The secure transport of light

By DAN WANG

(danwang.co)

2023 letter

(This piece is my year in review; here’s my letter from 2022)

I. Walking

The trunk of an elephant might feel cool to the touch. Not what one expects, perhaps, from 200 pounds of writhing muscle, strong enough to uproot a tree, which tapers down to two “fingers,” giving it enough delicacy to detect the ripest berry on a shrub, and pluck it. Feeling an elephant’s trunk draws you to her other great feature: melancholic eyes that are veiled by long and dusty lashes. This combination of might with the suggestion of serene contemplation is surely the reason that elephants seem to embody a special state of grace.

I encountered several of these big beasts on a trek through the mountains of northern Thailand in December. The occasion was a “walk and talk” organized by Kevin Kelly and Craig Mod, who launched a dozen people on a 100 kilometer walk over seven days from Mount Inthanon to the center of Chiang Mai.

Our journey took us through elephant grounds, banana plantations, and coffee shrubs, finishing within Chiang Mai’s old city walls. The landscape shifted marvelously as we descended from the mountain into the city. At higher altitude, Mount Inthanon is home to forests of relict pine, each tree looking like a skinny and very tall piece of broccoli, their foliage wreathed in fog every morning before the sun broke through. At middle attitude, we found teak trees. Deforestation over the past few decades has spurred villagers to protect some of the oldest teaks by wrapping their trunks in saffron monk robes, thus “ordaining” them. At lower altitudes we saw the vegetation typical of rainforest: bamboo groves, lychee orchards, and banana plants. I found the latter unexpectedly beautiful. Bananas grow in bunches on a rough stem, under enormous leaves that are tall enough to allow an elephant to rest in their shade.

Waterfalls dotted the trail, which allowed us sometimes to take a dip in the afternoon heat. It wasn’t just the natural landscape that was so stunning. Terraced farms, carved into hillsides, were attractive too. Local villagers have in recent years started cultivating strawberries, some of which are sold directly at roadside stands. These highland farmers understand cash crops. This region of northern Thailand, after all, was a major grower of the opium poppy until the 1980s. At that point, the Thai government (in a coordinated campaign with neighboring countries) eradicated nearly all opium production, enticing — or more often, compelling — farmers to plant other crops. That didn’t stop, however, one of the villagers from reminiscing about the days when the fields produced “Doctor O.”

One of the ideas of the walk-and-talk, as Craig puts it, is to put adults in situations they may not have experienced since they were kids: “new people, unknown environs, continuous socializing, intense conversations.” Our demographics leaned toward the middle-aged and self-employed: people who could afford to disconnect from family and work obligations for what was really a ten-day commitment in early December. Few of the twelve of us had previously met anyone else on this trip and a long walk is a fast way to get to know someone. Talking happened naturally, as the landscape continuously reconfigured us into knots of two or three. Our conversation weaved into a single strand over the nightly dinner, with Kevin moderating over one topic.

It didn’t take long for people to open up: to talk about how they decided to join the walk, and very quickly onwards to their lives, their work, and their struggles. The central conversation every night featured topics to which everyone can contribute, so our discussions had prompts like “home,” “fears,” and “failures.” These more general topics were extraordinarily effective in prompting people to be vulnerable, which helped to bind the group together. (If I did another walk-and-talk, I might try leaning away from consensus. That is, to treat the dinners more like a workshop, in which everyone comes prepared with a 15-minute talk on something they’re working on, then open up for discussion. I concede, however, that not everyone would find it a thrilling idea to end a strenuous day with a lecture.)

We carried small packs during the day and had a larger bag forwarded to our nightly accommodations. We stayed along waterfalls, in elephant sanctuaries, at a glamping site that looked as if transplanted from California, and terminating in a Chiang Mai hotel shaded by a 200-year-old tamarind tree. There was also the bizarre. One night, we were the only guests at a resort so creepy that we debated whether the whole thing was a front for tax fraud. Its bungalows looked like they were the 3-D printed output of an AI generator that received a detailed description of Antonio Gaudí’s Park Güell. That the hotel staff kept taking photographs of us, as if they were documenting that they had real guests, didn’t allay our unease that our presence could be abetting a fraudulent enterprise. 

I think it would be wonderful if the walk-and-talk could be a commonplace activity. I can imagine doing one every few years, alternating between walking with close friends and entrusting group selection to someone else. The challenge is that this format requires a gargantuan effort of planning. Some off-the-shelf walks are possible, for example along pilgrimage routes, but many will have to be bespoke. Our heroic guide on this trip is an American hotelier who has lived in Chiang Mai and China over the last 30 years, who took it upon himself to hike our route five times before leading the rest of us along. A well-organized walk demands planning not only the route, but also booking accommodations for around ten people, finding a quiet restaurant every night, and a dozen other things. (Craig’s comprehensive guide features all the items to consider.) A 100 kilometer walk is difficult to pull off anywhere in America: the suburban, car-centric reality of this country means that it’s hard to find a walkable route that has accommodations spaced in intervals of approximately 15 km.

Then again, committing a chunk of time to go abroad may as well be a strength of the format. These walks are not a family weekend activity, a spontaneous trip with friends, or an offsite meant to produce workplace bonding. They’re much more serious than that. It takes special concentration, after all, to reproduce the magic of being a child. One of the things that this walk provoked me to do was to write this year’s letter on what I saw in Thailand.

I stayed for the whole month of December in Chiang Mai. In part, for food. Whole new culinary vistas open up once you’re ready to eat jungle. My favorite Northern Thai meals featured a papaya salad (or Burmese tea leaf salad), with some grilled meats — pork jowl, half a chicken, spare ribs — and a seafood soup in clear broth. For sides, one can order pork with lemongrass and ginger grilled in a banana leaf, crushed young jackfruit mixed with chilies, and sometimes a fried honeycomb. I’ve never eaten honeycomb before. It’s a strange thing to savor, the texture like biting into a pillowy piece of toast, expressing only a hint of honey. For dessert, I can imagine nothing more perfect than to have slices of a ripe mango on the side of sticky rice, the latter plump from being soaked in coconut milk, and coconut cream drizzled on top of the whole thing.

And I stayed, in part, to explore highland Southeast Asia. My 2022 letter was preoccupied with Yunnan, which is on the other side of mountain ranges from Chiang Mai. This is the same vast highland region populated by marginalized folks who have deliberately tried to put themselves beyond the reach of powerful states, the most domineering of which have been Burmese, Tibetan, and especially Han-Chinese. By moving into rugged terrain and practicing mountain agriculture, they’ve managed to maintain an arms-length relationship with valley kingdoms, taking as much “civilization” as they require. In Yunnan I was in land of the Bai and the Dai peoples; the hill tribes in Chiang Mai include the Karen, Akha, Shan, and Hmong.

These Thai highlands absorbed a wave of new people yearning for statelessness this year. In Chiang Mai, I encountered a great mass of young folks who no longer wish to live in China.

II. Running

The most important story of China in 2023 might be that the expected good news of economic recovery didn’t materialize, when the end of zero-Covid should have lifted consumer spirits; and that the unexpected bad news of political uncertainty kept cropping up, though the previous year’s party congress should have consolidated regime stability. China may have hit its GDP growth target of 5 percent this year, but its main stock index has fallen -17% since the start of 2023. More perplexing were the politics. 2023 was a year of disappearing ministers, disappearing generals, disappearing entrepreneurs, disappearing economic data, and disappearing business for the firms that have counted on blistering economic growth.

No wonder that so many Chinese are now talking about rùn. Chinese youths have in recent years appropriated this word in its English meaning to express a desire to flee. For a while, rùn was a way to avoid the work culture of the big cities or the family expectations that are especially hard for Chinese women. Over the three years of zero-Covid, after the state enforced protracted lockdowns, rùn evolved to mean emigrating from China altogether.

One of the most incredible trends I’ve been watching this year is that rising numbers of Chinese nationals are being apprehended at the US-Mexico border. In January, US officers encountered around 1000 Chinese at the southwest border; the numbers kept rising, and by November they encountered nearly 5000.

 Many Chinese are flying to Ecuador, where they have visa-free access, so that they can take the perilous road through the Darién Gap. It’s hard to know much about this group, but journalists who have spoken to these people report that they come from a mix of backgrounds and motivations.

 I have not expected that so many Chinese people are willing to embark on what is a dangerous, monthslong journey to take a pass on the “China Dream” and the “great rejuvenation” that’s undertaken in their name.

The Chinese who rùn to the American border are still a tiny set of the people who leave. Most emigrés are departing through legal means. People who can find a way to go to Europe or an Anglophone country would do so, but most are going, as best as I can tell, to three Asian countries. Those who have ambition and entrepreneurial energy are going to Singapore. Those who have money and means are going to Japan. And those who have none of these things — the slackers, the free spirits, kids who want to chill — are hanging out in Thailand.

I spent time with these young Chinese in Chiang Mai. Around a quarter of the people I chatted with have been living in Thailand for the last year or two, while the rest were just visiting, sometimes with the intention to figure out a way to stay. Why Thailand? Mostly out of ease. Chinese can go to Thailand without having to apply for a visa, and they can take advantage of an education visa to stay longer. That category is generous, encompassing everything from language training to Muay Thai boxing lessons. Many Chinese sign up for the visa and then blow off class.

Some people had remote jobs. Many of the rest were practicing the intense spirituality possible in Thailand. That comes in part from all the golden-roofed temples and monasteries that make Chiang Mai such a splendid city. One can find a meditation retreat at these temples in the city or in more secluded areas in the mountains. Here, one is supposed to meditate for up to 14 hours a day, speaking only to the head monk every morning to tell him the previous day’s breathing exercises and hear the next set of instructions. After meditating in silence for 20 days, one person told me that he found himself slipping in and out of hallucinogenic experiences from breath exercises alone. 

The other wellspring of spiritual practice comes from the massive use of actual psychedelics, which are so easy to find in Chiang Mai. Thailand was the first country in Asia to decriminalize marijuana, and weed shops are now as common as cafés. It seems like everyone has a story about using mushrooms, ayahuasca, or even stronger magic. The best mushrooms are supposed to grow in the dung of elephants, leading to a story of a legendary group of backpackers who have been hopping from one dung heap to another, going on one long, unbroken trip.

Most of the young Chinese I chatted with are in their early 20s. Visitors to Thailand are trying to catch up on the fun they lost under three years of zero-Covid. Those who have made Chiang Mai their new home have complex reasons for staying. They told me that they’ve felt a quiet shattering of their worldview over the past few years. These are youths who grew up in bigger cities and attended good universities, endowing them with certain expectations: that they could pursue meaningful careers, that society would gain greater political freedoms, and that China would become more integrated with the rest of the world. These hopes have curdled. Their jobs are either too stressful or too menial, political restrictions on free expression have ramped up over the last decade, and China’s popularity has plunged in developed countries.

So they’ve rùn. One trigger for departure were the white-paper protests, the multi-city demonstrations at the end of 2022 in which young people not only demanded an end to zero-Covid, but also political reform. Several of the Chiang Mai residents participated in the protests in Shanghai or Beijing or they have friends who had been arrested. Nearly everyone feels alienated by the pressures of modern China. A few lost their jobs in Beijing’s crackdown on online tutoring. Several have worked in domestic Chinese media, seriously disgruntled that the censors make it difficult to publish ambitious stories. People complain of being treated like chess pieces by top leader Xi Jinping, who is exhorting the men to work for national greatness and for the women to bear their children.

Many people still feel ambivalence about moving to Thailand. Not everyone has mustered the courage to tell their Chinese parents where they really are. Mom and dad are under the impression that they’re studying abroad in Europe or something. That sometimes leads to elaborate games to maintain the subterfuge, like drawing curtains to darken the room when they video chat with family, since they’re supposed to be in a totally different time zone; or keeping up with weather conditions in the city they’re supposed to be so that they’re not surprised when parents ask about rain or snow.

There still are some corners in China that are relatively permissive. One of these is Yunnan’s Dali, a city on the northern tip of highland Southeast Asia, where I spent much of 2022. There, one can find the remnants of a drug culture as well as a party scene for an occasional rave. But even Dali is becoming less tenable these days since the central government has cottoned on that the city is a hub for free spirits. The tightening restrictions emanating from Beijing are spreading to every corner of the country. “China feels like a space in which the ceiling keeps getting lower,” one person told me. “To stay means that we have to walk around with our heads lowered and our backs hunched.”

I lingered with a group of Dali folks who moved to Chiang Mai over the past year. These are people in China’s crypto community who’ve found it increasingly more difficult to hang on after Beijing banned miners and exchanges. In 2022, police disrupted a festival they held called Wamotopia, which became a gathering point for crypto people and digital nomads. The idea was to burn a big wooden cat in a field in Dali at the conclusion of the festival, but Chinese police dispersed the event shortly after it began.

 So this year they moved to Thailand. 

Wamotopia consisted of Chinese mostly in their 20s who were exuberant and full of optimism, though their moods were sometimes modulated by a sense of despair. The latter comes from feeling like they can’t return to China, due either to their participation in the 2022 protests, because their crypto interests are no longer safe to pursue, or because they feel alienated from Chinese society. Many are unsure of whether they will stay permanently in Thailand, which means that they are sometimes plagued by existential questions of what home means to them. 

The festival attracted both Chinese residents in Chiang Mai and also visitors who flew here for the occasion. People said it’s becoming increasingly difficult to meet like-minded people in bigger gatherings in China anymore, given that the authorities are leery about large groups congregating to discuss ideas they don’t understand. For them, the festival was first and foremost a way to make new friends. Wamotopia billed itself a self-organized event, with anyone able to propose hosting sessions at a few locations scattered around town, which included a hotel resort, co-working spaces, and a few private homes. Attendees proposed a smorgasbord of events, not just on crypto and digital nomadism, but also dumpling-making sessions and visits to temples. 

None of the headline events were explicitly political. There are enough people who will still return to China that the organizers felt that they didn’t need to invite official scrutiny. But a current of politics electrified side conversations. People bemoaned both how difficult life is in China and how difficult it is to emigrate. A lot of folks wanted to define themselves as “citizens of the world,” as people belonging to “Earth” rather than any nation. But that runs up against the hard fact that they hold Chinese passports, which is more difficult to travel with than many other passports.

I attended one event in a private home billed as a talk on the Chinese diaspora. Around 30 people sat in a living room, listening to the history of Chinese in Southeast Asia. They would spend much of the time talking about themselves as “Jews of the East.” It has apparently become a meme in the Chinese crypto community to use Semitic tropes to describe how they’ve become a beleaguered people driven out of their homeland, trying to make it overseas by plying their talent of being astute middlemen. I find this comparison overdramatic.

 It’s hardly the case that trading crypto constitutes an inalienable identity and has suffered real persecution. But such is the discontent they feel.

I’ve never felt great enthusiasm for crypto. After chatting with these young Chinese, I became more tolerant of their appeal. Digital currencies are solutions looking for problems most everywhere in the Western world, but they have real value for people who suffer from state controls. The crypto community in China has attracted grifters, as it has everywhere else. But it is also creating a community of people trying to envision different paths for the future.

That spirit pervades the young people in Chiang Mai. A bookseller told me that there’s a hunger for new ideas. After the slowdown in economic growth and the tightening of censorship over the past decade, people are looking for new ways to understand the world. One of the things this bookshop did is to translate a compilation of the Whole Earth Catalog, with a big quote of “the map is not the territory” in Chinese characters on the cover. That made me wonder: have we seen this movie before? These kids have embraced the California counterculture of the ‘90s. They’re doing drugs, they’re trying new technologies, and they’re sounding naively idealistic as they do so. I’m not expecting them to found any billion-dollar companies. But give it enough time, and I think they will build something more interesting than coins.

Might this community persist for that long? I don’t worry that Thailand will fail to be welcoming. It has had centuries of experience absorbing Chinese migrants. Every spasm of violence in southern China since the fall of the Ming Dynasty in the 17th century has disgorged vast numbers of people from Guangdong and Fujian into Southeast Asia, with big waves coming after southerners resisted the Manchu conquest of China, during the Taiping Rebellion, and when the Qing drove Hui Muslims out of Yunnan. After a surge of Chinese migration in the early 20th century, up to half of Bangkok’s population was Chinese, which helped to build Thailand’s trading economy and create its bourgeois society. Around 10 to 15 percent of Thailand’s population is of Chinese heritage today. That has produced its share of frictions in Thai history, but it has also been peaceable relative to other Southeast Asian countries.

Rather, I suspect that Chinese authorities will not forever continue to suffer its citizens to organize so close to home. Thailand already has an extradition treaty with China, but there’s a fear here that Beijing wants more. A recent Chinese blockbuster made Thailand appear to be a dangerous place to visit, and state media has occasionally amplified that sentiment. To Chinese and other foreigners living in Thailand, it’s absurd to think that crime and danger lurk around every corner because it’s a pretty safe place. They fear that state media is trying to create a pretext to justify a presence for Chinese police in Thailand, rather like how they are sometimes reaching into Mongolia.

III. Drifting

I don’t want to romanticize rùn to excess. I recognize that emigration is a consideration for a miniscule percentage of China’s population. Few people can contemplate abandoning nearly everything they’ve built to start anew in a foreign country. And I recognize that life is not so bad for the overwhelming majority of Chinese. I’ve written that for someone in the middle class, there has never been a better year to live in China, a comment I repeated when I went on the Ezra Klein Show in March.

This middle class, however, is feeling less sure these days, as the economy keeps getting whacked. The trouble with Xi Jinping is that he is 60 percent correct on all the problems he sees, while his government’s brute force solutions reliably worsen things. Are housing developers taking on too much debt? Yes, but driving many of them to default and triggering a collapse in the confidence of homebuyers hasn’t improved matters. Does big tech have too much power? Fine, but taking the scalps of entrepreneurs and stomping out their businesses isn’t boosting sentiment. Does the government need to rein in official corruption? Definitely, but terrorizing the bureaucracy has also made the policymaking apparatus more paralyzed and risk averse. It’s starting to feel like the only thing scarier than China’s problems are Beijing’s solutions.

As economic growth trends downwards, I’m not expecting most of the Chinese population to rùn or revolt. More likely, I feel, is a deflation of hopes that comes from a passive acceptance that tough times are ahead. Spontaneous protests can happen, as they did in Henan, Shanghai, and Beijing in 2022 over zero-Covid. But it took simultaneous lockdowns across the country before people dared to go on the streets. I expect that China’s aging society isn’t so combustible, given that older people tend not to protest. The biggest trigger for people to go out on the streets are price spikes of essential goods. If anything, China is experiencing deflation as it slows, so I don’t expect that low growth will trigger broad unrest.

In spite of China’s stumbles, I think we are forgetting that it still has a lot of strengths. No, I don’t feel particular optimism about its growth trajectory, and I don’t doubt that it’s facing one of the most startling demographic declines that the world has ever seen. But things aren’t falling quickly enough to unravel China’s still-enormous stock of capabilities. It is still the world’s second-largest economy. Its per capita GDP is only one-sixth the level of America’s, which represents plenty of latent potential for catch-up growth. The glacial pace of demographic decline will not quickly erode Beijing’s ambitions. For all of China’s demographic woes, all projections show that it will still have over 1 billion people by 2050.

While 50 percent of China’s economy might be dysfunctional, the 5 percent that’s going spectacularly well is pretty dangerous to American interests.

 I’m thinking mostly about manufacturing. As I wrote earlier this year, China is going from strength to strength in industrial sectors: clean technologies (especially solar photovoltaics and electric vehicle batteries), electronic components, and automotives. In 2023, it overtook Japan as the world’s largest auto exporter, a barely imaginable achievement even five years ago. And the state retains big ambitions. In May, China’s space agency announced that it will land astronauts on the moon by 2030, making it the second country with that capability. It’s rare for Beijing to lay out formal timelines unless it’s quite confident that it has the task in hand.

The foundations of China’s success in EVs were built a decade ago, when the state decided to bet on batteries, and then bought up a lot of the mines for these metals. Though the present-day economic trajectory is much uncertain, we’re still going to see technology achievements that result from decisions made years ago. The state continues to throw reams of scientists and engineers to work out its strategic deficiencies. Though companies are relocating production to India and Vietnam, China is going to remain the world’s largest manufacturer for many more years to come. That means its manufacturing ecosystems will still produce a technological momentum of their own.

This year, I came across a lot of stories on the state of America’s defense industrial base. Most are linked to Ukraine, which blew through several years’ worth of America’s artillery stockpiles in a matter of weeks.

 I keep reading about ships. China built half of the world’s ships (by gross tonnage) in 2022, while the US had 0.2 percent of capacity: in practice, this meant that while China builds hundreds of new ships a year, the US builds three to five. “Quantity has a quality all its own” is a quip attributed either to Joseph Stalin or the US Navy, when it massively outproduced Japan. I hope that America’s industrial base is better than the preening state of the Imperial Japanese Navy, seeking comfort in the ornateness of ships rather than their number.

Can America’s headstart in AI make up for its manufacturing deficiencies? Perhaps. I worry however that one of America’s superpowers is to spin up yarns to reduce the urgency for action. The United States can relax either because China will be pulled out to sea by the receding tide of demographic decline, or Silicon Valley will produce superintelligence — and it will be on America’s side. I’m trying to tell a story that preserves American agency. It is that China will not fade away, meaning that America must reform itself for a protracted contest with a peer competitor. It also has to contend with China’s strengths because it’s a lazy exercise to look only at a country’s weaknesses. If we obsessed only over America’s problems, it would be a pretty ugly picture as well.

Continue reading The secure transport of light

My Mom’s Rules For Cults

BEN LANDAU-TAYLOR

FEB 7, 2024 (benlandautaylor.com)

I wasn’t the first person in my family to run off to San Francisco to join a movement of fringe countercultural weirdos that later somehow found itself at the vanguard of American elite culture. San Francisco today is known for a mishmash of movements that overlap with and support each other, for social scenes and group houses that are incredibly insular and sometimes verge on outright cults, for great teachers and their devoted followings, for free love and libertinism justified with a veneer of revolutionary radicalism, for thinkers and authors who lack the formal markers of prestige but nevertheless end up writing the thoughts that everyone else repeats five years later, and generally being the petri dish where new cultural mutations grow and spread from. And that’s all true. But it’s not new. My parents’ generation was dealing with a lot of the same stuff.

So my mom went to San Francisco back in hippie times. She almost never talks about it these days but she was deep in it. She was an early activist for a new-wave radical movement, she was an adherent of one of the self-development psychology I-swear-we’re-not-a-cult groups, the works. It was a great time, lots of her closest friends are from that period and she’s gone far in the career she established there. Later on she settled down in Boston with the white picket fence and all, and her movement’s political program was enshrined in U.S. federal law and bureaucracy. So it goes.

Then when I was 25 years old I told my parents I was moving to San Francisco to join a new-wave radical movement and a self-development psychology I-swear-we’re-not-a-cult group. And she sat me down and gave me three things to check before I went:

1. Are the members of the group in contact with their families?

2. How does the group react when members are close with friends who don’t share the group’s beliefs and ideology? Is this discouraged? Is it seen as normal and healthy?

3. How does the group relate to former members who have left? Are they old friends who are welcome at parties, or are they vile traitors, or what?

In my experience this is the best and fastest way to tell the difference between benign cults which will give you valuable insights and comrades in a way you can’t get anywhere else and so make you better at navigating the outside world, vs malignant cults which will fuck up your ability to interact with the world outside the cult itself. Both types of cults are real. No simple checklist is perfect, and you should stay away from any group that smells wrong even if it passes your explicit tests, but I’ve found it very useful.

Anyway I ran her checks and the groups all passed with flying colors, so I went ahead and moved to San Francisco. That was a decade ago and I’ve been having a great time. I’ve been part of three or four I-swear-we’re-not-a-cult groups, depending on how you count. Every time I’ve run my mom’s checks and joined only the ones that passed, and every time it’s turned out well for me. I’ve still got some good friends who remain deep in the I-swear-we’re-not-a-cult groups which I’ve left or passed through, and they’re doing well. In the course of things I ran into some other groups which didn’t pass these checks, or which set off my spider sense for other reasons, so I made sure to steer clear. That’s saved my ass a few times. To my surprise, in the past decade it seems like some *primarily online* movements are now also starting to fail these checks, so I guess keep an eye open there too.

So remember, always listen to your mother. Or if that fails, listen to my mother. She knows what she’s talking about.

(Contributed by Gwyllm Llwydd)

Tarot Card for February 12: The Ten of Disks

The Ten of Disks

The Lord of Wealth talks not only about material wealth and its appropriate use, but about the inner wealth and resources that we all have. This is a card that teaches us that the harvest we gather in our lives is the end result of all that we have put into living – and more importantly, how we have used the riches at our disposal.We make our own realities with every thought, every deed, every wish. And when we direct our energies positively we shall arrive – as a perfectly natural consequence – at the Ten of Disks. Of course, if we direct our energies negatively we’ll find ourselves with the Ten of Wands, or the Ten of Swords – neither of which are happy cards!There is a warning connected to this card though. When we have created sufficient wealth to make ourselves comfortable and contented, if we have a surplus, then we must make that surplus work. We cannot expect energy to flow freely in our lives if we hoard it, and try to hang on to it. This is as pointless as trying to save up the breeze so that it will blow on a stuffy day! There are some things in life you cannot clutch tight in the hand without crushing their value out of them.If this card comes up in an everyday reading, it re-assures that financial and material matters are proceeding well, and that there is no cause for concern.If it comes up in a more spiritually based reading, then we need to be applying the underlying principles to our lives – so in this case, we need to be letting our inner wealth show, in order to manifest that into our lives.

Walt Whitman on variety and freedom

Walt Whitman

As the greatest lessons of Nature through the universe are perhaps the lessons of variety and freedom, the same present the greatest lessons also in New World politics and progress. If a man were ask’d, for instance, the distinctive points contrasting modern European and American political and other life with the old Asiatic cultus, as lingering-​bequeath’d yet in China and Turkey, he might find the amount of them in John Stuart Mill’s profound essay on Liberty in the future, where he demands two main constituents, or sub-​strata, for a truly grand nationality—1st, a large variety of character—and 2d, full play for human nature to expand itself in numberless and even conflicting directions—

Democratic Vistas (1871) by Walt Whitman

Awareness of being is happiness

Rupert Spira • Feb 11, 2024 • A man asks Rupert to comment on the Sanskrit term Satchitananda — often translated as ‘awareness of Being is bliss’. Rupert explains that Sat-Cit-Ananda is considered to be the pinnacle of the non-dual understanding. Sat means being, Chit means consciousness and Ananda is usually misleadingly translated as bliss. But, bliss is a mistranslation of the term Ananda. It just means peace. So all the Vedantic scriptures are saying is this: the awareness of your being, as it essentially is before it is mixed with the content of experience, is the experience of peace for which you long. It’s so simple. But, if we were to reformulate the Vedantic understanding or take all the scriptures from all the traditions from the last three thousand years and distil them into one sentence now, I think it would read like this: Happiness is the nature of being and we share our being with everyone and everything. Peace on the inside, love on the outside. That’s it. If you understand that you don’t need any other spiritual instruction. *This video is taken from one of Rupert’s in-person retreats at Mercy Center, 24 to 31 October 2021. To view and book for upcoming retreats (many of which can be attended online via livestream) go to: ▸ UK https://rupertspira.com/event/locatio… ▸ EU https://rupertspira.com/event/locatio… ▸ US https://rupertspira.com/event/locatio… Timestamps: 0:00 Satchitananda 0:31 Awareness Of Being Is Happiness 1:01 The Pinnacle Of The Non-Dual Understanding 1:58 A Mistranslation Of The Term Ananda 3:00 Everyday Peace And Happiness 4:13 Peace On The Inside, Love On The Outside 5:25 The Only Spiritual Understanding You Need

Be Not Dismayed

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

Aaron Waddell - Pickleball Philosopher

Aaron Waddell – Pickleball Philosopher

Published in The Taoist Online

1 day ago (thetaoist.online)

Photo by Monika MG on Unsplash

Be not dismayed that the world seems against you
Be not sad when all hope seems lost
Be not fearful when ill forces threaten
Or with cruel fate your path does cross

Be not afraid when challenges come forth
When circumstances seem dire at best
Be not unsure in God’s divine power
When you feel your faith being put to the test

Be not relenting in fulfilling your mission
For spreading His Love is always your goal
Be ever glowing with the light from within you
For that is the truest purpose of your soul

Be like the river that flows ever onward
Be like the tree standing so proud
Be like the flower that blooms in the springtime
Signifying that life comes out of death’s shroud

Be you as one with all God’s creation
Be as the light by which the world is saved
Be as the truth that is now and eternal
Be the denial of that earthly grave

Written by Aaron Waddell – Pickleball Philosopher

·Writer for The Taoist Online

Husband, Father, Writer, Systems Engineer, Poet and Pickleball Junkie. Seeking truth and spreading love to all.

Donald Trump and His Boomer Base

My generation has not aged well.

James Risen

February 5 2024, 6:00 a.m. (theintercept.com)

Former US President and 2024 Presidential hopeful Donald Trump drives a golf cart during the Official Pro-Am Tournament ahead of the LIV Golf Invitational Series event at Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in Bedminster, New Jersey, on August 10, 2023. The LIV Golf Invitational Bedminster begins on August 11. (Photo by TIMOTHY A. CLARY / AFP) (Photo by TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP via Getty Images)

Former U.S. President Donald Trump drives a golf cart at Trump National Golf Club Bedminster, N.J., on Aug. 10, 2023. Photo: Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images

WHEN THE OBITUARY of the baby-boom generation is finally written, they’ll have to mention Donald Trump in the very first paragraph to explain how a cohort that began with such idealism and promise turned so toxic.

The generation that took to the streets in anti-war protests and civil rights demonstrations in the 1960s and championed the environmental and women’s movements in the 1970s has now retreated to right-wing retirement enclaves in Florida, where Fox News is always on in the background. Boomers drove jam-packed VW vans in a haze of drugs to Woodstock; now they scoot around The Villages in golf carts festooned with Trump flags.

The boomer rallying cry of the 1960s was “Don’t trust anyone over 30.” Boomers today can’t stop whining about how young people are too “woke.”

I’m a baby boomer myself, and I no longer recognize my own generation. A big slice of white boomers are now living on hate. They hate nearly everything and everybody — even Disney and Taylor Swift! — because Trump and MAGA and Fox News have told them to. They hate booksvaccinescolleges, unions, corporations, cities, Hollywood, Broadway, the NBA and the NFL, Black people, brown people, and of course immigrants. They really hate immigrants. They are convinced that college professors and journalists secretly control America.

My generation has not aged well.

I blame Trump for the boomers’ weird transformation from a youthful progressive force into a tribe of right-wing conspiracy theorists. To be sure, there are plenty of boomers who haven’t succumbed to Trump-induced hate. But too many of us fell for him when he first emerged as a dangerous demagogue spewing racism and lies, and boomers have fueled his rise ever since.

White boomers have had a conservative streak since the Reagan era of “greed is good” in the 1980s. But Trump and his presidency sent the boomers’ rightward shift into overdrive, and many have gone all the way into the thrall of the MAGA cult. Trump brought far-right politics to the fore among his fellow boomers, playing on their fears of America’s growing racial diversity.

White boomers now make up a key segment of Trump’s base. He is a threat to democracy today mainly because so many in my generation are willing to hand him unlimited power. I find it depressing that people I grew up with have allowed their brains to curdle to the point that they are willing to abandon the democratic values that were central to the American society we boomers inherited.

From Huckster to Extremist

From the start, the extraordinary demographics of the boomer generation have set it apart. As American soldiers came home from World War II in 1945 after the defeat of Germany and Japan, they were eager to make up for lost time and start families. That created a sudden baby boom in 1946, a year after the war’s end. But the boom surprisingly continued for decades, as Americans, benefiting from sustained economic growth in the 1950s and ’60s, found they could afford to have larger families. Demographers have defined the boomer generation as the 76 million people born between 1946 and 1964, a period when the U.S. total fertility rate — an estimate of lifetime fertility — exploded from 2.49 children per woman in 1945 to a peak of 3.77 in 1957. (For comparison’s sake, the total fertility rate in 2022 was just 1.67Opens in a new tab.)

The millennial generation (those born roughly between 1981-1996) has now surpassed boomersOpens in a new tab as the largest living adult generation, but the boomers have certainly been one of the most politically dominant generations America has ever seen. There have now been four boomer presidents, including two from each major party: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Trump. (Joe Biden, born in 1942, belongs to the so-called Silent Generation, which includes those born between 1928 and 1946: the children of the Great Depression.)

Even with a Silent Generation president, boomers still hold sway over the American establishment. A generational power indexOpens in a new tab, created in 2021 by the Visual Capitalist website, calculated the overall economic, political, and cultural power of each living generation, and found that boomers still ranked first with 43.4 percent of the nation’s economic power and 47.4 percent of political power. They only trailed in cultural power, where Generation X (1965-1980) led with 36 percent.

Donald Trump, born on June 14, 1946, was one of the first boomers. But unlike the fathers of millions of others born that year, Trump’s father, Fred Trump, did not fight in World War II. Instead, he profited from it by building and owning thousands of apartments that he rented out to war workers.

As the born-wealthy son of a New York real estate mogul, Donald Trump skipped the anti-war and the civil rights movements, and never shared the counter-cultural experiences of the 1960s and early 1970s that so defined the boomers’ coming of age. He was enamored instead of money and money-making and burnishing his own image, and his Scrooge-like tendencies would finally align him with the rest of his generation as boomers moved into their 30s and 40s in the Reagan era.

When Obama became the nation’s first Black president in 2008, boomer politics really began to warp into something ugly. By then, the oldest boomers were in their early 60s, and they proved susceptible to Trump when he began to transform himself from a corporate huckster into an extremist political figure who used conspiracy theories about the president’s birth certificate to gain right-wing notoriety.

White Backlash

Obama’s election was fueled by a diverse group of younger votersOpens in a new tab, while older white voters chose Republican nominee John McCain. In 2008, 51 percent of Americans over 60, a group that included the oldest boomers, voted for McCain; it was only the second election in 37 yearsOpens in a new tab in which older voters didn’t support the winner.

The growing racial and ethnic diversity that underscored Obama’s victory seemed to frighten these older boomers who had grown up in a much more homogeneous society. In 1980, when the oldest boomers were in their early to mid-30s and were coming into their own as adults, the U.S. was nearly 80 percent whiteOpens in a new tab; by 2023, white people made up less than 60 percent of the population.

The anti-Obama tea party movement in 2009 and 2010 claimed to be built around opposition to the president’s budget policies, but it was really a backlash by white boomers and other older white AmericansOpens in a new tab against the rise of a more diverse and progressive society. By 2015, Gallup found that 44 percent of boomers identified as conservative, and only 21 percent as liberal.

The racial backlash grew and helped elect Trump president in 2016. The only age group that supported Trump that year were voters over 50Opens in a new tab. The oldest boomers turned 70 in 2016, and that year Trump had his biggest win among voters 65 and older. 

As president, Trump surrounded himself with other white boomers who had turned hard right: Roger Stone (born in 1952); Steve Bannon (born in 1953); and Michael Flynn (born in 1958), among many others. Despite Trump’s psychopathic and criminal behavior, despite the January 6 insurrection, two impeachments, and four criminal indictments, boomer voters have generally stuck with him.

I know that my parents’ generation, those who fought fascism overseas in World War II, would be ashamed that so many members of their children’s cohort are now willing to give in to fascism at home.

So many right-wing boomers today claim they want a return to the America we grew up in. If that’s true, they should remember that our parents and teachers also warned us about what the Nazis wrought in Europe just before we were born.  

CONTACT THE AUTHOR:

James Risenjim.risen@theintercept.com@JamesRisen1Opens in a new tabon X

If Russia Wins

Tom Nichols/The Atlantic

If Russia WinsRussian soldiers in Ukraine. (photo: Creative Commons)

10 february 24 (RSN.org)

Republican obstructionism could lead to global disaster.

Ukrainian defenses are in danger of being destroyed and overrun because House Republicans refuse to provide ammunition and aid. If Russia wins this war, the consequences could be catastrophic.

What Could Happen

Ukraine is fighting for the lives of its people and its very existence, and it is running out of ammunition. If the United States does not step back in with aid, Russia could eventually win this war.

Despite the twaddle from propagandists in Moscow (and a few academics in the United States), Russia’s war is not about NATO, or borders, or the balance of power. The Russian dictator Vladimir Putin intends to absorb Ukraine into a new Russian empire, and he will eradicate the Ukrainians if they refuse to accept his rule. Europe is in the midst of the largest war on the continent since Nazi panzers rolled from Norway to Greece, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine is by far the most important threat to world peace since the worst days of the Cold War. In a less febrile political era, defeating Russia would be the top priority of every American politician.

The Republicans in Congress, however, remain fixated both on their hatred of Ukraine and on their affection for Russia. Their relentless criticism of assistance to Kyiv has had its intended effect, taking a bite out of the American public’s support for continuing aid, especially as the war has been crowded out by the torrent of more recent news, including Donald Trump’s endless legal troubles and Israel’s campaign in Gaza.

And so it’s time to think more seriously about what might happen if the Republicans succeed in this irresponsible effort to blockade any further assistance to Ukraine. The collapse and dismemberment of a nation of millions is immediately at stake, and that should be enough for any American to be appalled at the GOP’s obstructionism. But the peace of the world itself could rest on what Congress does—or does not do—next.

First, what would it even mean for Russia to “win”? A Russian victory does not require sending Moscow’s tanks into Kyiv, even if that were possible. (The Russians have taken immense losses in manpower and armor, and they would have to fight house-to-house as they approached the capital.) Putin is reckless and a poor strategist, but he is not stupid: He knows that he doesn’t need to plant the Russian flag on the Mother Ukraine statue just yet. He can instead tear Ukraine apart, piece by piece.

The destruction of Ukraine would begin with some kind of cease-fire offered by a Ukrainian leadership that has literally run out of bullets, bombs, and bodies. (The average age of Ukraine’s soldiers is already over 40; there are not that many more men to draft.) The Russians would signal a willingness to deal only with a new Ukrainian regime, perhaps some “government of national salvation” that would exist solely to save whatever would be left of a rump Ukrainian state in the western part of the country while handing everything else over to the Kremlin.

The Russians would then dictate more terms: The United States and NATO would be told to pound sand. Ukraine would have to destroy its weapons and convert its sizable army into a small and weak constabulary force. Areas under Russian control would become, by fiat, parts of Russia. The remaining thing called “Ukraine” would be a demilitarized puppet state, kept from integration of any kind with Europe; in a few years, an internal putsch or a Russian-led coup could produce a new government that would request final union with the Russian Federation. Soon, Ukraine would be part of a new Russian superstate, with Russian forces on NATO’s borders as “peacekeepers” or “border guards,” a ploy the Russians have used in Central Asia since the 1990s.

Imagine the world as Putin (and other dictators, including in China) might see it even a few years from now if Russia wins in 2024: America stood by, paralyzed and shamed, as Ukraine was torn to pieces, as millions of people and many thousands of square miles were added to the Kremlin’s empire, and as U.S. alliances in Europe and then around the world quietly disintegrated—all of which will be even more of a delight in Moscow and Beijing if Americans decide to add the ultimate gift of voting the ignorant and isolationist Trump back into the White House.

The real danger for the U.S. and Europe would begin after Ukraine is crushed, when only NATO would remain as the final barrier to Putin’s dreams of evolving into a new emperor of Eurasia. Putin has never accepted the legitimate existence of Ukraine, but like the unreformed Soviet nostalgist that he is, he has a particular hatred for NATO. After the collapse of Ukraine, he would want to take bolder steps to prove that the Atlantic Alliance is an illusion, a lie promulgated by cowards who would never dare to stop the Kremlin from reclaiming its former Soviet and Russian imperial possessions.

Reckless and emboldened, emotional and facing his own mortality, Putin would be tempted to extend his winning streak and try one last throw of the dice, this time against NATO itself. He would not try to invade all of Europe; he would instead seek to replicate the success of his 2014 capture of Crimea—only this time on NATO territory. Putin might, for example, declare that his commitment to the Russian-speaking peoples of the former Soviet Union compels him to defend Russians in one of the Baltic states. After some Kremlin-sponsored agitation close to the Russian border, Russian forces (including more of the special forces known as “little green men”) might seize a small piece of territory and call it a Russian “safe zone” or “haven”—violating NATO sovereignty while also sticking it to the West for similar attempts many years ago, using similar terms, to protect the Bosnians from Russia’s friends, the Serbs.

The Kremlin would then sit on this piece of NATO territory, daring America and Europe to respond, in order to prove that NATO lacks the courage to fight for its members, and that whatever the strength of the alliance between, say, Washington and London, no one is going to die—or risk nuclear war—for some town in Estonia.

Should Putin actually do any of this, however, he would be making a drastic mistake. Dictators continually misunderstand democracies, believing them to be weak and unwilling to fight. Democracies, including the United States, do hate to fight—until roused to action. Republicans might soon succeed in forcing the United States to abandon Ukraine, but if fighting breaks out in Europe between Russia and America’s closest allies—old and new—no one, not even a President Trump, who has expressed his hostility to NATO and professed his admiration for Putin, is going to be able to keep the United States out of the battle, not least because U.S. forces will inevitably be among NATO’s casualties.

And at that point, anything could happen.

The world, should Russia win, will face remarkable new dangers—and for what? Because in 2024 some astonishingly venal and ambitious politicians wanted to hedge their bets and kiss Trump’s ring one more time? Perhaps enough Republicans will come to their senses in time to avert these possible outcomes. If they do not, future historians—that is, if anyone is left to record what happened—will be perplexed at how a small coterie of American politicians were so willing to trade the safety of the planet for a few more years of power.

Law or Fear

Timothy Snyder/Thinking About…

Law or FearDonald Trump. (photo: Brookings)

10 february 24 (RSN.org)

The Supreme Court Chooses

Trump disqualified himself from office by taking part in an insurrection and thereby seeking to substitute the rule of fear for the rule of law.

The historian Eric Foner was the first to connect the storming of the Capitol to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which bans oath-breaking insurrectionists from holding office. The legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen made the case for disqualification, exhaustively and convincingly, in a law review article posted last August.

Since that dramatic intervention, the discussion of Trump’s disqualification has changed fundamentally, as people have taken in that Section 3 exists, have understood that it defines a qualification for presidential office (lack of oath-breaking insurrection), and have realized that it arose to handle a moment like our own. It is the supreme law of the land, and it could not be more applicable. The issue of Trump’s eligibility for office has now reached the Supreme Court, and oral argument will begin tomorrow (February 8th).

I have been following this discussion since I first wrote about disqualification six months ago. In the beginning, few people had given the matter much thought. Although there were a few legal scholars who had written about Section 3, it was not a familiar subject. So a first impulse was academic, in the narrow sense of the word: we haven’t studied that; it must be unimportant. But Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is, after all, part of the Constitution. It commands attention.

One thing that helped was the realization that Section 3 defines a qualification for the presidency. The Constitution regulates in various places who may run for president; some rules are in Article 2 of the 1787 Constitution, some are in two amendments. Altogether the qualifications are: being thirty-five years old or older; having been born in the United States (or as a “natural-born citizen”); having lived in the United States for fourteen years or more; not having already served two terms as president; not having taken an oath to support the Constitution and then taking part in an insurrection.

Now, one can have views about those various qualifications; whether or not we think they are ideal, they are part of the Constitution. Some Americans who are disqualified by them would otherwise have a legitimate shot at becoming president: Barack Obama, for example, who is disqualified by the Twenty-Second Amendment since he has served two terms; or Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is disqualified by Article Two since he is not a “natural-born citizen.” About half of the American population is disqualified by the age rule.

Of all of the qualifications for presidential office, not having been an oath-breaking insurrectionist is, let us say, the least demanding. It is the one most clearly related to one’s own choices. And it arose from a moment in American history that we rightly regard as decisive for our republic, the years after the insurrection that became the Civil War. As that context has been understood, as that history has been recalled, Section 3 has come to seem like an appropriate, and indeed necessary, part of our constitutional structure.

When Section 3 was unfamiliar, it seemed like a hindrance, an uncomfortable barrier to our everyday habits, a hard story for media to headline. With time, it has come to seem like a tool, which is what it was meant to be. When we reflect upon the logic of Section 3, and consider its origins in the 1860s, its constructive character becomes clear. Indeed, thinking back to the 1860s and to the origins of the Fourteenth Amendment can help us to see our moment for what it is, and help us to stop ourselves from making poor decisions. The earnestness of the discussions of 1866 is refreshing. This seriousness comes across in two outstanding amicus briefs by American historians, which I rely upon here.

One way to think about the discomfort to which constitutionality gives rise is to consider what we mean by “normality.” In history, and indeed in the contemporary world, it is normal for democracies to die. When a tyrant emerges who deploys intimidating violence, it is normal (in the sense of typical human weakness) for people to be afraid and to go along. It is normal (in the sense that people will do it) to obey in advance and thereby to betray democratic institutions and commitments. The existence of Section 3 reminds us of another sense of the word “normal”: what we should do. It is abnormal, Section 3 declares unambiguously, to be an oath-breaking insurrectionist. It should be normal, Section 3 firmly instructs us, to react in a decisive way when we face an oath-breaking insurrection.

A Constitution survives not only because it gives remedies but because it recalls principles. It defines a normality in which a republic can endure. Our republic.

The remedy is real, and timely. Although we may not like to see this, we find ourselves in the moment for which the authors of Section 3 prepared us: amidst an oath-breaking insurrection that can become a larger conflict. Donald Trump violated his oath of office on January 6th, 2021: and that horrible day of insurrection was the peak of a larger pattern of activities that began before the election and continues until the present day. Trump said in 2020 (as he had said in 2016, and as he also says now) that he would not respect the outcome if he lost.

When he did lose in 2020, Trump acted much as leaders in places like Belarus and Côte d’Ivoire have recently behaved: he sought to manipulate the vote-counting apparatus and other relevant institutions, and he encouraged violence to upset the the transition of authority. (These similarities are discussed in an amicus brief I was honored to co-sign). Trump knowingly lied about the 2020 election, creating the conditions for insurrection; his campaign now is centered on his big lie, which becomes the justification for violence against those who do not believe. As he threatens judges, prosecutors, and elected officials, he spreads the rule of fear. If Trump is the nominee and loses, he will very likely try another insurrection; if Trump is the nominee and wins, he promises to round up his political enemies and to take other actions that will invite a response from inside and outside the government. This is the arc that Section 3 is meant to halt and redirect.

The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866 were looking back at a dreadful rebellion. They knew that the horrors of the Civil War had begun as an insurrection, and that some of the insurrectionists (like Trump today) held federal office when they broke their oaths. In late 1860 and early 1861, before a shot had been fired, high officers of the federal government broke their oaths and took the side of the rebellion.

Section 3 targeted a very specific group of people: not all insurrectionists, not all oath-breakers, but very precisely oath-breaking insurrectionists. There is wisdom in this precision, since Section 3 was forward-looking. Section 3 was meant as an emergency tool to be used to halt an oath-breaking insurrectionist before his actions led to a far worse conflict, or even the end of the republic. It catches us right where we are, and places the tool that we need in our hands.

Section 3 is bracing, because it shakes us from the wrong sense of normality to the right one, because it shows us how the past instructs the present, and because it gives is a tool to shape a better future.

The people who designed and debated Section 3 were informed by the horrors of the 1860s, but they were also thinking about us. And that should be a good feeling. Our warm sentiments about the Constitution can be limited to the provisions we like best. We don’t really expect the Constitution to come bearing gifts. But that is what Section 3 is: a gift from the past to the present, a measure meant to resolve a special challenge, once which could reappear — as people in 1866 understood.

Section 3 is constitutional self-defense, enabling us to handle a difficult problem of the twenty-first century: what to do with people who are elected to office and then use that office to destroy the rule of law. The gift from 1866 is strikingly timely, since such subversion by an elected official or officials is now the normal way that democracies are brought down. Some constitutions, such as the German one, have provisions for this eventuality. So does the American one. Those provisions arose from experience.

The main author of the Fourteenth Amendment, John Bingham, was an interesting man. He was aware that fear was the enemy of law. He was concerned during the Civil War that American leaders would lose their resolve. After Lincoln’s assassination, Bingham was one of the prosecutors. Bingham made it clear that Section 3 was an offering to generations to come, to Americans who would live and face challenges after his own “debt to nature was paid.” He also, incidentally, made clear that Section 3 was supposed to apply to the president of the United States.

If we can look at 2024 from the perspective of 1866, our situation is easy to classify. We are amidst oath-breaking insurrection and facing something worse. And so we predictably experience a fear that can make that something worse more likely. Because there was an insurrection, we are afraid. If Trump’s people can storm the Capitol, what else might they do? And this, of course, is the choice: law or fear. If we give in to fear again and again, law will eventually yield.

Those who use violence, as Trump did on January 6th, know that they can always threaten more violence. When that threat is internalized, when it becomes anticipatory obedience, authoritarianism is on the way. Indeed, when we choose to shy away from the law because we are afraid, we are taking part in that authoritarian transition. When we make legal arguments to cover our fears, we are actively hastening it.

The saying is that fear is a poor counselor; it is certainly a poor legal counselor. When we are afraid, we are no longer seeking reasons to make the right decision; we are seeking excuses to do nothing. This means that standards for what constitutes a legal argument drop precipitously.

Trump’s lawyers (and his supporters in amicus briefs) are banking on fear, and inciting it (Trump and his lawyers threaten “bedlam” if they lose this case). His lawyers (and supporters) depend heavily on the claim that the president of the United States is not an officer of the United States (and therefore not subject to Section 3).

An argument this bad depends upon fear. Even in print, it has a wink-wink-nudge-nudge quality — we know this is a horrible legal argument, and you Justices know that this is a horrible legal argument, but we both know that you are just looking for a way out. So here’s your alibi for ignoring the Constitution.

The argument that the president of the United States is not an officer of the United States is risible. People will laugh at it. A Supreme Court that rules for Trump on that ground will be ridiculed for as long as our republic lasts, and rightly so.

The “originalist” argument is that since Section 3 does not explicitly mention the president, he was not intended by the authors of Section 3 to be included. Section 3 reads (with one ellipsis):

No person shall (…) hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

From that text it would seem clear that the presidency is one of many federal and state offices. “No person,” “any office,” “officer of the United States” are not phrases that brook exceptions.

The “originalist” argument hangs not on the omission of the word “president” but on the inclusion of the words “Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President,” which I left out above. The claim is that, since electors and senators and representatives are mentioned, the president was meant to be excluded. But of course that is not really an “originalist” argument: what an originalist would need is a sentence such as “The president is excluded from this provision.” There is no such sentence. The reason why electors are called out is that they are not a part of the government. The reason why senators and representatives are mentioned was to clarify that they (as well as members of the executive and judiciary branches) were included.

In the debate over the Fourteenth Amendment, it was explicitly clarified that the president was included in Section Three. John Bingham, the chief author of the Fourteenth Amendment, referred to the president as an “officer.” This was routine usage at the time, including by the officers in question, the presidents themselves. In any event, Bingham also said that Section 3 applied to the president. In contemporary public discussion of Section 3, it was taken for granted that the president was meant.

Twenty-five historians who looked into the matter concluded that Section 3 was meant to apply to the president. Four more historians in a separate brief drew exactly the same conclusion. These are the leading scholars of the period and the issues. The conservative legal scholars who began this discussion concluded that the president is an officer. Antonin Scalia, a figure of some repute in conservative judicial circles, believed that the president was an officer. In Trump’s own legal briefs in other matters he also defines the president as an officer.

I cannot say whether the Supreme Court will re-qualify Trump for office. I can say, though, that requalifying him on the grounds that the president of the United States is not an officer of the United States is preposterous. It defies the wording of Section 3, and the intentions of its framers, and the way it was understood by society at the time. It defies the whole historical experience on which Section 3 was based. And it defies Section 3’s political logic of defending the rule of law. Section 3 is about stopping an oath-breaking insurrectionist from destroying or damaging the republic. The most important oath is the president’s and the most dangerous insurrection is one led by him.

The hard part, of course, is that so long as we are within the logic of Section 3, so long as we are amidst the oath-breaking insurrection, we are afraid of the worse conflict that might follow. We fear the oath-breaker and the oath-breaker plays on our fear. And so we seek the excuses that will allow us not to take responsibility, that will allow us to push the problem forward into the future. But in the future we may no longer have appropriate constitutional tools.

And so it is our very fear that is the signal that we must act. In Section 3, we have an appropriate constitutional tool for the fearful moment. And surely it is encouraging that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment, in looking ahead, were looking out for us.

Consciousness, sexuality, androgyny, futurism, space, the arts, science, astrology, democracy, humor, books, movies and more