Dem 47
image description
   
GOP 53
image description

Saturday Q&A

It turns out that the readership of this site really likes historical fiction. So, the "Reader Question of the Week" section is extra-long this week.

If you are still pondering the headline theme from yesterday, we'll say that we really wanted to get "Lewis" into a headline, but there was just no way to make it work.

Current Events

J.M. in Arvada, CO, asks: I know the debt is a convenient talking point for Republicans that is endlessly repeated by talking heads and social media bots. But cutting through all the political talk, should I really be that concerned about the debt? And if so, why?

(V) & (Z) answer: Let's start with a crude analogy. Imagine you learned that someone has an income of $25,000, and credit card debt of $250,000. They'd be in deep trouble, right?

However, imagine that we then added that this person also own two houses, each of them with a value of $10 million. All of a sudden, they're not in so much trouble, right?

A lot of the people who obsess about the debt are thinking about it like the United States is a person with an income of [X] and a debt of 10 times [X]. But it's nowhere near that simple. The United States, like the homeowner in our analogy, actually has assets that far exceed the value of the debt. On top of that, unlike a private citizen, the United States can print its own money, as needed. Also, the United States' economy is the foundation of the world economy, giving the entire world a vested interest in the U.S. economy remaining solid.

What matters most is that the U.S. remains able to service its debt, which it currently is able to do. The time to worry is when the people who loan money to the government (i.e., the people who buy government bonds) lose confidence in the U.S. economy, and start to demand higher interest rates for their investments. That could lead to a vicious cycle in which the debt begins to grow at a rate where it becomes more and more difficult to service it, leading to even higher interest rates, and so on.



L.V.A. in Idaho Falls, ID, asks: The BBB (Bozo Boosts Billionaires) passes the Senate after a Byrd Bath with 51 votes. The BBB increases the national debt a lot over the next 10 years, yet it passes via the budget reconciliation process, no filibuster. What am I missing here?

(V) & (Z) answer: It is legal, under reconciliation, to increase the deficit (and thus, the debt). However, a reconciliation bill cannot increase the deficit, by itself, beyond a particular timeframe (usually 10 years). Senate Republicans cleared that hurdle, largely through the use of accounting tricks.



C.J. in Boulder, CO, asks: I see lots of takes that the GOP will suffer criticism about the BBB, but my recollection was that the worst effects won't kick in until after the midterms, so the GOP may get a bit of a plus from the tax breaks, while the penalty for other things will be shunted off to the future. Am I misremembering?

(V) & (Z) answer: The bill is actually a little vague on those questions. The Medicaid work requirements must be in place by December 31, 2026, but states are allowed to move faster, if they wish. The SNAP work requirements can kick in anytime between now and the day the sun burns out; the bill does not specify.

So, red-state leaders could decide to wait until after the next election to start cracking down. However, the leaders of those states have not generally shown that kind of impulse control (note how fast they moved to take advantage of the Dobbs decision).



D.W. in Phoenix, AZ, asks: I was a dentist. What is to prevent me from tipping my staff $25,000 each and lowering their income, so as to reduce their tax contribution?

(V) & (Z) answer:You could try it, but it would be risky. Tips aren't just a line on the income tax form, they require a whole different set of paperwork (namely, Form 4070A, in which the recipient of the tips has to log each day's take).

If a person were to have the same job as last year, and yet suddenly have $25,000 in tips, that would surely cause the IRS computers to flag the return. This is even more likely if it's just one $25,000 tip, as opposed to hundreds or thousands of smaller tips. The person who filed that return would probably get called in for an audit, and their return would likely be rejected. On top of that, they, and the boss who "tipped" them, might get charged with tax fraud.

Keep in mind that tips come from customers, not employers. This is why a high-powered attorney might be able to get away with framing their income as tips—it wouldn't be too hard to have clients "pay" them directly (and then they would pass through some amount of that money to their firm). It's a lot harder to set it up so that dental clients are paying the dental hygienist and the dental assistant directly.



F.I. from Philadelphia, PA, asks: All current members of the House and Senate who previously were members of the Tea Party Caucus (besides Rand Paul) have voted "yea" on Trump's BBB, despite it exploding the deficit by trillions of dollars. One of the biggest pillars of the tea party movement was to reduce the national deficit. The Tea Party Caucus no longer formally exists, but many of their former members now support massive increases to the deficit. What changed?

(V) & (Z) answer: Nothing changed. For some of the tea party types, their talk was just that—talk—meant to get them elected by right-wing constituencies. For others, "we want to cut government spending" actually meant "we want to cut government spending on poor people and/or brown people." Find us a tea partier or Freedom Caucuser who says that we really have to reduce our military spending, and then we'll believe that they actually care about the debt.



D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: Donald Trump recently held a rally that was supposed to kick off the yearlong celebration of the 250th anniversary of the founding of this country in Des Moines, IA. Why there? If my memory of American history serves me, Iowa had absolutely nothing to do with the American Revolution. Iowa wasn't even a state until the 19th century. I'm not saying that Iowa can't be a part of the "celebration," which will probably be more about celebrating Trump than anything else. It just seems an odd place to start. I know that most of the states associated with the American Revolution are blue states, but not all. Surely, he could have found some rural redneck area of one of the former colonies to hold one of his Hate Rallies. When I think of Iowa, there's only one thing that comes to mind.

(V) & (Z) answer: We doubt it has anything to do with the 2028 election, as that is awfully far away.

We suspect that Trump is having a harder and harder time attracting crowds to his rallies, so he went to a place that's pretty red, and pretty populous, and where he hadn't been in a while. Also, he announced that he wants to do a national, touring version of a "state fair," with exhibits and crafts representing the various states. Since the Iowa State Far is THE state fair, the Iowa state fairgrounds is a logical place to make such an announcement.



D.D. in Hollywood, FL, asks: How realistic is it that some or most of our trading partners are, as we speak, working on alternative trade agreements that don't include the U.S.? Same question concerning defense: Are they making other arrangements? Obviously, this won't happen overnight, but perhaps with a target goal on having deals in place before Trump's term ends?

(V) & (Z) answer: Other nations are talking openly about making their own defense arrangements, since that is what Trump wants them to do. So, regardless of how serious they are, they are served by being as loud about it as is possible.

Trump would be less happy to hear that various nations were planning end-runs around him and around the U.S. when it comes to trade, so such discussions would be much quieter and more discreet. But the odds are approximately 100% that those discussions are taking place.



C.P.S in San Jose, CA, asks: Do you think that in light of his "success" in obliterating Iran's nuclear capability, Trump might seriously be considering a first strike on North Korea in hopes of eliminating their nuclear weapons? Do you think that he might believe that, with a sufficient quantity of bunker busters dropped from stealth bombers, followed up by a massive shower of cruise missiles, and immediately thereafter by F-35 attacks, he could pull off a trick that might get him that long-sought-after Nobel Peace Prize?

(V) & (Z) answer: Absolutely not.

Fundamentally, Trump is a coward. Though that seems judgmental, we really don't mean it that way. Some presidents are willing to make risky moves, and to live with the consequences, good or bad. Some presidents are not. Trump is on the extreme "not" end of the spectrum. When he was just a businessman, he didn't even have the stomach to fire bad employees—he stuck other people with that duty. Does that sound like someone who has the sand to potentially start World War III? Not to us. He only ordered the (very low risk) bombing of Iran because people had caught on to his being a coward, and he wanted to prove them wrong.

Beyond that, no matter how well-planned and well-executed an American attack on North Korea might be, there is no possible way to prevent a counterattack. Not against the U.S., but definitely against Seoul, South Korea. There is no question millions would die. This would also be a rather serious incursion on China's sphere of influence, and one can only guess how that nation might respond.



D.P. in Oakland, CA, asks: Is it possible, at some future time, for Paramount, etc. to claw back the amounts that have been extorted?

(V) & (Z) answer: It is certainly possible; they could go to court and argue that they were coerced. Whether they would want to risk alienating millions of MAGA customers in the hopes of recovering $16 million is the question.

Politics

E.D. in Rochester, MN, asks: Could the "immigration problem" be better solved through stricter employer enforcement rather than employee round-ups?

(V) & (Z) answer: Yes. This has been the case for decades. If there are fewer economic opportunities for undocumented immigrants, there will be fewer incentives for them to take their chances coming here, and so there will be fewer of them. And it's not a secret which industries, and even which specific businesses, rely substantially on undocumented labor.

The problem is twofold. First, a big chunk of the Republican coalition, and in particular the Republican donor class, relies extensively on this cheap source of labor. They would be very unhappy if there was a targeted crackdown like this. Second, if the folks who produce restaurant food, and fruits and vegetables, and meat, etc. suddenly had to hire a bunch of above-the-table labor, the prices of those things would skyrocket, and voters would be angry.

What it amounts to is that the politicians who endlessly complain about undocumented immigration aren't really interested in undocumented immigration. They are just interested in getting voters angry about undocumented immigration. There are actually non-punitive policies that are proven to work to reduce undocumented immigration (for example, investment in job creation in poor Latin American countries), but those policies run contrary to the narrative that immigrants are evil and a plague, and so the anti-immigration crowd never mentions them.



C.S. in Newport, Wales, UK, asks: If I have this right, then there are six Democratic Senators 70 years old or older who are up in 2026. Of these, two aren't standing again (Dick Durbin, IL, and Jeanne Shaheen, NH).

The other four are John Hickenlooper (CO), Ed Markey (MA), Jack Reed (RI) and Mark Warner (VA). Given that there seems to be plenty of Democratic voters that would like to see some new/younger candidates, which of these do you think is most likely to lose their primary, and which is least likely?

(V) & (Z) answer: As we have written many times, you can't beat somebody with nobody, and none of this quartet has drawn anything remotely close to a serious challenger.

So, we are left to speculate. Markey is the oldest of the four, Massachusetts has a deep Democratic bench, and there are a lot of progressive voters there, so he might plausibly be toppled by a challenger from the left. In other words, he's the most likely to be primaried (although only in the sense that a 1-in-100 chance is more plausible than a 1-in-1000 chance). The least likely to be primaried is Warner, as he's a good match for the great majority of Virginia Democrats, and it would be tough for a challenger to pull together the money and campaign infrastructure to seriously compete in a state with a population of nearly 9 million. Oh, and Warner is the richest Democrat in Congress with a net worth over $200 million. Outspending him won't be easy.

Civics

T.L. in San Francisco, CA, asks: How many Americans (of any political leaning) do you think have read and know about the contents of the Declaration of Independence?

(V) & (Z) answer: The number of Americans who have actually read the document is surely very low, probably less than 1%. In the end, it's a somewhat dry legal document, written by a bunch of lawyers, in language that is now archaic.

As to the percentage of Americans who understand what is in it, assuming we mean "a reasonably correct understanding," we'd guess that's around 10%. The problem is that, to keep things nice and easy, it's often taught as an anti-tax screed. And while taxes were one of the key precipitating factors of the Revolution, they do not actually loom very large in the document.



J.C. in Trenton, NJ, asks: How did the commoners of England view the Declaration of Independence? Did it gave them any ideas ("You mean we can get rid of the King?")?

(V) & (Z) answer: Generally speaking, they saw it as a temper tantrum being thrown by a bunch of ingrates who didn't appreciate the blessings of being British. Of course, the people in England had representation in Parliament, whereas the colonists did not—which was the primary reason they rebelled.



D.A. in Long Beach, CA, asks: With all of the government statistics that we use—inflation, unemployment, economic growth—what's to stop the TCF from directing what those numbers should be from his Golden Throne?

(V) & (Z) answer: It's not impossible, but it's not very likely. Here is a list of half a dozen problems that such a scheme would run into:

  1. While it's the top-level numbers that get all the headlines, the various agencies that produce statistics have to show their work. And the people whose job it is to pore over the numbers (say, financial analysts) would soon notice the numbers were screwy. It's actually hard to fake data without it being pretty evident.

  2. The compiling of data is decentralized, such that—for example—the Bureau of Economic Analysis is in an entirely different department (Commerce) than the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Labor) than the Economic Research Service (Agriculture). If one department was somehow compromised, it would be pretty obvious that their numbers didn't line up with what was coming out of the other departments.

  3. Similarly, some of the data compiled by the government is also compiled by private or state-level interests. If the federal numbers did not line up with all the others, it would be pretty obvious the federal books were cooked.

  4. Most of the employees who compile the statistics do not answer to the president, and cannot be fired (except for cause), so they are rather immune to pressure to manipulate the numbers.

  5. If it became clear that the numbers were being manipulated, either because the numbers were shown to be screwy, or because a whistleblower announced that Trump tried to get them to cook the books, then there would be a lot of questions as to what the Trump administration was trying to hide, and why.

  6. Finally, if Trump were to show the world that he was manipulating the numbers, or trying to do so, he would never again be able to brag about low unemployment, low inflation, etc., because nobody would believe him.


M.B. in Shenzhen, China, asks: So many Supreme Court decisions recently seem to have come down 6-3, on party lines.

Has there ever been a time when there was a higher percentage of party-line votes from that Court?

(V) & (Z) answer: It would be nearly impossible to put a "percentage" on many past Courts, because there are many justices who moved rightward or leftward over their tenures. For example, David Souter was a George H.W. Bush appointee who eventually morphed into a reliable vote for the liberal wing of the court. So, at what point did a Souter vote for the Republican position cease to be a party-line vote? And, at what point did a Souter vote for the Democratic position become a party-line vote? It's hard to say.

With this said, there are two past occasions where the Supreme Court was noticeably divided into factions that predicted the outcome of most votes. In the years immediately before the Civil War, the pro-slavery judges tended to vote as a bloc, and the remaining justices also tended to vote as a bloc. And in the 1930s, there was a conservative, anti-New Deal bloc called "The Four Horseman" (Pierce Butler, James Clark McReynolds, George Sutherland, and Willis Van Devanter) who nearly always voted together, and who were opposed by the "Three Musketeers" (Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo, and Harlan Stone). That left most outcomes in the hands of the two remaining justices, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Justice Owen J. Roberts, with the former leaning liberal and the latter leaning conservative.



A.W. in Lincoln, MA, asks: You reminded us this week that sleazebags, including Rudy Giuliani and Mike Lindell, have lost court cases with big-dollar judgments. But what happens when the person is already broke, like Lindell? Why aren't they still walking around free rather than serving time in the modern equivalent of debtors prison? And why in the world was Giuliani allowed to keep his Florida and New York homes while fully satisfying the $148 million judgment against him? There's no way he had that kind of money, so why didn't the election workers he defamed squeeze every last penny out of him and put him on welfare?

(V) & (Z) answer: The theory behind debtors prisons was that the people actually had the money and were hiding it, and that prison would cause them to cough it up. As it turned out, this thinking was generally incorrect. The main impact of debtors prisons was to leave the debtor unable to contribute to society, to leave the debtor's family impoverished, to leave the creditor unpaid, and to leave the government paying the bill for the imprisonment. So, it was a lose-lose-lose-lose.

Eventually, these various negative outcomes caused the debtors prisons to be shut down, and for protections to be put in place, such that even people with outstanding debts/judgments would still have the means to support themselves and any dependents. These protections are sometimes abused, which is why someone like Giuliani still owns the property he owns. It is also likely that Trump asked some billionaire friend to "loan" Giuliani enough money to accept the offer and drop legal proceedings. Giuliani knows too much and could spill the beans if the Arizona fake-electors case ever goes to trial. Trump doesn't want that.



S.P. in Harrisburg, PA, asks: We only really hear about the Parliamentarian of the Senate when she comments on what can or cannot be in a reconciliation bill. What are the other duties of this position?

(V) & (Z) answer: Parliamentary procedure is very abstruse, and the rules of the Senate make it even trickier. Further, the senators take turns as presiding officer (and thus, the officer responsible for adherence to the proper procedures). Most senators don't really know the rules, and so the Parliamentarian and her staff instruct them on the fly.

The Office of the Parliamentarian also takes on various "management" tasks. For example, it is up to them to decide which committee is the appropriate one for a particular bill. Similarly, it is the Parliamentarian of the Senate who keeps the certificates of attainment after a presidential election. That means that during the 1/6 Insurrection, Elizabeth MacDonough made on-the-spot arrangements to spirit away the paperwork and to keep it safe.

History


C.V. in Minneapolis, MN, asks: As we recognize the anniversary of Gettysburg this week, I am interested to know your opinions on whether the 1st Minnesota or the 20th Maine was more critical to the Union's victory. There seem to be good arguments for both!

(V) & (Z) answer: Seems pretty equal to us. The 1st Minnesota delayed James Longstreet's attack long enough that the 20th Maine could get into position to defend little Round Top, and then the 20th Maine actually defended Little Round Top and kept the Union line from collapsing.



M.D. San Tan Valley, AZ, asks: When did the term "Leader of the Free World" become a normal comment when referencing the president in a conversation (current one need not apply)?

(V) & (Z) answer: That was 100% Cold War propaganda, meant to contrast the U.S. and the other western democracies with the "not free" communist nations. So, the term entered usage in the mid-to-late 1940s.



J.J. in West Hollywood, CA, asks: You previously answered a question about the best times in history for a woman, who have often been oppressed. I am curious what times in history would be the best to live in if you are a gay man?

(V) & (Z) answer: A full answer would be pretty complicated, as there were societies that were OK with gay, but not bi. Or OK with gay and bi, but not trans. Or OK with gay and trans, but not bi. Further, there were societies that were tolerant of one or more gender identities, but only if certain rules were followed. For example, the ancient Greeks were generally OK with same-sex male relationships, but only if there was no penetration, and if it involved an older man and a younger man. There were also societies that were tolerant of those who performed one role in gay sexual congress, but not the other. For example, the ancient Romans had no problem with what we would call the "top," but disdained what we would call the "bottom."

With all of this said, there were extended periods of time where people in Asia, particularly India, Japan and Thailand, were tolerant of gay, lesbian, and sometimes even trans people. Many Native American tribes (particularly in North America) were also tolerant of different sexual identities, as were the aboriginal peoples of Australia and New Zealand. There are also lengthy periods in European history (for example, Renaissance Italy, Elizabethan England) that could be described as "Don't ask, don't tell"—as long as the relationship was kept very discreet, people tended to look the other way.

Fun Stuff

G.B. in Collin County, TX, asks: Most of the Star Trek franchise is focused on Starfleet's actions out on the frontier, but I've always wondered what the internal politics of the United Federation of Planets would look like. What kind of internal rivalries and alliances pop up across multiple species and across interstellar distances? Could you even keep a single polity together under those conditions; even with warp drive and subspace radio and a federal system delegating a lot of autonomy to individual planets? It's difficult to keep a federation together on one part of one planet in real life.

(V) & (Z) answer: Undoubtedly, there would be tensions based on local concerns, such that planets with, say, tourist-based economies (e.g., Risa) would be in conflict with planets suffering from material shortages (e.g., Bajor). It's also made clear that there is a cultural divide between more intellectual/scientific cultures (e.g., Mizar II) and more military cultures (e.g., Chalnoth). Finally, there is very clearly a neo-Luddite, anti-technology element to Earth culture, as exemplified by the brother of Jean-Luc Picard, the father of Benjamin Sisko, and the neo-transcendentalist settlers of Bringloid V, among others.

It cannot be easy to manage these different cross-cutting cleavages, especially since citizens of the Earth and the Federation have the same problem that has afflicted humans since time immemorial—the emergence of a threat tends to trigger much tension and violent disagreement. See, for example, the events of "Paradise Lost," where a handful of changelings nearly manage to wreck human society, and to turn the Federation into an authoritarian regime.



S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA , asks: Why didn't Jimmy Carter continue the tradition of throwing the season's first pitch for the Washington baseball team (whatever the name at the time)? It seems like a PR can of corn to me.

(V) & (Z) answer: There are many possible explanations. For example, if Carter was not particularly athletic, he might not want to risk embarrassment. Or, since he was a die-hard Braves fan, he might have been unwilling to participate if that team was not one of the participants. Or, he might have missed his first couple of opportunities, and thereafter was unwilling to risk the bad optics of 30,000 people booing, as his approval slipped.

However, it is not any of these things. Carter did throw out a first pitch, it just wasn't on Opening Day. It was before the seventh game of the 1979 World Series between the Pirates and Orioles in Baltimore. So, the problem wasn't a lack of athleticism (in fact, he was actually a veteran softball player), and it wasn't the non-presence of the Braves, and it wasn't crumbling approval ratings.

We are therefore left to assume that the issue was just... logistics. For example, Carter's first chance to throw out a first pitch was on April 7, 1977. But on that day, he was finishing up a series of meetings with Anwar Sadat, and he was shepherding a tricky bill through Congress (the Reorganization Act of 1977). Our guess is that he was similarly indisposed on the other three opening days that happened during his presidency.



J.Y. in Salem, OR, asks: I have a follow-up question regarding the request for opinions of the best film on American politics. Why haven't there been more films tightly or loosely based on the Trump presidency? It seems that there is an abundance of dramatic and certainly dark comedic material. Is it too soon? Too sensitive a subject? Are film studios scared of the Orange Menace or of the MAGA Cancel Culture?

(V) & (Z) answer: From a business standpoint, it's hard to think of a film that would appeal to both the MAGA types and the non-MAGA types. And it's much harder to make money if you begin by turning your back on half the audience. This is one reason there aren't too many Civil War films anymore; if you make the South the bad guys, or if you make them the good guys, you anger half the people in the country.

From an artistic standpoint, it's hard to think of a compelling story to tell, one that fits a conventional story arc. We suspect that once a film is made, it will be a fanboy film like the recent picture about Ronald Reagan starring Randy Quaid. It will be poorly made, on a low budget, and will be targeted entirely at people who want to hear "Donald Trump is awesome."

This said, there was an Oscar-nominated film about Trump last year, The Apprentice. It just wasn't about his presidency, it was about his relationship with Roy Cohn. Excellent film, by the way.



F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Who are the 10 most influential poets in U.S. history?

(V) & (Z) answer: We are in no position to judge artistic impact. So, we are going to judge based on broader societal impact. And, as is generally the case, we don't want to try to compare apples and oranges, so we're not going to try to rank them. Instead, in alphabetical order:

  1. Maya Angelou: An inspiration to women, to Black Americans, and to abuse victims across the land. She was only the second poet (after Robert Frost) to read her verse for a presidential inauguration.

  2. Allen Ginsberg: "Howl!" spoke to a lot of young people in the 1960s, persuading them to rebel against the expectations of society.

  3. Langston Hughes: The most important wordsmith of the Harlem Renaissance, and an enormous influence on the people who would eventually go on to lead the Civil Rights Movement.

  4. Rudyard Kipling: He's not an American, but "The White Man's Burden" did a great deal to solidify support for the Spanish-American War in particular, and for American imperialism in general.

  5. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow: For better or worse, he had a profound impact on the manner in which 19th century Americans (and 20th century Americans) thought about their nation's history. "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere," in particular, made a legend out of a previously obscure figure, while also persuading thousands of young men to volunteer to fight in the Civil War.

  6. John McCrae and Wilfred Owen: Whereas the previous two entries were in the pro-war faction, McCrae's "In Flanders Fields" and Owen's "Dulce et Decorum Est" are legendary anti-war poems, both a product of the horrors of World War I. The two works made many Americans think twice about the merits of entering World War II, and of fighting other wars thereafter. Neither was American, of course; McCrea was Canadian, and Owen was British.

  7. William Shakespeare: Another non-American, but an obvious choice for the list. The works of Shakespeare have tortured millions of high school students, but have also inspired and influenced tens of millions of adults, not the least of which was Abraham Lincoln, who considered Shakespeare his favorite writer.

  8. Shel Silverstein: How many kids learned from Silverstein, at least in part, what it means to be a good person? At the same time, he also taught them about some of the hard truths of life.

  9. Edna St. Vincent Millay: Hughes was the intellectual and artistic godfather of the Civil Rights Movement, Millay filled the same role (well, intellectual and artistic godMOTHER) for the feminist movement.

  10. Walt Whitman: For the intellectual and well-read people of his day, Whitman gave them a new way to see the world. For the people devastated by the death of Lincoln, Whitman helped them cope ("O, Captain! My Captain!"). And there were more than a few gay young men, even in the 19th century, who picked up on the homoerotic subtext to many of Whitman's poems, and knew they weren't alone in the world.
Gallimaufry

M.F. in Frazier Park, CA, asks: M.S. in Harrisonburg wrote about the racism and Lost Cause fanaticism they encountered while participating in Civil War reenactments. Since (Z) wrote his dissertation on that subject, I was wondering what his experiences were along that line? Were M.S.'s experiences out of the ordinary?

(V) & (Z) answer: They were not out of the ordinary, necessarily, but (Z) didn't run into that sort of stuff all that much. First, because that kind of talk tends to be between "the boys" and is not expressed in front of outsiders. Second, because most of the groups (Z) studied were not based in the South. And so, the Lost Cause stuff tended to be more... intellectualized, for lack of a better term. What that means is that he didn't have a lot of people telling him the South would rise again or that Jefferson Davis was a great hero, but he DID run into the argument that there were many Black soldiers in the Confederacy many times.

Incidentally, the most Lost Cause-y unit he dealt with was... an all-Black unit in Texas. Clarence Thomas would have fit right in.



This item appeared on www.electoral-vote.com. Read it Monday through Friday for political and election news, Saturday for answers to reader's questions, and Sunday for letters from readers.

www.electoral-vote.com                     State polls                     All Senate candidates