Category: Uncategorized

Belated Sunday post

Somehow, Thomas Sunday got away from me.

Headstrong and mis-shapen

It seems odd to open a Sunday post with a quote from a neuroscientist philosopher who has not yet found himself able to profess forthrightly any active Christian faith. If and when he does, it almost certainly will be Orthodox, as I believe he himself once acknowledged.

I open with it nonetheless because it … well, I hope you’ll see:

Unfortunately, reason on its own will lead you astray very, very quickly …

People detect from what I wrote in The Master and His Emissary that I am not a huge admirer of the [left-hemisphere inspired] Reformation … Unfortunately, it brought with it a kind of headstrong view that ‘now we’re in the clear. Everything must be made explicit. The word triumphs over the image’ and so on. …

The trouble with the left hemisphere is … it tends to be headstrong. It tends to think it knows far more than it does.

Iain McGilchrist in a YouTube video with Freddy Sayers of Unherd.

I expect to chew on this for a long while, hoping to digest it and build some new intellectual tissue with it, so that I think by it rather than about it.

If you’re unfamiliar with Iain McGilchrist, this book blurb for one of his smallest books may help:

Attention is not just receptive, but actively creative of the world we inhabit. How we attend makes all the difference to the world we experience. And nowadays in the West we generally attend in a rather unusual way: governed by the narrowly focussed, target-driven left hemisphere of the brain.

Forget everything you thought you knew about the difference between the hemispheres, because it will be largely wrong. It is not what each hemisphere does – they are both involved in everything – but how it does it, that matters. And the prime difference between the brain hemispheres is the manner in which they attend. For reasons of survival we need one hemisphere (in humans and many animals, the left) to pay narrow attention to detail, to grab hold of things we need, while the other, the right, keeps an eye out for everything else. The result is that one hemisphere is good at utilising the world, the other better at understanding it.

Absent, present, detached, engaged, alienated, empathic, broad or narrow, sustained or piecemeal, attention has the power to alter whatever it meets. The play of attention can both create and destroy, but it never leaves its object unchanged. How you attend to something – or don’t attend to it – matters a very great deal. This book helps you to see what it is you may have been trained by our very unusual culture not to see.

The extent to which Protestantism neglects to “attend” to the Christian Gospel with the right hemisphere not only makes it “headstrong,” as McGilchrist has it, but oblivious to much that is precious and edifying.

Reductionism

Weber clearly thought that modern people are disenchanted because they believe that, in principle, a scientific explanation can be given for natural phenomena, with no need for recourse to magical means to invoke spirits or gods. As an explanation of the natural world, Weber thought that science was replacing religion, and empirical fact was replacing belief.

William T. Cavanaugh, The Uses of Idolatry.

(Note that “scientific explanation” is fundamentally a left-hemisphere explanation.)

Anti-Institutional

The American evangelical tradition may not be as “liberal,” in the nineteenth-century or classical meaning of the term, as it sounds, but the focus on individual action — sans church, sans family, sans social structures of whatever sort — has predominated since the days of Whitefield. The enduring contribution to evangelicalism of the republicanism of the Revolutionary era was the undermining of hereditary trust in institutions. The enduring contribution of the Great Awakenings in the colonial and early national periods was to substitute the voluntary society for the church.

Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.

Many Americans would read this and say “Damn right! Institutions just get between me-and-Jesus!”

I intend it as an indictment. One might define the offense as Headstrongness.

Institutional failures in my mind are outweighed by personal failures. An institutional Church (at least one of them, anyway) is a near-infinitely safer guide to spiritual health than oneself is.

Barmen Declaration

Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death. We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation.

Karl Barth, The Barmen Declaration (Germany, 1934), quoted by Stanley Hauerwas in Resident Aliens.

Somehow the Barmen Declaration seemed especially timely when I stumbled across it again. If I’m not careful, I’ll become “WEAK on Crime and terrible on foreign policy.”

Great Schism

The centuries succeeding that day in 1054 have yielded two very different visions of what it means to be truly Christian, what it means to be the Church. These differences are not only in terms of mindset and vision, but also in core doctrines that are regarded as central to salvation itself.

Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, (“that day in 1054” being the conventional dating of the Great Schism, the separation of the Patriarch of Rome (i.e., now the modern Pope) from the rest of the Church).

Step in the right direction?

I am not at all convinced that a move from, say, atheism to Wicca is necessarily “a step in the right direction” — i.e., once you’ve entered the genus-town of “religion,” you’re closer to the species-house of Christianity than you were before. Indeed, I wonder whether many people might be less interested in Christianity as a result of such a move, since they might plausibly think that as long as they’re operating within the genus, does it really matter what species they prefer? (The “We all get to God in our own way” line has had a very long run and doesn’t show any signs of slowing down.)

Alan Jacobs

Angry and vengeful

It is sinful to ascribe to God the characteristic features of fallen man by alleging, for example, that God is angry and vengeful, and therefore He must be propitiated and appeased. Such an attitude wants to make it appear that it is God Who needs curing, and not man. But this is sacrilegious. The sinful man, who is characterized by egoism and arrogance, is offended. We cannot say that God is offended. . . . Consequently, sin is not an insult to God, Who must be cured, but our own illness, and therefore we need to be cured

Dr. Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou, Thinking Orthodox

Everybody’s got their schtick

Today’s leading Christian personalities podcast, YouTube, Tweet/X, TikTok, Instagram and exert their presence through every form of social media. The audience is less national. There may never be another Billy Graham about whom everybody knows. Today’s influencers may have millions following them but are typically unknown outside their niche.

Everybody, Christian or not, is increasingly siloed. We self-collate, listen to and watch those who entertain us and typically tell us what we want to hear. Of course, the most popular influencers are usually provocative, outrageous, extremist, often hateful. The cerebral, thoughtful, reflective and courteous are less captivating.

[Megan] Basham, like all successful influencers, has her schtick. Her Shepherds for Sale targets evangelicals who supposedly have betrayed conservative Christianity in favor of leftist dollars or secular approval. Her tweets continue this theme and offer a robust MAGA Christian perspective, hammering non-MAGA Christians as weak sisters or worse. Every day is a new cosmic drama. In this regard, she is very talented.

Mark Tooley, America’s Most Influential Baptists?.

Basham has obsessively targeted so many evangelicals for literally selling out, mostly implausibly, that I suspect projection of her own financial motivations.

Nominalism, Realism, Human Rights

Most menacing of all was the United Nations. Established in the aftermath of the Second World War, its delegates had proclaimed a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To be a Muslim, though, was to know that humans did not have rights. There was no natural law in Islam. There were only laws authored by God.

Tom Holland, Dominion.

Preliminary research suggests that the absoluteness of Holland’s indictment is unwarranted — that things are a little more complicated than “humans [do] not have rights.” There’s also more than a grain of truth to it.

There are, sadly, sectarian Christianities who come close to this. You can get to that position from Christianish premises filtered through philosophical nominalism.

An hypothesis

I quoted a few days ago: Truth emerges more readily from error than from confusion. (Francis Bacon via Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

Hypothesis: the works in the spiritual realm, too. Thus I, a Calvinist, was more open to Orthodoxy than some “spiritual-but-not-religious” addlepate.

IVF

One of my unpopular opinions is that there’s something dodgy about IVF. Thoughtful Protestant Matthew Lee Anderson makes The Biblical Case Against IVF.

I’m not going to try to anticipate and rebut any reaction that my position is cruel. I just wanted to drive a stake in the ground as a memorial against the Technological Imperative. Not all of us have decided that if something is inevitable, we should relax and enjoy it.

The Beatitudes, tell us the way blessedness works. I’ll take that over political “strength,” “force,” or “power” any day of the week, not just Sundays.

You can read most of my more impromptu stuff here and here (both of them cathartic venting, especially political) and here (the only social medium I frequent, because people there are quirky, pleasant and real and it has no-algorithms). All should work in your RSS aggregator, like Feedly or Reeder, should you want to make a habit of it.

Whole lotta AI goin’ on

This oughta go in Frank Bruni’s “Love of Sentences”

“I Feel So Sorry for My A.I. Sunglasses.” Sam Anderson writes a wonderful little review of his fancy Meta glasses: “Look, it would be easy to dunk on my very expensive, staggeringly incompetent sunglasses. Critiquing A.I. these days is like shooting fish in a barrel — and I mean poorly animated fish that keep sprouting human fingers inside a barrel that, as soon as you ask it a question or two, reveals itself to be a Nazi. Meta is investing heavily to promote its new product (a Super Bowl ad starring Spike Lee, a brick-and-mortar store on Fifth Avenue), which made me curious to take a peek through the eyes of the future. Yet A.I. glasses also feel so clearly unnecessary, so easily adaptable for malevolent ends. I was perfectly ready to hate them. Instead, very quickly, I started to feel sorry for my sunglasses. They were like a kid who hasn’t done any of the reading but keeps being called on in class — and who also can’t make friends, because all of his classmates think he’s a spy.”

Front Porch Republic

It’s not so much that I’m obsessed with AI as it is that the people I read with pleasure currently are obsessed with it.

How very, very ABA

The Wall Street Journal reveals/reminds that the American Bar Association has a DEI requirement for accreditation (and that ABA Accreditation is all but mandatory for a law school’s success).

It wasn’t this issue that caused me to drop ABA membership early in my law practice, but another where the bien pensants “think” one way, I another. The power levers in the ABA are, and long have been, controlled by people who feel like space aliens to me, and who probably think I’m a troglodyte.

Populist lessons

The lesson, as I see it, is that populism can never deliver on its fantastic promises: to insulate a national economy from the global one, while maintaining prosperity; to represent the will of the people, while persecuting a large share of the people who oppose populist policies; to champion “democracy” through illiberal means; to pretend you’re speaking for the forgotten man as you grow fat, rich, and arrogant in power. By the way, that’s as true of left-wing populism as it is of the populism of the right. As someone with some family ties to Hungary, I’m just glad to see Orban gone.

Bret Stephens

Pope versus an illiterate degenerate

Pope Leo is not likely to have the honor of going the way of my patron saint, Thomas Becket, that “turbulent priest” …

No, these are not those kinds of times. Pope Leo only has the American president, an illiterate and a degenerate, to snipe at him on social media. Trump is what you’d get if you’d given Benito Mussolini a frontal lobotomy and a double orchiectomy. He will order and exult in the mass murder of seagoing South Americans whose names nobody knows, but whatever else he may have in common with late-life King Henry VIII, the American president is not likely to make any martyrs in the classical sense.

…

One here recalls the famous words of Francis Cardinal George:

I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.

Prophetic? I think so–properly understood. 

The role of the prophet is one of the most misunderstood aspects of Christianity. A prophet may or may not foretell future events, but making predictions is not the prophet’s main business—his business very often is the here and now. The prophet is a kind of public prosecutor, speaking in an inspired way to the shortcomings of the people, of the state, and, especially, of government and religious leaders ….

Kevin D. Williamson, The Pope Against the Idolators

“Shorts” on AI as Christian Heresy

I stumbled onto a piece by L.M. Sacasas (I think his intimates call him Michael; I’m not his intimate) that warrants many “shorts” of its own:

  • [T]he narrative of technological inevitability … frames the development of technology as a deterministic process to which human beings have no choice but to adapt, and to do so on the terms dictated by the emerging technological apparatus.
  • [T]he victors write the history, in technology as in war, and the technological “paths not taken” are often suppressed or ignored.
  • The narrative is useful precisely to the degree that it is the rhetorical equivalent of washing one’s hands in the face of events you have the power to sway but would rather not.
  • Anyone claiming to know the future is just trying to own it.
  • We must at least entertain the possibility that the appropriate response to certain technologies at certain times is simply outright refusal. We do not need to water down our conviction with a myriad of qualifiers about how there are undoubtedly good and proper uses.
  • AI in its present mode can be understood as a fundamentally conservative rather than radically disruptive force to the degree that its function is to preserve modernity’s core commitments to scale, efficiency, rationality, control, and prediction.
  • [W]e continue to reap the consequences of a failure to address the problems of growth and complexity in a manner that would serve the human person and human communities.
  • We are discovering … that AI is especially adept at displacing or, from the techno-optimist’s perspective, liberating us from human labour in contexts wherein humans had already conformed, willfully or otherwise, to the pattern of a machine. Build a techno-social system which demands that humans act like machines and it turns out that machines can eventually be made to displace humans with relative ease. (That last, bolded, sentence was a pull-quote and very apt.)
  • [W]e are operating with a “human of the gaps” model when we try to locate the essence of the human creature by pointing to what cannot yet be accomplished by a machine, whether these be matters of physical prowess, cognitive ability, or creativity. Such an approach to the human is misguided, just as it was when it was applied to God.
  • Without suggesting that this is an exhaustive and definitive account of the human person, I would invite us to consider the possibility that what is distinctive about the human should be sought in the quality of our capacity to respond to our Creator, the Alpha and Omega of our existence.
  • [O]ur flourishing is conditioned not so much on the accomplishment of certain feats or tasks, many of which, in any case, exclude the youngest and oldest and most vulnerable among us. Rather, it is conditioned on our capacity to respond to the call of God on us as unique individuals made in his image and thus made to resonate with his presence as it is manifest to us throughout creation.
  • “[S]tillness … is not mere soundlessness or a dead muteness; it means, rather, that the soul’s power, as real, of responding to the real … has not yet descended into words.” (Quoting Josef Pieper, Leisure As the Basis of Culture)

L.M. Sacasas, AI as Christian Heresy.

This is one to return to periodically until I’ve modified my DNA with it or found a fallacy and dumped it. I want to make sure I’m not acting like a machine.

Shorts (more generally)

  • Pride grows in the human heart like lard on a pig. (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn)
  • It was once the useful role of conservatives to stand athwart declining moral standards, yelling “Stop”. They lost whatever right they had to play that role when they got behind Trump. (Bret Stephens)
  • She says she has critiqued Trump for ten years so she should be trusted when she “defends” him thus: He is too stupid to realize that the même was sacrilegious.
  • The messianic iconography of Mr. Trump’s AI-generated image was more lavish than that which the North Korean regime uses to promote the cult of Kim Jong Un. (J Budziszewski)

Elsewhere in Tipsyland

I confess, however, that I am not myself very much concerned with the question of influence, or with those publicists who have impressed their names upon the public by catching the morning tide and rowing very fast in the direction in which the current was flowing; but rather that there should always be a few writers preoccupied in penetrating to the core of the matter, in trying to arrive at the truth and to set it forth, without too much hope, without ambition to alter the immediate course of affairs, and without being downcast or defeated when nothing appears to ensue.

T.S. Eliot

I don’t do any of the major social media, but I have two sub-domains of the domain you’re currently reading: (a) You can read most of my reflexive stuff, especially political here. (b) I also post some things on my favorite no-algorithm social medium.

Easter/Palm Sunday

A blessed Easter to readers in Western Christian traditions like the wife sitting four feet from me as I type (who, to the best of my knowledge, doesn’t read this blog). Blessed is He that comes in the Name of the Lord to readers in Eastern Christian traditions.

Mystical pilgrimage

There is a deeper pilgrimage that the Church encourages and is available to all. It has no commercialism, nor is it fraught with temptation. It is quite simple:

The whole world is Passover in Jerusalem in 33 A.D. Everywhere we go, we are there. In the liturgical life of the Church, the details of that city, at that time, are drawn out in careful detail in the services of Holy Week. Every celebration of the Divine Liturgy is a making-present of that time and that place.

…

This pilgrimage is not an act of imagination. That which is truly “mystical” is not imaginary – it is real and true.

Fr. Stephen Freeman

The Orthodox Church is entering Holy Week, and I feared that this post was too oblivious to that. Then Fr. Stephen came through for me. If you read nothing else, click the link to read his thoughts on pilgrimage.

On the construct of “religion”

To ask a census-taker how many Chinese are Buddhist is rather like asking one how many Westerners are Aristotelian or pragmatist.

William T. Cavanaugh, The Myth of Religious Violence

Why might a doctrinal conservative be an Episcopalian?

The reader will reasonably ask why I became an Episcopalian when I don’t like progressive theology. One reason is, of course, family. Another is my longstanding love of Anglican choral music and of the cadences in the Book of Common Prayer (even in most post-1662 versions), neither of which can, in my view, be matched by any other Christian tradition in English.

Joshua T. Katz.

I, self-confessed homo adorans, cannot despise that position. I wonder how many Episcopalians quietly reject the progressive theology, staying for the worship. I have even seen retired conservative protestant pastor who moved to the Episcopal Church.

Religion and Politics

Q: So how would you respond to one of those editors responsible for hiring and firing who says “Look: the big story here is obviously the big decline of Christianity in terms of participation. Why do I spend money on a Religion Beat desk when it’s a subject that’s declining in relevance?

A: Well, see, the problem is that relevance then is defined primarily in terms of politics. “Name me some big headlines out of this.” Well, by definition a big headline is something related to Donald Trump. Politics. The mid-term elections. “Will Latino Evangelicals help Republicans again?” If your religion is politics, you’re not going to be able to justify a reporter spending six months digging deep, diving into, the statistics on confession, marriages, baptisms … what congregations are producing priests, nuns, pastors, clergy, etc. …?” That’s not going to get you big headline about American politics.

Todd Wilkins and Terry Mattingly, The story that will not die: REVIVAL in America! (GetReligion podcast)

This touches a recurring theme of their podcast series (named after the admission by a New York Times editor that his paper “just doesn’t get religion”): religion is a guise for politics according to essentially every newsroom in America. Politics is real, religion not so much.

But I have a complementary theory: religion is a guise for politics according to the revealed preferences of hundreds of thousands of churches, too. This feels like one of those things I just can’t un-see, having seen it once.

The Orthodox Church has people with strong political preferences — but not remotely homogenous, in my limited experience, and their obsessions are not the Church’s devotions.

None of this undermines the truth of the Christian Gospel, but corruptio optima pessima.

Another thing I cannot un-see

Because of the way Reformed and literal interpretations of the Bible had empowered ordinary people and their leaders in creating a Christian civilization, that hermeneutic enjoyed immense implicit authority. An obvious problem by the late 1850s, however, was that this wonderfully energizing use of Scripture had created multiple, conflicting Christian civilizations. … The Reformed, literal hermeneutic had helped build a biblical civilization—actually, two biblical civilizations. But the hermeneutic itself could not reconcile the divergent interpretations it had produced.

Mark A. Noll, America’s God

The Beatitudes, tell us the way blessedness works. I’ll take that over political “strength,” “force,” or “power” any day of the week, not just Sundays.

You can read most of my more impromptu stuff here and here (both of them cathartic venting, especially political) and here (the only social medium I frequent, because people there are quirky, pleasant and real and it has no-algorithms). All should work in your RSS aggregator, like Feedly or Reeder, should you want to make a habit of it.

Fifth Sunday of Great Lent

Christian America

One of the reasons I have long been hostile toward the idea of Christianizing America is that the variety of Christianity that would be in instantiated would be what Ross Douthat has called “Bad Religion” in a book subtitled “How We Became a Nation of Heretics.” I don’t trust power-hungry American heretics to treat Orthodox Christian better than secularist progressives would.

That concern has only grown

  1. the more deeply I am shaped as an Orthodox Christian (and see how that differs from mainstream American Christianities), and
  2. the more particularly sinister figures like Lance Wallnau appear to be leading Christian Nationalism.

These are not C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christians.” They are ideologues with plans for how to get power and how to (mis)use it once they have it.

Of course they’re not alone. Other groups seek power for illiberal ends, too. (To the best of my knowledge, none are Orthodox Christian and I would be surprised if they were.)

I don’t toss and turn in agony over these groups, but it leaves me in the camp of liberal democrats, and if you think “liberal democrats” means I’m a crazy lefty, you’re part of the problem. (Relative to today’s political spectrum, I think I’m positioned center-right because of deal-killer differences with those to my left.)

Alas, the hopes for liberal democracy do seem dim, and I pray daily “If this is the end of liberal democracy in America, guide us into a beneficial different path ….” I also thank God for my “living in a civilization where beliefs, texts, symbols, and ethical standards of Christianity are still woven into our common life.”* All it takes to assure that continues, I think, is for people to live as Christians — no political program required.

* Many, including even notorious atheist Richard Dawkins, looking soberly at the cultural alternatives, now call themselves “cultural Christians.”

Something for rumination

Both Dostoevski and Tolstoi made me cling to a faith in God, and yet I could not endure feeling an alien in it. I felt that my faith had nothing in common with that of Christians around me.

Dorothy Day, The Long Loneliness.

[Here I typed my pedantic gloss, but then deleted it to let readers ruminate on their own.]

What a well-formed Catholic believes about Jews and Irael

The Catholic position on matters of ‘Zionism,’ to which I fully subscribe, is as follows: all forms of antisemitism are to be unequivocally condemned; the state of Israel has a right to exist; but the modern nation of Israel does not represent the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies and hence does not stand beyond criticism.

Bishop Robert Barron, admonishing antisemitic “Catholic Mean Girl” Carrie Prejean Boller who was delusionally claiming that her ouster from the White House Religious Liberty Commission was anti-Catholic.

Stirring things up at Yale

A few years after I left Calvinist Protestantism for Eastern Orthodoxy, the great Yale historian of religion, Jaroslav Pelikan, left Lutheranism for Orthodoxy. I mentioned it to a friend who had attended Yale in Grad School.

“Well, that will stir things up,” he opined.

Me: “Why? I had no idea that Yale still had some strong religious tradition to offend.”

Him: “It will stir things up because people won’t understand taking religion seriously enough to change it.”

I thought of that as a read sociologist Ryan Burge’s recent post Inertia Still Rules American Religion.

“Inertia” has bad connotations. I encourage everyone to take a good hard look at Orthodox Christianity, but I also tend to cast at least a little bit of side-eye at people who switch Churches. I cannot entirely reconcile that except for the possibility that I’m a censorious ass. But try as a might, somehow, there seems to me to be something not entirely unhealthy about not looking at the grass on the other side of the fence if you’re being nourished on your side. (Have I equivocated enough?) Anyway, if your teeth are on edge where you are, come take a look at us.

(My experience pre-Orthodoxy clashes a bit with Burge’s definitional “If someone moves from one type of Protestant to another type of Protestant, that’s not a switch.” When I left generic Evangelicalism for Calvinism, it felt like a switch. The change from Calvinist to Orthodox, of course, was orders of magnitude “switchier.”)

The Ark of Salvation

[I]t’s worth thinking about the Church (Orthodox) as an ark of salvation and safety. It is an ancient image of the Church, a place where God gathers those who are being rescued. The ark is not an instrument of flood management, however. It is a raft. Modernity imagines itself as the manager of the world and its historical processes. It is an idea that is itself part of the destructive flood of our time.

…

From onboard the ark, we view things a bit differently. First, we trust that God is the Lord of the tsunami just as surely as He is Lord of the sparrow and the lillies in the field. The mystery of how He works all things for our salvation is summarized in His crucifixion. Most of that mystery is simply opaque. It is a confession of faith that the Cross represents the interpretation of all things. It is what I learned on board the ark.

That being the case, it is for us to give thanks for all things, try to stay dry, and wait for the waters to recede.

Fr. Stephen Freeman, Riding the Tsunami of History

Gratuitous

Having adopted a method of investigation which in its nature precludes the perception of spiritual qualities, it is gratuitous, to say the least, to pronounce that the object one investigates is to be explained in non-spiritual categories alone.

Yet it is the conclusions achieved by this kind of [circular] reasoning which for the last 300 years or more have been regarded as constituting knowledge in a virtually exclusive sense and which moreover have been termed scientific.

Philip Sherrard, The Rape of Man and Nature

“I don’t believe in anything,” answered Pendragon very briskly, with a bright eye cocked at a red tropical bird. “I’m a man of science.”

G.K. Chesterton, The Absence of Mr. Glass, a Father Brown mystery.

Fleeing the world

As St. Paisios (1924–1994) put it, “The monk flees far from the world, not because he detests the world, but because he loves the world and in this way he is better able to help the world through his prayer, in things that don’t happen humanly but only through divine intervention. In this way God saves the world.”

Robin Phillips and Stephen De Young, Redicovering the Goodness of Creation

The Beatitudes, tell us the way blessedness works. I’ll take that over political “strength,” “force,” or “power” any day of the week, not just Sundays.

You can read most of my more impromptu stuff here and here (both of them cathartic venting, especially political) and here (the only social medium I frequent, because people there are quirky, pleasant and real and it has no-algorithms). All should work in your RSS aggregator, like Feedly or Reeder, should you want to make a habit of it.

Pi Day

Subtle subversion

I went to a High School Show Choir show the other day. The highlight was a top Show Choir doing a star-spangled show with red, white and blue, flouncy red and white skirts, high energy, a made-in-America ballad (Aaron Copland, The Promise of Living), and other familiar pieces like Can’t tell a book by looking at the cover and America (from West Side Story)

The even had a Tejano-looking horn line, complete with black cowboy hats, adding a Mariachi flavor to one interlude in the singing.

All in all, it was a show that celebrated diverse America, subtly pushing back against … oh, just about anyone who fancies that Real America is white and European.

That’s the kind of resistance that’s hard for tyrants to crush.

Attacking the First Amendment

The bleeding-heart RINO communists at the Wall Street Journal investigated one particular aspect of immigration enforcement: the handling of peaceful protesters:

  • Out of 279 people accused of attacking federal officers on social media over the past year, 181 were U.S. citizens.
  • Nearly half of these Americans were never formally charged, and none have been convicted at trial.
  • Many faced public doxxing—release of personal information such as addresses and photos—leading to death threats.
  • Some bore financial burdens from bail, legal fees, and lost workdays defending themselves.

It’s impossible to keep up with all the outrages. Kudos to Brenna T. Smith, Hannah Critchfield, Brian Whitton, Belle Cushing and Emma Scott of the WSJ for trying.

Writing

Writing is a precarious profession. We are broke, for the most part. We work jobs we often don’t enjoy to keep the lights on: Faulkner at the post office, Vonnegut and his disastrous car dealership, every writer you know and their faculty gig. The average author doesn’t make enough from their royalties to clear the poverty line. Most books don’t even make back their advance, meaning they earn no royalties for the author at all. When Anna Burns won the Booker Prize, she thanked her food bank. Our work is stolen to train the software of multibillion-dollar artificial intelligence companies run by people who believe art is a problem to be solved.

Omar El Akkad, One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This

Shorts

  • Against the “flood the zone” strategy of misinformation that the current administration seems to favor, lawyers and judges, bound by legal, professional and social obligations to work in a reality-based world, can function as a critical levee. (Deborah Pearlstein, The Justice Department Wants to Make It Safe for Government Lawyers to Lie – shared link.)
  • [Self-identified Secretary of War Pete] Hegseth says that in order to win wars like the one now being waged in Iran, “our warriors deserve legal teams as lethal and focused as they are,” though he does not elaborate on what a lethal legal team might look like. (Sarah Fitzpatrick and Missy Ryan, The Pentagon’s Lawyers Are Now Under Review)
  • “The only thing prohibiting transit in the straits (sic) right now is Iran shooting at shipping. It is open for transit should Iran not do that.” (Mr. Obvious nominee Pete “Big Hair” Hegseth)
  • “I’m not worried. I do whatever the f**k I want. DJT will pardon me,” – Corey Lewandowski.
  • We know not through our intellect, but through our experience. (Maurice Merleau-Ponty via Economist)

Elsewhere in Tipsyworld

I confess, however, that I am not myself very much concerned with the question of influence, or with those publicists who have impressed their names upon the public by catching the morning tide and rowing very fast in the direction in which the current was flowing; but rather that there should always be a few writers preoccupied in penetrating to the core of the matter, in trying to arrive at the truth and to set it forth, without too much hope, without ambition to alter the immediate course of affairs, and without being downcast or defeated when nothing appears to ensue.

T.S. Eliot

I don’t do any of the major social media, but I have two sub-domains of the domain you’re currently reading: (a) You can read most of my reflexive stuff, especially political here. (b) I also post some things on my favorite no-algorithm social medium.

Moral Luck (formerly “Putative Virtue”)

For whatever reason, I’ve been doing a bit more reflection than usual. Piling several of those reflections into a single, long post didn’t feel right, so this likely will be followed by other stand-alone posts, each with my fingerprints all over it:

Our human moral agency is not so strong that it can overcome every conceivable shock and influence thrown at us. Sometimes, human character turns bad owing to things beyond our control. “Moral luck” is thus a way to raise the question of whether we truly possess a meaningful freedom and true moral self-determination. If the right temptation could bring any of us down, in what sense is one person truly “good” and another “bad”?

Timothy Patitsas, The Ethics of Beauty. The first time I read this, it really resonated with me.

Is a man virtuous who avoids adultery only by being so homely and mediocre that beautiful women don’t come on to him? Is he more virtuous than the handsome, powerful adulterer he accuses satyriasis?

Or again:

“Lucy,” said the trader, “your child’s gone; you may as well know it first as last. You see, I know’d you couldn’t take him down south; and I got a chance to sell him to a first-rate family, that’ll raise him better than you can.” The trader had arrived at that stage of Christian and political perfection which has been recommended by some preachers and politicians of the north, lately, in which he had completely overcome every humane weakness and prejudice. His heart was exactly where yours, sir, and mine could be brought, with proper effort and cultivation.

Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

“Grant me to see my own transgressions and not to judge my brother.”

I don’t do any of the major social media, but I have two sub-domains of the domain you’re currently reading: (a) You can read most of my reflexive stuff, especially political here. (b) I also post some things on my favorite no-algorithm social medium.

We don’t do that

The president has called a big military parade this weekend in Washington to celebrate the Army’s 250th anniversary. It is also the president’s 79th birthday, and he enjoys parades.

Early plans speak of 6,600 soldiers across at least 11 divisions; 150 military vehicles, including 26 M1 Abrams tanks and 27 Bradley Fighting Vehicles. There will be aircraft and howitzers. It all sounds showy, militaristic and braggadocious, the kind of thing the Soviet Union did in its May Day parades, and North Korea still does.

We don’t do that. We don’t have big military parades with shining, gleaming weapons driven through the streets.

Sometimes I wonder of the people around the president: Do they know we don’t do this? Have they read any history? Are they like Silicon Valley tech bros who think history started with them?

Maybe they’re thinking that in a world full of danger it’s good to let Iran and China and the rest know what we’ve got, how our missiles gleam and our soldiers march. But that is just another form of never having read a book. If they had they’d know not only that this isn’t how we do it, but also that we don’t do it that way for a reason.

Peggy Noonan

Trumpism can be seen as a giant attempt to amputate the highest aspirations of the human spirit and to reduce us to our most primitive, atavistic tendencies.

David Brooks

Friday the 13th politics

Principles to survive by

This is from way back on January 30, but I don’t think I’ve shared it:

[W]e’re going to have to learn a lot about stupidity over the next four years. I’ve distilled what I’ve learned so far into six main principles:

Principle 1: Ideology produces disagreement, but stupidity produces befuddlement. This week, people in institutions across America spent a couple of days trying to figure out what the hell was going on. This is what happens when a government freezes roughly $3 trillion in spending with a two-page memo that reads like it was written by an intern. When stupidity is in control, the literature professor Patrick Moreau argues, words become unscrewed “from their relation to reality.”

Principle 2: Stupidity often inheres in organizations, not individuals. When you create an organization in which one man has all the power and everybody else has to flatter his preconceptions, then stupidity will surely result. As the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it: “This is virtually a sociological-psychological law. The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other.”

Principle 3: People who behave stupidly are more dangerous than people who behave maliciously. Evil people at least have some accurate sense of their own self-interest, which might restrain them. Stupidity dares greatly! Stupidity already has all the answers!

Principle 4: People who behave stupidly are unaware of the stupidity of their actions. You may have heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is that incompetent people don’t have the skills to recognize their own incompetence. Let’s introduce the Hegseth-Gabbard corollary: The Trump administration is attempting to remove civil servants who may or may not be progressive but who have tremendous knowledge in their field of expertise and hire MAGA loyalists who often lack domain knowledge or expertise. The results may not be what the MAGA folks hoped for.

Principle 5: Stupidity is nearly impossible to oppose. Bonhoeffer notes, “Against stupidity we are defenseless.” Because stupid actions do not make sense, they invariably come as a surprise. Reasonable arguments fall on deaf ears. Counter-evidence is brushed aside. Facts are deemed irrelevant. Bonhoeffer continues, “In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack.”

Principle 6: The opposite of stupidity is not intelligence, it’s rationality. The psychologist Keith Stanovich defines rationality as the capacity to make decisions that help people achieve their objectives. People in the grip of the populist mind-set tend to be contemptuous of experience, prudence and expertise, helpful components of rationality. It turns out that this can make some populists willing to believe anything — conspiracy theories, folk tales and internet legends; that vaccines are harmful to children. They don’t live within a structured body of thought but within a rave party chaos of prejudices.

As time has gone by, I’ve developed more and more sympathy for the goals the populists are trying to achieve. America’s leadership class has spent the last few generations excluding, ignoring, rejecting and insulting a large swath of this country. It’s terrible to be assaulted in this way. It’s worse when you finally seize power and start assaulting yourself — and everyone around you. In fact, it’s stupid.

David Brooks

No more blind deference from the Courts

A Federal prosecutor argued that a an entire cased file should be sealed, “in seeming perpetuity,” rather than redacting sensitive portions. One of its arguments was that courts must be “highly deferential to the government’s determination that unsealing would impede its investigation.”

Along with some salty words to the effect that we don’t do secret courts in this country, the magistrate dropped a dandy footnote:

Blind deference to the government? That is no longer a thing. Trust that had been earned over generations has been lost in weeks. Numerous career prosecutors have had to resign instead of taking actions that they believe violated their oath of office, or worse, were fired for upholding that oath … On the flip side, Department of Justice leaders have decried criminal investigations from the prior administration as ranging from witch hunts to illegal …

So which prosecutors does the court defer to? The number continues to shrink. Judges have had to reprimand government attorneys for a lack of candor to the court, and worse, probe failures to comply with court orders. … These norms being broken must have consequences. High deference is out; trust, but verify is in.

In re: Search of One Device and Two Individuals, fn. 10. H/T Eugene Volokh.

“Schadenfreude” isn’t quite the right word to describe my feelings about this, because the only sadness I feel is that lawyers in the DOJ have sunk so low that they deserved this.

Critical Trump Theory

At the beginning of his Truth rant, he refers back to the Court of International Trade and asks: “Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of ‘TRUMP?’ What other reason could it be?”

(Via David French) (bold added)

Trump talking about himself in the third person seems unhinged to me. Always has, always will.

And if you disagree, the only possible reason is that you hate Tipsy.

(Etiology of Critical Trump Theory)

With friends like Joni

Last Friday, at a town hall meeting in Butler County, Iowa, Senator Joni Ernst delivered a grim message to her constituents. In the midst of an exchange over Medicaid cuts in President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” someone in the crowd shouted at Ernst, “People are going to die!”

Ernst’s immediate response was bizarre. “Well, we all are going to die,” she said.

… [I]t would cost Ernst — who occupies a relatively safe seat in an increasingly red state — virtually nothing to apologize and move on. In fact, just after her flippant comment, she did emphasize that she wanted to protect vulnerable people. The full answer was more complicated than the headline-generating quip.

By the standards of 2025, Ernst’s comment would have been little more than a micro-scandal, gone by the end of the day. And if we lived even in the relatively recent past, demonstrating humility could have worked to her benefit. It can be inspiring to watch a person genuinely apologize.

But we’re in a new normal now.

That means no apologies. That means doubling down. And that can also mean tying your cruelty to the Christian cross.

David French

The way Ernst “sincerely” doubled down, by insults and then a little altar call, made me throw up in my mouth a little:

“I made an incorrect assumption,” she continued, “that everyone in the auditorium understood that, yes, we are all going to perish from this earth.”

She didn’t stop there. “I’m really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well. But for those that would like to see eternal and everlasting life, I’d encourage you to embrace my lord and savior, Jesus Christ.”

With “friends” like Joni Ernst, Jesus don’t need no enemies.

Beyond Good and Evil

Musk and the Muskovites talk about the world of politics and policy in terms of good and evil, and most of the idiotic catchphrases of the contemporary right—elites, Deep State, woke, etc.—are just dumb and/or dishonest ways of saying evil.

…

That kind of thing is the reason Musk failed at DOGE and the reason DOGE itself has failed and will fail to amount to anything other than a gormless blue-ribbon commission run by dilettantes and ignoramuses. Musk et al.—and Trump himself above all—believe that they can set things right in our wobbly republic if only they could simply punish the wicked and reward the virtuous, and, because their ignorance is compounded by arrogance, it never occurs to them that this is another way to say, “We require the power to disadvantage people who compete with us for status or resources in order to hand out favors for our friends.” Trump is a kind of naïve Nietzschean, unable to distinguish what is good from what he wants

…

The people who know what they are talking about talk about incentives. The people who don’t know what they’re talking about—or who wish to deceive you and to treat you like a fool—talk about good and evil.

On either side of the aisle, the smarter kind of politician understands that our problems are not simple. But many of them believe that you are.

Kevin D. Williamson, Beyond Good and Evil

Speaking of incentives, especially the perverse kind:

[The Affordable Care Act] gave states a financial incentive to treat able-bodied adults better than the disabled. The federal government gives states $9 for every $1 they spend on able-bodied adults, but only $1.33 for every dollar spent on children, people with disabilities, pregnant women and seniors. Drawn by the promise of so much federal money, Arkansas’s Democratic governor expanded Medicaid in 2013. The program now covers more than 230,000 able-bodied adults.

Because able-bodied adults bring so much money, Arkansas makes them a priority. We applied for in-home care in 2023, but state officials said it would take 10 years. Democrats are doing everything they can to keep my son on the wait list. They’re trying to frighten Republicans into abandoning work requirements by claiming they’re ineffective, unnecessary and cruel—none of which is true.

Nick Stehle, My Son Is Counting on Medicaid Work Requirements

I worked professionally on qualifying elderly people for Medicaid to help with the cost of nursing home care, but I had no idea that “poor people Medicaid” (versus “old people Medicaid”) had such a perverse incentive built in.

Trump is no avatar of civilization or culture

Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, posted on social media that Trump’s military invasion of Los Angeles “is a fight to save civilization.” A letter from Charlie Kirk’s “Turning Point America” arrived Saturday, asking me for money to help Trump restore the culture.

I’m not in the market for Stephen Miller’s kind of civilization or Kirk’s kind of culture.

That was then, this is now

When California has asked for needed federal help—during the wildfires earlier this year for example—Trump has begrudged that help and played politics with it. Trump is now forcing help that the city and state do not need and do not want, not to restore law but to assert his personal dominance over the normal procedures to enforce the law.

David Frum

Rearranging the deck chairs

Constitutionally, it’s hard for me to avoid the logic of “unitary executive” theory, but now that Trump is that objective my heart protests, and I at least want the mildest plausible version of the theory (e.g., the President can fire and replace agency heads but public-facing workers can continue to enjoy civil service protections).

On the other hand, the ship seems to be sinking so maybe it’s silly to worry too much about the locations of deck furniture.

Riots are unpopular

Every time a protester burns a car, hurls a rock, or smashes a window, the protester ceases to be a lawful demonstrator and becomes a rioter. And contrary to a lot of left-wing romantic nonsense, rioting is not only wrong and illegal, it’s politically unpopular. Then-Massachusetts Gov. Calvin Coolidge became a national star by calling in the Massachusetts Guard in response to the 1919 Boston police strike, which had ignited riots and looting. In the 1968 election, Richard Nixon used the riots after Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination to win the presidency on a promise of restoring law and order.

The fringe left has a long love affair with the “propaganda of the deed,” a stupid concept holding that direct or revolutionary action persuades the masses to align with their cause. In America, it almost never works. But for some reason, too many mainstream progressives get tongue-tied when it comes to condemning their fringe unequivocally.

The political utility of domestic unrest is far more acute and consequential under Donald Trump because he subscribes to his own theory of the propaganda of the deed. Trump has long been enamored of using the military to quash domestic unrest. In a 1990 Playboy interview, he expressed admiration for the Chinese Communist Party’s willingness to display “the power of strength” in crushing the Tiananmen protests. In his first term, he reportedly wanted troops to fire on protesters after the murder of George Floyd. Since the beginning of his second term, his administration has been pushing political, legal, and rhetorical claims that he should be granted wartime powers, most notably on trade and immigration.

Jonah Goldberg

Your enemies are not demonic, and they are not all-powerful and the right hasn’t always lost and the left hasn’t always won. But if you convince yourself of that, you give yourselves all sorts of permission to do a lot of stupid and terrible things under the rubric of “Do you know what time it is?”

Jonah Goldberg.

Trumpism can be seen as a giant attempt to amputate the highest aspirations of the human spirit and to reduce us to our most primitive, atavistic tendencies.

David Brooks

I don’t do any of the major social media, but I have two sub-domains of the domain you’re currently reading: (a) You can read most of my reflexive stuff, especially political here. (b) I also post some things on my favorite social medium.

Wenesday, April 9

Trump-free

Ends and means

I would like to see illegal immigrants deported absent asylum claims that pass the smell test. But I want due process for them, all of them. There’s a right way and a wrong way. The right way, some baddies may get through the net.

I would like to see abortion eliminated in this country. But I always thought that the “decider,” under our constitution, is the states — not the Courts, Congress or, god forbid, an Executive Order from POTUS. Oh, and not by forbidding its citizens to travel out of state.

Yup. Tennessee tried that. I think Texas tried something along those lines, too.

Fessin’ up

I rooted for Brexit.

Having now tasted the equivalent of Brexit, in the form of Executive Orders from he-who-shall-not-be-named-here, I admit I was wrong.

But, see, I’m writing about him, and everyone else is writing or talking about him, so he’ll consider it a win.

Selected Observations on Public Discourse

Stolen from Ted Gioia, The Honest Broker:

4.

The most popular social media platforms will be those that allow people to avoid responsibility for what they say.

Every society has institutions of this sort. In ancient times, it was the bacchanalia. For us it is online shitposting and the burner account.

5.

Consider the etymology of the word ‘dictator’—from the Latin dictare (which translates as ‘to say often’). It thus designates a person who talks obsessively—repeating the same thing over and over.

It’s curious that dictators aren’t defined by their deeds, merely their monotonous talk. The assertion of power through repetitive speaking eliminates the needs for listening, or (at an extreme) even for action.

But isn’t this the dominant model of communication in the current era?

Social media is thus the true dictatorship of the proletariat—contrary to what Marx thought.

…

9.

If Aldous Huxley had known about endlessly scrolling short videos form a handheld device, he would have made it the preferred media interface of his Brave New World.

He wisely understood—unlike Orwell or Bradbury—that ruling elites don’t need censorship and book-burning if they can convince people to voluntarily abandon literacy.

…

13.

Podcasting is the new stream of consciousness—long, rambling, freeform.

It is the closest thing to avant-garde that media has ever devised.

…

23.

When images replace words and concepts, thinking skills erode—and do so rapidly.

Neil Postman saw this coming decades ago. He wrote:

Americans no longer talk to each other, they entertain each other. They do not exchange ideas, they exchange images. They do not argue with propositions; they argue with good looks, celebrities and commercials.

It’s sobering to think that he already grasped this in 1985.

…

26.

Scholar Perry Link recently described the longterm impact of getting blacklisted in China. It depressed him—at least at first. He could no longer visit friends there, or attend conferences, or do research, or teach.

But his credibility increased as an inevitable result of the official sanctions.

He said he finally understood the full power of his blacklisting, when he showed up one day to teach at UC Riverside.

A young blond male on a skateboard came careening my way. He jumped off in front of me and neatly flipped the board upward with his foot to catch it in his right hand.

“Professor Link!” he said.

“Yes…?”

“I hear you’re on a Chinese government blacklist!”

“Yes, that’s right…”

“Dude!” he shouted, gave me a thumbs up, and skated off.

In the aftermath, Link gained a reputation for courage, honesty, reliability, and forthrightness that he could never have achieved without the blacklisting.

I think about this a lot when I mull over growing evidence that I’ve been shadowbanned on Twitter. Maybe I should thank Elon Musk.

…

33.

Not long ago, stupid comments were just stupid comments.

But they have risen in the world. Now they’re training data sets.

Andrew Tate

[A] certain segment of conservatives have determined that not only is [Andrew] Tate very much for real, but he is a natural inhabitant of the political and cultural right. He has appeared on The Tucker Carlson show and The Candace Owens show. Benny Johnson recently interviewed him. With news breaking in the last few weeks that the Trump administration may have pressured the Romanian government to allow Tate and his brother Tristan to come to the United States, Tate’s embrace by the popular right seems complete.

Tate apologists offer a couple of related justifications to anyone questioning the wisdom of this arrangement. The first is that Tate, we are told, “has cracked the code” on how to talk to young men, and by bringing him into the movement, conservatives stand to bring countless young men into the fold.

Not going to happen.

The idea that Tate’s success a few years ago at convincing a segment of young men to enter his Hustlers University to earn a P.H.D. (Pimpin’ Hoes Degree) will translate into convincing that same segment of men to commit to a movement aimed at preserving the best of Western culture and virtue seems fanciful at best.

Tate’s popularity with his audience has never been about conservatism in any form. His popularity rides exclusively upon the fact that he grants young men permission to act on their basest impulses while promising that doing so will make them rich. If anything, Andrew Tate cannot save the West because Andrew Tate is what the West must be saved from.

…

Tate’s ascendency signifies not the triumph of the popular or dissident right, but the rot at its core. No movement not fundamentally adrift would embrace him. No movement rooted in the love of The True, The Good, and The Beautiful would countenance his crass and violent history and say, “You’re one of us.”

Dean Abbott, Front Porch Republic

I’ve paid no attention to Andrew Tate, but he has intruded into my field of vision often enough for me to say that this seems about right. Tate is closer to barbarian than to conservative.

Trump 2.0

Anti-Antisemitism: Trump’s all-purpose excuse for lawlessness

… Donald Trump wants no ambiguity: “My promise to Jewish Americans is this,” he said on the campaign trail. “With your vote, I will be your defender, your protector, and I will be the best friend Jewish Americans have ever had in the White House.”

As the first Jewish president of a formerly Methodist university, I find no comfort in the Trump administration’s embrace of my people, on college campuses or elsewhere. Jew hatred is real, but today’s anti-antisemitism isn’t a legitimate effort to fight it. It’s a cover for a wide range of agendas that have nothing to do with the welfare of Jewish people.

All of these agendas — from dismantling basic government functions to crushing the independence of cultural and educational organizations to criminalizing political speech to legitimating petty presidential vendettas — endanger the principles and institutions that have actually made this country great. For Jews, a number of these agendas do something more: They pose a direct threat to the very people they purport to help. Jews who applaud the administration’s crackdown will soon find that they do so at their peril.

…

Abductions by government agents; unexplained, indefinite detentions; the targeting of allegedly dangerous ideas; lists of those under government scrutiny; official proclamations full of bluster and bile — Jews have been here before, many times, and it does not end well for us. The rule of law and the right to freedom of thought and expression are essential safeguards for everyone, but especially so for members of groups whose ideas or practices don’t always align with the mainstream. As M. Gessen recently wrote in these pages, “A country that has pushed one group out of its political community will eventually push out others.” What our government is doing now is wrong in itself, but beyond that, it poses a bigger threat to Jewish people’s safety than all the campus protests ever could.

Michael S. Roth, president of Wesleyan University.

Lunatic Loomer’s guilt by association

President Trump has fired Gen. Timothy Haugh, the head of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command, multiple outlets reported Thursday night. The move—which coincided with Trump’s dismissal of six members of the National Security Council—reportedly came at the behest of MAGA activist Laura Loomer, who visited the Oval Office last week. In a post on X, Loomer said that Haugh had “no place” serving in the Trump administration because he had been selected by Gen. Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The Morning Dispatch

Patently unconstitutional

[T]he executive order purporting to reject birthright citizenship is unconstitutional and designed to introduce maximum chaos. I say that for several reasons. One is that the originalist arguments against birthright citizenship are weak (for previous posts on this blog, see here and here). Another is that given more than a century of judicial precedent and executive and congressional practice and legislation, the standard for reconsideration by the courts cannot be “we’re just asking questions” or “well, it could have gone either way” or even “this is the best reading” but rather an extremely strong showing of demonstrable error. And of course with enough water under the bridge, even that isn’t enough. What has been offered in the administration’s briefs and in the scholarship they rest on is not remotely close to meeting that kind of high standard.

Samuel Bray, Divided Argument blog

I suffer more from the humiliations inflicted by my country than from those inflicted on her.

Simone Weil, from a letter to Georges Bernanos.

[N]one of the things that I care about most have ever proven susceptible to systematic exposition.

Alan Jacobs, Breaking Bread With the Dead

I don’t do any of the major social media, but I have two sub-domains of the domain you’re currently reading: (a) You can read most of my reflexive stuff, especially political here. (b) I also post some things on the only social medium I frequent, because people there are quirky, pleasant and real.

Monday April 7 (a tad early)

Anywhere, nowhere in particular

I can take a virtual tour of the Forbidden City in Beijing, or of the deepest underwater caverns, nearly as easily as I glance across the room. Every foreign wonder, hidden place, and obscure subculture is immediately available to my idle curiosity; they are lumped together into a uniform distancelessness that revolves around me. But where am I? There doesn’t seem to be any nonarbitrary basis on which I can draw a horizon around myself—a zone of relevance—by which I might take my bearings and get oriented. When the axis of closer-to-me and farther-from-me is collapsed, I can be anywhere, and find that I am rarely in any place in particular.

Matthew B. Crawford, The World Beyond Your Head

When I point at you, three fingers point back at me. Maybe this is why I so enjoy occasional travel, when devices and books stay home or in the hotel, and I go out on foot in some particular place.

Trump 2.0

I’m going to try to stop posting bilious attacks on Trump, however well-justified they may be — even in separate postings with trigger warnings. Apart from stopping the flood of illegal immigrants across the southern border and his impetuous pledge to end Daylight Savings Time (on which he has done nothing yet), you may take for granted that I detest all of his performative cruelty and protection-racket stunts.

But there are non-bilious things related to our current mess — typically context or gentler humor — that I’ll continue to share under the rubric “Trump 2.0.” If you don’t want to ready anything about it, although I think I curate some pretty good stuff, you can stop now because that’s all the rest of this post is about.

The due process situation

Due Process

Gessen: … For the record, while it’s very important to tell the stories of individuals subjected to injustice, it makes me uncomfortable when we focus on the man who had protected status, or the Venezuelan gay makeup artist, or the young barber, who were on those planes to El Salvador — when in fact every single man who was on those planes was put there without due process and is now confined to a prison, indefinitely …

French: I’m so glad Masha said that. Violations of due process are not unjust only when inflicted on the innocent. The Fifth and 14th Amendment due process protections apply to any “person” in the United States, not just to citizens or certainly not just to the innocent. Indeed, due process is how we try to discern guilt or innocence. Like Masha, I fear that by focusing on the terrible individual injustices, we might (perversely enough) send the message that a due process violation is only a problem when it inflicts harm on the innocent. Due process is a fundamental human right.

Masha Gessen and David French.

I’m not a violent man, but glibly dismissing due process because these are just a bunch of criminals and gang-bangers pushes many of the wrong buttons.

Rigorous vetting of Venezuelan gang members

  • “Here’s an example of the ‘rigorous vetting’ of gang membership that the Trump admin claims it’s doing: A woman admitted that her dead ex-husband, who she left 10 years ago, had been a TdA member. From that — and nothing more! — ICE declared she ‘is a senior member of the TDA,’” – Aaron Reichlin-Melnick.
  • “A friend of Neri Alvarado, currently rotting in a Salvadoran prison on Trump’s orders, shares a video of him volunteering to help neurodiverse children learn to swim. Neri was seemingly sent there after someone at ICE thought his autism awareness tattoo was a ‘gang tattoo,’” – Reichlin-Melnick.
  • “This is a terrible, terrible affidavit. If this were before me in a criminal case and you were asking to get a warrant issued on this, I’d throw you out of my chambers,” – Leonie Brinkema, a judge responding to ICE’s “evidence” of TdA membership.

Andrew Sullivan

Los desaparecidos

At least for now, one Danielle Harlow is tracking America’s summary renditions.

Do not change the topic. Do not assume that Trump’s victims are all violent criminals.

The topic is the lack of due process. Absent due process, I won’t give Trump 2.0 the benefit of the doubt about how bad the desaparecidos are. Due process is how the government avoids jumping to conclusions, and how the public is persuaded that it didn’t. Absent due process, I will assume (as some have reported) that people are being grabbed off the street and sent to offshore hell-holes on less-than-flimsy “evidence” like ambiguous tattoos or wearing too-nice clothes.

This and the attacks on the rule of law by attacking law firms are my biggest concerns so far.

It makes me queasy to think that I have, in my extended family, individuals who have turned themselves into trolls over the last nine years and would defend this. (The defense would include name-dropping Laken Riley, of course. She’s barely even a genuine murder victim any more; her mere name is the snake oil that fortifies xenophobia.)

Be it remembered

Of course, the Department of Homeland Security, when it was created in the wake of 9/11, was meant to function in opaque ways and with broad authority; it was designed to be a secret-police force.

M. Gessen, Unmarked Vans. Secret Lists. Public Denunciations. Our Police State Has Arrived.

Not only was it so designed, there were a few voices loudly warning us.

Tariffs

Why tariffs will fail us (spoiler: an acrostic for the answer is “DJT”)

[R]ebuilding industry in America has two potential benefits even if it sacrifices some of the efficiencies offered by global trade. Factory jobs fill a particular socioeconomic niche that’s been filled instead by drugs, decline, despair. And having a real manufacturing base is essential if we’re going to be locked into great power competition for decades to come.

Under this theory, though, it would seem like tariffs would be most effectively deployed against China, countries in China’s immediate economic orbit, and developing countries that are natural zones for outsourcing. But the Trump administration has deployed them generally, against peer economies and allies. The policy seems much more sweeping than the goal, the potential damage to both growth and basic international comity too large to justify the upside.

Ross Douthat

With all due respect to Ross, the problem is deeper than mis-targeting:

Donald Trump had a plan. It was not a good plan, or even a plausible one. But it was, at least, a coherent plan: By imposing large trade barriers on the entire world, he would create an incentive for American business to manufacture and grow all the goods the country previously imported.

Whatever chance this plan had to succeed is already over.

The key to making it work was to convince businesses that the new arrangement is durable. Nobody is going to invest in building new factories in the United States to create goods that until last week could be imported more cheaply unless they’re certain that the tariffs making the domestic version more competitive will stay in place. (They’re probably not going to do it anyway, in part because they don’t know who will be president in four years, but the point is that confidence in durable tariffs is a necessary condition.)

Trump’s aides grasped this dynamic. “This is the great onshoring, the great reshoring of American jobs and wealth,” Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, declared on “Liberation Day.” The White House accordingly circulated talking points instructing its surrogates not to call the tariffs a leverage play to make deals, but to instead describe them as a permanent new feature of the global economy.

But not everybody got the idea. Eric Trump tweeted, “I wouldn’t want to be the last country that tries to negotiate a trade deal with @realDonaldTrump. The first to negotiate will win – the last will absolutely lose.”

Eric’s father apparently didn’t get the memo either. Asked by reporters whether he planned to negotiate the tariff rates, the president said, “The tariffs give us great power to negotiate. They always have.”

Someone seems to have then told Trump that this stance would paralyze business investment, because he reversed course immediately, writing on Truth Social, “TO THE MANY INVESTORS COMING INTO THE UNITED STATES AND INVESTING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY, MY POLICIES WILL NEVER CHANGE.”

However, there is a principle at work here called “No backsies.” Once you’ve said you might negotiate the tariffs, nobody is going to believe you when you change your mind and say you’ll never negotiate.

Jonathan Chait. It’s a long quote, but I don’t know that anyone could have made it so vivid in fewer words.

Miscellany

The Dispatch downside

The only thing I dislike about working for The Dispatch is that I’m forbidden from using profanity, and even that barely qualifies as a complaint. “No swearing” is the lightest of burdens for a writer.

But it’s getting heavier every day.

On Tuesday, a.k.a. “liberation” eve, the president addressed an upcoming vote in the Senate to block some of his tariffs on Canada. Don’t do it, he warned Republicans. Americans will die if you do. Fentanyl is being brought into the country across the northern border, after all, and one way to discourage people from using it is, and I quote, “by Tariffing the value of this horrible and deadly drug in order to make it more costly to distribute and buy.”

The guy who just touched off a global trade war appears to believe that drug smuggling is taxed. How do you do justice to that without cursing?

… If you’re not moved to curse a blue streak by the thought of Laura Loomer arguing with the national security adviser in the Oval Office over whether his intelligence deputies are sufficiently “loyal” to the president, you’re well and truly boiled.

Nick Catoggio

So if I oppose the tariffs, I love fentanyl? (And probably hate Laken Riley to boot.)

The Pax American is dead. And Marco Rubio is cheering.

The most poignant comment I’ve seen about the president’s groin-punch to the U.S. economy came from his secretary of state. During a visit to NATO headquarters in Brussels on Friday, Marco Rubio told reporters, “We’re not the government of the world now.”

He said it triumphantly, I assume, which is part of what makes it poignant. In an alternate universe where ambition hasn’t rotted his brain, Sen. Marco Rubio is saying the same thing today, verbatim, about the first two-and-a-half months of Donald Trump’s second presidency. But his tone is entirely different.

Being the government of the world worked out okay for America, not to mention the world. Rubio circa 2016 would have been eloquent on that point. But he chose instead to be a cymbal-banging monkey for Trump, so now he’s required to say inane things about the nationalist virtues of immense wealth destruction.

Nick Catoggio

At war with our darker nature

America has always been at war with its darker nature, and sometimes that darker nature wins. We are living in a period of profound national regression.

David French

On a lighter note

DOGE in the eyes of history

I suspect historians will one day remember the Department of Government Efficiency the way we now remember lobotomies. It seemed, to some at the time, like a good idea.

Bret Stephens via Frank Bruni.

The hopeful note here is that sometimes the darker nature loses.

Just askin

Do you think Donald Trump has ever heard of Chesterton’s fence? Elon Musk?

I suffer more from the humiliations inflicted by my country than from those inflicted on her.

Simone Weil, from a letter to Georges Bernanos.

[N]one of the things that I care about most have ever proven susceptible to systematic exposition.

Alan Jacobs, Breaking Bread With the Dead

I don’t do any of the major social media, but I have two sub-domains of the domain you’re currently reading: (a) You can read most of my reflexive stuff, especially political here. (b) I also post some things on the only social medium I frequent, because people there are quirky, pleasant and real.