobs that were to be created or saved? The only problem is that no one seems to have been able to document these. Do you think that they too might not exist?
But the Obama administration has an answer. It knows that the best defense is a good offense, hence it accuses the insurance companies of lying, the chamber of commerce of lying, and the tea party goers of lying. Everyone else is apparently lying except them.
Except that they keep fibbing about Afghanistan, cap and trade, and global warming. They certainly haven’t bothered to tell the truth about Acorn or Fox News.
One Democratic operative has even bragged that belief in government-sponsored health care is in his party’s genes. Given that the so-called public option has had at least nine-lives, this may be true. Certainly a single party payer solution seems to be in Nancy Pelosi’s genes.
In other words, the Democratic insistence on leading the nation into bankruptcy for the sake of a government take-over of the health care system is like schizophrenia. Members of the party cannot help lying because they are in the grip of what amounts to a mental disease. If so, perhaps we should pity them.
Or maybe they are just terminally naïve. Liberals have long argued that people should retain the spontaneity, creativity, and sense of awe of the very young. They claim to hate the alleged bitterness and rigidity of purported grown-ups. According to them, it is much better for us if we preserve our hopes and dreams.
Assuming that this is so, perhaps we should keep on believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. After all, isn’t Obama a real-live incarnation of eternal generosity? Hasn’t he proven that there actually is a free lunch?
The point is that lies are lies however well intended some of these may be. This means that what is not true cannot become true, whatever it is called. Nor can falsehoods become true just because people sincerely believe in them.
So where is the outrage? Where are the adults who are deeply offended by this never-ending series of deceits? These are no longer charming; no matter how affably they are delivered. Like it or not, they are lies, and because they are lies, they may one day bite on the backside irrespective of our desire to believe.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Liberalism is Dying—No Kidding!

On the face of it, it sounds absurd. How can liberalism be dying? Haven’t liberals just experienced their greatest triumphs in decades? Haven’t they only recently captured the presidency and both houses of congress, with a soon-to-be filibuster proof majority in the senate? Isn’t it conservatism that is, in fact, dying?
Only appearances can be deceptive. Sometimes mortality is preceded by a period of illusory vigor. These dynamic episodes are usually referred to as “death throes.” The victim seems to defy its terminal condition, but is actually using up its last reserves of energy. Liberalism is currently exhibiting unmistakable signs of such misleading liveliness.
When he was running for president Barack Obama worked overtime to persuade the electorate that he was moderate. He assured voters that he would be bipartisan and conciliatory once in office. But then he became president and in combination with congressional Democrats launched the most extreme liberal program in more than half a century. He determined to remake a bevy of fundamental institutions along collectivist lines.
To be more specific, in his public appearances the president passionately affirms his intention to nationalize health care, federalize public education, and transform energy policies. While he describes these as necessary to rescue the economy, the recession is only a pretext for instituting long cherished liberal aspirations. It is the excuse, not the reason for doing what he wishes.
So far the public is divided in its response to this radical agenda. Conservatives are appalled, whereas left-wing activists are delighted. It is the folks in the middle who are confused. They want their president to succeed, but are none too happy with his more aggressive policy initiatives. At the moment, they are giving him high marks, but they are also holding their breath to see what happens next.
Except, what if what happens is disaster? What if Obama and his colleagues have crawled out on a limb that is so fragile it collapses under the weight of their excessive ambitions? Isn’t this likely to discredit liberalism? Won’t their high-minded aspirations be exposed as naïve fantasies?
Consider the potential failures. What happens when energy costs go up by thousands of dollars per household? What if trillions in deficit spending spark a roaring inflation? Far from receiving tax relief, most people will thereby find their disposable income slashed.
Consider also the effects of nationalized health care. The British and Canadian experiences suggest not better medicine, but more strictly rationed services. The government may pay the bills (from taxes), but will deliver less. In this case, medicine will be “splendidly equalized” at a lower level than most Americans have come to expect.
And what of education? We have had a century of progressive education during which the results of achievement tests have steadily declined. Throwing billions of additional dollars at schools may not necessarily produce worse results, but history suggests that it will not generate better ones.
This is not even to mention the evisceration of national security under liberal management. What if tying the hands of the CIA brings about a new 9/11? What if “civilizing” it interrogation techniques allows a nuclear device to devastate an American city? The prospect is chilling.
Make no mistake; should any of these events transpire, liberalism will be blamed. The “chickens will have come home to roost” in a big way. If so, in much the same manner that Watergate devastated the Republican Party, liberalism’s inflated promises will hobble the Democrats. They will then struggle to survive.
For now, the mainstream media are celebrating the liberal revolution, but radicalism is likely to author its own demise. Liberalism is about to expire because it must grievously disappoint. Indeed, the more sweeping its assurances, the more quickly it will perish.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Lessons from the Reichstag Fire

Most Americans are future-oriented. We prefer to look ahead rather than back. As a result, many of us are uncomfortable with history. Sadly, we fail to learn important lessons because we believe them irrelevant.
One of these lessons harks back to the rise of Adolf Hitler. Many of us forget that he was legally appointed German Chancellor. He did not begin to assume dictatorial powers until about a month later. It was only then that he parlayed the Reichstag fire into personal rule.
Much to everyone’s surprise, the Reichstag, that is, the German parliament, suddenly went up in flames. The nation was shocked. No one knew who did it. This did not matter to Hitler. He blamed the conflagration on the communists. They were trying to overthrow the government and had to be stopped. Almost immediately, he went to President Hindenburg asking for a decree to address the emergency. Under the Weimar constitution, it was granted.
Abruptly, Hitler was able to abrogate free speech, the free press, the right of assembly, and property rights. Within weeks, he used these powers to exclude the communists and socialists from the parliament. This gave him a rubber stamp to do whatever he desired—which he soon did.
Hitler’s strategy was three-fold. First, he fanned the flames of crisis. There was an emergency and something had to be done. Second, he demonized his enemies. The communists and socialists were to blame; hence they had to be neutralized. Third, he instituted irreversible changes. With his Brown Shirts leading the way, he immediately clamped down on free speech, the free press, and so forth. Soon he was in complete control.
Although Barack Obama is no Adolf Hitler—he has no plans for concentration camps or for an international war—he too understands how to manipulate a crisis. He began his administration by fanning the flames of our financial crisis. It was, he insisted, no mere recession; it was an emergency comparable to the Great Depression. Something had to be done! Right away!
Second, he demonized his opponents. The problem had been caused by the capitalists and, more particularly, by the Wall Street financiers. They were greedy and needed to have their appetites curbed. As for the Republicans, they had no solutions worthy of being considered. Nor did the private citizens who protested his programs. They were potential terrorists who had to be watched lest they get out of hand.
Third, he proposed irreversible changes. A stimulus package, however large, would not be enough to fix the problem. He would have to address the emergency by drastically changing how education, health, and energy were administered. It was essential to bring all of these under greater government control. Although there was no evidence that any of these were implicated in the financial crisis, he insisted that only greater federal involvement would overcome it.
At no point did Obama and his allies admit complicity in the problem. At no point did they even explain how their proposed answers would achieve the stated goals. The point was to act as quickly as possible. Only this would allow them to bring about the changes they sought.
Except, the Reichstag is not burning. Nor is a senile Paul von Hindenburg in charge of interpreting the constitution. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid may aid Obama with legislative gimmicks, but the legislators are up for election in a scant year and a half. With concerted action, their leaders can be stopped before they alter our government beyond recognition.
The trick is for those of us who believe in representative democracy to recognize what is going on and to refuse to be rattled. Our current crisis, such as it is, is largely artificial. We must see it for what it is.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Cry the Beloved Country—The Formerly United States

The irony is profound. The political party that calls itself “Democratic” turns out to be deeply anti-democratic. No only has it betrayed the American people; it has betrayed the principles upon which the United States of America was established. It has literally placed our national unity in jeopardy.
Senator Lindsey Graham has rightly called the legislative extravaganza surrounding health care legislation “sleazy.” It is that, but much worse. It is a scandal of epic, dare one say, historic proportions. Besides revealing public corruption on a massive scale, it is an arrow shot through the heart of our democracy.
Consider the many points militating against the Senate’s so-called health care reforms.
One, it raises taxes on most Americans via unfunded mandates on the states.
Two, it forces ordinary citizens to purchase private health insurance—at what will surely be inflated prices.
Three, it arbitrarily interferes with the relationship between patients and their doctors.
Four, the preliminary legislation was passed in the dead of night, scarcely read by those who endorsed it.
Five, its rules were utterly lacking in transparency. Not only were they not posted on the Web, but purposeful efforts were made to shield them from public scrutiny.
Six, nor is this what the American people want. As poll after poll has shown, a large majority of voters is opposed to what was put forward.
All the above clearly goes against the spirit of democracy. It violates the sacred compact between the people and their elected leaders. But what happened is far worse; far more dangerous to what America represents.
The spectacle of senators being bought off to support a supposedly valuable program was hardly elevating. It disclosed a venality that scarcely brought credit to the participants.
Nevertheless, senate majority leader Harry Reid shrugged this off by saying “that’s what legislating is about.” But is it? Is providing goodies for individual states in order to buy a few votes truly democratic? Granted it has happened before, but has it ever occurred on such a flagrant scale?
Once upon a time, we called this corruption. It was something that transpired in banana republics; not among our more enlightened legislators.
Still, this is not the worst of the deal. The worst is that the legislation incorporates different rules for different states. What happens in Nebraska is not the same as Kansas. The bills paid in Florida differ from those paid in Georgia.
As Francis Fukuyama has argued, democracy is built on trust. People support democratic governments only if they believe them grounded in fairness. Once it is clear that some states will get better breaks merely because their legislators were more skilled at horse-trading a confidence in honorable outcomes is sure to evaporate.
While it is true that the states are free to legislate diverse laws for themselves, it is a different matter when dealing with the federal government. Our ancestors created a “federal republic” precisely to overcome the jealousies and bickering under the Articles of Confederation. These Founding Fathers learned from personal experience how divisive untamed localism is.
We are about to learn the same lesson. As the states are pitted against each other, the glue that holds our union together is likely to lose its adhesive power. And with it will exit the strength provided by united numbers.
Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama did not intend it, but they are wringing the curtain down on a wondrous political experiment. They are answering Benjamin Franklin’s question about whether we are capable of sustaining a republic in the negative.
Isn’t this a strange outcome for a program intended to be national?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

A Modest Proposal—For Re-Branding Conservatism

The time has come for conservatives to take a page out of Bill Clinton’s playbook. Our former president was an expert in the sort of verbal jujitsu those on the political right might do well to emulate. In fact, it may be the only way to fight the fire of dissimulation with the fire of truthfulness.
A decade and a half ago, when Newt Gingrich attempted to promote conservatism by promoting an “opportunity society,” his well-intentioned effort came up short. Gingrich touted the free market as a means through which everyone could pursue freedom and prosperity, but once this idea began to acquire traction Clinton jumped into the fray. He quickly began promoting an opportunity society, albeit one based on government sponsored initiatives.
In short order, opportunity ceased to be a conservative hallmark and hence lost its ability to attract support. Nevertheless, Clinton’s turnabout ploy can be used in reverse. Today, liberals glory in their purported “progressivism.” They claim to be on the side of history and therefore assert the exclusive right champion positive change. Conservatives, in contrast, are characterized as chained to a discredited past. They are alleged to have no new ideas worth honoring.
In fact, liberals are not progressive, whereas conservatives are not conservative. Liberals actually seek to return us to a cross between an updated Enlightenment absolutism and Bronze Age village life. Meanwhile, conservatives, despite their reputation, seek to build upon past successes. Not one of the four pillars of their philosophy is backward looking. Each, namely freedom, democracy, market economics and family values, is relentlessly innovative.
So what can conservatives do to correct this mischaracterization? Well, they can start by calling themselves “progressive.” Moreover, they can contrast themselves with liberals by castigating their opponents as “phony progressives” or perhaps “fairy-tale progressives.” At the same time, they can boast of being the “real progressives” or maybe “rational progressives.” Either way, they can make it plain that liberals are out of touch with reality, while they are not.
The price for not appropriating the progressive mantle has been steep. It allowed the liberals to get away with portraying themselves as the party of change, which translated into attracting two thirds of the youth vote in the last election. The young were bamboozled into believing that Democrats represented their interests, whereas they did not. Unfortunately, the bill for failed liberal polices will soon be theirs to pay.
Similarly, reform-minded moderates were persuaded that Democrats offered social improvements, whereas conservatives were stigmatized as favoring the same old policies as their ancestors. Even though liberals championed a disinterred New Deal, they got away with labeling it “change you can believe in” because Republicans did not emphasize their attachment to social advances.
What conservatives could have done is publicize the progressive nature of the market economy. They could have ballyhooed the creative fervor of individuals allowed to exercise independent initiative. Merely talking about the benefits of small business was obviously not enough.
They could also have explained that strong families were the best hope for preparing children to succeed in a techno-commercial society. What, after all, could be more forward-looking than laying the groundwork for the happiness and prosperity of the next generation?
Nor are freedom and decentralized democracy old-fashioned. Both allow people to control their own destinies. To paraphrase well-loved army advertisements; they allow people to “be the best they can be.” In what way is this being stuck in the past?
Meanwhile self-proclaimed progressives trample on the family, hobble the market economy, and dictate how people should live. Why is that progressive?
It is time to declare that it is not. Indeed, it is time to shout this from the rooftops. Liberalism will not bring improvements, merely government sponsored corruption and run-away inflation. That’s not progress. That is make-believe progress. Paradoxically, it is conservatism that produces genuine advancements.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Big “D” Democrats or Little “d” Democrats

The moment of decision is fast approaching for congressional Democrats. They will soon be required to reveal their true colors. Where does their first loyalty lie? Are they more committed to their party affiliation or to our democratic institutions? How they handle the impending health care legislation will tell the story in a way that they may not be able to deny.
The polls suggest that a majority of Americans are against a drastic overhaul of our medical system. They may want reforms, but they are afraid of the costs and of the implications to their personal care of a government controlled program. As such, they prefer modest changes; e.g., ensuring medical portability or instituting tort reform.
If congressional Democrats defy these wishes and nonetheless pass a so-called government option, they will not be representing the will of the people. Still, they can claim to be “democratic” in the sense of meeting the needs of their constituents. They may honestly believe that it is their duty to provide what the people “need” as opposed to what they mistakenly “want.”
No, the real problem will come if the Democrats are forced to use the so-called “nuclear” option. If, in the senate, they cannot muster sufficient votes to override a Republican filibuster and instead resort to a reconciliation process to implement their desires, they will have dealt a body blow to our democratic traditions. They will have demonstrated that they no longer believe in “majority rules, with minority rights,” but are more devoted to their own well being.
Back when Franklin D. Roosevelt was president, he was very upset with his inability to implement many of his New Deal programs. Despite these having passed the congress, the Supreme Court struck them down. Roosevelt decided that this was intolerable and sought to rectify the situation.
Roosevelt’s plan was to defang the court. He would get the congress to increase the number of justices on the bench and then appoint candidates favorable to his program. Since the Democrats held a significant majority in the legislature, this seemed eminently doable.
Nevertheless, an impediment soon arose. A number of congressional Democrats were horrified by the prospect of “packing” the court. Democratic Senators such as Burton K. Wheeler, Harry Byrd, and Millard Tydings worked with Republicans such as William E. Borah, Charles L. McNary, and Arthur Vandenburg to make sure it didn’t happen.
These legislators resented the threat to their lawmaking prerogatives, as well as to settled democratic traditions. Although they had it within their constitutional rights to effect these changes, they could not bring themselves to violate judicial practices that had been over a century in the making. Many of them were Roosevelt loyalists, but their primary commitment was to the nation as opposed to their party.
Now it is time to see what stuff contemporary Democrats are made of. Do they care more about what Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi want or is their first commitment to long established congressional practices? Do they possess the kind of backbone their predecessors did, or are they willing to capitulate to the pressures of party leaders?
Liberal Democrats have been complaining for decades that Republicans impugn their patriotism. Despite the fact that their rivals explicitly deny this claim, they charge them with disrespecting their honor. Now it is up to Democrats to demonstrate whether this indictment has merit. If they blatantly ignore settled legislative precedents, perhaps it is valid after all.
So do the Democrats have the courage to uphold legislative principles or are they party ciphers? Do they care most about the people and the nation, or are they more concerned with party interests? We will soon find out.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University