Surprise, surprise! Mitt Romney is rich! His tax returns reveal that he is a multi-millionaire who is still deriving tens of millions of dollars annually from his investments. Did anyone think otherwise? So why the outrage? Shouldn’t a man who advertises himself as a successful businessperson have the income to prove it?
Nor would he be alone in his wealth if he makes it to being president. George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, and John Kennedy all got there before him. But of these, Romney is the only one who made his own money.
I came of age under the assumption that almost anyone could become rich in America. This is not quite true, but the opportunities for upward social mobility are real and substantial. In fact, a large proportion of our wealthiest citizens have made their own fortunes—including Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.
I also grew up believing that Americans did not begrudge successful people their achievements. Whereas envy was widespread in other nations, in ours most people hoped to join this elite. Having bought into the American Dream, they assumed that their own actions could lift them above the station into which they were born.
But now class warfare is abroad in the land. Largely thanks to the efforts of Democratic politicians and media pundits, millions of people believe they are being cheated if others do better than themselves. They do not seem to realize that Jobs’ success benefited them; i.e., that had he not brought I-pods, I-phones, and I-pads to market, they would have been less well-off.
Bain Capital has become a bugaboo, but I wonder if the folks working for Staples would agree? Yes, Romney has grown rich, but they too have money in their pockets they might not have had. The same applies to police officers whose pension funds were invested with Bain. They too profited from Romney’s business acumen.
Nevertheless, let me change the subject to riches per se. And let me start here by admitting that I am not rich. As a college professor, I receive a modest income. Given the iniquities of the system, this is probably less than I deserve—but I am not complaining.
How could I in light of the fact that I voluntarily chose my profession? My brother, who is a lawyer, makes several times what I do; hence I—perhaps vainly—assume that had I chosen a different career path I might have done better in monetary terms.
But I made the choice I did—and I would make it again. My eyes were not closed to the economic implications of becoming an academic. I decided to do what I loved, irrespective of the financial consequences. So far as I am concerned, there are other ways to achieve personal satisfaction than having the largest bank account in the neighborhood.
In fact, I never wanted to be rich. The Prius I drive suits me better than a chauffer-driven limousine. And the food that I eat, given that I am a good cook and there are many fine restaurants in north Georgia, is the sort of fare I desire.
So why would I envy Mitt Romney? What does he have, which I do not, that would make my life less burdensome?
Is it his big house? I don’t think so. A bigger dwelling would be too difficult to navigate. Is it his live-in a cook? No, once again I am happy with the status quo. Indeed, I would miss my homemade chicken paprikash.
Being wealthy does not imply a great leap in personal comfort. I, for instance, would resent having a valet lay out my clothing. Likewise, battalions of servants would be a nuisance that interfered with my spontaneity. So why would I want them?
Better yet, why do so many others resent the fact that relatively small numbers of people do have them? Furthermore, is this a reason to insist that we tax them down to our level? Does it really make sense to deprive them of the means to invest in new jobs?
As importantly, would it be to our advantage to deny the presidency to a person who could lead us out of a recession—just because he is rich?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Concern for the Poor
Many years ago I worked as a reporter for the Hudson Dispatch. The paper was located in Union City, New Jersey, just across the river from New York. As a result, the area it served was very urban and, in many cases, very poor.
This was also at the height of Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty; hence it came as no surprise when I was assigned to cover a meeting called by poverty workers to organize the poor. The goal was to empower the downtrodden so that they could demand the benefits that were rightly theirs.
The theory upon which this intervention was based assumed that the poor are poor because the rich keep them that way. It was therefore up to members of the underclass to force this uncaring elite to share their undeserved affluence. Only if the wealthy had their arms twisted, would they disgorge their ill-gotten gains.
Once I got to the meeting, I found the hall packed. There was standing room only, with perhaps a hundred and fifty persons present. Then, the meeting was called to order by its governmentally sponsored organizers. They wanted to know what these poor people needed in order to improve their situation.
At this, pandemonium broke out. It seemed that everyone in the room had an answer that required an immediate hearing. From front to back, virtually everyone stood up to shout out what they believed. So vociferous was this cacophony that no one was able to hear what anyone else said.
These folks were not from the middle class, therefore, they were not accustomed to turn taking. As a consequence, the meeting never did settle down. Indeed, so raucous did it become that it had to be canceled.
Now we are hearing Mitt Romney condemned because he said he did not care about the poor. It did not matter that he quickly amended his words to say that his concentration was on the middle class, but that he would make certain he maintained, and repaired, the current social safety net.
Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich, sensing an opportunity, asserted that he most certainly did care about the poor and would provide them, not with a safety net, but a trampoline, so that they could rise in society.
Gingrich’s words, however, were no more than policy by way of metaphor. What, after all, was the trampoline of which he spoke? The safety net consists of welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and so forth. It may not be deserve rave reviews, but what it is, is known.
If by the trampoline, Gingrich meant jobs, how was he going to supply them? And did he really believe that Romney—who has promised to revive the economy—was going to prevent the poor from getting jobs thereby created? Both clearly intend to increase the middle class by lifting millions out of poverty.
The problem is that it is difficult to help the poor. Caring alone has never been enough. Even the war on poverty, despite expending trillions of dollars, was unable to get the job done. Like it or not, the poor have a way of undermining their own life chances.
We, in sociology, have been fighting over these issues for over a century. Having worked with the poor, I am among those who believe that a culture of poverty is one of the reasons why many people do not do for themselves what they could do if they put their minds to it. Many of my colleagues, however, condemn this attitude as “blaming the victim.” They claim that I am without compassion.
But I say (along with Mitt?) that there are some things only people can do for themselves. I believe, that no matter how many kind words, or trillions of dollars in transfer payments, are on offer, if they don’t help themselves, no one else can.
As a college professor, I see this in action in my classrooms. Many of my students come from disadvantaged backgrounds. But many of these have committed themselves to using a college education to provide them with an economic leg up.
Nonetheless, some don’t take advantage of this opportunity. They don’t study! What of them? Who is responsible if they don’t get out of poverty? Me? Or Mitt? Or rich people in general?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
This was also at the height of Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty; hence it came as no surprise when I was assigned to cover a meeting called by poverty workers to organize the poor. The goal was to empower the downtrodden so that they could demand the benefits that were rightly theirs.
The theory upon which this intervention was based assumed that the poor are poor because the rich keep them that way. It was therefore up to members of the underclass to force this uncaring elite to share their undeserved affluence. Only if the wealthy had their arms twisted, would they disgorge their ill-gotten gains.
Once I got to the meeting, I found the hall packed. There was standing room only, with perhaps a hundred and fifty persons present. Then, the meeting was called to order by its governmentally sponsored organizers. They wanted to know what these poor people needed in order to improve their situation.
At this, pandemonium broke out. It seemed that everyone in the room had an answer that required an immediate hearing. From front to back, virtually everyone stood up to shout out what they believed. So vociferous was this cacophony that no one was able to hear what anyone else said.
These folks were not from the middle class, therefore, they were not accustomed to turn taking. As a consequence, the meeting never did settle down. Indeed, so raucous did it become that it had to be canceled.
Now we are hearing Mitt Romney condemned because he said he did not care about the poor. It did not matter that he quickly amended his words to say that his concentration was on the middle class, but that he would make certain he maintained, and repaired, the current social safety net.
Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich, sensing an opportunity, asserted that he most certainly did care about the poor and would provide them, not with a safety net, but a trampoline, so that they could rise in society.
Gingrich’s words, however, were no more than policy by way of metaphor. What, after all, was the trampoline of which he spoke? The safety net consists of welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and so forth. It may not be deserve rave reviews, but what it is, is known.
If by the trampoline, Gingrich meant jobs, how was he going to supply them? And did he really believe that Romney—who has promised to revive the economy—was going to prevent the poor from getting jobs thereby created? Both clearly intend to increase the middle class by lifting millions out of poverty.
The problem is that it is difficult to help the poor. Caring alone has never been enough. Even the war on poverty, despite expending trillions of dollars, was unable to get the job done. Like it or not, the poor have a way of undermining their own life chances.
We, in sociology, have been fighting over these issues for over a century. Having worked with the poor, I am among those who believe that a culture of poverty is one of the reasons why many people do not do for themselves what they could do if they put their minds to it. Many of my colleagues, however, condemn this attitude as “blaming the victim.” They claim that I am without compassion.
But I say (along with Mitt?) that there are some things only people can do for themselves. I believe, that no matter how many kind words, or trillions of dollars in transfer payments, are on offer, if they don’t help themselves, no one else can.
As a college professor, I see this in action in my classrooms. Many of my students come from disadvantaged backgrounds. But many of these have committed themselves to using a college education to provide them with an economic leg up.
Nonetheless, some don’t take advantage of this opportunity. They don’t study! What of them? Who is responsible if they don’t get out of poverty? Me? Or Mitt? Or rich people in general?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, February 11, 2012
The Triumph of Evil
Ever since the South Carolina primary, I have been consumed by anger and dismay. That so many good people could have voted for a politician as scurrilous as New Gingrich strikes me as an auger of very rough times ahead.
I am reminded of an observation generally attributed to Edmund Burke. He is often quoted as saying, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Sadly, in South Carolina good people did more than ignore evil: they enthusiastically endorsed it.
As I have previously acknowledged, I am not a religious man. Nevertheless, I have frequently made common cause with evangelicals because we share so many fundamental values. One of these—I had thought—was a belief in the sanctity of marriage. As it turns out, I may have been mistaken.
Years ago, when feminists dismissed marriage as an oppressive and soon-to-be extinct institution, religious folks leaped to the defense of a tradition that they described as essential for the survival of civilized society. At the time, I admired their steadfast courage in the face of liberal ridicule.
Evidently, attitudes have changed. When Newt Gingrich brazenly dismissed his marital failures as the slips of an imperfect human being, evangelicals agreed that this was no one’s business but his. That the man had voluntarily dived into a pool of slime did not alter their opinion that the media should have kept these matters private.
Gingrich seems to have treated marriage as one might toilet paper; that is, as something to be used and discarded as one desires. Once a partner no longer served his needs, he was eager to move on. Not for him the notion that matrimony entails a pledge to remain faithful.
Yet each time that he slipped, he defended himself by claiming that he had discovered religion. I am reminded, however, of the Bible-thumping televangelists who on Sunday morning loudly proclaim their piety, then in the evening prowl red light districts intent on cavorting with prostitutes.
Does anyone doubt that these hypocritical pastors are more concerned with filling their coffers than with providing a model of moral conduct? By the same token, does anyone doubt that Newt’s religious conversions are anything more than a political ploy?
Let us do a thought experiment. Let’s assume that a person has witnessed a murder, and then walks away without any emotional reaction to what has occurred. He/she does not get angry at the murderer, but takes the whole nasty business in stride.
Does this person genuinely believe that murder is wrong? Even if he/she later declares that it is, is this an honest statement of fact? My conclusion is that it is not! People who are not offended by murder do not really think it is wrong. And the same goes for marital infidelity. Those who behave as if it were no big deal don’t consider it a serious moral violation.
For Newt Gingrich, the Ten Commandments are apparently just the Ten Suggestions. Since he is a politician, I find this understandable; albeit unacceptable. For me, it is evidence that he is a slippery toad who does not deserve to be elected dogcatcher.
But when evangelicals adopt the same attitude, I grow frightened. I wonder if this is evidence of a potentially fatal social decadence. Can people who take pride in their moral commitments be so oblivious to corruption and deceit? If so, who is to defend the gates against hordes of self-serving demagogues?
Many of the South Carolina voters seemingly decided to cast their lot with a man they believed capable of out-arguing Barack Obama. I think they were mistaken, but worse—much worse— they had apparently concluded that what is needed is a debater-in-chief, not a commander-in-chief.
Call me old fashioned, but I believe that a president should be a moral role model. That, of course, is not enough. Yet it an essential starting point. I still remember those grammar school lessons about George Washington’s personal rectitude. Back then, I found his example inspiring—and I still do.
Newt Gingrich, needless to say, is no George Washington.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
I am reminded of an observation generally attributed to Edmund Burke. He is often quoted as saying, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Sadly, in South Carolina good people did more than ignore evil: they enthusiastically endorsed it.
As I have previously acknowledged, I am not a religious man. Nevertheless, I have frequently made common cause with evangelicals because we share so many fundamental values. One of these—I had thought—was a belief in the sanctity of marriage. As it turns out, I may have been mistaken.
Years ago, when feminists dismissed marriage as an oppressive and soon-to-be extinct institution, religious folks leaped to the defense of a tradition that they described as essential for the survival of civilized society. At the time, I admired their steadfast courage in the face of liberal ridicule.
Evidently, attitudes have changed. When Newt Gingrich brazenly dismissed his marital failures as the slips of an imperfect human being, evangelicals agreed that this was no one’s business but his. That the man had voluntarily dived into a pool of slime did not alter their opinion that the media should have kept these matters private.
Gingrich seems to have treated marriage as one might toilet paper; that is, as something to be used and discarded as one desires. Once a partner no longer served his needs, he was eager to move on. Not for him the notion that matrimony entails a pledge to remain faithful.
Yet each time that he slipped, he defended himself by claiming that he had discovered religion. I am reminded, however, of the Bible-thumping televangelists who on Sunday morning loudly proclaim their piety, then in the evening prowl red light districts intent on cavorting with prostitutes.
Does anyone doubt that these hypocritical pastors are more concerned with filling their coffers than with providing a model of moral conduct? By the same token, does anyone doubt that Newt’s religious conversions are anything more than a political ploy?
Let us do a thought experiment. Let’s assume that a person has witnessed a murder, and then walks away without any emotional reaction to what has occurred. He/she does not get angry at the murderer, but takes the whole nasty business in stride.
Does this person genuinely believe that murder is wrong? Even if he/she later declares that it is, is this an honest statement of fact? My conclusion is that it is not! People who are not offended by murder do not really think it is wrong. And the same goes for marital infidelity. Those who behave as if it were no big deal don’t consider it a serious moral violation.
For Newt Gingrich, the Ten Commandments are apparently just the Ten Suggestions. Since he is a politician, I find this understandable; albeit unacceptable. For me, it is evidence that he is a slippery toad who does not deserve to be elected dogcatcher.
But when evangelicals adopt the same attitude, I grow frightened. I wonder if this is evidence of a potentially fatal social decadence. Can people who take pride in their moral commitments be so oblivious to corruption and deceit? If so, who is to defend the gates against hordes of self-serving demagogues?
Many of the South Carolina voters seemingly decided to cast their lot with a man they believed capable of out-arguing Barack Obama. I think they were mistaken, but worse—much worse— they had apparently concluded that what is needed is a debater-in-chief, not a commander-in-chief.
Call me old fashioned, but I believe that a president should be a moral role model. That, of course, is not enough. Yet it an essential starting point. I still remember those grammar school lessons about George Washington’s personal rectitude. Back then, I found his example inspiring—and I still do.
Newt Gingrich, needless to say, is no George Washington.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Two Theories of Social Justice
Rest assured, disputes over what comprises social justice are going to arise during the upcoming presidential campaign. The Democrats, in particular, are going to assert that they are the paladins of social justice; that only they can protect the little guy from exploitation.
The validity of this claim, however, rests on how we understand “social justice.” To this end, let us examine two rival views. These may be summarized as the “Robin Hood” and the “Three Little Pigs” theories.
In the Robin Hood version, it is necessary to steal from the rich to give to the poor. According to it, because wealth is unequally distributed, a champion must level the playing field. Only this person can correct unfairness by forcing the affluent to disgorge their ill-gotten gains.
This theory is obviously favored by the Democrats. They insist that everyone must pay their “fair share” and therefore increased taxes must be levied on the upper one percent. Only this can provide a modicum of decency.
In contrast, the Little Pigs version of justice allows the players to keep what they earn. It notes that of the three pigs, only the industrious one invested the effort into building a house of bricks and therefore only his dwelling resisted the efforts of the Big, Bad Wolf to turn him into a pork dinner.
The Republicans favor this parable in that they too believe individuals deserve to benefit from their own efforts. For them, justice is not about achieving full equality, but about guarding human rights—including property rights.
If we translate these theories into contemporary politics, then Barack Obama hopes to play the Robin Hood role. There is, however, a small problem with this. Barack is the president. In this sense, he is the sheriff. He is not a humble outlaw seeking to redress governmental wrongs, but can draw upon the coercive power of the state to enforce his mandates.
Yet, what if we do regard Obama as an outlaw. He has, after all, flouted the constitution at many turns. Then does he, like Robin Hood, get to pick those whom he plunders, as well as those upon whom he showers his favor? Might he, for instance, choose to force one company into bankruptcy while forgiving the debts of another—that is, as long its owners contributed to his campaign?
And what of those Republican pigs? They are presumed to be irredeemably selfish, yet the original little pigs presented a different picture. The industrious pig, it will be remembered, offered his siblings the shelter of his abode. They came to his sturdier house for protection against the wolf.
In the real world, it turns out that conservatives give far more to charity than liberals. They may believe in private property, but that does not mean they are without compassion. The difference is in how people are helped. On the one side, individuals provide succor, while on the other, virtually all assistance is channeled through the federal government?
But what if the latter took over? What if we decided that only the government should provide fairness? With respect to the three little pigs, would this translate into Obama decreeing that each pig be provided with exactly the same number of bricks?
Let’s, however, take this supposition a step further. In taking bricks from the industrious pig, wouldn’t this leave him with too few to build a substantial structure? And, as to the other pigs, what guarantees that they will use their bricks to improve their dwellings?
In the end, the probable outcome of this arbitrarily enforced equality is three ramshackle edifices and one very well fed wolf.
If this sounds absurd, we have, in fact, witnessed the outcome of government enforced social justice elsewhere. It occurred in the old Soviet Union. There the government controlled all of the strings and distributed goods according to formulae of its own devising.
So what did people wind up with? As history records, they were rewarded with both poverty and tyranny. Or, as the libertarian John Hospers used to say, they were well on their way to “splendidly equalized destitution.” —Some justice!
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
The validity of this claim, however, rests on how we understand “social justice.” To this end, let us examine two rival views. These may be summarized as the “Robin Hood” and the “Three Little Pigs” theories.
In the Robin Hood version, it is necessary to steal from the rich to give to the poor. According to it, because wealth is unequally distributed, a champion must level the playing field. Only this person can correct unfairness by forcing the affluent to disgorge their ill-gotten gains.
This theory is obviously favored by the Democrats. They insist that everyone must pay their “fair share” and therefore increased taxes must be levied on the upper one percent. Only this can provide a modicum of decency.
In contrast, the Little Pigs version of justice allows the players to keep what they earn. It notes that of the three pigs, only the industrious one invested the effort into building a house of bricks and therefore only his dwelling resisted the efforts of the Big, Bad Wolf to turn him into a pork dinner.
The Republicans favor this parable in that they too believe individuals deserve to benefit from their own efforts. For them, justice is not about achieving full equality, but about guarding human rights—including property rights.
If we translate these theories into contemporary politics, then Barack Obama hopes to play the Robin Hood role. There is, however, a small problem with this. Barack is the president. In this sense, he is the sheriff. He is not a humble outlaw seeking to redress governmental wrongs, but can draw upon the coercive power of the state to enforce his mandates.
Yet, what if we do regard Obama as an outlaw. He has, after all, flouted the constitution at many turns. Then does he, like Robin Hood, get to pick those whom he plunders, as well as those upon whom he showers his favor? Might he, for instance, choose to force one company into bankruptcy while forgiving the debts of another—that is, as long its owners contributed to his campaign?
And what of those Republican pigs? They are presumed to be irredeemably selfish, yet the original little pigs presented a different picture. The industrious pig, it will be remembered, offered his siblings the shelter of his abode. They came to his sturdier house for protection against the wolf.
In the real world, it turns out that conservatives give far more to charity than liberals. They may believe in private property, but that does not mean they are without compassion. The difference is in how people are helped. On the one side, individuals provide succor, while on the other, virtually all assistance is channeled through the federal government?
But what if the latter took over? What if we decided that only the government should provide fairness? With respect to the three little pigs, would this translate into Obama decreeing that each pig be provided with exactly the same number of bricks?
Let’s, however, take this supposition a step further. In taking bricks from the industrious pig, wouldn’t this leave him with too few to build a substantial structure? And, as to the other pigs, what guarantees that they will use their bricks to improve their dwellings?
In the end, the probable outcome of this arbitrarily enforced equality is three ramshackle edifices and one very well fed wolf.
If this sounds absurd, we have, in fact, witnessed the outcome of government enforced social justice elsewhere. It occurred in the old Soviet Union. There the government controlled all of the strings and distributed goods according to formulae of its own devising.
So what did people wind up with? As history records, they were rewarded with both poverty and tyranny. Or, as the libertarian John Hospers used to say, they were well on their way to “splendidly equalized destitution.” —Some justice!
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, January 28, 2012
The Perfection Trap
About three decades ago when I first attempted to write a book, I ran in to trouble. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t seem to get past the opening ten pages. These never lived up to my expectations; hence I always wound up putting them aside—never to be completed.
Eventually, however, I got fed up with this self-defeating perfectionism. Thus, instead of stopping at page eleven, I decided to keep going. As a result, I completed a manuscript, albeit not one that satisfied my hopes. That’s when I made a profound discovery. I now realized that what I wrote also had to be edited.
Indeed, over the years I have learned that writing is more about rewriting, than instant excellence. One’s prose can always be improved and ideas can always be refined. Even after a work is published, improvements are possible.
As it happens, these days people come to me for advice on how to write. But of them, only one has actually written several books. The others generally find that what they put on paper does not match their imagination and they stop. In the end, they join the multitude who believe there is a book in them that never sees the light of day.
Today, a similar penchant for perfectionism has reached its toxic tendrils into politics. To be more specific, Newt Gingrich has accused Mitt Romney of creating a venture capital company that ruined the lives of thousands. Gingrich, and his minions, assure us that Bain Capital was not nearly as successful as Romney claims.
By now, Newt’s anti-capitalist rants have been thoroughly discredited (as have those of Rick Perry), but there is more to this mischief than deceitfulness or economic illiteracy. It has also added a fresh layer of juvenile thinking to the acid bath of contemporary politics.
According to Newt, it would be enough to condemn Romney if a handful of the companies in which Bain invested went belly-up. This would presumably demonstrate that Mitt is not compassionate. Never mind, if most of his ventures succeeded; he would still be an economic predator. (Or, as Perry has it, a “vulture” capitalist.)
What this implies is a need for perfectionism. Any mistake, irrespective of how modest, is magnified until it is perceived as a wart that covers the target’s entire face. He (or she) is thus distilled down to the essence of a few missteps.
In fact, Bain Capital was wildly successful. It did far better in its investments than most of its rivals. Yet, it too had failures. Many of Newt’s examples are bogus, but not everything Romney and his partners touched turned to gold.
The question is—so what? If we were all required to be perfect all of the time, no books would ever be written, no buildings would ever rise from the ground, and no seeds would ever push their way up through the soil to become nourishing ears of corn. Life would come to a standstill, with everyone afraid to put one foot before another.
Actually, the effects of perfectionism run amok are currently on display in Washington. After all, hasn’t Barack Obama promised us the world and then assured us he fulfilled his word? Didn’t he, for instance, pledge to save or create millions of jobs—and then deliver?
No, wait! There may be some cynics who remain unconvinced of our president’s ability to create jobs. These people have obviously not been listening to Obama’s recitations regarding his numerous achievements. By his lights, these have made him the fourth most productive president of all time.
For those who remain in doubt, my real the point is that people who promise perfection can only sustain this illusion by making claims of success that are as fraudulent as their initial guarantees. Perfectionism is never in the cards; hence those who deal in it are forced to be disingenuous.
When politics refuses to make allowances for human fallibility, when it instead stoops to adolescent idealism, it bars the door to genuine advances. To make the perfect the enemy of the good, as I did before I learned to write reasonably well, or as Newt has done in ridiculing Bain Capital, is to preclude actual improvements.
This stance embraces fantasies over facts. Sadly, if too many of us adopt it, it will be to our eternal sorrow.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Eventually, however, I got fed up with this self-defeating perfectionism. Thus, instead of stopping at page eleven, I decided to keep going. As a result, I completed a manuscript, albeit not one that satisfied my hopes. That’s when I made a profound discovery. I now realized that what I wrote also had to be edited.
Indeed, over the years I have learned that writing is more about rewriting, than instant excellence. One’s prose can always be improved and ideas can always be refined. Even after a work is published, improvements are possible.
As it happens, these days people come to me for advice on how to write. But of them, only one has actually written several books. The others generally find that what they put on paper does not match their imagination and they stop. In the end, they join the multitude who believe there is a book in them that never sees the light of day.
Today, a similar penchant for perfectionism has reached its toxic tendrils into politics. To be more specific, Newt Gingrich has accused Mitt Romney of creating a venture capital company that ruined the lives of thousands. Gingrich, and his minions, assure us that Bain Capital was not nearly as successful as Romney claims.
By now, Newt’s anti-capitalist rants have been thoroughly discredited (as have those of Rick Perry), but there is more to this mischief than deceitfulness or economic illiteracy. It has also added a fresh layer of juvenile thinking to the acid bath of contemporary politics.
According to Newt, it would be enough to condemn Romney if a handful of the companies in which Bain invested went belly-up. This would presumably demonstrate that Mitt is not compassionate. Never mind, if most of his ventures succeeded; he would still be an economic predator. (Or, as Perry has it, a “vulture” capitalist.)
What this implies is a need for perfectionism. Any mistake, irrespective of how modest, is magnified until it is perceived as a wart that covers the target’s entire face. He (or she) is thus distilled down to the essence of a few missteps.
In fact, Bain Capital was wildly successful. It did far better in its investments than most of its rivals. Yet, it too had failures. Many of Newt’s examples are bogus, but not everything Romney and his partners touched turned to gold.
The question is—so what? If we were all required to be perfect all of the time, no books would ever be written, no buildings would ever rise from the ground, and no seeds would ever push their way up through the soil to become nourishing ears of corn. Life would come to a standstill, with everyone afraid to put one foot before another.
Actually, the effects of perfectionism run amok are currently on display in Washington. After all, hasn’t Barack Obama promised us the world and then assured us he fulfilled his word? Didn’t he, for instance, pledge to save or create millions of jobs—and then deliver?
No, wait! There may be some cynics who remain unconvinced of our president’s ability to create jobs. These people have obviously not been listening to Obama’s recitations regarding his numerous achievements. By his lights, these have made him the fourth most productive president of all time.
For those who remain in doubt, my real the point is that people who promise perfection can only sustain this illusion by making claims of success that are as fraudulent as their initial guarantees. Perfectionism is never in the cards; hence those who deal in it are forced to be disingenuous.
When politics refuses to make allowances for human fallibility, when it instead stoops to adolescent idealism, it bars the door to genuine advances. To make the perfect the enemy of the good, as I did before I learned to write reasonably well, or as Newt has done in ridiculing Bain Capital, is to preclude actual improvements.
This stance embraces fantasies over facts. Sadly, if too many of us adopt it, it will be to our eternal sorrow.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Our Second Anti-American President
The current inhabitant of the White House is our second anti-American president. The first was James Buchanan, who during his term of office demonstrated his preference for the South by refusing to thwart the impending Civil War. Obama’s bias has not yet reached such proportions, but it is nearly as egregious.
This judgment may seem to be political hyperbole; nevertheless the evidence to support it is robust. To begin with, Obama comes by his anti-Americanism honestly. His father left this country and returned to Kenya in a snit, while his mother manifested her negative attitude by living as an expatriate in Indonesia for most of her adult life.
In any event, our president’s mind-set has had disastrous implications both domestically and internationally. Indeed, in many ways he has done more damage to the United States than would have been inflicted by a full-scale enemy assault. So let us review the facts.
On the domestic front he has brought the nation to the brink of a budgetary catastrophe. He has also lengthened our economic downturn by supporting policies that discouraged private investment. This, coupled with his disdain for the free market and those who drive it forward, has introduced a host of unnecessary uncertainties.
He has also shown contempt for our political institutions by repeatedly subverting them. To illustrate, instead of healing the nation’s political divisions, he has refused to compromise with the opposition. From the beginning he has been a super-partisan whose mantra has been “it’s my way or the highway.” In addition to vilifying the Republicans, he has refused even to talk to them.
Then too, when it has suited his purposes he has thumbed his nose at the constitution. By his own admission, he has sought to govern without the cooperation of Congress. This strategy too began right out of the starting gate, when he began to rely on so-called unconfirmed “czars” to implement his policies
We have also witnessed his penchant for employing sleazy backroom deals to achieve his ends. This reached a high-water mark with the passage of Obamacare. Not only were its details unread by those who passed the legislation, but it was larded with special benefits for the president’s political allies.
In general, Obama has undermined the democratic culture of our nation by resorting to demagogic tactics. Thus, he promised everything to everyone, but he has also indulged in dishonesty of a magnitude not approached by his predecessors. Democracy depends on trust, yet time and again he has proved himself untrustworthy.
As to the international scene, he has repetitively fawned over our enemies, while disrespecting our friends. We have seen this with respect to Israel and the Palestinians. We have also seen it in his policies toward Russia and Western Europe. The president has even managed to offend our Canadian and Mexican neighbors, while providing succor for socialists in Honduras and Venezuela.
Perhaps worst of all, he is in the process of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, at the very same time that he is allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. To make matters even worse, he is intent on hollowing out our military, just as it faces greater threats.
But now we have two new pieces of evidence regarding Obama’s underlying attitude. Internationally, he is beginning to make overtures to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. It was apparently not enough to undercut our Islamic friends, but we may soon be asked to get into bed with our Middle Eastern adversaries.
And then there are his recess appointments to the new consumer protection agency and the national labor relations board. Even though the president knew that the Senate was not technically in recess, he did what he wanted—the constitution be damned. Obama evidently intends to remake the United States along the lines he prefers.
It was not very long ago that our president promised us change we could believe in. Time has now revealed what he meant. Quite clearly Obama did not appreciate the country he inherited and hoped to convert it into something else. While he portrays this as love, it is really scorn.
Calling a sitting president anti-American is surely extreme, but those of us who are fond of the United States must understand what is occurring, that is, if we are to protect our nation from those who would dismantle it.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
This judgment may seem to be political hyperbole; nevertheless the evidence to support it is robust. To begin with, Obama comes by his anti-Americanism honestly. His father left this country and returned to Kenya in a snit, while his mother manifested her negative attitude by living as an expatriate in Indonesia for most of her adult life.
In any event, our president’s mind-set has had disastrous implications both domestically and internationally. Indeed, in many ways he has done more damage to the United States than would have been inflicted by a full-scale enemy assault. So let us review the facts.
On the domestic front he has brought the nation to the brink of a budgetary catastrophe. He has also lengthened our economic downturn by supporting policies that discouraged private investment. This, coupled with his disdain for the free market and those who drive it forward, has introduced a host of unnecessary uncertainties.
He has also shown contempt for our political institutions by repeatedly subverting them. To illustrate, instead of healing the nation’s political divisions, he has refused to compromise with the opposition. From the beginning he has been a super-partisan whose mantra has been “it’s my way or the highway.” In addition to vilifying the Republicans, he has refused even to talk to them.
Then too, when it has suited his purposes he has thumbed his nose at the constitution. By his own admission, he has sought to govern without the cooperation of Congress. This strategy too began right out of the starting gate, when he began to rely on so-called unconfirmed “czars” to implement his policies
We have also witnessed his penchant for employing sleazy backroom deals to achieve his ends. This reached a high-water mark with the passage of Obamacare. Not only were its details unread by those who passed the legislation, but it was larded with special benefits for the president’s political allies.
In general, Obama has undermined the democratic culture of our nation by resorting to demagogic tactics. Thus, he promised everything to everyone, but he has also indulged in dishonesty of a magnitude not approached by his predecessors. Democracy depends on trust, yet time and again he has proved himself untrustworthy.
As to the international scene, he has repetitively fawned over our enemies, while disrespecting our friends. We have seen this with respect to Israel and the Palestinians. We have also seen it in his policies toward Russia and Western Europe. The president has even managed to offend our Canadian and Mexican neighbors, while providing succor for socialists in Honduras and Venezuela.
Perhaps worst of all, he is in the process of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, at the very same time that he is allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. To make matters even worse, he is intent on hollowing out our military, just as it faces greater threats.
But now we have two new pieces of evidence regarding Obama’s underlying attitude. Internationally, he is beginning to make overtures to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. It was apparently not enough to undercut our Islamic friends, but we may soon be asked to get into bed with our Middle Eastern adversaries.
And then there are his recess appointments to the new consumer protection agency and the national labor relations board. Even though the president knew that the Senate was not technically in recess, he did what he wanted—the constitution be damned. Obama evidently intends to remake the United States along the lines he prefers.
It was not very long ago that our president promised us change we could believe in. Time has now revealed what he meant. Quite clearly Obama did not appreciate the country he inherited and hoped to convert it into something else. While he portrays this as love, it is really scorn.
Calling a sitting president anti-American is surely extreme, but those of us who are fond of the United States must understand what is occurring, that is, if we are to protect our nation from those who would dismantle it.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Race Relations at KSU
Once Barack Obama got elected, we were supposed to enter a post-racial world. As our first black president, he would bring us all together irrespective of race. Unfortunately things have not worked out that way. Today, those who criticize Obama are likely to be told they are only exposing their racist inclinations.
Worse still, the president’s Attorney-General Eric Holder is fond of censuring whites for their alleged lack of courage with respect to racial issues. Just how disposed Holder is to see things through a racial prism was revealed in an anecdote told by J. Christian Adams in his book Injustice.
It seems that for many years Holder carried a newspaper clipping in his wallet that quoted a black preacher as saying, “ No matter how affluent, educated and mobile [a black person] becomes, his race defines him more than anything else.” Given his actions, Holder apparently continues to think of himself this way.
I am happy to report, however, that on a local level we seem to have made more progress on racial integration than they have in Washington. The South continues to have a terrible reputation when it comes to race relations, but this is belied by what is occurring on the ground at Kennesaw State University.
When I first began teaching at KSU more than two decades ago, barely three percent of our student population was black. Today we are moving to upwards of twenty-three percent. Back then black students left us to go to Georgia State because they found the atmosphere there more congenial. Today the reverse is true.
More than this, I daily witness my students interacting with one another in terms of friendship. There are no ghettoes in my classrooms. To the contrary, members of different racial groups socialize with one another unselfconsciously based on their personal aspirations.
Added to this is the fact that I can never be sure of who will be my best or worst students based solely on skin color. Sometimes the best student is white; sometimes black. As it happens, the same is also true with respect to who gets the lowest grade.
What is the reason for this state of affairs? How has a circumstance that would have been regarded as miraculous a scant half century ago come to be? The answer, I am sorry to say, is not to be found in a particular policy that has been initiated by my university.
It is not that KSU does not have such policies. Like almost every college it sponsors programs to teach about race. It also encourages both courses and student activities that focus on racial matters. Nonetheless, these are not what have made the difference.
It turns out that programs such as “sensitivity training” have almost no impact on racial arttitudes. As Harvard sociologist Frank Dobbin’s research has revealed, these leave their participants unchanged. Why this is so is easy to understand.
Imagine a racist is such a program. He knows what he is expected to say when told that all whites are privileged compared with blacks. Assuming he is not a fool, rather than harm his prospects, he mouths the correct responses; whereas his underlying feelings remain what they were. As to non-racists, they assume that the program has nothing to do with them; hence their attitudes also remain the same.
What then makes the difference? The answer lies in a phrase for which Richard Nixon was roundly castigated. He suggested that the best approach to resolving racial difficulties was “benign neglect.” The government should just step back and allow events to unfold naturally.
This essentially is what has happened at KSU. Way back in the 1940’s another sociologist named Morton Deutsch suggested that if members of different races were allowed to interact with one another, they would soon learn that members of the other group were as human as themselves. Consequent to this, the barriers between them would come tumbling down.
What Deutsch did not understand was that for this policy to work the meeting between the two groups must be voluntary. If they are forced to interact, both sides will resist. Fortunately, what has occurred at KSU was completely voluntary. Blacks and whites have learned to get along because no one has twisted their arms to make them more gracious. They have simply done so on their own.
To which I say—Amen!
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Worse still, the president’s Attorney-General Eric Holder is fond of censuring whites for their alleged lack of courage with respect to racial issues. Just how disposed Holder is to see things through a racial prism was revealed in an anecdote told by J. Christian Adams in his book Injustice.
It seems that for many years Holder carried a newspaper clipping in his wallet that quoted a black preacher as saying, “ No matter how affluent, educated and mobile [a black person] becomes, his race defines him more than anything else.” Given his actions, Holder apparently continues to think of himself this way.
I am happy to report, however, that on a local level we seem to have made more progress on racial integration than they have in Washington. The South continues to have a terrible reputation when it comes to race relations, but this is belied by what is occurring on the ground at Kennesaw State University.
When I first began teaching at KSU more than two decades ago, barely three percent of our student population was black. Today we are moving to upwards of twenty-three percent. Back then black students left us to go to Georgia State because they found the atmosphere there more congenial. Today the reverse is true.
More than this, I daily witness my students interacting with one another in terms of friendship. There are no ghettoes in my classrooms. To the contrary, members of different racial groups socialize with one another unselfconsciously based on their personal aspirations.
Added to this is the fact that I can never be sure of who will be my best or worst students based solely on skin color. Sometimes the best student is white; sometimes black. As it happens, the same is also true with respect to who gets the lowest grade.
What is the reason for this state of affairs? How has a circumstance that would have been regarded as miraculous a scant half century ago come to be? The answer, I am sorry to say, is not to be found in a particular policy that has been initiated by my university.
It is not that KSU does not have such policies. Like almost every college it sponsors programs to teach about race. It also encourages both courses and student activities that focus on racial matters. Nonetheless, these are not what have made the difference.
It turns out that programs such as “sensitivity training” have almost no impact on racial arttitudes. As Harvard sociologist Frank Dobbin’s research has revealed, these leave their participants unchanged. Why this is so is easy to understand.
Imagine a racist is such a program. He knows what he is expected to say when told that all whites are privileged compared with blacks. Assuming he is not a fool, rather than harm his prospects, he mouths the correct responses; whereas his underlying feelings remain what they were. As to non-racists, they assume that the program has nothing to do with them; hence their attitudes also remain the same.
What then makes the difference? The answer lies in a phrase for which Richard Nixon was roundly castigated. He suggested that the best approach to resolving racial difficulties was “benign neglect.” The government should just step back and allow events to unfold naturally.
This essentially is what has happened at KSU. Way back in the 1940’s another sociologist named Morton Deutsch suggested that if members of different races were allowed to interact with one another, they would soon learn that members of the other group were as human as themselves. Consequent to this, the barriers between them would come tumbling down.
What Deutsch did not understand was that for this policy to work the meeting between the two groups must be voluntary. If they are forced to interact, both sides will resist. Fortunately, what has occurred at KSU was completely voluntary. Blacks and whites have learned to get along because no one has twisted their arms to make them more gracious. They have simply done so on their own.
To which I say—Amen!
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
