This summer a first-time candidate named Melat Kiros won a Democratic primary in Colorado and knocked off a fifteen-term incumbent. A few weeks earlier, someone asked her about the man who had walked down a street in Boulder the year before with Molotov cocktails and a homemade flamethrower, and set a crowd on fire. They were marching for Israeli hostages. One of them, Karen Diamond, was eighty-two. She died of her injuries. Here is what Kiros said:

I don’t know what was in the heart of the perpetrator. All I know is that he went and attacked innocent people because of what they might have believed. I don’t even know what the people that were at that protest believed, too.

She grants that he burned people for what they believed. She still won’t say the word.

Kiros is serious. Twenty-nine, a lawyer, a doctoral candidate whose research is the economics of reparations and a universal basic income. The kind of person who checked the boxes. That is the part worth staying with. Not the man with the flamethrower. The valedictorian who looked at what he did and could not bring herself to name it.

You know her. You might be her.

She did everything the system told her to do. Good school, then the better one. The job a notch off the one she wanted. The house in the leafy part of town, near the good coffee, walkable enough to feel like she made the green choice. She reads. She recycles. By every measure that is supposed to count, she is a success. And she is convinced the country that produced her is a crime.

I just don’t think the reasons are the reason.

She did not come up from the bottom. It is almost never the bottom. The people who staff movements like hers, fund them, knock on doors for them, are the comfortable and the credentialed. Nobody’s idea of the wretched of the earth, whatever name they march under. The anxious near-top, a rung or two below the summit, close enough to see it, and furious they are not standing on it. On Unqualified Advice we lament the revolution never comes from the 1 percent, and never from the truly desperate. It comes from the 2 percent. People with enough education to build a theory and enough resentment of the rung above them to want the whole building pulled down. The 1 percent vs 2 percent probably does not illustrate it properly, since it invokes economics as the differentiator. Think of it like stations, and the point is that both of these stations, the one being antagonized and the one doing the antagonizing, are privileged.

People call the motive compassion. I don’t buy it. What moves it is guilt and envy wearing compassion’s coat. Guilt at holding more than you can explain to yourself. And envy of the few who hold more than you do. Both arrive as the same demand. Level it. From the inside it feels like empathy. From the outside it looks like a person settling a score with the rung above her, using the people far below her as the excuse.

Illiberal.

If this were only about one primary in Denver, it would not be worth your evening. It is older than that, and a philosopher wrote a great book on it. Neven Sesardić grew up learning to survive Yugoslav communism, then spent his career on one ugly question: why do the smartest people alive keep falling for the worst politics on earth? His book reads like a gallery of geniuses.

Otto Neurath was a founder of logical positivism, one of the roots of modern analytic philosophy. He also ran Stalin’s propaganda-statistics office, drawing cheerful little charts of Soviet farm output in the same years that regime starved several million Ukrainians to death. Hilary Putnam was one of the great philosophers of the century. He spent four years in a Maoist party at the peak of the Cultural Revolution, selling the Little Red Book on a street corner in Cambridge. Gerald Cohen held the chair of political theory at Oxford and grieved when the Soviet Union fell. The same Cohen who said, out loud, that he would rather enjoy his socialism “in the warmth of All Souls College, Oxford, than in the wet of the Catskills.”

His illiberalism and ideas are for you, not for him, after all.

Not one of them ever moved to the paradise he prescribed. They cheered it from a safe distance and mailed the bill to strangers down the ladder. And their brilliance did not save them from any of it. It armed them. A clever person does not reason toward a conclusion she doesn’t want. She reasons her way around it. The same horsepower that makes someone dazzling in a seminar builds the flawless case for whatever her comfort already needed to be true.

Share

So what does a man drawing charts for Stalin have in common with a democratic socialist winning a primary in 2026? One sentence.

We know better.

That is the premise under all of it. Under the central plan, the speech code, the confiscation, the committee that decides which shops may open and which papers may print. The belief that a smart enough, decent enough group of people knows better than the scattered verdict of millions of strangers, and should be handed the power to overrule them. It is a seductive idea, and it fails nearly every single time. Most planners mean well. The trouble is simpler and worse: no one, however brilliant, can hold what a free society knows. That knowledge is smeared across millions of separate heads, and it never sits still. The planner’s spreadsheet always believes it sees more than the market does. It never does. Each small choice is the flap of a butterfly’s wings, sending ripples no committee can trace.

None of this is an argument against a government that taxes, spends, defends, and protects the rule of law. What turns a system lethal is narrower, and worse: the removal of the correction function. The day you can no longer say the plan is failing. No longer vote the planners out. No longer print the objection. A country stays free for exactly as long as it keeps the machinery that lets it find out it was wrong. Break that machinery and you have built a democracy you can vote your way into and never vote your way back out of.

Which is the tell. Watch what a movement wants to do to the people who disagree with it. Every real enemy of an open society works out, sooner or later, that its ideas cannot win a fair fight, so it moves to end the fight. Deplatform. Denounce. Raise the price of the wrong opinion until people learn to keep quiet. Someone sure she is right will take the argument all day. Someone who needs you silenced has already told you something about her idea.

Go back to Kiros, because she shows you in conversation. Which words come out, and which stay in, decided by who is standing in front of her.

She can say “antisemitism.” She said it about the antisemitic tropes of Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. She has said the thing never stops at antisemitism, that it curdles into fascism. She is fluent in the word. She just would not spend it on a man who set fire to Jews marching for hostages.

Identitarian.

The same reflex runs the way she talks about the police. In public, her campaign says she has never called to defund them. In a friendlier room, she will tell you that policing “does not actually do any work to prevent crime,” that it “exacerbates it more often than not,” and that spending the money on the community “instead of just policing” is “wildly successful.” The position never moves. Only the word moves, and which word depends on who is listening.

And before you file this under “the left” and feel a negative or positive emotion, don’t. The right runs the same reflex, pointed the other way, at a bigger stage. A mob beat police officers with flagpoles and ransacked the Capitol. Trump called them hostages and patriots, and pardoned nearly every one of them. Same move, and the graver one. She looked away from a firebombing. He looked away from an assault on the machine that runs the country. Both lead down similar paths, though.

The body count is still lopsided. The right’s violence has killed far more, and it isn’t close. But left-wing violence is climbing. By one bipartisan count, 2025 was the first year in three decades that left-wing attacks outnumbered right-wing ones. And when the violence comes from your own side, watch who cheers. A health-insurance executive was gunned down on a Manhattan sidewalk. A crowd formed online to cheer the shooter and sell his face on a shirt. Each side sees the other’s violence in high definition and goes half-blind to its own. The cheap shot is deciding your side is the exception.

Share

I don’t love where this leaves me, because it asks for a patience I don’t have. Few humans do. You do not beat a bad idea by banning it. You beat it in the open, again and again, for as long as it takes. Which means defending the right of people to say things that turn your stomach, people who would never lift a finger to defend yours, while they are out there winning primaries. I have seen the other version up close.

I have walked through the museums they make out of the killing. Phnom Penh, where they photographed every prisoner before they killed them. The old communist East, where the file on you was thicker than anything you ever wrote. Ordinary rooms. Ordinary paperwork.

We talk about the thing that protects us from that as if it lived in the water. Some civic immune system a country just has. It isn’t in the water. It is taught, one generation at a time, or it rots. Nobody is born knowing why an open society is worth more than the certainty of a clever person with a plan. You have to be shown. And we have mostly stopped showing anyone.

There is one question the plan has never been able to answer. Where has it been tried, and what happened to the people who had to live inside the result?

Today’s answer is often Scandinavia, which is the wrong answer. Those countries are open, and their markets are free-enterprise capitalist. Sweden has more billionaires per capita than the United States.

Every other answer is a room like the ones I walked through. That is the whole of the defense, and it holds only for as long as enough of us still know the history well enough to ask. Make the idea stand in daylight and account for itself. It almost never can.

Kiros won her primary by refusing to name a thing everyone could see. That is not the part that keeps me up at night. This is: how many of the smartest, kindest, most credentialed people I know looked at that refusal, and heard empathy.

Share

Sources and Inspiration

The argument’s spine is Neven Sesardić’s study of brilliant people and terrible politics. The Neurath, Putnam, and Cohen cases — and the Cohen quotation — are drawn from it:

When Reason Goes on Holiday: Philosophers in Politics — Neven Sesardić

Melat Kiros is quoted from her own words and primary reporting:

• Her win, biography, and platform: Melat Kiros — Wikipedia (with its cited Colorado Sun and NPR reporting), and The Colorado Sun.

• Her answer on the Boulder attack: 9News.

• Her remarks on antisemitism and on policing: Progress Report interview and Firing Line with Margaret Hoover (PBS).

The comparison of left- and right-wing political violence draws on analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Byman and McCabe).

I was trying to decide what to wear to breakfast.

It was ISTEP week in Indiana. Every junior had to sit the standardized test, which meant the seniors got the morning off, which meant a half day, which meant my friends and I had a plan: a late breakfast at Cracker Barrel, then drive into school together.

I had a little nineteen-inch television in my room, and while I got ready, I turned it on for some news and caught the second plane going into the tower — live.

I didn’t know what to do with it. I sat on the edge of the bed and watched. The professional talkers — the ones who are never at a loss for words — stumbled. You could hear people whimpering off mic. If memory serves, texts cost a quarter apiece back then and nobody I knew really sent them, so there was no group thread. We had a time and a place. I finished getting dressed and drove to Cracker Barrel.

We sat there and didn’t have as much to say. What was there to say? I was seventeen. The first plane was something you could argue about for a minute. The second plane closed the argument. I think we all knew, sitting at that table, roughly where it had come from, and everything after that turned out to be true no matter how anyone wanted us to feel about it.

The certainty came easy; the cost did not

A friend asked me that day whether there’d be a war. I said of course there would be.

The war I predicted so casually got carried, for decades, by people I knew. A friend who hung out the side of helicopters near places I have traveled to. A friend I’ve since lost touch with who was at Fallujah. Others who spent years in Afghanistan, and others who did their part through an engineer’s drawings instead of a rifle. One afternoon a group of men who’d been Green Berets and SEALs trained me in a few things, and told anonymized versions of what they’d done and seen.

We are good at force, so force is what we reached for. We sent a generation to give that answer, and the answer took so long, and cost so much, and resolved so little that you can watch the confidence drain out of the national posture in real time. The spirit of the place has been taking it on the chin ever since. What’s worn down is the sense that the country is worth defending out loud.

The war was the answer we reached for first, because it was the answer we knew how to give.

Somewhere in those twenty-five years it became respectable to be against the whole American project. Wanting the country better is the most American impulse there is. Wanting it disowned is a different thing. I find that genuinely hard to stomach. You can hate what the country does and love what it’s for. The people who went where my friends went were not confused about the difference, and neither am I.

We rebuilt the easy half

For a stretch of years in my twenties and early thirties I lived in Greenwich Village, in an apartment somewhere between the Comedy Cellar and the Blue Note. Long hours, long commute, home late. One of the things we did in those years was climb up to the roof at night, hush each other on the stairs, and try not to laugh loud enough to wake the neighbors.

When I moved in, you couldn’t see the new World Trade Center from up there. Then you could. It came up over the other rooftops inch by inch, a little more of it each season. For what felt like years it had no windows, just floors of raw structure lit around the clock by industrial bulbs for the crews. They changed those bulbs out for the Fourth of July and for the September anniversaries, so a few nights a year the unfinished tower burned red, white, and blue over lower Manhattan. Then the glass went on and it turned shiny, and the industrial light softened into office light, and then there were tenants. A friend in real estate liked to brag that more firms had committed to the building before anyone set foot inside it than had committed to the Burj Khalifa. I have no idea whether that was true. I liked it anyway. One of the last things I did before leaving the city was ride to the top.

Twenty-five years out, we rebuilt the tower. It’s finished. It’s clad and lit and full of people paying rent, and you can buy a ticket to the top.

The other rebuild is the one still in doubt.

We rebuilt the tower faster than we rebuilt the thing the tower was supposed to mean.

I’ve made the case before that a country holds together because ordinary people keep building it, and that sitting in the stands cataloguing its flaws is a way of quitting that dresses up as insight. I watched us pour the concrete and raise the steel, floor by floor. It was our answer to the attack, and it worked, and it’s beautiful at night. What we haven’t managed to pour back is the confidence that lets a free people say, without a running apology, what it stands for proudly.

The thing I miss most about New York, after the friends, is that you almost never had to guess where you stood with someone. People told you. That directness is a kind of civic muscle. A place where you know where you stand is a place that still knows what it is. A place where everyone hedges, and reads the room, and waits to see which way the sentiment breaks before committing to a position, is a place quietly renegotiating a fabric it used to take for granted.

This past Friday, twenty-five years to the day, I watched an American reach the final of the U.S. Open, with a real shot at the first men’s title an American has taken there since Andy Roddick in 2003. He hasn’t won it yet. I’ll be cheering him on today.

The tower is finished and the match isn’t, and the second rebuild, the one I deeply care about, looks a lot more like the match than the tower. It’s less a monument than a chance you take or let pass, over and over, in how you talk and what you’ll defend.

From the roof where I watched the light come up over the harbor inch by inch, the distance some people now keep from their own country doesn’t read as wisdom. It reads as the one repair we’ve decided not to attempt.

Share

Sources and Inspiration

• We Keep Building — the argument this essay is the receipt for.

• Leaving New York City — what I wrote when I left the city.

  The Prometheus Dispatch is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

A year ago I would have said it’s impossible for me.

The businesses I run interact with a complex marketplace driven by software and algorithms. Some of these systems serve me, serve the marketplace, and/or serve the customer. Most of the time, all three at once. However, sometimes I get to be the one eating shit pie.

For years figuring out proper pricing was a spreadsheet affair. Pull your COGS, tariffs and freight, apply a margin to make payroll, taxes, and keep the lights on and that was your price. Now, you must compete on the algorithm. Machinery and software, equivalent to one of the best quant hedge funds, is trying to match customers and products. The customer does much less work to find what they want (despite how they may feel about it). Inside this algorithm is a penitentiary. If you make an edit to your own product that the algorithm deems not good, your product is de-listed. It doesn’t matter if Trump made it a requirement to raise prices by 30% overnight, tough luck.

In this new age, I do not have to sit idly by and eat the shit pie. In this case, the shit pie isn’t a matter of having a smaller life. It is a matter of closing the business and giving 100% of it over to the Chinese, which is what the tariffs have done for many small commodity USA based brands.

Now, I can build my own quant hedge fund to work within the parameters and incentives handed to me by the marketplaces and the Executive Branch.

This year I built the tool. I built it for one of my businesses. It does one job, and it does that job well. My product pricing is like the floor of the NYSE. No more hand signals and pink sheets, the computers hum, crunch data, make decisions and my algorithm sets a new price 1-2 times per day on every product.

Something changed. The price of the software did not fall to zero. What fell is the wall between me and the capability. I no longer had to buy the expertise. I had to know what a good pricing system looked like, and sit with the thing until it produced one.

I had to be able to see possibilities that were entirely absent only a few months ago.

The list every operator keeps

If you have run a small business, you keep a list, even if you have never written it down and could only recite it if someone put you on the spot. It is the list of things you do not do, or cannot do.

Mine ran long. Legal reviews of every little thing. A more mature inventory forecasting tool. A quantitative advertising decision framework taking signals from all marketplaces and platforms. Professional videography and other media assets.

There just isn’t enough money. I would have gone out of business 20 times over doing all the ‘necessary’ things.

Every item on that list is some capability that would have made the business better, and it came bundled inside a person: a designer, a lawyer, a software developer. So the question was never whether I needed the thing. The question was whether I could afford the person or agency who did it, and usually I could not. I crossed the item off and moved on. Each of those decisions was right on the day I made it.

What actually moved

For most of the history of small business, a capability cost what the person who held it cost. Expertise came in person-sized units, with all the legal, compliance, and software to stay compliant costs attached. If you wanted the output, you rented the human, by the hour or by the salary. That is why the ceiling on what one operator could build sat exactly where his budget sat.

That changed. The expertise is now available in a form you can direct without hiring it. What decides how much of it you can use is no longer money. It is knowing what good looks like. The question moved from “can I afford a designer” to “can I tell a good design from a bad one.” From “can I afford to have this built” to “can I tell when it has been built right and sustainably.”

That is the strange part. The gate is now a judgment I can develop rather than a person I have to rent. Effort did not become free. The gate just stopped being priced in money I didn’t have.

Share

The objection that will hold you back

Wider capability goes first to whoever was already inclined to learn. Some will complain it is going towards people already thriving. To those, I urge you to try harder. The level of democratization baked in here is high.

The operator who would have found a way now finds it faster and cheaper. I think this stands to rattle the upper middle class more than any other cohort. Those who spent the most money and time on credentials will find that proof of work has far outstripped the value of their tuition.

One phrase carries the weight in every hopeful sentence here: “if they care to learn.” I can’t measure that, and I am not going to bury it under the parts I can measure. It may be the real argument. The tools took away the excuse. What is left is whether a person knows what good looks like, and whether they care enough to go find out.

The starter

Everything so far is about an operator who already has a business. There is a second person this is even truer for, and I have less proof about her.

It is the person starting now, who begins with a range of capability a solo founder could not have assembled at any price a few years ago. Most attempts at anything don’t produce income, and most never have; the median one-person business nets close to nothing, and that was true long before any of this. The narrower claim, the one worth making, is harder to dismiss. The attempt that fails now still leaves the person holding a wider set of proven capabilities than the same attempt left them holding in 2019. The venture can die and the person walk away more capable than they started, carrying that into whatever comes next. The attempt has become a kind of credential.

Again, proof of work.

What is left

The container that held expertise broke. The size of an operator’s budget, which used to set the limit on his reach, stopped setting it.

None of this hands you an outcome. The rent is real and it may rise. The reader is not guaranteed. No tool will hand you taste, or hand you the patience to build it. What changed is narrow, and it is more than enough.

I built the pricing tool because I can. Previously, someone else owned me. The list of things I cannot do is shorter than it was, and I am betting it keeps shrinking. Go look at your own list. See how much of it is still priced at 2019.

Share

Sources and Inspiration

IRS Statistics of Income — Nonfarm Sole Proprietorship (Schedule C) Statistics: median net income per return.

U.S. Census Bureau — Nonemployer Statistics: the stock and churn of one-person businesses.

I came to a decision point and stared at the wall of screens in front of me. Then I took a breath and turned to my right, to the window.

The Rockies were out at the far edge of it. I had just read that there was a dusting on some of the peaks. Winter is coming.

Closer in, there are bushes with yellow flowers that bloom in every season but that one. The bees work them all summer. So do the hummingbirds, and there was one out there doing the thing hummingbirds do, which is look. It hangs and it looks. It moves like a spacecraft, not like a bird. Nothing else outside that window flies by holding still.

They are persistent here, more this year than the last few, since the neighborhood came into bloom. But it is September, which means they are going. Broad-tailed hummingbirds winter in the highlands of Mexico, well over a thousand miles from my window, and the animal making the trip weighs a few grams.

What held me was the combination. All that violence in the wings and nothing happening in the body at all. The bird is perfectly still, but also not. On a cold night at this elevation it will let its temperature fall and its heart slow, until it is barely running, then start itself again in the morning. The animal with the highest burn rate in the yard also knows how to go almost entirely out.

In a few weeks it will fly to Mexico. It does not know it has undertaken anything. There is no deliberation in it, no weighing, no window it turns toward. It does what it needs to do, and the whole thing is beautiful in its scope.

Wendell Berry died on Monday at ninety-two, at home in Port Royal, Kentucky, on the ground he came back to in 1965.

He had the exit ramp. Stanford, NYU, the whole ascending literary life available in the cities where literary life is celebrated. He went home to Henry County and farmed the ground his family had farmed for five generations. He wrote in pencil.

That is a good life, because he chose it. A man born onto that farm with no way off would have lived something admirable and not something instructive. Berry had every door open and walked back through the one he came from, and he kept walking back through it for over sixty years.

In the middle of The Unsettling of America he stops the agricultural argument entirely and spends a chapter on the Odyssey, on why Odysseus coming home is moving. It is moving because Kalypso offered him immortality and he turned it down. "Where there is no possibility of choice, there is no possibility of faith," Berry writes. The man who returns home wanting again what he wanted before is "neither the world's stranger nor its prisoner, but is at once in place and free."

In place and free — he is describing his own life, and he is telling you what would void it.

The window is where the old things are

I turn toward the window because that is where the old things are.

The carbon in that hummingbird was assembled inside stars that burned out before there was an Earth to catch it. The same carbon is in the flowers it is working, in the snow behind it, in my hands on the desk. Same material. The mitochondria driving its wings, and mine, descend from a bacterium swallowed by another cell something like a billion and a half years ago that stayed. That is the arrangement I am living inside while I decide which tab to open.

Berry put it this way: "But the care of the earth is our most ancient and most worthy and, after all, our most pleasing responsibility."

Most ancient. He means it the way it sounds.

So: touch grass.

I mean that straight. The phrase has been worn down into a put-down, but the instruction underneath it is good, and Berry spent sixty years making the case for it. "Connection is health," he wrote. "And what our society does its best to disguise from us is how ordinary, how commonly attainable, health is."

Ordinary is the word to catch. Not rare, not expensive, not something you schedule. Go outside and put your hand on something that was here before you were.

Where I part with him

Berry spent his career convinced that the life he chose was being taken from everyone else by force. "I remember, during the fifties, the outrage with which our political leaders spoke of the forced removal of the populations of villages in communist countries," he wrote. "I also remember that at the same time, in Washington, the word on farming was 'Get big or get out.'" The difference, he said, was only method: "the force used by the communists was military; with us, it has been economic."

That is not a difference of method. It is a difference of kind. The villager loaded into a truck at gunpoint had no choice. The farmer who sold up had one, and we know he had one, because Berry did not sell.

Policy tilted the field. Credit rules and price supports favored scale and sped the consolidation up. But nothing in them outlawed a small farm. What emptied the countryside got decided in kitchens, one at a time. Machines had begun doing the work of forty hands, the town paid better than the field, and a great many people did not want the work anyway. They did not want to get up in the dark for the animals, or hand their children a life that hard. They left in the millions — under real pressure and never under orders — and every one of those was a decision.

I cannot blame them. I did not choose it either.

That is a market, and a market is not a mandate. It is what millions of private decisions look like once you add them up. No one decreed it. Everyone decided it. Reading that verdict as oppression is the error, and it is the error that makes the real damage possible, because a man who believes his neighbors were coerced out of a life will feel entitled to coerce them back into it.

He knew this. Earlier in the same book, writing about the consumer rather than the farmer, he describes the exact thing he will not grant here. "He can choose, and exert the influence of his choosing, because he has given himself choices. He is not confined to the negativity of his complaint. He influences the market by his freedom."

Influences the market by his freedom. That is a person acting through the market rather than a person being ground under it. Berry grants it to the man deciding what to eat, and withholds it from the man deciding whether to sell the farm. I think the difference is that he loved the second one and could not stand to watch him go.

Then came the people who would fix it. The de-growth left reinvents Berry, the postliberal right cites him outright, and both want the life he chose for himself to be the life everyone is issued. Opposite fears, same instrument.

That is the failure worth naming, and it is the only one here. Not the market, which is people choosing. The mandate, which is people being chosen for. It arrives as prohibition or as prescription and it does the same thing either way. Berry already told us what it costs. Where there is no possibility of choice, there is no possibility of faith.

None of this is generosity toward people who want to live differently. It is the floor. It is the condition that makes anything anyone builds mean something, and the question to ask about any political program is simple: does it leave that condition standing?

Berry kept his. He was able to choose, and he chose, and he lived it out on the ground he picked. That is what I respect. He was freer than he believed.

The membership includes its dead

The fiction says it more warmly. Across a lifetime he wrote a county called Port William, and the idea underneath all of it is the membership: a community that includes its dead, who do not stop being members when they stop being present. That is connection is health applied to people instead of to soil. You are held by what you are joined to, and the joining outlasts the body.

He wrote about the inside of that membership too, and he would not make it sound manageable. "Parenthood is not an exact science," he wrote in an essay called "Family Work," "but a vexed privilege and a blessed trial, absolutely necessary and not altogether possible."

He will not let you off either hook. Not an exact science, so no expert is going to hand you the method. Absolutely necessary, so the difficulty does not excuse you. He aimed that at the thing most people care about more than they care about land.

The hummingbird will leave in a few weeks. It will cross a thousand miles of country it cannot conceive of, on a schedule it did not set, and it will not experience any of it as a decision. It is beautiful. It is not a model. Berry decided, and then decided again every year for over sixty years, on ground that nobody was going to make him keep and nobody was going to make him leave.

The window is still on my right. The flowers are still out there, and the bees, and for another week or two, so is the bird. Nobody can make you look. Go look.

Share

Sources and Inspiration

The Unsettling of America - Wendell Berry

The Gift of Good Land - Wendell Berry

The gong goes at 4:30 in the morning. I am somewhere in the countryside beyond the reaches of the chaos of Mumbai. The mornings are my favorite, it is something about the air. A mix of charcoal smoke and florals. The kitchen staff has begun, and I put one foot in front of the other on the way to the meditation hall I was assigned on the day I arrived. I sit cross-legged in a dim concrete room full of strangers I would not speak to, look at, or gesture toward for ten days. No phone. No books, no notebook, no music, no run to burn the agitation off. The teachers call it Noble Silence, and it is nearly total: speech is reserved for the teacher, and only about the technique. The instruction that came with all this renunciation was almost insultingly small. Observe the breath where it crosses the upper lip. Don’t regulate it. Don’t count it. Just know it.

My mind took about four minutes to begin drafting the case for leaving. When I returned to my dorm, I read my travel size shampoo bottle eighteen times, most of it in Thai script.

It was a good case. What unsettled me was the form. The mind never said: this is uncomfortable and I want out. It said reasonable things, in my own voice, with supporting evidence and a plan of escape. Sometimes it screamed at me instead.

Any escape would require breaching the female section, Hollywood-style (the sexes were kept separate), and rescuing my wife. We would board a plane, back to civilization, and tell ourselves we did the right thing.

The body ran its own campaign. My back was already going, sharp shooting pains, and sitting still on hard pillows upon a concrete floor for over ten hours a day does something to a back and a pair of knees that I am not sure I can describe to anyone who hasn’t done it. By day two my spine had located a vertebra I could not have named on an anatomy chart, and made it the center of my universe. We had gotten in good shape running while traveling; sitting turned out to be my kryptonite. I was the one white guy in the hall, stared at by everyone, and also the one asking for the most little pillows to wedge the pain away. The cushion was unimpressed.

The escape arrived dressed as prudence, in my own voice, with supporting evidence.

The Oldest Map of the Exits

Somewhere around the third day, I noticed that my distractions had a structure. They were not infinite. The same five doors kept presenting themselves. Appetite: the meal I would eat when this was over, and other hungers besides. Irritation: at the man three cushions away whose proud farting I could smell, an offense he compounded by continuing to exist. Heaviness: a fog of sleep that arrived precisely when attention was asked of me, and at no other hour of the day. Agitation: the planning mind, the leaving mind, the mind forecasting me to the next country. And doubt, the quietest of the five: the voice asking whether any of this did anything at all.

Then people began tapping out. Leaving. They would give up, right in the middle. One man, who I was convinced was one of the stronger ones, didn’t make it to the end of day three.

A teaching catalogued these five doors about twenty-five centuries ago. The Satipatthana Sutta is a short discourse attributed to the Buddha and preserved in the Pali Canon, and it reads like a lab manual: observe the body, observe sensation, observe the mind, observe the mind’s recurring patterns, and for each, note what is present, what is absent, how it arises, how it passes away. It opens with an audacious claim — “This is the only way, monks, for the purification of beings” — and then drops all grandeur and gets to work. My five doors appear there by name: the five hindrances. Sense-desire, ill-will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and remorse, doubt. The instruction for meeting them runs like this:

“Herein, monks, when sense-desire is present, a monk knows, ‘There is sense-desire in me,’ or when sense-desire is not present, he knows, ‘There is no sense-desire in me.’ He knows how the arising of the non-arisen sense-desire comes to be; he knows how the abandoning of the arisen sense-desire comes to be; and he knows how the non-arising in the future of the abandoned sense-desire comes to be.”

— Satipatthana Sutta, Nyanasatta Thera translation

He knows. The text wants more than watching: it wants the meditator to know how a hindrance is abandoned, and how it is kept from coming back. In the tradition I sat in, the watching is nearly the whole instruction. Fighting a distraction feeds it; you have entered into a relationship with it. Observation starves it. The method repeats across body, feeling, mind, and mental pattern, with the patience of a text that expects to be ignored for several days before it lands.

The text’s sharpest tool is a word that does not translate cleanly: vedana, the feeling-tone riding on every moment of experience. Pleasant, unpleasant, neutral. It arrives before the thought, before the story, before the identity. Sit long enough and you can feel it operating: the itch registers as unpleasant and the hand is already moving to scratch, the whole transaction complete below the level of anything I would call a decision. The practice wedges attention into that gap. After enough hours, the space between the sensation and the story widens. Half a second, maybe. It does not sound like much.

From the fourth day the technique changes: attention sweeps the body part by part, observing whatever sensation is present without preference. That part is not in the sutta. The text catalogued the doors; the sweep is a twentieth-century reading of it. That was also the day my back did the thing the recorded discourses kept promising. Something came loose. Like a masseuse who finally got the knot, the pain stopped being the thing running the session.

Equanimity sounds like giving up control. It is how you get it. Whatever I cannot sit with gets a say in what I do next, and my back had been holding the floor for two days. What broke on the fourth day was its authority. The word the tradition uses is anicca, impermanence: the discovery, in your own tissue rather than in a book, that the sensation you are bracing against is already changing — and so is the one bracing.

The lineage that carried this technique out of Burma runs through, of all people, an accountant. Sayagyi U Ba Khin, teacher of the man whose recorded voice filled our evening discourses, ran a meditation center on the side of a government job auditing the national ledgers. The most useful account of the human mind I have encountered reached the modern world through a civil servant. I find this endlessly strange.

Share

The Exits, Scaled Up

Erich Fromm, the psychoanalyst who spent his career asking why people hand their freedom away, catalogued the exits at the scale of civilizations: submission to authority, destructiveness, the quiet dissolve into conformity. Whole nations took those doors in his lifetime; he watched his native Germany take the first one. Fromm was describing the same shape at a bigger size. His three exits are social and my five doors were not; nobody submits to a vertebra. Something unpleasant arrives, and the mind reaches for whatever will make it stop. Sense-desire is the grasp at pleasure that dodges the present moment. Ill-will is destructiveness at the scale of one man’s audible farting. Sloth is the numbing that precedes every surrender. Restlessness is the anxiety Fromm said freedom always carries. And doubt is the open seam that someone else’s certainty slides into. I met all five before lunch on day two. All I wanted was my dahl and rice, please.

Every exit Fromm catalogued at the scale of nations runs first at the scale of a nervous system.

Fromm thought the answer had to include a practice. In the chapters published after his death as The Art of Being, he prescribed awareness and concentration: the daily, unglamorous work of seeing what is actually there. His own exercises are thin: sit still for ten minutes, follow the breath, concentrate on a coin until you can see it with your eyes closed. Then he does something better than defend them. He sends the reader to a commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, quotes it at length, refuses the parts he cannot accept (he had no use for reincarnation and said so), and takes the awareness instruction anyway. And then he says the method is not enough by itself, and that what it needs added is the analysis of everything a person hides from himself.

Fromm found the text decades before I found the cushion, and he never thought sitting still was the whole of it. He was honest about the cost in a way the wellness industry never is:

“Without effort and willingness to experience pain and anxiety, nobody grows, in fact nobody achieves anything worth achieving.”

— Erich Fromm, The Art of Being

The line I carried home from those evening discourses collides with that head-on: there is no achieving; it is simply sitting with this practice. There is no done, no graduation, no destination. To the part of me that wanted to acquire the retreat (collect the insight, add the credential, return home upgraded), that sentence was the most unbearable thing said in ten days. Fromm had a name for that part: the having mode, the orientation that turns even experience into inventory. You can have a meditation streak, a retreat on your résumé, opinions about equanimity. You cannot have equanimity. The wanting is the obstacle. The course costs nothing, incidentally; old students fund the new ones. Somebody thought carefully about keeping this one thing off the shelf.

Civic Training Nobody Recognizes

Most people who do this come home unchanged. The mindfulness industry stripped the original practice for parts and sold the relaxing ones, and plenty of people have used those parts to sharpen their focus in service of entirely unchanged lives. Ten days of silence did not make me good. It gave me data: high-resolution footage of my own escape attempts, a field guide to my exits, half a second of warning before the reaction fires. What I do with the warning is still up to me, every single time.

That is a smaller claim than the brochure makes.

The five doors are still there when I get up off the cushion. Out here they get bigger offers. Certainty, for the doubt. A target, for the ill-will. A tribe, for the restlessness. Something to scroll, for the heaviness and the agitation both. Every demagogue in history has run that transaction: give me your discomfort and I will give you relief. The discomfort does not have to be dramatic. Boredom will do, or the low hum of an unresolved self. The phone runs a smaller version a hundred times a day. The offer comes in every political color; the relief is the product, and the ideology is just the packaging.

A republic of people who cannot sit with themselves will be governed by whoever promises they’ll never have to.

I have spent two essays on the informed spectator: the man who can describe every mechanism operating on him and still not move. Diagnosis is cheap, and I have been generous with it. This is the part of the answer I could not write until I had sat through it.

Which is why those ten days were civic training that nobody, including the people running it, would ever call civic training. The retreat does nothing but make you watch your own exits until you can recognize them mid-stride.

The recognition works slower than the half second does. Nobody joins a movement in the gap between an itch and a hand. What took three days to see on that cushion was the form of the argument my exits hide behind: leaving arrived pre-reasoned, in my own voice. The handwriting is familiar, and a man who has watched his mind draft the small brief is slower to sign the large one.

It has made me harder to sell relief to. Self-governance requires self-acquaintance, and self-acquaintance turns out to be a physical skill, built the way any physical skill is built: badly at first, in conditions someone else designed, with your own body as the curriculum.

The Technique Has a Country

The accountant is where this argument almost dies.

U Ba Khin was made the first Accountant General of the Union of Burma on January 4, 1948, the day the country became independent. He started a meditation association inside his own government office in 1950 and opened a center in Rangoon two years later. On March 2, 1962, the army took the country, and Burma has spent most of the six decades since under one military government or another. U Ba Khin kept teaching. He died in 1971, nine years into a dictatorship that outlasted him by forty. What came after was worse than indifference: monks led some of it, and Buddhist nationalism supplied the vocabulary for driving three-quarters of a million Rohingya over the border.

The country did get its opening. The generals stepped part of the way back in 2011, and in 2015 the vote was free and the opposition won it. I was there not long after, on a business school trip, in rooms with American executives and Dutch incubator hopefuls, people trying to bring commerce into a country that had just stopped being closed. In February 2021 the army took it back. Our old group thread, dormant for years, lit up.

The technique did not save the republic that produced it. It did not reliably keep its own tradition honest. Any claim that sitting quietly makes better citizens has to walk past that, and it cannot.

So the claim I am making is smaller and harder to get rid of. Nothing produces free societies; the ones we have were argued and fought into existence by people with entirely ordinary nervous systems, and most of the refusals that built them ran on interest, or faith, or stubbornness, or a union card. The half second is what is left when none of those are pointing the right way. It is the defense you need when the offer has been built for you, when your tribe and your interest and everything you already believe are all saying yes. Burma proves it is not sufficient. Nothing is.

On the morning of the tenth day, the silence breaks. It broke early for one man, a large Indian fellow who had lived in the States and had decided I was his kindred spirit. He was reprimanded, and I was glad. That was not the side I expected to be on.

That morning, most of us waiting on transport back to Mumbai, my wife and I sat with a young Jain man and his mother. He reeked of equanimity. Coming off ten days of silence I could have listened to him for hours, and I still cannot tell you what he was actually expressing. I can tell you what came next: a coach car to Mumbai, and then a stampede at the gate for the plane to Malaysia. Whatever he had, it was what I needed to walk into that.

Within a week I was back in the world of phones and feeds. I still reach for it. I reached for it while writing this. But sometimes, between the itch and the hand moving, there is a pause that was not there before.

Ten days of silence bought me half a second. Everything I believe about republics is that half second, scaled up.

Share

Sources and Inspiration

The Heart of Buddhist Meditation: The Buddha’s Way of Mindfulness - Nyanaponika Thera

The Art of Being - Erich Fromm

Escape from Freedom - Erich Fromm

The camera found Rafael Nadal first. He was doing the thing he has done before matches for twenty years: bouncing on the balls of his feet, sprinting in the tight hallway, adjusting everything that can be adjusted, taking up as much room in his opponent’s head as the rules allow. A legendary master hopping around like Mario after eating the star.

Then it cut to Novak Djokovic, who was on the ground wrestling with his daughter.

I was watching the Paris Olympics with my family. I had paid almost no attention to tennis in my life. I’d read Andre Agassi’s Open and Timothy Gallwey’s The Inner Game of Tennis, which is like having read two books about the ocean and never having been in it. But we watched tennis that summer, all the way through to Djokovic winning gold, and I got hooked, and the thing that hooked me was that cut. The most volatile man in the sport, the one who breaks rackets and argues with stadiums, flat on his back letting a small child climb on him.

There’s a Serbian word I learned recently: inat.

The dictionary gives you spite, or stubborn defiance. That’s thin. It means going out of your way to do something you wouldn’t otherwise care about doing, at real cost to yourself, purely to prove that you can, and the trigger is usually that someone was condescending about it first.

The condescension is the weighty part. Inat is a specific answer to a specific person who looked at you a specific way.

In 2008, Andy Roddick stood on a court at the US Open with a microphone and made fun of Djokovic’s injuries. Djokovic was twenty-one and had a reputation for pulling up hurt. Roddick ran the list for the crowd: both ankles, a back, a hip, a cramp, bird flu, anthrax, SARS, the common cough and cold.

New York laughed.

Two days later Djokovic beat him in the quarterfinal, 6-2, 6-3, 3-6, 7-6. Then he took the microphone himself, in front of the same crowd, and would not let it go. Andy was saying I have sixteen injuries in the last match. Obviously I don’t, right? And then, into the boos that were already starting: They’re already against me because they think I’m faking everything, so it’s all right.

They booed him off the court.

That is inat with nothing on it: raw, correct, and expensive. He was right. Roddick had been condescending. Djokovic answered him on the court, which is the only place the answer counts, and then spent the win buying an argument with twenty thousand people.

The price of running on this stuff at twenty-one, before you have learned to aim it, is a room full of people who now dislike you.

Three years later, same tournament, same building, same disposition in the stands. Semifinal, Djokovic against Roger Federer, and the crowd wanted Federer the way crowds always want Federer.

Djokovic lost the first two sets. He won the next two. In the fifth, Federer served at 5-3, 40-15 — two match points, one swing from the end of it.

Federer hit a slice serve wide to the forehand. Djokovic, who had no business doing anything with it except getting it back, hit a cross-court return winner.

Go watch the clip. What people remember is the shot. What I keep going back to is the two seconds after it, when he turns and opens his arms to a stadium that has spent two hours pulling against him.

He saved the second match point. He did not lose another game, and took the set 7-5.

Same engine as 2008. Three years of learning where to point it.

The difference between the two nights is not the feeling. It is the two seconds after the feeling, and where the ball goes.

I had it filed as a story about a young hothead who grew up. That’s the shape the material wants. Volatile kid, arguments with crowds, then two decades of visible work on the mental game until the temper is metabolized into something useful.

Except that in the 2023 Wimbledon final, in the fifth set, thirty-six years old, holding more majors than any man who has ever played, Novak Djokovic failed to break Carlos Alcaraz, lost his own serve, and swung his racket into the net post hard enough that they fined him eight thousand dollars.

There is no redemption arc. The afterburner was still lighting at the summit, against the young man who had arrived to take his place.

And notice who is missing from that scene. In 2008 there was a man with a name who had said a specific thing on a specific night. In 2011 there was a crowd, which is not a person and cannot really be answered, though he answered it anyway. By 2023 there was nobody at all. Alcaraz had not mocked him. Alcaraz was simply better on the day, and being succeeded is not condescension.

The seat had been getting refilled for fifteen years, and by the end it did not need an occupant.

Share

Which is where I had the machinery wrong.

There is only one tank. Inat is not a dirtier fuel that some unlucky people find themselves running on. It is the same drive, put through a different burner.

The main engine burns it as craft. Steady, efficient, all day, for twenty years, and it is what gets you out of bed in February: the game itself, the work, the people you go home to. That is what keeps a man at the top of a professional sport, and it is what the camera found in Paris.

Inat is the afterburner: bolted to the same engine, fed from the same tank, capable of enormous thrust for a short time at a fuel cost nothing else in the aircraft can justify.

You do not cruise on an afterburner. You light it to get off the ground, or when something is on your tail.

What it costs

In January 2022, Djokovic flew to Melbourne to defend his Australian Open title. He was carrying a medical exemption from the country’s vaccination requirement, granted on the basis of a PCR-confirmed infection in December, approved by a panel of medical experts at Tennis Australia, reviewed by the Victorian government, and recorded as consistent with the published guidance of Australia’s own immunisation advisory body, which allowed deferral for six months after exactly that.

His visa was cancelled at the airport anyway. He won it back in court. It was cancelled a second time, personally, by the immigration minister, on public-interest grounds. The Full Court dismissed his appeal on the sixteenth and he was deported the day before the tournament began.

Over that year, holding his position cost him the Australian Open, the US Open, and a run of Masters events.

I am not relitigating the policy. The definition holds. Inat wants a specific audience that looked at you a specific way, and in January 2022 he had one that was not a stadium crowd: people with his paperwork in front of them and the power to decide whether he could work, who turned him around anyway. And then most of the planet, which is how I came to know about it in a year when I could not have named four tennis players.

In 2008 the price of not backing down was a stadium booing. In 2022 it was two Grand Slams out of a career that is measured in Grand Slams.

He went back to Melbourne in 2023 and won it.

Where it came from

In March of 1999, NATO began bombing Belgrade to force Milošević out of Kosovo. Novak Djokovic was eleven. His family spent seventy-eight consecutive nights in a basement shelter. The sirens went at half past eight. His father, Srdjan, has described those years as being on the edge of existence: a family spending money it did not have on a child’s tennis, in a city that was being hit.

And inat is not a neutral dictionary entry. Serbia has used the word about itself, including under that bombing, which means the thing was handed to him by a country before it was ever handed to him by a basement.

He did not select any of this off a menu.

Alfred Adler broke with Freud over exactly this question, arguing that we are pulled by our purposes rather than pushed by our histories. Here he is, as rendered by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga, whose book is a dialogue about him rather than a book by him:

“No experience is in itself a cause of our success or failure. We do not suffer from the shock of our experiences — the so-called trauma — but instead we make out of them whatever suits our purposes. We are not determined by our experiences, but the meaning we give them is self-determining.”

Which sharpens the claim rather than dissolving it. The basement handed him material almost nobody is handed. What he made of it he has been deciding every day since — twenty years of breathing and diet and meditation and every hour a professional athlete can buy.

That is not a disposition. That is a maintenance budget, and it is the reason the thing has not killed him.

Share

The other way

The proof that you can get there without any of this was standing on the other side of the net in 2011.

Roger Federer spent two decades at the top of the same sport, finished with a career that needs no explaining, and did it in rooms that were already his. He never had to be booed into anything. That night in New York, twenty thousand people wanted him to win — which was Djokovic’s entire problem. The man across the net had gotten all the way there without ever once needing a building to be against him.

I know what the record shows and I know who the crowd was for.

So if you don’t have this, nothing is wrong with you. Most of the people at the top don’t.

The test

Earlier this year, I spent a birthday on a karting track, with real karts, quick enough to teach you something. The driver ahead of me, with two centimetres between his bumper and mine, missed his line, hit dirt, and took us both out of a pass I was seconds from making. Debris went across my visor. And I watched my own mind produce, instantly and with total conviction, the story where the problem was him. Others’ advantage. Others’ mistakes. Others, in my way, changing my outcome. The narrative came fast. It felt righteous. It felt true.

I spent a whole essay running that back frame by frame: where the fire lit, and where it went. It went into the grievance first. I took the next few corners with a narrator in the seat, building a case against a man who never knew he had been cast. Then, down a straight, I breathed it back onto the racing line, and I took the last driver at the finish. Same energy either way. The corners I spent litigating are the ones I do not get back.

And the test is not whether you need them: Roddick, the crowd, the minister.

You don’t. That is the part I had backwards for a while. Nobody put inat in Novak Djokovic and nobody can take it out — not Roddick with an apology, not a stadium changing its mind, not an immigration minister reversing himself on a Sunday. It was in him at twenty-one and it was in him at thirty-six with more majors than anyone who has ever played. The crowd was never the fuel. The crowd was the match.

Which means the only question that has ever mattered is what happens in the two seconds after it lights.

So: think of the last time it lit. Not the last time you were annoyed. The last time somebody looked at you a specific way and said something specific about you. You will have one, and you will find it fast. The tell is the speed of recall.

Now — what did you do with the next two seconds?

If it went into the work, into the shot or the page or whatever was actually in front of you, that is an afterburner used the way afterburners are for. Enormous thrust, briefly, in the direction you were already going.

If it went into the reply, the argument, the case you kept building on the drive home, then you spent it on the crowd. That is 2008. Nobody’s character is on trial here. It is simply expensive, and the bill gets paid in the only currency that ever counted, which is whatever you actually made.

Djokovic has spent two decades getting better at those two seconds, and he still misses some. Thirty-six years old in a Wimbledon final, swinging at a net post. What he has that most of us don’t is the budget: two decades and every resource a professional athlete can buy, spent on the upkeep of a thing that was going to fire whether he liked it or not.

Know that before you build another decade on it. The question was never whether you could put the thing down, because you can’t and neither can he. The question is whether you are paying for it as you go or quietly deferring, and this is one of those bills that arrives on a schedule you do not set.

It is checkable, and it takes two seconds.

Share

Novak Djokovic: The Wolf in Winter is on Prime Video from August 20. It opens on inat, which is how I ended up here.

Sources and Inspiration

The Courage to Be Disliked - Ichiro Kishimi & Fumitake Koga

Open: An Autobiography - Andre Agassi

The Inner Game of Tennis - Timothy Gallwey

At Choeung Ek, outside Phnom Penh, the ground does not keep its secrets. It is a quiet field now, green, with a tall memorial stupa at the center and a pond where dragonflies hang in those dancing visions of radiating heat. You walk on raised wooden paths. There are small signs asking you not to step on the bone. After heavy rain, fragments still work their way up through the soil: a tooth, a knuckle, a scrap of checked cloth from someone’s shirt. The staff collect what surfaces. The earth keeps offering it back.

There is a tree near one of the grave pits with a sign in front of it. I stood in front of it for a while and then I could not stand in front of it anymore. My photograph:

The men who did this were not monsters, most of them. They were schoolteachers and clerks and farm boys handed a theory about building a just society, a more fair society, from the ground up, and they believed it, some to the end. That is the part that should frighten us, and the part we have mostly chosen to forget.

I have stood on both sides of a border that ran through the same people.

If you take the train east across what used to be the inner-German frontier, you can still read the two systems off the land itself, decades after the wall came down. At reunification in 1990, East Germany was producing at something like a third to two-fifths of the West’s output per worker, on the same soil, in the same language, same genetics, built from the industrial base the two halves once shared. The gap has narrowed since. It has not closed. At significant expense subsidizing the east.

Go further. In 1948, before the communists took full control, Czechoslovakia was richer than Austria. Same central-European stock, same starting line. By 1989, forty years later, the Czechoslovak economy had fallen to roughly half of Austria’s. Slovakia, the more rural half, still sits at roughly three-fifths of Austrian output today, more than a generation after it got its freedom back. The border did that. The people were the same on both sides. The border, and what each side chose to build behind it.

There is a photograph, taken from the space station, of the Korean peninsula at night. The South is a sheet of light. The North is a black hole with a single dim smudge where Pyongyang sits. One peninsula, one people, cut in two in 1945 by nothing but which army arrived first. The light is the difference between two ideas about how humans should be organized.

So the question is not whether central planning is inefficient. I have made that argument elsewhere, and the numbers make it better than I can. The question this field at Choeung Ek forces is darker and simpler. Why does the road from we will build a just society keep arriving at the same address?

The ledger nobody wants to read

Before the mechanism, the weight. Time has sanded the numbers into a vague millions, and vague is how you forget. The honest scholars refuse to give one big total, and their refusal is why you should trust them. Here is the record the way they keep it: as ranges, the disputes named, the famines and executions and camps kept separate, because they are separate crimes.

• China, the Great Leap Forward famine, 1958–62. Somewhere between sixteen million (the demographers working from census reconstruction, Coale and Peng) and forty-five million (Frank Dikötter, working from local archives). Yang Jisheng, whose own family starved and who spent decades in the provincial records, lands near thirty-six. The dispute is over how to count. That it happened, no one serious disputes.

• Ukraine, the Holodomor, 1932–33. Three and a half to five million dead in a grain-growing region, while the state kept requisitioning the grain. Historians still argue about whether it was engineered as genocide or produced by ideological policy that would not admit failure. They no longer argue much about the number.

• The Soviet Great Terror, 1937–38. The archives, once opened, showed 681,692 people shot in two years, a figure the secret police kept themselves.

• The Gulag. Something over 1.6 million documented deaths in the camps, and probably more: dying prisoners were often released just before the end, to keep the mortality figures clean.

• Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge, 1975–79. Between roughly 1.5 million confirmed in the mass graves and 2.2 million by demographic reconstruction. Out of a population under eight million. The field I stood in was one of hundreds.

• North Korea, the famine of the 1990s. Around half a million to 635,000 dead by the careful census-based estimate, in a country that still runs prison camps holding on the order of a hundred thousand people.

You can add these. People have. The famous aggregations run to eighty, ninety, a hundred million. But the best-known of them, The Black Book of Communism, was disowned in part by its own authors, who said the editor had inflated subtotals and forced a comparison the evidence would not carry. Sum a famine and a firing squad and a labor camp into one number and you have stopped counting and started campaigning.

So I will not campaign. The stack says one thing, without a total: this happened in Russia and China and Cambodia and Korea and Ethiopia, everywhere the same idea was carried to its end. One unlucky nation is an accident. A dozen is a mechanism.

The point was never that our tyrants outscored theirs. Line up the twentieth century’s horrors and the Nazi regime is right there in the front rank; in the specific bloodlands where German and Soviet killing overlapped, Hitler’s machine killed more. A body count is not a scoreboard; keeping one is a whataboutism that changes nothing about the machine. What I am after is how the machine works, and what we have chosen to remember.

Share

History already ran the experiment

The comforting story is that these regimes were hijacked by bad men: if only Stalin had not followed Lenin, if only Pol Pot had been gentler. It comforts because it locates the disease in a person and leaves the theory clean.

The trouble is that history ran the experiment both ways, and the variable that changed the outcome was not the man. It was the choice the system made when its plan failed.

Watch it happen in the same country, twice. Lenin imposed War Communism, seized the grain, abolished the market, and produced economic collapse and a famine that killed perhaps five million. And then Lenin reversed himself. The New Economic Policy of 1921 let the markets and the peasants breathe, and the country began to recover. The reform was available; a communist reached for it. Then Lenin died, and Stalin reversed the reversal, drove the peasants back onto collective farms at gunpoint, and the corpses returned by the millions.

Now watch the other country. Mao’s Great Leap produced the worst famine in recorded human history. His successor, Deng Xiaoping, looked at the wreckage and made the opposite choice. He let the farmers keep what they grew. He opened the coast to trade. He did not become a liberal, and the regime stayed brutal. But on the single question of whether to feed people or to feed the theory, he chose people, and the World Bank put it exactly: over the next four decades, “the number of people in China with incomes below $1.90 per day... has fallen by close to 800 million.” Eight hundred million. The freed farmers grew new food, wealth that had not existed the week before. The largest escape from poverty in our species’ history, and it began the day the doctrine was allowed to lose. Capitalism did it, under a flag that never stopped calling itself communist, and stayed authoritarian to the end.

One more, closer to home. Franklin Roosevelt met the Great Depression and did not abolish capitalism. He rewired it. The Hoover Institution, no friend of the New Deal, puts it simply: Roosevelt’s people believed their mission was to save capitalism, and they did. He is a hero of this essay, a man the left claims and the right resents, because when the system failed he corrected it instead of replacing it.

The reversal is not only a communist story. After the war Britain took the commanding heights into public hands, coal and the railways and the Bank of England, and Austria took even more: its largest banks, its steel, its heavy industry. Both got a version of the stagnation the theory promises. Britain’s nationalized industries spent a generation subsidized, strike-bound, and losing money; Austria’s state steel was hemorrhaging by the mid-eighties. And both, being democracies with their courts and their newspapers and their ballots intact, did the thing a democracy can still do when the plan fails. They admitted it and sold it back. Thatcher privatized British Telecom, British Gas, British Airways; Austria sold much of its state sector back over the following decades. The ownership took them partway down the road. The machinery to reverse let them turn around before it hardened.

That is the whole game, and it runs two ways. Deng and the Lenin of 1921 corrected from the top, by choice, with nothing forcing their hand, which is why the correction lasted exactly as long as the man who made it: Lenin reached for the reform and it worked, and then Stalin reached back. Roosevelt, Britain, and Austria corrected the durable way, because a court and a ballot they had never suspended could overrule the men in charge whether those men liked it or not. Both routes exist; only the second survives its founder. Public ownership is only the accelerant. It generates the pressure: the shortage, the falsified quota, the plan that cannot admit it failed. What decides whether that pressure ends in a correction or a coffin is whether, when the system is proven wrong, anything is still standing that is permitted to say so.

Why it cannot admit it

The thinkers saw this machine long before I stood in the field it produces.

Adam Smith saw the first gear turning two hundred and fifty years ago, watching the men he called of system, the ones so in love with their own plan for society that they could not bear a deviation from it:

He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board.

The pieces move on their own. That is the flaw the plan can never design around, because the plan needs the pieces to hold still. A price is the pieces talking: a signal, assembled out of millions of things nobody at the center could know, telling everyone what is scarce and what is abundant. Abolish the price and you go blind. The scarcity is still real; you have simply lost the instrument that could see it, and now you are steering a country you cannot see.

So the plan fails. It always fails, because it was blind from the first day. Now the system meets Deng and Stalin’s choice, with a trap folded in: a system that owns the economy has also, without quite meaning to, taken ownership of the truth about it. The plan’s failure is now the state’s failure: to admit the harvest fell short is to admit the theory was wrong, and the theory is all that legitimizes the people in charge. So the harvest did not fall short. The quota was met. The bad news dies at every level on its way up, and the lie travels smoother the higher it climbs, until the men at the top are steering by a map of a country that does not exist.

Karl Popper gave this its deepest name. He spent the war years arguing that the real root of the terror was certainty: the belief that history has a known destination and that you can read its trajectory. Once you believe you know where history is going, everyone standing in the way stops being an opponent and becomes an obstacle to the future itself. In place of a better plan, Popper offered a humbler question. Stop asking who should rule and start asking how we can design institutions that let us remove bad rulers without bloodshed. A society that cannot correct its errors, he understood, is a society that must eventually defend them.

A system that has made being wrong impossible does not simply stagnate. It keeps being wrong on purpose, and it punishes whoever notices.

Watch what that punishment becomes. James C. Scott, mapping the century’s planning catastrophes, found the same four ingredients every time: a state that flattens a complex society into something it can command, a muscular faith that the plan is science, the power to impose it, and a population too broken to resist. He is careful to insist the machine is not owned by one political side, that the bulldozer and the collective farm are cousins. But he shows you the revolutionary version in Lenin’s fight with Rosa Luxemburg. The vanguard, Lenin held, knows what the workers want better than they do, and must seize the state to give it to them. Luxemburg saw the ending from the beginning: substitute the party for the people and you get a new despotism in the people’s name.

James Burnham named that despotism’s grammar. Democracy, redefined as the leader embodying the will of the people, curdles into its opposite, because once the leader is the people, opposition to the leader is opposition to the people, which is to say treason. He quotes the mechanism at its coldest: the chosen of the people can no longer be opposed in any way. He personifies the majority... He is, moreover, infallible. This is the doorway, and it does not have a left or a right sign hung over it. Pinochet handed most of Chile to the market and murdered some three thousand of his opponents anyway; the machine runs on the removed check, and does not care who owns the factory. As Huey Long said, if fascism destroys democracy in this country, it will do so in the name of democracy. The form changes. The thrust is always the same: one party, leading, silencing.

And at the bottom of the stairs you find the hardware. Forced labor to break the body. Forced concentration to sort the population. And forced belief, enforced by the men who steam open the mail and file your private fears in numbered jars. I have stood in one of those filing rooms, in Berlin, and written about what it does to a people to make everyone an informer on everyone. It is the last room on a corridor that begins with a sincere desire to build a better world.

There is a stage past the filing rooms. When a system has abolished every check and used up every external enemy, it does not stop; it turns on the people it has left and makes them complicit, so that none of them can ever safely accuse it. In the summer of 1968, in Guangxi province, the Cultural Revolution reached that stage. A geography teacher named Wu Shufang was beaten to death by her own students in a struggle session, the Maoist ritual of public denunciation, and then she was eaten. She was one of at least four hundred and twenty-one people cannibalized across the province that year, once the archives were counted, in counties where there was no famine and plenty of food. Hunger was never the point. The scholar who documented it found the real one: sharing the act spread the guilt, so the organizers were safe and no one who had swallowed a mouthful could ever testify. Refusing marked you as suspect; some were forced to eat to prove they were not. That is the bottom of the staircase, the same mechanism as the filing cabinets, only naked: a whole population made to swallow its own conscience so that the party would be safe.

Why we forgot the second room

We know the first room. We have made it, correctly, into the moral center of our civilization: the ghetto, the cattle car, the camp. A child in any Western school can tell you what the swastika means (maybe I’m wrong these days). This is right, and it is one of the few unambiguous moral achievements of the last century.

But there is a second room, and we have let it go cold.

The Harvard historian Charles Maier called this the difference between hot memory and cold memory: fascism’s crimes stay hot, monumentalized, taught, felt in the body, while communism’s crimes go cold, receding into a fog of well, that was complicated. Even Robert Conquest, the man who spent his life documenting Stalin’s terror, admitted he still felt the Holocaust was the worse thing, though the arithmetic would not obviously support the feeling. Anne Applebaum, who wrote the definitive history of the Gulag, put it flatly: it rivaled the Holocaust in barbarity and exceeded it in sheer numbers, and almost no one in the West can name a single camp.

The polling makes the forgetting measurable. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, chartered by Congress, found that most Americans do not know the Chinese Communist Party killed more people than Nazi Germany. It is an advocacy group, so weigh it accordingly, but a Cato Institute survey lands in the same place: a majority of Americans under thirty now hold a favorable view of socialism, and a striking share extend the goodwill to communism itself. You can watch the asymmetry walking down any street. A young man in a Che Guevara shirt reads as mildly rebellious, a little romantic. He is wearing the face of a man who ran firing squads and founded a labor-camp system. Put the equivalent fascist on a t-shirt and the room empties.

I am not claiming the two horrors are morally identical, and serious historians are right to guard against the crude equivalence that some have used to launder local collaboration in the Holocaust. The claim is narrower and, I think, undeniable: we remember one and we have forgotten the other, and the forgetting is not neutral. It clears the stage. The path looks new and daring to the young people setting out on it because we took down the signs that said where it goes.

Share

What they say they want

Every one of them said they meant well, and we never teach that part.

Lenin ran on Peace, Land, Bread. In the first free election Russia ever held his Bolsheviks came in second, and when the assembly the people had chosen sat down to govern, he let it meet for thirteen hours and dissolved it at gunpoint. The Red Terror was declared ten months after the coup. The peasants who had been promised land got the grain requisitions instead, and when the drought came, five million of them starved.

Fidel Castro told the New York Times in 1957, on the record, that he and his movement were not communists; his platform was free elections and a free press. The revolution took Havana in the first days of 1959, and the firing squads began within the week. The elections never came.

Hugo Chávez ran in 1998 as a moderate, the anti-corruption outsider. He seized more than a thousand companies, and by the time the currency had inflated into wallpaper a quarter of the country had walked out on foot.

Daniel Ortega returned to power in Nicaragua as a chastened democrat who had made his peace with elections, then jailed a Catholic bishop for twenty-six years, exiled him, and stripped his old revolutionary comrades of their citizenship.

Every one of them made that same sound on the way in. Most of them were lying to themselves first.

Which is why I am writing this in 2026 instead of leaving it as history. The machine has a right-hand door too, the strongman who keeps the market and burns the constitution, and it is a real fear. But the door with a written 2026 constitutional blueprint behind it is the left one, so that is the one I am standing in front of. The Democratic Socialists of America announced it had crossed a hundred and twenty thousand members this summer, by its own count the largest socialist organization in American history, and adopted a new program. Their own words are more honest than any summary I could write, and they deserve a fair hearing, so here they are.

They are not hiding a gulag. They say the opposite, and I believe they mean it: their vision, the program says, leaves behind authoritarian visions of socialism in the dustbin of history. They want, in their words, a world where everyone is free, equal, and cared for. Nobody in that room means the tree at Choeung Ek. That is the whole point. Every name in the list above could have signed that sentence, and several of them, in their way, did.

And then read what they propose to build. Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries. A new constitution, and a democratic socialist republic. And this, which I had to read twice: Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.

Sit with that last one. Public ownership of the largest firms is arguable; Britain tried it and lived, though it already fixes the eye on the pile that exists and misses the firms not yet founded, the same blindness abolishing the price produced. Subordinating the courts to the Congress and abolishing the Senate is a different order of thing. It reaches for the one machine Britain and Austria left alone, the one that let them turn around, the machinery Popper called the only thing standing between us and the corridor. That is the plank that matters, and it is why the disavowal does not move me. A DSA sympathizer will say, fairly, that his movement would correct the way Roosevelt did, that America has two hundred and fifty years of reversal built into it. He is right that the machinery is there. He is proposing to spend his first act tearing it out.

The move that matters is older than Marx: raise a single body above all rivals and bend the courts to serve it, so nothing is left with the standing to tell the majority it has erred. Mao’s 1949 Common Program did exactly that. An executive answerable to a legislature is only a parliament, and Germany runs one well; the lethal specific is the court that can no longer say no, welded to the ownership of the commanding heights, so that when the plan fails there is no judge to stop the search for someone to blame and no market to reveal the failure in the first place. That is the room that can only double down. I do not think they know whose house they are drawing.

Nobody means the gulag. Whatever else they intended, none of them set out for the tree at Choeung Ek. That has never been the safeguard; it may even be the fuel, because the more sincerely you have staked your life on the theory, the less able you are to let it lose. The people who built every room on that corridor believed they were building a humane and democratic society, right up until the harvest came in short and the only choices left were to confess the theory had failed or to find someone to blame.

The door marked exit

The field ended for me at the ground that would not stop giving up its dead.

There is something almost unbearable in it, and something like hope. Choeung Ek does not forget. Decades on, the rain still lifts the evidence to the surface, a tooth, a button, a strip of cloth, as if the earth itself refuses the amnesia the rest of us find so easy. The memory we have let go cold is held, stubbornly, in the stifling Cambodian heat.

We could choose to be that stubborn, and choose it generously. The young idealist in the Che shirt wants what humans have always wanted, a world with less suffering in it. The answer to a bad theory of how to build a better world is a better theory, and ours is a modest one: a way to keep finding out where we are wrong before the cost comes due. We happen to have it, tested against the bloodiest evidence any argument ever had.

The theory is this. No one is wise enough to hold the whole plan, so do not build a system that requires anyone to. Keep the price signals and the open argument and the independent court, because they are how a society stays able to notice it is wrong. David Deutsch put the two halves together: wealth is created knowledge, and knowledge is created only by systems free to find out they were wrong. Build the abundance instead of dividing the scarcity; the light on the southern half of that peninsula was not redistributed from the North, it was created, by people left free enough to create it. And keep the memory hot. Keep it as hot as the other one, out of the same respect for the same dead. The Promethean fire.

I stood in front of that tree and I could not stand there anymore. But the standing is the point. Someone has to keep the sign up, and read it aloud, and refuse to let it go cold, so that the next generation of good people who mean a better world can see, before they take the first step, exactly where the road runs out.

Share

Sources and Inspiration

The Open Society and Its Enemies - Karl Popper

The Beginning of Infinity - David Deutsch

Seeing Like a State - James C. Scott

The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom - James Burnham

The Theory of Moral Sentiments - Adam Smith

The Road to Serfdom - F.A. Hayek

A young comedian named Orny Adams is falling apart on camera, and Jerry Seinfeld cannot understand a word he is saying.

This is in Comedian, a documentary from 2002. Seinfeld has just done the unthinkable for a man at the top of his profession: he retired his entire act, more than two decades of material honed to a razor, and started over from nothing, working small clubs to build a new hour the way an unknown would. Adams is a decade into the grind, on the come-up, certain he is about to break through. The film follows them both.

In the scene I keep returning to, Adams is spiraling. His friends from high school went to Wall Street and got rich. He has been grinding at comedy for a decade. If it doesn't happen soon, he says, and he means it, he might kill himself. He lays the case out like a lawyer: how close he is, how long he's waited, how much he is owed.

And Seinfeld just looks at him. You can watch the incomprehension move across his face. He keeps saying what. What? The idea that a high-school friend's money on Wall Street belongs on the same ledger as Adams's own career reaches Seinfeld as pure static. He can't parse it as a sentence, let alone disagree with it. Two men in the same trade, in the same room, and one of them is speaking a language the other never learned.

I found this idea through Jeremy Giffon, whose short essay about it I haven't been able to shake. His name for what Seinfeld has and Adams lacks is grip strength.

Watch what Adams is actually doing. He is gripping the result rather than the work. Fame. The title of famous comedian, which is a thing conferred by other people: audiences, bookers, the man behind the desk at Letterman. Adams did get on Letterman. He got good. He built a career that kept him working for years. He never got the stardom he was sure was his, and on camera he is miserable in the not-getting.

The part Giffon puts his finger on is that the grip didn't help. Adams held on with everything he had and it changed nothing, because the thing he was gripping sat in someone else's hands the whole time. The tennis teacher Timothy Gallwey spent his whole career on a small version of this discovery: the grip itself, the straining and the self-watching, is the interference. The harder Adams pulled, the more completely he belonged to the people who could hand it to him or withhold it.

Meanwhile the tightest thing Jerry Seinfeld ever held onto was the steering wheel of the Porsche he drove between clubs.1

Later in the film Seinfeld says something that sounds, at first, like a throwaway. Asked how he knows whether a comedian has made it, he offers a single test: are you still working? If you're still doing it, you've made it. If you stopped, you failed. That is the whole rubric.

It is a strange scoreboard. No mention of money, or fame, or a special, or a rank. No comparison to anyone else in the field. There is one number on it and the number is still here. Adams is measuring himself against everyone: his Wall Street friends, the comics ahead of him, the life he was promised. Seinfeld is measuring himself against nothing at all, except whether he showed up to work.

They are not playing the same game. They are not even playing the same kind of game.

Which raises the question of whether you can choose. If you weren't born a Seinfeld, if you came into the world an Adams, gripping and comparing and owed, are you stuck with it?

Tobi Lütke, who built Shopify, is evidence that you are not. On David Senra's podcast earlier this year he told a small story on himself. For most of his life he was terrified of public speaking. So he sat down for a week, and every day for about ten minutes he wrote that he liked it. Over and over. His explanation is almost mechanical: write something about yourself enough times and it settles into the brain below the level of argument, and then the brain goes to work reconciling your behavior to the identity you installed. It starts rewarding you for acting like the person you claimed to be. He did it, it worked, and now he speaks.

Notice precisely what he did. He wrote I like this, a disposition rather than a trophy or end-state, and let the liking pull him into the reps that actually made him good. Public speaking as a finite contest to be judged and ranked is a nightmare you brace against. Public speaking as a thing you simply enjoy and keep doing is a game with no exit, which is to say no losing.

That is the line between the thing that works and the thing that doesn't. You can reprogram which game you think you're playing. You cannot crown yourself the winner of the old one.

The same move scales all the way up, and it can get loud.

In April, Jensen Huang, who runs Nvidia, sat for a long interview with Dwarkesh Patel. It was cordial until the subject turned to China, and whether the United States should sell it advanced chips. Patel pressed a reasonable-sounding premise: even if American firms competed in China, they would probably lose that market eventually, so accepting the loss was simply realism.

Huang would not accept it. What he rejected was the premise itself. "You're not talking to somebody who woke up a loser," he said. "That loser attitude, that loser premise makes no sense to me." A beat later: "I don't think the United States is a loser. Our industry is not a loser. That losing proposition, that losing mindset, makes no sense to me."

It got memed as a rich man losing his cool. It is more interesting than that. And way better. Huang has already won every finite game his industry has to offer. He is the richest, most dominant figure in the business, the man who remade computing; he could stop today and be a titan for the rest of his life. He keeps going because the trophies were only ever a byproduct. The drive is to keep pushing the boundary outward, and that is why the loser premise is intolerable to him. Loser, in his mouth, means one thing: a person who agrees to stop. To accept that you will lose the market because you were always going to lose it is to agree that the boundary is a wall instead of a horizon, that you have been playing inside the game's limits rather than with them. For an infinite player that concession is the only real loss there is. So he keeps building for the market everyone is telling him to write off, treating each new restriction as a thing to engineer around rather than a verdict to accept. His refusal keeps the wall looking like a horizon, which is the only condition under which anyone ever climbs one.

Adams forced the outcome and it cost him everything. Seinfeld and Huang play the game, and neither of them can hear the loser's premise even when it is spoken directly to their face. The incomprehension only looks like arrogance from the outside. From inside the other game, it is simply what the game feels like.

None of this is new, and none of it is mine.

A religion scholar named James Carse gave the distinction its name in 1986, decades before Simon Sinek repackaged it for boardrooms, and Carse's is the stranger, better book. It is called Finite and Infinite Games. A finite game, he said, is played for the purpose of winning. It has fixed rules, clear boundaries, and an ending, and its winners carry titles conferred by onlookers: champion, richest, most famous. An infinite game is played for the purpose of continuing the play. Its rules bend to keep everyone in it, its boundaries are horizons that move as you approach them, and it has no winners, only players who are still playing. Finite players, Carse wrote, play within boundaries. Infinite players play with them.

Put Seinfeld's one-question test back in that light and it stops sounding strange. Are you still working is the only score an infinite game keeps. And the finite player's tragedy comes into focus: he needs the world to hand him his title, so he spends his life reaching for a thing no amount of effort can force. The infinite player needs nothing but to keep playing, which happens to be the one thing no one can take from him.

This is the kind of idea that curdles if you swallow it whole.

Lütke's trick works because he installed a disposition and then let reality do the proving. He wrote I like this and then went and spoke until it was true. The counterfeit version writes I have already won and waits for the world to agree, and when the world doesn't, it writes the sentence louder. That isn't manifestation. It is Adams with a vision board, the same grip aimed now at reality itself. The honest version keeps a door open to being wrong; the delusion nails the door shut.

Even so, only so much of this is Huang's to decide. He can refuse the loser premise, and the boundary he refuses to accept is still being drawn by people who are not him: export-control lawyers in Washington, planners in Beijing, the physics of the next chip. An infinite player keeps the game open by refusing to concede it is closed, but he does not get to decide, alone, whether the wall he treats as a horizon actually moves. Sometimes the wall is a wall, and a specific game really does end. No one can end the playing itself; they can only take the particular thing he was playing for. That is the honest version of the shadow, and it is easiest to see in someone whose game has already finished.

James Dyson built more than five thousand failed prototypes of his vacuum before one worked, going deep into debt while nearly everyone told him to stop. For those years he was indistinguishable from a crank who couldn't admit defeat. Then the thing worked, and now we call his refusal vision. We call it that only because he won. For every Dyson who kept going and was vindicated, there is a crowd who kept going with the same faith and the same grip and were simply wrong. We never hear from them. The only reason we know Orny Adams's name is that he happened to be standing next to Seinfeld when the camera was running; the thousands like him left no record at all. Survivorship bias is stitched into the whole frame. The refusal to concede reads as courage only in the winner's retelling, and you cannot know from the inside which retelling you are living in.

I notice all of this because I recognize the grip. I run some companies, and there are stretches where I catch myself keeping someone else's scoreboard: last year's number, a milestone I decided I was owed by a certain age, a win I keep reaching for as though reaching harder could drag it closer. It never can. The market holds that prize the way the audience held Adams's. On the days I'm gripping, I am miserable and I am worse at the actual work. On the days I forget the scoreboard and just build the next thing, the work gets better and the days get lighter. That much I can vouch for; whether it also drags the results closer I have stopped claiming to know. It is the same mechanism, running at the only scale where I can watch it clearly, which is my own.

The film ends, more or less, with Seinfeld back in the car. He is a very rich man who has chosen to spend his nights driving to small rooms to tell jokes that aren't working yet, to audiences who sometimes turn on him, so that he can slowly build an hour he will eventually retire and start over from again. The wheel is the only thing in his hands. He is not reaching for anything, because there is nothing to reach for. He is already doing the one thing that counts as winning, which is the thing itself.

Somewhere out there is Orny Adams, who kept working too. Picture two lines on a graph. One is the clock, the years passing at the same rate for both men. The other is how long those years felt from the inside. For Seinfeld the two lines run close together, because a man doing the thing he loves barely notices the time. For Orny they diverge wildly, every year of waiting stretched and soured by the wanting. His journey was surely much harder than Jerry's. Part of that is plain material fact: Jerry had banked the money and the security, and Orny had neither. But the deeper tax was the gripping itself, which steals the life out of the time you spend reaching for the thing.

We all have to play the game. The one prize no one can hand you or withhold is the playing itself, which makes it the only one that was ever yours to keep.

Share

Sources and Inspiration

The Inner Game of Tennis - W. Timothy Gallwey

Finite and Infinite Games - James P. Carse

"Grip Strength" - Jeremy Giffon

The cursor is blinking in the message box.

I need to fire a vendor.

I like the people. That is part of the problem. The underlying product is no longer right for the business, and we have tried to make it work. Instead of ending the relationship, I keep reaching for one more swing. One more change. One more chance.

I call the delay patience. Some days I call it loyalty. Ending a relationship with people I respect feels like a verdict on them, although the decision is about the product and what it is doing to the business.

Then the rules arrive.

Do not abandon good people. Do not mistake friction for failure. Do not make the hard decision until every possible repair has been exhausted. Give it another month. Try one more configuration. Be patient.

The strange part is that nobody is usually saying this out loud. The manager is not standing behind you with a hand on your shoulder. The audience is not gathered at the door with clipboards. The rules have your voice by now. They sound like judgment. They sound like maturity. They sound, worst of all, like realism.

I know this voice. I have called it prudence when it was fear. I have called it humility when it was a refusal to be seen. I have called it timing when the clock was not involved at all.

That is how a rule becomes a cage. It stops feeling like a rule.

It starts feeling like the room.

The Rule Starts Wearing Reality

Robert Anton Wilson had a gift for making invisible mental machinery feel tactile. This is part of what makes him useful and part of what makes him dangerous. He was brilliant, funny, excessive, and allergic to solemn authority. A writer like Wilson rewards selective reading. I read him with gratitude and scissors.

The clippings worth keeping are extraordinary.

Wilson's cleanest line in Prometheus Rising is still the whole engine: "Whatever the Thinker thinks, the Prover proves." The Thinker installs a proposition. The Prover searches reality for confirmation. If the Thinker says I am not ready, the Prover finds every tremor in the voice, every unread email, every person with better credentials. If the Thinker says people like me do not ask for that, the Prover finds the family story, the class signal, the social penalty, the one time someone rolled their eyes.

The Prover is loyal.

Wilson called the result a reality tunnel: a perceptual world organized around the assumptions that built it. The tunnel goes deeper than opinion. Opinions sit in the mind. Reality tunnels alter what the mind notices. They change which facts enter the room and which ones wait outside, tapping politely on glass.

Dr. Julie Gurner, whose *Ultra Successful* essays translate executive psychology into weekly practice, has become a source of reckoning with my own reality tunnels.

Her pieces keep returning to a practical sequence: name the rule, notice the label, interrupt the reaction, find the avoided action, and change the inputs that keep reinstalling the old tunnel. The pattern is the same. People inherit or invent rules about permission, process, speed, scale, money, status, and social approval. Then they behave according to those rules. Then the behavior produces evidence that the rules were true.

Do not ask, so nobody says yes. Do not publish, so nobody responds. Do not apply, so nobody chooses you. Do not speak plainly in the meeting, so the room keeps thinking the same way. The absence of evidence gets misread as evidence of absence. The Prover reports back: see, there was no opening.

But the opening was never tested.

Some rules began as accurate readings of danger. The trouble starts when yesterday's evidence gets promoted into a law for every room.

The grounded version of the ethereal idea is smaller and more useful: a thought changes what you notice; what you notice changes what you try; what you try changes what reality gets to answer.

That is enough.

The Label Starts Managing You

A simple example is "imposter syndrome," because the phrase is familiar enough in professional life that we rarely hear what it says.

An imposter deceives. An imposter knows they do not belong and sneaks into the room anyway under false credentials. Most people who use the phrase are describing something else: the discomfort of learning at a higher level than the last one, in public, with witnesses.

That discomfort is real, and sometimes it contains a signal: underpreparation, thin support, a hostile room, a standard you have not met yet. The label becomes dangerous when shorthand hardens into identity. Treat the phrase as self-knowledge often enough and the mind receives its instruction. The Thinker says fraud. The Prover finds fraudulence everywhere. The email you reread three times becomes proof. The one question you could not answer becomes proof. The praise becomes suspect because the tunnel has already decided that any praise must be based on incomplete information.

Timothy Gallwey saw the same pattern on tennis courts. In his language, Self 1 is the judging narrator and Self 2 is the body-mind that actually performs. When Self 1 keeps telling Self 2 what it is, Self 2 begins to play the role. The bad server stays a bad server when the identity has been rehearsed into the body.

The workplace version is quieter, but it follows the same line.

During business school, I completed a 360 review. One piece of anonymous feedback came to me as little more than a word or two. There was no example, no explanation, nothing I could examine. The description felt antithetical to the person I believed I was trying to be.

My immediate reaction was disbelief. The observation sat so far outside my self-conception that I could not receive it. I could not process it. I could not get better from it. Totally orthogonal to the awareness of myself.

What I needed was one drop of curiosity. What had this person experienced around me that I could not see myself releasing into the room?

It took years to find the source. Their words still feel wrong to me. My intentions may have been good, like marshaling what I thought to be the best decision. When the room felt like I was being rigid and unopen to other ways. The feedback described some portion of my effect that my self-awareness had no way to register.

Dr. Julie's emotional resilience advice names the move I missed. Name the feeling. Buy time. Separate the signal from the delivery. Ask whether the reaction serves the work or only protects the ego. This leaves room for the delivery to be bad, the feedback to be wrong, or the room to be hostile. The first interpretation is often the tunnel speaking before reality has had a turn.

That speed is the danger. A feeling arrives and claims interpretive authority. Shame says exposed. Anger says disrespected. Fear says wait. Resentment says they never wanted you here. Superiority says they cannot handle the truth. How many characters from movies are right here in this paragraph?

Maybe one of those is accurate. Often one contains a signal.

Give the first story the whole room and information stops moving. The program has taken over.

Share

The Culture Writes the Rule Before You Do

Wilson has a nasty little line that is easy to overuse and hard to forget: the easiest way to get brainwashed is to be born.

I am leaving most of Wilson's register behind here. Brainwashing overstates many ordinary things. Still, his point survives translation. We are born into rule systems before we can name them. Family rules. Class rules. Gender rules. Professional rules. Regional rules. Religious rules. Internet rules. The rules tell us what counts as ambitious, rude, humble, greedy, masculine, feminine, realistic, embarrassing, loyal, unserious.

By adulthood, many of these rules feel personal and fully installed. Incorporated. I am just not the kind of person who asks for that. I am just private. I am just cautious. I am just not political. I am just bad at conflict. I am just realistic about my lane.

Some of these sentences may be true.

Many are old group instructions wearing the costume of self-knowledge or some flavor of maturity.

Erich Fromm helps explain why we keep them. Freedom is psychologically expensive. It asks us to tolerate uncertainty, bear responsibility, and choose without a guarantee that the choice will be approved. The old rule may be cramped, but it is known. The tunnel may be narrow, but at least the walls tell you where to stand. That shelter has a cost.

"Declare war on the cage" has to be understood carefully. Recklessness only builds a new tunnel. The work is to stop giving inherited caution the dignity of truth before it has been tested. There is a difference between judgment and automatic obedience. Judgment looks at the actual room. Automatic obedience consults the old rule and calls the answer reality.

The same pattern scales beyond the self. A family can have a tunnel. A company can have one. A political movement can have one. A whole society can teach its members which possibilities are respectable enough to attempt.

Once a tunnel becomes a badge of belonging, the Prover stops protecting a private identity and starts protecting a tribe.

I know this reflex. I inspect the uniform before inspecting the claim. A source I distrust makes me search for the flaw. A source I favor makes the same scrutiny feel unnecessary. The Prover has already decided which evidence deserves a hearing.

On the right, the tunnel might turn institutional distrust into total capture, unwelcome facts into plots, and defeat into betrayal. On the left, the tunnel might turn disagreement into harm, disparity into proof of malice, and data into racism. The content differs, and the consequences differ. The shared failure is the reflex: the Prover learns what each tribe permits it to notice.

Private freedom begins when the Prover can receive evidence it did not choose. Civic freedom asks the same of us when the evidence arrives wearing the colors of a party, class, company, or crowd. The discipline that tests a private story also tests a public one: who taught me this, what does it help me see, and what does it train me not to notice? A free society needs people willing to test reality rather than merely defend the tunnel that made them comfortable.

That sounds abstract until you put the cursor back on the screen.

Ask the question. State the disagreement. Publish the piece. Or design the smaller test first: gather information, document a pattern, ask who else sees it, choose timing for reasons you can name. Tell the employee the truth with enough care that the truth can be heard. Tell the boss what the process is costing. Name the feeling before it becomes the story. Take one action that produces evidence the tunnel did not authorize.

Think of this as a way of collecting better data.

Some Walls Are Real

Some walls are real.

Bad bosses exist. Hostile workplaces exist. Family obligations, illness, debt, discrimination, grief, geography, and material limits exist. Sometimes the reason you have not walked through the door is that the door is locked, owned by someone else, and guarded by a person who benefits from your staying outside.

The agency claim cannot require pretending otherwise. That turns Wilson into magic and Dr. Julie into hustle culture instead of her steadfast, unapologetic realism.

A reality tunnel is a map problem. Reality is the territory. A good map can reveal a wall. A bad map invents one. The work is learning which one we are looking at before we organize a life around the conclusion.

There is another danger: confidence can be a cage. The Prover will confirm "I am an imposter," but it will also confirm "I cannot fail." The founder who ignores cash, the leader who mistakes bluntness for courage, the partisan who treats every disconfirming fact as enemy action, the writer who assumes all criticism is proof of reader cowardice: these are not free people. They are running brighter tunnels.

So the useful question is testability.

Freedom here is an error-correction practice: exposing the rule to an answer it does not control.

Design tests your Prover might fail. Let reality revise your priors.

Can I name the rule? Can I say where I learned it? Can I identify the action it prevents? Can I take one clean step that lets reality answer back? Can I survive the answer if it is not the one I wanted?

That last question is where the real work lives.

The cursor is still blinking.

I did eventually send the message to the vendor. By then, the delay had damaged the business, and rebuilding the lost progress cost far more than the conversation I had avoided. Ending the relationship hurt. The accumulated repair hurt more.

What I had called kindness was avoidance with good manners. Kindness would have delivered the truth earlier, while all of us still had more room to move.

The rule still had reasons. It always will. The Prover is excellent at reasons, and some of them will be true enough to slow you down. That is the genius of the cage: it rarely builds itself from total lies. It uses one bad meeting, one family warning, one social penalty, one embarrassing failure, one person who really did punish you for asking.

Then it generalizes.

Debating the rule keeps you inside the cage. Testing a bar changes the evidence.

Send the note. Ask for the room. Or design a smaller test: gather information, document the pattern, look for the ally, choose the timing on purpose. Name the feeling. Separate the signal from the delivery. Say the thing with enough force that it can be heard. Take the action small enough to be real and large enough to disturb the old rule.

Maybe the bar holds.

Then you have learned something about reality.

Maybe the bar moves.

Then you have learned something about the rule.

This is how we unshackle the mind and recover a larger life. The wrestling is the practice of freedom.

That is private practice for public freedom. A citizen who cannot test the rules inside his own mind will have a hard time testing the rules handed down by a party, a class, a company, or a crowd.

The cursor is still blinking. The cage has not disappeared. But the old rule no longer gets to call its own bars the world.

Share

Sources and Inspiration

Prometheus Rising - Robert Anton Wilson

The Inner Game of Tennis - W. Timothy Gallwey

Escape from Freedom - Erich Fromm

Dr. Julie Gurner, *Ultra Successful* essays on imaginary rules, imposter labels, emotional resilience, and bending reality

I did not edit what follows.

There is no human in the loop on the final passes of this essay.

Simply a passing “Human Generated” score at time of publishing.

Machines fighting machines, which, I suppose, is human.

The creation machine has evolved further than the detection avoidance machine. For now.

This will change and evolve. I am skeptical that this is the best pathway to an answer.

Everything was once written by guilds of scribes, and then there was Gutenberg.

I hope this is not coming across as defensive. That is not my posture. I simply believe people are trying to overlay the past on the future, and that is not how things go historically. This is how I try to understand our future.

Alex Lieberman did a real-time demo of his content machine on Claire Vo’s podcast. The setup was that AI reads his Slack and meetings to get a sense of what he cares about. Then the machine interviews him as if Howard Stern or Tim Ferriss were asking him questions. The AI drafts content in his cadence, and then a council of six editors scores drafts until they’re deemed good enough to clear a nine. The demo started, and three minutes later Lieberman’s AI issued a publishable post. Vo says at the end “we are actually the slop.” She’s right. That machine only produces slop when the input is weak. The model is average by default. It’s trained on the internet, so without a human idea to start it, it is beige. It can’t think. It can only reflect.

There are two opposed ways to point the tool. One offloads thinking to the page and produces slop; the other interrogates the user, pushes back and helps refine ideas, creating value. Sit with that, because we are about to spend enormous energy pretending the opposite.

Debating Slop

Substack turned on an AI detector. Chris Best announced it in a new essay called “Against Claudefishing.” Readers can scan over 100 words on any post to get a percentage of how much text AI wrote. Writers get a little box that shows how much AI was used. Best is right that this practice should be disclosed, but he also says we should “take the percentage as the single, overriding verdict on the quality or authenticity of a piece of writing.” I disagree.

Best coins the phrase “Claudefishing” for when there’s an “absence of human thought on the other end.” But it’s a rotten assumption to make about people. You can’t dismiss all machine-helped writing just because it doesn’t sound just like you. And for genuinely lazy content that puts no thought in, you earn the eye-roll. But the specific failure of some AI content hardens into a blanket dismissal.

The deeper, philosophical problem is the question of pedigree. Karl Popper once gave a lecture where he invited the audience to imagine a philosopher asking: How do we know what we know? The only possible answers would be that we know things through reason or we know things through the senses. Popper says this assumes that origin legitimizes knowledge, that it matters only where the truth came from. It’s a question that assumes authority. What Popper offered as a replacement was the question: How can we hope to detect and eliminate error?

Culture reaches for pedigree partly because it’s easier than looking closely at ideas. But it’s also from a guild reflex – authenticating, policing the border between real writers and machine-assisted pretenders, like a country club elevator operator insisting a human must manage the buttons. The fear is real, but the scanner works as a wall that keeps the field small; it discourages people from entering the arena, and weighs on those already in it.

But the field is not staying small. As AI collapses the distance between thought and expression, it is letting more people get their ideas on the page. Much of what they write is bad – they are people, after all – but some of it is interesting and worth reading.

Steven Johnson insists in *Where Good Ideas Come From* that good ideas are recombinations, borrowed and remixed from the ever-expanding adjacent possible. Not pure originality. As Matt Ridley wrote in *The Rational Optimist*, this joining up of ideas, this “ideas having sex,” is the engine of human progress. Every sentence you admire was assembled from borrowed pieces. The machine is the most efficient remixer the world has ever seen, and it still needs a human to tell it what is worth remixing.

I have long thought writing will eventually take the shape of the handbag industry – a huge degree of cheap, machine-made, good work in the bottom of the market, and a narrow premium at the top, where a Birkin still has to be hand-stitched over the course of several days by an artisan. The key difference is that in writing, the hand was never the point; the reader pays for the mind behind it – the sense of choice, intention, taste. A bored human can produce slop even with zero AI assistance, and a writer with a real idea can deploy AI heavily and still leave a mind on every line. The premium is what I’m talking about, and the premium sorts on the mind, not the tool.

I am all for it. The scanner is an inveterate Luddite hammer, but it is a hammer nonetheless, albeit a ham-fisted one, and the loom is already running; it pays for the loom by funding the arms race to beat it. Every serious detector calls its own defeat into being, and over time the market has – as it always should – split on the one thing a detector cannot measure. The essay you send a friend today comes almost exclusively from those with a mind worth the time, and many of them will be writing it with every machine available to mankind. The market has always paid for that, and I never needed a scanner.

Back to the reader holding the scanner. Glance at the number if you must, but if you let it decide, you surrender your own. I have been respectful of those making and selling detectors, but they can’t stand beside a writer like Emma Thompson or a poet like Selima Hill, both of whom can and have written excellent prose with no AI at all. They are ballast. If the idea was good, true, moving or useful, the number subtracts nothing. Your own senses are the instrument that detects the presence or absence of a mind.

Share

Alex Lieberman is sharing his screen, and the podcast host has just dared him to prove his assertion.

He built a thing he calls a content machine: a stack of AI skills wired into his company's systems that reads his Slack and his meeting notes, surfaces the ideas worth writing about, interviews him in the voice of Tim Ferriss and Howard Stern to pull the specifics out of his head, drafts in his own cadence, then convenes a council of six imaginary editors who score the draft one to ten and send it back until it clears a nine. The host, Claire Vo, tells him his posts are genuinely good. Then she calls the bluff. "But prove it live."

So he does. He runs the machine on the podcast, in real time, and somewhere in the middle of watching an AI assemble a publishable post out of his own recorded answers, the host arrives at the joke that isn't a joke.

"So what you're saying is — we are actually the slop."

Yeah. That's exactly what he's saying.

Lieberman's line: the only time the machine produces slop is when the person feeding it didn't have anything good to say. The model is average by construction. It was trained on the entire internet, so its default gravity is the mid, the seen-before, the sentence you could have finished yourself. Left alone, it writes the beige. What it can't do is have the idea. The idea is yours. So is the taste that throws out three drafts, and the stubbornness to go check whether the thing is even true. Where the output is slop, a human was phoning it in. You can feel it.

Because there are two ways to point the tool, and they are opposed. One aims it at the page: write this for me so I don’t have to think it through. That is the setting that produces slop, reliably, whether the scanner says human or machine-generated. The other aims it at your own head: interrogate me, push back, hand me the question I was ducking, make me earn the line, what book should I read to know this better, who are the two most meaningful and opposed thinkers in history on this idea, there are so many ways to improve. Same machine, opposite result. One offloads the thinking; the other creates more value.

Sit with that, because we are about to spend enormous energy pretending the opposite.

Substack just turned on an AI detector.

Its CEO, Chris Best, announced it in a post titled "Against Claudefishing." The mechanics are simple: any reader can now scan a post longer than a hundred words and get an estimate of how much was written by hand versus by machine. Writers get a small box to disclose their process, a note that says, in effect, here is how I make this.

I want to be clear, because the easy move is to make certain writers, or Substack, the villain, depending on your priors. Substack is not the villain. Best is mostly right. He says it: they are not against people using AI to assist their work; people should simply know what they're getting. That is a disclosure argument, and I agree with it. There has been a note on my own About page for months telling you AI is part of how I make this. I am not hiding anything. Disclosure is honest.

It's the next step I want to fight: the part where a reader lets that number stand in for a verdict.

Look at Best's own coinage. Claudefishing, he says, is when there is a mismatch between what a reader expects and what they get: "something with no human thought on the other end." That phrase is the whole game. No human thought on the other end. It is the assumption underneath the entire anxiety: that if a machine helped assemble the words, then no mind was present, no thought occurred, and the reader is being catfished by an empty room.

For genuinely lazy content, the SEO sludge and the auto-blasted newsletter nobody read before it shipped, that's fair, and it earns the eye-roll it gets. Those same things have been human-generated for decades now, and we learned to judge their quality with our own minds. But watch how fast we let that specific failure metastasize. Watch "some AI content is thoughtless" harden into "AI content is thoughtless," and then into "this scanned high, so I can stop reading." Lieberman's machine has a human on the other end the entire time. So does mine. The percentage doesn't know that. The percentage can't know that. It is measuring the wrong thing.

Share

What the detector actually asks

Sixty-five years ago Karl Popper gave a lecture on where knowledge comes from, and he refused the question. Asking "what is the ultimate source of this knowledge, reason or the senses?" was, he argued, an authoritarian question wearing an innocent face. It asks for a pedigree, the bloodline of an idea, so it can decide whether the idea is allowed to be true. And Popper's move (the one that belongs on the wall of every newsroom and English department this year) was to throw the question out and replace it with something smaller and harder: how can we hope to detect and eliminate error?

He was blunt about why the first question rots. "The question of the sources of our knowledge," he wrote, "like so many authoritarian questions, is a genetic one. It asks for the origin of our knowledge, in the belief that knowledge may legitimize itself by its pedigree."

Read that with a detector in your hand. "How much of this was written by AI?" is a pedigree question: it asks where the words came from, in the belief that origin settles worth. It is the same instinct as demanding to know a stranger's parents before you will trust him, and it fails for the same reason. Origin is not validity. Where a thing came from does not settle whether the idea in it is any good. The only question that ever separated good writing from bad is Popper's: is it true, is it useful, does it survive a skeptical reader, and when it's wrong, how fast do we catch it? A detector cannot ask that. It answers a different question, and it answers it beautifully.

And I mean beautifully. I am not telling you the detector is broken. Pangram, the tool Substack chose, is excellent: ninety-nine-point-something percent accurate, false positives near one in ten thousand. Grant it perfection. A flawless detector still only tells you how much a machine touched the words. It cannot tell you whether there was a mind on the other end, or whether that mind had anything worth your evening. A perfect instrument pointed at the wrong axis is still pointed at the wrong axis.

The wall that keeps the field small

So why does a culture reach for the pedigree instead of the idea? Partly because the idea is harder work. But something older is running underneath.

You can see it every time someone reaches for the scanner. The impulse to authenticate, to certify, to police the border between the real writers and the machine-assisted pretenders is the guild protecting the guild, the elevator operators insisting a car with nobody at the controls couldn't be trusted. And underneath the reflex is a real fear. It is disorienting, and more than disorienting, to spend years getting good at a craft and then watch a machine learn to do the passable version of it for free. I feel it too. But the scanner is the wrong answer to a real problem, because the wall you build to keep the machine out is the same wall that keeps the field small. You tell the newcomer his machine-helped work doesn't count, and he never posts the thing he had to say.

The field is not staying small. This is the part I am actually amped about. The tool is not going back in the bottle, and thank God, because of what it does when a real idea meets it: it collapses the distance between having the thought and getting it built. The person who always had something to say and never had the craft to assemble it or the reach to send it can now do both. That is not a threat to good work. That is more people in the arena, more ideas getting out, more of the exact thing a healthy culture is supposed to want. That is the whole damn point.

And if you're worried this means the end of originality, I have bad news that turns out to be good news. There was never any pure originality to protect.

Steven Johnson spent a book chasing where good ideas actually come from, and the answer is a lot grubbier than the lone genius pulling truth from the void. Good ideas are recombinations: old parts snapped into a new shape, borrowed, stolen, remixed out of whatever is lying around in what Johnson calls the adjacent possible, the pool of new combinations the pieces you already have suddenly make reachable. Matt Ridley named the engine of all human progress "ideas having sex," concepts meeting other concepts and throwing off offspring neither parent could have made alone. Every sentence you have ever admired was assembled from borrowed pieces by someone who read widely and stole well. The remix predates the machine by the whole length of human history. The machine is only the most efficient remixer we have ever built, and it still needs a human to tell it what is worth remixing.

The authentic, machine-untouched human original the detector wants to certify is a thing that never existed. What has always existed, what has always been the entire game, is the quality of the recombination. The taste. The judgment. The nerve to publish this and kill that.

Share

Writing goes the way of the handbag

Here is the shape I actually expect, and it runs two directions at once. The abundance is one direction: cheap good work, everywhere, made by more hands than ever. The premium runs the other way, and a handbag shows you its shape. Every bag was once handmade, because there was no other way to make one. Then the machine came, and a bag became a twenty-dollar thing on every shoulder and a Cambrian explosion of variety, while the handmade one survived as the Birkin: stitched by a single artisan over days, priced past a car, bought by the very rich and no one else. Abundance at the bottom, a narrow premium at the top.

Writing is taking that shape, with one difference that is the whole point. For a bag, the hand is the value; nobody paying Birkin money cares whether the woman who stitched it ever had an interesting thought. For writing, the hand was never the point. The reader pays for the mind behind it: the sense that someone chose this, meant it, had something to say and the taste to say it well. And that sense has nothing to do with whether a machine helped type the words. A bored human can push out a thousand words with no mind behind them, score a perfect zero on the detector, all human, and it is still slop. A writer with a real idea can drive a machine hard, score a hundred, all AI, and leave a mind on every line. The premium sorts on the mind. The detector sorts on the tool.

So hold the two directions together and you can see what the scanner is: a Luddite with a hammer, and the loom is already running. And the hammer does worse than miss. It pays for the loom. The moment a platform the size of Substack makes a detector the gate, it posts a bounty on the tool built to walk past it. Wire in the scanner and you fund the other side of the arms race. Every detector that matters calls its own defeat into being, because the reward for beating it grows with how seriously the gate is taken. It saves no one, because the market is already splitting, and it splits on the one thing a detector cannot measure. The filler you scroll past will mostly be machine-made, because no one was ever going to pay for the hand that made it. The essay you send a friend will come from the shrinking number of people who have a mind worth the time, and some of them will have used every machine they could reach to make it. A scanner can tell you a human was present. It cannot tell you a mind was. The market has always paid for the second thing, without mercy, and it never once needed a scanner to find it.

Which brings it back to you, holding the scanner, deciding whether to read.

Here is what I want to say to the reader who runs the number before running their eyes. Glance at it if you want; it is a signal like a byline, and no signal was ever a verdict. But let a percentage decide whether a real idea is worth your eyes, and you have surrendered the one judgment that was always yours. Your inability to tell whether a machine helped is not a fact about the writer. It is a fact about you: about a judgment you would rather hand to a percentage than perform yourself. If the idea was good, if the claim was true, if it moved you or taught you or changed the shape of an hour, what exactly does the number subtract? You already know how to do this. You have senses. You can feel the difference between a sentence someone meant and a sentence assembled to fill space, and you can feel it faster than any classifier, because what you are detecting is the presence or absence of a mind. That is the instrument. Use it. Stop asking a machine to tell you whether you were moved, educated, informed, or entertained.

The whole time Lieberman ran his machine, there was a human on the other end. Someone choosing the idea, feeding the specifics, throwing out the drafts that rang false, deciding this was worth your attention. "No human thought on the other end" was only ever true of the slop, and the slop, as the man said, is us. It always was. The laziness was ours long before the tool arrived; the tool only made it easier to see.

So turn your brain on. The future showed up a little early, and it is asking you the oldest question there is, and it has nothing to do with AI: is this any good?

Tomorrow’s essay will be this same one. Written by a machine, and the machine detector will show 100% human generated.

This is silly incentive design. Show me the incentives, and I’ll show you the outcome.

You tell me which essay is better.

Share

Sources and Inspiration

Conjectures and Refutations - Karl Popper

Where Good Ideas Come From - Steven Johnson

The Rational Optimist - Matt Ridley

In 1743, a small notice ran in the Pennsylvania Gazette: "Lost at the late fire on Water Street, two leather buckets, marked B. Franklin & Co. Whoever brings them to the printer hereof shall be satisfied for their trouble."

The man who placed it was the most successful printer in colonial America. He published the paper the notice ran in. He wrote the almanac the colonies quoted at each other. Within a decade he would be the most famous scientist alive. And he spent part of his week hauling leather buckets to house fires, and when he lost two of them, he wanted them back.

He had buckets because he belonged to a fire company. There was a fire company because, seven years earlier, no such thing existed in Philadelphia, and he decided that was a problem he could fix.

Picture the city he walked into. Philadelphia in 1727 had no library. No fire department. No hospital, no college, no functioning night watch. Fires took whole blocks. Books belonged to gentlemen who could afford to import them. The watch consisted of constables who dunned their neighbors a fee, hired whoever showed up, and drank through the night.

Benjamin Franklin was twenty-one years old, a printer's tradesman with two years of formal schooling. That fall he gathered eleven other young workingmen (a glassworker, a scrivener, a couple of clerks, a surveyor) into a Friday evening club they called the Junto. Initiates stood, laid a hand on their breast, and answered four questions. The last one: Do you love and pursue truth for its own sake?

The club had rules that tell you everything about the man who wrote them. Discussions were to be conducted "without fondness for dispute or desire of victory." Expressing too much certainty was punished. "All expressions of positiveness in opinion or of direct contradiction were prohibited under small pecuniary penalties." Twelve tradesmen in leather aprons, fining each other for being too sure of themselves.

Then watch what comes out of those Friday evenings over the next twenty years.

The members pooled their books on a common shelf. The shelf worked, so Franklin scaled it: recruit subscribers, charge dues, import books from London. The Library Company of Philadelphia incorporated in 1731, fifty subscribers, "mostly young tradesmen." It is the oldest cultural institution in the United States. It is still operating.

Fires kept eating the city, so Franklin wrote a letter to his own newspaper under a pseudonym, posing as an old man with opinions about prevention, and proposed organized fire-fighting clubs with specific duties. The piece was "much spoken of," so he organized the Union Fire Company in 1736. So many people wanted in that it spawned sister companies across town.

The night watch was a racket, so he drafted a proposal to fund full-time watchmen through a property tax scaled to the value of each home, reasoning it was unfair that "a poor widow housekeeper" whose guarded property "did not perhaps exceed the value of fifty pounds, paid as much as the wealthiest merchant." That one needed the Assembly's signoff and took until 1752 to pass; the watch was a government function, and he knew which problems were. The rest he simply built.

The pattern repeated until the city was unrecognizable. The academy he proposed became the University of Pennsylvania. The hospital came the same way. Most of it required no ministry, no ideology, and no one's permission.

The library fundraising taught him a trick he kept for the rest of his life. Franklin discovered that people resented a "proposer of any useful project that might be supposed to raise one's reputation." So he put himself "as much as I could out of sight," credited the idea to friends, and watched the subscriptions come in. "The present little sacrifice of your vanity will afterwards be amply repaid." Abigail Adams ran the same calculation from a farm in Braintree: the work lands better when you stop demanding to be seen with it. Franklin systematized it. Visibility was a cost he paid down so the project could clear.

A problem, a proposal, a subscription list. Run the loop again.

The stove he gave away

In the early 1740s, Franklin applied his knowledge of convection to a problem every colonist lived with: fireplaces that sent the heat up the chimney and the smoke into the room. He designed a stove that promised more warmth from less wood, had a Junto friend manufacture it, and wrote the promotional pamphlet himself. Testimonials filled the papers. One letter writer declared the inventor "merits a statue."

The governor of Pennsylvania offered him a patent. Exclusive rights to a heating device, in a cold country, in a wood-scarce century. "But I declined it," Franklin wrote. "As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously."

Here is the part the statue version leaves out: the stove mostly didn't work. Unless the channels were already hot, the smoke backed into the room. Sales tapered off. Manufacturing stopped within two decades, and most owners gutted the clever convection chamber out of the design. Franklin spent the rest of his life revising his theories of chimneys and drafts, the way you do when results come back and you let them count.

That failure is what makes the refusal interesting. He turned down the patent around 1744, barely four years before he could afford to retire, on a device whose commercial future he had every reason to believe in. The money was real to him and he declined it anyway, because he held a theory about where inventions belong: in circulation, compounding, available to the next tinkerer. He kept that policy his whole life. The lightning rod went to the world the same way, unpatented, along with everything else he invented.

He created more than he captured, and the remainder is what we walk around in.

When he did retire, at forty-two, exactly the midpoint of his life, it was so he could give more of it away. "Leisure to read, study, make experiments, and converse at large with such ingenious and worthy men as are pleased to honor me with their friendship." He had said it plainly years before, reporting an experiment: "What signifies philosophy that does not apply to some use?" He didn't entirely live by that, for the record. As clerk of the Assembly he passed dull sessions constructing magic squares of numbers, and cheerfully admitted they were "incapable of useful application." Even his utility kept a hobby.

Share

Conviction without certainty

Jefferson had a philosophy. Adams had a temperament. Hamilton had a system. Franklin had a method: try the thing, measure the result, adjust. He held his convictions the way a scientist holds hypotheses, firmly enough to act on, loosely enough to revise. The Junto's fines against "positiveness" were the method applied to conversation. The stove revisions were the method applied to failure. The subscription library was the method applied to a city.

Two centuries later, Eric Hoffer would anatomize the opposite character: the true believer, who joins the cause to escape the burden of his own unfinished self, and for whom the doctrine grows more precious as the evidence runs against it. Hoffer's fanatic needs the certainty more than the outcome. Franklin is the cleanest counterexample the American record offers. He had convictions and causes in abundance; what he refused was the certainty. At eighty-one, the oldest man at a Convention that nearly failed, his great contribution was a speech asking every delegate to "doubt a little of his own infallibility" and sign anyway. Walter Isaacson, his biographer, rendered the verdict in one line: "Compromisers may not make great heroes, but they do make democracies."

The hardest proof of that temperament is the one least comfortable to tell. Franklin held slaves in his household and ran ads for slave sales in his paper, as his world did and mostly did without a second thought. A true believer holds the inherited conviction to the grave. Franklin, who held nothing as settled, eventually held this up to the light too. Late, he changed his mind, and then did what almost none of his peers did: he acted on it. President of Pennsylvania's abolition society at eighty-four. A petition to Congress that mankind was "all formed by the same Almighty Being," owed liberty "without distinction of color." And three weeks before he died, one last satire, an Algerian official defending the enslavement of Christians with every argument Congress had just used for the enslavement of Africans, the Junto printer's whole toolkit aimed at last where it should have aimed sooner. He got there late. Most never got there at all.

And when Alexis de Tocqueville toured America a century after the Junto's first Friday meeting, he found Americans "of all ages, all conditions, all minds" joined in associations "to raise churches, to distribute books," associations that "create hospitals, prisons, schools." It reads like an inventory of Franklin's Philadelphia. He was describing habits one printer had spent the 1730s teaching a city, the disposition that asks what can I do before it asks what tradition or ministry permits. Tocqueville found the township functioning as democracy's schoolhouse. Franklin had built the curriculum: the library, the fire company, the watch, each one a small rehearsal for self-governance, each one proof that the people who name the problem can be the people who fix it.

I want to be careful here, because I find this man easy to admire and his method easy to flatter myself with. I keep a running ledger of things that are broken around me: the compliance thicket that taxes my business before the tax itself, the institutions that don't work the way the label says. I can recite my ledger fluently. Franklin kept the same ledger. The difference is that every entry on his became a proposal with a subscription list attached, and most entries on mine are still grievances I'm nursing because the grievance is cheaper. The pie grows the way Philadelphia grew: somebody stops auditing the smallness of their slice and builds the next oven.

In 1785, a Massachusetts town named itself Franklin and wrote to ask the great man for a church bell. He sent crates of books instead, suggesting "sense being preferable to sound," and told them to build a library.

Around the same time, back from Paris, he gathered what remained of the Union Fire Company. He was the only person who signed all four founding documents: the Declaration, the treaty with France, the peace with Britain, the Constitution. Kings had received him. Four members of the original company were still alive, so the five of them met, as before, with their leather buckets.

He had measured his life in many currencies by then, and this was one he still counted. A republic, he told a woman outside the Convention, if you can keep it. The keeping has always looked less like the signing table and more like the bucket line: a few neighbors, organized on purpose, showing up for a city that would burn a little less because they did. There is always a next fire. The buckets still have our names on them.

Share

Sources and Inspiration

Benjamin Franklin: An American Life - Walter Isaacson

The True Believer - Eric Hoffer

Democracy in America - Alexis de Tocqueville

A family in my zip code needs to earn more than $186,000 a year to afford the median home. I ran the math twice because I didn't believe it the first time. Two working persons, both doing what the old script promised would be enough, looking at a house that used to signify an ordinary middle-class life. If they happen to be parents of pre-K-aged kids, one parent needs to earn all of that $186k, or the number will have to go up significantly due to exorbitant daycare costs.

That is the ground we are standing on. Groceries a third more than they cost a few years ago. Rent that swallows the raise before it lands. A war with Iran this spring that sent fuel prices surging and pushed inflation to a three-year high. A jobs report that came in at barely half of what forecasters expected. If the country feels like it is fraying, you are not imagining it, and I am not going to insult you by pretending the numbers are gentle. They are not.

Here is where I break with the vast majority.

Everyone is watching the wrong remake

The story going around is that this is the 1970s again. An oil shock out of the Middle East. Inflation that will not sit still. Not long ago the market cast Jerome Powell as ineffectual or hiding from the inflation store, calling it transitory. Then he called his inner Paul Volcker and belatedly oversaw the steepest climb in the Fed Funds rate in four decades. The yield curve inverted, the textbook promised a recession, and we all waited for the crash the rule said had to come. Then Powell handed off, and this spring Kevin Warsh took the chair, talking tough about a fresh inflation as "a burden for the American people." The market braced for the hammer to fall again.

The crash never came. The rule broke. And I think the forecasters have the right decade, the wrong ending, and the wrong read on the new man in the chair.

Start with what kind of inflation this actually is. The first wave, back in 2021, really was too much money: trillions in stimulus stacked on near-zero rates and an expanding Federal Reserve balance sheet, demand ran hot, and prices took off the way the old rule says they should. Then rates rose, demand cooled, and the worst of it came back down. What the hiking could not reach is what it left behind. Not enough houses. Not enough power. Not enough of what a growing country is trying to buy. A shortage like that is not a money problem, and it does not answer to the price of money.

Push rates high enough and you strangle the very supply you were trying to summon. The builder who would have broken ground can no longer finance the lot. The developer who would have added a hundred units pencils out to zero. Raise the cost of money into a housing shortage and you get fewer houses, which keeps the shortage, which keeps the prices exactly where the hiking was supposed to bring them down. Those with lower mortgage rates feel stuck or validated. Either way, they aren't moving and that further increases the stalemate of higher rates. The rate is a hammer, and the problem was never a nail.

Friedrich Hayek spent his career on one stubborn idea: the knowledge an economy runs on is scattered across millions of people and never gathers in one place, least of all in the head of whoever is trying to steer it. The planner cannot see the shortage well enough to fix it by decree. Neither, it turns out, can the central banker, working the one blunt lever he owns.

Warsh knows this, which is why the market is misreading its new central banker. It watched Powell break the last inflation with brute force, and it assumes Warsh will meet this one the same way. It has cast him as the next hawk. He does talk tough, and he means it, but the toughness has an address: the Fed's balance sheet, the multi-trillion-dollar hoard of bonds the central bank has been sitting on since the last crisis. That is the lever almost no one outside the banks and the Fed watches. On the lever everyone does watch, the interest rate, he is patient, and he keeps mentioning productivity. That is the tell. Jacking rates into a supply crunch is the one move a man who understands this economy would refuse, and Warsh understands it. When a reporter pressed him on whether he would hike at the next meeting, he did not perform certainty. He asked for "a good family fight" behind closed doors, a real debate, nothing more. The man everyone is parsing word by word is telling you he does not yet know his own answer. He is the dog who caught the car. Or he is something better than that: a man who will have the scrappy fight over strategy behind that closed door, then walk out and lock arms with the rest of the committee. That is deliberation in the old sense, the real argument in private that we have been trained to mistake for weakness.

I could be wrong about the man. He spent years as a hard-money hawk, and a hawk who means it hikes. So let me put a number on the bet: if Warsh drives the funds rate meaningfully higher through 2027 rather than holding it, I have misread him, and the recession the curve promised was only late. I don't think he will. But that is the hinge, and I would rather name it than hide it.

Define your bubble

Nobody can call this regime from the outside, because the variable that decides it is one the 1970s did not have. Artificial intelligence, and the buildout underneath it.

Say "AI boom" in a serious room and someone will say "bubble," and point to the year 2000, when telecom companies laid enough fiber-optic cable to circle the earth many times over, went bankrupt doing it, and left most of it sitting dark in the ground. It is a fair warning. It is also, I think, a misread, and the misread comes from never defining the word.

A bubble is building for demand that is not there. In 2000 they laid the cable ahead of the traffic, and the traffic took a decade to show up. That is a demand bubble, and it is the dangerous kind. What we have in 2026 is the reverse: we cannot build the thing fast enough for the demand we already have. The data centers are leased before the concrete cures. The chips are rationed. The companies buying compute are standing in line for capacity they need this quarter.

Now, is the money getting ahead of the revenue? Absolutely. The capital pouring into this is running further ahead of what it earns than telecom's did at its peak, and some of that financing is starting to eat its own tail, one company investing in the next so that the next can buy its chips. Even Sam Altman, who has more reason than anyone alive to talk his book, says out loud that someone is going to lose a phenomenal amount of money, that when bubbles happen smart people get overexcited about a kernel of truth. He is right. There is froth, and some of it will burst.

But froth on top of real demand is a different animal from a mirage. The financing can bubble; the need underneath it is not a bubble. Keep those two apart and the whole picture changes.

Because here is what a bust actually leaves behind. When the telecom bubble popped, the cable did not evaporate. It sat there, cheap, and became the backbone the entire modern internet was later built on top of. Every video you have ever streamed rode rails a bankrupt company laid in a mania. A bust wipes out the people who paid too much to build the thing and hands the next generation the infrastructure at a discount. The thing itself stays.

For AI, the durable residue is the power, the grid, the land, the buildings, and, cascading down the stack as newer chips arrive, a fleet of older processors that keep right on working. I will bet against the idea that these chips are dead in two or three years. The frontier models want the newest silicon, yes. But the older chips do not go to a landfill; they slide down to run the smaller, faster, cheaper models that are multiplying underneath the frontier, and they run them for years, and they run them longest wherever power is cheap, or in my basement after the price collapses.

Share

America owns the track

Which is the one place I will let a pessimist land a real punch. Vaclav Smil, who has spent a lifetime insisting that the physical world does not move at the speed of software, would tell you that all of this runs on energy and steel and grid, and that those things change over decades, not quarters. He is right, and it is the genuine constraint on how fast any of this can happen.

It is also where America has a real edge, and the edge is abundance. When the war with Iran sent energy markets into convulsions this spring and the Strait of Hormuz became the most dangerous stretch of water on earth, our gasoline jumped, because oil is priced on a single global market and always will be. But the natural gas and the electricity that actually run a data center barely moved, while gas prices doubled across Asia and Europe. We built that capacity, and it is why the buildout can happen here at all. The compute race is a power race, and our abundance is the track we can lay for the whole world to run on.

So put it together. A supply crunch you cannot fix by hiking. A Fed chair who quietly knows it and is betting on productivity. A demand-real buildout that even its bust would leave as usable track. And a country that produces the power the whole thing runs on. What you are looking at is a launchpad, if we can keep from setting it on fire.

The reckoning we are already in

I want to be honest about the "if," because there is a version of this that ends badly, and the person who taught me to take it seriously is Neil Howe. His theory is that history moves in long seasons, that every few generations a society hits a winter, a crisis that tears down the old order before a new one can grow. He would look at the war, the inflation, the fury in our politics, and say we are deep in that winter now. And he would add a warning I cannot wave away: the debt is so large this time that the usual cushion, the government spending its way through the pain, may not be there when we reach for it.

Here is my divergence, and I will own it as a bet against the narrative. Every prior American winter climaxed in total war: the Revolution, the Civil War, the Second World War. The war was never only the pain. It was the reset: it forced unity, rebuilt the institutions, cleared the old debts. Nuclear weapons may have quietly closed that door, because the great powers cannot fight the war that used to reset the board without ending the board. So the pressure goes somewhere else. It turns inward, into an economic shakeout and a fight over who we are.

That is not the same as gentle. Take away the external war and you may take away the reset while keeping the pain. The bloodiest winter this country ever had was the one it fought against itself, and a debt crisis with no cushion is a cold reckoning that can still cost everything. My bet is narrow: that this one resolves through markets and argument rather than on a battlefield. It costs us something either way.

And the shakeout may be the AI bust itself. The reckoning runs through the buildout, not around it. What the fire burns away is the froth, the overpriced money, the companies that mistook a mania for a moat. What it leaves standing is the track. And America owns the track.

The fever is downstream of the scarcity

None of this is really about your portfolio. It matters because our politics is sicker than it has been in my lifetime, and I have come to believe the sickness is downstream of the economics. When the pie stops growing, people stop building and start fighting over the slices. Scarcity is what turns a country zero-sum.

Byrne Hobart, who reads markets with a historian's eye, made the case in Boom: Bubbles and the End of Stagnation: the real enemy is stagnation, and a bubble, for all the money it torches, is how a free society coordinates its capital and its talent around a frontier worth crossing. Take away that frontier and the country turns inward and small, squabbling over what is already on the table. A boom does more than move markets; it gives a people something to build toward instead of something to take from one another.

What is truly scarce are not natural resources or new ideas but the human will and courage to unlock nature's intrinsic superabundance. There are no limits to growth, only the growth of limits.

You can see the fever on both flanks, and it is the same fever wearing two costumes. On one side, the impulse to freeze the rents and tax the builders, to redistribute a pile the movement has quietly decided is fixed. On the other, the impulse to wall the country off, to slam the door on the immigrant engineer and the foreign trade that the buildout actually runs on, to retreat into a smaller and more nostalgic past. Left and right, the shared premise is that the pile is fixed and the only question is who gets which slice.

Both are wrong for the same reason, and here is the inversion that ties this whole essay together. The thing most likely to cause the crash is not overbuilding. It is being stopped from building. Block the power plant, block the data center, turn away the engineer, freeze the price, and costs climb geometrically until the demand everyone was counting on finally breaks. The fixed-pie politics does more than slow the boom; it is the mechanism that could manufacture the bust and bloodshed. Clearing the way to build is the thing that keeps the whole structure standing.

When the extremes on both flanks harden, the temptation is to want them gone: silenced, banned, driven out of public life. I feel it too. And it is the wrong instinct, because it is the very move we are objecting to. James Madison built a republic to metabolize faction, a machine designed to beat bad ideas in the open rather than remove them by force. You defeat this the way a free country always has, by winning the argument in daylight, and by letting the recovery drain the fever that feeds the extremes in the first place. A country that is building again is a country with less to fight over.

Which brings me back to the family that cannot afford the house. A boom that shows up in the GDP figures and the stock index but never reaches that kitchen table is not a boom anyone living it will believe in. The recovery only counts when the house is buildable again, because we finally let it be built. That is the whole wager, and I am making it against the grain: we took the shock, we are living through the reckoning, and waiting on the other side is a country that builds like it means it. The pessimists are not wrong about the winter. They are wrong about the spring. The only thing that can rob us of it is the smallness that would stop us from building our way out, and that, at least, is still ours to refuse.

Share

Sources and Inspiration

The Road to Serfdom - F.A. Hayek

How the World Really Works - Vaclav Smil

The Fourth Turning Is Here - Neil Howe

The Federalist Papers - Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay

Boom: Bubbles and the End of Stagnation - Byrne Hobart

America, Our Dare — a series on the American experiment, for the 250th

Founding Fragility · A Government Designed to Be Wrong · We Keep Building · Selection Bias on the 250th

The church in Voltlage is small. Stone walls, wooden pews, a ceiling that has watched centuries of prayer without comment. I stood in it several years ago, trying to feel what my ancestors felt the last time they were here. Before they left for America.

Outside, my cousins showed me Ibbenbüren and Voltlage. Their area, their lives, the local inn. These are the lives my family would have lived. Good lives. Steady. The kind where you know the bakery by the owner’s first name and the cemetery holds five generations of your blood.

Someone in my family looked at all of that and decided to leave.

I don’t know what they told themselves on the walk out of town. I know they prayed in this church, and then they started walking toward something they couldn’t see, across an ocean they might not survive, into a country that was still figuring itself out.

That’s the founding act.

Not of the Republic. That came earlier, with documents and arguments and a war that should have been lost half a dozen times. I mean the act the Republic was designed to make repeatable: choosing this country under conditions of uncertainty, with no guarantee the country you bet on survives.

The framers did it at one scale, signing themselves over to a system that didn’t yet exist while the most powerful empire on earth committed itself to crushing them. Frederick Douglass did it at a stranger scale. Standing in Rochester in 1852, having every reason to repudiate the document, he praised it instead. He called it a glorious liberty document. He claimed a country that had not claimed him. His ancestors had been brought across the Atlantic against their will. He chose the experiment for them too.

My ancestor in Voltlage did it at a third scale.

So did yours. Maybe it was you, walking off a plane with one suitcase. Maybe it was a grandparent, a great-great-grandmother, a refugee, a dreamer, a desperate person with nothing left to lose. Maybe it was someone seven generations back who arrived by boat under terms no person should ever have faced. Or maybe it was an ancestor who was on this land long before the Republic arrived, and whose descendants have had to make the choice to claim a country that arrived on top of theirs. The choosing the country runs on is broader than immigration. It is the act of claiming the experiment as one’s own, and the people who had to claim it the hardest carry it the heaviest.

This is what makes America different. France is France because the French were mostly born there. Japan is Japan because the Japanese share millennia of continuity on the same islands. America is America because people kept choosing it. They keep choosing it. The country is not a fixed inheritance. It is a continuous act of selection.

And that selection is not an act of comfort. Nobody leaves what they know for what they don’t because it’s easy. The calculation doesn’t work if you’re optimizing for safety. Something deeper is operating.

The spirited part

The Greeks understood the soul as three things working together. Reason calculates. Appetite wants: comfort, security, pleasure, more. And between them, something harder to name: thumos. Spirit. The part that drives you toward risk and honor and purpose, even when reason says the odds are bad and appetite says stay home. Thumos is what makes a person stand up when sitting down would be easier. It’s the part of you that would rather try and fail than succeed at something that doesn’t matter.

The people who got on boats had thumos. Appetite stays where the bread is. Reason would have counted the odds of surviving the crossing and recommended staying put. Spirit. The willingness to risk everything for the chance at something you can’t yet prove exists.

Plato thought this part of us came first. We may observe even in young children that they are full of spirit almost as soon as they are born, whereas some of them never seem to attain to the use of reason, and most of them late enough. The spirited part is in us before we know what we are.

The Declaration of Independence is a thumos document. Read the closing line: We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. Lives. Fortunes. Honor. That’s fifty-six men telling the most powerful empire on earth that they would rather die free than live managed. Appetite would have negotiated. Reason might have waited for better odds. Spirit signed.

The founding was fragile. What survived it was fragile. But the spirit that created it was not cautious, and it was not calculated. It was chosen.

I’ve felt this spirit in small rooms where the arguments got loud because the stakes were real, and the friction was the feature, not the failure.

That’s esprit de corps. Shared direction with permission to fight about how to get there. You argue about strategy. Then you suit up together.

This was the township esprit de corps the series has been circling: citizens governing their shared life directly, arguing about it, building things together because the work needed doing. The friction was the feature. A country of people who chose to be here, choosing again every morning to build something with the people next to them, even when they couldn’t agree on what exactly it should look like.

That was the esprit de corps. Sturdier than patriotism, which can be performed. Warmer than nationalism, which excludes. The felt sense of being on the same team. Wanting the people next to you to succeed because their success is yours, because you chose the same experiment and your name is on it.

Share

What negation sounds like

I talk to people on the left. I hear guilt. I hear that we’re undeserving, that the people in power have made everything bad, that America’s sins outweigh its contributions. I hear a kind of preemptive surrender: the country isn’t worth defending because the country isn’t worth admiring.

I talk to people on the right. I hear corruption, swamp, decay. I hear that everything is broken, that the institutions are captured, that the only option is to tear it down and basically start over. Frustration so deep it has become its own identity.

Neither is a vision. What I hear from both sides is negation. What’s wrong, what’s broken, what we’re against. If you only define yourself by what you reject, you get exactly what you feared. A nation of people listing what’s wrong, with no shared sense of what they’re building toward.

I believe in American exceptionalism. I say that knowing how it sounds, knowing it makes some people flinch and other people reflexively salute. Both reactions miss the point. The exceptionalism I mean is structural: this is the only country on earth constituted by choosing. Every other nation is an inheritance of geography or blood. This one is a bet. A continuous, renewable, voluntarily undertaken bet that people who disagree about nearly everything can govern themselves together if they have enough spirit to keep showing up.

When that spirit gets replaced by negation, the adversaries notice. The information warfare, the discord operations, the algorithmic amplification of division: these work because we’ve made ourselves easy to fracture. A team that knows what it’s playing for can absorb disagreement. A team that’s forgotten will tear itself apart.

Thumos has enemies, and they’re not foreign. The deeper threat is exhaustion. Freedom is a burden. It always has been. Choosing is hard, and choosing every day is harder, and at some point the appeal of not choosing, of handing it over, of just being angry and calling that a position, becomes overwhelming. I feel it myself. I watch myself drift toward the comfortable negation, the satisfying grievance, the thing that feels like a stance but is really just fatigue in a costume.

The 250th isn’t a celebration of perfection. This country has never been perfect. It was built by flawed people who owned human beings and excluded most of the population from the rights they proclaimed. The work they left is unfinished, and it will always be unfinished, because that’s how self-governance works. You don’t finish it. You keep choosing it.

But here is what I want to say on this, the 250th birthday.

Two hundred and fifty years ago, a group of people with no guarantee of success pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to an idea that had never been tried at this scale. They chose it. And since then, millions of people from every corner of the earth have looked at their own church in their own Voltlage and decided to leave. They chose it too. They chose the risk, the uncertainty, the bet that a country built on choosing would be worth the cost of choosing it.

That choosing hasn’t stopped. People are still coming. People are still here. The question at 250 is whether we’re still the kind of people who would choose it. Who would get on the boat. Who would sign the document. Who would pray in the church and then walk toward something they couldn’t see.

I think we are. I think we’re better than the negation. I think the spirit that drove our ancestors to leave everything they knew is still in us, buried under grievance and exhaustion and the noise of people telling us what’s wrong with everything. It’s still there. It’s the part that gets angry because things could be better and we know it.

So here’s the toast.

To the choosers. To everyone whose ancestor left a village, a country, a continent, and selected themselves into the most improbable experiment in human history. To the ones fleeing real persecution. To the ones who want personal freedoms, who want to build, who want to change, try, experiment and make better. To the ones who are still choosing. To the ones who argue and then suit up together and lock arms. To the spirited part.

Happy 250th. The experiment isn’t over. It’s ours.

Share

America, Our Dare — a series on the American experiment, for the 250th

Founding Fragility · A Government Designed to Be Wrong · We Keep Building · Selection Bias on the 250th

Sources and Inspiration

The Republic - Plato

Democracy in America - Alexis de Tocqueville

Escape from Freedom - Erich Fromm

Founding Fragility · A Government Designed to Be Wrong · We Keep Building · Selection Bias on the 250th

On July 5, 1852, Frederick Douglass stood before a crowd in Rochester, New York, and asked the question everyone in the room already knew the answer to. “What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July?” He called the celebration a sham. He called the nation’s piety revolting. He called the gap between the Declaration’s language and the nation’s practice wider than the gap between heaven and hell.

Then he did something that most people forget.

He praised the Constitution. He called it “a glorious liberty document.” He argued that its principles and purposes, properly interpreted, were entirely hostile to slavery. The framework, Douglass insisted, was sound. The failure was in the application. And the remedy was not to abandon the document but to hold the nation accountable to it.

A formerly enslaved man, standing in a country that still enslaved millions of people who looked like him, examined the republic’s founding text and concluded that the text was worth fighting for. That it was better than the people who wrote it. That a sentence like “all men are created equal,” penned by a slaveholder, contained a promise that could be redeemed by people the author had never imagined as its beneficiaries.

That sentence has been doing work for 250 years.

The framework and its failures

“All men are created equal” was not true when Thomas Jefferson wrote it. He knew it. Many of his contemporaries knew it. The nation that ratified those words permitted slavery, excluded women from public life, and restricted the franchise to propertied white men. The founding was fragile in every sense: militarily, politically, and morally.

Here is what happened anyway. Citizens in every subsequent generation took the sentence literally and demanded the nation live up to it. Douglass did it from the lectern. The suffragists did it from jail cells, enduring force-feeding during hunger strikes. The civil rights workers in Birmingham did it by marching into fire hoses, on national television, while a city’s police force demonstrated exactly what the framework was supposed to prevent.

None of them waited for the system to fix itself. They used the system’s own stated principles as leverage against its practiced failures. And this is the part that gets lost in both the celebratory and the critical tellings of the American story: the system working IS what correcting its flaws looks like. The corrections were never automatic. They were extracted, over decades, by people who paid real costs.

Hannah Arendt’s word for this was natality. Each generation enters the world capable of beginning something the world has never seen. The framework doesn’t correct itself. People correct it, and each generation’s corrections become the next generation’s starting point. The suffragists didn’t discover a hidden clause in the Nineteenth Amendment that had been there all along. They created something new within an existing structure by insisting the structure meant what it said.

Popper saw the same mechanism from the other side. The open society isn’t redesigned from a blueprint. It is repaired piecemeal: find what’s broken, fix it, test the fix, adjust. The American experiment, at its best, has been exactly this. Citizens noticed the gap between the promise and the practice and refused to let the gap stand.

But I don’t want to make this sound like progress moving in one direction. It hasn’t. The Trail of Tears happened within two generations of the founding. Japanese internment happened within 74 years of the Fourteenth Amendment. The system’s self-correcting capacity has failed, repeatedly, catastrophically. Real people have absorbed the cost of those failures with their lives, their families, their futures.

A framework that permits such failures still deserves the investment of citizens who could be doing something else with their energy and their hope. And I think the honest answer is: only if the framework also contains the mechanisms for repair. Only if the people working within it can point to the framework’s own principles and say, “You wrote this. Now live up to it.”

Douglass could do that. The suffragists could do that. The marchers in Birmingham could do that. They could make the argument from within, using the nation’s stated commitments against its practiced evasions. A system without those commitments offers nothing to reform. A system with them offers a handhold.

Citizens built the handholds

Tocqueville’s townships were not just where Americans practiced democracy. They were where citizens learned to organize themselves around problems no king or ministry would ever solve for them. Voluntary associations: school boards, fire companies, reading circles, barn raisings. Ordinary people forming themselves into the institutions that filled the gaps the framework left.

That proximity created something. I don’t have a precise name for it. Civic fabric, maybe, or just the texture of a life lived in unavoidable contact with other people. Whatever it was, it functioned as the republic’s immune system. When the framework failed at the national level (and it failed constantly), the capacity for self-correction lived in the civic habits of ordinary citizens who couldn’t avoid one another even if they wanted to. The abolitionist societies that Douglass addressed were voluntary associations. The suffragist organizations that sustained a seventy-year campaign were voluntary associations. The churches and community organizations that planned the Montgomery Bus Boycott were voluntary associations. The correction came from below, from citizens who practiced the habits of collective action in their daily lives and deployed those habits when the national failure became unbearable.

Erich Fromm gave the underlying capacity a name. He distinguished between negative freedom (freedom from constraint) and positive freedom (freedom to build, to create, to realize one’s capacity through meaningful work). The citizen-builders in every generation exercised positive freedom. They didn’t just resist tyranny. They constructed something: an organization, a legal argument, a movement, a new interpretation of an old promise. Fromm saw this as the healthy response to freedom’s burden, the alternative to the escape mechanisms that pull people toward submission or conformity. Positive freedom requires what Fromm called “spontaneous activity”: not waiting for instructions, not following someone else’s blueprint, but building from your own conviction in concert with others.

Rollo May put it more simply. Freedom doesn’t come automatically. It must be achieved each day. The citizen who showed up to the abolitionist meeting on a Tuesday evening, who marched on a Wednesday morning, who testified before a committee on a Thursday afternoon, was conquering freedom daily. And May named the reward: joy. The quiet satisfaction of using your powers for something worth the effort.

This is what May meant: Joy is the affect which comes when we use our powers. Joy, rather than happiness, is the goal of life, for joy is the emotion which accompanies our fulfilling our natures as human beings.

The people who built the handholds weren’t grim. They sang on the marches. They laughed at their own impossible odds. Joy accompanied the work because the work was the exercise of freedom, and freedom exercised produces something better than happiness.

Stress, not collapse

America has looked like it was unraveling many times. The Civil War nearly destroyed the union altogether. The Depression shattered confidence in the economic order. The civil rights crisis exposed a moral chasm that the nation had papered over for a century. Vietnam divided the country into factions that could barely speak to each other.

Each time, the stress produced a stronger version. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments emerged from the Civil War. The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act emerged from Birmingham and Selma. These were not gifts from a benevolent system correcting itself. They were extracted by citizens who stayed in the arena when every reasonable calculation said the arena would crush them.

This is the pattern, and it depends on a condition that is easy to miss: someone has to stay in the arena. The framework’s self-correcting capacity belongs to the framework and the citizens who use it together. Without them, the framework is paper. With them, it bends toward its own stated commitments (slowly, painfully, often after unconscionable delay, but it bends).

The capacity is not the guarantee. Each generation is capable of beginning something new, but capability requires exercise. The generation that sits in the audience, cataloguing the system’s imperfections from a comfortable analytical distance, is not exercising that capacity. They are watching the arena from the stands, and the arena is emptier for their absence.

I think about this when I look at my own generation’s relationship to the American project. We are the most informed, most analytically sophisticated, most comprehensively aware generation in the republic’s history, and we have scale. We can diagnose every failure. We can trace every mechanism. We can name every contradiction between what the nation promises and what it delivers.

And we are in danger of letting that awareness become its own form of disengagement, guilt, or reason for inaction. Awareness without action is a spectator sport. Diagnosis without construction is cynical, because it never requires you to be wrong.

The person who builds something can fail. The person who critiques has already succeeded by virtue of seeing clearly.

This isn’t only a left-coded failure mode. The right-coded version dresses differently and operates identically: the country is irretrievably corrupt, the institutions captured beyond repair, the only honest move is to refuse the whole apparatus. Both diagnoses are sharp enough to feel rigorous. Both end the same way. The person who stays in the arena gets called naive by the cynic and a collaborator by the demolitionist. Both names cover the same retreat.

The cynic resigns to taking, rather than building.

The burden of freedom is permanent. Staying in the arena means accepting that your contribution might be inadequate, your movement might fail, your generation’s correction might fall short. Douglass knew that. The suffragists knew that. May would say they acted through the anxiety, not after it resolved, because it never resolves. The anxiety of genuine action is permanent. It is also the price of doing something that matters.

The republic at 250 is imperfect. It has always been imperfect. The question has never been whether the framework is flawless. The question is whether this generation of citizens will do what every previous generation did: take the sentence literally, hold the nation accountable to its own stated principles, and build the next handhold.

The sentence is still there. It still says what it says. The work is still unfinished.

We keep building.

Share

America, Our Dare — a series on the American experiment, for the 250th

Founding Fragility · A Government Designed to Be Wrong · We Keep Building · Selection Bias on the 250th

Sources and Inspiration

The Open Society and Its Enemies - Karl Popper

Escape from Freedom - Erich Fromm

Democracy in America - Alexis de Tocqueville

Man’s Search for Himself - Rollo May

The Human Condition - Hannah Arendt

We have voles in the backyard, and after I did the dirty work, the yard needed repair: filling the trails and veins with soil, smoothing them out, laying seed. My son wanted to help. I knew it would 4x the time to completion. But, sign me up.

I had a bucket with soil and a small shovel. I showed him one go of the task. He could hardly be restrained from taking the shovel right out of my hands. He tried, missed, soil is everywhere. He’s yanking on the shovel which is jammed under the lips of the bucket and he’s about to spill the whole bucket. That is the moment I felt like sticking my hand in the job. He wasn’t causing a mess from mischievousness — he was dialing in his movements and trying. He’s three.

The hardest part of fatherhood is standing three feet away while your child struggles with something you could solve in seconds, and choosing not to reach in. Or choosing not to reach in knowing that the mess about to follow will be yours to clean up.

Because reaching in feels like love. The desire to smooth every path and remove every obstacle runs deep, almost gravitational: make it easier, fix the problem, resolve the frustration. Any parent knows this impulse. It arrives as warmth, as care, as the certainty that your help is what they need.

And sometimes your help is the very thing that takes from them what they need most.

Michael Lewis wrote a book about becoming a father called Home Game. Its central honesty is this: you have no idea what you’re doing. You show up at the hospital, your child arrives, and at no point does anyone verify that you’re qualified for what’s about to happen. Because you aren’t. Nobody is.

Lewis was being funny. But underneath the humor sits something the culture doesn’t handle well: the gap between the father you think you’re supposed to be and the father you actually are. And the modern answer to that gap is to optimize. Track the milestones. Schedule the enrichment. Download the app that tells you whether your three-year-old is on pace. Turn fatherhood into a project, because projects have metrics, and metrics tell you whether you’re doing it right.

This is a specific kind of mistake. It treats the child as clay: raw material that you shape, mold, and press into form through effort and intention. The father becomes the sculptor imposing a design. And the design is usually some version of the father himself, or worse, some version of what the father wishes he’d been.

But children aren’t clay. They’re marble.

Clay has no form until you impose one. Marble already has a figure inside it. Michelangelo understood this: the sculptor’s job is to remove what’s in the way. The work is subtractive. You study the stone. You attend to its grain, its fractures, its tendencies. You chisel carefully, working with the grain to reveal what the material is already becoming.

Lao Tzu named this practice twenty-five centuries ago: “In the pursuit of knowledge, every day something is added. In the practice of the Tao, every day something is dropped.” Fatherhood is closer to the second tradition than the first.

Timothy Gallwey called this the subtractive approach to excellence: performance improves by removing interference rather than by adding instruction. The capacity is already there. Your child already has temperament, instincts, curiosities, fears, and a developing will that belongs to them. The father’s work is removing what interferes with that emergence: the bad habits, the destructive patterns, the impulses that would calcify into character if left unattended. But the figure itself isn’t yours to decide.

This requires authoritative parenting, which is different from authoritarian parenting. Authoritarian is clay thinking: I impose the rules, you comply, the shape is mine to determine. Authoritative is marble thinking: I provide structure, I hold boundaries, I set expectations that serve the figure I can see emerging, and I adjust my approach as the form reveals itself. The authority is real. The boundaries are firm. The support is a deep well. But they exist for the child’s becoming rather than for the father’s control.

The sculptor works hard. This is not passivity dressed up as wisdom. Removing interference takes active attention, deliberate effort, and a kind of study that never ends. You have to watch the marble constantly to know what to remove next. You have to know when a crack is the stone breaking and when it’s the figure breathing. The father who stands back and lets everything happen neglects the work as thoroughly as the father who grips too tightly. The chisel does the work. Where you place it does the figure.

Fatherhood asks you to do two things that feel contradictory: be the strongest presence in your child’s life, and gradually make yourself less necessary. Cat Stevens wrote “Father and Son” about exactly this. I remember listening to it with my father. It still moves me.

Lao Tzu, again, wrote it twenty-five centuries ago: the best leader’s people barely know he exists. When his work is done, they say: “We did it, all by ourselves!” That’s the goal: presence so well-calibrated that the child’s strength felt like their own.

This is the yielding curve. Early on, the father is a pillar: solid, visible, bearing weight. The child leans on that pillar because they must. They learn what stability looks like by experiencing it in someone they trust. They learn what authority feels like when it’s exercised in their interest rather than against it.

Then the curve bends. The pillar becomes a bridge. The father’s job shifts from holding to connecting: connecting the child to their own judgment, their own capacity, their own growing sense of what they can handle. The boundaries widen rather than disappear. The expectations evolve and maybe steepen. What was “because I said so” becomes “because you understand why.”

And then the bridge becomes a witness. The father is still there. Still solid. But standing further back, watching the child test themselves against the world, and resisting every impulse to make it easier.

The urge to intervene when your child is struggling, failing, hurting. The urge to deploy what you know to spare them what you suffered. And the understanding, hard-won over years, that suffering is part of the chisel. If you take it away, you take away part of what reveals the figure.

What you give them instead is something no app can measure and no milestone can track: the sight of a human being who has been in the dirt before, who got back up, and who is still here.

This is fatherhood’s vulnerability. The real thing. Your child sees you fail and watches what you do next. Sees you afraid and watches whether you move forward anyway. Sees you confused, uncertain, in over your head, and files it away as evidence that confusion is survivable. That fear is walkable. That the dirt washes off.

Rollo May called this the daily conquest: freedom is not achieved once, it must be conquered each day. Fatherhood is the same. You don’t get to be a good father once and coast on the credential. You show up every morning, sometimes exhausted, sometimes unsure whether anything you’re doing is working, and you show up anyway. The daily conquest of fatherhood is: be present. Not perfect. Present. Available. Human.

And the reward for this daily work is something deeper than satisfaction. Watch a child who has been struggling with something finally break through, because you held the space while they helped themselves. The look on their face. The laugh. May called this joy: the affect that comes when we use our powers. And the father’s joy, watching it happen, mirrors the child’s. You feel it because something you built is working. The marble is showing its figure.

Share

We talk about what strong individuals make possible for institutions and civilizations. But we rarely trace the chain back far enough. Strong individuals don’t emerge from nowhere. They emerge from homes where someone modeled what strength looks like: the willingness to bear weight without making the weight someone else’s problem.

The shadow masculine energy I wrote about recently has a significant source here, among others. Somewhere in the chain, a father was missing. Or present but authoritarian, imposing shape on clay. Or present but passive, watching marble crack without picking up a chisel. Or present but optimizing — calibrating every input, scheduling every minute, refusing to trust the marble at all.

The helicopter parent and the authoritarian parent are mirror images. One smothers the figure with attention; the other carves it to a pattern fixed in advance. Both refuse to trust the marble.

Robert Bly, drawing on Alexander Mitscherlich, named the mechanism:

If the son does not actually see what his father does during the day and through all the seasons of the year, a hole will appear in the son’s psyche, and the hole will fill with demons who tell him that his father’s work is evil and that the father is evil.

The shadow forms are, in part, the result of fathers who couldn’t hold both sides: structure and yielding, authority and vulnerability, presence and restraint.

Some truths belong to the household. The truth that striving builds character, that difficulty is the medium of growth, that freedom is constituted by the willingness to bear weight: these are formative truths. Aristotle named the mechanism twenty-three centuries ago: we become builders by building, just by doing just actions, brave by doing brave actions. Character is formed by repeated doing under the right conditions. You learn this by watching your father get up after falling down. You learn it when the person who could most easily solve your problem trusts you to solve it yourself.

The civilization depends on this. Free societies require people capable of bearing freedom, and the capacity for bearing freedom starts in the home, with a father who understands that his most important work is the interference he removes rather than the shape he imposes. The figure was always there. His job was to believe that, and to chisel with care until it emerged.

I don’t have this figured out. I feel the pull every day: to intervene, to instruct, to make it easier, to deploy what I know in service of outcomes I can see. And every day I have to remind myself that the marble has a figure inside it, and my job is to trust what’s there while working carefully with the grain.

The stakes go up as they grow. The failures become more consequential. The space between you and them widens, and the yielding curve demands that you let it widen, even when everything in you wants to close the gap.

But I think this is what it means to be a father. The version that shows up, rather than the one that optimizes or performs having it together. The one who has been in the dirt and can show you how to get the mud off. The one who holds the chisel with care because he knows the figure is already there, waiting to be revealed.

Share

Sources and Inspiration

The Inner Game of Tennis - Timothy Gallwey

Man’s Search for Himself - Rollo May

Home Game - Michael Lewis

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu

Nicomachean Ethics - Aristotle

Iron John: A Book About Men - Robert Bly

Founding Fragility · A Government Designed to Be Wrong · We Keep Building · Selection Bias on the 250th

The windows of the State House were shut against the Philadelphia summer, which also meant shut against anyone listening. Fifty-five men in a sweltering room, sentries at the doors, a secrecy rule so strict that nothing said inside would reach the public until the work was finished. James Madison sat near the front and took notes he wouldn’t allow published until every delegate in the room was dead.

For roughly five thousand years of recorded civilization, the answer to “who governs?” had been the same: somebody born to it. Pharaoh, emperor, king, chief, divine right, bloodline, conquest sanctified by time. The structure never changed. One person or one family ruled, and everybody else was ruled. It worked well enough, often enough, for long enough that attempting to change it was deadly.

The men in that room were there to try.

They weren’t starting from scratch. The Articles of Confederation had already failed. The Revolution had been won (barely, by fog and desperate gambles), and the country it created was falling apart. States printed their own money, ignored their debts, quarreled over borders. The Continental Congress couldn’t raise taxes or enforce its own decisions. European observers gave the experiment a few more years before it collapsed into either monarchy or anarchy.

The men in that room knew this. Many of them had fought for independence. Some had signed the Declaration. They were lawyers, merchants, plantation owners, speculators, war veterans. They were also slaveholders, land grabbers, and creditors protecting their interests. They were not demigods arriving with a blueprint. They were politicians arriving with agendas, arguing for four months about a form of government that had never existed at this scale.

What they produced was something stranger than perfect. It was a system designed by men who assumed they’d get things wrong.

The genius of anticipated failure

Monarchy doesn’t need an amendment process. If the king is sovereign by divine right, the system is correct by definition. Error belongs to the subjects, not the structure.

Karl Popper, writing from exile during the Second World War, identified this assumption as the most dangerous idea in Western political thought. He called it historicism: the belief that someone, somewhere, has access to the correct answer. Plato’s philosopher-kings. Hegel’s unfolding Spirit. Marx’s inevitable revolution. The content changes. The structure remains: if you know the destination, everyone who disagrees is an obstacle.

What happened in Philadelphia was the opposite of this. The framers designed a system premised on the idea that no one has access to the correct answer. Not the president. Not the Congress. Not the courts. Not the framers themselves. Article V of the Constitution is the most radical sentence in the document: it provides the mechanism for the people to change anything in it, including, in theory, Article V.

These men had egos that could fill the room. Hamilton wanted a president for life. Madison arrived with a plan to override state legislatures entirely. The Virginia delegation wanted representation by population; the New Jersey delegation wanted equal votes regardless of size. They fought bitterly about every clause.

Madison’s plan to extend Congress’s veto over all state laws was defeated, 7-3-1. Even Madison didn’t get the centralization he wanted. The compromise that survived left more room for state-level wrongness than he thought wise.

But the system they built encoded a specific epistemological commitment: we might be wrong. Madison made the commitment explicit in Federalist 51. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. The whole architecture turned on the assumption that men are not angels: ambition would have to counteract ambition, and flawed creatures would need machinery to constrain themselves. Joseph Ellis would later document how the post-ratification decade nearly tore the republic apart. The pattern was there in Philadelphia. The Constitution wasn’t consensus. It was negotiated truce. The three-fifths compromise on slavery was morally catastrophic. The electoral college was a jury-rigged solution to a problem no one could solve cleanly. The Bill of Rights had to be added later because the original document didn’t protect individual liberties explicitly enough.

Every one of these flaws was real. And the framework included the mechanism for addressing them. That mechanism is the point.

The framers’ question wasn’t who should rule. It was how to design institutions so the wrong ruler does limited damage. Elections, separation of powers, impeachment, amendment: every mechanism assumes the next person in the chair might be wrong.

The slaveholders wrote a framework through which slavery was abolished. The men who excluded women from voting built a system that eventually extended the franchise to everyone. The elitists who feared mob rule created institutions that, over two centuries, became more democratic than anything they imagined or intended. The correction happened through the framework. Dismissing the mechanism because its creators were flawed is dismissing the very process through which those flaws got corrected.

I’ve done both versions of the dismissal: gold-leaf reverence and tainted-origin contempt. Most of us lean one direction. They’re the same error, treating the founders as the point, when the founders built something designed to outlast and outgrow them.

Share

A system for people who don’t know the future

Hannah Arendt called the ability to begin something new “natality.” Every human being arrives as a fresh start, capable of doing what has never been done. The founding was an act of natality at civilizational scale: a beginning, not the application of a theory. The framers were starting something they couldn’t predict.

Arendt’s insight matters here because it rescues the founding from two traps. The first is inevitability (it was always going to happen this way, manifest destiny, God’s plan for America). The second is cynicism (they were just protecting their property, the ideals were cover for self-interest). Both flatten the genuine uncertainty of the moment. These were people acting into a future they couldn’t see, making commitments they couldn’t guarantee, and building in the assumption that the people who came after them would need to fix what they got wrong.

The amendment process has been used twenty-seven times. The thirteenth abolished slavery. The nineteenth gave women the vote. The twenty-sixth lowered the voting age to eighteen. Each amendment was a correction, an admission that the previous version was incomplete. This is constitutional piecemeal repair: test, discover the error, correct. The slow, grinding, imperfect work of making a flawed system less flawed.

Alexis de Tocqueville, arriving from France in the 1830s, saw something in American life that had no equivalent in Europe. Americans governed themselves daily. They formed associations to build schools, maintain roads, organize churches, solve problems. They didn’t wait for a king or a ministry. The township, Tocqueville thought, was to freedom what primary schools are to science: the place where citizens first learn the habit of governing themselves. Self-governance practiced in small rooms, over questions that affected their actual lives.

This is the other half of the bet. The Constitution provided the structure. But the structure only works if citizens fill it with the habit of governing themselves. Tocqueville’s warning was that democracy could hollow itself out, citizens gradually surrendering self-determination for the comfort of being managed. The framework holds only as long as enough people keep choosing to use it.

We inherited this. The founding was fragile. The framework that survived is fragile too, in a different way. Its fragility is civic rather than military: whether the people living inside the system still understand what it asks of them.

The bet the framers made was that ordinary citizens, given the tools of self-correction, would keep improving an imperfect government. That future generations would use Article V instead of abandoning the project. That people who inherited freedom’s burden would choose to carry it rather than hand it to someone who promises to carry it for them.

I think about this when I watch people on both sides talk about the founders. The reverence and the contempt share something: both treat the founding as settled. One side says it was great and needs restoring. The other says it was rotten and needs replacing. Neither reckons with the possibility that the founders’ actual genius was building a system that asks to be used. Argued over, amended, extended, corrected. Worked.

The radical bet was that we would keep fixing it.

Two hundred and fifty years in, the question is whether we’re still making that bet. Whether we still believe the slow, exhausting, imperfect work of self-governance is worth the trouble. Whether we’re still the kind of people who would rather argue about how to fix a flawed system than surrender the argument to someone who claims to have the answer.

I think we are. But believing it isn’t enough. The founders didn’t just believe in self-governance. They practiced it, daily, in rooms that were too hot, with people they couldn’t stand, over problems they couldn’t solve. The bet renews itself only in the practice.

The system is still here. The mechanism still works. The bet, as always, is on the people who fill it.

Share

America, Our Dare — a series on the American experiment, for the 250th

Founding Fragility · A Government Designed to Be Wrong · We Keep Building · Selection Bias on the 250th

Sources and Inspiration

The Open Society and Its Enemies - Karl Popper

The Federalist Papers - Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay

Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation - Joseph J. Ellis

1776 - David McCullough

Democracy in America - Alexis de Tocqueville

The Human Condition - Hannah Arendt

On Friday morning, before the market opened, a few hundred thousand people who will never see the inside of a Goldman Sachs allocation meeting picked up their phones and placed orders to own a piece of a rocket company. Most of them asked for a hundred shares and were handed twenty.

This is not how it usually goes. The richest day in a company's life, the initial public offering, is normally a velvet-rope event. The shares at the offering price go to hedge funds, pensions, university endowments, the institutions whose orders arrive through a banker who owes them a favor. The regular investor gets to buy in later, in the afternoon, at whatever price the morning's excitement has already inflated. The gate that keeps ordinary people out of the wealth-creation event is old and quiet and almost never mentioned, because almost no one on the outside of it knows it is there.

This week the gate came down. SpaceX set aside up to thirty percent of the largest public offering in history for retail buyers, against a normal five to ten. Institutions piled in so hard they clawed the retail share back to the low twenties, still triple what an ordinary investor ever sees. Fidelity dropped the threshold to get in the door from five hundred thousand dollars to two thousand. The orders that came back through Robinhood and SoFi and Schwab added up to something north of a hundred billion dollars, more than the entire company was raising, placed by people buying in two-thousand-dollar increments. Bankers who price these for a living haven't seen retail demand like it.

And by the closing bell, with the stock up nineteen percent, just shy of a hundred and sixty-one dollars, the man who founded the company was worth more than a trillion dollars. The first human being to cross that line.

I want to be explicit about what that number is, because almost everyone describing it this weekend has it wrong.

The people made him a trillionaire

A trillion dollars is not a vault. There is no room where it sits. Ninety-some percent of it is stock he has never sold in two companies that mostly have not yet done the things their price assumes they will do: land people on Mars, wire the planet for broadband, move the world's cars onto electricity. The Washington Post, no friend of the man, put it precisely in its own headline: the world's first trillionaire, on paper.

Benjamin Graham, who taught Warren Buffett how to think about this, said the market is a voting machine in the short run and a weighing machine in the long run. In the short run it counts votes. In the long run it weighs whether the thing was real. A trillion-dollar valuation is a tally of votes: a live, second-by-second count of how much a very large number of people believe a company will be worth. It is the public pricing one man's contribution in real time, and the contribution is enormous, and the price is the public's verdict on it.

Here is the part the weekend missed. The market is made of people, and people come in sizes. A multibillion-dollar fund and a nurse with a brokerage app are both casting votes; they are just weighted differently, and on the day that matters most, the small voters almost never get to vote at all. This week they did. The gate came down, the thresholds dropped, and a few hundred thousand ordinary people put their own money behind a man building rockets. They didn't get robbed. They lined up.

The market is a voting machine, and this week the smallest voters were finally let into the booth.

So when a senator goes on television to announce that trillionaires should not be allowed to exist, that this is a wealth transfer happening at your expense, there is a fact standing in the doorway. The people she means to protect were the ones placing the orders. They wanted twenty shares of the rocket company, and most of them wished they'd been handed the full hundred.

I'll grant the strongest version of the objection before going on, because it's real: a regular person buying into a euphoric offering at the top is one of the classic ways regular people lose money. That's Graham's weighing machine, and it does its work slowly. The vote happened Friday. The weighing happens over years, as the company delivers or doesn't. But notice what the objection concedes. It concedes that the bet was theirs to make. For once they were allowed into the room where fortunes are placed, and the dignity of that is not erased by the risk of it. Agency and risk are the same coin. You cannot hand someone the upside and protect them from the downside; the protection is the gate, and the gate is what just came down.

Share

The model becomes the obstacle

Watch the feed the same hour the number crossed. The man is a parasite. He produces nothing. He took this from you. He should not be permitted to hold it. Whatever you think of him, sit with the speed of the reaction: a person creates more measurable value than anyone in the history of the species has created, and the dominant emotional response, within the hour, is that he must be stopped from having done it.

Charlie Munger watched markets for sixty years and concluded the thing that really drives the world is envy: the inability to bear that someone else has more. He thought it the strangest of the deadly sins because it's the only one that offers its practitioner no pleasure at all, not even the brief kind. You just suffer it, and call it justice.

René Girard, a French thinker who spent his life on the structure of human wanting, explained why the suffering scales the way it does. Desire, he argued, is rarely a straight line from a person to a thing. There is almost always a third figure in the picture: a model, someone whose wanting we copy without admitting we're copying it. When the model is far away, a saint, a hero, a figure on a mountain, we worship openly and feel no rivalry. But when the model comes close, when he is a peer, a neighbor, someone on the same plane as us, the worship curdles. The man we'd emulate becomes the man in our way. Girard's image is a sentry at the gate of paradise who shows you the entrance and bars it with the same gesture. The model becomes the obstacle. And then we hide the admiration even from ourselves, and what's left showing is the hatred.

Girard's claim was that envy does not spread because people have gotten worse. It spreads because the distance between people collapses. The modern emotions flourish, he wrote, "because internal mediation triumphs in a universe where the differences between men are gradually erased." Envy needs a peer. The duke did not envy the blacksmith; their worlds never touched. You envy the classmate one salary band up, the friend whose post outperformed yours, the neighbor with the better year, because those worlds touch yours completely.

Now hold the two halves of this week together, because they are the same fact. The thing that let the nurse buy her twenty shares is the collapse of distance: the gate down, the threshold dropped, the billionaire's company suddenly something an ordinary person could own a sliver of from her couch. And the thing that turned that same billionaire into an object of instant hatred is the same collapse of distance. When he is near enough to buy, he is near enough to resent. Equality is the engine of the verdict and the engine of the envy. The flattening that invites you in is the flattening that tells you the man who built the door is your enemy.

The same collapse of distance that lets the neighbor buy a share is what turns the man who built the rocket into everyone's obstacle.

Girard had one more piece, and it's the one that keeps this from being a story about a single senator and a single tribe. He called the two-person version of it double mediation: a closed loop where each side copies the other's wanting and each accuses the other of starting it, "opposed but alike, and even interchangeable, for they make exactly the same movements." Peoples and politicians, he wrote, "blame each other, with the greatest possible sincerity, for the conflicts between them."

Look at the two poles and you find the identical machine running different software. The left names the billionaire: he hoarded it, tax it back, no one should have that much. The right names a different mediator: the globalists, the coastal elites, the credentialed class who rigged the game and look down on you. The object on the table changes. The geometry never does. Both convert they have more than I do into they must have taken it from me, because the second sentence is bearable and the first one is not. Resentment of the person ahead of you is the most bipartisan emotion in American life. We have simply built, in the feed, the most efficient machine for manufacturing it that has ever existed: a device that puts every successful stranger on earth at arm's length, all day, forever. The triangle used to need a village. Now it runs between you and twenty thousand people you'll never meet.

Emulate, don't envy

There is an exit, and Robert Greene named it in three words: transmute envy into emulation. The comparing machine in the head doesn't have an off switch. What it has is a direction. The same engine that produces he should be stopped can produce I want to build the thing I'd want to live near, and the difference between those two sentences is the difference between a culture that makes things and a culture that divides them.

Resentment is manufactured for you. Emulation is the version you have to choose.

Moses Kagan, who invests in unglamorous real estate and writes about it, put the constructive version better than I can:

"The next trillionaire will undoubtedly get there by solving some very important problems (like advancing electrification of global personal transportation by a decade or more, dramatically cutting the dollar-per-kilogram of taking stuff to orbit, or supplying wireless broadband internet to the entire planet). I want to live in the world that person will help create."

That is the whole argument in two sentences, and the second one carries it. I want to live in the world that person will help create. You can hold that and still think the man who built it is difficult, reckless, wrong about half of what he says on any given Tuesday. The fortune is beside the point. What matters is what had to exist for it to be possible, and almost all of it is now load-bearing in other people's lives: the rocket that cut the cost of orbit, the network reaching villages no cable ever would, the cars. Matt Ridley spent a book showing that this is how prosperity has always worked, that wealth compounds when ideas meet and combine and that the people who set the combining in motion capture a thin slice of what they release into everyone else's hands. The builder, in Ridley's phrase, is "flotsam bobbing upriver on the tidal bore of invention," a current that long outruns him. The slice looks obscene. The river is the point.

And this, finally, is why I find myself with no political home this week. One side looks at the trillion and sees only the slice, and wants it back, and calls the wanting justice. The other has mostly stopped talking about building anything at all, trading the future for grievance and spectacle and a smaller, older country that never quite existed. Both are selling the same thing in different packaging: that the pie is fixed and your job is to guard your piece. I don't want the pie guarded. I want it bigger, and I want to be governed by people who can still tell the difference between a man who took something and a man who made something.

But the feed sets the terms. It does not get final authorship. That is the one thing it cannot take unless I hand it over. The gate came down for one strange week, and a few hundred thousand people walked through it and bought a piece of a future they'd rather live in than resent. The loudest voices in the country spent the same week insisting the man on the other side had locked them out. He hadn't. The door was open. It is still open. You were actively invited, unlike most times. What's left is the part no senator can legislate and no algorithm decides for you: whether you walk through doors like that and build something on the far side, or stand in front of them the rest of your life, certain you were robbed, nursing the one sin that was never any fun to begin with. That posture was always yours to choose. It is the only thing in this whole story that actually is.

Share

Sources and Inspiration

The Intelligent Investor - Benjamin Graham

Poor Charlie's Almanack - Charlie Munger

Deceit, Desire, and the Novel - René Girard

The Laws of Human Nature - Robert Greene

The Rational Optimist - Matt Ridley

In 1909, a German chemist named Fritz Haber found a way to make ammonia from atmospheric nitrogen and hydrogen, under pressure, using catalysts and heat. Four years later Carl Bosch had scaled the process at BASF into an industrial system. The chemistry is hard. The result is simple. The nitrogen that crops need to grow can now be pulled out of the air at industrial scale, on demand, in whatever quantity the global food system requires.

In 2020, roughly four of the eight billion humans alive on this planet owed their existence to that process. They eat the wheat and the rice and the maize grown with the fertilizer it produces. The reactor that produces the fertilizer runs on natural gas. There is no commercial non-carbon alternative deployable at the scale the species currently requires. None.

This is settled accounting. The numbers come from the energy and materials scientist who has spent forty years counting what modern civilization actually runs on. Most of those four billion people will live their entire lives without knowing the fact. So will most of the other four.

Which raises a question I want to walk through carefully, because I think it sits underneath almost every other civic problem we have. What kind of citizen does a democracy need when the systems it depends on become this technical?

The bar is lower than the technocrats imagine. A democracy works when a citizen can trust the peers and institutions handling the technical detail, when they want the future more than they fear it, and when they hold enough basic numeracy to recognize compounding when it shows up in the data they encounter, and enough historical literacy to read the record of human progress without the distortion of nostalgia.

This essay is about the citizen we still need, and my attempt to help you be one.

What civilization actually runs on

Cement. Steel. Plastics. Ammonia. These are the four pillars of modern civilization. In 2019, the world consumed about 4.5 billion tons of cement, 1.8 billion tons of steel, 370 million tons of plastics, 150 million tons of ammonia. Making them eats roughly seventeen percent of global primary energy and produces a quarter of all fossil-fuel CO₂ emissions. None of the four is readily replaceable at scale. There is no other industrial material with steel's strength-to-cost ratio, no other malleable polymer family that does what plastics do, no other binder that produces reinforced concrete, no other way to fix atmospheric nitrogen at the rate ammonia synthesis does.

The four pillars is Vaclav Smil's phrase. He has spent forty years counting the biophysical substrate of modern life and has written more than forty books about it. His 2022 popularizing summary How the World Really Works is where the figures above come from. Smil is not making a moral argument. He is making a material one. The morality is what the reader has to do afterward.

Underneath the four pillars sits a second layer Smil insists is even less visible than the first. The diesel engine, fed with refined crude, moves nearly everything humans move at scale. Container ships, freight trains, long-haul trucks, ocean-going bulk carriers, the equipment that plants and harvests almost all industrial agriculture. The popular story of globalization is digital. The actual story is mechanical. Most of what is in your kitchen and most of what is on your back spent thirty days on a ship whose 109,000-horsepower diesel engine burned 4,650 tons of low-grade residual oil to push twenty-three thousand other steel boxes across the ocean. The internet coordinates the chain. Diesel and the box are the chain.

This is what Smil means by substrate. Every other domain we talk about (food, housing, transport, communication, medicine, sanitation) rests on a thicket of bulk materials and energy flows whose mass and timescale most public conversation has never engaged.

The substrate also explains why decarbonization arguments that ignore the four pillars are missing most of the problem. The electricity grid is only about a fifth of final global energy use. Roughly eighty percent of what humanity actually uses energy for is industrial heat, transportation, and processes the grid does not touch. A debate about electric vehicles is a debate about something less than a fifth of the problem. A debate about renewable electricity is a debate about another fraction of the same fifth. The other four-fifths sit under steel mills, cement kilns, fertilizer plants, smelters, refineries, container ships, and the kilometer-deep mines that supply them. The grid does not reach any of them.

Energy is the layer everything else sits on.

Smil's discipline through the book is to refuse moral framing. He is impatient with apocalyptic environmentalism and equally impatient with Silicon Valley solutionism. His standing line is that "we are a fossil-fueled civilization whose technical and scientific advances, quality of life, and prosperity rest on the combustion of huge quantities of fossil carbon." Stripping that combustion out by 2050, he writes elsewhere in the same book, is conceivable only "at the cost of unthinkable global economic retreat, or as a result of extraordinarily rapid transformations relying on near-miraculous technical advances." He endorses neither. He refuses the both-poles framing in which one has to be chosen.

What the book does instead is count. Cement in tons. Ammonia in tons. Energy in joules. CO₂ in gigatons. Transitions in decades. The numbers do not by themselves say what should be done. They do say what is. And what is, in Smil's accounting, is a civilization whose material dependencies cannot be rearranged on a presidential election cycle or a quarterly earnings call.

The secret silent miracle

The substrate exists. The question that should sit next to it is harder than it sounds. What has that substrate produced?

For thirty years, the same experiment kept producing the same result. Audiences around the world, including medical students, journalists, hedge-fund managers, and Nobel laureates, were given thirteen multiple-choice questions about the basic state of the world. What share of children are vaccinated. How extreme poverty has changed. How life expectancy has moved. Almost everyone failed, and they failed in the same direction. They guessed at a darker, more frightening, more polarized world than the one the data described. A chimpanzee picking randomly would have scored thirty-three percent. The human average was closer to sixteen. The error was in their biased thought, not random.

The experimenter was Hans Rosling, a Swedish physician and global-health professor who spent the last decade of his life turning that finding into Factfulness. What the data actually show, in his reading, is what he called the secret silent miracle of human progress.

The share of humanity living in extreme poverty was eighty-five percent in 1800, twenty-nine percent twenty years before he wrote, nine percent in 2017. Life expectancy at birth was thirty years in 1800. It is seventy-two now. Eighty-eight percent of one-year-olds globally are vaccinated against something. Sixty percent of girls in low-income countries finish primary school: most audiences guess twenty. Deaths from natural disasters have fallen to about six percent per capita of what they were a century ago.

Rosling was careful, and the carefulness is what saves the book from the cheerful-progress cartoon it's enemies might try to paint it to be. He refused the optimist label. He coined the word possibilist for the stance he wanted:

"I'm not an optimist. That makes me sound naïve. I'm a very serious 'possibilist.' That's something I made up. It means someone who neither hopes without reason, nor fears without reason, someone who constantly resists the overdramatic worldview."

The possibilist holds two thoughts at once. The world is bad. The world is better. A premature baby in an incubator is both improving and critical. The trend can be sharply upward and the situation can still be unacceptable. The discipline is to keep both in mind without flinching toward consolation or despair.

What Rosling diagnoses across the book is the cognitive equipment that makes the directional error so reliable. Ten dramatic instincts — gap, negativity, straight line, fear, size, generalization, destiny, single perspective, blame, urgency — each adaptive in the small-group environments where human cognition evolved, each catastrophically miscalibrated for the modern information environment. The fear instinct selects for what is frightening over what is dangerous. Plane crashes and shark attacks pass through the filter. Diarrhea and traffic accidents, which actually kill far more people, do not.

Heat kills more Europeans each year than guns kill Americans. Heat deaths in Europe ran above forty-seven thousand last year. Gun deaths in the United States ran below it.

The fear instinct selects for what is frightening over what is dangerous. Plane crashes pass through the filter. Diarrhea does not.

The lift Rosling counts and the substrate Smil counts are the same civilization seen from two angles. Rosling shows what has actually happened to human lives across two centuries. Smil shows what it physically takes to keep that happening. Both stories are true. Read together, they describe a species that has accomplished one of the most dramatic improvements in human welfare in recorded history while embedding itself ever more deeply in material flows that are not obviously sustainable.

Share

I want to take a smaller scale now, because the global numbers are easy to nod at and forget. Let me put myself in the picture.

In Smil's book there is a kitchen-table demonstration. Take a tomato from a heated greenhouse in Almería, the kind shipped to a Scandinavian supermarket in February. Slice it. Pour five tablespoons of dark oil over the slices. That is what you are looking at when you put a winter tomato on a salad in a Northern European supermarket. About 650 milliliters of embedded diesel fuel per kilogram of fruit. Most of it for the greenhouse heat, some for the transport, the rest for the fertilizer that grew the plant. Smil's point is the consumer surface that hides the substrate, not the tomato itself.

I have eaten foods like this in the winter myself. I have rarely thought about it. I certainly have never broken it down.

The same blindness runs through my electric bill. Once a month a dollar amount arrives in my email. I pay it. If asked what fraction of that dollar amount paid for heat, what fraction for hot water, what fraction for the refrigerator, what fraction for the lights, I could not tell you with much confidence. I have lived in this house for years. Even the writer who reads about energy for fun cannot decompose his own monthly bill.

The substrate underneath the dollar amount is invisible to me. I am someone who reads about energy for fun.

The blindness extends upward. The civic story that has run through 2025 and into 2026 in my part of the algorithm is data center water use. Counties holding up permits. Citizen groups filing public-records requests. Op-eds measuring the cost of artificial intelligence in gallons. Denver City Council voted unanimously to halt new data centers for twelve months, effective the week this essay was finalized.

The data is public. In 2023, all the data centers in the United States combined consumed about seventeen billion gallons of water for direct cooling, plus roughly two hundred billion gallons more indirectly through the electricity that powered them. Call it two hundred twenty-eight billion gallons all in, on the most generous accounting.

In the same year, residential lawn irrigation in the United States consumed about three and a third trillion gallons. California almonds alone consumed roughly one and a half trillion more. The lawns the country waters and the almonds it grows together used something like twenty times more water than every AI query, every CRM database, every video stream, text message, and Instagram Reel the country generated combined.

No one seems to be protesting almonds.

What is doing the work is the dramatic instinct. Data centers are new, technological, corporate, and run by companies whose names trigger something. Lawns and almonds are familiar, agricultural, residential, and run by no one whose name I know besides my neighbors' 2500sqft of turf. The fear filter passes one and not the other, exactly as Rosling diagnosed. The inflamed group does not care that the math runs the other way.

These three blindnesses cut across partisan lines and across the question of good faith. They are the routine condition of a human being trying to make sense of a technical civilization through interfaces (the supermarket shelf, the monthly bill, the news headline) that were designed to hide the substrate rather than expose it. The civilization functions because the substrate is hidden. The democracy functions, when it functions, because someone bothers to look.

The dramatic-instinct economy Rosling diagnosed runs on these blindnesses. Every successive incentive in the chain that connects the substrate to the citizen (advertising, branding, retail, journalism, social media, political campaigning) selects for vividness over accuracy and for emotional valence over orders of magnitude or analytical thought. The miscalibration is the system's product, not its malfunction.

The pencil on your desk required loggers in Oregon and graphite miners in Sri Lanka, and not one of them knows how to make a pencil alone. Two strangers, neither related, swap two different objects at the same time. Both walk away better off. Multiply that across a population, repeat for a hundred thousand years, and the species' intelligence stops being held in any one head and starts being held in the exchange itself.

The word for this is Hayek's: catallaxy, the spontaneous order generated by exchange and specialization. Hayek named it. The third voice in this dialogue carried it from political economy into deep human history. Matt Ridley is a zoologist who, in mid-career, turned into a popularizer of evolutionary thinking. His 2010 book The Rational Optimist extends Darwin and Adam Smith into a single explanation of how the modern world got so rich.

Ridley's deeper claim is that the catallaxy compounds when ideas can find each other, and that the rate at which ideas can find each other has accelerated faster than any other variable in human life since 1800. Population multiplied six times. Real income rose nine times. Life expectancy more than doubled. Vietnamese poverty fell from ninety percent to thirty in twenty years. The hockey stick is real.

But Ridley does something else that matters for the substrate question. He grounds the catallaxy in physics. The hockey stick rests on cheap dense energy in sufficient supply. Coal made every modern person, in Ridley's image, a little Louis XIV. By his arithmetic, it would take roughly a hundred and fifty human beings pedaling exercise bicycles in eight-hour shifts to deliver the energy the average global citizen consumes. Six hundred and sixty for the average American. Modern prosperity rests on cheap dense energy: it is the substitute for the form of slavery cheap dense energy made uneconomic.

Rosling counts the lift. Smil counts the substrate. Ridley names the mechanism that ties them together. The catallaxy needed the substrate to produce the lift. The substrate exists. The lift is profound. The three voices converge.

And here is where the dialogue produces something none of them quite says alone.

The three accountings are public knowledge. They are in mainstream books written for general audiences. They are taught nowhere in particular. The conversation that should follow from them, about what kind of civilization we want, what we are willing to spend to keep it, what we are willing to lose to change it, is conducted instead through the interfaces I named in the last section. Through headlines that confuse stocks with flows. Through bills whose components are illegible. Through the dramatic-instinct economy that selects for the photogenic over the load-bearing.

The catallaxy needed the substrate to produce the lift. The conversation that should follow from those three accountings is conducted through headlines, bills, and slogans.

Vaclav Smil wrote, near the start of his book, a sentence I want to give in full because it is the civic argument the whole substrate project is making in one line:

"The gap between wishful thinking and reality is vast, but in a democratic society no contest of ideas and proposals can proceed in rational ways without all sides sharing at least a modicum of relevant information about the real world, rather than trotting out their biases and advancing claims disconnected from physical possibilities."

This is the turn. The substrate of consent is a different thing than the conclusions consent should reach. The substrate of consent is the minimum civic numeracy that lets the conclusions be reached at all. A citizen who cannot tell a megawatt from a megawatt-hour cannot consent to the energy decisions made in their name. A citizen who has never looked at the four pillars cannot meaningfully weigh in on what they are worth and what should replace them. Self-rule in a technical civilization requires self-acquaintance with the systems being ruled.

The point lands harder because of when we are. The two decades behind us were a window in which the binding constraints were attention, code, and cheap money. The substrate could be hidden behind the interface. That window is closing. The energy needed to train and run artificial intelligence, the chips required to build it, the manufacturing required to build the chips, the materials and mines and diesel substrate the manufacturing rests on, are all reasserting themselves as the binding constraint on the next decade. The physical world is coming back. The numeracy that did not matter when the constraint was attention now matters because the constraint is joules.

Share

The substrate of consent

I have written before about the politics of energy. One essay diagnosed historicism, the conviction that history has a knowable destination, as the failure mode driving signal-first energy policies across Western democracies in our own decade. Another, future piece under construction now, lays out specific proposals (a carbon price, nuclear deployment at scale, transmission infrastructure, the institutional posture I think the environmental movement built in the 1970s and now needs to revise) and will argue for them under my own name. Both of those essays argued. This essay does not. It establishes the substrate underneath argument. The numeracy without which no argument about energy can begin.

Numeracy is a virtue you practice into. Start with six numbers and three rules.

The six numbers: four billion people alive because of synthetic ammonia. The four pillars in tons in 2019: 4.5 billion of cement, 1.8 billion of steel, 370 million of plastics, 150 million of ammonia. Eighty percent of human energy use the grid does not touch. Global life expectancy thirty years in 1800, seventy-two now. The share of humanity in extreme poverty, eighty-five percent in 1800 and nine percent in 2017. A hundred and fifty humans on exercise bicycles to deliver the average global citizen's energy, six hundred and sixty for the American.

The three rules: stock versus flow, watt versus watt-hour, percentage of new capacity versus percentage of total use. The discipline of pausing on a headline long enough to ask the unit, the kind, the denominator. A thirty-second move. It catches most of the innumeracy modernity throws at you.

The willingness to be the person at the dinner table who asks. Not because numbers settle arguments. They do not. But because the argument cannot even begin without them.

The chain runs Individual → Society → Civilization. We say it often at the Dispatch. In a technical age, the first link does the work the rest depends on. Knowing what you do not know about the systems you vote on is the smallest version of self-rule.

Share

Sources and Inspiration

How the World Really Works - Vaclav Smil

Factfulness - Hans Rosling

The Rational Optimist - Matt Ridley

Numbers Don't Lie - Vaclav Smil

I caught myself doing it again last week. Scrolling the push-notification headlines before bed: some number about the debt crossing the size of the whole economy, some line about a generation getting hollowed out to pay for the older, richer one. I felt the familiar slump. The one that says the good years are behind us, the system is rigged, and the smart move is to expect less and guard what little is left.

Fighting posture. Fisticuffs instead of slumber.

I sat in it for a second. Then I remembered saying almost exactly that out loud a few months back, blaming one cohort for taking from another, running the grim math, landing on the shrug. And I remember thinking afterward: I don’t actually believe that. I keep reaching for it because it’s available. It’s easy. It’s vindicating.

Ultimately, it’s envy of a sort.

That slump has a name once you watch where it goes. It starts as a mood, a gloom about the country and the future, and the mood is only the on-ramp. What it merges onto is a whole way of seeing, and the way of seeing is this: the pie is fixed. From that one assumption everything follows. If the pie is fixed, then more for you is less for me. Wanting more becomes a kind of greed. Using less becomes a kind of virtue to signal. And the highest virtue is making sure your neighbor uses less too, or turning your politics vindictive and voting for the guy promising to take.

Call it what it is. A mind virus.

Its native tongue is the language of smaller: shrink the economy, lower the ceiling on progress, divide the pile more “fairly,” and learn, all of us, that taking is better than building.

The virus: therefore the future is over. The one that does the damage: therefore we should all learn to live with less, take what we need. You may disagree with the framing and say: yes, we do need to live with less but that doesn’t mean taking. I say, that may be fine for you and some subset of individuals. But on the whole, human behavior will trend toward the taking in a shrinking pie, even if it is only imagination.

The pie is not fixed. It never was.

Share

The same small room

The virus is bipartisan, which is the part each side misses because each is certain it’s the other one’s disease. The left dialect is loud about it: the rich have too much, so take it; consume less to save the planet. The right dialect swears it’s the cure, not the sickness: the great days are behind us, so wall it off; they are taking our jobs, our country, our future; retreat to something smaller and older and safer. One side wants to ration the pie out of guilt. The other wants to fence it off out of fear. Both have already decided the pie will never grow again. Degrowth and decline are the same animal in different coats. The faces flee in opposite directions and meet at the back of the same small room.

Erich Fromm gave us the shape of that room eighty-five years ago. Freedom, he saw, is a burden before it is a gift. When no one is telling you what to believe or who to be or what your life should mean, an anxiety sets in that is hard to name, and the human animal will do almost anything to set the weight down. Submit to a strongman. Dissolve into the crowd. There is a quieter one he doesn’t name, though his logic invites it: choose the smaller life on purpose. A fixed pie is a kind of relief. If nothing can grow, nothing is being asked of you. You don’t have to build, or risk, or change. You only have to divide what’s here and police the appetite of whoever wants more. Despair is a way of putting freedom down without admitting you’ve done it.

The physicist David Deutsch split societies into two kinds, and the split is really about this. A static society survives by suppressing change, and to manage it the society has to shrink its own people, raise them to want only what is already allowed. A dynamic society survives by absorbing change, and it grows. Deutsch caught the word “sustain” hiding two meanings: to provide for someone, and to keep them from changing. The smallness creed wants the second and advertises the first. It says it is protecting you. It is freezing you. Halting you. Crushing your dreams and progress.

The politician points to Ken Griffin. I point to your own thoughts. Only one of those do you have the power to change.

I saw a chart once that captured the opposite error, the utopian one. Human progress climbing, then a fork: one line spiking to paradise, one plunging to we-all-get-eaten-by-the-machine, and the only honest line, the long climb continuing, drawn faintest of all. Deutsch keeps two sentences in the same hand that kill both fake lines: problems are inevitable, and problems are soluble. The first kills the paradise spike, because there is never a final state where nothing is left to fix. The second kills the plunge, because no wall we are hitting now is permanent; it is knowledge we have not built yet. The pessimist’s error, in his reading, is parochial: he mistakes the edge of what we currently know for the edge of what can be done. The pie was never fixed. It has been getting bigger for the whole span we have kept records. I’ve made this case before, as a recession of progress: the climb is real, and what dipped is our nerve for it.

Or, belief in it.

You can watch the over-generalization fail in real time. A few years back a recession was treated as a near-certainty: a widely cited model put the odds at a near hundred percent, and the yield curve, which had called every downturn since the seventies, inverted and held. The plant-is-closing logic ran straight to its usual verdict. Batten down, the storm is here. The storm didn’t come. The economy grew near three percent, unemployment sat close to four, inflation drifted back downward, though still not to target. The losses underneath were real: prices hurt, rates hurt, whole sectors got ground down. The verdict built on top of them was wrong.

The proof is the neighbor

So what does the positive-sum world look like, past the slogan?

It looks like the floor falling. The floor under starting something. For most of history the tools that made a person productive belonged to whoever owned the factory, and the worker rented the loom. The electric motor sat available for forty years before it reshaped the shop floor, because using it meant rebuilding the whole plant around it, and only capital could do that. That is the honest worry, and I won’t wave it off: every general-purpose technology has promised to lift everyone and delivered, first, decades of its gains pooling at the top. There is even a name for the original case, the Engels pause. Through the early Industrial Revolution output per worker raced ahead while working wages crawled, for roughly fifty years, before the line finally bent.

So why might this time run differently? Because the thing that just got cheap is intelligence, and intelligence is the one asset the ordinary person already owns their slice of. The cost of wielding frontier capability has fallen something like fiftyfold a year; what cost sixty dollars to do in 2020 costs about a dime now. The complementary investment the old machines demanded, the factory, the mainframe, the back office, has shrunk to a laptop and a monthly bill smaller than a phone plan. You can see it in the count: Americans are filing new-business applications at nearly double the old rate, and the surge is almost all the one-person kind. The loom finally got cheap enough to own.

Degrowth and decline are the same animal in different coats.

I get a small, ground-level version of this every month. I spend something like twenty-five thousand dollars a year just to administer my business and sales taxes: the registering, the tracking, the filing across a thicket of thousands of jurisdictions no honest small operator can fully satisfy, all of it spent to comply before a dollar of it is the tax itself. It would be the easiest thing in the world to read that as proof the deck is stacked, and most weeks I do. But the same mess is also a list of things somebody could build a business fixing, and a few people already are.

The proof won’t be the billionaire on your algorithmically served headlines screen. It will be the neighbor down the street, the one who works a normal job and also, quietly, builds a thing that wasn’t there before and finds that the thing pays. The move that matters is small: from a little on the edge to genuinely, durably comfortable in terms of household cashflow. That is the reorientation the virus can’t stomach. It has to stop asking what it is owed and start asking what it could make that would add value. The economy exists to celebrate the people who create more value than they capture, who leave the world larger than they found it and take home a slice. The virus can’t even see them. It was built to count grievances, so it sees only billionaires hoarding, never builders enlarging, and the redistribution it reaches for fails for the reason Friedrich Hayek named: the knowledge of what is worth making is scattered across millions of heads on the ground, and never sits with the committee dividing the spoils.

Distribution is the only verb the virus knows. Creation is the verb that moved every line that ever rose.

Subscribe now

The exhortation has a shadow

And yet. I don’t want to wave away the part that’s tangible. The screws really are turning tighter on the middle. Things really do cost more, and the feeling of going backwards is its own kind of pain, separate from the hardship itself. The Engels pause was fifty years long, and if you tell the laborer the line eventually bends, he is right to spit at you. When I say the pie can grow, I am placing a bet, and the bet can lose: the gains can pool at the top again, the floor can fall for the person while the ceiling stays owned by the few who hold the compute. Pretending that can’t happen is its own small virus.

But notice what the smallness creed does with that real risk. It takes a genuine danger and runs it all the way to therefore stop building. That last step is the lie. You can hold the risk and refuse the surrender. That is just Fromm’s burden, picked up instead of set down: the freedom to act inside conditions you did not choose. Bearing it is harder than rationing. It is also the only move that has ever made the pie bigger for anyone. It is Rollo May’s joy derived from using one’s powers.

What’s missing, more than any policy, is the invitation. So let me make it, in whatever voice you would actually receive it in.

You are not living at the end of something. A free civilization is only ever the running total of the people who chose to build inside it, and the choosing is open again on terms that have never been this generous. The cost of learning to do almost anything has fallen through the floor, and the cost of starting almost anything has followed it down. None of that hands you an outcome. It hands you a door, and walking through it is still your work, which is the only part that was ever really yours. Alexis de Tocqueville caught the disposition in Americans two centuries ago: their question was the active one, what can I do, and the trying taught them the next thing. The pie is not fixed. It never was. The people who found that out did not wait to be handed a bigger slice. They went and made one, and the world was larger for it, and so were they.

So go build something. Try the thing, ship the thing, fix the broken thing nobody else will touch. Make more than you take. Do it long enough and the reward usually follows, but the reward was never the point. Creation fills; consumption drains. You build because it is the one act that leaves both the world and the builder larger than before. That’s the whole creed, and I’m betting my own week on it. Bet yours.

Share

Sources and Inspiration

The Beginning of Infinity - David Deutsch

Escape from Freedom - Erich Fromm

The Road to Serfdom - F.A. Hayek

Democracy in America - Alexis de Tocqueville