Dem
47
GOP
53
This week's headline theme produced an interesting result. There were some early responses that said "Ah! Easy one!" And then, there were virtually no others.
For a little extra help, we'll say that you would guess this theme was inspired by the item about the two religious leaders. It wasn't, though if they were trying to solve the puzzle, we suspect they would have been in that "easy one!" cohort. After all, as we pointed out, they are both on Team Jesus.
D.R. in Yellow Springs, OH, asks: I'm wondering why no president's administration has ended government shutdowns unilaterally. The reason we have the shutdowns is because of a legal opinion written by Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti during the last year of the Carter administration. He concluded that the Antideficiency Act, originally passed in 1884, required a shutdown.
Shutdowns only lasted for a few days under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, so I can see why they might have concluded that shutdowns were an inconvenience to tolerate. But they lasted for weeks under Clinton and Obama. So why didn't those administrations just have their attorneys general re-interpret the Antideficiency Act to conclude that the government didn't need to shut down? And why didn't Trump do that during the 2018-19 shutdown, or the current one?
Even if that wouldn't work, surely Congress could have amended the Antideficiency Act to explicitly say that the government shouldn't shut down in this situation. Why do you suppose Congress hasn't done that?(Z) answers: At various times, each party has seen a shutdown as a useful tool to advance/protect their agenda. That is why Congress has never had 60 people who, at the same time, were willing to change the law.
As to the presidents, all but one of them has been very careful to maintain a wall between themselves and the Department of Justice, and to avoid "suggesting" that the AG should revisit a particular decision or precedent. The exception to that, of course, is Donald Trump. He's the one president who actually might call up his AG and say "I want to see this changed, immediately." However, like the members of Congress, he clearly believes he can use shutdowns to advance his agenda (though he's 0-for-1 on that so far, and looks to be en route to 0-for-2).
And now that we're more than a month in, he's very unlikely to lean on Pam Bondi. If the White House announces on, say, Wednesday that it has ended the shutdown, then it raises the question "If you could do that, why did you wait?" That would completely undermine Republican messaging on the subject ("There's NOTHING we can do!") and would also be tantamount to accepting blame for anything bad that's happened due to the shutdown.
D.P. in Oakland, CA, asks: I don't understand why unions don't support saving Obamacare. Is it that they have other health insurance options because of their union membership? Or is it that the union leaders are more MAGA than their membership?
(Z) answers: The unions were semi-hostile to Obamacare when it was first implemented, though their support was secured with a few concessions (like limits on the amount that healthcare plans could be taxed).
We have not seen any indication that the unions' position on the current shutdown is rooted in hostility to Obamacare, per se. The current concern of the rank-and-file is that they are not being paid. Since, as you point out, they do not particularly NEED Obamacare due to having union-sponsored plans, they are apparently not particularly interested in making short-term sacrifices in service of (potential) long-term victories that won't necessarily benefit them.
Note that it's only some unions, basically those who represent federal employees and contractors, who have made noise. And even then, it's only the leadership that's spoken up. It's not clear the extent to which the leadership is actually speaking for the rank-and-file here.
M.N. in Lake Ann, MI, asks: I am hearing news reports that some small (and perhaps not so small) grocers are concerned about the loss of SNAP benefits because a significant portion of their income comes from SNAP users. I know that due to a loss of a portion of my income (perhaps to be paid later, perhaps not) is making me think two or three times about what I actually need to purchase and what I can get away with putting off for now (or forever). I see my family, friends and co-workers with similar concerns. Is a major economic downturn now inevitable?
(Z) answers: "Inevitable" is a bit strong; nobody knows for sure what the economy will do. That said, and we've been meaning to write an item on this, there are some very bad signs right now. And the thing that is most likely to create a recession (or worse) is if people and businesses stop spending money. That slows down the economy, and creates a feedback loop where the economy gets worse, so more people and businesses stop spending, so the economy gets worse, etc.
D.K. in Iowa City, IA, asks: If there is a stock market crash and a serious recession, will that end Donald Trump's political career? The stock market is more overvalued than ever according to the Buffet Indicator (Total Market Value/GDP) and the economy is being maintained by the spending of the wealthy and investment in AI. Trump's tariff and deportation policies are causing inflation and higher unemployment.
(Z) answers: There has never been a politician who was immune to serious economic downturns. That includes Trump, who was swept out of office, at least in part, by the economic upheavals related to COVID. He's bulletproof to nearly everything else that would slay a normal politician, but a serious economic downturn is his kryptonite.
R.V. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: Are judges being confirmed during the federal shutdown? How many judges have been confirmed by this administration compared to prior administrations at this point?
(Z) answers: Yes. The most recent is Jordan Pratt, who was confirmed on Tuesday to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Pratt is the 16th judge Trump has seated during his second term; he's likely to end the year with about 20. That's roughly par, by recent standards. Among the presidents to serve since the judiciary was expanded in the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan is the first-year champ, having seated 40 judges. The booby prize goes to Barack Obama, who only seated 5. George H.W. Bush seated 15, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both 27, Trump I about 38 and Joe Biden about 35. Those "abouts" are because numerous nominees of those presidents commenced the process in the first year of the president's term, and concluded it in the second.
J.D. in Chesapeake, VA, asks: You mentioned the Antideficiency Act, in connection to Donald Trump accepting money for military pay and the BBB (Big Beautiful Ballroom). I was wondering, when other presidents before Trump made changes to the White House, how was it funded, and was it a violation? I am thinking like when the outdoor swimming pool was added, the basketball court Barack Obama had put in, the putting green I think Bill Clinton had put in, or any change/improvement made by recent presidents.
(Z) answers: There are two traditional sources of funding for improvements to the White House: Congress, and the White House Historical Association (WHHA). Though note the WHHA's contributions are invariably limited to design matters (e.g., presidential portraits, White House china) and not to capital improvements.
The case of Barack Obama is instructive. Each president, when they move into the White House, gets a budget of $100,000, from Congress, to adapt the residence to their needs. Obama spent $75,000 of that to turn the White House tennis courts into basketball courts. Meanwhile, near the end of the Bush years, Congress appropriated $376 million to make significant renovations to the residence, for safety and security purposes. Some presidents actually follow the rules for these things, and so the process of planning for the renovations began under Bush and continued under Obama, before finally being executed under Obama, between 2010 and 2014.
In an effort to defend Trump, many right-wing pundits have been circulating ludicrous claims that Obama spent $376 million on the basketball court. Either these people are stupid, since there is no way a basketball court could cost that much unless a 5,000-seat arena was built to go along with it, or they are being deliberately dishonest. We leave it to you to decide which it is.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: I've always heard that governors are reluctant to call out the National Guard unless the situation requires it, partly because activating the Guard is very expensive. It seems intuitive to me that would be so. If that is true, has anyone been ringing up a total on how much these cases of Trump needlessly calling up the Guard are running? Who is paying for them, the state or the Federal government? Given that the Guard is mostly being employed in non-emergency, lower-skilled duties, is the cost justifying the expenditures? It is extremely "funny" how Republicans run on slashing government funding to feed children, provide health care and to improve the quality of life for its citizens but after a month or two in office, they go on mad spending sprees that would eclipse a drunken sailor in the only house of ill repute near the port.
(Z) answers: The deployment of roughly 4,000 troops to Los Angeles for roughly 100 days came with a price tag of $120 million. A little bit of that was travel (about $1.5 million), but the great majority was the costs of feeding and housing those troops. So, it's fair to think the L.A. price would be similar elsewhere (say, Washington, DC).
That works out to about $300 per soldier per day. Right now, there are about 2,800 National Guard soldiers deployed; about 300 are still in L.A. and the rest are in D.C. That means that the cost per day right now is around $840,000. That bill is paid by the federal government, since the troops are performing federal service. It is up to each readet to decide for themselves if it is worth it.
K.H. in Scotch Plains, NJ, asks: The New York Times reported this week that Donald Trump seems to believe that he might not be going to Heaven after he passes. I'm used to hearing a lot of different things from him, but was pretty bowled over hearing anything remotely related to spirituality, let alone something that seemed somewhat resembling introspection. While I understand anything you would theorize here would be pretty much guesswork... where do you think that came from and why do you think he said it?
(Z) answers: First, Trump undoubtedly has death on his mind. Between his age, and his potential health issues, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk, he cannot help but ponder the possibility that the end of the road could be near.
Second, Trump keeps score with EVERYTHING. And those remarks, where he pondered the good he's done (in his mind) and the bad he's done, were just more scorekeeping. There are a lot of Christians, and a lot of politicians who are Christian (or who claim to be Christian) who think in this way, but that's not actually how it's supposed to work, if you read the Bible. St. Peter is not an accountant with a ledger of credits and debits.
Third, Trump's remarks lamented that he might not get credit for all the wars he's allegedly ended and all the lives he's allegedly saved. He is always playing the role of victim.
Fourth, Christians are expected to be modest, and to demur about their chances of getting into heaven. Trump doesn't really understand that religion, or any religion, but he does know how to play mimic, albeit in a clumsy way.
Fifth, and finally, Trump has long had a habit of letting his inner monologue become his outer monologue. That habit has gotten more pronounced as he's become less mentally firm.
R.C. in Eagleville, PA, asks: Which would be more upsetting to Trump: a World Series win by a California team or one by a Canadian team? Will the winning team get an invitation to the White House? Will the team accept?
(Z) answers: The Canadian team, at least at the moment. He's very angry at Canada right now, primarily because of that commercial created by the government of Ontario. That said, the fact that it's not just a California team, but a Los Angeles team, makes it close.
If the Dodgers win, they will get an invite and they will accept. Trump invited them last year, and they showed up. he knows that the players generally aren't from the city they represent, and that baseball players are, on average, the most conservative athletes in pro sports. In particular, Dodgers pitchers Clayton Kershaw and Blake Treinen are well-known Trumpers.
If the Blue Jays win, they probably won't get an invite. Again, Trump is really mad at Canada right now. And even if they do get an invite, they won't accept, I would guess. They are in the business of selling tickets and TV broadcasts to Canadians, and most Canadians really, really hate Trump.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: With the Toronto Blue Jays in this year's World Series, it got me thinking about when they won it all back in 1992 and 1993. Were they invited by Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton to the White House?
Also, I heard the current president, who I shall not name, won't invite this year's winner because one team is from Canada and the other is from a deep-blue state with a governor giving him fits. Is this true? If so, I guess he'll only invite teams that come from ruby-red states while in office.(Z) answers: The Blue Jays were invited, and accepted, in 1992. They were invited in 1993, but couldn't make it work, due to logistical issues. Back then, there was no team in Washington, so they couldn't do the thing that many teams do today, and do the White House visit while in town to play the Nationals.
There is a tweet going around, ostensibly from Trump, in which he declares there will be no invites this year. However, that tweet is a fake.
G.W. in Oxnard, CA, asks: If Don Jr. were to run for president with the not-so-subtle implication from the campaign that, if elected, Junior would be a figurehead and Senior would be the real president, would that be viable for winning the Republican nomination? I know some politicians have run for office of some states where everyone knew the person would technically have the office, but the spouse would be the real decision maker. Has this been done with a son or daughter? You have written that Don Jr. doesn't have what it takes for multiple reasons, but if everyone knew he was just a figurehead, could he be viable for the nomination?
(Z) answers: This would give Republicans fits. They don't really want another Trump term, and they certainly don't want an arrangement like this. It would be quite a sight to see.
It's possible, however, that the power of MAGA is such that Don and Don could secure the GOP nomination. I do not think Don2 could win the election, however. His elections were "close" and "very, very close." The events of 2025-29, Trump's declining health, and the dubious nature of this arrangement, would be a bridge too far for too many voters.
I am not aware of this having been done with a son or daughter. The only reason to do it is term limits, and term limits are a fairly new, and not all that common thing, so there haven't been that many possible scenarios where it might have happened.
K.M. in Centennial, CO, asks: What usually happens to failed presidential candidates? Do they secure influential government positions? Do they end up in cushy private sector positions with important sounding titles and pleasing salaries? Or, is the only lasting perk an enduring ego-thumping notation of "presidential candidate" on their Wiki page?
(Z) answers: We're going to limit ourselves to major-party nominees; the list gets longer and more wonky if you include people who were longshots, especially those who just ran for the publicity. Anyhow, the most common post-run paths include:
- Lobbying (e.g., Bob Dole, Walter Mondale, Thomas Dewey)
- Writing a book (e.g., Kamala Harris, Al Gore, Barry Goldwater)
- Returning to, or serving in, some other elective office (e.g., Mitt Romney, Goldwater)
- Serving in appointed posts (e.g., John Kerry, Adlai Stevenson, Alf Landon, Dole, Mondale)
- College professor (e.g., Michael Dukakis, Landon)
- Activism (e.g., Gore, Mondale, Goldwater, Dole)
- Corporate Boards (e.g., Romney, Dole)
K.F. in Madison, AL, asks: It used to be that *.gov sites had a reputation for being authoritative sources of information, with the understanding that some degree of skepticism and scrutiny is always advisable. Now that those sites have lost (all?) credibility, a lack of skepticism is simply foolish.
When you write about, for example, some action taken by the Department of Justice, I have to stop and check if it was taken just by the current DoJ or if it connects back to when that department was respectable. Perhaps adding some kind of delimiter, like tDOD, tNIH etc., would help? (I wrote this as a suggestion, but when I finished I decided to end it with a question mark.)(Z) answers: If we use any sort of shorthand, it has to be something in wide enough use that readers can look it up on the Internet. If we did as you suggest, we'd get dozens of e-mails every day wondering what tDoD or tNIH are.
Consequently, if we believe the "era" is important (as with the investigation of John Bolton vs. the "investigation" of James Comey), we just include that detail in our write-up.
S.T. in Asbury Park, NJ, asks: I understand the meaning behind many code words used on the right ("inner cities," "Real Americans." etc.). However, I'm unclear why conservative media/politicians repeatedly use the word 'autopen'. Is there really such a writing instrument? If so, I presume, in part, it is code for "President Biden was senile." However, it is used so often, is there a deeper meaning/slur I am missing?
(Z) answers: The carping about Barack Obama's birth certificate was meant to: (1) find a loophole that disqualified him as president, or rendered his actions as president moot, and (2) hint that he was/is not a "real" American.
The carping about Joe Biden's autopen is meant to: (1) find a loophole that renders his actions as president moot, and (2) hint that he was/is not mentally competent.
The autopen is a real device, used to aid presidents in getting through all the correspondence they have to handle. Thomas Jefferson reportedly had a version of the device that he, of course, invented himself. However, they didn't become standard White House equipment until after World War II. Harry S. Truman definitely used one, and John F. Kennedy was open enough about his use of the tool that there was a book written about it in 1965 entitled The Robot That Helped to Make a President.
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, asks: I'm curious as to why you wrote that "Charlie Kirk was horrifically assassinated"—specifically, why you inserted "horrifically." The sentence would have read just fine without that. Aren't all assassinations pretty horrific? (Well, maybe not if someone had assassinated Hitler, but still.) Was there something about the Kirk assassination that seemed particularly horrific to you?
(Z) answers: Anyone who has seen the video footage knows why we added that. Anyone who has not seen the video footage, we strongly advise that you DO NOT seek it out.
B.H. in Southborough, MA, asks: From both theoretical and practical standpoints, what is the longest Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) could keep the House out of session?
(Z) answers: Until January 3, 2026.
The founding parents knew about the trickery that the King of England sometimes pulled in dismissing Parliament for years at a time. So, the Constitution requires Congress meet a minimum of once per year. The date specified for that meeting was originally the first Monday in December, but it's been changed by amendment to January 3.
The January 3 date can be changed... by an act of Congress. And that would require the House to convene on some date before January 3. There is no reading of the Constitution by which a pro forma session would satisfy the January 3 requirement. And if Johnson calls Congress into session, for even 1 minute, he either has to swear in Representative-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) or admit he was lying about his reasons for not seating her.
What would happen if Johnson just ignores the Constitution, as his friend Don likes to do, or tries to get away with a pro forma session on January 3, cannot be known until it happens. But the rules are very clear.
S.C. in Mountain View, CA, asks: Another Dutch election, another opportunity for (V) to point out the problems he perceives with their admittedly extreme form of proportional representation (PR)—implying, either intentionally or unintentionally, that all forms of PR are bad and are worse than the system we have in the United States. So I would ask (V) these three questions:
1. What adverse effects does the average Dutch citizen experience from their PR system? Does their government shut down? Do their parks close? Are flights delayed or canceled? Are they denied health care? Please provide examples of the adverse consequences.
2. The UK has its Electoral Reform Society. The United States has FairVote, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, etc., as well as numerous state-based organizations working on various election-related reforms. Are there any organizations in the Netherlands working to reform their system? What changes do they suggest, how long have they been working at this, how large are they, have they had any successes?
3. Granted (or at least assuming) that (V) is not a Dutch citizen so really doesn't have a dog in this fight, what changes to the Dutch system would he suggest?
I can think of at least two, both technically simple but perhaps not so simple politically. The first would be to establish an artificial threshold of 5%, similar to what Germany does. This would limit seats in this election to PVV, D66, VVD, GLPVDA, CDA, and JA21, from which D66 could produce a coalition with any two of VVD, GLPVDA, and CDA. The other, assuming that each of the 20 electoral districts are equal in population, would be to elect 7 or 8 House Representatives from each of them instead of on a national basis, but still using an open-party-list system. This would change the size of the House to 140 or 160 members and establish a natural threshold of 14.3% or 12.5%, respectively. Those thresholds would also weed out the smaller parties, but such a system would introduce a regional aspect to their politics with unknown, at least to me, consequences.I do note that turnout in the election was 78.4%, so the Dutch must not be daunted by ballots that list up to 27 political parties and at least 958 candidates.
(V) answers: I never intended to imply that all proportional representation systems are bad. In fact, multiple times I have suggested that one of the ways to get rid of gerrymanders is to have all representatives elected statewide with proportional representation. No districts means no gerrymandering.
The average Dutch citizen doesn't pay much attention to politics, just as the average American doesn't. Semi-government shutdowns happen all the time, like right now. There is a caretaker government (the old one), but it can't do anything. The bureaucracy continues to function, though, so garbage gets picked up and "social security" payments are made. But no important decisions can be made. If Russia were to invade Poland and NATO called for members to respond, it is not clear if it would be possible for the Netherlands to give an answer.
The main downside is not something people feel abruptly, but the inability for the government to make decisions. For example, there are EU laws on the environment that the Netherlands isn't obeying because that would require taking action that the parties in the coalition don't agree on. Does the average citizen notice this? No, but it would be better if the government were capable of making decisions. With four parties in the coalition, each one of which has a veto on everything, little gets done. Immigration is also a big issue, but again, nothing happens because the parties don't agree.
The point in bringing up the 958 candidates is that we get e-mail saying: "I don't like either the Democrats or the Republicans."Well, that is not a problem in the Netherlands because voters have so much choice. But the consequence of the biggest party getting 17% of the vote is there is complete paralysis all the time and it is nearly impossible for the government to do anything. The country is on autopilot a lot of the time. Action on anything controversial is close to impossible. Imagine there were four roughly equal parties in the U.S.: MAGA, the Normie Republicans, the Blue Dog Democrats and the Progressive Caucus, each with a veto on everything. Would that work well? Now multiply it by four (16 parties).
As to your second question, I am not aware of any groups that want to change the system, which is not to say they don't exist. They might, but if they exist they are pretty small, without much popular support.
And in response to your final question, the easiest fix, as the question itself suggests, is a threshold of, say, 5%, as Germany has. That would effectively get rid of the small parties. Then it might be possible to get a situation in which two large left-wing parties or two large right-wing parties have a majority, and then they could try to implement their program. If the voters didn't like it, in 4 years they could toss the bums out. But many people would oppose a threshold because they feel if 2% of the population thinks that giving animals rights is the most important issue, those people are entitled to have their say by electing 3 people to the parliament. Silencing them would be seen as undemocratic.
Regional solutions are not attractive because nobody identifies with their province. If a Dutch person met an American in Amsterdam and asked, "Where are you from?"the person might answer "Texas"or "California."If someone asked a Dutch tourist in New York, "Where are you from?"it is totally inconceivable the tourist would say "Gelderland."There are provincial legislatures, but they do things like maintain minor roads. Virtually nobody is aware of who the king's commissioner (i.e., governor) of their province is. Running elections on provincial boundaries would seem very strange to everyone.
Turnout is high because voting is easy (rarely any lines and no voter suppression). Also, the government is relatively honest so people have faith in it. At worst a crooked politician might file a false expensive report for something. Part of the reason for honesty is that no one person has much power. It is very diffuse. There is no point in bribing someone who can't deliver that government contract you want, like a president or governor can. Also, political parties aren't dependent on donors. Each one gets a certain amount of free TV time and can't buy more. Then all the corruption associated with donors goes away. E.U. rules forbid most political advertising on the Internet.
J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, asks: You wrote, regarding Donald Trump becoming Speaker and then ascending to the presidency:
Further, if the speaker becomes president, they are only "acting president," and they have to give up the job once a VP is confirmed.Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution (as amended) reads:
and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.So if a newly elected POTUS and VPOTUS were to resign and allow "Speaker Trump" to ascend to the presidency, would he not serve until "a President [is] elected"?
(Z) answers: This is the kind of question that the courts would get to deal with, should it come to pass. However, the current controlling legislation is the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, which draws a clear distinction between the vice-president succeeding to the presidency (who thus becomes president), and anyone else succeeding to the presidency (who thus becomes "acting president").
Meanwhile, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution has language that makes clear that if anyone is serving as "acting president," even the vice-president (on occasions where the president must hand over power due to, say, an operation), that position is not permanent.
Finally, returning to the Presidential Succession Act, it has language that says that if someone becomes qualified (in other words, is approved) for a position higher on the list of succession, then the acting president gets bumped.
It is possible that a court could look at these various things and reach a different conclusion. But taken together, they create a clear enough picture that we are very confident in what we wrote.
N.K. in Riverside, CA, asks: Keith Olbermann picked up on Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D-CA) comment that California could "withhold federal taxes" and called for a broader "state-led tax freeze" until Donald Trump resigns. Can you please explain what specific steps or mechanisms Newsom's team might have been referring to when he said California could actually do that?
(Z) answers: I tend to think this was idle talk. Most federal tax revenues do not pass through the state's hands, and so the state cannot hold them or redirect them.
That said, there are about half a million people who work for the state, and the state does handle those federal taxes, as the state is responsible for withholding. So, Newsom could make a small dent. But not a big one.
D.B. in Mountain View, CA, asks: I was reading a John Grisham book where a judge is biased toward one side because their lawyer is a friend of his. Shouldn't he have recused himself? Does this happen much? I imagine judges and lawyers get to know each other, especially in smaller communities.
(L) answers: The rules for recusal of judges vary by state. Generally, a party can file a motion to disqualify a judge, which is automatically granted the first time. Additional motions are usually rarely granted—parties don't get to pick their judges that way.
In federal court, the law requires judges to recuse themselves if they have "a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party." So, a close friendship that affects a judge's ability to be impartial would certainly qualify. But it does get tricky because attorneys who try cases often appear in front of the same judges, particularly in a small town. And there are numerous professional opportunities to socialize together. In fact, many of the bar organizations and law firms sponsor educational events and charity dinners where judges are often invited and may be the keynote speaker or serve on panels. So, those lines can be difficult to draw. It's generally the responsibility of the lawyers and judges to behave ethically and keep some distance between litigators and judges. Besides a party's ability to challenge a judge based on bias, there is also a risk that a court's order will be overturned on appeal if there is evidence of actual bias or some kind of pecuniary or other interest in a case's outcome. So, there are incentives other than just one's ethical compass to adhere to the rules.
B.P. in Mill Creek, WA, asks: I have been a regular reader for many years now. I frequently report to my family about what I learned that day from you. My son has a question he specifically asked me to ask you: In the history of the U.S., which two (three? four?) presidential candidates were farthest apart on policy? It's hard to imagine any two being farther apart than Kamala Harris and The Convicted Felon (TCF). But, perhaps. What say you?
(Z) answers: Well, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were quite far apart in 1800. Adams favored a strong federal government, manufacturing, a large military, and close relations with Great Britain. Jefferson favored a weak federal government, farming, a small military, and close relations with France.
Abraham Lincoln and John C. Breckinridge were rather far apart in 1860. Lincoln felt that slavery must be contained, and that problem must be dealt with in the context of union. Breckinridge felt that slavery must be allowed to expand everywhere, and that if any limits were placed, it was time for disunion and civil war.
More recently, Lyndon B. Johnson and Barry Goldwater were very far apart in 1964. Johnson was pro-Civil Rights, pro-expanding the New Deal, and pro-using American troops and money to contain communism. Goldwater, who was really more a Libertarian than a Republican, opposed all of that stuff, and felt that if the Soviets really and truly needed to be dealt with, nukes were the way to do it.
I would say that all three of these elections have a strong case for "the candidates were further apart than Harris and Trump were."
I.K. in Queens, NY, asks: I feel like, for as long as I've paid attention to politics (about a decade), every election is described as choosing "the lesser of two evils," "the least bad candidate," "a pox on both their houses," etc. This mostly comes from folks who are either so far to the left that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is nowhere near progressive enough, or from theoretically moderate folks who would totally vote for a Democrat, they just happen to really hate Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and everyone who runs.
Cut to the NYC mayoral race this year. To say that I am appalled at the choices would be a vast understatement. We have the lunatic vigilante from the GOP, the blatant antisemite from the socialists, and the sleazy and abrasive independent who's hostile to most of the city he wants to run. I think I'm going to have to vote for Cuomo, who I detest with the passion of a thousand burning suns... because as a Jew, I can't in good conscience vote for an antisemite. But this is, by far, the worst choice I've ever faced on a ballot.
Which brings me to my question: What are some of the worst choices you can think of that voters had to make? Scenarios where all two (or more) candidates were so thoroughly unpalatable to voters. Maybe it's not just our city of 9 million people that ends up with such a disaster on the ballot.(Z) answers: The archetypical "only bad choices" election is the Louisiana gubernatorial election of 1991. There, Louisianans could either elect a future felon and known accepter of bribes, Edwin Edwards, or a former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard, David Duke. Hence the famous slogans "Vote For the Crook. It's Important." and "Vote for the Lizard, Not the Wizard."
If you want a presidential election, then the worst "only bad choices" election is probably 1860. That is not because the candidates were bad, though. OK, John Breckinridge was pretty awful, although even he was qualified by historical standards for the presidency. And the other three candidates—Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas, and John Bell—were also perfectly qualified. The "only bad choices" angle comes from the fact that any winner had a real chance of sparking a civil war, and anyone casting a ballot in 1860 couldn't really be sure which of them, if any, might be able to keep the union together.
D.R. in Phoenix, AZ, asks: I appreciated your write-up of the reasons for L.A. becoming the film capital of the world. I especially liked the 1927 map showing the versatility of the surrounding area. I had read elsewhere that part of the reason for moviemakers relocating to California was to escape the grasp of organized crime. Having realized, along with the early filmmakers, that there was money to be made, the mob supposedly stepped up with their usual, "Nice movie studio you got here," routine. Is there any evidence to support that scenario?
(Z) answers: Is there evidence? Yes. The first problem, however, is that there isn't much of it. In general, the mafia, and people dealing with the mafia, do not create much of a paper trail memorializing their interactions.
The second problem is that L.A. also had a mob presence back then. Not as pronounced as New York-New Jersey, of course, but it definitely existed. In fact, there are several early notables who almost certainly died due to mob hits. Ted Healy, for example, who is the guy who created the Three Stooges. And the most famous Los Angeles mafiosi, Bugsy Siegel, was gunned down in Beverly Hills in 1947. The point is that if the goal was to escape the mob, Los Angeles wasn't much of a solution.
So, it's possible, and there is some evidence. But it's nowhere near certain enough that I am willing to include this "fact" in my Hollywood lecture.
K.S. in Harrisburg, PA, asks: The fever dream of many Trumpists is to Make America White Again (i.e., "northern European"). Considering the first humans in any part of the U.S. were the Native Americans, and Hispanics had almost a 50 year head start over northern Europeans on permanent settlements in what is now the U.S., it makes me wonder, when did America become majority-white? Also, when was America the whitest and when will America no longer be majority-white?
(Z) answers: This is not easy to answer with precision, because population figures for Native Americans, for most of the last 500 years, are basically just estimates. On top of that, the non-Native population, particularly of the U.S., included many enslaved people. Oh, and we have to note that the Spanish explorers and colonists were also white, though the Mexicans are not (at least, not today—the U.S. government officially considered them to be white until the census of 1950).
It is probable that the U.S. became a white-majority country in the first couple of decades of the nineteenth century. Native populations had declined, the number of enslaved people wasn't as large as it would be, and the white population was booming. In 1820, there were about 7 million white Americans, and about 6 million enslaved people and Native Americans.
The U.S. was probably whitest around the turn of the 20th century. The Native population had declined precipitously due to war, genocide, and disease; the Black population was somewhat stagnant, and there were millions of new, white arrivals from Europe. Although note that those new arrivals are white by our standards, not necessarily by those of 1900. Most white Americans in that year did not consider the Irish to be white, and quite a few of them also excluded southern and/or eastern Europeans, particularly if those southern and/or eastern Europeans were also Jewish.
As to when the U.S. will cease to be a majority-white country, the Census Bureau projects that will happen sometime in the 2040s, probably around 2045.
R.H. in Anchorage, AK, asks: Can you please tell me a bit about Victor Davis Hanson, a historian at Stanford's Hoover Institution? Specifically, I am wondering how Stanford could stomach keeping a "historian" on staff who writes things like this (in his most recent piece):
In contrast, in 2020, former President Joe Biden did not run a typical campaign. He avoided the public, staying ensconced in his basement. He outsourced his campaign to Democratic politicos, donors, and a sycophantic media. No red state ever sought to remove Biden or former Vice President Kamala Harris from their 2024 ballots. In contrast, 25 blue states attempted to take Trump off their ballots.The rest of his piece continues in much the same way. I understand having a conservative-minded historian on staff, but how can any historian seriously imply any kind of equivalence like those last two sentences?
(Z) answers: First, in the name of academic freedom, it is very hard for a scholar to be fired for political speech, unless that speech is somehow illegal. For example, Cal State Long Beach had a professor on staff, named Kevin MacDonald, who evolved into an out-and-out white supremacist and antisemite, and wrote a bunch of the kind of books that the Proud Boys would enjoy if they knew how to read. The university tried to push him out for years and years, but being a bigot and an antisemite is not illegal, it's just obnoxious. (He's emeritus now, though.) Similarly, Michael H. Hart has served at a bunch of institutions, and kept his position even after he turned into an outspoken Islamophobe and white nationalist. (He's also emeritus now.) Anyhow, if out-and-out bigotry is not an excludable offense, then certainly intellectually flabby, knee-jerk political commentary is not.
More important, however, is that the Hoover Institution is affiliated with Stanford, but it's a very loose affiliation. In the end, it's a right-wing/libertarian think tank, and the university has very little role in its governance, and no role in its staffing. So, Hanson doesn't have to keep a bunch of academics happy, he has to keep a bunch of right-wing ideologues happy. As the quote you shared indicates, he's doing a fine job of that.
His scholarship, such as it is, is a blend of political grandstanding and military history. The military stuff is written for a popular audience, so it's almost entirely narrative, and lacking in substantive analysis. That's fine, but it means that he's much more of a Shelby Foote than a James McPherson, or much more of a Bari Weiss than a Heather Cox Richardson.
C.V. in Chadron, NE, asks: Do Canadian teams that play in predominantly American pro sports leagues (Toronto Raptors, Toronto Blue Jays, Canadian NHL teams) have a disadvantage when it comes to taxes? More specifically, do Canadian teams have a tougher time drawing free agents because players on Canadian teams will pay higher taxes than players on American teams? Are there other implications of Canadian teams having to adhere to the Canadian economic system, compared to American teams having to adhere to the American economic system?
(Z) answers: It's complicated. First, athletes are taxed based on where games are played. So, if an athlete earns $10 million a year, and plays 10% of their games in Illinois, then they have to pay Illinois taxes on $1 million. It that athlete plays 90% of their games in the U.S., then they have to pay federal taxes on 90% of their income (on top of the state taxes, of course)
So, on one level, Canada presents the same "issue" that states with income taxes do; there's less tax for a player whose home team plays in Miami or Dallas than a player whose home team plays in Los Angeles or Boston or Toronto. However, there's an added complication, namely that if an athlete spends 183 (or more) days in Canada in a calendar year, they are considered a "tax resident." And that means that they also have to pay Canadian taxes on any signing bonuses they might have received, which could be big money.
The NBA and WNBA do not have signing bonuses, and the NFL and MLS do not have any teams in Canada. However, MLB does have signing bonuses, and so too does the NHL, so players for the Blue Jays and the Canadian hockey teams do have an extra tax issue to deal with, particularly if they are residents of Canada in the offseason.
(NB: We know that the WNBA does not have any teams in Canada either, but they will starting next year.)
H.B. in State College, PA, asks: In "Game of Shutdown Chess Continues," you noted that Shohei Ohtani reaching base 9 times was the first time in major league history that a player has done this in a post-season game, and only the fourth time if the regular season is included.
Something I have wondered about my whole life, without really knowing the answer, is how it is possible to come up with statistics for every possible baseball situation, no matter how obscure, so quickly... and this was done long before machine-readable databases existed. Number of times a left-handed shortstop has batted into a triple play? Home runs hit in a season by a right fielder named Bill? I hear statistics like these all the time, and often right after the rare event occurs.
Is there/was there some kind of book with all of these oddities already tabulated, or were/are they created on the fly (pun intended), or what?(Z) answers: I have not been a newspaper staffer for a long time. However, back in the 1990s, every team used to compile lengthy media guides that listed pages and pages of records and other stuff like this, so it would be easy to look up. In addition, before games, the press would be given multiple pages of research that had potentially relevant information. For example, if Don MacLean was about to score his 2,000th point, there would be a list of all the other players who had scored 2,000 points, and how many games it took them to do it. This is probably still done, I just don't know for sure.
In addition, back in the day, TV broadcast teams would have a statistician or two who could do quick research using (mostly) printed resources. Teams also often hired a stats person or two, and they might run up to the press box with new information if something interesting was happening. Again, this is probably still done, I just don't know.
Meanwhile, for a long time, the major sports leagues have had official statistics "partners," who handle the production of any research needed. Using MLB as an example, since I know that sport the best, their official stats partner is the Elias Sports Bureau. Several of the other leagues use them as well. If MLB itself, or if an MLB reporter, wants to know something really obscure, then they call Elias and Elias does the legwork (using computerized records, these days, of course). There is one baseball reporter, Jayson Stark, who is especially well known for this sort of writing. He'll note unusual occurrences during baseball games, and then write whole columns about how often those things have happened before. For example, "Do you know how many times a left-handed pitcher has given up home runs to three straight left-handed batters in a row?" And he'll invariably reveal that it happened in some game this week, and then once before in a 1924 game between the Chicago White Sox and the St. Louis Browns. Undoubtedly, Stark has Elias on speed dial.
Finally, there are Internet-based tools these days that can provide answers to a lot of questions. For baseball, the preeminent one of those is baseball-reference.com, which has a bunch of basic tools that anyone can use for free, and then has a bunch of advanced tools for subscribers. I saw the Ohtani stat online well before the game announcers mentioned it, so I assume that someone (or many someones) must have squeezed it out of baseball-reference.com's play finder.
R.V. in Pittsburgh, PA, asks: One of my biggest regrets in life was selling my baseball card collection far too early. I had a very nice collection of TOPPS cards from the 1950s through 1970s with many Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron cards. I had a Pete Rose 1963 rookie card as well as the 1955 Roberto Clemente card. HOWEVER, the Clemente card had a badly damaged right corner, probably would have been graded a 2 or 3 on the PSA grade scale.
Did (Z) collect baseball cards, and did he go to the card shows and flea markets (there use to be some nice finds at flea markets back in the early 1980's)?(Z) answers: I did collect baseball cards. My memories of exactly how I acquired them are a little fuzzy, though. Certainly, they mostly came from packs I bought at the toy store. I was also a regular visitor to the two stores in my part of Orange County that sold baseball cards, most commonly the one at Hobby City in Buena Park. I certainly went to the swap meet (west coast term for "flea market") with my grandfather a lot, and I certainly looked for cards there, but I cannot recall how often I made a purchase. I don't believe I ever went to a card show until long after I was no longer participating in the hobby. I also regularly traded with friends, particularly in fourth through sixth grades. I recall well a friend who insisted, every day, that the "money" purchase was Pete Invaglia and Ruben Sierra rookie cards. He had at least 100 of each. Those sell for about a buck each on eBay these days.
I did not take my friend's advice, and instead focused on Wade Boggs, Roger Clemens and Don Mattingly rookie cards. I still have all of them. My six (or so) Fleer Mattingly rookies had a book value, at one point, of about $150 each. That was in his MVP year (1985). Now, with the emergence of eBay, and with Mattingly having had a weak second half of his career, they can be easily had for $10 each.
What I learned from my card-collecting years, reinforced by a chapter in a book I read when I was 12 called The Ultimate (by William Poundstone, who I also mentioned a few weeks ago), is that if you want to collect for fun, then great. If you want to collect for profit, however, you're fooling yourself. The chapter in the book made a compelling case that even if you know the ideal things to but (say, buying the famous Honus Wagner card when it first came out), they still don't outperform the stock market over time.
The one and only collectible I ever made serious money on serves to affirm this point. In college, I was a very early player of the game Magic: The Gathering. And so, I built up a solid collection of first edition Magic cards. I bought them to have fun with, specifically when I needed to clear my head while studying. When I moved out of the dorm after my sophomore year, I put them in a closet and basically forgot about them. Then, a few years later, I ended up selling the cards, which probably cost me about $300, for close to $15,000. For those who happen to know the game, the most valuable of the cards I sold (for about $6,000) was a mint-condition Alpha edition Mox Jet. It was mint, because I did not play black decks ever, preferring green and white.
I don't collect anything these days. If I did, however, it would be with an eye toward fun an a "treasure hunt," not toward value. For example, it would be cool if, any time I happened to be at a swap meet or an antique store, it was an opportunity to look for, say, old political campaign buttons. Or objects commemorating Abraham Lincoln. Or something like that.
C.S. in Philadelphia, PA, asks: (Z) wrote:
This is a pretty unpleasant observation to start with, but: The administrators of the university are not your friends. A surprising percentage of the time, they are not your allies, either. They have their imperatives, and you have yours, and the two lists are often pretty far out of alignment, even if you theoretically have the same overall mission (i.e., to educate the students). If you are ever asked to meet one-on-one with someone who has the rank of associate dean or higher (maybe even someone who has the rank of department chair or higher), take a witness to accompany you, or record the conversation, or both. If you are unionized, the union will provide a representative to accompany you.As a Student Affairs administrator, I am curious if you can elaborate on this? Is this towards any administrator or just those in academic affairs? Is there anything folks like me could do to earn your and other faculty member's trust?
(Z) answers: I will give you two examples, and I assure you, there are many others. First, maybe 10 years ago, I had an urgent need for an operation, to fix bleeding ulcers. I did not want to miss class, so I scheduled the operation to happen during finals week of winter quarter, so I could recover during the one week of spring break, and be ready when spring classes started.
This is a VERY tight timeline, especially since I was hospitalized for 2 days. I always have office hours until late on Wednesday night of finals week, so students who want to discuss their papers can see me. And I scheduled the operation such that the surgeon's knife cut into me about 10 hours after the last student left my office on Wednesday. The one thing I have to do during finals week, of course, is grading. And I asked the doctor if I would be well enough. He said yes—understandably—because I was indeed functional by Saturday or so. However, what did not occur to him—again, understandably—is that one of the pills I had to take had, as a side effect, blurred vision. So while I could sit at a computer, etc., I couldn't see well enough to actually grade. So my grades were late.
When school resumed, some administrator—I'm afraid the titles don't mean much to me, so I don't pay attention—asked me to meet with them to explain what happened. When I arrived for the "meeting," it turned out it was a formal disciplinary hearing. There were several administrators, and a lawyer, and even a court reporter. And they asked me questions about things far afield from what had happened that week, questions that I could have answered if I had known they were coming, but that I was not prepared for. They also asked me quite a few questions about my medical history.
These days, I would never get caught like that (hence my advice). And if I did, I would know enough to know that some of it, maybe all of it, was not acceptable. Obviously, they had no right to demand information about my medical history, to take one example. I really should have called a lawyer; I just didn't fully realize at the time.
For my second example, I will start with something familiar to probably any academic reading this. Every year, I have to go through online "training" in a variety of subjects. It's the same subjects every year, and the specific content is the same every year. One of them, for example, is about sexual harassment.
These training modules have little to nothing to do with addressing the problems they purport to address. For example, the sexual harassment one has a bunch of questions like: "Is it ever OK to trade sex for grades?" There is no person on the planet who has somehow managed to get a college degree (not to mention a postgraduate degree) and yet has not figured out the answer to this question. The point is not to educate, it's to limit the university's legal exposure if there is a problem. This is an example of how the administration's goals are different from my goals (since my only concern is to make sure that nobody is mistreated, accidentally or deliberately).
That's the foundation for my actual example here, which just happened last weekend. I got an e-mail that said, in effect, that there was a problem with payroll, and that I needed to click on a link to fix it, at risk of not receiving my next paycheck. Very, very suspicious, BUT the e-mail was missing the [EXT] flag in the subject line. If there's no [EXT] flag, it means the e-mail came from within the university. That is very, very hard to fake, and so it meant the e-mail had a reasonable chance of being legit. So, I took steps to make sure no harm could be done, and I clicked on the link to see where it took me. That was enough to tell me that it was indeed phony, so I then sent a message to the office that handles IT security and said, basically: "You have a problem here, because some scammer has figured out how to make their e-mails look internal. That could very well trap some people."
Just minutes after I sent that e-mail, I got an auto-message generated by the university. It said, in so many words, that I had fallen for a phishing scam (because I clicked on the link), and that I should seriously consider refreshing my understanding of phishing scams, by clicking on a link to the university's anti-phishing training.
I found this outrageous on a number of levels (and every colleague I've spoken to agrees). First, it was not an actual, real-world test. Remember, the only thing that gave me pause was that the e-mail looked to be internal. As it turns out, that is because it WAS internal. That's clearly cheating. Second, I was identified as someone who "failed" the test. But, in fact, the exact opposite is true. I not only did not fall for the scam (I did not give credentials when asked), I reported it. I did EXACTLY what I should have done. Third, I am not going to be in dire straits if something goes wrong with payroll for a month or two or three or four. But some people will, and that is not something to make hay out of. Fourth, they set up a situation where I am supposed to learn about not clicking on links in e-mails that claimes to be internal by... clicking on a link in an e-mail that claimes to be internal. Seriously?
The bottom line is that this was dishonest. It was also latently hostile; trying to teach the faculty and staff a "lesson" by making fools of them. Those are not nice things, and are certainly not things you should do to a person who is supposed to be a colleague. Further, as with the sexual harassment training, I believe the goal here was not to reduce phishing victimization, it was to reduce legal liability.
Because of incidents like these (and, again, many others), I will never trust an administrator again. I am a lost cause on that front. But maybe you and other people in leadership positions can get something useful out of this that will help with people who are not me (and, in particular, are younger than me).
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Chuck Berry or Elvis? The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Michael Jackson or Prince? Billie Eilish, Taylor Swift or Beyoncé? Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes?
(A) answers: Chuck Berry. I never could get into Elvis.
The Beatles. The Stones have always seemed overrated to me.
Michael Jackson.
This is the toughest one for me. I'll go with Beyoncé, barely. No, Taylor Swift. Ah, I can't pick (I'm least familiar with Billie Eilish's music).
I barely know who one of these people is. I'll substitute a pair that's more in my wheelhouse (pun not intended): Fredric Aasbø or Ryan Tuerck? Tuerck before he went AWD; Aasbø after. But really, Hiroya Minowa.
(L) answers: Elvis. He expanded Chuck Berry's reach and built on the sound.
Beatles—what (A) said.
Prince! I think he gave Jackson a run for his money in the dance department and he's a much better musician. And he wasn't afraid to push the envelope.
I agree, this is tough. I gotta go Beyoncé—she's influenced so many singers.
Tom Brady. Mahomes may eclipse him someday but he can't touch the GOAT yet. If Mahomes ever comes back from 31 points down in the 3rd quarter of a Super Bowl, then we can have this conversation.
(Z) answers: Chuck Berry. I actively enjoy more of his songs, with "You Never Can Tell" at the top of the list.
The Beatles, by many country miles. I have the Rolling Stones' greatest hits, and a couple of others. I have well over 100 Beatles CDs (released albums—mono and stereo, released singles—mono and stereo, special collections, remasters, deep cuts, bootlegs, live performances, etc.). If you include collections of Beatles covers, we start to approach 150 CDs.
Michael Jackson, because I am going to give him credit for his work with the Jackson Five. I like that material better than his solo stuff.
Beyoncé, because I am going to give her credit for her work with Destiny's Child. I like that material better than her solo stuff.
Mahomes, because I cannot stand Tom Brady. First, because he is clearly MAGA, but pretends not to be. Just own it, Tom. Second, and most importantly, because he has marketed a bunch of B.S. supplements, Alex Jones-style or RFK Jr.-style. I don't approve of anyone who plays games with other people's health to make money. I disapprove even more when they have half a billion dollars in the bank, and have absolutely no need for the money they're making. For the exact same reason, Gwyneth Paltrow can also go to wherever it is that Trump's headed.