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
Saturday, September 29, 2012
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
