The Plumb Line: Gadi Eisenkot and the Hero System

Posted on June 24, 2026 by Luke Ford

On the northern border, inside a bomb shelter at Kibbutz Yiftah, a kindergarten runs in shifts. Parents bring children for an hour to play and talk, then take them home, and the next group arrives. Six months earlier a couple opened an espresso cart down the road. People refuse to leave. They make coffee under fire, send their toddlers to a shelter, and call this a normal life. Gadi Eisenkot (b. 1960) walks among them. He has buried a son. He will bury him again every December, the way the bereaved do, and he stands here where the fourth generation of a family still plants itself in the ground that took the third.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) wrote one book that explains this scene better than any field manual. In The Denial of Death he set down a simple, unbearable claim. Man is the animal that knows it will die and cannot live with the knowing. Two terrors press on him. The first is the body, the creature that rots, the meat that fails. The second is harder. The man demands that his life count past the body, that his small span feed something larger that does not end. Culture answers the second terror. Every people builds a hero system, a set of roles a man can fill to earn the feeling that he holds cosmic worth, that his death pours into a vessel that outlives him. The soldier dies and the nation remembers. The remembering is the wage.

Israel built a hero system out of an army, and Eisenkot is among its purest products.

Consider the shape of the man. Second of four children born to Meir and Esther Eisenkot, immigrants from Safi in Morocco, the mother from Casablanca, the father from Marrakesh. A name a clerk may have bent from Azenkot at the dock. A childhood in Eilat, the hot port at the bottom of the country, maritime studies at the local high school, a traditional Mizrahi home far from the Ashkenazi officer class that ran the state. The boy does not inherit a position. He earns one in the Golani Brigade, the infantry that takes the sons of the periphery and gives them a brown beret and a brotherhood. The army is the shul that admits him. It promises what the old shul promised, that a man who serves becomes part of something eternal, that the fallen live forever on the stone walls and in the siren that stops the country once a year. Becker would read the flame and the siren as liturgy. He would be right.

The secular telling resists this. It offers a subtraction story. The army, it says, is the nation minus God, a neutral instrument, steel and training and deterrence, nothing sacred in it. Becker denies the subtraction. The force works because the cult is real. A nation that buried its dead as mere loss, that did not raise them into the eternal, could not ask its sons to die. Deterrence rests on a population that treats the soldier’s death as holy. Take away the holiness and the army falls apart in your hands. You cannot subtract the sacred and keep the gun.

Now take the word that organized his career, and watch it refuse to mean one thing.

Deterrence. In Hebrew, hartaa. For Eisenkot the word carries a doctrine. He built the Dahiya method as a young general, named for the district of Beirut the IDF flattened in 2006. He warned that any village firing on Israel would meet the same fate, that the army would answer with disproportionate force and treat such places as military bases rather than homes. Read through Becker, the doctrine aims at the enemy’s hero system. You do not only kill fighters. You destroy the houses, the grid, the works a people builds to feel that their lives accrete into something lasting. You make continuity impossible and let the terror of meaninglessness do the rest. Deterrence, in Eisenkot’s hand, is the management of another man’s death anxiety.

The same word lives elsewhere and means other things.

A Talmudist hears hartaa and thinks of the fence. The sages built a fence around the Torah, a hedge of small prohibitions set well back from the true edge, so a man deterred from the lesser sin never reaches the greater. Deterrence here guards a soul from itself. It points inward.

A beekeeper hears it and thinks of the sting. The bee that stings the bear dies of the stinging. The hive survives because the cost is paid in the body of the deterrer. Deterrence here is suicide priced as protection, the colony’s permanence bought with the individual’s death.

A central banker hears it and thinks of a sentence spoken in a quiet room that moves a trillion dollars before lunch. The credible threat, the guidance, the rate that need never rise because everyone believes it might. Deterrence here is theater performed so well that the violence stays offstage.

A new man on his first day in the prison yard hears it and walks straight at the largest body in the room. He strikes first so the arithmetic runs in his favor for the years ahead. Deterrence here is a single act of accounting written in blood for an audience of hundreds.

And then the man against whom the apparatus breaks. The martyr. The Hezbollah commander, the Hamas planner, the boy who films a farewell before the belt goes on. He hears hartaa and feels nothing, because deterrence prices death as the cost, and he has come for death as the wage. You cannot raise the price of the thing a man desires. Becker knew this. The strongest hero system on earth is the one that makes death the doorway rather than the end. Against that system the Dahiya doctrine is a bill sent to a house whose owner wanted it burned. Two immortality projects collide, and each is deaf in the other’s currency. Eisenkot spent forty years perfecting a language his deepest enemy does not speak.

One word. Six worlds. Only inside Eisenkot’s does disproportionate force read as mercy, a way to shorten the war and bring his own sons home alive. Inside the martyr’s it reads as the gift he came to receive.

Take a second sacred word, the one he stamped on his party. Yashar. Straight. Upright. Honest. He left the Knesset in June 2025 and founded Yashar in September, a name that makes a moral claim before the platform says a word.

A stonemason hears yashar and reaches for the plumb line, the weighted string that finds true vertical no matter who holds it or what he wishes. Straight is not an opinion. The line obeys the earth.

A Quaker hears it and thinks of plain speech, the yea that means yea, the refusal of the oath because a man’s word should not need swearing twice.

A bond trader hears it and thinks of a straight price, a quote with no hidden markup buried in the spread, the rare desk that does not skim.

The Mizrahi son from Eilat hears it and remembers the officer corps he climbed through, the salons and the family names, and he learns young that straightness is the one credential a man can carry without a pedigree behind it. The crooked need connections. The straight man needs only to keep being straight. For Eisenkot the word is a blade aimed at a culture of arrangements, and he aims it at a prime minister he does not have to name twice.

Now the charged center, the word the others circle. Sacrifice. Achrayut, responsibility, the willingness to take the consequence onto your own body.

The Akedah sits under it. Abraham takes his son up the mountain with the wood and the knife and the fire, and the test is whether a man will give God the thing he loves most. Jewish memory has argued about that mountain for three thousand years. A captain hears sacrifice and thinks of the bridge of a sinking ship, the officer who does not get in the boat. A surgeon hears it at the mortality conference, standing before his colleagues to own the death that happened under his hands, no excuse offered, the consequence carried in the first person.

Eisenkot sat in the war cabinet after October 7, 2023. On December 7 his son Gal Meir Eisenkot (1998-2023), a master sergeant of twenty-five, died in Gaza. A nephew died the next day. A second nephew died the following November. The father stayed at the table for months and then walked out, and when he left politics again in 2025 he said the government is not worthy of his son, nor of the other dead, nor of the hostages. Responsibility, in his mouth, means the man who sends others to die must be fit to carry the dying. The hero system promised that the soldier’s death would feed something eternal and worthy. Eisenkot looked at what received the death and judged the vessel unworthy of the gift. So he set out to replace the vessel. He entered the race for prime minister carrying his son the way the Akedah carries Isaac, except that on this mountain no hand stayed the knife and no ram appeared in the thicket.

How much of this does he see?

He is a doctrinal man, a writer of strategy papers, the author of the Gideon plan and the published IDF strategy. He names his hero system in operational prose better than most scholars name it in theory. He understands deterrence as the steering of an enemy’s will, a short step from the steering of his terror. Yet in public he holds the deepest thing at arm’s length. He says a man must gather strength and look for reasons to live a normal life, that the clock does not turn back. That is the speech of a man keeping the full terror from speaking its name. He will say the country failed his son. He will not say, where anyone can hear, that the system he served his whole life is the same system that took the boy, that the army that made him eternal also made him a name on a wall. The clear-eyed strategist goes quiet there. Becker would not call this a flaw. He would call it the vital lie that lets a wounded man keep standing, and he might note that the man chose, of all the lies on offer, the one that sends him back to work.

Three coordinates, and the essay closes.

The shape of the hero is the straight line. The plumb line dropped from a fixed point, true regardless of the hand that holds it. Yashar. The man whose entire claim is that he does not bend for faction or family or fear, that you may set him against any wall and he will still read level. A nation tired of arrangements wants a plumb line for a prime minister.

The unnamed rival is not the prime minister, whom everyone names. The unnamed rival is the martyr. He is the enemy Eisenkot can never deter, because the deterrer trades in the fear of death and the martyr has already spent that fear and found it counterfeit. Every doctrine the general built assumes the other man wants to live. The one enemy who does not want to live is the one the doctrine cannot touch, and that enemy now sets the terms of every war the general ever fought.

The cost the ledger cannot price is Gal. Deterrence is an accounting. It prices the enemy’s house and bridge and transformer and weighs the bill against the war it prevents. Eisenkot kept that ledger for forty years and kept it well, and the border stayed quiet, and the espresso cart opened. The ledger carried every cost but one. It never carried the deterrer’s own child. He paid that line on December 7, 2023, and he pays it again each December at a coffee cart on a border he spent his life making silent, and there is no entry for it, because the book was built to price the enemy’s dead and was never made to hold his own.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on The Plumb Line: Gadi Eisenkot and the Hero System

Bitachon

Posted on June 24, 2026 by Luke Ford

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) said a man builds his life on two fears he will not name aloud. The first is that he dies. The second runs deeper. It is that his dying counts for nothing, that he goes into the ground as one more animal, his name gone in a generation, his span a rounding error in an arithmetic that does not notice him. Culture answers both fears at once. It hands a man a hero system, a set of rules by which he earns a place the grave cannot cancel. Play the part well and you join the things that outlast you. The nation. The faith. The bloodline. The record. Becker called this the causa sui project, the wish to father yourself, to be your own cause and so slip the animal fact that something else made you and something else will unmake you.

Benjamin Netanyahu (b. 1949) builds his on a death with a date. July 4, 1976. Entebbe. His older brother Yonatan Netanyahu (1946-1976) leads the assault unit onto the tarmac in Uganda, frees the hostages, and dies at thirty, the only Israeli soldier killed in the raid. The operation succeeds. The hero falls. From that morning the younger brother carries a fixed point in the sky to steer by, a man who died well in the one way the family taught him to honor, and who can never be argued with, outgrown, or surpassed. Three years later Benjamin founds an institute and names it for the dead man. He spends the rest of his life building a wall high enough that the death which took his brother cannot reach the rest.

Behind the brother stands the father. Benzion Netanyahu (1910-2012) serves as secretary to Ze’ev Jabotinsky (1880-1940), the hard man of Revisionist Zionism, and then gives his long life to the study of the Spanish Inquisition. His scholarship carries one lesson into the home like cold air through a door. The killing of Jews is not an accident in history. It is the climate of history. The Jew who trusts the goodwill of the nations dies of that trust. The father lives to a hundred and two, exacting, sparing with praise, a man who buries one son and judges the other for the rest of his days. A boy raised in that house learns young that softness is a casualty list and that the world is a corridor with knives in the walls.

Out of the brother and the father comes the hero system. Its sacred word is bitachon.

The official story leaves the terror out. In the official story Netanyahu is Mr. Security, the cool product of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Boston Consulting Group, the commando turned strategist who reads the threat board the way an actuary reads a mortality table. He warns the world about Iran for thirty years. He holds up the cartoon bomb at the United Nations in 2012 and draws the red line with a marker, the rational man explaining risk to a room that will not do the arithmetic. He runs the economy, courts the technology sector, signs accords with Gulf monarchs. He is the adult in the region. This is the subtraction story, the self with the fear taken out, the guardian as a calculating machine who happens to be right about danger. Put the fear back and the machine turns into a man who cannot stop, because the thing he guards against is not Hamas and not Iran. It is the corridor with knives in the walls, and the corridor has no end, so the guarding has no end, so the guardian can never be relieved of his post.

Bitachon is the right word to follow, because bitachon does not mean one thing. In Hebrew the word carries both the rifle and the prayer. The Ministry of Defense is Misrad HaBitachon, the house of security in the sense of tanks and fences and intercepted missiles. Yet bitachon is also the old religious word for trust, the bitachon of Bahya ibn Paquda’s Chovot HaLevavot, the trust a man places in God when he has done what he can and lets the rest fall where God sends it. The same four letters hold the armored division and the open hand. The fight over which meaning rules is the fight over the country, and it runs straight through Netanyahu’s coalition this summer, where the Haredi parties threaten to bring down the Knesset rather than draft their yeshiva students. To the secular security state, bitachon means every able body in uniform. To the man in the study hall in Bnei Brak, bitachon means the opposite. The soldiers do not hold the line. The Torah holds the line, and the student who learns it holds more of the line than the gunner who guards him. One word. Two armies. Neither can hear the other, because each hears his own hero system in the sound.

Watch the word travel further, into rooms that have never heard of the Knesset.

The trauma surgeon works nights in a county hospital where the gurneys come in two at a time on Friday. For him bitachon is a pulse that holds under his hands, a closed abdomen, four units of blood that arrive before the pressure drops. He counts security in minutes. He does not believe in total anything. He sends a man home alive and knows the man will come back, or another man will, and that the work is to win the hour, not the war. A surgeon who demanded a victory that ended all bleeding forever would lose his mind by spring. He learns to let the patient go at the door and call it a good outcome, which is a thing Netanyahu’s hero system cannot allow, because at the door is exactly where the brother died.

The reinsurance actuary in Zurich means something else again. For him security is a book of risk so wide that no single catastrophe can sink it. He prices the tail. He models the earthquake, the pandemic, the hundred-year flood, and he sleeps because the math sleeps for him. He never speaks of victory. He speaks of solvency. His craft assumes that the disaster comes, that you cannot prevent it, and that wisdom lies in being large and diversified enough to absorb it and write next year’s policies. A nation run by an actuary would accept that some attack gets through and would build to survive the getting through. Netanyahu cannot run on that arithmetic. A single breach, on a single October morning, breaks the promise the system exists to keep, and the promise is not statistical. It is that the death does not come here, not to these people, not again.

The herder on the dry edge of the Sahel carries a third bitachon in his head. Security is the size of the herd, the depth of the well, the number of cousins who will saddle up if a raid takes his cattle. Wealth walks on four legs and can be driven off in a night, so safety lives in kin and in the certainty that an injury will be answered. His is the oldest security of all, the security of deterrence through vengeance, and it is closer to Netanyahu’s than the surgeon’s or the actuary’s. The Israeli doctrine of disproportionate response, the long memory, the answered raid, all of it would be familiar to the herder. The difference is that the herder knows his herd will shrink in a bad year and grow in a good one and that no year is final. Netanyahu wants a year that ends the cycle. The herder would tell him there is no such year. There is only the next dry season and the cousins you can still call.

The Carthusian in his cell would not use the word at all without laughing at the rest of us. Security, to the contemplative, is the soul, and the soul is the only thing no army can take and no October can breach. The body is on loan and short-dated. To spend a life fortifying the body and the city of bodies is, to him, the great distraction, the building of higher walls around a house already condemned. His bitachon is the religious one, trust in God so complete that the loss of everything else cannot reach it. He stands at the far pole from the security state, and he stands, without meaning to, beside the yeshiva student in Bnei Brak, who tells the recruiters the same thing in a different accent. The study hall is the cell. The Torah is the wall. God is the only defense ministry that has never lost a war.

Now bring in the shopkeeper, first in her family with papers, who keeps the citizenship in a drawer she can reach in the dark and cash she can carry in a coat. Her security is portable and private. She does not trust the state to save her, because the state is the thing that let her grandparents down, and so she builds an exit and a second exit and tells no one. Hers is the diaspora bitachon, the suitcase by the door, and Netanyahu’s project is the answer to it and the rebuke of it at once. The State of Israel exists to retire the suitcase, to make the exit unnecessary, to give the Jew a wall he owns instead of a coat he flees in. The shopkeeper hears the promise and keeps the coat anyway. She has heard promises.

Set these men and women in a row and the word bitachon bends in the light of each hero system like a coin held at different angles. The surgeon’s hour, the actuary’s book, the herder’s kin, the monk’s soul, the shopkeeper’s drawer, the gunner’s fence, the scholar’s page. Each one is sane inside its own house. Each one would call the others reckless or deluded or naive. Netanyahu’s house is the gunner’s, raised to the scale of a nation and shadowed by a Warsaw childhood that was never his own but came to him through his father’s books as if it had been. His security is real security against real enemies who say in what they intend. That is the part the comfortable abroad keep failing to grant him. The terror is not invented. The corridor does have knives. What the frame adds is the rest of the sentence. The knives are also the answer to a deeper dread, the dread Becker named, and a man who has organized his soul around standing watch will find a watch to stand even when the immediate threat recedes, because to step down from the wall is to admit that the wall was never the whole story.

This is why the second sacred word is victory, and why it must be total.

After October 7, 2023, Netanyahu promises the country total victory over Hamas. Hold the phrase against the others. The surgeon’s victory is a discharge, not a cure that lasts forever. The actuary never claims victory, only another year solvent. The herder’s victory is the recovered herd and the respected name, until the next raid. The climber on the rock face, free of rope, has a victory that lasts exactly until he is down and alive, and then it resets at the foot of the next wall, and he would tell you that a man who thought he had conquered the mountain for good is a man about to fall off it. Total victory is not a military aim. It is a theological one. It is the demand that the threat end, all of it, forever, so that the death which took the brother can be declared defeated and the watchman can at last come down. No campaign delivers it, because the enemy on the other side of total victory is not an army. It is mortality wearing an army’s uniform. So the war does not end. It cannot end, because its ending is the thing the hero system exists to postpone.

How much of this does the man see?

A great deal, on one floor of the building. Netanyahu is the most self-aware strategist of his generation about threat. He knows he is playing Churchill. He chooses the role with open eyes, cites the 1930s on purpose, casts himself as the one who reads the dictator’s intent while the salons scoff. He understands deterrence, signaling, the use of fear as a tool of statecraft. Few living men read the board with his cold attention. He says Iran will never have nuclear weapons and he has built thirty years of policy on the sentence.

On the floor below, the lights are off. The indispensability is the tell. He does not leave. He refuses a commission of inquiry into the failure of October 7, the worst day, the breach of the one promise, and the refusal has a shape Becker would know on sight. A commission writes a verdict. A verdict ends a story and assigns a death, the political death of the man it blames. The corruption trial has the same shape from the other side, a story that must not be allowed to reach its final page, kept open year after year because a closed book is a sealed fate. A man who keeps every game in play keeps the final whistle from blowing, and as long as it does not blow, the death waits in the tunnel and does not come onto the field. He sees the threat with total clarity. He does not see, or will not say, that his refusal to be replaceable is his own causa sui, the attempt to be the cause of his country’s survival so completely that his removal becomes unthinkable, which is a man’s way of making himself the thing that does not die.

Three coordinates, then, to fix him by.

The shape of the hero is the watchman who will not be relieved. He is the son who lived when the better son fell, and a man who survives the hero must spend his life earning the survival, guarding everyone, standing the post the dead man cannot stand. The wall is real and the watch is real and the gratitude owed to such men is real. The cost is that the watchman comes to need the night.

The unnamed rival is not Hamas and not Iran, not Yair Lapid or Naftali Bennett or Benny Gantz or the prosecutors. The unnamed rival is Yoni, fixed at thirty on the tarmac at Entebbe, the brother who died well and so can never fail, never age, never stand trial, never lose an election, never disappoint the father. A living man cannot defeat a dead hero. The dead hero has already won the only victory that counts and left the field. Benjamin Netanyahu has spent fifty years answering a man who cannot answer back, and behind that man a father who rationed approval and outlived his finest son. No term of office is long enough to settle that account, because the creditor is in the ground and does not send receipts.

The cost the ledger cannot price is the rest of it. Netanyahu prices everything the security state can price. Seats. Deterrence. Intercepted missiles. The share of Gaza his maps show his army holding. The ledger is honest within its columns and it is vast. What it cannot enter is the Palestinian dead counted as the dead, the hostages’ subtracted days, his own son Avner’s wedding called off twice under threat of fire, the family not exempt by his own account, the social fabric of a country torn along the seam between the gunner’s bitachon and the scholar’s. The security state can price almost anything. It cannot price the one thing it was built to deny, which is that the watchman is mortal too, that the wall outlives the man on it, and that the brother is not coming back no matter how high the wall is raised or how total the victory is declared.

Posted in Benjamin Netanyahu | Comments Off on Bitachon

Marco Rubio’s Hero System

Posted on June 24, 2026 by Luke Ford

The map hangs behind his right shoulder. May 5, 2026, the State Department, and Marco Rubio (b. May 28, 1971) stands beside the new commander of Southern Command for a photograph. The thing framed above the two men is the island of Cuba. A reporter asks him afterward why he chose that backdrop. He gives the logistical answer. Cuba falls inside Southern Command, he says, the closest part of it to the United States, and he thought a picture there fitting. The answer is true and it explains nothing. Every Cuban in Miami reads the photograph the way it asks to be read. The son of a banquet bartender and a hotel maid who left Havana in 1956 now carries the seal of the most powerful nation on earth, and he has arranged for the island his parents fled to stand at his shoulder while the shutter falls.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) gives us the angle. A man knows he will die. He also fears to live as a separate self, to stand on his own legs in the open with no script around him. Otto Rank (1884-1939) named these the death fear and the life fear, and Becker built The Denial of Death on the pair. The first dread is annihilation, the going out without a trace. The second is individuation, the exposure of the small self that has to choose and might be wrong and ends anyway. A hero system answers both at once. It hands the man a drama larger than his body and a part to play inside it, so his striving counts toward something that does not rot, and so he never has to stand alone because the drama stands around him.

Rubio’s hero system arrives complete in the family story, and he has told it so many times the telling is part of the office. A bartender and a maid carried a boy out of a dying island so the boy might become what the regime could never permit. To rise is to vindicate the crossing. To matter is to settle the account of 1956. The drama is the exodus, the regime is the adversary the cosmos requires, and the boy’s whole life converts his parents’ menial labor into national consequence. Both terrors quiet inside that story. Death loses its sting because the name endures in the American record. The life fear loses its bite because the man never stands alone; he stands for the parents, the exiles, the island.

The deflationary account is easy to assemble, and his enemies have kept it polished for a decade. Little Marco. The thirsty man who lunged for the water bottle during the 2013 response to the State of the Union. The scripted man Chris Christie (b. 1962) caught in February 2016 in New Hampshire, looping the same memorized line about Barack Obama (b. 1961) four times while the machine showed through the skin. The senator who joined the Gang of Eight on immigration and then ran from his own bill. The man who swore he would not seek reelection and sought it. The candidate who called Donald Trump (b. 1946) a dangerous con man with small hands, then endorsed him, then served him, and now runs a foreign policy that buries the internationalism he once preached. Subtract the heroism and you get an ambitious man who bends toward power. That is the subtraction story, and it follows him into every room.

Becker’s reply is that the subtraction misses the terror under the bending. The man bends because he cannot let the crossing mean nothing. Strip the hero system and you do not find a cynic. You find someone holding the line against the second death, the death that comes when the parents’ sacrifice turns out to have bought an ordinary career and a forgotten name.

Watch the sacred words, because each one means a different thing inside a different cosmos, and Rubio’s meanings make sense only inside his.

Take freedom. For Rubio freedom is the empty space where Castro’s state is not, the negative liberty of the refugee, the absence of the boot. Fidel Castro (1926-2016) is the devil of his cosmos, and freedom is what the devil took and what America restores. Carry the word elsewhere and it changes shape. For a Havana dissident who stayed and went to prison, freedom is not the exit but the voice, the body that refuses to move, the cell as the place where a man is most himself. For a Trappist monk freedom is obedience, the surrender of will, release from the tyranny of the self that Rubio works so hard to assert. For a Galician fisherman freedom might be the boat paid off and no man set over him. For a Salt Lake City ward bishop, the faith Rubio’s family briefly kept when he was a boy in Las Vegas, freedom is agency exercised toward the family sealed across eternity. Same five letters, five different heavens. Rubio’s freedom is legible only where the regime is satanic and the crossing is exodus.

Take faith. Rubio’s road runs Catholic, then Mormon in the desert, then Catholic again, and now he takes communion at Mass and also worships at an evangelical congregation, and he calls the Pope the vicar of Christ. Faith for him is the floor that holds when the death fear rises, the cosmos that does not give way. Move the word. For a Greek Orthodox abbot on Mount Athos faith is unceasing prayer and the rejection of the world’s politics, and a secretary of state who fuses the cross to the flag might look to him like a man worshipping the nation. For a Bolivian tin miner faith holds the Virgin above ground and the devil below it without strain, the two kept apart by the mouth of the shaft. For a Swiss reinsurance actuary the word names a tolerance band on a model, a hedge, nothing that survives the grave. For a Maronite priest in Beirut faith is the survival of a cornered people, the liturgy sung as defiance. Each names a different hero. Rubio’s faith underwrites the American errand and gives the crossing a sacred grammar.

Take family. A banquet bartender, a hotel maid, and the debt the son owes them. Rubio’s hero system turns the son into the redemption of the parents’ labor, and the speeches return to it the way a tongue returns to a tooth. Carry family across the world. For a Sicilian grandmother family is the dead at the table, the line that will not break, the mass and the long memory, and the single person counts for nothing against the line. For a Hmong clan elder family is the soul-cord and the ancestors who must be fed or the living sicken. For an Afrikaner on land held five generations, family is the farm kept against the loss of a country he thought was his. For a Korean shipyard man’s son, the debt is filial piety paid by becoming the firm. Rubio’s version is the maid’s boy who converts hotel linens and banquet trays into the seal of the United States. The conversion is the heroism, and it answers the terror, because the crossing meant something the moment the boy rose.

Take the nation. The greatest country in the history of the world, the new American century, the redeemer state. Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June 2026 he set the purpose of American policy as the defense of our people, our homeland, our sovereignty, our civilization, our future. For Rubio the nation is the vehicle that outlives the man. He dies; he pours himself into the American story and rides its endurance past his own end. Move the word again. For a Quebec sovereigntist the nation is the one that has no state yet, the language held against the anglophone sea, and America is the thing he resists. For a Kurdish peshmerga the nation is the betrayed promise, the flag with no border, the mountains the only ally. For an Icelander the nation is a home of a few hundred thousand, intimate, no empire at all. Rubio loves America the convert’s way, hotter than the native, because the island he can never reclaim has been replaced by a continent that took the family in.

The Trump turn is the pressure that tests the whole structure. The man who called him a danger now serves him, and there are two readings, and Becker lets us hold both. One reading is surrender, the subtraction story confirmed, the principled senator traded for the useful instrument. The other reading is that the hero system found a bigger vehicle than the one it had. Rubio poured the exile dream into Trump’s machine because the machine might do what a career of McCain-style speeches never did. By the spring of 2026 the United States has captured Maduro in Caracas, struck Iran, leaned on India and Pakistan back from a nuclear war, and sanctioned the military holding company that runs the Cuban economy, the one Rubio calls the heart of the regime. He gets to be the Cuban who reaches back across ninety miles of water and lays a hand on the island. The man who plays the effective servant of power tells himself the crossing demanded it, and the map on the wall behind his shoulder is the proof he offers himself.

How much of this does he see. He is fluent in his own story, fluent enough to have written An American Son, and he performs the exodus with a craftsman’s control. He knows the death fear; the Catholic reads the saints and the last things. What the Christie moment exposed is the seam, the hero so fused to his lines that under pressure the lines run on without him and the machine shows. He sees the family story to the bottom. The thing he keeps from himself sits one drawer lower. He keeps closed the question of whether the freedom he wants for Cuba is the dissident’s freedom or his own, whether the island is a country of living people or a stage built for the settling of a family account, and whether serving the man who humiliated him has converted the witness into an instrument. He keeps that ledger shut, and the office helps him keep it shut, because the work never stops long enough for the question to be asked.

Three coordinates, then.

The shape of the hero is the redeemer son. The maid’s boy who carries the seal of the superpower and reaches back across the water to the island his parents fled, to close the account opened in 1956. The exile who becomes the empire’s voice and tells himself the empire serves the exile.

The unnamed rival is Donald Trump. Castro is the devil of the cosmos, the necessary adversary, but the rival is the man who won by breaking every rule the hero system honored, called him small and thirsty in front of the country, and beat him, and whom Rubio now serves. Trump is the significance Rubio wanted, taken without the dues Rubio paid. To serve him is to grant that the rival read the world right, that power rewards the man who refuses the script, and then to spend the rival’s power on the crossing the script was supposed to redeem. The rival sits one office up and signs the orders, and behind the rival, fainter, stands the other rival Rubio never names, the cousin who stayed on the island and suffered and holds the moral weight of the body that did not run.

The cost the ledger cannot price is the candor he spent to buy the vehicle. There was a Rubio in 2016 who could call the man a danger and let that stand as the last word, and that man is gone, traded for access to the machine that might free Havana. The deeper cost is that he can never learn whether he serves Cuba or serves the crossing. The bartender and the maid bought him a name. He spends it on a power that may or may not free the island, and the line between liberation and vindication stays dark to him, which is the one thing the long rise was meant to light.

Posted in Marco Rubio | Comments Off on Marco Rubio’s Hero System

Being Right: A Hero-System Essay on Ted Cruz

Posted on June 24, 2026 by Luke Ford

Cleveland, July 2016. Ted Cruz (b. 1970) stands at the lectern of the Republican convention and will not say the words the hall came to hear. He congratulates the nominee on winning. He talks about freedom. He tells the delegates to vote their conscience and stay true to the Constitution. He does not say the name. The men near the front understand before he finishes the sentence, and the floor turns. The boos roll up from the New York delegation and spread. Security walks Heidi Cruz (b. 1972) out for her safety while men shout at her. Cruz stands in it. He has the cadence of a champion debater who has just delivered the closing argument and watched the jury rise up to convict his client anyway. He keeps the principle and loses the room. Both at once, in front of cameras, by choice.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) gives us the lens. A man builds a hero system to deny that he dies. He needs to feel that he counts in a drama larger than his own short life, that he earns a place that outlasts the body. The hero system tells him what counts and how to win at it. Watch a man under pressure and you see what immortality he reaches for. Cruz reaches for one thing his whole life. He reaches to be right.

Two terrors press on him. The first is the ordinary terror, the fear of vanishing without a mark. The second is sharper and his alone. It is the terror of being merely clever. Smart and unloved. The boy who wins every argument and empties every room. Cruz organizes his life so that the second terror cannot touch him, and the design is elegant, and it does not work.

Start with the subtraction. Rafael Cruz (b. 1939) leaves Cuba, leaves Batista’s jails and then Castro’s revolution, and lands in Texas with a hundred dollars sewn into his underwear and no English. Years later, married, a small son at home, he leaves again. He walks out on the family and flies to Houston to live the life he wants. Then a man at a Baptist church brings him to God, and Rafael comes back. He returns born again, forgiven, restored, the prodigal who was received without a hearing. The boy grows up inside that story. The lesson under the lesson is that belonging is not safe. It can be withdrawn and it can be granted, and the grown men around him talk about grace, about a love you receive because God gives it and not because you argued your way to it.

Ted draws a different lesson. He decides belonging will be earned. He memorizes the Constitution as a teenager and recites it for civic groups around Houston. He learns the founding the way other boys learn batting averages. He goes to Princeton and wins at debate at a level that frightens his opponents. He goes to Harvard Law and clerks for William Rehnquist (1924-2005). He argues before the Supreme Court nine times as Solicitor General of Texas. Every credential is a brick, and the wall they build says the same thing. I am right, and because I am right I cannot be sent away. He turns the father’s grace into a courtroom. He will not be received. He will win.

This is where the sacred words start to bend, because the words Cruz lives by mean one thing inside his hero system and other things everywhere else. Take courage. Cruz treats courage as the willingness to be right alone. In 2013 he holds the Senate floor for twenty-one hours against a government funding bill, against his own party’s leadership, and at one point he reads Green Eggs and Ham aloud to his daughters watching at home. The performance draws contempt from the men around him and devotion from the men who send him money. To Cruz the contempt confirms the courage. The lonelier the stand, the truer the brief. He writes a memoir and calls it A Time for Truth, and the title carries the whole theology. Courage is dissent recorded against the room, filed for a vindication that comes later.

That is not what courage means to the combat medic. To the medic courage is staying when every animal signal says run, and staying not to be right but to drag the wounded man back by his vest. The medic earns his immortality inside a brotherhood that will say, for the rest of their lives, he did not leave us. Being right has nothing to do with it. There is no argument to win. There is only the man bleeding and the choice to stay.

It is not what courage means to the hospice nurse either. She sits with the dying through the long afternoon when there is no fight left and no victory available and no record being kept. Her courage is presence without triumph. She wins nothing. She witnesses. The immortality she reaches for lives in the family who remember that someone held their father’s hand at the end, and it asks her to surrender the very thing Cruz cannot release, the need to come out ahead.

The Talmudic scholar shares more of Cruz’s shape and reveals the trap inside it. He preserves the minority opinion in the text. The ruling went against Rabbi Eliezer, and the page keeps Rabbi Eliezer anyway, his dissent carried forward for two thousand years so that some student in a far century might read it and say he was right after all. Here courage is being right against the room and trusting the centuries. Cruz wants this. He wants to be the dissent that history vindicates. The trouble is that the scholar accepts the ruling while he records the dissent. He bows to the majority and keeps his argument alive inside the bow. Cruz cannot make that peace. He needs the vindication now, in the room, from the men who booed, and a hero system that needs to win the present cannot wait the way the page can wait.

Freedom splits the same way. For Cruz freedom is the Constitution held as a fixed text, liberty as the chain that binds the government and frees the man, the exile’s inheritance from a father who lost a country to a strongman. Liberty is law. The fence around power.

The Carthusian monk hears the word and means the opposite. His freedom is obedience. He surrenders his will to the rule and the abbot and to God, whose pronoun he capitalizes and whose service he calls perfect liberty, and he finds his release from the tyranny of his own appetites by handing the appetites away. To him Cruz’s liberty, the liberty to want and to keep and to be left alone, sounds like a fresh prison.

The balsero hears it in the body. He is the Cuban who put to sea on a raft of inner tubes and lashed boards, ninety miles of open water toward Florida, freedom as the thing you might drown reaching for, freedom you can taste as salt. Rafael’s freedom. To the balsero, liberty is not a brief about the commerce clause. It is the absence of the man who can take your son and your house and your tongue, and you weigh it against the sharks because the other shore is worse. Cruz inherits this freedom and translates it into citations, and the translation gains a senator and loses the salt.

Even the word fight, which Cruz wears as a brand, comes apart on contact. He sells himself as a fighter and means a man who never folds an argument. The aikido master means the opposite by the same word. His fighting takes the force of the larger man and turns it past him so that the attacker throws himself to the mat. Strength used against strength is failure. The chess grandmaster means a third thing, the win seen twenty moves out, the sacrifice of a piece now for a mate the opponent cannot yet read on the board. Cruz fights like the first man and admires himself for it, and the men who beat him fight like the other two.

So the sacred words are not shared currency. Courage, freedom, fight. Each one means what it means only inside the hero system that issues it, and Cruz’s system issues a hard and lonely version of all three, a version where the prize is to be proven correct and the proof requires an audience that will not give him the verdict.

Then comes the test the design cannot survive. Donald Trump (b. 1946) descends the escalator and runs a campaign on a different theology. Trump does not argue. He does not need to be right, and he does not pretend to be, and the crowds love him for it in a way they never love the man with the memorized Constitution. Trump offers an older immortality than Cruz’s, the immortality of the dominant animal, vitality that needs no brief. He calls Cruz “Lyin’ Ted.” He spreads a story about Rafael and the Kennedy assassination. He mocks Heidi’s face next to a photograph of his own wife. He goes at the father and the wife, the two people the whole hero system exists to protect, and he wins.

Cruz fights him with the only weapons he owns, the better argument, the cleaner record, the sharper recitation, and the weapons fail because Trump is not playing the game where those weapons score. The room does not want the man who is right. It wants the man who is alive. Cruz stands at the convention and keeps his principle, vote your conscience, and the room throws him out.

And then, months later, he endorses. The man who called Trump a pathological liar and a serial philanderer and worse campaigns for him, raises money for him, becomes one of his most reliable votes, flies to see him, defends him through two impeachments and after January 6. The hero system built to make belonging unwithdrawable folds in front of the one rival it cannot beat, and Cruz defects into the rival’s system to stay near the source of life. He decides he would rather be close to power and wrong about Trump than be right about Trump and finished. Becker tells us why. A man will trade almost anything, including the thing he calls his honor, to keep his place in the drama that lets him feel he counts.

How much of this does Cruz see. He is far too smart to miss it, and the tell is the over-explanation. He writes a legal brief for his own conduct. The endorsement was about the Supreme Court, about the country, about the cause above his personal grievance, about putting the movement before his pride. The brief is good. Parts of it are true. A senator can serve the cause he believes in while the man who runs it disgusts him, and reasonable people make that trade. The brief is also exactly what a man produces when he needs to keep his self-respect and his proximity to power at the same time, and the polish is the proof of the strain. The man who reads Green Eggs and Ham on the Senate floor knows when he is performing. He knows what he traded. He has decided the trade keeps him alive in the only register that pays him, and he has filed the paperwork that lets him not look at it straight.

Three coordinates, to close.

The shape of the hero. Cruz is the man who would win the argument against death if death would take the stand. He treats every withheld thing, the verdict, the nomination, the love of the room, as a brief he can win with the right citation delivered with enough force. He learned as a boy that belonging is granted and withdrawn, and instead of trusting the grant the way his father’s church taught, he resolved to compel it. He prosecutes the universe and waits for the ruling in his favor.

The unnamed rival. Trump is the named rival, the one the cameras caught. The unnamed rival is older and closer. It is the boy in the back of the class who was loved without being right, the father who walked out and came home and was forgiven without a hearing, the grace that Rafael received and Ted refused to receive and tried instead to earn. Cruz’s true opponent is the unearned thing. He cannot litigate his way to it. He has spent a life trying, and the harder he argues the further it moves.

The cost the ledger cannot price. Lindsey Graham (b. 1955) makes the joke that everyone repeats. If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial were in the Senate, no one would convict you. The joke is cruel and it is the bill. Every brief he won and the room that emptied anyway. The colleagues who respect the mind and cannot stand the man. The wife walked out of an arena under guard while he kept his principle for one more night and surrendered it before the next election. He built the whole apparatus to make himself impossible to send away, and he is the man his peers would pay to see gone. He wanted to be right because he believed right was the price of love. He paid it in full, every year, and the love did not come, and the ledger has no column for the thing he was buying.

Posted in Ted Cruz | Comments Off on Being Right: A Hero-System Essay on Ted Cruz

The Man at the Gate

Posted on June 24, 2026 by Luke Ford

A secure room at Mar-a-Lago, January 3, 2026. Screens line one wall. Senior officers stand near Donald Trump (b. 1946) and watch a live feed from Caracas. Delta operators move through a compound and take Nicolás Maduro (b. 1962) alive. Stephen Miller (b. 1985) stands at the edge of the room and says little, which is rare for him.

Two days later he sits across from Jake Tapper (b. 1969). He does not hedge. He tells Tapper the world runs on strength, on force, on power, and calls these the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.

A month after that, Minneapolis. Immigration agents shoot a man named Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse. Miller gets to the cameras first and calls the dead man a would-be assassin. Then the videos circulate and he walks it back. The pattern is the man. Speak before the facts settle, speak hard, hold the line, give ground only when the ground gives way under you.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) wrote The Denial of Death in 1973. Man knows he will die. No animal carries the knowledge the way man carries it. The knowledge would freeze him, so he builds a hero system, a scheme of meaning that lets him feel he counts in a cosmos that will outlast him. He earns significance by serving something that does not die. The faith. The work. The bloodline. The nation. Becker takes the comforting falsehood at the center of each such scheme and names it a vital lie. Every culture is a hero system. Every man needs one. The need is not weakness. It is the price of knowing too much.

Once God held the cosmos and a man knew his place by birth and by the order above him. That order receded. What remains when the heavens empty is the problem Becker names. A man must still find a way to count past his own death, and now he must build the way himself. He reaches for whatever will outlast him. For some that is the species. For some the market. For Miller it is the people, bounded and continuous, persisting through time the way a family persists.

When Miller says the world runs on strength, he names a sacred word. The word splinters the moment it leaves his mouth.

A hospice nurse in Cleveland hears strength and thinks of the hours she sits with a dying man who has no family left, holding his hand so he does not cross alone. Strength to her is staying when everything in the body says leave. A Benedictine monk under a vow of stability hears strength and thinks of the cloister wall he entered at twenty and will not pass again until they carry him out. His strength is to stay in one place for life and let the staying work on him. A Kurdish fighter on a ridge above Sinjar hears strength and thinks of the rifle and the ground he will not give.

These three would not know one another’s strength. The nurse might call the fighter’s strength a failure of tenderness. The fighter might call the nurse’s strength a luxury of the safe. The monk might call both of them men who have not learned to be still. Each is a hero in a scheme the other two cannot enter. Becker’s point holds. The word is not a thing in the world. It is a role inside a scheme of meaning, and the scheme tells the man what counts as the heroic shape of the word.

Miller’s strength is the strength of the gate. The man at the gate holds the line between the people inside and the dissolution outside. He decides who enters. He does not flinch when the deciding turns ugly, because the alternative, as he reads it, is the slow death of a people who stop being a people once anyone at all can walk in and become one of them.

Home is his second sacred word, and it splinters wider than the first.

A Filipina who cleans apartments in Dubai and wires the wages to Cebu hears home and means the place she had to leave to keep it standing. Home is the thing she funds from a distance and may not live in again. A deaf couple in Rochester who choose a deaf child hear home and mean a language made with the hands, a belonging carried without a drop of shared blood, a people joined by what they share and not by where they came from. A woman in Nuuk hears home and means seventy thousand Greenlanders on the largest island on earth who would like to decide their own future, and who have just been told by a man in Washington that strength governs the world and the island should be American.

For Miller home is the homeland, and the homeland can sicken. It has a border the way a body has skin. What crosses without permission reads to him as infection. The figure turns a question of policy into a question of survival, and a man will defend his body in ways he never defends an argument.

Here the essay reaches the part it would rather skip. Miller descends from Jews who ran from the Russian pogroms and later from the shadow of the Holocaust. His family crossed a border to live. A relative of his said so in public, with heat, and called him a hypocrite for it. Becker does not call it hypocrisy. He calls it the logic of terror finding a new object. The annihilation his ancestors fled, the erasure of a whole people, did not end with their crossing. It went looking for a new home in the grandson and found one. The man who carries the memory of a people nearly wiped out can build his whole scheme around never being weak again, never standing at anyone’s mercy again, holding the gate so hard that no one will ever hold it against him. The refugee’s grandson becomes the gate. The terror did not disappear. It changed its address.

How much of this does he see? The reporting gives two readings. In one he is a troll who learned to love the mask until the mask became the face. In another he is a true believer who means every word, with no daylight between the man on television and the man at home. Becker frames the harder question. Can a man see his own hero system as a hero system, as one vital lie among many, and keep serving it with his eyes open? Few can. The post rewards certainty and punishes doubt. A man at the gate who wonders aloud whether the people inside are worth more than the people outside does not keep the post. So the role selects for men who do not ask. Whether Miller cannot ask or will not, the outside cannot say.

The men and women who oppose him run hero systems of their own, and Becker strips the halo off those too. The open gate carries its own promise of immortality, a single human family with no inside and no outside, every stranger already a neighbor, death undone by a love wide enough to cover the species. A beautiful scheme. Also a vital lie, because no man loves the species. A man loves his own and widens the circle by effort and never finishes the work. The cosmopolitan who calls Miller cruel defends a scheme in which his own goodness is the thing that does not die. Becker lets neither side keep its innocence.

So the shape of the hero. Miller is the gatekeeper, not the warrior who wins his glory in the open field. The man at the door, indoors, who gets no parade and wants none, who takes the hatred so the people behind him sleep without sparing him a thought. He tells ICE officers they carry immunity and that anyone who lays a hand on them commits a felony. The gatekeeper arms the other gatekeepers. His heroism is the heroism of the threshold, and the threshold is the oldest sacred ground there is, the line between the camp and the dark.

Then the unnamed rival. Every hero keeps an enemy hero he refuses to name a hero. Miller’s is not the cartel or the killer. Those are easy. His rival is the striving newcomer who arrives with nothing, works, and inside a generation raises children more American than the natives. That figure shows the people can be joined and the gate need not have closed. He threatens the whole scheme, because if the stranger turns into one of us by living among us, then the people were never a body with a skin and the gate was never a wall around a living thing. Miller’s grandfather might have been that rival. The scheme cannot let the rival stand as a hero, so it files him under threat.

And the cost the ledger cannot price. The hero system keeps books. Removals, crossings, the count at the line, the dollar figure of the scam he names. The ledger speaks plainly about what it measures and goes silent on what it cannot. It cannot price the child taken from a parent and held apart, a policy he helped build. It cannot price the asylum-seeker turned back to the thing he fled. It cannot price the cost to the man himself, the cost of building a life around the shut gate when your own line draws breath only because once, somewhere, a gate stood open. That entry appears in no book he keeps. Becker names it the one entry no hero system can afford to read, because to read it is to see the vital lie as a lie, and a man who sees that much can no longer hold the gate.

Posted in Stephen Miller | Comments Off on The Man at the Gate

Stay in the Back

Posted on June 24, 2026 by Luke Ford

Pat Summerall (1930-2013) calls the game, and then he walks to the back of the airplane and throws up blood. He has called football for CBS across two decades. The country knows the voice. The voice runs calm, spare, sure of itself. It tells the nation what happened on the field and the nation believes it. On the plane after the broadcast the body that carries the voice empties into a toilet, three times, and what comes up is not beer. The man swallows eight to ten Advil before noon and chases it. He thinks every man wakes at ten and opens a beer. He is the sound of Sunday afternoon and he is dying in private, and his daughter learns both halves of him before she learns much else.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) held that a man lives under two terrors and spends his life keeping clear of them. The first terror is death. The body fails, the name thins out, the animal that knew it was an animal goes into the ground. The second terror sits beneath the first and asks whether the life counted for anything. Becker’s argument in The Denial of Death (1973) runs that every culture hands a man a hero system, a set of rules for earning significance, so he can tell himself he leaves a mark the grave will not erase. The broadcaster’s hero system is the voice. The voice goes onto tape. The tape outlives the throat. A man calling the Super Bowl can believe he has beaten the second terror, that he counts, that the country will carry the sound of him forward after the body quits.

Susie Wiles (b. 1957) grew up inside that hero system and watched it fail her father in the rooms the country never saw. She watched the voice command millions and command nothing at home. She helped her mother stage the interventions. A letter she wrote gets read aloud in one of them, and the line that breaks the man is hers: the few times they have gone out in public together, she has been ashamed they share a last name. He gets sober in his sixties and stays sober twenty-one years and dies anyway, at eighty-two, with a transplanted liver and a stopped heart. He wrote it all down in On and Off the Air (2006). The voice survives on tape. The man does not.

That is the subtraction at the root of her. The famous father, present to the country and absent to the daughter. The hero system of display, which earned him everything and saved him from nothing. A child raised next to that learns a hard lesson early. The microphone does not protect a man. Standing in front protects no one. The applause arrives and the body still goes to the back of the plane.

So she builds the opposite life.

She does not seek the microphone. She arranges the men who seek it. She schedules Ronald Reagan (1911-2004). She staffs Jack Kemp (1935-2009), her father’s old Giants teammate, the connection that opens the first door. She runs the mayors of Jacksonville and the campaigns of Florida and at last the campaign that returns Donald Trump (b. 1946) to the White House, and when he wins and calls her up to the microphone on victory night she will not take it. He tells the room she likes to stay in the back. He gives her the name in front of everyone. The ice baby. The ice maiden. She stands where she chose to stand, behind the man, and lets him say it.

Her hero system is the made man. The won race. The candidate she built and seated and kept alive. She earns her significance the way a producer earns it, not the way the voice earns it. The voice is the monument. She decides whose voice goes on the air. That is the whole architecture of her, and it grows straight out of the father. She will never again be the helpless daughter in the room with the drunk she loves. She will be the one who manages the big personality so he does not wreck the room. She has said as much. Her father, she says, made her an expert in big personalities. She says Trump has an alcoholic’s personality, the conviction that there is nothing he cannot do, nothing, zero, nothing. She knows the type from the inside of a childhood. She knows how to stand next to it and not get knocked down.

Now take a word she lives by and watch it come apart in other men’s hands.

Take loyalty. To Wiles loyalty is the long service to the principal, the willingness to take his temper as the cost of the work and stay. Trump berates her over Florida polling in 2016, as Maggie Haberman tells it in Confidence Man (2022), and Wiles stays. She wins him the state. The loyalty holds through the abuse because the abuse is the principal’s, and the principal is the project.

A boxing cornerman holds loyalty too, and means the reverse. His loyalty shows the night he stops his own fighter against the fighter’s will, throws the towel into the ring while the man he loves screams to keep going, because the loyal act is the one that ends the beating. A session musician calls it loyalty when he kills his own best run and serves the song, plays the part that makes the singer sound like God and leaves no trace of himself on the record. A Secret Service agent practices a loyalty that puts his body in the path of a bullet meant for a man whose politics he might despise; the loyalty attaches to the office, not the soul inside it. A defense lawyer keeps a loyalty that demands his full powers for a client he believes did the thing. Four men, four trades, one word, and the word means stay, means stop, means vanish, means defend the guilty. Wiles takes the first sense and the third together. She stays, and she leaves no trace. The two readings that fight each other in other men live at peace in her.

And when the principal breaks faith, the system shows its edge. She wins Florida for Ron DeSantis (b. 1978) in 2018, and he shuts her out of the inner circle, and then he tries to get Trump to cut her loose. Her loyalty survives a principal who screams at her. It does not survive a principal who betrays her. So she goes back to Trump and helps him take DeSantis apart in the 2024 primary. The deal underneath her loyalty comes clear in the wreckage. I make you, and you let me have made you. Break the second half and the maker turns.

Take silence. To Wiles silence is the trade. She stays out of the press, keeps her face still, controls what reaches the man at the top. Back in Jacksonville they worried she ran the flow of information to the mayor too tightly, decided too much of what he saw. The silence is not shyness. It is the work.

A Carthusian monk keeps silence and means communion, the soul emptied of chatter so it can sit before God and hear Him. A poker player keeps silence and means concealment, the dead face that takes the other man’s money. A funeral director keeps silence and means the dignity owed to grief, the held tongue that lets a family weep without being watched. A diplomat keeps silence and means leverage, the thing not said held back to be spent later at a better price. One discipline, and under it the love of God, the theft of a pot, the mercy shown the bereaved, the cold arithmetic of advantage. Wiles works the monk’s stillness and the diplomat’s reserve at once. She holds the quiet of a man at prayer and spends it like a man at the table.

Take the name they gave her. Ice. To the men who run the campaign it means the steadiness that does not crack when the principal melts down. A surgeon owns that ice. His hand does not shake while he cuts living tissue, and the steadiness is the gift, the reason the patient lives. An anesthesiologist owns a colder version, the calm of a man who holds a body in the country between sleep and death and brings it back. But ice reads as cruelty to anyone standing on the wrong side of it. To a grieving family the doctor’s flat affect looks like he does not care. To the public the woman who feels nothing in the storm looks like a woman with nothing under the skin. The same coldness is mastery to the men in the room and absence of heart to the men outside it, and the people who have worked for her insist on the third reading, the private one, that she holds everyone accountable through what they call love, that they would take a bullet for her. Three readings of one frozen surface. The hand that does not shake. The heart that is not there. The mother who keeps her people safe and lets no one see it.

Becker’s last test of a man is whether he sees his own hero system as a hero system or mistakes it for the way things simply are. Wiles passes more of this test than most. She names the source out loud. Alcoholism does bad things to relationships, she says, and so it did with her father and her. She names her own competence and where she got it. She can sit in a profile and explain that she manages Trump the way she learned to manage a drunk genius she loved, and she does not flinch from the word. She sees the structure she stands inside. That is rare and it is real.

The limit sits one layer down. She sees the big personalities and she sees that she handles them. What she might not name is that the handling is her answer to the two terrors, that arranging great men is how she keeps clear of the thing that took her father. She turned the wound into a vocation and the vocation guards the wound. She will not be the daughter who could not save the voice. She will be the maker who keeps the voice on the air and decides when it goes off. The father stood in front and drowned. She stands in the back and runs the broadcast. She knows the first half of that sentence. The second half does its work whether she names it or not.

Three things to conclude.

The shape of the hero. She is the maker of the made man, the hand on the door, the one who stands behind the figure the country watches and decides who reaches him. Her father was the voice. She is the producer who picks the voice and cuts the feed. The country never learns the producer’s name and the producer prefers it that way, because the whole point of her hero system is that significance comes from control, not from being seen. The man at the microphone is the monument. She poured the footing.

The unnamed rival. Every hero system defines itself against a rival it will not name. Hers is the man who needs the microphone, the principal who must be seen to feel that he counts. She built her life as the photographic negative of that man, and the first print of that man was her father, the voice that owned Sunday and could not own a sober Tuesday. She set significance against display because she watched display fail in the rooms with the door shut. The rival she will not name is the front man who took fame for proof that he mattered, and behind him, holding the same name she once was ashamed to share, the drunk she loved and could not keep.

The cost the ledger cannot price. A life spent making other men into monuments buys a hard thing. The monument is never yours. The won race carries another man’s name into the history books, and the maker goes home in the dark with the receipts. Then the body sends its own bill, the one no schedule and no message discipline can fix. In 2026 she is treated for breast cancer while she runs the West Wing, and the cancer does not consult her. Here Becker lands where he always lands. She managed the largest personality in American public life and arranged the election that the country will argue about for fifty years, and the cell does what the cell does regardless. The voice outlived Pat Summerall on tape, and Pat Summerall is in the ground. The made president outlives the maker, and the maker, in the end, meets the same two terrors she watched defeat her father, without the microphone, in the back, in the place she chose to stand.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Stay in the Back

The Handover: A Hero-System Reading of Usha Vance

Posted on June 24, 2026 by Luke Ford

A woman who once stood before the Chief Justice of the United States now sits on a low chair and reads The Tale of Peter Rabbit into a microphone. She calls the podcast an advertisement for reading. The room is small. The audience is children. The voice that pressed appeals through the federal courts shapes itself around a rabbit who steals into a garden and runs home to his mother.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) gives us the terms for that vertigo. Man knows he will die. No other animal carries the knowledge through every waking hour, and the knowledge would crush him if he let it sit on his chest, so he builds a hero system, a set of values and roles that promise him a place in something that does not die. Becker, borrowing from Otto Rank (1884-1939), names two terrors and not one. The first is the fear of death, of erasure, of the body going back into the ground and the name going quiet. The second is the fear of life, the fear of standing out, of becoming a separate self with separate weight, of being seen alone in the open. Most men flee the first terror by surrendering to a group that outlasts them. A few flee the second by becoming a group of one. Usha Vance (b. 1986) has lived both flights, and the second half of her life so far reads as a long handover from the one to the other.

Every hero system rests on a wound it promises to heal. For J.D. Vance (b. 1984) the wound is plain and famous. Appalachia, the addicted mother, the absent fathers, the chaos that Hillbilly Elegy turns into a ladder. For Usha the wound hides, because her life reads as addition and not subtraction. Her parents are Telugu Brahmins from Andhra Pradesh. Her grandfather taught physics at IIT Madras. A great-aunt wrote an English interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita and teaches physics still. The subtraction sits one generation back. The parents subtracted India. They gave up the known world, the language spoken in the street, the gods in the household shrine recognized by every neighbor, and they carried their daughter into a San Diego suburb where she would have to become excellent to justify the crossing. The immigrant ledger runs in one direction. The parents spend, the child repays, and the only currency the child can repay in is achievement.

So she achieves. Summa cum laude at Yale, Phi Beta Kappa, a Gates scholarship to Cambridge, the Yale Law Journal, three clerkships ending at the Supreme Court, where she worked on Azar v. Garza for John Roberts. There is a story she tells on her husband from their Yale days, that he once called her from a formal dinner to ask which fork to use. The story marks the class line between them. He is the boy from Middletown learning the silverware. She is already native to the room. Her merit is recognition. It is the clerkship offered, the brief praised, the name spoken with warmth in a room she has not yet entered.

The same word lives a different life in other hero systems. For the Calabrian stonemason merit is the retaining wall that still holds the hillside a century after he is buried under it. He needs no committee. The wall is the committee. For the Soviet violin prodigy merit is the gold medal at the conservatory, proof that the system that starved his grandmother also produced the finest bows in the world. For the Trappist monk merit is a snare, because the soul that counts its merits has already lost them. For the Brahmin scholar of her grandfather’s house, merit is the faithful transmission of the text, the verse carried without error from teacher to student across centuries, a relay where the runner counts less than the thing carried. Usha’s merit is none of these. Hers waits on the judgment of the men in robes.

Reading sits at the center of her public life now. She reads The Iliad to keep pace with a son obsessed with mythology. She launches a Summer Reading Challenge, twelve books between June and September, a certificate, a bookmark, a raffle for a trip to the White House. She calls the new podcast an advertisement for reading.

But reading splits in the hand. For the Trappist it is lectio divina, the slow chewing of a single psalm until the words dissolve and God stands behind them. For the Talmudic scholar it is argument, the page that surrounds the verse with the voices of dead men still quarreling, reading as a fight you join and never finish. For the Idaho mother who keeps her children off screens, reading is a wall against a culture she has judged and found corrupt. For the Bengali organizer of an earlier century, reading is the pamphlet that wakes the worker to his chains. For the Brahmin lineage Usha comes from, reading is dharma, the duty of carrying the word forward, and the word is the Gita, and behind the word stands God, His pronouns capitalized in the household without a second thought. Usha takes that inheritance, the duty to transmit the word, and she empties the specific scripture out of it and pours in Peter Rabbit and a raffle. The act stays sacred. The content goes democratic. She has secularized her great-aunt’s vocation and aimed it at fourth graders in all fifty states.

Family is the word that changes shape across hero systems faster than any other. She tells an interviewer the most important thing is a stable, normal, happy life for the children. When a gunman fires near an event her husband attends, she does not let the children hear it on the playground. She tells them in age-appropriate terms that Daddy is safe, the Secret Service was there, he will be home in the morning. For the Sicilian clansman the family is the only state that ever kept faith with him, and everything outside it, the courts, the parties, the church even, is weather to be survived. For the kibbutz founder the family is the bourgeois relic the collective must dissolve, the children raised in the children’s house so loyalty flows to the commune and not the womb. For the Confucian magistrate the family is the small mirror of the empire, the father a little emperor, filial duty the root of all order under heaven. For Usha family is a harbor she builds inside a storm she did not choose, three small children carried through inaugural balls and motorcades and racist sneers about their names, and the work is to make the abnormal feel ordinary, to keep the playground from teaching them what the country says about their father.

She describes her place beside her husband as the truth-teller. She says he deserves someone who hears it straight from him, and she tells it straight back, and he treats what she says with seriousness and respect. Truth divides like the rest. For the Quaker it is the inner light spoken to power in a plain coat. For the interrogator in a closed regime it is what the file confirms and the body admits. For the hospice nurse it is the thing you tell the dying and never withhold. For Usha truth runs inward, toward one man, and stops at the door. The litigator who once told it to judges in the open record now tells it to a husband in a kitchen. The arena shrinks from the courtroom to the marriage.

She says the Supreme Court and the federal judges should be treated with respect, and she says it while serving in an administration whose allies attack those judges by name. The word carries her whole apprenticeship. She clerked in the building she now defends. The institution ordained her before she married into the movement that throws stones at it. Here the hero systems do not just differ. They collide inside her own house. The movement her husband leads draws part of its charge from White American grievance, and some of its loudest voices, Nick Fuentes (b. 1988) among them, look at the Hindu daughter of Telugu immigrants and tell her she does not belong in the country they mean to restore. Becker calls this the scapegoat logic that every hero system carries in its lining. A people earns its immortality by drawing a line between the chosen and the alien, and Usha stands on the alien side of a line her own coalition draws. She answers with composure and reading challenges and three children whose names the internet mocks. The composure is a hero system of its own, the scholar’s poise, the clerk’s discipline, the litigator’s refusal to be rattled on the record.

How much of this does she see? Becker reserves his respect for the man who knows he stands inside a hero system and chooses it anyway, eyes open, rather than the man who mistakes his costume for his skin. Usha gives signs of the open eyes. She calls the transition disorienting, which is the word of someone watching herself from a small distance. She says she is not a politically ambitious person, that she would like to see her husband happy, and that states the surrender without dressing it as destiny. Yet the deepest move stays in shadow. She has subtracted her own distinction, the thing the immigrant ledger told her to accumulate, and folded it into her husband’s. The litigator argues no more cases. The woman who earned recognition from the men in robes now earns it secondhand, as the wife of the heir apparent, and pours her surplus excellence into a children’s podcast. Whether she reads this as a loss, a gift, or a different shape of the same hero system, she does not say, and the guardedness her friends describe keeps the question closed.

So the shape of the hero. A scholar’s daughter who carries the family duty of transmission across an ocean and a faith, who trades the verdict of judges for the role of the one truthful voice in a powerful man’s ear, and who builds a harbor of ordinary life for three children inside a storm that calls them aliens.

The unnamed rival. Every hero needs an opposite he refuses to become. Hers is not Fuentes and not the sneering voices, those she answers with composure. Her rival is the woman she might have been, the one who stayed at Munger, Tolles & Olson and argued before the Court for thirty years and built her own name in the open record. That woman is the road not taken, and the hero system Usha chose needs her to stay unbuilt.

The cost the ledger cannot price. The immigrant ledger counts achievement and counts it well. It cannot price the thing she handed over. A child of immigrants spends her childhood becoming excellent so the crossing makes sense, and then at the height of the excellence she gives it to a marriage and a movement, and the ledger has no column for what that costs, because the ledger was written by the parents who crossed, and they counted only what could be gained.

Posted in JD Vance | Comments Off on The Handover: A Hero-System Reading of Usha Vance

The Restless Heart: A Hero-System Reading of JD Vance

Posted on June 24, 2026 by Luke Ford

A Dominican priory in Cincinnati, August 2019. A man of thirty-four kneels for baptism. He holds a Yale law degree, a wife who argues cases for a living, a venture fund seeded by a billionaire, and a memoir that has sold past a million copies. The water touches his head. He takes the name Augustine, after the bishop of Hippo (354-430) who wrote in his Confessions that the heart finds no rest until it rests in God. JD Vance (b. 1984), at the high point of his worldly arrival, chooses the saint of the restless heart.

Ernest Becker (1924-1974) would recognize the man on his knees. In The Denial of Death Becker argues that we are the animals who know we will die, and that the knowledge is more than we can carry. So we build. We raise hero systems, schemes of cosmic worth, and inside them we earn the right to feel we are more than meat for the worms. A man wants to be a hero. He wants his short span to register against the silence. Self-esteem, in Becker’s reading, is the conviction that you stand as an object of primary value in a world where your acts carry weight. Two terrors run underneath the whole performance. One is death. The other is the quieter dread that the life will add up to nothing.

Vance kneels against both at once.

Every hero builds on a loss, and Vance carries a loss with a name and a place. The place is Middletown, Ohio, and behind it Jackson, Kentucky, the Appalachian hollow his grandparents left for the northern mills. The mills gave a man a wage that bought a house, a truck, a seat in a church pew, a sense that his sweat earned him standing. Then the work thinned out and the standing went with it. The deaths came after. Opioids, overdoses, men his grandfather’s age dying without the dignity the wage once carried. This is the world Vance reports in Hillbilly Elegy: a place subtracted down to its grief.

The loss is also closer than a region. His birth name was James Donald Bowman. The Donald came from a father who gave him up for adoption. The name changed again under a stepfather, then a third time when he took the surname of the grandmother who raised him, the woman he called Mamaw. His mother fought addiction through his childhood, and the men in the home rotated like shift workers. A boy learns, in a house like that, that the people who are supposed to stay do not stay. The subtraction story Vance tells about Appalachia is also the subtraction story of his own front door. The father who left. The mother who could not hold. The home that kept dissolving and reforming around him.

A man shaped by that loss builds a self out of what will not leave. Becker borrowed from Otto Rank the idea of the causa sui project, the wish to be one’s own father, to author the self from scratch rather than inherit it from people who failed. Vance authors himself by adoption. He keeps choosing strong fathers and strong systems and letting them stand where the father did not. Mamaw first, the one fixed point. Then the Marine Corps, which takes a boy and hands him a code, a haircut, a chain of command that does not waver. Then Yale Law School, the citadel that teaches him the language of the people who run things. Then Peter Thiel (b. 1967), the mentor who funds the venture career and the worldview behind it. Then the Catholic Church, the oldest father of all, with its catechism and its hierarchy and its two thousand years of not dissolving. Then Donald Trump (b. 1946), the man Vance once called noxious and later served with a son’s devotion.

Each turn looks like a reversal to his critics. Read through Becker, each turn is the same act repeated. A man who fears the home that dissolves keeps building harder houses. He moves from the ones made of flesh, which break, to the ones made of institutions and doctrines, which promise to outlast the man who joins them. The hero system is the house that will not leave.

Now take the sacred words Vance lives by, and watch how each one means something specific only inside the house he built. The same word sits in other men’s mouths and points at other gods.

Start with loyalty. After 2016 loyalty climbs to the top of Vance’s order. He had called Trump unfit, even toyed in private with the worst comparisons, and then he knelt to him and became the most reliable man in the room. The cynic reads ambition, and ambition is in there. Becker reads something older underneath the ambition. A boy who learned that the deepest wound is the father who walks out will spend his life refusing to be the one who walks out. Loyalty becomes his proof against the one charge he cannot bear, the charge of being an abandoner. He will not do to his chosen fathers what his fathers did to him.

Set that loyalty beside other men’s. A Sicilian widow keeps her dead husband’s chair at the head of the table and will not let anyone sit in it, and for her loyalty means fidelity to the dead, a refusal to let death win the small victory of being forgotten. A Benedictine takes a vow of stability and dies in the same monastery he entered at twenty, and for him loyalty means staying put, the body’s answer to the restless heart, obedience to one rule and one abbot for the length of a life. A longshoreman in a union local crosses no picket line and names the man who does a scab for forty years, and for him loyalty means the brotherhood holds or the wage falls. A Pashtun host under the old code takes in the stranger and defends him to the death because the guest under the roof is sacred, and there loyalty means a debt of honor older than any state. A quant at a hedge fund speaks of loyalty too, and means it until the bonus clears, after which the firm is a counterparty and the loyalty is a price. One word. Five gods. Vance’s loyalty serves the god of the unbroken father, the one thing his childhood never gave him.

Take home, the word that made him famous. Vance left home for the Marines, for New Haven, for San Francisco and venture capital, and then made the leaving into the credential that let him speak for the place he left. He bought a hundred and fifty year old house in Cincinnati and a hundred acres in Kentucky. Home for him is a wound dressed as a banner, the thing he fled and then claimed the right to represent.

Other men hear the word and see other things. A Bedouin’s home is the migration, the tent struck at dawn and pitched at dusk, home as a people moving rather than a deed recorded. A Trappist’s home is the enclosure he will never leave again, four walls that hold the entire visible world, home as the renunciation of everywhere else. A Filipina nurse in a Gulf hospital calls home the village she left, and sends back the wages that keep it standing, so that home becomes the place you abandon to save. A Lakota grandmother counts home in generations, seven forward and seven back, and means a lineage rather than an address. Vance’s home is the one you escape and then carry like a debt, a place that exists most fully in the leaving and the looking back.

Take faith, the word at the center of his new book. In Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith (2026) Vance tells the story of the conversion, the return, the restless arrival at Rome. His faith answers a specific terror. A man raised in a home that kept coming apart wants the God of order, the God of hierarchy, the Church that has a catechism for every question and an authority that does not depend on the mood of whoever is standing in the kitchen. The autonomous self of the meritocracy got him to Yale and left him empty, so he reaches past it for the thick belonging that liberalism, in his telling, dissolved.

A Pentecostal in a storefront in São Paulo means something else by faith. He means the Spirit falling now, the healing tonight, the immediate God who breaks into the week and rearranges it. A Talmudic scholar means the obligation to wrestle the text, doubt folded into devotion, the argument that is itself the worship. A Zen monk on the cushion means the dropping of the very self that Vance spends his days constructing, no doctrine, no hierarchy, the slow erasure of the ego that authority is supposed to shore up. Vance’s faith is the answer of a man who needs walls. To a man raised inside steady walls, that hunger might look strange. The hero system fits the wound it was built to cover.

How far does Vance see his own house as a house? The memoir shows real self-examination. He names his rage, his near misses, the violence he carried out of that childhood and almost passed on. The young writer holds his frameworks loosely enough to drop them, and he drops several. The convert does not. After 2019 the serial adopter of fathers has found the Father, and the man who once abandoned a political position now speaks with the certainty of one who has arrived. Becker says the rare healthy man sees partway through his own vital lie and keeps it anyway, knowing it for a lie he cannot live without. The Vance of Hillbilly Elegy sees that far. The Vance of the vice presidency speaks as a man who has stopped looking through the wall and started defending it.

A recent death shows the engine plainly. In 2026 Vance and his wife announced a fourth child, and he wrote that the 2025 killing of Charlie Kirk (1993-2025) moved Usha toward the decision. A man watches a friend murdered and answers the death by making a life. Becker could not script it cleaner. The terror arrives, and the hero meets it the only way the human animal knows how, by adding to the count of the living, by refusing the silence one more time.

The shape of the hero, first coordinate. Vance pursues the figure of the loyal son who restores the lost house. The boy from the dissolving home who entered the citadel of the elite, learned its tongue, and came back to speak for the people the citadel forgot. He carries shame upward and converts it into authority. The hero he wants to be is the one who does not abandon, who plants a hundred acres in Kentucky and three children and a fourth in the ground of a place, who makes himself the father the home never kept.

The unnamed rival, second coordinate. He defines himself against a man he will not name, the version of himself who stayed at Yale and in San Francisco and forgot. The deracinated meritocrat, fluent and rootless, the classmate who learned the language and kept it for himself. Behind that figure stands an older one, the father who gave him away, the man whose first name he carried and then shed. The rival Vance fights is the self that assimilates and disappears, the boy who could have climbed out of Middletown and simply never looked back.

The cost the ledger cannot price, third coordinate. A man who builds himself from adopted fathers might never sort which convictions are his own and which belong to the latest father. At each conversion he leaves selves behind, and the friends attached to those selves, and the cousin who went to fight in Ukraine and accused him from the trench of serving the wrong men. When loyalty climbs to the top of the order, independent judgment slides under it, and the price of never abandoning is the surrender of the right to dissent. Augustine wrote that the heart stays restless until it rests in God. The harder cost is the one the convert cannot let himself name: that each new house rises on the rubble of the last, and the boy who could not bear the home that kept dissolving has become a man who keeps dissolving the homes he was, building harder and harder walls against a terror that no wall has yet closed out.

Posted in JD Vance | Comments Off on The Restless Heart: A Hero-System Reading of JD Vance

The Man Who Will Not Lose

Posted on June 24, 2026 by Luke Ford

A man turned eighty on June 14, 2026. He was born June 14, 1946. The body keeps its own count, and the body does not negotiate. Ernest Becker (1924–1974) opens The Denial of Death on this split down the center of every man. He is a god who defecates. He carries a mind that touches the stars inside a creature that rots. Two terrors live in that gap. Otto Rank (1884–1939) named the pair the fear of life and the fear of death. The fear of life is the dread of standing out alone, separate, a single self with no cover. The fear of death is the dread of going under, dissolving, ending. Most men split the difference. They individuate a little and merge a little and spend a lifetime managing the trade.

Donald Trump (b. 1946) went one way. He resolved the fear of life by leaping at it. He put his name on the towers in gold and stood apart from every room he entered and made separateness his whole brand. That terror he settled long ago. What stayed behind, uncovered, was the other one. The rallies, the brand, the lawsuits, the refusal to concede a single contest of any size all serve a single office. They keep death out of the room.

Watch how he treats the body. He shakes hands as though each one carries a contagion, and for years he said as much. He holds a theory that the body runs on a fixed charge, a battery that exercise drains rather than fills, so the wise man spends little and conserves. He eats food that comes sealed, predictable, hard to tamper with. The hair stays the same. The tan stays the same. The long red tie hangs to the belt. He praises men and women for looking the part, for central casting, because the surface has to broadcast strength every second. The body is the enemy inside the gates. It ages, it sickens, it quits. He cannot abide the sight of it failing in others and will not contemplate it in himself.

So the name has to do the work the body cannot. The body counts down. The gold letters do not.

His subtraction story sits at the center of everything, and he shares it with millions who feel it in their own towns. Make America Great Again. The word that carries the freight is the last one. Again means something was great and then was taken. The factory that closed. The main street that emptied. The country that used to win and started losing. To that national grievance he welded a private one. The outer-borough builder’s son walked into the Manhattan rooms and the rooms never let him sit at the head of the table. The magazine undercounted his worth. The critics laughed at the gold. He fused the two wounds into one, and the fusion is the engine. His slight and the country’s slight became the same slight, and the man who would avenge his own would avenge yours.

On June 16, 2015, he came down the escalator inside his own tower to announce that he would run. The atrium ran with brass and pink marble and a waterfall behind the glass, and he descended through all of it to the crowd at the bottom and told the country it had been robbed. A man rode down out of his monument to say the nation had been picked clean. The subtraction story made into a campaign, with the staging built years before anyone needed it.

Now the word that organizes the whole cosmos. Winning. And its shadow, the loser. His father, Fred Trump (1905–1999), divided the human race into killers and losers and raised his sons to land on the right side of the line. Roy Cohn (1927–1986) taught the grown man the operating code. Never settle. Never apologize. Attack, and when you lose attack harder, and never, under any circumstance, admit the loss. Inside Becker’s terms the loser is the man death erased while he still drew breath. The sucker the system grinds and forgets. The weak one, already half gone. To lose is to die early. To concede is to die on schedule. This is why concession of an election cannot be a political act for him. In his system it is a death, and a man does not sign his own death certificate.

Take the word winning and walk it through other men’s lives, and it changes shape in the hand each time.

A domestique rides the Tour de France and never wins a stage in his career. He buries himself at the front to break the wind for his captain. He hands up his bottle, gives up his wheel when the captain punctures, shreds his legs in the mountains, and rolls in near the back inside the time cut. He counts the year a triumph because the man he served wore yellow in Paris. Ask him and he says he never won a stage and he won seven Tours. His immortality lives in another man’s victory, and he gave his body to build it. Winning, for him, means the disappearance of the self into the result of the team.

A Carthusian monk enters the Grande Chartreuse and surrenders his name at the gate. No crowd will ever know him. He gets the cell, the silence, the hours that do not end, the long offices in the dark. He wins by vanishing so that God appears. Becker thought the religious answer the boldest of all, because the man hands the whole terror to God and stops carrying it himself. Trump grew up under Norman Vincent Peale (1898–1993), who sold a cheaper version of that surrender from the pulpit of Marble Collegiate. The Power of Positive Thinking taught the believer to deny the negative, refuse the down, picture only the win. The monk loses himself to find Him. Peale taught the boy never to lose at all. Same God on the letterhead. Opposite move underneath.

A poker professional measures winning across ten thousand hands. The pot in front of him means little. Expected value over the long run is the only score he keeps, and the man who needs to win the hand on the table is the fish he came to feed on. He folds aces when the math says fold and feels nothing in his chest. He lives inside a horizon the eye cannot see. Trump plays every hand as though his life rides on it, because in his system it does, and the long horizon does not exist, only this hand, this rally, this morning’s number.

A hospice nurse has no word for winning, and the word dissolves the moment she enters the room. Her work is a good death. She times the morphine, eases the breathing toward its end, lets the family in before the door closes for good. Her code honors the loser of the last contest every man on earth loses. She wins, if the word can be dragged this far, by helping a man lose well. To die well belongs to no part of Trump’s map. In his system it is a category that cannot be filled.

A revival preacher under the tent counts the house, and here the two men touch. He watches the crowd and feels the size of it in the chest the way Trump does. He tallies the souls at the altar, the hands raised, the harvest brought in. The empty seats convict him. But the preacher counts for God’s ledger and weeps over the rows that stay empty, while Trump counts for his own ledger, and so the inauguration crowd grew with each retelling, because a ledger with one name in it can carry no other figure. The same act, the counting of a crowd. Different god at the far end of the arithmetic.

A career infantry officer holds winning lighter than his men hold it. He will spend himself and lose the promotion to bring the platoon home. His immortality runs through the regiment, the long line of officers before him and after him, the colors that pass from hand to hand. He can lose a battle and keep his honor. He can be taken prisoner and keep it. Honor outlives defeat in his system, and that is the whole point of having honor at all. In Trump’s system honor cannot survive a loss, because winning is the only honor on offer.

That officer stands at the edge of the rival Trump cannot name, and the rival has a face.

On July 13, 2024, in Butler, Pennsylvania, a bullet grazed his ear at a rally. He dropped behind the lectern with agents on top of him. Then he stood, raised his fist with blood across the cheek and the flag at his back, and said the word three times. Fight, fight, fight. The photograph was made in that half second. The whole hero system stands inside one frame. The body took a live round, and the symbol got up off the ground. Death came as near as it comes and he turned it, in the open air with the cameras running, into an immortality image. The man who built his life against death met it and converted it on the spot into the Name.

How much of this does he see? At the level of the show, all of it. He knows the rally is a performance and tunes the set list night to night. He reads a room faster than the room reads itself. When Fulton County booked him in August 2023 he had the mug shot on merchandise before the day was out. Command of the surface, total. But the terror under the surface is the one thing he will not look at, because the surface exists to keep him from looking. A man who could see his own answer to death for what it is might rest. He never rests. The not-resting is the tell. Becker called the character armor a vital lie, the story a man cannot strip off without coming apart. This man’s armor is gold and his name is on it, and to doubt the armor is to doubt the name, and the name is the part he believes will not die. So the self-knowledge runs all the way up to the edge of the terror and stops there, on purpose, the way a man on a ledge does not look down.

Three coordinates, then, to fix him.

The shape of the hero. The man who will not lose. He is the one who never concedes, who treats every contest as the final contest because losing a single one is dying once. He stands when he is shot. He goes quietly out of no room and no office and no race. His heroism is refusal, and a great many people who were handed a story of managed decline find that refusal a deliverance, a man who will not agree to lose the things they were told to give up without complaint.

The unnamed rival. The good loser. The hero system of the gentleman who concedes the count and drives home, of the captain who holds faith in the cell, of the saint who loses his life to save it. John McCain (1936–2018) marks the named edge of that nameless rival. He said he would rather lose an election than lose a war. He endured the prison camp and turned down the early release his captors offered to embarrass his country. His heroism lived inside defeat and captivity, which is the one place Trump’s heroism cannot go. On July 18, 2015, Trump said he liked people who weren’t captured. The room gasped and the line drew no blood, because to his people the captured man is a loser and the loser is already dead. Two hero systems met in that sentence. One holds that honor outlives defeat. The other holds that there is no honor except the win. The rival he cannot name is the man for whom losing well is the whole of dignity.

The cost the ledger cannot price. He can never stop, and he can never be known. The man who must never show weakness can stand before millions who adore him and be held by no one, because to be held a man has to be weak for a moment, and he has spent eighty years making certain he never is. The crowd is not a friend. The ledger counts the crowd. It runs the poll, the net worth, the floors of the tower, the rating, the margin. It keeps no column for the friend, so it never books the absence and never sends the bill. He turned eighty ten days ago. The body keeps its count and will not be argued with. The name in gold does not. He bet the whole of it on the name, and the name will outlast him, and that is the win. It is the only immortality his system allows. It is not the kind a man can feel while he is still alive to want it.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on The Man Who Will Not Lose

Lowell Cohn: ‘Shame on the New York Times’ (May 16, 2026)

Posted on June 24, 2026 by Luke Ford

Lowell Cohn wrote on Substack:

Then there’s the issue of dogs penetrating prisoners in the anus. Kristof’s sources say this routinely happens, but according to testimony from experts I read this is highly unlikely when you account for the physiology of dogs and people.

I grew up reading the New York Times. In my family it was the Bible, the writing, the reporting, the intelligence. When I left the SF Chronicle for the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, the PD was owned by the Times, and the Times treated me beautifully. They sent a big-deal editor to Santa Rosa to welcome me to the family, and when I covered a story in New York, the Times put me up at a private club and gave me a desk in the Times building. So, I used to love the Times…

Earlier in this piece I wrote the Times has crummy columnists. And how. Consider Michelle Goldberg and Thomas Friedman. Well, Goldberg, because of her atrocious prose style and limited ability to think, is irrelevant. But Friedman is a serious writer. Except that when it comes to the Iran War, he said he’s “torn.” What did he mean by torn?

He said he wants Iran defeated but he doesn’t want two people he disapproves of, Trump and Netanyahu, to be strengthened. Friedman is freaking torn? There’s no torn. Iran can’t have a nuclear bomb or continue to louse up Israel and the Middle East no matter who accomplishes that. I consider Thomas Friedman a sellout Jew.

First, the facts. The report Cohn treats as an “official Israeli report” was not the government’s. A group calling itself the Civil Commission on October 7th Crimes by Hamas released it on May 12, one day after Kristof’s column ran on May 11. Cohn reads Kristof as timing his piece to preempt and weaken an official report. Public suspicion from Israel critics such as Mondoweiss runs the other way, that pro-Israel strategists held the second report in reserve once they learned Kristof’s was coming, then released it to drown him out. Cohn picks the reading that flatters his side. The “official” label does real work in his paragraph, and it is wrong.
Second, his sourcing critique is his strongest move. The American Jewish Committee said the column read as an investigative report while falling short of that standard. Kristof ran it in the opinion section, not as news, and built it on interviews with people who mostly would not be named. That is a fair thing to press on. But Cohn presses it in a way that cuts his own hand. Anonymity for men and women alleging sexual assault, and for Palestinian detainees who fear reprisal, is standard practice. And the column did name some witnesses. Kristof identified Issa Amro, Sami al-Sai, Suhaib Abualkebash, and Mohammad Matar among the fourteen. Cohn’s “12 of them were anonymous” leaves that out. His own counter-sourcing is worse than what he attacks: “experts I read” on dog physiology, named nowhere.
Third, he never touches Kristof’s ask. Kristof proposed Red Cross and lawyer visits to the roughly 9,000 Palestinian security prisoners and argued that if the allegations are false, such monitoring would protect Israel. That is the falsifiable core of the column, and a critic who wanted to win on the merits would meet it. Cohn argues with the framing and the timing and leaves the proposal standing.
The piece is a breakup letter. The best writing in it is about his father’s house and the Times as the family Bible, the editor sent up to Santa Rosa, the desk in the building. He is grieving a tie to his childhood and dressing the grief as an argument about journalistic standards. The grief is real and the standards talk is mostly a vehicle for it.
Where the piece turns is the close. Netanyahu and his foreign minister called the column among the most distorted lies ever published against Israel and threatened a defamation suit; the Times stood by Kristof and called the threat without merit. Cohn’s move is quieter and uglier than that. He notes that Adolph Ochs (1858-1935) was a Jew, that the family running the paper now “is not Jewish anymore,” and that the current publisher “seems to have what we would have called in Brooklyn a hard-on for Israel.” Then he ends by calling Thomas Friedman (b. 1953) “a sellout Jew.” He spends the column accusing the Times of a tribal vendetta and closes by applying a tribal loyalty test of his own. He becomes the thing he names.
The sentence a hostile reader pulls is the last one. “I consider Thomas Friedman a sellout Jew” defines the piece, and it would define Cohn. Everything reasonable he says about anonymous sourcing dies under that line, because a reader can now file the whole essay as loyalty policing rather than press criticism. The Michelle Goldberg (b. 1975) aside, that she has “limited ability to think,” does smaller damage.
He had a real point and spent his credibility before he could land it.

One thing has surfaced in this story. B’Tselem’s January report documented forced anal penetration with objects and dogs set on prisoners, and one of its witnesses was also a Kristof source, but it did not include the claim that dogs raped prisoners. So a hostile-to-government Israeli rights group, working the same prisons, corroborated the broad pattern of sexual abuse and stopped short of the one claim that drew the blood-libel charge. That isolates the disputed item. The question is no longer whether abuse happened, which several bodies have documented, but whether that specific allegation holds. And that is exactly the claim no current process is set up to test.
The dog claim has been argued against, and by careful people, not just the Foreign Ministry. Eli Kowaz, an American-Israeli analyst formerly at the Israel Policy Forum, published an essay days before Kristof ran calling the dog-rape allegation not credible. A researcher traced the claim’s path to virality through an unsourced tweet by Shaiel Ben-Ephraim and said he could not confirm it true, and a dog-behavior expert was skeptical of the penetration claim while allowing the trained physical behaviors. The claim runs back to Euro-Med, the same group that has also claimed Israel exhumes Palestinians to steal organs, which medical experts call impossible. So the dog claim is not undebunked. It is wounded. What it is not is resolved, because no outsider can prove a negative about a cell with no record.
Otherwise, there is little movement on this story because the initial layout of incentives remains unchanged. Neither side has an interest in altering the current stasis.
The threatened lawsuit from Benjamin Netanyahu and Gideon Sa’ar remains unfiled. A defamation suit in a U.S. court would trigger broad discovery. The New York Times would demand access to internal Israel Prison Service logs, Shin Bet interrogation records, and medical files to establish substantial truth. The Israeli government is unlikely to trade control over those sensitive operational records for a public trial on the merits of prison conditions.
The Times maintains its position. Kathleen Kingsbury and Nicholas Kristof confirmed that the paper completed its standard fact-checking review after the initial backlash and found no basis for a retraction or correction. The specific allegation regarding trained dogs remains the core point of contention, isolated between the broader pattern of physical abuse documented by groups like B’Tselem and the specific, uncorroborated claim that provoked the state’s reaction.
Without an active lawsuit, a new third-party investigation, or an internal data leak, the story lacks a commercial or legal hook to generate fresh reporting. The public statements from May accomplished the immediate political and defensive goals for both camps, and the matter rests there.

A well-funded apparatus has every reason and resource to damage and debunk this column: the embassy, the Foreign Ministry, the Lawfare Project, the AJC, JNS, Quillette, and a stable of online researchers. Ambassador Leiter went on offense within a day, tying Euro-Med Monitor’s leaders to a 2011 photo with Ismail Haniyeh. If the column rested on fabricated testimony, that machine probably finds the smoking gun by now. It has not. The named sources took hits, but nobody has shown Kristof invented a witness. Survival under motivated fire carries information.
The base claim is that sexual abuse and torture in Israeli detention is widespread. That part is not Kristof’s. B’Tselem called the prison system a network of torture camps, Save the Children reported sexual violence against detained Palestinian children, and Euro-Med described systematic abuse. The West Bank Protection Consortium documented at least sixteen cases of sexual crimes by settlers and soldiers, and the Sde Teiman case produced arrests. You cannot debunk this tier because it is documented across bodies that do not share a source.
The Kristof column contains a bundle of claims against Israel and it is built so no single strike destroys it. Wound the dog claim and Kristof falls back on the documented abuse. Discredit Euro-Med and the UN commission and B’Tselem remain. The load-bearing claims are well sourced, and the vulnerable claim is unfalsifiable. A structure like that survives motivated attack whether or not its worst allegation is true. Non-debunkability and truth are not the same thing.
Mondoweiss, CounterPunch, Middle East Eye, the Grayzone, and the Intercept rushed to confirm and amplify, and sixty journalism professors asked the Times to commission an independent review. When both camps are this motivated, the absence of a knockout tells you mainly that there is no neutral arbiter with access to the prisons. The review that might settle it has not happened. That is missing process, not a verdict.

Posted in Israel, Journalism | Comments Off on Lowell Cohn: ‘Shame on the New York Times’ (May 16, 2026)