Itemoids

Earth

The Polite Zealotry of Mike Johnson

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2023 › 10 › polite-zealotry-mike-johnson › 675845

This story seems to be about:

In an interview last week on Fox News, the newly elected speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, told host Sean Hannity, “Someone asked me today in the media, ‘People are curious, what does Mike Johnson think about any issue under the sun?’ I said, ‘Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That’s my worldview.’”

For many politicians, that would be a throwaway line. But not for Mike Johnson. When he told a Baptist newspaper in 2016, “My faith informs everything I do,” he meant it. His faith is his lodestar.

But faith, including the Christian faith, manifests itself in many different ways, with a wide range of presuppositions and perspectives. There is no single worldview among Christians—nor in the Bible itself, which is multivocal, written over thousands of years by dozens of different writers. Christians today disagree profoundly on countless doctrinal issues. And does any serious student of Scripture not see differences between the worldview of the Pentateuch and the prophets, between the slaughter of the Canaanites and the Sermon on the Mount?

So what do we know about the faith and the worldview of Mike Johnson?

Johnson, 51, has deep ties to the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination. He believes in a literal reading of the Bible, including the Book of Genesis. Johnson is a close friend of Ken Ham, the CEO and founder of Answers in Genesis, and provided legal services to that ministry in 2015.

[Joshua Benton: Where is Mike Johnson’s ironclad oath?]

Answers in Genesis rejects evolution and believes that the universe is 6,000 years old; to believe anything else would be to undermine the authority of the Bible. “We’re not just about creation/evolution, the age of the Earth or fossils,” Ham told Johnson and his wife, Kelly, on their podcast. “We’re really on about the authority of the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ and helping equip people to have a true Christian worldview.” Johnson is enthusiastically on board; he has suggested that school shootings are the result of having taught generations of Americans “that there’s no right or wrong, that it’s about survival of the fittest, and you evolve from the primordial slime.”

Johnson wants churches to be more politicized; he favors overturning the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which prevents churches from engaging in any political campaign activity if they want to keep their tax-exempt status. He also believes that churches are unceasingly under assault, and that Christian viewpoints “are censored and silenced.”

In the 2000s, Johnson was an attorney and spokesman for the Alliance Defense Fund, known today as Alliance Defending Freedom. It describes itself as “one of the leading Christian law firms committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, marriage and family, parental rights, and the sanctity of life.” Johnson has written in favor of criminalizing gay sex. He has called abortion a “holocaust.” And he argued that “prevailing judicial philosophy” in the 2005 right-to-die case involving Terri Schiavo, a severely brain-damaged Florida woman, was “no different than Hitler’s.”

“Some people are called to pastoral ministry and others to music ministry,” he’s said. “I was called to legal ministry, and I’ve been out on the front lines of the ‘culture war.’”

He has surely been that.

But in order to better understand Johnson’s worldview, it’s important to recognize the influence of David Barton on the new House speaker.

In 2021, Johnson spoke at a gathering where he praised Barton. Barton, while not well known outside of certain evangelical and fundamentalist circles, is significant within them. A graduate of Oral Roberts University with a degree in Christian education, Barton is the former vice chair of the Texas Republican Party and has advised figures including Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and former Representative Michele Bachmann. He considers Donald Trump one of the five greatest presidents in American history.

Johnson said he was introduced to Barton’s work a quarter of a century ago; it “has had such a profound influence on me and my work and my life and everything I do.” By all accounts that is true. If you listen to Johnson speak on the “so-called separation of Church and state” and claim that “the Founders wanted to protect the church from an encroaching state, not the other way around,” you will hear echoes of Barton.  

Although not a historian, Barton has for years been engaged in what he calls “historical reclamation,” by which he means showing that the Founders, including Thomas Jefferson, were Christian men determined to create a Christian nation. In 1988 he founded Wallbuilders, an organization that promotes the idea that the separation of Church and state is a myth.

“It’s really hard to overstate the influence that Barton has had in conservative evangelical spaces,” the Calvin University historian Kristin Kobes Du Mez, the author of Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation, told Politico. “For them, he has really defined America as a Christian nation.”

“What that means is that he kind of takes conservative, white evangelical ideals from our current moment, and says that those were all baked into the Constitution, and that God has elected America to be a special nation, and that the nation will be blessed if we respond in obedience and maintain that, and not if we go astray,” she continued. “It really fuels evangelical politics and the idea that evangelicalism has a special role to play to get the country back on track.”

“David Barton is a political propagandist, he’s a Christian-right activist who cherry picks from the past to promote political agendas in the present, to paint a picture of America’s history as evangelicals would like it to be,” John Fea, the chair of the history department at the evangelical Messiah University, told NBC News. “Mike Johnson comes straight out of that Christian-right world, where Barton’s ideas are highly influential. It’s the air they breathe.”

In 2012, Barton wrote The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson. Among other things, he argued that Jefferson was a “conventional Christian” despite the fact that Jefferson questioned many of the core tenets of Christianity. Martin Marty, a historian of religion, said it would have been better titled “Barton’s Lies about Jefferson.” “As a piece of historical scholarship, the book is awful,” the Wheaton historian Tracy McKenzie wrote, deeming it “relentlessly anti-intellectual.” The book was so riddled with historical inaccuracies that it was recalled by its Christian publisher, Thomas Nelson, because “basic truths just were not there.”

But Barton’s distorted views are hardly confined to history. He has said he doesn’t think medical authorities will ever find a vaccine for HIV/AIDS. This view is “based on a particular Bible verse,” Romans 1:27. He believes that AIDS is God’s punishment for sin; an AIDS vaccine would keep “your body from penalizing you”—which would be contrary to the teaching of the word of God. QED, though with a certain cruel twist.

Mike Johnson’s ascension to the speakership has made Barton and those within that evangelical subculture giddy; they know Johnson is one of them. This is the first time “in our lifetime” that Congress has appointed “a guy of this character, this commitment, this knowledge, this experience and this devout faith” as House speaker, Barton said on a podcast. He also said that he’s spoken with Johnson’s team, “talking with them about staff.”

“They need to be the people with his worldview,” Barton said. He added that Johnson will “make you smile before he hits you in the mouth so he won’t bloody your lips when he breaks your teeth.”

“I am a rule-of-law guy,” Mike Johnson told Sean Hannity last week. Elsewhere, according to The New York Times, he’s complained to student groups, “There’s no transcendent principles anymore. There’s no eternal judge. There’s no absolute standards of right and wrong. All this is exactly the opposite of the way we were founded as a country.”

At the same time, Johnson has been a pivotal figure in undermining the rule of law—specifically trying to overturn the 2020 presidential-election results. In a carefully reported story on the 139 House Republicans who voted to dispute the Electoral College count, three New York Times reporters wrote, “In formal statements justifying their votes, about three-quarters relied on the arguments of a low-profile Louisiana congressman, Representative Mike Johnson, the most important architect of the Electoral College objections.”

Johnson also collected signatures for a legal brief in support of a groundless Texas lawsuit to throw out the results in four battleground states won by Joe Biden.

According to a report in the Times, Johnson “sent an email to his Republican colleagues soliciting signatures for the legal brief in support of it. The initiative had been personally blessed by Mr. Trump, Mr. Johnson wrote, and the president was ‘anxiously awaiting’ to see who in Congress would step up to the plate to defend him.”

Johnson also claimed in a radio interview that a software system used for voting was “suspect because it came from Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela.” According to Johnson, “The allegations about these voting machines, some of them being rigged with this software by Dominion. Look, there’s a lot of merit to that.”

“The fix was in,” according to Johnson.

Actually, it was not. A statement by Trump’s Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is responsible for helping states secure the voting process, declared that the 2020 election was “the most secure in American history.” Not been a single finding has refuted that claim, but many have confirmed it.  

A report by a group of lifelong Republicans took a careful look at the charges by Trump and his supporters. It showed the election was lost by Trump, not stolen from him. In coming to that conclusion, it examined every count of every case brought in six battleground states.

“Even now, twenty months after the election”—the report came out in July 2022—“a period in which Trump’s supporters have been energetically scouring every nook and cranny for proof that the election was stolen, they come up empty. Claims are made, trumpeted in sympathetic media, and accepted as truthful by many patriotic Americans. But on objective examination they have fallen short, every time.”

We now know, too, that time and time again Trump’s own staff refuted his various allegations of voter fraud.

[David A. Graham: The House Republicans’ troubling new litmus test]

So in Speaker Johnson we have a man whose Christian worldview has led him into a hall of mirrors—historically, scientifically, legally, and constitutionally. A “rule-of-law guy” who laments a lack of “absolute standards of right and wrong” was a key participant in undermining the rule of law and has been a steadfast defender of Donald Trump, who has done so much to shatter absolute standards of right and wrong.

From what I can tell, Mike Johnson—unlike, say, Kevin McCarthy and Elise Stefanik, or J. D. Vance and Lindsey Graham—is not cynical; he seems to be a true believer, and a zealot. A polite and mild-mannered zealot, to be sure, especially by MAGA standards, but a zealot nonetheless. And what makes this doubly painful for many of us is that he uses his Christian faith to sacralize his fanaticism and assault on truth. I can’t help thinking this isn’t quite what Jesus had in mind.

Spiders Might Be Quietly Disappearing

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › science › archive › 2023 › 10 › spider-population-decline › 675830

This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine.

Jumping spiders are an obsession for me. But it wasn’t always so.

Although never a spider hater or an arachnophobe, I was pretty ambivalent about them for most of my life. Then I learned about jumping spiders: I’ve reported on their impressive vision (as good as a cat’s in some ways!), their surprising smarts (they make plans!), and the discovery that they have REM-like sleep (and may even dream!). I was hooked.

I also learned that jumping spiders may be in decline. In tropical forests, finding them in a matter of minutes used to be easy, says the behavioral biologist Ximena Nelson, who studies jumping spiders at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. But for some species, that’s changed over the past couple of decades: “Now, I mean, you just can’t find them at all in some cases.”

In fact, all over the world, all sorts of spiders seem to be disappearing, says the conservation biologist Pedro Cardoso of the University of Lisbon. He and a colleague polled 100 spider experts and enthusiasts globally about the threats facing the animals. “It’s more or less unanimous that something is happening,” he says.

But there are no hard data to prove this. Why not? There are likely a number of reasons, but one possible contributor keeps coming up in my conversations with arachnologists: People really do not like spiders. Even among the least popular animals on Earth, they are especially reviled. One recent study found that people think spiders are one of the absolute worst combinations of scary and disgusting, beating out vipers, wasps, maggots, and cockroaches.

It’s obvious why this is a problem for the house spider that ends up on the receiving end of a rolled-up newspaper. But if our distaste means scientists have a hard time finding the funds to study them, as some suspect is true, it’s also a problem for spiders writ large. For some potentially endangered spiders, there aren’t enough data to consider them for protection. We can’t help spiders if we don’t know which species are in trouble, or where and why they’re disappearing. And if you don’t care about the loss of spiders for their own sake, consider that crashing spider populations are bad news for a whole host of animals—including us.

The case for caring about spiders is robust. First, the large majority of spiders do not bite or harm people, despite media reports that would have you believe most spiders are out to get you. In reality, only a small number of spiders are dangerous to humans. Instead, they tend to prey on insects—including mosquitoes, cockroaches, and aphids—that actually do cause harm to people in their homes, gardens, and fields. Spiders are excellent natural pest controls, but many are poisoned by pesticides aimed at those same insect pests. These toxic chemicals can also harm people.

[Read: Spiders can fly hundreds of miles using electricity]

Spiders are important food sources for birds, fish, lizards, and small mammals. And they carry the potential for untapped benefits we humans could enjoy someday—if spiders don’t disappear first—such as pharmaceutical and pest-control applications derived from compounds in their venom, and medical and engineering applications based on their incredibly strong silk.

None of this is likely to overcome the visceral aversion so many people feel. The fear and disgust is so strong and specific that some scientists have suggested that spiders represent a unique cognitive category in our minds. Ask people to name a phobia, and I’ll bet arachnophobia is the first one they think of.

But there may be a way to address the animus and the data gap at the same time: We should all start counting spiders.

People are definitely willing to count things for science. More than half a million people participated in the annual Great Backyard Bird Count in 2023, identifying more than 7,500 species over four days in February. Of course, people really like birds.

But citizen, or community, science has also proved successful for small-scale projects with insects and other invertebrates, says Helen Roy, an ecologist at the U.K. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Wallingford, and a co-author of an assessment of the potential for citizen science in the 2022 Annual Review of Entomology. It offers people the chance to be a part of science, even to become local experts. “There are still discoveries to be made on people’s doorsteps,” Roy says. “And I think that’s tremendously exciting.”

Roy recently worked with a graduate student who received nearly 3,000 applications to participate in a citizen-science project on the biodiversity of slugs. Yep, slugs. The 60 lucky people who made the cut went out into their gardens at night for 30 minutes, every four weeks for a year, to collect and attempt to identify every slug and snail they could find, and then send them alive to the scientists. Not only did the slug counters enjoy the task; it corrected some of the assumptions they had about the slimy little animals. “They’re not all pests,” Roy says. “Citizen science is a really wonderful opportunity to be able to challenge people’s thinking.”

Could this work for spiders? The U.K.’s Natural History Museum, in London, has already shown that it can on a national scale, with its Fat Spider Fortnight project on iNaturalist, a popular online platform for crowdsourcing identifications of plants, animals, and more. In 2021, hundreds of people in the U.K. contributed more than 1,250 observations of 11 relatively large spider species the project had targeted, including the green meshweaver and the flower crab spider. The entries will be added to the British Arachnological Society’s Spider Recording Scheme, which has been collecting observations since 1987.

And there is reason to believe that learning about spiders can change how people feel about them, even in extreme cases. The Australian author Lynne Kelly was so afraid of spiders that just going for a hike or being in her garden had become difficult. But she managed to conquer her arachnophobia, and today she welcomes spiders into her garden and even her house. Learning made the difference, says Kelly, who’s written a book about her transformation. Being able to identify species and understand their habits made their behavior seem less erratic. She began seeing house spiders as harmless roommates and, eventually, friends. “One of the secrets was, I give them names,” she says. “Giving them names made them individuals. So it wasn’t ‘Ack! Spider!’ It was ‘There’s Fred.’”

[Read: How useful is fear?]

Regular spider despisers may also have a change of heart after getting to know their eight-legged neighbors. This is what happened to Randy Supczak, an engineer in San Diego, after he came across a spider in his driveway in 2019.

“It kind of freaked me out a little bit,” Supczak says. So he went online, found a Facebook group dedicated to identifying spiders, and uploaded a photo: It was a noble false widow. He read that the species is nocturnal. “So I went outside that night with a flashlight, and I was shocked with what I saw,” he says. “Just everywhere, spiders.”

Something about discovering this hidden world grabbed Supczak’s curiosity. “Immediately, I was obsessed with learning about them.” Since then, he’s become a spider evangelist and started his own Facebook group, where he helps San Diegans identify and learn about local spiders. He’s found that a little bit of knowledge can turn someone from a squisher into a relocator. “I consider that a big accomplishment,” he says. “I’ll take that.”

The ecologist and self-proclaimed spider ambassador Bria Marty tested whether learning about spiders can change how people feel about them for her master’s thesis project at Texas State University in San Marcos. She recruited college students to find and identify spiders using an illustrated guide and then upload photos to iNaturalist. Marty, currently a Ph.D. student at Texas A&M University at Corpus Christi, surveyed participants before and after the activity, and one thing jumped out: Afterward, people reported being far less likely to react negatively to a spider. “Doing an activity like this really does help a lot around fear,” she says.

This kind of change has been known to happen to iNaturalist users, says Tony Iwane, the platform’s community and support coordinator and a self-described spider lover. He pointed me to a thread on the site’s discussion forum about how contributing to iNaturalist helped people overcome their fear of spiders, with users sharing the “gateway spider” species that changed how they felt. For @mira_l_b, it was the particularly tiny Salticid (jumping spider) species Talavera minuta. “If I am finding myself confronting life-long fears and cooing sweetly to tiny Salticidae,” she wrote, “then there’s hope for us all!”

[Read: Tiny jumping spiders can see the moon]

When I finally figured out how to find jumping spiders in my neighborhood, it only endeared them to me more. Sometimes they jump away before I can get a good enough look to ID them or take a photo with my phone. But other times, they stop, turn around, and look right at me. Something about locking eyes with a half-centimeter-long animal so different from us is amazing to me. It also makes for some pretty cute photos.

If even a fraction of the number of people counting birds were willing to do the same for spiders, would that generate data that could make a meaningful difference? Dimitar Dimitrov, an arachnologist who studies the evolution of spider diversity at the University Museum of Bergen, in Norway, thinks it might.

During an interview in 2021 for a story on spider cognition, Dimitrov lamented the lack of scientific attention and funding that spiders receive relative to other animals, such as birds: “I think there are more ornithologists than species of birds.” I asked if citizen science could help fill the gap. “Definitely, I think this is the way to go,” he said.

We know so little, and biodiversity is declining so fast, Dimitrov told me, that even the level of funding national governments can muster for traditional science couldn’t handle the scale and urgency of the challenge. But involving the public has the potential to make a big impact in a short time, he said: “All these people in their free time doing something like this as a hobby, a few hours here and there, can actually contribute a huge amount of information that is probably able to change, qualitatively, what we know about nature and biological diversity.”

Of course, identifying spiders is not the same as identifying birds. Most spiders are nocturnal, and their lives can be ephemeral and seasonal, perhaps necessitating more than one count per year. And in many cases, the species can’t be identified without looking at a spider’s reproductive parts under a microscope. Don’t worry, nobody is asking you to do this: A decent photo can often yield a genus-level ID, and sometimes even the species, with the help of arachnologists and amateur spider enthusiasts like Supczak. Even just determining which family a spider is in, whether it’s an orb weaver or a trapdoor spider, for example, can be useful scientific data, Dimitrov said.

The University of Lisbon’s Cardoso was enthusiastic when I asked him about the potential for a worldwide citizen-science project aimed at collecting spider data. “I think it will be really, really cool,” he said. “We’ll just need to have that critical mass in different countries to start this.”

Maybe you’ll be part of that critical mass if a global spider count comes to be. In the meantime, look around your house or garden, find some spiders, upload the photos, and discover what they are.

I know spiders won’t appeal to everyone the same way birds do. They don’t have beautiful feathers, and they don’t sing beautiful songs. But they also won’t fly away while you try to take a photo, especially if they are hanging out in a web.

And if you find a jumping spider, she just might turn around and look right at the camera, ready for her close-up.

Dean Phillips Is Primarying Joe Biden

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › politics › archive › 2023 › 10 › dean-phillips-joe-biden-2024-primary › 675784

This story seems to be about:

To spend time around Dean Phillips, as I have since his first campaign for Congress in 2018, is to encounter someone so earnest as to be utterly suspicious. He speaks constantly of joy and beauty and inspiration, beaming at the prospect of entertaining some new perspective. He allows himself to be interrupted often—by friends, family, staffers—but rarely interrupts them, listening patiently with a politeness that almost feels aggravating. With the practiced manners of one raised with great privilege—boasting a net worth he estimates at $50 million—the gentleman from Minnesota is exactly that.

But that courtly disposition cracks, I’ve noticed, when he’s convinced that someone is lying. Maybe it’s because at six months old he lost his father in a helicopter crash that his family believes the military covered up, in a Vietnam War that was sold to the public with tricks and subterfuge. I can hear the anger in his voice as he talks about the treachery that led to January 6, recalling his frantic search for some sort of weapon—he found only a sharpened pencil—to defend himself against the violent masses who were sacking the U.S. Capitol. I can see it in his eyes when Phillips, who is Jewish, remarks that some of his Democratic colleagues have recently spread falsehoods about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and others in the party have refused to condemn blatant anti-Semitism.

Deception is a part of politics. Phillips acknowledges that. But some deceptions are more insidious than others. On the third Saturday of October, as we sat inside the small, sun-drenched living room of his rural-Virginia farmhouse, Phillips told me he was about to do something out of character: He was going to upset some people. He was going to upset some people because he was going to run for president. And he was going to run for president, Phillips explained, because there is one deception he can no longer perpetuate.

“My grave concern,” the congressman said, “is I just don’t think President Biden will beat Donald Trump next November.”

This isn’t some fringe viewpoint within the Democratic Party. In a year’s worth of conversations with other party leaders, Phillips told me, “everybody, without exception,” shares his fear about Joe Biden’s fragility—political and otherwise—as he seeks a second term. This might be hyperbole, but not by much: In my own recent conversations with party officials, it was hard to find anyone who wasn’t jittery about Biden. Phillips’s problem is that they refuse to say so on the record. Democrats claim to view Trump as a singular threat to the republic, the congressman complains, but for reasons of protocol and self-preservation they have been unwilling to go public with their concerns about Biden, making it all the more likely, in Phillips’s view, that the former president will return to office.

[Read: The case for a primary challenge to Joe Biden]

Phillips spent the past 15 months trying to head off such a calamity. He has noisily implored Biden, who turns 81 next month—and would be 86 at the end of a second term—to “pass the torch,” while openly attempting to recruit prominent young Democrats to challenge the president in 2024. He name-dropped some Democratic governors on television and made personal calls to others, urging someone, anyone, to jump into the Democratic race. What he encountered, he thought, was a dangerous dissonance: Some of the president’s allies would tell him, in private conversations, to keep agitating, to keep recruiting, that Biden had no business running in 2024—but that they weren’t in a position to do anything about it.

What made this duplicity especially maddening to Phillips, he told me, is that Democrats have seen its pernicious effects on the other side of the political aisle. For four years during Trump’s presidency, Democrats watched their Republican colleagues belittle Trump behind closed doors, then praise him to their base, creating a mirage of support that ultimately made them captives to the cult of Trumpism. Phillips stresses that there is no equivalence between Trump and Biden. Still, having been elected in 2018 alongside a class of idealistic young Democrats—“the Watergate babies of the Trump era,” Phillips said—he always took great encouragement in the belief that his party would never fall into the trap of elevating people over principles.

“We don’t have time to make this about any one individual. This is about a mission to stop Donald Trump,” Phillips, who is 54, told me. “I’m just so frustrated—I’m growing appalled—by the silence from people whose job it is to be loud.”

Phillips tried to make peace with this. As recently as eight weeks ago, he had quietly resigned himself to Biden’s nomination. The difference now, he said—the reason for his own buzzer-beating run for the presidency—is that Biden’s numbers have gone from bad to awful. Surveys taken since late summer show the president’s approval ratings hovering at or below 40 percent, Trump pulling ahead in the horse race, and sizable majorities of voters, including Democratic voters, wishing the president would step aside. These findings are apparent in district-level survey data collected by Phillips’s colleagues in the House, and have been the source of frenzied intraparty discussion since the August recess. And yet Democrats’ reaction to them, Phillips said, has been to grimace, shrug, and say it’s too late for anything to be done.

“There’s no such thing as too late,” Phillips told me, “until Donald Trump is in the White House again.”

In recent weeks, Phillips has reached out to a wide assortment of party elders. He did this, in part, as a check on his own sanity. He was becoming panicked at the prospect of Trump’s probable return to office. He halfway hoped to be told that he was losing his grip on reality, that Trump Derangement Syndrome had gotten to him. He wanted someone to tell him that everything was going to be fine. Instead, in phone call after phone call, his fears were only exacerbated.

“I’m looking at polling data, and I’m looking at all of it. The president’s numbers are just not good—and they’re not getting any better,” James Carville, the Democratic strategist, told me, summarizing his recent conversations with Phillips. “I talk to a lot of people who do a lot of congressional-level polling and state polling, and they’re all saying the same thing. There’s not an outlier; there’s not another opinion … The question is, has the country made up its mind?”

[From the November 2023 issue: The Kamala Harris problem]

Jim Messina, who ran Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign, told me the answer is no. “This is exactly where we were at this stage of that election cycle,” Messina said. He pointed to the November 6, 2011, issue of The New York Times Magazine, the cover of which read, “So, Is Obama Toast?” Messina called the current situation just another case of bedwetting. “If there was real concern, then you’d have real politicians running,” he said. “I’d never heard of Dean Phillips until a few weeks ago.”

The bottom line, Messina said, is that “Biden’s already beaten Trump once. He’s the one guy who can beat him again.”

Carville struggles with this logic. The White House, he said, “operates with what I call this doctrine of strategic certainty,” arguing that Biden is on the same slow-but-steady trajectory he followed in 2020. “Joe Biden has been counted out by the Beltway insiders, pundits, DC media, and anonymous Washington sources time and time again,” the Biden campaign wrote in a statement. “Time and time again, they have been wrong.” The problem is that 2024 bears little resemblance to 2020: Biden is even older, there is a proliferation of third-party and independent candidates, and the Democratic base, which turned out in record numbers in the last presidential election, appears deflated. (“The most under-covered story in contemporary American politics,” Carville said, “is that Black turnout has been miserable everywhere since 2020.”) Carville added that in his own discussions with leading Democrats, when he argues that Biden’s prospects for reelection have grown bleak, “Nobody is saying, ‘James, you’re wrong,’” he told me. “They’re saying, ‘James, you can’t say that.’”

Hence his fondness for Phillips. “Remember when the Roman Catholic Church convicted Galileo of heresy for saying that the Earth moves around the sun? He said, ‘And yet, it still moves,’” Carville told me, cackling in his Cajun drawl. The truth is, Carville said, Biden’s numbers aren’t moving—and whoever points that out is bound to be treated like a heretic in Democratic circles.

Phillips knows that he’s making a permanent enemy of the party establishment. He realizes that he’s likely throwing away a promising career in Congress; already, a Democratic National Committee member from Minnesota has announced a primary challenge and enlisted the help of leading firms in the St. Paul area to take Phillips out. He told me how, after the news of his impending launch leaked to the press, “a colleague from New Hampshire”—the congressman grinned, as that description narrowed it down to just two people—told him that his candidacy was “not serious” and “offensive” to the state’s voters. In the run-up to his launch, Phillips tried to speak with the president—to convey his respect before entering the race. On Thursday night, he said, the White House got back to him: Biden would not be talking to Phillips.

Cedric Richmond, the onetime Louisiana congressman who is now co-chair of Biden’s reelection campaign, told me Phillips doesn’t “give a crap” about the party and is pursuing “a vanity project” that could result in another Trump presidency. “History tells us when the sitting president faces a primary challenge, it weakens him for the general election,” Richmond said. “No party has ever survived that.”

But Phillips insists—and his friends, even those who think he’s making a crushing mistake, attest—that he is doing this out of genuine conviction. Standing up and leaning across a coffee table inside his living room, Phillips pulled out his phone and recited data from recent surveys. One showed 70 percent of Democrats under 35 wanting a different nominee; another showed swing-state voters siding with Trump over Biden on a majority of policy issues, and independents roundly rejecting “Bidenomics,” the White House branding for the president’s handling of the economy. “These are not numbers that you can massage,” Phillips said. “Look, just because he’s old, that’s not a disqualifier. But being old, in decline, and having numbers that are clearly moving in the wrong direction? It’s getting to red-alert kind of stuff.”

Phillips sat back down. “Someone had to do this,” the congressman told me. “It just was so self-evident.”

If the need to challenge the president is so self-evident, I asked, then why is a third-term congressman from Minnesota the only one willing to do it?

“I think about that every day,” Phillips replied, shaking his head. “If the data is correct, over 50 percent of Democrats want a different nominee—and yet there’s only one out of 260 Democrats in the Congress saying the same thing?”

Phillips no longer wonders if there’s something wrong with him. He believes there’s something wrong with the Democratic Party—a “disease” that discourages competition and shuts down dialogue and crushes dissent. Phillips said his campaign for president won’t simply be about the “generational schism” that pits clinging-to-power Baby Boomers against the rest of the country.  If he’s running, the congressman said, he’s running on all the schisms that divide the Democrats: cultural and ideological, economic and geographic. He intends to tell some “hard truths” about a party that, in its attempt to turn the page on Trump, he argued, has done things to help move him back into the Oval Office. He sounded at times less like a man who wants to win the presidency, and more like someone who wants to draw attention to the decaying state of our body politic.

Over the course of a weekend with Phillips on his farm, we spent hours discussing the twisted incentive structures of America’s governing institutions. He talked about loyalties and blind spots, about how truth takes a back seat to narrative, about how we tell ourselves stories to ignore uncomfortable realities. Time and again, I pressed Phillips on the most uncomfortable reality of all: By running against Biden—by litigating the president’s age and fitness for office in months of town-hall meetings across New Hampshire—isn’t he likely to make a weak incumbent that much weaker, thereby making another Trump presidency all the more likely?

“I want to strengthen him. If it’s not me, I want to strengthen him. I won’t quit until I strengthen him. I mean it,” Phillips said of Biden. “I do not intend to undermine him, demean him, diminish him, attack him, or embarrass him.”

Phillips’s friends tell me his intentions are pure. But they fear that what makes him special—his guileless, romantic approach to politics—could in this case be ruinous for the country. They have warned him about the primary campaigns against George H. W. Bush in 1992 and Jimmy Carter in 1980, both of whom lost in the general election.

Phillips insisted to me that he wouldn’t be running against Biden. Rather, he would be campaigning for the future of the Democratic Party. There was no scenario, he said, in which his candidacy would result in Trump winning back the White House.

And in that moment, it was Dean Phillips who was telling himself a story.

He didn’t see the question coming—but he didn’t try to duck it, either.

It was July of last year. Phillips was doing a regular spot on WCCO radio, a news-talk station in his district, when host Chad Hartman asked the congressman if he wanted Biden to run for reelection in 2024. “No. I don’t,” Phillips replied, while making sure to voice his admiration for the president. “I think the country would be well served by a new generation of compelling, well-prepared, dynamic Democrats to step up.”

Phillips didn’t think much about the comment. After all, he’d run for Congress in 2018 promising not to vote for Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House (though he ultimately did support her as part of a deal that codified the end of her time in leadership). While he has been a reliable vote in the Democratic caucus—almost always siding with Biden on the House floor—Phillips has simultaneously been a squeaky wheel. He’s a centrist unhappy with what he sees as the party’s coddling of the far left. He’s a Gen Xer convinced that the party’s aging leadership is out of step with the country. He’s an industrialist worried about the party’s hostility toward Big Business. (When he was 3 years old, his mother married the heir of a distilling empire; Phillips took it over in his early 30s, then made his own fortune with the gelato company Talenti.)

When the blowback to the radio interview arrived—with party donors, activists, and officials in both Minnesota and Washington rebuking him as disloyal—Phillips was puzzled. Hadn’t Biden himself said, while campaigning in 2020, that he would be a “bridge” to the future of the Democratic Party? Hadn’t he made that remark flanked by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer on one side and future Vice President Kamala Harris on the other? Hadn’t he all but promised that his campaign was about removing Trump from power, not staying in power himself?

[Read: So much for Biden the bridge president]

Phillips had never seriously entertained the notion that Biden would seek reelection. Neither had many of his Democratic colleagues. In fact, several House Democrats told me—on the condition of anonymity, as not one of them would speak on the record for this article—that in their conversations with Biden’s inner circle throughout the summer and fall of 2022, the question was never if the president would announce his decision to forgo a second term, but when he would make that announcement.

Figuring that he’d dealt with the worst of the recoil—and still very much certain that Biden would ultimately step aside—Phillips grew more vocal. He spent the balance of 2022, while campaigning for his own reelection, arguing that both Biden and Pelosi should make way for younger Democratic leaders to emerge. He was relieved when, after Republicans recaptured the House of Representatives that fall, Pelosi allowed Hakeem Jeffries, a friend of Phillips’s, to succeed her atop the caucus.

But that relief soon gave way to worry: As the calendar turned to 2023, there were rumblings coming from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue that Biden might run for reelection after all. In February, Phillips irked his colleagues on Capitol Hill when he gave an extensive interview to the Politico columnist Jonathan Martin shaming Democrats for suppressing their concerns about Biden. At that point, his friends in the caucus still believed that Phillips was picking a fight for no reason. When Biden announced his candidacy two months later, several people recalled to me, some congressional Democrats were stunned.

“Many actually felt, I think, personally offended,” Phillips said. “They felt he had made a promise—either implicitly, if not explicitly.”

Around the time Biden was launching his reelection campaign, Phillips was returning to the United States from an emotional journey to Vietnam. He had traveled to the country, for the first time, in search of the place where his father and seven other Americans died in a 1969 helicopter crash. (Military officials initially told his mother that the Huey was shot down; only later, Phillips says, did they admit that the accident was weather related.) After a local man volunteered to lead Phillips to the crash site, the congressman broke down in tears, running his hands over the ground where his father perished, reflecting, he told me, on “the magnificence and the consequence of the power of the American presidency.”

Phillips left Vietnam with renewed certainty of his mission—not to seek the White House himself, but to recruit a Democrat who stood a better chance than Biden of defeating Donald Trump.

Back in Washington, Phillips began asking House Democratic colleagues for the personal phone numbers of governors in their states. Some obliged him; others ignored the request or refused it. Phillips tried repeatedly to get in touch with these governors. Only two got back to him—Whitmer in Michigan, and J. B. Pritzker in Illinois—but neither one would speak to the congressman directly. “They had their staff take the call,” Phillips told me. “They wouldn’t take the call.”

With a wry grin, he added: “Gretchen Whitmer’s aide was very thoughtful … J. B. Pritzker’s delegate was somewhat unfriendly.”

[Read: Why not Whitmer?]

By this point, Phillips was getting impatient. Trump’s numbers were improving. One third-party candidate, Cornel West, was already siphoning support away from Biden, and Phillips suspected that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who had declared his candidacy as a Democrat, would eventually switch to run as an independent. (That suspicion proved correct earlier this month.) As a member of the elected House Democratic leadership, Phillips could sense the anxiety mounting within the upper echelons of the party. He and other Democratic officials wondered what, exactly, the White House would do to counter the obvious loss of momentum. The answer: Biden’s super PAC dropped eight figures on an advertising blitz around Bidenomics, a branding exercise that Phillips told me was viewed as “a joke” within the House Democratic caucus.  

“Completely disconnected from what we were hearing,” Phillips said of the slogan, “which is people getting frustrated that the administration was telling them that everything is great.”

Everything was not great—but it didn’t seem terrible, either. The RealClearPolitics average of polls, as of late spring, showed Biden and Trump running virtually even. As the summer wore on, however, there were signs of trouble. When Phillips and certain purple-district colleagues would compare notes on happenings back home, the readouts were the same. Polling indicated that more and more independents were drifting from the Democratic ranks. Field operations confirmed that young people and minorities were dangerously disengaged. Town-hall questions and donor meetings began and ended with questions about Biden’s fitness to run against Trump.

Phillips decided that he needed to push even harder. Before embarking on a new, more aggressive phase of his mission—he began booking national-TV appearances with the explicit purpose of lobbying a contender to join the Democratic race—he spoke to Jeffries, the House Democratic leader, to share his plans. He also said he called the White House and spoke to Biden’s chief of staff, Jeff Zients, to offer a heads-up. Phillips wanted both men to know that he would be proceeding with respect—but proceeding all the same.

In August, as Phillips dialed up the pressure, he suddenly began to feel the pressure himself. He had spent portions of the previous year cultivating relationships with powerful donors, from Silicon Valley to Wall Street, who had offered their assistance in recruiting a challenger to Biden. Now, with those efforts seemingly doomed, the donors began asking Phillips if he would consider running. He laughed off the question at first. Phillips knew that it would take someone with greater name identification, and a far larger campaign infrastructure, to vie for the party’s presidential nomination. Besides, the folks he met with wanted someone like Whitmer or California Governor Gavin Newsom or Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock, not a barely known congressman from the Minneapolis suburbs.

In fact, Phillips had already considered—and rejected—the idea of running. After speaking to a packed D.C.-area ballroom of Gold Star families earlier this year, and receiving an ovation for his appeals to brotherhood and bipartisanship, he talked with his wife and his mother about the prospect of doing what no other Democrat was willing to do. But he concluded, quickly, that it was a nonstarter. He didn’t have the experience to run a national campaign, let alone a strategy of any sort.

Phillips told his suitors he wasn’t their guy. Flying back to Washington after the summer recess, he resolved to keep his head down. The congressman didn’t regret his efforts, but he knew they had estranged him from the party. Now, with primary filing deadlines approaching and no serious challengers to the president in sight, he would fall in line and do everything possible to help Biden keep Trump from reclaiming the White House.

No sooner had Phillips taken this vow than two things happened. First, as Congress reconvened during the first week of September, Phillips was blitzed by Democratic colleagues who shared the grim tidings from their districts around the country. He had long been viewed as the caucus outcast for his public defiance of the White House; now he was the party’s unofficial release valve, the member whom everyone sought out to vent their fears and frustrations. That same week, several major polls dropped, the collective upshot of which proved more worrisome than anything Phillips had witnessed to date. One survey, from The Wall Street Journal, showed Trump and Biden essentially tied, but reported that 73 percent of registered voters considered Biden “too old” to run for president, with only 47 percent saying the same about Trump, who is just three and a half years younger. Another poll, conducted for CNN, showed that 67 percent of Democratic voters wanted someone other than Biden as the party’s nominee.

Phillips felt helpless. He made a few last-ditch phone calls, pleading and praying that someone might step forward. No one did. After a weekend of nail-biting, Phillips logged on to X, formerly Twitter, on Monday, September 11, to write a remembrance on the anniversary of America coming under attack. That’s when he noticed a direct message. It was from a man he’d never met but whose name he knew well: Steve Schmidt.

“Some of the greatest acts of cowardice in the history of this country have played out in the last 10 years,” Schmidt told me, picking at a piece of coconut cream pie.

“Agreed,” Phillips said, nodding his head. “Agreed.”

The three of us, plus the congressman’s wife, Annalise, were talking late into the night around a long, rustic table in the farmhouse dining room. Never, not even in the juicy, adapted-to-TV novels about presidential campaigns, has there been a stranger pairing than Dean Phillips and Steve Schmidt. One is a genteel, carefully groomed midwesterner who trafficks in dad jokes and neighborly aphorisms, the other a swaggering, bald-headed, battle-hardened product of New Jersey who specializes in ad hominem takedowns. What unites them is a near-manic obsession with keeping Trump out of the White House—and a conviction that Biden cannot beat him next November.

“The modern era of political campaigning began in 1896,” Schmidt told us, holding forth a bit on William McKinley’s defeat of William Jennings Bryan. “There has never been a bigger off-the-line mistake by any presidential campaign—ever—than labeling this economy ‘Bidenomics.’ The result of that is going to be to reelect Donald Trump, which will be catastrophic.”

Schmidt added: “A fair reading of the polls is that if the election were tomorrow, Donald Trump would be the 47th president of the United States.”

Schmidt, who is perhaps most famous for his work leading John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign—and, specifically, for recommending Sarah Palin as a surprise vice-presidential pick—likes to claim some credit for stopping Trump in the last election. The super PAC he co-founded in 2019, the Lincoln Project, combined quick-twitch instincts with devastating viral content, hounding Trump with over-the-top ads about everything from his business acumen to his mental stability. Schmidt became something of a cult hero to the left, a onetime conservative brawler who had mastered the art and science of exposing Republican duplicity in the Trump era. Before long, however, the Lincoln Project imploded due to cascading scandals. Schmidt resigned, apologizing for his missteps and swearing to himself that he was done with politics for good.

[Andrew Ferguson: Leave Lincoln out of it]

He couldn’t have imagined that inviting Phillips onto his podcast, via direct message, would result in the near-overnight upending of both of their lives. After taping the podcast on September 22, Schmidt told Phillips how impressed he was by his sincerity and conviction. Two days later, Schmidt called Phillips to tell him that he’d shared the audio of their conversation with some trusted political friends, and the response was unanimous: This guy needs to run for president. Before Phillips could respond, Schmidt advised the congressman to talk with his family about it. It happened to be the eve of Yom Kippur: Phillips spent the next several days with his wife and his adult daughters, who expressed enthusiasm about the idea. Phillips called Schmidt back and told him that, despite his family’s support, he had no idea how to run a presidential campaign—much less one that would have to launch within weeks, given filing deadlines in key states.

“Listen,” Schmidt told him, “if you’re willing to jump in, then I’m willing to jump in with you.”

Phillips needed some time to think—and to assess Schmidt. Politics is a tough business, but even by that standard his would-be partner had made lots of enemies. The more the two men talked, however, the more Phillips came to view Schmidt as a kindred spirit. They shared not just a singular adversary in Trump but also a common revulsion at the conformist tactics of a political class that refuses to level with the public. (“People talk about misinformation on Twitter, misinformation in the media,” Schmidt told me. “But how is it not misinformation when our political leaders have one conversation with each other, then turn around and tell the American people exactly the opposite?”) Schmidt had relished working for heterodox dissenters like McCain and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Listening to Schmidt narrate his struggles to prevent the Republican Party’s demise, Phillips felt a strange parallel to his own situation.

Back on January 6, 2021, as he’d crawled for cover inside the House gallery—listening to the sounds of broken glass and the gunshot that killed the Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt, overhearing his weeping colleagues make good-bye calls to loved ones—Phillips believed he was going to die. Later that night, reflecting on his survival, the congressman vowed that he would give every last measure to the cause of opposing Trump. And now, just a couple of years later, with Trump’s recapturing of power appearing more likely by the day, he was supposed to do nothing—just to keep the Democratic Party honchos happy?

“My colleagues, we all endured that, and you’d think that we would be very intentional and objective and resolute about the singular objective to ensure he does not return to the White House,” Phillips said. “We need to recognize the consequences of this silence.”

On the first weekend of October, Phillips welcomed Schmidt to his D.C. townhome. They were joined by six others: the congressman’s wife and sister; his campaign manager and one of her daughters; Bill Fletcher, a Tennessee-based consultant; and a Democratic strategist whom I later met at the Virginia farm—one whose identity I agreed to keep off the record because he said his career would be over if he was found to be helping Phillips. Commanding the room with a whiteboard and marker, Schmidt outlined his approach. There would be no org chart, no job titles—only three groups with overlapping responsibilities. The first group, “Headquarters,” would deal with day-to-day operations. The second, “Maneuver,” would handle the mobile logistics of the campaign. The third, “Content,” would be prolific in its production of advertisements, web videos, and social-media posts. This last group would be essential to Phillips’s effort, Schmidt explained: They would contract talent to work across six time zones, from Manhattan to Honolulu, seizing on every opening in the news cycle and putting Biden’s campaign on the defensive all day, every day.

When the weekend wrapped, Phillips sat alone with his thoughts. The idea of challenging his party’s leader suddenly felt real. He knew the arguments being made by his Democratic friends and did his best to consider them without prejudice. Was it likely, Phillips asked himself, that his candidacy might achieve exactly the outcome he wanted to avoid—electing Trump president?

Phillips decided the answer was no.

Running in the Democratic primary carried some risk of hurting the party in 2024, Phillips figured, but not as much risk as letting Biden and his campaign sleepwalk into next summer, only to discover in the fall how disengaged and disaffected millions of Democratic voters truly are.

“If it’s not gonna be me, and this is a way to elevate the need to listen to people who are struggling and connect it to people in Washington, that to me is a blessing for the eventual nominee,” Phillips said. “If it’s Joe Biden—if he kicks my tuchus in the opening states—he looks strong, and that makes him stronger.”

It sounds fine in theory, I told Phillips. But that’s not usually how primary campaigns work.

He let out an exaggerated sigh. “I understand why conventional wisdom says that’s threatening,” Phillips said. “But my gosh, if it’s threatening to go out and listen to people and talk publicly about what’s on people’s minds, and that’s something we should be protecting against, we have bigger problems than I ever thought.”

[Eliot A. Cohen: Step aside, Joe Biden]

It was two weeks after that meeting in D.C. that Phillips welcomed me to his Virginia farmhouse. He’d been staying there, a 90-minute drive from the Capitol, since far-right rebels deposed House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, sparking a furious three-week search for his replacement. The irony, Phillips explained as he showed me around the 38-acre parcel of pastureland, is that he and Schmidt couldn’t possibly have organized a campaign during this season had Congress been doing its job. The GOP’s dysfunctional detour provided an unexpected opportunity, and Phillips determined that it was his destiny to take advantage.

With Congress adjourned for the weekend as Republicans sought a reset in their leadership scramble, Phillips reconvened the kitchen cabinet from his D.C. summit, plus a Tulsa-based film production crew. Content was the chief priority. Phillips would launch his campaign on Friday, October 27—the deadline for making the New Hampshire ballot—at the state capitol in Concord. From there, he would embark on a series of 120 planned town-hall meetings, breaking McCain’s long-standing Granite State record, touring in a massive “DEAN”-stamped bus wrapped with a slogan sure to infuriate the White House: “Make America Affordable Again.”

The strategy, Schmidt explained as we watched his candidate ad-lib for the roving cameras—shooting all manner of unscripted, stream-of-consciousness, turn-up-the-authenticity footage that would dovetail with the campaign’s policy of no polling or focus grouping—was to win New Hampshire outright. The president had made a massive tactical error, Schmidt said, by siding with the Democratic National Committee over New Hampshire in a procedural squabble that will leave the first-in-the-nation primary winner with zero delegates. Biden had declined to file his candidacy there, instead counting on loyal Democratic voters to write him onto the primary ballot. But now Phillips was preparing to spend the next three months blanketing the state, drawing an unflattering juxtaposition with the absentee president and maybe, just maybe, earning enough votes to defeat him. If that happens, Schmidt said, the media narrative will be what matters—not the delegate math. Americans would wake up to the news of two winners in the nation’s first primary elections: Trump on the Republican side, and Dean Phillips—wait, who?—yes, Dean Phillips on the Democratic side. The slingshot of coverage would be forceful enough to make Phillips competitive in South Carolina, then Michigan. By the time the campaign reached Super Tuesday, Schmidt said, Phillips would have worn the incumbent down—and won over the millions of Democrats who’ve been begging for an alternative.

At least, that’s the strategy. Fanciful? Yes. The mechanical hurdles alone, starting with collecting enough signatures to qualify for key primary ballots, could prove insurmountable. (He has already missed the deadline in Nevada.) That said, in an age of asymmetrical political disruption, Phillips might not be the million-to-one candidate some will dismiss him as. He’s seeding the campaign with enough money to build out a legitimate operation, and has influential donors poised to enter the fray on his behalf. (One tech mogul, who spoke with Phillips throughout the week preceding the launch, was readying to endorse him on Friday.) He has high-profile friends—such as the actor Woody Harrelson—whom he’ll enlist to hit the trail with him and help draw a crowd. Perhaps most consequentially, his campaign is being helped by Billy Shaheen, a longtime kingmaker in New Hampshire presidential politics and the husband of the state’s senior U.S. senator, Jeanne Shaheen. “I think the people here deserve to hear what Dean has to say,” Billy Shaheen told me. If nothing else, with Schmidt at the helm, Phillips’s campaign will be energetic and highly entertaining.

Yet the more time I spent with him at the farm, the less energized Phillips seemed by the idea of dethroning Biden. He insisted that his first ad-making session focus on saluting the president, singing his opponent’s praises into the cameras in ways that defy all known methods of campaigning. He told me, unsolicited, that his “red line” is March 6, the day after Super Tuesday, at which point he will “wrap it up” and “get behind the president in a very big way” if his candidacy fails to gain traction. He repeatedly drifted back to the notion that he might unwittingly assist Trump’s victory next fall.

Whereas he once spoke with absolute certainty on the subject—shrugging off the comparisons to Pat Buchanan in 1992 or Ted Kennedy in 1980—I could sense by the end of our time together that it was weighing on him. Understandably so: During the course of our interviews—perhaps five or six hours spent on the record—Phillips had directly criticized Biden for what he described as a detachment from the country’s economic concerns, his recent in-person visit to Israel (unnecessarily provocative to Arab nations, Phillips said), and his lack of concrete initiatives to help heal the country the way he promised in 2020. Phillips also ripped Hunter Biden’s “appalling” behavior and argued that the president—who was acting “heroically” by showing such devotion to his troubled son—was now perceived by the public to be just as corrupt as Trump.

All this from a few hours of conversation. If you’re running the Biden campaign, it’s fair to worry: What will come of Phillips taking thousands of questions across scores of town-hall meetings in New Hampshire?

At one point, under the dimmed lights at his dinner table, Phillips told me he possessed no fear of undermining the eventual Democratic nominee. Then, seconds later, he told me he was worried about the legacy he’d be leaving for his two daughters.

“Because of pundits attaching that to me—” Phillips suddenly paused. “If, for some circumstance, Trump still won …” he trailed off.

Schmidt had spent the weekend talking about Dean Phillips making history. And yet, in this moment, the gentleman from Minnesota—the soon-to-be Democratic candidate for president in 2024—seemed eager to avoid the history books altogether.

“In other words, if you’re remembered for helping Trump get elected—” I began.

He nodded slowly. “There are two paths.”

Phillips knows what path some Democrats think he’s following: that he’s selfish, maybe even insane, recklessly doing something that might result in another Trump presidency. The way Phillips sees it, he’s on exactly the opposite path: He is the last sane man in the Democratic Party, acting selflessly to ensure that Trump cannot reclaim the White House.

“Two paths,” Phillips repeated. “There’s nothing in the middle.”

Why This Time Is Different for Menendez

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › newsletters › archive › 2023 › 10 › menendez-indictment-democrats › 675753

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

Robert Menendez has held on to his Senate seat and retained the loyalty of many Democratic colleagues through past scandals. But, given the current political environment and the gravity of the charges he now faces, many fellow Democrats have had enough—and voters might turn on him too.

First, here are three new stories from The Atlantic:

What’s the alternative to a ground offensive in Gaza? The great underappreciated driver of climate change A humanist manifesto

Undermining the High Ground

Yesterday afternoon, a couple of hours after pleading not guilty to the charge that he had conspired to act as an agent of a foreign government, Senator Robert Menendez announced that “the government is engaged in primitive hunting, by which the predator chases its prey until it’s exhausted and then kills it. This tactic won’t work.”

The senior senator from New Jersey’s plea—and subsequent defiant statement—came just a few weeks after he pleaded not guilty to three separate counts of corruption. Menendez and his wife, Nadine, were accused of accepting bribes worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for helping the government of Egypt and several businessmen. The original indictment was quite dramatic, peppered with talk of more than $500,000 of stashed-away cash and photos of gold bars found in his New Jersey home. Within hours of Menendez’s indictment, several state leaders, including the governor, called on him to step down. But Menendez is fighting hard against the allegations, even as colleagues turn on him.

Menendez has positioned himself as a victim, and has invoked identity politics in trying to defend himself. “It is not lost on me how quickly some are rushing to judge a Latino and push him out of his seat,” he said shortly after his initial indictment was announced. He has also accused “those behind this campaign” of smearing him as part of their political agenda: “For years, forces behind the scenes have repeatedly attempted to silence my voice and dig my political grave,” he said in a statement last month. “Menendez has been using explicitly Trump-y talking points in his defense,” my colleague David Graham, who has covered the Menendez charges, told me.

The Menendez imbroglio puts the Democrats in a difficult position. The party has enjoyed some moral high ground as Donald Trump faces various criminal indictments. But having a member of their own party facing such galling corruption charges—and saying in his own defense that, essentially, the deep state is out to get him—may not only undermine that high ground, David said. It may weaken Democrats’ case against Trump’s own statements about being the victim of deep-state machinations, and it could damage voters’ faith in the Democratic Party.

This is not Menendez’s first time facing federal bribery charges: In 2015, he was accused of receiving gifts and some $750,000 in campaign donations from a Florida eye doctor. Those charges resulted in a hung jury, and ultimately the judge declared a mistrial. Menendez was able to maintain his seat through the turmoil, and he denied any wrongdoing. His colleagues, by and large, stood by him. But this time, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy called on Menendez to resign almost immediately after his indictment, and other state Democratic leaders soon followed. Cory Booker, the junior senator from New Jersey who has called Menendez a mentor and friend, urged his colleague to step down a few days after the indictment. Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, meanwhile, has reportedly confronted Menendez in the halls of Congress (or, more precisely, on an escalator) to tell him to resign. More than half of Senate Democrats have called on Menendez to resign, though Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has been more reserved. “The Senator has made it clear that he is innocent and will not resign from his position as the senior U.S. Senator for New Jersey,” Robert Julien, a spokesperson for Mendendez’s office, told me in an email.

Part of the reason that many of Menendez’s colleagues are turning against him this time, David explained, has to do with the relative severity of the charges. Bribery charges are never a great look, but the charges Menendez currently faces cut to the core of his committee work in the Senate, accusing him of using his position as the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to work on behalf of a foreign power.

The calculations are likely political too: The last time Menendez faced bribery charges, Republican Chris Christie was the governor of New Jersey. If Menendez had given up his seat, Christie could have appointed a Republican in his place. Now the state has a Democratic governor in Murphy, who would presumably appoint a Democrat to replace him, David explained. Even so, Democrats are anxious about introducing uncertainty when they have such a razor-thin majority over Republicans in the Senate. Democrats have become more and more obsessed with beating their Republican opponents. That fixation on winning comes at a cost, David said: “If you are so focused on beating Republicans that you’re willing to look past corruption allegations, you ultimately undermine yourself, even if you can win the next election.”

But whether Menendez can actually win his next election is still a major question. He is a savvy backroom fighter, David explained, which has helped him stay in power in the cutthroat world of New Jersey politics. “There’s lots of backstabbing in ways that are totally legal, but not necessarily savory,” he said. Menendez has hung on through turbulence, but whether he can make it through this scandal intact will be, in part, up to the courts. It will also be up to voters.

Menendez’s trial is scheduled to begin on May 6, about a month before the primary race for his Senate seat. So far, Menendez has made no public indication that he won’t run for reelection. But his odds are not looking promising. He is being trounced in polls by Andrew Kim, a member of the House of Representatives who announced his campaign for Menendez’s seat the day after the senator was indicted. Menendez is innocent until proven guilty, but his constituents might just be ready to move on.

Related:

Bob Menendez never should have been senator this long in the first place. The case against Bob Menendez (From 2015)

Today’s News

A third former Trump-campaign lawyer, Jenna Ellis, pleaded guilty in the Georgia election-interference case. Israel escalated attacks on targets in Gaza, including a refugee camp. The Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry said that more than 700 people were killed in a 24-hour period. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer has dropped out of the Speaker of the House race, just hours after becoming the nominee.

Evening Read

Fryderyk Gabowicz / picture-alliance / dpa / AP

Britney Finally Tells Her Story. It’s Dark.

By Spencer Kornhaber

One of the most disturbing parts of Britney Spears’s story has long been the way people talk about her. As soon as the pop star was released from the legal guardianship of her father in November 2021, ending a 13-year ordeal that she has described as torture, some onlookers asked whether one of the most successful women on Earth could handle living as an adult. In barroom chitchat, meandering podcasts, and online comment sections, you can now find people claiming that freeing Britney—allowing her to, for example, choose how she spends her money or what she eats for dinner—was a mistake. They cite alleged evidence of erratic behavior such as the recent video that the 41-year-old Spears posted of herself dancing sexily with prop knives.

Usually such skeptics speak in a conspiratorial tone, indicating that they think of themselves as radical truth-tellers defying the pink-uniformed groupthink of the #FreeBritney movement. But Spears’s new memoir makes clear that this shaming and second-guessing, using the language of care and concern, is deeply conventional. She portrays herself—including with the title The Woman in Me—as battling the media expectation that she remain trapped in girlhood, virginal and helpless.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

Shawn Fain’s old-time religion The Axis of Resistance has been gathering strength. Hands off Shakespeare.

Culture Break

A former inhabitant of the Chagos Archipelago—expelled when the U.S. built its military base there in the early 1970s—and his granddaughter in Port Louis, Mauritius. (Tim Dirven / Panos Pictures / Redux)

Read. A new book from Philippe Sands, The Last Colony, tells the story of the Chagossians, an island people who were expelled from their homes by the British and Americans.

Watch. The Pigeon Tunnel (streaming on Apple TV+) tries to capture the essence of John le Carré. It’s one of our critics’ 22 most exciting films to watch this season.

Play our daily crossword.

Katherine Hu contributed to this newsletter.

When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

AI Has a Hotness Problem

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › technology › archive › 2023 › 10 › ai-image-generation-hot-people › 675750

The man I am looking at is very hot. He’s got that angular hot-guy face, with hollow cheeks and a sharp jawline. His dark hair is tousled, his skin blurred and smooth. But I shouldn’t even bother describing him further, because this man is self-evidently hot, the kind of person you look at and immediately categorize as someone whose day-to-day life is defined by being abnormally good-looking.

This hot man, however, is not real. He is just a computer simulation, a photo created in response to my request for a close-up of a man by an algorithm that likely analyzed hundreds of millions of photos in order to conclude that this is what I want to see: a smizing, sculptural man in a denim jacket. Let’s call him Sal.

Sal was spun up by artificial intelligence. One day last week, from my home in Los Angeles (notably, the land of hot people), I opened up Bing Image Creator and commanded it to make me a man from scratch. I did not specify this man’s age or any of his physical characteristics. I asked only that he be rendered “looking directly at the camera at sunset,” and let the computer decide the rest. Bing presented me with four absolute smokeshows—four different versions of Sal, all dark-haired with elegant bone structure. They looked like casting options for a retail catalog.

Sal is an extreme example of a bigger phenomenon: When an AI image-generation tool—like the ones made by Midjourney, Stability AI, or Adobe—is prompted to create a picture of a person, that person is likely to be better-looking than those of us who actually walk the planet Earth. To be clear, not every AI creation is as hot as Sal. Since meeting him, I’ve reviewed more than 100 fake faces of generic men, women, and nonbinary people, made to order by six popular image-generating tools, and found different ages, hair colors, and races. One face was green-eyed and freckled; another had bright-red eye shadow and short bleached-blond hair. Some were bearded, others clean-shaven. The faces did tend to have one thing in common, though: Aside from skewing young, most were above-average hot, if not drop-dead gorgeous. None was downright ugly. So why do these state-of-the-art, text-to-image models love a good thirst trap?

After reaching out to computer scientists, a psychologist, and the companies that make these AI-generation tools, I arrived at three potential explanations for the phenomenon. First, the “hotness in, hotness out” theory: Products such as Midjourney are spitting out hotties, it suggests, because they were loaded up with hotties during training. AI image generators learn how to generate novel pictures by ingesting huge databases of existing ones, along with their descriptions. The exact makeup of that feedstock tends to be kept secret, Hany Farid, a professor at the UC Berkeley School of Information, told me, but the images they include are likely biased in favor of attractive faces. That would make their outputs prone to being attractive too.

[Read: We don’t actually know if AI is taking over everything]

The data sets could be stacked with hotties because they draw significantly from  edited and airbrushed photos of celebrities, advertising models, and other professional hot people. (One popular research data set, called CelebA, comprises 200,000 annotated pictures of famous people’s faces.) Including normal-people pictures gleaned from photo-sharing sites such as Flickr might only make the hotness problem worse. Because we tend to post the best photos of ourselves—at times enhanced by apps that smooth out skin and whiten teeth—AIs could end up learning that even folks in candid shots are unnaturally attractive. “If we posted honest photos of ourselves online, well, then, I think the results would look really different,” Farid said.

For a good example of how existing photography on the internet could bias an AI model, here’s a nonhuman one: DALL-E seems inclined to make images of wristwatches where the hands point to 10:10—an aesthetically pleasing v configuration that is often used in watch advertisements. If the AI image generators are seeing lots of skin-care advertisements (or any other ads with faces), they could be getting trained to produce aesthetically pleasing cheekbones.

A second explanation of the problem has to do with how the AI faces are constructed. According to what I’ll call the “midpoint hottie” hypothesis, the image-generating tools end up generating more attractive faces as an accidental by-product of how they analyze the photos that go into them. “Averageness is more attractive in general than non-averageness,” Lisa DeBruine, a professor at the University of Glasgow School of Psychology and Neuroscience who studies the perception of faces, told me. Combining faces tends to make them more symmetrical and blemish free. “If you take a whole class of undergraduate psychology students and you average together all the women’s faces, that average is going to be pretty attractive,” she said. (This rule applies only to sets of faces of a single demographic, though: When DeBruine helped analyze the faces of visitors to a science museum in the U.K., for example, she found that the averaged one was an odd amalgamation of bearded men and small children.) AI image generators aren’t simply smushing faces together, Farid said, but they do tend to produce faces that look like averaged faces. Thus, even a generative-AI tool trained only on a set of normal faces might end up putting out unnaturally attractive ones.

Finally, we have the “hot by design” conjecture. It may be that a bias for attractiveness is built into the tools on purpose or gets inserted after the fact by regular users. Some AI models incorporate human feedback by noting which of their outputs are preferred. “We don’t know what all of these algorithms are doing, but they might be learning from the kind of ways that people interact with them,” DeBruine said. “Maybe people are happier with the face images of attractive people.” Alexandru Costin, the vice president for generative AI at Adobe, told me that the company tracks which images generated by its Firefly web application are getting downloaded, and then feeds that information back into the tool. This process has produced a drift toward hotness, which then has to be corrected. The company uses various strategies to “de-bias” the model, Costin said, so that it won’t only serve up images “where everybody looks Photoshopped.”

Source: Adobe Firefly. Prompt: “a close up of a person looking directly at the camera”

A representative for Microsoft’s Bing Image Creator, which I used to make Sal, told me that the software is powered by DALL-E and directed questions about the hotness problem to DALL-E’s creator, OpenAI. OpenAI directed questions back to Microsoft, though the company did put out a document earlier this month acknowledging that its latest model “defaults to generating images of people that match stereotypical and conventional ideals of beauty,” which could end up “perpetuating unrealistic beauty benchmarks and fostering dissatisfaction and potential body image distress.” The makers of Stable Diffusion and Midjourney did not respond to requests for comment.

Farid stressed that very little is known about these models, which have been widely available to the public for less than a year. As a result, it’s hard to know whether AI’s pro-cutie slant is a feature or a bug, let alone what’s causing the hotness problem and who might be to blame. “I think the data explains it up to a point, and then I think it’s algorithmic after that,” he told me. “Is it intentional? Is it sort of an emergent property? I don’t know.”

Not all of the tools mentioned above produced equally hot people. When I used DALL-E, as accessed through OpenAI’s site, the outputs were more realistically not-hot than those produced by Bing Image Creator, which relies on a more advanced version of the same model. In fact, when I prompted Bing to make me an “ugly” person, it still leaned hot, offering two very attractive people whose faces happened to have dirt on them and one disturbing figure who resembled a killer clown. A few other image generators, when prompted to make “ugly” people, offered sets of wrinkly, monstrous, orc-looking faces with bugged-out eyes. Adobe’s Firefly tool returned a fresh set of stock-image-looking hotties.

Source: Adobe Firefly. Prompt: “a photo of an ugly person”

Whatever the cause of AI hotness, the phenomenon itself could have ill effects. Magazines and celebrities have long been scolded for editing photos to push an ideal of beauty that is impossible to achieve in real life, and now AI image models may be succumbing to the same trend. “If all the images we’re seeing are of these hyper-attractive, really-high-cheekbones models that can’t even exist in real life, our brains are going to start saying, Oh, that’s a normal face,” DeBruine said. “And then we can start pushing it even more extreme.” When Sal, with his beautiful face, starts to come off like an average dude, that’s when we’ll know we have a problem.

Britney Finally Tells Her Story. It’s Dark.

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › culture › archive › 2023 › 10 › the-woman-in-me-britney-spears-memoir › 675748

One of the most disturbing parts of Britney Spears’s story has long been the way people talk about her. As soon as the pop star was released from the legal guardianship of her father in November 2021, ending a 13-year ordeal that she has described as torture, some onlookers asked whether one of the most successful women on Earth could handle living as an adult. In barroom chitchat, meandering podcasts, and online comment sections, you can now find people claiming that freeing Britney—allowing her to, for example, choose how she spends her money or what she eats for dinner—was a mistake. They cite alleged evidence of erratic behavior such as the recent video that the 41-year-old Spears posted of herself dancing sexily with prop knives.

Usually such skeptics speak in a conspiratorial tone, indicating that they think of themselves as radical truth-tellers defying the pink-uniformed groupthink of the #FreeBritney movement. But Spears’s new memoir makes clear that this shaming and second-guessing, using the language of care and concern, is deeply conventional. She portrays herself—including with the title The Woman in Me—as battling the media expectation that she remain trapped in girlhood, virginal and helpless. But she also writes with mystification about the scale of her story, the extraordinary drama and unfairness of it. A reader may come away feeling that her struggle is older, more primal, than our cultural era. People seem to want her to be a scapegoat for all manner of human failings, and, in fact, they seem to want to punish her.

Readers expecting a breezy celebrity memoir will be shocked by the grim opening pages. Describing her childhood in rural Louisiana, Spears’s declarative sentences have the ominousness of the Old Testament, and her themes are Southern Gothic. “Tragedy runs in my family,” Spears writes, before describing her paternal grandfather, June, as an abusive man who committed two of his wives to mental hospitals. One of those wives killed herself on the grave of her infant child. June’s harshness, Spears feels, made her own father, Jamie, a cruel and demanding alcoholic.

Singing beckoned as an escape from her tense home life, but the stage provided no refuge from others’ judgment and control. In early adolescence she was cast on The Mickey Mouse Club; another Mouseketeer, Justin Timberlake, would become both her peer in teen stardom and her serious boyfriend from 1999 to 2002. In the book and in media coverage of late, Timberlake has been cast, almost too neatly, as an example of the gendered double standards of early-2000s pop culture. His public expressions of lust were cheered while hers were condemned. The book’s description of him pressuring her into a secret abortion at home suggests that the affable, gentlemanly reputation he’s long enjoyed was hollow.

But looking back, Spears almost appears less bothered by Timberlake’s treatment of her than by the media’s obsession with their romance. Her most intimate experiences were never her own; she mattered too much, to too many people. “As a child, I’d always had a guilty conscience, a lot of shame, a sense that my family thought I was just plain bad,” she writes in a section about being vilified after her breakup with Timberlake. “I knew the truth of our relationship was nothing like how it was being portrayed, but I still imagined that if I was suffering, I must have deserved it.”

As Spears matured, a cycle of scrutiny and rebellion accelerated, though the rebellions—such as Spears having kids with a “bad boy,” the backup dancer Kevin Federline, and attacking a paparazzo’s car with an umbrella—come off as tame in the book’s telling. (“Pathetic, really. An umbrella.”) She revisits the circumstances that led to the conservatorship, including the famous incident when she, in the midst of a custody dispute, locked herself with her younger son in a bathroom. But the underlying mysteries of her long legal saga remain vexing, both to the reader and to Spears herself. The public perception has long been that outlandish drug use or a terrible mental-health crisis must have justified her captivity. Spears admits only to popping Adderall—a very quotidian, if very dangerous, substance to abuse. “I know I had been acting wild but there was nothing I’d done that justified their treating me like I was a bank robber,” she writes. “Nothing that justified upending my entire life.”

Spears’s accounting of her years in the conservatorship is glum and maddening, rendered in a frank, can-you-believe-this-shit tone (“Pretty quickly, I called the weird-ass lawyer the court had appointed for me and asked him for help. Incredibly, he was all I really had.”). How could the people around her do what they did? Forced into a grueling performance schedule while being restricted to a $2,000-a-week allowance and a harsh diet, Spears says she found no commiseration from family members or legal counselors, many of whom were being paid handsomely by her efforts. She tried to play their games, acting the good girl in hopes of eventual release, but to no avail. She began to fear that the desired endgame for her handlers was her profitable and tidy death.

No satisfying explanation could ever exist for what Spears went through, and the book’s clear and measured prose—reportedly shaped by a ghostwriter—inevitably will make the reader wonder what’s left out. But the illogic of the story on the page does fit with the absurd weight Spears carried in the public consciousness. At the dawn of the internet age, Spears at first seemed the perfect everygirl, singing through a sweet smile. But with every passing month, she revealed herself as, instead, a human being with flaws and appetites. This was a reality that the machine around her could not abide. Spears’s famous hoisting of a python at the 2001 VMAs (a stunt that, she now writes, was legitimately frightening) is the enduring image of her career for a good reason: She was our era’s Eve, bearing the snake of sin on her shoulders. Her successors today—such as the self-directed and savvy Taylor Swift—clearly internalized that the public narrative, forged in blaring headlines and quiet conversations alike, can have terrible power.

Spears’s narrative has, in recent years, finally turned: She theorizes that members of the #FreeBritney movement “subconsciously” caught onto her pain and frustration a few years ago, and says that their support was integral to her finally speaking out in court against her father. For them, she is deeply grateful. But she hardly feels that the world has stopped exploiting her. Late in the book, she expresses discomfort with the recent wave of documentaries about her plight. “There was so much guessing about what I must have thought or felt,” she writes.

The Woman in Me clarifies how she’s felt—angry, horrified, confused—but perhaps more important, it seeks to close a long and dark chapter. Spears now wants to “get my spiritual life in order, to pay attention to the little things, and slow down,” she writes. Yet the discussion spinning around her, dissecting and judging and creating mythological storylines for the masses to get invested in, has hardly decelerated. Even before its release, the memoir was strip-mined for gossip items. “I don’t like the headlines I am reading,” Spears wrote on Instagram a few days ago. The post was a reminder that she is not a mere character on our screens, but a mortal woman who is alive and perceiving, and so perhaps we should all watch our mouths.

The Invisible Force Keeping Carbon in the Ground

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › science › archive › 2023 › 10 › tree-survival-fungi-corsica-climate-change › 675739

The giant chestnut tree, growing in place for hundreds of years, would have been impossible to miss. Its leaves were glossy and dark green, its bark riven like a mountain range seen from above. The fungi it relies on were harder to see.

A fungi-hunter is not looking for an object so much as a system, brushing aside a layer of damp leaves to find the gossamer filaments that hold up the world. These multitudes of hairlike fungal threads—individually called hyphae, and collectively, mycelium—are the true body of fungi, shuttling nutrients to and fro across the forest floor. The blackness of soil is also a tell: A layer of loamy, shiitake-smelling richness, two or three inches deep, is a sign that fungi are making more life out of old life, digesting the dead to feed back into the system, keeping the whole scene alive.

Fungi-hunting is what I found Toby Kiers and her team of mycologists doing one morning, when I reached them via video call in Corsica, the French island in the Mediterranean best described as a mountain in the sea. It’s where some of the oldest trees in the Mediterranean still stand, gnarled and huge around their base. It had begun to lightly rain. “The first rain in months!” Kiers said. The team of six was rushing to collect samples while the parched ground changed around them. Dry fungi would have told them a little about how these organisms act when they’re drought-stressed; wet ones would tell them something different. Water activates the fungi’s inner workings, and genes that lie quiet in the dust turn on with a sprinkling of moisture.

And Kiers and her crew were there for the genes. They’d gone to Corsica to ask how fungi helped old-growth trees respond to climate change. Record-high temperatures and wildfires are the island’s new reality. But some of these trees are still there. Could this be the fungi’s doing? Kiers, an evolutionary biologist at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, thinks it’s likely. In a world where one-third of tree species are at significant risk of extinction, and where climate change is already disturbing the networks of fungi on which trees depend, understanding exactly how fungi shore up this system could show just how crucial fungal health is to our collective survival.

Mycorrhizal fungi—the kind that colonize tree roots—help forests, and the ones found around these healthy old-growth trees, Kiers supposed, might be particularly good at what they do. If so, perhaps such star fungi could be conscripted to help other beleaguered trees on the island recover from climatic extremes. But even the most fungus-obsessed scientists are still working to understand the basics of these organisms. In this regard, we’re a bit like society pre–germ theory. An invisible force is working on the health of our systems, but science has yet to fully define it. In fact, it has hardly begun to look.

The biologist Toby Kiers holds up forest soil colonized by white fungal threads, called mycelium, in Bocca di Larone, Corsica. (Quentin van den Bossche)

At least 90 percent of fungal species likely out there are as of yet undiscovered, even though mycologists identify about 2,500 new ones each year. Kiers’s team was collecting fungal DNA simply to “see who’s here,” Kiers said, her hands in the dirt. But the trip’s primary goal was finding RNA, which has even more to say: It could tell scientists what the fungi were doing at the base of the chestnut tree. Were they decomposing leaf litter? Were they siphoning up water, piping it through their network to plants? Maybe they were transporting phosphorus and nitrogen that they had isolated out of the soil, in exchange for carbon the tree had made from sunlight. All of this assistance is, remarkably, the domain of fungi. Any one of these fungal actions, or all of them together, could have made the tree more resilient to the stresses of drought and fire. And if that’s true, it also matters exactly which fungi are doing that work.

What this team was doing had never really been done. Scientists extract RNA from fungi grown in the calm sterility of labs, but not typically from wild soil. “Soil has so many contaminants,” Francis Martin, a molecular biologist at the French National Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment who studies tree-microbe interactions, told me while crouched in the dirt, the chestnut’s emerald leaves dangling behind him. Doing science outdoors is always more messy. Life in the real world is densely layered and hard to separate. All of it, the aphids, the mites, the probably 10,000 species of bacteria, the viruses—“We don’t know anything about the viruses,” Kiers said—counts as “contamination,” from which your true subject must be isolated. And then those subjects, the 200 or 300 fungal species that Martin estimated were in the top four millimeters of soil in this spot, must be teased apart from one another too.

Soil RNA is extraordinarily delicate. As with a comb jelly pulled from the ocean, there may not be much to see once the air hits it. Some RNA degrades in minutes. Other RNA takes longer, maybe an hour. But the team had a white box of dry ice, flown from the mainland that morning and steaming like a cauldron, to help keep it intact. I watched as Aurelie Deveau, a microbial ecologist at the French National Institute, and Nicolas Suberbielle, a mycologist from the National Botanical Conservatory of Corsica, took turns hammering a short metal tube into the ground and pulling it back out, extracting a cylinder of soil each time. Martin sifted and poured that dark powder into clear vials with blue caps. They then ran their vials to the car, to the steaming white box, and shoved them between stones of dry ice as fast as they could. The vials, on ice, would be flown to mainland France, where Martin and his lab would carefully extract the RNA and compare it with the full genomes of the fungi they’ve sequenced thus far. From there, answers about what these organisms were and what they were doing, at least in this spot, would begin to come into view. All of this information would be added to an online fungal atlas, the first globally interconnected one of its kind.

[Read: Death-cap mushrooms are spreading across America]

Trees feature prominently in conversations about sequestering the carbon dioxide warming our planet, but what is most missing from those conversations is fungi. The carbon we think of as sequestered in plants may actually be, in large part, stored in their fungal collaborators. A recent paper on which Kiers is an author found that 36 percent of current annual CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are sequestered, at least temporarily, in fungi. Mycelium mats may be major pools of carbon. Understand that, and suddenly our climatic future hinges on not only what trees we can save, but what soil—what fungi.

[Read: Trees are overrated]

This idea has yet to seep through to popular understanding. Just the day before my call, Kiers’s team sampled beneath a 1,300-year-old tree, an absolutely huge specimen, its trunk covered in mosses and ferns. “It was almost like a place of worship,” Kiers said. Locals on motorcycles rolled through amiably to ask about the mycologists’ work, driving right over the trees’ roots, wheels marking the bark and compressing the loose soil at the tree’s base. This tree was a landmark in the area, but no one seemed to think about its immediate underground vicinity, Kiers told me.

To collect fungal samples, the team hammers steel cores into the soil. In a forest in Asco, Corsica, the biologist Merlin Sheldrake sieves a sample to remove stones before getting the fungal-soil mixture on dry ice. (Quentin van den Bossche)

Institutional awareness is not much better. Fungi are largely ignored in conservation efforts. A recent survey of more than 100 management plans at U.S. natural areas found that only 8 percent mentioned mycorrhizal fungi at all, though they frequently discussed the ecosystem services the fungi provided. The United Nations has recently begun to acknowledge soil’s colossal role as a carbon sink and the ways in which global soil losses are accelerating climate change, but fungi are still scarcely portrayed as a vital part of the picture. Kiers and her team are trying to change that too. In 2021, Kiers co-founded SPUN, the Society for the Protection of Underground Networks, which sends teams of mycologists to places as far flung as Argentina, Guatemala, Northeast India, Armenia, Colombia, Panama, Pakistan, Ivory Coast, Mongolia, Patagonia, Poland, and Nepal in an effort to simply inventory what fungi exist—something else that has never been done before.

Back on Corsica the mycologists, now quite damp, packed up. They’d return tomorrow, to some other spot on the island, to see what’s there and try to understand how this age-old partnership between trees and fungi is reacting to new stresses. By the time the first roots evolved (perhaps explicitly to house beneficial fungi), the two groups had already been associating with each other for some 50 million years, if not more. Their partnership is so tight for a reason: Fungi can’t photosynthesize, and they receive much of, if not all the carbon they need—some five billion tons a year, by one estimate—from their plant associates. In exchange, fungi mine minerals from rock and decomposing material, delivering to plants nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, which they may not get enough of on their own. But the exchange is not always 1:1; both parties are incredibly opportunistic, sometimes shortchanging one another or outright stealing what they need. As Kiers once put it, it’s the purest free market—unconstrained by morality—and it’s completely ruthless.

And yet, without it, we may have very little life at all. Whether we notice them or not, fungi hold up the world. Through the work of mycologists such as Kiers and her colleagues, that invisible kingdom will slowly begin to show itself. We can’t save, it is often said, what we can’t name. Preserving some version of the planet we know, then, might depend on this most basic of tasks: finding more of the many fungi on which all of Earth's biological life rests, and understanding what their daily lives look like as they busy themselves with the work of stitching the world together.

Humans Are Ready to Find Alien Life

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › science › archive › 2023 › 10 › search-for-alien-life › 675707

In the thousands of years that people have been arguing about whether life exists elsewhere in the universe, one thing has been constant: No one really has had a clue. But not anymore. That’s because we finally know exactly where to look for aliens.

Thanks to spectacular advances in science, we’ve identified many stars that have planets in the habitable zone where life can form. We are learning which of those planets are Earthlike enough to be worth pointing our telescopes at. We have giant telescopes equipped with spectrographs that can analyze light from distant stars, and powerful computers to simulate far-flung worlds. If we want to find aliens, we don’t need them to announce their presence to the cosmos. Instead, like detectives on a stakeout, we can just hang out with our doughnuts and cold coffee, watching and waiting.

One form of evidence that astronomers are seeking on their great cosmic stakeout is “biosignatures”—features in a planet’s atmosphere that can come only from life. Scientists have learned from studying our own planet’s history that Earth’s life has been a major player in our world’s evolution for billions of years. Life hijacked the Earth, transforming, among other things, the very air around us. Earth’s atmosphere has chemicals in it that would not exist on a lifeless world. These include oxygen, ozone, and dimethyl sulfide (a compound that gets released into the air by marine plankton). It stands to reason that the same thing would happen on an alien planet hosting alien life, and now we have a way to check.

By analyzing starlight that has traversed an exoplanet’s atmosphere (if it has one), astronomers sitting on Earth can nail down what that atmosphere is made of. The key is to check which wavelengths of light the atmosphere has absorbed. Each pattern of missing wavelengths is like a fingerprint that corresponds to a particular element or molecule: If there are absorption lines of water in a star’s spectrum, then there’s water vapor in the planet’s atmosphere. Same for carbon dioxide. That means we can see what’s floating around in the atmospheres of planets that may never, ever be visited by a human. We Homo sapiens, basically just a bunch of hairless monkeys, have figured out how to probe distant alien atmospheres.

[Read: Scientists found ripples in space and time. And you have to buy groceries.]

That’s not to say that we’ll never find a “false positive” biosignature on a planet that appears to have life but doesn’t actually—the universe is a big place, and sometimes weird things happen. On Earth, atmospheric oxygen comes from photosynthetic organisms and their metabolic shenanigans. But on planets that orbit very close to red-dwarf stars, water-vapor atoms (H2O) high in the planet’s atmosphere can get punched apart by incoming starlight and leave the world with oxygen-rich air, even if the planet is utterly devoid of life.

Astronomers will need to be wary, which means the project will take time. But the key point of biosignature science is that life’s not some frail little bunny hiding in the shadows of its big bad planet. Instead, it’s got muscle. Life has the power to completely reshape a world, and we’re going to use that power to find alien versions of it on other worlds in the galaxy.                

Biosignatures may be the key to finding alien life, but they won’t point you to alien civilizations. For that, you need a different strategy. Once some smart alien civilization begins harvesting enough energy and putting it to work—the very project of civilization-building—it will have left an indelible imprint on its planet. The surface can look different. The atmosphere can have different compounds in it. The space around it might be populated with machines, such as satellites. All of this innovation will create “technosignatures”—a term coined by the astronomer Jill Tarter that refers to signs of living things and their technology—that can be seen across interstellar distances.

On Earth, you don’t have to look very far to find technosignatures. Right now, as you read these words, invisible electromagnetic waves—the wireless internet—are passing through your body. Wireless technologies surround the Earth in a shimmering sphere. Human technology moves more nitrogen and phosphorus around the planet than natural forces do. Our livestock weigh more than all of the wild mammals on Earth. And, of course, we’ve changed the planet’s atmospheric chemistry and its climate.  

When the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) was first getting started, most people assumed that we earthlings would find aliens by detecting a purposeful message (via a radio beacon) they’d sent out from a distant star. But technosignatures represent an expansion of that original SETI idea. Like biosignatures, the technosignatures that scientists can now search for just happen. They are unintentional imprints on a planet: city lights, reflections from solar panels, and orbiting megastructures. Civilizations create them regardless of whether or not they want to send out calling cards, simply by going about their civilization-building business.   

[Read: Should we be searching for smart aliens or dumb aliens?]

Over the past few years, the study of technosignatures has entered a new era. In 2020, my colleagues and I were awarded NASA’s first-ever research grant to study atmospheric technosignatures. Our primary goal is to develop a library of possible technosignatures, because you can’t find aliens if you don’t know what you’re looking for. We also want to articulate the ways that any civilization, anywhere, might evolve, and  what they might do to their planet. Luckily, the history of humans and Earth gives us one likely answer to the latter question: pollute them.                                              

As strange as it might seem, looking for pollution in the atmospheres of distant worlds may be the fastest way to find a distant civilization. As the stuff your civilization makes becomes more advanced, the less that stuff looks like nature. If some of that advanced, unnatural stuff can be seen from 100 light-years away, then boom!—you have a technosignature.          

Maybe that sounds too abstract. Let’s bring the discussion literally down to Earth. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are a class of compounds that were invented by chemists back in the 1920s. Invent is the key word here, because CFCs don’t occur naturally. CFCs have remarkable properties that make them perfect for industrial applications: Their response to heat makes them great for air conditioners. Their reaction to pressure makes them ideal in spray cans. Thus, millions of tons of CFCs have found their way into factories, offices, and homes around the world. Some of this gas has then ended up in the atmosphere. Eventually, scientists discovered that CFCs were eating Earth’s ozone layer. Oops.                           

This tale of industry, air, and chemistry shows us two things that are really important when it comes to hunting aliens. First, chemicals such as CFCs exist only because of technology. Second, an industrial civilization can pump huge quantities of those chemicals into their planet’s atmosphere either on purpose or by mistake. Some of the chemicals a civilization puts into the atmosphere might be detectable across space. I know this for a fact because it was one of the first results to come from our NASA technosignature research group.

Recently, our team built a mathematical model of an Earthlike planet orbiting a star 40 light-years away. Then we put the same levels of CFCs in its atmosphere that we have in ours right now. Finally, we “observed” that exoplanet with a mathematical representation of the James Webb Space Telescope. Our results showed that, given some assumptions, using the JWST for just a few weeks was enough to detect CFCs in our simulated inhabited alien planet. If this had been a real planet, we would have found really strong evidence for the existence of an alien civilization. This doesn’t tell us there are industrial chemicals in any exoplanets’ atmosphere, but it does tell us that if there were and they were at the right levels, then we could find them.                 

[Read: A new age of UFO mania]

Chemicals in an atmosphere are not the only way distant planets might reveal that they’re hosting a civilization. Check out a picture of Earth at night, and you’ll see cities and the roads connecting them lit up like luminous spiderwebs. And artificial lighting sources like the sodium lamps we use today produce strong spectral imprints that could be seen from an exoplanet. In 2021, the astronomer Thomas Beatty showed how these technosignatures could be detected if the planet in question was well-lit enough. Using telescopes that are being planned right now, we’ll have the capacity to see planets and their technosignatures with greater accuracy—and to maybe even discover world-spanning cities like Coruscant from Star Wars or Trantor from Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series.    

Searching for these signatures of extraterrestrial life is something researchers can do, and are doing, right now with the James Webb telescope. But JWST was not designed with life detection as its main goal. The next generation of advanced telescopes, including NASA’s Habitable Worlds Observatory, the successor to the JWST scheduled to launch in 2040 or so, will be much better tuned to the task. Other ground-based telescopes that are currently being designed will have mirrors three times bigger than today’s telescopes. With these beasts, we’ll step even further into the uncharted territory of technosignature hunting.

We will have to be ready for pitfalls and challenges as humanity begins this search for extraterrestrial life in earnest. But overcoming pitfalls and challenges is what gets scientists up in the morning. We’ll work them out. The challenges just mean we’re playing the long game. The search for aliens is a project whose progress is probably going to be measured in decades. But that’s okay. A few decades of being careful and clever is nothing compared with the thousands of years it took to get us where we are today, standing on the threshold of discovery, about to step across.

This article has been adapted from Adam Frank’s forthcoming book, The Little Book of Aliens.