A Sour Christmas

Christmas is supposed to be the holiday of love.  It ought to bring out the best in us.  But not this year!  The long knives are out and we are more defensive than in decades.

Of course children will still cackle with joy when they open Santa’s presents.  And families will still gather to share a sumptuous meal during which they renew their collective allegiance.  Even the public decorations will be familiar.  In some ways, they may be more splendid than ever.

But our national mood has gone sour.  An air of disgruntlement is abroad in the land.  People have become suspicious of one another in manner not seen since the 1960’s.  They now view one another as potential enemies, rather than friends.

Why?  A big reason is ISIS.  These folks want to kill us.  They do not believe in the brotherhood of all humanity, but only of those who join their commitment to a medieval brand of Islam.  Otherwise, we must convert, submit, or die!  Until then, they intend to terrorize us.

Another reason is the nasty political campaign.  The airwaves are filled with charges and counter-charges.  Although the presidential election is a year away, the contestants are already playing hardball.  Few have anything nice to say about rivals that they will happily support once a nominee is selected.

The worst offender is certainly Donald Trump.  He has single-handedly converted vulgarity into the currency of partisan rhetoric.  The Donald routinely insults people to their face and then swears he meant no such thing.  He was merely defending himself.

Trump has also foresworn political fidelity.  He has let it be known that he will pick up his marbles if others are mean to him.  While he can say whatever he likes, they had best not question the depth of his wisdom.

Then there is the Black Lives Matter movement.  It advocates have literally condemned others for asserting that all lives matter.  Moreover, they absolutely refuse to show respect for the hundreds of thousands of police officers that enable them to march down our streets in relative safety.

Next come the college students who are demanding safe places where they will not be offended.  By this they mean that others are not allowed to disagree with them without being severely penalized.  Question their views and they will shout you down and/or demand that you be fired.  In other words, safe spaces are for them—not their opponents.

Sadly this attitude of intolerance flows from the top.  Our president has never stopped demonizing his political adversaries.  Republicans, for instance, but not radical Islamists, are said to threaten our democracy.  Similarly, ordinary gun owners, but not crazies or gang members, are depicted as shooting us down.

Ironically, some of the very people who tell us to love one another, the ones who insist on promoting diversity, are most responsible for our current culture of distrust.  They ask us to be each other’s keepers, but apparently only if we are on their side.

I know that universal love is not possible.  I realize that we have been genetically programmed to cherish only those who we personally know.  Nonetheless, interpersonal respect is feasible.  We can refrain from insulting folks who hold opposing opinions.

In our mass techno-commercial society, Christmas is a reminder that we should be nice to strangers.  We do not need to accuse our adversaries of heinous crimes in order to win our arguments with them.

Thus ISIS can be stopped if we have the political will.  We can also learn to disagree with without being disagreeable.  When we are uncertain about how to address nagging problems, we can listen to contrasting points of view.

Nonetheless we do not require unconditional positive regard.  This is a juvenile fantasy that would have us to abandon our moral standards.  We do, however, need RESPECT!  During this holiday season, let us cut each other some slack.  Is that too much to ask?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Bill O'Reilly vs. George Will

Bill O’Reilly is a conservative icon.  His top-rated nightly television show has been a staple on Fox news for over a decade.  He is also a prolific author, who (along with Martin Dugard) is habitually perched atop the New York Times best-seller list.

George Will is also a conservative icon.  His is a nationally syndicated columnist and Pulitzer Prize winner.   He has likewise served as a political commentator for ABC and now for Fox.

And so it came as a surprise when a nasty contretemps broke out between these two.  Their quarrel was sparked by sharply differing opinions over O’Reilly’s assessment of president Ronald Reagan.  It rose to Olympian heights when O’Reilly slammed Will as a political hack on national television.

First off, O’Reilly is a media superstar.  He has a well-earned reputation for being both brash and courageous.  Often insightful about matters such as the family and race, he can be a bully if others disagree with him.

Meanwhile Will is more laid-back.  Almost professorial in his analytic style, his judgments tend to be more nuanced.  Similarly courageous, he is not a brawler, but neither does he back away from a fight.

The question is: Who’s appraisal of Reagan is correct?  Does “Killing Reagan” make the former president look good or is it a hatchet job based on a misinterpretation of history?

After reading the book, I believe that Will’s estimation comes closer to the truth.  Indeed, if the only information one had about Reagan came from O’Reilly’s work, one might rightly wonder what the shouting was about.  Why have so many conservatives lionized the Gipper?

In fact, O’Reilly concentrates on Reagan’s weaknesses.  He repeatedly makes it sound as if his wife Nancy controlled his every move.  O’Reilly also implies that Reagan’s staff designed his policies and routinely kept him from making a fool of himself.

How casually O’Reilly treats Reagan’s achievements is epitomized by the discussion of the military build-up that helped topple the Soviet empire.  This accomplishment is relegated to a footnote.  A reader would never know how much resistance the policy encountered.

Nor would one suspect that Reagan fearlessly tamed the roaring inflation he inherited from Carter, skillfully negotiated with Tip O’Neill to lower taxes, or successfully began to reduce the size of the federal government.  Instead, the emphasis is on how Reagan’s Alzheimer’s disease might have been accelerated by a would-be assassin’s bullet.

O’Reilly argues that Reagan’s advisors believed that he might be mentally incompetent even before he faced down Gorbachev in Iceland.  The fact that Reagan sometimes zoned out at cabinet meetings is taken as prima fascia evidence of a growing incapacity.

I am now in my seventies and I think I understand Reagan’s behavior a bit better.  Having myself sat through innumerable bureaucratic meetings, I can testify that most of these produce nothing but shared vapidity.  Tuning them out is therefore a sensible strategy, not a sign of senility.

I am also reminded of Charles Krauthammer’s description of a dinner he had with Reagan.  He noted that when asked a question, the president responded with an irrelevant story.  Krauthammer was perceptive enough to realize that this was an intentional device.  According to Krauthammer, Reagan was sufficiently confident in his abilities that he didn’t need to go around proving them.

Dwight Eisenhower used a similar technique.  When he did not want to answer a question, he simply pretended to be confused.  This too was attributed to old age, whereas it was a conscious ploy—which usually worked.

There is a reason why Reagan was elected head of the Screen Actors Guild five times, governor of California twice, and president of the United States twice.  And it was not due to dumb luck or the machinations of a revolving team of puppet masters.  This was a man who knew what he wanted and had the dexterity to make it happen. 

George Will understands this.  Bill O’Reilly seems to have forgotten it.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Castles in the Sky

There has been so much craziness going on lately that I was reminded of a joke we told when I worked at a psychiatric hospital.  It goes like this: Neurotics build castles in the sky.  Psychotics live in them.  And psychiatrists collect the rent.

Nowadays it is Barack Obama who is building castles in the sky, and it is liberals who have decided to move in.  As for the rent, it is the rest of us who are paying the bill.

But conservatives should not be so quick to gloat.  There is another castle being constructed right across the river.  Its architect is Donald Trump and many Republicans seem to believe it fits their needs.  Should it be completed, once more the public will be on the hook.

These two robber barons have preyed on our collective gullibility.  They paint beautiful pictures of a world that exists solely in their imaginations so as to divert us from reality.  And then once they have us entranced, they show no mercy.

Obama has been telling us for years that the economy is getting better.  He points to phony statistics about the reduction in unemployment and declares that he has kept his promises.  He does not tell us, however, that if we keep growing at a measly two percent, we will be getting poorer per capita.

Obama also tells us that ISIS has been contained.  Over and over again he touts a bombing campaign that has dropped fewer bombs in two years than the Gulf campaign dropped in two days.  Then he boasts of an over sixty-nation coalition that exists primarily in his head.

We are also treated to tall stories about how race relations are improving.  Yet there is more animosity expressed out in our streets than since the wild days of the 1960’s when the inner cities are being burned down.  Now they are merely being shut down by belligerent mobs.

Then we hear about how more of our children are obtaining a college degree.  What we are not told is that this credential is worth less than ever.  Despite being fed a steady diet of liberal pabulum, today’s students are demanding safe spaces where they will never be offended by an uncongenial idea.  In other words, they do not want to learn anything new.

This list could be extended indefinitely.  Thus ObamaCare was a roaring success.  Bringing in unvetted Syrian refugees presents no security problem.  And our border with Mexico is more secure than ever.

As for Trump, he wants to deport twelve million illegal aliens within two years.  He will round them up without legal resistance and then allow the good ones back in.  How he will find people who decide to hide, or evaluate those who hope to return, he does not say.  It is enough that he says he can.

But Trump can do anything.  He will make the economy boom, even though four of his companies went bankrupt.  He will get Mexico to pay for a wall because he is the world’s best negotiator.  He will lead our military to overwhelming victories in spite of having no military experience.

Every one knows—at least according to Donald—that he is smarter, stronger, and richer than anyone else.  He is also nastier, even though he repeatedly tells us how nice he is.

Why do we buy this nonsense?  Trump has been praised for being a genius at publicity.  What does that mean?  It means that he is more skillful at deceiving people than most others.  As a practiced entertainer, he has learned how to keep people’s eyes off the ball.

As for Obama, he is a great speaker.  As they say, he could sell ice to Eskimos.  But how does that make what he says true?  By now his routine of praising himself and blaming America has surely grown old. 

So why don’t we put these charlatans out to pasture?  Let’s elect a levelheaded grown-up next time.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Being Nice to ISIS

The day after the Paris massacre Barack Obama released another five prisoners from Gitmo.  Doing so, our president later explained, was in the national interest.  As everyone knew, imprisoning even the worst of the worst served as a recruiting tool for ISIS.

Within days after the French began bombing ISIS, we also learned something our rules of engagement.  It seems that we had not been bombing the trucks ISIS uses to transport oil.  These remained off-limits despite enabling them to acquire millions in hard currency.  Because such an assault might have slaughtered civilian drivers, this would have furnished another recruiting tool.

Then too, during the Democratic presidential debate, the candidates studiously avoided identifying the enemy as Radical Islam.  The president did likewise in his Turkish news conference.  We were told that to conflate Radical Islam with Islam would infuriate otherwise peace-loving Muslims, who might subsequently rise up, in the millions, to support ISIS.

The president and his minions have similarly argued that it is essential to admit Syrian refugees into our country.  Although this might allow terrorists to slip through, such a policy is accord with our longstanding values.  What is more, not doing so would surely offend Muslims—who are assumed to be super-sensitive.

Secretary of State John Kerry actually went so far as to excuse the Charlie Hebdo massacre.  In a classic gaffe, he opined that Islamists had a “legitimate” reason to murder those who disrespected the prophet.  Defaming a great world religion was obviously an intolerable insult.

By now it has also become routine for this administration to ask Israel to be restrained whenever its citizens are attacked.  Whether they are killed by rockets, or knifed in the streets, it is essential to be even-handed.  To do otherwise might suggest that we do not value Muslim lives.

Lastly, because we want to avoid collateral damage, we have been averaging less than seven sorties a day in our air campaign against ISIS.  As a result, we are asked to be patient.  If we are to defeat these thugs, we must understand that it will take years.   A more robust response would betray our democratic principles.

Napoleon Bonaparte declared that if you intend to take Vienna, you must take Vienna.  Half measures do not win wars.  Hence, if we expect to eliminate the scourge of Islamic terrorism, we must eliminate it!

We also learned something else in the wake of the Parisian calamity.  Many of the terrorists had only recently been radicalized.  Before they took up the ISIS cause, they had been living desolate lives of alcohol abuse and promiscuity.  Although many were born in Europe, they were alienated from its culture.

Herein lies a clue as to how we must strike the radicals.  We have to begin by classifying militant Islamists as Islamic.  Unless we recognize their religious motives, we cannot defeat them.

Islam is central to the ISIS mission.  Its leaders do not recruit by documenting American barbarism.  People who subscribe to suicide bombings care not a whit about who is held prisoner or how many civilians die.  They are instead determined to re-establish their caliphate.

As these warriors are all too aware, Islam has been under siege for centuries.  Non-believers seriously humiliated its once glorious empire.  The only way to reverse this tragedy is by reviving a medieval version of the faith.  This is what inspired their former victories and it will again.

The attraction of ISIS is thus that it provides hope to the downtrodden.  It offers visions of glory to countless millions who have been struggling with a sense of inferiority.  The answer is consequently to deprive them of this hope.

And how to we do that?  Why, with decisive victories.  Only after it is clear that the radicals cannot win will they cease to provide an appealing alternative.  This, not willful blindness, is what will terminate their recruiting.  A supine sensitivity has never brought criminals to justice. 

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University