Insiders versus Outsiders

According to the conventional wisdom, the candidates for the Republican nomination can be divided into two tracks: the insiders and the outsiders.  It is further believed that given the angry mood of the electorate, the outsiders have an advantage over the so-called establishment types.

I decided to look back at history to see if our past behavior might throw any light on our current situation.  In fact, it does.  This sort of division has been a frequent feature of our presidential campaigns.  While absolute clarity is not possible, several trends emerge.

We can begin with Dwight Eisenhower.  When he sought the Republican nomination, he was considered the outsider.  The insider was Senator Robert Taft, a.k.a. Mr. Republican.  Although Ike had impeccable military and administrative credentials, his political experience was slight.

Next we can move to the contest between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon.  Between these two, the junior senator from Massachusetts was the outsider in comparison with a sitting Vice President.  Moreover, before they squared off, Kennedy had bested another insider in the person of Senator Hubert Humphrey.

Nixon himself did not become President until he was pitted against Humphrey.  But then after he resigned and the insider congressman Gerald Ford became our chief executive, he lost his bid for office in his own right to another outsider, namely Jimmy Carter, the reform governor of Georgia.

But then Carter himself fell to another insurgent.  The former actor, Ronald Reagan, although he had been a two-term governor of California, was considered a political outsider who challenged the establishment of his party.  This made people nervous, but he was elected anyway.

Reagan’s successor, the consummate insider, George Bush the elder, was able to defeat Michael Dukakis, but he could not fend off the combination of Ross Perot and Bill Clinton.  Clinton, the comeback kid and governor of the small state of Arkansas might one day dominate the Democratic Party, but then he was very much the outsider.

Eventually George Bush the younger was able to wrest the office away from Al Gore.  Between these two, Bush, while governor of Texas, was the outsider when opposed to another sitting Vice President.  Despite his lineage, his personal experience with national politics was limited.

Which brings us to Barack Obama versus John McCain.  Once more the outsider emerged victorious.  Although Obama was then a junior senator, he actively campaigned against Washington.  He was going to come to town and clean up the mess made by the career politicians.

All in all, Americans seem to have had a love affair with outsiders.  When we consider the many other establishment types who have been rejected for our highest office, this becomes more evident.  Thus, Senator John Kerry, Senator Robert Dole, Vice President Walter Mondale, and New York Governor Thomas Dewey were all frustrated in their electoral hopes.

If we examine what the winners had in common, it turns out not merely to be their outsider status.  Most, in their own ways, were inspirational.  They promised to save us by being different from the hacks that preceded them.  Either by dint of their personalities or promised reforms, they would make our nation whole again.

Americans, it seems, are chronic idealists.  But more than this, they want to be rescued by a charismatic Pied Piper.  Strike up the band and sing a siren song of deliverance and they will follow.  For all the talk about the importance of experience and accomplishments, as long as they believe a candidate is sincere, they care little for his or her credentials.

This does not bode well for Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush.  What it means for Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Mario Rubio, Chris Christie, or Bernie Sanders is not fully clear.  Whether they are insiders or outsiders is still under debate.  As importantly, the voters must determine which among these they can trust.

Clearly idealistic smoke can get in our eyes.  We ought, therefore, be careful.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

PC Fatigue

The next Republican debate will shortly be upon us and people are wondering how well Donald Trump will perform.  In the previous debates, only his mother and devoted enthusiasts were impressed.  He was neither cogent nor forceful in his presentation.

Nonetheless The Donald’s aficionados are convinced that he is honest, brilliant, and strong.  No matter what he says, they take it as gospel.  In fact, Trump is none of what is alleged.  To the contrary, he is a pathetic imitation of what a tough-minded leader should be.

So why do so many people think otherwise?  Why is he hailed as a national savior in some quarters?  This has become an enduring mystery.  Indeed, commentators of every political stripe have struggled to explain the phenomenon.  About all they can agree on, however, is that the “establishment” got it wrong.

In fact, the answer is not difficult to discern.  The Trump boomlet is a reflection of PC fatigue.   As the anti-political correctness candidate, he has benefited from a backlash that has been slow in coming.

First, Donald is not an honest man.  He routinely denies that he has said what he can be documented as saying.  Second, he is decidedly not brilliant.  His insights into foreign affairs and domestic politics really are on the junior high school level.  Third, he is not especially strong.  Anyone who brags about his accomplishments as much as he does is fundamentally insecure.

Still, there is an area in which Trump might be described as strong.  Trump has stood up against political correctness.  He regularly says things that no sane politician is supposed to say—and then he stands up to the criticism that inevitably results.

Why this has gained him a dedicated following can be understood by examining from whence his support derives.  As the polls demonstrate, his most ardent backers are blue-collar whites.  They are the ones who cheer when he lowers the boom on his detractors.

But consider the primary targets of PC.  These too are straight, white males.  They are the folks who are routinely accused of being racist, sexist, and homophobic.  They are the ones depicted as mean-spirited boobs who ought to be run out of town on a rail.

Consider too the methodology of the folks who enforce political correctness.  These card-carrying liberals, and their naïve young henchmen, are specialists in intimidation.  Their primary technique for quashing the opposition is to silence it into submission.

How do the achieve this?  Why they march through the streets chanting about how they will roast pigs like bacon.  They camp out on Wall Street in order to disrupt capitalist activities.  They flood suburban malls to prevent shoppers from patronizing the stores.

The PC folks lie.  They insist that “hand up don’t shoot” was a reality.  They firebomb senior centers.  Stand in their way and they rough you up.  And, of course, if they can, they will get you fired from your job.  Failing this, they will use the law to have you fined for not baking a cake for homosexuals.

It, therefore, takes courage to oppose to these bullies.  Yet this bravery is sorely lacking on campus, in the media, and among politicians.  As a consequence, millions of Americans are fed up with being treated like second-class citizens in their own land.   They have been looking for a champion and believe they have found one in Trump.

Unfortunately, The Donald is a bogus hero.  He is coarse, vulgar, and in-your-face, but this is not the same as genuine courage.  Truly courageous people do more than hurl insults.  They do not call women ugly, Mexicans inveterate criminals, or soft-spoken rivals weak.

Trump is not smart because he says he is.   And he is not strong because he promises to bomb the daylights out of our enemies.  PC does need to be challenged—but not in the way he does it.  A devotee of infantile rudeness cannot halt a plague of self-righteous meanness.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

The Wong Side of History

The Wrong Side of History

By now you have heard it many times.  The Russians are going to be rolled back in the Ukraine and in Syria because they are on the wrong side of history.  The same goes for ISIS in its quest to revive the Caliphate.  It is even true of Republicans when they resist gun control.

In each of these instances, when asked to explain his policy, Barack Obama has resorted to this argument.  His listeners are routinely assured that everything will eventually be well because things are destined to work out favorably.  All we need to do is be patient.

The question is where did Obama dredge up this thesis?  In fact, it is good old-fashioned Marxism.  Karl Marx insisted that he knew the direction of history.  His “scientific” study of dialectical materialism led him to the conclusion that a proletarian revolution was inevitable.

Marx further believed that the progression from socialism through to communism could not be prevented.  Whoever sought to stand in its way would be rolled over by the steamroller of its inexorableness.  It was, therefore, wise to step aside and allow his supporters to take over.

This did not mean, however, that Marx was passive.  He passionately inveighed in favor of the coming revolution.  “Workers of the work unite.  You have nothing to lose, but your chains.”  And then he participated in organizing conventions in order to consolidate the troops.

Barack Obama’s approach is a bit different.  He believes that the inevitability of his progressive agenda requires him to do nothing to advance his cause on the international stage.  He must merely stand back and allow the Russians, the Iranians, and the Chinese to implode.

The trouble with this strategy was revealed long ago.  Edmund Burke told us that the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.  It follows from this that unless we protect freedom and democracy, their enemies will fill the void.

Meanwhile on the domestic front, Obama has decided to act on his own.  He is going to pretend that the Republican “obstructionists” in congress don’t exist.  Rather than follow the constitution, he will simply do what is going to happen anyway. 

Obama is so sure he is correct that he does not have to convince others of his wisdom.  If the congress or the American people disagree, he must nonetheless do what is in their interest.  Because he knows best, he must not allow their reservations to get in the way of historical necessity.

Here the difficulty is that Obama is not as brilliant, or perceptive, as he believes.  Time and again, his “common sense” strategies have little to do with common sense.  Time and again, they have failed to achieve the objectives he solemnly pledged.  No doubt it would be the same with gun control.

Of course, Marx’s predictions did not turn out well either.  The western European revolution he expected never occurred, while the Russian and Chinese Revolutions delivered tyranny and privation.  The brotherhood supposedly inherent in communism clearly did not arise.

As an aside, isn’t it interesting how much progressive liberalism has in common with socialism?  For years Democrats bridled at being labeled socialists.  Thus, they howled like stuck pigs when ObamaCare was described in this way. 

But now that Bernie Sanders, and avowed Democratic Socialist, is running for their presidential nomination, they have mellowed.  Somehow neither Hillary Clinton, nor Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, will define, or renounce, socialism.

The fact is that socialist principles are in their blood.  Liberalism is socialism light.  It, therefore, affects the mindset of adherents like Barack Obama.  But, worse still, it influences their policies.  They really believe the collectivist dogmas, which have repeatedly been disconfirmed, are unimpeachably correct.

It is time for the rest of us to wake up to what is actually happening—before we march off the cliff to which they are leading us. 

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

A Crony Capitalist for President

Mitt Romney, we were told, was a vulture capitalist.  He presumably grew rich by feeding off the corpses of his employees.  A great many voters decided that this disqualified him for president.  So why are so many enthusiastic about a crony capitalist?

During the recent presidential debate, Carly Fiorina made a telling observation.  She noted that one of the reasons Hillary Clinton should not become president is that she essentially accepted bribes in exchange for government favors.  In a word, she was corrupt.

But Fiorina was not finished.  She then remarked that many of these bribes came from one Donald Trump.  He was, in short, a crony capitalist who grew wealthy by paying government officials to do his bidding.  Indeed, Trump has bragged about this.  It is, he says, the way business is done.

So please explain this to me: If Hillary is corrupt for taking bribes, why is Trump not corrupt for giving them?  So far I haven’t heard media commentators follow up on Fiorina’s trenchant reflection, but make no mistake about it, during the general election when Hillary’s venality is exposed, so will his.

The fact is that you cannot fight corruption with corruption.  They say that it takes a thief to catch a thief, but if we put a thief in the White House we will only get what amounts to wholesale theft.  The Donald will do what lines the Donald’s pockets, despite his vows to the contrary.

Character matters.  We audition potential presidents to see if they have the right stuff to be the world’s most powerful leader.  We know that Barack Obama abused his power.  Do we now want to elect someone who has demonstrated that he too knows how to abuse power?

And then there is this other thing?  Trump touts his business success as evidence that he knows how to revive our economy.  He likewise boasts about his Master’s degree in business to demonstrate how smart and knowledgeable he is.  He will therefore promote policies to make America great again.

But do you remember Smoot-Hawley?  This was a tariff bill enacted in 1930.  It was intended to resuscitate our economy after the Stock Market collapse.  The idea was that if we raised the taxes foreigners paid on goods imported into our country, then Americans would buy American, thereby creating more American jobs.

It did not work out that way.  You see, those nasty foreigners just raised their tariffs on our goods, which meant that they did not buy from us.  This, in turn, resulted in layoffs among the American workers who manufactured merchandise for sale abroad.

The upshot was a drastic decrease in international trade that contributed to the length of the Great Depression.  Foreign trade turns out to be an engine that spurs economic growth.  When it is cut off, everyone suffers.

So now Trump wants to increase the tariffs on China and Mexico.  He claims to be a free trader, but his solution to getting even with our rivals is to slap an excise tax on them.  It does not seem to dawn on him that they might retaliate and that this could launch a trade war in which there will be no winners.

Trump is good at putting up office towers.  He has expertise in operating casinos and golf courses.  But how does this translate into shepherding our entire economy?  During the debate, he initially denied wanting to raise tariffs, but then when cornered admitted as much.  This will not, however, save American jobs!

  Do we want a stammering buffoon for president?  Do we want to elect someone who not only does not talk like a president, but will not act like one?  Haven’t eight years of incompetence been enough?

Let the crony capitalist return to the business that he knows best.  Let his go back on television to wage his war against political correctness.  But please, don’t inflict him on a nation still reeling from Obama’s ineptitude.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University