As you might have guessed, I have thought a lot about that one, even if I don't think I quite did the idea justice (on several levels). Maybe next time. For one, I know the idea of competing realities is nothing new -- think of religion vs. science, or competing religions, or different cults, or competing conspiracy theories that have existed since time immemorial.
It's just that now about half of our population believes our criminal huckster president is the messiah and the other half believes, well, we think he's a criminal huckster. Transparently so. At least one group has to be deluded. The question is which one, and why? Do we have to burn our democracy to the ground to learn the answer to that question? What else will we bring down with it?
It's tempting to view our folly through the lens of mental illness, but I think in the case of our dysfunctional national family it is a case of deliberately induced delusion rather than the kind that happens on its own. It makes so little sense to me that it's either sheer madness or the most outrageous kind of criminal or political conspiracy. I guess that makes me deluded.
You remember the first line from Gary Snyder's "Civilization": "Those are the people who do complicated things." That's us. Or me.
I welcome an outside perspective of the latter day John Muir kind, if you'd like to provide one.
Alexis, this is a brilliant piece. It's the best explanation I've yet seen for the delusion that is so pervasive. How did we get to a point where the country is divided in half according to competing realities? What was/is it that created a parallel reality? It's not the purpose of your piece, but it made me wonder why so many leaders - the Obamas, the Clintons, Bush, Condi Rice, not to mention cultural icons, are silent? "Evil prevails when good men stay silent". Someone has to defend the reality of facts, institutions, the rule of law, and decency. Great piece.
Good question about prominent people who should be speaking out. I’m feeling a bit old for someone thinking of joining the resistance. But I’m beginning to think we may have no choice. I know I’m no Benjamin Franklin, but he was 70 when he went to France to represent the promise of our future. (I know this because I’m reading Stacy Schiff’s fabulous book about those years). Damn. Right when I planned to go to the Caribbean to drink Cuba Libres for the rest of the time.
A sobering description of our current state of affairs. The deliberately induced delusions are part of the playbook for this administration. It seems to follow a Putin-Stalin agenda of dismantling our federal systems, wreaking havoc on the economy, detaining political opponents, diminishing social services, picking fights with our allies, the list of disruptions goes on. Next step will be to invoke some sort of Marshall law that gives the marginally elected president supreme authority over all facets of governance. These are scary times, and we cannot rely on the GOP to wake up or the SCOTUS grow a spine, in order to save us.
Never thought that we could face such a situation in this country. Besides writing, speaking out, and calling our congressional representatives (in MD where I live, they're at least as aware as I am about what is happening), what else should we be doing? Do we need to take to the streets? Incredible.
Alexis, this was brilliantly damning! The shattering of consensus reality, and the sad personal examples you use, along with references to periods of former collective insanity--Nazi Germany, The Fall of Rome... I am by turns deeply disturbed, and profoundly impressed by your thoughts shared here.
I will echo others in commiserating with you over the loss of your brother, and then congratulating you for molding the experience into a useful contribution for us all to ponder. We can only hope that it is cathartic. Your entry into the powerful workings of the brain, and it's influence on our tenuous hold on reality is fascinating. I could go on and on Alexis, praising your political insights, highlighted in this essay, and then wishing you and your family luck moving forward. Can I make a metaphoric leap from your sad personal story to the potential state of our dysfunctional American family? That would be a scary leap to make.
Congratulations on your fine thoughts and writing.
As you might imagine, I have spent a lot of time thinking about that idea, and still don't think I quite pulled it off. Too many gaps.
Still, it's hard not to see what looks from the outside a lot like collective delusion taking over the minds of so many of our compatriots, even if that delusion is--as I tried to suggest--deliberately induced. I think we might dismiss many of those so deluded as so-called "no or low information" voters or citizens (probably a contradiction in terms), but a certain nontrivial number are the exact opposite: extremely engaged, hyper politically active, high information folk, who happen to believe some weird ass shit about what our huckster in chief is up to.
In that connection I sometimes think back to a book by right of center Latin American intellectuals called "El Manual Del Perfecto Idiota Latinamericano". You may have heard of it. It was a focused, polemical riposte to the overwhelming popularity of Eduardo Galeano's powerfully written "Las Venas Abiertas de Latinoamerica" (Hugo Chavez once famously gave President Obama a copy), which turns out to be the Bible of the Idiot. One line in it resonates through time, and across ideological categories: "The idiot is extremely well read. The problem is he has read all the wrong books."
Pragmatic philosophers argue that reality will eventually defy lies after a while, breaking through the barriers of induced delusion (eg tariffs produce riches, due process is unimportant, trust doesn't matter in domestic politics or international relations) whether we like it or not. I wonder if we're about to find out again before long. It might happen a bit like the power of an earthquake, which occurs when the growing tension between opposing tectonic plates suddenly lurches; the longer the tension accumulates, as you know better than I, the bigger the earthquake. For that reason, I hope to see reality crash through the dangerous delusion sooner rather than later.
Thanks again for reading and responding. I really appreciate it.
A tour de force, Alexis. I’m so sorry, first of all, for your tragic loss in such a horrific way. It doesn’t lessen the feelings you must surely grapple with to this day, but what an amazing and constructive way to channel such heartbreak to help others understand the troubling times we find ourselves in. Your vivid explanation will stay with me.
I remember being in Dublin hosting a watch party at the embassy for the 2016 election. After they called the election for the current president, I had to excuse myself to be alone to cry, something I had not done in many, many years, or at least since I had gotten my last EER from Jim Nealon. At the time I felt the United States was over as a democracy. By 2018 with the fierce opposition and Blue Wave mid term election, I felt humility demanded I reexamine my priors. Now I wonder if I was just not understanding that Rome didn’t collapse overnight and neither did the American experiment.
Thank you again for your thoughtful, insightful essay.
Thanks Francis. Was thinking seriously of not posting it, because it wasn't quite ready to go and might never be. That said, I had been thinking about the for some time, and had even had the title in mind for over a year. So what the hell.
The Jonathan Rauch book is masterful, one of the most impactful works I've read in the past decade. (I've been reading Rauch since he wrote Outnation in the early 90s, an insightful book about Japan reminiscent of Kurt Singer's Mirror, Sword, and Jewel. The fact that he wrote it after being in the country for 3 months while I had lived there for two years and could never have written anything close to as good convinced me that I had better accept the Foreign Service offer or risk being a pauper (and thoroughly failed writer, a wannabe Bukowski).
That said, if you asked me back then, or even ten years ago, that the United States would be where we are now, with most Americans THRILLED, I wouldn't have believed it. I still don't. Why? Because I'm fucking deluded. When I saw the Zelensky Oval Office clip, I actually cried. Is it possible we have a Manchurian president and the people could care less? Thanks for weighing in. If you want to pitch in a foreign service-type reflection on my modest (but slowly growing) platform, we really need to spread the word. The Emperor has no clothes!
I was for most of my career an environmental journalist, as you know. But occasionally every journalist working for a news organization is called on to step out of his beat to cover something breaking, whether or not related to the beat. I found myself in that position many times, but no time more memorable than the day I was asked by one of my editors to cover the Ku Klux Klan.
I was on assignment, reporting on a story about some environmental issues affecting a national forest deep in New England. It was the print age, decades ago. Suddenly, at around eleven in the morning, the editor called and told me the Klan was going to be demonstrating in a nearby town at noon. At the moment I was the newspaper's only reporter in the vicinity. "Put your assignment on hold and go cover the demonstration. File by four," my editor said.
So, I drove over to the town, where I found several dozen Klansmen, in white robes and dark sunglasses, marching in a circle on the village green. Passing motorists were shouting obscenities out their windows. Police officers formed a barrier line around the green, on edge. Teenagers idly joked on the sidewalk, oblivious to the danger, or pretending to be. And I did what I always did, what any reporter would do, or should do--neutrally gather information, including an interview with a Klansman, asking him questions like why he was protesting, what he hoped to achieve, and after a while, questions like why he was part of an organization that thought whites were better than blacks, thought blacks didn't deserve the same rights as whites.
"Not that they don't deserve the same rights," he said. "Just in moderation."
I reported what he said, attributed to him.
I offer this post as a reflection on your very fine exploration of the collapse of consensus reality and the ascent of bespoke reality, and I do so for two reasons. One reason is to share one of the more memorable encounters I've ever had with bespoke reality, the Klansman clearly living in his chosen world. The other reason is to lament another collapse, that of the principles and practices of journalism, whose demise is one of many reasons for the rise of bespoke reality. It wasn't my job to agree or disagree with the Klansman, subsumed by his bespoke reality or by a contrary bespoke reality, respectively. It was my job to occupy a third space, outside of both bespoke realities, objectively reporting on an incident, and leaving it to my readers to decide what to think. Our societal and cultural loss of that third space is inestimable.
Thanks for sharing that very revealing anecdote, Bob.
Yes, your comment underscores one of the difficulties I had in putting together the draft, which remains a draft, a work in progress, forever unfinished. As a writer, you know how painful it is to know the many problems and holes in your own argument, as I do. One of them for me is that the issue of delusion or "bespoke" realities is nothing new; it's as old as we are, as your anecdote suggests. One might make the case that the internet has facilitated a flood of such stuff, and made it almost impossible to keep up with. (I have come to appreciate Brandolini's Law quite a bit for that reason, it really does take orders of magnitude more effort to debunk bullshit than to purvey it. Believe me, I've tried). But beyond that, no. Your Klansman example is a good one. Talk about total delusion actively contradicting objective reality! Having recently read more than I had before about our Civil War and the time leading up to it, the idea that Christianity and the Bible offered solid ideological support for the institution of slavery is a pretty good one too, and obviously fed into the later dangerous Klan crap. There's no end to the nonsense the more you look into it, which really does call into question the different ways we are currently, without being aware of it, totally wrong about things we take for granted.
The other problem is the issue of consensus itself, which I implicitly took (in my draft) to be a necessary good. Walter Lippman, in Public Opinion, did too. But not everyone has seen it that way. Noam Chomsky, for example, (whose political writing I always found unreadable, but whatever) thought that consent was manufactured to facilitate the exploitation of the people by corrupt corporate elites. That idea permeates, in a counterintuitive way, libertarian thinking of today. For that reason (maybe others too) they believe people like me are completely deluded by the consent manufactured by and for the benefit of traditional (corrupt) government, media and economic elites. This group includes mainstream journalists who (as you yourself suggest) are no longer doing the job of reporting but only purveying the elite's toxic and terribly frayed consensus. (Having recently read We Were Never Woke, I kind of agree).
Also, my implicit equating of psychiatric delusion with the delusion of those who believe in our prevaricating huckster in chief might also be rightly seen as politically tendentious by some. Can I be sure that my understanding of reality conforms more closely to the actual truth than the understanding of the average MAGA supporter? I hope so, but not totally sure. But I guess the bottom line is I still believe in the promise of democracy, imperfect, inefficient, slow, redundant etc. etc. that it is. Even so in my view it remains (to trot out the overused Churchill quote) the worst political system in the world with the exception of all the others. If only Donald Trump cared and Peter Thiel and Elon Musk et al understood and agreed. I guess like everything else, it depends on where you are, or who.
Thanks for writing. I was looking forward to reading what you had to say.
Thanks for your note. While it might be reasonable to suggest the phenomenon of bespoke reality has been around for as long as humanity has been around, it wasn't my intent, in my Klan story, to identify that suggestion as a hole in, or a problem with, your argument. Rather, I wanted to advance your argument about the collapse of consensus reality and the rise of bespoke reality by suggesting one cause of the collapse and rise is the concurrent collapse of journalistic principles and practices in the digital age. The latter collapse has eliminated that third space I mentioned, where consensus reality is cultivated and sustained. Without that third space, bespoke reality thrives unchecked. That Klansman I interviewed lived in his bespoke reality. But I reported what he said, attributed to him, in a third space. He and his bespoke reality didn't go unchecked.
Like you I also believe consensus itself is an issue, although again, not as a hole in, or a problem with, your argument. That people agree doesn't necessarily mean they're right. History is tragically replete with examples of this fallacy, as we know.
All this said, I do agree with one of your questions about your argument--"Also, my implicit equating of psychiatric delusion with the delusion of those who believe in our prevaricating huckster in chief might also be rightly seen as politically tendentious by some." I imagine those who believe in the "prevaricating huckster in chief" might say their belief is simply that, a belief, and not a political delusion, and so equating their belief with psychiatric delusion might be seen by them as politically tendentious.
Of course, you may be correct in characterizing their belief as a delusion and in then equating the delusions. But as argued, I agree with your question about your argument. A case could be made the characterizing and equating are more political assertion than psychological observation. They further seem an ad hominem step outside of that third space, which is a difficult place in which to live. The Klansman had it easy.
So very very sorry for your loss. Certainly a very powerful piece and, for me, your "going there" added an emotional wallop to it. That can't have been easy to write. Possibly cathartic?
I for one appreciate powerful personal specifics in a primarily intellectual discussion, so I was struck also by your description of a "former friend" and his various unfortunate delusions. Do you really believe this person was suffering from a mental illness akin to schizophrenia, or even a degree of it? Serious question -- I ask because I know very little about serious mental illness and you, sadly, ended up immersed in the subject, so am wondering. I wouldn't know what signs to look for.
I have dealt with many people I thought were "delusional". But often I ended up concluding that the issue was as simple as the person being unintelligent or uneducated. Why do you not reach the same conclusion in your former friend's case? Did you feel at any time that this person should have been getting professional help?
(On the "get professional help" point, your shocking story reminded me of the massive scope of the mental health crisis in our country and just how severe the consequences can be. Awful. Who knows when and where and how the next violent perpetrator will arise?)
On a less "medical" level, I read your description of your interactions with your former friend and was struck by this person's apparent similarity to plenty of the, may I say, stupid and ignorant people out there, as you may also have noticed exist in abundance. Why can't that be the factor that provides the answer to your former friend?
Whatever the case, my condolences also on the lost friendship. Being dumped as a friend for one's considered views, especially views coming from someone as experienced and apparently well-read as yourself, is nothing like losing a brother in a horrible situation such as you have described -- obviously! -- but can involve a degree of pain nonetheless. We've seen a lot of it during COVID obviously, but I am frankly STILL shocked that anyone would end a relationship with a friend over issues such as you describe. What a disloyal and superficial friend!!
My indignation aside, I guess my point is that these kinds of interpersonal breaks are a significant part of the damage caused to our social fabric by the lack of consensus on what's real. If you can't argue with a friend without that friend simply dumping you because of disagreement ... then who CAN you argue with? I've had a similar break some years ago with an old high school era friend over similar issues, so I feel for you on that. Maybe this person will wise up at some point and come back to you? (Maybe not worth it if he's such an obvious moron?)
At any rate, bravo. Your best yet. While obviously born of considerable pain, the personal aspects that were woven into this made this latest piece grip HARD.
Thanks for writing, and yes, I've been thinking about this idea a long time and still consider what I wrote a draft, a work in progress, not quite ready for prime time. So I was frankly reluctant to post it... There's so many dimensions to the idea, and I'm pretty sure I don't do it justice and am painfully aware of the gaps. I went down many different rabbit holes in the process, and ended up deleting most of them.
I do appreciate your comment about linking the personal experience with the idea, which was impossible not to do in this case. The death of my brother did, among other things, awaken an interest in mental illness, schizophrenia in particular -- a truly insidious disease. The brain is in charge of reality, your life, your consciousness. What else is there? I remember reading an article some years ago (before all this) suggesting that, given the brain's complexity and extremely delicate interconnections, it's a wonder there's not more mental illness than there is. I think about that from time to time.
As for my former friend, I was the one who severed the connection. And it has nothing to do with smart or stupid; the individual in question is terribly smart, and would argue--with some coherence (and vehemence)--that I am the deluded one. I tried for a time to find common ground ("let's agree that money in politics is bad"), but it turned out to be a fool's errand. Was that your experience too?
I do appreciate you weighing in, because I'm really not sure why I'm writing, apart from the fact that I want to. Even when I was a foreign service officer, more than anything else I considered myself a failed writer (it sounds better in French). We do what we can.
You didn't "find common ground" on current events with someone you considered "terribly smart" so ...
... you "severed the connection"?
I am a bit stunned. Based on your essay, I was certain that you were the one who had initiated the break.
With the greatest of respect, severing a connection with a "terribly smart" friend sounds a lot like the sort of act that is contrary to the ideas you so eloquently identified and railed against in your essay, no? (?)
Maybe there was more to it than what you described but, having gone through a similar such break with a "terribly smart" long-time friend over similar issues some years back -- with me the "broken" and he being the "breaker" -- I can assure you that, from the perspective of the "broken", all other things being equal, severing a long-held and valued human connection -- especially if the "broken" didn't see it coming -- is a painful and destructive act that in no way assists in reaching consensus any more than eg burning a parking lot full of Teslas does.
In fact, lashing out in destructive ways seems to be a growing and alarming trend, particularly amongst "our side of the divide", if I can call it that. Obviously those of us in this conversation are not the Tesla-vandalizing types but the rate and scope of the destruction of interpersonal relationships over these past few years is beyond worrying. That's what "social fabric" actually consists of.
Probably none of my business -- and feel free to agree with me on that and push back -- but is the break irreconcilable? When you informed this person that you were ending the relationship, and why, did his or her reaction suggest indifference, or worse? Sorry to pry but I have grown to hate hearing about things like this. You wouldn't believe the number of destroyed relationships I witnessed between close people over public health issues during COVID. It shocked the living hell out of me and still does.
In fact, you might even consider sending this person this latest piece of yours. It really is brilliantly written. How could this person not take you seriously when you can write something like that?? (This assumes this person doesn't mind reading, of course, and doesn't just watch Fox News all day ...)
My two cents. Maybe I should become a marriage counselor? 😆
Alexis, thank you for opening my eyes to what has been going on in our country for the last dozen years or so (the changing consensus reality must have been changing before 2016 and Donald Trumps arrival on stage).
I know a number of super intelligent people, those that qualify as geniuses and others that scored 1600 on their SATs and had near perfect GPAs in STEM majors who believe fervently in the current president. I could not understand the rational for their thinking and beliefs. Will the veil be lifted in due time or will it take something cataclysmic event. From what I read about Nazi Germany, the belief in the Fuhrer and the Nazi system lasted till the cold embers of that regime were ground under the allied armies. And now, I think 99% of Germans understand the lies and horrors associated with the 1000 year Reich. Great article.
Yes, Dan, you and I have had the same experience. Super smart people off the deep end down the rabbit hole, telling me (us) that they took the "red" pill and see things "as they are" while the rest of us sheep are blind and complacent plugged into the corporate delusion. I do question my own sanity from time to time. To me, it's not a partisan issue, it's much deeper than that. It's about character, which used to matter to the American people (for the most part). When will the fever break? Will it take being ground down into pulp like Hitler was before the people wake up? I thought the fever would break even before January 6, but now... I just don't know. Thanks for reading.
One further note about the consensus collapse not being a partisan issue. Among other things, I think often about the whole "gender identity" question in a similar light. Whether or not there is any objective reality to the notion that more biological "fluidity" exists between the sexes than we might have previously thought, it had long been a social consensus (a broadly accepted convention) that there were two genders. To expect people (including the American people) to suddenly abandon that social consensus overnight was and is to court political disaster. I know a lot of people, including open-minded people, find the "they/them" obsession jarring. I know I do. In that sense (and others too), the Trump phenomenon is just one aspect and symptom of the broader consensus collapse. I felt I had to say this because, as a self-defined "rabid non-partisan centrist," I (like so many others) feel poorly represented by both parties and not really represented by either. The shattered social consensus contributes to our crisis of political representation in that sense.
Thanks Ian -
As you might have guessed, I have thought a lot about that one, even if I don't think I quite did the idea justice (on several levels). Maybe next time. For one, I know the idea of competing realities is nothing new -- think of religion vs. science, or competing religions, or different cults, or competing conspiracy theories that have existed since time immemorial.
It's just that now about half of our population believes our criminal huckster president is the messiah and the other half believes, well, we think he's a criminal huckster. Transparently so. At least one group has to be deluded. The question is which one, and why? Do we have to burn our democracy to the ground to learn the answer to that question? What else will we bring down with it?
It's tempting to view our folly through the lens of mental illness, but I think in the case of our dysfunctional national family it is a case of deliberately induced delusion rather than the kind that happens on its own. It makes so little sense to me that it's either sheer madness or the most outrageous kind of criminal or political conspiracy. I guess that makes me deluded.
You remember the first line from Gary Snyder's "Civilization": "Those are the people who do complicated things." That's us. Or me.
I welcome an outside perspective of the latter day John Muir kind, if you'd like to provide one.
Alexis, this is a brilliant piece. It's the best explanation I've yet seen for the delusion that is so pervasive. How did we get to a point where the country is divided in half according to competing realities? What was/is it that created a parallel reality? It's not the purpose of your piece, but it made me wonder why so many leaders - the Obamas, the Clintons, Bush, Condi Rice, not to mention cultural icons, are silent? "Evil prevails when good men stay silent". Someone has to defend the reality of facts, institutions, the rule of law, and decency. Great piece.
Good question about prominent people who should be speaking out. I’m feeling a bit old for someone thinking of joining the resistance. But I’m beginning to think we may have no choice. I know I’m no Benjamin Franklin, but he was 70 when he went to France to represent the promise of our future. (I know this because I’m reading Stacy Schiff’s fabulous book about those years). Damn. Right when I planned to go to the Caribbean to drink Cuba Libres for the rest of the time.
A sobering description of our current state of affairs. The deliberately induced delusions are part of the playbook for this administration. It seems to follow a Putin-Stalin agenda of dismantling our federal systems, wreaking havoc on the economy, detaining political opponents, diminishing social services, picking fights with our allies, the list of disruptions goes on. Next step will be to invoke some sort of Marshall law that gives the marginally elected president supreme authority over all facets of governance. These are scary times, and we cannot rely on the GOP to wake up or the SCOTUS grow a spine, in order to save us.
Never thought that we could face such a situation in this country. Besides writing, speaking out, and calling our congressional representatives (in MD where I live, they're at least as aware as I am about what is happening), what else should we be doing? Do we need to take to the streets? Incredible.
Alexis, this was brilliantly damning! The shattering of consensus reality, and the sad personal examples you use, along with references to periods of former collective insanity--Nazi Germany, The Fall of Rome... I am by turns deeply disturbed, and profoundly impressed by your thoughts shared here.
I will echo others in commiserating with you over the loss of your brother, and then congratulating you for molding the experience into a useful contribution for us all to ponder. We can only hope that it is cathartic. Your entry into the powerful workings of the brain, and it's influence on our tenuous hold on reality is fascinating. I could go on and on Alexis, praising your political insights, highlighted in this essay, and then wishing you and your family luck moving forward. Can I make a metaphoric leap from your sad personal story to the potential state of our dysfunctional American family? That would be a scary leap to make.
Congratulations on your fine thoughts and writing.
Thanks for your response, Ian.
As you might imagine, I have spent a lot of time thinking about that idea, and still don't think I quite pulled it off. Too many gaps.
Still, it's hard not to see what looks from the outside a lot like collective delusion taking over the minds of so many of our compatriots, even if that delusion is--as I tried to suggest--deliberately induced. I think we might dismiss many of those so deluded as so-called "no or low information" voters or citizens (probably a contradiction in terms), but a certain nontrivial number are the exact opposite: extremely engaged, hyper politically active, high information folk, who happen to believe some weird ass shit about what our huckster in chief is up to.
In that connection I sometimes think back to a book by right of center Latin American intellectuals called "El Manual Del Perfecto Idiota Latinamericano". You may have heard of it. It was a focused, polemical riposte to the overwhelming popularity of Eduardo Galeano's powerfully written "Las Venas Abiertas de Latinoamerica" (Hugo Chavez once famously gave President Obama a copy), which turns out to be the Bible of the Idiot. One line in it resonates through time, and across ideological categories: "The idiot is extremely well read. The problem is he has read all the wrong books."
Pragmatic philosophers argue that reality will eventually defy lies after a while, breaking through the barriers of induced delusion (eg tariffs produce riches, due process is unimportant, trust doesn't matter in domestic politics or international relations) whether we like it or not. I wonder if we're about to find out again before long. It might happen a bit like the power of an earthquake, which occurs when the growing tension between opposing tectonic plates suddenly lurches; the longer the tension accumulates, as you know better than I, the bigger the earthquake. For that reason, I hope to see reality crash through the dangerous delusion sooner rather than later.
Thanks again for reading and responding. I really appreciate it.
A tour de force, Alexis. I’m so sorry, first of all, for your tragic loss in such a horrific way. It doesn’t lessen the feelings you must surely grapple with to this day, but what an amazing and constructive way to channel such heartbreak to help others understand the troubling times we find ourselves in. Your vivid explanation will stay with me.
I remember being in Dublin hosting a watch party at the embassy for the 2016 election. After they called the election for the current president, I had to excuse myself to be alone to cry, something I had not done in many, many years, or at least since I had gotten my last EER from Jim Nealon. At the time I felt the United States was over as a democracy. By 2018 with the fierce opposition and Blue Wave mid term election, I felt humility demanded I reexamine my priors. Now I wonder if I was just not understanding that Rome didn’t collapse overnight and neither did the American experiment.
Thank you again for your thoughtful, insightful essay.
Thanks Francis. Was thinking seriously of not posting it, because it wasn't quite ready to go and might never be. That said, I had been thinking about the for some time, and had even had the title in mind for over a year. So what the hell.
The Jonathan Rauch book is masterful, one of the most impactful works I've read in the past decade. (I've been reading Rauch since he wrote Outnation in the early 90s, an insightful book about Japan reminiscent of Kurt Singer's Mirror, Sword, and Jewel. The fact that he wrote it after being in the country for 3 months while I had lived there for two years and could never have written anything close to as good convinced me that I had better accept the Foreign Service offer or risk being a pauper (and thoroughly failed writer, a wannabe Bukowski).
That said, if you asked me back then, or even ten years ago, that the United States would be where we are now, with most Americans THRILLED, I wouldn't have believed it. I still don't. Why? Because I'm fucking deluded. When I saw the Zelensky Oval Office clip, I actually cried. Is it possible we have a Manchurian president and the people could care less? Thanks for weighing in. If you want to pitch in a foreign service-type reflection on my modest (but slowly growing) platform, we really need to spread the word. The Emperor has no clothes!
Alexis,
I was for most of my career an environmental journalist, as you know. But occasionally every journalist working for a news organization is called on to step out of his beat to cover something breaking, whether or not related to the beat. I found myself in that position many times, but no time more memorable than the day I was asked by one of my editors to cover the Ku Klux Klan.
I was on assignment, reporting on a story about some environmental issues affecting a national forest deep in New England. It was the print age, decades ago. Suddenly, at around eleven in the morning, the editor called and told me the Klan was going to be demonstrating in a nearby town at noon. At the moment I was the newspaper's only reporter in the vicinity. "Put your assignment on hold and go cover the demonstration. File by four," my editor said.
So, I drove over to the town, where I found several dozen Klansmen, in white robes and dark sunglasses, marching in a circle on the village green. Passing motorists were shouting obscenities out their windows. Police officers formed a barrier line around the green, on edge. Teenagers idly joked on the sidewalk, oblivious to the danger, or pretending to be. And I did what I always did, what any reporter would do, or should do--neutrally gather information, including an interview with a Klansman, asking him questions like why he was protesting, what he hoped to achieve, and after a while, questions like why he was part of an organization that thought whites were better than blacks, thought blacks didn't deserve the same rights as whites.
"Not that they don't deserve the same rights," he said. "Just in moderation."
I reported what he said, attributed to him.
I offer this post as a reflection on your very fine exploration of the collapse of consensus reality and the ascent of bespoke reality, and I do so for two reasons. One reason is to share one of the more memorable encounters I've ever had with bespoke reality, the Klansman clearly living in his chosen world. The other reason is to lament another collapse, that of the principles and practices of journalism, whose demise is one of many reasons for the rise of bespoke reality. It wasn't my job to agree or disagree with the Klansman, subsumed by his bespoke reality or by a contrary bespoke reality, respectively. It was my job to occupy a third space, outside of both bespoke realities, objectively reporting on an incident, and leaving it to my readers to decide what to think. Our societal and cultural loss of that third space is inestimable.
--Bob
Thanks for sharing that very revealing anecdote, Bob.
Yes, your comment underscores one of the difficulties I had in putting together the draft, which remains a draft, a work in progress, forever unfinished. As a writer, you know how painful it is to know the many problems and holes in your own argument, as I do. One of them for me is that the issue of delusion or "bespoke" realities is nothing new; it's as old as we are, as your anecdote suggests. One might make the case that the internet has facilitated a flood of such stuff, and made it almost impossible to keep up with. (I have come to appreciate Brandolini's Law quite a bit for that reason, it really does take orders of magnitude more effort to debunk bullshit than to purvey it. Believe me, I've tried). But beyond that, no. Your Klansman example is a good one. Talk about total delusion actively contradicting objective reality! Having recently read more than I had before about our Civil War and the time leading up to it, the idea that Christianity and the Bible offered solid ideological support for the institution of slavery is a pretty good one too, and obviously fed into the later dangerous Klan crap. There's no end to the nonsense the more you look into it, which really does call into question the different ways we are currently, without being aware of it, totally wrong about things we take for granted.
The other problem is the issue of consensus itself, which I implicitly took (in my draft) to be a necessary good. Walter Lippman, in Public Opinion, did too. But not everyone has seen it that way. Noam Chomsky, for example, (whose political writing I always found unreadable, but whatever) thought that consent was manufactured to facilitate the exploitation of the people by corrupt corporate elites. That idea permeates, in a counterintuitive way, libertarian thinking of today. For that reason (maybe others too) they believe people like me are completely deluded by the consent manufactured by and for the benefit of traditional (corrupt) government, media and economic elites. This group includes mainstream journalists who (as you yourself suggest) are no longer doing the job of reporting but only purveying the elite's toxic and terribly frayed consensus. (Having recently read We Were Never Woke, I kind of agree).
Also, my implicit equating of psychiatric delusion with the delusion of those who believe in our prevaricating huckster in chief might also be rightly seen as politically tendentious by some. Can I be sure that my understanding of reality conforms more closely to the actual truth than the understanding of the average MAGA supporter? I hope so, but not totally sure. But I guess the bottom line is I still believe in the promise of democracy, imperfect, inefficient, slow, redundant etc. etc. that it is. Even so in my view it remains (to trot out the overused Churchill quote) the worst political system in the world with the exception of all the others. If only Donald Trump cared and Peter Thiel and Elon Musk et al understood and agreed. I guess like everything else, it depends on where you are, or who.
Thanks for writing. I was looking forward to reading what you had to say.
Alexis,
Thanks for your note. While it might be reasonable to suggest the phenomenon of bespoke reality has been around for as long as humanity has been around, it wasn't my intent, in my Klan story, to identify that suggestion as a hole in, or a problem with, your argument. Rather, I wanted to advance your argument about the collapse of consensus reality and the rise of bespoke reality by suggesting one cause of the collapse and rise is the concurrent collapse of journalistic principles and practices in the digital age. The latter collapse has eliminated that third space I mentioned, where consensus reality is cultivated and sustained. Without that third space, bespoke reality thrives unchecked. That Klansman I interviewed lived in his bespoke reality. But I reported what he said, attributed to him, in a third space. He and his bespoke reality didn't go unchecked.
Like you I also believe consensus itself is an issue, although again, not as a hole in, or a problem with, your argument. That people agree doesn't necessarily mean they're right. History is tragically replete with examples of this fallacy, as we know.
All this said, I do agree with one of your questions about your argument--"Also, my implicit equating of psychiatric delusion with the delusion of those who believe in our prevaricating huckster in chief might also be rightly seen as politically tendentious by some." I imagine those who believe in the "prevaricating huckster in chief" might say their belief is simply that, a belief, and not a political delusion, and so equating their belief with psychiatric delusion might be seen by them as politically tendentious.
Of course, you may be correct in characterizing their belief as a delusion and in then equating the delusions. But as argued, I agree with your question about your argument. A case could be made the characterizing and equating are more political assertion than psychological observation. They further seem an ad hominem step outside of that third space, which is a difficult place in which to live. The Klansman had it easy.
--Bob
So very very sorry for your loss. Certainly a very powerful piece and, for me, your "going there" added an emotional wallop to it. That can't have been easy to write. Possibly cathartic?
I for one appreciate powerful personal specifics in a primarily intellectual discussion, so I was struck also by your description of a "former friend" and his various unfortunate delusions. Do you really believe this person was suffering from a mental illness akin to schizophrenia, or even a degree of it? Serious question -- I ask because I know very little about serious mental illness and you, sadly, ended up immersed in the subject, so am wondering. I wouldn't know what signs to look for.
I have dealt with many people I thought were "delusional". But often I ended up concluding that the issue was as simple as the person being unintelligent or uneducated. Why do you not reach the same conclusion in your former friend's case? Did you feel at any time that this person should have been getting professional help?
(On the "get professional help" point, your shocking story reminded me of the massive scope of the mental health crisis in our country and just how severe the consequences can be. Awful. Who knows when and where and how the next violent perpetrator will arise?)
On a less "medical" level, I read your description of your interactions with your former friend and was struck by this person's apparent similarity to plenty of the, may I say, stupid and ignorant people out there, as you may also have noticed exist in abundance. Why can't that be the factor that provides the answer to your former friend?
Whatever the case, my condolences also on the lost friendship. Being dumped as a friend for one's considered views, especially views coming from someone as experienced and apparently well-read as yourself, is nothing like losing a brother in a horrible situation such as you have described -- obviously! -- but can involve a degree of pain nonetheless. We've seen a lot of it during COVID obviously, but I am frankly STILL shocked that anyone would end a relationship with a friend over issues such as you describe. What a disloyal and superficial friend!!
My indignation aside, I guess my point is that these kinds of interpersonal breaks are a significant part of the damage caused to our social fabric by the lack of consensus on what's real. If you can't argue with a friend without that friend simply dumping you because of disagreement ... then who CAN you argue with? I've had a similar break some years ago with an old high school era friend over similar issues, so I feel for you on that. Maybe this person will wise up at some point and come back to you? (Maybe not worth it if he's such an obvious moron?)
At any rate, bravo. Your best yet. While obviously born of considerable pain, the personal aspects that were woven into this made this latest piece grip HARD.
Thanks for writing, and yes, I've been thinking about this idea a long time and still consider what I wrote a draft, a work in progress, not quite ready for prime time. So I was frankly reluctant to post it... There's so many dimensions to the idea, and I'm pretty sure I don't do it justice and am painfully aware of the gaps. I went down many different rabbit holes in the process, and ended up deleting most of them.
I do appreciate your comment about linking the personal experience with the idea, which was impossible not to do in this case. The death of my brother did, among other things, awaken an interest in mental illness, schizophrenia in particular -- a truly insidious disease. The brain is in charge of reality, your life, your consciousness. What else is there? I remember reading an article some years ago (before all this) suggesting that, given the brain's complexity and extremely delicate interconnections, it's a wonder there's not more mental illness than there is. I think about that from time to time.
As for my former friend, I was the one who severed the connection. And it has nothing to do with smart or stupid; the individual in question is terribly smart, and would argue--with some coherence (and vehemence)--that I am the deluded one. I tried for a time to find common ground ("let's agree that money in politics is bad"), but it turned out to be a fool's errand. Was that your experience too?
I do appreciate you weighing in, because I'm really not sure why I'm writing, apart from the fact that I want to. Even when I was a foreign service officer, more than anything else I considered myself a failed writer (it sounds better in French). We do what we can.
I just re-read my reply and noticed a missing "NOT". I meant to write that I had assumed that you were *NOT* the person who had initiated the break.
I need another cup of coffee, clearly.
You didn't "find common ground" on current events with someone you considered "terribly smart" so ...
... you "severed the connection"?
I am a bit stunned. Based on your essay, I was certain that you were the one who had initiated the break.
With the greatest of respect, severing a connection with a "terribly smart" friend sounds a lot like the sort of act that is contrary to the ideas you so eloquently identified and railed against in your essay, no? (?)
Maybe there was more to it than what you described but, having gone through a similar such break with a "terribly smart" long-time friend over similar issues some years back -- with me the "broken" and he being the "breaker" -- I can assure you that, from the perspective of the "broken", all other things being equal, severing a long-held and valued human connection -- especially if the "broken" didn't see it coming -- is a painful and destructive act that in no way assists in reaching consensus any more than eg burning a parking lot full of Teslas does.
In fact, lashing out in destructive ways seems to be a growing and alarming trend, particularly amongst "our side of the divide", if I can call it that. Obviously those of us in this conversation are not the Tesla-vandalizing types but the rate and scope of the destruction of interpersonal relationships over these past few years is beyond worrying. That's what "social fabric" actually consists of.
Probably none of my business -- and feel free to agree with me on that and push back -- but is the break irreconcilable? When you informed this person that you were ending the relationship, and why, did his or her reaction suggest indifference, or worse? Sorry to pry but I have grown to hate hearing about things like this. You wouldn't believe the number of destroyed relationships I witnessed between close people over public health issues during COVID. It shocked the living hell out of me and still does.
In fact, you might even consider sending this person this latest piece of yours. It really is brilliantly written. How could this person not take you seriously when you can write something like that?? (This assumes this person doesn't mind reading, of course, and doesn't just watch Fox News all day ...)
My two cents. Maybe I should become a marriage counselor? 😆
Alexis, thank you for opening my eyes to what has been going on in our country for the last dozen years or so (the changing consensus reality must have been changing before 2016 and Donald Trumps arrival on stage).
I know a number of super intelligent people, those that qualify as geniuses and others that scored 1600 on their SATs and had near perfect GPAs in STEM majors who believe fervently in the current president. I could not understand the rational for their thinking and beliefs. Will the veil be lifted in due time or will it take something cataclysmic event. From what I read about Nazi Germany, the belief in the Fuhrer and the Nazi system lasted till the cold embers of that regime were ground under the allied armies. And now, I think 99% of Germans understand the lies and horrors associated with the 1000 year Reich. Great article.
Yes, Dan, you and I have had the same experience. Super smart people off the deep end down the rabbit hole, telling me (us) that they took the "red" pill and see things "as they are" while the rest of us sheep are blind and complacent plugged into the corporate delusion. I do question my own sanity from time to time. To me, it's not a partisan issue, it's much deeper than that. It's about character, which used to matter to the American people (for the most part). When will the fever break? Will it take being ground down into pulp like Hitler was before the people wake up? I thought the fever would break even before January 6, but now... I just don't know. Thanks for reading.
One further note about the consensus collapse not being a partisan issue. Among other things, I think often about the whole "gender identity" question in a similar light. Whether or not there is any objective reality to the notion that more biological "fluidity" exists between the sexes than we might have previously thought, it had long been a social consensus (a broadly accepted convention) that there were two genders. To expect people (including the American people) to suddenly abandon that social consensus overnight was and is to court political disaster. I know a lot of people, including open-minded people, find the "they/them" obsession jarring. I know I do. In that sense (and others too), the Trump phenomenon is just one aspect and symptom of the broader consensus collapse. I felt I had to say this because, as a self-defined "rabid non-partisan centrist," I (like so many others) feel poorly represented by both parties and not really represented by either. The shattered social consensus contributes to our crisis of political representation in that sense.