Dem
51
GOP
49
Some very dark questions in the history section today.
And a lot of people are in the ballpark with this week's theme, but missed the fact that the clue we give is a valuable part of the puzzle, especially this week.
Also, this post ended up quite long, and we're having some technical issues, so we're going to hold off on the "Dodged a Bullet" reader answers until next week.
B.H. in Frankfort, IL, asks: A Politics for Dummies question: What does it take for elections to take place in Israel? Who decides?
(V) & (Z) answer: A member of the Knesset has to submit a motion of no confidence, and if a majority votes in favor of the motion (61 votes, if all members are present and voting), then the government falls and new elections are called for.
There were two no-confidence motions brought in the Knesset a little over a week ago, and they failed 60-51 and 59-53. Of course, that was before the disaster with the WCK workers; maybe the next no-confidence motion goes against Netanyahu. That said, 59-53 is not as close as it looks—it's somewhat like a vote of 52-48 in the U.S. Senate; maybe one or two members bucked their party/coalition, but it was basically a party-line vote.
M.G. in Boulder, CO, asks: I can see how a state of their own would advantage Palestinians, but for Israel to agree, there would have to be some benefit there too. I can't see any. Reader J.K. in Short Hills wrote: "Hamas has only two goals: killing Jews and maintaining power over the Palestinian Authority. They achieved the former on October 7 and currently are wildly popular among the Palestinians thanks to their punching the supposed bully in the mouth."
If Hamas remains wildly popular with the people whom they led into this horrible situation, why would Israel want to support the creation of a state that would give Hamas greater power? What am I missing?(V) & (Z) answer: To start, if there is going to be a fully autonomous Palestinian state, it is going to be led, for a very long time, by people who don't like Israel. The key is making sure they cannot act on that sentiment in a violent fashion. The Saudis, Iranians, Iraqis, etc. also don't like Israel, but they are not committing violent acts against that nation on a daily basis. So, it's possible.
As to Israel's motivation, we would say that the primary one is addition by subtraction. When the U.K. gave up its crown-jewel colony of India, or France gave up Vietnam, or Spain conceded Mexican independence, it wasn't because those nations expected some tangible gain. It was because the costs, both in terms of maintaining control, and in terms of geopolitics/international opinion, had become so great as to make the colonies no longer worthwhile. If Israel were to be freed of the Palestine headache, in a way that preserves Israeli security, then it could very well be a case of winning by losing. Especially if agreeing to a two-state solution becomes a precondition for continued U.S. aid.
Of course, there's also something to be said for doing the right thing.
D.P. in Oakland, CA, asks: Is it possible that Aileen Cannon feels that while she has gone out of her way so far to delay, that her options will get narrower and narrower as things proceed and the best way to impress TFG is to go down spectacularly in flames, fighting?
Then she will be removed from the case wrapped in glory, a martyr, a hero.(V) & (Z) answer: If this is indeed her thinking, and we doubt it is, then it would be very stupid on her part.
As it is, she's probably already tanked her reputation. Clerks don't want to work for her, fearing that her name on their résumés will be more of a minus than a plus. If she is hoping for and expecting a promotion, say to the Supreme Court, she may already be too radioactive for something like that.
Meanwhile, Trump rarely shows loyalty to people who sacrifice themselves for him and actually achieve something beneficial for him. He NEVER shows loyalty to people who sacrifice themselves for him and DO NOT achieve something beneficial.
M.S. in Houston, TX, asks: Why have we heard nothing about members of Donald Trump's Secret Service detail appearing on various prosecutorial witness lists? They probably wouldn't have anything useful to contribute to the New York property valuation case, nor to the Georgia "Find me the votes!" case, but I don't believe the Secret Service could have avoided noticing cartons of documents being shuffled in and out of Mar-a-Lago's gold-plated bathrooms or loaded into New Jersey-bound trucks. And while the Secret Service legitimately refrains from gossiping about the personal lives of those it protects, they are all still federal law enforcement officers under oath to protect the Constitution and to uphold the law. Has Special Counsel Jack Smith perhaps interviewed those agents and is just keeping it quiet? Or is there something that legally prevents him from gathering evidence from members of Trump's detail?
(V) & (Z) answer: You may be assuming too much in thinking that agents would be witness to the handling of documents. By all evidences, Trump and his staffers tried to do that stuff on the down-low. And besides, unless the agents inspected the contents of the boxes, how could they know if they contained classified documents or if they contained, say, presidential pencils?
In any case, there is nothing that stops Smith from speaking to, and getting testimony from, U.S.S.S. agents. And, in fact, at least five or six of them are known to have testified before the 1/6 grand jury.
L.S.-H. in Naarden, The Netherlands, asks: On eX-Twitter, the co-host of the Pardon the Insurrection podcast writes:
One thing Judge Cannon can't stop, even if she waits to tank Jack Smith at the trial by dismissing the charges, is that Jack Smith only charged Trump for a portion of the classified documents he kept in his possession.
Even if double jeopardy does apply to these charges, as long as Trump doesn't win the election, Smith can charge him under the Espionage Act for the remaining documents and immediately ask the 11th Circuit to keep Cannon off the case.
So again, if you want Trump held accountable, it's on you to vote for Joe Biden. I know you hate that the system won't solve all of our problems on its own but you'll just have to do your part.Do you think there's any truth in what is argued here? That if Jack Smith is somehow stymied by Aileen Cannon, he could start a new case with other classified documents Trump took and stashed at Mar-A-Lego?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, there is truth. The Fifth Amendment says a person shall not "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." So, while a person cannot be tried by the federal government for the same "offence" twice; that does not stop them from being tried for different "offences," even if it is across multiple trials.
Close to a hundred years ago, in the case Blockburger v. United States (1932), the Supreme Court had to determine what does, and does not constitute a separate "offence." In that particular case, they had to consider whether two different acts af selling drugs to the same person constituted one "offence" or two. And the Supremes decided that if there is one element of the crime that differs (in this case, drug sale #1 and drug sale #2), then those are separate "offences," and double jeopardy does not apply. That is to say, being tried and/or convicted for drug sale #1 does not preclude being tried and/or convicted for drug sale #2. This way of thinking was later affirmed in other Supreme Court decisions, and is now known as the Blockburger test.
So, charging crimes in the handling of documents #1, #2 and #3, even if those charges are ultimately dismissed with prejudice or they produce a not guilty verdict, does not preclude later charges of crimes in the handling of documents #4, #5, and #6, since each charge (or set of charges) would involve a different document, and thus one different element. It is also worth noting that the statute of limitations here is 10 years, so even if Trump is reelected, and he orders this case to be dismissed, he could still theoretically be tried on leaving office in 2029. That would be another reason he would try to resist leaving office with all his might.
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: What can New York do to protect the safety of jurors in the upcoming Trump criminal trial? Donald Trump has a history of instigating hate and anger towards individuals. Just ask Mike Pence and the Pelosi family. I believe Trumpism is a cult and cult followers are intolerant of criticism of their leader. The pressure on jurors from Trumpers will be enormous.
(V) & (Z) answer: What you are asking about, in so many words, is an innominate jury, whose identities are unknown to the general public (and sometimes unknown even to the officers of the court). This is sometimes achieved simply by assigning the jurors aliases, and having them sit behind a screen or in a separate room. In particularly extreme cases, the state or federal government will provide secure transportation to and from the courthouse.
An innominate jury was already used in the E. Jean Carroll case, and there's every reason to believe the same will happen in most or all of Trump's other cases.
M.B. in Shenzhen, China, asks: What is the possibility that this whole Trump Media thing is an elaborate (but legal) scam to get money into Trump's hands while avoiding some sort of limits? The stock price is so overinflated...what would prevent some benevolent billionaire who wanted to give a few billion to Trump from just buying his shares at a price far above the listed rate? Could this whole thing have been set up for that purpose?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is certainly plausible, and on some level that's already happened. Jeff Yass, who owns a big chunk of TikTok, and doesn't want the government to force him to sell, bought a big chunk of Truth Social a couple of years ago, effectively handing cash to Truth Social majority owner Donald Trump.
At the moment, it is not especially practical for friendly billionaires (or foreign nations) to use DJT stock to funnel money to the former president, because he cannot sell his shares. They can't even try to pump up the share price, because only a small fraction of the company's shares (5% or so) are currently tradable. However, once we reach the 6-month mark, and Trump CAN sell his shares, then it's worth keeping a close eye. If he dumps a bunch of shares, and the price holds or goes up, then something fishy is probably happening.
T.B. in Leon County, FL, asks: Donald Trump owes a half-billion dollars in civil judgments, and he has (or shortly will) appeal the judgments. What happens if he dies before the appeals processes conclude? In a criminal context, I understand a person who dies while appeals are in process is deemed innocent of the crimes the lower court convicted them of, resulting in fines levied not being due. (Is this correct?)
(V) & (Z) answer: Since the purpose of a criminal trial is to punish wrongdoers, whether through prison sentences or fines or other means, then an unresolved trial (or trials) come(s) to an end as soon as the defendant's life does. He or she can't be punished anymore, and he or she has not been given the full, legally required opportunity to defend himself or herself against being punished. So, fines are canceled, just as prison sentences are.
In a civil case, by contrast, there remains some entity—a person, business, municipality, etc.—that potentially needs to be made whole. It would not be fair to them to say "sorry, trial's over!" And so, in that case, the deceased defendant is replaced by the estate of the deceased defendant, represented by one or more people empowered to do so (usually their estate's executor/administrator).
E.D. in Saddle Brook, NJ, asks: Can you explain how Donald Trump's bond with Knight Insurance Group works? According to the head of the company, Trump provided cash as collateral. I thought the purpose of dealing with a bond company was to get a loan for the required amount by putting up non-cash assets as collateral. If he has the cash, why does he need the bond company? Couldn't he just pay the court directly? What does the bond company get out of this deal?
(V) & (Z) answer: The owner of Knight Insurance Group, Don Hankey, has said that Trump put up all cash as collateral, but he's also said it was cash and bonds. Maybe the former is the truth, maybe the latter is the truth, maybe neither one is.
One purpose of going through a bonding company is to avoid having to instantly turn illiquid assets into cash. There is some hassle, and some loss of value, in converting real estate, stocks, and even most bonds into cash. So, if Trump did put up some non-cash collateral, then that could be one reason for going the bond route.
However, the primary purpose of going the bond route is to keep one's cash from being tied up. What Knight Insurance has said, in effect, is: "If Donald Trump does not pay the $175 million he owes, we'll cover it." They did not actually give any cash to the state of New York. Given Knight Insurance's shaky reputation, AG Letitia James and the New York appeals court have both asked for more evidence that Knight can make good on that promise, should it come to it.
Meanwhile, by going through a bonding company, Trump got to keep some portion of that $175 million, maybe a big portion. All he really had to do was convince Knight/Hankey that, if and when the money comes due, he (Trump) is good for it. He might have done that, for example, by giving some money to them, showing proof he has a bunch more, and also giving them some backup, like putting $300 million in DJT stock in escrow. He might also have done that by saying nudge, nudge, wink, wink, if I get elected president again, I'll see to it you benefit to the tune of way more than $175 million.
So, Knight Insurance Group's reward, in exchange for accepting the risk that Trump will stiff them (and only Knight knows exactly how much risk they assumed) is their fee for providing the bond, and any potential political influence they might have purchased. Trump's reward, for using the bond instead of cash, is that he potentially avoided the hassle of converting illiquid assets and he also retains the use of that cash, so that he can pay lawyers or put it in an interest-bearing account, or whatever.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, asks: I don't have a Trump "God Bless the USA" Bible and I'm a little strapped for cash right now (waiting for a guy on the west coast to help me out). Is what I heard true, namely that Trump's Bible has a centerfold? Who is it? Stormy? Karen? Melania? I'm asking for a friend.
(V) & (Z) answer: Our copy hasn't arrived, so we can't confirm the rumor, or tell you who the potential centerfold is. However, we have a pretty good guess as to the centerfold most likely to get his loyal followers' hearts pounding:
M.B. in Lakewood, CO, asks: Can the Democrats buy ads on Fox News? If not, why not? And if they can, why don't they? I've heard that Fox viewers tend to change their views when exposed to other news sources, which they don't tend to do on their own.
(V) & (Z) answer: Fox is happy to accept ads from Democrats. However, there are presumably some that the channel would reject, for fear of pissing off their audience. Further, there are limits to what can be achieved with 30- or 60-second ad spots. Nothing, for example, is going to convert Fox viewers into Nancy Pelosi supporters en masse.
So, when Democrats do advertise on Fox, they do it in ways that make sense. For example, although soon-to-be-senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) has called for boycotts of Fox in the past, he paid the channel to run a bunch of those "Steve Garvey is a true Trumper" commercials, because he was trying to rally the Republican vote for Garvey. Similarly, the DSCC ran a bunch of ads on Fox in 2018 that made the case that Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is a true moderate.
C.M. in Minneapolis, MN, asks: Your map of how the electoral map would look with a relatively big Trump win based on current polling is disturbing, to say the least. While the initial reaction by many is that the polls are wrong or it's too early to get worked up over polls now, the fact remains that Donald Trump continues to lead Joe Biden in many polls. This seems mind-blowing after everything we experienced with 4 years of Trump and of course 1/6.
Do you have any sense of what might have changed with the way polls are conducted now vs. in 2020? Or do you think most polls are still relatively accurate? Also, it seems like Biden's favorable numbers really dipped starting in August of 2021 and have been stuck around 40% in the FiveThirtyEight average since then. There seems to be several theories on why this is. He's old (as if most people didn't know that before), inflation, the messy pullout from Afghanistan, COVID hangover, and now Israel/Gaza. Do you have a theory on why Biden's approval has been stuck around 40%?J.B. in Bend, OR, asks: You've touched on the fact of Biden's low ratings, but I don't think you've addressed the "why" of his low ratings, so I'll ask very directly: why do you think Biden is unpopular? I can understand people not being excited by him, but his ratings indicate that people actively dislike him which is what I don't get. Sure, Republicans in general will find something to rationalize disparaging him, that's normal, but why would independents and a nice chunk of Democrats dislike him?
(V) & (Z) answer: As to the conduct of polls, one thing that could have changed is the extent to which the pollsters correct for not getting enough Trumpy respondents. They may be overcorrecting. It is also possible that getting respondents of any sort has gotten more difficult, which could introduce problems, particularly if a pollster is only able to find, say, three Black women over 50 to respond, and so has to multiply each of them by 25 or something like that. If so, this wouldn't be a change, per se, but an already known problem getting worse.
That said, we suspect that the most important thing about the polling is the undecideds. We doubt that very many people are actually undecided, since they should know the two presidential candidates pretty well by now. It is very probable that in 2024, "undecided" really means "I don't like either candidate" or "I really wish my party would pick someone different." Once these people realize they have to make an actual choice between Biden, Trump, third party or not voting, then the polls should become clearer. And it seems rather likely that the "undecideds" are disproportionately going to become reluctant Biden voters more than reluctant Trump voters.
As to Biden's approval, a president like him surely would have been in the 50s or 60s if this was, well, the 50s or 60s. So, we don't think the low approval numbers are entirely about him, per se, as much as they are the context in which he is president. There's still a lot of pent-up anger from the pandemic. There's a lot of hostile media, no matter what a president's partisan leanings. There's social media, which is just a sea of negativity and anger. And lies.
To the extent that Biden's approval numbers ARE his fault, we don't think the problem is policy, so much. Recall which presidents of recent vintage have been VERY popular: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, George Bush, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy. Three of those presidents (the Bushes and Nixon) benefited from their handling of a foreign affairs crisis (9/11, the invasion of Kuwait, and the end of the Vietnam War). The other four, who were the ones with lasting popularity, were all dashing and were excellent public speakers. Biden isn't so dashing, and he's not a public speaker on their level. Put another way, he's not inspiring the way that they were (especially Obama, Reagan, and Kennedy). That alone probably costs the President 5-7 points.
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, asks: I am super-skeptical of the polls this early, given many potential voters seem not to realize that the general election will almost certainly be a Biden-Trump rematch. So, as that "fun" realization dawns on people, these polls seem highly likely to change between now and Election Day. We know the following six states, moving from east to west, are likely going to be close: Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada.
Outside this group of six, which states do you think are most likely to flip from Biden to Trump? New Hampshire? Virginia? Maine? Minnesota? Which states seem most likely to flip from Trump to Biden? North Carolina? Florida? Utah? Are those really in play? Going a little crazier, which one deep red or deep blue state would be most likely to flip?(V) & (Z) answer: The 2020 "solid Biden" state most likely to flip to Trump is probably New Hampshire, since it's small and was decided by just 59,267 votes. The 2020 "solid Trump" state most likely to flip to Biden is surely Florida, since its results tend to be closer than people think, and since the marijuana and abortion initiatives will be on the ballot this year, not to mention the Senate race.
Among the states you did not list, a longshot state that could maybe flip to Trump is Oregon. There's a significant hard-right presence in the eastern part of the state, and if some natural disaster were to befall the western half and/or if RFK Jr. were to catch fire there (not literally) then... maybe there aren't enough Democratic votes to keep the state in the blue column? Keep in mind that in 2020, Gov. Tina Kotek (D-OR) only beat Christine Drazan (R) by 6 points, with independent Betsy Johnson claiming nearly 9% of the vote.
Meanwhile, a longshot state that could flip to Biden is Ohio. If voters there are still angry about the anti-abortion shenanigans, and if Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) really manages to rally the troops, and if Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bernie Moreno says something racist or shares a really stupid opinion about rape, then maybe the Democrats could pull it out. Remember that Barack Obama won the state as recently as 2012.
We will also give an honorable mention here to Utah. It would have been our pick, if you hasn't listed it, and it's actually considerably redder than Ohio. In any event, many LDS Church Members don't particularly like Trump, and if he was to be an official convicted felon, that might be a bridge too far. It's not likely that Utah will flip, but it's at least conceivable, unlike, say, Oklahoma or Wyoming.
T.F. in Baltimore, MD, asks: Do you think there's any chance that President Biden has received information from our security agencies regarding Trump selling secrets to foreign countries, and is holding it for an October surprise, if necessary?
(V) & (Z) answer: The first part of your supposition is possible. The second part is all-but-impossible.
If Biden had such information, and was willing to use it for political purposes, it would be a very bad look to hold it to October. First, it would look suspicious. Second, if it came out that he knew for 5-6 months and sat on the information, it would look very, very bad for him, suggesting strongly that he was willing to put his own political needs ahead of the good of the country.
On top of that, if your supposition about Trump was true and it was to come out, it would do a lot of harm to the U.S., particularly in terms of its intelligence gathering. So, we suspect that Biden, who is fundamentally a decent man, would keep it under wraps for the good of the country, in hopes that Trump being punished for taking documents would be enough to send a message about such things. We think that 43 of the other presidents would also have kept such information under wraps, if they believed it was better for the country to do so.
L.H. in Acton, MA, asks: You've mentioned speculation about trump's possible cognitive decline a couple of times. How likely do you think it is that trump is suffering from dementia that will become unmistakable to any rational observer before the election?
Note: I've adopted trump, lowercase "t," to refer to #45. I like it because it's the most minimalist putdown available, and it avoids any smack of schoolyard name-calling.(V) & (Z) answer: Is Trump suffering from dementia? It is possible; he has some indications, like losing his train of thought, repeating the same word or phrase, issuing forth with word salads, etc. However, it is not usually verbal cues that alert families, friends, medical professionals, etc. to the existence of dementia. It is usually an inability to do basic tasks, like going shopping or driving a car or balancing a checkbook. Since Trump doesn't do such things for himself, any case of dementia would have to become pretty advanced before it was evident, even to those who are around him on a daily basis.
Even if he did get to the point that he not only had dementia, but that it was manifestly obvious from his public speaking, there are three things that would insulate him from losing votes over it:
- His base is so fanatical they won't care.
- His communication skills have been eroding for years, such that further erosion wouldn't be all that eye-opening
- His handlers, should they believe he was no longer able to be coherent, would just keep him from making public appearances
Note that much of this also applies to Joe Biden, except that his deterioration has been less substantial, and his base is less fanatical. Also, we ran all of this by a neurologist, just to make sure we had the right of it.
E.W. in Silver Spring, MD, asks: With former governor Larry Hogan (R) all but certain to win the GOP nod for the Maryland Senate race, and Prince George's County Executive Angela Alsobrooks (D) and Rep. David Trone (D-MD) duking it out in the Democratic primary, I am debating how to spend my Democratic Primary vote.
I prefer either Alsobrooks or Trone to Hogan, but would rather have Alsobrooks. However, with control of the Senate possibly running through Maryland, Trone has had success in the state's swingiest (is that a word?) House district and being able to self fund, it makes me think Trone would possibly have an edge on Hogan while also not making Maryland a net dollar sink for the DSCC, thereby supporting other Democratic Senate races.
With barely any polling, and it being way too early to trust it anyway, what say you? The Black woman who has won election in a solidly Democratic county larger than a House district, or the white man who can take a swing district with ease?(V) & (Z) answer: We would say you should go with whichever candidate you like best. Predicting who will be a good general election candidate is very hard, and promising ones sometimes disappoint while not-so-promising ones sometimes surprise.
That said, if you really want a tactical answer, 2024 is going to be a turnout election. And which two demographics do the Democrats really need to turn out in Maryland? Black voters and suburban women. We suspect that Alsobrooks, who is staunchly pro-choice, will be more able to turn out those demographics than Trone.
D.O. in South Park, PA, asks: I wanted to ask about the primary between Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA) and Edgewood Borough Council woman Bhavini Patel (D) in my home district, PA-12. Lee is a bit too progressive for me, but I'm hearing that Patel is being funded by a very rich, possibly MAGA individual. With the high stakes in this election, I don't want to make a mistake. Do you have any insight on Lee and Patel to help me make a decision?
(V) & (Z) answer: This is a fairly standard primary dynamic for Democrats; Lee is a progressive (and is pro-Palestine), while Patel is more moderate (and is pro-Israel). Patel's PAC is indeed getting funding from a wealthy non-Democrat, in the person of Jeff Yass, who gets his second mention of the day from us. Yass is not really MAGA, even though he's making nice with Donald Trump right now for business reasons (to try to save TikTok, which Yass owns a big chunk of). Historically, Yass' giving has been to anti-Trump candidates, centrists, Libertarians, and pro-Israel candidates. The latter issue is why he has taken an interest in this race.
So, you don't really have to worry you're voting for a closet Trumper. You should pick based on whether you prefer someone who is progressive and incumbent (and so knows the ropes, a bit), or someone who is moderate and would be "fresh blood." If you care a lot about the Israel situation, then you should vote for Lee if you are Israel-skeptical and you should vote for Patel if you are Israel-supportive.
D.K. in Iowa City, IA, asks: There are countries that need more people. Would it be possible for the U.S. to help the migrants who are trying to enter the U.S. to go to these countries?
I know that in many cases, these countries are looking for skilled workers or educated people but that might be somehow dealt with. I don't think the U.S. is going to solve the immigration problem otherwise, there are too many people trying to migrate here.(V) & (Z) answer: You know what country needs more people right now? The United States. There aren't enough people to do the work that needs to be done, particularly non-glamorous manual labor. There also aren't enough working-age people to keep programs like Social Security solvent.
And so, you see the problem, namely that even in those places where immigrants are sorely needed, they are generally met with hostility. This is not unique to the United States, nor to the 21st century. The ideal situation would be to offer asylum with a path to citizenship to people willing to live in underdeveloped areas of the U.S., like the Great Plains states. But that would be helping immigrants, and it would also be framed as a plot to turn red states blue, and so MAGA voters would blow a gasket.
D.M. in McLean, VA, asks: After reading the item on the dire straits of the UK's Conservative Party, coincidentally while flying home from an E.U. country after a week of sightseeing, I was hit with a question. If the Conservative party is crushed as severely as expected in the next election, is there any appetite in either the U.K. or E.U. for the U.K. to start the process of rejoining the E.U.? It has been apparent for years that there is buyer's remorse by quite a few people about the decision to leave, and that decision was mostly pushed by the Conservatives. If the U.K. was to want to rejoin, would they have to start from scratch, or would their process be expedited?
(V) & (Z) answer: This is not something we are well suited to address, so...
S.T. in Worcestershire, England, UK, answers: I must start with a declaration of interest: As an active campaigner in 2016 for the U.K. to remain in the E.U. (6,000-8,000 leaflets delivered in my local area), I am hardly an unbiased observer.
The U.K. SHOULD rejoin the E.U. as soon as possible for exactly the same economic reasons that it should have stayed in 2016. There is, however, little chance that it will.
To start with, many of those who voted "Leave" are still in denial. The fact that the right-wing portions of the media still peddle lies about the U.K.'s "success" outside the E.U. (The Daily Express is a particular offender) assists. Nor should it be forgotten that some powerful groups in the U.K. benefited from the decision. In particular, the over-mighty hedge-fund industry were prominent funders of the campaign as they wanted to avoid possible E.U. regulation of their part of the financial sector. And of course the Conservative Party is now dominated by those who voted to leave.
Further, within the U.K., the referendum and its aftermath proved to be one of the most traumatic political and social events in many years. Old, long-established ties and allegiances were strained or shattered: I, for example, lost a longstanding friend. There is little doubt that a re-run would have a similar effect, not least because some of the darker sides of the campaign—xenophobia, implicit racism, fear of immigration—remain a factor in U.K. politics. Many prefer to let "sleeping dogs lie" and paramount among that group is the Labour Party, who saw their traditional base fractured by the vote. If and when they form a government, they will be reluctant to re-open a argument which has hurt them so badly.
And lastly, it takes two to tango. The members of the E.U. have strong memories of the U.K.'s less-than-collegial behavior whilst it was a member, endlessly demanding opt-outs over various policies. It is unclear if the E.U. would accept a return to that ongoing drama, and it is especially unlikely that they would allow the U.K. the generally generous funding arrangements which it previously had.
Not all hope is lost, however. The agreement which finally took the U.K. out of the E.U. included a mechanism to revisit trading and other agreements starting in 2025. This will give the opportunity to look again at ways to mitigate the damage caused by the rupture and make improvements beneficial to both sides. Doubtless, however, any negotiations will take place against a background of arch-Brexiteers like Jacob Rees-Mogg complaining about Britain returning to being a "vassal state."
A.B. in Lichfield, England, UK, answers: Like S.T., I was an active campaigner for a "Remain" vote in the 2016 election (though not nearly as enthusiastic on the leaflet delivery front), so can hardly claim to be neutral.
On a raw polling front, when U.K. voters are asked whether the country should rejoin the E.U., "Yes" has had a consistent strong average lead of roughly 48% to roughly 35% over "no" for over a year (with the rest saying "I don't know"). That said, I agree with S.T. that there's almost no chance of us rejoining the E.U. for the foreseeable future. It's settled policy for both the Conservative and Labour parties to make the best of Brexit, and the best we can hope for is a renegotiation of some of the terms of a disastrous exit deal that's manifestly making the U.K. economically and politically weaker. Even the ardently pro-European Liberal Democrats are soft-pedalling their support for rejoining the E.U. in advance of the general election, and their poll rating only hovers between 10% and 15% anyway.
And would Europe take us back? I think at the level of the Brussels bureaucracy, there would likely be some appetite for the U.K. coming back into the fold. It's possible that there might even be some willingness to look at a favorable deal that would replicate the U.K.'s past membership terms, rather than seeing us as a newly accessioned nation. But I'm not sure that national governments and ordinary voters would be quite as sanguine. There's some real anger in some corners over how badly the U.K. behaved before, during, and after the referendum, and I can understand why some governments and voters would be cautious about letting us back in and risking a repeat of what's not wholly unfairly seen as bad-faith behavior on the part of Westminster.
S.T. highlights the traumatic impact of the referendum on the British body politic. As a Scot living in England, I feel duty-bound to point out that the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, even though won by those opposed to independence by a 10% margin, has had an equally traumatic impact on Scottish politics, and continues to distort political relationships between Westminster and Holyrood. Complex questions of governance are ill-suited to simple "yes" and "no" Manichaean dichotomies, and referenda have no real place within a Westminster parliamentary political system that stresses parliamentary sovereignty; if there's anything we've learned from our surfeit of referenda over the last decade, it's to be cautious over risking a repeat.
Who knows, maybe in 20 years. But not now, not imminently.
(V) & (Z) conclude: Thanks, gents!
B.M. in Arcata, CA, asks: You wrote: "The strengths and weaknesses of Trump and Biden are so very different that it is nearly impossible to even compare them, much less to argue compellingly that they are equally bad. It's not merely apples and oranges, it's apples and soyrizo."
Which is the apple and which is the soyrizo?(V) & (Z) answer: Soyrizo is completely fake, is vaguely orange-colored, is disliked by most Latinos, and makes some people sick to their stomach. So, you do the math.
T.J. in London, England, UK, asks: A lot of fun is being had over the proposal from some Republican Congressmen to rename Dulles International Airport after TFG, mostly for everyone to bring up what an awful airport Dulles is.
My next thought was then that it was weird to propose to rename an airport after a president in an area which they did not represent, but then obviously remembered that Reagan National and JFK airports aren't located in the homestates of their respective namesakes, which makes both odd choices.
This made me wonder, are there any restrictions which prevent Congress from renaming some airports, but not others, and why were these airports chosen to be renamed in honor of former presidents, as you'd especially think it might've been more logical to rename Logan International Airport after JFK?(V) & (Z) answer: The restriction, such as it is, is that airports are named by the authority that operates the airport. So, JFK was named by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, while, to take another example, Harry Reid International Airport was named by the Clark County Commission.
This means that, among civilian airports, Congress can only choose the names of the two airports operated by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, namely Reagan and Dulles. They are also free to name any U.S. military airports, as they see fit. Trump Area 51 Airfield could work; he's not from Nevada, but he did build his political career on the back of fantastic tales about hostile aliens.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: For weeks now, I've been inundated with ads from local Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (R-NY) railing against the Biden Administration's handling of the Southern Border. I don't know if you've seen it. But she's planning to run for re-election and I wanted to ask if this is still considered a political ad even though she's doesn't say specifically to vote for her.
(V) & (Z) answer: Most political ads don't specify to vote for the candidate, since that's seen as a bit obvious, and so maybe a little insulting, like telling people to remember to breathe. They know, when they see the commercial, who they are being asked to vote for.
Just about any ad featuring a political candidate is a political ad, but the dead giveaway is whether it says "paid for by [CANDIDATE X]" at the end, or "I am [CANDIDATE X] and I approved this message" at the end. If you are referring to the ad we think you are referring to, it has both of these things.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: Last week, Fareed Zakaria was a guest on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, promoting his new book, Age of Revolutions. During the interview, in which he was discussing the world economy and the United States' resilience, he made a remark that I find difficult to believe. He said that if the U.K. were to become part of the U.S. as the fifty-first state, it would be the poorest state, even poorer than Mississippi.
Considering that London is still the financial capital of the western world, I just can't square his claim, even if Brexit combined with COVID has dealt a hard blow to Britain's economy. Is he just saying something preposterous?(V) & (Z) answer: It's not preposterous, in the sense that he didn't make it up out of thin air. In fact, this "talking point" predates both COVID and Brexit by at least a few years.
The way this conclusion is reached is by taking GDP, dividing it by population, and then adjusting for cost-of-living. In other words, you're figuring out the buying power of the average individual. And when you do that calculation, depending on how you adjust for cost-of-living, Great Britain is poorer than every state except Mississippi, or it's poorer than all the states, including Mississippi.
Here is a list of the ten "richest" states produced by this method:
- Alaska
- Wyoming
- North Dakota
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- New York
- Massachusetts
- New Jersey
- Nebraska
- Washington
Texas checks in at #11, while California is at #14 and Florida is at #48. The only European country that would make the top 10, if it was a state, is Norway, which would slot in between Massachusetts and New Jersey.
What do we learn from this exercise? Well, clearly it favors states/nations with smaller populations. Also, it clearly boosts states/nations that collect tax income from property taxes/sales taxes, as opposed to taxing income. Beyond that, we are not sure what valuable insight is to be gained from a method that tells us that Wyoming and North Dakota are considerably richer than California, Texas, or Great Britain.
R.R. in Wilburton, OK, asks: Is it possible for a Supreme Court Justice to resign contingent on the confirmation of a replacement?
(V) & (Z) answer: Is it possible for them to say, "I am resigning, as soon as my replacement is approved by the U.S. Senate"? Yes, that happens all the time. It happened with the most recent vacancy, which was Anthony Kennedy's seat.
Is it possible for them to say, "I resign, if and when [CANDIDATE X] is approved to replace me"? No, although we don't think that's what you were asking. That said, while the official choice of candidate is the prerogative of the president, a justice could negotiate through backchannels. For example, Sonia Sotomayor could let Joe Biden know that she'll resign if he publicly announces he is picking Ana de Alba or Nancy L. Maldonado (i.e, a young, liberal Latina) as a replacement.
C.P. in Fairport, NY, asks: Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power "to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" ...by what authority did Congress do the same for the Air Force and the Space Force?
(V) & (Z) answer: Captain Kirk was asked: "Let me guess: you're from space?" And he responded: "No, I'm from Iowa. I only work in space."
Similarly, the Air Force and Space Force may work in the air/in space, but they are still based on land. In particular, the Air Force began life as the U.S. Army Air Corps, and was only spun off as its own branch in the second half of World War II.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Why are the U.S. and Canada far wealthier than every country in Latin America?
(V) & (Z) answer: In a rather well-known 1898 essay called "On Distant Possessions," the industrialist Andrew Carnegie distinguished between two types of colonies: those created to expand and perpetuate the population and economic system of the mother country, and those created as client-states for the mother country to plunder for resources and to sell goods.
Canada and the U.S. were the first type. The nations of Latin America, Africa and Asia were generally the second type. Their relative prosperity today is not unrelated to this fact.
G.E. in Boyds, MD, asks: One hundred years ago, on April 1, 1924, the trial for the Beer Hall Putsch in Munich concluded. Are there any lessons to be drawn from that trial, sentences, and subsequent events that are relevant to the present day?
(V) & (Z) answer: There's one that sticks out to us. Hitler and the other putschers only spent a year in prison because the German government worried that a more punitive sentence would anger the Nazis' followers and drive them to commit acts of violence. So, Hitler and the other leaders were released early, with their punishment effectively amounting to a slap on the wrist, in hopes of keeping their supporters calm. And we all know how that worked out.
S.B. in Winslow, ME, asks: As I read your item "Trump Legal: Father and Daughter," I was reminded again at how weird? Awful? Terrifying? it's been to watch the 1/6 insurrection attempt be downplayed and gaslighted by the MAGA fanatics as something insignificant, so much so that TFG is still a legitimate contender for the office of president. I know there are many spins in history; (Z) has often written that the Civil War was spun into the false narrative of "it wasn't about slavery, it was about state rights." But that took decades. My question is this: When in our history has a single event so egregious as storming the Capitol building, killing people, and vandalizing this important national landmark been gaslighted into something insignificant? And ... did the truth eventually out in a meaningful way?
(V) & (Z) answer: Well, speaking of Adolf Hitler, the biggest act of gaslighting that is a part of American history has to be the tale that he told in Mein Kampf (and that others told, as well), that Germany did not actually lose World War I, and that its surrender was instigated by Jewish bankers who sought to enrich their international counterparts. Obviously, the truth here eventually came out, but not until World War II had resulted from Hitler's lies.
If you want something that comes solely from American history, as opposed to merely crossing paths with American history, then how about the genocide of California's Native Americans? From 1849-60, 80% of them were wiped out, primarily though military campaigns and "hunting expeditions" conducted by private citizens for fun and profit ($10 per dead Native). The gold rush is still taught as a happy, fun story to 4th graders in California; imagine if the story of 1930s Germany was taught as an era of prosperity in which the country made cool art and built freeways and created the Volkswagen and nothing bad happened.
If that is too broad, then a specific event that works is... well, pretty much every one of the many massacres of Native Americans that took place in the second half of the nineteenth century, from the Trail of Tears to Chivington's Massacre to Wounded Knee. To refer back to the previous paragraph, the most notable/notorious example from California is Bloody Island, which was celebrated as late as the 1940s, as you can see from this plaque:
The red paint you see speaks to the fact that Native American activists have had some success as pushing back at this version of events. And a much more honest accounting of what happened in California has found its way into the academic literature and into college classrooms, but only fairly recently (maybe the last 10 years). And it's still not something schoolchildren hear about.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: A worrying occurrence happened during my family's annual Easter Sunday get together.
My normally sane and sensible nephew is now up in arms that his friend was arrested by the ATF for printing and distributing 3-D printed gun parts. He asked a very obviously staged question about the Holocaust, to which my dear, dear mother replied that millions of Christians were killed by Adolf Hitler as well. My brother, a conservative idiot, but normally a stickler for facts and history, piped in that only half of the victims of the Holocaust were Jewish.
That this happened, with all three people contributing in their own unique way, makes me think it is something going on in the White, Christian Nationalist movement. I know that Holocaust denialism begins with questioning the numbers of the Jews killed... so, is this a segue to that going around in the churches to justify their support for Orange Jesus and that asshole in North Carolina?(V) & (Z) answer: You never know with these folks, but we think it's probably mostly historical ignorance, as opposed to something more nefarious.
To start, the term "Holocaust" (or "Shoah") refers to the extermination of 6 million Jews, full stop. There were no non-Jews killed as part of the Holocaust, since by definition "Holocaust" does not refer to non-Jews. Anyone who says otherwise is revealing they don't entirely know what they are talking about.
On top of the 6 million Jews who were killed, the Nazis and their collaborators murdered roughly 3.3 million Russian prisoners of war, 1.8 million non-Jewish Poles (mostly Catholic), somewhere from 300,000 to 500,000 Roma, 300,000 Croatians, 300,000 disabled people, tens of thousands of political dissenters and alleged criminals, and hundreds or possibly thousands of gay men, Black people, and Jehovah's Witnesses.
The numbers in the previous paragraph, which are obviously very imprecise, add up to something like 6 million people. So, while 100% of Holocaust victims were Jewish (again, by definition), roughly 50% of the people killed by the Nazi war machine were indeed non-Jews. Saying that a lot of this 50% was Christian is misleading, however, because it implies they were killed DUE to being Christian (which, in turn, implies that the Nazis targeted all religions, not just Jews). In fact, many of the non-Jews WERE Christian, but that was just happenstance; the reason they were killed was that they were viewed as enemies of the state, as were Jews. So the death of those 6 million non-Jews does not in any way change the fact that 6 million Jews died due to the Nazis' vicious antisemitism.
B.C. in Phoenix, AZ, asks: The question E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, asked about "'Judeo-Christian' values, as opposed to just 'Christian' values" prompts another question. Since all flavors of Judaism hold the concept of the Christian Trinity to be heretical and therefore Jesus was, essentially, a false prophet, but Muslims hold the four Gospels as a part of their sacred scripture and believe Jesus to be a great prophet, why is the current Christian animosity towards Muslims so much greater than that towards Jews? I know the bad blood between the Abrahamic religions was originally based on scriptural differences, but I believe the present problems are the result of 20th century events.
I feel certain the sympathy for the Jews and Israel is primarily based on Christian guilt for the Holocaust, and the idea the creation of the Israeli state is a fulfillment of prophecy is a simply a weak justification to get Christians off the hook. Similarly, I think the hostility between Christians and Muslims is primarily because of past actions of certain elements in the United States government which undermined the governments of the Middle East in an attempt to wrest away the control of the flow of oil so that the rich industry guys in the West could have cheaper gas for their Cadillacs.
I'd like to get the site historian's thoughts on this.(V) & (Z) answer: We think you've hit on the two most important dynamics, namely that the Holocaust stamped out a lot of antisemitism, and drove a bunch of the rest underground, while modern Islamophobia is closely linked to the tensions between the U.S./Europe and the nations of the Middle East. The way that (Z) illustrates this latter point to his students is to ask them if they can guess which country in the world has the largest Muslim population (answer, and the point of the question, is below).
We'll add two things. First, Judaism predates Christianity by thousands of years. While Jews may reject the notion that Yeshua Bin Yosef was the anointed one (a.k.a. the Christ), their religion was not founded as a critique of Christianity, because it could not have been. By contrast, Islam is both a critique of Judaism and Christianity; Muhammad's message was that both religions were on the right track, but that they had been corrupted, and Allah was going to set things straight one last time. That's surely got to be a source of some of the tension, especially for those who engage in scripture shopping, and pick out the most Christian-critical portions of the Q'uran to drum up anti-Muslim anger. For example, Sura Al-Ma'ida:
O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people!Note that first, of all, this is taken out of context (it's from the story of a battle). Second, there are plenty of verses that have the opposite message, like Sura al-Baqarah:
Those who believe, the Jews, Christians and Sabians-any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord. They need not fear, nor shall they grieve.For some reason, anti-Muslim folks, especially evangelicals, conveniently forget to mention the more positive passages.
The second thing we'll add is that, particularly in the U.S. and Europe, Jews tend to be white (or light-skinned), and Muslims tend to be brown-skinned.
J.C. in Ashland, MA, asks: With the talk of term limits and Trump's campaign, how do you think things would have been different if Franklin D. Roosevelt were limited to two terms?
(V) & (Z) answer: There are three things FDR was able to do that a lesser president might have failed at: (1) keep the U.S. public unified, (2) hire good generals and admirals, and (3) keep Winston Churchill from indulging his most unwise strategic impulses. In the absence of FDR, Field Marshal Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, might have been able to control Churchill by himself, but maybe not. It's hard to believe that anyone other than FDR could have done nearly as well unifying the public (since he was an inspirational figure), or hiring flag officers (since he knew EVERYONE by virtue of having been in office for so long).
The wealth and manpower advantages of the allies were so great, they probably still win in the end, but without FDR, the war probably lasts another year or two, and another 200,000 Americans (and millions of non-Americans) end up dead.
R.C. in Des Moines, IA, asks: In your handy rundown of the six most recent presidents, (thank you for that) you mentioned that George W. Bush started two disastrous wars. The Afghanistan War may have been justified as a response, but turned out as a disaster; primarily, I would argue because Bush made the far more disastrous decision to invade Iraq, thereby putting Afghanistan on the back burner. What might have been the better approach by the U.S. in response to the 9/11 attacks?
(V) & (Z) answer: Iraq should never have been invaded. That was the doing of neocons like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, and all it did was cost the U.S. a great deal in blood and treasure, while killing millions of Iraqis and destabilizing the Middle East.
If Afghanistan was going to be invaded, there should have been a very clear, up-front statement of the goal. Was it to find Osama bin Laden (who was in Pakistan, anyhow)? Was it to engage in the multi-generation process of nation-building? In the absence of a clear plan of action, with the American people knowing exactly what they were committing to, Afghanistan shouldn't have been invaded, either.
Pity Bush did not have it in him to turn the post-9/11 fear and anger into something more productive.
K.B. in Manhattan, NY, asks: Very embarrassed to ask. When reading history books, I either skim for main themes or read slowly and try to remember all I can to show off at cocktail parties. Neither seem ideal or fully enjoyable.
Do you have suggestions or examples of "modes" for reading history books?
[To be clear, people have not been impressed at said parties](V) & (Z) answer: First, if you are going to read a book cover-to-cover, only choose books that interest you. That means picking subjects that you want to know about, and also finding authors who are enjoyable to read. Life's too short to slog through anything else.
Second, if you want to "read" a book just so you get the gist (say, it's an important book about the Middle East, or about slavery, or something), this is what (Z) was taught in grad school: Read the intro, to get a sense of the book's argument. Read part or all of one body chapter to see what kind of evidence the author uses, and how they use it. Read the final chapter to see the broad conclusions the author reached with their evidence. In addition, if you really want to round things out, go read some serious reviews, either in an academic journal (for example, Reviews in American History) or in some serious mainstream publication, like The New York Times' Sunday books section. That will give you some expert opinions as to the quality of the book and, more importantly, will tell you where the book fits in with the bigger scholarly picture.
If one masters this technique, one can absorb a book well enough in an hour to discuss it at an expert level.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: I'm a fan of Barbara Tuchman's history books, and particularly enjoy her ability to explain the cultural mindset of the period she was writing about in a thoroughly literary, accessible manner. I know she never received a doctorate in history, though she taught at Harvard and had numerous honorary degrees. I have a friend who writes historical novels and who corresponded with several prominent British medievalists, and she claims that they don't think much of Tuchman's A Distant Mirror. I'm wondering how the resident historian regards Tuchman, both her individual titles and overall body of work?
(V) & (Z) answer: Barbara Tuchman was, like David McCullough or Doris Kearns Goodwin, a person who stood with one foot in the realm of academic history and one foot in the realm of popular history. That means her books were very well researched, and were most intellectually aspirational than, say, a romance novel. However, they were also focused heavily on narrative at the expense of analysis, they were meant to provide a surface-level understanding of a broad subject rather than a deep understanding of a narrow subject, and they sometimes use techniques that are not really acceptable in formal, scholarly writing (like first-person voice).
In short, you just have to understand what she was trying to do. And once you do, well, she was very, very good at it. Her books are growing a bit outdated, since they were written between 40 and 90 years ago, but they're still very readable. And while (Z) isn't a medievalist, and so is not likely to be bothered by A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century, he understands the book enough to know that Tuchman wasn't really trying to write about the medieval period as much as she was trying to use that period to illuminate the 20th century (which was her real area of interest).
(Z) will pass along one dirty secret, but don't tell anyone you heard it from him: Most academic historians would jump at the opportunity, if you told them you were going to give them the power to write books that would sell millions of copies and win two Pulitzers. But they don't do it, because it's way harder than it looks, and most of them don't have the skill set to even attempt it.
S.P. in Bedford, MA, asks: "Hi S.P., Dynata is conducting a short survey on issues important to residents of Bedford. A few minutes of your time will make a difference. Survey here [LINK]. To stop receiving messages from us, reply STOP."
I did the survey and it was a mix between politics and what viewing services I have/use. Have you heard if Dynata before? I'm interested seeing the results of this survey.(V) & (Z) answer: Dynata is a well-known market research firm, like Nielsen or Ipsos. That said, they generally only provide their results to the client that hired them, so you're probably out of luck when it comes to seeing their findings.
J.M. in Norco, CA, asks: This is not at all about politics, civics, history, etc., but I believe that it is right in (V)'s wheelhouse. On my PC, I can access practically any website and navigate freely to gather info, execute orders, browse, etc., limited by just their subscription/registration requirements. Why does doing the same on a "device"—phone, tablet, etc.—require one to "Download the app from your device's app store"? Is this all to spare them the trouble of making their sites compatible with these devices' various operating systems?
(V) & (Z) answer: An app is just a program written in some language, like C, Java, Swift, Kotlin, etc. The app has access to all the functionality the mobile device has (i.e., its full API) and can be highly interactive and fast. This is more difficult when accessing a website, although a website can send over a program in JavaScript to be interpreted or compiled on the client (user) side.
The request message from the client machine to the server contains certain information, including the operating system. If the server sees that the operating system is iOS, iPadOS, or Android, it can send back a page instructing you to get their app. There is no technical reason for this. Safari, Firefox, or Chrome on a mobile device is the same as on a desktop or laptop. Website owners prefer users to use their apps for marketing reasons (if the app's icon is on your screen you are more likely to use it than if you have to start a browser and select a favorite or type a URL) and because the app can do things that are more difficult to do in JavaScript. Apps are usually faster and better in other ways as well. Many websites (e.g., banks) encourage you to get their app but don't force you to—that is, you can still do your banking in the browser if you prefer or don't have any more storage left on your mobile device for yet another app.
D.R. in Phoenix, AZ, asks: I just wondered to what extent you consult any AI portals in the preparation of the site nowadays. I will admit to using it pretty much daily in my information-based job, mostly for overviews of say, market conditions in a certain place, or for writing assistance. I fact-check and generally try to be ethical with it (if that's even possible). Any thoughts about AI in your own work, specifically with this website? Are you embracing, avoiding, or somewhere in between? As a side note, I have found Gemini to be easiest to converse with, though I haven't heard great things about its accuracy.
(V) & (Z) answer: Other than when we write a piece about the use of AI, we never, ever use AI at all.
It would be dishonest, and would also result in reduced quality, if we were ever to try to pass off AI writing as our own. And as to consulting AI for fact-checking, it's wrong often enough that it would not be a time-saver. If we have to double-check the AI, then why not cut out the middleman and just go get the fact without the AI? Note that most information we need is either in the articles we link, or we already know without looking the information up. So, we'd only be asking for help with somewhat obscure queries, which is exactly where AI tends to come up short.
O.Z.H. in Dubai, UAE, asks: I was quite surprised to read this:
[I]t is necessary to accept that sometimes, you grade a bit more on the level of effort and a bit less on the quality of work. A C+ essay where you know the student worked really, really hard might reasonably become a B- or a B, particularly if it reflects growth compared to earlier assignments.I can't remember if there was a set curve in undergrad, but in law school there was a very strict curve to which all professors had to adhere. Wouldn't bumping up a student simply because of effort result in having to bump down a more capable student? And if there is no curve and so no necessary bump-down, wouldnt that lead to grade inflation? It seems very subjective. As you said, you have hundreds of students at any given time so how do you know who actually struggled extremely hard?
And wouldn't that sort of subjectivity open the door to additional subjective criteria—like if a student attended Harlem High vs Andover/Exeter/Deerfield etc? I'm not criticizing—I am just interested to learn more about how profs think this sort of stuff through. Thanks.(V) & (Z) answer: First of all, (Z), who wrote that, has never been subject to an administratively mandated curve. A curve like that maybe makes sense in law school, where students are doing fairly similar coursework, and where finishing in the top 10% or top 20% of your class matters a lot to your future marketability. It makes a lot less sense for undergraduate work, where students are doing very different types of coursework, and where Latin honors (e.g. magna cum laude) are just window dressing in most cases. Anyhow, not only has (Z) never had a curve as a professor, he also never had one as a student, at least not in a history course.
As to grading fairly, it's a tough issue, particularly in a humanities/social sciences course where the work is often subjective in nature. The scenario that you asked about doesn't come up all that often. Usually, if a student asks for a bunch of extra help, they are ultimately able to produce a decent essay. There's just the occasional student who, try as they might, can't get the hang of it. That's when you might give a little extra leeway for effort.
A much trickier question, and one that (Z) wrestles with every time final grades are assigned, is something like this: (Z) spends an unusually high amount of effort helping students to understand what good quality work looks like. For example, when it's time to write the first essay, he sends the essay prompts to the students, and then spends 20 minutes in class talking in general about how to write a good essay, and fielding questions about the essays in general and/or about the specific prompts. Thereafter, he writes up a summary of how to write a good essay and posts it on the course website. He makes himself available to read/comment on drafts and outlines. Once the first essay is graded and returned, he gets permission from 2-3 students who wrote outstanding responses, and posts them (anonymously) to the course website, so the other students can see a model of an outstanding essay. Rinse and repeat for all subsequent essay assignments.
That's a lot of effort, and it pays dividends, in that the essays are considerably better, on the whole, than in any other history course. So, should (Z)'s students have a higher percentage of As than the students in the same course, but with another professor? On one hand, (Z)'s students did better work. On the other hand, it's not the fault of the students in the non-(Z) class that their professor didn't offer as much guidance. It's very tricky to decide what's fair, and there are definitely some people who say "An A essay is an A essay, whether you get them from 10% of your students or 40%," while there are others who say "It doesn't matter how good the essays are, only the top 5% or 10% of 15% get As." The latter philosophy means that an A essay in one course could theoretically be a C or a D in the same course with another professor. Does that even make sense?