A Media Riot

In 1968, demonstrators took to the streets of Chicago to protest the Democratic National Convention.   The Viet Nam War was at its height and the marchers wanted the eventual nominee to understand the immorality of the war.

The police, who were called upon to contain the activists, were equally appalled by these scruffy and foul-mouthed young people.  Let us say the authorities became a bit too enthusiastic in their efforts to restore order.  They undoubtedly utilized unwarranted force to carry out their duties.

Afterwards there was no question that the public considered the police actions excessive.  Almost immediately, their truncheon wielding tactics were condemned as a “police riot.”  The law enforcement agents, not the protesters, were thus said to have gone out of control.

On August 15^th of this year, a similar demonstration of unbridled power was on display.  This time, it was not the authorities, but journalists, who lost their heads.  They attacked the president of the United States with a viciousness that has seen few parallels.

Most Americans were unaware of the degree of hostility.  On the nightly news, they only saw Trump’s response.  As a result, they never realized that reporters, who were shouting questions that were vile accusations, dominated the event.  Time and again, the president had to call for restraint just to be heard.

This was a media riot.  What is more, its vituperation was representative of the disrespectful antagonism of the national press corps.  Night after night, on TV we see talking heads berating Trump.  Morning after morning, we read newspapers slandering him.

The central accusation is that Trump is immoral.  He is purportedly a racist clown who must be removed from office so that he can do no more harm.  Journalists regard themselves as heroic guardians of our national honor.  Most do not realize that they are following in the footsteps of Mussolini’s black shirts when they toppled the Italian democracy.

What was Trump’s sin?  Why, he was alleged not to have satisfactorily condemned the Nazis and White supremacists who marched in Charlottesville Virginia.  Then he made the more egregious error of saying that there were good people on both sides of the conflict.

This was intolerable!  The president of the United States was obviously equating fascist bullyboys with peaceful demonstrators.  In doing so, his fundamental racism had finally shown through.  This was irrefutable evidence of his totalitarian tendencies.

Nevertheless, it was no such thing.  Had the uber-liberals been listening, they would have realized Trump was, in his own inarticulate way, trying to be conciliatory.  Had they not been rioting, they might have understood that he was commending the moderates on both sides.

Those on the left—and members of the national media are virtually all on the left—had long been looking for proof that conservatives are fascists.  Groups, such as the Tea Party, did not, however, oblige.  They were too restrained to serve as racist bogymen.

Torch carrying Neo-Nazis chanting anti-Semitic slogans were another story.  They were more than a counterweight to leftists vandalizing college campuses or shooting Congressmen.  If they were denounced with sufficient vehemence, this could make the public forget liberal transgressions.

But make no mistake, the Antifa and Black nationalists were every bit as violent as the KKK and white supremacists.  Both factions deserved to be condemned.  Both sides came looking for a fight.

What happened in Virginia reminded me of what occurred on German streets nearly a century ago.  Back then ferocious gangs of Nazis and Communists confronted one another with hatred in their hearts.  The Nazis won.  But had it been the Communists, they would have been just as brutal.

Almost no Americans—including Trump—want the neo-fascists to win.  Why then should we root for the neo-Marxists to do so?  Both groups are antithetical to our democratic traditions.  Each intends to destroy its foes so that its pseudo-utopian vision can prevail.

Trump was not being immoral.  He was standing up for moderation.  The rioters who believed otherwise were blinded by their animosities.  They are the ones seeking to suppress free speech.  They are the ones who would force us into lockstep ideological conformity.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

The Civil War Is Over!

In downtown Canton, there is a monument to veterans of the Civil War and World War I.   It is a modest construction.  It does not condemn the Yankees or celebrate slavery.  It merely asks that we honor the sacrifices of the brave men and women who died on behalf of what they believed best for their nation.

While I am a transplanted northerner, during my more than a quarter century living in Georgia, I have not witnessed a single Confederate rally.  To my knowledge, members of the KKK have never used the Canton memorial as the focus of an anti-black or anti-American gathering.

What is more, I know of no one who wants to tear the union apart.  Nor do I personally know anyone who wants to revive slavery.  The Civil War is over!  Almost no one hopes to refight it.  Perhaps there are a few weirdoes who do, but they are a trivial minority.

The Canton monument is, therefore, not about going back to the past, but of respecting the past.  It is about taking pride in one’s ancestors, not resuscitating their cause.  This is the New South.  It looks forward, not backwards.

As a consequence, I have no problem with confederate monuments.  I do not want to see them torn down.  As part of Southern history, they are reminders of what was.  We can thus learn from them without having to repeat long ago blunders.

We are told that these monuments offend blacks.  African-Americans are said to consider them supportive of slavery.  Some contend that the civil rights movement can never be fully completed without their removal.

But lest we forget, the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is legal.  It was pronounced a form of free speech.  Although some Americans find this symbolism provocative, they are enjoined to step aside an allow others to exercise their rights.

Isn’t it the same with the Civil War monuments?  Shouldn’t they be regarded as a form of protected speech?  If so, although some find them offensive, these memorials too ought to be shielded from desecration.

Let me, for a moment, turn to efforts to destroy statues of Robert E. Lee.  He was a slave owner and the most effective general in the confederate army.  His likeness is accordingly said to be unworthy of public adulation.

In fact, Lee was a genuine hero.  He fought against the Union, not because he favored slavery, but because he regarded Virginia as his country.  We ignore the fact that before the civil war, people said the United States are, rather than the United States is.   That is, they thought to themselves as citizens of their states, not the larger nation.

In any event, Lee was instrumental in preserving the Union.  This was not only because he lost on the battlefield, but because of the way he lost.  After the surrender at Appomattox Court House, events might have turned out differently.  Many southern generals advocated a guerilla campaign to keep their cause alive.

Lee, however, disagreed.  As a result, he asked his soldiers to lay down their arms and go home.  Because of his enormous prestige, they did.  Had they not, it is difficult to imagine that our nation’s unity would have been reestablished.

History is complicated.  So are people.  Traditions evolve slowly and so it is fitting that we keep evidence of how they do in our midst.  This enables us to understand the way change occurs, but it also makes room for improvements.

Let me finally share what I think the crusade against confederate monuments is really about.  Liberals not only lost the last presidential election, but they did so because the South had become Republican.  East and West coast progressives found this inexcusable.  They are accordingly seeking revenge.

Nevertheless, most of those clamoring for a purification of our public spaces understand nothing about the South.  All they know comes from fictionalized movies.  They therefore assume a moral superiority they do not possess.  This is scarcely a secure foundation from which to judge the cultural legacy of others.

And so I say: Leave the monuments alone!  Consign the Civil War to the past—where it belongs.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Liberal Pacifism

For decades, we were told not to worry.  It would be many years before North Korea could put a nuclear weapon atop an intercontinental missile.  The United States was safe and therefore we did not have to take decisive action against the rogue state.

This allowed Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama to engage in appeasement.  They could hold endless talks, offer up buckets full of cash, and propose to build clean nuclear reactors.  All they required in return were promises that the communist regime never had any intention of keeping.

Today the mask has fallen.  Kim Jong-Un’s government has successfully fired long-range missiles and miniaturized nuclear warheads.  As a result, it almost has the wherewithal to hit the continental U.S. and has not been shy about threatening to do so.

Susan Rice has consequently admitted that the Obama administration’s policy of strategic patience failed.  Her solution, however, is to accept the new reality.  After all, we learned to live with a nuclear-armed China.  Why not North Korea—even though its leaders are wildly unpredictable?

President Donald Trump will have none of this.  He has demanded that the communist regime give up its bombs and missiles.  More than this, he has threatened military action to back up his words.  He warned that there would be “fire and fury” if the North did not desist.

What has been the reaction of the Democratic party?  While there have been inconsistencies, over sixty members of congress sent a letter asking the president to stop being provocative, while Keith Ellison, deputy head of the Democratic National Committee, claimed that Trump was less responsible than Un.

As for the national media, Trump has been roundly castigated for his belligerence.  Routinely berated for being too extreme in his language, he is given little credit for standing up against an existential threat.

The point is that the fundamental pacifism of the left is again beginning to show.  Despite the obvious dangers of recent developments, a deep-seated desire for peace at any price befuddles liberal minds.  Instead of calculating what is best for the nation, Trump bashing takes precedence.

Once Democrats understood the importance of peace through strength.  Franklin Roosevelt mobilized the country to defeat the Nazis.  Harry Truman drew a red line in Korea and backed his words with troops.  Even John Kennedy employed military resources.  He used these to get the Soviet Union to reverse course during the Cuban Missile crisis.

The turning point came with Lyndon Johnson’s escalation in Viet Nam.  Many Americans thought the price too high.  They therefore marched and chanted against the conflict.  Ultimately the U.S. was forced to withdraw, with a Democratic congress pusillanimously refusing to further fund the South Vietnamese military.

Although the pacifist-minded George McGovern lost the presidential election to Richard Nixon, the die was cast.  Thenceforward, liberals would be stridently anti-war.  Despite Reagan’s victorious confrontation with the Soviets, they championed a decrease in American power.

Bill Clinton, for instance, although he verbalized support for the military, hoped to use the “peace dividend” on domestic programs.  He virtually had to have his arm twisted to intervene in Kosovo.  As for Korea, he enthusiastically gave in to nuclear blackmail.

Obama, of course, was one of our most pacifist presidents.  When he voluntarily pulled us out of Iraq, one could almost hear him proclaiming “peace in our time.”  Then, after he was compelled to take action in Afghanistan, he set an arbitrary end date to the surge.

The generals cautioned Barack that this was a self-defeating strategy, but he over-ruled these warmongers.  Eventually, once he was obliged to confront ISIS, he instituted rules of engagement that prevented substantial progress.  In addition, more concerned with global warming than with defending American safety, he utterly capitulated to Iranian militancy.

Liberals seem to believe (Obama said as much) that the arc of history is bending toward rationality.  We do not have to protect our future with military assets because we are fated to win without them.  If we are nice to others, they will be nice to us.  It’s that simple!

Forgive me for being skeptical.  Forgive me for wanting to carry Teddy Roosevelt’s big stick—and being prepared to use it.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

The New Leftist Intelligentsia

Karl Marx got it started.  Indeed, it was one of his most successful ploys.  He not only advocated for a communist revolution, but argued that its proponents were special.  Not only were the nicer than their capitalist foes, they were smarter.  They understood the arc of history in a way the establishment did not.

Marx described himself and his allies as the “intelligentsia.”  They were well-educated intellectuals.  Rather than motivated by greed, they employed their insights for the betterment of all humankind.  Thus, they, and they alone, would mobilize the downtrodden to take their rightful place in a new world order.

As Marx saw it, the working classes were held back by a “false consciousness.”  They had been fooled by the propaganda of their bosses.  Hence, if shrewd people, such as himself, could make then see they were being exploited, they would rise up in sure-fire rebellion.

Marx insisted that he was scientific.  He had studied history and deciphered its logic.  Thanks to his brilliance—and realism—he discovered the material dialectic.  It revealed that social classes invariably compete for control of the means of production.  Now it was the turn of the proletarians to wrest power from the capitalists.

Progressives of every sort take this as gospel.  Their tactics have varied, but the goal of obtaining social justice by putting ordinary workers in charge has not.  These erstwhile reformers have no doubt that their prescription is correct and that victory is preordained.

Never mind that Marx’s predictions did not come to pass.  The workers in industrial nations did not become impoverished.  The proletarian revolution never occurred.  Socialist societies, in fact, never developed into bastions of democracy.  To the contrary, they were uniformly totalitarian. 

Worst of all, Marx never anticipated the emergence of the middle class.  He did not understand that post-industrial societies would need to become professionalized.  A man of his times, he could not see over the horizon to realize that the free market would generate unprecedented wealth and freedom.

Marx can be forgiven his limitations.  But that does not mean we should accept his flawed reasoning.  In science, investigators make predictions that they subsequently test empirically.  If these do not turn out as forecast, they are set aside in favor of alternate hypotheses.

This, however, is not what happened with regard to Marxism.  Its adherents refused to admit their errors.  They instead became apologists for what amounted to a secular religion.  Having bought the canard that they are smarter than others, they expressed no regrets for their mistakes.

As an academic, I am constantly amazed by the lack of historical perspective demonstrated by so-called progressives.  So convinced are they by the Marxist orthodoxy that they do not take the time to verify it against what occurred in the past.  Were they to do so, they would find the dialectic fatally defective.

I am also amazed by the ease with which neo-Marxists insult the intelligence of their opponents.  They do not listen to those who disagree with them.  Nor do they read their books.  Instead, they dismiss them as boobs whose opinions are not worth consideration.

The global warming controversy is a prime example.  Those who question the extent of increased world temperatures, or their cause, are scorned as “deniers.”  They are said to be so tiny a minority as to merit no notice.  That, in science, minuscule minorities, have often proved right, leaves them cold.

Yet is this attitude smart?  Is it open minded?  Liberal policies have been wrong about crime, education, and welfare.  Nor have they been fruitful in international politics.  Why then would intelligent people now assume they are automatically correct?

The truth is that liberals are no cleverer than their rivals.  Franklin Roosevelt’s brain trust was a bust.  John Kennedy’s best and brightest made a host of miscalculations.  Meanwhile Barack Obama’s dulcet cadences could not disguise his simplistic understanding of the economy and foreign relations.

Pretending to be smarter than others can prevent one’s opponents from questioning half-baked ideas, but only if these others are intimidated into believing they are inferior.  They need not do so.  The neo-Marxist intelligentsia is a fraud.  Their brilliance exists solely in their imaginations.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University