They Do It Too!

Have you noticed that during this political season when one side gets caught in an embarrassing moment, the other side is soon accused of something similar?  For example, when the Clinton Foundation came under attack, it was not long before opposition research zeroed in on the Trump Foundation.

The idea is to make two problems equivalent so that they cancel out.  Although they might be of an entirely different magnitude, if they are treated the same rhetorically, the voters may not notice the difference.  In fact, this technique works depressing well.

Consider the Foundation controversy.  The Clinton Foundation is a political slush fund.  It has collected billions of dollars that have mostly gone to subsidizing Clinton hangers-on.  The idea was to finance a campaign team-in-waiting until it was needed.

The Clinton operation was also a way of laundering money.  Foreign nations that wanted favors from the Clintons could make donations to this ostensible charity, while collecting their payoffs from another door.  This way if the public watched one hand, it would not notice what the other was doing.

This is flat out corruption.  There is no other word for it.  The Clintons put their public offices up for sale just like they once rented out the Lincoln Bedroom; just like they sold pardons to felons when Bill was leaving the presidency.

Compare this with the Trump Foundation.  First of all, Trump’s is a much smaller operation.  Second, it was not primarily political.  Until recently, he was not a politician and therefore did not have favors to sell.  If anything, he was in the business of purchasing special treatment.

Trump has also been criticized for not financing his Foundation with his own funds.  This ought to be laughable in that virtually all of the Clinton money came from outsiders.  Although Trump has not exactly been altruistic, his alleged generosity was never a major selling point.

What really needs emphasis, however, is the lies.  Trump is no saint.  He has not always taken the high road.  But compared with the Clintons, he is a paragon of virtue.  When it comes to misstatements, his are typically exaggerations.  Indeed, they are sometimes so hyperbolic as to be silly.

The Clinton fabrications, on the other hand, are ruthlessly self-serving.  Whenever they get into trouble, they deny, deny, deny.  This is not a recent development.  Hillary and Bill have been at it from the beginning of their political careers.

Do you recall Bill’s fib about marihuana.  When caught in a lie about whether he indulged, he obfuscated by claiming that he never inhaled.  And when it was discovered that he misled the public about his draft status, he again told half-truths.

As for Hillary, when Bill’s dalliance with Gennifer Flowers became public, she flat out repudiated it.  It never happened.  This failed entertainer had made it up.  She was probably going after cheap publicity.  Of course, we now know there was an affair.  Flowers was telling the truth.

Over the last year how many whoppers has Hillary told?  Remember, there was nothing classified on the server.  The FBI gave her a complete pass.  She believed the Benghazi tragedy was due to a video.  She never claimed that the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership was the “gold standard.”

So what does she do when caught?  She points a finger at others.  She tries to divert attention by maintaining that they are worse.  It doesn’t matter if they are; she jumps up and down and swears it is so.

But isn’t this what teenagers do when they get caught doing something wrong?  Don’t the try to get off the hook by saying that everyone does it?  Nevertheless, most parents don’t buy this.  They quickly ask: if Johnny jumped off the roof, would you jump off too?

Hillary’s lies are so egregious that they deserve reflexive dismissal.  Donald may have lied about some things, but the difference in degree is so great as to be one in kind.  She is a habitual prevaricator.  She is so routinely counterfeit that other’s sins ought not absolve her of her own. 

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

The Tag Team: Two Against One

By most accounts, Hillary Clinton won her first debate with Donald Trump.  She has been described as more professional, whereas he was blamed for becoming too defensive.  As a result, there has been no end of suggestions as to how Trump can recover.

But several things have been overlooked.  The first is that Trump was in a tag team match.  It was him against Hillary and the moderator Lester Holt.  Whenever Hillary needed a breather, Holt picked up the slack; whereas she did the same for him.  In other words, it was two against one.

When Candy Crowley took sides against Mitt Romney, she was roundly criticized.  She made a serious mistake in defending Obama and was later fact-checked.  Although Holt attacked Trump five or six times—and doubled down on several occasions—he was essentially given a pass.  Even conservatives described him as a nice guy.

Yet consider this, when Crowley put down Romney, Romney was critiqued for shrugging his shoulders and letting her get away with it.  This time Trump did the opposite and was faulted for that.  In other words, when the moderator is lined up against you, it may not be possible to win.

Granted that Trump overdid it.  His thin skin often gets him in trouble.  Had he pivoted to Hillary’s weaknesses, he would probably have been better off.  Nonetheless, there is a good chance that it would not have mattered.  When it is two to one, the one has to spend more time on the defense—which always looks bad.

There is, however, a silver lining to this cloud.  Well, there is if Trump takes advantage of it.  The nature of the attacks against him provides a glittering opening for the later debates.

Among other things, Trump was called out for the birther controversy and his business practices.  These became the subject of extended discussions.  If Donald is smart, should they come up again, he can dismiss them as old news.  This strategy works for the Clintons.  Why not him?

Meanwhile, Hillary got off lightly on a raft of subjects.  Trump was rightly decried for leaving low hanging fruit untouched.  Her attack on hackers should have been turned against her.  She should have been asked, if hacking is such a problem, why did you open yourself to foreign spies with a private server?

The good news is she can still be asked.  With more emails set to be released, the question remains relevant.  It is also possible to bring up Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, and a whole host of lies—big and small.  What has not previously been scrutinized should be fair game, even if subsequent moderators refuse to bring them up.

Trump has already been suggesting that voters “follow the money.”  How, it may be wondered, was it possible for an ex-president and his wife to amass hundreds of millions of dollars in few short years?  What did they have to sell that was worth so much?  It is a pretty safe bet there was some pay-for play.

Corruption is corruption and sleaze is sleaze.  Pandering is also pandering.  When Hillary accused every American of implicit bias, alarm bells should have gone off.  In an effort to avoid insulting the police, while simultaneously fawning over African-Americans, she demeaned everyone else—except herself.  This was at least as bad as her basketful of deplorables comment.

For the moment, Hillary has scored a few debating points.  Moreover, the media megaphone revved up to make the most of them.  But how long can the glow of a perpetually smug candidate last?  Donald can be abrasive.  He is certainly no choirboy.  But do we really want four more years of Clinton slime?

The really good news is that while first impressions matter, last impressions make more of a difference.  In the end, the only ballot that counts is the one on election day.  If voters go to the polls with a bad taste in their mouths for a specific candidate, this may determine their choice.  I am hoping that Trump and his people understand this.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

So What If I Am Called a Racist

Many years ago, I wrote a book called Race and Morality.  In it, I told a story about when I was a cabdriver in New York City.  Although I hate to repeat myself, the moral of that tale has a direct bearing on current race relations.

At the time, I was completing my Ph.D. in sociology at the City University of New York.  Like many a poor graduate student, I was running out of funds and therefore found work where I could.  While I understood that more cabdrivers were being killed than cops, I decided to take the risk.

Right from the start, I was warned not to pick up every potential fare.  The Black and Hispanic drivers were particularly adamant.  If I valued my safety, there were places I should not drive and customers for whom I ought not stop.

But I was a sociology student.  For years, I had been marinated in progressive ideals.  Virtually everyone I knew believed that it was essential not to treat people differently because of race or ethnicity.  Besides, I prided myself on not being a racist.

And so, early one morning I pulled over for a questionable passenger.  It was four AM in the morning and pitch dark.  This was at the start of my shift, just as I crossed over the bridge from Brooklyn into Manhattan.  Now a black man in a pimp suit flagged me down.  Having previously worked in Harlem, I knew exactly what his felt hat and flashy clothes meant.

I stopped anyway.  I was not going to discriminate merely because someone had a dubious profession.  Then my new fare told we where he wanted to go.  His destination was in the heart of Bedford Stuyvesant.  As I also knew from personal experience, this was one of the most dangerous parts of the city.

The next twenty minutes were among the most frightening I have ever experienced.  My mind was racing.  What if when we got to where we were going, he decided to mug me?  Bigger and obviously more menacing than me, how could I protect myself?

And what if he was meeting several of his buddies?  If they ganged up and robbed me, was there anything I could do to prevent this?  In fact, when we arrived on the scene, he simply paid me and exited the cab.  There was no drama; no threats; not even a hint of danger.

Nonetheless, I immediately put on my off-duty sign.  I was not going to take the chance of picking up another passenger in that neighborhood.  Then and there, I vowed I would rather be thought of as a live racist, rather than a dead hero.  My reputation among those who did not realize the seriousness of my plight mattered less to me than my personal survival.

Nowadays police officers often find themselves in a similar position.  They are frequently confronted with potential lawbreakers whose intentions they cannot know.  Thus, when they encounter someone brandishing a gun, how much restraint should they exercise?  Must they wait for shots to be fired before they respond in kind?

The Black Lives Matter folks have no doubts.  According to them, cops must never initiate violence.  They must always make absolutely certain that their own lives are in peril.  Anything less is deemed irresponsible.

I am not so sure.  Having been vulnerable myself, I empathize with their situation.  I know that ambiguous circumstances can be difficult to call.  What is more, I believe that blue lives matter.  The police have the right to protect themselves, even though they sometimes make mistakes.

I will go even further.  The police have a duty to protect themselves.  If they do not, law and order becomes a sham.  Once it is open season on law enforcement agent, the thugs of this world will have field day.  In this case, we will all be in danger.

If this opinion makes me a racist, so be it.  I know that I believe in treating people equally irrespective of skin color.  Others may come to a different conclusion, but if they have never themselves been in jeopardy, I do not trust their judgment.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Is History Repeating Itself?

When Richard Nixon decided to run for president in 1968, many observers regarded this as quixotic quest.  Nixon had lost to Kennedy in 1960 and been soundly defeated in his bid for the governorship in California two years later.  The cognoscenti therefore concluded that he had been thoroughly discredited and could not possibly win.

Liberals never liked Nixon.  They despised him as the man who had taken down Alger Hiss.  For them, he was the personification of mean spirited conservatism.  Moreover with his five o’clock shadow, he looked the part.  Hence, when, after his California loss, he declared that the press would not have him to kick around anymore, they hoped it was true.

But surprise, surprise; Nixon won in 68.  Indeed, he defeated a sitting vice-president who had been the darling of progressives.  There was no way he should have beaten Hubert Humphrey.  The question was, why?  How could so many Americans have voted for so unlikable a man?

 Part of the answer has to be the turbulent 60’s.   The nation had recently endured a series of shocks.  There had been assassinations, an anti-war movement, and racial violence.  Several inner cities had been burned to the ground and radicals threatened to bomb innocent civilians.

As a result, Nixon was able to mobilize the silent majority.  Millions of voters were tired of seeing their nation assaulted.  They wanted a return to normal.  As the law and order candidate, this is what Nixon promised.

Are we today seeing a reprise of this scenario?  Will the current violence on our streets produce a similar backlash?  Will rioters protesting police malfeasance by looting targets of opportunity arouse sufficient disgust?  Do terrorist bombers frighten people as much as the Weathermen once did?

Times are not quite the same.  The social chaos has not yet reached the same proportions.  Nor is the electorate identical.  There are now many more minority voters.  As for Donald Trump, he is no Nixon.  Although comparably distrusted, he is not nearly as politically well versed.

Political pundits see the parallels.  But they also see the disjunctions.  Consequently few are willing to hazard a prediction—particularly with the polls as close as they have been.

But then there is the Reagan precedent.  When he ran for the presidency in 1980, the nation was also in turmoil.  The economy had gone south and Iran was holding hostages.  These events made the United States look weak and indecisive.  People wanted their confidence resorted.  Reagan promised as much.

But like Nixon, Reagan was a flawed candidate.  He was a movie star; a Wild West cowboy.  How could a man who threatened to defy the Russians be trusted?  Just as importantly, how could someone so reactionary be assigned to protect our economy?

We know how this came out.  Not only was Reagan elected, but he brought the Carter inflation under control.  Then he did something of historic proportions.  He faced down the Soviets and won.  Although most experts expected the cold war to drag on indefinitely, he laid the foundation for its termination.

Trump too is facing economic malaise and international disorder.  He too must deal with retrenchment and pessimism.  Unlike Reagan, however, he is not a student of government.  He does not have a well-formed philosophy about how to solve our problems.

No, Trump is a businessman and a braggart.  Moreover, his rhetoric is often so inflated that not even his most zealous supporters expect him to be able to keep every promise.  Although he was a successful builder and TV personality will that translate into political success?

No one can be sure.  Probably the best thing Trump has going for him is Hillary Clinton.  She is so closely associated with the current ills and so personally disreputable, the millions of American hesitate to put her in charge.

Will this be enough to put Trump over the top?  Will enough voters take a chance that he can restore our nation’s equilibrium?  While I have decided to back this dark horse, I am holding my breath and hoping for the best.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University