Dem
51
GOP
49
Better late than never! Right?
As you might imagine, we got a LOT of letters about the Colorado decision. Normally, we try to keep each subsection of this page to no more than six letters, but for that section we just couldn't do it.
A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Well, my pocket U.S. Constitution sure has been coming in handy! I've read Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment many times now, and when I hear some people say that disqualifying a candidate under that section is "anti-democratic," I don't think they're suggesting that we ignore part of the U.S. Constitution. I suspect the discomfort comes from the fact that we don't have a clear definition of "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same..." (or, for that matter "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof") and no clear process for determining whether that has occurred. We also don't know whether the section operates to deny their appearance on the ballot or, instead, only disqualifies them after the fact, if they get elected. After all, Section 3 says "No person shall...hold any office." It doesn't say no person shall be a candidate for office. Note that Article II, Section 5 says "no person...shall be eligible..." The word eligible is more clearly directed to a candidate's ability to appear on a ballot in the first instance.
In Colorado, as (V) & (Z) have pointed out, there is a somewhat unique provision in state election law that allows citizens to challenge a candidate's qualifications. That challenge is heard in state court following a trial. That process is generally one where these types of issues would normally be adjudicated, but apparently it's a shortened process for candidate challenges. The judge, nonetheless, when faced with this issue, was obligated to hear the evidence and issue a decision. In the absence of any guiding precedent, the lower court has to take the first shot and do the best they can. In this case, the judge had no trouble finding that Trump had "engaged in insurrection" but decided that this section doesn't apply to candidates for presidents. The case then worked its way up, and the state Supreme Court took its shot at this case of first impression. They, too, upheld the finding that Trump engaged in insurrection but reversed the lower court's finding that Section 3 doesn't apply to presidential candidates. And here we are, with an appeal to SCOTUS, who will make the ultimate decision on the issue.
It seems clear that there needs to be some consistent and well-defined process for making this determination in any given situation. It also seems clear that having a state Secretary of State making this judgment call without any process is not appropriate, even with a right of appeal. So, California and Texas will just have to cool their heels while this plays out. SCOTUS will have to decide if the Colorado process is sufficient or if there should be a more comprehensive trial to ensure the robust presentation of evidence from both sides. The other question is: Who can initiate such a process? And is the intent of this section to apply to a candidate's eligibility or is this a question only after such a person is elected? Does that depend on each state's election laws? Even if SCOTUS finds that Section 3 is self-executing, should there be Congressional action to set out the rules for those procedures?
I suspect that the Supremes will stay the Colorado Supreme Court's decision, allowing Trump to appear on the primary ballot. They may hear the case this term and issue a decision by June, but I suspect they will largely punt and hold that Colorado election laws are not sufficient to adjudicate this issue and that only an act of Congress that applies nationally will ensure consistency and due process for these types of challenges. I don't think they'll find that a criminal conviction is necessary, since Section 3 doesn't require that.
I also think they will hold that Section 3 does not operate to render a candidate ineligible to appear on a ballot. They will hold that a challenge under this Section can only be brought after an election. What hasn't gotten much attention is the last sentence of Section 3: "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." This sentence lends support to the idea that Congress has a role here and that they should spell out what constitutes engaging in an insurrection and the process for determining that.
Given all this, it's a pretty safe bet that Trump won't be disqualified if he's the Republican candidate.
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: The Colorado Supreme Court decision disqualifying Donald Trump under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is manifestly correct, and I would urge anyone with questions about it to read it. There are a couple of objections I keep hearing and reading, though, which need addressing:
"There was no trial." Yes, there was a trial, a civil bench trial at which the judge found that Trump engaged in insurrection. If you think that is insufficient Due Process, then civil bench trials must also violate the Due Process Clause. That's absurd.
"OK, but there was no criminal trial. Trump hasn't been convicted of insurrection." Irrelevant. As far as I know, none of the Confederates barred from office by Section 3 were convicted of any crime. Even Jefferson Davis, although he was charged, was not convicted of any crime.
"Section 3 doesn't mention the President or Vice President." It mentions "officers of the United States." The President is an officer of the United States and the presidency is an office. To believe this objection would mean that Jefferson Davis could not be a dogcatcher under state law, a state or federal legislator, an elector for president and vice president, but he could be President or Vice President of the United States. Such a result would likewise be absurd.
"Congress did not pass enabling legislation under Section 5." Although Congress certainly has that power, and could preempt state law if it so chose, it is not a prerequisite to the effectuation of the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 1 provides that the states must afford due process of law and equal protection of the laws, but there is very little federal law enforcing those requirements. Nonetheless, criminal defendants have the right to counsel, to confront witnesses against them, against self-incrimination and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Moreover, Section 3 provides that Congress may relieve the disability; it does not provide that Congress must enact legislation before the disability accrues. (Justice Samour dissents on the ground that the Fourteenth Amendment used as a shield is self-executing, but not when it is used as a sword. Nothing in the text of the Amendment supports such a distinction. He also dissents because there was enabling legislation passed in 1870, since repealed. If that were relevant, then any Confederate could have occupied state or federal office between 1868 and 1870, which once again would be an absurd conclusion.)
I think part of the disconnect in people's' minds is that this hasn't come up before, and "engaging in insurrection" is a fuzzier concept than being under the age of 35 or having been elected President twice. "Natural born citizen" also hasn't come up much before, though it did with Barry Goldwater (born in Arizona Territory), George Romney (born in Mexico) and John McCain (born in the Panama Canal Zone), and it could come up with Ted Cruz (born in Canada). Court trials with factual findings and legal conclusions could be required to resolve this issue, just as it was necessary in Colorado with Trump. In other states, the secretary of state determines who is eligible to be on a ballot, and that determination is likewise subject to court challenge. Each state executive or judicial officer has taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution, which of course includes Section 3. That there might be a hodgepodge of decisions from state to state is of no moment; it is why the Supreme Court will necessarily resolve the matter.
One other note: Even though the Colorado decision was 4-3, two of the dissents are based on state law. The U.S. Supreme Court will not disturb a state-law determination by a state supreme court unless it violates some provision of federal law. This case will be decided based on the application of Section 3, not Colorado law.
J.I. in Regina, SK, Canada, writes: I'd like to supplement your response to A.S. in Calgary, who asked how the Supreme Court could potentially overrule the Colorado courts on Trump's ballot eligibility, given the states' control over the process for choosing presidential electors.
The states' power is essentially procedural: They can determine how the electors are chosen, and what the process will be for them to record their votes.
However, that power does not extend to the substantive question, namely the qualifications for the presidency. Those are set by the Constitution itself, and cannot be altered by the states. The basic provision is Article II, section 1, clause 5, which says that the president must be a natural born-citizen, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. That basic provision was modified by the Twenty-Second Amendment, which put the term limit on the presidency.
One of the constitutional questions raised by this case is whether the Fourteenth Amendment also amended the presidential qualifications requirement: Does the insurrection clause apply to the office of the president? The Colorado trial judge said it didn't, the majority of the Colorado Supreme Court said that it does.
Since that is a question of interpreting the Constitution itself, the combination of the federal judicial power (Art. III, sections 1 and 2) and the Supremacy Clause (Art. VI) means that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the presidential eligibility requirements governs. The state powers to determine the manner of choosing the electors have to comply with the eligibility provisions.
So, A.S. in Calgary, we likely can't persuade Montana or North Dakota to let us put our names on the presidential ballots.
J.A. in Puerto Armuelles, Panama, writes: Whilst I very much agree with you that the issues involved with whether or not Donald Trump should or should not be excluded from the ballot, according to the Fourteenth Amendment, are complicated and people can, in good faith and conscience find themselves on both sides of the argument, that doesn't mean arguments for either side are acceptable.
In particular, arguments along the lines of "we should let the voters decide" are dangerous and hollow.
Democracy without the Rule of Law is nothing more than the mob doing what it wants, something the Founding Fathers were rightly conscious of.
To argue—as many pundits and, indeed the editorial board of The Guardian do—that Trump must be defeated at the polls misunderstands the covenant a (small l) liberal democratic state has with its citizens: We have laws, these apply to everyone and will be applied fairly.
To argue now, in this particular circumstance, that we should ignore the Constitution in favor of "voters defeating" Trump as opposed to the law and courts taking their course is anathema to the very ideas and principles that underlie the very success of modern democracies.
I'll also note that the selective application of laws is a hallmark of authoritarianism in general, and fascism in particular.
E.H. in Washington, DC, writes: I think the way the Fourteenth Amendment is written, the Supreme Court should only be able to tell Congress to hold a vote. If two-thirds of both houses vote to allow Trump or any other insurrectionists to serve in office he goes on the ballot. Otherwise they are barred from office. The Amendment itself has that remedy in the text.
Further, if we are ignoring the Constitution, let's talk about the Twenty-Second Amendment. I want to vote for my candidate of choice. Make Barack Obama eligible for the ballot.
M.B. in Montreal, QC, Canada, writes: It seems to me that while the Colorado decision can keep Trump off the primary ballot, it cannot keep him off the main ballot. Although the name of the candidate does traditionally appear on the ballot, you are actually voting for a slate of electors. Once chosen, they are free to vote as they wish. I suppose a state could make it illegal for one of their electors to vote for Trump. If Trump were chosen by the electors, though, who would have standing to make a claim of ineligibility or what court would dare uphold such a claim?
S.S. in Toronto, ON, Canada, writes: You wrote" "So, the main significance of [the Colorado ruling] is that it effectively forces the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the question."
That was an "Aha!" moment for me. I'm guessing that is the reason that Judge Sarah Wallace made such a seemingly bizarre decision, declaring that Donald Trump was not an "official," etc. It must have been to force the Supremes to take on that issue, which will have a great effect on many other states. Risky, but brilliant!
C.J. in Boulder, CO, writes: It is annoying to see how misunderstood the composition of the Colorado Supreme Court has been in wider media (and especially among those defending Trump). "They're all Democratic judges" shows just how the games in the U.S. Supreme Court have poisoned how we view judges. As a reminder, while indeed it was a Democratic governor who picked those judges to be elevated to the court, he didn't go out shopping for the most liberal, in part because the system doesn't work that way, and in part because both governors responsible for picking these jurists have been relatively conservative (John Hickenlooper) and/or libertarian-leaning (Jared Polis). The governor gets to pick from a selection of three names advanced from a commission made up of citizens that is quite bipartisan. That judge gets a couple years' trial run on the court before standing up for election to a single 10-year term; all of the four judges who would remove Trump from the ballot have easily been confirmed in their elections. The political affiliation of the judges is often unknown and certainly not front and center the way it is with the U.S. Supreme Court.
In other words, the Colorado Supreme Court might be one of the least political state supreme courts in the country. I think if you asked people on the street: "Would you like Trump's eligibility decided by a court built the way the Colorado court is built or one built the way the U.S. Supreme Court is built?," most would probably choose the Colorado model. Frankly Colorado, despite providing a couple of the more, uh, colorful members of Congress, has actually had bipartisan agreements on a lot of procedural stuff (for instance, we can vote by mail, early in-person, and in-person on Election Day, a change supported by both parties; redistricting being controlled by an independent commission was advanced in a bipartisan manner).
Too bad the final word will come from the more political court.
J.B. in Bend, OR, writes: I'm betting that Trump does not appeal the Colorado decision. He's not going to win Colorado in the general election, so why appeal and risk SCOTUS issuing an opinion that leads to him being tossed off the ballot on every state? He gains nothing but risks everything if he appeals the decision. That calculus would change, though, if he gets kicked off in one or more swing states.
L.C. in Brookline, MA, writes: You quoted Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL): "I mean, I would say if I could have one thing change, I wish Trump hadn't been indicted on any of this stuff. I mean, honestly, I, I think that, you know, from Alvin Bragg on, I've criticized the cases. I think, you know, someone like a Bragg would not have brought that case if it was anyone other than Donald Trump. And so, you know, someone like that's distorting justice, which is bad. But I also think it distorted the primary. And I think it's it's been, it's been those have kind of been the main issues that have happened." Then you asked "First of all, how can a candidate for president be so clumsy with extemporaneous speaking?"
It sounds an awful lot like he's trying to emulate Trump. Or maybe it just comes naturally to populist Republicans, as the product of disordered minds. Or maybe both. Either way, it suggests the possibility that if Trump downed himself by way of downing an excess of Hamberders, you might see support for DeSantis skyrocket bigly. At least, it sounds like that's what he's working for, and he might succeed... IF the aforementioned scenario comes to pass in time.
B.G. in Palo Alto, CA, writes: I'm pretty sure what Ron DeSantis was trying to do here was remind GOP primary voters that Trump has been indicted many times and they should vote for DeSantis instead, but in a plausibly deniable way that isn't directly critical of Trump. That whole comment was an exercise in faux sympathy.
N.L. in Austin, TX, writes: While I don't have much respect for Ron DeSantis as either a politician or a human being, I think your item misses that he's actually almost sorta right when he blames Trump's indictments for derailing his campaign. There's a lot of polling evidence that, while it's not necessarily convincing anyone else, Trump's base and the Republican base in general absolutely believes that he is the victim of a politically motivated witch hunt, and correspondingly rallied around him every time he was indicted, and that this in turn helped blunt some of DeSantis's momentum.
Now, what makes DeSantis still a moron who's largely responsible for his own failure is that he chose to respond to this, and as the item indicates is still choosing today, by amplifying Trump's narrative rather than attempting to argue that Trump's criminal status makes him a weaker candidate. That obviously gains him nothing. And there's many other things that helped him self-destruct as well—I certainly don't think he stands much chance in 2028. But while I think they're going to hurt him in the general election, there actually is reason to believe that Trump's indictments helped him and hurt his rivals in the primary. DeSantis is not quite as utterly lacking in thought as he seems, at least in this specific case.
R.T. in Arlington, TX, writes: I've been doing some personal retirement planning and have a hypothesis to put in front of the group. In 2023 there was a serious swoon in my retirement account values. The market has recovered in the last month and gone to new highs, but given the lag in perception it seems like IRA values would move public perception of the economy among middle class voters as much as the price of eggs. Most people don't follow the market closely so they get their "news" in the quarterly statements that most funds issue. The statements for June 30 and September 30 would have been worrisome and affected public sentiment while the better statements expected for December 31 haven't arrived yet. If this effect is real, and the predictions of a robust stock market come true, It should take the wind out of the "Bidenomics was bad for us" argument.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: Like K.H. in Kerrville, I listened to the Pod Save America interview with Dean Phillips. He's such a nothing-burger that I didn't think it was worth the time to write this. However, since K.H. has opened that door, I'll walk through it.
I agree with much of what K.H. wrote, but not all of it. Phillips' entire use-case for himself as candidate is that Joe Biden is too old and will lose the election and that there should be an actual democratic process to choose a candidate. However, Phillips couldn't get past the "why him and why now" questions that Jon Favreau and Jon Lovett gave him every opportunity to answer. My take: Had he and other up-and-coming Democrats decided to participate in a primary (with or without Joe Biden's blessing) a year ago, when there was plenty of time to hash this out, the Democrats might have ended up with a stronger candidate, whether it remained ol' J.B. himself or someone else. However, that's not what happened. Phillips waited too long and Biden is the presumptive candidate, like it or not. Phillips can't even get on every primary ballot because he waited too long. Had he done this a year ago, he could have become a serious candidate. By waiting so long, he is, instead, a disruptive rabble rouser.
Policy-wise (considering what little policy they discussed), I actually found myself nodding my head in agreement quite a bit, even though Phillips is a centrist in the Clinton/Obama mold. I particularly appreciated his characterization of the Israel-Hamas War as Netanyahu's conflict, rather than Israel's. (Like me, Phillips is Jewish). He stated unequivocally that Netanyahu is making American Jews less safe and that he has to go. Most people don't distinguish the leaders of a nation from the people of a nation. (I have fallen into that trap.) Israel is a nation. It does not speak for me. Criticizing the nation of Israel is not antisemitism. Yet, Israel is unique in that people don't see this. Because I am Jewish, the antisemites of the world have no problem blaming me for the actions of Netanyahu's Israel. Pinning this war on Netanyahu could be helpful on the other side of this when a leftist government takes over Israel (god willing!), works to heal the damage done in the name of Israel, and starts the process of treating Palestinians like human beings. (You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.)
I get that foreign policy is a slow-moving ocean liner that cannot turn on a dime. I am grateful to see some movement away from unconditioned support of Israel. I feel that the best way that we (the U.S.) can be a friend to Israel is to say, "Friend, I see that you are hurting. But your response is disproportionate, over-the-top, and making you less liked in the world. Slow your roll. Not only are you destroying millions of lives, you are hurting yourself and the Jewish people worldwide as well. Just. Stop."
Back to Phillips. It's a shame that he has taken this action. I feel that he has a lot to offer and, had he practiced some patience, he could have become an up-and-coming player in the Democratic Party. Instead he is making a joke of himself and will likely slip into irrelevance as a result.
B.J. in Arlington, MA, writes: You wrote: "'Surrender' means accepting defeat and usually, with it, accepting some number of conditions demanded by the victor. A ceasefire, by contrast, allows everyone involved to save face and to avoid punishment. So, the two options are substantially different in terms of both appearances and actual impact."
I can't let this go without comment. Here are some of the conditions that many of those calling for an Israeli cease-fire are demanding that Israel accept:
- That Hamas can continue their daily rocket attacks into Israeli civilian areas, because they have given no reason to believe they will stop. (And Israel still will not be allowed to fight back.)
- That Hamas can attack Israel again as they did on Oct. 7, because Hamas has said they will attack "again and again and again" until Israel is eliminated. (And Israel still will not be allowed to fight back.)
- That Hamas' leaders, who planned or executed the Oct. 7 terrorist attack, will never be brought to justice. (Calls for Israeli leaders to face war crime charges are certainly coming if not already present. Few such calls will come for Hamas leaders outside of Israel and the U.S.)
- That the individual Hamas militants and civilians who committed rape, murder, and other war crimes against Israeli civilians will never be brought to justice. (Ditto.)
- That Hamas can keep all the hostages they are currently holding, because an immediate, permanent, and unconditional ceasefire does not include conditions like "return all the hostages." The U.N. resolution does call for the return of all hostages, though without identifying which of the "parties" took hostages, but many of those calling for a ceasefire do not.
So, yes, many calls for a ceasefire are effectively a call for Israeli surrender.
(V) & (Z) respond: Needless to say, a "ceasefire" where one side is allowed to keep firing is not, in fact, a ceasefire.
D.B. in Deer Park, NY, writes: Your mention of the Classic Trek episode "The City on the Edge of Forever" reminded me of an unfortunate similarly between Edith Keeler and the young pro-Palestinian people (not so young ones, too) calling for a ceasefire. As Spock said of Keeler, "She was right, but at the wrong time."
B.B. in Dothan, AL, writes: I propose a new Electoral-Vote.com survey. Which is worse:
- 1,300 Israeli civilian deaths
- 20,000 (and counting) Palestinian civilian deaths, as well as nearly half of all buildings destroyed.
A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: Your item about the poll stating one in five Millennials and Gen-Z folks think "under certain circumstances" a dictatorship would be good really shocked me. And I have a history lesson for those who believe this: We once DID have a dictatorship right here in America, under King George III.
We only fought an 8-year-long war to free ourselves of that dictatorship. And compared to modern-day dictators... good old Georgie was not so bad, actually. He just did a lot of things that were unfair to the Colonists, mostly economic (taxation without representation). And, I might remind those who would support a dictatorship you'd still have taxation... just no voice, no vote. A vote that countless men and women DIED in order to give to you.
"Under certain circumstances" means what, exactly? That they do what you want? Dictators usually don't do that. They do what THEY want... and it usually isn't something you're going to like very much. Also, dictators eventually turn on those who once supported them, once all the "enemies" are gone. So be careful what you wish for!
Our system may not be perfect, but it is the best we got so far, and it beats the hell out of a dictatorship under any circumstances. Yes, there is a lot of gridlock. This is intentional... it is designed to make sure that truly onerous things do not happen, and that change occurs slowly. Yes, it is frustrating and maddening, especially when one party uses every parliamentary trick in the book to throw sand in the gears. I get it.
Do we need to address some of this? Yes, but to chuck the whole thing for a dictatorship IS NOT THE ANSWER!
Of course, if you'd like to go back to the days when LGBTQ people like me lived in fear in closets, unable to be our true selves,and minorities were treated unfairly and this treatment was supported by law... then, by all means, create your dictatorship. But leave me out. Let me leave peacefully first. Set me up with what I basically have here somewhere else, and I will go. Because I have no desire to live in the country YOU would create.
No, America isn't perfect. Far from it. But I will take what we got here right now over anything you would propose.
J.V.S. in Los Alamos, NM, writes: I find your statement "when they [younger voters] fantasize about a dictator, they are envisioning a dictator who does what they want, not the opposite of what they want" terrifying but feel it is typical with history when people gladly give up their freedoms to some strongman promising to make it all better.
The sad part is that Donald Trump showed zero interest during his first term of doing anything about climate change, forgiving student debt, or making life easier for any young voters. We have actual proof based on his past actions as president. I read Sinclair Lewis' book It Can't Happen Here decades ago and highly recommend it. The most haunting part for me was not the fall of American democracy itself but that it seemed impossible to get back once it was gone. In the book, when the initial dictator falls, he is merely replaced by another who later is replaced by a third dictator. The book ends as a second Civil War breaks out, but that war is just between two different generals who want to rule the country with no guarantee the resistance would truly restore the United States Constitution and its democratic ideals. Once our democracy is gone, it is potentially gone for decades assuming all 50 states even remain a contiguous country by the end of it. There is no easy "Undo" button if things go bad.
M.A.H. in Akron, PA, writes: In "Young People Are Losing Faith in Democracy," you characterized the younger voter as someone who doesn't know that only Congress can, say, codify Roe v. Wade and, as a result, would be someone who plans to vote for a third party candidate.
I have recently had to admit to myself that I'm outside the "younger voter" cohort, so maybe I'm too jaded to have an opinion, but I have friends who have voted in the 1972 election when I wasn't (quite) yet born who continue to maintain enough idealism to vote third party. One voted Green in 2016, only switching to Biden in 2020 because they saw how dangerous Trump was and how close things were in Pennsylvania.
I say this to point out that voting for a third party candidate is not a sign of lost faith in democracy. It may ignore the political realities of the American implementation of democracy, but voting for a third party candidate (let alone running as a third party candidate) is not the same as wanting a dictator to implement your ideas.
This is especially true when you are trying to use your vote to send a message to those you are not voting for. As the 24-year-old Californian said, "if I were to give my vote for Biden, I will be showing the Democratic Party that what they are putting out is enough." They clearly believe their vote matters and has an effect—that is, they believe in democracy.
Instead of lumping young third-party voters in with those who are losing faith in democracy (as you implicitly did by putting these stories under that heading) I would say many voters (some of who are older) still have an idealistic view of American democracy that they've acquired of "one person, one vote" and have not succumbed to the political reality in which we live.
J.E. in New York City, NY, writes: Something that should be noted about fascism, per the question asked by D.G. in Fairfax. Fascism isn't a coherent ideology like Marxism is, there's no text of fascism that one can turn to in that way. That's because fascism is fundamentally a reactionary position. I would point any of your readers to the work of David Neiwert, who has written extensively on the topic. He draws a lot on Robert Paxton. In any case, the issue isn't so much that the state is supreme, but that the state's job is to embody some community, some in-group. That has to happen under a "natural" leader and that leaser is always male. (There's a lot of traditional gender-role politics that fascism draws from, but given that it is a reactionary movement at its core, that makes sense). Either way I would urge readers to go here for a finer tuned understanding of fascism and why people support it.
As to who fascism benefits, there are a couple of ways to look at this. Fascism benefited many people in Germany, for example—as long as you fit the definition of who was "human" under the Nazis. In Italy it was a bit looser, but the point is the benefits aren't always strictly economic. It's important to note that for Americans—white Americans in particular—there have been moral panics over treating Black people with, for example, elementary respect. I am old enough to remember when the term "PC" came into use and then, as now, it was focused on college campuses. The thing is, when you get down to it, a lot of people were just upset that they couldn't make racist jokes anymore, couldn't call Black men "boy" anymore, couldn't make sexist jokes or comments anymore, and not be called out on it. The fact that attacks on the "woke" are very similar is instructive.
W.E.B. DuBois spoke of the "psychological wage" of whiteness, another concept that I would urge your readers to engage with more fully (since I suspect that the readership skews white, for a variety of reasons). Whiteness doesn't refer to skin color specifically, though there's a lot of overlap. But it's a useful framework for approaching questions of race and racism, especially as—and you've published some comments of mine on this before—racism (and its cousin antisemitism) is NOT a matter of what is in your heart, not always or even not when people are dealing with it on a daily basis. They are institutional problems, and require changes at that level.
So, to clearly answer D.G.'s question, it's important to ask what fascism is reacting to (in a U.S. context) and what the people who, for example, support Trump, are most upset about. Economics is at best a partial answer—economic crises can offer fascists political space, but their rise is by no means inevitable; it is often aided and abetted by institutional weaknesses and an unwillingness of political leadership to take a strong stand against it. (Or in the case of the GOP, having many people who agree that the U.S. should be a white-male dominated society where others are suffered to live, rather than full citizens or even humans.)
B.B. in Dothan, AL, writes: You wrote: "The benefits of fascism always, always, always flow predominantly to those at the very top of the pyramid."
It is true that the financial benefits accrue to the top echelon. However, the psychological benefit for the hoi polloi is that their "side" wins, and gets to be raised "higher" than others. They might also enjoy some petty power over those others, from which they likely enjoy increasing the suffering of those against whom they wield that power.
R.C. in Des Moines, IA, writes: You wrote: "Any citizen who supports fascism, and then is surprised to find themselves relegated to second-class status, apparently did not study their history."
When exactly have a majority of Americans ever studied their history?
P.C. in Adelaide, SA, Australia, writes: Good summary of what's happening with immigration in Europe, thanks.
In Australia, the right went hard on "stop the boats" not shying away from stoking hate and fear and being unnecessarily cruel to refugees. Despite most of them being refugees from America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which Australia contributed to and therefore partly owned the result.
But "stop the boats" was too successful, became bipartisan and the right lost its trump card.
As for Europe, the former colonial powers Britain and France are the original owners of the actions which have caused 100 years of west Asian troubles and have been good mates helping the U.S. attack Libya, Syria and Iraq. Maybe they feel the guilt as they have been slow to go hard. But other European countries don't need to take on their responsibilities.
If I was elsewhere in Europe, I would be shipping the West Asian and Libyan refugees straight to the U.K. and France and maybe giving away some free cruises to Florida. And for the North African ones, France again and to a lesser extent Spain and Italy need to own the debt.
The colonial masters were rapt to extract wealth from their colonies and destroy their societies, but now don't want the people that are partly refugees due to their plunder. If immigration ends up breaking their societies, then "reap what ye sow."
A.B. in Lichfield, England, UK, writes: When discussing the importance of immigration policies to different countries, you wrote that "Brexit was all about being able to block immigrants and not being subject to the E.U. immigration policies." Accepting it's difficult to get nuance across in a short paragraph, I think this needs some qualifiers.
One of the problems with Brexit was that its supporters often had diametrically opposed views. Those who supported Brexit because they wanted to stop immigration were disproportionately from traditional Labour-supporting north of England "Red Wall" seats—the equivalent of those swingy U.S. Rust Belt Upper Midwest seats. However, other Brexit supporters wanted to use the process to engage more broadly with the rest of the world, turning the U.K. into a European free-trade haven by eliminating what they saw as E.U. red tape and constraints on trade; the latter often tacitly accepted more low-wage immigration would be necessary to drive the British economy. Boris Johnson tended to take the latter view with policy implementation, while pretending to support the former view in public. This has led to legal net migration reaching a record 745,000 for 2022; the pre-Brexit figure was around 300,000. Given that David Cameron pledged while Prime Minister to lower net migration to "tens of thousands," it's not difficult to see why voters of all political persuasions see this as a significant policy failure, but many Remain supporters would argue that these high net migration figures are—ironically enough—the inevitable consequence of losing access to the E.U.'s freedom of movement policies, since instead of bringing in temporary workers from lower-income E.U. countries, the U.K. now has to bring in permanent immigrants from further afield to staff a range of critical sectors (notably the medical and care sectors).
The dispute over Rishi Sunak's "stop the boats" rhetoric is separate. The government argues that there's a major illegal migration crisis driven by small boats bringing illegal immigrants across the English Channel, but this has nothing to do with the E.U. The numbers here are currently roughly 30,000 small-boat migrants a year, which is down from 2022's record 45,000, but significantly above 2018's 299 for the entire year. The government has been responding to this issue with ever-harsher rhetoric and policies, with Boris Johnson first coming up with the idea of deporting all illegal migrants to Rwanda, a policy that seems modeled on Australia outsourcing all asylum seekers arriving by boat to the Pacific island nation of Nauru or Papua New Guinea's Manus Island. The U.K. courts keep striking this policy down, with the government seeking ever more baroque matters of circumventing court concerns, committing itself to a bizarre Johnson policy that it could have easily discarded when the former PM left office. The more right-wing members of Sunak's party—our equivalent of the Freedom Caucus—argue that the U.K. should simply unilaterally leave the European Convention on Human Rights in order to avoid any appeal to the European Court of Human Rights; the only other European countries who aren't party to the ECHR are Russia and Belarus. The latest wheeze is to try and get around the U.K. Supreme Court's declaration that Rwanda is not a safe destination for asylum seekers by simply having Parliament declare Rwanda to be safe, thereby asserting parliamentary sovereignty regardless of facts on the ground. As one Conservative member of the House of Lords noted, the government is essentially "trying to define things when there is no evidence for that being the case. It's rather like a bill that has decided that all dogs are cats."
The core problem for Sunak is that despite his party's increasingly staunch anti-immigrant stance on both legal and illegal migration, voters seem unlikely to forget two key points in the run-up to next year's election: (1) the significant growth in both legal and illegal migration has almost entirely happened post-Brexit, and (2) the Conservative Party has now been in power since 2010, so Sunak's rather limp occasional attempts to blame his predecessors implicitly mean he's also blaming his own party.
C.V. in Chadron, NE, writes: I read "Immigration 2024, Part I: It's NOT the Economy, Stupid" with great sadness. I fully acknowledge that I have views on immigration that are in the far minority of Americans, likely the minority of Democrats, and maybe even many progressives (which I consider myself) won't subscribe to. Basically, my view is that people should have the freedom to travel and live anywhere they please in the entire world. Borders should exist only to keep dangerous people and materials, such as weapons, out. Otherwise, there should be a free flow of people going in any direction.
While reading that piece, I was dismayed to learn that there are so many European countries are trying to curb immigration. If a person is desperate enough to leave a place of familiarity to travel to an unfamiliar land that will bring so many challenges such as meeting immediate needs to stay alive and the challenges of finding a place to settle and find work, a person should be able to pursue such endeavors. I was horrified to learn that 50 years ago undocumented people were taken out to the Mexican Sonoran desert and dumped there. Extremely inhumane. I wish to think that humans are better than this.
T.B. in Leon County, FL, writes: You wrote that Melania (Knavs) Trump is a naturalized citizen (and therefore is in a class of people her husband claims he wants to deport). You could have added that her citizenship is technically vulnerable in that she had illegal employment prior to obtaining said citizenship.
A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: You wrote: "Also, don't forget that Trump's wife is a naturalized citizen."
And 4 of his 5 acknowledged children are anchor babies!
T.C. in St. Paul, MN, writes: I read your item with interest regarding population projections out to 2030 and the impact on the Electoral College. I was curious about who developed these projections and what their model assumptions were. I learned that these projections were generated by The American Redistricting Project. This non-profit is an organization run by Republicans, including former Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, who are heavily in favor of gerrymandering.
To me, considering the source, it makes their projections regarding population trends quite dubious, even if they are starting from recent Census Bureau data. I'm guessing that they ignore the impacts of climate change and poor governance in red states on migration trends over the next 7 years. My friends that live in Texas say that the summers are already unbearable, such that they have to stay indoors all day. I know several people who have moved up here to Minnesota because they can't stand the heat and got out of the kitchen. Minnesota Public Radio has reported on the influx of climate change refugees to the Twin Cities and Duluth from southern and western states. Others in the South have told me that the absence of gun control makes them feel unsafe and they don't feel comfortable just going for a nice walk in their neighborhoods. I'm quite skeptical that the South will rise again.
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT , writes: I am surprised neither of you wrote anything about this incident. A former congressional aide to Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), Aidan Maese Czeropski, filmed himself having sex in a Senate hearing room, and shared the clip with friends. Not surprisingly, it ended up online, and he was quickly dismissed from his position. I think it will be one of the biggest sex scandals in Washington of this decade.
Both of you love making snarky comments, and the jokes about this practically write themselves. I would say people often try to cover up bad behavior, but the truth generally asserts itself in the end. For what it's worth, Maese Czeropski and his partner do not seem to be the sharpest tools in the shed. Having sex in a public building is stupid in and of itself, but creating a digital record of it and sharing it with others has to be near the top of the list of possible idiotic behaviors. It's almost as stupid and defiling as forcing your way into the Capitol in view of CCTV cameras trying to stop the counting of electoral votes.
To make matters worse, after the scandal broke, Maese Czeropski tried to portray himself as a victim of homophobia. In reality, his actions will fuel homophobes. Anti-gay activists, usually motivated by religious fundamentalism, love to point to Gays Behaving Badly to smear gay men as a whole and push theocratic policies on the country. When LGBTQ people who are responsible and productive members of society come out, like former NFL player Carl Nassib and financial advisor Suze Orman, anti-gay activists often they should keep their identities to themselves.
I believe this incident will have political repercussions. Congress was supposed to have increased security and surveillance in the building in the wake of January 6. For this to have happened must mean security measures are still inadequate.
(V) & (Z) respond: We didn't write about it because it seemed, to us, to be far more TMZ than EV.
D.R.J. in Oberlin, OH, writes: This is in response to "NY-03 Is the Gift that Keeps on Giving."
(V) & (Z) have both made reference to the trend that many people vote more on the (R) or (D) next to the name rather than the policies or integrity of the candidates. If I were voting in NY-03 it may very well be the case that Mazi Melesa Pilip's (R) personal policy preferences would more closely align with mine than Tom Suozzi's (D). Regardless, I would still vote for Suozzi because of the (D) next to his name. However, contrary to (Z)'s assertion that policy doesn't matter, it would be exactly because of policy that I would vote for Suozzi. Pilip, running as a Republican, would almost certainly do so with a promise to vote for Mike Johnson or some other Republican as Speaker. Pilip, as a Republican, regardless of her personal preferences, would contribute towards a Republican majority in Congress. Suozzi would contribute towards a Democratic majority, whose policies would much more closely align with mine than the Republicans. My point is that it is not always blind partisan loyalty that motivates a vote. Voting in legislative elections is more about a party's direction and leadership than it is about the individual.
J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: You write that the number of Republicans in Congress willing to rebel against Trumpism can be counted on one hand, and don't include any freshmen. They also don't include any current sitting members, at least in the House. In other words, rebelling against Trumpism as a Republican House member is a surefire way to be primaried and almost certainly lose your seat, like Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, Justin Amash, etc. Why would Pilip be running for the seat just to throw it away? Answer: She wouldn't.
M.B. in Albany, NY, writes: You marvel that the GOP in NY-03 found a candidate who is:
- Black
- Jewish and Israeli
- A veteran (of the Israeli defense forces)
- An immigrant
- A mother of seven
Big deal. "George Santos" was all those things too.
J.W. in Newton, MA, writes: I enjoyed the letters on the factors that have radicalized a fair number of college students. I agree with my neighbors M.C. in Newton and J.H. in Boston. Student activists have been extremely successful in leading a large fraction of undergraduate and graduate students to see Israel-Palestine through the lens of scholars like Noam Chomsky: In an existential conflict, the blame always lies with the more empowered side, and pretty much no act or ideology arising the oppressed group should be condemned. Most professors are pretty stunned by this development. The large majority of us are liberals, in either the historical or modern sense (or both), and thus believe that the means matter at least as much as the ends.
The student activists are rambunctious and have a measure of newly rediscovered power, but right-wing donors and politicians are a far greater threat. Compared with the students, the right-wingers have much more real power (e.g., to force the dismissal of a college president over one moronic misstatement under duress). Some of these folks are sincere—Mike Johnson strikes me as a terrifying true believer in the pre-Enlightenment mindset—but I'd guess Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) and Ron DeSantis are simply stunningly power-mad and evil. They know it plays well, for now, to stunt free inquiry in order to gain the votes of parents who are appalled when their kids come home for the holidays and don't want to go to church anymore.
L.O.-R. in San Francisco, CA, writes: Regarding your comment: "Anyone who thinks that college classrooms are some sort of brainwashing centers hasn't been in a college classroom anytime recently. Or maybe ever."
That is true, but doesn't tell the whole story. Wouldn't you say that the college experience—including what professors say in the class, exposure to new ideas in classroom content, and development of relationships with people who come from vastly different backgrounds do tend to change an individual's perspective on the world and politics? Isn't that exactly why we're paying so much attention to the behavior of college-educated voters these days? As a group, college-educated voters are changing their voting behavior, as non-college-educated voters already have. The college experience changes people.
(V) & (Z) respond: OF course it does, but that's a long way from supporting claims of indoctrination or brainwashing by those who teach at and run the universities.
E.H. in St. Paul, MN, writes: This week, you wrote, in response to T.R. in Vancouver that "In any event, we will 100% guarantee you that peers, the Internet/social media and family, probably in that order, have VASTLY more influence over students' worldviews than college professors do. Anyone who thinks that college classrooms are some sort of brainwashing centers hasn't been in a college classroom anytime recently. Or maybe ever."
I have, in fact, been in a college classroom quite recently (I am currently a junior), and while I would certainly not use the term "brainwashing," I think you are too swift in excusing higher education in regards to processes of radicalization.
At my small private liberal arts college, I have witnessed spectacular professors making way for multiple viewpoints and fostering meaningful, honest and diverse intellectual discussion. I have also seen professors who present from a single viewpoint. These professors actively encourage students to conform to their standards and vocally disagree with those who do not, all whilst following syllabi consisting of one-sided readings. Not only do such professors' one-sided narratives misinform, but they foster a campus culture of political division characterized by an inability to entertain perspectives different from one's own—and the students who prove the least willing to engage in intellectual discussion are also the students most likely to seek this latter category of professors out.
Although I currently lack the data to prove a causal claim on this point, it is my strong suspicion, backed by these aforementioned anecdotes, that many aspects of higher education today play roles in producing campus cultures of radicalization and, ironically enough, anti-intellectualism.
(V) & (Z) respond: When (Z) was a student, the strategy for dealing with those kinds of professors was to roll your eyes in private, write what you are expected to write on the midterm and final, collect your A, then discard everything you were told. In other words, (Z) believes, with some evidence, that most students who take one-sided classes are not being influenced by them unless they were already predisposed. Also, most one-sided classes are not one-sided in favor of some far-left notion, but generally in favor of one particular (often outmoded) interpretative model, like classical progressivism (in history), Freudianism (in psychology) or Keynesianism (in economics).
B.S. in Huntington Beach, CA, writes: In reading your analysis of Ken Burns' The Civil War, I was intrigued by your comment that he Shelby Foote was not a racist. In my watching of the documentary, I discerned a significant comfort level on his part for the Lost Cause narrative which you rightly pointed out. But you explicitly depicted Foote as not a racist.
In my reading of his background and accomplishments, he appears to have lived a somewhat checkered life which included significant achievements, but also some actions of dubious moral quality. Yes, he did serve in the military during the Second World War, but only after being dishonorably discharged from the Mississippi National Guard. Yes, he became a popular commentator on the Civil War, but his musings and writings fell far short of the academic rigor necessary to be considered a true historian. He always skewed his narrative toward the nobility of the cause of the South and the preservation of the Southern way of life, although he never explicitly embraced the fundamental purpose of the Civil War for the south, the retention and continuation of slavery.
In an interview with Foote many years ago, I recall him being asked a question about his thoughts on race relations in America. I don't recall the specific incident giving rise to the interview, but I will never forget his response. After giving some platitudes about the need for compassion and understanding, he followed up with an expression of his feelings when a group of young black men acted up in his presence. He stated that a certain word came to his mind which he couldn't repeat in the interview.
If Shelby Foote was not a racist, he was certainly racist-ish.
P.D.N. in La Mesa, CA, writes: I've read all of Shelby Foote's works and enjoyed them. He writes in long, complex sentences like Thucydides and Tacitus, who were actually models for him (he also read Proust several times). His misty nostalgia for the Confederacy didn't bother me because I'd read James McPherson, Bruce Catton, and Allan Nevins, all of whom I recommend, and they balance out Foote's Southern bias. In Ken Burns' documentary on the Civil War, he does say something downright stupid: the North supposedly fought with one arm tied behind its back. Yes, the North had a decided material advantage but that wouldn't have mattered unless it knew how to exploit that advantage and was ruthless in doing so. Otherwise, in Foote's opinion, the United States should have beaten the North Vietnamese, who were vastly inferior to the U.S. in war supplies. As Marv Levy, coach of the Buffalo Bills, used to say, winning is simple but it isn't easy.
It should be said, though, that Foote lived in a Black neighborhood in Memphis, according to the obit in The New York Times, that he despised racist, Southern governors like Orval Faubus in Arkansas, Lester Maddox in Georgia, and George Wallace in Alabama.
S.Q. in Chippewa Falls, WI, writes: Your assessment of Ken Burns' The Civil War is way off base—think of the times 1989-90.
(V) & (Z) respond: We wrote it was the best documentary ever made about the Civil War. You disagree, it seems?
R.D.T. in Fresno, CA, writes: I admit this is a picky criticism, but I haven't forgotten something that was said in the last episode of The Civil War. Up until then, I'd been practically mesmerized by the documentary. I really loved it.
Then came the mention of Abraham Lincoln's assassination, and the narrator said, "He was only 54 years old." "Crestfallen" doesn't begin to describe my feelings at that moment. I'd known since I was a kid that Lincoln was 56 when he was killed. I thought that was something pretty commonly known in educated circles.
I haven't watched The Civil War since, and I haven't seen much of Burns' other documentaries. I'm afraid my income won't cover the therapy I so obviously need.
(V) & (Z) respond: There are around a hundred errors like that in the documentary. But the fact is that minor errors happen all the time, not only in popular documentaries, but also in lectures from professors and in carefully edited books. Getting Lincoln's age off by a couple of years is in a different ZIP Code, error-wise, than the Bill O'Reilly book that has Lincoln regularly meeting with people in the Oval Office. This would be the same Oval Office that was not built until 40 years after Lincoln died (at age 56). One of the errors comes from someone who slipped up, the other comes from someone who doesn't actually know the subject they are writing about.
J.N. in Columbus, OH, writes: You wrote, of what would have happened during World War II had Donald Trump been president and pursued an isolationist policy: "It's hard to imagine the U.S. could have remained neutral throughout the entire war, but maybe until mid- or late-1943. Would that delay have been enough to hand victory to the Axis? The people who wrote the Star Trek episode 'The City on the Edge of Forever' thought so, but we are skeptical. The combined might of the U.S.S.R. and U.K. might not have been enough to bring Japan to its knees, but surely was enough to defeat Germany, even with delayed U.S. entry."
I'm going to add something that might change your mind, and is part of the basis of the Axis victory in Man in the High Castle: Germany was starting to work on nuclear materials, and while in the real world they didn't get nearly far enough to win, they did have most of the people that would go on to develop them in the U.S. in 1944-45. With the war being prolonged, and no truly safe place for these scientists to immigrate to (since they can't come to the states), it is quite possible they stay under the Riech and develop the bomb there, nuke London and Moscow, and then the Allies sue for peace. Germany keeps Europe. In this event, it is possible the U.S. doesn't join any war, or only fights Japan.
C.Z. in Sacramento, CA, writes: I want to thank M.N. in Lake Ann and S.K. in Los Angeles for providing the information, based on their own painful experiences, about how difficult, if not impossible, it is for women to obtain elective sterilization. I had no idea. Their stories make me realize even more how lucky I was that the majority of my potential child-bearing years occurred during the time when Roe v. Wade was in effect and women actually had control over their own uterus. The decision about when or whether to undergo pregnancy belongs to each woman alone. Period. To make it simple enough for the right-wing nuts to understand: "There's no room in a womb for the GOP." And even simpler yet is something one of your male readers so eloquently stated months ago regarding the abortion issue, (I'm paraphrasing): "If you don't have a uterus, STFU."
V.B.G. in Decatur, GA, writes: I just wanted to express to R.K. in Fort Myers my sympathy for what must have been quite a harrowing experience in Kyiv at the start of the Ukraine war. I hope they and their loved ones were able to get out of the country safely.
A.S. in Lenora Hills, CA, writes: Last Sunday, O.Z.H. in Dubai wrote:
I love your site and read it almost every day. But, very humbly, may I ask that you consider dispensing with the gimmicky stuff like "A December to Rhymember"? Perhaps I am totally off-base here but me, and the 6-7 friends of mine who read this site always just skip over these sorts of things. We read this site because we want to be informed and appreciate (V) and (Z)'s analysis of current political events and discourse. Oftentimes, my aforementioned friends and I will read breaking news and the first thing we will text to one another is "cant wait to here EV's take on this."
But these odd segments that you include like Rhymember just sort of make the whole thing seem a little unserious and flip.Let me respond thusly (with apologies to Herb Wiener, John Gluck Jr., and Wally Gold, Quincy Jones, and Lesley Gore):
It's their website, they can write what they want to
write what they want to,
write what they want to,
It's up to you, you can choose what to viewTo further my rebuttal, let me also channel O.Z.H.'s argument towards publications:
Dear New York Times: May I ask that you consider dispensing with the crossword and other puzzles. These sections make the whole paper seem unserious and flip.
Dear Washington Post: May I ask that you consider dispensing with the comics page? It makes the rest of the paper seem silly.
Dear New Yorker: May I ask that you stop including those cute little cartoon panels in your magazine? They make it hard to take your articles seriously.
Dear Fox News: May I ask that you consider dispensing with your news articles? They make the comic page come across as serious.(V) & (Z): Feel free to edit out that last one if you think it makes the rest of my response seem unserious and flip.
P.S. I don't always find all of the E.V. "amusement" pieces interesting. So I skip those bits. And you know what? I can't think of a single newspaper, magazine, or scientific journal where there weren't parts that failed to interest me. That didn't diminish the value of what I did read by one iota.
K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: O.Z.H. in Dubai wrote in complaining that the lighter features you do make your whole site less serious. I agree, and I am glad for the site to have some features that are less serious.
I know The New York Times is highly criticized by some, but I take their news reporting seriously. In addition, they have stories about people's personal relationships, stories about fashion and style, and games among much other unserious content.
I may read something about terrible war crimes and their effects one moment, and shortly after, I may read about a person talking about their online dating relationship with a person they never met and how that affected them emotionally. Or, I might read about how a celebrity spent their day going to a coffee shop, taking a walk through Central Park, and cooking dinner in their apartment.
None of that makes me take the news portion less seriously, and I can choose to skip any portion I choose.
Thank you for writing about both serious and unserious topics and trusting the readers to choose what they'd like to get from your site.
H.M. in San Dimas, CA, writes: After reading Sunday's mailbag, I just wanted to write to say you should definitely keep the lighter items at the end of the daily postings.
I write a Dodgers newsletter for The Los Angeles Times, and I try to include something light at the end of each newsletter. Sometimes a reader will write in annoyed by these things. When I poll the overall readership, they love them. It's a palate cleanser, so if I'm writing about a topic such as Trevor Bauer, they can leave with a pleasant thought, or a fun quiz, or a video. I have readers send in "My Favorite Dodger" and get hundreds of submissions.
And I don't write about anything nearly as consequential as what you two write about. Please keep it up and don't let the naysayers get you down. The amount of work you do is staggering, and I would hope you find the end items as fun to do as the readers.
(V) & (Z) respond: We do, and you have succinctly captured our thinking when it comes to trying to end each day's post with a palate cleanser or two.
D.S. in Lakewood, OH, writes: I'm sure I won't be the only one, but it isn't a bad idea to mention it at least once a year to readers like O.Z.H. in Dubai. It is easy to skip the parts of Electoral-Vote.com that are annoying to oneself. I love almost all the "fluff" pieces. "December to Rhymember" is a hoot and I am impressed that so many readers are so poetic and funny. It (along with surveys, Schadenfreude, and guessing games) are a welcome palate cleanser.
V.F. in Richmond, VA, writes: I agree with O.Z.H. in Dubai. I always skip over the stupid songs. It takes up space, is stupid, and is a turnoff for people I try to introduce the site to.
(V) & (Z) respond: This section is an accurate representation of the mail we got. Every time we run a letter like the one from O.Z.H. in Dubai, the response run somewhere between 5-to-1 to 10-to-1 in favor of the fun stuff.
D.A. in Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, writes: I am struck at the tone of those letters for Santa and I have to wonder if the lack of manners in them is a reflection on the children, the scribe, or the general culture of the time. Not one of them said "please" or even "thank you." The closest to accepting "whatever is available" still expected something from their list.
If I had written a letter to Santa without saying "please" or making it clear I'd be grateful for any present even if it wasn't on my list, my parents would have refused to let me send it!
Thank you for sharing those letters, as it's really given me something to think about today which isn't part of the ongoing stressful struggle between greed, idiocy, justice and democracy playing out across the world in some truly awful ways.
Enjoy whatever festivities you celebrate between here and the New Year and best wishes to everyone who writes and reads this website.
S.G. in Newark, NJ, writes: D.A. in Brooklyn is absolutely right. Gefilte fish in a jar : gefilte fish :: instant coffee : coffee. Homemade or bust, preferably ground with muscle power through a manual grinder clamped to your counter. If you can't get that, try to find one of the few delis that still makes its own. Failing that, frozen loaves are a tolerable substitute. And no sugar or artificial sweetener (with apologies to my Poylish friends).
And while we're thinking about gefilte fish, isn't it too bad that places with large Ashkenazi Jewish populations don't have contested early primaries? What I wouldn't give to see Ron Dismantlis trying to choke down gefilte fish with hot horseradish!
J.D. in Cold Spring, MN, writes: Last week in The Minneapolis Star Tribune (for a good friend and former neighbor): Christiansen, Holger K. (1926-2023). Holger died. Boat for sale.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.