In Praise of Learning

A few weeks ago, my brother-in-law and I got into a heated political discussion.  We both have strong opinions so it was not long before we deadlocked.  I was then asked if I ever changed my mind about anything.  Was I capable of learning?

Given that one of my greatest pleasures is learning, I found this surprising.  In any event, Howard asked for examples of where I had modified my beliefs.  I gave him two.  First, as I watched our president in action, I went from being never-Trump to pro-Trump.  Second, I only slowly realized the importance of ideological balance in contemporary America. 

(Heck, I moved from being a liberal to a conservative.)

In fact, I am constantly learning; constantly trying new things.  My father said you cannot teach an old dog new tricks, but I turn out two original columns a week.  That, however, is just the beginning of what I do.

And so, I have just published an e-book based on my columns.  It is called “Forward-Looking Conservatism: A Renegade Sociologist Speaks Out.”  At the moment, I am struggling to convert this into a paperback on Amazon’s CreateSpace.  Talk about a learning curve.

I have also begun tweeting under my own name and launched weekly podcasts under the title “Renegade Sociologist.”  All of this is in conjunction with inaugurating a non-profit called “The Social Individualism Foundation.”  Its home page is going up and before long we will be on FaceBook.

Besides this, I continue to teach and read.  I am thus currently absorbed in a book on the origins of the Christian Gospels.  This, of course, will be followed by another book and another book, and then a spring trip to England.  Although I am in my seventies, I don’t stop.

Meanwhile, most of my students never read.  They do not come to our university for knowledge, but to obtain a credential that will enable them to get a good job.  Their goal is to sneak by with passing grades so as to graduate as painlessly as possible.  Explanations that they need to be lifelong learners, that is, if they hope to occupy leadership positions, leave them cold.

But this is also a larger social problem.  Our current political gridlock is due, in part, to a nation trapped by ideological intransigence.  Neither liberals, nor conservatives—but especially liberals—intend to alter their convictions in any way.  They are certain that they know everything they need to know.

A prime example is the recent brouhaha about the school shootings in Parkland Florida.  Before the smoke even lifted, liberals were lobbying for their favorite gun controls.  So far as they were concerned, the facts on the ground were irrelevant.

But conservatives should not be too smug.  Some want to revive old-fashioned religious beliefs; others demand an uncontrolled economy.  They fail realize that these are foundations upon which we should build; not endpoints frozen in time.

Indeed, my advocacy of forward-looking conservatism is predicated on the notion that we must make adjustments consonant with what we discover about our emerging mass techno-commercial society.  What worked in the past may not do so in the future if it is not appropriately modified.

And so my non-profit foundation will be sponsoring two ventures.  One is the e pluribus unum project.  It goal is to promote core values that help heal our social divisions.  A diverse and complex society, such as our own, cannot function if it is not based on interpersonal trust.

The second initiative is the voluntary intimacy project.  Contemporary marriages are in disarray, with half of our children born out of wedlock.  This is a tragedy that stems largely from a lack of understanding of how to make long-term commitments succeed.

As should be obvious, I am up to my eyebrows in learning.  No wonder that I want more Americans got off their computers and look around at the unprecedented world that we—together—are in the process of constructing.  After all, if we do not understand what is happening, we are unlikely to do a good job.

Change can be frightening.  What we do not comprehend is also scary.  But if we refuse exhibit the courage to learn what we do not know, we will be the poorer for it.  With our heads buried in the sand, unanticipated occurrences are bound to overwhelm us.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

A Deluge of Ad Hominems

 

I do not usually reply to letters to the editor, and I am not exactly going to do this now.  But there has been such a torrent of criticisms of my Tribune columns that I feel I must address their tenor.  Many readers have not only disagreed with me; they have cast aspersions on my character.

If I have not been called stupid and immoral, then I have been referred to as the next best thing.  I am said to be unscholarly, anti-establishment, and pro-Russian.  In inveighing against neo-Marxism, I am depicted as undermining the integrity of our nation.

What is more, unhappy critics have demanded that my columns be pulled and that I be dismissed from my university position.  It is not enough to tell the world I am wrong; I must be punished for my impertinence.

When I was an undergraduate, a friend of mine, who later became a distinguished professor of economics, was fascinated by what we learned in a logic course.  He was especially riveted by the so-called informal fallacies.  These, we were told, were off-limits when making a valid argument.

But, said my friend, this was wrong.  In looking around the world, he came to the conclusion that these fallacies were frequently the best way to win a dispute.  They might not be fair, but they were effective.

Among the errors he identified as most advantageous was the argumentum ad hominem.  This occurred when the other person, and not his/her claims, was attacked.  The idea was to invalidate what was said by destroying the reputation of the one saying it.

Since even the most scurrilous human beings are sometimes right, nullifying everything they say, just because they said it, misses the point.  It in no way refutes their ideas.  Although this tactic sways many onlookers, it does not establish what is true.

Well, I have been subjected to ad hominem attacks.  While I might, upon occasion, be wrong, this way of discrediting me does nothing to rebut what I have written.  For that to happen, my contentions must be dealt with directly.  They have to shown to be erroneous.

But I am not alone.  Contemporary conservatives have been subjected to a deluge of ad hominens.  We have been called stupid, mean-spirited, and greedy.  Our motives are repeatedly questioned and our knowledge impugned.  There is no reason to listen to us because we are crack-brained fools.

Consider the treatment Donald Trump experiences.  Almost anything he does elicits the charge that he is a racist.  He doesn’t want to ban certain guns, well that’s because he is a racist.  He has been mean to the ruler of North Korea, well that’s also because he is a racist.

Or what about his lowering taxes—or imposing tariffs.  He plainly sponsors these initiatives because he’s stupid.  He doesn’t understand much about anything; hence his proposals are defective.  How he made his billions is therefore one of nature’s mysteries.

Or he demands that liberals who broke the law be punished.  That’s because he is a dictator.  He enjoys destroying our democracy—even when he asks that our constitution be respected.  See how mean he is to illegal immigrants.

It is, of course, true that Trump brings much of this antipathy upon himself.  He has been known to launch a barrage of insults at those who disagree with him.  The question, however, is who began this rudeness war.  Could it have been the PC police?

Liberals have been using ad hominens for decades.  Didn’t Hillary Clinton describe those who opposed her as “deplorables”?   Wasn’t George W. Bush accused of being a murderer?  As for Ronald Reagan, we was a dumb actor who did not understand that the cold war could not be won.

All conservatives are obviously racist, sexist, homophobic pigs.  We all need sensitivity training to rescue us from our tyrannical habits.  The rich, in particular, must be prevented from riding roughshod over their innocent victims.

Isn’t it time we called a halt to this sort of invective?  I will not defend it when comes from Trump.  But shouldn’t liberals also recognize when they have gone over the line?  Perhaps I am being too sensitive—but then again, maybe I am merely asking for a return to civility.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Speaking Truth to Power

Last year, when I attended a sociological conference, I was part of a panel discussing how to get a book published.  At the time, I had written sixteen books and hence had a fair understanding of how this happened.

One of my co-panelists, who had written fewer works, insisted that conservatives dominated the publishing industry.  They supposedly owned the businesses and discriminated against liberals.  He, therefore, bragged that, in getting his books into print, he had spoken truth to power—and gotten away with it.

In fact, liberals have long since ceased speaking truth to power.  Nowadays, they scarcely speak it to anyone, including themselves.  They have become such rigid ideologues that they cannot tell the difference between phony talking points and reality.

If the truth be known, liberals are often the ones in power.  For nearly a century, it has been that way.  This is certainly true in publishing.  Most of the biggest houses are owned and run by liberals who are reluctant to publish views that run counter to their own.

Plainly, liberals own the New York Times and the Washington Post.  As a consequence, their editorial policies do not run counter to those who pay the bills.  Nor do the opinions expressed in the mainstream media.  Here too those in charge of what makes it onto the airwaves are part of a liberal establishment.

The same is patently the case when we examine who runs the federal bureaucracy.  Progressives are entrenched in the deep state.  Lois Lerner was able to get away with discriminating against conservatives when at the IRS because most of the agency’s managers were liberal.  As such, her tactics did not offend them.

Nowadays, I work at a university.  As bastions of higher education go, KSU is more tolerant than most.  Nonetheless, conservatives have learned to be careful about what they say.  We recently had a conservative speaker (Katie Pavlich) whose sponsors were obliged to pay for extra security, precisely because liberals frequently seek to shut down voices they find controversial.

Even when I write columns about the vices of neo-Marxists, I can expect liberal pushback.  Many more than once, progressive readers have demanded that I no longer be allowed to write for the MDJ or Cherokee Tribune.  These folks assume that they have a right to dictate editorial policy.

This liberal sense of entitlement has become pervasive precisely because leftists so often control contemporary seats of power.  Although they pretend to be weak outsiders, who are mercilessly suppressed by conservative tyrants, the opposite is more nearly true.

Many times, readers commend me for the courage to say out loud what they privately think.  By the same token, I am frequently asked how I have managed to survive for so long on a college campus.  These folks react this way because they are aware of how autocratic liberals can be.

Speaking truth to power is a good thing.  It is one of the virtues that make democracy possible.  But nowadays, it is conservatives who must exhibit the audacity to speak up.  It is they who are more likely to be punished by the powers that be.

Once upon a time, liberals believed in tolerance.  They insisted on the value of an open marketplace of ideas.  Those days are gone.  Today’s liberals assume that if you disagree with them, you are a moral monster who must be stopped.  They refuse even to listen to views that contradict their own.

But how are we to decide what is right in such an environment?  If free speech includes only liberal speech, we are doomed.  If the first response of liberals is to gag those who challenge them and their second is to ruin the careers of those they find offensive, can a gulag be far behind?

Conservatives believe in liberty, which should include the ability to speak truth to power.  Liberals must understand that they too ought to honor the rules for which they once so valiantly fought.  Instead of reflexively muzzling their opponents, they might want to listen to them.

Power, as Lord Acton warned, corrupts.  Guess what, it corrupts liberals too.  If they do not realize that they are abusing their power, they are more likely to do so!

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Why I Like Contemporary Christians

My paternal grandparents came to the United States in 1898.  They were fleeing from their home, which was then in Russia.  The town where they lived—today’s Bialystok, Poland—had just experienced a terrible pogrom.  Their Christian neighbors had rampaged through the streets beating and killing Jews.

The only way my grandparents survived was by barricading the door to their apartment.  It is easy to understand why they sought refuge in the United States.  They did not want to perish.  Nor did they want their two young daughters to suffer this fate.

European Jews had endured centuries of oppression.  They were forced to live in ghettoes.  Many occupations were closed to them.  And when things went wrong, they were accused of fomenting trouble.  Hitler was not their first tormentor.  During the Middle Ages, thousands were tortured and killed for ostensibly causing the plague.

No wonder I was raised to be wary of Christians.  No wonder a Jewish high school teacher felt justified in warning that it was a bad idea for Jews to marry Christians.  Those who surrounded me were aware of the legacy of oppression that haunted their co-religionists and were not about to take chances.

But the United States is not Europe.  Anti-Semitism exists on these shores, but is less virulent.  When growing up, half of my friends were Italian Catholics.  Not once did I fear that they would attack me for my faith.  Today, I am married to a woman who was raised an evangelical.  Not once have we fought about religious differences.

The Spanish Inquisition has been discontinued.  Jews may not be welcome in every country club, but few neighborhoods are completely closed to them.  Meanwhile, the Muslim Louis Farrakhan spews vile nonsense to receptive congregations; whereas most American Christians reject his racist drivel out of hand.

The fact is that I like most contemporary American Christians.  What is more, I admire many.  Recently my wife and I went to a Lenten fish fry at a local church.  These were nice people.  They were warm and welcoming.  Why would I fear them?

In fact, observant Christians and I share many values.  We all believe in honesty, fairness, and personal responsibility.  We all stress the importance of family values.  When it comes to these crucial principles, we are allies—not adversaries.

What is more, Christians who practice their faith are often good people.  A dedication to their faith is part of the reason that they treat others decently.  Why would I be against that?

Not long ago, I attended a debate about whether the gospels were historically reliable.  Both protagonists were college professors.   Both had been raised Christian, but one had become an agnostic.  Theirs was an open and honest discussion.  It was a demonstration that modern Christianity is vibrant and tolerant.

This broadmindedness was evident not only on the stage, but in the audience.  When it came time for the listeners to ask questions, they did so thoughtfully and respectfully.  They were sincerely grappling with how to interpret their faith.

I appreciate this attitude.  It is a far cry from what I once believed of Christian fundamentalists.  When I moved to Georgia, I feared that I was entering the Bible Belt.  I worried that I might be trapped in an updated version of Inherit the Wind.

This turned out to be an absurd caricature.  So far were my neighbors from being rigid ideologues that many of my KSU students did not realize they were Protestants.  They knew they were Baptists, but were so devoid of denominational awareness that they knew nothing of their church’s historical legacy.

When Thomas Jefferson was fighting for religious liberty in colonial Virginia, the Anglican Church was the established church.  Even non-believers had to pay taxes to support it.  When Cotton Mather was preaching from his New England pulpit, dissenters were forcibly ejected from Massachusetts.  In some cases, they were executed.

That was then.  This is now.  Why would I want to live in the past because of injustices done to my forebears?  Why would I refuse to embrace good people merely because they believe a religion that has a checkered history?  I may not be a Christian, but I happily defend today’s Christianity.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University