Unmitigated Arrogance

It was the Fall of 1944. The American army had broken out of Normandy and was hurtling toward the German border. Far to the east the Soviet juggernaut was poised to smash its way into Berlin. Nonetheless, Adolf Hitler remained confident. Whatever the appearances, Nazism would find a way to prevail.
Certain that he was on the side of history, Hitler ordered his forces to stand their ground. They were not to retreat an inch. But if they did; if they did not hurl back the foe, the German people deserved to lose. If they refused to keep their faith with the fuehrer, then they ought to be punished for their moral and physical weakness.
When I began to contemplate this column, I thought I would be writing about Newt Gingrich. His assumption that providence owed him the presidential nomination struck me as inordinately vain. He was not an Adolf Hitler, but his attitude too seemed destructively arrogant.
Yet Newt has tempered his anger at Mitt Romney. He still talks of taking his crusade to the floor of the Republican convention, yet his heart does not seem to be in it.
Meanwhile, Rick Santorum has emerged as a political monomaniac. He is so certain that he enjoys the mandate of heaven that it often seems he does not care what happens to the nation if his campaign falters. In perceiving himself as the true, and only, salvation for what ails America, it sounds as if he is prepared to pull down the temple if he does not get his way.
The sage heads in the Republican Party are now telling Santorum that continuing the fight will injure the likely candidate and make it probable that Obama will be re-elected. But Rick is not moved. He has persuaded himself that he can still win despite the odds. All he has to do is stand his ground and not retreat an inch.
Members of the media have frequently portrayed Santorum as a zealot. They make him sound like a true believer who is ready to do anything for his cause. Now he seems determined to prove his critics right. In his myopic rigidity, he has taken to distorting reality almost as much as the Nazi’s once did.
Take Rick’s repeated mantras over the last few months. For one thing, he regularly denounces Romney for running a negative campaign. Nonetheless, it is Santorum who has been relentlessly negative. Romney keeps trying to shift the focus onto president Obama’s faults, but he has been forced to ward off attacks from his fellow Republican instead.
Consider the piece of sophistry about how Romney cannot stand up against ObamaCare because RomneyCare is so similar. First, there are important differences between these plans that Santorum blatantly ignores. But more importantly, Obama cannot attack Ronmey’s position, without having to defend his own. And since he cannot do this, Mitt can easily rock him back on his heels.
Then there is the Santorum canard that a floor fight in Tampa will not damage the Republican Party or its candidate. Can anyone seriously believe this? With charges and counter-charges regarding the mendacity and incompetence potential contenders being tossed around like live grenades, is it possible to believe that none of these will go off?
Rick Santorum has proved that he had a lot to say during the past several months. Moreover, he has clearly given us food for thought. But the time for debating the issues is over. The current objective is not to score points; it is to win an election.
If Santorum does not understand this, he is not fit to be president. If he does not care and in the process bequeaths us a second Obama term, he is a rapscallion who is concerned more about his own interests than those of others.
Indeed, if it is the latter, he needs to realize he is digging his political grave.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

The Niceness Trap

For liberals, niceness is an article of faith. They believe that in the best of all possible worlds everyone will be nice to everyone else. Nonetheless, too much niceness can have alarming consequences.
Many of these downsides have been documented in Charles Murray’s new book “Coming Apart.” He makes it plain that millions of poor people have suffered irreparable damage as a result of being treated with a super-abundance of sweetness and light.
Liberals are fond of chiding conservatives for “blaming the victim.” They tell us that backward looking people are too ready to hold the poor responsible to problems they did not create. If these unenlightened troglodytes will only back off and treat those injured by capitalistic excess with respect, these downtrodden souls will be able to overcome their disabilities.
Murray, however, demonstrates just how severe is the plight of the lower classes. On almost every measure, the top twenty percent in our society are doing far better than the lowest thirty percent.
Let us consider marriage. Everyone knows that divorce rates have risen precipitously. Yet many do not realize that middle class couples tend to stay married, whereas poor couples do not. Indeed, the poor have a distressing habit of not marrying at all. They merely cohabit until convenience—or a jail sentence—cleaves them asunder.
This might not seem an insuperable problem, except for the fact that these folks often have babies. They do not wait to tie the knot before they start producing the next generation. Sadly, many procreate even before leaving their teens.
Given that two out of every five children are today born out of wedlock and that their parents are liable to be dirt poor, the impact of non-committed sex can be drastic. Since the children of unmarried parents are likely to grow up poor, uneducated, and unhappy, this means that millions of children are condemned to misery thanks to the unrestrained impulses of their parents.
But liberals tell us that we must be nice. We ought not condemn a disadvantaged teenage girl for having unprotected sex with a guy who is unemployed and strung out on drugs. It is not her fault that life dealt her a faulty hand. After all, she is doing the best she can to survive.
According to them, it makes sense that a woman with meager marital prospects might desire motherhood to compensate for her unhappy fate? Why indeed shouldn’t she seize the few pleasures available to her?
The answer, of course, is that her choices affect others. More specifically, they have dire consequences for her offspring. It may be a cliché to say they did not ask to be born, but they did not. Nor did they ask to be born to irresponsible parents.
Once upon a time we called children conceived under these circumstances “bastards.” By the same token, we condemned their mothers as the next best thing to prostitutes. These women were not treated kindly, hence they and their families sought to hide their shame.
But as the targets of humiliation, they did something else. Even though they were poor, they sought to avoid illegitimacy. Then, if a mistake were made, they rectified it with shotgun alliances.
Beyond this, many of the poor avoided illicit pregnancies because they feared the wrath of the church. Routinely told that they would go to Hell for their transgressions, they controlled their wayward urges. Unfortunately, as Murray has also documented, the poor are no longer going to church in large numbers. Who then is to hold them accountable for their actions?
The poor may not be responsible for having caused their dilemma. But they are responsible for many of the behaviors that perpetuate it. This being so, is it really nice to let them off the hook without a word of disapproval?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Who is College For?

Rick Santorum does not believe that college is for everyone. Apparently neither does Barack Obama. Both agree that some folks are better off with a technical education. But whom does that leave college for?
Let’s agree that it is not exclusively for “snobs.” We are nearing twenty-five thousand students at Kennesaw State University and very few of them fit this appellation. Let’s also agree that college has become too expensive. Certainly the upwards of fifty thousand dollars that some elite universities charge is too rich for most pocketbooks.
Let’s also agree that not everyone has the ability to pursue a higher education. Not only do some people hate academics, but a great many of them do not have the candlepower to deal with the subject matter in which traditional universities specialize.
That still leaves the question as to who can benefit from four or more years of college. Many nowadays think in terms of acquiring marketable skills. They (or their parents) decide that it is worth the effort because they will then qualify for jobs that enable them to earn an additional million dollars over the course of a lifetime.
First of all, let’s understand that not everyone benefits from this monetary bonus. The higher the percentage of the population obtaining a degree, the smaller is the financial differential between college and high school. After all, not everyone is going to become a high-power executive just because they take extra years of schooling.
Nor is every major going to have an equal payoff. If you want to be an accountant, college is pretty much the best place to acquire the requisite skills. But if you major in communications—as many nowadays do—the odds of becoming an on-screen television reporter are slim.
So let me switch gears. Let me share a personal experience. Far too many years ago, when I was an undergraduate, I took a course in anthropology. I’m not sure why I did—I was not an anthropology major—but it turned out to be an eye-opening experience.
One of the books we were required to read was about the Tiwi. Who, you may ask, are the Tiwi? They are an obscure aboriginal tribe living on Melville Island just off the north coast of Australia. Although not particularly important; they made a huge impression on me.
Consider that this is many decades later and I still remember them. I recollect how they went to war by symbolically trying to wound the enemy rather than kill him. I also recall how the older men married much younger women, who nonetheless cheated on them with the younger men by having liaisons in the bush.
Why does this matter? Well, on a certain level, it doesn’t. Ignorance of the Tiwi’s is not going to make or break many careers. Nevertheless, for me, my introduction to them was life changing. It shook me out of a complacency born of an absent-minded ethnocentrism.
Like most people I grew up believing that the world surrounding me was the norm. A majority of Georgians would not agree that the gritty streets of south Brooklyn exemplify the way ordinary people live, but they did for me. It took a college course in anthropology to make me realize that there were alternative ways of living.
Which brings me back to the question of what is college for? My answer is that for many it is preparation to become social leaders. It changes their frame of reference so that they can deal life’s complexities better than they would have had they remained parochial in their outlook.
Universities are not merely about honing technical skills. In some cases, that is their forte. But in many more the goal is to shake us out of the lethargy of youth. In these instances, it is much more about growing up to become a multi-faceted human being.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

The Real One Per-Centers

Not long ago I gave a talk to some Tea Party folks. I was explaining why I think liberalism is destined for the ash heap of history. In making my case, among the things I asserted is that we humans are a hierarchical species. Always and everywhere, we rank ourselves in comparison with others.
Rick Santorum is not my choice in presidential material, but he was correct in also insisting that complete equality is not a good idea. Not only do people differ in their abilities, but also in their achievements.
The way I put it to the Tea Party is that while equality of opportunity is worth pursuing, an equality of results is unlikely. Furthermore, I do not want resources equally distributed. To the contrary, I believe people should get what they earn.
Given that I was addressing conservatives, there was wide agreement with this sentiment. My listeners also believed in personal responsibility and individual effort. Like many not blinded by liberal ideals, they understood that we owe a debt of gratitude to those who perform above the norm.
This insight has become more important with the demonization of the so-called “one per-centers.” Thanks to the Democratic decision to resort to class-warfare, the very rich have been portrayed as lazy parasites.
The image Barack Obama presents when bemoaning the refusal of the wealthy to “pay their fair share” is of smug self-entitlement. But is this the true picture? Are those at the top of the social pyramid self-satisfied plutocrats who are sucking the life-blood from the rest of us?
Well, let’s see. To this end, I consulted Forbes list of the 400 hundred richest Americans. Topping the list, with a net worth of over sixty billion dollars, is Bill Gates. What a surprise, the creative force behind Microsoft is still riding high. Just behind him is that habitual number two: Warren Buffet. The guru of Berkshire Hathaway has fallen to around forty billion, but the stock market has recently hit a few speed bumps.
After this comes Lawrence Ellison of Oracle and then several members of the Walton family. Sam’s kids are making out just fine from the proceeds of Wal-Mart. Nonetheless, the mayor of New York City is hard on their heels. Michael Bloomberg, the creator the Bloomberg news empire, is evidently unwilling to sit back and clip coupons.
Next come the Koch brothers. As Obama’s latest whipping boys, these manufacturing titans are certainly rich. Each approaches the twenty billion range. After this are the masterminds behind Google. Sergey Brin and Larry Paige are only worth about fifteen billion, but then Google is the new kid on the block
Steven Balmer and Paul Allen, who rode to the top on the Microsoft gravy train, are doing okay, if worth only slightly more than ten billion. But who is that sitting right up there in the same neighborhood? Why it is that liberal billionaire investor: George Soros. I guess he should be ashamed of the company he is keeping.
Oh yes, Michael Dell of Dell Computers is right there too with his fifteen billion. One more of these wealthy college dropouts, he did better than Steve Jobs who made the mistake of selling his Apple stock before the company rocketed to a net worth of half a trillion dollars.
What do these folks have in common? Except for the Walton’s, they all made their own fortunes. Even in their case, however, the company providing their wealth is of recent origin.
So where are the Rockefeller’s, Vanderbilt’s, Astor’s, and Kennedy’s? The only conclusion one can reach is that the one per-center’s are not what they once were. Almost all of today’s billionaires have earned their own fortunes.
Does this make them parasites? Have they hurt us in the process of getting wealthy? Or have we too benefited from their efforts?
You be the judge.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Shades of John F. Kennedy

Many commentators have noted the affinity evangelicals have for Rick Santorum. They have voted for him in large numbers because they apparently feel comfortable with his sincere piety. Although he is a Catholic, his biblical principles resonate with them on a gut level.
What the analysts have also noticed is that Santorum supporters are concentrated in agricultural areas. Although Rick regularly alludes to his coal miner roots, it is rural evangelicals who form the core of his support. Meanwhile, these same folks have been averse to Mitt Romney.
My first reaction was that this did not make much sense. Romney, after all, is a transparently moral person whose value system parallels that of evangelicals. Why wouldn’t they recognize this connection and reward it?
My wife provided what I think is the key. She was raised as an evangelical in rural Ohio. In fact, Santorum carried the county in which her parents have their farm.
According to Linda, she met no Jews in growing up. The few she knew about were doctors and lawyers. Nonetheless, they were not the ordinary folks with whom one regularly rubbed shoulders. As such, they were exotic. In other words, it was difficult for her neighbors to identify with them
This put me in mind of the fact that there are few Mormons in rural evangelical areas. As a consequence, they too would seem exotic. While the doctrines of the Mormon Church may strike many Christians as strange, it is probably more important that they have little contact with real live Mormons.
Then I made the connection with John F. Kennedy. When he ran for president, he too had difficulty with rural evangelicals. As Santorum himself reminded us, JFK had to go out of his way to assure these folks that he was an American before he was a Catholic. He essentially told them he could be trusted because he was one of them.
Even so, Kennedy had to select Lyndon Johnson as his running mate. Kennedy did not like Johnson, but he knew that without LBJ’s southern constituents, he was unlikely to be elected. Indeed, this strategy worked. In what turned out to be a very close election, these people made the difference.
To return to Romney, he too makes rural evangelicals feel uncomfortable. Its not just that he is rich and urban. Because his background is so different from their own, they wonder how he will govern. What, they ask themselves, does he really believe? Yet no matter how fervent his assurances, they cannot help but feel uneasy.
Here in Georgia the rural/urban split was once again on display. As was the case in South Carolina, Florida, Michigan, and Ohio, urbanites heavily favored Romney. Actually, they did so in Cobb County. Despite the fact that there are many evangelicals in the Atlanta suburbs, as city dwellers they are comfortable with cultural disparities.
What explains the electoral discrepancy is thus rural isolation, not religion. But times change. As people gain exposure to outsiders, these aliens are transformed into normal human beings.
This is what happened to Catholics. Were once they were foreign to the rural South, today they are a familiar part of the landscape. As a result, rural evangelicals are not frightened by their differences. This is why so many have been able to embrace Santorum with nary a qualm. He is now one of them.
The same transformation is apt to occur with respect to Romney—assuming he is elected president. When people see him day-to-day behaving in ways they find beneficial, he too will be viewed as ordinary and safe. Once this happens, we as a nation will have taken another stride forward.
In the meantime, we are embarked on a learning curve. And make no mistake about it; if Romney gets the Republican nomination, rural evangelicals will vote for him in overwhelming numbers.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Delaware Writ Large?

Christine O’Donnell!
There is a name to be reckoned with. There is a lesson to be learned!
With the primary season upon us, many conservative Republicans are intent on ensuring that their party nominates a sufficiently conservative candidate for president. They want to make certain that the person who gets elected will govern as a conservative—not merely sound like one on the hustings.
Many conservatives also seem to believe that no matter whom they nominate he or she can beat Obama. They are certain that Barack is so badly wounded by his legislative mistakes that a majority of Americans are eager to see him gone.
These same voters seem to have forgotten Ms. O’Donnell. As you may recall, she was the one the Tea Party managed to get nominated to fill Joe Biden’s senate seat. It was initially assumed that the Republican representative from Delaware would coast to an easy victory. But No! With O’Donnell as his opponent, it was the Democrat who romped.
This happened because conservative activists would not settle for moderation. Instead, they got a liberal Obama clone. Their victory in nominating O’Donnell quickly went sour when ordinary Delawareans refused to elect someone who had flirted with witchcraft.
The moral of the story is that American voters have limits. If they perceive someone as extremist, they shy away. No doubt they have been fooled—most recently by Obama—nevertheless they do not want leaders who are out of the mainstream.
The problem conservatives currently face is that the Republican alternatives to Mitt Romney are all regarded as too radical by a large proportion of moderates. Rick Santorum, New Gingrich, and Ron Paul all seem extreme to the swing voters who will determine our next president.
No, let me reformulate the problem. Our real predicament is that a large proportion of Republican voters refuse to believe this cold, hard fact. To use a phrase that got Mitt’s father in trouble, they have brainwashed themselves into thinking that because they love someone, moderates will too.
Sorry! Most Americans believe that Santorum is a religious zealot. They hear that he is against birth control or that he got sick when John Kennedy defended the separation of church and state, and they get weak in the knees. They may be misinterpreting Rick’s convictions, but this is what they think.
As for Newt, people are fascinated by his debating skills, but worry about his propensity to shoot from the hip. There is a reason, other than negative advertising, why Gingrich’s numbers fell like a rock after South Carolina. Many primary voters feared that there would not be enough votes coming from the moon to overcome Obama’ advantage in the regular election.
With Regard to Paul, most voters are not teenagers. They may admire Paul’s sincerity and tenacity, but they do not want his finger on the nuclear trigger.
As an adopted Georgian, I am particularly distressed that another adopted Georgia, namely Gingrich, is leading in the state polls. Having learned at close hand how unstable and vindictive he can be, I cannot imagine that the good people of my home state would vote for him if they were privy to his real character.
The bottom line—what wakes me up in the middle of the night—is that my fellow conservatives might have a “death wish.” Despite protests about seeking an electable candidate, they refuse to recognize that this person is Romney.
Back in the day when we were fighting the Soviet Union, some people would chant, “Better Dead than Red.” Many people seem to have reached a similar conclusion with respect to conservatism. They apparently prefer death to voting for a perceived moderate.
Sadly, if they vote that way on Tuesday, thereby ensuring Obama’s reelection, they will leave our nation, if not dead, then on life support.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Keeping Our Eyes on the Ball

Crunch time is upon us. With Super Tuesday just around the corner, Republican voters will have to get serious about whom they nominate for president. Conservatives who care about the fate of their country can no longer play games when they go to the polls. They must make the proper choice!
The question is therefore: what qualities do we need in the person we send to the White House? Surely debating skills and/or a winning personality must not top this list. Our nation is in too much jeopardy for us to disregard our opportunity to send a problem-solver to Washington.
So what problems need to be solved? Abortion is not one of them, not because it is unimportant, but because no one elected president will be able to do anything about it. Nor need ObamaCare or offshore oil drilling be the deciding factors. In these cases, we can rest assured that all of the potential candidates will repeal Obama’s folly, as well as lift prohibitions against off shore drilling.
No, our central concerns must be the economy and the deficit. What we need is a person with the skills and the temperament to fix these problems. And here the answer is obvious. That person is Mitt Romney. He is the only candidate who has demonstrated an ability in this area. Moreover, he has done so repeatedly; i.e., at Bain, the Olympics and in Massachusetts.
Some say Romney is relying too much on his biography to sell himself to the American people. But what better indicator of a person’s abilities do we have than his or her accomplishments. After all, wasn’t this the reason we elected Dwight Eisenhower president?
Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul all have congressional—not practical, experience. They can boast all they want about saving money, but none has really done it. So, for instance, when Santorum says he will increase manufacturing jobs, the very language he chooses demonstrates that he understands little about how jobs are created.
Santorum, of course, is a great improvement over Gingrich. He, at least, seems to have a moral compass. Paul too appears to be a moral man. But is this enough? While it is a minimum requirement, Romney easily fills this bill as well.
As for Santorum’s primary focus, it is estimable, but off the mark. Rick has been the social candidate. Time and again he returns to abortion and family issues. As it happens, I too believe it is critical that we strengthen the family. Where I disagree is with his assumption that we must do this before we save ourselves from bankruptcy. What good are strong families if we are all in the poor house?
With respect to Gingrich, he is all over the place. Yes, we must protect religion from the government, but what else will Newt do? It is hard to say. Paul, on the other hand, is predictable, but so rigid that he is unlikely to adjust appropriately to unexpected crises.
Then there are foreign policy considerations. While this is the single most important presidential responsibility, none of the Republican candidates has significant experience in this area. As a consequence, we must here rely on their personal dispositions.
Newt, sadly, is a loose cannon who could go off at inopportune moments. Santorum is lacking in gravitas, and therefore unlikely to impress foreign leaders. Paul is an isolationist who may precipitate the very disasters of which he warns. Only Romney has the stability to protect us from international troubles.
If we add things up and prioritize what we need, the answer comes out only one way: Mitt. He may not be the perfect conservative, but his record—when not distorted for political purposes—demonstrates that he is conservative enough.
And besides, Romney is the only one who is electable. Remember moderates have to vote for him/her for a Republican to win.
And make not mistake, this time it is absolutely essential that a Republican come out on top.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

On Getting Rich

Surprise, surprise! Mitt Romney is rich! His tax returns reveal that he is a multi-millionaire who is still deriving tens of millions of dollars annually from his investments. Did anyone think otherwise? So why the outrage? Shouldn’t a man who advertises himself as a successful businessperson have the income to prove it?
Nor would he be alone in his wealth if he makes it to being president. George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, and John Kennedy all got there before him. But of these, Romney is the only one who made his own money.
I came of age under the assumption that almost anyone could become rich in America. This is not quite true, but the opportunities for upward social mobility are real and substantial. In fact, a large proportion of our wealthiest citizens have made their own fortunes—including Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.
I also grew up believing that Americans did not begrudge successful people their achievements. Whereas envy was widespread in other nations, in ours most people hoped to join this elite. Having bought into the American Dream, they assumed that their own actions could lift them above the station into which they were born.
But now class warfare is abroad in the land. Largely thanks to the efforts of Democratic politicians and media pundits, millions of people believe they are being cheated if others do better than themselves. They do not seem to realize that Jobs’ success benefited them; i.e., that had he not brought I-pods, I-phones, and I-pads to market, they would have been less well-off.
Bain Capital has become a bugaboo, but I wonder if the folks working for Staples would agree? Yes, Romney has grown rich, but they too have money in their pockets they might not have had. The same applies to police officers whose pension funds were invested with Bain. They too profited from Romney’s business acumen.
Nevertheless, let me change the subject to riches per se. And let me start here by admitting that I am not rich. As a college professor, I receive a modest income. Given the iniquities of the system, this is probably less than I deserve—but I am not complaining.
How could I in light of the fact that I voluntarily chose my profession? My brother, who is a lawyer, makes several times what I do; hence I—perhaps vainly—assume that had I chosen a different career path I might have done better in monetary terms.
But I made the choice I did—and I would make it again. My eyes were not closed to the economic implications of becoming an academic. I decided to do what I loved, irrespective of the financial consequences. So far as I am concerned, there are other ways to achieve personal satisfaction than having the largest bank account in the neighborhood.
In fact, I never wanted to be rich. The Prius I drive suits me better than a chauffer-driven limousine. And the food that I eat, given that I am a good cook and there are many fine restaurants in north Georgia, is the sort of fare I desire.
So why would I envy Mitt Romney? What does he have, which I do not, that would make my life less burdensome?
Is it his big house? I don’t think so. A bigger dwelling would be too difficult to navigate. Is it his live-in a cook? No, once again I am happy with the status quo. Indeed, I would miss my homemade chicken paprikash.
Being wealthy does not imply a great leap in personal comfort. I, for instance, would resent having a valet lay out my clothing. Likewise, battalions of servants would be a nuisance that interfered with my spontaneity. So why would I want them?
Better yet, why do so many others resent the fact that relatively small numbers of people do have them? Furthermore, is this a reason to insist that we tax them down to our level? Does it really make sense to deprive them of the means to invest in new jobs?
As importantly, would it be to our advantage to deny the presidency to a person who could lead us out of a recession—just because he is rich?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Concern for the Poor

Many years ago I worked as a reporter for the Hudson Dispatch. The paper was located in Union City, New Jersey, just across the river from New York. As a result, the area it served was very urban and, in many cases, very poor.
This was also at the height of Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty; hence it came as no surprise when I was assigned to cover a meeting called by poverty workers to organize the poor. The goal was to empower the downtrodden so that they could demand the benefits that were rightly theirs.
The theory upon which this intervention was based assumed that the poor are poor because the rich keep them that way. It was therefore up to members of the underclass to force this uncaring elite to share their undeserved affluence. Only if the wealthy had their arms twisted, would they disgorge their ill-gotten gains.
Once I got to the meeting, I found the hall packed. There was standing room only, with perhaps a hundred and fifty persons present. Then, the meeting was called to order by its governmentally sponsored organizers. They wanted to know what these poor people needed in order to improve their situation.
At this, pandemonium broke out. It seemed that everyone in the room had an answer that required an immediate hearing. From front to back, virtually everyone stood up to shout out what they believed. So vociferous was this cacophony that no one was able to hear what anyone else said.
These folks were not from the middle class, therefore, they were not accustomed to turn taking. As a consequence, the meeting never did settle down. Indeed, so raucous did it become that it had to be canceled.
Now we are hearing Mitt Romney condemned because he said he did not care about the poor. It did not matter that he quickly amended his words to say that his concentration was on the middle class, but that he would make certain he maintained, and repaired, the current social safety net.
Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich, sensing an opportunity, asserted that he most certainly did care about the poor and would provide them, not with a safety net, but a trampoline, so that they could rise in society.
Gingrich’s words, however, were no more than policy by way of metaphor. What, after all, was the trampoline of which he spoke? The safety net consists of welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and so forth. It may not be deserve rave reviews, but what it is, is known.
If by the trampoline, Gingrich meant jobs, how was he going to supply them? And did he really believe that Romney—who has promised to revive the economy—was going to prevent the poor from getting jobs thereby created? Both clearly intend to increase the middle class by lifting millions out of poverty.
The problem is that it is difficult to help the poor. Caring alone has never been enough. Even the war on poverty, despite expending trillions of dollars, was unable to get the job done. Like it or not, the poor have a way of undermining their own life chances.
We, in sociology, have been fighting over these issues for over a century. Having worked with the poor, I am among those who believe that a culture of poverty is one of the reasons why many people do not do for themselves what they could do if they put their minds to it. Many of my colleagues, however, condemn this attitude as “blaming the victim.” They claim that I am without compassion.
But I say (along with Mitt?) that there are some things only people can do for themselves. I believe, that no matter how many kind words, or trillions of dollars in transfer payments, are on offer, if they don’t help themselves, no one else can.
As a college professor, I see this in action in my classrooms. Many of my students come from disadvantaged backgrounds. But many of these have committed themselves to using a college education to provide them with an economic leg up.
Nonetheless, some don’t take advantage of this opportunity. They don’t study! What of them? Who is responsible if they don’t get out of poverty? Me? Or Mitt? Or rich people in general?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

The Triumph of Evil

Ever since the South Carolina primary, I have been consumed by anger and dismay. That so many good people could have voted for a politician as scurrilous as New Gingrich strikes me as an auger of very rough times ahead.
I am reminded of an observation generally attributed to Edmund Burke. He is often quoted as saying, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Sadly, in South Carolina good people did more than ignore evil: they enthusiastically endorsed it.
As I have previously acknowledged, I am not a religious man. Nevertheless, I have frequently made common cause with evangelicals because we share so many fundamental values. One of these—I had thought—was a belief in the sanctity of marriage. As it turns out, I may have been mistaken.
Years ago, when feminists dismissed marriage as an oppressive and soon-to-be extinct institution, religious folks leaped to the defense of a tradition that they described as essential for the survival of civilized society. At the time, I admired their steadfast courage in the face of liberal ridicule.
Evidently, attitudes have changed. When Newt Gingrich brazenly dismissed his marital failures as the slips of an imperfect human being, evangelicals agreed that this was no one’s business but his. That the man had voluntarily dived into a pool of slime did not alter their opinion that the media should have kept these matters private.
Gingrich seems to have treated marriage as one might toilet paper; that is, as something to be used and discarded as one desires. Once a partner no longer served his needs, he was eager to move on. Not for him the notion that matrimony entails a pledge to remain faithful.
Yet each time that he slipped, he defended himself by claiming that he had discovered religion. I am reminded, however, of the Bible-thumping televangelists who on Sunday morning loudly proclaim their piety, then in the evening prowl red light districts intent on cavorting with prostitutes.
Does anyone doubt that these hypocritical pastors are more concerned with filling their coffers than with providing a model of moral conduct? By the same token, does anyone doubt that Newt’s religious conversions are anything more than a political ploy?
Let us do a thought experiment. Let’s assume that a person has witnessed a murder, and then walks away without any emotional reaction to what has occurred. He/she does not get angry at the murderer, but takes the whole nasty business in stride.
Does this person genuinely believe that murder is wrong? Even if he/she later declares that it is, is this an honest statement of fact? My conclusion is that it is not! People who are not offended by murder do not really think it is wrong. And the same goes for marital infidelity. Those who behave as if it were no big deal don’t consider it a serious moral violation.
For Newt Gingrich, the Ten Commandments are apparently just the Ten Suggestions. Since he is a politician, I find this understandable; albeit unacceptable. For me, it is evidence that he is a slippery toad who does not deserve to be elected dogcatcher.
But when evangelicals adopt the same attitude, I grow frightened. I wonder if this is evidence of a potentially fatal social decadence. Can people who take pride in their moral commitments be so oblivious to corruption and deceit? If so, who is to defend the gates against hordes of self-serving demagogues?
Many of the South Carolina voters seemingly decided to cast their lot with a man they believed capable of out-arguing Barack Obama. I think they were mistaken, but worse—much worse— they had apparently concluded that what is needed is a debater-in-chief, not a commander-in-chief.
Call me old fashioned, but I believe that a president should be a moral role model. That, of course, is not enough. Yet it an essential starting point. I still remember those grammar school lessons about George Washington’s personal rectitude. Back then, I found his example inspiring—and I still do.
Newt Gingrich, needless to say, is no George Washington.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Two Theories of Social Justice

Rest assured, disputes over what comprises social justice are going to arise during the upcoming presidential campaign. The Democrats, in particular, are going to assert that they are the paladins of social justice; that only they can protect the little guy from exploitation.
The validity of this claim, however, rests on how we understand “social justice.” To this end, let us examine two rival views. These may be summarized as the “Robin Hood” and the “Three Little Pigs” theories.
In the Robin Hood version, it is necessary to steal from the rich to give to the poor. According to it, because wealth is unequally distributed, a champion must level the playing field. Only this person can correct unfairness by forcing the affluent to disgorge their ill-gotten gains.
This theory is obviously favored by the Democrats. They insist that everyone must pay their “fair share” and therefore increased taxes must be levied on the upper one percent. Only this can provide a modicum of decency.
In contrast, the Little Pigs version of justice allows the players to keep what they earn. It notes that of the three pigs, only the industrious one invested the effort into building a house of bricks and therefore only his dwelling resisted the efforts of the Big, Bad Wolf to turn him into a pork dinner.
The Republicans favor this parable in that they too believe individuals deserve to benefit from their own efforts. For them, justice is not about achieving full equality, but about guarding human rights—including property rights.
If we translate these theories into contemporary politics, then Barack Obama hopes to play the Robin Hood role. There is, however, a small problem with this. Barack is the president. In this sense, he is the sheriff. He is not a humble outlaw seeking to redress governmental wrongs, but can draw upon the coercive power of the state to enforce his mandates.
Yet, what if we do regard Obama as an outlaw. He has, after all, flouted the constitution at many turns. Then does he, like Robin Hood, get to pick those whom he plunders, as well as those upon whom he showers his favor? Might he, for instance, choose to force one company into bankruptcy while forgiving the debts of another—that is, as long its owners contributed to his campaign?
And what of those Republican pigs? They are presumed to be irredeemably selfish, yet the original little pigs presented a different picture. The industrious pig, it will be remembered, offered his siblings the shelter of his abode. They came to his sturdier house for protection against the wolf.
In the real world, it turns out that conservatives give far more to charity than liberals. They may believe in private property, but that does not mean they are without compassion. The difference is in how people are helped. On the one side, individuals provide succor, while on the other, virtually all assistance is channeled through the federal government?
But what if the latter took over? What if we decided that only the government should provide fairness? With respect to the three little pigs, would this translate into Obama decreeing that each pig be provided with exactly the same number of bricks?
Let’s, however, take this supposition a step further. In taking bricks from the industrious pig, wouldn’t this leave him with too few to build a substantial structure? And, as to the other pigs, what guarantees that they will use their bricks to improve their dwellings?
In the end, the probable outcome of this arbitrarily enforced equality is three ramshackle edifices and one very well fed wolf.
If this sounds absurd, we have, in fact, witnessed the outcome of government enforced social justice elsewhere. It occurred in the old Soviet Union. There the government controlled all of the strings and distributed goods according to formulae of its own devising.
So what did people wind up with? As history records, they were rewarded with both poverty and tyranny. Or, as the libertarian John Hospers used to say, they were well on their way to “splendidly equalized destitution.” —Some justice!
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

The Perfection Trap

About three decades ago when I first attempted to write a book, I ran in to trouble. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t seem to get past the opening ten pages. These never lived up to my expectations; hence I always wound up putting them aside—never to be completed.
Eventually, however, I got fed up with this self-defeating perfectionism. Thus, instead of stopping at page eleven, I decided to keep going. As a result, I completed a manuscript, albeit not one that satisfied my hopes. That’s when I made a profound discovery. I now realized that what I wrote also had to be edited.
Indeed, over the years I have learned that writing is more about rewriting, than instant excellence. One’s prose can always be improved and ideas can always be refined. Even after a work is published, improvements are possible.
As it happens, these days people come to me for advice on how to write. But of them, only one has actually written several books. The others generally find that what they put on paper does not match their imagination and they stop. In the end, they join the multitude who believe there is a book in them that never sees the light of day.
Today, a similar penchant for perfectionism has reached its toxic tendrils into politics. To be more specific, Newt Gingrich has accused Mitt Romney of creating a venture capital company that ruined the lives of thousands. Gingrich, and his minions, assure us that Bain Capital was not nearly as successful as Romney claims.
By now, Newt’s anti-capitalist rants have been thoroughly discredited (as have those of Rick Perry), but there is more to this mischief than deceitfulness or economic illiteracy. It has also added a fresh layer of juvenile thinking to the acid bath of contemporary politics.
According to Newt, it would be enough to condemn Romney if a handful of the companies in which Bain invested went belly-up. This would presumably demonstrate that Mitt is not compassionate. Never mind, if most of his ventures succeeded; he would still be an economic predator. (Or, as Perry has it, a “vulture” capitalist.)
What this implies is a need for perfectionism. Any mistake, irrespective of how modest, is magnified until it is perceived as a wart that covers the target’s entire face. He (or she) is thus distilled down to the essence of a few missteps.
In fact, Bain Capital was wildly successful. It did far better in its investments than most of its rivals. Yet, it too had failures. Many of Newt’s examples are bogus, but not everything Romney and his partners touched turned to gold.
The question is—so what? If we were all required to be perfect all of the time, no books would ever be written, no buildings would ever rise from the ground, and no seeds would ever push their way up through the soil to become nourishing ears of corn. Life would come to a standstill, with everyone afraid to put one foot before another.
Actually, the effects of perfectionism run amok are currently on display in Washington. After all, hasn’t Barack Obama promised us the world and then assured us he fulfilled his word? Didn’t he, for instance, pledge to save or create millions of jobs—and then deliver?
No, wait! There may be some cynics who remain unconvinced of our president’s ability to create jobs. These people have obviously not been listening to Obama’s recitations regarding his numerous achievements. By his lights, these have made him the fourth most productive president of all time.
For those who remain in doubt, my real the point is that people who promise perfection can only sustain this illusion by making claims of success that are as fraudulent as their initial guarantees. Perfectionism is never in the cards; hence those who deal in it are forced to be disingenuous.
When politics refuses to make allowances for human fallibility, when it instead stoops to adolescent idealism, it bars the door to genuine advances. To make the perfect the enemy of the good, as I did before I learned to write reasonably well, or as Newt has done in ridiculing Bain Capital, is to preclude actual improvements.
This stance embraces fantasies over facts. Sadly, if too many of us adopt it, it will be to our eternal sorrow.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Our Second Anti-American President

The current inhabitant of the White House is our second anti-American president. The first was James Buchanan, who during his term of office demonstrated his preference for the South by refusing to thwart the impending Civil War. Obama’s bias has not yet reached such proportions, but it is nearly as egregious.
This judgment may seem to be political hyperbole; nevertheless the evidence to support it is robust. To begin with, Obama comes by his anti-Americanism honestly. His father left this country and returned to Kenya in a snit, while his mother manifested her negative attitude by living as an expatriate in Indonesia for most of her adult life.
In any event, our president’s mind-set has had disastrous implications both domestically and internationally. Indeed, in many ways he has done more damage to the United States than would have been inflicted by a full-scale enemy assault. So let us review the facts.
On the domestic front he has brought the nation to the brink of a budgetary catastrophe. He has also lengthened our economic downturn by supporting policies that discouraged private investment. This, coupled with his disdain for the free market and those who drive it forward, has introduced a host of unnecessary uncertainties.
He has also shown contempt for our political institutions by repeatedly subverting them. To illustrate, instead of healing the nation’s political divisions, he has refused to compromise with the opposition. From the beginning he has been a super-partisan whose mantra has been “it’s my way or the highway.” In addition to vilifying the Republicans, he has refused even to talk to them.
Then too, when it has suited his purposes he has thumbed his nose at the constitution. By his own admission, he has sought to govern without the cooperation of Congress. This strategy too began right out of the starting gate, when he began to rely on so-called unconfirmed “czars” to implement his policies
We have also witnessed his penchant for employing sleazy backroom deals to achieve his ends. This reached a high-water mark with the passage of Obamacare. Not only were its details unread by those who passed the legislation, but it was larded with special benefits for the president’s political allies.
In general, Obama has undermined the democratic culture of our nation by resorting to demagogic tactics. Thus, he promised everything to everyone, but he has also indulged in dishonesty of a magnitude not approached by his predecessors. Democracy depends on trust, yet time and again he has proved himself untrustworthy.
As to the international scene, he has repetitively fawned over our enemies, while disrespecting our friends. We have seen this with respect to Israel and the Palestinians. We have also seen it in his policies toward Russia and Western Europe. The president has even managed to offend our Canadian and Mexican neighbors, while providing succor for socialists in Honduras and Venezuela.
Perhaps worst of all, he is in the process of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, at the very same time that he is allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. To make matters even worse, he is intent on hollowing out our military, just as it faces greater threats.
But now we have two new pieces of evidence regarding Obama’s underlying attitude. Internationally, he is beginning to make overtures to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. It was apparently not enough to undercut our Islamic friends, but we may soon be asked to get into bed with our Middle Eastern adversaries.
And then there are his recess appointments to the new consumer protection agency and the national labor relations board. Even though the president knew that the Senate was not technically in recess, he did what he wanted—the constitution be damned. Obama evidently intends to remake the United States along the lines he prefers.
It was not very long ago that our president promised us change we could believe in. Time has now revealed what he meant. Quite clearly Obama did not appreciate the country he inherited and hoped to convert it into something else. While he portrays this as love, it is really scorn.
Calling a sitting president anti-American is surely extreme, but those of us who are fond of the United States must understand what is occurring, that is, if we are to protect our nation from those who would dismantle it.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Race Relations at KSU

Once Barack Obama got elected, we were supposed to enter a post-racial world. As our first black president, he would bring us all together irrespective of race. Unfortunately things have not worked out that way. Today, those who criticize Obama are likely to be told they are only exposing their racist inclinations.
Worse still, the president’s Attorney-General Eric Holder is fond of censuring whites for their alleged lack of courage with respect to racial issues. Just how disposed Holder is to see things through a racial prism was revealed in an anecdote told by J. Christian Adams in his book Injustice.
It seems that for many years Holder carried a newspaper clipping in his wallet that quoted a black preacher as saying, “ No matter how affluent, educated and mobile [a black person] becomes, his race defines him more than anything else.” Given his actions, Holder apparently continues to think of himself this way.
I am happy to report, however, that on a local level we seem to have made more progress on racial integration than they have in Washington. The South continues to have a terrible reputation when it comes to race relations, but this is belied by what is occurring on the ground at Kennesaw State University.
When I first began teaching at KSU more than two decades ago, barely three percent of our student population was black. Today we are moving to upwards of twenty-three percent. Back then black students left us to go to Georgia State because they found the atmosphere there more congenial. Today the reverse is true.
More than this, I daily witness my students interacting with one another in terms of friendship. There are no ghettoes in my classrooms. To the contrary, members of different racial groups socialize with one another unselfconsciously based on their personal aspirations.
Added to this is the fact that I can never be sure of who will be my best or worst students based solely on skin color. Sometimes the best student is white; sometimes black. As it happens, the same is also true with respect to who gets the lowest grade.
What is the reason for this state of affairs? How has a circumstance that would have been regarded as miraculous a scant half century ago come to be? The answer, I am sorry to say, is not to be found in a particular policy that has been initiated by my university.
It is not that KSU does not have such policies. Like almost every college it sponsors programs to teach about race. It also encourages both courses and student activities that focus on racial matters. Nonetheless, these are not what have made the difference.
It turns out that programs such as “sensitivity training” have almost no impact on racial arttitudes. As Harvard sociologist Frank Dobbin’s research has revealed, these leave their participants unchanged. Why this is so is easy to understand.
Imagine a racist is such a program. He knows what he is expected to say when told that all whites are privileged compared with blacks. Assuming he is not a fool, rather than harm his prospects, he mouths the correct responses; whereas his underlying feelings remain what they were. As to non-racists, they assume that the program has nothing to do with them; hence their attitudes also remain the same.
What then makes the difference? The answer lies in a phrase for which Richard Nixon was roundly castigated. He suggested that the best approach to resolving racial difficulties was “benign neglect.” The government should just step back and allow events to unfold naturally.
This essentially is what has happened at KSU. Way back in the 1940’s another sociologist named Morton Deutsch suggested that if members of different races were allowed to interact with one another, they would soon learn that members of the other group were as human as themselves. Consequent to this, the barriers between them would come tumbling down.
What Deutsch did not understand was that for this policy to work the meeting between the two groups must be voluntary. If they are forced to interact, both sides will resist. Fortunately, what has occurred at KSU was completely voluntary. Blacks and whites have learned to get along because no one has twisted their arms to make them more gracious. They have simply done so on their own.
To which I say—Amen!
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Mitt the Unloved

My wife’s uncle John is a man of the heartland. Born and raised in Ohio, he currently resides on Florida’s west coast. A marine mechanic by trade, and a committed Christian by choice, he is justifiably proud of his skills and his work ethic. A Reagan Democrat politically, he too has been thinking about the next election.
Consequently when John expresses an opinion, I listen. I was therefore taken aback when he declared, “There is something about Mitt Romney that I just don’t like. I’m not sure what it is. I just don’t like him.”
John is apparently not alone. A majority of Republican voters have been frantically switching their allegiance from one candidate to another rather than commit to Romney. Despite the fact that he has the most consistent record of any of the candidates in the debates, they have expressed a desire for Gingrich, Cain, Perry, Paul, or Bachmann rather than him.
Some have suggested that this is because Romney is a Mormon. They say that evangelicals just do not trust Mormons. But John never expressed any such doubts. Moreover, millions of evangelicals love Glen Beck who is equally Mormon. This then cannot be the reason.
Others have argued that it is because Romney is insufficiently conservative. These folks believe that the Tea Party members are demanding the most conservative candidate they can find. In this case, however, they should have eschewed Gingrich. He has been all over the political landscape, but has nevertheless attracted a significant following.
May I, therefore, put forward another alternative. Something that Rick Perry said when he was pleading for a second look may hold the key. Perry complained that Romney was so good looking that this created a distraction when they were sparring during one of the debates.
The problem may indeed be that Mitt is too perfect. His hair is never messed up, his clothes are never rumpled, and he always has something appropriate to say. Mitt, in short, is a straight arrow. He is like that goody-two-shoes who was the teacher’s pet in the third grade. Just like that oh so flawless kid, you want to throw him into the mud to teach him a lesson.
What makes this especially odd is the earlier reaction to Obama. According to Ron Suskind, when Barack was running for president many in his entourage referred to him as Jesus. They apparently thought of him as so perfect that he could save the nation from Republican cupidity. For them, this was not a disqualification, but a source of enormous pride.
Republicans, however, seem to be a bit more realistic. As people who are attuned to the limitations inherent in the human condition, they are suspicious of anyone who appears unblemished. They fear that such a person is too good to be true; hence if he or she gains power, the insensitivity behind the mask will emerge to cause untold harm.
Barack’s saving grace was that he appeared affable. He seemed to be a nice guy. Today we know that he maintains an emotional barrier between himself and the rest of the world. Mitt unfortunately is stiff in comparison. It is as if there is a robot hiding underneath his tidy exterior.
But I suspect that the mistake we are making is the reverse of the one we made with Barack. I believe that Mitt is more decent and human than he generally reveals himself to be the public. This side of him, however, peeked through during an interview he gave to Fox’s Chris Wallace.
When asked about his wife’s health, Mitt was forced to discuss issues he usually keeps private. Up until that moment I had not realized that his spouse suffered from MS. This is because he had not brought up the subject in an effort to gain sympathy. He and his family had merely dealt with it in the matter-of-fact way of problem-solvers.
But what really grabbed my attention was the moistness in Romney’s eyes as he disclosed these matters. At no point did he ask for pity, yet in his tight-lipped way he convinced me that here was a man who genuinely loves his wife.
But he did more than that. His unfeigned modesty also convinced me that he is a man who genuinely loves his country. And I want someone like that for president!
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

In Praise of Foresight

Forgive me if I have used the following illustration before, but in the light of our current political situation it seems particularly germane.
As it happens, World War II came to an end just as I turned four. At the time, my family was on vacation in the Catskill Mountains. Coincident with this, my uncle Milton, who had recently returned home after having served with Patton’s army, came to spend the day with us.
Having never seen me before, he decided to take me for a walk down a country road. Concerned for my welfare, on several occasions he asked if I had grown tired and wished to return to the guesthouse where we were staying. Each time I replied that I was not and that we could keep going.
Eventually, however, I asked if we could turn around. At this, he once more inquired into whether I was tired and I again responded by telling him that I was not. But then I added that I would be by the time we got back.
My uncle was so impressed with my foresight that he subsequently told this tale many times. He was especially astonished that a child so young could think so clearly into the future. Today I am retelling this story because I am equally astonished by the degree to which adult voters are currently refusing to use foresight regarding the upcoming presidential election.
Let me begin with the Democrats. How is it possible that biologically adult human beings can fail to understand the implications of a national debt that threatens to reduce us to a large-scale version of Greece? With the example of the European financial meltdown before our eyes, how can voters ignore the potential consequences for our children and grandchildren?
Yet instead of reducing government expenditures, the Democrats have decided to engage in class warfare. In the hopes of getting reelected, they have decided that this short-term gain is worth courting long-term disaster. Even worse, they have decided to enrich themselves and their political allies while this catastrophe unfolds.
The Republicans, however, are little better. They may understand that payoffs to the unions, political contributors, and crony capitalists are a recipe for national bankruptcy, but they do not seem serious about replacing the current administration with a more responsible one.
Over the past several months we have witnessed numerous polls revealing an electorate that is operating more like a pack of lemmings than a collection of serious decision-makers. Instead of looking forward to determine who can best solve our shared problems, people have shifted their loyalty from one crowd favorite to another.
Today Newt Gingrich has surged to the head of the pack. People love his feisty debate performances, but why aren’t they thinking ahead to the sort of presidential candidate he would make, or, more importantly, the sort of president he would be?
While Newt makes a good showing against fellow Republicans when standing together on a common stage, what will happen if he shares this venue with Obama? Rest assured, Barack will take the gloves off. He won’t be reluctant to point out Gingrich’s flip-flops, or to condemn his lobbying efforts, or to impugn his character.
There is a reason that the president’s campaign managers would rather run against Newt than Mitt Romney. They, at least, have the sense to realize that Gingrich is vulnerable on many counts. A flawed human being and politician, Newt makes a tempting target—however much he declares his eagerness to mix-it-up in debate.
And as to his becoming president, here the past is the best predictor of the future. Don’t people remember how hated Newt was when he was Speaker of the House? Back then, just as now, he wrangled with reporters. The difference is that back then he did it virtually every day and that the reporters returned his contempt in kind.
Can you imagine this sort of contention if Gingrich gets elected? Not only would the electorate that put him in office soon come to loath him, but the wheels of government would quickly grind to a halt. With all of the in-fighting, there would be precious little problem solving—to the continued detriment of nation.
Gingrich may have big ideas, but if they are only verbal flourishes that are never translated into effective action, what good will they do us?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Christmas in a Secular Society

I am a lapsed Jew. My wife was raised an evangelical. Indeed, we are both about as secular as one can get. Nevertheless, we celebrate Christmas. Notice I did not say the holidays. I said Christmas—for that is what I meant.
Nowadays many people object to the public display of Christian beliefs. They tell us that this is a violation of the freedom of religion. According to these critics, placing a crèche in a public place is tantamount to forcing particular beliefs on innocent bystanders.
My own view is that this is absurd. Even when government sponsored, such exhibitions force nothing on anyone. They are merely a way of honoring a religious tradition from which we have all benefited.
Like it or not, our society sprang, in part, from Christian roots. The founders were Christian and this inspired much of what they did. Why then should we be ashamed to acknowledge, and venerate, our shared heritage? History is history and cannot be wiped clean by the mere act of ignoring—or disinfecting—it.
In any event, my wife and I are pleased to honor what we both recognize as part of our personal birthrights. We put up a Christmas tree and travel a significant distance to celebrate the holiday with her parents. We also give gifts, and for that matter, light the Chanukah menorah.
We do so because we love the spirit of the holiday. The story of the birth of the Christ child is inspirational. It is so even for nonbelievers; that is, if they are open to the message of this venerable tradition. Christ was presumably born to save the world—and that is not a bad thing.
But more than this, that a child is regarded as enormously important has momentous implications for each succeeding generation. The central message of Christmas, after all, is love. It is about the love that the deity brought to his creation. And, as significantly, it is about love that has been channeled through a child.
When I was small, my family did not have a Christmas tree or celebrate Christ. Nonetheless, Santa Claus visited our house. While we did not have a chimney, he still managed to leave a great many gifts under the stockings we hung from a bookcase. As a consequence, Christmas morning was magical for my sister and me. We adored tearing open our presents to see what was inside.
What was it that made these moments especially memorable? --Why, it was that these were free gifts. Despite all the talk about a need to be nice rather than naughty, they were left for us merely because we were children. As a result, they confirmed our value and the fact that we were loved.
Christmas is thus an annual expression of intergenerational love. It provides us all with an opportunity to strengthen the bonds between parents and children, and in the process provides children with a gift more precious than any toy.
A central truth of the human condition is that happy adults develop from happy children. To know that others care about us, plants the seeds of a contented life. We all need love, for without it life is barren and sometimes unendurable. It is a cliché, but love gives us a reason to live. It provides the warmth that allows us to survive the chill of an occasionally hostile world.
Years ago when I was a clinician, I routinely worked with clients for whom Christmas was a burden. Having been unloved as children, they found a holiday that celebrated tender caring to be depressing. Because it reminded them of what they did not have, the pain of its absence could be sharper than a serpent’s tooth.
So what is the message of all this? It is not that we should discontinue Christmas because it causes vulnerable individuals pain. To the contrary, we must continue to celebrate the holiday’s central meaning. An event that encourages us to transmit love to the young cannot be allowed to languish. It must continue to be a source of personal and social strength.
If people object to the origins and religious trappings of Christmas, I say let them play Scrooge in their own homes. They are not defending my freedom when they seek to expunge the shared joy of a treasured tradition. For my part, I continue to wish a merry Christmas to those of us who embrace the holiday’s intent—and a happy holiday to those who don’t.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

The Illegal Aliens in the Cellar

Illegal Aliens have been in the news again. And as has become usual, one of the questions is whether or not to offer them amnesty. This time Newt Gingrich is the one who has suggested partial amnesty. He denies it, but in permitting people to stay in the country because they have been here a long time, he has proposed exactly that.
One of the reasons habitually proffered for making such exceptions is that it is impossible to send all of the illegals back to their homelands. With an estimated eleven to twelve million residing here, it is alleged that the logistics of such a roundup are unworkable.
The specter that is raised is of an army of immigration agents spreading out across the nation to hunt down helpless old ladies and children as they cower in someone’s cellar seeking to avoid capture. It is as if an American-made Gestapo will be necessary to get the job done.
In fact, this is just a scare tactic of those who wish to promote citizenship for lawbreakers. Whether they are Democrats who hope to gain more Hispanic votes or Republicans seeking cheap labor, the bottom line is that they do not wish to enforce our laws against unauthorized immigration.
But herein lies the secret of the humane control of our borders. It is all about enforcing the law. If we take our own regulations seriously and apply them when they are relevant, the problem can be solved.
Two things are necessary in order to bring the flood of undocumented aliens to a halt. The first is to close the border. Whether this involves a fence or hiring more border patrol agents, before we send illegal immigrants back we must cut off the flow of new ones. If do not, we will be doing nothing other than empting the pool with one hand while refilling it with the other.
The second requirement is to cut off the magnet. As long as there are significant benefits to be derived from sneaking over the border, people will continue to do so. They will risk being caught because the rewards outweigh the potential punishment.
Unfortunately it is even more difficult to remove this lure than to interdict the flow of non-citizens. One way to get at this is to punish employers who hire undocumented workers. If we make it unprofitable to flout the law, they may decide to obey it. As a result, the jobs that illegals hope for will no longer be available to them.
But a second strategy for removing the attraction is to make it less comfortable to reside in this country. If the costs of doing so are substantially greater than leaving, reasonable people may decide it is time to go home.
This is why it is important to deport the illegals found living within our country. People must know that if they are discovered, the law will be enforced. They must be made to feel insecure. Only if they are, are they likely to conclude that evading detection is not worth the effort.
But there is no need for a heartless roundup. All that is necessary is to extradite those individuals found to be here illegally as they are encountered in the ordinary course of business. We don’t require cattle cars filled with desperate souls headed to the border. All we need is one individual after another obliged to leave and then prevented from returning.
The trick is to have a Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of every illegal immigrant. If they fear that their turn to be ejected will be next, they may voluntarily decide it is best to return from whence they came.
This strategy is comparable to the one that Rudy Giuliani use to slash New York City’s crime rate. By enforcing the laws, even the trivial ones, he sent potential criminals a message. They were essentially told that they would not be given a free pass and hence should think twice before they decided to do wrong.
The same holds true for illegal immigrants. If we treat the laws against entering this country illegally as if they are trivial, they will be regarded as trivial. But if we take them seriously—which means imposing the appropriate sanctions—they are apt to be regarded as serious.
Legal immigration ought to be welcomed, but the illegal sort should remain illegal—or else we are just playing games. It is therefore time for us to decide what we truly believe.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

The Fall of the Faculty

I have a new hero. He is Benjamin Ginsberg, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University. For many years now college professors, such as myself, have been under assault. Indeed, we have been accused of all manners of evil.
Now Ginsburg has come forward with a ringing defense of our virtues, while offering a new set of villains. They are the college administrators. In “The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters” he explains that things are not always what they seem.
But before I detail some of Ginsburg’s claims, let me make it clear that we professors are not blameless. In the rush to effect “social justice,” many of us have foisted political correctness on relatively defenseless undergraduates. Too often, the classroom has become a scene of indoctrination rather than education.
And yet, as Ginsburg asserts, we professors are not alone in this. Our bosses, the college presidents, provosts, and deans, have also been ardent fans of racial and gender agendas. Indeed, most are similarly left wing in their politics. Furthermore, they have utilized social issues to control an otherwise unruly faculty.
When race, gender, and social class are put center stage, they provide an excellent rationale for imposing strict standards on the faculty. The professors can be sent for sensitivity training and held to account for violating ideological dictates. Even though college professors are among the least biased persons in the nation, they can be intimidated for failing to comply with administrative mandates.
Much of this is done in the name of improved educational outcomes. Yet I am reminded of 110 Livingston Street. As the former headquarters of the New York City Board of Education, during the 1960’s it became synonymous with bureaucracy run amok. Crammed with administrators who multiplied like rabbits, it spewed out regulations that paralyzed, rather than facilitated education.
Today we see the same pattern developing in higher education. It too is churning out administrators at a greater rate than needed. Indeed, the proportion of administrators is expanding at nearly twice the rate of the faculty. In other words, instead of keeping the ratio of professors to students low, it is the ratio of administrators to students that is declining.
Put another way, professors must now teach more students, whereas individual administrators are responsible for fewer learners. But how, one may ask, is this supposed to improve scholarship? After all, administrators don’t do the teaching—professors do; hence the mystery.
And then there is the problem of cost. Many people rightfully complain about the escalating expense of a college degree. They assume that this is because the professors keep earning more for doing less, but this is mistaken. If anything, the administrative bloat is at fault.
Because there are now twice as many administrators per student, this demands additional dollars. But the situation is worse than this considering that administrators are paid far more than professors. In fact, they often earn two, three, four, five, or more times as much as their underlings.
Consider this. In order to be promoted from an assistant to an associate professor an academic has to run a challenging gauntlet. He or she has to accumulate excellent teaching evaluations, publish several articles or books, and engage in demonstrable services to the college and his/her discipline. Then, only if his/her colleagues, chairpersons, deans, and provosts are satisfied, will advancement be granted.
For this, the new associate professor will receive a raise of between two and three thousand dollars. Meanwhile, if this same person is appointed to an administrative post, the raise is generally twenty, thirty, or forty thousand dollars.
So where do the incentives lie? Is there any question about why so many professors covet an administrative role? Similarly, are there any doubts about why administrators engage in empire building by creating legions of loyal lieutenants?
And so the game of dismantling higher education goes on—with power, not learning, the central consideration.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Mitt the Pragmatist

Mitt Romney is stuck in the polls. No matter how many sterling performances he turns in during the presidential debates, a large proportion of conservatives do not trust him. They fear that he is not really one of them; hence they are hoping someone else will grab the nomination away from him.
Having apparently changed his mind about abortion and health care, Mitt stands accused of being a flip-flopper. Many people worry that he has no central core. They perceive him as a man without convictions; who, once in office, might abandon whatever promises he makes.
I, however, doubt this. To illustrate why I feel this way, let me refer back to George H.W. Bush. Do you remember how when he was running for office, he was accused of lacking a “vision” for the nation. His detractors suggested that he had no strong beliefs and therefore was not presidential material.
In fact, Bush did have strong convictions. It was merely that these were different from those of most Americans. Bush, it must be remembered, came from the upper class and he saw things from this perspective. His vision—what he most believed in—was stewardship. As the recipient of inherited advantages, he believed he had a responsibility to preserve what made America great.
But most Americans inherited neither wealth, nor power. They did not want to preserve what was good so much move up the economic and social ladder. From their perspective, they did not see how defending the nation’s traditional institutions would provide them with the opportunities they sought. They expected something more.
To return to Romney; his background is also different from that of most Americans. The son of a self-made industrial leader (George Romney), he grew to maturity with a great deal to live up to. While having a powerful parent intimidates most people, Mitt felt confident enough to compete. If anything, he was apparently determined to do better than his dad.
And, in fact, so far he has. Now he hopes to succeed where his father did not—in a quest for the presidency. But this would be based on a commitment he inherited from his dad. One thing the two had in common was a desire to be pragmatic. Their shared goal was to make things work; which Mitt has done—with a vengeance.
This was revealed in his pursuit of a successful business career. Mitt jumped into the marketplace with two feet and did what it took to make companies profitable. Then, he saved the Salt Lake City Olympic games from financial disaster. Where others made a mess, he used his intelligence and people skills to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
After this he became governor of Massachusetts. A Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, once more his pragmatism rose to the fore. While his healthcare plan has drawn justifiable criticism, he was able to make it more reasonable than his opponents would have preferred.
So now he is running for president as a pragmatist. He may not succeed, but he is doing so as a person committed to winning. Moreover, this is the attitude that he would bring to the office. It is who he is—and will not change.
As for me, I prefer a pragmatist to a dogmatist. I am tired of having an ideologue in the White House. I want someone committed to making the United States a going concern; moreover someone with the intelligence and flexibility do so. I also want a candidate who can learn from mistakes and make adjustments that work.
Now, with our nation facing a massive crisis, is not the time for ideological litmus tests. We desperately need someone who can fix what is broken, not someone who will continue down a path toward failure. Haven’t we seen enough of this with Barack Obama?
Yes, Mitt has changed his mind. Yes, he today claims to stand for things he did not the day before yesterday. Some people condemn this as a fault. They tell us it means he is shallow. But I say it is the mark of a man who learns. And I, for one, want a president who can learn, because that is the person who is apt to get things right.
There is too much at stake to demand ideological purity. We are talking about the future of our nation; and that of our children and grandchildren. We cannot let them down. So let us swallow hard and vote for competence.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University