Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA MI NV PA WI
Sunday Mailbag
Tomorrow, it will be potential Christmas cards from Donald Trump. If you have a suggestion for a picture that might appear on the front, there's still time.
Politics: The Incoming Trump Administration
D.S. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: "We Could Call It a Kakistocracy" is the title of a chapter of Masha Gessen's book Surviving Autocracy, which I would recommend reading. Gessen goes on to say, "Trump's disdain for excellence is neither a personal quirk nor an anomaly among autocrats present and past. It is logical: They see the work of government as worthy only of mockery, and so they continue to mock it when they have power."
So, it would seem that Trump is making the worst picks he can find in his political landscape on purpose to make government not function—effectively destroying it by decay and undermining legitimacy in the public eye?
D.D. in Hollywood, FL, writes: You wrote, of Pete Hegseth:
We've read the police report, and are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the claims made against him are true. Of course, he has not been convicted, so he could claim we have defamed him by not writing "accused sexual assaulter" instead of "rapist" and he could sue us. Such a lawsuit would have the effect of magnifying the claims against him, and would also bring the question of "rapist or not?" into open court (as opposed to being buried, as is currently the case). These would be positive outcomes, in our view. So, we'll stick with our phrasing.I'm 100% behind your take. Just wish ABC had seen that.
(V) & (Z) respond: We thought for sure there would be many angry e-mails about that paragraph. But not a one.
R.T. in Arlington, TX, writes: After watching Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) make a shallow curtsy to HRH Donald I, it seems past time for the pre-2016 Republican officeholders to concede defeat, acknowledge that they lost control of their party and there is no prospect of taking it back from within. They won't have a home in the Democratic Party either. They were too conservative before Trump came on the scene, did too little to restrain him, and memories run long. The historical precedent is being a royalist Catholic in the Tudor era. You support the Monarch unswervingly in public, worship by your principles in private, accept that no one really trusts you, and watch yourself fade from relevance.
K.F. in Berea, KY, writes: Not long after you posted the item in which you noted that Kimberly Guilfoyle has been nominated as ambassador to Greece, the news broke that Don Jr. and Guilfoyle have split up. You have to wonder if the Greece posting is a nomination to prevent her from releasing skeletons in the closet, or if Daddy Trump will pull back that nomination now.
R.V. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: Donald Trump has one less Circuit Court seat to fill, as Judge James Wynn just rescinded his senior status.
I'm sure the GOP will cry foul, but a judge can decide when he or she takes senior status or retires. The Senate is powerless to force a judge to retire.
J.M. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: While obviously the future is unwritten, I have a feeling that the dominoes in Trump's immigration policies are going to fall as follows:
- The Trump administration rounds up a few thousand people who are in the country illegally, prioritizng people who have had contact with law enforcement, but also not caring too much if generally law abiding folks get caught in the net.
- Trump makes a big show (figuratively... but also maybe literally) of signing an XO to deport these people.
- Fawning news coverage from the right wing media
- Despite a statistically insignificant drop in the number of illegal immigrants in the country, Trump declares immigration "Solved" and everyone just goes along with it.
- There are no supply-chain issues, given the relatively speaking low number of workers affected (not to minimize the life altering difficulties for those who are affected).
Scene.
They will also claim that prices are better, even though they're not, and 60% of the American public will believe it.
M.S. in Alpharetta, GA, writes: I think I figured out why Trump is so in love with tariffs: because real estate is not subject to them. Tariffs apply to goods crossing borders, so it won't impact his personal holdings.
Politics: Extreme Trepidation
C.J. in Corvallis, OR, writes: Although I've appreciated some attempts to find hope and potential reasons to believe that the next four years MAY, COULD, POSSIBLY be less bad than expected, I have no confidence that the Supreme Court, Republican politicians, or the media will act honorably. As a woman nearing 70 years old, I fear that a giant backward leap took place for women, and it isn't getting enough attention. Moreover, the damage could be long-term. What message has this election sent to the next generation? Boys who chant "Your body, our choice!" and thinking it's okay to publically call women c**ts, hos, and b**ches? And girls realizing that no matter how qualified or hard-working you are, even the most vile, unfit man will be perceived as better? It seems that Donald Trump's supporters joined in raping the entire country of all honesty, decency, intelligence, and integrity. And basically, non-voters stood by to let it happen. So-called "Christians" and police/military personnel should be especially ashamed for voting for a RAPIST, FELON, LIAR, RACIST, MISOGYNIST, BIGOT, FASCIST INSURRECTIONIST. But they have no shame or scruples, only hypocrisy. The fact is that these voters ARE totally despicable (the word "deplorable" also fits, but we must not say that because it hurts the MAGAs' fragile feelings, although they felt free to say "F**k Your Feelings"). For voters who thought the economy was bad enough to vote for Trump, did they think any official could call up their grocery stores to demand lower prices? And how is the price of groceries or gas anywhere near reason enough to put half the population in physical, emotional, and probably financial danger? Apparently, expecting people to think rationally and compassionately is called elitist. The many articles about what the Democrats need to change seem akin to blaming the rape victim. So how can we fight back when they are so good at playing the "victims" with phony grievances and double standards? Playing nice or fair isn't working at all.
Even Democratic men don't seem to fully understand or really care about "women's issues." Your piece about Ruben Gallego's sympathy for Latinos who couldn't support their families was one more betrayal of women and seemed like a personal slap in the face. Welcome to a woman's world! No gratitude, respect, or empathy for women who, for the sake of their families, sacrificed their own dignity and accepted the likely humiliation of lower wages than men? Where was the outrage about her lower salary or slower advancement? Apparently, the delicate egos of macho men are more important than that long-standing, still-existing injustice for women. With the help of college scholarships, I worked myself out of childhood poverty and into a professional career but eventually learned that a male colleague, with nearly identical credentials, was paid more. It's no wonder that in a survey circulating on social media that asked women that if they were walking alone in the wilderness whether they would rather encounter a bear or a man, the vast majority chose the bear. Truth, justice, and "the American way" are being replaced by a willfully ignorant, hate-filled, misogynistic, greedy and egotistical male-dominated cult. I know that many women are also cult followers but they, like my sister, are often greatly influenced by husbands or religions that devalue women. Thus the rehabilitation of men seems crucial and changing the narrative in the "culture wars" is as important as policies.
B.H. in Frankfort, IL, writes: I'm 74 years old, and I never thought democracy and our constitution would be threatened the way they are now. How did it happen? From my limited perspective, I see the hand of the Koch family and their ilk using their wealth and influence to overthrow our traditional systems. The Koch family and other billionaires have funded organizations in all 50 states to promote their agenda using means as simple as having paid staffers write letters to the editor, to financing state and national candidates thanks to the Citizens United. They've founded and financed national organizations like The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society that have packed our courts, up to and including The Supreme Court, with ultra-conservative people who share their ideology. The gained control of state legislatures using fairly meager campaign donations and formed the tax-exempt American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to actually write legislation that their legislators passed. They funded The Tea Party movement in 2010, which gave us the Freedom Caucus in the House. They donated to universities like George Mason, and then took over entire departments to promote their agenda. They may not like Donald Trump, but they're glad he's in the White House to dismantle our regulatory agencies and the social safety net, while also cutting their taxes. They now control all three branches of our government (Actually, I should say their government—they did pay for it, after all).
This all happened right under our noses, and was accomplished with what amounts to spare change to these billionaires. If this were a movie plot, no one would believe it. But it did happen. None of our democratic systems could withstand it. The question that comes to me every day is, Where do we go from here? I fear my grandchildren will never experience democracy.
Politics: Four Parties
B.W. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: In "Is The American Century Over?," (V) writes:
Maybe the U.S. needs four parties:
- Works for rich people and hates marginal groups (the current Republicans).
- Works for rich people but likes marginal groups (probably wouldn't do so well).
- Works for ordinary folks but hates marginal groups (not present now).
- Works for ordinary folks but likes marginal groups (the current Democrats).
I doubt I'm alone in the (reluctant) belief that #2 is an increasingly-better fit for the 2020s Democratic Party than #4. Perhaps that's a factor in why they didn't do so well this time around?
#Language about advocating for working and marginalized people has always remained, and I think most Democrats like to believe we embody those priorities.
But they say "all politics is local," and on my street, there's a profound dissonance between public displays of progressivism and low-key (but fervent) acts of NIMBY-ism.
We had two city council candidates, both nominally Democrats. All of the yard signs on my block were for the eventual winner—the "Democrat" who talked about lower property taxes and clearing out the tent encampments of the unhoused.
E.H. in Minneapolis, MN, writes: Longtime listener, first-time caller here. I was tempted to send this to corrections. Let me fix this item from today for you:
Maybe the U.S. needs four parties:
- Works for rich people and hates marginal groups (most Republicans, which is why they do better than #2).
- Works for rich people but likes marginal groups (most Democrats, which is why they don't do so well).
- Works for ordinary folks but hates marginal groups (a tiny handful of Republicans).
- Works for ordinary folks but likes marginal groups (a tiny handful of Democrats).
J.A. in Puerto Armuelles, Panama, writes: Regarding your questioning whether the United States perhaps needs four parties, I would point out that in Europe, far-right parties tend to squarely fall in your third category (works for ordinary people, hates marginal groups).
Parties like Law and Justice (Poland), National Rally (France) and Brothers of Italy (umm... Italy?) embrace populist (and often unsustainable) economic policies while pursuing their anti-minority policies. This is also reflected in how voting shares change when such parties increase their following. Roughly half their votes come from leftist parties, for the most part white, working-class men disillusioned with both their economic lot and the fact they are no longer widely considered to be better than everyone else. A recent example of this Reform UK. As Yougov.co.uk put it, after researching their opinions, "Reform UK voters nevertheless feel that ordinary people do not get their fair share of the nation's wealth (73%)." That's a number you would expect from Labour voters, not Tory ones.
Of course, this combination of policies makes alliances between the right and far right difficult and unstable. It also makes trying to split the difference—as, say, Boris Johnson did—a very difficult row to hoe.
I would suggest that Donald Trump intuitively, if not consciously (because, c'mon), knows this and that is why he campaigned in 2016 on keeping and strengthening Social Security and Medicare. Sure, out of self-interest and to be "loved" by his fellow billionaires he's all for tax cuts for the super-rich, he also understands that the MAGA faithful like their Social Security checks and retirement healthcare.
I would further suggest that this makes the DOGE bros' quest to slash the federal budget an exercise in tilting at windmills. Only 14% of the budget is non-defense discretionary spending (most of the nondiscretionary spending is Social Security and Medicare). Even if they went fully medieval and cut half of that, that's peanuts as far as the "drown the government in the bathtub" crowd is concerned. Longer term, having two constituencies in the Trump/Republican party that have diametrically opposed interests will mean trouble.
D.S. in Upper Arlington, OH, writes: Donald Trump's success was in portraying the Democrats (accurately or otherwise) as #2, not #4.
In fact, #2 is a fair description of the (pre-/non-Mises) Libertarians, though they're actually laissez-faire and don't care for the corporate welfare and crony capitalism that Republicans use to actively redistribute wealth to the rich. The Libertarian Party indeed does not do very well.
B.C. in Walpole, ME:, writes: (V), in his piece on the "American Century, wrote:
In reality, many Republicans don't give a hoot about ordinary folks. What they care about, above everything else, is giving rich people more money and more power. But that is a tough sell, so the GOP has discovered that playing to the voters' prejudices about gays, transpeople, minorities, immigrants, and even women is popular. In contrast, the Democrats really do care about ordinary folks (and have since FDR), but they don't play to people's prejudices. So people have a choice: vote for a party that is bad for you personally but enforces your prejudices, or vote for a party that is good for you personally but condemns your prejudices as immoral.(Z) the historian will have to weigh in, but it seems to me that (V) has described the post-Civil War South down to today: The Democrats to the 1970s, and the Republicans since the '70s, manipulated racial prejudice to maintain power which they then used to benefit the rich and well-off. That occurred at the local, state, and national level. And the effects have been detrimental for everyone in the society.
(Z) responds: Not sure why you'd cut it off at the Civil War. The wealthy white men who have run the American South have been using this playbook since the mid-1600s. See Edmund S. Morgan's American Slavery, American Freedom for more on this point.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: G.B. in Plymouth asks "Do Republicans no longer even care about the well-being of their own constituents?"
The short answer is "No" but there is a hierarchy of well-beings they care about (and it doesn't really have anything to do with the borders of the constituency). My senator, Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), demonstrated this particularly well in her (staff's) response to a note I sent asking for the Senator to support extending a COVID-era program to provide extra case management to help veterans experiencing homelessness get into regular housing. She said she'd love to help but it's the deficit that keeps her up at night, even though this particular program was pretty small in the grand scheme of things.
From this, we can discern the hierarchy. At the top is Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and all the other billionaires and huge companies that keep getting tax cuts. Next is populations that have enough cachet that it is still politically beneficial to pay lip service to caring about them (in this case, veterans, but this would also probably include active-duty military personnel). At the bottom is everyone else for whom they can't even be bothered to give even a single sh**.
Politics: Public Health
S.S. in Athens, OH, writes: In your response to D.A. in Long Beach, you mentioned some of the niches that hospital emergency rooms fill. As it happens, I had to visit one a day ago. Based on my symptoms, the ER physician ordered both a brain CT scan and a brain MRI. (Good news: My brain is still there!) Interestingly, while I went directly from the ER triage room to get the CT scan, I had to be admitted as a patient to the hospital before I could receive an MRI scan. This was apparently a requirement of the hospital's insurance policy. My only guess is that this is because of the possibility of Bad Things happening if you have some ferromagnetic metal on you when you get an MRI scan; there is no comparable hazard with CT (apart from the inevitable X-ray dose). In my case, the only bad thing that happened in the MRI was that I was only halfway through "Bad, Bad Leroy Brown" on my headphones when the scan was over.
J.G. in Farmington, CT, writes: I'm dismayed by "people" cheering an assassination. I put people in quotes, because every article on the public reaction to the crime has pointed to an outcry on social media, which is, quite frankly, the least accurate measurement of public opinion. I care not a whit about what some dumbass on TikTok or eX-Twitter thinks about anything, much less who's retweeting or liking whatever, whether they're real people, bots, alts, or organizations (and no one can tell one from the other). In addition, the social media platforms' ordering algorithms goose controversial content to elevate engagement, and is susceptible to manipulation. You or anyone else have yet to prove to me that social media engagement drives or is reflective of public sentiment, and as such I react to these kinds of articles and posts the same way I react to someone who says "I watched a YouTube video about..." when discussing a complex subject—eye-rolling dismissal.
Yes, there's an outcry on social media, from the tiny portion of the general public who are the extremely online (true story: Something like 90% of ex-Twitter posts are made by the same 10% of users! Get off your phone!). This is an unrepresentative, unhappy, rabble-rousing demographic choosing to engage and being promoted by a cold-blooded large-cap corporation in search of advertising revenue.
For my next rant, I'll defend private health insurance, but I'm going to wait a bit.
B.C. in Soldotna, AK, writes: The murder of the United Healthcare CEO is a good example of how Americans, left and right, aren't actually interested in solving real-world problems as much as they are interested in feeling like they are solving a problem. In 2023, UHC made roughly $22 billion in profit off of roughly 50 million members.
$22 billion is an incomprehensibly large number for our monkey brains, and that lets politicians like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) claim that the problem with American healthcare is the greedy healthcare companies and their "billions" of dollars in profit. However, $22,000,000,000/50,000,000 is $440. That's right: United Healthcare makes only $440 of profit per person per year. Meanwhile, the average cost of a single colonoscopy is roughly $2,500.
The annual cost to the federal government for healthcare—both Medicaid and Medicare—in 2023 was $1.65 trillion, or $1,650,000,000,000. If UHC ran as a not-for-profit and returned all their profits to their members, they wouldn't get enough value ($440) to cover almost anything. I am a physical therapist, and that amount would cover about a single 1-hour session with me. If you had something major like a stroke, you might need 20-50 sessions with me to get back to being reasonably functional.
I'm not defending UHC or the American system—both have major flaws. My point is that the magnitude of the problem has nothing to do with greedy healthcare CEOs. If we removed all profit from the health insurance market, the average person is still screwed.
To make it worse, every time any well-meaning politician has tried to change our system, they lose. "Hillarycare" helped hand the Republicans control of Congress for the first time in a generation. "Obamacare" gave congressional Democrats a "shellacking" in the midterms. In the primaries for the 2020 elections, Kamala Harris proposed a version of "Medicare for All," and she lost quickly. Fast forward: Trump wins a second election after saying he has a "concept of a plan," after almost repealing the Affordable Care Act during his first term, losing by one McCain-sized vote in the Senate.
Americans actually have no interest in improving our healthcare system. They say they do, but actions speak louder than words. All the basic arithmetic I proposed earlier is easily found with a Google search, but it's honestly more satisfying for the average voter to believe Obama is going to put grandma in front of a death panel or that Luigi Mangione is our modern-day Robin Hood.
I think that we have both the government and the healthcare system we deserve as voters, which makes me sad.
M.M. in Plano, TX, writes: Luigi Mangione comes from a rich family that boasts some physicians and owns a hospital. He has degrees from Ivy League universities. He was in a position to do something positive about health insurance, like start a private sector, non-profit, client-owned health insurance cooperative. Such an institution, limited to the working people of his home state, could have set a model for alternatives to government single-payer or to continued gouging by profit-oriented companies. Mangione would have been a hero, not a violent felon.
J.M. in Arvada, CO, writes: In "Americans Want Socialized Medicine," the second of four reasons you were confounded by the GOP was:
Per the terms of federal law, people must be treated for emergency conditions, regardless of ability to pay. Is it not better to have folks paying into the system, at least some? And, for that matter, to be preemptively treating emergent concerns, so as to prevent them from becoming emergencies (and, thus, much more expensive)?This reminded me of something my father dealt with in the 90's. He made a career in medical financial administration, the second half of which was helping low-cost rural health care clinics across the western U.S. Of course the demographics of patients at low-cost rural health care in the western U.S. is strongly Latino, and not all of them legal. The clinic he was working for, at the time, hosted a visit of the local Representative for the district, who was a Republican. At some point the discussion got around to a then-recent change made by Congress which, once again, reduced health care coverage for that demographic. When the Representative asked my father what he thought of the change, my father's response was essentially "You've just guaranteed that the only health care coverage these people will get will be the most expensive coverage possible, because they won't come in to see a doctor until it's an emergency. This will increase costs and cause unnecessary suffering." My father said that the Representative was a bit taken aback by the response and moved on to another subject. I guess the GOP hasn't learned anything in 30 years.
M.M. in San Jose, CA, writes: In "People Are Cheering the Murder of a Health Care Executive," you mention the possibility of lowering the age for Medicare. I would like to point out that this is a lot cheaper than lowering the age at which one can collect Social Security. That's because health care costs rise with age. Something like 25% of all Medicare claims occur at the end of life. I have experienced this twice, as my in-laws died in their 80s. I did their taxes and saw the claims, the amount Medicare paid, and the amount paid out of pocket. Dying is expensive. So while delaying the retirement age would save the Social Security agency a great deal of money, moving back the Medicare age would save very little (and would increase the cost of other forms of health care, as they treated older patients). On the other hand, lowering the Medicare age would not increase costs much, and would lower the cost of health care. Even this small increase in Medicare budget could be covered through increased contributions, since there would be lower costs for regular health insurance. Existing fees through Part B could also be used to cover the difference. So, good idea. You get my vote!
Politics: Americans Abroad
M.W. in Ashland, OR, writes: M.W. in Huntington asked a question about my actual area of expertise, and I liked your answer, but feel it can be expanded upon. I am a tax professional of over 25 years in the business and for the last dozen years 90+% of my clients are Americans overseas.
Anyway, yes, as part of our American Exceptionalism, Americans are taxed on their worldwide income no matter where they live. For most people, it's not truly double taxation but double reporting. U.S. citizens resident in other countries will file a tax return in their resident country and a U.S. tax return. Work income can be excluded up to $120K per year (for 2023) and/or a credit for taxes paid to the resident country can be applied against the U.S. tax on the same income. Some countries, mostly oil nations in the Middle East, have no income tax. Americans working in those countries are filing just a U.S. tax return and they are not taxed on their first $120K of income. I will say that the great majority of my clients have a zero result on their U.S. tax return. So they have just the compliance cost of hiring me to tell the IRS "ZERO!"
The curious thing for me is that Donald Trump's tax cut actually did result in more double taxation than existed before. The same provisions that were included so big multinationals could "repatriate" the earnings that were being held in their foreign subsidiaries also applied to very ordinary people who set up small corporations for consulting and professional businesses. It was a bit of a shock to us in the business and a much bigger shock to our clients who were suddenly being taxed on money they'd left sitting in their corporation as retained earnings. If Trump really wants to eliminate double taxation, this would be a great place to start.
All Politics Is Local
C.J. in Lowell, MA, writes: I wanted to offer a clarification readers might find interesting regarding the number of female Governors Massachusetts has had. The chart you included in the Q&A credits the state with two women governors. However, if the idea is to determine how often voters have actually elected a woman, technically it's only once: the most recent election, in 2022, which gave us current Governor Maura Healey (also, I believe, the nation's co-first lesbian governor, along with the current Governor of Oregon).
The other woman Massachusetts is probably credited with is Lt. Governor Jane Swift, who acted as Governor for the balance of Paul Cellucci's term when he resigned to become Ambassador to Canada (BTW, I think I missed the origins of what sounds like an inside joke behind why you are always dumping on that country). However, per our state Constitution, if the Governorship is vacant, or even if the Governor is out of state, the Lt. Governor remains "Her Honor, the Lieutenant Governor, Acting Governor" and for that matter, LGs Evelyn Murphy, Kerry Healey, and Kim Driscoll have so acted temporarily, as have other women further down the line of succession if everyone ahead of them were simultaneously absent from the Commonwealth. Remember, Massachusetts has the oldest constitution still in force in the world, written in 1783 when it was assumed that being out of state meant not being able to easily communicate.
Prior to 2022, a woman had been a major party nominee for governor thrice: Democrat Shannon O'Brien in 2002, Republican Kerry Healey in 2006, and Democrat Martha Coakley in 2014. All three were, at the time of their nominations, incumbents in statewide elected offices (treasurer, lieutenant governor, and attorney general, respectively). Each race had other reasons the other nominee won, none of them having to do with gender, as far as I can tell. As it is, though, Maura Healey is so far the only woman to be elevated to the rank and style of "Her Excellency, the Governor of the Commonwealth."
M.S. in Canton, NY, writes: You wrote: "However, there is a pretty deep crazypants element in the Arizona Republican Party, as expressed in the careers of Joe Arpaio, Kelli Ward, Jake Hoffman and others."
It's been pointed out that you can't spell "CRAZY" without "R-AZ."
History Matters
S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: I was a little surprised that, in your answer to the question from J.B. in Bend on the topic of electoral upsets, that you didn't mention the election of 1936, which Literary Digest magazine famously mis-predicted, by a staggering margin, for Governor Alfred Landon (R-KS), leading the magazine to fold (heh) within 18 months. Then again, while this is remembered as an example of egregiously bad polling methodology, I don't know how big a surprise the election outcome was among the general public, as compared to Literary Digest readers and management.
(V) & (Z) respond: We have never seen any evidence that anyone took seriously the possibility that the popular FDR, he of the New Deal, would lose the election.
L.S. in Greensboro, NC: It's unsurprising that R.H. in Anchorage had not heard of the Pestigo fire. Growing up in Wisconsin, all schoolchildren were taught about this fire, along with the fact that it was completely overshadowed in the media by another fire, which was far less damaging in terms of area burned and lives lost, but which happened on the exact same day, namely the Great Chicago Fire.
(V) & (Z) respond: It's a centuries-old story; those prima donnas in Chicago laboring to steal glory that rightly belongs to folks in Wisconsin.
It's Not Rocket Science... Except When It Is, Part II
W.P. in West Brookfield, MA, writes: I have been enjoying the discussion of influential American scientists, and I wanted to add some individuals to that discussion that I do not believe anyone has mentioned.
Rocket scientists Robert Goddard and Wernher von Braun practically invented rockets capable of space travel. This not only made space exploration possible, but also the development of long-range missiles, which drastically changed warfare. Goddard (who a lot of people have never heard of) was the first to build and fly liquid-fueled rockets, and German scientists like Von Braun built off of Goddard's work to create the first ballistic missiles. I think it is probable that were it not for Von Braun, we would not have reached the moon nearly as quickly as we did.
Before there were transistors, there were vacuum tubes; Lee De Forest made the first practical vacuum tubes that could be used in radio electronics, and Edwin Howard Armstrong developed radio electronics much further, including inventing FM radio. Of course, radio became the first electronic mass media, and changed life all over the United States and the world.
R.G. in Baltimore, MD, writes: Thomas Hunt Morgan. He and his coworkers confirmed and extended Gregor Mendel's findings about the mechanism of inheritance, making possible two others on your list.
And here's a long shot, so to speak: Rod Serling, originator of the TV show The Twilight Zone. I mention Serling not because of any direct impact of TTZ (although it is, in my opinion, one of the finest TV shows ever made), but rather because it showed us we could use our imagination to wonder about things and then use our technology and intelligence to investigate those things.
A.J. in Palmer, MA, writes: While I can understand two people—(V) and (Z)—not thinking of him in an off-the-top-of-the-head list of greatest American scientists, I'll be shocked if no reader has mentioned Linus Pauling yet. His greatness is not easy to summarize in a sentence, which (V) and (Z) proved can be done for most of the scientists in their top ten list, and maybe that is why Pauling is easy to forget.
Pauling's first important work may have been studying crystal structures using x-rays. After obtaining PhDs in physical chemistry and mathematics, Pauling began studying quantum mechanics—a physics discipline—and how it can apply to the electronic structures of atoms and molecules, making him one of the first quantum chemists. He soon devised "Pauling's rules" in 1929, which could predict the crystal structures of ionic compounds. In 1932, he published perhaps his most important work, illuminating how atoms formed compounds with valence bonding and hybridized atomic orbitals. Also that year, he devised the idea of electronegativity, which helps predict chemical reactivity and types of atomic bonds. In 1939, he published The Nature of the Chemical Bond, and the Structure of Molecules and Crystals, his most influential work and the most influential chemistry text of the twentieth century. He made all these fundamental contributions, and more that I have not discussed, before turning 40.
But his work at the cutting edge was far from over. He increasingly turned toward chemistry in biology, and one of his early accomplishments was demonstrating that the structure of hemoglobin changes after gaining or losing molecular oxygen. He went on to show that hemoglobin is arranged in a helical pattern. In 1949, with Harvey Itano and S.J. Singer, he founded the field of molecular genetics when they showed a causal link between misfolded hemoglobin and sickle cell disease, as well as a genetic link in determining hemoglobin's physical properties.
With Herman Branson and Robert Corey, Pauling established the importance of the alpha helix and beta sheet in protein structures. Their work progressed to Pauling and Corey's proposal of a triple helix for DNA, which was soon disproven by Watson and Crick in 1953. I remember my chemistry professor lamenting that Pauling would have cracked DNA first if he had seen Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins' work on DNA structure, from which Watson and Crick had benefited. However, my professor took solace in the fact that the work on DNA would not have been possible without Pauling's voluminous earlier breakthroughs in chemical structures and bonding.
In 1954, Pauling won the Nobel Prize in chemistry. He would also win the 1962 Nobel Peace Prize for his campaign, beginning in 1946, against nuclear weapon testing and proliferation. He is the only person to win two Nobel Prizes as an individual instead of as part of a group, though he believed his wife, Ava Helen Miller, was just as important to his campaign and should have shared the prize with him. The last 30 years of his research focused mostly on his spheron model of the atomic nucleus.
Pauling's achievements in several disciplines are so broad and fundamental that many authoritative lists of greatest scientists—not just American scientists—include him. The fact that it is impossible to take college chemistry without constantly grappling with his direct work, much less the trove of research his work inspired, makes it all the more surprising that so many college graduates might discount or forget about him. But again, given how my long synopsis could even be considered deficient, his work is hard to distill into one sentence. Here is the best I can do: Linus Pauling was the greatest chemist of all time.
(V) & (Z) respond: We considered him, and knocked him out of the Top 10, at least in part, because of the Robert F. Kennedy Jr.-style medical quackery Pauling indulged in during the last decades of his life.
B.J. in Arlington, MA, writes: I will guess that one of the American scientists you chose not to include due to their fame exceeding their contributions is Carl Sagan.
I consider him to be among the wisest people I know of. His intellectual and moral contributions to society are immense, and I believe his fame is richly deserved. I am not qualified to evaluate his scientific contributions, though I've never heard very much about them. Thus I am not disagreeing with (my guess about) your decision, but I still felt he warranted my writing in about him.
Incidentally, my wife and I named our first child Sagan. We specifically named him in honor of the values expressed in Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" essay: "Be kinder to each other, and protect the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."
B.B. in St. Louis, MO, writes: I would like to add the names of George Gamow and Isaac Asimov to your list of America's greatest scientists. They belong not only for their contributions to the scientific body of knowledge (Asimov's studies in resublimated thiotimoline are literally timeless), but more importantly for the work they did popularizing science. Anyone who has not read Gamow's Mr. Tompkins books should do so, especially out loud to small children to whom you are trying to explain relativity and quantum mechanics.
T.L. in West Orange, NJ, writes: I'd put in a plug for Richard Feynman—a tremendous number of contributions to modern physics, and also the "maverick" member of the Rogers Commission who made sure that the full truth of the Challenger disaster came to light.
M.W. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, writes: I'm unconvinced that Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain (even Hopper) really outrank Claude Shannon. Richard Hamming rates an honorable mention, but is overshadowed by Shannon.
Saving Daylight Savings
R.H. in Corning, NY, writes: P.R. in Arvada wrote: "My gift to the United States would be the gift of Standard Time. Imagine a world where the clocks never change, and we embrace the simplicity of Standard Time year-round. This gift to the U.S. would bring numerous benefits..."
No thanks! This article shows the impact that policy would have on Portland, OR (and cities at similar latitudes). On permanent Standard Time, most of May, June and July would have sunrises prior to 5:00 a.m. Sunsets would be before 8:00 p.m., significantly impacting the already limited outdoor spring/summer sports seasons. Keeping permanent Daylight Saving Time is not much better, with December sunrises as late as 8:30 a.m. I'll continue to advocate for the twice-yearly time changes.
E.D. in Saddle Brook, NJ, writes: Are we sure that "P.R. in Arvada" is not really a Canadian saboteur? There are few things that are more depressing than Standard Time. Standard Time may have made sense with longer sleep schedules before artificial lighting, but in modern life, all it does is shift daylight from peak active hours to less useful hours of the day. We spend more of our awake hours without the sun, which is awful for our mental health. And before anyone dares to say "but the kids going to school need the sun!," I had to walk to bus stop in the dark, even in Standard Time. All Standard Time accomplished during my school days was ensuring I didn't get any meaningful amount of sunlight on both ends of the school day.
States are allowed to stay in Standard Time year round if they wish. Only permanent Daylight Saving Time requires federal action. If it was a good idea, more states would choose permanent Standard Time.
Winter is always full of the complaint "I hate Daylight Saving Time—I hate how early it gets dark." We keep changing our clocks because a huge chunk of people hate Standard Time but think they hate Daylight Saving Time, while another large chunk hates any sort of change and complains bitterly about the idea of changing anything.
(V) & (Z) respond: We assume everyone is a potential Canadian saboteur. That's why we're still alive.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I just read that the Abomination now wants to get rid of Daylight Savings Time. Dude should have led with that during the election! He might have won that mandate he fantasizes about. Hell, I might have been willing to chuck democracy to get rid of moving the clocks back and forth!
When an "L" Is a "W"
K.S. in Lockport, NY, writes: It's great to read you've taken on another regular contributor. I'm sure it will help ease the load for (V) and (Z) and it will be good to hear from another perspective.
I was especially pleased to hear (L)'s recognition of Belva Lockwood. Lockwood has been a hero of mine since 1969, when Dr. A. Marie Murphy, my American History teacher at Lockport High School, told us of this amazing women who was a presidential candidate before women had the right to vote nationwide. It's possible that Murphy mentioned her because Lockwood grew up only a few miles from our school. On the other hand, Murphy was a champion of unrecognized heroes and I assume that (L) was fortunate enough somewhere along the way to have had a similar teacher, who presented history beyond the "wealthy white males" that was standard history curriculum at the time.
I was disappointed that Lockwood's story was not publicized during either of the campaigns of the two recent female presidential nominees. So I'd recommend that (L) consider that as one of her upcoming topics.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I just came across the wonderful and exciting news that (L) (a.k.a. A.R. in Los Angeles) is becoming a regular contributor to the site. From hints given out, I have had my fingers crossed that this was in the cards. (L) is both an insightful and beautiful writer. There have been many an instance where I secretly wished she would address a certain matter. Her letters as A.R. of Los Angeles are not only must reads, but first reads for me. As (V) and (Z) have done so many times, (L) has talked me "off the ledge" with her insight. I can't express enough what a fantastic move this will be for the site, and definitely can see the synergy she will bring. Plus, I have a nagging suspicion that her expertise will be in very high demand.
As a more personal note, I have found myself in a state of profound shell shock since the election—not only the reelection of the Abomination. but also the loss of my beloved Washington Post (there will be no money for Quislings or the Vichy). I have transferred my morning routine to the AP but after living with someone for thirty years, it's hard to get used to the habits of someone new instantaneously. If I had to give an image to how I feel, it would have to be the iconic image of "the weeping Frenchman" (Jerome Barzetti) as the Free Forces of France left Marseilles ahead of the occupying Nazis' forces:
The few short letters I have grinded out of late were true torture to write. My spirit is weak and my faith has been sorely tested. My first instinct on election night was to hunker down and fade away into the woodwork. The fact that I'm able to write this, just barely a month later, and due in no small part to (V) and (Z), shows me that my usual fire of defiance has not been quite extinguished. With the addition of (L) as a contributor to my favorite site, I'm sure my return to normal will be that much sooner.
Again, congratulations to all!
D.J.M. in Salmon Arm, BC, Canada, writes: When you asked for things we are thankful for, I was going to write and say "A.R. in Los Angeles for the insightful posts on legal issues". I didn't, but it's obvious you got the message. I look forward to reading her future perspectives. I suppose this also means when (V) or (Z) stumble, we can always say "go to (L)."
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: Welcome aboard, (L). The readers are glad to have your expertise. I assume that HR has already warned you about EV's Staff Mathematician.
Who Let the Dogs In?, Part II
D.M. in McLean, VA, writes: You answered a question about how staff dachshunds Otto and Flash are different, despite being the same breed. I can say from experience that the relationship can be even closer than that, and yet you can still end up with major personality differences. I have two American Cocker Spaniels from the same litter, one of which had a photo on your site a couple of years ago. Even being both males, these two couldn't be more different in terms of behavior, both good and bad. They have never been apart more than a couple of weeks in their 8 years of life, yet developed completely unique responses to different stimuli.
M.S. in Roseville, MN, writes: I smiled when I read about The Night Dachshund's determination to get at the hardtack.
I'm a smidge more Swedish than German, and at Christmas hardtack is often on my plate, along with lingonberry sauce, pickled beets, pickled herring, and Jarlsberg cheese.
My two dogs LOVE the hardtack, which makes me laugh. Such a functional and austere food.
One dog, Percy, is a big ol' rescue hound from Alabama (named after Percy Sledge, from the same state). I say he's the only Southern gentleman I know who understands the many meanings of "Uff Da!" KarmaLa is a Swedish Vallhund (think Corgi-sized wolf), so she understands "Uff Da!" from her breed's roots in the Viking days.
Neither ever says NO to some of that crunchy dry deliciousness. They'd be right in there with The Night Dachshund, getting at the good stuff.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: Of course Flash is food obsessed! You literally typed "Don't feed the dachshunds" six times in a single post. What's a dog to do?
Also, a friend once came home to find her border collie on top of the refrigerator where the loaf of bread was kept and was being consumed, in situ.
S.S.L. in Battle Creek, MI, writes: Thanks to everyone for all the great input. Early days yet, but so far, I couldn't have asked for a better roommate. Welcome home to Madam Ailehphelia "Aileh" the dog:
(V) & (Z) respond: The staff dachshunds approve of your choosing a dog with a proud, German lineage. None of this French or English nonsense.
Gallimaufry
G.R. in Tarzana, CA, writes: You wrote: "It is quite helpful to have a reader base that is way above average when it comes to education and expertise."
Just wanted to let you know that I'm doing my best to help you keep your reader base closer to average.
(V) & (Z) respond: Many's the time we've said: "Ah, a message from G.R. in Tarzana has just arrived. Prepare to feel superior."
S.S. in Athens, OH, writes: You wrote: "...that they don't do a very good job of evaluating whether radical change (or ANY positive change) is likely to happen if they [vote for X] or [give money to Y] or [cheer for Z]."
Doesn't everyone always cheer for (Z)?
(V) & (Z) respond: If they're smart, they do.
P.M. in Edenton, NC, writes: Did you guys forget this great nugget as to who actually owns the most land in the U.S.?
S.G. in Newark, NJ, writes: Despite the risks, I am working on a project with a scholar in Canada. We recently exchanged e-mails about setting up a meeting in mid-January. Being a compassionate sort, I felt compelled to give my collaborator fair warning: "Be careful. You may be inundated by Americans on January 21."
My Canadian colleague replied: "According to your incoming leader, Canada is to become the 51st state, so perhaps Americans will not be able to escape here."
A chilling thought. If incoming reverses the outcome of the War of 1812, what war might be next?
(V) & (Z) respond: The Civil War seems an obvious answer.
A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: Maybe we should let a few of the Canucks in. This one could put some teeth into a few Democratic Congress critters. Maybe shove some Canadian steel up a few congressional spines:
Final Words
B.A. in Oskaloosa, KS, writes: I just finished reading Jon Meacham's Franklin and Winston: An Intimate Portrait of an Epic Friendship. I found it particularly inspiring and just right to bring perspective to the importance of human relationships. I was also inspired by the November 16 Q&A. With each day, I feel calmer and am ready for whatever comes. So, I thought it might be a good time to remember words from Franklin and Winston. From Churchill's final major address in the House of Commons:
The day may dawn when fair play, love for one's fellow men, respect for justice and freedom, will enable tormented generations to march forth serene and triumphant from hideous epoch in which we have to dwell.From Roosevelt's speech that he was writing before his death:Today, science has brought all the different quarters of the globe so close together that it is impossible to isolate them one from another.and...Today we are faced with the pre-eminent fact that, if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships - the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together and work together in the same world, in peace.and, finally...The only limit on our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers