Dem
47
GOP
53
We wrote yesterday that today we would share the tone-deaf image that was posted to the official White House eX-Twitter account on Thursday. Here it is:
This also serves as a second hint for the week's headline theme. A big hint. A very big hint. A super hint. Note that we've gotten a number of guesses related to baseball, but those guesses don't work with the hint(s), nor do they fit in the category of Language. If baseball was the theme, we would have said the category was Sports.
D.P. in Oakland, CA, asks: During the Biden years, what would have been the reason for not releasing the Epstein files? The official reason and/or any political or personal reason?
P.L. in Denver, CO, asks: I think your write-up of the Epstein files is spot on. However, I have a question. I understand that there are people who plan on suing. Is it possible that the files could be exposed as part of a lawsuit?
(V) & (Z) answer: Needless to say, there is much that is hazy here, and so it's hard to write an answer that covers all possibilities. That said, we will begin by pointing out that the term "client list" covers a lot of different possibilities. And many of those possibilities are things you probably would not think of when you hear that term.
In particular, there is a very good chance that the "client list" is a document that was not compiled by Epstein and/or Ghislaine Maxwell, and that the duo never even saw. It could well be an FBI report, wherein agents went through all the Epstein materials and made up a list of all the people who were participants in the sex trafficking scheme, or who may have been participants.
When it comes to the Biden and Trump administrations choosing not to share whatever documents there are, we can think of four very plausible explanations:
- Politics: The document might implicate, or semi-implicate, people who would be embarrassing for the people in power. In particular, information that is publicly available suggests that Bill Clinton and Donald Trump were at least friendly with Epstein. Anything that connects either or both of those two men more closely to Epstein/Maxwell would give a lot of ammunition to the opposing party.
- Diplomacy: Prince Andrew was most certainly friends with Epstein, and almost certainly participated in some illegal or immoral sexual acts. The decision to stifle the materials could be driven by a desire to protect the United States' relationship with the U.K., one of its closest allies. It is also faintly possible that some other foreign dignitary, identity currently unknown, is somehow implicated. For example, what if Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Epstein once spent a weekend in each other's company? (Please be clear that is entirely hypothetical, and that neither Mohammed nor any other foreign official, beyond Andrew, has been linked to Epstein.)
- Protect the Innocent: Being associated with pedophilia and/or child pornography is absolutely radioactive in modern American society, the way that being communist was 75 years ago. If there are people who MIGHT have been associated with Epstein but the picture is not 100% clear, or people who just so happened to cross his path, they could see their lives destroyed by association with him, and without any sort of due process or any real possibility of defending/redeeming themselves.
- Court Orders: At least some evidence related to Epstein has already been introduced in court, when Maxwell went on trial, and was sealed by two different judges. It is very possible that an FBI report, or an address book, or an e-mail listing potential recruitment targets could be under seal, and that the White House is therefore not legally able to release that material.
Judges have a lot of power to protect evidence from public view, either in whole, or in part (using redactions). Although the default position is "the public has a right to know," judges also have a duty to protect innocent people from undue consequences, to maintain national security, to keep classified information classified, etc. So, even if there are future lawsuits, any documents currently sealed may well remain so for the foreseeable future.It could be more than one of these things, and the items on the list that apply to the Biden administration may be different from the ones that apply to the Trump administration.
R.V. in Pittsburgh, PA, asks: Now that ICE practically has an open checkbook for next 5 years, do you fear there will be significant abuses? Everything from unqualified, gun-happy agents staffing ICE to innocent immigrants being harassed and/or arrested. Also, what about the potential for ICE going after American citizens who just happen to be on the blue or even the purple team?
(V) & (Z) answer: All of these things are, to a greater or lesser extent, already happening.
ICE already has something of a reputation as the law-enforcement agency that attracts people who are gun-happy, ideologically motivated, and who could not make the cut at other agencies. Backed by billions in new funding, and an administration that is not only supportive, but is enthusiastic about very harsh, very public crackdowns, we would expect the abuses of recent months to continue, and to become more frequent and more extreme.
E.G.G.-C. in Syracuse, NY, asks: Regarding your item about Donald Trump's plan (in truth, probably Stephen Miller's plan) about ramping up denaturalization, I'm a naturalized citizen for over 25 years. How worried should I be that this is the first step to find "rationales" to strip citizenship for using my First Amendment rights, or simply for having the "wrong" last name and color of skin?
Could things devolve into that kind of situation, or am I simply being too alarmist?(V) & (Z) answer: You are not being alarmist.
It is abundantly clear, at this point, that this administration does not care about the things it claims to care about. Its stated position, both on the campaign trail, and on taking power, is that it was pursuing lawbreaking immigrants (especially undocumented immigrants) so as to make the U.S. a safer place (particularly as regards the fentanyl epidemic).
What Donald Trump actually cares about is "wins." What Stephen Miller actually cares about is getting rid of brown people, lawbreaking or not. Both goals are served, more efficiently, by going after easy targets. Actual lawbreaking immigrants tend to hide themselves. Some of them also shoot back, or otherwise violently resist, when the government tries to apprehend them.
On the other hand, people who go to church, or who go to school, or who show up for work every day, are much easier to find, and are much less likely to cause trouble. The same goes for people who have played by the rules, and have gone through the asylum process, or have legally acquired a green card, or have legally acquired citizenship. As an added 'bonus," the federal government already has these folks' information, including their home/work addresses.
All of this said, once an administration expands its list of "targets" to literally include tens of millions of people, it makes it less likely that any one of those people gets detained. On top of that, the courts are deeply involved, and continue to produce rulings that are generally unfavorable to the administration's approach. Finally, and we'll have a piece about this next week, public opinion is growing ever more hostile. All of these things will serve to provide some level of "protection" for those who might be targeted.
F.R. in Evergreen, CO, asks: Donald Trump reigns supreme now because the working class wants only three things: guns, religion, and someone to hate.
I don't like living in Trumplandia, and I am not ready to move out. Are there any forces out there that could conceivably move the needle back towards peace, love, stuff like that?(V) & (Z) answer: We begin by pointing out that there are always going to be some people in American society who are driven by fear, anger, hatred, xenophobia and other such emotions. You can pick any decade in U.S. history and identify groups that were particular targets of bigotry from the bigoted elements in American society. For example, in the 1850s, it was Irish Catholics and Chinese people. In the 1950s, it was Mexicans, Japanese people, homosexuals and alleged communists. And these are on top of Black people and Jews, evergreen targets who can be added to the list for pretty much any decade.
That said, there are times when bigotry and anger become more publicly acceptable, and times when they become less publicly acceptable (or when they are drowned out by more positive emotions). We can think of three ways in which the U.S. might swing in a more "peace and love" direction. First, these things are somewhat cyclical, and eventually the pendulum swings back in the direction of positivity. Second, they are very rare, but some leaders can appeal to people's better natures, and encourage positive thought and positive action. Franklin D. Roosevelt was one such leader, John F. Kennedy was another. Third, a national crisis will sometimes serve to bring the citizenry together. This happened, to a fair extent, after 9/11, and it definitely happened during World War II.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: As we have one-party rule, and as that one party—through its legislative, judicial, extra-judicial, and executive supremacy—is approving without meaningful debate every whim of its leader, a leader whose opinions are immediately assumed by the Evangelical Christian "faith" as their own, is it fair to say that we are living in a state of pseudo-democratic theocracy?
(V) & (Z) answer: We would not go that far, for two reasons. First, there are still elements of the democracy that are working correctly, to wit: the court system (excepting, too often, the Supreme Court), federalism (states are pushing back against the worst excesses of Trumpism), and the fourth estate (not all media outlets, but many of them).
Second, a theocracy is guided by religious principles. We see no religious principles at all in Trumpism. What we see are fascist principles sometimes cloaked in religious rhetoric. Even then, we don't think anyone actually believes Trump is a professing Christian or that he reads/knows the Bible, and we can't help but notice that since being reelected, he has dropped virtually all references to his own religiosity.
D.M. in Santa Rosa, CA, asks: You often reference John F. Kennedy's book Profiles in Courage. And it is often in the negative where some politician is being spineless. What is your review of the book itself? Is it worth reading? Or is it just a useful title?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is definitely worth reading, as the book isn't just narrative, it also includes useful political analysis. In particular, the main theme of the introduction is how the American political system is set up to strongly incentivize "going along" (and, thus, cowardice).
T.J. in London, England, UK, asks: While I like quite a few of the people who you've profiled as Democratic Presidential prospects for 2028 so far, all of them seem to be either interesting prospects who deserve to have better odds than they do (Chris Murphy and Jon Tester) or non-serious suggestions (Jon Stewart and Phil Murphy, albeit for different reasons). Plus, so far, all of your summations seem to suggest you don't think any so far even an outside chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.
Without giving away where anyone is ranked on the list, how many more weeks are you going to have to wait before you write a profile of someone you can actually envisage winning the nomination?(V) & (Z) answer: We deliberately cast our nets wide, as there are often candidates who emerge to claim the nomination who were barely on the radar, or who weren't on the radar at all, at this point in the process. Most obviously, of recent vintage, nobody would have had Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton or Donald Trump on their "twenty most likely candidates" lists 3 years before the elections that put those men in the White House.
That said, the candidate who is up right after Tim Kaine is... plausible. And not long thereafter, we'll hit the 20s, and there are a couple of candidates in there who are also... plausible, along with two (numbers 21 and 23) who we would describe as very plausible. Once we get into the teens, there are a couple of candidates where we just don't see it (numbers 16 and 17, to be specific), but the rest are very plausible.
We can imagine that readers do not want to wait weeks or months to find out who we are referring to. While you'll have to wait a couple of days to see who the first "plausible" candidate is, we'll reveal the other four candidates to whom we specifically refer at the bottom of the of page, if you really want to know.
S.S. in Toronto, ON, Canada, asks: I just saw a news item about South Australia enacting a law that forbids financial political donations. Do you think there is any chance in the world that the United States could get to the point where elections are not about money?
(V) & (Z) answer: No.
First, there is a lot of law and jurisprudence that says that donating money to candidates is a First Amendment right. That cannot be changed, except with a new constitutional amendment, which isn't happening.
Second, the United States is a wealthy country. It is full of people who have strong ideas about their political goals, and who also have disposable income, and who are happy to use some of the latter to achieve some of the former. For this reason, unlike some places (like South Australia, perhaps), the notion of using money to influence politics is deeply ingrained in American culture. Even if donations to candidates were somehow outlawed, people would find a way to (try to) turn money into influence, whether that's PACs, or donating to politica parties, or supporting political activist groups, or something else.
D.S. in Layton, UT, asks: I have been reading that the tax cuts for the rich are permanent. Is that accurate? Is there a reason that they cannot be raised when the next tax bill is written?
J.R. in Orlando, FL, asks: In the highly unlikely event that Democrats win two-thirds of the seats in Congress, could they theoretically repeal the worst parts of the BBB before they go into effect, since the worst of the bill doesn't kick in until after the midterms?
(V) & (Z) answer: "Permanent" just means "there is no set end date." By law, Congress cannot tie the hands of future Congresses. Put another way, anything that can be done by the current Congress can be undone by a future Congress. So, the tax cuts are only "permanent" until some other Congress comes along and makes changes to then.
And so, if the Democrats somehow achieved a veto-proof two-thirds majority in 2026, they could indeed kill the parts of the BBB they don't like. Of course, that is not going to happen. If the Democrats win the trifecta in 2028 they could remove any feature of the BBB they wanted to using the reconciliation process.
C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: It seems like the only major news organization left that continues to do its job is MSNBC. They give real facts, cause/effect reporting, document Trump/Musk incompetence, etc. I see it as objective reporting, but everyone will now say it leans left. The fact is, every other news organization now is very much right-leaning, always sanewashing Trump's obvious lunacy.
My question is: Why aren't there dozens of crazy lawsuits against the last remaining news organization that does not sugar coat Trump's actions? How can MSNBC get away with this? And given that Trump seems to have no power at all over them (at least not yet), why do all the others seem to fear Trump so much?(V) & (Z) answer: We've written about this before, but we doubt that Trump or anyone in his orbit watches MSNBC, so they are likely unaware of that channel's coverage.
Even if Trump did want to stick it to MSNBC, though, there are a couple of problems. The first is that Trump has no leverage, He's got no basis for a lawsuit, even a dubious one. He can't threaten to screw with MSNBC's corporate parent, because NBCUniversal is spinning MSNBC (and other properties) off into an independent entity called Versant. And he can't command his followers to boycott MSNBC because all of them are already doing so.
The second problem is a version of the Streisand Effect. If Trump were to target MSNBC, he would just burnish the channel's anti-Trump bona fides, causing its viewers to love the channel even more, and very possibly driving some people who are not current viewers into the fold. He would also encourage the MSNBC staff to be even more pointed and more vocal in their negative coverage of him.
E.T. in Ondangwa, Namibia, asks: Your posts regularly refer to "red meat" comments, where right-wing politicians intentionally make inflammatory comments not because they mean what they say, but because they're trying to rile up their base. But the Republicans don't have a monopoly on this behavior; progressive politicians also like to make statements like this, like when Zohran Mamdani said back in December that "New York City would arrest Benjamin Netanyahu." What would you call it when left-wing politicians make inflammatory comments to rile up their base? Blue Steak?
(V) & (Z) answer: The "red" in "red meat" is not related to the red/blue Republican/Democratic dichotomy. It refers to meat that is bloody or raw, of the sort that would be fed to ravenous wolves. In other words, it is meant to refer to politicians who pander to their voters' emotions and instincts, and who "feed" those things with the "raw" material those voters hunger for.
What this means is that the Democratic version of "red meat" is... "red meat."
P.M. in Port Angeles, WA, asks: F.S. in Cologne asked a question about influential poets in U.S. history, and that suggested another question: When do you consider U.S, history to have begun? I propose that the concept of a confederation composed of the several colonies into a union of some sort, when widely discussed would indicate the beginning of the idea of a united body composed of sovereign states, thus the United States.
So, would you agree that the history of the United States could not have begun prior to that notion being in the common knowledge of that time?
If you agree with my reasoning, wouldn't William Shakespeare have lived prior to that time of awakening?(V) & (Z) answer: The first English colonists in North America had reasons for crossing a giant ocean, and settling in an unknown-to-them wilderness. In some cases, it was economic opportunity. In some cases, it was because they were criminals and England had gotten too "hot" for them. In some cases, it was because they had their own ideas about religion and/or governance, and did not want to be under the thumb of the Church of England and/or the monarch.
In other words, you can make a pretty good argument that, from the early 1600s, there was a perceptible feeling among (some) colonists that they were not really Englishmen anymore. Indeed, the first known use of "American," as a demographic category separate from "Englishman," dates to the 1640s. And certainly, by the early 1700s, a large number of people with English roots, but living in North America, saw themselves as a group distinct from the people living in England.
This said, your question seems to be an objection to our including William Shakespeare on a list of the poets who had the most impact on Americans, since "Americans" did not exist in Shakespeare's time. That may not be quite right, since he died in 1616. But, in any event, a poet (or other artist or thinker) does not have to be alive to exert influence. The book that has had the most impact on the United States is unquestionably The Bible, and it was written well before the U.S. existed. Plato's Republic would be in the Top 10, and it was written even before The Bible was (well, before the New Testament, at least).
D.A. in Brooklyn, NY, asks: You wrote: "Of course, the people in England had representation in Parliament, whereas the colonists did not—which was the primary reason they rebelled."
I wonder. If the Americans had representation in Parliament, would their representatives been in a position to block all the Intolerable Acts and whatever else irked the Americans? Parliament would have still taxed them, blocked the speculators in western lands from acquiring them, suffocated them with mercantilism, etc., no? Wouldn't the colonists have found some other reason to rebel?(V) & (Z) answer: They probably couldn't have blocked all of them, but they could have moderated them, in particular by being able to speak to the question of "How will this be received in the colonies?"
That said, the issue was not the taxes, per se. It's that by denying Americans representation in Parliament, and engaging in various exercises of power (not only taxes, but forcible quartering of troops, and limitations on free speech, and the like), the British government communicated that it viewed the Americans as second-class citizens. The Americans didn't like that (indeed, nobody likes that). So, representation in Parliament would have blunted the taxes some, but it really would have blunted the second-class-citizens argument, which was the driving force behind the Revolution.
This is not to say that the relationship between the mother country and her North American colonies could have survived, long term. Eventually, the population of the colonies (even if we decide there's no Louisiana Purchase or addition of other territory) would have exceeded the population of the British Isles (this would probably have happened in the 1840s). There is no way that Britain would have allowed North America to have a greater voice in British government than Britain herself. And there is no way that the larger population of North America (and, eventually, MUCH larger population) would have tolerated being a minority voice in the government. So, a breaking point would have been reached at some point in the 19th century.
S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, asks: What if Germany hadn't started World War II, but had instead merely implemented the Holocaust internally?
(V) & (Z) answer: Presumably, you are wondering if the killing would have been halted by external actors, absent the war. And the answer is that the Germans would likely have been allowed to proceed (albeit only against German Jews, who made up less than 10% of the victims of the actual Holocaust).
Yes, there were human rights organizations trying to bring attention to the plight of European Jews, and trying to secure assistance, even before the European part of World War II got underway in 1939. But it was World War II itself, and in particular the Holocaust, that effectively legitimized the notion that one country could interfere in the affairs of another country in the name of human rights.
But even when such involvement does take place, it's generally a very powerful country imposing itself on a much weaker country. It is not common for a powerful nation (say, the U.S.) to try to impose itself on another powerful nation (say, Germany), for fear of triggering a war. And in the years during/immediately after World War II, the Soviet Union and China, among others, slaughtered millions of their own people without outsiders getting involved. It's hard to see why Germany would have been different, absent the war.
G.S. in Basingstoke, UK, asks: You wrote: "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."
Go on, I'll bite. Which presidents? Perhaps a top three, with your justifications?(V) & (Z) answer: Other than Trump, we struggle to think of a president who did not enter office with the understanding that sometimes they would have to make unpleasant choices with unpleasant consequences, and that they would have to live with that. As Harry S. Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
However, Abraham Lincoln was certainly unusual in the courage he showed. He led the nation through a war that killed more Americans than any other. And he could easily have ended that war (indeed, he was under great pressure to do so) by recognizing the Confederacy as an independent nation. Lincoln did not do that, because he correctly recognized that would be a short-term "win," but would set the United States on the path to dissolution and ruin. So, he made choices on a near-daily basis that kept the war going, and that sent hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths, and hundreds of thousands more to lives of permanent disfigurement and/or psychological trauma and/or drug addiction. Lincoln would also freely admit, if he were alive today, that he made a lot of mistakes and a lot of bad decisions, but that is the way it works, because it's impossible to 1.000, or anything close to it.
Franklin D. Roosevelt also makes the list. During the Great Depression, he obviously made a lot a big decisions, decisions that effectively determined who would get help, and who would not, since there was not enough money, food, etc. to go around. He was often willing to accept short-term setbacks in service of long-term goals (for example, he did not really intend to pack the Supreme Court; he took that PR hit as a way to put pressure on the Court to stop striking down New Deal legislation, and it worked).
And then, during World War II, Roosevelt made countless decisions that decided life and death for millions of people, American and not. Which generals to appoint. Which targets to attack. Which concessions to grant/deny to the other allied leaders (especially Joseph Stalin). Whether or not to pursue an atom bomb.
Finally, John F. Kennedy led the United States through thirteen days during which it was on the verge of World War III. His advisers told him he had two options: (1) fire the first shot in a war that would end with 50 milllion or more Americans dead, or (2) let the other side fire the first shot, and watch 50 milllion or more Americans die. At risk of allowing #2 to come to pass, Kennedy decided that he simply must find a third option, which he did. There has never been another president who went to bed at night knowing that, if things go the wrong way, there could be 10 million fewer Americans when they awaken.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Did Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson have the legal authority to federalize the National Guards of Arkansas and Alabama against the wishes of the respective governors? I mean, there was neither a rebellion nor an invasion in both cases.
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes.
10 USC 12406 says that the president may call the National Guard into federal service under three circumstances, the latter two of those are "there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States" and "the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States."
You dismiss "rebellion" here, but we think you are too quick to do so. The Southern states resisted the decisions of the Supreme Court, often with violent force, for many years. It does not have to be a full-blown civil war to be a rebellion. Similarly, if Eisenhower/Johnson wanted to rely on "regular forces" to protect Black students/demonstrators, what regular forces would those have been? They couldn't use the military, as that violates the Posse Comitatus Act, and there weren't enough U.S. Marshals or FBI Agents to do what needed to be done. So, we would say that those two presidents were covered by the second and the third conditions of 10 USC 12406.
The problem with Donald Trump's use of the National Guard in California is that protests, even if a few protesters turned violent, do not rise to the level of "rebellion," certainly not after just a couple of days. Meanwhile, Trump did not even try to use "regular forces" before nationalizing the Guard.
D.D. in Carversville, PA, asks: As we've had multiple Greatest Generation and Baby Boomer presidents, and the current VP, Pete Buttigieg, and Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) are all Millennials, I wanted to ask about Gen X (generally defined as born between 1965 and 1979). Have we ever had a generation that never had a member elected president? Also, what do you think the probability is that there will be a Gen X President?
(V) & (Z) answer: To start with your second question, it is probable that the next president and/or the one after that, will be Gen X. By 2028, the Gen X cohort will be 49-63 years old. Presidents first being elected in their fifties or early sixties is the rule; being elected in their forties is less common. And once we get to the Top 10 of our 2028 Democratic candidates list, all but two are Gen X.
As to your first question, it's a little tricky for two reasons. The first is that labeling generations (a habit not far removed from trying to draw insight from astrological signs) is a somewhat modern custom, such that there aren't really generational "cohorts" prior to the 20th century. The second is that the start- and end-dates, even for the generational cohorts that ARE recognized, are a little fuzzy.
Still, if we think in terms of roughly-generational lengths of time, then there were no presidents born between 1890 (Eisenhower) and 1908 (L. Johnson). That's close to 20 years, and lines up pretty well with the emergence of the U.S. as a world power, so you could say that the "Imperialist" generation produced no presidents.
If you want actual, named generations, then there is only one Silent Generation president, and that is Joe Biden, born in 1942. However, 1942 is at the very end of the periodization, and Biden actually tends to identify with, and to be identified as, the Baby Boom generation. And surely his experience has more to do with growing up with post-war prosperity and the Cold War than it does with experiencing the Great Depression. So, it is justifiable to kick him out of the Silent Generation and into the Baby Boomers, we think. In any event, the run from 1924 (Carter, G.H.W. Bush) to 1942 (Biden) is the only other 18-year gap between presidential births, at least at the moment. There is also one 15-year gap (1946 to 1961) and two 13-year gaps (1809 to 1822; 1843 to 1856). All the other gaps are single-digits.
K.C. in West Islip, NY, asks: You suggested that if Jon Ossoff were to run for president in 2028 it would be similar to Joe Biden's run in 1988. I was 7 years old in 1988, so logically my interest or level of concern regarding politics was non-existent at the time. I do remember voting for George Bush in my school's mock election because, as elementary kids are most likely to do, I simply went with who my parents were voting for. What I do know about 1988, though, is that Biden's campaign was derailed by his plagiarism situation. Could you enlighten me; if the plagiarism scandal had never occurred, did he have a shot at the nomination or was Michael Dukakis effectively always going to be the guy? On the subject of 1988, I also know that Gary Hart was supposed to be "the guy" until some affairs came to light. Was Hart the model for the John Hoynes character in The West Wing?
(V) & (Z) answer: Biden was not a serious contender; he was just trying to get his name out there, and maybe also hoping that lightning would strike. In any event, plagiarism scandal or not, he was a long, long, longshot.
Gary Hart would have been a serious contender, almost certainly the frontrunner, if not for his dalliances. There is no evidence that John Hoynes is based on him; Hoynes's biography lines up much more with that of Lyndon B. Johnson.
Once Hart was out, the main threat to Dukakis was actually Jesse Jackson. But Jackson was a bit too liberal, even for Democratic primary voters, and also had a track record of dishonesty and of antisemitic remarks, so while he was the frontrunner for a short period (i.e., after winning the Michigan primary in a landslide), he eventually lost momentum.
D.G.H. in Barnegat, NJ, asks: What are the five most important films made outside of the United States of America?
(V) & (Z) answer: In chronological order:
- Metropolis (1927, Fritz Lang): In the first couple of decades of serious moviemaking, filmmakers were trying to "figure out" the new medium, and to develop a vocabulary and a toolkit for the stories they wanted to tell. Metropolis was one of the four or five most important films in that conversation, and the most significant of them to be created outside the United States (though M, by the same director, and Battleship Potemkin, by Sergei Eisenstein, are not far behind).
- Triumph of the Will (1935, Leni Riefenstahl): The subject matter is reprehensible, of course, but the film itself is a masterpiece, establishing a template for propaganda films that echoes to the present day. It also influenced documentary filmmaking, and became a reference point for filmmakers who want to establish a "fascist" world so they can then tear it down (the Star Wars films, for example, or Starship Troopers).
- The Great Dictator (1940, Charles Chaplin) and Casablanca (1942, Michael Curtiz): They went about it in different ways, but both films brought attention to the evils of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis and the need to resist at a critical junction. We could not choose one, so we include both.
- The Seven Samurai (1954, Akira Kurosawa): The storyline has been "borrowed" dozens of times (e.g., The Magnificent Seven, A Bug's Life, etc.), while Kurosawa has had more influence on filmmaking than just about any director. Meanwhile, the film served as something of a notice that Japan was rejoining the community of nations after World War II.
- Moon Landing (1969): The question does specify "films," and not "movies." And while the footage of the moon landing was made by Americans, it was not made in the United States (if anyone is tempted to send us an e-mail correcting us on this point, please instead use that time to loosen your tinfoil hat). Anyhow, that footage inspired scientists and future scientists the world over, helped to heighten the Cold War, and also launched a thousand conspiracy theories.
There is a lot of other news footage created outside the United States that was very impactful, like the footage that showed that the concentration camps were real, or the footage of people destroying the Berlin Wall. However, in those cases, and many others, it's many different films telling the story, not a single film. So, we couldn't put them on the list.
A.S. in Fairfax, VA, asks: As an Eagles fan still celebrating a championship, reading your posts every day is what sobers me up each morning, so I'm grateful for fun questions. Banning the Tush Push got 68% of the NFL teams' votes, enough to convict a president, but not enough to ban the greatest play in American football history.
So, should the Tush Push be banned?
And surprisingly, the current president did not attempt to weigh in on the issue. But have there been instances in the past where major sports have changed rules at least in part because of pressure from the White House?(V) & (Z) answer: In general, there are a few very good reasons to change the rules of a sport or sports league:
- Safety: The most impactful rules changes generally have to do with making the game safer, like the various rules adopted that require helmets and other protective gear, or the rule adopted after the death of Ray Chapman that forced teams to use clean baseballs that could be clearly seen by batters.
- Entertainment: Sports are, in the end, an entertainment product, and it behooves management to try to reduce the amount of dead time. The shot clock in basketball is an obvious example, as it was no fun to watch teams dribble without shooting for 5 minutes in games that ended 17-12. The free baserunner in extra innings, a recent change to MLB rules, is another.
- Loopholes: Everyone is always looking to get the upper hand, and oftentimes, teams come up with something advantageous that is technically within the rules, but is contrary to their spirit or to the competitive integrity of the game. The St. Louis Browns sending a dwarf (with no strike zone to speak of) is one example; Harvard's football team painting the footballs to be the same color as their uniforms (thus making it impossible to tell which player had the ball in his hands) is another.
- Cheating: Speaking of getting the upper hand, sometimes cheating gets out of control, and the rules have to be made more punitive or more aggressive to try to control the behavior. Rules about drug testing fall into this category, as do rules about flopping in the NBA.
- Profit: OK, this category might not fit under "good reasons," from the vantage point of fans, but profit is certainly a driver of some rule changes. Salary caps, for example, or mandatory TV timeouts.
We suppose the Tush Push is nominally in category 3. However, in our view, it does not rise to the level that it demands a rule change, as it's not really contrary to the spirit of NFL rules, and it doesn't fundamentally undermine the competitive integrity of football.
And yes, there have been changes to various sports' rules that were driven, at least in part, by the White House. Far and away the most obvious is that when he was president, Theodore Roosevelt was considering pushing for a law banning football because of all the injuries and deaths that were happening. This led the NCAA to make some big changes to make the sport safer, including mandating helmets, forbidding "flying wedge" blocks (everyone links arms and moves as one, giant unit), and legalizing the forward pass.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: The MLB All-Star Game is set to be played in Atlanta on Tuesday. But that city was supposed to host the 2021 game, until it was yanked out of the Peach State due to Georgia passing a more restrictive voting law in the wake of it going blue in the 2020 election. So why is it back there? What happened?
(V) & (Z) answer: There are two answers. The more important is that, back in 2021, the anti-Democratic actions of Georgia were unusual and shocking, and generated a massive backlash. MLB is a business, and its customers were unhappy, so it responded by moving the game. But now, such anti-democratic actions have become much more common and have been normalized, such that there is nowhere near the backlash, and there aren't enough angry customers that MLB needs to worry. (Everything in this paragraph is also true of North Carolina and its bathroom bill, by the way.)
The less important answer is that the commissioner of baseball, Rob Manfred, is a Republican and Trumper. So, he's likely to do what Trump wants, if at all possible.
K.S. in Sun City Center, FL, asks: I have a far-fetched question to ask. Or, rather, a question to ask about something that is rather far-fetched. I have been watching Scandal, an older TV series currently showing on Netflix. It is a political thriller about election-rigging and deep-state activities in the U.S. I wonder about the possibilities of that having been a favorite TV show of the current occupant of the White House and him being unable to determine reality from fantasy, so that the series became the basis for his belief that his 2020 election was rigged and that the deep-state is against him.
(V) & (Z) answer: We doubt it, for three reasons.
First, we see no evidence that Trump engages with contemporary popular culture at all. All of his cultural references seem to come from the 1960s and 1970s. Barring information to the contrary, we assume all of his TV watching is cable news and old movies.
Second, even if Trump does watch modern-day TV programs, we seriously doubt he would embrace a show where the main protagonist is a Black woman.
Third, and finally, is Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation for Trump's conspiracy theories is... that he's always the victim of some conspiracy, or some unfair treatment, or some mean person, or whatever. This has been going on with him for decades. And losing a presidential election was as high-profile a setback as he'd ever experienced, so of course he was going to turn it into a conspiracy. Remember, he was greasing the skids to attribute his loss in 2016 to a conspiracy, and the only reason he did not do so is that, to his surprise, he won the election. The point is, he did not need any help from a TV show.
M.H. in Salt Lake City, UT, asks: I know, a very unimportant topic, but it's been bugging me for a very long time. Before [something] happened, you asked your readers to come up with the dumbest political mistakes ever made. I submitted the indisputable, prize-winning entry right away. Nothing since then. Bupkis. Did I miss it, or perhaps do you regard the inexorably spiraling death of our democracy to be too important for such a trifle?
(V) & (Z) answer: It's been longer than you think. But this is going to move from the back burner to the front burner very soon. Probably at the start of August.