I like Bill O’Reilly, but he can sometimes be foolish. At the moment, he has been waging a campaign against what he calls “the war on Christmas.” And while I sympathize with his motives, his arguments occasionally veer off track.
For instance, Bill has been saying that Christianity is a “philosophy.” To be sure, he admits it is a religion, but then he points to Thomas Jefferson as an example of someone for whom he claims it was a philosophy.
This, however, is sophistry. Christianity has dominated Western religious thought for nearly two millennia. As such, it has influenced many philosophers. But that does not convert the religion into a political philosophy. As for Jefferson, he was a deist who would surely admit that his governmental ideas were molded by Judeo-Christian virtues.
Nor need we in the United States be ashamed to admit our specifically Christian roots. I am not a Christian, but I honor the Christian convictions of many of our Founders precisely because these served to shape important values built into our Constitution.
Which brings me back to Christmas. Recently I was on a radio program where the host asked me how I felt about Christmas. My unhesitating response was that I love Christmas. Indeed, I have always loved Christmas—ever since I was a small boy.
You see, Christmas is a religious holiday, but it is also a secular holiday. This may sound like a contradiction, yet it is not. The holiday that we know clearly honors the birth of Jesus Christ. This does not, however, prevent it from celebrating the winter solstice or our joint humanity.
As many readers know, the Christmas tree tradition goes back to pagan times. The evergreen was, and is, a symbol that life endures even when winter has the world in its icy grip. All those decorations we add have nothing to do with Christianity per se, except to associate the religion with a miraculous birth—one many believe redeemed humankind.
And as for Santa Claus, growing up in Brooklyn I had no idea that “Santa” was another way of saying, “saint.” Actually I also knew he was called “Saint Nicholas,” but this suggested no religions connotations to me. He was simply a jolly old man who brought presents to good little boys and girls.
No, Christmas is an American tradition, not just a Christian one. Nonetheless, some people think that “tradition” is a bad thing. They associate it with slavery and the Inquisition. These people are right to believe that some customs should be jettisoned, but they are wrong to think all deserve to be.
Not long ago, my wife and I attended “Dear Santa” a chorus presented by the KSU University and Alumni Choir. It was beautiful; so beautiful that my eyes watered over. Moreover, some of the songs, like Silver Bells, were secular, while others, such as Silent Night, were religiously oriented.
Why, I ask, should I, or others, be denied this pleasure? Why, because some of this music is derived from a religious tradition, should I have to forego the emotional resonance built into compositions by men and women who were motivated by spiritual sentiments?
The same logic applies to Christmas trees, Christmas lights, and Christmas presents. Were these forced on me, I might object. But they are not forced on me, even when promoted by government entities. The fact that there is a manger scene in the public square in no way impinges on my freedom to believe what I wish.
So, to repeat myself, I love the Christmas traditions. They may sometimes be overdone, but I have even come to enjoy the commercialization of Christmas. These practices represent a communal coming together that benefits us all—if for no other reason than they promote “good will toward man (and woman).”
Hence I say “Merry Christmas to all,” and please feel free to wish me the same.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Landslide Lyndon...er, Obama
When Lyndon Johnson won election to the presidency on his own, he obtained the landslide victory he had been denied the first time he was elected to congress. This provided him the mandate to pass the voting rights and poverty legislation that had only been proposed during the Kennedy administration.
Barack Obama seems to imagine that he has acquired an equally decisive mandate with his election to a second term. Although his margin of victory over Mitt Romney was less than that over John McCain, he appears to have decided this is enough to steamroller the Republicans.
With little over a two percent surplus and entire sections of the nation (most notably the entire south) aligned against him, he has nonetheless concluded he was authorized to transform the country.
Already it is clear that those observers who thought his reelection would have a salutary effect on our chief executive have been proven wrong. Barack is not about to become an evenhanded statesman.
Right from the opening bell, our president seems determined to demonstrate his lack of moderation. This is odd, because didn’t he, in fact, spend the better part of a year advocating a “balanced approach” to tackling the deficit; one in line with what the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommended?
Yet, as I recall, its leaders advocated a three-to-one ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. Now our president is demanding, not asking for, a three-to-one ratio the other way. And, oh by the way, he refuses to be specific about what spending cuts—if any—he would approve.
His number one non-negotiable demand, of course, is to raise taxes on the upper two percent of income earners. This is defended as a necessary step toward fiscal “fairness.” It is also endorsed as an essential tool in lowering the national deficit.
But let us look at the real possibilities. On the one hand, if income tax rates go up on those earning over 250 thousand a year, it is unlikely that revenues will increase very much. Indeed, if history is a guide, they may actually decrease. In this case, the deficit will not be reduced one whit.
On the other hand, if revenues do increase substantially, this will largely be at the expense of small business owners. In this case, hiring will be adversely affected and the unemployment rate will rise. We might even enter a renewed recession.
So what should Republicans do? Should they attempt to prevent what they have good reason to believe is bad public policy; then get the political blame for their principled stand. Or should they let the president own the consequences of his over-reaching?
In either case, with our national debt still soaring, after thirty short years, one hundred percent of the federal budget will go entirely for interest payments. My twenty something KSU students, i.e., the one’s who will be most hurt by such a development, think this is a long way off, but it is not.
Barack Obama keeps kicking the deficit disaster down the road, perhaps in the hope this will force our country to adopt his collectivist solutions. Nevertheless, the end result will probably be domestic poverty and international impotence.
Perhaps Obama is actually a reincarnation of France’s king Louis XV. This monarch was the one who allegedly said “après moi le deluge.” After all, Barack knows that in four more years whatever problems he creates will be someone else’s responsibility.
He may even be hoping that the rescue operation is assigned to Republicans who will then bare the onus for the medicine they administer. The immediate question, however, is should the Republicans accept the current blame. Or should they stand back as Obama mistakenly implements policies for which he does not have the authority he thinks he has?
In any event, batten down the hatches. A harsh wind is blowing out of Washington; one that may flatten many houses before it subsides.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Barack Obama seems to imagine that he has acquired an equally decisive mandate with his election to a second term. Although his margin of victory over Mitt Romney was less than that over John McCain, he appears to have decided this is enough to steamroller the Republicans.
With little over a two percent surplus and entire sections of the nation (most notably the entire south) aligned against him, he has nonetheless concluded he was authorized to transform the country.
Already it is clear that those observers who thought his reelection would have a salutary effect on our chief executive have been proven wrong. Barack is not about to become an evenhanded statesman.
Right from the opening bell, our president seems determined to demonstrate his lack of moderation. This is odd, because didn’t he, in fact, spend the better part of a year advocating a “balanced approach” to tackling the deficit; one in line with what the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommended?
Yet, as I recall, its leaders advocated a three-to-one ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. Now our president is demanding, not asking for, a three-to-one ratio the other way. And, oh by the way, he refuses to be specific about what spending cuts—if any—he would approve.
His number one non-negotiable demand, of course, is to raise taxes on the upper two percent of income earners. This is defended as a necessary step toward fiscal “fairness.” It is also endorsed as an essential tool in lowering the national deficit.
But let us look at the real possibilities. On the one hand, if income tax rates go up on those earning over 250 thousand a year, it is unlikely that revenues will increase very much. Indeed, if history is a guide, they may actually decrease. In this case, the deficit will not be reduced one whit.
On the other hand, if revenues do increase substantially, this will largely be at the expense of small business owners. In this case, hiring will be adversely affected and the unemployment rate will rise. We might even enter a renewed recession.
So what should Republicans do? Should they attempt to prevent what they have good reason to believe is bad public policy; then get the political blame for their principled stand. Or should they let the president own the consequences of his over-reaching?
In either case, with our national debt still soaring, after thirty short years, one hundred percent of the federal budget will go entirely for interest payments. My twenty something KSU students, i.e., the one’s who will be most hurt by such a development, think this is a long way off, but it is not.
Barack Obama keeps kicking the deficit disaster down the road, perhaps in the hope this will force our country to adopt his collectivist solutions. Nevertheless, the end result will probably be domestic poverty and international impotence.
Perhaps Obama is actually a reincarnation of France’s king Louis XV. This monarch was the one who allegedly said “après moi le deluge.” After all, Barack knows that in four more years whatever problems he creates will be someone else’s responsibility.
He may even be hoping that the rescue operation is assigned to Republicans who will then bare the onus for the medicine they administer. The immediate question, however, is should the Republicans accept the current blame. Or should they stand back as Obama mistakenly implements policies for which he does not have the authority he thinks he has?
In any event, batten down the hatches. A harsh wind is blowing out of Washington; one that may flatten many houses before it subsides.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, December 15, 2012
A Ring of Fire
Two weeks ago when I implied that Islam might not be a religion of peace, I agitated a hornet’s nest. More than one reader came to the conclusion that I was a narrow-minded bigot. After all, only a mean-spirited racist could suggest any such thing.
Nevertheless, this is a serious question. With Israel again under violent assault, with Egypt being torn asunder by ferocious street demonstrations, and with Syrians killing tens of thousands of their own, is there something about Islam that encourages this belligerence?
Over a decade ago the late political scientist Samuel Huntington observed that there was a ring of fire surrounding Islamic lands. He noted that almost everywhere Muslim territories abutted non-Muslim ones there were violent clashes.
Today this remains true. Not just Israel, but places as far removed as West Africa and the Philippines have witnessed Muslims killing non-Muslims in the name of their religion. Indeed, the list is long one.
We can begin with Nigeria where Muslims have been burning the churches and massacring the inhabitants of Christian towns. Then we can move north to Egypt where the Coptic Christians are under attack by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood.
If we travel even further north, we encounter the Chechnyan’s engaged in guerrilla warfare against the Russians. Now heading east we find the Chinese periodically needing to suppress the ambitions of Sinkiang Muslims. Turning south, the Pakistanis continue to harbor terrorists who intermittently cross to the border to slaughter the hated Indians.
Resuming our journey east, we discover Thai Muslims at violent odds with their central government and Mindanao Muslims defying the Christian rulers of their Island nation. Even the Indonesians have had their quarrels with the Portuguese and Australians.
Nor have I yet mentioned the Iranians who seem eager to destroy the power of the United States or Osama bin Laden of al Qaeda who wanted to re-conquer Spain and the Balkans in order to restore the Muslim Caliphate to its former glory.
It may be noted here that the enemies of Islam include not just Christians and Jews, but also Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists. Simply refusing to acknowledge the supremacy of Mohamed seems ample pretext for Jihad.
It may, of course, be argued that Christianity too has sponsored violence. And it certainly has. The Catholic Church organized crusades and inquisitions, while Catholics and Protestants butchered each other in holy wars. The difference is that that was hundreds of years ago. Modern Christianity has no such impulses.
Many Islamic lands, in contrast, are currently mired in a medieval mentality. They do not promote religious tolerance, but instead call Jews monkeys who must be killed on sight and condemn Muslim apostates to death for the sin of changing religion.
Then too there are all of those suicide bombers who cheerfully tear their own bodies to shreds on the promise that they will be rewarded with eternal glory in heaven. Yes, some Buddhists have been known to immolate themselves for religious causes, but they are few and far between.
With all this said, it must be acknowledged that many Muslims are peace loving people. Many tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, of them are not about to become bomb-throwing jihadists. The religion to which they subscribe can be, and for many is, a force for kindness and understanding.
But what is possible is not necessarily customary. Christianity evolved from belligerence to tolerance. So can Islam. But to argue that it has already done so is to ignore the evidence. There have been too many conflicts, in too many places, to conclude that the religion has nothing to do with them.
If Islam is to become a modern tolerant faith, we must stop fooling ourselves. Most Muslims are fundamentally decent human beings, but that does not mean their religion advances the same tenets as held by most Westerners. It is especially imperative that modern-minded Muslims participate in encouraging the necessary changes in attitude.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Nevertheless, this is a serious question. With Israel again under violent assault, with Egypt being torn asunder by ferocious street demonstrations, and with Syrians killing tens of thousands of their own, is there something about Islam that encourages this belligerence?
Over a decade ago the late political scientist Samuel Huntington observed that there was a ring of fire surrounding Islamic lands. He noted that almost everywhere Muslim territories abutted non-Muslim ones there were violent clashes.
Today this remains true. Not just Israel, but places as far removed as West Africa and the Philippines have witnessed Muslims killing non-Muslims in the name of their religion. Indeed, the list is long one.
We can begin with Nigeria where Muslims have been burning the churches and massacring the inhabitants of Christian towns. Then we can move north to Egypt where the Coptic Christians are under attack by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood.
If we travel even further north, we encounter the Chechnyan’s engaged in guerrilla warfare against the Russians. Now heading east we find the Chinese periodically needing to suppress the ambitions of Sinkiang Muslims. Turning south, the Pakistanis continue to harbor terrorists who intermittently cross to the border to slaughter the hated Indians.
Resuming our journey east, we discover Thai Muslims at violent odds with their central government and Mindanao Muslims defying the Christian rulers of their Island nation. Even the Indonesians have had their quarrels with the Portuguese and Australians.
Nor have I yet mentioned the Iranians who seem eager to destroy the power of the United States or Osama bin Laden of al Qaeda who wanted to re-conquer Spain and the Balkans in order to restore the Muslim Caliphate to its former glory.
It may be noted here that the enemies of Islam include not just Christians and Jews, but also Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists. Simply refusing to acknowledge the supremacy of Mohamed seems ample pretext for Jihad.
It may, of course, be argued that Christianity too has sponsored violence. And it certainly has. The Catholic Church organized crusades and inquisitions, while Catholics and Protestants butchered each other in holy wars. The difference is that that was hundreds of years ago. Modern Christianity has no such impulses.
Many Islamic lands, in contrast, are currently mired in a medieval mentality. They do not promote religious tolerance, but instead call Jews monkeys who must be killed on sight and condemn Muslim apostates to death for the sin of changing religion.
Then too there are all of those suicide bombers who cheerfully tear their own bodies to shreds on the promise that they will be rewarded with eternal glory in heaven. Yes, some Buddhists have been known to immolate themselves for religious causes, but they are few and far between.
With all this said, it must be acknowledged that many Muslims are peace loving people. Many tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, of them are not about to become bomb-throwing jihadists. The religion to which they subscribe can be, and for many is, a force for kindness and understanding.
But what is possible is not necessarily customary. Christianity evolved from belligerence to tolerance. So can Islam. But to argue that it has already done so is to ignore the evidence. There have been too many conflicts, in too many places, to conclude that the religion has nothing to do with them.
If Islam is to become a modern tolerant faith, we must stop fooling ourselves. Most Muslims are fundamentally decent human beings, but that does not mean their religion advances the same tenets as held by most Westerners. It is especially imperative that modern-minded Muslims participate in encouraging the necessary changes in attitude.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Do We Need a Secular Great Awakening?
I cannot tell you how many times I have heard it. By now it is so many that I have lost count.
Nonetheless almost every time the subject of politics comes us, some student tells me that all politicians lie. Then someone else generally adds, “Everyone lies and everyone cheats.” At this, I am inevitably confronted with a chorus of nodding heads.
Today’s young adults are remarkably cynical. Their convention wisdom has it that almost no one can be trusted. Even when they get caught cheating, they brazenly defend themselves by asserting that this is what everyone does. It is merely the sensible way of getting ahead.
Of course, when I was younger dishonesty was also a problem. Indeed, Billy Joel wrote a song bemoaning the fact that honesty is hardly ever found. Nowadays, however, the acceptance of dishonesty has grown to epic proportions. Just how widespread was demonstrated in the recent election.
Even so, no large-scale society can survive if its members cannot trust one another. Strangers must bestow confidence on those upon whose services they depend lest they perish in their separate hovels.
Once trust becomes problematic, we get the turmoil currently on display in the Middle East. People turn on one another so violently that the only persons they can rely on are members of their own families. They certainly cannot trust politicians.
The United States has largely been spared this fate. With the massive exception of the Civil War and its aftermath, Americans have believed in the dependability of their fellow Americans.
Much of this owes to several historic crusades. Although most contemporaries are unaware of them, the first two Great Awakenings shaped the moral landscape of our nation. Taking place in the eighteenth and ninetieth centuries, these religious revivals encouraged personal rectitude. –And they succeeded.
The first Great Awakening introduced Methodism to America and with it came calls for people to live honest lives. The second Great Awakening reaffirmed this commitment, but also sparked the temperance, suffrage, and abolitionist movements. Evangelists literally crisscrossed the country preaching these virtues to huge crowds.
Today, however, the fires of religious enthusiasm have been banked. Like it or not, we have become a secular nation. This too was demonstrated in the recent election. It revealed that the evangelicals were neither as numerous nor as enthusiastic as necessary to elect the person they favored.
This secular trend is also visible in my Kennesaw State University classrooms. Even though the school is in the heart of what used to be called The Bible Belt, when I ask students how many of them are Protestants, no more than two or three claim they are.
Asked, however, if any are Baptists or Methodists, now the hands go up. In other words, these Protestants do not realize they are Protestants. Nor are they cognizant of the particular dogmas of their denominations. While they typically believe in God, their faith is diffuse and not very deep.
If this is correct, then a new religious revival cannot be expected to generate the same results as the earlier exemplars. Yet we may need something similar. Hopefully there are moral principles to which both religious and secular individuals can strive to realize—that is, once reminded of them.
It would also be nice if one of these principles were honesty. Over the last several days I have been speaking to liberals and conservatives alike about our current impasse. While they don’t agree on much, one of the things that unites them is a recognition of how dishonest our public discourse has become.
Naturally, fervent partisans view the truth differently. Still, there are truths out there upon which most of us can agree if we have the integrity, and the diligence, to examine things as they are—not merely as we would like them to be. Yes, the truth can hurt, but falsehoods hurt even more.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Nonetheless almost every time the subject of politics comes us, some student tells me that all politicians lie. Then someone else generally adds, “Everyone lies and everyone cheats.” At this, I am inevitably confronted with a chorus of nodding heads.
Today’s young adults are remarkably cynical. Their convention wisdom has it that almost no one can be trusted. Even when they get caught cheating, they brazenly defend themselves by asserting that this is what everyone does. It is merely the sensible way of getting ahead.
Of course, when I was younger dishonesty was also a problem. Indeed, Billy Joel wrote a song bemoaning the fact that honesty is hardly ever found. Nowadays, however, the acceptance of dishonesty has grown to epic proportions. Just how widespread was demonstrated in the recent election.
Even so, no large-scale society can survive if its members cannot trust one another. Strangers must bestow confidence on those upon whose services they depend lest they perish in their separate hovels.
Once trust becomes problematic, we get the turmoil currently on display in the Middle East. People turn on one another so violently that the only persons they can rely on are members of their own families. They certainly cannot trust politicians.
The United States has largely been spared this fate. With the massive exception of the Civil War and its aftermath, Americans have believed in the dependability of their fellow Americans.
Much of this owes to several historic crusades. Although most contemporaries are unaware of them, the first two Great Awakenings shaped the moral landscape of our nation. Taking place in the eighteenth and ninetieth centuries, these religious revivals encouraged personal rectitude. –And they succeeded.
The first Great Awakening introduced Methodism to America and with it came calls for people to live honest lives. The second Great Awakening reaffirmed this commitment, but also sparked the temperance, suffrage, and abolitionist movements. Evangelists literally crisscrossed the country preaching these virtues to huge crowds.
Today, however, the fires of religious enthusiasm have been banked. Like it or not, we have become a secular nation. This too was demonstrated in the recent election. It revealed that the evangelicals were neither as numerous nor as enthusiastic as necessary to elect the person they favored.
This secular trend is also visible in my Kennesaw State University classrooms. Even though the school is in the heart of what used to be called The Bible Belt, when I ask students how many of them are Protestants, no more than two or three claim they are.
Asked, however, if any are Baptists or Methodists, now the hands go up. In other words, these Protestants do not realize they are Protestants. Nor are they cognizant of the particular dogmas of their denominations. While they typically believe in God, their faith is diffuse and not very deep.
If this is correct, then a new religious revival cannot be expected to generate the same results as the earlier exemplars. Yet we may need something similar. Hopefully there are moral principles to which both religious and secular individuals can strive to realize—that is, once reminded of them.
It would also be nice if one of these principles were honesty. Over the last several days I have been speaking to liberals and conservatives alike about our current impasse. While they don’t agree on much, one of the things that unites them is a recognition of how dishonest our public discourse has become.
Naturally, fervent partisans view the truth differently. Still, there are truths out there upon which most of us can agree if we have the integrity, and the diligence, to examine things as they are—not merely as we would like them to be. Yes, the truth can hurt, but falsehoods hurt even more.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Is Barack Obama a Muslim?
A week before the election I participated in a debate at Kennesaw State University where I upheld the Romney side of the argument. This was a great deal of fun until I suggested that Barack Obama felt sympathetic toward Islam and its adherents.
At this, half the audience grew restive. What these people thought they heard me say was that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Now angered by my ignorance and insensitivity, they perceived me as a “birther” who hadn’t the sense to recognize that our president is a Christian.
Barack Obama is indeed a Christian, but that does not preclude his being kindly disposed to Muslims. It must be remembered that his father was a Muslim. To be sure, Barack senior was not very observant; nor was he present to raise his son. Nevertheless his offspring had to be aware of, and respectful to, his father’s religion.
But more than that, Barack’s stepfather was Muslim. So is his sister. In fact, Barack spent many of his formative years in Indonesia associating with Muslims and going to school with them. Indeed, this is where he came to the conclusion that the Muslim morning call to prayer is one of the most beautiful sounds in the world.
Nor did his ostensibly Christian mother or grandparents do much to counteract this influence. While they wanted Barack to identify himself as an American, they were not religious people and hence did not press a Christian point of view upon him.
Is it any wonder then that when he came of college age many of Obama’s closest friends was Pakistanis? He socialized with them, he roomed with them, and he travelled to meet their families in Pakistan. In truth, it was only when he decided that this association would not be good politically that he cut them out of his life.
Christianity did eventually enter Obama’s life-space—but as a calculated decision. Having come to the conclusion that an American Black could not succeed in politics unless he was a Christian, he sought out Black ministers to provide him with a religious education once he moved to Chicago to become a community organizer.
Incidentally, he chose Chicago because it had a Black mayor and therefore appeared to be fertile ground for his ambitions. If this seems cold and calculating, I submit that our president’s political career is replete with evidence of how cold and calculating he can be.
In any event, it was no accident that once in office, he used the bully pulpit to extol the virtues of Islam. He did this in Cairo, in Indonesia, and at the United Nations—where each time he insisted it was a religion of peace. All of this was presumably intended to lessen international tensions, but it was likewise in harmony with his sentiments.
Why does this matter? Why can’t Obama be as approving of Islam as he desires? The answer is that Islamic terrorism remains with us. We have seen it in Benghazi, on the streets of Cairo, and in the violence in Syria. We have especially seen its potential in the nuclear centrifuges of Iran.
Now the Middle East is a tinderbox. Enemies who no longer feel restrained by American power surround Israel. At this point it is difficult to know where events will lead—but a general war is not out of the question.
Meanwhile, on the home front, liberals feel more sympathetic toward the Palestinians than the Israelis. Kim Kardashian discovered this when she tweeted that she was praying for Israel. As a result, she was immediately attacked and instructed that she must pray for the Palestinians instead.
Under these circumstances, where do Barack Obama’s loyalties lie? No doubt, he will be constrained by the political realities of our nation. Nonetheless, what he will do when under fire may be influenced by longstanding patterns of thought and emotion.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
At this, half the audience grew restive. What these people thought they heard me say was that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Now angered by my ignorance and insensitivity, they perceived me as a “birther” who hadn’t the sense to recognize that our president is a Christian.
Barack Obama is indeed a Christian, but that does not preclude his being kindly disposed to Muslims. It must be remembered that his father was a Muslim. To be sure, Barack senior was not very observant; nor was he present to raise his son. Nevertheless his offspring had to be aware of, and respectful to, his father’s religion.
But more than that, Barack’s stepfather was Muslim. So is his sister. In fact, Barack spent many of his formative years in Indonesia associating with Muslims and going to school with them. Indeed, this is where he came to the conclusion that the Muslim morning call to prayer is one of the most beautiful sounds in the world.
Nor did his ostensibly Christian mother or grandparents do much to counteract this influence. While they wanted Barack to identify himself as an American, they were not religious people and hence did not press a Christian point of view upon him.
Is it any wonder then that when he came of college age many of Obama’s closest friends was Pakistanis? He socialized with them, he roomed with them, and he travelled to meet their families in Pakistan. In truth, it was only when he decided that this association would not be good politically that he cut them out of his life.
Christianity did eventually enter Obama’s life-space—but as a calculated decision. Having come to the conclusion that an American Black could not succeed in politics unless he was a Christian, he sought out Black ministers to provide him with a religious education once he moved to Chicago to become a community organizer.
Incidentally, he chose Chicago because it had a Black mayor and therefore appeared to be fertile ground for his ambitions. If this seems cold and calculating, I submit that our president’s political career is replete with evidence of how cold and calculating he can be.
In any event, it was no accident that once in office, he used the bully pulpit to extol the virtues of Islam. He did this in Cairo, in Indonesia, and at the United Nations—where each time he insisted it was a religion of peace. All of this was presumably intended to lessen international tensions, but it was likewise in harmony with his sentiments.
Why does this matter? Why can’t Obama be as approving of Islam as he desires? The answer is that Islamic terrorism remains with us. We have seen it in Benghazi, on the streets of Cairo, and in the violence in Syria. We have especially seen its potential in the nuclear centrifuges of Iran.
Now the Middle East is a tinderbox. Enemies who no longer feel restrained by American power surround Israel. At this point it is difficult to know where events will lead—but a general war is not out of the question.
Meanwhile, on the home front, liberals feel more sympathetic toward the Palestinians than the Israelis. Kim Kardashian discovered this when she tweeted that she was praying for Israel. As a result, she was immediately attacked and instructed that she must pray for the Palestinians instead.
Under these circumstances, where do Barack Obama’s loyalties lie? No doubt, he will be constrained by the political realities of our nation. Nonetheless, what he will do when under fire may be influenced by longstanding patterns of thought and emotion.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Monday, November 26, 2012
Has America Become Decadent?
Once Rome was the glory of the Western World. It created the largest and most prosperous empire Europe has ever seen. But then Rome fell. After centuries of decline, it was over-run by barbarian invaders and so thoroughly dismantled that it took over a millenium for the continent to recover.
For many years, historians contended that the cause of this debacle was “decadence.” They argued that the Roman people had abandoned their moral core and hence were unable to muster the resolve to fend off disaster. Sadly, there is much truth to this verdict.
In the case of Rome, the Republican virtues of steadfastness, patriotism, and honesty were forsaken in favor of luxury and selfishness. Rather than lead the legions to victory, its patricians preferred to recline on couches sipping wine and noshing on peacock’s tongues. Meanwhile, the plebeians were content to live off the dole, biding their time in a haze of free bread and circuses.
The question we must now face is has the United States come to this same pass? Have we too, after a century of political and economic dominance, succumbed to a similarly fatal decadence? The end is not yet upon us, but are the barbarians knocking at a gate that is no longer being defended?
It is certainly true that many Americans no longer subscribe to the values that made our nation great. They—especially the liberals—believe that our democracy is bankrupt and that our market system is inherently unfair. Instead, they would like us to emulate the West Europeans and embrace what they call “social democracy.”
To see what is happening, we need look no further than the last line of our national anthem. It proclaims that America is “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” But is this true? Are we as a people still living up to these values?
Our recent election argues otherwise. Thus, a majority of Americans voted for a president who rarely praises the virtues of liberty. To the contrary, he prefers to fly the standard of “social justice.” By this he means that our federal government has a duty to enforce his version of fairness.
Barack Obama and his supporters believe that the federal government must be our keepers. They are convinced that the rest of us cannot make good decisions unless they (our liberal leaders) guide us in the proper direction. This, of course, translates into ever more regulations and a larger burden of taxes.
The bottom line is that in exchange for safety ordinary citizens are asked cede their personal freedoms. Genuine freedom, it is assumed, inevitably leads to mistakes and unfairness, and therefore cannot be tolerated.
As to demonstrating courage, what greater failure of nerve can there be than voluntarily surrendering one’s right to decide to a bevy of strangers who insincerely claim to have our interests at heart? Free peoples do make mistakes, but they also have the intestinal fortitude to correct these without resorting childish helplessness.
Thankfully our military has not yet gone spineless. The bravery our soldiers and sailors have shown in defense of our liberties has been exemplary. And yet we have an administration intent on hollowing out our armed forces. Yes, there are words in tribute to their heroism, but then comes the budgetary ax.
A truly brave people, a truly free people, would be up in arms at these trends. They would be outraged by the lies they have been told and by the diminution in personal and national power they have suffered.
But no, many Americans are evidently more worried that the federal government has yet to provide them with free contraceptives. Nor were they willing to celebrate the business success of the truly good man who sought to lead them.
Amazingly, citizens who continue to assume that they are the hope of the free world have opted to be led by the nose by a false prophet and his ignoble disciples.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
For many years, historians contended that the cause of this debacle was “decadence.” They argued that the Roman people had abandoned their moral core and hence were unable to muster the resolve to fend off disaster. Sadly, there is much truth to this verdict.
In the case of Rome, the Republican virtues of steadfastness, patriotism, and honesty were forsaken in favor of luxury and selfishness. Rather than lead the legions to victory, its patricians preferred to recline on couches sipping wine and noshing on peacock’s tongues. Meanwhile, the plebeians were content to live off the dole, biding their time in a haze of free bread and circuses.
The question we must now face is has the United States come to this same pass? Have we too, after a century of political and economic dominance, succumbed to a similarly fatal decadence? The end is not yet upon us, but are the barbarians knocking at a gate that is no longer being defended?
It is certainly true that many Americans no longer subscribe to the values that made our nation great. They—especially the liberals—believe that our democracy is bankrupt and that our market system is inherently unfair. Instead, they would like us to emulate the West Europeans and embrace what they call “social democracy.”
To see what is happening, we need look no further than the last line of our national anthem. It proclaims that America is “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” But is this true? Are we as a people still living up to these values?
Our recent election argues otherwise. Thus, a majority of Americans voted for a president who rarely praises the virtues of liberty. To the contrary, he prefers to fly the standard of “social justice.” By this he means that our federal government has a duty to enforce his version of fairness.
Barack Obama and his supporters believe that the federal government must be our keepers. They are convinced that the rest of us cannot make good decisions unless they (our liberal leaders) guide us in the proper direction. This, of course, translates into ever more regulations and a larger burden of taxes.
The bottom line is that in exchange for safety ordinary citizens are asked cede their personal freedoms. Genuine freedom, it is assumed, inevitably leads to mistakes and unfairness, and therefore cannot be tolerated.
As to demonstrating courage, what greater failure of nerve can there be than voluntarily surrendering one’s right to decide to a bevy of strangers who insincerely claim to have our interests at heart? Free peoples do make mistakes, but they also have the intestinal fortitude to correct these without resorting childish helplessness.
Thankfully our military has not yet gone spineless. The bravery our soldiers and sailors have shown in defense of our liberties has been exemplary. And yet we have an administration intent on hollowing out our armed forces. Yes, there are words in tribute to their heroism, but then comes the budgetary ax.
A truly brave people, a truly free people, would be up in arms at these trends. They would be outraged by the lies they have been told and by the diminution in personal and national power they have suffered.
But no, many Americans are evidently more worried that the federal government has yet to provide them with free contraceptives. Nor were they willing to celebrate the business success of the truly good man who sought to lead them.
Amazingly, citizens who continue to assume that they are the hope of the free world have opted to be led by the nose by a false prophet and his ignoble disciples.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Fighting the Good Fight
In his biography, My American Journey, Gen. Colin Powell tells us that a leader must go out and fight the dragon every day. He then adds and “sometimes the dragon wins.” Well, the dragon won Tuesday last.
Millions of Romney/Ryan supporters watched helplessly as millions of their fellow citizens—most, no doubt, well-intentioned—tore the moral heart out of our shared nation. When the dust settled, the dragon of unrepentant Liberalism had been provided another four years in which to trample over our lives, liberties and sacred honor.
My heart was broken as I witnessed the most sleazy, dishonest, and mean-spirited political campaign (since the drubbing of Barry Goldwater) prevail over decency and competence. The voters had been cheated, mislead, and manipulated; nevertheless many of them opted for ideological purity over common sense.
Now there will be hell to pay. Foolishness and naiveté have consequences. I know this sounds like sour grapes, but I am willing to go on record and predict another four years of economic stagnation, punctuated by a renewed recession, and diplomatic weakness, perhaps interrupted by a Middle-Eastern Holocaust.
The evidence that Barack Obama and his minions have misgoverned this nation has long been visible to those willing to open their eyes. Many, however, evidently preferred to be lulled into an ideological siesta. For them, unpleasant truths have no allure; hence these are driven from consciousness.
But that is no reason for those of us who care about the future to give up the fight. Yes, we have sustained a devastating setback, but no, it is not fatal. One thing I have learned in the course of living many decades is that, as Powell implies, loses are part of life. They must be endured, and, if at all possible, reversed; that is, if one is to maintain one’s integrity.
Nonetheless, it must also be acknowledged that victory is never ensured. However worthy a cause, it may not triumph. But that does not mean that we should give up. Moral uprightness and an allegiance to the truth matter. They are so important that a bloody nose sustained in their defense is worth the pain.
So how long will the fight go on? How long will Liberalism be allowed to grind our shared fate into the dust? No one can be sure, but some crucial struggles have persisted for centuries. Unfortunately, this means that many of us will never witness the conclusion.
In the meantime, the battle must be joined. There are many more clashes ahead and if they are to be won, they must be entered with a clear head and a firm resolve. This is no time for recriminations or Monday morning quarterbacking. Rather, it is a time for planning and organizing.
As I am sure Powell would also acknowledge, if you wish to defeat an enemy, you must know that enemy. It is not enough to cast aspersions on those with whom you disagree. We who have been defeated this time around must understand, and counter, the reasons so many folks were attracted to the other side.
It is also essential to understand our own strengths and weaknesses. Winners do not allow themselves to be deceived by rose-colored glasses. Nor do they over-estimate the comparative resources of their opponents. Instead, winners seek to make the truth their ally.
And so I say to readers who are as disappointed as I: It is time to gird our loins. There is work to be done and tactics to be rethought. The good news is that those who have snatched an unwarranted victory from a hard-fought fight tend to be over-confident. Assured of their superiority, they frequently double-down on their mistakes.
If this is what Obama and his allies are about do, they are sure to alienate many of the people who helped them to victory. What I am hoping—indeed, what I am counting on—is that there remains a reservoir of integrity and sanity in the American public that can be tapped in future contests.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Millions of Romney/Ryan supporters watched helplessly as millions of their fellow citizens—most, no doubt, well-intentioned—tore the moral heart out of our shared nation. When the dust settled, the dragon of unrepentant Liberalism had been provided another four years in which to trample over our lives, liberties and sacred honor.
My heart was broken as I witnessed the most sleazy, dishonest, and mean-spirited political campaign (since the drubbing of Barry Goldwater) prevail over decency and competence. The voters had been cheated, mislead, and manipulated; nevertheless many of them opted for ideological purity over common sense.
Now there will be hell to pay. Foolishness and naiveté have consequences. I know this sounds like sour grapes, but I am willing to go on record and predict another four years of economic stagnation, punctuated by a renewed recession, and diplomatic weakness, perhaps interrupted by a Middle-Eastern Holocaust.
The evidence that Barack Obama and his minions have misgoverned this nation has long been visible to those willing to open their eyes. Many, however, evidently preferred to be lulled into an ideological siesta. For them, unpleasant truths have no allure; hence these are driven from consciousness.
But that is no reason for those of us who care about the future to give up the fight. Yes, we have sustained a devastating setback, but no, it is not fatal. One thing I have learned in the course of living many decades is that, as Powell implies, loses are part of life. They must be endured, and, if at all possible, reversed; that is, if one is to maintain one’s integrity.
Nonetheless, it must also be acknowledged that victory is never ensured. However worthy a cause, it may not triumph. But that does not mean that we should give up. Moral uprightness and an allegiance to the truth matter. They are so important that a bloody nose sustained in their defense is worth the pain.
So how long will the fight go on? How long will Liberalism be allowed to grind our shared fate into the dust? No one can be sure, but some crucial struggles have persisted for centuries. Unfortunately, this means that many of us will never witness the conclusion.
In the meantime, the battle must be joined. There are many more clashes ahead and if they are to be won, they must be entered with a clear head and a firm resolve. This is no time for recriminations or Monday morning quarterbacking. Rather, it is a time for planning and organizing.
As I am sure Powell would also acknowledge, if you wish to defeat an enemy, you must know that enemy. It is not enough to cast aspersions on those with whom you disagree. We who have been defeated this time around must understand, and counter, the reasons so many folks were attracted to the other side.
It is also essential to understand our own strengths and weaknesses. Winners do not allow themselves to be deceived by rose-colored glasses. Nor do they over-estimate the comparative resources of their opponents. Instead, winners seek to make the truth their ally.
And so I say to readers who are as disappointed as I: It is time to gird our loins. There is work to be done and tactics to be rethought. The good news is that those who have snatched an unwarranted victory from a hard-fought fight tend to be over-confident. Assured of their superiority, they frequently double-down on their mistakes.
If this is what Obama and his allies are about do, they are sure to alienate many of the people who helped them to victory. What I am hoping—indeed, what I am counting on—is that there remains a reservoir of integrity and sanity in the American public that can be tapped in future contests.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Political Conservatism: Liberal Style
Last week my wife and I attended a sociological conference in North Georgia. Along the way there we drove past innumerable lawns bedecked in Romney/Ryan signs. When we arrived at our destination, however, the political climate abruptly changed.
As many MDJ readers may know, academics, and especially sociologists, are notoriously liberal. For sociologists, the percentage leaning left is upwards of 95%, whereas for college faculty in general, it hovers between 80 and 90% (depending on how the measurements are taken).
What was different this time around was that enthusiasm for our current president was notably lacking. Most of the participants still intended to vote for Obama, yet no one—not a single soul—attempted to persuade my wife or me that he was superior to Romney.
One of our colleagues epitomized the prevailing attitude. He told a group of us that he had been scandalizing his associates by telling them that he was not going to vote for Obama. He just couldn’t. So whom was he going to support? Why it was the Green Party candidate.
In fact, nobody in our circle was faintly outraged by this. Even those who were strong Obama supporters sympathized his decision. After all they too could not personally imagine voting for a Republican under any circumstances.
As it happened, one of the conference presenters provided survey data on the voting preferences of North Georgians. Her respondents were primarily young—typically college students—but the results confirmed what other researchers have found.
It seems that most people vote as their parents do. This tendency is so robust that they frequently support candidates who do not share their values—that is, as long as they come from the correct party. This is true for both liberals and conservatives, so it is safe to say that in this respect both factions are conservative.
What also came out of the research is that a majority of voters do not follow the campaigns. Most do not know what the candidates represent because they don’t pay attention. They certainly do not engage in fact-checking to determine if what is promised bears any resemblance to what is liable to be delivered.
It turns out that large numbers of people, including otherwise sophisticated professionals, depend on what they think they already know. This was apparent in an exchange I had with a senior colleague. When I suggested that our society needed to move toward greater decentralization, he strongly demurred.
According to my challenger, we need further centralization because the federal government is the most “efficient” provider of social services. Only it, said he, can do the job. When pressed for evidence of this, he swiftly cited the Social Security system.
This reminded me of a conversation I had with another liberal professor several years ago. When asked to identify the chief benefits liberalism provided, he too mentioned Social Security. The other benefit he named was free public education.
The irony here is that these are very old ideas that are both now in deep trouble. Thus, Social Security is running out of money as the population ages and those who are working are unable to contribute enough to keep it solvent. Meanwhile, public education has remained stagnant despite our having more than tripled the resources poured into underwriting it.
These programs have indeed demonstrated their worth, yet the time has come for serious reforms. Nevertheless, most liberals refuse to entertain the idea that modifications are necessary. As symbols of their success, they insist that these remain unchanged.
But what is this other than “conservatism.” Liberals like to describe themselves as “progressives.” Yet this evidently does not mean they are prepared to embrace genuinely novel agendas. Like almost everyone else, they prefer to stand by the familiar and comfortable.
The same applies when they vote. When the time arrives to cast their ballots, most follow the pathways they always have—no matter what they say. This election will be no different.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
As many MDJ readers may know, academics, and especially sociologists, are notoriously liberal. For sociologists, the percentage leaning left is upwards of 95%, whereas for college faculty in general, it hovers between 80 and 90% (depending on how the measurements are taken).
What was different this time around was that enthusiasm for our current president was notably lacking. Most of the participants still intended to vote for Obama, yet no one—not a single soul—attempted to persuade my wife or me that he was superior to Romney.
One of our colleagues epitomized the prevailing attitude. He told a group of us that he had been scandalizing his associates by telling them that he was not going to vote for Obama. He just couldn’t. So whom was he going to support? Why it was the Green Party candidate.
In fact, nobody in our circle was faintly outraged by this. Even those who were strong Obama supporters sympathized his decision. After all they too could not personally imagine voting for a Republican under any circumstances.
As it happened, one of the conference presenters provided survey data on the voting preferences of North Georgians. Her respondents were primarily young—typically college students—but the results confirmed what other researchers have found.
It seems that most people vote as their parents do. This tendency is so robust that they frequently support candidates who do not share their values—that is, as long as they come from the correct party. This is true for both liberals and conservatives, so it is safe to say that in this respect both factions are conservative.
What also came out of the research is that a majority of voters do not follow the campaigns. Most do not know what the candidates represent because they don’t pay attention. They certainly do not engage in fact-checking to determine if what is promised bears any resemblance to what is liable to be delivered.
It turns out that large numbers of people, including otherwise sophisticated professionals, depend on what they think they already know. This was apparent in an exchange I had with a senior colleague. When I suggested that our society needed to move toward greater decentralization, he strongly demurred.
According to my challenger, we need further centralization because the federal government is the most “efficient” provider of social services. Only it, said he, can do the job. When pressed for evidence of this, he swiftly cited the Social Security system.
This reminded me of a conversation I had with another liberal professor several years ago. When asked to identify the chief benefits liberalism provided, he too mentioned Social Security. The other benefit he named was free public education.
The irony here is that these are very old ideas that are both now in deep trouble. Thus, Social Security is running out of money as the population ages and those who are working are unable to contribute enough to keep it solvent. Meanwhile, public education has remained stagnant despite our having more than tripled the resources poured into underwriting it.
These programs have indeed demonstrated their worth, yet the time has come for serious reforms. Nevertheless, most liberals refuse to entertain the idea that modifications are necessary. As symbols of their success, they insist that these remain unchanged.
But what is this other than “conservatism.” Liberals like to describe themselves as “progressives.” Yet this evidently does not mean they are prepared to embrace genuinely novel agendas. Like almost everyone else, they prefer to stand by the familiar and comfortable.
The same applies when they vote. When the time arrives to cast their ballots, most follow the pathways they always have—no matter what they say. This election will be no different.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, November 3, 2012
The Picture of Dorian Gray--Obama Style
Stephanie Cutter, a pivotal member of the Obama campaign team, is an attractive woman. Fresh faced and corn-fed, she appears to have stepped out of a movie extolling the virtues of the American heartland.
But then she opens her mouth and the illusion is shattered. As one of the president’s most visible surrogates, she is routinely required to tell the most egregious untruths—a task she seems to perform with relish. Whether denying that she knew the man who accused Romney of murdering his wife or declaring that Mitt politicized the Benghazi scandal, her words and visage are sharply at odds.
This disconnect is reminiscent of Oscar Wilde’s novel The Picture of Dorian Gray. In the book, Gray is a man so physically handsome that an artist infatuated with his beauty decides to immortalize it for the ages. Dorian then sells his soul on the condition that this portrait age rather than himself.
Subsequent to this, Dorian lives a dissolute life of extreme hedonism. And sure enough, instead of his visage reflecting this gross immorality, the picture ages and becomes grotesque. Only in the end, when he resolves to reform, does he resume his actual exterior. But sadly this occurs after he stabs the portrait in the heart and in the process dies.
Dorian’s story strikes me as being paralleled by the unfolding saga of Barack Obama. Our president is also a physically appealing person who has sold his soul, in his case, for the sake of power. Only rather than seducing and destroying the lives of a string of individual conquests, he has seduced and injured an entire nation.
This, to be sure, is a harsh judgment. But there can be no doubt that Obama’s physical presence has beguiled millions of people. His radiant smile, his easy-going demeanor, and his “cool” persona have convinced many onlookers that he is the very incarnation of what a chief executive should be.
On top of this, Barack is unquestionably intelligent and has the rare gift of giving a compelling speech, despite the fact that what he says is often pedestrian. He can even get away with telling conflicting untruths in the same address because his listeners frequently respond to his spellbinding style rather than his substance.
But now Obama seems to have met his match. Mind you, unlike Dorian Gray, he shows no signs of having decided to reform. To the contrary, he continues to propagate untruths at a rate that beggars all of his predecessors. What has changed, however, is that these have become more visible.
The comparison between Barack and Mitt Romney has been devastating to the president’s image. Standing together, on the same stage, as they have during the debates, has revealed Obama’s shallow, mean-spirited, and dissimulating essence. In other words, his real self is being exposed.
During the debates it has also become clear that Romney is the genuine article. His knows his facts and is an accomplished problem solver who is comfortable in his own skin. Voters may disagree with him, but he is obviously a mature adult who means what he says. In other words, he is someone who can be trusted.
Once a person as intelligent as himself, but someone with actual achievements challenged him, Obama’s carefully crafted façade began to crumble. His honeyed words were unmasked as mere talking points. They might sound good to the uninformed; nevertheless they did not betoken a genuine understanding.
Far from it; they laid bare the sleaziness of the campaign run on his behalf—and with his sanction. Lest it be forgotten, Cutter’s excesses have been a reflection of his wishes.
Where this will end is not yet clear. Obama may still win re-election. But he will never again be seen as a knight in shining armor. His pretense of honesty and competence has been pierced. As a mere mortal, his warts are showing. Indeed, for many, he has begun to look ugly.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
But then she opens her mouth and the illusion is shattered. As one of the president’s most visible surrogates, she is routinely required to tell the most egregious untruths—a task she seems to perform with relish. Whether denying that she knew the man who accused Romney of murdering his wife or declaring that Mitt politicized the Benghazi scandal, her words and visage are sharply at odds.
This disconnect is reminiscent of Oscar Wilde’s novel The Picture of Dorian Gray. In the book, Gray is a man so physically handsome that an artist infatuated with his beauty decides to immortalize it for the ages. Dorian then sells his soul on the condition that this portrait age rather than himself.
Subsequent to this, Dorian lives a dissolute life of extreme hedonism. And sure enough, instead of his visage reflecting this gross immorality, the picture ages and becomes grotesque. Only in the end, when he resolves to reform, does he resume his actual exterior. But sadly this occurs after he stabs the portrait in the heart and in the process dies.
Dorian’s story strikes me as being paralleled by the unfolding saga of Barack Obama. Our president is also a physically appealing person who has sold his soul, in his case, for the sake of power. Only rather than seducing and destroying the lives of a string of individual conquests, he has seduced and injured an entire nation.
This, to be sure, is a harsh judgment. But there can be no doubt that Obama’s physical presence has beguiled millions of people. His radiant smile, his easy-going demeanor, and his “cool” persona have convinced many onlookers that he is the very incarnation of what a chief executive should be.
On top of this, Barack is unquestionably intelligent and has the rare gift of giving a compelling speech, despite the fact that what he says is often pedestrian. He can even get away with telling conflicting untruths in the same address because his listeners frequently respond to his spellbinding style rather than his substance.
But now Obama seems to have met his match. Mind you, unlike Dorian Gray, he shows no signs of having decided to reform. To the contrary, he continues to propagate untruths at a rate that beggars all of his predecessors. What has changed, however, is that these have become more visible.
The comparison between Barack and Mitt Romney has been devastating to the president’s image. Standing together, on the same stage, as they have during the debates, has revealed Obama’s shallow, mean-spirited, and dissimulating essence. In other words, his real self is being exposed.
During the debates it has also become clear that Romney is the genuine article. His knows his facts and is an accomplished problem solver who is comfortable in his own skin. Voters may disagree with him, but he is obviously a mature adult who means what he says. In other words, he is someone who can be trusted.
Once a person as intelligent as himself, but someone with actual achievements challenged him, Obama’s carefully crafted façade began to crumble. His honeyed words were unmasked as mere talking points. They might sound good to the uninformed; nevertheless they did not betoken a genuine understanding.
Far from it; they laid bare the sleaziness of the campaign run on his behalf—and with his sanction. Lest it be forgotten, Cutter’s excesses have been a reflection of his wishes.
Where this will end is not yet clear. Obama may still win re-election. But he will never again be seen as a knight in shining armor. His pretense of honesty and competence has been pierced. As a mere mortal, his warts are showing. Indeed, for many, he has begun to look ugly.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Does the American Public Deserve Respect?
My recent book “Post-Liberalism: The Death of a Dream” begins with a familiar quote from Abraham Lincoln. You know the one I mean: “It is true you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can fool some of the people some of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
This is well to remember. So is Benjamin Franklin’s response when asked if the constitution would deliver a republic or a monarchy. He replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
If we put these two observations together, the question becomes: Can we, the American people, preserve our democratic republic if too many of us are easily fooled? This is not an academic matter. In fact, the issue will shortly to be tested in a national election with epic implications.
One thing is certain. No people can resist the blandishments of demagogues if they do not first respect themselves. If they do not believe they deserve the truth—if they are not scandalized when denied it—they are destined to join the ranks of those who can be fooled all of the time.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden are apparently convinced they can keep up a pretense of being concerned citizens until Election Day. Yet they have clearly demonstrated they do not respect the intellect, or integrity, of the American people. So far as they are concerned, voters are the “suckers” P.T. Barnum said are born every minute.
Biden plainly revealed this lack of respect during his debate with Paul Ryan. Most observers recognized the contempt the vice-president heaped upon his challenger. All of that smirking, laughing, and interrupting bespoke a disregard for the deference owed a United States congressman.
What was worse, however, was the contempt of the American public this exposed. Ryan was treated like a recalcitrant schoolboy, whereas Biden acted like a bad-mannered teenager. His lack of decency was an insult to his position and to an audience that had a right to expect civility from the second-highest elected official in the land.
Sadly, president Obama learned little from this outrageous exhibition. Indeed, he decided to emulate it. Rather than respect his opponent or the public, he, in his second debate, engaged in a self-described “aggressiveness.” This too consisted in interrupting and calling his opponent a liar.
The lying, however, was one-sided—that is, on the president’s. Where Biden falsely claimed that the Catholic Church would not be forced to finance services that violated its faith and dishonestly maintained he was in the room when Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill negotiated a social security accord, Obama broadcast his own deceits.
Despite rudely—and incorrectly—questioning Romney’s veracity, Barack told a string of whoppers. He, for instance, falsely denied that he had reduced the number of oil drilling licenses his administration issued. More importantly, he blatantly dissembled when he asserted that he had called the murder of an American ambassador an act of terror the day after it occurred.
The moderator Candy Crowley doubled down on this nonsense, but does anyone else believe it? The problem is that some do. True-believing liberals see only what they want to see; hence they are blind to inconvenient facts. Meanwhile, disengaged voters are not even paying attention; hence they have no idea about what is true.
We, as a society, are about undergo a trial by fire. It will soon be evident how many of us are prepared to be bamboozled. If too large a number decide to re-elect the president, we will be in for four more years of dishonesty and corruption. If not, we may re-discover what integrity looks like.
What happens depends on whether we respect the truth and ourselves—and our republic. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, all that is needed for dishonesty and demagoguery to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
This is well to remember. So is Benjamin Franklin’s response when asked if the constitution would deliver a republic or a monarchy. He replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
If we put these two observations together, the question becomes: Can we, the American people, preserve our democratic republic if too many of us are easily fooled? This is not an academic matter. In fact, the issue will shortly to be tested in a national election with epic implications.
One thing is certain. No people can resist the blandishments of demagogues if they do not first respect themselves. If they do not believe they deserve the truth—if they are not scandalized when denied it—they are destined to join the ranks of those who can be fooled all of the time.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden are apparently convinced they can keep up a pretense of being concerned citizens until Election Day. Yet they have clearly demonstrated they do not respect the intellect, or integrity, of the American people. So far as they are concerned, voters are the “suckers” P.T. Barnum said are born every minute.
Biden plainly revealed this lack of respect during his debate with Paul Ryan. Most observers recognized the contempt the vice-president heaped upon his challenger. All of that smirking, laughing, and interrupting bespoke a disregard for the deference owed a United States congressman.
What was worse, however, was the contempt of the American public this exposed. Ryan was treated like a recalcitrant schoolboy, whereas Biden acted like a bad-mannered teenager. His lack of decency was an insult to his position and to an audience that had a right to expect civility from the second-highest elected official in the land.
Sadly, president Obama learned little from this outrageous exhibition. Indeed, he decided to emulate it. Rather than respect his opponent or the public, he, in his second debate, engaged in a self-described “aggressiveness.” This too consisted in interrupting and calling his opponent a liar.
The lying, however, was one-sided—that is, on the president’s. Where Biden falsely claimed that the Catholic Church would not be forced to finance services that violated its faith and dishonestly maintained he was in the room when Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill negotiated a social security accord, Obama broadcast his own deceits.
Despite rudely—and incorrectly—questioning Romney’s veracity, Barack told a string of whoppers. He, for instance, falsely denied that he had reduced the number of oil drilling licenses his administration issued. More importantly, he blatantly dissembled when he asserted that he had called the murder of an American ambassador an act of terror the day after it occurred.
The moderator Candy Crowley doubled down on this nonsense, but does anyone else believe it? The problem is that some do. True-believing liberals see only what they want to see; hence they are blind to inconvenient facts. Meanwhile, disengaged voters are not even paying attention; hence they have no idea about what is true.
We, as a society, are about undergo a trial by fire. It will soon be evident how many of us are prepared to be bamboozled. If too large a number decide to re-elect the president, we will be in for four more years of dishonesty and corruption. If not, we may re-discover what integrity looks like.
What happens depends on whether we respect the truth and ourselves—and our republic. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, all that is needed for dishonesty and demagoguery to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Obama Fiddles While the World Burns
Legend has it that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. This is not quite true. To begin with, the violin had not yet been invented in first century Rome. Second, Nero did seem to be on the job when his city went up in flames.
The part of the myth that appears to be accurate, however, is that the emperor actually conceived of himself as a great artist. He was especially proud of his singing and lyre playing abilities. Indeed, he intentionally traveled to Greece so that he could entertain large crowds with his putative talents.
Today we have an equally star-struck chief executive. He too seems to be more interested in playing to adoring throngs than busying himself with the nasty details of genuinely governing. Americans once feared that Ronald Reagan would prove more actor than president, but this honor has fallen to Barack Obama.
By now the tableau is well known. The Moslem world literally erupted in flames and the president of the United States went on a vaudeville tour. More important to him than addressing an international crisis was rubbing elbows with Hollywood stars and pandering to campaign crowds.
Barack Obama loves the limelight. He enjoys being on stage, thrusting his chin forward in a mock-heroic pose and then wowing his devotees with a mellifluous voice projected in perfectly modulated cadences. He looks presidential; he sounds presidential; he is cheered as if he were presidential.
But it is all an act. Obama does not know how to be presidential. He has the external trappings down pat, yet he cannot do the job he was hired to perform. The evidence of what Republicans have taken to describing as a “lack of leadership” is indisputable.
Take Barack’s unwillingness to meet directly with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Iran is threatening to blow Israel off the map with atomic weapons the world says it should not have, and what does our president do? He takes a pass. Or rather he goes on The View to perform for his fans.
The president might also have taken the opportunity to consult with the leaders of Egypt and Libya, but no—the Letterman show took precedence. Indeed where has Barack not performed? He even found time to go on the radio with the “Pimp with a Limp.”
This predilection is not new. Bob Woodward, in his recent book The Price of Politics, makes Obama’s distaste for governing all too clear. Woodward sympathizes with Barack, but time and again our president’s disengagement from the duties of his office breaks through.
Governing is hard, but it is even more difficult if you do not like to associate with elected officials. Negotiating is not easy, especially when you have no skills as a negotiator. Running a competent administration is challenging, but it is even more challenging when you cannot organize your own office.
All of these deficits came into play during the debt-ceiling crisis. Even though Treasury Secretary Geithner argued that the nation was on the brink of another Great Depression, Obama did not have a Plan B when his initial position foundered. Instead, it was necessary for Congress to come to the rescue.
What then was Barack’s last-ditch stab at salvaging the situation? Why it was to go in television to give a speech explaining that it was the Republican’s fault. For our president, when things go wrong, it is always someone else’s fault.
And so it was with the Libyan crisis. According to Barack, our ambassador died because of a silly video trailer. This was not a failure of his diplomacy. Clearly, everyone, including foreign leaders, is enchanted with his silver-tongued speeches. The whole world loves him—and therefore us—hence he cannot be the problem.
Fortunately for Obama, the mainstream media are enthralled with his act, so they keep the bad notices away from public view. Still, no matter how inspiring his simulated presidential routines, they are no substitute for the real thing.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
The part of the myth that appears to be accurate, however, is that the emperor actually conceived of himself as a great artist. He was especially proud of his singing and lyre playing abilities. Indeed, he intentionally traveled to Greece so that he could entertain large crowds with his putative talents.
Today we have an equally star-struck chief executive. He too seems to be more interested in playing to adoring throngs than busying himself with the nasty details of genuinely governing. Americans once feared that Ronald Reagan would prove more actor than president, but this honor has fallen to Barack Obama.
By now the tableau is well known. The Moslem world literally erupted in flames and the president of the United States went on a vaudeville tour. More important to him than addressing an international crisis was rubbing elbows with Hollywood stars and pandering to campaign crowds.
Barack Obama loves the limelight. He enjoys being on stage, thrusting his chin forward in a mock-heroic pose and then wowing his devotees with a mellifluous voice projected in perfectly modulated cadences. He looks presidential; he sounds presidential; he is cheered as if he were presidential.
But it is all an act. Obama does not know how to be presidential. He has the external trappings down pat, yet he cannot do the job he was hired to perform. The evidence of what Republicans have taken to describing as a “lack of leadership” is indisputable.
Take Barack’s unwillingness to meet directly with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Iran is threatening to blow Israel off the map with atomic weapons the world says it should not have, and what does our president do? He takes a pass. Or rather he goes on The View to perform for his fans.
The president might also have taken the opportunity to consult with the leaders of Egypt and Libya, but no—the Letterman show took precedence. Indeed where has Barack not performed? He even found time to go on the radio with the “Pimp with a Limp.”
This predilection is not new. Bob Woodward, in his recent book The Price of Politics, makes Obama’s distaste for governing all too clear. Woodward sympathizes with Barack, but time and again our president’s disengagement from the duties of his office breaks through.
Governing is hard, but it is even more difficult if you do not like to associate with elected officials. Negotiating is not easy, especially when you have no skills as a negotiator. Running a competent administration is challenging, but it is even more challenging when you cannot organize your own office.
All of these deficits came into play during the debt-ceiling crisis. Even though Treasury Secretary Geithner argued that the nation was on the brink of another Great Depression, Obama did not have a Plan B when his initial position foundered. Instead, it was necessary for Congress to come to the rescue.
What then was Barack’s last-ditch stab at salvaging the situation? Why it was to go in television to give a speech explaining that it was the Republican’s fault. For our president, when things go wrong, it is always someone else’s fault.
And so it was with the Libyan crisis. According to Barack, our ambassador died because of a silly video trailer. This was not a failure of his diplomacy. Clearly, everyone, including foreign leaders, is enchanted with his silver-tongued speeches. The whole world loves him—and therefore us—hence he cannot be the problem.
Fortunately for Obama, the mainstream media are enthralled with his act, so they keep the bad notices away from public view. Still, no matter how inspiring his simulated presidential routines, they are no substitute for the real thing.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Obama the Debater Does Not Add Up
The President has said it often. Almost every time he gets on the hustings, he declares that Mitt Romney’s proposals for boosting the economy and reducing the deficit “don’t add up.” He then maintains that it’s “all about the math.” Indeed, he did so again during the first presidential debate.
The problem, from Obama’s point of view, is that his own programs frequently do not add up. This was painfully evident as Barack struggled to make these sound plausible. While he could lambast Romney for failing to offer specifics, his own bill of particulars was woefully lacking.
Take the issue of reducing the deficit. Once more the president claimed that he had a plan for reducing government spending by four trillion dollars. But then he punted the ball. Instead of explaining his plan, he suggested that viewers go on-line to fill in the details.
If they do, they will find that this is the same scheme I discussed in a previous column. At its heart is a proposal to save a trillion dollars on the war in Afghanistan that no one intends to spend. In other words, it is a phony plan that even his supporters have described as depending on “funny money.”
So why did Barack do this? There are several possible reasons. One is that he does not want the public to know he has no real plans for curtailing our unsustainable deficits. Another is that he does not understand the details of his policy. A third is that he was flummoxed by Romney’s assertive questioning.
Obama was certainly off his game when he confronted by his challenger. Despite four years in office, he clearly did not have as good a grasp of the issues as his opponent. As a result, when called out on his shortcomings, he fell back on a grab bag of stale talking points.
He also resorted to flogging trivial correctives for a massive predicament. Thus, he argued that eliminating tax breaks for oil companies and private plane owners would reduce the budget shortfall. The trouble with these adjustments is that while they would save less than ten billion dollars, we are annually in the hole for well over a trillion.
But the real dilemma Obama faced during the debate was more subtle—and more intractable. This was his demeanor. Many commentators have noted that the president rarely looked at Romney as they talked. For the most part, his eyes were on the podium or the moderator.
Worse still, Barack seemed small and unpresidential. Manifestly uncomfortable when being confronted by an assertive rival, it looked like he wanted to be elsewhere. Dare I say it—at times he even appeared to be intimidated by his more self-assured foe.
This was not good! But what made it disastrous is that one of Obama’s greatest strengths has been his unflappability. Others might be thrown off stride by unexpected events, but he always maintained his equanimity. The unspoken message was that whatever the challenge, he could master it.
What is more, thanks to his self-possession, the most egregious nonsense generally sounded reasonable. This was because listeners responded more to his body language than his words. Plainly almost anything he said seemed true because he was so comfortable saying it.
This advantage disserted him last Wednesday. Absent his usual swagger, people could see through the shallowness of his responses. His supporters might not like it, but even they could recognize a pastiche of focus group tested shibboleths, as opposed to a deep understanding of the trials facing our nation.
It is too soon to say what effect Obama’s meltdown will have on the election. His fans will surely forgive him whatever weaknesses he displayed, while his detractors will gloat as his ineptitude. But what of the moderates? What lessons will they draw from this unexpected turn of events?
Michelle Obama looked worried—and she should be!
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
The problem, from Obama’s point of view, is that his own programs frequently do not add up. This was painfully evident as Barack struggled to make these sound plausible. While he could lambast Romney for failing to offer specifics, his own bill of particulars was woefully lacking.
Take the issue of reducing the deficit. Once more the president claimed that he had a plan for reducing government spending by four trillion dollars. But then he punted the ball. Instead of explaining his plan, he suggested that viewers go on-line to fill in the details.
If they do, they will find that this is the same scheme I discussed in a previous column. At its heart is a proposal to save a trillion dollars on the war in Afghanistan that no one intends to spend. In other words, it is a phony plan that even his supporters have described as depending on “funny money.”
So why did Barack do this? There are several possible reasons. One is that he does not want the public to know he has no real plans for curtailing our unsustainable deficits. Another is that he does not understand the details of his policy. A third is that he was flummoxed by Romney’s assertive questioning.
Obama was certainly off his game when he confronted by his challenger. Despite four years in office, he clearly did not have as good a grasp of the issues as his opponent. As a result, when called out on his shortcomings, he fell back on a grab bag of stale talking points.
He also resorted to flogging trivial correctives for a massive predicament. Thus, he argued that eliminating tax breaks for oil companies and private plane owners would reduce the budget shortfall. The trouble with these adjustments is that while they would save less than ten billion dollars, we are annually in the hole for well over a trillion.
But the real dilemma Obama faced during the debate was more subtle—and more intractable. This was his demeanor. Many commentators have noted that the president rarely looked at Romney as they talked. For the most part, his eyes were on the podium or the moderator.
Worse still, Barack seemed small and unpresidential. Manifestly uncomfortable when being confronted by an assertive rival, it looked like he wanted to be elsewhere. Dare I say it—at times he even appeared to be intimidated by his more self-assured foe.
This was not good! But what made it disastrous is that one of Obama’s greatest strengths has been his unflappability. Others might be thrown off stride by unexpected events, but he always maintained his equanimity. The unspoken message was that whatever the challenge, he could master it.
What is more, thanks to his self-possession, the most egregious nonsense generally sounded reasonable. This was because listeners responded more to his body language than his words. Plainly almost anything he said seemed true because he was so comfortable saying it.
This advantage disserted him last Wednesday. Absent his usual swagger, people could see through the shallowness of his responses. His supporters might not like it, but even they could recognize a pastiche of focus group tested shibboleths, as opposed to a deep understanding of the trials facing our nation.
It is too soon to say what effect Obama’s meltdown will have on the election. His fans will surely forgive him whatever weaknesses he displayed, while his detractors will gloat as his ineptitude. But what of the moderates? What lessons will they draw from this unexpected turn of events?
Michelle Obama looked worried—and she should be!
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Funny Money
To paraphrase the late Sen Everett Dirksen, “a trillion dollars here and a trillion dollars there and before you know it, it adds up to real money.” It also helps if you refuse to count the dollars honestly.
With the national debt currently sixteen trillion and growing, the U.S. is liable to owe over twenty-two trillion by the end of the next presidential term. Two years ago, the tea party folks were riled up about this. They repeatedly asked their representatives what was going to happen when this bill came due.
Back then the passion was palpable. You could hear it in the angry voices of ordinary citizens who wanted their questions answered. You could see it in the eyes of politicians who feared that their careers might be ended—as some were.
Where has this fervor gone? Are people burned out? Or are they just inured to a problem they have heard too much about? Whatever the reason, this is a challenge we must meet. Even Barack Obama admits it has to be solved—albeit, “in the long run.”
So how are we trying to solve it? The president claims he has a plan. It is not a new plan, but one he has touted for some time. According to him, he can lower the budget deficit by four trillion dollars over the course of the next decade. This will presumably “slow” the growth of the debt.
But where are these “savings” coming from? In his new book, The Price of Politics, Bob Woodward gives us a good idea. His chronicle of the negotiations between Democrats and Republicans over raising the debt limit is revealing. Once more it demonstrates that Obama is not a man of his word.
At the time, Barack was also bragging about four trillion in savings. Yet where did he get them? Fully one trillion was to come from not spending money on the Afghan war that no one had planned to spend. In other words, this was fictional money.
According to Woodward, when the liberal democrat congressman Chris van Hollen heard of this, he called it “funny money.” Even Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner conceded it wasn’t real, but went on to say “We need to have this because the rating agencies and markets believe this stuff.”
To be blunt, this budgetary reduction was a lie. Nonetheless, van Hollen, Geithner, and Obama agreed to it because they thought they could get away with it. The president likewise took credit for a trillion in cuts congress had already signed off on. In other words, more phantom cuts.
The theoretical four trillion was rounded out by a trillion in new taxes—to which Republicans are adamantly opposed—and a trillion in lower interest payments. Put this all together and the President’s plan to slash the debt added up to a room full of hot air. What a surprise!
Now append the additional spending Barack proposes. Once more he seeks to “invest” in teachers, shovel ready road projects, and windmills. He doesn’t quote a price, but you know this won’t come cheap when there are so many campaign-contributing cronies to appease.
This may sound amusing, but it is not. Those who can count know it won’t be long before the interest payments on our debt are larger than the gross domestic product. When that happens, the only way out will be a roaring inflation. Dollars will then become so worthless that our loans can be paid off in play money.
If that doesn’t sound scary, I remember my uncle bringing home German postage stamps after WWII. They were denominated in the trillions of Marks. Indeed, the inflation under the Weimar Republic got so bad ordinary Germans welcomed Adolf Hitler as a superior alternative.
What will happen to us once it takes a wheelbarrow full of cash to buy a loaf of bread? Will be shrugging our shoulders and chuckling about the political skills of a president who could get re-elected even after ruining our credit rating?
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
With the national debt currently sixteen trillion and growing, the U.S. is liable to owe over twenty-two trillion by the end of the next presidential term. Two years ago, the tea party folks were riled up about this. They repeatedly asked their representatives what was going to happen when this bill came due.
Back then the passion was palpable. You could hear it in the angry voices of ordinary citizens who wanted their questions answered. You could see it in the eyes of politicians who feared that their careers might be ended—as some were.
Where has this fervor gone? Are people burned out? Or are they just inured to a problem they have heard too much about? Whatever the reason, this is a challenge we must meet. Even Barack Obama admits it has to be solved—albeit, “in the long run.”
So how are we trying to solve it? The president claims he has a plan. It is not a new plan, but one he has touted for some time. According to him, he can lower the budget deficit by four trillion dollars over the course of the next decade. This will presumably “slow” the growth of the debt.
But where are these “savings” coming from? In his new book, The Price of Politics, Bob Woodward gives us a good idea. His chronicle of the negotiations between Democrats and Republicans over raising the debt limit is revealing. Once more it demonstrates that Obama is not a man of his word.
At the time, Barack was also bragging about four trillion in savings. Yet where did he get them? Fully one trillion was to come from not spending money on the Afghan war that no one had planned to spend. In other words, this was fictional money.
According to Woodward, when the liberal democrat congressman Chris van Hollen heard of this, he called it “funny money.” Even Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner conceded it wasn’t real, but went on to say “We need to have this because the rating agencies and markets believe this stuff.”
To be blunt, this budgetary reduction was a lie. Nonetheless, van Hollen, Geithner, and Obama agreed to it because they thought they could get away with it. The president likewise took credit for a trillion in cuts congress had already signed off on. In other words, more phantom cuts.
The theoretical four trillion was rounded out by a trillion in new taxes—to which Republicans are adamantly opposed—and a trillion in lower interest payments. Put this all together and the President’s plan to slash the debt added up to a room full of hot air. What a surprise!
Now append the additional spending Barack proposes. Once more he seeks to “invest” in teachers, shovel ready road projects, and windmills. He doesn’t quote a price, but you know this won’t come cheap when there are so many campaign-contributing cronies to appease.
This may sound amusing, but it is not. Those who can count know it won’t be long before the interest payments on our debt are larger than the gross domestic product. When that happens, the only way out will be a roaring inflation. Dollars will then become so worthless that our loans can be paid off in play money.
If that doesn’t sound scary, I remember my uncle bringing home German postage stamps after WWII. They were denominated in the trillions of Marks. Indeed, the inflation under the Weimar Republic got so bad ordinary Germans welcomed Adolf Hitler as a superior alternative.
What will happen to us once it takes a wheelbarrow full of cash to buy a loaf of bread? Will be shrugging our shoulders and chuckling about the political skills of a president who could get re-elected even after ruining our credit rating?
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Was Neville Chamberlain Right?
When I was a boy, almost everyone was agreed on what precipitated World War II. Yes, Adolf Hitler was a bad man, but the flaccidity of the Western democracies in appeasing his aggressive appetites was equally responsible for encouraging him to ravage Europe.
Back in the forties, Americans could not forget the foolishness of Neville Chamberlin. When the fuehrer demanded that the Sudetenland be ceded from Czechoslovakia to Germany, Chamberlin had travelled to Munich and signed a treaty giving Adolf what he asked.
Who then did not recall the wild cheers with which the British Prime Minister was greeted when he deplaned back home waving a piece of paper and declaring that he had saved “peace in our time?” Nor were recently demobilized American soldiers likely to overlook the bloody battles from which they barely escaped with their lives.
Today, however, those memories are no longer fresh. Likewise, appeasement is no longer a policy we fear. We do not remember that Winston Churchill was widely reviled for warning that Hitler was a danger. To the contrary, most people then believed Hitler when he declared that he did not want war.
Most people also believed the fuehrer when he asserted that he would make no more territorial demands if given the German speaking part of Czechoslovakia. After all, he was only seeking to protect his fellow Germans from the rapacious tyranny of the Czechs.
Hitler had to mean what he said, because no one really wanted war. Surely the German people did not want it. This was madness and no one could be that mad. It therefore made sense to be nice to Hitler. If only the West refrained from being unreasonable, he would cease being belligerent.
Does any of this sound familiar? Aren’t we seeing a replay of these attitudes with respect to radical Islam? Haven’t our leaders, most notably Barack Obama, been telling us that we must play nice with the Muslim world? Aren’t we counseled that they are basically decent people who like ourselves only want peace and hence will respond favorably if we cease being aggressive?
Hitler said that he wanted to exterminate the Jewish people, but that had to be rhetoric. The Iranians say they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, but that is mere bluster. Or is it? Is it possible that some extremists are really extremists who are prepared to do what we never would?
If we say that it is just a few leaders who are over-zealous in their language, what of those thousands in the Arab street who are chanting “Death to America?” What of the tens, if not hundreds, of millions who regard Israel as the “Little Satin” and us as the “Great Satin?” Are they kidding when they say they want to impose Sharia law on us?
Barack Obama thought that if he apologized to these people, as he did in Cairo, they would change their ways and decide to construct a Western style democracy. Did he really believe this? Does he believe now—with violent eruptions all over the Muslim world—that this is a minor, and temporary, glitch?
Do Obama, and the reporters who castigated Mitt Romney, think that an inept video that defames the prophet Mohammed is the sole cause of this uproar or that apologizing for it will fix what is broken? Do they seriously imagine that sacrificing our dedication to free speech will open Arab eyes to our good intentions?
This is appeasement! Churchill warned that those who abandon their principles for the sake of peace, in the end have neither peace nor principles. Romney said as much—albeit not as stirringly. If we embrace weakness for the sake of not offending our enemies, they will not be grateful—and we will not be safe.
Appeasement sounds sensible when the bombs are exploding thousands of miles away. It won’t seem quite as sensible if they start exploding here.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Back in the forties, Americans could not forget the foolishness of Neville Chamberlin. When the fuehrer demanded that the Sudetenland be ceded from Czechoslovakia to Germany, Chamberlin had travelled to Munich and signed a treaty giving Adolf what he asked.
Who then did not recall the wild cheers with which the British Prime Minister was greeted when he deplaned back home waving a piece of paper and declaring that he had saved “peace in our time?” Nor were recently demobilized American soldiers likely to overlook the bloody battles from which they barely escaped with their lives.
Today, however, those memories are no longer fresh. Likewise, appeasement is no longer a policy we fear. We do not remember that Winston Churchill was widely reviled for warning that Hitler was a danger. To the contrary, most people then believed Hitler when he declared that he did not want war.
Most people also believed the fuehrer when he asserted that he would make no more territorial demands if given the German speaking part of Czechoslovakia. After all, he was only seeking to protect his fellow Germans from the rapacious tyranny of the Czechs.
Hitler had to mean what he said, because no one really wanted war. Surely the German people did not want it. This was madness and no one could be that mad. It therefore made sense to be nice to Hitler. If only the West refrained from being unreasonable, he would cease being belligerent.
Does any of this sound familiar? Aren’t we seeing a replay of these attitudes with respect to radical Islam? Haven’t our leaders, most notably Barack Obama, been telling us that we must play nice with the Muslim world? Aren’t we counseled that they are basically decent people who like ourselves only want peace and hence will respond favorably if we cease being aggressive?
Hitler said that he wanted to exterminate the Jewish people, but that had to be rhetoric. The Iranians say they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, but that is mere bluster. Or is it? Is it possible that some extremists are really extremists who are prepared to do what we never would?
If we say that it is just a few leaders who are over-zealous in their language, what of those thousands in the Arab street who are chanting “Death to America?” What of the tens, if not hundreds, of millions who regard Israel as the “Little Satin” and us as the “Great Satin?” Are they kidding when they say they want to impose Sharia law on us?
Barack Obama thought that if he apologized to these people, as he did in Cairo, they would change their ways and decide to construct a Western style democracy. Did he really believe this? Does he believe now—with violent eruptions all over the Muslim world—that this is a minor, and temporary, glitch?
Do Obama, and the reporters who castigated Mitt Romney, think that an inept video that defames the prophet Mohammed is the sole cause of this uproar or that apologizing for it will fix what is broken? Do they seriously imagine that sacrificing our dedication to free speech will open Arab eyes to our good intentions?
This is appeasement! Churchill warned that those who abandon their principles for the sake of peace, in the end have neither peace nor principles. Romney said as much—albeit not as stirringly. If we embrace weakness for the sake of not offending our enemies, they will not be grateful—and we will not be safe.
Appeasement sounds sensible when the bombs are exploding thousands of miles away. It won’t seem quite as sensible if they start exploding here.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, September 22, 2012
The Hitler School of Politics
It was bound to happen. Sooner of later, the most well practiced political liars in America were going to call their Republican adversaries liars. It should, therefore have come as no surprise that Mitt Romney has been compared with Joseph Goebbels and his wife Ann with Eva Braun.
What is shocking, however, is the degree to which Barack Obama and his merry band of extreme liberals have emulated the Nazi example. Amazing as it may sound, their playbook is a variation on the Hitler school of politics. The evidence is both chilling and overwhelming.
In the past, I have been taken to task for comparing some of Obama’s actions with those of Hitler, but I am about to double down. Mind you, Barack does not advocate a “final solution,” nor will he intentionally start a World War, but he has copied many of the Fuhrer’s methods. Who would have suspected this from a party that bills itself as “democratic?”
Now let’s look at some of the details. I, and many others, have been appalled by the insouciance with which Barack and company tell lies, and lies, and more lies. It is they, who like Goebbels, believe the Big Lie told often enough passes as the truth.
Witness some of the whoppers told at the recent Democratic National Convention. Who but practiced prevaricators would claim that Republicans seek to deprive women of the vote or contraceptives? Who but someone careless with the truth, like our vice-President, would imply that the “territorial tax” was a tax increase, as opposed to a decrease, and that it sought to export jobs overseas?
But enough about the lies, there have been so many regarding the budget, ObamaCare, and transparency that it would take several books to catalog them. Let’s consider the blame game. Hitler too distracted attention from his failures by blaming others, most notably the Jews and communists. They were allegedly responsible for Germany’s economic troubles.
Obama, of course, blames the Republicans, the Japanese tsunami, the oil spill in the Gulf, the European meltdown, etc., etc. Then, like Hitler, he seeks to punish those who defy him. The Nazis obviously sent the Jews to concentration camps and invaded Poland after falsely accusing that small nation of attacking Germany. With Obama, it is rich business people he hopes to bring to their knees—all in the name of fairness.
On the other hand, again like Hitler, Barack rewards his friends in order to keep them loyal. If you wanted to succeed in Nazi Germany, you had to be a member of the Nazi party. If you want to do well in Obama’s America, you have to donate to his campaign—as did the unions, the owners of Solyndra, and numerous other crony capitalists.
And if the law gets in the way, why you just ignore it. If the Reichstag won’t do your bidding, burn it down. If congress won’t give you the immigration legislation you want, pretend it has and implement it as you desire. You can even disregard explicit legislation about requiring work for welfare.
Above all, portray yourself as a brilliant faultless leader from whom all benefits flow. You, not your opponents, have a vision of the future based on your unique understanding of the will of the American people. You “get it,” while those who disagree with you do not.
As to those who do not understand, you must intimidate them. Hitler called the Jews vermin in need of extinction, but you, Obama, in service to political correctness, can call conservatives racists, sexists, and essentially counter-revolutionaries. After all, don’t they want to take the country back to a horrific past?
It also helps to control the media. Goebbels made the Big Lie work because he could keep the truth out of the papers and off the radio. Obama is fortunate that the mainstream media won’t even report on a DNC vote to eliminate God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel from their platform.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University.
What is shocking, however, is the degree to which Barack Obama and his merry band of extreme liberals have emulated the Nazi example. Amazing as it may sound, their playbook is a variation on the Hitler school of politics. The evidence is both chilling and overwhelming.
In the past, I have been taken to task for comparing some of Obama’s actions with those of Hitler, but I am about to double down. Mind you, Barack does not advocate a “final solution,” nor will he intentionally start a World War, but he has copied many of the Fuhrer’s methods. Who would have suspected this from a party that bills itself as “democratic?”
Now let’s look at some of the details. I, and many others, have been appalled by the insouciance with which Barack and company tell lies, and lies, and more lies. It is they, who like Goebbels, believe the Big Lie told often enough passes as the truth.
Witness some of the whoppers told at the recent Democratic National Convention. Who but practiced prevaricators would claim that Republicans seek to deprive women of the vote or contraceptives? Who but someone careless with the truth, like our vice-President, would imply that the “territorial tax” was a tax increase, as opposed to a decrease, and that it sought to export jobs overseas?
But enough about the lies, there have been so many regarding the budget, ObamaCare, and transparency that it would take several books to catalog them. Let’s consider the blame game. Hitler too distracted attention from his failures by blaming others, most notably the Jews and communists. They were allegedly responsible for Germany’s economic troubles.
Obama, of course, blames the Republicans, the Japanese tsunami, the oil spill in the Gulf, the European meltdown, etc., etc. Then, like Hitler, he seeks to punish those who defy him. The Nazis obviously sent the Jews to concentration camps and invaded Poland after falsely accusing that small nation of attacking Germany. With Obama, it is rich business people he hopes to bring to their knees—all in the name of fairness.
On the other hand, again like Hitler, Barack rewards his friends in order to keep them loyal. If you wanted to succeed in Nazi Germany, you had to be a member of the Nazi party. If you want to do well in Obama’s America, you have to donate to his campaign—as did the unions, the owners of Solyndra, and numerous other crony capitalists.
And if the law gets in the way, why you just ignore it. If the Reichstag won’t do your bidding, burn it down. If congress won’t give you the immigration legislation you want, pretend it has and implement it as you desire. You can even disregard explicit legislation about requiring work for welfare.
Above all, portray yourself as a brilliant faultless leader from whom all benefits flow. You, not your opponents, have a vision of the future based on your unique understanding of the will of the American people. You “get it,” while those who disagree with you do not.
As to those who do not understand, you must intimidate them. Hitler called the Jews vermin in need of extinction, but you, Obama, in service to political correctness, can call conservatives racists, sexists, and essentially counter-revolutionaries. After all, don’t they want to take the country back to a horrific past?
It also helps to control the media. Goebbels made the Big Lie work because he could keep the truth out of the papers and off the radio. Obama is fortunate that the mainstream media won’t even report on a DNC vote to eliminate God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel from their platform.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Is Dinesh D'Souza Right?
I had not intended to go. Judging from the advertisements, Dinesh D’Souza’s new movie 2016 seemed to be an exercise in propaganda. Besides, the reviews I had read of the book upon which it is based appeared to be advocating a silly thesis about why Barack Obama is the way he is.
Then a friend told me she saw it and that it was a powerful piece of cinema. Since I value her opinion, I decided I had to go, but I expected that only a few people would want to see so ideologically slanted an effort.
Theater owners apparently came to the same conclusion, and hence the multiplex my wife and I attended was showing the film on just one screen. Thus, we arrived about fifteen minutes early on the assumption there would be many seats to choose from. This turned out to be a mistake.
I cannot remember a movie theater that was more crowded. Eventually almost every seat was filled, including the ones up front. Then, after the film began, the mostly middle aged audience paid rapt attention. Nary a sound could be heard as this riveting testimonial to one man’s vision unfolded.
D’Souza, who is an immigrant from India, comes to the conclusion that Obama is motivated primarily by anti-colonialist sentiments. According to D’Souza, as the son of a father who was dedicated to ejecting the British colonialists from his Kenya homeland, Barack too is biased against first-world oppressors.
Dinesh then extrapolates from this insight to make sense of Obama’s attitude toward the United States’ place in the world. If our president identifies our country with the colonialists—as his father did—then he should perceive us as an overbearing hegemon whose wings deserve to be clipped.
Assuming America is not an exceptional country, and Barack has pointedly denied that it is, it merits neither military nor economic supremacy. Its armies need to return home to be demobilized, while its wealth has to be scaled back and redistributed so as to curb its imperialist pretentions.
This seems to me to be an extreme hypothesis, but one for which D’Souza marshals a great deal of persuasive evidence. Indeed, much of it is so convincing that it took one’s breath away and made one fear for the safety of our nation—that is, should there be a second Obama term in office.
Although I still believe this anti-colonialist theory does not tell the whole story, I have now come to agree that it probably explains part of it. One reason I have changed my mind is that it echoes my relationship with my own father.
My father was a harsh man. He was physically powerful, and occasionally abusive. Nevertheless I loved him dearly. His emotional honesty, plus the fact that I knew he loved me, combined to make me sympathetic regarding his many failures.
As a result, when he was in his deathbed, I visited him to wish him a tearful farewell. There he lay, his once formidable strength ebbing away, preparing to meet his end. We immediately clasped arms and I silently, with my eyes, vowed that I would finish the work he had not been able to complete.
I meant it back then—and I feel it to this day. It therefore made sense to me that Barack might harbor a similar attitude toward his absent, and also not very successful, father. Even though his dad was an imperfect human being—or maybe because of it—he would feel compelled to fulfill his mission.
Of course, Mitt Romney also seems intent on realizing his father’s agenda. Whatever he says about his motivation, a desire to reach an office his father could not appears to be one of his objectives. So does returning our nation’s grandeur.
Sadly, few liberals will have an opportunity to assess D’Souza’s theory for themselves. Having prejudged it, they will stay away in droves.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Then a friend told me she saw it and that it was a powerful piece of cinema. Since I value her opinion, I decided I had to go, but I expected that only a few people would want to see so ideologically slanted an effort.
Theater owners apparently came to the same conclusion, and hence the multiplex my wife and I attended was showing the film on just one screen. Thus, we arrived about fifteen minutes early on the assumption there would be many seats to choose from. This turned out to be a mistake.
I cannot remember a movie theater that was more crowded. Eventually almost every seat was filled, including the ones up front. Then, after the film began, the mostly middle aged audience paid rapt attention. Nary a sound could be heard as this riveting testimonial to one man’s vision unfolded.
D’Souza, who is an immigrant from India, comes to the conclusion that Obama is motivated primarily by anti-colonialist sentiments. According to D’Souza, as the son of a father who was dedicated to ejecting the British colonialists from his Kenya homeland, Barack too is biased against first-world oppressors.
Dinesh then extrapolates from this insight to make sense of Obama’s attitude toward the United States’ place in the world. If our president identifies our country with the colonialists—as his father did—then he should perceive us as an overbearing hegemon whose wings deserve to be clipped.
Assuming America is not an exceptional country, and Barack has pointedly denied that it is, it merits neither military nor economic supremacy. Its armies need to return home to be demobilized, while its wealth has to be scaled back and redistributed so as to curb its imperialist pretentions.
This seems to me to be an extreme hypothesis, but one for which D’Souza marshals a great deal of persuasive evidence. Indeed, much of it is so convincing that it took one’s breath away and made one fear for the safety of our nation—that is, should there be a second Obama term in office.
Although I still believe this anti-colonialist theory does not tell the whole story, I have now come to agree that it probably explains part of it. One reason I have changed my mind is that it echoes my relationship with my own father.
My father was a harsh man. He was physically powerful, and occasionally abusive. Nevertheless I loved him dearly. His emotional honesty, plus the fact that I knew he loved me, combined to make me sympathetic regarding his many failures.
As a result, when he was in his deathbed, I visited him to wish him a tearful farewell. There he lay, his once formidable strength ebbing away, preparing to meet his end. We immediately clasped arms and I silently, with my eyes, vowed that I would finish the work he had not been able to complete.
I meant it back then—and I feel it to this day. It therefore made sense to me that Barack might harbor a similar attitude toward his absent, and also not very successful, father. Even though his dad was an imperfect human being—or maybe because of it—he would feel compelled to fulfill his mission.
Of course, Mitt Romney also seems intent on realizing his father’s agenda. Whatever he says about his motivation, a desire to reach an office his father could not appears to be one of his objectives. So does returning our nation’s grandeur.
Sadly, few liberals will have an opportunity to assess D’Souza’s theory for themselves. Having prejudged it, they will stay away in droves.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Is Liberalism in Its Death Throes?
The Democratic National Convention is upon us. In the coming days, we are sure to be treated to a cavalcade of self-congratulation and unrestrained hyperbole. Democrats from across the nation are assembling in Charlotte so as to inform us of their noble deeds and wondrous plans for our future.
From all the hoopla, you might assume that liberalism is on the ascendance. If you did, you would be very wrong. Liberalism is in decline and the egregious behavior of liberals during the current presidential campaign is strong evidence of this slide.
I have, in fact, presented the case for this conclusion in my new book Post-Liberalism: The Death of a Dream (Transaction Publishers). In it, I use sociology to explain why liberalism is dying and must die. As an ideology that cannot meet the challenges we face, it is doomed to extinction.
In the book, I begin with an event that occurred some years ago. At the time, I was reading on my couch when something smashed into the living room window. Upon inspection, I discovered that a small bird had flown into the pane and then fallen to the driveway below.
When I went outside to take a closer look, the creature seemed to be in bad shape. Then, quite unexpectedly, there was a great flurry of movement. It flapped its wings vigorously as if it were about to take off, but immediately thereafter expired. This burst of energy turned out to be its death throes.
The same has now been happening to liberalism. It had its moment of glory in taking the presidency and both houses of congress, and then enacting its dream legislation. But now, despite all the promises about making us whole and happy, we know this agenda failed.
We shouldn’t, however, have been surprised. Earlier promises to eliminate poverty, get rid of crime, strengthen the family, and transform education for the better all foundered on the shoals of an uncooperative universe. The ballyhooed improvements did not unfold as predicted—because they could not.
Liberalism stumbles as a result of being based on false premises. It tells us that someday, under its tutelage, we will all love one another. It also claims to be setting the table for complete human equality. If we merely transfer the wealth from the rich to the poor, we will presumably achieve universal social justice.
But the biggest liberal canard of all is that they are “the best and brightest.” If we just listen to them, their goodness and intelligence will surely carry us through. And who better to exemplify this sterling brilliance than Barack Obama, the man who repeatedly tells us how well he “gets it.” (But shhh, don’t mention Joe Biden.)
We know that Obama, like Clinton before him, feels our pain—but why does he insist on inflicting more? He also tell us that he has a plan to get us out of the recession, yet the budgets he submitted to congress were so lame that not a single Democrat voted for them.
I will not recite all of the statistics about unemployment, or the deficit, or the evils of ObamaCare, because by now these are widely known. Indeed, they are so widely known that the president’s allies spend all their waking hours attempting to deflect our attention from them.
This has been a historically dirty campaign, with most of the slime and mud emanating from the president’s champions. As has been noted, by myself and others, this is a sign of desperation. It is also a sign that liberalism cannot defend itself by citing the facts. It must therefore obscure and misstate.
So bring on the circus. Let the confetti fly and the stirring words issue additional promises than cannot be kept. Just remember that this is a blizzard of sand directed toward our eyes. Fortunately, if we put on the protective goggles of truth, we may be able to see through the storm.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
From all the hoopla, you might assume that liberalism is on the ascendance. If you did, you would be very wrong. Liberalism is in decline and the egregious behavior of liberals during the current presidential campaign is strong evidence of this slide.
I have, in fact, presented the case for this conclusion in my new book Post-Liberalism: The Death of a Dream (Transaction Publishers). In it, I use sociology to explain why liberalism is dying and must die. As an ideology that cannot meet the challenges we face, it is doomed to extinction.
In the book, I begin with an event that occurred some years ago. At the time, I was reading on my couch when something smashed into the living room window. Upon inspection, I discovered that a small bird had flown into the pane and then fallen to the driveway below.
When I went outside to take a closer look, the creature seemed to be in bad shape. Then, quite unexpectedly, there was a great flurry of movement. It flapped its wings vigorously as if it were about to take off, but immediately thereafter expired. This burst of energy turned out to be its death throes.
The same has now been happening to liberalism. It had its moment of glory in taking the presidency and both houses of congress, and then enacting its dream legislation. But now, despite all the promises about making us whole and happy, we know this agenda failed.
We shouldn’t, however, have been surprised. Earlier promises to eliminate poverty, get rid of crime, strengthen the family, and transform education for the better all foundered on the shoals of an uncooperative universe. The ballyhooed improvements did not unfold as predicted—because they could not.
Liberalism stumbles as a result of being based on false premises. It tells us that someday, under its tutelage, we will all love one another. It also claims to be setting the table for complete human equality. If we merely transfer the wealth from the rich to the poor, we will presumably achieve universal social justice.
But the biggest liberal canard of all is that they are “the best and brightest.” If we just listen to them, their goodness and intelligence will surely carry us through. And who better to exemplify this sterling brilliance than Barack Obama, the man who repeatedly tells us how well he “gets it.” (But shhh, don’t mention Joe Biden.)
We know that Obama, like Clinton before him, feels our pain—but why does he insist on inflicting more? He also tell us that he has a plan to get us out of the recession, yet the budgets he submitted to congress were so lame that not a single Democrat voted for them.
I will not recite all of the statistics about unemployment, or the deficit, or the evils of ObamaCare, because by now these are widely known. Indeed, they are so widely known that the president’s allies spend all their waking hours attempting to deflect our attention from them.
This has been a historically dirty campaign, with most of the slime and mud emanating from the president’s champions. As has been noted, by myself and others, this is a sign of desperation. It is also a sign that liberalism cannot defend itself by citing the facts. It must therefore obscure and misstate.
So bring on the circus. Let the confetti fly and the stirring words issue additional promises than cannot be kept. Just remember that this is a blizzard of sand directed toward our eyes. Fortunately, if we put on the protective goggles of truth, we may be able to see through the storm.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, September 1, 2012
I Don't Want to Know
During a recent trip across Middle America, I got into two revealing conversations. These “not quite” discussions provided some discomfiting insights into how Obama supporters think.
The first exchange was the more moderate. It began with my being told how Obama saved the automobile industry. When my turn to say something arrived, I started to explain why this wasn’t true. But I did not get very far.
Before I could elaborate on the reasons Romney’s advocacy of a non-government sponsored bankruptcy would not have killed General Motors, my adversary jumped up and with a wave of her hand, headed for the kitchen. On her way, she tearfully exclaimed, “I don’t want to know,” and disappeared from view.
We eventually reconciled by agreeing to be friends, but the political dialogue was over. The second incident was a bit less gracious. It too began with the other party telling me he would not vote for Romney. In this case, he launched into a monologue on Mitt’s faults.
As readers of my columns may know, I am not disposed to allow unsubstantiated opinions to go unanswered. Also, as I hope most will concede, I keep up-to date on current events; hence I was not without rebuttals.
In this second instance, however, I was even less able to say anything. This time my interlocutor did not immediately leave the room. Instead, he firmly told me that he would not allow a political discussion in his house. No matter how unambiguously I replied that I should have the right to answer, he pounded the table and insisted the conversation was over.
Well, the conversation was over, because he stood up and walked out. He did not say he would not listen, but he would not, even when I told him what he was doing was shameful. In the process, he alerted me that no amount of effort, or civility, or accuracy can make people who don’t want to hear, do so.
As a sociologist and university professor, I have long been aware that liberals do not read what conservatives write. I have also been aware that liberals are disinclined to accept challenges to debate from the likes of me. They prefer to pat each other on the back and assume that only they know the truth.
It now seems that this attitude is widely prevalent in liberal circles. These progressives, in part, because they consider themselves smarter than their opponents, plainly do not want to be exposed to ideas they do not already believe.
This makes it predictable that Obama supporters will swallow anything said in his defense. Nevertheless, in reflexively dismissing evidence that does not confirm their pre-existing commitments, they are prepared to accept the most patent nonsense.
Not long ago, when Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the current head of the Democratic National Committee, told Fox News she did not know if the Pac that put out the ad accusing Romney of having caused a woman’s death from cancer was a Democratic affiliate, I laughed out loud.
But then I took a moment to reflect. I realized that millions of Obama voters would, in fact, credit this piece of idiocy. Many would also agree Romney is a murderer, a tax cheat, and a vulture capitalist. They would likewise accept the proposition that Paul Ryan wants to “end Medicare as we know it” and throw Granny off a cliff.
When people’s minds are on automatic pilot; when they will not listen to counter-evidence, there is nothing one can say. People, who do not want to know, do not change their opinions. They just repeat the same tired talking points as if they had been handed down from Mount Sinai.
My hope is that there are not enough of these folks to re-elect Barack. But whether or not this is the case, there will be enough campaign drivel between now and Election Day to fill the emptiest of conformist heads.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
The first exchange was the more moderate. It began with my being told how Obama saved the automobile industry. When my turn to say something arrived, I started to explain why this wasn’t true. But I did not get very far.
Before I could elaborate on the reasons Romney’s advocacy of a non-government sponsored bankruptcy would not have killed General Motors, my adversary jumped up and with a wave of her hand, headed for the kitchen. On her way, she tearfully exclaimed, “I don’t want to know,” and disappeared from view.
We eventually reconciled by agreeing to be friends, but the political dialogue was over. The second incident was a bit less gracious. It too began with the other party telling me he would not vote for Romney. In this case, he launched into a monologue on Mitt’s faults.
As readers of my columns may know, I am not disposed to allow unsubstantiated opinions to go unanswered. Also, as I hope most will concede, I keep up-to date on current events; hence I was not without rebuttals.
In this second instance, however, I was even less able to say anything. This time my interlocutor did not immediately leave the room. Instead, he firmly told me that he would not allow a political discussion in his house. No matter how unambiguously I replied that I should have the right to answer, he pounded the table and insisted the conversation was over.
Well, the conversation was over, because he stood up and walked out. He did not say he would not listen, but he would not, even when I told him what he was doing was shameful. In the process, he alerted me that no amount of effort, or civility, or accuracy can make people who don’t want to hear, do so.
As a sociologist and university professor, I have long been aware that liberals do not read what conservatives write. I have also been aware that liberals are disinclined to accept challenges to debate from the likes of me. They prefer to pat each other on the back and assume that only they know the truth.
It now seems that this attitude is widely prevalent in liberal circles. These progressives, in part, because they consider themselves smarter than their opponents, plainly do not want to be exposed to ideas they do not already believe.
This makes it predictable that Obama supporters will swallow anything said in his defense. Nevertheless, in reflexively dismissing evidence that does not confirm their pre-existing commitments, they are prepared to accept the most patent nonsense.
Not long ago, when Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the current head of the Democratic National Committee, told Fox News she did not know if the Pac that put out the ad accusing Romney of having caused a woman’s death from cancer was a Democratic affiliate, I laughed out loud.
But then I took a moment to reflect. I realized that millions of Obama voters would, in fact, credit this piece of idiocy. Many would also agree Romney is a murderer, a tax cheat, and a vulture capitalist. They would likewise accept the proposition that Paul Ryan wants to “end Medicare as we know it” and throw Granny off a cliff.
When people’s minds are on automatic pilot; when they will not listen to counter-evidence, there is nothing one can say. People, who do not want to know, do not change their opinions. They just repeat the same tired talking points as if they had been handed down from Mount Sinai.
My hope is that there are not enough of these folks to re-elect Barack. But whether or not this is the case, there will be enough campaign drivel between now and Election Day to fill the emptiest of conformist heads.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Would You Buy a Car from These People?
Often the best way to judge the competence of a leader is to look at the people surrounding him or her. Mitt Romney has just provided a good account of himself with the selection of Paul Ryan for Vice president. He has demonstrated that he is not afraid of being overshadowed by a man of ideas and intelligence.
But Romney has displayed a penchant for favoring talent before. When he was at Bain, he routinely hired smart and impressive subordinates, which was one of the reasons the company did so well. Meanwhile, what sort of track record has Barack Obama amassed?
Consider the people our president has backed. We can begin with Joe Biden, his vice president. Biden is so gaffe prone that he has been muzzled on more than one occasion. His policy judgment is also so poor that he recommended against the Iraq surge; instead arguing that the country should be partitioned in three.
Next let us look at the cabinet. The Attorney General Eric Holder has demonstrated his political acumen by seeking to try Guantanamo terrorists in New York City. He similarly confirmed his quest for the truth in stonewalling the fast and furious investigation and failing to prosecute Black Panthers accused of intimidating voters.
Then there is Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner. His advice on getting us out of the recession has palpably proven his economic shrewdness. By the same token, his wiliness to sponsor a General Motors bailout that made union members whole, while leaving creditors and salaried workers out in the cold, confirmed his even-handed fairness.
And how about Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius? She has seen fit to champion ObamaCare and to begin the implementation of its Byzantine regulations. These, of course, have included disrespecting the religious convictions of the Catholic Church.
Turning the page to scrutinize Obama’s campaign staff reveals an analogous proclivity. The leader of this band of ruffians is David Axelrod. If ever there was a sleazy snake oil salesman, it is this man. He can barely open his mouth without uttering an egregious misstatement of the facts, put forth in the smarmiest manner.
Following close behind in his sleaziness is the cherubic David Plouffe. Also not one to be overly concerned with stating the truth, his skill lies in deflecting embarrassing questions. One of these unfortunately was about why he accepted speaking fees of one hundred thousand dollars from sources connected to Iran.
After this, we have the exemplary Stephanie Cutter. As spokesperson for the Obama team, she denied any knowledge of Joe Soptic’s accusation that Romney’s callousness led to his wife’s cancer death. Then it came out that Cutter hosted a conference call in which Soptic was a featured speaker.
Last, we must make bow of recognition toward Bill Burton. Not technically a member of the president’s campaign squad, this former White House aide heads the political action committee that put out the Soptic ad. Then, after the uproar over its deceitfulness arose, he boldly contended that the commercial did not say what it obviously had.
I could go on, but this is a significant hall of infamy. No only have these people indulged in the worst sorts of political deceit in living memory, but their sponsor, Barack Obama, has never seen fit to distance himself from them, or the McCarthyite tactics of allies such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
Once upon a time Richard Nixon was castigated for being so crooked that you would not want to buy a used car from him. This judgment should be doubled and redoubled for the Obama crowd.
A scant four years ago, Obama was a shiny new vehicle that promised hope and change. Today his slimy minions are still trying to keep his exterior bright and gleaming. But the engine has seized up. The car can no longer run. How then can it drive us out of the financial and moral ditch we are in?
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
But Romney has displayed a penchant for favoring talent before. When he was at Bain, he routinely hired smart and impressive subordinates, which was one of the reasons the company did so well. Meanwhile, what sort of track record has Barack Obama amassed?
Consider the people our president has backed. We can begin with Joe Biden, his vice president. Biden is so gaffe prone that he has been muzzled on more than one occasion. His policy judgment is also so poor that he recommended against the Iraq surge; instead arguing that the country should be partitioned in three.
Next let us look at the cabinet. The Attorney General Eric Holder has demonstrated his political acumen by seeking to try Guantanamo terrorists in New York City. He similarly confirmed his quest for the truth in stonewalling the fast and furious investigation and failing to prosecute Black Panthers accused of intimidating voters.
Then there is Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner. His advice on getting us out of the recession has palpably proven his economic shrewdness. By the same token, his wiliness to sponsor a General Motors bailout that made union members whole, while leaving creditors and salaried workers out in the cold, confirmed his even-handed fairness.
And how about Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius? She has seen fit to champion ObamaCare and to begin the implementation of its Byzantine regulations. These, of course, have included disrespecting the religious convictions of the Catholic Church.
Turning the page to scrutinize Obama’s campaign staff reveals an analogous proclivity. The leader of this band of ruffians is David Axelrod. If ever there was a sleazy snake oil salesman, it is this man. He can barely open his mouth without uttering an egregious misstatement of the facts, put forth in the smarmiest manner.
Following close behind in his sleaziness is the cherubic David Plouffe. Also not one to be overly concerned with stating the truth, his skill lies in deflecting embarrassing questions. One of these unfortunately was about why he accepted speaking fees of one hundred thousand dollars from sources connected to Iran.
After this, we have the exemplary Stephanie Cutter. As spokesperson for the Obama team, she denied any knowledge of Joe Soptic’s accusation that Romney’s callousness led to his wife’s cancer death. Then it came out that Cutter hosted a conference call in which Soptic was a featured speaker.
Last, we must make bow of recognition toward Bill Burton. Not technically a member of the president’s campaign squad, this former White House aide heads the political action committee that put out the Soptic ad. Then, after the uproar over its deceitfulness arose, he boldly contended that the commercial did not say what it obviously had.
I could go on, but this is a significant hall of infamy. No only have these people indulged in the worst sorts of political deceit in living memory, but their sponsor, Barack Obama, has never seen fit to distance himself from them, or the McCarthyite tactics of allies such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
Once upon a time Richard Nixon was castigated for being so crooked that you would not want to buy a used car from him. This judgment should be doubled and redoubled for the Obama crowd.
A scant four years ago, Obama was a shiny new vehicle that promised hope and change. Today his slimy minions are still trying to keep his exterior bright and gleaming. But the engine has seized up. The car can no longer run. How then can it drive us out of the financial and moral ditch we are in?
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Gaffs That Are Not Gaffs
Political gaffs have been defined as accidentally telling the truth where truth may not be helpful. This is supposedly what happened to Mitt Romney during his trips to England and Israel. Nonetheless, while this description might be accurate in the first case, it was decidedly not in the second.
As most commentators have acknowledged, Romney was probably correct to question whether the Brits were completely prepared to host the Olympics. After all, the Brits themselves had been raising these questions and subsequent events suggest that not all went well.
Still, saying something that might be construed as unflattering when one is a visitor is not altogether diplomatic. In the larger scheme of things, it will probably not matter much, yet it was an example of excessive candor.
The Israeli situation, however, was different. Exactly what happened in this instance is difficult to determine because what Romney said was behind closed doors. At minimum, we know that Mitt attributed Israeli economic and political successes to the state’s Jewish culture.
It is not clear, however, whether Romney explicitly implicated Arab culture in Palestinian failures. In any event, several Palestinians objected to what they characterized as racist insults. The mainstream media then picked this up as another specimen of Romney’s alleged penchant for misstatements.
I was immediately reminded of an earlier media feeding frenzy. This concerned Ronald Reagan who had the temerity to call the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” Pundits from the left instantly jumped on this remark as demonstrating the Gipper’s foreign policy inexperience.
Reagan supposedly undermined the possibility of coming to terms with the Russians with his shoot-from-the-hip style. But we know how that one turned out, don’t we. The same may well come to pass regarding Romney’s Israeli interlude.
The fact is that what Mitt said was absolutely true and that well-informed Palestinians know it. Whatever is articulated for public consumption, the chief difference between the Israelis and the Palestinians is culture. This must be so since neither community has more or less talent, nor commands greater or lesser physical resources.
What separates them is how they think and feel. Aside from their Jewish heritage, which places an emphasis on education and business prowess, the Israelis are largely Western in their attitudes. They have inherited the free market and democratic mentalities pioneered in Europe and the United States.
These ways of looking at the world have been translated into the dynamic Israeli economy and the freewheeling Israeli political system. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are trapped in a medieval mindset. They are still trying to revive the glories of a long defunct Caliphate.
The problem is that cultures are difficult to change. Because they are deeply entrenched and highly emotional, they tend to be conservative. Consequently, merely explaining a problem to people does not persuade them to make necessary modifications.
We see this in the United States with respect to the culture of poverty. People who are born into our underclass have difficulty picking themselves up by their bootstraps. They may, for instance, be told that education is the ticket to social mobility; nevertheless they spurn educational opportunities.
We, in this country, sought radical improvements by way of a War on Poverty, yet despite spending trillions of dollars little changed. In the Middle East the Arabs have not even publically acknowledged the nature of their difficulty. They are still intent on blaming their distress on the Jews.
Mitt’s bringing up the subject of culture will probably not alter this. But then neither did Reagan’s allusions to an evil empire bring immediate reforms. What will occur in the long run is difficult to know. The probability that it will be something good is, however, low, and will remain so as long as people continue to fool themselves about what is wrong.
Mitt’s words may therefore prove a useful beginning. If they, in fact, constituted a gaff, they were one for which we may eventually be thankful.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
As most commentators have acknowledged, Romney was probably correct to question whether the Brits were completely prepared to host the Olympics. After all, the Brits themselves had been raising these questions and subsequent events suggest that not all went well.
Still, saying something that might be construed as unflattering when one is a visitor is not altogether diplomatic. In the larger scheme of things, it will probably not matter much, yet it was an example of excessive candor.
The Israeli situation, however, was different. Exactly what happened in this instance is difficult to determine because what Romney said was behind closed doors. At minimum, we know that Mitt attributed Israeli economic and political successes to the state’s Jewish culture.
It is not clear, however, whether Romney explicitly implicated Arab culture in Palestinian failures. In any event, several Palestinians objected to what they characterized as racist insults. The mainstream media then picked this up as another specimen of Romney’s alleged penchant for misstatements.
I was immediately reminded of an earlier media feeding frenzy. This concerned Ronald Reagan who had the temerity to call the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” Pundits from the left instantly jumped on this remark as demonstrating the Gipper’s foreign policy inexperience.
Reagan supposedly undermined the possibility of coming to terms with the Russians with his shoot-from-the-hip style. But we know how that one turned out, don’t we. The same may well come to pass regarding Romney’s Israeli interlude.
The fact is that what Mitt said was absolutely true and that well-informed Palestinians know it. Whatever is articulated for public consumption, the chief difference between the Israelis and the Palestinians is culture. This must be so since neither community has more or less talent, nor commands greater or lesser physical resources.
What separates them is how they think and feel. Aside from their Jewish heritage, which places an emphasis on education and business prowess, the Israelis are largely Western in their attitudes. They have inherited the free market and democratic mentalities pioneered in Europe and the United States.
These ways of looking at the world have been translated into the dynamic Israeli economy and the freewheeling Israeli political system. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are trapped in a medieval mindset. They are still trying to revive the glories of a long defunct Caliphate.
The problem is that cultures are difficult to change. Because they are deeply entrenched and highly emotional, they tend to be conservative. Consequently, merely explaining a problem to people does not persuade them to make necessary modifications.
We see this in the United States with respect to the culture of poverty. People who are born into our underclass have difficulty picking themselves up by their bootstraps. They may, for instance, be told that education is the ticket to social mobility; nevertheless they spurn educational opportunities.
We, in this country, sought radical improvements by way of a War on Poverty, yet despite spending trillions of dollars little changed. In the Middle East the Arabs have not even publically acknowledged the nature of their difficulty. They are still intent on blaming their distress on the Jews.
Mitt’s bringing up the subject of culture will probably not alter this. But then neither did Reagan’s allusions to an evil empire bring immediate reforms. What will occur in the long run is difficult to know. The probability that it will be something good is, however, low, and will remain so as long as people continue to fool themselves about what is wrong.
Mitt’s words may therefore prove a useful beginning. If they, in fact, constituted a gaff, they were one for which we may eventually be thankful.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Building a Career in Branson
My wife and I had never been to Branson Missouri before; hence we did not know what to expect. As college professors, we wondered if this country music capital would be sophisticated enough for our tastes.
As it happened, we needn’t have been concerned. The quality of entertainment far exceeded our expectations. But more than this, we stumbled on to a bonus that put president Obama’s disparagement of the entrepreneurial spirit into perspective.
Quite by accident, we attended two tribute programs put on by James Garrett. One was for Johnny Cash and the other for John Denver. In both cases, we found ourselves cheek by jowls with the musicians in the tiny Little Opry Theater having the time of our lives.
Also quite unexpectedly, we later found ourselves enjoying two extended conversations with Garrett, which left us equally impressed. Anyone who believes that country music stars are dimwitted bumpkins ought to talk to Garrett. They would quickly find themselves disabused of their error.
But more than this, Garrett had a compelling story to tell. Some of it he related during his shows, but much he elaborated upon in private. This was about his life and how he moved up from very humble beginnings to realize considerable artistic success.
Garrett is not a superstar, but he did attract notice as the lead singer for the country group The Kendalls. Nowadays, with this behind him, he has been organizing award winning tribute shows. In addition, he is very good at what he does. Personable and charismatic, he routinely draws audiences into his world.
In any event, to say that Garrett began from unpromising roots would be a gross understatement. Abandoned as an infant, he spent the first decade of his life being tossed from one unpleasant foster home to the next. And even when his biological father reclaimed him, many of his subsequent years included bouts of homelessness.
With this background, he could, as did one of his brothers, have descended into alcoholism. He did not. Nor did he become embittered or emotionally disturbed. No doubt distressed by the trials he had to endure, he instead devoted himself to disproving predictions that he would never amount to a hill of beans.
Did Garrett build his own career? Or did the government hand it to him? Yes, audiences use state roads to get to his performances, but did the state give him his talent or supply the effort needed to develop it?
And what about organizing his shows? Which songs to sing and how to present them were not wired in from Washington. Poor decisions in these would quickly put him out of business—considering that there are almost a hundred and fifty other shows from which Branson customers can choose.
Obama says we need help in order to succeed. He tells us we cannot do things on our own. In this he is right—but in a trivial sense. As social creatures, we must cooperate with others, but even this cooperation, if it is to be beneficial, requires input from us.
To return to Garrett, he is not a one-man band. There on stage with him is Jim Glaspy, one of the most talented guitar and banjo players to be found anywhere. That the two can coordinate their performances as seamlessly as they do owes more to their own efforts than to Obama’s.
Garrett must also be a businessman who promotes his shows, an impresario who deals with theater owners, and a host who connects with audiences. All of this involves working with others, yet none of it detracts from the fact that he is largely responsible for his own success.
So I say let’s offer up three hearty cheers for James Garrett, and all those like him. It is to them that our country owes its greatness, not to the vainglorious Washington politicians who seek to take credit for what others have wrought.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
As it happened, we needn’t have been concerned. The quality of entertainment far exceeded our expectations. But more than this, we stumbled on to a bonus that put president Obama’s disparagement of the entrepreneurial spirit into perspective.
Quite by accident, we attended two tribute programs put on by James Garrett. One was for Johnny Cash and the other for John Denver. In both cases, we found ourselves cheek by jowls with the musicians in the tiny Little Opry Theater having the time of our lives.
Also quite unexpectedly, we later found ourselves enjoying two extended conversations with Garrett, which left us equally impressed. Anyone who believes that country music stars are dimwitted bumpkins ought to talk to Garrett. They would quickly find themselves disabused of their error.
But more than this, Garrett had a compelling story to tell. Some of it he related during his shows, but much he elaborated upon in private. This was about his life and how he moved up from very humble beginnings to realize considerable artistic success.
Garrett is not a superstar, but he did attract notice as the lead singer for the country group The Kendalls. Nowadays, with this behind him, he has been organizing award winning tribute shows. In addition, he is very good at what he does. Personable and charismatic, he routinely draws audiences into his world.
In any event, to say that Garrett began from unpromising roots would be a gross understatement. Abandoned as an infant, he spent the first decade of his life being tossed from one unpleasant foster home to the next. And even when his biological father reclaimed him, many of his subsequent years included bouts of homelessness.
With this background, he could, as did one of his brothers, have descended into alcoholism. He did not. Nor did he become embittered or emotionally disturbed. No doubt distressed by the trials he had to endure, he instead devoted himself to disproving predictions that he would never amount to a hill of beans.
Did Garrett build his own career? Or did the government hand it to him? Yes, audiences use state roads to get to his performances, but did the state give him his talent or supply the effort needed to develop it?
And what about organizing his shows? Which songs to sing and how to present them were not wired in from Washington. Poor decisions in these would quickly put him out of business—considering that there are almost a hundred and fifty other shows from which Branson customers can choose.
Obama says we need help in order to succeed. He tells us we cannot do things on our own. In this he is right—but in a trivial sense. As social creatures, we must cooperate with others, but even this cooperation, if it is to be beneficial, requires input from us.
To return to Garrett, he is not a one-man band. There on stage with him is Jim Glaspy, one of the most talented guitar and banjo players to be found anywhere. That the two can coordinate their performances as seamlessly as they do owes more to their own efforts than to Obama’s.
Garrett must also be a businessman who promotes his shows, an impresario who deals with theater owners, and a host who connects with audiences. All of this involves working with others, yet none of it detracts from the fact that he is largely responsible for his own success.
So I say let’s offer up three hearty cheers for James Garrett, and all those like him. It is to them that our country owes its greatness, not to the vainglorious Washington politicians who seek to take credit for what others have wrought.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Snow in July
The snowdrifts are piling up. Even though it has been a hot summer, we are being buried under tons of verbal snow. If you don’t yet get my drift, I am referring to the endless political snow jobs to which we have been treated. Were these actually cooling, they might be welcome, but, alas, they are not.
We have been warned early and often that this year’s presidential campaign would be the dirtiest in memory and it is living up to this prediction. Many commentators have cautioned that with a president who cannot afford to run on his record, he would probably resort to tearing down his opponent.
To add to this, many of them forecast that the accusations leveled against Romney would be false. Actually, they held that many would be lies. It is very unusual for a sitting president to be called a liar so often and regarding so many different matters, but Barack Obama has earned this distinction.
Yes, Democrats complained that “Bush lied and people died,” but this was about a single issue. And yes, Bob Dole found his reputation tarnished when he complained that a rival had lied about him, but Dole was already perceived as mean-spirited.
With Obama it is a little different. At first, his critics were gentle. They did not want to attack our first Black president; hence they suggested he was being “misleading.” Yet eventually the misrepresentations flew so thick and heavy that he was accused not only of lying, but of being a demagogue.
Recently he, and/or his people, have asserted that Romney may be a felon, that he is certainly a vulture capitalist who exported jobs over seas, and that he cares only about the rich—not women, minorities or the poor. According to them, he is a heartless fiend who is clearly not presidential material.
Mitt was a little slow in rebutting these charges so some liberals took comfort that their strategy was working. They would not have to defend the economy or Obamacare because the public’s attention would be elsewhere. As a result, their man’s inherent goodness would carry him through.
To me, this looks like denial. Committed liberals, who naturally want their favorite to win, have apparently convinced themselves he will. This does not surprise me. What does is the large numbers of voters who have not yet caught on to how disingenuous the president and his supporters are.
Recently I have been reading Erik Larson’s In the Garden of the Beasts. It is the story of Adolf Hitler’s first year in office as seen through the eyes of the American ambassador and his family. It is also a story of willful self-deception.
Hitler was a depraved leader from day one. His oppression of the German people, and especially of the Jews, began very soon after he took office. Except many people refused to believe it. The saw the clean streets and the orderly citizens and concluded what they wanted to conclude, namely that Hitler was rescuing his country from the Depression.
They also believed Hitler when he affirmed his desire for peace. Americans did not want war; Germans did not want war; surely Hitler did not want it either. He could not be so mad as to imagine that military adventurism would succeed.
Mind you, all people had to do was travel a few miles out of Berlin to observe the feverish preparations for war. Factories were being revved up to produce arms and military camps were sprouting along the highways. The evidence was there to see, but only for those prepared to see it.
Hitler was playing for time so that he could build his army, navy and air corps. In this, he did very well. Now Barack Obama is also playing for time. If he can keep people from asking embarrassing questions, he just might sneak over the electoral finish line. After that the deluge—but neither he nor his supporters care about that.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
We have been warned early and often that this year’s presidential campaign would be the dirtiest in memory and it is living up to this prediction. Many commentators have cautioned that with a president who cannot afford to run on his record, he would probably resort to tearing down his opponent.
To add to this, many of them forecast that the accusations leveled against Romney would be false. Actually, they held that many would be lies. It is very unusual for a sitting president to be called a liar so often and regarding so many different matters, but Barack Obama has earned this distinction.
Yes, Democrats complained that “Bush lied and people died,” but this was about a single issue. And yes, Bob Dole found his reputation tarnished when he complained that a rival had lied about him, but Dole was already perceived as mean-spirited.
With Obama it is a little different. At first, his critics were gentle. They did not want to attack our first Black president; hence they suggested he was being “misleading.” Yet eventually the misrepresentations flew so thick and heavy that he was accused not only of lying, but of being a demagogue.
Recently he, and/or his people, have asserted that Romney may be a felon, that he is certainly a vulture capitalist who exported jobs over seas, and that he cares only about the rich—not women, minorities or the poor. According to them, he is a heartless fiend who is clearly not presidential material.
Mitt was a little slow in rebutting these charges so some liberals took comfort that their strategy was working. They would not have to defend the economy or Obamacare because the public’s attention would be elsewhere. As a result, their man’s inherent goodness would carry him through.
To me, this looks like denial. Committed liberals, who naturally want their favorite to win, have apparently convinced themselves he will. This does not surprise me. What does is the large numbers of voters who have not yet caught on to how disingenuous the president and his supporters are.
Recently I have been reading Erik Larson’s In the Garden of the Beasts. It is the story of Adolf Hitler’s first year in office as seen through the eyes of the American ambassador and his family. It is also a story of willful self-deception.
Hitler was a depraved leader from day one. His oppression of the German people, and especially of the Jews, began very soon after he took office. Except many people refused to believe it. The saw the clean streets and the orderly citizens and concluded what they wanted to conclude, namely that Hitler was rescuing his country from the Depression.
They also believed Hitler when he affirmed his desire for peace. Americans did not want war; Germans did not want war; surely Hitler did not want it either. He could not be so mad as to imagine that military adventurism would succeed.
Mind you, all people had to do was travel a few miles out of Berlin to observe the feverish preparations for war. Factories were being revved up to produce arms and military camps were sprouting along the highways. The evidence was there to see, but only for those prepared to see it.
Hitler was playing for time so that he could build his army, navy and air corps. In this, he did very well. Now Barack Obama is also playing for time. If he can keep people from asking embarrassing questions, he just might sneak over the electoral finish line. After that the deluge—but neither he nor his supporters care about that.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Responsibility versus Irresponsibility
Reading about the childhoods of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is an excursion into stark opposites. The places they fit in their families of origin were so different that it would be a miracle if they turned out to deal with life the same way.
And, of course, they did not. Romney was deeply loved by parents who were always there for him. Besides the financial advantages he received, his was a secure upbringing. There were never any doubts that if he ran into trouble both his mother and father would be there to help out.
Obama, in contrast, was the next best thing to an orphan. Not only did his biological father abandon him when he was a month old, but his mother did almost the same several years later—leaving him to be raised by maternal grandparents.
As might be supposed, Barack resented this neglect. But mindful of his need not to alienate people who might abandon him, he kept a diplomatic silence. Only rarely did he express his bitterness at being what he described as “a supporting player” in the drama of his mother’s life.
Naturally, these disparities influenced the approach these two men took to life. Mitt became an extremely responsible person. Frequently volunteering to take on important tasks, he dedicated himself to fulfilling his obligations—which he habitually did with grace.
Whether this was guarding the symbol of the Stanford football team from their rivals at Berkley during his freshman year at college or taking over leadership of his Mormon mission in France when the official leader was injured in an automobile accident, he got the job done and done well.
This attitude later extended to his graduate studies, his wife and children, employment as a mid-level executive at Bain and Co., founder of Bain Capital, saving the winter Olympics, and governing the state of Massachusetts. In no case did he shirk his responsibilities.
Barack’s life course has been diametrically different. It is a study in temporary attachments and an unwillingness to make lasting commitments. Having been left behind by the people upon whom he should have been able to depend, he has subsequently become proficient in leaving others.
Like Mitt, Obama went to several colleges, but unlike Mitt he never took accountable positions at any of these. Instead he was an observer, whose energies turned inward. Next he abandoned several girlfriends, opted out of an editorial post he loathed, and took a community-organizing job he knew would be temporary.
When Barack finally did commit to Chicago, each step he took was calculated to advance his political career. The responsibilities he accepted (with the probable exception of his children) were essentially in service to what he desired, not what others needed.
This same attitude has been on display in politics. This, after all, was a man who specialized in voting “present” when he was in the Illinois legislature. There were to be no fingerprints on measures that might later get him in trouble. Then, after he made it to the U.S. senate, he assiduously avoided legislative initiatives.
Once he became president, the pattern continued. Thus, he farmed out his stimulus bill, Obamacare, and Dodd/Frank to be cobbled together by others. Nor did he put forward a budget that addressed the deficit or entitlements. He would not be responsible for unexpected bumps along the way.
By now observers, whose eyes are open, are aware that our president is a man of many excuses. According to him, it is always someone else’s fault when things go wrong; never his. The responsibility belongs to Bush, the Japanese Tsunami, the European financial crisis, Republican obstructionism, etc. etc. etc.
If the past means anything, if people tend to repeat long established precedents, we can be confident about what the future holds for each man. One will surely continue to be responsible and the other irresponsible. Only it is now up to us to choose between them.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
And, of course, they did not. Romney was deeply loved by parents who were always there for him. Besides the financial advantages he received, his was a secure upbringing. There were never any doubts that if he ran into trouble both his mother and father would be there to help out.
Obama, in contrast, was the next best thing to an orphan. Not only did his biological father abandon him when he was a month old, but his mother did almost the same several years later—leaving him to be raised by maternal grandparents.
As might be supposed, Barack resented this neglect. But mindful of his need not to alienate people who might abandon him, he kept a diplomatic silence. Only rarely did he express his bitterness at being what he described as “a supporting player” in the drama of his mother’s life.
Naturally, these disparities influenced the approach these two men took to life. Mitt became an extremely responsible person. Frequently volunteering to take on important tasks, he dedicated himself to fulfilling his obligations—which he habitually did with grace.
Whether this was guarding the symbol of the Stanford football team from their rivals at Berkley during his freshman year at college or taking over leadership of his Mormon mission in France when the official leader was injured in an automobile accident, he got the job done and done well.
This attitude later extended to his graduate studies, his wife and children, employment as a mid-level executive at Bain and Co., founder of Bain Capital, saving the winter Olympics, and governing the state of Massachusetts. In no case did he shirk his responsibilities.
Barack’s life course has been diametrically different. It is a study in temporary attachments and an unwillingness to make lasting commitments. Having been left behind by the people upon whom he should have been able to depend, he has subsequently become proficient in leaving others.
Like Mitt, Obama went to several colleges, but unlike Mitt he never took accountable positions at any of these. Instead he was an observer, whose energies turned inward. Next he abandoned several girlfriends, opted out of an editorial post he loathed, and took a community-organizing job he knew would be temporary.
When Barack finally did commit to Chicago, each step he took was calculated to advance his political career. The responsibilities he accepted (with the probable exception of his children) were essentially in service to what he desired, not what others needed.
This same attitude has been on display in politics. This, after all, was a man who specialized in voting “present” when he was in the Illinois legislature. There were to be no fingerprints on measures that might later get him in trouble. Then, after he made it to the U.S. senate, he assiduously avoided legislative initiatives.
Once he became president, the pattern continued. Thus, he farmed out his stimulus bill, Obamacare, and Dodd/Frank to be cobbled together by others. Nor did he put forward a budget that addressed the deficit or entitlements. He would not be responsible for unexpected bumps along the way.
By now observers, whose eyes are open, are aware that our president is a man of many excuses. According to him, it is always someone else’s fault when things go wrong; never his. The responsibility belongs to Bush, the Japanese Tsunami, the European financial crisis, Republican obstructionism, etc. etc. etc.
If the past means anything, if people tend to repeat long established precedents, we can be confident about what the future holds for each man. One will surely continue to be responsible and the other irresponsible. Only it is now up to us to choose between them.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
A Tale of Two Fathers
As a sociologist, I learned many lessons about families from David Popenoe. One of the most important concerns the role of fathers. He helped me realize that fathers can make a huge difference in the lives of their children. Mothers matte, but fathers are far from irrelevant.
Nowadays with two out of every five children born out of wedlock and most of these raised by single mothers, this fact has become of crucial significance. What recently drove this home for me was reading two biographies, one of Barack Obama and the other of Mitt Romney.
David Maraniss’ book Barack Obama: the Story and Michael Kranish and Scott Helman’s The Real Romney could scarcely have depicted more different childhoods and more different parents. At the end, I was left with no doubt about why these men have grown into such different adults.
Let us begin with Obama’s father. By now almost everyone has heard that Barack senior was Kenyan and by all accounts intellectually gifted. Far fewer are aware of how emotionally damaged the man was. Expected by many to become an important personage, he never achieved this status; largely because of his imperfections.
If we start with his son’s arrival in the world, Barack senior’s story includes marrying the future president’s mother, but he was little more than a sperm donor. After not telling Stanley Ann Dunham that he already had a wife and children in Kenya, he managed to live with her for but one month after the birth of their son.
In no sense was he ever paternal. Yes, he ran away from Hawaii to go to school in Harvard, but this pattern of running away existed before, and after, Barack II’s arrival. In some ways this was lucky for his American son because when he did stay with his wives (there were several), he frequently beat them.
On top of this Obama senior was a raging alcoholic with a penchant for getting into fatal automobile accidents. The one that eventually took his own life was but one of a series that never induced him to become more careful. Arrogant and overbearing, he was going to do things his way.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, had a father who was present and supportive. George Romney was a self made man and a dedicated family man. Having dropped out of college to marry his wife, they remained married and available to their children.
George was a hard driving executive who rose to become the CEO of American Motors and a three-time governor of Michigan. Nonetheless, he always made time for his children; especially the youngest one Mitt. Furthermore, he listened to what his son said and respected his contributions.
George also encouraged Mitt to live up to his potential. Besides financial support, he supplied something even more valuable; he bequeathed his son a strong sense of self. Right from the beginning the young Mitt emulated his father’s sense of responsibility and leadership.
Young Barack, in contrast, was left adrift. Often uncertain about who he was or where he belonged, his early life featured unfocused explorations. The wonder is that he found an identity he could sustain.
Obama wrote a book entitled Dreams from My Father, but in truth he obtained almost nothing from his father except perhaps his intelligence and a hole in his soul. He had to learn how to be a man with very little guidance from a successful and committed adult male.
Barack junior today presents an appearance of preternatural stability. Nothing seems to faze him. But this is analogous to what has been called precocious independence. Children who lack dependable attachment figures frequently develop a façade of self-sufficiency. This does not, however, signal an absence of inner turmoil.
For Mitt, however, the inner stability is real and presidential. It is a precious legacy given to him by a father who was reliably there.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Nowadays with two out of every five children born out of wedlock and most of these raised by single mothers, this fact has become of crucial significance. What recently drove this home for me was reading two biographies, one of Barack Obama and the other of Mitt Romney.
David Maraniss’ book Barack Obama: the Story and Michael Kranish and Scott Helman’s The Real Romney could scarcely have depicted more different childhoods and more different parents. At the end, I was left with no doubt about why these men have grown into such different adults.
Let us begin with Obama’s father. By now almost everyone has heard that Barack senior was Kenyan and by all accounts intellectually gifted. Far fewer are aware of how emotionally damaged the man was. Expected by many to become an important personage, he never achieved this status; largely because of his imperfections.
If we start with his son’s arrival in the world, Barack senior’s story includes marrying the future president’s mother, but he was little more than a sperm donor. After not telling Stanley Ann Dunham that he already had a wife and children in Kenya, he managed to live with her for but one month after the birth of their son.
In no sense was he ever paternal. Yes, he ran away from Hawaii to go to school in Harvard, but this pattern of running away existed before, and after, Barack II’s arrival. In some ways this was lucky for his American son because when he did stay with his wives (there were several), he frequently beat them.
On top of this Obama senior was a raging alcoholic with a penchant for getting into fatal automobile accidents. The one that eventually took his own life was but one of a series that never induced him to become more careful. Arrogant and overbearing, he was going to do things his way.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, had a father who was present and supportive. George Romney was a self made man and a dedicated family man. Having dropped out of college to marry his wife, they remained married and available to their children.
George was a hard driving executive who rose to become the CEO of American Motors and a three-time governor of Michigan. Nonetheless, he always made time for his children; especially the youngest one Mitt. Furthermore, he listened to what his son said and respected his contributions.
George also encouraged Mitt to live up to his potential. Besides financial support, he supplied something even more valuable; he bequeathed his son a strong sense of self. Right from the beginning the young Mitt emulated his father’s sense of responsibility and leadership.
Young Barack, in contrast, was left adrift. Often uncertain about who he was or where he belonged, his early life featured unfocused explorations. The wonder is that he found an identity he could sustain.
Obama wrote a book entitled Dreams from My Father, but in truth he obtained almost nothing from his father except perhaps his intelligence and a hole in his soul. He had to learn how to be a man with very little guidance from a successful and committed adult male.
Barack junior today presents an appearance of preternatural stability. Nothing seems to faze him. But this is analogous to what has been called precocious independence. Children who lack dependable attachment figures frequently develop a façade of self-sufficiency. This does not, however, signal an absence of inner turmoil.
For Mitt, however, the inner stability is real and presidential. It is a precious legacy given to him by a father who was reliably there.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Literary License
I have been writing that Barack Obama is a liar for several years now. There can be no doubt that he has an only passing acquaintance with the truth; nonetheless I have decided that I have not been sufficiently generous to our president.
David Maraniss’ book Barack Obama: The Story has led me to reevaluate the president’s motives and methods. As many others have noted, when he wrote his autobiography Dreams from My Father, Obama took many liberties. His account of the past, when investigated closely, does not jibe with reality.
For one thing, the characters he describes do not always match actual individuals. They are frequently composites intended to make an ideological point. For another, his sequencing is recurrently out of joint. Once more the objective is dramatic impact rather than historical accuracy.
At one point in Maraniss’ narrative, he describes the power that Obama imputes to words. Barack allegedly told classmates that words were more potent than economics or military might. Judging from the way he behaves in office, he still believes this.
Apparently Obama once thought he might become a writer. We may assume that this included writing novels. If it did, then he has succeeded in his ambition. His erstwhile autobiography turns out to be more like a novel—with himself as hero—than an honest rendering of his early life.
Having invented himself as the kind of person he wanted to be, he had no difficulty resorting to literary license to persuade his readers that this is who he is—and that the way he depicts the world is a correct portrayal of it.
For Obama fantasy mixes with reality in a way that he may have trouble telling apart. One thing Maraniss makes perfectly clear: Barack did not have a storybook childhood. Time and again, essentially emotionally abandoned, he had to develop the detached persona we have become familiar with in the White House.
We are also given to understand that Obama had to struggle with his racial identity. It was not merely that he was half white and half black, but that wherever he found himself, he was different. Always the outsider, whether in Hawaii, Indonesia, California or New York, he needed a reliable peg on which to hang his sense of self.
No wonder he manufactured this as a novelist would. No wonder too that it includes elements of the poseur. In need of persuading others—not just himself—that he was significant personage, he developed social gambits that projected himself as surreally heroic. Think of his pose with head thrust forward and chin pointed up—much in a manner of a Soviet hero-worker.
Think too of all of those public utterances that I have characterized as lies. They may not be so much lies as heroic epigrams. They are inspiring little dictums that sound good—and more importantly—make him look good. For him, what matters is their political effect, not their truth-value.
So Obama tells us he is pleased that the Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare. He reiterates that it will be good for the nation, but he does not mention that the court called his policy a “tax.” That would not sit well with the public, so it is not denied; merely left out.
Or he gives a speech in which he boasts of having reduced the deficit. He insists he has cut billions from the budget, but leaves out the trillions he added. He certainly cannot allude to the fact that the budget proposals he sent congress were roundly rejected; even by Democrats who realized they called for unsustainable spending.
What then are we to make of this president who is concerned more with guarding his damaged personhood than with protecting the nation he is sworn to defend? If we are decent people, we can feel sympathy for him. But if we care about the welfare of our country, we dare not re-elect him.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
David Maraniss’ book Barack Obama: The Story has led me to reevaluate the president’s motives and methods. As many others have noted, when he wrote his autobiography Dreams from My Father, Obama took many liberties. His account of the past, when investigated closely, does not jibe with reality.
For one thing, the characters he describes do not always match actual individuals. They are frequently composites intended to make an ideological point. For another, his sequencing is recurrently out of joint. Once more the objective is dramatic impact rather than historical accuracy.
At one point in Maraniss’ narrative, he describes the power that Obama imputes to words. Barack allegedly told classmates that words were more potent than economics or military might. Judging from the way he behaves in office, he still believes this.
Apparently Obama once thought he might become a writer. We may assume that this included writing novels. If it did, then he has succeeded in his ambition. His erstwhile autobiography turns out to be more like a novel—with himself as hero—than an honest rendering of his early life.
Having invented himself as the kind of person he wanted to be, he had no difficulty resorting to literary license to persuade his readers that this is who he is—and that the way he depicts the world is a correct portrayal of it.
For Obama fantasy mixes with reality in a way that he may have trouble telling apart. One thing Maraniss makes perfectly clear: Barack did not have a storybook childhood. Time and again, essentially emotionally abandoned, he had to develop the detached persona we have become familiar with in the White House.
We are also given to understand that Obama had to struggle with his racial identity. It was not merely that he was half white and half black, but that wherever he found himself, he was different. Always the outsider, whether in Hawaii, Indonesia, California or New York, he needed a reliable peg on which to hang his sense of self.
No wonder he manufactured this as a novelist would. No wonder too that it includes elements of the poseur. In need of persuading others—not just himself—that he was significant personage, he developed social gambits that projected himself as surreally heroic. Think of his pose with head thrust forward and chin pointed up—much in a manner of a Soviet hero-worker.
Think too of all of those public utterances that I have characterized as lies. They may not be so much lies as heroic epigrams. They are inspiring little dictums that sound good—and more importantly—make him look good. For him, what matters is their political effect, not their truth-value.
So Obama tells us he is pleased that the Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare. He reiterates that it will be good for the nation, but he does not mention that the court called his policy a “tax.” That would not sit well with the public, so it is not denied; merely left out.
Or he gives a speech in which he boasts of having reduced the deficit. He insists he has cut billions from the budget, but leaves out the trillions he added. He certainly cannot allude to the fact that the budget proposals he sent congress were roundly rejected; even by Democrats who realized they called for unsustainable spending.
What then are we to make of this president who is concerned more with guarding his damaged personhood than with protecting the nation he is sworn to defend? If we are decent people, we can feel sympathy for him. But if we care about the welfare of our country, we dare not re-elect him.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
