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
Sunday, October 28, 2012
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
