The Wonders of Rationalization

I am a political junkie. Almost despite myself I watch, read, and listen to hours of news. Even when the talking heads are at their most inane, I payattention. While I am aware I am often treated to carefully crafted talking points, I still hope to extract nuggets of useful information.

Every now and then, I am rewarded with a performance that is truly exceptional. Instead of reasoned arguments, I am regaled with rationalizations so tortuous as to be entertaining. Not long ago, this occurred with respect to president Obama’s Middle East policy.

The president, in the words of many analysts, had thrown Israel under the bus. Instead of defending our traditional ally from encroachments by its neighbors, he opined that it was necessary to negotiate a peace based on a reversion to pre-1967 borders. Some land swaps might be necessary, but the Palestinians deserved a contiguous state of their own.

The reaction to this suggestion was immediate. Obama claimed it had been standard American policy for decades, but most observers sympathetic to Israel begged to differ. They asserted that his proposal would rob the Jewish state of its bargaining chips. In coming squarely down on the Palestinian side, it put an American thumb on their end of the scale.

So obvious did this seem to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he told Obama, to his face, the 1967 lines were a non-starter. Israel would never agree to them, nor accept a “right of return.” Netanyahu insisted that allowing the grandchildren of Palestinian refugees to settle within Israel’s borders was tantamount to demographic suicide. Nor was he going to negotiate with Hamas. This, he said, would be like the United States negotiating with al Qaeda.

After these two performances, the commentators wondered aloud about the effect on the Jewish vote. Would ordinary Jewish voters conclude their favorite president betrayed Israel? Would they be deeply upset by his going back on his word to defend this tiny nation?

Obama’s supporters need not have worried. His political allies remained determined to be his allies. They did not hear what his opponents did. To the contrary, this time they heard the president reiterate his support for the Jewish state. Because he asserted that its security must be sacrosanct, they concluded his commitment to Israel continued intact.

One of the president’s defenders was especially ardent in her support. The president, she explained, only seemed to sacrifice Israeli interests. What he had really done was set the stage for Netanyahu’s passionate defense of his country. In forcing the Israeli leader to be eloquent, he actually strengthened American commitments.

Incredibly, according to this commentator, Obama is so smart that he habitually thinks three or four steps ahead of the rest of us. Others might not have anticipated the consequence of putting Netanyahu into a box, but he had. This indeed was his purpose. The goal was not to give the Palestinians what they want, but to buttress Israel’s position by making its vulnerability obvious.

Other Obama allies have previously described him as “leading from behind,” but here he was supposedly far ahead of the pack. In fact, the point is that whatever the president says his allies interpret as brilliant. Because he is always right, they only have to explain why.

In this, they have the president’s assistance. Those who pay attention to his speeches are aware that he provides ammunition for multiple interpretations. Thus, he tells us he wants to cut the budget while simultaneously arguing we must spend more. Or he says his medical program will bend the cost curve down at the same time he promises greater services.

With respect to Israel he was merely following his standard routine. On the one hand he proposed policies that would lead to the nation’s demise, while on the other he guaranteed its protection. As is his wont, he had it both ways. Well practiced in speaking out of both sides of his mouth, he is especially fortunate that his allies hear only the side with which they agree.

Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Do as I Do, Not as I Say

Rick Santorum has made an interesting choice. He has decided to focus his presidential campaign on social issues. In this way he hopes to distinguish himself from the other Republican candidates. For the moment, he seems to have decided to woo conservative voters by championing the traditional family.

This is a brave, useful, but puzzling decision. Our economic and budgetary difficulties are so severe that they demand immediate attention. In some ways, he is like a man teetering at the edge of a cliff and worrying that the temperature is dropping. Yes, if he doesn’t get a coat he may freeze to death, but before that occurs he may plunge to his demise if he doesn’t step back from the brink.

Nevertheless, I sympathize with Santorum. The condition of marriage in the United States is indeed perilous. Family life has become so unstable that we are liable to pay a dreadful penalty down the road—including economically. Spouses, their children, and the general public are all likely live more impoverished lives unless something is done.

Nevertheless, a vital piece of information is overlooked in discussions about what to do. Santorum recommends a return to the long-established family as buttressed by religion. No doubt this will work for some people, but probably not the ones most in need of greater constancy.

As almost everyone knows, approximately half of all marriages today end in divorce. Most also know that cohabitation and unwed pregnancies are on the rise. What is less well known is that there are dramatic social class differences hidden in the official statistics.

It turns out that upper middle class unions are still relatively durable. Their divorce rate is in the low twentieth percentiles. This means that for the under-classes the rate of break up is three or four times as great. In other words, the folks least able to defend themselves against divorce are its most probable victims.

But there is another irony here. Members of the upper middle class, because they tend to be well educated, are apt to champion marital “diversity.” This is an odd locution, but it essentially signifies that all sorts of personal alliances are on a par. Marriage is fine, but so are cohabitation, unwed pregnancy, gay marriage, and maybe even swinging. Whatever feels right is best for whomever feels it.

This sort of non-judgmentalism sounds tolerant, but is actually quite biased. It effectively condemns the poor and their young to misery. When those who are better off stand back and tell those lower in the pecking order that it is okay to do whatever they desire, they are not showing compassion, but the reverse.

Members of the upper middle class don’t instruct their own children to do whatever feels right. To the contrary, they encourage them to stay in school and then get a good job before they settle down. Moreover, their children listen. Nowadays their daughters are marring at 26 and their sons at 28.

This means that the children of the middle class become adults before they tie the knot. As a result, they make better choices when picking a spouse. They are also better equipped to resolve the inevitable differences that arise in intimate relationships. In the end, this makes it more likely that they will remain married. This is good for them, and also their children.

The poor, in contrast, follow their hearts, not their heads. If young women want to be mothers, they allow themselves to get pregnant whether or not the father is a good candidate for a committed husband. Or is they are in a relationship, they do not know how to keep their arguments from growing violent.

Where once society disapproved of this sort of conduct, negative judgments are today frowned on as adding an unnecessary burden to those already overburdened. Better just to allow people to do as they please.

So let me offer a recommendation. The poor should do as the upper middle classes do, not as they say. We as a society must make it plain that personal responsibility and maturity pay off in happier and more fulfilled lives. Consequently, the poor should emulate those who are more successful. But this means imitating their behavior, rather than heeding their words.

Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Learning from Our Mistakes

When I was about six year old, I watched as my father and grandfather worked on a carpentry project. Eager to join them, I badgered my dad for a chance to cut a piece of wood. Eventually he decided to placate me by putting a straight saw in my hands. I immediately set to work, but failed miserably because every time I attempted to make a down stroke, the saw bent.

In short order, my father pushed me aside and finished the cut himself. His philosophy was that if you have a job to do, you should do it right from the outset. He did not have the patience to tolerate mistakes, nor would he instruct me on a skill I was already supposed to possess.

What my father did not understand is that we can—and should— learn from our mistakes. Whenever we enter new territory, we must be prepared for potential errors, and equally prepared to correct them. If we are, we can expand our repertoires and do more than we were originally able to manage.

Today, we as a society are entering new territory. Never has a nation been as rich or complex as ours. But never before has our government been so over-extended. By now, anyone who has been paying attention to current events knows that we have largest budget deficits ever in our peacetime history—and that these promise to grow larger.

In previous columns, I have argued that our president and the candidates to replace him must learn from their mistakes. I have contended that Barack Obama would be wise to acknowledge the errors of the Great Depression so that he does not lengthen our economic downturn. I have also suggested that Mitt Romney must accept the fact that Romneycare was a mistake so that he can develop more appropriate health care policies.

But now I wish to propose that this attitude applies to the public as well. In a democracy, important changes do not occur unless there is a rough consensus has to what should happen. Unless people are prepared to move in a similar direction, our system of checks and balances is such that paralysis results.

Today we are facing an enormous crisis. In little more than a decade the interest that we must pay on the loans we have made will be so costly as to swallow up the rest of our national budget. Likewise, the amount of money we are committed to spend on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is so vast that the bill will be greater than our gross national product.

Rahm Emanuel advised that a crisis should never be allowed to go to waste. He hoped to pass Democratic reforms by scaring voters into accepting them. But a crisis is an ineffectual motivator if it is not perceived as a crisis. People who are convinced that things are not terribly bad are liable to keep kicking the can down the road in the expectation that what seems like a dilemma will eventually disappear.

Only the current budgetary problem won’t go away. Sadly, it is destined to grow worse—much worse. Overspending has become a social mistake of epic proportions. Not long ago, we collectively imagined that we were rich enough to afford any government program we desired, but time has revealed we were not.

As I said above, we need to learn from our mistakes. Then, once we have recognized an error, we can fix what is broken. But this presupposes that we are prepared to admit we were mistaken. If we are not, we are liable to do nothing.

The question then becomes how bad must things get before we are ready to be honest about our blunders. In the case of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, for many people the answer is: Not yet. So entitled do they feel to their benefits that they cannot admit these will disappear unless something is done.

But this is more than a mistake. It is a disaster in the making. We cannot wait for Armageddon to arrive before fixing what is broken. No longer can we treat this as a political football in the optimistic expectation that what we refuse to see cannot hurt us.

Most of us are not children. Certainly those of us who can vote are not. Consequently, it is time that we stop acting as if we were. Let us not wait until our mistakes are so great they cannot be rectified.

Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Some Unsolicited Advice for Mitt Romney

It is not too early to begin thinking about the next presidential election. Indeed, by most accounts Barack Obama has already launched his campaign for reelection. But since he has started making speeches aimed at laying the groundwork for the coming battle, it is time for potential Republican aspirants to ramp up their efforts too.

One of those who has been making candidate-like sounds is Mitt Romney. As a finalist in the 2008 Republican primaries, he is being touted as a front-runner this time around as well. Nonetheless, he is often described as having an albatross around his neck. And that albatross has been dubbed “Romneycare.”

While governor of Massachusetts, Romney sponsored a comprehensive health care system for his state. At the time, he was proud of this accomplishment, but given the sweeping dimensions of president Obama’s own health care legislation, Romney has sought to distance himself from “Obamacare.”

Clearly Romney has an interest in not being perceived as in favor of bankrupting the nation or in facilitating a federal take-over of medical treatment. Unfortunately, so far the governor’s efforts to achieve this end have not been very persuasive. Most people find his arguments too confusing to draw a sharp distinction.

I therefore offer a modest proposal. Instead of insisting that what he sponsored was significantly different from nationalized health care, Romney should boldly proclaim that he made a mistake. He should admit that the costs were greater than calculated and the administrative intrusion more disruptive.

Needless to say, politicians are loath to admit errors. (Obama certainly is.) Those who run for office know that mistakes are usually perceived as evidence of incompetence and thus must be avoided like the plague. So how can Romney get around this dilemma? This is tricky, but I think doable.

What the ex-governor ought to say is a corollary of something he has previously asserted. He can argue that the states should, in fact, be the laboratories of political experimentation. They ought to be where new ideas are tried out before going national. Then if they don’t work, the country as a whole can be spared the consequent pain.

On these grounds Romneycare can be written off as a failed trial of an idea that looked good on paper. Then he can represent himself as a man who learns from experience. Whereas his Democratic rival refuses to admit his stimulus plan did not work and thus continues to promote destructive over-spending, he, Romney, benefits from experience. As a former businessman, he, unlike Obama, is flexible enough to modify his strategies so that he—and the nation—do not go bankrupt.

But there is something more that Romney must do. He has to offer a specific alternative to Obamacare; one that does not have the faintest odor of an arrogant government takeover. Rather, it must be based on market principles and allow people to make choices the president’s plan does not. –And oh, it cannot increase the national debt.

Romney must do this because if he does not, people will suspect that he might backslide. As a result, he needs to draw a firm line in the sand. He cannot afford to be wishy-washy or open to interpretation lest he seem a clone of the man he is attempting to unseat.

This said, I am not endorsing Romney for president. While I believe that he is a strong candidate and would do an infinitely better job than the incumbent, the Republican party boasts other viable possibilities (Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty immediately spring to mind), it would be regrettable if he were discounted because an earlier effort at leadership misfired. Stalwart leaders are hard to come by; hence those who have otherwise done well should not be excluded because they are human.

And besides, I believe in honesty. As a consequence, if Romney displays this quality, he will have me as a friend. But more than this, if he can demonstrate candor in the face of potential adversity, he will have provided the nation with a lesson not unlike one provided two centuries ago by George Washington.

Is that too much to hope for?

Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University