Egotism

Did you see Barack Obama’s selfie on Buzzfeed?  I did and I was appalled.  Here was the president of the United States behaving in a most undignified manner.  We are regularly asked to respect his office, whereas he did anything but.

Other presidents have occasionally been undignified.  Teddy Roosevelt used to engage in point to point scrambles through the underbrush in Washington’s parks.  The Kennedy clan likewise played touch football at Hyannis Port.  But neither intentionally made a spectacle of themselves for the cameras.

Obama was different.  He mugged for the Internet.  He played the part of the fool ostensibly to gain attention for his medical program.  While Richard Nixon sought to soften his image by a brief stint on Laugh-in, Barack paraded his childishness for what seemed many interminable minutes.

Perhaps the president’s goal was to demonstrate his humanity.  He may have believed that by exposing his foibles he allowed viewers—especially the young—to identify with him.  If so, he made a dreadful miscalculation.

What Obama exposed was his egotism.  Here is a man who has accomplished very little outside of being elected president twice.  Nonetheless, he assumed that sticking his tongue out would entrance millions of people.  Didn’t he get over that conviction in junior high school?

Russia is invading the Ukraine, Kayla Mueller was murdered in Syria, and the Yemeni capital fell to rebels allied with Iran, but his priority is attempting to dunk a cookie in a glass of milk.  Does this man know what is important?  Or does he believe that if he does it, it must be noteworthy.

During the last presidential election, voters indicated that they thought Obama cared about them, whereas Romney did not.  By now it should be obvious that all Barack really cares about is Barack.  The welfare of our nation is way down on his list.

This is not news.  What is, is that Obama remains popular in many quarters.  Despite polls that show voters disapprove of his foreign and domestic policies, forty percent of respondents say he is doing a good job.  How can that be?  How can he be failing so badly and still be performing well?

This disconnect is a byproduct of how people feel about Obama as a man.  They like him.  They love his broad smile and passionate speaking style.  On the surface, he seems to be a nice person.

Yet part of what the Buzzfeed performance demonstrated is how easily he can turn on the charm.  His radiant smile lit up an instant before he clicked the camera.  We know that Obama loves to hobnob with Hollywood celebrities.  Evidently he also revels in his own acting ability.

So why do so many Americans buy his act?  It should be wearing thin.  Another component in his appeal, however, is his race.  This, our most racially divisive president in a century, profits precisely because he is black.  Voters give him the benefit of the doubt because of his skin color.

Why?  Shelby Steele was right.  Many apparently feel guilty about how African-Americans have been treated.  They committed themselves to Obama in order to prove their decency and this prevents them from judging him on his merits.

But wait!  Even at this distance, I can hear the snickers of some readers.  You see, they are telling themselves, Fein has finally bared his deep-rooted racism.  Once again, he attacks Obama because he despises blacks.

In fact, I am attempting to do what most white Americans do not have the courage to do.  I am trying to tell the truth.  Eric Holder was right about one thing.  Most people are afraid to be honest about race.  They understandably fear being labeled racist.

Hence I am not attacking Obama because of his race.  I am doing so in spite of it.  He is an incompetent narcissist who cares not one whit about the welfare of our nation.  It is time more people realized this.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

America: Be Not Proud!

Many words have been spoken and a lot of ink spilled decrying Barack Obama’s admonition that Christians and Jews should get off their “high horse.”  Muslims, we are told, are merely following in the footsteps of our misdeeds; hence we must understand.

If Muslims are now killing people in the name of their religion, so once did we.  Who then are we to judge?  Our pride should not motivate us to assume we are better than them.  Besides, ISIS is not really Islamic.

The question is: Do we have a right to be judgmental?  Can we look upon rape, mass murder, beheadings, and immolation and declare these barbaric?  Are our hands so bloody that we must hang our heads in shame rather than identify the religious affiliation of the perpetrators?

As many commentators have observed, the crusades, Inquisition, slavery, and Jim Crow are behind us.  We are not perfect.  We never were and never will be.  But should that prevent us from making comparisons?  Must we agree that everyone is exceptional and therefore we cannot claim to be better than them?

This is absurd!  To be thoroughly non-judgmental is to have no standards.  Utter amorality is, in fact, immoral.  We do not have to be perfect in order to condemn savagery.  Were this a requirement for enforcing values, morality would be impossible.

So why does Barack Obama imply something so ridiculous?  The answer—the only one that makes sense—is that he does not love the United States or take pride in its accomplishments.  He does not want us to defeat ISIS, or any other global opponent—because we do not merit victory.

At this point, we must think the unthinkable.  People have been scratching their heads trying to explain Obama’s foreign policy.  Why does he routinely reward our enemies and punish our friends?  Why, for that matter, has he kept our economy enfeebled?

Consider the evidence.  It is overwhelming.  Barack hates Israel, but loves Iran.  He likewise pretends to be fighting back against ISIS, but does the minimum he can.  Obama knows this is a losing strategy.  Our president is a smart man.  He must know!  He just doesn’t care.

Obama has also refused to help the Ukraine resist Russian aggression.  This threatens to destabilize Europe, but all he sends the Ukrainians is Meals Ready to Eat.  Why?  He doesn’t care.  He is perfectly happy to see the Russian Bear regain preeminence.

Obama told us he would never allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.  But isn’t that what he is doing?  Aren’t his negotiations with the Iranians slow-walking us to this conclusion?  Israel and the United States are in mortal danger if the Middle East explodes.  But he doesn’t care.  If we are harmed, our arrogance deserves to be tempered.

Or think about the Keystone pipeline.  The argument that this will destroy the environment has been debunked—even by the State Department.  Nonetheless Obama keeps finding excuses to stop it.  Our economy is being harmed and Canada alienated, but who cares?

Now we have a newly stated national strategic policy and what are its priorities?  Amazingly, fighting global warming ranks higher than confronting radical Islam.  Can this be serious?  Is this strategic patience or a decision to do nothing to defend us from genuine threats?

Neither ISIS nor Russia is about to overrun our homeland.  In this sense, they are not “existential” challenges.  But who knows what they will develop into if these festering sores are not addressed.  Can passivity in the face of aggression and barbarism be truly wise?

Or is it a prescription for losing?  Our president evidently believes that we are greedy racists.  We are depicted as innately unfair, insufferably smug, and too powerful for our own good.  Ergo, we need to be taken down a peg!

But I love America and am proud of it!  I do not want to see us lose.  I hope enough Americans feel the same.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Fighting the Last War

Generals are notorious for fighting the last war.  They go into battle assuming that they are pitted against an enemy just like the last one and therefore that they must employ the same weapons and tactics as before.  Only bitter experience forces them to alter their plans.

I am not talking about the war against ISIS or Radical Islam.  While we have been slow to adjust to their challenge, I am referring to a domestic problem.  The warriors looking backwards nowadays are the Liberal/Progressives.

Over a hundred years ago, the Progressives took aim at the abuses of laissez-faire capitalism.  With the acceleration of the Industrial Revolution, trusts were then growing at an alarming rate.  These precursors to the modern corporation had unexpectedly consolidated into monopolistic giants.

Thus, John D. Rockefeller towered over the oil industry.  For years, he had been forcing his smaller competitors out of business.  If this entailed underselling them or compelling railroads to charge them higher rates, he did what was necessary.  This included bribing politicians to protect his interests.

Yet Rockefeller was not a bad man.  He was a power hungry person who was determined to consolidate his success so that he would never have to re-experience the insecurities of his youth.  In fact, his quest for efficiency reduced the price Americans spent on kerosene.

Meanwhile J.P. Morgan towered over the finance industry.  Never as wealthy as Rockefeller, his preeminence as a banker bestowed enormous power.  Determined to rationalize commerce, he brought steel companies together under the aegis of U.S. Steel—and soon tried to do the same for railroads.

Morgan too was not a bad man.  It simply made no sense to him that railroads should waste money building parallel tracks.  If there was only one line, it could obviously charge less.  He also, virtually singlehandedly, prevented two financial panics—because this too was good for business.

The problem with the robber barons was not that they were thieves.  The problem was that they could have been had they been less scrupulous.  Their empires were so vast that no competitor could challenge them—no matter how vile their behavior.

As a result, the Progressives sought to use government as a counterweight.  Only it had the power to break up these monopolies.  When backed by the demands of an outraged public, it could reduce corruption and bring the tycoons to heal.

Today the problem is big government.  Over the last hundred years, its scope has so increased that its functionaries have their fingers in everyone’s business.  There is scarcely a corner of life that escapes its oversight and regulation.

Big government, however, is dominated, not by tycoons, but bureaucrats.  Not single individuals, but battalions of faceless officials, now exercise unrestrained power.  These too are not bad people, yet collectively they are as arrogant as any capitalist mogul.  They too have the power to ride roughshod over opposition.

This then is today’s battle.  While big business still needs to be regulated, so does big government.  Where once the muckrakers mobilized public opinion to reign in overzealous corporations, ordinary Americans must now be mobilized to demand that the federal government be curbed.

We do not have to rid ourselves of big government any more than we had to rid ourselves of big business.  The issue is control, not elimination.  We must thus reduce its excesses, rather than agitate for chaos.  We still, for instance, need a government-sponsored safety net.

But we do not need an iron cage built by the government any more than we needed one built by Rockefeller or Morgan.  An unfettered marketplace provided an invitation for abuse.  So does an unfettered government.

The current political wars should therefore not be between Progressives and Nineteenth century conservatives.  It should be between ordinary Americans who hope to retain control over their lives and Bureaucrats who are as overbearing as any tin pot dictator.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Middle Class Economics

Middle Class Economics?  Have you ever hear of it before?  So far as I can tell, they idea was invented specifically for Barack Obama’s recent State of the Union address.  What’s more, so was the proof that it works.

Like a pair of crocuses popping their heads up out of the snow, our president has taken two quarters of economic growth to signal a vibrant summer.  He seems to have forgotten that a scant year ago we had negative growth.  But hey, good news is good news—whether or not he had anything to do with it.

So what is this middle class economics that is supposed to make America great?  It appears to be no more than a rhetorical bow to middle class voters.  As for substance, not to say scientific precision, this is totally absent.

Obama loves the middle class in the same way he loves Israel.  Whenever he feels in danger of losing its support, he declares his undying affection.  Then, after things settle down, he returns to kicking it in the groin.

Barack Obama does not like the middle class.  While he hates the upper classes, and attempts to coddle the lower ones, he resents the success of the middle orders.  Remember, he once told them that they “didn’t build that.”  From his perspective, like the aristocrats of yore, they are social parasites.

So in what does middle class economics consist?  Apparently in little more than taxing the rich and putting a few hundred dollars of the proceeds in middle class hands.  How this is going to grow the economy is beyond me.

What does a genuine middle class revival need?  First it requires freedom.  Unless the nation’s innovators are liberated from the weight of thousands of soul-stealing regulations, they will not have the space to start businesses or explore novel ideas.  Freezing the economy in place makes us like Russia, not what we once were.

Second, a growing economy thrives on incentive.  People put in long hours because they want to get rich.  They take risks because they hope these will pay off.  Steal this away by confiscating what they earn and why would they take the chance?  Even French president Hollande learned this.

Third, the middle class prospers when delegated responsibility.  Before things can go right, people require the opportunity for them to go wrong.  A society that attempts to protect folks from the consequences of their choices quickly becomes one in which few are capable of making them.

The essence of a vibrant middle class is self-direction.  On the other hand, its antithesis is close supervision from Washington, D.C.  Obama wants to educate young Americans, but if he simultaneously deprives them of the opportunity to apply what they learn, they might as well remain ignorant.

As any good parent knows, we learn by making mistakes.  No doubt we benefit from enlightened guidance, but if this counsel mutates into oppressive control, all is lost.  We then become like over-protected children, constantly running to hide behind our mother’s skirts.

A productive middle class requires the courage to take risks.  If it is swaddled in a laundry list of new entitlements, the nanny state becomes the not only “didn’t you do that” state, but the “and you never will” state.

Is this what we want?  Obama has sought to rob us of our nerve in foreign policy.  Is he to be allowed to do the same domestically?  Citizens, who have been bribed into quiescence, have turned the economy, and our well-being, into reverse gear.

Liberals think of themselves as progressive.  They could not be more wrong.  One of the magnificent achievements of the American experiment was the invention of the Middle Class.  To watch it strangled by false compassion is a tragedy.

What is the cure?  An assertive middle class.  Enlightened self-interest demands that the blandishments of free goodies be rejected.  Now is the time for renewed courage!

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University