Dem
51
GOP
49
People have busy days today, so we've kept this on the short side, as much as is possible.
M.G. in Augsburg, Germany, writes: Every time you write about Joe Biden's age, I have to think about Konrad Adenauer, (West) Germany's first chancellor.
He was elected chancellor in 1949 when he was 73, re-elected in 1953 when he was 77, re-elected in 1957 when he was 81 and re-elected again in 1961 when he was 85. He left office aged 87¾ years and died at the age of 91¾.
Joe Biden is a spring chicken...
J.L. in Colorado Springs, CO, writes: Regarding the unresolved matter of what proportion of votes are needed to object electoral votes, I think there are some members of the Republican delegation that would be happy to compromise with the amount of three-fifths.
P.S. in Plano, TX, writes: In response to C.C. in St. Paul, you wrote: "Generally speaking, the filibuster is allowing the Republicans to exercise outsized influence on the government relative to the number of people they represent."
From the election of 2000 to the present, Republicans have had the trifecta four times, while Democrats have only had the trifecta twice. Democrats do appear to believe that the filibuster is hurting them; however, I think the data suggest that they are quite incorrect about that.
J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, writes: You wrote: "There are actually close to 500 caucuses in the House."
So there are more caucuses in the house than there are representatives?!?! Yow!
V & Z respond: It occurs to us that we should have linked to a list of them. Here is a good one.
M.S. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: In response to your answer to the question from D.R. in Omaha about reinstating officeholders and re-running elections, a fun constitutional factoid from Arizona: If there is somehow doubt about the winner of an election, our constitution provides that the incumbent remains in office for their specified term and until their successors are "elected and qualified." This happens all the time in small towns (what happens if the town council has three vacancies but only two people run for seats?).
In the mid-90s, it was determined that a member of the state's elected Corporation Commission was never qualified to run for office because he was a lobbyist for a regulated industry at the time he ran for office, which is unconstitutional. This went to the state Supreme Court, which ruled that it was as if he'd never been elected (though no decisions of the Commission during his tenure were voided). He was immediately removed from office and his predecessor, who had reached the term limit, was reinstated. At this point, that seat was considered vacant and filled via the normal vacancy process, but for a couple of weeks, the predecessor from the opposite party sat on the Commission with full powers and responsibilities.
There is a small chance that we may run into this again as the Kari Lake, Mark Finchem, and Abraham Hamedeh lawsuits shake out. If the Supreme Court takes its time on the appeals and issues a stay against inaugurating the successors, Gov. Doug Ducey (R) and AG Mark Brnovich (R) will be constitutionally required to postpone their well-deserved post-office vacations and stick around for a few more weeks (Gov.-elect Katie Hobbs, D, isn't currently planning a vacation, but she would have to delay moving her office from the Seventh to the Ninth floor of the Executive Tower as she continues as Secretary of State).
We're all hoping this doesn't happen. The Republican legislature (which will be newly dominated by MAGA folks) would certainly get into all sorts of nonsense and pass as many bills as possible, waiving the normal process rules, while they could be assured Katie Hobbs wouldn't be around to veto things. The chances of this are very slim because the Supremes want that outcome just as little as any of us—but it's a distinct possibility.
V & Z respond: We know that some states allow this; for the record, we wrote that reinstatement is not possible for federal offices.
G.R. in Tarzana, CA, writes: While it wasn't the main election, merely a primary, in 1972 House of Representatives candidate Allard Lowenstein lost the Democratic primary for a Brooklyn district by 890 votes out of 29,562 cast. An appellate court ordered a new primary between him and Rep. John Rooney, stating that at least 1,920 "irregular" votes had been cast. As someone who worked on that campaign, we were always amused during the process of getting the result thrown out, when Al would state that while he had no problem with dead people voting, he believed that, that just like the living, they were only entitled to one vote.
K.C. in West Islip, NY, writes: I submitted a question the moment I read that Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) nominated Hector LaSalle to the New York Court of Appeals, asking for your input as to what in the world she was thinking. I hadn't expected the news to be so big that it would make the Friday edition of my favorite political website, but there it was, along with your solicitation of input from New Yorkers as to what we think is going through that possibly pea-sized brain of hers.
I thought about this for quite a while; the issue actually kept me up at night and now I'm operating on fumes this last day before a much needed holiday vacation (Happy belated Festivus to all!). I think I've concluded that she suspects there's little to no chance that LaSalle actually gets confirmed. As you pointed out, he'd need the support of a dozen Democrats in the state Senate and that's a tough hill to climb for someone with credentials as dubious as the judge's.
What Hochul may be thinking is that she only narrowly beat MAGA whackjob Lee Zeldin and needs to pander to the voters that Andrew Cuomo had won but she had subsequently lost. When LaSalle is soundly and rightfully rejected, she can say that she tried to reach across the aisle and nominate someone who would appeal to the rural New York voters, and if not for those darn state senators she would have gotten him appointed!
Lee Zeldin (R) was a special case—very popular, for some reason, on Long Island, which houses over two million registered voters. I don't believe for one second that the GOP support from the Island would have been as high if their candidate had hailed from anywhere upstate. Hochul miscalculated then because she probably pandered for nothing, and you can bet your bottom dollar that next time we're due to vote for Governor she's going to be in for a real battle.
I personally voted for Tom Suozzi in the primaries and voted for Hochul in the general but I think a lot of people will remember little things like this and she'll be in for a more uphill battle next time around. I was never 100% sold on her in the first place, but I would never support a MAGA candidate. This isn't to say that I've never voted Republican in the past (at the state level, never for president, though as I've written in the past I would have voted for John McCain up until he picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate). In Andrew Cuomo's second and third race, I voted for the Republican candidate—Rob Astorino in 2014 and Marc Molinaro in 2018. Against a moderate Republican, and there must be some left out there hiding in the woodwork, Hochul is not an appealing candidate at all and this nomination confirms that. If she had run against a handful of other candidates, perhaps even Molinaro, who is decidedly moderate, she probably would have lost.
If this is a sign of how she may pander to the extremists in the future, she won't get another chance to run in a general and it's positively bewildering, especially if she thought her nomination was actually a politically shrewd move.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, writes: Here in New York, the midterm results saw the Democrats lose six seats in the Assembly and a seat in the state Senate, and Kathy Hochul was barely re-elected as governor running against Trumpist acolyte Lee Zeldin.
Simply put, the New York Democrats are under intense pressure from the national Democrats to correct what happened when their gerrymandering plan was squashed by the current conservative-led Court of Appeals. This resulted in the GOP flipping four House seats, including the seat won by the infamous George Santos, and not flipping the Syracuse district held by John Katko (R), which many thought would happen.
As a New Yorker, I'm ashamed to know my state was the main culprit in ushering in the crazy MAGA maniacs taking hold of the House and for giving the country the embarrassment of Santos to add to the likes of Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), and Lauren Boebert (R-CO).
That's why the nomination of Hector LaSalle to be Chief Judge will either be "Borked" or else he will be forced to be withdraw for a more liberal choice.
M.S. in Westchester County, NY, writes: Over 150 groups urged Kathy Hochul to appoint a judge that reflects New York values and who would be a bulwark against a reactionary U.S. Supreme Court. But Hochul did not do so and is now facing strong opposition for her nominee. In a state where labor still has a strong voice, all the prominent labor unions in the state have come out against Hector LaSalle. Many progressive organizations have as well. (I belong to several of them.) The only seemingly overt support for the nominee lies with Latino and Hispanic groups. The next few days are critical. This is a fast-moving story.
I do not want the governor to perish from a self-inflicted wound. Best-case scenario, she withdraws LaSalle's nomination and puts forward one of the three acceptable judges identified by progressives, one of whom was apparently the runner-up nominee. Otherwise, this may become very ugly.
B.L. in Hudson, NY, writes: Regarding Governor Hochul, you wrote "We are hardly experts in particular game of inside baseball in a state that is more than 2,500 miles removed from our places of residence, and we are happy to be enlightened by any readers who know more than we do."
I'm happy to oblige with a tiny contribution. Before that, you had written "That, and the rest of the statement, seemed to make pretty clear that a lefty was coming down the turnpike."
That isn't possible. New York State doesn't have a turnpike—it has the New York State Thruway. You are possibly thinking of the Mass Pike in neighboring Massachusetts, or perhaps the New Jersey Turnpike.
J.A. in Seattle, WA, writes: You wrote: "[Rep. Susan DelBene] certainly is aware that the previous head of the DCCC, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY), lost his own seat this year, but her district, WA-01, which runs from the Canadian border down to the I-90, is D+13, so she is quite safe even if the Republicans target her."
I can tell this is written by someone from California and not Washington! Nobody would ever say "the I-90" here.
D.B. in New York City, NY, writes: Con-man/Rep.-elect George Santos' opponent in NY-03, Robert Zimmerman, is a friend of mine, so I can offer some scoop and perspective.
Zimmerman's campaign had the basic information regarding Santos' irregular financial filings and biography and tried to get the local media interested. It was dismissed as "political," reflecting a media bias towards ignoring damaging disclosures fed to them about a candidate by a political opponent during a campaign. His campaign was also told by Newsday (the only Long Island daily newspaper) that they no longer have the reporting staff to track down stuff like this. Even without the personal misrepresentations, Santos was an odd fit for a well educated, well-heeled Long Island district. He is against abortion and for the January 6 insurrection. In other districts, an extremist candidate like Santos would have received significant attention and lost. But the New York media market is too big and distracted to focus on a single Congressional candidate, so Santos was ignored and then swept in by voters who were fixated on crime and homelessness in New York City.
Zimmerman has taken the position that Santos should be seated and investigated for crimes. "I will not play any role in overturning the election results," Zimmerman told Politico, adding that "these are all good questions that should be investigated by the House Ethics Committee, the FEC, and the U.S. Attorney's office."
L.G. in Thornton, CO, writes: I'm confused. Democrats are crying that George Santos' biographical lies disqualify him from serving in Congress. I was of the opinion that whopper lies were what qualified one for serving in that august body.
J.F. in Pasadena, CA, writes: I've noted several commentators argue that with $8 million in her campaign account, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) is in a pretty strong position. However, quite a few of her contributions are "double-maxes"—individuals, or companies, who gave the limit for her 2024 primary campaign, and again gave the limit allocated against her 2024 general election campaign.
But if the Senator runs as an independent, she will have only one election—not two. Independents don't run primaries. So all those "double-max" contributions are now in violation of the FEC contribution limits, and half of each of those contributions must be refunded. That will put a fair sized dent in her campaign warchest.
Further, now that she is running as an independent, some of her Democratic donors might want their money back—either because they are angry over her desertion of the party, or because they don't think she can win as an independent. (Clearly, Democrats will be running a candidate—most likely Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-AZ—and there really is nothing national leadership can do to prevent that. Even if the DSCC says they will not invest any funds in Arizona, Gallego knows the Biden Presidential Re-election Committee will be all-in in Arizona, so all any Democratic candidate need do is glide in on Biden's coattails—or perhaps Biden glides in on Gallego's coattails if he inspires an outsized turnout among Latino voters.)
Sinema is not obligated to return contributions from disgruntled donors, but could face rather negative public relations should a significant number of donors start complaining publicly. And it probably wouldn't take too much effort from a Gallego campaign to stir up just such publicity.
R.R. in Pasadena, CA, writes: You noted in your item about Kari Lake that one of her complaints was "30,000 Lake supporters were disenfranchised by long lines on Election Day." This is, of course, highly ironic, as it has long been Republican policy to run elections so there are long lines in Democratic districts, especially inner-city ones where minorities dominate the voting rolls. She is obviously lying, but it would be awesome if Republicans ended up fixing their policy of cheating by forcing people to stand in line for hours to vote.
C.M. in Raymond, NH, writes: You wrote: "First, it is doubtful that there are that many [New Hampshire] voters whose #1 concern is 'Did our state get to go first?' as opposed to, say, the issues or the quality of the candidates."
You may underestimate the peculiarly parochial passion of New Hampshire independents. Such a slight could well shift enough voters away from the Democrats to cost those four electoral votes.
A poll from UNH this week focused on exactly this issue, including questions on whose fault respondents thought it would be if New Hampshire lost its first-in-the-nation status.
D.T. in Hillsboro, OR, writes: A.F. in Portland doesn't like calling Donald Trump's postings "truths." I agree that's not a good name, even with quote marks. On a message board I frequent, they are often called "twuths," a practice I encourage you to adopt.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: Ooo, ooo, oooo! Can we call them "falsies"?!? Please? Pretty please? I bet if we called them, falsies it would catch on like some punchline from Saturday Night Live. Everyone would say, "Who started calling Trump's 'truths' falsies?" and people would say "E-V.com!"
H.R. in Jamaica Plain, MA, writes: It's taken me all week to sit down to respond to the letter on left-wing antisemitism from P.G. in Boston. I will start by saying that I'm ethnically Jewish and my mother had to flee her native Austria at the age of 13 in 1938. I have experienced antisemitism many times in my life, though it has never taken a violent form for me personally. Fifty years ago, I too thought there was antisemitism on the left, but then I discovered that the narrative I'd been taught at my Jewish Sunday school was one-sided and incorrect. Israel didn't arise out of "a land without people that was for a people without a land." One of the most important values I learned as a Jewish child was the importance of fighting against the oppression of anyone. At our Seder observances in the 1960s, the example of the Passover story was used to talk about the struggles for civil rights for Black Americans and the struggle against South African apartheid. So as I learned about the oppression of Palestinians, I came to feel strongly that their struggle was my struggle as a Jew committed to tikun olam (healing the world).
The allegation that Israel today is committing the crime of apartheid against the Palestinians is based on the internationally accepted definition of apartheid and the treatment of Palestinians by the state of Israel, which has been thoroughly documented by reputable NGOs. Palestinian citizens of Israel are legally second-class. Palestinians who reside in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are denied freedom of movement, to such an extent that people die for the inability to cross through checkpoints to access hospital care. Homes that families lived in for many generations are demolished based on discriminatory processes. Palestinians in Gaza are denied freedom of movement, reliable electricity and safe water. Palestinian children are jailed without recourse to any legal proceedings (as are adults). If you care to look, the evidence is overwhelming. As one of my Jewish friends put it, using Yiddish, it is a "shanda" (shame, disgrace). Certainly people may disagree about the apartheid characterization, but holding that the Israeli state commits the crime of apartheid against Palestinians is not antisemitic. It's a position that many Jews and many respected NGOs hold. See, for example, Amnesty International's report.
I find it disingenuous to describe Zionism as "a true anti-colonial philosophy". Again, people may disagree, but to my mind, the characterization of Zionism as a form of settler colonialism rings true. The solution to settler colonialism is not to remove the settlers, but to have equality for all who inhabit the land. Yes, this will result in Jewish Israelis being a demographic minority, just as whites are becoming a demographic minority in the U.S. (One might note a correspondence between the right-wing dominance in Israel and the resurgence of white supremacy in the U.S., both responding to an imagined demographic threat.) I urge people to recognize that the idea of a separate Jewish democratic state is an oxymoron. If it is a Jewish state, by definition, it cannot be a true democracy, but instead is a regime of Jewish supremacy. Needless to say, the people who live in the region need to figure out what will work for them. However, any successful solution must be based on equality of rights, including freedom of movement, freedom of religion and the right to vote for all.
I also want to note that Israel as it exists today does not offer me, or any other Jew, true safety. Israeli Jews need to stop oppressing the Palestinians. This oppression leads to violence and a lack of safety. Equality for all who live between the river and the sea is the best chance for the survival of all without the threat of violence that destroys lives and livelihoods. While I'm relatively safe in the U.S. at the moment, the antisemitic threat to me, as a U.S. Jew comes from white supremacy and right-wing forces in the U.S. The U.S. left does not objectively threaten the safety of U.S. Jews in any way. To assert that these are equal threats is to deny where the true danger lies and simply empowers that true danger coming from the supremacists.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: Responding to P.G. from Boston, whose letter will surely get many responses. I find it pretty provocative and I'll get there in the following paragraphs. First, my background for the sake of understanding my perspective.
I am a second generation American Jew. My grandparents immigrated from Poland and Lithuania prior to and during The Great War (World War I). Many details of their travels are murky. For all four of them, my family is pretty sure that their families could see the winds of antisemitism blowing, having already suffered through the pogroms that targeted Jews in the region and made a decision to send some of their younglings to America, Land of Freedom. We are aware that my paternal grandmother was put on a boat to America at the age of 16 (essentially an unaccompanied minor) and was "claimed" by another family on the boat so that she could get into the country. All four of them eventually landed in Detroit, mostly to live with family members who preceded them.
It's fascinating to me how similar their experiences were to today's immigrants. The men started businesses (produce on my mother's side, tailoring on my father's side). My paternal grandmother basically ran the business from behind the scenes, as women at the time were expected to remain in the home to raise their children. (My cousin, who did all of this research, has told me that our grandmother was a kick-ass woman, out of her time, who would have run for Congress and won in the 2018 blue wave.)
My parents grew up in a bilingual home (Yiddish and English). Three of my four grandparents learned decent enough English. Given their experiences in escaping from Europe and the Holocaust that followed, my family was very pro-Israel and very pro-only-date-Jews (which, for me, did not work out so well with wife #1; so much for that ethic). I was raised in the Conservative tradition of Judaism, which arose after World War II as a response to the Reform movement. Basically, it was a middle ground between Reformed and Orthodox, maintaining most of the traditions and liturgy while relaxing enough of the outward signs of Judaism to make is easier to assimilate into American society. Today I consider myself secular, having long ago given up on religious dogma.
We were taught to love and support Israel no matter what. We were taught that Arabs were not our friends. Rather, they were an enemy to Israel and all Jews. This racist view (which didn't occur to me was racist as a child) was justified because Israel was the only democracy in the Middle East and the only country that bothered to irrigate the desert and grow crops to feed their people.
So far, I'm basically on the same page as P.G. However, their letter feels as if it was written in the late 70s to early 80s. Much has changed since then, including my views on the situation. I'll boil down my objection to their letter to two points, which is based on P.G. ignoring the facts on the ground today.
First, I find it rich for P.G. to refer to the Jewish people as indigenous to the region. Available evidence indicates that the vast majority of Jews left the region and lived in Diaspora long ago. Only a very small population remained there continuously. After roughly 1,500 years and dozens of generations having passed, isn't it fair to refer to Palestinians (using today's nomenclature) as having a greater claim to indigenous-ness than the Jews of the Diaspora?
It is indisputable that thousands (millions?) of people were displaced from their homes as Jews migrated to and eventually founded the State of Israel, which brings me to my second point. This is the literal definition of colonialism. A group of people not native to the region showed up, formed a government, and kicked out the people who were there before them.
Fast forwarding to today, 74 years have passed since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948. That's basically 3-4 generations of Palestinian people who have never lived in an actual nation and never had freedom of movement. For these (and other) reasons, their economy is hamstrung and they have little opportunity to thrive and improve their lives. They live constantly under the threat of a capricious government that they have no say in, never knowing when the next bomb will drop or the next bulldozer will destroy their homes.
And this is while living adjacent to Israel, where people live in a modern Western society with all of the privilege and trappings thereof. They get to live in a nation that is recognized by the rest of the world (even as they are hated by many). They have passports and freedom to travel wherever they want (except for places that won't accept an Israeli passport, but there are work-arounds. I have family there and because they are descendants of American immigrants, they are eligible for and all have U.S. passports).
My point is that, regardless of how this all started, in today's world, Israel and the Palestinian people, taken together, is an apartheid regime. About 20 years ago, when I was raising my family in Ann Arbor and attending a synagogue there, our Rabbi often told the congregation to, "love Israel, but be willing to criticize their government." In my view, governments are fair game and criticism of them is not antisemitism. I absolutely abhor the Likud government (as does my family there). Netanyahu is no better than any other wannabe dictator. Like so many far-right people, they seem to think that they can eliminate the people they don't like. As if it is realistic for this "problem" to go away, following the logic that we can kill them all or make life so miserable they'll go somewhere else and become someone else's problem (which, at its core, mirrors Vladimir Putin's attitude about Ukraine).
P.G. can justify their view by claiming indigenous-ness all they want, but this doesn't change the fact that the Palestinian people have become oppressed living under an Israeli government that they have no say in. In my mind, this runs counter to the Jewish concept of tikun olam, which literally means "healing the world."
Naturally, I don't condone antisemitism and I understand that there is a fine line separating criticism of a government from actual antisemitism. However, if the Israeli people are to be moved to elect a government that will practice real Jewish principles and start doing right by the Palestinians, I can accept some criticism, even if it does cross that line.
M.C. in Reno, NV, writes: I agree with much of what P.G. in Boston says about what I would call the "soft" antisemitism of the left. No opposition to Jews existing in theory, but lots of opposition to Jews doing Jewish things in practice. Like educating their children as they see fit, or circumcising their sons, or kosher animal slaughter. Then it's all "save the children" or "save the animals" or whatever.
Which brings me to the core issue that most of the commenters seem to have missed, which is hypocrisy. At the risk of falling into whataboutism, antisemitism is most prevalent on the left these days in the way Jews are singled out for disproportionate criticism. There are enormous numbers of examples out there, and I'm not going to try to catalog them here, but as a Jew of the (moderate) left, this is where I have experienced antisemitism most often. In the unrelenting focus on Jewish misdeeds, while other far worse actors are given a pass. Jews deserve to be held to the same standard as everyone else, not a higher one.
Of course the right wing has it out for us straight up. They don't even hide it. But I find it to be more pernicious from the left, who should be our allies. Especially when you consider that most Western Jews are on the left side of the spectrum, and believe in liberal causes.
For people who want to look deeper into the question of left antisemitism vs right antisemitism, and how Jews are caught in the middle, I recommend this blog post which discusses the writings of Albert Memmi, a mid-century Jewish writer and thinker.
S.H. in Hanoi, Vietnam, writes: In response to the question from A.B. in Wendell about Benjamin Netanyahu's nickname, it's common in Israeli Hebrew culture to use diminutives ending in "i." Yossi (Yosef, or in English, "Joseph"), Kobi, (Yaakov/"Jacob"), Ari (Ariel), Avi (Avraham/"Abraham"), and Tzipi (Tziporah) are some examples of fairly common nicknames in Israel, which are used throughout the Jewish diaspora as well. "Binyamin" itself has at least one other diminutive form, "Beni," which is also fairly common. The one nickname that gets used exclusively in Israel is a nickname for "David," which is "Doo Doo," and along with the Israeli names "Osnat" and "Sneer," causes no end of mirth for visiting English speakers.
G.M. in Acton, MA, writes: You ended your response to the question about Bibi Netanyahu's nickname with "In short, as always seems to be the case, it's all about the Binyamins."
This is what is known as a "dog whistle" for antisemitism. I know you were trying to make a joke—but just don't do that!
T.B. in Nowata, OK, writes: You always are so good with facts, context and attempted non-bias, I am very surprised when you parrot Republican talking points. You wrote: "A president could be ruined by a bad economy but the economy was about as grim as it can get these days in November, and the Democrats weren't especially damaged." I won't go through all the economic numbers, and we all realize the sting of inflation. However, what I see out here in rural Oklahoma is a lot more people working, a helluva lot more than in 2020. There is significantly more traffic on the roads, in the stores and restaurants and bars. Energy prices are way down, house prices are down, car prices are down, consumer confidence is up. I just don't think stating the economy is grim now, or was just before Election Day, is correct. That is not to say that there could be widespread unemployment by Election Day in 2024. Then the economy would indeed be grim.
J.C. in Mullinville, KS, writes: I was surprised at your rather flippant and dismissive take on Volodymyr Zelenskyy's visit to DC. This was especially unusual with your references to and teachings of history and how these visits can often help a cause. Yes, there were photo-ops, but it wasn't just about that. A nation's leader, whose country is under daily attack by one of the worst dictators in the world, came to America to plead for assistance. I would think you would have more respect for the situation.
F.L. in Denton, TX, writes: C.J. in Lowell wrote about the removal/dismantling of statues of Confederate leaders.
In a related issue, there are, or rather were, several "monuments," such as whipping posts or auction blocks for slaves. To my knowledge, they have all been removed. Understandably, the Black community found them to be painful icons.
I would have argued that they should have remained. To start, they do not honor a particular person. Rather, much like Auschwitz, Sachsenhausen, Dachau and the Anne Frank House, they are reminders of what had come to pass and can serve as a warning of what is still happening. Slavery and trafficking is alive and well today and, in some cases, legal. We should never forget.
B.S. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, writes: Reading the letter from C.J. in Lowell regarding the dismantling of Confederate statues proves, yet again, that many people miss the point around the various statuary additions to our various public spaces. Statues are not history, unless they are, themselves, notable for who made them. Statues are an innately political exercise in influencing the present via the use of the past, and when we make decisions to erect, retain, or remove statues, we are making political decisions about today and the future.
History lives not in marble and bronze figurines but in the minds of the people who study and learn of it. Ulysses S. Grant's statue in a place of prominence in Washington, DC, did nothing to encourage the study of history for those who have seen it, or else his career wouldn't have been denigrated by the Lost Cause. Placing, and retaining, Grant's statue is a political statement: a warning to those who would rebel against the government of the United States. Even the position of the statue is highly political: Grant sits in front of the Capitol, perhaps the one person other than Abraham Lincoln who did the most to ensure the preservation of the Union. A warning to the people who attacked that building on 1/6, even if they were too dense to recognize it.
Similarly, the statues of Confederate generals and political figures are equally designed to deliver political messages. Take, for example, Mercié's "Robert E. Lee" that was erected on Monument Avenue in Richmond. This statue was highly idealized—Lee was placed on a huge platform overlooking all those who passed him. The sculptor replaced Lee's favorite horse Traveller with a nondescript generic horse, because Traveller was considered too small to properly do the general justice. It clearly inspired no true historiography, as until very recently, Robert E. Lee was considered one of, if not the, greatest general(s) in American history—which he certainly was not. His legacy around slavery was whitewashed, his pre-war legacy enhanced (consider the myth that he was the only West Point student to graduate without demerits), and his role in the overall politics of the Confederacy given a boost. In short, the statue was an establishment not of history, but of a distinctly political movement designed to falsify the remembrance of the Confederacy in the mind of the average American.
When the Arthur Ashe statue, a Richmond native of whom the city is rightfully proud, was added to Monument Avenue, he was placed facing away from Robert E. Lee and his fellow traitors. Why? Arthur Ashe, of course, was Black, and many thought he didn't belong on Monument Avenue. Today, only the statue Arthur Ashe survives, and that too, is a highly political message.
P.M. in Palm Springs, CA, writes: I strongly disagree with the argument made by C.J. of Lowell against removal of public statues honoring Confederate "heroes." It is not that the statues represent history and one's understanding of history. It is that the statues celebrate and honor those men and their cause. As a former New Orleanian, a landmark of our city was Lee Circle with its statue of Robert E. Lee. It was removed and the traffic circle renamed. He was definitely a hero in New Orleans and worshipped by my older family members and the younger ones that transitioned into Republicans and voted for David Duke when he ran for governor against Edwin Edwards. Confederate statues belong in museums and private collections, not as landmarks mocking the Black population of the community. There are an infinite number of famous historical figures that were celebrated in their time that I am sure C.J. would not want honored with a statue in a public place, with the fascist leaders of Europe being the most obvious examples.
C.J. in Redondo Beach, CA, writes: First off, to rebut L.T.G. in Bexley, I begin with the observation that the armed forces were already segregated when Woodrow Wilson took office—he didn't re-segregate them.
Second, as to Versailles, yes Wilson got sick on his second trip to Paris (people forget that he came home briefly to sign any potential legislation from Congress, but Henry Cabot Lodge all but assured that would not be necessary) and was never quite the same. He did back down after his illness, be it the pandemic or a stroke (or both). However, Wilson was already in a compromised position at the peace table (partly by his short absence; his advisors left to negotiate started being more acquiescent and once the President got back he was starting over) and it seems unlikely to me Georges Clemenceau ever would have backed down from his demands on Germany. "The Tiger" won the peace Conference when he got Paris to host the conference (Wilson wanted it in neutral Switzerland). Wilson did introduce the idea of a League of Nations, which he wanted more than anything, and is the framework that was eventually made into the United Nations. It's unlikely Charles Evans Hughes would have suggested a 14 Points for Peace like Wilson did.
Of course, I don't believe the eventual Versailles Treaty was doomed to failure the way that was so often portrayed pre-Margaret MacMillan either. I believe she has brilliantly argued the opposite for 20 years and has brought many historians to her side, but I guess many are still unaware of this ongoing sea change. If anything Versailles was less Carthaginian than the French wanted—and perhaps they were correct, considering what eventually happened.
The Senate did reject the Treaty and Wilson's League (largely because of his stroke, public opinion seemed likely to force its approval during his speaking tour), and the aftereffects of this rejection did harden his mind to any suggestions made by the Senate. At the end of the day, it's impossible to say, as with all counterfactuals, but I think it is unlikely Hughes fares much better in '19 and '20.
As to the letter from S.Ó.C. in Playa del Carmen, yeah, I do think us being the leader of the free world is important. For one thing, without us being a powerful country, there's a high likelihood Germany wins either the First or the Second World War. If you scoff at Imperial Germany being bad news like the Nazis (and sure, they weren't as bad) all one has to see is their terms at Brest-Litovsk. And people say Versailles was harsh! But say the Allies still win and things lead to the Second World War... the Axis almost certainly wins. And if they don't, that certainly means the USSR takes much more of Europe, perhaps all but the British Isles.
As a last aside, regarding (V)'s and (Z)'s comments about the Mexican American War: Ulysses S. Grant (who I do very much admire) wasn't particularly high up in the military at the time. I'm sure most junior officers think their side will win at the outset of every war in history. Probably thoughts of racial superiority also factored in to Grant's feelings. Fact is, the war was far from a sure thing. And if measured by troops engaged to deaths, it was actually the deadliest war in our history, with about 13% of those engaged dying. So it was far from easy.
V & Z respond: Grant made that assessment in his autobiography, not while he was a junior officer. And the leadership knew it would be a tough war, given the size of Mexico and the dangers posed by tropical disease (and disease, by the way, was responsible for the majority of that 13%). But they still had every reason to be confident of a win.
R.R. in Nashville, TN, writes: You wrote: "Was there any greater political satirist in the second half of the 20th century than Pat Paulsen?"
Tom Lehrer, Mel Brooks, The Onion, MAD Magazine, Monty Python's Flying Circus and yes, The Brothers Smothers.
B.R.J. in San Diego, CA, writes: I see your Pat Paulsen, and raise you with one Dick Tuck.
K.S. in North Pole, PA, writes: My first grievance I'll be airing will be your comment "a successful Festivus for all." I expect your lack of cultural consideration has had a number of true Festivus celebrators challenging you to a feat of strength due to not using the proper greeting of "Happy Festivus" or slogan "Festivus for the rest of us." Your faux pas is almost as bad as when Brits come over and wish us "Happy Christmas," when every true American knows we have "Merry" Christmases.
L.S. in Greensboro, NC, writes: I really enjoyed reading the comments from A.H. in Newberg, and generally wholeheartedly agree. However, there is one thing I must point out: German chocolate cake is always topped with coconut-pecan frosting. A cake with dark chocolate frosting may be delicious, but it is not German chocolate!
J.K. in Bremen, Germany, writes: You wrote "What we do know is that the leader of the Prostate Cancer Foundation is named Peter Dickens, who was clearly born to do that job."
As a long-time reader I have noticed that you like anecdotes of this kind. Just in case no reader has reported to you yet, there is a technical term for these telling names: nominative determinism. And there is a sinister theory behind it involving C.G. Jung and Sigmund Freud.
Now, I wonder if someone named Andrew Stuart Tanenbaum (AST) would feel an urge to dabble in compiler construction just because that's where he can find the best Abstract Syntax Trees (AST). Or shouldn't he better strive for becoming Santa Claus' apprentice during Christmas season to work with even better trees?
I promise this to be the last pun of the year from me. Have a nice holiday season and let's hope that the new year 2023 brings peace to Ukraine.
J.C. in Lockport, IL, writes: Just thought you might get a kick out of knowing that my urologist is Dr. Peter Tek.
B.T. in Bogalusa, LA, writes: A.B. in Lichfield wrote in about visiting the restaurant located on Vlad III Țepeș' place of birth: "And yes, of course I had steak (pun intended) in the birthplace restaurant; rare, with wine."
This made me chuckle, I once went to a Thai restaurant in Panama City, FL, called Thai Tanic. When they brought out my salad I said, "I hope this is iceberg lettuce!" Sadly, they didn't get the joke as their English wasn't too good.
V & Z respond: On a similar note, there is a Vietnamese restaurant in the L.A. area named Pho King and a Korean one named Young Dong. Maybe Dr. Peter Tek dines at the latter.