My early morning
walks—when I rarely see another person or sometimes not even hear a passing
car, and deliberately avoid podcasts or music—make me unusually aware of each
moment and every subtle change along my familiar two-mile round trip route.
Recently, a raccoon lurking in the shadows startled me. (I've encountered
bobcats before, which is considerably more startling.) Those wildlife sightings
have led me to adopt perhaps the least intimidating defense ever devised:
carrying a golf ball in my pocket.
My strategy is simple. If
confronted by an aggressive animal, I hope to throw a golf ball hard enough at
it to at least startle it, clap my hands like a deranged scarecrow, and, if
necessary, sing God Bless America as loudly and as off-key as possible.
Surely even a determined bobcat would conclude there are easier breakfasts
elsewhere. Fortunately, the plan has yet to be tested.
Our community also warns
residents about alligators in the ponds. As I walk along the golf course, I'm
always aware of where those bodies of water are and how far I might have to run
should a gator decide to give chase. Since they are said to reach speeds
approaching 35 miles per hour over short distances, I comfort myself by
deciding that the odds are overwhelmingly in my favor as I will be nearby homes
and boldly step outside each morning around six.
Only a month ago, during
the summer solstice, dawn had already broken when I left the house. Day by day
the light has quietly retreated, and now, only weeks later, it is nearly dark
when I begin my walk. If the laughably named "Sunshine Protection
Act" (who dreams up these titles—AI?) ever becomes law, Florida
schoolchildren may find themselves standing at bus stops in darkness, vulnerable
to drivers who can't see, well before sunrise. As for me, I suppose I'll become
even more attractive to raccoons and alligators, creatures that also seem to
appreciate the hours before dawn. Apparently that's a small price to pay if it
means the President can squeeze in another few holes of golf before sunset.
Some "sunshine
protection."
Meanwhile, smoke from
wildfires periodically settles over parts of Florida. And no, Canada isn't to
blame for failing to rake its leaves in our case. We have our own
climate-induced problems. Recently, a stretch of the Florida Turnpike south of
here had to close because of wildfires. I haven't yet heard that the other
forty-nine states intend to impose a 50 percent tariff on Florida goods as
punishment.
These are the sorts of
thoughts that accompany my morning walks. They also accompany the writing of
this blog. There is always something to think about, something to observe, and
something to puzzle over. Whether any of it ultimately matters is another question
entirely. I write for much the same reason I play the piano every day. At this
stage of life, I find my inner life more satisfying than the traveling,
boating, and busy social calendar that once seemed indispensable.
During those early "go-go
years"of retirement, I somehow found time to write even more frequently
than I do now. Perhaps that reflected greater energy, or perhaps simply a
different rhythm of life. Now, in what retirement experts cheerfully call the
"slow-go years," solitary pursuits seem increasingly appropriate and
reading whenever my mind can still settle into a novel. Ann, fortunately,
remains a voracious reader, perhaps because fiction offers a welcome refuge
from today's world. We are trying to
dance as fast as we can as we gradually approach the "no-go years,"
although I hope they remain comfortably in the distance.
Artificial intelligence
has added another layer to these reflections. I'm fascinated not only by what
it can do for me but also by what it may be taking from me. After
nearly twenty years of writing this blog, I've accumulated what amounts to a
substantial archive. Much of it concerns family history and personal opinions
that probably interest very few people but some of my theater and book reviews
are widely read.
Out of curiosity, I asked
one AI system about a subject I knew was covered exclusively in my blog. Sure
enough, it produced an answer largely drawn from what I had written years ago.
Older posts are actually more likely to appear because Google once indexed
independent blogs far more generously than it does today.
I pointed out that I
recognized the material because, in essence, I had written it. As obsequious as
these systems can sometimes be, it immediately congratulated me on being the
author of the "venerable Lacunae Musing." Taking the bait, I
mentioned that over twenty years I had probably written close to a million
words. The AI replied that I was "a human large language model." Mutual
admiration can become exhausting, so we politely ended the conversation.
For complete disclosure, I
should add that an AI agent has reviewed this very essay for logical
development and copy editing. The observations, opinions, and tone, remain
entirely my own.
As I edge toward those
"no-go years," I've begun thinking seriously about moving this blog
to the Substack platform. I admire many of the writers there and already
subscribe to several, but the technical aspects of migrating the content is yet
another challenge to address.
One Substack author who
particularly caught my attention is Tim Kreider, who amusingly describes
himself as "a writer, cartoonist, and person in the world." Beginning
as a political cartoonist seems almost ideal preparation for becoming a
political essayist. Cartoonists have long understood that the quickest route to
truth often runs through absurdity.
That brings me to
Kreider's recent Substack essay, The Arbogast Fallacy: An Alternative
Explanation for "Sanewashing."
I've argued before that
Donald Trump's political mind is almost reptilian — reactive rather than
reflective, impulse driven rather than deliberation. Kreider reaches much the
same conclusion, but develops it with such clarity that I found myself nodding
almost continuously as I read it.
The essence of "The
Arbogast Fallacy" (its title drawn as a clever metaphor from the film Psycho)
is that journalists and political commentators consistently overanalyze a man
who requires very little analysis. Trained to search for elaborate strategies,
ideological consistency, or hidden motives, they assume complexity where none
exists. His behavior is more accurately explained by immediate impulses: demanding attention, making as much money as
possible in his position, and guaranteeing his self-preservation. As Kreider
memorably observes, commentators keep "writing think pieces about a guy
who doesn't."
That simple observation
explains far more than countless hours of televised political analysis. Every
action and reaction seems ultimately directed toward those same goals, with
self-preservation perhaps becoming the dominant one as the midterm elections
approach.
Kreider persuaded me that
perhaps the explanation isn't hidden at all. We keep assuming there must be
some elaborate strategy because that's how we expect consequential leaders to
behave. We search for depth because the consequences are so profound. But
perhaps there are no hidden chambers to explore—only instinct, ego, and
self-preservation played out on the largest political stage imaginable.
What remains unexplained
isn't the man. It is us. How did a political culture, a Congress, and a Supreme
Court entrusted with preserving constitutional government become so willing to
normalize perpetual chaos?
Tomorrow morning I'll head
out again with my golf ball in my pocket, keeping one eye on the raccoons and
the other on the gathering darkness. Those are hazards I understand.
It's the human world that
has become so difficult to explain. Perhaps
that is because the explanation is there isn't one.
 |
| Mike Luckovich Art of the Steal |