God Comes First, and Sports Comes Second

Posted on June 23, 2026 by Luke Ford

In the winter of 1980 the bus to Forest Lake Christian School leaves before sunrise and comes back after dark. The ride runs two hours each way. Luke Ford rides it in the cold, fourteen years old, pulled that summer out of the only world he has known. His father has lost the Seventh-day Adventist pulpit and moved the family to Auburn, forty-five minutes north of Sacramento, to run an evangelical foundation of his own. The boy fails Spanish and Algebra his first semester. He finishes the term with a 1.2. He thinks he hates the school. He hates the year.

Then a boy a grade ahead of him, and a stratosphere above him in standing, starts giving him rides.

Lane Van Howd (c. 1964-1981) lives a mile from the Ford family’s new home. He moves through a room without effort, always teasing, always laughing, lifting the mood of whoever stands near him, the first dark hair coming in above his lip. He skis. Girls find him worth looking at. He carries the certainty of a boy who has decided he knows better than the adults, and his world rewards the certainty rather than punishing it. He buys Luke cold drinks in the afternoons while they wait for his mother and study the new ski equipment in the Auburn shops. He is kind to a miserable stranger. Some good people come into a life and adopt the stray. Lane is one of them.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) argues in The Denial of Death (1973) that a man builds his life to feel he counts, that he stands as an object of value in a universe of meaning, and that his contribution will outlast his body. Becker calls the scheme that grants this feeling a hero system. Every society codes one. To be a hero inside it is to earn the sense that a life carries weight death cannot cancel. Self-esteem, in Becker’s account, is the felt sense of heroism. A child who loses his footing in one such system, torn from the warm and familiar and dropped among strangers, loses the ground of his own worth. That is Luke on the bus.

Lane hands some of it back.

The Van Howd home runs on a different code than the one Luke carries north from the Adventist church. On Super Bowl Sunday, January 25, 1981, the boys watch the Oakland Raiders take apart the Philadelphia Eagles. Nancy Van Howd sets the terms of the house out loud. “God comes first in this home,” she says. “And sports comes second.” In Luke’s home sport sits nowhere near second. Sport is idolatry, and he has learned to hide how much he loves it. In the Van Howd home a boy talks about the girls he likes. In Luke’s home there is no dating, no banter about crushes, no salvation offered by the opposite sex until the wedding. The Van Howds are Pentecostal, perhaps Assembly of God. Luke’s people are hyper-intellectual Adventists who hold God at the distance of doctrine.

Two hero systems share a Bible and almost nothing else.

Set the values of Lane’s world beside the values of Luke’s and watch them refuse to translate. Vitality stands at the center of the Van Howd code. A boy should be in motion, loud, athletic, sure of himself, spending his life rather than guarding it. The same vigor reads in the Adventist home as appetite unmastered. There the body is a temple under discipline, the diet policed, the energy banked against the Second Coming. What Lane’s mother files just under God, Luke’s family files near sin. Confidence in Auburn is leadership and manhood, the Reagan-era American certainty that the man who knows his own mind should act on it. Confidence in the Adventist home shades toward pride, the first sin, the one that cost Lucifer heaven. Warmth in the Van Howd home is a currency. The boy who lifts the mood of a room performs something close to a sacred act. Warmth in Luke’s home ranks below seriousness, and a boy earns his standing by the rigor of his mind, not the heat of his company.

Hospitality runs through the Van Howd code as well. The family takes in the strange Adventist boy with no fuss, gives him rides and cold drinks and a seat at the Super Bowl, and asks nothing back. To shelter the stranger is to do a thing the system counts as honor.

The deepest article of the Van Howd faith is a God who acts now. Luke is raised on an academic approach to Him, a God who reasons through Scripture and intervenes at the end of history, on schedule, at the resurrection promised for the last day. The Van Howds expect Him in the room. They ask Him to heal, to move, to break into the afternoon. This is the article that will be tested in July.

The word at the center of Lane’s world is life, and the word will not hold still when you carry it across a property line. For the hospice nurse who sits through the long afternoons with the dying, life is a finite thing to ease toward a good close, and the gentle death is the achievement. For the Theravada monk, life is the wheel, the round of birth and suffering and birth again, and the prize is release from it, so another turn counts as the failure. For the cattle rancher above Auburn, life is stock and season, born and fattened and shipped on the calendar, and tenderness toward it is a cost the ledger will not carry. For the combat medic, life is the thing he buys back by the minute under fire, some men worked and some men set aside, the triage tag standing in for the judgment of God. For the Calvinist a few miles down the road from the Van Howds, life is a script written before the foundation of the world, and a boy’s death belongs to that script, no emergency in it, no scandal, the settled decree of Him who does all things well. Each man says the word and points at a different universe.

Lane’s universe holds that life is vital force, charged, given to be spent, and that the God who gives it can give it back across the line of death if His people ask with enough belief. In July that belief meets its hardest hour.

Ninth grade ends in June 1981. The Ford family moves a few miles off. Luke stops seeing Lane. In mid-July the word reaches him that Lane has died, a passenger in a car wreck, no one else hurt.

The same news reaches Auburn by a stranger road. Ronald Reagan (1911-2004) has made Douglas Van Howd, Lane’s father, the White House artist, and the sculptor is at work on a gift for the Netherlands, an American Indian and an eagle set on a piece of petrified Arizona wood. Reagan’s counsel, Herbert Ellingwood, carries the news to him in Washington. The father’s mind will not take it. Why does the top man in the White House tell me this, he thinks. No, no, no, that is not my kid. But it is. He cannot finish the sculpture until 1984. The gift never reaches the Dutch. It stands instead in the Roosevelt Room, a monument to a week the maker could not work.

The service runs in a church Luke has never sat in, an open casket at the front, Lane in his Sunday best, looking well. Luke has buried people before, but no one his own age, and never under a roof that expects God to act in the hour. The pastor preaches a nearer God than Luke knows. At the peak of the message he puts the question to the room. If you believe God can raise Lane from the dead right now, he says, raise your hand.

Almost every hand goes up. Luke’s goes up with them. For that moment the Adventist boy, raised to keep God at the length of an argument, believes that God can return his friend to the room. He shuts his eyes and prays for the miracle. He opens them and holds his breath and stares at the coffin and waits for a rising that never comes.

Becker writes that every hero system, under all its forms, works to deny that death is final. Here the denial drops its disguise and stands in the open. A room full of believers refuses the casket and asks God to reverse it on the spot. The hand goes up because the alternative, the box as the last word and the universe as indifferent to a sixteen-year-old boy, cannot be borne. When the miracle holds off, the system does not break. It folds the loss into a longer promise. He is with the Lord. We will see him again. Becker might note the resourcefulness of a hero system that can take its own apparent refutation and feed it back into the faith. The Van Howd code stakes everything on the present-tense God, and when the present tense fails it borrows the future tense the Adventists keep, the resurrection deferred to the last day. The two systems, so far apart at the Super Bowl, reach for the same consolation at the grave.

Lane never built a hero system. He inherited one and wore it with ease, a borrowed code that happened to fit him. Most accounts of a man’s hero system trace the project he spent decades constructing. Lane had no project yet. He had charm and a body and sixteen years and a family that loved God and football in that order. Death came before he could complicate any of it, which leaves him a clean specimen of the thing the rest of us muddy by living long enough to revise. What he gave Luke was not doctrine. It was the door out of the cocoon, the first friend outside the Adventist fold, the sign that another code existed and that a boy could be happy inside it. From tenth grade on Luke went to public school, where no one spoke of resurrection at all, a third system, with its own gods and its own silence.

Luke was not much comfort to the family that morning. His words were few and his face gave little. Nancy Van Howd called his mother once, a few years on, to touch base. He could not face the pain in that home, so he let the line go quiet. The good family that sheltered the stray passed out of his life.

Becker holds that a man needs to feel he counts, and that he will build, borrow, or stumble into a scheme that lets him feel it against the fact of death. For one winter and spring a boy in motion lent that feeling to a miserable stranger on a long bus route, and asked nothing back, and then went into the ground at sixteen while a church held up its hands and a father in Washington set down his tools. The word for what Lane had is life. He spent it the way his people taught him to, all at once, and early.

Posted in Auburn | Comments Off on God Comes First, and Sports Comes Second

The Sportswriter

Posted on June 23, 2026 by Luke Ford

Scott Hamelin and I go to Placer High School together 1982-1984. We are friendly. The friend I make is his father.
Joe Hamelin is the Sports Editor of the Sacramento Bee (he used to be a beat writer assigned to the San Diego Clippers). He’s remarried and he has six sons. He covers the pros. He writes about the best players alive, and his peers honor him for it. None of that is why I call him. I call him because he picks up, and once he picks up he stays on the line.
The calls run long. A weekday afternoon, the receiver warm against my ear, Joe on the other end with the patience of a man who has nowhere he wants to be more. We talk about journalism. We talk about the career I want before I have done a thing to deserve wanting it. He gives me his afternoons. Over the months the hours pass a hundred. He tells me that Coach Hubie Brown called his players cocksuckers. He tells me that there is no white basketball and black basketball, that no race is faster than any other, that the Sacramento Union won’t be a real competitor until they put in more resources.
Then he gives me more than talk. For two years (1983-1984) we sit together in a community access cable booth and call Placer High men’s basketball. Wood benches. A gym that smells of floor wax and sweat. A camera my classmate Eric aims at the court. Joe has sat courtside for the finest players in the game, and now he calls a high school contest beside a teenager as if more than 10 people watched it (“Nobody ever comments to me about these broadcasts,” he tells me).
Then he gives me the thing that turns a boy into a professional. He hands me an assignment. Cover a high school basketball tournament (Kendall Arnett) for the Bee. They pay me. My reports run in the paper that lands on driveways across the valley. A man who could have spent that assignment on anyone spends it on me.
A classmate mocks me for my hero worship of Joe Hamelin. I don’t mind too much. I have this thing inside of me that needs to worship some people, and it is embarrassing, but Joe is kind to me and he doesn’t make any demands. I’m not fodder for a cause. I’m a smart kid who knows more about sports than any kid he’s known because I learned it from reading books and all the back issues of Time, Newsweek, Life and Sports Illustrated magazines (read the summer of 1977 at Pacific Union College). My home didn’t get a TV until 1980.
I intern at the Auburn Journal Sports Department for six months (late 1983 and early 1984) but my editor Rob Knies doesn’t want a Joe Hamelin profile. “We compete with the Bee. We’re not going to help the Bee.”
Ernest Becker (1924-1974) wrote The Denial of Death in 1973. He says a man cannot live with the knowledge that he will die and rot and be forgotten, so every culture hands him a hero system, a set of roles and rules that let him feel he counts, that some part of him outlasts the body. The hero system tells a man what a good life looks like, what earns honor, what a worthy man does with his days. Inside it he can be a hero on a small scale. Outside it the same acts read as nothing.
Joe lived inside the hero system of the American daily newspaper. Its temple is the sports desk. Its scripture is the box score. Its sacrament is the deadline, the nightly small death after which the day’s work sets and cannot be revised. Its sacred value, the one that orders the rest, is credit.
Joe wrote a column three days a week. It was good.
Credit, in the newsroom, means honor assigned by the record. The score does not lie. You name the man who scored and you name the man who missed, and you do not root in the press box. The byline is the reward and the receipt at once, a man’s name fixed in type, a small immortality on cheap paper that yellows but sits in a library for good. To give a man a byline enters him in the book of those who were here and did the work.
The word changes at the border. Carry credit into other hero systems and it grows a new meaning.
A Benedictine copyist in a cold scriptorium spends his life on a single manuscript and signs none of it. Credit, for him, is sin. The work rises to God, and a name in the margin steals from Him what is His. The monk earns his place by erasing himself from the page.
A Plains warrior counting coup cannot be given credit and spits on the offer. Credit is the blow struck on a living enemy before witnesses, seized on a horse, never assigned by an editor at a desk. What Joe hands across a table the warrior takes in the open or never holds at all.
A loan shark keeps a different book. Credit is what he extends so a man will owe him, leverage dressed as kindness, a line in a ledger that ends in a broken hand. He gives credit to own you. Joe gives credit to free you.
A cadre at a struggle session learns that claiming credit is the deviation that gets a man denounced. The achievement belongs to the collective, the Party, the Chairman, and the man who signs his own name has confessed a crime. The byline Joe prizes serves, in that room, as evidence against you.
A Reformed preacher tells his flock that credit is grace, unearned and unearnable, imputed by God to men who merit nothing. Salvation comes as a gift because no work can buy it. Joe’s faith runs the other way. In his church you earn the line of type. The kid covers the tournament, files clean copy, and the name is his because he did the thing.
Joe’s hero system holds that credit is earned. The score adjudicates. The byline belongs to the man who reported the game. Yet what Joe does for me is advance credit to a boy who has earned nothing, the way a banker advances a loan to a borrower with no history, on faith, against future work. The honor economy of the newsroom and the gift economy of the mentor live inside the same man and the same word. He believes credit must be earned, and he lends it to me before I can earn it, because that loan is how the hero system reproduces. An old man recruits a young one by advancing him significance he has not yet paid for. The hundred hours, the cable booth, the tournament byline: an initiation. Joe does what his religion asks of its elders, which is to make more of themselves before they die.
The hard part comes after. The hero system Joe served thins out. Sports desks empty. Papers fold or shrink to a website and a skeleton staff. The permanent printed record, the byline that was to outlast the man, proves as mortal as the man. Joe advanced me credit in a currency that lost most of its value. The driveways stopped getting the paper. The libraries cleared the bound volumes. A young man who built his life on the byline found that byline worth less each year.
The gift held anyway. The thing that transferred in that booth was never the byline. It was the standard. You name who scored. You do not root in the press box. You file clean and on time and you let the reader have his own reaction. A man carries that into work the newspaper never imagined, onto platforms Joe never saw, long after the desk he loved goes dark. The currency failed. The faith it taught did not.
In 1990, Joe wrote To Fly and Fight: Memoirs of a Triple Ace about Clarence E. Anderson, an Auburn resident who was buried with honors at Arlington National Cemetery on March 30, 2026.
Around 1990, Joe quit his job to write books full-time. I don’t think he published another book, and eventually he went back to writing for newspapers, retiring around 2005.
In 1988, I came down with what some doctors called chronic fatigue syndrome. Tossing and turning on my bed circa 1991, I get up and call Joe and he visits me. All of my friends my own age keep their distance, but everyone over 40 treats me with compassion.
In 1994, I return to two-thirds of a normal life, and once I get regular internet connection starting in 1997, I hunt Joe down to exchange emails.
There lies the strange grace of a hero system. It hands a man a project that death defeats, and in the handing it makes him more than he becomes alone. Joe knew, on some floor of himself, that the paper would not save him. He sat in the gym anyway and called the game as if the wire were waiting, and he gave a job that paid, and he made a writer. Forty years on I am still spending the credit he advanced. He never asked for it back.

Posted in Auburn, Journalism | Comments Off on The Sportswriter

Live

Posted on June 23, 2026 by Luke Ford

The teletype runs all night. It is July 6, 1985, and I am nineteen, an intern at KAHI News in Auburn, and I sit in the booth from eight to five on the weekends and read the news two and a half minutes past the hour, after the AP feed clears. Tonight I go to the track of my old home, Placer High School. The Western States Endurance Run starts at dawn up at Squaw Valley and the runners come a hundred miles through the canyons in the heat and finish on the track starting just before dawn and I am thrilled to deliver updates through the night, running back and forth every hour from the track to the station and back.

I stand in the announcer’s booth and the announcer says he’s relying on what he’s hearing on the radio, and I say, that’s me.

While we wait for the first runners, I see a network man standing at the edge of the track in a good blazer. Jim Lampley (b. April 8, 1949). He is with ABC, and he has covered the Super Bowl that year and he will cover the New York Marathon that fall, and he is here for the run. I know his face from the television. I ask him for a few minutes for an interview. He gives them. He talks to me as though I work somewhere that counts, and I do not.

After my all-nighter, news director Pete DuFour begins paying me for sixteen hours a week at $3.50 an hour, and the money thrills me. I have an open mike to the world and I am only 19. I keep the job until I leave for UCLA in August of 1988.

Jim King wins in sixteen hours, two minutes, forty-four seconds. The runners come off the trail with their faces gone slack and their crews holding them by the elbows, and the men who started at dawn finish in the dark, and some of them weep, and a doctor checks their feet.

There’s a scrum of reporters around King, and Sacramento Bee sports editor Joe Hamelin, my friend, tells me to use my elbows to fight my way to the story. “Journalism is a young man’s game,” he says.

At five am, I try to get some sleep on the floor of the news room. I get up about 7 am, and check the Auburn Journal. A missing woman has been found dead. I give the news live. I record bulletins for the rest of the day. I go home and watch Boris Becker win Wimbledon and fall asleep.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) wrote The Denial of Death about men like the ones I watched finish, and about the man in the blazer, and about the boy at the AP teletype. Becker says a culture is a hero system. It hands its members a set of routes by which a man may feel he counts in the order of things, may feel he is more than meat that rots, may earn a place that outlasts the body. The runner takes one route. He buys his significance with his legs. A hundred miles of granite and heat is a bid, scored in hours and minutes, visible to all, and at the finish the bid is paid or it is not. Jim King pays his in sixteen hours. The man who quits at mile eighty pays nothing and goes home with his feet wrapped and his bid refused. The arena is honest that way. The body either does the thing or it does not.

The announcer takes a different route, and his is the route I have spent my life near, so I should say what it costs and what it buys.

Lampley does not run. He stands at the finish in the blazer and he names what the runners did. The feat is fast and it is gone. King crosses the line and the moment dies the instant it happens, the way all moments die, and the announcer’s work is to catch it in the half second of its dying and fix it in words so that it survives. He is the witness. He confers permanence. The runner makes the moment with his body and the announcer makes it last with his voice, and of the two, the voice travels farther and lives longer. King’s run lives in his own legs for a season. It lives in the broadcast for as long as men keep the tape. This is the announcer’s immortality project, in Becker’s phrase. He earns his place in the order of things by standing at the edge of other men’s feats and giving them a voice. Years later Lampley will stand over a knocked-out fighter and shout that it happened, and the shout will outlive the punch, and men who never saw the fight will know the call.

The word at the center of his hero system is live. He works live. The worth of the man lies in being present at the moment of consequence and speaking into it while it is still warm, before it cools into history. A recording is not the thing. The thing is the live moment, witnessed and named, unrepeatable, gone if you miss it. So I want to hold that word up, because a sacred word means one thing inside one hero system and another thing inside the next, and the men who use it think they are speaking the same language.

To Lampley, live is the unrepeatable instant he is paid to catch. To the smokejumper stepping out the door of the plane over a ridge in flame, live is the fire that breathes and runs and will kill him if he reads the wind wrong. To the labor and delivery nurse at three in the morning, live is the thing that comes out blue and silent and then, if God is good and her hands are quick, cries. To the bomb technician kneeling over the device, live means the charge is hot and one wrong move ends the conversation. To the Carmelite behind the grille who has not left the enclosure in thirty years, live names the only thing she trusts, the presence she gives her hours to, the One she calls the Living God, and the runners and the fire and the wire are to her a noise outside the wall. To the session bassist laying down a take with the tape rolling and no fixing it after, live is the one pass that has the feel, the pass you cannot get back. Each man kneels to the word. Each man means a different god by it. Lampley’s god is the moment that will not wait, and he has built a life on being there for it, microphone in hand, while the rest of us hear about it later.

Now the scene at the finish, told again, because Becker explains the thing I felt and could not name at nineteen. A boy at the bottom of a hero system meets a man near the top of it, and the man blesses him. Becker calls this transference. We take our sense of worth from the figures who seem to hold the power to grant it. The father holds it first. After the father, the culture hands the power to its heroes, and the young man scans the room for whoever carries it now. I scanned the finish at Placer High and there he was in the blazer, the man from the television, the man who got to be live for a living, and he turned and spoke to me as though I belonged in the work. He did not have to. The secure man can afford the gift. He had his place in the order of things and could spare a piece of it for a stranger, and the piece he spared is the reason I remember the night forty years on and have told it more than once. The three fifty an hour bought groceries. The blessing bought something a teenager wants more than groceries, which is the sense that the thing he loves will have him.

Here is the part the other ten essays leave out, and I want it in because truth comes before comfort. The announcer’s route has a hole at the center of it. He is never the man who does the deed. He stands at the finish and never runs the canyons. His immortality is borrowed, every grain of it, from the bodies of other men. King’s legs earn the run and Lampley earns the words about the run, and the words last longer, and still the words are about a thing the speaker did not do. The witness lives inside other men’s moments and owns none of them. Lampley spent thirty years at ringside calling the courage of men who got hit in the face for money, and his voice is famous and their faces are wrecked, and that is the trade the witness makes. He keeps his teeth. He keeps the call. He does not keep a single punch as his own.

I do not think this makes the route a low one. The priest never dies for the sins of the world and still he stands at the altar and says the words that make the bread holy. The announcer is the priest of the secular arena. He consecrates. He stands where the deed happens and he says what it was, and by saying it he lets the men who were not there share in it, which is most of us, which is the point of a hero system, that it gives the ordinary man a way to touch significance he could not reach alone. Becker would say the runner and the announcer and the boy at the teletype are all running the same race by different roads, all of them trying to count, all of them refusing to be only meat.

The winner came in at two minutes past four in the morning by the official clock, sixteen hours and change after the gun. I read it on the air at two and a half minutes past the hour, after the AP cleared, the way I read everything for the next two years. A man I had watched on television stood at the line and gave a nineteen-year-old his time. I have been trying to be live ever since, present at the moment and able to say what it was, and I have never once been sorry, and the pay has rarely been better.

Posted in Auburn, Journalism | Comments Off on Live

The Whole Cup

Posted on June 23, 2026 by Luke Ford

A man sits at my father’s table with something he cannot carry alone. My father gives him the Sabbath afternoon and takes him for a five-mile walk. He does this for years. People come with marriages breaking, with sons in jail, with the cold certainty that God has turned away. My father never meets a woman alone, and across a lifetime no one accuses him of anything. He guards that room the way a man guards what he values most.

In 1983 I ask him why he spends the hours this way. He is busy. Desmond Ford (1929-2019) carries his name on the radio across Australia and America, holds two doctorates, writes book after book. An afternoon with one man is an afternoon stolen from a sermon that reaches thousands. I tell him so.

He answers with water. When you speak over the air, he says, you take your cup and pour it ten thousand ways. When you sit with one man who needs you, you give him the whole cup.

I keep the line for forty years because it explains more than counsel. It explains the shape of his life and the reason a church that loved him could not keep him.

Ernest Becker (1924-1973) gives me the tool to read that cup. In The Denial of Death he argues that a man cannot live with the knowledge of his own death, so he builds a system of meaning that lets him feel he counts in a scheme larger and longer than his body. Becker calls these hero systems. A culture hands each man a way to earn significance and to outlast the grave by serving something that does not die. The soldier earns it through the flag. The scholar earns it through the book that survives him. The father earns it through the child. Take a man’s hero system away and you tell him his life adds to nothing, that he dies for nothing. No man hears that in peace.

My father lives inside a hero system with a name and an address. Seventh-day Adventism hands its people a part in the last act of history. The believer keeps the seventh-day Sabbath while the world keeps Sunday, eats clean, stands apart from the age, and waits as one of a final generation whose faithfulness figures in the close of cosmic time. The doctrine that holds this together is the investigative judgment. Adventists teach that in 1844 Christ entered the inner room of a sanctuary in heaven and began to examine the records of the professed people of God, name by name, settling each case before He returns. A man who believes this holds a seat at the center of the universe’s last reckoning. His Sabbath counts. His diet counts. His name waits in a book in heaven for the day it comes up.

Becker might recognize the arrangement at once. An immortality project written across the heavens, and the believer cast as a witness in the closing scene.

My father reads the doctrine and finds no floor under it. He argues that the investigative judgment, as the church teaches it, has thin biblical ground and a heavy price. The price is assurance. If a man’s case waits in an open ledger, examined and not yet closed, then he cannot rest. He works and watches and fears the audit. My father preaches the reverse. The verdict comes at the cross, he says, finished, in the past tense, available to a man tonight. He calls people to rest in a salvation already secured.

On October 27, 1979 he gives a talk at a forum at Pacific Union College and lays the case in the open. The church summons him to Washington and gives him six months. He writes 991 pages, the manuscript known as Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment, and opens it with the claim that he means to defend the church.

In August 1980, at a ranch called Glacier View in Colorado, a committee of more than a hundred theologians and administrators sits to weigh what he has written. Men who studied beside him at Avondale sit across the room. His old mentor, Edward Heppenstall (1901-1994), cannot move him and later writes that he stands shocked at how far my father has swung. The committee finishes its work in five days. My father loses his ministerial credentials. He keeps his membership in the church. He drives home a layman.

Read the expulsion through Becker and it stops looking like a quarrel over a date in the book of Daniel. My father does not tug a loose thread. The investigative judgment is the doctrine that makes Adventists the remnant and not one more Protestant body with an odd day of worship. Remove it and the special part in the last act goes with it. The committee cannot grant the point and stay who they are. To accept my father is to hear that the thing setting them at the center of cosmic history rests on sand. Becker tells us how a man answers that news. He does not thank the messenger.

Here sits the part most accounts miss. My father does not take a hero system away and leave rubble. He offers another one. He hands his people the Reformation gospel, the old Protestant settlement where the heroism belongs to Christ and the man rests in it. He trades an immortality project of vigilance for an immortality project of rest. The church cannot read the trade as a gift, because the gift costs them their own place in heaven’s drama.

The quarrel turns on a single word, and the word will not sit still. Assurance.

For my father, assurance is the verdict already entered, the cross in the past tense, a salvation a man may lean his weight on before he sleeps.

Carry the word into other rooms and watch it change.

To an actuary, assurance is a price set on a death. He builds his life assurance from a table of ages and odds, a hedge against the certain day. The word holds no comfort in his hands. It holds arithmetic.

To an auditor who signs the opinion, assurance comes reasonable and never absolute. His firm stakes its name on books it has tested by sample, and he writes the word knowing it falls short of a guarantee. He offers assurance and swears in the same breath that it is not one.

To a medic working on a man under fire, assurance is the voice that says stay with me, the hand pressing the wound, a promise made while the outcome stays unknown.

To a pianist in the third movement, assurance lives in the hands. The body does not doubt through the hard passage. This self-assurance owes nothing to God and everything to years at the keys.

To a man nursing the dying in a hospice, assurance is the held hand and the managed pain and the refusal to promise a cure that will not come. He assures the dying of company, not of recovery.

To a debtor standing before a judge, assurance is the discharge that cancels the debt, the slate cleared by the law, a grace with a courthouse stamp on it.

Each man speaks the same word. Each holds it as something near to sacred inside his own system. Each means a thing the others do not recognize. Becker’s point sits right here. A word does not carry meaning the way a coin carries value, fixed and portable across every counter. A word draws its meaning from the hero system that gives a man his stakes. My father and the auditor and the medic can sit at one table and use one word and talk past each other, because each protects a different immortality with it.

This returns me to the cup. The broadcast is significance by scale. The cup poured ten thousand ways, the name carried far, the voice in cars on the highway and kitchens at breakfast. A hero system of its own, the system of the public man, and my father lives in it and feels its pull. He knows what the platform offers. The afternoon with one man is the other thing. The whole cup to a single soul.

The theology and the counsel turn out to be the same act. The investigative judgment keeps significance in a ledger across the mass of the saved, each name a line, the cup poured a million ways. Assurance hands the whole cup to one man at a table, undivided, his to drink tonight. When my father chooses the single soul over the audience of thousands, he makes in a kitchen the choice he made in his theology and the choice that cost him his collar. The one over the ten thousand. The whole cup over the shared sip. He spends his life persuaded that God works this way. Not by quota across a remnant. By the whole cup to the one who sits down across from him.

I disagreed with my father about a great deal. I overheard parts of the counsel he gave for years, and the wisdom of it held even where the doctrine did not. A man came to the table carrying what he could not carry. He left lighter. My father poured out the cup and did not measure it. He died on March 11, 2019, on the Queensland coast, ninety years old, still sure the cross had settled the verdict, still giving the whole cup to whoever sat down across from him.

Posted in Desmond Ford | Comments Off on The Whole Cup

Mulholland Drive

Posted on June 23, 2026 by Luke Ford

David Lynch (1946–2025) turned sixty on January 20, 2006. The party sat in a restaurant near La Cienega and Melrose, the kind of room where the lighting flatters everyone and the valet knows which cars to bring around first. A producer who worked with Lynch had brought me. He had a plan for me that night, and the plan was Laura Harring (b. 1964).
He walked me over. He said something about how we should meet, the way a man speaks when he has already decided two people belong together. Then he left us standing at the bar. She turned to me. She gave me her attention, which felt like standing too close to a window in winter, all that light and I got scared. We talked for five minutes. I have no memory of a single thing said. I remember leaving her. I remember the relief of the back of the party, the ordinary world where a man like me knew the rules and where Gary Oldman’s manager Douglas Urbanski takes mercy on me and talks to me for the rest of the night while Lynch, Sting, Nicole Kidman and the beautiful people party.
I fled a beautiful woman at a film director’s birthday. That is the whole anecdote, and it is enough, because the question worth asking is not why I ran. The question is what she carried into that room that made running feel like the only safe move. She carried a hero system. So did I. They did not match, and the mismatch threw me.
Ernest Becker (1924–1974) argued in The Denial of Death that every man builds his life inside a scheme that tells him he counts, that his small span on earth touches something that does not die. A cop earns it through the badge. A scholar earns it through the footnote. A mother earns it through the child. The scheme hands out significance, and it hands out terror to those who fail its terms, and it lets a man look at his own death and say, not me, not really, because I belong to something larger. Becker called these schemes the routes to heroism. A culture is a pooled effort to feel immortal. Laura Harring built hers out of the one material she was handed early and could not refuse. She built it out of her face.
Start with the bullet. She grew up the first ten years of her life in Sinaloa, in Guasave, daughter of a Mexican spiritual teacher and a developer of Austrian-German blood. The family moved to San Antonio. At twelve a stray round from a drive-by shooting caught her in the head, a .45, and she lived. Sit with that. A girl takes a bullet meant for the air and survives, and the survival is not a thing she earned through merit or prayer. It simply happened to her body. A child who absorbs that learns early that the body holds death inside it at all times, and that life past the wound is a kind of borrowed thing she now has to justify. Becker would say the wound makes the hero system urgent. Most men keep death abstract. She could not. She had felt it enter her skull.
What she did next reads like a sprint away from the grave by way of transformation. Switzerland at sixteen, Aiglon College. The London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art, commedia dell’arte, the Argentine tango. El Paso, then the pageant ladder, Miss El Paso, Miss Texas, and in 1985 Miss USA, the first Hispanic woman to take the crown. A year wandering Asia and Europe and a stretch as a social worker in India. A marriage in 1987 to Count Carl-Eduard von Bismarck-Schönhausen, great-great-grandson of Otto von Bismarck (1815–1898), and a divorce two years later. She dropped the e from Herring and became Harring. Then Hollywood, and then the role that fixed her, Rita in Lynch’s Mulholland Drive (2001), an amnesiac with no past who picks her name off a poster for Gilda because she sees Rita Hayworth (1918–1987) and decides to be her. Roger Ebert (1942–2013) wrote that Harring could stand still and make the case for remaking Gilda. The International Herald Tribune reached for Ava Gardner (1922–1990).
Here sits her sacred value, and here sits the trick Becker hands us. The value is to be looked at. To be a beautiful woman who walks into a room and gathers every eye, and to hold the gaze, and to make of that gaze a vocation rather than an accident. For Laura the gaze is how the girl who took the bullet becomes the image that outlives the body. Film fixes the face forever. She told an interviewer that film means something, that a man can make a difference with a film. She means that the screen catches a woman and keeps her past her own death. That is the immortality her hero system promises. The gaze is salvation.
Now watch the same value move through other rooms, and watch it mean something different in each, because the word holds still while the worlds around it change.
To the pageant judge in 1985, to be looked at is to be measured. The gaze ranks. It assigns a number, crowns a winner, and the woman who masters it has achieved something the judge can score and defend. She wore a cowgirl costume to Miss Universe, all-American, the body as a flag. In that room the gaze is merit. You win it.
To Lynch the gaze is dread. His life’s work pries up the beautiful surface to show the thing squirming under it, the severed ear in the clean grass, the homecoming queen face-down. Critics noted that death by head wound runs through his films like a watermark. He cast a woman who carried a real head wound to play a woman with no memory, pure surface, a face without a past. In Lynch’s room the gaze does not save the beautiful woman. It hollows her. The camera looks and looks until the face stops meaning safety and starts meaning the abyss. Mulholland Drive ends in Hollywood’s promise curdling into a corpse. The dream of being looked at kills the woman who chases it.
(I asked somebody on the film what it meant and he said it didn’t mean anything.)
To the Bismarck world the gaze means lineage. An aristocratic name turns a wife into an ornament that reflects the house. Beauty there carries a duty to the bloodline and the title, Gräfin von Bismarck, and the gaze rests on her the way it rests on a family portrait. She married into it and left inside two years, which tells you the fit was wrong, that her hero system ran on becoming and theirs ran on having always been.
To her grandmother’s Sinaloa, the Catholic world she came from, a beautiful girl looked at by men means danger. The gaze there is the evil eye and the appetite of strangers and the thing a mother warns her daughter against. Beauty is a gift from God and a trap men set, and the modest answer is to lower your eyes and cover up and not give the village a reason to talk. To be looked at is to be at risk.
To the spiritual current her mother taught, and to the India where she did her social work, the gaze runs the other way. The body is a veil. The face is the least true thing about a person. To see and be seen by the holy, darshan, is the only looking that counts, and the beautiful surface is the very illusion a soul must see through to reach what does not pass. In that room her sacred value is the snare, and freedom means caring nothing for the mirror.
To the Hollywood agent the gaze is a market. A face is an asset with a depreciation schedule, and the studio looks at a woman the way a buyer looks at a property, pricing the years she has left. The casting list, the close-up, the call that comes or does not. In that room to be looked at is to be appraised and, in time, marked down.
To the feminist critic the gaze erases. To be looked at is to be turned into an object, the woman emptied of self and filled with the wanting of the man who watches. Salvation for Laura reads as capture to the critic. The thing Laura built her life around is the thing the critic wants dismantled.
Seven rooms. One woman walks into each, the same woman with the same face, and the same act of being looked at means triumph, dread, inheritance, sin, illusion, price, and erasure. The word sits still. The hero systems move. Becker’s point lands here. There is no neutral place from which to say what her beauty means, because meaning lives inside a scheme, and the schemes do not agree, and each one feels to its members like plain reality rather than one bet among many.
Which returns me to the David Lynch party. I ran because her hero system and mine had no common term. She lived by the face and the gaze and the screen that keeps the body past its death. I live by the word on the page, the footnote, the small contribution to knowledge that might sit in a library after I am gone. Two routes to the same destination, two ways of refusing the grave, and at that bar they could not trade. She offered the immortality of the beautiful image. I had no idea how to receive it, and I told myself I had nothing she could use, so I gave her five minutes and ran.
The bullet sits under all of it. A girl survives a shot to the head and spends a life turning her face into something that cannot be killed twice. Then a director who films death by head wound puts her on the screen as a woman with no past, and the world calls it her finest work. Becker would not be surprised. The hero system is the thing we build to keep the wound from being the story. Hers worked. The face survives. The bullet did not get the last look.

Posted in Hollywood | Comments Off on Mulholland Drive

Good Evening, Folks

Posted on June 23, 2026 by Luke Ford

The Capitol dome stands lit. It is July 1980. It is evening on the East Front, the marble still giving back the day’s heat. A black limousine waits at the curb with the engine running. A Capitol policeman holds a loose perimeter made mostly of his own boredom. An aide carries a leather case and a folded coat over one arm.

A family stands on the sidewalk. A father, a mother, a boy of fourteen whose feet hurt from a day of walking. A big man comes down toward the car, white hair, heavy in the shoulders, a rumpled suit, the wide face of a man who has eaten a thousand dinners he never paid for. He stands second in the line of succession to the President of the United States. He could pass the family without seeing them. Men at that height stop seeing the people on the curb. He stops. He looks at them. He says, “Good evening, folks.” Then the door, the car, the red lights going down the avenue.

The boy holds those three words for the rest of his life.

This is the thing a hero system does, and it does it so fast you miss the size of it. Ernest Becker (1924-1974) gives us the term. In The Denial of Death he argues that man builds his culture to outrun one piece of knowledge, that he dies, and that he carries under everything the suspicion that he is nobody, an animal who rots in the ground like the rest. A hero system answers the suspicion. It tells a man how to count. It hands him a way to feel he is an object of first value in a world that means something. Take the scheme away and the terror comes back. Give a man his place in it and he can stand at the edge of his own death without shaking.

Tip O’Neill (1912-1994) ran a hero system whose first article holds that no man is nobody.

He came up in North Cambridge, Massachusetts, the son of a bricklayer who rose to run the city sewers and sit on the council. The parish set the boundaries of the world. The priest, the precinct, the wake, the union card, the family that had been on the block for fifty years. O’Neill went to Boston College and lost his first race, for the Cambridge City Council, in 1935. A neighbor he had known all his life, an older woman whose walk he had shoveled, told him afterward that she had voted for him though he never once asked her to. He had taken her for granted. The lesson stayed with him. People want to be asked. People want to be seen. A man who assumes them loses them, and he deserves to.

He won the next time and kept winning. He took the seat John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) left when Kennedy went to the Senate. He became Speaker of the House in 1977 and held it ten years. He fought Ronald Reagan (1911-2004) across the the 1980s, called the budget cuts a war on the working man, and meant it, and then drank with Reagan after six o’clock and traded Irish stories, because the fight ran on the personal and so did the friendship and both men came out of a system old enough to hold the two at once.

Now name the value at the center of it. The word is respect. In O’Neill’s world respect lives in small acts performed in person. The handshake. The name remembered across thirty years. The wake attended for a man whose vote you lost. The favor done and the favor returned. Asking for the vote instead of assuming it. “All politics is local,” he said, and gave the line to his father, and what he meant runs deeper than electoral math. He meant that a man becomes real to you when you stand in front of him and grant him your attention. The greeting on the curb is the religion of the ward, pressed into three words and spent on a stranger who can do nothing for him. The boy casts no vote in his district. The boy cannot return the favor. O’Neill greets him anyway. In his scheme the strong hand recognition to the weak and ask nothing back.

But carry the word respect out of O’Neill’s world and watch it change shape in every other one.

A Marine gunnery sergeant hears it and thinks of something earned in mud and never handed over on a sidewalk. Respect runs up the chain by rank and down it by what a man does when the rounds come in. You salute the commission first and the man only after he has paid for the rest. A stranger’s good evening buys nothing on that ground.

On a trading floor respect is the number. It is the position that pays when the desk leans the other way, the call no one else had the stomach to make. Warmth is overhead. A man who stops on a curb to greet strangers has time he should put to better use, and the floor will price his softness within the hour.

Behind a monastery wall a monk hears the word and flinches at it. To want respect is the oldest vanity, the self stepping forward when the self should vanish. His order runs on the reverse move. He hollows out the place where the hunger to count would sit and gives the empty room to God. The small thing O’Neill spends on the boy, the thing of being seen, is the very thing this man has taken a vow to stop wanting.

On a hard corner a young man hears respect and reaches for it with his body. Respect is not being disrespected. It runs zero-sum and gets defended in real time and a slight cannot pass. The Speaker’s free greeting reads as weakness here, a thing thrown away by a man rich enough not to feel the loss.

In a quiet room a hospice nurse hears the word and thinks of a body she washes and a name she keeps using after the mind behind it has gone dark. Respect is the worth she guards in people the world has finished counting. She and O’Neill might know each other on sight. Both hand significance to the ones the powerful have stopped seeing. The same word that splits the monk from the trader closes the distance between the nurse and the Speaker.

So the word holds steady on the page and shifts underfoot. Each man speaks it with full conviction and means a different thing, because each stands inside a different scheme for how a life counts, and the scheme decides the meaning. There is no neutral respect floating above the systems. There is the gunnery sergeant’s and the trader’s and the monk’s and the nurse’s, and there is O’Neill’s, and a man raised in one of them can spend an evening with a man raised in another and never learn that the two of them were not discussing the same thing.

O’Neill died on January 5, 1994. The system he served has thinned since. The parish loosened its hold, the wake gave way to the cable hit, the favor lost its standing, and the personal touch he spent his life perfecting now reads to many as an old corruption dressed up as warmth. But the three words he gave the boy still do their work. The boy is a man now, and he writes, and he sets the evening down on the page. In setting it down he pays O’Neill back in O’Neill’s own currency. He remembers the name. He says it again where others can hear it.

That is the trade running both ways. The hero system grants the small man a moment of counting on a public sidewalk. The small man, holding the moment across the decades and writing it out, hands the great man a thin slice of the one thing every hero system is built to chase and none can keep. Three words on a curb at evening. A man dead thirty years. The religion of the ward, working at distance, working past death, doing the only thing it ever promised to do.

Good evening, folks.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Good Evening, Folks

The Joe Starkey Hero System

Posted on June 23, 2026 by Luke Ford

In 1980 I am thirteen and I want to be a voice. Not a player. A voice. I write a letter to Joe Starkey (b. 1941), the sports director at KGO in San Francisco, and I ask him how a boy becomes a sportscaster. A week later a postcard comes back. He has filled every white space on it, top to bottom, margin to margin, with tips (such as that I should learn as many sports as possible and I should go to games and record myself doing the call) and he apologizes to me for writing too much! A stranger’s child writes him and he answers with a card jammed full.
I keep thinking about that card. Ernest Becker (1924-1974) gives me the way to read it.
In The Denial of Death (1973) Becker says a man knows he will die and cannot bear the knowledge, so he builds a hero system, a set of roles and values that lets him feel he counts against the dark, that his life adds up to something the grave cannot cancel. Every people hands its young a formula for this kind of heroism. Self-esteem is the feeling that the formula works, that a man is a hero inside the cosmic story his people tell. Take the formula away and he comes apart.
Starkey grows up in Chicago and earns a business degree and a graduate degree at Loyola. He becomes a vice president at Union Bank in San Francisco, then changes course, recording games on his own tape recorder and applying for play-by-play work until Charles O. Finley (1918-1996), owner of the California Golden Seals, hires him to call hockey in 1972. On the bourgeois ladder he wins. Title, salary, the climb. The bank gives him security and nothing to set against death. So he calls games into a recorder, alone, in a living room, practicing a heroism the bank cannot give him, and then he walks off the safe ladder for the booth. A man trades one immortality project for another when the first stops making him feel like a hero.
Here is the broadcaster’s odd place in Becker’s scheme. Most hero systems let a man be the hero of his own story. The broadcaster builds his deathlessness out of other men’s bodies. The athlete’s body fails by thirty-five. The play lasts four seconds and then dies, the way every play dies. What survives is the call. Starkey takes the thing that dies the instant it happens and makes it deathless. He denies death by occupation.
In 1982 Cal returns a kickoff against Stanford with five laterals while the Stanford band pours onto the grass, sure the game has ended. “The band is out on the field,” Starkey says, and his voice breaks, and he says he has never seen anything like it in his life. The kickoff happened once and would have vanished like all kickoffs vanish. A man in a booth fixed it in sound. Now you cannot replay the play without replaying Starkey. He smuggles himself into immortality through the side door of witness. The athletes ran. He stayed.
The year of my postcard is also the year of Lake Placid. Starkey is there for KGO but not assigned to the United States and Soviet hockey game, so he goes as a fan, and as the thing builds he telephones the station, tells his bosses he will risk the job to call the third period live with no authorization, and they let him, and other West Coast stations pick up his feed. To stand present at the great moment and stay silent is, in his hero system, death. He will lose the job before he loses the call. That is a man who believes his own formula.
His trademark is “What a bonanza.” A bonanza is found wealth, the strike no man earned. Luck is holy to him because the witness does not make the moment. He stands present and names it. Presence at grace is the sacred thing, and so he must be there.
Watch the word call do its work in him. He hears a call and leaves the bank. He makes the call that fixes the play. He places the call to KGO that puts him on the air for the miracle. Vocation, broadcast, telephone. One word, one man.
The same word organizes other men and means something foreign in each.
The cloistered monk hears a call, and his summons him away from speech into silence, toward a God who will not be described. He earns his place by disappearing. Starkey’s call pulls him toward the microphone. The monk’s call pulls him away from it. One word, opposite directions.
The floor trader buys a call and means a contract, the right to a rising price, a wager laid on tomorrow. His heroism is to be right about the future and to carry the cost of being wrong. Starkey lays no bet. He describes the thing that already happened. The trader’s call faces forward into what might come. The broadcaster’s call faces the instant that just died.
The auctioneer calls, and he is Starkey’s near cousin, a mouth that turns a room toward a single point and sets a price by speed. But the auctioneer’s chant assigns worth in dollars and ends in a sale. Starkey’s call assigns worth in memory and ends in nothing a man can hold.
The obstetric resident is on call, and his call is the page at three in the morning that drags him to the room where a life begins. He stands at the threshold of a body entering the world, as Starkey stands at the play, but he works in blood and his witness saves a life instead of fixing a moment.
The duck hunter in the tule fog works a call cut from wood and reed, and his call is a lie that brings the living bird down to the gun. The voice summons to kill. Starkey’s voice summons nothing and kills nothing. It comes after the fact and keeps the thing alive.
The revival preacher gives the altar call, and his call summons the sinner down the aisle to be saved before the body fails. His immortality is literal, a soul that outlasts the grave, and the call is the door to it. Starkey promises no soul and no afterlife. His immortality is the cheap and sufficient human kind, a voice lodged in a stranger’s head.
Which returns me to the card. A man who doubts his hero system hoards it. A man who lives inside his hero system hands it down. Becker says a culture survives by handing the young its formula for heroism, and the handing down is the system reproducing itself. Starkey fills a postcard for a boy he will never meet because the boy is continuity, another mouth that might carry the voice forward. He had smuggled himself into permanence by then. He could afford to give the formula away free.
I still have the voice in my head. That was the gift. The play dies. The athlete ages. The card yellows. The call stays.

Posted in Radio | Comments Off on The Joe Starkey Hero System

Mike Adamle and the Meaning of Heart

Posted on June 23, 2026 by Luke Ford

It is April 1980. I am thirteen. The place is Sea World San Diego, and the families move past the tanks in the heat with their souvenir cups, and on the beach stands Mike Adamle (b. 1949), whom I watch on television whenever the set will give him to me. He does the NFL pregame and half-time shows for NBC with Bryant Gumbel. He cuts into games with highlights. He’s a star.

During a break from filming, he has no reason to stop for a boy. He stops. He gives me twenty minutes, maybe thirty. We talk about sports and about how a man gets to sit at the desk and call the games. I ask him which NFL team has the best organization. He says San Diego. He says I’m very smart and I have a bright future. He could not have been kinder, and I have kept the warmth of those minutes for more than forty years, which tells a man something about what a small kindness costs the giver and what it pays the one who receives it.

I want to read him through Ernest Becker (1924-1974). In The Denial of Death and Escape from Evil, Becker argues that the human animal knows it will die and cannot bear to live inside that knowledge, so every culture hands its members a hero system, a set of rules for earning the sense that a life counts beyond the body that ends. The athlete earns it in yards. The priest earns it in souls. The trader earns it in returns. Each hero system sets its own terms for what counts, and a man spends his years trying to bank enough of its currency to feel he will not vanish when the body quits. The script does the heavy work. It tells him what a good life looks like, and it tells the people around him whether to clap.

Adamle grows up inside a hero system before he can name one. His father, Tony Adamle (1924-2000), the son of Slovenian immigrants, plays linebacker for the Cleveland Browns through their championship years, then leaves the game for medical school and comes home to Kent, Ohio, to set up a practice and serve as team physician for the high school and for Kent State for more than thirty-five years. The warrior becomes the healer in one body. Marion Motley (1920-1999), a fullback bound for Canton, comes to the house, and young Mike sits on his lap. The boy learns early that a man earns his place through the body, that he hits and gets hit and then patches the wounded, and that the men who do these things deserve a seat at your table.

Mike inherits the script and the wrong size for it. He stands five foot nine. He carries the ball at Northwestern against Wisconsin in 1969 for 316 yards, a school record that holds to this day, and he takes the Big Ten MVP in 1970, and he goes in the fifth round, the hundred and twentieth man chosen in the 1971 draft. Six years in the league, two seasons each with three teams, eleven hundred and forty-nine rushing yards across the run. He survives on special teams and on willingness. He blocks for the back who gets the carries. He covers the kicks where the collisions live. The men who keep him keep him for one quality, and they have a word for it. They say he has heart.

Hold that word. Heart means a specific thing inside the football hero system, and it means something else in every neighboring one, and the gap between the meanings tells the story.

To a cardiac surgeon the heart is a pump with four chambers and a set of valves, a thing to be stopped and opened and sewn and started again, and his hero system rewards the steady hand and the clean margin, and sentiment in the operating room is a danger to the patient. To a cantaor singing deep song in Andalusia the heart is the wound that makes the voice true, and a man who has not suffered cannot reach the note, and the audience grades him on how much of his own ruin he is willing to show. To a Carthusian in his cell the heart is the room where a man meets God in silence, and the labor of a life is to empty it of everything that is not Him, and the scoreboard is invisible and the season never ends. To a man at a high-stakes poker table heart means he can move all his chips behind a hand he knows is weak and hold his face while he does it, and the table respects the cold nerve and nothing else. To a mother in Seoul driving her son through the examinations heart is the will to grind, the refusal to rest, the endurance aimed at a single test that sorts the life. To a venture capitalist heart is close to a flaw, the soft spot that keeps a man in a losing position past the point where the numbers told him to fold.

Same word. Six worlds. In each one the word makes sense only against the rules of that world, and a man raised in one of them might watch a man from another spend his heart and see nothing he recognizes as courage at all. There is no neutral ground where the meanings reconcile. Becker would say there cannot be, because the hero system is not a description of reality that men happen to share. It is the thing that lets a man get out of bed, and a man defends it the way he defends his life, because it stands in for his life.

Adamle’s heart is the football kind fused with the kitchen-table kind. It is the small man who plays big and blocks for the man who scores, and it is also the warmth that stops in a crowd for somebody’s boy. He carries the same quality from the field into the broadcast booth and says yes to nearly everything the trade offers. He hosts American Gladiators for seven years. He works the Olympics. He calls bull riding for the Professional Bull Riders. He stands on the sideline for the XFL. He never seems to regard any of it as beneath the dignity of a former All-American, because his hero system never priced dignity that way. The coin he chose to be rich in was usefulness and good cheer.

Then the world that does not run on his coin gets hold of him. In 2008 he goes to work for the WWE, and the wrestling business runs on a different currency, on the worked insult and the crowd’s appetite for a man’s failure turned into theater. He flubs the names. He calls Jeff Hardy (b. 1977) “Jeff Harvey” on the air. The internet that grades announcers gives him the Gooker Award for the worst thing of the year and names him the worst television announcer, and a man who once carried the ball 316 yards in an afternoon becomes a punch line in living rooms across the country. He cuts a promo apologizing. He slaps Randy Orton (b. 1980) in a scripted scene and resigns his scripted job, and he walks out of that world and goes back to the desk in Chicago and keeps working.

Watch what the hero system does under that pressure. The wrestling crowd offers Adamle a deal: stop trying, take the laugh, let the failure be your character. He declines. He runs the Ironman triathlon in Kona at sixty, fourteen hours and change in the heat. The value holds because the value was never the applause. It was the showing up.

The last test comes for the body that earned the coin in the first place. In February 2017 Adamle says he has been diagnosed with dementia and that his doctor sees the marks of chronic traumatic encephalopathy, and he ties it to nineteen years of seizures and to the concussions of the football years. “It shook my world,” he says. The game gave him his heart and the same game took the organ above it. A man might curse the script that did this to him. Adamle does the thing his hero system trained him to do. He goes public so that other men and their families might know the cost sooner, and he sits on the board of the Epilepsy Foundation’s Chicago division, and he turns his own wreck into use. The warrior who becomes the healer, one more time, in one more body, the way his father did it.

So I come back to Sea World and the twenty minutes. I understand them better now. Inside the hero system Adamle lived by, a stranger’s boy with no name and nothing to offer was worth twenty minutes of a working man’s afternoon, because the system told him that warmth spent on the helpless counts, that you block for the man who carries the ball and you stop for the kid who only wants to talk. Another man in another script might look at that exchange and see twenty minutes thrown away on someone who could never repay them. That is the thing about heart. The word changes its meaning the moment you carry it across the border into the next man’s world, and most of us never notice we have crossed a border at all. I have spent forty years certain that I met a great man at Sea World. By the terms of his own hero system, I did.

Posted in TV | Comments Off on Mike Adamle and the Meaning of Heart

Special Progress

Posted on June 23, 2026 by Luke Ford

The New York Times reports:

When Jeffrey Epstein was about 6 years old, he moved with his family to Sea Gate, in Coney Island. He would spend his formative years there, in a gated neighborhood several blocks from the beach, making friends who stayed close to him for most of his life.

Like many families in Sea Gate, a mostly working- and middle-class Jewish refuge, the Epsteins had little…

On the other side of the tall fence encircling Sea Gate, the west end of Coney Island — including the site of the Epsteins’ previous apartment — was a demolition zone, whole blocks slated for the bulldozer or burned and vandalized during urban renewal. White families fled if they could afford to, and among those who stayed, racial tensions simmered and boiled.

To its residents, Sea Gate signified safety from people and places they viewed as threats. A private police force patrolled its cabanas and community basketball courts. Kids had the run of the place, crowding the paths and the beaches, at home in one another’s houses. They attended one another’s bar mitzvahs; an accordion teacher made the rounds several days a week. “It was like day camp all year round,” recalls Susan Danzig, who lived near Epstein on Maple Avenue. Adults seemed beside the point…

The children in Sea Gate were not spared the convulsions of the 1960s. Heavy drugs were used there. Pals went to Vietnam and never came back. But the kids were aware, at the time and from a distance of five decades or more, that compared with those living outside the gate, they had it good.

By junior high school, Epstein was part of a tight friend group: four smart, ambitious boys who preferred music to sports and cracked one another up…

Epstein’s father, Seymour, was the son of immigrants from Eastern Europe. His father owned a wrecking company in Brooklyn, and his mother suffered a “nervous breakdown” and underwent shock therapy. Seymour quit high school “because I never liked school,” he wrote in an autobiographical essay before his death in 1991 that Maxwell included in the birthday book.

Before landing his job at the Parks Department in 1956, Seymour seems to have drifted, selling cutlery at Macy’s and working as a conductor on the subway. He was a “very, very basic guy” who enjoyed television and especially Tarzan movies, Gary Grossberg, an Epstein family friend, said in an interview.

In their emails the Epstein brothers regularly mocked their father…

Now an elite public middle school with a competitive entrance exam, Mark Twain Junior High School in 1964 was tense with racial conflict in an increasingly impoverished neighborhood. “We had police escorts from the public bus to the school at certain times,” recalled Scott Ehrlich, who attended with Epstein. Epstein once said he did not like wearing a tie because it gave kids on the street something to grab when they dragged you from one place to another.

The solution, at Mark Twain, was to sequester the high-achieving white kids, who tended to be Jewish, and collect them in classes labeled Special Progress, or S.P. Some of these S.P. students, including Epstein, skipped eighth grade. “We were a special class, kind of an island, isolated from the others,” Durham recalled. “And people resented us.” Because of their insularity, the Sea Gate kids were regarded as especially privileged.

For the rest of his life, Epstein displayed a keen determination to enforce the boundaries between those on the outside and those who were “in.” Even the network of “girls” functioned to exclude others. When an unnamed person in 2011 asked Epstein to explain how having “400 women” at his disposal could be as satisfying as “a deep relationship with one woman,” he responded that he liked the security. “The Harem,” he wrote, has traditionally “meant protection for those inside from those outside.”

Sea Gate sits behind a fence at the western end of Coney Island. A private police force patrols the cabanas and the basketball courts. On the other side of the fence, in the years when Jeffrey Epstein (1953-2019) is a boy, the blocks burn and empty under urban renewal, and the families who can afford to leave do. Inside the fence the children have the run of the place. They cross into one another’s houses. They go to one another’s bar mitzvahs. An accordion teacher makes the rounds. A neighbor remembers it as day camp all year round, and remembers that the adults seem beside the point.

The Epsteins have the second floor. The house on Maple Avenue stands three stories, a Dutch colonial with a broad front porch, and the family rents a small apartment in it. Seymour Epstein works for the Parks Department as a laborer and brings home less than eight thousand dollars a year. Paula works as a school aide at P.S. 188. The neighbors find Paula simple, and sometimes silly. Years later the sons mock the father in their emails, the stained boxer shorts, the wife-beaters with gravy on them, and Mark asks whether Seymour might have been part ape. This is the home the boy escapes. The terror under the story starts here, in the second-floor rental behind the fence, and the terror has a name the boy hears every day on the other side of the gate. The name is nobody.

Ernest Becker held that a man builds his life as a defense against the knowledge that he is small and that he will die and that he might amount to nothing. The defense is a hero system, an arrangement of meaning that lets a man feel he counts. Cultures hand these systems down. A man does not invent his from scratch. He receives it young, before he can reason, and it tells him what a life worth having looks like and what the worst fate is. For the boy in the second-floor rental the worst fate stands in plain sight beyond the fence, and the hero system that answers it forms early, among four boys who decide together that they are not nobody. They are special.

The word special runs through every hero system on earth and means a different thing in each.

For a Carthusian monk in his cell, special means set apart for God and hidden from men. The monk gives up the rise. He gives up the witness. His significance has an audience of one and that audience needs no proof. The worst fate for the monk is to be seen, to be praised, to have the world know his name, because the knowing would steal the thing back from God and return it to the self. Special means invisible.

For a Marine, special means the few, and the few earn it through shared ordeal, and no man earns it alone. The significance lives in the unit. A Marine carries his worth in the regard of men who suffered the same thing he suffered, and the cardinal sin, the one that damns him, is to leave a brother behind. Special means I did not break, and I did not let my brothers break.

For a founder in a glass building south of Market Street, special means the exception who breaks the rule and makes the world bend to him. He reads the rules as the cage built for ordinary men. He proves his worth by disruption, and the proof arrives as a number, a valuation, the bend of the world measured in capital. Special means I was right and everyone who doubted me was wrong, and here is the money to settle it.

For a prizefighter, special means proven on the body and proven alone. No coach confers it. No crowd confers it. The other man in the ring tries to take it and fails, and that failure is the only proof the fighter trusts. Special means I stood and he did not.

The monk and the Marine and the founder and the fighter use one word and live four lives, and not one of them would recognize what special means inside the fence at Sea Gate. There it means selected out of the precarious mass and witnessed by the boys who were selected with you. It is relational. It is comparative. Special at Sea Gate means special compared to the children burning out of their homes beyond the gate, and the comparison is not the shadow of the value. The comparison is the value.

The school makes this plain and never means to. Mark Twain Junior High in 1964 runs tense with racial conflict, and children take police escorts from the bus to the door. The school’s answer is to gather the high-achieving kids, who tend to be Jewish, into classes labeled Special Progress, S.P. Epstein lands there. He skips a grade out of it. A classmate, Lisa Durham, remembers the arrangement with a clarity that holds the hero system in a sentence. They were a special class, she says, an island, isolated from the others. And people resented us.

An island. The word the boy will spend his fortune on, fifty years on, the boy who will buy Little St. James and run his life from it, learns the structure of the island in a tracked classroom at thirteen. The island confers worth, and the worth depends on the water, and the water depends on the people kept off the island. The resentment Durham names is not a cost of the system. It is the proof the system works. You cannot be special unless someone outside the fence is not.

The boys carry the system out of the school and into the rest of their lives, and they speak it to each other for half a century in a private liturgy. We came from nothing, Kafka writes. He says it more than once because it is the creed. Coming from nothing is the terror, and the rise is the redemption, and the cohort is the church that keeps the record of who rose how far. You didn’t learn life’s lessons in your house, Kafka tells Epstein. You learned them from us. We didn’t look to our families really for anything. The family is the nothing. The boys are the something. The hero system replaces the home that shamed them with a brotherhood that crowns them, and the crowning never stops, because Kafka is still measuring the rise in 2015, still writing it down, still keeping the books. He did well. Epstein did better.

The boys prove the system the way Sea Gate taught them, by sorting. They share rare things to mark rank, the recordings of the French pianist who made Bach into jazz, the calculus book the boy reads on his bed with Beethoven going. They travel Europe on two dollars a day and sleep on night trains to save the price of a room, and the thrift is not poverty, the thrift is mastery, the boy working the schedules so the world gives him its rooms for free. Pure happiness, Kafka writes, is sneaking into the five-dollar seats at the Fillmore with an orange soda and a lobster roll, the ultimate luxury. The luxury is small and the theft is the point. Special means the rules are the cage built for the children beyond the fence, and we slip them, and slipping them is how we know we are not those children.

At Interlochen, the summer he is fourteen, the boy enters a higher island, talented youth from everywhere marked as special, and a cabin-mate remembers him skirting the rules and barely complying, sockless under a regulation that requires socks. The detail is small and it is the man. The rule binds the others. The boy proves he is special by the margin of his noncompliance, and he proves it again on the Bear Stearns application in 1976, where he invents a degree from Cooper Union and a master’s from New York University he never earned. The lie is not only fraud. The lie is the hero system stated in a job application. The credential is the cage. The man who writes his own credential has declared he stands outside it, on the island, where the rules are for the people in the water.

Then the rise goes vertical, past anything Sea Gate could have scripted, and the cohort watches with awe and keeps faith. Here the hero system does the thing that every other reader of this story has called a puzzle and that Becker lets us read as fidelity. The friends do not stay loyal to Epstein despite his crimes. They stay loyal because Epstein is the proof. He is the boy from the second-floor rental who rose highest, who turned coming from nothing into an island a man could stand on, and to break with him is to concede that the rise can end in a cell and a corpse on Little St. James, and that concession unmakes the meaning of every life in the cohort. The men cannot afford it. So the oncologist Buchholtz and the optometrist Eisenstein and the billboard man Kafka keep the friendship warm across the guilty plea, banter about the girls in the house, track the release date, wire the money. JEE, Kafka writes in 2009. Are you released yet. Good job on getting thru the sentence.

When Eisenstein dies in 2014, Kafka writes the obituary, and in it he names Jeffrey Epstein a soul mate. The man has pleaded guilty by then. Kafka knows what the house holds. He writes the words anyway, because the alternative is to say that the boy who proved the creed proved nothing, and a man does not, at the end of his life, burn the scripture that told him his life had weight.

This is the new thing the Sea Gate story offers a reader who has watched the rise a hundred times in the obituaries and the indictments and never seen the spine of it. The sacred value of the cohort, special, the value that saved four boys from the terror of the second-floor rental, was the same value that built the architecture of the harem. When the unnamed correspondent asks Epstein in 2011 how four hundred women can satisfy a man more than one deep bond, he answers in the language of the island. The harem, he writes, has traditionally meant protection for those inside from those outside. The reader is meant to find the line monstrous and alien. It is neither. It is Special Progress grown rich. It is the SP island with a private plane. The boy learned at thirteen that worth comes from being inside and depends on someone being outside, and he never learned anything else, and at the end he ran the lesson to its floor.

The monk and the Marine and the founder and the fighter would each reach a different floor, because each holds special to mean a different thing, and the thing it means decides where a life can go. The monk’s special ends in silence. The Marine’s ends in the regard of men who held the line with him. The Sea Gate boy’s special ended where its logic always pointed, on an island, with the world sorted into the few who counted and the supply that did not, and a cohort on the shore who could not call it monstrous because they had spent their lives calling it special.

Posted in Abuse, Jeffrey Epstein | Comments Off on Special Progress

Amy Gutmann: A Life in Democratic Theory

Posted on June 23, 2026 by Luke Ford

Amy Gutmann (b. November 19, 1949) ranks among the principal democratic theorists of her generation, and her working life joins three callings that seldom meet in one career: political philosophy, university leadership, and diplomacy. She built a sustained body of work on democratic education and deliberative democracy. She led the University of Pennsylvania for eighteen years. She represented the United States in Berlin as ambassador to Germany. Across scholarship, administration, bioethics, and public service she returned to a single question, how citizens who disagree about the deepest things can live together as political equals.

She was born in Brooklyn, the only child of Kurt and Beatrice Gutmann. Her father, a German Jew, left Nazi Germany in 1934 as a college student, reached India, and came at last to the United States. The family settled in Monroe, New York. She attended Monroe-Woodbury High School and became the first in her family to finish college. Her father’s flight from a totalitarian state gave her later subject its weight, and questions of citizenship, pluralism, and the moral obligations of public institutions traced back to a family history she carried into her scholarship.

Gutmann graduated magna cum laude from Radcliffe College in 1971, took a master’s degree from the London School of Economics in 1972, and completed her doctorate in political science at Harvard University in 1976. Her dissertation, supervised by the political theorist Michael Walzer (b. 1935), shaped her early thinking about justice, citizenship, and democratic equality. It became the basis for her first book, Liberal Equality (1980), a study of the tension between individual liberty and social equality in modern democratic societies.

From the start she wanted to bridge political philosophy and the practical work of governing. Her scholarship asks how a free society can hold freedom and equality together amid deep moral and cultural disagreement. She became a leading advocate of deliberative democracy, and she argued that democratic legitimacy rests on institutions that press citizens to justify their political positions through reasoned public debate, rather than on any expectation of unanimity.

Her most influential book, Democratic Education (1987), reshaped both political philosophy and educational theory. She rejected state indoctrination on one side and unlimited parental control over a child’s schooling on the other, and she held that a democratic society keeps a legitimate interest in preparing its future citizens for independent judgment and civic participation. Education, on her account, should build the capacity to weigh competing claims, question inherited assumptions, and take a responsible part in public life. The book remains a foundational text in democratic theory.

Over the following decades she carried her analysis of democracy into questions of race, identity, compromise, and public ethics. In Color Conscious: The Political Morality of Race (1996), written with the philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah (b. 1954), she examined the moral and political complexities of racial classification and affirmative action. Identity in Democracy (2003) took up the relation between group identities and democratic citizenship. Her long collaboration with the political theorist Dennis Thompson (1940-2025) produced Democracy and Disagreement, Why Deliberative Democracy?, and The Spirit of Compromise, a sequence that helped establish deliberative democracy as a major field within political theory.

A theme recurs across this work. Disagreement belongs to democracy as a defining feature rather than a flaw. Citizens hold conflicting values and interests, and they always will. Democratic institutions succeed by encouraging mutual respect, public justification, and fair procedures for settling disputes, rather than by erasing those differences. This stress on principled disagreement became a central contribution to her political thought.

After many years teaching at Princeton University, Gutmann moved into university leadership. She founded Princeton’s University Center for Human Values and served as its first Laurance S. Rockefeller University Professor. The center grew into a leading home for interdisciplinary research in ethics, political philosophy, and public affairs. As dean of the faculty and later provost, she oversaw academic expansion and strengthened the university’s commitment to public service.

In 2004 she became the eighth president of the University of Pennsylvania, a post she held until 2022, which made her the longest-serving president in the university’s history. Over those eighteen years she expanded Penn’s financial resources, research capacity, and national standing. The university completed the Making History campaign, which raised $4.3 billion, and then the Power of Penn campaign, which raised $5.4 billion.

Her presidency turned on the Penn Compact, a strategic vision built around inclusion, innovation, and impact. She expanded need-based financial aid, and in 2008 she removed loans from undergraduate aid packages and replaced them with grants, so that students from lower- and middle-income families could graduate free of debt. She promoted interdisciplinary research, entrepreneurship, and community engagement. The campus grew through projects such as Penn Park and the Pennovation Center, which tied academic research to technological development. Penn also widened its socioeconomic range, expanded support for first-generation students, and built new programs for student innovation and public service.

Her interest in bringing ethical reasoning to bear on public policy reached beyond the university. She became a prominent voice in bioethics and health policy and chaired the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues under President Barack Obama (b. 1961). Her later work with the bioethicist Jonathan D. Moreno (b. 1952), Everybody Wants to Go to Heaven but Nobody Wants to Die (2019), examined the ethical and economic strains on American health care.

In 2021 President Joe Biden (b. 1942) nominated Gutmann as United States ambassador to Germany. The Senate confirmed her, and she served from 2022 to 2024, a period marked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a renewal of transatlantic cooperation, and rising concern about the resilience of democratic institutions. The appointment carried a personal charge. Nearly ninety years after her father fled Nazi Germany, she returned as the official representative of the United States, and she drew on her family’s history when she spoke about the defense of democratic institutions against authoritarian threats.

After she stepped down in 2024, Gutmann returned to Penn as President Emerita, Christopher H. Browne Distinguished Professor of Political Science, and Professor of Communication. She continues to teach, write, and speak on democracy, higher education, technology, and civic responsibility. In 2025 she delivered the Berlin Lecture at Wolfson College, Oxford, where she reflected on democratic fragility, civic courage, and the lessons she drew from her diplomatic service and her family’s past.

Her influence remains visible in the institutions she helped shape. Amy Gutmann Hall, a center for data science and artificial intelligence at Penn, was dedicated in her honor and opened in 2025. She also advises initiatives that study the relation among media, technology, democracy, and public trust.

Her honors include election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society, the Harvard Centennial Medal, the Leo Baeck Medal, and the Clark Kerr Award for Distinguished Leadership in Higher Education, along with many honorary degrees. In 2018 Fortune named her among the world’s fifty greatest leaders.

Across four decades of scholarship and public service, Gutmann held to one underlying question: how a society of citizens who differ on profound questions can govern themselves as equals. Her career carried democratic theory out of the seminar room and into the governance of universities, public commissions, and international diplomacy. She did as much as any modern political philosopher to tie abstract claims about citizenship and deliberation to the daily work of keeping democratic institutions alive.

The Great Delusion

In his 2018 book, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, John J. Mearsheimer wrote:

My view is that we are profoundly social beings from the start to the finish of our lives and that individualism is of secondary importance… Liberalism downplays the social nature of human beings to the point of almost ignoring it, instead treating people largely as atomistic actors… Political liberalism… is an ideology that is individualistic at its core and assigns great importance to the concept of inalienable rights. This concern for rights is the basis of its universalism—everyone on the planet has the same inherent set of rights—and this is what motivates liberal states to pursue ambitious foreign policies. The public and scholarly discourse about liberalism since World War II has placed enormous emphasis on what are commonly called human rights. This is true all around the world, not just in the West. “Human rights,” Samuel Moyn notes, “have come to define the most elevated aspirations of both social movements and political entities—state and interstate. They evoke hope and provoke action.”
[Humans] do not operate as lone wolves but are born into social groups or societies that shape their identities well before they can assert their individualism. Moreover, individuals usually develop strong attachments to their group and are sometimes willing to make great sacrifices for their fellow members. Humans are often said to be tribal at their core. The main reason for our social nature is that the best way for a person to survive is to be embedded in a society and to cooperate with fellow members rather than act alone… Despite its elevated ranking, reason is the least important of the three ways we determine our preferences. It certainly is less important than socialization. The main reason socialization matters so much is that humans have a long childhood in which they are protected and nurtured by their families and the surrounding society, and meanwhile exposed to intense socialization. At the same time, they are only beginning to develop their critical faculties, so they are not equipped to think for themselves. By the time an individual reaches the point where his reasoning skills are well developed, his family and society have already imposed an enormous value infusion on him. Moreover, that individual is born with innate sentiments that also strongly influence how he thinks about the world around him. All of this means that people have limited choice in formulating a moral code, because so much of their thinking about right and wrong comes from inborn attitudes and socialization.

If Mearsheimer (b. 1947) is right, Gutmann built her life’s work on the weakest of the three forces he names.
His order is fixed. Inborn sentiment first, socialization second, reason a distant third. Gutmann’s project runs on the third. Deliberative democracy asks citizens to justify their positions by public reason and to revise them under better argument. Democratic education trains the capacity to question inherited assumptions and judge for oneself. Mutual respect, reciprocity, public justification: each assumes that reasoning among equals carries real weight in how people hold their commitments. In The Great Delusion reason is the part of a man that arrives last and decides least. So her account describes the surface and misses the current. The deliberating citizen mostly rationalizes loyalties that sentiment and upbringing fixed long before he entered the room. The reasoned exchange she prizes plays out over settled tribal ground that the exchange does not move.
Her central practical claim takes the hardest hit. Gutmann wants schools to cultivate independent judgment, against state indoctrination on one side and total parental control on the other. Mearsheimer locates the value infusion in the long childhood, before critical faculties form. The window Gutmann wants to keep open for free judgment is the window in which the tribe writes itself into the child. Her program either comes too late, the values already set, or, where it works, sets itself against the family and nation that do the primary forming. In his frame that second case is not neutral civic education. It is one tribe, the cosmopolitan credentialed class, trying to overwrite the socialization of other tribes, and calling the attempt universal reason. He counts that as a coalition move in liberal dress.
Her ideal citizen cannot exist as drawn. Gutmann asks a man to bracket his identity and reason as an equal with strangers. Mearsheimer holds that identity comes first, runs deep, and rarely brackets, that people are born into groups that shape them before they can assert any individualism, and form attachments strong enough to die for. What survives the objection is a thinner truth. Deliberation works among men who already share a tribe and its sacred words. Across deep tribal lines it fails, and procedure does not save it.
Disagreement, her signature, reads differently in his hands. Gutmann treats permanent disagreement as the condition democracy manages through respect and fair process. Mearsheimer agrees the disagreement is permanent and gives a colder reason: men cannot reason their way to a shared view of the good life, because reason is weak and socialization varies by group. Where she sees procedures that let reasoning citizens live together, he sees a modus vivendi propped up by prosperity, power, and a common national frame. Mutual respect becomes a luxury good of a stable and well-fed elite, not a load-bearing beam. Let the prosperity or the shared frame weaken and the procedures hold nothing.
The collision turns live at Berlin. Deliberative liberalism carries the universalist premise, that every man is owed equal respect and the same rights and can be reasoned with, and Mearsheimer’s thesis is that this premise, exported, becomes liberal hegemony, the crusade to remake other societies that provokes nationalism and ends in war. Gutmann goes to Germany in 2022 to defend the liberal order against Russia. By her lights this is the refugee’s daughter defending democracy. In his frame the Ukraine war is the predictable fruit of liberal expansion meeting great-power realism and Russian nationalism, the delusion his book names, working on schedule. Her finest hour becomes his clearest case. A liberal carries liberal universalism to the border of a great power and reads the resulting war as a contest of values rather than a failure to respect the force of nationalism and the balance of power.
The deepest meeting is over her father. Gutmann’s universalism grows from his flight from Nazi Germany, the place where blood and soil turned murderous, and her life reads as reason and rights set against tribe. Mearsheimer takes the Nazis not as the case against his anthropology but as its strongest proof, sentiment and socialization overriding reason and rights at full strength. The trauma that pushes her toward more reason is, in his reading, the surest evidence that reason was never strong enough to stop the tribe and is not strong enough now. Her answer to tribalism is more deliberation. His diagnosis is that deliberation was never the thing holding the line.
What is left for her if he is right is not nothing, and the part he grants cuts against her self-understanding. Mearsheimer is a liberal at home. He thinks liberalism works inside a strong nation bound by a shared identity that contains it. So her democratic deliberation might survive where she would least want the credit. It works because Americans were a people first, bound by sentiment and common socialization, and a reasoning public second. Deliberation rides on a prior nationalism it claims to rise above. Her institutions do not create the trust that makes reasoning possible. They spend down a stock that nationalism and shared upbringing laid in. Penn, the bioethics commission, the embassy all run on coalitions and loyalties her theory discounts. The achievement is real and the foundation is the thing the theory denies.
The verdict the frame returns is hard. Her body of work becomes a high-status account of how one tribe, the educated and cosmopolitan and liberal, talks to itself and licenses its rule, mistaken by its authors for the universal ground of legitimacy. Public reason, mutual respect, deliberation: real customs of one coalition, not the floor of political order. Her founding error is his founding liberal error, taking the rights-bearing reasoning individual as primary when the group is primary, and the cost is blindness to the forces that actually bind communities and start wars, including the war she went to Berlin to manage.
One limit. The frame is a stress test. It predicts breakdown across tribal lines and explains less about the stretches where deliberation holds and changes outcomes, which Gutmann documented and Mearsheimer tends to wave off as froth on a deeper current.

Freedom of Association

Freedom of association is the legal name for the thing Mearsheimer says men do by necessity, sort themselves into groups on their own terms, including terms that shut others out. Let association run and you get the tribal sorting. So a theorist who grants the anthropology of the embedded self and fears free association fears the embedding she has already conceded. Gutmann blesses association and then bounds it. She edited a volume on it, Freedom of Association (1998), and her deliberative democracy makes the same move at the level of theory: the groups that survive the right kind of public reasoning earn protection, and the reasoning sets the limit.
Association was the Left’s weapon when the Left stood outside. NAACP v. Alabama (1958) shielded the membership rolls of an out-group organizing against a hostile state, and freedom of association was the shield. Unions leaned on it. Civil rights groups leaned on it. The value served the coalition that lacked the institutions. Then the coalition took the institutions, and association turned. Now it shelters the people the consensus wants reached, the club that will not admit, the congregation that will not hire, the Scouts in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000). The same freedom that armed the out-group arms the holdouts against the in-group’s writ. So the cohort that once carried association as a sword reaches for the regulator. The value held. The coalition’s position moved, and the value tracked the move.
The deliberative democrat like Gutman has an argument with a long pedigree. Association that destroys the equal standing of citizens undercuts the freedom that lets anyone associate at all. Tolerate the intolerant without limit and you lose toleration. On this reading the bound on association is the floor that keeps the room open to everyone, and she needs the room open because deliberation needs a free public to deliberate. A coherent position, held by serious people.
Grant Mearsheimer and the floor stops being neutral. Equal standing is not a fact lying under the groups. It is a value, carried by a coalition, infused early, held tribally, the same as any rival value. The deliberation that draws the bound runs through people socialized into one camp, seated in one set of institutions, and what clears their deliberation is what their camp can live with. The self-limiting freedom turns out to be freedom limited by whoever holds the deliberative chair. On the anthropology, control is the principle, speaking the language of the floor.
The academy is a freely associated group that polices associations. The faculty that rules which clubs may exclude is a club that excludes. Gutmann exercises a coalition’s control. The man who sees the gate is usually the man held on the wrong side of it.

‘A Big Misunderstanding’

Gutmann is the misunderstanding myth in high form, the version that arrives with good manners and a wall of degrees.
David Pinsof says itellectuals trace the world’s troubles to misunderstanding, to bias and ignorance and feeble reasoning, because that story makes the people who understand things the cure. Gutmann’s life work says democracy fails when citizens fail to reason together, fail to justify their positions, fail to respect the men they disagree with, and the repair is institutions that press them to do all three. Deliberative democracy reads political conflict as a justification problem. Democratic education reads the child as a mind to be freed into independent judgment. Both name a shortage of reason and propose a supply. The supplier, by the shape of the theory, is the credentialed reasoner. The political philosopher becomes the physician democracy cannot spare.
See who the diagnosis elevates. If democracy ails for want of reason and respect, then the men who hold the reason and model the respect are the professors, the university presidents, the bioethics chairs, the ambassadors. Her theory hands the keys to her own class and calls the handover a discovery about legitimacy. A fine thing for a political philosopher to believe.
Now set her stated motive beside her deeds. The stated motive is mutual respect, reciprocity, citizens reasoning as equals. Pinsof’s test is the one he runs on the Starbucks mission statement: read the words, then watch the hands. Over eighteen years at Penn the hands raised $9.7 billion across two campaigns, lifted the university’s rank and brand, and grew the endowment and the real estate. The mission statement said inclusion, innovation, impact. The deed was an elite institution winning a status contest against other elite institutions. The loan-to-grant aid reads the same way twice over, real help to poorer students and a prestige play that buys talent and good press. Pinsof does not call the help fake. He says the warm account of the motive hides the competitive one, and the warm account is the part that earns applause.
Her treatment of disagreement is where the frame bites. Gutmann takes permanent disagreement as a condition to be managed by respect and fair procedure, a friction to be civilized. Pinsof says partisan hatred is no whoopsie. Men fight over the coercive apparatus of the state, the thing that puts people in cages at gunpoint, and in a fight that size they fight dirty and deny they fight at all. Her deliberative procedures are no truce above that fight. They are a proposed rulebook for it, and the rulebook rewards the fluent, the credentialed, the men trained to justify themselves in public, which is to say her coalition. Writing the rules is the oldest coalition move there is. Mutual respect is a luxury her class can extend because the procedures already tilt the floor their way.
Democratic education turns over in the same hand. Gutmann wants schooling that builds independent judgment against indoctrination from the state and against capture by the family. Pinsof holds that men understand what they have an incentive to understand and that stupidity is usually strategic. The child is no blank waiting for reason. The family and the tribe wrote the value infusion early, and they wrote it because it served them. Independent judgment, in practice, means judgment that lands where the educating class already stands. One coalition overwrites another’s socialization, denies that this is what it does, and files the denial under neutrality. The denial is a weapon, and a good one.
The Presidential Commission fits the pattern without effort. The stated good is reasoned ethical guidance for the nation. The working logic is a credentialing body that converts academic standing into authority next to state power. Pinsof names the tell. The compliment a social scientist wants is “that has policy implications,” meaning it props up the policies the coalition already favors, not “that is insightful.”
Then the affect. Gutmann is the sweetie in full, warm, respectful, forever building bridges, forever granting the other side its dignity. Pinsof says the feel-good idealistic register is how you signal you are a sweetie, and it works. Reciprocity, respect, deliberation, the whole vocabulary, signal that she stands above the scrum even as she wins it. The disavowal of competition is the most effective competitive posture on offer, because cynics read as assholes and sweeties collect status.
Her project ends where Pinsof says these projects end, against a world that declines to be saved. She spent a career trying to rescue democracy through better deliberation and better schooling. The voters have no incentive to drop their tribe’s propaganda. The politicians win by courting biased voters. The press sells attention. Her interventions land on men who grasp their incentives all too well and ignore her, from interest rather than confusion. She studies the hole with care. She stays in it.
Gutmann sees tribalism. She wrote Identity in Democracy. She grants that disagreement runs deep and will not close. Pinsof has a name for the move, the bias bias, the belief that you run cleaner than the people around you. She maps every coalition but the one she leads. She treats her own deliberative class as the neutral ground from which the tribes can be judged, the exact thing a savvy coalition says about itself.

Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002)

If Bourdieu is right, Gutmann’s career is a long conversion of one kind of capital into another, managed so well that the conversions read as a vocation.
Start with the terms. A field, in Pierre Bourdieu’s sense, is a structured arena of competition, the academy, the university system, the state, each with its own stakes and its own currency. Agents hold capital in several forms. Economic capital is money. Cultural capital is credentials, learning, the right references. Social capital is the network, the connections that vouch for a man. Symbolic capital is honor, the recognition that makes the other forms look earned and rightful rather than grabbed. The forms convert into one another at rates the field sets, and players advance by position-taking, by staking a stance that places them against their rivals. Under all of it runs doxa, the unspoken sense of what counts as serious and worth wanting, the rules a player obeys without seeing them as rules. Read Gutmann through this and the seams open.
She enters the academic field from its edge. The refugee father, the first in the family to finish college, the climb out of Monroe-Woodbury High School: in field terms she starts with little inherited capital and one rare asset, a biography. Then she accumulates. Radcliffe, the London School of Economics, a Harvard doctorate under Walzer: each credential is cultural capital banked, and Walzer is social capital, a line into the consecrated lineage of political theory. Liberal Equality turns the schooling into the field’s own coin, recognized work that rivals must cite.
The next two decades are consecration. Democratic Education, the long run of books with Thompson, and then the move that a Bourdieusian reads as the shrewdest of all, the founding of Princeton’s University Center for Human Values and her installation in the named Rockefeller chair. Founding a center is field-building. She makes an institutional position that holds capital, dispenses it to others, and raises the man who runs it. The endowed chair is symbolic capital in its purest stamp. By the late 1990s she holds a strong position near the autonomous pole of her sub-field, the place where pure theory earns the most respect, while she keeps one face turned toward the heteronomous pole, toward policy and governance, where theory cashes out in power.
Then the conversion that defines her. Dean, provost, and in 2004 the Penn presidency. Academic capital becomes administrative power, and she crosses from the field of cultural production into the field of power, the arena where holders of money, credentials, and prestige struggle over the rate at which each trades for the others. A university president sits in that field as a dominant agent, brokering donors against faculty against rank against brand. She holds the post eighteen years and raises $9.7 billion across two campaigns. In field terms she does not merely lead Penn. She lifts its position.
Her signature moves at Penn are position-takings in the elite-university field, and the frame reads them without strain. That field is a relational space. A school’s standing is its distance from the schools above and below it, measured in rank, endowment, selectivity, prestige. Penn sat low in the symbolic order of the Ivy League, the member outsiders confused with a state school. The Penn Compact, inclusion and innovation and impact, is a strategy of distinction, a way to claim ground the rivals have not yet claimed. The expansion of need-based aid and the 2008 switch from loans to grants work on three levels at once. They help poorer students, and the help is real. They buy talent, drawing the strongest low-income applicants who might otherwise go elsewhere. And they generate symbolic capital, the favorable press and moral standing that distinguish Penn in the contest. The power of the frame is that it needs no hypocrisy to run. The virtuous move and the advantageous move are the same move, and her habitus, the refugee’s daughter who treats institutions as sacred and fragile, makes the advantageous move feel like principle from the inside. Bourdieu calls the result misrecognition. The strategic character of the act is hidden from the agent first of all, and the sincere believer converts capital better than any cynic, because sincerity is legible and prestige flows toward the legible.
The last conversion comes in 2022. Academic, administrative, and symbolic capital become state capital when the President names her ambassador to Germany, and here her one rare asset returns with interest. The refugee’s daughter going back to Berlin is biographical capital of a kind the field of power prizes and cannot manufacture. The Senate confirmation is consecration by the state, the highest external stamp a scholar-administrator can receive.
The deepest reading lies in the homology between her theory and her trajectory. Deliberative democracy holds that legitimacy grows from reasoned justification among equals. That is the academic field’s own image of itself, the disinterested pursuit of truth through argument among peers, raised to a theory of political order. The seminar becomes the model of the republic. Bourdieu has a name for the move. He calls it the scholastic fallacy, the error of the man at leisure who mistakes the conditions of his own game, the distance from necessity, the freedom to weigh and revise, for the human condition. Gutmann’s ideal citizen is the scholastic disposition writ large, the man freed from want to reason with strangers. Homo Academicus anatomizes the academic who reads his own position as the universal standpoint. Her body of work universalizes the doxa of the place that made her.
And her warmest values do the heaviest lifting. Distinction turns on the claim that the denial of interest is the specific interest of the cultural field, that symbolic capital is economic and political capital denied and thereby made clean. Mutual respect, public reason, civility, the vocabulary of disinterested deliberation, accumulate symbolic capital by disavowing the struggle they are part of. The president who speaks the language of the life of the mind and the inclusive community converts that disavowal into gifts, into rank, into a federal appointment. The disinterest is the interest, and it pays.

Watergate as Democratic Ritual & Cultural Trauma

If Yale sociologist Jeffrey C. Alexander is right, Gutmann’s life joins two of his processes that rarely run in one person. She theorizes the civil sphere in the register of philosophy, and she carries a cultural trauma without ever naming it as construction. The frame’s yield comes from holding those two together.
Start with the civil sphere, the term Alexander built across his later work and grounded in the Watergate essay. A society holds a civil discourse, a binary code that sorts conduct into the pure and the polluted. The pure side runs to reason, autonomy, openness, trust, law, inclusion. The polluted side runs to deference, secrecy, faction, personal loyalty, the deviant. Democracy lives or dies on whether this code stays vital, on whether citizens can pull their attention up from the profane level of goals and interest to the sacred level of values. The Senate hearings did that work. They lifted a third-rate burglary into a passage through sacred time, sorted Nixon’s men onto the polluted side, and revivified critical universalism through ritual. The code is real and it does political work, and it is also a construction, achieved against odds, never automatic, never complete.
Read Gutmann’s deliberative democracy against this and it appears as the civil discourse rewritten as a theory of legitimacy. What Alexander describes as the sacred code of civil society, public reason, mutual respect, reciprocity, the priority of impersonal office over personal loyalty, Gutmann states as the norms a democracy ought to meet. The senators on the committee bracketed particular loyalties and affirmed that every citizen reasons and acts in good faith if allowed the truth. That is her deliberating citizen, drawn from the ritual rather than from the seminar. So the deepest reading the frame offers is this. Gutmann does in the philosophical register what Alexander says the Watergate hearings did in the ritual register. She purifies the civil code and hands it back to the society as binding. Her books are themselves civil-sphere performances, claims that project the sacred values to a public and ask the public to feel bound by them. Alexander would not call this a description of how democracies work. He would call it a contribution to the discourse that keeps the sacred code alive, the thing his theory studies, written by a participant who takes the code for the ground of legitimacy.
There is a sharper turn. Alexander treats the binary code as construction, contingent, and contested, the pure and the polluted made and not found. Gutmann treats the same values as normative truths reached by reason. Where he sees a society telling itself a sacred story to renew solidarity, she sees principles that justification discovers. The frame reads her certainty as the believer’s view from inside the ritual. She holds the sacred code and does not see it as code. That is no failing in her. It is the condition Alexander says participants occupy. The senators believed they evoked timeless truths, not that they performed a rite, and the belief was the engine of the rite.
Now the trauma half, where the original contribution sits. The father leaves Nazi Germany in 1934. The Holocaust stands behind the daughter’s project. The cultural-trauma frame says an event does not brand a group by its own force. A carrier group must do the meaning work, name the pain, name the victim, tie the victim to a wider audience, attribute responsibility, and broadcast the claim until the society takes it into its identity. The postwar construction of the Holocaust as a trauma of the West, not a regional Jewish sorrow but a wound in the moral identity of modernity, is the case Alexander’s school uses to anatomize the process. Gutmann belongs to the carrier group. She is the discursively skilled elite, placed near the center of the institutions that make meaning, the university and the commission and the press, exactly the position Alexander says carrier groups occupy. Her liberalism is the lesson drawn from the trauma. The remedy for the place where blood and soil turned murderous is a politics of reason, rights, inclusion, and respect across difference. She converts a particular Jewish catastrophe into a universal civic creed, which is the move that broadens the circle of the we, the move that lets a wider audience take the victim’s fate as bearing on its own identity.
Her warmest commitments, mutual respect and the bracketing of particular loyalty, sit on the pure side of the civil code and stand against the polluted side that the trauma names, the side of primordial loyalty, the tribe, blood, the leader, the deviant outsider. Her enemy is the backlash culture in Alexander’s Watergate, the men who appealed to loyalty over law, who lined up their families behind them as emblems of tradition and personal fealty. The Nazi past is the absolute pole of that polluted side, particularism at its murderous extreme. So her project reads as a lifelong purification rite, a sustained civil-sphere performance that keeps the polluted code marked as polluted by pointing back to where it led. Democratic education becomes the rite that inducts the next generation into the pure code before the family and the tribe can write the polluted one.
The ambassadorship is the frame’s culminating scene. The refugee’s daughter returns to Berlin in 2022 as the representative of the United States. Set this beside the Watergate hearings as ritual. Her return is a civic ritual of repair and witness, a passage through sacred time in which the trauma’s lesson is enacted on the very ground where the trauma occurred. The personal biography supplies the dramaturgy that ritual needs, the deracinated story lifted out of mundane diplomacy into myth. She stands at the symbolic center, and the meaning she carries is the trauma’s meaning, that the liberal order is what stands between us and the polluted past. The defense of Ukraine becomes, in this telling, the sacred code defended against the return of the polluted one. The frame does not ask whether that reading is true. Alexander brackets truth and asks how the claim is made and with what results. The result is solidarity, the circle of the we widened to take in the threatened democracy as part of our own identity.
Two things the frame catches that the others miss. First, it explains why her liberalism runs warm where Mearsheimer’s or Pinsof’s analysis would predict only interest. The civil code carries real affect, the effervescence Alexander says outlasts the ritual, and a carrier of trauma feels the sacred values as sacred, not as coalition signals. Second, it locates her at the meeting of theory and rite. She does not only argue for deliberation. She performs the civil discourse, in her books, her presidency, her commission, her embassy, and the performing is the point.

Turner on Essentialism

If Turner is right, Gutmann builds her democracy out of a handful of collective nouns and treats each one as a thing.
Stephen P. Turner spent a career against a single habit of social thought, the habit of explaining a regularity by positing a shared substance behind it. When many people behave alike, when they seem to follow the same rule or hold the same value or belong to the same culture, the essentialist infers one object present in all of them, a shared practice, a common norm, a collective framework, and gives that object causal power. In The Social Theory of Practices Turner asks the question the inference cannot answer. How does the same thing get into many heads? There is no transmission that delivers an identical content to each mind. What exists is individuals, each with habits built from a private history of exposure and feedback, each producing performances that overlap enough for an observer to call them the same. The sameness lives in the observer’s description. The shared substance is a myth we reach for because the regularity wants an explanation and a single hidden object is the cheapest one.
Run this against deliberative democracy and the posits stack up fast. “The public.” “The citizens.” “Public reason.” “Shared values.” “Civic identity.” “The democratic community.” Each names a collective object that Gutmann treats as real and as binding. Legitimacy, on her account, grows when citizens justify their positions to one another by reasons all can accept. The sentence needs a shared standard of acceptable reasons, a common stock of public reason held in every competent citizen. Turner’s question lands on it. Where does this shared stock reside, and how did it come to be the same in millions of separate people? It did not. There are men and women with disparate habits of justification, trained in different homes and schools and trades, who now and then produce arguments another finds tolerable. Gutmann reads the overlap as a shared faculty the polity possesses and can be held to. The frame reads the overlap as the artifact of her description, and the faculty as the thing she had to invent to let the word legitimacy do its work.
Democratic Education shows the essentialism at its most load-bearing. Gutmann wants schools to build a common civic capacity, the capacity for independent judgment that lets a citizen take part. The book assumes you can transmit this capacity, install the same competence across a generation. Turner’s account of learning denies the substance there is to install. Habituation runs case by case, person by person. The connectionist picture he draws has each learner adapting to her own stream of input and ending in a pattern distinct from every other. No common civic faculty gets stamped into the children. Varied dispositions form in varied people, and we gather them under one noun and call it the democratic citizen. The school does not fail to produce the shared thing. There was never a shared thing to produce, and the goal that organizes the book is a reification.
The sharpest turn comes through Color Conscious. With Appiah, Gutmann handles race with care against essentialism, alert to the error of treating a racial category as a substance with a fixed nature. She polices that error in others. Then she rests her politics on civic essentialism, on “the democratic community” and “shared civic identity” and “the values we hold as citizens,” collective substances every bit as reified as the racial essences she resists. The frame catches the asymmetry without strain. She is anti-essentialist about the groups she wants to loosen and essentialist about the group she wants to bind. The demos gets the ontological solidity she denies the race. Nothing in Turner’s argument licenses the split. A collective noun is a collective noun. If “the Black community” names no shared substance, neither does “the American civic community,” and the conditions of legitimacy she hangs on the second have no firmer ground than the racial natures she dissolves.
Her treatment of disagreement carries the same freight. Gutmann grants that citizens disagree about the good and asks shared procedures and shared respect to hold them together. Turner presses on the word shared. Agreement on procedure is the posit under question. What looks like a common norm of reciprocity is a scatter of individuals behaving in roughly compatible ways for reasons private to each, sanctioned into rough alignment by habit and consequence. Call that a shared norm and you have smuggled the collective object back in by the side door, and with it the quiet supposition that the competence to deliberate sits evenly in the population. Turner’s work on expertise, in Liberal Democracy 3.0, says the supposition hides a real and uneven distribution. Some men reason in the credentialed public register and most do not, and a theory that posits a shared civic faculty papers over the gap that decides who gets heard. The reification does work. It launders an inequality into a common possession.
Two honest limits, since the frame cuts hard enough to need them. Turner’s argument is negative. It dissolves the shared substances and offers habits and feedback in their place, and a critic can ask whether “the public” and “civic identity” are useful fictions a working democracy cannot do without, abstractions that coordinate action even when no substance answers to them. Gutmann might grant that her demos is a construct and hold that the construct does real political work, which moves the quarrel onto ground the essentialism critique does not by itself settle. The frame judges the form of her concepts, not the worth of her politics, and a polity might fare better for taking the fiction of a shared civic faculty seriously than for dropping it. The boomerang is the usual one. Turner’s negative thesis travels by collective nouns, “essentialism,” “social theory,” “the philosophical account of normativity,” and he trusts his reader to assemble roughly the same target from roughly the same words. The lens dissolves Gutmann’s demos. It runs on the same trust in shared meaning it tells her she cannot have.

Posted in Democracy | Comments Off on Amy Gutmann: A Life in Democratic Theory