Often the best way to judge the competence of a leader is to look at the people surrounding him or her. Mitt Romney has just provided a good account of himself with the selection of Paul Ryan for Vice president. He has demonstrated that he is not afraid of being overshadowed by a man of ideas and intelligence.
But Romney has displayed a penchant for favoring talent before. When he was at Bain, he routinely hired smart and impressive subordinates, which was one of the reasons the company did so well. Meanwhile, what sort of track record has Barack Obama amassed?
Consider the people our president has backed. We can begin with Joe Biden, his vice president. Biden is so gaffe prone that he has been muzzled on more than one occasion. His policy judgment is also so poor that he recommended against the Iraq surge; instead arguing that the country should be partitioned in three.
Next let us look at the cabinet. The Attorney General Eric Holder has demonstrated his political acumen by seeking to try Guantanamo terrorists in New York City. He similarly confirmed his quest for the truth in stonewalling the fast and furious investigation and failing to prosecute Black Panthers accused of intimidating voters.
Then there is Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner. His advice on getting us out of the recession has palpably proven his economic shrewdness. By the same token, his wiliness to sponsor a General Motors bailout that made union members whole, while leaving creditors and salaried workers out in the cold, confirmed his even-handed fairness.
And how about Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius? She has seen fit to champion ObamaCare and to begin the implementation of its Byzantine regulations. These, of course, have included disrespecting the religious convictions of the Catholic Church.
Turning the page to scrutinize Obama’s campaign staff reveals an analogous proclivity. The leader of this band of ruffians is David Axelrod. If ever there was a sleazy snake oil salesman, it is this man. He can barely open his mouth without uttering an egregious misstatement of the facts, put forth in the smarmiest manner.
Following close behind in his sleaziness is the cherubic David Plouffe. Also not one to be overly concerned with stating the truth, his skill lies in deflecting embarrassing questions. One of these unfortunately was about why he accepted speaking fees of one hundred thousand dollars from sources connected to Iran.
After this, we have the exemplary Stephanie Cutter. As spokesperson for the Obama team, she denied any knowledge of Joe Soptic’s accusation that Romney’s callousness led to his wife’s cancer death. Then it came out that Cutter hosted a conference call in which Soptic was a featured speaker.
Last, we must make bow of recognition toward Bill Burton. Not technically a member of the president’s campaign squad, this former White House aide heads the political action committee that put out the Soptic ad. Then, after the uproar over its deceitfulness arose, he boldly contended that the commercial did not say what it obviously had.
I could go on, but this is a significant hall of infamy. No only have these people indulged in the worst sorts of political deceit in living memory, but their sponsor, Barack Obama, has never seen fit to distance himself from them, or the McCarthyite tactics of allies such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
Once upon a time Richard Nixon was castigated for being so crooked that you would not want to buy a used car from him. This judgment should be doubled and redoubled for the Obama crowd.
A scant four years ago, Obama was a shiny new vehicle that promised hope and change. Today his slimy minions are still trying to keep his exterior bright and gleaming. But the engine has seized up. The car can no longer run. How then can it drive us out of the financial and moral ditch we are in?
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Gaffs That Are Not Gaffs
Political gaffs have been defined as accidentally telling the truth where truth may not be helpful. This is supposedly what happened to Mitt Romney during his trips to England and Israel. Nonetheless, while this description might be accurate in the first case, it was decidedly not in the second.
As most commentators have acknowledged, Romney was probably correct to question whether the Brits were completely prepared to host the Olympics. After all, the Brits themselves had been raising these questions and subsequent events suggest that not all went well.
Still, saying something that might be construed as unflattering when one is a visitor is not altogether diplomatic. In the larger scheme of things, it will probably not matter much, yet it was an example of excessive candor.
The Israeli situation, however, was different. Exactly what happened in this instance is difficult to determine because what Romney said was behind closed doors. At minimum, we know that Mitt attributed Israeli economic and political successes to the state’s Jewish culture.
It is not clear, however, whether Romney explicitly implicated Arab culture in Palestinian failures. In any event, several Palestinians objected to what they characterized as racist insults. The mainstream media then picked this up as another specimen of Romney’s alleged penchant for misstatements.
I was immediately reminded of an earlier media feeding frenzy. This concerned Ronald Reagan who had the temerity to call the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” Pundits from the left instantly jumped on this remark as demonstrating the Gipper’s foreign policy inexperience.
Reagan supposedly undermined the possibility of coming to terms with the Russians with his shoot-from-the-hip style. But we know how that one turned out, don’t we. The same may well come to pass regarding Romney’s Israeli interlude.
The fact is that what Mitt said was absolutely true and that well-informed Palestinians know it. Whatever is articulated for public consumption, the chief difference between the Israelis and the Palestinians is culture. This must be so since neither community has more or less talent, nor commands greater or lesser physical resources.
What separates them is how they think and feel. Aside from their Jewish heritage, which places an emphasis on education and business prowess, the Israelis are largely Western in their attitudes. They have inherited the free market and democratic mentalities pioneered in Europe and the United States.
These ways of looking at the world have been translated into the dynamic Israeli economy and the freewheeling Israeli political system. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are trapped in a medieval mindset. They are still trying to revive the glories of a long defunct Caliphate.
The problem is that cultures are difficult to change. Because they are deeply entrenched and highly emotional, they tend to be conservative. Consequently, merely explaining a problem to people does not persuade them to make necessary modifications.
We see this in the United States with respect to the culture of poverty. People who are born into our underclass have difficulty picking themselves up by their bootstraps. They may, for instance, be told that education is the ticket to social mobility; nevertheless they spurn educational opportunities.
We, in this country, sought radical improvements by way of a War on Poverty, yet despite spending trillions of dollars little changed. In the Middle East the Arabs have not even publically acknowledged the nature of their difficulty. They are still intent on blaming their distress on the Jews.
Mitt’s bringing up the subject of culture will probably not alter this. But then neither did Reagan’s allusions to an evil empire bring immediate reforms. What will occur in the long run is difficult to know. The probability that it will be something good is, however, low, and will remain so as long as people continue to fool themselves about what is wrong.
Mitt’s words may therefore prove a useful beginning. If they, in fact, constituted a gaff, they were one for which we may eventually be thankful.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
As most commentators have acknowledged, Romney was probably correct to question whether the Brits were completely prepared to host the Olympics. After all, the Brits themselves had been raising these questions and subsequent events suggest that not all went well.
Still, saying something that might be construed as unflattering when one is a visitor is not altogether diplomatic. In the larger scheme of things, it will probably not matter much, yet it was an example of excessive candor.
The Israeli situation, however, was different. Exactly what happened in this instance is difficult to determine because what Romney said was behind closed doors. At minimum, we know that Mitt attributed Israeli economic and political successes to the state’s Jewish culture.
It is not clear, however, whether Romney explicitly implicated Arab culture in Palestinian failures. In any event, several Palestinians objected to what they characterized as racist insults. The mainstream media then picked this up as another specimen of Romney’s alleged penchant for misstatements.
I was immediately reminded of an earlier media feeding frenzy. This concerned Ronald Reagan who had the temerity to call the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” Pundits from the left instantly jumped on this remark as demonstrating the Gipper’s foreign policy inexperience.
Reagan supposedly undermined the possibility of coming to terms with the Russians with his shoot-from-the-hip style. But we know how that one turned out, don’t we. The same may well come to pass regarding Romney’s Israeli interlude.
The fact is that what Mitt said was absolutely true and that well-informed Palestinians know it. Whatever is articulated for public consumption, the chief difference between the Israelis and the Palestinians is culture. This must be so since neither community has more or less talent, nor commands greater or lesser physical resources.
What separates them is how they think and feel. Aside from their Jewish heritage, which places an emphasis on education and business prowess, the Israelis are largely Western in their attitudes. They have inherited the free market and democratic mentalities pioneered in Europe and the United States.
These ways of looking at the world have been translated into the dynamic Israeli economy and the freewheeling Israeli political system. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are trapped in a medieval mindset. They are still trying to revive the glories of a long defunct Caliphate.
The problem is that cultures are difficult to change. Because they are deeply entrenched and highly emotional, they tend to be conservative. Consequently, merely explaining a problem to people does not persuade them to make necessary modifications.
We see this in the United States with respect to the culture of poverty. People who are born into our underclass have difficulty picking themselves up by their bootstraps. They may, for instance, be told that education is the ticket to social mobility; nevertheless they spurn educational opportunities.
We, in this country, sought radical improvements by way of a War on Poverty, yet despite spending trillions of dollars little changed. In the Middle East the Arabs have not even publically acknowledged the nature of their difficulty. They are still intent on blaming their distress on the Jews.
Mitt’s bringing up the subject of culture will probably not alter this. But then neither did Reagan’s allusions to an evil empire bring immediate reforms. What will occur in the long run is difficult to know. The probability that it will be something good is, however, low, and will remain so as long as people continue to fool themselves about what is wrong.
Mitt’s words may therefore prove a useful beginning. If they, in fact, constituted a gaff, they were one for which we may eventually be thankful.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Building a Career in Branson
My wife and I had never been to Branson Missouri before; hence we did not know what to expect. As college professors, we wondered if this country music capital would be sophisticated enough for our tastes.
As it happened, we needn’t have been concerned. The quality of entertainment far exceeded our expectations. But more than this, we stumbled on to a bonus that put president Obama’s disparagement of the entrepreneurial spirit into perspective.
Quite by accident, we attended two tribute programs put on by James Garrett. One was for Johnny Cash and the other for John Denver. In both cases, we found ourselves cheek by jowls with the musicians in the tiny Little Opry Theater having the time of our lives.
Also quite unexpectedly, we later found ourselves enjoying two extended conversations with Garrett, which left us equally impressed. Anyone who believes that country music stars are dimwitted bumpkins ought to talk to Garrett. They would quickly find themselves disabused of their error.
But more than this, Garrett had a compelling story to tell. Some of it he related during his shows, but much he elaborated upon in private. This was about his life and how he moved up from very humble beginnings to realize considerable artistic success.
Garrett is not a superstar, but he did attract notice as the lead singer for the country group The Kendalls. Nowadays, with this behind him, he has been organizing award winning tribute shows. In addition, he is very good at what he does. Personable and charismatic, he routinely draws audiences into his world.
In any event, to say that Garrett began from unpromising roots would be a gross understatement. Abandoned as an infant, he spent the first decade of his life being tossed from one unpleasant foster home to the next. And even when his biological father reclaimed him, many of his subsequent years included bouts of homelessness.
With this background, he could, as did one of his brothers, have descended into alcoholism. He did not. Nor did he become embittered or emotionally disturbed. No doubt distressed by the trials he had to endure, he instead devoted himself to disproving predictions that he would never amount to a hill of beans.
Did Garrett build his own career? Or did the government hand it to him? Yes, audiences use state roads to get to his performances, but did the state give him his talent or supply the effort needed to develop it?
And what about organizing his shows? Which songs to sing and how to present them were not wired in from Washington. Poor decisions in these would quickly put him out of business—considering that there are almost a hundred and fifty other shows from which Branson customers can choose.
Obama says we need help in order to succeed. He tells us we cannot do things on our own. In this he is right—but in a trivial sense. As social creatures, we must cooperate with others, but even this cooperation, if it is to be beneficial, requires input from us.
To return to Garrett, he is not a one-man band. There on stage with him is Jim Glaspy, one of the most talented guitar and banjo players to be found anywhere. That the two can coordinate their performances as seamlessly as they do owes more to their own efforts than to Obama’s.
Garrett must also be a businessman who promotes his shows, an impresario who deals with theater owners, and a host who connects with audiences. All of this involves working with others, yet none of it detracts from the fact that he is largely responsible for his own success.
So I say let’s offer up three hearty cheers for James Garrett, and all those like him. It is to them that our country owes its greatness, not to the vainglorious Washington politicians who seek to take credit for what others have wrought.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
As it happened, we needn’t have been concerned. The quality of entertainment far exceeded our expectations. But more than this, we stumbled on to a bonus that put president Obama’s disparagement of the entrepreneurial spirit into perspective.
Quite by accident, we attended two tribute programs put on by James Garrett. One was for Johnny Cash and the other for John Denver. In both cases, we found ourselves cheek by jowls with the musicians in the tiny Little Opry Theater having the time of our lives.
Also quite unexpectedly, we later found ourselves enjoying two extended conversations with Garrett, which left us equally impressed. Anyone who believes that country music stars are dimwitted bumpkins ought to talk to Garrett. They would quickly find themselves disabused of their error.
But more than this, Garrett had a compelling story to tell. Some of it he related during his shows, but much he elaborated upon in private. This was about his life and how he moved up from very humble beginnings to realize considerable artistic success.
Garrett is not a superstar, but he did attract notice as the lead singer for the country group The Kendalls. Nowadays, with this behind him, he has been organizing award winning tribute shows. In addition, he is very good at what he does. Personable and charismatic, he routinely draws audiences into his world.
In any event, to say that Garrett began from unpromising roots would be a gross understatement. Abandoned as an infant, he spent the first decade of his life being tossed from one unpleasant foster home to the next. And even when his biological father reclaimed him, many of his subsequent years included bouts of homelessness.
With this background, he could, as did one of his brothers, have descended into alcoholism. He did not. Nor did he become embittered or emotionally disturbed. No doubt distressed by the trials he had to endure, he instead devoted himself to disproving predictions that he would never amount to a hill of beans.
Did Garrett build his own career? Or did the government hand it to him? Yes, audiences use state roads to get to his performances, but did the state give him his talent or supply the effort needed to develop it?
And what about organizing his shows? Which songs to sing and how to present them were not wired in from Washington. Poor decisions in these would quickly put him out of business—considering that there are almost a hundred and fifty other shows from which Branson customers can choose.
Obama says we need help in order to succeed. He tells us we cannot do things on our own. In this he is right—but in a trivial sense. As social creatures, we must cooperate with others, but even this cooperation, if it is to be beneficial, requires input from us.
To return to Garrett, he is not a one-man band. There on stage with him is Jim Glaspy, one of the most talented guitar and banjo players to be found anywhere. That the two can coordinate their performances as seamlessly as they do owes more to their own efforts than to Obama’s.
Garrett must also be a businessman who promotes his shows, an impresario who deals with theater owners, and a host who connects with audiences. All of this involves working with others, yet none of it detracts from the fact that he is largely responsible for his own success.
So I say let’s offer up three hearty cheers for James Garrett, and all those like him. It is to them that our country owes its greatness, not to the vainglorious Washington politicians who seek to take credit for what others have wrought.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Snow in July
The snowdrifts are piling up. Even though it has been a hot summer, we are being buried under tons of verbal snow. If you don’t yet get my drift, I am referring to the endless political snow jobs to which we have been treated. Were these actually cooling, they might be welcome, but, alas, they are not.
We have been warned early and often that this year’s presidential campaign would be the dirtiest in memory and it is living up to this prediction. Many commentators have cautioned that with a president who cannot afford to run on his record, he would probably resort to tearing down his opponent.
To add to this, many of them forecast that the accusations leveled against Romney would be false. Actually, they held that many would be lies. It is very unusual for a sitting president to be called a liar so often and regarding so many different matters, but Barack Obama has earned this distinction.
Yes, Democrats complained that “Bush lied and people died,” but this was about a single issue. And yes, Bob Dole found his reputation tarnished when he complained that a rival had lied about him, but Dole was already perceived as mean-spirited.
With Obama it is a little different. At first, his critics were gentle. They did not want to attack our first Black president; hence they suggested he was being “misleading.” Yet eventually the misrepresentations flew so thick and heavy that he was accused not only of lying, but of being a demagogue.
Recently he, and/or his people, have asserted that Romney may be a felon, that he is certainly a vulture capitalist who exported jobs over seas, and that he cares only about the rich—not women, minorities or the poor. According to them, he is a heartless fiend who is clearly not presidential material.
Mitt was a little slow in rebutting these charges so some liberals took comfort that their strategy was working. They would not have to defend the economy or Obamacare because the public’s attention would be elsewhere. As a result, their man’s inherent goodness would carry him through.
To me, this looks like denial. Committed liberals, who naturally want their favorite to win, have apparently convinced themselves he will. This does not surprise me. What does is the large numbers of voters who have not yet caught on to how disingenuous the president and his supporters are.
Recently I have been reading Erik Larson’s In the Garden of the Beasts. It is the story of Adolf Hitler’s first year in office as seen through the eyes of the American ambassador and his family. It is also a story of willful self-deception.
Hitler was a depraved leader from day one. His oppression of the German people, and especially of the Jews, began very soon after he took office. Except many people refused to believe it. The saw the clean streets and the orderly citizens and concluded what they wanted to conclude, namely that Hitler was rescuing his country from the Depression.
They also believed Hitler when he affirmed his desire for peace. Americans did not want war; Germans did not want war; surely Hitler did not want it either. He could not be so mad as to imagine that military adventurism would succeed.
Mind you, all people had to do was travel a few miles out of Berlin to observe the feverish preparations for war. Factories were being revved up to produce arms and military camps were sprouting along the highways. The evidence was there to see, but only for those prepared to see it.
Hitler was playing for time so that he could build his army, navy and air corps. In this, he did very well. Now Barack Obama is also playing for time. If he can keep people from asking embarrassing questions, he just might sneak over the electoral finish line. After that the deluge—but neither he nor his supporters care about that.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
We have been warned early and often that this year’s presidential campaign would be the dirtiest in memory and it is living up to this prediction. Many commentators have cautioned that with a president who cannot afford to run on his record, he would probably resort to tearing down his opponent.
To add to this, many of them forecast that the accusations leveled against Romney would be false. Actually, they held that many would be lies. It is very unusual for a sitting president to be called a liar so often and regarding so many different matters, but Barack Obama has earned this distinction.
Yes, Democrats complained that “Bush lied and people died,” but this was about a single issue. And yes, Bob Dole found his reputation tarnished when he complained that a rival had lied about him, but Dole was already perceived as mean-spirited.
With Obama it is a little different. At first, his critics were gentle. They did not want to attack our first Black president; hence they suggested he was being “misleading.” Yet eventually the misrepresentations flew so thick and heavy that he was accused not only of lying, but of being a demagogue.
Recently he, and/or his people, have asserted that Romney may be a felon, that he is certainly a vulture capitalist who exported jobs over seas, and that he cares only about the rich—not women, minorities or the poor. According to them, he is a heartless fiend who is clearly not presidential material.
Mitt was a little slow in rebutting these charges so some liberals took comfort that their strategy was working. They would not have to defend the economy or Obamacare because the public’s attention would be elsewhere. As a result, their man’s inherent goodness would carry him through.
To me, this looks like denial. Committed liberals, who naturally want their favorite to win, have apparently convinced themselves he will. This does not surprise me. What does is the large numbers of voters who have not yet caught on to how disingenuous the president and his supporters are.
Recently I have been reading Erik Larson’s In the Garden of the Beasts. It is the story of Adolf Hitler’s first year in office as seen through the eyes of the American ambassador and his family. It is also a story of willful self-deception.
Hitler was a depraved leader from day one. His oppression of the German people, and especially of the Jews, began very soon after he took office. Except many people refused to believe it. The saw the clean streets and the orderly citizens and concluded what they wanted to conclude, namely that Hitler was rescuing his country from the Depression.
They also believed Hitler when he affirmed his desire for peace. Americans did not want war; Germans did not want war; surely Hitler did not want it either. He could not be so mad as to imagine that military adventurism would succeed.
Mind you, all people had to do was travel a few miles out of Berlin to observe the feverish preparations for war. Factories were being revved up to produce arms and military camps were sprouting along the highways. The evidence was there to see, but only for those prepared to see it.
Hitler was playing for time so that he could build his army, navy and air corps. In this, he did very well. Now Barack Obama is also playing for time. If he can keep people from asking embarrassing questions, he just might sneak over the electoral finish line. After that the deluge—but neither he nor his supporters care about that.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Responsibility versus Irresponsibility
Reading about the childhoods of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is an excursion into stark opposites. The places they fit in their families of origin were so different that it would be a miracle if they turned out to deal with life the same way.
And, of course, they did not. Romney was deeply loved by parents who were always there for him. Besides the financial advantages he received, his was a secure upbringing. There were never any doubts that if he ran into trouble both his mother and father would be there to help out.
Obama, in contrast, was the next best thing to an orphan. Not only did his biological father abandon him when he was a month old, but his mother did almost the same several years later—leaving him to be raised by maternal grandparents.
As might be supposed, Barack resented this neglect. But mindful of his need not to alienate people who might abandon him, he kept a diplomatic silence. Only rarely did he express his bitterness at being what he described as “a supporting player” in the drama of his mother’s life.
Naturally, these disparities influenced the approach these two men took to life. Mitt became an extremely responsible person. Frequently volunteering to take on important tasks, he dedicated himself to fulfilling his obligations—which he habitually did with grace.
Whether this was guarding the symbol of the Stanford football team from their rivals at Berkley during his freshman year at college or taking over leadership of his Mormon mission in France when the official leader was injured in an automobile accident, he got the job done and done well.
This attitude later extended to his graduate studies, his wife and children, employment as a mid-level executive at Bain and Co., founder of Bain Capital, saving the winter Olympics, and governing the state of Massachusetts. In no case did he shirk his responsibilities.
Barack’s life course has been diametrically different. It is a study in temporary attachments and an unwillingness to make lasting commitments. Having been left behind by the people upon whom he should have been able to depend, he has subsequently become proficient in leaving others.
Like Mitt, Obama went to several colleges, but unlike Mitt he never took accountable positions at any of these. Instead he was an observer, whose energies turned inward. Next he abandoned several girlfriends, opted out of an editorial post he loathed, and took a community-organizing job he knew would be temporary.
When Barack finally did commit to Chicago, each step he took was calculated to advance his political career. The responsibilities he accepted (with the probable exception of his children) were essentially in service to what he desired, not what others needed.
This same attitude has been on display in politics. This, after all, was a man who specialized in voting “present” when he was in the Illinois legislature. There were to be no fingerprints on measures that might later get him in trouble. Then, after he made it to the U.S. senate, he assiduously avoided legislative initiatives.
Once he became president, the pattern continued. Thus, he farmed out his stimulus bill, Obamacare, and Dodd/Frank to be cobbled together by others. Nor did he put forward a budget that addressed the deficit or entitlements. He would not be responsible for unexpected bumps along the way.
By now observers, whose eyes are open, are aware that our president is a man of many excuses. According to him, it is always someone else’s fault when things go wrong; never his. The responsibility belongs to Bush, the Japanese Tsunami, the European financial crisis, Republican obstructionism, etc. etc. etc.
If the past means anything, if people tend to repeat long established precedents, we can be confident about what the future holds for each man. One will surely continue to be responsible and the other irresponsible. Only it is now up to us to choose between them.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
And, of course, they did not. Romney was deeply loved by parents who were always there for him. Besides the financial advantages he received, his was a secure upbringing. There were never any doubts that if he ran into trouble both his mother and father would be there to help out.
Obama, in contrast, was the next best thing to an orphan. Not only did his biological father abandon him when he was a month old, but his mother did almost the same several years later—leaving him to be raised by maternal grandparents.
As might be supposed, Barack resented this neglect. But mindful of his need not to alienate people who might abandon him, he kept a diplomatic silence. Only rarely did he express his bitterness at being what he described as “a supporting player” in the drama of his mother’s life.
Naturally, these disparities influenced the approach these two men took to life. Mitt became an extremely responsible person. Frequently volunteering to take on important tasks, he dedicated himself to fulfilling his obligations—which he habitually did with grace.
Whether this was guarding the symbol of the Stanford football team from their rivals at Berkley during his freshman year at college or taking over leadership of his Mormon mission in France when the official leader was injured in an automobile accident, he got the job done and done well.
This attitude later extended to his graduate studies, his wife and children, employment as a mid-level executive at Bain and Co., founder of Bain Capital, saving the winter Olympics, and governing the state of Massachusetts. In no case did he shirk his responsibilities.
Barack’s life course has been diametrically different. It is a study in temporary attachments and an unwillingness to make lasting commitments. Having been left behind by the people upon whom he should have been able to depend, he has subsequently become proficient in leaving others.
Like Mitt, Obama went to several colleges, but unlike Mitt he never took accountable positions at any of these. Instead he was an observer, whose energies turned inward. Next he abandoned several girlfriends, opted out of an editorial post he loathed, and took a community-organizing job he knew would be temporary.
When Barack finally did commit to Chicago, each step he took was calculated to advance his political career. The responsibilities he accepted (with the probable exception of his children) were essentially in service to what he desired, not what others needed.
This same attitude has been on display in politics. This, after all, was a man who specialized in voting “present” when he was in the Illinois legislature. There were to be no fingerprints on measures that might later get him in trouble. Then, after he made it to the U.S. senate, he assiduously avoided legislative initiatives.
Once he became president, the pattern continued. Thus, he farmed out his stimulus bill, Obamacare, and Dodd/Frank to be cobbled together by others. Nor did he put forward a budget that addressed the deficit or entitlements. He would not be responsible for unexpected bumps along the way.
By now observers, whose eyes are open, are aware that our president is a man of many excuses. According to him, it is always someone else’s fault when things go wrong; never his. The responsibility belongs to Bush, the Japanese Tsunami, the European financial crisis, Republican obstructionism, etc. etc. etc.
If the past means anything, if people tend to repeat long established precedents, we can be confident about what the future holds for each man. One will surely continue to be responsible and the other irresponsible. Only it is now up to us to choose between them.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
A Tale of Two Fathers
As a sociologist, I learned many lessons about families from David Popenoe. One of the most important concerns the role of fathers. He helped me realize that fathers can make a huge difference in the lives of their children. Mothers matte, but fathers are far from irrelevant.
Nowadays with two out of every five children born out of wedlock and most of these raised by single mothers, this fact has become of crucial significance. What recently drove this home for me was reading two biographies, one of Barack Obama and the other of Mitt Romney.
David Maraniss’ book Barack Obama: the Story and Michael Kranish and Scott Helman’s The Real Romney could scarcely have depicted more different childhoods and more different parents. At the end, I was left with no doubt about why these men have grown into such different adults.
Let us begin with Obama’s father. By now almost everyone has heard that Barack senior was Kenyan and by all accounts intellectually gifted. Far fewer are aware of how emotionally damaged the man was. Expected by many to become an important personage, he never achieved this status; largely because of his imperfections.
If we start with his son’s arrival in the world, Barack senior’s story includes marrying the future president’s mother, but he was little more than a sperm donor. After not telling Stanley Ann Dunham that he already had a wife and children in Kenya, he managed to live with her for but one month after the birth of their son.
In no sense was he ever paternal. Yes, he ran away from Hawaii to go to school in Harvard, but this pattern of running away existed before, and after, Barack II’s arrival. In some ways this was lucky for his American son because when he did stay with his wives (there were several), he frequently beat them.
On top of this Obama senior was a raging alcoholic with a penchant for getting into fatal automobile accidents. The one that eventually took his own life was but one of a series that never induced him to become more careful. Arrogant and overbearing, he was going to do things his way.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, had a father who was present and supportive. George Romney was a self made man and a dedicated family man. Having dropped out of college to marry his wife, they remained married and available to their children.
George was a hard driving executive who rose to become the CEO of American Motors and a three-time governor of Michigan. Nonetheless, he always made time for his children; especially the youngest one Mitt. Furthermore, he listened to what his son said and respected his contributions.
George also encouraged Mitt to live up to his potential. Besides financial support, he supplied something even more valuable; he bequeathed his son a strong sense of self. Right from the beginning the young Mitt emulated his father’s sense of responsibility and leadership.
Young Barack, in contrast, was left adrift. Often uncertain about who he was or where he belonged, his early life featured unfocused explorations. The wonder is that he found an identity he could sustain.
Obama wrote a book entitled Dreams from My Father, but in truth he obtained almost nothing from his father except perhaps his intelligence and a hole in his soul. He had to learn how to be a man with very little guidance from a successful and committed adult male.
Barack junior today presents an appearance of preternatural stability. Nothing seems to faze him. But this is analogous to what has been called precocious independence. Children who lack dependable attachment figures frequently develop a façade of self-sufficiency. This does not, however, signal an absence of inner turmoil.
For Mitt, however, the inner stability is real and presidential. It is a precious legacy given to him by a father who was reliably there.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Nowadays with two out of every five children born out of wedlock and most of these raised by single mothers, this fact has become of crucial significance. What recently drove this home for me was reading two biographies, one of Barack Obama and the other of Mitt Romney.
David Maraniss’ book Barack Obama: the Story and Michael Kranish and Scott Helman’s The Real Romney could scarcely have depicted more different childhoods and more different parents. At the end, I was left with no doubt about why these men have grown into such different adults.
Let us begin with Obama’s father. By now almost everyone has heard that Barack senior was Kenyan and by all accounts intellectually gifted. Far fewer are aware of how emotionally damaged the man was. Expected by many to become an important personage, he never achieved this status; largely because of his imperfections.
If we start with his son’s arrival in the world, Barack senior’s story includes marrying the future president’s mother, but he was little more than a sperm donor. After not telling Stanley Ann Dunham that he already had a wife and children in Kenya, he managed to live with her for but one month after the birth of their son.
In no sense was he ever paternal. Yes, he ran away from Hawaii to go to school in Harvard, but this pattern of running away existed before, and after, Barack II’s arrival. In some ways this was lucky for his American son because when he did stay with his wives (there were several), he frequently beat them.
On top of this Obama senior was a raging alcoholic with a penchant for getting into fatal automobile accidents. The one that eventually took his own life was but one of a series that never induced him to become more careful. Arrogant and overbearing, he was going to do things his way.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, had a father who was present and supportive. George Romney was a self made man and a dedicated family man. Having dropped out of college to marry his wife, they remained married and available to their children.
George was a hard driving executive who rose to become the CEO of American Motors and a three-time governor of Michigan. Nonetheless, he always made time for his children; especially the youngest one Mitt. Furthermore, he listened to what his son said and respected his contributions.
George also encouraged Mitt to live up to his potential. Besides financial support, he supplied something even more valuable; he bequeathed his son a strong sense of self. Right from the beginning the young Mitt emulated his father’s sense of responsibility and leadership.
Young Barack, in contrast, was left adrift. Often uncertain about who he was or where he belonged, his early life featured unfocused explorations. The wonder is that he found an identity he could sustain.
Obama wrote a book entitled Dreams from My Father, but in truth he obtained almost nothing from his father except perhaps his intelligence and a hole in his soul. He had to learn how to be a man with very little guidance from a successful and committed adult male.
Barack junior today presents an appearance of preternatural stability. Nothing seems to faze him. But this is analogous to what has been called precocious independence. Children who lack dependable attachment figures frequently develop a façade of self-sufficiency. This does not, however, signal an absence of inner turmoil.
For Mitt, however, the inner stability is real and presidential. It is a precious legacy given to him by a father who was reliably there.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Literary License
I have been writing that Barack Obama is a liar for several years now. There can be no doubt that he has an only passing acquaintance with the truth; nonetheless I have decided that I have not been sufficiently generous to our president.
David Maraniss’ book Barack Obama: The Story has led me to reevaluate the president’s motives and methods. As many others have noted, when he wrote his autobiography Dreams from My Father, Obama took many liberties. His account of the past, when investigated closely, does not jibe with reality.
For one thing, the characters he describes do not always match actual individuals. They are frequently composites intended to make an ideological point. For another, his sequencing is recurrently out of joint. Once more the objective is dramatic impact rather than historical accuracy.
At one point in Maraniss’ narrative, he describes the power that Obama imputes to words. Barack allegedly told classmates that words were more potent than economics or military might. Judging from the way he behaves in office, he still believes this.
Apparently Obama once thought he might become a writer. We may assume that this included writing novels. If it did, then he has succeeded in his ambition. His erstwhile autobiography turns out to be more like a novel—with himself as hero—than an honest rendering of his early life.
Having invented himself as the kind of person he wanted to be, he had no difficulty resorting to literary license to persuade his readers that this is who he is—and that the way he depicts the world is a correct portrayal of it.
For Obama fantasy mixes with reality in a way that he may have trouble telling apart. One thing Maraniss makes perfectly clear: Barack did not have a storybook childhood. Time and again, essentially emotionally abandoned, he had to develop the detached persona we have become familiar with in the White House.
We are also given to understand that Obama had to struggle with his racial identity. It was not merely that he was half white and half black, but that wherever he found himself, he was different. Always the outsider, whether in Hawaii, Indonesia, California or New York, he needed a reliable peg on which to hang his sense of self.
No wonder he manufactured this as a novelist would. No wonder too that it includes elements of the poseur. In need of persuading others—not just himself—that he was significant personage, he developed social gambits that projected himself as surreally heroic. Think of his pose with head thrust forward and chin pointed up—much in a manner of a Soviet hero-worker.
Think too of all of those public utterances that I have characterized as lies. They may not be so much lies as heroic epigrams. They are inspiring little dictums that sound good—and more importantly—make him look good. For him, what matters is their political effect, not their truth-value.
So Obama tells us he is pleased that the Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare. He reiterates that it will be good for the nation, but he does not mention that the court called his policy a “tax.” That would not sit well with the public, so it is not denied; merely left out.
Or he gives a speech in which he boasts of having reduced the deficit. He insists he has cut billions from the budget, but leaves out the trillions he added. He certainly cannot allude to the fact that the budget proposals he sent congress were roundly rejected; even by Democrats who realized they called for unsustainable spending.
What then are we to make of this president who is concerned more with guarding his damaged personhood than with protecting the nation he is sworn to defend? If we are decent people, we can feel sympathy for him. But if we care about the welfare of our country, we dare not re-elect him.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
David Maraniss’ book Barack Obama: The Story has led me to reevaluate the president’s motives and methods. As many others have noted, when he wrote his autobiography Dreams from My Father, Obama took many liberties. His account of the past, when investigated closely, does not jibe with reality.
For one thing, the characters he describes do not always match actual individuals. They are frequently composites intended to make an ideological point. For another, his sequencing is recurrently out of joint. Once more the objective is dramatic impact rather than historical accuracy.
At one point in Maraniss’ narrative, he describes the power that Obama imputes to words. Barack allegedly told classmates that words were more potent than economics or military might. Judging from the way he behaves in office, he still believes this.
Apparently Obama once thought he might become a writer. We may assume that this included writing novels. If it did, then he has succeeded in his ambition. His erstwhile autobiography turns out to be more like a novel—with himself as hero—than an honest rendering of his early life.
Having invented himself as the kind of person he wanted to be, he had no difficulty resorting to literary license to persuade his readers that this is who he is—and that the way he depicts the world is a correct portrayal of it.
For Obama fantasy mixes with reality in a way that he may have trouble telling apart. One thing Maraniss makes perfectly clear: Barack did not have a storybook childhood. Time and again, essentially emotionally abandoned, he had to develop the detached persona we have become familiar with in the White House.
We are also given to understand that Obama had to struggle with his racial identity. It was not merely that he was half white and half black, but that wherever he found himself, he was different. Always the outsider, whether in Hawaii, Indonesia, California or New York, he needed a reliable peg on which to hang his sense of self.
No wonder he manufactured this as a novelist would. No wonder too that it includes elements of the poseur. In need of persuading others—not just himself—that he was significant personage, he developed social gambits that projected himself as surreally heroic. Think of his pose with head thrust forward and chin pointed up—much in a manner of a Soviet hero-worker.
Think too of all of those public utterances that I have characterized as lies. They may not be so much lies as heroic epigrams. They are inspiring little dictums that sound good—and more importantly—make him look good. For him, what matters is their political effect, not their truth-value.
So Obama tells us he is pleased that the Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare. He reiterates that it will be good for the nation, but he does not mention that the court called his policy a “tax.” That would not sit well with the public, so it is not denied; merely left out.
Or he gives a speech in which he boasts of having reduced the deficit. He insists he has cut billions from the budget, but leaves out the trillions he added. He certainly cannot allude to the fact that the budget proposals he sent congress were roundly rejected; even by Democrats who realized they called for unsustainable spending.
What then are we to make of this president who is concerned more with guarding his damaged personhood than with protecting the nation he is sworn to defend? If we are decent people, we can feel sympathy for him. But if we care about the welfare of our country, we dare not re-elect him.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
