Reframe Your Inbox: Vote ✅

Hey everyone -- welcome to another edition of Reframe Your Inbox, a pseudo-semi-monthly(ish) email newsletter in which I share some meandering thoughts on books, politics, work, and life.

One housekeeping update. This will likely be the last edition of Reframe Your Inbox for a while. I plan to write fewer newsletters and articles, and instead spend these hours on a new book proposal. Good work takes time, and the book idea that’s been bouncing around in my head for more than a year will never evolve beyond its current state if I don’t devote some serious time to it.

Now, to today’s topic. Over the past few months, two activities have helped me recharge my mental and emotional batteries. The first is researching and writing a new article, “Why Obama Writes,” which will be published on Medium soon. As we (or at least I) eagerly anticipate the first volume of President Obama’s memoirs, this article traces the forty-fourth president’s lifelong passion for writing and explores why he keeps at it.

The second activity keeping me sane is calling and writing letters to voters. As I discussed in my latest appearance on the Feeding Curiosity podcast, the difference between a half-hour making get-out-the-vote phone calls and a half-hour doomscrolling apocalyptic political news couldn’t be starker.

With that in mind, I have a couple asks. The most important: VOTE. If you have the time and resources to do so, get involved in this election. Even if you hate making phone calls or don’t live in the United States or aren’t able to vote for whatever reason, there are many ways you can help out. Reply to this email if you want some ideas.

This election is not over. In a genuinely free and fair democracy, it would be (though in a genuinely free and fair democracy, Hillary Clinton would be president).

Unfortunately, that’s not the democracy we have. It’s easy to look at favorable polling or encouraging fundraising numbers and overlook the scale of the obstacles facing democracy in America. To name just a few: Racist voter suppression laws and tactics. Armed right-wing militias at polling places. Coordinated efforts to depress turnout. Unregulated social media platforms (and presidential bully pulpits) swarming with disinformation and dark money. Media outlets that seem to have learned very few lessons from 2016. Foreign interference, some of it solicited by the incumbent president. A politicized Department of Justice. A politicized Supreme Court. A politicized Postal Service. An undemocratic Electoral College. A shameless president desperate to preserve his self-image (and perhaps his immunity from prosecution). A shameless Republican party, along with its corporate backers, determined to change the rules -- determined to do whatever it takes -- to cling to power. Oh, and a global pandemic. (Sorry for subjecting you to more doomscrolling...)

Any one of these factors by itself could swing a swing state. And any swing state could swing an election. 77,000 votes in three states. 0.06 percent of all votes cast. That’s all it took four years ago.

It’s not 2016, of course. I could prepare a similarly lengthy list of reasons why 2020 is different, starting with the regrettable fact that Donald Trump is the president. We can win this election, and given the intimidating medley of anti-democratic hurdles I’ve just listed, the possibility of victory alone is reason for optimism. But we should be under no illusions that such an outcome is guaranteed. To paraphrase the old saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice… American autocracy. (I still prefer George W. Bush’s version.)

Over the next seven days, let’s do everything we can. And after Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are sworn in on January 20th, 2021, let’s make sure their first priority is a pro-democracy agenda that takes on corruption, strengthens institutions, and reforms American elections so we never find ourselves this close to the brink again.

See you on the other side.

Reframe Your Inbox: How Do Republicans Get Away With It?

Hey everyone — welcome to another edition of Reframe Your Inbox, a pseudo-semi-weekly(ish) email newsletter in which I share some meandering thoughts on books, politics, work, and life.

This week I’m sharing my latest article on Medium: How Do Republicans Get Away With It? This piece explores the shamelessness and double standards of the Republican party. It was inspired by a passage in Isabel Wilkerson’s new book, Caste. (I’m sure my effusive and never-ending praise for Caste is getting annoying at this point, but, seriously, read this book.)

If you enjoy this article, I’d be grateful if you’d check it out on Medium, give it some claps (the Medium equivalent of likes or hearts), and share it with others.

One more thing for American readers of this newsletter: Please register to vote (at home or abroad) and get involved (at home or abroad).

(Forwarded this edition of Reframe Your Inbox? Head here to subscribe. You can also read and follow Reframe Your Inbox on Medium.)

How Do Republicans Get Away With It?

Isabel Wilkerson’s “Caste” sheds light on the GOP’s head-spinning double standards

How do they get away with it?

We asked that question in 2016 when Republicans took the unprecedented step of refusing to consider President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, and chose instead to leave a vacant seat on the nation’s highest court for nearly a year.

We asked that question in 2017 when Republicans, who spent the entire Obama presidency hyperventilating that the federal deficit would drive America toward socialist collapse, took power and immediately passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut for corporations and the wealthy without giving a second thought to how they’d pay for it.

We’ve been asking that question for years, trying to understand how Republican politicians manage to keep a straight face as they righteously proclaim themselves warriors for limited government and individual liberty while lecturing women about what they can and cannot do with their bodies and allowing agents of the state to kill American citizens with impunity.

How do they get away with it? We’re asking that question yet again, as Republicans tie themselves in torturous rhetorical knots attempting to justify filling Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat before November 3rd.

The “we” here isn’t just Democrats. The “we” is anyone who believes that democracy depends on individuals and institutions operating in good faith. And when not just a politician but an entire political party abandons even the pretense of acting in good faith, we have to wonder: How do they get away with it?

We could ask Republican politicians, but it doesn’t really matter what they say. They don’t actually believe the craven excuses they make to explain away their blatant hypocrisy and double standards. Their behavior is predicated entirely on consolidating and maintaining political power. The only thing they truly believe is that they can get away with it.

One of the lessons of modern American politics seems to be that they can. Many Americans, and not just Republican voters, have come to expect more decency, more productivity, more decorum, more common sense, more responsibility, more willingness to compromise — just more, period — from Democrats than Republicans.

Nearly four years into the Trump presidency, it’s long past cliché to ask, Can you imagine what Republicans would have done if Barack Obama did that? (To be anyone but a #MAGA Republican these days is to constantly live the head-exploding emoji: 🤯.) But this thought exercise, as overused and depressing as it is, is a vivid reminder of the gaping discrepancy between what’s expected of Democrats, and what we’ve come to expect of the vessel for the Trump personality cult that used to be called the Grand Old Party.

How do Republicans get away with it?

In part, it’s their pure, unrestrained shamelessness. As it turns out, our system of norms, traditions, and precedents is largely self-regulating, leaving us vulnerable to demagogues and nihilists who are immune to the feelings that most human beings call “shame” or “guilt.” As demonstrated by the career trajectory of cynic-in-chief Mitch McConnell, an inability to feel shame can get you really far in American politics. (The tradition of white men using shamelessness to fail upward isn’t limited to the United States — just look at the UK government.)

Other factors help explain how Republican politicians get away with it. Many tech platforms and news outlets have a dangerously deep-seated (and often profit-driven) fear of appearing biased against conservative views. Republicans have manipulated this fear masterfully. They also have a built-in advantage, in that it’s a lot easier to succeed as an anti-government party making government dysfunctional and distrusted than as a pro-government party trying to make government work.

But there’s a much more fundamental issue at play. In Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents, Isabel Wilkerson provides a crucial and clarifying piece of the puzzle. Caste describes the history and shape-shifting evolution of America’s race-based hierarchy. As she discusses how the outcome of the 2016 presidential election “was the culmination of forces that had been building for decades,” Wilkerson writes:

In a caste context, the two main political parties bear the advantages and burdens of the castes they most attract and with which they are associated. At times, the stigma and double standard attached to disfavored minorities have accrued to the Democrats, while the privilege and latitude accorded the dominant caste has accrued to the Republicans, who have come to be seen as proxies for white America.

In many ways, it’s that simple. Over the past half-century, “as white support has intensified for Republicans,” Wilkerson writes, the GOP has come to be “seen as the party of an anxious but powerful dominant-caste electorate.” In America’s collective consciousness, Republicans are now associated with the dominant caste. This status gives them enormous leeway to say and do things that would never be tolerated of society’s subordinate groups.

That helps explain some of the behavior of Republican politicians and power-brokers, such as “the unforgiving scrutiny and obstructions faced by Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and before them John Kerry and Al Gore,” as Wilkerson writes. But it also helps explain why so many other American entities and institutions, and the people within them, expect more, and tolerate less, from Democrats. Reporters. Media executives. Democratic politicians. Judges. CEOs. Political analysts. Lobbyists. Pundits. Voters. Nonvoters. It’s just not Republicans who have internalized the biases and double standards of America’s racial caste structure.

Republicans, in turn, have taken all the latitude and unearned credibility that comes with their dominant-caste affiliation and exploited it to the fullest to entrench their power. They’ve rewritten laws and packed courts. They’ve rewarded their supporters and disenfranchised their opponents. And now they’ve dragged the United States — the country whose values and story they love much more in theory than in practice — to the brink of illiberalism. All to preserve white minority rule. All to preserve the dominance of the dominant caste.

What should we make of this? As the GOP’s infuriating and entirely predictable response to Justice Ginsburg’s passing makes clear, the fight over when to fill her seat on the Supreme Court is not actually a fight about legal authority or precedent. It’s not even a fight about double standards. It’s a fight about power. It’s a fight about dominance.

In this case, it’s not just that Republicans don’t believe their own arguments. It’s that they know you don’t believe them either. That’s the point. “Make no mistake: It is degrading when people lie to you openly and obviously,” Lili Loofbourow writes in Slate. These lies are “calculated insults to your intelligence and to your citizenship and to your country.” Sure, Republicans are saying, we’re stealing another Supreme Court seat. What are you going to do about it?

Today, the party of the dominant caste holds power but senses that power slipping away. The party’s members and supporters will do anything to avoid that outcome, so of course they won’t hesitate to steal another Supreme Court seat if that’s what it takes.

Nor will they try to do so subtly, or with any pretense of legitimacy. No, they’ll steal it brazenly and openly. This brazenness, this flaunting of dominance, this refusal to play by the same rules they impose on others, this rejection of the very norms and standards that their own predecessors constructed (often as a means of preserving this same dominance), is part of the act. Taunting and demeaning those who would dare question their power and authority is itself a way of asserting that power and authority.

And we know this because these are the same tactics that have been honed and deployed for centuries to maintain white supremacy.

Republicans, as Loofbourow puts it, have “turned good faith into a sucker’s failing in a sucker’s game.” This White House, this Republican Senate majority, these Republican enablers in Congress and in boardrooms and in positions of power across the country are determined — no, they are desperate — to preserve the dominance of the dominant caste.

They will do whatever it takes.

Reframe Your Inbox: How Deep Thinking Drives Social Progress

Hey everyone -- welcome to another edition of Reframe Your Inbox, a pseudo-semi-weekly(ish) email newsletter in which I share some meandering thoughts on politics, books, work, and life.

The passing of the iconic and pathbreaking (and notorious) Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made for yet another tough weekend in what feels like an unending stretch of tough weeks that have made for a tough year. As Rolling Stone’s Jamil Smith wrote of Justice Ginsburg:

She carried too much weight, and for too long. We should live in an America where we only need to send condolences to everyone who knew and loved Justice Ginsburg, and not to the nation and democracy as a whole. I wish that we could simply mourn her.

What do we do next? Colorado State Senator Kerry Donovan put it beautifully in her tribute to RBG:

With so many tragedies, so many gut punches, piling up at once, it might be tempting to give into despair. But then, consider Justice Ginsburg’s final words for our nation: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” I see these words not simply as a request aimed at the President or the Senate; I see them as a call to action for all of us. Justice Ginsburg knew that much of her life’s work would be in peril upon her passing. We are all now charged with protecting and preserving her monumental legacy. To put this another way: RBG fought like hell for us. Now it’s our turn to fight like hell for her.

American readers: Get registered to vote (at home or abroad). Get involved (at home or abroad).

Here are two things this week: 1) some reflections on the connection between deep thinking and social progress, prompted by a July episode of Cal Newport’s podcast; 2) some high-quality content.

(Forwarded this edition of Reframe Your Inbox? Head here to subscribe. You can also read and follow Reframe Your Inbox on Medium.)

FIRST THING

Readers of Reframe the Day and this newsletter know I’m a fan of Cal Newport’s work. Recently I’ve found his Deep Questions podcast to be a nice break from the political podcasts I usually consume, as well as a helpful reinforcement of the key ideas in his books (like time block planning).

A few months ago, Newport responded to a listener question that straddles two worlds -- politics and work-slash-life -- that I’ve been writing about, and increasingly attempting to connect, over the past few years: What learnings from Deep Work [Newport’s 2016 book] would you apply to the movement for racial justice going on right now?

This question caught my attention because it’s a different way of thinking about a challenge I’ve raised here more than a few times, which is how to make sure that a quest for self-improvement doesn’t devolve into self-indulgence. (For more of my explorations on this topic, see this newsletter from June, as well as this article, which was featured in audio form on the Optimal Living Daily podcast.)

Recognizing that I’m a privileged white guy and so is Newport, our perspectives on social progress aren’t necessarily the most enlightening. But I still found his response interesting:

One thing I’m really convinced about is that deep problems, historically speaking, almost always require deep thought as a precondition for their solution. … If we go back historically, we can see case after case of problems where there are egregious obstacles and there is no doubt -- especially looking back -- there is no doubt on what the right side of the issue is. And yet, those on the right side still required deep thinking to figure out “how are we going to take this egregious obstacle and actually demolish it?”

Newport points to three examples of people who believed in a cause that was clearly just but who still required deep thinking to make their case: Cicero’s orations against Catiline, Abraham Lincoln’s studious preparation for debating Stephen Douglas during the 1858 Illinois Senate race, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”

Consider Dr. King. In April 1963, King was arrested in Birmingham, Alabama. After a few days in jail, as historian Taylor Branch describes in Parting the Waters, “King remained isolated in his cell, allowed no phone calls. He had no mattress or linen, and was sleeping on metal slats.” To keep King informed of developments in the Birmingham campaign, one of his lawyers, Clarence Jones, would sneak newspapers into his cell.

In one of these papers, King came across a story about a group of white religious leaders who had issued a lengthy statement criticizing the movement in Birmingham. These white clergymen “invoked their religious authority against civil disobedience,” Branch writes. Even though some of them had criticized segregation in the past, they were now parroting the language and rhetoric of the racist city government, writing that “such actions as incite hatred and violence, however technically peaceful those actions may be, have not contributed to the resolution of our local problems.”

Upon reading this, Branch writes, King “sat down and began scribbling around the margins of the newspaper.” When Clarence Jones returned a few days later, he found that “King had pushed the wandering skein of ink into every vacant corner.” His response to these white preachers would eventually become the “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”

As Newport put it in this recent podcast, King “knew in his bones that what was happening in the south was wrong. There was no doubt about it. But the time for deep work and deep thinking is what allowed him to actually articulate that argument in a way that could take [these] reactionary critiques… and completely deconstruct them.”

Parting the Waters, which chronicles the civil rights movement through King’s life, is full of scenes in which King and his advisers and fellow movement leaders work late into the night. Even after exhausting, often dangerous, days of preaching and marching and mobilizing and fundraising and speechmaking, they still set aside time to think. To reflect. To strategize. To debate. To figure out how to move forward.

They share the righteous conviction that their cause is just, but they know that conviction alone won’t integrate lunch counters or expand access to the ballot box or inspire a quarter-million people to march on Washington for jobs and freedom.

This anecdote is dramatically oversimplified to make a larger point: Even if deep thinking isn’t part of the narrative of how social progress happens, it’s almost always a critical component. There are countless examples beyond Cicero, Lincoln, and King. Consider the deep thinking that enables an overworked public defender to defend a wrongfully accused client (or a rightfully accused one).

Consider the deep thinking required to craft the books and movies and TV shows that expose people to uncomfortable truths and painful histories and lived experiences of other human beings.

Consider the deep thinking necessary to organize a march or run a campaign or pass a ballot measure, and to understand how to convey the urgency of a cause or candidate.

Consider the deep thinking that it took to become one of the most powerful and influential legal minds in American history, particularly at a time and in a nation that threw endless roadblocks in front of pioneering women who dared to strive for such things.

As Newport puts it:

When you feel affronted by a condition of the world, when you feel drawn, instinctually and magnetically, to a cause, to then add to that instinct, “I want to think deeply, and I want to read deeply, and I want to contemplate deeply about this issue” -- that is not a dismissal of the urgency of the issue. It’s actually an affirmation of the urgency. … Deep thinking is how you approach deep problems, if you want a sustainable, morally clear, and really effective solution. So read hard things, have challenging conversations, and put aside time for just raw thinking, raw reflection, trying to make sense of what you read, how you feel about it, how it all makes sense.

Of course, the stereotypical image of a deep thinker -- a solitary individual, often a well-off white man who is lucky enough to spend his days in a university library pondering and pontificating -- isn’t the definition of a deep thinker. Different people think deeply in all sorts of different ways and under all sorts of different circumstances. 

Plus, like anything that falls under the broad header of “self-improvement” or “personal development,” deep thinking can easily become an indulgent, or at least a very individual-focused, activity. Having the time and resources to read and reflect and study is a luxury. As I wrote in June, “pursuing self-improvement is indeed a privilege, and it can easily become a selfish endeavor. But it doesn’t have to end up this way.”

Whatever our circumstances, developing an ability to think deeply can make us better leaders, better followers, and better allies. Investing time in reading, writing, thinking, exploring, asking questions, getting uncomfortable -- these activities can (and almost certainly will) help us spend our time in more enjoyable ways. But their more important power is that they equip and strengthen us for our collective struggles. The work that really matters.

SECOND THING(S)

“Only Justice Ginsburg would have added the fairly unpoetic coda to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous declaration that ‘the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.’ It does, she agreed in her oral dissent to an opinion striking down part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, but said, only ‘if there is a steadfast commitment to see the task through to completion.’ No wonder she’s refused to retire -- she still has work to do.” That’s Irin Carmon in a 2015 column in The New York Times.

“It is the primary job of the powerful to know the facts of America. … Trying to educate these powerful producers or defenders or ignorers of American racism about its harmful effects is like trying to educate a group of business executives about how harmful their products are. They already know, and they don’t care enough to end the harm.” That’s Ibram X. Kendi in Stamped from the Beginning.

“All of this marks a fitting finale to Britain’s catastrophic mismanagement of the Brexit process, which started with the resignation of the prime minister who called the referendum without any plan for what would happen if he lost it (David Cameron); continued with his successor triggering a two-year countdown to Britain’s final withdrawal without any plan for what future relationship she wanted to negotiate (Theresa May); and was followed by her successor signing an international treaty without any guarantee of a future trade deal, only then to rip up this agreement when its consequences began to reveal themselves (Johnson). Regardless of the merits of Brexit, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Britain’s leaders dealt themselves one bad hand after another -- and proceeded to play them badly.” That’s Tom McTague in The Atlantic.

“It’s true that the post-Obama party has stretched its ideological spectrum; it’s also true that Biden’s nomination, on top of the 2018 election results, revealed a Democratic coalition still anchored by the center-left. Not that any such nuance matters. To be a Republican today requires you to exist in a constant state of moral relativism, turning every chance at self-analysis into an assault on the other side, pretending the petting zoo next door is comparable to the three-ring circus on your front lawn.” That’s Tim Alberta in Politico Magazine.

Reframe Your Inbox: Good Work Takes Time

Hey everyone -- welcome to another edition of Reframe Your Inbox, a pseudo-semi-weekly(ish) email newsletter in which I share some meandering thoughts on politics, work, and life.

Book business part 1: I recently joined the Feeding Curiosity podcast to talk about Reframe the Day. Host Erich Wenzel and I had a fun and wide-ranging conversation. Check it out here, or just search “Feeding Curiosity” wherever you get your podcasts. (Erich and I taped another conversation last Friday, so look for that in a few weeks.)

Book business part 2: I’m excited and grateful to report that sales of Reframe the Day through June generated more than $600 for the Covid-19 response efforts of Direct Relief. A major all-caps THANK YOU to everyone who bought a copy. If you’re wondering what your contributions are supporting, check out this six-month coronavirus response update from Direct Relief.

Only one thing on tap this week: 1) an essay about the volume of work it takes to produce great work, inspired by reading Isabel Wilkerson’s new book, Caste.

FIRST THING

In January, when I finished reading Isabel Wilkerson’s 2010 book, The Warmth of Other Suns, I was amazed. I also had questions.

How, I wondered, does someone write a book like this? As the subtitle (“the epic story of America’s Great Migration”) suggests, The Warmth of Other Suns is an epic book. It’s epic in every sense of the word. It is iconic, painting one of the defining portraits of the Great Migration. It is unbelievably well-researched. It is a gripping story, describing the journeys and the families of three Black Americans, Ida Mae Gladney, George Starling, and Robert Foster, in the kind of detail that can only come from thousands of hours of interviews.

The book is also epic in the sense that it manages to weave together moving narratives and revealing anecdotes with the “hard” stuff -- the facts, the research, the data, the history -- in a way that often reads like a novel. Most significantly, it’s epic in the sense of having changed how millions of people understand what Wilkerson describes as “first mass act of independence by a people who were in bondage in this country for far longer than they have been free.”

How does one write a book like The Warmth of Other Suns? That prompted my second question: What happened after Wilkerson wrote it?

In the years after Warmth hit bookshelves, it didn’t seem like Wilkerson had been publishing constant bombshell articles or hot takes in newspapers and magazines. She didn’t appear to have become a full-time pundit or Twitter personality. She hadn’t published another book.

It’s sad, and embarrassing, to admit the extent to which these meaningless metrics had warped my expectations. I had been conditioned to assume that bestselling authors must be constantly seen and heard on cable news, social media, podcasts, and all the different platforms that shape our minute-by-minute political and cultural conversations.

This admission reflects how self-centered the modern media age can make us. Well before Warmth was published, Wilkerson won a Pulitzer Prize for her reporting. In 2015, she was awarded a National Humanities Medal. Over the past decade, she had been writing and speaking regularly. But because I hadn’t happened to stumble across her more recent accolades and material, I simply assumed it didn’t exist.

How did Wilkerson write The Warmth of Other Suns? And what happened after she wrote it? Both questions have now been thoroughly answered, and my reasons for asking them thoroughly dismantled, by the publication of her new book, Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents.

In Caste, Wilkerson demolishes the comforting notion America is a mostly free and meritocratic society with lingering pockets of racial prejudice and discrimination. She shows that America is, and has always been, a race-based caste system in which “caste is the bones, race the skin.” She explains that “caste is fixed and rigid. Race is fluid and superficial, subject to periodic redefinition to meet the needs of the dominant caste in what is now the United States.”

It is a powerful, troubling, enlightening, uncomfortable, and necessary book. (Reviewing Caste for the New York Times, Dwight Garner called it an “instant American classic and almost certainly the keynote nonfiction book of the American century thus far.”) It is also of those books that makes you think as you’re reading it, Writing this book must have taken a lifetime!

And there was the answer to my second question. What had Wilkerson been doing in the decade since she published The Warmth of Other Suns? She had been working.

Because good work takes time.

On its face, that’s an obvious statement. Intellectually, objectively, we all recognize that the time it takes to do something is… however much time it takes to do that thing.

Yet our current information environment of instant gratification and unlimited content obscures this basic, and universal, truth. It’s hard to accept that good work takes time. That good work takes work.

The speed of our news, the constant connectivity of our technology, the attraction of our distractions, and the shrinking of our attention spans combine to make it seem almost inconceivable to spend years, or decades, on a single project. It’s a notion that has been reinforced by movies and TV shows that can funnel a lifetime of work into three-minute montages of lawyers preparing cases, scientists working in labs, athletes lifting weights, investigative journalists working late into the night among stacks of newspapers. Viewers always see the end product: the dramatic court hearing, the vaccine, the victory, the exposé. But we rarely see the work.

Once we take a step back from these learned expectations, the real story becomes immediately clear: Of course epic works like The Warmth of Other Suns and Caste take time.

Wilkerson recently explored this topic in an interview with journalist Anand Giridharadas. Caste may have taken 10 years, but as she tells Giridharadas, The Warmth of Other Suns took 15. Fifteen years. That’s nearly 5,500 24-hour news cycles. This exchange says it all:

Giridharadas: 

There has been this quickening of the culture, this increasing reactivity in the culture, this feeling that you have to constantly be putting things out there. And you have gambled your career and your vocation on a completely opposite wager that it is the slow work, the long research, these two masterpieces that you’ve written that changed the conversation from the moment they landed. Can you talk about that kind of faith in the intellectual slow food of your books in this very fast age?

Wilkerson:

The Warmth of Other Suns took so long -- it took 15 years -- that I often say, if it were a human being, it would be in high school and dating. That’s how long it took me. It’s the nature of the work, especially narrative nonfiction, that it cannot be done quickly. If you’re really trying to get inside the hearts and minds and experiences of people, you have to spend time with people. You have to be on their time schedule in terms of where and how they feel comfortable sharing sometimes the most painful or intimate aspects of their life experiences, and there’s no way of rushing it. You’re on their time schedule. You’re on the time schedule of the human heart. So it just takes the time that it does. There has to be this faith that, if you feel that it’s important and you feel that this is what you’re called to do, then it will work out in the end. There’s no guarantee when you start, no guarantee whatsoever. And every time you start it feels like you’re jumping off a cliff into the unknown and you just hope that it will work.

I go in completely open because I don’t know what I’m going to be in for. For The Warmth of Other Suns, I essentially had this casting call, you might say, of interviewing 1,200 people. By that I mean auditioning people. I talked to a lot of people. Did not spend as much time with each of them, clearly -- it’s 1,200 people. But it was an effort to try to find the three people through whose life story the range of experiences of the Great Migration would come through. It just took the time that it did.

It just took the time that it did.

I’m currently engrossed in Parting the Waters, the first book in Taylor Branch’s America in the King Years trilogy, which chronicles the civil rights movement through the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. On his website, Branch introduces these books as “my major life’s work.” He planned to finish the series in three years, he writes, but ultimately “the project consumed 24 years of wondrous obsession for me.” Good work takes time.

In November 2009, Lin-Manuel Miranda tweeted that he had “spent the entire day working on one couplet about George Washington.” Hamilton didn’t open on Broadway until January 2015, more than five years after that tweet and seven years after Miranda started the project. Ron Chernow had previously spent six years writing the biography that inspired Miranda to write the play. Good work takes time.

Robert Caro’s first book, The Power Broker, took seven years; the first manuscript was one million words. Then, in 1976, Caro began working on the initial installment of The Years of Lyndon Johnson series. He is still working on the fifth book in that series. Good work takes time.

How much time? As the mental conditioning coach Trevor Moawad puts it: It takes what it takes.

Some creators like Wilkerson, Branch, and Caro will make the promotional rounds when they publish a new book, but you probably won’t see them chattering on cable news or engaging relentlessly on Twitter or hosting podcasts or publishing weekly columns (or email newsletters…). They’re busy doing their work. Others, like Miranda, somehow seem to be everywhere, all of the time.

Yet no matter how they approach their craft, what they do, and what we know them for, is built on a foundation of years of steady, often anonymous, almost always unglamorous, work. Work that is inherently precarious. Work for which the return on investment -- of time, money, effort, focus -- is never guaranteed.

That’s worth remembering in this era, when politicians and presidents shamelessly say they’ve done things that they never did and never intended to do, when corporations publish statements proclaiming anti-racist commitments without making fundamental changes to how they operate or who they hire or what they advocate for, when entire generations have grown up on self-idolizing social media platforms with assurances that we should “fake it till we make it” and hone our “personal brand.”

It’s worth reminding ourselves that even in this era, even today, there are master crafters quietly, doggedly, determinedly doing their work, however long it takes.

(To get Reframe Your Inbox in… your inbox, head here to subscribe. You can also read and follow Reframe Your Inbox on Medium.)

Reframe Your Inbox: Why I Can’t Stop Reading Pandemic Novels

Hey everyone—welcome to another edition of Reframe Your Inbox, a pseudo-semi-weekly(ish) email newsletter in which I share some meandering thoughts on politics, work, and life.

I’m considering moving this newsletter to Substack. I mention this here to ask: Have you used Substack, either as a writer/distributor or a reader? If you have, what do you think?

Here are two things this week: 1) an exploration of why I keep reading novels about global pandemics; 2) some high-quality internet content.

(Forwarded this edition of Reframe Your Inbox? Head here to subscribe. You can also read and follow Reframe Your Inbox on Medium.)

FIRST THING

Over the past six months, I’ve read quite a few novels about global plagues and pandemics. Perhaps too many. First came Stephen King’s The Stand. That ended up being a little too supernatural for me (and some of the descriptions of a post-apocalyptic Boulder, Colorado, hit a little too close to home), but it got me hooked.

Next came Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. Then World War Z by Max Brooks, Station Eleven by Emily St. John Mandel, and The End of October by Lawrence Wright (the same Lawrence Wright who writes longform nonfiction for the New Yorker and won a Pulitzer Prize for The Looming Tower). There are a couple more on the Kindle already, including Justin Cronin’s The Passage and Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake, and more waiting in the queue, like Colson Whitehead’s Zone One.

I just can’t seem to stop reading flu fiction.

Why adopt such a bleak reading habit, especially right now? Some of it is just that I find it interesting. (Interesting subject matter: a decent reason to read a book.) But the more significant force behind this exploration of post-apocalyptic fiction is perspective. These books offer perspective about Covid-19, yes, but also a broader perspective about the impermanence of life and the fragility of civilization. They offer perspective about what actually matters (and what does not). Perspective about the difference between real reality and the narrow sliver of the world that we confuse with reality when we’re overwhelmed by distractions and daily obligations.

These books let us peek over the other side to see what a worst-case scenario might look like, before retreating back to reality with a new awareness of what’s possible. By creating worlds that are a lot like ours and tipping them on their side—sometimes subtly, other times more abruptly—these stories show how precious and how precarious our current circumstances are. Not just where we are at this particular point in our lives, but the more foundational stuff we usually don’t notice until it’s gone. Stuff like clean water on tap and electricity on demand. All of the world’s information whizzing silently and invisibly around us. Norms and expectations that hold societies together.

These books show how much worse things could get, and how easily they could get that way. That sounds pretty bleak, yet somehow these books always leave me feeling more appreciative than apprehensive. Because when they end and I return to the non-fictional world, I’m reminded that while things could easily get a whole lot worse, the pillars of society haven’t collapsed. We can still see a realistic path to the other side.

Gaining perspective is part of the whole point of reading books, especially fictional ones, so maybe I shouldn’t be surprised by what I’m learning from a deep dive into this subgenre. In any event, I’m not the only one who has picked up this particular habit. Consider two authors who have previously written pandemic novels but this year found themselves publishing non-pandemic novels in the middle of an actual pandemic: Stephen King and Emily St. John Mandel.

In an April New York Times review of King’s new book—the same review that first led me to pick up The Stand—Ruth Franklin writes, “under normal circumstances, King is the last writer I’d reach for during an insomniac night. But these weren’t normal circumstances.” For some reason, King’s stories were “exactly what I wanted to read right now.”

In a March New York Magazine profile of Mandel, Hillary Kelly explores why sales of Mandel’s 2014 book Station Eleven, in which a flu epidemic “wipes out over 99 percent of humanity,” spiked just as the coronavirus began forcing many countries into lockdown. “Inhaling a novel about a contagion that brings civilization to an end while news about COVID-19 sends hand-sanitizer sales vaulting doesn’t sound logical,” Mann writes. “But there can be something reassuring about taking in a fictional disaster in the midst of a real one. You can flirt with the experience of collapse. You can long for the world you live in right now.”

You can long for the world you live in right now. If there’s one feeling these pandemic novels have left me with, it’s this sense of longing, suffused with an appreciation of this world’s strengths and a clearer awareness of its shortcomings.

The saying goes that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it (though history seems to suggest that even if we do learn from history, we’re likely to repeat it anyway). And most of the books I read still have a lot more to do with the world as it has been and the world as it is than the world as it might become in the aftermath of a deadly virus.

But perhaps there’s a similar lesson to take from books like these: Those who don’t consider different futures may be doomed to take the present for granted.

SECOND THING

“The Dems might always be in disarray: sloppy, unwieldy, corny, off message. But the alternative—and the homogeneity, compromise, and willful blindness that accompanies it—doesn’t feel like the future. It feels, overwhelmingly, irrefutably, like the past we’ve already left behind.” That’s Anne Helen Petersen in her new(ly revamped) email newsletter, Culture Study.

“Things don’t need to be of concrete use in order to have value.” That’s Alexandra Schwartz exploring “what the self-help gurus and their critics reveal about our times” in the New Yorker.

“I think we maybe underestimate how severe the adversity is and that people may be experiencing a normal reaction to a pretty severe and ongoing, unfolding, cascading disaster. It’s important to recognize that it’s normal in a situation of great uncertainty and chronic stress to get exhausted and to feel ups and downs, to feel like you’re depleted or experience periods of burnout.” That’s psychologist Ann Masten, quoted by Tara Haelle in the Medium publication Elemental.

“I review every letter and report that comes out of our office, which is to say that I spend a lot of time trying to get millennials to stop using words like impacted and ensure and accessible. If there is one thing I have learned in my first term in Congress, it is that these kinds of words obscure the hard realities that we confront. As in, ‘Congress must ensure that PPE is accessible to impacted workers boils down to: ‘Workers will get sick and die if Congress does not pass a law—and enforce it.’” That’s Congresswoman Katie Porter, quoted by Jennifer Siebel Newsom in Glamour. (I came across this piece in Brian Beutler’s newsletter. Related: my January 2018 article, “Democrats, try campaigning like human beings.”)

That’s all for this week. As always, thanks for reading.

—Adam

Reframe Your Inbox (Interesting Ideas Edition)

Hey everyone—welcome to another edition of Reframe Your Inbox, a pseudo-semi-weekly(ish) email newsletter in which I share some meandering thoughts on politics, work, and life.

I recently published a tribute to Congressman John Lewis on Medium: “Remembering John Lewis, America’s Pilot Light.” If you watch only one thing today, perhaps make it this conversation between Lewis and Bryan Stevenson, the founder of the Equal Justice Initiative and author of Just Mercy.

Here are three things this week: 1) a reflection on interesting ideas; 2) some Reframe the Day-related news; and 3) a few pieces of high-quality internet content.

(Forwarded this edition of Reframe Your Inbox? Sign up here. You can also read and follow Reframe Your Inbox on Medium.)

FIRST THING

One evening this past week, I was washing dishes and listening to Ezra Klein’s podcast, as I do many evenings. On this particular evening, instead of thinking about the interesting ideas that Ezra and his guest were discussing, I was thinking a meta-thought about how enjoyable it is to listen to interesting people discuss interesting ideas. Or read about interesting ideas. Or attempt to write about interesting ideas.

Then I had something resembling an interesting idea. Theoretically, one of the privileges of being a college student is that one is encouraged to explore interesting ideas for the sake of exploring interesting ideas. This is, of course, a dramatically oversimplified view of higher education that doesn’t take into account the biases and inequities of the actual experience, from who gets the chance to attend to how you’re treated while you’re there to why it costs so much to how you’re supposed to pay for it. Despite the asterisks and the systemic shortcomings it embodies, the appealing notion of the university as a space for ideas persists.

In this mostly hypothetical universe, once you leave the world of ideas, an interesting idea becomes more of a means to an end—something to be consumed, packaged, monetized, turned into “useful” information, or otherwise utilized for a socially accepted reason (i.e. it helps you achieve a goal or produce something that some sort of marketplace considers valuable). In this world of work, ideas are either a means to an end, or they’re just a bonus—something that entertains you during your commute or that you get to enjoy at the end of the day when you’ve finally gotten through everything you have to do.

Anyway, the interesting idea I had while was washing dishes was this: During my college years, when I was lucky enough to have an opportunity to explore the world of ideas, I was mainly interested in the world of work. The time I might have spent reading and writing and pontificating, I instead spent sending emails and deploying productivity hacks and working my way through to-do lists for my college radio station. These days, meanwhile, much of the time I spend sending emails and deploying productivity hacks and powering through to-do lists, I now wish I could instead spend reading and writing and pontificating about ideas.

To be clear: This isn’t a lament about the passage of time, or a complaint about my present circumstances, or a thinly veiled hint at an impending career shift. I’m immensely fortunate to have a lot of time to read, write, and explore interesting ideas. But it is, I think, an example of the paradoxes of life.

It’s also an example of the constant tension between present us and future us. When this realization first entered my mind the other night, I immediately thought, I need to go back to grad school! I’ll get a master’s in… writing? History? Literature? I’m not sure, but I must take action! A younger me might have followed this passing thought much further, interpreting it to mean that it’s time to make some radical changes to my life to better align how I think I want to spend my time with how I’m currently spending it.

But that’s the difference—or at least a difference—between 23-year-old Adam and 33-year-old Adam. Instead of acting impulsively on this grass-is-always-greener restlessness that flares up in most of us from time to time, I can simply notice it. I can be aware of it. I can acknowledge it as one of life’s weird little ironies. I can recognize that it’s not necessarily a profound insight but more likely just a random passing thought. I can see it as a reflection of my/our/humanity’s compulsion to (re)assure ourselves that “once I do X or have Y or achieve Z, then I’ll be happy and content.”

I can do all of that, and then—perhaps after writing it down as an interesting idea to start a newsletter with—I can let it pass. I can pivot to gratitude and appreciation for the present moment, for the life I have right now, for the opportunity to to read interesting books and listen to interesting podcasts and have interesting conversations and share interesting ideas on platforms like this.

Awareness. Appreciation. Gratitude. Presence. Those are some interesting ideas.

SECOND THING

What if you don’t have a world-changing, heart-racing, life-defining purpose? That’s the question I tackled in a piece of audio content I wrote and recorded for London’s Shelf Help digital book club earlier this summer. You can read the written version on my website.

A few weeks ago, I had a fun conversation with Aun Abdi, host of the Book Talk Today podcast. Check out our conversation on YouTube or Spotify, or just search for “Book Talk Today” wherever you get your podcasts.

THIRD THING

“I have never competed with other people. It just never occurred to me. I have to sort of work it up to understand what people are talking about when they complain about what this person did or that person shouldn’t do. … I only compete with myself, with my standards. How to do better the next time, how to work well.” That’s Toni Morrison, quoted in a 2003 profile in The New Yorker, which was republished last month.

“The story that violence is normal depends on the story that some of us are more deserving of safety than others, and some are more deserving of pain. It depends on the story that some of us should just expect to be hurt and that the rest of us bear no responsibility for that hurt. It depends on the story that some of us no longer even feel pain—if we ever did. It depends on a history awash with erasure—not just of violence, but of resistance to and healing from violence as well. It depends on stories of unworthiness, of numbness, of monstrosity, and of forgetting. And it depends on institutions that embody and enforce those stories.” That’s Danielle Sered in Until We Reckon: Violence, Mass Incarceration, and a Road to Repair.

“I have always embraced the idea that the pursuit of a worthy, deep goal is never for a day or for a year, that the journey is long and hard, and no one can say how long it will take. You take in all the information you can, you decide what is right, and once you make that decision, you pursue it. You commit, with perseverance, steadfastness and faith.” That’s one more thought from John Lewis in Walking with the Wind: A Memoir of the Movement.

That’s all for this week (and probably next week, too). As always, thanks for reading.

—Adam

Reframe Your Inbox (Remembering John Lewis Edition)

Hey everyone—welcome to another edition of Reframe Your Inbox, a pseudo-semi-weekly(ish) email newsletter in which I share some meandering thoughts on politics, work, and life.

On Friday I published a tribute to Congressman John Lewis, “Remembering John Lewis, America’s Pilot Light,” on Medium. Getting this article to a place where I felt it said what I wanted it to say was far more difficult and far more emotional than I anticipated. At various points in the writing and editing process I was so caught up in some of Lewis’s writings and videos of his speeches that I would be startled to return to the present and be reminded that he had passed away. Such was, and remains, the power of John Lewis’s voice, life, and legacy.

I’ve included the full article below. If you enjoy it, I’d be grateful if you’d check it out on Medium, give it some claps (the Medium equivalent of likes or hearts), and share it with others. A very big thanks to Chris and Erin for reading various versions of the article and making suggestions that dramatically improved it.

As part of an ongoing experiment, I wrote the first draft of this article by hand. I was curious to see whether writing it this way would impact how I wrote and thought and connected the different ideas and themes in the piece. I’ll be exploring this more in a future newsletter, but it’s safe to say that I haven’t been this immersed in something I’ve written in a long time.

That, however, may have less to do with the technology I was writing with and more to do with the subject I was writing about. As President Obama said in his eulogy for Lewis, “What a gift John Lewis was. We are all so lucky to have had him walk with us for a while, and show us the way.”

Remembering John Lewis, America’s Pilot Light

Two stories about a man who always kept the faith.

“Without a doubt the greatest living American.”

YouTube comments are not usually where one finds a meaningful analysis of American history. Or a compelling argument. Or really anything of substance. But there, underneath a decidedly non-HD video of Congressman John Lewis giving a speech to what I think was a health care advocacy organization, was a line that said it all: “Without a doubt the greatest living American.”

I came across that comment sometime in early 2012, during one of those magical nights when the Internet manages to do exactly what the tech CEOs promise: deliver connection and inspiration, even joy. I was living in a studio apartment in Washington, DC, and working on Capitol Hill while taking graduate school classes in the evenings. I don’t recall what sequence of links led me to that video, which in turn led me down a beautiful online rabbit hole of John Lewis speeches. What I do recall is thinking, as I watched speech after speech, Why aren’t these the most-viewed videos on the Internet?

Here, I thought to myself, is Congressman John Lewis, a witness to and shaper of history, a leader of the civil rights movement, a friend of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy.

Here is the “Conscience of the Congress,” the youngest speaker at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, the chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.

Here is the man who had his skull fractured during the 1965 march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge near Selma, Alabama — the bridge that still bears the name of a Klansman but that will someday be named for John Lewis — on the day that came to be known as Bloody Sunday.

Here is this crusader for justice, this soft-spoken man with the voice that could boom. Here he is with his humility and his deeply earned assuredness and his steadfast conviction, having long since surrendered to what he called the “Spirit of History.”

Here, on YouTube, is John Lewis, the John Lewis, sharing his stories, his passion, his determination, his faith, his lifelong commitment to the struggle for, as he succinctly put it, “freedom, equality, basic human rights.” Sharing it with a small group here, a small group there, saying “‘no’ to hate but ‘yes’ to almost every invitation that landed in his box,” as Michele L. Norris wrote in the Washington Post. Sharing it all with the world, as he’d done selflessly and unrelentingly for decades.

A few months after this inspiring evening on YouTube, the same grad school curriculum I’d occasionally neglected so I could spend a night watching John Lewis speeches online called for me to write a paper about leadership. I emailed Lewis’s Washington, DC office and explained my situation as a Hill staffer and part-time graduate student. I asked if the congressman might consider sitting for an interview for my assignment.

A lot of offices would’ve declined a request like this. Given Congressman Lewis’s stature and renown, and the fact that I had zero ties to Georgia’s fifth congressional district, this was even more of a long shot. If I were lucky, I thought, maybe I’d get an email with some pre-written answers (which, to be clear, would’ve been more than adequate for my assignment).

But no. Just a few weeks later, I found myself sitting down with John Lewis in his office with a majestic view of the U.S. Capitol, the same U.S. Capitol he might have seen in the distance as he stood in front of the Lincoln Memorial in August 1963 and called on 250,000 people on the National Mall to “get in and stay in the streets of every city, every village and hamlet of this nation until true freedom comes, until the revolution of 1776 is complete.”

Nearly half a century later, on a steamy summer day in Washington, I was sitting down with John Lewis.

***

Many people have spoken of what made John Lewis such a remarkable person. It was more than his accomplishments, though those accomplishments were monumental. It was more than his bravery and courage, though the fear he faced down and the pain he endured are unimaginable to most of us. It was more than his willingness to get in “good trouble,” more than his lifelong dedication to the struggle, though that willingness and that dedication changed the world.

What made John Lewis remarkable, even beyond all of that, was his character. His decency. His kindness. His compassion. His presence. Not “presence” in the sense of fame or stature or prestige, though he had those things. Not the type of “presence” that is often used to describe the “proximity to power” feeling that emanates from a lot of political figures, though he was undoubtedly a powerful political figure.

The magnetism and beauty of John Lewis’s presence came from something much deeper, much more real, much more genuine. It seemed to come directly from his heart. It seemed to come from the fact that, in the words of Dr. King, he had been to the mountaintop, and he wanted to share with you what he’d seen. And somehow, no matter who you were, he was interested in what you’d seen along your journey, too.

This was “presence” in the most literal sense: the ability to be present in the moment. When John Lewis spoke with you, when he shook hands with you, when he smiled at you, you knew he saw you. He heard you. You mattered to him. Not as a political asset, but as a human being.

Wherever John Lewis was, when he was there, he was there. And on that day in July 2012 in the Cannon House Office Building, even though he had no reason to be there, he was there. All of him was there. That decency. That kindness. That compassion. That presence. The deliberateness and care with which he acted and spoke and gestured and chose his words. The focus and attention he somehow always made available for the person in front of him.

When I interviewed John Lewis about leadership, there was no question I could ask that he hadn’t answered thousands of times before. He had no need to engage with me, to share his wisdom and presence with me. But he did anyway.

A good leader, he told me, “must be a headlight, not a tail light.” A good leader must be there for the long term. You “can’t be a firecracker leader and shoot off and be gone,” he said. “You must keep burning.” Leaders get their hands dirty, Lewis told me. They get in the ring. “A leader must not call on his followers to do anything he’s not prepared to do,” Lewis said.

I asked him, of all the leaders he’d known and worked with throughout his life, a list that included presidents from Kennedy to Johnson to Obama, who had he learned the most from? Lewis didn’t hesitate. “Dr. King,” he said. “Dr. King inspired me to get in trouble.”

John Lewis and I ended our meeting with a quick photo before he moved to the next item on his busy schedule. That’s how a lot of political meetings end. But this conversation was unlike any other conversation I’ve had with a politician. It was unlike pretty much any conversation I’ve had with another person, for that matter.

Just think of the last time you had a conversation with anyone — let alone an elected official — who was truly present for you. In our world of too many distractions and too much to do, when was the last time you were truly present for someone else, especially for someone you didn’t need to help or listen to? I say that not to issue a blanket indictment of us but rather to celebrate John Lewis and his extraordinary presence. After all he had seen, done, achieved, witnessed, endured — after all of that, he still kept showing up for the human being in front of him.

I’ve never forgotten what John Lewis said that day. But I learned as much about leadership from what he did as from what he said.

***

Beyond their impact on culture and society, beyond the wisdom and progress they impart to the world, heroes and historical figures influence each of us in unique ways. Even if we don’t know them personally, we all have our own relationships with people we admire. The volume of tributes to John Lewis throughout his life and in the weeks since his passing reflects just how many people admire him, just how many people have their own special bond with this icon who they knew, marched with, read about, heard speak, saw around town, saw on YouTube, studied, loved.

Many of these tributes have been both genuine and genuinely moving. Some tributes, though, reflect the contradictions and hypocrisies at the heart of the American story. Some tributes have come from those whose beliefs, whose campaign contributions, whose votes in Congress, whose Supreme Court nominees, whose support for racist policies opposed everything John Lewis stood for. Everything he fought for. Everything he marched for. Everything he was arrested 40 times for. Everything he was beaten nearly to death for.

John Lewis knew these contradictions and hypocrisies well. He knew that “truth never did stop the concocters of racist ideas,” as Ibram X. Kendi writes in Stamped from the Beginning. As vividly and acutely as anyone, John Lewis had seen these racist ideas, been subjected to them, watched them mutate and transform over time, suffered their violent and unjust consequences. He probably wouldn’t have been surprised to hear eulogies from those who, as Joel Anderson wrote recently in Slate, “shamelessly celebrate the life of Lewis only to work assiduously to thwart his life’s work.”

John Lewis had seen and experienced too much along his journey to be surprised when a congressional colleague who posed for a picture with him one day endorsed racist voter suppression laws the next. Or when, as Ari Berman describes in Give Us the Ballot, on the very day in 2013 that the Supreme Court laid the groundwork to dismantle some of the most critical provisions of the Voting Rights Act precisely because they had been so effective, “a few hundred yards away at the U.S. Capitol, Congress unveiled a new statue of the civil rights leader Rosa Parks.” As if statues, but not voting rights, might be the solution to centuries of racial subjugation and discrimination. “The actual American history” of race, Kendi writes in Stamped from the Beginning, is one “of racial progress and the simultaneous progression of racism.”

John Lewis navigated these contradictions and hypocrisies all his life. As he wrote in his 1998 memoir, Walking with the Wind, “I don’t think that many political leaders are genuinely concerned about the problems of the poor, of blacks, of Hispanics, of the people in the inner cities. Yes, all politicians love people in general. They love humanity. But many of them are very uncomfortable with people in particular — especially up close.”

Lewis knew that the reverse could also be true for the politicians and powerful people who sought his friendship and association. They could like him — even love him — in person, as an individual, in particular. And they could do so while dismissing, demonizing, and disenfranchising people in general. Entire groups of people. Black people. Latinx people. Indigenous people. People whose background or love or faith or sexual orientation or bank account or bad luck made them appear different in the eyes of a white power structure. People whose exclusion from the system protected the system. People whose segregation from power served those in power just fine.

Part of what made John Lewis different, as a politician and as a human being, was that he loved people in general and in particular. He loved humanity, and he loved human beings. He knew the risks of this love. He knew he might be heralded for his immense capacity for forgiveness by some of those who chose to interpret that forgiveness as forgetfulness. Those who might benefit from a photo with John Lewis, who might enjoy a statue of Rosa Parks on the grounds of the Capitol, but whose political careers might depend on disenfranchising Black voters and pretending not to see the systemic injustices against which Lewis and Parks fought.

In spite of these glaring contradictions, these infuriating hypocrisies, Lewis remained defiant. “I assume that your word is good until you show me otherwise,” he wrote in Walking with the Wind. “I refuse to be suspicious until I have reason to be. Yes, this sets me up to be burned now and then, but the alternative is to be constantly skeptical and distanced. I’d rather be occasionally burned but able to connect than always safe but distant.”

This ability to connect, this refusal to become bitter, this determination to keep his eyes on the prize, fortified him for decades of struggle. And it made him, as Adam Serwer argued in The Atlantic, far more than just an “icon” of civil rights. “This understates who they were,” Serwer wrote of Lewis, C. T. Vivian, and their partners in the movement. “They were the leaders of an incomplete revolution that remade American society.”

While they “would not have seen themselves this way,” Serwer wrote, “in their imagination and compassion, in their sincere belief in the ideals of the [Declaration of Independence], they surpassed their predecessors.”

***

In March 2016, four years after I first came across that insightful YouTube comment about John Lewis, I was working as a speechwriter for Senator Chris Coons of Delaware. Senator Coons and his team had invited Congressman Lewis to spend a day in Wilmington, Del., and knowing that this would be a special day, I’d done everything I could think of to be there for it.

The morning of Lewis’s visit, we gathered with Senator Coons at the Joseph R. Biden Jr. Amtrak station in Wilmington to await the congressman’s arrival. From there, my colleagues and I followed him and Senator Coons as they traveled from event to event, taking pictures, tweeting highlights, trying to observe and absorb it all.

The weather was gray and dreary, but the day itself was joyful because everywhere Lewis went he brought joy. It’s not necessarily that he was constantly radiating happiness himself; he just seemed to transform everyone he encountered. I’ll never forget the smile on the face of the Amtrak conductor who ran over to shake Lewis’s hand before the train continued its journey north. Throughout the day, I saw John Lewis lift the spirits of person after person with the same kindness, the same presence, the same fundamental goodness that I’d been so lucky to experience in our meeting four years earlier.

At one point, I asked Lewis’s chief of staff if this were typical. “It’s like this everywhere we go,” he replied, with a smile that conveyed a profound mix of compassion, respect, and gratitude for his boss.

The final item on the agenda that day was a public town hall meeting that would be aired live on a local radio station. It had already been a long day. I was exhausted, and all I’d had to do was stand around and take photos. When we arrived at the hall where the event would take place, there were a couple hundred people milling about. The room had that distinct aura of small talk mixed with anticipation. As we walked in, Lewis was a few steps ahead of Senator Coons and the rest of the group, and he paused when he entered the room.

The song playing on the loudspeakers at that moment was “Happy,” by Pharrell Williams. That, I knew, was John Lewis’s song. And I knew that “Happy” was his song because I, like so many others, had watched Lewis dance to it in a video his office shared in 2014 to commemorate the International Day of Happiness. It’s a joyful video. It begins with Lewis smiling and dancing. Following some gentle prodding from his staff, he layers some of his own singing on top. “This is my song,” Lewis says, partially to the camera and partially to himself. “Nothing can bring me down!”

Walking into that Delaware ballroom just as “Happy” was playing was one of those moments of pure coincidence that feels impossibly perfect. When I noticed the song, I walked up to Lewis. “Congressman, they’re playing your song!” I exclaimed. He paused and smiled. “They’re playing my song,” he replied quietly, his tone one of simple contentment.

It was a tiny moment. A fleeting and unremarkable moment on the scale of that day, that year, that long and epic journey of John Lewis’s life. But it said so much. Despite everything he had been through, despite the exhaustion he must have been feeling that day, despite the weight of the expectations of people in that room who all came to see and hear from him, despite all the distance he had marched and all the marching he had yet to do — despite it all, John Lewis paused to take in the moment. To be present. To savor the little bit of joy we all feel if our song comes on when we’re not expecting it.

The world can feel hopeless and overwhelming, and its challenges and obstacles can appear insurmountable. But John Lewis seemed to have things figured out. Fight for what you believe in. Show up for other people. Find moments of joy along the way. And always keep the faith, even if you grow tired and weary.

After the event wrapped up, I walked with Senator Coons, Congressman Lewis, and the rest of the group to take a few more pictures before Lewis returned to Washington, DC. Perhaps in a reflection of the digital era in which we live, I had that YouTube comment echoing in my head. Without a doubt, the greatest living American.

I reached over to shake Lewis’s hand and thank him. “Come by the office in DC,” he said earnestly, shaking my hand and smiling.

***

“I am not without passion,” Lewis wrote in Walking with the Wind, describing his determination to attend school as a child. “In fact, I have a very strong sense of passion. But my passion plays itself out in a deep, patient way. When I care about something, when I commit to it, I am prepared to take the long, hard road, knowing it may not happen today or tomorrow, but ultimately, eventually, it will happen. That’s what faith is all about. That’s the definition of commitment — patience and persistence.”

The passage continued with an image Lewis would later share with me in his office. “People who are like fireworks,” he wrote, “popping off right and left with lots of sound and sizzle, can capture a crowd, capture a lot of attention for a time, but I always have to ask, where will they be at the end? Some battles are long and hard, and you have to have staying power. Firecrackers go off in a flash, then leave nothing but ashes. I prefer a pilot light — the flame is nothing flashy, but once it is lit, it doesn’t go out. It burns steadily, and it burns forever.”

John Lewis was America’s pilot light. Not just for civil rights, though that would have been enough. He was our pilot light for justice. For righteousness. For decency. For kindness. For compassion. For grace. For goodness.

Without a doubt, one of the greatest Americans who ever lived.

This article, “Remembering John Lewis, America’s Pilot Light,” was originally published on Medium. (If that link doesn’t work, try this one.) Were you forwarded this edition of Reframe Your Inbox from a friend? Head here to subscribe.

Reframe Your Inbox (Take Back Your Calendar Edition)

Hey everyone—welcome to another edition of Reframe Your Inbox, a pseudo-semi-weekly(ish) email newsletter in which I share some meandering thoughts on politics, work, and life.

As he was for millions of people, John Lewis was my hero. I was lucky enough to spend some time with him on a couple different occasions, including as a young Hill staffer interviewing him for a graduate school essay. (I remember nothing about that particular grad school class except for my conversation with Lewis.) To this day I’m amazed that John Lewis, a member of Congress, an icon of Civil Rights, a witness to and a shaper of history, would be willing to set aside 30 minutes to speak with a twenty-something graduate student and Capitol Hill staff assistant. Later this week I’ll be publishing an article about these experiences, which I’ll share in the next newsletter. Until then, here’s one of my favorite passages from Lewis’s 1998 memoir, Walking with the Wind:

I am not without passion; in fact, I have a very strong sense of passion. But my passion plays itself out in a deep, patient way. When I care about something, when I commit to it, I am prepared to take the long, hard road, knowing it may not happen today or tomorrow, but ultimately, eventually, it will happen. That’s what faith is all about. That’s the definition of commitment—patience and persistence. People who are like fireworks, popping off right and left with lots of sound and sizzle, can capture a crowd, capture a lot of attention for a time, but I always have to ask, where will they be at the end? Some battles are long and hard, and you have to have staying power. Firecrackers go off in a flash, then leave nothing but ashes. I prefer a pilot light—the flame is nothing flashy, but once it is lit, it doesn’t go out. It burns steadily, and it burns forever.

Two quick announcements: first, a warm e-welcome to the new subscribers of Reframe Your Inbox who signed up through BookSweeps. (If you’re not sure why you’re receiving this email, there’s a good chance it’s courtesy of BookSweeps.)

Second, I’m excited to be partnering with bookstagrammer @readingforgrowth to give away five copies of Reframe the Day. The contest kicked off this week. If you’re on Instagram, head here for the details and give @readingforgrowth a follow. If you’re not on Insta (who would do that?), just reply to this email to learn how to enter.

With that, here are two things this week: 1) some initial reflections on attempting to “time block” my calendar; and 2) some high-quality internet content. (If you were forwarded this edition of Reframe Your Inbox, head here to subscribe.)

FIRST THING

Can you gain more control over your time? How do you make sure you’re prioritizing your most important tasks and activities? Is it possible to balance the demands of life with all the other things you want to do? The closest I’ve come to answering these questions is something I’ve talked about here before: recognizing that you can’t “do it all,” and acknowledging that unfortunate reality by setting more realistic expectations for what you can accomplish in a given amount of time.

In other words, taking control of your time isn’t wholly a productivity challenge. It’s a “do less” challenge. As David Heinemeier Hansson and Jason Fried write in It Doesn’t Have to Be Crazy at Work, “rearranging your daily patterns to find more time for work isn’t the problem. Too much shit to do is the problem. The only way to get more done is to have less to do.”

Even so, I’ve long had the sense that I could be using my time better. Not “better” in the sense of “more efficiently” or “more busily” or even “more productively,” but rather “more deliberately” and “with more focus.” I want to get better at chapter six of Reframe the Day: making more time for what matters.

To that end, over the past few weeks I’ve been re-exploring author Cal Newport’s concept of “time blocking.” Broadly, time blocking is just a technique for using a calendar, but it’s a technique that requires you to be more intentional about assigning specific activities to each hour of your working day, and more proactive (as opposed to reactive) about carving out time for your highest-priority items.

As he explained in a 2013 blog post, Newport sees time blocking as a tool to “make sure progress is being made on the right things at the right pace for the relevant deadlines.” (If you’re interested in learning more about how to time block, there are tons of explainers and how-tos across the World Wide Web. I suggest starting with Newport’s 2013 and 2015 blog posts, or his Deep Questions podcast.)

I first encountered the concept of time blocking in Newport’s 2016 book, Deep Work. At its core, time blocking is a system for prioritizing deep work. Yet despite my longstanding interest in doing more deep work, I’d never made a genuine effort to make time blocking part of my process.

Listening to a few recent episodes of Newport’s podcast convinced me to give it another try, so recently I’ve been scheduling blocks of time for things like writing, journaling, and progressing work projects that require sustained focus. I’ve also been batching the little things—the stuff that has to get done but doesn’t need to take up the whole day—into blocks that fit around those meaningful blocks of time. Here’s what I’ve learned from this exercise so far:

>> I have no idea how long it takes me to do most of my work. I already knew that I didn’t know this, but putting a plan for the day on paper and then comparing that plan to how the day actually went has made it much more clear. That’s a hugely valuable lesson for me in both planning and setting expectations. That means:

>> I underestimate how much time my work requires. Dramatically so. And not just work. Basically anything I do in life, from walking to the store to reading a book to making a phone call, takes longer than I anticipate. In his podcast, Newport suggests that new time blockers should start by assuming we’ll need 50 percent more time than we think for a given task. My inability to predict how long it’ll take me to do things, and my unrealistic expectations for what I can achieve in a given amount of time, are such deeply entrenched traits that I may need to anticipate closer to 100 percent (i.e. twice as much time as I think) until I rewire my working habits. To that end:

>> I need to schedule a buffer at the end of each day. By scheduling time at the end of the day—currently a 30-minute block labeled “wrap up/buffer”—I leave myself time to review the day and reflect on the next one, and I preemptively build in some flexibility in case I need it (which I almost always will). In doing so, I make it much more likely I’ll actually stop working at the time I intended. I’m probably going to take this buffer time, whether or not I’ve scheduled it. Time blocking forces me to account for it.

>> I have to prioritize writing if I want it to happen. At least if at all possible. This is another thing I already knew but of which I need to be reminded constantly: If I want to be sure to make time to write, I have to block off time for it, and I have to make it one of the first—if not the first—things I do every day. Time blocking makes me think ahead to the entire day, not just the next thing on my list, which serves as a useful reminder that if I don’t write first, I might not write at all.

>> I don’t hold myself accountable for my own time boundaries. Unlike a day full of meetings scheduled by or with other people, many—if not all—of the start and end times on a time-blocked calendar are self-imposed. They’re meetings with you and only you, so only you will know if you show up for them when you said you would. I need to train my mind to respect and abide by these solitary commitments, just as I would for a meeting or call with other people.

My high school cross-country coach once told me that when you’re training, you should always try to run as far as you planned—no less, but also no more. If you always make yourself run further than you originally intended, your brain will stop trusting that you mean what you say, which will make it even harder to get motivated to run the next time.

I think time blocking requires a similar type of discipline. If I want to make time blocking successful, I need to start and end work on a particular project when I said I would. I need to respect my own boundaries on my time, not just the boundaries other people’s calls and commitments set for me. I need to trust that I’ll follow my own plans and limitations for the day. It’s about structure, accountability, and respect for my own time.

It’s also about practice. By forcing me to make meaningful, or at least semi-realistic, assessments of what I want to do and how long I think I’ll need to do it, I’m hopeful that time blocking will train me to reconcile my expectations with reality in a way that a to-do list alone does not. It doesn’t replace the to-do list; it enhances the to-do list by channeling it through a reality filter. Time blocking is a daily lesson in accepting that I can’t “do it all.”

Have you tried time blocking, or something like it? I’d love to hear what you learned. Just reply to this email to share your thoughts.

SECOND THING(S)

“Fallow time is necessary to grow everything from actual crops to figurative ones, like books and children. To do the work, we need to rest, to read, to reconnect. It is the invisible labor that makes creative life possible. … There’s something to be said for the state of quiet dormancy, where little apparently happens. We might have periods of furious output; to get there, we require periods of faithful input. With input, there’s a restoration of fertile, vibrant thinking.” That’s Bonnie Tsui in the New York Times. (I first came across this 2019 piece in Tsui’s interview on the Longform podcast.)

“All of this unfinished business has made the United States semidemocratic, a half-and-half world in which ideals of equality, political accountability, and the rule of law exist alongside practices that make a daily mockery of those ideals. This half-life is ending—either the outward show of democracy is finished and authoritarianism triumphs, or the long-denied substance becomes real. The unconsumed past will either be faced and dealt with, or it will consume the American republic.” That’s Fintan O’Toole in The New York Review of Books.

That’s all for this week. As always, thanks for reading.

—Adam

Reframe Your Inbox (Social Media Hiatus Edition)

Hey everyone—after a month-long break from the newsletter, I’m off social media (again) and back at it with Reframe Your Inbox (again). Here are three things this week: 1) a few reflections on social media (because what the world needs right now is more reflections on social media); 2) a couple Reframe the Day updates; 3) some high-quality internet content.

FIRST THING

As some readers have probably observed, I’ve spent a decent chunk of the last few months trying to re-engage with Instagram and, to a lesser extent, Twitter and LinkedIn. (I never entertained the concept of returning to Facebook.) My goal was to do what I thought I needed to do as a new author: build a platform that would help me spread the word about my book in a not-totally-annoying way. A week or so ago, I made the decision to abandon that effort and return to my previous lifestyle, which involves little to no social media usage at all. I dig into a couple of the reasons why below, but if you’re maxed out on the “why I quit social media” narratives, here’s the takeaway in two short sentences: The question isn’t whether there are any benefits. It’s whether the benefits exceed the costs.

That explanation… is a direct quote from page 95 of Reframe the Day. Despite everything I wrote in the book about how I’ve built more fulfilling days by ditching social media, I ignored everything I wrote in the book in an attempt to promote said book. I gave myself some of the classic justifications: I’m supposed to be doing this. I might miss out on something if I don’t do this. Everyone else is doing this. I’m finding some value in this (which is true). I’ll somehow be able to manage this and not have to stop doing anything else because unlike everyone else I can do it all (which, sadly, proved not to be true).

In hindsight, the only surprising thing is that it took me four months to re-remember something I’ve long known about myself: My days are far more fulfilling when I’m not even thinking about—let alone using—social media platforms.

It’s not about time. It’s about focus. As I tried to maintain a consistent Instagram presence (and I’ll use Instagram because that’s where I directed most of my efforts), I kept thinking, How can I make this more efficient? I fell back into the trap of thinking that the only obstacle to making social media work for me was time. I just needed to be more productive so I could make more time for social media. (This is, of course, an example of the fallacy of the productivity hack: We can “do it all,” and in turn be happy and successful, if we simply find more ways to achieve more things by working more hours more efficiently.)

Yet I was only spending 1-2 hours a week posting on, engaging with, or preparing content for Instagram. That’s not a lot of time. I could’ve been even more efficient if I’d batched that time each week, as some wise folks suggested. Turns out, though, the issue wasn’t time. It was focus. I spent 15ish minutes a day actively Instagramming. But I was thinking about it all the time. Even when IG wasn’t in the front of my mind, it was constantly buzzing in the background. Would this be a good quote to share on my story? What excerpt should I post this week? How can I build my platform? Am I posting too much about myself? How can I deliver value? Why isn’t anyone reading this? How can I get more engagement? How about this quote? Or this? Or this? Why haven’t I written anything in a month?

I began to notice that my motivation and enthusiasm for writing—new articles, a new book proposal, newsletters—was drying up. So was my mental stream of new ideas. My mind was increasingly spending its limited processing power thinking about social media, leaving me with less time, energy, or enthusiasm for writing. That meant that not only was I not spending time on an activity that is almost guaranteed to make my days more fulfilling—the craft of writing—but I was replacing it with an activity that I know does the opposite for me.

To be clear, I saw plenty of benefits from reengaging with Instagram, particularly around the launch of Reframe the Day. I got to know some great people in the bookstagram world. I had fun IG live conversations with Matt H. (@bookmattic) and Ryan M. (@bookthinkers_nation). Reframe the Day received some stellar Instagram reviews. I found inspiration and book recommendations and, yes, some valuable human connection in the broader bookstagram community. I was able to get the word out about the book to friends I hadn’t spoken with in a number of years, who aren’t on this list and who probably wouldn’t have known about it any other way.

These benefits are real. Plus, as a new author, not engaging on social media comes with its own opportunity costs. If I were trying to build a brand, or if my craft were, say, photography (or another craft more suited to a visual medium like Instagram), these trade-offs might be worth it—a necessary cost of doing business, perhaps. But I’m not trying to build a brand, and I’m not a photographer. (Half the pictures on my phone are screenshots of articles I’ve read.) I’m trying to write. I was amazed to (re)discover just how detrimental a small amount of time on social media was to my focus and to my ability to think clearly.

I finally accepted that I couldn’t do it all. I couldn’t add an active social media presence to my life without making sacrifices elsewhere. Life is full of trade-offs, and in this case, the trade-off wasn’t worth it. The cost of spending time on social media—the evaporation of focus and enthusiasm for writing—is too steep for me.

And I know that because when I made the decision 10ish days ago to sign off (again), the motivation to write came flooding back. There’s a reason this newsletter is going out today, rather than a few weeks ago. There’s a reason my iPhone note titled “Thoughts” (the same e-collection of passing ideas and brain-dumps and mini-inspirations in which I first jotted down ideas for Reframe the Day) has seen a lot more activity over the past week.

Some writers and creators might be able to make social media work. I am not one of them. That brings me to the second point of this essay, which is more a question than an assertion:

Is there some connection between extroversion and enthusiasm for social media? I have no direct evidence here, but I’ve been wondering why posting and engaging on social media takes me so long, drains so much of my focus and energy, and sometimes leaves me incredibly anxious. Maybe—at least for me—engaging proactively on these platforms uses some of the same mental muscles (or mental energy reserves) as a networking reception or a happy hour with people I haven’t met before. I can do it—and I’ll probably enjoy it, even if I’ll wish the whole time that I were reading a book instead—but afterward I’ll be exhausted and wondering if I said or did something awkward or offensive or weird or uncool.

In Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, Susan Cain explains the difference between shyness and introversion. Shyness, Cain writes, “is the fear of social disapproval or humiliation, while introversion is a preference for environments that are not overstimulating.” To me, few digital environments—or any environments, for that matter—are more overstimulating than social media, especially Instagram. No wonder it feels so draining.

Like many introverts, on any given day I have limited reserves of “put myself out there” energy. Rather than spend that energy on Instagram, I’d rather spend it writing and publishing (or, perhaps, having meaningful human conversations).

I’ll end with another observation from Cain in Quiet. “When you’re focused on a project that you care about,” she writes, “you probably find that your energy is boundless.” When I regularly spend time on social media platforms, I come out the other side with my attention scattered and my social anxiety levels rising, feeling guilty, distracted, and adrift. Writing, on the other hand, leaves me energized, clear-headed, and present. For me, at least, the calculation is pretty simple.

SECOND THING

Last week I had an awesome conversation with Erich Wenzel, host of the Feeding Curiosity podcast. Our episode will drop in a few weeks, but it’s well worth your time to subscribe to Feeding Curiosity now!

I recently published a new article (a book excerpt combined with a newsletter excerpt combined with some new thoughts) on Elephant Journal: Are you working on Self-Improvement or Self-Indulgence?

Still need a copy of Reframe the Day? I’m partnering with Paul W. (@readersclub._ on Instagram) to give away 5 copies of the book. Having just spent 1,000+ words talking about why I’m no longer using Instagram… I invite you to head back to Instagram to enter when the contest kicks off later today.

THIRD THING(S)

“Like other old houses, America has an unseen skeleton: its caste system, which is as central to its operation as are the studs and joists that we cannot see in the physical buildings we call home. Caste is the infrastructure of our divisions. It is the architecture of human hierarchy, the subconscious code of instructions for maintaining, in our case, a 400-year-old social order. Looking at caste is like holding the country’s X-ray up to the light.” That’s Isabel Wilkerson in the New York Times. This incredible article is excerpted from her new book, Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents, which looks to be as epic—in every sense of the word—as her previous book, The Warmth of Other Suns.

“[N]eutral ‘objective journalism’ is constructed atop a pyramid of subjective decision-making: which stories to cover, how intensely to cover those stories, which sources to seek out and include, which pieces of information are highlighted and which are downplayed. No journalistic process is objective. And no individual journalist is objective, because no human being is. … Neutral objectivity trips over itself to find ways to avoid telling the truth. Neutral objectivity insists we use clunky euphemisms like ‘officer-involved shooting.’ Moral clarity, and a faithful adherence to grammar and syntax, would demand we use words that most precisely mean the thing we’re trying to communicate: ‘the police shot someone.’” That’s Wesley Lowery in the New York Times.

“Mark Zuckerberg has now become the world’s most visible oligarch, leveraging his proximity to power (Trump) for corrupt economic gain. Facebook, despite their claims to be neutral and not wanting to be ‘the arbiter of the truth,’ is turning red (GOP). … Facebook has demonstrated real comfort with being an arbiter, it’s the truth they are allergic to. Specifically, the arbiter of truth for Facebook is … whoever is willing to pay to determine our truths.” That’s Scott Galloway in his email newsletter, No Mercy / No Malice.

As always, thanks for reading!

—Adam

What if you don’t have a world-changing, heart-racing, life-defining purpose?

That’s the question I recently tackled in a piece of audio content I wrote and recorded for London’s Shelf Help digital book club. The audio is exclusive to the book club, but Shelf Help has agreed to make available the written version, portions of which are excerpted and adapted from Reframe the Day. Here it is, as recorded in-studio (i.e., in a closet) in early July. Be sure to check out Shelf Help’s Reframe the Day giveaway on Instagram!

***

Hi Shelf Help, Adam M. Lowenstein here—I’m the author of the new book, Reframe the Day: Embracing the Craft of Life, One Day at a Time. Today, I’m going to explore the topic of purpose. More specifically, I’ll try to answer the question: What if you don’t have a world-changing, heart-racing, life-defining purpose?

Find your calling.

Follow your passion.

Seek your purpose.

Change the world.

You’ve heard mantras like these. You’ve probably watched movies and listened to podcasts and read books about them.

For the most part, these slogans are great. They inspire us. They motivate us. They get us moving. They fire us up.

Here’s the thing, though: Not all of us have a single, life-defining passion smoldering within us. Not all of us have a “true calling” that we want to devote our lives to. Not all of us are going to quote-unquote “change the world,” at least not in the tech disruptor, TED-talk thought leader, social media influencer, chief executive, individual sense.

Kind of a downer, huh?

Actually, I don’t think it is. And I’ll tell you why, but let me start with a bit of context first.

I’m speaking to you now because I’m the author of Reframe the Day, a book in which I share ten practices that have helped me build more fulfilling days.

These are practices like cultivating awareness through mindfulness meditation.

Carving out moments of stillness throughout the day to process my thoughts.

Consuming more meaningful content.

Reflecting on death and mortality.

Sitting with—rather than acting on—the uncomfortable feeling of FOMO, the fear of missing out.

I don’t do all of these things every day. And when I do, I don’t do them perfectly. Not even close. That’s why I call them practices, not prescriptions. Not solutions.

But when I do manage to follow these practices, I find my days more fulfilled. I find myself more present, more content. Not radically so—but still meaningfully so. Sustainably so.

Over the past decade, my journey has taken me from the halls of the United States Congress, where I worked as a legislative aide and speechwriter for much of the first eight years of my professional career, to the UK, which I’ve called home for close to three years now.

I convey the ideas and practices in my book, Reframe the Day, through the lens of this journey. But there’s a part of my journey that I don’t cover in the book—at least not explicitly. That’s the part I’m sharing with you now.

Like many millennials, I grew up with a vague understanding that I—like most members of my generation—would find a way to realize my dreams, while getting paid for my passion, while ultimately changing the world.

Find your calling.

Follow your passion.

Seek your purpose.

Change the world.

What exactly did mantras like these mean to me?

Honestly, I’m not sure I ever really stopped to think about it because I was sure that as long as I did the right things—worked hard in school, built the right network, honed my personal brand, kept accomplishing and achieving and striving—as long as I did these things, I’d eventually find my purpose in life and change the world.

I was a young, idealistic, and progressive political staffer who found himself in Washington, DC at the end of Barack Obama’s first year in office. So, of course I assumed that a purpose-driven, world-changing life would follow.

It wasn’t until I left Capitol Hill and moved with my partner to the UK a few years ago that I began confronting some more fundamental questions. More accurately, it wasn’t until I left government and politics and entered the corporate world that I began confronting these questions.

For many of us, our job, our career, our work—it’s our identity. A lot of us don’t even try to pretend otherwise. I mean, when I lived in Washington, I tried to train myself not to ask people I’d just met, “So, what do you do?” As if their work identity is their actual identity. As if what they get paid to do is who they are.

The thing is, when you work in politics, that’s especially true. Your purpose is built in. You don’t really even need to think about it.

All those long hours you work for low pay? All those speeches and talking points you write, all those bills you draft, all those committee hearings you prepare for, all those meetings with associations and advocacy groups you take, all those networking coffees you organize, all that time responding to constituent letters and knocking on doors, all those late nights working on statements and tweets responding to a national tragedy or crisis?

When you work in politics, it feels like all of this stuff is done for something you believe in. Your country. Your state. Your political party. The people your boss represents. A cause that matters to you. Your beliefs. Your values. Your principles.

There’s plenty of ego and personal ambition and power-seeking and wanting to be in the room where it happens there too, of course.

But, at the end of the day, you can confidently tell yourself that you’re in politics to serve other people. And for the most part, you’ll be right. For most people, that’s an honest assessment.

The point is that, working in politics, the purpose of my work—and thus my life—was never something I really had to think about. I always knew why I was doing what I was doing.

That’s partly why I felt so lost when I entered the corporate world in the fall of 2017. It wasn’t just the acronyms and the buzzwords—all the aligning and synergizing and disrupting and moving the needle that I was now expected to do.

It was deeper than that. Could it really be that my purpose was only to make my employer more money—and that my purpose for doing that was just to make me more money?

For the first time in my professional life, I wasn’t working in government or politics, and that meant that some service-oriented purpose was no longer built into my day-to-day experience. The conviction and self-assurance that comes from believing in and working toward a social cause was no longer part of my job description.

Sure, my new corporate job had its own job description, but service was not an explicit part of it. Fighting for other people wasn’t part of it. Struggling for justice wasn’t part of it.

And, to be honest, it left me feeling lost. I no longer had an external force—like the job description of working in the United States Senate—telling me that my work mattered. Even though plenty of the work I did on Capitol Hill did not matter at all, simply being there—in the building, in the fight—seemed to be enough.

After I’d left, the more I tried to find a new external anchor like the one I’d had in politics, the more I began to realize just how much my sense of self had been caught up in my identity as a political staffer. I never had to look hard inside to figure out my purpose because some entity on the outside had already taken care of it for me.

I’m not alone in defining myself by external circumstances, in building my sense of self on things beyond my control.

Many of us rely on our job or our side-hustle or our employer or our CV to define who we are. But the point I’m making here is even broader than that.

Sure, we might be waiting for—or striving for—the next promotion or career opportunity.

But we might simply be waiting for-or striving for—something more intangible, like a true calling. Like an undiscovered passion. Like a personal mission that will empower us to change the world.

And, look, if you have a personal mission, or an undiscovered passion, or a true calling—if such a thing exists for you—by all means, go after it. I hope we’re all lucky enough to find something we love to do and the time and resources to do it.

But the very expectation that within each one of us is an invigorating, world-changing passion, waiting to be discovered and unlocked—and the very expectation that what makes a person successful is stopping at nothing to pursue that passion—these expectations are precisely what have driven so many of us into lives defined by constant busyness, constant striving, constant restlessness, a constant obsession with achieving so we can get on to “what’s next.”

If we’re striving for the perfect job—and if we’re hanging our happiness and self-worth on achieving it—we’re leaving our happiness and self-worth at the mercy of factors outside of our control.

If we’re waiting for our true purpose to reveal itself, we absolve ourselves of having to find joy or meaning in the circumstances in front of us right now.

If we’re sure that fulfillment awaits us once our personal passion has been unlocked—and only once our personal passion has been unlocked—we forfeit the possibility of finding contentment right now, in this moment.

If we’re convinced that we’ve found our one passion or career path and that nothing else matters, that conviction can easily feed the illusion of action and forward progress—even if we’re not actually doing anything.

If we’re certain that we can only contribute to the world by starting a global NGO, or winning election to high political office, or using every waking moment to volunteer, we’ll miss all the little opportunities to do a little bit of good that are right here, right in front of us, right now.

Now, don’t get me wrong: changing the world isn’t a bad thing. Finding passion and purpose isn’t a bad thing. The world needs a lot of changing, and we can always use more passionate, purpose-driven people.

But the expectation that we must all spend our lives changing the world and pursuing our passion—it’s a dangerously addictive notion. If we take this world-changing call-to-arms too far, we can easily find ourselves disheartened, burned out, exhausted, and cynical. That doesn’t help anyone.

In his book, In Love with the World: A Monk’s Journey Through the Bardos of Living and Dying, the Tibetan Buddhist teacher Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche observes, “People everywhere try so hard to make the world better. Their intentions are admirable, yet they seek to change everything but themselves. To make yourself a better person is to make the world a better place.”

No single person can solve all of the world’s challenges. Most of us will never change the world the way society tells us we’re supposed to. And that’s ok.

Quite a few of us will never be fortunate enough to stumble across a single passion or purpose that defines our life. And that’s ok, too.

But, you might be thinking, if we’re not striving to find and live our purpose—if we’re not trying single-handedly to fix the world—how can we live a life of meaning? How can we serve others? How can we add value to the world?

Consider the simple suggestion of Stanford professor Robert Sapolsky, who has spent decades studying how stress impacts our bodies and minds. In his book with a great title, Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers, Sapolsky writes, “In a world of stressful lack of control, an amazing source of control we all have is the ability to make the world a better place, one act at a time.”

So, what can you do?

No matter what your work is, you can choose to reframe that work as a craft, rather than a series of burdensome obligations, so you find more meaning and fulfillment in what’s in front of you right now.

You can be more intentional about spending time with the people you love and giving your attention to activities you actually enjoy, instead of saving these “want-to-dos” as rewards for completing some obligation or checking some task off your to-do list.

You can build an awareness practice that helps you recognize the hurricane of thoughts, emotions, and impulses that are bombarding your mind at any given time.

You can carve out moments of stillness that help you make some sense of the world.

You can fight FOMO, that insidious fear of missing out, which can easily give you the false impression that everyone else is following their purpose and changing the world, and you’re the only one who isn’t.

You can remind yourself that there isn’t a single life mapped out for you if only you open the right door.

You can trust that your life could go in an infinite number of directions, and that while most of what leads to door A instead of door B is beyond your control, you can probably find some meaning and fulfillment through either one.

You can choose to see your future not as a fixed plan but rather as a broad, ever-changing trajectory, a perspective that allows you to recognize, with some humility, that you might sometimes be wrong, or that you might not know yourself as well as you thought, or that you might change.

You can devote some time to personal development and self-improvement not just to better your own individual life, but because these practices are tools to equip you for our collective struggle. Tools to give you the awareness, the perspective, the time, the attention, the focus, and the mental energy to step up when the moment calls for it.

To know you have the time and emotional capacity to drop everything to take care of a family member. To show up for a friend who’s hurting. To knock on doors for a cause or candidate. To join and contribute to a mutual aid network. To protest, to march, to stand in solidarity.

To use that privilege that we have—of investing in personal development and self-improvement—for something other than our own pleasure or well-being.

So many of us are taught and internalize the idea that happiness follows passion, that if we find our purpose, only then will we be fulfilled and content.

But what if we have that backwards? What if we focus instead on finding meaning and fulfillment in this moment, right here, right now?

The late New York Times journalist David Carr once said that, “Working on your grand plan is like shoveling snow that hasn’t fallen yet. Just do the next right thing.”

If we can do that—if we can just do the next right thing, over and over and over again—we might just find that our sense of purpose will follow.

So, seek your purpose—by focusing intently on whatever you have to do today, no matter how mundane it may feel.

Find your calling—by prioritizing one thing you can do today to make today more fulfilling.

Follow your passion—by making more time for the people and activities that matter most to you.

Change the world—by showing up and being present for the people around you.

Purpose follows fulfillment. Purpose follows presence. Not the other way around.

Are you working on Self-Improvement or Self-Indulgence?

“In a world of stressful lack of control, an amazing source of control we all have is the ability to make the world a better place, one act at a time.” ~ Robert M. Sapolsky, Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers

Creating moments of stillness throughout the day. Thinking regularly about death and mortality. Resisting my compulsion to be busy and productive all the time.

Building an awareness practice on a foundation of mindfulness meditation. Making more time for the people and activities I care most about. Fighting FOMO, the ever-insidious “fear of missing out.”

These are a few of the practices that have helped me build more fulfilling days. These practices don’t require me to make radical changes in my life. The fact that they integrate with my existing circumstances rather than demand that I create entirely new ones is part of the reason they’ve proven sustainable.

They work, in other words, because they don’t depend on anyone or anything else. No matter where I am or what I’m doing, I have at least a little control over how I see and spend my days.

This focus on individual well-being is important. As the Tibetan Buddhist teacher Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche observes in In Love with the World: A Monk’s Journey Through the Bardos of Living and Dying, “People everywhere try so hard to make the world better. Their intentions are admirable, yet they seek to change everything but themselves. To make yourself a better person is to make the world a better place.”

It’s critical, however, to distinguish between two approaches to self-improvement:

>> The approach that seeks to better the individual in order to be a better human being, to be there for those around us, and

>> The approach that seeks to better the individual at the expense of those around us.

In the latter, we convince ourselves that because we cannot control other people, we should dismiss them entirely and focus solely on our own well-being. We should seal ourselves from them. We should immunize ourselves to their pain and struggles, using our limited time and energy to make ourselves stronger, more resilient, and more fulfilled.

At a certain point, the worthy undertaking of self-improvement has become self-indulgence.

On paper, these two approaches appear easily distinguishable. Yet what begins as an earnest attempt at the first approach can all too easily slide into the second.

How do we recognize the slippery slope between self-improvement and self-indulgence?

To make this conversation a little less theoretical, consider one of the practices I describe in my book, Reframe the Day: the importance of making more time for what matters to us.

It’s one thing to ask whether we can find more time to do what matters most to us. It’s another to ask whether we should.

People in our lives depend on us for all sorts of things, even if we don’t always want to do those things. People around the world face enormous challenges, as does the planet itself. Without taking away from anyone’s suffering or minimizing anyone’s situation, having the time and ability to pursue and invest in our personal development, whether through podcasts or books or invaluable communities like this one, reflects a position of privilege.

Why should we have the privilege to reflect on our lives and spend time crafting our days to make them more fulfilling? Why aren’t we using every spare moment to volunteer for a meaningful cause or serve others in some form or another?

In other words, how do we make time for what matters to us in a responsible way? How do we find a pragmatic balance between pursuing what we care most about and upholding the obligations of life—not just the daily to-do list and what we’ve been assigned, but our commitments to our spouse, our children, our parents, our friends and family, our colleagues, civic society, and those in need?

Here’s another example. Throughout the multi-year process of writing my book, I wrestled with the tension between what I’ve found I love doing (writing and publishing) and what I feel like I should be doing. For me, that “should” takes different forms, from volunteering to campaigning for a political candidate I believe in, but it’s always about contributing some form of public service.

Instead of writing this article from a comfortable apartment in London, where I live now, shouldn’t I be back in Washington, D.C., using my resources and connections to advocate and agitate for a stronger social safety net? Who am I to tell an exhausted single parent working multiple jobs for minimum wage that what she really needs is not a raise but rather to spend more time doing what she cares about?

Sometimes, these tensions lurk even closer to home. The steps we take to build more fulfilling lives, and the routines and habits we construct along the way impact the people around us. Those impacts are generally positive, but not exclusively.

On one hand, it’s impossible to maintain the strength for the sacrifices and struggles required for our collective future if we don’t take some time to build a fulfilling foundation for our individual future. Yet a commendable intention to spend time in more fulfilling ways, for instance, can easily turn into an obsession.

It’s easy for me to become overly focused on checking all the boxes that are important to me (meditation, writing, reading, and so on) every day. That takes a toll on others, too—not just in the time I spend on these goals and routines, but in my resulting irritation if they get interrupted.

Perfection is an impossible standard, especially on the scale of a lifetime, but any successful self-improvement undertaking can make it tempting to pursue. Therein lies yet another instance of the ever-present tension between self-improvement and self-obsession.

Can we resolve these tensions? Should we?

Getting the balance right is tricky. If you’re running a large nonprofit organization that’s improving the lives of millions around the world, but you’re neglecting to spend time with your own children, are you getting the balance right?

If you work for a large oil and gas company that’s pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and spreading disinformation about climate change, but you spend your weekends volunteering to clean up the park across the street from your house, are you getting the balance right?

If you’re so busy and overwhelmed organizing people to vote that you don’t take any time for yourself and snap at your loved ones and demean your employees, are you getting the balance right?

If you decide to write a book about building more fulfilling days because you genuinely think it can help people reflect on their own lives, but you do so at the cost of thousands of hours that could’ve gone to getting involved with a local mentoring program or just spending more time with your partner, are you getting the balance right?

These aren’t rhetorical questions. I don’t know the answers, nor am I sure there are any. I don’t have any way of resolving the tensions between what we want to do and what we have to do, between what fulfills us and what’s expected of us, between our obligations to ourselves and our obligations to those around us.

In many ways, navigating these tensions is the whole point of life. Whatever the case may be, feeling these tensions is a good thing. We need to feel them, especially if we’re on this journey of self-improvement because these tensions serve to guide us. We need to sit with them. We need to explore them. We need to interrogate them to better understand where they’re coming from.

If we veer toward one extreme, we tip too far in the direction of self-indulgence and self-obsession. If we veer toward the other extreme, feeling them can remind us to spend a little more time taking care of ourselves.

Resolving these tensions is impossible. Life is, and should be, a constant calibration and recalibration. The sooner we accept that, and the more often you remind yourself of it, the closer you’ll come to finding a balance that works for you, and those around you, each and every day.

This article, which was originally published on Elephant Journal, is adapted from Adam’s previous work, including his book, Reframe the Day: Embracing the Craft of Life, One Day at a Time.

Reframe Your Inbox (Self-Improvement or Self-Indulgence? Edition)

Hey everyone—there are more important stories and voices to be shared and heard right now than mine. Michelle Alexander, Imani Bashir, Afua Hirsch, Corinne Shutack, Isabella Rosario, Ibram X. Kendi, Wesley Lowery, and Issac Bailey are a few of the writers whose work I’ve been reading recently; a few more are excerpted below. (On the book front, I’ve just started working my way through Danielle Sered’s Until We Reckon.)

If you’d like to keep reading this newsletter, here are three things this week: 1) some reflections on the tension between self-improvement and self-indulgence; 2) a few pieces of high-quality internet content; and 3) a couple brief book updates.

FIRST THING

As I’ve written countless times at this point, the practices in Reframe the Day are about what we, as individuals, can do to build more fulfilling days. No matter our circumstances, we can nudge our days in a more fulfilling direction by focusing on how we see and spend each day. Sometimes, though—particularly times like these—you might wonder: Is that enough? Is it sufficient to focus on improving our individual experience, and leave it at that?

A lot of self-improvement and personal development content seems to suggest it is. Sometimes implicitly, but often very explicitly, these books and articles and blogs and podcasts and platforms urge us to focus on our individual struggles at the expense of our collective ones. They tell us that because we can’t control what other people do, we should seal ourselves off from them. We know our successes are the result of our hard work and hustle; if other people don’t succeed, we can simply attribute it to their unwillingness to do the same.

The comforting illusion of meritocracy fits nicely in this self-satisfying, responsibility-absolving understanding of the world. If we spend enough time cultivating such a mindset, we can easily find ourselves immune to the pain and struggles of other people. Before we know it, what began as a quest for self-improvement has become an insular and self-righteous pursuit of self-indulgence.

First of all, let’s note what a privilege that is: to have the option, even if we choose not to exercise it, to tune out the world and focus exclusively on improving our own well-being. Having that option likely reflects some pretty fortunate circumstances, from a decent-paying job with stable hours and benefits to a lifestyle with disposable time and income. If one has these things, it’s likely one also has an even more foundational type of security that provides the opportunity to take risks, to try new things, to make mistakes, to screw up—to do all of these things and still be able to land on one’s feet.

Throughout my life, I have benefited enormously from having the resources, security, stability, and space to study and flail and fail and change plans—and to know that I would probably be just fine, no matter the outcome. Reframe the Day, like many aspects of my life, came into being in part because the structural forces of our society give financially secure straight white men like me the chance to make a lot of mistakes with little risk of consequence. As we’ve been reminded over and over and over again, and as the lived experience of so many Black Americans attests, too often in America what distinguishes a “learning opportunity” from a life-defining—or even a life-ending—misstep is not skill or hard work but skin color.

Pursuing self-improvement is indeed a privilege, and it can easily become a selfish endeavor. But it doesn’t have to end up this way. Consider a few chapters in Reframe the Day, like creating stillness, building awareness, consuming more meaningful content, and making time for what matters. Yes, these practices are tools for making our individual lives more fulfilling. But they’re also tools to equip us for our collective struggle. To give us the awareness, the perspective, the time, the attention, the focus, and the mental energy to step up when the moment calls for it. To know we have the time and emotional capacity to drop everything to take care of a family member. To show up for a friend who’s hurting. To knock on doors for a cause or candidate. To join and contribute to a mutual aid network. To protest, march, and stand in solidarity. To use that privilege for something other than our own pleasure or well-being.

Building and maintaining an awareness practice, for instance, isn’t just a means of being more aware of our own thoughts and emotions so we can feel calmer and find peace of mind and maybe be more productive at work. It’s also a tool for interrogating our own perspectives and biases, and for sitting with pain, discomfort, shame, anger, and all of the other difficult truths and complicated feelings that are too easy to ignore or bury or deny (for those whose circumstances, background, or skin color give them the option of ignoring or burying or denying them in the first place).

Carving out moments of stillness throughout the day isn’t important only for processing our own micro-dramas and mini-dilemmas. It’s just as important a practice for making space to process the world, for sitting with the uncomfortable realities of systemic racism and historic injustices in which we ourselves may be complicit, or at least have benefited from.

Consuming content more intentionally isn’t just a technique for tuning out anxiety-inducing news and using our downtime to read and watch things we enjoy. It’s also a technique for tuning out the noise of pundits and politicians and Facebook posts so that we can internalize the work of Carol Anderson and Bryan Stevenson and Isabel Wilkerson and so many more writers and creators and historians and storytellers.

Making more time for what matters isn’t only a tool for spending time doing things we enjoy and with people whose company we enjoy. It’s also a tool for cultivating intentional spontaneity, for having the clarity to see what matters and what does not, for being able to drop everything to go protest or volunteer or donate or campaign.

Let’s dig into that last point a bit. A few weeks ago, I planned to title this newsletter the “commitment reset” edition. For people around the world, Covid-19 and the resulting lockdown have forced the cancellation of countless plans, events, trips, engagements, and other commitments. In some cases, these cancellations have been tragic and heartbreaking. In other cases, though—often the more mundane ones—we’ve been given a rare opportunity to reset our commitments. All of those meetings, catch-ups, conferences, commutes, and other things that we didn’t need or want to do but said “yes” to anyway? Someone else, or in this case something else, went to the trouble of cancelling them for us.

That gives us an opportunity. As the “reopening” begins, we don’t have to resume the mindless, often FOMO-induced inclinations that lead us to say “yes” to whatever people ask of us. We can say “no.” We can preserve our limited time and energy for the people and activities we care most about—the things that really matter. Not all of the time, of course, but some of the time. Maybe a little more now than in the pre-coronavirus era.

Why do that? Why not let ourselves get sucked right back into the busyness- and productivity-obsessed striving of our pre-February lives? In part because a day filled with more meaningful activities and people is a more fulfilling one. That’s a significant outcome, but it’s not always a sufficient one.

More importantly, saying “no” to the things that don’t matter—the things that a few months ago we might have automatically added to our calendar or to-do list—gives us more time, strength, and space to say “yes” to the things that do. Things like marching. Self-educating. Protesting. Petitioning. Campaigning. Donating. Volunteering. Showing up. Standing up. Getting in the fight. Checking in with other people. We say “no” to the little fights and petty struggles so we can say “yes,” without hesitation, to the big fights and the meaningful struggles.

In his recent article, “This Is Why You Have to Care,” Ryan Holiday writes, “I understand that this might not be what you want to hear from me. I write about self-improvement. I write about philosophy. I write about history. That’s true. But what do you think the point of the study of those three things are? It’s not so you can make a little more money. It’s not so you can live in your own bubble or have interesting dinner conversations. It’s so you can be better. So you can do the right thing when it counts.

It’s a privilege to be able to undertake a quest for self-improvement. It’s even more of a privilege to spend countless hours writing about that quest. It’s on me to take all of that privilege—that luxury, that fortune, that opportunity—and put it to work where it counts.

SECOND THING(S)

“The simplest answer to the question ‘Why don’t the American police forces act as if they are accountable to black Americans?’ is that they were never intended to be.” That’s Jamelle Bouie in the New York Times.

“I have this pet theory about book recommendations. They feel good to solicit, good to mete out, but someone at some point has to get down to the business of reading. And there, between giving and receiving, lies a great gulf. No one can quite account for what happens. Reading, hopefully, but you never can be sure.” That’s Lauren Michele Jackson in Vulture asking, “What Is an Anti-Racist Reading List For?” Ultimately, she concludes, “that’s the thing about the reading. It has to be done.”

“Mainstream journalists in the U.S. have a long-standing tendency to treat freedom of the press as something that must be jealously defended, but all other rights as chits up for grabs in the partisan fray.” That’s Crooked Media’s Brain Beutler in his weekly newsletter.

“In business we set targets on everything. Only in the area of diversity have I seen C.E.O.s chronically say, ‘We’re working on it.’” That’s Mellody Hobson, co-CEO and president of Ariel Investments, quoted in the New York Times.

THIRD THING

Last week, Erin and I had a fun conversation with Kathy Partridge, host of “Connections” on KGNU. You can stream or download the full interview on my website. Also, well-placed sources tell me that books pre-ordered many months ago are finally starting to arrive. If and when they do, and if and when you’re so inclined, I would be grateful if you could leave short a review on Amazon and Goodreads.

That’s all for now. Stay safe and stay in the fight. Thanks for reading.

—Adam

Reframe Your Inbox (Flickers of Burnout Edition)

Hey everyone—let’s get right to it. Here are four things for this week: 1) some reflections on burnout; 2) an excerpt from my new article; 3) a brief book-related tidbit; and 4) a few pieces of high-quality internet content.

FIRST THING

As far as lockdown living goes, Erin and I are in a fortunate position. We have space to move around. We have a balcony. We have the resources to keep our fridge stocked and ourselves comfortable. We have stable jobs that allow us to work from home indefinitely. We have our health, and we have access to health care if we need it. We have each other for company, for support, and for many laughs every day. We have only ourselves to entertain and worry about. On balance, of course, we would choose not being in lockdown over being in lockdown, but we’re pretty lucky to be in the situation we are.

Even so, the last few months have proven tricky. In March, I wrote about how I was finding it difficult to carve out space to think. Last week I discussed my tendency to set wildly unrealistic expectations for what I can accomplish in a given amount of time. In the new foreword to Reframe the Day, I listed some of different ways in which I’m struggling to follow the practices I write about in the book. These challenges, along with my usual (and nearly always self-imposed) burden of trying to do too much, have been leading me directly down the path to burnout.

I’ve felt burnout plenty of times, and over the years I’ve gotten slightly better about recognizing its symptoms, from general irritability and exhaustion, to a tendency to greet new ideas, projects, or opportunities with instinctive skepticism, even cynicism, rather than open-mindedness or enthusiasm. Whenever I feel the internal fire (why do we use so many flame-related metaphors to describe work motivation?) start to diminish, I know that whatever I’m doing is unsustainable, and something will have to change.

Over the past month or so, as the early flickers of book-launch-plus-day-job-plus-lockdown burnout have begun to grow into sustained flames, I’ve tried to take steps to resist those flames while keeping my own fire burning (seriously—too much fire imagery). I’ve been saying “no” to new requests and declining potential commitments. I’ve been taking vacation days here and there so I can focus on one thing at a time. I’ve been trying to lower my expectations of my own productivity and make a conscious effort to spend time doing things that recharge me.

Yet for much of the past few weeks, I’ve also been spending every free moment either working on, or thinking about working on, miscellaneous book-related tasks—responding to emails, pitching to reviewers, crafting social media posts, sending out review copies, and so forth. This is a privileged position to be in, especially in our current moment. Plus, all of these activities are a necessary part of the promotion process, and for the most part, they’re enjoyable. But they’re wearing me down, and I’m increasingly seeing them as tiresome burdens, rather than the exciting opportunities they are.

One morning last week, I was really not feeling motivated to do any of this stuff. So I decided to put it all aside and instead spend a couple hours doing something I hadn’t done in a while: writing. Specifically, writing about something completely unrelated to Reframe the Day. Within a half-hour of starting a new article, I felt recharged and reinvigorated. I was fired up (there’s that fire again)—not just to continue the article I was working on, but even to return to all of the other tasks and responsibilities that had been weighing on me so heavily just a short time before.

I realized that I’d been using book tasks as an internal excuse not to start writing something new, which in turn left me feeling impatient with myself, defeated by what Steven Pressfield calls “Resistance,” and, of course, increasingly exhausted and burned out. Then I spent some time writing, and the energy and motivation (and fire) came roaring back. It was like flipping a switch (on a gas-powered fireplace, you might say).

Working on that article didn’t fix anything, of course. Eventually, I think, the only “cure” for burnout will be to do less—ideally nothing at all—for a sustained period of time, not just a morning or a long weekend. But it was a timely reminder of the simple power that comes from taking a break, from spending some time creating, from devoting effort and concentration to a craft. It was also a great reminder of another way I feel extraordinarily fortunate: to have access to a craft that fulfills me, and to have the time and resources to devote to it.

SECOND THING

Reading about Barack Obama on the internet can take you to some strange and unsettling places. There are the conspiracies. There’s the vitriol. The resentment. The demonization and dehumanization. Follow these threads long enough, and you can find yourself in a pretty bleak corner of the web (or, perhaps, in the Oval Office).

But digging into the online archives of Obama-related content can also bring joy and inspiration. It can make you wistful and nostalgic. You’ll find videos that make you smile, videos that make you cry, and videos that make you smile even as you’re crying. I’ve spent a lot of hours over the past couple of weeks scanning the electronic universe of Obama content, and it’s been amazing. The result of those hours is the article I recently published on Medium: Life Advice from Barack Obama (Part I). Here’s an excerpt:

The job of president has (traditionally) required a lot of reading of a lot of different types of content. By default, though, the job doesn’t leave much time for reading books. And, one might assume, any spare time that is available for reading books would be consumed by material directly related to the job — a biography of a predecessor, perhaps, or a detailed look at a particular moment in history. Information and facts, in other words. Not stories. Not fiction. Not fantasy.

Yet throughout his time in office, President Obama read all sorts of books, including novels. “Most every night in the White House,” Michiko Kakutani reported in The New York Times, Obama “would read for an hour or so late at night — reading that was deep and ecumenical, ranging from contemporary literary fiction… to classic novels to groundbreaking works of nonfiction.” In Vanity Fair, Michael Lewis observed that the desk in Obama’s private White House study was “piled high with novels.” Obama’s annual book lists have always included more than just nonfiction.

By all accounts, Obama’s interest in fiction predated not just his presidency but his entire political career. As a student at Occidental College, Craig Fehrman wrote recently in Literary Hub, “Obama read fiction because he wanted to experience psychological interiority.” In the mid-80s, Fehrman noted, Obama even “started writing fiction of his own, eventually completing several stories he shared with his fellow organizers.”

Why would this interest in fiction follow him to the White House? Obama explained in a two-part conversation with the novelist Marilynne Robinson (who he endearingly calls one of his “pen pals”) published in The New York Review of Books. “When I think about how I understand my role as ‘citizen,’ setting aside being president, and the most important set of understandings that I bring to that position of citizen, the most important stuff I’ve learned I think I’ve learned from novels,” Obama said. “It has to do with empathy. It has to do with being comfortable with the notion that the world is complicated and full of grays, but there’s still truth there to be found, and that you have to strive for that and work for that. And the notion that it’s possible to connect with some[one] else even though they’re very different from you.”

During his presidency, “fiction was useful as a reminder of the truths under the surface of what we argue about every day and was a way of seeing and hearing the voices, the multitudes of this country,” Obama told the Times. “I found myself better able to imagine what’s going on in the lives of people throughout my presidency because not just a specific novel but the act of reading fiction. It exercises those muscles.”

You can read the full article on Medium: Life Advice from Barack Obama (Part I).

THIRD THING

Earlier this month, I had a great conversation with Gregg Clunis for his podcast, “Tiny Leaps, Big Changes.” Check out part 1 of our conversation here and part 2 here (or just search for “Tiny Leaps” wherever you get your podcasts). Looking for more Reframe the Day content? It’s all on my website.

FOURTH THING(S)

“The perceived legitimacy of protest and dissent is shaped by who is doing the protesting. Screaming, gun-toting white people can demonstrate with little resistance. Mourning black people, on the other hand, are liable to face state violence.” That’s Jamelle Bouie in his latest newsletter.

“The story of Trump’s rise is often told as a hostile takeover. In truth, it is something closer to a joint venture, in which members of America’s elite accepted the terms of Trumpism as the price of power.” That’s Evan Osnos in The New Yorker. (For more on this, check out part six of my “radical rethink” series.)

“I understand that people are angry, but they shouldn’t just endanger businesses without even a thought to enriching themselves through leveraged buyouts and across-the-board terminations. It’s disgusting to put workers at risk by looting. You do it by chipping away at their health benefits and eventually laying them off. There’s a right way and wrong way to do this.” The Onion gets it just right.

As always, thanks for reading.

—Adam

Life Advice from Barack Obama (Part I)

What the forty-fourth president has to say about reading novels, making fewer decisions, and finding time to think.

Reading about Barack Obama on the internet can take you to some strange and unsettling places. But it’s just as likely to take you to an amazing place. Digging into the online archives of Obama-related content can bring joy and inspiration. It can make you wistful and nostalgic. You’ll find videos that make you smile, videos that make you cry, and videos that make you smile even as you’re crying.

At a time when it’s easy to feel cynical and hopeless, I find it both comforting and useful to take the occasional tour into the depths of the Obama era, if only to remind myself that the way things are right now is not the way they have to be. You can engage in politics in good faith and without sacrificing your values. You can be caring, empathetic, and thoughtful, and you can still win elections. You can conduct yourself with decency and integrity, while also getting things done. Politicians can be a force for good. Politics itself can be a force for good.

Scanning the electronic universe of Obama content also offers some more practical lessons. One of the many consequences of the celebritization of the American presidency and our collective fascination with the lives of individual presidents is that we know an enormous amount about Barack Obama, and not just his views on health care, foreign policy, or marginal tax rates.

We also know what he likes to read, how he makes decisions, and how he structures his days. We’ve learned how he gets things done, how he consumes the news, and how he prioritizes the activities that are most important to him. These insights might not be particularly profound, but they’re still meaningful, particularly in the context of the demanding job of the presidency.

“Being president doesn’t change who you are,” Michelle Obama said in her speech at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. “It reveals who you are.” The First Lady was referring to character, temperament, and moral leadership, but she would’ve been just as accurate (if somewhat less inspirational) had she been speaking about time management and personal development. Here are three pieces of advice, distilled from countless articles, interviews, and profiles, that President Obama has shared in his years in public life.

Carve out space to think

During Obama’s final summer in the White House, The New York Times published an intimate look at what the headline called “Obama After Dark: The Precious Hours Alone.” The article became infamous for reporting that the president’s “only snack at night is seven lightly salted almonds” (which, reflecting the occasional absurdity of the political media, Obama later felt compelled to clarify was a joke). Tree nut discipline aside, the article revealed a lot about how Obama works and thinks.

The Times described a president who spent “four or five hours largely by himself” every night, doing everything from reviewing briefing materials and constituent letters to drafting speeches, reading books, and decompressing with games on his iPad. Because his job required so much processing of information — “an insane amount of paper,” as his friend and former chef Sam Kass put it — Obama needed this solitary time to do the things that a day full of meetings, speeches, and decisions didn’t allow for. Things like thinking. Processing. Reflecting. Reading. Writing. “Working deep,” as the author Cal Newport would call it.

George Shultz, who served as secretary of state under Ronald Reagan, took a similar approach. Every week, as New York Times columnist David Leonhardt wrote, Shultz set aside at least one hour for “quiet reflection.” During this hour, Shultz held no meetings, took no phone calls, and permitted no interruptions (unless his wife or President Reagan called). The only thing in front of him was a notepad and a pen. Shultz’s “hour of solitude,” Leonhardt explained, “was the only way he could find time to think about the strategic aspects of his job. Otherwise, he would be constantly pulled into moment-to-moment tactical issues, never able to focus on larger questions of the national interest.”

Beyond casting your ballot or following the news, your life may not require you to consider “larger questions of the national interest.” But you don’t have to be a diplomat or world leader to benefit from carving out time to think and process. Surely you find yourself overwhelmed and distracted by “moment-to-moment tactical issues” more often than you’d like. Surely there are times when you’re dealing with a “constantly full inbox,” as Obama described the presidency to the BBC. We all have too much to do and too little time to do it.

In her memoir, Becoming, Michelle Obama writes about what she calls “the Hole.” That’s the room her husband stakes out, wherever they happen to be living or staying, as a space to think, write, and “flip between the six or seven books he’s reading simultaneously.” Spending time in the Hole “seems to fuel him,” she observes. It’s “where insights are birthed and clarity comes to visit.”

You may not be able to set aside a physical space for working and thinking, but you can always carve out some mental space. If you want to find the time to read, write, think, or reflect, you have to make the time. President Obama sought out these hours alone because, as his former chief of staff told the Times, he recognized that he needed a “place where it can all be put aside and you can focus.” No matter how high your expectations or how genuine your intentions, this time won’t happen on its own. If you want time to think, you have to prioritize it.

Make fewer decisions

Many psychologists, journalists, and self-improvement writers have opined on “decision fatigue,” the possibly real and possibly manufactured idea that we have a finite amount of willpower and decision-making strength on a given day. As with several other well-known psychology studies, the research supporting this concept (which is also known as “ego depletion”) faces increasing scrutiny for its inability to be replicated.

Regardless of the concept’s scientific validity, though, the lifestyle validity of decision fatigue is not in doubt. Few things drain our reserves of attention, focus, and creativity more quickly than making decisions and switching constantly between different tasks and responsibilities. Unfortunately for presidents, making decisions and switching constantly between different tasks and responsibilities is a large part of the job description.

In a cover story in The Atlantic, John Dickerson argued that the presidency is not a difficult job but an impossible one, owing to the impossibly large number of decisions we expect presidents to make, and the impossible correctness and foresight with which we expect them to do so. “The relentlessness of the job depletes a president’s powers of restraint,” Dickerson writes, “and yet restraint is crucial for wise decision making.” As Lisa Monaco, who served as Obama’s advisor for homeland security and counterterrorism, told Dickerson, “The urgent should not crowd out the important. But sometimes you don’t get to the important. Your day is spent just trying to prioritize the urgent. Which urgent first?”

That type of work environment is why Obama made decision fatigue part of his mental framework. “You’ll see I wear only gray or blue suits,” the “decider-in-chief” famously said to Michael Lewis for a Vanity Fair profile. “I’m trying to pare down decisions. I don’t want to make decisions about what I’m eating or wearing. Because I have too many other decisions to make.” In the White House, as Obama put it, “you need to focus your decision-making energy. You need to routinize yourself. You can’t be going through the day distracted by trivia.”

It’s impossible for a president to lead and govern effectively by making decisions on the fly, reacting impulsively to whatever happens to come across their radar and agonizing over meaningless and petty things as they go. Successful presidents know they need to prioritize the most difficult and consequential decisions, and they have no choice but to cut back everything else that falls short of that threshold. The have to automate and build systems that keep everything but the most important stuff from reaching their conscious mind and draining precious time and attention.

While the presidency demands an especially high volume of high-consequence decisions, these challenges are just an extreme example of something we all face every day. We all have too many decisions to make and not enough time or energy to make them, or at least to make them with as much thoughtfulness and consideration as we’d like.

But some decisions matter more than others. “Routinizing” your decision-making, as Obama put it, isn’t just a reactive mechanism for coping with a busy life. It’s a proactive tool for making better decisions and for spending your limited mental and emotional bandwidth on decisions that help you build a more fulfilling life.

If you spend your days navigating through small, inconsequential decisions, you’re not going to have the mental strength for the big ones. If you waste your attention and energy on shallow tasks, you’ll have little attention or energy left for the stuff you actually care about. Fighting decision fatigue is not something you have to do to keep up with the small stuff — it’s something you choose to do to make time for the big stuff.

Read fiction

Memos. Intelligence reports. Policy briefings. Speeches. News articles. Letters from the public. The job of president has (traditionally) required a lot of reading of a lot of different types of content. By default, though, the job doesn’t leave much time for reading books. And, one might assume, any spare time that is available for reading books would be consumed by material directly related to the job — a biography of a predecessor, perhaps, or a detailed look at a particular moment in history. Information and facts, in other words. Not stories. Not fiction. Not fantasy.

Yet throughout his time in office, President Obama read all sorts of books, including novels. “Most every night in the White House,” Michiko Kakutani reported in The New York Times, Obama “would read for an hour or so late at night — reading that was deep and ecumenical, ranging from contemporary literary fiction… to classic novels to groundbreaking works of nonfiction.” In Vanity Fair, Michael Lewis observed that the desk in Obama’s private White House study was “piled high with novels.” Obama’s annual book lists have always included more than just nonfiction.

By all accounts, Obama’s interest in fiction predated not just his presidency but his entire political career. As a student at Occidental College, Craig Fehrman wrote recently in Literary Hub, “Obama read fiction because he wanted to experience psychological interiority.” In the mid-80s, Fehrman noted, Obama even “started writing fiction of his own, eventually completing several stories he shared with his fellow organizers.”

Why would this interest in fiction follow him to the White House? Obama explained in a two-part conversation with the novelist Marilynne Robinson (who he endearingly calls one of his “pen pals”) published in The New York Review of Books. “When I think about how I understand my role as ‘citizen,’ setting aside being president, and the most important set of understandings that I bring to that position of citizen, the most important stuff I’ve learned I think I’ve learned from novels,” Obama said. “It has to do with empathy. It has to do with being comfortable with the notion that the world is complicated and full of grays, but there’s still truth there to be found, and that you have to strive for that and work for that. And the notion that it’s possible to connect with some[one] else even though they’re very different from you.”

During his presidency, “fiction was useful as a reminder of the truths under the surface of what we argue about every day and was a way of seeing and hearing the voices, the multitudes of this country,” Obama told the Times. “I found myself better able to imagine what’s going on in the lives of people throughout my presidency because not just a specific novel but the act of reading fiction. It exercises those muscles.”

I don’t subscribe to the time-management aphorism that says, “If the president can make time for it, so can you,” which is sometimes deployed to motivate people to build a new habit or take on some sort of self-improvement project. If a president can find time for something, it’s because they are the most powerful person in the world and have thousands of people working for them. If they say, “Make sure I can exercise tomorrow,” exercise will be on tomorrow’s schedule.

What matters is the act of prioritization, not the time management. A president can always make time for something — if they choose to do so. Obama is not the first person in history to see novels as a means of learning, growing, and understanding the human condition, but it’s significant that he chose to prioritize reading fiction, even when doing so might seem immaterial to the immediate responsibilities of his job.

For too long, I made the naive mistake of characterizing fiction as an indulgence. I saw novels as a way to relax or zone out, not a way to learn or grow or exercise my brain. That sort of knowledge transfer, I was certain, came from heavy-duty nonfiction — history, biography, science, psychology.

Yet novels are just as powerful a tool for learning and growing. They help us develop empathy and show us new ways of seeing the world. They enable us to better understand ourselves and other human beings. They provide clarity about what we think and what we believe. They give us the opportunity to explore different ideas and step outside of our current moment-to-moment dramas and dilemmas.

You don’t have to be the president of the United States to feel overwhelmed by the pace of life and inundated by information and distractions. When the world seems unrelenting or incomprehensible, immerse yourself in a novel. Or carve out a little space to think. Or see if you can cut back on the number of decisions you have to make. Just because Barack Obama did these things doesn’t mean you have to. But if it worked for him, it might work for you, too.

This article, which was originally published on Medium, is the first in a series. The second part will be published in the coming weeks. Portions of this article are excerpted from my book, Reframe the Day: Embracing the Craft of Life, One Day at a Time.

Reframe Your Inbox (Unrealistic Expectations Edition)

Hey everyone—after a brief hiatus last week (for which you can blame both the topic of today’s newsletter, described in the First Thing below, and the topic of next Sunday’s newsletter, which is burnout), we’re back.

Here are three things for the week: 1) a reflection on my proclivity for setting wildly unrealistic expectations in pretty much every aspect of my working life; 2) some book-related updates; and 3) some quality internet content.

FIRST THING

One afternoon in June 2018, I found myself at a McDonald’s in the Dallas airport. I was en route from the UK to Ecuador for a week of adventuring with my brother and our friends Ben and Brian. By then I’d been writing down my thoughts about work and life for a number of months and was pretty sure I wanted to turn some of those ramblings into a book… so I decided that I would finish the manuscript before I landed in Quito.

Even before I knew that writing Reframe the Day would ultimately take another year and a half, finishing the manuscript that day was an outrageously impossible and unachievable expectation. Yet I worked the entire flight from London to Dallas, squinting at my laptop screen, determined to make it happen despite 100 percent of the available evidence (and common sense) telling me it wasn’t going to happen.

I continued working furiously at McDonald’s during my layover, sweating profusely while inhaling a breakfast sandwich (I’d been awake for probably eighteen hours by that point, but whatever, it’s called the “All Day Breakfast Menu” for a reason), getting increasingly stressed out as it dawned on me that my completely unrealistic goal of finishing the book on that journey was just that: completely unrealistic. I tried to push that realization aside and keep the illusion of potential completion alive after taking off from Dallas, before finally slumping back in my seat, overwhelmed by exhaustion and disappointment.

Then, suddenly, I decided it was ok not to have finished the book that day. I made a conscious choice to stop striving for an impossible goal, and I gave myself permission to bring my expectations back to reality. Immediately, I felt a sense of relief as this self-imposed burden lifted. It was a reminder that, yet again, I had manufactured all of the stress, anxiety, and irritation I’d been feeling about meeting a haphazard deadline.

I share this story because it’s a telling example of something I do constantly, especially over the past few months: set wildly unrealistic expectations for how much I can accomplish in a given amount of time. Intellectually, I know that I can’t “do it all.” No one can. Reframe the Day includes the sentence, “You will not be able to do it all.” Yet every time I sit down to work on a project or think about what I want to get done in a given day, there’s still some part of me that hopes that this time—just this once—I can do it all.

This mentality is problematic for all sorts of reasons. When I think I can do far more in a certain amount of time than I actually can, I’m less likely to prioritize the most important stuff. I’m almost always running late because a) I thought I’d have time to finish whatever I was doing before, and b) I’m seemingly incapable of accurately predicting how long it will take me to get anywhere (because, of course, I have unrealistic expectations for how quickly I can get from one place to another).

I say commit and “yes” to things I don’t want or need to do because I think I’ll be able to get everything done that I want to get done—and still have time left over for the things people ask me to get done. I convince myself that the real problem is that I don’t have enough time to work or don’t work efficiently enough, which leaves me searching for productivity and time-management hacks instead of, say, tackling the root problem of setting unrealistic expectations (or the deeper problem of equating productivity with self-worth).

Most fundamentally, because I always think I can do more than I actually can—sometimes to a laughably unrealistic degree—I’m always trying to get stuff done (or thinking about getting stuff done), and I’m always coming up short. Then I get stressed and irritated and lose my focus when I inevitably discover that I can’t get everything done that I hoped to, even though it was impossible from the beginning.

This isn’t a plea for pity or sympathy; it’s just a realization. And the more I’ve thought about it, the more I’ve begun to recognize the extent to which unrealistic expectations are at the root of so much of my self-imposed suffering and stress.

I suspect I’m not the only one. While the causes and consequences of this pattern of thinking are too numerous and too complex to cover in a single email newsletter, the key point is this: Setting impossible expectations for how productive we’ll be and how much we’ll get done doesn’t help us accomplish or achieve anything more than we would otherwise. All it does is set us up for failure. It makes us exhausted and miserable. Over time, it leads to one place: burnout.

Brad Stulberg, one of the co-authors of the “Peak Performance” email newsletter, noted recently that “studies published in the British Medical Journal and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that at any given moment your outlook, mood, and stress levels are a function of your reality minus your expectations. If you know something is going to be a protracted grind—and you go into it with that expectation—odds are you’ll feel a lot better throughout the entire ordeal.” As Stulberg puts it, “Having a high bar is great—until it becomes the very thing that makes you miserable. Pay attention to what is going on in your head. Pay attention to what is happening in your reality. And adjust accordingly.”

I don’t expect that I’ll suddenly become a master expectation-setter. (That, in itself, would be a pretty unrealistic expectation.) But I can try to be more aware of my tendency to set these unachievable expectations and, as Stulberg suggests, “adjust accordingly.”

(Have you read any good articles or books about this challenge? How do you narrow the expectation-reality gap? I’d love your input. Just reply to this email to get in touch.)

SECOND THING

Creative on Purpose. Last Thursday, I joined Scott Perry, host of the podcast “Creative on Purpose,” for a really fun conversation about Reframe the Day. We covered a lot of ground—lessons learned as a political speechwriter, what it means to have a creative practice, the Stoic and Buddhist influences on my thinking, and much more. You can listen to the convo here, or just search for “Creative on Purpose” wherever you get your podcasts.

Instagram Live. I also had a great chat about the book with bookstagrammer Matt Hutson (@bookmattic). Our full conversation is on YouTube, or you can stream it on Instagram TV.

Amazon reviews. For those of you who have received your copy of the book already… would you consider reviewing it on Amazon? No review is too short or too honest. It really, really helps get the word out about the book. Thank you!

Missing books. It’s been nearly a month since Reframe the Day hit (virtual) shelves, but it sounds like a number of people still haven’t received copies that were ordered well before then. I think/hope/trust that the covid-related delays in distribution and shipping are still the source of the issue, but please let me know if you think your order may have been lost in the lockdown chaos.

THIRD THING(S)

“There’s something uniquely misery-making about days spent in a Makework Matrix of ceaseless digital communication that doesn’t seem to generate much beyond additional digital communication—we’re simply not wired for this as a species.” That’s Cal Newport, author of Deep Work, Digital Minimalism, and more, on his blog.

“Give up. You can look and look for something more in him, but it isn’t there. I wish I could tell you that there is some secret thing that he really believes in, but he doesn’t.” Jane Mayer’s April New Yorker profile of the most cynical and toxic force in American politics today, Mitch McConnell, is amazing (as is all of her writing) and absolutely infuriating (as is everything about McConnell). Reading it is a good way to practice some mindfulness, though—read a paragraph, feel the rage and frustration build, acknowledge it, let it pass. Repeat that for 11,000 words. (In an article a few years ago, I tried, and failed, to figure out McConnell’s vision of public service.)

“Video games are a to-do list you play. … No matter the game’s subject matter, style, or story, my favorites all have one central element that feels deeply familiar: a never-ending stream of busywork and chores.” That’s Katie Heaney in The Cut. Erin knows as well as anyone how much I love a good to-do list. She came across this piece and said something along the lines of, “I found an article that’s going to speak to you…” She was right, of course.

That’s all for now. As always, thanks for reading.

—Adam

Reframe Your Inbox (‘Becoming’ Edition)

Hey everyone—happy Sunday, and Happy Mother’s Day to all of the mothers out there!

Here are three things for the week: 1) a reflection inspired by Michelle Obama’s Becoming documentary; 2) some updates about Reframe the Day; and 3) a few meaningful lines from a few unexpected sources.

FIRST THING

I’ve read and written a lot about the challenges millennials have faced in our 24-39(ish) years so far. (For more on these challenges, see this from Anne Helen Petersen in BuzzFeed News, or this from HuffPost’s Michael Hobbes, or the introduction to Reframe the Day.) In plenty of ways, though, millennials were enormously fortunate to come of age when we did. We’ve enjoyed many of the benefits of smartphones and the internet, for instance, while also being old enough to remember an era without constant connectivity and social media (and, in turn, we understand that it’s possible—even desirable—to spend time offline).

Another privilege of growing up a millennial—in my experience, at least—is the fact that many of us came of age in the era of Barack and Michelle Obama. As a millennial who was/is liberal and interested in politics, I was particularly lucky here. I was a senior in high school when then-Senator Obama gave his 2004 DNC speech. I was a senior in college when he was elected president. I ended up on Capitol Hill in time to see the Affordable Care Act pass the House. Obama’s was the first presidency I followed closely from start to finish. And by the time my first First Family left the White House, I’d experienced some of the most significant moments in my life, personally and professionally, and had begun to really understand who I was and what mattered to me.

I can’t calculate the precise impact of living most of my twenties alongside the Obama presidency, but it’s not insignificant. Among the takeaways from the Obama era was that you can engage in politics in good faith and without succumbing to cynicism. You can get in the trenches and fight the good fight and celebrate little wins here and there, and you can do all of that without sacrificing your values, your idealism, or your integrity. Politicians can be a force for good. Politics itself can be a force for good. It can make a difference. It can matter.

To learn these lessons while working my way through the transformation of early adulthood was, well, transformational. To develop these core convictions while I was going through some of life’s most complicated and uncertain years was life-altering and life-affirming. I feel fortunate to have experienced all of that personal transformation and growth with the backdrop of the Obamas in the White House. Not just because I shared their politics and supported their public policy priorities, but because I looked up to them. I admired them. I was, and remain, inspired by them.

My fellow millennial progressives and I will never experience another presidency like the Obama presidency. I say this not because America can’t elect another president with the same integrity and decency as Barack Obama. Despite what our current circumstances might suggest, I believe we can. I say this because we will never see the same type of charismatic and empathetic leadership while we’re at the same place in our lives. We can (and, I hope, will) continue learning and growing for the rest of our lives. But we only really come of age once. We only enter the working world for the first time once. We got to experience those chapters in parallel to the Obama presidency. And that’s pretty special.

I’ve been reflecting on some version of this since Erin and I watched the new Netflix documentary Becoming, which follows Michelle Obama along her 34-city book tour. I also thought about it while I listened to her amazing memoir. I think about it whenever I get sucked into YouTube archives of old Obama rallies and speeches. Becoming reminds me how lucky we were to do a lot of our own becoming during such a hopeful and inspiring chapter in U.S. history.

Even if it’s just for a 90-minute documentary, we can put aside some of the pain and anger about the present and fears about the future. We can put aside the shortcomings of Obama and his team, and we can put aside the obstacles and obstruction that his administration faced. We can put aside everything that’s happened since January 20th, 2017, and in the months and years leading up to that date. We can even put aside political differences and policy debates as a whole. We can put all of that aside for a few minutes and simply appreciate having leaders like Michelle and Barack Obama in public life.

SECOND THING

A few book-related updates:

  • The word on the street (and on my phone) is that books are finally arriving. Even though Reframe the Day urges readers to build more fulfilling days by spending less time on social media, I hope everyone will celebrate receiving the book by… posting about it on social media! The hashtag is #ReframeTheDay.

  • Please consider reviewing Reframe the Day on Amazon! Those reviews are so, so important for getting the word out about the book. It can be brief—even just a sentence or two. THANK YOU.

  • This coming Friday, May 15th, at 9 am ET/2 pm UK, I’m joining bookstagrammer @bookmattic for an Instagram Live Q&A. Follow me at @browithacat to tune in!

  • On Thursday, May 21st, I’ll be sitting down (virtually) with Scott Perry, host of the podcast Creative on Purpose, for a live taping of his show. We’ll be streaming at 12 pm ET/5 pm UK. More details to follow on this and a few other upcoming events.

In case you missed it, you can read the new foreword to Reframe the Day here: Reflections on Launching a Self-Help Book in the Middle of a Global Pandemic.

THIRD THING(S)

“Sometimes I worry that there is little left in a person these days save the desire to participate in a mighty strange collective fever dream of fakery and grand-scale mischief.” What an amazing sentence from Rye Curtis’s Kingdomtide. (See this review from NPR, and Curtis’s “letter to booksellers,” for more about the book.)

“What writing is: Telepathy, of course. … All the arts depend on telepathy to some degree, but I believe that writing offers the purest distillation.” That’s from Stephen King’s (yes, that Stephen King) On Writing. Writing is kinda like telepathy, if you think about it, which is pretty cool.

“It’s amazing how cats can so perfectly encapsulate Zen meditation. One need only watch a cat for a few moments to understand this. Cats do one thing at a time, and deliberately and utterly live in the moment. They pause. They observe. They respond.” That’s from Zen Litter Box Gardening, a tiny booklet that accompanies the equally tiny Zen Garden Litter Box, which my brother gave me for my birthday a few months ago, and which we have also just gifted to our mom. (Happy Mother’s Day!)

That’s all for this week. As always, thanks for reading.

—Adam

PS—as a show of gratitude for that Zen Garden Litter Box, here’s a throwback for my brother Chris.

Reframe Your Inbox (Is It May Day or Mayday? Edition)

Hey everyone. A big, big thank you to those who pre-ordered, post-ordered, tweeted, Instagrammed, shared, plugged, emailed, celebrated, and otherwise engaged with the launch of Reframe the Day on Tuesday. It means so much to me, and it supports the amazing work of Direct Relief.

If you haven’t been able to grab a copy yet, zero worries—all profits from future book sales will continue to support the coronavirus response efforts of Direct Relief. These days, we gotta seize the opportunities to do a little good wherever we can find them.

Here are three things for the week: 1) some book-related updates; 2) a collection of cool and interesting links for some Sunday afternoon browsing; and 3) some out-loud thinking about what’s next.

FIRST THING

I originally had this next sentence buried in a long paragraph of introductory text, but I’m going to get right to the point here: Would you consider reviewing Reframe the Day on Amazon? Even if you didn’t buy it on Amazon (support local bookstores!), you can review it there. Those reviews are so, so important for getting the word out about the book. It can be brief—even just a sentence or two. It could be something like this. It doesn’t even need to be composed of complete sentences. And it can, and should, be honest. If you don’t dig the book, you should definitely say that (although feel free to say it in an email to me rather than on the internet.) THANK YOU.

In other book news, last Tuesday an excerpt of Reframe the Day was featured on the Optimal Living Daily podcast. Check it out here, or wherever you get your podcasts. Later today (Sunday) at 10:30 am ET/3:30 pm UK, I’m joining bookstagrammer @books_behindthescenes for a short Instagram Live Q&A. Follow me on Insta for all the details.

SECOND THING(S)

A few interesting links that prove there’s still non-coronavirus content out there:

“There is a cult of work: We must produce, produce, produce, and if we are not producing we are bad. … We should take much more of a cue from the flora and fauna that surround us. Once you have the basics, it is enough just to bask in the sunshine and potter around. And if your ‘contributions’ dry up and you do crosswords all day, that’s okay too. You matter.” So writes Nathan J. Robinson in Current Affairs: Animals Are Pointless, And We Should Be Too. I don’t agree with everything Robinson says in the article, but the subtitle— “The value of life does not depend on ‘productivity’”—resonates with me for obvious reasons (see chapter five of Reframe the Day). Thanks to my friend Vish for sending this.

“We exist to unify, empower, and activate people who have done and experienced harm to practice radical love and forgiveness; and to use our resources to empower the least loved and least forgiven people in society. We are raising awareness and understanding of the full human experience of people who have been to prison, because we believe everyone is more than their record. We are building a community of people that are radically reimagining a system where justice and accountability includes investment in growth, transformation, and restoration, rather than simply punishment.” That’s the mission statement of the Michigan-based organization Forgive Everyone, which recently cross-posted an article I published on Medium a couple years ago. Founder Sky Rich and the team at Forgive Everyone are doing important and inspiring work. (Sky also recently published a great criminal justice reform and forgiveness book list.)

“Challenging the status quo is difficult—and often cold and lonely. We shouldn’t be surprised that the interests that pushed climate denialism for many years are now pushing the idea that there’s nothing we can do. That’s how powerful incumbents always react to the prospect of change.” That’s Rebecca Henderson, a Harvard professor who teaches the hugely popular course “Reimagining Capitalism” at Harvard Business School, in the prologue to her new book, Reimagining Capitalism in a World on Fire. Check out reviews in the FT and Fortune.

“Thinking is generally thought of as doing nothing in a production-oriented culture, and doing nothing is hard to do. It’s best done by disguising it as doing something, and the something closest to doing nothing is walking.” That’s from Rebecca Solnit’s Wanderlust: A History of Walking. (I came across this line on the Writing Routines website, which itself linked to Brain Pickings. Ah, the internet.)

THIRD THING

You know that moment when you’ve been working on something for a long time, and then it happens, and then you’re not sure what to do with yourself the next day? It might be an event you’re organizing—a conference, maybe, or a wedding or a dinner party. It might be a final exam you’re taking or a presentation you’re making. It might just be a team project you’ve been supporting at work for the last few years. In politics, it might be a big committee hearing that you’ve been preparing for for months, or it might be an election. Anyone working on a campaign finds their life looking and feeling very different the day after election day, regardless of whether your candidate or cause won or lost.

Whatever the case, I’m fascinated by these moments that we strive toward for weeks, months, and years. All of a sudden, this thing that seemed like it would never be attained or achieved has been attained and achieved, and… no matter what the attainment or achievement is, getting to the other side of it leaves emptiness in its wake—a lingering sense of what do I do now? I haven’t hit that feeling yet with Reframe the Day, but I know it’s coming. Instead of running from it or trying to bury it under more busyness or whatever comes next, I hope I can let myself feel it. It’s a helpful reminder that when we make our happiness contingent on future accomplishments, we set ourselves up for a lifetime of endless striving and suffering—and we miss all the life happening in front of us right now.

Stay safe out there. As always, thanks for reading.

—Adam

PS—if you missed the new foreword to Reframe the Day, you can read it here.

Article: Reflections on Launching a Self-Help Book in the Middle of a Global Pandemic

The world has changed since I finished writing it, but the ideas feel more urgent than ever.

We all have to balance different aspects of who we are and what we do and how we spend our time. Sometimes, different parts of us — our responsibilities, our hobbies, our experiences, our identities, our areas of expertise — exist in different spheres. Maybe you work 9-5 to pay your bills and also have an unrelated side hustle outside of the office. Like every human being, you still have to make trade-offs in how you allocate your time and attention, but these two parts of your identity might remain pretty much distinct. Two separate worlds, neither collaborating nor colliding.

Other times, our priorities and passions seem to compete with one another. We constantly feel pulled in different directions, leaving us operating from a place of tension. That’s where I’ve found myself for much of the past two-plus years. Throughout the entire process of writing, publishing, and (so far) promoting my new book, Reframe the Day: Embracing the Craft of Life, One Day at a Time, which will be published on Tuesday, April 28th, I’ve felt a lingering sense of tension.

While this tension usually just hums quietly in the back of my mind, it’s grown louder over the past few months as I’ve tried to figure out how to publicize a book in the middle of a public health crisis. The tension isn’t new, though. I’ve felt it since I left the world of U.S. politics and started spending a lot of my free time writing.

Where does this tension come from? Pulling me in one direction is the craft of writing, an activity I love and from which I derive meaning and fulfillment. Pulling me in a different direction — or at least it feels like a different direction — are the activities I feel like I should be doing with the time and resources that I’m privileged to have. Volunteering. Campaigning for causes and candidates I believe in. Fighting the good fight. Performing some type of public service. Helping people.

When I worked in politics, I didn’t really feel the nagging pull of these “shoulds” because some element of service was built into my day-to-day experience. It wasn’t something I did in addition to the job; it was the job. That’s no longer the case. Leaving politics has given me actual work-life balance, a better understanding of what matters to me, the opportunity to live abroad (and write a book), greater financial stability, and more time and energy to devote to people I love. That’s a position of great privilege. But it’s also left me with a gnawing sense that I’m failing to contribute some form of service to the world.

I’ve written about this tension a lot. I haven’t resolved it. I doubt I ever will. In some ways, actually, I’m glad I feel it. These types of internal dilemmas, while uncomfortable and distracting, can also be pretty useful. Recognizing the tension between self-improvement and self-obsession, for instance, can keep us from veering too far toward either extreme.

Over the past few months, I’ve wondered incessantly whether I should be spending less time finishing and hyping a book, and more time volunteering and checking in with friends and family and using my fortunate circumstances to help others. Book-launch stress and coronavirus-related stress have me bouncing perpetually between “No one will ever read this vanity project!” and “Just think about how lucky you are to have the chance to publish a book and to be healthy, safe, and loved!”

Even as we wrestle with these tensions and trade-offs in our own lives, every now and then we stumble into circumstances that allow us not just to live with them but to resolve them, even just temporarily. Launching Reframe the Day in the middle of this crazy chapter in human history might be such a moment. It might be a chance to align two strands of my identity that are usually in pseudo-competition. It might be an opportunity to leverage something I’m passionate about to do a bit of good.

Levers of opportunity

In the introduction to Reframe the Day, I quote Robert Sapolsky, a Stanford professor who has spent decades studying how stress impacts our bodies and minds. “In a world of stressful lack of control,” Sapolsky writes in Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers, “an amazing source of control we all have is the ability to make the world a better place, one act at a time.”

Publishing a book causes all sorts of stresses and anxieties. The coronavirus crisis has unleashed more than a little stress and anxiety of its own. Yet to paraphrase Sapolsky, in the middle of all of this stress and anxiety, in launching this book at this particular moment I’ve been lucky enough to encounter an amazing source of control. Two sources, actually. Two tiny levers with which I might be able to do a little good in the world.

Sales. The first lever is book sales. I’m pretty sure the next sentence goes without saying for a lot of writers, but I’ll say it anyway: Reframe the Day has never been about making money. Its original purpose was to get the thoughts careening around my head out of my head and onto the digital page so I could make some sense of them. It’s also become a vessel for sharing with others some activities and ways of thinking that I’ve found helpful and valuable. But that’s it.

In March, I released the first three chapters of the book for free because I think these chapters, which focus on finding stillness and building awareness, might be a helpful antidote to coronavirus anxiety and social isolation. I also announced that I’m donating all profits from pre-order sales to the coronavirus response efforts of Direct Relief. Each decision, while incredibly minor on the grand scale of a global crisis, represents an opportunity to align what I want to be doing with what I should be doing.

In that spirit, I’m making an additional commitment: For as long as people are willing to purchase Reframe the Day, all profits from all sales will go to charitable causes and organizations. I’m under no illusions that sales of this book will single-handedly sustain an NGO. Reframe the Day is not Harry Potter. But every little bit helps. At a time when many of us are struggling to find a way to make a contribution beyond just staying home and socially distancing, I hope this decision gives readers a small sense of having done a bit of good when they buy the book. And it’s far more important to share the practices and ideas that have been so valuable to me than it is to try to monetize them.

Ideas. That brings me to the second lever with which I hope Reframe the Day can do some good: the content. Even if a book’s proceeds are going to charity, we don’t buy a copy just to donate money. Nor do we buy it just to add it to the looming stack on the bedside table. We buy a book to read it. To grow from it. To learn, to empathize, to improve ourselves, to share insights, to understand the world, to connect with other people. We buy it for the ideas.

Through no action of my own, the ideas in Reframe the Day feel more timely and urgent than ever. At its core, the book argues that anyone, anywhere can build more fulfilling days by focusing on two things: how they see today, and how they spend today. “There is only one path to happiness,” Epictetus says in Discourses, “and that is in giving up all outside of your sphere of choice.” While most things in life are outside of our sphere of choice, we always retain at least a tiny bit of agency over our perspective and our actions. We can control how we interpret the world around us and how we respond to it.

For example, we can create moments of stillness that give us a chance to process the world. We can build an awareness practice that helps us recognize the thoughts and emotions bombarding us 24–7. We can consume a little less anxiety-inducing news and a little more of the content that inspires us. We can try to make a little more time for the people and activities that we care most about. We can reflect regularly on death and mortality to remind ourselves that our time is limited, and our number will almost certainly be called when we’re not ready for it.

What better reminder of how much we can’t control than a rapidly spreading global pandemic that has dramatically and unexpectedly canceled plans, disrupted routines, isolated families, caused countless job losses and furloughs, and generated untold amounts of pain, anxiety, and grief? At a time when we’re inundated by uncertainty and a lack of control, these types of practices can help us deal with both.

None of us has the power to do these things all of the time, of course, but we all have the power to think about these practices and explore how they might apply to our situation. We try them today. We can try them tomorrow. We can try them again the day after that, gradually building a more fulfilling life one day at a time. That’s what Reframe the Day is all about.

The coronavirus crisis has also created an opportunity for ideas like these to reach new audiences. There are a lot of people out there like me — people who might not have wanted (or felt they needed) to spare a minute to reflect on their obsession with being busy and productive all the time, or their willingness to let FOMO dictate their days, or their compulsion to strive relentlessly for future achievements, or their determination to consume news and content every minute of every day without taking a moment of stillness to pause or process any of it.

All of a sudden, all sorts of people are open to new ways of thinking and, potentially, living. This global shutdown has inspired a collective reevaluation of how we spend our time and who we spend it with. It’s also caused many of us to ask questions of ourselves that we hadn’t asked before, either because we didn’t know we needed to ask them, or because we were afraid of what the answers might reveal.

These questions were always there, lurking in our subconscious, popping into our minds fleetingly and unexpectedly. Suddenly, though, they’ve become a lot harder to avoid. That makes this moment an opportunity.

Practices, not solutions

As I’ve learned over the past few years, writing, publishing, and promoting a book can feel enormously selfish and self-serving. Writing is, almost by definition, a solitary activity. Meanwhile, the publishing process takes a huge amount of time, attention, and money — three scarce resources that, when spent on a book, can no longer be spent on anyone or anything else.

Unsurprisingly, the promotion part feels the most selfish and self-serving of them all. I’ve spent a lot of time over the last couple of months emailing book reviewers, messaging Instagram influencers, and urging my friends and family members to urge their friends and family members to pre-order Reframe the Day. I think I’d be pretty uncomfortable with these asks anytime, but under the current circumstances, all of the self-hype and self-promotion feels decidedly inappropriate. Being frustrated by the rejections and lack of responses feels even more shallow, given the suffering, grief, and hardship that the coronavirus has delivered to millions of people.

If that’s not enough, there’s more: During every single stage of the book-creation process, especially the publicity part, I have struggled mightily to follow the practices I write about in the book. It’s almost funny — if darkly so — how much I’ve struggled. It’s gotten to the point where I sometimes feel like I’m mocking the book by how overwhelmingly I’m failing to practice the practices that have helped me so much.

In the first chapter, for instance, I write about the importance of creating moments of stillness. Yet these days, from the second I wake up until the second I fall asleep, I’m racing around (metaphorically, at least), worrying about everything I need to do to finish the book and wondering how I’ll fit that work in between doing my day job and exercising and chatting with friends and reading and hanging with Erin.

I write about building awareness, but I’m being yanked around by anxiety and despair about this book even though the whole purpose of writing it was to make some sense of the thoughts bouncing around in my brain. Even though six months ago, if you’d promised me that I would someday get to hold a printed copy of the book in my hands, I would’ve been beyond ecstatic.

I write about making more time for the people and activities that matter to me, but I’m spending endless hours in front of a screen crafting promotional emails and tracking down social media personalities instead of calling my grandparents or signing up to volunteer to deliver groceries to our neighbors. (Literally as I was first typing these words, Erin asked if I wanted to work on a crossword puzzle with her, and I almost responded, “After I finish this article.”)

I write about resisting our collective obsession with being busy and productive all the time, but I’m still calibrating my self-regard by how much book-related work I “produce” on any given day. I continue to find my sense of self-worth contingent upon whether I’ve heard back from a publication I’ve submitted a book excerpt to, or whether I responded to all of the book-related emails in my inbox, or whether I did enough promotional outreach for the day.

I write about how no one can “do it all,” despite the tantalizing promises of so many life-hacks and productivity blogs and “hustle culture” mantras. Even so, as I try to balance launching a book with working a full-time job, I continue to set impossibly sky-high expectations for what I can accomplish in a single day. I continue to convince myself that I can find time to do it all, both personally and professionally.

I write about the importance of having a trajectory, not a plan, and how much I learned from realizing that there isn’t a single prescribed path for any one of us. Yet I increasingly feel myself putting more emotional and mental weight on my identity as “writer” or “author,” leaving my well-being precariously dependent on professional success, much of which is out of my control.

I write about the power of thinking regularly about death and mortality to remind us of the privilege of being alive. These days, reminders of the fragility of life are swirling around us constantly, hitting us every time we read the news or put on a homemade face mask to go grocery shopping or substitute a Zoom happy hour for an actual happy hour. But I’m still crashing through each day in a to-do list-obsessed fog, focused entirely on what I have to do next, and what I have to do after that, and will I ever get it all done?

You get the idea. If I ever needed a reminder that the practices I’ve written about are just that — practices — launching this book in the middle of a global pandemic has delivered that reminder. Over and over and over and over again.

All I can do, I guess, is try to recognize it, forgive myself for it, and try to do a little better tomorrow. After all, they’re practices. Not prescriptions. And certainly not solutions.

Into the unknown

Some people, including me in the title of this article, describe Reframe the Day as “self-help.” On Amazon’s U.S. store, one of the book’s sub-sub-categories is “happiness self-help,” which is a little ironic since its introduction includes the sentence, “This book isn’t about finding perpetual happiness.”

I consider the book less “self-help” and more a “tool for self-reflection” because I’m not telling anyone what to do. I’m not suggesting people make radical changes to their lives. I’m not promising quick fixes or even fixes at all. I’m simply telling my story — what’s worked for me — in the hope that readers will hear echoes of their own experiences and find ideas and inspiration to think differently about their days.

Whatever you call it, what’s it like to launch a “happiness self-help” book or a “tool for self-reflection” book in the middle of this once-in-a-lifetime (we hope) crisis?

It’s urgent. It’s timely. It’s fortuitous. It’s unfortunate. It’s demoralizing. It’s selfish. It’s exciting. It’s self-indulgent. It’s a helpful distraction. It’s scary. It’s a privilege. It’s patronizing. It’s fun. It’s a way to support a good cause. It’s an opportunity to bring some solace and some new ideas to people who might benefit from them. It’s a reminder of my own shortcomings. It’s a chance to practice the ideas I’ve read and written and talked so much about.

Just like the crisis we’re living through, it’s all of these things and more, sometimes all at once. And that’s ok.

All we really control is how we see our time and how we choose to spend it. The same is true for this book. I can’t control what will happen with it, or what people will think of it, or whether they’ll even read it in the first place. All I can control is what I do with it. All I can control is whether I use the small levers this book has given me to support a good cause and to help people nudge their days in a more fulfilling direction.

I hope Reframe the Day helps you do a little of that today. And maybe a little tomorrow, too.

***

Reframe the Day: Embracing the Craft, One Day at a Time will be released Tuesday, April 28th, 2020. I’m making a donation equal to all profits from pre-order sales to the coronavirus response efforts of Direct Relief. For more information, visit www.reframetheday.com.

This article was originally published on Medium.

Reframe Your Inbox (Tuesday’s the Day Edition)

Hey everyone. After way too many hours writing and rewriting and re-rewriting, Reframe the Day finally comes out on Tuesday. A huge thank you to everyone who has pre-ordered it and supported the book (and me) throughout this very long and meandering process.

Three brief book-related updates:

  • E-book and Kindle pre-orders are available now—just head here to find the online bookstore of your choosing. All pre-order profits will continue to go to Direct Relief. All profits from Tuesday onward will also go to Direct Relief and other charitable causes and organizations.

  • An excerpt from Reframe the Day will be featured on the Optimal Living Daily podcast on Tuesday. Every day, the OLD pod features a short excerpt from a book or article focused on one aspect of personal development and minimalism. It’s high-quality stuff. Be sure to listen on Tuesday—and subscribe, rate, review, and share!

  • If/when you get your copy of Reframe the Day in the mail or on the e-reader next week, I would love it if you would post a picture of the book or—even better—of you doing something fun with the book. The hashtag is… #ReframeTheDay.

Here are four things you’ll find in this week’s newsletter: 1) an excerpt from a new foreword to Reframe the Day in which I reflect on how much the world has changed since I submitted the manuscript a few months ago, and how much I’ve been struggling to live the practices I talk about in the book; 2) a great line from Seneca’s Moral Letters that appeals to me for obvious reasons; 3) a link to the sixth installment of my “Radical Rethink” series; and 4) a couple of interesting links.

FIRST THING

A few weeks ago, in a brainstorming session with my friends Micael and Jonathan, we were discussing how much the world had changed in the short time between when I finished Reframe the Day and when it would be published. They gave the great suggestion to write a few words exploring why the ideas in the book feel particularly relevant to our current moment. I decided to tack on a few additional reflections, including how the coronavirus crisis has reminded me that the ideas in Reframe the Day are practices, not solutions, and why I’ve decided to donate future profits from all book sales (not just pre-orders) to good causes.

Here’s an excerpt from the new foreword, Reflections on Launching a Self-Help Book in the Middle of a Global Pandemic:

As I’ve learned over the past few years, writing, publishing, and promoting a book can feel enormously selfish and self-serving. Writing is, almost by definition, a solitary activity. Meanwhile, the publishing process takes a huge amount of time, attention, and money — three scarce resources that, when spent on a book, can no longer be spent on anyone or anything else.

Unsurprisingly, the promotion part feels the most selfish and self-serving of them all. I’ve spent a lot of time over the last couple of months emailing book reviewers, messaging Instagram influencers, and urging my friends and family members to urge their friends and family members to pre-order Reframe the Day. I think I’d be pretty uncomfortable with these asks anytime, but under the current circumstances, all of the self-hype and self-promotion feels decidedly inappropriate. Being frustrated by the rejections and lack of responses feels even more shallow, given the suffering, grief, and hardship that the coronavirus has delivered to millions of people.

If that’s not enough, there’s more: During every single stage of the book-creation process, especially the publicity part, I have struggled mightily to follow the practices I write about in the book. It’s almost funny — if darkly so — how much I’ve struggled. It’s gotten to the point where I sometimes feel like I’m mocking the book by how overwhelmingly I’m failing to practice the practices that have helped me so much.

In the first chapter, for instance, I write about the importance of creating moments of stillness. Yet these days, from the second I wake up until the second I fall asleep, I’m racing around (metaphorically, at least), worrying about everything I need to do to finish the book and wondering how I’ll fit that work in between doing my day job and exercising and chatting with friends and reading and hanging with Erin.

I write about building awareness, but I’m being yanked around by anxiety and despair about this book even though the whole purpose of writing it was to make some sense of the thoughts bouncing around in my brain. Even though six months ago, if you’d promised me that I would someday get to hold a printed copy of the book in my hands, I would’ve been beyond ecstatic.

I write about making more time for the people and activities that matter to me, but I’m spending endless hours in front of a screen crafting promotional emails and tracking down social media personalities instead of calling my grandparents or signing up to volunteer to deliver groceries to our neighbors. (Literally as I was first typing these words, Erin asked if I wanted to work on a crossword puzzle with her, and I almost responded, “After I finish this article.”)

I write about resisting our collective obsession with being busy and productive all the time, but I’m still calibrating my self-regard by how much book-related work I “produce” on any given day. I continue to find my sense of self-worth contingent upon whether I’ve heard back from a publication I’ve submitted a book excerpt to, or whether I responded to all of the book-related emails in my inbox, or whether I did enough promotional outreach for the day.

I write about how no one can “do it all,” despite the tantalizing promises of so many life-hacks and productivity blogs and “hustle culture” mantras. Even so, as I try to balance launching a book with working a full-time job, I continue to set impossibly sky-high expectations for what I can accomplish in a single day. I continue to convince myself that I can find time to do it all, both personally and professionally.

I write about the importance of having a trajectory, not a plan, and how much I learned from realizing that there isn’t a single prescribed path for any one of us. Yet I increasingly feel myself putting more emotional and mental weight on my identity as “writer” or “author,” leaving my well-being precariously dependent on professional success, much of which is out of my control.

I write about the power of thinking regularly about death and mortality to remind us of the privilege of being alive. These days, reminders of the fragility of life are swirling around us constantly, hitting us every time we read the news or put on a homemade face mask to go grocery shopping or substitute a Zoom happy hour for an actual happy hour. But I’m still crashing through each day in a to-do list-obsessed fog, focused entirely on what I have to do next, and what I have to do after that, and will I ever get it all done?

You get the idea. If I ever needed a reminder that the practices I’ve written about are just that — practices — launching this book in the middle of a global pandemic has delivered that reminder. Over and over and over and over again. All I can do, I guess, is try to recognize it, forgive myself for it, and try to do a little better tomorrow. After all, they’re practices. Not prescriptions. And certainly not solutions.

You can find the full foreword on Medium here. And yes, the final header in the article is a Frozen 2 reference.

SECOND THING

“The one who puts the finishing touches on their life each day is never short of time.”

I recently stumbled across this line from Seneca’s Moral Letters in Ryan Holiday and Stephen Hanselman’s The Daily Stoic. It’s a great quote. I can’t help but wish I’d stumbled across it before finalizing the manuscript to a book that talks about “embracing the craft of life, one day at a time.”

THIRD THING

Earlier this month, I published the sixth article in my “Radical Rethink” series: Most Individuals Are Good People with Good Intentions. Is That Good Enough? Here’s part of it:

How is it that so many people mean so well, and are so aware that the status quo is unsustainable, and yet so many aspects of our political and economic systems remain broken and seem to be getting worse? How can it be that most Americans going about their day-to-day lives are working hard and trying to do the right thing, and yet those at the top do better and better while everyone else falls further behind?

This is, of course, what makes it a systemic problem. And it calls for more radical thinking, not less. We need more radical thinking not in spite of good people with good intentions, but because of them. We need more radical thinking precisely because in their individual lives, many people already mean well and think they’re doing the right things. Even some of those at the top, whose behavior and decisions sustain a system that protects their wins and minimizes their losses. Even some of those who are thriving because of rules that have made life so difficult for so many others. […]

Even if most people mean well, even if they have good intentions, there’s too much invested in the status quo, and too many people comfortable with the way things are, for meaningful and systemic change to bubble up — or trickle down — on its own.

The full piece is on Medium here.

FOURTH THING

Here are a couple of links to wrap things up this week:

  • My pals (and former softball teammates—go Cutthroats) Craig Frucht and Michael Sparks recently launched Ascend Digital Strategies, a creative digital firm specializing in political campaigns and issue advocacy. If you’re trying to change public policy, raise money, recruit volunteers for a cause, or win an election—and there’s a lot of each of these things that needs doing—check them out. Support super talented people doing super cool things!

  • “Make no mistake, the heart is what has been most traumatized this last month. We are, as a society, now vulnerable in a whole new way. … What is about to be unleashed on American society will be the greatest campaign ever created to get you to feel normal again.” That’s from this unsettling and important article on Medium: Prepare for the Ultimate Gaslighting. Thanks to my friend Kate for sharing this.

Stay safe out there. As always, thanks for reading.

—Adam

Reframe Your Inbox (Convos from the Couch 🛋 Edition)

Hey everyone. Just one thing from me this week. We’ll return to our regularly scheduled programming next weekend…

FIRST (AND ONLY) THING

Tomorrow I’ll be joining Colorado State Senator Kerry Donovan for a live session of “Convos from the Couch.” We’ll be discussing Reframe the Day and talking about how anyone can reframe their response to the coronavirus crisis.

While almost every aspect of the current moment is out of our control, there are little things we can do, from scheduling moments of stillness to consuming news more intentionally to resisting the urge to be productive every minute of every day. Join us for this convo from the comfort of your couch:

Reframing Your Response to the Coronavirus Crisis

Tomorrow, Friday, April 17, 2020

12-12:30 pm Colorado time (great lunchtime entertainment) || 7-7:30 pm UK time (great dinnertime entertainment)

RSVP here to let us know you can make it!

You have three ways to watch:

  1. From your smartphone on Instagram Live (we’ll see how this goes…)

  2. From your computer here: https://join.freeconferencecall.com/kerrydonovanstatecous

  3. From your telephone (cool!) by calling +1 425-436-6385 (access code 291037#)

See you tomorrow—and don’t forget to let us know if you can make it by RSVP-ing here.

That’s all for now. Thanks for reading (and watching)!

—Adam