Osage Oranges

Most fruits are edible.  Their appearance is pleasant and their taste is appealing—at least to some animals.  This seems not to be the case with the Osage orange.  Native to Texas, when ripe the Osage is spherical and yellow.  It looks like a prickly orange, but the comparison stops there.

The Osage most certainly does not taste like an orange.  Its juice is milky and acrid and its texture stringy.  Once thought poisonous, it is merely distasteful to humans and most other creatures.  As a result, virtually all avoid it despite its superficial attractiveness.

But why am I writing about Osage oranges?  This column has never before been dedicated to the culinary arts. The answer lies in the Bible.  While I am not a religious man, even I know that the Bible contains a great deal of wisdom.  One piece of it crossed my mind not long ago.

The saying is familiar: You will know them by their fruit (Matthew 7:16).  This struck me as an apt warning with regard to Barack Obama and his crowd.  Superficially they are an attractive bunch.  Well spoken and given to lofty aspirations, they can sound like the heralds of a brave new world.

But we have been living with them for nigh on six years and the fruit of their labors is bitter and noxious.  Few have as yet perished from their works, yet we are in more danger than we once were.

Liberals specialize in promises.  They are always telling us about the wonderful protections they intend to deliver.  Convinced that they are super-compassionate and super-smart, they evidently know best.

The trouble is that good intensions are like seeds.  Too often we cannot tell what they will grow into until long after they germinate.  Unfortunately, the Obama promises have turned out rather like Osage oranges.  They have not yet killed many of us, but a steady diet of them might.

The litany of failures has grown too long to be cited every time there is a need to document the incompetence of the current administration.  Nonetheless, it includes ObamaCare, the VA scandal, the IRS debacle, the Benghazi affair, a foreign policy from hell and a toxic superciliousness that does not travel well.

What then is the point of stating the obvious?  By now even Democrats acknowledge that Obama is a poor administrator.  Detached and surrounded by yes-men and women, he doesn’t even learn of problems in his own government until he reads about them in the paper.

So my question is: Why has it take us so long to reach these conclusions?  After all, it was less than two years ago that we rejected the stability of a Mitt Romney for the razzle-dazzle of Barack Obama.  What were we thinking?

Didn’t we have enough evidence that the economy had not recovered?  Weren’t there enough straws in the wind to suggest that our international stature was declining?  Couldn’t voters see through Democratic assurances that things were getting better?

As to the future, are we going to be in exactly the same position when Hillary Clinton runs for president?  When she tells us that she will fix the ObamaCare mess or that under her tutelage our foreign relations will improve, will we believe her?

Judging from what she has already achieved, there is little reason to give her promises credence.  Wasn’t she the one who hatched that reset button with Russia?  And didn’t she, in another lifetime, attempt to force HillaryCare down our throats?

As for Benghazi, she tells us she had nothing to do with that fiasco.  Other people messed it up.  But if so, why wasn’t she involved?  Let’s not forget she was in charge, so does that mean she was as much a hands-off administrator as Obama?

I am beginning to detect the whiff of Osage oranges in the air.  Hillary may look good from afar, but do we really want another four years of hyperbole and good intensions?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Major Surgery

Barack Obama is fond of telling us he intends to take a scalpel to fixing social problems.  Not for him an indiscriminate meat cleaver that will cut away the healthy flesh along with the diseased tissue.  Unlike his critics, he can tell the difference and therefore, like a good doctor, refuses to do harm.

Then again Barack Obama has never met a bureaucracy he didn’t like.  Whatever the difficulty, he plans either to throw money at an existing government agency or to create a new one expressly to supplement the old one.

No wonder our president has dithered in his approach to resolving the Veteran’s Administration dilemma.  He does not understand that some bureaucracies can only be repaired by grabbing an axe and cutting them down to the roots.

Bureaucracies gone wrong are analogous to cancers.  They grow uncontrollably and metastasize wildly.  Rogue organizations always employ more people than they need—especially administrators.  And they always spew out toxic regulations that destroy whatever they touch.

This is why sclerotic bureaucracies must be drastically slashed.  Whether they are governmental, educational, medical, or commercial, tiptoeing around their edges only allows their occupants to devise defensive strategies.  They become experts in obscuring their malfeasance from outsiders who do not know better.

Among commercial organizations, market discipline takes care of the more egregious bad actors.  Because they must compete with other enterprises, they need to be efficient or go out of business.  The result is that during economic downturns, executives fearful of becoming unemployed downsize.

Government workers have no such fears.  Often in cahoots with the politicians who hire them, they know their financial contributions and votes will keep their “friends” in line.  All they need to do is rattle their checkbooks and plans to curb abuses are set aside.

This is why public bureaucracies must be reformed from the outside.  Those who lead and sponsor them are usually motivated to maintain the status quo.  Since both benefit from organizational gigantism, whatever they tell aggrieved outsiders, they persist in feeding the beast.

 Nor can genuine correctives be modest.  Small wounds are readily papered over.  Organizational functionaries isolate them so that they do not weaken the basic structure, or culture, of the enterprise.

Bureaucracies, it must be understood, are networks of interlocking offices and lengthy ladders of authority that are linked together by a communal culture.  Upset one element and the others are upset.  As a result, those not yet touched by a change rush into the breach because they know their own positions will be in jeopardy if they do not.

We have seen this at the VA.  It is also true of the IRS, the Pentagon, the EPA, the Department of Justice, the State Department, the CIA, Social Security, Head Start, the Department of Education, and, of course, the Department of Health and Human Services.  Rest assured, it will also be true of Obamacare.

Many commentators have observed that the VA’s problems are not new.  They also realize that stopgap fixes have not worked.  They therefore recommend that the agency be replaced by another program—such as vouchers.

This is a good first step.  But it is only a first step.  The federal government has become absurdly bloated.  Just as Ronald Reagan advised, but was unable to accomplish, it must be reduced in size.  –Not eliminated, but reorganized and streamlined.

Standing in the way, however, is the Bureaucratic (aka Democratic) Party.  Despite protests to the contrary, the liberal ideal is socialism.  The objective is for the government to own—or control—virtually all of the economy.  This is regarded as essential for social justice.

Yet real justice is grounded in freedom and freedom cannot flourish when trampled on by government bureaucracies.  So let’s get out the meat cleavers because government officials will not take the appropriate action on their own unless forced to do so.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Major Surgery

Barack Obama is fond of telling us he intends to take a scalpel to fixing social problems.  Not for him an indiscriminate meat cleaver that will cut away the healthy flesh along with the diseased tissue.  Unlike his critics, he can tell the difference and therefore, like a good doctor, refuses to do harm.

Then again Barack Obama has never met a bureaucracy he didn’t like.  Whatever the difficulty, he plans either to throw money at an existing government agency or to create a new one expressly to supplement the old one.

No wonder our president has dithered in his approach to resolving the Veteran’s Administration dilemma.  He does not understand that some bureaucracies can only be repaired by grabbing an axe and cutting them down to the roots.

Bureaucracies gone wrong are analogous to cancers.  They grow uncontrollably and metastasize wildly.  Rogue organizations always employ more people than they need—especially administrators.  And they always spew out toxic regulations that destroy whatever they touch.

This is why sclerotic bureaucracies must be drastically slashed.  Whether they are governmental, educational, medical, or commercial, tiptoeing around their edges only allows their occupants to devise defensive strategies.  They become experts in obscuring their malfeasance from outsiders who do not know better.

Among commercial organizations, market discipline takes care of the more egregious bad actors.  Because they must compete with other enterprises, they need to be efficient or go out of business.  The result is that during economic downturns, executives fearful of becoming unemployed downsize.

Government workers have no such fears.  Often in cahoots with the politicians who hire them, they know their financial contributions and votes will keep their “friends” in line.  All they need to do is rattle their checkbooks and plans to curb abuses are set aside.

This is why public bureaucracies must be reformed from the outside.  Those who lead and sponsor them are usually motivated to maintain the status quo.  Since both benefit from organizational gigantism, whatever they tell aggrieved outsiders, they persist in feeding the beast.

 Nor can genuine correctives be modest.  Small wounds are readily papered over.  Organizational functionaries isolate them so that they do not weaken the basic structure, or culture, of the enterprise.

Bureaucracies, it must be understood, are networks of interlocking offices and lengthy ladders of authority that are linked together by a communal culture.  Upset one element and the others are upset.  As a result, those not yet touched by a change rush into the breach because they know their own positions will be in jeopardy if they do not.

We have seen this at the VA.  It is also true of the IRS, the Pentagon, the EPA, the Department of Justice, the State Department, the CIA, Social Security, Head Start, the Department of Education, and, of course, the Department of Health and Human Services.  Rest assured, it will also be true of Obamacare.

Many commentators have observed that the VA’s problems are not new.  They also realize that stopgap fixes have not worked.  They therefore recommend that the agency be replaced by another program—such as vouchers.

This is a good first step.  But it is only a first step.  The federal government has become absurdly bloated.  Just as Ronald Reagan advised, but was unable to accomplish, it must be reduced in size.  –Not eliminated, but reorganized and streamlined.

Standing in the way, however, is the Bureaucratic (aka Democratic) Party.  Despite protests to the contrary, the liberal ideal is socialism.  The objective is for the government to own—or control—virtually all of the economy.  This is regarded as essential for social justice.

Yet real justice is grounded in freedom and freedom cannot flourish when trampled on by government bureaucracies.  So let’s get out the meat cleavers because government officials will not take the appropriate action on their own unless forced to do so.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Bloated Goverrnment Is The Enemy

Years ago, Ronald Reagan warned us that over-sized government was a serious problem.  The evidence that he was correct keeps pouring in.  The VA scandal is just the latest example of how organizational gigantism can injure people.

Liberal Democrats, with Barack Obama in the lead, keep telling us they must protect us from ourselves.  They assure us that their programs are intended to promote social justice and rational planning.  Be this in energy or health, they argue that they know best.

Then something like the Veteran’s Administration cover-up of incompetent scheduling comes to light and we learn—as we should have known all along—that bloated bureaucracies have a way of getting things wrong.  Especially when part of the government, and therefore not subject to marketplace discipline, they often go rogue.

At moments such as this, the president’s apologists explain that the executive structure is simply too large for anyone to administer effectively.  The president is, after all, just one man and he can’t be everywhere.  Nor can he know everything; hence he must depend upon his subordinates.

But who are his subordinates?  Jack Kennedy depended upon advisors that were regarded as “the best and the brightest.”  FDR, of course, had his “brain trust.”  And what does Obama have?  A kiddy-corps!  And a crony corps!

Let us start with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.  They are not part of his administration, but they have been delegated essential tasks such as writing the stimulus legislation and designing ObamaCare.  Thus, in many ways they are as responsible as anyone for the recent additions to the Washington mess.

Question:  Does anyone trust Harry or Nancy?  Does anyone regard them as mental giants?  Who believes that they are incorruptible public servants that deserve to be in charge of setting our communal agenda?

Remember Nancy told us that we had to pass the ObamaCare legislation in order to find out what was in it.  This was not only an example of abdicating legislative responsibility, but of engaging in a crapshoot with the health of the nation.  Some leadership here!

As for Harry, when he is not accusing the Koch brothers of global warming or asserting that Mitt Romney did not pay his taxes, he is seeking a constitutional amendment to overturn the Bill of Rights or staging an attack on senate procedure via the nuclear option.  More brilliant leadership!

What about the executive branch itself?  Does anyone believe that Jay Carney is an honest and penetrating analyst of administrative policy?  Or is he more like Art Carney; that is, a sideman in a comedy routine?  Reporters are tolerant of his badinage, but does he really deserve to be the voice of the United States?

And what about those other voices, such as the spokespersons for the State Department?  Jen Psaki obviously has the experience and gravitas to represent our country to the rest of the world.

And how about Obama’s advisors?  Tommy Veitor was a wonderful example of their maturity with his, “Dude, that was two tears ago,” explanation of the Benghazi cover-up.  He gave us confidence the nation is in good hands.

As for the political advise Obama gets, which frequently seems decisive, David Plouffe and Daniel Pieffer constantly impress with their deep thinking.  They may have the president’s interests at heart, yet do they have the nation’s?

This list could be extended indefinitely, but it gives an idea of what can happen when the management of an already bloated government is delegated to a band of incompetents.  When a gang of venal ideologues, supplemented by juvenile ciphers, takes charge, we get the mess we are currently enduring.

This puts the lie to the entire Liberal agenda, which asserts that centralizing decisions in Washington promotes rationality.  The truth is the opposite.  The larger the government gets, the more unmanageable it becomes—a problem that is exacerbated when those who naively think they know best take the helm.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University