Where’s Paul?

News outlets have eagerly reported Paul Manafort’s referral to the “VIP” room in a Virginia county jail following revocation of his bail, conjuring images amongst many internet commenters of Club Fed: tennis anyone? That of course is not the case. The euphemism, common amongst ironical prison hacks, denotes the hole, administrative segregation, P.C. (At MCC Chicago, where I was held pre-trial for four years, the guards referred to it as “1-1 hotel.”) A prison within a prison. A black ops site of sorts, tales of fellows naked, chained to a bed, feces smeared in their hair. It’s the last stop, reserved for those unable to come to terms with their own disquiet. And while Paul Manafort has been sent there ostensibly for his own physical safety, the deeper, psychological danger to Paul Manafort is Paul Manafort. What worse fate could befall a liar and confidence man than to be shut up with himself? Even the most hardened convict knows on some level what he’s about, and goes about pestering others to avoid what’s inevitable.

Right about now Manafort is no doubt enduring some combination of alcohol-nicotine-caffeine withdrawal. In a sense that’s a welcome distraction; an affirmation of self, almost, preceding whatever stirring of conscience. The polyester jump suit, the cockroaches, the stained mattress and the bedsprings, the army blanket, the bleak view out a narrow window, the buzzing of a fluorescent light, the insolence of guards, the indignity, the hours, the hardness, the insipidity of a jail cell … are nothing, distractions, and quite besides the point. Only gazing at one’s blurry face reflected in the polished steel mirror above the sink is one presented with one’s situation: that of disappearing. Whatever story one tells oneself, however sanguine about one’s chances, the final, inescapable fact of a jail cell is of all one’s efforts and life’s work leading down a dead end. The monster at the center of the maze is oneself.

You may rail against that. I’ve know a few brilliant, obdurate fellows. They are in the penitentiary now, or dead. One, an Outlaw Biker president, came back on a Rule 35b after being sentenced to life and ratted out his buddies after all; and while his moral calculus may have involved only more self-dealing, don’t fool yourself, the psychological cost is enormous. Which is the point of incarceration.

I don’t buy Manafort’s swagger or sang froid. I may be wrong. That is a matter between Paul Manafort and himself.

“You’re Either With Us or Part of the Problem”

SeussI’m still not voting for Hillary—civilization be damned—but I don’t find her quite as objectionable as I did just last week, and I’m trying to figure out why; if it’s a simple case of forgetting, already, in the sense that Milan Kundera has written about, or if it’s something truly deficient in my character, or if it’s just everyone else.

In the hours and days since her supporters have stood down following Hillary’s nomination, one has had a moment to think. And what is objectionable is not the hysteria issuing from her camp—yes, the shrillness—as the realization that their arguments are one’s own arguments. Like hearing one’s voice played back over a tape recorder, one’s revulsion is a self-revulsion.

Clinton apologists are profoundly deceived if they think this is all just appearances. It’s a perceived attitude that drives so many working class Americans away from the left. It is the rather unthinkable arrogance to say, “You’re either with us or you’re part of the problem.”

You see, it’s not Hillary. It’s you.

You Say You Want a Revolution

imagesCan we all please just stop saying “revolution”?

With apologies to Bernie Sanders, no true revolution can take place within the American political system—or any other.

Revolution does not avail itself of the political process. Revolution is the violent overthrow of political process. (Not mere regime change.)

Though such movements may find fertile soil in the putrefying remains of outmoded ideologies, they are not part of their vital functioning. If they are said to spring from them at all, they do so as paroxysms of conscience, not as logical outgrowths of thought.

The closest Mr. Sanders could come to effecting a “revolution” would be to run as a third party candidate—no great repudiation of the system itself, though a rebuke of the false choice between Clinton and Trump.

He will not. Why? It may be that power has a certain gravitational pull, as Barack Obama can surely attest, that alters one’s course. Perhaps Mr. Sanders has also peered over that event horizon so few of us ever approach, and gazed into the abyss.

To envision revolution is to envision oneself on an historical plane that transcends the personal, the sentimental, the practical.

For now, we are to satisfy ourselves with reshaping the party plank. Not the great takeaway Mr. Sanders promised. Rather, the acculturation of another generation of voters to the realpolitik of life.

Those that say they did their part to change history, that they are not responsible for what the world wants . . . the hard truth is they are now more fully implicated in its operation.