
• Saturday Q&A
• Reader Question of the Week: Capraesque
Supreme Court Gives Donald Trump a Late Birthday Gift
Yesterday, in its ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., the Supreme Court held that district courts generally do not have the authority to issue an injunction that applies to anyone other than the parties to the litigation. The Court holds that nationwide injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts."
This case came to the Court on the shadow docket—three different district courts, in suits brought by pregnant women, several states and immigrants' rights groups, enjoined Donald Trump's executive order declaring that U.S. born citizens were no longer citizens if the father is not a U.S. citizen and the mother entered the U.S. unlawfully or temporarily. Trump decided that such people are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, putting them outside the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause. In issuing the preliminary injunctions barring the administration from implementing this XO, the lower-court judges found that it likely violated the Fourteenth Amendment and was unconstitutional. Therefore, all three judges barred the administration from applying the XO to anyone, and not just the plaintiffs in the case. SCOTUS calls these injunctions "universal injunctions" and the majority uses that term pejoratively. (To be fair, we saw a fair number of these issued by Trump-appointed judges where the plaintiffs had clearly brought the case in a district where they were guaranteed a friendly judge who was willing to give them their requested relief. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who issued a nationwide injunction barring the use of mifepristone, leaps to mind.)
But in the past, whether these types of injunctions were found to be appropriate depended on the facts of the case and an evaluation of the case's merits and the relative harm to the parties and other people who would be affected by the decision. But once again this Court has found a way to sidestep inconvenient facts (by ignoring them altogether) that might make it less palatable to deliver for Trump (see the U.S. v. Trump "don't talk to me about the facts" immunity case.)
Because the Court agreed to hear this case on an emergency basis (i.e., the shadow docket), it was fast-tracked and certain steps were skipped, such as thorough briefing on all the issues. What the actual emergency is, the Court didn't say. They certainly weren't concerned about Trump's... shall we say, novel reading of the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause.
The Court was very savvy in circumscribing the issue: whether district courts have the authority to issue preliminary injunctions that apply nationwide. Narrowing the question in this way means the facts are irrelevant—they could be talking about an XO to rework a major pillar of the Constitution or Joe Biden's effort to cancel some student loans—what's the difference, really?
At oral argument, there was at least some nod to the unworkability of a nationwide federal executive order that is enjoined as to some parties but is implemented for everyone else. The justices also seemed to recognize that keeping things status quo while the litigation progresses*—in other words, leaving the injunctions in place—does no harm to the government.
But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in her majority opinion, sweeps all that aside. She implies that the "recent" phenomenon of nationwide injunctions (which is not true—what's new is the judge-shopping for a wildly overreaching order) requires the justices to intervene. But this is a misdirection. Instead of addressing the actual problem (and the misuse of such injunctions is a problem), the Court seems to be exploiting a few bad actors to strike down an injunction that was appropriately applied nationwide, given the facts of the case. This approach suits this Court, as it can kill two birds with one stone: addressing nationwide injunctions in the abstract, while giving Trump another win on his signature issue of ridding the country of as many undesirables as possible. Barrett cites only the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the "lack of [a] historical pedigree" to argue that Congress did not authorize this type of equitable relief by the federal courts. But this ignores how this same law has been interpreted in modern times to allow judicial acts that also have no exact historical analogue, but follow general principles of equitable relief. The Court takes the easy way out by prohibiting generally nationwide injunctions instead of taking the time to craft a test as to when this type of relief is appropriate. The fact is that the shadow docket doesn't allow for such thoughtful and deliberative analysis.
The Court held that the injunctions apply to the pregnant plaintiffs only, for now, but ordered the lower courts to determine the scope of the injunctions as to the states. (There was no mention of advocacy groups like CASA.) The majority held that a universal injunction MAY be appropriate in order to ensure certain parties can obtain "complete relief." So, the lower courts could find that a blanket ban on enforcement of the XO is appropriate to give the states complete relief. The practical impact of this may be nothing if a nationwide injunction is granted in the cases brought by states. Or it could be that only those people who live in one of the states that brought a lawsuit are protected by the injunction. In that case, anyone with parents born outside of this country who did not enter lawfully could be stripped of citizenship while this case plays out, while newborns to whom this executive order applies won't be given social security numbers. It will be chaos.
In the absence of a nationwide injunction, class action lawsuits are a possibility (as the majority decision yesterday noted), but that takes time. And as these cases play out, if Trump gets an adverse ruling in the district court, why would he appeal and risk losing, given the limited reach of the district court's order? Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. The Court's ruling takes effect in 30 days; and the Court has already stayed an order (in another case on the shadow docket) prohibiting Trump from deporting people to third countries without due process. If the abuses we've already seen from ICE are any indication, we ain't seen nothin' yet. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor notes in her dissent, "By stripping all federal courts, including itself, of [the power to grant universal relief], the Court kneecaps the Judiciary's authority to stop the Executive from enforcing even the most unconstitutional policies."
Finally, one note about Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence. In it, he effectively advises the Trump faithful to bring more emergency applications to the Supreme Court for a stay of lower court orders. He advocates for a pretty stunning expansion of the Court's involvement in cases at earlier stages of litigation and in a way that lacks the transparency of the Court's normal docket, which is why it's called the "shadow" docket. As Trump pushes the boundaries of the law and the Constitution, and the federal courts (including judges appointed by presidents of both parties) are doing their best to keep him in check, Kavanaugh seems to be telling him and his administration that the Supremes stand ready to bail him out via the shadow docket. That's what we call "saying the quiet part out loud." (L)
Saturday Q&A
The last Saturday of the month is reserved for fun questions. Yesterday's post was quite long, and we have the SCOTUS item above, so we're going to limit ourselves to just 10 questions.
And for those still working on the headline theme, there were a few readers who figured it out and wondered if we were inspired by the fact that the president is named Donald. But that theory is just Daffy.
And now, on to the questions:
R.M. in Norwich, CT, asks: Why do you think it took so long for soccer to become popular on a professional level in America?
(V) & (Z) answer: There are undoubtedly a number of factors. However, we think the most significant, by far, is that people have only so much headspace for sports, and other sports beat soccer to the punch in the United States (and Canada). In particular, the soccer "niche," namely "low-scoring sport, in which every goal matters, and everyone plays both offense and defense" is also filled by hockey, and the U.S. and Canada have had a meaningful pro hockey presence since the 1920s.
J.C. in Thủ Dầu Một, Bình Dương, Vietnam, asks: It's hard to be a woman. Especially in the past. Misogyny and oppression by the male hegemony seem to be everywhere. Time travel stories tend to feature men, because why would you want to go to the past to be even more oppressed? So if you are a woman and have a time machine, when and where is the best place to go?
(V) & (Z) answer: Let us start by noting that the status of women 100, 200, or 300 years ago is odious to most citizens of 21st century liberal democracies. However, there were many women in those eras who very much embraced a worldview where women and men were fundamentally different, and the distinct qualities of women made them special. Put another way, someone like Abigail Adams did not think she was oppressed.
That said, if we assume a 21st century woman, with feminist/post-feminist values, they might find much to like in ancient Sparta. That society was not exactly matriarchal, but it was awfully close, as women were key to doing nearly everything needed for the society to operate, so the men could all train as soldiers.
Another pretty solid option from long ago is ancient Egypt. That was a prosperous society, and men and women largely had equal status. The same is also true of certain periods of Indian history.
It also wouldn't be too bad to be a woman in the western United States, between 1860 and 1910 or so. The populations of the western states were overwhelmingly male (often more than 95%), and so there was something of an arms race to grant women certain privileges and status. This is why Wyoming became the first state to give women the vote, in 1869.
Finally, if you want a modern version of the basic dynamic in Sparta, then the U.S. from 1941-45 comes pretty close. Women were badly needed to keep the industrial economy going, and so enjoyed freedoms and status, not to mention wages, that would have been unthinkable 10 years earlier.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: What are the ten best movies about World War II?
(V) & (Z) answer: Because these movies are very different from each other, we're not going to try to rank them. Instead, we'll give them in chronological order. Oh, and we couldn't quite cut it down to ten, so there are a dozen movies here:
- Casablanca (1942): If we were doing a ranking, this would be a serious contender for #1. It's a nearly perfect movie, and still resonates nearly a century after it was made.
- The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957): This list is very heavy on films that show how complicated an experience it is to participate in a war. Alec Guinness' Colonel Nicholson certainly embodies that.
- Judgment at Nuremberg (1961): This film seems to be fading from memory, which is a shame, because it's got an unbelievable cast, with many of them—Judy Garland, Burt Lancaster, Marlene Dietrich, and especially Montgomery Clift—turning in what is arguably their last great performance. Meanwhile, it was Maximilian Schell, who was just beginning his career, who won the Oscar for Best Actor.
- Patton (1970): Another complicated film, thanks to the magnificent screenplay by Francis Ford Coppola. It's often described as a "pro-war" film. We're not sure it is. But we're mot sure it isn't, either.
- Das Boot (1981): A hard film to watch, because it's so claustrophobic. We are glad to have seen it once, but can't imagine watching it again.
- A League of Their Own (1992): (Z) has gotten in arguments, more than once, about whether this counts as a World War II film. Huh? The home front is part of the story too. And not only does this film have a great cast, great performances and a great story, Roger Ebert quite correctly observed that a female director (Penny Marshall) understood what a male director might not have, that it was not always an easy call to leave more traditional gender roles behind for something more progressive.
- Schindler's List (1993): Another film that is hard to watch, but it's certainly the best of Spielberg's "message" films, as his personal connection to the subject matter comes through in every frame.
- Downfall (2004): What a performance from Bruno Ganz as Adolf Hitler.
- Inglourious Basterds (2009): Tarantino films tend to be uneven, and this one is not an exception. However, every scene where Christoph Waltz is on screen is electric.
- The Imitation Game (2014): The filmmakers had to commit some pretty serious offenses against the historical record in service of drama, but it's a fantastic film about a very important story.
- Jojo Rabbit (2019): One of the two outstanding Nazi comedies, and the other one, The Producers, isn't really a World War II film.
- Oppenheimer (2023): Will this be the last great World War II epic?
We imagine readers will have additional thoughts, which can be sent to comments@electoral-vote.com. Note, however, that there is one very obvious candidate for this list that we left off because we don't actually care for that film very much. In other words, don't assume we "forgot."
J.K. in Mahomet, IL, asks: Greatest music movie ever?
My first choice is Amadeus, which melds music, soul, heart and person better than any!
My second choice would be Wayne's World for the incredible "Bohemian Rhapsody" scene... mic drop...(V) & (Z) answer: We would say there are two very different kinds of movie soundtracks. The first kind is made up of music that was wholly (or mostly) written for that movie (or for the musical the movie was based on). The second kind is made up of music that was wholly (or mostly) borrowed by the movie, and was not composed for that film.
Here is a top ten, with #1 being best, of soundtracks in the first category:
- Star Wars, Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
- The Godfather
- A Hard Day's Night
- The Wall
- Beetlejuice
- Grease
- The Graduate
- The Sound of Music
- Shaft
- Purple Rain
And here is a top ten, with #1 being best, of soundtracks in the second category:
- The Blues Brothers
- Pulp Fiction
- Juno
- Hairspray
- High Fidelity
- American Graffiti
- Forrest Gump
- The Royal Tenenbaums
- Do the Right Thing
- Fantasia
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: I have been a Star Trek fan since the early 90s. One of the things I like about it is the series unabashedly embraces a humanist worldview. I realized I was a humanist by the time I finished middle school. It's a philosophy that rejects the supernatural and emphasizes human ability and agency to resolve conflicts and overcome problems. Unlike most faiths, the characters do not believe human nature is inherently good or bad; they believe it is just a product of human evolution.
However, I haven't been able to find any other shows or film series that embrace humanism. Do you know of any?(V) & (Z) answer: It depends on how strict your definition of "humanist" is, but we would say that all of these shows are substantially aligned with that philosophy: Doctor Who, House, M.D., M*A*S*H, Sherlock, The Big Bang Theory, The Mentalist, The West Wing and, although these might seem to be off-the-wall choices, The Andy Griffith Show and Scooby-Doo.
W.H. in San Jose, CA, asks: Have you any experience or thoughts about "immersive theater" experiences, where the audience is encouraged to have a more participatory and interactive role?
(V) & (Z) answer: Neither of us has been in the audience for an "immersive theater" play, like Tony and Tina's Wedding. However, (Z) has seen many living history presentations of various sorts, some where the performers do not presume to speak as historical figures (e.g., Civil War reenactments; see below), and some where the performers speak in first person and behave as if they are denizens of a particular period (e.g., Colonial Willamsburg, Plymouth Plantation). (Z) has also done many escape rooms; those would seem to be a version of immersive theater.
In other words, (Z) is a fan. In particular, he went to Plymouth Plantation when he was 11 or 12, and it was engaging in a way that something like a museum was not, for a kid. So, immersive theater would seem to be an excellent tool for reaching people who might not otherwise be interested in theater, or history, or the like.
M.R. in New Brighton, MN, asks: What experiences have you had with Civil War reenactments? Have you ever attended or participated in a reenactment? Have you ever been asked to provide historical advice for a reenactment? How popular are these events—has interest in these events gone up or down in the last few decades?
(V) & (Z) answer: (Z) assumes this is not a set-up, and that the question is legit. In any event, his dissertation was written about Civil War reenactors. So yes, he's a wee bit familiar with the phenomenon. He has been to many reenactments, though never as a participant (that felt like it crossed a line). He has given advice, on occasion, and has been interviewed for a few documentaries, news stories, etc. And interest tends to go up during big Civil War anniversaries (e.g., the sesquicentennial), and down at other times. So, interest is a bit down right now.
R.V. in Pittsburgh, PA, asks: I've attended audience tapings of Jeopardy! back when Alex Trebek hosted. This was couple times prior to 2017—back then, you could watch 3 morning shows, or 2 afternoon shows. Not sure if it's still that way now.
Has (Z) ever been on game show, either in the audience or as a contestant?(V) & (Z) answer: (Z) has never been in the audience for a game show. He did the Jeopardy! test, and made it to the audition/interview stage, but didn't make the cut. He also auditioned for a show called Trivial Pursuit: America Plays. They were just wrapping up their first season, and were lining up contestants for the second season. The good news is that (Z) was chosen to be on the first show of the second season. The bad news is that the show was canceled during the hiatus.
D.J.M. in Salmon Arm, B.C., Canada, asks: The foundation of a comedian's performance is the one-liner. What are your top three favorite one-liners?
(V) & (Z) answer: To keep this manageable, we will start by noting that the "classic" one-liner comedians don't really resonate today. So, we can't put Henny Youngman's "Take my wife... please!" or Rodney Dangerfield's I called Dial-a-Prayer and they told me to go to hell" or Bob Hope's "You know you're getting old when the candles cost more than the cake" on a modern list.
Of course, many modern comedians don't much use one-liners, preferring more complex routines in the style pioneered by Lenny Bruce. But we would say there are three contemporary practitioners of the one-liner who do still resonate (even if two of them are deceased, both having died prematurely). We're going to give our favorite one-liners from each member of the trio:
- Bill Hicks: Keith Richards outlived Jim Fixx, the runner and health nut... the plot thickens. (This line was later lifted by Denis Leary.)
- Mitch Hedberg: I used to do drugs.... I still do drugs, but I used to, too.
- Steven Wright: I put instant coffee in my microwave oven and almost went back in time.
B.R. in Arlington, MA, asks: Where would you love to go and teach for a year as an opportunity to live and explore somewhere else?
(V) answers: Cambridge (UK) has a very good computer science department and is an interesting town. Cambridge (US) is also interesting, but been there already.
(Z) answers: I would also choose England. Languages are not my forté, and I would not want to spend a big chunk of the time abroad learning to communicate. Further, there is much in the U.K. that I have not seen and would like to.
Reader Question of the Week: Capraesque
Here is the question we put before readers a couple of weeks ago:
M.B.F. in Oakton, VA, asks: What is the best film on American politics, and why?
And here some of the answers we got in response:
J.B. in Hutto, TX: The answer, every day of the week and twice on Sunday, is Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Anyone who says otherwise obviously has never seen Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
C.J. in Redondo Beach, CA: You once again may have tipped your hand eluding to your choice on the question with a reference to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It's a great film, and you can rarely go wrong with Frank Capra or Jimmy Stewart. I have to go with Steven Spielberg's Lincoln, which is a masterpiece and an excellent study on how the arm-twisting game of politics can be played. Daniel Day-Lewis is tremendous as usual, but the cast is uniformly excellent (I wish it had won Best Picture that year, and I'll never be able to understand how it lost the SAG Best Ensemble Award; that was a travesty) and the writing is top-notch, as one would expect from Tony Kushner. Whenever I see it on TV, I am compelled to watch it to the end.
M.K. in Queens, NY: Although you are going to conclude the answer is Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, I'd swing to the other end of the emotional spectrum in these turbulent times. The Manchurian Candidate (1962) has the most realistic politician, willing to flip-flop or change any position for personal preservation, in James Gregory as Senator John Yerkes Iselin. And it has Angela Lansbury as Mrs. Eleanor Shaw Iselin, the most ruthless political handler there ever was. And what a family will do to each other for political gain!
Fantastic film.
S.S. in West Hollywood, CA: I often explain that I follow politics obsessively, the way some follow sports, but in politics who wins matters. I also follow films just as obsessively. The Oscars are my Super Bowl! (And yes, I will win the Oscar pool at your Oscar viewing party.) So the question of the best films about American politics was a natural for me.
First I listed all the films I could think of that fit the question. (I decided not to include documentaries. That felt like a different discussion.) I then narrowed it down to the films that had the most profound effect on me. So much, that I can remember exactly where I saw each one. With that, I present the best films about American politics:
- All the President's Men: C'mon, it's the GOAT of political films. You must already know that! (Awwwww, investigative journalism, remember that?)
- Bob Roberts: A satire about how easily American voters are manipulated by politicians with no ethics or morality. Meant as a reaction to the first Bush presidency. Even then I knew it was a prophetic warning of "anything to win" politicians who are only in it for the money making opportunities. Like the best horror films, you can't look away even when you want to.
- Frost/Nixon: About the 1977 Richard Nixon interviews with David Frost. Only the most extraordinary actors and filmmakers could turn that into an edge-of-your-seat, thought-provoking thriller.
- JFK: It's not a documentary and I wouldn't take anything it says at face value. Knowing that doesn't take anything away from its impact. It's a significant film accomplishment that's fascinating and hugely entertaining.
- Milk: As a queer man, this story and its historical significance hit me in a way other excellent biographical films didn't. (Representation matters!) About the 1970s rise of Harvey Milk from photography store owner to first successful openly gay politician at a time when most people weren't openly gay anything. And his murder at the hands of fellow San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Dan White. It's compelling, comprehensive, and inspirational. While also posing many questions about the murder and human behavior with still unknowable answers.
- Don't Look Up: Stop rolling your eyes, I know it's a flawed and very messy film. That said, a satire about scientists who are dismissed out-of-hand by politicians and the media while trying to save the planet from certain destruction just stuck to me. It's a not very subtle allegory for climate change. Like a documentary we're currently living, or, if you prefer, a nightmare we can't wake up from.
D.P. in Mt. Rainier, MD: Primary Colors. Really about the naive idealists who toil in the background (and become jaded in the process) so that the well-intentioned yet deeply flawed presidential aspirants can be elected.
Alternatively, Conclave. Even though it's not about American politics on the surface, Stanley Tucci's line about running for Pope just to keep more conservative elements from taking over and taking the Church backwards is a clear reference to American politics (if not liberal democracies in general).
D.E. in Lancaster, PA: I would nominate Advise and Consent, a 1962 film by Otto Preminger. The film has a stellar cast of Henry Fonda, Charles Laughton (his last film), Walter Pidgeon, Peter Lawford, Burgess Meredith, and Betty White among others (including historian David McCullough as a background extra). The film is based off the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel of the same name by Allan Drury, a reporter who covered the Senate during the Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman administrations. It was filmed in many D.C. locations, giving it further versimsilitude.
The film revolves around the Senate's duty to Advise and Consent, specifically to approve the controversial nomination of Robert Leffingwell to Secretary of State. Of course, it depicts a much quainter time when nominations rose and fell on matters of perjury and communist affiliations, and not on a loyalty test to the president or on how many investigations into drunken and/or drug-fueled behavior one had in their recent past. The film does a wonderful job of showing the various sides of an issue and the shifting nature of how factions are formed. It nicely shows that often times, political decisions come down personal antagonisms. Like many Preminger films, on the surface, things seems polite and cordial but underneath it's a vicious battle raging. Also like many of Preminger films, this one pushed the boundaries of the time by being the first to ever depict a gay bar—let's just say that someone has a secret to hide. For me, the greatest thing about this film is how the ending (while not completely legally accurate—it is a film after all) leaves you with a sense of just how hallow political victories can be. You will find yourself wondering, if for all the animosities, betrayals, and lives ruined and tarnished, was the "victory" worth it? Other film projects do a good job of depicting the Machiavellian nature of politics but this one does an excellent job of depicting the futility.
This film was shown in one of my social studies classes in high school—another sign of a quainter times because nowadays, what with its gay subplot, it would surely bring down the wrath of a Moms for Liberty boycott. Not only did the film open my eyes that there might be other people like me (I mean, at least enough to fill up one whole bar in NYC!) but equally importantly, it exposed me to the moral complexity and the fascinating but subtle battle of personalities that are the core of all politics. I really do feel that this is about as accurate a depiction of what it was like to be a Senator as has ever been filmed—well, at least, before a time when a senator from the opposing party in power is wrestled to the ground and handcuffed for the temerity of raising a question—and the party in power thinks that's just peachy keen. It's also many millions of light years away from where we tragically find ourselves today, where two state lawmakers were viciously gunned down in their homes by a madman with a political ax to grind.
B.B. in St. Louis, MO: Donald Trump's first term was A Face in the Crowd. His second term is Wag the Dog. Let's hope his third term doesn't become Dr. Strangelove.
T.S. in Maple Heights, OH: Wag the Dog: Is art imitating life, or is life imitating art? A movie that acknowledges the cynical and conspiratorial ethos of modern politics.
Good Night and Good Luck: A reminder that an independent free press is an invaluable resource for democracy.
M.M. in San Diego, CA: Wag the Dog parodies political operatives creating a distraction (a fake war) for an administration in hot water. Political operatives can only fantasize about getting that good (bad) at hoodwinking the entire country.
E.S. in Providence, RI: My nominee would be Charlie Wilson's War. It shows how some of the sausage gets made, the way secret decisions end up with horrible consequences, and has one of the greatest performances in film history from the sorely missed Phillip Seymour Hoffman.
G.T. in Cincinnati, OH: Andy Griffith's powerful characterization of a pre-Trumpian demagogue who wins over the masses to the point he can dictate his terms to smoke filled room politicians who are used to having their way. I keep waiting his climatic downfall to occur to Trump. Sigh. Until then, I'll keep watching the obits.
B.U. in St. Louis, MO: The Parallax View is super at capturing the political paranoia and conspiratorial thinking of late 60s and early 70s American politics. I suppose they're still with us.
P.D.N. in Boardman, OH: JFK. Because it indulges America's favorite pastime, conspiratorial thinking. That hasn't stopped since and never will.
A.G. in Scranton, PA: The Best Man. The one by Gore Vidal... not that fu**ing idiot Taye Diggs movie.
Despite being filmed during the Kennedy administration, the film's storylines could just as easily have happened in 2024.
S.I. in Minneapolis, MN: While the list of good American political movies is long, the "best film on American politics" is a movie that actually came out over 50 years ago—The Candidate. For those few who may not have seen it, Robert Redford plays an idealistic and charismatic liberal who agrees to run for the U.S. Senate as a longshot with no real hope of winning against a popular incumbent. (He welcomed the opportunity to spread his own values.) However, his political handlers keep dumbing down his message to a point at which the candidate really no longer has any views... and he keeps climbing in the polls. The classic final line of the movie, after he wins the race, pretty much selling his political soul in the process: "What do we do now?"
J.E.S. in Sedona, AZ: The best film ever made on American politics is Paddy Chayefsky and Sidney Lumet's Network. It was so prescient, and so accurate, in so many ways germane to our times that it barely tracks as satire anymore, especially after Team MAGA adopted Howard Beale's "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore" battle cry as a mantra, without apparently understanding that it was the scream of a television madman being controlled by his corporate overlords, so as to manipulate his viewers. The idiocy of shouty confrontational television, as depicted in Network doesn't look/sound at all out of line with the realities of our modern political broadcast, cable, and podcast biomes. The Mister Jensen monologue is one of the two greatest soliloquies in American film history, along with Charlie Chaplin's "Look up, Hannah" speech at the end of The Great Dictator. It's a masterwork of scripting, acting, set design, and cinematography.
A.B. in Lichfield, England, UK:
I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TV's while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be. We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, "Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone."
Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot—I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. You've got to say, "I'm a HUMAN BEING, God damn it! My life has VALUE!"
So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!... You've got to say, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"No, not Donald Trump on his boutique social media site, but Howard Beale in Network (more accurately, Peter Finch as directed by Sidney Lumet, per Paddy Chayefsky's script).
It's also arguably a much, much scarier film in 2025 than it was in 1976.
S.M. in Milford, MA: My nominee is Bob Roberts. It basically predicted the MAGA cult, roasted the notion that SNL is a liberal program (go check who hosted the program in 2015 after he first announced his presidential candidacy), and exposed how the right manipulates the media and co-opts the language and techniques of populism and 1960s protest. The homages to Don't Look Back and This is Spinal Tap are just icing on the cake. I immediately thought of this movie when Mango Mussolini emerged with that absurdly large bandage on his ear to protect a wound that required no stitches. If you haven't seen it, be warned that the final act cuts a bit too close to home at this political moment.
J.D. in Greensboro, NC: Not exactly Capraesque, but a film that illustrates what happens when democracy goes wrong is The Front, a film made in 1976 starring, but not written by, Woody Allen. The film stealthily tells the tale of authoritarian creep during the McCarthy era, bolstered by the Cold War and fear of communist "infiltrators" in Hollywood and elsewhere. It is a story of the betrayal of thousands of citizens by their fellow countrymen to satisfy the ambitions of politicians. You can make comparisons to our present time if you like.
Because it starts out as a typical Allen film, with disarming humor covering serious themes, the movie draws you in and the ending takes you by surprise. Not only that, but you might recognize yourself in Allen's character, who thinks what he is doing really doesn't hurt anybody until he opens the curtain and takes a look at the destruction. His desire for fame and money greased the machinery but also drew him into it and he is confronted with that at a pivotal moment. Think about it—in order for these things to happen, betrayal of those you don't know or even those you know is necessary. Persecution is not a straight line, but must be a widening circle.
Zero Mostel portrays a person who has been betrayed by others in the film. In real life, he suffered from the very political persecution during the McCarthy era that the movie shows. His performance is phenomenal.
The ending of this film deeply affected me and made me realize that while our system is good, the wrong people in power can pervert it. Artists have been holding up the mirror to these things for thousands of years and we owe it to them to keep watching and learning. Long live movies like this one.
S.H. in Sutherlin, OR: The best movie about American politics is The American President, hands down. Honorable mention to The Manchurian Candidate.
S.R. in Stockton, CA: I am rather taken by Seven Days in May and The Manchurian Candidate—they both seem to have predicted events sixty years after their release (at least to a certain extent, hopefully).
S.R. in Hoboken, NJ: My vote goes to An American President, with two examples of the dialog to explain why:
Lewis Rothschild (Michael J. Fox): "I'm a citizen, this is my President. And in this country it is not only permissible to question our leaders, it's our responsibility!"
Sydney Ellen Wade (Annette Bening) [to the President]: "How do you have patience for people who claim they love America, but clearly can't stand Americans?"
J.B. in Bozeman, MT: Although not directly about politicians, I suggest Thank You For Smoking, about a sleazy yet suave tobacco lobbyist played by Aaron Eckhart. The film does an excellent job portraying corporate spin and misinformation which unfortunately remains a corrosive element of American political discourse (see media, social and warming, global).
D.C. in Jacksonville, FL: I love movies, and during the pandemic my wife and I took the opportunity to catch up on a lot of gaps in our movie-watching repertoire. We started by watching all the Best Picture nominees (at least where copies still exist and are widely available). We also watched a lot of "best movie" lists. The movie that jumps out for me as the "best" movie having to do with American politics is 1957's A Face in the Crowd. For those who haven't seen it, the movie will change your opinion of Andy Griffith forever. Through the lens of the 2025 movie watcher, A Face in the Crowd is incredibly prescient, chronicling the path of a loud-mouthed rabble-rouser as he assembles a populist following, rises to power, and becomes an uncontrollable force for chaos and mayhem. It amazes me that more than half a century ago the themes of modern day politics were on the minds of the movie-making industry.
A.M. in Brookhaven, PA: The best film on American politics is All the President's Men. It's based on a true and very significant political event. It shows the greed that politicians have to both win at all costs and, if you are already going to win, do whatever you can to run up the score. It has an all-star cast. It won 4 Academy Awards and made the cut in 4 of the AFI's 100 years top 100 lists.
T.F. in Craftsbury Common, VT: While not a comprehensive representation of politics nationwide, I think the best film for representing our current federal government and those of many states would have to be Idiocracy.
D.M. in Cleveland, OH: Unfortunately, it's the uncannily prescient documentary Idiocracy.
C.S. in Newport, Wales, UK: I do not know what is the best film on American politics to date. But I fear that if Donald Trump continues as he does, and is successful, then it may well soon be The Great Dictator.
Here is the question for next week:
F.J.H. in Las Cruces, NM, asks: I am an aficionado of historical fiction (book form) from waaaay back. So, what do you think is the best novel in the genre?
Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Two Turtledoves"!
If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.
- questions@electoral-vote.com For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
- comments@electoral-vote.com For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
- corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
- items@electoral-vote.com For general suggestions, ideas, etc.
To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.
Email a link to a friend.
---The Votemaster and Zenger
Jun27 Adventures in Overreach, Part II: Trump Managed to Shank the Iran Bombing
Jun27 Adventures in Overreach, Part III: Trump, Bondi Have Managed to Saddle Themselves with a Real Mess
Jun27 Adventures in Overreach, Part IV: Dodgers Throw a Bean Ball at Trump
Jun27 Never Forget: WTF?
Jun27 I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Deep Down
Jun27 This Week in Schadenfreude: $JPROOF Gets Knocked on Its Rump
Jun27 This Week in Freudenfreude: Helping the Children of Gaza Back on Their Feet
Jun26 Trump Treated Like a King by a Real King
Jun26 Democrats Are Struggling with a Response on Iran
Jun26 The Son of the Former Shah of Iran Wants His Dad's Old Job
Jun26 Trump Has a New Plan for Deporting Hundreds of Thousands of Immigrants
Jun26 The BBB Is Not Out of the Woods Yet
Jun26 New Poll: Trump is 14 Points Underwater
Jun26 Vance Explains the Trump Doctrine
Jun26 Gabbard Appoints a Trumper to a Key Position
Jun25 Cuomo Comes from Ahead to Lose
Jun25 Iran Stuff
Jun25 When Will Congress Act to Save Social Security?
Jun25 Never Forget: Cold Warrior
Jun24 Peace in Our Time
Jun24 Robert Garcia Likely to Succeed Gerry Connolly at Oversight
Jun24 Murkowski Hints at Party Switch
Jun24 Never Forget:
Jun23 Are We at War or Not at War?
Jun23 Trump Will Get Big Win from Europe, But the U.S. May Be the Loser
Jun23 Trump Doesn't Trust Gabbard
Jun23 It's Almost July 4th
Jun23 New York City Primary Is Tomorrow
Jun23 Trump Administration ICE Continues Campaign of Dirty Tricks
Jun17 Time for an Unscheduled Break
Jun16 A War in Iran Has Consequences for the U.S.
Jun16 They Are All TACOs
Jun16 Trump Wins One and Loses One in Court
Jun16 Trump Is Popular on Immigration but His Policies Are Not
Jun16 Trump Scrambles to Restore the Voice of America's Farsi Service
Jun16 Trump Loses Another Appeal in the E. Jean Carroll Defamation Case
Jun16 Protester Killed at No Kings Rally in Utah
Jun16 The Presidency Pays Off, Big Time
Jun16 How Do People in Other Countries View the U.S.?
Jun16 Michael Bloomberg Donates to His Former Enemy Andrew Cuomo
Jun16 NY-17 Campaign Is in Full Swing Now
Jun16 Wedding News
Jun15 A World in Disarray
Jun14 Saturday Q&A
Jun14 Reader Question of the Week: Forget It, Jake...
Jun13 Israel Bombs Iran
Jun13 Military Theater, Part I: California
Jun13 Military Theater, Part II: The Speech
Jun13 Military Theater, Part III: The Parade