About three decades ago when I first attempted to write a book, I ran in to trouble. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t seem to get past the opening ten pages. These never lived up to my expectations; hence I always wound up putting them aside—never to be completed.
Eventually, however, I got fed up with this self-defeating perfectionism. Thus, instead of stopping at page eleven, I decided to keep going. As a result, I completed a manuscript, albeit not one that satisfied my hopes. That’s when I made a profound discovery. I now realized that what I wrote also had to be edited.
Indeed, over the years I have learned that writing is more about rewriting, than instant excellence. One’s prose can always be improved and ideas can always be refined. Even after a work is published, improvements are possible.
As it happens, these days people come to me for advice on how to write. But of them, only one has actually written several books. The others generally find that what they put on paper does not match their imagination and they stop. In the end, they join the multitude who believe there is a book in them that never sees the light of day.
Today, a similar penchant for perfectionism has reached its toxic tendrils into politics. To be more specific, Newt Gingrich has accused Mitt Romney of creating a venture capital company that ruined the lives of thousands. Gingrich, and his minions, assure us that Bain Capital was not nearly as successful as Romney claims.
By now, Newt’s anti-capitalist rants have been thoroughly discredited (as have those of Rick Perry), but there is more to this mischief than deceitfulness or economic illiteracy. It has also added a fresh layer of juvenile thinking to the acid bath of contemporary politics.
According to Newt, it would be enough to condemn Romney if a handful of the companies in which Bain invested went belly-up. This would presumably demonstrate that Mitt is not compassionate. Never mind, if most of his ventures succeeded; he would still be an economic predator. (Or, as Perry has it, a “vulture” capitalist.)
What this implies is a need for perfectionism. Any mistake, irrespective of how modest, is magnified until it is perceived as a wart that covers the target’s entire face. He (or she) is thus distilled down to the essence of a few missteps.
In fact, Bain Capital was wildly successful. It did far better in its investments than most of its rivals. Yet, it too had failures. Many of Newt’s examples are bogus, but not everything Romney and his partners touched turned to gold.
The question is—so what? If we were all required to be perfect all of the time, no books would ever be written, no buildings would ever rise from the ground, and no seeds would ever push their way up through the soil to become nourishing ears of corn. Life would come to a standstill, with everyone afraid to put one foot before another.
Actually, the effects of perfectionism run amok are currently on display in Washington. After all, hasn’t Barack Obama promised us the world and then assured us he fulfilled his word? Didn’t he, for instance, pledge to save or create millions of jobs—and then deliver?
No, wait! There may be some cynics who remain unconvinced of our president’s ability to create jobs. These people have obviously not been listening to Obama’s recitations regarding his numerous achievements. By his lights, these have made him the fourth most productive president of all time.
For those who remain in doubt, my real the point is that people who promise perfection can only sustain this illusion by making claims of success that are as fraudulent as their initial guarantees. Perfectionism is never in the cards; hence those who deal in it are forced to be disingenuous.
When politics refuses to make allowances for human fallibility, when it instead stoops to adolescent idealism, it bars the door to genuine advances. To make the perfect the enemy of the good, as I did before I learned to write reasonably well, or as Newt has done in ridiculing Bain Capital, is to preclude actual improvements.
This stance embraces fantasies over facts. Sadly, if too many of us adopt it, it will be to our eternal sorrow.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Our Second Anti-American President
The current inhabitant of the White House is our second anti-American president. The first was James Buchanan, who during his term of office demonstrated his preference for the South by refusing to thwart the impending Civil War. Obama’s bias has not yet reached such proportions, but it is nearly as egregious.
This judgment may seem to be political hyperbole; nevertheless the evidence to support it is robust. To begin with, Obama comes by his anti-Americanism honestly. His father left this country and returned to Kenya in a snit, while his mother manifested her negative attitude by living as an expatriate in Indonesia for most of her adult life.
In any event, our president’s mind-set has had disastrous implications both domestically and internationally. Indeed, in many ways he has done more damage to the United States than would have been inflicted by a full-scale enemy assault. So let us review the facts.
On the domestic front he has brought the nation to the brink of a budgetary catastrophe. He has also lengthened our economic downturn by supporting policies that discouraged private investment. This, coupled with his disdain for the free market and those who drive it forward, has introduced a host of unnecessary uncertainties.
He has also shown contempt for our political institutions by repeatedly subverting them. To illustrate, instead of healing the nation’s political divisions, he has refused to compromise with the opposition. From the beginning he has been a super-partisan whose mantra has been “it’s my way or the highway.” In addition to vilifying the Republicans, he has refused even to talk to them.
Then too, when it has suited his purposes he has thumbed his nose at the constitution. By his own admission, he has sought to govern without the cooperation of Congress. This strategy too began right out of the starting gate, when he began to rely on so-called unconfirmed “czars” to implement his policies
We have also witnessed his penchant for employing sleazy backroom deals to achieve his ends. This reached a high-water mark with the passage of Obamacare. Not only were its details unread by those who passed the legislation, but it was larded with special benefits for the president’s political allies.
In general, Obama has undermined the democratic culture of our nation by resorting to demagogic tactics. Thus, he promised everything to everyone, but he has also indulged in dishonesty of a magnitude not approached by his predecessors. Democracy depends on trust, yet time and again he has proved himself untrustworthy.
As to the international scene, he has repetitively fawned over our enemies, while disrespecting our friends. We have seen this with respect to Israel and the Palestinians. We have also seen it in his policies toward Russia and Western Europe. The president has even managed to offend our Canadian and Mexican neighbors, while providing succor for socialists in Honduras and Venezuela.
Perhaps worst of all, he is in the process of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, at the very same time that he is allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. To make matters even worse, he is intent on hollowing out our military, just as it faces greater threats.
But now we have two new pieces of evidence regarding Obama’s underlying attitude. Internationally, he is beginning to make overtures to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. It was apparently not enough to undercut our Islamic friends, but we may soon be asked to get into bed with our Middle Eastern adversaries.
And then there are his recess appointments to the new consumer protection agency and the national labor relations board. Even though the president knew that the Senate was not technically in recess, he did what he wanted—the constitution be damned. Obama evidently intends to remake the United States along the lines he prefers.
It was not very long ago that our president promised us change we could believe in. Time has now revealed what he meant. Quite clearly Obama did not appreciate the country he inherited and hoped to convert it into something else. While he portrays this as love, it is really scorn.
Calling a sitting president anti-American is surely extreme, but those of us who are fond of the United States must understand what is occurring, that is, if we are to protect our nation from those who would dismantle it.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
This judgment may seem to be political hyperbole; nevertheless the evidence to support it is robust. To begin with, Obama comes by his anti-Americanism honestly. His father left this country and returned to Kenya in a snit, while his mother manifested her negative attitude by living as an expatriate in Indonesia for most of her adult life.
In any event, our president’s mind-set has had disastrous implications both domestically and internationally. Indeed, in many ways he has done more damage to the United States than would have been inflicted by a full-scale enemy assault. So let us review the facts.
On the domestic front he has brought the nation to the brink of a budgetary catastrophe. He has also lengthened our economic downturn by supporting policies that discouraged private investment. This, coupled with his disdain for the free market and those who drive it forward, has introduced a host of unnecessary uncertainties.
He has also shown contempt for our political institutions by repeatedly subverting them. To illustrate, instead of healing the nation’s political divisions, he has refused to compromise with the opposition. From the beginning he has been a super-partisan whose mantra has been “it’s my way or the highway.” In addition to vilifying the Republicans, he has refused even to talk to them.
Then too, when it has suited his purposes he has thumbed his nose at the constitution. By his own admission, he has sought to govern without the cooperation of Congress. This strategy too began right out of the starting gate, when he began to rely on so-called unconfirmed “czars” to implement his policies
We have also witnessed his penchant for employing sleazy backroom deals to achieve his ends. This reached a high-water mark with the passage of Obamacare. Not only were its details unread by those who passed the legislation, but it was larded with special benefits for the president’s political allies.
In general, Obama has undermined the democratic culture of our nation by resorting to demagogic tactics. Thus, he promised everything to everyone, but he has also indulged in dishonesty of a magnitude not approached by his predecessors. Democracy depends on trust, yet time and again he has proved himself untrustworthy.
As to the international scene, he has repetitively fawned over our enemies, while disrespecting our friends. We have seen this with respect to Israel and the Palestinians. We have also seen it in his policies toward Russia and Western Europe. The president has even managed to offend our Canadian and Mexican neighbors, while providing succor for socialists in Honduras and Venezuela.
Perhaps worst of all, he is in the process of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, at the very same time that he is allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. To make matters even worse, he is intent on hollowing out our military, just as it faces greater threats.
But now we have two new pieces of evidence regarding Obama’s underlying attitude. Internationally, he is beginning to make overtures to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. It was apparently not enough to undercut our Islamic friends, but we may soon be asked to get into bed with our Middle Eastern adversaries.
And then there are his recess appointments to the new consumer protection agency and the national labor relations board. Even though the president knew that the Senate was not technically in recess, he did what he wanted—the constitution be damned. Obama evidently intends to remake the United States along the lines he prefers.
It was not very long ago that our president promised us change we could believe in. Time has now revealed what he meant. Quite clearly Obama did not appreciate the country he inherited and hoped to convert it into something else. While he portrays this as love, it is really scorn.
Calling a sitting president anti-American is surely extreme, but those of us who are fond of the United States must understand what is occurring, that is, if we are to protect our nation from those who would dismantle it.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Race Relations at KSU
Once Barack Obama got elected, we were supposed to enter a post-racial world. As our first black president, he would bring us all together irrespective of race. Unfortunately things have not worked out that way. Today, those who criticize Obama are likely to be told they are only exposing their racist inclinations.
Worse still, the president’s Attorney-General Eric Holder is fond of censuring whites for their alleged lack of courage with respect to racial issues. Just how disposed Holder is to see things through a racial prism was revealed in an anecdote told by J. Christian Adams in his book Injustice.
It seems that for many years Holder carried a newspaper clipping in his wallet that quoted a black preacher as saying, “ No matter how affluent, educated and mobile [a black person] becomes, his race defines him more than anything else.” Given his actions, Holder apparently continues to think of himself this way.
I am happy to report, however, that on a local level we seem to have made more progress on racial integration than they have in Washington. The South continues to have a terrible reputation when it comes to race relations, but this is belied by what is occurring on the ground at Kennesaw State University.
When I first began teaching at KSU more than two decades ago, barely three percent of our student population was black. Today we are moving to upwards of twenty-three percent. Back then black students left us to go to Georgia State because they found the atmosphere there more congenial. Today the reverse is true.
More than this, I daily witness my students interacting with one another in terms of friendship. There are no ghettoes in my classrooms. To the contrary, members of different racial groups socialize with one another unselfconsciously based on their personal aspirations.
Added to this is the fact that I can never be sure of who will be my best or worst students based solely on skin color. Sometimes the best student is white; sometimes black. As it happens, the same is also true with respect to who gets the lowest grade.
What is the reason for this state of affairs? How has a circumstance that would have been regarded as miraculous a scant half century ago come to be? The answer, I am sorry to say, is not to be found in a particular policy that has been initiated by my university.
It is not that KSU does not have such policies. Like almost every college it sponsors programs to teach about race. It also encourages both courses and student activities that focus on racial matters. Nonetheless, these are not what have made the difference.
It turns out that programs such as “sensitivity training” have almost no impact on racial arttitudes. As Harvard sociologist Frank Dobbin’s research has revealed, these leave their participants unchanged. Why this is so is easy to understand.
Imagine a racist is such a program. He knows what he is expected to say when told that all whites are privileged compared with blacks. Assuming he is not a fool, rather than harm his prospects, he mouths the correct responses; whereas his underlying feelings remain what they were. As to non-racists, they assume that the program has nothing to do with them; hence their attitudes also remain the same.
What then makes the difference? The answer lies in a phrase for which Richard Nixon was roundly castigated. He suggested that the best approach to resolving racial difficulties was “benign neglect.” The government should just step back and allow events to unfold naturally.
This essentially is what has happened at KSU. Way back in the 1940’s another sociologist named Morton Deutsch suggested that if members of different races were allowed to interact with one another, they would soon learn that members of the other group were as human as themselves. Consequent to this, the barriers between them would come tumbling down.
What Deutsch did not understand was that for this policy to work the meeting between the two groups must be voluntary. If they are forced to interact, both sides will resist. Fortunately, what has occurred at KSU was completely voluntary. Blacks and whites have learned to get along because no one has twisted their arms to make them more gracious. They have simply done so on their own.
To which I say—Amen!
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Worse still, the president’s Attorney-General Eric Holder is fond of censuring whites for their alleged lack of courage with respect to racial issues. Just how disposed Holder is to see things through a racial prism was revealed in an anecdote told by J. Christian Adams in his book Injustice.
It seems that for many years Holder carried a newspaper clipping in his wallet that quoted a black preacher as saying, “ No matter how affluent, educated and mobile [a black person] becomes, his race defines him more than anything else.” Given his actions, Holder apparently continues to think of himself this way.
I am happy to report, however, that on a local level we seem to have made more progress on racial integration than they have in Washington. The South continues to have a terrible reputation when it comes to race relations, but this is belied by what is occurring on the ground at Kennesaw State University.
When I first began teaching at KSU more than two decades ago, barely three percent of our student population was black. Today we are moving to upwards of twenty-three percent. Back then black students left us to go to Georgia State because they found the atmosphere there more congenial. Today the reverse is true.
More than this, I daily witness my students interacting with one another in terms of friendship. There are no ghettoes in my classrooms. To the contrary, members of different racial groups socialize with one another unselfconsciously based on their personal aspirations.
Added to this is the fact that I can never be sure of who will be my best or worst students based solely on skin color. Sometimes the best student is white; sometimes black. As it happens, the same is also true with respect to who gets the lowest grade.
What is the reason for this state of affairs? How has a circumstance that would have been regarded as miraculous a scant half century ago come to be? The answer, I am sorry to say, is not to be found in a particular policy that has been initiated by my university.
It is not that KSU does not have such policies. Like almost every college it sponsors programs to teach about race. It also encourages both courses and student activities that focus on racial matters. Nonetheless, these are not what have made the difference.
It turns out that programs such as “sensitivity training” have almost no impact on racial arttitudes. As Harvard sociologist Frank Dobbin’s research has revealed, these leave their participants unchanged. Why this is so is easy to understand.
Imagine a racist is such a program. He knows what he is expected to say when told that all whites are privileged compared with blacks. Assuming he is not a fool, rather than harm his prospects, he mouths the correct responses; whereas his underlying feelings remain what they were. As to non-racists, they assume that the program has nothing to do with them; hence their attitudes also remain the same.
What then makes the difference? The answer lies in a phrase for which Richard Nixon was roundly castigated. He suggested that the best approach to resolving racial difficulties was “benign neglect.” The government should just step back and allow events to unfold naturally.
This essentially is what has happened at KSU. Way back in the 1940’s another sociologist named Morton Deutsch suggested that if members of different races were allowed to interact with one another, they would soon learn that members of the other group were as human as themselves. Consequent to this, the barriers between them would come tumbling down.
What Deutsch did not understand was that for this policy to work the meeting between the two groups must be voluntary. If they are forced to interact, both sides will resist. Fortunately, what has occurred at KSU was completely voluntary. Blacks and whites have learned to get along because no one has twisted their arms to make them more gracious. They have simply done so on their own.
To which I say—Amen!
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Mitt the Unloved
My wife’s uncle John is a man of the heartland. Born and raised in Ohio, he currently resides on Florida’s west coast. A marine mechanic by trade, and a committed Christian by choice, he is justifiably proud of his skills and his work ethic. A Reagan Democrat politically, he too has been thinking about the next election.
Consequently when John expresses an opinion, I listen. I was therefore taken aback when he declared, “There is something about Mitt Romney that I just don’t like. I’m not sure what it is. I just don’t like him.”
John is apparently not alone. A majority of Republican voters have been frantically switching their allegiance from one candidate to another rather than commit to Romney. Despite the fact that he has the most consistent record of any of the candidates in the debates, they have expressed a desire for Gingrich, Cain, Perry, Paul, or Bachmann rather than him.
Some have suggested that this is because Romney is a Mormon. They say that evangelicals just do not trust Mormons. But John never expressed any such doubts. Moreover, millions of evangelicals love Glen Beck who is equally Mormon. This then cannot be the reason.
Others have argued that it is because Romney is insufficiently conservative. These folks believe that the Tea Party members are demanding the most conservative candidate they can find. In this case, however, they should have eschewed Gingrich. He has been all over the political landscape, but has nevertheless attracted a significant following.
May I, therefore, put forward another alternative. Something that Rick Perry said when he was pleading for a second look may hold the key. Perry complained that Romney was so good looking that this created a distraction when they were sparring during one of the debates.
The problem may indeed be that Mitt is too perfect. His hair is never messed up, his clothes are never rumpled, and he always has something appropriate to say. Mitt, in short, is a straight arrow. He is like that goody-two-shoes who was the teacher’s pet in the third grade. Just like that oh so flawless kid, you want to throw him into the mud to teach him a lesson.
What makes this especially odd is the earlier reaction to Obama. According to Ron Suskind, when Barack was running for president many in his entourage referred to him as Jesus. They apparently thought of him as so perfect that he could save the nation from Republican cupidity. For them, this was not a disqualification, but a source of enormous pride.
Republicans, however, seem to be a bit more realistic. As people who are attuned to the limitations inherent in the human condition, they are suspicious of anyone who appears unblemished. They fear that such a person is too good to be true; hence if he or she gains power, the insensitivity behind the mask will emerge to cause untold harm.
Barack’s saving grace was that he appeared affable. He seemed to be a nice guy. Today we know that he maintains an emotional barrier between himself and the rest of the world. Mitt unfortunately is stiff in comparison. It is as if there is a robot hiding underneath his tidy exterior.
But I suspect that the mistake we are making is the reverse of the one we made with Barack. I believe that Mitt is more decent and human than he generally reveals himself to be the public. This side of him, however, peeked through during an interview he gave to Fox’s Chris Wallace.
When asked about his wife’s health, Mitt was forced to discuss issues he usually keeps private. Up until that moment I had not realized that his spouse suffered from MS. This is because he had not brought up the subject in an effort to gain sympathy. He and his family had merely dealt with it in the matter-of-fact way of problem-solvers.
But what really grabbed my attention was the moistness in Romney’s eyes as he disclosed these matters. At no point did he ask for pity, yet in his tight-lipped way he convinced me that here was a man who genuinely loves his wife.
But he did more than that. His unfeigned modesty also convinced me that he is a man who genuinely loves his country. And I want someone like that for president!
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Consequently when John expresses an opinion, I listen. I was therefore taken aback when he declared, “There is something about Mitt Romney that I just don’t like. I’m not sure what it is. I just don’t like him.”
John is apparently not alone. A majority of Republican voters have been frantically switching their allegiance from one candidate to another rather than commit to Romney. Despite the fact that he has the most consistent record of any of the candidates in the debates, they have expressed a desire for Gingrich, Cain, Perry, Paul, or Bachmann rather than him.
Some have suggested that this is because Romney is a Mormon. They say that evangelicals just do not trust Mormons. But John never expressed any such doubts. Moreover, millions of evangelicals love Glen Beck who is equally Mormon. This then cannot be the reason.
Others have argued that it is because Romney is insufficiently conservative. These folks believe that the Tea Party members are demanding the most conservative candidate they can find. In this case, however, they should have eschewed Gingrich. He has been all over the political landscape, but has nevertheless attracted a significant following.
May I, therefore, put forward another alternative. Something that Rick Perry said when he was pleading for a second look may hold the key. Perry complained that Romney was so good looking that this created a distraction when they were sparring during one of the debates.
The problem may indeed be that Mitt is too perfect. His hair is never messed up, his clothes are never rumpled, and he always has something appropriate to say. Mitt, in short, is a straight arrow. He is like that goody-two-shoes who was the teacher’s pet in the third grade. Just like that oh so flawless kid, you want to throw him into the mud to teach him a lesson.
What makes this especially odd is the earlier reaction to Obama. According to Ron Suskind, when Barack was running for president many in his entourage referred to him as Jesus. They apparently thought of him as so perfect that he could save the nation from Republican cupidity. For them, this was not a disqualification, but a source of enormous pride.
Republicans, however, seem to be a bit more realistic. As people who are attuned to the limitations inherent in the human condition, they are suspicious of anyone who appears unblemished. They fear that such a person is too good to be true; hence if he or she gains power, the insensitivity behind the mask will emerge to cause untold harm.
Barack’s saving grace was that he appeared affable. He seemed to be a nice guy. Today we know that he maintains an emotional barrier between himself and the rest of the world. Mitt unfortunately is stiff in comparison. It is as if there is a robot hiding underneath his tidy exterior.
But I suspect that the mistake we are making is the reverse of the one we made with Barack. I believe that Mitt is more decent and human than he generally reveals himself to be the public. This side of him, however, peeked through during an interview he gave to Fox’s Chris Wallace.
When asked about his wife’s health, Mitt was forced to discuss issues he usually keeps private. Up until that moment I had not realized that his spouse suffered from MS. This is because he had not brought up the subject in an effort to gain sympathy. He and his family had merely dealt with it in the matter-of-fact way of problem-solvers.
But what really grabbed my attention was the moistness in Romney’s eyes as he disclosed these matters. At no point did he ask for pity, yet in his tight-lipped way he convinced me that here was a man who genuinely loves his wife.
But he did more than that. His unfeigned modesty also convinced me that he is a man who genuinely loves his country. And I want someone like that for president!
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, December 31, 2011
In Praise of Foresight
Forgive me if I have used the following illustration before, but in the light of our current political situation it seems particularly germane.
As it happens, World War II came to an end just as I turned four. At the time, my family was on vacation in the Catskill Mountains. Coincident with this, my uncle Milton, who had recently returned home after having served with Patton’s army, came to spend the day with us.
Having never seen me before, he decided to take me for a walk down a country road. Concerned for my welfare, on several occasions he asked if I had grown tired and wished to return to the guesthouse where we were staying. Each time I replied that I was not and that we could keep going.
Eventually, however, I asked if we could turn around. At this, he once more inquired into whether I was tired and I again responded by telling him that I was not. But then I added that I would be by the time we got back.
My uncle was so impressed with my foresight that he subsequently told this tale many times. He was especially astonished that a child so young could think so clearly into the future. Today I am retelling this story because I am equally astonished by the degree to which adult voters are currently refusing to use foresight regarding the upcoming presidential election.
Let me begin with the Democrats. How is it possible that biologically adult human beings can fail to understand the implications of a national debt that threatens to reduce us to a large-scale version of Greece? With the example of the European financial meltdown before our eyes, how can voters ignore the potential consequences for our children and grandchildren?
Yet instead of reducing government expenditures, the Democrats have decided to engage in class warfare. In the hopes of getting reelected, they have decided that this short-term gain is worth courting long-term disaster. Even worse, they have decided to enrich themselves and their political allies while this catastrophe unfolds.
The Republicans, however, are little better. They may understand that payoffs to the unions, political contributors, and crony capitalists are a recipe for national bankruptcy, but they do not seem serious about replacing the current administration with a more responsible one.
Over the past several months we have witnessed numerous polls revealing an electorate that is operating more like a pack of lemmings than a collection of serious decision-makers. Instead of looking forward to determine who can best solve our shared problems, people have shifted their loyalty from one crowd favorite to another.
Today Newt Gingrich has surged to the head of the pack. People love his feisty debate performances, but why aren’t they thinking ahead to the sort of presidential candidate he would make, or, more importantly, the sort of president he would be?
While Newt makes a good showing against fellow Republicans when standing together on a common stage, what will happen if he shares this venue with Obama? Rest assured, Barack will take the gloves off. He won’t be reluctant to point out Gingrich’s flip-flops, or to condemn his lobbying efforts, or to impugn his character.
There is a reason that the president’s campaign managers would rather run against Newt than Mitt Romney. They, at least, have the sense to realize that Gingrich is vulnerable on many counts. A flawed human being and politician, Newt makes a tempting target—however much he declares his eagerness to mix-it-up in debate.
And as to his becoming president, here the past is the best predictor of the future. Don’t people remember how hated Newt was when he was Speaker of the House? Back then, just as now, he wrangled with reporters. The difference is that back then he did it virtually every day and that the reporters returned his contempt in kind.
Can you imagine this sort of contention if Gingrich gets elected? Not only would the electorate that put him in office soon come to loath him, but the wheels of government would quickly grind to a halt. With all of the in-fighting, there would be precious little problem solving—to the continued detriment of nation.
Gingrich may have big ideas, but if they are only verbal flourishes that are never translated into effective action, what good will they do us?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
As it happens, World War II came to an end just as I turned four. At the time, my family was on vacation in the Catskill Mountains. Coincident with this, my uncle Milton, who had recently returned home after having served with Patton’s army, came to spend the day with us.
Having never seen me before, he decided to take me for a walk down a country road. Concerned for my welfare, on several occasions he asked if I had grown tired and wished to return to the guesthouse where we were staying. Each time I replied that I was not and that we could keep going.
Eventually, however, I asked if we could turn around. At this, he once more inquired into whether I was tired and I again responded by telling him that I was not. But then I added that I would be by the time we got back.
My uncle was so impressed with my foresight that he subsequently told this tale many times. He was especially astonished that a child so young could think so clearly into the future. Today I am retelling this story because I am equally astonished by the degree to which adult voters are currently refusing to use foresight regarding the upcoming presidential election.
Let me begin with the Democrats. How is it possible that biologically adult human beings can fail to understand the implications of a national debt that threatens to reduce us to a large-scale version of Greece? With the example of the European financial meltdown before our eyes, how can voters ignore the potential consequences for our children and grandchildren?
Yet instead of reducing government expenditures, the Democrats have decided to engage in class warfare. In the hopes of getting reelected, they have decided that this short-term gain is worth courting long-term disaster. Even worse, they have decided to enrich themselves and their political allies while this catastrophe unfolds.
The Republicans, however, are little better. They may understand that payoffs to the unions, political contributors, and crony capitalists are a recipe for national bankruptcy, but they do not seem serious about replacing the current administration with a more responsible one.
Over the past several months we have witnessed numerous polls revealing an electorate that is operating more like a pack of lemmings than a collection of serious decision-makers. Instead of looking forward to determine who can best solve our shared problems, people have shifted their loyalty from one crowd favorite to another.
Today Newt Gingrich has surged to the head of the pack. People love his feisty debate performances, but why aren’t they thinking ahead to the sort of presidential candidate he would make, or, more importantly, the sort of president he would be?
While Newt makes a good showing against fellow Republicans when standing together on a common stage, what will happen if he shares this venue with Obama? Rest assured, Barack will take the gloves off. He won’t be reluctant to point out Gingrich’s flip-flops, or to condemn his lobbying efforts, or to impugn his character.
There is a reason that the president’s campaign managers would rather run against Newt than Mitt Romney. They, at least, have the sense to realize that Gingrich is vulnerable on many counts. A flawed human being and politician, Newt makes a tempting target—however much he declares his eagerness to mix-it-up in debate.
And as to his becoming president, here the past is the best predictor of the future. Don’t people remember how hated Newt was when he was Speaker of the House? Back then, just as now, he wrangled with reporters. The difference is that back then he did it virtually every day and that the reporters returned his contempt in kind.
Can you imagine this sort of contention if Gingrich gets elected? Not only would the electorate that put him in office soon come to loath him, but the wheels of government would quickly grind to a halt. With all of the in-fighting, there would be precious little problem solving—to the continued detriment of nation.
Gingrich may have big ideas, but if they are only verbal flourishes that are never translated into effective action, what good will they do us?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Christmas in a Secular Society
I am a lapsed Jew. My wife was raised an evangelical. Indeed, we are both about as secular as one can get. Nevertheless, we celebrate Christmas. Notice I did not say the holidays. I said Christmas—for that is what I meant.
Nowadays many people object to the public display of Christian beliefs. They tell us that this is a violation of the freedom of religion. According to these critics, placing a crèche in a public place is tantamount to forcing particular beliefs on innocent bystanders.
My own view is that this is absurd. Even when government sponsored, such exhibitions force nothing on anyone. They are merely a way of honoring a religious tradition from which we have all benefited.
Like it or not, our society sprang, in part, from Christian roots. The founders were Christian and this inspired much of what they did. Why then should we be ashamed to acknowledge, and venerate, our shared heritage? History is history and cannot be wiped clean by the mere act of ignoring—or disinfecting—it.
In any event, my wife and I are pleased to honor what we both recognize as part of our personal birthrights. We put up a Christmas tree and travel a significant distance to celebrate the holiday with her parents. We also give gifts, and for that matter, light the Chanukah menorah.
We do so because we love the spirit of the holiday. The story of the birth of the Christ child is inspirational. It is so even for nonbelievers; that is, if they are open to the message of this venerable tradition. Christ was presumably born to save the world—and that is not a bad thing.
But more than this, that a child is regarded as enormously important has momentous implications for each succeeding generation. The central message of Christmas, after all, is love. It is about the love that the deity brought to his creation. And, as significantly, it is about love that has been channeled through a child.
When I was small, my family did not have a Christmas tree or celebrate Christ. Nonetheless, Santa Claus visited our house. While we did not have a chimney, he still managed to leave a great many gifts under the stockings we hung from a bookcase. As a consequence, Christmas morning was magical for my sister and me. We adored tearing open our presents to see what was inside.
What was it that made these moments especially memorable? --Why, it was that these were free gifts. Despite all the talk about a need to be nice rather than naughty, they were left for us merely because we were children. As a result, they confirmed our value and the fact that we were loved.
Christmas is thus an annual expression of intergenerational love. It provides us all with an opportunity to strengthen the bonds between parents and children, and in the process provides children with a gift more precious than any toy.
A central truth of the human condition is that happy adults develop from happy children. To know that others care about us, plants the seeds of a contented life. We all need love, for without it life is barren and sometimes unendurable. It is a cliché, but love gives us a reason to live. It provides the warmth that allows us to survive the chill of an occasionally hostile world.
Years ago when I was a clinician, I routinely worked with clients for whom Christmas was a burden. Having been unloved as children, they found a holiday that celebrated tender caring to be depressing. Because it reminded them of what they did not have, the pain of its absence could be sharper than a serpent’s tooth.
So what is the message of all this? It is not that we should discontinue Christmas because it causes vulnerable individuals pain. To the contrary, we must continue to celebrate the holiday’s central meaning. An event that encourages us to transmit love to the young cannot be allowed to languish. It must continue to be a source of personal and social strength.
If people object to the origins and religious trappings of Christmas, I say let them play Scrooge in their own homes. They are not defending my freedom when they seek to expunge the shared joy of a treasured tradition. For my part, I continue to wish a merry Christmas to those of us who embrace the holiday’s intent—and a happy holiday to those who don’t.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Nowadays many people object to the public display of Christian beliefs. They tell us that this is a violation of the freedom of religion. According to these critics, placing a crèche in a public place is tantamount to forcing particular beliefs on innocent bystanders.
My own view is that this is absurd. Even when government sponsored, such exhibitions force nothing on anyone. They are merely a way of honoring a religious tradition from which we have all benefited.
Like it or not, our society sprang, in part, from Christian roots. The founders were Christian and this inspired much of what they did. Why then should we be ashamed to acknowledge, and venerate, our shared heritage? History is history and cannot be wiped clean by the mere act of ignoring—or disinfecting—it.
In any event, my wife and I are pleased to honor what we both recognize as part of our personal birthrights. We put up a Christmas tree and travel a significant distance to celebrate the holiday with her parents. We also give gifts, and for that matter, light the Chanukah menorah.
We do so because we love the spirit of the holiday. The story of the birth of the Christ child is inspirational. It is so even for nonbelievers; that is, if they are open to the message of this venerable tradition. Christ was presumably born to save the world—and that is not a bad thing.
But more than this, that a child is regarded as enormously important has momentous implications for each succeeding generation. The central message of Christmas, after all, is love. It is about the love that the deity brought to his creation. And, as significantly, it is about love that has been channeled through a child.
When I was small, my family did not have a Christmas tree or celebrate Christ. Nonetheless, Santa Claus visited our house. While we did not have a chimney, he still managed to leave a great many gifts under the stockings we hung from a bookcase. As a consequence, Christmas morning was magical for my sister and me. We adored tearing open our presents to see what was inside.
What was it that made these moments especially memorable? --Why, it was that these were free gifts. Despite all the talk about a need to be nice rather than naughty, they were left for us merely because we were children. As a result, they confirmed our value and the fact that we were loved.
Christmas is thus an annual expression of intergenerational love. It provides us all with an opportunity to strengthen the bonds between parents and children, and in the process provides children with a gift more precious than any toy.
A central truth of the human condition is that happy adults develop from happy children. To know that others care about us, plants the seeds of a contented life. We all need love, for without it life is barren and sometimes unendurable. It is a cliché, but love gives us a reason to live. It provides the warmth that allows us to survive the chill of an occasionally hostile world.
Years ago when I was a clinician, I routinely worked with clients for whom Christmas was a burden. Having been unloved as children, they found a holiday that celebrated tender caring to be depressing. Because it reminded them of what they did not have, the pain of its absence could be sharper than a serpent’s tooth.
So what is the message of all this? It is not that we should discontinue Christmas because it causes vulnerable individuals pain. To the contrary, we must continue to celebrate the holiday’s central meaning. An event that encourages us to transmit love to the young cannot be allowed to languish. It must continue to be a source of personal and social strength.
If people object to the origins and religious trappings of Christmas, I say let them play Scrooge in their own homes. They are not defending my freedom when they seek to expunge the shared joy of a treasured tradition. For my part, I continue to wish a merry Christmas to those of us who embrace the holiday’s intent—and a happy holiday to those who don’t.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, December 17, 2011
The Illegal Aliens in the Cellar
Illegal Aliens have been in the news again. And as has become usual, one of the questions is whether or not to offer them amnesty. This time Newt Gingrich is the one who has suggested partial amnesty. He denies it, but in permitting people to stay in the country because they have been here a long time, he has proposed exactly that.
One of the reasons habitually proffered for making such exceptions is that it is impossible to send all of the illegals back to their homelands. With an estimated eleven to twelve million residing here, it is alleged that the logistics of such a roundup are unworkable.
The specter that is raised is of an army of immigration agents spreading out across the nation to hunt down helpless old ladies and children as they cower in someone’s cellar seeking to avoid capture. It is as if an American-made Gestapo will be necessary to get the job done.
In fact, this is just a scare tactic of those who wish to promote citizenship for lawbreakers. Whether they are Democrats who hope to gain more Hispanic votes or Republicans seeking cheap labor, the bottom line is that they do not wish to enforce our laws against unauthorized immigration.
But herein lies the secret of the humane control of our borders. It is all about enforcing the law. If we take our own regulations seriously and apply them when they are relevant, the problem can be solved.
Two things are necessary in order to bring the flood of undocumented aliens to a halt. The first is to close the border. Whether this involves a fence or hiring more border patrol agents, before we send illegal immigrants back we must cut off the flow of new ones. If do not, we will be doing nothing other than empting the pool with one hand while refilling it with the other.
The second requirement is to cut off the magnet. As long as there are significant benefits to be derived from sneaking over the border, people will continue to do so. They will risk being caught because the rewards outweigh the potential punishment.
Unfortunately it is even more difficult to remove this lure than to interdict the flow of non-citizens. One way to get at this is to punish employers who hire undocumented workers. If we make it unprofitable to flout the law, they may decide to obey it. As a result, the jobs that illegals hope for will no longer be available to them.
But a second strategy for removing the attraction is to make it less comfortable to reside in this country. If the costs of doing so are substantially greater than leaving, reasonable people may decide it is time to go home.
This is why it is important to deport the illegals found living within our country. People must know that if they are discovered, the law will be enforced. They must be made to feel insecure. Only if they are, are they likely to conclude that evading detection is not worth the effort.
But there is no need for a heartless roundup. All that is necessary is to extradite those individuals found to be here illegally as they are encountered in the ordinary course of business. We don’t require cattle cars filled with desperate souls headed to the border. All we need is one individual after another obliged to leave and then prevented from returning.
The trick is to have a Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of every illegal immigrant. If they fear that their turn to be ejected will be next, they may voluntarily decide it is best to return from whence they came.
This strategy is comparable to the one that Rudy Giuliani use to slash New York City’s crime rate. By enforcing the laws, even the trivial ones, he sent potential criminals a message. They were essentially told that they would not be given a free pass and hence should think twice before they decided to do wrong.
The same holds true for illegal immigrants. If we treat the laws against entering this country illegally as if they are trivial, they will be regarded as trivial. But if we take them seriously—which means imposing the appropriate sanctions—they are apt to be regarded as serious.
Legal immigration ought to be welcomed, but the illegal sort should remain illegal—or else we are just playing games. It is therefore time for us to decide what we truly believe.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
One of the reasons habitually proffered for making such exceptions is that it is impossible to send all of the illegals back to their homelands. With an estimated eleven to twelve million residing here, it is alleged that the logistics of such a roundup are unworkable.
The specter that is raised is of an army of immigration agents spreading out across the nation to hunt down helpless old ladies and children as they cower in someone’s cellar seeking to avoid capture. It is as if an American-made Gestapo will be necessary to get the job done.
In fact, this is just a scare tactic of those who wish to promote citizenship for lawbreakers. Whether they are Democrats who hope to gain more Hispanic votes or Republicans seeking cheap labor, the bottom line is that they do not wish to enforce our laws against unauthorized immigration.
But herein lies the secret of the humane control of our borders. It is all about enforcing the law. If we take our own regulations seriously and apply them when they are relevant, the problem can be solved.
Two things are necessary in order to bring the flood of undocumented aliens to a halt. The first is to close the border. Whether this involves a fence or hiring more border patrol agents, before we send illegal immigrants back we must cut off the flow of new ones. If do not, we will be doing nothing other than empting the pool with one hand while refilling it with the other.
The second requirement is to cut off the magnet. As long as there are significant benefits to be derived from sneaking over the border, people will continue to do so. They will risk being caught because the rewards outweigh the potential punishment.
Unfortunately it is even more difficult to remove this lure than to interdict the flow of non-citizens. One way to get at this is to punish employers who hire undocumented workers. If we make it unprofitable to flout the law, they may decide to obey it. As a result, the jobs that illegals hope for will no longer be available to them.
But a second strategy for removing the attraction is to make it less comfortable to reside in this country. If the costs of doing so are substantially greater than leaving, reasonable people may decide it is time to go home.
This is why it is important to deport the illegals found living within our country. People must know that if they are discovered, the law will be enforced. They must be made to feel insecure. Only if they are, are they likely to conclude that evading detection is not worth the effort.
But there is no need for a heartless roundup. All that is necessary is to extradite those individuals found to be here illegally as they are encountered in the ordinary course of business. We don’t require cattle cars filled with desperate souls headed to the border. All we need is one individual after another obliged to leave and then prevented from returning.
The trick is to have a Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of every illegal immigrant. If they fear that their turn to be ejected will be next, they may voluntarily decide it is best to return from whence they came.
This strategy is comparable to the one that Rudy Giuliani use to slash New York City’s crime rate. By enforcing the laws, even the trivial ones, he sent potential criminals a message. They were essentially told that they would not be given a free pass and hence should think twice before they decided to do wrong.
The same holds true for illegal immigrants. If we treat the laws against entering this country illegally as if they are trivial, they will be regarded as trivial. But if we take them seriously—which means imposing the appropriate sanctions—they are apt to be regarded as serious.
Legal immigration ought to be welcomed, but the illegal sort should remain illegal—or else we are just playing games. It is therefore time for us to decide what we truly believe.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
