Christmas and the Family

Each year at about this time, the supermarket chains flood the airwaves with pictures of families enjoying a sumptuous holiday repast.  No doubt, this sort of scene unfolded yesterday in many households across this land.  With millions of Americans going home for Christmas, most were sure to have feasted on turkey or ham.

But what of those many millions of Americans who do not belong to intact families?  Many surely experienced what should be a shared holiday alone.  Many others were deprived of the love that Christmas celebrates because they do not belong to devoted families.

As social scientists have made abundantly clear, divorce ravages about half of all contemporary marriages.  As is less often underscored, almost half of American children are born out of wedlock.  That means that many are never part of a traditional family.

Social science also reveals that these children have fewer opportunities to be happy.  They tend to be poorly educated and, if they hold a job at all, are usually consigned to the lower rungs of the occupational ladder.  By the same token, their own marriages are more fragile and their mental health precarious.

So what, as a nation, are we doing about this—except pretending that it is not happening?  During the recent political campaign nary a word was spoken about making the family whole again.  Rick Santorum made this a focus of his efforts, but his saccharine religiosity turned a lot of people off.

As for Hillary, she owed too large a debt to the feminists not to carry their water.  Since many of these radicals still blame men for all of the world’s troubles, they are not kindly disposed to heterosexual commitments.  And lest we forget, Secretary Clinton once told us it takes a village—not a family—to raise a child.

Meanwhile Donald Trump was happy to showcase his beautiful wife and talented children.  But here we must remember that he is on this third wife and was caught on tape bragging about his extra-marital accomplishments.  He was obviously in no position to champion family values.

The truth is that politicians have no idea about how to put the family back together again.  They talk about tax credits or free childcare services, but not about strengthening the interpersonal bonds between spouses or the best ways to raise successful children.

Sometimes what we hear are paeans to diversity.  However people choose to live their personal lives, including as single parents or in homosexual alliances, is supposed to be okay—assuming this is voluntary.  No single way of life is regarded as best, so all are to be cheerfully tolerated.

Indeed, we are told we must be nonjudgmental.  In a world filled with strangers, it is our duty to keep our noses out of other people’s business.  Oh yes, the liberals explain that we must also be each other’s keepers, but by this they mean that the government should provide larger transfer payments.

Well, I want to let it be known that I am as judgmental as can be.  When people have children out of wedlock, I am appalled.  When spouses are unfaithful to one another, I am disgusted.  I don’t care if people’s feelings are hurt by my attitude.  So far as I am concerned, they should be hurt.

As Marvin Olasky wrote many years ago, American compassion can have tragic consequences.  In the name of doing good, we often do very bad.  It is therefore time to take a hard-eyed look at what we have wrought.  What kind of world are we bequeathing our children?

Nonetheless, moaning about what has gone wrong is not sufficient.  If all we do is complain about society going to wrack and ruin, our passivity contributes to this collective decline.  We must do something to strengthen what until recently has been regarded as the bedrock of social stability.

This means that we not only have to stand up for the family.  We must also teach the upcoming generation how to participate in enduring families.  Cherishing love are not enough.  The young must also be tutored in the nuts and bolts of voluntary intimacy.  This is not always easy given that so many alternatives are currently available to us.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

The Symphony and Tradition

With Christmas coming up tomorrow, I was recently reminded of the importance of traditions.  About a week ago, my wife and I attended a performance of the Atlanta Symphony at Kennesaw State University.  As usual, their holiday selections were a pleasure to hear.

But as I sat watching these talented musicians play, I became aware of how remarkable the concert was.  Here were dozens of separate individuals collaborating on creating musical magic.

Most of the time, we take orchestras for granted.  Even if we do not attend their performances, we know they exist.  We have heard them on the radio, on movie soundtracks, and from our i-pads.  Their music is, as it were, the wallpaper of our lives.

Nonetheless, orchestras are made up of dedicated performers, who spend years honing their craft.  Had they not cared, they would not have made the effort.  Nor would they take pride in attaining skills most of us never approach.

How then can these folks, who must have strong egos, submerge themselves in a group endeavor?  All of those involved take bows at the end of the performance, but during it, they are often regarded as cogs in a well-oiled machine.

What I realized, in listening to their joint effort, was how minutely it was orchestrated.  Different instruments contributed distinctive sounds that were exquisitely coordinated.  If only one came in at the wrong time, the impact might have been jarring.

Next I wondered how this combination came to be.  The compositions played, the instruments used, and the way these were synchronized had obviously evolved over many centuries.  They were not the product of an identifiable individual who dreamed them up in a modern living room.

What I was listening to owed to a continuously developing tradition.  Many people contributed to refining the instruments and compositions I was enjoying.  These were so complex that no single person could have ever have put all of the pieces together.

These musicians were part of a much larger tapestry.  They could not have learned their parts nor mastered their instruments had these not preceded them into existence.

Then I realized that the same applies to Christmas.  It too is a remarkably intricate tradition.  It too has many pieces we inherited from our ancestors.  They bequeathed us the Christmas tree, Santa Claus, Christmas carols, turkey dinners and streets decked out in colored lights.

Many people denigrate the holiday because they feel it imposes a particular religious system upon us.  They believe that erecting crèches in our town squares is a violation of the First Amendment.   As for me, despite my Jewish heritage, I consider this nonsense.

Christmas is both a religious and a secular holiday.  Nowadays, in addition to celebrating the birth of Christ, it celebrates the family and love.  What is wrong with that?  What is wrong in marking the winter solstice with an evocation of the new life that will erupt once spring returns?

Nowadays music is all too often a solitary event.  People are plugged in to performances that only they hear.  Even when they go to hip-hop concerts, they jump up and down in private ecstasy.  Our sense of community has long since eroded.  Why then not retain a holiday dedicated to renewing it?

Many Americans are also consumed with the new.  Novelty for its own sake has become a modern icon.  But this does not mean that what is up-to-date is always best.  The melodies of old are frequently more satisfying than the jarring rhythms of screaming super-stars.

Traditions can be comforting.  They can also lay a foundation upon which we add improvements.  Indeed, without tradition we would be adrift.  We would be thrown into the world without a compass and deprived of fellow travelers engaged in understandable activities.

So as for me, I will continue to say Merry Christmas.  What is more, my wife and I erect a Christmas tree and light a Hanukah menorah.  Here’s hoping you also have nourishing traditions.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

The Amber Alert Fiasco

Call me an old curmudgeon.  Fault me for insensitivity to the distress of little children.  Perhaps I am a mean-spirited antique.  Nevertheless, I am fed up with being assaulted by the sound pollution caused by those ubiquitous Amber Alerts.  They strike me as both unnecessary and offensive.

On far too many evenings, just as the television show I am watching reaches a climax, a terrible noise erupts in my living room.  Then, for what seems an eternity, I am subjected to information about the abduction of a youngster I do not know.

On these occasions, I am presented with the details of who did what to whom and the color of the car they were driving at the time.  Then, because the announcer must know I was not paying attention, the information is repeated.  Only after this, accompanied with another flourish of earsplitting buzzers, am I allowed to return to my program.

Needless to say, I am annoyed at having missed the crux of the story in which I was immersed.  But my wife has it worse.  Oftentimes, when that unwelcome alarm sounds, our cat is sitting on her lap.  And because Little Dickens is even more frightened than we are, it digs its claws into her flesh.

Or consider what happened just the other day.  I was driving to work when the alarm blared out of my i-phone.  This instrument was in my shirt pocket, so it gave me a jolt.  But what was I to do?  Was I to take it out and read about some alleged criminal activity?  If I did, wouldn’t this be the equivalent of texting while driving?

But let us say I was not distracted by this intrusive sound.  Really, what was I to do?  What are the chances that I would notice the offending vehicle?  At home, there would be zero opportunity.  Yet even on the road, wouldn’t sizing up every passing car be a dangerous waste of my time?

I have also had that darned alarm wake me from a sound sleep.  Because those who decide to send it know nothing about what the recipients are doing, of course, it frequently arrives at inopportune moments.

So here we have it.  Millions of Georgians are inconvenienced so that they can help solve a crime where the overwhelming majority has not the slightest ability to assist in the endeavor.  Their lives are gratuitously interrupted so that some self-centered politicians can give the impression of being compassionate.

But I ask you, why this particular emergency?  Why doesn’t the state send out alarms for other crimes?  There could be robbery alerts.  Or murder alerts.  Or rape alerts.  The English Bobbies used to blow whistles so that the public could help catch offenders.  Couldn’t this be considered a high tech version of the same?

The problem with this approach is that in a world where we are already assaulted by too many extraneous interruptions, this adds another.  There are limits to which we ought to intrude into each other’s personal realms.  With our privacy at a premium, there has to be a good reason to deprive us of it.

I submit that the level of assistance the public is able to supply in search of abducted children it too limited to justify society-wide disruptions.  We would not do this for rapes, so why for abductions?  Is it that there are too many of the former or that the latter are more heinous?

Why, I also ask, are BOLO’s not enough?  The police should be on the lookout for these lawbreakers.  Yet how much does broadening the search actually help?  A Google search told me that nationwide Amber Alerts worked 816 times after many years of operation.  Still, who knows how many wrongdoers would have been apprehended without this assist.

When I was a kid, I asked my father why there was a law against blowing automobile horns in New York City.  Since cars had horns, why not use them.  It did not occur to me that the unlimited utilization of these devices would create a painful cacophony.  Isn’t it the same with Amber Alerts?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

A Century of Liberal Failure

Have you noticed how bitter liberals are at their electoral defeat?  They not only expected to win; they felt entitled to do so.  They have, as a result, been the sorest of sore losers.  As this is being written, they are plotting ways to make sure Donald Trump does not enjoy the traditional presidential honeymoon.

Across the nation, Trump is being attacked as a fascist and terrorist.  His victory is described as illegitimate; hence rioters felt free to vent their spleens.  Meanwhile, calls for his assassination have been heard, members of the Electoral College urged to break their faith, and voter recounts pursued.

Can you recall any post-election this vituperative?  When have Republicans acted this spitefully?  Both of the Bushes left office gracefully.  Their supporters were disappointed, but they resigned themselves to defeat.  Gerald Ford and his allies were also good losers.  They had doubts about Jimmy Carter, but were not about to destroy the nation on this account.

Nor can I remember a precedent for Barack Obama’s behavior.  He has gone on what amounts to an “I was really a great President” tour.  Both at home and abroad, he elucidated, in mendacious detail, why he was not responsible for his party’s loss and urged the new chief executive to continue his policies.

Obama has been known for taking undeserved victory laps.  Now he assures us that his personal popularity is proof his two terms in office were triumphs.  According to him, he saved us from a depression and single-handedly rescued America’s international reputation.

But contemplate how much worse off we actually are.  ObamaCare is in a death spiral.  ISIS terrorism remains with us.  The Iran deal gave an implacable foe cover for terrorism and the right to acquire nuclear weapons.  As for the economy, it has never grown at more than 2 percent.

Nonetheless, this is par for the course for liberal administrations.  On their watch educational achievement has plummeted, crime rates have risen, and the welfare roles have swollen.  Despite their big promises about equality and justice, these were never kept.

Nor is this a recent development.   Liberalism can lay claim to a century of failure.  Virtually everything progressives have touched has turned to dross.  Lest we forget, it was Woodrow Wilson who brought segregation to our nation’s capital, Franklin Roosevelt who lengthened the Great Depression, Lyndon Johnson who lost the War on Poverty, and Jimmy Carter who gave us the Great Inflation.

If asked about their achievements, liberals generally cite Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  But even these are in actuarial trouble.  What is more, Democratic attainments in civil rights owe as much to Republicans as themselves.  After all, it was the Dixiecrats who opposed voting legislation and Nixon who introduced affirmative action.

Why then are liberals so sour?  Why have they gone ballistic over their current defeat?  They have had setbacks before and recovered.  Nor is it because Trump has egregiously misbehaved.  If anything, his cabinet choices demonstrate a sincere intention to reinstate conservative principles.

Nonetheless, this is the problem.  If Trump is successful, it might finally dawn on voters that neo-socialist promises are a fraud.  Blacks and Hispanics might realize that conservative policies, if given a chance, would leave them better off.  So might the blue collar workers at the historic heart of the Democratic coalition.

With Obama in office and the mainstream media guarding his flanks, liberals were able to disguise the depth of their failures.  They were able to claim that no one could have done better in protecting our economy and national security.

What will they do if these hyperbolic pretensions are exposed?  Already people have grown tired of identity politics and political correctness.  Ordinary Americans are fatigued by the lies and angered by the perpetual unfairness.  Many long for a return to the old verities.

If Trump delivers on these, liberalism might conclusively be discredited.  Implementation of an American Dream that actually provides opportunity, liberty, and integrity may, in fact, reduce the prevailing cynicism.  If so, neo-Marxism could go into a fatal decline.  No wonder progressives are worried.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University