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
Sunday, July 29, 2012
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
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Liberal Arrogance
Just when I think that the egotism of liberals can grow no greater, it does. Who thought that Barack Obama would cross the line in the sand that he himself drew and unilaterally bypass Congress to mandate temporary amnesty for some illegals?
Likewise, who would have imagined that having berated George W. Bush for asserting executive privilege, he would do the same for the Fast and Furious scandal? Attorney General Eric Holder has been stonewalling congress for over a year, but why would the president have joined him in this intransigence?
And as for the mainstream media, I was appalled to learn how little attention they have paid to Fast and Furious. Two Americans die because of an ill-conceived effort to track arms into Mexico and the network television news only devotes seconds to covering the story? Is this Alice Through the Looking Glass?
Not long ago I discovered a clue to this mentality. I was reading a book called Red Families versus Blue Families by Nancy Cahn and June Carbone. As lawyers, the authors were analyzing the legal differences regarding sex and the marriage statues between liberal and conservative states.
For the most part, they did a credible job. But then I encountered their thumbnail descriptions of conservatives and liberals. Mind you, they labeled them as traditionalists and modernists respectively, but the intent was unmistakable.
According to the authors, conservatives adhere to traditions, respect authority, and desire order, whereas liberals are flexible thinkers, tolerate diversity and place a greater emphasis on equality. Guess which group they favor?
But think about how tendentious and arrogant this is. Clearly the conservatives are the rigid bad guys, whereas the liberals are the progressive good guys. One group is obviously mired in the past, while the other optimistically looks forward to a better future. (By the way, hasn’t Obama been touting his moving “forward.”)
Anyway, let’s start with this business of conservatives respecting authority, while liberals presumably do not. Has anybody read The New York Times lately? “Kneejerk liberal” is a hackneyed appellation, but it surely applies to the Times. So what of those readers for whom its authority is Biblical? Are they not slaves to authority?
And as to tolerance of diversity, how come the liberals have difficulty tolerating religious fundamentalists? They insist that they are non-judgmental and give everyone “unconditional positive regard;” that is, unless you are perceived as a political enemy. Then you are obviously stupid and unworthy of respect.
With regard to this business of liberals emphasizing equality (of results, not opportunity), why didn’t the authors note that conservatives emphasize freedom? Isn’t the pursuit of liberty a commendable quest? Indeed, I personally feel freedom is far more important than equality.
What liberals in their arrogance fail to realize is that a respect for tradition and a desire for progress are not incompatible. If anything, a commitment to the Constitution—an admittedly old document—may facilitate the preservation of the very freedoms that make democratic progress possible.
Being forward looking is not equivalent being in favor of a bigger and more centralized federal government, as liberals desire. Nor does it mean that you must put on blinders and fail to comprehend that very large budget deficits are a prescription for economic ruin.
In truth, it is the conservatives who are looking forward to warn of the dangers of concentrating power in fewer hands. Those old-fashioned traditions of theirs—you know the ones about a separation of political power—tell them that what Obama and company are attempting might just undermine our personal rights.
I may be simple-minded, but the way I see it: those who do not do not grasp this unadorned fact are not flexible thinkers. They are so sure they are “the best and brightest” that it never occurs to them that those who disagree might have a valid point or two.
Now that’s arrogance!
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Likewise, who would have imagined that having berated George W. Bush for asserting executive privilege, he would do the same for the Fast and Furious scandal? Attorney General Eric Holder has been stonewalling congress for over a year, but why would the president have joined him in this intransigence?
And as for the mainstream media, I was appalled to learn how little attention they have paid to Fast and Furious. Two Americans die because of an ill-conceived effort to track arms into Mexico and the network television news only devotes seconds to covering the story? Is this Alice Through the Looking Glass?
Not long ago I discovered a clue to this mentality. I was reading a book called Red Families versus Blue Families by Nancy Cahn and June Carbone. As lawyers, the authors were analyzing the legal differences regarding sex and the marriage statues between liberal and conservative states.
For the most part, they did a credible job. But then I encountered their thumbnail descriptions of conservatives and liberals. Mind you, they labeled them as traditionalists and modernists respectively, but the intent was unmistakable.
According to the authors, conservatives adhere to traditions, respect authority, and desire order, whereas liberals are flexible thinkers, tolerate diversity and place a greater emphasis on equality. Guess which group they favor?
But think about how tendentious and arrogant this is. Clearly the conservatives are the rigid bad guys, whereas the liberals are the progressive good guys. One group is obviously mired in the past, while the other optimistically looks forward to a better future. (By the way, hasn’t Obama been touting his moving “forward.”)
Anyway, let’s start with this business of conservatives respecting authority, while liberals presumably do not. Has anybody read The New York Times lately? “Kneejerk liberal” is a hackneyed appellation, but it surely applies to the Times. So what of those readers for whom its authority is Biblical? Are they not slaves to authority?
And as to tolerance of diversity, how come the liberals have difficulty tolerating religious fundamentalists? They insist that they are non-judgmental and give everyone “unconditional positive regard;” that is, unless you are perceived as a political enemy. Then you are obviously stupid and unworthy of respect.
With regard to this business of liberals emphasizing equality (of results, not opportunity), why didn’t the authors note that conservatives emphasize freedom? Isn’t the pursuit of liberty a commendable quest? Indeed, I personally feel freedom is far more important than equality.
What liberals in their arrogance fail to realize is that a respect for tradition and a desire for progress are not incompatible. If anything, a commitment to the Constitution—an admittedly old document—may facilitate the preservation of the very freedoms that make democratic progress possible.
Being forward looking is not equivalent being in favor of a bigger and more centralized federal government, as liberals desire. Nor does it mean that you must put on blinders and fail to comprehend that very large budget deficits are a prescription for economic ruin.
In truth, it is the conservatives who are looking forward to warn of the dangers of concentrating power in fewer hands. Those old-fashioned traditions of theirs—you know the ones about a separation of political power—tell them that what Obama and company are attempting might just undermine our personal rights.
I may be simple-minded, but the way I see it: those who do not do not grasp this unadorned fact are not flexible thinkers. They are so sure they are “the best and brightest” that it never occurs to them that those who disagree might have a valid point or two.
Now that’s arrogance!
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
