Candidate Roulette My Way

Now that the presidential race is heating up, Fox News has restarted candidate roulette. Every Friday their panel puts money down on who they think will be the democratic candidate. In this, probably my last column, I thought it would be fun to do the same. Obviously, I will not be around to see how accurate I am but conjuring with different results amuses me. 

So, let me begin with the big news, I’m convinced that Donald Trump will win reelection. Part of this is my wishful thinking in that I believe the opposition would be a disaster. What is more, I believe he deserves to win. He has done a far better job as President than I ever imagined.

So, let me turn to the pygmies who want to take him down. Not one of them has presidential timbre. They have ambition, arrogance, and little else.

Joe Biden has to be the first on the list. He really is Sleepy Joe. Throughout his long career, he has achieved almost nothing. About the only thing going for him is that he is a genuinely friendly person.

What will really bring him down if he gets the nomination is the corruption associated with his son. I believe there really was double dealing with respect to China and the Ukraine. If so, it will be impossible to suppress.

Next comes Bernie Sanders. He is old news. Worse than that he is old Socialist news. And if there is something even worse, it is angry old Socialist news. In short, Bernie is no fun anymore.

Next comes Elizabeth Warren. Let me be blunt. I hate dear old Elizabeth. She is one of the meanest people to engage in national politics. And this meanness will have an ever-sharper point as her ridiculous ideas are exposed. 

Elizabeth says that she believes in capitalism. But she hates every capitalist she has ever met. As they say, with friends like this, who needs enemies? Should she ever get into the White House, both our economy and our democracy are doomed. 

After this comes Kamala Harris. Once I thought she was a serious prospect. It has become increasingly evident that her policy ideas have been cobbled together strictly for effect. In essence, she has no center. 

But what really decided me was the way she has responded under stress. She gives out a little girly laugh. I simply cannot imagine that this is what Americans are seeking as president.

After this comes Pete Buttigieg. I almost want to call him Little Boy Blue. He is blowing his horn but with each discordant note, he demonstrates how emotionally immature he is. Sure, he is smart, but we need a president who is a grown up. 

I am going to say something about Kirsten Gillibrand, not because many people think she is a viable candidate, but because she is such an absurdity. This is a woman who should have reached her highest political level as vice president of her high school student government. If she is a champion of womanhood, then Chairman Mao was a champion of human kindness.

Gillibrand is a first-class opportunist, but Corey Booker is giving her a run for her money. He too seems to switch to cute slogans in order to gain attention. I’m repeating myself- but where is his center? Personally, I hate suck-ups. 

Bill DeBlasio has been an object of derision ever since he was first elected Mayor of NYC. Nevertheless, he seems determined to outdo himself. I am not the first person to call him a socialist clown and yet he seems determined to make everyone in the nation come to the same conclusion.

As for Amy Klobuchar, I like her. I think she is a nice and sincere person. I further believe she is doing a decent job as Senator from MN. Unfortunately, that does not make her presidential material. Has anyone seen the strength required of a president in her recent presentations?

As I contemplate the next candidate I want to laugh out loud. Our fairy godmother from the yoga universe, Marianne Williamson has grit if nothing else. As proof, if any is needed that the democratic pursuit of the presidency has descended into low comedy. Next somebody will be nominating Minnie Mouse for president.

Several have decided to push the environmental button. As we approach the impending elections it will become ever clearer that the earth is not about to explode. Yes, we need to do something about the environment, but destroying our economy and our way of life is not the answer. 

For example, Andrew Wang says we need to get to higher ground-the oceans are rising, the oceans are rising! But oh, I forgot- it is the insanity that is rising. If the American public could just calm down they would see how ridiculous this is. By the way, who is Wang, anyway? 

This is only half of the announced candidates, the other dozen or so one percent-ers richly deserve their elevated ranking. Whether they are talking about education or opening up our borders, or claiming that our economy is totally unfair, they cannot make a case if they depend on facts.

My dear fellow Americans, electing a president is not a game show. We all know from whence Trump came, nevertheless, he had real achievements before he became president. None of the members of the democratic vaudeville acts can say the same. Bring back Hillary Clinton!

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Cutting off Our Noses

When I was a small boy my mother said it all the time. You children are cutting off your noses to spite your face. In other words, in defying me, you children are only hurting yourselves. “This is good for you, so do as I say,” was her motto. 

In fact, my mother was often right. We children did defy her and often to a bad outcome. What she wanted us to do would have benefitted us, but we were too stubborn to admit it. 

Now I look around at the crises engulfing our nation and I see millions of people eager to cut off their noses in order to win a political argument. They, especially the liberals, are prepared to destroy our democratic institutions. They want to win at all costs.

Our American democracy is one of the glories of human history. There has never been such a stable democracy anywhere previously and yet many people take it for granted.  They take it so much for granted that they are not prepared to defend it.

Let us first understand what a democracy is. Democracy is rule by the people…all of the people. As we have typically said, this means rule by the majority but with strong respect for minority rights. 

In fact, it means something even more fundamental. It means rule by law. This is how the people govern themselves -it is through the law and respect of the law. This is the only way that we can be fair to one another.

And yet here we are with politicians proposing to open our borders. And here we are with other politicians supporting sanctuary cities. And still others proposing that we destroy our law enforcement agencies. We are even openly disrespecting our police officers.

Democracy does not mean anarchy. Democracy does not mean non-stop insults. Democracy requires cooperation and mutual respect. 

Which brings me to political correctness. Once upon a time, the American democracy was proud to sponsor free speech. Nowadays, many in politics (liberals in particular) want to close down anything they find offensive. They describe this as compassionate, but it is profoundly anti-democratic. 

When I hear the word racism bandied about with no evidence, my heart cringes. When I hear people accused of treason without evidence, my heart breaks. Don’t people care about the vile things they say about others? 

Yes, it is true that President Trump can be careless in his language. His Queens upbringing has produced a directness and sometimes a crudeness that many find unpresidential. Given our history, they are correct. His presidency stands out.

But it doesn’t mean that he is not doing what is in the best interest of our nation.  Whatever his critics might say, he is doing his best to protect our democracy. 

Although he is accused of being a dictator, he has not actually locked up any of his foes. Despite being accused of destroying the free press, he has engaged in no censorship. Those who accuse him of doing so are in fact, far more guilty of these offenses than he is. 

Democracy took millennia to evolve. In the heat of the moment millions of Americans seem eager to throw it away.  They should think twice. They are behaving just the way my sister and I did when we were children. My sister and I were not evil. Neither are progressives. They are merely acting like stubborn children. The actions they pursue, however, are likely to do more harm than good.

America has many problems. We all know that. Democracy is never a done deal. But we must always remember that it is a work in progress. 

When we have problems, people become impatient. Nonetheless, big problems take time to work through. Trying to rush things invariably makes things worse. 

We are going through a period of cultural transition. It is hard to know exactly how things will work out. But throwing a tantrum will not help. Nor will throwing mud on one another. 

The world 100 years from now will look different from our own. So, let us work together to make sure it is a better and democratic one. 

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Race Relations Today

          Dealing with my pancreatic cancer has given me an opportunity to spend a lot of time with Atlanta’s medical health system. It has been a revelation. The medical care I have received is far superior to anything you might have heard about from the Democratic talking points.

            Contributing to my care have been the vast numbers of high quality African American professionals and semi-professionals. They have been knowledgeable, kind, and intelligent. They, as well as all my caregivers, deserve my praise. 

            Let me tell you a story to put this into perspective. It’s a story I have told in my memoir, Too Lazy to Chew: A Memoir of Discovery. It’s a story that comes from when I worked in the New York City Department of Welfare back in the 1960’s. 

            My fellow caseworkers and I took a dim view of how our mostly black clients were being treated by the system. We believed that the powers that were did not really care about the welfare of these poor people. Administration seemed to be all words and no action. 

            But then the NYC Department of Welfare did something unexpected. They came up with a new policy that we all cheered. We thought that they were finally doing something to benefit our clients. 

            The plan was this: they were going to find clients who had not finished high school, who were mostly single mothers, and help them get a GED. And then those who succeeded were going to be provided with the resources to get a college degree. After this, those who succeeded would be hired by the Welfare Department. They would become Case Assistants and finally earn a living wage. We believed that this would finally facilitate meaningful upward mobility for these poor women. 

            But then came the shock. Our current Social Work Assistants were appalled. Indeed, they were furious. This made no sense to us Case Workers-us white Case Workers. How could they be opposed to giving meaningful help?

            Then came the answer. As our current Assistants explained, they were the peers of the women now being helped. But they had made different life choices. They did not drop out of high school because they became single mothers. They got jobs and were still working at them. 

            So where was the fairness, they asked. Where were their college degrees? They were the responsible ones and now the irresponsible ones were going to be their bosses. Where was the fairness?

            This is where we are today with respect to responsible African Americans. We are giving them no credit. It’s as if they do not exist. Today we speak about “race relations.” The focus is on the grifters, the revolutionaries, the layabouts. The ones who scream the loudest about  being cheated are taken at face value. Many assume they are the “real” African Americans, but they are not.

            The real African Americans are the ones I met in the medical health system.  The real African Americans are the engineers, the accountants, and the social workers show help make our system work. They are the real heroes.

            Too often it is assumed that African Americans do not have the ability to keep up with other Americans. This is absurd. Most African Americans are decent, hardworking people who deserve a thank you. God bless them. 

            One of the lessons we should have learned a long time ago is that the more you reward something, the more you get of it. The more you reward sloth and anger the more you get of it. 

            So, let’s start rewarding the good guys. Let’s start putting the focus on the people who have been helping me and helping you. If I can do a little bit to highlight their value, it will please me to no end. 

            Let me add an addendum. We have also been hearing about how terrible white people are. With all the accusations of racism, we would suppose that every white person who is not a radical socialist must be a white supremacist. Nonsense, more nonsense.

            Ordinary white Americans have been called irredeemable. Its as if they have made no progress in accepting Black Americans. Presumably they are as racist as their ancestors were one hundred years ago. 

            But let me explain.  If whites are truly irredeemable, race progress is impossible. That’s what irredeemable means-it cannot be fixed.

            So, if whites can’t be fixed, racism can’t be fixed. We are doomed to be racists forever, so why try to fix things? It’s a waste of time. Do you think this is true? I don’t. So let’s cut out the absurdities. There is work to do in making America what it should be. 

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

             

On Jewish Anti-Semitism

Representative Ilhan Omar is an anti-Semite. She was raised on the mother’s milk of anti-Semitism in Somalia. Representative Rashida Tlaib is also an anti-Semite. She was raised on the mother’s milk of anti-Semitism in the Palestinian community. They both hate Jews and Israelis and have said as much many times.

            This is not controversial. Almost everyone in the US is aware of their attitudes. Not just ordinary Americans know this, but politicians do as well. This includes Jewish politicians. 

            The question is: What are we going to do about his uptick in anti-Semitism? We know what Nancy Pelosi decided to do. She decided to do nothing. Instead of condemning it in the House of Representatives, she decided to do nothing. Instead of condemning it in the House of Representatives, she elected to pursue party unity.  She absolutely refused to identify the squad as doing something wrong.

What has received far less attention is that Chuck Schumer has said nothing. Here is a New York Jew who is leader of the senate Democrats and it is as if he has lost his voice. He too seems to favor party unity over the defense of his fellow American Jews and the Israelis. 

My sister who lives in New Jersey tells me that the Chuck Schumer disease seems to be very prevalent in her neck of the woods. The vast majority of her friends and relatives- including many of the Orthodox community- are also refusing to speak up about liberal anti-Semitism. What is this about?

Actually, my sister came up with what I think is the correct explanation. She reminded me of how German Jews responded when Hitler came to power. Instead of resisting him and the Nazis, they attempted to cooperate. In other words, they ignored his anti-Semitism and sought to help people who hated them. 

How could they have done this? As my sister reminded me, they thought of themselves more as Germans than as Jews. Their goal was to demonstrate that even though they were Jews, they were really good Germans. 

We are seeing the same thing today by liberal Jews. These folks think of themselves more as liberals than as Jews. Their goal is to prove that they are good liberals wherever cockamamie directions the progressives go. 

This a common human phenomenon. We saw it among communists during the 1930’s. The instant Stalin switched from opposing Hitler to making a treaty with him, many of the Communist Party switched their attitudes en masse. They didn’t think about it. They simply took the orthodox position without considering the consequences. 

This sort of idiocy is endemic to the current condition. People have adopted all sorts of ideas inimical to this situation in order to remain faithful to the community to which they perceive themselves to belong. 

This is a formula for suicide. Ignoring self-interests puts an entire community in jeopardy. Those who are producing this mayhem may not realize it, but this does not reduce the damage done by their foolishness. 

I began this column by talking about Jews, but I am not just talking about Jews. This sort of absurdity is on display among liberals of every ethnic and religious persuasion despite the nonsense being spouted by Democratic candidates for president.  They jump on the bandwagon to confirm their liberal credentials. 

These people are destroying democracy! Consider this: in opening our borders they want to let in hundreds of millions of people to flood into every corner of our country. By saying this is legal, they are preparing the way for them to vote in our elections. If so, it won’t be long before they dominate the political direction we are going. 

Some may say these non-Americans have an interest in the decisions our politicians make. That is true, but is that reason to hand them the keys to our nation? Other folks also have an interest. The Chinese certainly do. The Europeans do as well. So do all the folks in Africa. Actually, I guess everyone in the world does. 

So here is my modest proposal. Let everyone in the world vote in American elections. Citizenship should not be an issue. It is jingoistic. 

Once upon a time American citizenship was considered sacred. No democracy can survive unless citizens continue to believe it is sacred. We Americans have a responsibility for protecting our citizens. Sacrificing that for the sake of non-Americans who are living wretched lives in fact hurts not only Americans but those outside for whom we grieve at risk. America first should not just be a slogan.  

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

The Eclipse of Honesty

As readers of my columns must know, I believe in honesty.  I have all of my life.  Although my parents also believed in honesty, they didn’t always live it because of their need to deny personal issues with which they could not deal. This made it imperative that I cling to the truth when who I was, was being misrepresented.

It is not surprising, therefore, that as an adult I have used honesty to maintain my sanity.  This, however, has become more difficult as the times became more insane.  Dishonesty is everywhere.  Switch on the television news and it will be minutes before you hear egregious lies.

Although I am a conservative, I have talked to many liberals about these developments.  They too agree that dishonesty has become pervasive.  The difference is in the source they identify.  Thus liberals believe that conservatives are liars, whereas conservatives believe the reverse.

If you push liberals a little further they will retreat to an everyone lies position.  The disinformation, they tell me, comes from both sides; hence those on the left should not be blamed for the current flood of deceitfulness.  Progressives too are caught up in the political turmoil of the moment.

Only I don’t see it that way.  I am convinced that most of the lies emanate from liberals.  As I have frequently observed, liberalism is it its death throes.  Its promises keep failing.  As a result, its partisans are in deep denial.  Dishonesty is one of the ways they keep the truth from seeping into their consciousness.

Two years ago, liberals were claiming that the news coverage of president Trump was balanced.  They insisted that conservatives did not realize this because of their biases. But then a whole series of studies demonstrated that ninety percent of mainstream coverage of Trump was negative. I suspect that studies of dishonesty would find a similar imbalance.

Anyway, not long ago I was appalled by the duplicity demonstrated in the wake of the Mueller hearing.  Most people concluded that the house of representative’s judiciary committee put on a dog and pony show that utterly backfired.  Even Democrats described it as a disaster.

But there, two days later, was chairman Jerry Nadler praising what had transpired.  Mueller had supposedly provided dramatic testimony as to why Trump should be impeached. He had even said that the only reason Trump was not indicted for obstruction of justice was because the DOJ had ruled a sitting president could not be so indicted.

In point of fact, I heard Mueller explicitly rule out this interpretation.  He said that this wasn’t the reason for his conclusion.  Not only did this unambiguous statement not deter Nadler from contradicting him, neither were a host of other Dems dissuaded from deception. They too were not about to let the truth get in the way of a good talking point.

It used to be that people made mistakes about the truth because they forgot what happened years ago.  They genuinely did not remember details that went against what they had come to believe. Nowadays our memories seem to get erased within days.  Today it is possible to totally mischaracterize what happened the day before yesterday.

So who cares?  Plainly liberals don’t.  They boast about their integrity but routinely demonstrate that it is a thing of the past.  They are so intent on discrediting Trump that they completely overlook their own sins. Their goal is winning, and as they have said many times, they don’t care how.

While conservatives may care more about the truth, they have done little to promote it.  Rather than stand up and identify the lies, they have preferred to avoid confrontations. To some extent, the overwhelming volume of deceit they meet has intimidated them.

Nevertheless, no society can survive when the level of dishonesty is as high as it has become.  What happens is that people can no longer trust one another.  It becomes impossible for them to work together because they cannot rely on the dependability of their colleagues.

This is already happening.  Liberals and conservatives are finding it impossible to talk to one another.  Neither side has confidence in what the other says.  As a consequence, they only associate with folks who are of a like mind.

This truly is a disaster for which honesty is part of the cure.  I know this is difficult because the truth may be hard to swallow.  Even so, if we collectively do not do this, our society is doomed.  Although I am leaving the scene, I hope that good sense eventually prevails.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Why I Love Living in North Georgia

North Georgia is my home.  Although I was born and raised in New York City, this is where I will be buried. This is the place that has nourished my spirit and allowed me to grow into a person with whom I am now comfortable. As a result, I wish to express my gratitude.

Not long ago, a friend returned from getting his son settled in Manhattan so that he could attend Columbia University’s Law school.  My friend explained that a one room apartment was renting for $1800.00 a month.  The renters also wanted a fiscal guarantee that could only be met by someone earning over a half million dollars a year.

This brought back memories of dingy apartments inhabited by way more cockroaches than people.  What came to mind was my first Manhattan abode that had bars on the windows and a police lock on the front door.  When I moved in, I felt as if I were in jail.

I also remember being jostled in the subway cars.  Usually it was impossible to read because the throng of human beings intruded into every square inch of space.  A book in hand might therefore be knocked aside at any unpredictable moment.

Despite these discomforts, I believed that New York was the center of the universe.  Bright people from all over the country flocked there because of its intellectual ferment and economic opportunities.  Back in the hinterlands, the territory was thus depleted of talent and enthusiasm.

At the time, I did not realize how absurd this was.  Nor did I understand the depth of New Yorker arrogance. This hit me when I moved to upstate New York.  Every now and then the place where I worked would bring in experts to update us on the latest advances in our field.

What struck me was that when these erstwhile authorities came from the big apple, they often had a chip on their shoulder.  They seemed to be saying that we folks from the big city are much more sophisticated than you outlanders.  They thus looked askance at me even though I had recently been one of them.

Here in north Georgia this is not the problem.  Indeed, the reverse is often true.  People are likely to be more modest than they need to be.  As it happens, not all realize that they are every bit as good as those who pretend to be their betters.

What accompanies this modesty is a niceness that is not always found in urban agglomerates.  Most of the Georgians I know not only have good manners, but they are decent human beings. They care about the wellbeing of others. They want for others the happiness and good fortune they want for themselves.

A lot of non-southerners believe—as I once did—that the south is a hotbed of racism.  This may once have been true, but it is no longer.  The relationship between blacks and whites is far closer and warmer than it is up north.   Moreover, Atlanta has become a place of opportunity for everyone.

Not only this, but north Georgia has become cosmopolitan.  Where once it might have been a backwater, today it is a melting pot for people from around the globe.  The graciousness of the old-line southerners has melded with the ambitions of the newcomers to produce a very healthy hybrid.

On top of this, I just love the beauty of north Georgia.  The trees and flowers are everywhere.  I also appreciate the hills and mountains, as well as the reservoir that is within walking distance from my home.  These all bring tranquility to my heart.

Nor lest I forget, I love the birds.  For a while my wife and I thought of naming our place goldfinch glen because so many of these creatures came to our bird feeder.  To this day, we can look out our window to see these birds peeling the seeds from our zinnias.

For me, what this adds up to are feelings of peace and belonging.  But most of all, north Georgia is the place where I found love and acceptance.  It is here that I married my wife and had a rewarding career as a college professor and author.  No location can offer much more than that!

Had I never taken the chance of moving from up north little of this would have been available too me.  I got lucky. Sometimes it is impossible to gage where the road of life will lead.  My path led to a place I would never have imagined, but one that is dear to my heart.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

A Memoir of Personal Discovery

About three decades ago, as my father lay dying, I visited him in his Florida hospice.  He had always been a physically strong man, but now he was a shadow of his former self. Very thin, and unable to sit up if unaided, he could barely speak.

What is more, he had always been terrified of dying.  But now, as the end was coming, He gurgled out, “ I want to die!”  He did this in so emphatic and pained a way that I have remembered his words and tone ever since.

In any event, as he lay in his bed I went over to say some final words. As we looked each other straight in the eye, our arms clenched.  He was not a powerful as he had formerly been, but his effort told me how important our connection was.  Despite our differences, we were father and son.

It was at this point that I felt compelled to tell him what I had never previously uttered out loud.  While I don’t recall the exact words, I essentially said, “ Don’t worry Dad, I will finish your unfinished business.”  I will fix what you left broken.  

My father did not live up to the expectations he and his family had for him. Given his intelligence, everyone assumed he would be very successful.  Although he became a self-taught electronic engineer, by the time he was in his mid-fifties he could no longer find work.

In his final two decades, he spent most of his time alone in a darkened room, brooding about what he could not change.  Up to this point, he had always tackled problems head on.  His solution to every dilemma was to break down the doors that stood in his way.  Furthermore, he expected me to do the same.

In fact, I resisted him at every turn.  As a result, he labeled me a miserable and rotten kid.  He also punished me whenever I violated his demands. This did not stop me from ultimately finding a direction of my own.  From the beginning, I was determined to be my own person.

This turned out to be fortunate for me.  It enabled me to find answers that eluded my Dad.  Moreover, these discoveries permitted me to attain heights he never managed.  They also convinced me that I could make my father’s life worthwhile by building on what he achieved.

Be that as it may, I have now written about how I got to where I am. In a book called, “Too Lazy to Chew: A Memoir of Discovery” I describe the tortured process whereby I got from unhappy child to relatively successful—and happy—adult.

My latest work is now available on Amazon.com.  The paperback costs $12.00 because it is the longest of my recent books, while the eBook is $5.00.  My hope is that this is not a vanity project, but a worthwhile contribution to understanding how personal change occurs.

For readers of my columns, this may provide eye-opening insights. Thus I have often been asked how did someone like me became a conservative.  Given that I was born and raised in an extremely liberal New York Jewish environment, how did this happen?

The short answer is that it was not easy.  Nonetheless, the way I did was embedded in a larger tapestry of change that is even more interesting.  While I may be biased, I have found that the actual processes through we transform ourselves are more complicated than fictionalized accounts of them.

But let me answer another question.  Why the title “Too Lazy to Chew?”  What can that possibly mean?  The answer is simple yet revealing of the circumstances in which I entered this world.  In this case, they have more to do with my mother than my father.

As an infant I was force-fed.  This led me to fight back against efforts to get me to eat.  These continued when I changed over from the bottle to solid foods. As hard as my mother tried, I battled off the morsels of food she spent hours attempting to thrust down my throat.

Why I defied her was a mystery.  It did not make sense.  Was there something wrong with this child?  Why wouldn’t he do what every normal toddler is supposed to do?  There had to be an answer.  Eventually Mom decided that I was simply too lazy to chew.  That was why I left food uneaten.

How I discovered that this was not the reason for my conduct is one of the questions I answer in my memoir.  As I also learned, I was not as lacking in common sense and courage as alleged. If you want to know more, you know where you can find it.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Too Lazy to Chew

When I was in the seventh grade, our English teacher asked the class to write our autobiographies.  Just entering puberty, I had nothing much to write about.  Nor was I inclined to tell the truth lest anyone learn about the unpleasantness taking place in my home life.

So instead of revealing family secrets, I made light of my personal history.  Using exaggeration and a wry sense of humor, I fabricated an exciting pastiche.  The result was so stimulating that the teacher awarded me an A.

Since then I periodically thought of writing a memoir, but I had achieved nothing worthy of public proclamation.  Who would be interested in the doings of a vocational counselor or a college professor?  Nor was I going to write a “Mommie Dearest” expose of my past.

It was not until I entered psychotherapy for the second time that I began to write about what I experienced.  I did so at the behest of my therapist who explained that this would enable me to put what occurred in better perspective.

That was about two decades ago.  From then until recently, I had not even looked at what I produced.  When I did in conjunction with clearing up a lot of my previous writings, I found that it hung together pretty well.  I, of course, am not the best judge of the quality of my work, but I found it interesting.

As a consequence, I decided to complete my memoir and put it out for publication.  This has been accomplished and the work is now up on Amazon.  The paper back costs $12.00 (because it is longer than my other books), while the eBook is $5.00.

So first things first.  What is with my title; Too Lazy to Chew: A Memoir of Discovery?   This derives from my mother’s assessment of me when I was a toddler.  Because I resisted her efforts to feed me solid foods, she explained my behavior by concluding that I was too lazy to chew.

Much of what I wrote therefore concerns why I resisted her and ultimately how I discovered that I was not lazy at all.  Life, as I learned, is complicated; hence unraveling its intricacies can be painful and time consuming.  Moreover, what is discovered can be surprising.

In a way, my memoir can be regarded as a mystery story.  So much of our conduct is not understood even by us. This is because we feel impelled to move on without comprehending the painful springs of our motivation.  As it happens, I have spent more time investigating myself than most folks do.

My father warned against such things.  He believed that self-analysis was for crazy people.  It was an unproductive detour that strong individuals avoided.  Life was something that you simply did.  He was a physically active man who would not waste time on ephemeral nonsense.

Except that my father’s strategy did not work very well.  He thus ended his life in a darkened room brooding about a past that did not live up to his expectations.  I, on the other hand, have been more successful.  Instead of running from by bugaboos, I faced them head on and, miracle of miracles, defeated many of them.

How I achieved this is what my memoir is about.  Readers will find that it is a remarkably candid account that includes many of my embarrassing failures.  I decided that there was no point in sharing my history if I was again going to fictionalize it.

In any event, it will enable readers of my columns to figure out from whence my ideas derived.  I am, after all, a very atypical New York Jew.  As a conservative, who came from an extremely liberal background, breaking away and learning to think for myself took a lot of doing.

Toward the end, I also tell a love story.  For a long while, I believed that I would never marry.  I considered myself unlovable and therefore would never find a decent woman who would love me.  Happily for me, I was wrong.  My wife Linda and I are deeply in love.

In the end, one of my greatest discoveries was that I could chew. I am not talking about food, but about ideas and complicated questions.  I put in the effort to find out what personal change is about and what constitutes genuine love.

It is these insights that I believe are worth sharing.  For me, they were hard won.  Perhaps by making them public, I may ease the way for others. In any event, I hope that what I wrote is interesting enough for readers to find entertaining.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

A Reluctant Farewell

I love life!  I do not want to depart it.  But that is what is going to happen in a few short weeks.  Much to my regret, I have been diagnosed with inoperable pancreatic cancer.  Despite a year of treatment, nothing has staved off the end that was in sight from the beginning.

Not long ago, the political columnist I most deeply admire, Charles Krauthammer, faced a similar crisis.  He lost his battle, but in the process provided me with a model for how to face death with dignity.  While I did not then know I would follow in his footsteps, I hope I can live up to his example.

Nonetheless, there is a huge difference between Krauthammer and me. Even though he was a psychiatrist, he did not believe in introspection.  Instead of analyzing his motives or sharing them with others, he preferred to keep the focus on the political subjects he scrutinized.

I am the opposite.  Self-analysis has been at the core of my adult life.  In order to extricate myself from the shackles of my childhood, I sought to understand how and why these were forged.  As I explained in my autobiography Too Lazy to Chew: A Memoir of Discovery, this was a lengthy adventure that led to many unexpected findings.

Along the way, I learned to communicate what I learned to others.  For the most part, these were people close to me. This remains the case. Nonetheless, I have decided to convey what I am currently experiencing to a larger audience.  Although this causes me some anxiety, I decided that it is unfair to leave my readers entirely in the dark.

First of all, as to what I am currently undergoing and why it is ineluctable.  Pancreatic cancer has become such a scourge because while it is developing it produces no symptoms.  As a consequence, it is usually discovered when it is too late to do much good.

That is what happened with me.  The cancer announced itself by preventing me from eating.  All of a sudden, nothing what I ate would stay down.  This eventually motivated me to go to the hospital where a CAT scan revealed that there was a “mass” on my pancreas.

Several more months went by before it was confirmed that there was another cancer around my stomach.  At this point, it became plain that an operation would leave me a cripple, while radiation would inflict such widespread damage that it was inadvisable.

The only alternative was chemotherapy.  For a while, this provided relief by opening my duodenum to allow food down.  This worked so well that in enabled my wife and I to take a Mediterranean cruise a couple of months ago.

But times change.  All of a sudden, the cancer became more aggressive.  No longer would the chemotherapy keep it at bay.  It was now stopping up my digestive canal at several points.  Food would simply not go down.  Furthermore, all of the possible remedies would make things worse.

At the moment, I can neither eat nor drink.  Arrangements are thus being made to infuse liquids in intravenously. This should prevent me from expiring from dehydration.  As to solid foods, I am forced to go on an unwanted diet.  My body will therefore have to cannibalize what is already available.

In short, I will die of starvation.  This is not a pleasant prospect, but what cannot be changed cannot be changed.  Along the way I have discovered that I do not fear death so much as hate it.  Rather than terror, I have experienced stoicism. There is likewise a sense of unreality. Me, I will live forever.

I have also discovered how many people love me.  When my father died, he was virtually friendless.  With me, it has been very different.  Friends and colleagues have rallied around me.  I suspect that even some of my readers will regret my passing.

As importantly, when I completed my memoir, I realized that I had little to apologize for.  Despite my many mistakes, I had never done anything for which I was seriously remorseful. Furthermore, I never gave up on my convictions or myself.  Although I sometimes retreated, I was never crushed.

My most serious regret is over my unfinished business.  As a sociologist, I believe I have made important discoveries.  Over the last several months I tried to make sure that these are in print, but I have run out of time to promote them.

While I have loved the process of writing columns, these never allowed me the space to develop my ideas.  Given that I believe my larger intellectual contributions shed light on our current political impasse and point the way to a solution, I consider this a shame.  But that’s life, isn’t it?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

On Running Out of Road

On Running Out of Road

Let me get straight to the point.  I am dying.  While I know that we are all dying, I will be gone in a few short weeks.  While, like most people, I thought that my expiration date was a long way off, it has come upon me much to my regret.  I do not want to die; yet I can do nothing to prevent it.

So let me tell you how this feels.  When many years ago my teenage self asked my grandfather what it was like to be old, he said that felt he same inside as he did when he was eighteen.  With death, it is that way with me.  I feel the same as when I was not facing an imminent death.  Mind you, this feels unreal; as if I am still immortal.

Let me also address the question of religion.  When I was young, I was told that there are no atheists in foxholes.  The idea was that when people are forced to face their mortality, they always renew their belief in God.

Although this sounds plausible, I knew it was not true.  Again this owes to my grandfather.  Most of this life he had been an atheist.  This did not change at the end.  He remained an atheist and, as he told me, he was comfortable with the life he had led.  Death did not terrify him.

Nor does it terrify me.  I don’t like it.  It scares me, but so far I am handling the fear.  Unlike my grandfather, I am an agnostic.  I do not know if there is a God or a heaven.  If there is, I guess I will find out.  I also hope that if there is a God, he will be merciful enough to forgive my inadequacies.

Anyway, let me deal with what I find the more salient aspects of dying. First, as to the physical aspects of this process, my death is being caused by inoperable pancreatic cancer. Over the course of a year, I have fought this as valiantly as I know how, all to no avail.

At the moment, I can neither eat nor drink.  This means that within a few weeks I will expire due to malnutrition. In other words, I will starve to death. While I am sure this will be uncomfortable, at present all I feel is a little hunger.

This worries me, but I am more concerned with something else.  My legacy is much more on my mind.  When I wrote my autobiography Too Lazy to Chew, I explained how important it has been for me to understand my life, as well as to understand our shared social life.

As to coming to terms with who I am, I believe I achieved this far more effectively than most folks.  As I have said, I am comfortable with who I am.  Although there is always more we can learn about ourselves, I discovered enough not to bewail the empty chapters.

As to our social life, it is s different story.  This is so complicated and so resistant to the influence of individuals that the best we can usually do is to make our voices heard. I believe I have achieved some of this with my columns, and to a lesser degree with my books.

Herein lies the rub.  If I may be vain, I am convinced that I have learned things from which others may benefit. Precisely because I am a conservative sociologist, I have been able to walk down pathways my liberal colleagues eschewed.  This made me aware of facts they disregard.

The question then became, how do I get my observations into the mainstream?  Sociologists would not listen; hence I decided to turn to laypersons instead. This I have to some extent been able to accomplish on the local level.  As to the nation at large, I have made no impression whatsoever.

With respect to my books—with the help of Anazon.com—I have been able to get most of them into print.  In other words, my ideas are now available to be read.  The question is how to get people to read points of view with which they are not familiar.

This is where I have run out of road.  Although I plotted how I might publicize my endeavors, there is no time to put these plans into action.  All I can do is hope that some folks stumble over my insights and turn them into programs that make a difference.

The fact is that I will not be here to see what happens.  Will Trump triumph over the squad?  Will America eventually become socialist?  Will someone else rediscover my ideas after I am gone? I do not know.  I will probably never know.  This is why the end of my road leaves a hole in my soul.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Anarchism Goes Mainstream

Most visitors to St. Petersburg in Russia usually find their way there.  The Church of the Spilled Blood is an exotic example of Tsarist architecture.  More importantly, it memorializes the assassination of Alexander II by an anarchist in 1881.

Anarchism reached a high point during the latter part of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century.  Lest it be forgotten, World War I was triggered when an anarchist murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria.

Although anarchism may seem exotic in contemporary America, it is making a resounding comeback.  Indeed it has gone mainstream in a big way.  Thus not long ago we saw it in the Occupy Wall Street Movement.  Here young radicals sought to undermine capitalism by tearing out its beating heart.

Anarchists are against all authority.  They believe that if they can kill those at the top of the social pyramid, everyone else will be free of oppression.  The rest of us will accordingly be able to live our lives unfettered by exploitation and tyranny.  As the successors of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, anarchists believe that we humans are inherently loving and therefore will live in harmony once allowed to do so.

At first glance, this conviction might seem at odds with socialism, which demands that the means of production be controlled by the government.  But this leaves out Karl Marx’s belief that socialism would inevitably be followed by the withering away of the state.

So what does this have to do with us?  The answer is simple: today’s democratic socialists have a strong anarchistic bent.  They too both want to build up the government and to topple it down.  This might seem like a contradiction to clear-headed souls, but the radical’s heads are filled with ideological mush.

Consider what is happening at our southern border.  Many left-wing Democrats are arguing that virtually anyone who wishes to enter the United States should be able to do so unimpeded. This has even been depicted as a “human right.”

Others, including most of the Democratic presidential aspirants, have declared themselves in favor of decriminalizing what had been illegal entry into the United States.  They want no barriers to interfere with non-citizens who are only attempting to improve their condition and that of their families.

Nor do they want people to be detained if they are undocumented. However they cross the border, they are to be immediately released.  This includes unaccompanied children.  They too must be set free on our streets to go where they will, when they will.

Then, if people are adjudicated as having broken our laws, they are not to be deported.  This is said to frighten them and their children; hence they must remain unmolested.  Indeed, the so-called sanctuary cities intentionally make it difficult for the federal government to enforce its laws.

When you add this up, it is a direct assault on the concept of law. In the name of compassion, the radicals have decided that legally enacted statues must be flouted.  They don’t seek so much to change these laws as to have them disregarded.  They intend to decide which regulations to respect and which to ignore.

This is a prescription for—guess what—anarchy.  If people can do whatever they want with respect to immigration, why wouldn’t the same apply to other aspects of society?  In fact, the radicals do make this assumption.  They feel justified in breaking whatever laws they dislike.

Antifa is a prime example of this attitude.  These thugs believe they are saving society when they pummel conservatives on the street.  Although they claim to be fighting fascism, they are really promoting anarchism. They are, in this sense, a law unto themselves.

To some, these developments seem amusing.  They are dismissed as young people going overboard.  In reality, they are a threat to organized society and our mutual wellbeing—including that of the activists. These insurgents are essentially holding a knife to our throats in the name of freedom.

But anarchy is not freedom.  It never was and never will be.  However much it may be lauded, it leads to what Thomas Hobbes called a war of all against all.  Without shared rules that are reliably enforced, anyone is free to do whatever they want to anyone else.

Modern government has brought us the benefit of social stability. The radicals, in their unenlightened idealism, wish to snatch this away from us.  The insanity occurring with respect to our border is merely a symptom of their misunderstanding of what allows societies to function.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Political Bathos Hits Its Stride

Most people know what pathos is.  It is a form of pity that descends into unwarranted emotionality.  Bathos takes this a step lower.  It seizes upon our concern for the welfare of others and corrupts it into a mockery of human compassion.  Instead of genuine caring, it offers a caricature of kindness.

Closely related to this is the logical fallacy called the argumentum ad misericordiam.  This occurs when a person attempts to win an argument by appealing to pity rather than sound reasons.  It seeks to win by manipulating our emotions, rather than appealing to facts.

Contemporary politics are now awash with bathos and argumentums ad misericordiam.  Instead of politicians carefully explaining why their policies would be beneficial, they go straight to emotional exploitation. They do not care if what they claim is right as long as they can persuade voters that it is.

Although all politicians are prone to this tactic, the Democrats are turning it into an art form.  They descend into bathos so easily because so much of what they favor is unattainable. Rather than admit this, they seek to win through the backdoor of illegitimate emotionality.

Consider what is happening at our southern border.  Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants have overwhelmed our ability to cope with this tide.  Federal officials have neither the manpower, nor the facilities to keep up with growing numbers of families and unattached children.

So what do the Democrats say in the face of this deluge?  First they denied that there was a problem.  They told us that it was a manufactured crisis. Then they insisted that there was a crisis, but it was a humanitarian one.  The trouble was that the border agents were Nazis.

Nowadays, as regular as clockwork, we are told that children are being tortured.  They are being ripped from their parents’ arms and then shunted into cages.  Donald Trump and his minions are so heartless that they do not even provide mattresses or toothbrushes.

Almost any issue that comes up, be it court-ordered deportations or sanctuary cities, sooner or later the children are trotted out to defend the liberal position.  They have become the equivalent of hostages that are pushed out in front of the line of march so as to ward off counterattacks.

Thus not long ago, several Democratic congresspersons ventured to south Florida to observe that was happening at a detention facility for children. They concluded that the crowding was disgraceful.  It could not be tolerated.

But did they have an answer?  Did they propose legislation for more funding?  Or did they seek to change the asylum rules?  No and no!  What then did they want?  Were the authorities really supposed to let these youngsters go, thereby allowing them to survive as best they could on the street?

These cries about “the children, the children,” are shameful.  Why then do they persist?  It is because progressives pride themselves on being compassionate. If the policies they support are not actually helping people, they must nonetheless pretend that they care.

In fact, compassion is compassion only when it seeks genuine solutions to human problems.  Merely trying to wring tears out of the eyes of voters is no substitute for actually doing good.  While this may fool many people in the short term, in the long term it is apt to be found out.

Liberalism is failing.  It has not solved the problems it promised to solve.  Nor does it have any ideas other than those that have been tried and failed. Someone should tell them that socialism has never improved social conditions anywhere that it has been implemented.

By now millions of Americans have grown cynical.  They keep being subjected to bathos on a daily basis. Whatever their political loyalties, observers of this chaos must eventually realize that this will probably not lead to progress.  It is, in truth, public theater and little more.

Almost everyone knows that we are at a political impasse. Nevertheless, no one wants to lose. As the result of being intellectually bankrupt, those on the left have found no alternative except raw emotion. They scream, they shout, they bring out the crying towel—all to no avail.

It is time for people caught in this political drama to dry their eyes. Rather than listen to the boy who cried wolf, they need to face the facts.  The bathos has become tiresome.  If its promoters have not yet grown weary of it, they may rest assured that a significant portion of the electorate have.  

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Social Stupidity: My Most Timely Book

The times are out of joint.  Everyone seems to hate everyone else.  There is plainly more craziness abroad in the land that at any time in my long life.  Once Americans were assumed to be a reasonable people.  That conclusion seems to have gone out of date.

When I was in college, I imagined that the world was becoming more rational.  As the first in my immediate family to get a higher education, I believed that I, and those like me, were increasingly apt to use facts and logic to come to important conclusions.  I was dead wrong.

We humans are inherently non-rational creatures.  Although we are able to think in terms of evidence and strict reasoning, most of the time we do not.  Instead we use a variety of techniques that have both positive and negative side effects.  Ironically, this is necessary if we are to maintain our social integrity.

I know that liberals believe conservatives are not very smart; whereas conservatives return the compliment.  The truth is that intelligence has nothing to do with our propensity to be unreasonable.  Not only is this so, but ironically we would be in deep trouble if it weren’t

In order to coordinate our activities, we humans require mechanisms that enable us to arrive are synchronized conclusions.  Not only that, but these techniques must also permit us to shift from stable arrangements to flexible ones.  Logic per se might not allow this to happen.

Let me provide and example.  We humans are hierarchical creatures.  We rank ourselves in terms of our relative power.  Moreover, those at the top are accorded deference.  This enables them to organize group pursuits. Among other things, this permits them to dictate what we believe.

When those at the top know what they are talking about, this can be beneficial.  Yet when they do not, all concerned may be led off a cliff.  Isn’t this what both liberals and conservatives accuse the other side of doing?  Moreover, don’t both sides argue that their adversaries’ leaders have lost touch with reality?

Even so, both factions put up a vigorous fight to impose their visions. Irrespective of this, the rank and file do not take time out to examine the facts.  They don’t privately sit down to apply logic to verified data.  Instead they simply accept what they were told and use this as ammunition against their rivals.

As to their leaders, they too are not necessarily seekers of truth. More often than not, they are in quest of persuasive talking points.  Their desire is to influence people, not to assemble a catalogue of undeniable verities.

The upshot is that we are able pursue common goals.  Because we don’t think for ourselves, we adopt shared perspectives.  Furthermore, when there is widespread agreement, this is usually beneficial. When, however, there is not, the conflicts can get out of hand.

Today this is exactly what is happening.  Given that neither liberalism nor conservatism can muster universal consent, people fight about what we should collectively believe.  As it happens, this is characteristic of periods of change.  With the authorities are incapable of sufficiently influential answers, people fight to see who will prevail.

All of this can be quite unsettling.  It can also lead us into folly.  The good news is that our mistakes are usually corrected.  The bad news is that this may only be after blood has been spilled.  

There is an answer however.  If we understand what leads us to be non-rational, we can control the most dangerous aspects of this tendency.  Denial is far worse.  This can produce a dangerous hubris, which prevents us from recognizing our deficiencies.

In any event, non-rationality will be with us for as long as we are human.  In my book Social Stupidity: The Inevitability of Folly,I explain the many ways we go off track.  It is precisely because we are a creative species that we make a host of imaginative errors.

Although none of us likes to believe we are at fault when things go wrong, humility is in order.  Only when we accept our limitations can we calmly review what we know and what we don’t. That is not what is happening today, but it could if we had the courage to admit what we were doing.

Anyway, Social Stupidityis now available on amazon .com.  As usual, this is at $10 for the paperback and $5 for the eBook.

Melvyn L. Fein, P.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University