Dem
47
GOP
53
Apple's habit of waiting until 3:00 a.m. to perform system updates of its own volition is not a great match for our production schedule. That will teach us to take the staff dachshunds for a walk. Or, as Siri calls it, an auto-party.
J.S. in Houston, TX, writes: I am beginning to understand why "tariffs is the most beautiful word in the dictionary." Trump is using them as a bully's whip. Trump applies tariffs arbitrarily because he can, and that makes him feel powerful, especially when leaders of major countries call or visit and beg him to reconsider. Tariffs can be made to go up and down depending on how "respectful" and "subservient" a country and their leaders are. Even when there is no explicit threat of tariffs, an implicit threat remains to keep foreign leaders in line. There will be continuous pressure to flatter and compliment Trump; other leaders actually care about their countries, so they will generally swallow their pride and do what is necessary. In most cases, retaliatory tariffs will have a smaller impact on the U.S. and Trump because of the sheer size of the U.S. economy. Hence, greater pressure on other countries to do whatever it takes to avoid or minimize tariffs on their goods.
J.R. (U.S. citizen presently wandering about) in Kirkenes, Norway, writes: The main reason for the tariffs is to get the tax burden shifted to the bottom 90%. The more The Convicted Felon (TCF) can save, or just say he is "saving," the bigger the tax break can be. He is trying to not spook the public too much with this plutocratic giveaway and not spook the stock market too much with this bad deal. Can't see it working very well, as I am confident the market will keep tanking as he keeps trying to put in more tariffs, but I guess he will just have to settle for stealing what he can, not what he wants.
Oh yeah, this is the same basic reasoning for about everything he does about "economics"—anything to get more to himself and the plutocrats before 2026's blue wave.
K.B. in Hartford, CT, writes: Jamelle Bouie wrote in the NYT this week, in broad strokes, that the president's retribution is not limited to his political enemies but is directed to America itself. After all, we rejected him in 2020 and such disrespect can't go unanswered. If you start with this understanding, all the chaos and destruction makes sense. The pain he is inflicting is not a bug, it's a feature.
A.C. in Kingston, MA, writes: In a possible sign of my own potential dementia, I may have already written you about this before. My dad died about a year ago (February 2024) of Lewy Body Dementia. My mom is currently in memory care with middle-to-late stage Alzheimers. (In other words, to the extent this stuff is hereditary, I'm completely screwed.) My dad was a cranky libertarian who tended to vote Democratic and LOATHED Trump—and yet, every time I hear Trump speak, he reminds me of my dad in the earlier stages of his disease. The rambling, the rapid non-sequiturs and changes of subject, the anger and frustration at being unable to verbalize certain concepts, the insistence on his own consistency and competence... all of it sounds very familiar, even coming from a man whose voice and appearance couldn't be further from my dad's. So I don't think it's out of line to observe that regardless of his actual diagnosis, Trump is showing signs of dementia. And that should worry all of us. He'll be (even) more easily manipulated, he'll behave (even) more erratically, and he'll make (even) more dangerous and ill-informed decisions. And if he dies before his term is over, we're stuck with J.D. Vance, who's even worse.
A.Z. in Waynesville, NC, writes: I read today that Donald Trump is revoking the legal status of Afghanistanis who risked their lives and the lives of their families to assist American military forces in the "war on terror." These people were promised the safety of America! They were promised to get their families out.
Same for Ukrainians who've fled.
I see Cubans will have legal status revoked as well; there may be repercussions in the next election in Florida as a result, we can certainly hope so.
I'm horrified at Trump planning to close consulates and embassies in Europe and much of the rest of the world, potentially leaving Americans abroad without resources should they get in trouble.
I'm horrified that Republicans are starting to declare that Amy Coney-Barrett is a DEI hire!
B.B. in Pembroke, NH, writes: My wife and I are retired and we volunteer, not just because it's good for us but also there is a lot of need for it. One of our clients was a woman around 50 years old. She is totally dependent on government programs—welfare, Medicaid, and SNAP. She does not work, even though physically she looked OKAY. We suspect she was dealing with anxiety plus... whatever. We bought groceries for her (through a federally funded) program, paid from her SNAP funds. One day in August, my wife got a text from her filled with Trump BS. We knew then: If someone with this much dependence on government programs just didn't get it, well we're screwed. Choices have consequences. I wish her well.
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, writes: In reply to A.L. in Highland Park: I am of Polish and Ukrainian descent and I agree with you that people in the Midwest with those backgrounds could have swung the 2024 election to Kamala Harris. However, I am not aware of any Polish or Ukrainian political groups who endorsed Donald Trump and said there would be no difference between Trump and Harris on how they handled Vladimir Putin. In fact, the two most famous Ukrainian-Americans, the Vindman brothers, have been vocally campaigning against Trump and sounding the alarm about his ties to Putin for at least 4 years. By contrast, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), one of the most prominent Palestinian-Americans, pointedly refused to endorse Kamala Harris and many other Arab-Americans thought they would send a message to the Democratic Party about Gaza by contributing to their loss.
However, I do disagree with one point (V) & (Z) made Saturday. While the European Union is far wealthier than Russia and has more people, I still believe much of Europe is at great risk of falling under Russian domination if current events play out a certain way. My congressional district in Eastern Connecticut holds a naval submarine base in Groton, CT, and the Naval War College is about 90 minutes east of me in Newport, RI. My proximity to these facilities have given me the opportunity to speak to several naval intelligence personnel over the past three years. They make great conversation over drinks at bars. Every single navy intel person I have spoken to is extremely alarmed at the possibility of Russia winning the war in Ukraine, and they all agreed it would be an utmost security and government crisis for Europe if Ukraine falls.
If the U.S. abandons Ukraine and Russia conquers the country, their military will push westward into the heart of Europe, and the intel people all said there is good reason to believe this will lead to a collapse of many European democracies. If Putin tries to invade them, governments would acquiesce to demands to install Russian puppet leaders or risk their people getting hit with nuclear weapons. Do you think Donald Trump would defend them?
This scenario might sound far-fetched to Generation Z readers, but it wasn't that long ago that all of Central and Eastern Europe except for Switzerland, Austria, Lichtenstein, Greece, and the western two-thirds of Germany were dictatorships under control of Russian puppet leaders. Europe is much more prosperous today than it was at the end of the Cold War, and I have no doubt Putin would like to take control of the continent's industries and add that wealth to Russia.
The intelligence the U.S. shares about Russia is undoubtedly what spooked Sweden and Finland into joining NATO. They knew they could be next. This is why it is crucial for security and democracy for Ukraine to win this war.
R.L.P. in Santa Cruz, CA, writes: A.L. in Highland Park asked about your plans on analyzing the Ukrainian vote for the felon in chief. You said you might do that at some point, and I look forward to reading your analysis, I guess, although my hopes of enlightenment for every analysis of misguided voters that I have read in the past have been dashed in every case I remember. I have finally broken myself of reading any articles trying to explain why white working class voters vote against their economic interests. I already know why. I grew up surrounded by those assholes (in Kansas, no less). I know them well. In the case of Ukrainians who look (or looked) kindly on the felon, I'm confident that the answer is the same as for the white Americans. Ukrainians are even whiter than white Americans and correspondingly even more racist, on the average. The only large population of white people who are more racist, on the average, than white Americans or Ukrainians are Russians, whose differences from Ukrainians are more geographical than cultural. (Let me say quickly that I am very much in favor of helping Ukraine defeat Russia, and not only by sending them weapons.) So, I wish you the best for your efforts on this project. I hope to learn something new but must confess that it would surprise me. Enormously.
L.H. in Chicago, IL, writes: A.L. in Highland Park compared Ukrainian-Americans who voted for Trump to the Dearborn Arabs, and linked to an article which supposedly was about Ukrainians for Trump. Yet, in all of the article, I only saw a single short mention that "some Ukrainian Americans voted for Trump." That hardly seems anywhere near an equivalence in willful stupidity that the "Abandon Biden"/"Arabs for Trump" groups vocally engaged in. I don't think the article supported A.L.'s point.
N.N. in Murray, KY, writes: My wife is a nurse. One of her coworkers is originally from Ukraine, and voted for Trump. She is now regretting it, hard. She worries that she and her family here will be sent back. Her mother still lives over there. According to my wife, this coworker (one of her charge nurses) is a hardworking and reliable individual. She hates to see her so distressed, and doesn't want to her to be deported. Admittedly, we have some ambivalence due to her having helped put TCF back in power (especially me). She also has a former coworker and friend from this same hospital who is Native American (and a Harris voter), and expressed her fear of being removed from where she lives as well. Whatever happened to "give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"? Instead, the U.S. was the sole U.N. member state to vote NO on a resolution declaring an International Day of Hope. Man, we suck.
J.R.A. in St. Petersburg, FL, writes: Concerning the letter from A.L. in Highland Park, which seems to me to essentially be questioning whether Arab-Americans should be held responsible for their votes which could be construed as having cost Harris the election, this quote that has been making the rounds for some years now, credited to A.R. Moxon, seems as if it might be appropriate:
Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.
That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore.
They joined what they joined. They lent their support and their moral approval. And, in so doing, they bound themselves to everything that came after. Who cares any more what particular knot they used in the binding?I'm sure there are some readers who believe this is overkill. I invite those people to look around them.
H.H. in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, writes: Your item "O, Canada" is a correct and thorough analysis of what would happen to the U.S. political structure, should Canada become the 51st state or if its individual provinces become individual states. However, I believe your analysis is incomplete because it accepts TCF's pronouncements at face value, something which should only be done at one's peril.
I completely accept as fact that TCF really wants to take over Canada (and Greenland and the Panama Canal). However, I believe he is lying about Canada becoming the 51st state. As you point out, this would result in a future political realignment. This realignment would be completely unacceptable to TCF and his enablers, so I believe the real agenda is for Canada to become a U.S. Territory. Then, there would be no political realignment, just freedom for the U.S. to access our resources, especially water, petroleum and electricity. As a territory like Puerto Rico, Guam, etc., we would get citizenship but no voting electoral representation in DC. As a consolation prize, Canadian residents could vote in Republican or Democratic conventions for president like other territories. (Whoop-de-doo!)
Such an arrangement could only be "negotiated" under economic and/or physical duress. Otherwise, how would such constitutional issues as Aboriginal and treaty rights, official national bilingualism, let alone Quebec's unique status within our federation, and that King Charles is our monarch, be circumvented and abrogated?
D.T. in Oxnard, CA, writes: Realistically, any scenario where Canada joins the United States will not result in one or more states being added to the U.S. Prior to Donald Trump, any discussion of Canada joining the U.S. (and it was discussed from time to time) was met with a polite "no, thank you." Now, however, any discussion will be met with a loud "Fu** you!" Canadians are angry. There is a broad, uncoordinated boycott of any American goods going on across the country. And that's going to continue whether or not Trump ever grows a pair and actually follows through on his threats.
The only way Canada joins the U.S. now (or any time in the near future) is through force. The U.S. military will be called on to occupy the country, and there is no scenario where that results in adding new states to the U.S. for a very long time. And we all know how well occupying foreign countries has worked out for the U.S. in the past. The economic and political consequences of that will cripple the U.S. economy: Most of the rest of the world will impose sanctions and will turn their backs on the U.S. (although that's pretty much guaranteed to happen now anyways—look at the way Europe is turning away from the U.S.).
So here's what's going to happen:
- Canada will not join the U.S. (willingly or unwillingly).
- U.S. companies that do business with Canada will suffer from the broad boycott that's underway and (if they ever happen) from the tariffs.
- Canadian companies that do business with the U.S. will suffer if the tariffs ever take effect.
- Canadians living in the U.S. (primarily highly-skilled workers) will leave or make preparations to leave.
On this last point: I fall into this category as a dual Canadian/U.S. citizen. I work in IT for a major financial institution, and although I haven't done an exhaustive survey, I know of four others in my organization (out of about 45 employees) who are also Canadian citizens working in the U.S. A loss of ten percent of the employees in this organization will cripple it, at least temporarily. And I have no reason to think this is not representative of the IT industry more widely.
But one good thing has come out of this: This has finally motivated me to do something I should have done years ago. I am in the process of applying for Canadian citizenship certificates for my two sons. If the need should arise, this will make our departure from the U.S. much easier.
P.H. in Toronto, ON, Canada, writes: I wanted to start by noting how very disappointed I was to see your piece entitled "O, Canada."
Canadians are living a nightmare at the hands of your felon-in-chief. He is threatening our economy, our well-being, our security and our sovereignty practically every day. To state that we feel besieged is not an understatement. All of this is either enabled, not opposed, or treated as humorous by a large part of your political establishment.
There is nothing that we have done, or have failed to do, that justifies this. The U.S. is, by far, a net exporter of crime, guns, drugs and migrants to Canada. In fact, just in the last couple weeks the Toronto police announced the largest seizure of cocaine in Toronto history (almost a ton), all of which came from the U.S. In addition, almost 90% of the guns used in crimes in Toronto come from the U.S. We are not responsible for your drug problem, but you are responsible for our gun problem.
However, instead of writing about the immorality, darkness and utter insanity of a revival of 19th-century militarism and imperialism, you write about the impact on U.S. politics of this unwelcome annexation. You have otherwise written about sane washing in the U.S. media. Physician, heal thyself.
I would also note that the Trump tariffs, in addition to being both bad policy and a betrayal, are also a blatant violation of both the free trade agreement that Trump himself signed in his first term and the WTO trade agreements.
Under Trump, the U.S. has become a country that invents its own facts, betrays its partners and allies, is abusive of everyone other than fascist dictators and does not honor its word. Does not that more merit discussion than how many Senators Canada might get?
Finally, I would note that there has been extensive reporting of Trump's complaint that he has not been shown sufficient respect by President Zelensky. Well, Trump has shown Canada and its leaders no respect.
You say that our love for you is "slipping away" and that we are "very skeptical" of the Trump tariffs. More sane washing. You should know that most Canadians are incandescent with rage at the U.S.
J.J. in Johnstown, PA, writes: I haven't seen this mentioned in any of the coverage of the tariffs on Canadian products, but these tariffs will have a huge impact on the U.S. newspaper industry. A very large majority of newsprint is imported from Canada because the capability to produce it largely does not exist in the U.S. Given this administration's animosity toward the press, you'd have to assume this impact is intentional. It may not be the sole motivator for the tariffs but you know they don't view it as a downside. Newsprint is the biggest expense for newspapers after payroll. In an industry that's already hurting, sustained tariffs on Canada would probably force a lot of publications, especially ones serving small communities, to shut down the presses and turn off the lights. Indeed, Democracy Dies in Darkness.
J.H. in Ankeny, IA, writes: In regards to your item "O, Canada," I thought I'd share a video from January with a Canadian's take on Canada becoming the "51st state":
L.S. in Bellingham, WA, writes: While in Vancouver two weeks ago for a mini comic-con, I came across another Canadian reaction to TCF's latest bullying efforts: A new Super Hero!
Funds raised go to the Canadian United Way.
W.F. in Orlando, FL, writes: Your item "The Pax Americana Is Over" was the best and most succinct summation that I've seen of the disaster that we now face due to a ruinous change of direction in foreign policy. Like most well-informed citizens, I recognized the folly in dismantling various long-term policies and failing to respect our best allies, but your article was the first time I've read a clear summation of what all these smaller mistakes will coalesce into eventually.
I am heartbroken to see my country turn its back on democracy, peace and freedom for seemingly no clear purpose whatsoever. I'm addition, the reasons that are given for these changes are patently false and/or irredeemably stupid. I have family connections to Ukraine and have spent enough time there to know that the country is a threat to no one and the only thing they did wrong was give up their nuclear weapons based on a worthless promise from the superpowers. No one will ever do that again. I fear for the world my children will live in and I'm disappointed to have lived in the time that America lost its standing and leadership in the world.
D.M. in Berlin, Germany, writes: B.O. in Stockholm expressed bewilderment that U.S. foreign policy can turn 180 degrees from one president to another and asked if there are "no checks and balances." It is definitely true that U.S. foreign policy changed remarkably little during the Nixon—Ford—Carter—Reagan—Bush—Clinton succession. As far as I can see, there are only two reasons U.S. foreign policy never made such wild swings until now:
- Not changing foreign policy was one of those unwritten "norms" Donald Trump doesn't care for. There was even a bizarre saying that politicians of both parties were bizarrely proud of: "Politics stops at the water's edge."
- The two parties used to be, if not "the same," then still a lot more similar to each other than they are now. Had they gone wild with their foreign-policy preferences, it wouldn't have changed much.
But, over the decades, the legislative branch has delegated more and more of its authority on foreign policy to the executive, and the executive is really just the president, because almost every policy-making civil servant "serves at the pleasure of the president." Furthermore, the president is a single person, not a coalition of parties like his broad equivalents for this purpose elsewhere.
Austria, by the way, has gone in the other direction: It has split the executive branch into "government" and "administration," two branches that are separated from each other about as much as they are from the legislature and the judiciary.
Also, P.M. in Edenton insinuated that Volodymyr Zelenskyy should "exhibit[...] sufficient gratitude." This attitude shocks me every time anew. If you do things in order to be thanked, you have no moral compass and deserve no respect. If you do things for other reasons, roll your eyes and move on!
P.C. in Yandina Creek, QLD, Australia, writes: Thought you might like this:
J.G. in Berkeley, CA, writes: In your item "Sec. Linda McMahon Announces She Will Wind Down the Dept. of Education," you write that two of Linda McMahon's three goals are: (1) Have parents be the primary decision makers in a child's education, and (2) Keep diversity programming out of public education. You also listed several ways that these are problematic.
One additional reason they are problematic is that these two items are contradictory, or at least sometimes they will be in conflict. What if parents want diversity programming? Do parents get to make all the decisions, except for those about diversity programming?
I live in progressive Berkeley, CA, and our school district does a very good job of teaching students about things like the Civil Rights Movement, Stonewall and the LGBTQ+ rights movement, systemic racism, etc. And these curricula are beloved by parents. It's one of the main reasons I'm happy I raised my kids here. If parents were told to vote on what is included, there is no question in my mind that Berkeley parents would keep the diversity programming in there. But wait, would that be an area where the government decides for us?
A.C. in Kingston, MA, writes: You and some readers may remember that I am both a teacher and serve on the 7-12 school committee in my town. I've been teaching high school math for 24 years (and music for 15 of those), and part time at the college level for the last 4 years. I've also taught SAT and GRE prep for Kaplan and piano lessons, all side jobs early in my career.
I wanted to clarify some of how public education is run and how shutting down the federal Department of Education would affect that, using your three-point outline of McMahon's platform as an organizing device.
First, as have all public educators, I've had the misfortune of dealing with so-called "parents' rights" advocates over the past 5 years. As with a lot of conservative grievances, the goalposts here keep moving. We continue to get complaints that parents should be informed of what kids are learning in schools. Except... they already ARE, and have been for years. Curriculum standards are set at the state level, implemented by individual districts, and enforced by state educational agencies (whose names vary from state to state). The state curriculum standards are published on the state departments of education websites. Individual school districts publish course information, programs of studies, syllabi, teacher contact information, and often highlights of student work. Parents may contact individual teachers at any time for further information on what's going on in the classroom. Parents can also get involved with PTO, School Council, special education advisory groups, and boosters groups. They can chaperone field trips, attend open house and curriculum nights, and parent conferences. They can call or e-mail teachers, or come into the school for a meeting. They can attend school committee (board) meetings and speak up during public comment.
The problem is, that's not enough, and people tend to lash out when confronted with these basic facts. So the goalpost moves to wanting to ban anything they decide is DEI (which includes things like teaching about Malcolm X and MLK Jr. in AP US History, or teaching elementary kids about Hanukkah and Lunar New Year), or trying to ban sex ed. Or complaining about a teacher who hangs up a Rainbow Peace Flag in their classroom, or teachers who include their pronouns in their e-mail signatures. Which is basically McMahon's second major issue. And the problem there is, if you talk to kids, when they have good teachers who make learning engaging and age-appropriate... they LIKE learning about other cultures. They LIKE meeting people from diverse backgrounds. They LIKE treating others with respect.
I think you guys hit the nail on the head with the last issue: Turning college into glorified vocational training (which already exists in other contexts) is essentially ending college. Churning out engineers who've never had to take a literature or ethics class, or doctors who've never had to take anthropology, hastens our decline into Elon Musk's dream of a dystopia devoid of empathy or art. And, of course, gutting federal funding for liberal arts schools and tuition assistance to those schools affects only poor and middle class students. The rich will continue to send their children to progressive private schools and elite liberal arts colleges. Those of us who serve them, including professional class workers (doctors, lawyers, accountants, programmers, teachers), will have to content ourselves with vocational training.
A.T. in Elkton, MD, writes: While the Republicans have hated the Department of Education from the day Jimmy Carter split it off from Health and Human Services, one thing that surprises me is how much they've never understood how unifying education could be, even under their own ideological position. If you want to maintain a nation-state (big "if" these days, I know), then one could argue that standardizing education across the country would be one way of doing it. In fact, from 1867 on, after the Civil War, this was seen as education's primary function, especially as we expanded west.
Of course, what the Republicans have always really hated was how our education grew (imperfectly, no doubt) out of the Humboldtian model in Europe and the Deweyian model here, which argued that education was necessary for a democratic society. I assume their concern is that this means Democratic party and not, say, a society based on democracy (which, I'll note, they are presently claiming is the basis of their power).
What this means instead is that citizens, living within a society, should be best able to make decisions for how that society is run. That they should be educated enough on issues to elect representatives to best develop the ideas of the citizens. It is one of our fundamental arguments for founding our own nation-state, one of the things that defines who we are as a people. But as we've seen from the Trump Era, their goal is to destroy all of these things and leave us more divided than ever. It's the most profitable way forward.
Education has never been perfect, in this country or any other. Higher education and K-12 have struggled with who is included, how taxpayers support it, and for what purpose. It would be one thing to argue that we're in a system which is imperfect and should continue to make it... more perfect. But as ever, the Reagan model, which has become Trump's anarchical model, is to destroy everything public and privatize, privatize, privatize.
How one then holds a nation-state together, I don't know, but I guess we'll find out soon enough.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: There has GOT to be some middle ground between the Republicans' base-only approach and the Democrats' everybody-but-the-base approach. The Democrats are so focused on not pissing off the middle (and I do understand where they're coming from, but...) they are actively pissing off their core. We are on the verge of an autocracy. The very foundations of the Constitution they, and I, swore to defend, even against domestic enemies, are under attack. Decorum is not the highest priority here. I get that they are concerned about winning the next election, but whether they lose to a Republican in the general or a leftier Democrat in the primary, they're just as much a loser either way. Better to lose for doing something than to lose for doing nothing.
S.J.Z. in Darien, IL, writes: If anything perfectly epitomizes the state of affairs in the U.S. right now (and indeed in the world), it has to be Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) holding up a small sign saying "This is not normal" during Mad King Donald's address to Congress, and Congressman Lance Gooden (R-TX) violently ripping it out of her hands and throwing on the floor of the Capitol. There is no better demonstration of what fascism is all about. Violence for the sake of violence. People with no class, no values, and no ideas other than thuggery have been elected to the highest offices in this once proud land and they are absolutely kicking the sh** out of our formerly democratic institutions. Hoping that these people, and the people that voted for them, will eventually see reason is a pipe dream.
D.A.Y. in Troy, MI, writes: In your item about 2005, there is something you omitted that was important to the turnaround for the Democratic Party: Katrina. Before Katrina, Bush 43 being an idiot was passed off as an offensive caricature created by pointy-headed coastal elites who hated that a man of the Texas earth was president. He was the man who stood on the rubble of the World Trade Center and rallied America. However, the manner in which W and his administration handled Katrina before, during, and after its landfall made clear in no uncertain terms he was in fact as incompetent as the "elites" had claimed and had surrounded himself with cronies and buddies in important positions they had no business being in.
Right now, Elon Musk and his henchmen have set their sights on NOAA, firing hundreds of personnel including specialists important to hurricane forecasting. Firings of hurricane hunters, in particular, could prevent NOAA from flying planes into tropical systems to investigate subtle clue to changes in their strength and heading. Not even the supercomputers used to run forecast models and archive data are safe, as they are looking to cancel the leases to the buildings housing them.
These cuts to NOAA will make it inevitable a hurricane will strike an unexpected place at an unexpected strength with little warning and time to prepare, which could lead to a mass casualty event similar to Katrina. Even more "mundane" weather like tornadoes and floods could become more predictable and therefore catch Americans unaware and kill or injure more than they would if there was sufficient warning.
Watch the skies, because the government might not be.
R.P. in Kāneʻohe, HI, writes: In response to the question from R.S. in San Mateo, you remarked:
We are people who analyze politics, not chroniclers of an absolutist overthrow of the U.S. government. Should Trump actually manage to set aside the Constitution and make himself some sort of dictator, then there are no more politics, and therefore there will no longer be a purpose for our site.As someone who has read almost every post on this site for more than two decades, I feel compelled to share a different perspective. Yes, obviously, the reason I've followed this site so faithfully for so long is because of the exceptionally thoughtful, insightful, and balanced political analysis (seasoned with just the right amount of snark) that you consistently provide. However, not long after September 28, 2015, when a professional historian from UCLA joined the editorial team, it occurred to me that the site also represents one of the best (perhaps the best) example of Phil Graham's notion of a "first rough draft of history" in the contemporary era (certainly better than what Graham's beloved Washington Post has recently become). Indeed, I had always assumed this was one of the motivations for (V) and—especially—(Z) to commit such an enormous amount of time and energy to maintaining the high-quality and voluminous near-daily content (now totaling north of 18 million words within nearly 29,000 items across roughly 4,800 posts): to create a critical resource for future historians. Imagine what a treasure trove of information (including data, facts, statistics, analysis, interpretation, extensive links to sources, and a general "mood" of what intelligent people were thinking at the time) the collective content of this site would be for some PhD student, one or two centuries from now, trying to understand exactly what led to the unprecedented and historically significant events that unfolded in the (former?) United States during the early part of the twenty-first century! Now... imagine how that future PhD student would feel if this priceless resource suddenly stopped adding new content the moment things went over the cliff and Trump achieved dictatorship status?
Even if you don't care about the future historians trying to make sense of this era of U.S. political history, consider us, your loyal readers. Many of us view this site as a lifeline to sanity during these terrifyingly uncertain times. If Trump did manage to set aside the Constitution, we'd need that lifeline more than ever. Perhaps more importantly, the site and its contributors and readers would likely become a vital nexus in the underground revolutionary movement to restore democracy. In other words, even if there are "no more politics" to analyze, I believe it is a gross misstatement that "there will no longer be a purpose for [this] site." On the contrary, I would predict that not only would the purpose of chronicling the first rough draft of history become even more important, but perhaps the community of aforementioned intelligent people you have managed to assemble (over 6,000 of whom have contributed to the collective content) will actively help shape that future history.
K.C. in West Islip, NY, writes: You made the assertion that if (when?) Trump assumes dictatorial powers, then there's no use for your site anymore as politics will have ended. I respectfully disagree. At that point, we'll need you more than ever. Dictators need to be overthrown and the resistance will need to be strong. I can't think of a worse time to roll up the carpet and close down shop. I look forward to many more years of reading my favorite site for political news and analysis, and if it becomes unfortunately necessary, my favorite site for camaraderie with like minded individuals who want to wrest control from the magaTs and make America, America again.
J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: One of your points in defense of the non-alarmist position on Trump's takeover is that if you truly believed it represented an absolutist takeover of the democracy, there would be no more politics and no more need for your site.
I disagree. A point you have made in the past is that even dictators have their bases of power (they're just not electoral, typically military), and no governmental power can exist without that. That IS politics. Even after a putative absolutist MAGA takeover, there would still be, for example, the populist Bannon alt-right MAGA faction at war with the elitist Musk tech-bro MAGA faction, which a politics site could cover. And as students of history, you know that transitions to dictatorships take time, and many steps. For example the transitions from Roman Republic to Principate Empire to Dominate Empire, took centuries, with the Senate extant throughout. Russia's transition was much faster but it still took decades, the Duma still exists, and elections still take place. Factions and power bases and politics still exist.
I mean, I know that eventually a dictatorship tends curtail the freedom of speech/press, and if it came to that obviously you would have to take into account your freedom and safety, but I think even among the MAGA movement who think Trump has been maligned by a deep-state/corporatist/globalist/liberal media complex, or whatever, explicit suspension of the first amendment is a nonstarter. More likely they force the corporate parents Disney/Comcast/etc to bend the knee, and disfavor traditional media in favor of podcasts and Breitbart-style sites, with favored treatment and access for the friendly ones. I would expect to see a role for an Electoral-Vote.com-style site in such a media landscape.
A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: You wrote: "It has always been the case that if someone runs for office, particularly high office, their family gets to come along for the ride, whether they want to or not."
I can only give an anecdotal addition to your comments.
I served as a publicly elected official on my city's council several years ago (for 14 years, elected to three terms and then appointed for 2 more to fill a vacancy). I am currently serving as an appointed member of my county planning commission (going on 24 years).
Newberg is a smallish community in a relatively liberal corner of a conservative county. We are a 'burb of a much larger city. Many of our residents' only connection with the community is when they stop on their way home from work in the metro area to pick up a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk on their way home.
It isn't necessarily "HIGH" office that can create personal problems for the elected official or their families. In my time on the council, we received the fabulous salary of $5/meeting (currently, on the county planning commission, we are reimbursed for mileage to and from meetings at the astonishing rate of $0.17/mile.)
The mayor in our community, while I was in office, was an "R" and I was a "D." One of the few "R's" I have ever consistently voted for. A man of principle, ethics, and caring for his community. He managed a local auto parts store. I know personally of several occasions where he was accosted in his store by customers, verbally abused, and threatened with losing business because of votes he had taken on the council. My father was fairly well known and he regularly was asked "what the he!! is your son doing?" I can vividly remember one meeting where an unhappy opponent stood up and called the council a bunch of "Pinko, commie, sons of bi**hes" (there were 2 female members of the council at the time) before he stormed out of the room with his wife. I remember because his wife was a high school classmate (we reconciled later, but it has stuck with me for 30 years). My oldest son was teased at school a couple of times by other classmates whose parents had a bone to pick with me, in particular, or the council in general.
Not the kinds of experiences that would warrant police protection or intervention. Just the same, sometimes the burdens of the father (or mother) are visited on the undeserving spouses and progeny of the public servant.
M.W. in Richmond, VA, writes: It is a dubious honor for Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) to be mentioned with Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) in "This Week in Freudenfreude: Ray of Light." The Richmond Times-Dispatch ran an article this week that explains why. The Chair of the Fairfax County, VA, Board of Supervisors sent Youngkin a two-page letter explaining that the "regional and state economy would be devastated if Trump follows through with his threat to force federal agencies to move outside the National Capital Region." Gov. Youngkin's two-page response from his Chief of Staff John Littel made no mention of the "Virginia Has Jobs" initiative, but instead offered a steady stream of criticism of Fairfax County's budget challenges, as explained in the article:
"While other counties in Virginia are growing and attracting new residents and tax revenue, Fairfax County is losing both," Littel told McKay. "Focusing on your $292.7 million budget shortfall without raising taxes on your constituents should take priority over partisan theatrics." He added: "You should reverse the mandatory union labor agreements that will cost your taxpayers millions. You should improve your commercial real estate crisis and support local business by demanding that employees return to the office." Littel did not address Trump's cuts to the federal workforce or push to move federal agencies out of the region.Perhaps the "Virginia Has Jobs" initiative will ameliorate devastation in Fairfax County and elsewhere in Virginia. However, an article from Virginia Public Media (VPM) News raised some doubts:
Terry Clower, director of the Center for Regional Analysis and a public policy professor at George Mason University, said data from online job postings aggregated by economic consultancies indicates Virginia's job openings don't line up with the skill set of Virginia's federal workers. "At best, it was maybe a 30% overlap," he told VPM News in an interview Wednesday.We report, you decide.
J.E. in St. Paul, MN, writes: State jobs for fired federal workers?
Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN) has done the same thing in Minnesota.
G.K. in Blue Island, IL, writes: Please invite C.J. in Boulder to re-experience their youth by moving to the Chicago area, where the Edens, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Stevenson are the only names mentioned in traffic reports (in addition to the more outlying Tri-State, Bishop Ford, Jane Addams, Reagan, Borman, etc.). Heck, even the Eisenhower is regularly called by a nickname, the Ike. In fact, I live near the one remaining freeway that has no name—it's just I-57—and locals regularly mention with some consternation the opinion that it's waaay past time for Springfield to find someone dead to name it after.
J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: C.J. of Boulder comments that while the locals in Southern California use highway names instead of numbers, Boston locals don't seem to do that, other than the Pike (which I think C.J. acknowledges, although there is only one Pike, not multiple). In fact, it is one of the shibboleths of the townie whether you call I-95 the Yankee Highway or I-93 the Southeast Expressway. Maybe C.J. only ran into younger, more recent transplants in Boston, so let me assure them that the highways all have names and all the locals use them.
M.S. in Canton, NY, writes: As a follow-up to the question from C.J. in Boulder and your response: When I moved to the Bay Area in Northern California in the 1970s, I noticed that while the locals mostly referred to highways by number, they did not distinguish between different kinds of highways. The three prominent routes to the south were known as "Highway 5," "Highway 101," and "Highway 1," while I as an Easterner would have said "Interstate 5" (or "I-5"), "US 101," and "California 1" (or "state route 1"). When I asked about this, the responses seemed to indicate that some of the people I asked were not even sure what the difference was. In particular, I rarely if ever heard the word "Interstate."
D.R. (USC '84) temporarily in Vancouver, BC, Canada, writes: You wrote: "However, car radios were not great 40 or 50 or 60 years ago, and a bit of static could turn 110 into 10, which is a problem."
That would NEVER happen! The Harbor Freeway was the 11, until 1981 when it was renumbered to I-110 after being designated an Interstate.
But such a comment is expected from a UCLA "history" graduate!
(V) & (Z) respond: For those unfamiliar with L.A. geography, USC students have to know the 110 Freeway like the back of their hands, because that is the freeway that one must use to escape campus before nightfall, when things get dangerous.
R.J.N. in Katy, TX, writes: Sorry, but your incidental remark about Mike Royko seems way off base.
I never lived in Chicago and, of course, never knew him personally. I only know Royko through his writings. After his death, I have read about half of Royko's books with his columns, and for about 5 years in the early 1990s, I read his syndicated columns religiously. His columns were great fun and often perceptive. He used personas and characters to tell anecdotes (which was a pretty common technique at the time—see Jimmy Breslin, Art Buchwald, Molly Ivins and, even more recently, Thomas Friedman and Maureen Dowd, who still do this on occasion).
My background is mainly in literature, and I confess it's been at least a decade since I've read any of Royko's columns. And I'm assuming that only his best writings were put into books. Over the years, a prolific columnist is going to say a lot of things that don't date well or that stir up negative reactions at the time. But aside from a few off-color remarks, I saw absolutely nothing in Royko's writings which would merit the charge of asshole, homophobe, whatever. He did use personas to voice some uncomfortable truths or attitudes. But any accomplished author knows how to use these personas ironically. The tone of his columns run the gamut, but I was struck overall by the humaneness of his approach to social problems and his sympathy for the little guy.
Perhaps one can dig up a statement by one of Royko's characters and find something that would probably seem repellent to the modern sensibility. But that happens often for lots of respected authors. Especially when you are trying to be humorous or satirical or caustic, you run the risk of alienating audiences. Whenever a character somehow doesn't ring true to the contemporary reader, somehow the charge surfaces that the author was a bigot. More often, it's just that the character didn't work or that one particular reader didn't enjoy or disagreed with that characterization. At the very minimum, these kinds of misses can serve as interesting time capsules for language and attitudes. But I'm always glad that a columnist took chances.
I never lived in Chicago, so I'm open to the possibility that Royko was boorish in person or at local media appearances. But I don't think it's fair to compare Royko with today's media blowhards. Perhaps he just played the part of public curmudgeon in typical H.L. Mencken style. But I regard many of his columns as literary gems. (And it's scandalous that his books still haven't been digitized). While looking up Royko's Wikipedia page, I was horrified and saddened that Royko died at 64 years of age.
Perhaps there is information about his biography that I am not aware of. But denigrating Royko for using personas to create dialogues is no better than accusing columnist Alistair Cooke of being MAGA simply because he and Donald Trump shared a love for golf.
(V) & (Z) respond: Just search Google for "Mike Royko" and "AIDS" and you'll get some sense of what we were talking about.
J.C. in Shawnee, OK, writes: Former journalists of a certain age who barely visited Chicago also have fond memories of Mike Royko.
L.H. in Chicago, IL, writes: As a lifelong Chicagoan, I was initially taken aback by your vehemence against Mike Royko. But thinking about it in retrospect, I can't fault your reasoning. At best, Royko was good at being "our asshole" taking down other assholes. And for another example of other columnists taking up the reins, one need look no further than John Kass, whose column adorned the same Chicago Tribune page Royko's did after Royko's was no more. Kass recently moved to Indiana and no longer writes for the Tribune, but I hear he still has a podcast on which he lies about Chicago Democrats and liberals in general.
At least Royko was never a Republican.
J.H. in Grays Harbor County, WA, writes: H.M. in San Dimas wondered: "When did we stop being a suit-wearing society and more casual when we go out, and why?"
In 1979 I started work as a computer programmer for a company in Wichita, KS—their first such hire. During my interview, I observed that everyone wore 3-piece suits, with ties, so on my first day I wore the same. My supervisor came up to me and advised I was over-dressed as their programmer. The next day I discarded my vest, but still wore suit and tie. Again he told me to dress down. I asked what he really wanted and he told me that the expectation was good programmers wore t-shirts and jeans. I wasn't quite to the t-shirt mode (then), but thereafter showed up in jeans and collared shirts, making them happy and, yes, me far more comfortable.
Later in my career, in the early 1980s, at another company, I was preparing for a demonstration for some potential Japanese customers. The manager in charge directed me to wear jeans and a t-shirt to the demo, then as we were about to enter the room packed with about 40 suited customers, he grabbed my hair with some kind of salve and totally messed it up, making my hair sort of look like Einstein's electrified hair. The customers stood upon my entry, oohing and ahhing, as they gave me a small group bow.
I would say the devolution from suits and more formal office wear had a lot to do with the perception of wild-eyed casually dressed programmers (as pioneered by Bill Gates at Microsoft), which slowly seeped across offices. Back then, academically educated programmers were rare, hard to find and keep, and highly prized. (I did always keep a suit and tie at work to wear when meeting with outside customers, but that was my choice, not directed by my management.)
M.B. in Montreal, QC, Canada, writes: I'd like to amplify your answer to H.M. in San Dimas. I had two uncles who went to college in the 20s and late 40s. The older one could not have imagined not wearing a suit and tie. The other one was a GI and he and his fellow veterans were simply not going to dress up, or submit to freshman hazing. That broke the dress code. I started high school in 1950 and the only code we had was "No jeans."
In my first professorial job in 1962, I wore a sport jacket and tie. A couple of years later, I moved and said to myself, "As I start, so I will finish" and wore no tie or jacket. Eventually my "uniform" was jeans and a flannel shirt.
M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO, writes: You listed the top three Star Trek captains—not terrible choices, but... uh... Picard literally saved the entire human race from getting blinked out of existence by Q (or "the Q"). Almost singlehandedly, I might add.
L.E. in New Orleans, LA, writes: A defiant Giles Corey, who was executed in 1692 by being pressed to death between heavy stones, as punishment for (false) accusations of witchcraft: "More weight."
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.