Has America Become Decadent?

Once Rome was the glory of the Western World. It created the largest and most prosperous empire Europe has ever seen. But then Rome fell. After centuries of decline, it was over-run by barbarian invaders and so thoroughly dismantled that it took over a millenium for the continent to recover.

For many years, historians contended that the cause of this debacle was “decadence.” They argued that the Roman people had abandoned their moral core and hence were unable to muster the resolve to fend off disaster. Sadly, there is much truth to this verdict.

In the case of Rome, the Republican virtues of steadfastness, patriotism, and honesty were forsaken in favor of luxury and selfishness. Rather than lead the legions to victory, its patricians preferred to recline on couches sipping wine and noshing on peacock’s tongues. Meanwhile, the plebeians were content to live off the dole, biding their time in a haze of free bread and circuses.

The question we must now face is has the United States come to this same pass? Have we too, after a century of political and economic dominance, succumbed to a similarly fatal decadence? The end is not yet upon us, but are the barbarians knocking at a gate that is no longer being defended?

It is certainly true that many Americans no longer subscribe to the values that made our nation great. They—especially the liberals—believe that our democracy is bankrupt and that our market system is inherently unfair. Instead, they would like us to emulate the West Europeans and embrace what they call “social democracy.”

To see what is happening, we need look no further than the last line of our national anthem. It proclaims that America is “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” But is this true? Are we as a people still living up to these values?

Our recent election argues otherwise. Thus, a majority of Americans voted for a president who rarely praises the virtues of liberty. To the contrary, he prefers to fly the standard of “social justice.” By this he means that our federal government has a duty to enforce his version of fairness.

Barack Obama and his supporters believe that the federal government must be our keepers. They are convinced that the rest of us cannot make good decisions unless they (our liberal leaders) guide us in the proper direction. This, of course, translates into ever more regulations and a larger burden of taxes.

The bottom line is that in exchange for safety ordinary citizens are asked cede their personal freedoms. Genuine freedom, it is assumed, inevitably leads to mistakes and unfairness, and therefore cannot be tolerated.

As to demonstrating courage, what greater failure of nerve can there be than voluntarily surrendering one’s right to decide to a bevy of strangers who insincerely claim to have our interests at heart? Free peoples do make mistakes, but they also have the intestinal fortitude to correct these without resorting childish helplessness.

Thankfully our military has not yet gone spineless. The bravery our soldiers and sailors have shown in defense of our liberties has been exemplary. And yet we have an administration intent on hollowing out our armed forces. Yes, there are words in tribute to their heroism, but then comes the budgetary ax.

A truly brave people, a truly free people, would be up in arms at these trends. They would be outraged by the lies they have been told and by the diminution in personal and national power they have suffered.

But no, many Americans are evidently more worried that the federal government has yet to provide them with free contraceptives. Nor were they willing to celebrate the business success of the truly good man who sought to lead them.

Amazingly, citizens who continue to assume that they are the hope of the free world have opted to be led by the nose by a false prophet and his ignoble disciples.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Fighting the Good Fight

In his biography, My American Journey, Gen. Colin Powell tells us that a leader must go out and fight the dragon every day. He then adds and “sometimes the dragon wins.” Well, the dragon won Tuesday last.

Millions of Romney/Ryan supporters watched helplessly as millions of their fellow citizens—most, no doubt, well-intentioned—tore the moral heart out of our shared nation. When the dust settled, the dragon of unrepentant Liberalism had been provided another four years in which to trample over our lives, liberties and sacred honor.

My heart was broken as I witnessed the most sleazy, dishonest, and mean-spirited political campaign (since the drubbing of Barry Goldwater) prevail over decency and competence. The voters had been cheated, mislead, and manipulated; nevertheless many of them opted for ideological purity over common sense.

Now there will be hell to pay. Foolishness and naiveté have consequences. I know this sounds like sour grapes, but I am willing to go on record and predict another four years of economic stagnation, punctuated by a renewed recession, and diplomatic weakness, perhaps interrupted by a Middle-Eastern Holocaust.

The evidence that Barack Obama and his minions have misgoverned this nation has long been visible to those willing to open their eyes. Many, however, evidently preferred to be lulled into an ideological siesta. For them, unpleasant truths have no allure; hence these are driven from consciousness.

But that is no reason for those of us who care about the future to give up the fight. Yes, we have sustained a devastating setback, but no, it is not fatal. One thing I have learned in the course of living many decades is that, as Powell implies, loses are part of life. They must be endured, and, if at all possible, reversed; that is, if one is to maintain one’s integrity.

Nonetheless, it must also be acknowledged that victory is never ensured. However worthy a cause, it may not triumph. But that does not mean that we should give up. Moral uprightness and an allegiance to the truth matter. They are so important that a bloody nose sustained in their defense is worth the pain.

So how long will the fight go on? How long will Liberalism be allowed to grind our shared fate into the dust? No one can be sure, but some crucial struggles have persisted for centuries. Unfortunately, this means that many of us will never witness the conclusion.

In the meantime, the battle must be joined. There are many more clashes ahead and if they are to be won, they must be entered with a clear head and a firm resolve. This is no time for recriminations or Monday morning quarterbacking. Rather, it is a time for planning and organizing.

As I am sure Powell would also acknowledge, if you wish to defeat an enemy, you must know that enemy. It is not enough to cast aspersions on those with whom you disagree. We who have been defeated this time around must understand, and counter, the reasons so many folks were attracted to the other side.

It is also essential to understand our own strengths and weaknesses. Winners do not allow themselves to be deceived by rose-colored glasses. Nor do they over-estimate the comparative resources of their opponents. Instead, winners seek to make the truth their ally.

And so I say to readers who are as disappointed as I: It is time to gird our loins. There is work to be done and tactics to be rethought. The good news is that those who have snatched an unwarranted victory from a hard-fought fight tend to be over-confident. Assured of their superiority, they frequently double-down on their mistakes.

If this is what Obama and his allies are about do, they are sure to alienate many of the people who helped them to victory. What I am hoping—indeed, what I am counting on—is that there remains a reservoir of integrity and sanity in the American public that can be tapped in future contests.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Political Conservatism: Liberal Style

Last week my wife and I attended a sociological conference in North Georgia. Along the way there we drove past innumerable lawns bedecked in Romney/Ryan signs. When we arrived at our destination, however, the political climate abruptly changed.

As many MDJ readers may know, academics, and especially sociologists, are notoriously liberal. For sociologists, the percentage leaning left is upwards of 95%, whereas for college faculty in general, it hovers between 80 and 90% (depending on how the measurements are taken).

What was different this time around was that enthusiasm for our current president was notably lacking. Most of the participants still intended to vote for Obama, yet no one—not a single soul—attempted to persuade my wife or me that he was superior to Romney.

One of our colleagues epitomized the prevailing attitude. He told a group of us that he had been scandalizing his associates by telling them that he was not going to vote for Obama. He just couldn’t. So whom was he going to support? Why it was the Green Party candidate.

In fact, nobody in our circle was faintly outraged by this. Even those who were strong Obama supporters sympathized his decision. After all they too could not personally imagine voting for a Republican under any circumstances.

As it happened, one of the conference presenters provided survey data on the voting preferences of North Georgians. Her respondents were primarily young—typically college students—but the results confirmed what other researchers have found.

It seems that most people vote as their parents do. This tendency is so robust that they frequently support candidates who do not share their values—that is, as long as they come from the correct party. This is true for both liberals and conservatives, so it is safe to say that in this respect both factions are conservative.

What also came out of the research is that a majority of voters do not follow the campaigns. Most do not know what the candidates represent because they don’t pay attention. They certainly do not engage in fact-checking to determine if what is promised bears any resemblance to what is liable to be delivered.

It turns out that large numbers of people, including otherwise sophisticated professionals, depend on what they think they already know. This was apparent in an exchange I had with a senior colleague. When I suggested that our society needed to move toward greater decentralization, he strongly demurred.

According to my challenger, we need further centralization because the federal government is the most “efficient” provider of social services. Only it, said he, can do the job. When pressed for evidence of this, he swiftly cited the Social Security system.

This reminded me of a conversation I had with another liberal professor several years ago. When asked to identify the chief benefits liberalism provided, he too mentioned Social Security. The other benefit he named was free public education.

The irony here is that these are very old ideas that are both now in deep trouble. Thus, Social Security is running out of money as the population ages and those who are working are unable to contribute enough to keep it solvent. Meanwhile, public education has remained stagnant despite our having more than tripled the resources poured into underwriting it.

These programs have indeed demonstrated their worth, yet the time has come for serious reforms. Nevertheless, most liberals refuse to entertain the idea that modifications are necessary. As symbols of their success, they insist that these remain unchanged.

But what is this other than “conservatism.” Liberals like to describe themselves as “progressives.” Yet this evidently does not mean they are prepared to embrace genuinely novel agendas. Like almost everyone else, they prefer to stand by the familiar and comfortable.

The same applies when they vote. When the time arrives to cast their ballots, most follow the pathways they always have—no matter what they say. This election will be no different.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

The Picture of Dorian Gray--Obama Style

Stephanie Cutter, a pivotal member of the Obama campaign team, is an attractive woman. Fresh faced and corn-fed, she appears to have stepped out of a movie extolling the virtues of the American heartland.

But then she opens her mouth and the illusion is shattered. As one of the president’s most visible surrogates, she is routinely required to tell the most egregious untruths—a task she seems to perform with relish. Whether denying that she knew the man who accused Romney of murdering his wife or declaring that Mitt politicized the Benghazi scandal, her words and visage are sharply at odds.

This disconnect is reminiscent of Oscar Wilde’s novel The Picture of Dorian Gray. In the book, Gray is a man so physically handsome that an artist infatuated with his beauty decides to immortalize it for the ages. Dorian then sells his soul on the condition that this portrait age rather than himself.

Subsequent to this, Dorian lives a dissolute life of extreme hedonism. And sure enough, instead of his visage reflecting this gross immorality, the picture ages and becomes grotesque. Only in the end, when he resolves to reform, does he resume his actual exterior. But sadly this occurs after he stabs the portrait in the heart and in the process dies.

Dorian’s story strikes me as being paralleled by the unfolding saga of Barack Obama. Our president is also a physically appealing person who has sold his soul, in his case, for the sake of power. Only rather than seducing and destroying the lives of a string of individual conquests, he has seduced and injured an entire nation.

This, to be sure, is a harsh judgment. But there can be no doubt that Obama’s physical presence has beguiled millions of people. His radiant smile, his easy-going demeanor, and his “cool” persona have convinced many onlookers that he is the very incarnation of what a chief executive should be.

On top of this, Barack is unquestionably intelligent and has the rare gift of giving a compelling speech, despite the fact that what he says is often pedestrian. He can even get away with telling conflicting untruths in the same address because his listeners frequently respond to his spellbinding style rather than his substance.

But now Obama seems to have met his match. Mind you, unlike Dorian Gray, he shows no signs of having decided to reform. To the contrary, he continues to propagate untruths at a rate that beggars all of his predecessors. What has changed, however, is that these have become more visible.

The comparison between Barack and Mitt Romney has been devastating to the president’s image. Standing together, on the same stage, as they have during the debates, has revealed Obama’s shallow, mean-spirited, and dissimulating essence. In other words, his real self is being exposed.

During the debates it has also become clear that Romney is the genuine article. His knows his facts and is an accomplished problem solver who is comfortable in his own skin. Voters may disagree with him, but he is obviously a mature adult who means what he says. In other words, he is someone who can be trusted.

Once a person as intelligent as himself, but someone with actual achievements challenged him, Obama’s carefully crafted façade began to crumble. His honeyed words were unmasked as mere talking points. They might sound good to the uninformed; nevertheless they did not betoken a genuine understanding.

Far from it; they laid bare the sleaziness of the campaign run on his behalf—and with his sanction. Lest it be forgotten, Cutter’s excesses have been a reflection of his wishes.

Where this will end is not yet clear. Obama may still win re-election. But he will never again be seen as a knight in shining armor. His pretense of honesty and competence has been pierced. As a mere mortal, his warts are showing. Indeed, for many, he has begun to look ugly.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Does the American Public Deserve Respect?

My recent book “Post-Liberalism: The Death of a Dream” begins with a familiar quote from Abraham Lincoln. You know the one I mean: “It is true you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can fool some of the people some of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

This is well to remember. So is Benjamin Franklin’s response when asked if the constitution would deliver a republic or a monarchy. He replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

If we put these two observations together, the question becomes: Can we, the American people, preserve our democratic republic if too many of us are easily fooled? This is not an academic matter. In fact, the issue will shortly to be tested in a national election with epic implications.

One thing is certain. No people can resist the blandishments of demagogues if they do not first respect themselves. If they do not believe they deserve the truth—if they are not scandalized when denied it—they are destined to join the ranks of those who can be fooled all of the time.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden are apparently convinced they can keep up a pretense of being concerned citizens until Election Day. Yet they have clearly demonstrated they do not respect the intellect, or integrity, of the American people. So far as they are concerned, voters are the “suckers” P.T. Barnum said are born every minute.

Biden plainly revealed this lack of respect during his debate with Paul Ryan. Most observers recognized the contempt the vice-president heaped upon his challenger. All of that smirking, laughing, and interrupting bespoke a disregard for the deference owed a United States congressman.

What was worse, however, was the contempt of the American public this exposed. Ryan was treated like a recalcitrant schoolboy, whereas Biden acted like a bad-mannered teenager. His lack of decency was an insult to his position and to an audience that had a right to expect civility from the second-highest elected official in the land.

Sadly, president Obama learned little from this outrageous exhibition. Indeed, he decided to emulate it. Rather than respect his opponent or the public, he, in his second debate, engaged in a self-described “aggressiveness.” This too consisted in interrupting and calling his opponent a liar.

The lying, however, was one-sided—that is, on the president’s. Where Biden falsely claimed that the Catholic Church would not be forced to finance services that violated its faith and dishonestly maintained he was in the room when Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill negotiated a social security accord, Obama broadcast his own deceits.

Despite rudely—and incorrectly—questioning Romney’s veracity, Barack told a string of whoppers. He, for instance, falsely denied that he had reduced the number of oil drilling licenses his administration issued. More importantly, he blatantly dissembled when he asserted that he had called the murder of an American ambassador an act of terror the day after it occurred.

The moderator Candy Crowley doubled down on this nonsense, but does anyone else believe it? The problem is that some do. True-believing liberals see only what they want to see; hence they are blind to inconvenient facts. Meanwhile, disengaged voters are not even paying attention; hence they have no idea about what is true.

We, as a society, are about undergo a trial by fire. It will soon be evident how many of us are prepared to be bamboozled. If too large a number decide to re-elect the president, we will be in for four more years of dishonesty and corruption. If not, we may re-discover what integrity looks like.

What happens depends on whether we respect the truth and ourselves—and our republic. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, all that is needed for dishonesty and demagoguery to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Obama Fiddles While the World Burns

Legend has it that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. This is not quite true. To begin with, the violin had not yet been invented in first century Rome. Second, Nero did seem to be on the job when his city went up in flames.

The part of the myth that appears to be accurate, however, is that the emperor actually conceived of himself as a great artist. He was especially proud of his singing and lyre playing abilities. Indeed, he intentionally traveled to Greece so that he could entertain large crowds with his putative talents.

Today we have an equally star-struck chief executive. He too seems to be more interested in playing to adoring throngs than busying himself with the nasty details of genuinely governing. Americans once feared that Ronald Reagan would prove more actor than president, but this honor has fallen to Barack Obama.

By now the tableau is well known. The Moslem world literally erupted in flames and the president of the United States went on a vaudeville tour. More important to him than addressing an international crisis was rubbing elbows with Hollywood stars and pandering to campaign crowds.

Barack Obama loves the limelight. He enjoys being on stage, thrusting his chin forward in a mock-heroic pose and then wowing his devotees with a mellifluous voice projected in perfectly modulated cadences. He looks presidential; he sounds presidential; he is cheered as if he were presidential.

But it is all an act. Obama does not know how to be presidential. He has the external trappings down pat, yet he cannot do the job he was hired to perform. The evidence of what Republicans have taken to describing as a “lack of leadership” is indisputable.

Take Barack’s unwillingness to meet directly with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Iran is threatening to blow Israel off the map with atomic weapons the world says it should not have, and what does our president do? He takes a pass. Or rather he goes on The View to perform for his fans.

The president might also have taken the opportunity to consult with the leaders of Egypt and Libya, but no—the Letterman show took precedence. Indeed where has Barack not performed? He even found time to go on the radio with the “Pimp with a Limp.”

This predilection is not new. Bob Woodward, in his recent book The Price of Politics, makes Obama’s distaste for governing all too clear. Woodward sympathizes with Barack, but time and again our president’s disengagement from the duties of his office breaks through.

Governing is hard, but it is even more difficult if you do not like to associate with elected officials. Negotiating is not easy, especially when you have no skills as a negotiator. Running a competent administration is challenging, but it is even more challenging when you cannot organize your own office.

All of these deficits came into play during the debt-ceiling crisis. Even though Treasury Secretary Geithner argued that the nation was on the brink of another Great Depression, Obama did not have a Plan B when his initial position foundered. Instead, it was necessary for Congress to come to the rescue.

What then was Barack’s last-ditch stab at salvaging the situation? Why it was to go in television to give a speech explaining that it was the Republican’s fault. For our president, when things go wrong, it is always someone else’s fault.

And so it was with the Libyan crisis. According to Barack, our ambassador died because of a silly video trailer. This was not a failure of his diplomacy. Clearly, everyone, including foreign leaders, is enchanted with his silver-tongued speeches. The whole world loves him—and therefore us—hence he cannot be the problem.

Fortunately for Obama, the mainstream media are enthralled with his act, so they keep the bad notices away from public view. Still, no matter how inspiring his simulated presidential routines, they are no substitute for the real thing.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

Obama the Debater Does Not Add Up

The President has said it often. Almost every time he gets on the hustings, he declares that Mitt Romney’s proposals for boosting the economy and reducing the deficit “don’t add up.” He then maintains that it’s “all about the math.” Indeed, he did so again during the first presidential debate.

The problem, from Obama’s point of view, is that his own programs frequently do not add up. This was painfully evident as Barack struggled to make these sound plausible. While he could lambast Romney for failing to offer specifics, his own bill of particulars was woefully lacking.

Take the issue of reducing the deficit. Once more the president claimed that he had a plan for reducing government spending by four trillion dollars. But then he punted the ball. Instead of explaining his plan, he suggested that viewers go on-line to fill in the details.

If they do, they will find that this is the same scheme I discussed in a previous column. At its heart is a proposal to save a trillion dollars on the war in Afghanistan that no one intends to spend. In other words, it is a phony plan that even his supporters have described as depending on “funny money.”

So why did Barack do this? There are several possible reasons. One is that he does not want the public to know he has no real plans for curtailing our unsustainable deficits. Another is that he does not understand the details of his policy. A third is that he was flummoxed by Romney’s assertive questioning.

Obama was certainly off his game when he confronted by his challenger. Despite four years in office, he clearly did not have as good a grasp of the issues as his opponent. As a result, when called out on his shortcomings, he fell back on a grab bag of stale talking points.

He also resorted to flogging trivial correctives for a massive predicament. Thus, he argued that eliminating tax breaks for oil companies and private plane owners would reduce the budget shortfall. The trouble with these adjustments is that while they would save less than ten billion dollars, we are annually in the hole for well over a trillion.

But the real dilemma Obama faced during the debate was more subtle—and more intractable. This was his demeanor. Many commentators have noted that the president rarely looked at Romney as they talked. For the most part, his eyes were on the podium or the moderator.

Worse still, Barack seemed small and unpresidential. Manifestly uncomfortable when being confronted by an assertive rival, it looked like he wanted to be elsewhere. Dare I say it—at times he even appeared to be intimidated by his more self-assured foe.

This was not good! But what made it disastrous is that one of Obama’s greatest strengths has been his unflappability. Others might be thrown off stride by unexpected events, but he always maintained his equanimity. The unspoken message was that whatever the challenge, he could master it.

What is more, thanks to his self-possession, the most egregious nonsense generally sounded reasonable. This was because listeners responded more to his body language than his words. Plainly almost anything he said seemed true because he was so comfortable saying it.

This advantage disserted him last Wednesday. Absent his usual swagger, people could see through the shallowness of his responses. His supporters might not like it, but even they could recognize a pastiche of focus group tested shibboleths, as opposed to a deep understanding of the trials facing our nation.

It is too soon to say what effect Obama’s meltdown will have on the election. His fans will surely forgive him whatever weaknesses he displayed, while his detractors will gloat as his ineptitude. But what of the moderates? What lessons will they draw from this unexpected turn of events?

Michelle Obama looked worried—and she should be!

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University