More Coal in Our Stockings

It’s the Christmas season; a time for love and gift giving.  These two go together.  Children enjoy Christmas because they associate it with unearned presents.  Whether they are good or bad, toys show up under the tree.  This largesse is an affirmation that someone cares about them—just because of whom they are.

For Christians, the holiday is also a reminder of Christ’s birth. They celebrate what amounts to the greatest gift of all.  Their Savior brought the possibility of eternal life.  For those who believe in him and/or lead an honorable life, on judgment day they will be raised from the dead to spend eternity in heaven.

But what about the here and now?  Can we adults expect many gifts in this coming year?  I am sorry to report that this is unlikely.  Civic love has become so scarce in this time of partisan strife that at least in the public arena hostility will prevail.

Once children looked forward to a stocking full of goodies hanging from the fireplace.  If they were lucky, this would include an orange.  When this fruit was an exotic luxury, it was a treat.  If they were bad, however, a lump of coal would appear in its place.

It looks as if their will be lots of coal in our collective stockings. The war between the liberals and conservatives is not over.  Indeed, it is likely to intensify, with each side doing its best to wound the other. There will be no love—and few gifts—because the goal is political annihilation.

The Democrats have already tipped their hand.  Having taken control of the House of Representatives, they will use their augmented power to impeach the president.  The findings of the Mueller investigation will be employed to argue that Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

These angry liberals do not care whether the charges are valid.  They are so furious that they are concerned only with supplanting their enemy.  If, in the process, they harm our democratic traditions, they are unmoved.  Love of their fellow countrymen will not soften their hearts.

They are also going to hold hearings where the deck is stacked against their foes.  We had a foretaste of what is to come during the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court.  Once more a presumption of innocence will be thrown to the winds.

As for the Republicans, they will retaliate when they can.  Having maintained control of the Senate, it will be used to get even.  The right wing senators will hold hearings designed to embarrass liberals.  Don’t be surprised if Hillary’s server comes up or if rogue FBI agents are endlessly grilled.

Furthermore, if the Republicans are able to confirm a new Attorney General, he may issue a slew of indictments.  When it came to convicting felonious behavior, Democrats protected their own.  The tables could turn if conservatives feel under sufficient pressure.

Nor will this anti-love fest be confined to the Washington swamp. Antifa will not go away.  Its masked marauders will continue to beat those who oppose their socialist agenda.  They may even provoke right wing bullies to fight violence with violence.

But perhaps the strangest development of all may be the PC war against heterosexual love.  Not long ago it was deemed enough to protect gays from bigotry.  Their jobs were to be safeguarded and their ability to express homosexual love defended.

This battle having been won, some gays and feminists were emboldened to attack their former oppressors.  A prime example of their strategy is to remove songs like Baby It’s Cold Outsidefrom the marketplace.  This lighthearted peon to heterosexual seduction is equated with rape and therefore condemned.

PC has become so pervasive that most of us have to walk on eggshells lest we offend someone with a thin skin.  Leftists have appropriated the right to castigate anyone who disagrees with their racial or sexual policies.  This is not love; it is not tolerance.  The gift here is one of oppression and conformity.

Would that we could return to a genuine Christmas spirit.  It would be nice if we were able to offer each other the gift of forgiveness.  That, however, is not in the cards.  It is thus a good thing that coal production is increasing because we will need a lot of it to fill the many, many stockings of those who forgot what love is.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

The Big Daddy Syndrome

When I was small, my family always celebrated Christmas.  We were not Christian and so we didn’t observe the religious aspects of the holiday.  But we always had Santa Claus.  While we didn’t have a tree, the jolly old elf left lots of gifts by our bookcases.

We kids loved this idea.  We could barely fall asleep at night in anticipation of the wonderful morning to come.  Then, when it finally arrived and we got to unwrap our unearned bounty, each new item was an adventure.  All of them had to be played with to reinforce how lucky we were.

My father was not a notably generous man, but he loved being our secret Santa.  He too would beam with joy as he watched us kids appreciate his bigheartedness.  This made him feel like a protective and loving father.  He was our Big Daddy; the epitome of a real man.

Today we are being treated to the spectacle of liberals playing the role of Big Daddy.  I could have said Big Santa, or maybe Big Momma, or even Lady Bountiful.  The meaning would be the same regardless of the formulation.  The point is that in their liberality, leftists hope to demonstrate what noble humans they are.

This is paradoxical in that liberals are forever chiding Americans for trying to be the policemen of the world.  We are told that we have no business sending military assets around the globe in order to maintain the peace.  Doing so is both wasteful and arrogant.

On the other hand, progressives are proud of encouraging illegal immigration.  Although they deny it, they champion open borders.  Not only are they against building a wall, but they do everything they can to undermine enforcement of our boundaries.  This includes dismantling ICE.

Why do they do this?  It is because of the Big Daddy Syndrome.  Those on the left always want to help the poor and downtrodden.  They perceive themselves as the defenders of the weak. This puffs up their self-image and convinces them that they are among nature’s aristocrats.

So honorable do they feel that they never examine the implications of their alleged kindness.  When it comes to military interventions, they are quick to point out the unsustainable costs. As for the undocumented migrants, however, no expense is too great, no gift too lavish.

As a result, we are treated to a display of unbounded hypocrisy.  We are now being told that spending five billion dollars on the border wall is too much.  This leaves out the fact that Democrats were willing to spend twenty-five billion earlier this year.  Nor do they acknowledge that this is only three billion more than they are currently prepared to authorize.

What makes this so absurd is the multi-multi-billions liberals are willing to spend on the illegals.  When we add up the costs of welfare, schooling, medical care, and law enforcement over the course of many decades, we have probably ventured into the realm of trillions.  Nor does this include the impact of the jobs lost to American citizens.

Yet none of this matters to the Big Daddy crowd.  Their munificence costs them very little.  As research has repeatedly shown, they contribute less to charities than do conservatives.  They are also less likely to volunteer to help the poor.  The source of their liberality is actually tax dollars, which means they are spending other people’s money.

Genuinely moral folks are more honest about their recommendations. They don’t pretend that the caravans assaulting our borders are composed solely of women and children fleeing from oppression.  They don’t portray hard working federal law enforcement agents as an American version of the Nazi SS.

Even a nation as affluent as our own has limitations.  Just as we do not have the resources to intervene in every international conflict, so we don’t have the wealth to admit every indigent person who seeks the good life in our country.  The point comes when too many millions of refugees are too many.

Santa Claus is a fictional character.  Nor is Big Daddy as charitable as those who play him contend.  When immigrants are encouraged to break the law, they are stealing from those who created our nation’s stability.  When liberals hide the truth about what they are doing, they impoverish us all on a moral level.

A little realism about immigration is long over due.  It would be far more praiseworthy than the false magnanimity of political partisans intent on inflating their reputations.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

The Actual Dangers of the Melting Pot

Not long ago, the government issued a report on the effects of global warming.  This narrative was mandated by congress and alleged that rising temperatures caused by man-made gases would result in adverse effects for the nation in the years to come.

This conclusion was not unexpected.  Ever since politicians got into the environmental business, this has been the conventional wisdom.  It is not that these office-holders are trained scientists.  Far from it.  As liberals, they gin up votes by promising to alleviate horrifying grievances.  Global warming has thus become one of their favorite whipping boys.

Nonetheless, the recent report included facts that contradict the imminent environmental emergency they have been promoting.  Buried within its pages were details that demonstrate the dangers we face are not nearly as ominous as alleged.

To begin with, the headline was that our national economy will decline by ten percent by the year 2100.  That’s over eighty years from now and hence not a jaw-dropping figure.  No wonder it was not trumpeted with the same gusto as previous predictions of doom.

Notice too that we are talking about the better part of a century from now.  This implies that the projected rate of warming has been significantly lowered. In previous forecasts, the moment we will be in jeopardy was just around the corner.  This made it possible for Barack Obama to argue that we had to do something immediately or there would be grave repercussions.

Despite the political utility of crying wolf, the report writers needed to acknowledge the weaknesses of prior forecasts because they had been disproved by actual trends.  Scientists, who had earlier cherry picked the numbers to inflate the potential damage, could not keep on prophesying increases that never arrived. 

Perhaps the most embarrassing part of issuing hyperbolic projections, however, was exposed by a few words hidden within the report.  Although these were read on television, no one pointed out their implications.  They, in fact, made the narrative moot. 

Predictions of economic decline, we were told, are valid only as long as we do nothing to cope with the effects of warming.  And yet, that we would remain passive in the face of a dire threat is absurd.  Of course, we will take action to deal with climatic developments.  Moreover, with eighty years to ameliorate the harm, there will be plenty of time to intervene.

According to those who wrote the account, agriculture and tourism are most to be adversely affected.  It might not be possible, for example, to grow wheat in Kansas if it got too hot. So why wouldn’t we move the focus of production to a cooler North Dakota?

The same goes for peaches.  If they will wither in Georgia, why not grow them in Virginia.  This sort of thing has happened before.  During the medieval warm period, England was cozy enough to raise grapes.  After the climate cooled, the British imported their wine from France and Spain. Soon they may be able to shift the industry back north.

There is also the problem of rising sea levels.  Presumably these will inundate coastal cities.  But what about the example of the Netherlands?  Huge chunks of the Low Countries—including Amsterdam—are below sea level.  The Dutch have handled this by building dikes and pumping the water out.  Couldn’t we?

As for decreased tourism, aren’t we always constructing new attractions? Las Vegas and Disneyland were once but a gleam in their creator’s eyes.  Have we lost our ability to innovate?  In fact, as our tastes change, aren’t we likely to demand different forms of entertainment?

To project the world in terms of its current state is a monumental error.  The only reason for doing this is to generate support for particular political agendas. Karl Marx imagined that nineteenth century industry would be carried forward indefinitely.  The only question was therefore how to divide up the proceeds of a unchanging form of production.

Marx was wrong about his steady-state vision of the future.  The world grew far richer than he believed possible.  Thanks to unpredicted innovations in efficiency, we increased the size of the economic pie. Will the same thing happen with regard to the challenges thrown up by climate change—if it occurs?

The current projections are just that—projections.  Could we have predicted our current way of life during World War I?  Why then would we commit our destiny to computer predictions that might never come true?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

In Defense of the Melting Pot

During the heyday of legal immigration, the goal was to convert foreigners into Americans.  These newcomers were to exchange their old customs for our democratic ideals.   They were to enter a melting pot where in the end they would be indistinguishable from their neighbors.

At the moment, we are enduring the heyday of illegal immigration. The goal nowadays is to resist assimilation.  Newcomers, who begin by breaking our laws, are encouraged to retain their original cultures.  By remaining different, they supposedly add an element of diversity from which we all benefit.

I, however, am not so sure.  The refugees who are flooding our southern border are said to be fleeing the violence and disorder of their Central American homelands.  They are depicted as peace loving people who only want to protect their children. 

Nonetheless, if their countries of origin are such vile places, why would we expect only put-upon good guys to leave them.  Wouldn’t the bad guys join their caravans—perhaps in greater numbers?  If their prey were leaving, were they to stay behind how would they support themselves?

Then, when these folks arrived, where would they live?  For the most part, unable to speak English and bereft of industrial skills, wouldn’t they huddle together in homogeneous neighborhoods?  Wouldn’t this tendency be enhanced by their illegal status?

In other words, the more refugees the less likely they are to interact with American citizens.  Although they came to the United States for a better life, they would thereby reinforce the culture that kept them in poverty. 

For America to remain America, our way of life cannot be overwhelmed by non-democratic traditions.  This is the point of a melting pot.  It is meant to allow individuals who do not possess the talents and attitudes necessary for self-governance to obtain them.

This can only occur when the numbers involved are small enough so that the newcomers interact with those already here.  An ability to assimilate is also correlated with how similar the culture of the immigrants is the American way of life.  Peasants, for instance, have a more difficult time adapting than city dwellers.

The experience of previous groups is instructive.  Consider the contrasting histories of the Jews and Italians. The two came to the United States at about the same time, but assimilated at different rates.  This was not because of their biology, but their cultures.

The Jews were urbanites who participated in a market economy when still in Europe.  They came to America intending to stay and take advantage of its opportunities.  To this end, they embraced the English language and free schooling.  In short order, they engaged in upward mobility, despite their religious differences.

The Italians took longer to fit in.  Most were peasants who were unfamiliar with urban life.  They did not adopt English or a secular education. Indeed, many intended to return to the homeland with which the still identified.  It therefore took them several generations to become Americanized.

Hispanics are no different.  Thus, the Cubans have adjusted to the U.S. much more quickly than, let is say, Hondurans.  Because so many of the former were middle class, they knew how to take advantage of a market economy.  The latter did not and so remain outsiders.

By defending our borders and keeping the quantity of legal immigrants in check, we are not discriminating because of race.  Quite the contrary, we are doing everyone a favor.  We are facilitating assimilation such that we continue to be a land of opportunity where newcomers are able to obtain the advantages of a free and prosperous nation.

First, if we refuse to defend our laws, we invite immigrants to do the same.  By looking the other way at the border or instituting sanctuary cities at home, we are sending the message that democracy is pliable.  This is no way to teach people who come from despotic societies how to participate in self-rule.

Second, by praising diversity and encouraging people to live in ethnic enclaves, we slow the process of learning about others and tolerating differences.  Especially when the number of migrants is huge, this promotes a separateness that becomes divisive.

If people deserve respect, regardless of where they come from, we must adopt strategies that provide a chance to learn how to respect differences. Likewise, if democracy is worthy of preserving, we must protect its foundation.  These ends are possible only if we support the melting pot ideal. Anarchy breeds anarchy, which ultimately hurts us all.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Selective Political Amnesia

Americans are not very good at recalling history.  Ask them when the Civil War took place and many cannot identify the century.  They surely cannot tell you much about the Great Depression or the president who presided over it.  It is the same with more recent events.

There is, however, an important qualification.  What people recollect is often linked to their political affiliations. Just as selective perception is a psychological phenomenon, so is selective memory.  We usually have an easier time remembering congenial episodes, such as those in accord with our political leanings.

Most Democrats, for instance, can summon up the details of the tape of Donald Trump boasting of his sexual exploits.  It is doubtful, however, that they can do the same for the accusations of rape Juanita Broderick leveled at Bill Clinton.  The first item makes them look virtuous, whereas the latter does the opposite and is repressed.

For me, a current episode drove home how biased these reflections can be.  By distorting what happened, inaccurate recollections can reinforce outright lies.  In this instance, former president Barack Obama revised history so egregiously that it was barely recognizable.  Nonetheless, his partisans remembered events the same way he did.

Not long ago, on his “gee whiz, wasn’t I a wonderful president” tour, Obama stopped off at Rice University.  There he explained that while most Americans did not realize it, production of oil and gas rose every year during his tenure in office.

Barack made it sound as if he deserved full credit for our becoming energy independent. Somehow his policies were responsible for this development.  His audience agreed.  They applauded warmly when he made this claim.  Yes, this assertion was true—except that those darned conservatives refused to admit it. 

Only it wasn’t true.  It wasn’t even close to true.  During his years in office, Obama did all he could to reduce the production of fossil fuels. In line with his belief that global warming was destroying the planet, he sought to make carbon based energy more scarce, while simultaneously subsidizing alternatives such as solar power.

 Barack attempted to achieve this in many ways.  For one thing, he blocked the Keystone pipeline.  Although a slew of studies concluded that this conduit was environmentally friendly, he set these aside whenever he was required to approve the project.

Then there was his practice of reducing the amount of government land open to oil and gas exploration.  He would not make this additional territory available to Big Oil.  Indeed, he would roll back what had previously been authorized.

Next was his campaign against fracking.  This novel technique for extracting crude oil and gas from what had once been regarded as played out wells dramatically increased our fuel reserves.  Nonetheless Obama sniped at it every inch of the way. He agreed with the critics who argued that it was dangerous for the atmosphere.

In fact, our former president made it a policy to criticize carbon-based products at every turn.  This included coal.  He did not care that this would put thousands of miners out of work or significantly increase the costs of energy to the consumer. 

Events on the ground plainly contradicted most of Obama’s contentions.  He did not mind.  He was proud of his skills at distorting reality.  Amazingly, his partisans did not notice how profoundly his words departed from what occurred.  They applauded what amounted to easily refuted lies.

The same blindness to other facts was on display when Obama bragged that no one had been indicted for criminal behavior during his administration.  Somehow he left out the part about how his Attorneys General refused to bring charges against obvious wrongdoers.

How could this be?  Wasn’t Barack aware of the revelations about attempts to manipulate the presidential election by FBI and DOJ operatives?  Of course, he was.  And what about the IRS suppression of conservative tax exemptions?  Ditto.  What actually mattered to him was whether he could make his denials sound persuasive.

The more important question was whether his audience realized they were being duped. Had they forgotten the evidence that contradicted their hero’s allegations?  My guess is that it was a little bit of selective amnesia and a willing suspension of disbelief.

Either way, our politics have lapsed into a netherworld of fiction.  For far too many Americans, the truth is less valuable than promoting their partisan interests.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

George H.W. Bush and the Loss of Civility

Much of what I am about to write has been said by others.  The contrast between George H.W. Bush’s character and that of some of his successors is so glaring that it could not be missed.  His recent death reminded us of what an honorable and gracious man he was.

Bush never insulted people publicly.  Today, turn on CNN or MSNBC and you will be treated to a festival of insults.  Bush did not tell lies to the nation.  Contemporary politicians, especially liberals, do little else.  Bush was kind, with impeccable manners.  Being crude is nowadays conflated with being genuine.

Incivility has exploded in the almost thirty years since Bush left office. H.W. would never have referred to a woman as horse-faced the way Donald Trump did.  Nor would he have promoted uncorroborated accusations to prevent a Supreme Court nominee from being confirmed.  

So what happened?  Why do falsehoods permeate the media and political discourse?  Why are people who have ideological differences unwilling to sit down and hold a respectful conversation?  Not only do people on opposite sides not listen to each other; they do the equivalent of spitting in an opponent’s face.

The cause of this decline is to be found, not in the stars, but in our hearts.  We brought this decay upon ourselves.  Bush came from the old school.  His mother taught him never to boast and never to be discourteous.  He was supposed to serve others; not think in terms of himself.

Who learns these lessons nowadays?  From the tattoos with which we festoon our bodies are to our widespread desire for fame, millions of us do not care how vulgar we have become.  What is worse, we are not offended by efforts to outdo one another in crudeness.

So I ask again, what happened?  A turning point in our moral decline occurred when H.W. was confined to a single term as president.  Despite his amazing record, an untested and patently dishonest governor from Arkansas supplanted him.

Remember that Bush presided over the dismantlement of the Soviet empire and won a nearly bloodless war against Saddam Hussein.  Although these were significant achievements, he did not boast about them.  The biggest gripe against him was that he raised taxes, which helped extricate us from a recession at the end of his term.

And who succeeded him?  Bill Clinton. Clinton was blatantly mendacious and given to non-stop immodesty.  He told us that he did not have an affair with Gennifer Flowers, yet he did.  He also insisted that he had not smoked pot because he had not inhaled.  He may even have raped Juanita Broderick while Lt. Governor.

Moreover, once Bill was in office, the White House went from dignified national mansion to frat house.  He literally had oral sex in the oval office.  Meanwhile his wife was a screaming Harridan.  Those who served Bush and Clinton agree that the Bush’s were uniformly respectful of their staff, whereas the Clinton’s, and especially Hillary, were crassly inconsiderate.

And yet Clinton was loved.  His peccadilloes and lack of achievements were overlooked.  I have been told that this is because Bill seemed more human than H,W.  Americans could identify with him.  If this is so, what does it say about us?  Are we too brash louts who assume we can talk our way out of any indiscretion?

In my book A Principled Society(which is on Amazon), I argue that our unparalleled prosperity has enabled us to get away with terrible mistakes. We are so rich that we can recover from imprudent behavior.  The same may be true of our tolerance of incivility.

We allow lies to flourish because they don’t jeopardize our economic security. We call each other names because we do not fear an invasion by a hostile power.  We seek entertainment rather than investigate hard truths because we depend on others to provide for our comforts.

The legacy of George H.W. Bush is currently being reassessed.  For the moment he is being praised for his rectitude.  But soon we will go back to sniping at one another.  He will forget that he set a standard we cannot match.  Instead of kindness and gentleness, we seem determined to surpass recent profiles in incivility.

So who is at fault for throwing out Bush and replacing him with a charming rogue?  We are. And we keep doing it.  If we are to have genuine reform, it must therefore come from us.  We have to be more principled!

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State university

How the Republicans Can Win the Next Election

Let’s face it, the Republicans lost the mid-term election. This wasn’t a complete wipeout, but the damage was significant.  Despite a roaring economy and an illegal immigrant invasion, the Democrats were able to capture a majority in the House of Representatives.

The question is why?  It is not enough to blame this defeat on the pattern of mid-term wins by the party out of power.  Nor can fraud or media bias explain how Nancy Pelosi’s troops swung nearly forty seats over to their side.  The lack of an attractive legislative platform should have doomed their chances, but didn’t.

What saved them was Donald Trump.  He may have rallied reds states to his cause, but he was anathema to well-educated women living in the suburbs.  They regarded him as immoral.  So far as they were concerned, he was racist, sexist and uncouth.

Herein, however, lay the seeds of turning the electoral results around. Americans are idealistic.  They want to be moral.  Young women especially hope to support candidates who elevate the standards we live by.  This is why attacks on Trump’s character succeeded.

The answer to this approach is to turn the tables on liberals.  Fire must be fought with fire.  Their campaign of making conservatives look immoral must be answered by a campaign of painting progressives as immoral.  Given that they are unprincipled, this is absolutely possible.

Those of us who have been paying attention know that liberals are world-class hypocrites.  What is sauce for the goose is never sauce for their gander.  Hence they can lie with impunity, but catch a conservative is a fib and he or she is the devil incarnate.

Those on the left also reveal their anti-American bias with regularity.  They have no difficulty with tolerating electoral fraud or portraying law enforcement agents as villains.  Nor do they care one whit about maintaining the integrity of our borders.

This anti-patriotic bias ought to have condemned them to the political wilderness, but has not.  They openly protect law-breakers in sanctuary cities; yet get away with this by claiming to be compassionate.  A means of exposing this moral turpitude is obviously needed.

For some time now, I have been arguing that a mass society, such as our own, can only be held together by widely endorsed principles.  I have further maintained that these values should be: honesty, personal responsibility, fairness (defined as the same rules for all), liberty, and family stability.

As it happens, Democrats spurn all of these.  They are incredibly dishonest.  They encourage irresponsibility by advocating dependence on the federal government.  They reject fairness and replace it with affirmative action.  As for liberty, they shackle us with regulations for everything.

Radical liberals even hate the family.  They intend to supplant it with diversity.  So far as they are concerned, individuals should be allowed to do whatever they please.  Ergo, promiscuity is no problem.  Neither is asking the government, as opposed to committed parents, to raise our children. Remember Hillary’s village.

In any event, the liberal agenda is totally immoral.  It is not compassionate.  It is not intellectually consistent.  Were we to adopt it in toto, the social fragmentation that is well under way would reduce us to a literal war of all against all.

This message needs to get out into the larger society.  Good people who want to be good must distinguish what is right from what is wrong.  The socialist promises of the left are horribly wrong-headed.  Ordinary folks, especially the young, must understand that talk of radical equality eventuates in slavery.

Hence Republicans, who hope to win at the polls, must drive home the message that their opponents—irrespective of what they say—are immoral.  Time and again, they must make it clear that Democrats are dishonest, irresponsible, unfair, anti-freedom and anti-family.  

The difficulty in doing this, of course, is that Republicans do not control the media.  Because repetition is often the key to legitimizing a message, they have fewer opportunities to hammer home the iniquities of their opponents.

Nonetheless, this must not prevent conservatives from plowing ahead. They need to include the complaint that liberals are unprincipled in their communications the way that leftists accuse those on the right of lacking compassion.  Only this can locate the immorality allegation on the feet where it belongs.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Fraud as a Way of Life

We all saw the electoral fraud perpetrated in south Florida.  It did not succeed in altering the results, but gave a lot of us heartburn.  When I say us, I mean conservatives because liberals were not perturbed.  They were hoping that their shenanigans would work.

When I spoke to a liberal friend about these events, she shrugged and wanted to move on.  When I further suggested that huge numbers of registered voters in California later avoided jury duty by indicating that they were not citizens, she expressed disbelief.

Whether or not this allegation is true, Americans who believe in democracy ought to be seeking answers.  Instead of dismissing fraud as impossible, we should want to get to the bottom of these matters.  Only this can give us confidence that our votes determine who our leaders will be.

Nonetheless, those on the left have long endorsed dishonesty as a way to gain political control.  Boss Tweed, of New York’s Tammany Hall, used to pay voters to go to the polls. Meanwhile, contemporary Californians pay vagrants to register to vote.  Clearly, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

This reminded me of my own attitude when John Kennedy won a squeaker over Richard Nixon.  Back then it was widely reported that the Daly machine in Chicago provided the margin of victory.  Apparently many of the dead made it to the polls, while large numbers of the living did so several times.

I did not realize it at the time, but electoral games were also being played in south Texas.  Lyndon Johnson was able to make sure that some counties produced more Democratic votes than the number of adults residing within their borders.

In any event, I, as a progressive adolescent, was happy with the results.  Nixon could not be allowed to win.  As every good liberal knew, he was worse the Joseph McCarthy.  A victory for this shady partisan would have set the nation back by a century.  So what if it took a little “honest corruption” to protect our future.

In those days, I was a confirmed socialist.  I believed that cooperation, as opposed to competition, would benefit us all.  If we helped one another, rather than fought each other, life to be kinder and fairer. This was common sense.

The problem was that too many Americans did not see it that way. They were dedicated to capitalism and therefore to partiality.  These folks had to be resisted for their own good.  If it took a little hanky-panky at the polls, this was essential to make democracy work.

Liberals have always believed that they knew best.  They have likewise always regarded democracy with suspicion.  For all their talk about respecting the wisdom of the people, they have assumed the voters frequently need an assist to come to the correct conclusions.

As a teenager, I too thought this way.  Having recently read Plato’s Republic, I was infatuated by the idea of the philosopher king.  Some people were undoubtedly smarter and more public spirited than others.  Naturally it made sense that they should rule the community.

Just as naturally, I regarded myself as philosopher king material. Wasn’t I an extremely good student? Didn’t I want the best for my country? Why then shouldn’t I, and those like me, have more of a say about public policy than every yahoo who was eligible to vote?

Liberals continue to think this way.  Don’t they make it plain at every turn that they consider themselves superior human beings?  Aren’t they supposedly more intelligent and compassionate than those “deplorables” who reside in the nation’s heartland?

Recently I heard an entertainer opining on television that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are more flexible.  They learn from experience and therefore make better decisions.

If my own history holds any lessons, this is decidedly untrue.  I am always amazed by how closely the tactics and beliefs of contemporary liberals parallel those of my student days.  Leftists brag about being progressive, but they are remarkably backward looking.

Because liberal arrogance knows no boundaries, liberal fraud knows none either.  Theirs is a way of life that feeds its own mistakes by assuming it can make none.  What is a little deception if it enables their heroes, namely themselves, to come out on top.  Don’t they deserve it? 

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

The Biggest Liars of All

Everyone acknowledges that there was an electoral mess in Broward and Palm Beach counties in Florida.  Irregularities in how votes were counted cannot be denied.  Nonetheless there is a huge gulf in explaining what went wrong. Conservatives blame fraud, whereas liberals cite incompetence.

That there is a question about which of these interpretations is correct is, however, a sign of a bigger problem.  Were the observed “mistakes” evenly distributed across party lines, the incompetence construal might make sense.  The breakdowns could have been due to sloppiness.

But that is not the situation.  Going back decades now, questionable actions have always broken on the Democratic side.  This includes finding new ballots in back rooms, getting people to submit forms after an election is over and tabulating non-citizen submissions.

These illegal actions were not accidental.  They were conscious attempts to influence who won.  As such, they were no different from counting the ballots of the dead, or allowing people to cast multiple votes the way Mayor Daly’s Chicago did, or buying votes as in Boss Tweed’s New York.  This chicanery is fraud—pure and simple.

Yet liberals deny it.  Instead they accuse those who brought dishonesty to public attention of undermining confidence in the democratic process.  Meanwhile, those who engaged in falsification are allowed off the hook. 

This should come as no surprise.  Those on the left have taken to specializing in lies.  Almost every day there are new examples of deceit. Anything that makes liberals look bad or conservatives good is open to conscious misrepresentation. 

Although this is brazen misconduct, Democrats have succeeded in convincing most Americans that lying is uniformly distributed among political activists; that everyone does it.  This is itself a lie.  Progressives would never be able to persuade ordinary citizens to elect them if they did not hide embarrassing truths behind a facade of falsehoods.

The tactic of accusing conservatives of being liars is part of this policy.  Liberals correctly conclude that the best defense is a good offence.  If they can focus on alleged rightwing mendacity, their own fabrications disappear from view.

Thus, how often has Donald Trump been charged with dishonesty? Almost anything he says that offends the left is immediately classified this way.  When, for instance, California’s “camp” fire got out of control and the president blamed poor forest management, he was castigated for telling a whopper.

The same thing happened when he cited the caravans traveling toward the U.S. border as including felons.  According to the liberals, innocent women and children dominated these processions.  As for the alleged Middle Easterners among them, this was a hoax.

When subsequent evidence demonstrated that Trump was correct, not a word of retraction was issued by those who castigated him just days before. This sort of silence, however, is a liberal specialty.  It too is a form of lying.

Lies come in many shapes.  One of the most insidious is lying by omission.  In withholding information from the community, false impressions are propagated.  To illustrate, the economic benefits of the Trump tax cut are barely mentioned in the mainstream press.  The objective is to make sure he does not get credit for reviving our prosperity.

This, of course, is opposite the treatment Barack Obama received.  In his case, laggard economic figures were downplayed, whereas his personal attractiveness was celebrated.  From what the public was told, his administration might have been one of the most effective in history—and the most honest.

The Democratic penchant for lying has a long pedigree.  It was on exhibit when George W. Bush was accused of lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  We saw it when the women who denounced Bill Clinton for sexual improprieties were vilified.  Decades earlier, it was front and center when Alger Hiss was defended against charges of spying for the Soviets.

Even so, thanks to the explosion in media channels, we have never experienced such a flood of lies as those in which we are currently drowning. Nor will the spigot be turned off as long as ordinary Americans cannot tell the difference between truth and falsity.

Hard-core liberals will not change.  They reap too many benefits from a culture of mendacity.  It is therefore up to the rest of us to end this madness. If we don’t, the trust that enables our nation to function will be lost—as will our social cohesion.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

CYA and the Socialist Ideal

Many years ago, when I first went to work for a government vocational agency, a colleague advised me on how to do my job.  We were both out-stationed at a psychiatric hospital where she took me aside to inform me about the organization’s facts of life.  Never forget, she said, “CYA.”

At the time, I was an innocent and had no idea of her meaning. What she was telling me, however, was that first and foremost I must cover my posterior.  If I hoped to get along in my new position, I had to go along. Rocking the boat would only make trouble.

What she did not tell me was how to be an effective counselor.  This was not at the top of her priority list. Nor did it take precedence for the other counselors I was later to meet.  Much higher among their vocational considerations was personal security.

This is a widespread bureaucratic phenomenon.  Indeed, before I was hired, my favorite uncle repeatedly recommended a government job because it would be easy and reliable.  I would not have to worry about being fired and in the end would wind up with a top-notch pension.

Nobody, except some of my liberal high school teachers, ever suggested that a government job would be a good place to innovate.  Neither had I been informed that I should work hard in order to move ahead.  The primary goal was to keep one’s head down and avoid trouble.

But me, in my naiveté, I wanted to excel at my work.  I actually hoped to develop new techniques for assisting clients.  My assumption was that if I achieved this, I would be performing a valuable service for others.

To this end, I created a therapeutic modality I called Resocialization.  So far as I could tell, it was working rather well.  But after I explained it to one of my supervisors, he told me to stop using it. When I asked why, he said it was because he didn’t understand it.  Whether it was effective was irrelevant.

Soon thereafter I published my first book to explain, and advocate, for my methodology.  This put me deeper in the doghouse with my bosses.  My job, as I had earlier been advised, was to refrain from producing discomfort.  Making changes, however advantageous, was not welcome.

Bureaucracies, as I discovered, are not hotbeds of invention. They are not even especially concerned with benefiting their clients.  Their number one objective is stability.  Keeping the organization alive and growing counted for more than anything else.

One of the means of achieving this is public relations. Glowing reports about how much good has been accomplished are periodically issued.  Whether these are true matters less than whether they are believed.  At my agency, we therefore bragged about how we converted tax users into taxpayers.

Nonetheless, bureaucrats are not risk takers.  They are not interested in progress, but stasis.  This is why in places like the old Soviet Union they copied ideas from the West instead of developing them at home.  It is why Khrushchev’s boast about burying the United States was never a serious threat.

 Socialism and communism are about CYA.  They may brag about helping the poor and downtrodden, but are really about maintaining control by their elites.  These systems claim to be run by—and for the benefit of—the working classes, whereas bureaucratic imperatives decide what gets done.

For all the talk about collectivism promoting social justice, the proletarian regimes they promise cannot be implemented without huge bureaucracies.  This dictates rule driven operations that discourage innovations as detrimental to organizational stability.

Capitalism, in contrast, is dedicated to Schumpeter’s creative destruction.  Like Andrew Carnegie, this policy tears down perfectly operational steel plants in order to erect more efficient ones.  This produces havoc among those who are comfortable in their jobs, but it is also the main source of economic progress.

If this is true, we have to ask ourselves what we want.  Do we crave a growing economy that is forever introducing new and improved products?  Or are we willing to settle for modest comfort.  Likewise do we hope to increase our incomes or is what we currently have sufficient?

Socialist security is not about doing better.  Nor is it about complete equality.  Its central concern is CYA.  In protecting us from risks, it thereby prevents us from improving our situations.  Dreams of progress are sacrificed on the altar of the status quo.  Is this what we dream of?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University 

Who Is Really Divisive?

With the death of liberalism, Newspeak has come into flower. The meanings of words have been turned on their heads so as to persuade voters that black is white and vice versa. A prime example is the strange transformation of the term of “divisive.”

During this past electoral cycle, Democrats repeatedly used it to describe president Trump.  He was thereby condemned for splitting the nation into hostile camps.  In the process, liberals implied that they were not disruptive; rather they were bringing us together.

Nonetheless, leftists have an odd way of reconciling our differences. Their strategy for finding common ground is to get everyone to adopt their outlook.  Compromise has nothing to do with their aims.  Convinced that every jot and tittle of their beliefs are correct, the only reasonable way to obtain unity is for their opponents to capitulate.

That this provokes resistance and is therefore divisive escapes their notice.  To the contrary, they are certain that they have a right to use whatever tactics they choose to impose a resolution on their terms.  If this requires increasing the differences between people, then so be it.

A case in point is political correctness.  Anyone who has a different idea about solving race-related issues is automatically labeled a racist. Insist on enforcing law and order, for instance, and this label is affixed.  And when it is, a person is scorned as beyond redemption.

Thus, how many times has Trump been castigated as a racist?   And yet, upon what evidence does this charge rest? For many, it is because he wants to exclude illegal aliens whose skin happens to be brown.  Does this, however, imply that discussions of immigration policy are out of bounds if they involve non-Caucasians?

Apparently it does.  The same is true of other policies, such as affirmative action.  Liberals are unwilling to entertain the possibility that people who disagree with them might do so in good faith.  These adversaries are instead derided as deplorables—as beyond the ken.

Is this any way to heal social schisms?  Does it bring people together or encourage honest deal making? Unquestionably not.  Nor does calling one’s opponents names or picketing their homes and shouting “we know where you live.”  These are threats, not invitations to civil negotiations.

To be divisive signifies “to divide.”  It pigeonholes people and thenceforth treats them differently.  When, for example, liberals identify all whites as benefiting from “while privilege,” they are saying these folks must be barred from power.  They need to be split off from the good guys.

Likewise, when Trump says he is a nationalist and wants to make America great again, he is derided as a “white nationalist.”  In other words, his offer of an olive branch is summarily rejected as insincere.  Ironically, this effort to unite is interpreted as an attempt to divide.

Sadly, as long as seeing the worst in our opponents persists, there can be no mending of political differences.  As long as liberals regard themselves as the sole guardians of moral rectitude, they will never admit to spawning factionalism.

Nonetheless, the resistmovement is all about division.  It is about never compromising.  The stratagem is not to agree, irrespective of the merits of the other side’s proposals.  As such, it erects impenetrable barriers that impose strict divisions.

For several years, I have been arguing that liberalism is dying. Its ambition of using the government to resolve every social problem has been found wanting.  This is because huge bureaucracies are not equipped to achieve complete harmony.  They are too rigid and impersonal.  Furthermore, those who control them are more concerned with their careers than the needs of those they are committed to help.

Our current social gridlock is thus a consequence of having adopted administrative methods that will not work.  They never can.  If liberals refuse to recognize this, they must remain intransigent—and, as a result, committed to maintaining social partitions.  This is the only way they can maintain their group identity.

But conservatives should not be too smug.  An unfettered free market will not work either.  It has been tried and failed; hence it is time to rethink how we address the myriad challenges of our post-industrial affluence.

Regrettably, we are destined to remain at knifepoint unless we realize no one can win unless we change our collective directions.  If we don’t let go of outdated perspectives, we will continue to do battle until we all burn out.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

The Teflon President

Ronald Reagan has become a hero.  Nowadays, even some Democrats praise him.  During his tenure in the White House, however, this was not the case. It is easy to forget how regularly he was castigated for his purported incompetence.  

To begin with he was an actor.  His chief skill was allegedly pretending to be what he was not.  Furthermore, as an actor, he did not write his own lines. People who had more smarts supplied the words.  His knack was delivering them with conviction.

Then too he was lazy.  He habitually got to the oval office late and left early.  Since he did not know what he was doing, he delegated important decisions to those who did.  He was a figurehead; not a hard worker or deep thinker.

And those crazy ideas of his; there were so many.  Voodoo economics, for instance.  Instead of paying the nation’s bills, he wanted to cut taxes.  He also thought the federal government was too big.  He, with a straight face, described this as a grave problem.

On the international scene, he was similarly unhinged.  Instead of getting along with the Soviets, he wanted to confront them.  He even proposed a mad scheme for anti-missile defense.  Everyone knew this was unworkable and yet he persisted. 

To cap things off, he told the Russians they must tear down the Berlin wall.  Why was he baiting the bear?  The Cold War was never going to end so why couldn’t he admit as much.  International confrontations were a dead end.  Besides, they were dangerous.

Despite this negative drumbeat, the American public gradually warmed to Reagan. He was genial.  He was even funny.  When a would-be assassin shot him, they sympathized with him.  When the economy began to heat up, they applauded this achievement.

From the media, however, there were only sour grapes.  He was dubbed the Teflon president.  Why?  Because none of the calumny hurled at him stuck.  Not even the Iran-Contra debacle soiled his reputation.  Too many of his initiatives worked out, irrespective of the criticism.

Fast forward to today.  Donald Trump is anything but a Teflon president.  Almost everything sticks to him.  Has he been called a racist?  Of course he has.  But upon what basis is this charge made?  Apparently he said some unpleasant things about Hispanic immigrants.  Surely this was based on biology.

No wait.  Aren’t millions of people fleeing from Central America because places like Honduras have become crime-infested hellholes?  These respectable people simply seek protection.  But please explain to me why only the good folks make the trip north. Don’t the bad ones join the caravans?

Then, when they get to the United States, babies are ripped from their mother’s arms.  No wait. There has not been a single documented case of literal ripping.  But why would this prevent opposition politicians from repeating a defamatory meme ad nauseum?

Then there was the Charlottesville business.  The president opined that there were good people on both sides of the Confederate statue controversy.  Did he, in this, mean to praise the KKK?  Although he denied it, his motives were obvious.  After all, anything said in favor of white southerners had to be racist.

The point is that the bias against Trump is so pervasive that anything he says or does is liable to be misconstrued.  Reagan survived an unremitting onslaught of negative evaluations because he was amiable.  He was a nice guy.  In addition, most of his programs prospered.

Trump, on the other hand, is not so nice.  He fights back.  Where Reagan answered his detractors with a smile and a joke, Trump answers his with a barb and a counter-accusation.  We are told that Trump’s language is offensive, but that of his enemies is plainly more so.  He gets the blame because his approach is regarded as unpresidential.

Where is this headed?  Reagan never got a particularly good press when in office.  The end of the Cold War, however, was so spectacular that in retrospect it could not be denied.  Trump, in contrast, is unlikely to be as victorious.  He may therefore be destined for a longer exile in media purgatory.

Does this matter?  I think not. The neo-Marxist bent of many journalists is a fact of modern history.  It will not change.  What counts for more is whether we, as a nation, overcome our infatuation with socialism.  If we do, Trump’s capitalist successes will speak for themselves.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Cooperation versus Competition

There can be no doubt that socialism has increased in popularity in the United States.  The young, in particular, have embraced it as a panacea.  Despite the fact that this political and economic arrangement has never worked anywhere it was tried, they regard it as a cure-all.

The question is why?  What is there about this system that makes it so attractive?  One of the explanations is the raft of free stuff promised to accompany it.  Complimentary health care and college tuition sound good to folks who do not have much money.

Another reason is so-called social justice.  A society in which everyone is theoretically equal is appealing to those who have little power.  Because the young are just starting out, they are at the bottom of the social pecking order and therefore welcome a quick upward ride.

But there is a third reason—an older reason—why socialism is thought desirable.  This goes back to the idea that if society became one huge loving family, we would assist, rather than hurt, each other.  We would unquestionably cooperate such that everyone benefited.

Socialism rose to prominence as a counterweight to capitalism.  With the advent of industrialization, the free market permitted a relatively small number of individuals to accumulate what seemed like an absurdly large share of the community’s wealth.  Worse still was the accompanying concentration of social power.

Since capitalists attributed their success to an ability to outcompete others, competition became suspect.  It was obviously based on a selfish desire to oppress the less greedy. Cooperation made more sense in that it asked everyone to work together for their mutual advantage.

It seemed obvious that if instead of trying to outdo one another, individuals funneled their energies into collaboration more could be accomplished. In addition, people would not need to be defensive, which would free them to participate in intricate projects. 

Furthermore, because they were less selfish, they would distribute the products of their work equitably.  No longer could anyone become obscenely wealthy or nauseatingly poor. All would live comfortably, without envy disrupting the community’s tranquility.

Except that this is not how things worked out.  Cooperation between millions of unrelated individuals does not arise spontaneously.  It has to be coordinated, which means that some people, i.e. leaders, acquire greater power.  Nor does selfishness disappear merely because it is defined as immoral.

Paradoxically, the abolition of competition has negative consequences. Less gets done.  When individuals contend for precedence, they accomplish more.  They work harder and smarter and hence produce surplus goods and services.

What is more, given that we are a hierarchical species, the impulse to be better than others is impossible to eradicate.  Our desire to win is so deeply ingrained that trying to eliminate it is even more problematic than inculcating universal magnanimity.

The good news, however, is that cooperation and competition are not mutually exclusive.  Indeed, they can be complimentary.  We see this in athletic activities.  It is part of what makes these events so attractive.

Consider football.  How could a team be successful if the linemen and running backs did not cooperate?  If the tackles did not open a hole for the fullback, where would the latter find the space to spurt ahead?  We call this teamwork and every NFL coach stresses it.

On the other hand, if players did not strenuously compete against their opponents, victory would never be achieved.  If they did not put in the effort to beat their rivals, they would constantly be defeated.  Wanting to win—strongly wanting to win—is essential to doing so.

The critical mistake of socialists is assuming that cooperation and competition are either/or strategies.  In fact, both approaches are essential for our wellbeing.  Emphasizing cooperation at the complete expense of competition therefore does great harm.  It robs us of synergies not otherwise available.

Human societies are complicated.  Lots of contradictory things happen simultaneously.  Consequently, when we over-simplify matters by supposing there is only one way to interact, we gum up the works.  Rather than promote happiness, we introduce unforeseen difficulties.  

Socialism sounds good during stump speeches.  Nonetheless, it concerns fictional characters, not flesh and blood humans.  Real people want to be winners.  They fight hard to come out on top.  They cannot be deterred from competing—even while they promote cooperation. 

Look at the resist Trumpers.  Aren’t they doing the opposite of what they recommend?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University  

Assessing the Reality of American Medicine

During the recent political campaign, the Democrats concentrated on the alleged problems of American medicine.  Despite the embarrassing failures associated with ObamaCare, they proposed a federal takeover of the entire medical system.

Was this because our medical care is in dire trouble?  Are we dying like flies because it is ill managed or bankrupted thanks to its unrestricted costs?  Why did so many voters say that their number one political concern was health care?  Was there a valid reason for their apprehensions?

In recent months, I have had intimate interactions with a number of medical facilities.  This has enabled me to assess their quality first hand.  Despite of all the negativity in the press, I am pleased to report that accounts of their medical malfunctions have been greatly exaggerated.

First of all, the equipment available in our hospitals and clinics is outstanding.  It is cutting edge and constantly being upgraded as innovations are introduced.  Up and down the line, for almost every ailment, this makes improved treatments accessible to most patients.

Next, our medical personnel are top-notch.  They are well trained and for the most part dedicated to doing their best.  The nurses could scarcely be more congenial, the technicians more assiduous, and the physicians more steadfast in their efforts.  

These are good, intelligent, and committed human beings.  They know that what they are doing concerns life and death and therefore they seldom slack off because the work is hard or the results can be disappointing.  There may be exceptions, but few of these professionals and semi-professionals are slap-dash in their exertions.

Nor are patients treated disparagingly because of their status.  I witnessed consistently respectful conduct notwithstanding social class differences.  The poor were not written off because they are poor.  They were not shunted off into back rooms where they were allowed to wallow in misery.

Of course, mistakes are made.  My wife studies medial error so I have heard untold stories of tragedy. Nonetheless, I have also talked to doctors and nurses who told me they have nightmares about giving the wrong medication.  These are responsible people who endeavor not to do harm.

Then there is the issue of cost.  In my case, insurance handled most of the expenses.  In the case of my wife’s parents, Medicare has done likewise. No doubt there are exceptions. Top quality care is expensive and therefore some people must fall through the cracks.

But is there widespread suffering because people are being bled dry and/or denied the appropriate attention?  If so, I didn’t see it.  This, to be sure, is Atlanta.  Somewhere there must be backwaters where high quality interventions have not penetrated. Yet does this mean they never will?

Which brings us back to our political concerns about medicine.  The irony is that Democrats are exploiting these. Given the recent boondoggles surrounding ObamaCare, this should have been impossible.  Soaring costs, lost doctors, and broken promises ought to have made this issue toxic for them.

Nonetheless, liberals, who were answerable for the dramatic increases in insurance rates, still promised reduced outlays.  They were even able to make a total federal takeover of the medical system sound attractive, although a smaller takeover turned into a fiasco.

Democratic candidates also claimed that Republicans wanted to eliminate protections for those with pre-existing conditions.  This charge was blatantly dishonest, but it resonated.  What persuaded so many voters to take obvious canards seriously?  Weren’t they listening?

The culprit, in my opinion, is elevated expectations.  Modern medicine has done so well that we expect it to cure all of our ills.  When we get sick, we anticipate getting better almost immediately.  We also require this to be cheap.  How could it be otherwise in the richest nation in the world?

And so we accept promises of panaceas.  Told about the wonderful free care available overseas, we demand the same. It doesn’t matter that the quality of foreign interventions does not match ours.  It is irrelevant that in places like Russia life expectancy decreased, whereas ours increased.

Wanting more and better is part of the human condition.  Even so, making major changes without investigating whether these will be genuine improvements is seldom wise.  If we exchange something that is very good for something that merely sounds good, it is our health that will suffer.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University