Are Our Opponents Demons?

My friend calls the Antifa-BLM block and those who support them “demons.” I disagree. I think these people are just as motivated by doing what is right as I am, they just experience the world differently from me. When Antifa and BLM riot, they feel like they are on the side of the angels. They are having fun, feeling powerful, and destroying things that either represent the enemy or have no meaning to them.

By calling your opponents demons, you make them huge and the center of your life. You make them supernatural beings you can’t control. You can’t help but be miserable with this mindset. On the other hand, if you focus on your own life and the things you can control, you will be happier and more effective.

When you think of your opponents as demons, is that empowering or dispiriting? I don’t see how that perspective makes you feel more powerful. How could a human being defeat a demon?

Also, all talk of “evil” and “demons” depends upon a subjective leap of faith to a transcendent moral code. If you are talking with people who share your faith, that rhetoric makes sense. If you are speaking to a wider audience, it usually doesn’t.

I’d think that believing your opponents are demons would fuel feelings of rage and impotence while understanding your opponents are as desirous of good as yourself, but just are made differently and experience the world differently, that would allow for calm, happiness, and effectiveness.

What is there to understand about people who platform a killer and torturer such as Donna Hylton? That they are a people who put a premium on rehabilitation.

Friend: “America is so polarized because we have mutually incompatible moral systems. They have a new religion, a godless one. Our conflict is essentially a religious one. There is no middle ground in a holy war. It’s us vs them and the us is by definition good and the them is evil. To think otherwise is to fencesit. Now most Americans are fencesitters but they’re coming off the fence as it becomes increasingly clear that they cannot avoid this conflict. We need to understand their enemies as mortal enemies. Our enemies. And also dehumanize them. Otherwise we’re going to get picked off.”

First, less than five percent of Americans have a coherent politics. Most Americans don’t think much about politics. So I don’t believe that America is completely and irremediably polarized. Second. If there is no middle ground in a holy war, I don’t see how it serves us to think of labeling our current conflict a “holy war.” Third. People change if you give them room to change. New York elected Rudy Giuliani as mayor twice and Michael Bloomberg twice and Brazil voted in a right winger.

There are advantages to the demon view: clarity, energy, you don’t waste time understanding, incentivizes you to seek out God. You feel yourself part of a cosmic battle between good and evil. There are also disadvantages to this mindset: It might induce a feeling of helplessness, might promote a self-righteous assurance, reduces your ability to get along with others who have a demonic view. I would think that the demon view would give one shots of adrenaline which usually don’t serve one, we’re better off a notch above boring.

If you frame things in religious terms, people who don’t share your faith will be less likely to relate, also, you will be more likely to get caught in arguments about faith rather than the problem at hand. A secular argument is accessible to everybody, a religious argument only works on those who share your leap of faith.

The more you blame others, the less effective you will be in life, and the more health problems you will have. The more you understand, the more you have an internal locus of control, the more peace you will have, the more effective you will be, and the better you will get along with others and yourself.

Making other people the enemy to deal with one’s own feelings of discomfort and impotence is not a winning strategy.

Fred Luskin: “If we were cows at a cow conference, everyone who hate meat would be worse than Hitler because they ate cows and Hitler was a vegetarian.”

Friend: “These things aren’t mutually exclusive. I can say Democrats are actually demons and primarily concern myself with my own life.”

How exactly can you regard Democrats as demons and then primarily focus on your own life? How does that work? Demons control the world around you but you focus on your own life?

Friend: “Scott Adams understands rhetoric. Do you want to win? Or do you want to be genocided by people who don’t view you as worthy of life.”

Jim Goad: “What if they declared a race war and one side didn’t even realize it?”

Friend: “I have nothing to do with politics. It’s not my job. I’m just sitting around waiting to here the muster call for my state militia. It’s actually freeing. I wrote off Joe* yesterday and it doesn’t feel like a loss. He started talking some shit about orange man bad after admitting that his son has a nervous tic and anxiety over coronavirus.”

Talk of demons give you a temporary burst of resolution, power and agency. And then it wears off and leaves you filled with rage and impotence.

Friend: “We need to feel powerful if we are going resist the demons. We are currently demoralized. Loss after loss after loss. And we’re going to keep losing as long as we think we’re competing with fellow Americans worthy of dignity and equal respect while they spit on our graves.”

“This is losing. This is respecting the rule of law when demon judges hand down shit judgments. The judge should’ve been burned at the stake along with the mother.”

LF: “You are writing checks you can’t cash.”

Friend: “Oh I can’t but maybe one day we’ll have a leader who will. We all write checks we can’t cash with our opinions. Last time I checked, no one here commands an army.”

Anger serves you when it gives you the power to get something done immediately, but anger that hangs around does one no good. For example, if somebody disrespects you and you get angry and you let them know that is not appropriate, you may well have stood up appropriately for yourself. But if you say nothing at the time and then hang on to the slight for months afterward, that type of anger does not serve you. Getting angry about events you can’t control does not serve you. A steady state of rage does not serve you.

A key element to a grievance story is “story.” Story is the way we interpret and relate a set of facts. By describing our opponents as demons, we are building a grievance story that will distort our understanding of reality and deepen our feelings of rage.

Friend: “Serious question: is there a natural revulsion by jews to Christians invoking Satan/demons/evil in politics? Does it feel like that barrel will get pointed at jews eventually?”

American Jews are mainly secular and they don’t like religion and the supernatural given serious sway in politics. To the extent that Jews are religious, they don’t believe in any entity with power outside of God and the freedom He has given people. The turn to the irrational frightens Jews.

Once you understand that most people’s behavior is based in their genetics and their upbringing, you lose your need to demonize the different.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Are Our Opponents Demons?

Outrageous Betrayal: The Real Story of Werner Erhard from Est to Exile

In the first 50 results for his name on Youtube, Werner Erhard has zero critical videos.

During the 1990s, it felt like at least half the people I knew in Orthodox Judaism were doing Landmark Forum. That’s seems to have died down.

Washington Post:

Steven Pressman, a legal journalist, nicely recounts the bizarre tale, partly known already from muckraking magazine articles and a 1991 “60 Minutes” expose. Particularly good on Erhard’s Byzantine financial and legal affairs, he also conveys Erhard’s callous egomania and the nastiness of the est seminars, where “body catchers” and barf bags were available for people who fainted or vomited under the trainers’ brutal, foul-mouthed harangues. The strategy was to destroy participants’ sense of self-worth through techniques of deprivation and boot-camp intimidation and then encourage them to construct a new “self” free of the guilt and errors of the past. To demonstrate their transformation, “graduates” were pressured to recruit friends and associates for future est sessions.

Even in a field not noted for clarity of language, est-speak was exceptionally leaden and jargon-clogged. Erhard offered banalities and the thuggish tactics of the schoolyard bully as a path to personal renewal, and a million Americans ultimately responded, generating $430 million in revenue — eloquent testimony to the longing for meaning and authority in contemporary society. “I was trying to find the fastest way to God,” recalled one recruit. “Meditation was slow. Werner put things together in a way that went bing, bing, bing.”

Though Erhard briefly campaigned against world hunger as a recruitment gimmick, he preached essentially a narcissistic preoccupation with the self, devoid of social connectedness apart from the ersatz “community” of est enthusiasts.

Publishers Weekly: “Before he abandoned his wife and children, changed his name to Werner Erhard, moved to California and began promoting his self-awareness programs, known in the 1970s as est and later as the Forum, Jack Rosenberg was a car salesman in Philadelphia. Inspired by a self-help course called Mind Dynamics, by Napoleon Hill’s book, Think and Grow Rich , by Scientology and cybernetics, and advised by a skilled tax lawyer, Erhard launched est in 1971. And for 20 years he reigned as guru of the “human potential movement.” According to freelance journalist Pressman, the womanizing, charismatic and demanding Erhard collected tens of millions of dollars from 500,000 people who took his courses. Eventually lawsuits, desertions among his coterie and the rise of new New Age mind-improving programs ended Erhard’s empire and in 1991, owing millions to the IRS and others, he went into exile in Mexico. Pressman here cuts into him with surgical precision.”

Here are some highlights from this 1993 book:

* Not long after Janis Vivo’s suicide, Wachter considered filing a lawsuit claiming that Erhard and his network bore some responsibility for what happened. Instead, Wachter contacted Erhard’s San Francisco headquarters himself, saying he had spoken to an attorney but preferred to settle the matter privately. Wachter’s decision could not
have pleased Werner Erhard more. For years lawsuits had generated nothing but bad publicity for him and his work, even though no jury had ever found est or the Forum legally responsible for any injury. Courtroom fights just weren’t good business when it came to selling the wonders of personal transformation.

* Jack Rosenberg played around with the sounds of the German names mentioned in the pages of the magazine. And then it came to him. Werner Erhard. It sounded both powerful and exotic, a blending of scientific intellectualism and respected statesmanship. Werner Erhard. He definitely liked the sound of it, and injected another note of Aryan purity into the mixture by picking a good, solid German name: Hans. Werner Hans Erhard. Nobody back in Philadelphia, he thought to himself, would ever imagine that Jack Rosenberg would change his name to Werner Hans Erhard.

* He turned to the pregnant woman sitting beside him, the same woman with whom he had driven to the Newark, New Jersey, airport earlier that day to board a flight to escape to a new life. He asked her what she thought of the name he had picked out. She smiled and nodded in agreement and told him she had picked a new name for herself. Ellen Virginia Erhard was easy enough to pronounce and even had a bit of a poetic lilt to it. Of course, there’d be family back in Philadelphia looking for June Bryde as well as for Jack Rosenberg, so it was important to shed identities and pick up new ones once the plane landed in Indianapolis. A few hours later, when the plane touched ground, a new future lay ahead for Werner and Ellen Erhard.

* His fledgling success on the car lots only seemed to encourage Rosenberg’s increasing alienation from his family. Feeling flush with a little money in his pocket, he much preferred the bellicose carousing and womanizing favored by his fellow salesmen to the mundane domestic isolation that awaited him at home with his wife and growing family. It was a pattern that would be repeated over and over again long after Jack Rosenberg transformed himself Werner Erhard.

* Three years after their son Jack was born on September 5, 1935, Joe Rosenberg resolved one thorny family prob¬
lem by converting to Christianity. Though Jack continued to see his Jewish relatives, his own religious upbringing took place within the walls of the Clauson family church, the Church of the Holy Nativity in Germantown, where he was baptized John Paul Rosenberg in February 1945, at the age of nine.

* Unfortunately for Rosenberg, his wife, Pat, and his mother learned about his affair, which succeeded only in increasing his hostility toward both of them. Soon he had a new plan to get away from his family and Philadelphia. On March 29, 1960, he and June— who now knew about Rosenberg’s double life— drove the seventy miles that separated Philadelphia from Bel Air, Maryland, not far from the Pennsylvania border. That afternoon he and June applied for a Maryland marriage license under the names of Curt Wilhelm VonSavage and Celeste Marie Radell. On the application for the license, Rosenberg accurately listed his age as twenty-four and his occupation as that of a salesman. But VonSavage, he wrote, had been born in New Jersey and currently lived in the small New Jersey town of Phillipsburg. Three days later, on April 1, a Methodist minister in Bel Air united the covert couple in marriage. Jack Rosenberg had committed bigamy. Wedding vows completed, the couple returned to Philadelphia, where June Bryde quietly resumed her job at the real estate office while Rosenberg continued selling cars and living with Pat and the children in an apartment in Hatboro, a commuter town north of Philadelphia off the turnpike.

* More than a dozen years would pass before Rosenberg’s family would hear from him again. By the time they landed a
few hours later, Jack Rosenberg and June Bryde were ready to begin new lives as Werner and Ellen Erhard.

* He and Ellen also made arrangements with an attorney to give up the baby she was carrying for adoption immediately after the birth.

* Erhard was growing restless in St. Louis so the idea of moving on caught his fancy even though he did not even own a car. He solved that dilemma by packing Ellen and their meager belongings into a Buick Special that he had agreed to sell on consignment and simply taking off. Driving west in a stolen car without much money, the Erhards
often spent the night in the Buick. Once Ellen woke up to the jarring sounds of Erhard yelling and banging on the car. The heater had not been working correctly, which had angered him so much that he pounded furiously on the car until he managed to punch the heater right out. On other nights the couple would check into a motel, only to steal away early in the morning without paying the bill. Erhard also avoided arrest by periodically screwing on new license plates that he had taken from one of the car lots back in St. Louis.

* The apparently successful transformation from a Philadelphia car salesman named Jack Rosenberg to a San Francisco book salesman named Werner Erhard did not change the old Rosenberg habit of romancing women to whom he was not married. He usually preferred to hire attractive women for his book sales force, and he rarely hesitated to seduce those whom he found sexually appealing. Between work and his extramarital socializing, Erhard had little time to spend with Ellen and his children, often seeing them only for a few minutes late in the evening after one of his employees—often one of the women he was seeing—drove him home from San Francisco across the Golden Gate Bridge. On some evenings the night security officer who patrolled the grounds of the Cote d’Azur would see Erhard arriving home well past midnight in the company of women who enjoyed parking with him and talking for a while before he went inside.

* Later that night Erhard was arrested for battery and disturbing the peace by San Rafael sheriff’s deputies. The
battery charges were later dropped, leaving Erhard to pay a $44 fine and receive a sentence of six months’ probation. A year later, however, the conviction was formally set aside, leaving Erhard’s criminal record officially expunged.

* Beginning in 1971, Erhard started to amass his own personal fortune by telling at first hundreds, and then later
thousands, and then later still hundreds of thousands of people that there are no such things as “victims” in the world, whether they are people set upon by muggers in dark alleyways or hospital patients suffering from cancer and other debilitating diseases.

A particularly disturbing example occurred years later when, during an est session, Erhard set about convincing a Holocaust survivor and est participant that she— along with family members who had perished in a Nazi death camp— was “responsible” for her own predicament. Neither the Nazis nor Hitler, Erhard said later, created the woman’s “experience” of the concentration camp. They were only an illusion. The reality, said Erhard, was that she had created her Holocaust experience.

* Erhard, with his own record of seduction and sexual conquests, undoubtedly found in Hill’s motivational writing a rationale for his own sexual exploits. After all, sex— at least in the get-rich formula of Napoleon Hill— amounted to little more than part of a salesman’s arsenal of weapons in the ongoing battle to sell more, to be more productive, to be more successful.

* Like so many other American fads, however, L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics movement, which had shot so quickly to stratospheric heights, found itself on the descent after a matter of months. Word began to seep out that Hubbard was growing unyieldingly authoritarian, refusing to delegate power while growing increasingly suspicious of those
around him. There were rumors that he had beaten and mistreated his second wife, and it was later revealed that he married his second wife without informing her that he had not divorced his first wife, a strikingly eerie parallel to Werner Erhard’s bigamy. He started having affairs with women who worked on his staff or as volunteers. Adding
to the troubles were some severe cases of psychotic behavior suffered by a few individuals going through Dianetics auditing…

* By the mid-1960s Hubbard was again hearing the ominous sounds of footsteps marching after him. In October 1965 complaints about Scientology in Australia had prompted a blue-ribbon panel there to issue a scathing 173-page report that called the practice of Scientology a “serious threat to the community, medically, morally and socially, and its adherents sadly deluded and often mentally ill.”

The report also blasted the Hubbard Association of Scientologists International, which Hubbard had created in London in 1952, as “the world’s largest organization of unqualified persons engaged in the practice of dangerous techniques which masquerade as mental therapy.” The Australian government responded to the report in December by passing the Psychological Practices Act that effectively outlawed Scientology in that country. That legislative act, in turn, prompted calls within the House of Commons in Great Britain to probe the status of Scientology in that country. . In the United States, Internal Revenue Service agents began to investigate the legitimacy of Scien¬
tology’s tax-exempt status as a “church.”

* In July 1968 the British government declared Scientology to be “socially harmful” and imposed a ban on its students entering the United Kingdom. Within days the British home secretary announced that Hubbard had been classified as an “undesirable alien.”

While Hubbard cruised warm waters, Werner Erhard continued to study Scientology while subjecting his staff to Hubbard’s odd tenets and theories.

* Erhard’s Scientology course never got off the ground. For Erhard quickly realized that once his customers completed the course, they would have no further need for him. Werner Erhard wanted more: namely a program and a marketing plan that would keep his customers coming back again and again.

* Shortly after he reappeared in the lives of his children in Philadelphia, he made the startling announcement that he had little interest in being their father. Instead, he said, his role would be that of a “teacher.”

* Privately, Erhard had trouble remembering his children’s ages and spent little time with either his once-abandoned Philadelphia family or his second family being raised by Ellen Erhard in Marin County.

* But the illusory image of Werner Erhard as a transformed human being who joyfully embraced his once-abandoned family was only part of the facade he needed to project. Even before his reconciliation with his Philadelphia family, Erhard had been tiring of his role as a husband to Ellen and father to their three children. All during his days working for Parents and Grolier, Erhard kept up a steady stream of sexual affairs while spending little time at home with Ellen and the children. The pattern persisted once he started est. He began spending more frequent nights in San Francisco, sleeping in one of the apartments that some of his employees had rented in a fading threestory Victorian on Franklin Street in Pacific Heights, not far from the est office in North Beach. Gradually he began using part of the house as his own private office, leaving the rest of the staff to carry out the
business of making him famous back on Kearny Street.

* Others who had joined up with Erhard received their own lessons in surrendering authority to the imposing figure who, from the time that est started, always presented himself as the source of the material he was now selling to the public.

* During the first year or so of est, Erhard himself led all the est trainings, since he was the only one who had yet mastered the hours of materials he had stitched together from Scientology and Mind Dynamics and Dale Carnegie and Maxwell Maltz and a variety of other sources.

* Anytime someone got up to “share” something during the training, everyone else was instructed to acknowledge him or her with applause. It never took very long for est training sessions to take on the surreal dimensions of confusing logic. A stream of abusive epithets hurled at a skeptical participant always ended in a cheerful smile from the trainer and an enthusiastic round of applause from everyone else.

By the late afternoon of the first day, the est trainers always launched into another several hours’ worth of lectures revolving around one of est’s fundamental tenets. Taking responsibility for your life, in the world according to Werner Erhard, required people to accept the idea that they were equally responsible for everything that happened in their lives. From illness and disease to auto accidents and street muggings, Erhard and his trainers drummed into the heads of est participants that they alone caused all the incidents and episodes in their lives to occur. The est philosophy included no room for victims or excuses. Only when his customers accepted that, only when they realized that all people “create their own reality,” were they in a position to resolve problems plaguing their lives.

Nobody believed that more fervently than Werner Erhard himself. More than ten years before he created est, Jack Rosenberg had already created a new reality by shedding his past and pretending for years it had never even existed. Driven by an overpowering ambition for fame (and its accompanying riches), Erhard discovered in the myr¬
iad self-help, get-rich, human motivation textbooks and courses a formula that seemed to accommodate so conveniently his own personal psychodrama. It had worked for him. Surely it was something that
could work for others.

* Erhard, of course, had discovered no new miracle cure. Similar versions of the Truth Process already had surfaced in other self awareness methods, including gestalt therapy, primal scream therapy, and the auditing practice in Scientology. Even earlier, a British psychiatrist named William Sargant had studied various techniques involved in indoctrination and thought control, only to discover a longstanding strain of the very same method used in Erhard’s est training.

In his 1957 book, Battle for the Mind, Sargant described the technique as a “time-worn physiological trick which has been used, for better or worse, by generations of preachers and demagogues to soften up their listeners’ minds and help them take on desired patterns of belief and behavior.”

* In September 1976, a Berkeley sociologist named Theodore Roszak told Newsweek magazine that America in the mid-1970s was in the middle of “the biggest introspective binge any society in history has undergone.” Nowhere was that binge more evident than on the streets of San Francisco.

* Tom Wolfe acidly described the years as the “Me Decade” in a 1976 cover story for New York magazine that, not surprisingly, opened with a searing account of an est training, offered as a classic example of the self-obsessive nature of the times. Wolfe compared the new culture of “me-ism” to two earlier periods of religious awakening that had gripped the country, first in the middle of the eighteenth century and again in the early decades of the nineteenth century. But in the Me Decade, worshipers sought to tap not some distant and unseen spiritual force but rather the more immediate and potent, self-absorbed power of the individual. Wolfe concluded his lengthy essay:
“Where the Third Great Awakening will lead— who can presume to say? One only knows that the great religious waves
have a momentum all their own. Neither arguments nor policies nor acts of the legislature have been any match for
them in the past. And this one has the mightiest, holiest roll of all, the beat that goes . . . Me . . . Me . . . Me . . . Me. . . .”

Journalists such as Wolfe and others delighted in using Werner Erhard as an illuminating example of the narcissistic message so pervasive during the 1970s. The central, underlying message that Erhard had planted in the est training—the same mantra that his cloned trainers drummed endlessly into the minds of those streaming into
hotel ballrooms by the tens of thousands—was that reality centered in each individual sitting in each of those uncomfortable ballroom chairs. Each of you, Erhard and trainers repeated over and over again to every fresh set of customers, is ultimately and completely responsible for your own reality. Each of you is responsible for everything
that happens in your life.

* Although Erhard hardly created single-handedly the phenomenon and culture that defined the Me Decade, Peter Marin, writing in Harper’s in 1975, castigated Erhard as a living embodiment of the age’s “new narcissism.”

“Clearly Erhard has a genius— not only for the efficiency with which his program is organized and sold, but also for the accuracy with which he tells his audience what it wants to hear. It is the latter which binds them to him. The world is perfect, each of us is all-powerful, shame and guilt are merely arbitrary notions, truth is identical to belief, suffering is merely the result of imperfect consciousness— how like manna all of this must seem to hungry souls. For if we are each totally responsible for our fate, then all the others in the world are responsible for their fate, and if that is so, why should we worry about them?”

* By the mid-1970s Erhard had largely succeeded in building an enterprise that revolved, in almost every facet and detail, around the obligation to worship Werner. “I love you,” he signed off constantly in est-promoting messages that appeared in a new monthly magazine distributed to est graduates around the country. Along with a litany
of glowing testimonials about the power of est, the magazine usually included plenty of photographs of Erhard himself, always smiling, always showing off his handsome, almost boyish features. In person, as in his photographs, Erhard was always immaculately groomed and fashionably dressed. As he approached his fortieth birthday, Werner
Erhard gave every appearance of a man completely in charge.

* To the outside world, Erhard often appeared as a fuzzy-sounding though seemingly well-intentioned head of a popular self-awareness offshoot of the human potential movement. But inside the culture of est, he was becoming nothing less than the dictatorial general of a compliant army, whose sole job was to re-create the man in charge
and carry out his every whim.

* Although insistent that his walls be adorned with books, he rarely read any himself. “I gave up reading about ten
years ago,” he told an interviewer, almost pridefully, in 1974. “I have really gotten over having to read them. I love tables of contents. I can truly read a book from the table of contents, most of the time.”

* The est organization by the mid-1970s already had a name and a program in place for ensuring Erhard’s increasing influence on the world. It was called SOIP, which stood for Sphere of Influence People — and it included those who
needed to be courted and cajoled, wined and dined, treated to VIP est training sessions where they could “get it” without having to mingle with more ordinary people flocking into est trainings around the country.

* Werner Erhard “looks like someone I should keep my eye on,” San Francisco writer Leo Litwak wrote in an article about est that appeared in the Sunday magazine of the New York Times in 1976. “He goes all out for what he wants. My inclination was to close my heart and guard my pockets.”

Esalen founder Michael Murphy, in the same article, noticed two sides to the curious persona of Werner Erhard. “[There is the] rough cut, self-taught philosopher with a dazzling gift for philosophy,” said Murphy. “Where did he get it? He hasn’t read the texts. He has no academic background. And then there’s the super-salesman, the founder of an autocratic organization held in reverence by staff and graduates. The mixture is disconcerting.”

* Werner Erhard seemed to reserve his fiercest hostility for some of the women who were part of the est culture. Though the feminist movement in the United States roughly paralleled the rise of est, Erhard rarely hesitated to make demeaning remarks about women who worked for him. He would deride women as “snakes,” and insist that
men were the source of power, leaving women to fill subservient roles.

Once, when one of his aides walked into a meeting to let him know his next appointment was scheduled to begin in a few minutes, Erhard glanced at the busty woman and then chortled to others in the room, “Pretty good, a clock with tits.” At other times he tossed around crude remarks, telling one employee, for example, how nice she looked in
the “fuck-me shoes” she wore to work that day.

But his demeaning attitudes toward women did not stop with his verbal insults. Though he was insulated by a layer of protective personal aides, there have been persistent reports that Erhard allowed his quick and sometimes violent temper to spill over into physical abuse of women. Though he could be seductively charming, Erhard
also possessed a deep-seated resentment of women, the origins of which were likely to be found in his unsatisfying relations with the most prominent women in his life, including his mother and each of his two wives. Perhaps fearing personal intimacy in long-term relations, he resorted instead to a long-standing series of affairs. He also
preferred to hire for his various sales staffs attractive women, some of whom he seduced into utter obedience and total loyalty. Now, as the mystique of est conferred upon Erhard still more power over the lives of his most faithful followers, he carried his behavior and attitudes toward women to even more disturbing depths. On more than
one occasion, it became the task of one of his closest aides and confidants inside the Franklin House to be ready with an ice pack and some soothing words to treat a blackened eye and comfort another victim of Erhard’s demons. Werner Erhard’s seductive charm sometimes had a habit of giving way to the back of his hand.

* His self-assuring words about a contented family life masked a much different family portrait that was well hidden from public view. Long before est came into existence, Ellen Erhard had grown accustomed to playing the role of a dutiful wife, putting up with his absences from home and his womanizing habits. She compensated by devoting herself to maintaining a clean and comfortable home for herself and her children, realizing that her husband—with his expansive ego-driven ambitions—had little interest in sharing in that life with her. She contemplated divorce from time to time, but always backed away because of the anxious fear that leaving Werner Erhard might jeopardize her own ability to provide a secure home for herself and the children.

* Living inside the est culture, the young offspring of Werner Erhard hardly could escape the same strict demands and angry temper that often marked their father’s dealings toward his staff. During one social gathering at the Franklin House, Erhard stood in the corner of the elegant dining room talking to some of his children while others
milled around waiting for dinner to be served. Suddenly, and without any provocation, Erhard launched into a bombastic tirade aimed at his nine-year-old son, St. John, berating the frightened boy over a poor grade he had received in school. As others in the room watched in muted embarrassment or pretended not to notice, Erhard grabbed
St. John by the shoulders and shook him harshly, forcing the boy to fall to the ground.

“If you ever get grades like this again, I’ll break your leg with a baseball bat, and don’t think I’m kidding!” Erhard screamed, as he towered over the boy who could only look up at his father with terror in his eyes.

* The time had come for Erhard to complete his wife’s transformation. He walked over to her chair and slapped her across the face, and then, with greater force, he knocked her to the floor. No one in the room came to her aid as Erhard began kicking her—not the kind of kick that earlier had been delivered, but sharper blows that hurt her and had her begging for him to stop. Finally Erhard’s brother Harry and another assistant got up from their chairs and pulled Erhard away.

* Erhard remained adamant that she confess her transgression, that she “get off it.” Pushed out of her chair, she was ordered by Erhard to her knees while he continued to yell loudly and repeatedly at her to stop “withholding” from him. “You are having an affair!” Erhard screamed at his wife, who looked back at him with empty eyes but said nothing. “What do you think you’re hiding?”

Ellen remained mute on the ground, hoping, as she had done in vain during the previous session, that someone would come to her aid. But no one did. And when Erhard asked for a volunteer to “handle” Ellen, Bob Larzelere suddenly felt the time had come to demonstrate his complete loyalty and obedience to him and est’s principles of
transformation. This was the moment, thought the former Berkeley doctor. This is when I can prove to Werner Erhard that he can count on me, fully and without any doubt, to serve him. Larzelere got to his feet and approached Ellen, who was lying prone on the floor. He put his hands around her neck and began to squeeze. He meant only to frighten her, since that is what he assumed Erhard wanted him to do.

Applying enough pressure to bruise her neck without cutting off her supply of oxygen, Larzelere acted almost as if he were in a trance, a trance induced by his commitment, above all else, to win the love of Werner Erhard. Erhard’s children looked on in horror as they watched their mother’s face turn pale, as a little saliva dribbled out of the side of her mouth. Celeste, fourteen years old at the time, grabbed hold of nine-year-old St. John and turned his head away so that he would not have to see his mother endure such physical abuse. Clare, Erhard’s oldest daughter from his first marriage, also tried to shield some of the younger children from the ugly scene unfolding in front of them.

“Stop it!” Celeste finally shrieked at Larzelere, as she watched her mother slump on the floor. “You’re going to kill her!”

Until then, Erhard had remained in his chair, calm and without emotion, as he watched Larzelere choke Ellen. Only when his daughter screamed for Larzelere to stop did he turn to her with a cold stare and an angry outburst. “Sit down!” he snapped at her. “Or you’re going to get the same treatment.”*

The night Ellen Erhard was choked in front of her children marked the beginning of a year-long “rehabilitation” program that Erhard decreed for his wife…

* In March 1992 Erhard sued CBS for libel, alleging that, among other claims, a “60 Minutes” broadcast a year earlier “falsely publicized that Mr. Erhard launched into a jealous rage toward his ex-wife wherein he kicked her a number of times while she was on the floor” and “falsely publicized that Mr. Erhard assaulted her to such a degree that he was killing her by causing her to be hurt, choked, strangled, or punished and made to talk or confess.” However, Erhard subsequently dropped the suit without any decision on the merits of his claims.

* Erhard “has no original ideas, but he is sharp enough and glib enough to impress a lot of folks,” a reviewer wrote in the Los Angeles Times. As for Bartley, the Times said his “philosophical justification of est as a mishmash of totalitarianism, hucksterism and existentialism makes this book more a public relations product than an objective study.” Illustrating the frontpage Sunday review was a cartoon caricature of Erhard outfitted as a
slick used-car salesman pitching his dubious wares.

* The most serious allegations about Werner Erhard would not be found in publicity-minded interviews orchestrated by him and his aides. Instead, several years would pass before Deborah had the courage to state publicly that her father had sexually molested her when she was about sixteen years old, well before the pretty soft-faced girl
first sat down to talk about her famous father. She said it had happened only once, after which she tried to tuck it into the background so that she might yet have a loving relationship with her father. It was not to be. According to Deborah, Erhard, a few years later, coerced one of his older daughters— one of Deborah’s sisters, in her twenties — into having sexual intercourse with him in a hotel room they were sharing during one of his frequent out-of-town trips. Again, according to Deborah, the sexual abuse happened only once, but Deborah’s sister nonetheless was frightened and traumatized by the incident and she remained silent about it for years, afraid of what Erhard might do if she ever uttered a word to anyone. She recounted the ugly episode to Deborah only after Deborah told of her own abuse.

Still, the two girls did not immediately say anything to others in the family, not even to their mother, for fear that they simply would not be believed. But, Deborah says, Erhard’s older daughter made one solemn vow that she kept ever since. Never again, she swore to her sister, would she ever see her father alone.

According to Deborah, Werner Erhard’s daughters finally confronted their father with their accounts of his sexual abuse at a stormy, twelve-hour family meeting on board his Sausalito houseboat in the mid-1980s. With most of his family present, Erhard vehemently denied that he had ever raped his older daughter, although, Deborah says, her father admitted having sexual intercourse with her sister. What’s more, Erhard explained that the episode had been a “nurturing experience” for the young woman. Erhard has denied all allegations of sexual abuse.

The man who sermonized at est meetings about the special bond between parents and children made a mockery out of his words with his own behavior toward his children. Even with his younger daughters, he sometimes talked suggestively about sex, sitting around the table as he reached, almost playfully, for their breasts. “Oh, I wish I
could be the first to teach you guys,” he would tell his teenage daughters Adair and Celeste. “Wouldn’t that be great?”

Throughout est’s existence, Erhard had treated sex as simply another form of human behavior to be controlled and manipulated in ways that enhanced his own overpowering control over the lives of others who inhabited the est culture. Long before he ever started est, Werner Erhard— even when he was still Jack Rosenberg—used his powerful sexual appeal and charismatic energy with women to intensify their own sense of loyalty and devotion to him.

* Inside the emerging est culture, Erhard continued to view sex as an integral part of his obsessive demand that others around him pledge their devotion. He required staff members to divulge the most intimate details of their personal lives as part of a series of policies aimed at controlling their thoughts and behavior. A staff policy imposed in the mid-1970s instructed est staffers to “stay in communication” with Erhard about their personal relationships, particularly those of a sexual nature.

Although the policy was designed to proscribe sexual relations between staff members, exceptions were possible in cases in which Erhard was informed about existing affairs. These relationships could continue to include “fucking,” the staff was told, but only as long as the trysting staffers got their jobs done and showed no signs of “upsets.” The policy made it clear to the staff that Erhard would attribute declining job performance to the fact that “you are fucking whoever you fuck” and would ask the offending party to leave est.

Erhard generously added a “family policy” to the est rules governing sexual conduct, mindful of the occasional desire among married staff members to enjoy dalliances with other partners besides their spouse. The policy, which otherwise prohibited extramarital affairs, allowed such liaisons as long as Don Cox received a letter from
an est staffer’s wife or husband allowing their spouse “to fuck someone else.” The letter also had to include “guidelines” aimed at identifying those with whom the spouse could enjoy sexual intimacy.

* In the early years of est, Erhard had a habit of announcing strict rules proscribing sexual liaisons among staff members, only to drop them at particularly opportune times and reinstate them at a later date. While treating the staff to a weeklong Mexican cruise in 1974, Erhard abruptly lifted the sexual ban, delighting many along for the
trip. After the amorous week at sea, Erhard reimposed the no-sex rules back in San Francisco.

* No such self-reporting sexual rules applied to Erhard. Instead, he entrusted to his closest aides the confidential role of assisting in the steady, though usually clandestine, flow of women in and out of
his private black-painted bedroom on the second floor of the Franklin House. Sometimes his partners came from the ranks of celebrity est enthusiasts, including actress Cloris Leachman, with whom Erhard maintained a relationship for a few years. Otherwise, Erhard helped himself to the sexual favors offered to him by an assortment of attrac¬
tive staff members and est volunteers. A comely Franklin House assistant once confided to an est trainer that another Erhard aide “schedules Werner’s cock” and that she planned “to get on the schedule.”

For the most part, Erhard managed—with the help of his swornto-secrecy aides—to keep the details of his frequent trysts from other staff members. To them, as well as to the legions of Erhard followers around the country, he wanted to maintain the image of a devoted husband and father whose long hours away from his family represented a willing sacrifice to his passionate and consuming dedication to est’s goals of human transformation. Only when occasional evidence of his other extracurricular activities surfaced did staff members see, firsthand, another side of Werner Erhard.

* Swept up in the fervor of the discussion, one of the seminar leaders got to his feet with a serious look on his face. “The question in the room that nobody is asking,” the man told Erhard solemnly, “is ‘Are you the messiah?’ ”
The room grew silent as Erhard looked out to the curious faces of some of his most devoted disciples. After a few moments he replied, “No, I am who sent him.” Undoubtedly, there were many in the room who were sure they had just witnessed the ultimate transformation of a man; Werner Erhard wanted them to believe he was on par with God.

* “Werner Erhard is using the Hunger Project not only for self-aggrandizement but for promoting the for-profit corporation he funded, as well,” concluded Mother Jones magazine in December 1978, following a six-month investigation. “I have serious doubts about the social value of the Hunger Project,” one hunger expert in Washington told the magazine. “It’s probably collected more money in the name of hunger and done the least about
hunger than any group I can think of.” After threatening a libel suit against Mother Jones, est responded instead with a call for seminar participants to devote two minutes of “negative energy” on the magazine’s writers…

* Erhard was keenly aware that his own image as the creator of est and its transformational message required him to be viewed as a successful family man able to enjoy successful and fulfilling relationships. “Jack Rosenberg could botch a marriage,” he once told an interviewer, referring to his broken relationship with his first wife, Pat. “But Werner Erhard had to make it work.” The irony was that the est culture was filled with the victims of busted marriages, both among Erhard’s staff and among plenty of est graduates as well. Divorce was not an uncommon result of the training for many couples. In some cases the training caused husbands or wives to become aware of problems in their marriages. In other instances, est participants found themselves speaking a strange new language and preferring the company of like-minded others who spoke the same fuzzy jargon.

* the two psychiatrists said they had seen enough evidence to speculate that est’s “psychodynamic mechanisms” bore at least some responsibility for the psychotic episodes they had observed. “We are impressed,” they wrote, “that an authoritarian, confrontational, aggressive leadership style coupled with physiologic deprivation fosters an identification with the aggressor. The inability of this defense mechanism to contain overwhelming anxiety aroused by the process may lead to fusion with the leader, ego fragmentation and psychotic decompensation.” In plain English, Glass and Kirsch at least thought it likely that est could be terribly damaging to some of its participants.

* Erhard and others at est were anxious to refute Glass and Kirsch’s suggestions that est training might trigger psychotic outbreaks among some participants.

* As est’s popularity continued to spread across the country, psychiatrists and therapists began to encounter other cases of a seeming cause-and-effect between the training and psychotic behavior. “Most of the people I’ve seen at our clinic— and they come in after the training in fairly substantial numbers— have suffered reactions that range
from moderately bad to dreadful,” the executive director of New Tork City’s Lincoln Institute for Psychotherapy reported in 1978. “They are confused and jarred, and the same pattern — elation, depression, feelings of omnipotence followed by feelings of helplessness — are repeated over and over again.”

* Dr. Lloyd Moglen had seen and treated some apparent est casualties. One man from Fremont, California, imagined that he was God after taking the training. Another patient had shown up at Good Samaritan Hospital displaying signs of acute psychotic behavior and suicidal tendencies immediately after taking the est training. A year later the man walked out of a board-and-care facility in Santa Cruz at one in the morning and was struck and killed by a passing car while he aimlessly crossed the coastal highway which cut through the center of town. Over the years Moglen had begun to revise his initial feelings about est.

* Released from the hospital twenty-five days after she was first admitted, Bojorquez remained at home for the next four months, usually confined to bed and kept heavily sedated on tranquilizers. By early 1980 she felt well enough to take a part-time job; it would be more than a year before she returned to full-time work. In April 1980 a young San Jose attorney named David Rude filed a lawsuit against Werner Erhard and est, claiming that Evangeline Bojorquez’s hospitalization and emotional injuries resulted directly from her est training seven months earlier…

* Moglen, the onetime est enthusiast, bluntly blamed est for causing her psychiatric condition. “What est did was to break down Mrs. Bojorquez’s defenses and concept of reality,” he said in a court document. “Then they left her. They left her to put herself back together again. This she was unable to do.”

* One of Bojorquez’s lawyers, a Seattle attorney named Richard Stanislaw, challenged Simon during his deposition on the educational value of est.
“Are you aware of any educational setting where barf bags are available for the participants?” Stanislaw asked.
“No,” Simon replied.
“Are you aware of any other educational settings where people throw up in the normal course of their educational course?”
“No.”
“Are you aware of any other educational institution where people go through cathartic reactions in the same or similar sense as you have observed people going through the est training?”
“Not directly,” replied the psychiatrist.

* Alarmed by the prospect of a rash of lawsuits, est officials as early as 1981 began to take steps aimed at reducing what they described as “severe emotional upsets” during est training sessions. Erhard’s trainers had observed dozens of incidents in which est participants exhibited strange and bizarre reactions to various portions
of the training. And while the official est policy was to discourage anyone from taking the training if they were already involved in psychotherapy, in many instances there was little emphasis placed on weeding out anyone who was intent on going through est.

* A few days after Irving Bernstein once led an est training in Miami, he got an anxious call from an est official in San Francisco whose job was to keep track of severe emotional upsets occurring around the country. He was calling to tell Bernstein about a woman who had just completed the Miami training and who had been found naked in a nearby playground by two policemen. When the officers approached her, all she could tell them was “Would you come to my posttraining with me? Would you come to my posttraining with me? Would you come to my posttraining with me?”
By the time Vangie Bojorquez settled her case against est, about a half-dozen lawsuits had been filed by others seeking similar damages for a variety of psychological injuries. All had either been dismissed in est’s favor or settled out of court for confidential sums.

* This time a man— a seemingly healthy twentysix-year-old at that— had dropped dead during a particularly stressful
portion of the est training. Far beyond causing a “severe emotional upset,” the man’s family now was claiming that Werner Erhard was responsible for the est-induced death of Jack Slee.

* Erhard now looked for other ways to win recognition and acceptance into the highest circles of San Francisco society. He tried repeatedly, for example, to win a coveted membership in the city’s blue-blood St. Francis Yacht Club, assigning teams of staff people to figure out a way to be invited to join. He was never successful. His bid for acceptance into society circles prompted Erhard to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to organizations such as the opera and the symphony. Though the beneficiaries of his patronage certainly savored his largess, his aggressive and expensive campaign to win society status clashed with his public insistence that he had little interest in the rich spoils est had provided.

* Above all else, Erhard craved respectability and prestige, and not only among the fawning multitudes of est graduates who would soon be flocking into a warmed-over version of est called the Forum. While the Forum would serve as the bedrock of Erhard’s business, in the 1980s he also embarked on other ambitious efforts to bolster his
public image as a transformational guru intent on changing the face of society.

* In late 1984 NASA paid Transformational Technologies $45,000 for three sessions in which Erhard and others lectured forty-seven space agency officials on est-style management theories. “What surfaced,” a NASA official
later wrote in an estlike memo, “is the need for a whole new arena of mastery in management, one that comes to grips with the phenomena of the dance between an organization’s cultural capacity and the unfolding of program accomplishment. It’s not a problem that needs to be fixed. It’s an opportunity.”

In December 1988 several former employees of the DeKalb Farmers Market, a huge produce and seafood mart near Atlanta, claimed in a federal lawsuit that they had been forced from their jobs after protesting their coerced attendance at the Forum along with another similar training session put on by an Erhard-licensed franchise
firm in Florida…

* Michael Breard discovered there was little honor in the menial tasks he was ordered to perform in the service of
Werner Erhard. In the predawn darkness, he scrambled aboard the polished decks of the Canim, careful not to make any noises as he slipped stealthily into the boat’s small galley at around five in the morning. After putting on the coffee, Breard made his way into the bathroom, seeing to it that the room sparkled. Then Breard meticulously arranged Erhard’s toiletries, lining up his shampoo, dental floss, razor, and shaving cream so that nothing was out of place. Breard knew there was a price to pay if he overlooked any of the details. Even the slightest miscue had sometimes resulted in a torrent of shouted obscenities from Erhard himself, who would stand within inches of Breard while he vented his anger. So Breard made sure the colognes were lined up in perfect order and that the toothpaste was spread evenly across Erhard’s toothbrush. After finishing in the bathroom, Breard repaired to the boat’s small galley, inspecting the glass of orange juice for signs of too much pulp that displeased Erhard. Finally Breard was ready to pad softly into Erhard’s bedroom. Kneeling at the foot of the bed, he slipped his hands under the covers until they reached Erhard’s feet and began a gentle massage.

“Werner,” Breard whispered in a singsong voice, “it’s fivetwenty.” After more massaging and another five minutes passed, Breard’s chiming voice updated the time. “Werner, it’s five-twentyfive.” At five-thirty, Erhard arose to begin his day.

* “For so long, I wanted to have a father, for him to be there, to love me,” a solemn-voiced Adair told the journalist. “He said you were interviewing him, and he asked if I’d do this scenario. It’s sickening but I agreed. I would have done anything to have the relationship.” The whole episode on the Canirn had been scripted, plotted in
advance with Adair and two of Erhard’s aides. The morning of Kornbluth’s interview with Erhard, Adair and the aides had figured out the best subject that she could convincingly bring up after her on-cue entrance into Erhard’s study. Afterward, Adair had been offered a “reward” for her convincing performance— the honor of setting up
some of Erhard’s dinner parties.

* Scientology officials for years had been keeping files on Erhard’s est activities out of anger toward his generous use of Scientology material in the est training. L. Ron Hubbard himself had once decreed that his opponents could be “tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed” in order to protect Scientology’s shadowy reputation. Now
Erhard was alarmed by the news that a few Scientology-hired private investigators were snooping around the Bay Area, collecting critical information about him and apparently making efforts to spread it around.

* A few weeks later, on the evening of March 3, millions of television viewers across the country tuned their sets to CBS to watch another edition of “60 Minutes.” Each week the program began with short teasers— a few seconds of excerpts from each segment— so that viewers knew what to expect over the next hour. On that evening, the first teaser showed CBS correspondent Bob Simon describing his harrowing tale of captivity in Baghdad while covering the war against Iraq. Simon had just been freed, and the show had rearranged its schedule so that he could report on his experience.

A few seconds later Erhard’s face filled the screen, and he was heard briefly touting his est-flavored philosophy about making “the world work for everyone.” Then the scene switched to a woman named Dawn Damas, who once had been hired as a governess to take care of the Erhard children. “He beats his wife and he beats his children and he rapes a daughter, and then he goes and tells people how to have marvelous relationships,” Damas said solemnly. “I’m sorry. That’s what I have against Werner Erhard.”

All across America, thousands of est graduates, Forum participants, Erhard employees, and other faithful acolytes— not to mention countless others who may have remembered only vaguely the man with the strange-sounding name of Werner Erhard—watched as “60 Minutes” correspondent Ed Bradley related a dark story of Erhard’s past. The camera dramatically focused its gaze on a few of Erhard’s former followers such as Bob Larzelere, est’s onetime “well being director,” who had left in the late 1970s, and Wendy Drucker, the wife of former est executive Vincent Drucker, as they described their own harrowing accounts of life inside Erhard’s world.

Bradley then turned his attention to two of Erhard’s daughters by Ellen— Celeste and Adair—who choked back tears as they recounted the ugly stories of their father’s violent temper and relived the night their mother had been beaten and abused years earlier at the Franklin House.

“Does your mother know you’re talking to us?” Bradley asked Adair after informing viewers that Ellen’s divorce agreement prohibited her from telling her own side of the story of her relationship with Werner Erhard.

“Yeah,” Adair replied. “Before we left tonight, I talked to her and she’s just—you know, she said, T can’t thank you enough for doing this, for saying these things that need to be said.’ And I know that she wishes she could do the same.”

So far, the “60 Minutes” broadcast had not included anything about Erhard that had not already appeared in other stories. But Werner Erhard knew there was more to come. He knew the most damning charge against him was about to be made from another one of his daughters.

The screen pictured a well-dressed woman with a self-assured expression and the same penetrating eyes as her father. Deborah Rosenberg, the youngest of Erhard’s four children from his first marriage, had never spoken publicly about Werner Erhard since her wellorchestrated interview years earlier for a book about children of
celebrities. She had long since retreated into the shadows, preferring to live quietly in Honolulu with her husband and infant son while trying to put her father out of her mind. Now, the blond thirty-oneyear-old had a more solemn story to tell about what it was like to be the daughter of a man named Werner Erhard.

“I don’t have a problem saying that it happened,” Deborah told Bradley, choosing her words carefully. “I don’t like describing it, but I don’t have a problem admitting that he molested me.” Deborah then added that her father had forced sexual intercourse with one of her older sisters, a charge that Erhard vociferously denied in a portion of a taped interview played by Bradley on the air.

Deborah, however, offered a different version of her father’s response to the alleged incident during a family gathering aboard Erhard’s boat in the mid-1980’s.

“What he did say when I confronted him about it was that there had been sexual intercourse and that it had been a nurturing experience for my sister,” she said.

“He admitted it?” asked Bradley, an incredulous tone in his voice.

“He admitted there was sexual intercourse and that it was a nurturing experience,” she replied softly. “He said he did not rape her.”

* For Werner Erhard, the past had always been something to run away from, to render invisible by pretending that it barely even existed. Erhard and est for years advocated a convenient culture of amnesia, which certainly served the needs of so many thousands of his most loyal followers. In their zeal to discover the innocence of enlightenment, they savored his message of “completing” the past by casting it into a dark abyss. Many of Erhard’s followers also cheered est’s satirical rejection of traditional psychotherapy for similar reasons. Most forms of therapy have aimed for transformation by mining the individual’s past. Erhard’s own experiences in life were reflected in est’s formula for achieving transformation by avoiding the past.

* But now, on this night and on other nights to come, it was up to Laurel Scheaf and a few dozen other disciples of Werner Erhard who led the Forum to accept the applause they knew really belonged to him. They would continue to serve him as they always had—by imitating him, copying his gestures and his style, subtly planting in the mind of each new customer a rationale for the dark acts that Werner Erhard had been so publicly accused of. A rationale for the behavior of a man who humiliated his wife and had been accused of beating her and abusing his own children, while claiming to invent a worldchanging “technology” of personal transformation. Finally the demons had caught up with the man, and he no longer was able to accept the delicious applause that had once greeted his name wherever he
went. On a cool spring night in San Francisco, no one even wondered what ever happened to Werner Erhard.

Posted in Landmark | Comments Off on Outrageous Betrayal: The Real Story of Werner Erhard from Est to Exile

I’m Dysfunctional, You’re Dysfunctional: The Recovery Movement and Other Self-Help

From the New York Times review:

Ms. Kaminer’s antipathy has little to do with whether these techniques work or not. She avoids questioning the experience of people who say they have been helped, cured or even had their lives saved by these methods and others; to her thinking, successful cure isn’t even the issue.

What worries her is the movement’s ideology. She feels that it tends to trivialize suffering by melodramatically refusing to distinguish among levels of suffering or victimization.

* …MS. KAMINER also detests the abstract jargon that makes a linguistic salad of contradictory realms of discourse — especially the high-tech and the spiritual — in order to reap benefits from both markets. For example, people in recovery are usually exhorted not only to overcome the ravages of shame and abuse in flicted by dysfunctional families, but also to resurrect the buried, suffering “inner child” that exists in each of them, as well as to give up their addictions to alcohol, hard drugs, food, sex, tobacco, other people, shopping, work and negative emotions.

* According to the recovery movement, evil, as Ms. Kaminer puts it, “is merely a mask — a dysfunction.”

* Ultimately, what lifts Ms. Kaminer to the pinnacle of her indignation is the recovery movement’s insistence that the faithful surrender their wills to an unspecified higher power.

* For all her wit and intelligence, though, Ms. Kaminer, in her polemical fury, seems blind to some important distinctions. Maybe she stared a little too long at the klieg lights shining on those recovery celebrities who have grown rich and famous entertaining audiences plunged into the darkness of addiction and co-dependency. It’s true enough that in our society, movements readily turn into industries. But that has not happened to Alcoholics Anonymous, which explicitly prohibits the use of its name for publicity or profit. A.A. is a serious, worthwhile organization that employs a blend of moral pressure and group support to help people who can’t face their drinking problem even in psychotherapy. The same is pretty much the case with Overeaters Anonymous and some of the other 12-step programs.

Moreover, there is something to be said for any movement that seeks to stop the centrifugal drift of private life in America. The very existence of the recovery movement illustrates how urgent our longing must be for a sense of community that transcends self-interest, unhappy marriages and the terrible pressure to achieve professional or business success.

* “The failure to deal with racism is partly a function of the kind of insularity that the recovery movement encourages,” she observed. “It becomes more important to focus on your own problems than on larger social issues. And look at the Rodney King verdict — it had nothing to do with rationality. It was all emotion.”

Isn’t what works the most important question for the average bloke? About 100x more important than good linguistics and sterling philosophy? About 100x more important than distinguishing between levels of suffering?

Evil is not a focus of recovery programs. Is that ok?

If seeking direction from a Higher Power works, what’s so terrible? Kaminer hates recovery programs for making people simultaneously more self-centered and more other-centered. What a powerful critique! Either way, recovery loses in Kaminer’s worldview.

So what does Kaminer think is important? Dealing with racism. The Rodney King verdict. Not the riots, the initial Simi Valley verdict. She writes: “It becomes more important to focus on your own problems than on larger social issues.”

For most people, and properly so, their own problems are more important than larger social issues, which they can’t change much anyway.

She’s furious at movements and groups that help people connect with one another and share their deepest fears and pains. Whether or not these groups enable people to lead better lives is irrelevant to Kaminer. To me, that is disturbing. She doesn’t care that some people turn their lives around in these groups? That means nothing to her? What kind of person lacks interest in the welfare of other people? A sociopath. Kaminer’s callous disregard for individuals while laboring so publicly for humanity is typical of her leftwing political orientation.

And why is she so angry? What is it about reality that she can’t accept? Why is she so filled with rage against people who believe in something greater than themselves? What is it about the transcendent and the ineffable that so troubles her?

All effective approaches to life boil down to adrenalin management. When does religion help and when does religion help? According to its ability to manage your adrenalin. When do recovery programs help and when do they hurt? According to their ability to manage your adrenalin. When does philosophy work for a man and when does it hurt? According to its ability to manage your adrenalin. When does therapy help and when does therapy hurt? According to its ability to manage your adrenalin.

To phrase things a little differently, all effective approaches to life help you to attach to the people most important to you. When does religion help you and when does it hurt you? To the extent it helps or hurts you to attach. If you can’t attach to people you love, you’re in big trouble. If believing in the tooth fairy helps you to attach to the people you love, that belief benefits your life. If believing in Santa Claus hurts your ability to attach to the people you love, it hurts your life. If believing in Jesus helps you to attach to the people most important to you, it helps your life. If eating right and exercising diligently hurts your ability to be present with the people most important to you, those seemingly healthy practices are destroying your life.

The less comfortable you are with yourself, the less comfortable you will be with others. The more grievance and anger and resentment you carry, the less you will be able to bring joy to those you love and the less they will want you around.

* Publishers Wweekly: “Kaminer takes potshots at the omnipresent 12-step self-help groups that are threatening to put psychotherapists out of work. She dismisses the rhetoric and religiosity of the programs, finds their intimacy manufactured and their emphasis on “higher power” authoritarian.”

How is having a higher power authoritarian? If it does not exist, what can it do? Why should anyone care that people are finding a more useful and less expensive substitute for therapy?

Los Angeles Times review:

Kaminer is proud to proclaim her non-expertise, which she seems to regard as a kind of credential in itself: “You don’t have to be a therapist, MD, or any other certifiable expert in drug and alcohol abuse and other bad behaviors,” she insists, “to wonder about a society in which people are so eager to call themselves addicted and abused.”

And so Kaminer wonders out loud and at length about the “religiosity” of 12-step groups that call on the intervention of a “higher power,” the “cloyingly positive messages” of various recovery gurus, the “weird New Age babble of bliss-speak and techno-talk” and the media excesses of confessional television programs like “Oprah” and “Donahue”: “Voyeurs collaborating with exhibitionists in rituals of sham community.”

Kaminer may be accurate enough in her self-described “indictment” of the recovery movement, but she cannot seem to resist the impulse to offer up an arch and condescending judgment on the frailties of human nature: “Listening to 35-year-olds complain that they have never been understood by their parents,” she cracks, “I find myself thinking about the Kurds.”

…Still, the author is so arrogant, so brutal and so cutting that Kaminer sometimes sabotages her own earnest arguments. And she so often qualifies or apologizes for what she has written (“It’s not that all positive thinkers are Stalinists or Nazis . . .”) that I began to wonder if her own editors didn’t ask her to lighten up a bit.

Kaminer complains that the recovery movement is “niggardly and mean-spirited.” The same, I’m afraid, can be said of “I’m Dysfunctional, You’re Dysfunctional,” which discounts and dismisses the real human suffering that has prompted the very excesses that she gripes about. To the reader in pain, I’m afraid, the author has nothing to say except: “Buck up–and shut up.”

* Kaminer’s big critique of recovery programs is that they are not political and don’t promote participatory democracy.

Kaminer criticizes 12-step programs for being religious, but AA’s founder, Bill Wilson, and the two thinkers who influenced him, William James and Carl Jung, were not religious and even anti-religious.

In the 12-step approach, what does powerlessness over an addiction mean? One, it is an approach to dealing with a problem proven to work for millions of people who otherwise felt hopeless. Two, it increases our humility and opens us up to new ways of doing things. Three, stating powerlessness brings awareness of how many automatic responses we have that do not serve us, and brings awareness of our vulnerability in a dangerous world. Four, it is a way of turning our orientation away from ourselves to a higher power. Five, admitting powerlessness means complete self-acceptance and that in turns enables me to accept others. I have accepted my place in humanity. Six, admitting powerlessness is an acceptance of reality because we are powerless over almost everything around us and helplessness is one of the four basic states we continually return to as we climb the spiral staircase of life (along with mastery, grandiosity, and loneliness). Seven, admitting powerlessness in 12-steps is not a flight from responsibility, rather, it is the beginning of accepting responsibility. It is akin to admitting that one is a type one insulin-dependent diabetic and hence needs to take insulin regularly. When we admit we are powerless, we are admitting we have a guillotine above our necks and that it is only through the maintenance of our spiritual condition that we can live freely one day at a time. 

Posted in Addiction, Self Help | Comments Off on I’m Dysfunctional, You’re Dysfunctional: The Recovery Movement and Other Self-Help

Sham: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless

I’ve spent thousands of hours of my life reading self-help books and listening to self-help lectures. Overall, I’m ambivalent about the industry and the time I spent there. I think self-help helps some people and hurts other people. I do not find the time I spent there a major source of regret. There are far worse things to pursue than self-help. I have a brain that is half wide open and gullible and another half of my brain is critical and analytical. The latter half usually wins though I’ll try almost anything that is not dangerous.

Steve Salerno writes in this 2005 book:

* Compared to the possibilities in life, the impossibilities are vastly more numerous. What I don’t like to hear adults tell people your age is that you can be president or anything else you want to be. That’s not even remotely true. The truth is that you can run for president, and that’s all. . . . In our wonderfully free society, you can try to be just about anything, but your chances of success are another thing entirely.” —Marilyn vos Savant, recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records for Highest IQ, responding to a young person’s letter in her Parade column, March 2, 2003

* Never have I covered a phenomenon where American consumers invested so much capital in every sense of the word—financial, intellectual, spiritual, temporal—based on so little proof of efficacy. And where they got such spotty, if not nonexistent, returns. For more than a generation, the Self-Help and Actualization Movement—felicitously enough, the words form the acronym SHAM—has been talking out of both sides of its mouth: promising relief from all that ails you while at the same time promoting nostrums that almost guarantee nothing will change (unless it gets worse). Along the way, SHAM has filled the bank accounts of a slickly packaged breed of false prophets, including, but by no means limited to, high-profile authors and motivational speakers, self-styled group counselors and workshop leaders, miscellaneous “life coaches,” and any number of lesser wise-men-without-portfolio who have hung out shingles promising to deliver unto others some level of enhanced contentment. For a nice, fat, nonrefundable fee.

[LF: You could make a similar critique of psychiatry and psycho-therapy. Most drugs that psychiatrists prescribe have an efficacy only slightly above placebo while the dangers of these drugs are considerable.]

* One camp, Victimization, has eroded time-honored notions of personal responsibility to a probably irrecoverable degree, convincing its believers that they’re simply pawns in a hostile universe, that they can never really escape their pasts (or their biological makeup). The other camp, Empowerment, has weaned a generation of young people on the belief that simply aspiring to something is the same as achieving it, that a sense of “positive self-worth” is more valuable than developing the talents or skills that normally win recognition from others. Those in this second category tend to approach life as if it were an endless succession of New Year’s resolutions…

[LF: Whatever your perspective here on the self help industry, I think Dr. Phil’s question is the best one — how’s that working for you? This book is a polemic. It is a series of strident declarations by somebody with a strong point of view. Sometimes the author even has evidence for his views. I believe that approaches in one area of life won’t work in others and that what may work for one’s private spiritual work won’t work for other matters. For example, I would not want public policy run according to 12 step ideology and practice. I would want law enforcement to treat criminal behavior the same way as behavior whether or not some argue it comes from addiction. I understand most people can’t operate with different explicit approaches to different parts of life. They want an overarching approach.]

* Victimization held sway for more than twenty years, from the late 1960s through the 1980s.

* The twelve-step approach spawned an entire submovement—Recovery—that has profoundly influenced not just SHAM but society as a whole. The specific twelve steps are generally credited to Bill Wilson (the much-mythologized “Bill W.”), a salesman and contemporary of Dale Carnegie who in 1935 cofounded AA with a proctologist/surgeon, Robert (“Dr. Bob”) Smith. Wilson was an interesting character—among other things, an inveterate spiritualist who fancied Ouija boards and regularly conversed with the dead. After starting AA, Wilson and some of the organization’s early members codified the steps of Recovery in the book Alcoholics Anonymous. With minor variations in nuance as well as some adaptations to fit changing mores, the twelve steps have remained pretty much the same ever since, regardless of the specific problem being “treated.” All members of Recovery groups have engaged in the following twelve steps…

[LF: The twelve steps are not just “generally credited to Bill Wilson”, they were composed by Bill Wilson. AA was not co-founded, it was founded by Bill Wilson, and if there anyone else who came close to being a “co-founder”, it was Hank Parkhurst…. Most members of recovery group have not engaged in the 12 steps. Anyone can call themselves a member of a 12-step group. Groups such as AA won’t take donations above $2,000 in a year and will accept no money from outsiders. So twelve step groups are not a money-making racket. What other non-profits won’t take large donations?]

* If you’ve had little exposure to the twelve steps, you may be surprised at the religiosity of the foregoing.

[What religion exactly? I don’t see one. People from many religions and no religion at all work the 12 steps.]

* In truth, through the years, while the steps have remained fairly constant, Recovery’s “tone” has grown more secular, featuring greater emphasis on a generic “Power” and less overt mention of God per se. This is particularly true of twelve-step programs that originated in the antiestablishment 1960s, as God fell out of fashion and twelve-step impresarios understood that by hewing so closely to the old spiritual line, they risked alienating their target audiences. Some of today’s most “progressive” twelve-steps fudge the issue by arguing that the higher power is something that resides in a person’s untapped “spiritual consciousness.”

[LF: Depends on the group. There’s still plenty of God talk in the meetings and programs I’ve attended. A 12-step program that is so secular that it has no references to spirituality is rare.]

* Despite the twelve steps’ discussion of “defects of character,” the unmistakable implication was that alcoholics had a disease.

[LF: It was never considered in AA and environs a “disease” like cancer. It was considered a “disease” in the sense of a disorder. Does Salerno believe that the word “disease” only has one meaning that has never altered over time? But even if it was considered a disease like cancer, did that approach help people lead a better life?]

* Enter Thomas Harris. Pre-Harris, the tendency to excuse one’s own faults or blame them on others was seen as a character flaw in itself. The particular genius of I’m OK—You’re OK and the books it inspired was that such works broadened the context: Suddenly it wasn’t just alcoholics who were dogged by self-destructive tendencies they could not control or even fully explain. Victimization became socially permissible, if not almost fashionable in certain circles. (If you didn’t confess to being haunted by the demons of your past, you were “in denial.”) If Harris could be believed, almost all of us had something we needed to “recover from.” Thomas Harris took Victimization mainstream.

[LF: How many people have nothing to recover from? The past is never past, it is always present with us.]

* By extension, the message became Your needs are paramount here. It’s all about you.

[LF: For almost everybody throughout history, their needs have been paramount. The nature of human life is that most of the time, it is all about you. That’s the way people work. It has nothing to do with recovery programs.]

* Recovering a healthy sense of self entailed forsaking your excessive or unhealthy concern for others—for in the twelve-step universe, such excessive concern came to constitute the pitiable emotional quagmire of codependency.

[LF: That’s why a plank of all 12-step programs is service to others? As regards to forsaking excessive or unhealthy anything, that seems like a good thing to me.]

* Inexorably, such notions began to undermine clear-cut judgments about morality, since blame was being shifted from the people who transgressed to the people who (allegedly) caused the transgression. Even murderers sometimes ceased to be murderers and instead became victims of the conditions that made them murder. After a Jamaican immigrant, Colin Ferguson, shot twenty-five Long Island Railroad commuters, killing six, on December 7, 1993, Ferguson’s attorneys broached a novel “black-rage” defense, claiming that years of white oppression had driven him to the edge of insanity. Ferguson ultimately rejected the defense, decided to represent himself, and was convicted—but the case sparked ongoing discussions of black rage and its sociological effects, with the Reverend Al Sharpton and others insisting on the legitimacy of the concept.

[LF: Maybe concepts that help some people in recovery are not equally useful in jurisprudence? A concept that works in one sphere of life is not discredited by being harmful in other spheres.]

* The black-rage defense represented the mentality “Dr. Laura” Schlessinger had in mind when, long before George W. Bush, she ignited controversy by observing, “There is evil in the world, and giving it a different name doesn’t make it less evil.”

[LF: “Evil” is a useful concept in some contexts such as when you share a transcendent moral code with your group. In other contexts, it is less useful. You don’t read a telephone bill the same way you scan a piece of poetry.]

* Under the rules of Empowerment, you were the sovereign master of your fate and could defeat any and all obstacles in life.

* David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values and the author of Fatherless America, told me, “There’s no question that one subtle change in terminology—replacing unwed with single before the word mother—altered the way society perceived the condition itself. It made out-of-wedlock pregnancy so much more palatable to a generation of women, and the nation.”

[LF: Salerno keeps using David Blankenhorn as the voice of wisdom in this book. Blankenhorn supports same-sex marriage, which does not seem wise to me.]

* Certainly SHAM’s debut in the 1960s coincided with a period wherein the nation began to make great strides in race relations, the glass ceiling, and other barometers of overall social health.

[LF: Really? By what metrics? By the metrics I know, such as crime rates and family functioning, it went steadily downhill. How are the newly defined “race relations, the glass ceiling” barometers of overall social health?]

* America today “feels like” a more enlightened place in which to live than America in 1960: We conduct ourselves with greater sensitivity to the feelings of those around us. We communicate more openly and productively with our spouses and friends. We’re better at raising our children—or, at least, we give a whole lot more thought to it than did our parents and particularly their parents, who raised kids by the seat of their pants, seldom sparing the rod.

[LF: I see mixed benefits here.]

* “In years past,” Blankenhorn told me, “getting married was more of a selfless act. You did it in order to build something bigger than you—a family—and to be able to give what you could to the children of that union.” That’s all changed, he said: “People today go into a marriage expecting to a far greater degree to have their own needs met. Instead of giving to the marriage, they want much more from the marriage. And often what they want is unrealistic.” It’s hard to see such mental turnabouts as anything other than a consequence of SHAM-bred “insights.” Indeed, it may not be coincidence that the greatest jump in American divorce, postwar, came between 1975 and 1990, a fifteen-year period that roughly corresponds to the most feverish SHAM activity.

* As a direct result of all this coupling and uncoupling, 45 percent of American children today live in “nontraditional households.” One child in three is born to an unmarried mother. The figure in 1960 was one child in twenty.

* To understand the larger consequences of divorce and illegitimacy, consider just this one statistic: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 72 percent of incarcerated juveniles come from single-parent households.

[LF: Salerno does not understand that correlation is not causation. He blames imprisonment rates on divorce and illegitimacy. Perhaps there are other ways of understanding this that are more useful and accurate.]

* If self-help is so effective at what it’s supposed to do, then why is there so much evidence that Americans, and the society they inhabit, are so screwed up?

[LF: Most Americans do not read books on self-help. A better question is what is the effect of self-help teachings on those who buy and practice them as well as on society as a whole.]

* “Titans in the field may preach self-reliance, but the self-help industry thrives on repeat business.” —New York Times

[LF: If people find something that works, why would they not come back for more of it? If we begin with the supposition that human nature is not good, then we are walking uphill to build a good life and to do this we need fuel. Most religious people, for example, feel the need to regularly gather with their co-religionists. Does this discredit their religion? That’s bizarre thinking. Also, most people who buy a self-help book don’t work the book according to its instructions. Probably fewer than 10% do. So if you sell people a program in a book and they don’t work the program, is that your fault?]

* RICHARD CARLSON. Today, all but the most avid Carlson fans probably wouldn’t know the name, but there’s no forgetting his signature book: 1997’s Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff . . . and It’s All Small Stuff. It wasn’t the first time anyone said it, but Carlson elevated the bumper-sticker banality to a cultural rallying cry. The holder of a PhD in psychology, Carlson had written more than a dozen modestly performing self-help books before he scored big with Small Stuff, which enjoyed a stunning two-year run on best-seller lists. No dummy, he followed it up with Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff for Women, Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff at Work, Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff for Teens, The Don’t Sweat Affirmations, and The Don’t Sweat Guide for Couples. In 2003 he tried something different: What About the Big Stuff?

* DEEPAK CHOPRA. A decade ago, Chopra’s beatific face was everywhere. An endocrinologist endocrinologist by trade, Chopra has been a key figure in the New Age movement since the mid-1980s, but he launched himself to the top of the heap with his 1994 SHAM classic, The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success. Over the next few years the uncommonly versatile guru weighed in on everything from astrology to preventive medicine to spiritually enriching golf. He also sold teas and spices, soothing music, and assorted wellness products, and ran a pricey health spa in California. A powerful literary agent told me that Chopra simply spread himself too thin and “burned out his audience.” Still, his books continue to sell rather well, if not at the level of The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success.

JACK CANFIELD. Together with his coauthor/editor Mark Victor Hansen, Canfield, a motivational speaker and self-styled godfather of self-esteem, conceived what Time magazine eventually would label “the publishing phenomenon of the decade” for the 1990s: the endlessly segmented Chicken Soup for the Soul book series, now with seventy-two books in print in English alone. Notable recent entries include Chicken Soup for the Horse Lover’s Soul, Chicken Soup for the Prisoner’s Soul, and Chicken Soup for the NASCAR Soul.1 The original book’s manuscript was famously rejected by thirty-three publishers during its first month of circulation alone before tiny Health Communications picked it up. Sales of Chicken Soup books have leveled off somewhat from their initial peaks, but the brand has become an industry in its own right.

ROBERT FULGHUM. Fulghum is the one-hit-wonder author of All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten (1988), a sweet but forgettable paean to minimalism about which the brilliant social critic Wendy Kaminer wrote, “Only people who die very young learn all they need to know in kindergarten.” For a time the book made Fulghum a superstar on the SHAM circuit; he got deals for several subsequent books, none of which quite matched the success of the first.

* Schlessinger’s holier-than-thou persona has taken some serious hits since the spring of 1998, when Talkers magazine, a trade publication covering talk radio, ranked The Dr. Laura Show number one on the airwaves, surpassing even the mighty Rush Limbaugh. In those days an estimated 250,000 listeners tried to get through on her show each week, while another 20 million tuned in to shake their heads over the woes of those who did. Schlessinger’s clout and cachet were such that in 1997, when she opted to sell the ownership of her three-year-old syndicated show, Jacor Communications ponied up a staggering $71.5 million.

* Schlessinger also turned out to be a woman with a morally undisciplined history. She had a habit of stealing the hearts of older authority figures, not all of whose hearts, and other physical paraphernalia, were technically or legally available. While in college in New York she met a dentist, Michael Rudolph, who became her first husband. A few years later she left Rudolph to answer the siren call of Los Angeles. One day in 1974 she phoned Bill Ballance’s radio show and got on the air. A zesty bit of byplay on the relative merits of divorce and widowhood, which Ballance allowed to go on for an unheard-of twenty minutes, led to a weekly slot on his show. It also led the still-married Schlessinger to his bed. (Decades later, at the height of the flap over the nude photos, Ballance gibed that his pet name for her should have been Ku Klux, since she was “a wizard in the sheets.”) Still later, while teaching at USC, Schlessinger met the very married Lew Bishop, who had three dependent children at home. Exit Ballance, enter Bishop. By some accounts their affair was messy; when USC did not renew Schlessinger’s contract, Bishop walked away from his tenured professorship in neurophysiology. He walked away from his wife as well, and he and Schlessinger lived together without benefit of matrimony for at least eight years before making it official in 1985. Bishop became Schlessinger’s business manager, though he showed less enthusiasm for tending to his erstwhile family’s business: His former wife had to go to court to extract child support from him. Further, his relationship with his children deteriorated after his marriage to Schlessinger, who, associates say, sought a clean break from Bishop’s past life, and thus his kids.

* Schlessinger has reinvented herself whenever she deemed it expedient. This is most noticeable in her outlook on religion, or the lack of same. Brought up in what she describes as an “inter-faithless” marriage, she admits to living her early life in “secular” fashion. Schlessinger and her son Deryk, her only child with Bishop,3 embraced Judaism in 1996. Two years later the family converted to Orthodox Judaism, aspects of which she cited freely in rendering her moral pronouncements. Jewish organizations, including the National Council of Young Israel, honored her for her religious stances. But on August 5, 2003, Schlessinger opened her show by announcing that she would practice Judaism no more. In a series of introspective descants over the ensuing month, she explained that she felt frustrated by the effort she’d invested in following the Jewish faith, and openly chafed at her shabby treatment at the hands of fellow Jews. She even hinted at increasingly warm feelings toward Christianity, a move that—some insiders say—might enable her to reverse the attrition in listener base she’s suffered in recent years.

* Vickie Bane, similarly paints her as an obsessive-compulsive narcissist whose concern for others is limited to what they can do for her, and whose will to win can be almost frightening. There was, for instance, her mostly one-sided feud with Barbara De Angelis, a fellow talk-therapist. After De Angelis beat out Schlessinger for a coveted time slot, Schlessinger apparently embarked on a sub-rosa campaign to undo her. Derogatory information on De Angelis somehow found its way to the desks of personnel at the radio station that employed them both. Companies who interacted with De Angelis began receiving anonymous calls informing them that De Angelis wasn’t actually a doctor and therefore should not be described as one on the air. Even years after De Angelis left the station and Schlessinger inherited her time slot, the bad blood reportedly continued, at least on Dr. Laura’s part.

Does radio therapy even work? Surprisingly, some in psychiatric circles vote yes. They voice qualified support for the idea that radio shows can provide value to people who are already 98 percent of the way toward a momentous decision and just need that final pat on the back—or kick in the butt—from someone they respect. Also, a radio shrink like Dr. Laura may represent a worthwhile form of shock therapy for a caller who does, in fact, inhabit a world of alibis and denial. Hurd concedes, “She has a bullshit detector unlike anything I’ve ever seen. That’s a very useful quality for a psychotherapist. She pays very close attention to contradictions in what people are saying, and confronts them on it.” Unfortunately, says Hurd, there’s a huge difference between recognizing a problem and fixing a problem. He believes that in her rush to reduce even the most complex behavioral issues to words like slut, Schlessinger “does her callers a disservice.” Hurd adds, “I would never say, ‘Kick your husband out.’ I would say, ‘What would happen if you kicked your husband out? What would happen in the short run, and what would happen in the long run?’ A therapist’s job is to help people think.” Making matters worse is that many people who call radio shows are nowhere near that defining moment described above. On the contrary, they’re in obvious distress, struggling with major complicated dilemmas that seem insoluble to them. The radio format seldom allows for long-form calls, and Schlessinger is historically impatient with callers who don’t cut to the chase, at times to the extent of chiding her screener for giving a forum to callers whose questions were too vague or multifaceted. If Schlessinger tolerates such calls at all, she’ll generally seize on a subjective vision of the caller’s distress and bulldoze forward with her verdict regardless of any added context or embellished character studies that emerge as the call proceeds. She’ll interrupt callers at will, bullying them until they commit to positions that, surely in some cases, do not represent their true reasons for calling.

[LF: It is primarily an entertainment medium and her show should be primarily judged on that basis. Salerno keeps using Dr. Michael Hurd, author of Effective Therapy, as the voice of wisdom in this book. Psychological judgments are incredibly subjective. The same person could go to five different psychiatrists and get five different diagnoses. There are no blood tests for a psychiatric diagnosis.]

* First of all, “Dr.” John Gray is not a medical doctor but a PhD—and a questionable one at that. In recent years multiple sources and reports have challenged Gray’s credentials. He received his doctorate in 1982 from Columbia Pacific University, a nonaccredited correspondence college that California’s attorney general once described as a
diploma mill. The state later fined the school and ordered it to shut down. The professional therapist societies to which Gray belongs, the American Counseling Association and the International Association of Marriage and Family Counselors, both require PhD’s—real ones—for membership. They’ve avoided comment on the Gray situation. This makes Gray’s counseling centers a particular matter of concern to some of his credentialed colleagues, one of whom likens the vast counseling network to a house of cards. “To talk about his ‘certification procedure’ “—a short course designed to produce entrepreneurial John Gray clones—“seems a little odd when the head guy himself isn’t certified,” the psychiatrist told me. Gray’s master’s and bachelor’s degrees aren’t from conventional institutions of higher education, either. They’re from the Maharishi European Research University in Switzerland.

[Salerno focuses on whether or not self-help leaders are credentialed. He pays next to no attention to whether or not what they teach works for people. Re John Gray, whether or not a university is accredited says nothing about whether or not it is any good. Accreditation is a bureaucratic process and some of these processes are more challenging and prestigious than others. Some people and groups don’t want to bow to the bureaucracy. That doesn’t mean they lack merit. On the other hand, seeking credentials is a decent heuristic for finding competence in some fields.]

* He was once married to the irrepressible Barbara De Angelis, the same radio host who became involved in a feud with Laura Schlessinger. De Angelis is another self-proclaimed sexologist; she came to the field after being, among other things, a magician’s assistant to Doug Henning. She was wife number one for Gray; he was husband number three (of five, to date, including Henning) for her. De Angelis’s contributions to the SHAM oeuvre include the optimistically titled How to Make Love All the Time and Are You the One for Me? Perhaps Gray and De Angelis found their own answers to the latter question during some function at Columbia Pacific University, where De Angelis received her doctorate as well.

[LF: John Gray has a gift for describing male-female differences. Salerno gives him no credit because Salerno only wants to tear down these gurus.]

* The ex–cabaret songstress Marianne Williamson has been a key figure in SHAM’s Spiritual Division ever since Oprah, the éminence grise of self-help, embraced Williamson’s 1992 book, A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of A Course in Miracles. For thirty-nine weeks the book sat atop the New York Times best-seller list, and three of her next eight books reached that same lofty perch. At the height of her appeal, Williamson acquired the nickname “Mother Teresa for the ‘90s,” joining Deepak Chopra and unreconstituted psychic Sylvia Browne as the anointed leadership of the New Age.

* Williamson has been honest about the drug abuse and heavy drinking that preceded her spiritual rebirth.

* Even for some industry insiders, the unswerving fidelity of Williamson’s sizable base constituency can be puzzling, since her books are so repetitive, and she spends so much time blithely stating the obvious…

* But the final, fatal flaw in Williamson’s dialectic is its attempt simultaneously to sell idyllic notions of community and unconstrained personal development. Plainly, these cannot coexist unless all of the individual members of any given society just happen to aspire to the very same goals. And lest we forget, Williamson is a staunch one-world cheerleader, so this accidental brotherhood of men and women would have to apply among individuals not just in America but also across international borders.

* Though Dr. Michael Hurd generally likes the way McGraw engages his guests and “draws them out,” he recoils from McGraw’s abrasive way of rousing to a finish. “You have to realize, it’s about showmanship,” Hurd told me, “but therapy shouldn’t take a backseat to showmanship. People shouldn’t get beat up in the process.” Hurd and other critics wonder whether those moments—which, indisputably, make for great television—send McGraw’s guests home with a profound sense of shame and embarrassment rather than lay the foundation for progress on whatever issues they had to begin with. Criticism in this vein may be somewhat naive, in that shows like McGraw’s, notwithstanding the patina of professional integrity, are more about theater than therapy; they provide viewers with a slightly elevated, SHAM-inspired twist on the likes of Jerry Springer.

* “McGraw is a harsh, charismatic man of high intelligence and higher self-regard,” one of his (unauthorized) biographers, Sophia Dembling, wrote in a July 2004 column for the publishing-industry Web site Mediabistro. His seldom-mentioned first wife, Debbie Higgins McCall, agrees. She told me that during their marriage, which lasted from 1970 to 1973, McGraw insisted on being informed of her every move, even requiring her to phone him before she left the house—this, while McGraw himself was leaving the house to see other women, she alleges. As recounted by Debbie, McGraw’s response at being confronted about his infidelities is particularly intriguing, as it represents an ironic harbinger of what would become, decades later, one of Dr. Phil’s signature lines. “I told him I knew he was fooling around on me,” Debbie told me, “and instead of denying it, he basically told me that’s how things are, and I needed to just get over it.”

* Tony Robbins uses science as if it existed solely for his convenience in making the points he wants to make. He’ll offer up blithe correlations between technology and disease or caffeine and breast cancer, as if they were unimpeachable medical truths. He condemns meat and milk, strongly implying that you can’t reach maximum potential if you’re still chained to those vestiges of old-style food consumption. Then there’s that whole bit about the energy frequency of foods, which simply does not make sense, because frequency is a measure of oscillation or vibration, not energy.

* …the happy little community of Robbins World occasionally displays signs of unrest. You see it mostly on the discussion boards he provides for dedicated disciples, if you check often enough. Recently people have complained about management censorship: the sudden disappearance of posts and threads that voice displeasure with any of Robbins’s materials or the long-term efficacy of his programs. In 2001 some fans were dismayed to learn that Robbins and his wife, Becky, had divorced; after all, many followers had bought his books and tapes on the surefire steps to a lasting marriage.

* ICF’s own site features a link to a Washington Post article, “A Coach for Team You,” about the large numbers of people who “are skipping the shrink and hiring a life coach instead,” as the article’s subtitle put its. If large numbers of Americans with serious psychological problems are consulting coaches instead of qualified therapists, clearly there’s more to be concerned about than just what it wastes in dollars.

* MICHAEL FRANZESE…has carved out a comfortable niche as a Mob turncoat. As a bookmaking honcho in the Columbo crime family, back in 1986 he was ranked number eighteen on Fortune’s list of “The Fifty Biggest Mafia Bosses.” But he ended up in prison, where he says he found God; Vanity Fair dubbed him the “born-again don.” Since 1996 Franzese has been a fixture on the lecture circuit and at camps run by pro sports teams, who pay him to warn athletes about the dangers of gambling and other addictive, untoward behaviors. Franzese may be best-known for the 1997 pay-per-view special he produced, Live from Alcatraz, which featured top rappers and other celebrities in an effort to raise money for antidrug campaigns.

* the Recovery ethic strongly implies that a genetic predisposition exists for whatever ails us.

[LF: And that is wrong how? We don’t know.]

* Recovery’s bedrock assumption—that you’re not evil or venal, you’re simply exhibiting symptoms—lays the groundwork for an amoral view of life. It explains why today’s society goes to extraordinary semantic lengths to separate the criminal from the crime.

* “Women appear to feel pressure to adhere to sex-role expectations, which is to say, to be more relationship-oriented and less promiscuous,” Fisher told me. But she underscores that if her survey can be believed, only women’s attitudes differ from men’s—not their actual appetites or behaviors. To the extent women “differ” from men in their sex drive and proclivity for libertine behavior, Fisher concludes that it’s because of social expectations, not genetic code.

[LF: That’s absurd. Men have bigger sex drives on average than women because they have higher testosterone levels.]

* Susan Allan is the founder and director of the Divorce Forum, a Santa Barbara–based counseling agency and a popular Web site on matters matrimonial. When I asked Allan why we have so much divorce today, she gave a simple answer: “We have more divorce because marriage isn’t based on unconditional love.”

[LF: Marriage has never been based on unconditional love. It doesn’t exist (with rare exceptions, such as by parents for young children).]

* The result of that campaign—the rethinking of America’s grade-school system in a way that undercut its commitment to quality education—offers one of the clearest and most instructive lessons in how SHAM’s failings can hurt us all.

[Salerno is an idiot for thinking American schools are bad. When sorted by race, American schools are doing an excellent job. To the extent that America has an education problem, it is primarily because of bad students, not bad schools.]

* It’s been observed that there are two ways to guarantee high scholastic performance. The first is to expect a great deal from students and implement systems that force them to live up to those expectations… [Second:] Simply set expectations so low that no one fails. And tell kids to be happy with the results.

[LF: People achieve in academics and life in large part due to their genetics.]

* One year, the story goes, Mrs. Daugherty found herself confronted by a class full of sixth-graders who were so clueless and intractable that she suspected many of them had learning disabilities. So one day, while the principal was off the premises, she broke a hard-and-fast rule: She looked in the file where student IQ scores and other relevant data were kept. Daugherty was amazed by what she found: Most of her students had IQs in the high 120s and 130s—near-genius level. One of the worst offenders had an IQ of 145. Mrs. Daugherty did a great deal of soul-searching that night. She concluded that the blame for their conduct and lackluster performance was hers and hers alone; she had lost this class of brilliant minds by boring them with low-level work. So she began bringing in difficult assignments. She upped the amount of homework and inflicted stern punishments for misbehavior. By the end of that semester, Mary Daugherty had engineered a 180-degree turnaround: Her class was one of the best behaved and most accomplished in the entire sixth grade. Impressed—and, frankly, stunned—the principal asked Mrs. Daugherty how she had managed such a dramatic turnabout. Haltingly she confessed her secret raid on the IQ files and how it had changed her approach to teaching the class. The principal pursed his lips, smiled, and told her not to worry about it. All’s well that ends well, he told her. “Oh, by the way,” he whispered as she turned to retreat to her classroom, “I think you should know: those numbers next to the kids’ names? It’s not their IQ scores. It’s their locker numbers.” One reason Jaime Escalante and Mary Daugherty remain exceptions is that social pressure makes it difficult to hold kids accountable for actual learning.

[LF: Salerno embodies a trait he berates in those in self-help — he publishes a ton of opinions on things he knows little. What credentials does Salerno have for critiquing the self-help industry? None. I don’t care. I don’t think a reader needs to. A reader can judge Salerno’s book on its quality, just like any self-help guru should be judged on the quality of his work rather than on his credentials. Credentials show that you’ve managed to navigate a bureaucratic procedure, and generally speaking, smarter and more disciplined people have more success doing this than dumber and undisciplined people.]

* Among the key players at the landmark California Self-Esteem Conference was Jack Canfield, who went on to write and edit the homespun, best-selling Chicken Soup for the Soul series.

* AA has consistently opposed attempts to assess its core beliefs and methodologies. So invested is the organization in its own socio-spiritual approach that it has issued repeated critical statements on chemical interventions, like the drug topiramate, that appear to show promise.

[LF: So AA has the power to stop research into drugs such as topiramate? That’s absurd. How does AA’s purported opposition to attempts to assess its core beliefs and methods have any reality? Obviously it did not interfere with Salerno’s ability to do just that.]

* We also have SHAM to thank for the fact that alcoholism is regarded as a full-fledged disease. This forces companies or their insurers to assume billions of dollars in treatment costs and to look the other way when marginal employees relapse time and again.

[LF: Regarded by whom? Obviously not by Steve Salerno or Wendy Kaminer? So those not in SHAM are without agency? They must submit to whatever SHAM decides? Because AA has such a huge lobbying arm? It has Congress in its pocket?]

* An estimated 19.4 million Americans suffer from alcohol or drug abuse, says NESARC. Further, according to Hazelden, a nonprofit agency that offers addiction services and data, the typical substance abuser incurs twice the health-care costs of a nonaddicted employee, is three times more likely to report for work late, and is five times more likely to file a worker’s compensation claim. He or she is more likely to steal from his or her employer and be involved in, or cause, workplace accidents. As Joseph Hazelwood demonstrates, the addicted worker’s subpar performance may compromise the safety, productivity, and morale of fellow workers, as well as endanger the health and well-being of citizens outside the company.

* If the various SHAM doctrines can exert so much influence in fields dominated by well-credentialed professionals who are expected to depend on science and hard research to guide them, what happens when they infiltrate other areas of American life in which they have far fewer obstacles to overcome?

[LF: How weak are those who oppose these doctrines then?]

Posted in Addiction, Self Help | Comments Off on Sham: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless

Talmud Study In The Modern Era

Marc B. Shapiro published this essay about a decade ago.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro, Talmud | Comments Off on Talmud Study In The Modern Era

Antifa/BLM Set Small Boring Fires In Portland

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* The adjective “small” is not reassuring when combined with the word “fire”. “There’s a small fire in your house/apartment/office/car” is not the sort of statement that puts one at one’s ease. The use of this qualifier by the media to downplay acts of arson is comically inept.

* How would the Washington Post report a “small” fire set by a “protester” in their own reporters’ offices? Or at their homes?

* This kind of stuff makes you wonder if we aren’t in for a repeat of the “shocking” 2016 election results. The MSM and Democrats alternate between ignoring, downplaying and tacitly approving and justifying the violence this summer. But you have to think there must be a fair number of moderate Democratic voters appalled by all of this.

Portland, Seattle and NYC riots won’t change the election results, but it won’t take many Democrats in Philly, Minneapolis and Madison staying home to alter the results in November.

* If you are participating in protests that turn violent and destructive every single night, then you are part of the violence, even if you aren’t part of the “smaller” break-off group. You’re like the Muslims who come across Ahmed and Sulejman building bombs in the mosque but say nothing to the cops. Does the MSM make excuses for them?

Oh wait, I guess they do.

Incidentally, isn’t it interesting how much less Islamic violence we’ve been seeing in the West these past few years ? In the last term of the Obama Administration there was something almost every single month. It’s almost as if by showing a little self-respect and casting a lot of votes for right-wingers the West showed Muslims that we are ready to put them in their place. I suspect Trump’s “racist” travel ban, and reduction of refugee admissions, hasn’t hurt.

* The question for them is not whether the fire is “big” or “small” (there are no “small fires” – every fire that consumes a building or even an enormous forest starts with a “small” fire) but WHO set the fire and WHOM the property that is being consumed belongs to. If the exact same size fire was set by a bunch of white guys in KKK robes and the property that was being burned was say a black church or a synagogue, would the Washington Post ever in a million years concern itself with whether the fire was “big” or “small”?

* As someone observed recently, “The news used to tell you that something happened, and you had to decide how you felt about it. Now it tells you how to feel about something, and you have to decide if it actually happened.”

* I spent a couple of hours today in Borough Park & I didn’t see a single mask. 2 months ago , on a similar trip, everyone was wearing a mask. A few people I asked told me they know of no new infections over the last month and the community has concluded that they have herd immunity.

Posted in Antifa | Comments Off on Antifa/BLM Set Small Boring Fires In Portland

Bringing Oligarchs To Heel

Josiah Lippincott writes:

America needs to bring its current crop of oligarchs to heel. That starts with constraining their ability to commandeer their massive personal fortunes to shape policy. Technically, the 501(c)(3) designation prevents political activities by tax-exempt charities. Those rules apply only to political campaigning and lobbying, however. They say nothing about funding legal battles or shaping specific policies indirectly through research and grants. America’s universities, think tanks, and advocacy organizations are nearly universally considered tax-exempt nonprofits. Only a fool would believe they are not political.

One solution to the nonprofit problem to simply get rid of the charitable exemption all together. If there is no loophole, it can’t be exploited by the mega-wealthy. Most Americans’ charitable giving wouldn’t be affected. The average American gives between $2,000 and $3,000 per year. That is well under the $24,800 standard tax deduction for married couples. Ninety percent of taxpayers have no reason to use a line-item deduction. Such a change likely wouldn’t affect wealthy givers either. In 2014, the average high-income American (defined as making more than $200,000 per year or having a million dollars in assets) gave an average of $68,000 to charity, and in 2018 93 percent said their giving had nothing to do with tax breaks.

Eliminating the tax exemption for charitable giving would make it simple to heavily tax the capital gains that drive the wealth of America’s richest one thousand people. One could also leave the exemption in place for most Americans (those with a net worth under $100 million), while making larger gifts, especially those over a billion dollars, taxable at extremely high rates close to 100%. Bill Gates wants to give a billion dollars to his foundation? Great. But he should pay a steep fee to the American people to purchase that kind of power.

There is nothing socialist in these or similar tax proposals. We are not making an abstract commentary on whether having a billion dollars is “moral.” These are simply prudential measures to put the people back in charge of their own country. Reining in billionaires and monopolists is a conservative free market strategy.

Incentives to make more money are generally good. The libertarians are mostly right—people are usually better judges of how to spend and use their resources than the government.

But not always. The libertarian account does not adequately recognize man’s political nature. We need law and order. We need a regime where elections matter and the opinions of the people actually shape policy. Contract law, borders, and taxes are all necessary to human flourishing, but all impede the total and unrestricted movement of labor and money. At the very top of the wealth pyramid, concentrated economic power always turns into political power. An economic policy that doesn’t recognize that fact will create an untouchable class that controls both the market and the regime. There’s nothing freeing about that outcome.

An America governed by Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and George Soros will be—arguably, already is—a disaster for the middle class and everyday Americans. Cracking down on their “selfless” philanthropy, combined with antitrust enforcement and higher progressive tax rates, is a key way for Americans to leverage the power of the ballot box against the power of the banker’s vault.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Bringing Oligarchs To Heel

WSJ: The New White Flight In Silicon Valley, two high schools with outstanding academic reputations are losing white students as Asian students move in. Why?

From the WSJ Nov. 19, 2005:

CUPERTINO, Calif. — By most measures, Monta Vista High here and Lynbrook High, in nearby San Jose, are among the nation’s top public high schools. Both boast stellar test scores, an array of advanced-placement classes and a track record of sending graduates from the affluent suburbs of Silicon Valley to prestigious colleges.

But locally, they’re also known for something else: white flight. Over the past 10 years, the proportion of white students at Lynbrook has fallen by nearly half, to 25% of the student body. At Monta Vista, white students make up less than one-third of the population, down from 45% — this in a town that’s half white. Some white Cupertino parents are instead sending their children to private schools or moving them to other, whiter public schools. More commonly, young white families in Silicon Valley say they are avoiding Cupertino altogether.

Whites aren’t quitting the schools because the schools are failing academically. Quite the contrary: Many white parents say they’re leaving because the schools are too academically driven and too narrowly invested in subjects such as math and science at the expense of liberal arts and extracurriculars like sports and other personal interests.

The two schools, put another way that parents rarely articulate so bluntly, are too Asian.

Cathy Gatley, co-president of Monta Vista High School’s parent-teacher association, recently dissuaded a family with a young child from moving to Cupertino because there are so few young white kids left in the public schools. “This may not sound good,” she confides, “but their child may be the only Caucasian kid in the class.” All of Ms. Gatley’s four children have attended or are currently attending Monta Vista. One son, Andrew, 17 years old, took the high-school exit exam last summer and left the school to avoid the academic pressure. He is currently working in a pet-supply store. Ms. Gatley, who is white, says she probably wouldn’t have moved to Cupertino if she had anticipated how much it would change.

In the 1960s, the term “white flight” emerged to describe the rapid exodus of whites from big cities into the suburbs, a process that often resulted in the economic degradation of the remaining community. Back then, the phenomenon was mostly believed to be sparked by the growth in the population of African-Americans, and to a lesser degree Hispanics, in some major cities.

But this modern incarnation is different. Across the country, Asian-Americans have by and large been successful and accepted into middle- and upper-class communities. Silicon Valley has kept Cupertino’s economy stable, and the town is almost indistinguishable from many of the suburbs around it. The shrinking number of white students hasn’t hurt the academic standards of Cupertino’s schools — in fact the opposite is true.

This time the effect is more subtle: Some Asians believe that the resulting lack of diversity creates an atmosphere that is too sheltering for their children, leaving then unprepared for life in a country that is only 4% Asian overall. Moreover, many Asians share some of their white counterpart’s concerns. Both groups finger newer Asian immigrants for the schools’ intense competitiveness.

Some whites fear that by avoiding schools with large Asian populations parents are short-changing their own children, giving them the idea that they can’t compete with Asian kids…

The white exodus clearly involves race-based presumptions, not all of which are positive. One example: Asian parents are too competitive. That sounds like racism to many of Cupertino’s Asian residents, who resent the fact that their growing numbers and success are causing many white families to boycott the town altogether…

She says she began to reconsider after her elder son, Matthew, entered Kennedy, the middle school that feeds Monta Vista. As he played soccer, Ms. Doherty watched a line of cars across the street deposit Asian kids for after-school study. She also attended a Monta Vista parents’ night and came away worrying about the school’s focus on test scores and the big-name colleges its graduates attend.

“My sense is that at Monta Vista you’re competing against the child beside you,” she says. Ms. Doherty says she believes the issue stems more from recent immigrants than Asians as a whole. “Obviously, the concentration of Asian students is really high, and it does flavor the school,” she says.

When Matthew, now a student at Notre Dame, finished middle school eight years ago, Ms. Doherty decided to send him to Bellarmine College Preparatory, a Jesuit school that she says has a culture that “values the whole child.” It’s also 55% white and 24% Asian. Her younger son, Kevin, followed suit.

…Asians are particularly intent that their kids work hard and excel, says Anat Eisenberg, a local Coldwell Banker real-estate agent. “Everybody is caught into this process of driving their kids.”

…Some students struggle in Cupertino’s high schools who might not elsewhere. Monta Vista’s Academic Performance Index, which compares the academic performance of California’s schools, reached an all-time high of 924 out of 1,000 this year, making it one of the highest-scoring high schools in Northern California. Grades are so high that a ‘B’ average puts a student in the bottom third of a class.

…Some white parents, and even some students, say they suspect teachers don’t take white kids as seriously as Asians.

“Many of my Asian friends were convinced that if you were Asian, you had to confirm you were smart. If you were white, you had to prove it,” says Arar Han, a Monta Vista graduate who recently co-edited “Asian American X,” a book of coming-of-age essays by young Asian-Americans.

Ms. Gatley, the Monta Vista PTA president, is more blunt: “White kids are thought of as the dumb kids,” she says.

…Mr. Rowley, who is white, enrolled his only son, Eddie, at Lynbrook. When Eddie started freshman geometry, the boy was frustrated to learn that many of the Asian students in his class had already taken the course in summer school, Mr. Rowley recalls. That gave them a big leg up.

To many of Cupertino’s Asians, some of the assumptions made by white parents — that Asians are excessively competitive and single-minded — play into stereotypes.

…”It does help to have a lower Asian population,” says Homestead PTA President Mary Anne Norling. “I don’t think our parents are as uptight as if my kids went to Monta Vista.”

Posted in Asians | Comments Off on WSJ: The New White Flight In Silicon Valley, two high schools with outstanding academic reputations are losing white students as Asian students move in. Why?

Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus

Rick Perlstein writes in 2001:

Goldwater’s approach to any political problem invariably derived from the evidence of his own eyes—an attitude most visible in his views on discrimination. “There never was a lot of it,” he recalled of the Phoenix of his youth. Yet when he was eleven the chamber of commerce took out an ad boasting of Phoenix’s “very small percentage of Mexicans, Negroes, or foreigners.” Barry Goldwater delighted in, and journalists delighted in repeating, his corny put-downs of anti-Semites. Why couldn’t he play nine holes, he was supposed to have responded when kicked off a golf course, since he was only half Jewish? They reported how when he took over as president of Phoenix Country Club in 1949, he said if they didn’t allow his friend Harry Rosenzweig to join he would blackball every name. Rosenzweig became the first Jew the club ever admitted. Left out of the tale was that another Jew wasn’t allowed in for a decade.
Later he would be described as a political innocent. This was not exactly true. Never a ruthless politician, he was ever a politician, with a classic politician’s upbringing: a doting mother who convinced him he could accomplish everything; a distant, moody father who convinced him that no accomplishment was enough.

* At the 1948 convention Minneapolis mayor Hubert H. Humphrey declared it was “time for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states’ rights and walk in the sunshine of human rights,” and he maneuvered a robust civil rights plank into the platform. South Carolina governor Strom Thurmond led a walkout to form a third party.
Southern Democrats claimed the gestures toward civil rights were only demagogic and expedient attempts to hustle the votes of urban blacks in the North so the party could turn its back on the South. But where else could Southerners go? Until about 1958, Republicans were more liberal on race than the Democrats were (although it wasn’t hard to take a liberal stand on race so long as it was seen as a Southern problem, and the Republicans didn’t have any white Southerners to placate).

* data from U2 spy planes had demonstrated that the USSR’s arsenal of bombers and missiles that could reach the United States was nearly nonexistent. But that intelligence was top secret, unknown even to a New York governor—a rule of espionage being that you can’t let your enemy know what you know about them. (“I can’t understand the United States being quite as panicky as they are,” Eisenhower once said, forgetting that he was one of only a handful of people who knew that the empire that threatened to bury us could in fact do no such thing.)

* It was point nine of the fourteen points that the Southerners were protesting [at the 1960 Republican convention]: “Our program for civil rights must assure aggressive action to remove the remaining vestiges of segregation or discrimination in all areas of national life—voting and housing, schools and jobs. It will express support for the objectives of the sit-in demonstrators and will commend the action of those businessmen who have abandoned the practice of refusing to serve food at their lunch counters to their Negro customers and will urge all others to follow their example.”

* [In 1961] the Rabbinical Council of America recommended construction of bomb shelters beneath all new synagogues.

* [In 1962] Nobody seemed to worry over the fact that Goldwater’s momentum rose the more the peace was disturbed.

* An insider explained the mystery to Life magazine: “People fail to realize there’s a difference in kinds of money. There’s old money and there’s new money. Old money has political power but new money has only purchasing power. Sure, everyone knows that when you get to a convention, you don’t buy delegates. But you do put the pressure on people who control the delegates—the people who owe the old money for their stake.”

* It was hard for white America to see anything benign in a mass gathering of Negroes. The fears were primal, subliminal. “I don’t like to touch them. It just makes me squeamish,” one Northerner told Newsweek. Another said, “It’s the idea of rubbing up against them. It won’t rub off, but it don’t feel right either.” The magazine’s polling showed that 55 percent of whites would object to living next door to a black person—and 90 percent would object if their teenage daughter dated one. Over half thought that “Negroes laugh a lot,” “tend to have less ambition,” and “smell different.” “It is an oft-repeated statement among humans that the color of the hair and the pigment of the skin produce certain recognizable characteristics,” observed the latest edition of Training You to Train Your Dog by Blanche Saunders (preface by Walter Lippmann)—the “excitable nature” of those with dark skin, for example. “If this be true, there is no reason why color of coat and pigmentation should not affect dogs as well.” In an article that year, Harper’s editor John Fischer congratulated himself for his courage in pointing out that much antiblack prejudice “is not altogether baseless”: “Take the case of five Negro drivers who worked for a taxi company in Williamsburg, Virginia. On the first day of the fishing season, not one of them showed up for work.” Even among the right-thinking and the respectable, seeing Negroes as civic equals was sometimes a stretch.

* As early as his 1922 book Public Opinion, Walter Lippmann had come to believe that the world was so complex that political decisions would best be left to a specialized class of experts. Three years later the Scopes “monkey trial” confirmed his conviction that a public uninstructed by expert opinion would succumb to the tyranny of the majority—the very worst tyranny of all. Ideologically, the columnist vacillated from decade to decade, sometimes coming out liberal in foreign affairs and conservative in domestic, sometimes vice versa. But always, always, his thinking betrayed a constant: that he and his fellow pundits—Hindi for “wise men,” a title first given to him by an admiring Henry Luce—were the nation’s best defense against the terror of the mob.

* George Wallace appeared at Kennedy’s alma mater, Harvard, and as the flower of American youth approached the microphone to show up a yokel, one by one they were folded up into a master debater’s pocket.

* Newsweek’ s “What the White Man Thinks About the Negro” issue, out recently, concluded, “Except for civil-rights troubles, Mr. Kennedy could expect re-election by a landslide.” Now, the newsmagazine concluded, “he could lose.” A Look feature was headlined, “ ‘Never Wrong’ Iowa Township Forecasts the 1961 race: JFK Could Lose.” The citizens were split down the middle on who they preferred for President—but they agreed that they held the White House responsible for racial violence. “I think Kennedy is too damned lenient with them damned niggers,” one local farmer was quoted as saying. George Wallace, back from his successful Ivy League tour, proudly read his mail for a Time reporter: “‘God willin’ I won’t vote for Martin Luther Kennedy…. You have my vote in the Presidential election.’ That’s from Detroit. Dayton, Ohio … ‘Strongly recommend you to run for President Against Nigger Kennedy …’” Wallace said he was thinking about entering some Democratic primaries.

* Nixon called J. Edgar Hoover. No small talk: “What happened, was it one of the right-wing nuts?”
Much of the country had already decided it was. The Voice of America’s bulletin announcing the shooting had described Dallas as “the center of the extreme right wing.” Clips of Adlai Stevenson being jabbed with anti-United Nations picket signs a month earlier were shown again and again on TV. Under the headline “DALLAS, LONG A RADICAL’S HAVEN,” the Herald Tribune pointed out, “Texas is one of the few states that has a Senator ranking with Arizona’s Barry Goldwater in conservatism”—that was John Tower, who, in the wake of the assassination, had to put up his family in a hotel because of the threats against them. Senator Maurine Neuberger of Oregon fixed her gaze at the television cameras and pinned the responsibility on H. L. Hunt. Walter Cronkite, on the air nonstop, was handed a slip of paper amid the chaos of CBS’s studios and read aloud that Goldwater’s reaction to the news while hustling to a political function had been a curt “No comment.” (Cronkite skirted libel: Goldwater, in Muncie for the funeral of his mother-in-law, had given no such interview.) A deranged gunman pumped two shots through the window of a John Birch Society office in Phoenix, crying “You killed my man!” In man-in-the-street interviews, a lawyer told the New York Times, “We have allowed certain factions to work up such a furor in the South with fanatic criticism of the office of President that a demented person can feel confident that such atrocious action is justifiable,” and a Russian immigrant said, “I’m angry at these groups who call themselves Americans and don’t know the meaning—the Birchers, General Walker. Is this what they wanted?”

Before long the news of the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald, a defector to the Soviet Union, was on the street. But the suspicion that the right was somehow to blame did not go away.

* Partly the irrationality was rooted in fear; the thought that the killer was an agent of the Communist conspiracy was almost too awful to contemplate. (Desperate to close off such suspicions, which he thought might pin him to a commitment to retaliate against the Soviet Union, Lyndon Johnson spent much of his first weeks in office maneuvering hurriedly to close the books on the case by putting together a commission of inquiry led by Chief Justice Warren.) When the news of Oswald’s arrest and Communist ties arrived, the public seemed almost willfully to forget the lessons of eighteen years—that Communism was a devious, unitary global conspiracy that would stop at nothing to accomplish its aims—and gladly chose another, less threatening scapegoat. Against the shocks of the recent past—the civil rights uprising, the nuclear close calls—Americans had inoculated themselves by repeating ever more fervidly that we were a good nation, a unified nation, peaceful, safe. The assassination was experienced as a sign that somehow America had let herself become the opposite. A word was repeated again and again, on the streets, before the television cameras, in the newspapers: hate. Americans read an indictment on themselves: hate killed Kennedy, our own hate—hate that might consume us in violence, hate rife on both sides of the ideological spectrum, hate bred precisely by the act of veering too close to the extremes of the ideological spectrum. Extremism had killed Kennedy.

* Kennedy had been right: Goldwater’s loose lips were sinking the ship. Newsweek quoted a supporter: “I’m glad he has one foot in a cast or he’d have that in his mouth, too.” The AP’s Walter Mears—who had to file stories every few hours—remarked that all they had to do was pepper Goldwater with a few questions and wait for him to slip, and they had their headlines. Then it was back to the nonstop frat party at the Manchester Sheraton.

* It had been a busy winter for George Wallace. There was Alabama to keep segregated, for one thing. There was his ego to attend to, for another. In November the governor had undertaken a weeklong tour of Ivy League colleges. Then he took the show national. First he honed the act, blue-penciling his speechwriters’ racist turns of phrase, having his aide Bill Jones pepper him with every hostile question they could think of. Audiences, expecting a monster, were charmed by talk of how “property rights are human rights, too”—so sweet it almost sounded sensible, yet so incendiary that he led the evening news everywhere he spoke.

* If Washington “can tell you what to do with your property, they can take it away from you,” he would say; and, “I don’t think it’s my right as an Arizonan to come in and tell a Southerner what to do about this thing.” He would speak of good intentions gone awry: “I can see a police state coming out of that without any problem at all.” In Jeremiah mode, he might say how much it sickened him to see questions of law being settled in the streets and wonder why the Democrats would sink so low as to tacitly support such tactics: “It is not understanding America or Americans that goads a man to abandon civility in this matter,” he said the night after the World’s Fair debacle (to an audience in Connecticut, only a commuter train ride away from the mob). He said again and again, “with the deepest possible sense of tragedy and regret,” that at bottom, this was a problem of moral suasion, not of laws. Federal force only compounded the problem. “Until we have an administration that will cool the fires and the tempers of violence we simply cannot solve the rest of the problem in any lasting sense.” Until then, he promised, “we are going to see more violence in our streets before we see less.” All spring, Northern college students had been training with military rigor for a nonviolent assault for voting rights in Mississippi—while that state was planning to counter them with all the terror at its disposal. Goldwater bespoke his frustration with Mississippi as the state “where there is the most talk about brotherhood and the very least opportunity for achieving it.” But the civil rights bill as written, he was convinced, would only make things worse. It was unconstitutional—and if Negroes didn’t have a stake in the Constitution, then who did?

* But Goldwater didn’t play well on TV. Letters and numbers darkened his presentations: RS-70 and B-70 (bomber programs the Pentagon was scrapping); A-11 (a plane Lyndon Johnson claimed was a new fighter but Goldwater said was really just a reconnaissance plane); TFX (a fighter General Dynamics was building in Lyndon Johnson’s Texas despite the brass’s insistence it could be built better and more cheaply in California); 1970 (by which time a bomber gap would turn “the shield of the Republic into a Swiss cheese wall”).

* Property values had become religion amidst the sun-dappled lawns of suburban southern California. “The essence of freedom is the right to discriminate,” CRA’s Nolan Frizzelle explained. “In socialist countries, they always take away this right in order to complete their takeover.” After the state legislature passed a bill prohibiting racial discrimination in housing, it hardly took the blink of an eye for the California Real Estate Association’s new “Committee for Home Protection” to collect 583,029 signatures—326,486 from L.A. County alone—to put on the November ballot Proposition 14, an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting for all time laws that impinged upon the right of individuals to sell or rent property to “any persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses”—segregationism in its politer, more patriotic form. The California Real Estate Association’s billboards soon blanketed the state: “FREEDOM: RENT OR SELL TO WHOM YOU CHOOSE: VOTE YES ON 14.” (“DON’T LEGALIZE HATE,” read the enfeebled opposition’s.) The Los Angeles Times —which had endorsed Nelson Rockefeller—agreed, more or less, with Nolan Frizzelle: “Housing equality cannot safely be achieved at the expense of still another basic right,” the “ancient right” of the property owner of “using and disposing of his private property in whatever manner he deems appropriate.” The argument couldn’t withstand scrutiny; after all, no one complained that owners were constrained from disposing of their private property in whatever manner they deemed appropriate when they inked formal and (after the Supreme Court outlawed them in 1948) informal racial covenants. And not all support for Prop 14 was couched so patriotically: blacks “haven’t made themselves acceptable” for white neighborhoods, a Young Republican leader declared. Polls showed that 58 percent of voters of both parties supported Prop 14. Goldwater held fast to the position that it wasn’t his right as an Arizonan to come in and tell a Californian what to do about this thing.

* And Barry Goldwater was affording his audience the warm assurance, “You cannot pass a law that will make me like you—or you like me. That is something that can only happen in our hearts.” Goldwater’s audience was unlikely aware that this was a close paraphrase from the majority opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson: that “prejudice, if it exists, is not created by the law of the land and cannot be changed by the law.” They just gave Goldwater his biggest applause of the speech.

* One piece of homemade campaign literature that was circulating in California like chewing gum, A Choice Not an Echo, came from one of the sophisticated ones. Phyllis Schlafly claimed to be a housewife from Alton, Illinois, and in that she was busy raising five children, in a sense she was. But this housewife had worked her way through college as a test gunner in an ordnance plant, had a master’s degree from Harvard, and devoted forty-plus hours a week to right-wing agitation—from chairing the Illinois Federation of Republican Women to running the Cardinal Mindzenty Society, a right-wing volunteer group, with her husband, a lawyer who operated the right’s answer to the ACLU (a typical client was a farmer who refused to follow government quotas), and hosting her own radio show, America, Wake Up! The Schlaflys had been among the few nonbusinessmen on the Clarence Manion committee that published Conscience of a Conservative in 1960. Which in 1964 gave Phyllis Schlafly, home pregnant with her sixth child, an inspiration: to publish a slim little book on how “a few secret kingmakers based in New York” conspired to steal Republican conventions, “perpetuating the Red empire in order to perpetrate the high level of Federal spending and control.”

* Schlafly was easy on the eye—and savvy enough to put a picture of herself on the cover that intimated plunging décolletage just out of the frame. The prose was short and sharp: “Each fall 66 million American women don’t spontaneously decide their dresses should be an inch or two shorter, or longer, than last year,” she began. “Like sheep, they bow to the wishes of a select clique of couturiers whom they have never seen, and whose names they may not even know”—just like Republican presidential voters. She never placed an ad; she never contacted a single bookstore—and 600,000 copies were in circulation around the country by June. Most were purchased in lots greater than 100. One businessman bought 30,000. One man told her, “Your book is the first book I ever read. I couldn’t even get through Tom Sawyer.”

* Phyllis Schlafly was not the only political star from Illinois being minted in California that spring. Another was Ronald Reagan. A number of more famous pro-Goldwater celebrities worked the homestretch hustings for Goldwater. But it was Reagan, not John Wayne (a sometime Bircher) or Rock Hudson, who was chosen to narrate a half hour of testimonials from Goldwater’s (especially black and Hispanic) friends on statewide television on May 29. As a regular MC for Goldwater’s rallies, Reagan usually stole the show. “And good evening to all you irresponsible Republicans,” he would begin, and the crowd would be won; then he would hand them off to Goldwater, and the crowd would be lost. Sometimes, when the evening’s program was completed, Reagan would greedily mount the rostrum for another speech that brought them to their feet one last time. At a San Francisco fund-raiser a startled waitress asked Rus Walton, “I’m confused. Which one was the candidate?”

* In Riverside, California, Barry Goldwater was proving once again that there was nothing like a homestretch to bring him to the rhetorical heights a more motivated politician would have occupied all along.

* It was now hard to imagine a scenario in which Barry Goldwater would not be nominated. He responded to the news by drinking so much he had to be helped onto the plane back to Washington.

* When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed on July 2, Johnson told his staff, “I think we just gave the South to the Republicans for your lifetime and mine”.

* It immediately became clear that in this court of opinion at least, the Republican Party was Goldwater’s and Goldwater’s alone. For when the speakers reminded the audience of the GOP’s glorious history of advancing civil rights, they were answered by laughs and boos.

* Scranton left it to his press office to point up the truly impolitic statements in the Der Spiegel article: Goldwater’s contention that Germany would have won both world wars if she weren’t subject to the command of men “who didn’t understand war”; and that in Vietnam, “I would turn to my Joint Chiefs of Staff and say, ‘Fellows, we made the decision to win, now it’s your problem.’ ”

* Saturday evening, two days before the opening gavel, Walter Cronkite introduced a report from CBS’s correspondent in Munich, Daniel Schorr: “Whether or not Senator Goldwater wins the nomination, he is going places,” Cronkite said, “the first place being Germany.” Schorr picked up the cue and started in: “It looks as though Senator Goldwater, if nominated, will be starting his campaign here in Bavaria, the center of Germany’s right wing.” He went on to report that Goldwater had accepted an invitation from his friend Lieutenant General William Quinn to visit him for a vacation at Berchtesgaden—“once Hitler’s stamping ground, but now an American Army recreational center.” He concluded, “It is now becoming clear that Senator Goldwater’s interview with the newsmagazine Der Spiegel was an appeal to right-wing elements.” Cronkite segued into the next piece, on the latest burning of a Negro church in Mississippi, and the Germany story hit San Francisco like a freight train.

It was false; the trip was a vacation. CBS president William Paley, enraged and afraid he would be outed as a Scranton supporter, ordered Schorr to correct himself on the air. Goldwater’s grudge against the Tiffany Network went back to a 1962 documentary on conservatism that made him want to throw something at the screen. It flared up again in 1963 after CBS News edited a tape of a July 4 interview with him that he thought would be broadcast live; it was inflamed enormously when Cronkite misquoted him to make him appear callous after the Kennedy assassination. “I just don’t trust CBS News,” is what he said after the November 22 gaffe. Now he went berserk. “I don’t think those people should be allowed to broadcast,” he said, refusing them access to any part of his campaign organization. But the damage was done. Scranton—and the Democratic National Committee—had already distributed reams of Xeroxed transcripts of the Schorr stand-up. “You can say what you want about Goldwater’s conservatism and right-wing views,” columnist Herb Caen wrote, “but personally, I find him as American as apple strudel.”

* The President was now drowning in a flood of wires such as “I’m afraid to leave my house. I fear the Negro revolution will reach Queens.” The New Republic’s TRB columnist had called white resentment 1964’s political “X-Factor.” Walter Lippmann had coined the term “Goldwater Democrats.” Backlash had become Lyndon Johnson’s new obsession. When Ollie Quayle prepared a fifty-five-page technical report on the blue-collar Wallace vote in Wisconsin and Indiana, Johnson devoured it in one night. When Wallace withdrew his candidacy on July 19—because, he said, the Republicans had passed a segregationist platform—Goldwater was genuinely surprised.

* The day arrived. An exquisitely labored statement of the President’s position sat on his desk for reference. Johnson ushered his guest into the Oval Office. There followed an awkward interval. The President was waiting for Goldwater to start, because Goldwater had called the meeting. When he didn’t, Johnson uttered some banalities about how he would do nothing in the months to come that might contribute to violence in the streets. Goldwater said that was fine. Johnson lurched deskward and read his statement aloud. Goldwater thought that was fine, too, and asked for a copy. Another pause. Goldwater’s face lit up like a child discussing a toy, and he said he would love to take a crack at flying the new A-II that was in development. Johnson (hiding his incredulity) said it wouldn’t be ready for a year—at which time, he joked, Goldwater might be the one issuing the orders. Chuckles were exchanged. Backs were slapped. Sixteen minutes had elapsed. The two emerged together to release a bland joint statement. Johnson’s staff was stunned. “What a confrontation,” someone said. “Wish we could have one like that with de Gaulle!”

* Johnson had converted to a civil rights crusade more fervent than any President’s since Lincoln. And what had that brought? Race riots, two weeks after the Civil Rights Act was signed. What more could he do? “If you give ’em jobs and education, you stop all of it,” he told Hubert Humphrey, sounding as if he were trying to convince himself.

* A melancholy man, Lyndon Johnson understood how souls were moved by dark thoughts that crept up on sleepless nights. “Men worry about heart attacks,” he would say, clasping his chest. “Women worry about cancer of the tit” (here he jabbed the breastplate of his nearest companion). “But everybody worries about war and peace. Everything else is chickenshit.”

* The ad ran Monday, September 7—Labor Day, for peak viewing—on NBC, a few days after Goldwater’s opening speech in Prescott and a few hours after Johnson’s in Detroit. Nobody had ever seen anything like it. Little girls went to bed in tears. Bill Moyers, working late in his office—as was most often the case in Lyndon Johnson’s White House—was summoned by the boss. “Holy shit!” the President cried. “What in the hell do you mean putting on that ad? I’ve been swamped with calls!” But he was chuckling. “I guess it did what we goddamned set out to do, didn’t it?” He chuckled some more.
The spot ran only once as a paid commercial. But CBS and ABC ran reports on the phenomenon on their news programs—and thus, free of charge, they aired the ad itself. Dean Burch complained to the Fair Campaign Practices Commission. “This horror-type commercial,” he said, “implies that Senator Goldwater is a reckless man and Lyndon Johnson is a careful man.” Moyers was thrilled. “That’s exactly what we wanted to imply,” he wrote the President. “And we also hoped someone around Goldwater would say it, not us.” Local campaign leaders told Johnson’s field chief, Larry O’Brien, that they hated the ad, that voters were turning off to LBJ. The White House was unfazed. They were thinking like Marshall McLuhan, like Bill Bernbach: the message people reported having gleaned from the ad bore no necessary relation to how it affected them where it counted—in the place consciousness didn’t touch.

* New York came close to further rioting after a grand jury refused to indict the officer whose bullet set off the July disturbance ; that same week, white parents pulled their children out of New York schools to protest what the Republican platform called “federally sponsored ‘inverse discrimination’ … the abandonment of neighborhood schools, for reasons of race.” Blunter, one protester carried a sign reading “YOU’LL TURN INTO A NIGGER.” (The seething issue had by then earned a journalistic shorthand: “busing,” sometimes spelled “bussing.”) Another court ordered union locals to dismantle father-son apprenticeship programs that “automatically excluded” Negroes. One of Johnson’s advance men filed a report on the comments of a New York cabbie: “He exploded—traffic terrible, Negroes pushing, city in snarl, politicians ruining country, everything a mess. Pent-up fury.” He found similar sentiments among four of the seven hacks he met. The AFL-CIO budgeted $12 million for education efforts to counter the myth that the Civil Rights Act demanded hiring quotas based on race.

* Goldwater’s speeches earned descriptions like “low-keyed,” “listless,” “monotone,” and “stumbling”—as if, someone wrote, the candidate were saying, “Train 28 now leaving on Track 1.” The speeches themselves were so inappropriate to their occasions that The New Yorker’s Richard Rovere was rubbing his eyes: “There were some times, traveling with Goldwater,” he wrote, “when one wondered whether the candidate really thinks of himself as a man seeking the Presidency of the United States.”

* The bulwark in the maelstrom was William Moyers—as he was in most matters in Lyndon Johnson’s White House. LBJ reserved his greatest affection for brilliant young climbers from the provinces who looked up to him as a father figure—as he had himself with a series of mentors culminating in House Speaker Sam Rayburn. (It betokened his insecurities; he still couldn’t quite believe these geniuses were willing to yoke their fortune to him.) Moyers was the most brilliant and loyal climber of all.

* The reporters liked Barry Goldwater personally (“How could such a nice guy think that way?” one asked). Two traveling publicists ministered efficiently to their every need. That was far less than enough to make the experience a pleasant one. They had missed the story of how Goldwater won the nomination, which was humiliating to their professional pride; it also meant twice as much work for reporters, because none of the people in the campaign were in their little black books.

* Lyndon Johnson’s relationship with his traveling press corps was altogether different: they protected him. The President’s tongue was if anything more undisciplined than his opponent’s… On his way to opening day in Detroit, in order to squeeze as many VIPs into his plane as possible, he booted onto an accompanying plane the military aide who kept the briefcase handcuffed to his wrist that contained the codes to launch a nuclear strike. That plane nearly ended up crashing. Reporters looked the other way. “Thank God for Lyndon Johnson,” a scribe from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch thought to himself, as the President lit into Goldwater once more as a “ranting, raving demagogue who wants to tear down society.”

* Stodgy Time printed crude jokes: “Goldwater’s first major address as President: ‘Ten … nine … eight … seven …’ ”; “What would a Goldwater presidency be like? Brief.” In Tulsa, blacks crashed the hall where Goldwater was speaking and wouldn’t stop singing “We Shall Overcome” for fifteen minutes straight. In Winston-Salem, civil rights activists and conservatives were booked for assaulting one another. Each had begun chanting their opposing stories about freedom, slavery, and justice at the other; things escalated from there. (Teddy White liked to ask civil rights demonstrators and Goldwater partisans what they meant by “freedom.” Each camp would denounce him for even asking such a patronizing question. “It is quite possible that these two groups may kill each other in cold blood,” he wrote, “both wearing banners bearing the same word.”)

* Everywhere Goldwater went, some Republican or another refused an invitation to share his platform; everywhere he left, he seemed to leave townspeople at each others’ throats. “Crowds were more violent than anything a Presidential candidate has had to face in the last generation,” James Reston columnized. “Supporters of Mr. Goldwater declared they could not discuss the campaign with Democrats on a rational basis,” his paper’s news pages reported. “Democrats said the Goldwaterites were too rabid for reason.”

* Goldwater put forward new policy proposals. But his speeches mostly demonstrated the inability or indifference of his team to communicate unfamiliar ideas. Like his previous proposals—the draft ban, the tax cut, replacing federal programmatic grants with block grants—there was no follow-through, little repetition in future speeches, so the proposals floated around in the public’s consciousness for a day or so before popping like soap bubbles.

* Indeed, when Milton Friedman published an article in the next Sunday’s New York Times Magazine on “The Goldwater View of Economics,” he had to protest, “No one seems to realize that Goldwater does have a philosophy and not merely views on particular economic problems.” He proceeded to give readers of the Newspaper of Record a kindergarten primer on economic libertarianism: that providing for the common defense was a precondition for economic freedom, so that it wasn’t contradictory for Goldwater to call for increased military spending; that only the free market, not the government, could produce prosperity; that governmental interventions often created baleful unintended consequences. The public clearly had a long way to go to attain even an elementary understanding of Goldwater’s core ideas.

* Barry Goldwater, on the plane to Chicago from Missouri (where he had ripped the knee of his best mohair suit), felt hardly more at ease. He would write about the whole business later, in a 1970 memoir, his words edged with the sting of four years of enforced political idleness—because after winning the Republican nomination, he could no longer run for Senate in 1964. “Very early in the last decade,” he wrote, “I found myself becoming a political fulcrum of the vast and growing tide of American disenchantment with the public policies of liberalism.” There it was: controlled by events, following others’ call, a horse to be ridden. Nothing had changed since those meetings with Clarence Manion and his people in 1959—back when Goldwater had all but turned them down flat. “It is true enough that I sensed it early and sympathized with it publicly, but I did not originate it…. I was caught up in and swept along by this tide of disenchantment.” It is harder to imagine a sharper expression of political alienation.

* Harry Jaffa and Bill Rehnquist finally came up with an acceptable draft for Goldwater’s speech. It was called “Civil Rights and the Common Good,” and it was polished all the way up to the last minute.

* The President held crowds to a hush as he dramatically related the tale of sitting beside Kennedy (he hadn’t) in October of 1962, as Khrushchev and Kennedy came “eyeball to eyeball, and their thumbs started getting closer to mash that nuclear button, the knife was in each other’s ribs, almost literally speaking, and neither of them were flinching or quivering”—“until Mr. Khrushchev picked up his missiles and put them on his ships and took them back home.” He told, in other words, bedtime stories: the child’s deepest fears are aroused, to be safely assuaged when the scary monster under the bed is vanquished and everything turns out right at the end.

* Only once did he devote an entire speech to how “the moral fiber of the American people is beset by rot and decay.” It was broadcast on TV from the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City. It was the highest-rated nonpresidential political address in the history of television—a fact, of course, that the candidate likely ignored as a point of pride. But “morality” was political gold. It was the only Goldwater theme that the White House felt compelled to react to. But Johnson’s people weren’t exactly sure how. Memos flew back and forth: Enlist “a group of friendly criminologists”? “Judicious use of the candidate’s family,” “inclusion of prominent women”? Public appearances with Billy Graham and Cardinal Spellman?
They were floundering. No other presidential candidate had tried staking a political claim for these issues before Goldwater. They had never been at issue before.

* “The sexual pervert’s … lack of emotional stability,” as a government report put it, “and weakness of moral fiber make him susceptible to the blandishments of foreign agents.” In 1953 Eisenhower signed an executive order demanding homosexuals be fired not just from all federal jobs but from all companies with federal contractors—one-fifth of the U.S. workforce.

* In the previous twenty-four hours, China had detonated its first nuclear weapon; Harold Wilson was ousted as British prime minister; and Khrushchev was removed as Soviet premier, with no heir immediately apparent. Suddenly, with the Kremlin in turmoil, warnings of imminent danger from Russia just sounded paranoid. And paradoxically, with China more dangerous than ever, the terror rubbed off on whomever should dare mention the forbidden subject of the bomb—which, of course, Goldwater continued to do. His momentum bogged down. Politics was on hold. Suddenly, the nation was interested in little more than having a steady hand on the tiller.

Posted in Conservatives | Comments Off on Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus

The Theological Origins Of Modernity

Michael Allen Gillespie writes in this 2009 book:

Petrarch asserts unequivocally in The Solitary Life that public life is incompatible with virtue. At the heart of this claim is his conviction that social life is dominated by the opinions and values of the multitude, who are invariably slaves to their passions. Man in society is thus not a free being who seeks his own good but a slave who desires the praise and fears the blame of others and who consequently wants only what others want.

Those engaged in public affairs, are ruled by the power of another man’s nod and learn what they must do from another man’s look. Th ey claim nothing as their own. Their house, their sleep, their food, is not their own, and what is even more serious, their mind is not their own, their countenance not their own. They do not weep and laugh at the promptings of their own nature but discard their own emotions to put on those of another. In sum, they transact another man’s business, think another man’s thoughts, live by another man’s grace.

The multitude thus merely follow one another, which is to say, they are dominated by the lowest desires and turn the satisfaction of these desires into objects of praise. Under such circumstances, virtue is impossible and man necessarily becomes vicious, prey to envy and resentment. The busy man’s heart is wholly fi xed on treachery, and he becomes pernicious, unstable, faithless, inconstant, fierce, and bloody. The intellectual life also disappears in the public sphere, for public life is devoted to the cultivation of estates and not minds. In fact, minds are deadened under such circumstances by the mania for talk, noise, and disturbance. Petrarch admits that there are some saintly active men (such as Scipio), but he believes that they are very few and that they are not happy.
In his view a noble spirit will never find repose save in God or in himself and his private thoughts, or in some intellect united by a close sympathy with his own.

It is only in private life, only in what Petrarch calls solitude or retirement, that man can be true to himself and enjoy his own individuality.

Petrarch does not mean that everyone should simply follow his whims: “Each man must seriously take into account the disposition with which nature has endowed him and the best which by habit or training he has developed.” In the plan to reform our lives, we should be guided not by idle wishes but by our character and predisposition. It is thus necessary for man to be particularly honest and exacting in passing judgment on himself and to avoid temptations of eye and ear. This is only to say that each man should undergo the kind of self-examination undertaken in the My Secret. Once one has come to the bottom of oneself and grasped one’s peculiar nature, warts and all, he or she should follow the path that this nature demands. As Petrarch puts it, “Each person, whether saint, soldier, or philosopher, follows some irresistible call of his nature.” In his view, however, we generally do not do this because we are guided not by our own judgment but by the opinions of the crowd. This distortion of judgment is the great danger that makes the private life, or the life of solitude, necessary. Independence of mind is possible only in solitude, in private away from the crowd, away from politics. Only there is it possible “to live according to your pleasure, to go where you will, to stay where you will . . . to belong to yourself in all seasons and wherever you are to be ever with yourself, far from evil, far from examples of wickedness!”

…the immoderate desire for fame (the unresolved problem of the My Secret) can be satisfied only by withdrawal from active life and the proper use of leisure. Only in private will it be possible to win the war over our passions, “to expel vice from our borders, put our lusts to flight, restrain our illicit propensities, chastise our wantonness, and elevate our mind toward higher objects.” “Let some govern the populous city and others rule the army. Our city is that of our mind, our army that of our thoughts.” Humans in this way remain political but only because they become autarchic cities with laws and customs peculiarly their own.

…Petrarch seldom tells us anything that we don’t already know, and as a result he seems superfluous to us.

Posted in Theology | Comments Off on The Theological Origins Of Modernity