I Loathe Authenticity
Musings on the truth.
I’m thinking about truth. And its not-so-much cousin, authenticity.
I remember Kamala Harris’s face when she questioned Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing in 2018. I remember like it was yesterday. I watched her, and said to myself,
“This is who we need to run against Trump.”
Kamala (I’m using the vice-president’s first name not out of disrespect; in my mind we are now pals) can win the presidency in November. I have no doubt.
She pursued the truth with laser focus in 2018. Once again, I think she’s exactly who we need. She’s proven it to me again in the last couple of weeks.
You can keep your authenticity. I prefer the truth, and Kamala Harris.
The most overused word in the English language is “authentic.”
I’ve started to cringe when I hear it.
When someone says “authentic,” ninety percent of the time I think they’re bullshitting me. They tend to say the word like they’re a young yoga teacher, breathy and sweet because they practice being kind and think they need this tone, sounding both cheerful and spineless at the same time. It’s as if they want me to believe their every thought is full of avocados and sunshine (albeit sunshine while wearing 50% SPF.)
Crap, I mutter. Nobody can be this virtuous. And vacuous.
I decide to look up the dratted word, and see its exact meaning before I start a diatribe.
Authentic: adjective
of undisputed origin; genuine.
“The letter is now accepted as an authentic document."
Wait a minute. I think perhaps we’re using the word incorrectly. I am a human being, not the last will and testament of Richard III. I suspect what people mean when they say “authentic” is “genuine.” I look that up:
Genuine: adjective
Truly what something is said to be; authentic.
I give up.
No, I don’t. These definitions support my point. When people say authentic, I suspect they mean “honest.” They’re referring to people who tell the truth—about themselves and how they see the world.
Why is honesty so hard to come by that we feel compelled to comment on it? Why do we mislabel honesty, and call it authenticity?
I want Kamala Harris to be successful. She’s had a stunning week, and so far, so great.
When I watch footage of her, I know she’s ready for the presidency. Her spirit is shining. When the moment arrived, she came into her own.
I look at her breadth of experience and know she can handle the chief executive position of the executive branch. I know she can be our commander in chief. I know she can lead this nation. I know she can get elected.
Because what does a prosecutor do best? What is a prosecutor’s intent?
To reveal the truth.
I just want her to avoid The Trap.
The Trap is being who we think you want us to be instead of who we are. Kids today might call it inauthentic.
If you’re a woman, it’s difficult to circumvent. We are told to be quiet, smile more, lose weight, be a perfect mom, not be so uptight, not be so loose, why don’t you want more sex, what’s wrong with you, why do you want so much sex…ad nauseum, forever and ever, and it never lets up. What we really think is stomped on, hushed up, and beaten out of us.
I’m in my late fifties. I hadn’t the faintest idea of who I was or what I thought until fairly recently.
Meanwhile, men are instructed to succeed.
If you’re a woman, pause for a moment. Consider what your life might look like if your only directive had been to succeed.
As soon as we start navigating the world, we learn how others think of us. Often this is a highly unpleasant experience, so we start to temper our personalities. Suddenly, it’s not what we think that counts anymore. It’s what others think of us that counts.
A presidential election is this dilemma on steroids, all the while demanding…authenticity.
There are polls, advisers, speechwriters, consultants, an entire staff full of advisors preventing you from telling the truth. Another name for a campaign staff might be, “The What Not To Do Police.”
Hillary Clinton, as smart as she is, fell into The Trap during the debate against Trump in 2016. While he was circling her like a shark in what was undoubtedly the weirdest debate of all time, there was a moment when I could read her face. I knew she was about to let him have it.
She did not.
She didn’t because more than one of her advisors told her angry women don’t get elected.
Good luck on finding an American woman who isn’t angry in 2024.
It’s not that the nation isn’t ready for a president who’s a woman. We are long past ready. It’s that the press needs conflict. The press needs us to be afraid.
Conflict and fear cause people to click on headlines, and that’s how papers get paid. All of them. Not just the tabloids.
For economic reasons, they need Kamala to fail.
I ran into The Trap recently, and not for the first time. Someone asked me to write an Op-Ed on JD Vance’s catty comments.
For two days, I struggled. Everything I wrote was hollow, mind-numbingly boring, and meaningless. I wasn’t getting anywhere and almost gave up.
Then I figured out why.
When I heard “Op-Ed,” I initially thought,
The New York Times.
My brain gets ambitious. When I write something with The New York Times in mind, I don’t sound like myself. I become…inauthentic.
No. I become dishonest.
I wasn’t writing in my own voice. I was writing in what I call the Op-Ed tone, The Times tone, The Serious Paper with Serious Readers tone. I was trying to make the Op-Ed an Important Work. I was editing instead of writing, and the editing was strangling me.
I’ve written for several well-known publications, but I’ve never cracked The Times. When I heard “Op-Ed,” my brain lit up. This time, I’d write something so good even the Times would love it.
Deadly.
I didn’t even realize what I was doing, which is shocking. It’s not like I haven’t run into this problem before. I finally wised up (again) and started writing what I thought.
When it was done, I felt satisfied. This is as good as it gets for me. Just that I wrote what I meant in an essay that can be read in under ten minutes. It’s enough.
The presidency to the politician is The New York Times to the writer.
But I am not Kamala Harris, nor do I have her job. It’s not earth-shattering if I write a bad essay. If she loses the election, it’s entirely within the realm of possibility the world as we know it will end.
I am not being watched by the press. All these publications are dying for her to put a foot wrong, because when she does, they’ll write a very predictable headline about how her candidacy was doomed from the start. Then some smart people will write analysis about why they knew it would turn out like this.
And people like me will click on the articles and read them, and the papers get paid.
Trump must be the greatest money maker of all presidents for news organizations. It’s no coincidence Fox News has the highest news ratings in television.
Kamala doesn’t get to start over. The minute she makes a mistake, they’re going to be all over her. And by they, I mean The New York Times.
Oh look. Here’s what they’ve come up with today, in anticipation of such a moment:
Harris Created a Huge Wave of Energy. How Long Can Democrats Ride It?
They ran their own month-long campaign to get Biden to drop out; now it’s time to take down the person replacing him.
Today’s headline isn’t asking when the MAGA community is going to give up Trump, in spite of his outrageous comments today to the National Association of Black Journalists.
And yet, my brain tells me I should write for them.
Here’s where things get very weird indeed. As in, only in America weird.
Voters are trying to get to the truth. Ethical journalists are trying to get to the truth. Voters want a president who tells us the truth.
Trump is a compulsive liar. I understand he continues to lie, and these lies are underreported by the press. I’m aware he’s a convicted felon, I’m aware he stacked the Supreme Court, and I’m aware he led a bloody insurrection against the United States when the election results didn’t go his way.
The GOP picked a winner.
Because if you were to ask a Republican voter what’s the one quality they most love about Donald Trump, many of them would say:
“He’s authentic.”
He doesn’t stick to talking points. He says what he thinks.
His supporters hear the truth from the one and only candidate who will tell them the truth. Because his theories with no basis in fact sound like their own brains.
The key here is the word “sound.” Without talking points, his voice is fresh. He is different than all the other candidates.
Kamala Harris, take note. You, too, can say what you think. It’s your only weapon against him, although everyone will tell you no.
Say it anyway. We are desperate to hear you.
Mark my words: The Important Papers will try to ruin our exuberance. I honestly don’t think the Times thinks it’s in good taste for Democrats to be happy.
Kamala Harris is shining. Her smile could light up Los Angeles in a power outage. She will lead with the truth. As for authenticity:
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Brilliant and eye-opening. Thank you!
I love your "don't bullshit me attitude"! Sorry, I have to say it, it makes you and your writing authentic. 😊