How Long Will the Taint Last?

Now that the Kavanaugh confirmation for the Supreme Court is over, liberals tell us that it is not over.  They insist that because he was not legitimately approved, neither he nor his decisions will ever be legitimate.  He will forever be tainted by the charges leveled against him by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

But is this true?  Is this what occurred with Justice Clarence Thomas?  Are ordinary citizens continually questioning decisions where Thomas was the swing vote?  The answer, if we are honest, is No.  Only when extraneous political issues arise do people recall the circumstances of his confirmation.

If anything, it was the reputation of his accuser, Anita Hill, which was tainted.  She pretty much slipped from view and is not called back to memory—except to provide context for situations such as the Kavanaugh affair.

Today I wish to suggest that if anyone (besides a raft of Democrat Senators) will be tainted by the recent confirmation circus, it is Ford. Heretofore almost everyone has been extremely solicitous of her feelings.  No one on either side of the political aisle has wanted to be accused of insensitivity.

I, however, am about to be extremely insensitive.  I will not hold back from asking embarrassing questions. I will not refrain from following awkward implications.  Others may have treated Ford like a tender flower that would wilt under the slightest pressure: I will not. 

To begin with, I am a college professor.  Ford is also a college professor.  Had she behaved in a college committee the way she did in front of the senate’s Judiciary Committee, I would have been deeply offended.  In fact, I would have been outraged by the effrontery of her puerile comportment.

Before Ford appeared in Washington, we were told that, as a private citizen, she was not accustomed to the public limelight.  She would therefore need special accommodations lest she be intimidated by the spectacle.  These modifications were duly provided.

Nonetheless, I was puzzled.  Why would she be intimidated by appearing on a public stage?  This is what college professors do for a living. We always have audiences before which we perform and that judge our presentations.  Indeed, many of us revel in the theatricalics of teaching.  I, for one, am a shameless ham.

Anyway, once she arrived on the congressional set, I was taken aback by her presentation of self.  This was not a fifty-year-old woman.  This was not a full professor at an American College.  What I heard—and saw—was a little girl.  The once vulnerable fifteen year old had returned with her tiny little voice and helpless body posture.

There was no assertiveness in her deportment.  There was no looking her questioners in the eye.  It was all averted gazes and I can’t remember what happened two weeks ago, although I am one hundred percent certain of what took place thirty-five years ago.  

Here is what drove me crazy.  As a professor, I know how Ford’s little girl act would play in a college classroom.  No professor could survive a single hour of such nonsense.  Students test their teachers.  They always ask tough questions and challenge evasive answers. Then they make life miserable for those who fail.

The Ford we saw on television cannot possibly be the Ford who lasted many years in the academic arena.  Her whimpering defenselessness had obviously been intentionally staged.  It was plainly meant to elicit sympathy and ward off difficult questions.  Surrounded, as she was, by a bodyguard of Democratic politicians, the tactic largely succeeded.

For me, on the other hand, her campy playacting undermined her credibility.  It reduced her testimony to a sham.  Even so, I don’t understand her motives.  She may actually have false memories of what happed back when.  As a former clinician, I know that bogus recollections are remarkably common. 

My chief concern, however, is not with her, but with those manipulating her.  They were not interested in the truth.  They did not want us to make an accurate assessment of Ford’s accusations.  Their goal was political advantage and nothing more.

But my other concern is with the general public.  How could so many otherwise reasonable people have listened to Ford and not been skeptical?  Have we, as a nation, decided that it makes no sense to function as grown-ups?  Do we no longer judge authenticity, but simply take people at face value?

If so, we are in worse trouble than our present cultural impasse.  If we have become a country of uncritical children who are easily swayed by amateur dramatics, heaven help us.  What is the next load of –-- that the political demagogues plan to dump on our doorstep?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Socialism: The End Game

President Donald Trump is given to hyperbole.  According to him, everything is either the verybest or the veryworst.  Most Americans have therefore taken to swallowing his words with a grain of salt.  In their heads, they lower the intensity to make room for real world complications.

As a consequence, many of us don’t take seriously his rhetoric about a socialist United States becoming like Venezuela.  How could that possibly happen?  We are so much richer and more powerful than this puny neighbor we could never experience a correspondingly drastic economic or social decline.

In fact, such a collapse is not out of the question.  Other nations have endured huge and unexpected setbacks. They have gone from being world leaders to also-rans in the blink of an eye.  While there are countless reasons for this sort of deterioration, adopting socialism ranks in the upper tier.

Consider Great Britain.  For over a century, it was the world’s largest industrial power.  Then, at the conclusion of World War II, the English people decided they deserved a reward for standing up to Hitler.  As a result, they voted Winston Churchill out and the Labor party leader Clement Atlee in.

Atlee and his colleagues were true believers.  They immediately began to nationalize industries such as coal and steel.  The also created a nationalized medical system.  All of this was intended to share the wealth.  Prosperous capitalists and aristocrats would not be allowed to flourish at the expense of the little guy.

What ultimately happened, however, is that everyone suffered.  The marketplace stagnated, such that price controls remained in effect for many years thereafter.  Worse still, England’s gross national product fell behind that of Italy. Everyone became poorer and less optimistic.

Think too of Cuba, or Ghana, or North Korea, or the Eastern European nations that succumbed to the Soviet yoke.  Each of them did significantly less well under socialist regimes.  This was even true of Russia, which actually grew more slowly under the communists than the Tsars.

Even so, if the U.S. falls into a fatal decline, it will probably not be in the same manner as the U.K. or Romania, or Venezuela.  Nationalization of anything more than medicine does not seem to be on our horizon.  Nor is a foreign superpower about invade and loot our economy.  

No, we will probably destroy the free marketplace in more genteel style. Most likely we will strangle it to death with a surfeit of regulations.  Washington bureaucrats will not take direct ownership of companies, but so completely dominate their operations that what businesses do, and how they do it, will be determined by these outsiders.

Thus, farms will not literally be collectivized. Nevertheless, individuals without local knowledge, or a desire to maximize profits, will decide what they produce.  Political considerations, not market demands, will likely guide their decisions.   If so, costs will go up, while efficiency will go down.

This might sound farfetched; nonetheless it is what happened to Britain’s coalmines.  It is also what happened to Venezuela’s oil wells.  For that matter, it’s what happened on Cuba’s sugar plantations.  Socialist direction was supposed to rationalize production and distribution, whereas it did neither.

Reflect, therefore, upon the impact of total EPA control on American agriculture.  How long would it be before we had more mouths to feed than grain with which to feed them?  Would food riots ensue?  Would manufacturing slowdowns also occur as workers protested being paid in dollars that could not buy bread?

Let us not forget that the current chaos in Venezuela began slowly. Workers who expected dividends from supporting a socialist administration did not initially believe the government was responsible for inflation or food shortages.  Their frustrated street riots and the resultant military repression came later.

Imagine this scenario translated into the United States.  We are ten times the size of Venezuela with more than ten times the potential for violence.  If anarchy ever overtakes our cities and towns, the death toll could be colossal.  We are not talking about people shouting at one another, but resorting to lethal weapons.

Liberals want to experiment with new forms of social control, but if these measures are totalitarian in nature and inefficient in operation, a terrible genie might be let loose.  They had best be careful what they demand, considering how catastrophic the downside could be.  

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Liberalism and the Totalitarian Spirit

American liberals often describe themselves as social democrats. They use this term in order to distinguish themselves from the bad socialists.  Good socialists, such as themselves, are committed to democracy, whereas it is the bad ones who adopt dictatorial tactics.  

In other words, liberals assure us they can be trusted to defend our republican values.  They have no intention of tearing down the constitutional institutions bequeathed us from our Founders.  They therefore insist on their love of country and allegiance to the rule of the people.

This is a lie!  It is a horrible, horrendous lie!  If there were any doubt, the Kanavaugh confirmation process exposed the underlying allegiances of most liberals.  They don’t want a system in which checks and balances prevent any particular faction from dominating the government.  They are dedicated to taking it over at any cost.

The current full court press against our congressional and legal institutions is an unprecedented attack on our political heritage. To be specific, the resist movement makes no bones about trying to shut down the operations of the government.  Meanwhile efforts to railroad Kanavaugh demonstrated contempt for the rule of law.

Yes, liberals talk like democrats.  The problem is that they neither think nor behave like democrats. Everywhere that socialists and communists have seized the reins of power, they instituted totalitarian controls. Once in charge, they insist on being in charge of everything.  This is not an accident.  It is in the nature of socialism.

Lord Acton famously warned that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Many of us repeat this dictum because it is true.  Once a set of individuals obtains complete command, the rules to which they once declared a dedication are inoperative.  Now raw force is in the driver’s seat.

This has happened everywhere socialist regimes took over.  That includes the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, Eastern Europe, Cuba, and Venezuela.  Liberals claim that this is because the wrong people captured these movements.  Things will be different with them because they are nicer.

Right!  We saw how nice liberals were with Kavanaugh.  Imagine what they would do if they had unfettered control of the seats of power.  Happily, the Republicans still offer a counterweight.  But what if this did not exist?

Socialism is about a few special people at the top dominating an entire society. These folks would determine every important economic, legal, medical, educational and religious decision.  On the grounds that they are smarter and nicer than others, they would dictate what people ate, wore, and said.

First, because they commanded a comprehensive government, their tendrils would be everywhere.  Their minions, like the German Stasi, could spy and coerce at will.  With no one to stop them, once confronted by defiance, they would seek to crush it.  Isn’t this one of history’s most indelible lessons?

Second, after people obtain absolute control, their primary mission is to retain control.  The sociologist Robert Michels taught us this in his Iron Law of Oligarchy.  His observations of union leaders revealed that they spent much of their time suppressing challenges to their power.

What makes American liberals different?  Recent events in Washington provide copious evidence that nothing does. Once Hillary lost the presidential election to Trump, it became plain that Democrats believed they had an inherent right to govern.  They would not, like genuine democrats, hand over control, to a hated foe.

As per the socialists that they are, they concluded they had the ability to disrupt, to destroy, and to dominate by whatever means possible. They said as much.  No lie was too egregious.  No dirty trick too dirty.  No violation of our democratic institutions off limits.

These are vile people.  They are anti-American.  Their ambitions are totalitarian.  However they rationalize suppression as being for the good of all, if we surrender to their lust for power, we are doomed.  Once in complete control, there is nothing to which they will not stoop.

In the past, we fought against fascist domination.  Millions of lives were lost to prevent Hitler from imposing his dystopian dreams on the world.  We also opposed communist domination.  We understood that the Russians would bring Stalinist practices to our shores.

Now the chief threat is domestic.  Liberals, having morphed into avowed socialists, unleashed their inner demons.  Who is currently assaulting people in the streets?  Who is engaging in character assassination?  Is this the handiwork of nice people who can be trusted to respect our rights?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

The Rules of Evidence

The English common law began to take shape about eight hundred years ago. When Henry II initiated what was to become the jury system, its central feature was obtaining evidence so to reach a just decision.  Trials by torture or verdicts contingent on bribery would be replaced by honest testimony.

We know that this system is not perfect.  Nonetheless, it is a far cry from its predecessors.  Centuries have passed during which the rules of evidence were gradually refined.  The goal has been to reduce bias as much as possible.  Given the enormous issues at stake, the temptation to cheat was immense.

These temptations never disappeared, which is why we appoint judges to oversee the administration of evidentiary procedures.  Indeed, judgments are routinely overturned if crucial practices are violated.  Lawyers get disbarred, heavy fines are levied, and careers ruined to emphasize the gravity of these matters.

These techniques are critical because the truth is supposed to count in our courts.  This is the point to examining evidence to make sure it holds up.  Although specific details may not be conclusive, we want a preponderance to point in one direction rather than another.

All of this was irrelevant to the liberals weighing Brett Kavanauh’s appointment to the Supreme Court.  Actually, this is not quite accurate.  Almost every one of them went on record as voting No before they knew the name of the candidate.

And so one of the ways they sought to legitimate their reflexive rejection was to describe the consent process as political.  Senate Judiciary Committee members did not have to honor rules of evidence because they did not apply.  Raw emotion, or political expediency, was sufficient.

Hence when Christine Blasey Ford came forward with her incendiary charges, Democrats rushed to the microphone to declare that they found them credible.  They had not even heard the details of what was alleged before declaring them probable. It was enough that this was a woman saying terrible things about a Republican man.

An even more brazen example of evidence-free confidence occurred after Ford gave her public testimony.  Those Democrats who were already on her side found her sympathetic.  No additional evidence was adduced to corroborate her contentions, but that was immaterial.  We were supposed to feel sorry for her.

What made this exercise especially repellent was that many discrepancies in Ford’s story emerged.  She apparently contradicted herself numerous times along the way.  These inconsitencies, however, could not be pursued because to do so would have attacked a vulnerable woman.

Remember the liberal mantra is that women must always be believed. Evidence need not be sought because a female’s gender certifies her truthfulness.  Conversely, a man must never be believed because his libido ensures that he would have done the deed if he could.

Our courts have never gone so far as to endorse this nonsense. Almost everyone agrees that a thirty-five year old charge not supported by a shred of collaboration could not be brought anywhere in the country.  It would be laughed at by all concerned.

Not so liberal politicians and their knee-jerk constituents.  They are prepared to make up their own evidence. In a court of law an attorney would need a witness to explain what a high school yearbook meant.  On a senate committee, however, a senator could do the testifying.  He could call Kananaugh a liar based on nothing more than the senator’s own unsubstantiated word.

This demonstrates the degree to which liberals have corrupted politics. Truth means nothing to them.  Ergo evidence means nothing.  They may swear up and down on a stack of Bibles that they care, but their behavior proves otherwise.  Demonstrable untruths tumble out of their mouths without a hint of shame. 

Modern liberalism has run out of road.  Too may of its promises have not—and cannot—be fulfilled.  This implies that evidence cannot be adduced to demonstrate their validity.  The only way out of this bind is to discredit the legitimacy of the facts. 

Nonetheless, once our emotions displace evidence, we are ruined.  Facts, as John Adams argued, are stubborn things. They are what they are and have consequences we may not like.  We therefore ignore them at our peril.

Hell-bent on winning whatever the results, liberals discount the long-term effects of writing off evidence.  If they are not careful, they are the ones who may suffer the most.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

(Saint) Francis of Assisi

 

Oh, the tribulations of youth.  Who among us has been spared the foolishness that goes with being young? Can any of us completely live down the missteps of those years?

Ruminate on that wretch Francis of Assisi.  This spoiled young man delighted in the opulence of his wealthy family.  He loved fine clothing and having a good time.  He even took part in a military expedition.

But then he had a change of heart.  He gave away his finery and dedicated himself to helping the poor. In time, the Catholic Church declared him a saint.  To this day, he is venerated for his holiness.

Now I ask you, how can this be?  Doesn’t the profligacy of his earlier years disqualify him from sainthood? Aren’t saints supposed to be perfect? Shouldn’t their faultlessness be lifelong?

And what about that George Washington character?  Parson Weems told us that he nobly admitted to chopping down a cherry tree.  But there was nothing noble about doing the chopping.  How then can this flawed person serve as an American hero?

Next, there is me.  Gentle reader I must warn you about proceeding further.  To judge from my childhood, I am a scoundrel of the first order. Anything that I write must therefore be tainted by the evil deeds I perpetrated back then.

Exhibit number one.  I tried to kill my little sister.  When I was four, I attempted to strangle her.  When I was a year older, I endeavored to burn her alive.  Neither of these enterprises succeeded; but not from a want of effort.

Exhibit number two.  While I was in junior high school, my friends and I engaged in sexual assaults.  We tripped one another so that we could fall forward to cop a feel of the developing breasts of our female classmates.  These girls might have giggled, but this was a crime.

Having now confessed to my delinquency, I wish to introduce you to that other specimen of youthful criminality: Brett Kavanaugh.  Before I proceed, I must admit that I do not know the details of what occurred between him and Christine Blasey.  Like you, I have only read the sketchiest of accounts.

But let us assume that he was drunk at a party and groped Miss Blasey through her clothes.  She claims this traumatized her for life.  I do not for a moment believe this, but isn’t there a statue of limitations on teenage misbehavior?  

And what about Kavanuagh’s other alleged, and unconfirmed, sins? You know, drinking too much beer or throwing ice at someone in a bar.  Or that real kicker: writing juvenile things in a high school yearbook. I am totally scandalized!

In any event, no one claims additional misdeeds by the adult Mr. Kavanaugh. So far as we can tell, he has led an exemplary life.  In his own way, he has been saintly.  Doesn’t that count.  Are only the wholly pure qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

Some will say that I am making light of sexual abuse.  Women who accuse men of indiscretions, I will be told, must be believed.  To do otherwise condones unacceptable behavior.

But I say the reverse is also true.  To always believe men are guilty because they have been accused is a violation of their rights.  This too pardons unacceptable behavior.

Yes, I have known rapists and their victims.  I worked with them as a methadone counselor.  This was a grim business, which inflicted a great deal of pain.  Nonetheless, to imply that it is the social norm is to defame men.  Were it true, civil society would collapse.

Accordingly, let me make a modest proposal.  Men too deserve their day in court.  They too ought to be afforded a presumption of innocence.  Moreover, there are some indiscretions that are not so severe they deserve to haunt the perpetrators forever after.

In this era of #metoo madness, I suspect that I will be accused of insensitivity.  Nevertheless, we must make distinctions.  Rape is intolerable.  Serial sexual abuse is intolerable.  These offenses must be identified and punished.  But tarring every man with the same brush is equally intolerable.  

Now, as the Kavanaugh affair winds down, it is evident that it began with the makings of a tragedy.  It ended, however, as a farce.  Democrats demonstrated, without a shadow of a doubt, that they are not among the best and brightest.  Far too many lack a moral compass or the brains to recognize when they have transgressed common sense.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Liberals Have Gone Nose Blind

You’ve seen the TV commercial.  A mother comes into her son’s bedroom where she is confronted with the smell of his malodorous athletic socks.  She can barely tolerate the stink, but he is oblivious to it.  Having been surrounded by the stench for who knows how long, he has become “nose blind.” 

This vignette rings true for me because I often encounter a parallel when I do the family cooking.  One of my favorite dishes is salmon croquettes.  Let us just say that when these are frying on the stove they are pungent. Yet in the midst of this, I scarcely notice.  The aroma, however, overpowers my wife when she arrives from elsewhere.

Today, there is a stench spreading across the nation.  The focal point is Washington DC, but the smell of corrupt politics has become overpowering.  Conservatives are all too aware of how debased partisan practices have become.  As their primary victim, they cannot miss the dishonorable nature of these performances.

Nonetheless, liberals do not notice.  As the chief perpetrators of numerous disgusting acts, their malicious handiwork surrounds them.  No matter how many lies they tell, no matter how indecent their behavior, not matter whom they injure, they pretend to be choirboys.  

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, he has been accused of conspiring with the Russians to pervert the electoral process.  No evidence of this alleged collusion has been brought forth. This does not matter.  The charge is routinely trotted out as if it had been substantiated.  That stinks!

We have learned that members of the FBI and Department of Justice worked behind the scenes to promote an unverified dossier that slanders Trump.  Despite the ostensibly non-political nature of their jobs, the goal of these operatives was to undermine the Trump presidency. That stinks!

The phony dossier was then used to obtain permission to spy on outlying associates of the Trump team.  The evident objective was to gain a political advantage.  This “legal” espionage was nothing less than a high tech version of Watergate.  That stinks!

Meanwhile FBI agents protected Hillary’s use of an illegal server. Despite the likelihood that classified materials fell into the hands of unfriendly nations, this danger was downplayed. Her political future mattered more that our national security.  That stinks!

The mainstream media became complicit shills in these doings.  Thus, over ninety percent of Trump stories have been negative.  The booming economy, for instance, is barely acknowledged.  Our president is instead insulted, mocked, and libeled in what he rightly labels fake news.  That stinks!

The Democrats have proudly engaged in what they describe as political “resistance.”  Rather than work with the current administration, their aim is to destabilize it at every turn.  They would rather hurt the country than assist an enemy in any way.  That stinks!

Ordinary liberals have taken to the streets, our college campuses, and the halls of congress to shout down those with whom they disagree.  Rather than promote a civil dialogue or free speech, they intimidate anyone who holds an opinion they dislike.  That stinks!

Most recently they resorted to character assassination.  In order to maintain control over the Supreme Court, they slandered a good man.  Even in the absence of corroborating evidence, they depict Brett Kanavaugh as a serial rapist.  That stinks!

How can this be?  Where have civility and honor gone?  Don’t liberals understand that when they ignore elementary rights, such as the due process of law, they place all of us in jeopardy?  Don’t they realize that when they replace democratic standards with totalitarian conduct, they also place themselves in danger?

The answer is that they don’t!  The liberal dream has come crashing down around their ears.  The pain of this historic collapse is evidently unbearable.  Not only have liberal programs failed—so has their socialist worldview.  Employing super-powerful governments to control every aspect of life has backfired.  Venezuela is a case in point.

So how do they cope?  Plainly liberals deny; deny; deny.  They deny their failures to outsiders.  They deny their political transgressions to themselves.  They are totally blind to their unprecedentedly corrupt behavior.  When they sanctimoniously accuse others of the offenses in which they indulge, they actually believe their words.

This scurrilous comportment is not about to change.  In fact, it may get worse.  Nose blind people are unaware of the stench they create.  They therefore feel entirely justified in wrecking havoc.  So far as they are concerned, it is anyone with the temerity to call them out who stinks.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Trust and a Principled Society

We know that our nation has become politically polarized.  We know that Americans look at exactly the same events and, depending on their ideological affiliation, come to diametrically opposed conclusions.  The impasse we are at is, however, far worse.

Feedback from readers of my columns tells me that many conservatives no longer trust liberals.  It is not merely that they do not trust them on a political level; they are wary of them on a personal level.  Having seen public figures assailed in restaurants, they wonder if the same could happen if a liberal takes offense at them.

For months now I have also been hearing from friends and relatives that they no longer believe they can vote Democratic.  Most of these folks have hitherto prided themselves on choosing the person rather than the party.  Nevertheless, they are so distraught thanks to the left’s sleazy anti-Trump tactics that they cannot bear to support anyone associated with these lies and distortions.

In short, our society is falling apart.  On an individual, and not merely a communal level, we are fragmenting. Nerves have become so jangled that candid conversations become battlegrounds.  This is dangerous.  It is dangerous for us personally; it is dangerous for our national integrity.

In my book A Principled Society: Cultivating Trust in a World of Strangers(available on Amazon) I write about the importance of shared moral standards in maintaining social solidarity.  No mass society can control potential conflicts if most of its members are not committed to common values.

As I have heretofore contended, the core principles in a mass techno-commercial society must be: honesty, personal responsibility, fairness (i.e., the same rules for all), liberty, and family commitments.  If these are not widely honored, it is difficult to feel confident about persons we do not know.  

Today liberals have egregiously violated these principles. Despite their self-righteousness, they have defiled each and every one of them.  As a result, they invite distrust.  While I am aware that those on the left regard this indictment as a smear, the corroborating evidence piles up.

To begin with, not a day goes by without a blizzard of liberal lies. These talking points are manufactured in Washington, propagated in the media, and then repeated in conversations among friends.  Nonsense, such as Trump’s alleged collusion with the Russians, is recited as if it were gospel.

But is it is not just truth that has been strangled.  So has personal responsibility.  Thus, the current Supreme Court travesty is suffused with reckless conduct.  Pretenses of indignation cover up the most egregious violations of elementary justice.

Why did Senator Diane Feinstein withhold sexual charges made against Judge Brett Kanavaugh?  If they were serious, why weren’t they confidentially investigated?  Keeping them under wraps until they could be used in a last minute ambush was grossly irresponsible.  It was nothing less than character assassination.

Then once the charges were made, the Democrats had an opportunity to participate in examining them.  They instead chose not to cooperate with the senate judiciary committee’s investigators. If they were interested in the truth, there was no reason to sit on the sidelines.

Responsible people exercise due diligence.  Responsible people respect the rules of evidence.  They do not incessantly demand candidate information they do not intend to read. 

We know what this is about.  The goal is delay.  The hope is that a new congress will make it impossible for president Trump to put a conservative justice on the Supreme Court.  Democratic politicians have said as much.  Indeed, they are proud of their record of obstruction.

This is not responsible conduct.  It is political warfare carried out by any means that might prove effective. Nonetheless, if a democracy is to remain a democracy, there must be limits.  There have to be tactics deemed so unfair that they are never employed.

This, however, is not the liberal stance.  They are instead prepared to blow up our time-honored traditions in order to enforce ideological mandates.  And so they dissemble, they pretend to be aggrieved, and they hinder basic tenets of democratic governance.

Is it any wonder that they are not trusted?  Not only do they lie and behave irresponsibly, but they do so without a shred of guilt.  Their allegiance to our shared principles has eroded so drastically that they are no longer restrained by a sense of decency.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University