Protesting the Protesters

Donald Trump had barely been elected when so-called protesters showed up in front of Trump Tower in New York.  Likewise, he had not yet been administered the oath of office when another batch of demonstrators attempted to disrupt his inauguration.

These folks style themselves patriots.  They claim that their goal is to protect the nation and promote justice.  This is rank nonsense.  They are anarchists and/or totalitarians.  They want to tear down the United States and replace it with their screwball utopias.

The actual motives of these dissenters are revealed in their tactics.  How they operate is wholly negative.  They march and shout vulgarities.  They bang pots and break windows.  They throw rocks at the police and lie down to obstruct traffic.  Never do we hear a constructive idea from the lips of these erstwhile reformers.

Contemplate the more than one third of congressional Democrats who boycotted the inauguration.  They were not only disrespecting the in-coming president; they were disrespecting over two centuries of tradition.  These partisans thumbed their noses at the institutions that have preserved social stability.

Or ponder those rock throwers.  They remind me the brown and black shirts who roughed up Germans and Italians in order to impose Nazism or Fascism.  The common goal of these ruffians was to intimidate others.  How ironic it is that left-wing thugs now accuse law-abiding citizens of being fascists.  These hooligans apparently do not know the meaning of the word.

Nor do the demonstrators understand democracy or justice.  They may regard themselves as the good guys, but they are prepared to vitiate the will of voters and impose their own inanities.  If others disagree, they do not listen.  If their radical schemes are resisted, they enforce them anyway.

As for being intellectuals, this is a joke.  Not only do they not understand the beliefs of their opponents; they do not even try to comprehend them.  Trapped in an echo-chamber of their own making, they do not know history, or economics, or sociology.  They think they do, but this is because they don’t know what they don’t know. 

Left-wing malcontents of this sort have not had a new idea since Franklin Roosevelt.  In fact, their philosophy can be summed up in a few sentences.  To wit: The powerful are oppressing the weak.  These tyrants must be prevented from doing so by bureaucratic regulations.  At the same time, government programs need to strengthen the vulnerable.

That’s it.  That’s the sum total of their brilliant insights.  As for the anarchists, their collective acumen is even more dazzling.  They assume that if the government is destroyed, we will instantly revert to a gigantic loving family.  It never occurs to them that their own frenzied methods refute this theory.

On top of this, the protestors are vehemently and pugnaciously anti-American.  So far are they from being patriots that they despise our nation.  Although they insist that they are engaging in violence because they love us, they scorn what we have hitherto been in favor of their imaginary designs.  Indeed, they want us to become altogether different from what anyone has ever been. 

In other words, the protesters are entirely oppositional.  They are defined by what they impugn, rather than what they would accomplish.  Despite all of their moralistic posturing, they are far worse human beings than those they criticize.  If there were any doubts, the valedictory deeds of their hero, president Barack Obama, lay bare their inner depravity.

Obama commuted the sentence of “Chelsea” Manning—an arrant traitor.  Against the pleas of military commanders, Barack elected to release an avowed enemy of our nation.  Of course, Obama has been doing this right along with the discharge of Gitmo detainees.

Our out-going commander-in-chief also decided to abandon Israel to the wolves.  It did not matter that it is a democracy and long-standing ally.  Where were the protesters when this occurred?  Where too were they when the Chicago police, rather than the Chicago gangs, came under withering fire?

If protestors are not constructive, they are no more than a rabble.  In their own deluded eyes they may be gallant superstars.  In reality, they are mean-spirited crackpots.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Responsibility-Suburban Style

My wife and I—as I have previously written—are hard-core walkers.  As a consequence, the arrival of winter did not deter us from perambulating around our suburban neighborhood.  This practice has not, to date, been impeded by a remarkably mild season.

As a result, we get to see our neighbors working in their yards.  Come spring, their lawns and flowers will be extraordinarily beautiful because they are tending to them now.  No doubt, the grass will be green and the blooms prolific.

But then it occurred to me that this was no accident.  My neighborhood is as charming as it is because the people who live in it are hard workers.  Were they not, they could not have afforded the lovely homes they occupy.  Were they not, the streets would not be clean or the buildings in good repair.

These are responsible folks.  They care about their surroundings and put in the effort to keep them attractive.  They do not passively expect others to do this for them.  Either they push the lawnmowers themselves, or they pay people to do so.

How different this is from other precincts in our society.  A creeping sense of entitlement has converted personal responsibility into an antique creed.  Strangers are supposed to take care of us.  We do not have to try our best.  Neither are we to blame when things go wrong.  These duties can be left to anonymous outsiders.

This attitude is revealed in the countless marchers who demand additional government services.  It is on display when my students refuse to study, but expect good grades anyway.  These layabouts assume they deserve whatever they want because they want it.

The United States is a wealthy nation therefore many people believe they also deserve to be wealthy.  Unlike my neighbors—who are not wealthy, but comfortable—they do not connect their current situation with what they have personally done.

But no nation can prosper if its inhabitants are irresponsible.  None can retain its treasure if half its citizens expect to be supported by the other half.  As might once have been said: goods and services do not grow on trees.  Of if they do, the trees have to be sprayed and trimmed.

I say that suburbanites are responsible people, but so are most who live in rural areas.  My father-in-law is a retired farmer.  If I had not known it before I married my wife, dealing with him underlined how hard farmers work.  On a farm, there are tasks to be performed.  If not, the crops wither and the livestock starve.

Factory and construction workers also exert themselves.  If they are not responsible, machines break down or buildings tumble to the ground.  These folks have to pay attention and correct whatever errors they make.  Shirkers actually endanger the lives of those around them.

So why is this no longer the conventional wisdom?  Why do so many nowadays believe that prudence consists in soughing responsibilities off onto others?  They trust that if they can get something for free, it makes no sense to sweat over it.

But they are wrong.  My neighbors, when spring comes, will not only be encircled by beauty—they will know they played a part in creating it.  They will also have the satisfaction of realizing they are productive beings.  They matter; they are worthy of respect.

The drones, on the other hand, may get by, but they will not flourish.  Dependent as they are on the good will of others, they are forced to defer to the status of their patrons.  Not they, but their benefactors, deserve the credit for their good fortune.

What is worse is that irresponsible people tend not to live in comfort.  Because they do not take care of what they can they are trapped in filth and decay.  How do I know?  I once worked for the New York City Welfare Department.  I saw the wages of neglect and unreliability first hand.  It would be tragic if this becomes the national norm.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

The Obama Ex-Presidency

With Donald Trump just having been sworn in as our president, perhaps I should be looking forward to predict what he is apt to accomplish.  I, however, find this too early to forecast.  I instead plan to take a stab at what kind of ex-president Barack Obama will make.  Here too the tea leaves are equivocal, but let me have a go.

I decided to write this column a couple of days after Obama gave his farewell address.  Let us say, it was not in the same vein as that of George Washington.  Those who cared to listen were treated to a campaign rally.  If there was any doubt of this, his audience cleared it up by chanting “four more years.”

Barack himself was in all his peacock glory.  The man thrives on adulation.  That many of his admirers would love him to remain as president in perpetuity is fine by him.  His self-regard is so inflated that he made it plain he would do a better job than any successor.

When I initially began to contemplate what Obama might do once he was out of office, I suspected that he would sink like a stone thrown into a deep well.  His mistakes have been so many and so egregious that I imagined even Democrats would prefer not to be reminded of his failures.

But then I heard the shrieks of joy at the recitation of his every invented success and I realized that his admirers live in as much of a fantasy world as he does.  There are no blunders he could make that would convince them he is not their anointed savior.

I also realized that, with the Clintons pushed off the stage, he might have the liberal rostrum to himself.  Barack is consummate orator.  He can turn a phrase with more panache than any of his left-leaning rivals.  Having cleared out the Democratic bench, who else is available to articulate the progressive position—especially since he will remain in Washington?

Obama’s speech also furnished another epiphany.  Most of the people who listened to his words were struck by the self-congratulatory tone.  If they were his enthusiasts, they agreed with him; if foes, they had a “there he goes again” moment.  In any event, a majority missed the deeper implications.

Barack came onto the national scene by proclaiming that he would be conciliatory.  For him, there were no White or Black Americans; only Americans.  This was a message people longed to hear.  They were tired of the racial divide and wanted their quarrels to be healed.

But this was not how our now ex-commander-in-chief governed.  Despite all of his pronouncements about being a unifier, he was extraordinarily divisive.  He did not reach out to those who disagreed with him.  He never ceased implying that white racism was the source of our collective troubles.

Now in his parting oration, he underscored this thesis.  He warned the nation about the importance of being inclusive.  In this, he implied that his political opponents were the reverse.  Although he did not say it, he suggested that they were indeed a basket of deplorables.

This sent a chill down my spine.  It reminded me of Al Sharpton.  Was Obama rehearsing to become a graceful, super-Al Sharpton?   Was he preparing to be a disruptive force extraordinaire?  Given his rhetorical skills, presidential stature, and amiable demeanor, he could be more effective at race baiting than any of his predecessors.

It must be remembered that before he became a political whirlwind, Obama was a community organizer.  Was he now gearing up to be a left-wing organizer on a national scale?  Would he continue to demonize the police and promote social justice that included only his constituents?

Barack has a way of denying that he is divisive at the very moment he is being discordant.  Moreover, members of the media, in their cloying sycophancy, are all too willing to perpetuate this myth.  Does this mean that Obama will have a platform from which to stir up disharmony?  That leave-taking speech, which was in reality a political marker, made me fear the worst.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

The Study Guide Phenomenon

With the new college term beginning, in many respects it has been deja vue  all over again.  I can always count on some students to resurrect old chestnuts that I have heard countless times.  In so doing, they remind me of the difficulties in teaching materials with which they are unfamiliar.

Every course starts out with a description of what will be covered and how student achievement will be measured.  Naturally this includes a discussion of the exams and how they are to be graded.  As might be expected, this makes many of my listeners nervous.

As a consequence, one almost always asks if I will provide a “study guide.”  My answer is invariably no, to which someone, usually a person who has had me before, inquires if I will reconsider.  After all, other professors provide these predigested compendiums; why shouldn’t I?

First, let me explain what a study guide is.  It is usually either an outline of what the course has to date covered, or a series of topics that are apt to appear on the exam.  This way students can anticipate what is to come and narrow their focus to what will be be required.

In most cases, I immediately explain why I do not supply this assistance.  I tell my students that one of the most important skills they can acquire is how to study.  It is up to them to figure out what is important and concentrate on that.  They must decide what is meaningful, as opposed to what isn’t.

I generally underline my point by asking whether they expect to receive study guides from their future employers?  Won’t their bosses expect them to know their jobs without being furnished with written instructions?  If they can’t get along without such directives, isn’t it obvious that they will not rise to positions of authority?

Nowadays, in our enormously complicated world, where professionalized occupations entail discretion, if people cannot be self-directed, how will they be able to make good choices?  If they are unable to deal with uncertainties because they are too frightened to think for themselves, why would they be trusted to lead others?

But where are they to learn to think for themselves?  If not in our colleges, then where?  Doing so is, of course, difficult in that mistakes are possible.  Actually, it is dead certain that beginners will make missteps.  We all do—especially when we are in unaccustomed waters.

Yet isn’t it also important that we learn to cope with our errors?  If we do not allow ourselves to recognize these, how will we discover how to rectify them?  And if we don’t, won’t we perpetuate a myriad of otherwise correctable slip-ups?

Life is filled with landmines and embarrassing miscalculations.  Things do not always go as we hope.  We therefore require the courage to manage a variety of uncomfortable moments.  We must be honest enough to figure out what is going on and brave enough to apply measures we believe might work.

With our colleges having become the land of the snowflakes, this is not their conventional wisdom.  Blizzards of politically correct nonsense routinely obscure the vision of the inhabitants.  So caught up are faculty and students in the need to bolster everyone’s self-esteem that simple facts are ignored.

George Washington and Abraham Lincoln did not have study guides.  Neither did Isaac Newton or Thomas Edison.  I wonder what Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon.com, would say if asked about the study guide he used when creating his company?

These days we have become so desirous of avoiding distress that we want everything laid out for us.  But who is going to do this?  If everyone becomes a self-absorbed egotist who cannot engage in independent thought, we will have millions of computer game players, but few game designers.

Our colleges—indeed our nation—are sure to be trouble as long as we insist on the easy way out.  Success takes effort.  Social advances require determination.  When these are lacking on either the personal or community level, dreams do not come true.  And, lest I be misunderstood, this includes the American Dream!

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University