Liberty Is Not Enough

I love liberty.  I hate being pushed around by anyone and that includes the government.  Whenever possible, I like to participate in making the decisions that affect my life.

As a result, I applaud Donald Trump’s efforts to reduce the federal footprint.  Eliminating unnecessary regulations was a step in the right direction.  So is, defending the constitution.  Its checks and balances are essential for keeping tyranny at bay.

Nonetheless, these are negative accomplishments.  They help keep would-be dictators from stealing our freedom. But let’s say that this defense of liberty succeeds. What then?  Will this alone fulfill our desires?  Will it automatically make us happier?

Readers of my columns know that I include liberty as one of the five principles necessary to maintain the integrity of a mass techno-commercial society. Freedom is essential if people are to make important decisions for themselves and others.

Nevertheless these decisions need to be good ones.  Liberty provides opportunities.  It does not ensure that people will exploit these prudently.  In fact, the opposite is currently happening.  Many millions of Americans expect to be saved by ceding their choices to others.  They fear they might make mistakes.

The problem is that there are some kinds of selections only individuals can make.  We must therefore use our freedom to take these upon ourselves.  I am thinking of Freud’s criteria for mental health. These were workand love. Unless people are capable of both, they will not be content.

A corollary of this is that the government cannot provide satisfactory work or genuine love.  We must achieve these objectives for ourselves.  To begin with, nowadays with socialists rising in prominence, they demand that the state provide us with jobs.  They shun the free market as too risky.

Apparently these folks have never spent time in communist nations. These places guaranteed full employment. The difficulty with this is at least twofold.  First, when bureaucrats decide where you should work, the odds are you will be trapped in labors you do not like.

Second, if you will have a job no matter what, you will not have an incentive to apply yourself.  Instead you will just get by.  In the end, there will be no sense of achievement and consequently little gratification.

Although it can be anxiety producing to choose one’s own occupation, taking the time to select wisely is essential.  So is developing the skills to perform one’s tasks well.  This is not trivial in that a sense of accomplishment is critical to our wellbeing.  Personal achievements make us feel good about ourselves.

Of course, if we apply liberty to become our best selves, we could fail.  Maybe we won’t fulfill our dreams.  The other side of the coin, however, is that if we cede our independence to faceless administrators, the resulting dependence is sure to leave us feeling empty.

The same applies to seeking love.  If we decide that there is too much pain involved in finding Mr. or Ms. Right, we will have to settle for being unloved.  Others cannot furnish the perfect match because only we can identify what meets our needs.

Nor can others do the work of establishing a secure marriage.  Only we can make a genuine commitment.  Only we are equipped to negotiate our differences fairly with a partner who does likewise.  Nowadays, with personal intimacy voluntary, if we do not put in the effort to make our relationships work, they will not.

Again, because too many Americans demand success in activities that are inherently insecure, they eschew liberty.  They instead withdraw into an electronic universe where loneliness is the norm.  Unfortunately computers and iPhones are not a viable substitute for flesh and blood interactions.

Love can go wrong.  It often does.  Marriages fall apart.  They frequently do.  But abstaining from the game is worse.  The answer is that intimacy has to be worked at by us.  Unless we use our liberty to discover how to love, there is nothing the government can do to fill this void.

With so many Americans looking to politicians for answers, it is no wonder discontent is rampant.  Elected officials will promise us anything, but that does not mean they can deliver. It is therefore time that we looked to ourselves for salvation.

Yes, let’s pursue liberty.  But let us also grow up so that we can take advantage of its benefits. As long as we continue to worship at the altar of big government, we will find it is nothing but a golden calf.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Lessons from the Roman Republic

Almost from the moment the United States became the world’s lone superpower, people began to speculate about whether we would suffer the fate of the Roman Empire.  Would we too decline and fall into an abyss the way Europe’s greatest empire did.

This hypothesis was reasonable, but the better parallel is between the Roman Republic and us.  It too unraveled when its wealth and power exceeded the unifying ability of the institutions that allowed it to dominate the Mediterranean littoral.

Rome had been a small city-state composed mostly of impendent farmers.  They were proud citizens who energetically participated in the legions that destroyed Carthage.  Theirs was a republic in which they voted for their leaders and expected these men to protect their interests.

Capturing all the lands from Spain to Turkey changed this.  Now Rome was extremely rich, with most of the spoils concentrated in the hands of the Patricians.  This destabilized the class structure and removed the incentive for farmers who lost their land to participate in the system.

Attempts to rectify this situation made things worse.  Strongmen arose who promised to bring back the glories of the past, whereas in the process they undermined the political traditions that enabled the republic to prosper.  These leaders said that they cared about the little people, while in fact they lusted after power.

Most Americans have never heard of the Gracchi, or Marius, or Sulla. Nonetheless, these men and their competitors were the ones who rent the system apart.  In flouting centuries of time-honored practices, they demolished the foundation of their civilization.

Before them, no one brought weapons into the forum.  Before them, the sanctity of the consuls and tribunes was inviolate.  After them, nothing was off limits if this allowed those who sought power to obtain it.

This development should resonate with the situation of contemporary America.  We too grew from humble beginnings to superpower status.  Moreover, in the process our social class system was transformed. The difference, of course, was that instead of poverty becoming more prevalent, we became a middle class society.

In any event, the rules that we live by became outmoded.  The more diverse our society became and the more responsibility individuals assumed, the less historic standards seemed relevant. A sense of entitlement encouraged people to demand what they wanted, when they wanted it.

Our governmental traditions have gradually given way to political innovations that are said to be beneficial, but that actually eat away at the stability we have come to expect. A host of unprecedented actions jeopardize the restraints that enable a mass society to maintain its balance.

A good example is the drive to impeach president Trump.  Even his detractors know that he has not engaged in “high crimes and misdemeanors” while in office.  They don’t care.  They instead tell us that impeachment is a political process and therefore they don’t require legally provable allegations.

Indeed, they were demanding that Trump be impeached even before he took the oath of office.  Their goal was thus never to protect the nation, but to rid themselves of a detested foe.

All of this flies in the face of American traditions.  Until now, have held that impeachment should be a last resort.  We have understood that if a chief executive can be toppled anytime a hostile congress desires, it is impossible for him or her to govern.

As recently as a half century ago, President John Kennedy recognized this fact.  In his book Profiles in Courage, he lauded the senator who refused to vote for the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. Instead of giving in to political pressure, Edmund Ross stood by his principles.  He would not allow partisan fervor make a mockery of the constitution.

So why are the Democrats so hot to impose a penalty that would obliterate our democratic heritage?  The answer is simple.  The more their policies for saving our nation fail, the more dedicated they become to obtaining power for its own sake.  They cannot admit their errors; hence they project them on others.

These politicians are playing a dangerous game.  They will say anything and do anything they believe will enable them to call the shots.  What works is irrelevant.  As a result, we may all suffer.

Traditions develop for a reason.  When they change—as they must—this should be done with care. Nowadays this truism is utterly neglected.  We should all tremble at the potential consequences.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

What Is Wrong with Merit?

Lots of things come out of Nancy Pelosi’s mouth.  Many of them are downright silly; others are revealing. If we listen carefully, we can discover facts about contemporary liberalism that Democrats would prefer to hide.

Do you remember when the Speaker of the House, told us that we would have to pass the Affordable Care Act in order to understand what was in it. This implied that legislation should occur in the dark of night rather than where the public can see what is going on. It was the opposite of transparency.

Nancy got a free pass because anything associated with Barack Obama was then interpreted as an instance of “hope and change.”  While Pelosi has not changed, her erstwhile protector is no longer on the scene.

So what gaff has she perpetrated lately?  Furthermore, will Americans who hate Donald Trump discern its implications? I am not talking about Pelosi’s description of the chaos on our southern border a manufactured crisis.  Nor am I citing to her dismissal of Attorney General William Barr as Trump’s lapdog.

No.  I am referring to her response to Trump’s proposals for reforming immigration policies. Our president argued that migrants be allowed into our country primarily on the basis of merit.  Instead of family connections being the main consideration, skills and abilities should count for more.

Trump explained that we ought bring in people who will add to our prosperity.  Instead of being dependent on the public trough for their upkeep, they should be independent—perhaps even starting new businesses.  Other countries, such as Canada and Australia, do this.  Why shouldn’t we?

Pelosi immediately objected.  This was a condescending way to treat migrants.  Didn’t Trump realize that many of the ancestors of contemporary Americans arrived here dirt poor?  He was merely exposing his disdain for those who are not rich.

But notice that Pelosi protested against the word “merit.”  This was extraordinarily informative.  Merit was an elitist term.  Years ago, I read a sociology paper that described merit as an anti-minority plot.  Using it as a criterion for selecting people for jobs was disparaged as a euphemism for keeping blacks out.

So what does this indicate?  Do I want my physician to be without merit?  Do I expect airport flight controllers to be without merit?  In fact, the latter are currently being selected on the basis of having no previous experience with airplanes.  In this case, merit is decried as discriminatory.

But let us focus in on the Democrats.  Do we want our political leaders to be without merit?  Is Pelosi telling us that she deserves to be Speaker of the House because she is mediocre?   As importantly, will the Democrats running for president follow her lead?  Will they argue that they are better than the next guy because they not as good.

If this sounds silly, it actually alarming.  Democrats have made a living out of promising voters that they would rescue the downtrodden.  Regrettably, this requires trainloads of mediocre souls who cannot take care of themselves.  Without them, there would not be enough human material to release from bondage.

As a consequence, liberals have discovered that they have to import people who do not have substantial merit.  They require them by the millions if they are to retain a hold on power.  Dependency and mediocrity go together.  The worse off people are, the more prepared they are to cede their independence to others.

So let us reconsider merit.  It is not synonymous with wealth.  Nor is it the same as being well educated.  Lots of poor people qualify as meritorious, that is, if they are motivated to help themselves.  Thus, my ancestors came to this country dirt poor, but within a decade owned their own businesses.

The difference between then and now is that we have become a mass techno-commercial society.  This requires different abilities and dispositions than were needed then. Ought not this be taken into account when we decide how to distribute the limited number of green cards at our disposal?

Merit should not be lightly dismissed in order to obtain a temporary political advantage.  I am sure that Nancy did not mean to suggest that she is without intelligence or moral virtues.  Indeed, don’t most liberals believe that they are special human beings?

Merit should be celebrated.  It should be encouraged in almost every aspect of life.  If it is not; if we embrace mediocrity, it will not be long before others are surpassing us.  Joe Biden aside; the Chinese are on our heels and will catch up if we decide that average is good enough.

 Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

A Tribute to Doris Day

Several weeks ago, the actress/singer Doris Day passed away. She was ninety-seven years old. Much to my surprise, very little was made of her death.  Perhaps this should be attributed to the fact that she has been out of the public limelight for many years.  But I think something else was involved.

For me, Ms. Day was an icon.  When I was growing up, she was the epitome of what I thought a woman should be. Pretty, sweet and perky, she represented my ideal of femininity.  Indeed, I took my cues as to what heterosexual relationships should be from what I saw of her on the silver screen.

When she and Gordon McCrae hooked up in movies such as On Moonlight Bay, we in the audience knew they were made for each other.  Both were physically attractive and morally commendable.  They did not lie, or cheat, or ever behave in a mean manner.

These folks were intended to be role models—and they were.  While their characters were amazingly naïve, they were meant to serve as paradigms.  Often harking back to an earlier era, they told us that we should strive for the personal purity of a bygone age.  In short, they brought romanticism into our lives.

In the wake of World War II, many of us wanted romanticism.  We hungered for love and security in the world that had just escaped the horrors of Hitler and Tojo.  I certainly wanted these things in my private life and regarded Doris as providing a roadmap to them.

But then the world became more complicated.  Women started going to college and getting responsible jobs. Doris Day followed suit.  By the nineteen-sixties, she was a career woman and a liberated female.  In films such as Pillow Talkshe was even beginning to have sex without being married.  

Although no longer virginal, Ms. Day’s characters remained extremely moral. Libidinous males such as Rock Hudson might pursue her, but she was anything but promiscuous.  She still retained an admirable puritanical streak.

Even when she became pregnant out of wedlock, we knew that in the end she would marry the father of her child.  The only question was whether this would be before or after the baby was born.  Most of us were rooting for before.

My wife, who is a decade and a half younger than I am, had a very different reaction to Ms. Day’s career.  She regarded her as old fashioned and prissy.  Whereas I was slightly scandalized by extramarital dalliances, my wife found qualms about sex to be rigid and anti-woman.

If we step back and look at Doris’ career in context, it is clear that she was a transitional figure.  Her period of fame coincided with the sexual revolution.  Whereas she became a star while neo-Victorian attitudes were prevalent, she ended it when free-sex was becoming the ideal.

Despite that, Doris Day never fully represented sexual liberation. Her characters always had too many scruples to fully embrace the emerging feminist standards.  They were never, “I’ll do whatever I want” sorts of women.

But herein lies the rub.  The sexual revolution did not work out as planned.  Free love was never free.  It took its toll on the individual psyche and devastated the stability of marriage.  As a result, we are still struggling with figuring out the role of sex in a society where women have more rights.

Doris Day, in other words, did not represent a seamless transition. It is not as if we went smoothly from a form of life that worked for our ancestors to a different style the works for us.  The ride has been too bumpy.  In fact, were we comfortable with where we are, we would be more comfortable with where she was.

Nonetheless, I loved Doris Day.  While the archetype she epitomized was hopelessly unsophisticated, so is the ideal epitomized by Beyoncé.  Even so, hers provided hope at a time when I desperately needed hope.  The kind of love she promised may never have existed, but dreaming about it transported me away from a harsh reality.

So I say, let us remember Doris Day fondly.  She was a real star and a very talented performer.  True, her beauty—of face, figure and disposition—were a figment of Hollywood’s imagination.  Nevertheless, we shouldn’t blame her if social change occurs more slowly and less completely than we would like.

Doris Day is a reminder that the ideals of one generation might not be those of another.  We may not like to be reintroduced of this mutability—but there it is.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Liberty Is Not Enough

I love liberty.  I hate being pushed around by anyone and that includes the government.  Whenever possible, I like to participate in making the decisions that affect my life.

As a result, I applaud Donald Trump’s efforts to reduce the federal footprint.  Eliminating unnecessary regulations was a step in the right direction.  So is, defending the constitution.  Its checks and balances are essential for keeping tyranny at bay.

Nonetheless, these are negative accomplishments.  They help keep would-be dictators from stealing our freedom. But let’s say that this defense of liberty succeeds. What then?  Will this alone fulfill our desires?  Will it automatically make us happier?

Readers of my columns know that I include liberty as one of the five principles necessary to maintain the integrity of a mass techno-commercial society. Freedom is essential if people are to make important decisions for themselves and others.

Nevertheless these decisions need to be good ones.  Liberty provides opportunities.  It does not ensure that people will exploit these prudently.  In fact, the opposite is currently happening.  Many millions of Americans expect to be saved by ceding their choices to others.  They fear they might make mistakes.

The problem is that there are some kinds of selections only individuals can make.  We must therefore use our freedom to take these upon ourselves.  I am thinking of Freud’s criteria for mental health. These were workand love. Unless people are capable of both, they will not be content.

A corollary of this is that the government cannot provide satisfactory work or genuine love.  We must achieve these objectives for ourselves.  To begin with, nowadays with socialists rising in prominence, they demand that the state provide us with jobs.  They shun the free market as too risky.

Apparently these folks have never spent time in communist nations. These places guaranteed full employment. The difficulty with this is at least twofold.  First, when bureaucrats decide where you should work, the odds are you will be trapped in labors you do not like.

Second, if you will have a job no matter what, you will not have an incentive to apply yourself.  Instead you will just get by.  In the end, there will be no sense of achievement and consequently little gratification.

Although it can be anxiety producing to choose one’s own occupation, taking the time to select wisely is essential.  So is developing the skills to perform one’s tasks well.  This is not trivial in that a sense of accomplishment is critical to our wellbeing.  Personal achievements make us feel good about ourselves.

Of course, if we apply liberty to become our best selves, we could fail.  Maybe we won’t fulfill our dreams.  The other side of the coin, however, is that if we cede our independence to faceless administrators, the resulting dependence is sure to leave us feeling empty.

The same applies to seeking love.  If we decide that there is too much pain involved in finding Mr. or Ms. Right, we will have to settle for being unloved.  Others cannot furnish the perfect match because only we can identify what meets our needs.

Nor can others do the work of establishing a secure marriage.  Only we can make a genuine commitment.  Only we are equipped to negotiate our differences fairly with a partner who does likewise.  Nowadays, with personal intimacy voluntary, if we do not put in the effort to make our relationships work, they will not.

Again, because too many Americans demand success in activities that are inherently insecure, they eschew liberty.  They instead withdraw into an electronic universe where loneliness is the norm.  Unfortunately computers and iPhones are not a viable substitute for flesh and blood interactions.

Love can go wrong.  It often does.  Marriages fall apart.  They frequently do.  But abstaining from the game is worse.  The answer is that intimacy has to be worked at by us.  Unless we use our liberty to discover how to love, there is nothing the government can do to fill this void.

With so many Americans looking to politicians for answers, it is no wonder discontent is rampant.  Elected officials will promise us anything, but that does not mean they can deliver. It is therefore time that we looked to ourselves for salvation.

Yes, let’s pursue liberty.  But let us also grow up so that we can take advantage of its benefits. As long as we continue to worship at the altar of big government, we will find it is nothing but a golden calf.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University

Personal Responsibility: A Lesson from the Past

Virtually all of my colleagues at Kennesaw State University—at least the folks I talk to—are agreed on one thing.  No matter what our political convictions, we are impressed by the degree of entitlement demonstrated by our students.  Most believe a college degree is a right.  

Furthermore, these learners are convinced that they deserve one without having to work hard.  The goal is to get through with as little reading and writing as possible.  Then, if something goes wrong, they blame others. The professor demanded too much. There was not enough time.  The subject matter was too difficult.  

It is plain that personal responsibility has gone out of fashion. This is a nationwide phenomenon. Thanks to the liberal ascendency, millions of Americans are certain they merit success without earning it.  Others have an obligation to take care of them, whereas they need only sit back and enjoy the ride.

Barack Obama contributed massively to this attitude.  His message that we must be each other’s keepers implied that the government should be everyone’s keeper.  When he told business owners that they did not create their companies, he was saying that only the government creates anything.  

If this idea is combined with encouraging people to sign up for food stamps or social security, the meaning is clear.  We Americans need no longer do for ourselves.  Personal responsibility is outdated.  Our job is to be consumers, not doers.

Nonetheless, I remember the incident that taught me the importance of responsibility.  I was working as a counselor at a New York City Methadone Clinic.  My job was to help addicts get off of heroin.  Still in my twenties, I was to supply them with encouragement and advice.

In any event, I was earning enough to afford my first car.  It was a little red VW bug.  At the time, I was living on the upper West Side of Manhattan. As a result, each day I drove down town and paid to park at a lot not far from work.

Then one day a colleague suggested that we drive to a fish place across the Hudson River.  It had a great reputation and so several of us crammed into my vehicle to make the journey. The meal was delicious. 

Once back in the city, the question was where to park.  I had only about an hour and a half left on my shift; hence it did not make sense to pay for another full day of parking.  There were empty spaces in front of our clinic, but signs indicated that leaving an auto there was illegal.

My friends said not to worry.  It was unlikely that I would get a ticket for such a short period of noncompliance.  As luck would have it, however, I did.  This was my first parking offense and I was mortified.  What would I do?

Since our excursion had been a joint venture, I expected my coworkers to chip in.  They did not. Instead I encountered a studious silence when I informed them of my dilemma.  This was not what I expected.  The disappointment was painful.

But then I reflected upon my situation.  This was my car.  I had decided to park it where I did.  While it was true that I was influenced by my friend’s advice, I was at the controls. In short, this was my responsibility. I was to blame and therefore had to pay.

This was a seminal moment in my life.  All of a sudden I realized that I was an adult.  No one had a duty to bail me out.  It would have been nice if they had, but I was not a child.  Mommy and Daddy were not going to rescue me from every mistake.

That’s the way it is when you are an adult.  You make decisions and live with the consequences.   If you break something, you have a duty to fix it.  You accept the blame when you are at fault.

Doesn’t this apply to society at large?  Can a nation survive if too many of its citizens behave as if they were eternal children?  Where is the courage to stand up and deal with life’s difficulties?  We reside in a complicated world.  If we don’t dedicate ourselves to doing our best, who will? 

Big Daddy Obama is gone.  He never was the only adult in the room.  Isn’t it time for people to stop whining about what they don’t have?  Shouldn’t we pull up our socks and get on with business?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Putting Our Brains on Hold

Liberals and conservatives agree on very little.  One thing upon which they do concur is that stupidity is rampant.  They merely identify it as residing in different places.  Each side is certain that the worst nonsense is located among their foes.  Those other guys obviously wouldn’t recognize common sense if it bit them in the derriere.

When I was young, I assumed that people were getting smarter all the time. With so many more of us receiving college degrees, we were plainly using our brains more effectively.  Higher education promised to instill critical thinking and this was surely happening.

At the time, I had not heard about Harold Wilson’s observation regarding colleges.  This former Cambridge Don and English prime minister explained that these schools enabled students to recognize nonsense when they encountered it.  Because universities spouted so much highfalutin drivel, their graduates were no longer intimidated by it.

Neither was I aware of Thomas Sowell’s later assertion that well-educated people are frequently experts at rationalization.  It’s not that they know more than others, but that they can use their intelligence and learning to devise arguments that sound persuasive, despite their absurdity.

Nowadays, of course, the primary source of nonsense is politics. The arguments about how we should be governed have become so heated that intelligent people support the most ridiculous proposals.  The Green New Deal is a case in point.  A moment of unbiased reflection would demonstrate that its aspirations are untenable.

But who has time to reflect when so much is at stake?  Politicians are not seeking the truth; they are seeking power.  The goal is to defeat their rivals, not to add to our shared store of knowledge. Thus it is and thus it has always been. Indeed, it is built into our genetic makeup.

I am currently completing a manuscript that I hope to have published in a month or two.  It is entitled Social Stupidityand its main thrust is that no matter how smart we are we are destined to do foolish things. Our social nature is such that we often refuse to use facts and logic when making important decisions.

Part of the reason is that the world is so complex we seldom have the time or the resources to ascertain the truth.  Another is that for our societies to function, we need shortcuts to adjudicate the inevitable clashes of interest between individuals.

Human hierarchies provide a method for getting around these difficulties. Thus, we rank ourselves against others to determine where we stand.  This enables us to coordinate complicated activities—but at a cost.  Instead of thinking for ourselves, we follow the lead of our superiors.  They are regarded as authorities.

This is all well and good when our leaders know what they are talking about.  It can be a disaster when they do not.  Given that both liberalism and conservatism have run into empirical roadblocks, those in their vanguard are often misguided in their ambitions.

What is worse, these leaders are typically ideologues who do not care about ascertaining the truth.  The Mueller report supplies a lovely illustration.  To wit, members of the House judiciary committee demanded that they see this narrative in a completely unredacted form.  Then, when this was made available to its leaders, the Democrats refused to read it.

Why did they decline to review the facts?  The answer is simple.  Their goal was not to find out what was true, but to defeat their rivals. They wanted their side to win, even if they had to resort to fabrications to do so.  Interestingly, the Democrats also eschewed reading unfavorable materials when Bill Clinton was impeached.  

This attitude toward the truth is commonplace.  It is not that people are stupid, but that they often act as if they were.  The notion that we humans think for ourselves has more to do with inflating our self-opinions than with what we actually do.

We humans are a strange species.  Although we have larger brains than any other animals, we are not calculating machines.  We are a social species.  As such, politics is part of what it takes to maintain communal integrity, but oddly what can also rend us apart.

We are presently enduring one of those periods when our intelligence may be a handicap.  Instead of using our brains to figure out how we can work together, we are applying them to determine how to destroy our adversaries.  If this goes much further, we may all be in jeopardy.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University