Two weeks ago when I implied that Islam might not be a religion of peace, I agitated a hornet’s nest. More than one reader came to the conclusion that I was a narrow-minded bigot. After all, only a mean-spirited racist could suggest any such thing.
Nevertheless, this is a serious question. With Israel again under violent assault, with Egypt being torn asunder by ferocious street demonstrations, and with Syrians killing tens of thousands of their own, is there something about Islam that encourages this belligerence?
Over a decade ago the late political scientist Samuel Huntington observed that there was a ring of fire surrounding Islamic lands. He noted that almost everywhere Muslim territories abutted non-Muslim ones there were violent clashes.
Today this remains true. Not just Israel, but places as far removed as West Africa and the Philippines have witnessed Muslims killing non-Muslims in the name of their religion. Indeed, the list is long one.
We can begin with Nigeria where Muslims have been burning the churches and massacring the inhabitants of Christian towns. Then we can move north to Egypt where the Coptic Christians are under attack by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood.
If we travel even further north, we encounter the Chechnyan’s engaged in guerrilla warfare against the Russians. Now heading east we find the Chinese periodically needing to suppress the ambitions of Sinkiang Muslims. Turning south, the Pakistanis continue to harbor terrorists who intermittently cross to the border to slaughter the hated Indians.
Resuming our journey east, we discover Thai Muslims at violent odds with their central government and Mindanao Muslims defying the Christian rulers of their Island nation. Even the Indonesians have had their quarrels with the Portuguese and Australians.
Nor have I yet mentioned the Iranians who seem eager to destroy the power of the United States or Osama bin Laden of al Qaeda who wanted to re-conquer Spain and the Balkans in order to restore the Muslim Caliphate to its former glory.
It may be noted here that the enemies of Islam include not just Christians and Jews, but also Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists. Simply refusing to acknowledge the supremacy of Mohamed seems ample pretext for Jihad.
It may, of course, be argued that Christianity too has sponsored violence. And it certainly has. The Catholic Church organized crusades and inquisitions, while Catholics and Protestants butchered each other in holy wars. The difference is that that was hundreds of years ago. Modern Christianity has no such impulses.
Many Islamic lands, in contrast, are currently mired in a medieval mentality. They do not promote religious tolerance, but instead call Jews monkeys who must be killed on sight and condemn Muslim apostates to death for the sin of changing religion.
Then too there are all of those suicide bombers who cheerfully tear their own bodies to shreds on the promise that they will be rewarded with eternal glory in heaven. Yes, some Buddhists have been known to immolate themselves for religious causes, but they are few and far between.
With all this said, it must be acknowledged that many Muslims are peace loving people. Many tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, of them are not about to become bomb-throwing jihadists. The religion to which they subscribe can be, and for many is, a force for kindness and understanding.
But what is possible is not necessarily customary. Christianity evolved from belligerence to tolerance. So can Islam. But to argue that it has already done so is to ignore the evidence. There have been too many conflicts, in too many places, to conclude that the religion has nothing to do with them.
If Islam is to become a modern tolerant faith, we must stop fooling ourselves. Most Muslims are fundamentally decent human beings, but that does not mean their religion advances the same tenets as held by most Westerners. It is especially imperative that modern-minded Muslims participate in encouraging the necessary changes in attitude.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Do We Need a Secular Great Awakening?
I cannot tell you how many times I have heard it. By now it is so many that I have lost count.
Nonetheless almost every time the subject of politics comes us, some student tells me that all politicians lie. Then someone else generally adds, “Everyone lies and everyone cheats.” At this, I am inevitably confronted with a chorus of nodding heads.
Today’s young adults are remarkably cynical. Their convention wisdom has it that almost no one can be trusted. Even when they get caught cheating, they brazenly defend themselves by asserting that this is what everyone does. It is merely the sensible way of getting ahead.
Of course, when I was younger dishonesty was also a problem. Indeed, Billy Joel wrote a song bemoaning the fact that honesty is hardly ever found. Nowadays, however, the acceptance of dishonesty has grown to epic proportions. Just how widespread was demonstrated in the recent election.
Even so, no large-scale society can survive if its members cannot trust one another. Strangers must bestow confidence on those upon whose services they depend lest they perish in their separate hovels.
Once trust becomes problematic, we get the turmoil currently on display in the Middle East. People turn on one another so violently that the only persons they can rely on are members of their own families. They certainly cannot trust politicians.
The United States has largely been spared this fate. With the massive exception of the Civil War and its aftermath, Americans have believed in the dependability of their fellow Americans.
Much of this owes to several historic crusades. Although most contemporaries are unaware of them, the first two Great Awakenings shaped the moral landscape of our nation. Taking place in the eighteenth and ninetieth centuries, these religious revivals encouraged personal rectitude. –And they succeeded.
The first Great Awakening introduced Methodism to America and with it came calls for people to live honest lives. The second Great Awakening reaffirmed this commitment, but also sparked the temperance, suffrage, and abolitionist movements. Evangelists literally crisscrossed the country preaching these virtues to huge crowds.
Today, however, the fires of religious enthusiasm have been banked. Like it or not, we have become a secular nation. This too was demonstrated in the recent election. It revealed that the evangelicals were neither as numerous nor as enthusiastic as necessary to elect the person they favored.
This secular trend is also visible in my Kennesaw State University classrooms. Even though the school is in the heart of what used to be called The Bible Belt, when I ask students how many of them are Protestants, no more than two or three claim they are.
Asked, however, if any are Baptists or Methodists, now the hands go up. In other words, these Protestants do not realize they are Protestants. Nor are they cognizant of the particular dogmas of their denominations. While they typically believe in God, their faith is diffuse and not very deep.
If this is correct, then a new religious revival cannot be expected to generate the same results as the earlier exemplars. Yet we may need something similar. Hopefully there are moral principles to which both religious and secular individuals can strive to realize—that is, once reminded of them.
It would also be nice if one of these principles were honesty. Over the last several days I have been speaking to liberals and conservatives alike about our current impasse. While they don’t agree on much, one of the things that unites them is a recognition of how dishonest our public discourse has become.
Naturally, fervent partisans view the truth differently. Still, there are truths out there upon which most of us can agree if we have the integrity, and the diligence, to examine things as they are—not merely as we would like them to be. Yes, the truth can hurt, but falsehoods hurt even more.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Nonetheless almost every time the subject of politics comes us, some student tells me that all politicians lie. Then someone else generally adds, “Everyone lies and everyone cheats.” At this, I am inevitably confronted with a chorus of nodding heads.
Today’s young adults are remarkably cynical. Their convention wisdom has it that almost no one can be trusted. Even when they get caught cheating, they brazenly defend themselves by asserting that this is what everyone does. It is merely the sensible way of getting ahead.
Of course, when I was younger dishonesty was also a problem. Indeed, Billy Joel wrote a song bemoaning the fact that honesty is hardly ever found. Nowadays, however, the acceptance of dishonesty has grown to epic proportions. Just how widespread was demonstrated in the recent election.
Even so, no large-scale society can survive if its members cannot trust one another. Strangers must bestow confidence on those upon whose services they depend lest they perish in their separate hovels.
Once trust becomes problematic, we get the turmoil currently on display in the Middle East. People turn on one another so violently that the only persons they can rely on are members of their own families. They certainly cannot trust politicians.
The United States has largely been spared this fate. With the massive exception of the Civil War and its aftermath, Americans have believed in the dependability of their fellow Americans.
Much of this owes to several historic crusades. Although most contemporaries are unaware of them, the first two Great Awakenings shaped the moral landscape of our nation. Taking place in the eighteenth and ninetieth centuries, these religious revivals encouraged personal rectitude. –And they succeeded.
The first Great Awakening introduced Methodism to America and with it came calls for people to live honest lives. The second Great Awakening reaffirmed this commitment, but also sparked the temperance, suffrage, and abolitionist movements. Evangelists literally crisscrossed the country preaching these virtues to huge crowds.
Today, however, the fires of religious enthusiasm have been banked. Like it or not, we have become a secular nation. This too was demonstrated in the recent election. It revealed that the evangelicals were neither as numerous nor as enthusiastic as necessary to elect the person they favored.
This secular trend is also visible in my Kennesaw State University classrooms. Even though the school is in the heart of what used to be called The Bible Belt, when I ask students how many of them are Protestants, no more than two or three claim they are.
Asked, however, if any are Baptists or Methodists, now the hands go up. In other words, these Protestants do not realize they are Protestants. Nor are they cognizant of the particular dogmas of their denominations. While they typically believe in God, their faith is diffuse and not very deep.
If this is correct, then a new religious revival cannot be expected to generate the same results as the earlier exemplars. Yet we may need something similar. Hopefully there are moral principles to which both religious and secular individuals can strive to realize—that is, once reminded of them.
It would also be nice if one of these principles were honesty. Over the last several days I have been speaking to liberals and conservatives alike about our current impasse. While they don’t agree on much, one of the things that unites them is a recognition of how dishonest our public discourse has become.
Naturally, fervent partisans view the truth differently. Still, there are truths out there upon which most of us can agree if we have the integrity, and the diligence, to examine things as they are—not merely as we would like them to be. Yes, the truth can hurt, but falsehoods hurt even more.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Is Barack Obama a Muslim?
A week before the election I participated in a debate at Kennesaw State University where I upheld the Romney side of the argument. This was a great deal of fun until I suggested that Barack Obama felt sympathetic toward Islam and its adherents.
At this, half the audience grew restive. What these people thought they heard me say was that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Now angered by my ignorance and insensitivity, they perceived me as a “birther” who hadn’t the sense to recognize that our president is a Christian.
Barack Obama is indeed a Christian, but that does not preclude his being kindly disposed to Muslims. It must be remembered that his father was a Muslim. To be sure, Barack senior was not very observant; nor was he present to raise his son. Nevertheless his offspring had to be aware of, and respectful to, his father’s religion.
But more than that, Barack’s stepfather was Muslim. So is his sister. In fact, Barack spent many of his formative years in Indonesia associating with Muslims and going to school with them. Indeed, this is where he came to the conclusion that the Muslim morning call to prayer is one of the most beautiful sounds in the world.
Nor did his ostensibly Christian mother or grandparents do much to counteract this influence. While they wanted Barack to identify himself as an American, they were not religious people and hence did not press a Christian point of view upon him.
Is it any wonder then that when he came of college age many of Obama’s closest friends was Pakistanis? He socialized with them, he roomed with them, and he travelled to meet their families in Pakistan. In truth, it was only when he decided that this association would not be good politically that he cut them out of his life.
Christianity did eventually enter Obama’s life-space—but as a calculated decision. Having come to the conclusion that an American Black could not succeed in politics unless he was a Christian, he sought out Black ministers to provide him with a religious education once he moved to Chicago to become a community organizer.
Incidentally, he chose Chicago because it had a Black mayor and therefore appeared to be fertile ground for his ambitions. If this seems cold and calculating, I submit that our president’s political career is replete with evidence of how cold and calculating he can be.
In any event, it was no accident that once in office, he used the bully pulpit to extol the virtues of Islam. He did this in Cairo, in Indonesia, and at the United Nations—where each time he insisted it was a religion of peace. All of this was presumably intended to lessen international tensions, but it was likewise in harmony with his sentiments.
Why does this matter? Why can’t Obama be as approving of Islam as he desires? The answer is that Islamic terrorism remains with us. We have seen it in Benghazi, on the streets of Cairo, and in the violence in Syria. We have especially seen its potential in the nuclear centrifuges of Iran.
Now the Middle East is a tinderbox. Enemies who no longer feel restrained by American power surround Israel. At this point it is difficult to know where events will lead—but a general war is not out of the question.
Meanwhile, on the home front, liberals feel more sympathetic toward the Palestinians than the Israelis. Kim Kardashian discovered this when she tweeted that she was praying for Israel. As a result, she was immediately attacked and instructed that she must pray for the Palestinians instead.
Under these circumstances, where do Barack Obama’s loyalties lie? No doubt, he will be constrained by the political realities of our nation. Nonetheless, what he will do when under fire may be influenced by longstanding patterns of thought and emotion.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
At this, half the audience grew restive. What these people thought they heard me say was that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Now angered by my ignorance and insensitivity, they perceived me as a “birther” who hadn’t the sense to recognize that our president is a Christian.
Barack Obama is indeed a Christian, but that does not preclude his being kindly disposed to Muslims. It must be remembered that his father was a Muslim. To be sure, Barack senior was not very observant; nor was he present to raise his son. Nevertheless his offspring had to be aware of, and respectful to, his father’s religion.
But more than that, Barack’s stepfather was Muslim. So is his sister. In fact, Barack spent many of his formative years in Indonesia associating with Muslims and going to school with them. Indeed, this is where he came to the conclusion that the Muslim morning call to prayer is one of the most beautiful sounds in the world.
Nor did his ostensibly Christian mother or grandparents do much to counteract this influence. While they wanted Barack to identify himself as an American, they were not religious people and hence did not press a Christian point of view upon him.
Is it any wonder then that when he came of college age many of Obama’s closest friends was Pakistanis? He socialized with them, he roomed with them, and he travelled to meet their families in Pakistan. In truth, it was only when he decided that this association would not be good politically that he cut them out of his life.
Christianity did eventually enter Obama’s life-space—but as a calculated decision. Having come to the conclusion that an American Black could not succeed in politics unless he was a Christian, he sought out Black ministers to provide him with a religious education once he moved to Chicago to become a community organizer.
Incidentally, he chose Chicago because it had a Black mayor and therefore appeared to be fertile ground for his ambitions. If this seems cold and calculating, I submit that our president’s political career is replete with evidence of how cold and calculating he can be.
In any event, it was no accident that once in office, he used the bully pulpit to extol the virtues of Islam. He did this in Cairo, in Indonesia, and at the United Nations—where each time he insisted it was a religion of peace. All of this was presumably intended to lessen international tensions, but it was likewise in harmony with his sentiments.
Why does this matter? Why can’t Obama be as approving of Islam as he desires? The answer is that Islamic terrorism remains with us. We have seen it in Benghazi, on the streets of Cairo, and in the violence in Syria. We have especially seen its potential in the nuclear centrifuges of Iran.
Now the Middle East is a tinderbox. Enemies who no longer feel restrained by American power surround Israel. At this point it is difficult to know where events will lead—but a general war is not out of the question.
Meanwhile, on the home front, liberals feel more sympathetic toward the Palestinians than the Israelis. Kim Kardashian discovered this when she tweeted that she was praying for Israel. As a result, she was immediately attacked and instructed that she must pray for the Palestinians instead.
Under these circumstances, where do Barack Obama’s loyalties lie? No doubt, he will be constrained by the political realities of our nation. Nonetheless, what he will do when under fire may be influenced by longstanding patterns of thought and emotion.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Monday, November 26, 2012
Has America Become Decadent?
Once Rome was the glory of the Western World. It created the largest and most prosperous empire Europe has ever seen. But then Rome fell. After centuries of decline, it was over-run by barbarian invaders and so thoroughly dismantled that it took over a millenium for the continent to recover.
For many years, historians contended that the cause of this debacle was “decadence.” They argued that the Roman people had abandoned their moral core and hence were unable to muster the resolve to fend off disaster. Sadly, there is much truth to this verdict.
In the case of Rome, the Republican virtues of steadfastness, patriotism, and honesty were forsaken in favor of luxury and selfishness. Rather than lead the legions to victory, its patricians preferred to recline on couches sipping wine and noshing on peacock’s tongues. Meanwhile, the plebeians were content to live off the dole, biding their time in a haze of free bread and circuses.
The question we must now face is has the United States come to this same pass? Have we too, after a century of political and economic dominance, succumbed to a similarly fatal decadence? The end is not yet upon us, but are the barbarians knocking at a gate that is no longer being defended?
It is certainly true that many Americans no longer subscribe to the values that made our nation great. They—especially the liberals—believe that our democracy is bankrupt and that our market system is inherently unfair. Instead, they would like us to emulate the West Europeans and embrace what they call “social democracy.”
To see what is happening, we need look no further than the last line of our national anthem. It proclaims that America is “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” But is this true? Are we as a people still living up to these values?
Our recent election argues otherwise. Thus, a majority of Americans voted for a president who rarely praises the virtues of liberty. To the contrary, he prefers to fly the standard of “social justice.” By this he means that our federal government has a duty to enforce his version of fairness.
Barack Obama and his supporters believe that the federal government must be our keepers. They are convinced that the rest of us cannot make good decisions unless they (our liberal leaders) guide us in the proper direction. This, of course, translates into ever more regulations and a larger burden of taxes.
The bottom line is that in exchange for safety ordinary citizens are asked cede their personal freedoms. Genuine freedom, it is assumed, inevitably leads to mistakes and unfairness, and therefore cannot be tolerated.
As to demonstrating courage, what greater failure of nerve can there be than voluntarily surrendering one’s right to decide to a bevy of strangers who insincerely claim to have our interests at heart? Free peoples do make mistakes, but they also have the intestinal fortitude to correct these without resorting childish helplessness.
Thankfully our military has not yet gone spineless. The bravery our soldiers and sailors have shown in defense of our liberties has been exemplary. And yet we have an administration intent on hollowing out our armed forces. Yes, there are words in tribute to their heroism, but then comes the budgetary ax.
A truly brave people, a truly free people, would be up in arms at these trends. They would be outraged by the lies they have been told and by the diminution in personal and national power they have suffered.
But no, many Americans are evidently more worried that the federal government has yet to provide them with free contraceptives. Nor were they willing to celebrate the business success of the truly good man who sought to lead them.
Amazingly, citizens who continue to assume that they are the hope of the free world have opted to be led by the nose by a false prophet and his ignoble disciples.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
For many years, historians contended that the cause of this debacle was “decadence.” They argued that the Roman people had abandoned their moral core and hence were unable to muster the resolve to fend off disaster. Sadly, there is much truth to this verdict.
In the case of Rome, the Republican virtues of steadfastness, patriotism, and honesty were forsaken in favor of luxury and selfishness. Rather than lead the legions to victory, its patricians preferred to recline on couches sipping wine and noshing on peacock’s tongues. Meanwhile, the plebeians were content to live off the dole, biding their time in a haze of free bread and circuses.
The question we must now face is has the United States come to this same pass? Have we too, after a century of political and economic dominance, succumbed to a similarly fatal decadence? The end is not yet upon us, but are the barbarians knocking at a gate that is no longer being defended?
It is certainly true that many Americans no longer subscribe to the values that made our nation great. They—especially the liberals—believe that our democracy is bankrupt and that our market system is inherently unfair. Instead, they would like us to emulate the West Europeans and embrace what they call “social democracy.”
To see what is happening, we need look no further than the last line of our national anthem. It proclaims that America is “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” But is this true? Are we as a people still living up to these values?
Our recent election argues otherwise. Thus, a majority of Americans voted for a president who rarely praises the virtues of liberty. To the contrary, he prefers to fly the standard of “social justice.” By this he means that our federal government has a duty to enforce his version of fairness.
Barack Obama and his supporters believe that the federal government must be our keepers. They are convinced that the rest of us cannot make good decisions unless they (our liberal leaders) guide us in the proper direction. This, of course, translates into ever more regulations and a larger burden of taxes.
The bottom line is that in exchange for safety ordinary citizens are asked cede their personal freedoms. Genuine freedom, it is assumed, inevitably leads to mistakes and unfairness, and therefore cannot be tolerated.
As to demonstrating courage, what greater failure of nerve can there be than voluntarily surrendering one’s right to decide to a bevy of strangers who insincerely claim to have our interests at heart? Free peoples do make mistakes, but they also have the intestinal fortitude to correct these without resorting childish helplessness.
Thankfully our military has not yet gone spineless. The bravery our soldiers and sailors have shown in defense of our liberties has been exemplary. And yet we have an administration intent on hollowing out our armed forces. Yes, there are words in tribute to their heroism, but then comes the budgetary ax.
A truly brave people, a truly free people, would be up in arms at these trends. They would be outraged by the lies they have been told and by the diminution in personal and national power they have suffered.
But no, many Americans are evidently more worried that the federal government has yet to provide them with free contraceptives. Nor were they willing to celebrate the business success of the truly good man who sought to lead them.
Amazingly, citizens who continue to assume that they are the hope of the free world have opted to be led by the nose by a false prophet and his ignoble disciples.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Fighting the Good Fight
In his biography, My American Journey, Gen. Colin Powell tells us that a leader must go out and fight the dragon every day. He then adds and “sometimes the dragon wins.” Well, the dragon won Tuesday last.
Millions of Romney/Ryan supporters watched helplessly as millions of their fellow citizens—most, no doubt, well-intentioned—tore the moral heart out of our shared nation. When the dust settled, the dragon of unrepentant Liberalism had been provided another four years in which to trample over our lives, liberties and sacred honor.
My heart was broken as I witnessed the most sleazy, dishonest, and mean-spirited political campaign (since the drubbing of Barry Goldwater) prevail over decency and competence. The voters had been cheated, mislead, and manipulated; nevertheless many of them opted for ideological purity over common sense.
Now there will be hell to pay. Foolishness and naiveté have consequences. I know this sounds like sour grapes, but I am willing to go on record and predict another four years of economic stagnation, punctuated by a renewed recession, and diplomatic weakness, perhaps interrupted by a Middle-Eastern Holocaust.
The evidence that Barack Obama and his minions have misgoverned this nation has long been visible to those willing to open their eyes. Many, however, evidently preferred to be lulled into an ideological siesta. For them, unpleasant truths have no allure; hence these are driven from consciousness.
But that is no reason for those of us who care about the future to give up the fight. Yes, we have sustained a devastating setback, but no, it is not fatal. One thing I have learned in the course of living many decades is that, as Powell implies, loses are part of life. They must be endured, and, if at all possible, reversed; that is, if one is to maintain one’s integrity.
Nonetheless, it must also be acknowledged that victory is never ensured. However worthy a cause, it may not triumph. But that does not mean that we should give up. Moral uprightness and an allegiance to the truth matter. They are so important that a bloody nose sustained in their defense is worth the pain.
So how long will the fight go on? How long will Liberalism be allowed to grind our shared fate into the dust? No one can be sure, but some crucial struggles have persisted for centuries. Unfortunately, this means that many of us will never witness the conclusion.
In the meantime, the battle must be joined. There are many more clashes ahead and if they are to be won, they must be entered with a clear head and a firm resolve. This is no time for recriminations or Monday morning quarterbacking. Rather, it is a time for planning and organizing.
As I am sure Powell would also acknowledge, if you wish to defeat an enemy, you must know that enemy. It is not enough to cast aspersions on those with whom you disagree. We who have been defeated this time around must understand, and counter, the reasons so many folks were attracted to the other side.
It is also essential to understand our own strengths and weaknesses. Winners do not allow themselves to be deceived by rose-colored glasses. Nor do they over-estimate the comparative resources of their opponents. Instead, winners seek to make the truth their ally.
And so I say to readers who are as disappointed as I: It is time to gird our loins. There is work to be done and tactics to be rethought. The good news is that those who have snatched an unwarranted victory from a hard-fought fight tend to be over-confident. Assured of their superiority, they frequently double-down on their mistakes.
If this is what Obama and his allies are about do, they are sure to alienate many of the people who helped them to victory. What I am hoping—indeed, what I am counting on—is that there remains a reservoir of integrity and sanity in the American public that can be tapped in future contests.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Millions of Romney/Ryan supporters watched helplessly as millions of their fellow citizens—most, no doubt, well-intentioned—tore the moral heart out of our shared nation. When the dust settled, the dragon of unrepentant Liberalism had been provided another four years in which to trample over our lives, liberties and sacred honor.
My heart was broken as I witnessed the most sleazy, dishonest, and mean-spirited political campaign (since the drubbing of Barry Goldwater) prevail over decency and competence. The voters had been cheated, mislead, and manipulated; nevertheless many of them opted for ideological purity over common sense.
Now there will be hell to pay. Foolishness and naiveté have consequences. I know this sounds like sour grapes, but I am willing to go on record and predict another four years of economic stagnation, punctuated by a renewed recession, and diplomatic weakness, perhaps interrupted by a Middle-Eastern Holocaust.
The evidence that Barack Obama and his minions have misgoverned this nation has long been visible to those willing to open their eyes. Many, however, evidently preferred to be lulled into an ideological siesta. For them, unpleasant truths have no allure; hence these are driven from consciousness.
But that is no reason for those of us who care about the future to give up the fight. Yes, we have sustained a devastating setback, but no, it is not fatal. One thing I have learned in the course of living many decades is that, as Powell implies, loses are part of life. They must be endured, and, if at all possible, reversed; that is, if one is to maintain one’s integrity.
Nonetheless, it must also be acknowledged that victory is never ensured. However worthy a cause, it may not triumph. But that does not mean that we should give up. Moral uprightness and an allegiance to the truth matter. They are so important that a bloody nose sustained in their defense is worth the pain.
So how long will the fight go on? How long will Liberalism be allowed to grind our shared fate into the dust? No one can be sure, but some crucial struggles have persisted for centuries. Unfortunately, this means that many of us will never witness the conclusion.
In the meantime, the battle must be joined. There are many more clashes ahead and if they are to be won, they must be entered with a clear head and a firm resolve. This is no time for recriminations or Monday morning quarterbacking. Rather, it is a time for planning and organizing.
As I am sure Powell would also acknowledge, if you wish to defeat an enemy, you must know that enemy. It is not enough to cast aspersions on those with whom you disagree. We who have been defeated this time around must understand, and counter, the reasons so many folks were attracted to the other side.
It is also essential to understand our own strengths and weaknesses. Winners do not allow themselves to be deceived by rose-colored glasses. Nor do they over-estimate the comparative resources of their opponents. Instead, winners seek to make the truth their ally.
And so I say to readers who are as disappointed as I: It is time to gird our loins. There is work to be done and tactics to be rethought. The good news is that those who have snatched an unwarranted victory from a hard-fought fight tend to be over-confident. Assured of their superiority, they frequently double-down on their mistakes.
If this is what Obama and his allies are about do, they are sure to alienate many of the people who helped them to victory. What I am hoping—indeed, what I am counting on—is that there remains a reservoir of integrity and sanity in the American public that can be tapped in future contests.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Political Conservatism: Liberal Style
Last week my wife and I attended a sociological conference in North Georgia. Along the way there we drove past innumerable lawns bedecked in Romney/Ryan signs. When we arrived at our destination, however, the political climate abruptly changed.
As many MDJ readers may know, academics, and especially sociologists, are notoriously liberal. For sociologists, the percentage leaning left is upwards of 95%, whereas for college faculty in general, it hovers between 80 and 90% (depending on how the measurements are taken).
What was different this time around was that enthusiasm for our current president was notably lacking. Most of the participants still intended to vote for Obama, yet no one—not a single soul—attempted to persuade my wife or me that he was superior to Romney.
One of our colleagues epitomized the prevailing attitude. He told a group of us that he had been scandalizing his associates by telling them that he was not going to vote for Obama. He just couldn’t. So whom was he going to support? Why it was the Green Party candidate.
In fact, nobody in our circle was faintly outraged by this. Even those who were strong Obama supporters sympathized his decision. After all they too could not personally imagine voting for a Republican under any circumstances.
As it happened, one of the conference presenters provided survey data on the voting preferences of North Georgians. Her respondents were primarily young—typically college students—but the results confirmed what other researchers have found.
It seems that most people vote as their parents do. This tendency is so robust that they frequently support candidates who do not share their values—that is, as long as they come from the correct party. This is true for both liberals and conservatives, so it is safe to say that in this respect both factions are conservative.
What also came out of the research is that a majority of voters do not follow the campaigns. Most do not know what the candidates represent because they don’t pay attention. They certainly do not engage in fact-checking to determine if what is promised bears any resemblance to what is liable to be delivered.
It turns out that large numbers of people, including otherwise sophisticated professionals, depend on what they think they already know. This was apparent in an exchange I had with a senior colleague. When I suggested that our society needed to move toward greater decentralization, he strongly demurred.
According to my challenger, we need further centralization because the federal government is the most “efficient” provider of social services. Only it, said he, can do the job. When pressed for evidence of this, he swiftly cited the Social Security system.
This reminded me of a conversation I had with another liberal professor several years ago. When asked to identify the chief benefits liberalism provided, he too mentioned Social Security. The other benefit he named was free public education.
The irony here is that these are very old ideas that are both now in deep trouble. Thus, Social Security is running out of money as the population ages and those who are working are unable to contribute enough to keep it solvent. Meanwhile, public education has remained stagnant despite our having more than tripled the resources poured into underwriting it.
These programs have indeed demonstrated their worth, yet the time has come for serious reforms. Nevertheless, most liberals refuse to entertain the idea that modifications are necessary. As symbols of their success, they insist that these remain unchanged.
But what is this other than “conservatism.” Liberals like to describe themselves as “progressives.” Yet this evidently does not mean they are prepared to embrace genuinely novel agendas. Like almost everyone else, they prefer to stand by the familiar and comfortable.
The same applies when they vote. When the time arrives to cast their ballots, most follow the pathways they always have—no matter what they say. This election will be no different.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
As many MDJ readers may know, academics, and especially sociologists, are notoriously liberal. For sociologists, the percentage leaning left is upwards of 95%, whereas for college faculty in general, it hovers between 80 and 90% (depending on how the measurements are taken).
What was different this time around was that enthusiasm for our current president was notably lacking. Most of the participants still intended to vote for Obama, yet no one—not a single soul—attempted to persuade my wife or me that he was superior to Romney.
One of our colleagues epitomized the prevailing attitude. He told a group of us that he had been scandalizing his associates by telling them that he was not going to vote for Obama. He just couldn’t. So whom was he going to support? Why it was the Green Party candidate.
In fact, nobody in our circle was faintly outraged by this. Even those who were strong Obama supporters sympathized his decision. After all they too could not personally imagine voting for a Republican under any circumstances.
As it happened, one of the conference presenters provided survey data on the voting preferences of North Georgians. Her respondents were primarily young—typically college students—but the results confirmed what other researchers have found.
It seems that most people vote as their parents do. This tendency is so robust that they frequently support candidates who do not share their values—that is, as long as they come from the correct party. This is true for both liberals and conservatives, so it is safe to say that in this respect both factions are conservative.
What also came out of the research is that a majority of voters do not follow the campaigns. Most do not know what the candidates represent because they don’t pay attention. They certainly do not engage in fact-checking to determine if what is promised bears any resemblance to what is liable to be delivered.
It turns out that large numbers of people, including otherwise sophisticated professionals, depend on what they think they already know. This was apparent in an exchange I had with a senior colleague. When I suggested that our society needed to move toward greater decentralization, he strongly demurred.
According to my challenger, we need further centralization because the federal government is the most “efficient” provider of social services. Only it, said he, can do the job. When pressed for evidence of this, he swiftly cited the Social Security system.
This reminded me of a conversation I had with another liberal professor several years ago. When asked to identify the chief benefits liberalism provided, he too mentioned Social Security. The other benefit he named was free public education.
The irony here is that these are very old ideas that are both now in deep trouble. Thus, Social Security is running out of money as the population ages and those who are working are unable to contribute enough to keep it solvent. Meanwhile, public education has remained stagnant despite our having more than tripled the resources poured into underwriting it.
These programs have indeed demonstrated their worth, yet the time has come for serious reforms. Nevertheless, most liberals refuse to entertain the idea that modifications are necessary. As symbols of their success, they insist that these remain unchanged.
But what is this other than “conservatism.” Liberals like to describe themselves as “progressives.” Yet this evidently does not mean they are prepared to embrace genuinely novel agendas. Like almost everyone else, they prefer to stand by the familiar and comfortable.
The same applies when they vote. When the time arrives to cast their ballots, most follow the pathways they always have—no matter what they say. This election will be no different.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, November 3, 2012
The Picture of Dorian Gray--Obama Style
Stephanie Cutter, a pivotal member of the Obama campaign team, is an attractive woman. Fresh faced and corn-fed, she appears to have stepped out of a movie extolling the virtues of the American heartland.
But then she opens her mouth and the illusion is shattered. As one of the president’s most visible surrogates, she is routinely required to tell the most egregious untruths—a task she seems to perform with relish. Whether denying that she knew the man who accused Romney of murdering his wife or declaring that Mitt politicized the Benghazi scandal, her words and visage are sharply at odds.
This disconnect is reminiscent of Oscar Wilde’s novel The Picture of Dorian Gray. In the book, Gray is a man so physically handsome that an artist infatuated with his beauty decides to immortalize it for the ages. Dorian then sells his soul on the condition that this portrait age rather than himself.
Subsequent to this, Dorian lives a dissolute life of extreme hedonism. And sure enough, instead of his visage reflecting this gross immorality, the picture ages and becomes grotesque. Only in the end, when he resolves to reform, does he resume his actual exterior. But sadly this occurs after he stabs the portrait in the heart and in the process dies.
Dorian’s story strikes me as being paralleled by the unfolding saga of Barack Obama. Our president is also a physically appealing person who has sold his soul, in his case, for the sake of power. Only rather than seducing and destroying the lives of a string of individual conquests, he has seduced and injured an entire nation.
This, to be sure, is a harsh judgment. But there can be no doubt that Obama’s physical presence has beguiled millions of people. His radiant smile, his easy-going demeanor, and his “cool” persona have convinced many onlookers that he is the very incarnation of what a chief executive should be.
On top of this, Barack is unquestionably intelligent and has the rare gift of giving a compelling speech, despite the fact that what he says is often pedestrian. He can even get away with telling conflicting untruths in the same address because his listeners frequently respond to his spellbinding style rather than his substance.
But now Obama seems to have met his match. Mind you, unlike Dorian Gray, he shows no signs of having decided to reform. To the contrary, he continues to propagate untruths at a rate that beggars all of his predecessors. What has changed, however, is that these have become more visible.
The comparison between Barack and Mitt Romney has been devastating to the president’s image. Standing together, on the same stage, as they have during the debates, has revealed Obama’s shallow, mean-spirited, and dissimulating essence. In other words, his real self is being exposed.
During the debates it has also become clear that Romney is the genuine article. His knows his facts and is an accomplished problem solver who is comfortable in his own skin. Voters may disagree with him, but he is obviously a mature adult who means what he says. In other words, he is someone who can be trusted.
Once a person as intelligent as himself, but someone with actual achievements challenged him, Obama’s carefully crafted façade began to crumble. His honeyed words were unmasked as mere talking points. They might sound good to the uninformed; nevertheless they did not betoken a genuine understanding.
Far from it; they laid bare the sleaziness of the campaign run on his behalf—and with his sanction. Lest it be forgotten, Cutter’s excesses have been a reflection of his wishes.
Where this will end is not yet clear. Obama may still win re-election. But he will never again be seen as a knight in shining armor. His pretense of honesty and competence has been pierced. As a mere mortal, his warts are showing. Indeed, for many, he has begun to look ugly.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
But then she opens her mouth and the illusion is shattered. As one of the president’s most visible surrogates, she is routinely required to tell the most egregious untruths—a task she seems to perform with relish. Whether denying that she knew the man who accused Romney of murdering his wife or declaring that Mitt politicized the Benghazi scandal, her words and visage are sharply at odds.
This disconnect is reminiscent of Oscar Wilde’s novel The Picture of Dorian Gray. In the book, Gray is a man so physically handsome that an artist infatuated with his beauty decides to immortalize it for the ages. Dorian then sells his soul on the condition that this portrait age rather than himself.
Subsequent to this, Dorian lives a dissolute life of extreme hedonism. And sure enough, instead of his visage reflecting this gross immorality, the picture ages and becomes grotesque. Only in the end, when he resolves to reform, does he resume his actual exterior. But sadly this occurs after he stabs the portrait in the heart and in the process dies.
Dorian’s story strikes me as being paralleled by the unfolding saga of Barack Obama. Our president is also a physically appealing person who has sold his soul, in his case, for the sake of power. Only rather than seducing and destroying the lives of a string of individual conquests, he has seduced and injured an entire nation.
This, to be sure, is a harsh judgment. But there can be no doubt that Obama’s physical presence has beguiled millions of people. His radiant smile, his easy-going demeanor, and his “cool” persona have convinced many onlookers that he is the very incarnation of what a chief executive should be.
On top of this, Barack is unquestionably intelligent and has the rare gift of giving a compelling speech, despite the fact that what he says is often pedestrian. He can even get away with telling conflicting untruths in the same address because his listeners frequently respond to his spellbinding style rather than his substance.
But now Obama seems to have met his match. Mind you, unlike Dorian Gray, he shows no signs of having decided to reform. To the contrary, he continues to propagate untruths at a rate that beggars all of his predecessors. What has changed, however, is that these have become more visible.
The comparison between Barack and Mitt Romney has been devastating to the president’s image. Standing together, on the same stage, as they have during the debates, has revealed Obama’s shallow, mean-spirited, and dissimulating essence. In other words, his real self is being exposed.
During the debates it has also become clear that Romney is the genuine article. His knows his facts and is an accomplished problem solver who is comfortable in his own skin. Voters may disagree with him, but he is obviously a mature adult who means what he says. In other words, he is someone who can be trusted.
Once a person as intelligent as himself, but someone with actual achievements challenged him, Obama’s carefully crafted façade began to crumble. His honeyed words were unmasked as mere talking points. They might sound good to the uninformed; nevertheless they did not betoken a genuine understanding.
Far from it; they laid bare the sleaziness of the campaign run on his behalf—and with his sanction. Lest it be forgotten, Cutter’s excesses have been a reflection of his wishes.
Where this will end is not yet clear. Obama may still win re-election. But he will never again be seen as a knight in shining armor. His pretense of honesty and competence has been pierced. As a mere mortal, his warts are showing. Indeed, for many, he has begun to look ugly.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
