Bloated Goverrnment Is The Enemy

Years ago, Ronald Reagan warned us that over-sized government was a serious problem.  The evidence that he was correct keeps pouring in.  The VA scandal is just the latest example of how organizational gigantism can injure people.

Liberal Democrats, with Barack Obama in the lead, keep telling us they must protect us from ourselves.  They assure us that their programs are intended to promote social justice and rational planning.  Be this in energy or health, they argue that they know best.

Then something like the Veteran’s Administration cover-up of incompetent scheduling comes to light and we learn—as we should have known all along—that bloated bureaucracies have a way of getting things wrong.  Especially when part of the government, and therefore not subject to marketplace discipline, they often go rogue.

At moments such as this, the president’s apologists explain that the executive structure is simply too large for anyone to administer effectively.  The president is, after all, just one man and he can’t be everywhere.  Nor can he know everything; hence he must depend upon his subordinates.

But who are his subordinates?  Jack Kennedy depended upon advisors that were regarded as “the best and the brightest.”  FDR, of course, had his “brain trust.”  And what does Obama have?  A kiddy-corps!  And a crony corps!

Let us start with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.  They are not part of his administration, but they have been delegated essential tasks such as writing the stimulus legislation and designing ObamaCare.  Thus, in many ways they are as responsible as anyone for the recent additions to the Washington mess.

Question:  Does anyone trust Harry or Nancy?  Does anyone regard them as mental giants?  Who believes that they are incorruptible public servants that deserve to be in charge of setting our communal agenda?

Remember Nancy told us that we had to pass the ObamaCare legislation in order to find out what was in it.  This was not only an example of abdicating legislative responsibility, but of engaging in a crapshoot with the health of the nation.  Some leadership here!

As for Harry, when he is not accusing the Koch brothers of global warming or asserting that Mitt Romney did not pay his taxes, he is seeking a constitutional amendment to overturn the Bill of Rights or staging an attack on senate procedure via the nuclear option.  More brilliant leadership!

What about the executive branch itself?  Does anyone believe that Jay Carney is an honest and penetrating analyst of administrative policy?  Or is he more like Art Carney; that is, a sideman in a comedy routine?  Reporters are tolerant of his badinage, but does he really deserve to be the voice of the United States?

And what about those other voices, such as the spokespersons for the State Department?  Jen Psaki obviously has the experience and gravitas to represent our country to the rest of the world.

And how about Obama’s advisors?  Tommy Veitor was a wonderful example of their maturity with his, “Dude, that was two tears ago,” explanation of the Benghazi cover-up.  He gave us confidence the nation is in good hands.

As for the political advise Obama gets, which frequently seems decisive, David Plouffe and Daniel Pieffer constantly impress with their deep thinking.  They may have the president’s interests at heart, yet do they have the nation’s?

This list could be extended indefinitely, but it gives an idea of what can happen when the management of an already bloated government is delegated to a band of incompetents.  When a gang of venal ideologues, supplemented by juvenile ciphers, takes charge, we get the mess we are currently enduring.

This puts the lie to the entire Liberal agenda, which asserts that centralizing decisions in Washington promotes rationality.  The truth is the opposite.  The larger the government gets, the more unmanageable it becomes—a problem that is exacerbated when those who naively think they know best take the helm.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

The Roots of Corruption

With Monica Lewinsky back in the limelight, Fox News aired a snippet of Bill Clinton’s deposition concerning his affair with her.  There was Bill once again dogging and weaving, doing the best he could to change the subject.  Alas, he was eventually cornered and forced to tell a bald-faced lie.

This was not an inspiring performance.  It was painful to watch the president of the United States behaving like a trapped schoolboy.  Worse, however, was to follow.  A stained dress was to prove that Clinton perjured himself when he assured the American public he “did not have sexual relations with that woman….”

Yet what ensued?  Especially after Clinton was impeached, Democrats rushed to his defense.  Among other things, they argued that he was only lying about sex.  According to them, everyone lies about sex and therefore it was no big deal.

Nevertheless, what they refused to acknowledge is that not everyone is obliged to lie about sex.  Most are faithful to their spouses and therefore do not need to sweat when subjected to legal grilling.  To imply that coving up an indiscretion is perfectly all right is thus to endorse it.

One of the things I learned in social psychology over a half century ago is that when people make a public assertion, their commitment subsequently increases.  Thus, if they publicly approve of a sexual transgression, they are apt to double-down on their approval later on.  Likewise if they openly excuse a lie, they are apt to continue excusing it.

Sadly, the need to “move on” from Clinton’s misconduct opened the floodgates.  Ever since, we have been sliding down a slippery slope toward accepting more and more political corruption.  Lies have become standard operating procedure and character assassination an honored mode of political discourse.

During Clinton’s impeachment converting Lewinsky into a media piñata became a national obsession.  She was portrayed as a squalid floozy who seduced this otherwise admirable man into committing an understandable peccadillo.  Never mind that he had a history of sexual offenses and needed to be protected from “bimbo eruptions.”

Or consider the unhappy case of Kenneth Starr.  Before he investigated Clinton, he was a respected attorney.  Yet while doing so, he was transformed into a religious fanatic who scandalously abused his power by asking questions of witnesses such as Lewinski’s mother.

Bill, and his wife Hillary, had a field day vilifying anyone who delved into his reckless behavior.  Still, for this, journalists lionized them.  They were evidently skillful politicians because they won the battle for public opinion.  That they did so viciously and dishonestly did not matter.

In this manner are political cultures born.  Thus do corruption and mendacity become accepted ways of transacting business.  One of the subsequent  manifestations of this development was the barbecuing George W. Bush received for allegedly lying about WMD’s in Iraq.  In fact, it was his Democratic accusers who lied.

Bush was mistaken about the WMD’s; nevertheless he told the truth as he understood it.  Assured by the intelligence agencies that these weapons were there, he too was a surprised when they were not found.  Hence, calling him a liar was not based on facts, but a need to balance the books.  For Democrats, moral equality could only be reestablished if a Republican president was dragged down to the level of his predecessor.

Nowadays this same pattern of deception and vilification persists.  Indeed, Barack Obama has transformed it into the normal way of operating.  Like Clinton, yet more so, he regularly charges his political opponents with being dastardly scoundrels.  Thus Romney was depicted as depriving a dying woman of medical care and aching to start a cold war with Russia.

So here comes the next act.  With a special committee having been appointed to investigate Benghazi, we can be sure its Republican members will be portrayed as vengeful partisans.  As for the evidence they uncover, it will be dismissed as dishonest and/or irrelevant.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Stereotype Vulnerabilty

Affirmative Action is still with us despite the recent Supreme Court ruling that the Michigan constitutional amendment banning preferential college admissions on the basis of race or gender is constitutional.  This is because many academics agree with Justice Sonia Sotomayor that race-based remedies remain imperative.

Those who favor granting minorities college admission despite their inadequate preparation argue that racism persists and therefore must be counteracted.  They also insist that “diversity” is valuable to all students, irrespective of their backgrounds.

Let us start with the racism claim.  It is undoubtedly true.  Racism has not been eliminated, although it has been greatly reduced.  It is then asserted that this racism undermines minority self-confidence, which must be compensated for by granting special relief.

One of the key contentions of affirmative action advocates is that African-Americans suffer from “stereotype vulnerability.”  According to the psychologist Claude Steele, because blacks have been regarded as intellectually inferior, they have come to believe this canard.

In a series of experiments, he demonstrated that if blacks are reminded of their alleged inferiority, they do less well on tests than when not so reminded.  In other words, when their self-esteem is shaken, their ability to perform is weakened.

The answer, we are told, is to allow college admissions to those with poor academic paper trails.  Since their underlying abilities have been underestimated, they will no doubt benefit from exposure to a first-rate education.

But is this so?  The book Mismatch suggests it is not.  It maintains that when underprepared students are put into the same classrooms as better-prepared ones, the comparison in performances convinces the former that they do not possess the same abilities.  As a result, they become demoralized.

I suspect that this is the case—yet the problem goes deeper.  The fact is that being given preferences in admission sends a familiar message.  It tells African-Americans they do not have the same capacities as others and hence must be treated as if they were handicapped.

Yet isn’t telling students they are handicapped pushing the stereotype button?  Doesn’t it reinforce the widespread belief that blacks do not have the same intellectual capacities as others?  If so, won’t it do the opposite of what is intended?

Let me make it plain, I do not believe blacks are biologically less intelligent than others.  Their potential is every bit as good as whites or Asians.  If they don’t think so—for whatever reason—and this belief is reconfirmed by admission practices, might not this bolster the handicap it is intended to counteract?

If people are to win in our society, they must win.  If they are to move up the social scale, they must beat the competition on an even playing field.  Artificially smoothing out the contest cannot work because those involved know it is phony.  As a consequence, stereotype vulnerably once again rears its ugly head.

The only way to counter this problem is to change perceptions by changing reality.  Once blacks successfully compete without help, the notion that they need extraordinary assistance will fade away.  Winners are respected for winning; also-rans, who are deceitfully pushed to the front, are disrespected as losers.

I say African-Americans can win on their own.  They can keep up with anyone.  A misguided paternalism that treats them as crippled children succeeds only in preventing them from getting ahead.

Nor is the diversity nonsense of any use.  Yes, students benefit from interacting with people different from themselves.  But if these others are there because of their alleged inferiorities, the lesson learned is that their peers must pretend they are equal.

Pretend equality, however, is not the real thing.  It does not bring respect; it does not undo stereotypes.  The only way to change people’s minds about the abilities of a previously pariah group is for them to compete on the same terms and come out on top.  Blacks deserve this opportunity!  They can handle it.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

A Culture of Self-Deception

Some of the best people I know are liberals.  I really mean that!  They are kind, dependable, and genuinely compassionate.  Nonetheless, when it comes to the political arena, their benevolence fails them.  Time and again, they support programs that while intended to do good, achieve the opposite.

Why is this so?  How can they not realize that the positive outcomes they promote actually cause harm?  It is not from a want of intelligence, because many liberals are highly intelligent.  Nor is it from a lack of knowledge, because many are very knowledgeable.

What then is the answer?  I suggest that their mistakes flow from a deeply ingrained pattern of self-deception.  What is more, I believe their errors are reinforced by the pervasive culture of self-deception in which they are embedded.

The war of poverty did not work.  Trillions were spent, but poverty remains with us.  Affirmative action did not work.  Countless thousands of minority students were admitted to schools for which they did not have the appropriate preparation, and then were forced to drop out.

Progressive education did not work.  Social promotions and the new math left American students falling behind the international competition with little hope of catching up.  Head Start did not work.  Despite temporary improvements, the long-term results were extremely disappointing.

The list of fiascoes goes on and on, now to include ObamaCare and a foreign policy crafted by a kindergarten mentality.  Liberals did not ameliorate crime, nor save the family, nor end the cold war, nor bring about economic equality—yet they like to pretend they did.

To hear them tell it, our nation would be in a deep crisis without their generous interventions.  If they have not been completely successful, it is solely because mean-spirited conservatives forced them to do too little, too late.

Or is there another reason?  Could it be that their proposals are misguided?  Would an empirical investigation reveal that they have over-promised and under-delivered because whatever their intensions, their policies are grounded in fantasy.

The only way for good people to remain ignorant of these facts is to engage in willful self-deception and to support an agenda of public mendacity.  In short, it requires them to lie to themselves and to everyone else.

They must believe that Barack Obama “misspoke” when he told Americans they could keep their health plans and doctors.  They must somehow miss the deceit at the center of the assertion that women earn seventy-seven cents on the dollar compared with men—for the same work.  Even the census bureau disowned that last one.

And what about Obama’s policy of bringing peace by apologizing for American grandiosity?  We are not exceptional, so who are we to tell the Iranians they cannot have an atomic bomb or the Russians that they must not annex a nation whose borders they pledged to respect?

Nor should we pay down a national debt that was once decried as unpatriotic or investigate an IRS scandal that had been denounced as shameful.  It is time to move on because there is nothing to see; that is, nothing the liberals wish us (or themselves) to see.

Liberals are good people; hence they can do no bad—ever.  Liberals are extraordinarily smart; hence they can make no mistakes—ever.  If others claim they do, it is because they are racist, sexist, and homophobic idiots.

For some liberals, the endless cycle of self-congratulation will never stop.  They are on a merry-go-round energized by ethereal ideals that they will not allow to founder on the shores of a harsh reality.  Trapped as they are in a community high on pipe dreams, the best they can manage is to legalize their drug of choice.

Self-deception can be comforting.  It can wish away bad economic news or conjure up a political rainbow at the end of a social storm.  Meanwhile, the rest of us are tossed and turned by the consequences of their self-inflicted follies.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University