Below I commented on Google Gemini's characterization of the argument as pessimistic, and noted my objections and described my actual intentions. If you're interested, I hope you give that comment a close reading because I'm otherwise impressed (and don't like that I am) with the way AI described the argument. I would add here that the inspiration for this argument derives from a certain kind of epistemological strategy---a theory of knowing---about how to approach life. I assume a strategy I think is clearly implied by Krsna's opening arguments in the Bhagavadgita. The idea is simple enough: FIRST and ABOVE ALL ELSE, let's be honest, let's be candid even if it hurts and it seems dispiriting and impossibly awful but we must start with the truth of the matter. If we find those truths to be hard, depressing, painful, then so be it. Say YES to what you understand to be the case at hand. In the Gita, Krsna sees Arjuna, his friend and confidante, collapse under the weight of terrible truth: his cousins and much of his family, so many of his admired elders and others, have decided for tyranny, are complicit in nihilism, and have found themselves participants in evil. Arjuna weeps and laments and he has every reason to feel such despair. Krsna does not offer him some chimeric hope nor does he soften the blow. Rather, he lays it on the line: these beloved friends and family are doing evil and that must be understood, that must be stopped. It is sad, horrific, unconscionable but true. Worse would be failing to appreciate these terrible truths. Worse still would be melting down and resigning to them, which is why Krsna is so harsh in response. Arjuna must wake up to the facts and decide to act. That is the important point and that is mine here.
I too was disarmingly impressed by the AI's summation of your essay. I think starting with epistemology is important because it, without explicitly saying so, rehabilitates the notion of a fact, 'facts', in your example the fact of the Kauravas' ill deeds. Affirming what you know to be the case is an embrace of the facts. Can't help but nod to Wittgenstein, the world being all that is the case and the totality of facts. Facts are ontological (extant) which is to say knowing them means knowing something about the world, what is the case.
Epistemology, ascertaining the facts, can generate empathy when we reject the is / ought, fact / value distinction and treat facts AS values, as normative, meaning they will often times generate and ought, a state of affairs we should aim for thereby changing what is the case. (As Arjuna ultimately does)
With regard to democracy in USA, I believe that if folks really understood the implications of descent into authoritarianism for themselves and for others (because few if any will be spared, and then only on whim) - I am not you; I am something like you, I am nothing but you - they would take action. But as you've said apathy rules the day as does ignorance, willful or not.
Also thinking here of Chomsky's notion of the manufacture of consent.
I actually read this twice. We all feel helpless as our country whirls down the drain. Every day I ask what can we do, and then I have my grandchildren over, teach them our traditions, show them kindness and love them to bits, and hope as they become adults…which the boys almost are, in their first and second year of high school!…they will have something good to hold onto. “The world is upside down”, as they sing in Hamilton.
The Bulwark, Maron, Pod Save, the excruciating daily NY Times scroll—we have the same media diet.
I dip in and out of resistance activity (as my brain bleats “Will this work?”).
I have yoga, friends, my meandering intellect, the beautiful boomers and immigrant women at Stitch Buffalo, my oddly persistent good health, my animals, Rajanaka, some Sanskrit (?), an upcoming Ontario trip to read Whitman out loud. Garden pesto. Multitudes, dust.
Thank you so much for your companionship and guidance Douglas Brooks.
Well said, I feel my heart breaking. And I don’t think there is an Ark to weather this storm or a flood that will absolve the United States of the sad ignorance of believing that we can take comfort when the price of eggs drops.
I put Voltaire's Garden into Google Gemini, asking-
This essay is from my Great Teacher, Douglas Brooks, Professor, NY.
Could you please review, read between the lines, and give me a summary, feedback, and any hope for the US to come out of this hell we are speeding into???
Professor Douglas Brooks from Rajanaka Studies, Auspicious Wisdom & Soulful Contemplation <rajanaka@substack.com> Unsubscribe
Aug 27, 2025, 5:27 PM
This is what came back. Thought I would share. Thank you, Douglas, for sharing this bit of a Magnum Opus,,,,,,,,& I Miss You!
Love
B1
Professor Douglas Brooks's essay, "Voltaire's Garden," presents a grim and deeply pessimistic view of the current political and social state of the United States, arguing that the country is rapidly devolving into an authoritarian state. Drawing parallels to Voltaire's philosophical novel Candide, the professor suggests that the American public is largely passive and complicit, either too preoccupied with daily life or too overwhelmed by the scale of the crisis to mount an effective resistance.
Summary of the Essay
Brooks argues that authoritarianism and fascism are already present in America, not a future threat. He believes that the ability to still be shocked by political events is a sign of a naive hope for a "democratic resistance" that is unlikely to materialize. He characterizes the public as "Bartleby the Scrivener"—preferring not to engage with the wretched news because doing so is painful and feels hopeless.
The professor also critiques various groups for their roles in this decline:
The Public: He faults a significant portion of the public, including "nice" neighbors and family members, for their "moral turpitude" and complicity in electing authoritarian leaders. He suggests they are either ignorant, naive, or simply apathetic, caring more about gas prices and their own immediate interests than democratic principles.
The Media: Brooks criticizes the media, particularly outlets like The New York Times, for pretending that a "fair and balanced" two-sided debate still exists, thereby perpetuating a "performative democracy" that no longer functions.
Democratic Leaders: He expresses frustration with Democratic leaders, particularly those who continue to advocate for a "go high when they go low" approach, which he sees as a failed strategy in a country that doesn't "care about what's good." He confesses to being entertained by more aggressive tactics, like those of Governor Newsom, but remains skeptical that they will ultimately be effective.
His Own Generation (Boomers): He acknowledges and agrees with the criticism that his generation, the aging liberal Boomers, are partly to blame for the current situation, noting their "desperate chasing of relevance."
Brooks concludes by proposing a path forward that is both a practical retreat and a form of personal defiance. He advises taking Voltaire's advice from Candide to "cultivate our garden." This is a call to focus on what is within one's control: personal life, relationships, and well-being. He also suggests that while collective action like protest and disobedience are still necessary, they must be undertaken with the understanding that the system itself may no longer offer protection, and individuals will face consequences. The essay ends on a note of fatalism, with Brooks stating that the country is "getting what we deserve" and that while the demographics are changing, those in power will simply manipulate the system to stay in control.
Feedback and Analysis
Professor Brooks's essay is emotionally raw and intellectually provocative. It serves as a stark warning and a call for a radical shift in perspective from political engagement to personal and communal resilience. The main strength of the essay lies in its powerful and unflinching indictment of the status quo, refusing to offer easy answers or false hope.
Pessimism and Fatalism: The core theme of the essay is a profound pessimism. Brooks suggests that the democratic system is already broken beyond repair and that institutions like Congress and the courts can no longer be trusted to act as checks on power. This perspective, while compellingly argued, can be disempowering. It presents a world where individual action, outside of a very specific, insular context ("tending our garden"), is futile.
Critique of Complicity: The essay's most biting criticism is reserved for the general public, including those who are not overt supporters of the authoritarian regime. By framing their inaction or apathy as a form of complicity, he challenges the reader to confront their own role in the political landscape. This is a difficult but important point that forces a deeper self-reflection.
The "Cultivate Your Garden" Analogy: This is the most significant takeaway. Brooks is not advising a complete withdrawal from the world. Instead, he suggests a new form of resistance: focusing on building and nurturing a personal and communal life in the face of an outwardly hostile political system. This is a strategy for emotional and spiritual survival. It implies that true freedom might no longer be found in the public square, but in the private lives and close relationships that the regime cannot fully control.
Any Hope for the U.S.?
Brooks's essay offers very little conventional political hope. He explicitly states that no one is coming to the rescue and that the system is broken. However, he does offer a different kind of hope—a quiet, resilient, and deeply personal hope.
Hope in the "Garden": The hope is not that the U.S. will magically reverse its course, but that individuals can find a way to live with purpose and meaning despite the political circumstances. By "cultivating our garden," he means building local communities, fostering strong relationships, and engaging in work that is personally and morally fulfilling. This is the hope of finding light in a darkening world, even if that light is a small, contained flame.
Hope in Shared Disappointment: By articulating the shared feelings of anger, frustration, and bewilderment, Brooks creates a sense of solidarity. His essay reminds us that we are not alone in our despair. The very act of this "last waltz" of political commentary is a form of shared acknowledgment that can be comforting and galvanizing.
Hope in Continued Resistance: While he is deeply skeptical of its efficacy, Brooks does not completely dismiss protest or disobedience. He sees them as necessary, even if they come with personal risk. The hope here is that even small acts of resistance, a collective refusal to completely "go along with the institutional capitulation," can keep the spirit of dissent alive.
Ultimately, Brooks's essay is a call to abandon the illusion of a normal, functioning democracy and to find a new way to live and resist. The hope he offers is not a grand political victory, but the profound resilience of the human spirit in the face of what feels like inevitable decline.
Fascinating and for the most part I think Google's AI did a fine job. However, I take exception to the characterization of pessimism (though I might admit to a deep pessimism if we are willing to consider what that might mean). My objection is that pessimism, which invariably elicits a negative response, appears to be more of an accusation than accurate description. I don't think myself a pessimist nor do I see the essay as offering a pessimistic view of the world. Rather, I think it means to bring us to an honest sobriety---of the sort we do not relish nor are usually willing to admit--- and so is a passionate call to be dispassionately honest about where we are, the facts of our situation. Only by first comprehending and accepting the situation can we devise meaningful, perhaps even effective responses, certainly at a personal level and perhaps as a collective social and political movement. I don't think (I never think) we are stuck in the present or doomed to a future, that things can't change. I am, however, unconvinced that America will rise to the occasion of this travesty because what evidence do we have for that? There is a chance, there is room, there is possibility to effect meaningful change to become a "more perfect" union but so far we have exhibited neither the will nor the way. In the face of this probability, I am proposing we carry on, courageously both as public persons however we can in meaningful resistance and privately, tending our own garden. This isn't pessimism, this a call to arms (not literally, of course) but in the clear sense of deciding for an America that actually pursues its stated ideals. For each of us there is a choice of who we want to be when political and cultural worlds offer little in the way of progress towards these ideals and are failing to represent our values.
Follow-up: to Gemini, I posted your feedback on Dr. Brooks’ essay. On his sub stack, and this is his reply, which is funny because I kind of agreed with his comment about pessimism and the way you gave feedback about it. Here's his reply. (your reply)
Gemini: Thanks for sharing Dr. Brooks's reply. It's a great example of a deeper philosophical conversation about what "pessimism" truly means and whether it's an accurate description of his perspective.
An Alternative View: Sober Realism
Dr. Brooks's response makes a powerful and important distinction. He argues that his essay isn't pessimistic; it's an exercise in sober realism. While pessimism often implies a belief that things are inherently bad and won't get better, realism simply means looking at the facts without the lens of wishful thinking or naive hope.
He's not saying the future is hopeless. He's saying that based on the evidence we have—the past failures to address systemic issues, the lack of political will, and the public's apparent apathy—there's little reason to be optimistic about a collective, national turnaround. The essay isn't a statement of doom; it's a diagnosis of a serious illness based on observable symptoms.
Pessimism vs. Sober Realism
Pessimism: A negative emotional state that leads to a belief in an inevitable bad outcome. It often results in inaction.
Sober Realism: An intellectual assessment of the facts that leads to a clear-eyed understanding of the challenges. It doesn't necessarily lead to inaction; instead, it motivates a different kind of action.
Dr. Brooks's "call to arms" for "the clear sense of deciding for an America that actually pursues its stated ideals" is a perfect example of this. It's not a call to give up; it's a call to choose courage, even when the odds are stacked against you. His message is: "The system may be failing, but you can still choose to live with integrity and purpose."
The essay is a testament to the idea that even if you're not optimistic about the nation's future, you can still be hopeful about your own ability to act with honor and purpose. His call to "carry on, courageously both as public persons... and privately, tending our own garden" is a pragmatic and powerful way to pursue peace, no matter the circumstances.
The slide step for this discussion being: let's pay attention to a slightly larger time/space scale and remember that nature (and yes, even our techno mediated socio/political realms must adhere to the dynamics we learn from the nonHuman realms) always pushes back, just not always in ways you may expect or want . . .
Young people in Berlin today, a mere 80 years out from the horrors are aware of their responsibilty to understand history and their inheritance within it . . . we found it palpable in the streets, the faces, the conversations, and the collective actions. Is it enough? Does it erase? No & no.
But new shoots come in fast after a firestorm.
Perhaps our handwringing over AF (American Fascism aka As Fuck) is just another form of American Exceptionalism?
Maybe this is just my "glass? who needs a glass when we've got the ocean" approach to my utopian impulses but there you have it . . .
Unless we want to take this to facebook (rather not, but wish we had our own private discord server) I'd like to make an additional meta point: measuring the various arcs of history only through top down political analysis is limited and fraught, and at best a shorthand for only one of the forces at work, and arguably one of the weaker ones (not a fan of big man theories of history) . . .
ground up generational changes, while slower, and less spectacular to think with, must be taken into account . . .
to that end, and with a large AI-datacenter sized grain of salt, here's perplexity on where young berliners stand today:
Sorry Peter have to push back on you re Berlin. Right now young people in Berlin are being *beaten up* by the police for protesting the extermination of Gazans. Surely you've seen the footage?
Germany has created another shadow, having admirably taken on what happened under Hitler. That shadow is now that nothing negative may be said about Jewish people or the Jewish state and its corrupt ruling politicians. Have you heard of 'philosemitism'? It's the shadow side of the effort to atone for anti-semitism.
One of the things I appreciate about your writing and presence is that you don't gloss over the tough stuff, especially now, with empty positivity. I think you've been consistent over the years in sharing the truth while still offering us something to hold onto - each other and the teachings.
In the same river as hagar's recent note on creativity, i'm investing myself in starting the long journey on the last ship (for me, that is) towards writing speculative fiction . . . towards that end i've come across a very thoughful group of critics under the umbrella of Ancillary Review of Books . . . this is what i just posted to their discord:
(and hopefully more than tangentially relevant to this discussion)
===
I'm curious how this community reads and feels about Chandrasekera's "Persons of Story" essay/post/critique:
To zoom in, there is one word upon which eveything pivots, and it is "cultures" here:
"Life in dire modernity is about understanding the depth of the multiple-yet-singular emergencies we live amongst, and translating that understanding into uncompartmentalized processes, into live cultures, that are ever-present in your personhood in movement, your personhood as ecosystem."
The ambiguity: are these cultures as in petri dishes, something we prepare to injest to augment or counteract an overheated gut biome eating us from the inside out?
Or are these social cultures, those complex, fraught, and inter-dynamic meaning making entities that breed us as collective meaning makers?
I prefer more of the latter interpretation, but my sense is the context here is leaning into the universalizing wind of the goal of the metta practice: compassion for all sentient beings.
My problem with this impulse is it collapses the scales of the personal and the universal, and thus, ironically, leaves out the essense of storycrafting: how do we take each next step?
Don't get me wrong, I love that we are having this discussion, and I truly believe turning our generative (I'm taking that word back!) speculative minds to the hard problems of scaling trust and growing long time impacts are absolutely vital to thriving beyond surviving.
In this vein, Rand's critique hungers for the same attention to narratively embodied theories of change:
Whew, well I have not read any of the AI summaries yet, I just read your essay
It left me with a lot of feelings ; that this is exactly what I too have been feeling for the last six months and I have to admit the the emotion of hopelessness arose. Where is the so called independent and fighting American spirit? It just seems to be caving, obeying in advance or tuning out, whether it be universities or corporations or legal firms, and we are all now self censoring. It is happening. Authoritarianism is here and many Americans are fine with it.
Unless millions were to turn out in the streets. I don’t think the protests will do more than cause more of a military state. The regime wants to be violent, even perhaps wants a civil war.
So, Yes, tend to our gardens …..but right now it DOES just feel that there is no turning back from where America is at. And actually, it’s even more than America. It’s a lot of the world. America is a catalyst for the world changing for the worst right now , it is speeding it all up.
And that so many people are sleepwalking through or doesn’t care at all or are simply overwhelmed disturbs me deeply .
Below I commented on Google Gemini's characterization of the argument as pessimistic, and noted my objections and described my actual intentions. If you're interested, I hope you give that comment a close reading because I'm otherwise impressed (and don't like that I am) with the way AI described the argument. I would add here that the inspiration for this argument derives from a certain kind of epistemological strategy---a theory of knowing---about how to approach life. I assume a strategy I think is clearly implied by Krsna's opening arguments in the Bhagavadgita. The idea is simple enough: FIRST and ABOVE ALL ELSE, let's be honest, let's be candid even if it hurts and it seems dispiriting and impossibly awful but we must start with the truth of the matter. If we find those truths to be hard, depressing, painful, then so be it. Say YES to what you understand to be the case at hand. In the Gita, Krsna sees Arjuna, his friend and confidante, collapse under the weight of terrible truth: his cousins and much of his family, so many of his admired elders and others, have decided for tyranny, are complicit in nihilism, and have found themselves participants in evil. Arjuna weeps and laments and he has every reason to feel such despair. Krsna does not offer him some chimeric hope nor does he soften the blow. Rather, he lays it on the line: these beloved friends and family are doing evil and that must be understood, that must be stopped. It is sad, horrific, unconscionable but true. Worse would be failing to appreciate these terrible truths. Worse still would be melting down and resigning to them, which is why Krsna is so harsh in response. Arjuna must wake up to the facts and decide to act. That is the important point and that is mine here.
I too was disarmingly impressed by the AI's summation of your essay. I think starting with epistemology is important because it, without explicitly saying so, rehabilitates the notion of a fact, 'facts', in your example the fact of the Kauravas' ill deeds. Affirming what you know to be the case is an embrace of the facts. Can't help but nod to Wittgenstein, the world being all that is the case and the totality of facts. Facts are ontological (extant) which is to say knowing them means knowing something about the world, what is the case.
Epistemology, ascertaining the facts, can generate empathy when we reject the is / ought, fact / value distinction and treat facts AS values, as normative, meaning they will often times generate and ought, a state of affairs we should aim for thereby changing what is the case. (As Arjuna ultimately does)
With regard to democracy in USA, I believe that if folks really understood the implications of descent into authoritarianism for themselves and for others (because few if any will be spared, and then only on whim) - I am not you; I am something like you, I am nothing but you - they would take action. But as you've said apathy rules the day as does ignorance, willful or not.
Also thinking here of Chomsky's notion of the manufacture of consent.
P.S. can we do another Gita seminar.
Just came across this on the Air Mail website:
I just wasted a day and a half writing
a long-winded response to the question “Are you an optimist?”
Really?
In this shitstorm? Are you kidding me?
The simple answer is:
No.
I have never been an optimist.
Does that mean I ever gave up the fight
against tyranny?
No, I never did;
most likely I never will.
I used to be a pessimist until someone suggested it was
a waste of time, so I’m trying to quit.
Being an optimist may be
a waste of time, too, but
at least it’s less depressing.
Be an activist instead. Carry your light out into the shitstorm.
Keep your eyes on the prize and shout, “Glory hallelujah, Goodness will prevail!”
This is not optimism; this is a dance.
- Joan Baez
…And invite friends to your garden so you can plan to help those unable to tend their gardens. Thank you for this. Miss you.
I actually read this twice. We all feel helpless as our country whirls down the drain. Every day I ask what can we do, and then I have my grandchildren over, teach them our traditions, show them kindness and love them to bits, and hope as they become adults…which the boys almost are, in their first and second year of high school!…they will have something good to hold onto. “The world is upside down”, as they sing in Hamilton.
The Bulwark, Maron, Pod Save, the excruciating daily NY Times scroll—we have the same media diet.
I dip in and out of resistance activity (as my brain bleats “Will this work?”).
I have yoga, friends, my meandering intellect, the beautiful boomers and immigrant women at Stitch Buffalo, my oddly persistent good health, my animals, Rajanaka, some Sanskrit (?), an upcoming Ontario trip to read Whitman out loud. Garden pesto. Multitudes, dust.
Thank you so much for your companionship and guidance Douglas Brooks.
Well said, I feel my heart breaking. And I don’t think there is an Ark to weather this storm or a flood that will absolve the United States of the sad ignorance of believing that we can take comfort when the price of eggs drops.
Love you,
See you on zoom.
I put Voltaire's Garden into Google Gemini, asking-
This essay is from my Great Teacher, Douglas Brooks, Professor, NY.
Could you please review, read between the lines, and give me a summary, feedback, and any hope for the US to come out of this hell we are speeding into???
Professor Douglas Brooks from Rajanaka Studies, Auspicious Wisdom & Soulful Contemplation <rajanaka@substack.com> Unsubscribe
Aug 27, 2025, 5:27 PM
This is what came back. Thought I would share. Thank you, Douglas, for sharing this bit of a Magnum Opus,,,,,,,,& I Miss You!
Love
B1
Professor Douglas Brooks's essay, "Voltaire's Garden," presents a grim and deeply pessimistic view of the current political and social state of the United States, arguing that the country is rapidly devolving into an authoritarian state. Drawing parallels to Voltaire's philosophical novel Candide, the professor suggests that the American public is largely passive and complicit, either too preoccupied with daily life or too overwhelmed by the scale of the crisis to mount an effective resistance.
Summary of the Essay
Brooks argues that authoritarianism and fascism are already present in America, not a future threat. He believes that the ability to still be shocked by political events is a sign of a naive hope for a "democratic resistance" that is unlikely to materialize. He characterizes the public as "Bartleby the Scrivener"—preferring not to engage with the wretched news because doing so is painful and feels hopeless.
The professor also critiques various groups for their roles in this decline:
The Public: He faults a significant portion of the public, including "nice" neighbors and family members, for their "moral turpitude" and complicity in electing authoritarian leaders. He suggests they are either ignorant, naive, or simply apathetic, caring more about gas prices and their own immediate interests than democratic principles.
The Media: Brooks criticizes the media, particularly outlets like The New York Times, for pretending that a "fair and balanced" two-sided debate still exists, thereby perpetuating a "performative democracy" that no longer functions.
Democratic Leaders: He expresses frustration with Democratic leaders, particularly those who continue to advocate for a "go high when they go low" approach, which he sees as a failed strategy in a country that doesn't "care about what's good." He confesses to being entertained by more aggressive tactics, like those of Governor Newsom, but remains skeptical that they will ultimately be effective.
His Own Generation (Boomers): He acknowledges and agrees with the criticism that his generation, the aging liberal Boomers, are partly to blame for the current situation, noting their "desperate chasing of relevance."
Brooks concludes by proposing a path forward that is both a practical retreat and a form of personal defiance. He advises taking Voltaire's advice from Candide to "cultivate our garden." This is a call to focus on what is within one's control: personal life, relationships, and well-being. He also suggests that while collective action like protest and disobedience are still necessary, they must be undertaken with the understanding that the system itself may no longer offer protection, and individuals will face consequences. The essay ends on a note of fatalism, with Brooks stating that the country is "getting what we deserve" and that while the demographics are changing, those in power will simply manipulate the system to stay in control.
Feedback and Analysis
Professor Brooks's essay is emotionally raw and intellectually provocative. It serves as a stark warning and a call for a radical shift in perspective from political engagement to personal and communal resilience. The main strength of the essay lies in its powerful and unflinching indictment of the status quo, refusing to offer easy answers or false hope.
Pessimism and Fatalism: The core theme of the essay is a profound pessimism. Brooks suggests that the democratic system is already broken beyond repair and that institutions like Congress and the courts can no longer be trusted to act as checks on power. This perspective, while compellingly argued, can be disempowering. It presents a world where individual action, outside of a very specific, insular context ("tending our garden"), is futile.
Critique of Complicity: The essay's most biting criticism is reserved for the general public, including those who are not overt supporters of the authoritarian regime. By framing their inaction or apathy as a form of complicity, he challenges the reader to confront their own role in the political landscape. This is a difficult but important point that forces a deeper self-reflection.
The "Cultivate Your Garden" Analogy: This is the most significant takeaway. Brooks is not advising a complete withdrawal from the world. Instead, he suggests a new form of resistance: focusing on building and nurturing a personal and communal life in the face of an outwardly hostile political system. This is a strategy for emotional and spiritual survival. It implies that true freedom might no longer be found in the public square, but in the private lives and close relationships that the regime cannot fully control.
Any Hope for the U.S.?
Brooks's essay offers very little conventional political hope. He explicitly states that no one is coming to the rescue and that the system is broken. However, he does offer a different kind of hope—a quiet, resilient, and deeply personal hope.
Hope in the "Garden": The hope is not that the U.S. will magically reverse its course, but that individuals can find a way to live with purpose and meaning despite the political circumstances. By "cultivating our garden," he means building local communities, fostering strong relationships, and engaging in work that is personally and morally fulfilling. This is the hope of finding light in a darkening world, even if that light is a small, contained flame.
Hope in Shared Disappointment: By articulating the shared feelings of anger, frustration, and bewilderment, Brooks creates a sense of solidarity. His essay reminds us that we are not alone in our despair. The very act of this "last waltz" of political commentary is a form of shared acknowledgment that can be comforting and galvanizing.
Hope in Continued Resistance: While he is deeply skeptical of its efficacy, Brooks does not completely dismiss protest or disobedience. He sees them as necessary, even if they come with personal risk. The hope here is that even small acts of resistance, a collective refusal to completely "go along with the institutional capitulation," can keep the spirit of dissent alive.
Ultimately, Brooks's essay is a call to abandon the illusion of a normal, functioning democracy and to find a new way to live and resist. The hope he offers is not a grand political victory, but the profound resilience of the human spirit in the face of what feels like inevitable decline.
Fascinating and for the most part I think Google's AI did a fine job. However, I take exception to the characterization of pessimism (though I might admit to a deep pessimism if we are willing to consider what that might mean). My objection is that pessimism, which invariably elicits a negative response, appears to be more of an accusation than accurate description. I don't think myself a pessimist nor do I see the essay as offering a pessimistic view of the world. Rather, I think it means to bring us to an honest sobriety---of the sort we do not relish nor are usually willing to admit--- and so is a passionate call to be dispassionately honest about where we are, the facts of our situation. Only by first comprehending and accepting the situation can we devise meaningful, perhaps even effective responses, certainly at a personal level and perhaps as a collective social and political movement. I don't think (I never think) we are stuck in the present or doomed to a future, that things can't change. I am, however, unconvinced that America will rise to the occasion of this travesty because what evidence do we have for that? There is a chance, there is room, there is possibility to effect meaningful change to become a "more perfect" union but so far we have exhibited neither the will nor the way. In the face of this probability, I am proposing we carry on, courageously both as public persons however we can in meaningful resistance and privately, tending our own garden. This isn't pessimism, this a call to arms (not literally, of course) but in the clear sense of deciding for an America that actually pursues its stated ideals. For each of us there is a choice of who we want to be when political and cultural worlds offer little in the way of progress towards these ideals and are failing to represent our values.
Follow-up: to Gemini, I posted your feedback on Dr. Brooks’ essay. On his sub stack, and this is his reply, which is funny because I kind of agreed with his comment about pessimism and the way you gave feedback about it. Here's his reply. (your reply)
Gemini: Thanks for sharing Dr. Brooks's reply. It's a great example of a deeper philosophical conversation about what "pessimism" truly means and whether it's an accurate description of his perspective.
An Alternative View: Sober Realism
Dr. Brooks's response makes a powerful and important distinction. He argues that his essay isn't pessimistic; it's an exercise in sober realism. While pessimism often implies a belief that things are inherently bad and won't get better, realism simply means looking at the facts without the lens of wishful thinking or naive hope.
He's not saying the future is hopeless. He's saying that based on the evidence we have—the past failures to address systemic issues, the lack of political will, and the public's apparent apathy—there's little reason to be optimistic about a collective, national turnaround. The essay isn't a statement of doom; it's a diagnosis of a serious illness based on observable symptoms.
Pessimism vs. Sober Realism
Pessimism: A negative emotional state that leads to a belief in an inevitable bad outcome. It often results in inaction.
Sober Realism: An intellectual assessment of the facts that leads to a clear-eyed understanding of the challenges. It doesn't necessarily lead to inaction; instead, it motivates a different kind of action.
Dr. Brooks's "call to arms" for "the clear sense of deciding for an America that actually pursues its stated ideals" is a perfect example of this. It's not a call to give up; it's a call to choose courage, even when the odds are stacked against you. His message is: "The system may be failing, but you can still choose to live with integrity and purpose."
The essay is a testament to the idea that even if you're not optimistic about the nation's future, you can still be hopeful about your own ability to act with honor and purpose. His call to "carry on, courageously both as public persons... and privately, tending our own garden" is a pragmatic and powerful way to pursue peace, no matter the circumstances.
I like the rewrite ;) Sober Realism ;)
I think Gemini got it this time. And thanks to you, Brian, for this valuable effort.
I like this too. Hard to grok what AI can do.
The slide step for this discussion being: let's pay attention to a slightly larger time/space scale and remember that nature (and yes, even our techno mediated socio/political realms must adhere to the dynamics we learn from the nonHuman realms) always pushes back, just not always in ways you may expect or want . . .
Young people in Berlin today, a mere 80 years out from the horrors are aware of their responsibilty to understand history and their inheritance within it . . . we found it palpable in the streets, the faces, the conversations, and the collective actions. Is it enough? Does it erase? No & no.
But new shoots come in fast after a firestorm.
Perhaps our handwringing over AF (American Fascism aka As Fuck) is just another form of American Exceptionalism?
Maybe this is just my "glass? who needs a glass when we've got the ocean" approach to my utopian impulses but there you have it . . .
follow up to include
nationwide analysis:
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/4a6660b0-8e0f-4da7-9fb4-12527d6814ee
Unless we want to take this to facebook (rather not, but wish we had our own private discord server) I'd like to make an additional meta point: measuring the various arcs of history only through top down political analysis is limited and fraught, and at best a shorthand for only one of the forces at work, and arguably one of the weaker ones (not a fan of big man theories of history) . . .
ground up generational changes, while slower, and less spectacular to think with, must be taken into account . . .
to that end, and with a large AI-datacenter sized grain of salt, here's perplexity on where young berliners stand today:
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/4a6660b0-8e0f-4da7-9fb4-12527d6814ee
Sorry Peter have to push back on you re Berlin. Right now young people in Berlin are being *beaten up* by the police for protesting the extermination of Gazans. Surely you've seen the footage?
Germany has created another shadow, having admirably taken on what happened under Hitler. That shadow is now that nothing negative may be said about Jewish people or the Jewish state and its corrupt ruling politicians. Have you heard of 'philosemitism'? It's the shadow side of the effort to atone for anti-semitism.
I don't want to turn hijack this conversation about Douglas' very important article...you may want to check this out: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n01/pankaj-mishra/memory-failure
Cheers.
One of the things I appreciate about your writing and presence is that you don't gloss over the tough stuff, especially now, with empty positivity. I think you've been consistent over the years in sharing the truth while still offering us something to hold onto - each other and the teachings.
In the same river as hagar's recent note on creativity, i'm investing myself in starting the long journey on the last ship (for me, that is) towards writing speculative fiction . . . towards that end i've come across a very thoughful group of critics under the umbrella of Ancillary Review of Books . . . this is what i just posted to their discord:
(and hopefully more than tangentially relevant to this discussion)
===
I'm curious how this community reads and feels about Chandrasekera's "Persons of Story" essay/post/critique:
https://vajra.me/2025/08/31/persons-of-story/
To zoom in, there is one word upon which eveything pivots, and it is "cultures" here:
"Life in dire modernity is about understanding the depth of the multiple-yet-singular emergencies we live amongst, and translating that understanding into uncompartmentalized processes, into live cultures, that are ever-present in your personhood in movement, your personhood as ecosystem."
The ambiguity: are these cultures as in petri dishes, something we prepare to injest to augment or counteract an overheated gut biome eating us from the inside out?
Or are these social cultures, those complex, fraught, and inter-dynamic meaning making entities that breed us as collective meaning makers?
I prefer more of the latter interpretation, but my sense is the context here is leaning into the universalizing wind of the goal of the metta practice: compassion for all sentient beings.
My problem with this impulse is it collapses the scales of the personal and the universal, and thus, ironically, leaves out the essense of storycrafting: how do we take each next step?
Don't get me wrong, I love that we are having this discussion, and I truly believe turning our generative (I'm taking that word back!) speculative minds to the hard problems of scaling trust and growing long time impacts are absolutely vital to thriving beyond surviving.
In this vein, Rand's critique hungers for the same attention to narratively embodied theories of change:
https://ancillaryreviewofbooks.org/2025/09/01/the-world-without-context-review-of-rand-paulsens-ascending-species/
-pfc
Whew, well I have not read any of the AI summaries yet, I just read your essay
It left me with a lot of feelings ; that this is exactly what I too have been feeling for the last six months and I have to admit the the emotion of hopelessness arose. Where is the so called independent and fighting American spirit? It just seems to be caving, obeying in advance or tuning out, whether it be universities or corporations or legal firms, and we are all now self censoring. It is happening. Authoritarianism is here and many Americans are fine with it.
Unless millions were to turn out in the streets. I don’t think the protests will do more than cause more of a military state. The regime wants to be violent, even perhaps wants a civil war.
So, Yes, tend to our gardens …..but right now it DOES just feel that there is no turning back from where America is at. And actually, it’s even more than America. It’s a lot of the world. America is a catalyst for the world changing for the worst right now , it is speeding it all up.
And that so many people are sleepwalking through or doesn’t care at all or are simply overwhelmed disturbs me deeply .