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