2020年11月13日 星期五

Why virtue matters

Lessons from the Trump years
Author Headshot

By Jamelle Bouie

Opinion Columnist

“A republic,” the historian Gordon S. Wood wrote in “The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787,” “was such a delicate polity precisely because it demanded an extraordinary moral character in the people. Every state in which the people participated needed a degree of virtue; but a republic which rested solely on the people absolutely required it. Although a particular structural arrangement of the government in a republic might temper the necessity for public virtue, ultimately ‘no model of government whatever can equal the importance of this principle, nor afford proper safety and security without it.’”

Or, as James Madison would put it in the early days of American democracy, ordinary people had to have sufficient “virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom” or else “no theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure.”

The Trump years, up to and including this past week, have been a testament to the essential truth of this observation. There is no amount of checks and balances — no rules or laws or norms — that can make up for a lack of virtue, either among the people or among our public officials. Our institutions may, in the end, survive these years of chaos and disorder. Still, it’s been degrading to the country and to its individual citizens to watch as so many of our elected leaders lie and cheat and steal for nothing more than self-interest and personal gain.

It breeds cynicism, and that cynicism will be the fuel for the next Donald Trump, whether it’s someone new or the original, back in four years to make another bid for power.

ADVERTISEMENT

What I Wrote

My Friday column was on the Electoral College, which came uncomfortably close to producing a major crisis of legitimacy and which makes it possible for Trump and his enablers to try to overturn the results of the election:

As recently as Wednesday, according to a report by my colleague Maggie Haberman, President Trump was pressing his aides on whether Republican legislatures in key states could overturn the results of the presidential election and pick pro-Trump electors, potentially giving him a second term. It’s not likely, but the fact that it is even theoretically possible is one of the most starkly undemocratic elements of the Electoral College. If it actually happened, in 2020 or the future, it would mark the end of American democracy as we know it.

Now Reading

Alex Pareene on the problem of political messaging in The New Republic.

Rosie Gray and Ruby Cramer on the life and death of Herman Cain at Buzzfeed.

Alberto Toscano on “racial fascism” in Boston Review.

Michelle Ruiz profiles Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for Vanity Fair.

David Bentley Hart on socialism for Commonweal magazine.

ADVERTISEMENT

Feedback

If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week’s newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at jamelle-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Photo of the Week

The line to vote at Charlottesville City Hall in Virginia.Jamelle Bouie

I spent Election Day, and the days leading up to it, riding around to polling stations and photographing the voting process. I believe this photo was from one of the last days of early voting, possibly Halloween, when the long line included folks in costume, like this woman in a banana suit.

ADVERTISEMENT

For reasons I can’t quite articulate, a person standing in line to vote while wearing a banana suit feels like the perfect representation of this election season.

Now Eating: Beans and Garlic Toast in Broth

Lately, I haven’t had the energy to make interesting or impressive meals. I’ve found myself falling back on very simple preparations, from ingredients I almost always have on hand. This recipe, from my colleague Tejal Rao, is one of those. The only thing that takes any time is the beans. Everything else is very straightforward. I use bread from a local bakery and a high-quality extra-virgin olive oil from a local grocer. I love the flavor of garlic, so I usually use four cloves instead of two when making the beans, and I’ll roast a head of garlic for spreading on the toast.

Ingredients

For the beans

  • 1 cup dried beans, such as cannellini or cranberry
  • 1 small onion, peeled
  • 2 garlic cloves, peeled
  • Up to 4 ounces Parmesan rinds
  • 2 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil
  • 1 teaspoon kosher salt

For assembly

  • 4 thick slices crusty sourdough bread
  • Extra-virgin olive oil
  • 1 garlic clove, peeled
  • 2 tablespoons parsley leaves, chopped
  • 1 tablespoon marjoram leaves, chopped
  • Flaky sea salt, finely grated Parmesan and freshly ground black pepper, for serving

Directions

If you remember, soak the beans in cold water overnight, or for 10 to 12 hours. Rinse beans, and place in a large heavy-bottomed pot with onion, garlic, Parmesan rinds, olive oil and salt. Cover beans with water, so that the water level is a couple of inches above the beans, and bring to a boil, then turn heat down so that it’s simmering gently. Put a lid on the pot, and cook until beans are tender, adding more water as needed to keep the beans submerged. This could take 1 to 2 hours or more, depending on the beans and whether or not you soaked them. (If you’re using an electric pressure cooker: Add 5 cups water, set the machine to high pressure and cook for 25 minutes, then allow the machine to slowly depressurize on its own.)

Use a spoon to fish out the onion, garlic and cheese rinds; discard. Taste a couple of beans along with the broth. It should be opaque and slightly creamy; adjust the seasoning with more salt if needed.

Brush both sides of each piece of bread with olive oil, and place on a foil-lined sheet pan. Run the pan under the broiler for 2 minutes, so that the bread is crisp at the edges and nicely toasted, then flip bread and repeat. While the bread is still hot, rub a garlic clove along one side of each piece, as if you were grating the garlic on the bread, pushing just firmly enough for the clove to fray and dissolve slightly into the bread.

To assemble, place a piece of bread at the bottom of four wide, shallow bowls and ladle hot beans and broth on top. Wait a few seconds for the bread to absorb some broth, then ladle a little extra on each one, so that it’s swimming. Garnish the bowls generously: Drizzle olive oil all over the beans, sprinkle with herbs and flaky sea salt, cover with finely grated Parmesan and grind a little black pepper on top.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Jamelle Bouie from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

On Tech: Food delivery is magical thinking

We are missing a chance to see alternative food delivery ideas that could work better.

Food delivery is magical thinking

Miriam Persand

The food delivery company DoorDash on Friday offered the public its first full look at the company’s business and finances. It was mostly not pretty, and it was laced with magical thinking.

The great myth of U.S. food delivery apps like DoorDash, Uber Eats and Postmates is that these operations will someday become gloriously efficient. This belief is luring people and businesses into digital habits that may be unsustainable mirages, and preventing alternative food delivery ideas that could actually work better for everyone involved.

The grand idea behind food delivery services posits that, at some point, kitchens will churn out perfectly prepared and packaged meals that they hand off seamlessly to the app delivery couriers without them having to lift a finger or idle in their cars.

So many Americans will order food, the theory goes, that the couriers will be able to drop off orders in a beautiful ballet of stops for miles and miles. Maybe they can drop off groceries, packages or other necessities on their way, too. As I said: gloriously efficient.

Maybe. But more likely, this is wrong. Food delivery services in the United States are fighting an ugly, inefficient, fragmented war, and it will likely be that way for a long time.

ADVERTISEMENT

Details that DoorDash disclosed for its planned initial public offering of stock shows that, as expected, the company is growing quickly particularly during the pandemic but is mostly wildly unprofitable. For most of its existence, DoorDash’s costs for each delivery have on average exceeded the sales each order has generated.

DoorDash is not an isolated hot mess. All of America’s food delivery app companies have mostly lost money, even at a time when people are ordering more takeout and delivery. DoorDash’s document also had the predictable promises of “efficient logistics” and plans to someday offer widespread delivery of more than just meals. There was even a chart that illustrated the myth.

More likely, food delivery companies will continue to struggle — along with the diners, restaurants and couriers — because the system is broken and built on a deception of future perfect productivity, as the business columnist Josh Barro wrote for New York magazine.

The reason I get stupidly angry about the myth of food delivery apps is that it has warped our brains — and not just for this kind of service.

ADVERTISEMENT

The myth of future glorious efficiency has gotten many of us to believe that Uber rides, Amazon orders and Thai meals delivered by app are low-mess and have no consequences. The companies behind these services have encouraged this idea because it sounds great to both their investors and their customers. But internet services that operate in the real world can’t be perfectly efficient because they involve people, not just pixels.

There are a zillion unpredictable steps from click to a burrito, an Uber driver or Amazon package arriving at your door. It can be made more efficient and less onerous for the people involved, but it will always be a war to your door with consequences for the workers, customers, small businesses, traffic, the environment and more. (Amazon at least turns a profit, unlike Uber or the food delivery apps.)

In his brilliant rant about food delivery apps, the technology writer Ranjan Roy put his finger on another reason food delivery apps rub me the wrong way: They are a subversion of the efficient free market.

Even though the services don’t work as they currently exist in most places, they press on because they have tons of cash and supporters who believe that they will eventually be efficient enough everywhere to survive and thrive. This means we are missing a chance to see alternative food delivery ideas that could work better.

ADVERTISEMENT

Maybe, as Roy suggested, viable food delivery services look more like Domino’s Pizza or other restaurants that deliver their own food; industrial kitchens that churn out meals only for delivery; or something else that no one can imagine because instead we have food delivery apps that can’t survive on their own.

We don’t know what we’re missing because of the great lie that food delivery apps — as they exist — will work in some future that’s just around the corner.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Before we go …

  • Credit to Twitter for offering a real peek under the hood: YouTube and Facebook presented some cherry-picked data on how much angry shouting about politics dominated their sites around the U.S. election. Twitter shared with my colleague Kate Conger some helpful data, including on how its labeling of some tweets as potentially false election information reduced the number of times people shared those messages.
  • Seriously, COME ON: Vermont’s largest hospital has been working for more than two weeks to break free from a cyberattack that locked its staff out of computer systems and limited the hospital’s ability to provide chemotherapy treatments, my colleague Nicole Perlroth reported. She has written extensively about the risk of often financially motivated cyberattacks on hospitals.
  • “How the hell are we supposed to control our eyes?” The Washington Post writes about students and instructors who are fighting back against online test-taking software that tries to detect cheating by remotely monitoring people’s eye movements, web scrolling and other computer activities.

Hugs to this

I know it’s long past Halloween, but I can’t stop thinking about this video of zoo animals munching on discarded jack-o’-lanterns. The anteater shoving its snout into a pumpkin is my favorite.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018