The Biggest Liars of All

Everyone acknowledges that there was an electoral mess in Broward and Palm Beach counties in Florida.  Irregularities in how votes were counted cannot be denied.  Nonetheless there is a huge gulf in explaining what went wrong. Conservatives blame fraud, whereas liberals cite incompetence.

That there is a question about which of these interpretations is correct is, however, a sign of a bigger problem.  Were the observed “mistakes” evenly distributed across party lines, the incompetence construal might make sense.  The breakdowns could have been due to sloppiness.

But that is not the situation.  Going back decades now, questionable actions have always broken on the Democratic side.  This includes finding new ballots in back rooms, getting people to submit forms after an election is over and tabulating non-citizen submissions.

These illegal actions were not accidental.  They were conscious attempts to influence who won.  As such, they were no different from counting the ballots of the dead, or allowing people to cast multiple votes the way Mayor Daly’s Chicago did, or buying votes as in Boss Tweed’s New York.  This chicanery is fraud—pure and simple.

Yet liberals deny it.  Instead they accuse those who brought dishonesty to public attention of undermining confidence in the democratic process.  Meanwhile, those who engaged in falsification are allowed off the hook. 

This should come as no surprise.  Those on the left have taken to specializing in lies.  Almost every day there are new examples of deceit. Anything that makes liberals look bad or conservatives good is open to conscious misrepresentation. 

Although this is brazen misconduct, Democrats have succeeded in convincing most Americans that lying is uniformly distributed among political activists; that everyone does it.  This is itself a lie.  Progressives would never be able to persuade ordinary citizens to elect them if they did not hide embarrassing truths behind a facade of falsehoods.

The tactic of accusing conservatives of being liars is part of this policy.  Liberals correctly conclude that the best defense is a good offence.  If they can focus on alleged rightwing mendacity, their own fabrications disappear from view.

Thus, how often has Donald Trump been charged with dishonesty? Almost anything he says that offends the left is immediately classified this way.  When, for instance, California’s “camp” fire got out of control and the president blamed poor forest management, he was castigated for telling a whopper.

The same thing happened when he cited the caravans traveling toward the U.S. border as including felons.  According to the liberals, innocent women and children dominated these processions.  As for the alleged Middle Easterners among them, this was a hoax.

When subsequent evidence demonstrated that Trump was correct, not a word of retraction was issued by those who castigated him just days before. This sort of silence, however, is a liberal specialty.  It too is a form of lying.

Lies come in many shapes.  One of the most insidious is lying by omission.  In withholding information from the community, false impressions are propagated.  To illustrate, the economic benefits of the Trump tax cut are barely mentioned in the mainstream press.  The objective is to make sure he does not get credit for reviving our prosperity.

This, of course, is opposite the treatment Barack Obama received.  In his case, laggard economic figures were downplayed, whereas his personal attractiveness was celebrated.  From what the public was told, his administration might have been one of the most effective in history—and the most honest.

The Democratic penchant for lying has a long pedigree.  It was on exhibit when George W. Bush was accused of lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  We saw it when the women who denounced Bill Clinton for sexual improprieties were vilified.  Decades earlier, it was front and center when Alger Hiss was defended against charges of spying for the Soviets.

Even so, thanks to the explosion in media channels, we have never experienced such a flood of lies as those in which we are currently drowning. Nor will the spigot be turned off as long as ordinary Americans cannot tell the difference between truth and falsity.

Hard-core liberals will not change.  They reap too many benefits from a culture of mendacity.  It is therefore up to the rest of us to end this madness. If we don’t, the trust that enables our nation to function will be lost—as will our social cohesion.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

CYA and the Socialist Ideal

Many years ago, when I first went to work for a government vocational agency, a colleague advised me on how to do my job.  We were both out-stationed at a psychiatric hospital where she took me aside to inform me about the organization’s facts of life.  Never forget, she said, “CYA.”

At the time, I was an innocent and had no idea of her meaning. What she was telling me, however, was that first and foremost I must cover my posterior.  If I hoped to get along in my new position, I had to go along. Rocking the boat would only make trouble.

What she did not tell me was how to be an effective counselor.  This was not at the top of her priority list. Nor did it take precedence for the other counselors I was later to meet.  Much higher among their vocational considerations was personal security.

This is a widespread bureaucratic phenomenon.  Indeed, before I was hired, my favorite uncle repeatedly recommended a government job because it would be easy and reliable.  I would not have to worry about being fired and in the end would wind up with a top-notch pension.

Nobody, except some of my liberal high school teachers, ever suggested that a government job would be a good place to innovate.  Neither had I been informed that I should work hard in order to move ahead.  The primary goal was to keep one’s head down and avoid trouble.

But me, in my naiveté, I wanted to excel at my work.  I actually hoped to develop new techniques for assisting clients.  My assumption was that if I achieved this, I would be performing a valuable service for others.

To this end, I created a therapeutic modality I called Resocialization.  So far as I could tell, it was working rather well.  But after I explained it to one of my supervisors, he told me to stop using it. When I asked why, he said it was because he didn’t understand it.  Whether it was effective was irrelevant.

Soon thereafter I published my first book to explain, and advocate, for my methodology.  This put me deeper in the doghouse with my bosses.  My job, as I had earlier been advised, was to refrain from producing discomfort.  Making changes, however advantageous, was not welcome.

Bureaucracies, as I discovered, are not hotbeds of invention. They are not even especially concerned with benefiting their clients.  Their number one objective is stability.  Keeping the organization alive and growing counted for more than anything else.

One of the means of achieving this is public relations. Glowing reports about how much good has been accomplished are periodically issued.  Whether these are true matters less than whether they are believed.  At my agency, we therefore bragged about how we converted tax users into taxpayers.

Nonetheless, bureaucrats are not risk takers.  They are not interested in progress, but stasis.  This is why in places like the old Soviet Union they copied ideas from the West instead of developing them at home.  It is why Khrushchev’s boast about burying the United States was never a serious threat.

 Socialism and communism are about CYA.  They may brag about helping the poor and downtrodden, but are really about maintaining control by their elites.  These systems claim to be run by—and for the benefit of—the working classes, whereas bureaucratic imperatives decide what gets done.

For all the talk about collectivism promoting social justice, the proletarian regimes they promise cannot be implemented without huge bureaucracies.  This dictates rule driven operations that discourage innovations as detrimental to organizational stability.

Capitalism, in contrast, is dedicated to Schumpeter’s creative destruction.  Like Andrew Carnegie, this policy tears down perfectly operational steel plants in order to erect more efficient ones.  This produces havoc among those who are comfortable in their jobs, but it is also the main source of economic progress.

If this is true, we have to ask ourselves what we want.  Do we crave a growing economy that is forever introducing new and improved products?  Or are we willing to settle for modest comfort.  Likewise do we hope to increase our incomes or is what we currently have sufficient?

Socialist security is not about doing better.  Nor is it about complete equality.  Its central concern is CYA.  In protecting us from risks, it thereby prevents us from improving our situations.  Dreams of progress are sacrificed on the altar of the status quo.  Is this what we dream of?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University 

Who Is Really Divisive?

With the death of liberalism, Newspeak has come into flower. The meanings of words have been turned on their heads so as to persuade voters that black is white and vice versa. A prime example is the strange transformation of the term of “divisive.”

During this past electoral cycle, Democrats repeatedly used it to describe president Trump.  He was thereby condemned for splitting the nation into hostile camps.  In the process, liberals implied that they were not disruptive; rather they were bringing us together.

Nonetheless, leftists have an odd way of reconciling our differences. Their strategy for finding common ground is to get everyone to adopt their outlook.  Compromise has nothing to do with their aims.  Convinced that every jot and tittle of their beliefs are correct, the only reasonable way to obtain unity is for their opponents to capitulate.

That this provokes resistance and is therefore divisive escapes their notice.  To the contrary, they are certain that they have a right to use whatever tactics they choose to impose a resolution on their terms.  If this requires increasing the differences between people, then so be it.

A case in point is political correctness.  Anyone who has a different idea about solving race-related issues is automatically labeled a racist. Insist on enforcing law and order, for instance, and this label is affixed.  And when it is, a person is scorned as beyond redemption.

Thus, how many times has Trump been castigated as a racist?   And yet, upon what evidence does this charge rest? For many, it is because he wants to exclude illegal aliens whose skin happens to be brown.  Does this, however, imply that discussions of immigration policy are out of bounds if they involve non-Caucasians?

Apparently it does.  The same is true of other policies, such as affirmative action.  Liberals are unwilling to entertain the possibility that people who disagree with them might do so in good faith.  These adversaries are instead derided as deplorables—as beyond the ken.

Is this any way to heal social schisms?  Does it bring people together or encourage honest deal making? Unquestionably not.  Nor does calling one’s opponents names or picketing their homes and shouting “we know where you live.”  These are threats, not invitations to civil negotiations.

To be divisive signifies “to divide.”  It pigeonholes people and thenceforth treats them differently.  When, for example, liberals identify all whites as benefiting from “while privilege,” they are saying these folks must be barred from power.  They need to be split off from the good guys.

Likewise, when Trump says he is a nationalist and wants to make America great again, he is derided as a “white nationalist.”  In other words, his offer of an olive branch is summarily rejected as insincere.  Ironically, this effort to unite is interpreted as an attempt to divide.

Sadly, as long as seeing the worst in our opponents persists, there can be no mending of political differences.  As long as liberals regard themselves as the sole guardians of moral rectitude, they will never admit to spawning factionalism.

Nonetheless, the resistmovement is all about division.  It is about never compromising.  The stratagem is not to agree, irrespective of the merits of the other side’s proposals.  As such, it erects impenetrable barriers that impose strict divisions.

For several years, I have been arguing that liberalism is dying. Its ambition of using the government to resolve every social problem has been found wanting.  This is because huge bureaucracies are not equipped to achieve complete harmony.  They are too rigid and impersonal.  Furthermore, those who control them are more concerned with their careers than the needs of those they are committed to help.

Our current social gridlock is thus a consequence of having adopted administrative methods that will not work.  They never can.  If liberals refuse to recognize this, they must remain intransigent—and, as a result, committed to maintaining social partitions.  This is the only way they can maintain their group identity.

But conservatives should not be too smug.  An unfettered free market will not work either.  It has been tried and failed; hence it is time to rethink how we address the myriad challenges of our post-industrial affluence.

Regrettably, we are destined to remain at knifepoint unless we realize no one can win unless we change our collective directions.  If we don’t let go of outdated perspectives, we will continue to do battle until we all burn out.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

The Teflon President

Ronald Reagan has become a hero.  Nowadays, even some Democrats praise him.  During his tenure in the White House, however, this was not the case. It is easy to forget how regularly he was castigated for his purported incompetence.  

To begin with he was an actor.  His chief skill was allegedly pretending to be what he was not.  Furthermore, as an actor, he did not write his own lines. People who had more smarts supplied the words.  His knack was delivering them with conviction.

Then too he was lazy.  He habitually got to the oval office late and left early.  Since he did not know what he was doing, he delegated important decisions to those who did.  He was a figurehead; not a hard worker or deep thinker.

And those crazy ideas of his; there were so many.  Voodoo economics, for instance.  Instead of paying the nation’s bills, he wanted to cut taxes.  He also thought the federal government was too big.  He, with a straight face, described this as a grave problem.

On the international scene, he was similarly unhinged.  Instead of getting along with the Soviets, he wanted to confront them.  He even proposed a mad scheme for anti-missile defense.  Everyone knew this was unworkable and yet he persisted. 

To cap things off, he told the Russians they must tear down the Berlin wall.  Why was he baiting the bear?  The Cold War was never going to end so why couldn’t he admit as much.  International confrontations were a dead end.  Besides, they were dangerous.

Despite this negative drumbeat, the American public gradually warmed to Reagan. He was genial.  He was even funny.  When a would-be assassin shot him, they sympathized with him.  When the economy began to heat up, they applauded this achievement.

From the media, however, there were only sour grapes.  He was dubbed the Teflon president.  Why?  Because none of the calumny hurled at him stuck.  Not even the Iran-Contra debacle soiled his reputation.  Too many of his initiatives worked out, irrespective of the criticism.

Fast forward to today.  Donald Trump is anything but a Teflon president.  Almost everything sticks to him.  Has he been called a racist?  Of course he has.  But upon what basis is this charge made?  Apparently he said some unpleasant things about Hispanic immigrants.  Surely this was based on biology.

No wait.  Aren’t millions of people fleeing from Central America because places like Honduras have become crime-infested hellholes?  These respectable people simply seek protection.  But please explain to me why only the good folks make the trip north. Don’t the bad ones join the caravans?

Then, when they get to the United States, babies are ripped from their mother’s arms.  No wait. There has not been a single documented case of literal ripping.  But why would this prevent opposition politicians from repeating a defamatory meme ad nauseum?

Then there was the Charlottesville business.  The president opined that there were good people on both sides of the Confederate statue controversy.  Did he, in this, mean to praise the KKK?  Although he denied it, his motives were obvious.  After all, anything said in favor of white southerners had to be racist.

The point is that the bias against Trump is so pervasive that anything he says or does is liable to be misconstrued.  Reagan survived an unremitting onslaught of negative evaluations because he was amiable.  He was a nice guy.  In addition, most of his programs prospered.

Trump, on the other hand, is not so nice.  He fights back.  Where Reagan answered his detractors with a smile and a joke, Trump answers his with a barb and a counter-accusation.  We are told that Trump’s language is offensive, but that of his enemies is plainly more so.  He gets the blame because his approach is regarded as unpresidential.

Where is this headed?  Reagan never got a particularly good press when in office.  The end of the Cold War, however, was so spectacular that in retrospect it could not be denied.  Trump, in contrast, is unlikely to be as victorious.  He may therefore be destined for a longer exile in media purgatory.

Does this matter?  I think not. The neo-Marxist bent of many journalists is a fact of modern history.  It will not change.  What counts for more is whether we, as a nation, overcome our infatuation with socialism.  If we do, Trump’s capitalist successes will speak for themselves.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Cooperation versus Competition

There can be no doubt that socialism has increased in popularity in the United States.  The young, in particular, have embraced it as a panacea.  Despite the fact that this political and economic arrangement has never worked anywhere it was tried, they regard it as a cure-all.

The question is why?  What is there about this system that makes it so attractive?  One of the explanations is the raft of free stuff promised to accompany it.  Complimentary health care and college tuition sound good to folks who do not have much money.

Another reason is so-called social justice.  A society in which everyone is theoretically equal is appealing to those who have little power.  Because the young are just starting out, they are at the bottom of the social pecking order and therefore welcome a quick upward ride.

But there is a third reason—an older reason—why socialism is thought desirable.  This goes back to the idea that if society became one huge loving family, we would assist, rather than hurt, each other.  We would unquestionably cooperate such that everyone benefited.

Socialism rose to prominence as a counterweight to capitalism.  With the advent of industrialization, the free market permitted a relatively small number of individuals to accumulate what seemed like an absurdly large share of the community’s wealth.  Worse still was the accompanying concentration of social power.

Since capitalists attributed their success to an ability to outcompete others, competition became suspect.  It was obviously based on a selfish desire to oppress the less greedy. Cooperation made more sense in that it asked everyone to work together for their mutual advantage.

It seemed obvious that if instead of trying to outdo one another, individuals funneled their energies into collaboration more could be accomplished. In addition, people would not need to be defensive, which would free them to participate in intricate projects. 

Furthermore, because they were less selfish, they would distribute the products of their work equitably.  No longer could anyone become obscenely wealthy or nauseatingly poor. All would live comfortably, without envy disrupting the community’s tranquility.

Except that this is not how things worked out.  Cooperation between millions of unrelated individuals does not arise spontaneously.  It has to be coordinated, which means that some people, i.e. leaders, acquire greater power.  Nor does selfishness disappear merely because it is defined as immoral.

Paradoxically, the abolition of competition has negative consequences. Less gets done.  When individuals contend for precedence, they accomplish more.  They work harder and smarter and hence produce surplus goods and services.

What is more, given that we are a hierarchical species, the impulse to be better than others is impossible to eradicate.  Our desire to win is so deeply ingrained that trying to eliminate it is even more problematic than inculcating universal magnanimity.

The good news, however, is that cooperation and competition are not mutually exclusive.  Indeed, they can be complimentary.  We see this in athletic activities.  It is part of what makes these events so attractive.

Consider football.  How could a team be successful if the linemen and running backs did not cooperate?  If the tackles did not open a hole for the fullback, where would the latter find the space to spurt ahead?  We call this teamwork and every NFL coach stresses it.

On the other hand, if players did not strenuously compete against their opponents, victory would never be achieved.  If they did not put in the effort to beat their rivals, they would constantly be defeated.  Wanting to win—strongly wanting to win—is essential to doing so.

The critical mistake of socialists is assuming that cooperation and competition are either/or strategies.  In fact, both approaches are essential for our wellbeing.  Emphasizing cooperation at the complete expense of competition therefore does great harm.  It robs us of synergies not otherwise available.

Human societies are complicated.  Lots of contradictory things happen simultaneously.  Consequently, when we over-simplify matters by supposing there is only one way to interact, we gum up the works.  Rather than promote happiness, we introduce unforeseen difficulties.  

Socialism sounds good during stump speeches.  Nonetheless, it concerns fictional characters, not flesh and blood humans.  Real people want to be winners.  They fight hard to come out on top.  They cannot be deterred from competing—even while they promote cooperation. 

Look at the resist Trumpers.  Aren’t they doing the opposite of what they recommend?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University  

Assessing the Reality of American Medicine

During the recent political campaign, the Democrats concentrated on the alleged problems of American medicine.  Despite the embarrassing failures associated with ObamaCare, they proposed a federal takeover of the entire medical system.

Was this because our medical care is in dire trouble?  Are we dying like flies because it is ill managed or bankrupted thanks to its unrestricted costs?  Why did so many voters say that their number one political concern was health care?  Was there a valid reason for their apprehensions?

In recent months, I have had intimate interactions with a number of medical facilities.  This has enabled me to assess their quality first hand.  Despite of all the negativity in the press, I am pleased to report that accounts of their medical malfunctions have been greatly exaggerated.

First of all, the equipment available in our hospitals and clinics is outstanding.  It is cutting edge and constantly being upgraded as innovations are introduced.  Up and down the line, for almost every ailment, this makes improved treatments accessible to most patients.

Next, our medical personnel are top-notch.  They are well trained and for the most part dedicated to doing their best.  The nurses could scarcely be more congenial, the technicians more assiduous, and the physicians more steadfast in their efforts.  

These are good, intelligent, and committed human beings.  They know that what they are doing concerns life and death and therefore they seldom slack off because the work is hard or the results can be disappointing.  There may be exceptions, but few of these professionals and semi-professionals are slap-dash in their exertions.

Nor are patients treated disparagingly because of their status.  I witnessed consistently respectful conduct notwithstanding social class differences.  The poor were not written off because they are poor.  They were not shunted off into back rooms where they were allowed to wallow in misery.

Of course, mistakes are made.  My wife studies medial error so I have heard untold stories of tragedy. Nonetheless, I have also talked to doctors and nurses who told me they have nightmares about giving the wrong medication.  These are responsible people who endeavor not to do harm.

Then there is the issue of cost.  In my case, insurance handled most of the expenses.  In the case of my wife’s parents, Medicare has done likewise. No doubt there are exceptions. Top quality care is expensive and therefore some people must fall through the cracks.

But is there widespread suffering because people are being bled dry and/or denied the appropriate attention?  If so, I didn’t see it.  This, to be sure, is Atlanta.  Somewhere there must be backwaters where high quality interventions have not penetrated. Yet does this mean they never will?

Which brings us back to our political concerns about medicine.  The irony is that Democrats are exploiting these. Given the recent boondoggles surrounding ObamaCare, this should have been impossible.  Soaring costs, lost doctors, and broken promises ought to have made this issue toxic for them.

Nonetheless, liberals, who were answerable for the dramatic increases in insurance rates, still promised reduced outlays.  They were even able to make a total federal takeover of the medical system sound attractive, although a smaller takeover turned into a fiasco.

Democratic candidates also claimed that Republicans wanted to eliminate protections for those with pre-existing conditions.  This charge was blatantly dishonest, but it resonated.  What persuaded so many voters to take obvious canards seriously?  Weren’t they listening?

The culprit, in my opinion, is elevated expectations.  Modern medicine has done so well that we expect it to cure all of our ills.  When we get sick, we anticipate getting better almost immediately.  We also require this to be cheap.  How could it be otherwise in the richest nation in the world?

And so we accept promises of panaceas.  Told about the wonderful free care available overseas, we demand the same. It doesn’t matter that the quality of foreign interventions does not match ours.  It is irrelevant that in places like Russia life expectancy decreased, whereas ours increased.

Wanting more and better is part of the human condition.  Even so, making major changes without investigating whether these will be genuine improvements is seldom wise.  If we exchange something that is very good for something that merely sounds good, it is our health that will suffer.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University  

Demagoguery on Autopilot

When we think of demagoguery, we usually contemplate individuals such as George Wallace.  We picture him standing in the doorway of the University of Alabama trying to prevent black students from registering.  He was the epitome of a racist politician appealing to the prejudices of his constituents in order to obtain power.

Most of the time, we also imagine demagogues to be right-wing rabble-rousers.  In fact, they are well represented on the left.  The career of Huey Long demonstrates this point.  During the Great Depression this tub-thumper rivaled Franklin Roosevelt in popularity by promising that his brand of socialism would make every man a king.

Nowadays demagoguery is widely dispersed and more prevalent on the left. The Democratic Party is currently steeped in a culture of virulent intolerance.  Its leaders and supporters routinely agitate against their opponents in vile and small-minded terms.

Moreover, this political bigotry is on autopilot.  Whenever an opportunity arises, they attack their foes in a predictably nasty manner.  They don’t have to think about the nature of these assaults.  Their content and targets are so stereotyped that they stream forth by rote.

The chief recipient of this abuse is, of course, Donald Trump.  He is so hated that whatever he does provides an excuse for a torrent of foul insults.  Even before he was elected, he was regarded as an incarnation of the devil and thus deserving of contempt.

We must not forget, however, that Trump’s supporters have been tarred with the same brush.  If he is accused of being a racist, so are they.  These uninformed ignoramuses are obviously as “deplorable” as he and therefore as worthy of social ostracism.

The most recent examples of this tendency to slur conservatives stem from acts of public violence.  After pipe bombs were mailed to a dozen liberal icons and mass murder was committed in a Jewish synagogue, the president and his followers were accused of instigating this mayhem.

Liberal agitators did not even wait for the dust to settle.  Their slanderous allegations made it into the public arena even before it was known who committed these heinous acts.  Although no one knew what motivated the terror, it was assumed that the president’s conduct was at fault.

To Illustrate, Steny Hoyer, the Democratic Whip in the House of Representatives, within hours of the synagogue attack was condemning Trump for dividing the nation.  The president’s rhetoric supposedly encouraged unhinged fanatics to engage in homicidal behavior.

The irony is that in censuring Trump for being divisive, Hoyer was doing the exactly the same thing.  In placing the blame on those on the right for actions most Americans abhorred, he was dividing the nation into two camps; the liberal good guys and the conservative bad guys.

Moreover, this was a stealth attack.  Hoyer, like many on his side, prefaced his criticism by indicating that all Americans were offended by senseless violence.  He was not going to exacerbate tensions by accusing his political enemies of responsibility for the actions of a deranged few—but then he did.

This technique followed in the time-honored footsteps of Barack Obama. He too would begin a partisan assault by promising that he was not going to say what he subsequently did.  He, for instance, was not going to identify anyone as uncivil, but then he declared that Republicans needed to stop denouncing Democrats.

Moreover, the character of these allegations was foreseeable. Whatever tragedy befell the nation, right-wing racismhad something to do with it. Evidence of this bias did not need to be provided.  Its existence was so often asserted that it required no further proof.

Likewise, if women were involved in a scandal, conservative sexismmust be to blame.  Everyone knew right-wingers were male chauvinists.  Their gender prejudice was so deeply ingrained that they must be closet rapists.  Liberals, on the other hand, were innocents.  They protected women even as the groped them.

This reflexive prejudice against conservatives is intended to rile up the liberal base.  In the present context, it is meant to get people so angry that they go to the polls to support Democratic candidates.  Voters are not supposed to think about the issues or aspirants, but to vote their hatreds.

Will this tactic work?  Accusing Republicans of being racists and sexists has had the anticipated effect for decades.  Will our current hyper-partisanship once again allow inflamed passions to override facts?  We will soon see.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Learning to Live with Evill

When Franklin Roosevelt was asked how he could do business with such a brutal dictator as Nicaragua’s Anastasio Somoza, he replied “He may be an S.O.B., but he’s our S.O.B.”  FDR was a realist.  He knew that it was better to have an imperfect ally than a dedicated enemy.

Nowadays many Americans expect the world to reflect their ideals. If it does not, they throw up their hands in horror and vow to have nothing to do with folks who offend them. They retreat, not into an improved situation, but moral isolationism.  

We see this approach in the reaction to the vicious slaughter of Jamal Khashoggi.  Although we do not yet know the details of who ordered what, we can be certain that this what a political hit job.  In one way or another, the ruling class of Saudi Arabia was involved.

The immediate response in some quarters was that we must cut off all business with the desert kingdom.  These are not our kind of people and therefore we should not sell them armaments or work with them against Iran.  Unless they instantaneously renounce the heir apparent to their throne, they have to be treated as pariahs.

Had we taken this approach with Somoza, the turmoil south of our border would have been worse.  Had we adopted a similar position during World War II, we would not have cooperated with Joseph Stalin in defeat the Nazis.  These “friends” were not friends, but the lesser of evils.

The fact is that terrible behavior is omnipresent.  It is everywhere and always.  While we should strive to reduce it if we can, we must sometimes find ways to coexist with it.  The Saudis are not like us and will not be so for the foreseeable future; nevertheless we must make the best bargain with them that we can.

The same goes for villains like Cesar Sayoc and Robert Bowers.  This does not mean we should condone their actions. Pipe bombs and mass shootings are never acceptable.  Nor should we refrain from protecting ourselves from fiends when a means of doing so is at hand. 

Nonetheless, we must understand that other madmen and other anti-Semites await.  We will never fully eradicate the monsters from our midst.  Although we have to do what we can to suppress the damage they do, but we should not drastically change who we are lest we injure ourselves.

In the case of the Saudis, we will not convert this medieval kingdom into a democratic bastion during our lifetime.  Cultural change occurs too slowly for that to happen.   Instead, we must tolerate some of what we abhor in order to safeguard what we treasure.  We must occasionally hold our noses and cooperate with those who can help us.

In the case of the mad bomber Sayoc, we need to accept the reality of madness.  Not all crazy people can be cured by modern medicine.  Using their despicable deeds as an excuse for bashing our political opponents helps no one.  It merely creates another problem by polluting civil discourse.

As for Bowers, some folks will always try to solve their personal problems by scapegoating others.  Turning our nation into an armed camp in order to preclude their depredations imprisons us rather than controls them.  Whatever measures we take to stay safe, they are bound to find ways around them.

Life takes courage.  We cannot banish everything that frightens us.  However much energy we put into blocking that which might injure us, it is never enough to thwart the unanticipated or the inexorable.  Sometimes bad things must be tolerated even though they are intolerable.

Nowadays the young clamor for safe zones in which they will never be offended by micro-aggressions.  What then are they to do about macro-aggressions?  The latter are sure to happen, ergo closing our eyes or stopping up our ears will not preclude harm.

The answer—the only answer—is to gird our loins and accept the reality of evil.  Paradoxically, we must also accept that when things go wrong, some people will propose correctives that make things worse.  They will be so terrified that they do not think through the consequences of their proposals.

The point is that we must keep level heads even when we are tempted to run and hide.  If we understand that evil is a part of life, we can minimize its destructiveness. Otherwise our fears will produce more of what we dread.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Theory versus Practice

We never resolved our disagreement.  Throughout my childhood, my father and I argued about which was more important: theory or practice.  He was on the side of practice, whereas I, by default, was on that of theory.

Although my father was extremely intelligent, he was dyslexic. This meant that he avoided the written word.  Despite this limitation, he became a self-taught electronic engineer who was skilled enough to troubleshoot the radar systems of cutting edge fighter jets.

His difficulty with reading did not manifest itself until after transistors took over from vacuum tubes.  This development made it difficult for him to decipher theoretical innovations.  Hitherto, he was able to learn all he needed from direct experience.  What worked, as opposed to what didn’t, was usually enough to figure things out.

I, on the other hand, was good at school.  My reading comprehension was such that I got high grades.  This aroused my father’s envy; nevertheless he dismissed my academic achievements as ungrounded.  My “facts” were not based on reality and therefore were no match for experience-based common sense.

College professors were a focus of my father’s ire.  He would frequently scorn them as living in an ivory tower.  Although they might have big brains, because they were removed from day-to-day actualities, they frequently came to ridiculous conclusions.

Today, after three decades of functioning as a professor, I am painfully aware that many of my colleagues are indeed remarkably impractical. Anyone who has participated in academic politics quickly learns foolish proposals abound.  Possession of a Ph.D. is plainly no guarantee of good judgment.

As a consequence, I have come to the conclusion that both theory and practice have significant limitations.  Each needs to supplement the other, whereas when artificially separated, they have substantial drawbacks.  Practicality, unguided by theory can, for instance, be ineffectual in unfamiliar territory.  While it might enable a person to repair electronic equipment, it is not of much assistance in inventing integrated circuits.

Meanwhile, theory, when it is detached from reality, can pursue fantasies. Instead of producing useful results, it often prompts people to engage in idealistic carnage.  Marxism is a prime example.  In quest of fictitious social justice, it has brutally slain over a hundred million souls.

Which brings us to the contemporary political scene.  Donald Trump is the apotheosis of practice.  As a successful businessman, his goal was, and is, to make things work.  Pragmatic problem-solving, not conceptual hypothesizing is his forte.  More interested in the application than the history of capitalism, he promotes job formation not intellectual explanations.

This has the downside of making it difficult to formulate long-term political aspirations.  Focused as he is on the here and now, it is difficult for him to inspire visions of a better world.  As a result, he moves from one tangible challenge to the next.

As for liberals, they wallow in disconnected theory.  Always prepared to make big promises, these assurances are habitually based on a fervent allegiance to socialism.  The notion of a world in which everyone is totally equal, as opposed to evidence that this state is possible, is their loadstone.

Unfortunately collectivism has been disconfirmed thousands of times over. Nonetheless, progressives refuse to notice.  Thus, when one of their programs fails, they simply move on to the next imaginary victory. This succeeding project will surely achieve what the prior daydream did not.

ObamaCare illustrates this propensity.  Hence, when this government intrusion into the health care system did not provide the promised benefits, it proponents would not admit their error. To the contrary, they doubled down and demanded a total federal takeover of medical care.

This same heedlessness of reality infects liberal foreign policy. Being nice to the Iranians was supposed to reduce international tensions, yet when it did not, they declined to acknowledge that the deal they made with the mullahs might be defective. In this case too, they insisted they had always been right.

We are about to find out if the American people are as dedicated to Marxist theory as liberals.  Will they vote for the blandishments of mendacious left-wing politicians or reward the economic successes of a practice oriented, albeit inarticulate, president?

While it would be nice if Donald Trump could convey coherent ideals, he has delivered on promises to fix identifiable dilemmas.  Would replacing him with left-leaning zealots be an improvement?  Would their fictions prove more satisfying than low unemployment or tangible diplomatic victories?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

The Half-Smart Among Us

Many years ago, when I was a college undergraduate, one of our economic professors testified before congress.  When he returned, he reported that much to his surprise not all of the legislators were equally smart.  Some manifestly asked more penetrating questions than others.

Anyone who watched the Kanavaugh hearings on television will not be surprised by this observation.  The intellectual disparity between an Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker was striking. One was probing in her queries, whereas the other merely struck pompous poses.

Once upon a time, I thought that people could not reach positions of power unless they were unusually gifted.  Since then I have learned that it is often sufficient to be half-smart. Indeed, a lot of apparently intelligent folks fall into this category.

But what does that mean?  Who is genuinely smart and who isn’t?  In fact, I have sometimes wondered about the adequacy my own mental equipment. Although I did well in school and IQ tests, there were many things I did not understand.  How was this possible if I were truly intelligent?

Where I fit in the intellectual scheme of things only gradually, and unexpectedly, became clear.  It emerged from the way in which unknown others reacted to me.  An unanticipated disparity appeared during our interactions that shed light on the nature of brainpower.

Much to my astonishment, very intelligent people were more apt to regard me as bright than were less smart individuals.  The former almost always paid attention to what I said, while the latter frequently dismissed me as less astute than themselves.  In other words, the half-bight often thought they were smarter.

Why, I wondered, was this so.  Obviously I did not always say uniquely clever things.  Indeed, I frequently made foolish comments.  So what was it that the very smart noticed, which the less smart did not?  It turned out to be how quick I pick up on meanings.

In conversation, the very bright immediately discerned that I understood what they were saying.  Because my rejoinders were responsive to their intents, they realized that I comprehended what they meant.

The half-smart, however, assumed that if I disagreed with them, I did not understand them.  Because they did not know what they did not know, they assumed that a lack of agreement signified a lack of awareness on my part.  It never occurred to them that I might be cognizant of information they were not.

The half-smart, in short, are not terribly quick on the up-take. They think they are.  They believe they see the whole picture.  Nevertheless, because they do not, they aren’t on the alert for the unforeseen.  Given that the existence of these facts is not suspected, many never reach their consciousness.

Nowadays a great many half-smart politicians, journalists, and entertainers clamor for our attention.  Most of these individuals are liberals who assume they have a monopoly on the truth.  It never dawns on them that there might be entire universes of information of which they are oblivious.

This is not to imply that conservatives are smarter than liberals. Intelligence is almost surely distributed equally along the political spectrum.  The salient difference between the left and the right is that many leftists assume they are smarter.  These liberals are generally convinced that they perceive what conservatives do not thanks to their superior intelligence.

How often have we been told that progressive experts ought to control the government so that they can make decisions ordinary citizens would botch? How frequently do these liberals describe themselves as intellectuals or members of the intelligentsia?

The supreme irony is that many self-important intellects are only half-smart.  They are not independent thinkers, but ideological hangers-on.  Their supposed insights merely repeat slogans handed down from mentors who are regarded as brilliant trailblazers.

Unfortunately most half-smart individuals cannot distinguish genuine understanding from conceptual nonsense.  Because they do not see the complete picture, they cannot recognize when important elements of a political construction are missing.  They hear the socialist promises, for instance, but overlook the socialist failures.

With so many Americans having been educated in liberal doctrine, these folks assume they must be extremely smart or they would not have received good grades in school.  As a result, they regularly foist absurdities upon us that are not exposed until these irrationalities do irreparable damage.

In this political silly-season, a surfeit of unacknowledged half-smartness ensures host of distressing outcomes.  The therefore behooves us to be suspicious of misplaced intellectual confidence.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University