Why Georgia Broke My Heart

I love Georgia.  I am a damn Yankee by choice.  Since I moved to the state a quarter of a century ago, I have never been tempted to return north.  But a couple of weeks ago, Georgia broke my heart.  Contrary to my expectations, nearly forty percent of its Republican voters cast their ballots for Donald Trump.

Like many northerners, I had assumed Georgians were uncouth barbarians.  Prior to coming south, I too believed they were ignorant rednecks who could barely speak the English language.  Slow of speech, they would also prove slow of mind.

The realization that I was mistaken came quickly.  It was not just that my colleagues at Kennesaw State University were smart, so were the students.  Although most had been born and bred in the South, they were every bit as intelligent as the students I encountered in New York.

But what really got my attention was an incident that occurred at the end of my first term at KSU.  At that point, one of the students approached me to inquire as to why I hated Atlanta.  This left me dumbstruck.  I did not hate Atlanta.  Why would she think so?

When I asked for an explanation, she cited several negative things I mentioned about the city.  This was the moment I first encountered an unsuspected cornerstone of Southern culture.

It was now that I learned southern children are told that if they do not have something nice to say, they should not say anything at all.  Back in New York, the attitude was quite different.  There kids are told if they have something to say, they should spit it out.

Georgians, I discovered, are gracious people.  Some might gossip behind your back, but they too were courteous.  Politeness was strongly valued.  Indeed, it was part of the Southern identity.  These folks were never going to be as rude as northerners.

So how could they have voted for Trump?  He is not just a New Yorker, but one of the rudest New Yorkers I have come across.  Vulgar and profane, he is the epitome of bad manners.  He is, in fact, so boorish that his conduct would never be tolerated on his home turf.

How then could so many Georgians reward his crudity?  Is this what they want their children to emulate?  In my classes at KSU, I tell students that we can disagree without being disagreeable.  Have hundreds of thousands of Georgian parents decided otherwise?

I had also assumed that conservatives believe in traditional values.  They would vigorously protect the standards of behavior that made America great.  How then could they endorse a barrage of childish insults in the name of returning the nation to greatness?  This made no sense.

Evidently many Georgians—and not just Georgians—have been so appalled by the failures of the Obama administration that they are in a moral panic.  They are so distressed that they are prepared to cheer themselves hoarse for a demagogue who uses offensiveness to demonstrate his strength.

But this is not strength!  Nor is it presidential.  Although Trump’s wife Melania counseled him to be presidential, he cannot seem to help himself.  In the heat of the battle, when he feels attacked, he always goes coarsely ballistic.  Will he do the same if he gets to the oval office?

A lot of people have been saying it is too late to stop this foul-mouthed imposter.  Perhaps they are correct.  Georgians had a chance, but they let it slide through their fingers.  Will the rest of the nation remain as oblivious?  Will they too abandon their beliefs in quest of a cheap thrill?

Founders like Benjamin Franklin warned us that we could preserve our democracy only if we remained moral.  They were probably right.  This makes it all the more troubling that so many of our fellow citizens have decided that decency no longer matters.  With so much at stake, will they too betray our heritage?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

The Ugly American

In the early 1960’s, about the time that the Viet Nam War was heating up, Americans were troubled by their national image.  The media were gripped by an orgy of self-recrimination.  People began to fear that around the world we were regarded as “the ugly Americans.”

Rich, brash, and vulgar, wherever we went we elicited disdain.  Instead of trying to understand others, as tourists we exuded a sense of entitlement that expressed itself in boorish behavior.  We were loud, ignorant, and offensive—but did not seem to care.

Back then, most Americans were repelled by this impression.  They regarded themselves as civilized, compassionate, and enlightened.  How could others perceive them so differently?  Surely it was time to clear up this mistake.

Today many Republican voters do not seem to care.  Raucous in their admiration of the most ill-mannered candidate ever to solicit their support, they don’t mind his torrent of insults and witlessness.  For them, Donald Trump can do no wrong.  He is not ugly!

Trump’s patented stump speech boasts about how he will make America great again.  He will fix every problem, although he never says how.  But then he immediately launches into an attack on anyone faintly critical of him.  They are weak, stupid fools, whereas he is unbelievably brilliant.

Not only is this Trump’s message, but he delivers it with an endless stream of juvenile invective.  After this, he broadly mimics his opponents.  I have not witnessed such a display since Junior High School.  Nonetheless, my teenage colleagues were cleverer.  At least they sought to be original.

The question is why are so many people buying this rubbish?  Why does so obvious a charlatan transfix them?  Is this the man they want to be the face of their nation?  Is this how they see themselves and the way they want others to see them?  More importantly: Is this presidential?

Many answers have been suggested to this enigma, but they do not appear to explain what continues to mystify observers.  Yes, Trump is a media star.  His reality programs have made him known to viewers in every corner of the country.  But why is he, as opposed to other reality personalities, so magnetic?

  I finally think I have an answer.  For many voters Trump is “the Boss.”  He is the man in charge, the person who judges rather than is judged.  As a result, he does not have to explain himself.  It is simply assumed that he can do whatever he says—because he says so.

Chester Barnard, a vice president of New Jersey Bell, long ago wrote a book called The Functions of the Executive.  In it he explained that leaders often get their power because their subordinates project it on them.  These leaders are regarded as smarter and more powerful than they are because this provides their followers a sense of security.

Barnard called this “the myth of supreme authority.”  The idea is that the boss must know what he is doing; otherwise his underlings would be in jeopardy.  As a consequence, they turn their brains off and do as they are told.  This seems to be happening with regard to Trump.

Time and again The Donald insists that he will do the impossible.  Given that he is so talented and has achieved so many “incredible” things, it will be easy for him deport eleven million illegals.  Indeed, no other living human could.

Under ordinary circumstances such extreme boasts would be subject to close examination.  But not for Trump.  He is the boss!  He will save us.  And so it is his detractors who are dismissed as incompetent and mean-spirited.  Trump gets a pass no matter how lame or unrefined his verbal ejaculations.

Will Americans come to their senses?  Will they decide that they are better than the coarse narcissist who has become their hero?  The situation looks dicey.  We may, in fact, be in for far more trouble than Obama ever caused.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Benito Trump: An American Il Duce

From the first time I saw him on stage during a presidential debate, I was struck by the way Donald Trump carried himself.  There was something about his demeanor that reminded me of another political figure.  Soon enough, I realized it was Benito Mussolini.

Trump thrust his chin forward just as the fascist dictator once did.  And when he was under pressure, he bobbed his head in the same way.  It was as if I were looking at a reincarnation of this long gone demagogue.

The more I contemplated this coincidence, the more I realized that there were other parallels between the two men.  Not just the way they looked, but the way they operated had much in common.  Both were bombastic rabble-rousers who promised to save their nations.

Today we think of Mussolini as a slightly comic figure, but at the beginning of his political career he was widely admired.  Indeed, Cole Porter, when he wrote the song You’re the Top, included him right up there with the Eifel Tower and the Louvre museum.

Mussolini came to power a few years after the end of the First World War.  Although on the winning side of that conflict, Italians were disappointed by how poorly they were compensated in the Versailles Treaty.  They were also in the midst of an economic recession that did not square with their victory.

Now in a surly mood, the public sought a savior.  They were looking for a strong leader who could pull them out of this quagmire.  Then along came Mussolini, a journalist, who used his media position to offer promises of salvation.  Fascism would bring the nation together and lift it to dazzling heights.

Mussolini would revive the Roman Empire.  He would make the trains run on time and drain the Pontine Marshes.  Unlike like the feckless politicians who could not seem to agree on anything, he would be a strong man who kept his pledges.  Not only did he sound powerful, he would be powerful.

And so tens of thousands of Italians took up the cause.  As Black Shirts, they marched on Rome to install Benito as their nation’s leader.  He would be Il Duce, the man on the white horse who knew how to get things done.

Does this sound familiar?  Isn’t Donald Trump an American-style redux of this scenario?  Isn’t he also an outsider who uses his media prominence to assure a disgruntled people that he will save them from bungling politicians?  Doesn’t he too pose as someone so strong that he can deliver on what he says?

Benito Trump is not a fascist.  He is not contemplating a coup.  If he becomes president, it will be via the ballot box and not a march on Washington.  Yet he too is leading battalions of ill-informed zealots to initiate changes the depth of which they do not understand.

Trump is a charlatan.  His bluster is not backed up by knowledge or competence.  Donald is a real estate developer.  He puts up buildings.  His much vaunted negotiation skills have nothing to do with enacting legislation or coming to terms with foreign heads of state.

This is a vulgar man whose ignorance of governmental issues is matched only by his disinterest in learning.  A man totally bereft of intellectual curiosity, he assumes that he will make good choices because he has “common sense.”

Yet where did Mussolini’s common touch get him?  Yes, he made the trains run on time.  But he also invaded Ethiopia and Albania.  And then when his troops ran into trouble in Greece, he had to be bailed out by his ally Adolf Hitler.  Benito might have sounded like a conquering general, but he was nothing of the sort.

Nor is Benito Trump.  Of course, he is not a despot.  His is not going to open any concentration camps.  But he does have fascistic impulses.  After all, he is the “boss,” who now wants to be the boss of all of us.  In other words, our Il Duce.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of  Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Marco Rubio: A Conservative JFK

Marco Rubio: A Conservative JFK

The scene was Kings Highway in Brooklyn NY, just in front of Dubrow’s Cafeteria.  The time was the fall of 1960.  John F. Kennedy had come to my neighborhood to campaign for president of the United States.  Although I could not yet vote, I was swept away by the enthusiasm of a crowd that packed the street as far as one could see.

This was to be a new frontier: the passing of the political baton from one generation to the next.  Instead of the ramblings of a tired old general, a vibrant young man would lead us into a new era of unprecedented accomplishment.  Indeed, Kennedy won his election and soon Camelot was upon us.

Today we have an opportunity for another political upheaval.  Another young man is running for the presidency; one every bit as articulate and potentially inspirational as JFK.  That candidate is Marco Rubio, but the big difference is that he is a conservative.

Conservatism is usually regarded as stogy.  It is thought of as the wave of the past, rather than the future.  Instead of being interpreted as a defense of freedom and a clarion call for innovation and social growth, it is viewed as heralding a retreat into dogmatism and apathy.

This need not be the case.  The rising tide of which Kennedy spoke can come flooding back in an era of personal responsibility, smaller government, and a strong military defense.  All that is needed is a figure around which the nation can rally.  That person may just be Rubio.

Some people think that Marco is too young and inexperienced for the job.  In fact he is older and has a longer resume than did Kennedy.  Actually, he is the same age as Ted Cruz.  The reason he gets tarred with the immaturity brush is that he has a baby face.

Yet consider Rubio’s advantages.  He has a long legislative history that provides him the skills to mobilize a cascade of statutory achievements.  Thus, he will be able to roll back the Obama legacy and replace it with less restrictive programs.  ObamaCare and the EPA hegemony will, as a result, be relegated to an historical asterisk.

Rubio has also been tutoring himself on foreign affairs.  Of all the candidates, he has developed the best understanding of the risks that we confront.  Steady and sensible in his approach, there will be nothing resembling a missile gap on his watch.

The difficulty that worries many people is his approach to immigration.  They fear that he will sponsor amnesty for illegal aliens.  In this, however, they are mistaken.  Rubio absorbed a vital lesson from his initial exuberance in this area.  He now recognizes that the number one concern is gaining control of our borders.

In short, Rubio learns.  This is an asset that should not be discounted.  In truth, this was one of JFK’s greatest strengths.  After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, he gained crucial insights into the communist menace that served him well during the missile crisis.  These enabled him to stand down the Russians.

There is also the problem of Rubio’s blunder during the New Hampshire debate.  Can he recover his balance?  Barack Obama did after the Reverend Jeremiah Wright incident.  The real question is will the target placed on his back by the other candidates prove too much of a handicap.

And one more thing.  After New Hampshire, Rubio took responsibility for his gaffe.  He did not attempt to blame someone else, nor seek to downplay the impact of the incident.  Did Cruz do the same after Iowa?  Has Trump ever owned up to a weakness?  As for Hillary—well, you figure it out!

I like honesty!  I like sincerity!  I like stable good sense!  Just as importantly, I like the possibility of resurrecting the promise of conservatism.  JFK’s appealing personality managed this for liberalism.  Will we allow Rubio’s appealing personality to do the same for a more balanced political agenda?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University