Wow. Just wow! Thank you for introducing us to Tara Burton. I had promised myself not to follow any more Substacks. But she is thought provoking and powerful.
Few could resist the magical writing here, but I think the essay is undermined a bit by that hobgoblin of cultural criticism: the all-encompassing, distinction-erasing, cultural "we" that implies anyone who is not sensible to the described dynamic is -- what? -- not with it, irrelevant, uncool, a social outsider?
Just for the record some of us saw the photo, smiled at how it confirmed our take that Trump is irretrievably his own hero, and just moved on.
Fair. But don’t you think your criticism is attenuated by the fact that Tara is warning us about a possible effect that the photograph might have on us — she is warning us of a susceptibility to Propaganda, a susceptibility tied to our humanity. You might have more antibodies, because you lived through the Sixties ;)
In other words, this is less an essay about “vibes” that the reader might or might not have, than it is a warning about what might happen to us given what the author knows about human nature (and herself).
Antibodies from the Sixties? I love that thought, but must hasten to add that I possessed no antibodies when actually in the Sixties. I was morbidly fascinated with the grainy motorcade photos of John F Kennedy's head being blown apart. I repeatedly careened from one passionately nonsensical stance to another. I repeatedly changed heroes, because I wanted to be my own.
But I want to go back to that "we" I complained about. A commentator below has called out the key paragraph, where we go from 50% of Americans "believing" in manifesting, to 20% saying they've tried it, to "We're all magicians now." What kind of progression is that. Since when is 50% "all"? When Burton slips into this "we" -- as countless op-eds do -- we don't know who she is talking about, whether her "we" is inclusive or exclusive, whether the exaggeration is sloppy or deliberate.
There are precedents for this usage. When, as the Sixties became the 70s, the economist (and conservative icon) Milton Friedman quipped "We're all Keynesians now," no one with ears to hear mistook this for a capitulation. Friedman was ready to grant that the age had passed when governments could successfully persuade citizens that it was best to do nothing in times of economic distress, but as to the what-should-be-done he was not giving an inch, and he continued to lead an ultimately successful crusade for more conservative economic policies.
Friedman's quip came with a clear ironic wink. With Burton, lacking that signal, we (or at least some of us) are left to wonder whether the other connections she makes should be interrogated. Perhaps she overdraws the line between manifesting and vitalism, between necromancy and Nietzsche's program of disenchantment. Manifesting? My introvert father took a Dale Carnegie course in the late 50s but never, so far as I know, had a vitalist thought in his life.
Agree. Entertaining piece - but I had the same reaction to the photo. I also wonder about the reality of the cultural/social “we” used as a common foil for grievance. Still, a tremendous addition to WoC…
Yes, at the core of fascism is the archetype of a god-like 'savior' with powers unencumbered by reality. The problem, of course, is it is dependent on a lone autocrat who cannot escape his/her mortality. Magic itself is an archetype designed to distract us from our own mortality and basic humanity... smoke and mirrors.
Thanks all and Tara. I have read Burton’s first novel and really enjoyed it, and also a short essay she wrote about attention as the Internet’s currency.
Tara: 1. I appreciate the use of historical evidence and some theology in the essay. One question I have pertains to your use of the word “desire.” While in some wise it’s impossible to use another term, I wonder what you think of the Augustinian-Thomistic understanding of man as, fundamentally, desire for God.
2. I just feel that your analysis over represents the internet-using type — while many trump supporters don’t really have the time, believe it or not, to watch 3 hours of tik rol a day. So, I also wonder how apt your analysis is in portraying Trump’s appeal as tied to the wheel of Fortune that one is tied to with vitalism (yes, vitalism is key to understand the New Right, thanks also Matt Rose of First Things). From what I understand, large portions of trump supporters are not internet fanatics, but rather perceive the democrat and republican parties to be liberal (without even knowing the deeper sense of the term) and feel Trump has some intuitive grasp of these deficiencies which he is willing to ameliorate by ie not seeing the US as a savior for all foreign wars or, say, recognizing that a country should take care of its own citizens before generously pretending like a border is of no consequence (I have worked with undocumented immigrants and can tell you that the cultural shift can be in fact unwelcome to some).
This is an amazing essay. Probably the most interesting thing I've read on Trumpian politics in the past year tbh. The writing was delicious and really got me thinking in a new way about Trump! I do wonder if the writer thinks that this is merely an aesthetic difference though? Fundamentally, the cultural bedrocks which have been there for Trump to exploit have always been there? Therefore, could Trump himself be more 'vibey' than perhaps this essay thinks?
I definitely agree with the sentiment about us wanting to have the incompatible notions of safety and adventure at the root core of our lives. We see this throughout popular culture with tv shows developing characters of 'having it all'. As a young teen, I was a big fan of Ugly Betty, a show about a fashion magazine whose protagonist is 'ugly' entering a beautiful world. But over time she develops friendships and becomes steadily not only more attractive but successful without losing her core 'goodness' or sense of self. It always struck me as a little unrealistic this would be so. As the 'evil' creative director Wilhelmina Slater argues in the show to Betty "you can't have it all, you always have to choose".
On the riding the tiger point I definitely do agree. It reminds of Walter Benjamin's critique of Schmitt's sovereign as simply being a mortal man who will no doubt lose their capacity and everyone will see them for what they are. But, I wouldn't count Trump out yet. He took a few goes to get the perfect insult for DeSantis ('Meatball Ron') so he may need a few goes until he gets the right one for Kamala.
If I had one big critique I would not necessarily say the Trumpian right have been more intellectually alive. The actual Trumpian right of the party seem pretty light on actual policy that they could impose. Beyond the '2025' Heritage document which Trump himself has distanced himself from it strikes me that both sides of the aisle lack a clear and effective policy platform. Despite his frailties, Biden has gotten a lot of legislation through and has been a far more effective President than Trump was. Perhaps this is again a notion of what sits on the surface than what's lurking underneath.
Interesting essay. I would just like to add some perspective that others might find worthwhile.
I have despised both parties, and Washington generally, for decades. Let's just say that I am not a young man. I have watched as the two parties have encroached their way into our personal lives, even to demanding that I follow one ideology and reject another. Understand, it is not the ideology that bothers me, it is the expectation that I am obligated to accept it. Or oppose it, depending. No, I decide for myself what my values are, what I care about. I don't need a political party for that. They are just in my way. Politics is for the political class, not for me.
In 2016 I couldn't believe that the best that the two parties could come up with was Clinton and Trump. So, I voted for the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. It's not that I agreed with anything about him. It was that he wasn't butting into my life.
But things changed after 2016. I'm used to seeing political backstabbing. It's a way of life in DC. But now I saw something different. I saw a full-on assault on one man. I asked, why is this happening? Trump isn't even close to the worst that DC has ever seen. And no, Trump didn't start this. I well remember how it started out. It was just the usual politics on both sides. But as Trump started to take the lead, the media mounted a full-on hate assault on Trump, the likes of which I have never seen before. And I've seen a lot.
I've figured out why that is. Trump is not a politician. He never had any particular party affiliation. He stepped into the political arena in his 'retirement' years, and got more traction than people who have worked at it their entire lives. They were PISSED! How DARE this interloper step into their game, and WIN!
Except that it's not 'their' game. To the extent that it's any game at all, it is OUR game. Trump and his supporters had as much right to be there as anyone else. But you wouldn't think so, based on the persecution.
Some will conclude at this point that I'm just another blind fool who can't see how evil Trump really is. Get over yourself. That's childish. Remember, we're talking politics here. Politics is not rocket science. It doesn't attract the brightest of the bright, or the most honest of the honest.
I didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but I did in 2020. I saw how horrible the political class has become is in this country. I saw that they will stop at nothing to maintain absolute control. I support Trump because he is the only defense we have right now against tyrannical, banana republic charlatans. And this is where many of you say that it is Trump that wants to be a dictator, and so forth. I am not stupid. I have been paying close attention since the 1960s. We have reached a very dangerous point, one from which we may never return. And Trump is NOT the problem. Trump has only been a factor in this for eight years, but the problem has been festering for decades. Once again, the problem is NOT Trump.
You may disagree with me, but please do yourselves a favor and recognize that I am not an ignorant whacko. THNK about it. If you want an intelligent discussion, I'm willing to have it.
Agree. Looking back, I wish Trump had run as a third party candidate - and lost the first time. His anti-establishment zeal over several election cycles may have brought forth more balance in a 3 legged stool. Now sadly, his presence has emboldened both sides to be even more establishment and less reluctant to see the Kracken both sides have created in Washington.
"Now, we live in an era in which in which 50 percent of Americans say they believe in “manifesting” — basically, a modern version of New Thought. By “manifesting,” one attracts material success through a quasi-magical process of visualizing it — and 20 percent say they’ve tried it. We’re all magicians, now — or at least like to think we are."
I know that your readers will understand what you are saying. I would go further, and say there's a difference between "material success" and spiritual success. And religious traditions have been showing us this since the dawn of time. New Thought isn't new when applied to the simple act of caring for others (the Upanishads for example). It's no revelation that humans are flawed beings, but that's exactly why we search for 'something beyond.' There is nothing wrong (and everything wonderful) with being curious, having imagination, and having humility. This is what transforms us, (perhaps towards the divine if we are so inclined.) The rub, as always, is being able to choose goals that advance us all, as opposed to me alone. And that is why we must do the hard work.
Wow. Just wow! Thank you for introducing us to Tara Burton. I had promised myself not to follow any more Substacks. But she is thought provoking and powerful.
We've hired her as a Contributing Writer. So you can expect more from her!
Few could resist the magical writing here, but I think the essay is undermined a bit by that hobgoblin of cultural criticism: the all-encompassing, distinction-erasing, cultural "we" that implies anyone who is not sensible to the described dynamic is -- what? -- not with it, irrelevant, uncool, a social outsider?
Just for the record some of us saw the photo, smiled at how it confirmed our take that Trump is irretrievably his own hero, and just moved on.
Fair. But don’t you think your criticism is attenuated by the fact that Tara is warning us about a possible effect that the photograph might have on us — she is warning us of a susceptibility to Propaganda, a susceptibility tied to our humanity. You might have more antibodies, because you lived through the Sixties ;)
In other words, this is less an essay about “vibes” that the reader might or might not have, than it is a warning about what might happen to us given what the author knows about human nature (and herself).
Antibodies from the Sixties? I love that thought, but must hasten to add that I possessed no antibodies when actually in the Sixties. I was morbidly fascinated with the grainy motorcade photos of John F Kennedy's head being blown apart. I repeatedly careened from one passionately nonsensical stance to another. I repeatedly changed heroes, because I wanted to be my own.
But I want to go back to that "we" I complained about. A commentator below has called out the key paragraph, where we go from 50% of Americans "believing" in manifesting, to 20% saying they've tried it, to "We're all magicians now." What kind of progression is that. Since when is 50% "all"? When Burton slips into this "we" -- as countless op-eds do -- we don't know who she is talking about, whether her "we" is inclusive or exclusive, whether the exaggeration is sloppy or deliberate.
There are precedents for this usage. When, as the Sixties became the 70s, the economist (and conservative icon) Milton Friedman quipped "We're all Keynesians now," no one with ears to hear mistook this for a capitulation. Friedman was ready to grant that the age had passed when governments could successfully persuade citizens that it was best to do nothing in times of economic distress, but as to the what-should-be-done he was not giving an inch, and he continued to lead an ultimately successful crusade for more conservative economic policies.
Friedman's quip came with a clear ironic wink. With Burton, lacking that signal, we (or at least some of us) are left to wonder whether the other connections she makes should be interrogated. Perhaps she overdraws the line between manifesting and vitalism, between necromancy and Nietzsche's program of disenchantment. Manifesting? My introvert father took a Dale Carnegie course in the late 50s but never, so far as I know, had a vitalist thought in his life.
Agree. Entertaining piece - but I had the same reaction to the photo. I also wonder about the reality of the cultural/social “we” used as a common foil for grievance. Still, a tremendous addition to WoC…
Yes, at the core of fascism is the archetype of a god-like 'savior' with powers unencumbered by reality. The problem, of course, is it is dependent on a lone autocrat who cannot escape his/her mortality. Magic itself is an archetype designed to distract us from our own mortality and basic humanity... smoke and mirrors.
Lovely writing, welcome Tara!
1st half of Essay - I think Tara needs a twitter fast
2nd half of Essay - Nope she needs a Media fast, (4 weeks minimum!)
Somehow this magician just doesn't/shouldn't'/cannot do it for me. So, I guess I'll take a walk outside while the world burns...
Thank you for the fun morning read!
Thanks all and Tara. I have read Burton’s first novel and really enjoyed it, and also a short essay she wrote about attention as the Internet’s currency.
Tara: 1. I appreciate the use of historical evidence and some theology in the essay. One question I have pertains to your use of the word “desire.” While in some wise it’s impossible to use another term, I wonder what you think of the Augustinian-Thomistic understanding of man as, fundamentally, desire for God.
2. I just feel that your analysis over represents the internet-using type — while many trump supporters don’t really have the time, believe it or not, to watch 3 hours of tik rol a day. So, I also wonder how apt your analysis is in portraying Trump’s appeal as tied to the wheel of Fortune that one is tied to with vitalism (yes, vitalism is key to understand the New Right, thanks also Matt Rose of First Things). From what I understand, large portions of trump supporters are not internet fanatics, but rather perceive the democrat and republican parties to be liberal (without even knowing the deeper sense of the term) and feel Trump has some intuitive grasp of these deficiencies which he is willing to ameliorate by ie not seeing the US as a savior for all foreign wars or, say, recognizing that a country should take care of its own citizens before generously pretending like a border is of no consequence (I have worked with undocumented immigrants and can tell you that the cultural shift can be in fact unwelcome to some).
Fascinating essay. I’ve been studying occultism a great deal recently, and thinking about how it plays into our political moment. Thank you Tara.
This is an amazing essay. Probably the most interesting thing I've read on Trumpian politics in the past year tbh. The writing was delicious and really got me thinking in a new way about Trump! I do wonder if the writer thinks that this is merely an aesthetic difference though? Fundamentally, the cultural bedrocks which have been there for Trump to exploit have always been there? Therefore, could Trump himself be more 'vibey' than perhaps this essay thinks?
I definitely agree with the sentiment about us wanting to have the incompatible notions of safety and adventure at the root core of our lives. We see this throughout popular culture with tv shows developing characters of 'having it all'. As a young teen, I was a big fan of Ugly Betty, a show about a fashion magazine whose protagonist is 'ugly' entering a beautiful world. But over time she develops friendships and becomes steadily not only more attractive but successful without losing her core 'goodness' or sense of self. It always struck me as a little unrealistic this would be so. As the 'evil' creative director Wilhelmina Slater argues in the show to Betty "you can't have it all, you always have to choose".
On the riding the tiger point I definitely do agree. It reminds of Walter Benjamin's critique of Schmitt's sovereign as simply being a mortal man who will no doubt lose their capacity and everyone will see them for what they are. But, I wouldn't count Trump out yet. He took a few goes to get the perfect insult for DeSantis ('Meatball Ron') so he may need a few goes until he gets the right one for Kamala.
If I had one big critique I would not necessarily say the Trumpian right have been more intellectually alive. The actual Trumpian right of the party seem pretty light on actual policy that they could impose. Beyond the '2025' Heritage document which Trump himself has distanced himself from it strikes me that both sides of the aisle lack a clear and effective policy platform. Despite his frailties, Biden has gotten a lot of legislation through and has been a far more effective President than Trump was. Perhaps this is again a notion of what sits on the surface than what's lurking underneath.
Interesting essay. I would just like to add some perspective that others might find worthwhile.
I have despised both parties, and Washington generally, for decades. Let's just say that I am not a young man. I have watched as the two parties have encroached their way into our personal lives, even to demanding that I follow one ideology and reject another. Understand, it is not the ideology that bothers me, it is the expectation that I am obligated to accept it. Or oppose it, depending. No, I decide for myself what my values are, what I care about. I don't need a political party for that. They are just in my way. Politics is for the political class, not for me.
In 2016 I couldn't believe that the best that the two parties could come up with was Clinton and Trump. So, I voted for the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. It's not that I agreed with anything about him. It was that he wasn't butting into my life.
But things changed after 2016. I'm used to seeing political backstabbing. It's a way of life in DC. But now I saw something different. I saw a full-on assault on one man. I asked, why is this happening? Trump isn't even close to the worst that DC has ever seen. And no, Trump didn't start this. I well remember how it started out. It was just the usual politics on both sides. But as Trump started to take the lead, the media mounted a full-on hate assault on Trump, the likes of which I have never seen before. And I've seen a lot.
I've figured out why that is. Trump is not a politician. He never had any particular party affiliation. He stepped into the political arena in his 'retirement' years, and got more traction than people who have worked at it their entire lives. They were PISSED! How DARE this interloper step into their game, and WIN!
Except that it's not 'their' game. To the extent that it's any game at all, it is OUR game. Trump and his supporters had as much right to be there as anyone else. But you wouldn't think so, based on the persecution.
Some will conclude at this point that I'm just another blind fool who can't see how evil Trump really is. Get over yourself. That's childish. Remember, we're talking politics here. Politics is not rocket science. It doesn't attract the brightest of the bright, or the most honest of the honest.
I didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but I did in 2020. I saw how horrible the political class has become is in this country. I saw that they will stop at nothing to maintain absolute control. I support Trump because he is the only defense we have right now against tyrannical, banana republic charlatans. And this is where many of you say that it is Trump that wants to be a dictator, and so forth. I am not stupid. I have been paying close attention since the 1960s. We have reached a very dangerous point, one from which we may never return. And Trump is NOT the problem. Trump has only been a factor in this for eight years, but the problem has been festering for decades. Once again, the problem is NOT Trump.
You may disagree with me, but please do yourselves a favor and recognize that I am not an ignorant whacko. THNK about it. If you want an intelligent discussion, I'm willing to have it.
Agree. Looking back, I wish Trump had run as a third party candidate - and lost the first time. His anti-establishment zeal over several election cycles may have brought forth more balance in a 3 legged stool. Now sadly, his presence has emboldened both sides to be even more establishment and less reluctant to see the Kracken both sides have created in Washington.
More reluctant
"Now, we live in an era in which in which 50 percent of Americans say they believe in “manifesting” — basically, a modern version of New Thought. By “manifesting,” one attracts material success through a quasi-magical process of visualizing it — and 20 percent say they’ve tried it. We’re all magicians, now — or at least like to think we are."
I know that your readers will understand what you are saying. I would go further, and say there's a difference between "material success" and spiritual success. And religious traditions have been showing us this since the dawn of time. New Thought isn't new when applied to the simple act of caring for others (the Upanishads for example). It's no revelation that humans are flawed beings, but that's exactly why we search for 'something beyond.' There is nothing wrong (and everything wonderful) with being curious, having imagination, and having humility. This is what transforms us, (perhaps towards the divine if we are so inclined.) The rub, as always, is being able to choose goals that advance us all, as opposed to me alone. And that is why we must do the hard work.
Marianne2024.com