Dem
51
GOP
49
Turns out, it was a busy week. Who knew?
A.F. in Portland, OR, writes: Fox has an article "Let's be dead honest, Joe Biden is 'running on empty'."
I recall once there was a presidential candidate, and people kept talking about how he was old and slow and he was past his prime. And then he took the stage on a national debate and kept throwing one-liner zingers and showing how peppy he was. It was later written that the Democrats made a mistake of trying to label Ronald Reagan as too old and feeble, because they set the bar so low it was very easy for Reagan to not just clear it, but destroy it.
I think Joe Biden should do a debate. Sure he's not a great debater, but neither will be his most likely opponent. And he just has to show a basic level of intelligence to clear the very low bar Fox and friends are setting up. And since Fox and their ilk have set the bar for Trump to be Jesus-level, if Trump even shows up and shows his cognitive decline, he'll never come near the bar he would be expected to meet.
E.S. in Maine, NY, writes: So, by himself, Donny probably couldn't even cook himself an egg and toast for breakfast. And anyone who is president does not really do anything. Everything is done by the staffers, from cabinet secretaries on down. What Joe Biden has is years of experience to identify the really best people who understand government and how to make it work. And he has put them in place to carry out his agenda.
He has years of experience with foreign leaders, so he knows how they do things. Same with the congress; he knows how it works, and he knows the people who make it work. This is why he has been so successful. This is why his large age is really best thought of as "extensive experience."
D.H. in Boston, MA, writes: I sometimes listen (on the Internet) to a Vermont radio station called The Point, which plays a fairly diverse selection of rock and pop songs. For an idea of the station's culture, they have a feature called "One Hit Wonder" every weekday at 4:20pm. At that time, they play a song by a band that is known for just one song, "a single ember of greatness," "one puff and done." Most of their ads are local to Vermont, like for a coffee shop in Waterbury Center, or a car tire center.
This week, they played a Nikki Haley ad, which claimed that everybody hates Joe Biden and Donald Trump, and that both of those candidates are responsible only for chaos. It said that Nikki Haley represents a new path for a presidential candidate.
The station's coverage does include some parts of New Hampshire, so I have to say I'm impressed by the thorough job Haley's campaign is doing. However, that's about the only positive thing I can say about it.
J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: You write that you have no idea what Vivek Ramaswamy hoped to achieve by running for president, since he was never a viable candidate and he's now burned his bridges with Trump world. I can't speak to his motivations, but I think you're overstating the case about the burned bridges. Yes, on the eve of the vote, Trump denounced Ramaswamy and asked for his supporters to vote for him instead. They're nominal opponents in the middle of a campaign. Yes, Trump values loyalty. And he got it in spades from Ramaswamy every step of the way. Trump hits back when he's in campaign mode, but he also rewards his toadies when the opponent concedes and makes nice. Ramaswamy dropped out and endorsed Trump. All is forgiven.
Remember how acrimonious Trump and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were during their primary? The stunt where Graham smashed the phone? Graham's remarks about how the party would be destroyed? And then, during Trump's presidency, they were best buds. Ramaswamy is 100 times as MAGA as Graham. I consider it possible that his entire run was at Trump's behest, and his dropping out and endorsing Trump was coordinated with the Trump campaign. That's speculation, but what's much more certain is this: No bridges to Trump-world are burned and whatever future he has in politics, it is on Trump's coattails.
P.K. in Marshalltown, IA, writes: Last July. thousands of bicyclists, like B.K. in Hell's Kitchen, dipped their rear wheels in the Missouri River and headed east across Iowa for the Des Moines Register's Annual Great Bike Ride Across Iowa, with the goal of dipping their front tires in the Mississippi River at the conclusion of the week-long trek.
Shortly after that, Iowa's fabled State Fair welcomed presidential aspirants to engage in Hawkeye-styled retail politics. Governor Kim Reynolds (R-IA) hosted a series of "Fairside Chats" at the event with GOP presidential candidates (save the previous holder of that office), prior to choosing to endorse Team DeSantis. Frankly, the man would have done better to rent a personality and live in an RV on the fairgrounds for the duration to engage in retail politics (but not lecture kids on their consumption of sweets).
I don't do fairs and have not regularly ridden a bike in years but here's our caucus experience, gained from two stints as residents of the Hawkeye State (1998-2001 and 2016-present). We did not participate in the 2000 caucus for the kinds of reasons you have discussed before—we had two small children and this made it virtually impossible to attend, which fits with the skewing of the electorate here to older voters. Certainly candidates crisscrossed the state and a number visited our hometown of Mason City. My "brush with greatness" actually occurred in July 1999. I worked at the local community college and was on my way to a meeting in the Activities Center when I encountered Steve Forbes in the hallway on a payphone. As I passed him, he gave me a "hey, how's it going" nod and I reciprocated (Iowa Nice).
As current residents of Marshalltown, we attended the Democratic caucuses at the neighborhood elementary school gym on a cold February 3, 2020 (as Iowans know, that is the anniversary of "The Day The Music Died," when musicians Buddy Holly, Richie Valens, and the Big Bopper perished in a snowstorm outside of Mason City following a concert in Clear Lake). People spoke for their candidates and gathered in groups of supporters, with those having at least 15 percent support proportionally earning delegates to a county convention, which would choose delegates for the state convention, which then formally apportioned delegates for the candidates for the national convention. My wife and I are civically minded and we enjoyed the experience and plan to attend again when the kerfuffle within the Democratic Party is finally resolved. Candidates were certainly available in our area, visiting service clubs, local diners, and the homes of supporters—my wife met Kamala Harris in the living room of a friend; Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) spoke at the college at which I worked. Our son attended a Bernie Sanders rally in Iowa City where he was a student. I am grateful, I guess, that only the GOP had an event this year—the double-barreled blizzard and bitter cold would have tested my resolve to participate.
A.J. in Ames, IA, writes: The narrative from B.K. in Hell's Kitchen about the 2020 Democratic caucus was spot on, but the Republican caucus is done differently. Here's the oversimplified agenda:
- Show up at caucus location. This means you must physically be there by 7:00 pm. No absentee ballots, no early voting, have to work—too bad—your opinion not considered.
- Sign in with ID. If you are already a registered Republican and on the list, in you go. If you want to change from independent or Democrat voter, fill out papers and in you go.
- Pledge of allegiance and prayer. Deal with some Republican Party stuff.
- Vote for your preference. Write their name of a piece of paper. Collect the votes. Physically count them in front of the entire group.
- Do some more party stuff—pick delegates to county convention. Do some stuff with the party platform.
- Go home.
The preference groups that B.K. mentioned were only a Democratic feature. (And to be honest, I swore to never attend another Democratic caucus until they changed that). As a native Iowan, I think the caucus process is stupid and I look forward to not seeing stupid campaign ads for at least a few months...
L.S. in Greensboro, NC, writes: On Monday I was reminded of two things concerning the Iowa caucuses while watching the Hawkeyes play the Gophers in men's basketball on the Big Ten Network (BTN). First, in the future, (Z) will get to watch Iowa Caucus TV ads whenever he watches his Bruins play in any sports on BTN in election years, especially when they are playing Iowa teams.
Of more importance, it struck me that the in-person caucus requirement means that no one associated with the Hawkeyes team—not players, coaches, student managers, trainers, or any other athletic staff—can participate if they play on caucus night. Of course, given the close distance between Iowa City and Minneapolis, undoubtedly many fans and players' family members traveled to the game and so were also excluded. Finally, given the fervent devotion of Hawkeye fans for all their teams, I suspect many, many of them watched the game rather than attending caucuses.
You've remarked in the past how non-democratic caucuses really are, since people who work or have child care needs can't attend. But college athletics also exclude significant number of Iowans from participating as well.
It would certainly be better for our democracy if caucuses became extinct.
C.S. in Tucson, AZ, writes: Reading many pieces about Iowa, etc., it seems the media "experts" have never attended a caucus. I've attended three in Minnesota, two GOP and one DFL (Democrat-Farmer-Labor Party). Here's what those experiences suggest:
- (General observation). It is not moderates who vote in primaries. Those who attend caucuses seem to be from the very extreme end of their party.
- (DFL caucus very long ago). A very small group gathered, maybe a dozen people. A couple people with forceful personalities dominated the meeting. A middle-of-the-road guy (not me) was silenced by the forceful. An unelectable candidate—John Anderson—won in that precinct, a useless gesture and the waste of a good evening in Duluth, MN.
- (GOP caucus also a very long time ago). I was running late and burst into the wrong room, one occupied by Republicans. Instead of apologizing and excusing myself, I stayed. This meeting caused me to realize my neighbors were: (1) nuts, (2) scary, (3) had alarming ideas, and (4) I was exactly the same from their perspectives.
- (GOP caucus deliberately attended during the George W. Bush administration). Because of the policies and practices coming out of the Bush administration, I attended a GOP caucus with the goal of testing the attendees. Results were far worse than expected. I introduced a resolution, "The GOP unequivocally supports the Bill of Rights and those whose mission is to protect and defend the Bill of Rights." There were maybe 50 people in the room. From somewhere in the back a guy shouted, "The ACLU is a bunch of commies." Being no more discussion after this outburst, the vote was called. Two of us voted for my resolution while all others abstained. I fled the meeting early because I feared for my safety. Really. [Yes, I am a 40+ year member of the ACLU.]
I would never again waste time attending another caucus, not even to bait the enemy if I still lived in a caucus state.
A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: You asked "Does Trump Own the Legal System?" The answer is "no." First, the Politico article conveniently buries the fact that Donald Trump lost the three lawsuits that were featured—against the architecture critic, against the author, and involving Central Park South. He was forced to settle the Trump U. case for $25 million, not exactly chump change. And a glaring omission from the article is the recent string of losses—the defamation case (both of them) and the New York fraud case, which is going to take his entire business down. And that's even before we get to the criminal cases.
Trump's tactics to go on the attack, delay, obstruct, lie and use litigation as a weapon are, sadly, not unique among the rich and powerful. Just ask the victims of the Church of Scientology. Or any corporate lawyer. And how long did it take before the various mob bosses were brought to justice? Trump is not sui generis when it comes to obnoxious and odious behavior by either civil litigants or criminal defendants. Any federal judge will tell you about the many "pro per" defendants who use their trials as their one and only opportunity to rant and rave in front of a captive audience. Judge Arthur Engoron's exasperation is one that plays out in courtrooms across the country because our system is set up to provide defendants with due process, which can be abused in the extreme. Corporate America routinely tries to bury the other side in endless discovery and meritless motions and it frequently works because many judges aren't willing to bring the hammer down—and, you know, judge—which is why these tactics continue.
It's frustrating to see this cottage industry spring up around building this guy up into something he's not and giving him some perverse credit for exploiting the system's weaknesses, as if he's figured out something no one else has. Most of the sources quoted in that article were people trying to sell their own Trump books. Trump is not special and he's not original. This playbook is old and well-used. I can't tell you how many times I've litigated against people just like him, with the same obnoxious, unethical lawyers.
What the media should be examining is the inequities in the system that Trump has exposed. Why are the rich and powerful able to get a different brand of justice? Why are they able to weaponize civil litigation and use it to bully and intimidate people with lesser means? Instead of "tort reform," which tries to take away those few avenues available to individuals to hold big companies accountable, we need corporate reform so our courts aren't clogged with frivolous lawsuits by powerful people with the means to abuse the system. Like everything else, Trump is merely a symptom of a much bigger problem.
E.H. in South Burlington, VT, writes: In your item "Did Trump Dodge All The Bullets?," you wrote: "The key to his success is simply delaying all cases indefinitely hoping to either wear down his opponents until they give up or in some case drag things out so long that maybe he gets lucky and then grabs the luck and runs with it."
This reminds me of a joke my grandfather used to tell:
A horse thief in Henry the VIII's time was condemned to die and was brought before the king. He told Henry that if the king would spare his life for a year and free him, he would teach the king's horse how to talk. The king was intrigued and consented.
The thief's friends crowded around him—"How are you going to get the king's horse to talk? What are you going to do when next year comes?"
The thief said, "A lot can happen in a year. The king may die, I may die, the horse may die—or the horse may talk!"
J.A. in Puerto Armuelles, Panama, writes: In your Schadenfreude item about Alina Habba, you offered two possibilities as to the reason for her circus-like antics in court recently: incompetence and doing what Trump wants.
I think you've missed the forest for the trees. I suspect she sees her future as either a Fox-bot or a MAGA-firebrand politician. Neither requires competence and both require fealty to Trump.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: Alina Habba is now a sex symbol for the sorts of gun obsessed, right-wing men who deludedly think there is even one chance in a billion they might land a woman even half as attractive as she is. She is nothing like incompetent. She is, in a word, brilliant.
Habba knows she is not a great attorney or even a good one. What she does know, of course, is that she is beautiful. I was married to a woman twice as beautiful as Habba and women even one-tenth as beautiful as my ex are the sorts who are smart enough to know how beautiful they are and how to use that beauty to get exactly what it is they want.
Habba will, mark my words, end up making many millions of dollars off of this little performance. She will be idolized by millions of those right-wing men who have never even stood near a woman that beautiful, will be paid to speak and appear by legions of them, will be paid to appear by their chosen "news" sources, and so on.
She is a right wing man's fantasy. Beautiful, probably a gun owner, defender of Dear Leader. She is validating what they believe about themselves and she will be rewarded handsomely for it. These "men" think that beautiful women support the former President and "real men" like them when, in fact, those few that do are probably only suffering from low self-esteem.
P.T. in Jackson, MS, writes: I'm a retired trial lawyer having practiced for nearly 30 years. She's incompetent. A competent attorney could make it a circus without looking incompetent. The things she's doing that you pointed out, like stupid objections and saying things that make herself look stupid, are hallmarks of incompetent trial lawyers. Usually these people aren't stupid and may be competent outside the courtroom. But they choke in the courtroom. Inexperience is usually the primary factor, but sometimes people just aren't wired for the pressure. It's not uncommon. All experienced trial attorneys have seen it many times. It's kind of like the stuttering public defender in My Cousin Vinny.
S.R. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, writes: My friend T., an attorney in Montgomery County, PA, graduated from law school in the same class as Alina Habba. She distinguished herself so much in a smallish class at middling law school that he didn't even know she was from his class until he saw it on the news. He likely had several courses with her over their three years together but doesn't remember her speaking in class or participating in any other activities. He had to find his class photo to believe she was really in his class. He's glad the media isn't mentioning her law school too often, lest it reflect poorly on him.
F.H. in St. Paul, MN, writes:
D.M. in Cleveland, OH, writes: In "The Bukwark Says What We (and Surely Others) Have Been Thinking," you wrote: "...if the real goal is to understand the underlying dynamics of the American body politic, then where are the pieces trying to understand the mindset of urban Democrats? Latino and Latina voters? LGBTQ voters? Educators? Baby Boomers?... and yet, 'What are Republican/MAGA voters thinking?' is a genre unto itself."
I think this dynamic is driven in large part by deep, genuine bewilderment, bordering on disbelief, that such a large contingent of Americans could really be so divorced from reality and so willing to embrace radical departures from the democratic ideals which, until now, virtually defined our country.
Also, not to reduce the left-leaning subgroups you listed above to single-issue caricatures, but to some extent, their motivations are somewhat self-evident. Latinos/Latinas probably envision an America in which shooting on sight the few migrants who DO manage to penetrate the full border-length wall is not the next logical step. LGBTQ voters probably want gender-affirming care to be legal, along with their right to marry, adopt children, and have Drag Story Hour in public (gasp!) if they want to. Educators, presumably, would prefer to work in schools where Christian fascists aren't picking/writing/banning the library books, bulletproof backpacks aren't required wear, and American History classes can freely present the institution of slavery as a somewhat less-than-ideal bargain for those enslaved.
It's exponentially more puzzling how and why multitudes of MAGA diehards can come to believe the insane things they believe than it is to wonder if Baby Boomers might not want to see Social Security benefits eroded—and much more critical that the root causes of MAGA's dangerous mass delusion be unpacked, so that it might be mitigated.
P.L. in Denver, CO, writes: On a regular basis, I am disappointed by our print, digital and televised media. In general, there is a complete lack of depth. Sunday talking heads ask a question, the pol being interviewed spouts off something and there is little to no follow up—even when the person is lying. Interviews are conducted with the Trump cult members. They allow them to say these stupid things without really getting to the heart of the issue. It is so disappointing. Can nothing be done to get some decent reporting that would enlighten all of us? Thank God for Electoral-Vote.com!
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: Thank you. I don't read the Bulwark, so I got it from Electoral-Vote.com. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. I've been saying the very same thing for it feels like 8 years. Every news outlet I have had contact with since the rise of Trump has regularly run pieces asking "Who are these Trump supporters and what are they thinking?" As you wrote, it's a cottage industry, it's its own genre, it's the trademark journalistic piece of our times. Until an apprentice journalist produces a piece on "who are the Trump voters and what are they thinking?," they're not allowed into the profession.
What you added was the list of lots of other voters that I (and we) would like to know about. Thanks for that too.
T.N. in Nashua, NH, writes: Something (Z) wrote this week illustrated how utterly oblivious the left is about why the right is obsessed with illegal immigration: "Needless to say, all of this is all kinds of illegal. When people seek asylum, the United States is bound by international law to handle that in a particular way (and that way does not involve razor wire or drownings)."
Some preliminaries; Despite what you are going to read below, I'm not anti-immigrant. I grew up in Mexico. I have assisted friends in gaining entry to the U.S., and am presently attempting to assist a Ukrainian gaining entry with a U4U parole. I strongly support documented immigration, where the recipient country gets to have a say in who enters. I think the U.S. is enriched as immigrants merge into our culture.
So, about international law. I assume (Z) is referencing the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. It defines who qualifies for asylum in Article 1 section 2. The list does not include "I want to live in a richer country."
More, the convention also defines the obligations of refugees. In article 31, "...provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence." Walking away from a bridge where said authorities are posted explicitly to deal with incoming people, to instead force a river crossing, disqualifies them under "showing good cause for their illegal entry." (And yes, the Convention says "illegal", not "undocumented.")
Those points are glaringly obvious to people who resent the floods of undocumented immigrants. Yet, they appear to be utterly invisible to those who actively encourage that flood of people to continue making dangerous crossings.
While I deplore the FCers efforts to strangle Ukraine military support over their own border complaints, I also deplore the Democrats' absolutism that absolutely nothing shall ever be done about those complaints. And we are busily barreling down the track where we will leave Ukraine hanging in the wind while actively encouraging everyone from El Salvador to Venezuela to swim a river or walk across a desert, as the government is paralyzed by a deadlocked Congress.
Again, I strongly support documented migration, where the destination country gets to select whether it wants each particular immigrant. I support refugees referenced in the 1951 convention getting out of the country that endangers them. But that does not mean I automatically grant all refugees the right to travel the world and select which nation will be forced to take them in. If men have to flee El Salvador because the authorities discriminate against tattoos (which they do), that does not mean that, for example, Monaco is required to provide all of them room and board, just because they'd like the casinos.
The inability to even see the other side's arguments is the root of the Republican/Democrat divide on this issue.
M.B. in Overland Park, KS, writes: I have to respectfully disagree with you on what Joe Biden can and should do about the border fiasco created in Texas by the governor's evil actions.
Biden should dispatch federal law enforcement to the border and arrest anyone who denies them access. So Biden looks as if he cares about immigrants more than he should. Would you have said the same about the desegregation enforcement made against Arkansas and Mississippi? I mean. those presidents had to withstand accusations that they liked Black people over white.
Biden needs to stand up to bullies. He's been far too reliant on waiting on the SCOTUS to do its job. Allow the Court to weigh in... after you spank the @#$&* out of Texas. He'd look better to the Democrats he needs votes from, and would be doing the right thing at the same time.
Biden needs to put the South on notice again that rebellion will not be tolerated. Right now he looks like George McFly being pushed around by Biff, waiting for a teacher to come scold Biff about his behavior. Not presidential.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: It may be true that Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) can remain in office for as long as he wants, but it may also be true that he needs to keep feeding the beast for that to be true. The Texas GOP, despite commanding strong power at the ballot box for nearly 30 years now, have been doing so under a strategy of voter enthusiasm more than anything else. They've already done all they think they can get away with in voter suppression and gerrymandering, and the Texas Democrats keep rolling that rock up the hill. And from time to time they get distressingly close (by Texas GOP standards) to getting it all the way to the top.
Now, "energizing the base" is the only tool they have left, and so they feel the need to go to great lengths to maintain that energy, or else take the chance that the Democrats might just win. They still have not, apparently, recognized that "energizing the base" also has the effect of "shrinking the base." I noticed it in the race between Ted Cruz and David Dewhurst (lieutenant governor at the time) for the GOP nomination for Senate. Commercial after commercial that year contained the phrase "Too moderate for Texas" (with the word moderate spat out as if it were made of manure). It hasn't gotten any better since, as they continue to drive away anyone with a modicum of sense or ethics in their efforts to make sure "the base" is sufficiently energetic. I keep hoping that strategy is going to come back to bite them in the ass one day, but "one day" keeps not coming. That's a big part of why I decamped to Wyoming.
D.C. in Portland, OR, writes: Thank you for the perfect ending and remarkable juxtaposition in Friday's post, between the embarrassing transcript of Alina Habba's antics in court and the beautiful picture of the St. Paul, MN, all-female council.
The Freudenfreude piece brought to me a warm smile and a strong sense of hope and optimism for our future.
Kudos to the people of St. Paul for enacting such positive change in so short a period of time.
Habba is a shining example of why it's wrong to generalize about one sex or gender over another, but I'll take the risk on this occasion to express my (relatively) long-held belief that the more women replacing crusty old white men in positions of power, the better the world will be.
S.R. in Hudson, WI, writes: I thought you'd enjoy this quote from Mitra Jalali (president-elect of the St. Paul city council), after seeing your mention of the election. I heard it on KARE 11 TV news out of the Cities (living just across the river in Hudson, WI, it is our closest news source), and although I replayed the feature a ridiculous number of times, trying to get the quote exact, I do not guarantee absolute success in that endeavor.
"A whole lot of people who were comfortable with majority-male, majority-white institutions for nearly 170 years of city history are suddenly sharply concerned about representation. My thoughts and prayers and with them during this challenging time."
F.H. in St. Paul, MN, writes: The photos used in your post about the all female St. Paul city council really illustrate the changing times—well, around here at least.
One thing I noticed is that there aren't nearly as many spittoons in the most recent photo as there are in the first.
D.S. in Minneapolis, MN, writes: And across the river from St. Paul:
J.D. in Pasadena, CA, writes: Los Angeles County has an all female Board of Supervisors:
S.H. in Hanoi, Vietnam, writes: D.R. in Phoenix asked about Robert Reich's name preventing him from being a "serious candidate" for the U.S. House or higher. The answer is already known: He was a serious contender for the Democratic party nomination for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, garnering 25% of the primary vote and coming in second to Shannon O'Brien (who herself went on to lose to Mitt Romney). So his name didn't hold him back, although even in the bluest-of-blue state of MA, he had a ceiling at the state level.
As for a seat in the U.S. House, had he run in the ultra-liberal Massachusetts 4th congressional district, where I believe he lived, he would have been a strong contender. The problem was that at the time he was serious about elective office in the early 2000s, Barney Frank held the seat and was arguably at the peak of his political influence, becoming the leading Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee in 2003, and Chair of the committee in 2007. So Reich would have had to wait his turn until 2012, although he would then have been up against up-and-comer Joseph Kennedy III, which would have been, um, tough, as Bay Staters tend to like their Kennedys.
I bumped into Reich at Boston's Logan Airport when he was running for governor. He was standing by himself at the ticket counter just like everyone else, and nobody seemed to realize who he was. I came up to him and said "hello," we shook hands and cordially chatted for a minute before we both had to move on. D.R. asks about his name, but I think his much more serious (superficial) political liability became apparent to me that day, for Reich is not merely short; he's just south of 4 feet 11 inches. In my opinion, that would be a much bigger hindrance to him than his name while running any office that requires high levels of visibility in a statewide campaign.
J.T. in Santa Barbara, CA, writes: Robert Reich was a 2002 governor candidate for Massachusetts in the Democratic primary. He finished in second place in the primary.
His loss is attributed in part to his tell-all memoir angering Bill Clinton, causing him to not endorse Reich. Robert Reich himself writes that part of his loss was because the most notable thing about him was that he was so short at 4 feet 11 inches. Both probably contributed.
So a political career in electoral politics was attempted and probably would have been a 2000s thing.
L.R.H. in Oakland, CA, writes: Wow. Hillary Clinton came in for some undeserved bashing in this week's Q&A.
B.R. in Eatontown, NJ, wrote: "Second, I've never been convinced that HRC could have won, regardless of who her opponent was."
Really? B.R. might have forgotten that Hillary Clinton got nearly 3 million votes more than Trump. In any other country, she would have been elected president.
And B.H. in Southborough, MA, wrote: "She is rumored to be curt and bitchy in person, which probably cost her the election."
First, it was the anti-democratic Electoral College that cost her the election (see: nearly three million more votes than Trump). Second, I've read multiple times that people find her warm and generous in private. She is professionally formal in public, which violates a sexist expectation that women should be warm and cozy, Here's one article about Clinton's presentation.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I had equal parts joy and horror when I read the nomination of me as a great president that should have been from T.G. in Lee's Summit. Yes, I admit that being even a little bit vain, that it brought a huge smile to my face—and Thank You, T.G., for the compliment. The horrified part leads me to go for the Full—from William Tecumseh all the way to Bobby—Sherman: "I hereby state, and mean all that I say, that I never have been and never will be a candidate for President; that if nominated by either party, I should peremptorily decline; and even if unanimously elected I should decline to serve." Or the abridged and more well known version, "If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve."
Let me give four reasons why the idea of me as president should send shivers of terror down everyone's spine!
- Being 62 years of age, I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would pursue a job that required you to work non-stop 24/7/365 for 4 years. That's just insane! I relish my free time way too much for that added heartache. Besides, everyone can see how the office of the President ages the inhabitant beyond his years (except for Herr Twitler, who still maintains his nuclear orange mini-Führer glow). If I would spend four years as president, I would come out looking like a Ring Wraith!
- My one foray into politics taught me all I need to know about that sport. In elementary school, I ran for the vice president of the school. If the actual VP of the U.S. is not worth a bucket of warm pi**, then the VP of a student body of an elementary school is worth considerably much less. As a chubby 5th grader who was a recent transplant to the school, a little bit introverted, more at home with reading and arts and crafts than sports, combined with the fact that children that age are such empathic angelic little creatures, I had been bestowed a nickname that I absolutely detested. So much so that a half century later, I am still hesitant to mention but will in an act of full disclosure—the kids called me Baby Huey (for the younger crowd, a gluttonous and rather insipid cartoon duck). Not a compliment!
Given that baggage, I can't remember what in the world possessed me to run in the first place. While a fledgling politician, I was, unbeknownst, a somewhat smart politician, in that I put my fate in the hands of my chief political advisors and speech writers, my mom and my grandmother. My mom advised me "To hit them with your weakness." She and my grandmother then wrote a speech that acknowledged the Baby Huey nickname but leaned into the humor side with plenty of comparisons to then-Vice President Spiro Agnew (again for the younger crowd, there was plenty of material to joke about with Spiro Agnew!). I thought the plan and the speech was madness to my 5th-grader brain, but I trusted my parents. I gave the speech to a packed auditorium and it was a hit. I won in a landslide with only 2 votes against me (my opponent and his best friend)—take that Reagan! It was a great self-actualizing experience and I can only imagine what winning a position of consequence would feel like. A few weeks later, while out on the playground, I made a snarky comment about one of my classmates. That classmate turned around and announced they would never vote for me again. It was then that I realized that the voting populace is extremely fickle. Being a politician meant always being on, always being neutral and always looking to please everyone all the time. I wanted nothing to do with that!- In the 2000s, I loved playing a video game called Civilization—a game where you build an empire from a tiny stone age village to constructing a star ship to reach Alpha Centauri. In the game, you pick a cartoon avatar of a historical figure. Since I thought a cartoon Lincoln was sacrilege and Alexander the Great was a bit daft for getting all depressed over not having worlds to conquer, I played as Julius Caesar. In one particular game, I started out, as Jared Diamond explains in his books, very blessed with geography and resources. I started playing the game on a Saturday night around 8 p.m. (it must have been during a self-sentence of drying out from the D.C. nightlife, or else I was broke, to account for me staying home on Saturday night). I took a very non-Caesar approach to the game, for when my opponents attacked, I would pursue peace from a position of power by offering money and technology (but technology I had long ago mastered) to bring about a peace pact and create trading alliances. What the current GOP would sneeringly call a Globalist. This worked spectacularly in that most of my opponents, I absorbed into my empire by their own choice so that the game quickly became one of two super powers: me vs Mohandas Gandhi!
Understand that this Gandhi avatar had the most un-Gandhi-like traits imaginable: unreliable, sneaky, duplicitous, and a belligerent warmonger. I had reached the point in the game where I was starting to build my starship and I had a truce with Gandhi, that, for once, he was abiding by, when I noticed a bright light shining through the window blinds. Living on the 7th floor of an apartment building, I couldn't imagine what the hell this could be. Peeking through the blinds, I discovered that the source of the light was, of all ungodly things, the sun rising the next morning. Realizing that I needed to finish the game so I could get some sleep, I turned back to the screen to discover that SOB Gandhi had launched an attack on me. We were not amused, to say the least. In fact, it would be more honest to say that something snapped. Yes, I had built my civilization built on lofty ideas of peace, sharing and keeping my citizens happy, but I wasn't naive. I had also amassed a huge—and I do mean huge—arsenal of nuclear ICBMs, which I launched in a full scale assault that literally nuked that bastard Gandhi back to the Stone Age. Half of the world was filled with orange glop signifying radiation and nuclear waste. Gandhi, being true to form, tried to attack me again, but this time with some guys with spears. Really, dude, I've got nukes, jet fighters and aircraft carriers and you're attacking me with spears! We were doubly not amused and the second volley of nuclear death rained down. That was the last I heard of Gandhi and I finished the game with peace and prosperity for my citizens who weren't too near the borders of Gandhi's glow in the dark empire. Moral of the story, no one should ever, ever entrust the nuclear codes to me!- Most important reason is I understand there are incriminating photos from the last Annual Electoral-Vote.com Crack and Dachshunds Party that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) would love to show on national TV. In the words of the immortal Stan Lee, "Nuff said!"
J.C. in Chicago, IL, writes: Responding to D.M. in Holden, I find that D.M.'s portrayal of Joe Biden as a warmonger is a gross oversimplification that borders on ignorance of the complexities of international politics. To paint Biden, a leader known for his decades-long career of diplomacy and moderate policy approaches, as a militant figure is not only misleading but astoundingly uninformed. It ignores the broader context of his decisions, which are often grounded in long-standing international alliances and the intricate balance of global power dynamics. It also ignores Biden's very personal and profound experience as the father of a deceased armed forces veteran who understands the grave consequences of military actions.
The claim of Biden "bloviating his way into a shooting war with China" is an example of alarmist rhetoric devoid of substance. It suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of international relations and diplomacy. Biden's approach towards China has been cautious and measured, focusing on alliances rather than aggression. Suggesting that he is seeking a war is not just cynical, it's a distortion of reality.
The condemnation of the so-called "American imperial project" is a reductionist view that fails to acknowledge the nuanced role the United States plays in global affairs. While criticism of American foreign interventions is valid and necessary, to disregard the stabilizing role the U.S. has played in various international conflicts and peacekeeping efforts is to deny a significant part of contemporary world history. The idea that the U.S. only exports violence and suffering is a negligent, myopic perspective.
Moreover, the assertion that Biden's foreign policy is about "achieving peace through violence rather than diplomacy" is a blatant mischaracterization that seems more rooted in a biased narrative than in a factual analysis of his administration.
D.M.'s comments seem like a tirade grounded in a superficial understanding of global politics, lacking in nuance and depth. It's a narrative that appears to be more interested in pushing a particular ideological stance than engaging with the actual complexities and intricacies of Biden's foreign policy. This kind of discourse doesn't contribute constructively to the conversation; it merely propagates a distorted, oversimplified view of world affairs.
J.N. in Columbus, OH, writes: A.C. in Aachen offered a bunch of Hamas talking points. He ends openly looking to not re-elect Biden. You guys seriously give this joker the last word? What do WANT Donald Trump to win? Cause this B.S. is how that will happen.
K.E. in Newport, RI, writes: I read some of the comments over the past few weeks defending Israel's attacks on Gaza with a mix of amazement and sorrow. It's almost as if these writers, along with Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government, completely ignore what the U.S. and its allies went through in Afghanistan over the past 2 decades.
I don't agree with what Israel is currently doing in Gaza simply because it won't work. Look at what happened to the U.S. coalition in Afghanistan. After 20 years of warfare, the U.S. and its allies failed to defeat the Taliban, despite having far more resources and technology at their disposal. Why? Because the Taliban are extremely skilled at blending in with the civilian population to avoid detection. Anti-Americanism is also very high in Afghanistan, which made Afghanis hesitant to cooperate with U.S. forces to defeat the Taliban.
The same is true with Hamas. Hamas and the Taliban are not the same group but they are similar in many ways. They are both seeking to establish Islamic theocracy over their populations, they use guerrilla warfare against opponents, and use human shields to try to limit attacks against them.
Israel simply does not have the ability to go through every building in Gaza to root out Hamas militants. Unless they are prepared to drop nuclear weapons on Gaza and kill every man, woman, and child, attacking Gaza won't work. And I don't believe even Netanyahu is crazy enough to go that route.
A.S. in Bedford, MA, writes: I'm getting tired of coming up with new ways to write the same letter supporting Israel's right to defend itself. However, I feel I cannot let the weekly, virulently anti-Israel letters stand unanswered, lest you get the wrong idea about the range of viewpoints in your readership.
So, from now on, whenever you post an ignorant-bordering-on-antisemitic letter, I'll resend this e-mail, and you can imagine the choice thoughts I'm having about the views that were expressed. Hopefully this will free me up to engage more happily with the rest of your site, which I continue to greatly appreciate.
Sincerely, an exhausted liberal American Jew.
V.H. in Lexington, MA, writes: In all the comments that you are regularly publishing from people who think that Israel is monstrous or worse, not one of them contains any kind of suggestion for what else Israel is supposed to do under the circumstances. They were brutally attacked by Hamas, whose charter is to destroy the Zionist entity. It is exceedingly hard for me to believe that were the commenters' own countries attacked in such a fashion, that they would think their country's best option would be to turn the other cheek, or pursue other suitably non-aggressive action. Even the previously large group of Israeli peaceniks doesn't seem to think that having a nice reasonable conversation with Hamas is likely to be much help. The reason that these kinds of comments often trigger accusations of antisemitism is because if they were to sketch out an actual alternative for Israel, it would simply equate to "why don't you just lie down and die?"
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: C.S. in Philadelphia kind of expands on a point I made in the last paragraph of my letter. There is a highly simplistic, binary narrative emerging that supporting a Palestinian state goes hand-in-hand with supporting the destruction of Israel. I have made the point that Benjamin Netanyahu's war is making me less safe as an American Jew for exactly this reason. I don't doubt that there are antisemites who assume that, since I am Jewish, I unequivocally support Israel and its current actions. And, to be fair, I keep coming across more and more Jewish people who refuse to see the humanitarian crisis that Netenyahu has created. It's shocking to me that images of the destruction have changed so few minds among my people.
No one's hands are clean here. Believe what you want to believe, but Netanyahu is an extremist, right-wing, fundamentalist authoritarian. He absolutely belongs in the company of Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Jair Bolsinaro and other strongmen who have done all the things to gain and hold onto power with only the veneer of a democratic election to justify their actions.
Is Hamas deplorable? Yes. Absolutely. How about the antisemites of the world? Of course. But while you are at it, can you also acknowledge that Islamophobes, homophobes, transphobes and even your run-of-the-mill racists are also deplorable? If you are going to make a statement about the deplorability of a group that can't recognize the basic humanity of another group, you need to cast a wider net and call all of the haters deplorable. Am I both-sides-ing here? Yes, I am. In this situation, I feel that both-sides-ism is appropriate.
I've said this many times and I'll keep saying it: I support a free, safe Israel. And I support a free, safe Palestine. I support both sides laying down their weapons, waging peace and rebuilding. There is a lot of work to do and it will most certainly take generations to rebuild anything that looks like trust between the two peoples. Doing the same thing that they have been doing for 75 years (4 generations!) hasn't worked. It seems impossible, but it's time for a new approach.
M.S. in Westchester County, NY, writes: I'm responding to the letter from R.L. in Alameda, not so much because it is wrong, but there is a lot of nuance that is lost and may reflect only R.L.'s experience.
Yes, many Jewish youth go on trips to Israel and gain the Israeli perspective. Many temples and synagogues also organize trips for adult congregants. I went on one such trip in 2008. Do you get a positive side of Israel? Of course. Was it totally propaganda? Of course not. We visited holy sites of both Christians and Jews in Jerusalem. We talked to politicians/educators/religious people with varying views. We visited landmarks across the country and had a lot of fun.
The two-state solution is new? Not by a long shot. My Reform synagogue is typical. We have had visiting lecturers with different viewpoints over the years. The two-state solution is a given with many, many American Jews. And for years. Mention Benjamin Netanyahu's name and/or the West Bank settlements and you get a negative response.
Hamas is a terrorist organization that broke a ceasefire and went on to commit heinous acts against Israeli ( and some non-Israeli) men, women and children. There are still over 100 hostages in Hamas' hands. Regardless of how one feels about the conduct of the war, these hostages need to be reunited with their families.
Israel has a right to exist as a state, and there is much suffering in Gaza. Can we hold these two truths in our minds at the same time?
We are vehemently in agreement on this point: Netanyahu has got to go so the peace process can start.
J.T.B. in Brookline, MA, writes: K.C. in St. Augustine wrote in with a question about a John F. Kennedy assassination book and mentioned that they had read Four Days in November by Vincent Bugliosi. Four Days is not the book that Bugliosi actually wrote. His real book on the subject is called Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, of which Four Days in November (published separately) is merely the first chapter. Four Days is only a timeline of November 22-25, 1963. It presents no point of view and draws no conclusions. The remainder of the book, however, thoroughly examines the evidence in the case and arrives at the conclusion, quite convincingly, that there was no conspiracy and that Oswald acted alone.
D.T. in Hillsboro, OR, writes: I'm afraid J.B. in Hutto is mistaken about how land-grant universities "brought higher education within reach of ordinary Americans for the first time." While the Morrill Land-Grant Acts did lead to the creation of many new colleges and universities, those institutions ended up being generally small schools whose student were from families that could pay for 4 years of tuition plus room-and-board. In other words, not significantly different than the non-land-grant schools.
What really opened up higher ed to ordinary Americans (or at least the white, male segment of that population) was the Servicemen's Readjustment Act (1944), a.k.a. the G.I. Bill of Rights. Due to that law, in 1945 colleges and universities all over the country were swamped with new freshmen, most of whom could not have otherwise afforded tertiary education.
Incidentally, a side-effect of this was the demise of the hazing of freshmen students by upper-classmen. The incoming older veterans were not about to take that kind of crap from mostly younger students who'd avoided military service via a college deferment, but were widely regarded as draft dodgers. Hazing still lingered for another 20 years or so at many private universities, but was gone from publicly-supported schools after 1945.
S.M. in Milford, MA, writes: I've long wondered why people (especially History textbooks) more commonly use the photograph you used yesterday:
Instead of this one (which I have framed on the wall of my office):
Or this one:
I actually use these three images in my history methods course to illustrate to students how images can be used to convey an interpretation of historical events. The stern image conveys a greater sense of reticence and caution between the two leaders while the other two images suggest that they had an enjoyable conversation.
J.H. in Tulalip, WA, writes: The invasion has begun: "Saskatoon passengers landing in Orlando told they 'entered the country illegally.'"
J.A. in Puerto Armuelles, Panama, writes:
(V) & (Z) respond: You think it's actually necessary to talk about sausage for them to be hungry for a sausage?
P.W. in Tulalip, WA, writes: The Final Words attributed to Socrates remind me of my favorite of Jack Handey's "Deep Thoughts": "When I die, I hope I owe A LOT of people A LOT of money."
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.