Weltschmerz

 In prepping for class--reading and taking notes on a friend's essay I've assigned--I ran into a fun word: Weltschmerz. From the German words for world and pain, the term means (in the quick-searched dictionary.com's phrase) "sorrow that one feels and accepts as one's necessary portion in life; sentimental pessimism."

I had vaguely associated the term with German Romanticism (Sorrows of Young Werther sort of stuff). Wikipedia specifies that it's from Jean Paul (a German Romantic), who in turn takes it from a work by the Brothers Grimm (!) to describe "tiefe Traurigkeit über die Unzulänglichkeit der Welt" ("deep sadness about the inadequacy of the world").

How to say: I love this word. "World-weariness"--a resignation that the world is not and will never be "good." 

I'm struck, on the one hand, at how well it captures the worldview of my spirit animal: Eeyore. (My sister insists that my spirit animal is the octopus, which I love! But so often my spirit seems shaped like a depressed stuffed donkey.)

 

 

Weirdly, the idea also seems to resonate with (my inadequate understanding of) certain Buddhist precepts. Life is suffering. Suffering comes from desire/attachment. Letting of of that attachment is a way through. 

Weltschmerz, though, doesn't let go of attachment. It steeps simply misses it, saturating in suffering for what cannot be. It's melancholy without the process of mourning. 

And as such, it becomes--like Eeyore--slightly pitiable and silly. "Sentimental pessimism" is such a cool phrase. (Good job, dictionary-dot-com!) It takes something that could be profound and deep--there are modes of deep pessimism, I think--and empties it of profundity, making it a pose or an attitude. The stereotype of goth teens (or, later, emo teens) likewise seems a species of "sentimental pessimism." Of course, teens of every generation often do suffer from serious depression, so the stereotype itself lacks some generosity and understanding.

BUT--there are plenty of times when I feel the need to give myself a kick in the behind, to jolt myself out of the swamps of Weltschmerz into . . . well, something more helpful or active. 

There's a dangerous pull for me in Weltschmerz, something akin to the sin of acedia--often rendered sloth but perhaps better a kind of conscious freeze after overwhelm, a protective posture of exhausted cynicism. 

What's the line between pessimism and cynicism, I wonder? I like the description I heard of cynicism as "low hope, low humility"--absolutely certain, certain to the point of arrogance, that there is no hope. Exhaustion, by contrast, is "low hope, high humility." Perhaps that's pessimism as well. Maybe Weltschmerz is "low hope, high visibility."

News Sites

The other day my sister asked me if I can recommend any good/trustworthy news sites. I listed some of my favorites, starting with my long-time aggregator of choice, Joemygod.com. 

But I have a new one of late, recommended by someone on Bluesky: whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com. Essentially a headline aggregator, the site was founded by journalist Matt Kiser. His shtick is simple: "neutral-ish," no opinion pieces, few adjectives or adverbs ("It’s unnecessary to add a “just” in front of 38% of Americans approve of the job the president is doing," he explains in his "About" page),  no ads, no paywall, and all sources cited (and a diversity thereof).

The effect is that each day's post offers a slimmed-down rundown of top news stories refreshingly free from alarmist, if-it-bleeds-it-leads framing.

Now, I'm not a huge fan of fetishizing neutrality when it comes to reporting. Especially when (for example) the Trump administration transgresses longstanding norms and laws, it's the journalist's job to provide that context. Just how unusual or out-of-bounds is this act? I concur that, all too often, major news media "sanewash" or "both sides" acts that should shock the conscience. 

Intriguingly, though, WTFJHT's plain vanilla reportorial tone manages to be somehow more shocking than any three headlines put together. I misplaced the skeet, but someone online quipped that we're in a time when a simple list of what Trump and his administration did in a single day would read like laughable conspiracy plots. 

I mean, I find the daily list on that site shocking and unbelievable. But I put that dry rendering side-by-side with the posts I read on Bluesky and other sites, where people who know (and plenty of people who don't know) shatter the alarm bells trying to get folk to understand how outre it is to, for example, grant access to secure financial servers to a private citizen and his cronies. 

I wonder, in other words, whether a Trump supporter could read the site (whose name likely weeds out certain conservative audiences) and conclude, "Good job! Hurrah!"

For more nuanced coverage of what the other side thinks, I usually consult Tangle News, Isaac Saul's newsletter that does "both sides" reporting the right way. He introduces a news item, shares representative right-leaning views, representative left-leaning views, and then his (or his staff's) own view. I don't always agree with them. (For example, I think Tangle's take on Trump's tariffs as mainly unobjectionable, even effective, flouts the consensus of experts that call them dangerous--though the site does acknowledge those experts' opinions.) But I appreciate the reality check of "not everyone thinks like the folk you follow on Bluesky."

Related to yesterday's post: Apparently Congressional Democrats have roused themselves to a more coordinated response to Trump's blitzkrieg volley of executive orders. Meanwhile, Trump today announced a pause on the right-now-to-stop-an-emergency tariffs on Canada and Mexico. He will of course claim victory: See? Being strong works! I am unclear exactly what kind of victory he won apart from confirming his love of self-aggrandizing chaos. Apparently just asserting victory works very well for him. We'll see how effectively Democrats--or the calamitous effects of Trump's bull-in-china-shop tactics--mute his crowing.

Resisting the Urge to Retreat

 I'm pausing my Monday class preparations/administrative tasks in order to write a message to my senators and representatives. I imagine I'll be doing a lot of that for the foreseeable future. 

Today's ask is for some kind of oversight/check on Elon Musk and his (unelected, unaccountable, non-transparent) "DOGE" operation, which appears to be taking over key avenues of funding, appropriation, and HR in the federal government.

Dear [person]--

I write to express my alarm about the actions of Elon Musk's "DOGE" initiative. Access to sensitive personnel and administrative data and communication channels has traditionally been restricted to people who have been thoroughly vetted, regularly reviewed, and transparently accountable. I see no such safeguards or oversight for DOGE thus far.

Think how the GOP would feel if the situation were reversed. What if a Democratic president brought in a team of billionaire "experts" (who also happen to be some of the president's biggest funders) and their staff to restructure government to the extent we've seen DOGE attempting? What if that president granted this team free reign to access, take over, and reshape huge swathes of government--all without the slightest hint of security clearance, transparent mission parameters, or congressional accountability? What if any employee objecting to granting access/authority to such unknowns were summarily dismissed? Surely the floor of both houses overflow with denunciations, protective legislation, and investigative committees.

A decade ago, former Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton came under heavy fire--rightfully so--for using a private email server. How are DOGE's actions thus far not orders of magnitude more reckless and foolhardy?

Musk and his associates are accustomed to private enterprises in which they are unquestioned bosses. They get to move fast and break things at their whim--in their own companies. But in the USA, we elect representatives to a government that divides the power of the sword and the strings of the purse between different branches. It is the job of the legislative branch to act as a check on executive actions. 

In that spirit, then, I ask that you assert such oversight over DOGE. No one elected Musk. No Congressional body approved his team's operational protocol and limitations. And as far as I can tell, no Congressional committee has asserted its right to review, question, or overrule his decisions. 

This is unacceptable. Musk and DOGE must make themselves open to review, approval, modification, and challenge by Congress and the people that body represents. I ask you to act as the mechanism for that check.

Thank you,

[my name]

I don't expect this to have any immediate effect beyond putting me on the fundraising mailing lists (and perhaps other kinds of lists) for my overwhelmingly MAGA-red representatives. I'm doing this mainly for me, to force myself into some kind of action when my impulse is to curl up into a despair-ball.

That'll have to be enough for today.

Fall!

 I fell earlier this evening while on a run. Typing is hard because my right middle finger is swaddled in a Toy Story band-aid. Larger band-aids are on my palm and my knee. Both knees look a bloody mess, and I'll be plucking sidewalk grit out of my hands for a while.

I hate falling. What a silly thing to say, right? Who enjoys falling down unexpectedly, slamming into the sidewalk? Aside from the pain, it's embarrassing. I was running later than I should have on our neighborhood's buckled sidewalks. I failed to see a buckle that I'd stepped over countless times before, my foot caught, and BAM. 

I hate the noise I make: UHHHN. I hate the moment of panic--Did I break something? mixed with Did anyone see? 

I hate how old and inept I feel after falling. I've fallen before--worse than this--about five years ago. I remember that awful feeling after getting up, realizing that, despite the pain, I wasn't gravely injured--but still feeling the full-body bone-shock of the impact. It keeps reverberating, repeating, as you hobble away, not yet looking at your hands or knees, pressing your fingernails into the uninjured parts of your palms to forestall the pain.

I sent pictures to some of my snapchat friends. My sister: "It's like stigmata in all the wrong places."

My partner panicked a bit, wondering if I needed to put my legs up to stop the bleeding. Just scratches, I assured him. He watched as I washed them with soap and water, dabbed at them with paper towels, and poured alcohol over them. That was unpleasant. It hurt so much I laughed. 

I anticipate greater pain tomorrow, the bruises and body aches joining the pain of the scrapes. 

I was going to do more writing--the statement of purpose for the next seminary will require more new composition--but I may need to hold off til I can type better.

It may be a bit before I try running again. Run-shy. Or fall shy. No more running at night unless I have smooth paths and more lighting--or more youthful eyes, better reflexes, or superhuman invulnerability. 

The day before this was great--shopping with my friend. I resisted buying much for myself beyond some beauty/hygiene things. I think I should indulge in some transformers, though. Right now they're giving me some joy against, well, other stressful things in life.

Nothing like a toy robot that turns into something else to take the sting out of a fall.

adfadfdasf

OK, and One Good Thing

 OK--that was a heckofa negative post I made earlier.

A student reminded me this week of Philippians 4:8--"whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."

Here's a commendable thing. This last week, amid the abominable rhetoric and actions of the government in targeting mostly law-abiding immigrants, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints issued a brief statement reaffirming some core principles. The gist:

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints obeys the law.
2. We follow Jesus Christ by loving our neighbors. The Savior taught that the meaning of “neighbor” includes all of God’s children.
3. We seek to provide basic food and clothing, as our capacity allows, to those in need, regardless of their immigration status. We are especially concerned about keeping families together

This. This is not bad. I hope other Christian bodies follow suit. 

 

Moving Fast and Breaking Everything

 I'll say this for the Trump II Administration: they're living up to their promise to do a lot of things all at once. 

Trump declared today that his long-rumored Tariffs Against Everyone (Canada, Mexico, China) start tomorrow. Folk on  excitable (but not necessarily wrong) left websites. Musk has apparently taken over HR servers at the Office of Personnel Management, reinforcing "go on your dream vacation by resigning now" emails to government employees. Federal websites are being purged of information about HIV, trans care, climate change, and other Trump-no-like-them topics. Trump is doubling down--without a shred of proof or justification--on the notion that DEI is to blame for the air disaster on Wednesday night. NSF grant processes still seem frozen. The CDC is prevented from communicating about HIV/AIDS, and CDC employees were frantically archiving data from its webpages before they're purged. We seem on the brink of voting in anti-vax, anti-medical-research Robert F. Kennedy as HSS Secretary (threatening iffy GOP Senators like Bill Cassidy if they don't confirm him). The DOJ fired dozens of employees involved in prior Trump-focused investigations, and the FBI is readying a purge of all FBI folk involved in investigating Trump's multiple crimes. The ICE raids continue, now with talk of deporting those arrested to Guantanamo.

I'm not even mentioning everything. Not two weeks in, and Trump shoves down our collective throats a multiple-constitutional-crises-at-once shot with a ruin-the-economy-as-quickly-as-possible chaser.

My guess is that they're betting on a combination of reliable propaganda dissembling (from Fox News et al.) and just plain exhaustion to make this all seem normal. But I have trouble seeing how, for example, driving out 70% of federal workers will do anything but cause basic governmental collapse. Nothing will work. Trump will have broken the government. 

I get that's what some of his supporters want--or at least what many of them think they want. The right since Reagan at least has ginned up deep hatred of government while at the same time fomenting ignorance about just what the government is and what it does. Will people like it when (for example) their tax returns take longer to come in right as prices are skyrocketing, interstates degrade, air traffic control disappears, medicare and social security admin grinds to a halt, etc., etc.?

The hopes I see on the left right now involve faith in the millions of brave/industrious government workers doing . . . things?  . . . to preserve vital pieces of government informational infrastructure, like scientists storing seeds underground to replant after the apocalypse passes. There's some thought, also, that swift legal challenges can freeze or slow a lot of Trump's plans. And then there's the grim, leopards-eating-faces schadenfreude hope vested in the inevitable "find out" phase that's coming (perhaps as early as next week!) after all this f-ing around. 

Surely, this line of hopeful thinking goes, Trump won't be able to deflect blame for the immediate and painful consequences of choices made by his move-fast-and-break-everything crew. Surely popular backlash will come for him. The cost of doing so many things all at once--loudly and publicly--is that you burn away any scrap of plausible deniability. You can't claim that it's not your fault when you boasted about doing all the things.

Surely.

I don't know. As long as Trump can convince his base that he's doing this most to the groups that deserve it (marginalized folk, brown folk, immigrants, queer folk, poor folk), I think his base will swallow it. As long as the billionaires he's surrounded himself with perceive continued profit for themselves, I think his funders will support it. As long as the politicians he's wrapped around his fingers see their careers as reliant on him, I think they'll allow it.

And schadenfreude? I don't anticipate much of that. The leopards dine on everyone's faces, not just those of the ones who voted them into power. Hard to say "I told you so" when you're shrieking through the jagged hole where your lips used to be.

Rough times ahead.

The Search for Reds

 Today's mood has improved over yesterday's, which is good. After I posted the down-in-the-dumps post, I did push myself to do a short workout, take a shower, and . . . well, absorb the news about the helicopter-passenger jet collision in Washington, DC. God be with the victims' families. 

Today's press conference by President Trump featured the expected bromides about togetherness in tragedy before (apparently--after I stopped listening) detouring into the expected scapegoat for the crash from the administration: Biden (and Pete Budigeig) and DEI. He offered no evidence or substantiation, of course, even after some (admirable) pushback by some reporters. Trump is well beyond the need for proof. Apparently, so are his supporters. Some news media are instead noting how the FAA chief had stepped down at Musk's command on Jan 20, how air traffic controllers had been suffering from overwork and shortages for years, how the (again, Musk-spawned) scare letter to all federal employees yesterday provide at least some points of curiosity--for other people, obviously, not for Trump or his administration.

Just before sitting down to write this (after cleaning up yet more of Solo's projectile barfing--I'm really worried about our little guy), I read the report of a national call from Braver Angels (the depolarization group I'm part of). The call concentrated on the results of a long survey/study about one of the major problems Braver Angels faces: red (i.e., conservative) recruitment. The results identified two familiar reasons. First, reds report feeling unwelcome in BA spaces, usually thanks to offhand comments from uncareful blues. Second, many reds simply don't see why BA is worth their time and trouble; it's all talk and no action. I've heard the latter expressed by many of our red attendees. 

With effort, I quash my first reaction--how far back to we need to bend over in order to make reds feel welcome? In no other realm of society or politics do I ever see reds worrying about whether they're making blues feel welcome. Looking beyond that, I think there are some other issues going on--at least where I am--that contribute to the red-recruitment problem.

The first is that partisan sorting into reds and blues (Braver Angels's longstanding default) leaves out a great many self-identified independents, often (but not exclusively) of some flavor of libertarian. Now, a lot of times BA will label these (or encourage them to self-label as) red. But that shade of red doesn't fit well. 

One of the solutions offered by the BA official in charge of the call (whom I know as a really stand-up red-identifying guy) involved including a prominent red, a podcast host, on the call. But this prominent red is described as having "a personal relationship with a Trump nominee for the NIH"--the nominee being of course Robert Kennedy. Here's the thing: Kennedy is much more libertarian than MAGA red. He's kissed the ring enough to be NIH nominee (he'll likely get through despite a long history of cackle-brained, anti-vax opinions). Trump has recruited more libertarian bros like Kennedy and Musk into his circle this time around. I'm assuming that this podcast host falls more into that red-leaning libertarian mold, not the bright-red MAGA. (Checking Wikipedia--apparently he's been described as libertarian but now rejects that label--which is still different than a full-on-Trump loyalist a la Kash Patel.)

It remains to be seen how stable such libertarian-authoritarian bonds will remain. Libertarian authoritarianism is increasingly a thing, but it's not quite the same as MAGA white-nationalist-Christian-fundamentalist authoritarianism (not that everyone is white or Christian in that group, e.g., Patel). Some fractures between them have so far been slight, and it may be that Trump's main feat this time around involves forging and maintaining that fusion between "no government telling anyone what to do" and "no government telling me what to do--but definitely telling those other people what to do."

In any case, I don't know that we have that many dyed-in-the-wool MAGA Trump supporters in the organization. When I hear folk complain about BA being "all talk, no action," I hear more the libertarian streak than the authoritarian streak. 

Why is that? Well, one reason is that I don't hear the authoritarian streak at all. Religious fundamentalists and [substitute whatever gradation of white nationalism you'd like here] just don't come to Braver Angels meetings so far as I can see. And why would they? What's in it for them?

There's a difference, in other words, between "BA is all talk and no action, so it's not worth my time" and "BA is interested in getting the two sides to talk to and work together for the common good--and thus it's not worth my time." If you really believe that you have a deadlock on the True and the Right and that the other side really is just fundamentally Wrong and Malicious--well, it's immoral to work with them or talk to them. Authoritarians do not care to depolarize. They aim to conquer, and anything that reeks of compromise is a turnoff.

Frankly, I think both modes of thought--no government at all! and much stronger government that makes others do what I want!--represent dealbreaker positions for Braver Angels, which if anything embraces democratic governance moderated by protected liberties.  

As for the second objection--blues are mean--well, I agree that's a complaint I often here (more at the national level than at local levels). But again, I'm not sure it means what we think it means.

More tomorrow.