Bob Schwartz

The Age of Enlightenment Has Left the Building (At Least in America)

Age of Enlightenment: an intellectual and scientific movement of 18th century Europe which was characterized by a rational and scientific approach to religious, social, political, and economic issues.

It was great while it lasted. At times difficult, but fun too. The Age of Enlightenment gave us, for example, the American Revolution. Helpful.

If more evidence is needed that the “rational and scientific approach” is going or gone, here is the new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on the role of carbon dioxide in global warming:

“There’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact…So, no, I would not agree that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change disagrees with him. Almost all scientists disagree with him. The current EPA website disagrees with him (though that will be fixed). Many junior high school students disagree with him (though our new Secretary of Education should be able to fix that too).

The Age of Enlightenment doesn’t have a special holiday, because it is already embedded in so much we do (see, for example, the Fourth of July). But maybe we should at least recognize its passing. We’ll miss it, more than we know.

Listening to Satie (3 Gymnopedies)

Listening to Satie (3 Gymnopedies)

Furniture music
He called it
Shaker table and chairs.
But even creators can be wrong
About their children.
A bare house
Elegant and inviting
Not cold.
Sit on the floor
Lie on the floor
Stroll around.
Dream awake
And don’t sleep.
Here comes another note.

Too Much Finding, Not Enough Searching.

Once you find, you stop searching.

I’m reminded today that once upon a not too distant time, searching was cooler than finding. It was a time when if people weren’t actually living in San Francisco or Los Angeles, they were experiencing the SF or LA of the mind. Which meant searching.

David Crosby’s underappreciated masterpiece album If I Could Only Remember My Name (1971) (with appearances by Stephen Stills, Graham Nash, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane and Santana) is of that searching time, place and mind.

Here are the lyrics from Laughing. More searching, less finding.

Laughing

I thought I met a man
Who said he knew a man
Who knew what was going on

I was mistaken
Only another stranger
That I knew

And I thought I had found a light
To guide me through
My night and all this darkness

I was mistaken
Only reflections of a shadow
That I saw

And I thought I’d seen someone
Who seemed at last
To know the truth

I was mistaken
Only a child laughing
In the sun

Hold your head up or keep your head down?

This post has nothing to hide. Obviously, since it is here for the world to read. It has no reason to hide, being only some thoughts on whether or not we should be concerned that something we say might be seen as trouble, and get us in trouble.

America is in theory, and mostly in practice, a model of individual freedom, because it was born out of the opposite. Yet there have been times and circumstances to the contrary. The list of instances where civil liberties gave way, arguably with or without good reason, is long. War—actual or purported or made up—has been just one such situation.

Globally and historically, the price of speaking up, truth to power, is very high. Less so in America, but not unknown. So in America, which example should we heed? Should we think in troubled times that speaking up about those troubles will be protected? Or should we think, as citizens around the world have had to consider for so long, that someone is watching, listening and reading, and what we see as legitimate commentary or call to action others in authority see as threat and danger?

This is something we should talk about. Or maybe not.

Asleep

Asleep

I fell asleep standing up
Leaning against the shelf
Books as pillow and pillar.
Too tired to be uncomfortable
I felt at peace.
I should have moved
To a chair, to bed
But that was beyond me.
Besides, the books will cover me
If I get cold
Soothe and comfort me
If I dream badly
Catch me
If I fall
Asleep.

Three Silences

Three Silences

Keep silent outside
Though inside
The conversation never ends.
Keep silent inside
Though distant whispers
Try to engage you.
Abandon silence
Where everything
Is said and heard.

Resistance Literature: On Tyranny

I didn’t realize there was a genre called “resistance literature” before I saw this blurb for the just-released On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century by Professor Timothy Snyder:

“Easily the most compelling volume among the early resistance literature. . . . A slim book that fits alongside your pocket Constitution and feels only slightly less vital. . . . Clarifying and unnerving. . . . A memorable work that is grounded in history yet imbued with the fierce urgency of what now.” —Carlos Lozada, The Washington Post

On Tyranny is worth reading: it is short (128 pages), learned, wise, and inexpensive ($2.99), from a scholar who is the Levin Professor of History at Yale University, a member of the Committee on Conscience of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and a permanent fellow of the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna.

Here are the twenty lessons covered:

  1. Do not obey in advance.
  2. Defend institutions.
  3. Beware the one-party state.
  4. Take responsibility for the face of the world.
  5. Remember professional ethics.
  6. Be wary of paramilitaries.
  7. Be reflective if you must be armed.
  8. Stand out.
  9. Be kind to our language.
  10. Believe in truth.
  11. Investigate.
  12. Make eye contact and small talk.
  13. Practice corporeal politics.
  14. Establish a private life.
  15. Contribute to good causes.
  16. Learn from peers in other countries.
  17. Listen for dangerous words.
  18. Be calm when the unthinkable arrives.
  19. Be a patriot.
  20. Be as courageous as you can.

Here is the close of the Epilogue:

The politics of inevitability is a self-induced intellectual coma. So long as there was a contest between communist and capitalist systems, and so long as the memory of fascism and Nazism was alive, Americans had to pay some attention to history and preserve the concepts that allowed them to imagine alternative futures. Yet once we accepted the politics of inevitability, we assumed that history was no longer relevant. If everything in the past is governed by a known tendency, then there is no need to learn the details.

The acceptance of inevitability stilted the way we talked about politics in the twenty-first century. It stifled policy debate and tended to generate party systems where one political party defended the status quo, while the other proposed total negation. We learned to say that there was “no alternative” to the basic order of things, a sensibility that the Lithuanian political theorist Leonidas Donskis called “liquid evil.” Once inevitability was taken for granted, criticism indeed became slippery. What appeared to be critical analysis often assumed that the status quo could not actually change, and thereby indirectly reinforced it.

Some spoke critically of neoliberalism, the sense that the idea of the free market has somehow crowded out all others. This was true enough, but the very use of the word was usually a kowtow before an unchangeable hegemony. Other critics spoke of the need for disruption, borrowing a term from the analysis of technological innovations. When applied to politics, it again carries the implication that nothing can really change, that the chaos that excites us will eventually be absorbed by a self-regulating system. The man who runs naked across a football field certainly disrupts, but he does not change the rules of the game. The whole notion of disruption is adolescent: It assumes that after the teenagers make a mess, the adults will come and clean it up.

But there are no adults. We own this mess.

If Hunter S. Thompson Was Here

How long, oh Lord, how long? And how much longer will we have to wait before some high-powered shark with a fistful of answers will finally bring us face-to-face with the ugly question that is already so close to the surface in this country, that sooner or later even politicians will have to cope with it?

Is the democracy worth all the risks and problems that necessarily go with it? Or, would we all be happier by admitting that the whole thing was a lark from the start and now that it hasn’t worked out, to hell with it.

Hunter S. Thompson, January 1974

Hunter S. Thompson was the great political journalist of his generation—maybe any modern generation. He brilliantly, sometimes sadly, expressed one underlying theme: politics is mostly a crazy, misguided and dishonest business, many who engage in it are crazy, misguided and dishonest people, and the only way to report on it was to be crazy yourself—but also crazily honest. Thompson knew demons when he saw them, because he had his own different demons to deal with.

Had he not committed suicide in 2005, and had he lived to see this, we don’t know what he would write. Or, as was apparent even while he has covering Nixon and Watergate, he may have already had enough. He covered political hell so many times that it was not an assignment he wanted to repeat.

The good news is that there are plenty of excellent edgy and transgressive journalists writing about politics now, which was hardly the case in the 1970s. But even these contemporary writers will tell you they are not him.

This is from the New York Times, January 1, 1974. Thompson is looking back on 1973 and the Nixon presidency (Nixon had not yet resigned):


Maybe that’s why the end of this incredible, frantic year feels so hollow. Looking back on the sixties, and even back to the fifties, the fact of President Nixon and everything that has happened to him—and to us—seem so queerly fated and inevitable that it is hard to reflect on those years and see them unfolding in any other way.

One of the strangest things about these five downhill years of the Nixon Presidency is that despite all the savage excesses committed by the people he chose to run the country, no real opposition or realistic alternative to Richard Nixon’s cheap and mean-hearted view of the American Dream has ever developed. It is almost as if that sour 1968 election rang down the curtain on career politicians.

This is the horror of American politics today—not that Richard Nixon and his fixers have been crippled, convicted, indicted, disgraced and even jailed—but that the only available alternatives are not much better; the same dim collection of burned-out hacks who have been fouling our air with their gibberish for the last twenty years.

How long, oh Lord, how long? And how much longer will we have to wait before some high-powered shark with a fistful of answers will finally bring us face-to-face with the ugly question that is already so close to the surface in this country, that sooner or later even politicians will have to cope with it?

Is the democracy worth all the risks and problems that necessarily go with it? Or, would we all be happier by admitting that the whole thing was a lark from the start and now that it hasn’t worked out, to hell with it….

George Orwell had a phrase for it. Neither he nor Aldous Huxley had much faith in the future of participatory democracy. Orwell even set a date: 1984—and the most disturbing revelation that emerged from last year’s Watergate hearings was not so much the arrogance and criminality of Nixon’s henchmen, but the aggressively totalitarian character of his whole Administration. It is ugly to know just how close we came to meeting Orwell’s deadline….

Six months ago I was getting a daily rush out of watching the nightmare unfold. There was a warm sense of poetic justice in seeing “fate” drive these money-changers out of the temple they had worked so hard to steal from its rightful owners. The word “paranoia” was no longer mentioned, except as a joke or by yahoos, in serious conversations about national politics. The truth was turning out to be even worse than my most “paranoid ravings” during that painful 1972 election.

But that high is beginning to fade, tailing down to a vague sense of angst. Whatever happens to Richard Nixon when the wolves finally rip down his door seems almost beside the point, now. He has been down in his bunker for so long, that even his friends will feel nervous if he tries to re-emerge. All we can really ask of him, at this point, is a semblance of self-restraint until some way can be found to get rid of him gracefully.

This is not a cheerful prospect, for Mr. Nixon or anyone else—but it would be a hell of a lot easier to cope with if we could pick up a glimmer of light at the end of this foul tunnel of a year that only mad dogs and milkmen can claim to have survived without serious brain damage. Or maybe it’s just me. It is ten below zero outside and the snow hasn’t stopped for two days. The sun has apparently been sucked into orbit behind the comet Kohoutek. Is this really a new year? Are we bottoming out? Or are we into The Age of The Fear?

Media and trump: The Reverse Cry Wolf Effect

The media are suffering from the Reverse Cry Wolf Effect. That is, not shouting out a warning when a real danger approaches.

Instead of pointing out what might actually be a serious danger, when trump raised the preposterous and unsupported issue of Obama’s birth, the media treated it as interesting, reportable and sort of funny. And then kept it alive, forever.

Since then, trump has continued to make preposterous allegations and statements. To put it less politely, to chronically lie about matters big and small. The media, having already decided that everything he said and did was interesting, reportable and sort of funny, kept right on treating it as normal, if a bit quirky.

The latest interesting, reportable, quirky, sort of funny thing that trump claimed without any evidence is that Obama (“Bad (or sick) guy!”) wiretapped trump tower. You can tell that the media is on the verge of saying what plenty of respectable commentators are saying: objectively, trump is trying to distract us from his incompetence and real problems, he has always had an irrational hatred of Obama, and he may also be a little bit unstable.

But the media isn’t sure whether anybody will believe them. Why should we?

The Round Trip

The Round Trip

“Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.”
Heart Sutra

The trip to Emptiness took hours
Or was it days or years
I can’t tell.
The ticket was lost
(Just misplaced it turns out)
The line for security was long
ID shown
Pockets emptied
Shoes off.
They took my bags apart
What’s this?
What’s this?
Once I put it all back together
And got on the plane
The flight seemed like every other
The seat
The blah blah blah
The shuttle to the hotel.
In the room on the table
A local magazine called Emptiness
On the cover
A picture of the city
That could be any city.
On the desk a welcome note:
“emptiness is form”
I lay down
And fell asleep
And woke up.

Or was I still sleeping?
Or had I already returned?