A Tale of Two Tates

Long ago, before the earth cooled—well actually in 1963— I, as a college student, took a summer long vacation in Europe.  It began in London as a bicycling tour.  For reasons I don’t remember, this included a side trip to the Tate museum.

In any event, I was blown away.  Prior to this, I had never heard of J.M.W. Turner.  Yet there he was in all of his glory.  His seascapes were magnificent.  They struck me as an incandescent version of what would later become French impressionism.

This summer, when my wife and I travelled to England, I was determined to recapture the delight of that encounter.  Yet before we could do so, we were touted on the splendor of the new Tate.  Dubbed the Tate Modern, it had become the cynosure of sophisticated eyes.

And so Linda and I joined the crowds.  This, I am sure, will be to her eternal dismay.  For I was not a happy camper—and my incessant grumbling let her know it.  What I observed was appalling.  The days when I enjoyed a honeymoon with modern art may be in the distant past, but, in this case, I loathedwhat I witnessed.

My disenchantment began when we entered a room dedicated to the grandeur of a urinal.  I am not exaggerating.  There, in the center of the room, in a glass case, sat a urinal that had been acclaimed cutting edge art a century ago.  To me, this was merely a grubby toilet fixture.

The next space was entirely dedicated to automobile bumpers from which untidy wool seemed to be hanging.  The accompanying description, however, told me that this was human hair. To my eye, it was as if a slovenly toddler had failed to pick up after herself subsequent to destroying her mother’s knitting.

After this came a room in which a television camera was focused on an egg.  The image was simultaneously captured on an adjacent TV set.  That’s it.  This too was portrayed as fine art.  Meanwhile across the way stood another television screen displaying a distorted version of Richard Nixon delivering a speech.

By now I was beside myself.  Where was the skill in any of this?  Where was the beauty, the design, the composition?  How was this an aesthetic experience?  Obviously the traditional elements were totally absent.  A single high “concept” evidently replaced them.

And what was this concept?  It is that ordinary people—especially the middle classes—are beyond contempt.  They are patently crass, insensitive, and unworthy of higher pursuits.  Nonetheless, here they were trooping by to be insulted—and thereby exalted.

The artists, on the other hand, demonstrated their moral superiority. They doubtless exhibited unrivaled insights into the human condition.  In their arrogant liberalism, they held up a mirror to underscore the crudeness of anyone who did not share their sensibilities.

In fact, this was pretentious nonsense.  It exemplified ignorant and untalented frauds pretending to be nobler than the ordinary ruck of humankind.  Sadly, this also unmasked contemporary progressivism in it rawest form.  All egotism, with little genuine discernment, it sneered at anyone who disagreed.

And yet the public was eating it up.  How was this possible?  How could so many people be fooled into believing this pastiche of insolent drivel was avant garde?  How could they assume that a compendium of condescension held the key to a brighter future?

It is not as if the old Tate had disappeared.  It is still there.  Now rechristened the Tate Britain, the Turner’s that were its former glory remain its current glory.  The John Singer Sargent’s, Anthony van Dyke’s and John Constable’s are not bad either. Old verities do not vanish when they are shouldered aside by vulgar novelties.  They persist as a foundation upon which we could build—were this our desire.

The world does not stand still.  There are always new discoveries to make.  There are always fresh challenges to overcome.  But this does not confer legitimacy upon imposters to who boast of knowledge they do not possess.  Their conceit is no substitute for authentic understanding.

Liberalism is not only wrong; it is disastrously wrong.  It is insufferably obtuse and inherently mean spirited.  It does not love ordinary people; it hates them.  It does not bring people together; it tears them apart.  So I say: Yeah, Tate Britain; Yeah, J.M.W. Turner.  Let’s not disparage their validity.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

A Crisis in Trust

No large society can survive without widespread trust.  In a nation, such as ours, where most people are strangers to one another, individuals must have a modicum of confidence in folks they have never met.  If not, mutual suspicions will prevent them from collaborating on joint projects.

This is true of all mass techno-commercial societies.  When millions of people depend on one another for the food on their tables, the clothes on their backs and the roofs over their heads, they need to be sure these will be supplied in good faith.

As crucially, they must not fear for their personal security in everyday transactions.  It is one thing to worry about gang violence on some inner city streets; it is quite another to dread a physical assault every time one enters a supermarket. Were the latter the case, it would make no sense to leave one’s home.

But how can we be certain about the intentions of strangers?  We do not know them?  They might conceal a secret animus toward our persons.  What if they are like those militants who shoot random police officers?  What if they harbor a hatred of the social category to which we belong; perhaps our race, religion, or gender?

With identity politics rampant and radical partisanship at a fevered pitch, this is not an idle question.  Nowadays people with different political loyalties often refuse to talk to one another.  Nowadays tortured hypocrisy issuing from the lips of public officials has become commonplace.

Once we believed what we heard from the media.  Today we have learned that many journalists are at pains to promote hidden agendas.  Once we assumed that schools taught objective facts.  Today we realize that countless pedagogues disseminate biased opinions.  

When over ninety percent of news coverage of a hated president is negative, we can be certain that it is slanted.  When millions of Americans demand the impeachment of a chief executive before he is inaugurated, they cannot be judging his actions.  When senators refuse to confirm cabinet officers irrespective of their qualifications, we know that truth and justice count for naught.

Paradoxically, we have also witnessed an upsurge in moral posturing.  People violating principles they once held sacred now do so in the name of higher standards.  Ordinary folks passionately trashing ideological enemies likewise claim to be defending hallowed traditions.   In these cases, their words say one thing, but their conduct screams the opposite.

How can it be that people, who once marched in favor of free speech, currently shout down the speech of folks with whom they disagree?  How can government officials, who previously prosecuted perjury, turn around and excuse their own perjury?

Does personal integrity no longer matter?  Has the quest for political power become so inordinate that no potentially winning tactic is exempt from consideration?  If so, it will not be long before the long knives are out not just metaphorically, but actually.

Today students paint school murals that skewer the head of a sitting president.  Does this portend a day when assassination is the preferred mode of political dialogue? Today activists proudly encourage immigrants to flout U.S. law.  Does this forecast a time when few laws are respected?

Trust is a fragile thing?  It takes years, and frequently centuries, to consolidate.  To throw it away for the expediency of the moment is insane.  To sacrifice it for a short term victory is long-term madness.  Widespread distrust can only end in a society of apprehensive hermits who never venture out of their bomb shelters.

Morality is not dead; it cannot be dead.  To convert it into a malleable tool of transitory convenience is to lay the groundwork for utter destruction.  When, through our actions, we teach our children that everyone lies and cheats, soon everyone will lie and cheat.

Most Americans are tired of our poisonous political atmosphere. Nonetheless, fat too many participate in spreading the toxins.  They may demand that others behave honorably, but are blind to their own indiscretions. On the assumption that they are intrinsically trustworthy, they dismiss their lies as virtuous.

So I say, let’s defend morality.  Let us genuinely stand up for principles such as honesty, personal responsibility, and fairness.  Let us teach them; let us fight for them; let us condemn their absence.  The alternative is a cynical slide into anarchy.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

The Obama Scorecard, Part II

Last week I reviewed the less than sterling record of Barack Obama on foreign policy.  Not surprisingly, I concluded that his legacy was far from exemplary.  Today, I turn to his domestic exploits.  These too, I am afraid, leave a great deal to be desired.

Let me begin with our former president’s economic policy.  He led off with a stimulus package designed to rescue us from a housing bubble.  Something had to be done, and he deserves credit for doing it.  Nevertheless, his initiative did not have the desired effect.

Pumping a trillion dollars into shovel ready projects that were not shovel ready never spurred growth.  Not in eight years did it reach two percent per annum.  Why?  Because government bureaucrats are dreadful at picking winners and losers.  Pouring money into clean energy companies, for instance, saw these funds go down the proverbial drain.

Another reason was crony capitalism.  Democrats gave tons of money to friends, irrespective of their qualifications.  They also suffocated the economy with reams of ill-conceived regulations.  No enterprise was too small for them to quash, especially in the energy sector.

As a result, manufacturing languished, while the national debt soared. Then too the Dodd-Frank debacle tightened credit and drove small banks out of business.  The consumer protection agency did something similar.  All in all, there were fewer start-up companies; sadly accompanied by sluggish wage growth.

Meanwhile, ObamaCare scrambled the medical marketplace for little gain.  Although costs were supposed to go down, they climbed.  Despite predictions, emergency room usage also rose.  As for the bungled rollout of the program, the less said about it, the better.

On the social scene, things were worse.  Obama promised that he would be a uniter; not a divider.  Most Americans fervently hoped he would bring the races together.  Instead, the opposite happened.  In picking at a historic scab, he reanimated grievances that had been subsiding.

On Obama’s watch, political correctness grew to epic proportions. Minorities rioted in the streets. Gender lawsuits abounded.  As importantly, liberals and conservatives became so wary of each other that barely a civil word passed between them.

Then there was the surge in lawlessness.  While Barack was a former law professor, his community organizer identity prevailed.  His impulse was to do what he thought politically expedient, regardless of its constitutionality.  With lapdogs in the Department of Justice and the media, he knew he could get away with nearly anything.

Richard Nixon was excoriated for attempting to use federal agencies to punish political enemies.  He did not succeed.  Obama, however, accomplished this deed masterfully.  He used the IRS and the FBI to target his foes without leaving so much as a fingerprint.

Next came the immigration debacle.  The federal government is supposed to protect our borders, whereas Barack threw them wide open.  He simply stopped enforcing the law, whether at the Rio Grande or in sanctuary cities. The dreamers were actually given extra-legal benefits.

Nor did the promised gains in education materialize.  Costs went up, while achievement scores didn’t.  The crime rate likewise went from falling to rising. Chicago’s murder numbers speak unambiguously to what happened.  In the meantime, unwed births hit record heights, with nary a word said about the damage inflicted on innocent children.

All of this ineptitude was accompanied by a blizzard of lies. Almost every day, the American public was treated to scores of eloquent falsehoods.  Whether these came for the president’s mouth, or those of his allies, or his media stooges, they so corrupted the national atmosphere that complaints about a decline in our moral standards proliferated.

Obama’s was going to be an era of “hope and change.”   Yet not even his most fervent devotees today make that claim.  They realize that their hero’s failures paved the way for Donald Trump.  Their frenzied opposition to his successor is testimony to a profound disappointment.

In sum, Barack Obama was the worst president in living memory.  His legacy incudes preparing the ground for a socialist revival, while triggering unprecedented levels of partisan hostility.  He did not elevate our sights.  To the contrary, he stoked utopian bitterness.

About the only positive thing I can say about Obama’s presidency is that he broke the color barrier.  This is small compensation for an otherwise disastrous scorecard.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

The Obama Scorecard

Barack Obama has been out of office for a year and four months.  It is thus time to look back and take stock of what he accomplished.   His was supposed to be a transformative presidency.  It was going to restore the hope absent from his predecessor’s tenure. So how did he do on the international scene?

During the final several years of his administration, Barack and his subordinates were obsessed with his legacy.  Time and again, they justified concessions to the Iranians by explaining that this was necessary in order to solidify Obama’s historical reputation.

Let us, therefore, start with his Iranian achievements.  By now it is evident that his nuclear deal did not produce peace or safety.  Sadly, the mullahs are more rambunctious than ever—but today have the cash to pursue additional adventurism.  As we have learned, they continue to develop a bomb and the means to deliver it.  

Whatever else is true, Obama did not deter the Iranians from becoming a nuclear power.  Nor did he discourage the Russians from an aggressive Middle East strategy.  Currently the latter are firmly ensconced in Syria.

The Russians were also allowed to grab the Crimea and to sponsor an incursion into the eastern Ukraine.  Barack did not even supply the Ukrainians with the military hardware to resist aggression.  Perhaps he feared pushback—although Trump did not subsequently encounter any.

The same applies to the Syrian civil war.  Obama told us he had a red line with respect to chemical weapons. Then when this was crossed, he did nothing.  He instead made a deal with Putin that has since been broken.  Here too Trump eventually followed through with impunity.

Next we must look to North Korea.  Its regime was busy acquiring nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles during Obama’s entire term of office.  Yet in this case too he did nothing.  He did not even wring his hands.  Instead he engaged in “strategic patience,” which essentially denoted rejoicing in doing nothing.

Barack and his advisors were also proud of “leading from behind.” They happily trailed after others when it came to Libya, China, and ISIS.  Wait!  How did they miss the fact that this was not leading, but following?   It bespoke passivity, rather than vigor.

Once again, we have lately ascertained what might have happened had our former chief executive been bolder.  Trump’s deal to denuclearize North Korea has not been finalized, but is much farther along than Obama and his people thought possible.  The same goes for trade talks with China, Mexico, and Europe.

Barack claimed that the United States was arrogant.  He wanted us to step back and allow others to take center stage.  Hence, he never ceased apologizing for our self-importance.  He would not condone being an international bully.  Furthermore, his restraint would elevate our prestige.

Of course, in not bringing our military assents to bear, the conflicts with ISIS and the Taliban limped along without resolution.  Especially with respect to ISIS, we have since learned what might have occurred had the rules of engagement been tougher.  And lest we forget, he simultaneously threw Israel under the bus.

Nonetheless, Obama insisted that all would turn out well because the arc of history was on our side.  We were destined to remain a superpower, as long as we stayed faithful to his liberal policies.  After all, hadn’t he been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of the wisdom of this approach?

The plain fact is the Obama’s foreign policy was a wretched failure. It did not win us respect.  It did not make us—or the rest of the world—more secure.  Despite Barack’s boasting, it is apparent that Donald Trump, in little more than a year, has exercised far greater influence.

Obama was not admired.  He was not feared.  Nor were his initiatives valued.  We may yet get out of the troubles he bequeathed us, but this will not be because he laid the groundwork.  To the contrary, it will be due to others cleaning up after him.

This is not a legacy of which to be proud.  Liberals may continue to sing its praises, but they have decoupled from reality.  Merely attacking—or ignoring—Trump cannot compensate for eight years of eloquent incompetence.  Weakness is not strength.  Puffery is no substitute for insight or skill.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Barack Obama and Domestic Tranquility

My wife and I, over a decade ago, moved from Cobb to Cherokee county. Together we oversaw the building of a new house in a rapidly growing development.  This was before the housing bubble burst, hence our joy and optimism knew few bounds.

Yet shortly thereafter, the cement mixers disappeared from the streets. Residential construction came to a standstill as prices fell and personal wealth evaporated.  What had seemed to be an unstoppable boom was suddenly thrown into reverse.

Nonetheless, there was a silver lining.  The houses that were supposed to go up across the way never did. This left us on what amounted to a cul-de-sac.  Instead of fronting on a roadway that led to dozens of additional residences, our street terminated just feet from us in an unbroken forest.

So there we were surrounded by trees.  They were on three sides of us.  Indeed, just two neighbors were close enough to be in talking distance, and one was almost never home.  This was domestic tranquility on a scale we had not anticipated.  For a couple of college professors, the peace and quiet was manna from heaven.

What is more, it was to last.  As readers of my columns must know, I am not a fan of Barack Obama.  I believe he did dreadful damage to our economy. Even so, his incompetence provided our little family with a gift.  We received a vacation from further construction.

And yet, as we adults learn, most good things come to an end.  Today the developers are back.  Those beautiful trees are being cut down.  Countless birds are being displaced and untold numbers of eggs will never hatch.  As for the deer, the territory through which they wander will be drastically reduced.

What is more, all of this progress comes with an ear-splitting cacophony. Handsome trees do not go quietly. Saws make noise.  So do bulldozers.  But it is the super-chippers that make the most racket.  Surplus branches have to be disposed of and hence are deafeningly converted into dust on site.

Now we get to look forward to utilities being put in, foundations being laid, and frames hammered together.  No doubt, this building will go on for years.  Much will depend on how fast these structures sell, but I am sure the developers will do their best to reduce the time span.

Not long ago, while workers were moving heavy equipment in front of our driveway, one of them cheerfully announced that they were bringing us new neighbors.  Little did he realize that this would not bring smiles to our faces.  We enjoy our comparative isolation.

Actually, my wife and I made a wise decision when we selected the lot for our home.  Behind us lies an uninterrupted woodland that sweeps down to a reservoir.  This expanse has been zoned to remain undeveloped.  As a result, on one side of us we will continue to have pristine trees.

This makes us luckier than some of our fellow homeowners.  More than a few, who until now had vegetation, will soon have houses behind them.  For many, this signifies an end to their privacy.  They will have to adjust or move.

As you may imagine, the anxieties and complaints have intensified. Because we don’t know how things will unfold, it is easy to imagine the worst.  Will the new folks be as friendly as the old?  Will they have lots of children or dogs?  Could they play their music too loud?

One of the greatest worries is traffic.  With so many additional homes will come scores of vehicles.  For years, I could pull out of my driveway without looking.  No more. From now on I will have to keep my eyes open.  Then too, what about the automobiles going by in the dead of night?  Will they keep me awake?

All of this musing may seem excessive.  After all, the expansion of our development had been planned long before we moved in.  Actually, most of those affected are coping rather well.  Our mutual commiseration has, in fact, brought social solidarity and eased our anxieties.  

Life, as they say goes, on.   So thank you Obama.  We enjoyed our hiatus from history.  Now it is time to deal with the creative destruction that makes capitalism so great.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

On the Limits of Rebellion

Once the children of peasants were destined to be peasants. They grew up knowing they would follow in their parent’s footsteps.  Long before they reached adulthood, they were working side by side with the older generation. They did not rebel against this fate because there was no alternative.

With the advent of the industrial revolution, things changed. Now a plethora of unfamiliar jobs beckoned.  Now children could be asked what they wanted to do when they grew up.  Although they might not have a clue, parents wanted them to think about this even before they entered school.

And make no mistake, they would be going to school.  Literacy had become so important that education was mandatory.  This meant that the young would spend their formative years in the company of their peers. Adult jobs and adult colleagues awaited their future.

The upshot was a period of rebellion that coincided with the teenage years.  Erik Erikson talked about an identity crisis.  He speculated about the need for adolescents to figure out who they were before making critical choices.  They required a strong sense of self prior to formulating these fateful decisions.

Thus was born the need to revolt.  Nowadays it is commonplace to regard the teenage years as tempestuous.  This is the period during which the young and their parents are constantly at odds.  Although it was not always thus, heated fights currently break out about the most mundane matters.

Parents naturally want less belligerence.  They prefer that their children conform to the wisdom of their elders. The young, however, demur.  They regard the older generation as out of touch. Because juveniles are denied the freedom they believe they deserve, they disobey.

While the young are often advised to be more respectful, a certain amount of defiance is a good thing.  It permits them to try out their independence.  In standing up against their parents, they discover that they have the ability to make, and enforce, autonomous decisions.

This realization eases the path to vocational and marital selections in line with their needs.  Unfortunately, it also guarantees serious mistakes.  A lack of maturity and social experience ensure that many teen choices will be flawed.

Parents, who hope to protect their offspring, dread errors of this sort. They want their well-intentioned advice to be followed.  Nevertheless, it is important that they be resisted.  Only this—including the inevitable fiascos—facilitates the transition to adulthood.

The important thing to remember is that teenage mistakes have to be reversible.  Entering a life of crime in order to get even with a bullying father can have lifelong ramifications.  On the other hand, a removable navel piercing may not.  Once a newly minted adult’s independence has been proven, prudence can safely return.

This same pattern applies to the larger social scene.  The young are notoriously prone to left-wing politics. In their idealism, they often embrace radical social movements.  Whether this is liberalism, socialism, or fascism, they assume they are countering the bitterness of the older generation.

The young do not know about the brutality of Stalin’s Gulag.  They do not realize that Mao Tse-tung murdered between sixty and a hundred million Chinese in order to further his revolution. They likewise have no idea about the dire consequences of inflations or depressions.

As a result, the young eagerly follow pied pipers.  They march in the streets.  They burn books.  They shout down their adversaries.  Blithely unaware that these actions undermine the democratic traditions they inherited, they believe they are promoting egalitarianism.

Some of this may be chalked up to youthful exuberance.  Hence, as long as it does not succeed in giving us a Fidel Castro or a Pol Pot, it can be tolerated as a passing phase.  But if it gets us close to electing a Bernie Sanders or George McGovern, cooler heads need to prevail.  Adult experience and judgment must predominate in these matters.

After the young have calmed down, they may recognize that free speech is crucial to democratic governance.  Once they begin earning a paycheck and supporting a family, they may similarly realize that government spending has to be limited.  Let the young rebel, but, for goodness sake, do not put them in charge.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

What Kanye West Really Meant

I am not a fan of Kanye West.  I despise his hip-hop music and the gangster mentality that accompanies it. Furthermore, I have never been impressed with West’s arrogant self-assertion.  He may believe that he is an expert on modern culture, but I do not.

This said, I appreciated Kanye’s praise of Donald Trump.  The implication that authentic Blacks can be conservative is overdue.  As long as African-Americans remain cemented into Democratic Party conformity, their interests are bound to be ignored.

I also enjoyed Kanye’s spirited defense of his right to independent thought.  There has been far too much group-think on the political scene.  Thus, the knee-jerk assumption that folks on the right are always racists, while those on the left never are, is patently absurd.

But then West ostensibly went to far.  He seemed to be saying that Blacks entered slavery voluntarily.  It sounded as if he were alleging that Africans had once stood by their homeland’s shore begging Europeans to put them in chains and transport them into lifelong servitude.

Kanye later sought to walk this back, but his explanation was too confused to gain traction.  My interpretation of his corrected narrative is that it although slavery ended more than a century and a half ago, many Blacks still behave as if they were chattel.

If I’ve got this right, he had a point.  Many conservative commentators have observed that some African-Americans treat the government as if it were a benevolent plantation.  They expect liberal politicians to behave like compassionate masters from whom they can obtain protection and assorted goodies.

All they need do in return for this bounty is to supply unconditional loyalty. As long as they uncritically vote the Democratic line, copious rewards will continue to flow their way.  Except that Kanye had his doubts.  He has come to the conclusion that this sort of dependence robs people of their individuality.

Years ago I wrote a book called Race and Morality.  In it, I explained that slavery had consequences, many of which remain operative. Slavery was a violent system.  It was sustained only by imposing brutal coercion. In other words, it was never voluntary.

Nevertheless resistance could be futile.  It might provoke lethal punishments.  In order to survive, slaves were thus forced to develop a culture that mitigated their distress.  The ways they thought, felt, and behaved were adjusted so that they could endure. Unfortunately, these changes became internalized, where they later hindered personal progress.

A simple example is education.  Under slavery, Blacks were prohibited from reading.  Their masters feared that literacy would facilitate an insurrection.  As a result, most slaves shied away from schooling.  Merely wanting this could prove hazardous to one’s health.

This became an attitude passed down from generation to generation, such that millions of African-Americans continue to distrust education.  As a consequence, many gifted Black students find themselves accused of trying to “act white.” 

Naturally this puts a damper on their learning and economic success.  Although this was not the intention, it has been the outcome.  Moreover, this is pattern is voluntary.  It is not imposed on Blacks by whites.  It is, ironically, something that ordinary people perpetuate without understanding its implications.

Put another way, a culture of slavery that developed hundreds of years ago remains operative.  It continues to have a deadening hold on many inner-city lives.  In destroying strong families, perpetuating interpersonal violence, and discouraging personal initiative, it keeps folks from living up to their potential.

Racism, to be sure, still exists in some quarters and must therefore be excised. But this is not the only problem plaguing poor Blacks.  Even if every vestige of bigotry suddenly disappeared, the inherited attitudes of millions of minority members would reduce their opportunities.

This, I believe, is what Kanye West meant.  He was essentially telling people that if they asserted themselves as individuals, they would discover that their prospects improved.  He was saying that an outmoded pessimism weighs them down, every bit as much as white hostility.

At the very least, this thesis ought not be summarily dismissed. If it is true, it provides another avenue through which to pursue social justice.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Transparency: Obama vs. Trump

When Barack Obama first ran for president, he promised that his administration would be the most transparent in history.  Unlike George W. Bush who supposedly lied us into the Iraq war, this would never happen on his watch.  He would be patently honest.

In fact, from the very beginning Obama was the opposite of transparent.  After all, who knew what “hope and change” signified.  These words were inspirational, not illuminating.  They implied that Barack would make things better without indicating how.

Shortly after he was elected, the columnists Charles Krauthammer and George Will invited Obama to dinner.  They did not know whether the new president would govern as a moderate or a liberal. According to Krauthammer, he still did not know after the meal was done.  Moreover, he didn’t find out until Barack gave his state of the union address.

Exactly how opaque Obama would be became evident shortly thereafter. With the economy in steep decline, something had to be done.  A stimulus package was promised and needed to be installed.  But what would it be?  Our new chief executive hadn’t a clue.

So what did he do?  He subcontracted the task to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  They proceeded to cobble together a massive spending program that rewarded their friends.  This was done strictly in secret.  Not even Obama was admitted to their inner sanctum.

In any event, once the broad outlines of this legislation were made public, a question arose as to whether it would have an immediate impact.  Obama assured the American people that it would because its projects were “shovel ready.”  These, however, were mere words; words designed to disguise.

A couple of years later, when Barack admitted the shovel ready was not shovel ready, he did so with a smile and a wink.  He knew that his previous explanation was a façade, but it worked; so what was the problem?

The same approach was on display with ObamaCare.  Here the president promised that the American people would be allowed into the room while negotiations took place.  Once again, however, these were behind closed doors. The actual horse-trading would have been too embarrassing to expose to view.

Then, of course, Obama advised his listeners that they could keep their doctors and healthcare plans.  He knew this was untrue.  Ezekiel Emanuel told him so.  But that did not matter.  The goal was to sell the program, not explain it.  Not transparency, but obfuscation was the order of the day.

Barack Obama is an eloquent man.  He was plainly one of our most articulate presidents.  Whenever he got into a mess—such as the IRS scandal—he would find the language, e.g., there was not a “smidgeon of corruption,” to get him off the hook.  It did not hurt that he sounded sincere.

Nor was it irrelevant that the mainstream media loved his performances. Reporters are wordsmiths.  They appreciate a leader who is facile with a turn of phrase.  That the president’s deeds did not match his explanations was beside the point.

Enter Donald Trump.  He is far from eloquent.  Given to repetitive hyperbole and crude invective, he has been dismissed as a bumbler and a tyrant.  What is more, his tweets are excoriated as dishonest and provocative.  As a consequence, critics from both sides of the aisle recommend that he desist.

And yet, it is also clear that Trump says what he means.  Seldom does he pull punches.  Seldom does he resort to window-dressing.  This is a man who was accustomed to relating to construction workers in language they could understand.  He, unlike Obama, learned to tell it like it is.

So let me be direct: Donald Trump is transparent.  He may be the most transparent president we have ever had. For years people have demanded openness and honesty in the White House, yet when they got some, they screamed out in disgust.

How ironic is this?  How strange is it that a man who is comparatively honest is lambasted as dishonest, while one who was habitually dishonest is praised for his candor?  Apparently style counts for more than authenticity.

Why is this so?  To paraphrase a famous movie, the American people evidently can’t handle the truth. They crave elegance, not bluntness. They don’t want transparency; they want lies they can believe.  

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Advice on Dealing with Liberal Bullies

I am not a large person.  Indeed, I learned this is grammar school.  When we were asked to line up in size places, I was always the second or third shortest boy.  This lack of physical stature attracted bullies.  These tough guys assumed that I would be easy pickings.  They expected little resistance.

Meanwhile my father encouraged me to fight back.  He told me that this was the only way to get them to back off.  I, however, was doubtful.  My fear was that if I hit them, they would strike me harder.  Why then would I invite a more painful beating?

Of course, my Dad was right.  Bullies must be given a dose of their own medicine.  It isn’t necessary to beat them.  They must merely be given to understand that there will be no free ride. As cowards, they hurriedly look elsewhere for compliant victims.

Nowadays schoolchildren are often advised that if they are picked on, they should go to a teacher for protection.  This is absurd.  No one likes a stool pigeon.  Tattling on bullies draws the ire of nearly everyone and virtually ensures social isolation.

So what are we to do about adult bullies?  This not an academic question.  With the ascendency of liberalism, potential tormenters surround us.  Let me make myself clear; liberals are notorious bullies.  They specialize in intimidating those who oppose them.

Ask Kanye West.  He said some kind words about president Trump and the Twitter universe came down on his head. For that matter, ask Donald Trump. He has had the temerity to be politically incorrect; hence virtually everyday he is exposed to insults and threats.

You might also ask Black conservatives.  They are ostracized as traitors to their race.  Meanwhile, whites, who have the gall to express unpopular opinions, are derided as racists.  Civilized discussion about what they meant is out of the question.

Anyway, how are non-liberals to cope with protests that are actually efforts to shut them up?  How are they to exercise the freedom of speech that is theoretically protected by our constitution?  They cannot always go to the police.  They certainly can’t depend on the FBI.  So where can they turn?

The answer is that they must depend on themselves.  If they allow self-righteous progressives to call the tune, they will soon be singing disagreeable lyrics.  Only standing up against intimidation can put an end to it.

Once, a half a century ago, tail gunner Joe McCarthy sought to bully liberals into submission.  They fought back.  With the aid of honorable conservatives, they ruined his reputation and undercut his power. The same tactic is available today.

When the mainstream media, or college professors, or Hollywood stars, or unscrupulous politicians make unfounded accusations, they should be called out and humiliated.  When they refuse to publish opinions with which they disagree, a free people should create alternative channels.

Being silent in the face of coercion only encourages further coercion.  When bullies are led to believe they can get away with extortion, they go from calling names to destroying careers. Liberal bullies claim that they are super-nice.  They are anything but.

To repeat an oft-expressed verity: The only thing needed for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.  Edmund Burke was not talking about bullies per se, but he might as well have been.  He saw the French reign of terror coming and knew that aggressors don’t stop until they are stopped.

So here we are with Democrats and their liberal henchmen engaged in full-blown obstructionism.  In Congress, they prevent action from being taken by throwing sand into the legislative gears.  They will not even approve the president’s cabinet nominees without despoiling the reputations of their targets.

Likewise, in the media, rumors and slander substitute for diligent journalism and honest commentary.  Day after day, pompous progressives pump themselves up to look like dangerous adversaries.  Their bubbles must be burst.  Their self-importance must be exposed as anti-democratic posturing.

The liberal initiated struggles in which we are currently enmeshed cannot be allowed to remain business as usual.  It is essential that decent people find the courage to defy leftist calumnies and cruelty.  Fear must not prevent us from defending our liberties and heritage.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University