Is Government Health Care a Right?

Next November we Americans must make a big decision. When we vote, we will go a long way to determining whether government provided health care is a fundamental “right.” Many Democrats clearly believe it is. Their giddiness at passing ObamaCare demonstrated the degree to which they consider this a pressing moral issue.
Yet I remember a similar “historic” inflexion point. Way back in the 1960’s I was working for the New York City Department of Welfare. As a caseworker, part of my job was to inform the public about our programs. This put me square in the middle of an earlier liberal crusade.
The War on Poverty was then at its height, hence I was required to distribute brochures explaining that welfare was a personal “right.” The poor needn’t be ashamed of applying for assistance because this was a benefit to which they were entitled.
The result of this publicity blitz was a huge deluge of new applicants. Many thousands of people literally lined up to procure their share of the promised bounty. Soon, however, the system was overwhelmed. Money was leaving the city’s coffers more quickly than it was coming in.
Something had to be done, so the city fathers got creative. Instead of the usual three receptionists at each welfare center, they reduced the number to one. This created a bottleneck, with the resultant queues stretching clear around the block. Indeed, the waiting time became so daunting that many prospective clients voluntarily dropped out. They decided that the gain was not worth the inconvenience.
A parallel occurrence subsequently took place in Canada and Great Britain. The demand for their government provided medical services outstripped its availability; hence they too resorted to circuitous rationing. They did this by instituting literal waiting lists. Now their patients often had to delay treatment for many months.
This, unfortunately, is what happens when a “good” is converted into an unlimited moral “right.” The demand eventually goes through the roof such that indirect means must be employed to restrict it.
Something else also happens. Those who possess the right become obsessed with receiving their due. Back in New York, this became evident during my talks with clients. Time and again they fretted about how to retain their eligibility. Instead of contemplating methods for getting a job or starting a business, they plotted techniques for keeping their cases open.
Nor could I blame them. Free money was, after all, free money. Nonetheless the consequence of this attitude was passive dependence. Instead of taking care of their needs, they surrendered their futures to the goodwill of their protectors. In the end, rather than moving up in society, they became trapped in their own impotence.
Sadly, this may also be the effect of a healthcare entitlement. Once medical assistance is solely delegated to government bureaus, people may be less concerned with doing for themselves what only they can do.
Quality healthcare is not just a matter of going to the doctor. It also concerns how we eat, exercise, and follow medical advice. This being the case, a lack of personal responsibility can be devastating. It can turn a benefit into a curse.
Were availability of physicians the only constituent of good health, the poor would currently be far better off than they are. Medicaid—which is already free—would have produced much better results than it has. No, what is also needed is the mindset to take advantage of opportunities. Ironically, personal responsibility tends to be undermined by an entitlement mentality.
Medical care can be expensive, hence there is no doubt some form of social insurance is necessary. Nevertheless, to go from circumscribed assistance to an indefinite “right” is a huge step. This is measure we may wish to rethink before endorsing ObamaCare’s blank check.
If we do not, we may shortly be replaying the War on Poverty. And soon thereafter we may be contemplating the effects of national—and personal—bankruptcy.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

The Most Dangerous Man in the World: Karl Rove

Karl Rove is hated. Reading his autobiographical book Courage and Consequence (My Life as a Conservative in the Fight) is a reminder of just how much he is despised. Time and again, he recalls examples of opponents who not only sought to defeat him, but who also wanted him dead or in jail.
This is especially curious in that his work makes him sound preeminently likable. But then again, likeability has nothing to do with the disdain in which his enemies have held him. Ironically, it appears to be his virtues that were the chief source of their contempt.
We may begin to understand this paradox by noting what happens when the shoe is on the other foot, which is to say, when liberals hold power. Shortly after Democrats passed ObamaCare, they became aware that opposition to this measure was as strong as ever. Members of the tea party movement, in particular, had been roused to high dudgeon.
To this liberals responded with moral indignation. They began by accusing their critics of racist and fascist inclinations. Somehow these opponents habitually shouted vulgar epithets that only sensitive left-wingers heard. Clearly something had to be done. These anti-democratic diatribes had to be silenced.
The point of this observation is that liberals believe in free speech—but only for themselves. If others are as vociferous as they in making their points, they interpret this enthusiasm as a threat to civilization. They—which is to say the liberals—consider themselves the epitome of enlightened civilization, hence anyone who opposes them must be a menace to progress and decency.
Which brings us back to Rove. When at his most influential, he was much more than a dissenting voice. He represented an enemy who had seized power from its rightful possessors. He was the face of that most dreaded of liberal bugaboos; the one who achieves victories.
So far as most Democrats were concerned George W. Bush was an illegitimate president. He was too stupid and shallow to be chief executive; and far too inarticulate to be leader of the free world. Worse still, he had stolen two elections from Democratic candidates who were far better qualified for the office than he.
And who was responsible for this injustice? It couldn’t be Bush. The man did not have the intellectual resources to make it happen. No, it had to be a power behind the throne. It had to be a Mephistophelean figure that pulled the strings. That man, of course, was none other than Karl Rove. He was the “architect,” the one who molded Bush as one might a piece of pliant clay.
It did not matter that several recounts of the Florida vote, often by liberal sources, confirmed that Bush came out ahead. Nor did it matter that Democrats were the ones who sought to change the rules after election day such that they could cherry pick votes only from the counties in which they were presumably strongest. It didn’t even matter that the Supreme Court came down decisively against them. Liberals were right and therefore deserved to win.
The only plausible explanation for these reverses was that the opposition had stolen the victory. They must have done something illegitimate, otherwise virtue and integrity would have prevailed. And who was the moving force behind this deviousness. Why it must have been that evil genius Karl Rove. Only he had the intelligence and malice to achieve it.
Did it matter that there was no evidence to support this thesis? It did not! Or did it is count that what was attributed to Rove was often physically impossible. No, it certainly didn’t. All that mattered was that someone did something reprehensible and he was the most likely contender.
When four years latter Bush defeated Kerry, this theory was confirmed. Rove might claim he had nothing to do with the Swift Boat Veterans criticisms of their nominee, but that could not be true. It had to be him. Only he had the evil brilliance to make it work. Only he could have thought it up or orchestrated its implementation.
Reading Rove, however, provides a very different interpretation. Allowing for the fact that his book must, to some extent, be assumed to be self-serving, his explanations nevertheless ring true. Whatever else Rove may be, he comes across as a modest and competent professional. Unlike his hysterical critics, he does not appear to be carried away by implausible conspiracy theories.
And this seems to be one of his greatest strengths. Precisely because he is not given to vengeful passions, he is better able to assess what works than his detractors. Moreover, this level-headedness most pointedly includes his mistakes. Rove seems able to admit when he is wrong and therefore to fix his missteps. He does not excuse them by blaming them on the fictional machinations of his opponents.
By the way, Rove makes it clear that Bush is neither stupid nor weak. The ex-president may have his limitations, but he also has strengths—strengths Rove was able to exploit for political purposes.
In any event, Rove’s book is a treasure trove of multi-faceted insights; insights concerning both his private and professional life. As a result, anyone with political aspirations ought to read it as Baedeker to campaign management.
But more than this, his is an account of how a shrewd, sensible, and amiable human being can make his way through the hazardous shoals of American politics with this sanity intact. Despite all the malignant abuse heaped on him, he has managed to retain his perspective and to avoid returning hatred in kind. In the end, I was rooting for him to come out on top—and he did.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Sausage-Making: Why “Process” Matters

Something odd happened when Barack Obama went on Fox News to defend his medical reforms. When asked about the legislative procedures used to advance his programs, he coyly averred that he was not much interested in “process.” What mattered to him was protecting the health of the American people.
This was particularly strange because the president was then up to his eyebrows in the process of passing his bill through the House of Representatives. He might proclaim the importance of “substance,” whereas his greatest efforts were reserved for deal-making and arm-twisting. He even went so far as to issue an executive order regarding abortion in order to seduce the last few Democratic holdouts.
Nevertheless, process does matter. It matters deeply. Indeed, when process becomes too distorted, it is transformed into a violation of substance.
We must never forget that Democracy is about process.
So is the Constitution.
And so is the Bill of Rights.
These processes are what protect us from tyranny and demagoguery. They are what enable the us to stymie the aspirations of would-be despots. These rules provide the means of saying No when the will of the people is being violated.
It may be harsh to say, but Barack Obama fits the dictionary definition of a demagogue. Can it be doubted that he is using poplar prejudices and false claims to advance his own agenda? Can it be denied that he seeks to manipulate public emotions in order to enhance his own power?
Right after his bill passed, the president went on television to announce that he had listened to the voices of the people when he manifestly had not. He surely recognized that the polls were against him, but did not care. Convinced that he knew best, he would do whatever it took to prevail.
How many times in recent months have Obama and his minions pulled out the crying towel? How often have they pointed to the supposed plight of individuals in order to arouse public sympathy? It was not the merits of their program that concerned them so much their ability to mobilize emotional support.
And how many times have they resorted to corrupt deals to collect legislative votes? It seemed that no invidious dispensation was beyond them—as long as it served to buy a ballot. They were even prepared to use the patently unconstitutional “deem and pass” (or was that demon pass) if needed. Indeed, they are still prepared to violate tradition by resorting to reconciliation in the Senate.
What is more remarkable is that Obama and his associates are prepared to defend these violations as “business as usual.” Everyone, they tell us, does it this way and therefore it is no big deal. –Maybe so, but no one in living memory has done it on this grand a scale.
The Democrats—who are democratic in name only—also tell us that legislating is a messy business. It is like making sausage; hence it is best not to look too closely at the details. Evidently they have not read Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. In this work, Sinclair described how meat packers once included rat feces and human body parts in their sausage. Today it is legislators who are doing the equivalent.
Sadly, Obama and his friends seem oblivious of what they include in legislation. This is troublesome because in the past it was the government that intervened to regulate the food industry. And it did a good job too. But now the government is itself engaged in unsanitary practices. As a result, it is up to us to do the regulating. It is now we who must defend democracy!
Benjamin Franklin when asked what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had produced replied “A republic—if you can keep it.” Well, the crunch has come. It is now up to our generation to preserve the freedoms our forefathers bequeathed us. Obama and his anti-democratic crowd cannot be allowed to get away with their assault on our time-tested institutions.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

The Liberals’ Biggest Mistake

How well do you know Barack Obama? Do you know him as well as your father? Or your uncle Jack? Or your cousin Sue?
The answer to all of these questions is probably “not that well.” A great many people were certainly surprised by the sort of president Obama has turned out to be. What they saw on television during the campaign has not accorded particularly well with what they currently see as he performs his office.
Think too of one of Obama’s many promises. On more than one occasion he pledged to be his brother and sister’s keeper. He would look after our personal welfare as if we were his very own siblings. But guess what? He is not my brother. Nor do I expect that he is one of yours.
And herein lies Obama’s biggest mistake; one he shares with liberals in general. Obama thinks that society is—or should be—one big family. Moreover, he and his political allies perceive themselves, if not as our surrogate parents, then at least as our protective older siblings. They therefore intend to safeguard us from our personal follies.
This, of course, is the patent medicine they are now attempting to sell us with regard to health care. Unfortunately many of us refuse to see this reform as in our interest; hence it must be forced upon us much as cod liver oil was once forced down the throats of small children.
The trouble is that Obama is not, in fact, our well-meaning parent or brother. Nor are his congressional associates our altruistic elder siblings. They are politicians who merely claim to be the equivalent of our relatives. Indeed, if we listen carefully, they admit as much.
Thus, one of the arguments that has been used to persuade reluctant Democrats to vote for Obamacare is that if they do not, the president’s political capital will be irreparably damaged. In other words, they are being asked to care more about his interests than those of their constituents.
The point—and it is not a trivial one—is that we are not members of a single extended family. We—all three hundred million of us—are not biologically related. Nor do we usually behave as if we were. We may be human, and reside within the same boundaries, but this does not convert us into genetically linked intimates.
The fact is that we do not—and cannot—constitute a single family. There are simply too many of us. It is both physically and psychologically impossible to treat each other as actual kin.
First, we cannot literally meet, never mind know, hundreds of millions of others. We may depend upon these strangers for our livelihood, but that is not the same as distinguishing between them as individuals. This means that Obama cannot hope to address a host of diverse needs it is impossible for him to identify.
Second, we cannot literally care for hundreds of millions of others. Our biology is such that we human beings are capable of loving only a relatively few. Therefore, when politicians claim they love all their fellow citizens this is at best a figure of speech. They, including Obama, are essentially manipulating our need to be loved for their own purposes.
Speaking now as a sociologist, I must again point out that we are not, in fact, family. We are not biologically related. Ironically, that we must sometimes cooperate as if we were is perhaps the central problem of modern mass societies. We are, in reality, what sociologists call a Gesellschaft society, that is, a community of strangers who often act as if we were not.
To repeat we are not family, hence to pretend otherwise is a huge mistake. Moreover, assuming so can lead to horrendous errors. For instance, to imagine that faceless bureaucrats would administer government run health care as if we were members of their own families could prove ruinous.
Obama and company may mean well, but their assumption that we are one big family is more than silly. It is an intellectual fiction of which we must all be wary.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

In Praise of: Intellectuals and Society

I am not much given to hero worship. But if I do have heroes when it comes to writing editorial-style essays, they are Charles Krauthammer and Thomas Sowell. Krauthammer is one of the most perceptive and incisive political commentators of all time. He not only picks up on what is happening in the public arena quicker than most others, he conveys his observations with greater literary skill than do most professional writers.
Meanwhile Sowell engages in an activity I would dearly love to emulate. For many decades now he has been translating economic knowledge into a readily accessible lay format. In other words, he explains fundamental economic truths in a way a majority of laypersons can comprehend. I would like to do something similar, albeit for sociological truths.
Sowell also does something else I admire. Every now and then he provides his readers with a vest-pocket review of books he believes worth reading. No doubt, in doing so, his endorsement encourages them to consult works likely to expand their worldviews.
I now wish to return the favor. Sowell himself has recently published a book that is worth reading. His “Intellectuals and Society” is a veritable tour de force. Open, honest, and keenly discerning, it is a worthy successor to his earlier “A Conflict of Visions.”
Sowell has described the latter as his favorite among the dozens of works he has authored. And understandably so. The distinction he makes between “constrained” and “unconstrained” political philosophies is crucial to appreciating the disagreements between contemporary conservatives and liberals.
Conservatives, for the most part, believe there are limits to human aspirations. They think of people as inherently imperfect and therefore unable to achieve everything they might imagine. As they see it, life is too complex for any individual to grasp all of its implications and therefore it is wise to start by honoring the insights of those who preceded us in this endeavor.
Liberals, in contrast, are likely to conceive of their options as unlimited. In their view, “if you can dream it, you can do it.” And dream they do, for instance, of a world in which everyone is completely equal. Moreover, liberals typically conceive of themselves as just the persons to lead whatever social movement they presently favor. Convinced that they are both smarter and more moral than others, they can think of none better to direct efforts as reform.
In his current work Sowell applies these observations to real-life issues. In this case, however, he doesn’t use the constrained/unconstrained designations, but instead describes conservatives as adopting a “tragic” view of events, whereas liberals tend to think of themselves as “anointed” saviors.
According to Sowell, liberals imagine themselves to be updated “philosopher kings.” In assuming they are “the best and the brightest,” as they do, they further suppose they can solve any problem to which they set their minds. Because they are so smart, they can see what needs to be done and because they are so good they can make sure it is done well.
Sowell, however, has his doubts. Like most conservatives, he believes that no individual can comprehend all of the facts needed to construct comprehensive social programs. He instead concludes that the best policies evolve from what are essentially on-going public negotiations. This way many millions of people get to contribute their knowledge to the social structures that ultimately affect their lives.
In order to make his point, Sowell examines several areas in which liberal policies have been notably unsuccessful. Naturally he starts with economics because this is his home discipline. Time and again, he sites instances, such as the Great Depression, where hubris has undermined left-leaning policies. Indeed, as any fair-minded person must recognize, socialist-style systems have never produced prosperity, whereas market-based economies generally have.
Nevertheless, this does not dissuade the anointed ones. So sure are they of their own wisdom that they allow words to substitute for deeds. Almost never apologetic for their mistakes, they simply move on from one catastrophe to the next. Their skill, such as it is, is therefore in rationalizing their failures while simultaneously congratulating themselves on their good intensions.
Perhaps the most frightening example of this propensity has been the peace movement. Sowell documents with chilling precision how liberals helped to precipitate World War II. It was their advocacy of pacifist policies that tempted Hitler into aggressive actions such as the reoccupation of the Rhineland. It was their condemnation of the arms industry that almost left nations such as Great Britain defenseless in the face of Nazi belligerence.
If I have any gripe against Sowell it is that much of what he discusses is “social” in nature. I would therefore have hoped it would be sociologists who were investigating these matters. He, however, is not at fault for the lapses of my colleagues. And I, for one, am glad that someone has had the courage to articulate what is plainly there to be seen by those with eyes open enough to see it.
Way to go Thomas!
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

Democrats: The Party of “No”

Two decades ago, before I became a college professor, I was a clinical sociologist. My job was to help clients overcome their personal problems. The initial difficulty was in figuring out the nature of these problems. Since neither they nor I might understand what was actually wrong, this was where we had to begin.
One of the techniques I used to accomplish this was drawn directly from clinical practice. Psychologists had earlier recognized that people often “project” what they are doing onto others. Instead of taking responsibility for embarrassing actions, they typically attributed these to outsiders.
For instance, an angry person, instead of admitting that he was angry, might describe another person as being so. The fault was not his own, but that of the other guy. I, in noticing this, was therefore able to direct my attention toward the client’s anger.
All this is by way of deciphering contemporary politics. With Democrats and Republicans routinely pointing fingers at each other, it is crucial to know who is genuinely responsible for what. This is especially true given that the president and his allies seem poised to force Obama-care upon the nation.
Political memories are notoriously short, but wasn’t it just a few years ago that George W. Bush was being accused overseeing an “imperial” presidency. He was said to being running roughshod over our democratic institutions in order to impose his policies on others. Specifically, he was going to take us to war regardless of what voters thought.
This, at least, was the charge as leveled by Democrats. Never mind that nothing Bush did was without the consent of congress. Never mind that time and again he modified his proposals in light of partisan criticism.
Now, in retrospect, it is possible to look at these accusations as a species of political projection. The Democrats were merely blaming Bush for what they would do once they entered office. Indeed, has there been a more imperial presidency than that of Barack Obama? Has any other administration taken such an “opposition-be-damned” attitude? Which else adopted such a “we are going to do what we want to do, irrespective of what others think” position?
A similar analysis applies to the Obama crew’s characterization of Republicans as “the party of No.” Forget about the fact that Republicans have regularly offered alternatives to Obama’s agenda. Forget about the fact that “No” may sometimes be the appropriate response to mistaken proposals. Where, in fact, have most of the No’s emanated from?
Haven’t the Democrats been saying No to the Republicans? Haven’t they of late been saying No to the American public as well? Thus, when the Tea party folks said they were unhappy, did Democrats listen? Or did they say, “No, your objections do not matter?” And when the opposition said let us join in the health care discussions, did they say, “Welcome aboard?” Or did they close the doors to the meeting rooms?
Time and again Obama accuses those who disagree with him of “posturing,” even as he is in the act of posturing. Time and again he accuses them of misinforming the public, even as he is in the process of misinforming people. Thus, although he condemns others for fear-mongering, name-calling, and tired old ideas, generally speaking he is far guiltier of these transgressions than they.
Remember, Obama bemoaned the lack of transparency of his predecessor, but who has been less transparent? He also said he would exclude lobbyists from his administration, whereas he consults them more than Bush did.
Finally, who is more partisan than Obama? When talking about bipartisanship, he seems to mean that others must agree with him or shut up. Likewise, when asking them to meet him in the middle, somehow the middle seems to be where he is standing.
Talk, they say, is cheap. People can say all sorts of things that are untrue (for example, that universal health care can be achieved while lowering costs). But words are also a window into the soul. The secret is in knowing that sometimes they must be turned around. Sometimes they apply more to the speaker than their alleged object.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University

The Crisis in Sociology—A Personal View

Make no mistake—I love sociology. It is my home discipline, and one from which I have learned numerous important lessons. Yet my relationship with this social science is ambivalent. As much as I love its extremely valuable insights and unparalleled potential, to that same degree am I troubled by its many distortions and deep-seated intransigence.
Just last week I was reminded of my tenuous position within the field. Having posted an op-ed piece published in the Marietta Daily Journal, I happened upon a colleague commenting upon it to a second colleague. She was chuckling quite loudly and proclaiming that I must be the most conservative sociologist in the entire country.
Indeed, relative to most sociologists I am conservative. In line with this, she further noted that I was evidently not fond of Barack Obama. In this too, she was correct. I then asked her if she didn’t agree he was an extremist. To this she replied that he definitely was not. As far as she was concerned, he was a moderate.
This is a judgment I had heard before. In fact, I have heard it many times from a wide range of academics. Given that studies show the ratio of sociologists on the left compared with those on the right is thirty-to-one, that our president is frequently judged from the left should not come as a surprise.
What is disconcerting, however, is how far to the left of Obama many of my colleagues are. He really does look moderate to people eager to promote a social revolution. Moreover, they tend to perceive themselves as moderate precisely because so many share similar views. For them, social democracy (and for some, socialism) is merely common sense. It is something any moral and well-informed human being would embrace.
Mind you, most of the people in my department at Kennesaw State University are reasonable people. But over-all sociologists are less so. As a consequence, few at the conferences I attend deign to dispute my views. Most do not even bother to point out that I am wrong. So uniform are opposing opinions that they can dismiss me with impunity.
In truth, this attitude is so deep seated that hardly any have agreed to debate me, despite explicit invitations to do so. A number of years ago a professor at a more prestigious sister institution refused on the explicit grounds that my views were not worth disputing. They were simply too “old-fashioned.”
A second consequence of this entrenched ideology is that it undermines sociology as a science. Science is supposed to be about the accumulation of new knowledge, whereas for many sociologists the central truths of social life are thought to be known. Being committed to neo-Marxism, they have no doubt that the single most important fact about social institutions is that they are profoundly unequal. As they never tire of pointing out, elites generally find ways to exploit the less powerful.
As a result, they are more committed to correcting injustices than expanding social knowledge. This too was driven home last week when another colleague shared her recent research. When questioned about the reliability of her data, most of which was quite sound, she vociferously opined that the truth was impossible to know. Furthermore, since opinions mattered more than facts, it was unnecessary to worry about the latter.
Nowadays many sociologists self-righteously proclaim that it makes no sense to be “value-neutral.” Yes, they admit to having biases, but so does everyone; hence they feel justified in wearing theirs as a badge of honor. They, after all, are good people who are merely dedicated to doing good.
But are they being first-rate scientists? Can investigators who do not believe in truth even describe themselves as scientific? I would argue that they are moralists who should confess as much. To do less, is essentially to fly under false colors.
As someone who believes in professionalism, which is to say, in a self-motivated expertise, it seems to me that people who are not motivated to pursue social truths can scarcely regard themselves as experts in these matters.
To repeat, I love sociology. It is the guardian of enormously important social information. Moreover, I understand that accurate knowledge about social realities is difficult to come by. Still, unless it is pursued for its own sake, only our prejudices are liable to survive.
As for me, I am old-fashioned enough to believe this would be a tragedy.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University