Dem
47
GOP
53
Last week, we asked readers if we should do "fun" questions once a month. The verdict was overwhelming; 90% of respondents said that they would like to see that. However, reader R.R. in Pasadena, CA sent in this observation: "[T]he reality of the Trump presidency is going to mean every single week will have drama that people will have questions about. I think the better idea is to have a fun question section each week, so there's a distraction from all the bad news."
Like the Jem'Hadar, we live to serve. So, we welcome readers' votes: "all fun" once a month, or "some fun" every week?
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: Have we ever had a presidential funeral and a presidential inauguration so close to each other, as will be the case this month?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes. There are two occasions on which an ex-president's death came in close proximity to a presidential inauguration. Benjamin Harrison died 9 days after William McKinley's second inauguration in 1901, and the Washington commemorations took place 12 and 13 days after the inaugural. And Lyndon B. Johnson died 2 days after Richard Nixon's second inauguration in 1973, with the Washington commemorations taking place 5, 6 and 7 days after the inauguration.
J.M. in Binghamton, NY, asks: Regarding the only living "front row" attendees who didn't attend Carter's funeral: What about Dan Quayle? Whatever happened to him? Is he still alive?
(V) & (Z) answer: Dan Quayle is still alive, and was in attendance, in the "vice presidents" row, right next to his wife Marilyn and Al Gore:
B.C. in Manhattan Beach, CA, asks: At Jimmy Carter's funeral, there were four living ex-presidents—Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump—plus the current president, for a total of five living individuals who hold or have held the office of president. Obviously, at any given time, there is at least one living person (the current occupant of the office) who holds the office (for instance, when George Washington was President, there was only one living person who had ever held that office).
Looking back at our nation's history, what are the highest numbers of persons alive at any time who are/were president? Other than Washington, have there ever been other times when only one person then alive was (or had been) President?(V) & (Z) answer: The record for most living presidents at the same time is six, which has happened five times:
- From 1861-62, Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln were all alive.
- From 1993-94, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton were all alive.
- From 2001-04, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush were all alive.
- From 2017-18, Carter, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Barack Obama and convicted felon Donald Trump were all alive.
- From 2021-25, Carter, Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama, Trump (a convicted felon) and Joe Biden were all alive.
In addition to Washington, there are five presidents who spent some portion of their terms as the only living president:
- John Adams (1799-1801)
- Ulysses S. Grant (1875-77)
- Theodore Roosevelt (1908-09)
- Herbert Hoover (1933)
- Richard Nixon (1973-74)
You did not ask, but the record for most living presidents/ex-presidents who are convicted felons is one.
B.J. in Arlington, MA, asks: My mother in law just passed away. She had a traditional Jewish funeral which, among other things, is supposed to happen within 24 hours of death (with some exceptions, such as for Shabbat). No doubt because of this experience, I was thinking about President Carter's final arrangements and funeral. His casket has traveled from Georgia to Washington and will lie in state for some amount of time before his actual funeral and burial.
This makes me wonder what will happen if we ever have a Jewish president (though it currently seems much less likely now than at any time in my life). When that person dies, will Jewish tradition or U.S. political tradition prevail? Perhaps this question is unanswerable until it happens; it probably depends on the wishes of the person and family in question.(V) & (Z) answer: The planning for these funerals takes place while the president/ex-president is still alive, and includes substantial input from them and from their family. There is no question that the wishes of the president/ex-president and their family are paramount. So, for example, if Joe Lieberman had become president, and had insisted that his funeral take place within 24 hours of his demise, then that would have been done.
That said, as you note, Jewish law and tradition allow for delays for certain purposes, including if the delay is in order to "show honor to the deceased" and/or to allow "a great sage to attend and officiate." So, if an observant Jewish president were to die, we suspect they would set up their funeral arrangements to allow for some amount of travel/logistics.
J.H.C.V. in Spokane, WA, asks: William Henry Harrison stood out in the cold through an extremely long inaugural speech, grew ill and died after 31 days in office., How old was Harrison at this time? Donald Trump, at 78, ought be cautious of this potential danger. Will the inauguration be outdoors and is there any forecast of inclement weather for the event?
(V) & (Z) answer: Because Harrison gave the longest inaugural address, and because the weather was bad that day, and because he wore no coat or hat, and because he died so very quickly, it is easy to connect those things and conclude that the first three factors led to the fatal outcome. However, this is an old wives' tale. First, respiratory diseases don't work like that; you're not more susceptible to them because you go out in the cold or the rain. Second, Harrison was perfectly fine until 3 weeks after the inauguration. It was then that he caught a serious cold that, in his aged (68) body that had been exposed to a frontier/military life for many decades, developed into pneumonia and killed him.
This year's inauguration is scheduled to be held outdoors (as is generally the case, though they can move it inside if necessary). The current weather forecast is 40 degrees and no precipitation.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, asks: You wrote, "The Post's Pulitzer-Prize-winning cartoonist, Ann Telnaes, drew a cartoon depicting [Jeff] Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sam Altman bringing bags of money as offerings to a giant statue of Donald Trump. In addition, Mickey Mouse lay on the ground prostrated before the statue."
For those of us who weren't paying close enough attention, or who came in late, or who are perhaps just a little slow, why Mickey Mouse? What did that mean (to the cognoscenti)?(V) & (Z) answer: It is a reference to ABC, which is of course owned by Disney, rolling over and paying $16 million to convicted felon Donald Trump in response to the dubious defamation claim he filed against George Stephanopoulos.
J.E. in Woodland Hills, CA, asks: While I feel you've made a good argument in "Instead of Crying in Their White Whine, Democrats Are Going on Offense" that may lay track toward the Democrats recapturing lost voters, I'm willing to bet you've stepped on a raw nerve and you're about to be deluged by vicious responses. Am I right or am I wrong?
(V) & (Z) answer: You're right.
In that item, we were not advocating... anything, because that's really not what we do. We were just describing the movement within the Democratic Party right now, which is toward the political center. We've had several pieces on that theme this week, starting with the one on the House voting on the Laken Riley Act.
Some readers concluded that we were either: (1) suggesting what the Democrats should do, or (2) expressing approval for what the Democrats are doing. Neither is the case; all we were doing was breaking down X's and O's. Nonetheless, we got some pretty vicious e-mails suggesting that we must be happy about [this divisive thing] or [that racist policy].
We will point out one thing, however. A hundred times before the election, we observed that withholding votes and/or voting third-party does not drag the Democrats to the left, it pushes them toward the center. And so it's no surprise that is exactly what is happening. In 2000, Ralph Nader got 97,000 voters in Florida. Al Gore lost Florida by 537 votes. If 1% of the Nader votes had held their nose and voted for Gore, George W. Bush would not have won, the Iraq war would probably not have happened, etc. Did this convince the Democrats to move left? Nope. They nominated a war hero, John Kerry next time. It didn't work, but the last time that they nominated a truly progressive candidate, George McGovern in 1972, he lost 49 states, winning only Massachusetts. The way to convince Democrats to move left is to have a progressive Democrat win in a landslide for the Senate in say, Oklahoma or at least Iowa.
B.N. in Wilsonville, OR, asks: I believe that all this Panama Canal, Greenland, and Gulf of America baloney coming out of Trump's mouth is simply his modus operandi for clogging up the headlines. A way to distract from his untenable promises of things like lowering food prices and not taxing tips.
Never mind the fact that if Joe Biden said any of it, all media would be calling for his immediate removal. I am curious as to your take on this absurdity?(V) & (Z) answer: We wondered about this very question earlier this week, and asked readers for their input. We'll likely share some of those responses, though it will probably be the week after next, because this week it's going to be Jimmy Carter remembrances.
Truth be told, we don't think it is possible to know how serious he is. Even people who worked with him, and were able to talk to him directly, reported later that he would get crazy ideas into his head (like using nuclear bombs to stop a hurricane), and that he seemed to believe them worthy of serious consideration. And many, many times he has shown a tendency to glom onto one small piece of information, and then to spin wild, complex fantasies based on that piece of information.
All of this is to say that it's entirely possible that he really believes that acquiring Greenland or the Panama Canal is plausible and desirable. Or, it could be total B.S. We doubt that even the people in his inner circle really know. Maybe even he doesn't really know.
He probably will try to rename the Gulf of Mexico, since he can basically make the attempt with a single signature, and so secure a "win." But it won't catch on.
R.H.M. in North Haven, CT, asks: I hate to give Donald Trump's ramblings any oxygen, but since he has once again brought up the idea of making Canada the 51st state (insert joke here about who is really acquiring who; the Canadian invasion plan really is 3-D chess), I have a question about Canadian politics. I was always under the impression that Canada leaned to the left of the U.S., and that their conservative party was to the left of today's Republican party. Am I wrong about that? Or in an alternate universe where Canada embraced union with the U.S., wouldn't this be like adding another California? That is, two more Democratic Senators and a net gain of two dozen House seats for the blue team?
(V) & (Z) answer: Let us begin by reiterating that this is just a thought exercise. This is never, ever going to happen. And indeed, the impacts we are about to describe are among the many reasons it is never, ever going to happen.
First, let's talk about senators. There were several polls, prior to last year's election, where Canadians were asked which presidential candidate they would vote for, if they were able to vote. On average, Kamala Harris got about 70% support, convicted felon Donald Trump got about 27%. That would make Canada bluer than any state, trailing only the 93% of the vote that Kamala Harris got in Washington, DC. There are four states that gave Harris about 60% of the vote (i.e., they are less blue than Canada), and those are Vermont, Maryland, Massachusetts and Hawaii. The last time those states sent a Republican to the Senate, respectively, were 2000, 1980, 2010 and 1970. And that 2010 election in Massachusetts was a wonky special election; the last regular election to return a Republican member of the U.S. Senate for Massachusetts was 1972. It's pretty safe to assume, then, that the state of Canada would elect two Democrats to the Senate.
As to the House, it's easy enough to figure out that Canada, if kept together as one giant state, would have 45 seats in the House of Representatives. Those would come out of the hides of the current 50 states, of course, with 31 different states giving up at least one seat. It is impossible to say exactly how redistricting in those 31 states would unfold, or how Canada's districts would shake down. However, if you assume that the 45 seats lost to the existing 50 states break down roughly equally between parties (say, 23 R, 22 D), and you assume that the 'Nades would break roughly 3-to-1 for the blue team (say, 33 D, 12 R), then you end up with a net gain of around 20 seats for the Democrats (those 45 seats go from +1 R to +21 D).
Naturally, the math changes a little bit if Canada's current provinces are treated as states, such that the U.S. ends up adding 10 states (or possibly 13 states, if the territories are granted statehood). However, doing it this way would almost certainly provide an even bigger bonanza for the Democrats. Yes, there would be some Republican senators (from Alberta, for example, which is basically the Texas of Canada). However, the Democrats could easily pick up 5-10 senators if it was done this way. They might pick up a couple more House seats, too, because of the tiebreaking procedure when rounding populations up or down.
If Trump, the convicted felon, keeps prattling on about acquiring Canada, we suspect someone will sit him down and point out that he would almost certainly be handing over control of the House to the Democrats, while leaving the Senate on razor's edge. And the change would be long-lasting, making it very difficult for Republicans to gain the trifecta in the near future. This would not be a good thing for him and his agenda.
J.W. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: Since this is apparently now a thing, can you please remind us what it takes for the United States to go to war?
(V) & (Z) answer: According to the Constitution, it requires a declaration of war, approved by a majority of each chamber of Congress.
However, the last time the U.S. formally declared war against a country was in 1942, when Bulgaria, Rumania and Hungary were added to a list that already included Japan and Germany. Since that time, Congress has preferred to use what are now known as Authorizations for Use of Military Force, which basically give the president discretion to do as he sees fit. This is what happened with the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War and the War in Afghanistan, among others. From the standpoint of Congress, the benefit here is that it allows them to (at least partly) pass the buck, putting most or all of the onus on the president.
In addition, the War Powers Act of 1973 says that a president may only send troops into combat with Congressional authorization, or in the case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." In the latter circumstance, the troops can only be deployed for 90 days without Congress' consent. This was actually meant to limit presidents' powers to make war on their own volition, following the abuses of the Vietnam era. However, since the phrase "national emergency" is very broad, the effect of the War Powers Act has been to allow presidents to do pretty much whatever they want with the military. Even the 90-day timetable doesn't really constrain them in any meaningful way.
Convicted felon Donald Trump would have a heckuva time arguing that Greenland presents a national emergency, but he could definitely try it, and a compliant Republican Congress is unlikely to say "boo."
J.L. in Baltimore, MD, asks: If Agent Orange orders the military to invade Panama or Greenland, can the military leaders refuse? Who exactly would have the authority and what law would give them that authority? What do you think would happen next if they did refuse?
(V) & (Z) answer: First, this is a good time to remind readers that we generally allow folks who send us questions or letters to retain their own voice, as much as we can. So while we would never refer to convicted felon Donald Trump as "Agent Orange" or "The Mango Moron" or the like, we do allow it from readers. If we got a question referring to "Sleepy Joe" or "Old Man Biden," we'd allow that, too. Note also that while we would not use insulting nicknames for the President-elect, we might spend an entire day where we describe him as a convicted felon on every single reference. Though we'd only do that if it amused us.
Second, we cannot see a way that the military could refuse such an order. By the terms of both American and international law, soldiers can (and must) refuse immoral orders. So, for example, if Trump, the convicted felon, ordered the 101st Airborne to gun down a group of protesters outside the White House, they could decline on the basis that such an order is not lawful. But the decision to invade Panama or Greenland is a policy decision, and policy is the prerogative of the civilians, not the military.
If Trump, with his status as a convicted felon, did order a dubious invasion, we suspect that what would happen is that the high-ranking Pentagon brass would tell him that they need a week or two to mobilize, and then would work through channels to make sure that Congress and the general public know what is going on. The brass would then have to hope that either the legislature or else political pressure from the voting public would force a course correction.
T.C. in Burlingame, VT, asks: What happens to unspent inauguration donations? Are they allowed to be creatively rolled over into election PACs? Or are there other ways they can be used to personally benefit the president?
(V) & (Z) answer: The custom is that leftover funds are donated to charity. However, there is relatively little law when it comes to spending the money, or even to disclosing how the money was spent. So, several watchdogs tried to figure out what happened to the residue from the first inaugural for the convicted felon Donald Trump, and were only able to determine indirectly that most of the money went to convicted-felon-Trump-affiliated PACs (which means that some of the money could very well have gone into the his pocket). Trump, despite being a convicted felon, has raised a record amount for his second inauguration ($170 million and counting), and there's no reason to think that the same thing won't happen again.
S.T. in Asbury Park, NJ, asks: You noted the need to have the Senate Parliamentarian deem certain items as budgetary and thus eligible for reconciliation (thereby needing only 50 votes plus VP-elect J.D. Vance). However, it would seem 50 Republicans plus Vance could vote that the Parliamentarian is wrong and enact the non-budgetary thing in a reconciliation bill, anyway. Am I right?
(V) & (Z) answer: The rulings of the parliamentarian are advisory, and the majority is free to ignore them as they see fit.
However, the filibuster, and the deference given to the parliamentarian, both stem from the exact same dynamic: They give the minority party real power. And while some members of the majority might think that is important, an even greater number of those members realize that one day, sooner or later (probably sooner), they will be in the minority. So, the majority wants those institutions to remain intact for when that day comes.
The parliamentarian has only been ignored once in the last half-century, and on that occasion, senators from both parties were so scandalized, they banded together to reverse that action. That means you should not expect Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) & Co. to ignore the parliamentarian anytime soon. That said, as we note, the power of the parliamentarian and the filibuster are closely linked. So, if one goes, the other will likely go, as well.
B.B. in St. Louis, MO, asks: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch will soon be ceasing its print operations which will, I believe, leave the city without any printed news. Which other large metropolitan areas are currently or shortly undergoing the same fate?
(V) & (Z) answer: There is an ebb and flow here, such that cities join the list, and then drop off the list. For example, New Orleans spent some time without daily print newspaper, but then the Times-Picayune came back to life. Same thing with Denver and The Denver Post. However, we believe that the three largest cities that are currently without a daily print newspaper are Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City and Birmingham. The former two are served by papers with twice weekly print editions, while the latter has no print newspaper at all.
P.B. in Spring Lake, NJ, asks: Watching the Jimmy Carter funeral, I was struck by the number of recent presidents who were Navy veterans: Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy. What branch has the most? I assume the Army.
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, it is the Army, and it's not close. Depending on how loosely you define "service," there are 25 presidents with some time in the U.S. Army or a state militia (or equivalent) on their résumés. Even if you eliminate leaner cases, like George W. Bush' time in the Texas Air National Guard, or Abraham Lincoln's one month in the Illinois militia, there are still at least 20 presidents with rock-solid claims to army service. By contrast, there are six Navy men, with the five you list coming in succession, then a break for Army vet Ronald Reagan, then a sixth Navy vet in George H.W. Bush. None of the other branches of the armed forces has produced a president.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, asks: The media can't seem to stop talking about how Jimmy Carter's greatest work was not his presidency. But that's not unusual. Without breaking a sweat, I thought of presidents whose greatest work occurred before their presidency: John Adams (Continental Congress, Declaration of Independence, diplomacy, Treaty of Paris), Jefferson (Declaration, diplomacy, founding our longest-lived political party), Madison (Constitution of 1787, Bill of Rights, founding of the Democratic-Republican party).
Nor was Carter the first president whose later work was more important than his presidency: John Quincy Adams (point man in Congress for the anti-slavery movement) and Bill Taft (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who lobbied for and got the third branch of government its own building).
Are there others who should make this list?(V) & (Z) answer: We don't think there is any other president who makes the list, at least in the manner you've framed it. That is to say, if we divide careers into pre-presidency/presidency/post-presidency, there aren't many presidents where their post-presidency is clearly the most important chapter of their career. Heck, even JQA might not belong on the list, since his pre-presidential work as Secretary of State was very important.
However, if we consider just presidency vs. post-presidency, we think there are two, or maybe three, men who join the list. Herbert Hoover was a mediocre president, but an excellent post-president, serving as both an elder statesman and a frequent presidential envoy. Gerald Ford was a pretty average president, but a very good post-president, working with various folks (including Jimmy Carter) on various public-service tasks.
The third guy, who might make the list, is Richard Nixon. His presidency had a lot of good and a lot of bad. After he left office, he substantially managed to restore his reputation. Nixon served as advisor to both Democratic and Republican presidents, and wrote a number of important books. You could make the case that the negatives and positives of his presidency work out to a wash, and that by having a generally positive post-presidency, he was therefore a better post-president than he was a president.
We say again, this only works if we limit ourselves to presidency and post-presidency. Clearly, Hoover's work as a relief administrator, Ford's service in House leadership, and Nixon's service in Congress and as VP, were more impactful than the things they did after leaving the White House.
A.M. in Mexico City, Mexico, asks: In answering the question from T.S. in Anaheim, about good people who served as president, you wrote: "With this said, based on available evidence, we think it's fair to consider Carter to be the most 'good' a person to ever have served as president. We would say the pretty clear runner-up is John Quincy Adams. Others in the conversation are Lincoln, William McKinley, Gerald Ford, Barack Obama and Joe Biden."
My question is: why not mention Ulysses S. Grant? I had the impression that he was a good man, although one who ultimately fell prey to scams, do to his overly trusting nature. Is there some reason that you don't see Grant as a good person, at least compared to the others that you listed?
Also, who would you say were some of the worst human beings to be president?(V) & (Z) answer: There were another half-dozen that we seriously considered, but excluded because of one black mark or another. Grant was literally next up, but we did not include him because of his antisemitic General Order No. 11. Not enough to condemn the man and his life's work, but enough to keep him out of the "nice guy presidents" top five. Others we seriously considered, and set aside, were James A. Garfield, Grover Cleveland, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Keep in mind, this is about personal qualities, not policy.
As to worst human beings, that is very difficult. Obviously, owning slaves, or wishing for the death of Native Americans, or embracing imperialism are deeply problematic in our day, but were less so in generations past. So, while we could answer your question with the five slave-owning-est presidents and be done with it, we don't think that tells you very much.
So, we are going to limit ourselves to presidents whose jerk behavior was jerk behavior even by the standards of their day. And we would say the five worst, even when correcting for era, were Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon and convicted felon Donald Trump. That is not to say that these men were all jerk-ish, all the time. Certainly, they all had their redeeming features, too. Well, most of them did.
R.B. in Owings Mills, MD, asks: Last week, you had a lot to say about historical accuracy in films and TV. Now that the semiquincentennial of the American Revolution is upon us, would you be willing to say something about the films and shows based on that time period that you would consider most (and least!) accurate? (You already commented on Mel Gibson's The Patriot, so we can skip that one). For instance, how is April Morning (1998)? The Crossing (2000)? Mini-series like John Adams or Sons of Liberty? It's very timely to have some good recommendations for historical drama of the nation's founding—and alternatively, to know what to avoid.
On a different note: About Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor, you wrote, "There's all kinds of other stuff in the film that's ridiculous (like the counterattack on Tokyo, which did not happen)." I thought it was very clear that the film was portraying the Doolittle Raid in April 1942, which most certainly did happen. Am I missing something?(V) & (Z) answer: Starting with your latter question, it was portraying the Doolittle Raid, but the film's version and the real thing have little to do with each other. Having just written a capsule on The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, another film that takes a real event and makes it into something that is basically fiction, we meant to add some verbiage to the Pearl Harbor capsule communicating our meaning. But we were jumping around as we wrote that section, and forgot to go back and add that verbiage.
As to your former question, (Z) is not the ideal person to answer that. Since the Revolutionary War is not his area, he is somewhat less likely to see those films and TV programs, unless they happen to overlap with one of his general areas of interest, like politics. So while he can say that John Adams, 1776 and Hamilton are all solid (within their respective frameworks), he can't speak to the larger corpus of Revolutionary-era films.
That said, the folks at The Journal of the American Revolution put together a list a couple of years ago, and it will tell you most of what you want to know. They have good things to say about The Crossing, and much less good things to say about April Morning. They did not bother with Sons of Liberty, as that is the History Channel taking a book (and a historical era) and aggressively dramatizing it. The History Channel is an entertainment operation, not an educational operation, and the next time they come within a country mile of fidelity to the historical record will be the first time.
T.H. in Oakland, CA, asks: I recently watched the movie The Apprentice, a dramatization of Donald Trump's relationship with Roy Cohn. Could you comment on how accurately this movie utilized historical facts?
(V) & (Z) answer: When the filmmakers were confronted with things that are hotly disputed, like whether or not Donald Trump (before he became a convicted felon) raped his first wife, or whether he used amphetamines to control his weight, they favored whatever version of events was more scandalous. That said, while certainly accepting some rumors as fact, they did not make things up out of whole cloth. And they did a very fine job of capturing the dynamic between the two main characters, and how that dynamic evolved over time.
P.H. in Davis, CA, asks: You wrote: "There was a sport back then called 'gouging,' that was very much like wrestling, except with virtually no limits on what a participant could do. It was not uncommon for fingers to be bit off, or eyes to be popped out of their sockets."
Why would anyone in their right mind participate in a "sport" with such negative consequences, unless they were very drunk or very stupid?(V) & (Z) answer: Gouging basically took the place of dueling for poorer folks who could not afford proper dueling pistols.
M.V.K. in Portland, OR, asks: Commenting on the accuracy of Birth of a Nation, you wrote that it's tough to judge director D.W. Griffith and his screenplay, because he "[based] it on what the professional historians of his day were saying."
That got me thinking. Did the historians of the day know they were "spinning racist fantasy"? When did the history profession become more truth-focused? Either through changing intentions and goals, or better methods of achieving them?(V) & (Z) answer: Historians have been truth-focused for thousands of years. If a historian is not truth-focused, then they are not creating history, they are creating literature. The modern discipline of history, in which arguments are advanced and supported with evidence, dates to the mid-19th century. Before that, history was basically just a narrative of events.
When it came to the historical events that The Birth of a Nation covers (the Civil War and Reconstruction), most of the work (at that time) was being done by Southern historians. And those historians were grappling with questions like: (1) Why did we lose the Civil War? and (2) Did we do wrong to re-assert control during the Reconstruction? And many of those historians (most obviously Ulrich Bonnell Phillips) descended from former slave owners, interpreted the evidence in a manner that made Southern white people look good, and Northern white people/Southern Black people look bad. It's not a binary situation, where they either did, or did not, know they were spinning racist fantasy. U.B. Phillips did not go to his office each day and say, "What lies can I invent today?" But, at the same time, he certainly knew that he was putting the most pro-white-Southern spin on the evidence as was possible.
D.P. in Oakland, CA, asks: Presumably, when voters selected Grover Cleveland to return to the White House just four years after firing him, it was fueled by nostalgia; they were hoping for a return to the past. Is there any way to determine if they got what they wanted? Or did buyer's remorse emerge and did they regret their decision immediately? What drove their decision four years later to elect William McKinley?
(V) & (Z) answer: You are imposing the "convicted felon Donald Trump template" on Cleveland's career, and that's not really justified. Cleveland won the popular vote for three elections in a row but, due to the Electoral College and a few thousand votes in New York, he was not elected in the second of those.
More importantly, Cleveland the president was nothing like Trump the president (and convicted felon). Cleveland was a throwback, a believer in a presidency and a federal government with extremely limited powers. He may well be the last president to embrace that way of thinking, despite it having been the preference of the founders. In his first term, he was pretty popular, because he sat by and did very little while the economy did well. In his second term, he was pretty unpopular, because he sat by and did very little while the economy did poorly. Even the election of McKinley, despite his coming from a different political party than Cleveland, was not really a repudiation of the 22nd and 24th president. McKinley was the more conservative candidate in 1896, and so was more closely aligned with Cleveland than the actual Democrat (Willian Jennings Bryan). In fact, Cleveland effectively endorsed McKinley, and was pleased when McKinley won.
In short, if you're looking to the Cleveland presidency for insight as to what's coming down the pike for the convicted felon Donald Trump, you're barking up the wrong tree. The two men, and the two eras, are just too different.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Why was Harry S. Truman so unpopular at the end of his presidency? And what would have happened in 1952, if Truman hadn't withdrawn his candidacy?
(V) & (Z) answer: Truman was unpopular for many reasons, somewhat dependent on the constituency. Racists were not pleased by his support for civil rights. Cold War hawks (and Republicans in general) were not happy about his firing Douglas MacArthur, nor his opposition to McCarthyism. Labor was not happy about his handling of the 1952 steel strike. Nor was management, for that matter. Many Americans were weary of the Korean War, and unclear as to exactly what the U.S. was doing there, or what victory would look like.
If Truman had stayed in, he almost certainly would have been the Democratic nominee. It's not easy to unseat an incumbent in the primaries, and the Democrats did not exactly have a bench full of rising stars in 1952. Then, Truman would have gone on to be crushed by the popular Dwight D. Eisenhower in the general.
A.A. in Branchport, NY, asks: Could you please offer a historian's critique of this article documenting Adolf Hitler's assumption of absolute power?
It seems that Trump has followed the same path.(V) & (Z) answer: It is true that both Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler are (or were) convicted felons. They have similar rhetorical styles, a similarly cavalier attitude about the truth, a similar willingness to create straw men and scapegoats, and a similar willingness to trample constitutional norms.
That said, while the article is a fine account of the rise of Adolf Hitler, the parallel you draw does not hold up. First, note that the main argument of the piece is that Hitler was very fortunate in terms of his timing, and in terms of things lining up just right, and that if just one or two things had unfolded differently, he would never have risen to dictatorial power.
And that's Weimar Germany that we're talking about. The Weimar Republic had only existed for 15 years when Hitler rose to power; the U.S. Constitution is more than 200 years old. The Weimar Republic had a very weak legislature with little power and limited independence from the executive; the U.S. Constitution provides for a strong legislature with considerable independence. The Weimar Republic's founding documents specifically allowed for the suspending of certain civil liberties; the U.S. Constitution has no such provisions (except maybe the suspension of habeas corpus in times of war). The Germans of the Weimar era were still recovering from the physical and emotional toll of losing World War I; modern America has no such national disaster on its recent ledger. And while Americans today tend to get pissy about inflation of 10% or 12% (or even 3%), the inflation of the Weimar Republic, at its worst, was 29,500%.
The point here is that 1920s/1930s Germany was unusually susceptible to someone coming along and seizing power as a dictator, and even then, Hitler barely pulled it off. It's just not happening in 21st century America.
N.K. in Ithaca, NY, asks: For a (mandatory) book club, I'm currently reading Neil Howe's The Fourth Turning Is Here: What the Seasons of History Tell Us about How and When This Crisis Will End. I'm finding it both very depressing and, as much as he strives to make it otherwise, an exercise in cherry picking. I'm interested in hearing your take on the four-generation cyclic explanation of history—particularly, but not exclusively, Anglo-American history. Your blog has admittedly only been a part of my daily diet for a decade now, but I can't recall instances of (Z) dishing up this saeculum-based theory.
(V) & (Z) answer: It's pseudo-intellectual bull**it, the kind of thing that people like Steve Bannon read, and then think they've been endowed with some special insight.
As long as you speak in generalities, it is very easy to chop history up into chunks, and to make it look like every other chunk, or every third chunk, or every fourth chunk is basically the same. Then, in turn, it's easy to make vague predictions that are nearly impossible to falsify. Here's a summary of the book's argument that appears on the dust jacket of some editions:
First comes a High, a period of confident expansion as a new order takes root after the old has been swept away. Next comes an Awakening, a time of spiritual exploration and rebellion against the now-established order. Then comes an Unraveling, an increasingly troubled era in which individualism triumphs over crumbling institutions. Last comes a Crisis—the Fourth Turning—when society passes through a great and perilous gate in history. Together, the four turnings comprise history's seasonal rhythm of growth, maturation, entropy, and rebirth.Just for illustrative purposes, consider the second "turning," which is "an Awakening, a time of spiritual exploration and rebellion against the now-established order." So, does that refer to the 1950s and the church-led Civil Rights Movement? Or maybe the 1960s, with the anti-war movement and "tune in, turn on, and drop out"? Perhaps the 1970s, with the rise of transcendental meditation and punk rock? Maybe the 1980s, with the emergence of the Moral Majority and backlash against feminism and the New Left?
The point is that you can shoehorn nearly anything into the model in order to make it work. Howe's prediction for the next 10-15 years, since we are ostensibly in the "fourth turning" is that society will pass through "a great and perilous gate in history." What insight! What we would like to hear about is the 15-year period in which there WASN'T some sort of great and perilous event. Howe can already point to Ukraine or Gaza and say, "See? I called it!" Unless, of course, some even better "validation" of his prediction comes along. He reminds us of Nostradamus, and should be taken about as seriously.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: Substack is free to post on and has the typical political offerings from the typical big names and then, way, way, way down at the bottom of the lists, I guess, some people trying to make a name with either truly poorly written blather or really, really good work on a pet issue that few people give enough of a damn about to bother contributing towards.
Pretty much like every site everywhere at this point. If you don't have name recognition or some crazy hook you're toast.
That being said, as it is a free site and it would drive exposure to your work, ever think of maybe sticking your material up there?(V) & (Z) answer: To start, if we were to make use of a site like that, it would not be Substack. Substack has platformed some very hateful people, and we don't need to be a part of that. If we were going that route, it would be with a site like beehiiv.
Second, we can conceive of only one way that we might use a site like that (and even then, it's not likely). If we determined that it would be really useful for people to get an e-mail when we post each day, we might mirror our material to beehiiv (or some other such site), and then people could sign up for an e-mail alert from beehiiv if that is really what they wanted to do. This would allow people to get an e-mail alert each day, while keeping us out of the e-mail list maintenance business.
A.A. in South Orange, NJ, asks: In response to a question from M.R. in New Brighton, (Z) revealed that he eschews hot dogs. Is that because chewing hot dogs in front of Staff Dachshunds Otto and Flash would make them nervous?
(V) & (Z) answer: It's because (Z) tries to stay vegetarian as much as is possible. And when it's not possible, heavily processed red meats are not preferred.
It's definitely not an issue with the Staff Dachshunds. A few evenings ago, when it was not possible to see the ground well, Staff Dachshund Flash managed to lay paws on a hot dog that someone had discarded on the ground. And the only reason (Z) knows it was a hot dog is that he reacted quickly enough to wrestle a small nub away from Flash. The rest was already down the gullet.
J.C. in Thủ Dầu Một, Bình Dương, Vietnam, asks: How is (Z) doing now? I understand the fires have gotten worse. Oxy has closed out of caution. Is UCLA closed, too? I imagine many faculty and staff could be affected. They are at my other alma mater, Fuller.
Also, on a lighter note, I think everyone wants to know the time stamp for where you show up as an extra on Speechless.(V) & (Z) answer: (Z) appreciates the statements of concern from readers. If he walks outside, the smell of smoke and burned wood is strong. And the ground looks like someone scattered a bunch of white confetti everywhere. Of course, it's not confetti, it's ash.
That said, the urban geography of Los Angeles is such that his residence is not especially threatened. What's powering the fires is dry undergrowth, of which there is much in the hills to the north. However, once a fire reaches Sunset Blvd., everything is developed, and there's no more underbrush (and thus no more fuel). The map of the fire-area perimeter produced and updated by the LAFD looks like this:
The red star is where (Z) lives; the southern boundary of the "code red" area is basically the aforementioned Sunset Blvd. So, while (Z) has gotten a couple of "be prepared to evacuate, just in case" messages, that's been the extent of it. There are certainly readers of this site who are much more in harm's way; of course, we send our best wishes and some good karma to them. Oh, and pretty much all universities have either closed, or switched to modified attendance (basically, Zoom). Even students whose schools are not threatened by the fires may well have homes/families that ARE threatened, and who require their presence.
As to Speechless, (Z) has never actually seen it. However, the scene where he was an extra was the climactic scene, when one of the politicians was giving a speech in front of a large crowd inside an auditorium, and the Michael Keaton and Geena Davis characters were exchanging furtive messages backstage. It probably wouldn't be too hard to pick out (Z); the producers handed out a dozen or so of those fake, white straw hats, and they gave one of them to him.