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