So What If She Lied?

Barack Obama has told many lies.  The most well known are about how people could keep their doctors and health insurance polices under ObamaCare.  Nonetheless, he was treated with kid gloves.  Instead of branding him a liar, he was often described as misleading or being ill-informed.

But he was president and we want to be respectful of our presidents.  Hillary Clinton is not nearly as well liked.  As importantly, she is only a candidate for the nation’s highest office.  What is more, she is in the midst of a bruising political campaign.

And so Secretary Clinton has repeatedly been called a liar—sometimes to her face.  She is accused of lying, and lying about her lies, and lying about lying about her lies.  Few, including her most loyal supporters, doubt that this is true.  She is so blatant and so persistent that it is difficult to deny the obvious.

Nonetheless, her devotees are unconcerned about her penchant for dishonesty.  The way they see it is, “So what if she lies?”  As one of my colleagues explained, he favors her political agenda, therefore, he does not care about whether she is truthful.

Many of television’s talking heads have even begun commending Democrats for closing ranks around one of their own.  Whatever goes wrong, they remain loyal to their candidates.  This, however, reminds me of the O.J. Simpson affair.

You remember the Simpson affair.  O.J. was accused of murdering his ex-wife Nicole and Ron Goldman.  He slashed their throats.  Virtually everyone who watched the trial knew he was guilty.  This included African-Americans.

Still, when Simpson was found not guilty, blacks around the country erupted in gleeful celebration.  One of their number had escaped the dreaded legal system.  Whatever O.J. had done, the hated police had been discredited.

Edmund Burke is alleged to have said that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.  He might have added that all that in needed for evil to prevail is for good people to endorse evil.  We saw this in the Simpson fiasco; we are currently witnessing it in the Hillary scandal.

Ronald Reagan promised the American people that he would give them a government as good as they were.  But perhaps the American people are not all that good.  If a majority is not outraged by uninterrupted dishonesty and corruption, how good can they be?

Let me be as plain: Habitual lying is immoral!

Let me repeat: Consistently lying to the American people is grossly immoral!

When I see Hillary, or her people, telling another whopper, I am infuriated.  Then, when I witness her supporters rationalizing this by pronouncing it “old news,” I cringe.  Don’t they realize that they are promoting unethical behavior?

Nowadays dishonesty has been institutionalized.  It has become the routine way that many organizations do business.  The media lie, the White House lies, the State Department lies, the IRS lies, the VA Administration lies, college professors lie, military briefers lie, the ObamaCare flacks lie, and the candidates lie.

Why do they lie?  Partly because they can get away with it.  More importantly, because liberalism is a fraud.  Almost everything that liberals touch turns to dross.  Virtually all of their promises have not been kept because they cannot be kept.

Whether the issue is health, education, crime, poverty, family, peace or national security, their programs have been a disaster.  So how can they get reelected?  The answers is that they lie!  And then they lie some more.  They lie so much that this becomes a way of life.

Lincoln said that no society can survive if it is divided against itself.  But neither can one endure if it is built on a foundation of lies.  In such a world, people cannot trust one another.  They cease being mutually helpful because they fear that they might be taken advantage of.

We seem to be reaching the point of no return at an accelerating pace.  The question is therefore: will we stop ourselves before we slide into the abyss?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

The I575 Fiasco

Donald Trump has routinely pronounced politicians dumb.  I am reminded of this every day that I drive down the I575 corridor on the way to my job at Kennesaw State University.  The highway construction project is apparently so misguided that it could only have been conceived by intellectually impaired planners.

Let me explain.  A central lane is currently being added to the artery.  It is supposed to be reversible.  During the morning rush hour, commuters will travel south, but then during the evening crunch traffic will head north.  This is supposed to alleviate the escalating congestion.

Use of this new lane will also command an extra fee.  Tolls will be charged so that only those in a hurry will avail themselves of the proposed relief.  Then too, the state will be able to defray the cost of the project with the expected revenue.

The first hint I got that things might not work out this way was when I noticed that the single new lane was constricted whenever it had to get around the pylons that support the bridges over the roadway.  There is simply not enough space to do anything else.

I also became aware of the permanent concrete barriers that border this new lane.  These encase it so consistently that driving down it will surely be like going through a narrow canyon.  Thus, the drivers views will be constricted and they will have to make sure to keep to the center of the gorge.

So confined is this space that one of my colleagues wondered what will happen if there is an accident?   How, he asked, will the police, or ambulances, or towing vehicles get to the scene of the crash?  Will they have to helicopter in?

He might also have asked what will happen to traffic if there is a collision or a disabled vehicle.  How far will cars be lined up behind it?  Since they will not be able to escape through those concrete barricades, how long would they be stuck?  It might be for hours.

Several years ago, I purchased a reserved parking space at KSU.  I assumed that this would be convenient.  If I had a regular place to put my car—one that was close to my office—this would make life easier.  Except that it did not work out that way.  All too often poachers barred me from my spot.

Then, when I complained to the campus police, they found that there was little they could do.  Although they were supposed to tow away illegally parked automobiles, they had a great deal of difficulty locating the offenders.  As a result, they too were frustrated.

It was not long before I concluded that it made no sense to spend extra for what amounted to an unending hassle.  Is this what will happen with I575?  Will drivers who are charged a fee for using a road on which they are periodically trapped decide that it is foolish to pay for being tortured?  If so, where will the projected revenues go?

I575 was originally designed to be expanded from two lanes to three.  This was why the overpasses, entrances and exists were laid out as they are.  As a consequence, in order to make the new arrangement work additional ramps and toll plazas have to be added.

This has significantly jacked up construction costs.  While there might have been no alternative on I75, where little space was available for expansion, on I575 it was unnecessary.  If the original intensions had been honored, money would undoubtedly have been saved.

So far as I can see, this is the very definition of “penny wise and pound foolish.”  When, in the future, a combination of increased congestion and inadequate usage of the central suicide lane dictate that the initial plans be reintroduced, undoing the current mess will be extraordinarily expensive.

But don’t look for correctives anytime soon.  Politicians do not admit mistakes.  It will take a new crop of public officials—and a crisis—to fix what will be foreseeably broken.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Presidential Prognostications

I am about to go out on a limb and make some predictions.  No, I am not going to tell you who will win the upcoming presidential election.  Although I would say if I knew—I don’t.  Instead I will talk about what Hillary or Donald are likely do if they take office.

Forget get about the campaign rhetoric.  It is mostly a smoke screen.  The goal is to confuse the public, while motivating people to vote as desired.  All that nastiness is about arousing passions, not providing useful information.

Also disregard the campaign promises.  Even if they are genuine, few will be redeemed.  No, now that Labor Day is upon us, it is time to contemplate honestly and dispassionately what sort of president each of the candidates would make.  If I may be blunt, we must decide how can we minimize the damage?

Let’s start with Hillary.  If she has a Republican Congress—and the odds are that Republicans will retain control over the House—her tax plans, college plans, and health plans are dead in the water.  Conservatives will never agree to her more radical proposals.

So what will she do?  First, on the domestic front, she will make sure that ObamaCare remains law.  Second, she will not allow Obama’s regulations to lapse.  Third, she will not lower taxes.  Fourth, she will not deport illegal immigrants.  As a result, the economy is liable to remain in the doldrums. 

Her primary tactic will be to employ executive orders as liberally as her predecessor.  She won’t care what the legislature does; she will legislate by decree.  She will also encourage the bureaucrats to do the same.  Instead of interpreting laws, they will be asked to create them.

As for her foreign policy, it will be a rehash of her performance as Secretary of State.  Hillary is certain that she knows best.  Consequently, she will take matters into her own hands.  History may have demonstrated that her diplomatic judgment is awful, but she does not think so.

The real question is Trump.  Can he provide a superior alternative to what is apt to be a third Obama term?  Even conservatives have questions about his domestic and international skills.  He may have been a successful businessman, but will he be a loose cannon in the Oval office?

 To figure this out, we have to examine what Donald has done, not just what he says.  In this case, history demonstrates that he is an accomplished delegator.  Whereas Hillary wants to be in control of everything, he tends to choose good people and then allow them the discretion to make sensible choices.

Trump is also apparently a good listener.  Before he decides, he solicits guidance from people who know more about an issue than he does.  If so, he is liable to surround himself with competent people who can help him learn what he does not know.  This applies both at home and abroad.

Next, there is Congress.  Legislators like Paul Ryan will not roll over and play dead.  They are, therefore, sure to have input on any tax or immigration initiatives that Trump puts forth.  He will undoubtedly negotiate with them, which means he will have to give in order to get.

The real sticking point is foreign policy.  Can a man with thin skin and a penchant for personal insults refrain from offending our friends or antagonizing our foes?  When he is one-on-one with foreign leaders, will he behave in a way that embarrasses our nation?

My guess is that Trump will control himself.  He is not a stupid man.  He too realizes that so much is at stake he cannot afford to shoot from the hip.  And so once again he will surround himself with experts.  In this case too he will listen and make adjustments.

What is certain is that the folks around Trump will not be the same ones that Clinton would appoint.  They will unquestionably be conservatives—with a sprinkling of libertarians.  In short, the politicians Donald that defeated in the primaries may be the very ones who shape the nature of his administration.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

A Tale of Two Narcissists

Narcissists are people who love themselves.  They are at the center of their own universe.  They are certain that they are better than others and are capable of great things.  As they see it, they always know best.

We have had more than a few narcissistic chief executives.  Bill Clinton was one.  Barack Obama is another.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt also fit this category.  On the other hand, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower did not.  Neither did John F. Kennedy.  Although he had a sense of entitlement, his Addison’s Disease kept him humble.

During the past year, if has been widely recognized that Donald Trump is a narcissist.  Obviously, anyone who praises his own accomplishments so effusively, while flaunting his name at the top of so many buildings, could be nothing less.  The question is, is Hillary Clinton also a narcissist?

To me, the answer is obvious.  A person who congratulates herself so frequently on phantom achievements is demonstrably preoccupied with her own wonderfulness.  She certainly believes that she always knows best and has done more to serve others than almost anyone on the planet.

The issue is, therefore, not which of these presidential candidates is a narcissist, but what kinds of narcissist they are.  Hillary, in my estimation, is a selfish and mean-spirited one.  She has no compunctions about hurting people.  If they get in her way, she does not hesitate to destroy their careers and/or reputations.

As a result, her political path has been strewn with the wreckage of many innocent lives.  This occurred early on when she got a felon off for raping a young girl.  She did it again when she protected Bill from Bimbo eruptions.  Private investigators were literally dispatched to discover information that would discredit the women with whom he had liaisons—whether consensual or not.

Moreover, Hillary does not work well with others.  She must be the Queen Bee.  This was why HillaryCare went down in flames.  Although members of a Democratically controlled Congress were sympathetic to public health care, they resented her for the disrespect they experienced at her hands.  They wanted to be consulted, whereas she felt this was unnecessary.

What then of Trump?  What sort of narcissist is he?  By most accounts, he is genial in private.  He listens to people and is gracious in how he treats them.  Although he unquestionably wants to be the star, he apparently has no desire to make all the decisions.

It must be remembered that Trump has been a businessman, not a politician.  If he could not put up buildings under budget, he would have gone bankrupt.  Politicians, on the other hand, deal in promises.  If these go aglimmering, they simply issue updated promises.

Like many observers, I have also been impressed by Trump’s children.  They are obviously strong personalities who dearly love him.  Hence I have no doubt that he loves them.  What is more, he clearly did not quash their independent spirits.  He even allowed them play on his office floor as he conducted business.

Contrast this with Clinton.  Her daughter Chelsea seems to be a nice woman, but she is evidently not as assertive as the Trump kids.  Indeed, her description of her mother during the Democratic National Convention sent chills down my spine.  Chelea sought to demonstrate how loving her mother is, whereas, for me, her testimony did the opposite.

What I heard was that when Hillary went away on business trips—which was apparently often—she left behind a series of notes for her daughter.  Each was labeled to be opened on a different day and purportedly offered encouragement.  I, however, was struck by the impersonality of this procedure.

When I put these pieces together, I find Trump to be a nicer person.  Hillary boasts about how compassionate she is, but does not seem to live this in her personal life.  Meanwhile, he seems to be caring on a human level.  This leads me to suspect that, narcissist or not, his instincts will prompt him to make better decisions as president.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University