Hegseth Squeaks By

Donald Trump has his preferred secretary of defense, as Pete Hegseth was formally approved by the Senate late on Friday.

The vote was literally as close as is possible with a full Senate, namely 50-50, with VP J.D. Vance casting the tiebreaking vote. This is only the second time in American history that a cabinet nominee needed the VP's vote to get across the finish line. The first occasion came during Trump v1.0, when Betsy DeVos needed Mike Pence's vote to be confirmed as secretary of education. Clearly, the President likes to live life on the edge.

The three Republicans who joined the 47 Democrats and independents in voting against Hegseth were Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY). The first two were expected, as they also voted against bringing Hegseth's nomination to the floor. The third was not a great surprise, as he has long disliked Hegseth, and, as a likely retiree in 2 years, he has no particular need to bend the knee before Donald Trump.

What this means, of course, is that there are members of the Senate Republican Conference who are willing to rebel against Trump's most problematic picks. It's entirely plausible, in particular, that this same trio will line up again to vote "nay" on Tulsi Gabbard as DNI. If just one more Republican joins with them, she's sunk. Our guess, reading the tea leaves from this week, is that someone (Senate Majority Leader John Thune?) will quietly take J.D. Vance aside, tell him that Gabbard doesn't have the votes, and she will magically decide to drop out for [fill in phony reason here].

Meanwhile, readers who are not fans of Trump and his administration might take solace in this: Trump's pick for SecDef was guaranteed to be someone abhorrent to the majority of Americans. The President wants a fawning lackey and, having butted heads with generals during his first term, a civilian fawning lackey. The pick might well have been a cunning fawning lackey—someone able to operate under the radar, like a Donald Rumsfeld. Instead, Trump chose someone who is, by all indications, a walking, talking train wreck. The odds that Hegseth does not have some sort of scandal, or does not put his foot so deep in his mouth that he could do a colonoscopy while it's there, are close to zero. So, you can pretty much buy your popcorn now, put it in the closet, and wait for the newly confirmed Secretary to embarrass himself and the administration. Not ideal for the U.S. or for people who want the country to be safe and strong but, again, there are lots of pros at the Pentagon who should be able to rein Hegseth in. (Z)

Saturday Q&A

For those who did not check in earlier, we put the questions up last night, and the answers up around 4:45 Saturday morning. We'll try to keep doing that.

Also, we've decided to add a weekly "Fun Stuff" section. We may have some days where we make that the focus, but for now, we'll get at least some of those questions in every week.

Finally, if you're still working on the headline theme, you'll want to focus on the word that appeared either two times, or three (depending on how you count), in the "hint" section.

Current Events

R.A.G. in Seattle, WA, asks: Seems like maybe today is the day to ask this question: What's the "over/under" line on the number of days Trump is POTUS? 1,461 is a full term, but as Mr. Spock often said, "there are many possibilities." As good bookies always do, be sure to list the factors and weighting of your algorithm in arriving at that number.

(V) & (Z) answer: This particular situation will not work as an over-under bet.

For those who are unfamiliar, an over-under bet involves a 50/50 proposition. You pick one side of the proposition, and if you're right, you double your money. For example, LeBron James is averaging 23.6 points per game right now. So, if he faces an average defense, the over/under on points scored would be 23.5 (they always round to the nearest half point). If you bet the under, you win if he scores 23 or fewer. If you bet the over, you win if he scores 24 or more.

Out of the 45 presidents, 8 have died in office. That is 17%. We'd be open to doubling that for Trump, since he's older and unhealthier than most presidents, and he's also helped create an environment ripe for assassinations. But that's still only 34%. The chances of him leaving office some other way—impeached and convicted, resigning for some reason, removed under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment—are very small, and are certainly not as high as 1-in-10. Maybe 1-in-40, if we are being generous. Add it up, and we'd guess he's around 60%, maybe 65%, to make it to the end of his term. So, even if you set the over/under at 1,460.5 days, the over is still the clearly correct bet.

On the other hand, if we can give odds, then we'd say that 2-to-1 (+200, in American-style odds) is about right for "Trump doesn't make it to the end of his presidency."

---

D.B. in San Diego, CA, asks: You and other commentators have suggested that the point of nominating Pete Hegseth for SecDef is to force the Senate to bow to Donald Trump. And that's fine as far as it goes, but what next? I'm hesitant to ask you to delve into what's happening in the President's mind, but did they really not think past getting the nomination approved? I think I've seen comments from the President that "Hegseth looks the part" or something, but is he truly unaware that SecDef is an important role and Hegseth is dramatically under-qualified?

(V) & (Z) answer: First of all, Trump cares nothing for "qualifications," as that notion is conventionally understood. Remember, he himself is unqualified to be president, by any conventional definition.

As to Hegseth, we doubt Trump has thought ahead in terms of specifics. But we do think he's thought ahead in terms of generalities. That is to say, as we note above, Trump butted heads with his military team last time (both the former general Jim Mattis, who was the first Senate-approved SecDef for Trump, and the non-general Mark Esper, who was the second). The President does not want a repeat of that. He wants someone who, whatever he is told, will say "Yes, absolutely, sir!"

What orders Trump might give are still up the air, excepting that he definitely wants to use troops to enforce border policy. Mattis and Esper would likely have balked at that as a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Hegseth won't.

---

M.A. in Hartford, CT, asks: It seems like there is a very wide range of outcomes in terms of how these next 4 years will go. Maybe Donald Trump will give more tax cuts to rich people and call it a day, or maybe he'll do all the extreme things he's promised. What do you think will be some early indicators of how extreme he'll go these next 4 years?

(V) & (Z) answer: We think the early indications are already publicly available. The time to go wild (and to potentially overreach) is in the inaugural address, and then in the first wave of XOs. Those are the two things Trump has complete control over.

Thereafter, the rubber hits the road, and non-Trump people, who aren't necessarily taking their marching orders from him, have to get involved. He'll do some harsh stuff related to immigration, because he's set himself up for that. And he'll impose some tariffs. However, both of those things have already been Trumpeted from the highest mountain many times, including this week.

Trump rarely comes up with new ideas; he prefers to see what gets the base in a lather, and then to go back to that same well again and again. When he DOES come up with new ideas, they are usually off-the-wall enough that they die a quick death.

---

G.H. in Branchport, NY, asks: It seems to me that the slew of inhumane and democracy-destroying XOs could not possibly be all originating with Trump. I just don't think he has the intellectual capacity to do anything but spout out his hate, anger and fear in generalities. The quantity and breadth of the proclamations seems over his head. I believe there has to be a group of people taking advantage of the situation and putting the XOs out there and whispering in his ear. I know Stephen Miller, who seems to embody hatred, bigotry and hubris is one. Who might the others be or what group is leading this charge?

As an aside, the slew of executive orders has two of my daughters seriously looking at moving to another country as they believe the majority of the XOs will be enacted. There seems to be little being published to counteract this notion. They do not want my grandchildren (ages 1, 4, 8, and 10), two of whom are biracial and who have a father who is on a work visa from Ghana, brought up in a country run in an inhumane manner by inhumane people. Is there any hope?

(V) & (Z) answer: Undoubtedly, many of these XOs are coming from people who are part of Project 2025, or who are Project 2025-adjacent. Trump was not being the slightest bit truthful when he claimed he didn't know about Project 2025, or about the people behind it. Russell Vought and Stephen Miller, both of whom had key positions in Trump v1.0, were the driving forces behind Project 2025. Trump knew what they wanted and just gave them free rein.

And yes, there is hope. You sent this question to us early in the week; since then Trump has already run into many obstacles, including Republican members of Congress who aren't playing along (or who have warned they won't play along with certain policy initiatives), judges who said "wait a minute, here," right-leaning voters and political groups who are unhappy with things like the 1/6 pardons, and a host of other headaches. Trump talked loudly and accomplished little in his first term; until he gives reason to think otherwise, we must assume the same will be true in his second term.

---

M.J. in Granger, IN, asks: I am confused about whether being undocumented is a criminal offense. Earlier this week, Karoline Leavitt, the White House Press Secretary, indicated that "by definition, all illegal immigrants are criminal" by the fact they are in this country without documentation. And I have heard this argument around the office quite often. But this doesn't strike me as correct. Is it?

(V) & (Z) answer: We are not sure if you are recalling Leavitt's words incorrectly, or if she deliberately misrepresented the situation for political reasons. However, the statement "by definition, all illegal immigrants are criminal," while correct, is also a tautology. It is like saying "all murderers are criminal." That is because "murderer" means "someone who has been found criminally liable for killing someone."

By contrast, "all undocumented immigrants are criminal" is not an accurate statement. Being in the U.S. illegally is indeed a crime, and carries a potential 10-year prison sentence, per Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a). However, one can be undocumented without breaking the law. For example, someone who enters the U.S. seeking refugee status might well be undocumented, but is not breaking the law if that person applied for asylum the correct way.

---

D.K. in Iowa City, IA, asks: Are Donald Trump and the Republicans intent on deporting undocumented immigrants because they are afraid these people will be allowed to become citizens at some point and would likely vote for Democrats?

Do they not realize that deporting many millions of them will have serious negative effects on the economy and cause inflation to rise?

(V) & (Z) answer: We suppose there might be some "big picture" thinkers in the Republican Party who are thinking along those lines. However, Donald Trump is not one of them. He does not give a damn about the success of the Republican Party once he's no longer president. More importantly, his anti-immigrant posture was not adopted to gain long-term political advantage, it was adopted because it fired the base up more than anything else he tried.

In one of his lectures, the one on World War II, (Z) tells the students: "Adolf Hitler was not particularly antisemitic." That sounds like a shocking statement, until it is explained. Hitler, of course, was VERY antisemitic, it's just that his bigotry was not particular to that group of people. He also hated Black people, and Roma, and Catholics, and communists, and numerous other groups. However, it was the antisemitism that really got Germans' blood boiling. Similarly, if it had been railing against labor unions, or communists, or tall people, or redheads that got Trump's base fired up, then Trump would be screaming about labor unions, or communists, or tall people, or redheads right now.

---

J.N. in Baltimore, MD, asks: The courts and Congress have no mechanism for actually enforcing their laws or rulings. That's the president's job. What would happen if Trump simply chooses to ignore a law or a court decision—say, for example, upholding birthright citizenship?

(V) & (Z) answer: Well, the XO on birthright citizenship (which is now on hold, of course), is rather poorly written, but says two things pretty clearly: (1) that Trump intends to forbid the issuance of documents recognizing U.S. citizenship to people he now deems to be non-citizens, and (2) that this rule "shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order."

These things being the case, Trump has not ordered that people be expelled from the country, whether they are in the group that already had birthright citizenship, or in the group that will be born on or after February 18, 2025. He's just ordered that paperwork be withheld from newborns. Since most people, through age 4, have little need for birth certificates or social security cards, this looks pretty toothless to us.

That said, if Trump defies the Supreme Court on this, or anything else, then he's on the wrong side of the law. That means that if some entity steps up to resist his orders—say, the state of California takes steps to protect birthright citizens—then they have the upper hand, because they are on the right side of the law, and he is on the wrong side. Also, Trump could be at risk of prosecution. Yes, the Supreme Court gave him pretty broad powers to break the law, but those powers are not unlimited, and we might imagine that the Supremes would decide that "I can ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court" is not one of the areas where he's immune.

---

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: What with Donald Trump's announcement that he is going to shovel an obscene amount of money into building out the AI infrastructure in Abilene, TX (an announcement with which Co-President Musk expressed sizable disagreement), my question is: Why in the name of God are our Tech Overlords so hellbent on the creation of AI? Has no one read a decent science fiction novel or watched a sci-fi film that encroaches on the perils of building AI technology? Are we that bent and determined to build a group of sentient slaves? Or the other extreme, where an AI ends up controlling or exterminating its human population. It seems to me that this path leads to madness—and if our sole goal is to build self-driving cars then maybe we just need to reevaluate the whole scenario.

(V) & (Z) answer: The leaders of the tech sector have learned that if you don't get in on "the next big thing" early, then you're either going to spend a lot of money to catch up, or you're going to be permanently left out in the cold. Various tech giants have gotten burned in this way on tablets, cell phones, portable music players, cloud storage, various forms of social media, etc.

So, when some hot commodity comes along, the tech companies tend to go all-in. Sometimes that doesn't work out, as with the billions that Meta lost on virtual reality. Sometimes, it works out swell. Meanwhile, folks like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk stopped caring, long ago, about the damage—and, in particular, the long-term damage—done by their products.

---

J.R.A. in St. Petersburg, FL, asks: As I'm sure (V) knows, these days, when you rent space in a datacenter, you don't pay by the rack or rack-unit, you pay by the kilowatt; whether they have enough power for you is the controlling factor as equipment power densities continue to climb... and that's only getting worse with GPU-based AI designs from vendors like nVidia.

So that leads us to an important question: Given that Texas has already demonstrated in successive years that they cannot keep the lights on when it gets: (1) too cold or (2) too hot, where in hell are they going to find 20-30GW more power to run these data centers? Co-located nuclear plants?

(V) & (Z) answer: Let's take a step back. Why put the datacenters in a state with flaky power? First, because there is plenty of land in Texas, so there will be no NIMBY effect. Second, Texas does not have a personal or corporate income tax or an estate tax and the gas tax is 20¢/gal. Third, the person with the most to say about the physical infrastructure, Oracle cofounder and executive chairman Larry Ellison, is a long-time Trump supporter and Oracle's headquarters is in Austin, TX. Fourth, politics. AI will create jobs and if it really takes off, Texas could eventually overshadow California in the tech industry. Take that, blue states!

As to power, no matter where the datacenters are located, they will indeed need massive power. Washington State has hydropower, but it is a high-tax blue state, so is disqualified. We are not sure if you were serious or sarcastic when suggesting co-located nuclear power, but if the former, you nailed it. Microsoft also needs massive power for its AI projects, so it went to the owner of the nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island, which suffered a catastrophic meltdown on March 28, 1979, and asked the company, Constellation Energy, to start up one of the other reactors there that didn't suffer a meltdown in 1979 but has since been closed. The deal consists of Microsoft building a datacenter nearby and contracting to buy every kilowatt the reactor can produce for the next 20 years. By then, Constellation will have gotten its investment back many times over and can start selling its power on the open market.

In general, nuclear reactors have gotten much better over the decades and as long as they don't melt down, and don't produce any gases that could affect the planet, they are tolerable to most politicians. Of course, the spent fuel remains radioactive for millions of years, but right now everyone is worried about the year 2100, not the year 21,000,000. And even if Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) is not a giant fan of nuclear power, he's going to have to come around, because power failures at the AI facilities would have the business class screaming, while power failures of the Texas electrical grid would have everyone else in the Lone Star State screaming.

---

C.S. in Linville, NC, asks: DJT makes $25 Billion with a bitcoin ($TRUMP) days before inauguration and it's barely news?

Having been born in '83, the dot-com bubble was the first financial bubble that I personally saw pop, and somewhat understood as a teenager.

I still don't fully understand cryptocurrency (does anyone?), but I feel we are witnessing another bubble in the making built on a Ponzi scheme heavily invested in by the world's most powerful person.

Could you please explain cryptocurrencies, how big they will need to be before they can be considered a bubble, how this may bust, and what the subsequent fallout may be?

(V) & (Z) answer: We are not as expert on crypto as some people are. And we know we'll get blowback for what we are about to write. With that out of the way...

We share your sense that crypto is, in the end, a version of a Ponzi scheme. In theory, crypto was supposed to serve certain functions that allegedly were not being well served by other forms of currency. However, it's pretty clear, something like 10 years in, that the vast majority of crypto usage is by: (1) people looking to make an anarchist/libertarian political statement, or (2) people looking to commit crimes. If crypto was going to achieve some sort of broad acceptance, it surely would have done so by now. It's also worth noting that other forms of currency either have some intrinsic value (gold, diamonds, etc.) or the backing of a governmental entity (dollars, euros, yuan, etc.). Crypto does not have those things, its "value" comes from its being limited in quantity.

And so, it certainly appears that the people buying crypto are doing so in order to sit on it for a while, then pass it off to someone else at a profit. That is not only classic Ponzi, it's also the classic conditions for a bubble. Eventually, like with the infamous Dutch tulips, or with the frenzy to get in on any company whose name ended with .com, the majority is eventually going to see this, and is going to get out. And so, the bubble will burst.

We don't have any idea how long this will take. The bubble that took the stock market down in 1929, for example, was 10 years in the making. We doubt the bubble will burst in the next 4 years, as we have a presidential administration that is going to do everything possible to prop up the crypto market. But we would not be surprised if the collapse came soon after January 21, 2029.

---

M.Y. in [redacted], asks: How much TrumpCoin does my country need to purchase in order to secure a favorable tariff arrangement?

(V) & (Z) answer: Since you did not provide your country of origin, we cannot consult our chart and answer your question. Sh**hole countries pay more. Noble countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia pay less.

---

J.C. in Thủ Dầu Một, Bình Dương, Vietnam, asks: Canada is saying they will do precisely-targeted tariffs on red states as a counter-tariff, to make it hard for red state folks. I don't get this. Tariffs are a tax on the people of the country imposing the tariffs. That's the whole thing Trump doesn't get. Why would this be good for Canada?

(V) & (Z) answer: Well, tariffs do (sometimes) increase costs for domestic consumers, but while doing so, they also shift business in the direction of domestic producers.

Let us imagine that Kentucky whiskey sells, in Canada, for $20/bottle Canadian. And let us imagine that Canadian whisky (note that the different spelling is correct) sells, in Canada, for $18/bottle. Canadians might buy the American stuff because it's the same basic price, but tastes better. Or they might buy the Canadian stuff because it's cheaper and the taste isn't that much different.

Now, imagine that Canada slaps a 50% tariff on American whiskey. Immediately, that bottle from Kentucky costs $30 Canadian. Some 'Nades, mostly whiskey snobs, will grumble and pay the higher price because it's worth it to them. Most, however, will buy the domestic, because the difference in taste isn't enough to justify the difference in price. So, the net effect, in this case, is to significantly reduce the sales of a red-state product, while most Canadians actually end up spending less on their spirits.

The point, then, is that a country can target red-state products without generally harming its populace too much. Maybe Canadian consumers have to accept a slightly lower quality whisky, maybe they have to pay a few bucks more to get the whisky or whiskey they prefer, or maybe they have to choose a different spirit to keep themselves warm at night. But the pain is distributed pretty widely, which minimizes it. Meanwhile, the pain felt by the foreign seller (i.e., the whiskey producer) is pretty substantive, because it's highly focused.

All of this is true because, to a large extent, the red states don't produce very many things that the Canadians cannot produce for themselves at a reasonably competitive price point. On the other hand, the United States has complex supply chains built upon all manner of goods from, in particular, China. If there is a trade war, rearranging those supply chains will be none too easy (remember what happened during the COVID pandemic). Further, while Canada is perfectly capable of producing its own whisky, the U.S. cannot easily replace, say, Chinese microchips. In 10 years, yes, but not right now. So, Americans would feel the pain of a trade war with China much more than Canadians would feel the pain of a trade war with the red states.

---

K.B. in Manhattan, NY, asks: Could pardons for those who assaulted Capital Police help Democrats secure support from police and their unions? Can Democrats start claiming to be the party of law and order?

(V) & (Z) answer: We are skeptical.

Undoubtedly, the leadership of the police unions is angry right now. But will they remain so in 4 years? More importantly, while the leadership might be politically flexible, a lot of the rank and file is very Trumpy. They are not likely to flip, no matter what the union leaders say.

Meanwhile, American police forces have a reputation, often well-deserved, of being hostile to minorities, and in particular to Black men. If the Democrats hug the police close, they run the risk of further alienating Black male voters, who are already shaky right now when it comes to their commitment to the blue team.

---

T.B. in Leon County, FL, asks: Can we expect a flurry of civil cases against some of the formerly convicted individuals from 1/6, now that they've received pardons or commutations?

(V) & (Z) answer: Doubtful.

Obviously, the Trump administration isn't going to bring civil cases against the insurrectionists. And since the incident took place in Washington, DC, nobody else has jurisdiction. Meanwhile, if there are private citizens who have the standing to file, there was no reason for them to have waited 4+ years. If a police officer who was assaulted that day, or a reporter who was bodily threatened, or a member of Congress whose office was violated, hasn't sued yet, it's either because they don't think they can win, or because they don't think there's enough money there to be recovered in order to make it worthwhile.

---

J.E. in Whidbey Island, WA, asks: Does pardoning January 6 insurrectionists constitute having "given aid or comfort to the enemies" of "the Constitution of the United States"? If so, how can The People ensure that the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, will be enforced? What even is the process by which such enforcement could be accomplished?

(V) & (Z) answer: According to current Supreme Court jurisprudence, only Congress can disqualify a president under the terms of Section 3. Presumably, if this is to happen, it would require, at a minimum, the Democrats retaking a majority in both chambers of Congress in 2026. The House is very plausible, but the Senate is rather less so.

---

L.B. in Savannah, GA, asks: While the weather was the official reason for moving the inaugural indoors, one theory I've heard is that Donald Trump's team noticed a surprisingly large number of vacancies in the local hotels. This told them that the inauguration would be sparsely attended. To avoid this embarrassment, they moved it indoors where the crowd would surely be large enough to fill the Rotunda seating area. I've seen a few MAGAs, who traveled to Washington to witness the inauguration in person, expressing disappointment that they were not able to do so.

While the weather was cold on Monday, there have been inaugurations held outdoors in colder weather. Grant's inauguration holds the record with a high of 16 degrees, 10 degrees colder than the expected temperature today.

Is there any support for the attendance theory?

(V) & (Z) answer: The only people who know for sure aren't talking, and may never do so. At least, they won't do so until the next round of tell-all insiders' accounts, due to be released in the early months of 2029.

As such, we have only suspicions, and no evidence. But if you would like to know what our suspicions are, well: (1) Trump is a much older and less healthy man than Grant was at his inauguration, and there was legitimate concern that the cold might do him harm; (2) it was windy that day, and "windy" and "Trump's hair" are not two things that go well together, particularly for a nationally televised appearance; and (3) the attendance concern was, at very least, on the minds of some people in the administration.

---

R.S. in Warner, NH, asks: Other than the vote (along with John McCain) back in 2017 that prevented Republicans from paring down Obamacare, can you think of any other time where Lisa Murkowski's and Susan Collins' votes against their leadership were meaningful? They have a reputation for bipartisanship, but it seems to stem from voting with Democrats when the stakes are not really all that high or when, remarkably, the Republican proposal manages to squeak by with another one-vote victory. Someone more cynical than myself might think these forays into bipartisanship are tolerated (approved?) by their leadership as long as no serious harm is done and it helps to ensure their reelection.

(V) & (Z) answer: It is not a secret that centrist members of both parties, in both chambers, are given permission to cast "rebellious" votes when they will do no harm.

As to Collins and Murkowski, there are certainly some occasions where they've cast votes, in opposition to Trump, that were meaningful. For example, they both voted to convict during his second impeachment. We would also point out that just because their votes might not be decisive does not mean they do not come with a cost. Such votes, in such high-profile situations, most certainly do alienate both Trump and his most devoted followers.

---

M.G. in Boulder, CO, asks: Would you mind catching us up on the Los Angeles fires?

(V) & (Z) answer: The fires that got all of the attention a week or two ago are largely under control. Whereas (Z) could smell smoke constantly for many days, and there was a very sizable amount of ash on the ground, those things aren't true anymore. Further, everyone he knows who was evacuated has been allowed to return to their homes, assuming those homes are still standing and are structurally sound.

There is a rather large, and fairly new, fire burning right now, called the Hughes fire. When (Z) first heard the news of the new fire, it was eye-opening, because "Hughes" usually refers to the area just north of LAX, as that is where the Howard Hughes Center is located (Hughes' airplane construction facility was once located there). A fire in that part of L.A. would be a very big deal, indeed.

However, the Hughes fire is actually named for Lake Hughes, which in turn is named for Judge Griffith Hughes, who was a homesteader many years ago. Lake Hughes is about 40 miles north of Los Angeles, and is considerably less developed, and considerably less populated, than the areas that were burning out of control a couple of weeks ago. So, there has been somewhat less coverage than there was of the earlier fires.

Rain is forecast for the Los Angeles area this weekend; hopefully that will help douse the Hughes fire and whatever other fires are still burning. San Diego has a couple of fires burning right now, as well; hopefully those will also be snuffed out by the rain. Meanwhile, Donald Trump visited the sites of the original L.A. fires yesterday. If there is anyone in California, Democratic or Republican, who was pleased to have him visit and pose for photo-ops, none of the local news outlets have been able to find that person.

Politics

J.C. in Bloomington, IL, asks: A thought occurred to me when thinking about Democratic senators who fell in line with the Laken Riley legislation and, more specifically, John Fetterman's current attempts to curry favor with Donald Trump.

Your readers know one of the easiest ways to get Trump on your "side" is with flattery. The tech billionaires seem to know this. Strongman leaders around the world seem to know this.

Are some within Democratic leadership beginning to realize this? Is it possible to bring Trump a bit left simply by playing this game? We know he will dump people as soon as they're no longer useful to him, but it's worth a try in the short term, right?

(V) & (Z) answer: This is exactly the strategy John Fetterman was using when he visited Mar-a-Lago. Undoubtedly, some other Democrats are doing it, too. The problem is that getting Trump on your side doesn't help all that much. The much trickier hurdle, in terms of legislation, is the Republican-controlled House.

---

R.M. in Pensacola, FL, asks: Now that Republicans are kinda sorta pretending to care about government spending, it got me wondering what ever happened to Grover Norquist? I remember his "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" reaching its zenith in 2012, but nothing since. Was he a casualty of Convicted Felon Donald Trump's rise? Did he retire? Something else?

(V) & (Z) answer: Although he tried, he was not able to become a member of Trump's inner circle. Meanwhile, the Republican members of Congress rebelled against signing his pledges, because they were too restrictive. It was much easier for them to rebel after Norquist was tainted by involvement with the Jack Abramoff scandal. Consequently, he's not much of a political mover and shaker these days, and is primarily a pundit who appears mostly on second- and third-tier right-wing podcasts and broadcasts.

---

F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Why did Democrats abandon Howard Dean's "50-state strategy" after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008? And how important was this to the Democratic losses in 2016 and 2024?

(V) & (Z) answer: The 50-state strategy is a long-term play. The Democrats aren't going to win, say, Montana in the 2028 presidential cycle, or the one after that, or the one after that. However, by investing in the state parties and their infrastructure, the notion is that the party can eventually be competitive in downballot races, then higher-up races, then the biggest races of all (Senate and president).

The problem is that this takes a lot of resources. When a candidate appears headed for a big victory, as Obama was, then it's plausible to invest in long-term projects. Since Obama left office, however, all the elections have been very close. And it's just not plausible to throw money and manpower at Montana when it's badly needed in, say, Arizona.

---

A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: Can you imagine if we had a billion Obama flags and huge, aggressive signs on our houses? Manic, handwritten screeds on posterboard in our front yards? Priuses (Prii?) with huge paintings of him as the paint job?

Maybe we should have...

It's all just so perfectly American right-wing. Declassé in the highest manner imaginable.

(V) & (Z) answer: We have a piece coming up about an author who argues that the Democrats need to adopt the tactics of the Republicans, and especially the right-wing media. Maybe not the weird idol-worship stuff, but many of the other trappings.

---

D.P. in Oakland, CA, asks: In January 2021, Joe Biden's approval rating was 55% and disapproval was 30%. By August 30 of that year, when the U.S. completed the Afghan withdrawal, his approval/disapproval lines were crossing and he never recovered. At the end, his approval numbers had entirely flipped to 30%/55%. What are the chances that the pardon fiasco will likewise be Trump's Waterloo, and even start to affect his ability to puppet string the Congress?

(V) & (Z) answer: Everything we are going to write here is supposition, and there is no real way to prove we are right (or wrong).

However, our gut feel is that once a president enters office, it is pretty easy for him to lose some of the people who were supportive of his election, and it is pretty hard to get those folks back once they are gone. It wasn't always this way, but it is now.

And so, we think that Biden's poor approval ratings were the product of a generally downward trend that was unavoidable, and that while Afghanistan might look like the "turning point," it really wasn't. That incident may have hastened the process a bit, but he was likely to end up in the doldrums whether or not there was a withdrawal.

That means that we do not think there will be an obvious "turning point" for Trump, either the 1/6 pardons, or anything else. We are confident he will slowly slide downhill, as people remember what he's like as a president, and as he flails around and ends up doing a lot of harm to various groups of Americans.

Civics

R.J. in Rockville, MD, asks: How likely or rapidly are we approaching a situation where we need to be careful what we post on social media or text to contacts being critical of the government? I'm reading On Tyranny right now and kinda freaking out...

(V) & (Z) answer: It is exceedingly difficult to shut down dissent when it is coming from tens of millions of people. This is why China cracks down harshly on individual cases of dissent, because the government knows that if they allow the dissent to spread, it will soon become uncontrollable.

There are tens of millions of Americans who will be expressing opposition to the Trump administration through every possible channel. It is not plausible to try to target them all, or even to try to target some fraction of them. Even the attempt would end in embarrassment and huge legal setbacks. In other words, there's no need to be careful, as long as you don't break the law.

---

J.E. in Hannibal, MO, asks: I just saw where Donald Trump removed the security detail for Mike Pompeo. Is this the same as declaring open season on Pompeo? Also, if Trump is still kicking in 2029 (not a given) and he leaves office (also not a given) could the new president withdraw security for Trump? I realize he could fund his own security, but he really, REALLY hates to spend his own money!

(V) & (Z) answer: The Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012 grants lifetime protection to former presidents and first ladies. Their children also receive protection, up to the age of 16. The next president cannot, therefore, remove protection from Trump. Congress could do so by updating the law, or Trump himself is allowed to relinquish the protection (he's not likely to do so; the only president who has is Richard Nixon).

Any other Secret Service protectees, outside of the current president and VP and their families, are at the discretion of the sitting president. That is why Joe Biden could grant protection to Mike Pompeo, and why Trump could take it away.

---

J.H. in Grays Harbor County, WA, asks: If Ross Ulbricht, founder of the dark web website Silk Road, was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, how could he be paroled by anybody? Can/does the Presidential parole power override that level of conviction? If so, what is the point of any sentencing "without the possibility of parole"? At the federal level, I presume the only individual who can grant pardons for federal convictions is the president, or am I wrong?

(V) & (Z) answer: Ulbricht was not paroled; his conviction was set aside, which rendered his sentence moot.

A president can do that (or can keep a conviction, but set aside the sentence). So can a court, for that matter. If a court agrees to take another look at a person's conviction, and finds it wanting, the court can set the conviction aside, or change the sentence, or order a new trial. That's true even for convictions without possibility of parole.

---

H.S. in Lake Forest, CA, asks: The pardon of Oath Keeper and Proud Boy leaders made me wonder: What safeguards does the U.S. have in place to prevent the buildup of a private army in the mold of the Russian Wagner Group? Would a private military group, beholden to Trump, and perhaps supported by the Elon Musk fortune, be possible here? If yes, could such a group be a threat to our democracy?

(V) & (Z) answer: The U.S. already has people like this, they are called militias. And the FBI and other agencies keep a close eye on them, as is best possible, to keep them from acting on their violent inclinations.

For this reason, there is a near-zero chance of anything like the Wagner Group happening in the U.S. And even if it did happen, that entity would not be a threat to democracy. Elon Musk may have $400 billion, but the yearly budget of the Pentagon is twice that. And the Pentagon has been spending that much every year, which means they have a vast supply of highly trained soldiers and cool toys like F-18s and cruise missiles. If a Musk-funded army tried to take on the U.S. Army, the Musk force would be crushed.

---

R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: I tend to agree with most folks that the presidential pardon power has run amok and has been abused recently. What we saw on Inauguration Day was not, I think, what the Founding Fathers intended.

So, how do we fix this? How do we go back to the intended purpose of pardons, which was to correct an injustice done on an individual by the justice system?

(V) & (Z) answer: We don't fix it. First, the pardon power is in the Constitution, which means it would require a Constitutional amendment in order to make a change. Second, any substantive change that might be made—say, subjecting pardons to a board of review (for example, the Senate)—would create new problems, and would subvert the fundamental purpose of the pardons. All we can reasonably hope for is that future presidents have better pardon ethics.

The only slightly viable thing we can think of is to create some sort of punishment for highly problematic pardons. It would not be plausible to put a president in prison for a corrupt pardon, given that the power is clearly granted by the Constitution and so is very definitely covered by the Supreme Court's Louis XIV ruling. However, the president's pension is granted by... Congress. So, Congress could probably get away with a law that says something like "a panel of three federal judges will review all presidential pardons, and if any of them are found by all three to be corrupt, then the president's pension is forfeit." That might cause some presidents to think twice about abusing the power, and it has a decent chance of passing legal scrutiny, since Congress has no constitutional obligation to bestow a pension.

---

S.P. in Harrisburg, PA, asks: How is it determined which justice swears in the vice president? There is not necessarily a pattern—Justice Brett Kavanaugh swore in J.D. Vance, Justice Sonia Sotomayor swore in Kamala Harris, and Justice Clarence Thomas swore in Mike Pence.

(V) & (Z) answer: The vice president gets to pick, and generally picks an associate justice whose politics are most aligned with their own.

Note that there are relatively few rules about who can handle the swearing in. It has to be someone who is legally allowed to administer oaths, a list that includes all judges, all members of Congress, all commissioned officers in the U.S. military, and... all notaries public. If a VP wanted to be sworn in by, say, the Speaker of the House, that would be breaking with tradition, but would be perfectly legal. The same is true for the president.

---

M.S. in Hamden, CT, asks: Do you happen to know why the oaths for president and for vice president are so different? Also, I noticed that the constitutionally mandated oath for the president permits replacing "swear" with "affirm." Has any president taken the affirmation route?

(V) & (Z) answer: Here is the presidential oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

It is spelled out in the Constitution, and so cannot be changed, except by constitutional amendment.

Here is the vice-presidential oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Although the Constitution requires oaths from the VP, from members of Congress, and from members of the Cabinet, it does not specify the nature of that oath. So, Congress passed a law that spells it out, and that requires that all of these people take the exact same oath. It is therefore a bit more broad than the presidential oath, as it has to cover several different kinds of officeholders.

The option to affirm was put in there to accommodate, in particular, Quakers, who do not believe in swearing oaths. However, the two Quaker presidents, Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon, did not avail themselves of that option. The only president known to have affirmed is Franklin Pierce, who was a Congregationalist.

History

J.F. in Washington, DC, asks: A few years ago, (Z) recommended a book on why people are easily pulled into the world of conspiracy theories, and have been for years. I cannot find that post. Do you remember the recommended book?

(V) & (Z) answer: (Z) knows a fair bit about this subject, as he's taught a class on conspiracy theories. Oh, and he's also been keeping a close eye on what the Canadians are up to, of course.

We don't quite remember which book was recommended several years ago, but these are the three most likely candidates. First is The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays (1964), by Richard Hofstadter, which is effectively the founding work of the study of American conspiratorial thinking. Second is I Heard It Through the Grapevine: Rumor in African-American Culture (1994) by Patricia A. Turner, which is an excellent "case study" book of conspiratorial thinking within a particular community (Z once had a guest lecture from Turner, when he was an undergrad, and she was brilliant). Third is Republic of Lies: American Conspiracy Theorists and Their Surprising Rise to Power (2020) by Anna Merlan, which speaks in particular to the dynamics that gave rise to Trumpism.

---

T.C. in Highland Park, NJ, asks: (Z), as a teacher of U.S. History, have the developments of the last 10 years or so, and especially the rampant rule-breaking and "norm-busting" of the McConnell and Trump eras (which will no doubt ramp up "bigly" in the days ahead), affected the way you teach the basic aspects of U.S. history and civics to your students?

Also, this comes a little late, but the discussion of academics' "opening night jitters" last week reminded me of a mantra that I learned early on in my career, and that I now often use to reassure my newbie colleagues: "If you worry a lot about whether you're a good teacher... you're a good teacher."

(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, in two ways. First, it is always useful to make historical lectures relevant to the present day, so students have a sense that what they're learning is actually germane to their lives. So, where it's appropriate to mention Trump or Trump-adjacent things, they get mentioned.

To give some examples: (1) there is an exercise on the very first day of the U.S. survey course involving the interpretation of "American Gothic," which concludes with the observation that whether it's Americans in the 1930s looking back fondly on the 1880s, or it's (many) Americans today, it is a common phenomenon to believe that if we could just turn back the clock 50 years or so, we could make America great again; (2) in the Populists lecture, there is a segment on how the Populists (capital-P) are long gone, but there are still plenty of populists (lower-case p) still around, and that anyone whose politics are reminiscent of the original movement—anti-establishment, pro-blue-collar, a dollop of Jesus, a tinge of racism—is often described as a populist, as Trump often is; (3) in the World War I lecture, there is a brief discussion of the Maginot line, and how walls never actually work as intended.

Second, civic education is often not great these days, so extra time and care must be taken to explain relevant concepts, like how Social Security works.

---

R.C. in Des Moines, IA, asks: Was there ever any consideration given during the formative years of the American rebellion against England to forming thirteen separate countries once the British had been expelled from the colonies?

(V) & (Z) answer: Actually, that was pretty much the original arrangement. The colonies (which, of course, ceased to be colonies and became states) saw themselves as largely independent entities who only came together for a limited set of purposes. Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States was fairly similar to the present-day European Union.

Obviously, that proved unworkable, so eventually the states subordinated their authority to the federal government under the Constitution.

The Fun Stuff

P.W. in Springwater, NY, asks: As a baseball fan—specifically, a long-suffering New York Mets fan—I really appreciated the baseball-related Q&A in late December and early January. (As well as the shout-out to Steve Cohen—proof positive that changing owners can make a difference!) Your responses to S.A. in Los Angeles and to S.B. in North Liberty illustrated the problems that many teams face—owners that don't care enough to pay for talent. But aren't most of these owners multi-millionaires?

I think many of them use the fact that they own "small market" teams as an excuse—they're just happy to make money even though they probably already have more than they can ever spend. And while I think the salaries some of the elite players make is insane, well, at least they've earned it. (And some do use this money to help their communities. Juan Soto has said he will.)

Different versions of salary caps don't seem to help teams like the Angels or Pirates, but I recently heard someone mention the idea of a "salary floor" where owners would be required to invest a certain amount of money in their teams. I doubt the owners would ever agree, or be shamed into this, but I'm intrigued by the idea. Am I right about the owners' actual ability to pay, and if they can but won't, what do you think of a salary floor?

(And BTW, I suspect that given the Dodgers' ability to sign almost any elite player, even if they have to defer salary money as a work around to the existing caps (that should be outlawed), Paul Skenes will end up in L.A., a member of the new evil empire.)

(V) & (Z) answer: Owners of the teams in the four major sports can most certainly afford to cover payrolls. If they cannot, they can sell part of the team to cover their costs. If they still cannot, they can sell the whole team to someone who CAN afford to pay.

No, the reason for low payrolls is not a lack of money. It's that you can make money on a baseball team by increasing revenue, or by reducing costs. One good way to increase revenue is to win games and championships, but the return-on-investment there is much greater in larger cities (with a larger number of potential TV viewers). Further, only one team can win the title each year, and only half the teams (give or take) can be in legitimate contention for the playoffs. So, particularly for small market teams like the Pirates, the better business decision is to keep costs very low.

A salary floor won't change anything, other than putting a bit more money into the pockets of some players. Whether the Pirates' payroll is $80 million (current estimate for the upcoming season) or it's $130 million, they still won't be meaningfully competitive with, say, the Dodgers' $367 million. Which is why Skenes will one day end up with the Dodgers (or the Yankees, or the Mets), who can afford to pay him the $50 million/year he'll command.

---

M.C. in Drogheda, Ireland, asks: Is there a unit of measurement for bad judgments by a Court? If not, could I propose one? I'd suggest they be measured in "Taneys." Five Taneys might be the equivalent of the 'Dred Scott' decision. A Judge might accumulate "Taneys" over a period of time, so they could be tallied; e.g., at the end of a judicial term.

I imagine this system must be entirely subjective, and I think it must be reserved for more important, and consequential, judgments.

(V) & (Z) answer: We like the concept, but we think it has to be a rate stat rather than a counting stat. A medium-quality judge who sits for 40 years might well pile up more Taneys than a terrible judge who has been sitting for 10. It's more instructive to say that Trevor McFadden averages 3.7 Taneys/case than to say that he has 78 career Taneys.

---

Z.C. in Beverly Hills, CA, asks: With Donald Trump's $5B stock for a garbage company, $25B crypto windfall, millions in grift from selling junk to the rubes, and lying/cheating/stealing his way into the most powerful position in the world (twice), it occurred to me that DJT is inarguably the world's all-time most successful con man. I am wondering if you would agree with that, and if you could offer a Top 5 Con Man list for comparison.

(V) & (Z) answer: We think you have a strong case for Trump at the top of the list. We'll give you five others that we think are pretty high up on the list. Because they're apples and oranges, though, we don't want to rank them. So, in alphabetical order:

1. Adolf Hitler: And the Chancellor of Germany makes his second appearance of the day. He wrote a godawful book, created a red herring of an "enemy" (which he didn't even create, he really just borrowed) and rode that to dictatorial power. Instead of delivering a third era of German greatness (the "Third Reich") he delivered a second defeat in a world war, one that temporarily split the country in two. We cannot think of many greater cons than that.
   
   
2. Bernie Madoff: This is a little obvious, but never have we seen so few people steal so much from so many. Madoff and his small cadre of co-scammers (mostly his family) stole at least $65 billion.
   
   
3. Charles Ponzi: Vidkun Quisling's name became a synonym for "traitor," and Ponzi's name became a synonym for "con artist." Clearly, that puts him somewhere near the top of the pyramid (scheme). And the scam that Ponzi perfected still bears his name.
   
   
4. William Magear Tweed: The poster child for Gilded Age political corruption, it's still unknown exactly how much he looted from the city of New York through his grifts. The estimate is $50 million to $300 million—in 1860s dollars.
   
   
5. Unknown: By definition, the very greatest con man in history will never be known, because he or she was never caught.

---

G.M. in Arlington, VA, asks: I recently rewatched the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "First Contact", where the crew of the Enterprise was tasked with revealing the existence of alien life and a broader extraterrestrial community to a civilization about to achieve the capability of interstellar travel (and doing so in a way that doesn't destabilize that society). Early in the episode, Captain Picard and Counselor Troi make the titular first contact with the scientist on the planet leading their space program. Picard and Troi explain to the scientist that she was contacted first because she was "a leader in the scientific community" and that via past encounters they believe that "scientists generally accept our arrival more easily than others."

Watching this episode made me think about who an alien civilization would make initial contact with on Earth in 2025, following similar guidelines—it seems like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos would be very strong possibilities, and with Musk in particular, the thought of him being an ambassador for our entire planet makes me shudder. Which leads to my questions: If you had to choose someone in the scientific community to best represent Earth's interests in a first contact scenario, who would you choose? What if you were not restricted to a scientist and could choose anyone on Earth?

(V) & (Z) answer: The name that occurs to us, if it's going to be a scientist, is Anthony Fauci. He spent 50 years with one foot in the world of science, and one in the world of politics/diplomacy, and was recognized repeatedly by both Republicans and Democrats for how well he did the job. Yes, the Trumpers would scream, but they won't be happy with any real scientist.

If we open the door to anyone, then the obvious person who has both diplomatic experience and some reasonable claim to speak for Earth, is U.N. Secretary General António Guterres. But we suspect you will find that kind of a boring answer. So, if you want someone "off the board," we'll go with Taylor Swift, who has great people skills, and who might be able to use song to connect with the aliens.

---

G.M. in Arlington, VA, asks: Does M.M. in San Diego sell those scarves pictured last week?

(V) & (Z) answer: Don't think so, but if we become aware that we are in error, we'll pass that information along.

Gallimaufry

L.R. in Pittsburgh, PA , asks: Inspired by this week's "This Week in Freudenfreude" item, here is my question: If today is Sunday, and one says "next Monday" do they mean tomorrow, or do they mean 8 days from today? What if one says "this Monday"? Finally, does the answer change if today is Saturday? Inquiring minds want to know the correct usage. Thanks.

(V) & (Z) answer: Grammatically, the most immediate Monday is "Monday" or "this Monday" and the one after that is "next Monday."

That said, the grammar here is clunky enough, and usage varies enough, that it's usually necessary to be more precise. Indeed, in that very post, (Z) wrote "who is going to remember this next November?" referring to November 2026. (V) felt that suggested November 2025, and so changed it to "who is going to remember this in November 2026?"

---

A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: I totally don't get tech or modern life (see: Substack, platforms for hate speech) and so forgive me if you already have this, or if I already asked and you answered, but: Why is there no Electoral-Vote.com app?

I'm not talkin' anything silly or complicated, just a thingy to click on that is on people's devices' screens?

(V) & (Z) answer: We are waiting for PM Trudeau and his team to finish work on it, as they are eager to collect data on our readership, and have offered us a sizable sum, plus generalships in the Canadian army, in exchange for our cooperation.

We're a relatively small operation, and this is not our full-time job. Not only does an app have to be created, it has to be maintained. So, we have a cell phone page—the link is at the top right. We have persuaded ourselves that is adequate.

---

S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, asks: You wrote: "As a UCLA grad, (Z) knows well the untrustworthiness of anything Trojan."

So what does (Z) prefer? LifeStyles? Durex?

Really, I just want to know how many condom-related questions/comments that remark generated...

(V) & (Z) answer: The answer to the first question is classified, available only to the staff Tantric Affairs advisor.

As to the second question, several dozen.

---

J.B. in Detroit, MI, asks: On the current Senate map, it shows three "Likely GOP" seats: Maine, Ohio and Iowa. But the tally on the right side says 4 Likely GOP. I feel like I'm missing something. The numbers add up correctly but I can't figure out which state I'm missing.

(V) & (Z) answer: Oops. We fixed it. Thanks for the heads up.

---

C.J. in Boulder, CO, asks: So the numerous stories and entries about Jimmy Carter made me go back and look at Electoral-Vote.com when George H.W. Bush passed away. Did I find days of little stories about Bush Senior? No, there was a little capsule biography and then few entries mainly focusing on whether Trump would attend the funeral. So the question is: Why the difference? Both were one-term presidents unlikely to be in a historian's top ten list, both seem to have been good people. Yes, Carter had a more prominent post-presidency, but Bush had to deal with profound international issues (collapse of the U.S.S.R., reunification of Germany). So why the difference? Is this evolution of Electoral-Vote.com (so we might expect one day to see a week's worth of memories about George W. Bush?), or is there maybe some favoritism towards (D), or is it something else?

(V) & (Z) answer: The short answer: Evolution.

The longer answer is that we never really liked writing obits for really important people, because they tend to be stilted, and because, as we have noted, we cannot possibly outdo the big newspapers that have been working on their obits of notable figures for decades.

The end was drawing near for Carter for several years, and caused (Z) to think about what we might do that was interesting, but also different. And he was reminded of a radio show from L.A., from a number of years ago, hosted by a fellow who styled himself Mr. KFI (and later, Mr. KABC). When someone notable died, he would take six phone calls in a row, and each person would share a memory of that person.

Having pondered this basic approach, (Z) tried it out when Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in 2020, and then did it again when Dianne Feinstein passed in 2023. There was enough material for a list of 10 good, but not well-known, stories, so each of those "obits" had 10 entries. After it was clear the format was workable, (Z) started collecting material for Carter. It was soon obvious that 10 entries was not enough, because a president's story is much better documented than that of pretty much anyone else. So, we eventually settled on 40 for him.

We will wait until the next time a president dies, or is near death, before thinking about how we will approach it. We will probably use the same approach, but 40 items and nearly 20,000 words is quite a lot, and might not work as well for someone who does not have Carter's biography. So, a future dead president might get 20 stories.

Reader Question of the Week: Film Noir

Here is the question we put before readers last week:

D.S. in Layton, UT, asks: What movies should be revisited to prepare for Trump: The Sequel?

And here some of the answers we got in response:

D.S. in Layton, UT: My immediate short list would include Duck Soup and Throne of Blood because, as a rule, when asked a question about any topic, the Marx Brothers and Kurosawa are on my short list so frequently that the list now comes with them preprinted on it. It is likely that over the next couple weeks I will fire up the Betamax and watch them both (as well as the choice of Mrs. S of Layton, UT—Wag the Dog).

However, over the summer my aforementioned bride and I watched Bob Fosse's masterpiece Cabaret (which people forget in 1973 was awarded with more Oscars than The Godfather) for the first time in at least 25 years and were blown away as to the correlations between MAGA's seductive appeal to an angry populace and the rise of the Nazi movement. The movie begins with a Nazi being kicked out of the Kit Kat Club and ends with the same club full of Nazis.

As with MAGA, an insignificant group of bullies grows into a movement of hate that spreads like a virus it infects behaviors and attitudes until it affects everyone's way of life whether they be participants or reluctant observers. A country of a desperate population embracing the message of a charismatic head case, altering their own reality in order to embrace his.

Of course, Throne of Blood (for the uninitiated, based on Shakespeare's "Scottish play") contains one possible ending for the story that is not completely without satisfaction.

---

B.R.D. in Columbus, OH: I would suggest Don't Look Up. Although it focuses on the environment, it could apply to almost any issue right now. Its focus on some Americans' ability to ignore or look away from what is happening right before their eyes is right on target.

---

T.K. in Sequim, WA: Low-hanging fruit: The Sting and The Grifters.

These should be viewed immediately, before they can be wiped from all memory.

---

C.B. in California, MD: If the #1 answer you receive to this isn't Idiocracy, I'll be shocked.

---

L.C. in Boston, MA: Idiocracy immediately jumps to mind for Bush #2 and both terms of Trump, but getting more spot-on with each successive term. This movie was largely suppressed by 20th Century Fox, and while the Wikipedia article on the movie provides some plausible reasons for this suppression, one omission is notable: the strikingly honest portrait of the future of Fox News, which is very much like today's Fox News, except that the reporters and anchors wear less clothing and take more steroids.

---

R.J.L. in Columbus, IN: Surely, I'm not the first to suggest Idiocracy. (And don't call me Shirley.)

---

W.H. in Ocean Springs, MS: It's a series, not a movie, but Newsroom, currently available on the Max streaming service, is excellent. It originally came out in 2011, I believe, and it stars Jeff Daniels as Will McAlvoy, the lead anchor of a fictional cable news network. He claims to be a Republican but his views clearly align more with the liberals. His takedowns of the lies and dangers of the tea party are brutal and inspirational, and also can be applied to today's Trumpers.

---

S.C. in Farmington Hills, MI: From Russia With Love.

---

A.G. in Scranton, PA: Dr. Strangelove, as we're all playing the valedictory moments of Slim Pickens at this point.

---

D.D. in Carversville, PA: To understand the dreadful cinema to which the country has purchased a ticket, I'd recommend Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama. With apologies to IMDB, I've edited its one-sentence description: "As part of a political ritual, Republicans and their male oligarch companions steal an election from a polling alley; unbeknownst to them, it contains a devilish (tr)imp who makes our lives a living Hell."

---

A.G. in Newberg, OR: Metropolis, particularly the scene of mindless men marching off to who knows what.

---

T.B. in Durham, NC: Il Postino (The Postman). It takes place in a country with authoritarian-run elections, and has a good example of how regular folks get hurt by a candidate that goes back on their campaign promise(s); also, how the creative spirit of the people gets downtrodden by such a rule, and will lead to resistance and revolution.

Note that the authoritarian governments connected to the story (Chile, Argentina, Italy) have all burned out and are over. It is not naive to look forward to the end of an authoritarian regime.

---

A.J.C. in Troy, NY: I would say it's a good time to re-watch the 1992 film Bob Roberts, starring Tim Robbins as a right-wing folk singer turned politician. Robbins said in 2018 that his film had essentially come true, sadly.

I'd also suggest George Clooney's Good Night, and Good Luck. I've heard it said that early audiences thought the "actor" playing the late Senator Joseph McCarthy was overdoing things a bit and should tone it down...

---

F.S. in Idaho Falls, ID: The movie Brazil, directed by Terry Gilliam. It's a dystopian comedy that serves as a warning against a totalitarian state and features a bit role for Robert De Niro as a rogue HVAC repairman. Many people are not familiar with it because a lawsuit prevented its release in the U.S. Make sure to watch the 142-minute version, the director's cut, as the shorter version is not worth watching. The studio cut it down to a length that would allow two showings a night in the theaters, and Gilliam did not allow it. Hence the lawsuit. Hands down my favorite movie.

---

P.K. in Marshalltown, IA: I go where I normally go when faced with a question about movies: Is there a Bill Murray movie that works here? Well, yes. Groundhog Day.

---

D.M. in Burnsville, MN: A Face in the Crowd, starring a very young Andy Griffith and Patricia Neal, written by Budd Schulberg, directed by Elia Kazan. It's the story of a charismatic psycho who rises from nothing more than a face in the crowd to a powerful and cynical populist. He uses people and then discards them. It even includes the famous "You're fired!" epithet.

---

M.M. in San Diego, CA: In preparation for the next 4 years, I suggest watching V for Vendetta. Great Britain in the near future has morphed into an authoritarian, fascist dystopia. The government's propaganda could have been written by today's GOP. The film palpably demonstrates what's possible if a reactionary government is given a free rein (reign?). View it as a warning, not a prophecy.

---

E.S. in Providence, RI: I heartily recommend Armando Iannucci's hilarious comedy The Death of Stalin. This is kind of like the Soviet-era version of the HBO series Veep. Stalin dies, and his government of toadies and lickspittles go to work stabbing each other in the back as they attempt to set themselves up as his successor.

---

M.K. in Austin, MN: I suggest a revisitation of the film Triumph of the Will, by Leni Riefenstahl. From the opening visions of the godlike Dear Leader descending from his celestial heights (a reference to an escalator?) to the orgasmic rapture on the upturned faces of his worshipers (MAGA people?), the film is as powerful now as it was before. Of course, the irony will be lost to the Trumpy people. Many other people will remember only the horror and fear of those times.

Here is the question for next week:

B.B. in Dothan, AL, asks: Now that we have the Gulf of America, what other geographic features around the country, or the world, should be renamed?

Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Name that Dune"!

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger