Sunday Mailbag

We hope you're looking for a lot of stuff to read, because there was an unusually high number of interesting letters this week.

---

Being Fair to Bernie

V & Z: You wrote that "the biggest weakness" of Bernie Sanders is that he is an ideologue who doesn't like to compromise and has failed to introduce any major pieces of legislation that have become law.

The truth is exactly the opposite. Sanders successfully negotiated a major bipartisan bill to help the VA, as described in this piece in Politico. Sanders is also known as the "Amendment King" because he successfully got more amendments into bills than any other member of congress.

Sanders also knows how to compromise. In 1993, he supported Bill Clinton's health care plan, even though it was far from his own vision. He also supported Obamacare in 2009, and critically, was able to successfully negotiate funding for community healthcare centers, which provide free care to the poor.

Sanders is very passionate, so I think it is easy to assume he never compromises or that he cares more about being right than getting stuff done. But he has always had a pragmatic streak and he has a very long track record, well beyond what I've listed, including criminal justice reform and clean energy victories. J.P., Shingle Springs, CA

---

V & Z: You said Sanders doesn't have accomplishments because he isn't willing to compromise. But I think you're ignoring that he has a huge track record of success through his method of going outside the system. He was able to use public pressure and the bully pulpit to get Amazon and Disney to raise their workers' pay to $15 an hour. Sanders also was able to make a massive improvement to the VA working and compromising with John McCain. Please tell your readers the truth about him. He doesn't just speak the truth, he is able to make an impact and improve people's lives. T.F.W., Los Angeles, CA

---

V & Z: I found your response to today's question by about Sanders somewhat one sided. You correctly point to his Senate career as suggesting a lack of productivity. However, this is not the only office that the Senator has held. Pieces in The New York Times, The Nation, and The Atlantic all paint Sanders, as Mayor of Burlington, as highly pragmatic and productive. Maybe more so than the other former mayors in the race. I think it is a bit unfair to say his political acumen was previously unknown. He appears to be a big part of the reason why Vermont is the bluest of the very rural states, and his unexpected level of success in 2016 gave the small donor model of campaign financing a major boost (partially counteracting Citizens United without even winning). Of course, the other thing you didn't mention is that, if Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is still majority leader, no Democrat will get anything done. J.L., Mountain View, CA

Note: You've hit upon the point that we were trying to make, but didn't quite pull off. We used the example of Abraham Lincoln; his political acumen was not a secret to those who knew Illinois politics, but was not a part of his national profile. Clearly, the same is true of Bernie Sanders (except replace "Illinois" with "Vermont").

Impeachment Thoughts

V & Z: If (or should I say when) the Senate acquits Donald Trump, he will undoubtedly go on a victory tour and claim "complete and total exoneration." I have even seen you describe the Senate's likely action as exoneration. I would argue differently. Acquittal is not exoneration. And I would argue that "impeachment" is the opposite of "exoneration." If the Democrats were smart, they would get ahead of this and start the messaging that Senate acquittal does not exonerate the president. Once impeached, always impeached. Of course, this will never happen, because Democrats suck at messaging. R.L., Alameda, CA

Note: Good point. And we really should be using the word "acquittal" in those items, since it is more accurate.

---

V & Z: Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is making the right move by getting impeachment finished as quickly as possible. Despite what Trump says, there is no doubt in my mind he is afraid of being impeached because there is no precedent for a US president running for reelection having been impeached by the House of Representatives. Taking the Trump administration to court to fight dubious claims of executive privilege would play into his hands. He wants to tie up the impeachment process in endless litigation to delay it past November 2020. Moving quickly also prevents him from distracting from the developments against him, because they are unfolding faster than he can reply to them. Pelosi is a very savvy legislator and she knows how to use the legislative process to her advantage better than anyone else in the Democratic Party. R.M.S., Lebanon, CT

---

V & Z: I suspect part of the reason Democrats completed the impeachment investigation quickly is to avoid a possible government shutdown. The government will now be funded through the rest of the FY. If the investigation were still in process, Trump might have shut things down and demanded the impeachment process be ended to reopen the government. That would have left the Democrats with two options: (1) end the impeachment process, an obvious win for Trump, or (2) hurry up and get the investigation done, a less obvious win for Trump that would have allowed Republicans to claim a "rush to judgment."

Senate Majority Leader McConnell is right to get the "trial" and inevitable acquittal done and over with as fast as possible before even more damaging information and scandal comes out. Getting it done fast will also help the Republican base see impeachment as a big nothing.

Trump will feel emboldened to further abuse his office to influence the 2020 election after the acquittal, but his underlings may have the sense to restrain him given that Trump has a history of throwing underlings under the bus. Indeed, there have been enough dedicated civil servants who have had the courage to come forward that my worst fears are probably unfounded. Also, given that the abuse of the national emergency power to build the border wall has not gone well from the Trump perspective, perhaps even Trump will learn that abuse of power has limitations and downsides.

I hope there are multiple tell-all books Summer 2020 from Trump inner-circle people like NSA John Bolton, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland and others that all say Trump should have been removed. G.W., Oxnard, CA

---

V & Z: I'm still surprised that the Democrats didn't play the clip at the impeachment hearings of George Stephanopoulos interviewing Donald Trump in which Trump said that "I think I'd take it" and "I think I'd want to hear it" if foreigners offered information on an opponent.

Isn't the President the best source concerning an Impeachment? Just like the partial transcript of the Ukraine phone call is the best evidence, as it features Trump himself talking? M.G., Augusburg, Germany

---

V & Z: You wrote the following:

If there are any voters in the land who are actually being influenced by all of this political theater—given that just about everyone made up their minds on impeachment, one way or another, many weeks ago—we would be interested to learn who they are.

I know this was a tongue-in-cheek snarky comment, but the truth is, I am one such voter. I am honestly sick of all of this. It is all merely partisan stunts—on both sides—and this was the point where I was finally pushed over into "I don't care" territory. This partisan rancor is the same stuff which went on 20 years ago with Clinton's impeachment, and I was pushed into the same territory then, too. "A pox on both their houses", as Mecurtio once (sorta) said. The irony is that, generally speaking, I am a dying breed: a middle-of-the-road swing voter in a swing(ish) state, one both parties (theoretically) want, but all of this has disgusted me so much that despite my interest in American government, I really don't care what happens. Wake me only if it ever ends. P.M., Currituck, NC

Note: We were, of course, thinking of people changing sides due to such theater, not tuning the whole thing out. Thanks for giving us another perspective that did not occur to us.

---

V & Z: It occurred to me today how thoroughly the Trump-Fox News machine has diverted the conversation of presidential children away from Don Jr. and Eric (and Barron) toward Hunter Biden (as opposed to Beau!). Which candidate has a son who served his country in the U.S. military, and which one had sons who inherited his bone spurs? B.P., Salt Lake City, UT

Politics Across the Pond

V & Z: I feel obliged to take exception to your characterization of various positions and policies in U.K. politics. Although the gleeful "conservative friend" of one of your correspondents brought some inaccuracies and misconceptions to light, it would be something of an exaggeration to claim that the Conservatives seriously advocate "strong steps to combat global warming," being a party whose liberalization agenda has cultivated the country's dependency on natural gas, and with its government actively favoring hydraulic fracturing (fracking), which is unpopular and particularly reckless in such a relatively densely-populated country. The party might also be said to "tolerate" rather than "support" the public healthcare system, manifesto promises being taken in the same spirit that they are made. But taking the longer list of topics as a whole, it is fair to say that the Conservatives are relatively progressive in comparison to the U.S. Republican Party. P.B., Oslo, Norway

---

V & Z: I was surprised by your assertion (on December 14) that Jeremy Corbyn "was promising extremely unpopular things like nationalizing the railroads." It seems to me that most Brits support renationalization, including, perhaps especially, the older, Brexit-supporting former Labour voters in northern England who were behind the Conservative victory. As evidence, a 2017 YouGov poll found that 60% of Brits support railroad renationalization and only 25% support keeping them in the private sector. Actually, the irony is that most of the "private" railways are already under public control; they're being run by for-profit companies where foreign governments are majority shareholders (e.g Deutsche Bahn, which is wholly owned by the German government). P.S., Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K.

Note: That was a byproduct of writing quickly, under a deadline. The word we should have used (and that we eventually changed to) is "controversial." That would have, at least a little bit, conveyed the general truth that any sort of big change—even one with fairly broad public support—tends to trigger a pretty staunch counter-response.

---

V & Z: Andrew Sullivan writes:

Instead of sticking to getting Brexit done in Parliament, [Boris Johnson] called an early election to give himself a clear mandate for it. By fighting on the genius and simple slogan "Get Brexit Done," he exposed the deep divides on the left, unified the right, and knocked his opponents for six (if you will forgive a cricket metaphor). But just as important, he moved the party sharply left on austerity, spending on public services, tax cuts for the working poor, and a higher minimum wage. He outflanked the far right on Brexit and shamelessly echoed the left on economic policy.

Sorta like Bill Clinton ostensibly running a Republican playbook. Given the out of control media and tech monopolies that began under his presidency, this seems all the more obvious. And as much as I liked Barack Obama, Eric Holder going after Apple for monopolistic practices, instead of Amazon is a WTF. L.K., Los Angeles, CA

---

V & Z: Contrary to what you have written, there is no chance that Brexit will adversely affect the world economy in time for the U.S. Presidential election in 2020. At the end of January, the U.K. and the E.U. will enter a transitional period which will last until December 2020, but could be extended by agreement. During this period (which is intended to allow the future relationship between the E.U. and the U.K. to be negotiated) nothing will change, except that the U.K. will no longer be party to any E.U. decision-making.

The biggest danger now is that the Conservative Brexit "ultras" will try to frustrate the negotiations so as to end the transition period with neither an agreement nor an extension. This is what would cause shock waves throughout the world economy. On the other hand, Johnson's position in the U.K. is now so strong (and, a bit like Trump, Johnson wants nothing so much as for people to like him) that he may well sideline those ultras so as to negotiate a softer-than-expected deal with the EU, in order to please as many people as possible (there is no chance that Workington Man will be remotely interested in the technicalities of such a deal, so there is no danger that Johnson could lose that support by softening the UK's position).

At the same time, of course, Scotland will be agitating vigorously for independence, and there may well be a further upsurge in support for a united Ireland (though a move towards Welsh independence is hugely unlikely). However, neither the Scottish nor Northern Irish economy is large enough for such constitutional changes to affect the world economy. B.C., Hertfordshire, U.K.

Note: A thoughtful analysis. However, keep in mind that much of stock market trading involves predicting the future. If investors think that there's trouble coming around the corner, things could very well tighten up, even if the Brexit situation remains in stasis.

---

V & Z: As a U.K. resident, my own take on the campaign is that it was very difficult to watch. As in America, truth is less and less in evidence in our politics. Johnson's behavior is very reminiscent of Trump and, similarly, those who want Brexit don't seem to care. He seems to have made the calculation that the survival of the Conservative Party is dependent on their delivering Brexit. As you've pointed out, Corbyn is a very unpopular leader of the opposition. Jo Swinson has not proved to be the asset that her party hoped she would be, and the "revoke" policy has not been popular. The Liberal Democrats still seem to be suffering some of the effects of being in coalition with the Conservatives, particularly with those on the left. As the campaign concluded, the main parties seemed to have settled on trying to make it about a single issue which they think plays to their strengths—for the Conservatives, Brexit, and for Labour, the NHS. It seems that we will continue to live in turbulent political times. K.J., Nottingham, UK

AGs: The Not-so-Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

V & Z: Could we please add Jeff Sessions to the list of bad AGs? His support of Trump's anti-immigrant policies alone should qualify him. Avoiding all kinds of tough decisions could also be cited. And let's give an honorable mention to both James Clark McReynolds and Roger Taney, who both served as AGs before being "kicked upstairs" to the US Supreme Court by Presidents Wilson and Jackson. In both cases, it appears that these gentlemen did not get along well with other cabinet members nor their presidents, and putting them on the Court solved some teamwork problems. Reminds us of the card games called "Old Maid" or "Hearts." McReynolds was possibly the most bigoted justice in our history, and Taney authored the majority opinion in the Dred Scott case, often cited as the worst decision the court ever made. D.C., Delray Beach, FL

Note: We almost added Sessions, and then thought that was piling on. As to McReynolds and Taney, it seemed too big a stretch to attribute their misdeeds on the Court to their tenures as AG. If we'd been asked for the worst SCOTUS justices ever, however, then they would have been at the top of the list.

A Taxing Decision

V & Z: Regarding the question about the Supreme Court taking up the three tax cases for Donald Trump, I fail to understand why this would be the least of many bad options for the court. The least bad option seems to me to be to not get involved and let the lower court decisions stand without comment. Then they are not involved in the issue and deflect opprobrium directed toward the court while still preserving their ability to get involved at a later date and/or under a future president. Getting involved, which requires four justices to agree to hear it, to me indicates that the conservatives on the court are only interested in protecting Trump. Is it really plausible that any of the four liberal justices were among the four agreeing to hear the case when it had already won at the lower court levels? D.E., San Diego, CA

---

V & Z: On your item on Trump's taxes, I would add that the Supreme Court did NOT have to take the case. They could easily have deferred to the decisions of the lower courts. The fact that they took the cases suggests either: (1) they are stalling until after the impeachment trial, or (2) they are likely to make a pro-Trump decision. D.R., Anaktuvuk Pass, AK

Note: With our regular caveat that the Supreme Court is often inscrutable, and that anything we say at this point is a guess, it's entirely possible that the justices know they can't escape all of the Trump-related legal questions that are percolating right now, and they've decided this is one they simply have to weigh in upon, not only for present-day purposes, but for future presidential administrations. And it's not impossible that one of the lefty judges feels that way; the original SCOTUS injunction on the Deutsche Bank case was granted by Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Nixon and Agnew

V & Z: I'm a huge fan and student of Watergate. Your write-up was insightful and entertaining per usual. I'm certain you had to cut some things for brevity, fluidity, and pacing, so I'm not shocked to see some omissions. The only omission that strikes me as glaring, however, is John Ehrlichman's name anywhere in the piece. J.R., Westminster, CO

Note: One of the things that (Z) first learned when teaching history classes is to avoid information overload. Consequently, the plan for that piece was to max out the dramatis personae at 20. The last two that missed the cut were Ehrlichman and Leon Jaworski.

---

V & Z: Thank you for your succinct Watergate explainer. My personal interests overlap between presidential politics and Film, and while I'll never be POTUS, I did once hold the Guinness World Record for non-stop movie watching.

Most of your readers would know the acclaimed "All The Presidents Men", the timely telling of Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee's version of events. Some may have seen the more recent (though less watchable) film with Liam Neeson as the titular "Mark Felt."

While knowing Deep Throat's identity now has diminished the mystery somewhat, I do heartily recommend the 1990s comedy "Dick!" to anyone else who shares my two interests. Starring Kristen Dunst and Michelle Williams as...well, the most convincing explanation for "Deep Throat" put to celluloid. They even reveal what's on the missing 18 minutes of tape!. J.A., Brisbane, Australia

Note: Your claim to fame is very interesting, and raised some burning questions. It turns out the answers to those questions are: (1) The movies have to be watched in a public venue, (2) the attempt has to be monitored by a medical professional, (3) no sleeping but lots of coffee, (4) bathroom breaks only between every third movie, (5) choosing a boring/crummy movie as the first of the three after a break was the biggest tactical error, and (5) 63 hours and 27 minutes.

---

V & Z: A couple of footnotes to your Watergate items. You wrote that "Ellsberg was ... charged with several crimes, though the charges were eventually dismissed and he was not punished." It should be noted that the charges were dismissed due to governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering, a result of actions taken by the White House "plumbers" unit, using warrantless wiretaps.

You also wrote that Spiro Agnew paid $10,000 in a plea deal to avoid jail. Agnew was later sued in Maryland in 1981 under a law that deemed kickbacks to be forfeit and forced to pay $248,000 for the amount he pocketed, plus interest. It was also revealed he had paid $172,000 in back taxes and penalties on the unreported payments. In the end, the total he had to pay amounted to about 3 times the amount of the bribes. E.F., Cambridge, MA

---

V & Z: The question on Spiro Agnew made me gasp with a longing to reach across cyber-space and say "You've got to listen to this!" Rachel Maddow put together such an insightful and riveting re-examination of that scandal (within a scandal). J.R., Westminster, CO

---

V & Z: Your answer to the Spiro Agnew question was very good and complete, but another thing related to Agnew, though not exactly related to the question, is perhaps worth mentioning. What I'm referring to is that the Trump (and current Republican) inclination for spewing unceasing insults and false inflammatory statements in the post-Eisenhower era was actually started and championed by Agnew. Recall, for example, "effete corps of impudent snobs", along with many, many other utterances, which would have been abhorrent in the Eisenhower era, but since Agnew have become the Republican standard. J.K., Freehold, NJ

Whatever the Answer Is, It's Definitely in the South

V & Z: As someone who grew up on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, I sadly can only agree with every word of your this!" response about the "worst state," with one caveat: I am not sure Alabama is any better. I went to undergraduate school at Auburn, and therefore I have spent a great deal of time in the state. It used to claim to be the Heart of Dixie (on their car tags). Several civil rights murders there, including Viola Luizzo. Their history also includes one of the most notorious segregationists: George C. Wallace (to his credit, he did appear to have a sincere change of heart, but I have not forgotten he came to segregation as a result of losing an election by being, in Wallace's words, "out-niggered"). Alabama can also lay claim to Hank Willams and Hammering Hank Aaron, several astronauts, and while we Auburn grads don't much cotton to him, Paul Bear Bryant as well as Shug Jordan and Bo Jackson. G.W., Boca Raton, FL

---

V & Z: Thank you for responding to my questions as to "Which of the 50 states is the worst? Why?" You answered "Mississippi," and gave compelling reasons for your choice. In my own thoughts about the question, Mississippi was runner up (or down, as you might say). My answer is: South Carolina. As to "why," I felt the weight of VP John C. Calhoun's influence and legacy. That legacy spread throughout the South and has caused no end of trouble for the Union even to this day. I find it difficult to think of a better example of "The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones." R.M., Bryan, TX

Note: At the time of the Civil War, the states with the highest percentage of the population enslaved were South Carolina (57% slaves), Mississippi (55%), Louisiana (47%), and Alabama (45%). Reach your own conclusions about the challenges entailed in maintaining white supremacy, and the deleterious short- and long-term consequences therein.

It's in the Bible, for Christ's Sake

V & Z: Regarding your quote from Robert Jeffress, I think it's worth mentioning that what he's stated is not some right-field personal belief—it's his religion's orthodoxy.

If you want to argue that all religions make evidence-free claims about the nature of the universe, and this tends to make religions, and their adherents, bigoted, because they can't make those claims while giving legitimacy to contradictory claims from other religions, then go ahead. It's one of the reasons that current attempts to create anti-blasphemy laws is going to increase conflict, rather than reduce it.

But I think making this a Trump thing is a bit irrelevant. D.C., San Francisco, CA

---

V & Z: The Robert Jeffress quote wasn't an attack on people of other faiths, he simply said they're not going to heaven. Calling him an 'all-purpose- bigot' because of his 'general sentiment' that people of other faiths are being led away from the true God is calling all good Christians bigots. This is one of the basic tenets of Christianity: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) Indeed, most modern religions reject all others as false. Jeffress is a bigot, to be sure, but this was a poor way to expose his bigotry. Although it was a good way to expose the bigotry of religious zealotry in general. J.S., Dayton, NJ

Note: Religious adherents have some choice as to how they interpret key doctrines, and also which doctrines they particularly emphasize. We have absolutely no question that Jeffress is a bigot at heart who uses Christianity to justify his attitudes. That does not mean that all Christians are bigots; contrast Jeffress with the Pope, who famously allowed that an atheist might be able to reach heaven.

An Armenian View of the Armenian Genocide

V & Z: My Armenian ancestors were victims and fighters of the Genocide. My great uncle was instrumental in the Musa Dagh rescue and wrote about it. My cousin, the poet Vahan Tekeyan wrote extensively of his reaction (e.g. "Sacred Wrath"). So, you might be surprised that I am only lukewarm to the U.S. recognition of the Ottoman-led massacre.

Why? Because a nation must, on its own, recognize its past. Poking from the outside does not necessarily help. For example, if the world's nations blanketly condemned the U.S. history of racial injustice, past and present, would it help Americans or our administration see it for the truth or instead, would many react with indignation? I am hoping time will allow Turkey (once again the "sick man" of Europe) to recognize its past and help itself recover from a century of denial. I recommend two books on the subject of the Armenian Holocaust: Peter Balakian's Black Dog of Fate and, to gain a direct view, Donald E. Miller's Survivors: An Oral History Of The Armenian Genocide. S.L., Monrovia, CA

A Jewish (?) View of Jewish Nationality

V & Z: In response to the "Judaism is a nationality" item: I'd say a term that referred to ancestry, like "of Hebrew ancestry," would be far more accurate. Many Israelis (and many Americans, including me) are irreligious and Jews by ancestry. In fact, at least the Russian language (and, I suspect, many others) have two different words translated into English as "Jew" to make that distinction.

Those who, like Ivanka Trump, convert to the Jewish religion, may lack attachment as an Israel national, and, in fact, have an altogether different "nationality." What's more, some Israelis, notably the Druze, may feel that they are Israeli nationals without being Jewish.

Furthermore, many religious Jews or irreligious people of Hebrew ancestry, especially liberal Americans, are anti-Zionists, opposed to Netanyahu and various things (involving such things as settlements in the West Bank, expropriation of Arabs' land, and diversion of river water) that the nation of Israel has done.

Such is the tangled web the ignorant weave when they conflate religious Jews with Israeli nationals or descendants of Hebrews. Part of the fault, to be fair, lies not entirely with the people but also with the English, as opposed to the Russian, language. S.K., Chappaqua, NY

Wrestling with Donald Trump's Induction

V & Z: You noted that Donald Trump was "a member of the pro wrestling Hall of Fame." As there is not just one pro wrestling Hall of Fame, a more accurate description would have been "a member of a pro wrestling Hall of Fame" or "a member of the WWE pro wrestling Hall of Fame." Unlike many other halls of fame (even certain other pro wrestling halls of fame), the WWE Hall of Fame has no objective criteria for admission, and its only apparent governing factor is the whim of Vince McMahon (whose wife, you might recall, Trump appointed to head the SBA). Say what you will about pro wrestling, enshrinement in a pro wrestling hall of fame is yet another of Trump's distinctions that underwhelms when scrutinized. D.F., St. Paul, MN

---

V & Z: Doubtful that you are aware of the difference, but Donald Trump is not a member of the Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame. He is a member of the WWE Hall of Fame. While WWE is the largest wrestling company in the world, it is also a company that has long eschewed the "wrestling" label in favor of "sports entertainment." By way of comparison, the Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame is meant to honor the athletes that participate in pro wrestling, it is a real building in Wichita Falls, Texas, with the inductees selected by journalists and authors who have centuries of experience in the odd ballet that is pro wrestling. Trump does not belong and I am quite sure he will never belong.

The WWE Hall of Fame is selected by Vince McMahon to sell out an arena for the induction ceremony and hype whatever is happening at the moment. It is not a physical place, not even a wall somewhere with pictures on it. WWE is all about selling the biggest possible moment at the highest possible price, and they often cut corners and sell shadows to make that happen. It's a perfect place for Donald Trump. B.S., Ottawa, Canada

Note: You both are entirely correct that professional wrestling, particularly the sort peddled by Vince McMahon, is outside our realm of expertise. Thanks for writing in with the very interesting clarifications!

---

If you have a question about politics, civics, history, etc. you would like us to answer on the site, please send it to questions@electoral-vote.com, and include your initials and city of residence. If you have a comment about the site or one of the items therein, please send it to comments@electoral-vote.com and include your initials and city of residence in case we decide to publish it. If you spot any typos or other errors on the site that we should fix, please let us know at corrections@electoral-vote.com.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger