Dem
47
GOP
53
Still working on the Friday headline theme? All we can say is: Put a cork in it.
J.W. in Indianapolis, IN, asks: Has any other person ever done this much damage to the global economy before? Has anyone ever even had the ability to do so if they wanted to?
(V) & (Z) answer: As is implicit in the second part of your question, the nature of the economy has changed a lot over the years, such that it would be hard to find too many parallels in U.S. history. That said, we'll give you two names.
The first name is Jay Cooke, the banker, financier and investor who was the principal of the major New York firm Jay Cooke & Co. As owner and leader of that firm, he made some risky choices in a bad economic environment for risky choices. And the collapse of the firm was the linchpin in the sequence of events that led to the Panic of 1873, which is generally regarded as the worst economic downturn of the nineteenth century.
The second name is George W. Bush. First, he and his administration missed the intelligence that might have prevented the 9/11 attacks, and the ensuing economic disruptions they caused. Second, as Bastiat's Window reminds us, wars are bad for national economies, even if they seem to be good. Bush launched two wars that stretched on for years and years, and racked up a price tag in the trillions. Third, that administration's fetish for deregulation laid the groundwork for the Great Recession.
M.S. in Houston, TX, asks: So, the markets plunged badly over a three-day span, and then bounced more than halfway back within about 15 hours, and that was reflected in my own investment portfolio. And knowing the kind of felonious schmuck Trump is, I can't help but wonder if he didn't have some anonymous agent sell a large quantity of his own stocks before the first announcement, and then buy then back just before making the second announcement. How likely does that sound to you guys?
(V) & (Z) answer: We mentioned this on Friday, after you sent this question in, but it was the most common question we got this week, so it's worth addressing here. The only part of your theory that we seriously doubt is that Trump bought and sold stocks in his own name. First, his money is largely tied up in non-stock things, like real estate. Second, that would leave just a bit too much of a paper trail.
However, Trump has most certainly found ways to use wealthy friends to line his own pockets, whether through campaign/PAC donations, or through the purchase of $TRUMP crypto, or through the purchase of condos in Trump Tower at curiously high prices, etc. So, it strikes us as entirely possible that there was some stock-market manipulation here for the direct benefit of Trump's cronies, leading to indirect benefits for Trump himself.
There's no clear evidence this happened, mind you, other than Occam's Razor—it's a simpler, cleaner explanation than the one being offered by the administration. Note also that we would not believe this of any other president, Democratic or Republican, but Trump long ago gave up the benefit of the doubt.
A.S. in Fairfax, VA, asks: Donald Trump tweeted: "this is a great time to buy" just hours before his announcement that made the market jump. Anyone who bought right then made out like a bandit.
People are screaming "insider trading," but will the accused say it couldn't be insider trading because it was public information that it "was a good time to buy"?(V) & (Z) answer: "This is a great time to buy," especially coming from the mouth of a politician, is a VERY different piece of information from "I am about to suspend the tariffs for 90 days." Anyone who went before a judge and tried to argue otherwise should be laughed right out of the courtroom.
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: One of my coworkers is a hard-core MAGA activist and he says the White House's tariff strategy will be successful. He said that initially imposing tariffs on almost all countries is frightening them into negotiating more favorable trade relationships to the United States, and keeping high tariffs on China will isolate them economically and politically. He also says if the tariffs cause enough economic hardship, like millions of Chinese people starving, they will revolt against their government.
This sounds like pure fantasy to me. China produces trillions of inexpensive exports each year and they will be in high demand even without the U.S. Sanctions on Iran and Russia have caused economic hardship for Iranians and Russians, but they have shown no signs of revolting against their leaders. In fact, the Chinese Communist Party is so ruthless they have sent dissidents to labor camps and even massacred their own citizens.
Do you think the tariffs will ultimately work to beat China in a trade war?(V) & (Z) answer: It sounds like pure fantasy to us, too. By virtue of the fact that China controls so much of the world's manufacturing, not to mention so much of the world's raw materials (especially rare earths), they have a strong hand to play. That hand is made even stronger, at least when it comes to trade, by the fact that Xi Jinping has, in effect, dictatorial power, and need not worry about congresses and supreme courts and midterm elections in November 2026.
Your MAGA friend is just drinking the Kool-Aid. And it's Kool-Aid that was not even prepared by the White House, it's the handiwork of Fox and Newsmax. Any doubts we had that the administration had no real plan were dispelled when we heard interviews with various key players in Trump administration economic policy, and they all had different (and often bizarre) ideas about how the tariffs will work. Governance 101 teaches that when you implement a major new policy initiative, you make sure that everyone in the administration understands exactly what the plan is, why it's being implemented, and how they should answer the two dozen most obvious questions they are going to get from reporters and others. That people like Peter Navarro, Scott Bessent, and Howard Lutnick were all freestyling tells us there's no real plan here, which is why the right-wing media had to fill in the gaps with talk of companies falling to their knees, and the Chinese people rebelling against the Xi administration.
A.Q. in Ithaca, NY, asks: What do you think about the possibility that the purpose of Donald Trump's tariffs is to extort countries to pay him personally, i.e., a grift (or a hostage situation)? The main reason that I wonder about that is that the Supreme Court has essentially given Trump extreme powers. Couldn't he also accept "contributions" to get into, or stay out of, a war? What are the guardrails against this? Certainly not the Justice Department or the courts.
(V) & (Z) answer: We are willing to believe that Trump is up to no good, but this would be hard to believe, even for him. There's too much risk of some foreign leader (or some foreign leader's underling) blowing the whistle, we think. If Trump really is on the take here, stock market manipulation looks like the safer play.
And the guardrail against this is the Constitution's emoluments clause, which forbids presidents from taking ANY gifts, and which is supposed to be enforced by Congress, through impeachment and potential removal from office. One cannot be optimistic that THIS Congress would enforce the emoluments clause (which is in the Constitution, and so supersedes any Supreme Court rulings about immunity from prosecution). However, if the leader of an ally—say, Emmanuel Macron in France—came out and revealed that Trump offered to cancel the tariffs in exchange for $1 billion paid to him or to his businesses, Congress might be forced to act. That would be even more true if Macron had some sort of audio evidence.
R.S. in Tonawanda, NY, asks: Is there any scenario under which Donald Trump's trade war could work to the benefit of... drumroll... Russia?
(V) & (Z) answer: Certainly. First, anything that disrupts the U.S. and its economy is good news to Vladimir Putin, broadly because he hates the U.S., and specifically because the U.S. is propping up Ukraine. Second, if nations are unable to trade profitably with the U.S., they will look elsewhere, and elsewhere could well include Russia, sanctions or no.
J.O. in Raleigh, NC, asks: With all the tariffs being threatened, applied, and un-applied, it got me to thinking: In the modern era, how are tariffs collected anyway? I have read too many novels set in pre-electric times. Could all the damage being done to the federal government impede their ability to collect the tariffs? That would fit right in with Trump's carnival of cruelty, greed, and incompetence.
(V) & (Z) answer: When a shipment arrives in the U.S., the importer receiving the goods has to file paperwork declaring them, including both what's in the shipment, and how much is being paid for it. It's generally up to the importer to pay the duties to the federal government, and then they generally pass the costs on to their customers. The folks delivering the cargo also file a manifest, so anyone who might try to cheat is at risk of being caught if the shipping and receiving manifests don't agree. All of this is electronic these days, of course, so a computer can do the comparison between manifests in a manner of seconds and identify question areas.
It is not likely that the work of DOGE will interfere too much with the collection of duties, because that job does not require all that much human labor. However, the general incompetence of the Trump administration could be a problem. Yesterday, the government spent 12 hours during which it was unable to process shipping paperwork because it had not set up its software to properly account for the current version of tariff policy.
It's worth noting that this screw-up is not dissimilar from the disastrous launch of the Obamacare portals. Though the Obama administration was considerably more competent, the lesson is the same in both cases: You cannot implement sweeping changes at the drop of a hat. You have to go slowly, start small, and work out the bugs BEFORE you go big.
D.H. in Portland, OR, asks: I know that boycotting specific companies is a time-honored tradition for both left and right, but how would blue states use their economic might to punish the red states for getting us into this mess? We make some good whiskey in Oregon, so I can switch to that, but how else could we join Canada in getting our message across the only way the right-wingers seem to get it?
(V) & (Z) answer: To start, if you want to punish red states (keeping in mind that even the reddest state has many blue voters), you should not travel there. Don't give them your hotel, food, gas, shopping and other dollars.
Beyond that, there are already many lists of companies based in red states that you can boycott, if you wish. For example, The Daily Kos has a fairly substantive list of red-state companies and products.
T.M. in Downers Grove, IL, asks: The administration claims illegal border crossings are down 94% under Trump. Could you comment on the validity of this figure?
(V) & (Z) answer: Like nearly everything that comes out of the Trump White House, there's some truth here, and some spin, and some outright dishonesty.
The truth is that border crossings are indeed down.
The spin is that border crossings ebb and flow, such that taking one week out of context is not representative, just like taking one minute out of context is not representative. You need at least a month's worth of data, if not a year's worth, to make meaningful comparisons. Trump's harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric undoubtedly had SOME impact, but one week's worth of data most certainly does not tell us how much.
The lie comes in two parts. First, for the Biden number, Trump's team used a whole week's worth of encounters (20,086, or 2,869 per day). For the Trump number, Trump's team used a single day's worth of encounters (1,041, or 7,287 over the course of the week). That's a 60% drop, which is still a lot, but is not a 94% drop. Further, that 60% is due, in sizable part, to the fact that the Biden administration allowed people to apply for asylum at ports of entry, while the Trump administration canceled that on Day One. Those applicants counted as "encounters" for the Biden administration, even though the individuals were not "illegal." For the current administration to obscure that fact is a very clear lie of omission.
Roughly 55% of the encounters at ports, during the Biden week, were people legally requesting asylum. So, the actual drop in crossings by undocumented immigrants, between Biden Week 208 and Trump Week 1 was something like 20%. That's something, but it's not 94%, and again, one week is too small a sample size to reach meaningful conclusions.
C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: I saw Trump again touting his awesome "gold card" for people who have $5 million—is that real? Does he have the power to sell citizenship (legally or illegally, with seemly unchecked compliance)?
(V) & (Z) answer: There is already a program like this in the U.S., called EB-5 visas, created back in 1990. If someone agrees to invest either $800,000 or $1,050,000, depending on the area where the investment takes place, they can get a green card for 2 years and a path to U.S. citizenship. Many other nations, including virtually all western democracies, have a similar sort of opportunity.
Trump has been very vague about details, but there are two ways he could move forward here. The first is to work with Congress to update the EB-5 program to suit his current plans/goals, or to create a new, parallel program (say, EB-6 visas). If the President does that, then there's a good chance the "gold card" initiative will last beyond his time in office.
However, Trump does not like the time and effort that goes into sausage-making, nor does he like the constraints involved in working with Congress and/or adhering to existing law. So, he could attempt to do his "gold card" program via executive order. In that case, he would effectively be saying "Anyone who jumps through this hoop, my administration will not enforce existing immigration law, so you're in the clear." This is much easier for Trump, but it is improbable too many people would be looking to spend $5 million for accommodations likely to expire when the Trump administration does (or even earlier, perhaps, given his mercurial nature).
S.M. in Albany, OR, asks: The incredible energy of Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) as his hours on his feet showed his politics and his character. It showed his passion. His emotion when he passed Strom Thurman's record!
My question is: Is there any way to give back a personal response to Booker, or any high-profile person I would like to say "thank you" to? I would absolutely love to send cookies, or a mug I threw, lily bulbs or just a card.(V) & (Z) answer: The modern world being what it is, no senator can accept anything that might plausibly be dangerous. Food might be poisoned, an innocuous-looking object could be a bomb, etc. So, you're probably best off sending a nice card, with a heartfelt message. If you really want to send something, the Senator and his staff undoubtedly consume a lot of coffee and other beverages, and a coffee cup would be pretty hard to turn into something dangerous, so it would set off fewer alarm bells than a plate of cookies.
M.B. in Singapore, asks: Donald Trump is doing things wildly unpopular, and yet recently said, "we're going to win the midterm elections and we're going to have a tremendous, thundering landslide. I really believe that."
This statement combined with the firing of General Timothy Haugh, the head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, which protects our elections from foreign interference.
Is the fix already in? Why should I feel comfortable that the midterms will be free and fair in 2026?(V) & (Z) answer: Keep in mind that "election interference" does not mean "tinkering with vote totals." There's never been any evidence that happened, and it would be nearly impossible for it to happen. Voting, and vote counting, are very decentralized in the United States, and are mostly handled by machines that are not connected to the Internet. It's not possible for a GRU employee in Moscow to push a button and suddenly add 50,000 votes to the total of a Republican senator running in a swing state.
What "election interference" really means is using various electronic means to try to influence public opinion. Most obviously, the Russians stole data from Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, and then made it public to embarrass her and her campaign. Further, Russia and other actors have used things like Facebook and eX-Twitter to propagate spin and outright falsehoods for the benefit of credulous voters.
These things will happen in 2026, and they may happen more than otherwise would have been the case, given the termination of Haugh and several of his competent subordinates. However, the system is also inured to such shenanigans in ways it was not in, say, 2016. Every high-ranking person in every campaign, and at every PAC, and at every committee, has learned that their data security needs to be excellent. Meanwhile, there are still voters who can be manipulated, but after a decade-plus of propaganda, there are fewer of them. Most people know, by know, you have to be leery of wild claims.
Trump always projects over-confidence, because that's who he is. Think of all the things he said about the trade war, and how great it would be, and how he would never, ever change course. If his braggadocio there was hot air, it's a pretty good clue his braggadocio about the 2026 elections is also hot air.
R.Z. in Van Nuys, CA, asks: You both seem pretty unflappable, so I'd like to get your advice about what "We the People" should do if Republicans still try to railroad through tax cuts for the rich through Congress in the wake of the U.S. and global economic carnage wrought by the current President. I'd love to hear your thoughts and advice, please!
(V) & (Z) answer: We are not opposed to various acts of civil disobedience. But Trump v2.0 isn't even 3 months old, and the system hasn't really had time to adapt (or to show that it cannot adapt). So, we cannot counsel that the time for civil disobedience (and the risks that entails) has arrived.
That means our answer is going to be kind of boring: Use the tools the system provides to push back against incapable, disagreeable, or overreaching politicians. Communicate with your elected representatives. Participate in protests. Write to newspapers, websites, and other outlets. Support opposition candidates with your time, or your money, or whatever else you can offer. And vote!
C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: At this point, I feel that literally the only way Congress could could control Donald Trump is impeachment and conviction. Given that Trump doesn't actually care about any law, even ones written into the Constitution, and his XOs are followed by everyone working for the government without question, I really don't see that laws passed by Congress could rein him in. The courts are the only thing blocking Trump, and they take forever and have no actual power to enforce their decisions. Inasmuch as we have seen hundreds of people sent to El Salvador, the records of their identities most likely illegally destroyed (do we know none were citizens?), the breaching of agreements and contracts, and the pulling of funding even for work already done, how do you see any law passed by Congress actually mattering?
(V) & (Z) answer: As we note in the previous answer, it's too early to know whether the system is working or not. Courts are still working through the logjam Trump has created with his lawless behavior. Congress is still praying that the situation will resolve itself without them having to get their hands dirty. The executive bureaucracy is still finding itself—and don't assume that just because a few sycophants like AG Pam Bondi and HHS Secretary Kristi Noem are happy to do whatever Trump orders them to do in his XOs, that all executive employees are on board.
It is possible for a president to push a Congress too far, even a Congress controlled by his own party. We cannot know what a law meant to rein Trump in will do, because Congress hasn't passed one yet. Further, if and when push comes to shove, Congress has the standing to sue in some circumstances where private concerns might not (for example, impoundment of funds). Finally, the legislature does have impeachment in its back pocket, should it come to that.
D.H. in Boulder, CO, asks: Every day there is a new attack launched on the Orange Menace's revenge and retribution tour. Do you suppose there is a working list of these targets being maintained by Genghis Don or his lackeys? Will the Tan of La Mancha ever get to the bottom of the list and be satisfied he has wreaked enough havoc? Will this be a full 4-year process of daily outrage from Cheetolini or will we ever get a break?
(V) & (Z) answer: We are not sure if there's an actual, written enemies list like the one Richard Nixon had, or if Trump and his underlings just keep mental notes on the people they don't like. Either is possible.
As to the other part of your question, these days, we often think of a line the late, great Val Kilmer delivered in Tombstone, in answer to the question "What makes Johnny Ringo the way he is?" Kilmer, as Doc Holliday, answered: "A man like Ringo got a great empty hole right through the middle of him. He can never kill enough or steal enough or inflict enough pain to ever fill it."
We don't think Trump is willing to kill to assuage his hurt, but other than that, we think that what Doc says about Ringo also applies to the President. Whatever is wrong with Trump is never going to be healed, and he will always, always, always find people to bully in the desperate, and ultimately futile, quest to fill the void that is within him. This is a very judgmental thing to write, but we've been watching Trump the politician for 10 years, and Trump the person for 30+ years, and we've never been surer that a person has some deep, deep wound that can never, ever be healed. He's going to be going after his "enemies" as long as he has ANY means for doing so. That is doubly or triply true during the days he has presidential powers at his disposal.
R.M. in Pensacola, FL, asks: Everytime I see White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt get up to talk about anything, I immediately compare her to the legendary "press secretary" Baghdad Bob.
Clearly, that excellent nickname is taken. What would be a similar, yet excellent nickname for Leavitt?(V) & (Z) answer: She says some pretty hateful things, too, so how about Ku Klux Karoline? Of course, we are open to suggestions from readers at comments@electoral-vote.com.
J.J. in Freeport, ME, asks: What is the best way to refer to a U.S. House or Senate bill when calling/e-mailing members of Congress? For most bills, I try to find their House/Senate number (usually on house.gov or senate.gov) so that I can be as specific as possible about the bill I support or oppose and am asking for my congressperson to do the same. For the budget bill, though, where do you find a number? Do the numbers keep changing since the bill is going back and forth between the House and Senate?
(V) & (Z) answer: You can just say "the budget bill," or include a link to a news story that addresses the bill you are concerned about. We have no doubt that 99% of people who write to their representatives are not as conscientious as you are, and so congressional staffs are undoubtedly very, very good at figuring out which bill a constituent is referring to.
P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, asks: Do lower court judges have ANY means for holding their peers on the appellate and Supreme courts accountable for their actions or decisions? Is a federal district court judge simply powerless when it comes to a higher court steamrolling their decisions, even if those decisions are not rooted in precedent or the Constitution?
(V) & (Z) answer: The nature of hierarchy is that those folks who are lower on the ladder do not have authority over those who are higher on the ladder.
The only real option that lower-court judges have is to write really good, really thorough decisions that address the various issues involved in a clear and accurate manner, backed with lots of references. This is no guarantee, but it does put the judges higher up on the ladder in the position of having to address the points made in the lower court's ruling.
C.S. in Santa Cruz, CA, asks: After hearing the recent decision on the Associated Press case, I am concerned about the language in it. Judge Trevor McFadden states: "Under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less."
Can the administration just close the door altogether so that no journalists will be allowed in to question what they are doing? Since they can always put their spin messages out on eX-Twitter and TCF's social media platform, and just call up Fox to do interviews with friendly propagandists, is there anything that requires the press to have access to the federal government and what they are doing?(V) & (Z) answer: Clearly, the White House can allow reporters into meetings and other events when it wishes to do so. Equally clearly, the White House can bar reporters when it wants to. You can't exactly have reporters from The New York Times and The Washington Post in the room while a plan for attacking Yemen is worked out (at most, you can only text the plan to The Atlantic).
And so, McFadden is 100% right. If reporters are kept out, that is fine. If they are allowed in, then all outlets have to be let in. What you can't have is some being kept out (for ideological reasons) and others being let in (because they have RightThink).
We doubt that the White House would decide to ban all reporters from all events, because Team Trump really likes publicity. But if that did happen, we're not sure it's such a big deal. Nearly everything that comes from the lips of Trump, or White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, or anyone else is either an outright lie, or is spun so aggressively that it might as well be. We're not sure the American people lose if they are cut off from the constant flow of weapons-grade bullsh**.
J.K in New York City, NY, asks: Why doesn't a country (China, Russia, etc) just all-out refuse to abide by U.S. copyright and IP laws? Set up websites that brazenly post all books, films, pharmaceutical and other patented info, etc.? I know there are various "pirate" sites, but why should a country be coy about it? And if a country did this, how would the U.S. respond? Massive internet censorship (to block our citizens' access)? War, even?
(V) & (Z) answer: China wouldn't do this because a huge part of its economy depends on the export of all kinds of products to the U.S. A massive violation of IP would generate a huge response that China would not like. China is behind the U.S. in some computer equipment and especially software. One form of retaliation would be to ban the export of computer equipment and software to China. That would hurt. China has no interest in any kind of trade war unless clearly provoked, as Donald Trump's tariffs do.
Patents are public so there is no need for anyone to post them. They can be obtained from the patent office for a small fee. In many cases, having a factory to make pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and other complex stuff is a whole different ball game than having the patent, especially since many patents describe the thing being made, not the detailed process of how to make it.
Russia is different since there is almost no trade with the U.S. right now. Russia's only important exports are oil and minerals and they could be embargoed, as has happened to some extent. If Russia started posting valuable things like new Hollywood movies, you could count on Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) introducing a bill to requiring all Internet providers to block all Websites in the .ru domain and possibly providing some funding for the CIA to "do something" to solve the problem. Right now, Russia has no interest at all in picking a fight because it is so easy for Vladimir Putin to get what he wants from Trump by just telling him how brilliant and strategic he is. But even when a Democrat is president, why would Putin want to really annoy the president? What's in it for Russia? "Free access in their society" is not exactly high on Putin's priority list.
S.R. in Ottawa, ON, Canada (formerly of Wyomissing, PA), asks: Do you think there's a case for Donald Trump to receive the bottom two spots in future presidential rankings, one for each non-consecutive term? Is Grover Cleveland generally ranked twice? Full disclosure: As an alumnus of Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, I've got a personal stake in seeing my fellow Dickinsonian James Buchanan move up as many spaces as possible from dead last
(V) & (Z) answer: This isn't the way it's done; historians rank presidents, and not presidencies. If Cleveland 22 and 24 get two different spots, then why not FDR term 1, FDR term 2, FDR term 3 and FDR term 4? And even if someone thinks that rating both Cleveland terms separately, or ALL presidential terms separately, is a good idea, there are now 75 years' worth of surveys ranking presidents and not presidencies. The people who produce new surveys want them to be compared to older surveys, so they are going to maintain the same approach.
On some level, this is unfortunate for Cleveland, since 22 was actually quite good, while 24 was pretty bad, thus dragging his overall ranking down.
D.S. in Layton, UT, asks: Who would you consider the most average/ground-zero president?
(V) & (Z) answer: There have been 45 presidents, which means the midpoint is #23. What we are going to do is come up with an answer to your question, and THEN look to see which president ranks #23 in the aggregation of all presidential surveys, to see how we did.
To start, the answer is almost certainly a 19th century president. For much of that century, the president was expected to maintain a steady course, and not to so much else. There was also relatively little foreign policy, compared to today. So, there was a lot more opportunity to do not much good, but not much bad, either.
That narrows it down to 23 presidents, from John Adams to William McKinley. We can immediately drop the "good" and "great" presidents who managed to serve during that time, so Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant and McKinley are out. That leaves 18.
We can also drop the presidents who had momentous things happen on their watch, either for the good or the bad, and so are not likely to be average/neutral. This removes John Adams (XYZ Affair, Quasi-War), James Madison (War of 1812), James Monroe (Monroe Doctrine), Andrew Jackson (lots of stuff), Martin Van Buren (Trail of Tears), Franklin Pierce (sectional tensions), James Buchanan (worse sectional tensions), Andrew Johnson (screwed up Reconstruction) and Chester Arthur (Pendleton Act). Now we're down to 9.
We think we have to drop William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor and James Garfield because they served for less than half a term. We also think that any remaining two-term presidents have to be dropped, because they are likely to be at least somewhat consequential. So, there goes Grover Cleveland. That leaves 5.
The five presidents who have not yet been culled, in order, are John Quincy Adams, John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Rutherford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison. All of these men were largely non-entities as president (while recognizing that Quincy Adams was an excellent EX-president). Quincy Adams was basically a good guy, and Tyler was basically a jerk, so we'll eliminate them on that basis. Hayes was beneficiary of a pretty sleazy scheme to award him the presidency, and while it wasn't really his doing, that probably still pulls him down a bit. So, we're down to Fillmore and Harrison, and we'll go with Harrison, who was famously a non-entity even while he was alive. That is to say, he was a good public speaker, but anyone who dealt with him face-to-face came away singularly unimpressed.
So, how did we do? Well, if you average all the major presidential rankings of the past 75 years, the president who is closest to #23 (with an average rating of 21.5) is... William Howard Taft. Also in the ballpark are Martin Van Buren, Jimmy Carter and Rutherford B. Hayes. Benjamin Harrison actually averages 29.2, while our other finalist, Millard Fillmore, averages 34.7. It would seem that if you want to be "average," you have to actually do something, while if you are a do-nothing president, you end up in the below average cohort.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Who are the 10 funniest politicians in U.S. history?
(V) & (Z) answer: We would not want to try to rank something like this, so we're going to give our list in alphabetical order:
- Calvin Coolidge: Yes, he was taciturn, but he was also very witty. Some of the stories about his wit are apocryphal, but the most famous one is absolutely true. That's the one about the woman who told "Silent Cal" that she'd bet someone she could get more than two words out of him. His famous response: "You lose."
- Al Franken: As far as we know, he's the only member of Congress whose first career was as a comedian (Tommy Tuberville is a joke, yes, but it's not the same thing). And Franken was not just a comedian, he was a very good one. Several of his Saturday Night Live bits are classics, as is his appearance in Trading Places. And don't overlook his books; Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot: And Other Observations, in particular, is excellent.
- Mike Gravel: His tastes tended toward the surreal, and that's not for everyone. Still, who can forget his 2008 campaign commercial "Rock"?
- John F. Kennedy: Kennedy was the first president of the TV era who was able to deliver a funny line, and he used the talent effectively, particularly when it came to defusing potential problems. For example, when people complained about the appointment of his inexperienced brother as AG, JFK said: "I see nothing wrong with giving Robert some legal experience as Attorney General before he goes out to practice law."
- Abraham Lincoln: If we WERE going to rank this list, Lincoln would be in first place. He was legendary for his jokes, both rehearsed and spontaneous, so much so that many of his witticisms survive, and many of them still work. Thanks to the movie Lincoln, most people know about his favorite joke, which is a PG-13 bit about a picture of George Washington hanging in an outhouse. For that reason, we'll give a less-famous example. One time, when Lincoln was in court, another lawyer bent over and split his pants. The various folks in the room began circulating a tongue-in-cheek document, asking people to make donations toward a new pair of pants. When the piece of paper reached Lincoln, he wrote: "I can contribute nothing to the end in view."
- Barack Obama: Obama's delivery, and general comedic sense, were very similar to those of Kennedy. Of course, Obama lived in the meme age, and several of his remarks at the various White House Press Correspondents Association dinners caught fire. For example, in 2012, Obama observed: "This very weekend last year, we finally delivered justice to one of the world's most notorious individuals." It was clearly a reference to Osama bin Laden, and yet the image on screen at that moment was... Donald Trump.
- Dan Quayle: Unlike the other folks on this list, he was not intentionally funny. And yet, he is one of the funniest people in American political history. You say po-tay-to, he says po-tah-toe.
- Ronald Reagan: One would hope a former actor would know how to deliver a bon mot, and he did. For example, the joke about the American and Russian who were having a conversation. "The great thing about America," said the American, "Is that I can stand out in front of the White House anytime I want and shout: 'To hell with Ronald Reagan.'" "Big deal," replied the Russian. "I can stand in front of the Kremlin anytime I want, and shout 'To hell with Ronald Reagan.'"
- Buddy Roemer: He may have been corrupt, but he was also very funny. He's the one who came up with the "caught in bed with a live boy or dead girl" line, but we like his other very famous line even better. When the playboy Roemer was up against former Klansman David Duke, he decreed: "The only thing Duke and I have in common is that we're both wizards under the sheets."
- Dick Tuck: Maybe this is cheating, because he was mostly a trickster and political operative, and his runs for office were for humor and entertainment purposes. Nonetheless, his tricks, particularly directed at Richard Nixon, were legendary. For example, there was the time that he offered to host a Nixon campaign appearance, booked a giant auditorium, and then invited only 20 people to show up. Or the time, after Watergate, that Tuck raised a 10-foot-long papier-mâché phallus that said, "Pardon my dick, too." And when Tuck ran for the California state Senate, and lost, it was he who uttered the immortal line: "The people have spoken, the bastards."
We recognize that this list skews heavily towards presidents, and towards the last half-century or so, but that's the nature of the beast. George Washington was reportedly quite witty, but the actual humor is not well documented, and the parts that ARE documented largely don't translate to modern sensibilities.
D.S. in Layton, UT, asks: What are the top 15 documentaries that you consider "Must See?"
(V) & (Z) answer: As with the previous answer, we're not going to attempt a ranking. So, this is in chronological order:
- Nanook of the North (1922): If you're going to teach a class about documentary film, you have to show at least part of this one. The filmmaker did things that would later be verboten, like stage some scenes, but nonetheless, this is considered to be the starting point for documentary films.
- Triumph of the Will (1935): In that documentary film class, you also have to show part of this one. The message is reprehensible, of course, but to tell the visual story she wanted to tell, Leni Riefenstahl created a toolkit that is used by documentary (and non-documentary) filmmakers to this day.
- Hearts and Minds (1974): This one is almost certainly the most brutal film on this list—you should not watch it if you are faint of heart. It's also one of the first attempts to come to grips with the Vietnam War, and set the stage for the brutal Vietnam War films (both fiction and non-fiction) that would come after. In particular, the folks who made Deer Hunter a few years later clearly watched this film many times.
- Koyaanisqatsi (1982): If you don't know the film, it's not easy to describe. Extremely abstract/surreal, it's probably as close as a person can come to an acid trip without taking acid.
- The Atomic Cafe (1982): The most powerful film ever made about nuclear war. Remarkably, it is 100% clips from other films; there was no original material (other than title cards) created for this documentary.
- Ken Burns' The Civil War (1990): It's showing its age a bit these days, but there has never been a better example of a documentarian who does a better job of having one foot in "accessible to a broad audience" and the other foot in "scholarly rigor."
- Hoop Dreams (1994): There are some who consider this fly-on-the-wall film about two high school players who hoped to play in the NBA to be the greatest documentary ever made. Those people might be right.
- The Fog of War (2003): Errol Morris is among the best documentarians ever, and this is his masterpiece. It's the story of the Vietnam War through the eyes of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, and it's very compelling. It also makes for a very good pairing with Hearts and Minds, showing how two films about the same subject can be very different, and yet... also very similar.
- Spellbound (2002): This film might reveal more about modern American culture than any other on this list. It's about the Scripps spelling bee, and the pressure placed on the child participants in that event.
- Bowling for Columbine (2002): You really can't explore documentary films without taking a look at the work of Michael Moore, and this is his best. That said, Sicko and Fahrenheit 9/11 are also acceptable options.
- Super Size Me (2004): Like Moore, Morgan Spurlock is (well, was) a modern-day muckraker. You have to be impressed with a guy who brought the McDonalds Corporation to its knees, and essentially singlehandedly forced them to make big changes.
- Grizzly Man (2005): Werner Herzog is in competition with Errol Morris as the best living documentarian, and this is his magnum opus. Is the untrained bear "expert" Timothy Treadwell a nut case, or just a guy who was following his passion? Maybe both.
- An Inconvenient Truth (2006): Al Gore's global warming documentary is very well done, and was very, very impactful on the world at large.
- Planet Earth (2006): When people hear the word "documentary," they are very likely to think "nature documentary." And of the many thousands of exemplars in the genre, none is better than this (now) 11-part BBC series. David Attenborough is a treasure.
- The Aristocrats (2005): A case study in how a relatively small thing (in this case, an off-color joke) can be turned into an examination of both a profession (comedians) and a culture (modern America). It hasn't aged as well as some of the others on this list, but it's still very impressive.
We recognize that this list skews towards a few timeframes. Demand for documentaries tends to ebb and flow, and there have been a few "golden ages" for the form.
D.D. in Hollywood, FL, asks: I've always been curious about how the western part of the country handles East Coast issues like the stock market. It must be strange to have the markets close at 1 PM (noon for the Chicago markets). How does it feel with major events like the Super Bowl or award shows happening so early?
(V) & (Z) answer: As a resident of the Netherlands, (V) is well outside this frame of reference, so it's up to (Z) to respond. And, in truth, people in the west don't understand how folks on the East Coast tolerate it when the Academy Awards end at 2:00 a.m. local time, or baseball games end later than that. That said it is annoying, for people in the West, that nationally broadcast events (particularly sports) have to start around 6:00 (or maybe 7:00). In Los Angeles, that is still rush hour. One time, (Z) departed at 3:00 p.m. for a game at Dodger Stadium (around 7 miles away). He made it with about 30 seconds to spare before the first pitch was thrown at 7:05 p.m.
When it comes to more substantive pursuits, folks whose lives and careers revolve around things that are on East Coast time just have to get used to getting up early. For example, (Z)'s upstairs neighbor is in investment banking, and he leaves for work every day at 3:30 a.m.
K.H. in Maryville, TN , asks: This showed up on my social media the other day, and I would like to know if this really is a treat in the Netherlands...
I could eat my weight in butter bread, and adding chocolate sprinkles would be the proverbial icing on the cake. So, is Hagelslag really a thing, and does (V) partake? Time to bring this treat to this side of the pond!(V) & (Z) answer: Eating a chocolate sprinkle sandwich is a real thing. Kids love it. It is not terribly healthy. Parents are advised not to allow it very often, but once in a while, for special occasions, is all right. It is rumored that in the U.S. people eat sandwiches with peanut butter and jelly. Yuck!!!
A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: Everyone loves Citizen Kane. If you know anything about cinema and you don't think it's the bestest movie ever, ever, ever then you know nothing about cinema. It's a good film. Not gonna argue that. I will even say it's great.
Best movie ever? I am not so sure about that assessment. A lot of people don't like it when I refuse to accept the age-old orthodoxy that it's the best thing since sliced bread that heard the cat's meow.
The title of "Best Movie Ever" should go to a film that doesn't spend a bit too long making fun of some pretty girl who some rich guy was trying to make feel good so he could keep... being an old, rich dude with a hot, young wife he gets to see naked. That whole, very long portion of the film seems way too long. Easily 5 to 10 minutes too long just focusing on how bad a singer she was.
So, is Citizen Kane a bit overrated... like Tom Hanks?(V) & (Z) answer: (Z) has a lecture on the history of Hollywood (which, as it happens, is coming up in a week). And he starts with a discussion of what it means for a film to be "great" (a judgment of quality) as opposed to being "important" (a judgment of impact). This is necessary because the next piece of the lecture is about the film The Birth of a Nation, which (Z) describes as "the most important film ever made." He notes that he does NOT want students running around saying: "Professor Bates thinks The Birth of a Nation is the GREATEST film ever made."
Point is, Citizen Kane is undoubtedly one of the two or three most important movies ever made. The use of cameras (particularly the use of deep focus) was revolutionary in its time. The "surprise ending" was also new and different. So too, to a large extent, was Orson Welles making the film on the auteur model, outside the traditional studio-system approach. Oh, and while Welles did not exactly invent roman-à-clef films (main character is fictional, but based on a real person), Citizen Kane was the first really notable film to use the approach.
That said, Citizen Kane suffers from the I Love Lucy problem. 70-80 years ago, what they were doing was brand new and fresh. Now, both have been copied a million times. And so, if someone grew up with the films/TV shows that built on Kane/Lucy, they might not be impressed by the Ur-film/show, especially if they are not used to black-and-white footage.
Further, there is no film, no matter how great OR important, that works for everyone. Anyone who turns up their nose because a person didn't respond to a film that's getting close to being a century old is just a snob. Especially because the real-world person being portrayed in Citizen Kane—William Randolph Hearst—no longer looms large in the popular consciousness, as he once did.
As to Tom Hanks, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Hanks can't play the we-aren't-sure-if-he's-insane-or-not roles that Jack Nicholson used to play, or the angry-gangster roles that Robert DeNiro has so often played, but Nicholson and DeNiro can't play the everyman roles that Hanks plays better than just about anyone in the history of cinema (it's Hanks, and Jimmy Stewart, and Cary Grant, and maybe one or two others).
B.C. in Walpole, ME, asks: You wrote: "[Trump] hates elite universities, even though he graduated from one of them (Penn)."
Trump's ignorance is breathtaking. His lack of understanding of nearly everything (tariffs, "groceries," coal, the Constitution, American diplomacy, manufacturing) is hard to even imagine, and when he talks, he sounds like a child. In other words, there is no evidence that I can see that he has a college education. Or that he is capable of getting one; an educator might suspect that he has dyslexia, ADHD, perhaps some other learning disabilities. Even more than understanding Hillary's e-mails and Hunter's laptop, I would like to understand how Donald ever got a degree from the University of Pennsylvania. How was this possible? Do we know that he attended classes? That he did any reading? That he actually sat for exams or produced papers? Are there any students or professors who were witnesses? Any documentation?(V) & (Z) answer: Although Trump apparently did not live on campus, and largely did not participate in campus life, there is some documentation of his having been at Penn, including the marketing professor William T. Kelley, who remembered Trump very well, and wrote that his former charge was: "the dumbest goddam student I ever had."
On the first day of every class (Z) teaches, there are some comments on cheating. And as part of that presentation, (Z) says: "It is possible to get a diploma without getting an education. But the problem is that people like me can tell the difference. If you cheat, and get away with it, you may end up in the real world a few years from now, unable to get a job because a diploma itself isn't enough. And if that happens, and you say to yourself, 'Crap. That guy was right!' then what do you do? How do you fix the problem? Go back to school for ANOTHER degree? Better to do it legitimately the first time, and get an actual education."
In other words, Trump is the textbook example of someone who got a diploma but not an education. We would bet every dollar we have that he cheated, early and often, in most or all of his classes, and that he collected a great many "gentleman's C's" (or "gentleman's D's").
T.W. in Norfolk, England, UK, asks: In your item on the administration's war against universities, you mention Penn could revoke a degree but that it would violate their rules. My question to you, as academics, is this: After all this time, would Penn still have the transcripts of someone's academic work? It feels to me that a fellow whose name might or might not rhyme with 'Crump' might have been tempted to be lazy with his work and copy that of others or get others to do it for him. Would Penn have the ability now to feed all that work into a plagiarism checker, and could Penn then use those results to determine whether the revocation of said degree is within their rules?
(V) & (Z) answer: You seem to be conflating two things. By law, a university has to keep someone's transcripts—a record of the classes they took, and the grades they received—in perpetuity. There is no question that Penn could produce a printout of Donald Trump's transcript if they wished to do so.
But as to the actual work? That is surely long gone. (Z) has often finished a quarter or a semester, and been left with 2-3 cubic feet of assignments, between final exams and essays, and the like. By law and school rules, that has to be kept for a year, so that any grade appeals can be dealt with. But once a year has passed, and the official grades are really, really official, then it can be tossed. And it pretty much has to be, because nobody can keep multiple years' worth (much less multiple decades' worth). The only real exception to this, beyond work submitted digitally, is things like theses and dissertations, which are usually deposited in the university's library for the benefit for future scholars.
Even if Trump's college work still existed, it would be exceedingly unlikely that any dishonesty could be proven beyond doubt. For example, consider any essays he may have written. If he plagiarized the essays, it would be necessary to find the original source to prove his misdeeds, and there's a good chance the original source does not exist anymore (as he's most likely to have copied from some sort of "fraternity file"). He's also the type to have paid someone to write his essays for him, which is the single-hardest form of academic dishonesty to prove, unless you can find the person who did the actual writing, and they are willing to admit to their dishonesty. Certainly, a computer tool like TurnItIn will be of no use, since the TurnItIn database is made up entirely of digital sources, and student papers that have been submitted in the last 15 years or so. None of those sources would have been available to Trump in the 1960s, so he couldn't have copied from them.
M.E. in Greenbelt, MD, asks: Is your list of the top 40 potential Democratic Presidential candidates already set? Or will you make adjustments along the way? A couple examples of possible changes would be: Cory Booker, who is probably on your list, but might move up due to his recent filibuster-like speech on the Senate floor; and Abigail Spanberger, who might not be on the list now, but could be added if she wins Virginia's gubernatorial election later this year.
(V) & (Z) answer: We specifically asked readers to vote at the start of the year, so the list would be "frozen" as of January 1 of this year. However, once we've done all 40, we have some plans for... updates.