Cliff? What Cliff?

I have a mortgage. It is not under water, but it is much larger than I could pay off in a single bite. Every month, when I get the bill from the bank, I take note of how much will go for the principal and how much for interest. The two numbers are uncomfortably close and will be for many years.

I am also very aware every time I send in a payment that the money going for interest is unavailable to be spent on other things. Like all average citizens, my wife and I have to balance the family books and that means prioritizing what we buy and what we forego.

But we are told that this logic does not apply to the federal government. If it spends more than it has, increased economic activity and therefore increased revenues will compensate for this. In the end, it cannot go broke because it is the banker of last resort.

This is elementary Keynesianism. The government borrows, and spends, and thereby “primes the pump.” Then when the water begins gushing forth, everyone is wealthier than they had been before. Likewise, if the government does not do its part by spending wildly, we will all suffer unremitting poverty.

The trouble with this theory is that it has been tried and does not work. It did not work for Franklin D. Roosevelt who employed it for almost a decade. It has not worked for Barack Obama who has resorted to it for four years and now plans to use it for another four.

Economists tell us that the economy should continue to grow, but at an anemic rate—not even enough to create jobs for everyone seeking them. But this is okay because we can continue to borrow and to prime the pump.

Barack Obama is currently telling us that there is no impending debt crisis. He says that we can keep going for at least another decade with no adverse effects. Greece may have gone broke, yet as the world’s reserve currency we can keep borrowing for as long as it takes to turn the corner.

But can we? The president and his minions assert that there is no debt cliff. It is only a bunch of Republican alarmists who think so. Just four short years ago Obama himself was warning that Bush was stealing from our children; nevertheless that danger no longer applies because Democrats are now in charge.

In truth, the borrowing cannot last forever, because the federal government also pays interest on what it borrows. So far, this administration has been lucky in that interests rates have been extremely low. What with the Fed charging banks almost no interest and other governments in more trouble than we are, investors have been willing to accept paltry returns.

That, however, cannot go on indefinitely. With more and more money being pumped into an economy that is not increasing its production of goods to match, eventually prices must go up. We may not know when this inflation will hit, but when it does the consequences will be dire.

As has happened in the past, interest rates will skyrocket, which means that what the government has to pay to attract lenders will as well. Then, to paraphrase Obama, simple math tells us that the dollars going out to pay for the interest will not be available for other things.

Nevertheless, this is in the future. Today we may be feeling uncomfortable, but we are not in agony. People, like me, warn about the impending cliff, yet we have not, to date, gone over it. We have certainly not bottomed out and so it seems to many that all is well.

Still, there is a debt cliff coming, and those who are asking “what cliff” will be hurt just as badly as those warning of it. The question is, will we do anything before it is too late? The doubts grow.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Unconditional Moral Surrender

I do not like Barack Obama. I was reminded of how much I dislike him when Mitt Romney recently reappeared in public. Here was a decent, and competent, human being who was rejected in favor of a moral pygmy. For reasons I cannot fathom, the American people preferred four more years of lies, manipulation, and bankruptcy to him.

Now I know this is harsh. But the time has come to be harsh. Once more our president has revealed his true nature. In order to gain political advantage, he has knowingly chosen to injure our nation. Even school children are fair game for his destructive impulses.

Everyone in Washington understands that Barack chose to close the White House to visitors in order to demonstrate how damaging budget cuts would be. They likewise know that he instructed his underlings to find other unnecessary cutbacks in other agencies as well.

This has been called the Washington Monument ploy in that it is a very visible way to arouse public ire. Shut down the Washington Monument, or the White House, and ordinary Americans will demand that something be done—such as rescinding the budget sequester.

To engage in this sort of deception, even when knowledgeable observers see it for what it is, is the height of cynicism. It is to treat the American people as if they are mentally defective. But then again, the American people have swallowed so many lies over the last four years that Obama had reason to believe he could get away with this maneuver.

A cardinal doctrine of contemporary liberalism is that we must accord everyone “unconditional positive regard.” Whatever they do, we must not be too critical. To do so might harm their self-esteem. And so we must let others know that we love them, even though we do not like what they did.

Well, I am a little bit more old-fashioned than that. When you shoot me in the foot, I do not say thank you, may I have another. When I know that you have intentionally sought to injure me, I do not give you positive, but negative regard. In other words, I am furious with you!

Now some people might characterize this reaction as cruel, whereas I consider it appropriate. Morality exists only when people uphold moral conduct. When they tolerate immoral behavior on the grounds that condemning it might make the perpetrator feel bad, they are actually condoning it.

Taken literally “unconditional positive regard” is tantamount to “unconditional moral surrender.” If bad behavior can never be called out for what it is, this is the equivalent of moral abdication. It is to do nothing in the face of wickedness, thereby compounding it.

So I am calling out Barack Obama. I have done so before, and no doubt will do so again. Nor am I alone. This latest piece of presidential mischief may have been a bridge too far. Many other voices have also been raised to object to his transparent manipulation.

The question is, How long will this displeasure last? Will the American people relent when subjected to another charm offensive? Will they agree that the president is basically a nice man and therefore we should be nice to him?

The trouble is that Obama is not nice. He may have a nice smile and a persuasive line of patter, but his actions are not those of a man who is concerned with the well being of the people dependent upon him. He talks a good game, but then he sticks a knife under the rib.

Morality cannot exist when people close their eyes to immorality. It is in particular jeopardy when people consent to corruption in the name of morality. Yes, I have been mean to Barack Obama, but he richly deserves it. And so I will desist only when he changes his ways—although I am not expecting this anytime soon.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Realistic Idealism

Do you remember the jokes the late-night comedians would make at the expense of George Bush the elder? He was regularly pilloried for being stogy and out of touch. One of their favorite zingers was to imitate him saying, “It wouldn’t be prudent.”

Well, the Republicans have become the party of prudence, whereas the Democrats have been the party of inspiration. While Republicans keep telling us that we are spending too much and will go broke if we do not mend our ways, Democrats promise to educate our children and create a pollution-free world.

As for me, I am all for prudence; yet look at the results of the last two presidential elections. It seems clear that young people, women, and minorities opted for inspiration over prudence. They did not want to hear establishment types talking about preserving the constitution or paying down the national debt.

My conclusion is that if Republicans are to become electorally competitive, they too must be inspirational. But that does not mean they should try to out-promise Obama. No one can do that. Nor does it mean they should abandon the constitution. Its stability is too important to our joint well being.

No, I am suggesting something different. It seems that important constituencies demand national leaders who are “idealistic.” So I say, conservatives should give it to them. A shell-shocked GOP has been casting around for a winning strategy and this may be it.

Nevertheless, Republicans must be wary of a “romantic idealism.” If they, like the Democrats, make promises they cannot redeem, they will be found out. The young and naïve often live with their heads in the clouds, yet they too eventually turn against leaders who do not deliver.

In my book The Limits of Idealism I argued that the young are idealistic because they are both moral and inexperienced. They fall for the simplified ideas of moral extremists because they have not yet learned the limitations of what is possible. They, for instance, believe it when told anyone can become president.

Sober heads that wish to sustain our nation must consequently avoid this trap. Nonetheless they should not avoid moralism. The trick is to be morally stirring without being foolishly saccharin or demagogically misleading. Moral goals can be promoted in ways that actually work.

As I have previously written, I believe there are five moral objectives to which Americans of all stripes can subscribe. These are honesty, responsibility, fairness, family and liberty. If they are presented vigorously and realistically they can serve as a corrective to the moral quagmire we have entered.

Consider the example of Jimmy Carter. Although he began his political career in obscurity, he captured the nation’s imagination by promising that he would never lie to the public. Many people had qualms about his religious fervor, but they were eager to move past the Watergate scandal.

I submit that many Americans will soon be ready to move past the Obama quagmire. Four years of economic stagnation were not enough to disabuse them of their hero’s virtues, but maybe eight will be. The same applies to ObamaCare. Maybe its implementation will convince them it was a mistake.

In the meantime, our president continues his cavalcade of distortion and deception. He tells us the world will end when sequestration kicks in, and then he acknowledges that perhaps it won’t. He asserts that these cuts were not his idea, but then this spokesman grudgingly admits that maybe they were. And so it goes.

It is this sort of flimflammery Republicans must eschew. They must tell the American people over and over again that they stand for honesty; then they must be honest. They need to appeal to better instincts of the young and of women so that they too appreciate this objective.

People want a better world, but a better world can only be a more moral one. So let those who wish to be elected shout this from the rooftops!

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Executive Director, MoralityNow!, Inc.

Morality Now!

The last presidential election nearly broke my heart. But more than that; it saddened me very deeply. How could we, as a nation, have descended to such mean-spirited bickering? How could we tolerate so many lies and so much character assassination?

For several days I moped around, but then I had an idea. Someone had to fight for the moral renewal that our country desperately needed—and why shouldn’t that person be me? First, however, I had to do some investigating. I had to find out how other people felt.

While I was not surprised by the dismay most conservatives expressed, I was amazed by the consternation of my liberal friends. They too were appalled by the lies and the meanness. They might not agree as to the source, but they too hated the moral tenor.

All of this convinced me that there was indeed a widespread longing for moral renewal. The question was how to get the ball rolling. The starting point was easy. I had to create a non-profit foundation dedicated to this cause. But what to call it? After many dead-ends, I, and my collaborators, settled on Morality Now! Inc.

It was also clear that the moral values we sought to restore must cross party lines. They had to be standards upon which most Americans, whether liberal or conservative, could agree. It was also clear that they had to be few in number and easy to grasp.

And so it was that the core values of MoralityNow! came into focus. They were to be honesty, responsibility, fairness, family, and liberty. Of these, only the meaning of fairness was really controversial; hence, for us, it would stand for “the same rules being applied to everyone.”

The next step, after incorporation, was to create a website. As of today, it is almost complete and can found at www.moralitynow.net. We still haven’t finalized our tax-free status so as to obtain donations, but most of the rest of the pieces are in place.

One of our ideas was to permit ordinary citizens to expose significant moral breeches. To this end, we have established two “files.” One is the “dishonesty file” and the other the “irresponsibility file.” Here contributions vetted for their interest, and legality, will be posted to keep track of what is going wrong.

We are also working to create workshops to teach the ground rules of self-knowledge and strong relationships. Indeed, I am currently in discussions with the administrators of Kennesaw State University to determine if this can be done in conjunction with the school.

Added to this, I hope to write a book to argue for moral renewal, as well as to give talks to community groups so as to spread the word. No doubt other opportunities will arise if this idea catches on—but we will have to wait and see.

One more thing must also be noted. It is that this foundation is to be profoundly secular. Many people, especially on the right, have come to the conclusion that moral commitments flow only from religious commitments. This is wrong, and would doom our country if it were true.

Like it or not, ours has become a secular nation, with even religious people less likely to attend church than they once did. As a consequence, we need to establish a nonspiritual foundation for morality that is in tune with the needs of our techno-commercial society.

This is possible, but its outlines must be clarified. I hope to begin this process in subsequent columns where I will discuss each of MoralityNow!’s core values. If people are to agree on what needs to be done, they have to know what they are agreeing to.

Such clarity is especially important for the young who have grown up in an era of moral relativity and non-judgmentalism. Morality matters and can continue to exist only if we together stand up to defend it.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Obama the Magician

Many of his supporters believe that Barack Obama is magical. To hear them tell it, he virtually walks on water. Nonetheless, there is indeed something almost magical about our current president—although that something is not entirely flattering.

Once we had another president who was considered magical. Martin Van Buren was, in fact, called the “little magician.” Yet this was not because his policies were remarkably effective. They were not. It was because he was a skillful manipulator of the political spoils system.

It is in this latter respect, and another that is even less savory, in which Obama deserves to be regarded as talented. He too, it must be confessed, is addicted to rewarding his political friends. The unions, the solar energy industry, and the limousine liberals have all benefited from his generosity.

This said, it is as a prestidigitator where he really shines. No chief executive in living memory has been as accomplished in slight of hand as Obama—not even Bill Clinton. Barack’s ability to engage in now you see it, now you don’t, tactics has been, as he would say, “unprecedented.”

Magicians work by misdirection. They focus an audience’s attention in one area so that they can make something else happen in another. What they achieve seems supernatural only because how it was done has been carefully hidden from view. It is in this that Obama excels.

What do I mean? Consider the president’s state of the union address. He told us, for instance, that we must increase our investment in pre-school programs. This, he assured us, would be rewarded with seven dollars worth of economic growth for every dollar we expended.

Then the president went on the road to sell this “snake oil.” Accordingly, he touted his latest elixir by highlighting a Georgia program we were told is working splendidly. Wisely concealed behind the curtain, however, was research that demonstrates Head Start Programs produce no long lasting academic advancements.

Obama also plugged gun control by mourning the shooting death of an innocent Chicago teenager. In this case, he failed to note that Chicago has tougher gun control ordinances than almost any city in the country, but that this does not prevent it from being one of the most crime-ridden.

Among the other wily techniques in recent evidence were the president’s repeated allusions to helping the middle class, when the middle class is actually suffering; to increasing oil supplies, when his administration reduced the number of drilling permit’s issued; and to the “universally” acknowledged need for climate control, when not all experts agree.

But most important was misdirection concerning the budget deficit. Obama flat-out misspeaks when he tells us how much his administration has reduced spending and he flat-out lies when he says his multi-billion dollar programs will not cost a “dime.”

The president obviously does not want us to dwell on his budgetary excesses. We must certainly not count up his debts lest we realize they will soon usher us into the poor house. No, we must be so enchanted by his many glowing promises that we never ask about their cost.

I especially love it when Barack points to how much he will save by eliminating waste. At such moments I ask a question few others seem to ponder. What, I want to know, is this: if there is so much saving to be had from cutting waste, why hasn’t he done it already? After all, he has been president for four years.

What I also want to know is why so many Americans allow their attention to be diverted by secondary issues such as gun control. Why are they not scandalized by Obama’s dereliction of duty regarding the Benghazi scandal or his many unfulfilled promises about ObamaCare?

Are we as a people as easy to divert as children watching a Punch-and-Judy show? The evidence suggests that we may be.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University