<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><feed
	xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0"
	xml:lang="en-US"
	>
	<title type="text">Emmett Rensin | Vox</title>
	<subtitle type="text">Our world has too much noise and too little context. Vox helps you understand what matters.</subtitle>

	<updated>2019-03-06T04:47:10+00:00</updated>

	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.vox.com/author/emmett-rensin" />
	<id>https://www.vox.com/authors/emmett-rensin/rss</id>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.vox.com/authors/emmett-rensin/rss" />

	<icon>https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/08/vox_logo_rss_light_mode.png?w=150&amp;h=100&amp;crop=1</icon>
		<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Emmett Rensin</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[I went into the woods a teenage drug addict and came out sober. Was it worth it?]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.vox.com/2016/7/7/12081150/wilderness-therapy" />
			<id>https://www.vox.com/2016/7/7/12081150/wilderness-therapy</id>
			<updated>2017-12-14T11:43:36-05:00</updated>
			<published>2016-07-07T10:40:03-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Criminal Justice" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Features" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Life" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Policy" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[I have only been home for a few hours when two strangers open the bedroom door. It is 6 in the morning, but the disturbance doesn&#8217;t wake me. I am awake already, I don&#8217;t know for how long. Minutes or seconds. These two men preparing in the living room, the last Are you sure, a [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="Brittany Holloway-Brown, Vox" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9870457/Vox-Wilderness-3.3-Final-BHB.0.0.0.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<div class="chorus-snippet center"> <p>I have only been home for a few hours when two strangers open the bedroom door. It is 6 in the morning, but the disturbance doesn&#8217;t wake me. I am awake already, I don&#8217;t know for how long. Minutes or seconds. These two men preparing in the living room, the last <em>Are you sure, </em>a hand on the doorknob. I must have heard it, opened my eyes.</p> <p>They are standing in the doorway, two men, each of them alone more than big enough to move me on his own, one of them speaking, very kind already, <em>Hey. Let&#8217;s go.</em><em> </em></p> <p>My parents are gone. Or they are in the living room, watching. Or they are in the kitchen, or at the front door, a quick goodbye while we pass through to the driveway. My father, not my mother? My mother, my father already in his office?</p> <p>Or it was one of them who woke me up, down on one knee next to my bed, hand on my shoulder, lightly shaking like, <em>Hey buddy, you&#8217;re going be late for school</em>, except it isn&#8217;t that this time. I don&#8217;t remember. I have the sense that they were there, but I can&#8217;t place them.</p> <p>There&#8217;s an SUV in the driveway. One of the men, &#8220;transporters&#8221; I&#8217;ll later learn they&#8217;re called, asks me how old I am.</p> <p>Seventeen.</p> <p><em>When&#8217;s your birthday?</em></p> <p>It is July. I am six weeks into summer school, which I have been attending five days a week despite the fact that I walked out of my parents&#8217; house a month prior with $200 and had, until the night before, been dividing my time between three or four friends with empty couches and a taste or at least a tolerance for the kinds of drugs I like.</p> <q>Some youth wilderness programs are sincere in their effort to help students; some believe help is best achieved by breaking them</q><p>I don&#8217;t know why these friends let it go on for so long. I think my parents must have known where I was, called them, made sure I was at least still living, still going to classes. Why else would they be so willing to be up by 7? Driven me to campus through Los Angeles traffic?</p> <p>Summer school has not been going well. I&#8217;ve fallen asleep each day in music history. I&#8217;m failing tests. On a trip to the Getty Villa, a recreation of a Roman estate high up over the Pacific Coast Highway, I hang back in the bathroom for an hour, convinced I&#8217;m having a heart attack.</p> <p>I&#8217;d come back to my parents&#8217; house the night before after negotiation. In the driveway the next morning, I finally understand why they agreed so easily.</p> <p>My birthday is in January, I say.</p> <p><em>Oh, that&#8217;s not for a while. You&#8217;ll probably be back in time</em> <em>to celebrate</em>.</p> <p>I do not ask where I will be back from. I do not ask or say anything. It is urgent that I remain indifferent. I decide, for reasons I do not quite understand, that there is something to be won by appearing utterly calm. Do I hope this will make me appear stable? <em>You&#8217;ve clearly made a mistake. This boy is fine.</em></p> <p>I am indifferent in the SUV, one transporter up front, the other in the back seat beside me. One highway east, one south out of the Valley. I am indifferent in the parking lot at LAX, and in the terminal, and through security.</p> <p>A TSA officer nods when one of my escorts shows her a pass in lieu of a ticket. He&#8217;s not flying, but both have them, have got to guard me until boarding. I wait for the agent to ask what the hell is going on, but she nods. Evidently I am the only party that has not consented to this abduction.</p> <p>The flight is delayed. We wait the better part of the day in the terminal. We fly, five hours, then another two men and another car and a long drive, and I am as cheery as the first pricks of withdrawal let me. I am indifferent for nearly 40 hours.</p> <p>Then, in the forest, in Georgia, a few yards beyond a large canvas propped up like a tent top, with 10 or 12 men below it, away from them I am sitting on something &mdash; a stump? A rock? My backpack, I don&#8217;t remember &mdash; and crying. <em>For God&#8217;s sake, just let me go just let me talk to my parents just let me have a phone just let me convince, I can convince, I get it, I know, I know you can&#8217;t, but let me just let me just let&#8217;s step back from what we&#8217;re doing what the rules are, just begging I am begging for an exception person to person, just please.</em></p> <p>This is not unusual. I will see a dozen patients come and go in the months before I get back to California. While not all of them beg quite so explicitly, while not all of them cry, most do.</p> <hr> <p>Nobody knows precisely how many youth wilderness programs exist in the United States. Attempts to count them produce wildly different results, anywhere from dozens to over a thousand. Some are licensed, others are not. Some states require that programs register with a regulatory board, but many do not. Parent companies own entire networks of programs and schools but have at times taken legal steps to conceal their connections.</p> <p>The largest umbrella organization for wilderness programs is the <a href="https://www.natsap.org/Public/For%20Parents/Program_Definitions/Public/Parents/Definitions.aspx?hkey=a7e6940c-e009-4359-932a-1d45fb3bc3ec">National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs</a>. The group contains wilderness programs like Second Nature &mdash; the one I was sent to &mdash; and therapeutic boarding schools as well. These schools take students full time, with patients often spending years in them, indoors but subject to the same restrictions encountered in wilderness. These, too, have no official count.</p> <p>These, too, are sparsely staffed, without screening or adequate training, in corporate networks, skirting around the legal borders of health care and its attendant regulation.</p> <p>These too are part of a larger network of business interests, the &#8220;troubled teen industry,&#8221; including transporters and &#8220;educational consultants&#8221; who help parents place students with programs often on the basis of prior relationships and at times on the basis of referral payments; who exert tremendous pressure on transitioning children from wilderness directly into a therapeutic boarding school regardless of the child&#8217;s progress in wilderness.</p> <p>Nicki Bush, a child psychologist, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/08/when-wilderness-boot-camps-take-tough-love-too-far/375582/" rel="noopener">told</a> the Atlantic in 2014 that &#8220;these programs call themselves wilderness therapy or come up with their own categories so that they can avoid the criteria that would apply to, for example, a mental health treatment facility.&#8221;</p> <p>According to the National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs&#8217; <a target="_blank" href="https://www.natsap.org/Public/For%20Parents/Program_Definitions/Public/Parents/Definitions.aspx?hkey=a7e6940c-e009-4359-932a-1d45fb3bc3ec" rel="noopener">definition</a>, wilderness programs:</p> <blockquote><p>subscribe to a diverse treatment model that incorporates a blend of therapeutic modalities, but do so in the context of wilderness environments and backcountry travel. The approach has evolved to include client assessment, development of an individual treatment plan, the use of established psychotherapeutic practice, and the development of aftercare plans. Outdoor behavioral health programs apply wilderness therapy in the field, which contains the following key elements that distinguish it from other approaches found to be effective in working with adolescents: 1) the promotion of self-efficacy and personal autonomy through task accomplishment, 2) a restructuring of the therapist-client relationship through group and communal living facilitated by natural consequences, and 3) the promotion of a therapeutic social group that is inherent in outdoor living arrangements.</p></blockquote> <p>You could be forgiven for believing that this corresponds to any legal or medical theory of treatment. Parents often are.</p> <p>&#8220;When Keith Couch stumbled onto AnswersforParents.com, he thought he was getting exactly what was advertised,&#8221; <a target="_blank" href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/investigations/readers-watchdog/2016/04/16/utah-iowa-marketing-profitable-fix-troubled-teens/82671274/" rel="noopener">reported</a> the Des Moines Register in April 2016, &#8220;a free referral service to help the couple identify &#8216;some of the top Youth Development Programs in the world.'&#8221;</p> <p>&#8220;The Couches now believe they were unwittingly steered toward Iowa&#8217;s Midwest Academy by a business more geared toward profit than therapy. In Utah, where AnswersforParents is based, a whole industry surrounding troubled teens has delivered cash and kids to controversial residential facilities for more than 30 years, experts say.&#8221;</p> <p>These businesses tend to be in Utah. Or in Georgia. In any state where the law makes it easier for parents to sign over temporary custody, where small towns cannot betray them for fear of ruining the biggest business in town.</p> <p>&#8220;There&#8217;s social capital to having one of these in your area,&#8221; Bush told the Atlantic.</p> <p>&#8220;Moreover, because the youth that are put there are predominantly at risk for something &mdash; either they have some peer problems or behavior problems or social problems, etcetera &mdash; when something happens to them, people tend to dismiss it as, &lsquo;Well, they&#8217;re bad teens.'&#8221;</p> <p>The biggest business I ever saw in Clayton, Georgia, was a salvage yard.</p> <hr> <p>Before I go into the woods and join my group, I am processed in a small office beside a car salvage yard. It&#8217;s late. The woman who does my intake has stayed late for this, and she hurries through the steps. Maybe she always hurries through the cavity search.</p> <p>I&#8217;m measured and weighed. She draws my blood. They take my clothes and give me my uniform: two bright teal shirts, two pairs of cargo pants that can be unzipped into shorts. Hiking boots. A full-body backpack and smaller sacks to go in it.</p> <p>The transporters told me to bring books, if I liked, but all three I&#8217;ve brought are taken while we&#8217;re waiting for the results of my drug test.</p> <p>&#8220;You can get them back with your therapist&#8217;s permission after you&#8217;re settled in,&#8221; she says.</p> <p>I never get permission. The group therapist, a man named Paul<a href="#asterisk">*</a> who brings his dog to work and who has the friendly affect of a man overestimating his own charm, says I like abstraction too much. Books contribute to this problem. I need to learn to focus on myself, see the situation around me as it really is &mdash; by which they mean, as it will have to be from now on.</p> <hr> <p>For the first few days, you&#8217;re alone. This is intended, in part, to allow you to observe before participating, to acclimate to the woods and to the hikes and to sleeping outdoors, to detox if you have to, before becoming responsible for your share of the group&#8217;s labor. You see the rituals before you join them. You learn how you are supposed to look.</p> <p>But the isolation is also a tantrum buffer, a space in which to protest or cry or passively resist without directly impeding the activities of other patients. You&#8217;re given a journal, some food, a plastic spoon. It is a temporary luxury &mdash; you&#8217;ll need to throw it out soon and make your own from wood.</p> <p>You are told to write your life story. No further instruction, although there are wrong answers.</p> <p>You&#8217;re told that you&#8217;re in &#8220;Earth Phase,&#8221; the first of four phases, each with attendant privileges. Earth Phase is the shortest: It ends after a few days when a clumsy, semi-serious ceremony carried out in perfect seriousness welcomes you into the group proper.</p> <p>You enter &#8220;Fire Phase,&#8221; like most everybody else. You sleep under your own tarp after that. You talk to the others. You participate in therapy and carry your share of group supplies. You help cook. You enter ordinary life, or a life that will come to feel ordinary soon.</p> <p>(There are two other phases &mdash; &#8220;Water&#8221; and then &#8220;Air&#8221; &mdash; achieved by completing a variety of tasks. These include reading and writing, accomplishing certain key therapy events, demonstrating certain wilderness skills such as weaving a length of string no less than 6 inches from bark, capable of holding a 50-pound weight suspended for an hour. Some of these tasks have explicitly therapeutic purposes: Fill out this 12-Step Workbook. Some &mdash; for example, a book report on <em>Man&#8217;s Search for Meaning &mdash;</em> do not.</p> <p>I am Water Phase by the time I leave, a status that carries with it a small personal flashlight. Only one patient achieves Air Phase in my time there: He gets an air mattress and a folding chair, impossible luxuries.)</p> <p>Any group that requires its members to tolerate one another&#8217;s presence at all moments of each day, and that furthermore expects them to provide constant therapeutic support for one another, must induce shared trust.</p> <q>In every story you&#8217;ll ever read about these programs, there is a sentence introducing the reader to their very existence. <em>You&#8217;ve probably never heard of this industry, but&#8230;</em></q><p>At Second Nature this was accomplished in a number of ways, largely through rigid communication structures. All conservation takes place within staff earshot. Certain kinds of conversation &mdash; for example, &#8220;war storying,&#8221; i.e., valorizing past misdeeds &mdash; are forbidden. Important conversation occurs in &#8220;groups&#8221; of tiered importance. Standing groups are casual, for the organization of chores and small grievances. Sitting groups are slightly heavier, for therapeutic confession and conflict resolution.</p> <p>Stick groups &mdash; sitting groups opened and closed with the ceremonial breaking of a stick and a few words of incantation &mdash; are the most serious of all, reserved for heavy and notable moments in group therapy.</p> <p>We make structured statements. &#8220;I feel <em>x </em>because I believe <em>y</em>; when <em>p </em>did <em>q, </em>I felt <em>z.</em>&#8221; Second Nature is very bullish on the notion that emotional states are a consequence of belief. <em>If you&#8217;re angry because someone shoved you, it&#8217;s because you believe, rightly or wrongly, that people shouldn&#8217;t push each other</em>. As if rage required cognition.</p> <p>Group trust is also accomplished by breaking in new members; by pointed, communal humiliation. The first stick group I participate in is the reading of my &#8220;letter of accountability.&#8221; Everybody has one.</p> <p>The group is convened, a stick is cracked, and you are given a letter written by your parents. You have not read it before, and you will read it aloud now: a liturgy of disappointments and misbehavior, concern, well wishes. At the behest of the program it includes particular incidents, particular wrongs.</p> <p><em>We did not miscount the money on the counter. But even when we confronted you, you insisted you hadn&#8217;t taken it. The lying hurts more than the theft, and we don&#8217;t know what to do anymore</em>. It comes down to: <em>You&#8217;ve hurt us</em>.</p> <p>It is difficult to remain aloof after this experience. You are part of the group, and you will later read a reply you write to your parents, subject to critique by other patients. <em>I feel like you&#8217;re evading;</em> <em>I wonder if you&#8217;re not rationalizing there</em>. It is unclear if your peers are particularly concerned with the honesty of your reply. I never was.</p> <p>But there are phrases you learn to say, evasions you learn to look for and point out. It is important that staff see that you have grown since you arrived, that you are now helping others through their difficult early days.</p> <p>You come to like your group, at any rate. How could you not? There is no one else. I come to like Jackson, a wiry tweaker so evidently bullshitting his way through the program that it is a wonder he is allowed to leave at all. I come to like Rich, proportioned like a high school football player too skinny for the pros, who is at once capable of demonstrating <em>peer leadership</em> and always being very slightly in trouble with staff.</p> <p>I come to like &#8220;Cool Mike.&#8221; He is 13 years old, and his parents have sent him here for excessive marijuana use.</p> <hr> <p>On the third day, I run.</p> <p>It&#8217;s morning when I do it, early enough that I don&#8217;t have my shoes back yet. We&#8217;re breaking down camp and staff looks away for a moment, and I walk over a pebble ridge in just thick socks. I don&#8217;t know how long it takes for them to realize I am gone. Nobody yells. Nobody runs after me soon enough for me to see them.</p> <p>We&#8217;re in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, trails and roads elevated between ravines above tributaries. I stay off the road for hours, stay between trees. I walk across shallow water a few times, believing this will help if Second Nature makes use of tracking dogs. I shit in the woods without digging a hole and don&#8217;t bury it; fuck them and fuck Leave no Trace.</p> <p>I do not know what my plan is. I walked off on impulse, and it is several hours before <em>Now what? </em>cannot be deferred in the name of outrunning imagined, immediate pursuit. I do not know the way to Clayton and do not make a conscious effort to walk in a single direction. Second Nature operates at the southern tip of the Appalachians, and for all I know I am headed further in.</p> <p>I still believe that if I can only get ahold of my parents, talk to them directly, they&#8217;ll see reason. After three or four hours, I decide this has been my course of action all along: Get to town, get a phone, call, and beg.</p> <p>In the afternoon I see a pickup truck parked next to a stream. An older man is fishing; a woman is sitting in the car. I am still wearing my orange safety vest when I walk over, but even if I had taken it off, they might have noticed I wasn&#8217;t wearing any shoes. They might have known in any case: These are locals, and Second Nature is the biggest business around.</p> <p>If they do know, they say nothing. They give me a small bottle of water and a cigarette. I&#8217;m soaking from the knees down in river water, from the waist up with sweat. We talk about how humid it is for late July.</p> <p>I walk away and head up onto a road. During a hike the day before, I noticed how many bulletin boards there are on the roadside and believe I may be able to locate a map on one of them. But I am only on the road for 10 minutes before a white van passes me, then comes to a stop some 200 yards ahead.</p> <p>Two staffers come out, and I run the other way. I&#8217;m exhausted; they catch me quick. I go limp, say nothing, and they carry me into the van. I don&#8217;t know how far I&#8217;ve gotten or how far my group hiked that day, but we are back inside of five minutes.</p> <p>I spend the next week on &#8220;watch,&#8221; sleeping tucked in between bodies in the staff tent. Shouting won&#8217;t cut it anymore &mdash; when I use the bathroom, a counselor comes with me.</p> <p>My group did solos, three-day periods of solitude for patients, only once during my time there. They came three days after my escape attempt, and so I am forced to set up my tarp a few dozen yards from where staffers will spend the next three days, within easy sight but subject to a silent treatment.</p> <p>God knows how I ruined their vacation. God knows what they do when they get to camp a few days, with no patients to watch and no patients watching them.</p> <hr> <p>Some youth wilderness programs are worse than others. Methods vary. Some are sincere in their effort to help students; some believe help is best achieved by breaking them. Reality television shows have caught on to these boot camps, but none have bothered to see if they work. The National Institutes of Health believe these programs can <a target="_blank" href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/investigations/readers-watchdog/2016/04/16/utah-iowa-marketing-profitable-fix-troubled-teens/82671274/" rel="noopener">worsen</a> existing behavioral problems.</p> <p>&#8220;Experts say schools associated with the network and others modeled after them have made millions of dollars marketing fixes to parents with out-of-control or drug-addicted teens,&#8221; the Des Moines Register <a target="_blank" href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/investigations/readers-watchdog/2016/04/16/utah-iowa-marketing-profitable-fix-troubled-teens/82671274/" rel="noopener">reported</a>. &#8220;The schools get new clients from troubled-teen websites in which consultants are paid for referrals.&#8221;</p> <p>In a<a target="_blank" href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2016/04/16/former-midwest-academy-employee-says-student-spent-47-days-isolation/82702352/" rel="noopener"> story </a>published the same week, the Register interviewed a former employee of Midwest Academy, now shuttered, whose director has been accused of sexual abuse, fraud, and child neglect. The employee, Nathan Teggerdine, told the Register that the program made no effort to distinguish between students truly in need of help and those being disposed of by their parents.</p> <div class="float-right s-sidebar"> <h4>More from First Person</h4> <a target="new" href="http://www.vox.com/2014/9/29/6840773/confessions-of-a-former-internet-troll" rel="noopener"> <img data-chorus-asset-id="6747685" alt="Screen_Shot_2014-09-24_at_5.50.41_PM.0.0.0.png" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6747685/Screen_Shot_2014-09-24_at_5.50.41_PM.0.0.0.png"> </a><p><a target="new" href="http://www.vox.com/2014/9/29/6840773/confessions-of-a-former-internet-troll" rel="noopener">Confessions of a former internet troll</a></p> </div> <p>&#8220;I had kids in there who had committed assault, and others who were just being disrespectful or not getting along with their siblings,&#8221; Teggerdine told the paper. &#8220;It just felt like those students were being shipped off because they were being difficult to handle. But the thing is, they weren&#8217;t being taken care of.&#8221;</p> <p>You hear this story all the time reading about wilderness and about therapeutic boarding schools. Parents are terrified. They&#8217;re preyed upon by &#8220;consultants&#8221; working for referral fees. Their students are taken regardless of their needs. They are transferred between programs, as many as the consultant can persuade the parents of. The money comes in quick.</p> <p>In 2007, the Government Accountability Office <a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08146t.pdf">compiled a report</a> on wilderness therapy and residential treatment programs, concluding that these programs were dangerously underregulated.</p> <p>&#8220;We found thousands of allegations of abuse, some of which involved death, at residential treatment programs across the country and in American-owned and American-operated facilities abroad between the years 1990 and 2007,&#8221; the report says.</p> <p>The examples cited include the 2001 death of a 16-year-old girl who fell 50 feet while climbing in an &#8220;extremely dangerous area,&#8221; and a 14-year-old boy who became so dehydrated that he began to compulsively &#8220;eat dirt from the desert floor.&#8221; His &#8220;limp body&#8221; was placed into a sleeping bag, where he died.</p> <p>Another example:</p> <blockquote> <p>In May 1990, a 15-year-old female was enrolled in a 9-week wilderness program. Although the program brochure claimed that counselors were &#8220;highly trained survival experts,&#8221; they did not recognize the signs of dehydration when she began complaining of blurred vision, stumbling, and vomiting water 3 days into a hike.</p> <p>According to police documents, on the fifth day and after nearly 2 days of serious symptoms, the dying teen finally collapsed and became unresponsive, at which point counselors attempted to signal for help using a fire because they were not equipped with radios.</p> <p>Police documents state that the victim lay dead in a dirt road for 18 hours before rescuers arrived.</p> </blockquote> <p>Who, precisely, did they expect to rescue by then?</p> <p>Shortly after the girl&#8217;s death, the program was closed. Its founder relocated to Nevada, where she opened another. These relocations are common. A new name and a new headquarters, often in a state less inclined to regulate troubled teen programs, can allow criminally negligent programs to survive for years.</p> <p>In 2008, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act was <a target="_blank" href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr5876" rel="noopener">introduced</a> in Congress. The National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs, along with other industry groups, lobbied against it. It died in the Senate.</p> <p>In May 2013, the bill was <a target="_blank" href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1981" rel="noopener">introduced again</a>. It died in the House.</p> <p>In every story you&#8217;ll ever read about these programs, there is a sentence introducing the reader to the very existence of these programs. <em>You&#8217;ve probably never heard of this industry, but&#8230;</em></p> <p>In every conversation I&#8217;ve ever had about them, someone says, <em>I&#8217;ve never heard about any of this before</em>. <em>I&#8217;ve never seen anything about it at all</em>.</p> <hr> <p>We hike five days a week.</p> <p>In the morning we eat grains and oats, then break down camp: individual tarps, group tarps, pots and pan and other supplies. We load them into full-body backpacks and go.</p> <p>Hikes can last a few hours. They can last a day. They are interrupted by lunch, culled individually from the personal food supply each of us is granted per week (a pack of soft tortillas, three pieces of fruit, two ramen packs, and canned diced chicken). They are interrupted when a fight breaks out, or when somebody refuses to hike. They are interrupted by injuries.</p> <p>When we reach our destination, we set up camp. Each of us has a flat tarp and string. We know the knots for creating shelter within trees: A-frames, slants, more elaborate designs if you&#8217;re able.</p> <p>We bow-drill for fire. Each of us has built a bow and a pummel and a top stone; somebody busts an ember to cook, or the dehydrated beans and rice we eat for dinner go cold. They give us communal meat and cheese on supply days, but it goes bad fast in August.</p> <p>If the light isn&#8217;t out yet when everything is done, we might play a game. My group prefers Mafia, and I will say you haven&#8217;t really played it until you&#8217;ve played it with a dozen teenagers, gathered because they are duplicitous fuck-ups.</p> <p>We leave our shoes beside our tarps, and staffers collect them. We&#8217;re alone in bed. We sleep.</p> <hr> <p>Except sleep, solitary, shoeless, and in darkness, nothing happens at Second Nature outside of the earshot and eyesight of staff. Over three months I will not have a private conversation with a fellow patient, nor be alone with any of them. Even perfectly audible conversations may be ruled technically <em>out of earshot</em>, if, for example, they are about a topic with which the staff is totally unfamiliar and therefore incapable of monitoring for forbidden subject matter.</p> <p>(This will occur several times during hikes when Rich, a tall Canadian ketamine dealer, and I get to talking about computer science, and staffers are unsure whether we are telling &#8220;war stories,&#8221; inappropriate glorifications of the bad behavior that got us here).</p> <p>In daylight, a staff member can always see you. One leads the hike, one brings up the rear. They form a triangle at camp; each one always has at least 60 degrees of vision.</p> <q>The environment is &#8220;secure,&#8221; it is a &#8220;gift,&#8221; it will &#8220;transform&#8221; everything from your child to your family to your life</q><p>There is an exception to this rule. When we shit or shower (fill a sack with river water, strip, and pour; repeat as necessary), we are allowed some privacy. But there is a catch. When out of sight, we must shout our first name every three to five seconds, loud enough to be heard at camp.</p> <p>The first time I try to, I cut myself short, go back to camp, don&#8217;t use the bathroom for days. I have to eventually, waddling up now swollen to the latrine another patient dug, yelling, half-assed, like a kid acutely embarrassed by fun.</p> <p>This is precisely as ridiculous as you imagine. Or it is for a while. Shouting your own name, especially with pants down, or naked, does not become normal, but it is quickly unremarkable.<strong> </strong></p> <hr> <p>Second Nature was founded in 1998, by Cheryl Kehl and Devan Glissmeyer. Its first campus was in the Uinta mountain range, in Utah, but within a few years the program had expanded to Georgia, where Second Nature Blue Ridge opened in 2002, five years before I arrived. In 22 years, they say when I reached out for this story, nobody has ever died at Second Nature.</p> <p>Today it has added additional programs for adults and younger children, as well as a second Utah location and a location in Oregon. Each site serves around 200 students per year, at a cost of nearly $500 a day, some of which may be covered by insurance.</p> <p>Second Nature&#8217;s <a target="_blank" href="http://adolescents.snwp.com/" rel="noopener">website </a>is filled with videos. On the homepage is a teenage girl, who tells us that Second Nature changed her life. We see pictures of smiling students and the Georgia wilderness. A man&#8217;s voice intones: Second Nature <em>restores families to wholeness</em>.</p> <p>It brings about <em>miracles in the lives of troubled youths</em>. He speaks like a television pastor, like an infomercial for an animal charity. <em>Your confusion and fear and concern can be transformed into a better future for your child and family</em>.</p> <p>&#8220;Looking back, nothing else could&#8217;ve helped me,&#8221; the girl says. &#8220;I am healthy and hopeful.&#8221; She sounds like she is reading these words for the first time.</p> <p><a target="_blank" href="http://adolescents.snwp.com/why-second-nature/frequently-asked-questions/" rel="noopener">The FAQ</a> contains more than 30 videos, a 90-second clip answering every question. Most feature Dr. Brad Reedy, sitting in a study with a phony-looking fireplace. Many of the questions are mundane: What will my child eat? How will they keep warm? What is the average stay?</p> <p>But many touch on more abstract subjects. <em>How does wilderness work</em>? a video asks. &#8220;Through the use of metaphors, of rituals, of living in the wilderness&#8221; Reedy answers. It creates a sense of <em>empowerment</em> in a <em>difficult but safe</em> environment.</p> <p>&#8220;This little universe teaches them how the big universe operates,&#8221; he says. It teaches them about <em>natural</em> and <em>logical</em> consequences. &#8220;You don&#8217;t need a lecture when your tarp falls down in the rain,&#8221; he explains.</p> <p>Throughout the videos, certain themes recur. The environment is &#8220;secure,&#8221; it is a &#8220;gift,&#8221; it will &#8220;transform&#8221; everything from your child to your family to your life. &#8220;There&#8217;s more than resignation and acceptance,&#8221; one says; the child &#8220;invests&#8221; in their treatment. They &#8220;buy in.&#8221; They &#8220;understand what&#8217;s at stake&#8221; and &#8220;want to do the work.&#8221;</p> <p>Watching all of Second Nature&#8217;s videos, it is clear that this is the program&#8217;s fundamental promise: We will get your child to <em>invest</em> in what&#8217;s happening to him. We&#8217;ll direct your money to a consultant, we&#8217;ll push him toward long-term care, we&#8217;ll threaten you with your child&#8217;s death to get him here, but at bottom we promise: Your child will leave an active collaborator in his good behavior. He&#8217;ll be <em>transformed</em>.</p> <p>But what, precisely, were we being <em>transformed </em>into?</p> <p>To hear the rhetoric, to see the stock photography of nature, to hear Dr. Reedy mumble &#8220;Native American spirituality&#8221; in one video, you might believe the goal was profundity. That we were to develop a desire to live predicated on a radical discovery of meaning, Thoreau-at-Walden, a vision quest, something sacred and vulnerable and particular to every one of us.</p> <p>But that isn&#8217;t what happened to me, and I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s what happened to the others, either.</p> <p>We accepted that we were trapped. We accepted the <em>logical</em> and <em>natural</em> consequences of bad behavior. We discovered that our day-to-day happiness and our long-term prospects for freedom were dependent on <em>buying in</em>. We lied, at first. We spoke the program&#8217;s language and performed the qualities they were looking for. Eventually these became routine.</p> <p>I was not lying when I left, but I had not been <em>transformed </em>into a believer, either. It was only automatic: a vacant animation of the easiest way to get along and get out.</p> <p><em>This little universe is how the big universe works.</em></p> <hr> <p>If there is an American paragon for the myth of transformation by wilderness, it is Henry David Thoreau. As legend would have it, he was the first to go outside for a long time and to find that in so doing a person might cast aside bad habits and bad thoughts and be permanently altered by the experience.</p> <p>He wasn&#8217;t, of course, but it is worth noting that Thoreau did not go to Walden Pond in order to make himself more agreeable to the society he left behind. The whole enterprise was nearly sabotaged when he was jailed for taxes owed; the purpose of his trip was not to learn how to deal with his defiant tendencies but to escape a civilization that could not accommodate his personality.</p> <p>He did what, in the rhetoric of Second Nature, would be called a failure to &#8220;buy in&#8221; to his own well-being.</p> <p>&#8220;I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practice resignation, unless it was quite necessary,&#8221; Thoreau writes. If Walden transformed him, it did not transform him into a man who saw the value in learning to resign himself more easily.</p> <hr> <p>Although we do not know where or for how long we are hiking, we imagine there is a plan. We imagine a map back at the office, the next week&#8217;s worth of routes plotted for each of half a dozen groups.</p> <p>Once, we are forced to stop along a westbound path for the better part of an hour while another group, barely audible, moves southward up ahead. But there are few near misses. The plans work: lines traveling on a map of the Blue Ridge Mountains, careful to never crisscross.</p> <p>Geography varies. We travel low along riverbeds under the cover of heavy trees. We ascend barely perceptible inclines. We make sharp turns up steep mountains, coming around bends to see our old path a thousand feet below.</p> <p>We must stay near water, but unless supplies are coming in we rarely stay at official campsites. So long as there are trees to strip up tarps, we can sleep.</p> <img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6747689/Vox-Wilderness-3.1-Final-BHB.0.jpg" alt="Vox-Wilderness-3.1-Final-BHB.0.jpg" data-chorus-asset-id="6747689"><p class="caption">(Brittany Holloway-Brown/Vox)</p> <p>But during a thunderstorm, trees crack and fall. We sit far apart, at least 30 feet between us, backpacks beneath us, both feet planted firmly on the ground. An hour and nobody moves. The sound of an oak tree exploding and the bark drumming down with the rain.</p> <p>The sound of staffers stopping short on a hike when we come over the ridge of a high hill, and across is the side of a mountain, brown and black over thickets of twisted grass. We hike on, but it&#8217;s slow going. We&#8217;re top-heavy with our packs on. We trip in the underbrush.</p> <p>Crossing takes hours and the desolation continues over every ridge, and when night comes we are still not out of it. We set up camp. For the first time, staffers come and check every tree we&#8217;ve strung our tarps against, check every tree nearby.</p> <p>They don&#8217;t say what the trouble is. They don&#8217;t say they were surprised. Officially, everything is as it should be. The program has planned for this. But back in the office on the map on the wall, there is a line crossing a controlled burn zone. They didn&#8217;t know.</p> <hr> <p>Some people can work the program better than others. There are genuine enthusiasts. There are liars. There are those of us who do not quite know what we are doing anymore, but who understand, as everybody does, that cooperation will make this easier on everyone.</p> <p>Doug arrives three weeks after I do, and by the time I left he was still not working at all. Doug throws tantrums. He refuses to walk, to speak, to eat. He stomps his feet and screams, he cries, and for sheer endurance the whole thing is a bravura performance, except that he is not performing. Like all of us, he arrives believing that he has fallen victim to an injustice from which he must immediately extricate himself. He never stops believing this.</p> <p>We&#8217;re sympathetic to Doug, but he holds us up. If he refuses to walk, none of us walk. If he refuses to eat, we&#8217;ve got to have a circle group to talk about it. Some of this is by design: If Doug&#8217;s behavior inconveniences the rest of us, the rest of us will exert whatever individual effort we can to bring him into conformity with the group. If it fails, we will resent him, not wonder if every one of us shouldn&#8217;t be protesting too.</p> <p>Bad Doug is petulant, but his real trouble is that he&#8217;s dim. It is clear that he has some kind of developmental disorder. He&#8217;s never conned anyone in his life. He is told by staff, by Paul, by the whole program that he should be honest, and he is. He does not understand what they are asking of him.</p> <p>Late in my stay, when the disappearance of most of our group has left me by far the most senior, I mention this to Paul. I&#8217;d like to help Doug, I say, but I worry that he doesn&#8217;t understand the advantage of going along. &#8220;Some of this, at least for a while, is just pretending,&#8221; I say, &#8220;That makes it easier. But he doesn&#8217;t get that.&#8221;</p> <p>Paul pauses and allows that this may be true.</p> <hr> <p>Subject line on a forum for former patients: <em>Nearly 15 years past. Does it ever get easier to deal with?</em></p> <p>Another: <em>Been half a decade but still having trouble getting over my school.</em></p> <p>Another: <em>Ten years out and I still notice if I go a whole day without thinking about it.</em></p> <p>A post:</p> <blockquote><p>In seminars, where they broke us emotionally and mentally, they taught us to admit to and internalize crimes that we had not committed &#8230; to truly understand that we were at fault for the things other had done to us &#8230; all of us, boys and girls (anything beyond that wasn&#8217;t allowed), were taught that our rapes, our abuses, our neglect, was 100% our fault.</p></blockquote> <p>Another:</p> <blockquote><p>While we were there we were required to write a letter to our parents confessing all the bad things we had done, how we were flawed, broken people and how we needed to be fixed.</p></blockquote> <div class="float-left s-sidebar"> <h4>More from First Person</h4> <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/2/5/7942623/mens-rights-movement" target="new" rel="noopener"> <img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6747691/shutterstock_169147106.0.0.0.jpg" alt="shutterstock_169147106.0.0.0.jpg" data-chorus-asset-id="6747691"> </a><p><a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/2/5/7942623/mens-rights-movement" target="new" rel="noopener">The internet is full of men who hate feminism. Here&#8217;s what they&#8217;re like in person.</a></p> </div> <p>On this small forum alone, there are more than a hundred posts that use &#8220;torture&#8221; or &#8220;abuse&#8221;; dozens from those who are five, 10, 15 years out and still preoccupied by their experiences in wilderness. Many are just the names of programs. &#8220;Were you here?&#8221; &#8220;Any other survivors from this place?&#8221;</p> <p>They go on for pages and pages.</p> <p>It is difficult to know how often and to what extent these institutions traumatize their patients. Some schools, some programs, are surely worse than others. But it is difficult to escape the impression that many of these reports are hyperbolic. What is wilderness, even multi-year stints in therapeutic boarding school, compared with even criminal incarceration? Abduction, torture, war?</p> <p>I called one of the contributors on the phone. She was my age and from the same city; she went to Second Nature at the same time, but to another location, in Utah. She has asthma, and the staff carried inhalers for her.</p> <p>She told me about a long hike, well into the night and so extraordinary that the staff admitted they were lost. &#8220;It was really foggy,&#8221; she says, &#8220;and we were hiking uphill, up steep hills. We had all run out of water, and I was having trouble breathing.&#8221; She had an asthma attack, she says, but was denied her inhaler by a staffer.</p> <p>&#8220;She told me that I was faking my asthma attack, that I was trying to be manipulative because I wanted a break,&#8221; she told me. &#8220;I was audibly breathing at that point, pretty bad, and I was starting to get panicky. I asked another staffer, &#8216;Please, please ask her to give me my inhaler, I really need it.&#8217; And the other staffer took her aside and convinced her, had to convince her to give me my inhaler.&#8221;</p> <p>She tells me this was common, that staffers would routinely insist that patients who weren&#8217;t feeling well were engaging in deliberate manipulation. She says she began to prepare for the possibility that she would not get her inhaler until she collapsed.</p> <p>In the 2014<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/08/when-wilderness-boot-camps-take-tough-love-too-far/375582/"> Atlantic article</a>, Sulome Anderson wrote that &#8220;critics of &#8230; wilderness programs point out the lack of regulation for these businesses, citing abuse allegations as well as deaths that have taken place at such programs.&#8221;</p> <p>Despite elevated attention, these abuses haven&#8217;t stopped. As recently as January 2016, Midwest Academy in Keokuk, Iowa, <a href="http://www.thonline.com/news/opinion/article_24cef152-ecc8-5f91-922c-61a06276c339.html">was raided and shut down</a> by police after allegations of sexual abuse by staff.</p> <p>I do not think of myself as a survivor. I did not suffer permanent injury in Georgia, and I cannot reject completely the argument that the program helped. I was a drug addict when I went in and sober when I came out. Could this have been accomplished in a more pleasant way? I don&#8217;t know. How could I?</p> <p>The girl I spoke to does not know either. After Second Nature, she spent two years in a therapeutic boarding school, convinced, like all of us were, that this would all be over soon.</p> <p>&#8220;What seems obvious to me now, but wasn&#8217;t at the time, is that from the day I was sent to wilderness I was never going to come home,&#8221; she says. &#8220;My parents were never going to rescue me. They were never going to come get me early. They were not going to let me come home after wilderness.&#8221;</p> <p>&#8220;I was told perpetually throughout the first few weeks at Second Nature that I&#8217;d be there a few weeks, and then go home,&#8221; she says. &#8220;That was a lie they told us to get us to work the program. Most kids are sent to a residential treatment center no matter what. It&#8217;s decided in advance. Now I know there was no chance that I was going to come home. I was going to be gone for two years, from the day I got escorted to the wilderness.&#8221;</p> <p>She does not know if it helped her, those full two years of her life.</p> <p><em>Does it get easier to deal with? The honest answer is that I don&#8217;t think so</em>, goes a reply to one post, <em>I think the only thing that changes is that we go forward in life, which is not quite the same as moving on. To some extent I think we probably do move on, but I think it is a fairly muted form of doing so</em>.</p> <p>Muted is right, but I cannot quite tell you why.</p> <p>I suspect reasonable people will conclude that allegations of abuse are serious, that some programs go too far. But, they&#8217;ll go on, there&#8217;s a difference between kids who were really tortured and kids who just didn&#8217;t like the tough love.</p> <p>Maybe so, and so maybe it is easy to see why some former patients are inclined to strong language, to anger, to proving that something bad happened to them, something beyond a bummer time for a shitty teen, something that should not happen to anyone.</p> <p>When I began writing this piece, I wanted that too. I wanted to find some proof that Second Nature was among the bad places, the kind of proof that you can print in a magazine. I wanted to justify why I am writing this at all, why I was the one who wrote, <em>Ten years out and I still notice if I go a whole day without thinking about it. </em>That was me.</p> <p>When I first read Anderson&#8217;s article, I thought I had found it: &#8220;As recently as six months ago, police began investigating allegations that a counselor at Second Nature Blue Ridge, a wilderness program in Georgia, forced a 14-year-old into a sexual encounter. That investigation is ongoing.&#8221;</p> <p>But the link is dead. The story, and any other stories about the investigation, are no longer on the Clayton Tribune&#8217;s website. A search of the archives yields nothing. When I wrote the paper to request a copy, they told me they didn&#8217;t know &mdash; it was a different staff then; they don&#8217;t know the details anymore, or what happened to the story.</p> <p>I don&#8217;t know the results of that investigation. I do not know what the particular allegations were, or who made them. But I believe it.</p> <hr> <p>Paul did not tend to believe me. We had a difference of opinion regarding my problems.</p> <p>He believed, soundly, I suppose, that most patients&#8217; trouble arises from a lack of self-awareness. They try to fix the wrong problems, don&#8217;t understand their own motives, sublimate and deflect.</p> <p>But more than that, he had a particularly narrow sense of what might be hiding under a teenager&#8217;s superficial rationales. Drugs, in his view, were always a way to medicate unhappiness; always indicative of depression or anxiety, the kind that could be treated with conventional methods if only the patient realized she was self-medicating.</p> <p>I do not know how often this diagnosis was correct. In the absence of a specific trauma in patient history, I imagine it explained 80 percent of his cases.</p> <p>I do not know, either, if it was ultimately true of me. But I know that at the time, when I insisted that I did what I did in large part because I was bored and surrounded by friends who were already using, he did not try to persuade me. He only told me I was wrong and implied that a failure to move past this insistence would jeopardize his assessment of my progress, and therefore my release.</p> <p>I know that I learned to say what I was meant to be feeling, to have scripted conversations reflecting my progress along expected lines.</p> <p>It was not that I accepted these platitudes, but it was not that I was lying, either. I learned to suspend any feeling at all, to play a game like this might as well be true, to treat my sessions as events removed from myself, where I was not really present at all. I learned to give him what he wanted if I wanted this to end.</p> <hr> <p>There are no mirrors in the wilderness. For months, you do not see your own reflection.</p> <p>You catch a version of it in the water, too dark and rippling, or in steel, on the hubcap of the supply truck, sun smashed on the steel. The glare blinds you if you try to meet your own eyes.</p> <p>You know that your body is changing. Your hair grows longer. You gain weight or you lose it. Your legs become thick. For all the bags of river water you pour over your own head, your skin is caked and cracked with dirt. You put your palm to your face and feel the beard growing in, take stock in the manner of the blind, press fingertips down to find your cheekbones, your jawline, your neck. You see the others changing and think you must be changing as they are.</p> <q>There is an American myth that goes like this: A man goes into the wilderness to escape his life. There, away from society, closer to some primal way of being, he finds clarity.</q><p>You forget that is a strange thing. How many times you met your own eyes in ordinary life. The faculty for tracking incremental difference becomes dedicated to leaves, to rocks, to sky, to the footfalls of the others.</p> <p>Then a car ride. Then the road, the salvage yard, the small office where your clothes are given back. Then a small bathroom by yourself, where you must remember you do not need to shout, where there is a shower but there is a mirror, too, and there you are. Your own eyes back at you straight on, without the murky interference of shallow water.</p> <p>You see yourself the way a friend does who has not seen you in a while. In the manner of parents at the curbside, waiting for a son come back for his first collegiate Christmas. All at once transformed.</p> <p>The novelty wears quickly. The beard goes and the legs wither, too.<strong> </strong></p> <hr> <p>In wilderness it is impossible to know what anybody is thinking. Surely some of them believe in the program, really do, and surely some of them are liars. Some of us are unsure what we are doing.</p> <p>I am closer to Rich than to anyone, but our friendship is as performed as it is genuine. I like him and I believe he likes me, but we speak for the benefit of the staff, at least a little bit, always.</p> <p>I suspect that he, too, occupies some space between sincerity and deception. I suspect that he has become automatic in his acceptance of the program, that he means it in a vacant way. But I do not know. He has been here a long time and is, if nothing else, very good at speaking the program&#8217;s language, performing its concerns.</p> <p>Rich leaves three or four weeks before I do. Like everyone, he finds out he is going an hour before he goes. When somebody leaves Second Nature, they give away their goods to the others: food, walking sticks, anything they cannot take with them.</p> <p>When Rich leaves, camp is in unusual chaos. We&#8217;re spread out everywhere. Supplies are coming in; his parents are in a car waiting. He rushes between us: his ramen to Mike, his bow to Andrew. He won a bag of M&amp;Ms the week before, the promise for anyone who can bust an ember in under 30 seconds. He hands what&#8217;s left of them to all of us.</p> <p>I am nearly at Water Phase, and one of my remaining tasks is to create a length of string by weaving bark, one that can hold up a heavy bag for an hour. Rich has been Water Phase for a while, and he is meant to teach me how to do this but has not had time.</p> <p>When he comes to me he&#8217;s manic, grinning; <em>he&#8217;s going home</em>. He shakes my hand. He presses his own bark string into it. <em>Just tell them I showed you how to make it</em>, he says, and then he goes.</p> <hr> <p>There is an American myth that goes like this: A man goes into the wilderness to escape his life. There, away from society, closer to some primal way of being, he finds clarity. He finds that he had not been living at all, not really, but now he is transformed and happy and at peace.</p> <p>It is an old myth. It has animated centuries of our history, easily adapted, from the genocidal imperialism of Protestant frontiersmen to the proto-libertarianism of Thoreau, through the Christianity of Dillard and the environmentalism of the Sierra Club.</p> <p>It remains today, in backpacking trips and festivals, promising an escape from the hounding modernity of cellphones.</p> <p>To hear the sales pitch for Wilderness Therapy, to watch Second Nature&#8217;s videos, it is easy to believe they promise a version of this story. Your child is troubled. He&#8217;s in danger. To recover, he must go into the wilderness and undergo this ancient American rite.</p> <div class="float-right s-sidebar"> <h4>More from First Person</h4> <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/11/30/9782114/fears" target="new" rel="noopener"> <img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6747699/PLANE_FEAR3.0.0.0.jpg" alt="PLANE_FEAR3.0.0.0.jpg" data-chorus-asset-id="6747699"> </a><p><a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/11/30/9782114/fears" target="new" rel="noopener">How I became afraid</a></p> </div> <p>But are they? In every version of the wilderness myth, the object is escape. Society is stifling, cruel, vicious, hypocritical. One goes out into the woods to make a new society, or simply to be left alone. The wilderness is for iconoclasts and malcontents, not patients in search of a cure.</p> <p>Second Nature does not promise an exit from society so much as integration into it. It will take your fear and your worry and even your kid who only smokes pot too much and carry them from educational consultants to wilderness programs to therapeutic boarding schools, not so that rough edges can escape the friction around them but to smooth those edges out. Second Nature wants to make misfits well-adjusted.</p> <p>When I was in the wilderness, I believed I was pulling one over. We all did. We believed we had learned the language, played the part, that we had conned them. We believed we had escaped with our hearts intact. Not transformed, not really.</p> <p>Did we? Or was this the object all along? Second Nature taught all of us how to pretend, how to better bury ourselves and be agreeable, to get along. It taught us precisely what is required in polite society. It allowed us to believe in our subterranean dissent, but who was conning whom, at bottom?</p> <p>Second Nature promises to make you healthy, and it does, so far as anyone can see. Is the health superficial? Does it matter?</p> <p>I went to the woods and learned to pretend, to become vacant in the act of citizenry, to <em>behave</em>. Was this the point? Is it a bad one?</p> <p>Did it work?</p> <p>In one of Second Nature&#8217;s videos, Dr. Reedy reassures parents who feel guilty about sending their child into captivity. <em>They may threaten to stop loving you</em>, he says, <em>or to withhold forgiveness</em>. But parents must make these sacrifices, he says. <em>They&#8217;ll forgive you when they&#8217;re healthy</em>.</p> <p>I have not refused forgiveness, but I don&#8217;t know that I have forgiven, either. I am still vacant on it, not quite present, not quite incarnated in my feeling or memory of the place. Am I healthy? It looks that way; it looks like what was meant to happen there, no matter what, really did.<strong> </strong></p> <hr> <p>I left Second Nature in fall, after monsoon season, in weather like the weather I came in on. My parents had come a week before for a visit. I don&#8217;t remember it now, but my father says I cried. I believe it, although I do not know how much I believed myself then.</p> <p>I wasn&#8217;t lying. Only I <em>did </em>it, like I did circle group and stick group and counseling and the importance of leadership and everything I&#8217;d tell my therapist in the months that followed &mdash; automatic, suspended.</p> <p>I spent the week suspicious that I would leave soon. The long walk back from the shower happened then. What consequences would there be for taking a little too long, going a little too far?</p> <p>I didn&#8217;t cry when they came back. I was indifferent, pleasant, glad, all the way back to the processing office, in an SUV my parents rented, the first car I had seen in months, my belongings given back to me at the desk, a real shower, clothes that barely fit anymore.</p> <p>There&#8217;s a picture of me outside the office: against a low wall with my knee bent. I looked at it years later and realized that there are memories we can re-inhabit &mdash; where we can see again out of our old eyes, recall what we were feeling, where this particular moment fell on a continuity of desires and concerns &mdash; but that this wasn&#8217;t one of them. My face, in the photo, says nothing. I remember the inside of the shower but nothing else. I was there; there&#8217;s a picture. That&#8217;s all.</p> <p>The Second Nature office is at the foot of the mountains; after we left, it was hours back to Atlanta. I don&#8217;t know that I said much. But when we turned off the country roads and onto the first long highway, I didn&#8217;t see a street with traffic. I saw steel boxes passing within inches of each other on the basis of painted lines, ordinary life conducted at 80 miles per hour on the faith that nobody would break the rules today.</p> <p>Have you wondered what would happen if you had a heart attack on the road? How can you clutch your chest if you&#8217;ve got to keep both hands on the wheel?</p> <p>Today, when I return home, my parents find me at the airport in Santa Barbara and drive me an hour down the Pacific Coast to their home. Even now, years later, I sit in the back seat and fail to see what I&#8217;m supposed to, worry what happens if the driver&#8217;s heart isn&#8217;t what it seems.</p> <p><a name="asterisk">*</a> I refer to Paul, and all the other people I met during my time at Second Nature, by only his first name.</p> <p><em>Emmett Rensin is deputy First Person editor at Vox.</em></p> <hr> <p><a href="http://www.vox.com/first-person" target="new" rel="noopener">First Person</a> is Vox&#8217;s home for compelling, provocative narrative essays. Do you have a story to share? Read our <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/6/12/8767221/vox-first-person-explained" target="new" rel="noopener">submission guidelines</a>, and pitch us at <a href="mailto:firstperson@vox.com">firstperson@vox.com</a>.</p> </div><p></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Emmett Rensin</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Baffled by Trump and American right-wing populism? Read Steve Fraser’s The Limousine Liberal.]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.vox.com/2016/7/7/11820864/limousine-liberal-review-steve-fraser" />
			<id>https://www.vox.com/2016/7/7/11820864/limousine-liberal-review-steve-fraser</id>
			<updated>2016-07-06T14:13:06-04:00</updated>
			<published>2016-07-07T08:40:03-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="2016 Presidential Election" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Books" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Culture" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Donald Trump" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Politics" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Reviews" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[By the time I finished reading the introduction to Steve Fraser&#8217;s The Limousine Liberal (Basic Books, May 2016), I&#8217;d already mentally composed half of the nasty review I intended to give it. This was a tired old book &#8212; a bon mot defense of the leadership class, a tribute to the stupidity of its critics, [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="Trump is campaigning to return to an America that never existed. The Limousine Liberal explains why his approach is working. | J Pat Carter/Getty Images" data-portal-copyright="J Pat Carter/Getty Images" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/15827246/GettyImages-513906686.0.1536473753.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
	Trump is campaigning to return to an America that never existed. The Limousine Liberal explains why his approach is working. | J Pat Carter/Getty Images	</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By the time I finished reading the introduction to Steve Fraser&rsquo;s <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Limousine-Liberal-Incendiary-Fractured-America/dp/0465055664"><em>The Limousine Liberal</em></a><em> </em>(Basic Books, May 2016), I&rsquo;d already mentally composed half of the nasty review I intended to give it. This was a tired old book &mdash; a bon mot defense of the leadership class, a tribute to the stupidity of its critics, a premise Al Franken had already beat to death twice over. I&rsquo;d read it before.</p>

<p>There&rsquo;s Rush Limbaugh, channeling Joe McCarthy. Glenn Beck going madcap on the Fed. In the conservative mind, &#8220;Hillary Clinton serves as exhibit A&#8221; of the limousine liberal menace &mdash; but isn&rsquo;t that a little funny, since she was born so modestly and all? Ha.</p>
<p><!-- ######## BEGIN SNIPPET ######## --></p><div class="chorus-snippet ratingbox"> <!-- add number from 1 to 5 where the 3 is --><div class="rating-container"> <p>Rating</p> <hr> <span class="rating-number">4</span> </div> </div><!-- ######## END SNIPPET ######## -->
<p><br>&#8220;How an incendiary image united the right and fractured America,&#8221;<em> </em>says the subtitle<em>. </em>If only those conservatives could quit it with the insults. Then we could put America back together again. &#8220;<em>The Limousine Liberal</em> is a penetrating analysis of the resentments aroused by the efforts of affluent liberals to help the disadvantaged, sometimes at the expense of those in the middle,&#8221; promised the jacket. Well, when you put it <em>that</em> way.</p>

<p>I do not know who wrote the book&#8217;s introduction &mdash; there&rsquo;s no byline. I comfort myself that it was the work of a harried marketing intern, but perhaps Fraser felt he needed to trick his readers through the first 10 pages. In either case, it deceives. Skip it, but not what comes after. <em>The Limousine Liberal </em>is an achievement, the history of American late capitalism and the reactionary mutant populists who have come with it. It is a warning of what comes next, if the war these two factions have fought for some 80 years now continues on its present course.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">A brief history of the limousine liberal</h2>
<p>The limousine liberal&rsquo;s mother was the Great Depression. Its father was the Ivy League.</p>
<div class="align-right"><img src="alt=" data-chorus-asset-id="6752155"></div>
<p>After decades of transformation, instability, and tepid efforts at reform, Fraser writes, by the 1930s, &#8220;Capitalism itself seemed to have entered a terminal crisis.&#8221;<em> </em>The Depression made a mockery of the financial order. &#8220;It liquefied American society. &hellip; What would replace it? Fears of the unknown combined with desires to start over. Salvation beckoned. It might lie in some postcapitalist future. Or on the contrary, it might depend on restoring older, customary ways of living.&#8221;</p>

<p>Industrial titans clung to their old pieties, insisting that the Depression would right itself &mdash; eventually, the deflationary forces of unemployment would suppress wages until the labor force rebounded. The &#8220;mercantile oligarchy&#8221; of the South feared that any state intervention would upend the racial caste structure of the old Confederacy.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, an explosion of the labor movement joined with a newly insurgent unemployed workforce, demanding radical solutions. &#8220;Local and statewide political parties whose purpose was to unite embattled workers and farmers and who were not shy about indicting capitalism and seeking alternatives sprang to life.&#8221;</p>
<aside id="W8y8Wb"><q class="is-align-right">Popular history is littered with the corpses of bloated books, written where an essay would have sufficed. Not <em>The Limousine Liberal.</em></q></aside>
<p>But not all of upper-class America was of one mind. &#8220;Recognizing the breakdown for what it was &mdash; namely a root and branch indictment of the laissez-faire capitalism beloved by their ancestors &mdash; leading elements of the corporate world were prepared to venture down a different road.&#8221;</p>

<p>In the end, the United States did not keep the old ways, but it did not get revolution either. Embracing elements of Keynesianism without repudiating capitalism; preserving many of the old hierarchies (particularly in the South) while allowing an unprecedented state intervention into the economic life of the country, the United States got the New Deal. &#8220;More radical rumblings notwithstanding,&#8221;<em> </em>Fraser writes, &#8220;the alternative settled on turned out to civilize capitalism, not end it.&#8221;</p>

<p>With the new order came a new leadership, a massive bureaucratic civil service that absorbed the bulk of the New Deal&rsquo;s major adversaries. Its leaders were a new, enlightened elite educated in the prestigious boarding schools of the East Coast and trained by the Ivy leagues. Men who &#8220;were, at least in their own minds, free of any tincture of self-seeking, either after wealth or personal political power.&#8221;</p>

<p>These inheritors of the post-crisis world were the first true limousine liberals, and they have, with some setbacks, governed the economic and political apparatus of the United States ever since.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The book traces a convergence of political movements that ultimately brought American right-wing populism to where it is today</h2>
<p>The triumph of the new liberal elite did not put an end to radical agitation. Before the beginning of the Second World War, insurgents on both the left and the right had begun to rebel against the new ruling class. The last scions of the old conservatism balked &mdash; &#8220;William Randolph Hearst, who had helped secure Roosevelt&rsquo;s nomination in 1932, denounced the &#8216;imperial, autocratic, Asiatic Socialist Party of Karl Marx and Franklin Delano Roosevelt'&#8221; &mdash; while on the left, men like John L. Lewis emerged to lead &#8220;a new, militant industrial union movement.&#8221;</p>

<p>But Fraser&rsquo;s focus is not with either of these factions. Rather, he tracks a new movement, an ambivalent subspecies of populism that in time would become the latter half of the 20th century&rsquo;s preeminent form of political rebellion: right-wing populist, &#8220;the unwanted stepchild of the political capitalism that supplanted its laissez-faire predecessor, a blue-collar, conservatively inflected populism &hellip; born long before Richard Nixon ever invoked the &#8216;silent majority.'&#8221;</p>

<p>Beginning with the nearly leftist prairie socialism of men like Huey Long and the &#8220;radio priest&#8221; Father Coughlin, the right-wing populists represented a new kind of rebellion: a front of popular rage produced by the violence of international capitalism, dressed up in a valorization of a purer market, a movement dedicated not to overthrowing the economic apparatus of the world but to controlling it, to remaking it in the parochial image of the traditionalists and strivers who would become its core.</p>

<p>The genesis and mutation of right-wing populism is the core of Fraser&rsquo;s book; that movement, more than the limousine liberals it fights against, is the subject of his historical inquiry. During the course of just over 200 pages, he documents how this movement &mdash; once a mix of social welfare demands to the left of the New Deal and provincial bigotries with their origins in the Ku Klux Klan &mdash; came to abandon the former in favor of the latter; to become a conspiratorial enterprise dedicated to the free market from the moral degeneracy of an elite, corrupted by &#8220;insufficient fealty to the nation&#8221; and to capital itself.</p>
<aside id="jrSI2B"><q class="is-align-right">The book is essential to anybody who does not understand how the populist energies they believe are rightfully theirs have been so completely captured by bigots and strivers</q></aside>
<p>It is a story that in Fraser&rsquo;s telling passes from Huey Long and McCarthy to Barry Goldwater and Henry Wallace, through the Reagan Revolution and the evangelical right, culminating in the Tea Party and now in the candidacy of Donald Trump. The line is not always straight, and the story contains its contradictions. To summarize it is impossible, and it is a testament to Fraser&rsquo;s talents that he manages to contain it thoroughly within 250 pages.</p>

<p>Popular history is littered with the corpses of bloated books, written where an essay would have sufficed. Not <em>The Limousine Liberal</em>. There is some wrinkle on every page, and it is essential to anybody, especially those on the left, who does not understand how the populist energies they believe are rightfully theirs have been so completely captured by bigots and strivers. How can a movement seemingly propelled by legitimate discontent take such odious goals?</p>

<p>Fraser writes:</p>
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote has-text-align-none is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p>Right-wing populism, both as a grassroots rebellion and as a strategic demarche captained by the dynastic heroes of a revived family capitalism, has its feet firmly planted in the past. It is restorationist, not revolutionary. It opens no new roads to the future. It does not pretend to. Moreover, its political and moral imagination is profoundly nostalgic and enormously alluring in part for just that reason. What it wants restored never existed, but is instead a fanciful rendering of some self-consoling yesteryear; that is, after all, the seduction of nostalgia.</p>
</blockquote><h2 class="wp-block-heading">The book doesn’t offer a fix for the current state of American politics; instead, it delivers a grave warning</h2>
<p><em>The Limousine Liberal</em> is not prescriptive. Having told the story of how American politics came to be largely a war between elites and false revolutionaries, Fraser does not suggest a way forward. But in characterizing the limousine liberal the way he does, he does indicate a serious and looming threat.</p>

<p>He writes:</p>
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote has-text-align-none is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p>Limousine liberalism &hellip; is the capitalist version of permanent revolution. Naming it revolution exaggerates its actual intentions, but nonetheless it captures something essential about how American society has wrestled with the menace of disorder and even economic and social chaos inherent in free market capitalism. Limousine liberalism was never a myth. &hellip; It is a desire to redo the way society was organized in order to reclaim social stability in the face of economic as well as class and racial upheaval.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, the program of the limousine liberal, like all dominant orders, is and always has been control. Its purpose is to maintain society, to keep the world secure for consumer capitalism and its ever-more-international markets.</p>

<p>In the best cases, this has allowed for a remarkable degree of elite-sanctioned social progress. Untethered from any real commitment to core values, it has absorbed changes in cultural attitudes toward race, gender, and sexuality for the better, enraging conservatives. But it has stymied even modest efforts to implement a more totalizing American welfare state: The goal, after all, is to keep the economic world manageable, not change it.</p>
<aside id="6GoL6U"><q class="is-align-right">Limousine liberalism&rsquo;s purpose is to maintain society, to keep the world secure for consumer capitalism and its ever-more-international markets</q></aside>
<p>For 80 years, limousine liberalism has proven extraordinarily adept at this task. In its early days, it neutralized all threats completely: For 20 years after the New Deal, even the Republican Party orbited the gravity of the liberal economic order. With the help of the Cold War, it obliterated the left and made the labor movement impotent.</p>

<p>It was Harry Truman, after all, who purged purported communists from the federal government long before McCarthy became a reactionary hero. Despite right-wing insistence to the contrary, it was liberalism that deployed the Marshall Plan to help European markets resist domestic socialist insurgencies.</p>

<p>Fraser writes:</p>
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote has-text-align-none is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p>Indeed, one measure of that equanimity was the ease with which the notion of a &#8220;paranoid style in American politics,&#8221; invented by Hofstader and others, became a kind of smug conventional wisdom &#8230; so then whatever fell outside the framework of the corporate liberal consensus was not only treated as a distasteful form of extremism, but was not even regarded as fully grown-up politics. Rather, it was deemed a kind of prepolitical acting out, psychoanalyzed, investigated clinically as a form of mental pathology. Any class-inflected view of the world, <em>whether from the right or the left</em>,<strong> </strong>[emphasis added] was deemed antiquated, out of touch with the new order of managerial capitalism and the socially engineered welfare state; in a word, irrational &hellip; conversely, it became axiomatic that the postwar liberal dispensation epitomized the rational, functioning as a fiercely reticulated mechanism for resolving social conflict, the benchmark against which all dissenting views were to be measured and found wanting.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But as is the case with all elite orders, even those as remarkably durable as the one we have known for nearly a century, the battle to contain dissent grows harder. The easy pathologizing isn&rsquo;t quite so easy anymore. With every year, the world becomes less certain, the destabilizing effects of globalization more difficult to hide. A technocratic liberalism so sure of its victory 15 years ago that it <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/3/14/11186494/fukuyama-2016-election">declared the end of history</a> now pleads its case with special urgency.</p>
<aside id="JO5U0M"><q class="is-align-right">The left remains vanishingly small, while the populists on the right grow stronger. This, more than anything, is what Fraser&rsquo;s book makes clear.</q></aside>
<p>The basic institutions of government have spent seven years on the verge of breaking down. Andrew Sullivan <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html">invokes Plato</a> to clamp down on democracy. <a href="http://www.vox.com/world/2016/6/20/11977012/brexit-poll-vote-referendum-uk-news">Brexit</a> could not be stopped. Jonathan Chait says <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/reminder-liberalism-is-working-marxism-failed.html">liberalism is working</a>, but he cannot believe he is <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/oh-good-were-arguing-whether-marxism-works.html">arguing with Marxists</a>, nor how many idiots there are <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/heres-the-real-reason-we-all-underrated-trump.html">confounding his good sense</a>.</p>

<p>Liberalism has become more sure of itself than ever (&#8220;the trouble is the idiots&#8221;), while it moves toward full-blown emergency footing. Even Hillary Clinton runs for president not as a promise but as a warning.<em> </em>America is Already Great. But leave the grown-ups in charge, or it&rsquo;s Trump.</p>

<p>The left might take this as a cause for celebration: As the age of the limousine liberal approaches its own terminal crisis, the number of Americans drawn to leftist politics has reached its highest nadir in a generation. But it shouldn&rsquo;t. The left remains vanishingly small, while the populists on the right grow stronger.</p>

<p>This, more than anything, is what Fraser&rsquo;s book makes clear: The right-wing populists have been the primary beneficiaries of late capitalism&rsquo;s discontent. When the crisis comes, through economic collapse or climate change or war, they are the ones best positioned to remake the nation in their image.</p>

<p>Sullivan is right: The nation has never been so ripe for tyranny. But restoring the elites is not the answer. Liberalism is not working. The left has no time to celebrate. Its task, more urgent than ever, is to grow.</p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Emmett Rensin</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Game of Thrones’ High Sparrow didn’t rape, murder, or pillage — why did viewers hate him anyway?]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.vox.com/2016/6/30/12055374/game-of-thrones-high-sparrow-dead-hypocrisy" />
			<id>https://www.vox.com/2016/6/30/12055374/game-of-thrones-high-sparrow-dead-hypocrisy</id>
			<updated>2016-06-29T16:14:06-04:00</updated>
			<published>2016-06-30T10:00:03-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Culture" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Game of Thrones" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Game of Thrones, season 6, episode 10" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="TV" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Each week throughout Game of Thrones&#8217; sixth season, a handful of Vox&#8217;s writers have gathered to discuss the latest episode &#8212; and now we&#8217;re doing the same with the finale. Before you dig in, check out our recap of Sunday&#8217;s episode, as well the archive of our entire discussion to date. Next up in our [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="The High Sparrow will not be missed. | HBO" data-portal-copyright="HBO" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6724751/sparrowblessing.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
	The High Sparrow will not be missed. | HBO	</figcaption>
</figure>
<p id="DrU233"><em>Each week throughout </em><strong><a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11528362/hbo-game-of-thrones-season-6">Game of Thrones</a></strong><strong><a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11528362/hbo-game-of-thrones-season-6">&rsquo;</a></strong> <em>sixth season, a handful of Vox&#8217;s writers have gathered to discuss the latest episode &mdash; and now we&rsquo;re doing the same with the finale. Before you dig in, check out </em><a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/6/26/12027556/game-of-thrones-finale-recap-winds-of-winter-deaths-wildfire-frey-pies">our recap of Sunday&#8217;s episode</a><em>,</em><em> as well the archive of </em><em><strong><a href="http://www.vox.com/game-of-thrones-season-6">our entire discussion to date</a></strong></em><em>. Next up in our analysis of &#8220;The Winds of Winter&#8221; is deputy First Person editor Emmett Rensin.</em></p>
<p><strong>Emmett Rensin: </strong>Green smoke from the Great Sept of Baelor: The High Sparrow is dead. His followers are dead. His church is gone. He picked the wrong faith for any hope of resurrection, and there&rsquo;s nothing left to resurrect in any case. So much for the Mother&rsquo;s mercy.</p>

<p><em>Game of Thrones</em> viewers hated the High Sparrow; the writers of weekly recaps even more so. While even Ramsay Bolton was eventually consigned to <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/5/2/11564220/game-of-thrones-home-recap-ramsay-twist/in/11292403">&#8220;Well, we know he&rsquo;s awful; it&rsquo;s almost boring now&#8221;</a> status, the Sparrow regularly provoked fresh disdain. He was called sanctimonious, dangerous, hypocritical, and evil every time he appeared.</p>

<p>The loathing continued right through the end: Slate named the Sparrow the <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/06/06/game_of_thrones_episode_7_the_broken_man_the_high_sparrow_is_the_worst_person.html">worst person</a> in Westeros earlier this season, before calling Cersei&rsquo;s annihilation of him &#8220;a reverse thriller, in which one roots for the evil plot to succeed.&#8221; <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/culture/sarah-larson/game-of-thrones-season-finale-women-and-wildfire">The New Yorker</a> counts the moment when the Sparrow lights up &#8220;like the Nazi whose face melts off&#8221; among &#8220;the many great pleasures&#8221; of the finale.</p>

<p>Cersei still earns the episode&rsquo;s &#8220;worst person&#8221; designation from Slate, but mainly by default, and with a <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/06/27/game_of_thrones_episode_10_the_winds_of_winter_cersei_is_the_worst_person.html">caveat</a>: She &#8220;murders the recent worst person in Westeros, the High Sparrow, and that&rsquo;s great.&#8221;</p>
<div data-chorus-asset-id="6724653" data-hide-credit="true" id="0fL3tf"> <img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6724653/sparrow.jpg"><div class="caption"> <em>Game of Thrones</em> killed one particular &#8220;bird&#8221; with a shit-ton of wildfire, and viewers rejoiced.</div> </div>
<p>Shame about the other victims, though.</p>

<p>The High Sparrow made viewers uncomfortable. It wasn&rsquo;t only that they hated him; hate, after all, is a pleasure in the world of <em>Game of Thrones</em>, and there wasn&rsquo;t anything pleasurable about the Sparrow&rsquo;s misdeeds. Viewers were <em>disgusted</em> by him, turned off, viscerally repelled in a way that not even Joffrey could manage.</p>

<p>Why?</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Evil in Westeros was always relative — until the High Sparrow came along</h2>
<p>It isn&rsquo;t that the High Sparrow did not do evil things. He did. He subjected one woman to <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/5/13/11642934/game-of-thrones-oathbreaker-cersei">a particularly brutal form of sexist public shaming</a> and very nearly did the same to another. He imprisoned a man for being gay and only spared him at the price of poverty and mutilation. His cult, if not routinely violent, was certainly menacing. But it is worth remembering that in the real world, we would find the Sparrow&rsquo;s actions appalling; by the standards of Westeros, they&rsquo;re rather tame.</p>

<p>Many<em> Game of Thrones</em> fans were willing to relativize their moral compass and to root for characters like Jaime (attempted child murderer), Olenna (successful child murderer), Tyrion (patricidal murderer and slavery enabler), Daenerys (mass murderer and crucifixion enthusiast), and Cersei (judging only by the season six finale, a terrorist, torture advocate, and mass murderer).</p>

<p>They felt no need to defend the less overtly odious Baratheons, Starks, or lesser houses at all &mdash; &#8220;It&rsquo;s Westeros!&#8221; sufficed to justify their support of feudal aristocrats who routinely lead thousands of peasants to their deaths in order to secure the latest blood claim to this or that castle. At least the Starks are <em>extremely honorable</em> in their warmongering.</p>

<p>Viewers weren&rsquo;t wrong to make those allowances. <em>Game of Thrones</em> is fiction, trivial fiction about dragons and ice zombies, and the point is entertainment, not swearing off every Ser Such-and-Such who commits an atrocity. But the High Sparrow received no such indulgence.</p>

<p>Despite his relatively restrained behavior, despite an earnest (if perhaps misguided) desire to empower the dispossessed of King&rsquo;s Landing, despite having appeared perfectly content to merely feed those peasants before a myopic Cersei came along to turn him into a weapon, he received no sympathy. He was a hypocrite and a creep, more despised by modern viewers than the monsters who would gladly see those same peasants starve another winter, so long as they get to sit on the very best chair.</p>

<p>Again, why?</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The problem wasn’t the High Sparrow’s religion. It was his judgment.</h2>
<p>Yesterday, Ross Douthat made a similar case <a href="https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/747591456420921344">on Twitter</a>. &#8220;On the show and the books, [the High Sparrow] is an apparently sincere man of the people, one of the few commoners to play a political role in Westeros,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;He champions equality before law, redistribution of wealth&mdash;ideas far closer to liberal values than anything his antagonists support. It is impossible, based on the text, to imagine a Westeros ruled by the Faith Militant would be worse off than the Westeros we see.&#8221;</p>

<p>&#8220;My point,&#8221; he concluded, &#8220;is just that it says something interesting about the story itself and (especially) our pop culture mavens that so many people identified with the privileged warmongering aristocrats in their struggle to crush the story&rsquo;s lone popular uprising.&#8221;</p>

<p>I suspect Douthat believes the answer is religion. Liberal consumers of premium television and the elites who write about it will forgive immense violence committed in the name of comprehensible self-interest, but will look to any excuse &mdash; the High Sparrow isn&rsquo;t woke enough for 2016! &mdash; to resist the more alien motives of the faithful.</p>

<p>But I don&rsquo;t believe it&rsquo;s quite that. <em>Game of Thrones</em> has its sympathetic faithful: Septon Ray seems noble, if naive, in his religious pacifism. The Brotherhood Without Banners has its boosters. Even Melisandre isn&rsquo;t despised for her dedication to the Lord of Light. Most of the hate reserved for her is rooted in<strong> </strong>predictable loathing for women in fantasy, and even when her religion is condemned by viewers &mdash; say, because it leads her to <em>burn a child alive </em>&mdash; it still finds more sympathy than the slightest leer from the High Sparrow.</p>

<p>Rather, I think disdain for the Sparrow comes from a cousin of religion: judgment, and particularly the judgment of anyone found less than perfect.</p>

<p>The High Sparrow was a hypocrite if he had any flaws at all, and since those flaws were easy enough to identify, the rest of his intentions could be safely ignored. Even the Sparrow&rsquo;s good intentions became vile in their own way, suspect and typically written off as a mere rationalization for his purported sadism.</p>

<p>Did he look at Westeros and rightly see injustice? Did he look at the Lannisters and the Tyrells and see depravity? Sure, but he&rsquo;s no saint, so the polite thing to do would be to shut up and play the game as basely as everyone else. That, at least, wouldn&rsquo;t be so obnoxious. That, at least, would not make everyone so uncomfortable.</p>

<p>The High Sparrow was hated because we fear our fellow sinners less than we fear the naming of our sins. I say that in religious language, but I don&rsquo;t need to: We don&rsquo;t fear brutality and vengeance half as much as being found out as brutal and vengeful ourselves.</p>

<p>That disgust with the Sparrow, that visceral, gut-rolling discomfort beyond the ordinary fun of hating a fictional killer? That is the terror of a light turned too harshly, the question of whether, deep down, you ought to be ashamed of yourself, even if the person shaming you is just as imperfect as you are. <em>Especially</em> if they are as imperfect as you are.</p>

<p>I don&rsquo;t go in much for the notion that we &#8220;learn&#8221; about faith or politics or life from television writers, much less for the idea that <em>Game of Thrones</em> is instructively &#8220;realistic.&#8221; But we do learn from how a culture responds to its artifacts, and from the life and death of the High Sparrow we learned this: Hypocrisy is the first sin of the modern world, the one we can&rsquo;t forgive, even in our suspension of disbelief.</p>

<p>So as we prepare for the dumb, fun coming war between a zombie, an idiot, and two sociopaths, let us pour one out for the High Sparrow: the most honest monster we&rsquo;ll ever get in that cruel world.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/6/29/12057510/game-of-thrones-finale-recap-winds-of-winter-cersei">Previous entry</a></p>
<hr class="wp-block-separator" /><h2 class="wp-block-heading">Game of Thrones&#039; time travel, explained</h2><div class="video-container"><iframe src="https://volume.vox-cdn.com/embed/61b111db2?player_type=youtube&#038;loop=1&#038;placement=article&#038;tracking=article:rss" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" allow=""></iframe><p>&lt;em&gt;Game of Thrones&lt;/em&gt; killed one particular &quot;bird&quot; with a shit-ton of wildfire, and viewers rejoiced.</p></div>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Emmett Rensin</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[American atheists are on the rise. They have radically different visions of the future.]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.vox.com/2016/6/29/12051872/reason-rally" />
			<id>https://www.vox.com/2016/6/29/12051872/reason-rally</id>
			<updated>2017-12-14T11:43:31-05:00</updated>
			<published>2016-06-29T08:00:02-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Features" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Life" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Religion" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Peter, who has a temporary tattoo of the anarchy &#8220;A&#8221; on his upper arm, is ready for the age of reason. He fucking loves science. Or he loves logic, he says; it&#8217;s the only thing he&#8217;s interested in. He has come all the way from Madison, Wisconsin, to Washington, DC, to hear the nation&#8217;s foremost [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gettyimages.com&quot;&gt;(Riccardo S. Savi / Getty Images)&lt;/a&gt;" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9870435/GettyImages-538276572.0.0.0.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<div class="chorus-snippet center"> <p>Peter, who has a temporary tattoo of the anarchy &#8220;A&#8221; on his upper arm, is ready for the age of reason. He fucking loves science. Or he loves logic, he says; it&#8217;s <em>the only thing</em> he&#8217;s interested in.</p> <p>He has come all the way from Madison, Wisconsin, to Washington, DC, to hear the nation&#8217;s foremost atheists tell an expected crowd of 30,000 the good news: We are at a turning point in American life. Religion, the long-stubborn source of our national ills, is finally dying away.</p> <p>But there aren&#8217;t 30,000 people here. The crowd extending from a stage at the base of the Lincoln Memorial stretches scarcely a quarter of the way up the Reflecting Pool and is thin on the sunny side.<strong> </strong>We are off to a slow start, one made slower by the loss, over dozens of speakers and days of events, of any kind of clarity or point. <strong></strong></p> <div class="float-right s-sidebar"> <a href="http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/5556462/brain-dead-how-politics-makes-us-stupid" target="new" rel="noopener"> <img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6365289/170441489.0.0.jpg" alt="170441489.0.0.jpg" data-chorus-asset-id="6365289"> </a><p><a href="http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/5556462/brain-dead-how-politics-makes-us-stupid" target="new" rel="noopener">How politics makes us stupid</a></p> </div> <p>This is the second Reason Rally, the first since 2012. <strong> </strong>It is, according to its organizers, a turning point in history, an opportunity for <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious/">the quarter</a> of Americans who are atheists to &#8220;stand up and be counted.&#8221;</p> <p>Peter says this is what he came for. He was a Republican during the Bush administration, but he couldn&#8217;t stomach the religiosity. He doesn&#8217;t like President Barack Obama either. Both Democrats and Republicans are getting the questions wrong, he tells me, and American politics won&#8217;t get better until politicians give up their need to have an &#8220;all-powerful being tell them what to do,&#8221; be that God or government.</p> <p>It is unclear, however, how many Americans are prepared to abandon those idols. Of the roughly 25 percent of Americans the rally insists constitute the new secular movement, only 11 percent are avowed atheists. Most only decline any particular religious preference.</p> <p>&#8220;When you read headlines about the rise of the so-called &lsquo;nones,&#8217; or people who don&#8217;t consider themselves part of a religion, that&#8217;s what they&#8217;re mostly referring to: the shruggers,&#8221; <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/11/the-origins-of-aggressive-atheism/383088/">wrote</a> Emma Green in the Atlantic<em>. </em>&#8220;They might be intensely spiritual or perfectly apathetic about faith, but for some reason or another they don&#8217;t self-identify as definitively atheistic.&#8221;</p> <p>Most, certainly, are not at Reason Rally. And among those who are, it is not clear how many share Peter&#8217;s vision of the state as a kind of replacement god. Many of the speakers today are Democrats; they are a slight majority among the crowd, as well. But they do largely share Peter&#8217;s confidence: Once religion is banished from the public sphere, the most pressing difficulties in our national life will largely fade away, rationally debated and swiftly solved according to the dictates of reason.</p> <p>There is less agreement regarding the likely outcomes of those debates.</p> <hr> <p>The rally lineup is promising on paper. Among its stars are Penn Jillette, the magician and libertarian, and Bill Nye, who has built his entire reputation in popular science on the strength of his charisma, without even a master&#8217;s degree behind his name.</p> <p>Bill Maher is on the lineup, as is the comedian Lewis Black. The heads of American Atheists and the Center of Inquiry and the Freedom From Religion Foundation<strong> </strong>are speaking. Members of the Wu-Tang Clan have come. Two members of Congress<strong> </strong>will be speaking, although their remarks will be confined to the case for secular pluralism in law.</p> <p><q aria-hidden="true" class="center">Is this only the Democratic Party, in secularly inflected tones?</q></p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p>That case is not too far from the stated intent of the organizers. Since Thursday, smaller groups have been meeting on Capitol Hill<strong> </strong>and speaking to members of Congress; tonight, a VIP cocktail session and two parties will be held for ticket holders. Larry Decker, the executive director of Secular Coalition of America and an organizer of the rally, has high hopes. &#8220;We are going to promote secular values &mdash; values like freedom, equality, and inclusion&#8221;, he <a href="http://reason.com/reasontv/2016/06/04/good-without-god-reason-rally-2016-draws">told</a> Reason magazine (no relation). &#8220;We hope to take those values and translate that into a strong voting bloc going forward.&#8221;</p> <p>What that voting bloc looks like is less certain. Decker is not proposing the formation of a new political party, and from the long list of Reason Rally&#8217;s sponsors his movement suffers no dearth of extant advocacy organizations. Among the stated goals of this year&#8217;s Reason Rally are comprehensive sex education, acceptance of climate science, and an end to discrimination against the gay community.</p> <p>Is this only the Democratic Party, in secularly inflected tones? Several speakers in a row refer to what is being built as a &#8220;progressive&#8221; movement, but do speakers like Penn Jillette know? Do the attendees?</p> <hr> <p>The first Reason Rally was more strident. It was militant &mdash; a celebration of defiance animated by a clear purpose, a style more typical of New Atheism as it has developed in the United States over the past 20 years, fleshed out by leaders like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, and lately as much dedicated to a disdain of the excesses of identitarian liberalism as to any particular account of empirical triumph.</p> <p>Four years ago, Dawkins encouraged attendees to &#8220;ridicule&#8221; the faithful. As the Atlantic&#8217;s Green reported then, &#8220;a band fired up the crowd with a rousing sound that lampooned the belief in &lsquo;Jesus coming again&#8217;, mixing it with sexual innuendo &hellip; Attendees sported t-shirts and signs with slogans like &#8216;I prefer facts&#8217; and &#8216;religious is like a penis&#8217; (involving a rather extended metaphor).&#8221;</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <div class="float-right s-sidebar"> <p><a href="http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5912283/from-nietzsche-to-richard-dawkins-a-brief-history-of-modern-atheism"><img data-chorus-asset-id="6718701" alt="getty_darwin__0-00-00-00_.0.0.png" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6718701/getty_darwin__0-00-00-00_.0.0.png"></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5912283/from-nietzsche-to-richard-dawkins-a-brief-history-of-modern-atheism">From Nietzsche to Richard Dawkins: a conversation on modern atheism</a></p> </div> <p>This year, it is difficult to imagine that the organizers haven&#8217;t asked the speakers to limit their politics, to remain &#8220;on-message&#8221; and positive. There is no denouncement of religion, only its consequences. There are no attendees holding signs that say &#8220;BAN GOD.&#8221; There is nothing quite so pointed this time, but without this animating antagonism, what is left?</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p>The first officially scheduled event, on Thursday morning, was the screening of a John Oliver video.</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p>When David Garcia, the president of LGBT Los Angeles, speaks of how many young people are hurt and made homeless by reactionary religious sentiment, he&#8217;s speaking the truth, but it&#8217;s a truth no more incendiary than what one is liable to hear at a rally for a Democratic congressional candidate. Throughout the day, speakers will invoke Martin Luther King&#8217;s March on Washington, will draw explicit comparisons between that rally and this, but nothing here is even half so radical. A rally to celebrate sensible policy goals is fine enough, but it&#8217;s hardly a revolution.</p> <p>It is clear, too, that almost nobody who takes the stage at Reason Rally was ever trained as a preacher. The whole thing is languid, urgent words in measured tones. The goal is an &#8220;end to bigotry,&#8221; in the pitch of a polite request, to &#8220;reject&#8221; a supernatural worldview with all the force of tepid applause.</p> <p>Jamie Raskin says the job of politicians is to &#8220;listen to scientists&#8221; and closes with, &#8220;Put your thinking caps on America!&#8221; Penn Jillette struggles to get a video playing, chokes up over Hitchens, then plays a Bob Dylan knockoff about his love for all people. The Amazing Randi devotes half an hour to a muted jeremiad against the obscure &#8220;facilitated communication&#8221; hoax. Peter says he does not know what &#8220;FC&#8221; is, but he&#8217;ll look into it.</p> <p>The comedy isn&#8217;t much either. Keith Lowell Jensen spends five minutes recounting the history of the restaurant Jack in the Box in order to reveal that he does not like the pope. A writer from <em>The Daily Show</em> jokes about eugenics for Twitter trolls. She takes a selfie and says fire was &#8220;invented&#8221; 10,000 years ago. Another comic says it&#8217;s sad the aspirin-between-the-knees crowd doesn&#8217;t know women can still have sex this way.</p> <p>Was this all edgy once? They talk openly about sex as if they are the first bawdy folks to do so. What puritanical America is shocked? Bill Maher cannot be bothered to appear at all. He sends a video, a five-minute riff on the burden of living in a nation of idiots, an old routine from a man whose own movie saw him owned by <a target="_blank" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0KzVr3zEaU" rel="noopener">an amusement park Jesus.</a></p> <p>A Beatles cover band plays. They change some of the words in &#8220;Revolution&#8221; and struggle through &#8220;Imagine.&#8221;</p> <p>Larry Drecker, when he finally takes the stage,<strong> </strong>tells the assembled that Reason Rally is &#8220;our wake-up call to the religious right,&#8221; letting them know that if they want to &#8220;desecrate the dreams of our Founding Fathers,&#8221; they&#8217;ll &#8220;have to go through us.&#8221; &#8220;</p> <p>I hope this rally will be remembered as a turning point in history,&#8221; he adds. He says to &#8220;rise up.&#8221; But he is using his inside voice, and the crowd nearest me is distracted: A woman in a Flying Spaghetti Monster costume is posing for photographs.</p> <p>We have four hours remaining. Even an Easter Mass in Latin knows not to push three.</p> <hr> <p>The rally is livelier on the periphery. A few evangelizers, remnants from a planned and canceled counterprotest, have turned up to debate. Cellphone cameras are rolling on both sides for the benefit of YouTube followers. A man shouts about the true <em>reason</em> we&#8217;re all here today &mdash; the grace of Jesus Christ. Another sits at the back on a bicycle, shirtless, with two megaphones, shouting: <em>Jeeeeesus. JEEEEEESUS. He&#8217;s alive! </em></p> <p>Somebody makes reference to a &#8220;fairy tale for adults,&#8221; but, surprise: It&#8217;s evolution.</p> <p>The argument descends into an extended metaphor about randomized text generators creating comprehensible pamphlets by selecting for <em>readability</em>.</p> <div class="float-right s-sidebar"> <p><a href="http://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2016/5/10/11649220/neil-degrasse-tyson-politics-wrong"><img data-chorus-asset-id="651492" alt="Tyson" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/assets/4845696/97285584.jpg"></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2016/5/10/11649220/neil-degrasse-tyson-politics-wrong">Neil deGrasse Tyson has the wrong model of politics</a></p> </div> <p>It&#8217;s all very 2004, like something out of an old message board. A man tells another that the God of the Bible is a &#8220;comic book villain&#8221; whose moral code is incoherent. The evangelizer counters: How do atheists know right from wrong at all?</p> <p>&#8220;Scientifically. We can <em>measure</em> harm.&#8221;</p> <p>&#8220;How?&#8221;<br> <br> &#8220;We can figure out when things harm people; we can study it.&#8221;</p> <p>Neither thinks to ask what we might consider harmful in the first place.</p> <p>In the shade I meet a middle-aged woman named Samantha; she&#8217;s got a sign that says &#8220;I&#8217;m Secular and I Vote&#8221; and a &#8220;Ready for Hillary&#8221; pin. She isn&#8217;t debating anyone, she tells me; she gets enough of that on the internet. She doesn&#8217;t want to dignify these people anyway &mdash; aren&#8217;t they satisfied controlling public life? Can&#8217;t they even let atheists have one day to have a rally for themselves?</p> <p>She says she wishes people understood that science is much cooler than the Bible. There&#8217;s so much out there, she says; why limit the whole cosmos to a single book? Her first political priority is education, she tells me, although she means &#8220;getting these creationists out of the science classroom&#8221; and offers little more. She loves Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and <a href="https://samkriss.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/neil-degrasse-tyson-pedantry-in-space/">public face for &#8220;science education.&#8221;</a> She is sad he isn&#8217;t speaking here today.</p> <p>Many of the day&#8217;s speakers are respected scientists, men and women involved in the highest levels of empirical research. But they are not here to discuss their latest findings; they are here to call, again and again, for a general triumph of science, and the man in the full-body devil costume with the cardboard crucifix reading <em>Fairly Tale</em> is drawing more attention.</p> <p>Some straw man from a Dawkins lecture shouts into a cellphone camera: &#8220;You&#8217;re a religion too! You <em>believe</em> there&#8217;s no God!&#8221; Samantha rolls her eyes.</p> <hr> <p>It was probably the Amazing Randi who gave New Atheists their favorite bit of cleverness: Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.</p> <p>Is it? Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby, but half the philatelists think you&#8217;ll suffer, think you&#8217;ll burn, think you&#8217;ll fuck and figure wrong because of it. Pew finds that for the first time, merely three-quarters of adults maintain stamp albums; this merits hand-wringing in the New York Times. Why should the secular movement want to be so trivial? They seem to want it both ways, at once a movement and not.</p> <p>There is no hobby with such organized dissent. There is no message board for stamp skeptics, no rally; nobody spoils Thanksgiving dinner over the legitimacy of a $5 1920 Lincoln. There are atheists for whom disbelief is not terribly dissimilar to an absent interest, but these atheists are precisely not the ones who find themselves quoting James Randi. They are not James Randi, who does not speak at public rallies for former stamp collectors.</p> <p>Perhaps atheism is as trivial as not keeping a stamp collection, but the atheists who come to Reason Rally don&#8217;t believe it.</p> <p>Here is what I believe these days: There is no God, but this is perhaps the least interesting thing to say about the world. I can make you a list of things that aren&#8217;t and never tell you anything at all &mdash; so what?</p> <p>On some days, disbelief seems to me a defiance, but a passive one, one I take no pride or fight in and one I didn&#8217;t want. I&#8217;ve long wondered at the notion that by telling somebody I am an atheist, I have told them everything they need to know in order to understand what I believe about the world. In fact, I have told them nothing.</p> <p><q aria-hidden="true" class="center">A fact is not an answer. A fact, in this case, is just an absence.</q></p> <p>What atheism has never seemed to me is a sensible point of political organization<strong>. </strong>Let me go further: Atheism has never seemed to me to solve any political problems at all. Speakers at Reason Rally advance admirable goals: pluralism, reproductive rights, tolerance. But what about the absence of God tells me that these are civic virtues?</p> <p>It is not surprising that religion provides rhetorical urgency to reactionary causes, but what causes of any kind has it not at times imbued with moral purpose? Most people are religious. The talk appeals. What would surprise is a world where the absence of faith produced an absence of bad politics or bigotry. Only a narrow imagination supposes that the depravity of men will not find other cudgels; that an empty sky will make good policy visible to all.</p> <p>Set aside that such clear skies are improbable, that religion is a stubborn thing and one that persists too well in climates far more hostile than the present. The promotion of an improbable goal is not Reason Rally&#8217;s sin.</p> <p>What is troubling in Reason Rally, in Movement Atheism, among Dawkins and Nye, in the throngs of free thinkers turned out on a dry Saturday to hear the talk of turning points and revolutions, what is troubling in all of this is the optimism of these free thinkers. The extraordinary credulity of skeptics.</p> <p>David Silverman, the president of American atheists and a &#8220;self-described firebrand,&#8221; demands we all chant <em>atheist! </em>together as an act of political unity. This activity consumes roughly half his speech. And then?</p> <p>Banish superstition, and the major political struggles of the American state will solve themselves by measurement. Accept the facts, the prime fact, the fact of an imaginary God, and we will realize the dream of the Founding Fathers.</p> <p>But a fact is not an answer. A fact, in this case, is just an absence. <em>We are only interested in logic</em>, but what are your premises? <em>Empiricism is the only way to know the truth about the world</em>. Well, what do you want to know about it? <strong></strong></p> <p>The trouble with Reason Rally is how little it cares for what comes after; its hubris is the faith of so many attendees that pure reason will reward their politics.</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><em>It&#8217;s only us; we&#8217;ve only got each other</em>. It&#8217;s true, but it&#8217;s not good news at all. One does not need to believe in any particular metaphysics of sin to believe in the depravity of mankind.</p> <hr> <p><em>The problem with science is that so much of it simply isn&#8217;t</em>, William A. Wilson writes in <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress">First Things</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>At its best, science is a human enterprise with a superhuman aim: the discovery of regularities in the order of nature, and the discerning of the consequences of those regularities. We&#8217;ve seen example after example of how the human element of this enterprise harms and damages its progress, through incompetence, fraud, selfishness, prejudice, or the simple combination of an honest oversight or slip with plain bad luck.</p></blockquote> <p><strong><em> </em></strong></p> <p>This is not a condemnation of science, but it is true, and if the crowd at Reason Rally knows it, they are not letting on.</p> <p>When Lawrence Krauss tells us that children should be taught to question everything, the audience on the National Mall is all serene. <em>Yes, </em>one man says while he applauds, quiet and forceful and without any irony at all. <em>Yes, </em>his wife is nodding. These are the vanguard of a permanently uncertain revolution, but you wouldn&#8217;t know it to hear them speak so surely.</p> <p>You wouldn&#8217;t even think they understood the virtue of empiricism at all. Good science often troubles the world. It rarely solves it.</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p>Krauss says he wants to ask some questions about reason, but he means he wants to ask after the reasons of the hateful. What reason justifies suppressing education? Hating women, hating homosexuals, making bigotry in law? The answer is implied.</p> <div class="float-right s-sidebar"> <p><a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/2/11/8019729/chapel-hill-shooting-atheism"> <img data-chorus-asset-id="3399408" alt="Chapel Hill police" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3399408/463182638.0.jpg"></a></p> <p><a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/2/11/8019729/chapel-hill-shooting-atheism">Chapel Hill shooting forces uncomfortable conversations among Reddit&#8217;s atheists</a></p> </div> <p>A question Krauss does not ask is if <em>reasons</em> may be found elsewhere, if hatred may find its rationalizations outside the language of God. Let us grant that all people accept the physical limitations of Earth. Now what will account for our moral conflicts?</p> <p>Tulsi Gabbard<strong>, </strong>who represents Hawaii in the House of Representatives, tells us that religious bigotry has turned the world to violence. Pluralistic secular government is the only way to ensure a lasting global peace, she says.</p> <p>Ensure it? A woman carries a painting of Bernie Sanders along the path up the Reflecting Pool; a young man holds up a sign he&#8217;s made on cardboard: #BanIslam. Penn Jillette sings about his love for everyone but is a research fellow of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that has never encountered a rationale for welfare cuts beneath its dignity. Bill Nye says<strong> </strong>that we ought to &#8220;evaluate candidates based on their stand on science&#8221; and has made the majority of political contributions to President Barack Obama &mdash; was it only that the Democrats believe climate change is real? On the sidewalk under the trees I get a pamphlet &mdash; Follow Reason, Go Vegan<em> </em>&mdash; while families in free-thinker T-shirts sit on the hot grass, chewing hot dogs and nodding.</p> <p>By night, under more tolerable weather, the organizers succeed in at least one goal. They have been trying to get #ReasonRally trending on Twitter for hours, and it is finally No. 1.</p> <hr> <p>We are under the Lincoln Memorial, and the speakers can&#8217;t get enough.<strong> </strong>Lincoln&#8217;s legacy is invoked as often as King&#8217;s, and the Reason Rally as his heir. &#8220;Lincoln, the kind of Republican who would have never made it out of the Iowa caucuses.&#8221; Lincoln the &#8220;humanist.&#8221; Lincoln, &#8220;who stood for reason,&#8221; who &#8220;hated bigotry,&#8221; who was a &#8220;free thinker.&#8221;</p> <p>He is named in defense of rationality<strong> </strong>and for decency and to tell us here on the Mall that the greatest men do not fear conflict when it is the only way to achieve political justice.</p> <p>But Peter tells me libertarianism is the only reasonable position for a mind &#8220;finished with superstition,&#8221; that Lincoln fought slavery, justified by Christianity, that logically nobody has the right to impose control on anyone else at all. Samantha tells me we&#8217;re all in this together, that expanding the social safety net is how we help one another as best we can. &#8220;Religion helps conservatives,&#8221; she says. A secular government will have an easier time extending welfare to all.</p> <p>A full quarter of Americans now live openly without a god. It&#8217;s taken fewer folks to change the United States before; perhaps Decker and Krauss and Nye and Penn will have their turning point in history. The pews become empty, the temples go cold. Superstition gives way to a purely rational politics. Peter is ecstatic, and Samantha too. The war is over. But the reasons of both could<strong> </strong>not be answered.</p> <p><em>Emmett Rensin is deputy First Person editor at Vox.</em></p> <hr> <p><a target="new" href="http://www.vox.com/first-person" rel="noopener">First Person</a> is Vox&#8217;s home for compelling, provocative narrative essays. Do you have a story to share? Read our <a target="new" href="http://www.vox.com/2015/6/12/8767221/vox-first-person-explained" rel="noopener">submission guidelines</a>, and pitch us at <a href="mailto:firstperson@vox.com">firstperson@vox.com</a>.</p> </div>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Emmett Rensin</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Michael Herr is dead. Read a passage from Dispatches, his masterpiece on the Vietnam War.]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.vox.com/2016/6/24/12027118/michael-herr-dispatches" />
			<id>https://www.vox.com/2016/6/24/12027118/michael-herr-dispatches</id>
			<updated>2016-06-24T16:37:06-04:00</updated>
			<published>2016-06-24T17:00:05-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Books" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Culture" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Michael Herr, the author of Dispatches and co-writer of Full Metal Jacket, is dead at 76. His masterpiece, Dispatches, has been out of fashion for a while, but when it was published in 1977, it was widely regarded as the seminal work of new journalism about the Vietnam War. Today, aside perhaps from Tim O&#8217;Brien&#8217;s [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="(from Dispatches, Knopf, 1977)" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/15850319/Screen_Shot_2016-06-24_at_4.43.10_PM.0.0.1536473753.png?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Michael Herr, the author of <em>Dispatches</em> and co-writer of <em>Full Metal Jacket</em>, is dead at 76.</p>

<p>His masterpiece, <em>Dispatches</em>, has been out of fashion for a while, but when it was published in 1977, it was widely regarded as the seminal work of new journalism about the Vietnam War. Today, aside perhaps from Tim O&rsquo;Brien&rsquo;s <em>The Things They Carried</em>, it is the seminal work about the war, full stop.</p>

<p>It arrived late. Herr served as Esquire&rsquo;s Vietnam War correspondent from 1967 to 1969, and returned to the United States intending to quickly produce a book about what he&rsquo;d seen there.</p>

<p>But 18 months after his return, he suffered a nervous breakdown and wrote nothing for five years. The book ultimately arrived in 1977, and Hunter S. Thompson&rsquo;s reaction is as accurate as any: &#8220;We have all spent 10 years trying to explain what happened to our heads and our lives in the decade we finally survived,&#8221; he wrote, &#8220;but Michael Herr&rsquo;s <em>Dispatches</em> puts all the rest of us in the shade.&#8221;</p>

<p>I read <em>Dispatches</em> when I was 19 years old. I won&rsquo;t try to prove to you how good it is, or how important it is, how it is one of the greatest works of the second great age of literary nonfiction in The United States. But I will say that I remember writing a very pained journal entry back then, at the end of my first year in college, something like, <em>What&rsquo;s even the point of trying to write after this?</em></p>

<p>I will say that <em>Dispatches</em> is not an easy book to summarize or to draw cheap lessons from. It is about the war in Vietnam, of course, and it is a condemnation of the war, but like all excellent nonfiction, it is not a solution but a complication.</p>

<p>It describes the world precisely, but it does not describe it easily. <em>Dispatches</em> leaves you with a keener sense of what happened to Herr and to the soldiers around him, but with this clarity comes a messy, difficult uncertainty, too. We&rsquo;ve seen this world now. What do we make of it?</p>

<p>I&rsquo;ll leave you with this passage, from the first chapter:</p>
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote has-text-align-none is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p>But he always seemed to be watching for it, I think he slept with his eyes open, and I was afraid of him anyway. All I ever managed was one quick look in, and that was like looking at the floor of an ocean. He wore a gold earring and a headband torn from a piece of camouflage parachute material, and since nobody was about to tell him to get his hair cut it fell below his shoulders, covering a thick purple scar. Even at division he never went anywhere without at least a .45 and a knife, and he thought I was a freak because I wouldn&#8217;t carry a weapon.</p>

<p>&#8220;Didn&#8217;t you ever meet a reporter before?&#8221; I asked him.</p>

<p>&#8220;Tits on a bull,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Nothing personal.&#8221;</p>

<p>But what a story he told me, as one-pointed and resonant as any war story I ever heard, it took me a year to understand it:</p>

<p>&#8220;Patrol went up the mountain. One man came back. He died before he could tell us what happened.&#8221;</p>

<p>I waited for the rest, but it seemed not to be that kind of story; when I asked him what had happened he just looked like he felt sorry for me, fucked if he&#8217;d waste time telling stories to anyone dumb as I was.</p>
</blockquote>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Emmett Rensin</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Shaun King explains why he thinks the Democratic Party can’t be saved]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.vox.com/2016/5/26/11778158/shaun-king-democratic-party" />
			<id>https://www.vox.com/2016/5/26/11778158/shaun-king-democratic-party</id>
			<updated>2016-05-26T13:12:34-04:00</updated>
			<published>2016-05-26T14:20:03-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="2016 Presidential Election" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Bernie Sanders" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Criminal Justice" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Donald Trump" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Hillary Clinton" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Policy" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Politics" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Shaun King says he is leaving the Democratic Party. The controversial racial justice activist and New York Daily News contributor, who supported President Obama in the 2008 election and wrote critically of both Democratic candidates before ultimately endorsing Bernie Sanders, announced in a column last Friday that 2016 would be his last election as a [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/15828619/Shaun_20King.0.1489283774.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Shaun King says he is <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-leaving-democratic-party-article-1.2644307">leaving</a> the Democratic Party.</p>

<p>The <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/16/where-did-all-the-money-shaun-king-raised-for-black-lives-go.html">controversial</a> racial justice activist and New York Daily News contributor, who supported President Obama in the 2008 election and wrote critically of both Democratic candidates before ultimately endorsing Bernie Sanders, announced in a column last Friday that 2016 would be his last election as a Democrat. After that, &#8220;I&rsquo;m moving on,&#8221; he says, &#8220;and hope you do, too.&#8221;</p>

<p>King&rsquo;s piece is unequivocal. &#8220;It has never been more clear to me that millions and millions of us do not belong in the Democratic Party,&#8221; he writes. &#8220;Their values are not our values. Their priorities are not our priorities.&#8221; He cites only a few specific examples: Hillary Clinton&rsquo;s refusal to release transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches, the distribution of funds raised by Clinton/Democratic National Committee joint fundraising events, and the reversal of lobbyist donation rules implemented by President Obama.</p>

<p>But he argues in more general terms that the Democratic Party is dishonest: &#8220;Hillary Clinton and the DNC each wants us to believe that lobbyists and SuperPACs don&rsquo;t expect anything from them in return for their money. This is the most basic, foolish, offensive lie they could ever tell.&#8221; Further: that it is has been seduced by the root of all evil.</p>

<p>&#8220;Right now, the Democratic Party, which I have called home my entire life, is deeply in love with money,&#8221; King writes. &#8220;Consequently, its leaders have supported and advanced all kinds of evil, big and small, in devotion to this love affair.&#8221;</p>

<p>This gives you a sense of his disillusionment.</p>

<p>I spoke to King earlier this week about his departure from the party and his plans for the future. In conversation it became clear that he is more certain of the impediments of the present than the path toward the future.</p>

<p>He is convinced that the Democratic Party is corrupt, perhaps irredeemably so. He is less sure of what comes after. He sees possibilities in the Green Party, in a socialist party, in an entirely new progressive party, perhaps led or blessed by Bernie Sanders. When pressed, he is not entirely without hope for the party he says he is leaving. He wants to see how this election shakes out, and then he&rsquo;ll make up his mind.</p>

<p>King finds himself where a small but significant number of progressives find themselves at present. Some are Sanders supporters, some are not, but all have come to believe that the Democratic Party represents an obstacle to their political ambitions. Few have a clear sense of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/24/how-likely-are-bernie-sanders-supporters-to-actually-vote-for-donald-trump-here-are-some-clues/">what comes next</a>.</p>

<p>While left-wing groups from the <a href="https://twitter.com/truthout/status/735117573218570241">Green Party</a> to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1220494881296439">Robert Reich</a> to the socialists at <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/3/21/11265092/jacobin-bhaskar-sunkara">Jacobin</a> work to <a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/trump-clinton-sanders-kshama-sawant-green-party-independent/">capitalize</a> and build on this nascent movement, and party Democrats remain confident that nearly all will ultimately return to the fold, it is worthwhile to try to understand where Shaun King, and those like him, see themselves today.</p>

<p><em>This interview has been edited for length and clarity.</em></p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Yes, Shaun King is serious about leaving the Democratic Party</h2>
<p><strong>Emmett Rensin: In your piece, you say you&#8217;re leaving the Democratic Party after this presidential election. </strong></p>

<p>Shaun King: Sure.</p>

<p><strong>ER: Does that mean you&#8217;ll hang in through the fall, vote for Clinton to stop Donald Trump, and then move forward? </strong></p>

<p>SK: No. I wish I could I give a clear answer for that. I think in a lot of ways I&#8217;m still waiting to see how these next few months go. There are seven states left, and then DC and Puerto Rico. I want to see how things go there.</p>

<p>I still believe very strongly that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate to beat Donald Trump. I&#8217;ll tell you and I&#8217;ll tell anybody, if I thought [Clinton] was the best candidate to beat Donald Trump right now, I probably would have already thrown in the towel. I would have backed off, or eased up, because I still feel very strongly.</p>

<p>I don&#8217;t want Donald Trump to become president. I don&#8217;t know how the next few months are going to go. I&#8217;ve said it before, but Hillary can&#8217;t win the nomination before the convention.</p>
<figure class="wp-block-pullquote alignleft"><blockquote><p>&quot;I&#039;m imagining that the Democratic Convention is going to look a lot like Nevada&quot;</p></blockquote></figure>
<p><strong>ER: Does that mean you believe Sanders can still win the nomination? If he did, would you stick with the Democratic Party?</strong></p>

<p>SK: I think there&#8217;s a very real part of me that cannot imagine a scenario, at this point, where the superdelegates will change so radically. I&#8217;m imagining that the Democratic convention is going to look a lot like Nevada. But if Bernie somehow wins the nomination, let&#8217;s cross that bridge when we get to it.</p>

<p><strong>ER: What if Clinton wins the nomination, and Sanders endorses her?</strong></p>

<p>SK: I don&#8217;t even know about that. I&#8217;m going to keep fighting for Bernie until he says stop, but as far as who I vote for and what I do in November, I honestly don&#8217;t know. I will not vote for Donald Trump. I would never vote for Donald Trump. But I would &mdash; there is no situation or circumstance where I would campaign for Hillary Clinton.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">President Obama has wound up with a legacy that was much diminished from his original ideas as a candidate</h2>
<p><strong>ER: You say in your piece that in 2008 you were an enthusiastic supporter of President Obama. Do you think he&#8217;s been a successful president?</strong></p>

<p>SK: Oh, yeah. Yeah. I think so. I respect President Obama a great deal. I&#8217;m probably to the right of Cornel West&#8217;s critique of President Obama, but I&#8217;m also not that guy who thinks he is beyond criticism.</p>

<p><strong>ER: But the president &mdash; and there are some places where this isn&rsquo;t true, especially on foreign policy &mdash; but the president&rsquo;s political positions are certainly closer to Hillary Clinton&rsquo;s than they are to Bernie Sanders&#8217;s. In the past eight years, how have your politics evolved in a way where now you won&rsquo;t campaign and aren&rsquo;t even sure you&rsquo;ll vote for Hillary Clinton?</strong></p>

<p>SK: I think we would have to go down each and every one of the president&rsquo;s positions to really evaluate, what does the president think about health care?<em> </em>Yes, there is a thing called Obamacare &mdash; but was that what he campaigned on? What came out of the sausage factory, was that his dream?<em> </em>No. Of course not.</p>

<p>So is the president for universal health care? Well, he was. For years and years and years. And I don&#8217;t know that he stopped being for universal health care. It was just that he used virtually all the political capital he had in his first term to get something decent through Congress, and what came out was very different.</p>
<figure class="wp-block-pullquote alignleft"><blockquote><p>&quot;[T]he way Clinton presents herself as a pragmatist trying to get things done — I have no idea who she is talking about. I don&#039;t know her record of getting amazing things pushed through Congress. I don&#039;t see that.&quot;</p></blockquote></figure>
<p><strong>ER: Isn&rsquo;t this effectively the Hillary Clinton theory of politics? Her argument throughout this campaign has been, &#8220;We have to defend the president&#8217;s accomplishments, and it&#8217;s very hard to get things through Congress. It&#8217;s instrumental. Sanders has no chance of passing this plan.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p>SK: I hear that, but I think of it like this: Had the president&#8217;s idea been Obamacare, had his initial idea been, &#8220;Let&#8217;s just require everybody to have private health insurance and make a few tweaks here and there and create a website for it&#8221; <em>&mdash;</em> that wasn&#8217;t anywhere near his original idea. His original idea was much more significant, a much bigger shift, than what ended up coming out of the other end.</p>

<p>My beef with starting your ideas small, like Clinton has, is that Washington washes your big ideas down to [something] that looks totally different than what you presented in the first place.</p>

<p>I love the fact that Bernie is saying, &#8220;No, no, no. I&#8217;m going to stick with my huge ideas having spent the past 30 years in Congress. I know how Congress works. Congress squeezes these ideas down to something very different. And if you start them off big, what finally gets through the mess of Washington is different but workable.&#8221;</p>

<p>I think that Bernie&rsquo;s ideas now, yeah, they do mirror more a 2008 Obama. But the way Clinton presents herself as a pragmatist trying to get things done &mdash; I have no idea who she is talking about. I don&#8217;t know her record of getting amazing things pushed through Congress. I don&#8217;t see that. I don&#8217;t know that. For me, it&#8217;s always better to start big and then begin making deals from there.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The Democratic Party can&#039;t be saved</h2>
<p><strong>ER: I want to bring this back to your piece, because your piece doesn&rsquo;t seem to be saying, &#8220;I think Clinton is a bad candidate.&#8221; It&rsquo;s, &#8220;I&rsquo;m leaving the Democratic Party.&#8221;<em> </em>That&rsquo;s a much more extreme position. Can you explain how you get there from believing Clinton in particular won&rsquo;t be successful?</strong></p>

<p>SK: Here&#8217;s why: In 2008 President Obama came in and changed what lobbyists could do not only with his transition team but with the White House. Then he kind of enforced those rules on the DNC. And day by day this year, the DNC &mdash; and [DNC chair] Debbie Wasserman Schultz &mdash; they&rsquo;ve repealed all of these really amazing changes that he put in place.</p>

<p>So when I say the Democratic Party, I mean this party. The president appointed Debbie Wasserman Schultz. That was his pick. When she repealed the rules change, allowing lobbyists to make huge donations and PACs to make huge donations to the DNC, the things he did not want to happen, he didn&#8217;t say anything. And I think it was a bit of silent agreement like, <em>Hey, we are going to make these changes</em>. And for me, that&#8217;s a deal breaker.</p>
<figure class="wp-block-pullquote alignleft"><blockquote><p>&quot;I&#039;ve met enough of those people to know they give money for influence. They don&#039;t give it as a kind gift. They give it to influence policy.&quot;</p></blockquote></figure>
<p><strong>ER: So you believe fundamentally that the trouble is with money?</strong></p>

<p>SK: Yeah. It is money. I think it comes down to that. The crux of my frustration is the idea that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. I absolutely believe with everything in me that politicians are incredibly influenced by Super PACs and the people who give them money. I&#8217;ve met enough of those people to know they give money for influence. They don&#8217;t give it as a kind gift. They give it to influence policy.</p>

<p><strong>ER: And you believe that&rsquo;s inevitable? Money in politics was one of Sanders&#8217;s central platforms. Sanders ran as a Democrat. Does that suggest that the solution isn&#8217;t necessarily to leave the party &mdash; it&#8217;s to support candidates like Sanders who reform the party? </strong></p>

<p>SK: If any of us expect Hillary Clinton to get into office and then say, &#8220;You know what? I am totally repealing all of this stuff. From lobbyists, from Super PACs, all of that stuff. Even though those things had a huge role in my campaign&#8221; &mdash; if she did that, I would be shocked and I would be glad. But I have no reason to believe that she or Debbie Wasserman Schultz or anybody would do anything different than what they&#8217;ve done already.</p>

<p>President Obama tried removing lobbyists from donating. Then they put all those things back into place. If Hillary is the nominee, whether she becomes president or not, she&rsquo;ll be the face of the party. And I don&#8217;t just disagree with her on war or campaign finances; there is also <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/2/4/10920964/democratic-debate-sanders-clinton-death-penalty">the death penalty</a>. There are 10 different issues that I disagree with her. And her as the face of the party, I disagree with. I think there are millions and millions of progressives who are finding themselves uncomfortable in the Democratic Party, and I&#8217;m one of those people.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">So what&#039;s next — the Green Party, or a new party under the banner of Bernie Sanders?</h2>
<p><strong>ER: Let&rsquo;s talk about moving forward. Do you think there&rsquo;s a real opening for a third party?</strong></p>

<p>SK:<strong> </strong>If Bernie does not get the nomination, and I have serious doubts there is real way he will, we have polls showing that people are more willing historically than they have ever been to consider a third-party candidate. The <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-election-2016-shapes-up-as-a-contest-of-negatives/2016/05/21/8d4ccfd6-1ed3-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html">Washington Post/ABC News Poll shows that 44 percent of Americans</a> said they would consider a third-party candidate. People don&rsquo;t like these two candidates &mdash; Clinton and Trump &mdash; but I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s just them. I think it&rsquo;s the parties. It&#8217;s the way politics go.</p>

<p><strong>ER: Do those numbers translate? In the past it hasn&rsquo;t been as high, but you have more than 30 percent in past elections saying they&rsquo;re open to a third party, and in the general election only 2 or 3 percent voted for any of them. There are obviously huge barriers to third parties actually winning. </strong></p>

<p>SK: I&#8217;m thinking about it a lot, actually. I think a lot of us think about it way more than we say. Literally several dozen people a day send me messages on Facebook or Twitter or email or whatever just saying, <em>What does that look like? </em>And not just regular Joes, but influencers, celebrities, activists, and others who feel like to be a part of the Democratic Party requires them to compromise their integrity. And they mean that.</p>

<p>It&#8217;s just not like, &#8220;I hate Hillary.&#8221;<em> </em>That&#8217;s not enough to fuel the creation of something new or the renovation of something that is already there. It has to be, &#8220;We stand for something significantly different than what this party stands for; we have a very different strategy for how to approach things.&#8221;</p>

<p><strong>ER: In your piece, you mention starting a new progressive party. Why not join an existing one?</strong></p>

<p>SK:<strong> </strong>I really respect Jill Stein and the Green Party. There&#8217;s the Working Families Party, too. There are dozens of grassroots parties all around the United States. So that&rsquo;s a route.</p>

<p>But I think another option is to start a new party, a brand new party that is built on the movement Bernie Sanders created. I think there is fuel. Unless you&#8217;ve been a part of it, it&#8217;s hard to believe it&#8217;s a moment, but the millions, the 10 million people that supported Bernie Sanders, would like to go in a different direction with politics. Even if it&#8217;s just a third of those people who decided to go in a different direction, it could be a really influential force, and not just in a presidential election.</p>
<figure class="wp-block-pullquote alignleft"><blockquote><p>&quot;I don&#039;t believe the Democratic Party when it comes to issues of racial justice, of prison reform&quot;</p></blockquote></figure>
<p><strong>ER: People will argue that it&rsquo;ll be influential mostly as a spoiler.</strong></p>

<p>SK:<strong> </strong>I don&#8217;t buy that. People call people in third parties that, but they are just people who believe, substantively, that they can&#8217;t stand for what the major parties stand for.</p>

<p><strong>ER: What about the argument that the best use of the Sanders movement&#8217;s energy is to keep trying to reform the Democratic Party? Maybe not with Clinton, but beyond that.</strong></p>

<p>SK:<strong> </strong>Our current legal system did not start in 1970 or 1990. Our current laws and structure and Constitution and other things, these things that were the basis, the foundation of our current legal system today, were created during slavery, were created during a time of gross, ugly inequity of the highest magnitude.</p>

<p>What has happened since the abolition of slavery is that you&#8217;ve [made] a little tinker here, a little tinker there. And if we go back, we will find [with the] Democratic Party, its roots and foundations are not always this beautiful thing. The same is true of the Republican Party.</p>

<p>There&#8217;s a real part of me that feels like there would be something amazing &mdash; and this is what the Green Party is attempting to do, and it&#8217;s what I&#8217;m hoping we can do &mdash; is to say there is something powerful about starting from scratch, not making adjustments from what was created a hundred years ago but create something fresh from the beginning and see what happens.</p>

<p>There is one thing that happens when you renovate a building, and there is another thing that happens when you build it from scratch. And both have great merit, but I&#8217;m feeling like, particularly in light of changing demographics of America, the advent of technology, that a newly created party from scratch, not of a deviation from the thing that already exists, could address issues of economic, environmental, and racial justice in a really intelligent way that the current Democratic Party just is not going to do. I am just at the point where I have lost almost all faith that that is possible with the current party system.</p>

<p><strong>ER: So what would your new party look like? What&rsquo;s the platform? Is it Sanders-style democratic socialism? Universal health care, public college tuition, significantly scaled-back international presence?</strong></p>

<p>SK:<strong> </strong>Yeah. Against the death penalty, very, very strong environmental policies. A strong, honest racial justice platform. Because I don&#8217;t believe the Democratic Party when it comes to issues of racial justice, of prison reform. I believe President Obama&#8217;s heart, I believe him, but I do not believe the Democratic Senate or Congress on a lot of these issues.</p>

<p><strong>ER: Let&rsquo;s talk about that, since you came to prominence largely as somebody invested in racial justice issues. You don&rsquo;t believe the Democrats can make progress on those issues?</strong></p>

<p>SK: Nope.</p>

<p>I don&#8217;t believe the Democratic Party on issues of racial injustice. That was before this campaign. You know Bob McCulloch, the district attorney of St. Louis, who I loathe, who I fought tooth and nail to ensure nothing like this could happen in Ferguson, is a lifelong Democrat. Jay Nixon, the governor of Missouri, who I thought did a terrible job managing so much of what happened there, a lifelong Democrat. I wouldn&#8217;t be surprised if we found out that <a href="http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side">Darren Wilson</a> is a lifelong Democrat.</p>
<figure class="wp-block-pullquote alignleft"><blockquote><p>&quot;I have loved the freedom of being a part of Bernie&#039;s campaign and of knowing that almost every idea I have is shared by his campaign. I believe a progressive party could be shaped around those ideals.&quot;</p></blockquote></figure>
<p>We see police departments and others all throughout this country are still basically a part of what they believe is basically the Democratic Party. &#8230; Up until last year, Hillary Clinton was receiving private donations from private prison lobbyists, and that&#8217;s disgusting. Some of her biggest supporters, to this very day, are still members of private prison lobbies and others, and eventually, only when she was pushed, she said, &#8220;Okay I won&#8217;t do that.&#8221;</p>

<p>For me, I don&#8217;t feel comfortable at all that the Democratic Party, as we see it, has a true racial justice platform that comes from their heart and soul. I feel like a new progressive party could do so much better with that.</p>

<p><strong>ER: What about the charge &mdash; and you hear this in a lot of places &mdash; that the people you&rsquo;re talking about, Sanders&#8217;s people, are prioritizing economic issues over racial equality? There&rsquo;s a narrative in this election that sort of pits these angry white men for Bernie on one side against a diverse coalition on the other. You don&rsquo;t buy that?</strong></p>

<p>SK: I can only speak for myself. A couple thoughts there: This kind of notion, mostly people I know, people I work with daily inside Bernie Sanders&rsquo;s campaign, are people of color. The supporters that I interact with and the campaign officials and staff members and surrogates that I interact with, are almost always men and women of color. Be it Symone Sanders, the press secretary, Nina Turner or Killer Mike or Rosario Dawson, people that &mdash; the guys from Young Turks or others &mdash; I interact with a lot and see some of Bernie&#8217;s most fervent supporters are men and women of color.</p>

<p>That narrative hasn&#8217;t been told, but that&#8217;s the truth. Once you look at people under 44, Bernie wins with all demographics with all people under the age of 44, and then he loses big when you go over 44 and look at African Americans and others. When you go under 35 or under 27 and look at African American or Latino or whatever, he crushes it.</p>

<p><strong>ER: And you believe there are enough people there and enough energy there to start something new?</strong></p>

<p>SK:<strong> </strong>Yes. It could be a new coalition, but an official, new coalition, of the dozen or so parties that exist. Or it could be millions of us migrating to the Green Party.</p>

<p>I can only speak for myself, but I have loved the freedom of being a part of Bernie&#8217;s campaign and of knowing that almost every idea I have is shared by his campaign. I believe a progressive party could be shaped around those ideals. And that doesn&#8217;t look like the Democratic Party to me.</p>

<p>Maybe something wonderful will happen at the convention, and we&#8217;ll see, but I think there&rsquo;s value in saying, &#8220;No, we&#8217;re not tinkering with the ugliness that has already been created; we&#8217;re starting from scratch, with structure, with tone, with substance.&#8221;</p>

<p><strong>ER: And you believe that party could be successful?</strong></p>

<p>SK: I think it would certainly be an uphill battle to make that into a movement that goes beyond what, for example, the Green Party has been able to do so far. But I think we&#8217;re in a really weird time with two candidates, and two parties, that a huge volume of people are frustrated with, disgusted with. I think we&#8217;re at a weird time where, if it were ever possible to do something new, it would be right now.</p>

<p><strong>ER: Or after the current election.</strong></p>

<p>SK:<strong> </strong>Yeah. I want to see how these last few states go, see how the convention goes, and then, when I make up my mind, I won&#8217;t be nebulous about it. That&#8217;s not my style. Wherever we go, wherever I go after the convention, I&#8217;ll go pretty hard for it. And no matter what, that&#8217;s going to be me fighting hard against Donald Trump.</p>

<p>What that means, for me, in terms of who I vote for or what shape this takes specifically, I really can&#8217;t say yet. And it&#8217;s not because I refuse; it&#8217;s because I sincerely don&#8217;t know.</p>
<hr class="wp-block-separator" /><h2 class="wp-block-heading">Obama is one of our most consequential presidents</h2><div class="video-container"><iframe src="https://volume.vox-cdn.com/embed/b15d91025?player_type=youtube&#038;loop=1&#038;placement=article&#038;tracking=article:rss" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" allow=""></iframe></div>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Emmett Rensin</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[The lunacy of Silicon Valley is no secret. But Dan Lyons&#8217;s Disrupted goes deeper than foosball tables and free beer.]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.vox.com/2016/4/27/11455180/disrupted-book-review-dan-lyons-silicon-valley-hubspot" />
			<id>https://www.vox.com/2016/4/27/11455180/disrupted-book-review-dan-lyons-silicon-valley-hubspot</id>
			<updated>2016-04-27T00:52:33-04:00</updated>
			<published>2016-04-27T11:10:02-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Books" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Culture" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Reviews" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[I stopped reading stories about the excess of Silicon Valley when I realized that even the most cartoonishly vile characters of the genre are just rich, boring assholes. A 29-year-old millionaire who finds San Francisco&#8217;s Market Street &#8220;grotesque.&#8221; A company that fires long-time employees via iOS notification. A young CEO who looks around San Francisco, [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="The cover of Disrupted; author Dan Lyons." data-portal-copyright="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6393733/1461706822504.png?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
	The cover of Disrupted; author Dan Lyons.	</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I stopped reading stories about the excess of Silicon Valley when I realized that even the most cartoonishly vile characters of the genre are just rich, boring assholes.</p>

<p>A 29-year-old millionaire who <a href="https://backchannel.com/the-weird-redemption-of-sf-s-most-reviled-tech-bro-ce8dd1bfb705#.zg3mctd0q">finds</a> San Francisco&#8217;s Market Street &#8220;grotesque.&#8221; A company that fires long-time employees via <a href="http://gawker.com/the-extremely-shitty-way-one-man-learned-hed-been-fired-1736246456#_ga=1.250925702.1078352566.1439403696">iOS notification</a>. A young CEO who looks around San Francisco, a city he &#8220;loves,&#8221; and calls for the mayor to help him <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/san-francisco-tech-open-letter-i-dont-want-to-see-homeless-riff-raff">protect</a> his lovely parents from the traumatizing sight of a homeless man. I&rsquo;ve heard more deplorable things in a dive bar, and more creative things, too. I have no objection to the ritual humiliation of the grotesquely wealthy. But after a time I could no longer love to hate the degenerate boy-king overlords of Silicon Valley. I was only bored to hate them.</p>
<p><!-- ######## BEGIN SNIPPET ######## --></p><div class="chorus-snippet ratingbox"> <!-- add number from 1 to 5 where the 3 is --><div class="rating-container"> <p>Rating</p> <hr> <span class="rating-number">3.5</span> </div> </div><!-- ######## END SNIPPET ######## --><p><br id="1461732801777"> I also began to worry there was something codependent about the whole &#8220;Silicon Valley jackass&#8221; subgenre. It happens to every class of beat reporter, but it&#8217;s acute in the gossip columns: The rags need the marks they&rsquo;re ragging on. The waggers need Silicon Valley. In the typical case it&#8217;s just one genre of dull hipster making fun of a slightly worse one; the Bowdoin-to-Brooklyn type versus dropout-to-startup kind. In the worst, it is Aaron Sorkin capping off a career dedicated to valorizing a succession of increasingly pompous fictional assholes by writing &#8220;nonfiction&#8221; screenplays about real-life assholes, every one of which might well be titled <em>You Jealous?</em></p>
<p>Even the best entries, like Andrew Marantz&#8217;s profile of &#8220;internet-media entrepreneur&#8221; Emerson Spartz, <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/01/05/virologist"><em>The Virologist</em></a>, may make their subjects appear preternaturally vapid (&#8220;Asked to name the most beautiful prose he had read, he said, &#8216;A beautiful book? I don&rsquo;t even know what that means. Impactful, sure.'&#8221;) but they do not dismiss them completely. Even Marantz doesn&rsquo;t want to rob Spartz of all of his mystique. Yeah, Spartz is eminently hateable, yeah he was raised on dime-store biographies of successful people, and sure, he thinks making garbage go viral is a superpower, but hey! He&rsquo;s made money in new and exciting ways, so maybe it <em>is</em> a superpower, a bit. Maybe he&#8217;s a genius, too.</p>

<p>I stopped because these stories are always the same story. They are always point-and-laugh &mdash; isn&rsquo;t this awful? &mdash; but no further. Always, <em>It&rsquo;s kind of cool though, isn&rsquo;t it? </em>too. They roll their eyes at the brave new world, but always allow that it is the world, that it is inevitable, that it is brave in its own grotesque way.</p>
<figure class="wp-block-pullquote alignleft"><blockquote><p>While Lyons engages in quite a lot of the usual &#039;<em>Look at these lunatics&#039;</em> scoffing, he does it as well as I’ve ever seen</p></blockquote></figure>
<p>All of this is to say that I did not know about Dan Lyons&#8217;s <em>Disrupted </em>until after it was published earlier this month. I did not know that Lyons &mdash; the author of <a href="http://www.fakesteve.net/">Fake Steve Jobs</a> and a staff writer on HBO&#8217;s <em>Silicon Valley</em> &mdash; was writing a memoir about his time at <a href="http://www.hubspot.com/">HubSpot</a>, a real startup where he&#8217;d really worked, nor that HubSpot was forced to fire two executives in July 2015 after they allegedly attempted to steal an early draft of <em>Disrupted</em>, thereby confirming in advance that the worst allegations therein were likely to be true. I did not know that the theft triggered an FBI investigation, or that Lyons worries to this day what the alleged hackers managed to steal or whether they are still plotting against him.</p>

<p>I had not heard of it all until the New York Times ran <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/opinion/sunday/congratulations-youve-been-fired.html?_r=0">an excerpt</a> of <em>Disrupted </em>on April 10 and I managed a few paragraphs before I realized what I was reading and was by then too entertained to quit. Then, halfway in, I found a sentence I never expected the New York Times would print. Speaking of Silicon Valley&rsquo;s self-regard as a &#8220;model of enlightenment,&#8221; Lyons wrote: &#8220;This &#8216;new&#8217; way of working is actually the oldest game in the world: the exploitation of labor by capital.&#8221;</p>

<p>There was maybe something more to this book than its blurbs &mdash; &#8220;a savage burn!&#8221; &mdash; suggested. I ordered a copy. It did not let me down: While Lyons engages in quite a lot of the usual <em>Look at these lunatics</em> scoffing, he does it as well as I&rsquo;ve ever seen. He does something else, too. <em>Disrupted</em> begins to chip away, a bit, at the superficial gawking I&#8217;d grown bored with and to argue that the trouble with Silicon Valley isn&#8217;t the excesses of companies-as-adult-frat-houses &mdash; not really. It&#8217;s the excess of capitalism, shredding a century of labor security and calling it a cutting-edge <em>disruption.</em></p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Disrupted&#039;s blistering approach to Silicon Valley excess doesn&#039;t reveal anything new, but it&#039;s a shining example of the form</h2>
<p>The first half of <em>Disrupted</em> is pure Valley wagging. Lyons, fired at 50 from his position as <em>Newsweek&#8217;</em>s technology editor, decides that he will not sit out the second tech bubble: He&rsquo;s going to cash in.</p>

<p>&#8220;The tech market is going crazy again, and this time I&rsquo;m not going to sit on the sidelines and write about it,&#8221; Lyons writes, &#8220;I&#8217;m going to work at a start-up. I am going to feed the ducks, or surf the tsunami, and maybe I will fall off my surfboard and drown, or maybe, I don&rsquo;t know, I&rsquo;ll get eaten by ducks, but to hell with it &mdash; I&rsquo;m going to try.&#8221;</p>

<p>The try takes the form of a job at HubSpot, an &#8220;inbound marketing&#8221; startup in Boston. He interviews with the company&#8217;s founders and they seem like smart guys. Their company is growing &mdash; they have a &#8220;really hot&#8221; IPO coming in the next couple of years. The founders offer Lyons what sounds like a great gig: He&#8217;ll be a senior journalist coming in to remake the company&#8217;s in-house blog into something cutting-edge and professional. He&#8217;s excited.</p>

<p>Conditions rapidly deteriorate.</p>

<p>On Lyons&#8217;s first day, neither of the men who hired him, nor the senior manager he believes he was working for, are even there to greet him. Lyons is shown around by a 20-something who, it turns out, is his boss. His job is not remaking HubSpot&#8217;s blog, it is generating &#8220;content&#8221; for it, content, it turns out, that is largely designed to convince inexperienced small business owners to fill out a form thereby allowing HubSpot to spam them with advertising. Lyons is twice HubSpot&#8217;s average age. His peer coworkers are fresh out of college. Nobody likes him, and he doesn&#8217;t like them.</p>
<figure class="wp-block-pullquote alignleft"><blockquote><p>The depths of Silicon Valley are not more depraved than you imagined; they are precisely <em>as </em>depraved as you&#039;ve heard</p></blockquote></figure>
<p>The following hundred pages are a catalogue of what might be called &#8220;bad culture fit&#8221; by way of Lyons savaging his co-workers, his company, and the entire Silicon Valley mentality. HubSpot employees are clowns, they speak in incomprehensible acronyms. They don&rsquo;t seem bothered when employees are suddenly fired (perversely called &#8220;graduation&#8221;) and disappear without another word. They believe HubSpot&#8217;s ownership when it tells them they are &#8220;rock stars,&#8221; &#8220;super stars with super powers&#8221; who are &#8220;inspiring people&#8221; and &#8220;changing the world.&#8221; The bosses themselves are mendacious, self-deluded megalomaniacs so thoroughly proficient at their line of bullshit that Lyons cannot tell if they&#8217;re running a racket or if they really do believe themselves to be revolutionary marketing geniuses.</p>

<p>&#8220;Arriving here feels like landing on some remote island where a bunch of people have been living for years, in isolation, making up their own rules and rituals and religion and language &mdash; even, to some extent, inventing their own reality,&#8221; Lyons writes, noting that &#8220;&hellip;every tech start-up seems to be like this. Believing that your company is not just about making money, that there is a meaning and purpose to what you do, that your company has a mission and that you want to be part of that mission &mdash; that is a big prerequisite for working at one of these places. How that differs from joining what might otherwise be called a cult is not entirely clear.&#8221;</p>

<p>The inanity extends beyond HubSpot itself. &#8220;Maybe they like this rhetoric because it makes online sales and marketing seem like some kind of epic adventure rather than the drab, soul-destroying job that it actually is,&#8221; he says, &#8220;Marketing conferences are filled with wannabe gurus and thought leaders working themselves up into a revival-show lather about connecting with customers and engaging in holistic, heart-based marketing, which sounds like something I made up but is actually a real thing that really exists and is taken seriously by actual adult human beings.&#8221;</p>

<p>&#8220;Which makes me want to cry,&#8221; he adds.</p>

<p>We later learn that it&#8217;s all a lie, anyway: HubSpot&#8217;s real core is a factory of telemarketers brute-forcing sales in precisely the &#8220;outbound&#8221; manner that HubSpot&#8217;s <em>disruptive</em> &#8220;inbound marketing&#8221; software is meant to replace.</p>

<p>The sheer volume of lunacy abounding at HubSpot consumes roughly half of <em>Disrupted</em>&rsquo;s 258 pages. If you still have an appetite for such things, I can&#8217;t recommend<strong> </strong>Lyons&#8217;s book more: It is the funniest and most relentless iteration of the form, madcap and darker than I&#8217;d expected. Speaking of a job posting seeking a media relations superstar capable of landing HubSpot on the cover of Time, Lyons writes: &#8220;Take it from someone who worked at <em>Time</em>&#8216;s primary competitor &mdash; the only way a company like HubSpot will ever merit that kind of coverage is if an employee brings a bag of guns and shoots the place up.&#8221; This is not the typical humor of a man who characterizes himself the way Lyons does, as a goofy, out-of-touch dad.</p>

<p>But it is difficult, in the book&#8217;s early sections, not to feel a kind of weariness. Ludicrous as HubSpot is, nothing in Lyons&#8217;s account is revelatory. The lid isn&#8217;t blown off anything. The depths of Silicon Valley are not more depraved than you imagined. They are precisely as depraved as you&#8217;ve heard.</p>

<p>Even in the most savage moments &mdash; &#8220;Dreamforce [a marketing conference] turns out to be a four-day orgy worthy of Caligula, a triumph of vulgarity and wasteful spending, with free booze and endless shrimp cocktail and a rate of STD transmission that probably rivals Fleet Week&#8221; &mdash; we have only the consummation of the expected. Yes: Salesforce CEO<strong> </strong>Marc Benioff is the Michelangelo of Silicon Valley horseshit. Deepak Chopra is a &#8220;noted charlatan and hack.&#8221; Netscape co-founder and venture capitalist giant<strong> </strong>Marc Andreessen is <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304071004579409813180461206">probably corrupt</a> and certainly a narcissist. Yes, all of them are served by legions of white college grads too distracted by free beer and Awesome Culture!! to notice they&#8217;re overpraised mediocrities. But didn&#8217;t we know this already?</p>

<p>&#8220;Give millions of dollars to young entitled assholes, provide no adult supervision, and what happens next is predictable,&#8221; Lyons writes. He&#8217;s right. It is.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The book rises above the typical Silicon Valley rant by examining the tech industry&#039;s unfair labor practices</h2>
<p>There is, however, a deeper current to <em>Disrupted</em>, one that begins over 100 pages in and fulfills the promise made by Lyons&#8217;s New York Times essay: Companies like HubSpots are not just crazy bins. They&#8217;re avaricious financial rackets &mdash; barely about technology at all &mdash; dedicated to the eradication of even modest labor protections and the cynical exploitation of workers.</p>

<p>&#8220;HubSpot&#8217;s offices are in an old furniture factory, built in the middle of the nineteenth century,&#8221; Lyons writes, &#8220;Except for the free beer, the job of a HubSpot BDR [a &#8220;business development rep, i.e., a sales monkey] doesn&#8217;t seem much better than the job his great-grandfather might have had in this same room a hundred years ago. The old sweatshop has just been turned into a new sweatshop. In some ways, the new one is worse.&#8221;</p>

<p>He goes on:</p>
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote has-text-align-none is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p>It turns out I&rsquo;ve been na&iuml;ve. I&rsquo;ve spent twenty-five years writing about technology companies, and I thought I understood this industry. But at HubSpot, I&rsquo;m discovering that a lot of what I believed is wrong. I thought, for example, that tech companies began with great inventions&hellip;Engineering came first, and sales came later.</p>

<p>But HubSpot did the opposite &hellip; HubSpot started out as a sales operation in search of a product &hellip; while people still refer to this business as &#8220;the tech industry,&#8221; in truth it is no longer really about technology at all. <em>You don&rsquo;t get rewarded for creating great technology, not anymore</em>, says a friend of mine who has worked in tech since the 1980s &hellip; <em>It&rsquo;s all about the business model. The market pays you to have a company that scales quickly. It&rsquo;s all about getting big fast. Don&rsquo;t be profitable, just get big</em>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The beer, the foosball tables, the corporate cult: These aren&#8217;t the silly consequences of a self-important industry drenched in cash; they&#8217;re a con. &#8220;How can you get hundreds of people to work in sales and marketing for the lowest possible wages?&#8221; Lyons asks, &#8220;One way is to hire people who are right out of college and make work seem fun. You give them free beer and foosball tables. You decorate the place like a cross between a kindergarten and a frat house. You throw parties. Do that, and you can find an endless supply of bros who will toil away in the spider monkey room, under constant, tremendous psychological pressure, for $35,000 a year.&#8221;</p>
<figure class="wp-block-pullquote alignleft"><blockquote><p>The chapter is called &quot;The New Work: Employees as Widgets,&quot; and it alone is worth the cover price</p></blockquote></figure>
<p>You create a company where employees have few benefits and less job security. Where termination can occur at any time. Where stake-price stock options &mdash; the great payout if you stick around through an IPO &mdash; take longer to meaningfully accrue than the average tenure of an employee.</p>

<p>The outcome is always the same: Investors get rich. Owners get rich. Managers get by. &#8220;Who does that leave to get hurt?&#8221; a friend asks Lyons. I&#8217;m not sure, he says. &#8220;Jesus, dumbass. The employees!&#8221;</p>

<p>&#8220;Silicon Valley has a dark side,&#8221; Lyons writes, &#8220;To be sure, there are plenty of shiny, happy people working in tech. But this is also a world where wealth is distributed unevenly and benefits accrue mostly to investors and founders, who have rigged the game in their favor &hellip; It&#8217;s a world where employers discriminate on the basis of race and gender, where founders sometimes turn out to be sociopathic monsters, where poorly trained (or completely untrained) managers abuse employees and fire people with impunity, and where workers have little recourse and no job security.&#8221;</p>

<p>He goes on:</p>
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote has-text-align-none is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p>There was a time, not so long ago, when companies felt obliged to look after their employees and to be good corporate citizens. Today that social compact has been thrown out. In the New Work, employers may expect loyalty from workers but owe no loyalty to them in return. Instead of being offered secure jobs that can last a lifetime, people are treated as disposable widgets that can be plugged into a company for a year or two then unplugged and sent packing.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It may be the New Work to those who woke up at the end of the last century and realized there was a lot of money to be saved by brutalizing cheap labor, but as Lyons well knows, it isn&#8217;t new at all. The time &#8220;not long ago&#8221; when companies cared about their employees was brief, a blessed period between the end of the Second World War and the Reagan Revolution, when American workers enjoyed the most equitable labor relations hitherto achieved in their country. But disposability? Job insecurity? The virtue of avarice, at the total expense of labor? Like Lyons said: It&#8217;s the oldest game in the world. The &#8220;New Work&#8221; disrupters have only included free dry cleaning.</p>

<p>The chapter is called &#8220;The New Work: Employees as Widgets,&#8221; but it might as well be called &#8220;80 Percent of the World Is Explained by Vulgar Marxism,&#8221; and if you read nothing else in <em>Disrupted</em>, it alone is worth the cover price.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The one aspect of Silicon Valley&#039;s long con that Lyons fails to address is that which perpetuates the genre of writing about it</h2><div data-chorus-asset-id="6393755"> <img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6393755/SiliconValley_S2_HBO.0.0.jpg"><div class="caption">The main cast of HBO&#8217;s Silicon Valley, which Lyons now writes for.</div> </div>
<p>The second half of <em>Disrupted</em> dovetails neatly, Lyons keeps up the economic argument, diving into the particularly inept financial management of HubSpot (one that nonetheless yields a <a href="http://venturebeat.com/2014/10/11/why-hubspots-ipo-was-more-than-just-an-ipo/">successful IPO</a>). He riffs, at length, on ageism in tech. He tells more stories about wild parties and abusive managers, about how he took a leave of absence to join the writing staff of <em>Silicon Valley</em> and returned to find his sole former friend at the office had been (possibly) tasked with harassing him out of the company.</p>

<p>The story has a happy ending: Lyons becomes a TV writer, departs HubSpot for Gawker, and sells a book about his experiences. He&#8217;s no longer a humiliated boomer, working alongside idiots half his age. He&#8217;s a success. He even clears about $60,000 when HubSpot goes public.</p>

<p>All of this works, so far as <em>Disrupted</em> goes. But I finished it wondering if there wasn&#8217;t something Lyons missed. For all the time he devotes to the con that companies like HubSpot run on their employees, the con they run on public investors and &mdash; when the bubble bursts again &mdash; the con they&#8217;ll have run on<strong> </strong>the whole of the American economy, Lyons does not touch on the con closest to his own task: the one Silicon Valley runs on journalists and authors who write about what maniac bastards they all are.</p>

<p>That, at bottom, is why I stopped reading about Silicon Valley. People like (former) HubSpot executive Mike Volpe, entrepreneurs like Andreessen and Spartz, even elites like Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg, seem happy enough to be called lunatics and cultists. It may not be their first choice, but it is better than nothing. As reviled &#8220;pharma bro&#8221; and <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/12/11/9891294/wu-tang-clan-shaolin-shkreli-bill-murray">Wu-Tang fan</a> Martin Shkreli knows, if you can&rsquo;t convince everyone you&#8217;re Awesome, then let the cynics cast you as special kind of villain. An asshole, but a bit of a badass, too.</p>

<p>&#8220;In the World According to Start-Ups,&#8221; Lyons writes, &#8220;when tech companies cut corners it is for the greater good. These start-up founders are not like Gordon Gekko or Bernie Madoff, driven by greed and avarice; they are Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr., engaging in civil disobedience.&#8221;</p>

<p>Perhaps that&#8217;s true, and among the ranks of the Valley there really are 25-year-olds lamenting the visible existence of poor people just like Rosa Parks. But truthfully, they aren&#8217;t even Gekko. They&#8217;re not nearly so special, unless we paint them that way. They&#8217;re mundane people making mundane money and selling their greed with a new flavor of old hype. They&#8217;re not cool, even in a bad way. They&#8217;re just rich. They&#8217;re the latest adepts in the ancient art of rigging a financial system and throwing yourself a wild party with the profits. The nicest thing you could say about them is that some are no doubt very talented and very smart and very sadly dedicated to the grotesque accumulation of capital.</p>

<p>Late in <em>Disrupted</em>, Lyons talks about conspiring with a co-worker to keep his job. The co-worker makes things exciting in a pathetic way, forwarding Lyons a clip from <em>Donnie Brasco</em> that reminds him of the petty corporate intrigue they&rsquo;re pulling.</p>

<p>But, Lyons says, &#8220;maybe we are just two dickheads working in a marketing department, and one of us wants that to seem a little less banal than it really is.&#8221;</p>

<p>I am proposing that the same is true of the whole industry. That there is not even novel villainy in hurting people to make money.</p>

<p>It is not enough, then, to mock Silicon Valley. The whole enterprise distracts. If the conmen in the Valley can convince you that they are a new and exceptional kind of evil, you will spend time thinking up new and exceptional ways to fight back, intimidated and a little bit in awe of their bravado. It isn&#8217;t necessary.</p>

<p>The rigged contracts, the job insecurity, the abusive management, the racism, the harassment, the investment scamming and hardball, the criminal reaction to dissent &mdash; these are old monsters, to be slain with old weapons. They are the same weapons needed across the whole of the economy: regulation, labor laws, newly robust unions, a political apparatus dedicated to questions beyond the fairest way to grow GDP.</p>

<p>If there is to be a rhetorical component, wagging to be done and a book to be written, so be it. Dedicate the wagging and the book to the proposition that there are interests not only outside of but contradictory to the pursuit of wealth, the fastest possible growth of the market. If we have to call it a disruption, fine, but don&#8217;t let the cult-talk and the frat parties and the mystique of these new assholes fool you. We&#8217;ve beaten them before. We know how.</p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Emmett Rensin</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[The smug style in American liberalism]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism" />
			<id>https://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism</id>
			<updated>2017-12-14T11:42:46-05:00</updated>
			<published>2016-04-21T08:20:03-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Criminal Justice" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Policy" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[There is a smug style in American liberalism. It has been growing these past decades. It is a way of conducting politics, predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence &#8212; not really &#8212; but by the failure of half the country to know what&#8217;s good for [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="Brittany Holloway-Brown" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9870283/SmugStyle_Final.0.0.0.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<div class="chorus-snippet center"> <p>There is a smug style in American liberalism. It has been growing these past decades. It is a way of conducting politics, predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence &mdash; not really &mdash; but by the failure of half the country to know what&#8217;s good for them.</p> <p>In 2016, the smug style has found expression in media and in policy, in the attitudes of liberals both visible and private, providing a foundational set of assumptions above which a great number of liberals comport their understanding of the world.</p> <p>It has led an American ideology hitherto responsible for a great share of the good accomplished over the past century of our political life to a posture of reaction and disrespect: a condescending, defensive sneer toward any person or movement outside of its consensus, dressed up as a monopoly on reason.</p> <p>The smug style is a psychological reaction to a profound shift in American political demography.</p> <p>Beginning in the middle of the 20th century, the working class, once the core of the coalition, began abandoning the Democratic Party. In 1948, in the immediate wake of Franklin Roosevelt, 66 percent of manual laborers voted for Democrats, along with 60 percent of farmers. In 1964, <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2008/4/demographics-teixeira/04_demographics_teixeira.pdf">it was</a> 55 percent of working-class voters. By 1980, it was 35 percent.</p> <p>The white working class in particular saw even <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/23/a-closer-look-at-the-parties-in-2012/">sharper declines</a>. Despite historic advantages with both poor and middle-class white voters, by 2012 Democrats possessed only a 2-point advantage among poor white voters. Among white voters making between $30,000 and $75,000 per year, the GOP has taken a 17-point lead.</p> <q>Finding comfort in the notion that their former allies were disdainful, hapless rubes, smug liberals created a culture animated by that contempt</q><p>The consequence was a shift in liberalism&#8217;s intellectual center of gravity. A movement once fleshed out in union halls and little magazines shifted into universities and major press, from the center of the country to its cities and elite enclaves. Minority voters remained, but bereft of the material and social capital required to dominate elite decision-making, they were largely excluded from an agenda driven by the new Democratic core: the educated, the coastal, and the professional.</p> <p>It is not that these forces captured the party so much as it fell to them. When the laborer left, they remained.</p> <p>The origins of this shift are overdetermined. Richard Nixon bears a large part of the blame, but so does Bill Clinton. The Southern Strategy, yes, but the destruction of labor unions, too. I have my own sympathies, but I do not propose to adjudicate that question here.</p> <p>Suffice it to say, by the 1990s the better part of the working class wanted nothing to do with the word <em>liberal</em>. What remained of the American progressive elite was left to puzzle: What happened to our coalition?</p> <p>Why did they abandon us?</p> <p><em>What&#8217;s the matter with Kansas?</em><em></em></p> <p>The smug style arose to answer these questions. It provided an answer so simple and so emotionally satisfying that its success was perhaps inevitable: the theory that conservatism, and particularly the kind embraced by those <em>out there</em> in the country, was not a political ideology at all.</p> <div class="float-right s-sidebar"> <h4>Learn more</h4> <a target="new" href="http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/5556462/brain-dead-how-politics-makes-us-stupid" rel="noopener"> <img data-chorus-asset-id="6365289" alt="170441489.0.0.jpg" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6365289/170441489.0.0.jpg"> </a><p><a target="new" href="http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/5556462/brain-dead-how-politics-makes-us-stupid" rel="noopener">How politics makes us stupid</a></p> </div> <p>The trouble is that stupid hicks don&#8217;t know what&#8217;s good for them. They&#8217;re getting conned by right-wingers and tent revivalists until they believe all the lies that&#8217;ve made them so wrong. They don&#8217;t know any better. That&#8217;s why they&#8217;re <em>voting against their own self-interest</em>.</p> <p>As anybody who has gone through a particularly nasty breakup knows, disdain cultivated in the aftermath of a divide quickly exceeds the original grievance. You lose somebody. You blame them. Soon, the blame is reason enough to keep them at a distance, the excuse to drive them even further away.</p> <p>Finding comfort in the notion that their former allies were disdainful, hapless rubes, smug liberals created a culture animated by that contempt. The result is a self-fulfilling prophecy.</p> <p>Financial incentive compounded this tendency &mdash; there is money, after all, in reassuring the bitter. Over 20 years, an industry arose to cater to the smug style. It began in humor, and culminated for a time in <em>The Daily Show</em>, a program that more than any other thing advanced the idea that liberal orthodoxy was a kind of educated savvy and that its opponents were, before anything else, stupid. The smug liberal found relief in ridiculing them.</p> <p>The internet only made it worse. Today, a liberal who finds himself troubled by the currents of contemporary political life need look no further than his Facebook newsfeed to find the explanation:</p> <p><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/default/2007/04/16/11946/daily-show-fox-knowledge/"><em>Study finds Daily Show viewers more informed than viewers of Fox News.</em></a></p> <p><em> </em></p> <p><em>They&#8217;re beating CNN <a href="http://www.city-data.com/forum/atlanta/1732984-study-daily-show-listeners-more-informed.html">watchers too</a>.</em></p> <p><em>NPR listeners are </em><a href="http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/"><em>best informed of all</em></a>.<em> </em>He likes that.</p> <p><em>You&#8217;re better </em><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-less-informed-people-fairleigh-dickinson_n_1106305.html"><em>off watching nothing</em></a><em> than watching Fox</em>. He likes that even more.</p> <p>The good news doesn&#8217;t stop.</p> <p>Liberals aren&#8217;t just better informed. They&#8217;re <a href="http://66.135.55.40/DaveSource.com/Fringe/Fringe/Politics/Conservatism-and-cognitive-ability.pdf">smarter</a>.</p> <p>They&#8217;ve got better grammar. They <a href="http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/06/study-finds-democrats-bigger-vocabularies-grammar-republicans.html">know more words</a>.</p> <p>Smart kids <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives">grow up</a> to be liberals, while conservatives <a href="http://www.mycotropic.com/img/sa/low%2520effort%2520thought%2520and%2520conservatism.pdf">reason like drunks</a>.</p> <p>Liberals are <a href="http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n10/abs/nn1979.html">better able</a> to process new information; they&#8217;re less biased like that. They&#8217;ve got different brains. <a href="http://66.135.55.40/DaveSource.com/Fringe/Fringe/Politics/Conservatism-and-cognitive-ability.pdf">Better ones.</a> Why? Evolution. They&#8217;ve got better brains, top-notch amygdalae, science finds.</p> <p>The smug style created a feedback loop. If the trouble with conservatives was ignorance, then the liberal impulse was to correct it. When such corrections failed, disdain followed after it.</p> <p>Of course, there is a smug style in every political movement: elitism among every ideology believing itself in possession of the solutions to society&#8217;s ills. But few movements have let the smug tendency so corrupt them, or make so tenuous its case against its enemies.</p> <p>&#8220;Conservatives are always at a bit of a disadvantage in the theater of mass democracy,&#8221; the conservative editorialist Kevin Williamson <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427427/lets-not-do-again-kevin-d-williamson" rel="noopener">wrote in National Review</a><em> </em>last October, &#8220;because people en masse aren&#8217;t very bright or sophisticated, and they&#8217;re vulnerable to cheap, hysterical emotional appeals.&#8221;</p> <p>The smug style thinks Williamson is wrong, of course, but <a href="http://www.forwardprogressives.com/republican-party-literally-become-party-stupid/">not in principle</a>. It&#8217;s only that he&#8217;s <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/10/how-the-gop-rewards-stupid-candidates.html">confused</a> about who the hordes of <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-is-now-officially-the-party-of-dumb-white-people-20150904">stupid, hysterical people</a> are voting for. The smug style reads Williamson and says, &#8220;No! You!&#8221;</p> <hr> <p>Elites, real elites, might recognize one another by their superior knowledge. The smug recognize one another by their mutual <em>knowing</em>.</p> <p><em>Knowing, </em>for example, that the Founding Fathers were all secular deists. <em>Knowing</em> that you&#8217;re actually, like, 30 times more likely to shoot yourself than an intruder. <em>Knowing </em>that those fools out in Kansas are voting against their own self-interest and that the trouble is Kansas doesn&#8217;t know any better. <em>Knowing</em> all the jokes that signal this knowledge.</p> <p>The studies, about <em>Daily Show</em> viewers and better-sized amygdalae, are <em>knowing</em>. It is the smug style&#8217;s first premise: a politics defined by a command of the Correct Facts and signaled by an allegiance to the Correct Culture. A politics that is just the politics of smart people in command of Good Facts. A politics that insists it has no ideology at all, only facts. No moral convictions, only charts, the kind that keep them from &#8220;imposing their morals&#8221; like the bad guys do.</p> <p><em>Knowing </em>is the shibboleth into the smug style&#8217;s culture, a cultural that celebrates hip commitments and valorizes hip taste, that loves nothing more than hate-reading anyone who doesn&#8217;t get them. A culture that has come to replace politics itself.</p> <p>The <em>knowing </em>know that police reform, that abortion rights, that labor unions are important, but go no further: What is important, after all, is to signal that you <em>know</em> these things. What is important is to launch links and mockery at those who don&#8217;t. The Good Facts are enough: Anybody who fails to capitulate to them is part of the Problem, is terminally uncool. No persuasion, only retweets.<strong> </strong>Eye roll, crying emoji, forward to John Oliver for sick burns.</p> <p>The smug style has always existed in American liberalism, but it wasn&#8217;t always so totalizing. Lionel Trilling claimed, as far back as 1950, that liberalism &#8220;is not only the dominant, but even the sole intellectual tradition,&#8221; that &#8220;the conservative impulse and the reactionary impulse &#8230; do not express themselves in ideas, but only in action or in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.&#8221;</p> <q>The smug style has always existed in American liberalism, but it wasn&#8217;t always so totalizing </q><p>Richard Hofstadter, the historian whose most famous work, <em>The Paranoid Style in American Politics, </em>this essay exists in some obvious reference to, advanced a similar line in writing not so well-remembered today. His then-influential history writing drips with disdain for rubes who regard themselves as victimized by economics and history, who have failed to maintain correct political attitudes.</p> <p>But 60 years ago, American liberalism relied too much on the support of working people to let these ideas take too much hold. Even its elitists, its Schlesingers and Bells, were tempered by the power of the labor movement, by the role Marxism still played in even liberal politics &mdash; forces too powerful to allow non-elite concerns to entirely escape the liberal mental horizon.<strong> </strong>Walter Reuther, and Bayard Rustin, and A. Philip Randolph were still in the room, and they mattered.</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p>Sixty years ago, the ugliest tendencies were still private, too. The smug style belonged to real elites, <em>knowing</em> in their cocktail parties, far from the ears of rubes. But today we have television, and the internet, and a liberalism worked out in universities and think tanks. Today, the better part of liberalism is Trillings &mdash; or those who&#8217;d like to be, at any rate &mdash; and everyone can hear them.</p> <hr> <p>On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court found that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples constituted a violation of the 14th Amendment. After decades of protests, legislation, setbacks, and litigation, the 13 <strong></strong>states still holding out against the inevitable were ordered to relent. Kim Davis, a clerk tasked with issuing marriage licenses to couples in her Kentucky county, refused.</p> <p>At the distance of six months, it is surprising that she was, beyond a few short-lived and empty efforts, the only civil bureaucrat to do so. One imagines a hundred or a thousand Kim Davises in the country, small administrators with small power, outraged by the collapse of a moral fight that they were winning just a few years prior.</p> <p>In the days between the June decision and the July 1 announcement that the American Civil Liberties Union would represent four couples who had been denied marriage licenses by the Rowan County<strong> </strong>Clerk&#8217;s office, many braced for resistance. Surely compliance would come hard in some places. Surely, some of the losers would refuse to give up. There was something giddy about it &mdash; at long last, the good guys would be the ones bearing down with the full force of the law.</p> <p>It did not take long for the law to correct Davis. On August 12, a judge ordered a stay, preventing Davis from refusing any further under the protection of the law. The Sixth Circuit, and then the Supreme Court, refused to hear her appeal.</p> <p>Despite further protest and Davis&#8217;s ultimate jailing for contempt of court, normal service was restored in short order. The 23,000 people of Rowan Country suffered, all told, slightly less than seven weeks without a functioning civil licensure apparatus.</p> <p>Davis remained a fixation. Dour, rural, thrice divorced but born again &mdash; Twitter could not have invented a better parody of the uncool. She was ridiculed for her politics but also for her looks &mdash; that she had been married so many times was inexplicable! That she thought she had the slightest grasp of the Constitution, doubly so.</p> <p>When Davis was jailed for five<strong> </strong>days following her refusal to comply with the court order, many who pride themselves on having a vastly more compassionate moral foundation than Davis <a href="http://wonkette.com/593703/kim-davis-is-free-everybody-go-to-kentucky-and-do-gayness-in-her-face">cheered</a> the imprisonment of a political foe.</p> <p>The ridicule of Davis became so pronounced that even smug circles, always on the precipice of self-reproach, began eventually to <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/uncategorized/256014-the-many-unfair-shamings-of-kim-davis">rein in</a> the excess. <a href="https://justalittlered.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/men-are-stupid-and-women-are-ugly-kim-davis-a-case-study/kim-anti-gay/">Mocking her appearance</a>, <a href="http://wonkette.com/593614/god-agrees-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-is-a-hole-sends-her-to-jail">openly celebrating</a> the incarceration of an ideological opponent &mdash; these were not good looks.</p> <img data-chorus-asset-id="6365323" alt="GettyImages-487308536.0.jpg" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6365323/GettyImages-487308536.0.jpg"><p class="caption">Kim Davis at a rally in September 2015 (Ty Wright/Getty Images)</p> <p>But a more fundamental element of smug disdain for Kim Davis went unchallenged: the contention, at bottom, that Davis was not merely wrong in her convictions, but that her convictions were, in themselves, an error and a fraud.</p> <p>That is: Kim Davis was not only on the wrong side of the law. She was not even a subscriber to a religious ideology that had found itself at moral odds with American culture. Rather, she was a subscriber to nothing, a hateful bigot who did not even understand her own religion.</p> <p>Christianity, as many hastened to point out, is about love. Christ commands us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar&#8217;s. If the Bible took any position on the issue at all, it was that divorce, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/09/02/kim_davis_four_marriages_the_ugly_self_righteousness_of_the_saved_that_fuels_her_marriage_license_refusal/">beloved by Davis</a>, was a sin, and that <a href="http://heavy.com/news/2015/09/kim-davis-kentucky-county-clerk-wont-issue-gay-marriage-licenses-facebook-supreme-court/">she was a hypocrite</a> masquerading among the faithful.</p> <p>How many of these critiques were issued by atheists?</p> <p>This, more than anything I can recall in recent American life, is an example of the smug style. Many liberals do not believe that evangelical Christianity ought to guide public life; many believe, moreover, that the moral conceits of that Christianity are wrong, even harmful to society. But to the smug liberal, it isn&#8217;t that Kim Davis is <em>wrong</em>. How can she be? She&#8217;s only <em>mistaken</em>. She just doesn&#8217;t know the Good Facts, even about her own religion. She&#8217;s angry and confused, another hick who&#8217;s not with it.</p> <p>It was an odd thing to assert in the case of Christianity, a religion that until recently was taken to be another shibboleth of the uncool, not a loving faith misunderstood by bigots. But this is <em>knowing</em>: knowing that the new line on Jesus is that the homophobes just don&#8217;t get their own faith.</p> <p>Kim Davis was behind the times. Her beliefs did not represent a legitimate challenge to liberal consensus because they did not represent a challenge at all: They were incoherent, at odds with the Good Facts. Google makes every man a theologian.</p> <p>This, I think, is fundamental to understanding the smug style<em>. </em>If good politics and good beliefs are just Good Facts and good tweets &mdash; that is, if there is no ideology beyond sensible conclusions drawn from a rational assessment of the world &mdash; then there are no moral fights, only lying liars and the stupid rubes who believe them.</p> <p>When Davis was first released from county jail, Mike Huckabee went to meet her. But the smug style sees no true ideology there, no moral threat to contend with. Only a huckster and a hick: one to be ridiculed, and the other to be refuted. What more, the smug man posts, could there be to say about it? They&#8217;re idiots! Look, look: This Onion<a href="http://www.theonion.com/article/who-kim-davis-51306"><em> </em>article</a> nails it.</p> <hr> <p>Popular story:</p> <p>Adlai Stevenson, Democratic candidate for president, is on parade. A band is playing. Onlookers cheer. He waves to the crowd.</p> <p>A woman shouts: &#8220;Gov. Stevenson, you have the vote of every thinking person in this country!&#8221;</p> <p>Stevenson replies: &#8220;Thank you, ma&#8217;am, but we need a majority.&#8221;</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p>The smug style says to itself, <em>Yeah. I really am one of the few thinking people in this country, aren&#8217;t I?</em></p> <hr> <p>In November of last year, during the week when it became temporarily fashionable for American governors to declare that Syrian refugees would not be welcome in their state, Hamilton Nolan wrote <a href="http://gawker.com/dumb-hicks-are-americas-greatest-threat-1743373893">an essay</a> for Gawker called &#8220;Dumb Hicks Are America&#8217;s Greatest Threat<em>.</em>&#8220;</p> <p>If there has ever been a tirade so dedicated to the smug style, to the proposition that it is neither malice, nor capital, nor ideological difference, but rather the backward stupidity of poor people that has ruined the state of American policy, then it is hidden beyond our view, in some uncool place, far from the front page of Gawker.</p> <div class="float-left s-sidebar"> <h4>Learn more</h4> <a target="new" href="http://www.vox.com/2015/1/16/7545509/inequality-waste" rel="noopener"> <img data-chorus-asset-id="6365355" alt="465461973.0.0.0.jpg" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6365355/465461973.0.0.0.jpg"> </a><p><a target="new" href="http://www.vox.com/2015/1/16/7545509/inequality-waste" rel="noopener">Why have weddings and houses gotten so ridiculously expensive? Blame inequality.</a></p> </div> <p>&#8220;Many of America&#8217;s political leaders are warning of the dangers posed by Syrian refugees. They are underestimating, though, the much greater danger: dumbass hicks, in charge of things,&#8221; Nolan wrote. &#8220;&#8230;You, our elected officials, are embarrassing us. All of us, except your fellow dumb hicks, who voted for you in large numbers. You &mdash; our racist, xenophobic, knuckle-dragging ignorant leaders &mdash; are making us look bad in front of the guests (the whole world). You are the bad cousin in the family who always ruins Thanksgiving. Go in the back room and drink a can of beer alone please.&#8221;</p> <p>Among the dumb hicks Nolan identifies are &#8220;many Southern mayors&#8221; and &#8220;many lesser known state representatives.&#8221; He cites the Ku Klux Klan &mdash; &#8220;exclusively dumbass hicks,&#8221; he writes. &#8220;100%,&#8221; he emphasizes &mdash; despite the fact that the New York Times, in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/opinion/sunday/seth-stephens-davidowitz-the-data-of-hate.html?_r=0">an investigation</a> of white supremacist members of Stormfront.org, found that &#8220;the top reported interest of Stormfront members is reading.&#8221; That they are &#8220;news and political junkies.&#8221; Despite the fact that if &#8220;you come compare Stormfront users to people who go to the Yahoo News site, it turns out that the Stormfront crowd is twice as likely to visit nytimes.com.&#8221;</p> <p>&#8220;They have long threads praising <em>Breaking Bad</em> and discussing the comparative merits of online dating sites, like Plenty of Fish and OKCupid,&#8221; the Times reports.<strong></strong></p> <p>In <a href="http://gawker.com/there-are-only-two-issues-1744172647">another piece</a>, published later the same month, Nolan wrote that &#8220;Inequality of wealth &mdash; or, if you like, the distribution of <a href="http://gawker.com/income-inequality-vs-wealth-inequality-1686329762">wealth</a> in our society in a way that results in poverty &mdash; is not just one issue among many. It is the root from which blooms nearly all major social problems.&#8221;</p> <p>He&#8217;s right about that. But who does he imagine is responsible for this inequality? The poor? The dumb? The hicks?</p> <p>Hamilton Nolan isn&#8217;t stupid. He has even, lately, argued that even the worst of the rubes <a href="http://gawker.com/can-the-labor-movement-live-with-police-unions-1770261739">must be allies</a> in class struggle. Yet the trouble is still swallowing what &#8220;motherfuckers&#8221; those people are.</p> <p>Nolan is perhaps the funniest and most articulate of those pointing fingers at the &#8220;dumbass hicks,&#8221; but he isn&#8217;t alone. It is evidently intolerable to a huge swath of liberalism to confess the obvious: that those responsible have homes in Brooklyn, too. That they buy the same smartphones. That they too are on Twitter. That the oligarchs are making fun of stupid poor people too. That they&#8217;re better at it, and always will be.</p> <p>No: The trouble must be out there, somewhere. In the country. Where the idiots are; where the hicks are too stupid to know where problems blossom.</p> <p>&#8220;To the dumb hick leaders of America, I say: (nothing). You wouldn&#8217;t listen anyhow,&#8221; Nolan writes. &#8220;My words would go in one ear and right out the other. Like talking to an old block of wood.&#8221;</p> <p>It&#8217;s a shame. They might be receptive to his concerns about poverty.</p> <hr> <p>If there is a single person who exemplifies the dumbass hick in the smug imagination, it is former President George W. Bush. He&#8217;s got the accent. He can&#8217;t talk right. He seems stupefied by simple concepts, and his politics are all gee-whiz Texas ignorance. He is the ur-hick. He is the enemy.</p> <p>He got all the way to White House, and he&#8217;s still being taken for a ride by the scheming rightwing oligarchs around him &mdash; just like those poor rubes in Kansas. If only George knew Dick Cheney wasn&#8217;t acting in his own best interests!</p> <p>It is worth considering that Bush is the son of a president, a patrician born in Connecticut and educated at Andover and Harvard and Yale.</p> <p>It is worth considering that he does not come from a family known for producing poor minds.<strong></strong></p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p>It is worth considering that <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=120210">beginning</a> with his 1994 gubernatorial debate against Ann Richards, and at every juncture thereafter, opponents have been defeated after days of media outlets openly speculating whether George was up to the mental challenge of a one-on-one debate.</p> <p>&#8220;Throughout his short political career,&#8221; ABC&#8217;s Katy Textor wrote on the eve of the 2000 debates against Al Gore, &#8220;Bush has benefited from low expectations of his debating abilities. The fact that he skipped no less than three GOP primary debates, and the fact that he was reluctant to agree to the Commission on Presidential Debates proposal, has done little to contradict the impression of a candidate uncomfortable with this unavoidable fact of campaign life.&#8221;</p> <p>&#8220;Done little to contradict.&#8221;</p> <img data-chorus-asset-id="6365367" alt="GettyImages-51566861.0.jpg" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6365367/GettyImages-51566861.0.jpg"><p class="caption">George W. Bush and Al Gore during a presidential debate in 2000. (Tannen Maury/AFP/Getty Images)</p> <p>On November 6, 2000, during his final pre-election stump speech, Bush explained his history of political triumph thusly: &#8220;They misunderesimated me.&#8221;</p> <p>What an idiot. American liberals made fun of him for that one for years.</p> <p>It is worth considering that he didn&#8217;t misspeak.</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p>He did, however, deliberately cultivate the confusion. He understood the smug style. He wagered that many liberals, eager to see their opponents as intellectually deficient, would buy into the act and thereby miss the more pernicious fact of his moral deficits.</p> <p>He wagered correctly. Smug liberals said George was too stupid to get elected, too stupid to get reelected, too stupid to pass laws or appoint judges or weather a political fight. Liberals misunderestimated George W. Bush all eight years of his presidency.</p> <p>George W. Bush is not a dumbass hick. In eight years, all the sick <em>Daily Show</em> burns in the world did not appreciably undermine his agenda.</p> <hr> <p>The smug mind defends itself against these charges. <em>Oh, we</em><em>&#8216;re just having fun</em>, it says. <em>We don&#8217;t mean it</em>. <em>This is just for a laugh, it&#8217;s just a joke, stop being so humorless.</em><strong></strong></p> <p>It is exasperating, after all, to have to live in a country where so many people are so aggressively wrong about so much, they say. You go on about ideology and shibboleths and <em>knowing</em>, but we are <em>right</em> on the issues, aren&#8217;t we? We are <em>right </em>on social policy and right on foreign policy and right on evolution, and same-sex marriage, and climate change too. Surely that&#8217;s what matters.</p> <p>We don&#8217;t <em>really</em> mean they&#8217;re all stupid &mdash; but hey, lay off. We&#8217;re not smug! This is just how we vent our frustration. Otherwise it would be too depressing having to share a country with these people!</p> <p>We have long passed the point where blithe ridicule of the American right can be credibly cast as private stress relief and not, for instance, the animating public strategy of an entire wing of the liberal culture apparatus. <em>The Daily Show</em>, as it happens, is not the private entertainment of elites blowing off some steam. It is broadcast on national television.</p> <p>Twitter isn&#8217;t private. Not that anybody with the sickest burn to accompany the smartest chart would want it to be. Otherwise, how would everyone know how in-the-know you are?</p> <p>The rubes have seen your videos. You posted it on their wall.</p> <p><em>Still don&#8217;t get why liberal opinion is correct? This video settles the debate for good</em>.</p> <p>I have been wondering for a long time how it is that so many entries to the op-ed pages take it as their justifying premise that they are arguing for a truth that has never been advanced before.</p> <q>We have long passed the point where blithe ridicule of the American right can be credibly cast as private stress relief</q><p>&#8220;It&#8217;s an accepted, nearly unchallenged assumption that Muslim communities across the U.S. have a problem &mdash; that their youth tend toward violent ideology, or are susceptible to &#8220;radicalization&#8221; by groups like the Islamic State,&#8221; began an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/12/06/how-can-america-counter-the-appeal-of-isis/muslim-american-communities-should-not-be-blamed-for-violent-extremism">editorial</a> that appeared last December in the New York Times. But &#8220;after all,&#8221; it goes on, &#8220;the <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data">majority of mass shootings</a> in America are perpetrated by white men but no one questions what might have radicalized them in their communities.&#8221;</p> <p>But this contention &mdash; that Muslims possess superlative violent tendencies &mdash; has been challenged countless times, hasn&#8217;t it? It was challenged<strong> </strong><a href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/muslims-only-carried-out-2-5-percent-of-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil-between-1970-and-2012.html">here</a><strong>, </strong>and<strong> </strong><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/anti-muslim-rhetoric-isnt-brave/2015/12/03/8442019c-9a01-11e5-94f0-9eeaff906ef3_story.html">here</a> and <a href="http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extremists-white-terrorism-islamist-jihadi-dangerous/">here</a> as far back as 9/11. The president of the United State challenged it on national television the night before this editorial was published. The Times itself did <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/fear-ignorance-not-muslims.html">too</a>. The myopic provincialism of anybody who believes that Muslims are a uniquely violent people is the basis of a <a href="http://www.theonion.com/article/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou-17990">five-year-old</a> Onion headline, not some new moral challenge.</p> <p>The smug style leaves its adherents no other option: If an idea has failed to take hold, if the Good Facts are not widely accepted, then the problem must be that these facts have not yet reached the disbelievers.</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p>In December 2015, Public Policy Polling <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/poll-30-republicans-want-bomb-fictional-disney-country">found</a> that 30 percent of Republicans were in favor of bombing Agrabah,<strong> </strong>the Arab-sounding fictional city from Disney&#8217;s <em>Aladdin</em>. Hilarious.</p> <p>PPP has run joke questions before, of course: polling the popularity of <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9183515/deez-nuts-explained" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Deez Nuts</a>, or asking after God&#8217;s job approval. But these questions, at least, let their audience in on the gag. Now liberalism is deliberately setting up the last segment of the population actually willing to endure a phone survey in service of what it knew would make for some hilarious copy when the rubes inevitably fell for it. This is not a survey in service of a joke &mdash; it is a survey in service of a human punchline.</p> <p>As if only Republicans covered up gaps in their knowledge by responding to what they assume is a good-faith question by guessing from their general principles.</p> <p>It may be easy to mistake with the private venting of frustrated elites, but the rubes can read the New York Times<em>, </em>too. It is not where liberals whisper to each other about the secret things that go unchallenged. Poll respondents are not the secret fodder for a joke.</p> <div class="float-right s-sidebar"> <h4>Learn more</h4> <a target="new" href="http://www.vox.com/2016/2/17/11024092/clinton-albright-steinem" rel="noopener"> <img data-chorus-asset-id="6365437" alt="GettyImages-509696312.0.0.0.jpg" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6365437/GettyImages-509696312.0.0.0.jpg"> </a><p><a target="new" href="http://www.vox.com/2016/2/17/11024092/clinton-albright-steinem" rel="noopener">&#8220;Late-breaking sexism&#8221;: why younger women aren&rsquo;t excited about electing a woman president</a></p> </div> <p>This is the consequence of &#8220;private&#8221; venting, and it is the consequence of <em>knowing </em>too: If good politics comes solely from good data and good sense, it cannot be that large sections of the American public are merely wrong about so many vital things. It cannot be that they have heard our arguments but rejected them &mdash; that might mean we must examine our own methods of persuasion.</p> <p>No: it is only that the wrong beliefs are <em>unchallenged &mdash; </em>that their believers are trapped in &#8220;information bubbles&#8221; and confirmation bias. That no one knows the truth, except the New York Times<em> </em>(or Vox). If only we could tell them, question them, show them this graph. If they don&#8217;t get it then, well, then they&#8217;re hopeless.</p> <p>The smug style plays out in private too, of course. If you haven&#8217;t started one yourself, you&#8217;ve surely seen the Facebook threads: Ten or 20 of Brooklyn&#8217;s finest gather to say how exasperated they are, these days, by the stupidity of the American public.</p> <p>&#8220;I just don&#8217;t know what to do about these people,&#8221; one posts. &#8220;I think we have to accept that a lot of people are just misinformed!&#8221; replies another. &#8220;Like, I think they actually don&#8217;t <em>want</em> to know anything that would undermine their worldview.&#8221;</p> <p>They tend to do it in the comment section, under an article about how conservatives are difficult to persuade because they isolate themselves in mutually reinforcing information bubbles.</p> <hr> <p>What have been the consequences of the smug style?</p> <p>It has become a tradition for the smug, in editorials and essay and confident Facebook boasting, to assume that the presidential debates will feature their candidate, in command of the facts, wiping the floor with the empty huckster ignorance of their Republican opponent.</p> <p>It was popularly assumed, for a time, that George W. Bush was too stupid to be elected president.</p> <p>The smug believed the same of Ronald Reagan.</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p>John Yoo, the architect of the Bush administration&#8217;s torture policies, escaped <em>The Daily Show</em> unscathed. Liberals wondered what to do <a href="http://prospect.org/article/when-jon-stewart-fails">when Jon Stewart fails</a>. What would success look like? Were police waiting in the wings, a one-way ticket to the Hague if Stewart nailed him?</p> <p>It would be unfair to say that the smug style has never learned from these mistakes. But the lesson has been, <em>We underestimated how many people could be fooled</em>.</p> <p>That is: <em>We underestimated just how dumb these dumb hicks really are.</em></p> <p><em>We just didn&#8217;t get our message to them. They just stayed in their information bubble. We can&#8217;t let the lying liars keep lying to these people &mdash; but how do we reach these idiots who only trust Fox? </em><em></em></p> <p><em> </em></p> <p>Rarely: <em>Maybe they&#8217;re savvier than we thought</em>. <em>Maybe they&#8217;re angry for a reason.</em></p> <hr> <p>As it happens, reasons aren&#8217;t too difficult to come by.</p> <p>During a San Francisco fundraiser in the 2008 primary campaign, Barack Obama offered an observation that was hailed not without some glee as the first unforced error from then-Senator Cool.</p> <p>&#8220;You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania,&#8221; Obama said, &#8220;and, like, a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing&#8217;s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate, and they have not. And it&#8217;s not surprising then they get bitter. They cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren&#8217;t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.&#8221;</p> <p>It&#8217;s the latter part that we remember eight years later &mdash; the clinging to guns and religion and hate &mdash; but it is the first part that was important: the part about lost jobs and neglect by two presidential administrations.</p> <p>Obama&#8217;s observation was not novel.</p> <p>The notion that material loss and abandonment have driven America&#8217;s white working class into a fit of resentment is boilerplate for even the Democratic Party&#8217;s tepid left these days. But in the president&#8217;s formulation and in the formulation of smug stylists who have embraced some material account of uncool attitudes, the downturn, the jobs lost and the opportunities narrowed, are a force of nature &mdash; something that has &#8220;been happening&#8221; in the passive voice.</p> <q>If the smug style can be reduced to a single sentence, it&#8217;s, <em>Why are they voting against their own self-interest?</em></q><p>This, I suspect, will one day become the Republican Party&#8217;s rationale for addressing climate change: <em>Look, we don&#8217;t know how the dead hooker wound up in the hotel room. But she&#8217;s here now, that&#8217;s undeniable, so we&#8217;ve gotta get rid of the body.</em></p> <p>Today, it is the excuse of American smug mind: Where did all of these poor people come from?</p> <p>If pressed for an answer, I suppose they would say Republicans, elected by rubes voting against their own self-interest. Reagan, Gingrich, Bush &mdash; all those Bad Fact&ndash;knowing halfwits who were too dumb to get elected to anything.</p> <p>Well, sure. In the past 30 years of American life, the Republican Party has dedicated itself to replacing every labor law with a photo of Ronald Reagan&#8217;s face.</p> <p>But this does not excuse liberals beating full retreat to the colleges and the cities, abandoning the dispossessed to their fate. It does not excuse surrendering a century of labor politics in the name of electability. It does not excuse gazing out decades later to find that those left behind are not up on the latest thought and deciding, <em>We didn&#8217;t abandon them. The idiots didn&#8217;t want to be saved</em>.</p> <p>It was not Ronald Reagan who declared the era of big government. It was not the GOP that decided the coastally based, culturally liberal industries of technology, Hollywood, and high finance were the future of the American economy.</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p>If the smug style can be reduced to a single sentence, it&#8217;s, <em>Why are they voting against their own self-interest? </em>But no party these past decades has effectively represented the interests of these dispossessed. Only one has made a point of openly disdaining them too.</p> <p>Abandoned and without any party willing to champion their interests, people cling to candidates who, at the very least, are willing to represent their moral convictions. The smug style resents them for it, and they resent the smug in turn.</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p>The rubes noticed that liberal Democrats, distressed by the notion that Indiana would allow bakeries to practice open discrimination against LGBTQ couples, threatened boycotts against the state, mobilizing the considerable economic power that comes with an alliance of New York and Hollywood and Silicon Valley to punish retrograde Gov. Mike Pence, but had no such passion when the same governor of the same state joined 21<strong> </strong>others in refusing the Medicaid expansion. No doubt good liberals objected to that move too. But I&#8217;ve yet to see a <a href="http://mashable.com/2015/03/31/boycott-indiana-list/">boycott threat</a> about it.</p> <p>Early in the marriage equality fight, activists advanced the theory that when people discovered a friend or relative was gay, they became far more likely to support gay rights. They were correct. These days it is difficult for anybody in a position of liberal power &mdash; whether in business, or government, or media &mdash; to avoid having openly gay colleagues, colleagues whom they like and whom they&#8217;d like to help.</p> <p>But few opinion makers fraternize with the impoverished. Few editors and legislators and Silicon Valley heroes have dinner with the lovely couple on food stamps down the road, much less those scraping by in Indiana.</p> <hr> <p>If any single event provided the direct impetus for this essay, it was a running argument I had with an older, liberal writer over the seriousness of Donald Trump&#8217;s presidential campaign. Since June 2015, when Trump announced his candidacy, this writer has taken it upon himself each day to tell his Facebook followers that Donald Trump is a bad kind of dude.</p> <p>That saying as much was the key to stopping him and his odious followers too.</p> <p>&#8220;Ridicule is the most powerful weapon we have against any of our enemies,&#8221; he told me in the end, &#8220;but especially against the ones who, not incorrectly, take it so personally and lash out in ways that shine klieg lights on those very flaws we detest.</p> <p>&#8220;If you&#8217;re laughing at someone, you&#8217;re certainly not respecting him.&#8221;</p> <p>&#8220;Anyway,&#8221; he went on, &#8220;I&#8217;m done talking to you. We see the world differently. I&#8217;m fine with that. We don&#8217;t need to be friends.&#8221;</p> <p><em>Ridicule is the most effective political tactic.</em><em></em></p> <p><em> </em></p> <p><em>Ridicule is especially effective when it&#8217;s personal and about expressing open disdain for stupid, bad people.</em><em></em></p> <p><em> </em></p> <p><em>Political legitimacy is granted by the respect of elite liberals.</em><em></em></p> <p><em> </em></p> <p><em>You can&#8217;t be legitimate if you&#8217;re the butt of our jokes.</em><em></em></p> <p><em> </em></p> <p><em>If you don&#8217;t agree, we can&#8217;t work together politically.</em><em></em></p> <p><em> </em></p> <p><em>We can&#8217;t even be friends, because politics is social.</em><em></em></p> <p><em> </em></p> <p><em>Because politics is performative &mdash; if we don&#8217;t mock together, we aren&#8217;t on the same side.</em><em></em></p> <p><em> </em></p> <p>If there is a bingo card for the smug style somewhere, then cross off every square. You&#8217;ve won.</p> <p>I would be less troubled if I did not believe that the smug style has captured an enormous section of American liberalism. If I believed that its politics, as practiced by its supporters, extended beyond this line of thought. If this were an exception.</p> <p>But even as many have come around to the notion that Trump is the prohibitive favorite for his party&#8217;s nomination, the smug interpretation has been predictable: We only underestimated how hateful, how stupid, the Republican base can be.</p> <img data-chorus-asset-id="6365477" alt="GettyImages-520988036.0.jpg" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6365477/GettyImages-520988036.0.jpg"><p class="caption">A Donald Trump rally in Pittsburgh. (Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)</p> <p>Trump capturing the nomination will not dispel the smug style; if anything, it will redouble it. Faced with the prospect of an election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the smug will reach a fever pitch: six straight months of a sure thing, an opportunity to mock and scoff and ask, <em>How could anybody vote for this guy?</em> until a morning in November when they ask, <em>What the fuck happened? </em></p> <p>On March 20, Salon&#8217;s David Masciotra <a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/03/20/who_are_these_idiot_donald_trump_supporters_trump_loves_the_poorly_educated_and_they_love_him_right_back/">wrote</a> that if Trump &#8220;actually had the strength to articulate uncomfortable and inconvenient truths, he would turn his favorite word &mdash; &#8216;loser&#8217; &mdash; &#8364;&#8221;not on full-time professionals in the press, but on his supporters.&#8221;</p> <p>Masciotra goes on:</p> <blockquote><p>Journalists found that in the counties where Trump is most dominant, there are large numbers of white high school dropouts, and unemployed people no longer looking for work. An alliance with the incoherent personality cult of Donald Trump&#8217;s candidacy correlates strongly with failure to obtain a high school diploma, and withdrawal from the labor force. The counties also have a consistent history of voting for segregationists, and have an above average percentage of its residents living in mobile homes.</p></blockquote> <p>The kicker: &#8220;Many conservatives, and even some kindhearted liberals, might object to the conclusions one can draw from the data as stereotyping, but the empirical evidence leaves little choice. Donald Trump&#8217;s supporters confirm the stereotype against them.&#8221;</p> <p>Here&#8217;s the conclusion I draw: If Donald Trump has a chance in November, it is because the <em>knowing</em> will dictate our strategy. Unable to countenance the real causes of their collapse, they will comfort with own impotence by shouting, &#8220;Idiots!&#8221; again and again, angrier and angrier, the handmaidens of their own destruction.</p> <p>The smug style resists empathy for the un<em>knowing</em>. It denies the possibility of a politics whereby those who do not share <em>knowing</em> culture, who do not like the right things or know the Good Facts or recognize the intellectual bankruptcy of their own ideas can be worked with, in spite of these differences, toward a common goal.</p> <p>It is this attitude that has driven the dispossessed into the arms of a candidate who shares their fury. It is this attitude that may deliver him the White House, a &#8220;serious&#8221; threat, a threat to be mocked and called out and hated, but not to be taken seriously. <strong></strong></p> <p>The wages of smug is Trump.</p> <hr> <p>Nothing is more confounding to the smug style than the fact that the average Republican is better educated and has a higher IQ than the average Democrat. That for every overpowered study finding superior liberal open-mindedness and intellect and knowledge,<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/22/science-say-gop-voters-better-informed-open-minded/"> there is one</a> to <a href="http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/12/when-liberals-attack-social-science.html?mid=twitter_nymag">suggest</a> that Republicans have the <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/15/liberals-are-simple-minded">better</a> of these qualities.</p> <p>Most damning, perhaps, to the fancy liberal self-conception: Republicans score higher in susceptibility to persuasion. They are willing to change their minds more often.</p> <p>The Republican coalition tends toward the center: educated enough, smart enough, informed enough.</p> <p>The Democratic coalition in the 21st century is bifurcated: It has the postgraduates, but it has the disenfranchised urban poor as well, a group better defined by race and immigration status than by class. There are more Americans without high school diplomas than in possession of doctoral degrees. The math proceeds from there.<strong><br> </strong></p> <p>The smug style takes this as a defense. Elite liberalism, and the Democratic Party by extension, cannot hate poor people, they say. We aren&#8217;t smug! Just look at our coalition. These aren&#8217;t rubes. Just look at our embrace of their issues.</p> <p>But observe how quickly professed concern for the oppressed becomes another shibboleth for the smug, another kind of <em>knowing</em>. Mere awareness of these issues becomes the most important thing, the capacity to articulate them a new subset of Correct Facts.</p> <p>Everyone in the <em>know</em> has read &#8220;The Case for Reparations,&#8221; but it was the reading and performed admiration that counted, praised in the same breath as, &#8220;It is a better <em>history</em> than an actual case for actually paying, of course&#8230;&#8221;</p> <hr> <p>Pretend for a moment that all of it is true. That the smug style apprehended the world as it really is, that <em>knowing &mdash; </em>or knowing, no inflection &mdash; did make our political divide. That the problem is the rubes. That the dumbass hicks are to blame. They can&#8217;t help it: Their brains don&#8217;t work. They isolate themselves from all the Good Facts, and they&#8217;re being taken for a ride by con men.</p> <p>Pretend the ridicule worked too: that the videos and the Twitter burns and <em>destroying </em>the opposition made all the bad guys go away.</p> <p>What kind of world would it leave us? An endless cycle of jokes? Of sick burns and smart tweets and <em>knowing? </em>Relative to whom? The smug style demands an object of disdain; it would find a new one quickly.</p> <p>It is central to the liberal self-conception that what separates them from reactionaries is a desire to help people, a desire to create a fairer and more just world. Liberals still want, or believe they still want, to make a more perfect union.</p> <p>Whether you believe they are deluded or not, whether you believe this project is worthwhile in any form or not, what I am trying to tell you is that the smug style has fundamentally undermined even the <em>aspiration</em>, that it has made American liberalism into the worst version of itself.</p> <p>It is impossible, in the long run, to cleave the desire to help people from the duty to respect them. It becomes all at once too easy to decide you know best, to never hear, much less ignore, protest to the contrary.</p> <p>At present, many of those most in need of the sort of help liberals believe they can provide despise liberalism, and are despised in turn. Is it surprising that with each decade, the &#8220;help&#8221; on offer drifts even further from the help these people need?</p> <q>It is impossible, in the long run, to cleave the desire to help people from the duty to respect them</q><p>Even if the two could be separated, would it be worth it? What kind of political movement is predicated on openly disdaining the very people it is advocating for?</p> <p>The smug style, at bottom, is a failure of empathy. Further: It is a failure to believe that empathy has any value at all. It is the notion that anybody worthy of liberal time and attention and respect must capitulate, immediately, to the Good Facts.</p> <p>If they don&#8217;t (<a href="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/80/S1/298.full">and they won&#8217;t</a>) you&#8217;re free to write them off and mock them. When they suffer, it&#8217;s their just desserts.</p> <p>Make no mistake: I am not suggesting that liberals adopt a fuzzy, gentler version of their politics. I am not suggesting they compromise their issues for the sake of playing nice. What I am suggesting is that the battles waged by liberalism have drifted far away from their old egalitarian intentions.</p> <p>I am suggesting that open disdain for the people they say they want to help has led them to stop helping those people, too.</p> <p>I am suggesting that in the case of a Kim Davis, liberalism resist the impulse to go beyond the necessary legal fight and explicitly delight in punishing an old foe.</p> <p>I am suggesting that they instead wonder what it might be like to have little left but one&#8217;s values; to wake up one day to find your whole moral order destroyed; to look around and see the representatives of a new order call you a stupid, hypocritical hick without bothering, even, to wonder how your corner of your poor state found itself so alienated from them in the first place. To work with people who do not share their values or their tastes, who do not live where they live or like what they like or know their Good Facts or their jokes.</p> <p>This is not a call for civility. Manners are not enough. The smug style did not arise by accident, and it cannot be abolished with a little self-reproach. So long as liberals cannot find common cause with the larger section of the American working class, they will search for reasons to justify that failure. They will resent them. They will find, over and over, how easy it is to justify abandoning them further. They will choose the smug style.</p> <p>Maybe the cycle is too deeply set already. Perhaps the divide, the disdain, the whole crack-up are inevitable. But if liberal good intentions are to make a play for a better future, they cannot merely recognize the ways they&#8217;ve come to hate their former allies. They must begin to mend the ways they lost them in the first place.</p> <p><em>Emmett Rensin is deputy First Person editor at Vox.</em></p> </div><hr class="wp-block-separator" /><div><h3>How much do conservatives hate Trump?</h3></div><div class="chorus-snippet center"> <!-- ######## BEGIN VOLUME VIDEO ######## --><div data-analytics-viewport="video" data-analytics-action="volume:view:feature:middle" data-analytics-label="How much do conservatives hate Trump? | 7731" data-volume-uuid="c8044e829" data-volume-id="7731" data-analytics-placement="feature:middle" data-volume-placement="article" id="volume-placement-5282" class="volume-video"></div> <!-- ######## END VOLUME VIDEO ######## --> </div><hr class="wp-block-separator" /><ul data-analytics-placement="bottom" class="m-related-links clearfix"> <h3>Learn more</h3> <li class="related-links-item"><a href="http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/5556462/brain-dead-how-politics-makes-us-stupid" class="related-links-link" data-analytics-link="related"><div class="related-links-item-image"></div> <div class="related-links-item-highlight"></div> <div class="related-links-item-headline">How politics makes us stupid</div></a></li> <li class="related-links-item"><a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed" class="related-links-link" data-analytics-link="related"><div class="related-links-item-image"></div> <div class="related-links-item-highlight"></div> <div class="related-links-item-headline">American democracy is doomed</div></a></li> <li class="related-links-item"><a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/3/23/11280032/brokered-convention-explained" class="related-links-link" data-analytics-link="related"><div class="related-links-item-image"></div> <div class="related-links-item-highlight"></div> <div class="related-links-item-headline">Contested conventions, explained: why the GOP&#8217;s best hope to stop Trump is also dangerous</div></a></li> </ul><p></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Emmett Rensin</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Maggie Nelson’s genre-busting The Red Parts dabbles in memoir and true crime and transcends both]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.vox.com/2016/3/28/11317756/the-red-parts-review-maggie-nelson" />
			<id>https://www.vox.com/2016/3/28/11317756/the-red-parts-review-maggie-nelson</id>
			<updated>2016-03-28T10:45:56-04:00</updated>
			<published>2016-03-28T12:20:03-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Books" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Criminal Justice" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Culture" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Policy" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Reviews" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Here&#8217;s a hook that could only ever work in nonfiction: Author spends eight years writing a book about the death of her mother&#8217;s sister, who was allegedly murdered by a serial killer 35 years before. The book is months from publication when the author gets a call. A detective who&#8217;s been working her aunt&#8217;s case [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="Author Maggie Nelson. | Graywolf Press" data-portal-copyright="Graywolf Press" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6252367/unnamed%2520%281%29.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
	Author Maggie Nelson. | Graywolf Press	</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Here&rsquo;s a hook that could only ever work in nonfiction: Author spends eight years writing a book about the death of her mother&rsquo;s sister, who was allegedly murdered by a serial killer 35 years before. The book is months from publication when the author gets a call. A detective who&#8217;s been working her aunt&rsquo;s case for the past several years now has a DNA match and is on the verge of arresting a suspect.</p>
<div class="align-right"><div data-chorus-asset-id="6252405"><img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6252405/unnamed.jpg"></div></div>
<p>This, roughly, is the story behind and the story of Maggie Nelson&rsquo;s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Red-Parts-A-Memoir/dp/141653203X"><em>The Red Parts</em></a><em> </em>(2007), reissued this month by Graywolf Press. In 2004, Nelson finished <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Jane-Murder-Soft-Skull-ShortLit/dp/1932360719"><em>Jane: A Murder</em></a>, a book of (mainly) experimental poetry that explored the 1969 murder of her aunt, Jane Mixer. While no suspect had ever been convicted of Mixer&#8217;s murder, it was widely believed that John Norman Collins, a serial killer who had only been officially convicted of the last of seven <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_murders">&#8220;Michigan Murders,&#8221;</a> was responsible.</p>

<p><em>Jane </em>was not about Collins. But it <em>was</em> about an old grief, something that had happened to Nelson&rsquo;s family before she was born, and the echoes and influence of that thing as it traveled down through her mother and her sister and her own life. The book was an attempt, Nelson says, to let Jane Mixer speak in her own voice, but the circumstances that made that voice unavailable except through reconstruction were long settled. There were no new developments to be reported.</p>

<p>Then in November 2004, Nelson and her mother were contacted by Detective Eric Schroeder, of the Michigan State Police. Collins was not responsible: A man named Gary Earl Leiterman, a retired nurse, had been linked to the crime by DNA evidence. <em>The Red Parts </em>is, at least superficially, about what came next: a news story, a trial, a renewed process of grief.</p>
<p><span><!-- ######## BEGIN SNIPPET ######## --> </span></p><div class="chorus-snippet ratingbox"> <!-- add number from 1 to 5 where the 3 is --><div class="rating-container"> <p>Rating</p> <hr> <span class="rating-number">4.5</span> </div> </div><!-- ######## END SNIPPET ######## --><p><br id="1459176670606"> <em>The Red Parts</em> met critical, if limited, hosannas when it was first released, reviewed positively by the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/books/review/Conant.t-1.html">New York Times</a>, <a href="http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-4165-3203-3">Publisher&rsquo;s Weekly</a>, <a href="http://www.popmatters.com/review/the-red-parts-by-maggie-nelson/">Pop Matters</a>,<em> </em>and others. It drew the attention of Annie Dillard, who called it &#8220;necessary, austere, and deeply brave.&#8221; But in the intervening years, Nelson has only become more popular. <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bluets-Maggie-Nelson/dp/1933517409">Bluets</a></em><em> </em>(2009) was a commercial hit. <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Cruelty-A-Reckoning/dp/0393343146/ref=pd_sim_14_2">The Art of Cruelty</a></em><em> </em>(2011) became one of those books about criticism that other critics, ordinarily a jealous set even within media, praised almost without reservation.</p>
<p>Last week <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Argonauts-Maggie-Nelson/dp/1555977073"><em>The Argonauts</em></a> (2015) <a href="http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/business/the-sellout-wins-national-book-critics-circles-fiction-award.html">won the National Book Critics Circle Award</a> and, through sheer force of critical accolade (including <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/12/30/10683478/best-books-2015">here on Vox</a>), secured Nelson&rsquo;s place near the top of a new wave of American literary nonfiction writers, largely published by Graywolf Press, who have brought more interest and experiment to that form than any set of authors since the 1970s. The re-release of <em>The Red Parts</em>, Nelson&#8217;s fifth book, allows a chance to reflect not only on the work itself, but on one of the early entries into that new territory of American writing.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><em>The Red Parts</em> eludes neat classification</h2>
<p>I have been trying, for these past few weeks, to figure out what kind of book <em>The Red Parts </em>is, really.</p>

<p>Officially it<em> </em>is classified as a memoir and as true crime, but those aren&rsquo;t quite right. These categories make sense up to a point: <em>The Red Parts</em> is a memoir inasmuch as it is nonfiction in the first person, and it is true crime inasmuch as it is at least notionally about a crime and a trial that truly happened. But the book does not sit comfortably in either. Perhaps they are the closest fit, if a fit must be made, but they&rsquo;re more marketing than exposition.</p>
<figure class="wp-block-pullquote alignleft"><blockquote><p><em>The Red Parts</em>, by design, gives a sense of a life but not the story of one</p></blockquote></figure>
<p>True crime is as popular as it has ever been; memoir, and its attendant first-person content industry, more so than ever. But if those are the kinds of things you&rsquo;re looking for, they aren&rsquo;t what you&rsquo;ll find in <em>The Red Parts,</em> not entirely. The crime is recounted, but not as plot. The trial happens, but its particulars are not exhaustive. Nelson&rsquo;s life is subject to examination, but in episodes and lyrically; the gravity of the situation is thematic, not temporal. <em>The Red Parts</em>,<em> </em>by design, gives a sense of a life, but not the story of one.</p>

<p>Nelson herself resists strict classification, even though <em>The Red Parts</em>&#8216; original printing bore the phrase &#8220;a memoir&#8221; in its title. In her new foreword, she writes that the reissue has done more than save her book from going out of print. It has also brought &#8220;into focus the book I always hoped <em>The Red Parts</em> might one day become: a peculiar, pressurized meditation on time&rsquo;s relation to violence, to grief, thankfully untethered from the garish rubrics of &lsquo;current events,&#8217; &lsquo;true crime,&#8217; or even &lsquo;memoir.&rsquo;&#8221;</p>

<p>&#8220;As far as genre goes,&#8221; she told me when we spoke via email about <em>The Red Parts</em>, &#8220;I&rsquo;m not against it. I just saw this book as operating between a lot of genres. &hellip; Like a lot of writers, perhaps, it pleases me to imagine my books appearing in the world naked, without being larded up by blurbs or photos or genre-indicators or praise, so the reader can just start reading and answer for herself, &#8216;wtf is this?'&#8221;</p>

<p>What <em>The Red Parts</em> is, I think, is a kind of commentary on these genres. It&#8217;s not a memoir, but it is about the impulses that animate that form. It is not true crime, but is in conservation with true crime, high and low. It is also an opportunity to see the origins or early iterations of many of Nelson&rsquo;s later habits: her preoccupation with violence; her remarkably unprecious treatment of sex; her haphazard (but often effective) jumps between tenses; her tendency to introduce quotations from other books, rendered in italics, into the middle of paragraphs as sentences borrowed <em>for </em>those paragraphs, by far the most visible stylistic feature of <em>The Argonauts</em>.</p>

<p>In conversation, Nelson tells me that one of the original titles for <em>The Red Parts</em> was &#8220;The End of the Story.&#8221; The idea, she explains, was to &#8220;underscore the fact that narrativizing sometimes makes things worse for us,&#8221; that &#8220;there are things to be felt or learned by dropping the storyline that we&rsquo;ll never know when we stay busy spinning story after story about ourselves, about others, about the world.&#8221;</p>

<p><em>Sometimes</em> is perhaps the operative term here: <em>The Red Parts</em> is ambivalent about the possibilities of making sense through self-storytelling, deliberately uncertain about the virtue of memoir. At times, it makes a case for itself in a way that anticipates Leslie Jamison&rsquo;s first <a href="http://www.vqronline.org/essays-articles/2014/04/grand-unified-theory-female-pain">justification</a> for writing about her own pain (&#8220;Why am I talking about this so much? / I guess I&rsquo;m talking about it because it happened&#8221;). At others, Nelson finds its limitations:</p>
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote has-text-align-none is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p>I know what I want is impossible. If I can make my language flat enough, exact enough, if I can rinse each sentence clean enough, like washing a stone over and over again in river water, if I can find the right perch or crevice from which to record everything, if I can give myself enough white space, maybe I could do it. I could tell you this story while walking out of this story. It could &mdash; it all could &mdash; just disappear.<strong> </strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>That is: <em>The Red Parts </em>is asking, <em>Is there value in telling a story about what&rsquo;s happened to us?</em> It answers, <em>Sometimes, but it is difficult to know when</em>.</p>

<p>&#8220;This book was written in a pinched, pained mood about the idea that time heals, that writing is cathartic, while also performing the fact &mdash; maybe despite itself &mdash; that time does change things, that writing can make things different,&#8221; Nelson told me. &#8220;But that change or difference is less linear than molten and looping. You have to submit to a process whose effects are unknowable before.&#8221;</p>

<p>The effects are cathartic, sometimes<em>. </em>But not always.</p>

<p>When it is, catharsis doesn&#8217;t come by embracing the storyline. It comes by annihilation. <em>I could tell you this story while walking out of this story</em>. I could tell you this story <em>because it happened</em>,<em> </em>but impossibly, in some sense, because it did not happen to me.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">The book, though it concerns a true crime story, isn&#039;t really a true crime story</h2>
<p>Regarding true crime: Nelson&rsquo;s resistance is far less measured. <em>The Red Parts</em> is skeptical of every trope of that genre, from the &#8220;cinematic, self-aggrandizing images &#8230; of discovering some crucial piece of evidence that the &#8216;professionals&#8217; had overlooked&#8221; to its unwillingness, except in rare cases, to reckon with much more than the most superficial questions about violence and human depravity.</p>

<p>Gary Leiterman&#8217;s trial is covered by <em>48 Hours Mystery</em>, a true crime variation of the TV newsmagazine 48 Hours.<strong> </strong>In a chapter that feels largely designed to humiliate an unnamed executive of that show, Nelson writes:</p>
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote has-text-align-none is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p>He says this episode will be about grief. About helping other people to mourn. He says that my family&#8217;s involvement could really help other people in similar situations. <em>All those viewers who thought they lost a family member to a famous serial killer, then are told 36 years later that DNA from the crime scene matches both that of a retired nurse and a man who was four years old at the time and grew up to murder his mother</em>, I think.</p>

<p>With less graciousness than I&#8217;d hoped to display, I ask if there&#8217;s a reason why stories about the bizarre, violent deaths of young, good-looking, middle- to upper-class white girls help people mourn better than other stories.</p>
</blockquote><figure class="wp-block-pullquote alignleft"><blockquote><p>True crime is about killing and the killers responsible. <em>The Red Parts</em> is not.</p></blockquote></figure>
<p>Nelson cites some of the genre&#8217;s masterpieces too &mdash; <em>The Executioner&rsquo;s Song</em>, in particular, comes up with that same CBS producer (&#8220;He lights up with an idea &mdash; he says he&#8217;s going in to find the Mailer book I told him about, which he will read on the plane to California tomorrow morning. <em>Good idea</em>, I say, not mentioning that it&#8217;s 1,056 pages&#8221;) &mdash; but even here there is an implied rebuke.</p>

<p>Norman Mailer&rsquo;s book is character study, an obsessive attempt to complicate and make sense of Utah killer Gary Gilmore, even romanticize him. The same can be said of Truman Capote&rsquo;s <em>In Cold Blood</em>, perhaps the only true crime book more highly regarded than Mailer&rsquo;s: Though he ultimately renounces the killer, Capote devotes half of his 200-some pages to an exercise in empathy with Perry Smith, the man who shot every member of the Clutter family.</p>

<p>It was only near the end of <em>The Red Parts</em>, when a chapter devoted to the trial itself finally happened, that I realized how little attention the book had paid to Leiterman himself. Only the bare facts of his biography are given &mdash; a few lines to the condition of his family and his life.</p>

<p>True crime, even when it rises out of sensationalism and sadism and pulp, is about the criminals. Even in its best incarnations, it feeds our desire for ghastly detail, and tries to make sense of why the worst crimes happen. It is about killing and the killers responsible. <em>The Red Parts</em> is not.</p>

<p>&#8220;I know next to nothing about Gary Leiterman,&#8221; Nelson told me. &#8220;I never had any interest in finding out more than I knew. My interest lies elsewhere.&#8221;</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">In unpacking Jane Mixer&#039;s murder, <em>The Red Parts</em> explores questions of memory and how we define ourselves</h2>
<p>Among Nelson&rsquo;s interests: Death. Grief. Sex. Her father. Her mother. Her sister. Buddhism. Storytelling. Psychoanalysis. Childhood.</p>

<p>These concerns are all related, of course, literally by the fact of Nelson&rsquo;s presence, and by the marks and residue of trauma. &#8220;If you were to ask my mother a few years ago how Jane&#8217;s murder affected the upbringing of her two daughters, she would have said that it did not,&#8221; Nelson says. &#8220;The realization that she may not have been as &#8216;in control&#8217; as she imagined &#8230; startled her.&#8221;</p>

<p>The proximate cause is a murder, but it might have been anything. What is important here is<strong> </strong>how we reject even immense events from our self-conception, and how time reveals and obscures our awareness of them. &#8220;At the end of this day, my grandfather announces that he has a &#8216;gut feeling&#8217; about Leiterman,&#8221; Nelson writes about a preliminary hearing in which her grandfather, Jane&#8217;s father, has testified, &#8220;He mentions this &#8216;gut feeling&#8217; several times, but never says exactly what it is.&#8221;</p>
<figure class="wp-block-pullquote alignleft"><blockquote><p>&quot;The idea,&quot; Nelson explains, was to &quot;underscore the fact that narrativizing sometimes makes things worse for us&quot; </p></blockquote></figure>
<p>A couple of paragraphs later: &#8220;I am also now remembering that when I tentatively, covertly interviewed my grandfather for <em>Jane </em>a few years back, he said that he had a &#8216;gut feeling&#8217; about John Collins.&#8221;</p>

<p>In her new forward, Nelson says, &#8220;One aim I had while writing was to allow the events of the trial, the events of my childhood, the events of Jane&rsquo;s murder, and the act of writing to share a single spatial and temporal moment. At one point in <em>The Red Parts</em>, this intermingling is imagined as a place, a &lsquo;dark crescent of land, where suffering is essentially meaningless, where the present collapses into the past without warning, where we cannot escape the fates we fear most, where heavy rains come and wash bodies up out of their graves, where grief lasts forever and its force never fades.&rsquo;&#8221;</p>

<p>Yet in <em>The Red Parts</em>, even imagined places and their meanings, even dreams (where the dark crescent of land is located) can permute over time, the elements available for collapse changing as Nelson writes and rewrites her self-conception.</p>

<p>I asked Nelson if there was some kind of contradiction here. &#8220;I would say that part of time passing includes the revisitation of past moments in the present,&#8221; she said. &#8220;Indeed, the scientists keep telling us that memory is not static, but literally made anew each time. So I don&rsquo;t see a real conflict here. It seems to me that given that the writing self is the remember self &mdash; even if I&rsquo;m writing in the present tense about the court room, my writing body is actually sitting at a desk months later somewhere else &mdash; so the collapse in question is really none other than the scene of writing.&#8221;</p>

<p>She is right about that, I think. And perhaps that, at bottom, is what kind of book <em>The Red Parts </em>is: a demonstration. It is a display of remembering &mdash; of seeing where time has changed meaning, of finding and losing and questioning the value of making stories of ourselves &mdash; made possible <em>by </em>an act of collapse. Pull these threads together, cut and paste episodes out of time and place &mdash; what happens? What is revealed? Is there resonance? Is it real, or only a byproduct of the aesthetic act itself? (If we are the ones who impose narrative in the first place, is there a difference?)</p>

<p>When I spoke to Nelson, I asked about the title. &#8220;The Red Parts&#8221;<em> </em>is the name of a chapter too, near the middle of the book. But it is the only one in the whole thing that does not mention Jane or her murder at all. &#8220;You know,&#8221; Nelson said, &#8220;I never noticed that.&#8221;</p>

<p>I don&#8217;t go in much for the notion that we are most betrayed by our unconscious choices, but I will say this: <em>The Red Parts </em>is bullish about the possibility of finding sense in storytelling, but that sense is rarely about the same thing as the story is.</p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Emmett Rensin</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Book review: In Other Words, Jhumpa Lahiri’s chronicle of learning Italian, is a work of remarkable diligence]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.vox.com/2016/3/8/11174760/in-other-words-review-jhumpa-lahiri" />
			<id>https://www.vox.com/2016/3/8/11174760/in-other-words-review-jhumpa-lahiri</id>
			<updated>2019-03-05T23:47:10-05:00</updated>
			<published>2016-03-08T10:30:03-05:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Books" /><category scheme="https://www.vox.com" term="Culture" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[In 1937, shortly after relocating permanently to Paris, Samuel Beckett wrote to his friend Axel Kaun. &#8220;It is becoming more and more difficult, even senseless, for me to write in an official English,&#8221; Beckett wrote, &#8220;More and more my own language appears to me like a veil that must be torn apart in order to [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="Author Jhumpa Lahiri. | Liana Miuccio" data-portal-copyright="Liana Miuccio" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/15720566/CreditLianaMiuccio.0.1536473753.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
	Author Jhumpa Lahiri. | Liana Miuccio	</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 1937, shortly after relocating permanently to Paris, Samuel Beckett wrote to his friend Axel Kaun.</p>

<p>&#8220;It is becoming more and more difficult, even senseless, for me to write in an official English,&#8221; Beckett wrote, &#8220;More and more my own language appears to me like a veil that must be torn apart in order to get at the things &hellip; behind it. Grammar and Style. To me they seem to have become as irrelevant as a Victorian bathing suit or the imperturbability of a true gentleman. A mask.&#8221;</p>
<div class="align-right"><div data-chorus-asset-id="6155859"><img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6155859/9781101875551.jpg"></div></div>
<p>The next year, Beckett would begin writing poetry in French. The year after that, he began translating his old work into the new language. In 1949, he produced a play, <em>En attendant Godot</em>. And while he would eventually translate that play back into his native language, the exercise stuck. After <em>Godot</em>, Beckett produced new work in French as often as English. He did not, perhaps, succeed in writing &#8220;without style,&#8221; but the effect of his experiment was at least a superior one.</p>

<p>It is unusual, for obvious reasons, for authors who have attained mastery in one language to begin writing in another. The language they become famous in may not be their first. (English was Joseph Conrad&rsquo;s fourth language, acquired in adulthood, but he never produced a novel in Polish.) Writers who undertake to learn a new language tend to write about it in English: Lately, Ta-Nehisi Coates has decamped to Paris, but his writing, produced there, has still thus far concerned the United States. He is not immersing himself completely, writing in French and translating himself back for the benefit of his American audience.</p>

<p>But <a href="https://www.randomhouse.com/kvpa/jhumpalahiri/">Jhumpa Lahiri</a>, whose 1999 debut short story collection <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Interpreter-Maladies-Jhumpa-Lahiri/dp/039592720X"><em>Interpreter of Maladies</em></a> won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, has gone even further than Beckett. After four books in English (the last of which, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Lowland-Vintage-Contemporaries-Jhumpa-Lahiri-ebook/dp/B00C4BA49A/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8"><em>The Lowland</em></a>, was published in 2012), she moved to Rome. There, she produced <a href="http://www.amazon.com/In-altre-parole-Italian-Edition-ebook/dp/B00OU0S4NG"><em>In Altre Parole</em></a> &mdash; a book in Italian, about learning Italian. Published in January 2015, it won the Premio Internazionale Viareggio-Versilia.</p>
<p><!-- ######## BEGIN SNIPPET ######## --></p><div class="chorus-snippet ratingbox"> <!-- add number from 1 to 5 where the 3 is --><div class="rating-container"> <p>Rating</p> <hr> <span class="rating-number">4</span> </div> </div><!-- ######## END SNIPPET ######## --><p><br id="1457382872308"> This month, the English-speaking world finally received the translation of that work: <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/In-Other-Words-Jhumpa-Lahiri/dp/1101875550">In Other Words</a></em>, a book that cannot quite be called a straight translation. English appears on opposite pages, across from the original text, and in reading the two together (even haltingly, as I did, making sense of the Italian from a knowledge of Spanish and the aid of an online dictionary), one finds a work that&#8217;s both closer to Lahiri&rsquo;s original intentions and altogether different, a dialogue beyond what a simple reproduction in English would have managed.</p>
<p>Lahiri did not do the translation herself. &#8220;[Writing in Italian] requires a strict discipline that I am compelled, at the moment, to maintain,&#8221; she says in the introduction, her first formal English writing in four years. &#8220;Translating the book myself would have broken that discipline.&#8221;</p>
<div data-chorus-asset-id="6156789"><img src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6156789/1457379745103.png"></div>
<p>It would also have defeated the purpose of the exercise. &#8220;Beckett said that writing in French allowed him to write without style,&#8221; Lahiri notes in one chapter, and she agrees, to a point. But &#8220;the problem isn&rsquo;t the absence of style but perhaps an excess. &hellip; What I lack in Italian is a sharp vision &hellip; I can&rsquo;t grasp it. &hellip; If I happen to formulate a good sentence in Italian I can&rsquo;t understand exactly why it&rsquo;s good.&#8221;</p>

<p>It is a theme Lahiri returns to over and over. &#8220;I can skirt the boundary of Italian, but the interior of the language escapes me,&#8221; she says. &#8220;I write on the margins, just as I&rsquo;ve always lived on the margins of countries, of cultures. A peripheral zone where it&rsquo;s impossible for me to feel rooted.&#8221;</p>

<p>That periphery is what <em>In Other Words</em> is about.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Lahiri artfully describes feeling alienated from <em>all</em> languages — including her supposed native tongue</h2>
<p>The periphery does not begin with Italian. Lahiri is not, by her own account, a native of any language. She learned Bengali first, from her parents, but her grasp on it remains tenuous: She speaks with an accent and does not write in it. It was in conflict, always, with English, which Lahiri acquired as a child. &#8220;Those two languages of mine didn&rsquo;t get along. They were incompatible adversaries, intolerant of each other. I thought they had nothing in common except me, so that I felt like a contradiction in terms of myself.&#8221; Italian, in her account, forms a triangle, a more manageable shape. But it does not make her any more at home.</p>

<p>The conflict between her languages continues on into adulthood, some of it within herself and some of it outside. &#8220;The wall,&#8221; she says, exists between her and any language. It is manifest in the English speakers who see her as a foreigner (<em>What the fuck is your problem, can&rsquo;t speak English? </em>a man yells at her in New York) and the Italians who do the same:</p>
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote has-text-align-none is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p>When I continue to speak in Italian, they ask me: <em>How is it that you speak Italian so well? </em>and I have to provide an explanation, I have to say why. The fact that I speak Italian seems to them unusual. &hellip; <em>Don&rsquo;t touch our language</em>, some Italians seem to say to me, <em>It doesn&rsquo;t belong to you</em>.</p>

<p>I can&rsquo;t avoid the wall even in India, in Calcutta, in the city of my so-called mother tongue &hellip; almost everyone thinks that, because I was born and grew up outside India, I speak only English.</p>

<p>No one, anywhere, assumes that I speak the languages that are a part of me.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I note this because <em>In Other Words</em> is not a book about a native of one language attempting to learn another. Rather, it is about an author who confesses some degree of alienation from every language, as she turns her attention to a new one. The distance between Lahiri and Italian is not newly alien, only a new alien, more alien than the languages she began to learn when she was a child. It is another periphery to occupy.</p>

<p>But for a person who does not feel at home in any language, who is made to feel apart from all of them, she is a remarkable writer, more accomplished than most natives of any tongue could hope to be.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Her devotion is admirable, and her Italian writings evolve impressively as her fluency improves</h2>
<p><em>In Other Words</em> is largely a series of short essays, what Lahiri calls reflections. Most of them, especially in the first half of the book, are quite literally about Lahiri&rsquo;s efforts to learn Italian. She takes classes in Brooklyn. She is interviewed without translation in the Italian press. She recounts an early incident when she is unable to enter her own apartment in Rome, desperately seeking help from locals. She begins to keep an Italian diary, a notebook of Italian phrases, to speak exclusively in Italian.</p>

<p>The reflections vary in the interest they command. Some offer remarkably fluid commentary on what it is like to learn a language (&#8220;Gathering Words&#8221;). Some are beautifully expository, aesthetic triumphs in their own right (&#8220;The Scaffolding&#8221;). A few veer toward the tedious (&#8220;Imperfect<em>,&#8221; </em>a chapter devoted to her difficulties with that tense, as well as Italian prepositions, accompanied by an atypically clumsy parallel: Lahiri, like the tense, is <em>imperfect</em>). Yet none feel unnecessary or indulgent.</p>

<p>All of them are short. In the book&#8217;s weakest parts, this is a mercy (how long could I have read about a particular struggle with prepositions?), but more often it is the disappointment of good art: Two of Lahiri&#8217;s &#8220;reflections&#8221; are in fact short stories written in Italian (&#8220;The Exchange,&#8221; &#8220;Half-Light&#8221;), and I left them wanting more, wanting a whole collection of her Italian fiction.</p>

<p><em>In Other Words</em> is a work of remarkable diligence. Lahiri&rsquo;s command of Italian grows palpably; over time, the reflections grow more capable of abstraction and tangent than their tightly focused forerunners. The voice, at first the kind of detached simplified narration native to folk parables, becomes confident and nuanced. By the end, she can produce images, visions of rooms and alleyways, that would constitute literary accomplishment even for an author writing in her native tongue.</p>

<p>The protagonist seeks to learn Italian. She does. It&rsquo;s little surprise: Her studies, described within, are a monument to diligence in their own right. Thousands of words and phrases, drawn from books and saved. Relentless practice, in writing and speaking. An exacting process: &#8220;After I finish a book I return to the text and diligently check the words. I sit on the sofa, with the book, the notebook, some dictionaries, a pen strewn around me. This task of mine, which is both obsessive and relaxing, takes time.&#8221;</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Lahiri isn&#039;t fundamentally learning to speak or read — she&#039;s learning to write, all over again</h2>
<p>Lahiri is an author, and inevitably a book about learning a language is a book about writing in it, a book about writing, full stop. <em>Why speak Italian</em>? drives the bulk of <em>In Other Words</em>; <em>How did you come to speak Italian? </em>drives most the rest. But the final third of the book is more particular, and the best part. <em>You are a champion of English prose. You have won the<strong> </strong>O. Henry Prize, the PEN/Hemingway Award, the Pulitzer Prize, the National Humanities Medal</em>. <em>Why write in Italian?</em></p>

<p>Lahiri offers several theories of her own ambition, and many will be familiar to those who have heard authors answer, <em>Why do you write? </em>Why does Lahiri write? To be alone. To make sense of the world. To make sense of herself, her feelings, to stake out her relationship with language. As a surer route to permanence than sound or flesh. <em>Why do I write? </em>&#8220;To investigate the mystery of existence. To tolerate myself. To get closer to everything that is outside me.&#8221;</p>

<p>She writes in Italian in order to make sense of her relationship with Italian. &#8220;What passes without being put into words, without being transformed, and, in a certain sense, purified by the crucible of writing, has no meaning for me,&#8221; Lahiri writes. She wants to prove something, yes, but more basically she wants to make the relationship with Italian real, too, to make it real at all, in the way she is accustomed to making reality.</p>

<p>&#8220;Language is the mirror,&#8221; Lahiri says, &#8220;the principal metaphor. Because ultimately the meaning of a word, like that of a person, is boundless, ineffable.&#8221;</p>

<p>Maybe so. But if language is the principal metaphor for life, what is the metaphor for language? It depends on the page. In many places, <em>In Order Words</em> is not so much a direct investigation of language, but a sampling of figurative means by which to talk about language. Language is a small lake, a deep lake, a lover, an exotic land. It is a black sweater, internal organs, children and motherhood. It is a garden, a mountain, a forest, a dream, a dialogue between the topographical features of Venice. It is Hadrian&rsquo;s villa and a sliver of sky.</p>

<p>The first time I assembled that list, I wrote &#8220;or&#8221; between each item, but that is not quite right. Each metaphor finds its own discrete uses. They are another way <em>In Other Words</em> is about the periphery. Lahiri says she will never be at the heart of Italian. She will never know it as a native does &mdash; even if she can write an award-winning book in the language, she will remain outside of it.</p>

<p>&#8220;I don&rsquo;t have a vocabulary that has been experienced, seasoned since childhood. I can&rsquo;t examine Italian with the same precision [a natively Italian writer can]. I can&rsquo;t evaluate an Italian text, not even one written by me, from the same perspective. Yet the impulse to track down the right words remains irrepressible, so even in Italian I try.&#8221;</p>

<p>So too, it seems, with metaphors. In a novel or in a book about some outside thing, the author might sweep away all trace of failed attempts to capture a subject, rebuild the whole text around the right metaphor, the right word. But <em>In Other Words</em> is a process story. Its plot is the history of its own creation. So the detritus remains. Every metaphor stands, in each reflection, so that we can see where Lahiri was when she tried it. A book about the periphery must feel like the periphery: working its way around, changing course, never there.</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading"><em>In Other Words</em> doesn&#039;t want — or need — a general lesson</h2>
<p><em>In Other Words</em> is a particular project of a particular writer, an exercise that is well worth reading in itself. I resist the impulse to pull a neat generality from it. Not every book must articulate a theory of the world. A good book need not come to any conclusions at all, nor even hazard a guess, about anything that exists beyond its chosen object. Jhumpa Lahiri wanted to write a book in Italian, about Italian. She did. That is enough for beauty.</p>

<p>But I will say this: Midway through <em>In Other Words</em>, Lahiri writes that &#8220;Without a sense of marvel at things, without wonder, one can&rsquo;t create anything. If everything were possible, what would be the meaning, the point of life? If it were possible to bridge the distance between me and Italian, I would stop writing in that language.&#8221;</p>

<p>There doesn&rsquo;t seem to be much danger of that. But despite Lahiri&rsquo;s claim that English is like &#8220;a boyfriend I&rsquo;m tired of&#8221; (another metaphor), I do not believe she will never write in English again. She is closer to it, much closer than she is to Italian, much closer than many English speakers will ever be, but she cannot be wholly within English because no one, really, can be wholly within a language at all. It&rsquo;s the trouble with metaphors, even principal ones. A mirror must be held at some distance to work. Language isn&rsquo;t life. It is not the face it is reflecting back at us.</p>

<p>In Italian, Lahiri does not find a new challenge, only a newly challenging rendition of an old one. A way of starting over, a mirror of a different size. It is why, I suspect, she can never quite answer <em>why Italian</em> in particular. She encountered it. It struck her. She liked it, felt connected to it, felt a compulsion to understand. But why? The cause is ineffable. I think that&rsquo;s because it might have been anything, because anything is something we are at some distance from, a periphery we may want or need to live in for a while.</p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
	</feed>
