Dem
51
GOP
49
We got a lot of letters this week about Israel; they ran 20% largely sympathetic to Israel and 80% largely not. We got a lot of letters this week about anti-Biden protest votes from lefties; they ran 20% largely sympathetic to the lefties and 80% largely not. This balance, or lack thereof, is reflected in those sections.
S.H. in Hanoi, Vietnam, writes: I am aware of how hard both (V) and (Z) have worked to try to give a nuanced and even-handed analysis of the events of the past 6 months in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. I laud that effort, especially your coverage last November, trying to provide context to readers. I am also aware, per your comment earlier this week, that you would prefer not to write repeatedly on a highly complicated topic about which you aren't experts. So I am loath to vociferously criticize your every pronouncement and editorial decision about this topic, especially as I am certain you are receiving incoming fire from correspondents whose sympathies align entirely with Gazans and regard all Israeli actions as "genocidal."
That being said, your response to M.G. in Boulder included some misleading framing, to wit:
- You wrote that "[t]he Saudis, Iranians, Iraqis, etc. also don't like Israel, but they are not committing violent acts against that nation on a daily basis." This is correct in the narrow sense that missiles aren't being sent from inside the borders of these countries, but the notion that some of these actors are not participating in the daily violence against Israel is clearly wrong. Here is a quote from a Reuters article last October about the funding of Hamas in the wake of the initial massacre: "Matthew Levitt, a former U.S. official specialised in counterterrorism, estimated the bulk of Hamas' budget of more than $300 million came from taxes on business, as well as from countries including Iran and Qatar or charities." (my emphasis)
Moreover, this accounts only for the violence instigated by Hamas. Readers who do not follow Israel closely may be unaware that Hezbollah sends missiles into northern Israel on a near-daily basis, and has done so for the past several weeks. They are funded in their entirety by Iran, and have an estimated stockpile of missiles that may be as high as 150,000, which Wikipedia helpfully notes "is considerably more than most countries." So, the regional players are hardly sitting on the sidelines.
- Your answer, as well as M.G.'s question, start with the assumption that Israel is the principal obstacle for Palestinian statehood in a two-state situation. The reality is almost entirely the opposite, as the Israeli government has repeatedly attempted to offer a two-state solution as long as Palestinians accept Israeli statehood. The commitment of Hamas to the destruction of the State of Israel has been pointed out repeatedly by correspondents to this site, and while there was a small window in the early 1990s in which the PLO made some statements that accepted Israel's sovereignty, it was abandoned not long thereafter and morphed instead into regular suicide-bus bombings of Israeli civilians. Even as recently as 2013, half of Israelis supported a fully independent Palestine, as long as it came with security guarantees. Israelis have concluded that peace certainly can't be achieved with Hamas leading a Gazan, or a united Palestinian, government. But that has come only after a decade of near-daily missiles coming into Israel from Gaza, capped by the massacre on October 7.
- There is another assumption embedded within the question that the Palestinians would be happy with a two-state solution if they were willing to guarantee Israeli security. This, too, is likely mistaken. Obtaining accurate information from the Gazan sentiment since Hamas came to power is challenging, but at the very least many leaders of Palestinian organizations openly regard the two-state solution as a naive Western fantasy, and consider anything other than the destruction of the State of Israel as inadequate. They are now willing to say this openly in the U.S. media. Take, for instance, this editorial from The New York Times' op-ed page, in which the president of the Palestinian Policy Network, Tareq Baconi, concludes by writing, "[a] single state from the river to the sea might appear unrealistic... [b]ut it is the only state that exists in the real world"
Thus, at least if you're following the logic of this writer, whose views almost certainly represent a plurality if not an outright majority of Palestinian opinion, the notion that Israelis are being intransigent only makes sense if you think that Israelis cannot exist as a nation currently constituted.- You framed the problem historically in terms of Western colonial enterprise, comparing Israel to the waning 20th-century British, French, and Spanish empires. A similar comparison has been making the rounds on the illiberal left for many years and was kicked into overdrive on October 7. In this casting Israel is just an extension of the 500-year-old project of European colonialism, which, as advocates for a one-state Palestine argue, negates the validity by which Israel exists. Israel is a colonizer, therefore it shouldn't exist, and the only real solution is its elimination.
The irony of accusing Israel of being part of the European program of colonialism may be missed by many American readers who were not brought up to think of Jews as enemies of the State, but that's almost precisely how the vast majority of Europeans thought of Jews—not just Nazis thought this way, but Europeans from the Volga to the Atlantic. European hostility to its Jewish population was largely the cause for migration of European Jews to the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and British Mandate Palestine thereafter. It was done in spite of support from European colonial empires, not because of it. They were fleeing Europe—and in the case of Jews living in Eastern Europe, they were often doing it to save their lives.
So any comparisons of Israel to these empires should be taken with a high level of skepticism. And even in the way that you compare Israel to these empires, it makes little, if any, sense. Until the war started, Israel did not have any kind of control over Gaza that it could give up; the Israeli Defense Forces withdrew from Gaza, which it never claimed was a part of Israel proper, in 2005. Indeed, it's precisely because of the autonomy of Hamas that the October 7 massacre happened. This, coupled with the Hamas tactics of placing all their infrastructure as close as possible to as many Gazan civilians as possible, has left the Israeli people in an unwinnable situation.I know you guys are trying hard to do the best you can in answering questions from readers trying to make sense of the situation, and I really do appreciate your efforts at avoiding oversimplifications, but the comparison of Israel to European colonial empires, whose leaders generally wanted us somewhere between marginalized, expelled, and dead, was a really tough one to take.
(V) & (Z) respond: We wish everyone who found our material to be objectionable was willing to register their objections so constructively.
D.G. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: In response to M.G. in Boulder, who asked "why would Israel want to support the creation of a state that would give Hamas greater power?," Israel would never agree to Hamas remaining in power. It would be tantamount to keeping a snake in your pocket: Sooner or later it will bite you.
Over the years, various Israeli governments, both right and left, conservative and progressive, have made efforts to resolve the issue of "the Palestinians." (I put the term in quotes since it is a term invented by Yasser Arafat in 1968 after Israel liberated the West Bank from Jordanian occupation since 1948. There had never been such an ethnic group, state, country, tribe, national identity called "Palestinian" until then. As a matter of fact, there is no "P" sound in Arabic.)
Israel realized that it could not annex the area populated by nearly 2 million Palestinians without losing its identity as the Jewish Democratic State (the one and only.) They offered the area, along with its occupants, back to Jordan, who had occupied it since 1948. Jordan refused, although 65% of its own indigenous population identifies itself as "Palestinian."
Subsequently, Israel made multiple attempts and offers of a settlement with the Palestinians in the West Bank for full independence, in conferences in Oslo, Camp David, Barcelona, and other occasions, and the Palestinians refused the "Two States Solution" at each such attempt.
Gaza was always treated separately. In 1979, Israel met with Egypt, at the Camp David Peace Conference. It was a "land for peace" deal, where Israel would return the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt for a peace treaty. Israel tried to return the Gaza Strip to Egypt (it was part of Egypt since at least 1918) along with the Sinai, but the Egyptian President Anwar El-Sadat, knowing what a headache Gaza was, wisely refused. The moderator of the negotiations, the illustrious U.S. President Jimmy Carter, whose international relations acumen left a lot to be desired, refused to back the Israeli demand, and Israel was left stuck with that strip.
In recent years, the "two-state solution" was re-raised, this time linking the West Bank and Gaza, two disjointed small tracts of land, into one state, with Israel in the middle. It is not reasonable; connecting the two would require dissecting Israel in two, a non-starter. The West Bank is run by Fatah, Gaza is run by radical Hamas with UNRWA adding fuel to the fire with its incitement to violence. Fatah hates Hamas and vice-versa. The two areas cannot be combined.
Gaza must be secured, demilitarized, and made non-lethal. It cannot become an impoverished failing state. Nor can Israel allow a third party to have control over it—it is Damocles Sword over its neck.
So, after October 7, "two-state solution" has become a nice slogan, maybe, but not a solution.
J.C. in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, writes: In response to the question from M.G. in Boulder, you talked about a two-state solution. I continue to see this as no longer viable. There have been two many land grabs by Israel, fragmenting the West Bank and creating two separate territories for the Palestinians. The only country in the world with a substantial amount of its territory separated that has survived is the U.S.—which, I think, we can all agree is a unique situation.
I agree with Ali Abunimah in One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse: The only viable option is a one-state solution, a united Israel of Palestine, with fierce guarantees for the rights and protections of Jews. Palestinians have a right to return to their homes of 70 years ago, or at least homeland. The Jewish Diaspora has been there for 70 years (and, of course, there were Jews living in Israel in harmony with Muslims and Christians before the Nakba) and shouldn't be forced out, any more than we should talk about forcing out white people from the United States just because First Nation land was stolen from them. Yes, the power-sharing has been rocky when done by Lebanon, but it has worked out much better for all parties than our current apartheid state in Israel.
J.D. in Sydney, NSW, Australia, writes: I write to you in regard to your item "Israel's Support Continues to Erode."
I write this message from the point of view as a generally pro-Israel minded individual, though equally as a supporter of a two-state solution and as an opponent of Israel's occupation and settlement of the West Bank.
It has become inescapably obvious to me that Benjamin Netanyahu is out of control in his determination to hold onto power in order to avoid his date with destiny in the form of prosecution for corruption. In his extreme pursuit of power, he is now using this war to prop up his increasingly illegitimate leadership, and has thrown out the laws of war and any standard of reasonable and proportional behavior in prosecuting his war in Gaza. Consequently, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is acting with no democratic constraint or oversight on its actions.
In this atmosphere of no constraint, I think it is very difficult to come to any other conclusions than the following:
- That the IDF deliberately, with intent, targeted the World Central Kitchen aid convoy, or;
- That the IDF is so recklessly indifferent to human life that they did not care whether their targets were civilian or combatant.
Either scenario is a breach of the laws of war and may constitute a war crime.
I am unaware of what the exact nature of the law is in the United States, but in Australia, a finding of fact as to a reckless indifference to human life constitutes mens rea (guilty mind) for murder. In combination with a finding of fact as to actus reus (guilty act) then an individual can be assessed to be guilty of murder in a court of law. Please note the previous sentence is just a statement of illustration, rather than an assertion of what the standard of international law is in regards to reckless indifference.
Regarding the killing of these 7 aid workers, I can see no other conclusion than that Israel knowingly, whether through deliberate intent or reckless indifference, brought about their deaths. The conclusion that CANNOT be drawn is that their deaths were the result of "a mistake."
Netanyahu and the IDF are operating in this manner because they believe they have the cover to act this way by virtue of support from Western nations. It is beyond time for Western nations to do as they preach and move to rein in Netanyahu and the IDF.
K.H. in Maryville, TN, writes: I do not remember where I was when I saw the news that the World Central Kitchen volunteers were killed. But I do know that my instant thought was that Netanyahu did this on purpose in order to frighten off all aid workers in Gaza. I do not believe for a second any of Israel's explanations. I do not believe that they thought there were Hamas fighters embedded in the vehicles. I believe they knew full well it was nothing but an aid convoy. I am no expert. I'm just... me. But nothing will ever convince me anything different than that it was a purposeful, targeted attack. My heart hurts for the aid workers who are trying to do good in this hellish situation.
R.M. in Sacramento, CA, writes: As the situation in Israel continues to deteriorate, I am left to wonder how long E-V.com will continue to publish letters/comments by those who support the actions taken by the Israeli government. The term "genocide" has been bandied about for months already, and as it may be reasonable to debate the merits of that assertion, it can not be reasonably denied by anyone that the actions of the Israeli government on both the Palestinian people, and now to aid workers, is beyond morally reprehensible. There is no excusing the crimes against humanity that are currently being perpetrated against the Palestinian people and those who try to provide them with basic aid.
I ask (genuinely ask) what is the breaking point for E-V.com? I assume (and again it's an assumption) that E-V.com would never run a letter stating "Well, you know the Nazi Party had some good ideas... and really, they can't be blamed for everything they did." Why, then, are these deliberate, targeted and brutal actions perpetrated by the Israeli government allowed to be excused in letters published on the website? There must be a reason. I'm only left to guess what that reason may be.
(V) & (Z) respond: Here is the explanation that (Z) gives to students in his lecture on America and the Middle East: "The world rarely exists in black and white, and if you want to understand what's going on, you have to learn to look for and accept the shades of gray."
J.L. in Mountain View, CA, writes: In response to D.O. in South Park, you wrote that Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA) is pro-Palestinian while Bhavini Patel is pro-Israel. In my opinion, being pro-Palestinian is the same as being pro-Israel. Neither of these two peoples will live in peace and security unless the other does. Similarly, supporting either Benjamin Netanyahu or Hamas is both anti-Palestinian and anti-Israel. These two are partners. Both need a state of perpetual violence for their own corrupt purposes. As long as people think of the conflict as choice between Israel and its corrupt terrorist government on one side versus the Palestinians and their corrupt terrorist government on the other, I see no end to the violence. Let's stop the terrorism on both sides.
W.M. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: T.B. in Leon County wrote: "Joe Biden appears to have been all-in supporting Israel's killing spree at that time. Now, he appears to be working for a rather more humanitarian outcome..."
It seems to be a near-consensus that Biden was in favor of Benjamin Netanyahu's invasion of Gaza until recently, as if people voting "Uncommitted" or activist demonstrations or something like that changed his direction. I have never understood the widespread conviction that Biden was ever anything but appalled by Netanyahu's lack of restraint. But it was always clear to me that Biden would need to start with unconditional support, then transition to support with some concerns, then transition to support with conditions, then inevitably transition to soft opposition.
He's POTUS—whatever his personal feelings, and whatever his opinions about sound policy, he is not free to transform U.S.-international relations abruptly. Furthermore, Biden surely understands that the current leader of Israel is not pursuing the interests of Israel as a nation, but is instead steering national policy to serve the interests of Benjamin Netanyahu as an individual (much as in the case of Vladimir Putin's Russia). Thus, Biden also understands that:
- He has no lever to influence Netanyahu directly (see Putin, Vladimir), but...
- Anything he does that would weaken Israel (or show a fraying relationship between the U.S. and Israel) could have serious future consequences.
Imagine the consequences for Americans if the rest of the world had ostracized the country just because the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq... and the U.S. is a superpower with no hostile neighbors. In fact, Netanyahu's treatment of Gaza has probably already condemned Israel to a military confrontation with one or more of its neighbors within a generation (but that's a separate comment). Certainly punishing Israel for the sins of Netanyahu would worsen that risk, and it would be irresponsible for Biden to follow that course without exhausting all other options (even if some people likely think that future consequences for Israel might feel like poetic justice).
When you're POTUS, you cannot react to every situation with an immediate display calibrated for social media. Sometimes you need to respond incrementally, allowing time for diplomacy and backchannels to work, even if you expect them to fail. I'm sure it doesn't feel good to be that guy—to leave so many outraged people convinced that you have no sense of justice, or that you have no concern for certain people—but it comes with the job.
J.C. in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, writes: I wanted to weigh in on the question from B.C. in Phoenix, as my grad degree is in Islamic Cross-Cultural Studies. First, I wouldn't say it's accurate that Muslims consider the four Gospels to be sacred scripture. There is only one sacred scripture for Muslims—al Qur'an. The rest is considered holy to them to an extent, but only without the corruptions that have accumulated over the years that run contrary to the Qur'an. Like, for example, anything that represents Jesus as God, which is all through the Gospels as we now have them (whenever Jesus says, "I Am."). The thing is, when Mohammed (pbuh) was getting his revelations, he knew very little about what Jews and Christians actually believed. There is a reference in the Qur'an to Mary being part of the Trinity, which makes no sense—until we realize that there was a small Arab tribe North of Mohammed (pbuh) that was heretical and actually believed this. Mostly after his death, when Muslims realized how much Christian beliefs diverged from how the Qur'an described things, they had to come up with an explanation—hence, the Bible was corrupted—as you rightly point out.
Secondly, while you are completely correct in pointing out that Judaism is in no way a critique of Christianity, I think there is a strong argument to be made of the reverse—that Christianity is a critique of Judaism, simply by the words of Jesus. It was abrogation by way of "fulfillment."
Lastly, it should never be underestimated how, to Arabs, the Crusades happened yesterday. And although the Crusades were a ruse for a land grab, as witnessed by the sacking of Constantinople by Crusaders, we can't ignore that if there hadn't been Muslim invasions of Christian lands beforehand (without forced conversions), there would have been no Crusades. We can't underestimate the fear that Europe had when this happened. This goes back to the question from R.C. in Des Moines about a better approach to 9/11, and how a different president could have done something "more productive," as you point out. Would that we had focused on the attack on the World Trade Center as an attack on humanity, not merely the U.S. And also that horrible violent unjustified terrorism doesn't exist in a vacuum. Osama bin Laden was quite clear in his reasons for the attack—American support of Israel, American policies keeping Muslims in poverty, American troops in Saudi Arabia, and the West's continued oppression of Muslims, beginning with the Crusades. Would that we had taken these issues seriously—ideally, long before 9/11, but at least afterwards. If we had acted—or do act—in a more just way to those outside our country, recognizing that our policies do hurt others, we could save ourselves and everyone else a world of hurt. It is possible to recognize that terrorism is evil, and that we also have done evil towards others, and can do things to change that.
Oh—to channel the great detective—one more thing. Again to affirm you, there are surats used by evangelicals to promote acrimony between Muslims and Christians, ignoring the more common positive ones. (There are even passages where Muslims are called to ask the Chrisitians for the veracity of Mohammed's (pbuh) message if they are in doubt, further strengthening my argument in the first paragraph!) But I have sadly witnessed, in my time in Morocco, occasions where Muslims would use those negative passages and even be largely unaware of the positive ones. And in that the Qur'an is not written linearly or always in context, with Meccan and Medinan surats mixed together, with the Principle of Abrogation (newer takes the place of older), and the difficulty one can have of correctly identifying the provenance of some passages, it can be very easy to make a Muslim argument that certain violent passages take the place of more peaceful ones. In this Christian evangelicals make common cause with groups like Da'esh and al Qa'ida.
(V) & (Z) respond: For those unfamiliar, (pbuh) means "peace be upon him." Consistent with our general preference for allowing authorial voice to stand, we did not excise those, just as we let "G-d" stand in letters from observant Jewish readers.
E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: While the politics of the recent Israeli Supreme Court ruling are interesting and complex, one issue has been strangely absent from the discussion: You would be hard-pressed to find worse soldiers than these yeshiva students.
Imagine if their commander gave them an order. All their training and life experience has been in debate and argument. When Sarge yells "Jump!," they won't reply, "How high, Sir?" They'll ask, "Is it right to jump? Rabbi Yochanan said, in the Talmud..." Add to that, their total lack of familiarity with most modern technology. If I were an IDF commander, I'd say, "No thank you."
M.S. in Westchester, NY, writes: As for the ultra-religious in Israel who attend yeshivas exclusive of participation in civic life (like service in the army), yeshivas teach not just the Torah, but the full array of sacred texts, one of the most prominent of which is the Talmud. Typically, a passage is quoted on a page and there may be multiple insights into its meaning by various rabbis. Two students (you and your partner) argue back and forth regarding its meaning. Excellent preparation for lawyers!
L.C. in Boston, MA, writes: You wrote: "There is much irony, of course, in the fact that the target of the 'he's not religious' vitriol is actually a churchgoing Christian, while the beneficiary of the 'he's God's candidate' nonsense is in the running with Thomas Jefferson for the title of most irreligious man ever to serve as president."
This is a serious slight to the fervent faith of Donald Trump. It is self-evident that he very devoutly worships himself.
C.Z. in Sacramento, CA, writes: Thanks for pointing out (yet again) the hypocrisy of the so-called "religious" Republican politicians and their "we're as pure as the driven snow, while the opposition is the spawn of Satan" shtick. It reminded me of Mae West, who was also fond of pointing out religious hypocrisy, and who famously said: "I used to be Snow White... but I drifted."
I also found it amusing that the Creepublicans took offense at the fact that Easter fell on March 31 this year, the same day as The Transgender Day of Visibility. However, they didn't say a word about the fact that it was also Cesar Chavez Day, which has been a U.S. federal commemorative holiday since 2014. It's funny that the so-called Religious Right didn't take issue with THAT, isn't it? Hmm... could it be that they didn't want to alienate any Latino/Latina voters?
A.S. in Renton, WA, writes: Delighted by the religious Holiday confluences this year. First we had Ash Wednesday/Valentine's Day:
And then, Easter/Trans Day of Visibility.
B.F. in Nine Mile Falls, WA, writes: As a liberal Christian, I don't care about someone's sexuality or sexual preference as long as they don't go after children (Mary Letorneau?). I have no idea whether God considers a trans or LGBTQ lifestyle to be a sin. Given some of the decisions that I have made in my lifetime, I am not in a position to judge anyone. However, when you stated that "Jesus also embraced thieves, prostitutes, and others whose behavior he considered problematic," you forgot to add that he also said "Go and sin no more."
Rev. D.H. in Durham, NC, writes: I actually am a theologian, and the staff historian's comment that Jesus' message of radical inclusivity would surely include trans people is spot on. Jesus' ministry and message was always about making the circle larger, not smaller. Any interpretation that violates that tenet is highly suspect. Jesus would also have welcomed people of all different races, including white Americans!
S.B. in Winslow, ME, writes: In your item, "Brace Yourself for Lots of "Holier Than Thou" Nonsense," you mentioned that President Biden declared March 31 to be annual Transgender Day of Visibility, to which Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) replied on eX-Twitter, "Banning sacred truth and tradition—while at the same time proclaiming Easter Sunday as 'Transgender Day'—is outrageous and abhorrent. The American people are taking note." So many elements I could comment on, but let's stick with Transgender Day of Visibility or TDOV ("T-Dove") as it's more commonly known.
"Outrageous and abhorrent." Right. Okay everyone, ask yourself, if those words were spoken about St. Patrick's Day or Military Spouse Day or Women's Equality Day or Mother's Day or Father's Day or Juneteenth... how would you feel about that? Yeah... that's how I feel. But it's more than that—anytime we minimize, marginalize, and dehumanize ANY group of people in our society, we lose a piece of our national soul and with it, a bit of our own.
There are two days that the transgender community holds as special. One is Transgender Day of Remembrance or TDOR ("T-Door"), Nov. 20, which calls us into a somber reflection of our transgender siblings who were harmed or killed simply because they existed at all. The other is TDOV, a day dedicated to celebrating openly transgender individuals and recognizing their valuable contributions to society. Additionally, it serves as a reminder to support those who either opt not to disclose their gender identity or are unable to do so due to societal constraints. Both are important days for us, but of the two, I'm glad TDOV was the one the president recognized. It is a day of hope.
Regarding the political aspect, I lived in Delaware for several years and often had the privilege of speaking with State Sen. Sarah McBride (D), who is transgender. She and Joe Biden have worked closely for many years, so I'm sure she's had a great influence on his support for our marginalized community. Nevertheless, President Biden timing his announcement on Easter Sunday gives me mixed feelings.
As a Christian mystic, I view Easter as a time of rebirth, a resurrection from death (of many things) into life (of many hopes). Transitioning from one gender to another is very similar; one gender dies and another is birthed. But mixing religious symbolism with political processes is a treacherous trail winding above a dangerous slope, as we've seen from the Christian evangelical community. TDOV is so unfamiliar to many that even some ministers within my own denomination (PCUSA) asked why TDOV was being mentioned on Easter Sunday.
Perhaps President Biden, as a Catholic, has an appreciation for the symbolism. Perhaps it was just a matter of being sure to do it before his term of office expires. Perhaps the hundreds of anti-transgender bills currently in state legislation persuaded him. Perhaps someone like Sarah McBride had his ear. And perhaps... it's just the way the political cards fell.
Regardless, I'm grateful that he's done so. Mentally closeted people like Speaker Johnson won't have their mind changed; they will demean us and others who do not share their "Christian values." But perhaps even their badmouthing will continue to give our transgender community, and the greater LGBTQIA+ community, a rising public awareness, and eventually, a greater acceptance. Anita Bryant was convinced the gay community was recruiting young people into their ranks. Ironically, that younger generation was the one who would eventually become the majority that supported gay marriage. Perhaps the day will come when the young generation whom we transgender people are allegedly brainwashing and recruiting will be the one who frees us to live openly and welcomed in our society, accepted for who we are.
J.L.J. in San Francisco, CA, writes: Ruth Ben-Ghiat, NYU History professor and scholar on authoritarianism, in an interview with The Bulwark, said she expects Trump to never leave office again should he be re-elected. I recommend a watch; the 40 minute mark is where the most relevant part is:
[U]nless there is a natural cause for him, he will never leave. He cannot leave. Because the purpose of authoritarianism for these strong men is to be protected—allow themselves to protect themselves from jail. It's really simple. In fact, regular politicians who have... charges against them, investigations—they don't want to run for office. But strong men—you can add in Netanyahu, Putin, Berlusconi, and Trump—all ran for office repeatedly while they had investigations or charges against them, because they have to get into power to arrange government to protect themselves... once he gets in, he's going to legalize crime—he's telling us that... he'll never leave because he can't leave. Otherwise he'll have to pay consequences, so will all of his collaborators.Given you wrote about an effort from American Conservative to begin priming and normalizing the argument that parts of the Twenty-second Amendment are dead, much like parts of the Fourteenth (and given the Supreme Court agreed regarding the latter, taking note of this is the right call), and with more people with actual credibility here, unlike me (see Cheney, Liz), out there banging this drum—and it's only going to grow louder—it may be worth a revisit addressing these concerns.
M.M. in Plano, TX, writes: I am getting very tired of the trope that this election is about choosing the lesser of two distasteful evils. The plain fact is that a vote for Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. is a positive choice that will do good for the country.
Joe Biden is a decent, compassionate human being. He has shown this repeatedly when dealing with ordinary people suffering the wounds inflicted by our broken political and economic systems. Even Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has said that you will not find a more decent person than Joe Biden.
Joe Biden has the most experience. This is a positive good. He has learned much during his long tenure on senatorial committees dealing with foreign policy and military strategy. He knows the mechanics of governing better than anyone in public life and is wiser than any of those who wish to jump into public office, at the top, from the private sector. They should run for city council or dogcatcher before claiming the presidency.
Joe Biden supports and has gotten the Congress to enact a broadly progressive agenda. We are all better off because of his public works. He has probably appointed more qualified minority candidates and women to more offices than any president in the 21st century. He has done more to advance non-polluting energy than any prior president.
Joe Biden has earned the respect of leaders of allied democracies. Compare this to their attitude toward his predecessor, whom they regarded a clownish escapee from a Stephen King novel. President Biden has reinforced the chances for survival of democracy in Ukraine, (formerly Soviet) Georgia, Taiwan and South Korea.
Joe Biden is a lover of democracy. His opponent is not.
Joe Biden is the superior positive choice.
V.P. in New York, NY, writes: You often mention how often Donald Trump hits up his supporters for donations. I think it's fair to mention that it's the same with Joe Biden, at least during the election season. I was getting inundated with multiple e-mails a day saying how I see urgently need to donate again. There is literally no content there other than a plea for money. So many of the e-mails insult the intelligence of the recipient by saying things like "the President is asking you personally."
They have an option to "only get their most important e-mails" which seemed to make no difference at all, so I ultimately unsubscribed entirely. Thankfully the unsubscribe button did work.
Frankly, whoever is in charge of Biden's e-mail campaign should be fired. I supported Pete Buttigieg in the primaries last time and most of their e-mails talked about interviews he gave, issues that he was running on, etc. Sure they all had a donation link at the bottom but they made me feel like I was being informed about the campaign not just being artlessly hit up again and again like they were trying to brute-force the PIN on an ATM.
K.H. in Scotch Plains, NJ, writes: Here is my list of things Joe Biden ought to do from now until Election Day to maximize his chances of winning:
- Familiarize audiences, and the American people, with the concept of psychological projection, and that Trump is doing it constantly. It happened as early as 2016, when Hillary Clinton called him a Russian puppet during a debate, and Trump, caught by surprise, only managed to stammer back, "No puppet. You're the puppet."
- Do not ban TikTok, as counterproductive as it may seem, considering its massive popularity, and how that will backfire especially with younger people. Try to explain the specifics of the ByteDance sale.
- Remind people of the pandemic and how that was 4 years ago, in homage (of sorts) to the "are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" question posed by Ronald Reagan in 1980. While it is an oversimplification, blame Trump for what happened—it's not entirely false about it being his fault, at least up to a point (obviously there were other issues and other people who dropped the ball to create or worsen the colossal catastrophe it became), and it is entirely true how he dismantled the pandemic response team put into place by Barack Obama, out of either spite or indifference. Tell voters that, and that we can't just assume anything in regards to our own safety if he is put back into office considering his mismanagement of COVID-19.
- Go over the basics of Project 2025 and what Trump and his administration want to do if they win the election and how it will affect the country.
- If Trump is planning on implementing an Internet "kill switch," hammer that relentlessly. Although it's undoubtedly become a worse place, we still need the Internet and the freedoms that it provides.
- This is one thing Biden is already doing, to his credit, but keep making fun of Trump. Make him look like who he is: a small, petty child in a septuagenarian's body.
- This is perhaps wishful thinking, and it could potentially backfire, but push for the abolition of the Electoral College. According to the Pew Research Center from a study last year, 65% of Americans want it gone.
- Have Obama stump not just for him, but for vulnerable Senate candidates in red/purple states.
- Do a town hall at some point before the election, not in some sort of debate with Trump (I watched the debates in 2020 but see no point in doing them this year), but simply with regular voters, ones who might be on the fence or have a variety of different beliefs or political stances, but ones who will act reasonably and with courtesy if they get a chance to ask Biden a question.
Some of these things people might actually listen to. They might make a positive difference.
I'm going to assume Biden is doing what he can (at least I hope he is) in regards to the Israel/Gaza (Israel/Hamas?) war. This seems to be a big issue for Gen Z, a lot of whom blame Biden to some extent, even though none of it is really his fault, and AFAIK, Israel had intelligence that said Hamas was planning on attacking and ignored it.
R.C. in Des Moines, IA, writes: J.B. in Bend asked about the causes of President Biden's low approval ratings. How much of that is directly Biden's fault is tough to say. But, his rating glitters with a radiant light compared to many other leaders around the world. According to the Global Leader Approval Rating Tracker, all but four national leaders are below 50%. Biden trails nine of the sub-50% group and has a higher rating than 15 others including France's Emmanuel Macron, Canada's Justin Trudeau, and Britain's Rishi Sunak. Maybe Biden's poor approval rating is mostly a result of a worldwide trend of anger and disillusionment with leaders of all stripes?
J.C. in Westminster, VT, writes: In your reply to J.B. in Bend, you wrote: "There's still a lot of pent-up anger from the pandemic. There's a lot of hostile media, no matter what a president's partisan leanings. There's social media, which is just a sea of negativity and anger. And lies."
I'm thinking that you missed a few factors in Biden's unpopularity, although you have touched on many of them over the past few years.
On the left, Gaza looms large. My progressive friends are livid about what is happening in Gaza and the continued sale of weapons from the United States to Israel. They blame Biden for not taking a stand early on to prevent the leveling-to-dust of Gaza that we are all seeing in the news. Also, my friends on the left blame Biden for not doing more legislatively early in his term. Reasonable or not, they blame him, due to his lack of forceful use of the bully pulpit and social media, etc., for not getting the original Build Back Better Act through Congress in 2021. That original legislation had a wish-list of progressive priorities in it, and even though Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) was central to killing it, Biden gets the blame. He is president after all. Can't he maneuver around a senator from West Virginia? Isn't that a huge part of a president's job, dealing with egos like Manchin's? There's a feeling that Biden blew it big time on that one.
On the right (or what used to be the center), especially in rural America, the resentment goes deep. Speaking from the perspective of a relatively liberal, rural state, but where the most rural areas are strongly supportive of Trump, I think Nicholas Jacobs' recent article in Politico gets it mostly right. The booming economy has not reached us. Essential costs are high (especially food and housing). Wages have not kept up. We are being priced out of living. If you have money and higher education, you can move from California to Vermont, buy a home for cheap, work via Internet for your tech company. If you have lived here all your life, those houses are not so cheap, you might even have lost your rented home to one of those Californians (a realtor acquaintance described Californians buying up Vermont real estate as "dripping with money" and paying cash for homes locals can't even afford to finance) and the employment opportunities are not so great.
Along with that, community is eroding and local government is subjected more and more to state and federal demands. There's a sense that generations of community cohesion is disintegrating, and yes there is xenophobia and general fear of change involved, but Biden and other urban Democrats don't seem to understand that what was once a vital community life is dying (or already dead) in rural America. Policy prescriptions do not address this (which is part, I think, of why Hilary Clinton failed so spectacularly—she had policy proposals in spades, and no demonstration of empathy). So, yes, the resentment is real. To put it as succinctly as I (one of your less articulate readers) can: Rural communities are falling apart for a host of reasons, going back decades, but Biden does not seem to get it. Trump does seem to (even if it's a lie). The only reason I can think of for why Barack Obama succeeded where Biden is failing is, as you note, COVID-19, which broke the back of community structures that had, prior to the pandemic, merely been stressed to capacity.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I just read that Donald Trump said it would be a great honor to be jailed for violating his gag order. Far be it from me to stand between a man and his dreams. Lock him up and throw away the key. I would bet in under 5 minutes, he'll be crying for his Mommy!
E.F. in Baltimore, MD , writes: If I were a plutocrat looking to buy influence with Donald Trump, there are far more cost-effective methods than inflating the value of his shares in DJT. For one thing, all holders would benefit, and Trump is notorious for hating when anyone else gets any of "his" money. Additionally, large stock holdings are necessarily a matter of public record at the SEC.
No, if a billionaire wanted to buy Trump's gratitude, it's so much simpler (and less public) to buy one of his properties at some inflated price, or sign a lease for a few empty floors in one of his buildings. Or buy a couple dozen memberships at Mar-a-Lago. We saw how his D.C. hotel was turned into an emolument mill during his administration.
A.E. in Chicago, IL, writes: As I was reading your site Friday, I glanced at my other open tabs... that have today's stock charts for a few stocks I've been following.
Three were heading upwards with the news on the employment numbers, one (DJT) continued its downward trend.
(V) & (Z) respond: The DJT stock closed Friday at $40.59, not that much above the $36.94 final price for DWAC and way below the $66.22 closing price on Mach 27.
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: In response to E.D. in Saddle Brook, you wrote, "Given Knight Insurance's shaky reputation, AG Letitia James and the New York appeals court have both asked for more evidence that Knight can make good on that promise, should it come to it."
New York AG Letitia James has already done that by filing a Notice of Exception to Surety in Justice Arthur Engoron's court. Basically, because Knight is not licensed in or regulated by New York State, she has a statutory right to make them and Donald Trump prove that they can make good on the bond. If they don't succeed, the bond is canceled, though undoubtedly Trump would immediately seek a stay and an appeal.
T.M.M. in Odessa, MO, writes: L.S.-H. in Naarden asked a question about the possibility of a second documents case against Trump.
While you are correct that it would be a different offense, that only addresses part of the double jeopardy question. Around 50 years ago, the Supreme Court faced a comparable case in Ashe v. Swenson. In that case, the defendant allegedly robbed a group of individuals. The prosecution only charged the robbery of one of the victims. After the defendant was acquitted of that robbery, the prosecution filed new charges based on a different victim. While this was a "new" offense, the Supreme Court found that in acquitting the defendant, the first jury necessarily found that the defendant was not the robber. As such, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution was "collaterally estopped" (a legal doctrine that usually applies to civil cases to forbid reopening factual issues resolved in a previous case—an example of which is the second Jean Carroll case in which the court accepted the finding of the first case that Trump had sexually assaulted Carroll and thus any statements by Trump that he did not sexually assault Carroll were false) from claiming that the defendant was the robber.
If the special prosecutor were to file new documents charges against Trump, there would at least be an argument from Trump that the first jury had determined that Trump's possession of government documents did not violate the Espionage Act and that new charges for other documents was not permitted.
(V) & (Z) respond: However, the question was predicated on the notion that the case never reaches a jury, and that Aileen Cannon kills it through judiciary trickery. In that case, there would be no findings of fact from the jury.
J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: Listening to E-V.com explain once again how the polls can't be trusted, and E.W. in Skaneatales chiming in with similar, I am reminded of 2012, when some Mitt Romney supporter came out with the assertion that there was a systematic skewing of the polls towards Barack Obama, and he had the magic formula to un-skew them, which predicted a Romney landslide. Do you remember that guy?
It's been over a decade and the ravages of age have left me unable to recall how that turned out. But I do hope that we aren't in for a repeat.
(V) & (Z) respond: We do remember Dean Chambers and Unskewed Polls. Note that we do not presume to "correct" the polls the way he did, merely to caution readers to take current polling with a few grains of salt. Also, Phillips had no real explanation for why the polls would be skewed, whereas we have put forward a couple of theoretical possibilities for 2024.
P.H. in Mayo, FL, writes: Seems to me that the political polling service industry has been on the decline in terms of forecasting for about two decades now.
I am sure you do have a handle on this, as the raison d'être for (V) starting this site in 2004 was as a poll watcher, and commentator! My own views are:
- Polls with less than 5,000 participants in a population of 330 million are useless. I've seen some polls with as little as 400 participants breathlessly headlined in tabloids.
- As Mark Twain is reported to have said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." To illustrate, I have more than the average number of legs—I have two.
- All national polls are irrelevant—hence the name of your website!
- Highly subjective polls are meaningless ("wrong direction, right direction"). May be good for retail marketing but has no place in the science of psephology. Polling booths are not shopping malls.
- Any poll that needs to be arithmetically "corrected" in the various ways polling companies do are no longer reliable, save for the margin of error caveat emptor that all statisticians employ.
- Like most other people these days, I do not answer calls from people whose numbers are not familiar, and when I get a random call on any of my cell phones, it goes to a call-screener recorded voice. I have had a landline for the last 20 years, and the ring been on silent mode all that time, and I have a few cell phones for work and family and friends.
- It may be that I am an exception: I have not been a consumer of free-to-air television broadcasting or pay-for-service "cable" since the last century.
- I would opine that the most accurate polls are entry and exit polls on the day of election. However, that does not sell press or media advertising in the months preceding.
- I do have satellite radio. I did a random survey of various political commentary channels—10 of them—tallying the number of times the word "Trump" was used in the five minutes of being tuned in. 50 minutes in total, over the course of about an hour. The average was 20. Channel 118 (MSNBC) was highest with 63. I was astonished. So, I did it again, with the same channels in another timeslot on a different day of the week—similar, but not quite the same, results.
A.S. in Black Mountain, NC, writes: I am in desperate need for my bubble to remain intact. It involves my belief that Americans are all-in on remaining a "democratic" country. You keep aiming arrows at it and Monday got in a glancing blow with your new map assessing the fluctuating Electoral College trends. Please stop promoting the truth. Thanks.
S.W. in Denver, CO, writes: I am not saying your map is incorrect. What I am saying is that it is horrific to think that a man with 88 criminal indictments has even a remote chance of becoming elected POTUS. It made me sick when I opened your website on Monday.
D.O. in Portland, OR, writes: You wrote that RFK Jr.'s running mate, Nicole Shanahan, "has never served in government in any form and has no qualification to be president should the need arise."
I think it's important to know that this is equally true of.. RFK Jr. Aside from almost-but-not-quite being an assistant district attorney once (he failed the bar exam after being sworn in, so he never actually got to do the job), RFK Jr. has never served in government and there's no reason to assume that he has any qualification to be president, should the need arise.
The media is treating him like he's an experienced-but-not-mainstream politician, in the mold of Ron Paul or a Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), but he's really just a noisy person who has no experience in office, like Vivek Ramaswamy or Marianne Williamson.
But unlike Williamson and Ramaswamy, RFK Jr. is also a convicted felon. Nobody seems to mention that.
K.B. in Manhattan, NY, writes: From an RFK Jr. fundraising e-mail:
K.B., imagine yourself not as merely a donor, but as a vanguard in a pivotal crusade for change. Your recurring monthly contribution of just $20 or more for the few months between today and November will place you at the heart of a global network poised to challenge the status quo with the ferocity of Don Quixote tilting at windmills." (emphasis added)Indeed.
P.R. in Somerville, MA, writes: You called RFK Jr. out on his asininery, and referred to him as an ignoramus.
There's a word for people like that: Ignoranus. Someone who is stupid and also an a**hole.
D.E. in Ashburn, VA, writes: The two reasons you suggest as possibilities for why No Labels and RFK Jr. did not hook up are that: (1) Junior's ego is too big to cede any control of his campaign and/or (2) No Labels was actually a Republican front that concluded that RFK Jr. would take more votes away from Trump. If you apply Occam's razor, it seems much more likely that No Labels viewed RFK Jr. as a total nut case and loser and preferred to ride off into the sunset rather than sully their legacy with a colossal failure. I say, kudos to them for finally (if belatedly) calling it quits.
A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: As soon as I heard the comments of Joe Cunningham, this song came immediately to mind. I think you will probably guess it even before you click the link...
S.C. in Mountain View, CA, writes: No Labels: No Candidate, No Platform, No Program, No Agenda(?), No Clue.
D.A. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: It's a predictable and by now tiresome little dance in the Electoral-Vote.com world (and presumably elsewhere). A reader who is a solid Democrat decries another reader who plans to vote Green or won't vote for Joe Biden because of [REASON]. They use specious arguments such as attributing every recent electoral defeat of establishment Democrats to the progressives who didn't fall into line, never mind the 101 other, more powerful reasons one can cite for these losses. Or they skip the attempt at reason and just go in for name calling.
I would offer these solid Democrats the following suggestions. First, decide once and for all whether your Democratic candidates really need the progressive vote or not. Because if we progressives are just a small irrelevant part of the picture, why go out of your way to insult us, why wring your hands over our votes, non-votes, contributions to Jill Stein, or Cornell West, or whomever? On the other hand, if we progressives are significant electorally, then recognize that insulting us and using arguments that we have all heard hundreds of times already ("lesser evil," "democracy requires compromise," "you were the reason for Bush and Trump") simply don't work.
So, what can you possibly do? I suggest that you work like hell to get your Democratic incumbents to take actions that we progressives will like. That's how democracy works—you know, satisfy constituencies, right? If we're an important constituency, then satisfy us. You solid Democrats are in the majority of the party! You can do this. Flood your Democratic president, your Democratic senators, your Democratic congresspeople with demands for ending military supplies for Israel, an immediate, unconditional cease-fire, and a resumption of aid to UNWRA. For example. Demand that they stop issuing fossil-fuel leases, demand a federal minimum wage of $18/hr, demand card-check.
You have the numbers. You can do these things. You can make Democratic politicians be more attractive to progressives. Maybe YOU don't like some of these things, but please remember: Politics is the art of compromise. You (and your favorite candidates) may have to compromise some of your centrist tenets to appeal to progressives.
Or, maybe you think that we progressives are too small in number. Maybe you're right. But in that case, stop whining about progressives not falling in line with your centrist, corporate, establishment candidates.
(V) & (Z) respond: If a big party has 49% of the vote and some faction has 2%, that faction has power far beyond its size. Think the soon-to-be U.S House with 217 Republicans, 213 Democrats, and a dozen or two Freedom Caucusers, as another example.
J.P. in Lancaster, PA, writes: Perhaps I didn't make myself clear in my letter a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps the Democrats won't be able to pull off the progress that A.T. in San Francisco desires or that I desire, but I am pretty sure that President Biden and the Democrats will do better than the Orange Horror and his pitiful party.
It's easy for progressives to call Joe Biden's performance mediocre and quote criticism from Sen. Jeff Merkeley (D-OR), who doesn't appear to have done much to help. Biden's performance may be middling, but he has pushed things in the right direction a little bit. Given the composition of the Senate and especially the House, it is a miracle he got anything at all. The unremitting demands of the far left may have prevented better compromises than have been obtained, and they are not that far removed from what the far-right Freedom Caucus has accomplished in paralyzing the House. As to the health plan that A.T. decries, it is better than nothing, and at least now, people who were initially against it now depend on it. This is the raw material for pushing it further in the desired direction, but that won't happen if the Senate and/or the House fall into Republican hands again, which is likely to happen if the Orange One wins.
I agree that things in Gaza have been bad and that Benjamin Netanyahu is a jerk. That is exactly what Hamas wanted. I'm pretty sure they knew exactly what would happen after October 7; they clearly didn't care what would happen to the people of Gaza, and Netanyahu played exactly into what they had planned. In a matter of days, any sympathy Israel may have garnered as a result of the attacks was gone. It would be nice if Biden had been able to stop Israel by cutting them off, but I'm not sure that would have happened. It is Donald Trump and many of the members of his party that are currently preventing further aid to Ukraine and they want the war in Gaza to continue, for a number of reasons. As for the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan, they were removed under the terms that had been agreed to in the Trump administration that the Biden administration was stuck with. In all three of these cases, the election of Trump and his legislative tools in November will make all of these situations worse than they currently are. As for coming back for more later, that won't happen if Trump and the Republicans win the White House and the Senate and House, respectively. In sum, A.T.'s definition of a win is ridiculous.
In short, if TFG gets into the White House again, you won't even be able to approach Biden's performance in the last 3 years. In fact, everything that he has accomplished, however slight, will be wiped away in practically no time, and past progress will be wiped out as well. What A.T. is proposing is one step forward and two steps back. Perhaps the math is too difficult, but I can assure you that under those circumstances, we will be even farther from A.T.'s goals and mine than we are now.
As to F.S. in Cologne, Bill Clinton did some things I may not agree with, but Al Gore would have done more for the environment in a positive direction, while George W. Bush clearly rolled environmental protections back. Some Democrats did vote for the Iraq War, perhaps because they were told lies about the weapons of mass destruction by George W., Dick Cheney, and, regrettably, Colin Powell. Their mistake was believing these individuals. I'm confused by the progressive opinions on Obamacare, A.T. thinks it's awful, but F.S. thinks it was worth the short-term pain of George W. Bush. F.S. also believes that the pain of 4 more years of Trump will result in the Democrats having the trifecta in 2029, which will allow them to expand the "Supreme" Court. Talk about a house of cards. I'm not sure I want to make that gamble. It's about as sure a bet as me becoming the President in 2028, when I will be 78.
S.W. in New York, NY, writes: In response to A.T. in San Francisco: While your passion and your goal of a better world are dearly appreciated, it seems you need an understanding in the art of compromise which is essential in managing society. And compromise is difficult: even two people in a marriage must compromise; try doing it with 350 million people. Yes, we would love many improvements in strengthening legislation but improvement is made in increments. And let's face it, even with its flaws, Obamacare has been a life-saver for millions of people. Student debt relief, even for those not eligible for relief, is still a relief to thousands who had these loans. Yes, our environmental laws could/should be better but at least they show that we're making improvements. The Family Medical Leave laws may not be necessary in your life, but it has been a lifesaver to thousands who have needed to take leave from their jobs to care for sick family members.
We must also look beyond laws—we must look at the administration of enforcement of policies. For example, if a worker files a complaint against a company with the U.S. Department of Labor, a better outcome would be possible under a Democratic administration (pro-worker) than a Republican administration (pro business/corporate). For an example, the enforcement of laws (labor union rights, wage and hour, safety and health, equal opportunity, pension rights, etc.) is a major difference in how each party governs. This is duplicated in all departments of the government (education, commerce, justice, etc.). And don't forget the judicial branch of government, with enlightened Democratic appointees added to the benches.
Please don't give up on seeking a better America and a better world, but please understand how difficult it is to govern. And also, please note, that things are a lot better in most regards from 50 years ago: advances for women and people of color, abortion rights (until the Republicans took over the Supreme Court), gay and lesbian rights/marriage—we're talking millions and millions of people in these categories—and the credit for these improvements rest solely with Democratic administrations.
P.M. in Innsbruck, Austria, writes: I know the Atlantic Ocean is deep, and all the "flyover" states make San Francsico even more far, far away from Europe. So A.T. in San Francisco may be right in not caring about an imperialistic invasion. They even may be right with their claim that the (bit of) support of Biden and the U.S. for Ukraine has prolonged the current* war (by helping victims to defend themselves). But they are absolutely wrong thinking that the surrender of Kyiv would end the suffering. Take a look at the occupied, stolen provinces in Eastern Ukraine. Massacres, imprisionments, political and cultural oppression, activists for various causes disappearing, being silenced, being murdered. They are also wrong that the fall of Kyiv would help any progressive cause worldwide. Take a look at Ruzzia (and their friends Iran, North Korea, China)—any freedom, any progress one might care about, whether it's worker's or women's or queers' or animals' rights, is under enormous pressure from the Putin regime (which, in its own words, wants to clean the world from Western values).
If you need an easy exercise to see the nature of current Ruzzia, look at their friends in the West, from Donald Trump to Viktor Orbán to Tucker Carlson. You really want to throw another 45 million under the control of a regime these guys dream about?
(* - And here comes the current: the Ukraine War won't end with the end of U.S. support; en contraire, it would spread—Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Estonia. Bullies don't stop when their victims are down, and neither will the bulliest of them all: former agent and present dictator V. Putin.)
S.J.Z. in Darien, IL, writes: I've seen a lot of interesting ideas on your website, but A.T. in San Francisco's hysterical claim that Jeff Merkeley is "center-left" has got to be the biggest howler you have ever published. Merkeley endorsed Bernie Sanders for President, whose platform included Medicare for All. The mind reels at what Soviet worker's council one would have to join to be granted the status of moderately liberal by A.T.
I guess the argument here is that the U.S. is the most right-wing country in the world, and therefore a progressive like Merkeley is a centrist on the "real" political spectrum. However inconveniently, countries like Afghanistan and Iran do exist. Therefore, the U.S. is not the most right-wing country in the world, and calling Merkeley a centrist is patently loony.
This habitual dishonesty doesn't succeed in moving the Overton Window, and it actually hurts the cause of leftism because when you insist on saying things that are patently false, it makes everyone thinks that you have lost your mind (and are they wrong?). Succeeding in electoral politics (as opposed to violent revolution) means getting people on your side, not alienating potential allies in order to bask in your own moral superiority.
J.W. in Newton, MA, writes: A.T. in San Francisco makes the case of the uncompromising lefty so stridently that I find myself wondering if they are an alt-right troll. I'll assume that they are sincere, based on the evidence that a right-wing nut would casually relegate the Ukrainians to Putin's control with sincerity rather than irony.
Although I can appreciate A.T.'s frustration with the Democratic Party, and share it to a degree, our California friend is ignoring several critical points. First, our country is specifically designed to move at a glacial pace. The Senate and Electoral College ensure the overrepresentation of rural folk, who tend to be more conservative. Even having the federal trifecta does not move the country rapidly, given the power of the Supreme Court. Second, Americans are a center-right people. Even Black Americans, the most constant Democrats of all, are largely centrists. A Democrat from Montana or Georgia is unlikely and unable to be part of A.D.'s revolution. Third, we're constrained by the immense power of the ultra-rich. This is tragic and unfair, but I'd certainly rather fight them by Constitutional means than have a violent revolution and ensuing gangster-led government.
Most importantly, Trumpism is a true fascist movement. Their goal is to use any means necessary to assume authoritarian control over us. Once that happens, they will not relinquish power without violence. Living in California and Massachusetts, A.T. and I have the luxury of a protest vote, but it is beyond foolish to (in effect) support a fascist Christian nationalist party over a centrist party, and simply hateful to look forward to the hoped-for misery of the large majority of the American voters.
R.T. in Arlington, TX, writes: Wow. I've been challenged to absorb the intensity of the commentary lately, on more than one subject. Honestly, I'm a little scared of what will come of it. I see the anti-Biden/Democrat commentators on the left falling into the same intellectual rabbit holes that those on the right do. Casting blame based on one or two actions while ignoring the broader picture/longer history? Treating a single action as an unforgivable sin? Cherry-picking your issue of interest while ignoring all others? Letting perfect be the enemy of good? I'm just not wired that way. The world is complex and messy, and to quote the Stones, "You Can't Always Get What You Want." In my experience, a positive attitude may not always produce positive results, but a negative attitude almost always produces negative results. Peace out.
S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: It's a little late to the party, but I spotted this today and thought it sat satisfyingly at the intersection of the recent topics of political bumper stickers and use of asterisks:
J.L. in Colorado Springs, CO, writes: I saw this bumper sticker a while back and think it sums up the Second Amendment debate quite nicely.
B.M. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: I am also a resident of PA-12 and would like to add to your analysis. I am not a big fan of Summer Lee—she's a bit too progressive for my tastes and something of a bomb thrower—but will vote for her in the primary. Pennsylvania will be critical and likely very close in both the presidential and U.S. Senate elections, where Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) is going for a fourth term. Having Lee on the general election ballot should help to increase Black turnout and help the top of the Democratic ticket, where those votes may absolutely be needed for Joe Biden and Casey to win the state.
By contrast, Bhavini Patel brings no obvious constituency with her to increase Democratic turnout (the Indian-American population here is quite small compared to the Black population), and I believe her primary funder (Jeff Yass) is a turnoff to many voters—he arguably got rich gaming the financial markets. I believe this situation is similar to your analysis of the Maryland Democratic Senate primary.
N.S. in Richmond, VA, writes: You wrote that Rep. Bob Good (R-VA) is being primaried by "Sen. John McGuire (R), who is somewhat more moderate." Obviously, that's in the eye of the beholder, but as a Virginian I would not agree with that.
In 2020, Good primaried Denver Riggleman, a more libertarian-y Republican, from the right, because Riggleman officiated the same-sex wedding of one of his aides (yes, that's the reason). Good won, and then Riggleman went to work for the January 6 Commission. Good is very right-wing, but his sin was endorsing Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) for president. McGuire, then a state delegate who actually stormed the Capitol grounds on January 6 (but didn't go inside, so was never charged) saw an opening, and has been holding Donald Trump closer than the flag. Last year, he ran for a promotion to the state senate and everyone knew he would immediately run against Good for Congress, which he did. Good made some enemies for ousting Kevin McCarthy, which, as you say, got McGuire a lot of institutional support as the obvious challenger. But locally this is all about lack of fealty to Trump.
McGuire has spent his entire 60-day term as senator campaigning from the right. He gave as many floor speeches as possible against any bill that even remotely could be perceived as anti-hard-right (which, you could tell, annoyed a lot of fellow Republicans), so much so that he was the lone "no" vote on bills more times than all other state senators combined (voting against otherwise unanimous bills such as ones allowing schools to teach about menstruation, creating a task force to recommend schools serve locally-grown food, and banning children from getting married; the full list is at this link). His voting record is absolutely extreme, and a progressive group ranked him as the least progressive legislator in the general assembly. He also missed some votes during his first week on the job to go campaign for Trump in Iowa, annoying the vice chair of his GOP district committee among many others (who, to be fair, are Good supporters). And he's an election denier (still) who was there on January 6, encouraging the assault on the House whose former speaker is now helping him. Riggleman, and lots of locals, say McGuire is coming at Good from the right, and might be more dangerous.
I'm not plugged into internal GOP politics in that district, but this race is not one you can put on a right/more-right spectrum. It's about Trump, and also McCarthy, but it's a mostly rural district and weird things could happen. Good has raised more money and has slightly more cash on hand, and we'll learn more April 15 with the FEC filings. And another important thing is that barring a last minute change, as the filing deadline is April 4, there will be no Democratic primary except maybe at the local level in a few counties, and Virginia has no party registration, so you could see a fair number of Democrats voting in the Republican primary. For two far-right candidates, this is going to be decided on fealty to Trump, personality and turnout.
T.S. in Cape Cod, MA, writes: In your item "Florida is Now in Play," I would like to take issue with your statement that "young people will turn out to support marijuana legalization..."
I live in an area where tourists come to vacation in the summer and whose full-time residents skew much older than the state median. Lots of people retire here. I attended a town meeting a few years ago where a vote would be taken on whether to allow recreational marijuana stores in town (it is already legal in Massachusetts, but each town could decide to allow stores to open locally). Attendance was record high. The auditorium was filled with oldsters. I thought to myself that for sure this proposal was going to be soundly defeated.
Lo and behold, it passed with a large majority. It turns out that older people smoke pot, too. Maybe because they used it when they were teenagers or young adults (we're talking Baby Boomers here), or maybe because it helps with their aches and pains. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if both young and old come out to vote for legalization of marijuana in Florida.
R.H. in London, England, UK, writes: Your maxim that "As goes Wimbledon, so goes Sutton and Cheam" is fairly accurate, but S.T.'s surprise that Labour would win Wimbledon but not S&C is misplaced.
Wimbledon has almost always been Conservative, with only brief Labour spells from 1945-50 and 1997-2005, while Sutton has also largely been Conservative with a Liberal period between 1972-74 and a Liberal Democrat one from 1997-2015. The Lib Dems have always had a strong local council base, and that has translated to a good performance in general elections—they've finished either first or second since 1972. That's not been the case in Wimbledon, where Labour have usually finished second when they didn't win. That did change in 2019, when the Lib Dems came in second, but the seat is still pretty much a three-way marginal. In the event of a nationwide Labour surge, it's likely they'd be able to take Wimbledon but that Sutton would go to the Lib Dems, so on that one seat, the poll that was the source of argument is probably correct.
On the merits of the poll and its predictions in general, I think it's pretty much guesswork, albeit with some good bases for the guesses. It's trying to predict 650 seats (well, 632, since it doesn't seem to cover Northern Ireland). Since the last election the boundaries of those seats have changed, sometimes significantly, the Conservative vote has halved, another party is polling at over 10%, and 96 MPs are retiring. Add in the problems that the SNP have been having, but a continued 50-50-ish split for Independence in Scotland, and you can talk about multi-level regression and post-stratification all you like, but it's still an educated guess.
The problem is that for this election, traditional models look to be broken. Since 1992, the state of the parties has been largely the same. Yes, Labour had a surge in 97 and the Lib Dems were hammered in 2015, but it's all been within the margins of expectation. If—and it's a big if—the current polls are repeated at the actual election, those models no longer hold up. Trying to predict individual seats becomes almost impossible.
D.M. in McLean, VA, writes: A big thanks to S.T. in Worcestershire and A.B. in Lichfield for their answers to my question regarding the U.K. rejoining the E.U. It was definitely not what I was expecting to hear (or at least it was not the reasoning I expected) and goes to show how local knowledge is key. My thoughts on the subject were clouded by the U.S. system of bare-knuckle, winner-take-all politics where an issue is likely to be readdressed as soon as the balance of power shifts.
S.E.Z. in New Haven, CT, writes: You wrote: "But as King Canute supposedly demonstrated, that is easier said than done."
After a cursory look at a few internet sources, it looks to me like the Canute story can be told in two ways. Certainly one way is that the king was foolish enough to believe that he could control the tides. But some formidable sources send the reverse message. They say that Canute was tired of his advisors saying how powerful and unstoppable Canute was, and he commanded the tides to halt to show them that the creator of the universe (what some people today call the laws of physics and chemistry) is the ultimate controller of the universe, and that all people (including our so-called kings) must recognize their mortality. Brashness, while sometimes entertaining, unnecessarily endangers those who indulge in it.
Humility is a valuable character trait. Sycophancy comforts insecure people, but empowers some of our potential leaders to behave in ways dangerous to our country and world.
B.C. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: I object! Someone mischaracterizing King Canute as believing he actually could stop the tide compels me to quote the immortal Vinny Gambini: "Everything that guy just said is bulls**t." Unlike today's hypocritical Republicans, Canute deferred to the power of the Almighty, and his actions were a rebuke of his fawning sycophants who apparently believed he had supernatural powers.
If I were to build a mythical analogy for Republican politicians, I would describe them as the offspring of an IVF procedure using an egg and sperm from Hybris and Narcissus, respectively.
P.M. in Reading, England, UK, writes: I'm a member of the Great War Society in the U.K., and there has recently been discussion of Barbara Tuchman's book The Guns of August (which covers the first month or so of World War I in the West). The general consensus was it's worth reading, but there has been a lot of new research done in the subsequent 50 years. I imagine the same applies to A Distant Mirror.
M.G. in Newtown, PA, writes: Daniel Quinn's "After Dachau" takes place in a far future where the Nazis won—and everyone left is white—and there are a few pages in the book where a history lesson like the one you describe is imparted... by schoolchildren reciting it back to an adult.
R.M. in Pensacola, FL, writes: I wanted to comment on your response to G.E. in Boyds regarding the leniency given to those involved with the Beer Hall Putsch 100 years ago.
I agree that German leaders then were basically scared to hold Adolf Hitler and friends accountable, much like leaders today have basically been unwilling to hold Trump and (some) friends to account today.
However, I'd like to take it a step further and note that while Hitler was only 35 at that time, Donald Trump is currently 77. While it is not known when Father Time will be coming for him, Trump could be just a few Big Macs away from him knocking on the door.
My bigger concern is that someone who is much younger than Trump, say someone who is in their 30s or 40s, who has watched what Trump has done for the last decade, and with minimal pushback, finds a way to pick up his torch when Trump finally ends up 6-feet-under the 18th green at Bedminster.
Should Trump lose in November, that is what my concern immediately turns towards.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, writes: Regarding the question of G.E. in Boyds about the Beer Hall Putsch, I want to add that the Law for the Protection of the Republic would have required Hitler's deportation to Austria as a foreigner convicted of high treason. Unfortunately, this provision wasn't enforced.
R.R. in Pasadena, CA, writes: You answered the question from C.P. in Fairport with: "Similarly, the Air Force and Space Force may work in the air/in space, but they are still based on land. In particular, the Air Force began life as the U.S. Army Air Corps, and was only spun off as its own branch in the second half of World War II."
The U.S. Air Force was not created in the second half of World War II, it was created in 1947. The idea of a separate air force was in existence about as long as the military had planes, with lots of campaigning to make it so happening between the two wars (most notably by Hap Arnold and Billy Mitchell). In many ways, the Air Corps operated separately from the Army during World War II, but they still were part of the Army... fortunately, the generals used the Air Corps well and won the war, which paved the way for a separate service. It also helped that the end of the war drew down the Army to a far smaller service, but the Air Force kept a lot of its strength as it was going to be necessary to confront growing Russian belligerence.
(V) & (Z) respond: Yes. We were thinking of 1944 as the year that Arnold was converted from General of the Army to General of the Air Force, which would necessarily make that the year the Air Force was split off. In fact, 1944 was the year he was converted to General of the Army, with the conversion happening 3 years later.
T.H.W. in Marlboro, VT, writes: With respect to your answer to O.Z.H in Dubai about grading standards and a curve, my experience (47 years of teaching in a small liberal arts college) suggests that the definitions of what the grades mean can have a clarifying effect. We said that an A was an unqualified recommendation for further work in the field, a B a qualified recommendation, a C was acceptable work, but not a recommendation to continue in the field, a D barely passing (so credit for the course, but a suggestion to try something else), and an F a failure, almost always by someone who simply didn't make a serious effort. There are several implications: If you have a particularly strong class, it is only fair to grant a majority of high grades; an A paper in an introductory class might be a B paper in a more advanced class; an advanced student taking an introductory class for the material might be held to a higher standard than the freshman in the same class. In such a system, of course extraordinary effort weighs in assessing the recommendation for further work.
Defining grades in terms of a curve or percentages of a class pretty much by definition relies on very large class sizes so that the population of any given class has a likelihood of a statistical variation corresponding to the curve. Smaller classes and seminars almost never correspond to such models, especially if access to them is already selective on the basis of performance in previous classes.
D.N. in Elgin, IL, writes: I was a physics minor in college in the 1960s. One of the required courses for majors and minors was Electricity and Magnetism. The professor I had was new to the Physics department, having transferred from the Philosophy department. His tests were much more theoretical than the textbook, and his lectures were difficult to follow. Many of us struggled, but I struggled more than some. At the end of the class, the professor told me that technically I had failed the course, but that he was giving me a D because he could tell I was trying. It was the only D I received in college, and I remain grateful. (Since it was a required course, he also probably didn't want to see me for a repeat semester.) Fortunately, in my post-college career I have never been called upon to do any calculations involving a point charge in space.
L.V.A. in Idaho Falls, ID, writes: Your recent discussion of your experience as professors prompted me to add my 2 cents.
I have taught or taken various undergraduate/graduate level courses in physics and computer science over the years. At all levels there was a common attitude among professors (with which I disagreed) that "They just don't make students the way they used to. When I was a student..." This is a rather condescending preconception difficult to overcome.
In a graduate level quantum mechanics course I took, some months prior to the course, I asked the professor which textbook he planned to use. He stated that he had an undergraduate textbook picked out because "The students can't handle a higher level one." I was adamant that no matter what textbook he uses, there will always be a portion of students who excel, and a portion of students who struggle, with most doing fine, so going tougher is usually better. He chose the undergraduate level textbook. When the course commenced I and others (ten students in the class) had difficulty correlating the lecture/assignments with the textbook material. When we all, unbeknownst to the Professor, began ignoring his assigned textbook and began following a more advanced graduate level textbook, we all did much better. I relate this anecdote to illustrate that both professor and student expectations for a course can be vital to the "success" of the course. As a side note: The Professor in question eventually quit (while fully tenured) and spent most of his time in the Grand Canyon.
D.J.M. in Salmon Arm, BC, Canada, writes: I would like to point out that Kevin O'Leary's foray into American politics is not part of a Canadian invasion. We would genuinely like it if you kept him.
(V) & (Z) respond: No dice. Americans bought over 100 million Celine Dion records; we've already done our part to keep the amount of annoyingness in Canada below toxic levels.
G.W. in Avon, CT, writes: S.T. in Philadelphia took you to task for using a woman's full name saying, "last I checked, Ronna McDaniel does not go by a compound last name."
Clearly, S.T. hasn't checked very hard.
B.J.L. in Ann Arbor, MI, writes: Heartfelt shoutout to J.B. in Pinckney. It was like we both raised virtual glasses to a bygone time through your site. Thanks for including Larry's details; it was shocking to find a recipient among your readership—consider the Venn diagram of overlap of families linked with his local program separated by 20 years and Electoral-Vote.com. I was glad Larry served as a useful example of a more general unsung hero and what a great end story to follow-up with. Kudos!
E.H. in South Burlington, VT, writes: I want to acknowledge and thank M.G. in Boulder, who suggested the topic of "Unsung Heroes" last weekend, and then posted a nominee: John Gilbert Winant. It led me down a rabbit hole of research about this extraordinary man—and I am so grateful to have learned about him.
Reading Winant's epitaph on his gravestone, which was taken from his own writings, it made me think that maybe if we act with the character he delineates, we might all be "unsung heroes":
Doing the day's work day by day, doing a little, adding a little, broadening our bases wanting not only for ourselves but for others also, a fairer chance for all people everywhere. Forever moving forward, always remembering that it is the things of the spirit that in the end prevail. That caring counts and that where there is no vision the people perish. That hope and faith count and that without charity, there can be nothing good. That having dared to live dangerously, and in believing in the inherent goodness of man, we can stride forward into the unknown with growing confidence.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.