Dem
47
GOP
53
Last week, for the headline game, we wondered if we should use a bookkeeper. This week, we wondered if we should use judges.
K.I. in Sacramento, CA, asks: Has any other president of the U.S. ever fired the Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner, or is Trump the first to have done that?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is yet another way in which Trump is a trailblazer. There are no other known instances of this happening.
That does come with the caveat that sometimes, particularly in politics, a person is given the opportunity to resign "voluntarily" to avoid the ignominy of a termination. We really only mention that for the sake of being thorough, however. It is unlikely that caveat is germane here, because historically the position was regarded as non-political, and was filled by a series of highly qualified technocrats.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: When you wrote about Donald Trump's latest "Trade Deal" with South Korea, you mentioned an agreement to purchase $100 billion in liquified natural gas (LNG). I couldn't help but remember that when you were discussing Trump's "Trade Deal" with the European Union, that $650 billion in LNG purchases were also in that deal as well. (See, we are paying attention in class!) To quote, "Well, even if the U.S. could produce that much LNG, and even if Europe could purchase that much, E.U. nations don't have the necessary infrastructure to store and distribute LNG at that scale."
Am I safe to assume the same holds for South Korea? And this causes me to wonder: Why does Trump have this new found obsession about LNG? I know there's a natural affinity for hot, incendiary gas but there has to be more to the story. Since Trump is always going to be grifting, do we know who is greasing his greasy hands? What's the point of over promising, or is this just his usual conman/salesman pitter patter of always over, over inflating?(V) & (Z) answer: It's not entirely clear why Trump has become so gung-ho about LNG, but among the likely factors are: (1) The Biden administation halted LNG permits, and Trump always does the opposite of Biden, when he can; (2) Conventional oil is a mature industry, whereas LNG is young, and so Trump may think there is more potential for him to put his "stamp" on it; (3) Much of the LNG in Europe comes from Russia, and so the supply has been currently cut off, and (4) There is much lobbying for LNG investment, both from private lobbyists, but also from LNG-producing-state senators, like Dan Sullivan (R-AK).
There are definitely problems with both Asia and Europe as markets for American LNG. It is indeed the case that, in both places, the infrastructure isn't there yet. Further, even if the infrastructure could be completed on a very expedited timeline (it can't), the leaders of those nations are leery of investing too much right now. It is very possible that LNG, which presents numerous challenges as a fuel source, is headed to the same place coal is at, namely "not a cost-efficient alternative." South Korea, for example, has recently backed off of four planned LNG projects. For that matter, numerous American LNG projects are also sitting in dry dock right now, for much the same reason.
Another problem with making committments to American LNG is that Russian LNG is cheaper, because the transport costs are much less. Leaders in both Europe and Asia believe that one day soon (certainly, sooner than large-scale LNG storage facilities can be built), the Russian pipeline will be open again. In fact, they believe it could literally be ANY day, given Trump's mercurial nature, and his willingness to make hasty "trade deals" and "peace deals."
A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: Do you think there's more than a slim chance that Trump would try to start a nuclear exchange if it was certain he was going to be convicted as a child rapist?
(V) & (Z) answer: You were smart to write "try to start." Because if he did order a strike under such circumstances, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs would say: "Uh, no."
That said, we don't think he'd try to start a nuclear war. Trump is clearly a narcissist. And narcissists rarely commit suicide, because they cannot imagine a world without them in it. Along those same lines, Trump would not take steps that could very easily result in his own death.
F.F. in Royal Oak, MI, asks: I don't understand why Donald Trump's followers are upset that he might have been involved in coerced sex with girls under 18. Why do they mind; Aren't they into that? Sure seems like they are. They obviously want to restore women to their traditional place as temporarily useful flesh vessels with few rights, whose deaths don't matter. ('Scuse my bitterness!) Why aren't they saying "yeah, you go, guy"?
(V) & (Z) answer: Quite a few Trump followers are stuck in a sexual mindset characteristic of the 1950s: (1) Women exist as sexual vessels for men; (2) While marriage is expected for men, "boys will be boys," and so wives must tolerate extramarital dalliances; (3) However, men can pursue ONLY adult women. Other men, along with anyone who is underage, are verboten.
Keep in mind, for example, what happened with Roy Moore in Alabama, when it came to light that he had pursued teenagers while he was an adult. The red, red voters of the Yellowhammer state were so purple with rage they actually elected a member of the blue team, Doug Jones, to the Senate.
That said, the thing the MAGA crowd is upset about right now is not Trump's sexual history. It's that he promised to blow the lid off the deep state, and he's backtracking on that promise.
S.S. in Lucerne, Switzerland, asks: Is it at all possible that Jeffrey Epstein's sweetheart plea deal might protect Donald Trump, if Trump can show he's a co-conspirator? Not that I can imagine his pride allowing it...
(V) & (Z) answer: It certainly could, if the courts uphold Ghislaine Maxwell's interpretation of the agreement. However, that would protect Trump only from a criminal indictment, not an impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.
B.H. in Greenbelt, MD, asks: You mentioned one possible outcome in the Epsteinpot Dome situation is that Ghislaine Maxwell might spill the beans in exchange for a signed pardon from Donald Trump postdated January 20, 2029. It seems to me that making a deal involving such a pardon is a bad idea. What happens if Trump dies, or is removed from office some other way, before the effective date of the pardon?
(V) & (Z) answer: Because the fellows who wrote the Constitution did not expect the pardon power to be used as a bargaining chip in this way, and because the other 44 men who served as president honored that expectation, these kinds of questions are not addressed in the Constitution, and largely have not been addressed by the courts.
The issue you raise is just one gray area. Another is: If a pardon can be post-dated like this, can it also be withdrawn before that date arrives? The Supreme Court has already made clear that pardons cannot be revoked, because you don't want, say, someone like Donald Trump going back and overturning pardons granted by Joe Biden. However, that case dealt with pardons that had already been conferred, not "future" pardons.
There are other issues that Maxwell needs to be wary about. For example, let's imagine she gives Trump what he wants in 2025, in exchange for a pardon that takes effect in 2027 or 2029. How can she be confident that, at some point before the pardon "vests," she doesn't end up in a hellhole prison in Central America, so as to "eliminate" her as a problem? This administration already does that, and there's no particular reason to think she would be off-limits.
D.D. in Hollywood, FL, asks: What is so illegal with pro-Palestinian protests, and how is it that Donald Trump has been able to cause so many universities to give up their moral compasses and their values and capitulate to him?
(V) & (Z) answer: There is nothing illegal about the pro-Palestinian protests. Trump's use of the phrase "illegal protests" is nonsensical propaganda.
An assembly can become illegal, if law enforcement deems that assembly to be a threat to public order. However, that applies to all assemblies, not just protests. It is also the case that some people at the various protests committed illegal acts, often assault. But it's the assault that's illegal, not the protest.
D.P. in Oakland, CA, asks: Why is Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) against a ban on congressional stock trading?
(V) & (Z) answer: We do not discount the possibility that she is motivated by her own self-interest, inasmuch as she and her husband have done very well in the stock market over the past 40 years.
That said, it's entirely possible that her opposition is based on principle, and not on self-interest. To start, consider West Point and other schools where there is no test proctoring, and students are on the honor system. The leadership of those schools does not fool itself that ZERO cheating takes place. But they have decided that when students are asked to honor the spirit of fair behavior, most of them will self-police very effectively. If these schools instituted proctors or rules or other measures, they would not only put things on an adversarial basis, but would also invite students to think along the lines of "What can I do that is within the letter of the law, even if it violates its spirit?" In short, the leadership has concluded that the amount of problematic behavior that occurs under the honor system is less than the amount that would occur under a system with strict rules and policing.
Currently, Congress is (largely) on the honor system, and the vast majority of members fly straight. Pelosi might well take the view that if you abandon that, you could lose more than you gain. She also knows there are significant problems with enforcement, since the job of overseeing members' blind trusts would fall to the Oversight Committee, which basically never disciplines any member, ever. There would also be some issues with fairness. For example, can Congress stop members' spouses (like, say, Paul Pelosi) from stock trading? Probably not, and if so, then the rules would discriminate against unmarried members. Another observation she has made publicly is that any such legislation should be extended to the employees executive branch, and not limited to just the members of Congress.
All of this said, whatever Pelosi's concerns were, she has come out in favor of the act that bars stock trading by members of Congress (and most members of the executive branch) and that is currently being considered in the Senate.
G.M. in Boston, MA, asks: I was intrigued by your statement about Emil Bove, that he was "as ethically compromised as any judicial nominee since, perhaps, Abe Fortas."
That made me go read the Wikipedia article about Justice Fortas, who indeed seems to have had some ethical challenges. The Wikipedia article notes, however that: (1) Justice William Douglas had similar challenges, having also received payment from a wealthy private individual while sitting on the Court, for reasons unclear and mysterious; and (2) the American Bar Association subsequently altered their guidelines for sitting judges about accepting outside income -- suggesting that perhaps Justice Fortas wasn't exactly coloring outside the lines, as they existed at the time (I say that not to excuse him but to remind us all of the larger context in which this happened). I also can't help but compare these shenanigans to the misdeeds Justice Clarence Thomas.
It's easy to wish a plague on all their houses, but can you instead please say more about why you think Fortas was more ethically compromised than Thomas? Bonus points if you can also shed some light on the general trend in ethics standards as applied to Supreme Court Justices.(V) & (Z) answer: Many justices have had sources of income that were at least semi-shady. What sets Fortas and Bove apart is that, in addition to their finances, they both live/lived in the pockets of the president who appointed them. Fortas was a very close friend and staunch supporter of Lyndon B. Johnson, to the point that Fortas sometimes wrote Johnson's speeches for him. And Bove, of course, is so far up Trump's rear that it's not necessary to perform colonoscopies on the President; all they have to so is say, "How's it lookin' back there, Emil?" Clarence Thomas did not have that sort of relationship with George H.W. Bush.
Oh, and the Supreme Court has always been hit and miss when it comes to ethics. They have lifetime appointments, and are basically impossible to remove. So, they are basically 100% on their honor, with little oversight, beyond perhaps a little peer pressure from the other justices. Some current justices take advantage, just like some past justices did.
D.H. in Boston, MA, asks: OK, I'll bite. Who were the top ten "most godawful judicial nominee[s] in the last century" nominated by the Georges Bush and Trump?
(V) & (Z) answer: Here are some of the worst (based solely on the circumstances in place at the point of their confirmation, and not based on post hoc assessments of their work as jurists after being confirmed to their posts):
- Clarence Thomas: When Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court by George H.W. Bush, he not only had a track record of questionable decisions, he was also clearly guilty of sexual harassment (or worse).
- Brett Kavanaugh: Undoubtedly, readers recall the circumstances of his nomination to the Supreme Court by Donald Trump. Like Thomas, he is also very likely guilty of sexual misconduct (very possibly rape or other sexual assault), and there are also other questions about him (for example, his magically improved finances) that did not get answered when Senate Republicans rammed his nomination through.
- Justin R. Walker: Appointed by Donald Trump at the age of 37, he clerked for Kavanaugh and also for Anthony Kennedy, practiced law for a couple of years, and taught legal writing at the University of Louisville for a couple more years. He had no judicial experience, and little courtroom experience, and was tapped primarily because he did well over 100 interviews defending his old boss (Kavanaugh) during those confirmation hearings.
- Samuel Kent: Appointed by George H.W. Bush, there were many whispers that he had been inappropriate with female staffers during his time as a private-practice attorney. It would seem the whispers were on the mark, because he eventually had to resign his judgeship, and he ended up doing almost 3 years in prison for lying to investigators about his abuse of two women employees.
- Sarah Pitlyk: Appointed by Trump, she had never tried a single case, even as a lawyer. Her career was dedicated primarily to working on anti-choice litigation.
- Roger Benitez: Appointed by George W. Bush, he had the résumé to be a judge, but not the temperament. The ABA's investigator testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that "Interviewees repeatedly told me that Judge Benitez displays inappropriate judicial temperament with lawyers, litigants, and judicial colleagues; that all too frequently, while on the bench, Judge Benitez is arrogant, pompous, condescending, impatient, short-tempered, rude, insulting, bullying, unnecessarily mean, and altogether lacking in people skills."
- L. Steven Grasz: Grasz also came to the job with a problematic temperament, and with a long history of unethical behavior as Chief Deputy Attorney General of Nebraska. Nominated by Trump to the federal bench, Grasz is the only person in the last half-century to receive a unanimous vote of "not qualified" from the ABA's 11-person vetting panel, and to nonetheless be confirmed to a federal judgeship.
That's only seven because we did not mean to suggest that ALL of the worst judges of the last century came from these three presidents, just a disproportionate share. If you want a misstep by a Democrat, Thomas Porteous had some history of shady financial maneuvering when Bill Clinton nominated him to the federal bench in 1994. The Judge lasted 16 years, but eventually his bad behavior caught up with him, and he was impeached and removed.
J.H. in Flint, MI, asks: It seems to me like there's a lot of attention (at least from news sources) being paid to President Trump's approval rating. Why? He doesn't need public approval to exercise the powers of his office. He can't be elected to the presidency again, so he has no reason to care about public opinion. His ability to influence down-ballot races with endorsements is questionable at best. So why does his approval rating matter?
(V) & (Z) answer: First, because the weaker he gets in terms of public support, the more possibility of Republicans in Congress rebelling against him (as is happening right now with the Epstein scandal, to take one example).
Second, at this point in the cycle, Trump's approval is the single best predictor we have for how the next 18 months' worth of elections will go, including this year's gubernatorial elections, and next year's gubernatorial and congressional elections.
M.S. in New York City, NY, asks: The California electoral map you published had me noticing that large inland districts (e g. CA-01, CA-03, CA-05, CA-23) are heavily Republican while their western neighboring districts, which Jon Stewart labeled "people with boats" (e g. CA-02, CA-04, CA-19, CA-24) are just as heavily Democratic. This is taken for granted, but I can't easily explain why to my teenager.
From a statistician's perspective, and a Californian's, what generalities about people and geography can you share which lead to these outcomes?
And on a more inside note, can you explain why, on the Mexican border, inland CA-25 is D+3 while its Western neighbor, Issa's CA-48, is 10 points redder at R+7?(V) & (Z) answer: The vast majority of the people in California, including most of the educated people, and most of the non-white people, live in the coastal regions. That is why they are blue.
Inland California is very much dominated by middle- to working-class white people, many of whom moved inland for blue-collar jobs (particularly in agriculture or extractive industries), or for much cheaper housing, or both. The population of educated people is smaller, and the population of certain minority groups is much smaller. In particular, a place like Bakersfield or Barstow has very few Black people and very few Jews. Those are key Democratic constituencies, of course.
CA-25 covers an area that is heavily agricultural, and that has a lot of Latino immigrants, who came there for jobs as pickers, packers, etc. CA-48 is a wealthier and much more urbanized area, and has a lot of well-off white people descended from long-time Republican families (that part of California was predominantly Republican for a very long time, long after Los Angeles and San Francisco flipped to blue). In addition, CA-48 is home to a lot of military.
G.B.M. in Laurence Harbor, NJ, asks: Are there any studies that confirm, that in households where the viewers always have Trump on their TVs experience higher blood pressure rates?
(V) & (Z) answer: Not exactly.
However, there are studies (see here for an overview) that make clear that news, especially negative, emotion-driven news, has deleterious health effects, including higher blood pressure. There are also studies (see here for an example, or here for an overview) that find that Fox is particularly prone to appeal to negative emotions. Take those two facts together, and they support your supposition.
E.M. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: Regarding the issue of gerrymandering, what do other democracies do about redistricting?
(V) & (Z) answer: There are many options. Here are the three most common:
- Nonpartisan Redistricting: Many nations put the job of drawing legislative districts in the hands of non-partisan commissions, or of election officials whose job is to make the process fair and impartial.
- Fixed Districts: Some nations just stay with the same district maps forever, with the idea being that things will work out fairly over time. The United States is among those nations, actually, since the U.S. Senate is apportioned based on state borders, which are the same (or nearly so) from the moment that state joined the union.
- Multimember Districts: Many nations have each political party submit a list of their candidates for the legislature, ranked from 1 to whatever. Then, if that party gets 40% of the vote in their district (which may be the entire nation, or some smaller division), they get 40% of the seats. If that works out to, say, 10 seats, then the top 10 people from that party's list are elected.
The other way to do it is to have a jungle-style primary, where [X] seats are awarded, and the top [X] finishers are therefore elected. This really only works with smaller political divisions, like a county, or a city, or part of a city. There are currently 10 U.S. states that use this kind of multimember election to elect at least some portion of their state legislatures.The list gets much longer if we include theoretical approaches that have been proposed, but these three are the ones in actual, wide use.
J.R. in Orlando, FL, asks: With all this talk of gerrymandering districts, it seems in my head the best solution would be to ditch districts and fill a states seats proportionally like many foreign democracies. Could a federal law be passed to require states to do that or would it require a constitutional amendment?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is doable with just a law, and would not require a constitutional amendment. That is because Article I of the Constitution very clearly states: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators (emphasis ours).
In fact, a few years ago, a group of legal scholars and political scientists published an open letter calling on Congress to adopt such a law. It is true that multi-member House districts are currently illegal under American law. But the law in question is the Uniform Congressional District Act, passed by Congress in 1967. And what Congress passeth. Congress can repealeth.
P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, asks: What would the text of an amendment ending gerrymandering look like?
(V) & (Z) answer: We assume you mean without changing over to some new system, like the ones described above.
If so, then how about something like this: Section 1. All district maps, state and federal, must be presented to a five-judge panel drawn at random from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Section 2. For a map to be valid, it must be approved by at least three of the five judges, consistent with principles of equal representation under the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 3. If a map is rejected, the state may try again. If the map is rejected a second time, the judges will appoint an impartial special master to handle the task. Once the special master's map is approved by the judges, it will remain in effect until the next census.
M.C. in Drogheda, Ireland, asks: Given the extreme politicization/corruption of the Supreme Court and other courts in the U.S., could you say, hand on heart, that one would get a fair trial in the United States under all circumstances?
(V) & (Z) answer: No. There are many people who get unfair trials in the U.S., on the basis of their race, their gender, their socioeconomic status, their sexual orientation, their education level, and a whole host of factors. This is not because of Donald Trump, however; it's the nature of the American judicial system, and of any judicial system.
E.S. in Providence, RI, asks: Since polling has only been around since around the 1930's, where do you think Trump would rank for the title of Most Unpopular President Ever? Is anyone even close? Who would be your top (bottom?) 5?
(V) & (Z) answer: Trump would do pretty badly, and might well be among the bottom 5.
The other candidates for the bottom 5 fall into four general categories. The first of those is incompetent buffoons, the presidents who grossly mismanaged the nation, particularly in times of criss. James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson, who botched things on either side of Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, would be the most obvious examples here.
The second is corrupt bastards. Richard Nixon, who served during the era of polling, dropped pretty far during the Watergate scandal. Warren Harding was popular when he died, but might have experienced a similar decline had he lived (Teapot Dome didn't really become big news until what would have been the final year of his term).
The third category is men without a party. There have been a number of cases where the VP was not really of the same party as the president, and then ascended to the big chair when the president died, and then basically governed as a member of their original (actual) party. Such presidents are hated by the party that elected them (since they effectively turned traitor on becoming president) and are hated by the party that they actually identify with (since they abandoned that party and ran on the other party's ticket). These folks are thus left with no real base of support. There are three obvious ones in American history: John Tyler, who was elected as a Whig but was really a Democrat; Millard Fillmore, who was the same situation as Tyler; and Johnson, who was elected as a Republican (technically, National Union) but was really a Democrat.
The fourth is meltdown men, the presidents who had the ill fortune to be in office when the U.S. economy sank into a severe recession, or a depression. The most obvious victims here are Martin Van Buren (the Panic of 1837), James Buchanan (the Panic of 1857), Ulysses S. Grant (the Panic of 1873), Grover Cleveland (the Panic of 1893) and Herbert Hoover (the Great Depression).
Note that Buchanan and Johnson, usually ranked as the worst presidents in history, make two lists. So, they would almost certainly be in the bottom 5. Probably Tyler, too, since he not only angered partisans on both sides of the aisle, he eventually betrayed the United States by joining the Confederacy. The other two slots are open for discussion, but it's worth noting that Trump has not exactly cloaked himself in glory, certainly has corruption issues, isn't REALLY a Republican, and has one economic downturn on his ledger and is setting up for a second. So, at least according to this exercise, there's a pretty good argument that he's as weak a president as Buchanan/Johnson, and that all three would be among the most unpopular presidents ever, probably alongside Tyler. Oh, and if you really want us to pick a fifth, as opposed to leaving it open for discussion, then... Hoover.
G.C. in San Diego, CA, asks: I am in a book club where the focus is presidential biographies. Could you recommend a site that offers good critical reviews by historians of historical works?
(V) & (Z) answer: Here is the problem. Among the things that bring glory to scholars, book reviews are way down the list. So, for most of them, it has to be a pretty high-tier publication to make it worthwhile. That means that you want to look at the top journals for U.S. historians and political scientists: The Journal of American History, The American Historical Review, Reviews in American History, The American Political Science Review, The American Journal of Political Science and The Journal of Politics. All of them have book reviews, usually at the back of each issue.
The problem here is that you probably don't want to subscribe to six scholarly journals. Or even one scholarly journal. The solution, if it's available, is to use JSTOR, which is a massive database of articles and reviews from thousands of scholarly journals. If you happen to be employed by a university, you can get access that way. Otherwise, some big public libraries have JSTOR subscriptions, or you can wander into a university library and use a public terminal.
The alternative to JSTOR is that some major newspapers recruit high-profile scholars to review high-profile books. Most obviously, The New York Times' book review section does this. However, they are trying to reach a broad audience, so their coverage of history in general, or of any particular area of history, is less substantial than the scholarly journals. That said, you're interested in presidential biographies, which is a big area of interest for the Times' readership. So, the paper is likely to cover most or all of the biggies, particularly if a Doris Kearns Goodwin, or a Robert Caro, or a T.J Stiles, or a Ronald C. White comes out with something new.
W.V. in Andover, MN, asks: I've been seeing ads every day the past two weeks, with a solemn Pete Hegseth introducing Hillsdale College's "Story of America" online course. Of course, though proclaimed as "unbiased," it is said to represent "intellectual patriotism" and its description immediately refutes its unbiased status by attacking the 1619 Project's view of American history. Has the history professor had any awareness of his "colleagues" efforts from the Great Lakes region?
(V) & (Z) answer: One of the first things (Z) does when teaching a new history class is ask students to guess what historical source is regarded by historians as completely unbiased. Usually, after a few guesses like "photographs," "newspapers," and "diaries," a student correctly guesses "there is none." (Z) points out that is exactly correct, and there is no such thing as a bias-free source, including (Z) himself. Some sources are better, and some are worse, but none are bias-free. So, anyone who proclaims their history course to be "unbiased" is lying. Not a great start.
(Z) is aware of this course, yes. It is promoted by Pete Hegseth, and is offered by a school that does not accept federal funding, so that it can ignore federal mandates about things like the equal treatment of students. The primary instructor is Wilfred M. McClay, who is trained, and appears to be a capable lecturer, but has spent his entire career producing right-leaning scholarship, and is affiliated with many right-wing organizations, some of them educational, some of them political. The university president, Larry Arnn, acts as something of a co-instructor, and has a similar background to McClay. One of the ads for the course includes footage from a John Wayne film.
So, it's not much of a secret what you're going to get from McClay, et al. It's going to be the rah-rah version of events, focused on triumph and American exceptionalism. There may be some attention paid to various setbacks, including things like labor unrest and racial strife, but Americans will conquer them all over the course of the semester, and none of those problems will still exist today.
There is some value in seeing the story through that lens, as long as a person understands what they are getting. It becomes more useful, we would suggest, if paired with a narrative that takes the extreme opposite point of view. For example, a person could listen to the first lecture in the course, and then read the first chapter of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, and then continue to alternate in that way.
D.M. in Santa Rosa, CA, asks: Thank you for answering my question about Profiles In Courage by John F. Kennedy on July 19. I read the book (as an audio book) based on your recommendation. There were some crackin' stories and interesting political analysis, as you promised. I was struck, however, by how much some of the senators have not fared well since 1956 when it was published. In particular the senators who took stands to preserve the Union and slavery in the run up to the Civil War (Daniel Webster and Thomas Benton) seem unlikely to get the same positive treatment today. Same for Senator Edmund Ross, who saved the Andrew Johnson presidency and ushered in the Jim Crow era. And Senator Robert Taft's opposition to the Nuremberg Trials just seems odd to me.
Two questions based on the idea of reissue/rewrite of the book almost 70 years later in 2025. First: which of the senators that Kennedy included would be dropped from the reissue based on reassessments. Second: Which senators who served since 1956 deserve a Profile in Courage?(V) & (Z) answer: Maybe this is a cop out, but it is very unlikely that anyone would be dropped from a revised version of the book. The work is a cohesive whole, with different senators chosen to illustrate different facets of "courage." The two primary authors, John F. Kennedy and Ted Sorensen, are no longer alive to oversee or approve changes. Under these circumstances, it would be wildly inappropriate to, in effect, censor the original work. Considerably more likely would be a new introduction or foreword, in which some politician or scholar said a few useful words about how things change over the years, and sometimes the values of a past era are very different from ours, and that is reflected in the book.
And if we were asked to submit candidates for a new edition of the book, here are five that we'd list:
- Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME, 1949-73): She was, first of all, the first woman to be elected to the U.S. Senate in her own right, as opposed to being appointed. She also stood tall and told Joseph McCarthy he was full of sh** at a time when virtually no other member of Congress, of either party, was willing to do so.
- Barry Goldwater (R-AZ, 1953-65; 1969-87): He said some very impolitic things, and held some strange positions on some issues. But it all came from deeply held, predominantly libertarian principles. He opposed most of the various civil rights acts, because he thought those were unlawful overreaches of federal power. However, he also supported the enlistment of gay troops at a time when virtually nobody else in public life did, observing that: "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar" and "You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight." He pushed back against the religious right, and said they had done more harm to the GOP than any Democrat. Oh, and Goldwater was the one who broke the news to Richard Nixon that the game was up, and that he better resign or else impeachment and removal were inevitable.
- Mike Gravel (D-AK, 1969-81): One of the greatest iconoclasts in Senate history, and a fellow who definitely marched to the beat of his own drum. He was the leader of the anti-Vietnam War faction in Congress, even when that faction was in the small minority, and famously read the entire Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record.
- John McCain (R-AZ, 1987-2018): There's his military career, of course, and his choice to remain imprisoned in the horrific "Hanoi Hilton" rather than leverage his status as an admiral's son in order to get out. And while he was more "politic" than his Arizona colleague Goldwater, and sometimes allowed that to override his judgment (ahem, Sarah Palin), the maverick thing wasn't just an act. Most obviously, his vote to save Obamacare took a lot of fortitude.
- Cory Booker (D-NJ, 2013-) : We could not accept that courage is completely gone from the Senate, and so thought that at least one current member should make the list. Given their kowtowing to Donald Trump and some of his terrible nominees, the 53 Republicans are out (Lisa Murkowski comes closest, but the show she put on after voting for the BBB disqualifies her). And of the 47 members remaining, we went with Booker, for three primary reasons: (1) He comes off as a man of principle, (2) He's often been willing to push back against leaders of his own party, when he thought it necessary and (3) the filibuster earlier this year.
Note that it was a tough call between Booker and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) for this last slot. The tiebreaker was that, as with the original book, Booker adds a different dimension to the list not covered by the other four people we picked. On the other hand, Sanders is largely just the modern Mike Gravel (or, Gravel is just the Vietnam-era Bernie Sanders).
M.A. in Knoxville, TN, asks: A lot of people think that the Smoot-Hawley tariffs caused the Great Depression, but I've learned that's not true. The Great Depression had already started before the tariffs were put into place. What role did they play, exactly?
(V) & (Z) answer: Ultimately, depressions and recessions are slowdowns—times when lots of people stop spending money, and so the amount of capital flowing through the system is greatly reduced. The Great Depression, in particular, was substantially caused by gross overproduction of inventory, which meant that (industrial) producers were not employing people/buying raw materials as much, because they had all kinds of stock to work through as spending slowed down.
Smoot-Hawley was meant to allow producers to unload their backlogged inventories, by reducing foreign competition for American consumers. The problem is that Americans weren't buying anyhow, while foreign nations responded with retaliatory tariffs, thus shutting down additional markets for the backlogged goods. So, the tariff did not achieve its primary goal. Meanwhile, it DID further slow the amount of money circulating in the economy, thus aggravating the already existing slowdown.
E.T. in Montpellier, France, asks: Which movie from the last 10 years do you think was the most deserving of an Oscar but didn't win, and which Oscar-winning movie from the last 10 years do you think was the least deserving?
(V) & (Z) answer: Well, after the "Oscars so White" thing, the Academy tried to do better, but mostly did so by honoring what are basically "white savior" films, like Green Book. It would have been much more on point to honor either Get Out or Black Panther, which are also better films than Green Book.
That said—and keeping in mind that (Z) handles the film questions—(Z)'s least favorite Best Picture winner of the last decade is actually Parasite. It was a very interesting film until about halfway through, when there is a plot twist (we'll keep it vague to avoid spoilers). After the plot twist, the film went off the rails, and the final scene was so ham-fisted and over-the-top, it really ruined things. This is, of course, an unpopular opinion. Still, if it was up to (Z), the Oscar that year would have gone to 1917 or Jojo Rabbit.
Meanwhile, beyond Get Out or Black Panther, (Z) would also have liked to see Barbie and Top Gun: Maverick win Oscars (though it would be unfortunate that Barbie's win would mean no Oscar for Oppenheimer). Also, if we were going to revert to the days when the Best Picture award sometimes went to well-made films that told a great story, without too much concern for artistic or social impact, then (Z) would like an Oscar to go to Stan & Ollie.
J.J. in West Hollywood, CA, asks: (Z) wrote that he has seen a half dozen films by Ang Lee, and didn't like any of them. Has he seen Brokeback Mountain? It's a landmark masterpiece, and Lee pulled out amazing performances from cast members Jake Gyllenhall, and Heath Ledger, and won the Academy award for Best Director in 2005.
(V) & (Z) answer: Get ready for another unpopular opinion. (Z) did see that film, and did not like it. The whole point of the movie was the tension between the hypermasculine, straight "role" that society would have these two men play, versus the gay identity that was who they truly were. Walking out of that film, (Z) said almost these exact words: "That movie hit every single obvious beat. If you told me to write a movie about cowboys trying to deal with their gayness, and you gave me just one day to do it, that's the screenplay I would have cranked out."
There was another movie (and a Best Picture winner) just a few years earlier that dealt with that same tension and, in (Z)'s view, did it in a much more interesting way. That movie was American Beauty, where the U.S. Marine played by Chris Cooper ultimately commits murder because of his inability to juggle expectations and his inner reality.
K.C. in West Islip, NY, asks: Without trying to defend The Convicted Felon (TCF) in any way shape or form, I'm curious as to the opinion of my favorite political website writers about Trump demanding the Guardians and Commanders return to the Indians and Redskins? For me it's an issue I really haven't kept up with, so I don't fully grasp the level of outrage from the Native American community. If the Indians and Redskins, why not the Braves and the Chiefs and perhaps the Golden State Warriors? My opinion of it, as a non-Native American, is that I'd be honored that a pro sports team of, shall we say athletic warriors, wanted to associate themselves with Native American terminology. No one owns a team and wants them to be named after pushovers like the Silly Nannies. Maybe I misunderstand the whole thing, or maybe I've gravitated more towards the center as I've aged, and maybe I don't fully understand the outrage but was renaming the teams in the first place a solution looking for a problem?
(V) & (Z) answer: The strongest case for a change is/was the Redskins, because that term is a racial slur. The weakest case for a change are the Chiefs and the Warriors. The Warriors' name is not derived from Native Americans (it's a little complicated, but it was initially chosen by some nice Jewish boys in Philadelphia to honor figures from the Jewish Bible). In addition, the team does not use Native American iconography. The Chiefs, while they do have Native elements in their uniform and branding, are not named after Native Americans, either. They are named after Kansas City Mayor Harold Roe "Chief" Bartle, who helped bring the team to his hometown.
The tougher cases, among the ones you name, are the Indians and Braves. On one hand, their names are not slurs. On the other hand, the teams' names and mascots have led to various customs and behaviors that are rather insulting to Native Americans. For example, in addition to Chief Wahoo (who is a stereotype, not unlike Aunt Jemima or Speedy Gonzalez), fans would show up to games in redface paint. Eventually, the team decided that the problematic aspects were too much, and switched to "Guardians."
For the Braves, the most problematic thing is the Tomahawk Chop, which is what you think it is, and is performed at pretty much every game by fans, as part of trying to rally the team. The Braves' management knows it's problematic, as they agreed not to let fans do it while St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Ryan Helsley, a member of the Cherokee Nation, was on the mound (as a member of the visiting team, obviously). But that did not cause the Braves to put a stop to the gesture altogether, nor to change their name or livery.
There have been many polls taken among people who identify as Native American, and they consistently make clear that while some of them do not care, a sizable chunk (anywhere from 25% to 60%) find these teams' names, or mascots, or uniforms, or whatever, to be disrespectful or offensive. The numbers were always highest with the Redskins, and are lowest with the Chiefs. In general, in American society, if something bothers a double-digit percentage of the population that is being referenced, that's enough to force a change. The Washington football team, and the Cleveland baseball team decided, as private businesses, that a change was better for their bottom lines. The Kansas City football team, and the Atlanta baseball team, did not make that decision. In all four cases, it was capitalism at work, and was also none of Donald Trump's damn business.
S.N, Ithaca, NY, asks: SCACO? HACO?
Are we supposed to know what these acronyms stand for? You didn't define them and your posts make a lot less sense as a result.(V) & (Z) answer: Those are all puns on TACO—Trump Always Chickens Out—adjusted to be appropriate for the items in which they appear. And so, "Supreme Court Always Chickens Out" and "Harvard Always Chickens Out."
M.W. in Northbrook, IL, asks: I'm curious on your source for: "For example, since DNI Tulsi Gabbard released her 'report' on the 2016 election. Fox has mentioned Barack Obama more than three times as frequently as it has mentioned Epstein."
Does the staff statistician have to watch and count (seems like the worst job in the world)? Do you use AI?(V) & (Z) answer: We never use AI, and we don't often have time to collect our own data. That comes from the article we linked to.
K.R. in Austin, TX, asks: R.P. in Kāneʻohe talked about about how your site is a first rough draft of history. I've thought that about your site many times as well.
I often wonder how much of our massive amount of electronic information will survive for future historians. A hard drive may not mean much to a historian 200 years from now, especially if we have a major disaster, war, or fascist government takeover.
Do you have any physical, non-electronic backup of your content?(V) & (Z) answer: This would be a non-trivial undertaking. First, the job of making printouts on some regular basis is no small thing. Second, we have produced enough words over the years that a complete printout would occupy a small closet. Third, there's no particular reason to think that a printout would do much better against Father Time than some other medium. Try to find a computer printout from 1980, and see how readable the ink is.
If we really, really wanted to maximize our chances of the work living on for generations or centuries, we'd find a way to put it on microfilm. That's compact, long-lasting, and low-tech enough that it should be accessible no matter how much technology changes. We would also donate the microfilms to a library, since the library is in a position to handle long-term custodial duties.
It is unlikely we will do that, however. We are much more likely to cross our fingers, and hope that something like the Internet Archive will remain a going concern into the distant future.