The Fish Rots from the Head

The President of the United States does not tell the truth. That is not news. More and more people have become aware of the degree to which he distorts reality. Currently as noteworthy, however, is the extent to which this toxin has invaded the body politic.
Worse than the standard presidential canards has been the Obama’s recent accusation that the Chamber of Commerce—at the behest of Republicans—illegally spent billions of foreign dollars on the current campaign. Without a shred of evidence, he allows his supporters to declare this an assault on democratic institutions.
The real news here is the degree to which this has come to seem “business as usual.” The targets of these slurs are naturally offended. So, in fact, are many news organizations—including the New York Times. But no one is truly scandalized.
When David Axelrod, the president’s point man on the Chamber accusation, was asked for proof, he simply turned the question back on his interviewer. Where, he replied, was proof that the Chamber hadn’t done as alleged?
Aiming a comparable accusation at Obama reveals just how disgraceful this was. What if Republicans claimed Barack has been cheating on Michelle? Surely, the White House would angrily demand evidence. But what if the GOP’s response was to insist on proof he had not? Wouldn’t this be regarded as character assassination?
That Axelrod’s maneuver did not arouse furious outrage, nor even deter the president from repeating this baseless accusation, was symptomatic of where we as a nation have arrived. Karl Rove, a party to the affair, was duly distressed, but few others joined him in his umbrage—the offence having come to seem normal.
To repeat, this is truly depressing news. Nowadays political dishonesty has become the norm, especially among Democrats. The deceit at the top of their party has evidently filtered down the food chain. This means that the moral rot pervading their national headquarters has become the model for lesser operatives.
Amazingly, few members of the president’s team feel any shame in following his example. They, without hesitation, have flooded the airwaves with campaign ads designed to convince voters that they are what they are not. So far as most Democratic candidates are concerned, they were utterly unaware of what transpired during the last two years.
Alan Grayson’s marvel of duplicity, in which he edited Dan Webster’s words to make it seem that he required his wife to submit to him when he said the opposite, is simply the most blatant of these endeavors. Many more commercials make it appear that the candidate opposed the president’s stimulus or health care initiatives, when he or she did not.
When asked about this trend, commentators usually shrug their shoulders and opine that the Democrats are “desperate.” Without anything positive to say about their achievements, they can do little more than vilify the other side. Truth is not what matters in these ventures, only appearances.
But the defense of these activities gets even more egregious. The experts explain that the president and his allies are merely seeking to gin up the base of their party. They only want to get them excited so that they go to the polls.
But consider the implications of this tactic. It suggests that Democratic voters are prepared to believe barefaced lies. Indeed, it insinuates that deception has become the mother’s milk of the party.
So pervasive has lying become among Democrats, that it apparently does not offend their sensibilities. However great the stench, if it succeeds in keeping them in power, they are satisfied. They literally don’t care if they must be dishonest, as long as their lies garner more votes.
This, I submit, is not good news for the long-term health of the Democratic Party. Any political faction that must depend upon dishonesty to keep in power is bound to be found out. And then when it is, it will be in trouble. As Abraham Lincoln warned, you can’t count on fooling all of the people all of the time—even if they are Democrats.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Of Liberals, Horse Whisperers, and Human Nature

By now the lesson should have sunk in. The examples set by the horse and dog whisperers should have entered the liberal consciousness, but have not Although the model provided by these animal trainers is much admired in liberal circles, its insights are not applied to human beings.
The horse whisperers, for instance, counsel that horses are prey animals. As such, they are hard-wired to be alert to potential predators. This means that a trainer must avoid looking directly at a horse’s eyes lest he be confused with a wolf. Dog whisperers similarly advise that dogs are pack animals and hence dog owners should set themselves up as pack leaders.
Both of these sorts of trainers understand that their subjects are particular sorts of animal. They know that they are genetically programmed to exhibit certain behaviors, but not others. As a result, they operate within these limits.
Liberals, in contrast, seem to imagine that people are completely plastic. Therefore, when they recommend political or economic reforms, they let their imaginations run wild. As long as they can conceive of a particular social program, they assume they can impose it.
Thus, they think they can oblige everyone to love everyone else. They also believe they can impose complete equality. Both of these goals are parts of the Liberal Dream; nonetheless both are contrary to human nature.
And there is a human nature. Violate it and no matter how elevated an ambition, it cannot be realized. As a consequence, promises to implement the impossible eventually fall to the ground unfulfilled. Having aroused unsustainable hopes, they breed cynicism not contentment.
This scenario also applies to another aspect of the Liberal Dream. Liberals believe that once they establish universal love and complete equality, people will be able to flourish as never before. They will become “self-actualizing” individuals who personally achieve their highest aspirations.
This philosophy as infiltrated public education systems to such an extent that they produce ever more ignorant graduates. According to progressive education (i.e., liberal education), learning must always be fun. Students must be allowed to choose what they want to learn, while teachers must encourage them to be their highest selves.
This sounds like it allows students to be themselves, whereas it merely permits them to remain uninformed. We human beings are biologically programmed to learn; including many very difficult lessons. This means that working hard is also part of our nature.
Indeed, one of the things that separates us from other animals is the length of our childhoods. These extend for many years because there is so much to be soaked up. Part of this, it is true, is learned through play, but part must be acquired by conscious effort.
Nowadays, with the emphasis on play, too many students refuse to read books if they are difficult. They would rather engage in computer games or go on FaceBook.
Accordingly, the self they actualize is simpleminded and incompetent. They never become the self-motivated experts required by a techno-commercial society because it has falsely been assumed that learning and personal growth are automatic.
A modern middle class society depends on personal responsibility, but a sense of responsibility takes effort to develop. This is dictated by the ways our minds and emotions work. Human nature is such that we can create the complex behavioral repertoires upon which we rely only dedicating many years to doing so.
One more reason the Liberal Dream is dying is thus that it does not acknowledge this simple fact. It takes for granted that people will inevitably become what they must in order to sustain our current prosperity, this is, if the proper social conditions are provided.
This is wrong on two counts. First, liberals cannot furnish the love and equality they promise. And second, even it they could, responsible competence takes years of genuine effort to achieve.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Why the Liberal Dream is Dying

This electoral season does not look good for liberal Democrats. By all current measures, ordinary voters are disillusioned with left-wing policies. They are looking for smaller government, while Obama and his supporters keep promising additional programs.
As a result, the Liberal Dream is dying. Almost everyone, except those on the extreme left, has noticed the trend. But why is this so? Why has a perennially popular set of ideas gone into so drastic a decline?
The answer is found in the contents of the Dream. Its attractions fade as it becomes evident that it cannot make good on its promises. These in brief are:
· Universal Love
That is Government Mediated, and
Led by the Best and Brightest,
So as to banish War, Discrimination, Pollution, Disease, Ignorance, and Poverty.
This will ultimately achieve complete Equality,
By protecting the Underdog, and
Encouraging Self-actualization,
And Total Niceness.
In an earlier column I argued that we cannot become a big happy family because there are too many of us. I also maintained that liberals, far from being the best and brightest, have revealed feet of clay. Here I want to focus on the goal of complete equality—for it too is bogus.
When you ask a young child if everyone is equal, he or she may answer: yes. But ask a college student the same question and the response is a categorical: no. By the late teens, almost everyone learns that life is not evenhanded—that some people make out far better than others.
On the other hand, many of my students at Kennesaw State answer in the affirmative when I inquire into whether they would like me to give everyone an A. As might be expected, the least able students are particularly emphatic in their assent.
The better students, of course, are less energetic. They realize that this would do away with their grade advantage. Nevertheless, not quite sure they want to antagonize their less academically successful peers, they go along with the crowd—but just barely.
When, however, asked about the consequences of eliminating grade disparities, the majority in favor of equality goes weak in the knees. Happy to have their own status upgraded, they are less sure this is a good idea if made universal.
Would they want to be treated by a physician who made straight A’s despite never having attended a class? Or would they appoint a general to lead the army if he never demonstrated superior strategic or tactical skills? In these cases, they are less sure.
Absolute equality sounds good in the abstract, but failing to distinguish between the competent and incompetent would place us at the mercy of inept individuals more frequently than we might prefer. Ranking may not be fair, but it, at least, increases the prospect of expert leadership.
Contrary to what first graders think, the Untied States was not founded on the principle of complete equality, but of legal equality. From the beginning, its laws were supposed to apply impartially to everyone. Even though this is largely unobtainable, it can, in fact, be approached. Total equality cannot—and should not.
Barack Obama and company have demonstrated that they were serious when they argued it was a good idea to transfer resources from the rich to the poor. If anything, they have exhibited a seething hostility to the more prosperous.
But maybe voters are catching on that taking this philosophy to the extreme would be disastrous. If we truly treated everyone as equal, it would not be long before we were all equally poor and oppressed. Total equality would not translate into total democracy, but into an unmitigated thugocracy.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Post-Liberalism: The Death of a Dream

Ted Kennedy is gone now. Many fondly remember him, yet his passing marked an historic inflexion point. With him, vanished many of the furthermost hopes of American liberals.
Kennedy is remembered, for among other things, insisting that “the dream will never die.” The dream, of course, was The Liberal Dream. It is what animated his political career and what still serves as a cynosure for many on the left wing of the Democratic Party.
Nevertheless, that dream is dying. It is failing right before our eyes. Despite the efforts of legions of brave liberal warriors, the next election is liable to prove that its attraction has declined. Thanks to the over-reaching of the Obama administration, the electorate has discovered a renewed affection for smaller government.
The Liberal Dream is, in fact, a complex of ideas. Two of its most important tenets are first, that we as a nation must become one, huge loving family and second, that we must do so under the leadership of the “best and brightest.”
As for the notion that we must unite as if we were members of a single family, this is fatuous. There are too many of us for this to happen. The president periodically insists that we must be each other’s keepers, but how can we be when most of us do not know each other?
A nation of over three hundred million is of necessity a nation of strangers. We may be mutually interdependent, but cannot be personally acquainted with each other. As a result, we cannot literally love one another. We may be respectful and even helpful, yet we cannot experience a genuine affection for others we never encounter.
This is one of the challenges of our modern society. How do we work effectively with so many strangers? Obviously we do, and can probably learn to do so more successfully, but not because we are individually devoted to each other.
Nor can we expect our political leaders always to be among the “best and brightest.” Certainly Obama and his crowd have demonstrated that they are the gang that cannot shoot straight. They were able to win a remarkable political victory, but since then have exhibited a tin ear. Once sensitive to what the public wanted, they subsequently disrespected the complaints of ordinary voters.
Liberals, such as Obama, believe they must protect people from themselves. Presumably only they, the liberals, understand the sort of health care people need. Only they are sufficiently motivated to protect the planet from environmental disaster. Left to their own devices, ordinary citizens would evidently smoke themselves to death, even as they drowned in rising oceanic floods.
Liberals believe they are smarter, better informed, and nicer than the mass of humankind. If some, such as Obama, are indeed very smart, they are certainly not better informed or more moral. Obama himself, for instance, is an economic illiterate. He genuinely seems unaware of the damage chronic deficits can inflict.
Worse than this are our president’s moral lapses. Beyond his arrogant Keynesianism lies a willingness to deceive whomever might interfere with his plans. Rod Blagojevich complained that Obama is “all take and no give,” but he is also all false promises and no delivery. He invariably says what he must in order to manipulate susceptible listeners—the truth be darned.
This is not what liberalism was supposed to be. It was expected to make our lives more satisfying. Unfortunately, it has not—and will not—because it is based on fallacious premises. Liberals are not smarter, or more moral, or more family-oriented. They are merely self-important politicians in search of power.
Liberals have deluded themselves into believing they are whom they claim to be, but their recent failures have sown doubts. And it is these that will be their undoing.
Liberalism is dying because it is faltering. It is dying because more people have noticed it is on life support. The faith that kept it alive is becoming a thing of the past; hence it must rely on ever more grandiose fictions.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University