Limits with Latitude

This business of rich parents buying their children’s way into elite universities is very distressing.  It is so in terms of the corruption involved.  But it is also so with regard to how these parents regard their children.  Their over-protection is disturbing on several counts.

Those of us who have taught college are aware of the sense of entitlement many students exhibit.  They not only believe they have a right to a higher education; they assume they also have a right to graduate.  Whether or not they do college level work, they expect a degree.

Many students also demand that they not be offended.  If what they are taught does not conform to what they already believe, they assume they have the right to quash it.  How dare anyone to force them to rethink their preconceptions. This might make them uncomfortable and that is not permissible.

So let’s go back to those kids whose parents bought their way into a good school.  We learned that in several instances the parents did not believe their offspring were smart enough for college work.  Either that or these teenagers were not motivated to engage in academics.

How then does getting them into an elite institution help these quasi-adults?  If they cannot pass the exams, will they be forced to drop out?  Or, if they manage to graduate, will this help them in the job market?  As has been noted by perceptive observers, a credential can get you in the door, but it can’t keep you there if you do not deliver.

Ours is a competitive world.  If you can’t beat the other guy, he will probably beat you.  Clearly the parents who resorted to bribery intended to protect their progeny from this cruel fate.  They hoped to shield them from stiff competition.  After all, this was their due.

Only it isn’t.  No one is entitled to success.  It has to be earned.  Parents, who interfere with a child’s ability to fight for success, do him/her no favors. If their offspring are not strong enough to endure the wear and tear of the struggle, they will lose.

How then to raise tough children?   The formula is simple to understand, albeit difficult to implement. It is: limits with latitude. Children need to be protected from what they do not understand, but also afforded the space to make independent choices.

In our more professionalized world, people who occupy leadership positions must be self-directed.  They require the knowledge and the motivation to choose wisely.  Moreover, if they are not resilient enough to deal with uncertainties, they are sure to fold under pressure.

The only way to obtain this toughness is to learn how to deal with failures.  Things always go wrong when we compete with others or when we engage in complex activities. We, not our protectors, must then respond.  If we cannot, we will fall backward.

This learning has to be first hand.  Unless it is, we cannot improve our skills.  As importantly, if we do not personally discover how to deal with our fears, these will hold us back.  No parent can spare us this knowledge, however much they may be pained by our pain.

While it is natural for parents to prevent their children from being injured, it is sometimes essential to stand back and allow whatever happens to happen.  Indeed, the growing up process is a sort of equilibrium.  Thus we allow our babies to crawl, but not to use steps unaided. Meanwhile teenagers are permitted to drive automobiles, but not to come home after midnight.

By the time they get to college, the young ought to be able to study on their own.  If anything, they should be rebelling against too many restrictions.  This means applying to school on one’s own and taking the lumps that come along.  An inability to do so, whether it derives from over-protective parenting or a clinging child, does not bode well.

We Americans boast about being the home of the brave, whereas those who never test themselves against reality, never acquire much courage.  They seldom live up to their potential or obtain the satisfaction of achieving difficult goals.

Independence is a precious gift.  It allows us to become our best selves.  Why would any parent deny this to a son or daughter?  Such parents are enormously selfish.  They want to bask their offspring’s glory.  In fact, because their children can’t perform very well, no one gets much of anything.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Can We Get More Dishonest?

We have been on a downhill slide for years.  Once parents washed out a child’s mouth with soap for telling a lie. Now when you turn on the news, you can’t go for thirty seconds without hearing another falsehood.  What has happened to our nation?  When did we become so dishonest?

In The Great False Hope, I documented how deceitful Barack Obama was.  Telling voters they could keep their doctors was the tip of a mendacious iceberg.  He, of course, had been preceded by slick Willy; the man who never had sex with that woman. The reward for both was to be admired as skilled politicians.

Today, we are repeatedly told that Donald Trump is a liar by journalists who lie far more often than he does.  Their goal is not to deliver the news, but to destroy the reputation of a hated adversary.  Truth is irrelevant because the objective is to assert power.

We saw this when a high school boy was falsely accused to harassing an innocent American Indian.  We again saw it when a television actor claimed to have been attacked by MAGA supporters.  We saw it as well when Beto O’Rourke asserted there is unanimity about global warming. For goodness sake, TV commercials now depict untruthfulness as cute.

Dishonesty has become so common that it has spread into nearly every corner of American life.  This was confirmed in the recent college scandal.  Parents, who felt no guilt, happily paid thousands of dollars to deceitfully gain their offspring unearned admittance to elite schools.

Meanwhile, I have witnessed fraudulence within these institutions.  College awards, for example, are often distributed on the basis of “creative writing.”  Professors, without a twinge of shame, brag about fictional achievements, then are honored for these imaginary accomplishments.

And why not?  College administrators routinely trumpet programs that produce no benefits.  Their objective is not to help students, but to make it seem that they are.  Should their subordinates have the temerity to call them out, it is they who get in trouble.

When I bring this trend up with my brother, who is an ardent liberal, his response is predictable.  He invariably tells me that both sides do it.  We thus need to be even-handed.  I, in particular, must stop pointing a finger at his allies. 

But I will not stop.  To do so would be to tolerate deceitfulness.  Furthermore, if those on my side of the aisle lie, I plan to be just as intolerant of their mendacity.  Dishonesty is dishonesty from whichever quarter it comes.  

I have argued that no large society can survive if dishonesty becomes the norm.  If people do not tell the truth most of the time, it eventually becomes impossible for them to trust one another.  But if they don’t, how can they work together? 

We are almost at a breaking point.  Journalists and politicians are leading the way to chaos and disintegration. Americans already recognize that the media are irredeemable corrupt.  They consequently no longer have much faith in them.  So slanted are the stories they tell that they are obviously fictional.

As for the politicians, they promote whatever will garner votes. There is no fact checking.  There is no limit to how much they will defame their rivals.  Opposition research, such as the Trump dossier, merely has to seem as if it might be true.

Adam Schiff is one of the worst practitioners of cheap duplicity. Just like Joe McCarthy before him, he recurrently rushed to the cameras to proclaim that he personally saw the evidence of Russian collusion.  Somehow this never came to light—probably because it never existed.

This, however, did not matter to the Trump haters.  They believed because they wanted to believe. And here is the nub of the matter. Too many Americans, from both parties, do not care what is true.  They only want to be told that which appears to confirm what they believe.

Dishonesty has become so prevalent because honesty has lost its currency.  Truthfulness is neither admired nor rewarded.  No wonder it does not flourish.  People may complain about divisiveness, but they seem unaware that their tolerance of dishonesty is one of its primary causes.  

Those disingenuous journalists and hypocritical politicians merely reflect us.  They prosper because we who allow them to prosper.  If we want better, we must demand better.  We cannot continue to abide duplicity.  Doing so will inevitably swamp us in turmoil and anarchy.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

A Bold Blueprint For Our Future

Each new day seems worse than the one before.  The political warfare never ends.  Lies and insults are traded passionately and relentlessly.  By now, both sides of the political divide are tired of the constant sniping, but no one knows how to get off the merry-go-round.

Perhaps it is because they are looking at the issues in the wrong way. If you are trying to cure diseases by reading the stars, you will not have much luck.  Likewise, if you are attempting to fly by imitating Icarus and flapping your arms, you will have the same results as he did.

Sometimes we need what social scientists call a paradigm shift. We have to change the way we look at things.  If we stick with familiar mental frameworks, we may miss what is in plain sight. That, in fact, is where I think we are. 

To this end, I have proposed such a shift.  It is neither liberal nor conservative, but based on a different conceptual foundation.  The current ideological fireworks assume the validity of a Marxist worldview.  All sides begin by asking the question, Who should control the means of production—the government or private citizens?

I ask a different question: How are large societies to maintain their cohesion?  How can millions of strangers work together for their shared benefit?  With the rise of identity politics, this is not an academic question.  Moreover, if it is not solved, no one will be able to control much of anything.

Once, when we were hunter-gatherers, we cooperated because we were family.  However, with the rise of agricultural empires, we turned to religion to bond us. As a result, we came to regard ourselves as brothers and sisters who lived under the protection of an immensely powerful father figure—God.

After this, with the spread of commercialism, we depended upon a disinterested marketplace to keep our interests aligned.  It was as if an invisible hand coordinated our activities. We might be selfish; nevertheless we benefited from the law of supply and demand.

Industrialization, however, threw this solution out of balance by allowing some individuals to become super-rich.  People soon turned to the government for safety.  It would provide social justice by redistributing the wealth and make certain that the powerful did not exploit the weak.

More recently we discovered that the government has limitations. Although politicians make big promises, they have not been able to deliver on all of them.  This precipitated an emotional crisis in which everyone doubled down on their existing allegiances.

Liberalism is dying.  But laissez-faire conservatism cannot replace it.  Neither can fundamentalist religion.  This is why I am proposing Social Individualismas a successor to all three.  It is based upon the premise that a mass techno-commercial society can only function if its members voluntarily, and effectively, contribute to their shared interests.

Because it is difficult to explain what I mean in a short column, I have written a book, Social Individualism: A Bold Blueprint for Our Future.  It is now available on Amazon.com as a paper back for $10.00 and an eBook for $5.00.

My starting point is that we are not going to be saved by the government, or the free market, or religion.  If we are going to be saved, we will have to do this for ourselves. But if we are to achieve it, we have to know how.  This entails at least three elements.

First, we need to be committed to principled realism.  We have to be honest, personally responsible, fair (i.e., employ the same rules for everyone), devoted to liberty, and dedicated to strong families.  Moreover, these must be pursued within realistic limitations.  For instance, because we are hierarchical creatures, total equality is impossible.

Second, we must be emotionally mature.  If we are going to make good independent decisions, intense emotions cannot carry us away.  We have to be able to tolerate our fears, our anger, and even our desire for love.

Third, we must become professionalized.  We have to be personally motivated to become experts at our jobs and relationships.  Since only we can perform these well, we must individually be determined to do so.

This is not a prescription for the faint of heart.  Even so, I am hoping that it is possible in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Here Comes My Twenty-First Book

When I was much younger, I was not sure I could write something as long as a book. I wanted to, but felt like this was a daunting task.  It must have been because only two of the many people I advised on how to do so followed through.  Now—amazingly—I find I have just published my twenty-first book.

Social Individualism: A Bold Blueprint for Our Futuremay be my most ambitious work to date.  Now available at Amazon.com as a paperback for $10.00 and an eBook for 5.00, it combines many of my previous ideas.  Together these add up to a new way of understanding our current social impasse.

In any event, it has become increasingly difficult for conservatives to publish. The mainstream publishers have virtually decided to withdraw from doing so, except for authors who are so well known that their books sell themselves.  For the rest of us, Amazon.com has been a God sent.

For those of my readers who are wondering how I have been able to publish so many books recently, it is not because I am a super fast writer.   Rather it is because I have updated manuscripts that were languishing in the proverbial drawer.

Thus, my individualism book took shape over the course of several years.  It did so because it required me to change my point of view. I too was caught the cultural war no one is winning.  With liberals and conservatives no longer able to hold a civil conversation, my own discomfort was palpable.  

Moreover, I realized this calamitous situation was destined to continue unless we found an off-ramp.  Actually, I believe I have.  Instead of framing our differences in Marxist terms, we must reconceptualize why we are distraught.  Although we need to decide who should control the means of production, another question has to come first.

Identity politics is currently tearing our society apart.  E pluribus unum has turned into a “my tribe deserves more consideration than your tribe” free-for-all.  Because we, an oppressed people, are discriminated against, fairness demands that our clan obtain a larger share of the social pie.

This has had a deleterious effect on social cohesion.  As Abraham Lincoln argued, a house divided against itself cannot stand. We therefore urgently need to find a means of maintaining unity in a nation of over three hundred million strangers.

The historic ways of preserving solidarity are losing their potency.  Neither the government, nor the free market, nor the Church, has overcome the centrifugal forces pushing us apart.  A new method of encouraging cooperation is consequently essential.

Paradoxically I believe it can be found in social individualism.  Although this sounds like an oxymoron, it is not.  If we become the kind of people who are able to collaborate with one another, then we may not need an external adhesive to do this.

If we are to be saved—and nowadays many Americans are looking to be saved—we must do this for ourselves.  We need to be personally motivated to operate within the social and personal constraints that go with being human.  Not utopian dreams, but hard facts, ought to govern our conduct.

In short, we must be principled realists, emotionally mature individuals, and professionalized decision makers.  Together these factors will enable us to be ourselves within a world in which others are allowed to be themselves.  This way we can compete and cooperate for our personal and collective gains.

If we are committed to moral principles that reduce interpersonal conflict, we can be comfortable operating within a world of strangers.   Honesty, personal responsibility, fairness (defined as the same rules for everyone), liberty, and family values, if realistically implemented, can achieve this.

Meanwhile, emotional maturity can diminish the number of mistakes we make.  Because intense emotions, such as anger and fear, drive everything else from our heads, these have to be controlled.  If not, the self-discipline essential to choosing wisely is impossible.

As for professionalism, unless we are self-motivated experts in what we do, others cannot depend on us to accomplish tasks essential for their well-being. Both on the job and in our families, we must perform our roles sensitively and competently.

  Individualism must not mean separatism.  We are social animals.  Left to our own devices, we want to associate with others of our kind. The question is how?  And the answer is that each of us must be our best social selves.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Pathological Liar: Racist, Sexist, Homophobe, Xenophobe

During his recent announcement of his candidacy for president, Bernie Sanders began by denouncing Donald Trump.  We were told that we cannot afford to reelect our current leader because he is a pathological liar, as well as a racist, sexist, homophobe and xenophobe.  But is this true?

Let’s begin with racism.  When asked for evidence that Trump is a racist, liberals trot out two examples.  One is what he said about Charlottesville.  When he declared there were good people on both sides, he was allegedly asserting that the KKK and Nazis were good.

This is nonsense.   I heard what he said.  It was that there were good people on both sides of the confederate statue controversy. Given that I am one of those in favor of preserving the statues, I cannot endorse the liberal view that only they are good.  As for the KKK and Nazis, Trump explicitly condemned them.

The second racial indictment against Trump is that he wants to close the southern border to keep brown skinned people out.  This would be like saying that we went to war against the Japanese during World War II because they were yellow skinned.

While we were racist a half-century ago, we went to war because we were attacked. Today we are also being attacked. Caravans of Central Americans are determined to break through our defenses.  They rush our borders, throw stones at border agents, and refuse to honor our laws.  Ought they be granted immunity for these acts?  If not, then trying to stop them is scarcely racist.

As for the charge of sexism, this rests on Trump’s history of womanizing. While I cannot condone his behavior, why were JFK, LBJ and Clinton exempt from accusations of being anti-women? All of them cheated on their wives. Could it be that they were given a pass because they were Democrats?

If we look instead at who Trump has hired for important jobs, the charge of being sexist disappears.  He has long based whom he employs on their talents.  This was so when he was in real estate.  It was so at the United Nations with Nikki Haley and during his campaign with Kellyanne Conway.

Next he has been labeled a homophobe.  Where this one came from, I have no idea.  The fact that he tapped an openly gay man to be our ambassador to Germany was obviously left out of the calculation.  To date, I have heard no homophobic slurs out of his mouth or seen discriminatory behavior in his actions.

 The last accusation made by Bernie is that Trump is a Xenophobe.  Its derivation is obvious.  Our president takes pride in promoting America first.  He wants us to defend our shores and obtain more jobs for American workers.  In particular, he wants to withdraw from foreign wars.

This does not mean he hates non-Americans.  While he isn’t an internationalist in the mold of George W. Bush, he believes in patriotism for all nations.  Thus, when he engages in trade negotiations, he wants both sides to gain an advantage. His approach is not zero sum, but intended to enlarge the pie.

All right then, why did Sanders say what he did?  If there is so little proof for his smears, why did he make them?  Here too, the answer is obvious.  Those who vote in Democratic primaries believe them.  They hate Trump with a viciousness that blinds them to simple truths.

So let’s return to how Sanders started.  He began by casually condemning Trump as a pathological liar. This implies that he lies all of the time.  While I admit that Trump engages in hyperbole and is our most transparent president ever, outright lies are another matter.

In fact, the real liars are the liberals.  Deceit is in their blood.  It has to be.  Their programs have so uniformly failed that the only way then can make them palatable is to bend the truth.  ObamaCare is an example.  It did not bring down costs or substantially increase the numbers receiving improved care.

Were this admitted, however, who would trust progressives to nationalize our entire healthcare system?  Even though Barack Obama hiked the costs per family by thousands of dollars, Democrats have no difficulty in claiming that once they provide Medicare for all, prices will go down.

The real truth is that Democrats habitually project their failures on to their opponents.  Whether this is in regard to education, crime, or foreign policy, the strategy is always the same.  Having not had a single new idea in decades, they are forced to sully the reputations of those who might point this out.

So Bernie, please clean your socialist house before you cast aspersions on others.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Marital Complications

I would like to clear up some confusions.  Our current marital difficulties constitute a crisis.  That divorce is sky high, cohabitation has been normalized, and roughly half of our children are raised by single parents, strikes me as a disaster that has to be addressed.  Unless we do, our shared future is in jeopardy.

When I wrote about this several weeks ago, among the reader objections were that not everyone wants to marry, while our churches are already dealing with these issues.  These complaints were well thought out and therefore deserve an answer.

Let’s start with religion.  Christianity and Judaism are plainly engaged in strengthening our families. This is all to the good. Nonetheless, we are an increasingly secular nation.  A nonspiritual way of supporting firm marital unions is, therefore, essential 

Marriage is not, however, for everyone.  More Americans remain single and/or marry later than previously. This is perfectly acceptable.  I have no intension of forcing people into relationships they do not desire.  My main concern is that people who have children must reinforce their commitments so that their offspring receive dependable parenting.

Once upon a time, there were intense pressures to marry.  Before the advent of modern medicine, adults had to be encouraged to have children lest the population decline.  Now that the young usually survive their parents—who incidentally live longer—this is unnecessary.

Given the wealth we have accumulated, there is less need for men and women to enter relationships that make untoward demands.  Many folks have therefore concluded that they should stay single.  Why give up one’s freedom when there is so little advantage to doing so?  

My argument with this conclusion is that it makes a big mistake. It assumes that marriage is more of a hassle than it is worth.  I believe otherwise.  As long as people know how to create a fair union, both parties are apt to benefit.  The trouble is that many do not know how.  They want love and caring, but do not understand how to obtain these.

Like many people, I grew up in a household filled with strife.  My parents seemed always to be at each other’s throats.  This is why I postponed getting married until I was in my sixties.  But when I did, I knew what I was doing and hence I am now receiving advantages I did not believe possible.

When I began teaching marriage and family at KSU—and even more so when I organized symposiums about dating—I realized how insecure many of my students were.  They too did not want to repeat their parents’ mistakes, yet did not know how to avoid them.

Having been brainwashed by the feminists into believing that abuse is an unavoidable concomitant of marriage, they were determined to safeguard their autonomy.  The upshot was that many were lonely.  Social media friends did not compensate for the lack of a reliable face-to-face attachment. Nor was sex the same as love.

That’s why I wrote Saving Our Marriages; Saving Ourselves.  It was, I found, impossible to explain why we marry or how we stay married within the compass of short columns.  It still is.

First, men and women differ.  Furthermore, the two genders cannot make allowances for these differences if they don’t understand them.  This is not to deny that some people desire relations with persons of their own sex. That’s fine with me.  Nonetheless, gays constitute a small proportion of the community.  Heterosexism remains the norm.

If this is true, married couples need to be committed to pursuing moral equality.  Both parties have an identical right to have their desires respected.  Unless they acknowledge this, when they negotiate their differences, they may never discover solutions that work for both.

Before they get there, however, they must select their mates wisely.  Sexual attraction is seldom enough. Unfortunately the very young generally do not know what they want or how to evaluate what a potential partner wants. This is why marriage is not for the immature.

To reiterate, although I am a strong advocate of marriage, I realize that it is not for everyone.   As long as these unions remain optional, some folks should avoid them.  Even so, many more can derive happiness when bonded to another human being.  As long as a pair scrupulously collaborates on shared objectives, both can come out ahead.

I hope this clarifies some of what I meant.  Then again, maybe reading my book is the only way to find out.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Marital Complications

I would like to clear up some confusions.  Our current marital difficulties constitute a crisis.  That divorce is sky high, cohabitation has been normalized, and roughly half of our children are raised by single parents, strikes me as a disaster that has to be addressed.  Unless we do, our shared future is in jeopardy.

When I wrote about this several weeks ago, among the reader objections were that not everyone wants to marry, while our churches are already dealing with these issues.  These complaints were well thought out and therefore deserve an answer.

Let’s start with religion.  Christianity and Judaism are plainly engaged in strengthening our families. This is all to the good. Nonetheless, we are an increasingly secular nation.  A nonspiritual way of supporting firm marital unions is, therefore, essential 

Marriage is not, however, for everyone.  More Americans remain single and/or marry later than previously. This is perfectly acceptable.  I have no intension of forcing people into relationships they do not desire.  My main concern is that people who have children must reinforce their commitments so that their offspring receive dependable parenting.

Once upon a time, there were intense pressures to marry.  Before the advent of modern medicine, adults had to be encouraged to have children lest the population decline.  Now that the young usually survive their parents—who incidentally live longer—this is unnecessary.

Given the wealth we have accumulated, there is less need for men and women to enter relationships that make untoward demands.  Many folks have therefore concluded that they should stay single.  Why give up one’s freedom when there is so little advantage to doing so?  

My argument with this conclusion is that it makes a big mistake. It assumes that marriage is more of a hassle than it is worth.  I believe otherwise.  As long as people know how to create a fair union, both parties are apt to benefit.  The trouble is that many do not know how.  They want love and caring, but do not understand how to obtain these.

Like many people, I grew up in a household filled with strife.  My parents seemed always to be at each other’s throats.  This is why I postponed getting married until I was in my sixties.  But when I did, I knew what I was doing and hence I am now receiving advantages I did not believe possible.

When I began teaching marriage and family at KSU—and even more so when I organized symposiums about dating—I realized how insecure many of my students were.  They too did not want to repeat their parents’ mistakes, yet did not know how to avoid them.

Having been brainwashed by the feminists into believing that abuse is an unavoidable concomitant of marriage, they were determined to safeguard their autonomy.  The upshot was that many were lonely.  Social media friends did not compensate for the lack of a reliable face-to-face attachment. Nor was sex the same as love.

That’s why I wrote Saving Our Marriages; Saving Ourselves.  It was, I found, impossible to explain why we marry or how we stay married within the compass of short columns.  It still is.

First, men and women differ.  Furthermore, the two genders cannot make allowances for these differences if they don’t understand them.  This is not to deny that some people desire relations with persons of their own sex. That’s fine with me.  Nonetheless, gays constitute a small proportion of the community.  Heterosexism remains the norm.

If this is true, married couples need to be committed to pursuing moral equality.  Both parties have an identical right to have their desires respected.  Unless they acknowledge this, when they negotiate their differences, they may never discover solutions that work for both.

Before they get there, however, they must select their mates wisely.  Sexual attraction is seldom enough. Unfortunately the very young generally do not know what they want or how to evaluate what a potential partner wants. This is why marriage is not for the immature.

To reiterate, although I am a strong advocate of marriage, I realize that it is not for everyone.   As long as these unions remain optional, some folks should avoid them.  Even so, many more can derive happiness when bonded to another human being.  As long as a pair scrupulously collaborates on shared objectives, both can come out ahead.

I hope this clarifies some of what I meant.  Then again, maybe reading my book is the only way to find out.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University