The Audacity of Truth

“L’Audace, l’audace, toujours l’audace.”

When I first heard these words, I had no idea of what they meant. I did not even realize they were French. All I knew is that George C. Scott uttered them in his title role as General George Patton. He was reclining on a sofa and used them to chide an officer who was reluctant to go into combat.

The quote, which comes from Napoleon, translates as “audacity, audacity, always audacity,” and was Bonaparte’s philosophy of how one should approach a military campaign. Be daring, be bold, and take the battle to the enemy! Put the other guy on the defensive by courageously taking the initiative.

This was good advice for military commanders. It is good advice for political leaders. If you want to be successful when competing with others, don’t worry so much about what they will do; give them reason to worry about what you will do.

Another way to put this is: be active, rather than reactive. Don’t be afraid to make the first move and don’t only try to ward off the blows of your adversary. Get in a few good licks of your own, even when the other guy is busy attacking you. Turn the tide and get him on the defensive.

This strategy worked pretty well for Napoleon. Yes, he overextended himself in the Russian campaign and lost at Waterloo, but even in this last encounter he did fairly well considering he had only a hundred days to prepare for it.

Aggressiveness and audacity are valuable weapons that frequently separate winners from losers. Even Barack Obama understands this. Didn’t he entitle a book: The Audacity of Hope?

So why aren’t Republicans being audacious? Indeed, why do conservatives, in general, seem to enter frays tepidly and perhaps timidly? Too often they appear more concerned with playing the part of a “gentleman,” rather than a combatant.

Yet make no mistake about it, conservatism is in mortal combat with radical liberalism. Furthermore, it must win if it is to save our nation from a new dark age. This may sound extreme, but the poverty, weakness, and lack of liberty sure to flow from an unchecked liberal agenda would be devastating.

So I say it is time to attack. To attack, and attack, and attack some more! No doubt a degree of circumspection is required. Assailing an enemy without first reconnoitering the situation or devising a suitable plan of action is not wise. But neither is imitating General George McClellan and cowering in a corner because one over-estimates the enemy.

Radical liberals are vulnerable. Among other things they are liars. Thus, Obama says he will balance the budget; he will not. He claims that ObamaCare will reduce costs and improve services; it will not. He tells us he has an “all of the above” strategy for energy; he does not.

So why not go on the offensive. Why not, for instance, accuse Obama of being a political juggler. He has, after all, been keeping so many lies flying through the air that he deserves scorn for this performance. Or why not compare him to a seal balancing a stack of platitudes on the tip of a teleprompter?

Then if he and his allies come roaring back by charging that Republicans are merely obstructionists—that all they do is say No—bear this label proudly. Insist that saying No to perilous programs is equivalent to putting one’s finger in the dike; that it amounts saving the nation from a flood of foolish and arrogant initiatives.

The key to winning a bare-knuckle brawl is not to go wobbly in the knees when the other guy gets in a few good thumps. Victory goes to the daring. It goes to those who stand their ground and look for an opening that is even more devastating. Conservatives don’t need more apologies or weak declarations of good intentions. They need muscle.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Doubling Down on Liberal Democrats

For a while there I was worried. In the wake of their November loss, too many Republicans began to sound like perpetual losers. Instead of looking toward the future, they decided to do a self-autopsy, which is a little like self-disembowelment.

Didn’t conservatives understand that the best defense is a good offense? Didn’t they realize that the more apologies they made, the more is appeared they had a lot to apologize for?

In any event, I find this defensiveness particularly galling when those on the political right protest that they are not racists or sexists. They do so because the charge that they are has become a standard feature of the liberal armamentum; wheeled out whenever leftists do something foolish.

Why? Rather than be criticized, Democrats recognize that if they can put their adversaries off balance, their foes will be so busy protecting their flanks they won’t have the time to fight back.

Yet liberals too have many glaring weaknesses. Ironically among these are often the very things for which the castigate conservatives. Hence I say it is time to double down on liberal Democrats and give them a taste of their own medicine.

What do I mean? Why I am talking about using the “Chicago way” against them. You know, they bring a knife to the fight; you bring a gun. They put one of yours in the hospital; you put one of theirs in the morgue.

The way this works is that when they call you a racist; you respond by calling them “double racists.” When they label you a sexist; you slam them as “double sexists.” When they describe you a “classist;” you denounce them as “double classists.” This may sound childish, but it has the virtue of being true.

Okay, let’s go through the numbers. Are liberals double racists? You bet they are. They are prejudiced not only against whites, but also against blacks. The white part is obvious. Liberals are forever blasting whites for being bigots who do not realize how privileged they are.

But liberals also attack blacks. No, they do not do so directly; they do it by implication. Time and again African-Americans are infantilized. They are treated as if they are too dumb and too weak to be held to the same standards as their fellow citizens. This is an insult of the first magnitude for which blacks should be up in arms.

Next we turn to gender. Are liberals biased against men? Anyone who has been paying attention knows they are. Men are routinely libeled as misogynistic villains, who enjoy nothing more than terrorizing women by threatening them with rape. In the liberal universe, heterosexual love is not possible because men are incapable of it.

But women do not get off Scott free either. They are slandered whenever they attempt to be too feminine. Whatever their personal inclinations, they must go out to conquer the world by becoming corporate CEOs. Should they have the temerity of wanting to be wives and mothers, they are vilified as traitors to their gender.

Finally, there is the charge of classism. Clearly Republicans are castigated for loving the rich so much that they oppress the poor. Nevertheless liberals are double classists in that they despise both the rich and the poor.

The rich part of the equation is easy to verify in that liberals are forever demanding that the wealthy pay their “fair share.” What they consider fair, however, tends to mean that the government will take whatever it wants until the affluent no longer are.

As for the poor, they too are crushed under the heel of uncaring liberals. How you ask? Why in the same manner as the old joke, which proclaims that God must really love the poor because he made so many of them. Given the way Democrats are undermining the economy, they too seem intent on multiplying the ranks of the impoverished.

Q.E.D.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Social Promotion: Thwn and Now

I think I was in the first grade. Anyway, I remember the commotion. My next-door neighbor’s son had been left back. He was only a year older than me, but he was “slow.” While he was a nice boy with whom I often played—once even plotting to burn my sister at the stake—he wasn’t book-smart.

At the time, I did not understand what the fuss was about. In retrospect I realize his parents were deeply distressed that their only child would be stigmatized by having to repeat a grade. They were equally worried that being surrounded by children younger would stunt his emotional growth.

These parents were not alone in their concerns. Others were equally vociferous in their conviction that demoting a child had dire consequences. What is more, the teachers agreed. They too were lobbying for what was called “social promotion.” Children were to be advanced a grade, not because they mastered the materials of the earlier one, but because they were a year older.

The theory was that acquiring social skills was even more important than attaining academic ones. Thus, to leave a child behind was to inflict an indelible scar. It marked him or her as a loser who would be ridiculed by age-mates as “dumb” and shunned by classmates as too “big” to belong.

As a consequence, school policies were changed to keep students with their age peers. In the end, all were moved along irrespective of what they knew. Ultimately, when they graduated from high school, as many did, they could neither read nor do simple arithmetic. A diploma ostensibly certified that they were educated, but anyone who knew them realized this was not true.

Today many states are about to launch on an updated version of the social promotion, only this time at the college level. (Here it is called Complete College Georgia.) Once more the experts and concerned parents are essentially urging us to move students along for their own good.

What is being proposed (and in some cases enacted) is that states fund universities in terms of their number of graduates as opposed to their number of attendees. This is supposed to make schools accountable. They are, in effect, being told to demonstrate their effectiveness before they are bankrolled.

This, at least, is the theory. But put yourself in the place of a college administrator. You need more money to underwrite your programs, but the only way to loosen state purse strings is to raise your graduation rate. So what do you do? Why, you lower the standards required to graduate.

Higher education, indeed, education in general, has witnessed an alarming grade inflation. Individuals who were once “C” students are now pocketing “A’s” as if these were jellybeans. A sense of entitlement has taken hold such that many mediocre learners fancy themselves embryonic geniuses.

So now, in the name of improved quality, we are about to see educational criteria take another nosedive. In fact, this is already happening. A colleague of mine who teaches at state university up north tells me when his students cannot read; they have the tests read to them. Not only this, but they have the questions explained to them.

This then is supposed to be progress. No doubt we will shortly be treated to hordes of college graduates who also can neither read nor do simple arithmetic. Our universities are clearly in trouble. Indeed, ordinary citizens are beginning to ask if they are worth the cost. What, they inquire, is the point when their graduates know less than fifth graders.

No wonder that my colleagues and I question the foresight of this brave new world of “rationalized” finance. We, who daily struggle to maintain the value of what we teach, shudder at finding ourselves, and our students, sold out in the shadows of a legislative night. Let us remember that even good intentions can have unintended consequences.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Turning On A Dime

As MDJ readers may know, I have been highly exercised by Barack Obama’s about-face on the subject of the national debt. Whereas four years ago, he described George W. Bush’s six trillion dollar smaller debt as unpatriotic and immoral, he now views the current obligation as unproblematic.

This turning on a dime to fit momentary political needs strikes me as both dishonest and destructive. Absolutely contrary to our collective interests, it places Obama’s desire to destroy his rivals above the interests of the rest of us—especially our children and grandchildren.

But then something else occurred me. I was reminded of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact that preceded World War II. This accord, which freed Hitler’s hands to attack the West, also included a section that allowed Germany and Russia to divide Poland between them.

Before this deal was reached, the Communists had been adamant anti-Nazis. They had castigated Hitler and his henchmen as the scum of the earth. But then, quite suddenly, Adolf was rehabilitated. Now he was obviously a statesman of the first order.

This change clearly served Stalin’s interests. He was justifiably frightened of Germany’s aggressive intentions and wished to buy time by appeasing his potential foe. According to Uncle Joe’s calculations, this would provide the breathing space needed to beef up his own forces.

Meanwhile, across the pond in the United States, Stalin’s communist allies were listening to their master’s voice. Almost immediately, their attitude toward Hitler was transformed. Leaping to stay in step with the party line, they too became more respectful of the Nazi dictator.

Which brings us to the contemporary America. When Obama did his U-turn, so did loyal Democrats. Both in and out of congress, they declared that there was no spending problem. Yes, the national debt was large, but not so large that the nation could not easily absorb it.

This, of course, was disingenuous. Democrats too could do the math. They had to realize, along with the congressional budget office, that the debt trajectory was unsustainable. Yet this realization paled in comparison with their short-term political objectives.

Whatever the long-term risks, they calculated that they could kick the can a bit further down road without precipitating an immediate crisis. They, along with their leader, reckoned that this would enable them to blame Republicans for being stingy—at least until the mid-term election delivered both houses of congress into their hands.

And so the party loyalists turned on a dime. Without fully thinking through the implications of their reversal, they fell into lock step. This, it seems to me, is just as dangerous as Obama’s inconsistency; just as dangerous as the faithfulness of communist fellow travellers to Stalin some eight decades ago.

Loyalty is a good thing, but blind loyalty can be fatal. Too many Americans reflexively close ranks with the party of their usual choice. Instead of paying attention to the issues at stake, they, like their mentors, are more concerned with defeating political enemies.

Nevertheless, I refuse to believe that moderate liberals cannot bring themselves to see the looming dangers. They too, after all, are capable of understanding the implications of the Greek and Cypriote meltdowns. These may be tiny countries, yet the lessons of partisan irresponsibility are huge.

Radical liberals, however, are another matter. They routinely dismiss the consequences of fiscal mismanagement. As moral warriors, they are like the Viking berserkers who blindly rushed into battle swinging their axes totally oblivious of the adjacent dangers.

The question is; what of the rest of us? Will we follow their lead? Will we continue to kowtow to national authority figures irrespective of what they say? Or will more of us begin thinking for ourselves.

Back in the 1930’s, Americans who bothered to notice what Hitler was doing were mortified. Will enough of us today be sufficiently alarmed by contemporary developments to stand against them? We will see.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Cliff? What Cliff?

I have a mortgage. It is not under water, but it is much larger than I could pay off in a single bite. Every month, when I get the bill from the bank, I take note of how much will go for the principal and how much for interest. The two numbers are uncomfortably close and will be for many years.

I am also very aware every time I send in a payment that the money going for interest is unavailable to be spent on other things. Like all average citizens, my wife and I have to balance the family books and that means prioritizing what we buy and what we forego.

But we are told that this logic does not apply to the federal government. If it spends more than it has, increased economic activity and therefore increased revenues will compensate for this. In the end, it cannot go broke because it is the banker of last resort.

This is elementary Keynesianism. The government borrows, and spends, and thereby “primes the pump.” Then when the water begins gushing forth, everyone is wealthier than they had been before. Likewise, if the government does not do its part by spending wildly, we will all suffer unremitting poverty.

The trouble with this theory is that it has been tried and does not work. It did not work for Franklin D. Roosevelt who employed it for almost a decade. It has not worked for Barack Obama who has resorted to it for four years and now plans to use it for another four.

Economists tell us that the economy should continue to grow, but at an anemic rate—not even enough to create jobs for everyone seeking them. But this is okay because we can continue to borrow and to prime the pump.

Barack Obama is currently telling us that there is no impending debt crisis. He says that we can keep going for at least another decade with no adverse effects. Greece may have gone broke, yet as the world’s reserve currency we can keep borrowing for as long as it takes to turn the corner.

But can we? The president and his minions assert that there is no debt cliff. It is only a bunch of Republican alarmists who think so. Just four short years ago Obama himself was warning that Bush was stealing from our children; nevertheless that danger no longer applies because Democrats are now in charge.

In truth, the borrowing cannot last forever, because the federal government also pays interest on what it borrows. So far, this administration has been lucky in that interests rates have been extremely low. What with the Fed charging banks almost no interest and other governments in more trouble than we are, investors have been willing to accept paltry returns.

That, however, cannot go on indefinitely. With more and more money being pumped into an economy that is not increasing its production of goods to match, eventually prices must go up. We may not know when this inflation will hit, but when it does the consequences will be dire.

As has happened in the past, interest rates will skyrocket, which means that what the government has to pay to attract lenders will as well. Then, to paraphrase Obama, simple math tells us that the dollars going out to pay for the interest will not be available for other things.

Nevertheless, this is in the future. Today we may be feeling uncomfortable, but we are not in agony. People, like me, warn about the impending cliff, yet we have not, to date, gone over it. We have certainly not bottomed out and so it seems to many that all is well.

Still, there is a debt cliff coming, and those who are asking “what cliff” will be hurt just as badly as those warning of it. The question is, will we do anything before it is too late? The doubts grow.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Unconditional Moral Surrender

I do not like Barack Obama. I was reminded of how much I dislike him when Mitt Romney recently reappeared in public. Here was a decent, and competent, human being who was rejected in favor of a moral pygmy. For reasons I cannot fathom, the American people preferred four more years of lies, manipulation, and bankruptcy to him.

Now I know this is harsh. But the time has come to be harsh. Once more our president has revealed his true nature. In order to gain political advantage, he has knowingly chosen to injure our nation. Even school children are fair game for his destructive impulses.

Everyone in Washington understands that Barack chose to close the White House to visitors in order to demonstrate how damaging budget cuts would be. They likewise know that he instructed his underlings to find other unnecessary cutbacks in other agencies as well.

This has been called the Washington Monument ploy in that it is a very visible way to arouse public ire. Shut down the Washington Monument, or the White House, and ordinary Americans will demand that something be done—such as rescinding the budget sequester.

To engage in this sort of deception, even when knowledgeable observers see it for what it is, is the height of cynicism. It is to treat the American people as if they are mentally defective. But then again, the American people have swallowed so many lies over the last four years that Obama had reason to believe he could get away with this maneuver.

A cardinal doctrine of contemporary liberalism is that we must accord everyone “unconditional positive regard.” Whatever they do, we must not be too critical. To do so might harm their self-esteem. And so we must let others know that we love them, even though we do not like what they did.

Well, I am a little bit more old-fashioned than that. When you shoot me in the foot, I do not say thank you, may I have another. When I know that you have intentionally sought to injure me, I do not give you positive, but negative regard. In other words, I am furious with you!

Now some people might characterize this reaction as cruel, whereas I consider it appropriate. Morality exists only when people uphold moral conduct. When they tolerate immoral behavior on the grounds that condemning it might make the perpetrator feel bad, they are actually condoning it.

Taken literally “unconditional positive regard” is tantamount to “unconditional moral surrender.” If bad behavior can never be called out for what it is, this is the equivalent of moral abdication. It is to do nothing in the face of wickedness, thereby compounding it.

So I am calling out Barack Obama. I have done so before, and no doubt will do so again. Nor am I alone. This latest piece of presidential mischief may have been a bridge too far. Many other voices have also been raised to object to his transparent manipulation.

The question is, How long will this displeasure last? Will the American people relent when subjected to another charm offensive? Will they agree that the president is basically a nice man and therefore we should be nice to him?

The trouble is that Obama is not nice. He may have a nice smile and a persuasive line of patter, but his actions are not those of a man who is concerned with the well being of the people dependent upon him. He talks a good game, but then he sticks a knife under the rib.

Morality cannot exist when people close their eyes to immorality. It is in particular jeopardy when people consent to corruption in the name of morality. Yes, I have been mean to Barack Obama, but he richly deserves it. And so I will desist only when he changes his ways—although I am not expecting this anytime soon.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Realistic Idealism

Do you remember the jokes the late-night comedians would make at the expense of George Bush the elder? He was regularly pilloried for being stogy and out of touch. One of their favorite zingers was to imitate him saying, “It wouldn’t be prudent.”

Well, the Republicans have become the party of prudence, whereas the Democrats have been the party of inspiration. While Republicans keep telling us that we are spending too much and will go broke if we do not mend our ways, Democrats promise to educate our children and create a pollution-free world.

As for me, I am all for prudence; yet look at the results of the last two presidential elections. It seems clear that young people, women, and minorities opted for inspiration over prudence. They did not want to hear establishment types talking about preserving the constitution or paying down the national debt.

My conclusion is that if Republicans are to become electorally competitive, they too must be inspirational. But that does not mean they should try to out-promise Obama. No one can do that. Nor does it mean they should abandon the constitution. Its stability is too important to our joint well being.

No, I am suggesting something different. It seems that important constituencies demand national leaders who are “idealistic.” So I say, conservatives should give it to them. A shell-shocked GOP has been casting around for a winning strategy and this may be it.

Nevertheless, Republicans must be wary of a “romantic idealism.” If they, like the Democrats, make promises they cannot redeem, they will be found out. The young and naïve often live with their heads in the clouds, yet they too eventually turn against leaders who do not deliver.

In my book The Limits of Idealism I argued that the young are idealistic because they are both moral and inexperienced. They fall for the simplified ideas of moral extremists because they have not yet learned the limitations of what is possible. They, for instance, believe it when told anyone can become president.

Sober heads that wish to sustain our nation must consequently avoid this trap. Nonetheless they should not avoid moralism. The trick is to be morally stirring without being foolishly saccharin or demagogically misleading. Moral goals can be promoted in ways that actually work.

As I have previously written, I believe there are five moral objectives to which Americans of all stripes can subscribe. These are honesty, responsibility, fairness, family and liberty. If they are presented vigorously and realistically they can serve as a corrective to the moral quagmire we have entered.

Consider the example of Jimmy Carter. Although he began his political career in obscurity, he captured the nation’s imagination by promising that he would never lie to the public. Many people had qualms about his religious fervor, but they were eager to move past the Watergate scandal.

I submit that many Americans will soon be ready to move past the Obama quagmire. Four years of economic stagnation were not enough to disabuse them of their hero’s virtues, but maybe eight will be. The same applies to ObamaCare. Maybe its implementation will convince them it was a mistake.

In the meantime, our president continues his cavalcade of distortion and deception. He tells us the world will end when sequestration kicks in, and then he acknowledges that perhaps it won’t. He asserts that these cuts were not his idea, but then this spokesman grudgingly admits that maybe they were. And so it goes.

It is this sort of flimflammery Republicans must eschew. They must tell the American people over and over again that they stand for honesty; then they must be honest. They need to appeal to better instincts of the young and of women so that they too appreciate this objective.

People want a better world, but a better world can only be a more moral one. So let those who wish to be elected shout this from the rooftops!

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Executive Director, MoralityNow!, Inc.