A Crucial Vote

One of the things I enjoy about having my column appear in the Cherokee Tribune is that I get to be on the same page as Charles Krauthammer.  I have long admired his sagacity and now find myself in agreement with his attitude toward the coming presidential election.

A couple of weeks ago Krauthammer wrote that he could not bring himself to vote for Donald Trump.  Over the last several months he has made it plain that he believes Trump is flawed human being.  The Donald is described as a narcissist with poor impulse control and an inadequate grasp of domestic or foreign policy. 

I could not agree more!  Therefore I too find it difficult to image how I could vote for him.  But then there is the Hillary alternative.  She is manipulative, dishonest, and proved herself to be a weak secretary of state.  How could I vote for such a person?  Surely not just because she is a woman.

For a while I hoped that there would be an attractive third party candidate, but this prospect is fading.  As of now it looks like a Trump/Clinton contest with both parties spending months denouncing each other’s weaknesses.  How inspiring!

So how did we get to this pass?  How did we arrive at a place where neither liberals nor conservatives are pleased with their candidate?

Let’s start with the Republicans.  Their primary voters threw a tantrum.  They were so unhappy with the Obama administration and the inability of congress to block his policies that they had a hissy fit.  All that mattered was that Trump insulted everybody.  This way they could make their disapproval known through him.

As for the Democrats, they have run out of ideas.  Hillary insists that she will be innovative, but then offers us warmed-over programs from the New Deal.  These have not worked, nonetheless the only way she knows how to solve problems is by throwing money and regulations at them.

So what happens if either of these defective individuals becomes chief executive?  During the last presidential cycle Bill Clinton assured us that no one could have done better at saving our economy than Barack Obama.  But then we have simply limped along for another four years.

With either Trump or Hillary, are we destined to do any better?  We might even have it much worse.  Trump’s lack of personal restraint could well precipitate an international crisis, whereas Hillary’s out-of-control spending could give us a recession or Carter-style inflation.

This is as predictable as a budgetary emergency or the financial collapse of social security.  Every now and then, politicians warn us that facts count—and then proceed to ignore them.  Why are ordinary Americans doing the same?

When I read Krauthammer’s cri-de-coeur, I felt his pain.  Then I wondered why so many of my fellow citizens have failed to heed warnings about our impending disaster.  Don’t they care?

Actually, I do believe that most people care.  They are just trapped in world-views for which they see no substitute.  Republicans fear that conservatism has proven impotent, while Democrats feel that liberalism has not gone far enough.  Even so, both sides want more of the same and are surprised when things don’t get better.

My worry is that the only way out of this impasse is by way of a catastrophe.  People may not be willing to consider different options unless things get so bad that the system is in jeopardy.  Only something like the Great Depression or a military defeat may shake them out of their lethargy. 

I know this is a terrible conclusion, but as a former clinician, I am reminded of the plight of alcoholics.  They know that drinking is killing them, but cannot stop.  Only when they hit bottom do they sometimes decide to get sober.

The question is how low will our bottom be.  What must happen before we decide to change our direction?  To judge from recent events, it may be very low indeed.  This is sad, but angry people do foolish things.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Social Emotions

The publication of my new book on courage has put me in mind of the social aspects of our emotions.  These are profound and help explain many of our current political difficulties.

Nonetheless, most people imagine that our feelings are purely private.  They are regarded as psychological phenomenon to which no one but those experiencing them has access.  As such, their range of influence is thought to be limited.

Yet this is not true.  Let me illustrate.  When I taught introductory sociology to non-majors at Kennesaw State, I employed a demonstration of the power of social norms.  Thus, I began by asking a student seated in the middle of the room to turn his or her chair around to face the back.

Everyone saw me do this.  They all knew that it was a pedagogical device.  Even so, the students around him or her became nervous.  In a classroom, everyone is supposed to look toward the front—so this didn’t feel right.

The target student, however, generally became the most uncomfortable.  This unease was so great that the impulse to comply with the norm was nearly irresistible.  Some of these poor students veritably twitched in their seats.

In one case, a student literally cried and then pleaded with me to relent.  Later, after the class ended, she came up to me and asked why I hated her—which, of course, I did not.  The pain she had experienced was so excruciating that she could only imagine I had intended to inflict this anguish.

The point is that our emotions are communicated and can have an enormous impact.  Far from being strictly personal, they constitute a crucial element in maintaining social order.  It is as if networks of emotions bind us together and enable us to coordinate our activities.

One of the best examples of this is morality.  The rules we employ to keep people from hurting one another are emotionally enforced.  If someone violates an important standard, we get angry.  The object of our ire is then intimidated into complying with what is expected.

Why is this important in our current circumstances?  It is because we seem to be in the midst of a national panic.  So many things have gone wrong in our economy, social relationships and international affairs that we are on the verge of countrywide hysteria.

Panic is an interesting emotion.  It is fear that has been raised to the nth degree.  It is fear that has gone primitive and is no longer under rational control.  When we panic, we become like infants who don’t know how to protect ourselves.  We rush around blindly, banging into the furniture and causing additional harm.

We see the effects of this panic at Trump and Sanders rallies.  Thousands of people come together to be assured by a compelling leader that they will be saved.  En masse, they feel the power of their shared desires and thereby reinforce their exultation at being rescued.

Meanwhile, outside these events, the panic of the counter-demonstrators turns to rage and people commit atrocities they would never even contemplate had they not felt emotionally isolated.  The intensity of their anger is thus multiplied when backed up by a furious mob.

People in a panic do not think straight.  When watching television, or going to the polls, their critical faculties can be turned off by feeling part of a passionate movement.

How else do we explain the madness that has pervaded this electoral cycle?  Who believes that Donald Trump, or Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders would make an excellent president?  Even so, we have been collectively swept up in a rush to head off a cliff.

Our emotions are powerful.  They are even more so when joined together in a social crusade.  This makes them difficult to resist.  But, unless we come to our senses, a tragedy may lie in store.  If we don’t cogently calculate what is in our interests, we may get what no one wants.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Courage for Modern Times

“I have always thought of myself as a coward.”  That is the opening line of my new book Unlocking Your Inner Courage.  I go on to explain what a frightened little boy I was.  I talk, for instance, about sitting in the corner of our Brooklyn apartment afraid to go outside.  I also describe how my little sister learned to swim before I did.

Not long ago, I ran into a colleague who reviewed the book for the publisher.  He began our conversation by asking if it could be true.  Had I really been a coward when I was younger?  From his experience, he could not imagine that this was the case.

Actually nowadays very few people doubt my courage.  They have seen me in action.  They know that I am prepared to stand up for what I believe, at any time, against any one.   Moreover, as a conservative sociologist and academic, I am always exposed to criticism—some of it vicious.  Yet here I stand with my head unbowed.

What happened?  How did I go from being the proverbial ninety-pound weakling to a formidable character?   Although I am still not a big person and do not relish putting myself in physical danger, on a social level almost nothing today terrifies me.

The changeover came slowly and for many years I did not realize it had occurred.  But decades of working as a clinician and even more years of self-analysis taught me important lessons.  Still, it was only recently that I decided that I had acquired insights that were worthy enough to share.

What tipped the scale was looking around and realizing that many other folks are more timid than me.  Like most people, I was aware of my own limitations.  Yet because others did not display their fears, I did not appreciate how profound these could be.

Nor did I recognize how important courage is in our modern era.  After all, we are not fighting to open up a wild frontier.  Nor have many of us had to cross a dangerous ocean in leaky sailing ships.  What then have we to fear with our full bellies, air conditioned homes, and safe suburban neighborhoods?

Nevertheless, we have managed to find bogymen lurking under nearly every sofa.  It is not just a few college students who have turned into snowflakes.  Many millions of the rest of us melt away when confronted with opinions that differ from our own.  As long as like-minded folks surround us we are okay, but let a conservative (or liberal) into the room and we panic.

This is especially unfortunate in that personal courage may be more valuable than ever.  Our prosperity has opened up a wide range of possibilities from which we must choose.  This has introduced a variety of uncertainties that take daring to confront. 

For instance, marriage has become voluntary.  We don’t marry unless we want to; we don’t stay married unless we know how to.  Intimacy, as those who have experienced it know, can be scary.  People who are emotionally close are able to hurt each other.  As a consequence, it takes nerve to get close.

Our more complex occupations also require courage.  First, we must choose from an intimidating array of possibilities.  Then we must develop the requisite skills.  And finally we must make independent decisions in areas of uncertainty.  Things can go wrong at any point, which demands a steady hand and clear head.

It even takes courage to recognize what we cannot do.  Despite our wealth, we cannot have it all.  We cannot fix every problem or make everybody equally happy.  Sometimes we must say No, even though we will be castigated for it.

And so a great many of us freak out.  We run for the exits—or, more commonly, we look around for a savior.  All too often these are politicians who cannot even save themselves.  The plain fact is that only we can save ourselves and we can do this only if we have courage.

That is why I wrote my book. 

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw state University

Escape From Freedom

At the conclusion of World War II, the psychologist/philosopher Erich Fromm wrote a book entitled Escape from Freedom.  He sought to explain why so many Germans had embraced Nazism.  According to Fromm, they were terrified of the freedom they had achieved under the Weimar Republic.

Until 1918, kings and nobles had always ruled over the Germans.  During the 19^th century, the nation had actually been reunited under the firm hand of Otto von Bismarck.  He served as a protective father figure.  Thus, without someone like him, many feared collapse and ruin.

Adolf Hitler promised to return the Reich to glory.  He would undo the damage inflicted by the Great War and provide the necessary leadership.  Ordinary citizens would not have to worry about the anarchy of democracy because he would choose the course they would follow.

According to Fromm, the crucial problem was that people fear making independent choices.  They know that they are prone to making mistakes and hence they want someone smarter and stronger to decide for them.  Freedom is a burden that places them in jeopardy.

Contemporary Americans seem to be responding in a comparable way to the uncertainties of recent years.  Although two centuries of democracy should have inoculated them against the temptations of demagoguery, they apparently have not.

Our situation is a bit different than the post-war Germans in that our nation has not been devastated by an unexpected defeat.  Foreign armies have not brought us to our knees or imposed a staggering debt.  No, we have inflicted this latter woe, and other liabilities, upon ourselves.

Affluence, paradoxically, is our greatest challenge.  We have grown so wealthy that we expect to have everything we want when we want it.  Then, after this does not happen, we demand that someone save us from our own freedom.  We insist that they do the choosing.

Consider how many factors are at our own discretion.  We must decide if we will marry or have children.  We decide what sort of occupation we will enter and how we will prepare for it.  We even choose which, of ten thousand cereals, we should eat for breakfast.  It is all so confusing.

Fortunately, we possess a crop of presidential candidates who are prepared to relieve us of this burden.  Bernie Sanders is one such munificent soul.  He vows to give us free medical care and a college education gratis.  He will simply take from the rich to give to the poor so that we will not have to fend for ourselves.

As for Hillary, she is not quite so generous—but she is getting there.  Her main concern is protecting us from the depredations of Wall Street.  She tells us that investment bankers are the source of our distress and therefore once they have been tamed, our anxieties will disappear.  (And her bank balance augmented?)

Meanwhile, the Donald will make us great again.  He is so smart that he will do the bargaining for us.  All we need to do is sit back and allow him to repulse those mean-spirited Mexicans, Muslims, and Chinese.  Clearly, we do not know how to do this for ourselves.

We Americans have evidently forgotten how to compete.  Nor do we want to control our own medical expenses or educational endeavors.  Let the government decide.  Its experts obviously know best.  After all, if the federal government did not confiscate our incomes, we might squander what we earned on frivolous diversions.

So let Bernie, Hillary, or Donald tell us what to do.  Like those university students who do not want to be exposed to opinions with which they disagree, we too are apparently snowflakes.  We might melt, if we chose unwisely.

Barack Obama once promised hope and change.  How well was he able to fulfill this pledge?  Why then do we continue to seek counterfeit paladins?  Haven’t we learned that these folks are no smarter or nicer than the rest of us?  Freedom can be dangerous, but is it more dangerous than trusting a bunch of boastful politicians?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University