Saturday, October 7, 2017

A Fresh Coates



Photo

Ta-Nehisi Coates in New York in September. CreditCole Wilson for The New York Times 

BERLIN — In the study of German history, there is the notion of sonderweg, literally the “special path,” down which the German people are fated to wander. In different eras, and depending on who employed it, the term could imply different things. It began as a positive myth during the imperial period that some German scholars told themselves about their political system and culture. During and after World War II it turned distinctly negative, a way for outsiders to make sense of the singularity of Germany’s crimes.
Yet whether viewed from within or without, left or right, the Germans could be seen through such a lens to possess some collective essence — a specialness — capable of explaining everything. In this way, one could speak of a trajectory “from Luther to Hitler” and interpret history not as some chaotic jumble but as a crisp, linear process.
There is something both terrifying and oddly soothing about such a formulation. For better or worse, it leaves many very important matters beyond the scope of choice or action. It imagines Germans as having been either glorious or terrible puppets, the powerful agents of forces nonetheless beyond their control.
A similar unifying theory has been taking hold in America. Its roots lie in the national triple sin of slavery, land theft and genocide. In this view, the conditions at the core of the country’s founding don’t just reverberate through the ages — they determine the present. No matter what we might hope, that original sin — white supremacy — explains everything, an all-American sonderweg.
No one today has done more to push this theory in the mainstream than the 42-year-old author Ta-Nehisi Coates. Anyone interested in the durability of racism in American life is probably still discussing his breakout 2015 memoir “Between the World and Me,” a moving and despairing letter to his then-15-year-old son that warned: “You have been cast into a race in which the wind is always at your face and the hounds are always at your heels ... The plunder of black life was drilled into this country in its infancy and reinforced across its history, so that plunder has become an heirloom, an intelligence, a sentience, a default setting to which, likely to the end of our days, we must invariably return.” The book won Mr. Coates millions of readers and fans, many of whom are white.
Continue reading the main story

This week he published “We Were Eight Years in Power: An American Tragedy,” a collection of essays bridging the Obama and Trump eras, and here Mr. Coates deepens his vision of American sonderwegConsider this extraordinary description he offers of a social process so multifaceted as neighborhood gentrification, which in urban areas like New York is far from a straightforwardly white phenomenon:
To empathize on any human level with the lynched and the raped, and then to watch all of the beneficiaries just going on with their heedless lives, could fill you with the most awful rage. I feel it myself, for example, walking through Washington, D.C., or Brooklyn, where gentrification has blown through like a storm. And I feel it not just because of the black people swept away but because I know that “gentrification” is but a more pleasing name for white supremacy, is the interest on enslavement, the interest on Jim Crow, the interest on redlining, compounding across the years, and these new urbanites living off of that interest are, all of them, exulting in a crime.
In my own young black life, I have done my part to gentrify a half-dozen mixed neighborhoods ranging from Spanish Harlem to Fort Greene to the ninth arrondissement of Paris. Many of my well-educated black, Latino, Asian and Arab friends have done the same. Most of us harbored conflicted feelings about the processes we were engaged in, but few of us considered advancing white supremacy to be one of them. Mr. Coates, a self-made millionaire and longtime Harlem resident, briefly catches himself in the essay, admitting, “And I know, even in my anger, even as I write this, that I am no better.” Yet in the very next sentence he abandons any pretense of class-based analysis. “White people are, in some profound way, trapped,” he doubles down. “It took generations to make them white, and it will take more to unmake them.”
So expansive is the racial netting we are wrapped in, Mr. Coates writes, “it’s likely that should white supremacy fall, the means by which that happens might be unthinkable to those of us bound by present realities and politics.” Elsewhere in the book he notes “that white supremacy was so foundational to this country that it would not be defeated in my lifetime, my child’s lifetime, or perhaps ever.”
Amazingly, despite his near godlike status within white liberal circles, in the collection’s finest essay, “The Case for Reparations,” originally published in The Atlantic in 2014, Mr. Coates worries that “today, progressives are loath to invoke white supremacy as an explanation for anything.” It is a jaw-dropping sentence if you take even a moment to consider the current discourse in progressive circles.
“We Were Eight Years in Power” can leave a reader with the distinct impression that its author is glad, relieved even, that Donald Trump was elected president. It is exhibits A through Z of Mr. Coates’s national indictment, proof that the foundations of the United States are anti-black and that the past is not dead — it’s not even past, to echo William Faulkner.
This argument, which would have been much harder to prosecute had Wisconsin and Pennsylvania stayed blue, is compelling because there is much disturbing truth in it. Pent- up white racism did fire Mr. Trump’s candidacy, and he happily fanned the flames. Yet that alone cannot explain why, in 2016, of the nearly 700 counties that voted for a black president twice, over 200 opted for Mr. Trump rather than backing a member of the white Washington establishment.
In “The First White President,” Mr. Coates’s blistering jeremiad that serves as the book’s epilogue, he momentarily gestures at this greater complexity. “The politics of race are, themselves, never attributable ‘just to the politics of race,’ ” he writes. Yet despite this throat-clearing, he continues to argue as though they are. “White tribalism haunts even more nuanced writers,” he argues, training his sights on The New Yorker’s George Packer.
This was an incredible accusation to which Mr. Packer was forced to respond. “The style of no-compromise sacrifices things that are too important for readers to surrender without a second thought,” Mr. Packer persuasively cautioned. “It begins with the essential point that race is an idea, and ends up just about making race an essence.”
For having the temerity to defend himself, Mr. Packer was accused on social media of “excusing racism” and “whitesplaining.” Such logic extends a disturbing trend in left-of-center public thinking: identity epistemology, or knowing-through-being, somewhere along the line became identity ethics, or morality-through-being. Accordingly, whiteness and wrongness have become interchangeable — the high ground is now accessible only by way of “allyship,” which is to say silence and total repentance. The upside to this new white burden, of course, is that whichever way they may choose, those deemed white remain this nation’s primary actors.
Given the genuine severity of the Trump threat, some readers of this essay may wonder, why devote energy to picking over the virtue and solidarity signaling of the left? Quite simply because getting this kind of thinking wrong exacerbates the very inequality it seeks to counteract. In the most memorable sentence in “The First White President,” Mr. Coates declares, “Whereas his forebears carried whiteness like an ancestral talisman, Trump cracked the glowing amulet open, releasing its eldritch energies.”
I have spent the past six months poring over the literature of European and American white nationalism, in the process interviewing noxious identitarians like the alt-right founder Richard Spencer. The most shocking aspect of Mr. Coates’s wording here is the extent to which it mirrors ideas of race — specifically the specialness of whiteness — that white supremacist thinkers cherish.
This, more than anything, is what is so unsettling about Mr. Coates’s recent writing and the tenor of the leftist “woke” discourse he epitomizes. Though it is not at all morally equivalent, it is nonetheless in sync with the toxic premises of white supremacism. Both sides eagerly reduce people to abstract color categories, all the while feeding off of and legitimizing each other, while those of us searching for gray areas and common ground get devoured twice. Both sides mystify racial identity, interpreting it as something fixed, determinative and almost supernatural. For Mr. Coates, whiteness is a “talisman,” an “amulet” of “eldritch energies” that explains all injustice; for the abysmal early-20th-century Italian fascist and racist icon Julius Evola, it was a “meta-biological force,” a collective mind-spirit that justifies all inequality. In either case, whites are preordained to walk that special path. It is a dangerous vision of life we should refuse no matter who is doing the conjuring.
This summer, I spent an hour on the phone with Richard Spencer. It was an exchange that left me feeling physically sickened. Toward the end of the interview, he said one thing that I still think about often. He referred to the all-encompassing sense of white power so many liberals now also attribute to whiteness as a profound opportunity. “This is the photographic negative of a white supremacist,” he told me gleefully. “This is why I’m actually very confident, because maybe those leftists will be the easiest ones to flip.”
However far-fetched that may sound, what identitarians like Mr. Spencer have grasped, and what ostensibly anti-racist thinkers like Mr. Coates have lost sight of, is the fact that so long as we fetishize race, we ensure that we will never be rid of the hierarchies it imposes. We will all be doomed to stalk our separate paths.

Trump on the Couch

Diagnosing Donald Trump, and His Voters

In the new book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,” mental-health experts unpack the mortal danger of the President’s mind.
Photograph by Brendan Smialowski / AFP / Getty
The question is not whether the President is crazy but whether he is crazy like a fox or crazy like crazy. And, if there is someone who can know the difference, should this person, or this group of people, say something—or would that be crazy (or unethical, or undemocratic)?
Jay Rosen, a media scholar at New York University, has been arguing for months that “many things Trump does are best explained by Narcissistic Personality Disorder,” and that journalists should start saying so. In March, theTimes published a letter by the psychiatrists Robert Jay Lifton and Judith L. Herman, who stated that Trump’s “repeated failure to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and his outbursts of rage when his fantasies are contradicted” suggest that, “faced with crisis, President Trump will lack the judgment to respond rationally.” Herman, who is a professor at Harvard Medical School, also co-authored an earlier letter to President Obama, in November, urging him to find a way to subject President-elect Trump to a neuropsychiatric evaluation.
Lifton and Herman are possibly the greatest living American thinkers in the field of mental health. Lifton, who trained both as a psychiatrist and a psychoanalyst, is also a psychohistorian; he has written on survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, on Nazi doctors, and on other expressions of what he calls “an extreme century” (the one before this one). Herman, who has done pioneering research on trauma, has written most eloquently on the near-impossibility of speaking about the unimaginable—and now that Donald Trump is, unimaginably, President, she has been speaking out in favor of speaking up. Herman and Lifton have now written introductory articles to a collection called “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.” It is edited by Bandy X. Lee, a psychiatrist at the Yale School of Medicine who, earlier this year, convened a conference called Duty to Warn.
Contributors to the book entertain the possibility of applying a variety of diagnoses and descriptions to the President. Philip Zimbardo, who is best known for his Stanford Prison Experiment, and his co-author, Rosemary Sword, propose that Trump is an “extreme present hedonist.” He may also be a sociopath, a malignant narcissist, borderline, on the bipolar spectrum, a hypomanic, suffering from delusional disorder, or cognitively impaired. None of these conditions is a novelty in the Oval Office. Lyndon Johnson was bipolar, and John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton might have been characterized as “extreme present hedonists,” narcissists, and hypomanics. Richard Nixon was, in addition to his narcissism, a sociopath who suffered from delusions, and Ronald Reagan’s noticeable cognitive decline began no later than his second term. Different authors suggest that America “dodged the bullet” with Reagan, that Nixon’s malignant insanity was exposed in time, and that Clinton’s afflictions might have propelled him to Presidential success, just as similar traits can aid the success of entrepreneurs. (Steve Jobs comes up.)
Behind the obvious political leanings of the authors lurks a conceptual problem. Definitions of mental illness are mutable; they vary from culture to culture and change with time. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is edited every few years to reflect changes in norms: some conditions stop being viewed as pathologies, while others are elevated from mere idiosyncrasies to the status of illness. In a footnote to her introduction, Herman acknowledges the psychiatric profession’s “ignominious history” of misogyny and homophobia, but this is misleading: the problem wasn’t so much that psychiatrists were homophobic but that homosexuality fell so far outside the social norm as to virtually preclude the possibility of a happy, healthy life.
ADVERTISEMENT
Political leadership is not the norm. I once saw Alexander Esenin-Volpin, one of the founders of the Soviet dissident movement, receive his medical documents, dating back to his hospitalizations decades earlier. His diagnosis of mental illness was based explicitly on his expressed belief that protest could overturn the Soviet regime. Esenin-Volpin laughed with delight when he read the document. It was funny. It was also accurate: the idea that the protest of a few intellectuals could bring down the Soviet regime was insane. Esenin-Volpin, in fact, struggled with mental-health issues throughout his life. He was also a visionary.
No one of sound mind would suspect Trump of being a visionary. But is there an objective, value-free way to draw the very subjective and generally value-laden distinction between vision and insanity? More to the point, is there a way to avert the danger posed by Trump’s craziness that won’t set us on the path of policing the thinking of democratically elected leaders? Zimbardo suggests that there should be a vetting process for Presidential candidates, akin to psychological tests used for “positions ranging from department store sales clerk to high-level executive.” Craig Malkin, a lecturer at Harvard Medical School and the author of “Rethinking Narcissism,” suggests relying on “people already trained to provide functional and risk assessment based entirely on observation—forensic psychiatrists and psychologists as well as ‘profilers’ groomed by the CIA, the FBI, and various law enforcement agencies.” This is a positively terrifying idea. As Mark Joseph Stern wrote in Slate in response to last December’s calls for the Electoral College to un-elect Trump, it “only made sense if you assumed as a starting point that America would never hold another presidential election.”
Psychiatrists who contributed to “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” are moved by the sense that they have a special knowledge they need to communicate to the public. But Trump is not their patient. The phrase “duty to warn,” which refers to a psychiatrist’s obligation to break patient confidentiality in case of danger to a third party, cannot apply to them literally. As professionals, these psychiatrists have a kind of optics that may allow them to pick out signs of danger in Trump’s behavior or statements, but, at the same time, they are analyzing what we all see: the President’s persistent, blatant lies (there is some disagreement among contributors on whether he knows he is lying or is, in fact, delusional); his contradictory statements; his inability to hold a thought; his aggression; his lack of empathy. None of this is secret, special knowledge—it is all known to the people who voted for him. We might ask what’s wrong with them rather than what’s wrong with him.
Thomas Singer, a psychiatrist and Jungian psychoanalyst from San Francisco, suggests that the election reflects “a woundedness at the core of the American group Self,” with Trump offering protection from further injury and even a cure for the wound. The conversation turns, as it must, from diagnosing the President to diagnosing the people who voted for him. That has the effect of making Trump appear normal—in the sense that, psychologically, he is offering his voters what they want and need.
Knowing what we know about Trump and what psychiatrists know about aggression, impulse control, and predictive behavior, we are all in mortal danger. He is the man with his finger on the nuclear button. Contributors to “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” ask whether this creates a “duty to warn.” But the real question is, Should democracy allow a plurality of citizens to place the lives of an entire country in the hands of a madman? Crazy as this idea is, it’s not a question psychiatrists can answer.

Chernow's Grant


Chernow’s portrait of Grant as a work of literary craftsmanship, if not art

 
T.J. Stiles is the author of “The First Tycoon: The Epic Life of Cornelius Vanderbilt,” which won the National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize for biography. His most recent book is “Custer’s Trials: A Life on the Frontier of a New America,” which won the 2016 Pulitzer Prize for history. He is currently writing a biography of Theodore Roosevelt.
In the essay “The Art of Biography,” Virginia Woolf asks, “Is biography an art?” She admits that the question is “ungenerous” but adds, “There it is, whenever a new biography is opened, casting its shadow on the page; and there would seem to be something deadly in that shadow.” 
Woolf’s question hovers over all biographers, even the most accomplished. It comes now for Ron Chernow, the author of “Grant,” a new account of the Civil War general and two-term president. Recipient of the National Humanities Medal, Chernow won the Pulitzer Prize for his last book, “Washington,” and the National Book Award for his first, “The House of Morgan.” Lin-Manuel Miranda adapted his best-selling “Hamilton” into a musical, which Michelle Obama called “the best piece of art in any form that I have ever seen in my life.” 
And yet — that shadow. To Woolf, every biographer is “a craftsman, not an artist. . . . The trouble lies with biography itself. It imposes conditions, and those conditions are that it must be based upon fact.” She argues that only unrestrained imagination can make art. I disagree. Facts are simply the medium, as paint is to the painter. Of course, most painters succeed as artisans, not artists, and so do most biographers. 
“Grant,” by Ron Chernow (Penguin / )
To rise above craftsmanship, one must work with abundant, varied and complicated facts. Chernow does that, presenting research that bulks Grant to nearly 1,000 pages of narrative. It allows him to write a rich and sensitive portrait of the inner Grant — from reluctant West Point cadet to civilian failure to triumphant general. He exhaustively investigates Grant’s alcoholism and fraught relationships with his family. I admire Chernow’s honesty about contradictory evidence as well as Grant’s mistakes. 
We read biography to know a life but also to ratify our conviction that the individual matters. This forces the biographer to be researcher, writer and historian simultaneously. How does the world shape the individual, and the individual the world? To what extent are convictions, judgment and personality merely typical, embedded in a larger context — and where does the individual wriggle free? A biography that succeeds as art combines scholarly and literary virtues. It explains, interprets and carries a reader fully into a human existence. It offers illumination and immersion. 
As a historian, Chernow proves somewhat uneven. His research into Grant’s struggles with alcohol would be better if he discussed the scale and intensity of the temperance movement; that would explain contemporaries’ obsession with drink and Grant’s personal shame. Chernow’s account of Grant’s military career, however, works well, particularly in exploring his closest relationships. Most important, the book centers on the story of black liberation, from Grant’s embrace of emancipation as a general to his enforcement of civil rights as president. If African Americans play too passive a role in this telling (freedom did not progress “ineluctably”), Chernow’s emphasis is exactly right, and his account of Grant’s views is revealing.
Every biography is a broken mirror, reflecting the past inexactly. But Chernow shows where a seemingly small distortion obscures something important. In recounting Jay Gould and Jim Fisk’s attempt to corner the gold market in 1869, for example, he states incorrectly that Wall Street quoted the price of gold per ounce. This is no mere technical error. The “Gold Room” wasn’t a commodity market but an exchange between two domestic currencies, both confusingly named “dollar”: the legal-tender paper greenback and the still-circulating gold dollar. The “gold premium,” or price, was the number of greenbacks required to buy $100 in gold coin. That fact is the door to a chamber of bitter controversy. Should money be a substance with intrinsic value — or can government invent it at will and address crippling deflation of a kind unknown to any American today? If Chernow had explained this, readers would know why Grant’s veto of the Inflation Bill probably cost the Republicans the 1874 midterm elections and why the Greenback Party emerged as one of history’s most successful independent political movements.
Chernow shows little interest in the West. He writes that Gen. Philip Sheridan dispatched Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer to the Black Hills in the Great Sioux Reservation in 1874 to find gold, defiling a region sacred to the Lakotas. In fact, Sheridan sent him to scout a site for a fort, as part of a strategy to compensate for the Army’s manpower shortage. Custer did find gold, igniting a rush of squatters. That invasion led to war because, as historian Robert Utley writes, the Black Hills were a critical natural resource bank that sustained Lakota nomadism. Chernow misses the environmental and strategic factors that shaped Lakota national imperatives as well as federal policies. 
Strong research, imperfect history — but what about Chernow’s writing? British literary critic David Lodge notes that nonfiction authors’ theft of the novelist’s tools dates back to the 19th-century writer Thomas Carlyle. Telling a story through scenes, the creation of expectations, the techniques of mystery and suspense, not to mention rhythm and lyricism — this belongs in a biography of Tolstoy as much as in Tolstoy’s “War and Peace.” Unfortunately, Chernow makes little use of these tools. His design does not delight with artful structure and delivers no pleasures of expectation, revelation or surprise. He rarely opens a chapter with sentences that hum the themes to come. He does not switch the point of view to allow a secondary character to expand the book’s scope. He stacks up adjectives, cliches and stock phrases. “The quick-witted Grant beat them to the punch and the town fell without a shot,” he writes. With each such sentence, Woolf’s shadow grows darker. 
As a novel does, the best biography creates a fully realized world. That requires not just research but selection. During a fellowship at the New York Public Library’s Cullman Center, my colleagues reviewed a chapter of my Cornelius Vanderbilt biography. In a scene that found Vanderbilt on the edge of death, novelist Nathan Englander noted my reference to a meteor that flamed overhead. “You realize you’re connecting Vanderbilt to the universe?” he asked. He was right, but it wasn’t the effect I wanted. I had merely compiled facts, failing to consider their literary implications. I wanted to say that earthy grit saved this unspiritual old sailor, so I took the meteor out. It made me realize how much I had to learn about writing. 
In “Samuel Pepys,” biographer Claire Tomalin evokes the moment when her subject first bought a notebook for his famous diary: “When Pepys was in Cornhill on 5 December 1659, the day he saw an apprentice shot through the head by soldiers, the shops had their shutters up against the violence in the streets. On another day before the end of the year he was in Cornhill again, and this time he went into the stationer’s shop at the sign of the Globe, where John Cade sold paper and pens as well as the prints and maps Pepys loved to leaf through; and there he bought himself a paper-covered notebook, too fat to go into his pocket, and carried it home to Axe Yard.” 
Without one “likely” or “perhaps,” Tomalin connects the facts she knows to create a sense of a scene that no document describes. She sends active verbs skittering and barking through the shop to bring alive Pepys’s anticipation, the prints ready for fingering, the notebook he feels in his hand. It is vivid, and it is honest. Tomalin shows, in this rare combination of brilliant research, history and literary style, that a biography indeed can be art. 
Yet, Woolf herself liked good craftsmanship, which Chernow delivers. He guides us into the character of a famously reticent man, revealing how he could be both a failure and a conqueror, principled yet surprisingly naive. 
GRANT
By Ron Chernow
Penguin Press. 1,074 pp. $40

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

In Honor of Einstein

In honor of Albert Einstein I woke up this morning thinking about gravitational waves (He's been proven right one again. The only time he was wrong was when he suggested that we'd be vacationing on Mars in 50 years), but I quickly pivoted to what's for breakfast and my tasks for the day. With all due respect to Einstein, gravitational waves are a tough subject to wrap your head around particularly when you have my head. You dig?

Sunday, October 1, 2017