About three decades ago when I first attempted to write a book, I ran in to trouble. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t seem to get past the opening ten pages. These never lived up to my expectations; hence I always wound up putting them aside—never to be completed.
Eventually, however, I got fed up with this self-defeating perfectionism. Thus, instead of stopping at page eleven, I decided to keep going. As a result, I completed a manuscript, albeit not one that satisfied my hopes. That’s when I made a profound discovery. I now realized that what I wrote also had to be edited.
Indeed, over the years I have learned that writing is more about rewriting, than instant excellence. One’s prose can always be improved and ideas can always be refined. Even after a work is published, improvements are possible.
As it happens, these days people come to me for advice on how to write. But of them, only one has actually written several books. The others generally find that what they put on paper does not match their imagination and they stop. In the end, they join the multitude who believe there is a book in them that never sees the light of day.
Today, a similar penchant for perfectionism has reached its toxic tendrils into politics. To be more specific, Newt Gingrich has accused Mitt Romney of creating a venture capital company that ruined the lives of thousands. Gingrich, and his minions, assure us that Bain Capital was not nearly as successful as Romney claims.
By now, Newt’s anti-capitalist rants have been thoroughly discredited (as have those of Rick Perry), but there is more to this mischief than deceitfulness or economic illiteracy. It has also added a fresh layer of juvenile thinking to the acid bath of contemporary politics.
According to Newt, it would be enough to condemn Romney if a handful of the companies in which Bain invested went belly-up. This would presumably demonstrate that Mitt is not compassionate. Never mind, if most of his ventures succeeded; he would still be an economic predator. (Or, as Perry has it, a “vulture” capitalist.)
What this implies is a need for perfectionism. Any mistake, irrespective of how modest, is magnified until it is perceived as a wart that covers the target’s entire face. He (or she) is thus distilled down to the essence of a few missteps.
In fact, Bain Capital was wildly successful. It did far better in its investments than most of its rivals. Yet, it too had failures. Many of Newt’s examples are bogus, but not everything Romney and his partners touched turned to gold.
The question is—so what? If we were all required to be perfect all of the time, no books would ever be written, no buildings would ever rise from the ground, and no seeds would ever push their way up through the soil to become nourishing ears of corn. Life would come to a standstill, with everyone afraid to put one foot before another.
Actually, the effects of perfectionism run amok are currently on display in Washington. After all, hasn’t Barack Obama promised us the world and then assured us he fulfilled his word? Didn’t he, for instance, pledge to save or create millions of jobs—and then deliver?
No, wait! There may be some cynics who remain unconvinced of our president’s ability to create jobs. These people have obviously not been listening to Obama’s recitations regarding his numerous achievements. By his lights, these have made him the fourth most productive president of all time.
For those who remain in doubt, my real the point is that people who promise perfection can only sustain this illusion by making claims of success that are as fraudulent as their initial guarantees. Perfectionism is never in the cards; hence those who deal in it are forced to be disingenuous.
When politics refuses to make allowances for human fallibility, when it instead stoops to adolescent idealism, it bars the door to genuine advances. To make the perfect the enemy of the good, as I did before I learned to write reasonably well, or as Newt has done in ridiculing Bain Capital, is to preclude actual improvements.
This stance embraces fantasies over facts. Sadly, if too many of us adopt it, it will be to our eternal sorrow.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Our Second Anti-American President
The current inhabitant of the White House is our second anti-American president. The first was James Buchanan, who during his term of office demonstrated his preference for the South by refusing to thwart the impending Civil War. Obama’s bias has not yet reached such proportions, but it is nearly as egregious.
This judgment may seem to be political hyperbole; nevertheless the evidence to support it is robust. To begin with, Obama comes by his anti-Americanism honestly. His father left this country and returned to Kenya in a snit, while his mother manifested her negative attitude by living as an expatriate in Indonesia for most of her adult life.
In any event, our president’s mind-set has had disastrous implications both domestically and internationally. Indeed, in many ways he has done more damage to the United States than would have been inflicted by a full-scale enemy assault. So let us review the facts.
On the domestic front he has brought the nation to the brink of a budgetary catastrophe. He has also lengthened our economic downturn by supporting policies that discouraged private investment. This, coupled with his disdain for the free market and those who drive it forward, has introduced a host of unnecessary uncertainties.
He has also shown contempt for our political institutions by repeatedly subverting them. To illustrate, instead of healing the nation’s political divisions, he has refused to compromise with the opposition. From the beginning he has been a super-partisan whose mantra has been “it’s my way or the highway.” In addition to vilifying the Republicans, he has refused even to talk to them.
Then too, when it has suited his purposes he has thumbed his nose at the constitution. By his own admission, he has sought to govern without the cooperation of Congress. This strategy too began right out of the starting gate, when he began to rely on so-called unconfirmed “czars” to implement his policies
We have also witnessed his penchant for employing sleazy backroom deals to achieve his ends. This reached a high-water mark with the passage of Obamacare. Not only were its details unread by those who passed the legislation, but it was larded with special benefits for the president’s political allies.
In general, Obama has undermined the democratic culture of our nation by resorting to demagogic tactics. Thus, he promised everything to everyone, but he has also indulged in dishonesty of a magnitude not approached by his predecessors. Democracy depends on trust, yet time and again he has proved himself untrustworthy.
As to the international scene, he has repetitively fawned over our enemies, while disrespecting our friends. We have seen this with respect to Israel and the Palestinians. We have also seen it in his policies toward Russia and Western Europe. The president has even managed to offend our Canadian and Mexican neighbors, while providing succor for socialists in Honduras and Venezuela.
Perhaps worst of all, he is in the process of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, at the very same time that he is allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. To make matters even worse, he is intent on hollowing out our military, just as it faces greater threats.
But now we have two new pieces of evidence regarding Obama’s underlying attitude. Internationally, he is beginning to make overtures to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. It was apparently not enough to undercut our Islamic friends, but we may soon be asked to get into bed with our Middle Eastern adversaries.
And then there are his recess appointments to the new consumer protection agency and the national labor relations board. Even though the president knew that the Senate was not technically in recess, he did what he wanted—the constitution be damned. Obama evidently intends to remake the United States along the lines he prefers.
It was not very long ago that our president promised us change we could believe in. Time has now revealed what he meant. Quite clearly Obama did not appreciate the country he inherited and hoped to convert it into something else. While he portrays this as love, it is really scorn.
Calling a sitting president anti-American is surely extreme, but those of us who are fond of the United States must understand what is occurring, that is, if we are to protect our nation from those who would dismantle it.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
This judgment may seem to be political hyperbole; nevertheless the evidence to support it is robust. To begin with, Obama comes by his anti-Americanism honestly. His father left this country and returned to Kenya in a snit, while his mother manifested her negative attitude by living as an expatriate in Indonesia for most of her adult life.
In any event, our president’s mind-set has had disastrous implications both domestically and internationally. Indeed, in many ways he has done more damage to the United States than would have been inflicted by a full-scale enemy assault. So let us review the facts.
On the domestic front he has brought the nation to the brink of a budgetary catastrophe. He has also lengthened our economic downturn by supporting policies that discouraged private investment. This, coupled with his disdain for the free market and those who drive it forward, has introduced a host of unnecessary uncertainties.
He has also shown contempt for our political institutions by repeatedly subverting them. To illustrate, instead of healing the nation’s political divisions, he has refused to compromise with the opposition. From the beginning he has been a super-partisan whose mantra has been “it’s my way or the highway.” In addition to vilifying the Republicans, he has refused even to talk to them.
Then too, when it has suited his purposes he has thumbed his nose at the constitution. By his own admission, he has sought to govern without the cooperation of Congress. This strategy too began right out of the starting gate, when he began to rely on so-called unconfirmed “czars” to implement his policies
We have also witnessed his penchant for employing sleazy backroom deals to achieve his ends. This reached a high-water mark with the passage of Obamacare. Not only were its details unread by those who passed the legislation, but it was larded with special benefits for the president’s political allies.
In general, Obama has undermined the democratic culture of our nation by resorting to demagogic tactics. Thus, he promised everything to everyone, but he has also indulged in dishonesty of a magnitude not approached by his predecessors. Democracy depends on trust, yet time and again he has proved himself untrustworthy.
As to the international scene, he has repetitively fawned over our enemies, while disrespecting our friends. We have seen this with respect to Israel and the Palestinians. We have also seen it in his policies toward Russia and Western Europe. The president has even managed to offend our Canadian and Mexican neighbors, while providing succor for socialists in Honduras and Venezuela.
Perhaps worst of all, he is in the process of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, at the very same time that he is allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. To make matters even worse, he is intent on hollowing out our military, just as it faces greater threats.
But now we have two new pieces of evidence regarding Obama’s underlying attitude. Internationally, he is beginning to make overtures to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. It was apparently not enough to undercut our Islamic friends, but we may soon be asked to get into bed with our Middle Eastern adversaries.
And then there are his recess appointments to the new consumer protection agency and the national labor relations board. Even though the president knew that the Senate was not technically in recess, he did what he wanted—the constitution be damned. Obama evidently intends to remake the United States along the lines he prefers.
It was not very long ago that our president promised us change we could believe in. Time has now revealed what he meant. Quite clearly Obama did not appreciate the country he inherited and hoped to convert it into something else. While he portrays this as love, it is really scorn.
Calling a sitting president anti-American is surely extreme, but those of us who are fond of the United States must understand what is occurring, that is, if we are to protect our nation from those who would dismantle it.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Race Relations at KSU
Once Barack Obama got elected, we were supposed to enter a post-racial world. As our first black president, he would bring us all together irrespective of race. Unfortunately things have not worked out that way. Today, those who criticize Obama are likely to be told they are only exposing their racist inclinations.
Worse still, the president’s Attorney-General Eric Holder is fond of censuring whites for their alleged lack of courage with respect to racial issues. Just how disposed Holder is to see things through a racial prism was revealed in an anecdote told by J. Christian Adams in his book Injustice.
It seems that for many years Holder carried a newspaper clipping in his wallet that quoted a black preacher as saying, “ No matter how affluent, educated and mobile [a black person] becomes, his race defines him more than anything else.” Given his actions, Holder apparently continues to think of himself this way.
I am happy to report, however, that on a local level we seem to have made more progress on racial integration than they have in Washington. The South continues to have a terrible reputation when it comes to race relations, but this is belied by what is occurring on the ground at Kennesaw State University.
When I first began teaching at KSU more than two decades ago, barely three percent of our student population was black. Today we are moving to upwards of twenty-three percent. Back then black students left us to go to Georgia State because they found the atmosphere there more congenial. Today the reverse is true.
More than this, I daily witness my students interacting with one another in terms of friendship. There are no ghettoes in my classrooms. To the contrary, members of different racial groups socialize with one another unselfconsciously based on their personal aspirations.
Added to this is the fact that I can never be sure of who will be my best or worst students based solely on skin color. Sometimes the best student is white; sometimes black. As it happens, the same is also true with respect to who gets the lowest grade.
What is the reason for this state of affairs? How has a circumstance that would have been regarded as miraculous a scant half century ago come to be? The answer, I am sorry to say, is not to be found in a particular policy that has been initiated by my university.
It is not that KSU does not have such policies. Like almost every college it sponsors programs to teach about race. It also encourages both courses and student activities that focus on racial matters. Nonetheless, these are not what have made the difference.
It turns out that programs such as “sensitivity training” have almost no impact on racial arttitudes. As Harvard sociologist Frank Dobbin’s research has revealed, these leave their participants unchanged. Why this is so is easy to understand.
Imagine a racist is such a program. He knows what he is expected to say when told that all whites are privileged compared with blacks. Assuming he is not a fool, rather than harm his prospects, he mouths the correct responses; whereas his underlying feelings remain what they were. As to non-racists, they assume that the program has nothing to do with them; hence their attitudes also remain the same.
What then makes the difference? The answer lies in a phrase for which Richard Nixon was roundly castigated. He suggested that the best approach to resolving racial difficulties was “benign neglect.” The government should just step back and allow events to unfold naturally.
This essentially is what has happened at KSU. Way back in the 1940’s another sociologist named Morton Deutsch suggested that if members of different races were allowed to interact with one another, they would soon learn that members of the other group were as human as themselves. Consequent to this, the barriers between them would come tumbling down.
What Deutsch did not understand was that for this policy to work the meeting between the two groups must be voluntary. If they are forced to interact, both sides will resist. Fortunately, what has occurred at KSU was completely voluntary. Blacks and whites have learned to get along because no one has twisted their arms to make them more gracious. They have simply done so on their own.
To which I say—Amen!
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Worse still, the president’s Attorney-General Eric Holder is fond of censuring whites for their alleged lack of courage with respect to racial issues. Just how disposed Holder is to see things through a racial prism was revealed in an anecdote told by J. Christian Adams in his book Injustice.
It seems that for many years Holder carried a newspaper clipping in his wallet that quoted a black preacher as saying, “ No matter how affluent, educated and mobile [a black person] becomes, his race defines him more than anything else.” Given his actions, Holder apparently continues to think of himself this way.
I am happy to report, however, that on a local level we seem to have made more progress on racial integration than they have in Washington. The South continues to have a terrible reputation when it comes to race relations, but this is belied by what is occurring on the ground at Kennesaw State University.
When I first began teaching at KSU more than two decades ago, barely three percent of our student population was black. Today we are moving to upwards of twenty-three percent. Back then black students left us to go to Georgia State because they found the atmosphere there more congenial. Today the reverse is true.
More than this, I daily witness my students interacting with one another in terms of friendship. There are no ghettoes in my classrooms. To the contrary, members of different racial groups socialize with one another unselfconsciously based on their personal aspirations.
Added to this is the fact that I can never be sure of who will be my best or worst students based solely on skin color. Sometimes the best student is white; sometimes black. As it happens, the same is also true with respect to who gets the lowest grade.
What is the reason for this state of affairs? How has a circumstance that would have been regarded as miraculous a scant half century ago come to be? The answer, I am sorry to say, is not to be found in a particular policy that has been initiated by my university.
It is not that KSU does not have such policies. Like almost every college it sponsors programs to teach about race. It also encourages both courses and student activities that focus on racial matters. Nonetheless, these are not what have made the difference.
It turns out that programs such as “sensitivity training” have almost no impact on racial arttitudes. As Harvard sociologist Frank Dobbin’s research has revealed, these leave their participants unchanged. Why this is so is easy to understand.
Imagine a racist is such a program. He knows what he is expected to say when told that all whites are privileged compared with blacks. Assuming he is not a fool, rather than harm his prospects, he mouths the correct responses; whereas his underlying feelings remain what they were. As to non-racists, they assume that the program has nothing to do with them; hence their attitudes also remain the same.
What then makes the difference? The answer lies in a phrase for which Richard Nixon was roundly castigated. He suggested that the best approach to resolving racial difficulties was “benign neglect.” The government should just step back and allow events to unfold naturally.
This essentially is what has happened at KSU. Way back in the 1940’s another sociologist named Morton Deutsch suggested that if members of different races were allowed to interact with one another, they would soon learn that members of the other group were as human as themselves. Consequent to this, the barriers between them would come tumbling down.
What Deutsch did not understand was that for this policy to work the meeting between the two groups must be voluntary. If they are forced to interact, both sides will resist. Fortunately, what has occurred at KSU was completely voluntary. Blacks and whites have learned to get along because no one has twisted their arms to make them more gracious. They have simply done so on their own.
To which I say—Amen!
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Mitt the Unloved
My wife’s uncle John is a man of the heartland. Born and raised in Ohio, he currently resides on Florida’s west coast. A marine mechanic by trade, and a committed Christian by choice, he is justifiably proud of his skills and his work ethic. A Reagan Democrat politically, he too has been thinking about the next election.
Consequently when John expresses an opinion, I listen. I was therefore taken aback when he declared, “There is something about Mitt Romney that I just don’t like. I’m not sure what it is. I just don’t like him.”
John is apparently not alone. A majority of Republican voters have been frantically switching their allegiance from one candidate to another rather than commit to Romney. Despite the fact that he has the most consistent record of any of the candidates in the debates, they have expressed a desire for Gingrich, Cain, Perry, Paul, or Bachmann rather than him.
Some have suggested that this is because Romney is a Mormon. They say that evangelicals just do not trust Mormons. But John never expressed any such doubts. Moreover, millions of evangelicals love Glen Beck who is equally Mormon. This then cannot be the reason.
Others have argued that it is because Romney is insufficiently conservative. These folks believe that the Tea Party members are demanding the most conservative candidate they can find. In this case, however, they should have eschewed Gingrich. He has been all over the political landscape, but has nevertheless attracted a significant following.
May I, therefore, put forward another alternative. Something that Rick Perry said when he was pleading for a second look may hold the key. Perry complained that Romney was so good looking that this created a distraction when they were sparring during one of the debates.
The problem may indeed be that Mitt is too perfect. His hair is never messed up, his clothes are never rumpled, and he always has something appropriate to say. Mitt, in short, is a straight arrow. He is like that goody-two-shoes who was the teacher’s pet in the third grade. Just like that oh so flawless kid, you want to throw him into the mud to teach him a lesson.
What makes this especially odd is the earlier reaction to Obama. According to Ron Suskind, when Barack was running for president many in his entourage referred to him as Jesus. They apparently thought of him as so perfect that he could save the nation from Republican cupidity. For them, this was not a disqualification, but a source of enormous pride.
Republicans, however, seem to be a bit more realistic. As people who are attuned to the limitations inherent in the human condition, they are suspicious of anyone who appears unblemished. They fear that such a person is too good to be true; hence if he or she gains power, the insensitivity behind the mask will emerge to cause untold harm.
Barack’s saving grace was that he appeared affable. He seemed to be a nice guy. Today we know that he maintains an emotional barrier between himself and the rest of the world. Mitt unfortunately is stiff in comparison. It is as if there is a robot hiding underneath his tidy exterior.
But I suspect that the mistake we are making is the reverse of the one we made with Barack. I believe that Mitt is more decent and human than he generally reveals himself to be the public. This side of him, however, peeked through during an interview he gave to Fox’s Chris Wallace.
When asked about his wife’s health, Mitt was forced to discuss issues he usually keeps private. Up until that moment I had not realized that his spouse suffered from MS. This is because he had not brought up the subject in an effort to gain sympathy. He and his family had merely dealt with it in the matter-of-fact way of problem-solvers.
But what really grabbed my attention was the moistness in Romney’s eyes as he disclosed these matters. At no point did he ask for pity, yet in his tight-lipped way he convinced me that here was a man who genuinely loves his wife.
But he did more than that. His unfeigned modesty also convinced me that he is a man who genuinely loves his country. And I want someone like that for president!
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Consequently when John expresses an opinion, I listen. I was therefore taken aback when he declared, “There is something about Mitt Romney that I just don’t like. I’m not sure what it is. I just don’t like him.”
John is apparently not alone. A majority of Republican voters have been frantically switching their allegiance from one candidate to another rather than commit to Romney. Despite the fact that he has the most consistent record of any of the candidates in the debates, they have expressed a desire for Gingrich, Cain, Perry, Paul, or Bachmann rather than him.
Some have suggested that this is because Romney is a Mormon. They say that evangelicals just do not trust Mormons. But John never expressed any such doubts. Moreover, millions of evangelicals love Glen Beck who is equally Mormon. This then cannot be the reason.
Others have argued that it is because Romney is insufficiently conservative. These folks believe that the Tea Party members are demanding the most conservative candidate they can find. In this case, however, they should have eschewed Gingrich. He has been all over the political landscape, but has nevertheless attracted a significant following.
May I, therefore, put forward another alternative. Something that Rick Perry said when he was pleading for a second look may hold the key. Perry complained that Romney was so good looking that this created a distraction when they were sparring during one of the debates.
The problem may indeed be that Mitt is too perfect. His hair is never messed up, his clothes are never rumpled, and he always has something appropriate to say. Mitt, in short, is a straight arrow. He is like that goody-two-shoes who was the teacher’s pet in the third grade. Just like that oh so flawless kid, you want to throw him into the mud to teach him a lesson.
What makes this especially odd is the earlier reaction to Obama. According to Ron Suskind, when Barack was running for president many in his entourage referred to him as Jesus. They apparently thought of him as so perfect that he could save the nation from Republican cupidity. For them, this was not a disqualification, but a source of enormous pride.
Republicans, however, seem to be a bit more realistic. As people who are attuned to the limitations inherent in the human condition, they are suspicious of anyone who appears unblemished. They fear that such a person is too good to be true; hence if he or she gains power, the insensitivity behind the mask will emerge to cause untold harm.
Barack’s saving grace was that he appeared affable. He seemed to be a nice guy. Today we know that he maintains an emotional barrier between himself and the rest of the world. Mitt unfortunately is stiff in comparison. It is as if there is a robot hiding underneath his tidy exterior.
But I suspect that the mistake we are making is the reverse of the one we made with Barack. I believe that Mitt is more decent and human than he generally reveals himself to be the public. This side of him, however, peeked through during an interview he gave to Fox’s Chris Wallace.
When asked about his wife’s health, Mitt was forced to discuss issues he usually keeps private. Up until that moment I had not realized that his spouse suffered from MS. This is because he had not brought up the subject in an effort to gain sympathy. He and his family had merely dealt with it in the matter-of-fact way of problem-solvers.
But what really grabbed my attention was the moistness in Romney’s eyes as he disclosed these matters. At no point did he ask for pity, yet in his tight-lipped way he convinced me that here was a man who genuinely loves his wife.
But he did more than that. His unfeigned modesty also convinced me that he is a man who genuinely loves his country. And I want someone like that for president!
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
