On the face of it, it sounds absurd. How can liberalism be dying? Haven’t liberals just experienced their greatest triumphs in decades? Haven’t they only recently captured the presidency and both houses of congress, with a soon-to-be filibuster proof majority in the senate? Isn’t it conservatism that is, in fact, dying?
Only appearances can be deceptive. Sometimes mortality is preceded by a period of illusory vigor. These dynamic episodes are usually referred to as “death throes.” The victim seems to defy its terminal condition, but is actually using up its last reserves of energy. Liberalism is currently exhibiting unmistakable signs of such misleading liveliness.
When he was running for president Barack Obama worked overtime to persuade the electorate that he was moderate. He assured voters that he would be bipartisan and conciliatory once in office. But then he became president and in combination with congressional Democrats launched the most extreme liberal program in more than half a century. He determined to remake a bevy of fundamental institutions along collectivist lines.
To be more specific, in his public appearances the president passionately affirms his intention to nationalize health care, federalize public education, and transform energy policies. While he describes these as necessary to rescue the economy, the recession is only a pretext for instituting long cherished liberal aspirations. It is the excuse, not the reason for doing what he wishes.
So far the public is divided in its response to this radical agenda. Conservatives are appalled, whereas left-wing activists are delighted. It is the folks in the middle who are confused. They want their president to succeed, but are none too happy with his more aggressive policy initiatives. At the moment, they are giving him high marks, but they are also holding their breath to see what happens next.
Except, what if what happens is disaster? What if Obama and his colleagues have crawled out on a limb that is so fragile it collapses under the weight of their excessive ambitions? Isn’t this likely to discredit liberalism? Won’t their high-minded aspirations be exposed as naïve fantasies?
Consider the potential failures. What happens when energy costs go up by thousands of dollars per household? What if trillions in deficit spending spark a roaring inflation? Far from receiving tax relief, most people will thereby find their disposable income slashed.
Consider also the effects of nationalized health care. The British and Canadian experiences suggest not better medicine, but more strictly rationed services. The government may pay the bills (from taxes), but will deliver less. In this case, medicine will be “splendidly equalized” at a lower level than most Americans have come to expect.
And what of education? We have had a century of progressive education during which the results of achievement tests have steadily declined. Throwing billions of additional dollars at schools may not necessarily produce worse results, but history suggests that it will not generate better ones.
This is not even to mention the evisceration of national security under liberal management. What if tying the hands of the CIA brings about a new 9/11? What if “civilizing” it interrogation techniques allows a nuclear device to devastate an American city? The prospect is chilling.
Make no mistake; should any of these events transpire, liberalism will be blamed. The “chickens will have come home to roost” in a big way. If so, in much the same manner that Watergate devastated the Republican Party, liberalism’s inflated promises will hobble the Democrats. They will then struggle to survive.
For now, the mainstream media are celebrating the liberal revolution, but radicalism is likely to author its own demise. Liberalism is about to expire because it must grievously disappoint. Indeed, the more sweeping its assurances, the more quickly it will perish.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Lessons from the Reichstag Fire
Most Americans are future-oriented. We prefer to look ahead rather than back. As a result, many of us are uncomfortable with history. Sadly, we fail to learn important lessons because we believe them irrelevant.
One of these lessons harks back to the rise of Adolf Hitler. Many of us forget that he was legally appointed German Chancellor. He did not begin to assume dictatorial powers until about a month later. It was only then that he parlayed the Reichstag fire into personal rule.
Much to everyone’s surprise, the Reichstag, that is, the German parliament, suddenly went up in flames. The nation was shocked. No one knew who did it. This did not matter to Hitler. He blamed the conflagration on the communists. They were trying to overthrow the government and had to be stopped. Almost immediately, he went to President Hindenburg asking for a decree to address the emergency. Under the Weimar constitution, it was granted.
Abruptly, Hitler was able to abrogate free speech, the free press, the right of assembly, and property rights. Within weeks, he used these powers to exclude the communists and socialists from the parliament. This gave him a rubber stamp to do whatever he desired—which he soon did.
Hitler’s strategy was three-fold. First, he fanned the flames of crisis. There was an emergency and something had to be done. Second, he demonized his enemies. The communists and socialists were to blame; hence they had to be neutralized. Third, he instituted irreversible changes. With his Brown Shirts leading the way, he immediately clamped down on free speech, the free press, and so forth. Soon he was in complete control.
Although Barack Obama is no Adolf Hitler—he has no plans for concentration camps or for an international war—he too understands how to manipulate a crisis. He began his administration by fanning the flames of our financial crisis. It was, he insisted, no mere recession; it was an emergency comparable to the Great Depression. Something had to be done! Right away!
Second, he demonized his opponents. The problem had been caused by the capitalists and, more particularly, by the Wall Street financiers. They were greedy and needed to have their appetites curbed. As for the Republicans, they had no solutions worthy of being considered. Nor did the private citizens who protested his programs. They were potential terrorists who had to be watched lest they get out of hand.
Third, he proposed irreversible changes. A stimulus package, however large, would not be enough to fix the problem. He would have to address the emergency by drastically changing how education, health, and energy were administered. It was essential to bring all of these under greater government control. Although there was no evidence that any of these were implicated in the financial crisis, he insisted that only greater federal involvement would overcome it.
At no point did Obama and his allies admit complicity in the problem. At no point did they even explain how their proposed answers would achieve the stated goals. The point was to act as quickly as possible. Only this would allow them to bring about the changes they sought.
Except, the Reichstag is not burning. Nor is a senile Paul von Hindenburg in charge of interpreting the constitution. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid may aid Obama with legislative gimmicks, but the legislators are up for election in a scant year and a half. With concerted action, their leaders can be stopped before they alter our government beyond recognition.
The trick is for those of us who believe in representative democracy to recognize what is going on and to refuse to be rattled. Our current crisis, such as it is, is largely artificial. We must see it for what it is.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
One of these lessons harks back to the rise of Adolf Hitler. Many of us forget that he was legally appointed German Chancellor. He did not begin to assume dictatorial powers until about a month later. It was only then that he parlayed the Reichstag fire into personal rule.
Much to everyone’s surprise, the Reichstag, that is, the German parliament, suddenly went up in flames. The nation was shocked. No one knew who did it. This did not matter to Hitler. He blamed the conflagration on the communists. They were trying to overthrow the government and had to be stopped. Almost immediately, he went to President Hindenburg asking for a decree to address the emergency. Under the Weimar constitution, it was granted.
Abruptly, Hitler was able to abrogate free speech, the free press, the right of assembly, and property rights. Within weeks, he used these powers to exclude the communists and socialists from the parliament. This gave him a rubber stamp to do whatever he desired—which he soon did.
Hitler’s strategy was three-fold. First, he fanned the flames of crisis. There was an emergency and something had to be done. Second, he demonized his enemies. The communists and socialists were to blame; hence they had to be neutralized. Third, he instituted irreversible changes. With his Brown Shirts leading the way, he immediately clamped down on free speech, the free press, and so forth. Soon he was in complete control.
Although Barack Obama is no Adolf Hitler—he has no plans for concentration camps or for an international war—he too understands how to manipulate a crisis. He began his administration by fanning the flames of our financial crisis. It was, he insisted, no mere recession; it was an emergency comparable to the Great Depression. Something had to be done! Right away!
Second, he demonized his opponents. The problem had been caused by the capitalists and, more particularly, by the Wall Street financiers. They were greedy and needed to have their appetites curbed. As for the Republicans, they had no solutions worthy of being considered. Nor did the private citizens who protested his programs. They were potential terrorists who had to be watched lest they get out of hand.
Third, he proposed irreversible changes. A stimulus package, however large, would not be enough to fix the problem. He would have to address the emergency by drastically changing how education, health, and energy were administered. It was essential to bring all of these under greater government control. Although there was no evidence that any of these were implicated in the financial crisis, he insisted that only greater federal involvement would overcome it.
At no point did Obama and his allies admit complicity in the problem. At no point did they even explain how their proposed answers would achieve the stated goals. The point was to act as quickly as possible. Only this would allow them to bring about the changes they sought.
Except, the Reichstag is not burning. Nor is a senile Paul von Hindenburg in charge of interpreting the constitution. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid may aid Obama with legislative gimmicks, but the legislators are up for election in a scant year and a half. With concerted action, their leaders can be stopped before they alter our government beyond recognition.
The trick is for those of us who believe in representative democracy to recognize what is going on and to refuse to be rattled. Our current crisis, such as it is, is largely artificial. We must see it for what it is.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Cry the Beloved Country—The Formerly United States
The irony is profound. The political party that calls itself “Democratic” turns out to be deeply anti-democratic. No only has it betrayed the American people; it has betrayed the principles upon which the United States of America was established. It has literally placed our national unity in jeopardy.
Senator Lindsey Graham has rightly called the legislative extravaganza surrounding health care legislation “sleazy.” It is that, but much worse. It is a scandal of epic, dare one say, historic proportions. Besides revealing public corruption on a massive scale, it is an arrow shot through the heart of our democracy.
Consider the many points militating against the Senate’s so-called health care reforms.
One, it raises taxes on most Americans via unfunded mandates on the states.
Two, it forces ordinary citizens to purchase private health insurance—at what will surely be inflated prices.
Three, it arbitrarily interferes with the relationship between patients and their doctors.
Four, the preliminary legislation was passed in the dead of night, scarcely read by those who endorsed it.
Five, its rules were utterly lacking in transparency. Not only were they not posted on the Web, but purposeful efforts were made to shield them from public scrutiny.
Six, nor is this what the American people want. As poll after poll has shown, a large majority of voters is opposed to what was put forward.
All the above clearly goes against the spirit of democracy. It violates the sacred compact between the people and their elected leaders. But what happened is far worse; far more dangerous to what America represents.
The spectacle of senators being bought off to support a supposedly valuable program was hardly elevating. It disclosed a venality that scarcely brought credit to the participants.
Nevertheless, senate majority leader Harry Reid shrugged this off by saying “that’s what legislating is about.” But is it? Is providing goodies for individual states in order to buy a few votes truly democratic? Granted it has happened before, but has it ever occurred on such a flagrant scale?
Once upon a time, we called this corruption. It was something that transpired in banana republics; not among our more enlightened legislators.
Still, this is not the worst of the deal. The worst is that the legislation incorporates different rules for different states. What happens in Nebraska is not the same as Kansas. The bills paid in Florida differ from those paid in Georgia.
As Francis Fukuyama has argued, democracy is built on trust. People support democratic governments only if they believe them grounded in fairness. Once it is clear that some states will get better breaks merely because their legislators were more skilled at horse-trading a confidence in honorable outcomes is sure to evaporate.
While it is true that the states are free to legislate diverse laws for themselves, it is a different matter when dealing with the federal government. Our ancestors created a “federal republic” precisely to overcome the jealousies and bickering under the Articles of Confederation. These Founding Fathers learned from personal experience how divisive untamed localism is.
We are about to learn the same lesson. As the states are pitted against each other, the glue that holds our union together is likely to lose its adhesive power. And with it will exit the strength provided by united numbers.
Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama did not intend it, but they are wringing the curtain down on a wondrous political experiment. They are answering Benjamin Franklin’s question about whether we are capable of sustaining a republic in the negative.
Isn’t this a strange outcome for a program intended to be national?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Senator Lindsey Graham has rightly called the legislative extravaganza surrounding health care legislation “sleazy.” It is that, but much worse. It is a scandal of epic, dare one say, historic proportions. Besides revealing public corruption on a massive scale, it is an arrow shot through the heart of our democracy.
Consider the many points militating against the Senate’s so-called health care reforms.
One, it raises taxes on most Americans via unfunded mandates on the states.
Two, it forces ordinary citizens to purchase private health insurance—at what will surely be inflated prices.
Three, it arbitrarily interferes with the relationship between patients and their doctors.
Four, the preliminary legislation was passed in the dead of night, scarcely read by those who endorsed it.
Five, its rules were utterly lacking in transparency. Not only were they not posted on the Web, but purposeful efforts were made to shield them from public scrutiny.
Six, nor is this what the American people want. As poll after poll has shown, a large majority of voters is opposed to what was put forward.
All the above clearly goes against the spirit of democracy. It violates the sacred compact between the people and their elected leaders. But what happened is far worse; far more dangerous to what America represents.
The spectacle of senators being bought off to support a supposedly valuable program was hardly elevating. It disclosed a venality that scarcely brought credit to the participants.
Nevertheless, senate majority leader Harry Reid shrugged this off by saying “that’s what legislating is about.” But is it? Is providing goodies for individual states in order to buy a few votes truly democratic? Granted it has happened before, but has it ever occurred on such a flagrant scale?
Once upon a time, we called this corruption. It was something that transpired in banana republics; not among our more enlightened legislators.
Still, this is not the worst of the deal. The worst is that the legislation incorporates different rules for different states. What happens in Nebraska is not the same as Kansas. The bills paid in Florida differ from those paid in Georgia.
As Francis Fukuyama has argued, democracy is built on trust. People support democratic governments only if they believe them grounded in fairness. Once it is clear that some states will get better breaks merely because their legislators were more skilled at horse-trading a confidence in honorable outcomes is sure to evaporate.
While it is true that the states are free to legislate diverse laws for themselves, it is a different matter when dealing with the federal government. Our ancestors created a “federal republic” precisely to overcome the jealousies and bickering under the Articles of Confederation. These Founding Fathers learned from personal experience how divisive untamed localism is.
We are about to learn the same lesson. As the states are pitted against each other, the glue that holds our union together is likely to lose its adhesive power. And with it will exit the strength provided by united numbers.
Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama did not intend it, but they are wringing the curtain down on a wondrous political experiment. They are answering Benjamin Franklin’s question about whether we are capable of sustaining a republic in the negative.
Isn’t this a strange outcome for a program intended to be national?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
A Modest Proposal—For Re-Branding Conservatism
The time has come for conservatives to take a page out of Bill Clinton’s playbook. Our former president was an expert in the sort of verbal jujitsu those on the political right might do well to emulate. In fact, it may be the only way to fight the fire of dissimulation with the fire of truthfulness.
A decade and a half ago, when Newt Gingrich attempted to promote conservatism by promoting an “opportunity society,” his well-intentioned effort came up short. Gingrich touted the free market as a means through which everyone could pursue freedom and prosperity, but once this idea began to acquire traction Clinton jumped into the fray. He quickly began promoting an opportunity society, albeit one based on government sponsored initiatives.
In short order, opportunity ceased to be a conservative hallmark and hence lost its ability to attract support. Nevertheless, Clinton’s turnabout ploy can be used in reverse. Today, liberals glory in their purported “progressivism.” They claim to be on the side of history and therefore assert the exclusive right champion positive change. Conservatives, in contrast, are characterized as chained to a discredited past. They are alleged to have no new ideas worth honoring.
In fact, liberals are not progressive, whereas conservatives are not conservative. Liberals actually seek to return us to a cross between an updated Enlightenment absolutism and Bronze Age village life. Meanwhile, conservatives, despite their reputation, seek to build upon past successes. Not one of the four pillars of their philosophy is backward looking. Each, namely freedom, democracy, market economics and family values, is relentlessly innovative.
So what can conservatives do to correct this mischaracterization? Well, they can start by calling themselves “progressive.” Moreover, they can contrast themselves with liberals by castigating their opponents as “phony progressives” or perhaps “fairy-tale progressives.” At the same time, they can boast of being the “real progressives” or maybe “rational progressives.” Either way, they can make it plain that liberals are out of touch with reality, while they are not.
The price for not appropriating the progressive mantle has been steep. It allowed the liberals to get away with portraying themselves as the party of change, which translated into attracting two thirds of the youth vote in the last election. The young were bamboozled into believing that Democrats represented their interests, whereas they did not. Unfortunately, the bill for failed liberal polices will soon be theirs to pay.
Similarly, reform-minded moderates were persuaded that Democrats offered social improvements, whereas conservatives were stigmatized as favoring the same old policies as their ancestors. Even though liberals championed a disinterred New Deal, they got away with labeling it “change you can believe in” because Republicans did not emphasize their attachment to social advances.
What conservatives could have done is publicize the progressive nature of the market economy. They could have ballyhooed the creative fervor of individuals allowed to exercise independent initiative. Merely talking about the benefits of small business was obviously not enough.
They could also have explained that strong families were the best hope for preparing children to succeed in a techno-commercial society. What, after all, could be more forward-looking than laying the groundwork for the happiness and prosperity of the next generation?
Nor are freedom and decentralized democracy old-fashioned. Both allow people to control their own destinies. To paraphrase well-loved army advertisements; they allow people to “be the best they can be.” In what way is this being stuck in the past?
Meanwhile self-proclaimed progressives trample on the family, hobble the market economy, and dictate how people should live. Why is that progressive?
It is time to declare that it is not. Indeed, it is time to shout this from the rooftops. Liberalism will not bring improvements, merely government sponsored corruption and run-away inflation. That’s not progress. That is make-believe progress. Paradoxically, it is conservatism that produces genuine advancements.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
A decade and a half ago, when Newt Gingrich attempted to promote conservatism by promoting an “opportunity society,” his well-intentioned effort came up short. Gingrich touted the free market as a means through which everyone could pursue freedom and prosperity, but once this idea began to acquire traction Clinton jumped into the fray. He quickly began promoting an opportunity society, albeit one based on government sponsored initiatives.
In short order, opportunity ceased to be a conservative hallmark and hence lost its ability to attract support. Nevertheless, Clinton’s turnabout ploy can be used in reverse. Today, liberals glory in their purported “progressivism.” They claim to be on the side of history and therefore assert the exclusive right champion positive change. Conservatives, in contrast, are characterized as chained to a discredited past. They are alleged to have no new ideas worth honoring.
In fact, liberals are not progressive, whereas conservatives are not conservative. Liberals actually seek to return us to a cross between an updated Enlightenment absolutism and Bronze Age village life. Meanwhile, conservatives, despite their reputation, seek to build upon past successes. Not one of the four pillars of their philosophy is backward looking. Each, namely freedom, democracy, market economics and family values, is relentlessly innovative.
So what can conservatives do to correct this mischaracterization? Well, they can start by calling themselves “progressive.” Moreover, they can contrast themselves with liberals by castigating their opponents as “phony progressives” or perhaps “fairy-tale progressives.” At the same time, they can boast of being the “real progressives” or maybe “rational progressives.” Either way, they can make it plain that liberals are out of touch with reality, while they are not.
The price for not appropriating the progressive mantle has been steep. It allowed the liberals to get away with portraying themselves as the party of change, which translated into attracting two thirds of the youth vote in the last election. The young were bamboozled into believing that Democrats represented their interests, whereas they did not. Unfortunately, the bill for failed liberal polices will soon be theirs to pay.
Similarly, reform-minded moderates were persuaded that Democrats offered social improvements, whereas conservatives were stigmatized as favoring the same old policies as their ancestors. Even though liberals championed a disinterred New Deal, they got away with labeling it “change you can believe in” because Republicans did not emphasize their attachment to social advances.
What conservatives could have done is publicize the progressive nature of the market economy. They could have ballyhooed the creative fervor of individuals allowed to exercise independent initiative. Merely talking about the benefits of small business was obviously not enough.
They could also have explained that strong families were the best hope for preparing children to succeed in a techno-commercial society. What, after all, could be more forward-looking than laying the groundwork for the happiness and prosperity of the next generation?
Nor are freedom and decentralized democracy old-fashioned. Both allow people to control their own destinies. To paraphrase well-loved army advertisements; they allow people to “be the best they can be.” In what way is this being stuck in the past?
Meanwhile self-proclaimed progressives trample on the family, hobble the market economy, and dictate how people should live. Why is that progressive?
It is time to declare that it is not. Indeed, it is time to shout this from the rooftops. Liberalism will not bring improvements, merely government sponsored corruption and run-away inflation. That’s not progress. That is make-believe progress. Paradoxically, it is conservatism that produces genuine advancements.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Big “D” Democrats or Little “d” Democrats
The moment of decision is fast approaching for congressional Democrats. They will soon be required to reveal their true colors. Where does their first loyalty lie? Are they more committed to their party affiliation or to our democratic institutions? How they handle the impending health care legislation will tell the story in a way that they may not be able to deny.
The polls suggest that a majority of Americans are against a drastic overhaul of our medical system. They may want reforms, but they are afraid of the costs and of the implications to their personal care of a government controlled program. As such, they prefer modest changes; e.g., ensuring medical portability or instituting tort reform.
If congressional Democrats defy these wishes and nonetheless pass a so-called government option, they will not be representing the will of the people. Still, they can claim to be “democratic” in the sense of meeting the needs of their constituents. They may honestly believe that it is their duty to provide what the people “need” as opposed to what they mistakenly “want.”
No, the real problem will come if the Democrats are forced to use the so-called “nuclear” option. If, in the senate, they cannot muster sufficient votes to override a Republican filibuster and instead resort to a reconciliation process to implement their desires, they will have dealt a body blow to our democratic traditions. They will have demonstrated that they no longer believe in “majority rules, with minority rights,” but are more devoted to their own well being.
Back when Franklin D. Roosevelt was president, he was very upset with his inability to implement many of his New Deal programs. Despite these having passed the congress, the Supreme Court struck them down. Roosevelt decided that this was intolerable and sought to rectify the situation.
Roosevelt’s plan was to defang the court. He would get the congress to increase the number of justices on the bench and then appoint candidates favorable to his program. Since the Democrats held a significant majority in the legislature, this seemed eminently doable.
Nevertheless, an impediment soon arose. A number of congressional Democrats were horrified by the prospect of “packing” the court. Democratic Senators such as Burton K. Wheeler, Harry Byrd, and Millard Tydings worked with Republicans such as William E. Borah, Charles L. McNary, and Arthur Vandenburg to make sure it didn’t happen.
These legislators resented the threat to their lawmaking prerogatives, as well as to settled democratic traditions. Although they had it within their constitutional rights to effect these changes, they could not bring themselves to violate judicial practices that had been over a century in the making. Many of them were Roosevelt loyalists, but their primary commitment was to the nation as opposed to their party.
Now it is time to see what stuff contemporary Democrats are made of. Do they care more about what Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi want or is their first commitment to long established congressional practices? Do they possess the kind of backbone their predecessors did, or are they willing to capitulate to the pressures of party leaders?
Liberal Democrats have been complaining for decades that Republicans impugn their patriotism. Despite the fact that their rivals explicitly deny this claim, they charge them with disrespecting their honor. Now it is up to Democrats to demonstrate whether this indictment has merit. If they blatantly ignore settled legislative precedents, perhaps it is valid after all.
So do the Democrats have the courage to uphold legislative principles or are they party ciphers? Do they care most about the people and the nation, or are they more concerned with party interests? We will soon find out.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
The polls suggest that a majority of Americans are against a drastic overhaul of our medical system. They may want reforms, but they are afraid of the costs and of the implications to their personal care of a government controlled program. As such, they prefer modest changes; e.g., ensuring medical portability or instituting tort reform.
If congressional Democrats defy these wishes and nonetheless pass a so-called government option, they will not be representing the will of the people. Still, they can claim to be “democratic” in the sense of meeting the needs of their constituents. They may honestly believe that it is their duty to provide what the people “need” as opposed to what they mistakenly “want.”
No, the real problem will come if the Democrats are forced to use the so-called “nuclear” option. If, in the senate, they cannot muster sufficient votes to override a Republican filibuster and instead resort to a reconciliation process to implement their desires, they will have dealt a body blow to our democratic traditions. They will have demonstrated that they no longer believe in “majority rules, with minority rights,” but are more devoted to their own well being.
Back when Franklin D. Roosevelt was president, he was very upset with his inability to implement many of his New Deal programs. Despite these having passed the congress, the Supreme Court struck them down. Roosevelt decided that this was intolerable and sought to rectify the situation.
Roosevelt’s plan was to defang the court. He would get the congress to increase the number of justices on the bench and then appoint candidates favorable to his program. Since the Democrats held a significant majority in the legislature, this seemed eminently doable.
Nevertheless, an impediment soon arose. A number of congressional Democrats were horrified by the prospect of “packing” the court. Democratic Senators such as Burton K. Wheeler, Harry Byrd, and Millard Tydings worked with Republicans such as William E. Borah, Charles L. McNary, and Arthur Vandenburg to make sure it didn’t happen.
These legislators resented the threat to their lawmaking prerogatives, as well as to settled democratic traditions. Although they had it within their constitutional rights to effect these changes, they could not bring themselves to violate judicial practices that had been over a century in the making. Many of them were Roosevelt loyalists, but their primary commitment was to the nation as opposed to their party.
Now it is time to see what stuff contemporary Democrats are made of. Do they care more about what Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi want or is their first commitment to long established congressional practices? Do they possess the kind of backbone their predecessors did, or are they willing to capitulate to the pressures of party leaders?
Liberal Democrats have been complaining for decades that Republicans impugn their patriotism. Despite the fact that their rivals explicitly deny this claim, they charge them with disrespecting their honor. Now it is up to Democrats to demonstrate whether this indictment has merit. If they blatantly ignore settled legislative precedents, perhaps it is valid after all.
So do the Democrats have the courage to uphold legislative principles or are they party ciphers? Do they care most about the people and the nation, or are they more concerned with party interests? We will soon find out.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
An Extremist in Sheep’s Clothing
Americans have elected an extremist for president. They thought they were voting for a responsible and reasonable person, but recent developments have revealed that they got a far-left ideologue. It turns out that Barack Obama meant what he said when he opined that redistributing wealth would be a good idea.
During the presidential campaign most people concluded that Obama was calm, confident, and almost preternaturally self-assured. He was obviously very smart and seemed to have the emotional stability to make measured judgments. Definitely not a wild man, he would do nothing outrageous. It was thus safe to entrust our nation and its future to him—even in the midst of a period of economic stress.
Back before the election, Obama assured us that he hardly knew William Ayers or the Reverend Wright. It was true that he had been in their presence, but he did not necessarily agree with them. Ayers was a bomb thrower and Wright had thundered his hatred of America, whereas he, Obama, was patriot. He would never be as extreme as either of them.
But then came governing, as opposed to campaigning, and Obama exposed himself as an ideological bomb thrower. Suddenly he intended to dismantle capitalism and to install his version of “social democracy.” Newsweek magazine inadvertently let the cat out of the bag when it crowed “we are all socialists now.” Their, and his, preference for socialism became obvious.
Now we see Obama’s program. He wants to increase government spending by trillions of dollars. He hopes to nationalize health care and to federalize education. He wants to impose a hidden regressive tax by mandating green energy. He expects to muzzle conservative radio commentators by reintroducing the “fairness doctrine.” Meanwhile, he intends to increase the power of his union supporters by eliminating the secret ballot in union elections. Nor is he unhappy about assuming virtual control of major banks or telling the automobile companies what sorts of vehicles to manufacture. He is even resurrecting the welfare system that Jimmy Carter described as “a disgrace to the human race.”
Decades ago Lyndon Johnson was able to frighten the American people into voting for him by portraying Barry Goldwater as a wild-eyed extremist. If he were elected, Goldwater would surely drop the atomic bomb and wipe out humanity. Most people agreed. They preferred moderation. They did not want to deliver their democracy into the hands of a man who would change its very nature.
Sadly, we have done what they would not. Obama does not sound like an extremist, but he is one. Every now and then he says something outrageous, but then he calms the waters with familiar clichés and huge promises. He is, or at least he portrays himself, as a man of the people. All he wants is change. But then again, he did not really tell us what this change would be until he decided to deliver it. Too bad we, and our grandchildren, will have to pick up the bill.
Now what? As the sheep’s clothing slides off our president’s back, will we notice that there is a wolf at the door? Or will we continue to pretend that the president is merely a nice man who is attempting to perform a difficult job?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
During the presidential campaign most people concluded that Obama was calm, confident, and almost preternaturally self-assured. He was obviously very smart and seemed to have the emotional stability to make measured judgments. Definitely not a wild man, he would do nothing outrageous. It was thus safe to entrust our nation and its future to him—even in the midst of a period of economic stress.
Back before the election, Obama assured us that he hardly knew William Ayers or the Reverend Wright. It was true that he had been in their presence, but he did not necessarily agree with them. Ayers was a bomb thrower and Wright had thundered his hatred of America, whereas he, Obama, was patriot. He would never be as extreme as either of them.
But then came governing, as opposed to campaigning, and Obama exposed himself as an ideological bomb thrower. Suddenly he intended to dismantle capitalism and to install his version of “social democracy.” Newsweek magazine inadvertently let the cat out of the bag when it crowed “we are all socialists now.” Their, and his, preference for socialism became obvious.
Now we see Obama’s program. He wants to increase government spending by trillions of dollars. He hopes to nationalize health care and to federalize education. He wants to impose a hidden regressive tax by mandating green energy. He expects to muzzle conservative radio commentators by reintroducing the “fairness doctrine.” Meanwhile, he intends to increase the power of his union supporters by eliminating the secret ballot in union elections. Nor is he unhappy about assuming virtual control of major banks or telling the automobile companies what sorts of vehicles to manufacture. He is even resurrecting the welfare system that Jimmy Carter described as “a disgrace to the human race.”
Decades ago Lyndon Johnson was able to frighten the American people into voting for him by portraying Barry Goldwater as a wild-eyed extremist. If he were elected, Goldwater would surely drop the atomic bomb and wipe out humanity. Most people agreed. They preferred moderation. They did not want to deliver their democracy into the hands of a man who would change its very nature.
Sadly, we have done what they would not. Obama does not sound like an extremist, but he is one. Every now and then he says something outrageous, but then he calms the waters with familiar clichés and huge promises. He is, or at least he portrays himself, as a man of the people. All he wants is change. But then again, he did not really tell us what this change would be until he decided to deliver it. Too bad we, and our grandchildren, will have to pick up the bill.
Now what? As the sheep’s clothing slides off our president’s back, will we notice that there is a wolf at the door? Or will we continue to pretend that the president is merely a nice man who is attempting to perform a difficult job?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
