Saturday, January 20, 2007

The Socialist Senator


By MARK LEIBOVICH
The New York Times Magazine
January 21, 2007

When Bernie Sanders visits a high-school class, as he does regularly, students don’t hear a speech, a focus-grouped polemic, a campaign pitch or, heaven forbid, practiced one-liners. Nor, in all likelihood, do they hear Sanders tell stories about his family, childhood or some hardship he has endured. He makes no great effort to “connect” emotionally in the manner that politicians strive for these days, and he probably doesn’t “feel your pain” either, or at least make a point of saying so. It’s not that Sanders is against connecting, or feeling your pain, but the process seems needlessly passive and unproductive, and he prefers a more dynamic level of engagement.

“I urge you all to argue with your teachers, argue with your parents,” Sanders told a group of about 60 students at South Burlington High School — generally liberal, affluent and collegebound — one afternoon in mid-December.

The newly elected senator whipped his head forward with a force that shifted his free-for-all frizz of white hair over his forehead. (Journalistic convention in Vermont mandates that every Sanders story remark on his unruly hair as early on as possible. It also stipulates that every piece of his clothing be described as “rumpled.”)

“C’mon, I’m not seeing enough hands in here,” he said.

A senior named Marissa Meredyth raised hers, and Sanders flicked his index finger at her as if he were shooting a rubber band. She bemoaned recent cuts to college financial-aid programs.

Sanders bemoans these, too, but he’d rather provoke.

“How we going to pay for this financial aid?” Sanders asked. “Who in here wants us to raise taxes on your parents to pay for this?”

Not many, based on the show of hands.

“O.K., so much for financial aid,” Sanders said, shrugging.

Next topic: “How many of you think it was a good idea to give the president the authority to go to war in Iraq?”

No hands.

“C’mon, anyone?”

He paused, paced, hungry for dissent, a morsel before lunch. Sanders says he thinks Iraq was a terrible idea, too, but he seemed to crave a jolt to the anesthetizing hum of consensus in the room.

“Iraq is a huge and very complicated issue,” Sanders said, finally. (“Huge” is Sanders favorite word, which he pronounces “yooge,” befitting a thick Brooklyn accent unsmoothed-over by 38 years in Vermont.) He mentioned that Vermont has had more casualties in Iraq per capita than any other state in the union, including one from South Burlington High School.

“O.K., last call for an Iraq supporter,” he said. Going once, going twice.

By this point, Sanders’s cheeks had turned a shade of dark pink with a strange hint of orange. It’s a notable Sanders trait; his face seems to change color with the tenor of a conversation, like a mood ring. His complexion goes orangey-pink when he’s impatient (often when someone else is speaking), purpley-pink when he’s making a point or a softer shade of pink when at rest, “rest” being a relative term.

Next question from Sanders: “Should people in this country who want to go to college be able to go, regardless of income?”

Wall-to-wall hands, with the exception of one belonging to Andy Gower, a senior in a backward baseball cap who recently moved up from North Carolina. Relatively conservative, Andy is a conspicuous outlier in the class. Bernie knows how he feels, having spent eight terms as the lone Socialist in Congress, and the first to serve in the House since the 1920s.

“Why do you think that?” Sanders asked Andy.

He replied with a question of his own: “Why should people who can afford to go to college pay for people who can’t?” He was sheepish at first but gained momentum. “Why should people who are successful in this society be burdened by people who aren’t? It’s just a fact of life. Some people will succeed, and some people won’t. And it’s just the way it’s going to be and has always been.”

A few classmates smirked, shook their heads. But Sanders was suddenly buoyant. He stomped forward, clapped twice — provocation achieved.

Hands were shooting up everywhere, and Sanders contorted his mouth into a goofy grin.

“At the end of the day, democracy is a tough process,” Sanders said finally, arms restored to their flailing default positions.

“The discussion we’ve had in here is at a higher level than what we often have on the floor of the United States Congress,” Sanders gushed, for as much as he ever gushes, which is not much.

And given some of the things Sanders has said about the United States Congress, maybe this wasn’t such a gush after all.

Sanders has always been an easier fit in Vermont than in Washington. Being a Socialist in the seat of two-party orthodoxy will do that. While he has generally championed liberal Democratic positions over the years — and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee endorsed his Senate campaign — Sanders has strenuously resisted calling himself a Democrat. And he has clung to a mantle — socialism — that brings considerable stigma, in large part for its association with authoritarian communist regimes (which Sanders is quick to disavow).

But he does little to airbrush the red “S” from his political profile. On the wall of his Congressional office hangs a portrait of Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist Party presidential candidate of the early 20th century. A poster in a conference room marks Burlington’s sister-city relationship with Puerto Cabeza, Nicaragua — one of a few such alliances he forged with cities in Marxist states during his 10-year stint as mayor of Vermont’s biggest city in the 1980s.

Socialism brings Sanders instant novelty in Washington and, in many circles, instant dismissal as a freak. But Sanders’s outcast status in Washington probably owes as much to his jackhammer style as to any stubborn ideology. It is a town filled with student body president types — and Sanders, for his part, finished a distant third when he ran to be president of his class at James Madison High School in Brooklyn.

Few would describe Sanders’s personality as “winning” in the classic politician’s sense. He appears to burn a disproportionate number of calories smiling and making eye contact. “Bernie is not going to win a lot of ‘whom would you rather live on a desert island with’ contests,” says Garrison Nelson, a professor of political science at the University of Vermont. No matter. Sanders’s agitating style in Washington also constitutes a basic facet of anticharm, antipolitician appeal at home.

“I’m not afraid of being called a troublemaker,” Sanders says, something he’s been called many times, in many different ways, many of them unprintable. “But you have to be smart. And being smart means not creating needless enemies for yourself.”

In this regard, Sanders has not always been smart, especially when he was first elected to the House in 1990. He called Congress “impotent” and dismissed the two major parties as indistinguishable tools of the wealthy. He said it wouldn’t bother him if 80 percent of his colleagues lost re-election — not the best way to win friends in a new workplace.

“Bernie alienates his natural allies,” Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat, said at the time. “His holier-than-thou attitude — saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else — really undercuts his effectiveness.” The late Joe Moakley, another Massachusetts Democrat, waxed almost poetic in his derision for Sanders. “He is out there wailing on his own,” Moakley said. “He screams and hollers, but he is all alone.”

Frank says he came to like and work well with Sanders, with whom he served on the House Financial Services Committee. His early objections were over Sanders’s railing against both parties as if they were the same. “I think when he first got here, Bernie underestimated the degree that Republicans had moved to the right,” Frank told me. “I get sick of people saying ‘a curse on both your houses.’ When you point out to them that you agree with them on most things, they’ll say, ‘Yeah, well, I hold my friends up to a higher standard.’ Well, O.K., but remember that we’re your friends.”

Among his House colleagues, “Bernie’s not a bad guy,” is something I heard a lot of. “You appreciate Bernie the more you see him in action,” says Senator Chuck Schumer, the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who served with him for several years in the House. A fellow Brooklynite who is nine years younger, Schumer attended the same elementary school as Sanders (P.S. 197) and the same high school (James Madison, which also graduated a third United States senator, Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota). “Bernie does tend to grow on people, whether it’s in the House or in Vermont,” Schumer says.

But he has clearly grown bigger in Vermont, and more seamlessly. “His bumper stickers just say, ‘Bernie,’ ” says Senator Patrick Leahy, Vermont’s senior Senator and a Democrat. “You have to reach a certain exulted status in politics to be referred to only by your first name.”

Sanders is particularly beloved in Burlington, which elected the recovering fringe candidate as its mayor despite the Reagan landslide of 1980 — thus christening the so-called “People’s Republic of Burlington.” Some supporters called themselves “Sanderistas.”

His election to the Senate in November came at the expense of a too-perfect Bernie foil — Richard Tarrant, a well-barbered, Bentley-driving Republican businessman who spent $7 million of his own money so he could lose by 33 percentage points.

“Congratulations, Bernie,” a fan yells to Sanders outside his district office in Burlington. Sanders was out for a quick bagel on a balmy December morning, temperatures in the 60s — another day of Al Gore weather in the once-frozen north. He walked head down but kept getting stopped. “Now you gotta run for president, please,” the congratulator added, something Sanders gets a lot of too.

It is a reception that any natural, eager-to-please politician would relish — and accordingly, Sanders dispatches these glad-handing chores with the visible joy of someone cleaning a litter box, coughing out his obligatory thank yous and continuing on his way.

Sanders’s popularity in Vermont brings up the obvious questions: to what degree is he a quaint totem of the state, like the hermit thrush (the state bird), and could a Socialist be elected to the Senate anywhere else?

In recent years, Vermont has joined — perhaps surpassed — states like Massachusetts and New York in the top tier of liberal outposts. Several distinctions nurture the state’s credentials: It was the first place to legalize civil unions for same-sex partners; it is the home of Phish, the countercultural rock-folk band and contemporary analog to the Grateful Dead and of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream (and its peacenik-themed flavors); and it is host to cultural quirks and ordinances like not allowing billboards, being the last state to get a Wal-Mart.

The state has also incubated several politicians who have achieved national boogie-man status among Republicans. They include Leahy, the Grateful Dead fan and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; former Senator James Jeffords, the liberal Republican who became an Independent in 2001, giving Democrats a temporary majority; and Howard Dean, the former governor whose presidential campaign boom (and perhaps fizzle) was tied heavily to his association with Vermont’s progressive politics.

Sanders fits snugly into this maverick’s pantheon. But Leahy says his fellow senator appeals to an antiestablishment strain in Vermont that is not necessary liberal. Leahy notes that he himself is the only Democrat the state’s voters have ever elected to the Senate. Before 1992, only one Democratic presidential candidate carried Vermont — Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

“A lot of the lower-income parts of our state are Republican,” Leahy says, adding that many of them are populated by rural libertarians who are greatly suspicious of government intrusion into individual rights. “I saw Bernie signs all over those parts of the state.”

Sanders opposes some federal gun-control laws, which has helped him in a state where “you grow up believing it is legal to shoot deer on the statehouse lawn in Montpelier,” says Luke Albee, a South Burlington native who was Leahy’s House chief of staff.

But again: Could Sanders be elected to the Senate anywhere else?

No, not as a Socialist, Schumer says. “Even in New York State it would be hard.”

Massachusetts? “Maybe this year he could,” Frank says, meaning 2006. “But if he were running in any other state, he probably would have to comb his hair.”

Leahy says that just any Socialist probably couldn’t get elected in Vermont, either. But Sanders has made himself known in a state small enough — physically and in terms of population — for someone, particularly a tireless someone, to insinuate himself into neighborly dialogues and build a following that skirts ideological pigeonholes. Indeed, there are no shortages of war veterans or struggling farmers in Vermont who would seemingly have no use for a humorless aging hippie peacenik Socialist from Brooklyn, except that Sanders has dealt with many of them personally, and it’s a good bet his office has helped them procure some government benefit.

“People have gotten to know him as Bernie,” Leahy says. “Not as the Socialist.”

Sanders calls himself as a “democratic Socialist.” When I asked him what this meant, as a practical matter, in capitalist America circa 2007, he did what he often does: he donned his rhetorical Viking’s helmet and waxed lovingly about the Socialist governments of Scandinavia. He mentioned that Scandinavian countries have nearly wiped out poverty in children — as opposed to the United States, where 18 to 20 percent of kids live in poverty. The Finnish government provides free day care to all children; Norwegian workers get 42 weeks of maternity leave at full pay.

But would Americans ever accept the kinds of taxes that finance the Scandinavian welfare state? And would Sanders himself trade in the United States government for the Finnish one? He is curiously, frustratingly non-responsive to questions like this. “I think there is a great deal we can learn from Scandinavia,” he said after a long pause. And then he returns to railing about economic justice and the rising gap between rich and poor, things he speaks of with a sense of outrage that always seems freshly summoned.

Sanders crinkles his face whenever a conversation veers too long from this kind of “important stuff” and into the “silly stuff,” like clothes and style. “I do not like personality profiles,” Sanders told me during our first conversation. He trumpets a familiar rant against the media, its emphasis on gaffes, polls and trivial details.

“If I walked up on a stage and fell down, that would be the top story,” Sanders says. “You wouldn’t hear anything about the growing gap between rich and poor.”

When I first met Sanders in person on Church Street, there were big streaks of dried mud on his shoes and dried blood on his neck from what looked to be a shaving mishap. His hair flew every which way in a gust of wind. At six feet tall, he is wiry, but he walks with shoulders hunched and elbows out, like a big, skulking bird. From a distance, he looked as if he could be homeless.

Closer in, the overwhelming impression made by Sanders is that of an acute worrier. He evinces the wearied default manner of a longtime insomniac, eyes weather-beaten with big lines and a perpetual slight cringe. His brow appears close to collapse beneath the weight of an invisible sandbag.

Richard Sugarman, a professor of religion at the University of Vermont and a longtime friend, recalls that during Sanders’s days as mayor, constituents would sometimes call him at his listed home phone number in the middle of the night. “Someone would call at 3 a.m. and say, ‘Hey Bernie, someone just threw a brick through my window, what should I do?’ He was as hands on as anyone. ... Does he have an off-mode? Not really.”

Luke Albee, Leahy’s former chief of staff, says: “He has no hobbies. He works. He doesn’t take time off. Bernie doesn’t even eat lunch. The idea of building a fire and reading a book and going on vacation, that’s not something he does.”

As much as anything, this distills why Sanders has been an awkward fit in the chummy realm of Capitol Hill. He is no pleaser or jokester by anyone’s prototype. I don’t recall Sanders laughing more than two or three times in the 48 hours I spent with him in Vermont. His one memorably funny aside came when I asked if his Congressional office had a dress code.

“Yes,” he said. “You can’t come in if you’re totally nude,” he said. He instituted the rule, he said, when his outreach director, Phil Fiermonte, who is now sitting next to him, came to work naked.

“Totally nude,” Sanders said. “On three occasions.”

He was kidding, presumably.

Riding in the passenger seat of Fiermonte’s car, Sanders was shouting into a brick-size cellphone, the likes of which were all the rage in the 1990s. He was talking to a staff person who was about to meet with someone from the office of Senator Edward Kennedy, chairman of Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, one of five committees that Sanders will sit on. Sanders voice filled the car.

“Dental care is yooge,” Sanders boomed into the phone. This has been a leitmotif of my visit — Sanders’s crusade to improve dental health among Vermont’s rural poor. He views this as an employment and economic issue. “How many employers are going to hire someone who doesn’t have teeth?” he asks. “You go around this state, and you will find a lot of people with no teeth. It is their badge of poverty.”

Improving dental care for the poor is a classic Sanders issue: unsexy and given to practical solutions and his obsessive attention. Sanders sees bad dental care among the poor as a “pothole issue” in Vermont, meaning it is pervasive and something that government should be active in fixing (like potholes). Teeth are tangible, especially when they hurt.

Sanders’s car pulled into the parking lot of H.O. Wheeler Elementary School in North Burlington, where he was visiting a drop-by dental clinic. The notion of “school-based dental care” excites Sanders immensely, and his gait speeds as he enters the school, past the main office, a classroom and several school officials he has come to know over multiple visits.

“If you’re a kid, and you’re having dental pain, you’re not going to be learning a lot,” said Joseph Arioli, of Burlington’s Community Health Center and one of a half-dozen program administrators — including a dentist in scrubs — convened around a dentist chair.

The clinic provides free access to dental care for kids at high risk of neglecting their teeth. Students are typically seen during the school day, which means they miss minimal class time and their parents don’t have to leave work to take them. Betsy Liley, a grant writer for the city, says that many households in Vermont own just one toothbrush.

“Lemme guess, a lot of the dietary habits you see here are not great,” Sanders said. Nods all around. He said he’d do his best to secure more financing and vowed to return. And he told Liley that he might bring her to Washington to testify before a Senate committee.

Walking out, Sanders didn’t bother with goodbye — just as he didn’t with hello — only a thank you and a “what you’re doing here is yooge” over his shoulder.

“Great program,” Sanders said in the car. He likes to check in whenever possible. That’s essentially what I did with Sanders in Vermont: check in, with programs that he’s been involved with or wants to learn more about. He likes to hit lots of meetings, quick, businesslike transactions.

Only once in six discussions I sat in on did Sanders indulge in a personal anecdote. He was in his office talking to Sharon Moffat, Vermont’s acting commissioner of health, and the topic turned to dental care.

“I have a personal story to tell you,” Sanders said, and my ears perked up as I fantasized of learning the “Rosebud” episode that might explain Bernie’s interest in teeth.

“I was in the House cloakroom about five years ago,” Sanders said. “And I was thirsty. I took a drink of grape juice. Blawww.”

He scrunched up his face.

“It was awful, awful. Then I looked at the label. The amount of junk they put in there is unbelievable.”

Moffat nodded.

“Anyway, I no longer drink that stuff,” Sanders said.

Sanders’s parents were Jewish immigrants from Poland. His father, Eli, a struggling paint salesman who saw his family wiped out in the Holocaust, worried constantly about supporting his wife and two sons. His mother, Dorothy, dreamed of living in a “private home,” but they never made it beyond their three-and-a-half-room apartment on East 26th and Kings Highway. She died at age 46, when Bernie was 19. “Sensitivity to class was imbedded in me then quite deeply,” Sanders told me.

Sanders spent a year at Brooklyn College before transferring to the University of Chicago, where he studied psychology and helped lead protests against racially segregated housing on campus. He spent time on a kibbutz in Israel after graduation and then moved to Vermont with his first wife. “I had always been captivated by rural life,” he says. As a child, Sanders attended Boy Scout camp upstate and used to cry on the bus as it returned him to New York at the end of the summer.

In Vermont, Sanders worked many jobs for meager sums — as a freelance writer, filmmaker, carpenter and researcher, among other things. (Sanders has one son, Levi, and three stepchildren from his marriage to his second wife, Jane O’Meara Driscoll, the president of a small college in Burlington whom he met at a party on the night of his first mayoral victory.)

Politics came to dominate Sanders’s life. He was an early member of Vermont’s Liberty Union party, an offshoot of the antiwar movement in Vermont. He ran as the party’s nominee for the Senate in a special election in 1971 and finished with 2 percent of the vote. The following year, he ran for governor and received 1 percent. He would run two more times for statewide office that decade as a third-party candidate and never come close.

That changed when he ran for mayor of Burlington in 1980, at Sugarman’s urging. Sugarman studied the race and believed Sanders could win, if few others did. Sanders knocked on doors all over the city, campaigned day and night and beat a six-term Democratic incumbent by 12 votes.

“People generally assumed this was a fluke and that he would be gone in two years,” said Peter Clavelle, a friend who succeeded Sanders as mayor.

Sanders spoke out against poverty in the third world and made good-will visits to the Soviet Union and Cuba, among other places that U.S. mayors generally didn’t travel to during that time. But a funny thing happened on the way to what many had dismissed as a short-running circus. Sanders undertook ambitious downtown revitalization projects and courted evil capitalist entities known as “businesses.” He balanced budgets. His administration sued the local cable franchise and won reduced rates for customers. He drew a minor-league baseball team to town, the Vermont Reds (named for the Cincinnatis, not the Commies).

Sanders’s appeal in Vermont’s biggest city blended the “think globally” sensibility of a liberal college town with the “act locally” practicality of a hands-on mayor. He offered sister-city relations with the Sandinistas and efficient snowplowing for the People’s Republic of Burlington. Before Sanders’s mayoral victory, Leahy says, it was easy not to take him seriously. “Then he got over that barrier, and got elected. He fixed the streets, filled the potholes, worked with the business community. He did what serious leaders do.” He was re-elected three times.

In a sense, Sanders’s stint as mayor become a template for his subsequent successes — and limitations — as a national officeholder. In the House, he gained great publicity and favor as an audacious critic with a geopolitical purview, but ultimately left his biggest mark with small-bore diligence to the local realpolitik.

I was reminded of this when I asked Sanders in early January what his immediate legislative goals would be in the Senate. He listed these broad-brush priorities: 1) ending the Iraq war; 2) reversing the “rapid decline of the middle class” (a corollary to “addressing the gap between rich and poor”); 3) reordering priorities in the federal budget; and 4) enacting environmental laws to thwart global warming. When I asked how he would translate any of his priorities into concrete legislation, he nodded sheepishly and said, “I’m in the process of trying to figure that out now.” It is an unsatisfying response somewhat reminiscent of Sanders’s all-purpose invocations of Scandinavia whenever he’s pressed on how his socialist philosophy can be applied to the two-party system he exists in.

As a general rule, Sanders is much more convincing at proffering outrage than solutions. He can do this in Vermont, in part, because he is an entrenched political brand — “Bernie” — and voters will forgive a little blowhardedness (if not demagoguery) from someone they basically agree with and who has grown utterly familiar to their landscape, like cows. Sanders can also pull this off because, as he did in the mayor’s office, he has buttressed his bomb-throwing with rock-solid attention to the pothole matters of dental clinics, veterans’ benefits, farm subsidies, the kind of things an attentive politician operating in a tiny state (with a population of just 620,000) can fashion a formidable political base from.

After three terms as mayor, Sanders ran for Vermont’s at-large House seat in 1988 as an Independent and lost by a small margin to Peter Smith, the Republican former lieutenant governor. He won a rematch in 1990.

“When I came into the House, no one knew what to do with me,” Sanders says. “I was the only representative from Vermont, so I had no one to help me. And I was the only Independent, so no one knew where to put me in terms of committee.”

Sanders was known as something of a pragmatic gadfly in the House. His grillings of former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan became a running burlesque, much awaited by many Hill and Federal Reserve watchers whenever Greenspan appeared before the House Financial Services Committee. (“Do you give one whit of concern for the middle class and working families of this country?” Sanders asked Greenspan in one representative exchange.)

Sanders was not without his legislative triumphs. He was adept at working with people with whom he otherwise disagreed sharply — forging alliances with conservatives like Representative Ron Paul, Republican of Texas and a well-known libertarian, with whom he shared a common hostility to the U.S.A. Patriot Act. In what might have been Sanders’s signature triumph of recent years, he was instrumental in striking a provision from the Patriot Act that would have required librarians to release data on what their patrons were reading.

But in keeping with his pragmatic gadfly’s approach, Sanders was far more accomplished at filing amendments to House bills than actually writing and producing legislation of his own. He was also gifted at drawing attention to his issues and (just as important) to himself. He was the first congressman to lead a bus trip to Canada to help seniors buy cheaper prescription drugs.

As he makes the transition to his new job, Sanders says his former House colleagues have teased him about not becoming “like the rest of them” in the Senate. Sanders jokes about this, as much as he jokes about anything. He says he will be required to enter a machine that zaps his brain and transforms him “into a member in good standing in the House of Lords.”

“We’re talking about a completely different animal here,” Sanders says. The House fosters a more hospitable habitat for the audacious and eccentric; their ranks tend to be camouflaged by its larger numbers, curtailed by strict time limits on floor speeches and reined in by the outsize power of the House leadership. Senators can speak for as long as they want and single-handedly buck the wishes of 99 other senators by placing “holds” on bills and nominations. Tradition dictates that senators exercise such privileges sparingly.

“There will be times when he causes the Democratic leadership some agita,” Schumer predicts. “But knowing him, I think he’s smart enough not to make any gratuitous enemies. He might make enemies, but they won’t be gratuitous enemies.”

Sanders told me, “You have to ask yourself, Did the people send me here to give long speeches, or did they send me here to get things done?”

By “you” Sanders means himself, as his sleepless Socialist adventure proceeds into the House of Lords.

On a quiet morning in mid-December, Sanders was sitting in his new office in the basement of a Senate office building — it is a temporary office he will inhabit before he moves to another temporary office that he will occupy until a permanent space opens up, probably around March. It’s all very exasperating, he said, this office-space situation. But he asked that I keep the specifics of his exasperation out of the article. He is trying to meet a stepped-up standard of tact and decorum in his new home.

“Why can’t we get these phone calls forwarded from the House office?” Sanders asked a staff person who is working temporarily at a temporary reception desk in the temporary-temporary office. Everything seems temporary, but not as temporary as before. Sanders has a six-year term now instead of a two-year one. Friends have advised him to pace himself, curb his impatience. He would seem ill wired for this, but he is trying. He even took a four-day vacation last month — and to Palm Springs.

But now he has work to do, beginning with getting to know his colleagues. “Personal relationships are very important in the Senate,” he told me. He likes the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, a lot, appreciates that he gave him the committee assignments that he wanted — Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; the Environment and Public Works; Veterans’ Affairs; Energy and Natural Resources; and the Budget. And wouldn’t you know, Reid has an interest in dental care, too. He grew up dirt poor in Nevada, and his mother had no teeth. The first thing Reid did when he got his first job — at a gas station — was buy her a new set. So the Senate’s leading Democrat gets the importance of dental care, which could help save teeth in Vermont.

“Let’s go somewhere else to talk,” Sanders said, as we headed out the door of his temporary-temporary office. “We can get some coffee.”

We traversed a maze of hallways that lead into a Senate dining room. “Can we sit down in here?” he asked a busperson. Yes, but then Sanders looked at a bunch of tables covered in white linen table clothes, not what he had in mind.

We walked upstairs, in search of a quiet place in the new neighborhood, on the Senate side. He kept navigating short hallways and turning back. An elevator opened in front of Sanders. It said “Senators Only.” The attendant invited him on, but he hesitated, turned away and began looking for another route to wherever he was going.

Sanders zigzags the Capitol this way barely recognized, or acknowledged (or congratulated, or urged to run for president). A few people stare at the new senator as he walks by — maybe because he looks lost, or famous, or maybe just because he looks like a strange bird out of Vermont.

Mark Leibovich is a reporter in the Washington bureau of The Times. This is his first article for the magazine.

Hang Up! Tehran Is Calling

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
The New York Times
January 21, 2007

One of the most worrying parts of President Bush’s Iraq strategy doesn’t have anything to do with Iraq. It’s the way he’s ramping up a confrontation with Iran.

Across a broad spectrum of policy levers, Mr. Bush is raising the pressure on Iran, increasing the risk that he will drag the U.S. into a third war in an Islamic country in six years. Instead of disengaging from war, he could end up starting another.

We could have taken another route. In 2003, Iran sent the U.S. a detailed message offering to work together to capture terrorists, to stabilize Iraq, to resolve nuclear disputes, to withdraw military support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and to moderate its position on Israel, in exchange for the U.S. lifting sanctions and warming up to Iran.

Some diplomats liked the idea, but administration hawks rejected it at once. Lawrence Wilkerson, a former chief of staff to Colin Powell, says that the State Department sent a cable to the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, who looks after U.S. interests in Iran, scolding him for even forwarding the package to Washington.

Obviously, Iran’s offer might have led nowhere. But it’s plain where rejection of the offer has taken us: more Americans are dying in Iraq, and some experts worry about clashes with Iran itself.

The Iraq Study Group proposed engagement with Iran, but instead Mr. Bush has been escalating the rhetoric and military pressure.

“When you have such a buildup and have zero communications, and you have an arena like Iraq where you may step on each other’s toes, you could have rapid escalation,” warns Vali Nasr, an expert on the region at the Naval Postgraduate School.

It doesn’t appear that Mr. Bush wants a war with Iran. His aim seems to be a show of force to deter Iran and reassure our allies in the region. But he is on a path that may easily lead to escalation.

It’s unfortunate that we are ratcheting up the military pressure, because the administration has quietly taken one very useful step against Iran: squeezing its access to international banking transactions. That has caused real economic pain and has added to the unpopularity of Iran’s hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Those banking sanctions, not military moves, are a reason Mr. Ahmadinejad has been rebuked by the country’s supreme leader.

Unfortunately, both Mr. Bush and Mr. Ahmadinejad benefit from confrontation. Both are unpopular domestically but can use a crisis to distract from their policy failures.

“The current strategy benefits Ahmadinejad,” says Professor Nasr. “It’s going to divert attention at the popular level from democracy.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad is facing growing criticism: he has been heckled by university students and scolded in the press, and his candidates did poorly in recent elections. Ordinary Iranians love the U.S. — it’s the most pro-American country in the Middle East I’ve visited — and a civil society is struggling to be born.

“If there is any military strike on Iran, all this movement will end,” said Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Even some Republicans opposed to a “grand bargain” favor some kind of engagement. Mitchell Reiss, a former senior State Department official under Mr. Bush, proposes technical talks with Iran about drug trafficking and maritime security. “Even if they are a nonstarter for Tehran, I think we score points in the region for trying,” Ambassador Reiss said.

Granted, Mr. Bush is right to be frustrated by Iran and the way it’s defying the international community with its nuclear program.

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush’s military pressure may end up making Iraq bloodier than ever. Instead of being cowed, Iran may use its proxies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and elsewhere to kill more American officials and troops.

Or even ordinary Americans here at home. “It’s a pretty good assumption that they have, if not operatives, at least sympathetic actors and affiliated groups” in the U.S., said Henry Crumpton, the State Department coordinator for counterterrorism.

Mr. Bush is absolutely right to denounce Iran’s leaders for stealing elections, suppressing their people and dabbling in terrorism. But we ourselves are partly to blame for the awful government in Tehran.

By instigating a coup in 1953 and seeking special legal privileges for American troops in 1964, we empowered extremists like Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and allowed them to tap nationalist outrage. So it would be in keeping with tradition if Mr. Bush, by shortsightedly stoking a confrontation with Tehran, now inadvertently helped Iranian hard-liners crush Iran’s democracy movement.

, , , , , , , ,

Lying Like It’s 2003 (full text)

By FRANK RICH
The New York Times
January 21, 2007

THOSE who forget history may be doomed to repeat it, but who could imagine we’d already be in danger of replaying that rotten year 2003?

Scooter Libby, the mastermind behind the White House’s bogus scenarios for ginning up the war in Iraq, is back at Washington’s center stage, proudly defending the indefensible in a perjury trial. Ahmad Chalabi, the peddler of flawed prewar intelligence hyped by Mr. Libby, is back in clover in Baghdad, where he purports to lead the government’s Shiite-Baathist reconciliation efforts in between visits to his pal Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.

Last but never least is Mr. Libby’s former boss and Mr. Chalabi’s former patron, Dick Cheney, who is back on Sunday-morning television floating fictions about Iraq and accusing administration critics of aiding Al Qaeda. When the vice president went on a tear like this in 2003, hawking Iraq’s nonexistent W.M.D. and nonexistent connections to Mohamed Atta, he set the stage for a war that now kills Iraqi civilians in rising numbers (34,000-plus last year) that are heading into the genocidal realms of Saddam. Mr. Cheney’s latest sales pitch is for a new plan for “victory” promising an even bigger bloodbath.

Mr. Cheney was honest, at least, when he said that the White House’s Iraq policy would remain “full speed ahead!” no matter what happened on Nov. 7. Now it is our patriotic duty — politicians, the press and the public alike — to apply the brakes. Our failure to check the administration when it rushed into Iraq in 2003 will look even more shameful to history if we roll over again for a reboot in 2007. For all the belated Washington scrutiny of the war since the election, and for all the heralded (if so far symbolic) Congressional efforts to challenge it, too much lip service is still being paid to the deceptive P.R. strategies used by the administration to sell its reckless policies. This time we must do what too few did the first time: call the White House on its lies. Lies should not be confused with euphemisms like “incompetence” and “denial.”

Mr. Cheney’s performance last week on “Fox News Sunday” illustrates the problem; his lying is nowhere near its last throes. Asked by Chris Wallace about the White House’s decision to overrule commanders who recommended against a troop escalation, the vice president said, “I don’t think we’ve overruled the commanders.” He claimed we’ve made “enormous progress” in Iraq. He said the administration is not “embattled.” (Well, maybe that one is denial.)

This White House gang is so practiced in lying with a straight face that it never thinks twice about recycling its greatest hits. Hours after Mr. Cheney’s Fox interview, President Bush was on “60 Minutes,” claiming that before the war “everybody was wrong on weapons of mass destruction” and that “the minute we found out” the W.M.D. didn’t exist he “was the first to say so.” Everybody, of course, was not wrong on W.M.D., starting with the United Nations weapons inspection team in Iraq. Nor was Mr. Bush the first to come clean once the truth became apparent after the invasion. On May 29, 2003 — two days after a secret Defense Intelligence Agency-sponsored mission found no biological weapons in trailers captured by American forces — Mr. Bush declared: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.”

But that’s all W.M.D under the bridge. The most important lies to watch for now are the new ones being reiterated daily by the administration’s top brass, from Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney on down. You know fiasco awaits America when everyone in the White House is reading in unison from the same fictional script, as they did back in the day when “mushroom clouds” and “uranium from Africa” were the daily drumbeat.

The latest lies are custom-made to prop up the new “way forward” that is anything but. Among the emerging examples is a rewriting of the history of Iraq’s sectarian violence. The fictional version was initially laid out by Mr. Bush in his Jan. 10 prime-time speech and has since been repeated on television by both Mr. Cheney and the national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, last Sunday and by Mr. Bush again on PBS’s “NewsHour” on Tuesday. It goes like this: sectarian violence didn’t start spiraling out of control until the summer of 2006, after Sunni terrorists bombed the Golden Mosque in Samarra and forced the Shiites to take revenge.

But as Mark Seibel of McClatchy Newspapers noted last week, “the president’s account understates by at least 15 months when Shiite death squads began targeting Sunni politicians and clerics.” They were visible in embryo long before that; The Times, among others, reported as far back as September 2003 that Shiite militias were becoming more radical, dangerous and anti-American. The reasons Mr. Bush pretends that Shiite killing started only last year are obvious enough. He wants to duck culpability for failing to recognize the sectarian violence from the outset — much as he failed to recognize the Sunni insurgency before it — and to underplay the intractability of the civil war to which he will now sacrifice fresh American flesh.

An equally big lie is the administration’s constant claim that it is on the same page as Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as we go full speed ahead. Only last month Mr. Maliki told The Wall Street Journal that he wished he “could be done with” his role as Iraq’s leader “before the end of this term.” Now we are asked to believe not merely that he is a strongman capable of vanquishing the death squads of the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr, his political ally, but also that he can be trusted to produce the troops he failed to supply in last year’s failed Baghdad crackdown. Yet as recently as November, there still wasn’t a single Iraqi battalion capable of fighting on its own.

Hardly a day passes without Mr. Maliki mocking the White House’s professed faith in him. In the past week or so alone, he has presided over a second botched hanging (despite delaying it for more than two weeks to put in place new guidelines), charged Condi Rice with giving a “morale boost to the terrorists” because she criticized him, and overruled American objections to appoint an obscure commander from deep in Shiite territory to run the Baghdad “surge.” His government doesn’t even try to hide its greater allegiance to Iran. Mr. Maliki’s foreign minister has asked for the release of the five Iranians detained in an American raid on an Iranian office in northern Iraq this month and, on Monday, called for setting up more Iranian “consulates” in Iraq.

The president’s pretense that Mr. Maliki and his inept, ill-equipped, militia-infiltrated security forces can advance American interests in this war is Neville Chamberlain-like in its naiveté and disingenuousness. An American military official in Baghdad read the writing on the wall to The Times last week: “We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem. We are being played like a pawn.” That’s why the most destructive lie of all may be the White House’s constant refrain that its doomed strategy is the only one anyone has proposed. Administration critics, Mr. Cheney said last Sunday, “have absolutely nothing to offer in its place,” as if the Iraq Study Group, John Murtha and Joseph Biden-Leslie Gelb plans, among others, didn’t predate the White House’s own.

In reality we’re learning piece by piece that it is the White House that has no plan. Ms. Rice has now downsized the surge/escalation into an “augmentation,” inadvertently divulging how the Pentagon is improvising, juggling small deployments in fits and starts. No one can plausibly explain how a parallel chain of command sending American and Iraqi troops into urban street combat side by side will work with Iraqis in the lead (it will report to a “committee” led by Mr. Maliki!). Or how $1 billion in new American reconstruction spending will accomplish what the $30 billion thrown down the drain in previous reconstruction spending did not.

All of this replays 2003, when the White House refused to consider any plan, including existing ones in the Pentagon and State Department bureaucracies, for coping with a broken post-Saddam Iraq. Then, as at every stage of the war since, the only administration plan was for a propaganda campaign to bamboozle American voters into believing “victory” was just around the corner.

The next push on the “way forward” propaganda campaign arrives Tuesday night, with the State of the Union address. The good news is that the Democrats have chosen Jim Webb, the new Virginia senator, to give their official response. Mr. Webb, a Reagan administration Navy secretary and the father of a son serving in Iraq, has already provoked a testy exchange about the war with the president at a White House reception for freshmen in Congress. He’s the kind of guy likely to keep a scorecard of the lies on Tuesday night. But whether he does or not, it’s incumbent on all those talking heads who fell for “shock and awe” and “Mission Accomplished” in 2003 to not let history repeat itself in 2007. Facing the truth is the only way forward in Iraq.

, , , , , , , , , ,

Lying Like It’s 2003 (abridged version)

By FRANK RICH
The New York Times
January 21, 2007

Scooter Libby, the mastermind behind the White House’s bogus scenarios for ginning up the war in Iraq, is back at Washington’s center stage, proudly defending the indefensible in a perjury trial. Ahmad Chalabi, the peddler of flawed prewar intelligence hyped by Mr. Libby, is back in clover in Baghdad, where he purports to lead the government’s Shiite-Baathist reconciliation efforts in between visits to his pal Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.

Last but never least is Mr. Libby’s former boss and Mr. Chalabi’s former patron, Dick Cheney, who is back on Sunday-morning television floating fictions about Iraq and accusing administration critics of aiding Al Qaeda. When the vice president went on a tear like this in 2003, hawking Iraq’s nonexistent W.M.D. and nonexistent connections to Mohamed Atta, he set the stage for a war that now kills Iraqi civilians in rising numbers (34,000-plus last year) that are heading into the genocidal realms of Saddam. Mr. Cheney’s latest sales pitch is for a new plan for “victory” promising an even bigger bloodbath.

Mr. Cheney was honest, at least, when he said that the White House’s Iraq policy would remain “full speed ahead!” no matter what happened on Nov. 7. Now it is our patriotic duty — politicians, the press and the public alike — to apply the brakes. Our failure to check the administration when it rushed into Iraq in 2003 will look even more shameful to history if we roll over again for a reboot in 2007. For all the belated Washington scrutiny of the war since the election, and for all the heralded (if so far symbolic) Congressional efforts to challenge it, too much lip service is still being paid to the deceptive P.R. strategies used by the administration to sell its reckless policies. This time we must do what too few did the first time: call the White House on its lies. Lies should not be confused with euphemisms like “incompetence” and “denial.”

[...]

This White House gang is so practiced in lying with a straight face that it never thinks twice about recycling its greatest hits. Hours after Mr. Cheney’s Fox interview, President Bush was on “60 Minutes,” claiming that before the war “everybody was wrong on weapons of mass destruction” and that “the minute we found out” the W.M.D. didn’t exist he “was the first to say so.” Everybody, of course, was not wrong on W.M.D., starting with the United Nations weapons inspection team in Iraq. Nor was Mr. Bush the first to come clean once the truth became apparent after the invasion. On May 29, 2003 — two days after a secret Defense Intelligence Agency-sponsored mission found no biological weapons in trailers captured by American forces — Mr. Bush declared: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.”

But that’s all W.M.D under the bridge. The most important lies to watch for now are the new ones being reiterated daily by the administration’s top brass, from Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney on down. You know fiasco awaits America when everyone in the White House is reading in unison from the same fictional script, as they did back in the day when “mushroom clouds” and “uranium from Africa” were the daily drumbeat.

The latest lies are custom-made to prop up the new “way forward” that is anything but. Among the emerging examples is a rewriting of the history of Iraq’s sectarian violence. The fictional version was initially laid out by Mr. Bush in his Jan. 10 prime-time speech and has since been repeated on television by both Mr. Cheney and the national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, last Sunday and by Mr. Bush again on PBS’s “NewsHour” on Tuesday. It goes like this: sectarian violence didn’t start spiraling out of control until the summer of 2006, after Sunni terrorists bombed the Golden Mosque in Samarra and forced the Shiites to take revenge.

But as Mark Seibel of McClatchy Newspapers noted last week, “the president’s account understates by at least 15 months when Shiite death squads began targeting Sunni politicians and clerics.” They were visible in embryo long before that; The Times, among others, reported as far back as September 2003 that Shiite militias were becoming more radical, dangerous and anti-American. The reasons Mr. Bush pretends that Shiite killing started only last year are obvious enough. He wants to duck culpability for failing to recognize the sectarian violence from the outset — much as he failed to recognize the Sunni insurgency before it — and to underplay the intractability of the civil war to which he will now sacrifice fresh American flesh.

[...]

In reality we’re learning piece by piece that it is the White House that has no plan. Ms. Rice has now downsized the surge/escalation into an “augmentation,” inadvertently divulging how the Pentagon is improvising, juggling small deployments in fits and starts. No one can plausibly explain how a parallel chain of command sending American and Iraqi troops into urban street combat side by side will work with Iraqis in the lead (it will report to a “committee” led by Mr. Maliki!). Or how $1 billion in new American reconstruction spending will accomplish what the $30 billion thrown down the drain in previous reconstruction spending did not.

All of this replays 2003, when the White House refused to consider any plan, including existing ones in the Pentagon and State Department bureaucracies, for coping with a broken post-Saddam Iraq. Then, as at every stage of the war since, the only administration plan was for a propaganda campaign to bamboozle American voters into believing “victory” was just around the corner.

----

* Note: Complete version of this column will be posted when it becomes available.

Governor Brian Schweitzer Delivers Democratic Radio Address


Good morning. I'm Brian Schweitzer, the Governor of Montana, the Big Sky Country.

On Tuesday, President Bush will deliver his annual State of the Union Address. He is expected to talk about the war in Iraq and the need for our country to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I wanted to share some of my thoughts about these topics, which are very important to all Americans.

Along with many people across the country, I have serious concerns about the President's plan to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq. His plan is just more of the same.

I lived and worked in the Middle East for six years, Salam Alaikum to those who speak Arabic. There, I spent time with many Muslim families and like our families in the United States they want opportunities, freedom to work and live as they choose and the ability to make their country a better place for future generations.

Mr. President there are animosities between Sunni and Shiite people in the Middle East that have developed over centuries. Outsiders can not resolve this conflict unless the Iraqi people want security and freedom as least as much as us.

The American people expect, and our troops and military families deserve, a real plan for success in Iraq that includes political solutions as well as military action.

Mr. President I heard you say that you want to embed American troops with the Iraqi army in Baghdad. Please, don't embed our men and women within Baghdad beside untested and potentially corrupt members of the Iraqi military.

We could not be prouder of our men and women in uniform for the role that they play in protecting Americans at home and abroad. No one has sacrificed more than the military families at home who have a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Democratic Governors were helping to reduce our dependence on foreign oil long before President Bush discovered our oil addiction just last year in his last State of the Union Address.

Here in Montana, for example, I have been working hard to promote renewable energy development and conservation, also to promote the development of coal to liquids facility as a bridge to new sustainable energy development and as an important step in reducing Montana's dependence on foreign oil.

Montana is producing renewable forms of energy including wind power and bio-diesel from oil seed crops.

In Kansas, Governor Kathleen Sebelius has been promoting ethanol on the national stage. And she has made alternative energy a priority for her second term. In Pennsylvania, Governor Ed Rendell has set energy efficiency standards for all state government vehicles.

This week I was proud of an action championed by Democrats in Congress. A bill was passed that will repeal $14 billion in subsidies given to big oil companies.

The legislation also creates a Strategic Renewable Energy Reserve to invest in clean, renewable energy resources and alternative fuels, promote new energy technologies, develop greater efficiency and encourage energy conservation.

Last year Montana oil producers increased their oil production and we will increase it again this year. Congress should not be giving subsidies to multinational corporations to develop oil fields for foreign dictators. The market is driving the exploration boom in Montana, not freebies form Congress.

We have enough energy resources and green technology in the United States to enable us to stop relying on foreign dictators to supply us with fuel. Along with a smart strategy in Iraq, our energy independence can make us stronger and safer.

We Americans use 6.5 billion barrels of oil a year. We only produce 2.5 billion ourselves. We import 4 billion from some of the world's worst dictators. I've got a plan.

We can save 1 billion barrels through conservation. Things like more efficient cars, homes and appliances. We can produce another 1 billion barrels of bio-fuels with crops like corn, soybeans, canola and camilina. My hope is Americans can produce 2 billion barrels a year from our enormous coal reserves to a clean-burning fuel for about $1.20 a gallon and for the next fifty years only touch a small fraction of our coal supplies.

We can achieve energy independence in 10 years, create a whole new industry with hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs, and you'll never have to send children and grandchildren to war in the Middle East again.

Mr. President lets create hundreds of thousands of jobs in America by producing our own clean fuels, bring our men and women home, and stop spending money in Iraq.

This is Brian Schweitzer, the Governor of Montana. Thank you for listening. God bless your family and God bless America.

Maestro of the Human Ego


By LEE SIEGEL
The New York Times
January 21, 2007

Review: THE CASTLE IN THE FOREST
By Norman Mailer.
477 pp. Random House. $27.95.

There is a semi-harrowing, careening, self-burlesquing moment that occurs deep in Norman Mailer’s “Armies of the Night,” his third-person account of taking part in the massive protest against the Vietnam War in Washington in October 1967 — not only an American masterpiece, but one of the most liberating books ever swirled into being by a human mind. Mailer has succeeded in getting himself arrested, and he’s thrown into a police wagon with a young American Nazi.

They stare each other down, exchange threats, stand steaming and streaming together in that quickest form of intimacy known as hatred. The Nazi begins the taunting:

“ ‘You Jew bastard,’ he shouted. ‘Dirty Jew with kinky hair.’

“They didn’t speak that way. It was too corny. Yet he could only answer, ‘You filthy Kraut.’

“ ‘Dirty Jew.’

“ ‘Kraut pig.’ ”

Their insults run parallel, their stares converge:

“ ‘Come here, you coward,’ he said to Mailer, ‘I’ll kill you.’

“ ‘Throw the first punch, baby,’ said Mailer, ‘you’ll get it all.’ ” Mailer writes: “They were both absolutely right. They had a perfect sense of the other.” Each was ready to brawl. And what if they should? “In retrospect, it would appear not uncomic — two philosophical monomaniacs with the same flaw — they could not help it, they were counterpunchers.” Then it is back to their inexorable, almost hilarious enmity.

Mailer’s power and allure rest in his being, at once, self-surrendering and astringently assertive. Both qualities are present in the encounter with the Nazi. People who have the gift of melting into another nature usually need to assert themselves all the more so as not to melt away altogether. Actors, for example, often self-destruct because they turn their assertiveness inward, against themselves; Mailer, a sometime film performer and director, is fascinated by the actor’s craft. His bellicose bravado seems to be a stay against the dissolving of his personality and — not always successfully — against self-induced harm.

“They had a perfect sense of the other.” Early on, Mailer understood that in a democracy in which the most radically different types of people are thrown together, a harmonious encounter with “the other” is an American dream (e.g., the national obsession with the Relationship), the reality of which often becomes an American nightmare (e.g., popular culture’s obsession with crime). For the Brooklyn-raised, Jewish, middle-class Mailer, who once wrote about himself that there was “one personality he found absolutely insupportable — the nice Jewish boy from Brooklyn” — a perfect sense of the more extreme forms of otherness became artistic and intellectual mother’s milk.

No surprise, then, that Mailer’s previous novel, “The Gospel According to the Son,” in which he attempted to inhabit Jesus Christ, felt less like a creative vision than a head-butt against eternity. The material had a built-in obstruction to Mailer’s gift of sympathetic self-surrender: Jesus was a nice, middle-class Jewish boy from Nazareth. Now Mailer has returned to the right side, which is to say, the wrong side, of the tracks.

“The Castle in the Forest” — Mailer’s first novel in 10 years — is not just the almost superhumanly detached fulfillment of the somewhat depressed boast he made nearly half a century ago in “Advertisements for Myself”: “I wish to attempt an entrance into the mysteries of murder, suicide, incest, orgy, orgasm and Time.” This remarkable novel about the young Adolf Hitler, his family and their shifting circumstances, is Mailer’s most perfect apprehension of the absolutely alien. No wonder it is narrated by a devil. Mailer doesn’t inhabit these historical figures so much as possess them.

In “The Castle in the Forest,” the devil-narrator — who is living in the body of an SS man named Dieter — tells a little tale about the tale he is telling. “It is more than a memoir and certainly has to be most curious as a biography since it is as privileged as a novel. I do possess the freedom to enter many a mind.” Those two sentences form the crux of Mailer’s originality.

FOR Mailer, a novelist fanatically committed to the truth, the problem of the ego’s relation to other people has been for many years now the problem of the narrator’s relation to his material. In his eyes, writing must be an authentic presentation of the self.

As Mailer sees it, great writing puts before the reader life’s harshest enigmas with clarity and compassion. “The novelist is out there early with a particular necessity that may become the necessity of us all,” he has written. “It is to deal with life as something God did not offer us as eternal and immutable. Rather, it is our human destiny to enlarge what we were given. Perhaps we are meant to clarify a world which is always different in one manner or another from the way we have seen it on the day before.”

And once you have authentically presented yourself in your writing, you can no longer practice the expedience of concealing yourself as a person. So Mailer the man has — sometimes not happily — transgressed social norms, just as his books have crashed through the boundaries of alien identity and literary genre. Yet for all the cross-pollination between his art and his life, Mailer has always insisted on true art as a form of honest living. The writer, as he once put it, “can grow as a person or he can shrink. ... His curiosity, his reaction to life must not diminish. The fatal thing is to shrink, to be interested in less, sympathetic to less, desiccating to the point where life itself loses its flavor, and one’s passion for human understanding changes to weariness and distaste.”

Mailer has never, like the dandy, tried to live aesthetically. When he stabbed his wife at a party in 1960 and when he helped get released from prison a literarily gifted killer who then stabbed an aspiring young playwright to death, it was because he followed the wrong impulses, not the wrong ideas. He never committed the ugliness of insinuating that he screwed up for art’s sake. He let the ugliness and the imprudence of his actions speak for themselves.

Mailer did heedlessly write — in the notorious essay “The White Negro” (published in the democratic-socialist journal Dissent, a most decent, un-notorious little magazine) — that the hypothetical murder of a middle-aged shopkeeper by two hoodlums was an example of “daring the unknown,” of “trying to create a new nervous system,” of “looking for the opportunity to grow up a second time.” It is widely assumed that Mailer was trying to shock the bourgeoisie with a sympathy for violence. But if you read the essay all the way through, you see that he was doing something else: trying to shock the respectable class with an imaginative inhabitation of the violent. Rather than advocating murder, Mailer was exercising his perfect sense of the other — in this instance, “the psychopathic personality” that, he theorized, “may indeed be the perverted and dangerous front-runner of a new kind of personality, which could become the central expression of human nature before the 20th century is over.” Such wild empathy is an insult to the everyday solipsism of “decent” self-interest that sees evil and shrugs. Anyway, how many writers would dare to sacrifice the appearance of sanity for the sake of absolute emotional and intellectual transparency?

A truthful modern writer who possesses the shamanistic “freedom to enter many a mind” might choose to answer the hyperskeptical, Freudian-influenced modern reader’s question: “So who is doing the entering?” In other words, what is the nature of this particular writer’s authority? The postmodernists answer the question by installing layers of artistic self-consciousness inside the work itself. For decades, Mailer has been answering it existentially. “We perceive the truth of a novel by way of the personality of the writer,” he wrote in the introduction to “The Time of Our Time,” a selection of his work published in 1998. “That is the flavor of fiction. We observe the observer.”

So, to allow readers to observe the observer, Mailer writes a novel followed by a nonfiction book that illuminates his state of mind behind the preceding novel; composes essays outlining obsessions that shape his fictions; makes a literal rendering, animated by the novelist’s special clairvoyance, of a real event that Mailer himself lived through and acted in — he swings (“for to swing is to communicate, is to convey the rhythms of one’s own being to a lover, a friend or an audience”) from reports on boxing, Marilyn Monroe, the moon landing and John F. Kennedy, to polemics against feminism and scientific technology, to reflections on totalitarianism from the right and the left, to fiction about socialism, McCarthyism, Hollywood, high society, Lee Harvey Oswald, ancient Egypt and the C.I.A. Mailer’s ambition to “turn the consciousness of our time,” as he once put it, drove the symbolic combustions of private and public life in his early novels “Barbary Shore” and “The Deer Park.” It’s what incited him to run for mayor of New York in 1969.

This restless vastness of Mailer’s ambition (“In motion a man has a chance”) is such that his “failures” are seminal, his professional setbacks groundbreaking. His willingness to fail — hugely, magnificently, life-affirmingly — expands artistic possibilities. Then, too, point to any contemporary literary trend — the collapse of the novel into memoir; the fictional treatment of actual events; the blurred boundaries of “history as a novel, the novel as history” (the subtitle of “The Armies of the Night”) — and there is Mailer, pioneering, perfecting or pulling apart the form.

In fact, he has lived and written so impulsively that his life and his writing each need the other to be completed. That itself conveys a brutal honesty about the limitations of life, and of writing. Or as Mailer once wonderfully and bizarrely complained: “It is not demanding to write about characters considerably more defeated than oneself since the writer’s ego is rarely in danger of being punished by too much self-perception.” In politics, this is called “accountability.” Mailer’s emotional and psychological transparency make his work a kind of ersatz democracy.

One way to take the measure of a writer is by considering the weight, quality and consistency of his obsessions. Mailer, from the beginning, has had a rage for what he calls “nakedness.” It is a passion for emptying his psyche onto the table in front of the reader, much as a person who has just been arrested will be ordered by the police to empty his pockets as he is being booked.

Indeed, Mailer loves freedom so ambitiously that he is never free of the feeling of not being free. Here is Mailer in “The Deer Park,” a Hollywood tale so caustic and seemingly unmediated by art that reading it is, in places, like listening to Maria Callas become all the more vivid as Aida by vulnerably failing to hit her high notes: “The unspoken purpose of freedom was to find love, yet when love was found one could only desire freedom again.” Of the sudden fame and fortune that came to him with the publication of his first book at the age of 25, Mailer wryly recalled: “My farewell to an average man’s experience was too abrupt; never again would I know, in the dreary way one usually knows such things, what it was like to work at a dull job or take orders from a man one hated.” His feeling that early success cut him off from vital, common experience may explain why he has kept diving so purposefully, and extremely, back into experience.

The inaugural book was “The Naked and the Dead,” and it was the first instance of Mailer’s obsession with being “naked” in public.

Mailer originally used the title for a play based on his brief employment in a mental institution during his college years at Harvard. He chose it again for his epic tale about World War II, inspired by his service as a rifleman, among other duties, in the South Pacific. Nakedness in this novel means the dehumanizing process by which war’s atmosphere of death strips soldiers down to their bare, defenseless essence as mortal beings. In war, men are returned to their original state; they are reborn helplessly into the world. Inter faeces et urinam.

But as his career evolved, Mailer began to invest the word with a contrary import. Nakedness came to mean the way Mailer the man and the writer bared his impulses, desires, instincts and thoughts — mortality as a cry of defiance against mortality. Nakedness in public, saying the unsayable, becomes a form of power.

Mailer’s divulgences involve writing about his envy, bitterness, selfishness and greed, about the effect of the slings and arrows rained down on his own lustful, fearful, grasping, always faltering, always charging ego. In “Advertisements for Myself,” Mailer rued the critic-inflicted wounds that resulted in “three or four years of constipated work, lack of confidence, cowardly sweetness and bouts of churlishness”; took vicious measure of rivals like Bellow (“I cannot take him seriously as a major novelist”), Styron, Salinger and Baldwin, among others; and reprinted the belligerent inscription he’d written on a copy of “The Deer Park” that he sent Hemingway. Papa’s failure to acknowledge it “helped to push me further and deeper into the next half year of bold assertions, half-done work, unbalanced heroics and an odd notoriety of my own choice.” Has any consequential American writer scoured himself so thoroughly and alarmingly in public? Mailer writes like a Puritan without a superego.

To Mailer’s mind, such self-exposure earned him the entitlement to write about other people’s envy, bitterness, selfishness and greed. This is how he addressed his Greenwich Village readers in 1956, in the first column he wrote for The Village Voice, which he had recently co-founded: “That many of you are frustrated in your ambitions, and undernourished in your pleasures, only makes you more venomous. ... Nevertheless, given your general animus to those more talented than yourselves, the only way I see myself becoming one of the cherished traditions of the Village is to be actively disliked each week.” He was probably right; still, that was one short-lived column. The assaults of his reviewers also justified Mailer’s own ferocity in criticism. In his antifeminist tirade, “The Prisoner of Sex,” he lashes Kate Millet: “The yaws of her distortion were nicely hidden by the smudge pots of her indignation.”

Baring your private demons in order to expose other people’s — including your rivals’ — has been for Mailer a type of anti-macho courage. He set out to map the dark underside of the American ego just as Hemingway had anatomized American nerve. In a country openly driven by self-interest and self-absorption, the ego’s hidden bruises and connivings are too fundamental to be openly discussed.

Reflecting in the 1950s on his “fear of homosexuality,” Mailer wrote that “I could kill this inhibition only by jumping into the middle of the problem without any clothes.” That is, only by confessing his aversion and apologizing for it in print, which he did, bravely, in “Advertisements for Myself.” Nakedness again. Throughout his career, Mailer has eccentrically, 19th-centurily, associated any self-repression with death by cancer. (When Susan Sontag protested figurative interpretations of physical disease in “Illness as Metaphor,” she was, to a large extent, responding to Mailer.) Mailer is one of the last Western writers to create a self-contained intellectual universe out of strong, idiosyncratic convictions about the relationship between spiritual, psychic and social existence. In his autonomous creative world, heterosexual anal sex is the power-replenishing and very good (for the man) alternative to banal sex; masturbation is power-depleting and very bad; homosexuality is regrettable, but dignified; condoms are dreadful (a conclusion reached in the era before AIDS); and unprotected sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is What It Is All About. And that’s just sex. According to Mailer, technology makes us strut like puffed-up little gods and sucks the air out of intellect and will.

Ours is an age of mockery and sarcasm, when even irony is belittled for being secretly sincere about its lack of conviction. People wring their hands over the Fate of the Novel, but no one seems comfortable with a novelistic approach — i.e., a universalizing intuition expanding through a fresh perception — in nonfiction. Mailer’s theories are the hyperorganizing overflow of a novelist’s mind, which by its nature leaps back and forth between intuition and experience. As he puts it, there is little he has written, “even when it comes under the formal category of nonfiction or argument, that has not derived, then, from my understanding of how one writes fiction.” And so, “fiction, as I use the word, is a reality that does not cohere to received axes of fact but is breathed in through the swarm of our male and female movements about one another.”

To not cohere to received axes of fact — magical phrase! — to approach life novelistically, is to make connections between the visible and the invisible world, and to transfigure the commonplace. We now are drowning in mind-numbing literature of the commonplace: tipping points, hive minds, “freakonomics,” “bobos in paradise” — it is all lifestyle trends, marketing techniques, cheap behavioral psychology and glib social-pattern-spotting. This flood of minutiae makes one long for Mailer’s heroic attempts to invest experience with a higher meaning, no matter how far-out or unacceptable some of his connections between seen and unseen might be. Even if such notions offend household pieties, they have the effect of making you return fully awake to first principles that had begun to make you snore. And when Mailer’s connections work, they are beyond good.

In his book about Marilyn Monroe, he wrote, “Since sex is, after all, the most special form of human communication, and the technological society is built on expanding communication in much the way capitalism was built on the expansive properties of capital and money, the perspective is toward greater promiscuity.” If you are seeking an explanation for why pornography takes up most of the Internet, there it is.

At the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Mailer observed that some of Mayor Richard Daley’s “Illinois goons” had “eyes like drills; others, noses like plows; jaws like amputated knees.” Reporting on the Republican convention in Miami, in that same year, Mailer observed that Nelson Rockefeller “had only one flaw — an odd and unpleasant mouth, a catfish mouth, wide, unnaturally wide with very thin lips. In the center of the mouth there seemed almost another mouth which did the speaking.” In all of these transfiguring passages, Mailer bores into familiar particulars and comes out on the other side with a poetic singularity.

This capacity to draw out new meaning from personalities and events may explain why Mailer is the only major American novelist to be really canny about politics. The subject worked Bellow up into sulfurous apocalyptics; it turns Updike coy and indifferent; it transforms savage, uncontainable Roth into a good old-fashioned Upper West Side liberal. But Mailer’s wild empathy endows his vintage political writing with a wild, visceral prescience.

He understands, for example, that consummate insiders are often temperamental outsiders — outlaws in the good or bad sense of the word. Here he is on John Erlichmann’s testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee in July 1973, in which an outsider’s character and dignity suddenly upended the insider’s sordid malfeasance: “He acted as if he were proud to be on the side he was on; his pride was what could not be suffered. For it spoke of a world whose real complexity could savage a liberal brain. Liberals could certainly live with the hot idea that they were fighting Mephisto’s own Nixon, but they couldn’t support the Kierkegaardian complexity that the good guys might be right next to the bad guys on the same team.” A lesser writer would treat the insider/outsider paradox as merely a lesson in hypocrisy. For Mailer it is further proof that the world “is always different in one manner or another from the way we have seen it on the day before.” His grasp of power’s myriad facets gives some of his political predictions a visionary accuracy.

Almost 40 years ago, in “The Armies of the Night,” Mailer characterized himself as a “left conservative,” thus envisioning a syncretic position that is now the holy grail of the best ideological aspiration. At the 1968 Republican convention, gazing at the legions of conservatives around him, Mailer realized that their faith “existed in those crossroads between the psyche and the heart where love, hate, the cognition of grace, the all but lost sense of the root, and adoration of America congregate for some.” He was the first serious liberal to take conservatives seriously — that is to say, novelistically. At his best (his post-9/11 politics have taken a turn into a kind of forced occultism), he writes about America as though he were an expatriate living in a Beautiful Idea of America, from which exile he notates the shadowy degrees between ideal and real.

No political foresight of Mailer’s can surpass the prediction he made in 1962, at the height of the cold war, in a debate with William F. Buckley Jr.: “So let the true war begin. It is not a war between West and East, between capitalism and Communism, or democracy and totalitarianism; it is rather the deep war which has gone on for six centuries in the nature of Western man, it is the war between the conservative and the rebel, between authority and instinct.” It was, he went on, “the war we can expect if the cold war will end. It is the war that will take life and power from the center and give it over to left and to right, it is the war that will teach us our meaning.” And he said this before the cultural conflagrations ignited by the ’60s, which burn deeper and wider now.

One quality separates Mailer from many of his heavy-hitting contemporaries. He went to war. The Army revealed to Mailer the variety and breadth of American society. But war made him a storyteller who has a deep mistrust of narrative.

The sprawl and chaos of battle are not unlike the sprawl and chaos of a human life — or on a larger scale, democracy itself. In “The Naked and the Dead,” Mailer wrote a classic narrative. But then, as though the war had gradually seeped through his nerves into his imagination, Mailer’s novels slowly moved away from conventional plots and story lines. The stunningly compressed social-sexual symmetries of “Barbary Shore,” “The Deer Park” and “An American Dream” burst into the form-exploding streams of consciousness in “Why Are We in Vietnam?” and then were stretched into long, messy, fictionalized actual lives and events in the controlled chaos and sprawl of “The Executioner’s Song,” “Ancient Evenings” (a flawed tour-de-force of alien inhabitation) and “Harlot’s Ghost.”

The greatest of these is “The Executioner’s Song,” which tells the true story of Gary Gilmore, a man doomed to violence who spent half his life in jail and, upon his release, murdered two men in cold blood. Sentenced to death row, Gilmore could have staved off execution indefinitely by legal means, but instead tried to kill himself several times, defied his lawyers’ attempts to appeal and finally insisted on being put to death by firing squad. The uncanny dynamic driving the book gradually shifts from portraying Gilmore as a violent mythomaniac at war with society, to depicting a ruthlessly mythologizing media at war with Gilmore’s ragged soul, as Gilmore himself works the levers of mass spectacle. Once back in jail, the consummate outsider discovers he has an insider’s temperament — inside prison, having become a media sensation, he discovers the quiddity of America’s madness.

With its breathtaking panorama sweeping from the country’s small-time depths to its big-time shallows, “The Executioner’s Song” was like “The Naked and the Dead” stateside — or, given Mailer’s heightened powers at the midpoint of his career, “War and Peace” translated into the Great American Novel. The book’s sprawl made it the anti-“In Cold Blood”: where Capote pressed his real-life tale into a neat narrative, Mailer let his naturally respire through the billion pores of its accumulated, enveloping facts. The language is flat, smooth, shaved down, as if Mailer had produced his words by running a carpenter’s plane over reality. It is the fulfillment of Hemingway’s style: it has the same spare, unforgiving, unflinching neutrality, but without Hemingway’s deliberate literary manner. In an inspired stroke, Mailer separates his paragraphs with a double space, making them the typographical equivalent of Gilmore’s Utah County, where “the desert was at the end of every street.” The technique also lets him capture how American experience seems to consist of disconnected moments, each one possessing an isolated magnitude, as though you were advancing minute by minute into the future out of no past, from one eternal present to another.

In “The Executioner’s Song,” Mailer at last found the right relationship of the narrator to his material. He completely effaces his personality, but because the environment he recreates brims with his much publicized themes and obsessions — sex, violence, power, repression, displacement; all in the pursuit of happiness — the story itself becomes an actor in Mailer’s pre-existing universe. The novel is free of his presence and full of his presence, overtly self-surrendering and subtly self-assertive, written not in the first- or third- but in a kind of spectral fourth-person. Mailer the author becomes as simultaneously real and unreal as Gilmore — as America itself.

For all that, the bounty of “The Executioner’s Song” is its compassion: neither sentimental nor judgmental; large-hearted in its poise and reserve. The book has no marginal or “flat” characters. Each figure possesses the roundness of his or her real life. Perhaps that’s why so many sentences in “The Executioner’s Song” begin with a proper name or pronoun. The overflowing force of Mailer’s egotism endows him with respect for the power and capacity of other people’s egos. But his rarest and most precious quality is that he is able to see the most alien people in the familiar way they see themselves. Which brings us to Mailer’s new novel.

Toward the end of “The Castle in the Forest,” Dieter, the novel’s devil-narrator, imagines a question from the reader: “Dieter, where is the link to your text? There is a lot of forest in your story but where is the castle?”

Dieter replies that in German “The Castle in the Forest” is das Waldschloss, a name, he says, that some Jews gave to the particular concentration camp in which they were imprisoned. In fact, Dieter explains, “Waldschloss sits on the empty plain of what was once a potato field. Not many trees are in sight, nor any hint of a castle. Nothing of interest is on the horizon. Waldschloss became, therefore, the appellation given by the brightest of the prisoners to their compound. One pride maintained to the end was that they must not surrender their sense of irony. That had become their fortitude. It should come as no surprise that the prisoners who came up with this piece of nomenclature were from Berlin.”

Dieter’s weird and unique riff on the nature of German irony follows, and for the sake of understanding this richly enigmatic book it has to be quoted in full: “German came to us originally as the language of simple folk, good pagan brutes and husbandmen, tribal people, ready for the hunt and the field. So it is a language full of the growls of the stomach and the wind in the bowels of hearty existence, the bellows of the lungs, the hiss of the windpipe, the cries of command that one issues to domesticated animals, even the roar that stirs in the throat at the sight of blood. Given, however, the imposition laid on this folk through the centuries — that they be ready to enter the amenities of Western civilization before the opportunity passes away from them altogether — I do not find it surprising that many of the German bourgeoisie who had migrated into city life from muddy barnyards did their best to speak in voices as soft as the silk of a sleeve. Particularly, the ladies.” He adds: “To every sharp German fellow, however, particularly the Berliners, irony had to become the essential corrective.”

“The Castle in the Forest” is a story about simple folk and good pagan brutes from the muddy barnyard, a tale narrated by a devil whose voice is soft as the silk of a sleeve, and written in the spirit of a corrective irony. The young Adolf Hitler, his parents, siblings, stepsiblings and extended family are stuck in the sty of their instincts, immediate gratifications, primitive fears and terrors, yet nearly each of them — the men, especially — feels that he is living a noble, honorable, admirable life.

Mailer the wild empathizer, the maestro of the human ego, is keen and blunt about these delusions — what, in effect, are the deceptively homey psychological origins of evil. At one point the devil says: “We are keyed to look for excess of every kind,” and “every exaggeration of honest sentiment is there to serve our aims.” Elsewhere he notes: “People had to be wary of feeling too saintly, since they could not be certain of the source of such feelings. They could be working for Satan.” And also: “Rare was the man or woman who did not possess an intense sense of the injustice done to them each day. It was our taproot to every adult. It was a fury in every child.” The “ability to wall up the most unpalatable facts about oneself will always elicit my unwilling admiration.”

These walled-in sentiments produce in the Hitlers (their name passed through various changes) the delusion that their conscience inhabits a castle, when in fact, they are so subject to the primal ooze of their feelings that they resemble trees fixed in nature’s irresistible forces. “The Castle in the Forest” is an intricately constructed novel, and one of its recurrent motifs is the explicit comparison of people to trees. The devil finds the “taproot” to his clients. After (unforgettably described) sex with Adolf’s future father, Alois Schicklgruber, Hitler’s future mother, Klara Poelzl, experiences a guilt that is “as heavy as a waterlogged tree.” Another character is “bent by now as a tree that has faced too much wind for too many years.” At one point, Mailer potently describes woods in which there were “not too many tortured shapes to suggest the aftermath of crazy storms when the trees were young.” In a travesty of nature and procreation, the young Adolf Hitler likes to masturbate on leaves.

Somewhere along the line, Dieter remarks on “that curious human nature, which forces its way into existence between the hazards of urine and excrement, yet will later dream each night of a noble life.” Inter faeces et urinam, another of this novel’s themes, is a further twist on “nakedness” and on mortal helplessness. These tree-people remain stuck infantlike in the waste amid which they were born — Alois, the pathologically womanizing customs official; Klara, his wife and niece, who hides in the folds of escapist religious piety her instinctive knowledge that she is in fact Alois’s daughter; Adolf, whose onanistic sessions are like “being shot out of his own cannon.” They are all — spiritually, emotionally and mentally — as naked as the day they came into the world. In the case of Adolf, he will defensively transmute his naked helplessness into a perverted egotism: the terrible power that he will wreak on other human beings.

Mailer is pretty faithful to the outlines of Hitler’s life, though for some reason he makes Adolf’s sister Paula retarded, when in reality she was not. (Nor was there ever a concentration camp referred to as Waldschloss.) Mailer does take two considerable liberties. He gives Hitler only one testicle, and makes him the product of father-daughter incest. Rumors of both began circulating after Hitler’s suicide in 1945; Mailer makes actual what no one can prove or disprove. The incest is essential to Mailer’s purpose. Ever since Wagner celebrated the brother-sister coupling of Siegmund and Sieglinde in “Die Walküre” — a superlove greater than piddly human morality, etc. — some Nazis had thrilled to the idea of hatching the master race in the family rec room, a disagreeable impulse they then projected outward onto their image of depraved, incestuous Jews.

For Mailer, incest represents the sick inversion of everything he cherishes: expansion of the self beyond one’s origins; the gift of empathy with the other; the ability to sublimate love into work and vice versa. Even the Hitler family’s most strenuous attempt at the last backfires. Alois’s passion to redeem his life with work as a beekeeper turns disastrously into a warped lesson in crushing utilitarianism and social control — a lesson not lost on young “Adi.” Nature itself, unresisted by an enlightened human will, backfires. The real “castle” is the repulsive parody of a castle: the squalid hut of a master beekeeper called Der Alte, a sadist and child molester who is the most consequential of Adolf’s twisted mentors.

Insofar as the forest represents natural goodness (Mailer beautifully has the devil suggest that “even processed paper still contains an ineluctable hint of the tenderness God put into his trees” ), “forest” and “castle” are, you might say, the two poles of Mailer’s work and life. The popular conception of Mailer sees only the former: unrestrained expression of impulses and instincts; sex as freedom; absolute candor as ineluctable hint of God’s presence. But Mailer is also an immensely disciplined craftsman and stylist who has spent the larger portion of his life working at the writer’s trade. He is a castle builder expert in the different paths along which people can wander and become lost in a forest without a castle, and yet trick themselves into thinking that they inhabit a resplendent fortress or chateau. Perhaps in some subtle way, he wants in this late novel to make clear the difference between tortured, and mostly sublimated, obsession with sex and violence — a nice Jewish boy’s boxing match with repression — and the compulsive sex and violence that are the true mark of a repressed nature.

Over the gates to Auschwitz hung a sign that said, with inhuman irony, “Arbeit Macht Frei.” Work makes you free. By titling his castle-less book “The Castle in the Forest,” Mailer has created, with infinitely human irony, the inner story of the deluded minds that, inadvertently and not, laid the road that led to Auschwitz. Some critics may exaggerate Mailer’s occasional easy moral equivalences, and his handful of dog-eared, though hardly invalid, allusions to the diabolical nature of art. They may also mistake the presence of his hallmark obsessions for narcissistic anachronism — in which case they will not only fail to enjoy the devil’s fabulous cadenza on bad odors and the nature of evil, but be blind to the role of sexuality in human history. They will also miss the profound moral engagement of this book. Mailer has imagined himself into a raw propinquity to evil without losing either his nerve or his humanity. He uses his sense of the other to inhabit people devoid (except for the otherworldly Dieter) of his other-apprehending gift.

There is no weary celebration of the demonic here, no facile declaration of evil’s universal latency. Mailer, who believes in God and the Devil the way Greeks and Romans believed in meddling supernatural rivals, has never had sympathy for the Devil, and he has none here. “Our aim, after all,” Dieter says of Satan’s purposes, “was to keep reducing human possibilities.” Far from being a smooth minion of dapper Mephistopheles, Dieter is, for one thing, an awful storyteller. To readers unwilling to have the novel interrupted by Dieter’s account of his assignment to the coronation of Nicholas II in Russia — Mailer’s Tolstoyan reimagination of that time and event — Dieter says sloppily: “Just turn to Page 261. Adolf Hitler’s story will pick up again right there.” Mailer has contempt for this devil, surpassed only by his loathing for young Adolf. Yet Mailer is also in awe of the devil’s multifarious nature. Dieter coquettishly insinuates that he wishes to betray Satan and go over to the side of the “Dummkopf,” a name Satan insists his legions call God so as to conjure a derisive image of a being who has a great, magnetic claim on their respect. (Mailer would be a fearsome adversary in the arena of office politics.) It is Dieter’s very complexity — “real complexity could savage a liberal brain” — that inflames Mailer and which he thus conscientiously evokes. Dieter says, “Yet is it not also true that one cannot find a devil who will not work both sides of the street?” The use of a triple negative to express evil’s protean and malleable nature, with its echo of Christ being thrice denied, is itself a multifarious malediction on evil, rising into art from the heave and toss of Mailer’s temperament. Alone among American writers, Mailer has earned the right to use a triple negative. So let it be said, once and for all: Norman Mailer is a rebellious angel who never fell. Whoever told him that he has fallen, got it; in the words of the younger Mailer to that other type of Nazi, they got it all. They are getting it again, in this utterly strange work of naked, wild empathy.
Link

Web Site Hit Counters
High Speed Internet Services