Dem
47
GOP
53
Today we start with three questions in a row that are guaranteed to make some people upset.
This week's headline theme proved to be unusually difficult. So, we'll tell you that among the phrases we might have used, but didn't, are "A Falling Star," "Your Breath" and "of the Day."
J.K. in Short Hills, NJ, asks: While we sometimes do not see eye-to-eye and, more often than not, I am completely out of step with your readership, I still come to the site every day because you, to the best of your ability, remove emotion and biases from your commentary better than most. For example, you wrote that skepticism about Israel potentially becoming acceptable, if not dominant, among Democrats is a good thing for the party because it assuages one of the most divisive wedges among those on the left. While I find such sentiment disturbing, I wholeheartedly agree with your contention. Similarly, your argument that Dan Goldman's being refused service at a coffee shop has no legal standing for discrimination is also sound, in my opinion.
I am curious, though: Is, among a sea of other disturbing examples, Goldman not being served by a barista or Mamdani calling AIPAC members monsters "who move millions in dark money" along with implications of dual loyalty troubling for you as it pertains to the direction the Democratic Party and the country (the far right—Fuentes, Carlson, Owens are debatably worse) are heading? I only ask because, presently, I, along with most other Jews I know, am, to quote Trevor Noah upon his realization that Trump was going to win on Election Night in 2016, "this is the first time... where I am officially shi**ing my pants."(Z) answers: "Israel is not Judaism; Judaism is not Israel."
Many times, I have seen advocates on both sides of this issue disregard that statement to serve the needs of the moment. By that, I mean that pro-Israel folks use accusations of antisemitism to shut down any criticism of Israel. And I also mean that antisemitic folks use attacks on Israel as a way of trying to get away with antisemitism.
Deeply problematic acts were perpetrated on Israel by Hamas on October 7, 2023. Since then, the Israeli regime, which is deeply corrupt at the upper levels, has used "they attacked us first" and "criticism of Israel is antisemitic" as a shield, so that they could respond with their own deeply problematic acts.
Meanwhile, AIPAC, even by the standards of a super PAC, engages in some very underhanded tactics.
There has to be a way for people to criticize both Israel and AIPAC without being attacked as antisemites/bigots. If such criticism is shut down, that absolutely increases the risk that anti-Israel/anti-AIPAC sentiment morphs into a more generalized antisemitism. And I think that the only solution is to make "Israel is not Judaism; Judaism is not Israel" a mantra.
As part of that, those who do criticize Israel/AIPAC can sometimes, I think, do a better job of framing things. I don't usually see Zohran Mamdani's complete remarks, just the "sound bite" that gets extracted and then circulated on social media. But if he's not adding some sort of disclaimer, making clear he is focusing on a political action committee or a national government, and not on an entire religion/culture, he should be. That said, I do not think one can reasonably conclude that he is some sort of proto-Hitler, and that if he somehow gains power on a national level, we could be headed to a second Holocaust.
On the other side of this, I cannot speak for other nations and cultures, but American culture has by and large decided that the members of a particular group get to serve as primary arbiters of what things cross a line in terms of offensiveness to that group. For example, Black people largely get to decide what crosses the line into anti-Black racism. So, when an American Jew says they found something problematic or offensive (or on the cusp of being so), that should be given extra weight. It's not the final word, but it's an important consideration. I'm not even Jewish, and yet on several occasions I've written something like, "Ehhh... this codes as potentially antisemitic," and I've gotten blasted as a Zionist or whatever via Israel-critical readers. That is not a helpful reaction, and I can only imagine how such a response makes Jews feel. If folks don't have room to express legitimate concerns about being (or feeling) targeted, then there is zero chance they will ever meet you in the middle.
Finally, I have no idea what the full context of the Dan Goldman situation was, and the news articles I read didn't help. Was that a political decision by the barista/the manager/the owner? Or was it a business decision? I can think of businesses near me in Los Angeles that, if they served local boy Stephen Miller, would lose half their clientele. In that case, they really have no choice but to deny Miller service. That said, in the absence of clearer information, I would probably cross that coffee shop off my own personal list. Not because of my feelings for or against Israel, but because I generally find that kind of performative stuff to be counterproductive.
M.L. in West Hartford, CT, asks: I just read this piece that summarizes a new report from the UN independent commission looking into conditions in Palestine. The conclusions are appalling:
- Israel has killed 20,000 children and injured 44,000 more since October 2023.
- Starvation imposed by Israel through blockade and siege has caused the deaths of Palestinian children.
- Palestinian children have been arrested and tortured.
- Israeli forces have used sexual violence against children as a strategy.
- Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza.
Now that an independent U.N. body is using the term "genocide" to describe Israel's actions in Gaza, have you reconsidered your previous stance that Israel's behavior does not fit the definition of this word?
(Z) answers: I have not reconsidered, because I have not considered the question at all for at least a year. It was at least that far back that I decided it wasn't worth thinking or talking about anymore, because everyone has become entrenched in whatever answer they have settled upon.
Humans have lived in the era of "total war" for something close to 200 years now. That means war won by any means necessary, including gross acts of violence against civilian populations. When Raphael Lemkin coined the term "genocide," he specifically intended to highlight a level of barbarism that went beyond just total war, namely the effort to eliminate an entire race, religion or nationality.
We get at least one "Is it genocide now?" e-mail a week, which is why I am finally writing an answer. To the folks who send those e-mails, I would suggest there are two questions you should reflect on:
- What distinguishes the events in Gaza from Sherman's march to the sea? The siege of Leningrad? The reconcentrados of Spain in Cuba and of the U.S. in Philippines? The firebombing of Dresden? The use of napalm in Vietnam? The Rape of Nanking and other Japanese depredations of China in the 1930s and 1940s? The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The Battle of Britain? The Great Leap Forward?
All of these events involved great suffering being imposed by military and/or government forces upon civilians, including children, in service of military and/or political goals. And none of them are broadly recognized as genocides. If you can't clearly distinguish what is going on in Gaza from all of these other gross acts of violence, then you're confirming that the distinction Lemkin tried to draw is lost, and that "genocide" has drifted, and just become a synonym for "total war" or for "crimes against humanity."- Why does it matter if people use the word "genocide" or not? Why does it matter if I personally think it's a genocide or not? Whatever word people use, or whatever word I use, has not one iota of impact on how much suffering and death has taken place, and will continue to take place.
C.L. in Fairbanks, AK, asks: Why did you not publish my letter on the subject of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy? It was timely, in the sense that it responded to a question about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and (Z)'s response to that question. My letter was polite, respectful, and I cited three appropriate references in support of my argument.
Did (Z) not like receiving a letter that disagreed with his (no-doubt strongly-held) personal opinion on the subject of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy?(Z) answers: Let's start with the cheap shot at the end. I have run hundreds of questions and thousands of letters from readers who disagreed with me. Surely you know that; you put that to goad me into running your question. And, frankly, that very nearly kept your question from being selected. Not because you hold a different opinion from me, but because I don't like that kind of trickery. The only reason your question is running is because it fits in with the two previous questions.
And the reason it fits into the two previous questions is that there are several current "debates" that aren't really debates at all, because everyone's mind is made up. Nobody is changing their mind, at this point, on Israel. Nobody is changing their mind, at this point, on genocide. And nobody is changing their mind, at this point, on the JFK assassination.
Obviously, I made an exception today, but I usually avoid these three subjects (and a few others), unless they are utterly unavoidable, because they are no longer interesting, they are no longer instructive or educational, and they just piss people off. There are plenty of outlets whose business model is to lean in to the subjects that piss people off, and to "embrace debate." We are not one of those outlets.
Your message briefly outlined the "evidence" that Lyndon B. Johnson was behind the JFK assassination. The people who believe that, already believe. The people who don't believe, aren't going to change their minds, no matter how many citations your message includes. We get a lot of comments and a lot of questions, and it is not enough to be timely and to be connected to stuff we've run on the site. Most comments and questions we get pass those two tests.
Also, as a sidebar, we rarely run questions or comments that are dependent on reading (or, even more so, on following up on) citations. This is not the medium for that; it's not a formal academic publication where you can let your citations do much of your talking for you.
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, asks: What are the rules for presidential primetime addresses? Perish the thought, but could The Convicted Felon give one every day if he so chose?
(Z) answers: There are no rules, only customs. The custom is that a president announces such an address when he feels there is something of national importance, and broadcasters usually defer to that judgment and broadcast the speech. That said, they do not always defer, as was the case with Trump's speech this week.
Note that it was easier for ABC to take a pass on Trump's speech than it would have been with, say, an address from Richard Nixon, for two reasons. The first is that there are plenty of cable stations today to pick up the slack, whereas the three broadcast networks were the only game in town in Nixon's time. The second is that Trump has abused the privilege, and it was pretty easy to guess that he wasn't actually going to say anything important.
Trump certainly could give a speech every day, if he so desires. And what would happen is that the speeches would quickly be dropped by nearly all networks, broadcast and cable. There was a time that nearly all the networks gave some attention to Trump rallies. Pretty quickly, the news networks all bowed out, while Fox, OAN and Newsmax continued to air them in their entirety. And then, even Fox shifted to "highlights only," before eventually shifting to "we might mention a rally on one of our shows, we might not."
If Trump started having nightly addresses, the same thing would happen. Probably by the end of the first week, he'd be relegated to just OAN, Newsmax and LindellTV.
P.B. in Mendota Heights, MN, asks: I understand the fig leaf of claiming to speak to the nation about the war in Iran, but if the thrust of the Thursday televised address is about Trump's delusional, highly-partisan theories about elections, how do networks rationalize giving him the free air time without allowing a Democratic response?
(Z) answers: The equal time rule is not absolute, and there are several allowances for "reasonableness." For example, if Trump hosts Saturday Night Live during a campaign (which he did, in 2016), then the Democratic nominee can demand to host, as well (Hillary Clinton declined). However, every Tom, Dick and Harry who is running as an independent, or as a member of some fringe third party cannot demand a hosting slot.
There are two things about the Trump address that exempt it from equal time considerations. First, the speech is considered a "news event" (even if he was mostly speaking about elections). So, equal time is not in play. If it was, then it would be near-impossible for broadcasters to cover a sitting president who is running for reelection, since they are in the news pretty much every day, and it's not especially plausible to hand over the network to his opponents every day.
Second, the whole point of the equal time rule is to keep broadcasters from having an undue impact on elections, by giving more coverage to one candidate over the other. So, the rule applies to candidates for office, not officeholders. Trump is not a candidate for any political office. And even if he was (presumably, he'd be a candidate for reelection), the Democrats do not currently have a presidential candidate who can demand equal time.
Note also that the equal time rule only applies to over-the-air broadcasters, not to cable networks.
J.M. in Tulsa Norco, CA, asks: Can you see any possibility that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) emerges alive and well? Could they find any way to explain why he could sit up in bed looking fresh and clean, could have long telephone conversations with Republican leaders, but was unable or unwilling to allow verifiable photos or live phone calls?
(Z) answers: Alive and well is a pretty fungible term, since he wasn't entirely alive and well even before the latest hospitalization.
Assuming he is not dead/brain dead, and that the "proof of life" photo is legitimate (if heavily staged), I can think of one way to explain why he'd pose for a photo but wouldn't do a "proof of life" telephone call to, say, Fox: His voice is so weak or otherwise compromised that it would betray how poor his health really is.
It is at least plausible that he recovers to the point that he is discharged from the hospital, returns to Washington, and casts some votes. But, if so, he will likely show the effects of his health problems and he will almost certainly be wheelchair-bound. Meanwhile, even if he's alive now, I doubt he will remain so by the time the next presidential election rolls around.
S.P. in Harrisburg, PA, asks: When it comes to Mitch McConnell's seat on the Appropriations Committee, could he simply be replaced on the Committee? Does Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) have the authority to remove him, or could he at least resign the committee seat so his absence does not affect their operations?
(Z) answers: The committee assignments are formalized by a resolution the Senate passes early in each session. That means that to change committee assignments, a new resolution has to be passed. And that resolution is, at least under current rules, filibusterable.
So, the question is what kind of maneuver the Democrats would be willing to filibuster. The Republicans refused to allow them to replace Dianne Feinstein, even on a temporary basis, so they would certainly filibuster if Thune tried to replace McConnell without McConnell's consent. If McConnell resigned from just that committee, but otherwise kept his seat in the Senate and his other assignments, then the Democrats might or might not filibuster a replacement (but they probably would, because the Republicans would basically be gaming the system). If McConnell resigned from the Senate entirely, or died, the Democrats would not filibuster because they know the shoe would be on the other foot eventually, and they want to be able to replace Democrats who resign or die.
D.O. in Sudbury, MA, asks: Neither Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) nor Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) are running for re-election. So when they inevitably vote to confirm criminal Todd Blanche as AG, can there be any conclusion other than that Stephen Miller's henchmen are threatening their lives?
I recall Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) saying some time ago that she is personally afraid. And how Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett once voted for the correct Constitutional interpretation, and after being threatened, returned to consistently backing TCF. Is there any explanation for all of this other than that we have already lost our democracy?(Z) answers: It is possible, and the calculus is probably different for each individual. However, I would guess the thing that most concerns Tillis and Cornyn is patronage for their state. If they defy Trump too much, he might well find a way, legal or not, to deny billions of dollars in federal money to their states.
P.M. in Port Angeles, WA, asks: Listening to the confirmation hearings with Todd Blanche, it struck me that I don't know if or why these are conducted or not conducted under the penalty of perjury. Why should not any seeker of any executive appointment or judgeship not be required to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but? That is my question set before you. We have witnessed so many appointees saying things they adhered to that were later discarded to pursue an agenda diametrically opposite to their "testimony" to the Congress that approved their appointment to a position of power in the federal government.
More importantly, what recourse should be in place to bring liars to consequence for their misrepresentation of their political leanings? Even if it takes a new constitutional amendment, would it be untoward to demand removal from office for lying to the Senate during confirmation hearings?(Z) answers: It is indeed perjury to lie to Congress. However, anyone who is important enough to be grilled by the members of Congress is also likely to be able to walk the line between "creative truth" and "outright lie." Even Donald Trump can do that, and he's hardly a Rhodes Scholar. Further, it has to be a lie at the time the statement is uttered. You cannot retroactively perjure yourself by failing to live up to a promise.
The only real solution is one we mentioned this week. Set it up, either by statute or by constitutional amendment, that appointees (or, at least, certain appointees) have to be re-approved 1 year (or some other meaningful amount of time) into their tenure. Then they can be judged on what they actually did, as opposed to what they said they would do.
O.Z.H. in Dubai, UAE, asks: (L), say you are named as the attorney general by a Democratic president in 2029. Based on what we know today, what would you do about the corruption of the current administration? I am purposefully leaving the question vague and open-ended, so as not to limit the scope of your response; but I suppose the preliminary question would be: Could you do anything that wouldn't be torpedoed by the Supreme Court's immunity decision?
(L) answers: Not surprisingly, this is a question I've asked myself many times and have thought a great deal about.
I would put the challenges facing the next AG in three big buckets:
For the first bucket, I would appoint special counsels for the following areas:
- Addressing the corruption of the Trump administration
- Cleaning house and rebuilding the Department of Justice
- Drafting legislation to put the "norms" and policies that had been governing the DoJ into law with clear consequences for their violation.
- Investigate Jared Kushner and Trump businesses like World Liberty Financial for illegal foreign influence and profiteering
- Investigate Donald Trump for unlawfully profiting from the presidency in violation of the emoluments clause and other laws; actions taken to enrich himself personally would not be considered "official acts" under the immunity decision
- Investigate Trump administration officials for abuse of power and other corrupt practices, including Stephen Miller, Todd Blanche, Bill Pulte, Robert Kennedy, Kash Patel, J.D. Vance, etc.
- Re-open the classified documents case and investigate any hoarding of classified documents in Trump 2.0; then file the case in D.C.
The IRS should restart the audit of Trump's tax returns. The Southern District of New York should pick up where AG Letitia James left off and investigate violations of federal banking laws.
For the second bucket, the AG will have to do a major housecleaning. There are still some career prosecutors left and it's important not to sweep those out who were genuinely trying to serve the public, but most top officials at main Justice will have to go. I would then try to get back the most experienced prosecutors who were heading up divisions like the Public Integrity Section, the Civil Rights Division, the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of Legal Counsel. Then, they're going to have to do the painstaking work of hiring and training career prosecutors as well as reinstating those career attorneys who were unlawfully fired. This could be an opportunity to look at how the DoJ is organized and restructure some of the sections.
For the third bucket, the AG should suggest/draft legislation to codify the DoJ's independence from the president. First, there must be minimum qualifications for the AG—s/he must have an active law license and be a member in good standing of at least one state bar; the candidate cannot have represented the president in any capacity or any entity they own or control; they cannot serve in an acting or interim capacity—only an inferior officer can serve in an acting role and that officer is then ineligible for the permanent position. If any of these requirements are violated, then any actions the AG takes, investigations opened at their behest, or any indictments secured on their watch are null and void.
Congress can also remove U.S. Attorneys from presidential appointment and make them inferior officers appointed by a department head. They can also be given civil service protections. This could insulate the offices from political influence by main Justice. Some of the policies around communication between the AG and the president could be codified so there are strict rules about how those communications occur and how they are monitored. For example, "every meeting between the president and anyone at the DoJ could include someone from the inspector general's office and must be recorded." Regular reports should be copied to the Senate Judiciary Committee. And there should be greater congressional oversight so that enforcement of any violations occurs outside the executive branch. There could be exceptions for the solicitor general and the office of legal counsel, but those offices should be walled off from any decisions regarding investigations or indictments. Similar formal processes should be instituted with respect to the FBI, and there should be greater protections for the FBI director. For instance, if a president removes a director before his tenure is up without cause (as Trump did with James Comey), then the next candidate nominated by the president must come from a list of candidates previously-approved by a bipartisan Congressional committee.
These are just a few ideas to start getting the DoJ back to being a respected, professional and independent law enforcement organization. There will also need to be a concerted effort to regain the public's trust as well as the presumption of regularity in the courts.
J.S. in Durham, NC, asks: In one of your answers, you referred to the Democratic maneuvering on gerrymanders as "Machiavellian." While I do not necessarily disagree, is Machiavellianism perhaps the only option left when your political opponents are not acting in good faith? What are your thoughts on how Democrats should behave in the current political climate?
(Z) answers: It is indeed the only option left. You're operating at too much of a disadvantage when you bring a knife to a gunfight.
This is exactly how Democrats should behave in the current political climate. Not because the ends justify the means, per se. But because once a particularly dirty trick ceases to be asymmetrical, and all sides are being harmed, that is when it becomes possible to reform the system and nullify the dirty trick.
C.S. in Newport, Wales, UK, asks: Trump has sued many media outlets. But has he ever sued The Bulwark? I can't see anything on their website, and surely they would love it and put it front and center?
(Z) answers: He has not sued The Bulwark, as far as we know. We would guess his decisions on this front are governed by three things:
- He likes big fish. The Bulwark is probably a little too meager a target.
- He likes bugaboos. Either outlets that the base reflexively hates, or that he personally hates. The Bulwark isn't on the radars of most MAGA voters, and hasn't been around long enough for Trump to have a history with.
- He likes news-driven outlets, rather than opinion-driven outlets. If he goes after The New York Times, they will show a lot of restraint, because of journalistic ethics and maintaining the integrity of their coverage. If he goes after The Bulwark, they will let him have it with both barrels. I suspect this is why he's never sued Saturday Night Live, Stephen Colbert or The Daily Show. He hates to be made to look the fool.
K.G. in Atlanta, GA, asks: Can you please explain the argument of "if we get rid of the filibuster, then the other party will use it when they're back in power"? My understanding is it's one of many Senate rules that are passed every January, so it doesn't automatically carry over every year.
Are they so ensconced in tradition that if party R (or D) doesn't approve that rule one year (or passes the "must read the phone book" version), then party D (or R) will robotically follow suit the next time around?(Z) answers: They keep the filibuster, and the Senate parliamentarian for that matter, not just because it's a tradition, but a tradition that both sides abide by. The majority party, when they approve the rules at the start of a session, keeps both the filibuster and the parliamentarian because they trust the other side will do the same the next time the other side is in power.
There are two reasons that either party is leery of breaking this tradition. The first is that their apostasy will be weaponized against them, particularly at the next election, as their opponents will say "See! They had to rewrite the rules to get [BILL X] passed! Cheaters!" Meanwhile, the party that does NOT break the tradition will have all kinds of political cover for doing what they want to do the next time they are in power, because the other side started it. So, if the filibuster IS going to be killed, both sides really want the other party to swing the ax.
The second reason is that the majority party actually benefits from the filibuster, because it insulates them from bringing up politically tricky legislation. "No point in trying to ban abortion," the Republicans might say, "Because that will never get 60 votes." "No point in trying to mandate gender-neutral bathrooms nationally," the Democrats might say, "because that will never get 60 votes." Without the filibuster, all that would be needed is the majority party's votes, which could and would force some members into very difficult choices they would rather not make.
C.P. in Fairport, NY, asks: If the Senate were to eliminate the filibuster before this November's election, which upcoming Senate races might that affect, and in which direction?
(Z) answers: Well, if the Senate were to do that, it would surely be to pass some hyperpartisan legislation, probably the SAVE Act.
Donald Trump thinks the SAVE Act will help Republicans, but I'm not so sure. We have written about how it is rural (and thus red-skewing) voters that are likely to have the most trouble coming up with ID. Meanwhile, there is nothing more likely to get a low-interest voter to the polls than trying to take their vote away from them. And since it is clear that the SAVE Act is targeting Democrats and women and minority voters (even if it proves ineffectual), I think they would turn out in droves. Further, every Democrat in the land would run on, "See what they did with 4 months of no filibuster. What do you think they'll do with 2 more years?"
Consequently, I think that abolishing the filibuster would probably be enough to secure all, or nearly all, of the swingy Senate races for the Democrats: Maine, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Alaska, Iowa, New Hampshire, Texas and maybe even Florida.
I.S. in Cap Ferret, France, asks: Are you surprised at Nicki Minaj's transformation into a MAGA activist? She does not fit the typical profile of one. She is an immigrant from Trinidad of black and Indian descent, which is the type of person Donald Trump's extreme immigration agenda would target. I like her music, so I am pretty shocked by this. Do you think she will succeed at bringing people into the MAGA fold?
(Z) answers: I am not especially surprised. First, many immigrants come from very conservative cultures, and like what Republicans have to say. Second, many young people think the system is broken, and want someone who will disrupt it. That is why some sizable number of Bernie Bros. became MAGA after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) ended his political campaign. Sanders and Trump have little in common politically, but they ARE both disruptors who were talking about how the system is broken. Third, when immigrants vote for the xenophobic candidate, those immigrants are always thinking about THOSE OTHER immigrants, and not us, because "we're the good ones."
Everything I wrote here is also true of the rapper M.I.A., incidentally, and she is also a Trumper (though she can't vote in the U.S., as she is a British citizen).
I don't think Minaj will have any success in bringing people into the MAGA fold. The people she might connect with, as far as I can see, are saying "Nicki has gone crazy!" and not "Hm, Nicki makes an interesting point."
J.L. in Ridgewood, NJ, asks: As you've noted, opposition to the building of data centers seems to be a bipartisan tendency in many parts of the country. Is there a reason the proponents can't just go to the areas where they are wanted? In some places the strain on water and energy supplies would be less, or the lust for jobs (at least in the construction phase) would be greater. If the center is responding to online queries, can't it be anywhere?
(V) answers: These things consume vast quantities of both power and water, as in 1,000 megawatts and 5 million gallons of water/day. They also need massive bandwidth, as in multiple OC-12288 optical fibers @ 640 Gbps each. When picking a site, one of the first things a company does is scope out the availability of these resources. After the nuclear reactor accident at Three Mile Island, the power company shut it down. Two years ago Microsoft signed a contract with the power company to restart it, with Microsoft guaranteeing it would buy all the power it could produce for the next 20 years so it could put a giant data center next to it. Some destitute town in Mississippi that would love to have a data center is not going to have the megawatts, the megagallons, and the terabits to offer. Also, for good performance (low delay), companies like to site data centers near their customers. In addition, companies also care about favorable (tax) laws and proximity to major airports and freeways. Typically, the towns that might want a data center fall short on many of these points.
A.A. in Branchport, NY, asks: The prospect of Donald Trump running for a third term seems to crop up again and again. If that should actually happen, would states be obligated to put his name on the ballot?
(Z) answers: What would happen is that one of the early primary states, probably New Hampshire, would refuse to put his name on the ballot, as state law there (and everywhere else) says you have to be eligible to the office you seek in order to be on the ballot. Trump and/or the RNC would sue, and the lower levels of the federal court system would rule against him. He would appeal to the Supreme Court, at which point we would learn if: (1) they will take the case, and (2) they think the Twenty-Second Amendment says what it says. Should be a slam dunk, but several of the justices were confused about the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, so you never know.
If Trump won at the Supreme Court level then yes, states would be obligated to put his name on the ballot.
T.M.S. in Evanston, IL, asks: Can the other Senator run for an open Senate nominee spot (e.g., Angus King in Maine, or Tim Scott in South Carolina)? It's unorthodox, but it would give some time for the dust to settle, and particularly in Maine, could make winning the seat more likely. And there's no resign-to-run law in either state.
(Z) answers: Yes. This has actually happened before, albeit not in these same exact circumstances. Kent Conrad (D-ND) ran for the Senate in 1986 and won, and one of his main campaign promises is that he would not run for reelection if he was unable to get the federal budget deficit reduced. That did not happen, and so he said he would abide by his promise and stand down.
Then, the other seat came open after the primary, but before the general election, when Quentin Burdick died in early September of 1992. Conrad decided that running for that seat did not violate his promise, since he would be elected to Burdick's seat, and not RE-elected. So, Conrad entered the special election for the rest of Burdick's term, and won, and then resigned the Senate seat he had originally been elected to. He was reelected to that seat three more times.
It is improbable this will happen this year, however. Voters dislike shenanigans, and in King's case, it would undermine his carefully crafted image as an independent.
E.W. in Silver Spring, MD, asks: The recent end of the Supreme Court term with several elderly justices brought up a question. What happens if a justice dies, during the term, to their opinions? Do written, but unpublished, decisions go through as is? What about decisions they voted on, but have not yet been fully written? Any other contingencies I'm not thinking of?
(Z) answers: A justice can change their mind, either about their vote, or what they've written, up to the point that the opinion is released. This being the case, the moment a justice dies, any unreleased opinions or dissents they wrote, and any votes they cast, go "poof."
If the deceased justice's vote is not decisive, then things will move forward as they otherwise would have done. If they were writing the majority opinion, it will be assigned to someone else. If the deceased justice's vote IS decisive, the Court will usually re-hear the case at the next term, once the replacement justice has been appointed and confirmed.
E.S. in Arlington, MA, asks: I will acknowledge that the following question is based on a subjective judgment but nevertheless: Many stupid people have run countries before. And many people have led countries and transformed them politically before. But has there ever been a case where someone so stupid transformed a nation's politics so thoroughly?
(Z) answers: It is very difficult to know exactly how stupid people are/were, and it becomes harder and harder the further back you go. Part of the problem is that "intelligence" is pretty squishy, and someone who might be good in one facet is not so good in another. Another issue is that it can be hard to separate a lack of smarts from other sorts of problems, like cognitive decline or mental illness.
If you're looking for people who wrought great change (usually negative) despite being rather dull, most of your examples are going to be hereditary monarchs who didn't have to secure power of their own volition. I would say, for example, that King John of England is a pretty good answer to your question. He only got the job because of his genes and because his brother was out of the country for a long time. And he was so incapable that the nobles forced the Magna Carta on him, which changed the course of English and world history, and began a slow progression toward democracy.
If you limit it to people who achieved power themselves, and did not have it handed to them, then you're almost certainly talking about demagogues who rose to power on their strength of personality and a willingness to tell unhappy people exactly whom to hate. Adolf Hitler obviously had certain gifts, but he wasn't very smart. Read some of Mein Kampf, sometime; it reads like it was written by someone in junior high school. Benito Mussolini was not the sharpest knife in the drawer, either.
J.L. in Chapel Hill, NC, asks: I was intrigued to see (Z) recommend a history book by Alan Greenspan. I'm wondering about (Z)'s opinion on Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States (2015, rev. ed.). Various people have recommended it to me over the years, but I've never read it. It strikes me as likely to be polemical and containing facts, but cherry-picked and/or out of context. If so, it might be worth reading to understand that perspective, but not to get an accurate understanding of history. Is it viewed as legitimate scholarship among academic historians?
(Z) answers: That book has been assigned by thousands of history professors to hundreds of thousands of students over the years. This tells you two things: (1) Zinn is not committing gross offenses against the historical record or historical practice, and (2) the book is interesting and accessible.
So yes, it is well-respected and well worth your time. Just keep in mind that it is "history from the bottom up," which means you're getting things through a very particular lens. Many professors will pair the book with a more standard narrative, because it can be instructive to see the way two historians handle the same event or subject. If you do this, consider A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to America's Age of Entitlement by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, which was written to be the yin to Zinn's yang.
R.W. in Santa Barbara, CA, asks: You wrote: "Southern society ... was an honor-shame culture," and you previously described Persians as having an honor-shame culture.
Which countries are considered the most and least honor-shame cultures currently?(Z) answers: I'm unaware of anyone who has tried to assess this systematically, and can't quite think of how one might do so.
That said, if you were to undertake an honor-shame world tour, I would suggest at least three stops. First, due to the legacies of the caste system and Hinduism, rural India has some pretty deeply embedded honor-shame traditions. Second, because of its longtime isolation and its longstanding feudal traditions, Japan is pretty high on the honor-shame scale. And finally, Middle Eastern nations, particularly those that are predominantly Muslim tend to have honor-shame cultures. And of the two major branches of Islam, the Shiites tend to be more traditional and more hierarchical. So, on your tour, you'd probably want to visit a Shia nation in the Middle East. And that brings us back to where we started, because the most Shia nation in the Middle East is Iran.
Honor-shame tends to be least prevalent where people are individualistic and non-religious. So, if you were looking for the other side of the coin on your tour, you'd probably want to visit any or all of the Scandinavian countries or the Low Countries. You would do pretty well in Australia and New Zealand, and also Canada. Some parts of the U.S., too—mostly urban areas built on populations that are multiple generations removed from immigrating to the United States.
S.C. in Solana Beach, CA, asks: While I read your site year round, during the run-up to National elections, it becomes my go-to place for election news and commentary, along with The New York Times, Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times. In particular, the clarity and presentation on your site influences my campaign donations, and where my money will go. To that end, with the Senate being so pivotal this year, is there a point where the election map will go live and start presenting data newer than from the 2020 election?
(Z) answers: We have answered this before, but we get this question every week, so we'll answer it again. We wait until the primaries are concluded, or nearly so. That's when the polling picks up, and that's also when we can populate most or all of the map with current polling data, as opposed to a mix of current polling data and past election results.
B.J. in Arlington, MA, asks: Are there really still "media outlets" in 2026 that cannot handle those pesky foreign non-ASCII characters? How is that even possible? Are they still using WordPerfect 4.0 on MS-DOS from the 1980s to produce their copy? I honestly don't know where you would even get software that doesn't handle Unicode properly these days.
(Z) answers: The first problem is that the AP has to think of every newsroom that uses its service. It is not impossible that very small papers could still be working on equipment that is 20+ years old. Even more likely is that a publication will be using a font that does not include non-English characters.
The second problem is that foreign characters, like the one in Türkiye, violate the rules of "preferred English spelling." That is not an English spelling, because it uses a non-English character. It looks close to an English spelling but, functionally, it's no different than if Iran were to announce that their name is to be written in English as ایران.
The third problem is that foreign characters create additional production challenges. Even if you render it correctly in the word-processor version, it takes extra steps to render it correctly in the web version, and sometimes to render it correctly in the PDF version. AP is definitely not in the business of creating additional production hurdles.
J.B. in Bend, OR, asks: What state is the most "American"? Yes, Texas gets a lot of attention as being quintessentially "American," but that's obviously silly. What state do you think currently most embodies American ideals and characteristics?
(Z) answers: Diverse, lots of open spaces and nature, very capitalist, very wealthy, people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, invented fast food (for better and for worse), lots of military, technologically innovative, dramatic impact on culture worldwide, lots of tourism, and with quite a bit of religion mixed in (despite stereotypes to the contrary). Not to be myopic, but I think California is the correct choice.