Dennis Prager and the Clarity

He slips in the shower. November 13, 2024. The back of his head meets the edge of the tub, and the cord at the C3 and C4 vertebrae takes the blow. The man who spent fifty years telling Americans that the body must answer to something higher than the body learns what the body does when it stops answering. He cannot move below the shoulders. The diaphragm goes quiet. Later the doctors call his speech a miracle, because the nerves that drive the breath came near to silence and stopped short of it.

Hold that picture. A talking head on a still body. Dennis Prager (b. 1948) built his life as a voice. Now the voice is most of what remains under his command, and he uses it, from the wheelchair, to say thank you. Life is a tragedy as well as a glory, he tells an interviewer. Gratitude has sustained him. He files a malpractice suit against the hospitals. He publishes a new book, If There Is No God: The Battle Over Who Defines Good and Evil, and gives interviews to promote it, speaking slowly, speaking clearly.

Ernest Becker (1924–1974) has a name for what runs under all of this. Two terrors sit at the bottom of a man. He knows he will die, and he knows he is an animal that leaks and rots and falls in bathrooms. No other creature carries both facts at once. To live with them, a man builds what Becker calls a hero system, a project of the culture that lets him feel he counts beyond the grave, that he is more than meat. The hero system tells him what is sacred and what is base, what earns a place in the story and what gets swept out with the refuse. Every hero system runs on a few sacred words. And the same word funds different ledgers in different systems, which is why two honorable men can hear the same word and reach for their coats.

Prager’s sacred word is clarity. He says it himself. He prefers clarity to agreement. The line he draws there does more work than any single argument he has made. Clarity converts the terror of a universe with no Judge into a courtroom with one. If God exists, there are commands. If there are commands, there is a line between good and evil a man can read the way he reads a road sign. The new book makes the case against what he takes to be the great modern lie, that you can remove the Commander and keep the commands. Take away God, Prager says, and you do not keep an objective morality run by reason. You keep feelings, and feelings cannot bind anyone to anything. His radio method has the shape of a legal brief. State the point. Anticipate the objection. Return the verdict. The verdict is the product. A listener who cannot move below the shoulders can still know, with the certainty of a man reading a sign, that he sits on the right side of the line. You can see why the word holds him up. It was built to.

Now put a rabbi in the room while Prager talks, and watch the rabbi fail to find his own religion in it.

This is the strange part, and it deserves care, because the strangeness is honest and not a fraud. Prager grew up Orthodox. He went to yeshiva. He reads Hebrew. He wrote a multi-volume commentary on the Torah, The Rational Bible. By every external mark he is a learned Jew defending the faith of his fathers. And yet a rabbi listening to him hears a Judaism with the spine removed and a new one slid in. Prager leads with the question, do you believe in objective morality, do you believe good and evil are real and not taste. He leads with the God who guarantees the moral order of Western civilization. He does not lead with the things a rabbi leads with. He does not lead with the commandments as binding law on a particular people, with the covenant, with peoplehood, with the obligation that falls on a Jew because he is a Jew and not because the argument persuaded him. Most of all he does not lead with the argument that never ends.

Judaism keeps its arguments on the page. The Talmud preserves the losing opinion next to the winning one. These and these are the words of the living God. The holy thing in that tradition is the dispute itself, the machloykes that stays open, the two sages who never agree and both belong in the canon. A faith organized around the unresolved argument has clarity as a minor virtue at best and a temptation at worst. Prager organizes a faith around the resolved one. He wants the verdict. He wants the Judeo-Christian package, useful, exportable, the load-bearing wall of the West, a thing a Methodist in Tulsa and a lapsed Catholic in Phoenix can adopt and apply. To the rabbi this is the God of the philosophers wearing the clothes of the God of Abraham. A God recruited to hold up the values, more than the God who wrestles a man in the dark by the river and leaves him limping.

He has a near twin here in Jordan Peterson (b. 1962), who praises the Bible as the deep code of the West and stands a little outside the house he defends, admiring the architecture from the lawn. Both men love religion as a structure that holds civilization together. Both leave a religious man uncertain whether they are inside the building or guarding the door. The love is real. The location is hard to fix.

So the word clarity holds Prager up, and it makes him strange to his own. Walk the word through other hero systems and the strangeness stops being personal. It becomes the rule.

A jazz pianist in a basement on Vine works the same word and means its enemy. Clarity is where his music goes to die. The value lives in the bent note, the third that will not commit to major or minor, the beat landed late on purpose. A young player runs a line clean and bright, every note in its slot, and the older man stops him. “You played it right,” he says. “Now play it.” The right version is the dead one. His hero system gives him a place in a lineage of men who found the truth between the notes, and clarity is the amateur’s mistake, the sound of a man who has not yet learned what the music hides.

A hospice nurse on the night shift treats clarity as a cruelty she has the discipline to withhold. A dying man asks her how long. She has a number in her head and she does not give it to him. She sits in the fog with him because the fog is where he lives now, and a clear answer would be an eviction. Her hero system makes her good by the quality of her presence in the place where nothing resolves. The brief, the verdict, the line, these belong to people who get to leave the room. She does not leave the room. To her, the man who prefers clarity has never sat all night with someone he could not save.

An intelligence analyst across town holds clarity as the one sin her trade cannot forgive. She writes moderate confidence and she means moderate confidence, and the day she rounds it up to certainty is the day men move on her word and some of them do not come home. Her honor is the calibrated hedge, the refusal to give a commander the clean answer he wants. In her world a man who prefers clarity to agreement is a man who has not yet gotten anyone killed with a confident sentence.

A founder pitching on Sand Hill Road sells clarity as costume. The deck radiates certainty because doubt does not raise a round. He knows the model is held together with assumptions he cannot defend, and he says the number anyway, in a clean voice, because the voice is the asset. His hero system rewards the man who can perform conviction he does not feel. Clarity for him is a mask over the same dark the others are dodging, and he wears it well, and it pays.

A field biologist on a ridge in the Sierra finds that nature will not accept a brief. The two populations of bird in front of her interbreed at the margin and refuse the category she needs them to fill. Where one species ends and the next begins is a question the birds decline to answer. Her years have taught her that the cleanest line is the one drawn by a man who stopped looking too soon. Clarity, in her trade, is the mark of insufficient time in the field.

And then the hero system I know best, the one Becker would aim back at the narrator before letting him feel clever. The tribalist, the nationalist, the man of blood and soil. For him clarity means knowing your own. The line that counts is the one between us and them, and it gets drawn before any argument starts, by birth, by ancestry, by the dead buried in the same ground. From inside that system Prager reads strange in the opposite direction from the rabbi, and the symmetry is the whole point. The rabbi finds him too universal to be a proper Jew, a man who traded the particular covenant for an exportable creed. The nationalist finds him too universal to be a proper nationalist, a man who loves his country as a set of propositions any immigrant can sign rather than as a people any immigrant remains outside of. Prager’s clarity is a creed you can pass like a citizenship test. The tribalist wants a kinship you are born into and cannot test your way into. So Prager stands in a narrow place. More particular than the secular liberal, who wants no Commander at all and finds Prager’s Judge an embarrassment. More universal than the rabbi and the nationalist, who want a people first and a proposition second. The man who sells clarity is himself hard to place, and the difficulty is not an accident of his biography. It is the cost of the wall he built.

Becker says the hero system earns its keep when the body breaks, because that is the hour the system was built for and most of them buckle in it. The pianist will lose his hands. The nurse will be the one in the bed. The analyst will face a question her hedges cannot soften. The wall a man builds against creatureliness gets one true test, and it comes in a bathroom or a ward, not in a debate.

Prager’s wall held. He lost the body and kept the verdict, and the verdict told him to be grateful, and he was grateful, on the record, in a slow clear voice. You can call the system a denial of death and you are not wrong, and you can still watch it hold a man upright after the floor gave way beneath him, and that counts. Honesty asks the same question of my own wall. The tribe, the line drawn in blood, the dead in the shared ground. That wall would not have caught me in that bathroom. His caught him. A man should sit with that before he reaches for the deflation, because the frame that explains everyone explains the man holding the frame, and the tribe is a denial of death like any other, only mine.

Three coordinates locate him. The terror he answers is a universe with no Judge, where good and evil come down to taste and a man cannot say the murderer is wrong, only that he dislikes him. The value he makes sacred against it is clarity, the readable line, the brief that ends in a verdict, the certainty a paralyzed man can still possess when he can possess almost nothing else. The price he pays for the wall is a faith his own rabbi cannot place, too resolved for the argument that keeps Judaism alive, and a country he loves as a creed more than as a kin, which leaves him honored by millions and at home with a smaller number than his fame would suggest. He sits in the chair and says thank you, and the saying is the system doing the exact work it was built across fifty years to do.

Common Sense

A man drives the 405 south at six in the morning. He runs a small drywall crew. He did a year of junior college and quit. His daughter came home from State last Thanksgiving and corrected his grammar at the dinner table, and he has not forgotten the look on her face. The radio is on. The voice tells him to use his common sense. The voice tells him the brilliant men on Wall Street, the ones with the degrees, wrecked the economy, and that brains without wisdom come to nothing. The man’s hands settle on the wheel. He is not behind. He was never behind. The thing he carries, the thing his daughter’s professors lack, the plain good sense to tell a straight line from a crooked one, is the thing the whole world runs on. He turns the volume up. He feels like a soldier who has just learned the war is winnable and that he stands on the right side of it.

That feeling is the product. Dennis Prager sells many things, and the best of them is that feeling.

Prager’s sacred word is common sense, and he raises it higher than a preacher raises faith and higher than a professor raises evidence. His great heresy, he says, is that God has common sense, that religious men ascribe many things to God and forget to grant Him the plain good sense of a reasonable man. The rest follows from there. If God has common sense, and God made you, then the sense He set in you is a holy instrument, tuned at the factory, needing no upgrade from a graduate school. The average man is bright enough for his life. The rocket scientist might be a wreck. Brilliance runs narrow and gets overrated, and the men widely called brilliant turn out, often, to be dummies or worse. In The Rational Bible the road to God runs through a reason any plain man can walk. The gut becomes a sense organ for the moral order, and the moral order becomes readable to anyone willing to stop deferring to his betters.

You can see the gift. It hands the drywall man his dignity back. It tells the woman who never finished school that her read on people beats the binder. It tells a frightened citizen that the answers are not locked in a building he cannot enter, that he still outranks the clerk and the state that wants to shrink him. A man made to feel small all his life hears Prager and stands up straight. There is honor in handing that out.

The brand he built knows the formula to the dollar. A PragerU presenter introduces herself as a former professor at Princeton, slows on the word so the glow lands, then plants her real authority in the rural county she came from and the common sense it gave her. Carol Swain (b. 1954) does it in one breath, the credential and the rejection of credentials sold together. The diploma buys the entrance and the common touch buys the trust, and the man watching gets to keep his own dignity while borrowing hers.

The trouble starts at the seam. Stephen Law (b. 1960), in Believing Bullshit, describes the Intellectual Black Hole, a belief system built so that nothing reaches escape velocity. Drift too close and the pull takes you. Prager’s common sense has that build. When a study flatters the gut, he reaches for it. Saturated fat turns out to be fine after all, and he tells his listeners he attaches enormous importance to the new finding, that he wasted twenty-five years on skinless chicken. A study reports that societies that believe in hell carry less crime, and he cites it as common sense confirmed. When a study cuts the other way, he keeps a rule loaded. Whenever you hear the words studies show, outside the natural sciences, and the finding contradicts common sense, be skeptical. He does not recall a sound one that ever did. The authors of 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology answer him by name. The studies that overturn common sense are often the right ones, they write, and the purpose of their book is to teach a reader to distrust his gut when he weighs a claim. Two men stand before the same shelf of research. One keeps what confirms him and throws back what does not, and calls both moves common sense.

The shield carries a second plate. The man who disagrees gets recoded. He is not a man with a point. He is a man whose ideology jammed his sense, whose buzzer goes off at a word, who lost the plain faculty God gave him. Disagreement stops working as evidence against Prager and starts working as evidence against the one who disagrees. A belief built this way cannot be argued with from outside, because every argument from outside proves the arguer corrupted. That is escape velocity. That is the black hole.

Here a man should slow down, because Prager has earned a hearing on this that his critics have not. He fell in his shower in November and the credentialed men took him in, and now he sits paralyzed and sues them for what they did and failed to do. The smartest men in the building dropped him. His own ruined body stands as the argument that brilliance fails and the experts are not gods. A man who has lived that has cause to trust the sense God gave him over the framed diplomas on the wall. Becker holds here. The wall a man builds is the wall that holds him up when the floor goes, and this one held.

Now carry the word out of the studio.

A finish carpenter hangs a door and the level reads plumb and his eye says the level lies. He trusts his eye. Forty years have built a knowing in his hands that no instrument carries, and the house stands because he trusts it. For him common sense is sacred and load-bearing, the knowledge of a trade that lives below words. He hears Prager and nods. The man with the clipboard who has never hung a door does not know what the hands know.

A woman who raised six children on a cannery wage hears the word the same way. She buried a husband and a son. She knows when a child lies and when a man drinks and when a marriage will not last, and she learned none of it from a book. Common sense to her is the sediment of a hard life, and she trusts it over the young caseworker with the binder who has lived through nothing.

Cross town a woman tracks disease, and she holds the word as her enemy. Common sense said the sun goes round the earth, that bad air carried plague, that washing a surgeon’s hands before he cut insulted him. Her whole trade exists because the gut fails at scale, because a thing can hold true for one man and false for a million, because intuition cannot count. In a plague year the common-sense answer kills people, and her job is to hold the cold number against a crowd that feels sure. To her the man who prefers his gut to the data has never watched a curve outrun a city.

A poker player in a back room treats his own intuition as a liar with good manners. He has trained for years to override the gut, to fold the hand that feels strong and bet the hand that feels weak, because the count says so and the feeling lies. His edge is the discipline of distrusting himself. He hears use your common sense and thinks, that is how the table eats you.

A man working a long con knows the word from the inside out. Common sense is what he sells the mark. He hands the mark a story that feels obvious, that confirms what the mark already suspected, and the feeling of obviousness is the hook that sets. To him common sense is a surface a skilled man plays. The mark who trusts his gut is the easiest money in the room.

Put the rabbi from before back in the room, listening to God has common sense, and watch him wince again, for a new reason. The Torah he keeps runs thick with law that offends common sense on purpose. The red heifer. The mixing of wool and linen. The statutes the tradition calls chukim, the commands with no reason a man can give, kept because God said so and not because they satisfy the gut. The chok sits at the heart of obedience, the place where a Jew does the thing because his gut objects. A God with common sense has no call to command the senseless, and a Judaism built on common sense deletes the commandment that marks a Jew as obedient rather than merely agreeable. Prager’s God reasons like a sensible American. The rabbi’s God binds a son to an altar, stops the knife at the last second, and explains nothing.

The tribe hears the word a third way, and Prager sits wrong with them too. For the man of blood and soil common sense is the wisdom of a people, the inherited feel for how the world works that a folk earns on its own ground across centuries, the thing the rootless intellectual lost and the peasant kept. It belongs to a people. Prager’s common sense is a human universal, the same gut in the Korean and the Swede and the Guatemalan because the same God set it in all of them. The nationalist wants the sense of his own and distrusts the sense of the stranger. Prager hands the stranger the same instrument and calls him a brother once he uses it well. More universal than the tribe again, more universal than the rabbi, a populist whose populism reaches past the very borders the populist means to hold.

By Becker’s reading every one of these men walls off the same dark. The carpenter’s hands, the grandmother’s sediment, the disease tracker’s curve, the player’s count, all of it answers the fear of being a small confused creature in a world too large to read. Common sense is the most democratic wall of all, because it costs nothing and every man already owns it. Prager hands it out free to men the world has made to feel dumb, and they love him for it, and the love is earned, and the wall is still a wall. The honest move turns it on my own. The tribe’s common sense, the folk wisdom of a people on its land, the thing I trust against the cosmopolitan expert, runs on the same fear and stands as the same wall, mine. It feels like truth from the inside whatever the studies say. That is how a wall feels. That is what makes it hard to leave.

Three coordinates locate him. The terror he answers is the dread of the ordinary man before the credentialed, the fear that the world belongs to the brilliant and that the plain man is a fool inside it. The value he raises against it is common sense, the God-given gut that makes every listener a knower and a soldier in a good war. The price he pays is a bubble with escape velocity, a sense that keeps the studies it likes and throws back the rest and reads every objection as the objector’s corruption, and a faith with the chok cut out, a God too reasonable to command the thing that makes obedience mean what it means. He sits in his chair, dropped by the experts, trusting the sense God gave him, and tells the man on the 405 that he was never the fool. For the man on the 405 it might be the kindest thing anyone has said to him all year.

Goodness

He poses the drowning question on the air. Your dog goes under on one side of the lake and a stranger goes under on the other, and you can reach only one. Which one do you swim for. He opens his new book, If There Is No God, with the same question, because it carries his whole argument in one breath.

A caller takes it. He says the dog. He has had the dog eleven years. He has never met the stranger. Prager presses him. Then your feelings have led you wrong, he says, and not by a little. The good man swims for the man. The love you carry for the dog is real, and it counts for nothing against a human life, and the day you let the love decide is the day you trade goodness for feeling and call the trade a virtue.

That question holds the whole of him. Goodness, for Dennis Prager, lives in the deed and answers to a standard outside the chest. Not the warmth you feel. Not the self you express. The act, weighed against a fixed good, by a Judge who keeps the books.

This is why he ranks goodness over the things other men chase, over smart, over holy, over authentic, over successful. A brilliant man might be a scoundrel. A pious man might be cruel. The good man, plain and disciplined and often dull, outranks them both at the only bar that lasts. Prager says it harder than most. It is harder to be a good man than a brilliant one, and the world rewards the brilliant and neglects the good, and that error sits near the root of what ails it.

He holds the hard half of the doctrine too. Man is not born good. The caller who swims for his dog shows it. The natural pull runs toward the self and its loves, and goodness runs against the pull, an achievement wrested from a nature that resists it. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) taught the modern West that man comes into the world good and society spoils him, and Prager spends his life arguing the reverse. The child is no small saint waiting to be left alone. The child is raw material, and the first work a parent or a people can do is to make him good, because he will not arrive there on his own.

Take the doctrine seriously and you find something bracing in it. It refuses the easy exits. It will not let a man off because his heart sat in the right place. It tells him the test is what he did. For a listener tired of a culture that grades on feeling and intention, this lands as a cold drink. Be good. Not nice, not interesting, not true to yourself. Good. And good is a thing you do, today, for the man in front of you.

Bring the rabbi back, and once more he cannot find his own faith inside the praise. The trouble this time runs through the word holy. Prager makes goodness the whole point. Ethical monotheism, he calls it, the one God whose one demand is that you treat your fellow man well. A kind atheist beats a cruel believer, he says, and God prefers good conduct to ritual every time. The rabbi hears a faith with one of its two legs sawn off. The Torah commands a man to be good, and it also commands him to be holy, and holiness is not goodness. Holiness draws lines that have nothing to do with kindness. What you eat. What you wear. When you rest. What you keep apart from what. The whole order of the sacred and the common, the clean and the unclean, stands beside the ethics and not under it. A Jew is told you shall be holy, and the holiness includes a thousand acts that make no man’s life better and answer to no standard of decency, kept because they set a people apart and bind it to its God. Fold all of that into being good and you have an ethical culture with a Hebrew accent, a Judaism a decent Unitarian could sign without changing a habit. Prager’s God wants you to be good. The rabbi’s God wants you to be good and also wants you, on the seventh day, to put down the pen for reasons no ethics can supply.

Now carry the word out past the synagogue.

A Montessori teacher kneels on the floor of a bright room and watches a four-year-old work. She holds it as an article of faith that the child arrives good and that her one job is to keep from breaking him. Goodness, to her, shows when an adult stops interfering, the native kindness of a creature not yet taught to hoard and compete. She hears Prager’s raw material and his discipline and his fallen nature as a slander against the children she loves. For her the good already lives in there. You protect it. You do not install it.

A platoon sergeant in a country he will not name holds a different word entirely. A good man, to him, holds the line when holding it costs him, carries the wounded one out, never leaves his own. Mercy to the enemy across the wire is no virtue. It is a betrayal of the men beside him, paid for in their blood. His good runs as loyalty under fire, and it points inward, toward his own, and it can require him to kill without a flicker. He and Prager both scorn the man who lets feeling rule. They might come to blows over who the feeling is owed to.

An effective-altruist sits in a co-working space with a spreadsheet and computes the good to four decimal places. Goodness, to him, is a number, lives saved against dollars spent, the bed nets and the deworming pills, the cold sum of consequences with the sentiment stripped out. He shares Prager’s contempt for the warm feeling that does no work. He parts from him on the source. He needs no Commander and no world to come. The arithmetic commands him, and the arithmetic does not care whether God keeps a book.

A monk in a cold hall holds the strangest word of all. Goodness, to him, remains when the self that wants to be good lets go of the wanting. No ledger. No verdict. No achievement wrested from a fallen nature, because no fixed self stands there to do the wresting and no score waits to be kept. Prager’s good man, laboring to bank a balance against the grave, looks to the monk like a man clutching harder at the thing he should release. The good Prager builds toward, the monk empties toward.

The tribe weighs the word its own way, and Prager sits crosswise to it again. For the man of blood and soil a good man tends his own first, his kin, his town, his nation, and the duty thins as the circle widens until the stranger across the sea holds almost no claim on him at all. Goodness runs in rings, strongest at the center. Prager swims for the drowning stranger over the beloved dog, and the tribesman watches and thinks the principle, carried out, might have a man tend strangers while his own children want. The universal good looks to the tribe like a betrayal of the near. More universal than the tribe once more, more universal than the sergeant, a moralist whose circle has no edge.

By Becker’s account each of these men buys the same thing against the same dark. To count. To leave a mark the grave cannot erase. The teacher banks it in the children she did not break, the sergeant in the men he carried out, the donor in the lives his number saved, the monk by giving up the bank and calling the surrender the prize. Prager banks it in a book a Judge will read after he is gone. Here the man in the chair earns his hearing, because the doctrine meets its test in him. He fell, and the body that did the deeds went still, and the worldly account emptied in an afternoon on a bathroom floor. He says he is grateful. He asks whether all those years do not still count. By his own lights they count, because the ledger of goodness does not run through the spine. It runs through the deeds, and the deeds are done and banked and waiting on the verdict. The body fails and the account holds. The wall holds.

I have to turn it on my own. The tribe’s good, the loyalty to my own that I trust against the cold universal arithmetic, buys me the same thing, a sense that my life counted by the lights of my people and will be kept by them. That is a ledger too. It feels like duty from the inside and not like a fear of the dark. They all do.

Wisdom

He built a university and put his name on it and filled it with five-minute videos, and he did it while telling the country the universities had failed. Prager University grants no degree. It holds no campus. It hands a man the knowledge the real universities stopped teaching, in the time it takes to drink a coffee. The clever institutions turn out fools. His institution, which is no institution, turns out the wise.

Wisdom is the word that lets him do this, and he raises it above the thing the universities sell. Brains. Intelligence. The high test score. He says it plainly and often. Brains run narrow. A man can hold a towering IQ and wreck his life and the economy with it, and the men widely called brilliant did exactly that. Wisdom tells brains where to point, and a clever man without it is a loose tool in the dark. The schooled are often the most foolish, because school trains the cleverness and starves the wisdom, and sends a man into the world sharp and lost.

He means something older than common sense here. Common sense is the floor, the plain good sense every man already owns. Wisdom is the height, the knowledge of how to live, worked out long ago by people who watched human nature across thousands of years and wrote down what they saw. The Bible carries it. Proverbs carries it. The grandmother carries more of it than the dean. Wisdom does not ask what the universe is made of. It asks what a man should do on a Tuesday with his anger and his money and his son, and it holds that the answer came in before any of us arrived and waits on the shelf for anyone humble enough to take it down.

A man dreads getting his one life wrong, with no chance to run it again. Wisdom answers the dread. It promises the answers exist, that they are old and tested and proven on millions of lives, and that he need only receive them. To sit at the feet of the wise is shelter. To carry the wisdom forward is to stand in a line that does not die when the body does. PragerU hands the ordinary listener three thousand years of it for free and tells him the credentialed never found it. Shelter and flattery in one short film.

The rabbi has a teaching ready for this word. The sages drew a hard line between wisdom and Torah. If a man tells you there is wisdom among the nations, the old text says, believe him. If he tells you there is Torah among the nations, do not. Wisdom belongs to all mankind, to the Greek and the Egyptian and the Chinese, worked out by clever men watching life. Torah came down once at a mountain and belongs to Israel, and no amount of watching life arrives at it. Prager takes the Torah and files it under wisdom. He turns the Bible into a manual any reasonable man can read for guidance on living well, The Rational Bible, sensible, useful, shippable anywhere. The rabbi watches revelation get reclassified as sagacity and the covenant sold as good advice. And he has a second objection, about who gets to be wise. His tradition makes a man wise the slow way, on a bench, beside a master, inside an argument that runs for decades, certified by the chain he sits in. Prager broadcasts. The wisdom arrives in five minutes from a microphone, certified by no chain, addressed to everyone at once. To the rabbi that is not how the thing transmits.

Take the word out among other men and it comes apart in their hands.

A trial judge three months from retirement holds wisdom higher than Prager does and trusts it less in his keeping. Thirty years on the bench taught her the thing no statute holds, when the rule should bend, when the witness lies, what a frightened cornered man will do. She calls that wisdom and ranks it over every brilliant brief the young clerks carry in. She also knows it cannot be handed across a desk. It came to her one ruined defendant at a time, across years she cannot give to anyone. A man who sells wisdom in five-minute parcels is, to her, selling the one thing that does not ship.

A psychometrician in a basement lab holds that the word is mostly fog. He measures a thing he calls g, and g forecasts the grades and the wages and the years a man will live, and forecasts them better than any test of wisdom or character anyone has built. Judgment, common sense, the deep knowing Prager exalts, all of it mostly tracks the same engine the IQ test taps, dressed in kinder clothes. Prager says brains run narrow and the score does not decide a life. The psychometrician lays down his curves and says it decides more of a life than any man cares to hear.

An old man runs a seminar in the line of Socrates (c. 470–399 BC), and he holds that the wise man knows he does not know. He asks questions and withholds answers. The student who walks in with a maxim walks out with the maxim in pieces on the floor. The confident sage dispensing the wisdom of the ages is, to him, the figure Socrates spent his life undressing in the marketplace, the man so certain he is wise that he stopped looking. Wisdom keeps the question open. Prager closes questions for a living.

The founder of a longevity lab treats the wisdom of the ages as the enemy of the future. Every ancient certainty he can name got the body and the stars and the price of bread wrong. The graveyards lie packed with conventional wisdom. He builds by defying the wise, by doing the thing the elders called impossible or forbidden, and the world he hands his children runs on the defiance. Prager’s reverence for the old reads to him as the dead hand on the throat of what comes next. Wisdom faces backward. He has turned the other way.

The tribe weighs the word its own way. For the man of blood and soil wisdom is the inheritance of a people, the hard knowledge a folk earns on its own ground and hands down its own line, untranslatable, not for sale, gone the moment you offer it to strangers. Prager gathers the wisdom of his own and lays it before all mankind as the shared birthright of reasonable men, and builds a university to carry it everywhere. The tribesman watches his patrimony go out over the wire to people who never bled for it and thinks a wisdom handed to everyone belongs to no one.

I have to turn it on my own. The wisdom I trust, the inheritance of my people, the old knowing of my own that I set against the clever stranger, shelters me from the same dread, the fear of getting the one life wrong with no elder near enough to ask. I earned almost none of it. I received it and called the receiving merit. That move sits under every one of these men, mine included.

He records from the chair now. The body below the shoulders will not answer him, and the voice still answers, and the voice still teaches. He tells the people who write to him that gratitude has carried him, that a life runs as a tragedy and a glory both, that the years before the fall still count. The oldest shape of the wise man is this one, the sufferer who turns the suffering into a lesson and hands it down, Job at the close of the book, the broken elder on the mat who has lost the use of everything and speaks anyway. It is the most honorable form the whole project takes, and it is the project, running at full strength in the hour it was built to meet.

Happiness

He teaches the missing tile on the air. Picture a ceiling of tiles, he says, and one tile gone. Where does your eye go. Straight to the gap. Not the hundred tiles in place. The one hole. A man does this with his whole life. He has the health and the work and the wife and the roof, and his eye runs to the thing he lacks, the missing tile, and the gap eats the rest. Happiness starts when a man trains his eye off the hole and onto the tiles that are there.

That image carries his whole teaching on the word, and the teaching cuts against nearly everyone who uses it. For most men happiness is the payoff, the thing they are owed, the private reward at the end of the work. The country was founded on the right to chase it. Prager turns it around. Happiness, he says, is labor, and more than labor, it is a debt. You owe it to the people around you. The long face is a small selfishness. A man who carries his gloom into a room taxes everyone in it, and the tax is real, and a decent man pays it down by mastering his mood and showing the world a steadier face than he feels. His book says so in the title. Happiness Is a Serious Problem. Not a gift. A problem, to be worked like any other.

He splits happiness from fun and from feeling. Fun comes and goes and leaves nothing behind. Feeling rises and falls on its own, and a man who waits on it waits forever. Happiness sits deeper, in gratitude and in conduct, in the decision to be grateful for the tiles and to behave well whatever the weather inside the chest. Behave happy and the feeling can follow the behavior in. Wait for the feeling and you wait in the dark.

Becker’s reading sits under this one as it sat under the others. The missing tile, followed far enough, is the hole at the center of every life, the one nobody fills. Gratitude floods the eye with what a man holds so he does not stand staring into the gap. The duty seals it at the level of the group. A man going under in front of others pulls at the wall they have all agreed to keep up, and so the cheerful face becomes a service rendered, the morale of the room held against the dark. Prager makes the holding of morale a moral act. There is something true in it, and something the truth costs.

The offer lands, because it hands a suffering man a lever. You are not at the mercy of your mood. You can decide. You can train the eye, count the tiles, behave your way toward the thing you cannot feel. To a man flattened by his own weather that is a rope thrown down a well.

Set this in front of the rabbi and he reaches for the book of Job. His tradition does not treat the long face as a tax. It builds a fast day around grief and commands a man to sit low on the floor and mourn. It keeps a week of shiva, a year of the mourner’s prayer, a calendar studded with days for staring straight into the gap. Its Psalms howl. Its prophets complain to God’s face. Abraham argues with Him over a doomed city, Moses argues with Him in the desert, and Job, stripped of everything, refuses the counsel of the men who come to tell him to accept it, to stop his complaining, to grant that he earned his ruin somehow. At the end God turns on those men, the comforters, and vindicates the one who would not go quiet. The rabbi hears Prager telling the stricken to be grateful, to manage the face, to keep the gloom off the others, and he hears the comforters in it, not Job. He marks the irony with care, because the man in the chair lives the courage of Job and preaches the counsel of his friends.

Carry happiness into other lives and it changes shape.

A songwriter works a rented room past three in the morning, and for him the sadness is the seam where the true thing runs. The cheerful song is the lie he will not write. He builds from the crack, the loss, the ache that does not lift, because that register tells no falsehood and the bright one tells almost nothing else. Order him to be happy and to keep his gloom to himself and you have asked him to quit making the only thing he makes that holds up. Happiness, to him, is the enemy of the work and maybe of honesty.

A woman has carried depression since she was nineteen. She knows the inside of the well, and the rope does not hang where Prager says. For her the duty arrives as a verdict. Her illness turns into a failing. Her flat face at the table turns into a theft from people she loves and cannot help. The teaching that frees a man with an ordinary bad mood lands on her as one more proof that the weight is her fault and her presence a cost the others carry. She does not need to be told she owes the room her cheer. She has been paying that interest her whole life.

An organizer runs on the opposite debt. To her, happiness while the unjust sleep soundly is collaboration. The contented man at peace with a rotten order has made his peace with the rot. She owes the world her discontent, her refusal to settle, the gloom Prager tells her to file down. Her conscience is the missing tile, and she will not look away from it, and she calls the looking a duty too.

A chef who keeps a good cellar finds the whole accounting absurd. Happiness is the long table, the fat and the wine, the laughter that runs past midnight, the body saying yes. Split happiness off from fun and you have done a puritan’s arithmetic, subtracting the pleasure and calling the remainder the real thing. To him the missing tile is a man who cannot enjoy the tiles he has because he stays too busy grading them. Happiness is the meal. The rest is bookkeeping.

The tribe weighs the word its own way, and Prager’s version reads to it as thin. Happiness, to the man of blood and soil, is no discipline a man runs alone inside his head. It is belonging. His people around him, his children among their own, the land held under a line that does not break. A man set down grateful and steady in an apartment with none of his own near him has been handed a painkiller, not a life. The tribesman watches Prager teach the lonely a method for managing the gaze and calls it the medicine of the rootless, a way to feel well in the absence of the one thing that makes a man well, his own gathered close.

I have to turn it on my own. The happiness I trust, the warmth of my own around a table, the people and the line and the land, keeps the gap out of my eye as surely as Prager’s counting does. Belonging is a good place to stand and not look at the hole. I do not look. That is the comfort, and that is the trick.

Now the missing tile is most of his body. The largest gap a life can hold sits below his shoulders, and no counting takes it away. He trained his eye off the hole for fifty years, and the training holds. He looks at the voice he kept and the years he banked and the wife beside him and calls the life a glory, and means it. From outside no man can say whether Prager is the bravest figure in the room or the one looking hardest away from what no one in the room can stand to see. He cannot say, because there might be nothing between the two, because the courage and the looking-away might run as a single act under two names. The discipline that papers over the void is the same discipline that carries a man across it. He counts his tiles from the chair, and the counting keeps his gaze off the one hole that will not fill.

Truth

He says he has an erotic attraction to truth. He says it on the air in the same voice he uses for the weather, and the word lands hard, because no one expects eros aimed at an abstraction. He means it. He has spent fifty years describing himself as a man in love with the truth, faithful to it, drawn to it the way a man is drawn to a woman, willing to follow it anywhere and to give up whatever it asks. Other men love comfort, or their side, or the warm approval of the room. He loves the real, and he loves it with his whole body, and he has built a life on the romance.

This sits beside clarity in his heart and runs deeper. Clarity is how he holds a thing once he has it, the sharp line, the verdict with no fog on it. Truth is the thing held, the beloved, the one he courts. He holds her to be single and external and binding. Not your truth and my truth, which he treats as the great lie of the age, the relativist’s permission slip. One truth, outside all of us, the same for the professor and the plumber, and a man’s only honest task is to find her and to tell her plainly whatever she costs him.

In Becker’s terms the lover of truth is a hero, the man with the nerve to see what the cowards look away from and to say it when saying it costs him friends. The eros gives the rest away. A mortal man weds the one bride who does not age and does not die, and in the wedding he borrows a little of her permanence. To serve the eternal is to feel less perishable. The romance runs real, and the romance also stands a man close to the one thing the grave does not touch.

There is honor in it, and that should be said before anything else. A man who orders a life around not lying, who treats the comforting falsehood as poison and the hard fact as a duty, who tells his audience he would rather wound them with the truth than soothe them with a lie, holds a bracing standard, and he has paid for some of his truths in coin he did not want to spend. The love is no pose. He has said unpopular things and taken the heat and gone back the next day and said them again.

The trouble is the trouble with every lover. He cannot see the beloved plainly. Across these essays the same shape keeps surfacing. The common sense that keeps the studies it likes and throws back the rest. The goodness that runs universal and arrives in his coalition’s colors. The wisdom that is his own inheritance offered to mankind as mankind’s. A man with an erotic attachment to truth, who swears he follows her wherever she leads and never shades her for his side, is the same man whose truth turns out, year on year, to agree with his friends and to indict his enemies. This is no private failing of his. It is what eros does. The lover is the last man able to notice that his beloved has come to look exactly like his own reflection. The passion that hands him the courage to speak is the passion that hides from him where his wanting has shaped what he sees.

Say truth to the rabbi and he thinks first of the seal. The seal of the Holy One is truth, the tradition teaches, emet, the divine signature on the world, so the rabbi loves the word as much as Prager does. Then he keeps reading, and he finds his tradition doing a thing that would scandalize a pure lover of truth. It permits a man to bend the truth for the sake of peace. The Talmud says you may alter your words for shalom in the home, and it grounds the point in God Himself, who shaded Sarah’s laughter when He repeated it to Abraham, softening what she said about her old husband into a gentler thing about herself, to keep peace between a wife and a man. It holds up Aaron the priest, loved by the people above Moses, as the man who would tell each of two quarreling men that the other longed to reconcile, a holy lie that healed the rift. Truth is the seal of God, and peace outranks it in the house and the street, and the saint is sometimes the one who lies a little to mend men. The rabbi hears Prager’s erotic fidelity to truth above comfort, above kindness, above the peace of the room, and he hears a passion his own faith would temper. A man who will not shade the truth for peace has loved the seal more than the One who set peace above it.

The word splits the moment it leaves his mouth.

A diplomat at a long table holds truth as a thing you ration. The whole truth, set down at the wrong minute, kills the agreement that might have kept a border quiet and the men along it alive. She omits. She softens. She lets a falsehood stand because the falsehood buys a year of peace and the correction buys a war. To her the man erotically faithful to the whole truth always is a bomb she would never let through the door. Truth is a tool, and a tool you sometimes set down.

A therapist in a quiet office means the thing Prager calls rot, and she calls it the work. She listens to a man tell the story of his life and she knows the story is shaped, that the felt truth of it carries the healing whether or not it squares with the record. Your truth, the phrase he spits, is the phrase she lives by, because the thing that mends a man is the meaning he can hold and not the cold inventory of fact. She does not deny the world is real. The inside of a man has its own truth, she says, and you cannot heal him by reading him the transcript.

A mathematician at a chalkboard owns the one kind of truth that does what Prager wants all truth to do. It is eternal. It is certain. It comes out the same in every country and every century, proved and closed. For that reason he sees the romance as a confusion. His truths hold by proof inside their axioms, and they say nothing at all about how a man should live or whom he should pull from the lake. Prager wants the certainty of the theorem for claims no theorem can carry, the moral and the political and the historical, where the proof never closes. The man who holds the only eternal truths there are knows they are empty of everything Prager loads onto the word.

A historian in an archive holds truth as a thing always under revision and always shaped by the hand that kept the record. Every account came from someone, somewhere, with a stake. The truth about a man or a war is a verdict reopened by each generation that turns up a new letter in a box. He chases it and never closes his hand on it, and he trusts least the document that arrives clean and certain, because the clean certain account is the one a man built to be believed. To him a lover who thinks he possesses the truth has mistaken a long courtship for a marriage.

The tribe weighs the word its own way. For the man of blood and soil truth is the account his own people tell of themselves, the memory of the line, the story that binds the living to the dead. To trust your own and to doubt the stranger reads to him as no dishonesty. It is loyalty, the first duty, older than any neutral fact. Prager hands his truth to all comers and asks the Frenchman and the Nigerian to weigh it on the same scale he uses, as though truth floated free of blood. The tribesman watches and thinks a man with no people to be loyal to will call his disloyalty a love of truth and feel noble in the calling.

I will not pretend I stand outside this. The truth of my own people is a beloved I cannot see plainly either, and I call my devotion to her fidelity to the real, and from the inside fidelity is exactly what it feels like. Every man in this essay loves a truth that loves him back. That is the part none of us can catch ourselves doing.

He says it from the chair the way he said it at thirty. He has followed the truth wherever she led and never once bent her for comfort or for his own side. He believes this without a crack in it. A man in love believes this about his beloved to the last day. The eros that gave him the nerve to say the hard thing is the eros that hides from him where his love has shaped her face, and no instrument any of us owns can sort the faithful witness from the besotted one. He wed the bride who does not die, and the marriage holds him up in the chair when the body will not, and whether he ever saw her plainly or only his own face shining back off her is the one question the love was built to keep him from asking. He will not ask it. That is what the love is for.

Reason

He arrived at God by reason. He says it straight, and it is the proud center of him. He did not inherit his faith and keep it from habit. He did not feel his way to it in some warm private hour. He reasoned, the way a man reasons toward any conclusion, and the reasoning ended at God, and he holds that any honest mind that runs the argument lands where he landed. His commentary on the Torah carries the claim in its name, The Rational Bible, the scripture that answers to the mind and not to the mood. His new book runs an argument and not an altar call. Bring your reason, he tells the reader, and you need bring nothing else.

Reason, for Prager, is the faculty that should govern the rest and the road that carries a man to the truth he loves. Feelings rise and fall and lie. Reason holds steady and can be checked. So he hauls everything before it, God and good and evil and politics, and asks each to come forward and make its case. Nothing is exempt from the summons. The man who cannot give his reasons has only his feelings, and feelings are no argument.

There is something fine in this, and it should be said first. A man who hands you his reasons has paid you a respect. He has agreed to argue, to expose his thinking, to be refuted if you can manage it, instead of waving you off with his gut or his rank. Prager argues. He builds the case in the open and invites the rebuttal, and now and then he turns a mind with nothing but a chain of steps laid down in the light. A country that ran on reason the way he wants it to would be a more honest place than the one we have.

Becker stands behind this one too, named in the earlier essays and left there. Reason answers the oldest dread, that the world is a brute fact with no why at the bottom, that a man is thrown into being for no reason he can name and taken out of it the same way. Reason says no. It says the world hangs together, that reasons run under the reasons, down to a floor a good mind can reach, to God, the last reason, the answer that needs no further answer. To reason your way to God is to insist the abyss is no abyss at all but a fullness of order with a mind at the center. The insistence is brave, and the insistence is a wall.

The rabbi stops him at the mountain. When his people stood at Sinai to take the law, the text says, they answered in a strange order. We will do, and we will hear. The doing comes first and the understanding after. They bound themselves to the commands before they knew what the commands would ask or whether the reasons would satisfy them. Na’aseh v’nishma, the sages call it, and they treat it as the height of the thing, the deed before the comprehension, the yes given before the case is heard. Prager runs it backward. He hears first, weighs the reasons, satisfies the mind, and then, the argument won, consents to do. To the rabbi that is a different religion in the same clothes. A covenant you reason your way into is a covenant you can reason your way out of, the morning the arguments stop holding. It rests on Prager’s mind staying convinced. The covenant the rabbi keeps rests on no one’s mind staying convinced. It was sealed before the reasons came in, and it binds whether or not the case still persuades. The Jew is not reasonable because he obeys. He obeys, and the reasons arrive or they do not, and the obedience stands either way.

Reason does different work in other houses.

A believer in the line of Pascal (1623–1662) holds that reason carries a man to the edge of the holy and stops, because the edge is where reason was always going to stop. The heart reaches what the mind cannot, he says, and a God arrived at by argument is only an idea of God, a conclusion sitting where a Presence should be. Reason walks you to the door and hands you the key and cannot make you cross. The crossing is a leap, and the leap is the faith, and Prager, who reasons all the way in and calls the reasoning faith, has in this man’s eyes never left the porch.

A philosopher who follows arguments off cliffs holds the opposite worry. Reason, he says, does not stop where Prager stops. Run it without flinching and it carries you past every comfort, to conclusions about the drowning stranger and the dog and the worth of a life that would turn Prager white. Reason has no banister. It goes where the premises send it. Every man who reasons, Prager among them, bolts a rail at the spot his gut says far enough, and calls the rail reason too. The honest reasoner admits the rail was set there by something other than reason.

A speechwriter who has moved crowds for thirty years holds that reason is mostly the costume. He has watched the room. The argument that wins is the one that hands the listener what he already wanted to believe and dresses it as a conclusion he reached himself. The logic is sound and the steps are clean and none of it is why the man nods. He nods because the brief defends the verdict his gut returned before the first word. To the speechwriter, Prager persuades because he grants permission, and the chain of reasons is the show that lets a man take the permission and feel rigorous taking it.

A structural engineer on a windy deck reasons better than almost anyone alive and holds no opinion on God. Reason, to her, is the tool that tells you whether the thing stands, the loads and the moments and the steel, and it goes silent the instant you point it past its range. She runs it on the bridge and it answers. She runs it on the cosmos and it returns nothing, because the cosmos is no load case. Prager takes an instrument calibrated for forces and aims it at the first cause, and gets an answer, and she suspects the answer came out of him and not out of the instrument.

My own people hold reason at arm’s length, and they are not wrong to. To the man of blood and soil reason is the solvent that ate the old house. It is the acid the clever stranger poured on custom and kin until nothing was left that could not be dragged to a bar it would always lose. You do not reason your way to loving your mother. You do not reason your way to your country or your dead. The deepest goods come before reason and would not survive being made to argue for their lives. Prager hauls God and loyalty and value in front of the tribunal and lets them testify, and the tribe watches and thinks a loyalty that has to win an argument has already lost.

I should put my own reasoning in the dock while I am at it, because this whole frame is a piece of reasoning, and a convenient one. It dissolves every man’s certainty and leaves me standing over the wreckage, clear-eyed, the one who saw the wall for a wall. That is a flattering place to stand. Becker is my brief as surely as the rational case for God is his. I reasoned my way to a view that makes me the wisest man in every room I describe. Hume (1711–1776) had it cold. Reason serves the passions and poses as their master. He meant Prager. He meant me.

He slipped on a wet floor. There is no argument for it. No premise leads to a man’s foot going out from under him at that hour on that tile, no chain of reasons makes a broken neck intelligible, no brief explains why it was him and not the next man and why the body that carried his whole rational life should go still in a second over nothing. The one event that shaped the rest of his days came in with no reason at all. He met it the only way he knows. He reasoned. He reasoned that gratitude is the sane response to a life still partly his. He reasoned that a life runs as a tragedy and a glory at once and that the glory is real. From the chair he built, plank by plank, an argument for joy. Either reason has walked up to the thing it cannot touch and he is laying syllogisms over a pit with no floor, or reason has done the one thing it was ever for, which is to let a man stand up straight inside a world that owes him no explanation and never offered one. You cannot tell which from outside. He may not tell from inside. The floor was wet, and it meant nothing, and he has spent a life and now a ruin insisting that nothing is ever quite nothing, and the wet floor has no comment.

The Sovereign Individual

He will not let you hide in a group. A caller wants him to speak for the Jews, to carry a grievance on behalf of a people, and Prager declines the premise. There are no Jews in that sense, he says, no Blacks and no Whites and no women and no workers as blocks the age can sort a man into. There are men, one at a time, each weighed as himself, judged by his own conduct, never by the company his birth assigned him. To judge a man by his group is the old crime, the one that built the ghetto and the camp, and Prager, a Jew, knows that crime in his bones. The individual is his firewall, and he has reason to man it.

The single man is the unit of everything he holds. Worth sits in the person and not the collective. Rights belong to the man and never to the group, because a group is only men added up, and a sum has no soul. Responsibility lands on the one who acted and on no abstraction standing behind him. The bigger the government, he says, the smaller the citizen, because every power handed up to the collective is a power drained out of the man. The bonds he honors are the ones a free man walks into with open eyes. He may choose a wife, a faith, a country, a cause. What he may not do is inherit an identity that overrides his choosing and answers for him before he has said a word.

Becker named the engine in the earlier essays, so take it as read. The individual and the tribe run two rival bets against the same death. The tribesman buys his way past the grave by dissolving into something older and larger than himself, the blood, the people, the line that stood here before him and runs on after. The individualist refuses the dissolve. He bets the other way, on being a single irreplaceable soul whose story is his own and counts as his, not a cell in a body that will not miss him. Neither man outlives the grave. They deny it in opposite directions, and Prager has staked his whole life on the second.

There is grandeur in the bet, and a hard-won wisdom under it. The doctrine that each man stands as himself protects the odd one, the dissenter, the convert, the Jew, from the mob that would judge him by his kind and the state that would spend him for the herd. Prager did not reach it in a seminar. He reached it through a people the group-over-the-man logic hunted across centuries. When he says there are only individuals, he is raising a wall his grandparents needed and did not have.

Here the rabbi and my own people stand on the same side of him, which has not happened in these essays before. Judaism is no religion of the sovereign individual. The covenant was cut with a people and not with a man. The holiest prayers wait on a quorum, ten men, because the single soul cannot say them alone. On the Day of Atonement a Jew confesses in the plural, we have sinned, owning wrongs he never did because the people own them together. All Israel stands surety for one another, the saying runs, bound whether they chose the binding or not. The rabbi hears Prager melt the people into a club of consenting members, each picking up his Judaism the way a man picks up a coat, and he sees the end of Am Yisrael, a covenant with no one left to keep it as a covenant. And the tribesman, my tribesman, nods along, because he holds the same against Prager from the other gate. A people is not a sum of choosers. It is the thing you are born owing, the dead at your back and the unborn at your front, and a man who reasons his way out of every bond he did not pick will end with no bond at all. On the single man, the synagogue and the soil agree.

And Prager has an answer for the soil that the synagogue would not give, and it lands hard on me. Your blood and your soil, he says, are what came for mine. The tribe that holds the man as nothing but a node of the people is the tribe that drew the line my family stood on the wrong side of, and the line did not ask how each of them had lived. Every tribe is somebody’s pogrom. The firewall I man is the one your creed burns down. I have no clean reply. My hero system carries a body count, his carries another, and his charge against mine is true.

The single man means a different creature in every hand.

A public defender in a county court holds personal responsibility as a sentence passed before the trial. She watches the same three blocks send her the same boys, year on year, boys whose runway was cratered before they could walk, and she hears Prager tell them they are the authors of their lives and she wants to put his microphone through a wall. The individual who chooses, to her, is a man describing the view from the top of a ladder he was born halfway up. Choice is real, and it is rationed, and the ration was set by a hand the boy never saw. Tell a man he is responsible for the whole of a life that was three-quarters dealt and you have built a cruelty and called it dignity.

A mother holds the sovereign individual as a description of no one who has loved all the way. Half her heart walks around outside her body in a child she would die for without a thought, and the boundary Prager draws around the single self runs straight through her and does not hold. She is not one unit. She is one and a half, or two, or however many she has carried, and the arithmetic of separate souls with separate accounts is the arithmetic of a man who has not yet been split open by love. The individual, to her, is what you are before and after the people who undo you.

A man who left a busy solitary life to join a tight and total community holds the single self as a weight he set down with relief. The freedom Prager prizes was, to him, a long cold draft with no door to shut. He gave up the throne and got back a we, a place at a table that did not depend on his performance, and he does not miss the crown. The flight from the lonely individual carries no shame for him. It is the oldest human move, the one the cult and the flag and the fan club all sell, and he thinks the man who has never felt its pull is either strong past the common run or has never been alone on a Sunday.

An anthropologist back from years in the field holds the sovereign individual as the strange belief of one recent tribe, the modern West, mistaken by that tribe for the nature of man. Most people in most places have known themselves as a knot in a net of kin, named for a grandfather, answerable to a clan, unthinkable alone. The lone chooser weighing his options inside a self that owes nothing to anyone is no human default. It is a local invention, dressed by its inventors as a law of the species. Prager preaches a parish and calls it the world.

I have circled my own creed in each of these essays and named it a wall like his. Here I owe more, because here he and I are not two men describing a third. Here we are the two men, and one of us is right about the other. He is right that my tribe is a death-denial dressed as a duty. I am right that his individual is a death-denial dressed as a freedom. The only difference between us is which oblivion we cannot look at, the one that erases me from my people or the one that erases me as myself. We are each choosing our fear and calling the choice a philosophy.

He cannot lift a cup. The diaphragm that drives his breath answers to nerves the fall all but cut, and below the shoulders the body that ran his self-reliant life lies still, and other hands turn him and feed him and carry him through his days. The supreme individualist has become the most dependent of men. You could read it as the doctrine refuted, the cradle and the deathbed rising up to remind a man that the sovereign self was always a story about the middle years, the strong stretch between two long dependencies when a man could pretend he carried himself. We begin held and we end held, and the standing-alone in between is the slice we mistake for the whole. But watch who holds him. Not the people. Not the blood. Not the nation. His wife. The aide who learned his name. A few who love him one at a time, by his own light and not by his kind. The bond that carries the broken individualist is smaller than my tribe and larger than his sovereign self, and it has no home in either of our systems, and it may be the one thing in the room that is not a wall against the dark. He is grateful for it. So am I.

Masculinity

He teaches the male nature on the air, and he does not flinch at the parts that get a man canceled. The male drive runs strong and wide and does not fasten to one woman on its own, he says. A boy is no small gentleman waiting to bloom. He is an engine with no governor, and left alone he wrecks himself and the people near him. The oldest work a civilization does is to take that raw male force and harness it, to marriage, to fatherhood, to provision and protection and the long unglamorous labor of holding a roof over others. A man, in his telling, is what you get when you break the engine to the harness. The male is born. The man is made.

The masculine is a nature to him, fixed and given and good. Men and women differ down to the root, and the difference is no wound to be healed by pretending it away. The masculine virtues are real and he names them without apology. Strength held in reserve. Courage. The control of the face and the voice when everything inside is shaking. Provision, the man who earns and hands it over. Protection, the man who stands at the door so the others can sleep. He does not say a man may not weep. He says a man learns when, and that the learning is half of what makes him a man.

Becker stands behind this one as behind the rest. The masculine is an wall a man raises against the dark. The protector holds death off for others, and in the holding he feels larger than the death he holds. The warrior earns a place the grave cannot quite erase, in the line he sires and the deeds that outlast him. The male terror runs its own way. To be unmanned, shown soft, shown a coward, shown the one who failed at the door, is to a man a fate set below dying, which is why men have always died sooner than meet it. The hero system grows heavier than the life, and asks the life, and gets it.

There is honor in the harness, and it built more than it broke. The disciplined man who turns the wild drive to work and not to wreckage, who provides without thanks and protects without being seen, who eats his fear so the people behind him never taste it, is no villain of the age. He is half of why anything stands. Many a boy was saved from himself by being told there was a man he owed the world the trouble of becoming.

The rabbi has a question about who is mighty. His sages asked it and answered it against the grain of every warrior culture around them. Who is the strong man, the gibor. Not the one who throws another down. The one who throws down his own impulse, who conquers the yetzer, the drive, inside himself. For two thousand years in exile the Jewish man at the top of the ladder was no soldier and no smith. He was the scholar, pale from the study hall, bent over the page, whose strength showed in the mastery of a hard text and the mastery of his own want. The mind carried his manhood, and the will, while the body sat still over the book. When the modern age came and some Jews set out to build a muscle Jew, a farmer and a fighter to stand the body up straight at last, they knew they were reaching past their own tradition toward the Gentile’s, reaching for the masculine Prager prizes. Prager loves the harnessed male, the protector, the provider, the disciplined physical man at the door. The rabbi hears him and notes, as he has noted all along, that the manhood Prager praises sits closer to Athens and Rome than to the study hall, that the strong man of the fathers conquered no one but himself and did it sitting down.

The word changes shape in other hands.

An old movement coach teaches young actors to play a man, and he knows to the inch that the thing is a performance. He drills the walk, the weight dropped low and slow, the stillness, the voice that comes from the chest and not the throat, the trick of taking up room without seeming to try. He has watched soft boys put the man on like a coat and wear it until the audience believed it and then until they believed it themselves. To him there is no male nature under the gestures, only the gestures, learned young by most men and learnable late by anyone willing to drill them. Masculine is a part. He casts it every week.

A scholar who has spent her life on the question holds the masculine as a hierarchy and not a nature. The strength, the control, the protection, are to her the furniture of a house built to keep men on top, and the protector and the controller are the same man seen from two sides. The hand at the door that keeps the danger out is the hand that decides who leaves. She hears Prager describe the male protector with such warmth that the bars read as beams, and she trusts the gentleness of the telling least of all. The harness he praises is, to her, the training that files a boy into an instrument of the order.

A man who runs retreats in the woods loves the masculine as much as Prager and wants the opposite done with it. He gathers men around a fire to recover the wild thing the modern world drummed out of them. To him Prager has the prescription backward. The trouble with men is no shortage of harness. It is the surplus, a long domestication that left them tame and grieving and unable to find the old fierce ground under their feet. He wants the wild man up out of the basement, set loose in a field under watch until a man remembers what he is. Prager would harness the engine. This one would let it roar for a weekend so the man can hear it again.

A man who never wanted a wife holds the masculine clean apart from the road Prager paved through it. The drive in him runs strong and is no woman’s, and it never pointed at the marriage and the children that, in Prager’s telling, are the whole reason the drive gets harnessed at all. He provides and protects and carries himself with the control Prager would know on sight, and the channel in him runs nowhere near the family that, for Prager, is the channel’s only honest mouth. He is a man by every masculine measure but the one Prager bolted to the center, and he shows that the masculine and the wife and the cradle come apart, whatever the harness was built to join.

My own people want the male for the wall, and Prager spends him on the porch. To the man of blood and soil a man’s strength belongs first to the people. The warrior dies for the nation, the father breeds for it, the hard young men stand the line so the old and the small live another season. A masculine that runs to the household and stops there is, to the tribe, a strength turned inward and withheld, a provider where a soldier was wanted. Prager harnesses the male to his own family and calls the harnessing manhood, and the tribesman watches a civilization raise good fathers who will not fight, men who guard their own door and leave the gate of the city to whoever turns up, and he wonders who holds the wall when these gentle providers are all that remains.

The man my people want is hard for the tribe. The men I would make would also be men who cannot weep at their fathers’ graves, spent in wars the people needed and the man did not, their interiors sealed for the duration and never reopened. My masculine carries a body count. His ends at the family. Mine ends at the wall, with the men face down in front of it.

He cannot stand at the door now. He cannot lift a hand to keep anything from anyone. The drive he spent a life teaching men to harness runs through a body that will not answer, and the protector lies in a bed and is protected, and the provider is fed. Strip a man of the body and you strip him of every masculine thing Prager ever named but one. He cannot provide, protect, stand, shield, work, or hold the danger off. He can still hold his face. He meets the ruin without a complaint anyone can hear, grateful on the record, courteous to the hands that turn him, and that, the control of the face when everything inside is shaking, was the masculine virtue he ranked nearest the top. So watch what is left when the body goes. Either the manhood was never in the muscle, and the courage that outlives the muscle is the whole of it, the truest thing he ever taught, or the same iron that made him a man is now the thing forbidding him to show what the loss costs, and the silence is no courage at all, only the last performance of a part learned too well to drop. You cannot tell from outside. He was raised, and raised others, never to let you tell. He lies still and does not complain, and whether that is the bravest thing he has done or the saddest, it is, to the last, a man doing what he said a man does.

Posted in Dennis Prager | Comments Off on Dennis Prager and the Clarity

NYP: SPLC boss Heidi Beirich funneled $1.2 million to lover in neo-Nazi group — pair even had joint bank account

Chadwick Moore writes:

A top Southern Poverty Law Center official is accused of helping funnel $1.2 million in donor money to an informant in the National Alliance white supremacist group — who was also allegedly her lover.

The Department of Justice filed a superseding indictment against the SPLC accusing it of funneling donor cash to hate groups they were then telling donors they were fighting.

One figure, referred to as “Employee-2” in the indictment is described as a “person who would become Director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project.”

It also describes how “Employee-2” wrote an article based on material stolen from National Alliance headquarters in 2014 and then paid off an informant to take the blame for the robbery.

Based on the details in the June 2 superseding indictment, “Employee-2” is understood to be Heidi Beirich, a 58-year-old fascism expert who was the Director of Intelligence at the Alabama-based anti-extremism nonprofit between 2012 and 2019.

The indictment alleges Beirich was incredibly close to the informant known only as “F-9” who “infiltrated the neo-Nazi organization National Alliance.”

“[Beirich] was also in a romantic relationship with F-9. During this relationship, [Beirich] and F-9 shared a house and two bank accounts,” the indictment alleges.

“Between 2015 and 2021, approximately $140,000 in donors’ money flowed from the SPLC operating account … and was ultimately deposited into the joint bank accounts held by F-9 and [Beirich]…

Beirich had joined the SPLC in 1999 and became Director of the Intelligence Project in 2012. She left in 2019 as part of a massive shake-up, when many top brass departed amid accusations of racism and sexual harassment, with the group mainly being run by white people and black people in its lower ranks. Beirich was not publicly implicated in those scandals.

Posted in SPLC | Comments Off on NYP: SPLC boss Heidi Beirich funneled $1.2 million to lover in neo-Nazi group — pair even had joint bank account

David Stahel and the Wehrmacht Myth

A lieutenant rides in the back of a staff car east of Minsk in July 1941. The road behind him holds a captured Soviet army, a pocket closed, a victory the field bulletins already call decisive. He has seen the prisoner columns stretch to the horizon, the burned tank parks, the surrendered guns stacked at the crossroads. That night he opens a small diary and writes that something has gone wrong. The Russians keep coming. Where the staff maps showed the last reserves spent, fresh divisions appear out of the steppe. He cannot say this to his men. He can barely say it to himself. So he says it to the page, in pencil, by a shaded lamp, and the page survives him.

Historian David Stahel built a life’s work in the gap between the bulletin and the diary. He reads the bulletin and he reads the diary and he trusts the diary. From that trust he reconstructed a war. To understand the man through Ernest Becker (1924-1974), start with the two fears his work stands against, because a hero system is a defense against terror before it is anything else, and the shape of the terror gives the hero its shape.

The first terror is that the lie outlives the truth. The men who planned the catastrophe got to narrate it. After 1945 the surviving German generals sat at their desks and wrote the war as a near-thing wrecked by a madman, by the snow, by a paranoid leader who would not let genius run free. The clean army marched out of the rubble into the memoirs and the staff colleges and the paperback histories, and the dead lay buried twice, once in the Russian ground and once under a flattering story. Against that, Stahel sets the document. He goes to the file the general did not write and could not later edit, the maintenance report, the ration return, the casualty ledger, the panicked letter home, and he lets the file convict the memoir.

The second terror is that there was no order beneath the slaughter at all. That it came down to weather and one man’s nerves and a turn of luck at Smolensk. That history is an accident and the millions died for a coin toss. A man who has spent his youth among these records cannot bear the thought that they add up to nothing he can name. Against that terror Stahel sets the structure. The defeat was written before the first shell, in the rail gauge that did not match, in the horse columns the popular image forgets, in the trucks that broke and could not be repaired because the captured spares fit nothing, in the Hunger Plan that fused the army’s survival to mass starvation. He makes the deaths legible. That is the deepest work the hero does, and Becker would name it at once: the historian’s immortality project is to give the dead a meaning that holds.

Both fears share a root. They are two faces of the dread that a death might mean nothing, the lie burying it and the chaos draining it. Stahel answers with a single creed, and he sells the creed as subtraction. Strip the romance, he says in effect, and the truth remains. Subtract the operational glamour, subtract the general’s memoir, subtract the heroic will, and what is left is the real thing: tonnage, gauge, fuel, fodder, the arithmetic of an army eating itself. He believes he has cleared the ground down to the bare facts.

Becker’s move is to ask whether subtraction reaches bedrock or builds a new altar. When you take away will and genius and chance, you do not arrive at neutral ground. You arrive at a faith in matter and necessity, a creed that the material base is the truth and the human moment is froth on top of it. The clearing is a structure. Stahel takes a mutation of the historian’s craft, the turn toward logistics and institutions and the document from below, and he treats it as the absence of all creed, the place where bias has been removed and only fact remains. It is a strong creed and an honorable one. It is not a clearing.

The sacred words Stahel lives by do not hold one meaning. They fracture the moment they leave his hands. Take the word logistics, the center of his whole project. For Stahel logistics is the floor of the real, the place where will meets matter and matter wins, the unglamorous truth the generals stepped over on their way to glory. Hand the same word to a retired staff-college instructor of the old school and it changes in his mouth. To that man logistics is the dull constraint that genius transcends, the quartermaster’s complaint, the thing a great commander overcomes by audacity. The word names a limit to be broken, not a truth to be honored. Hand it to a railway engineer who spent his career on gauge and grade and siding capacity, and logistics becomes the unsung heroism, the real battle, the labor no monument records, and Stahel reads to him as vindication and rescue. Hand it to a supply officer in any modern army and logistics is a profession, a craft with its own honor. Hand it to an old man in a Ukrainian village whose grandparents starved in the black-earth country, and logistics is the requisition party at the door, the empty grain bin, the plan that arrived as hunger. One word. The historian’s bedrock, the romantic’s nuisance, the engineer’s calling, the peasant’s death sentence.

Run the word victory through the same crowd. For Stahel there was no victory to lose, because the encirclements were illusions that hid an army already coming apart, so the whole lost-victory story is a fraud about a thing that never existed. For the general at his memoir desk, victory was real and stolen, snatched from his hand by Hitler (1889-1945) and the early frost. For an old soldier of the Red Army and his grandchildren, victory is the sacred deliverance of the motherland, paid for in a toll so vast the number stops feeling like a number, a deliverance no foreign historian may touch without reverence. For a hobbyist who replays the campaign on a board with cardboard counters, victory is a save-state to reload, a counterfactual to chase, and the contingency Stahel labors to deny is the whole pleasure of the game.

Take the word that should be the most stable, the document. Stahel treats the document as testimony from below, truth that rises out of the unit diary and the ration return precisely because no one shaped it for posterity. Set him beside a Talmudic scholar, for whom the document is also sacred and also the ground of truth, but a truth that descends from Sinai rather than rising from the supply train, an Author behind the text rather than a clerk beneath it. To that scholar Stahel’s faith in paper might look like reverence for the parchment that forgets the One who dictated it. Set him beside a postwar German grandson in a Bundeswehr uniform, and the document becomes the file he half wants and half dreads to open, the folder that might hold his grandfather’s name beside an order he cannot defend. The word document carries Stahel’s whole epistemology, and it will not stay still across these men.

This is the use of Becker, and it asks for empathy rather than mockery, because each of these men stands inside a hero system that makes his word make sense, and most of them stand there honorably. The general defends the meaning of his own life. The Red Army grandson guards the one clean thing his family carried out of the century. The engineer wants his craft seen. The peasant’s grandson wants the dead counted. None of them are fools. They use the same syllables and mean incompatible sacraments.

To a man who holds nation and people and the soldier’s sacrifice as near-sacred, the army is the body of a people in arms, and the soldier who dies far from home dies for his own, and that death holds a tragic weight no spreadsheet can carry. Such a man reads Stahel and feels a universalist intellectual draining the tragedy out of a people’s catastrophe, reducing a generation’s agony to a fuel table and a war crime, leaving no room for grief over the men inside the machine. The complaint has force. Yet the version of that same man wants something Stahel can give him, because the tribal hero at his best hates the comfortable lie about his own side more than he hates an enemy’s truth. A German who loves his nation and wants it to stand up straight has reason to bury the clean-army fiction with his own hands, to own the thing whole rather than hide behind a story the generals wrote to save themselves. Stahel and the nationalist share an enemy, which is sentimentality about the dead. They part over what the truth is for. Stahel wants it for indictment. The nationalist wants it for a people’s hard self-knowledge. The shared hatred of the flattering story is real, and it is the bridge.

How far does Stahel see his own trade-offs? On most axes he sees them well. He knows he fights the generals, and he names them. He knows that to put logistics at the center is a choice of emphasis, and he defends the choice with evidence rather than hiding it. He is a candid and disciplined man, and the candor is part of why the work lasts.

Stahel needs the German army doomed and he needs it guilty, and the two pull against each other. Doom comes from the structure: the campaign could not be won because the gauge and the trucks and the fodder forbade it, and no decision on the ground might have changed the end. Guilt comes from choice: the Hunger Plan that Herbert Backe (1896-1947) drew up was a plan, the crimes were chosen, the clean army is a myth because men decided to starve a country. But if the starvation was a structural necessity of an army that could not feed itself, then the men who carried it out were carried along by the same structure that doomed them, and the freedom that guilt requires thins toward nothing. Stahel asks the documents to show an army that could not win and could have refused, unfree in its fate and free in its crime. He does not pause on the strain. The frame that makes the catastrophe legible by grounding it in matter has to drain the human moment of its power, and a drained moment cannot carry full guilt any more than it can carry full glory.

Three coordinates locate the man. His hero is the disenchanted archivist, who makes a slaughter mean something by anchoring it to fuel and gauge and ration, and who builds against chance and against the lie at once. The rival he fights and seldom names is the operational genius, the general at his memoir desk turning defeat into stolen victory, will set above matter, the romance Stahel spends his career dismantling with the romancer’s own paperwork. The cost his ledger cannot price is the open moment, the road east of Minsk where a man’s choice might have turned something, the contingency his structure must deny to keep its order, and the grief he cannot extend to the men he convicts, because a doomed machine has no inside and a determined act has no one to mourn.

So return to the lieutenant in the staff car. Seventy years on, Stahel reads his diary and can tell him why his dread was correct, can show him the supply tables and the casualty curves that proved the road already lost. He can give the man’s fear a meaning the man never had. The one thing he cannot tell him is whether, on that road, in that hour, he was free. The diary asks the question. The structure answers a different one. That gap is where the hero lives, and what it costs to live there.

The Voice

His written voice is the voice of the war diary, not the essay. He writes plainly and declaratively, in the operational vocabulary of his sources: unit designations, Roman numerals for corps, abbreviations, full formation names, map coordinates. Richard J. Evans (b. 1947) put the cost and the payoff together in one breath when he reviewed Kiev 1941, that the apparatus of corps numbers and technical terms slows the page yet Stahel carries staggeringly complex action with clear order. That tension defines the diction. He pays in density and buys precision.
The affect lives in the documents. He keeps his own sentences cool and lets the field-post letter and the divisional war diary carry the dread and the horror. One reviewer placed him in the facts-and-figures school of military history while noting that he still lets the human cost onto the page, the prisoner pens with no shelter and no food, the starvation, the burned villages. The grief comes through quotation and through the casualty return. Stahel does not editorialize over the corpse. He cites the document that records it and moves on, and the restraint does the work an adjective cannot.
His rhetoric runs on one move, repeated with discipline. He takes the famous triumph and opens it to show the rot. The encirclement that filled the bulletins hides the attrition that has already broken the army. Glantz, reviewing him, called it dismantling myths left and right. So the persuasion works by dramatic irony. The reader arrives knowing the legend of the unstoppable Wehrmacht, and Stahel plays the ledger against the legend, the fuel report against the victory communiqué, the maintenance return against the memoir. He argues by accumulation rather than by the single vivid stroke. He stacks the returns until the conclusion sits on the reader before any thesis sentence announces it. Richard Overy (b. 1947) caught the effect when he called the work thought-provoking and original. The originality lives in the sources and the reversal, not in any flourish.
His posture toward the reader assumes seriousness and declines to flatter. The Roman numerals and the abbreviations form a threshold. A casual reader bounces off; the committed one gets the full machinery. He trusts paper over memory, the clerk over the general, the contemporaneous return over the postwar recollection, and the whole voice follows from that trust.

‘A Big Misunderstanding’

David Pinsof names the worldview of the intellectual class in a single line. Everything wrong in the world comes from misunderstanding. Shrink the world to the Eastern Front and you have David Stahel’s vocation stated whole. His field misreads Barbarossa. Popular writers peddle a clean Wehrmacht and a stolen victory. The early postwar literature ran on the generals’ memoirs and Cold War need. Stahel comes to correct the record, and his prefaces say so in the plain language Pinsof picks out for the indictment.

Read the The Cambridge Companion to the Nazi-Soviet War (2025) he edits. The early decades produced work he calls dubious and sometimes fanciful. A share of the field he calls patriotic pulp. Against this he sets corrective, evidence-based studies, and in an age of information war he holds that the value of first-rate scholarship and established expertise cannot be overestimated. Read the Barbarossa book. He labels the great encirclement at Minsk a hollow victory and bends his section titles toward demise and toward the precipice, and he warns the reader that according to most histories the summer of 1941 looks like triumph, which is the thing he writes to overturn. His doctorate carried the failure of Barbarossa in its title. The man has spent twenty years arguing that the field misunderstood the war.

That is the misunderstanding myth in its purest academic form, and it flatters its holder the way Pinsof says it must. If the trouble with Eastern Front history is misunderstanding, then the man who understands becomes the man the field cannot do without. The mission grows past any single book. Stahel wants to lift military history out of the wargamer’s corner and seat it among the serious humanities, and the Companion works at this on every page, insisting that the best military history defies the narrow operational box and draws on the whole disciplinary spread. That move has a Pinsof reading. A low-status subfield buys status by joining the high-status coalition, the cultural and social historians, and by derogating the rivals it leaves behind, the battle-narrative old guard and the pulp trade. Reviving the discipline raises the guild, and raising the guild raises the man at its front.

Stahel opens the Companion by granting that history bends to the time that writes it, that present pressure shapes the past on the page. He sees the motive in everyone else’s history. Then he exempts his own and casts it as the evidence-based correction that stands outside the agenda. Pinsof has a name for the man who says all history is motivated and then sells his own as the one account with no motive. It is the oldest move in the trade.

Stahel ties the value of his subject to the fighting in Ukraine, the trenches that open onto older trenches, the turning point a chancellor announced for Europe. The stakes rise, and the expert rises with them. Pinsof reads it as the intellectual inflating the emergency to inflate the cure, and the cure is always more of what the intellectual already sells.

Give Stahel his due. The misunderstandings he corrects are real. The clean Wehrmacht was a lie. The operational school did underrate the supply tables. The lost-victory story did serve the men who wrote it. Pinsof’s sharpest charge falls on intellectuals who collect misunderstandings whether or not the misunderstandings exist. Stahel collects ones that exist. He earns his corrections with archives, and that sets him above the consciousness-raiser who invents a public deficit to staff a career. The reality of the target does not clear the motive behind the aim. A man can fight true lies for the esteem that fighting them brings, and the truth of his findings and the hunger that drives him run on separate tracks.

Stahel treats the public appetite for Wehrmacht myth as a misunderstanding, an information deficit he can close with better evidence. Pinsof says the appetite is a demand, not a deficit. The reader who wants German operational genius is not confused about the fuel tables. He does not care about the fuel tables. He wants heroic identification, a clean machine to admire, a tragedy with no crime in it, and no footnote touches that want. So the pulp keeps selling beside the corrective, because the two feed different appetites, and the corrective cannot starve the appetite it was built to correct. You can tell the consumers they are misinformed, and they will not pay attention to you, because attention is the one thing they have no incentive to spend on the man who spoils the story. Stahel keeps issuing the correction as though the problem were knowledge. The problem is motive, on the page he writes and in the reader he cannot reach.

So the historian who unmasked the generals’ self-serving story runs his own career on a self-serving story, and his prefaces state it in the words Pinsof picks for the charge. He reads the generals all too well. He reads the public as merely mistaken. He does not turn the lens on the third man, the one at the desk who needs the field to be wrong so that correcting it can be a life’s work. There is no misunderstanding in any of it. There is a market in correction, and Stahel supplies it, and the supply is honest about everything except why it exists.

The Reader Is the Test

If you say that the appetite for Wehrmacht myth will not move no matter how much evidence lands on it, and you have made a claim about readers and sales and reach, and the claim holds against the record or it fails.

Two theories of the reader sit under the quarrel. Stahel’s theory, the one his mission assumes, is deficit. People hold the clean-Wehrmacht story because they lack the evidence against it. Supply the war diaries and the logistics tables and the casualty returns, and the story loses its grip, slowly, reader by reader, cohort by cohort. On this theory the corrective study is a treatment and the disease recedes as the treatment spreads. Pinsof’s theory is demand. People hold the story because it gives them something they want, and what they want is not a causal account of why Army Group Center stalled. They want a clean machine to admire, a feat of arms to inherit, a tragedy with the crime left out, a way to love the soldier without loving the regime that aimed him. Evidence does not touch that want, because the want was never about evidence. The wargamer who pushes panzer counters across a map knows the fuel ran short. He pushes the counters anyway, because the shortage is the dull part and the breakthrough is the thrill, and Stahel hands him a thicker book about the dull part.

Each theory makes a prediction, and the predictions split. The deficit theory predicts that the myth’s reach shrinks as the scholarship piles up. Forty years of demolition, from the Potsdam historians in the 1970s through Stahel’s own run since 2009, should leave the lost-victory story weaker in the popular market, the admiring general-memoir trade thinner, the documentaries more careful, the search traffic cooler. The demand theory predicts the reverse, or close to it. The pulp holds its share or grows it, the myth jumps to new platforms as fast as the old ones get corrected, and the corrective and the myth sell side by side to different buyers who never trade places. You do not need Stahel’s diary to judge between these. You need the sales figures, the readership surveys, the platform analytics, the syllabi, the shape of the audience that shows up to his interviews and the shape of the audience that stays away.

Run the test against the record and the demand theory takes most of the round. The clean-Wehrmacht story outlived the scholarship that buried it, moved from paperback to cable to forum to video, and shows no sign of yielding to the next monograph. The men who want the panzer general get the panzer general, in more formats than ever, and the Cambridge volume sells its few thousand to a room that already agreed. That is the world Pinsof predicts, and the world Stahel keeps writing into.

Which leaves Stahel two doors, and both open onto ground he might not want to stand on. Behind the first, he believes the deficit closes on a long arc, that correction filters down across generations even while it loses every season. Pinsof asks for the evidence of any such filtering and finds little, because the appetite renews in each cohort faster than the footnotes reach it, and the reader with the appetite has no reason to spend attention on the man who spoils his story. Behind the second door, Stahel writes for the room that already agrees, the academy and the serious reader who rejected the myth before he arrived. Then the work corrects no misunderstanding. It keeps faith with a coalition that shares his priors, and the language of correction is the banner the coalition marches under. That is the status reading, and it costs nothing to hold, because it predicts what we observe.

Stahel’s Companion aims at undergraduates and newcomers, and the newcomer is the one reader for whom the deficit theory holds. A person forming a first picture has no appetite yet to defend, no identity staked on the clean machine, and for him evidence still moves belief because the want has not hardened into a possession. Pinsof’s demand theory bites hardest on the committed partisan and softest on the blank slate. So the honest account splits Stahel’s audience in three. The partisan he cannot reach, because the partisan came for a different good. The choir he does reach, and reaching it is coalition work dressed as correction. The newcomer he can teach, because the newcomer is the one buyer in the market for the thing Stahel sells. The worth of the mission, on these terms, rises and falls with how many newcomers sit in the real readership against how many partisans he will never convert and how many of the choir he only flatters.

Posted in Germany | Comments Off on David Stahel and the Wehrmacht Myth

The David Garrow Hero System

David Garrow stands where two worlds meet that no longer trust each other. He came up inside the civil rights history establishment and won its highest prize. He ends up in the magazines that establishment scorns. His social set runs across both, and the split runs through the middle of him.

The first world is the King scholars and the movement chroniclers. Taylor Branch (b. 1947) wrote the rival trilogy, starting with Parting the Waters. Clayborne Carson (b. 1944) runs the King Papers Project at Stanford University. David Levering Lewis (b. 1936) set the bar for the long documentary life. Garrow served as one of the historian-consultants on Eyes on the Prize, the PBS series Henry Hampton (1940-1998) built, and that credit still marks him as a keeper of the movement record alongside his Pulitzer for Bearing the Cross and his earlier The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr. Tablet’s profile places him among the country’s most celebrated civil rights historians and notes his role animating that documentary. Around this core sit FBI and movement historians: Michael Honey (b. 1947), Adam Fairclough (b. 1952), Beverly Gage (b. 1972), and Nishani Frazier. For most of his career these men and women were his peers and his judges.

The second world is the heterodox press. After Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama landed cold in 2017 and the King essay broke in 2019, his hearing moved to Standpoint, The Critic, and The Spectator in Britain, and to Tablet in the United States, where David Samuels ran the long interview “The Obama Factor.” Garrow himself logs this arc: the Standpoint update on the FBI’s surveillance of King in 2019, the Critic piece on the Obama typescript, the Tablet profile in 2023. These outlets prize the writer the academy throws out. They read his exile as proof of his honesty.

What the set values is the document. Garrow sifted more than 54,000 FBI files for the King essay. He spent weeks on memos he found on the National Archives website. He ran more than a thousand interviews for the Obama book. The hero reads everything and flatters no one. Exhaustiveness is the virtue, and the long book is the trophy. Rising Star runs past 1,400 pages, and even hostile reviewers grant the depth of the reporting while calling the reading a slog. One round-up tagged it a dreary, bloated tome in desperate need of editing, leaning hard on interviews with a former girlfriend. The set prizes independence above access. It would rather lose the subject’s goodwill than soften the portrait. Obama read ten chapters and gave Garrow eight hours of off-the-record talk, kept strong disagreements, and Garrow printed the cold appraisal anyway. That refusal to be captured is the badge.

The hero of this world is the lone scholar who tells the truth the guild will not. He goes into the room nobody wants entered. J. Edgar Hoover (1895-1972) plays the standing villain, the proof that the state lies and smears. The strange turn of Garrow’s later years is that he keeps the villain and trusts the files. After once warning that a top-secret label proves nothing, he came to argue that some FBI files are more reliable than others. The hero, in this telling, is the man brave enough to read Hoover’s poison and still find facts in it.

The status games follow from that. Inside civil rights history the contest is who read the most, who interviewed the most, who got closest to the source, who broke the new finding. Garrow’s Bearing the Cross against Branch’s trilogy. Among Obama biographers the rivalry runs against David Remnick (b. 1958), who wrote The Bridge, and David Maraniss (b. 1949), who wrote the early life. Garrow used his epilogue to take unseemly shots at both books, and he closed by reciting unfavorable reviews of the earlier biographies, staking his claim to the fuller account. In the second world the game flips. The louder the academy denounces you, the higher you climb. Denunciation becomes the credential.

The normative claims divide the two camps along a single rule of reading. Garrow holds that the historian follows the evidence wherever it goes, that a subject’s reputation is not the scholar’s charge, and that suppression rots the field. His critics hold that provenance governs meaning. Beverly Gage warned that the King material came out of a campaign built to discredit him, so it has to be read in that light, since the Bureau hunted for anything it could weaponize. A historian of the FBI obtained from Garrow the missing pages behind his worst charge and reached a different verdict. After studying the documents he concluded the evidence for the rape allegation is inconclusive, while faulting how Garrow read and framed the sources rather than the sources themselves. Frazier grades the essay as gossip that fails the first tests of source criticism. She and others say historians must reckon with the new King the files allegedly show, then judge that the essay does not survive scrutiny of author, point of view, and context. They press a second rule too: some things should wait. The sealed audio sits under court order until 2027, and Garrow never had it. Garrow’s answer is that delay serves the guardians, not the truth.

The essentialist claims cut deepest. Garrow’s people believe in a real self under the myth. There is a true Obama beneath the campaign story and a true King beneath the sainthood, and the document uncovers the man. King was once thought a saint beyond reproach, and the work, in this view, finally shows the human being. The critics treat the record as made, not found. The file is a tool shaped by the men who built it, and knowledge stays bound to its source. One side reads to find the person. The other reads to find the machine that made the page.

Garrow keeps one creed across both worlds, and that is his trouble. He never changed his method. The movement guild honored it when he aimed it at Hoover and the Bureau. The same guild turned on him when he aimed it at King. The heterodox press took him in less for his subject than for his break with the people who raised him.

The Death He Could Not See

David Garrow sits at a screen and reads the memos other men will not open. They are FBI summaries, typed by clerks who despised the man they watched, and they sit on the National Archives website where any citizen might find them. Garrow finds them. He spends weeks. He reads more than fifty thousand FBI files for one essay on Martin Luther King Jr., and he runs more than a thousand interviews for his life of Barack Obama, and when he writes he leaves almost nothing out. The Obama book passes fourteen hundred pages. A reviewer who respects the digging still calls the reading a slog.

This is the man at work. The labor looks like penance and reads like devotion. He believes the record has a claim on him that outranks the comfort of the people who will read it.

In 2017 the Obama book lands cold. In 2019 the King essay appears in a British magazine after American editors pass on it. David Maraniss (b. 1949), who wrote his own account of the young Obama and found himself named without kindness in Garrow’s epilogue, calls him vile and ignoble. The word travels. It is not the word a historian uses for a colleague who weighted a footnote wrong.

That gap is the thing to explain. A quarrel over whether an FBI memo can be trusted does not produce that heat. Provenance disputes are dull. Men do not call each other vile over provenance. Something larger has been handled, and handled in a way that felt to the other men like a hand laid on a body.

Ernest Becker (1924-1973) supplies the name for the larger thing. Becker held that a man cannot live looking straight at his own death, so he builds a hero system, a structure of meaning that lets him feel he counts in a scheme that outlasts the body. The hero system tells him what counts as significance and how to earn it. Inside it he can feel he is an object of primary value in a universe that will not simply erase him. Take the structure away and the terror returns. So men defend their hero systems the way they defend their lives, because in the only sense that reaches them, the two are the same.

Garrow has a hero system, and it is the complete record.

The document is his stay against oblivion. The witness dies. The subject dies. The historian dies. The clerk who typed the memo is forty years in the ground. The archive holds. Garrow’s faith, the thing that gets him to the screen for the fifty thousandth file, is that enough documentation breaks through myth and reaches the man as he was, and that the man as he was deserves to survive the people who want a cleaner version. His immortality project is not his own name. It is the record that will tell the truth after every interested party is dead.

Now set against him the men who keep the memory of King.

They face a different death. Their terror is not that the record will be lost. Their terror is that the suffering counted for nothing. A people was beaten and bombed and degraded across generations, and the wound only becomes bearable when it is gathered into a meaning, a martyr who carries the whole weight, a death that redeems the deaths. King is the figure who converts the slaughter into a story with a point. Pull him down to appetite and disorder and the conversion fails. The murdered are murdered again, this time into meaninglessness. The terror under the defense of King is the terror that the dead died for nothing, which is the oldest terror there is.

So both men stand over the same documents and perform opposite rescues. Garrow thinks he prevents a death, the death of the true record under a curated lie. The keepers experience him committing one, the murder of the symbol that makes their dead count. Each tries to save a life. Each sees the other holding a knife. They cannot hear each other because the word death points, for each, at a different grave.

This is why the sacred words break apart the moment you carry them across the line between hero systems. The words stay the same. The deaths they guard against do not.

Take truth.

For Garrow truth is what the document shows when a man reads enough of it and flatters no one. Truth is found, not made. It is cold, exhaustive, indifferent to who gets hurt, and it has rights the subject’s reputation cannot override. A fact is a fact whether it strengthens you or ruins you.

For the keeper of the memory truth includes the question of who is speaking and why. A summary written by men who hunted King for years, built to destroy him, is not truth merely because it is accurate in its particulars. Truth is the meaning the suffering bears, and a fact torn from the hand that forged it to do harm is a weapon wearing the costume of truth. The historian Beverly Gage makes the point in the register of her own craft: the King material came out of a campaign built to discredit him, so it cannot be read as though it fell from the sky.

Carry the word further, to men who never heard of Garrow, and it splits again.

A yeshiva man knows a category Garrow’s hero system has no slot for. Some speech is true and still forbidden. The law against lashon hara does not ask whether the damaging thing is accurate. It asks whether it must be said. The tradition Marc Shapiro has studied has spent centuries deciding what may be told about its sages and what may not, and the deciding is not lying. It rests on a different theory of what a community owes its dead. To this man Garrow’s completeness looks like a sin with a footnote.

A combat veteran hears truth and thinks of what he saw with his own eyes while men beside him died, and the scholar risking his conference invitations does not register on the same scale. Courage, to him, is the body in danger for the men at your shoulder. Garrow calls it courage to read the poison J. Edgar Hoover gathered and print the finding. The veteran allows it a small courage and reserves the word for something heavier.

A keeper of samizdat, who copied banned pages by hand under a regime that jailed men for the copying, holds the opposite faith from the veteran and the yeshiva man both. To him the suppressed record is the holy thing and getting it into print is the whole of virtue. He and Garrow might recognize each other across a room. The document the powerful want buried is the document that must be saved. For the samizdat man the question who benefits is the question the secret police asked, and he spent his youth refusing it.

A parish priest hears truth and thinks of the confessional, where the truest things a man ever says are heard by one ear and carried to the grave. He has built his life on the conviction that some truths are told only to be absolved, never to be published, and that mercy keeps them. He reads Garrow and sees a man who confuses the courtroom with the church.

A prosecutor lives inside the standard of proof. To him a single handwritten summary, uncorroborated, the audio still sealed, does not clear the bar, and a man who reports the allegation before the bar clears has confused what the file says with what happened. He might tell Garrow that the file is evidence of the file, and not yet evidence of the deed.

Each of these men is honorable. This is the part the deflating frames skip and the part Becker keeps. None of them is a coward or a liar dressed as a saint. Each has organized a life around a death he cannot bear, and the sacred word is the wall he built against it. The veteran cannot let courage mean less than the body in danger, because his friends paid for that meaning with their lives and any cheaper meaning robs their graves. The priest cannot let truth mean publication, because the men who knelt to him trusted that it would not. The keeper of King cannot let the symbol fall, because the fall sends a people’s dead back into the dark. They are not fools defending errors. They are mourners defending the only arrangement under which their dead stay counted.

Garrow belongs among them. His faith is as much a faith as theirs. He has located the unbearable death in the archive rather than in the body or the symbol or the confessional, and he serves it with the devotion the priest brings to the host.

There is a hero system he never names and never courts, and it reads him with particular suspicion. Call it the system of the people. The man inside it locates his immortality in the continuance of his own, the blood and the name and the language and the faith carried across generations by men who will never know his face. He does not fear the death of the record or the death of the symbol first. He fears the extinction of the line. His dead are redeemed when their descendants survive and prosper, and a truth that demoralizes his own while arming their enemies looks to him like a luxury at best and a betrayal at worst. He asks of every finding the question Garrow refuses on principle. Whose people does this strengthen.

To this man Garrow’s independence is the tell. The lone scholar who follows the document wherever it goes, indifferent to whether the finding builds up his own or tears them down, has not achieved freedom. He has achieved a tribe of one. The man of the people sees a scholar so in love with his private vocation that he has forgotten he belongs to anyone, a man who serves an abstraction over the concrete bonds that made him, and who calls the forgetting integrity. The veteran respected Garrow’s courage and downgraded it. The man of the people does something sharper. He recognizes Garrow’s independence and renames it. To stand free of your own kin, in this hero system, is not to stand free. It is to abandon your post.

And the man of the people is not contemptible either. His terror is the realest terror Becker describes, the terror that the chain breaks and the name ends and the long labor of the ancestors comes to nothing in a single sterile generation. He guards the line because the line is how his dead refuse to vanish. Garrow cannot see this as anything but tribalism in the way of the truth. The man of the people cannot see Garrow as anything but a son who sold his fathers for a footnote. Each is mourning. Neither knows the other is at a funeral.

Underneath Garrow’s whole career runs a story he tells about his method, and the story is a subtraction. Strip away the myth, the reverence, the pressure of the guild, the curated piety, and what remains, he believes, is the man as he was. Reality is the residue. Truth is what you get when you take the agenda out. He sells the empiricist creed as the clearing left after the superstition burns off.

Becker does not let the subtraction stand. The clearing is not a clearing. The faith that the archive gets you outside the social, down to bare fact unmediated by anyone’s need, is a hero system, and a grand one. The man who believes he has subtracted his way down to the real has built a cathedral to the real and made himself its priest. He has not escaped the immortality project. He has founded the most disguised version of it, the hero system of the man who claims to stand outside all hero systems. His subtraction is his addition. Where another man worships the symbol or the line or the host, Garrow worships the residue, and the worship is no less devout for calling itself rigor.

The Obama finding shows the structure at full size. Garrow argues that Dreams from My Father is part construction, that the young man wrote himself into being and chose his identity as a politician chooses a coalition. Becker has a name for the thing Obama was doing. The causa sui project, the wish to be one’s own father, self-made, self-narrated, author of a life that owes nothing to the accident of birth. Garrow’s exposure is an attack on another man’s death-denial, the puncturing of a self that wished to have made itself. And Garrow’s own empiricism is his causa sui in turn, the wish to be the historian who owes nothing to his guild, who made himself out of documents and stands free of every need but the document’s. Two self-made men. One exposes the other and cannot see he has built himself the same way.

How much of this does Garrow see.

The trade-off he sees clearly. He chose disenchantment over reassurance with open eyes, and he knew the price, and he paid it, and the paying is part of what makes him honorable. He did not drift into the no-man’s-land between his old guild and his new audience. He walked there. A man who walks into his own exile, on principle, having counted the cost, has done something rarer than the contrarians who stumble into theirs.

The thing he does not see is his own exemption. He believes he stands outside the hero systems he punctures. He believes his fellow historians defend myths while he defends nothing, reports nothing but what the file shows, wants nothing but the record clean. He cannot see that the keepers of King are not cowards but mourners, that their defense draws on the same terror his own devotion draws on, that they do in the open what he does at the screen. He reads their grief as obstruction. He fights the keeper of meaning as an enemy of truth and never recognizes a fellow priest at a rival altar.

Three coordinates locate the man.

His hero is the grinder of archives, the priest of the complete record, the maximalist whose stay against death is the document that survives the death of every witness and tells the man as he was when all the interested mourners are gone. He reads everything and flatters no one, and the long book is his liturgy, the fourteen hundred pages a refusal to let anything be lost.

The rival he fights without naming is the keeper of meaning. Garrow names Hoover as his villain and keeps him, even after he comes to trust the files Hoover’s men typed. The figure he never recognizes as a peer is the man on the other side of the document, the one who knows that some deaths are redeemed only by symbols and that a symbol stripped is a people unmade. Garrow takes him for a defender of pretty lies. He is a defender of the dead. They are both at the graveside. Only one of them knows it.

The cost his ledger cannot price is the meaning. The archive gives Garrow everything except the one thing the suffering was for. He can tell you all that King did and nothing about what King was for, because the why does not live in the file. The record holds the facts and loses the point of them, and a man who serves only the record ends with a complete account of a life and no account of why the life counted.

There is a last turn, and it is the one his hero system cannot survive looking at. The archive he served as his stay against oblivion will not mourn him. He spent a life saving the dead from the death into the lie, and saved no one to carry his own meaning forward, because meaning is carried by the guilds and the peoples and the keepers he spent that life refusing. The sealed tapes open in 2027. Whoever shows up will read them. The archive does not care who shows up. It held the truth about King and it will hold the truth about Garrow with the same indifference, and the man who built his immortality on the document will learn, if the dead learn anything, that the document was the one mourner who could not weep.

That is the death he could not see. Not the death into the lie he spent his life fighting, and not the death into meaninglessness the keepers feared, but the death of the man who served a master that cannot grieve. He was right that the record outlasts us. He missed the cost. The thing that outlasts you does not remember you. It only keeps.

The Voice

On the page Garrow disappears. His prose is functional, not elegant, and he means it to be. He distrusts the well-turned sentence the way a juror distrusts a smooth witness. The argument lives in the arrangement of evidence, not in any line you could pull and frame. He piles the documents, the interviews, the dates, the file numbers, and lets the mass do the work. Fourteen hundred pages is the rhetoric. The length is the claim. A man who compresses has to choose, and choosing means interpreting, and interpreting means standing between the reader and the record. Garrow refuses the post. He writes as though stepping aside is the whole of honesty. The cost shows up in the reading, which even his admirers call a slog, and the discipline shows up in the durability, because the books outlast the verdicts about them.
The diction matches the stance. Plain Anglo-Saxon words, proper names, quantities. He does not reach for theory. You will not find him decorating a finding with an abstraction. When he wants force he reaches for the vernacular and sometimes the profane, not the figure of speech. The reporting voice is dry to the point of austerity, and the dryness is a moral posture. He wants the document to sound like the document.
Then put him in a chair across from a good interviewer and a second man shows up. In the Tablet conversation with David Samuels he gives short answers under long questions, often answers shorter than the questions that prompt them. Samuels’s questions run in bold and are frequently longer than Garrow’s replies. He lets the other man build the scaffolding and then drops the verdict. The page-Garrow would never editorialize. The chair-Garrow hands down judgments without hedging. He calls the Obama years a failed presidency. He says the man is not a normal politician or a normal human being. He calls the memoir so fictionalized that it reads as a novel. None of that lands in the books with that bluntness. In speech he says the quiet conclusion out loud. Econlib
The spoken rhetoric runs on a single source of authority, which is exposure. He has been in the files longer than you. He has read what you have not. When he dismisses the Steele dossier he does it by invoking what years in the intelligence archives taught him, then calls the thing complete crap in so many words. That is the move under most of his pronouncements. Not here is my argument, but here is what a man who has handled the actual paper can see at a glance. It is the confidence of the practitioner, and it carries the practitioner’s weakness too, a tendency to treat his own trained eye as self-evidently correct and to mistake familiarity with the documents for the last word on what they mean. Power Line
The speaking manner has a settling-of-scores edge that the prose mostly hides. In print he buries the shot at a rival in an epilogue. In conversation he names the fanboy journalists and lets the contempt sit in the open. Hostile readers call the interviews rambling, and there is something to that. He circles, he digresses into the file he found last week, he follows the thread that interests him rather than the one the question opened. The same appetite that produces the fourteen hundred pages produces the long unspooling answer. He does not edit himself in real time any more than he edits the books.
The through-line across both voices is a refusal to perform reverence. On the page he refuses it by withholding the editorial hand. In the chair he refuses it by speaking the cold assessment plainly. A reader who only knows the books meets a man who has erased himself behind the archive. A listener who only knows the interviews meets a blunt, sometimes pugnacious old reporter handing down judgments. Both are true. The flat prose and the unsoftened talk are the same disposition pointed two directions, and the disposition is that flattering the subject, or the audience, or the guild, costs more than he is willing to pay.

Posted in History | Comments Off on The David Garrow Hero System

The David Horovitz Hero System

In September 2025 David Horovitz (b. 1962) flies into Damascus. He travels with a group of rabbis and American Jews whom the new Syrian foreign ministry has invited, in the weeks after the Assad regime fell. He is among the first Israeli journalists to enter the city in decades. He is sixty-three. He runs a newsroom full of reporters half his age, any of whom could have made the trip. He goes himself.

The choice names what he serves. A man arranges his life around something he hopes will outlast his body, and the shape of that thing tells you which death he fears most. Ernest Becker (1924-1974) gave the plainest account of this in The Denial of Death. Every culture hands a man a hero system, a set of roles through which he earns the feeling that his life counts in some order larger than his own flesh. The hero system denies death by giving the man a part to play in something that does not die. It lets him spend his finite hours as though they buy a piece of the permanent.

Becker, following Otto Rank (1884-1939), set two fears under the whole enterprise. The first is the fear of standing alone, one small separate creature with no people and no assigned part. The second is the fear of dissolving into the mass, of losing the self in the herd until nothing of yours remains. A hero system that cures the first by handing the man over to the tribe exposes him to the second. The hard trick is to answer both at once.

Horovitz answers both with the figure of the witness.

The London boy who makes aliyah at twenty-one and serves in the IDF cures the first fear. He stops being an observer of a people and becomes one of them. He has a flag, a war, a city, a part. But he does not let the part swallow him. He keeps a London distance, the trained eye that will not file the easy story, and he builds a life out of refusing to simplify the people he has joined. That refusal cures the second fear. He belongs without dissolving. He is inside the tent and he keeps his own eyes. The witness is the role that lets a man have a tribe and a private judgment in the same body, and Horovitz has worked that role for more than forty years.

Every hero system tells a story about itself, and the witness tells a flattering one. The story is subtraction. Take the real Israel, the witness says, and strip away the partisan distortions, the comfort the friendly offer and the venom the hostile offer, the templates that flatten a contested society into a slogan. What remains after you subtract the bias is the thing itself, complex and unresolved, and the witness presents that residue without calibration. He calls his own position the confused middle, and he means the phrase as a confession of honesty. He has no camp. He has subtracted the camps. What is left is the real.

Becker’s whole argument cuts against that story. The view with no camp is a camp. The clearing the witness believes he has reached by subtraction is not the absence of a hero system. It is a hero system, and a demanding one. The man who refuses comfort earns his significance by the refusal. The man who will not simplify pays a price for the complexity and banks the price as virtue. The confused middle is not a place where the heroics stop. It is the temple where they happen. Horovitz does not stand outside the immortality projects of his trade. He runs the most exacting one. His cosmic role is to be the man who was present and would not lie about what he saw, and that role buys him the same thing the partisan buys with his slogan. It buys a way to count.

He earns empathy here, and the deflation is not an accusation. The witness hero is expensive and Horovitz pays. He flies into a city that wants nothing of Israel. He keeps an editorial door open to voices that wound him. He passes up the partisan’s reward, the comfort of a side that loves you back. None of that is cheap. The deflation only puts him on the same ground as everyone else. He too builds against death. He has built well.

The trouble starts with his sacred word, and the word is honesty.

Honesty inside the witness hero means the endurance of complexity. It means holding the grief and the rage and the failures of the army and the wickedness of the enemy in one hand without letting any of them resolve the others. After October 7, 2023, Horovitz wrote columns that carried the national shock to readers outside Hebrew, and the honesty in them was the refusal to make the horror simple in either direction. That is honesty as he worships it. But the word does not mean the same thing one tent over, and this is where Becker earns his keep, because a sacred value is not a fact about the world. It is a move inside a particular game, and it makes sense only there.

For the wire-service correspondent, honesty is the view from nowhere. It is attribution, distance, the reporter who has no flag and files the same copy from any capital. To him Horovitz is not honest at all. He made aliyah. He wore the uniform. He is a participant who reports on his own side, and his presence at the hinge of events, the thing he prizes most, is the very thing that disqualifies him. What Horovitz calls witness, the correspondent calls capture.

For the religious-Zionist settler, honesty means naming the promise. It means saying out loud that the land is given, that the return to Judea and Samaria fulfills a covenant, that history bends toward a redemption a man can serve with his hands. To him the confused middle is not honesty. It is nerve failing. Honesty deferred. The man who will not say what the story is, when the story is the whole point, has chosen comfort over truth and called the choice maturity.

For the Haredi yeshiva student, honesty has nothing to do with newspapers. The only thing that does not die is Torah, and a life spent interpreting a small modern state to gentiles in English is a life spent on the perishable. The witness honors the wrong eternal. His honesty is real and aimed at a target that will not be there in a hundred years.

For the man who writes for the Palestinian cause, honesty is solidarity with the oppressed, fidelity to the truth of the people under occupation. To him Horovitz’s balance is the most sophisticated dishonesty of all, an occupation laundered through nuance, a refusal to take the only side honesty permits. The complexity the witness loves is, to this man, the alibi power gives itself.

For the intelligence analyst, honesty is the assessment that survives contact with the enemy. It is the cold probability with the feeling scrubbed out. Sentiment corrupts the estimate. By that standard the grief-soaked column is honesty’s failure, emotion contaminating the read. The witness lets himself feel, and feeling, to the analyst, is the enemy of the honest number.

Five tents, five honesties, and each makes sense only inside its own hero system, the way Horovitz’s makes sense only inside his. The word is the same. The thing it points at moves with the immortality project of the man who says it. That is the Becker point, and it dissolves the witness’s subtraction story. He has not reached a clearing under the bias. He has built one more sacred meaning and named it the absence of the others.

There is a sixth tent, and it is mine, so I will name it and not pretend to stand outside it either. The tribal hero, the nationalist, the man who holds the survival of his own people as the value that orders all the rest, has his own honesty. It is loyalty. It is the willingness to say my people first and to defend the tribe without apology and without an audience of outsiders to satisfy. From inside that tent the witness looks like a man with one foot still in London. He loves his people, the nationalist grants, but he cannot bring himself to fight only for them. He keeps the editorial door open to the very voices that would dissolve the nation, and he calls the open door pluralism. To the nationalist that open door is the one unforgivable softness, the diaspora reflex that survived the aliyah, the need to remain fair to the enemy and legible to the bystander when the hour calls for neither fairness nor legibility but victory.

And yet the nationalist, if he is honest in his own way, has to concede something. The witness keeps people inside the tent that the propagandist drives out. The diaspora donor, the foreign diplomat, the bewildered outsider who will not swallow a slogan but will sit still for a serious man, all of them stay because Horovitz refuses to shout. The bridge he builds carries traffic the war effort needs. So the tribal hero both indicts the witness and depends on him without saying so, which is the most that two hero systems usually manage toward each other.

How much of this does Horovitz see. More than most. The phrase confused middle is the phrase of a man who knows his position is a position and not a clearing, and who has decided to wear the knowledge rather than hide it. He knows his independence costs him relationships. He knows his presence costs him the safety of the desk. He has counted those. What he might see less of is the thing under all of it, the part Becker would press. The man who must be present, who cannot send the younger reporter, who flies to Damascus at sixty-three because the witness who delegates presence stops being the witness, is a man outrunning his own death by piling up evidence that he was there. The hero system that earns its meaning by witness can never have witnessed enough. There is always one more hinge.

So the cost his ledger cannot price is the one his whole hero is built to refuse to pay. He chose a people and then spent forty years keeping a sliver of distance so that he could see them, and the sliver never closes. Full membership, the kind the settler and the yeshiva student and the man at the fire all have, the kind that does not keep one eye on the door, is the thing the witness trades away to stay a witness. He stands inside the tent and at its opening at the same time. The opening is where the light comes in and it is also where the cold gets in, and the cold is not on the books.

This is the shape of him. The witness who has a tribe and keeps his own eyes, whose hero is the refusal to simplify a people he loves. The rival he fights without ever naming is the man of the template, friendly or hostile, the partisan who has chosen a side and slept well, and Horovitz fights that man on every story by declining to become him. And the cost he cannot enter in the ledger is the warmth of belonging all the way, the membership he spends, year by year and trip by trip, to keep the eye that makes him the witness.

He flies home from Damascus to Jerusalem, to Lisa and the three children, the ordinary life the project keeps borrowing against. Then the next hinge opens somewhere, and the witness reaches for his notebook, because the man who stops being present has to face the thing the presence was holding off.

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off on The David Horovitz Hero System

The Dennis McDougal Hero System

He Gathered People First: Dennis McDougal and Janet Malcolm

Janet Malcolm opens The Journalist and the Murderer with the hardest sentence ever written about the trade. The journalist, she says, is a kind of confidence man who preys on the vanity, the loneliness, or the need of his subject, wins the subject’s trust, and betrays him without remorse, and the relation is built on that betrayal from the first handshake. Her case is the writer Joe McGinniss (1942-2014) and the convicted murderer Jeffrey MacDonald (b. 1943). McGinniss embedded with MacDonald’s defense, lived alongside him, sent him warm letters professing belief in his innocence, and all the while was writing Fatal Vision, the book that would call him a psychopath. MacDonald sued. Malcolm uses the suit to indict the whole trade, and she does not spare herself, since she too had been sued by a subject who said she had used him. Her point is that the seduction is the method. The subject talks because he has been made to feel known and liked, and the writer banks the talk against him.
The obvious place to look for this in McDougal is the true-crime reporter beside his killer, and that is where the parallel fails. Angel of Darkness is not Fatal Vision. Randy Kraft (b. 1945) never spoke about his crimes. He kept the shy, obliging manner that had hidden him for a decade, and he gave McDougal nothing. McDougal built the book from the outside, from the trial, the record, and the people Kraft had left in his wake, and he did not pretend to a friendship with the murderer because there was no friendship to pretend to. McDougal had no killer’s trust to betray. In this one respect he is the anti-McGinniss. The con Malcolm describes requires a cooperating subject, and McDougal’s most famous subjects refused to cooperate. Kraft stayed silent. Wasserman froze him out. The Chandler establishment resisted. The man who would later be called Los Angeles’s chief muckraker rarely had the principal in the room to seduce.
The failure of the obvious parallel points to where the relation lives in his work, which is one ring out from the principal. Malcolm’s seduced subject does not have to be the villain. It is whoever the writer cultivates and then spends. In a true-crime book that is the grieving family who let the reporter into their loss because they needed the dead remembered, the lover who never suspected and now needs to explain himself, the friend and the co-worker who trusted the man and want to understand the betrayal. These people opened their lives to McDougal, and their intimacies sit in his books, given in one register and used in another. In the institutional biographies it is the more than three hundred and fifty colleagues, relatives, and rivals he drew out for The Last Mogul, and the insiders who told him what they knew for Privileged Son. The center denied him, so he worked the satellites, and the satellites are where Malcolm’s structure bites. They cooperated. They were used. The relation Malcolm names runs through them.
McDougal believed he gathered facts. He believed the method was documents and the patient accumulation of testimony, the court file and the deposition and the interview, all of it adding to a portrait that the evidence itself compelled. McGinniss believed he was doing journalism while he was running a con. McDougal believed he was doing research while he was conducting relationships. Every interview was a person cultivated, made to feel that this reporter understood, and then converted into copy. The documentary self-image is the very blindness Malcolm diagnoses, because it lets the reporter call the seduction by the name of fact-gathering and feel clean. He thought he gathered facts. He gathered people first, and the facts were what he carried away from them.
The institutional books deepen the potential betrayal past anything Malcolm’s daily-newspaper case reaches, because the long book runs for years. The insider who trusts McDougal across a four-year project, who returns his calls and shades in the story and feels himself a collaborator, finds in the end that his trust has been folded into a prosecution of the world he belongs to. He helped indict his own house. The grieving family who wanted their son remembered finds the son’s death set inside a portrait of suburban rot they never asked for. The cooperation was real and the use was real and the gap between them is the betrayal Malcolm says was there from the first call. The longer the cultivation, the larger the debt the subject did not know he was extending.

My three interviews with Dennis between 2002-2011

The interviews show that the sealed-center thesis is no longer an inference. It is his signature. Wasserman refused him, Jack Nicholson (b. 1937) never cooperated with any biographer, Dylan (b. 1941) is refusing him as he speaks. And he names the pattern: he picks subjects whose subjects do not want them known. This is the appetite that drives his biographies. He hunts the man who will not talk. He was drawn to the unreportable, which means the periphery-working method was a choice, not a constraint.
The convenient-beliefs frame gets a perfect live demonstration. Asked why Bruck was hailed and he was ignored, he reaches for East Coast snobbery, the cool kids, the West Coast writer the establishment will not take seriously, the incorruptible man who cannot be bought. Every term of that account protects his self-image. What it omits is exactly what Schatz put on the record: that his central thesis was Moldea’s first, and that Bruck’s access, however much facade it yielded, brought primary material he never had. He cannot say my frame was secondhand. He says I am not the cool kid. Watch what he does two beats later. He distrusts memoir because the memoirist writes hagiography and leaves out the embarrassing part. He is, in that very conversation, writing his own hagiography and leaving out the embarrassing part. He sees the convenient belief in every subject and never in himself.
He also runs Alliance Theory on himself without prompting. Cool kids, East against West, who got anointed and who paid dues. The man explains his own marginality as coalition position. The first essay argued he ran a folk version of the theory on his subjects. He runs it on his own life too.
McDougal identifies with Jake Gittes, the detective who reaches the last reel and realizes he does not know half of what he thought he knew. That is not naive documentary faith. That is a tragic, ironic sense that the investigator is always partly fooled and the case always exceeds him. He knew the gumshoe’s blindness and claimed it as his self-portrait.
The Tom Wolfe (1930-2018) exchange cuts against the defense I built for his books. I argued that his rare value lived in the selection, the sequence, and the verdict, the authorial shaping Epstein cannot deflate. McDougal agrees with Wolfe that a book is ninety percent material and ten percent writing. In his own account he is a gatherer, not a shaper, and he would credit the material, not the craft. So the strongest defense of McDougal is a defense McDougal would not make for himself.
McDougal says he he made no secret with Nicholson of who he was and what he intended. He is the anti-McGinniss, no deception of the principal. Where the cultivate-and-spend relation lives is the off-the-record inner circle who did not want to upset Jack, and, more pointedly, in his giving voice to Bonny Lee Bakley (1956-2001), taking liberties to speak in a dead woman’s voice. The writer’s power over the subject who cannot consent is at its purest with the dead.
The man who wants to send the mighty to jail where they belong, who builds book after book on the sacred and profane sorting of the powerful, turns relativist the moment I press him on objective good and evil. His exposés run on a moral binary his philosophy disowns. He performs the pollution ritual professionally and disclaims its premises personally. That gap is evidence that the moral charge of his work came from the genre’s code rather than from any moral conviction of his own.

Hero System

Picture the man at the document. He sits past midnight with a box of depositions, a stack of police files, a county clerk’s photocopies curling at the edges. The building has emptied. A vacuum runs two floors down. Dennis McDougal reads the way a safecracker listens, for the soft place where the official story stops matching the paper trail. He is not after a man’s heart. He is after the memo the man signed and forgot. When the memo turns up, when the deposition contradicts the press release, McDougal feels the thing his hero system was built to deliver. He feels significant. He has seen through, and he has the paper to prove it.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) gave us the grammar for that feeling. In The Denial of Death he argued that a man cannot live inside the knowledge of his own death, so every culture hands him a hero system, a scheme for earning the sense that his short life counts inside some order that outlasts him. The hero system tells a man what counts as a brave act, a clean act, a significant life. It sells him a way to feel he will not vanish. Strip the costume off any vocation, the priesthood or the police or the press, and Becker finds the same engine underneath, a man fending off two terrors at once, the terror of death and the terror that his life was a small thing that no one will remember.

McDougal’s hero is built against two more particular fears, both of them versions of the Becker terror. The first is the terror of the dupe. The reporter’s nightmare is the credulous man, the booster who repeats the press release and calls it news, the rube who dies inside another man’s mythology and never knows the joke was on him. The second is the terror of the unrecorded. Power runs in the dark, the deal closes in a room with no minutes, and the lie outlives the truth and hardens into the official history. McDougal organized a life against both. The man who reads the machinery does not die a fool. The man who writes it down does not die unrecorded. His name sits on the spine of the book, and the book sits on the shelf after the dynasty falls.

So the sacred value at the center of his life is exposure. Pull back the curtain. Name the apparatus. Show the wires. He carried it into Privileged Son, where he turned Otis Chandler and the family into a study of hereditary power dressed as public trust. He carried it into The Last Mogul, where Lew Wasserman shed the glamorous executive and became the architect of an empire run through contracts, leverage, and the quiet money in a union local. He carried it into the true-crime books, into Angel of Darkness, where the freeways and the anonymous suburbs around Randy Kraft became part of the case rather than scenery. Exposure was the sacrament. The document was the host.

Here the trouble starts, and it is a fruitful trouble. Exposure feels to McDougal like a clearing, a removal of fog, a return to the real. It is no such thing. It is one hero system among many, and the word that sits at its altar means something different at every other altar in the city.

Walk a few blocks and watch.

A homicide detective keeps a murder book the way McDougal keeps a file, the same hunger for the buried fact, the same patience with a paper trail. Ask the detective what revelation is for and he gives a different answer. Revelation closes the case. It ends in an arrest, a charge, a conviction, a family told at last who did it. The detective wants the truth sealed inside a verdict, not spread across a Sunday front page. “I don’t need the city to know,” he says. “I need twelve people in a box to know.” His hero is built against the terror of the open case, the killer who walks, the file that never closes. Same hunt, opposite ending.

Cross town to a publicist’s office on a high floor with a view of the studio lot. This man is the rival McDougal fought all his life and never quite named. His sacred value is the managed image. He believes, with a clean conscience, that a star, a studio, a senator, a city is a story under construction, and that his craft holds the story together against the corrosion of rumor and the malice of the press. Revelation, to him, is vandalism. “You think you’re letting the light in,” he says to the reporter across the desk. “You’re letting the rats in.” He sleeps well. He is not a villain in his own film. He is the keeper of a fragile thing, and he watches McDougal as a man watches an arsonist who calls himself a fireman.

Up a canyon road sits a priest who hears confession on Saturday afternoons. He traffics in revelation all day. He knows the worst about half the families in the parish. Revelation, for him, is a sacrament under seal, the truth spoken so the soul can be unburdened and then kept forever in silence. The whole power of his office runs on a promise opposite to McDougal’s. The reporter publishes the secret to redeem the public. The priest buries the secret to redeem the man. Hand the priest McDougal’s career and he sees a confessor who broke every seal he was ever given.

In a study lined with folios sits a man bent over a page of Talmud. He loves the hidden meaning and digs for it the way McDougal digs for the memo. Revelation, to him, is exegesis, the buried sense drawn up out of the text by argument across generations. Yet his tradition holds lashon hara, evil speech, among the gravest of sins, and lashon hara does not mean the lie. It means the true thing spoken to a man’s harm. The reporter’s whole sacred act, the publication of a damaging fact about a powerful man, lands inside that hero system as a sin against a name and against God. Same love of the buried truth. The buried truth points one man toward the printing press and forbids the other from speaking at the dinner table.

Down at the harbor a Navy intelligence officer files a report he expects no one outside a vault to read. He served his country and so did the young McDougal, in the Naval Reserve, and the two men might have shaken hands. The officer’s sacred value is the secret kept. Revelation, in his world, is the leak, the breach, the name in the foreign file, the asset who turns up dead because a fact got loose. He might call McDougal’s faith by its proper service term. He might call it treason, and mean it as a flat description.

One word. Exposure. Revelation. The buried truth brought up into the light. To McDougal it is the bravest act a man can do with a life. To the detective it is a verdict. To the publicist it is arson. To the priest it is a broken seal. To the scholar it is a sin against a name. To the intelligence officer it is a body in a ditch. Each man is honorable inside his own scheme. Each might look at the others and see a fool or a criminal. That is Becker’s whole point. There is no neutral altar. The thing a man calls reality is the floor of the particular church he was raised or converted into.

McDougal was an honorable man who did hard and useful work. His noir vision of Los Angeles sells as reality-minus-fantasy. Strip away the booster’s gloss and the dream-factory glamour and the civic mythology, the story goes, and what remains is the true city, the machinery of money, leverage, contract, and concealment. The trouble is that the stripped-down city is not the city with the myth removed. It is the city seen through a second myth, the myth of the man who is not fooled. Noir is not the absence of a creed. It is a creed, a faith that the cynical reading is the accurate one, that under every public virtue lies a private deal, that the wires are always the real story and the curtain always a con. The booster believes the dream. The reporter believes the wires. Neither has reached bare reality, because no one does. Each has chosen a hero, and each calls his hero the truth.

McDougal half knew this, which is why he keeps his dignity. The sardonic narrative voice that runs through the books is the tell. A true innocent of the trade writes with the flat certainty of a man who thinks he holds the facts and nothing else. McDougal writes with a curl at the lip, a noir music, a faint sense that the disabused man is also a character in a story, and a Southern California story at that. He learned the noir register from the same soil that grew Joseph Wambaugh (1937-2025) and James Ellroy (b. 1948), and noir always knows, somewhere, that the detective is as compromised as the city. The man suspected the joke might be partly on him too. That suspicion is the beginning of the honest accounting, and he got further toward it than most.

There remains the hero system from which much of this is written, the tribalist and traditional one, loyal to the inherited order and to the binding story that turns a crowd into a people. From inside that church the civic myth is not a con to be exposed. The myth is the thing that holds. The story of the Los Angeles Times as a public trust, the story of the Chandler family as stewards of a region, the dream-factory image of the city, these stories did work. They gave a sprawling and decentralized empire of strangers a reason to believe they shared a home. The trad man asks the question McDougal’s hero cannot hear. Who does the exposure serve, and what stands in the rubble once the trust is gone? The reporter dissolves the public’s faith in its institutions and builds nothing in its place, and a people with no binding story is a people ready to come apart. McDougal might answer that a trust built on a lie deserves to fall, and he has a point. The trad man might answer that all trust is built on a story, that a people cannot live on the wires alone, and he has a point too. The two men cannot hear each other because their terrors run in opposite directions. One fears the dupe. The other fears the orphan, the man with no tribe and no tale.

Name his hero and you name a man who refuses to be fooled, the native son who reads the apparatus the East Coast visitor mistakes for spectacle, the recorder whose book outlasts the dynasty it indicts. Name the rival he fights without naming and you find the publicist, the mythmaker, the keeper of the civic story, the man on the high floor who believes he protects a fragile thing from the arsonist downstairs. And name the cost his ledger cannot price and you find social trust, the binding myth, the cohesion a shared story gives a people, because inside his hero system the shared story is the con he exists to break. He could weigh a memo against a press release all day. He had no scale for what the press release did to hold a city of strangers together, and no scale for what its breaking left behind.

He died in 2025 from injuries in a car accident in the Southern California he spent fifty years reading. He left an alternative history of the place, told through dynasties and monopolies and murders and backstage deals rather than through civic mythology. He was right about the wires. The wires are real. He was a brave and useful man inside a hero system that mistook one true reading of the city for the city with all readings removed. That is is a particular faith, held with honor, blind in the one place every faith goes blind, at the altar, looking up, certain the light comes only from there.

Posted in Dennis McDougal | Comments Off on The Dennis McDougal Hero System

The Buffered, The Porous & The Political

I often investigate topics via Google and it is fun to see my work cited and explained.

Gemini says today: The concepts of the “buffered” versus “porous” self come from philosopher Charles Taylor’s seminal work, A Secular Age. Blogger and cultural commentator Luke Ford uses this framework to explain modern American polarization, culture wars, and how different groups process reality.

The Porous Self

The Definition: Describes the pre-modern, “enchanted” view of the self. The boundary between the mind/body and the outside world is fluid. Spirits, cosmic forces, curses, and communal emotions can directly cross over and shape a person.
Luke Ford’s Application: Ford observes that the “porous” self experiences the world more intuitively, tribally, and viscerally. For example, he frequently categorizes certain political groups (like traditionalist conservatives) as operating more porously—judging meaning through collective belonging and embodied, intuitive knowledge rather than purely detached, linear data.

The Buffered Self

The Definition: Represents the modern, secularized view of the self. The boundary between the inner mind and the outside world is firm and sealed. The buffered self understands that meaning resides inside the head, creating an emotional and psychological wall that keeps external forces (spiritual or otherwise) from “getting to them”.
Luke Ford’s Application: Ford uses the “buffered” concept to describe modern, educated, secular elites (like those who hold heavily rationalized, technocratic, or individualistic worldviews). They view the self as an autonomous agent protected from external, unseen forces, but Ford often argues this leaves them out of touch with the raw, emotional, and social realities that drive most people.

Luke Ford applies Charles Taylor’s “buffered vs. porous” framework to explain the deep, almost metaphysical disconnect between modern political tribes. He argues that the Right and Left do not just disagree on policy; they experience reality through fundamentally different psychological defenses.

1. The “Buffered” Liberal Elite (The Managerial Class)

Ford identifies the modern Democratic establishment and the professional-managerial class as the archetype of the Buffered Self.

The Worldview: They view themselves as autonomous individuals, “sealed off” from the spiritual or tribal forces of the world. They believe meaning is something they create inside their heads, not something that invades them from the outside.

Political Behavior: Because they are “buffered,” they rely on procedure, data, and contracts. They trust institutions (like the CDC or the FBI) because these institutions represent a rational, “immanent” order where everything can be explained and managed without “magic” or emotion.

The Blind Spot: Ford argues this makes them incapable of understanding the visceral, tribal instincts of the Right. To a buffered liberal, a Trump rally looks like mass hysteria because they cannot process the “collective effervescence” (a shared, porous emotional experience) that is happening.

2. The “Porous” Populist Right (The Trump Base)

Ford characterizes the populist Right (and the MAGA movement) as operating with a Porous Self.

The Worldview: They inhabit a more “enchanted” or “threatened” world where the boundary between the self and the outside is thin. They are “porous” to external forces—meaning they feel visceral disgust, spiritual contamination, or deep communal loyalty that bypasses rational filters.

Political Behavior:

Trump as Avatar: Trump speaks to the porous nature of his base. He doesn’t offer white papers; he offers protection from “invaders” and “poisons” (both literal and metaphorical).Vulnerability: Ford notes that the porous self feels invaded by cultural changes. Immigration isn’t just a policy dispute; it is felt as a physical or spiritual breach of the community’s “body.”

Conspiracy as Defense: Because they are open to “unseen forces,” they are more likely to believe in conspiracies (the Deep State, spiritual warfare) which explain the “evil” invading their world in a way that dry data cannot.

3. Case Study: The COVID-19 Divide

Ford has used the pandemic to illustrate this split vividly:

The Buffered Response (Blue America): Trusted the “immanent frame” of science. They sought safety through barriers (masks, social distancing, lockdowns)—literal buffers to seal off the self from the biological threat.The Porous Response (Red America): Viewed the virus—and the vaccine—through a lens of bodily purity and contamination. For many, the vaccine itself was viewed as the invader (a foreign substance breaching the porous body), while the virus was just a part of the natural “enchanted” struggle of life. The “mask” was seen not as a tool, but as a ritual muzzle—a spiritual humiliation.

4. The “Great Awokening” Twist

A key insight in Ford’s analysis (drawing on thinkers like Rony Guldmann) is that the modern “Woke” Left is actually a return to the Porous Self, disguised as secularism.

Speech as Violence: The idea that “words are violence” is a purely porous concept. It implies that a word spoken by someone else can physically penetrate your buffer and harm your soul.

Ritual Pollution: Ford argues that “cancellation” is a form of exorcism. When the Left “cancels” someone, they are removing a source of “moral pollution” that threatens the tribe, much like a village casting out a cursed individual in the pre-modern era.

The Hypocrisy: This leads to the current “Civil War” of reality: The Left claims to be buffered (rational/scientific) but acts porously (moral panics/witch hunts), while the Right openly embraces their porous tribalism but is mocked for it by the establishment.

Gemini says today: “Convenient beliefs” and “Why Morality Depends on False Beliefs” are core concepts developed by Stephen P. Turner, a Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy at the University of South Florida. Turner argues that human societies are not held together by rational, objectively true moral systems, but rather by highly functional, socially convenient “false beliefs” that resolve natural human conflicts and generate social order.

Turner’s work challenges traditional philosophy, suggesting that morality is a practical tool rather than a set of cosmic truths.

1. The Core Theory: Morality Depends on False Beliefs

In his paper, Why Morality Depends on False Beliefs, Turner bypasses traditional attempts to prove that being moral is objectively “rational”. Instead, he presents a naturalistic, sociological view of human nature:

Conflicting Drives: Human beings possess inherently conflicting biological and psychological desires.

The Illusion of Rationality: Instead of a complex, universally true moral framework, societies organically invent shared, comforting myths.

Social Order Over Truth: These false moral beliefs act as necessary social glue. They dictate what is “correct” or “genuine” so that individuals cooperate and avoid chaos.

The Cycle of Invention: When material conditions or historical realities change, the old convenient myths break down. Society is then forced to discard them and “invent new false beliefs” to maintain the social order.

2. “Convenient Beliefs” by Professional and Political Cohorts

Turner has frequently discussed how specific professional and political classes lean into highly specific, customized “convenient beliefs” to justify their authority, protect their status, and avoid facing internal contradictions.Examples of these “convenient beliefs” include:

Convenient Beliefs for Sociologists: Holding onto the concept of a homogenous, easily correctable “society” or pushing idealized, standardized metrics of social science while downplaying the field’s history of internal exclusion and institutional bullying.

Convenient Beliefs for Political Leaders (e.g., Germany or Russia): Adopting highly tailored national or geopolitical narratives that rationalize state actions, secure public compliance, and excuse economic compromises.

The Rejection of “Normativism”: Turner argues that social scientists shouldn’t judge whether these beliefs are “right” or “rationally justified”. Instead, they must treat them strictly as causal, natural phenomena used by human brains to cope with social environments.3. Epistemic Coercion and “The Bubble”

In his books like Explaining the Normative and newer essays on Epistemic Coercion, Turner expands on how convenient beliefs are sustained:

The Verstehen Bubble: Humans live inside a small, conscious “bubble” of mutual understanding that heavily relies on comfortable illusions, while the actual neural processes driving their choices remain hidden.

Manufactured Consensus: Powerful institutions, scientific bodies, and digital tech platforms frequently use coercion—disguised as “neutral expertise”—to suppress dissenting knowledge. This locks a population into a set of highly restricted, official “convenient beliefs” to prevent premature political fracture.

The concept of “convenient beliefs” in the context of sociologist Stephen Turner and independent podcaster/journalist Luke Ford refers to an analytical framework used to critique how public intellectuals, leaders, and professional groups adopt strategic moral and factual stances.

Rather than viewing political, social, or moral beliefs as purely rational or deeply held truths, this framework treats them as “coalition technologies” engineered to maximize group alignment, authority, and personal convenience.

The Theoretical Foundation: Alliance Theory

The collaboration and dialogue between Turner and Ford heavily relies on David Pinsof’s Alliance Theory of Political Belief Systems.

Moral Vocabularies as Tools: Under this framework, moral claims are not neutral reflections of reality. Instead, they are strategic tools used to recruit allies, signal loyalty to a tribe, and execute “jurisdictional wars” against rivals.

The “Convenience” of Truth: Beliefs are deemed “convenient” when they serve a dual purpose: they allow a person or group to protect their self-interest (e.g., funding, professional status, or political power) while maintaining the moral high ground.

Luke Ford’s “Ten Convenient Beliefs” Series

On the Luke Ford Podcast, Ford popularized this concept by developing hyper-specific, satirical yet analytical lists targeting different factions in modern society. These include:

Ten Convenient Beliefs for Sociologists Now
“>Ten Convenient Beliefs for Leaders of Germany / Russia Now
Ten Convenient Beliefs for This Blogger (Self-Critique)

Ford uses these lists to expose how different professionals adopt ideologies that neatly justify their job security, protect them from institutional backlash, and allow them to ignore conflicting data.

Stephen Turner’s Contribution: Anti-Normativism

Professor Stephen Turner, a prominent Weberian scholar and social theorist at the University of South Florida, provides the deeper sociological backing for these ideas. His academic work intersects with Ford’s commentary through several key concepts:

1. Good Bad Theories (GBT)Turner argues that many widely accepted societal beliefs are “Good Bad Theories”. These are factually flawed or false theories that are nonetheless “good” at coordinating large human groups—much like religious taboos functioned in primitive societies. They persist because they are socially useful and convenient for maintaining order, not because they are true.

2. The Myth of “Shared Practices”

In his book Brains/Practices/Relativism, Turner critiques traditional sociology for assuming that people share unified, objective cultural frameworks. He uses cognitive science to argue that we all have individualized, distributed habits. Therefore, institutional “shared values” are often just comforting, convenient narratives we tell ourselves to smooth over messy social interactions.

3. The Capture of Sociology

Turner frequently critiques the modern university system and the field of sociology for abandoning objective truth in favor of political programs. When sociology transforms from a “science of society” into an ideological provider for political policies, its foundational beliefs become “convenient” mechanisms to secure government grants and corporate-brand approval.

The Custodianship Question

Luke Ford’s series, centrally indexed in his “The Custodianship Question” post, analyzes global culture wars through a sociological lens of group competition, tribalism, and institutional power dynamics. The work, often blending Rabbinic thought with secular sociology, explores the transition of custodianship over societal standards across different nations.

Hero Systems

Sociological theories of hero systems explore how cultures and identities are built on socially constructed frameworks meant to provide individuals with a sense of primary value, meaning, and transcendence.

Cultural theorist Ernest Becker posited that all human hero systems (both religious and secular) are ultimately designed to manage the terror of death and give humans a feeling of lasting cosmic significance.

Luke Ford frequently interviews authors and philosophers about this. For example, the podcast featured discussions with writer and attorney Rony Guldmann dissecting how competing ideological movements in modern society function as rival hero systems that promote distinct narratives of oppression and cosmic importance.

* Ten Convenient Beliefs for Pope Leo XIV
* Ten Convenient Beliefs in the UC Berkeley School of Public Health
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The MFA Elite
* Ten Convenient Beliefs in the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health
* Ten Convenient Beliefs in the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
* Ten Convenient Beliefs in the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine
* Ten Convenient Beliefs in the UCLA School of Theater, Film & Television (TFT)
* Ten Convenient Beliefs in the UCLA Department of Psychology
* Ten Convenient Beliefs in the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health
* Ten Convenient Beliefs in the UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies
* Ten Convenient Beliefs In UCLA’s Anthropology Department
* Ten Convenient Beliefs In Stanford’s Anthropology Department
* Ten Convenient Beliefs In UC Berkeley’s Anthropology Department
* Ten Convenient Beliefs In Harvard’s Anthropology Department
* Ten Convenient Beliefs In Stanford’s Sociology Department
* Ten Convenient Beliefs In Princeton’s Sociology Department
* Ten Convenient Beliefs In UC Berkeley’s Sociology Department
* Ten Convenient Beliefs In Harvard’s Sociology Department
* Ten Convenient Beliefs in the NYU Departments of English & Comparative Literature
* Ten Convenient Beliefs in Stanford’s Program in Modern Thought & Literature
* Ten Convenient Beliefs in the University of Chicago Department of English / Center for the Study of Gender and Sexuality
* Ten Convenient Beliefs In The Princeton Departments of English and Comparative Literature
* Ten Convenient Beliefs In The UC Berkeley Departments of English and Rhetoric
* Ten Convenient Beliefs In The Columbia University Department of English and Comparative Literature
* Ten Convenient Beliefs In The Harvard Department of English / History & Literature
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Christopher Caldwell
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For IR Scholar John J. Mearsheimer
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Israeli Political Analyst Haviv Rettig Gur
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Author Yossi Klein Halevi
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Philosopher Micah Goodman
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Scholar Marc B. Shapiro
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Sociologist Stephen P. Turner
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Author Anne Applebaum
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Religion Scholar Aaron W. Hughes
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders In America’s Deep State
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For West Bank Settlers
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Seventh-day Adventist Leaders
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Iran’s Next Supreme Leader
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Tencent (WeChat)
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Berkshire Hathaway
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Meta (Facebook)
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Saudi Aramco
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of TSMC
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Nvidia
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Amazon
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Alphabet (Google)
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Wells Fargo
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Microsoft
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Goldman Sachs
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Apple
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of AI
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Italy
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Denmark
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of NATO
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Canada
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Mexico
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Brazil
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Argentina
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Ohr Somayach
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Aish HaTorah
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Taiwan Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Lebanon
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Syria Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Poland Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Cornell Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of The Middle East Institute
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of India Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Egypt Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Pakistan Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Oman Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Bahrain Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of The University Of Pennsylvania
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Kuwait Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of UC Berkeley Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of Qatar Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of United Arab Emirates Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Supporters Of Amy Wax In Her Battle With UPenn Now
* Ten convenient beliefs for leaders at the U.S. Department of War
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Lovers Of Jacques Marie Émile Lacan
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Lovers Of Jacques Derrida
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Lovers Of Michel Foucault
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Imperial College London Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Ethicists Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Sociologists Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For International Relations Scholars
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For People Who Cry During The Movie Legends Of The Fall
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Lovers Of Air Supply
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders In HR
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Stanford Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of USC Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of CalTech Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Cambridge
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Oxford
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of MIT Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of The University Of Chicago Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Harvard Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Princeton Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Blackrock Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Joe Rogan Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Richard Spencer Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Candace Owens Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Tucker Carlson Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Megyn Kelly Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Dan Turrentine Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Mark Halperin Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Ukraine Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For David Ignatius Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Turkey Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of The Washington Post Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of The Atlantic Magazine Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Australia Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders At The Counsel On Foreign Relations
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of The UK Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of France Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Germany Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Russia Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of China Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Japan Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Saudi Arabia Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For This Blogger
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For The Leaders Of The Columbia School Of Journalism
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Big Law Who Refused To Cut Deals With The Trump Administration
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of Big Law Who Cut Deals With The Trump Administration
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of The ABC News Iran War Coverage Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of America’s Dissident Right Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of The Financial Times Iran War Coverage Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of The Fox News Iran War Coverage Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of The WSJ Iran War coverage Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of The New York Times Iran War coverage Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Houthis Leaders Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Hezbollah Leaders Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Hamas leaders Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Israel’s War Leaders Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For IRGC Leaders Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For American Leaders In Christian Nationalism
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For American Leaders In Gay Rights
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For American Leaders In Religious Freedom
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For American Leaders In Climate Change Research
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For American Leaders In Gender Affirming Care
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders Of American Medical Schools Under Civil Rights Investigation By The Trump Administration
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For American Elite Journalists Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders At UCLA Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Yale English Department Faculty Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Energy Experts Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For FDD analysts now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Iran Experts Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders At Yale University Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Leaders At Columbia University Now
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Social Psychologists In America Today
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Ethicists In America Today
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Trump Haters In America Today
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Trump Lovers In America Today
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Sex Workers In America Today
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Bankers In America Today
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Dentists In America Today
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Doctors In America Today
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Social Workers In America Today
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Economists In America Today
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For Academics In America Today
* Ten Convenient Beliefs For American Attorneys Today

Posted in Blogging, Buffered, Porous, Stephen Turner | Comments Off on The Buffered, The Porous & The Political

Successful Journalists on Substack Don’t do Much Journalism

Look at who earns the money. The biggest news Substack is Heather Cox Richardson, about a million dollars a month from close to three million subscribers, and she writes no original reporting. She explains the day’s news through a historian’s frame. The rest of the top tier reads the same way, Yglesias and Noah Smith and Ted Gioia and the policy and culture and economics writers who headline the revenue list, voices selling a reliable take. The product is the writer’s perspective, delivered often, not a fact you could not get elsewhere.
There are real reporters who make it, and they prove the point by where they sit. The Pragmatic Engineer reports the tech industry’s internals with real sourcing, Newcomer reports the venture world in depth, and Sinocism mixes China analysis with the occasional scoop. All of them work a narrow, expensive vertical that a professional audience needs for its job and will pay business rates to get. That is reporting sold as trade intelligence to a paying guild, not journalism done for the public. The one outfit that built real general reporting, the Free Press, did it by becoming an opinion operation rather than a newsletter. The solo accountability reporter for the general reader is the figure missing from the list.
The reason is the thing the old institution did that nobody priced. A newspaper bundled the profitable parts, the gossip, the opinion, the ads, and used them to pay for the unprofitable part, the investigation. Reporting is a public good. It costs a fortune to make and goes free to everyone an hour after it runs, so no single subscriber will pay a premium for it. The bundle hid that. Substack unbundles. Each writer pays for himself, and the loss-making public good loses the patron that carried it. What survives alone is what one man will pay one man for, a voice, a habit, a daily take, or a slice of inside knowledge he can expense.
So the platform does not rescue journalism. It rewards the columnist and the niche analyst and retires the reporter, or turns him into a vendor of inside knowledge to the industry he covers. It is the sorting you were circling with Wallace. The watchdog function does not migrate to the subscription. The pundit function does, and the trade-intelligence function does, and the accountability reporting that justified the old prestige is the one job the new economy will not fund. Wallace’s gift would not pay as a newsletter either. It pays as the book, where the powerful sign the check. Substack is a home for the talker and the specialist. It was never a home for the watchdog.

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off on Successful Journalists on Substack Don’t do Much Journalism

Journalist Amy Wallace Consistently Chooses Sides

Read Amy Wallace the usual way and she has a value. Truth over comfort, sympathy for the one the world has flattened, the witness who cannot be bought. David Pinsof’s Alliance Theory says there is no such value, in her or in anyone. What looks like a moral spine is the output of an alliance structure, the patchwork of loyalties and rivalries a person carries, and the moral language is the propaganda that recruits third parties to the cause. Strip the creed and you find the coalition. So the question for her work is not what she believes. It is whom she counts as an ally and whom she counts as a rival, and what tactics she runs on each. The contents of her belief system fall out of that, the way Pinsof says all belief systems do.

Her allies are the reduced. The woman cut down to a body, the artist cut down to a torso, the actress handed the maid, the dying director who refuses to be her disease, the survivor of the men who pass girls around. Her rivals are the ones who do the cutting and the ones who shield them, the mogul who built a fortune on a rear view, the boner-pill salesman who farmed male shame, the executive who choked the woman and paid her off, the editor who sold his paper’s coverage for a seat at the industry’s table. She did not reason her way to this roster. She is a journalist, which the alliance map sets inside the intellectual-elite coalition, knowledge workers ranged against the business elite and the powerful insider, and her loyalties track that placement the way a partisan’s track his. The enemy of her ally is her rival. The trade, the city, the apprenticeship sorted her onto a side, and the side came with its friends and its enemies attached.

She knows the machinery from the other end, because it ran on her first. The profile that made her name broke the trade press’s code, the unspoken rule that the reporter who lives on access does not print what the access buys. She printed it. She let Peter Bart’s own brokerage show, and the field read the piece as a defection and not as a story. A coalition punishes the member who shows its private arrangements to outsiders, and it punishes hardest when the showing is true, because the true exposure is the dangerous one. The response split along the line it traced. Reporters defended her on the principle of adversarial scrutiny, the open creed of the craft. The industry she had embarrassed moved to discipline her and the outlet that ran her. The man at the center took his show of punishment and kept his chair, and the boundary closed back over the same exchange it always hid. She had named the price of membership, and the coalition charged her for the naming.

On her allies she runs the victim’s tactics, and Pinsof lists them. Emphasize the wrong done. Deny the mitigating circumstance. Read the rival’s motive as malice. Swell the harm. When she writes the harassed woman reporter, the attacks are misogyny aimed at silencing, the motive named and dark, the wound centered and held. When she writes Virginia Giuffre she carries the account of a girl trafficked to powerful men into print and argues that the wrong move is to make the victim prove herself. That is the victim bias stated as a rule. Do not weigh the mitigating fact. Do not test the grievance. To do so is to side with the perpetrator, and the perpetrator is the rival, and you do not hand the rival the benefit of the doubt. The tactic is not a lapse in her method. It is her method working on the people her method is built to defend.

On her rivals she withholds the opposite tactic. The perpetrator’s own propaganda is to shrink his responsibility, dress up his intentions, and shrug the harm down to nothing, and a writer allied with him would lend him that frame. She lends Chip Wilson none of it. She sets his line about women’s bodies not working for the pants beside the rear view that made him rich and lets the two sit there. She gives Steve Warshak his porous logic and his unread blessing of the scheme and never softens the men he charged without their say. She hands Chris Albrecht his comeback and then gives the last word to Sasha Emerson, the woman he choked, who says he needs to believe his own narrative. The charity a perpetrator wants, the downgrade of the harm, the upgrade of the motive, she keeps from every rival. That withholding looks like rigor. Run the frame and it is loyalty, the same loyalty pointed the other way.

The proof that the line is drawn by alliance and not by conduct sits in two profiles of two powerful men who used women. Warren Beatty tells her he bedded the better part of a Who’s Who, answered phone calls while inside a lover by Joan Collins’s account, and spends four hours trying to turn the interview into a seduction, and she renders him as charm itself, the lifelong seducer at peace at last with his wife and his children. Chip Wilson follows a young woman’s backside up a mountain, grins, and tells her it is his job to look, and she renders him as a tone-deaf creep hanging by his own rope. Set the conduct side by side and Beatty’s is the heavier. Set the treatment side by side and Wilson’s is the colder. Nothing in how the two treated women explains the gap. What explains it is that Beatty is Hollywood royalty, inside the world she lives in and writes for, and Wilson is a yoga-pants mogul from outside it. The seducer is an ally. The mogul is a rival. The same use of women reads as magnetism in the one and predation in the other, and the variable is the coalition, not the deed.

The word choices sort the way Pinsof’s attributional bias predicts. Her allies’ troubles take the external cause. Viola Davis’s stalled career is Hollywood’s colorism and the global box office, never her own ceiling. D’Angelo’s collapse is the machine that turned him into the Naked Guy. The reporter’s harassment is the culture’s misogyny. Her rivals’ winnings take the internal cause. Wilson’s fortune is his knack for farming vanity and fear. Warshak’s millions are his marketing and his greed. The advantage of the rival comes from his character, the disadvantage of the ally comes from his circumstance, and the same fact would flip its cause if the man changed sides. That is the linguistic tell of whose corner she stands in, run sentence by sentence beneath the level of argument.

The Giuffre episode looks like a lapse in her truth-telling. The frame tells it as alliance doing its job. She co-authored the memoir. She had taken the side. Then the released files said the part that named men could not be stood up, that two other victims she had named contradicted her, that her own accounts shifted and an earlier memoir ran partly invented. A witness loyal to nothing but the record reopens the question. A true ally does not, because the deepest rule of alliance, Pinsof says, is that to doubt your friend’s side of the story is to tell your friend you are not his friend. Trusting Giuffre’s account was not Wallace failing her standard. It was Wallace meeting the only standard a coalition enforces. The cost rode out under her name and onto the men the account marked, and the cost was the price of belonging, which every alliance charges and calls conscience.

An ally can be a wrongdoer too, and the coalition has a way of holding that. By the account of one of Epstein’s other victims, Giuffre did not only suffer the trafficking, she fed it, recruiting a girl younger than herself and coaching her to lie about her age. Giuffre’s own lawyer granted that she came to regret facilitating other young women. Set that beside the rule Wallace keeps. The perpetrator’s charity, the mitigating circumstance, the downgraded harm, the benefit of the doubt, is the thing she gives no one on her own side. So an ally who is also a perpetrator is not reclassified. She holds the victim’s slot and draws the victim’s tactics, because the coalition assigns the slot and the slot does not bend to the facts inside it. Wallace cannot write Giuffre as what she would name without a pause in a rival, a person who on that account fed a younger girl into the same machine. The alliance does not let her see it, and the not-seeing is not a flaw in her eyes. It is the slot doing its work.

Her stated creed reads, in this light, as the moral coat the alliance wears in public. Truth over comfort, the public interest, the witness who serves no master, these are the impartial-sounding words that pull strangers to a side, and Pinsof’s point is that both sides reach for the same words while only one side at a time can be telling the truth. Do not make the victim prove herself sounds like justice and works like a wall around an ally. The morality is real to her, felt as conviction, and that is the design. The loyalty running underneath does its best recruiting when the partisan cannot feel it as loyalty and feels it as principle instead.

Alliance Theory claims the machinery is universal, the same in the polemicist who names his villain and the reporter who lets the villain hang himself, the same in her rivals as in her, the same in the reader sorting these pages into fair and unfair by whether they flatter his own side. The trade ran the machinery on her the day she broke the Bart story, and she has run it on the page in every profile since. She is not a cynic wearing a conscience. She is a person with allies, which is to say a person, running the program that ran before there was journalism and will run after. The only writer the frame cannot reach is the one with no allies and no rivals, who has never been seen and never will be. Wallace had her side and served it with a gift most of her side will never match. What the older reading called her sympathy, the frame calls her roster. The sharpest thing to say about her is not that she was captured. It is that being captured, by a side, by the people whose story you have agreed to trust, is the price of having anyone at all to defend, and she paid it the way the rest of us do.

Predictable Sympathies

Amy Wallace’s sympathies are easy to predict.
You can guess whom she will warm to and whom she will cut, and the guesses track the value-set of the educated coastal world she came up in. Artists are sacred. The wronged woman is sacred. The man who exploits women is profane, so Chip Wilson and Steven Warshak and Chris Albrecht get the cold treatment and the placed quote. Mainstream science is trusted, which is why her Wired piece on vaccines took its side against the anti-vaccine movement with little air given to the other view. A reader who knew her milieu could call most of these before reading a word.
That is predictability of sympathy, not of party. Her villains are bad men, not the other team. She does not profile politicians. The men she exposes are fraudsters and predators and the self-important powerful, and exposing a fraudster is neither left nor right. The gender-and-exploitation axis is where she runs most predictable.
Three things cut against the easy progressive read. She exposes the powerful inside her own camp. Albrecht ran HBO, a liberal-media crown, and she handed the last word to the woman he choked. Her best piece refuses the coding her milieu would want: the boy who shot his neo-Nazi father could have been a clean parable, the hateful man as pure evil and the child as pure victim, and she declined to write it that way. And her late career renders corporate chiefs with sympathy for a fee, the Pixar president and the former head of GE, which no reliable progressive would do, since the left’s quarrel is with the executive as a type.
So the sensibility is legible and the score is not. Tell me the subject is a man who used women or conned the credulous and I will tell you the tone. Tell me only that he is a Republican or a Democrat and I have nothing. The predictability lives in her taste, and the moment that taste meets a powerful man on her own side, or a victim who is also a killer, or an advance worth taking, it stops behaving the way her politics would predict.

The Arranged Verdict

Amy Wallace almost never tells you what to think of a man. She shows you the man, in a scene, in his own words, and she puts the words where they will do their work, and she steps back. Read her profile of the Lululemon founder and you wait for the sentence that calls him what he is. It does not come. What comes is the founder on a mountain trail, watching a young woman climb ahead of him, saying it is his job to look. Wallace lets the line sit. She has rendered a verdict without writing one. The judgment lives in the arrangement, in what she set beside what, and the reader reaches the conclusion believing he reached it himself. That is the center of her style and the source of its force.

The method comes down from the New Journalism, from Tom Wolfe and Joan Didion and Gay Talese, and Wallace works its four old devices with a clean hand. She builds in scenes and not in summary. She runs dialogue long and in the speaker’s own cadence. She writes from inside a point of view, often her own. She records the status detail, the watch, the car, the room, the brand, the tell a man gives off without meaning to. None of this is new. What she adds is restraint. Wolfe wanted the reader to feel the writer’s presence on every page. Wallace wants the opposite. She wants the scene to read as though no one arranged it.

She gives the reader the encounter as it happened. The Lululemon piece opens on the hike because the hike is where the man revealed himself, and she gives it in order, in the present of the walk. The Warren Beatty profile is four hours on a patio, rendered as four hours on a patio. She does not step outside the scene to summarize what kind of man he is. She stays in the chair and lets him perform, and the performance is the portrait. The work of judgment happens before the writing, in the choice of which scene to build, and after it, in the cut. On the page there is only the scene.

She is willing to be a character in her own story, and she uses herself as a gauge. In the Beatty profile she is the woman he spends the afternoon trying to charm, and she records the charm landing and records herself noticing it land. The first person is not confession. It is an instrument. Her reactions calibrate the reader’s, so that when she feels the pull of a seducer the reader feels it too, and when she keeps her footing the reader keeps his. The risk in the device is vanity, the reporter who makes herself the subject. She keeps clear of it, because she keeps the I small and pointed, a lens and not a mirror.

Her sharpest tool is the long quote left alone. She lets a man talk until he has said the thing he should not have said, and then she stops, and the silence after the quote does the work an adjective would coarsen. The Lululemon founder hangs on his own words about which women suit the clothes. The cable executive, given room to explain himself, explains himself into the ground. She does not chase the quote with a comment. She trusts the reader and she trusts the sequence. The argument is in the order of the sentences, and the order looks like nothing, which is the art.

She knows where to end. In the profile of the executive who choked a woman years before and bought her silence, Wallace gives the final word to the woman, who says the man needs to believe his own story. Nothing Wallace could write in her own voice would land as hard as that quote in that spot. The placement is the verdict. A feature writer with a weaker ear would have put the woman in the middle and closed on the man’s comeback. Wallace closes on the wound, and the structure tells the reader where the truth sits without a line of editorial.

The same set of tools makes warmth or cold, and the variable is distance. With Baz Luhrmann she stands a half-step back and checks his story of himself against the record, and the checking reads as affection with its eyes open. With the Lululemon founder she stands at the same half-step and the checking reads as exposure. She is not running two methods. She is adjusting proximity, moving the camera in or holding it off, and the tone follows the distance. Garry Shandling gets the close, forgiving frame of a man she liked. Jerry Lewis gets the cooler middle distance of a man who would not let her in. The feeling in each piece is a function of where she chose to stand.

The prose under all of this is plain and fast. She favors the active verb and the short declarative, and she will run a long accreting sentence and then drop a four-word one to land it. She does not reach for the fine phrase. The diction stays close to speech, and the rhythm carries the reader without calling attention to the hand on the wheel. This plainness is the most worked thing about her. A flashier sentence would announce a judgment she means to withhold. The flat line keeps the surface neutral so the arrangement underneath can carry the weight.

She owns a second voice that is the first one turned off. In the collaborative books she submerges her own cadence into the subject’s and writes as him, in his rhythm, under his name. The profile voice watches a man from the chair across the room. The as-told-to voice climbs inside him and speaks. The range between the two is wide, and the second is the harder trick, because it has to vanish. The same ear that catches a subject’s self-betraying tell can reproduce his self-justifying one, and the reader of the book cannot hear the join.

The whole style runs on a single bet, that the reader will trust a surface that does not argue. The flat voice reads as fair. The scene reads as found rather than made. The withheld judgment reads as no judgment at all, which is why the judgment lands so well. The cost of the method is that the reader takes the selection on faith. He sees the scene she built and the quote she kept, and he does not see the scene she cut or the quote she let go, and the plainness that makes her seem to stand aside is the thing that hides how much she has chosen. The art is in seeming artless, and she seems artless at the top of the trade.

Whose Account

The easy reading of Amy Wallace’s career is a fall. She starts as a reporter who holds power to account and ends as the hired voice of the powerful, the writer who gives a chief executive’s memory the shape of a book. The prison beat and the two Pulitzers at one end, the authorized corporate memoir at the other, a straight downhill line between them. The reading is half right, and the half it gets wrong is the half worth having.

What Wallace built across a long career is a single asset, and it is rarer than any beat or byline. She can enter the room of a powerful or famous or guarded man and come back able to render him in a voice a stranger will believe. The asset has two parts that look opposed and are not. The first is access, the seat at the elbow she learned as a young assistant to James Reston and never lost. The second is the rendering, the plain trustworthy voice that makes a reader feel he has met the man on the page. Reporters with access often cannot write. Writers with the voice often cannot get in. Wallace had both, and both run on the same thing, the subject’s trust.

That trust is where the easy reading breaks. The reporter who holds power to account needs the powerful to open up, and they open up to the writer they feel safe with. The Peter Bart profile that made her name in 2001 read as a breach of a closed world because she got inside the closed world first, and she got inside because the men there did not see her coming as a threat. The same safety that lets a writer expose a man is the safety that lets a man hire her. Access earned for accountability is access available for service. The gift that points at power and the gift that serves power are not two gifts. They are one gift pointed two ways, and the trust that aims it can be aimed by either hand.

The drift from one aim to the other was not only character. It was money, and the money was structural. Wallace’s prime as an independent profiler ran through the years the long magazine profile could still pay a writer’s rent, the GQ and Wired and New York years, the decade the glossies still ran ten thousand words on a single man. That economy died. Condé Nast Portfolio, where she was a senior writer, launched in 2007 and folded two years later, a clean marker of the collapse. When the magazines that paid for the long accountability profile could no longer pay, the surviving market for her exact talent was the book, and the books that pay are the ones a powerful man wants written. The public had funded the adversarial profile through the ad pages. The subject funds the authorized book through the advance. The writer did not change her craft. The buyer changed, and the buyer decides whom the craft serves.

So she wrote the books power pays for. These are not exposés. They are the opposite. The authorized book lends the writer’s trusted voice to the subject’s version, and the loyalty runs to the man on the cover, not to the reader. What the young reporter offered the public, the established author now offers the principal. The instrument is the same. The client is power.

Something real is given up in the move. Name it instead of mourning it. The accountability reporter’s authority is her own name vouching to the public that she tested what she found. The collaborator’s authority is lent to another name, and her testing is replaced by her craft. The byline goes from hers alone to hers beside another’s to, in the work of the book, hers beneath another’s. The independence that let her break the closed world is the independence she trades for reach and for the advance. She gains a larger audience and a larger fee. She gives up the seat she held as the public’s proxy against the man across the table. In the authorized book there is no table. She is on his side of it.

And then the last book turns the instrument around, which is why the fall reading cannot be the whole story. For four years Wallace worked with Virginia Giuffre on her account of abuse by Jeffrey Epstein and her fight for a reckoning. Nobody’s Girl came out in 2025, after Giuffre took her own life, and went to the top of the list. Here the trusted book-voice is aimed not at burnishing a powerful man but at a survivor’s case against the men who shield the powerful, and it carried that case into more hands than any magazine piece could reach. If the arc were a simple slide into the service of power, the biggest book of her life would be the counterexample that ends it. She did not end up aiding power. She ended up aiming the weapon she had built in power’s service back at power.

Nobody’s Girl is the work of the collaborator, not the reporter. The collaborator renders the subject’s account in the trusted voice. The reporter tests every claim in the account against the record before she vouches for it. These are different jobs with opposite loyalties, and Wallace by the end was doing the first. The released government files later confirmed the core abuse and could not stand behind parts of the wider account, the parts that named powerful men, and two other women contradicted pieces of it. Read for craft, this is the cost of the form. The book gave a survivor’s account the steady authority of print without the adversarial testing the young reporter once supplied. The point is not whether Giuffre was wronged. She was. The point is that the writer who once stood as the public’s check on every account, friendly or hostile, had become the writer who renders one account at a time and lends it her trust. That change held whether the account served Catmull, served Immelt, or served Giuffre against the powerful. The valence flipped from book to book. The stance never did.

Wallace became the trusted renderer of other people’s accounts, and the trust she rendered them with was the same trust that got her into the room in the first place. Whom the account serves changed with who paid and whom she chose. What stayed fixed was the surrender of the adversarial seat, the move from testing the powerful for the public to voicing a single principal to the world. The career does not pose the comfortable question of whether a good reporter sold out. It poses the harder one. When the patron who paid for holding power to account stops paying, and the only buyer left for the talent is the subject who wants his account told, what is a writer of this gift supposed to do, and whom can she still serve? Wallace answered it three times for power and once against it, with the same voice, and the answer was always the subject in front of her.

The patron decides the loyalty. Accountability journalism served the public because the public, through the ad-supported magazine, paid for it. The authorized book serves the subject because the subject pays for it. Wallace’s talent did not move left or right. It followed the money from one master to another.

The access that enables exposure is the access that enables capture. Both run on the subject’s trust. A writer powerful men feel safe opening up to is a writer powerful men feel safe hiring. The skill cannot be built for one use and walled off from the other.

The byline is the independence. When it is hers alone, she vouches for the public. When it is hers beside or beneath another’s, she vouches for the man whose name shares the cover. The shrinking byline is the shrinking of the adversarial position.

Reach was the trade. The book reaches more readers than the profile ever did, and it reaches them on the subject’s terms. She bought scale with the surrender of the independent seat. Scale is neutral. Whom it serves is not.

The collaborator renders; the reporter tests. By the end she rendered. The same voice that once checked a man’s account for the public now delivered a man’s account to the public without the check. Nobody’s Girl is righteous and is still rendering, not testing.

The valence flipped; the stance held. Three books for power, one against it, all in the trusted voice of a writer telling one principal’s story. The morality of the work turns on whom she points it at. The shape of the work turned, long ago, away from the public and toward the one in the room.

Wallace’s Carrier Group

What Jeffrey Epstein did to girls was monstrous. That it became a wound the whole country carries is a made thing. Yale sociologist Jeffrey Alexander (b. 1947) names the difference. An event, however horrible, does not become a public trauma on its own. Trauma is an attribution a society makes, the meanings that turn a set of facts into a wound on the collective sense of who we are. The facts do not do this work. People do, the people Alexander calls a carrier group, the agents with the standing and the skill to carry a claim into the public mind. With Nobody’s Girl, the memoir she built with Virginia Giuffre, Wallace did that work. She is a carrier-group agent, and the book is the claim.

Alexander says a carrier group has ideal and material interests, a place in the social structure, and the discursive talent to make meaning in public. The collaborative author of a major memoir is built for the part. Wallace holds a seat in the prestige nonfiction world, the standing of the imprint and the byline, and the craft to turn a survivor’s scattered memory into a single carrying voice. The book is not a report of the trauma. It is an instrument for making one, a claim of fundamental injury, of a sacred thing profaned, told as the narrative of a destructive social process and ending in a demand for reckoning. Alexander’s description of the trauma claim reads like a table of contents for the memoir.

Alexander says the construction of a public trauma turns on four answers a carrier group must give, the work that builds a master narrative. First, the nature of the pain. The book defines the wound as larger than one girl, a system that fed children to powerful men, the profanation of childhood by money and access. Second, the nature of the victim. Giuffre is drawn as the representative girl, the ordinary daughter who could have been anyone’s, so the harm reads as done to the collective and not to a stranger. Third, the bond between the victim and the public. The memoir works to make the reader own the wound, to feel the girl’s injury as a wound to the community, which Alexander says happens only when the victim carries qualities the wider audience already holds sacred. Fourth, the attribution of responsibility, the naming of who did it. Here the construction does its heaviest and most contested work.

Alexander says the cultural sociologist studies the claim and not its truth. He is after epistemology, how the claim is made and with what result, and he sets ontology and morality aside. So the question is not whether every man the book marks did what the book says. The question is how the narrative assigns the role of perpetrator, and the answer is that it assigns it the way all trauma narratives do, by symbolic construction. The released files complicate that construction. They confirmed the core wound and could not stand behind the part that named powerful men, and two other victims contradicted the lent-out account. Read through Alexander, this is not a footnote about accuracy. It is the institutional arena pushing back on the carrier group’s claim, the state and the court disciplining the narrative the book broadcast.

The trauma claim is a speech act, Alexander says, with a speaker, an audience, and a situation. The speaker is the carrier group, Wallace and Giuffre and the publisher behind them. The audience is the fragmented public. The situation is the moment, after a decade of reckonings about powerful men and their use of women, with the Epstein files moving through the government and the courts. The claim has to convince the originating circle first, the survivors and the public already primed to believe, and only then can it widen to the country. Nobody’s Girl reached the top of the list, which is to say the claim found its first audience. Whether it widens into the settled national memory of the affair is not yet decided.

The claim does not travel through clear air. Alexander says institutional arenas channel and discipline it, each on its own terms. In the aesthetic arena the memoir works by identification and catharsis, the reader living the girl’s ordeal and grieving it. In the legal arena the same story meets the demand for binding proof, the lawsuit, the settlement, the finding, and the law gives the claim only what it can prove. In the arena of the press the book competes for attention and gets cut to a headline. And the arena of the state, the released files and the investigations, can carry the trauma forward or break its momentum. The Epstein trauma sits in all these arenas at once, and they do not agree.

Alexander warns that the forces a trauma needs seldom line up. Consensus that a wound is real, the sense that it reaches the center of the society, the institutions willing to act, the autonomous elites willing to carry it, the rituals that fix the meaning, all of these must align, and the alignment is rare. The Epstein affair has some of them and not others. The carrier group is strong and the public is primed. But the perpetrator-attribution is contested, the files are weaponized in a partisan fight, and the man at the center is dead and cannot be tried. The trauma may set into the national memory as a settled wound, or it may scatter into a thing each side tells its own way. Alexander does not predict. He watches the arenas.

Alexander says that by building a trauma a society takes on the suffering of others as its own and widens the circle of the we. To carry the Epstein wound into the public mind is to make a country own what was done to its girls and to extend its solidarity to them. That is the work the book does, and the work is real whatever the courts make of the contested names. The same construction that builds righteous solidarity can also mark a man the record will not convict, and Alexander’s bracket holds both without flinching, because he studies the building and not the verdict. Wallace built a wound the public could feel and carry. What a society does with a carried wound, whom it blames and whom it absolves, the book begins and cannot end.

Pure and Polluted

A profile is a verdict in the form of a story. Jeffrey Alexander gives the reason it works. Facts do not speak. A set of facts about a man, his deals, his appetites, his words, sits there until someone tells it, and the telling places him on one side or the other of a line a free society draws through all its members, the line between the pure and the polluted, the trustworthy and the dangerous, the citizen who honors the common good and the one who threatens it. Alexander built this out of Watergate, where the same facts that read as just politics in 1972 read as a profanation of the republic two years later. Nothing in the facts had changed. The telling had. Every Wallace profile is a telling of this kind. She takes a man and sorts him.

Alexander says the discourse of a free society runs on a fixed set of opposites. On the sacred side stand the universal, the honest, the rule of law, the office held in trust, the self turned toward something larger. On the polluted side stand the particular, the corrupt, the personal appetite, the office turned to private use, the man who serves only himself. These codes are old and shared, and a free people reaches for them without being taught. Wallace reaches for them in every piece. The reader feels her verdict land before he can name the sentence that delivered it, because she has slid the subject toward the sacred pole or the polluted one with the choice of scene and the placement of the quote.

She codes the exploiter profane. The yoga-pants mogul who built a fortune on a rear view and told her it was his job to look lands on the polluted side, marked with self-interest and the use of others. The pill salesman who farmed male shame and billed sleeping men lands there too, marked with the con and the corruption Alexander puts at the dark pole of the civil code. The cable chief who choked a woman and bought her silence, and the trade editor who sold his paper’s coverage for a seat at the industry’s table, both carry the same brand, the particular set above the universal, the private appetite set above the trust of office. She does not call them polluted. She arranges the facts so the code does.

The artist she codes the other way. The soul singer reduced to a body by the machine reads as the sacred thing the machine profaned, the true voice, the gift that serves the music. The comedian molting toward something realer reads as a man reaching for the authentic, which the civil code holds sacred. Even the aging seducer, the auteur who has made movies longer than anyone alive, reads as charm and art rather than appetite, lifted toward the pure pole by the work. The sorting is not by conduct alone. It is by which code she fits the man to, the universal gift or the private hunger, and a powerful man who uses people can land on either side depending on the code she reaches for.

Alexander has a word for the move that turns a story into a verdict. He calls it generalization, the lift from the mundane level of a man’s goals and interests to the higher level of the values he honors or betrays. A profile that stays on goals is just a career sketch, this deal, that promotion. Wallace generalizes. She lifts the subject from what he wanted to what he is, from the level of his interests to the level of the sacred codes he served or fouled, and that lift is what gives her best work the force of judgment. The reader closes the piece feeling he has watched not a businessman or a star but a member of the moral community pass or fail its test.

Alexander names the people who do this sorting. In his account of Watergate the journalists and the universities and the lawyers are the elites who carry the civil sphere’s universalism against the particularism of power, the countercenters that hold the office to its trust. Wallace works inside that role. The profile is a small organ of the same civil discourse, the place where a free society decides, one powerful man at a time, who can be trusted with its goods and who threatens them. When she exposes the broker or the abuser she is doing the civil sphere’s maintenance, drawing again the line that marks the community off from the men who would use it.

The code wants clean sides, and her best piece is the one where she refuses to give it them. The boy who shot his neo-Nazi father could be sorted in a sentence, the hateful man at the pure-evil pole, the child at the pure-victim pole, and the civil code would close the case. She will not let it. She holds the father’s evil and the boy’s damage and the stepmother’s hand on the trigger in one frame and declines the clean verdict. Alexander’s binary is a code, not a measurement, and it sorts faster than the truth allows. Wallace knows this about her own instrument. The sign of the better work is the place where she feels the code pulling toward a clean side and holds the man, or the boy, in the place the code cannot file.

The sorting is not a flaw in her. It is the civil sphere doing through her what it does through all its tellers, drawing and redrawing the line that lets a free people know whom to trust. Alexander says there is no telling without a code, no profile that does not sort, and the reader who thinks he is getting unsorted facts is reading the cleanest sort of all. The honest thing to say about Wallace is that she draws the line with a strong hand and knows, on her best days, that it is a line and not a law. She codes a man pure or polluted because that is what the telling does. The art is in knowing when to let the code close and when to hold it open over a man who fits no pole.

The Set

Amy Wallace’s set sits at the meeting point of three older guilds that have each lost ground over her career. The metropolitan newspaper. The prestige long-form magazine. The collaborative executive book. Each guild has its own roster. She has friends in all three.

The Los Angeles Times generation she came up with includes John Carroll (1942-2015), Shelby Coffey III, Michael Parks, Dean Baquet (b. 1956), Tim Rutten, David Shaw (1943-2005), Steve Wasserman, Henry Weinstein, Robert Scheer (b. 1936), Patt Morrison, Steve Lopez (b. 1953), Bill Boyarsky, and Kit Rachlis. The paper’s two Pulitzers during her tenure, on the 1992 riots and the 1994 Northridge earthquake, gave the staff a shared founding myth. The paper’s slow decline under Tribune ownership and then Sam Zell (1941-2023) gave them a shared funeral.

The long-form magazine peers are familiar names: Susan Orlean, Lynn Hirschberg, Vanessa Grigoriadis, Maureen Orth, Bryan Burrough, Mark Seal, Kim Masters, Tom Junod, Michael Hainey, Jeanne Marie Laskas, Devin Friedman, Chris Heath, and Andrew Corsello, along with the editor class above them: Graydon Carter at Vanity Fair, Jim Nelson at GQ, Chris Anderson at Wired, Kit Rachlis again at Los Angeles Magazine, Mary Melton later at Los Angeles Magazine, Joanne Lipman (b. 1961) and Kurt Andersen (b. 1954) at Condé Nast Portfolio. Her The New York Times business-column years put her around Joe Nocera (b. 1952), Andrew Ross Sorkin (b. 1977), Gretchen Morgenson (b. 1956), and David Carr (1956-2015).

The collaborative-book guild has its own roster. Walter Isaacson (b. 1952) on Steve Jobs (1955-2011) and earlier figures. Brent Schlender on Jobs as well. Adam Bryant (b. 1961) with his corner-office collections. Michael Lewis (b. 1960) as the writer every executive wishes had taken his call. Bethany McLean (b. 1970) on Enron and beyond. Charles Duhigg (b. 1974). The agents who broker these deals, Andrew Wylie (b. 1947) and Robert Barnett (b. 1946) at the top of the market, are part of the social field even when not personal friends. The CEOs and ex-CEOs who hire collaborators move through the same Aspen and Davos and Sun Valley orbits. Catmull and Immelt are not isolated subjects. They sit inside a class of figures, John Lasseter (b. 1957), George Lucas (b. 1944), Jack Welch (1935-2020) before he died, Bob Iger (b. 1951), Eric Schmidt (b. 1955), Reid Hoffman (b. 1967), who treat the as-told-to book as a late-career legitimation tool.

The Giuffre book pulls her into a fourth orbit, the survivor-testimony and elite-accountability writers: Ronan Farrow (b. 1987), Megan Twohey (b. 1976), Jodi Kantor (b. 1975), Julie K. Brown of the Miami Herald, Barry Levine, Vicky Ward (b. 1970), Conchita Sarnoff, and the lawyer-adjacent figures Lisa Bloom (b. 1961), David Boies (b. 1941), Brad Edwards, and Sigrid McCawley. The Jeffrey Epstein (1953-2019) and Ghislaine Maxwell (b. 1961) coverage built a journalism subculture, and the Giuffre memoir put Wallace inside it.

What this set values. The reported piece, three months minimum, with named sources, scenes, and a structure. The byline placement ladder. The book deal that turns a magazine piece into a wider career. The National Magazine Award nomination. The New York Times bestseller list slot. Access to people other reporters cannot reach. A reputation for fairness that lets the next subject pick up the phone. Editors who fight the lawyers and the business side. Friendships built across magazines and over decades. Movement: from one masthead to the next without losing standing. Discretion about sources and process. A wary affection for Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and Wall Street, near enough to report on, far enough to keep judgment.

The hero system. Robert Caro (b. 1935) is the patron saint of the long form. Joan Didion (1934-2021), Gay Talese, and Tom Wolfe supply the literary lineage. Carl Bernstein (b. 1944) and Bob Woodward (b. 1943) supply the investigative one. Inside her own life, James Reston is the founding figure, an apprenticeship in the postwar elite-access tradition. Peter Bart serves as the inverted hero, the subject whose exposure made her name. For the collaborative side, Walter Isaacson on Jobs is the model: a serious writer who treats the executive as a historical subject rather than a client, even while the executive pays the bills. For the Giuffre book, the heroes are Brown, Farrow, Twohey, and Kantor, the reporters who broke the Weinstein and Epstein stories and rewrote what a survivor source can do inside a major outlet. The high praise inside the set sounds like this: he does the work, she gets people to talk, he can write a scene, she can carry a book.

The status games. Whose name appears as collaborator on the next bestseller. Who gets the Apple book, the Disney book, the Goldman Sachs book, the latest president’s book. Who lands the impossible interview. Who keeps the corner office at the magazine through the layoffs. Whose National Magazine Award nominations turn into wins. Who has the agent at Wylie or Janklow & Nesbit or WME. Who places in Best American Magazine Writing. Who gets the documentary deal off the magazine piece. Who teaches at Columbia or NYU on the side. Who is on the Aspen Ideas circuit. Below the visible games, the private rankings. Who has lost his fastball. Who lives off old work. Who reports anymore. Who is a hack. Who took the easy executive book that no one will read. Who took the executive book that ended his independence. Who can still get assigned a 12,000-word piece in a market that no longer wants one.

The normative claims they hold. Adversarial scrutiny of elite institutions serves the public. Trade press that depends on access to the industry it covers operates with a conflict that readers deserve to know. Survivor testimony from people the system ignored for decades deserves a major platform. Long-form magazine writing is an art form whose erosion is a civic loss. Newspapers staffed by working reporters are a public good. Collaborative books between a serious writer and a serious subject can produce real history, not just hagiography. Investigative reporting on Hollywood, on Wall Street, on the prison and death-penalty system, on elite sex-abuse networks, is honorable work. The reporter owes the subject fairness but not protection. The reporter owes the reader the contradictions on the page.

The essentialist claims. A reporter is a different kind of person from a publicist, a content writer, a flack, an influencer, or a pundit. The category is innate and shows in the work. A real trade publication and a captured trade publication are different things, and the difference can be named. A serious collaborative author and a ghost are different professions, and the serious collaborator earns a co-byline because the work she brings is the work the executive cannot do. A survivor’s testimony is a category of evidence with its own integrity, distinct from courtroom evidence, and the memoir form honors it. Hollywood is in essence a reputation-management economy, which is why it punishes exposure so hard. General Electric in its prime was the archetype of postwar managerial capitalism, and its decline marks a real historical break. The death-row system she covered in Atlanta has an intrinsic character that no amount of procedural reform fully changes. Some institutions are good-faith truth-seeking enterprises and others are protection rackets, and the working reporter learns to tell them apart.

The set holds together through shared editors, shared agents, shared awards rooms, shared subjects, and shared enemies. The enemies are the captured trade press, the flacks who pose as reporters, the executives who hire a ghost and want a saint, the cable opinion shouters, the cranks who attack reporting from outside, and the proprietors who killed the newspapers. The friendships and the enmities give the set its sense that it does the real work in a country that has stopped paying for the real work.

Posted in Abuse, Journalism | Comments Off on Journalist Amy Wallace Consistently Chooses Sides

NYT: ‘Why Virginia Roberts Giuffre Would Not Stop Talking About Jeffrey Epstein’

Amy Wallace writes for The New York Times Oct. 19, 2025:

Since 2011, when Ms. Giuffre publicly accused Mr. Epstein (she was the first of his victims to forgo anonymity), she repeatedly revealed — in depositions, lawsuits and interviews — what was done to her in the hope of preventing others’ suffering. Especially in the years before federal prosecutors indicted Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, this parade of pain seemed the only way to keep public attention focused on their depravity and that of their associates.

But the constant telling and retelling of her story had consequences for Virginia — a campaign of intimidation that included death threats and at least one break-in at her family home — and took a devastating toll on her family, not to mention her well-being…

Six months later Ms. Giuffre died by suicide. She was 41 years old. The immediate, and ultimately unanswerable, question: Why?

But what also lingered for me, amid my immense sadness, were other questions: Why do we, as a society, ask those who have been weakened by abuse to do the heaviest lifting — not just calling out the predatory schemes of those who abused them, but also testifying and being deposed under oath, as well as sitting for interviews and news conferences?

And why is it that even when survivors do this, so many of us still don’t give them the benefit of the doubt? Instead of requiring the wounded to endlessly recite their worst memories on repeat, why don’t we bear down more forcefully on those they accuse of wrongdoing? Ms. Giuffre pursued justice in civil court and received settlements from Mr. Epstein, Ms. Maxwell and Prince Andrew. But these alone, in Ms. Giuffre’s mind, did not deliver justice.

If you do anything that harms someone (even if you are right and they terribly wrong), if you make a claim (legal or otherwise) that inflicts damage on others (even if the damage is justly deserved), you will face blowback that may include questions. If you don’t want blowback, if you do not want to be challenged, do not make a claim.

Nobody is forcing people to make claims.

The things that Giuffre said publicly hurt people. Jeffrey Epstein deserved this harm. Others, such as Alan Dershowitz did not. But deserving has nothing to do with how the world works.

If you are weak and you hurt someone powerful, you will likely lose. If you do not want to be destroyed this way, don’t pick battles, even if they are righteous battles.

To make a claim that damages a man is to start a contest, and you cannot start the contest and then demand the privileges of the bystander. You wanted the power to wound him with your assertion. The price of that power is that he gets to swing back at the assertion. A claimant who wants to keep the damage and bar the challenge is asking to be the prosecutor and the judge at once, and that is the one seat no honest process hands out.

The true claim invites challenge too, and that is not a flaw, that is the whole point. If your claim is true, the challenge confirms it. If it is false, the challenge exposes it. Either way the challenge is how the world sorts the true wounding claim from the false one, so the claimant who is right has nothing to lose by it and everything to gain. The only claimant who needs immunity from challenge is the one who suspects his claim will not survive it. So the demand do not scrutinize the accuser is not a shield for the wronged. It is a tell. The wronged are vindicated by scrutiny. Only the unsure need sparing from it.

The adversarial system is this rule with a courthouse built around it. You sue, you open yourself to discovery and cross-examination. You plead truth as your defense against libel, which means you accept that you will have to prove the damaging thing you said. The apparatus exists because somebody worked out long ago that the only fair way to let people make wounding claims is to make them defend the claims, and the only fair way to protect the wounded is to let him fight back. Nobody is dragged into the accusation. The man who files chose to file.

The challenge a claimant has to legally accept is challenge to the claim. He started a contest of evidence, not a license for the foul, so when the answer comes back as the threat or the smear or the move to his weakest point, he can still object, because that is no longer a test of what he said, it is punishment for having said it. He owns the risk of being proven wrong. He does not owe anyone the right to ruin him off the merits.

Life, however, usually does not work this way. I wish it did. I want community and society and sanction to protect those who are unjustly hurt. I want to shame bullies. I hate it when I realize that I have been the bully. Sometimes, when I thought I was the good guy, I was really the bad guy.

How Credible Was Virginia Giuffre?

Grok says June 14, 2026:

Virginia Giuffre (née Roberts) was a highly credible victim of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex trafficking operation on the core facts of her own abuse, but her credibility is more mixed on the full scope of her accusations against other high-profile individuals…
Specific expansions of her story have faced documented challenges:
Alan Dershowitz: Giuffre accused him in court filings (2014 onward) of having sex with her multiple times when she was 16. In November 2022, after mutual litigation, she publicly stated she “may have made a mistake” in identifying him. All related lawsuits were dropped without monetary payment. This is an explicit partial retraction on a major named allegation.
FBI assessment (2019 internal memo, later released): Investigators concluded there was little evidence that Epstein systematically “lent out” underage girls to powerful men beyond his own circle. Two other victims contradicted Giuffre’s claims that they had been lent out. The memo criticized her public interviews for including “shifting accounts” and “sensationalized if not demonstrably inaccurate characterizations,” including false statements about her interactions with the FBI. Prosecutors noted they could not substantiate the broader trafficking-to-elites narrative she promoted.
Prince Andrew allegations: Giuffre claimed three sexual encounters (London in March 2001, New York, and an orgy on Little St. James). The photo and her consistent identification of the London meeting provide significant support. Andrew settled her 2021 civil lawsuit in February 2022 for an undisclosed sum (widely reported in the millions) plus a donation to her charity, without admitting liability. However, some peripheral details (e.g., claims involving New Mexico in earlier accounts or memoir drafts) have been alleged to conflict with her 2016 deposition testimony, and broader “lent out” elements lack strong corroboration. No criminal charges resulted.
Other named individuals: Claims involving figures like Bill Richardson, George Mitchell, Marvin Minsky, Glenn Dubin, etc., were denied and produced no charges or strong independent corroboration. The FBI’s review found limited support for this wider network aspect.

The AP reported Feb. 8, 2026:

NEW YORK (AP) — In 2011 and again in 2019, investigators interviewed Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who in lawsuits and news interviews had accused Epstein of arranging for her to have sexual encounters with numerous men, including Britain’s former Prince Andrew.
Investigators said they confirmed that Giuffre had been sexually abused by Epstein. But other parts of her story were problematic.
Two other Epstein victims who Giuffre had claimed were also “lent out” to powerful men told investigators they had no such experience, prosecutors wrote in a 2019 internal memo.
“No other victim has described being expressly directed by either Maxwell or Epstein to engage in sexual activity with other men,” the memo said.
Giuffre acknowledged writing a partly fictionalized memoir of her time with Epstein containing descriptions of things that didn’t take place. She had also offered shifting accounts in interviews with investigators, they wrote, and had “engaged in a continuous stream of public interviews about her allegations, many of which have included sensationalized if not demonstrably inaccurate characterizations of her experiences.” Those inaccuracies included false accounts of her interactions with the FBI, they said.

Posted in Abuse, Journalism | Comments Off on NYT: ‘Why Virginia Roberts Giuffre Would Not Stop Talking About Jeffrey Epstein’