WRITINGS

That November Election

Tamim Ansary

For five months now we’ve all been listening to chatter about the November election. Why did it come out the way it did? Why did Trump win? Why did the Democrats lose?  How could this possibly have happened? David Brooks has a theory. Fareed Zakaria has a theory. Bernie Sanders has a theory.  Tom Friedman has a theory. Pundits big and small have theories. I’m the smallest of pundits and everything that can be said about the election has been said, and yet…I kinda’  feel there’s still more to say.

I’m not saying all those pundits got it wrong. Not totally. They all have points. Brooks has said the demographic divide that matters in politics now isn’t economic, it’s cultural. He says it’s the divide between the college-educated and the high-school educated.  Bernie Sanders begs to differ. He says the crucial divide is between the haves and the have-nots. People who follow his school of thought argue that college-educated vs. high-school-educated merely reflects the bigger and more important material fact:  the college-educated have more money. They enjoy better health. They live longer lives than the folks who never went to college.  People who subscribe to Sanders’ explanation keep pointing out that the top tax rate in this country used to be something like 90 percent.   Now it’s down in the 30s somewhere.

All of which is true, but here’s one problem I have with that analysis: the have-nots voted for the guy who bragged about his golden toilet and was backed by the richest man on the planet.  The have-nots voted with the billionaires. Say what?

Fareed Zakaria has offered a different slant on the cultural divide that Brooks calls out. Zakaria said the rift is really between those who work with symbols—lawyers, accountants, investment bankers, professors, and their ilk—versus those who work with material things, like carpenters, plumbers, bus drivers, factory workers, miners and so on. The symbol-workers have been doing just fine over the last several decades, Zakaria says. It’s the people working with real stuff who’ve been losing ground: increasingly they’ve been living from paycheck to paycheck, wracked by anxiety because they see technology wiping out all the jobs like theirs (if they’re still working) and all the kinds of jobs they could imagine doing in the future (if they lose the one they have).

True that; but here’s something I didn’t hear Zakaria mention. Whatever technology might have done to classic working-class jobs, it’s coming for the people who work with symbols now.  Artificial Intelligence is laying waste to industries such as coding and human resources. Its wiping out jobs in fields like accounting, bookkeeping,  medicine, even screen-writing, even therapy, for God’s sake! Yes, even therapy!

Here’s my thesis. When Americans went to the polls this year, they were choosing between two options: 

  1. “Let’s keep going the way we’re going and just patch the things that aren’t working.” (Democrats)
  2. “Let’s tear the whole thing down and try something different, God only knows what.” (Republicans)

Before the election,  pundits were saying the Democrats weren’t offering something people should vote for, they were staking all their hope on warning of something people should vote against.  In the aftermath of election, it occurs to me that those pundits had it exactly backward. People who voted for Trump weren’t necessarily voting for Trump; they were voting against … well… people like me.  

I can’t help but take that personally. 

But that also suggests, at least to me, that people who voted for Trump weren’t necessarily voting for Trump.  They wanted something different, and the only something-different on offer was the vicious nonsense Trump was peddling.

To my mind,  the core issue of the age is the magnitude and pace of change.  In a swiftly changing social landscape, people feel ever less at home. The alienation and anxiety generated by breakneck social change contributed to the atmosphere that gave us the election results of last November. Urban people who experience social complexity more routinely are less affected by breakneck social change: we urbanites know how to roll with such punches. We’ve been dealing with it all along. It’s more foreign to rural- and small-town-America. As a result, the rural and urban social worlds begin diverging until they’ve separated into two non-overlapping realities.

I am particularly sensitive to this phenomenon the way a person with hay fever is quick to sense pollen in the air because exactly the same gap opened up for exactly the same reasons in Afghanistan when I was growing up, and look what happened there.  One consequence of rapid, accelerating, and wholesale change is a certain underlying fear it generates:  it stokes the feeling that someday very soon, no place on Earth will feel like home. We’ll all, in a sense, be homeless.

The Democrats didn’t address that underlying fear. Neither did Trump, really, if we’re talking about offering any actual remedy or alternative. What he did do, however, was speak to—and stoke–the underlying, unspoken fear. In a social landscape permeated by this vague, unarticulated malaise,  Trump said, “Strangers are coming. They call themselves immigrants. They’re turning your home into their home. They’re eating your cats and dogs. The Democrats are their advance guard.  They’re pushing and kneading your life into strange new shapes. They’re staging drag shows for your children in kindergarten. They’re taxing you and using the money to give free sex change operations to immigrants who sneaked into this place you call your home illegally, and they’re in prison because they drugged you with addictive painkillers and raped your children.”

That scenario is factually false.  It matches up to nothing in objective reality. What it does do is invoke the emotions that some people are really feeling: a sense of loss, of an accelerating strangeness about the world we’re living in, of the noticeably-rising brutality of that world. It speaks to a sense of  impotence about coping with storms too huge to handle and a sense of helplessness about doing anything to stop the lights from going out…

We Democrats responded to Trump’s bizarre story by saying: “Where’s the proof? You can’t prove that! Where’s the evidence?”  Trump and his cohort claimed to be making statements about objective reality, and we fell into his trap by treating his rants as if they were claims about objective reality. To people whose emotions were triggered by Trump’s rants, us saying “that’s not true! That’s not true!” was like us saying, “You don’t feel that way! You don’t feel that way! And if you do feel that way, it means you’re a bad person! If America doesn’t feel like home to you, it’s because there’s something wrong with you! If you weren’t broken, you could change into somebody we could accept as one-of-us.”

Somehow this response didn’t get people storming to the polls to vote for the Democrats.

Death on the Installment Plan

Tamim Ansary

Recently, someone asked me what books have had a big impact on my life. I went blank for a moment, even though, until I was in my 20’s, I inhaled books the way speed addicts snort coke. Then a novel popped into my head: Death on the Installment Plan, by Louis Ferdinand Celine.  I read it the year I moved to San Francisco and started working for an outfit called The Asia Foundation, my first real job.

The novel is about a young boy from a very poor family in Paris whose parents are desperately trying to equip him for life by placing him in some situation that can grow into a career. Ah, but he’s a scamp, oblivious to his parents’ desperation. He just wants to run off and play, and what can you expect? He’s a little kid, that’s how little kids are: it’s the Pinocchio syndrome.  And so we follow this kid through a series of circumstances his parents put him in, each one more hectic and awful than the last.

All of these episodes follow a pattern, but the one I remember best is when the little boy’s parents apprentice him to a man who publishes a magazine about inventions. It’s a bustling enterprise with a wide readership, because it’s the early 1900s, a boom-time for technology, and lots of people are fascinated by inventions. When our hero is given a place there as an errand boy, his parents feel like, phew! Finally, they’ve found a niche for him!  Here, their little boy can learn marketable skills and become employable. What he’s got his foot on is the first rung of a ladder, and all he has to do now is climb that ladder, rung by rung, climb and climb: eventually he’ll be in a position to earn a living as a respectable member of society.

But a crucial portion of the magazine’s money, it turns out, comes from a contest it runs periodically for inventors. People send in blueprints of gizmos and gadgets they’ve invented, and the magazine picks a winner. They publish an article about this winner and give him a prize. The magazine has some status, so winning the contest confers prestige on the winner and gives him a leg up on securing a patent and getting investors interested. 

But it does cost a little money to enter the contest. Not much, but a little. The magazine gives out only one cash prize, a sizable one, but the magazine rakes in tons of money, because most of the would-be inventors competing for the prize are kooks, basically, and there are tens of thousands of such kooks in France in this era. Eventually the kooks realize that 99.9% of them have no chance of winning the prize, and were never intended to, and they begin to picket the magazine. The pickets turns into protests, and soon mobs of kooks are closing in on the offices of the magazine. The publisher and the boy escape with their lives, and the boy goes back to being just another penniless urchin with desperate parents.

Later in the book, the parents get their son, now a young man, a job with a private school in England. He’ll be earning a salary, learning administrative skills, and picking up English, which will land him translation jobs in the trading sector when he gets back to France.  What his parents don’t know, however, is that the school is coming unraveled.  Its buildings need repairs, it owes money, some of the teachers have left. The school officials can’t let any hint of their troubles leak out to the parents or to anyone else really, because the school’s survival depends on the tuition money flowing in. That money will keep coming as long as the parents think the school is still running and their kids are actually getting an education. So the school officials keep publishing ads, keep sending out report cards, keep giving the parents and public a rosy picture of the learning environment—while in actuality, they’ve lost their buildings and property, they’re living in tents in the parks, and the remaining faculty and students have devolved into a horde of petty criminals foraging through the neighborhoods like feral creatures.

This book is embedded in  my memory because as I was reading it, I saw that Celine was illustrating a profound truth about social reality—its existence depends entirely on belief.  As long as everyone believes a social institution exists, it does exist.  All the enterprises Celine dramatizes operate on the belief of others that they are what they say they are, and as long as the belief is solidly there, the enterprises do just fine, they can keep going.  As soon as the belief starts to fade, the enterprise begins dissolving into an illusion.

As I mentioned, I was working for The Asia Foundation at the time: it was my first “real” job, by which I mean it was the first job I had that was appropriate for a person of my supposed credentials and social background. I was born into a family that enjoyed respect in Afghanistan on account of its intellectual traditions. I came to America where I was a curiosity from an exotic place that nobody had ever heard of at the time. Somehow this was a plus on a college applications. This distinction was the one real asset I brought to the table, but with this chip, I was able to get into some well-respected schools: first Carleton College, and then Reed, from which I graduated with a B.A. in literature. Presumably, this gave me the tools to make something of myself; but I didn’t know how to make any actual thing of myself. For the first six years after graduating college, I had lots of jobs but none that required the college degree I had earned. I was an assembly worker in a furniture factory, then a warehouse clerk, then a postal worker, then a waiter.

The only thing I really knew how to do was read books for edification and enjoyment; so the only thing I could think to be was a writer.  The works I liked to read were short stories and novels, both literary and commercial. So when I sat down to do what writers do, I wrote short stories and novels.   I sent the former out to magazines like the New Yorker and the Atlantic Monthly; then to literary magazine such as the Paris Review and Ploughshares; then to eccentric little literary magazines such as Jabberwacky and  Briccolage—oh, you haven’t heard of those?  Well, that’s my point. Even those magazines, which paid only in contributor copies, usually sent back form-letter rejection slips. With those rejection slips, they sometimes included subscription forms. 

Sometimes, these magazines which paid zilch also charged money for reading your work. If you wanted to submit something for consideration, you were welcome to do so: you just needed to include a check for ten dollars and  a stamped, self-addressed return envelope. Sometimes, some of these magazines ran contests. The winner got a cash prize and a credit to tout when they went to publishers with their novel.

Such was the world I saw around me the year I was reading Death on the Installment plan and working at the Asia Foundation. Celine was describing both the Asia Foundation where I was working and the world of literary magazines that I was trying to push my way into. 

And what was The Asia Foundation? It wasn’t something that existed in objective reality as a material fact. It was an idea that existed in the social landscape only because many people could see it.  We told the world we were an entity that sent people to poor underdeveloped parts of Asia, places like Afghanistan; there, our people looked for interesting projects that needed just a little money to get over some hump; and we gave them that little bit of money. Wherever we did this, seeds sprouted and good things grew. By making this case, we convinced people who had money to give us some of that money so we could do this wonderful thing that we did. 

Were we really watering seeds that grew into lush gardens? Well, you know, nothing’s perfect. As long as people believed we were doing it, the money kept coming in. We all got salaries. We paid our rent. We bought groceries, we went out to eat. We took vacations. Belief was the fire we had to keep feeding, in order to keep our enterprise going.

Let me interrupt myself to note: The Asia Foundation actually was busy trying to do what it said, and it did have some good projects, and it might have been doing them too, for all I know. But what did I know: I was in San Francisco, the projects were in Asia. The point I want to press is this: whether or not we were successfully doing what we said, we would have said we were, because our existence depended on saying it and on people believing it to be true. 

As soon as I saw this about the Asia Foundation, I could see it in everything around me: because the landscape I lived in most significantly was not the physical world but social reality. Social reality felt as solid as the material facts of the physical universe I could see with my eyes and touch with my fingers.  Yet its fundamental substance was nothing but a fabric of belief shared among a crowd of people.  Clubs and countries and corporations, fellowships and foundations and communities—they all felt like they existed in the same way as rocks and rivers and clouds, but actually, they existed only as incarnations of belief.  Mountains are something we see because they are there. Countries by contrast are there because we see them.  This was the idea that emerged  for me out of Celine’s novel Death on the Installment Plan, back in 1978, when I was working at the Asia Foundation, laboring to be a writer who would, I assumed, not be appreciated until long after he was dead.

Sports: The Hopelessly Hopeful Hornets 

Todd Thomas

There is no worse place for an NBA franchise to be than hopeless.  Since their inception into the league in 1988, the Charlotte Hornets have usually languished at the bottom of the Eastern Conference, suffering endless embarrassment, both on the court and otherwise. From getting sold and being moved unceremoniously to New Orleans in 2002, to coming back and playing in Charlotte under the questionable moniker of the Bobcats, the team has, more often than not, disappointed.

More recently, the team underachieved again under the ownership of revered basketball royalty Michael Jeffrey Jordan. The 6-time Finals MVP often sat looking down listlessly from his perch in the skybox at the hapless boys in teal, perhaps more focused on his next Nascar venture than on which new offense they should be running. 

The last 15 years of Hornets draft picks reads like some kind of zombie-filled basketball graveyard: Cody Zeller, Noah Vonleh, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Frank Kaminsky, and James Bouknight to name just a few. All deeply underachieving players, many of whom are not even in the league anymore. And speaking of horror, shout out to Kidd-Gilchrist for having perhaps the scariest shooting form that the league has ever seen. Assuming Dwayne Wade’s ignominious sculptor Omri Amrany can still be found, perhaps he could also create a statue of MKG’s shooting form and place it in a gallery so that future generations can admire in shock and awe how he was chosen at the #2 pick.

And all this is even before considering that in 2018 the Hornets drafted and quickly traded superstar Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, who is not just one of the best young players in the league, but also an MVP candidate and will likely remain that way for the next 10 years or so. 

But after a few years of shakeup with ownership, roster and head coach, the Hornets are beginning to enter in the sometimes dangerous world of hope. New Hornets coach Charles Lee is young, enthusiastic, and an engaging personality. He’s  a former champion as an assistant coach with the Bucks in 2021 and again with the Celtics in 2024. His reputation around the league is overwhelmingly positive and through the early portion of the 2024-2025 season, the Hornets sideline has looked at the very least, more focused and under control. Even with nagging injuries to multiple players, Coach Lee has sometimes cobbled together even some of the most dubious roster rotations into at least a few surprising victories.  

After years of swinging big in the draft and more often than not striking out,  last year’s #2 pick Brandon Miller was averaging 21/5/3 earlier this year before his season-ending wrist injury. During last year’s draft, the Hornets passed on the tantalizing  temptation to select highly-touted G-league player Scoot Henderson, and as it currently sits, Miller is still by far the better choice. At least in a small sample size, he looks like one of the very best players in that draft. Further, Miller’s unfortunate injury could allow the Hornets to dive more quickly into the tank and pray for the lottery balls to fall their way in a 2025 draft that appears stacked at the top with Cooper Flagg, Ace Bailey and Dylan Harper. 

And then there’s LaMelo Ball. While injuries have been a notable part of his career as well, Ball is still a potential superstar, despite his frequent absences and more than a couple of bad shots per game. Averaging a career high of 29 points, Ball is still only 23 years old and chipping in an impressive 7 assists and 5 rebounds as well. The spark he brings to any game is undeniable and has given the Hornets something close to an actual identity. 

It is too early to make the call on young draft picks like the oft-injured Mark Williams and the VERY young 19 year old Tidjane Salaun, but the Hornets do seem to have found real promise. It has only been 43 games thus far, and the Hornets are still at the bottom of the Eastern conference, but something seems different about this Charlotte organization. Whether briefly boosted by the presence of a new coach or simply due to more naivety from a fresh-faced roster full of youth, hope has entered the Hive again and brought the bounce back to Buzz City.