Dem
47
GOP
53
If you are still wrestling with the headline theme, some sauerkraut and pilsner might help.
P.Y. in Watertown, MA, asks: You've written a lot about EpsteinPot Dome XYZ AffairGate, but, in the end, what does it matter? The only way I can see this making a difference is Republicans losing the midterms, which are a long time away. Trump is a known creep, a proud sex offender, a compulsive liar, a real piece of s*** of a human. He got elected twice on the basis of being a jerk and trolling the libtards reallll goooood. I think, in the end, he escapes everything, as only he can, because he's so brazenly and openly terrible that nothing can stick to him. I'm beginning to think that Teflon Don truly is polyfluoroalkylated.
(V) & (Z) answer: Richard Nixon was bulletproof... until he wasn't (Watergate). Ronald Reagan was bulletproof... until he wasn't (Iran-Contra). You can never be sure when something that blows up will stay blown up. And this has had more staying power, thus far, than any of the Trump scandals, except maybe 1/6.
Also, we write about what's going on in the world of politics. Not only is this the single-biggest story right now, but it's the backdrop for many other stories (e.g., the attempt to deflect attention to Barack Obama). Our specific focus is elections, and this could indeed influence the midterm elections. So, of course we have to write about it.
J.W. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: I'm not particularly prone to conspiracy thinking, but that list of questions is compelling. And it made me wonder: with all the people who must have been connected to or who witnessed or cleaned up after the events around Epstein, how aren't there more eyewitness accounts? The central actor is dead, what is there to protect now?
(V) & (Z) answer: We would guess there are four types of people who have information about the Epstein situation: (1) Those who are dead, and cannot talk; (2) Those who perpetrated crimes, or who looked the other way while crimes were taking place, and who would do harm to themselves and their reputations by talking; (3) Those who have information, but are prohibited from releasing it due to the rules/ethics of their profession; and (4) Victims, who risk serious trauma if they speak out (think, for example, about Dr. Christine Blasey Ford).
The grand jury testimony would have plenty of eyewitness testimony, and yet nobody involved wants it released. The people pushing to keep the grand jury materials confidential are certainly not motivated by a desire to protect Epstein.
S.R.S. in Marietta, GA, asks: You wrote about the news that DOJ has found an "angle" to go after Jack Smith on a Hatch Act violation.
I had thought that President Biden had issued a "preemptive" pardon to Smith (and others) as he departed the White House.
How does that pardon fit into this announcement?(V) & (Z) answer: First, Biden did not pardon Smith. It's not clear why, but Smith might have declined, or Smith/Biden might have wanted Smith to be indicted, so he could backdoor some of the things he learned during his investigation. Second, presidential pardons extend to criminal matters only, and Hatch Act violations are a civil matter.
M.S. in Houston, TX, asks: The U.S. doesn't really have nationally "listed" buildings protected by statute (the way the U.K. does), but I would have thought the White House was about the closest thing we have to that model. Looking back at the way additions to the building, both internal and external, have been treated in the past, I also thought Congress had passed laws requiring consultation with and planning by some body or expert. I'm old, so I sort of remember the major updating of the whole structure under Truman, not to mention Mrs. Kennedy's efforts to reform and historically correct the building's furnishings and decorations.
Trump's declaration that he's going to build a large, tasteless addition that will throw off the whole visual balance of the place, plus his earlier trampling of the Rose Garden, all on his own say-so, makes it sound like any president could do whatever he wanted to the White House, and there would be no way—legally—to stop him. I picture Trump deciding to just tear the whole place down and replace it with a golden palace to his own glory and calling it "Trump Tower D.C." Am I right about that? Especially since the current president cares nothing about the usual influence of tradition on presidential actions?
One thing the Orange Menace has accomplished has been to establish a list of all the things that the next Democratic trifecta will have to pass strict laws to prevent any future president from ever doing again.(V) & (Z) answer: In general, the fact that Congress had to appropriate the money for renovations was seen as a completely sufficient check on presidents doing whatever they wanted to the White House and its grounds. Nobody anticipated a president who would find a way to raise nine figures on his own.
That said, the White House is a National Historic Landmark. It is also the property of the United States, and not of Trump. There are also many questions about exactly where this money is coming from. If he moves forward, there will be many lawsuits.
In addition, Congress would almost certainly have to give approval for major changes, even if the U.S. government is not footing the bill. There may be at least a few Republican members who don't want to deal with blowback from constituents over the White House being desecrated. And even if there are not, such a bill would be filibusterable.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: Since you guys brought up Donald Trump's odd little constitutional on the roof of the White House earlier this week, anyone want to take a stab at the reason for his strange safari, complete with odd gestures? Location scout for the large, gold-plated Trump sign? Dreams of building a papal balcony so he can give his blessings to the faithful throngs below? I think we can safely rule out a sudden bout of remorse, leading to suicidal thoughts.
(V) & (Z) answer: He fancies himself a world-class real estate developer, and one thing real estate developers do is tour job sites. So, he presumably was looking over the site of the new ballroom with some of his people. Frankly, we are surprised he wasn't wearing a hard hat, since he was basically just cosplaying anyhow.
This said, whether this a grift, or a way to put Trump's stamp on the White House, or both, he's always been a believer that more is more. So, he could be doing preliminary work toward some other construction project to go along with the ballroom. The White House indoor driving range? The White House fast food court? The White House tanning salon? The White House zoo? Who knows?
D.D. in Hollywood, FL, asks: Do you see any possibility Trump could ever win the Nobel Peace Prize? Can't help thinking that, if that happened, it would downgrade the prize just like he did by giving the Presidential Medal of Freedom to the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
(V) & (Z) answer: We have answered this basic question before, but we get it a lot, so we will answer again. The people who award the Nobel despise Trump and everything that he stands for. That said, this is not necessarily disqualifying, as they have given the award to other people they despise, like Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger.
But since they consider Trump to be odious, and since he's done much more to create conflict than to promote peace, he would have to play a BIG role in accomplishing something that the Committee simply cannot overlook. The obvious possibility, not that it's going to happen, would be a peace in Israel that fundamentally changes the dynamic there. It would not be enough to merely persuade everyone to stop shooting, it would have to be something like recognition of Palestinian statehood, along with a pledge from the various Arab Nations to leave Israel alone. Something that not only ends the war in Ukraine, but also changes the dynamic there, like Russia withdrawing from Crimea and Ukraine being admitted to NATO, would probably do it, too.
We do not foresee Trump and his team accomplishing anything along these lines. But if it did happen, he likely would get a Nobel.
A.S. in Black Mountain, NC, asks: The phrase consistently appearing at the end of TCF's rants, "Thank you for your attention to this matter," is mysterious to me. When did it first appear? It does not seem like a phrase he would use. He does not seem to me to be a person that says "Thank You," like when the caddy drops a new golf ball in the fairway.
What is your take on it?(V) & (Z) answer: He's been using it, off and on, since at least 2019.
The general pattern, such as it is, is that he uses that phrase when he wants to identify a Tweet/Truth as an "official" order. Maybe that's to help his staff sort things out, maybe that's to help himself remember, maybe it's to give greater gravitas to the "important" things, maybe all of the above.
E.W. in Silver Spring, MD, asks: His Royal Highness has a lot of expressions he uses over and over, such as "like a dog," "levels not even thought possible," and "it's unbelievable." Maybe it's because of the absurdity of what goes with the phrases, but he seems to repeatedly use the same phrase over and over again. I don't remember Bush the elder, Bill Clinton, Bush the younger, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden reaching for such a short list of expressions. Did I miss them? If not what were some of them?
(V) & (Z) answer: There has not been a president, at least not in the century or so that a huge volume of presidential utterances have been documented/recorded, who relies on as limited a linguistic toolkit as does Trump. Language is one facet of intelligence, and Trump is the lowest-intelligence president in that timeframe, at least in this particular domain. So, it makes sense that he would have less range than any of his predecessors.
That said, we don't think that is the primary explanation. We think the primary explanation is that Trump has been an inveterate, baldfaced liar for well over half a century. Long ago, he learned which "scripts" work best for peddling his lies, and he's been using those scripts ever since. You will note that most of his most hackneyed, cliché "catchphrases" tend to signal that a lie is forthcoming or is in the process of being told. That is certainly true of the expression that WE most associate with him, which is "people say..."
We would be remiss if we did not also note that reduced verbal skills, and repetition of phrases, are also symptoms of dementia.
K.C. in Columbus, OH, asks: The ongoing narrative, since November 2024, seems to be that the Democratic ticket got crushed, and that a major course correction is needed. However, the popular vote was Trump 49 to Harris 48; by no means a landslide. I realize that Democrats had been winning the popular vote in previous elections, but Harris was only the presidential candidate for roughly 100 days. Given all that, do you think that the Democrats need to be careful not to overadjust their tactics for the next presidential election?
(V) & (Z) answer: Given the constraints that Harris ran under, like a 100-day campaign, she performed remarkably well. The entire world was in the midst of a post-pandemic backlash, and in a year that EVERY incumbent government that was up for election in ANY country lost, she actually outperformed the average incumbent party by 2 points.
We doubt that Democrats will seriously adjust their approach to campaigning, or their stance on the issues. However, Democratic primary voters may well prefer a very different TYPE of presidential candidate (say, a moderate white man). That will itself be a major change in tactics, even if everything else basically stays the same.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: The Texas redistricting battle has made me wonder about the current Republican elected officials in the age of Donald Trump. I would group them into three categories:
- Those who go along with him out of fear of being primaried
- Those who do his bidding because they have nothing to lose
- The true believers who practice the gospel according to Trump, public opinion be damned
A couple of questions. First, do you agree with my categories of today's Republicans? Any changes you wish to make? Second, where do you put Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) in this? I think he is either in categories 2 or 3. I base this not only because of redistricting, but also on his positions on things like abortion and immigration.
(V) & (Z) answer: Here is our list:
- Those who go along with him out of fear of being primaried
- The true believers who practice the gospel according to Trump, public opinion be damned
- Those who are trying to steal some of the gravy from the Trump train
- The apostates
As you can see, we agree with your first and third categories. However, we don't really understand the second one, and can't think of anyone who would clearly fit in that category. Meanwhile, we think you overlook people who aren't too worried about the harm Trump will do, but who see an opportunity to burnish their own support by aligning themselves with him. This is the category where we would put Abbott, not to mention Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Marco Rubio, and a host of others.
It is, of course, possible for someone to move between categories, depending on circumstances. For example, Rep. Thomas Massie and Sen. Rand Paul (both R-KY) are true believers at some times, and are apostates at other times. Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-LA) and John Neely Kennedy (R-LA) are true believers at some times, and go along to avoid being primaried at other times. Graham is also an apostate, on rare occasions, though he generally thinks better of it very quickly, and returns his spine to the safe deposit box where it usually lives.
J.P.R. in Westminster, CO, asks: In response to your RedState rundown on Democratic candidate prospects: I have also encountered a characterization of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a "fu**ing idiot" by a self-described "small c" conservative (read non-MAGA) guy who I very much like and respect and who I frankly think should know better. Where do you believe this characterization might come from?
(V) & (Z) answer: Some people assume that anyone who is attractive, young, and female must be dumb. That is even more likely if the person is brown, or if their hair is blonde.
Some people use "low IQ." "stupid," "idiot," etc. as all-purpose insults that mean the same thing as "jerk," "a**hole," and "shmuck," in the same way that "bastard" has largely become divorced from the actual facts of one's parentage.
Some people, due to their own issues with intelligence, or their own chauvinisms, have not realized that two people can honestly and intelligently assess the same evidence, and come to very different conclusions. Such people believe that their conclusion is the ONLY intelligent one, and that anyone who reaches a different conclusion must therefore not be intelligent.
Some bubbles are pretty incestuous, for lack of a better word, and once an idea circulates in that bubble for a while, it becomes a "fact," because hey, everyone is saying it, so it must be true. This happens a lot in sports, where an athlete gains a reputation for having [X] skill, or for lacking [Y] attribute, or for having [Z] shortcoming. And that will sometimes become dogma, whether or not it is actually supported by evidence. We have no doubt there are notions that circulate regularly in the right-wing media bubble that have been repeated so many times, nobody thinks critically about them anymore.
Some people don't realize that most politicians engage in code-switching when speaking to large groups. That is to say, those politicians speak in a manner less sophisticated than they would use with colleagues, so as to make sure everyone in the audience understands. This can be misinterpreted as stupidity, if you are unaware of the technique.
We are not sure which of these applies to your friend, though we think that pretty much all of them apply to the fellow who wrote the piece for RedState.
P.J. in Quakertown, PA, asks: Proud Boys, Charlottesville, "Jews will not replace us," "good people on both sides." All associated with or spoken by Republicans.
How on earth have the Democrats been labeled as antisemites, while the Republicans get to claim they are pro-Jewish?(V) & (Z) answer: We often take notice of the old expression: "In every accusation, there is a confession." There are many criticisms that are more appropriately directed at the Republican Party, but that Republicans try to deflect by accusing the Democrats of same. The most obvious of those is "racist," an assertion that is backed with the true, but misleading, assertion that it was Democrats who owned slaves, started the KKK, etc.
"Democrats are antisemites" is another case of deflection, one enabled by a number of high-profile right-wing Jewish media figures (e.g, Ben Shapiro) who insist it is true. This particular criticism has caught on in the last year or two, in particular, because Democrats are much more likely to be Israel-skeptical/Israel-critical/Palestine-sympathetic.
We do not propose that Democrats have NO issues with racism, or NO issues with antisemitism. But on these two issues, and several others, Republicans are definitely throwing stones from the balconies of their glass houses.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: Did Michael Savage (of whom I was unaware until reading your post about him) make the name change so he could refer to himself as "Doc Savage"?
(V) & (Z) answer: Close, but not quite. It was so he could call his show "Savage Nation."
There may be a second reason, though Savage would never admit it. In his 1960s, hippy-dippy days, he was a friend and admirer of Allen Ginsberg, and sent Ginsberg numerous laudatory letters, some of which are now held by Stanford University. Ginsberg eventually emerged as an advocate of pederasty, and a member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association. So, Savage might be trying to place some distance between himself and those letters he wrote under his original name.
J.M. in Norco, CA, asks: You responded to a question from K.C. in West Islip, giving your thoughts on the relative offensiveness and disrespect shown by professional sports teams' names that relate to Native American people, history, or culture. Well, as luck would have it, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said some things in an interview on Monday that so irritated our President that he referred to her as "Elizabeth 'Pocahontas' Warren" in his angry "Truth" response.
So, do tell: would you consider this to be offensive or disrespectful to Native Americans?(V) & (Z) answer: It's a tough call. There is 0% chance that Trump expends any energy on worrying about whom his words might offend or slur; he just lets the cards fall where they may. The nickname is not really meant to slur Native Americans, it's meant to mock Warren for claiming Native American heritage that she may not have.
That said, Trump is nonetheless using a Native American name as an insult. Also, our usual test for offensiveness is: "Would we be willing to say it in a classroom?" And this, we would not. Our conclusion, then, is that it's not a 10 on the offensive/disrespectful to Native Americans scale, and it's probably not a 5, but it's not a 0, either.
T.L. in San Francisco, CA, asks: Would it be reasonable to say that the U.S. is in a state of civil war (but fought mostly by non-military means), and has been for many years?
(V) & (Z) answer: For obvious reasons, many people have become familiar with the concept of "stochastic terrorism," which Dictionary.com defines as "the public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted."
If we want to extend that concept, to the notion of a "stochastic civil war," then we'd say there's a pretty good case to be made for your characterization.
C.J.R. in Avondale, AZ, asks: You've written about this before. But with a couple more years of evidence, has John Roberts now clearly moved ahead of Roger Taney as Most Atrocious Chief Justice of All Time?
(V) & (Z) answer: It's tough, because it's apples and oranges. Taney is primarily wrecked by one very bad decision, a decision that just so happened to pave the way for the Civil War.
Roberts is more of a "death by a thousand cuts" chief justice, who has overseen a whole bunch of problematic decisions and ethical lapses, but none that rises to the level of Dred Scott. Also, we don't know what the medium- and long-term effects of the Roberts Court's jurisprudence will be.
So, we are going to stick with Taney as the worst chief justice, but with the caveat that the events of the next 10-20 years could very easily push Roberts into the lead.
J.N. in Las Vegas, NV, asks: I have a question about Greg Abbott and the Democrats hiding in Illinois. What is preventing the governor from petitioning for a writ of mandamus? From my layman's understanding of this writ, this would compel the attendance of the absent legislators, and non-compliance would then give rise to a criminal charge, which in turn would be grounds for extradition.
(V) & (Z) answer: There are two problems. The first, and somewhat more abstruse, is that while a writ of mandamus does compel action from officeholders, it can only be issued in very specific circumstances, and "a legislator did not show up to work" is not one of those.
The second problem is that federal judges cannot issue writs of mandamus to state officials. And Texas judges cannot cause writs of mandamus to be enforced beyond Texas state lines. So, even if a writ of mandamus was appropriate here, there is no judge who could issue one that would actually get the Texas Democrats back to work.
F.L. in Allen, TX (though hopefully somewhere else and soon), asks: The Texas Democrats have 'engineered' (as an actual PE, I rather dislike that usage) a form of filibuster. And this is hardly the first time they've used it. It's sort of a filibuster with feet. Or wings, perhaps. Has this been done in the U.S. House and/or Senate? Could it be done?
(V) & (Z) answer: It can be done, but it's rare, with the last occasion having been in 1988.
There are three major differences that explain why it happens in Texas and not in D.C. The first is that Texas has a long history of quorum-jumping, dating back to the 19th century, while the institutional culture of the U.S. Congress is very much against quorum-jumping. The second is that the Texas legislature meets very infrequently, making it much more possible to "run out the clock," whereas Congress meets year-round. The third is that the Texas Constitution defines quorum as "two-thirds of the elected members of the legislature," while the U.S. Constitution defines quorum as "half the elected members of the legislature." So, it's much easier for the majority party in Congress to defeat quorum-jumping, since they might only have to track down a small handful of members.
Note that it is extra-difficult to engage in quorum-jumping in the House, because the rules of the House presume that a quorum exists unless a member brings up a point of order to the contrary. And such points of order can only be raised in very, very limited circumstances.
M.C. in Indianapolis, IN, asks: How the heck is Indiana gonna go about gerrymandering its maps further than it already is? We have two Democrats in the House, one from Indianapolis, the other from Lake County. They can't do any better than that.
(V) & (Z) answer: The Trump administration follows this math:
Red state + More than 1 district with a Democratic representative = Gerrymander opportunityIt does not matter if it actually works, math-wise, or map-wise. In fairness, the Democrats looking at Washington and licking their lips are guilty of the same error.
A.N. in Tempe, AZ, asks: I have seen a number of videos that tell a most interesting version of American history, by Tad Stoermer, a Ph.D. in History from the University of Virginia, graduate of Harvard, and currently a lecturer at Johns Hopkins. He talks about his upcoming book, A Resistance History of the United States, where he claims the Founders were promoting an independent republic very much in alignment with the attitudes expressed today by the Patriot/white supremacist movements, that the true revisionists are more modern historians. While he is very clearly opposed to the beliefs of the white supremacists and so-called Patriots, he claims there is little space between their beliefs and those of the Founders such as Thomas Jefferson, according to the writings of the Founders themselves. Is Stoermer a respected historical scholar? Can you comment on his claims about the U.S. Founders?
(V) & (Z) answer: Stoermer brands himself a "public historian." That is a very broad categorization that covers everything from reenactors to museum guides to authors of popular works to podcasters. In his case, he's making a living, in part, from securing lectureships and other part-time academic gigs. And, in part, from selling product, like books and articles for popular magazines. You rarely make money by writing a book whose basic lesson is "Everything you think you know about [X] is... basically right." You have a much better chance if you write a book whose basic lesson is is "Everything you think you know about [X] is... completely wrong." Point is, Stoermer has a very compelling interest in being a provocateur. Usually, such folks are not making things up out of whole cloth, and they do believe what they are saying, at least on some level. However, they do tend to frame things in the most... assertive way possible.
Stoermer hasn't published his book yet, so we can't look at it. But it appears your characterization of his basic argument is on the mark. And, if so, it's not a great argument. Let's start with an analogy. If Person A drives from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, using primarily the 15 freeway, and Person B drives from Las Vegas to Los Angeles, at the same time, and using primarily the 15 freeway, both people will spend some amount of time in the same exact place (probably Barstow). However, they are eventually going to end up 450 miles apart.
When the Constitution was written, white supremacy was the default position, and so was basically assumed. The same is true of separate spheres for men and women, and a number of other ideas that would be anathema in modern America.
However, the Framers were inheritors of intellectual legacy of the Enlightenment. That means, first and foremost, that they believed in evidence-based solutions and they were leery of strong, centralized authority. Neither of these things is remotely true of modern-day far-right types, who admire fascists like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, and who believe what their gut tells them to believe, evidence or no.
A key implication of the Enlightenment's disdain for strong, central authority was skepticism about rigid social structures (which, after all, were the foundation of feudalism). Pretty much all of the Framers desired social mobility, at least for white men. And some thinkers, even of the Revolutionary generation, had begun to extend that to things like gender and race. Alexander Hamilton was pretty forward thinking in many ways, and so were Benjamin Franklin and John Adams. Patrick Henry was truly radical. If we head across the pond, the Marquis de Condorcet was positively pinko by the standards of his day, and called for equal rights for women and for Black Frenchmen. These fellows were traveling a road that would have led, and did lead, to much greater equality in human societies. And the generation of thinkers who achieved ascendancy in the antebellum era—William Lloyd Garrison, Henry David Thoreau, Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, etc.—picked up that baton and ran with it.
By contrast, the white supremacists and the other far-right types are fundamentally backward-looking, and would like to see society return to a place where it was (or, where they imagine it was) many generations in the past. They are headed to Las Vegas, while the Framers are headed to Los Angeles. They may be in the same place for a moment in time, but their journeys have very different endpoints.
M.H. in Salt Lake City, UT, asks: I am not a lawyer, but I am fascinated by how those who write important legal decisions use past cases to make a point. I would love to read a book describing perhaps the top 100 Supreme Court cases, the logic and legal arguments used to make these decisions (including the dissents), the political contexts in which they were made, and how these decisions were later used to support or contradict future decisions. Does such a book exist?
(L) answers: A really helpful one is Essential Supreme Court Decisions: Summaries of Leading Cases in U.S. Constitutional Law by John R. Vile. For more palace intrigue, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, by Jeffrey Toobin, gives a look into the inner workings of the Supreme Court. Robert G. McCloskey's The American Supreme Court looks at the Court through a political and social context, so that may also be of some interest. McCloskey was a political scientist from Harvard, not a lawyer, so he comes at the subject from a different perspective. Among other things, the book examines the Lochner Era, when the Court was striking down economic regulations and labor laws under a narrow reading of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce in favor of states' rights.
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, asks: Why was there never an East vs. West civil war in the U.S.? (Besides in gangsta rap music, of course.) What conditions might have made a civil war actually happen?
(V) & (Z) answer: From an ideological standpoint, there was no issue or group of issues that divided the country along those lines. From a practical standpoint, the population of the West was just a small fraction of the population of the East until well after World War II, by which point a civil war would have been impractical. Would-be secessionists need to have weaponry that is at least something of a match for the weaponry possessed by the government, and by 1960 the gap between private armaments and government armaments was bigger than the Grand Canyon.
C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: I don't expect Donald Trump to be shown as last on a list of presidential rankings until 2029, given that most professors want to keep their colleges alive (and possibly also keep their jobs). However, do you think Trump could possibly be anything but ranked dead last with all the corruption and damage he is doing to our country? I was wondering if he could be eventually be viewed as very effective, simply because he made dramatic changes. Is that possible for historians to use that criteria to rank him highly in the future?
(V) & (Z) answer: C-SPAN surveyed scholars in 2021, and Trump ranked 41, beating out only Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. Siena surveyed scholars in 2022, and Trump ranked 43, beating out only James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. Trump was able to drop two ranks because he not only lost out to Pierce, he also lost out to Joe Biden, who was not included in the 2021 survey, and who ranked 19 in the 2022 survey. Point being, today's historians have no problem calling it as they see it.
Over time, the question with Trump will be very similar to the question we discuss above, about John Roberts vs. Roger Taney. The dissolution of the union is the great crisis of American history, and the politicians and jurists who screwed it up get hit hard. Trump does not have a crisis of that sort on his watch (COVID was bad, but not Civil War bad), but he does have a longer list of transgressions than any of the three Civil War-era presidents who are not Lincoln. He's not likely to do well in any future ranking, but how many of the Civil War-era screw-ups he manages to outrank is an open question.
It is highly improbable that, 50 or 100 years from now, Trump will shoot up the list because he did a lot of things. First, if they are bad things, then increasing the volume of them is not a selling point. Second, and here's a dirty secret for you, even professional historians think of only a small handful of things when they think of any given president (outside of the handful of "greats," perhaps). So, Trump is likely to be reduced to two or three or four "signature" résumé items. The 1/6 insurrection will certainly be one of those; the others are a work in progress. But we see no path for him to join the Harry S. Trumans and Dwight D. Eisenhowers, much less the George Washingtons and Franklin D. Roosevelts. The best-case scenario, we would say, is that Trump pulls off one enduring miracle, like bringing peace to the Middle East, and that's enough to push him into the 30s or low 20s.
S.E.Z. in New Haven, CT, asks: Among your list of candidates for a new edition of Profiles in Courage, why did Liz Cheney not make the cut? As the most prominent GOP congressperson to sacrifice her political career by speaking truth to treasonous power, surely you must have considered her.
(V) & (Z) answer: Profiles in Courage was explicitly limited to U.S. Senators.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Who are the 10 most influential dead people in U.S. history? Is Jeffrey Epstein among them?
(V) & (Z) answer: We thought a fair bit about your question, and decided a couple of things. The first is that what you are really asking about is not the 10 most influential dead people, per se, but the 10 people whose influence in death was largest relative to their influence in life. For example, Thomas Edison is plenty influential today, and so too are Theodore Roosevelt, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. But that's only because they were incredibly influential in life, and that influence has lingered.
The second thing we decided is that there's no way to rank our answer, because there are so many different paths by which a person can achieve greater import in death than in life, and they're not always similar. That means we're going to give you ten categories, with some examples in each. And so:
- Jesus of Nazareth: He gets his own category because if we WERE doing a ranking, he'd be #1. There is no doubt that he was an itinerant preacher of local significance who only became a person of global significance after his death, thanks to Saul of Tarsus (a.k.a. St. Paul), and then later the embrace of Christianity by the leader of the Roman Empire. Obviously, his ideas, and the religions that believe they represent those ideas, have had a profound impact on the United States.
- The Martyrs: Some of these folks were notable, even while they were alive. Some were not. But they all became vastly more important and impactful in death, as a rallying point/inspiration for one group or another. People in this category include John Brown, Anne Frank, Medgar Evers and Harvey Milk.
- The Apostrophes: The term "apostrophe law" refers to a law that is inspired by, and named after, the victim of a particular crime. Those victims thus have a lasting impact, because their loss serves to save others who might otherwise have been victimized. People in this category include Ryan White, Adam Walse, Matthew Shepard, James Byrd Jr., Amber Hagerman, Megan Kanka and Jessica Lunsford.
- The Culture Wars: These are people who became the focal point of one culture wars battle or another. For example, there are some who would say Terri Schiavo was dead long before her heart stopped beating, there are others who say she was still alive and should have been kept that way. Similarly, there are some who would say that the various Babies Doe who were aborted after Roe were living beings who are now dead, and others would strongly disagree. Interestingly, virtually everyone believes one of these two entities (Schiavo or the Babies Doe) would belong on this list, but few believe that neither or both belong. Others in this category include Laken Riley and Ashli Babbitt, and this is where Jeffrey Epstein belongs, as well, we would say.
- The Misunderstood Geniuses: These are folks whose artistic impact was limited in their own time, who were "discovered" after their deaths, and who became very important in their fields. People in this category include Robert Johnson, Edgar Allan Poe, Herman Melville, Emily Dickinson and John Kennedy Toole.
- The Icons: These are folks who had a big artistic impact during their lives, but whose legend grew once they died, invariably prematurely. People in this category include Oscar Wilde, James Dean, Kurt Cobain, John Lennon, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, Tupac Shakur.
- The Honored Dead: Here we have people who died tragically, and who are now the focus of regular, national mourning and remembrance. People in this category include The Unknown Soldier(s), the soldiers named on the Vietnam Memorial and the victims of 9/11.
- The Crime Victims: Some crimes capture the public imagination, and their victims achieve great fame, and even impact, in death. People in this category include Nicole Brown Simpson, Andrew and Abby Borden and The Black Dahlia.
- The Flashpoints: These are folks whose death was the final straw, or the near-final straw, and whose death led directly to a major uprising, as well as the political and social aftermath of that uprising. People in this category include George Floyd, Michael Brown, Ahmaud Arbery, Eugene Williams (Chicago Race Riots of 1919) and José Gallardo Díaz (Sleepy Lagoon Case/Zoot Suit Riots).
- The Matildas: The Matilda Effect is the tendency to downplay the accomplishments of women scientists. It's a problem today, and it was a real problem in generations past. As a result, some very important women scientists' work was either largely unknown, or was not properly appreciated, until after their demise. People in this category include Nettie Stevens, Eunice Foote, Rosalind Franklin, Esther Lederberg, Ida Noddack, Chien-Shiung Wu and Kay McNulty.
We know that some of these people are not Americans. But we think they belong nonetheless, because of their impact on American culture and society.
B.B. in St. Louis, MO, asks: I seem to recall the two baseball situations you describe as being in the book So You Think You Know Baseball by Harry Simmons (published 1960), which describes several bizarre situations which could occur in a baseball game and challenges the reader to make the correct call. Was this, in fact, your source?
(V) & (Z) answer: No. At least, not directly. The source was As They See 'Em: A Fan's Travels in the Land of Umpires, by Bruce Wise, which (Z) read several years ago. Wise is a top-notch reporter, and so is surely a good researcher. It's very possible that he read the Simmons book, and borrowed from it.
B.J. in Arlington, MA, asks: William Shakespeare lived approximately 500 years ago. J.S. Bach lived about 250 years ago. Both are still recognized as major contributors to the human project. There are other artists of other works of art from the distant past that are still revered today, but of course most art by most artists is long forgotten.
In 300-500 years, what films or filmmakers from our era do you think will have stood the test of time and be revered as the works of Shakespeare and Bach are today, if any? And what music or musicians? Poems or poets? Or any other forms of art you have opinions on.(V) & (Z) answer: There is a pretty important difference between the modern era and eras past, and that is that the actual performances might survive into the future. We can't watch Shakespeare in action, but people in the future might plausibly watch Marlon Brando. We can't hear Bach play the Toccata and Fugue in D minor, but people in the future might plausibly listen to Michael Jackson perform "Thriller." It's hard to know exactly what the implications of this will be.
That said, the things most likely to survive will have two qualities, we think. The first is that they will have a universal quality, in terms of the subjects and themes they embrace, and possibly the techniques they use. The second is that they will be ubiquitous in our time, increasing the odds of some copies surviving well into the future.
Musically, the 20th century artists that have the best chance of being known 500 years from now are, in our opinion, Chuck Berry, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Elton John, the Gershwins, and some of the major Broadway composers, like Andrew Lloyd Webber and Rodgers and Hammerstein. In terms of film, we would pick Westerns, especially the most prominent films made by John Wayne, and the Star Wars films. Among TV shows, I Love Lucy, The Andy Griffith Show and Cheers. For visual artists, Picasso and Andy Warhol.
T.W. in Norfolk, England, UK, asks: I'm sure you get a lot of e-mails (you've mentioned your mailbag before is substantial), but you mentioned you get lots of "pointed" e-mails on certain subjects. I just wondered, on an average day (assuming any day these days could qualify as average, given the amount of bovine excrement there is in the news from certain quarters), what sort of percentage of your mailbag is written by scenery-chewing, swivel-eyed loons versus that which is considered and polite?
(V) & (Z) answer: We don't get too many e-mails from "scenery-chewing, swivel-eyed loons," as we would conceive of that term, except in the lead-up to elections. What we do get is e-mails from people who have very strong opinions about a particular subject, backed by strong emotions, and who decide to put aside decorum and lash out because they disagree with what we wrote.
The number of e-mails like that, on any given day, varies a lot, depending on what we wrote, of course. Also, it depends how pointed something has to be to qualify—approaching the line, crossing it, or crossing WAY over it? In the average week, we probably get a dozen e-mails that we find uncollegial, of which three or four will be in "crossing a line." territory. And of those three or four, maybe one will cross the line far enough to merit a block on future e-mails.