Saturday Q&A

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

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

Current Events

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Politics

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Civics

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

1. While it's the top-level numbers that get all the headlines, the various agencies that produce statistics have to show their work. And the people whose job it is to pore over the numbers (say, financial analysts) would soon notice the numbers were screwy. It's actually hard to fake data without it being pretty evident.
   
   
2. The compiling of data is decentralized, such that—for example—the Bureau of Economic Analysis is in an entirely different department (Commerce) than the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Labor) than the Economic Research Service (Agriculture). If one department was somehow compromised, it would be pretty obvious that their numbers didn't line up with what was coming out of the other departments.
   
   
3. Similarly, some of the data compiled by the government is also compiled by private or state-level interests. If the federal numbers did not line up with all the others, it would be pretty obvious the federal books were cooked.
   
   
4. Most of the employees who compile the statistics do not answer to the president, and cannot be fired (except for cause), so they are rather immune to pressure to manipulate the numbers.
   
   
5. If it became clear that the numbers were being manipulated, either because the numbers were shown to be screwy, or because a whistleblower announced that Trump tried to get them to cook the books, then there would be a lot of questions as to what the Trump administration was trying to hide, and why.
   
   
6. Finally, if Trump were to show the world that he was manipulating the numbers, or trying to do so, he would never again be able to brag about low unemployment, low inflation, etc., because nobody would believe him.

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

History

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

Fun Stuff

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

1. Maya Angelou: An inspiration to women, to Black Americans, and to abuse victims across the land. She was only the second poet (after Robert Frost) to read her verse for a presidential inauguration.
   
   
2. Allen Ginsberg: "Howl!" spoke to a lot of young people in the 1960s, persuading them to rebel against the expectations of society.
   
   
3. Langston Hughes: The most important wordsmith of the Harlem Renaissance, and an enormous influence on the people who would eventually go on to lead the Civil Rights Movement.
   
   
4. Rudyard Kipling: He's not an American, but "The White Man's Burden" did a great deal to solidify support for the Spanish-American War in particular, and for American imperialism in general.
   
   
5. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow: For better or worse, he had a profound impact on the manner in which 19th century Americans (and 20th century Americans) thought about their nation's history. "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere," in particular, made a legend out of a previously obscure figure, while also persuading thousands of young men to volunteer to fight in the Civil War.
   
   
6. John McCrae and Wilfred Owen: Whereas the previous two entries were in the pro-war faction, McCrae's "In Flanders Fields" and Owen's "Dulce et Decorum Est" are legendary anti-war poems, both a product of the horrors of World War I. The two works made many Americans think twice about the merits of entering World War II, and of fighting other wars thereafter. Neither was American, of course; McCrea was Canadian, and Owen was British.
   
   
7. William Shakespeare: Another non-American, but an obvious choice for the list. The works of Shakespeare have tortured millions of high school students, but have also inspired and influenced tens of millions of adults, not the least of which was Abraham Lincoln, who considered Shakespeare his favorite writer.
   
   
8. Shel Silverstein: How many kids learned from Silverstein, at least in part, what it means to be a good person? At the same time, he also taught them about some of the hard truths of life.
   
   
9. Edna St. Vincent Millay: Hughes was the intellectual and artistic godfather of the Civil Rights Movement, Millay filled the same role (well, intellectual and artistic godMOTHER) for the feminist movement.
   
   
10. Walt Whitman: For the intellectual and well-read people of his day, Whitman gave them a new way to see the world. For the people devastated by the death of Lincoln, Whitman helped them cope ("O, Captain! My Captain!"). And there were more than a few gay young men, even in the 19th century, who picked up on the homoerotic subtext to many of Whitman's poems, and knew they weren't alone in the world.

Gallimaufry

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

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

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

Reader Question of the Week: Two Turtledoves

Here is the question we put before readers last 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?

And here some of the many, many answers we got in response:

T.M.M. in Odessa, MO: Your subject line suggests The Two Georges by Harry Turtledove (and Richard Dreyfuss). While I love that novel, I am going to cheat by going with a book series (actually two).

My favorite is the Lymond Chronicles by Dorothy Dunnett. The central character is the black sheep of a Scottish noble family in the 1550s. Because he is not needed at home, he forms a mercenary company that leads him to being hired by different rulers.

My second favorite is The House of Nicollo which follows a Burgundian merchant in the late 1400s. Again, his merchant trips brings him to interacting with multiple areas of Europe and Africa.

What I like about both is that they do something that most world history classes do a poor job at doing7#8212;connecting what is happening in different countries at the same time. Unfortunately, most history courses do a segment on, say, the Holy Roman Empire and the Reformation, then another on the battles between the HRE and the Ottoman Empire, then another on the relationship (or lack thereof) between Scotland, England, and France. Very few history classes make clear which events are happening at the same time. In other words, a week in a history class may focus on the HRE in the sixteenth century with the following week focusing on England in the sixteenth century, but very few will, during the week on England, when discussing the reigns of Edward and Mary will go back and remind you that as England was dealing with [X], Spain and Austria were dealing with [Y], which influenced what they were willing to do with or to England.

---

L.A. in Waynesboro, PA: I personally think that Harry Turtledove is absolutely the master of the genre). So my quandary is, which book of his to choose?

My two "most favorites" would be: (1) In the Presence of Mine Enemies. The fact that it has a (somewhat) encouraging ending doesn't hurt. But it cuts so close to home in so many of the scenes that it is like a thriller. (I'm Jewish and had extended family members in the camps); and (2) Ruled Britannia. Turtledove has a way of making the reader feel like they literally are living in the time and place he is writing about, and gives us a "peek backstage" in Elizabethan England, showing us a possible version of Shakespeare's daily life. And yet the concerns of its writers and political figures aren't that far afield from ours—that writing, rehearsing and performing a controversial and potentially riot—causing play could lead to one's arrest, trial, possibly murder.

---

C.J. in Redondo Beach, CA: I've been thinking about the question of the week off and on for a few days. I guess it sort of boils down to how far back a book has to go to be considered "historical fiction" and/or how recent a book are we talking about.

One of the obvious candidates is Huckleberry Finn, published in 1884, but set 40 years prior. In the same way, there's also A Tale of Two Cities, set around 60 years before the novel was released. Is that amount of time satisfactory?

Then the other question remains. I assume the request implied something more recent (say, written in the last handful of decades). I'm not super well versed since I tend to read nonfiction nowadays, but I'll throw out Lonesome Dove. Amazing book, even if a bit soap opera-like at times. The miniseries was aces too.

---

A.M. in Mexico City, Mexico: I love the book Alamut by Vladimir Bartol. It's the story of the Nizari Isma'ili order, better known as the Assassins. I enjoyed Bartol's writing style, as well as his examination of extremism and brainwashing (Bartol, an ethnic Slovene trapped in Mussolini's Italy, wrote it as a tongue-in-cheek commentary).

Also, it's the book that inspired the Assassin's Creed video game series (most directly, the first game, which takes place at the order's other castle in Masyuf).

---

D.E. in Baltimore, MD: Octavia Butler's Kindred is a great and dark read. Dana travels back in time, randomly and against her will, to her ancestors' plantation, both slave and owner. Butler is more renowned for (great) sci-fi novels, making Kindred a harrowing reminder of that horrid era of American history. Then again, her Parables series seems oddly on the mark these days...

---

F.L. in Allen, TX: Far and away, my fave historical fiction is the The Flashman Papers, a series by George MacDonald Fraser. The eponymous antihero (gleaned from Tom Brown's School Days, by Thomas Hughes) is a Victorian era womanizer, cheat, bully, and coward who gets pressured into serving Her Majesty. Somehow, he manages to find himself in nearly every British military fiasco (at Balaklava his flatulence frightens his horse into leading the charge of the light brigade), and several foreign engagements, including the U.S. Army's greatest military disaster, Little Big Horn (a.k.a. Greasy Grass). And he fights on both sides of the U.S. Civil War!

Although historically accurate, throughout the books the author adds footnotes saying things like, "Flashman was surely mistaken here as the garrison could only hold a hundred men or so."

For all his faults, Flashman (being a coward) is a pacifist.

A 1975 film, Royal Flash, with Malcolm McDowell, was released with less than favorable reviews (although I thought it was great fun, if a guilty pleasure).

---

B.F. in Nine Mile Falls, WA: My favorite historical fiction novel is Arundel by Kenneth Roberts. The story of Benedict Arnold's expedition against Quebec during the first winter of the Revolutionary War paints a completely different picture of the man that we remember as a traitor.

---

J.B. in Unterhaching, Germany: When it comes to historical fiction, I can recommend The Kindly Ones (originally Les Bienveillantes) by Jonathan Littell. It's about the Second World War, mostly the Eastern Front, from the perspective of a German officer. It's a thoroughly uncomfortable read, so maybe not a good idea if you're looking for escape from the current times, but a very impressive novel—it really shows the banality of evil.

---

J.D. in Cold Spring, MN: Like F.J.H. in Las Cruces, I'm a big fan of historical fiction. I enjoy stories that bring you into the lived experience of a historical period, preferably at the level of an ordinary person (no "great man" history for me!). I want to be transported into another time and place to live that experience myself.

With that, there is nothing better than the Patrick O'Brien Aubrey-Maturin novels. Read them (all 21 of them!) and you'll be transported into British naval life during the Napoleonic Wars. O'Brien's knowledge of sailing ships, naval tactics, and day-to-day life aboard Britain's 19th century navy is remarkable. He was a genius at character development, bringing out a complexity and depth in even the most mundane-appearing, ordinary seaman. Preserved Killick is a character for the ages!

(I enjoyed the movie Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, an amalgam of several O'Brien novels, but it fell short in portraying the depth of O'Brien's characters.)

---

E.P. in Cumming, GA: In my opinion, the greatest historical novel is the 20-volume series of novels by Patrick O'Brian chronicling the lives of two friends, naval officer Jack Aubrey and physician/secret agent Stephen Maturin. They live in Nelson's navy during the Napoleonic wars. Reviewers compare O'Brian to Melville, Conrad and Dickens.

We are used to seeing puff quotes from reviewers on the covers of novels. Here's are a few to contemplate from the Aubrey/Maturin series: "The best historical novels ever written," New York Times Book Review. Or this one: "O'Brian's sheer literary elegance is dazzling," Chicago Sun-Times. Finally, my favorite: "The best novelist in the world," Chicago Tribune.

This is true desert-island stuff. If I were building my own five-foot shelf of books, O'Brian would occupy the first two feet. I urge any intelligent reader who wants adventure, erudition, insight and humor to get started today. Are you daunted by the prospect of reading 20 novels? I assure you, you will wish there were more.

---

E.R. In Port Royal, SC: Three "historical books" from "waaaay back": (1) Next To Valour by John Edward Jennings, published 1939 about the French and Indian War 1754-1763 and the early settlement in New England; (2) Sacajawea by Anna Lee Waldo, published 1978, about a Shoshone woman traveling with the Lewis and Clark expedition 1804-1806; (3) Zemindar by Valerie Fitzgerald, published 1981, history around the time of the Indian Rebellion in 1857.

---

R.T. in Arlington, TX: The historical fiction book that has had the most impact on me is The Source by James Michener. It covered the history of "Palestine" over 5,000 years, from the perspective of a single settlement/village/town/castle/archaeological site in Galilee. It was written in the late 1960s. I first read it in the 1980s and i reread it every decade or so. One of the few permanent members of my personal library. It should be required reading for anyone that intends to opine on the current Israel/Gaza crisis.

---

M.D. in Wakefield, MA: I am a lover of historical novels myself. When I was in high school my parents were trying to get me interested in reading new and inspiring novels other than books like the "Hardy Boys" series. My father encouraged me to read The Source by James Michener, a lengthy and challenging chore for me at the time. I became totally immersed in the work of archaeologists sifting through the different layers of the mound. As they sift the various layers one at a time, the novel shifts to those periods to build the history of Judaism. I have read most all of Michener's works (he is my favorite writer) and enjoyed them all. His writing style can be hard for some to deal with, and most of his books are quite long, but I get totally wrapped up in them. Try Michener and lose yourself if the past.

---

E.R. in Padova, Italy: A large portion of world's literature can be classified as "historical fiction", so it's very difficult to find a "best" book.

War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy (published in 1869; the story of a few Russian families during the Napoleonic wars) is perhaps my #1 candidate. I also like Boris Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago (published in 1957... in Italy, because the Soviet regime blocked its publication in the USSR; it's about a Muscovite physician during the Russian Revolution), and Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose (published in 1980; sort of a detective story in a medieval monastery... but it's much more than that!).

---

J.D. in Sydney, NSW, Australia: The best modern historical fiction is obviously and unquestionably Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall, about Tudor politcian and fixer Thomas Cromwell and his rise and fall under Henry VIII. Absolutely masterful writing that melds politics, history, religion and emotion. And if it's not Wolf Hall, then it would definitely be Bring Up the Bodies, which is the sequel. And if it's not that, then The Mirror and the Light, which concludes the trilogy. Those three are pretty much head and shoulders above all the competition.

If you want something about more recent history, Sebastian Faulks' Birdsong, about the First World War, is another lyrical piece of work that absolutely transfixes the reader with its emotional cargo.

For children, I would without hesitation recommend The Eagle of the Ninth by Rosemary Sutcliffe. In Roman Britain, the Ninth Legion disappeared into Caledonia (Scotland) and was never heard of again. In the novel, the son of one of the centurions goes to try and recover the legion's eagle standard. It is a wonderful adventure story with a well researched background, and links in to a whole series of novels she wrote covering the end of Roman Britain and the beginning of the "Dark Ages," up to and including Arthur.

Finally, your suggested e-mail subject line hints at maybe alternate history. For that, I'd recommend the somewhat weird, but intensely enjoyable, Ash by Mary Gentle. I won't even try to explain it, but it's worth a look—the Duchy of Burgundy has survived, there is a Visigothic kingdom of Carthage, and the Pyramids of Egypt play a significant part. From Wikipedia, I have just learned that in the U.S., this was published as four separate books: A Secret History, Carthage Ascendant, Wild Machines and Lost Burgundy.

And finally, another alt history. I am currently halfway through Cahokia Jazz by Francis Spufford. A police procedural set in an alternative U.S. in a Jazz Age where native American cultures (some of them at least) have survived with some success, Cahokia is a state, and the clash of cultures is reaching an ignition point. Very enjoyable and very believable.

---

J.G. in Farmington, CT: I submit Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel. Thomas Cromwell was overdue for a reevaluation, and Tudor England, The New York Times's reviewer writes, is as "fecund [a] breeding ground of British historical fiction as the American Civil War is of ours." And yet Mantel's novel stands out, for depicting Thomas More as the actual tormentor of history, using flames and the rack to manufacture utopia ("not a place," Mantel's Cromwell notes, "that one can live"). And yet it is sympathetic to both its protagonist and his enemies, because all villains think they are heroes. It is lyrical, "spellbinding and believable," depicting ugliness and beauty in a society undergoing violent transition and molding itself anew.

I'll go further, if I may, to explain my choice. Historical fiction is appealing and successful in part because readers can't help but draw parallels between the past and the present, and certainly Cromwell has his fans today. Steve Bannon said explicitly that he was Cromwell to Trump's Henry, breaking rules and wrecking orders. But he was a pretender, a dilettante, if an obese reptile as disgusting as he could be called that.

No, the real Cromwell is Russ Vought. Like Cromwell, Vought is a radical in bureaucrat's clothing whose expertise is in who to tax and from whom to borrow in order to pay for things. But while Cromwell sought to expropriate Church influence and money for his sovereign, Vought seeks nothing more fanatically authoritarian than the neutralization of Congress, and therefore the people, as a center of power.

Some might lie that Vought is merely finding creative ways around legislative blockades for chosen policy ends. But the real end goal, telegraphed on Day 3 of this disastrous presidency, is the White House and OMB unconstitutionally usurping the power of the purse, the most important power Congress has.

As Georgetown law scholar Steve Vladeck memorably put it: "If presidents can impound appropriated funds at any time and for any reason, then there's not much point to having a legislature."

If successful, Vought will not have his head separated by an axe: he will be the most celebrated and reviled unelected power broker in history.

---

S.W. in New York City, NY: The Plot against America by Philip Roth. We are currently living this political nightmare with Nazis and anti-democratic forces in The White House. Another suggestion is The Angel Max by Peter Glassgold—it tells the stories of immigrants and the anarchy movement in America while giving the reader an authentic sense of the era.

---

S.B. in Los Angeles, CA: About 20 years ago, when I read Phillip Roth's, The Plot Against America, I was fascinated about how insidious and stealthy American society slid towards a fascist Nazi orientation with just a push from a fictional candidacy of Charles Lindbergh in the 1940 election. Little did I know we'd be actually living it now!

---

J.W. in Aston, PA: I love reading contemporary fiction, and my fandom of historical fiction also goes waaaay back. Most of them I enjoy while reading them, then instantly forget as I move on to the next thing. But some of them really stick with me. There are three books from recent years that have stood out.

First, In the Distance by Hernan Diaz. I was so riveted by this story, I missed my train stop. It was a Pulitzer finalist and is about a young Swedish boy who is lost in the U.S. in the mid-1800's, making his way back East in search of his brother. The boy cannot speak English, but manages to communicate with settlers or travelers that he comes across (usually headed in the opposite direction).

Second, Barkskins by Annie Proulx. She is one of my favorite authors, so I am biased. This story covers 300 years of immigration to North America, emerging cultures, with an ongoing theme of deforestation and its environmental and economic impact.

Finally, The Frozen River, by Ariel Lawhon, is based on Martha Ballard, a real-life midwife who lived in Maine in the late 1700's. This one is a mystery-thriller, but based on real events.

None of these are war stories, they do not cover specific historic events, nor depict male historic figures as main characters. Perhaps that is why they stuck with me.

---

L.C.G. in Portland, OR: A wonderful middle-grades children's book called Across Five Aprils. It's about a young boy during the Civil War. This adult middle-school teacher found it very moving.

---

M.S. in Newton, MA: 11/22/63 by Stephen King. One of the great novels of all time and details what life was like in the 50s and 60s in an extraordinary way. Its take on the JFK assassination is also unique and creates one of the great book endings ever.

---

D.R. in Chicago, IL: I have two suggestions: (1) I, Claudius and Claudius the God by Robert Graves. As a retired teacher, I often used this work and the BBC television series as an introduction to Roman history for my senior high school history class; (2) Not a novel, but Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare. This is also a fun introduction to Roman history for both history and language arts students. My challenging essay question was: "How does this work differ from the actual history?"

---

C.B. in Highlands, NJ: I would say The Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley, published in 1982. It is the King Arthur tale retold from an entirely female perspective. It's also a deep dive into the Celtic religion and how Paganism was on the road to erasure. The novel goes into detail about the characters we rarely have more than a cursory knowledge of, and how each of them impact Arthur from boyhood to the man he became.

---

J.E. in Boone, NC: The best historical fiction novels are The Princes of Ireland, The Rebels of Ireland, and New York, all by Edward Rutherfurd!

---

C.S. in Flushing, MI: John Jakes' North and South does a good job of giving a more than passable look into the lead up of the Civil War with a delightful dose of tawdry. It and its subsequent books, Love and War and Heaven and Hell earned him the moniker "The Godfather of Historical Fiction."

---

M.M. in San Diego, CA: I've not read many historical novels because: (1) there's no such thing as "the good old days" and (2) novelists tend to romanticize the past. Also, capturing the cultural mindset of an era is difficult, and inevitably the protagonist will have suspiciously Enlightenment-influenced ideas and values, regardless of the period. That said, I did enjoy Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels as a good piece of fiction (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction 1975). Whether or not it is an accurate account of the Battle of Gettysburg and its main players, I really couldn't say...

---

M.S. in Highland Park, IL: My historical fiction recommendation is off the beaten path: The Lacuna by Barbara Kingsolver.

In it, we explore the aftermath of the Mexican Revolution, Frida Kahlo, her lovers Diego Rivera and Leon Trotsky, and McCarthyism in depth. The characters are vivid, and Kingsolver is a lovely writer, though this book is a bit different than her usual tone, in that it is much less colloquial. The main character is gay and Kingsolver handles his sexuality in a manner which I, a gay man, resonate with. No other straight writer that I have found has done as well.

Truly, it covers an era of history that does not often get treated, but which is deeply relevant to the current national conversation.

---

D.S. in Layton, UT: Two personal favorites I read (for the first of many times) within a week of each other over Christmas break during my Freshman year of college. I was stressing, had papers due, just needed to take a mental vacation and boy howdy, these two tickets to my escape were all that I could ask for: Michael Crichton's The Great Train Robbery and E. L. Doctorow's Ragtime.

---

T.W. in Norfolk, England, UK: My favorite novel set in history is Credo by Melvyn Bragg (published in the U.S. under the title The Sword and the Miracle). It's set in the "dark ages" in the wilds of northeast England and follows the life of an Irish princess turned anchoress named Bega (who was to become a semi-mythical saint), and is set in and around the time of Bede and Saint Cuthbert. While not every reviewer's cup of tea, I found it evocative and a good taster for what life might have been like in those very hard times. It is set in the area of one of the lesser known of England's "Great Lakes" of the Lake District—Bassenthwaite, which happens to be one of the most serene places in England that I've ever visited, and I am resolved to retire there some day. While very little is actually known about Bega, what is known and the fictional narrative woven by Bragg definitely attracts interest in a part of the country steeped in myths and folklore.

---

B.W. in West Hartford, CT: My favorite historical novel is Drums Along the Mohawk. Even though I'm from the little village in which the very real battle at the center of the book was fought ("the bloodiest battle of the American Revolution") ,I never read the book until recently and was blown away by its character development and by the storylines. Very exciting read about a very important place and period during the American Revolution. Colonist against colonist, each side with their own set of native allies, in an early frontier setting in which anything goes in terms of violence. It was not a simple time, and this novel examines the period in ways I did not expect from a book written in 1935 (and a best seller for years). And it was made into a motion picture featuring Henry Fonda and Claudette Colbert that threw away the historical complexity for a simplistic embrace of a mythic American past.

---

L.S. in Greensboro, NC: I wouldn't pretend to be able to select the best historical novel, since there are thousands that I haven't read. However, I feel that the first three (chronologically, not in order of publication) of Gore Vidal's Narratives of Empire series, namely Burr, Lincoln, and 1876 were all excellent. The fourth one, Empire, wasn't too bad, either. The two more modern volumes were somewhat lacking in my opinion.

While perhaps not completely historically accurate, I thought Allen Drury's Akhenaten duology, A God Against the Gods and Return to Thebes were quite entertaining.

For those who like a dose of murder mystery along with their ancient Egyptian historical fiction, Agatha Christie's Death Comes as the End was quite good, too. Because she was married to a renowned archaeologist and actively participated on his digs, she is quite good on archaeological details. It is also interesting, as it gives the perspective of somewhat ordinary Egyptians, and has a lot of details of daily life at that time.

And I can't close without mentioning one of my all-time favorite authors, and arguably one of the greatest authors ever in the fields of science fiction and fantasy, Gene Wolfe, and his wonderful pair of novels about Ancient Greece, Soldier in the Mist and Soldier of Arete. They feature a soldier who has been robbed of his memory by an injury and therefore writes a meticulous accounting of his daily activities so that he can read and remember. While including fantasy aspects of magic and gods, they actually reflect the likely beliefs of people of that time.

---

M.A. in Park Ridge, IL: The greatest historical novel was written by the greatest writer of my lifetime: Gore Vidal. Which novel, you ask? Well, I prefer Lincoln, but a case could be made for Burr or 1876.

---

G.R. in Carol Stream, IL: For best historical fiction, i vote for the work of Geraldine Brooks. If i had to pick one, I would go with People of the Book, for the breadth of its imagination. Second place, Caleb's Crossing, for the imagining of the beginnings of Harvard University, which may or may not be with us for much longer.

I also want to mention The Weight of Ink, by Rachel Kadish, for the reimagining of Medieval Jewish Philosophy.

---

P.D.N. in Boardman, OH: Ken Follett's The Pillars of the Earth. The other four books in the Kingsbridge series, The Evening and The Morning, A Column of Fire, The Armour of Light, and World Without End are just as good.

All seven of S.J. Sansom's Matthew Shardlake Tudor mysteries: Dissolution, Dark Fire, Sovereign, Revelation, Heartstone, Lamentation, and Tombland. Winter in Madrid, about the British need to keep Franco from siding with the Nazis, is equally good.

---

A.B. in Wendell, NC: I think one of the best is Lightning by Dean R. Koontz. In it, the protagonists fight against time-traveling Nazis. I must admit my own bias, Koontz is my favorite author, he beats Stephen King!

---

P.M. in Port Angeles, WA: I'll offer two stories by Homer, The Iliad and The Odyssey, both renowned over millennia. And, of course, Virgil's The Aeneid, which I once read in the original language. We might also include the Eddas of Norse mythology and The Epic of Gilgamesh. Closer to home, time-wise might be the Arthurian legend, or Beowulf.

Here is the question for next week:

T.L. in Minneapolis, MN, asks: As we all know, we're living in pretty extraordinary and difficult times. So I'd like to try to spread some love around.

Who do you look up to (whether famous or not) as a source of love and hope to help you to keep carrying on? And why?

Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Chin Up"!

---

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