In Praise of Foresight

Forgive me if I have used the following illustration before, but in the light of our current political situation it seems particularly germane.
As it happens, World War II came to an end just as I turned four. At the time, my family was on vacation in the Catskill Mountains. Coincident with this, my uncle Milton, who had recently returned home after having served with Patton’s army, came to spend the day with us.
Having never seen me before, he decided to take me for a walk down a country road. Concerned for my welfare, on several occasions he asked if I had grown tired and wished to return to the guesthouse where we were staying. Each time I replied that I was not and that we could keep going.
Eventually, however, I asked if we could turn around. At this, he once more inquired into whether I was tired and I again responded by telling him that I was not. But then I added that I would be by the time we got back.
My uncle was so impressed with my foresight that he subsequently told this tale many times. He was especially astonished that a child so young could think so clearly into the future. Today I am retelling this story because I am equally astonished by the degree to which adult voters are currently refusing to use foresight regarding the upcoming presidential election.
Let me begin with the Democrats. How is it possible that biologically adult human beings can fail to understand the implications of a national debt that threatens to reduce us to a large-scale version of Greece? With the example of the European financial meltdown before our eyes, how can voters ignore the potential consequences for our children and grandchildren?
Yet instead of reducing government expenditures, the Democrats have decided to engage in class warfare. In the hopes of getting reelected, they have decided that this short-term gain is worth courting long-term disaster. Even worse, they have decided to enrich themselves and their political allies while this catastrophe unfolds.
The Republicans, however, are little better. They may understand that payoffs to the unions, political contributors, and crony capitalists are a recipe for national bankruptcy, but they do not seem serious about replacing the current administration with a more responsible one.
Over the past several months we have witnessed numerous polls revealing an electorate that is operating more like a pack of lemmings than a collection of serious decision-makers. Instead of looking forward to determine who can best solve our shared problems, people have shifted their loyalty from one crowd favorite to another.
Today Newt Gingrich has surged to the head of the pack. People love his feisty debate performances, but why aren’t they thinking ahead to the sort of presidential candidate he would make, or, more importantly, the sort of president he would be?
While Newt makes a good showing against fellow Republicans when standing together on a common stage, what will happen if he shares this venue with Obama? Rest assured, Barack will take the gloves off. He won’t be reluctant to point out Gingrich’s flip-flops, or to condemn his lobbying efforts, or to impugn his character.
There is a reason that the president’s campaign managers would rather run against Newt than Mitt Romney. They, at least, have the sense to realize that Gingrich is vulnerable on many counts. A flawed human being and politician, Newt makes a tempting target—however much he declares his eagerness to mix-it-up in debate.
And as to his becoming president, here the past is the best predictor of the future. Don’t people remember how hated Newt was when he was Speaker of the House? Back then, just as now, he wrangled with reporters. The difference is that back then he did it virtually every day and that the reporters returned his contempt in kind.
Can you imagine this sort of contention if Gingrich gets elected? Not only would the electorate that put him in office soon come to loath him, but the wheels of government would quickly grind to a halt. With all of the in-fighting, there would be precious little problem solving—to the continued detriment of nation.
Gingrich may have big ideas, but if they are only verbal flourishes that are never translated into effective action, what good will they do us?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Christmas in a Secular Society

I am a lapsed Jew. My wife was raised an evangelical. Indeed, we are both about as secular as one can get. Nevertheless, we celebrate Christmas. Notice I did not say the holidays. I said Christmas—for that is what I meant.
Nowadays many people object to the public display of Christian beliefs. They tell us that this is a violation of the freedom of religion. According to these critics, placing a crèche in a public place is tantamount to forcing particular beliefs on innocent bystanders.
My own view is that this is absurd. Even when government sponsored, such exhibitions force nothing on anyone. They are merely a way of honoring a religious tradition from which we have all benefited.
Like it or not, our society sprang, in part, from Christian roots. The founders were Christian and this inspired much of what they did. Why then should we be ashamed to acknowledge, and venerate, our shared heritage? History is history and cannot be wiped clean by the mere act of ignoring—or disinfecting—it.
In any event, my wife and I are pleased to honor what we both recognize as part of our personal birthrights. We put up a Christmas tree and travel a significant distance to celebrate the holiday with her parents. We also give gifts, and for that matter, light the Chanukah menorah.
We do so because we love the spirit of the holiday. The story of the birth of the Christ child is inspirational. It is so even for nonbelievers; that is, if they are open to the message of this venerable tradition. Christ was presumably born to save the world—and that is not a bad thing.
But more than this, that a child is regarded as enormously important has momentous implications for each succeeding generation. The central message of Christmas, after all, is love. It is about the love that the deity brought to his creation. And, as significantly, it is about love that has been channeled through a child.
When I was small, my family did not have a Christmas tree or celebrate Christ. Nonetheless, Santa Claus visited our house. While we did not have a chimney, he still managed to leave a great many gifts under the stockings we hung from a bookcase. As a consequence, Christmas morning was magical for my sister and me. We adored tearing open our presents to see what was inside.
What was it that made these moments especially memorable? --Why, it was that these were free gifts. Despite all the talk about a need to be nice rather than naughty, they were left for us merely because we were children. As a result, they confirmed our value and the fact that we were loved.
Christmas is thus an annual expression of intergenerational love. It provides us all with an opportunity to strengthen the bonds between parents and children, and in the process provides children with a gift more precious than any toy.
A central truth of the human condition is that happy adults develop from happy children. To know that others care about us, plants the seeds of a contented life. We all need love, for without it life is barren and sometimes unendurable. It is a cliché, but love gives us a reason to live. It provides the warmth that allows us to survive the chill of an occasionally hostile world.
Years ago when I was a clinician, I routinely worked with clients for whom Christmas was a burden. Having been unloved as children, they found a holiday that celebrated tender caring to be depressing. Because it reminded them of what they did not have, the pain of its absence could be sharper than a serpent’s tooth.
So what is the message of all this? It is not that we should discontinue Christmas because it causes vulnerable individuals pain. To the contrary, we must continue to celebrate the holiday’s central meaning. An event that encourages us to transmit love to the young cannot be allowed to languish. It must continue to be a source of personal and social strength.
If people object to the origins and religious trappings of Christmas, I say let them play Scrooge in their own homes. They are not defending my freedom when they seek to expunge the shared joy of a treasured tradition. For my part, I continue to wish a merry Christmas to those of us who embrace the holiday’s intent—and a happy holiday to those who don’t.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

The Illegal Aliens in the Cellar

Illegal Aliens have been in the news again. And as has become usual, one of the questions is whether or not to offer them amnesty. This time Newt Gingrich is the one who has suggested partial amnesty. He denies it, but in permitting people to stay in the country because they have been here a long time, he has proposed exactly that.
One of the reasons habitually proffered for making such exceptions is that it is impossible to send all of the illegals back to their homelands. With an estimated eleven to twelve million residing here, it is alleged that the logistics of such a roundup are unworkable.
The specter that is raised is of an army of immigration agents spreading out across the nation to hunt down helpless old ladies and children as they cower in someone’s cellar seeking to avoid capture. It is as if an American-made Gestapo will be necessary to get the job done.
In fact, this is just a scare tactic of those who wish to promote citizenship for lawbreakers. Whether they are Democrats who hope to gain more Hispanic votes or Republicans seeking cheap labor, the bottom line is that they do not wish to enforce our laws against unauthorized immigration.
But herein lies the secret of the humane control of our borders. It is all about enforcing the law. If we take our own regulations seriously and apply them when they are relevant, the problem can be solved.
Two things are necessary in order to bring the flood of undocumented aliens to a halt. The first is to close the border. Whether this involves a fence or hiring more border patrol agents, before we send illegal immigrants back we must cut off the flow of new ones. If do not, we will be doing nothing other than empting the pool with one hand while refilling it with the other.
The second requirement is to cut off the magnet. As long as there are significant benefits to be derived from sneaking over the border, people will continue to do so. They will risk being caught because the rewards outweigh the potential punishment.
Unfortunately it is even more difficult to remove this lure than to interdict the flow of non-citizens. One way to get at this is to punish employers who hire undocumented workers. If we make it unprofitable to flout the law, they may decide to obey it. As a result, the jobs that illegals hope for will no longer be available to them.
But a second strategy for removing the attraction is to make it less comfortable to reside in this country. If the costs of doing so are substantially greater than leaving, reasonable people may decide it is time to go home.
This is why it is important to deport the illegals found living within our country. People must know that if they are discovered, the law will be enforced. They must be made to feel insecure. Only if they are, are they likely to conclude that evading detection is not worth the effort.
But there is no need for a heartless roundup. All that is necessary is to extradite those individuals found to be here illegally as they are encountered in the ordinary course of business. We don’t require cattle cars filled with desperate souls headed to the border. All we need is one individual after another obliged to leave and then prevented from returning.
The trick is to have a Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of every illegal immigrant. If they fear that their turn to be ejected will be next, they may voluntarily decide it is best to return from whence they came.
This strategy is comparable to the one that Rudy Giuliani use to slash New York City’s crime rate. By enforcing the laws, even the trivial ones, he sent potential criminals a message. They were essentially told that they would not be given a free pass and hence should think twice before they decided to do wrong.
The same holds true for illegal immigrants. If we treat the laws against entering this country illegally as if they are trivial, they will be regarded as trivial. But if we take them seriously—which means imposing the appropriate sanctions—they are apt to be regarded as serious.
Legal immigration ought to be welcomed, but the illegal sort should remain illegal—or else we are just playing games. It is therefore time for us to decide what we truly believe.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

The Fall of the Faculty

I have a new hero. He is Benjamin Ginsberg, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University. For many years now college professors, such as myself, have been under assault. Indeed, we have been accused of all manners of evil.
Now Ginsburg has come forward with a ringing defense of our virtues, while offering a new set of villains. They are the college administrators. In “The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters” he explains that things are not always what they seem.
But before I detail some of Ginsburg’s claims, let me make it clear that we professors are not blameless. In the rush to effect “social justice,” many of us have foisted political correctness on relatively defenseless undergraduates. Too often, the classroom has become a scene of indoctrination rather than education.
And yet, as Ginsburg asserts, we professors are not alone in this. Our bosses, the college presidents, provosts, and deans, have also been ardent fans of racial and gender agendas. Indeed, most are similarly left wing in their politics. Furthermore, they have utilized social issues to control an otherwise unruly faculty.
When race, gender, and social class are put center stage, they provide an excellent rationale for imposing strict standards on the faculty. The professors can be sent for sensitivity training and held to account for violating ideological dictates. Even though college professors are among the least biased persons in the nation, they can be intimidated for failing to comply with administrative mandates.
Much of this is done in the name of improved educational outcomes. Yet I am reminded of 110 Livingston Street. As the former headquarters of the New York City Board of Education, during the 1960’s it became synonymous with bureaucracy run amok. Crammed with administrators who multiplied like rabbits, it spewed out regulations that paralyzed, rather than facilitated education.
Today we see the same pattern developing in higher education. It too is churning out administrators at a greater rate than needed. Indeed, the proportion of administrators is expanding at nearly twice the rate of the faculty. In other words, instead of keeping the ratio of professors to students low, it is the ratio of administrators to students that is declining.
Put another way, professors must now teach more students, whereas individual administrators are responsible for fewer learners. But how, one may ask, is this supposed to improve scholarship? After all, administrators don’t do the teaching—professors do; hence the mystery.
And then there is the problem of cost. Many people rightfully complain about the escalating expense of a college degree. They assume that this is because the professors keep earning more for doing less, but this is mistaken. If anything, the administrative bloat is at fault.
Because there are now twice as many administrators per student, this demands additional dollars. But the situation is worse than this considering that administrators are paid far more than professors. In fact, they often earn two, three, four, five, or more times as much as their underlings.
Consider this. In order to be promoted from an assistant to an associate professor an academic has to run a challenging gauntlet. He or she has to accumulate excellent teaching evaluations, publish several articles or books, and engage in demonstrable services to the college and his/her discipline. Then, only if his/her colleagues, chairpersons, deans, and provosts are satisfied, will advancement be granted.
For this, the new associate professor will receive a raise of between two and three thousand dollars. Meanwhile, if this same person is appointed to an administrative post, the raise is generally twenty, thirty, or forty thousand dollars.
So where do the incentives lie? Is there any question about why so many professors covet an administrative role? Similarly, are there any doubts about why administrators engage in empire building by creating legions of loyal lieutenants?
And so the game of dismantling higher education goes on—with power, not learning, the central consideration.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Mitt the Pragmatist

Mitt Romney is stuck in the polls. No matter how many sterling performances he turns in during the presidential debates, a large proportion of conservatives do not trust him. They fear that he is not really one of them; hence they are hoping someone else will grab the nomination away from him.
Having apparently changed his mind about abortion and health care, Mitt stands accused of being a flip-flopper. Many people worry that he has no central core. They perceive him as a man without convictions; who, once in office, might abandon whatever promises he makes.
I, however, doubt this. To illustrate why I feel this way, let me refer back to George H.W. Bush. Do you remember how when he was running for office, he was accused of lacking a “vision” for the nation. His detractors suggested that he had no strong beliefs and therefore was not presidential material.
In fact, Bush did have strong convictions. It was merely that these were different from those of most Americans. Bush, it must be remembered, came from the upper class and he saw things from this perspective. His vision—what he most believed in—was stewardship. As the recipient of inherited advantages, he believed he had a responsibility to preserve what made America great.
But most Americans inherited neither wealth, nor power. They did not want to preserve what was good so much move up the economic and social ladder. From their perspective, they did not see how defending the nation’s traditional institutions would provide them with the opportunities they sought. They expected something more.
To return to Romney; his background is also different from that of most Americans. The son of a self-made industrial leader (George Romney), he grew to maturity with a great deal to live up to. While having a powerful parent intimidates most people, Mitt felt confident enough to compete. If anything, he was apparently determined to do better than his dad.
And, in fact, so far he has. Now he hopes to succeed where his father did not—in a quest for the presidency. But this would be based on a commitment he inherited from his dad. One thing the two had in common was a desire to be pragmatic. Their shared goal was to make things work; which Mitt has done—with a vengeance.
This was revealed in his pursuit of a successful business career. Mitt jumped into the marketplace with two feet and did what it took to make companies profitable. Then, he saved the Salt Lake City Olympic games from financial disaster. Where others made a mess, he used his intelligence and people skills to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
After this he became governor of Massachusetts. A Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, once more his pragmatism rose to the fore. While his healthcare plan has drawn justifiable criticism, he was able to make it more reasonable than his opponents would have preferred.
So now he is running for president as a pragmatist. He may not succeed, but he is doing so as a person committed to winning. Moreover, this is the attitude that he would bring to the office. It is who he is—and will not change.
As for me, I prefer a pragmatist to a dogmatist. I am tired of having an ideologue in the White House. I want someone committed to making the United States a going concern; moreover someone with the intelligence and flexibility do so. I also want a candidate who can learn from mistakes and make adjustments that work.
Now, with our nation facing a massive crisis, is not the time for ideological litmus tests. We desperately need someone who can fix what is broken, not someone who will continue down a path toward failure. Haven’t we seen enough of this with Barack Obama?
Yes, Mitt has changed his mind. Yes, he today claims to stand for things he did not the day before yesterday. Some people condemn this as a fault. They tell us it means he is shallow. But I say it is the mark of a man who learns. And I, for one, want a president who can learn, because that is the person who is apt to get things right.
There is too much at stake to demand ideological purity. We are talking about the future of our nation; and that of our children and grandchildren. We cannot let them down. So let us swallow hard and vote for competence.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Obama: The Adult in the Room

Ron Suskind’s recent book “Confidence Men” was roasted in the mainstream media. His biggest sin was his assertion that the Obama White House is hostile to women. Having depicted the current administration as a boy’s club where the girls were shunted aside, he was rebuked for making the president look bad.
Quite naturally, no such disapproval occurred when Suskind had earlier slammed the Bush administration. Back then he was celebrated for revealing the negative truth about a hated enemy. Disparaging of a friend, however, that was unforgivable.
And make no mistake; Suskind is an ardent liberal. Time and again, he off-handedly insults Bush, Cheney, and Republicans in general. At no point in his work does he ever give them credit for good ideas. The best he can muster is that they occasionally cooperate with his hero.
Just how partisan Suskind is, is highlighted by the praise lavished on Paul Volcker. When Volcker was running the Federal Reserve three decades ago, he did the nation a great service by implementing monetary polices that saved us from the Carter inflation. For this courageous and successful effort he does indeed deserve credit.
But there was another person at the table, one that in Suskind’s left wing universe remains invisible. That person was, of course, was Ronald Reagan. Without Reagan’s encouragement and political support Volcker could not have done what he did. It was, after all, Reagan who took the political flack when Volcker’s medicine resulted in an economic downturn.
So what is the point of this digression? It is to show how reluctant Suskind must have been to divulge information damaging to Obama’s image. Suskind clearly loves what Obama stands for, but is disappointed in the weaknesses he discovered behind the self-congratulatory curtain of secrecy surrounding him.
This, however, makes his revelations all the more credible. It also makes them that much more frightening.
For my money, the worst of the surprises is how hands-off a president Obama has been. The man loves to give speeches that inspire us to greatness, but he does not have a solid vision of how to get there. For that, he has relied on other people. As a result, much of his policy was crafted in Congress and the Treasury, not the While House.
Under his roof, the president has largely presided over a debating society. Important plans are constantly discussed and in Obama’s words “relitigated.” Moreover, one of the people most involved with this process was Larry Summers, the president’s former chief economic advisor.
Suskind makes it clear that Summers was a pompous manipulator with an inflated sense of self-importance. Nevertheless, Summers’ judgment of the president is instructive. He is quoted as telling another Obama aide that, “We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes.”
In other words, the president was forever kicking the can down the road. Although in public he strives to look decisive, behind the scenes he has had difficulty making decisions. Unless all of his advisors agree, which they rarely do, he wants to continue discussing matters.
And even in the end game, he tends to split the baby. Despite repeated assertions of wanting bold solutions, his actual preference is for compromise—that is, within the leftwing spectrum. Clearly, what conservatives want does not count. It never comes up in the conversations Suskind reports.
All of this puts a new light on Barack’s posturing as the “adult in the room” during the negotiations about increasing the nation’s debt limit. Here too the reality was an inability to make a decision and stick to it. When Boehner complained that Obama moved the goal posts, that is evidently what happened.
Needless to say, this is how kids play. They too are hesitant to take responsibility and like to blame others. –Doesn’t this sound familiar? Aren’t we seeing it once again in the president’s reelection campaign? Isn’t this enterprise also based on inspirational policies that have no real substance?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Is Unhappiness a Disease?

All of us get unhappy! Moreover, all of us are sometimes anxious! Life can be hard and things frequently go wrong. But the way this dilemma is explained on television is misleading. There, it is regularly implied that many of us suffer from a low-level mental illness for which we require a medication.
You’ve seen the ads. You know; the ones about how a new drug can rescue us from our depression. Sometimes they show a little black cloud that can be tamed by taking they right prescription. Sometimes they merely illustrate how cheerful we will become once our melancholy has lifted.
According to the more medically oriented of these commercials, a chemical imbalance in our brains somehow causes us to go off track. The experts aren’t quite sure how this works, but the pharmaceutical companies assure us their product will eliminate what ails us. If we will only take it, it will alleviate our distress.
Yet have you noticed that these promises are hedged with qualifications? There are those little provisos that indicate “it is thought” that neurotransmitters are the cause? The fact is that medicine cannot certify that it understands or can repair the miseries to which most of us are occasionally subject.
That is because many of them are not medical. Despite repeated declarations to the contrary, they are not diseases. If they were, the authorities would not have to keep reassuring us that they are.
Consider the measles. Is there anyone who doubts that this is a disease? When, for instance, was the last time someone tried to persuade you it was? We know a virus causes the malady. Moreover, we know how to prevent it. But what of unhappiness? Is it in the same league?
My latest book (my eleventh) is entitled: On Loss and Losing: Beyond the Medical Model of Personal Distress and it offers an alternative explanation of emotional suffering. As a sociologist, I am not an expert on physiological difficulties, but as a former clinician and a professor of sociology I am knowledgeable about how problems in living can create internal turmoil.
As I said before, life is difficult. It throws up a myriad of challenges. Often we find a way to manage, but more commonly that we might wish, it is hard to figure out what has gone wrong—or how to fix it. This is where clinical sociology can be of assistance.
All of us experience losses. We regularly endure defeats in our quest to endure. These, however, are painful. That is why many of us swallow pills in order to cover up our suffering. But in disguising our difficulties—even from ourselves—we make it difficult to overcome them.
Sadly, the defeats we experience leave scars. We human beings want to be winners. We all hate to lose. Nevertheless, from time to time we all do and must therefore deal with these reverses. What is worse, some of these setbacks cannot be converted into victories. We must consequently learn to let go of what we can never have. This is one of the central truths about life.
Mind you, there are genuine mental illnesses that require medical interventions. Schizophrenia and bipolar disorders fall into this category. Even some major depressions have biological origins. But not everything currently treated by physicians is, in fact, a medical disorder. Some are simply problems in living.
The trick is to be able to tell the difference. It is also necessary to find the courage to confront our personal demons. Unfortunately, if we do not, they do not disappear. Medications can keep them at bay, but these rarely do more than suppress them. Actually moving on takes more effort.
Modern medicine is a wonder. It has enabled us to live decades longer than our ancestors. But it cannot do everything. If you are a baseball player having difficulty hitting a curve ball, you do not require a doctor. What you need is a good hitting coach.
Correspondingly, if you are suffering from the pangs of loss or losing, you may not need a psychiatrist, but an expert in these matters (for example, a clinical psychologist, clinical sociologist, clinical social worker, or marriage and family counselor). The starting point in figuring out whom to consult is understanding what is the matter. Only then is it possible to make a sound decision about the way forward.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

The Intellectuals Occupying Wall Street

If there was ever any doubt, now we know. The liberal left has revealed its true character. The occupying armies that descended on Wall Street have shown us what they are made of—and it is not a pretty sight.
For well over a century, liberals have boasted of being intellectuals. They are proud to tell anyone who will listen that they know more than others. They are also confident in their superior intelligence. So self-assured are they that they claim to be the intelligentsia.
So there they are, in their scruffy clothes, lounging about in the midst of their own filth, offering us lessons in economics and history. Having carefully analyzed what ails our nation, they have produced a series of manifestos that lay out a detailed blueprint for solving our problems.
Or have they? Reporters regularly tell us that many of the protesters are college educated. These activists are said to be distressed by their inability to get a good job, despite having acquired sterling credentials. What they want, therefore, are thoroughgoing reforms. Let us have free college tuition! Let us forgive all debts, especially college loans! Let us stop home foreclosures!
Oh, and by the way, let us get rid of capitalism! It is evidently run by rich thieves for the benefit of even richer thieves. So tax the wealthy! Drive them into bankruptcy so that the rest of us can receive our fair share.
So attractive is this siren song supposed to be that Democratic politicians hope it will arouse their “base” for the next electoral cycle. The energy of intelligent young people on the march will surely jolt the nation into realizing the validity of the liberal cause.
But how clever is this exercise? Even mainstream reporters acknowledge that the marching crowds have not been very articulate. Likewise, anyone with a television set can perceive that the signs they carry are barely literate and the explanations they offer are generally incoherent.
Remember, however, these folks are largely college-educated. So where is the evidence that they learned anything when they were in school? Did they miss Econ 101? They insist that they have a right to protest—which they do, but to what end? If all they want to do is complain, how useful is this?
Many of the protestors want to end capitalism, but with what will they replace it? Liberals seem to believe that once we get rid of the rich, total equality will arise like a flower from a pile of dung. They seem to forget that after the French guillotined their aristocrats and the Russians shot theirs, the result was terror and/or oppression, not universal happiness.
But then again, did they ever know this? Liberals accuse religious conservatives of being stupid because they repeat what the Bible tells them. But don’t these same liberals repeat the left-wing slogans as their political forebears?
As a college professor, I am regularly confronted by students who believe they should receive a B just for showing up in class. Few read the assigned books, but they nonetheless assume they understand the materials. After all, they are college students and therefore unusually bright.
Which brings us back to the unemployed students on Wall Street. They seem to believe that making unimaginative demands demonstrates their intellectual prowess. Yet maybe all it reveals is an overweening sense of entitlement, i.e., that deserve what they want, merely because they want it.
Liberals insist that they are the best and brightest—but clearly these folks are not. As ideologues, rather than intellectuals, they believe they know more than they actually do. Years of patting one another on the back have apparently convinced them that they are deep thinkers. Sadly, this is a misperception.
If those on the political left are to govern the nation, let them explain why what they desire is best. It is not enough that they claim to be smart. They must prove, with evidence and arguments, that their recommendations are legitimate.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

College and The Parable of the Tomatoes

Tomatoes are delicious! Although once spurned as poisonous love apples, Americans have been relishing them for over a century. Indeed, so popular did they become that the demand exceeded the supply. This created a problem because farm grown tomatoes were handpicked. As such, they were expensive.
The only way around this dilemma was to mechanize the harvesting process. This, however, required that as the crop neared ripeness, all of the fruit be plucked at the same time. Because machines could not distinguish between the ripe and the unripe, all had to be simultaneously gathered.
The solution was to genetically engineer the tomatoes so that they matured concurrently. This worked wonderfully, except for one small quibble. These new varieties did not taste as good as the old-fashioned kind. They looked about the same, but were nowhere near as luscious as the juicy ones people grew in their backyards.
Now colleges are under attack. Both from within and without, potent forces are gathering to convert them into what they have not been. Since they are also thought to be too expensive, many critics are proposing solutions akin to that which worked for tomatoes. In the process, universities are being homogenized.
As I have previously written, one reason for this is the move to provide everyone with a higher education. It is forcing universities to lower their standards so as to emulate mediocre high schools. Instead of demanding the best of their students, they lower their requirements so that everyone can pass.
Then there are the effects of the perceived liberalism of college faculties. This left of center attitude is real and gives many parents heartburn. Despite apologetics to the contrary, the latter are correct in believing that many academicians actively promote a left-of-center agenda.
Unfortunately, the response has been to restrain the radicals by controlling the institutions. One tool for doing so has been to demand “accountability.” The goal is to make sure that professors impart the information that they should be imparting. If instead of delegating them complete freedom, they have to answer for their efforts, perhaps they will be more careful.
In practice, however, this gets translated into demanding that the faculty abide by standardized rubrics. They are asked to organize their lessons according to pre-digested formats and to test their students by means of equally homogeneous instruments.
But in having their product standardized, it is made second-rate. Professors who are told what to teach and how to teach it become as dumbed down as their students. Asked to leave their intelligence and creativity at the door, it is the least able among them who are motivated to remain on the job.
Yet, we have seen this before. As the number of administrators rose in K-12 schools, the quality of education stagnated—or fell. Although this was done in the name of accountability—the reverse transpired.
Sadly, in universities the impact is liable to be more severe. Why? you ask. The answer has to do with what is taught in colleges. Higher education deals with arcane and complex materials. Hence, the only persons competent in them are generally the professors. Consequently, unless they are experts, what they teach is inevitably substandard.
Indeed, how are administrators to judge which professors do a good job? Since they cannot do so directly, they impose proxies. One is student evaluations. At the end of each course, students rate what occurred. But which instructors get the best marks? Naturally, it is the popular ones who cater to student desires, not the more demanding ones.
Another administrative strategy is to demand written goals and specifiable learning outcomes. This, however, imposes a need to keep lesson plans within the lines. Getting too innovative is discouraged by a demand to produce exactly what was promised.
The result is a reduction in quality and an assault on academic freedom. What formerly made college distinctive gets excised because it is not easily measured. However, with it goes a professorate worthy of the name and students who learn anything of value. In the end, they all have as much flavor as tomatoes designed for supermarket shelves.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Romney vs. Obama: Cool vs. Cool

The time for making a decision is rapidly approaching. Thanks to Florida moving the nomination process forward, Republicans must soon choose a candidate to oppose Barack Obama. Most of the faithful believe that it is crucial to take back the presidency, but a majority remains undecided about who can best achieve this.

I have recently come to the conclusion that Mitt Romney is the one. While many party regulars are uncertain if he is conservative enough to undo the damage that Obama and his henchmen have wrought, I now believe he is. But let me explain.

First there is the business of winning the general election. This is no small matter. Many in the current crop of contenders do not measure up to the task. They either lack the experience, the knowledge, or the temperament to get the job done.

The best place to start my analysis is with Mitt. By most accounts he has been the more consistent debater. Many, however, dismiss him as too bland, but I count this as an advantage. This is because another way to describe his style is as “cool.” He does not lose his balance or become overly emotional.

Some see this as a lack of commitment, whereas I believe it is the perfect antidote to Obama. Our current president is himself cool and unflappable. Whatever the challenge, he keeps his head and offers what sounds like a rational rebuttal. Even when he makes foolish comments, he does so in a manner that seems well considered.

Romney, however, can match him cool for cool. Both are self-possessed and clearly intelligent. As a result, it is unlikely that Romney can be made to appear a hothead relative to Obama. He too possesses an imperturbable disposition that is suited to the demanding decisions required of an occupant of the oval office.

But consider some of the other candidates. Perry gets tongue-tied when confronted with serious competition. He then resorts to emotional appeals to his presumably greater compassion, which makes him appear “hot.” Unfortunately hot on cool feels out-of-control. So score this one for Obama.

Next there is Michelle Bachmann. If Perry is hot, she is ablaze with fiery indignation. So passionate is she that she routinely rushes to the head of the parade without considering the implication of what she is saying. So once again Obama wins by coolly pointing out her errors.

Then there is Newt Gingrich. By almost every account, Newt matches Romney and Obama in brainpower. A man filled with good ideas, he also promotes many clinkers because, as has frequently been observed, he cannot seem to keep from verbalizing his every thought. Besides Newt has a mean streak that makes Obama look like choirboy. Here too the incumbent has the advantage.

As to Rick Santorum, he too gets carried away with himself. By his own admission, he is probably the most ardent conservative in the pack. Yet too often he also appears to be the least mature. Once he gets an argument between his teeth, he is like an adolescent at a bull session. Obama, in contrast, is the composed professor.

Finally, there is Herman Cain. Like many others, I love Herman Cain. He too is a cool adult. Moreover, he is probably the most honest of the candidates. Unlike ordinary politicians, he admits when he does not know something, and then goes out to learn it—as he did when he went to Israel to investigate the so-called “right of return.”

But Cain is politically inexperienced. In many ways he is a conservative reflection of what Obama was before he came to office. He is a jewel whose abilities must not be wasted, but if Chris Christie is unprepared for the presidency, he is less so. Consequently, I say: Cain for Secretary of Commerce.

Which brings us back to Romney. He is a specialist in turning around organizational failures—as is Cain—and is therefore well suited to a time of economic crisis. He may not be as conservative as some might hope, but if he wins election his coattails will probably bring in a very conservative congress. Like it or not, this will contain some of his more liberal impulses.

So let us swallow hard and nominate a candidate that Obama cannot possibly attack for having enacted RomneyCare.

Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Republicans as Palestinian Wannabes

Abba Eban’s observation was so prophetic that it continues to be cited decades after it was put forward. The former Israeli Foreign Minister piquantly described the Palestinians as “never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” Sadly, what was true in the past remains true today.

Over the last several weeks we have again witnessed the Palestinians refusing to make peace with Israel. Because their real objective is the destruction of their neighbor, they persist in demanding a restoration of the 1967 borders and a right of return for the descendents of those who fled their former homeland more than half a century ago.

As the Palestinians must know, Israel cannot agree to these terms. Because they would be tantamount to national suicide, no Israeli official can possibly accept them. Thus, given this precondition, productive negotiations are out of the question and a quixotic application for statehood was presented to the United Nations.

Republicans would seem to have little in common with these antics, and yet there is a common thread. American conservatives have been among the stoutest defenders of Israel’s right to exist; nevertheless they appear to be modeling their electoral efforts on the Palestinian example.

Many Republicans are longing for a died-in-the-wool conservative to run against Barack Obama. Michelle Bachmann, who fancies herself the perfect fit for this ambition, has argued that our current president is so weak that any Republican, irrespective of how conservative he or she is, can win in 2012.

This, however, is a pipe dream. American voters, especially moderates, do not like extremism. No matter how much they distrust Obama, they will swallow hard and cast their ballots for him if they perceive the alternative as dicey. And make no mistake; if Obama runs against a right-wing radical, he will make this an issue.

Why is this important? The answer lies in the continued weakness in Mitt Romney’s support. Despite his obvious assets, an “anyone but Romney” attitude is abroad among the Republican faithful. He is simply not perceived as orthodox enough to satisfy the longing for a genuine conservative.

And so rather than rally to his side, there has been a frantic search for an alternative. For a while Bachmann seemed to be this person. But then her whiny, shoot-from-the-hip persona soured her chances. Despite her bravura pronouncements, people could not envision her as the leader of the free world.

Then there was Rick Perry. He was supposed to ride in on his white horse from the Texas plains to slay the dragons of liberalism. But a funny thing happened on his way being coronated. He stumbled and stumbled badly. Strangely inarticulate for a successful politician, even when he could make himself understood, it was in defense of policies that did not sound conservative to committed conservatives.

So that leaves Romney, except for a few other remote possibilities who have not yet decided to run. The issue is therefore whether rank and file Republicans will accept a candidate who can win a general election or insist on someone who passes a litmus test of ideological purity?

For many on the right, a sterling opportunity to unseat Obama is not sufficient. No matter how intelligent, well spoken, and poised Romney is, they just don’t like him. Although the recent debates have demonstrated that he has what it takes to best Obama in a one-on-one shoot-out, like the Palestinians they want what they want regardless of the outcome.

Nonetheless too much is as stake for this sort of fastidiousness. If Obama is re-elected, the chances of a long-term depression are too great to discount. And so the William Buckley rule should prevail. Buckley opined that he would support the most conservative candidate he could get, with the proviso that this was someone who could win.

Winning matters. Who is president in two years will have a lasting impact on the fate of our nation. This is not a game. While there will be another do-over in six years, the amount of damage done in the interim would be substantial. Consequently, although Romney may not satisfy in every particular, he is conservative enough to protect us from the maws of a left-wing disaster.

For the sake of our children and grandchildren we must not allow this opportunity to pass.

Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

The Gullibility Factor

I almost laughed out loud! Here was the president of the United States postulating a way to bring down the budget deficit that had been ridiculed several months before. When Harry Reid had proposed it during the battle over increasing the nation’s debt limit, it gained no traction whatever and even prompted Representative Paul Ryan to mock it on the floor of the House.

So what was this howler? What was this plan to save money that was so obviously not a plan to save money? It was asserting that the cost of a new stimulus could be off-set by not spending a trillion dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that no one had proposed spending.

Ryan said that this was like first passing a bill to cover the moon in green cheese and the next day rescinding it amidst of flourish of trumpets heralding Congress’s frugality. This was nothing other than a transparent verbal gimmick. It did not even pass the smell test.

Hence my question is: Why are so many people accepting Obama’s scheme at face value? Why aren’t many more millions of Americans doubled over in laughter at the temerity of such nonsense?

It isn’t as if no one has noticed that our president is a habitual purveyor of falsehoods. Nor is it that he has never been called out for inciting class warfare. It cannot even be said that the late night TV comedians haven’t been finding humor in his pious incantations about being non-political. They certainly have.

It is also true that the president’s ratings in the polls have been slipping. Nevertheless, they have not plummeted. Many people are still more prepared to blame the Republicans for Washington’s gridlock than they are him. So once again I ask: Why is this so?

One reason is simple human gullibility. Lincoln told us that you cannot fool all of the people all of the time, but you can apparently fool a great many of them almost indefinitely. They are so determined to believe that they put their rational faculties on hold and cruise along oblivious to the most ridiculous twaddle.

So who are these gullible people, and what is the source of their gullibility? One group is the rabid partisans. These are the left-wing Democrats who are upset that Obama has not squandered more trillions of dollars on failed policies. They will continue to blame conservatives for our troubles no matter what Barack does. Although no longer enthralled with him, they hate their traditional enemies even more.

Another group consists of the politically detached. They don’t read newspapers, watch cable television, or check the Internet for current events. For them, what happens in Washington does not exist. They, therefore, continue to support the president because they have no idea that many of his policies might injure them.

Then there are the authority sycophants. They are prepared to defer to people in charge regardless of what they do. These folks do not question what the most powerful man in the world says because they always accede to power—especially if it is articulated in an authoritative manner. And Obama, of course, is good as sounding confident.

Next there are the people who believe in giving the next guy a chance. These tend to be good people who do not want to jump to conclusions too quickly. They are inclined to allow others a great deal of latitude before they conclude that they have failed. For them, three years of ineptitude is still not enough.

Finally, there are those who always believe. They are therefore liable to credit the last voice that they hear. Because they do not analyze what was said so much as take it at face value, they are frequently swayed by a rousing speech. Obama, as we know can give a wonderful speech—and gives lots of them. Consequently, for these folks he is often the last persuasive voice they hear.

If we put these all of factors together, although the president is down, he is not out. Indeed, he is counting on his ability to convince the gullible to join his cause. He is apparently hoping that there are enough of them to provide him with the margin for another term in office.

I, for on one, am hoping that he is wrong. I have my fingers crossed that more people will listen to what he says, rather than the way he says it.

Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University