A Constitutional Crisis: Bring It On!

We live in interesting times.  We may, in fact, be at a place our nation has never been before.  With the government in gridlock and the two major parties glowering at each other as if they were mortal enemies, few claim to know the way forward.  Witness Nancy Pelosi’s instant rejection of Trump’s latest compromise offer.

Since the beginning of the Trump administration, there have been rumblings about a constitutional crisis.  For the most part, these have been efforts to embarrass the president into changing his policies.  Now, however, we may be at a point when there is a real crisis.

With Donald Trump still threatening to declare a national emergency so that he can fund a border wall and Democrats refusing to spend a penny on such a barrier, no movement is in sight.  Even though a paltry three billion dollars separates them, intransigence rules the day.

So I say that Trump should declare an emergency.  Despite decades of on-and-off efforts, our southern frontier is more porous than ever.  What is more, despite declarations to the contrary, it is clear that liberals favor open borders.  As Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, announced, he wants his state open to all who request sanctuary.

This kind of extremism can only be stopped by counter-action.  At some point, Trump will have to enforce a red line.  Some say that if he takes an unparalleled step to build his wall, this will set a precedent he will regret.  It will be an invitation for Democrats to do the same when they regain power.

In actual fact, the left needs no invitation.  Barack Obama already demonstrated his willingness to use executive action irrespective congressional wishes.  No doubt other progressives would be tempted to resort to a Harry Reid-style nuclear option if their programs get stymied.  They are thus perfectly capable of serving as their own role models.

Furthermore, the Democratic effort to paralyze the Trump administration is itself unparalleled.  It too sets a destructive precedent.  No democratic government can survive if compromise is ruled out of bounds.  None can function if the opposition party is allowed to prevent any executive action whatsoever.

As a result, Trump cannot operate as president if he does not rise to this challenge.  His opponents say that if he does, he can never get reelected.  What they overlook is that if he does not, Republicans will never renominate him.  Instead of being perceived as strong, he will be regarded as a wimp.

In any event, if he does move forward, he is sure to face a judicial challenge.  The Democrats will do their usual judge shopping and find someone willing to declare the emergency unconstitutional.  What comes next will be telling.

If this magistrate calls an immediate halt to building the wall, the president’s next move must be as decisive.  Remember, challenges to Obama’s DACA initiative were also ruled unconstitutional, but allowed to proceed to the Supreme Court before being dismantled.

That a single low-level judge would be allowed to set policy for the nation should be intolerable.  As a consequence, Trump must ignore such a ruling and continue the building process. Plainly he has as much right to decide on what is constitutional as some activist jurist from Podunk.

Here then would be a genuine constitutional crisis.  The fat would be in the fire and the resulting explosions would be nationwide.  My guess is that most politicians—and indeed, most Americans—do not what to go there. They can live with verbal outbursts, but shy away from volatile impasses.

Nonetheless, it may be time for an authentic crisis.  Oftentimes, it is only at such moments that logjams are broken.  A little dynamite in the right place can get pieces moving after they become stuck. Likewise, sometimes this is the only way to shake human beings out of an ideological trance.

I do not recommend this lightly.  Whenever we enter unexplored territory, we cannot be certain of the outcome. Even so, we are currently in a state of emergency.  I am not talking about the southern border.  It is our moral crisis to which I allude.

In the past, with the exception of the Civil War, most Americans have understood that working together requires making adjustments.  However, with both liberalism and conservatism unable to deliver on their promises, both sides have doubled down on blockheaded stubbornness.

Sometimes, the only way to get a mule’s attention is to hit it over the head with a two-by-four.  I am suggesting that it is time for the two-by-four.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

The Detroitization of California

Several decades ago, the Sociological Practice Association held its annual meeting in the vicinity to Detroit.  We were lucky enough to have one of the city’s councilmen take us on a guided tour of his town.  The experience was devastating.

Block after block of this once proud metropolis had been reduced to wreckage.  Private houses were degraded into piles of debris, while the population had fled elsewhere.  Thanks to wild over-spending, the size of the city had been cut to a quarter of what it had been.

Since then efforts have been made to bring Detroit back from bankruptcy. Some progress has been made.  The crime rate, for instance, has been cut.  And yet, when the devastation is a great as it was, it takes a long time to recover.

One might imagine that Detroit’s fate would be an object lesson from which other political entities would learn.  Sadly, this is not so.  A case in point is California.  Currently, under the sway of deeply liberal politicians, the once Golden State is headed into a more spectacular episode of decline.

We know that California is now a sanctuary state.  It has opened its borders to any and all comers.  Not only are they welcome, but they will be protected irrespective of the crimes they commit.  This is not just an invitation to live in the state, but to engage in misconduct within it.

The fruits of this policy are already on display in places like San Francisco.  Trash litters the streets, strewn there by vagrants who are accorded every right to be homeless.  This formerly beautiful city is being turned into a dangerous garbage heap in the name of compassion.

The state has also decided to spend money on projects it cannot afford. Thus a multi-billion dollar rail system to nowhere is in the process of disintegrating.  To this, governor Gavin Newsom has promised to add a trillion dollar health system available to all.

This is in a state where the pension commitments are presently unsustainable and where many communities have gone bankrupt.  It is not as if there were no warning signs of what may be coming. Actually, pervious governors have already had to deal with financial crises.

For the moment, thanks to the Trump economy, the tax revenues are trending up.  Nonetheless, this cannot last.  What then of the day of reckoning?  Will the current crop of politicians declare “après moi le deluge” and get out of town before the worst takes hold?

The getting out of town has indeed begun.  Where once California was synonymous with immigration, it is now notorious for emigration.  The middle classes are moving out.  Taxes and housing costs have become so exorbitant that it makes more sense to head for Texas.

What is happening is that the population is bifurcating.  On the one end are the exceedingly rich. Whether they reside in Beverley Hills or Silicon Valley, they can protect themselves from the growing turmoil around them.  Safe in their gated communities, they can fool themselves into believing that their favorite policies are helping the poor.

On the other end, of course, are the poor.  They cannot afford new houses with state-mandated solar panels on the roof.  Neither can they afford the higher prices for the over-regulated products in the super markets.  Instead, they are being forced into squalor—not exactly a democratic outcome.

No state, no matter advantageous its geographical position, can long endure these trends.  In the past, liberal theories have destroyed inner cities nationwide.  Not just Detroit, but Baltimore, St. Louis, and now Chicago have been blighted by shortsighted efforts to initiate utopian programs.

Will the politicians ever learn?  Will the citizens who vote them into office ever notice the consequences of their folly?  I doubt it. Hope tends to outrun realism until it hits an impenetrable barrier.  This happened in Detroit.  Will it someday befall California?

I am not holding my breath.  We see the empty-headed liberal generosity not just in California, but also in New York City and Washington State.  New York is an interesting variant in that it has had a brush with disaster.  Although saved by the prudent Rudy Giuliani, a lavish new mayor once more promises to lead it into perdition.

People seldom learn!  They want what they want, irrespective of the aftermath.  Most of us must merely sit back and watch the slide into catastrophe. Such is the human condition.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Is the Border Wall Immoral?

Nancy Pelosi tells us that the border wall is immoral.  We must not build it because we, as a better nation, are than that.  In the past, Democrats voted in favor of fencing, but now they have recognized the error of their ways.  Now they cannot sanction something that shuts out innocent migrants.

I, however, am at a loss.  Why did the wall suddenly become immoral?  Who is it hurting?  Apparently the illegal aliens.  We are also told by Nancy and her ilk that these folks are only seeking a better life. They make a harrowing journey of thousands of miles just to help their children.

Someone should tell liberals that most crimes are committed in order to obtain a better life.  People rob banks to get the money to do so.  They also kill those who get in the way to improve their situation.  Some even engage in rape to gain personal satisfaction.

Breaking the law is not excused by wanting a better life.  Even if it improves their children’s circumstances, it over steps the bounds of civil society.  This kind of justification pardons all manner of evil.  As a result, it condones anarchy—which is immoral.

We are also told that a wall is medieval.  It is old-fashioned and therefore outdated.  In fact, walls go back at least ten thousand years.  Why then did ancient cities have them?  Because they worked.  If something is old—like agriculture—that doesn’t mean it is ineffective.

Instead liberals like Pelosi want a virtual wall.  They insist that technology is cheaper and more efficient than concrete or steel.  All we need to do is put up drones to keep track of border crossers.  This will keep them out.

The trouble with a virtual wall is that it is imaginary.  Taking pictures of undocumented migrants without physically apprehending them is a farce.  What are we going to do with those photographs?  Spread them across the border as kind of rotogravure?  

Given this inanity, Democrats are accused of wanting open borders. They, however, contend this isn’t so. They claim to understand that a nation is not a nation if it cannot control its frontiers.  The difference between them and Trump is that they will be more effective.

But this too is an absurdity.  I learned as far back as the first grade that you don’t just listen to what people say; you watch what they do.  The reality is that liberals have defended open borders at every turn. They are not for law enforcement, but lawlessness.

From the institution of sanctuary cities to calls for abolishing ICE, they put up obstacles to maintaining our national integrity.  They are not only willing to shut down the government to deny Trump a measly five billion dollars; they don’t want to spend anything on enhanced security.

Instead they say we must reimagineimproved techniques.  Nevertheless, when asked what these are, they are silent.  Actually they are more likely to change the subject.  The point is that they are lying.  Their goal is to destroy Trump, while bringing in millions of potential Democratic voters.

So who, I ask, made Nancy and her teammates moral arbiters?  What qualifies them to decide what is right or wrong?  Their track record of perpetually lying would seem to eliminate them from contention. They can’t even provide a cogent explanation for their opinions.

Of course, when push comes to shove, they assert that they are uniquely compassionate.  They care about the underdogs and are dedicated to helping them.  Yet once again, I appeal to results not promises. If you care about the poor, you do things that actually help them.

Liberals like Pelosi specialize in posturing.  Do you remember when she told us that congress would have to pass ObamaCare before we could know what was in it?  Was this a democratic attitude?  Didn’t it imply that she knew best and others needed to fall in line?

Because many Democrats believe they were anointed to save the world, they do not worry about little things like being moral.  When they lie, these are noble lies.  When they inflict injuries, it is to protect others.  They are only breaking a few eggs so they can make an omelet.

In the recent electoral cycles, Democrats let the mask slip. Nowadays they are prepared to acknowledge their socialist proclivities.  But they are not yet willing to admit tens of millions were slaughtered in the name of their ideal.  I submit that people like this have no right to decide what is moral.  They are neither nice nor wise!

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Getting Off the Dime

Let’s face it; we are stuck.  I’m not talking about the government shutdown or the obstinacy over border security.  Our national malaise goes deeper than that.  Nowadays liberals and conservatives hate each other.  Barely on speaking terms, each side accuses the other of destroying the American Dream.

But what are their solutions?  For the moment, the greatest concern is to prevent the other guys from getting what they want.  Neither faction has offered an agenda for overcoming our sour politics.  In fact, they almost daily contribute to making our society more acerbic.

Obama and the Democrats had their chance for eight years, yet came up short.  Neither of their signature achievements did the job.  The stimulus package never really got the economy rolling, while ObamaCare never fully mended the health care system.

As for throwing money at education programs, that did not improve outcomes.  Nor did reducing the size of the military make us safer.  Meanwhile Obama and company did next to nothing to fix the immigration problem.  There was talk, but no effective measures.

Then came Trump with his disruptive personality.  He was going to drain the swamp, but couldn’t.  He was also going to build a wall, but was not allocated the funds to do so.  Furthermore, he would make America great again; nevertheless most Americans do not believe he has.

Although he got the economy moving and reduced ISIS to a shell of what it was, there were few accolades.  He even sought to shut down illegal immigration, but was greeted by sanctuary cities and judicial resistance.  Indeed, there was resistance to almost everything he proposed.

What then do Americans want?  In the bi-election they voted for liberals, despite the fact that these folks did not offer fresh proposals for fixing what is broken.  Were they asking us for a return to the Obama stagnancy? I doubt it.  I believe they did not know what they wanted.  They were dissatisfied, but didn’t understand why.

As I have previously suggested, we are in the midst of an ideological crisis.  The guideposts we have used to understand our world let us down.  Liberals pinned their hopes on a massive federal government. It would bring social justice and prosperity it its train—but didn’t.

Meanwhile conservatives assumed that a free market would make us whole again.  By unleashing the creativity of ordinary citizens, we would find answers no one had previously expected.  Unfortunately, history taught us that laissez-faire policies promote exploitation of the poor by the rich.

So how do we get off the dime?  How can we bring about change when we don’t know what sort of change would satisfy us?  Simply beating up on our political foes will not advance our hopes one iota.

Therefore, let me make a suggestion.  When Sigmund Freud was asked what constituted mental health, he responded that it was an ability to work and love.  Perhaps this same prescription applies to the nation.  If more people were satisfied in their work and personal relations, they might not be clamoring for government to save them.

Let’s begin with work.  Millions of Americans are transfixed by the idea of getting gratis stuff from Washington. They want free health care, free education and a guaranteed income.  Rather they help themselves, they demand that others ensure their happiness.  They feel entitled.

They do not seem to realize that happiness comes from personal accomplishment.  While taking responsibility entails risk, passivity is enervating.  Doing ones best in achieving worthwhile goals is what provides satisfaction.  For many of us, however, this would entail a radical shift in direction.

With respect to love, we are social animals.  We benefit from lifetime commitments to people we care about and who care for us.  Nonetheless, we appear to be coming lonelier by the minute.  Plugged in, as we are, to various kinds of electronic gear, we have forgotten how to create—and sustain—intimate relationships.

It is time we learned how.  A fear of rejection and a desire for complete freedom put marriage and the family into eclipse.  The result is millions of unwed parents and more millions of unloved children.  This has to stop or we will be a nation of isolated individuals who have no future.

If my suggestions sound extreme, perhaps it is because we have gotten so far removed from the basics.  When people lose their way, sometimes they cannot see what is in plain sight.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Why I Am Angry

Some readers of my columns have complained that I am too angry. They are especially distressed by the ire I express toward liberals.  There can, however, be no denying they are on to something.  I fully admit to being extremely angry. Where our nation seems headed both frustrates and enrages me.

Those on the left may protest this attitude, but they should understand it.  After all, they too are exceedingly angry.  They too are troubled about public events.  If this were not the case, they would never have initiated the resist movement.  Were they not enormously enraged, they would be far more tolerant of president Trump.

People get angry when they are frustrated by circumstances they cannot control.  They use this emotion to send others the message that they are extremely displeased. Their unconscious goal is to motivate those blocking them to get out of the way.  (See my book, IAM—Integrated Anger Management)

Angry people are also motivated to change what they can.  The more frustrated they are, the more energy they invest in making alterations.  If this were not the case, they would roll over and allow others to take advantage of them.  In fighting back, they make this less likely.

As for me, I find several recent developments infuriating.  They go against my deep political convictions. For one thing, I detest political correctness.  It flies in the face of my allegiance to free speech.  To be told there are things I cannot say because it offends others, strikes me as a threat to our collective liberty.

First, as an academic sociologist, my job is to investigate how societies operate.  But how can I do this if I must censor what I perceive?  If I must, for instance, pretend that black crime is no more prevalent than white crime, is this genuine science?  Or is it more akin to the Victorian effort to put diapers on horses so as to conceal their genitalia?

Second, I am offended by people being offended.  Why should folks who are uncomfortable with what I say silence me?  They also offend me, so why shouldn’t they stop trying to stifle me?  Are their feelings somehow more important than mine?

I am also furious with the resistance movement.  It was not long ago that Democrats complained Republicans were engaged in obstructionism.  When conservatives opposed Obama’s policies, this was portrayed as anti-democratic.  Conservatives were told that a need for political cooperation demanded that they accede to his initiatives.

Now that we have a Republican president progressive principles went into reverse gear.  The liberals decided that they were against anythingTrump did.  This extended to delaying the confirmation of nearly every nominee he sent to the senate. The hypocrisy here was so blatant, it set my teeth to gnashing.

But the behavior that enraged me the most was the administrative coup launched by liberals.  I believe in democracy.  I believe in the right of citizens to choose those who run their government.  This means that when voters pick a new leader, those previously in office must step aside.

Once I believed that all Americans were dedicated to this principle. Our nation was not a banana republic. Coup d’états were for countries where the population was accustomed to despotic rule.  We were too sophisticated for that.  We would never permit our democratic institutions to be despoiled.

This turned out to be a fantasy.  We have learned so much about how a self-important crew at the apex of the FBI and the Department of Justice plotted to prevent Trump from being elected and then sought grounds for impeaching him.  To achieve this, they bent the laws and disseminated false information.

The arrogance of those involved was breath taking.  These liberals were convinced that they knew better than the public.  This justified tampering with standard procedures and elementary fairness.  If this entailed sending innocent people to jail, it was necessary to protect voters from their own bad judgment.

Worst of all, millions of ordinary liberals found this unobjectionable. They did not quibble with unconstitutional efforts to achieve their political ends.  If a massive cover-up was needed to keep left-wing misdeeds from blowing up in their faces, they were happy to participate.  

This is a political disaster; the ghastliest during my lifetime. Why shouldn’t it make me angry? Why shouldn’t I fight to preserve our democratic heritage?  I do not want to live under a totalitarian regime—no matter how enlightened progressives believe it will be.  If they hate me for this attitude—so be it.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

A Statute of Limitations on Political Experts

I have plainly been watching too much television.  The tube, as has become the norm, is dominated by vacuity. Not just the sitcoms, but the news feels like a wilderness of reruns.  I keep hearing identically stale arguments from hordes of indistinguishable “political experts.”

My problem is that these erstwhile authorities keep spouting confident analyses irrespective of whether their judgments fit the realities.  Did you know, for instance, that the Trump tax cuts have not worked?  Or that the border wall cannot keep illegal immigrants out?  Or that the Trump presidency is about to implode?

No, wait!  Trump is still with us.  But that doesn’t matter.  This is only a fact and facts are extraneous.  Viewers aren’t paying attention so the experts can repeat their disconfirmed predictions or say nothing.  No one will notice and hence no one will realize they were mistaken.

Okay.  Let me ask a different question.  Why do particular talking heads get on television?  I once assumed it was because they were well versed in the subjects they discuss.  Their role was to enlighten us about important issues.  This turns out to be false.  Their actual function is to gin up controversy or promote partisan views.

Having once worked as a newspaper reporter, I should have understood this.  Back then, if I wanted to highlight a particular opinion, I could always find someone to supply the appropriate quote.  This provided weight to whatever cockamamie notion I hoped to feature.

Given our current twenty-four hour news cycle, it is more difficult to keep finding fresh voices.  As a result, interchangeable folks need to be recycled.  Worse yet, their alleged expertise has fallen to a new low. Frequently their only qualification for airtime is an ability to articulate the party line.

No wonder these phonies make so many mistakes.  No wonder their predictions are repeatedly wrong.  Even so, this is embarrassing.  Perhaps the operative attitude among these talking heads is that any publicity is good publicity.  They must believe that as long as they can get on television, this will pump them up in someone’s eyes.

Nevertheless, I propose that we enforce a statute of limitations on political experts.  After a specified period, if their commentary proves to be off base, they should be banned from further appearances.  In other words, there should be some acknowledgement that they were never really expert.

When it comes to the law, many crimes are not prosecuted after too much time has elapsed.  People are allowed to get away with misdeeds because they occurred long ago.  I am suggesting the reverse.  I am arguing for a media “death sentence” to be imposed for constant foolishness.

I realize that for many networks this would create a hardship. They are staffed by bloviating jesters whose only skill is an ability to frame absurdities in a provocative manner. Their mandate is obviously to placate their viewers craving for political red meat.

Still, how many errors are too many?  Once upon a time journalists were expected to issue retractions for erroneous stories.  Nowadays, however, a respect for honesty has gone by the boards.  Lies and truths have become so indistinguishable that media types cannot tell the difference.

Many years ago, Newton Minnow, then head of the FCC, described television as a vast wasteland.  He assumed that this powerful medium should be dedicated to educating the public. Does anyone believe TV news is currently even attempting this?

We all know the chief culprit.  Partisanship has replaced objectivity as the criterion for what was formerly journalism.  Putative experts are no longer expert because they know things.  Rather, they are portrayed as experts because they have the brass to pretend they are.

For my own part, I cannot imagine caring so little for the worth of my reputation.  As an academic, my goal is to get things right.  When I make mistakes—as we all do—I seek to correct them.  While I may not succeed, I would be mortified if I did not try.

So I ask, what kinds of people don’t try?  What sorts of humans depict themselves as experts when events demonstrate they are not?  How can they look at themselves in the mirror?  Do they like what they see?

Then again: what about us?  Why are we, the American public, paying attention to these frauds?  Don’t we care about our commitments to the truth?  Why didn’t our heads explode when NBC gloated that Trump has not visited the troops in Iraq—when he had?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

In Search of a Silver Lining

It’s the New Year and tradition decrees that I produce a review of the past year and a preview of the next.  This time around, however, I have been very reluctant to do either.  The times have been out of joint and it looks like they will continue to be for the foreseeable future. 

I have been in search of a silver lining, but to date have not found one. Instead, I conjure up images of Chuck Schumer gloating over the opportunity to shut down the government. He looked like the proverbial cat that swallowed the canary when Trump declared that he would take the blame for doing so.

As I listened to Schumer explain why no Democrats would vote to spend an additional three billion dollars on a wall, I was reminded of how brilliant he was supposed to be.  A couple of decades ago, I was at a conference where a former high school teacher of his could not stop singing his praises.  Chuck was the second coming of our savior.

But how smart was it to veto a trillion dollar budget over what amounted to pocket change.  Oozing over how ineffective a wall would be and why Trump would mismanage its construction, it sounded to me like Schumer was leading us into the twilight zone.

The government spends more on toilet seats than it would on the wall. Was spending additional pennies somehow going to break the bank.  This was ludicrous coming from a party that proposes to expend trillions on health care.

As for oversight over construction, was congress supposed to do this on a day-to-day basis.  Would the senators appoint some of their number to inspect the building activities? How would that work out when they cannot even make sure their cafeteria is run according to sound business practices?

All of this was so absurd that I wondered why the public wasn’t laughing. How could they blame Trump for the budget impasse when it was Schumer and company who refused to shift a few billion dollars?  Arguing that Republicans control the senate is ridiculous when Democrat votes are needed to overcome a filibuster.

Then I thought about students at Kennesaw State University. My colleagues and I have been aware of a decades long dumbing down process.  As is true around the nation, our students don’t read.  They instead consult their iPhones for snippets of disconnected information.

One of the latest farces on our road toward national mediocrity is decreasing the quality of on-line courses.  While some faculty members attempt to hold the line, many more have been seduced into offering shells of college curricula.  These are easier to oversee and students, who don’t want to work, don’t mind.

So how is this going to fix what is politically broken?  When members of the current generation go into the voting booth, will they be able to tell the difference between what makes sense and what doesn’t?  They are certainly not going to get help from the media.

With so many reporters and editors determined to destroy Donald Trump, these journalistic vigilantes are happy to withhold vital knowledge, while inventing a slew of unsavory canards.  They, like Schumer, hate our president.  From their perspective, accuracy is irrelevant if they can spread their venom.

So why should I be optimistic about the future?  This next year promises to be more viscous and dim-witted than the last.  With the House of Representatives now in ultra-liberal hands, partisan attacks—including impeachment—should be more malicious than ever.

 At the moment, I am writing a book about irrationality.  Whatever our pretentions, we humans seldom use facts and logic to come to conclusions.  More often we allow our prejudices to hold sway.  This is the case for both sides of the political spectrum.

If we are careful, we can keep these tendencies in check. Nevertheless, I see little evidence of a desire to do so.  Both liberals and conservatives are so angry that they are not prepared to give their adversaries a fair hearing.  Irrespective of what is good for the nation, the goal is to injure the other side.

As I say, Schumer is gloating.  He has had his gottcha moment and is savoring it.  Fear not conservatries, Trump will do the same if he gets the chance.  In the meantime, we all suffer from an unwillingness to cooperate.  So vituperative have we become that next year looks like a calamity in waiting.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

The Downside of Unreflective Idealism

The New Year is upon us.  Once more we will be treated to projections about the year to come.  Most of us hope for improvements over the past; nonetheless political controversies have risen to such heights that we may expect even more divisiveness than in the past.

The United States is an optimistic country.  When we talk about the American Dream, we assume that our lives will always get better.  Despite the hard times we have recently experienced, many of us intend to create a near heaven on earth.  It is just a matter of time.

Millions of Americans are confirmed idealists.  Not just the young, but successful adults—who should know better—aim to impose social justice on the rest of us.  They want a nation in which everyone is completely equal and where every potential hazard is averted by a federal government dedicated to our wellbeing.

This, however, is a fairytale.  It is the product of an idealism that has lost its way.  Too many of our countrymen await the impossible. They assume that because they can dream something, they can invariably make it come true.  As a result, they are habitually disappointed.

Excessive idealism makes us vulnerable.  Because we are blinded by extravagant visions of the future, we do not recognize the obstacles preventing us from realizing our aspirations.  As a result we also become susceptible to manipulation by those who use our ambitions against us.

Let us consider the implications of getting rid of ICE.  If we stop enforcing our borders and allow sanctuary cities to protect criminals, what will happen to law enforcement?  Will justice flourish or will anarchy break out on our city streets?

The idealists believe that if we are nice to people, others will always reciprocate our kindness.  While the evidence for this is nil, they assume this is because their amiability has never been fully implemented.  Just give love a chance, they tell us, and it will do magic.

Have these idealists ever encountered bullies?  Have they never seen what happens when mean people are exposed to temptation?  Would they really leave their doors unlocked or their keys in their cars?  I doubt they would in some urban neighborhoods.

Nor are extreme idealists troubled by efforts to tear down the Trump administration.  They do not mind if lies are told in order to besmirch his reputation.  Indeed, they celebrated when FBI activists concocted a scheme to evict him from office.  Since he was a fascist, this bureaucratic assault on our democracy was heroic. 

What these zealots refuse to contemplate is a shoe-on-the-other-foot scenario.  In their self-righteousness, they do not reflect on the possibility of their enemies turning the tables on them.  They don’t realize that once the notion of a clandestine insurrection gains currency, bad guys can use it too.

A law-abiding society must protect its laws even when this is uncomfortable.  It has taken millennia for ordinary citizens to internalize respect for moral norms. It has taken as long to legitimize government authority.  Without these, however, social rules have to be coercively applied.

If people did not voluntarily pay their taxes, the government might have to send in troops to collect what was owed.  If federal regulations were only enforced for one political party, it wouldn’t be long before the other contemplated a revolution.

Lies have become a standard operating procedure because too many idealists defend them.  They refuse to admit the existence of dishonesty, as long as it benefits their side. So honorable do they consider themselves that they don’t believe they are doing anything wrong, no matter how egregious a canard.

Not long ago, James Comey, the former head of the FBI, bragged that he had bent the rules in order to incriminate General Michael Flynn.  His liberal audience giggled and then applauded. Few in the room seemed to realize that this breach of decency endangered us all.

This trend is terrifying.  Amazingly, those on the left claim that they are offended when their attack on constitutional principles is exposed.  They are proud of their efforts to introduce tyrannical practices into our country.  For them, the line between despotism and freedom is invisible.

So here is what I am hoping for this next year.  If, as I expect, the Democrats overreach in their attempts to overthrow Trump, it would be nice if the public notices and becomes enraged by these tactics.  Unless liberal idealism comes down to earth, the damage inflicted could be irreparable.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University