Profiles in Cowardice

John F. Kennedy, a liberal icon, garnered numerous kudos for his prize–winning book “Profiles in Courage.”  In its pages, he lauded politicians who exhibited the bravery to stand up against the political pressures of their times.  They were depicted as heroes to whom we owe a debt of gratitude.

Today’s Democratic legislators are evidently cut from very different cloth.  Their recent shenanigans in defense of President Obama’s Iran deal have been less than inspirational.  If anything, they furnish profiles in cowardice.

By almost all accounts, including those of its liberal supporters, the deal is badly flawed.  It allows the Iranians to continue enriching uranium and perhaps, in secret, to continue designing a bomb.  All this is in exchange for agreeing not to build an atom weapon during the next ten years.  After that, the bets are off.

In the meantime, the mullahs will receive a signing bonus of one hundred billion dollars.  These avowed enemies of the United States have already signaled their intention to use this to purchase both offensive and defensive armaments.  This should enable them to become the Middle East’s greatest hegemon.

So what have the Democratic senators done in the face of this peril?  Have they stood up and decried this threat to our security?  Have they asked their president to strengthen the conditions of the agreement?  Of course not!  They have only offered excuse after excuse.

They have not even insisted on an up or down vote in the Senate.  Although a few scant months ago most of them agreed that such a vote was essential, times have apparently changed.  Indeed, they are now prepared to filibuster this ballot out of existence.

And why are they doing this?  Do they really believe that the Iranian deal will succeed?  Do they genuinely suppose that it will protect us and/or the Israelis?  Almost surely not!  The evidence that the mullahs are serial cheaters is indisputable.  That we are still being condemned as the Great Satan is likewise undeniable.

What then is their motivation?  We are told that they feel a need to defend their president and party.  The interests of the United States—and of world peace—come in a distant second to these partisan concerns.  Defeating the Republicans is far more important than behaving like statesmen.

We are also told that the White House has put political pressure on these senators.  They have been warned that they need to fall into line.   Obama’s minions will otherwise see to it that they have well-funded opposition during the Democratic primaries when they seek renomination.

Here then is personal interest trumping national security.  Career continuity is obviously more salient than their responsibility for public safety.  Wow!  If this is not cowardice, what is?  If it isn’t craven capitulation, what would genuine spinelessness look like?

Such timidity will not surprise many readers.  They have come to regard politicians as boneless wonders.  Years of experience have taught them that most elected officials will say, and do, whatever they believe is necessary in order to get re-elected.

But perhaps we should not be so smug.  After all, who is it that voted these folks into office?  And who was it that refused to listen to bad news about the budget deficit or run-away entitlements?  Where was our courage in these cases?

Likewise where were our persistent outcries when told lies about the IRS, Benghazi, or ObamaCare?  And when informed that the current administration is the most transparent in history, did we gag?  So where was the heated indignation?  I suggest that we too may have little to brag about.

And don’t tell me that the present boom in favor of Donald Trump is an exercise in courage.  This bandwagon is at least as irresponsible as the lassitude of Democratic senators.  If we had the backbone, we would be seeking more serious candidates.  In fact, we would never have elected Obama to a second term.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Good Daddy/Bad Daddy

         The liberal attitude toward authority is juvenile at best; schizophrenic at worst.  Liberals believe that authority is always supposed to be beneficial.  It must only do good; never employ force.  Of course, a truly virtuous father understands that these apparent opposites are synergistic.

For starters, liberals identify with the poor and weak.  Even when they are in charge, they perceive themselves as underdogs.  As a result, they become enraged whenever force is employed against minorities.

The result is liberal sympathy for the “Black Lives Matter” movement coupled with a negative attitude toward the police.  Despite the many thousands of blacks murdered by other blacks, the focus is entirely on the few that have been killed by the cops.  Even when a police officer is justified, the outrage festers.

It is as if there are two incompatible kinds of government power.  The first sort is like a good daddy who showers his vulnerable children with all sorts of goodies and protects them from external harm.  Meanwhile, the second—the bad daddy—imposes discipline.  He punishes errant behavior.

Lest it be forgotten, liberals also believe that everyone—especially the poor—deserves “unconditional positive regard.”  We are never supposed to make the underprivileged feel bad about themselves no matter what they do.  This would constitute “blaming the victim.”

This being the case, externally imposed discipline is forbidden.  As a result, a version of social permissiveness countenances the weak doing whatever they want within their own neighborhoods.   If they rob each other, shoot each other, or have children out of wedlock, this is their business.

The cops, if they get involved, must always be nice.  They must never get angry, even if provoked.  Similarly, they must never employ violence, irrespective of who initiates it.  As the agents of a “good daddy” government, they need to be entirely loving.

This, of course, assumes that the weak are invariably capable of self-discipline.  They ought never be punished because they are adults who deserve control over their lives.  To permit bullyboy strangers—who don’t always like them—to intervene is therefore intolerable.

No doubt, most liberal parents employ discipline as lightly as possible.  They prefer to use the time out, rather than the whip, to correct their errant children.  Why can’t the police do the same?

But, pray tell, how would this be achieved?  What would constitute a time out for ghetto ruffians?   Would they be cordoned off from the rest of society?  Could control be realized merely by reaching out a hand of friendship?

Those who believe that unrelenting niceness can do the job have evidently never lived in poor neighborhoods.  Either that or they are themselves among the troublemakers.  Folks like me, who have toiled in the inner city, know better.

The fact is that no successful government can completely rule out the use of force.  If it is always the good daddy, it will wake up one day to discover that it has been overthrown by some of its most obstreperous children.  In shunning the power to prevent bad, it will most assuredly squander the power to do good.

An undisciplined society is one where the economy cannot work.  Brigands and conmen would run rampant.  Honest business people would thus lock their doors, while decent citizens would tremble in their barricaded bedrooms.

An undisciplined society is also one that is vulnerable to external aggression.  If its people are so unruly that they cannot be organized into a coherent army, they are sure to go down to defeat.

As a consequence, societies that refuse to disciple those among them who cannot disciple themselves are doomed.  If they never impose force on those who will not control themselves, they will die of an overdose of niceness.

Is this where we are bound?  Have we grown so soft that we have also become softheaded?  If so, that is, if we continue to punish the police for other’s misdeeds, we will have earned the chaos we reap.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Good Daddy/Bad Daddy

         The liberal attitude toward authority is juvenile at best; schizophrenic at worst.  Liberals believe that authority is always supposed to be beneficial.  It must only do good; never employ force.  Of course, a truly virtuous father understands that these apparent opposites are synergistic.

For starters, liberals identify with the poor and weak.  Even when they are in charge, they perceive themselves as underdogs.  As a result, they become enraged whenever force is employed against minorities.

The result is liberal sympathy for the “Black Lives Matter” movement coupled with a negative attitude toward the police.  Despite the many thousands of blacks murdered by other blacks, the focus is entirely on the few that have been killed by the cops.  Even when a police officer is justified, the outrage festers.

It is as if there are two incompatible kinds of government power.  The first sort is like a good daddy who showers his vulnerable children with all sorts of goodies and protects them from external harm.  Meanwhile, the second—the bad daddy—imposes discipline.  He punishes errant behavior.

Lest it be forgotten, liberals also believe that everyone—especially the poor—deserves “unconditional positive regard.”  We are never supposed to make the underprivileged feel bad about themselves no matter what they do.  This would constitute “blaming the victim.”

This being the case, externally imposed discipline is forbidden.  As a result, a version of social permissiveness countenances the weak doing whatever they want within their own neighborhoods.   If they rob each other, shoot each other, or have children out of wedlock, this is their business.

The cops, if they get involved, must always be nice.  They must never get angry, even if provoked.  Similarly, they must never employ violence, irrespective of who initiates it.  As the agents of a “good daddy” government, they need to be entirely loving.

This, of course, assumes that the weak are invariably capable of self-discipline.  They ought never be punished because they are adults who deserve control over their lives.  To permit bullyboy strangers—who don’t always like them—to intervene is therefore intolerable.

No doubt, most liberal parents employ discipline as lightly as possible.  They prefer to use the time out, rather than the whip, to correct their errant children.  Why can’t the police do the same?

But, pray tell, how would this be achieved?  What would constitute a time out for ghetto ruffians?   Would they be cordoned off from the rest of society?  Could control be realized merely by reaching out a hand of friendship?

Those who believe that unrelenting niceness can do the job have evidently never lived in poor neighborhoods.  Either that or they are themselves among the troublemakers.  Folks like me, who have toiled in the inner city, know better.

The fact is that no successful government can completely rule out the use of force.  If it is always the good daddy, it will wake up one day to discover that it has been overthrown by some of its most obstreperous children.  In shunning the power to prevent bad, it will most assuredly squander the power to do good.

An undisciplined society is one where the economy cannot work.  Brigands and conmen would run rampant.  Honest business people would thus lock their doors, while decent citizens would tremble in their barricaded bedrooms.

An undisciplined society is also one that is vulnerable to external aggression.  If its people are so unruly that they cannot be organized into a coherent army, they are sure to go down to defeat.

As a consequence, societies that refuse to disciple those among them who cannot disciple themselves are doomed.  If they never impose force on those who will not control themselves, they will die of an overdose of niceness.

Is this where we are bound?  Have we grown so soft that we have also become softheaded?  If so, that is, if we continue to punish the police for other’s misdeeds, we will have earned the chaos we reap.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

A Donald Slayer

Where is St. George when we need him?  Someone must rise to the challenge of slaying the Trump dragon.  The Donald has been ravaging the countryside for far too long.

The question is what will it take down the man’s false promises.  There has to be some sort of stake that can be driven through their heart.  Evidently the fact that he is widely perceived to be an arrogant clown is not sufficient.  One TV commentator actually commended Trump for being a “blowhard.”

Despite what some of his fans are saying, Donald is not a genius.  Nor is he invincible.  His immature crassness can be exposed, that is, if it is done in the appropriate way.

What is this way you ask?  All that has to happen is that one of his rivals challenges him to a one-on-one debate.  This will provide the opportunity to demonstrate that Trump does not have answers, merely slogans.  Once he is confronted head-on, he can be reduced to a quivering mass of protoplasm.

This strategy has worked before.  It is what brought Senator Joseph McCarthy to his knees.  Before the Army-McCarthy hearings, tail-gunner Joe had buffaloed the entire nation.  Millions were terrified that he would accuse them of communism.  Afterwards it was he who was ruined.

Joseph Welch managed this feat by asking McCarthy the right questions and refusing to be intimidated.  Later Edward R. Murrow finished the job by replaying Joe’s many obnoxious pronouncements on television.  In the end, the senator was reduced to a trembling hulk, whose profusely sweating brow revealed his vulnerability.

If one of Trump’s competitors has the courage, knowledge and eloquence to do the job, Donald can be unmasked merely by getting him to repeat his imprudent positions.  Once these are contrasted with sanity, they should lose their luster.

And make no mistake; most of Trump’s proposals are absurd.  Often he addresses real issues, but then converts them into parodies of themselves.  The illegal immigrant question is one of these.  This is a dilemma that needs fixing, yet not by the means he proposes.

The Donald is a modern “know nothing.”  A reincarnation of the uneducated buffoons who once opposed all immigration to the U.S., he too reflects the insecurities and egotism of people who believe that they are better than everyone else.

Trump, to be sure, has climbed down from his more extreme insults.  He is no longer implying that virtually all Mexicans are ignorant thugs.  Now he is telling us that there are a few good ones; hence after he ejects these from the country, he will welcome them back.

This reminds me of the man who after he has beaten his wife swears up and down that he loves her.  Better yet, he is like the certified bigot who insists that some of his very best friends are black.

Amazingly, Trump tries to demonstrate his open-mindedness by boasting that he has employed thousands of Mexicans and that they are among his best workers.  What I suspect he is not saying is that he hired them because they were willing to accept lower pay.

Barack Obama proved to be an empty suit who had a good line of patter.  He never really told us what he would do until he did it.  The result was that we got something other than what we bargained for.

Do we intend to repeat this mistake?  The Donald also has a stimulating line of patter.  He may not be as slick as Obama, but he is every bit as deceptive.  Rude, crude, and vainglorious, he epitomizes everything that liberals accuse conservatives of representing.

Is this what we want?  Do we need another four years of amateurish incompetence?  Standing up to the PC police is a task that surely deserves doing.  Nonetheless, it should be delegated to someone who is stable and aware of his/her limitations.  Trump is neither.  He is merely an egotistical bully who merits debunking.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University