Trump Has A(nother) Meltdown

Yesterday, Donald Trump did an excellent job of making himself look very, very bad.

It starts with the fact that the latest unemployment figures were released yesterday. The numbers for July were mediocre—the current estimate is that the U.S. added just 73,000 jobs, instead of the 115,000 projected last month. Meanwhile, the two previous months' figures were revised sharply downward; May went from 139,000 jobs down to 19,000; June went from 147,000 to 14,000. That's a total drop, across the three months' worth of figures, of about 88%.

So, is this really possible? Can the numbers be off by THAT much? Yes, yes they can be. First of all, the first two reports for each month, one of which is a projection, and the other of which is a tentative total, are compiled based on a version of polling. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) talks to some employers, and uses that information to make educated guesses, based on past trends. Eventually, by the time of the third and final report for any given month, considerably more hard data has come in—not only reports from employers, but also things like tax information submitted to the IRS. Almost always, the initial number is at least a bit high, and sometimes it's WAY high. The past numbers, at least back to 1979, are compiled in chart form here, and you can find many other months where there were pretty big changes between the first report, and then the second and/or third reports. Look, for example, at June 2023, March 2021 and, in particular, March 2020.

It's not too hard to figure out why March 2020, in particular, was WAY off—that's when the pandemic hit. And so, the correction there, between the initial projection and the final report, was actually a staggering 752,000 jobs. That brings us to a second reason that yesterday's unusual (but again, not unheard of) drop in the numbers is entirely plausible. Remember, the initial figures are compiled based on past data. That, obviously, is not going to work out too well if the nation is in the middle of a month, or a quarter, or a year, that is far from "the usual." There's no way the March 2020 numbers could have been on target, because there had never been a month like March 2020 before. And there's never been a quarter like Summer 2025 before.

What we mean by that is that Trump has taken a hammer to BLS' work in two ways that present curveballs for the number crunchers. First, the DOGEys cut staffing everywhere, including BLS, meaning that the Bureau is having trouble getting all the data collected and crunched, particularly in a timely manner. Second, Trump's on-again, off-again trade wars have created enormous uncertainty for business owners. There's no question those business owners have, very rapidly, become much more reticent about making long-term commitments in terms of human capital (or, in fact, in terms of any capital costs).

Add it up and the numbers, while surprising, are nonetheless entirely believable. Unfortunately for BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer, Trump is persuaded that he is the victim of countless conspiracies, particularly at the hands of the past two Democratic men who were elected president, and the two Democratic women who were not. And so, he pitched a fit and fired McEntarfer and several of her staffers. Here's the first (of several) rants he posted to his non-job-creating social media platform:

I was just informed that our Country's "Jobs Numbers" are being produced by a Biden Appointee, Dr. Erika McEntarfer, the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, who faked the Jobs Numbers before the Election to try and boost Kamala's chances of Victory. This is the same Bureau of Labor Statistics that overstated the Jobs Growth in March 2024 by approximately 818,000 and, then again, right before the 2024 Presidential Election, in August and September, by 112,000. These were Records — No one can be that wrong? We need accurate Jobs Numbers. I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY. She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified. Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can't be manipulated for political purposes. McEntarfer said there were only 73,000 Jobs added (a shock!) but, more importantly, that a major mistake was made by them, 258,000 Jobs downward, in the prior two months. Similar things happened in the first part of the year, always to the negative. The Economy is BOOMING under "TRUMP" despite a Fed that also plays games, this time with Interest Rates, where they lowered them twice, and substantially, just before the Presidential Election, I assume in the hopes of getting "Kamala" elected — How did that work out? Jerome "Too Late" Powell should also be put "out to pasture." Thank you for your attention to this matter!

It's very odd. Why, for example, does he put his name, and that of Kamala Harris, in quotations? Is he telling us that he's been using a pseudonym for all these years? And does he even believe his accusation? Note that "No one can be that wrong?" is not a declaratory statement, it's a question.

Readers can probably infer for themselves why this was all kinds of stupid, but let's run down the three biggest ways, just in case. First, yet again, the Streisand Effect makes an appearance. Good or bad, nobody pays all that much attention to employment figures, except the type of people who read The Wall Street Journal and watch CNBC. But now, thanks to Trump's hissy-fit, the numbers, and his response, are front-page news. And quite a few writers, and quite a few readers, are going to reach one or more of these possible conclusions: (1) Trump is an idiot who doesn't understand how the BLS works, (2) Trump's policies are doing real harm to the economy and to the jobs market, or (3) Trump really cares about hiding (2), which leads to a "the coverup is worse than the crime" story.

Second, Trump is going to do everything possible to replace McEntarfer with a pliant lackey. And even if he can't find someone like that, the replacement is certainly going to know that their job is on the line if The Donald is displeased with their conclusions. Can anyone really believe anything positive that comes out of the BLS from today through roughly January of 2029? Even if the new commissioner is extremely competent and conscientious (not likely), and even if they are trying to do their best, the politicization of the job would still introduce issues. For example, what if the statisticians have to make a legitimate judgment call between a more optimistic assumption and a more pessimistic one? All other things being equal, the pressure will be there to choose the more optimistic.

And that brings us to the problems this creates for Trump. BLS doesn't just produce the employment numbers, it is also responsible for many other key economic indicators, like the inflation numbers. If those numbers are no longer reliable, it will make businesses even more cautious, thus helping to set the stage for a recession. At the same time, he has just forfeit any meaningful opportunity to brag about job growth (or any of these other government-produced indicators). If the BLS numbers show that, say, 500,000 jobs were added in November, and Trump gets on social media to crow about it, will anyone buy it? Maybe the base, but they are already on board. And maybe not even them, since they are getting an object lesson in his being untrustworthy/part of the deep state right now, and since they don't care so much about the numbers as whether they themselves have a job.

Finally, the third way in which this is stupid. Everyone knows that Trump's current economic obsession (besides tariffs) is interest rates. He very much wants Jerome Powell and the other fed governors, to implement a rate cut. And do you know one thing that would motivate them to do so? Poor job growth. But if they can't trust the numbers coming out of the BLS then they, like the business owners, are going to be far more cautious.

In short, when we first heard the news that Trump planned to can McEntarfer, our response was: "How could he be that goddamn stupid?" And now that we've had half a day to think it over, our response is: "How could he be that goddamn stupid?"

Of course, we always try our best to ascertain if there is some method to the madness. For example, it's at least possible that this is the latest attempt at a distraction from the Epstein scandal. Even if so, however, the price just isn't worth it, especially since Epsteinpot Dome is idling in neutral right now, due to the weekend. Similarly, it's possible that Trump wants to install Peter Navarro or some other propagandist to basically just make up numbers. But that just won't work, in part because the numbers will not line up with the numbers being produced by outsiders (like, say, Moody's), and it will be obvious who is making crap up. It also won't work because while the financial pros care about numbers and reports and how much frozen concentrated orange juice is expected to cost next month, voters care about the facts on the ground. As we note above, if someone can't get a job, they are going to be unhappy about unemployment, no matter what "data" the Trump administration puts out. Similarly, if people's grocery bills seem to be going up and up and up, they don't care if the government says inflation isn't actually all that bad. Heck, they did not care when Joe Biden was in office, and it ACTUALLY wasn't all that bad (particularly under the post-pandemic circumstances).

Thus ends our attempt to make this into a considered policy decision, or a sound political maneuver, even if one we disagree with. Trump does not play 3-D chess, but even if we go with an assessment built around the notion that he might, at least, be playing checkers? It still doesn't hold up very well. So, at best, this is an unforced error.

And now, a possible alternative explanation: It's (yet another) sign that Trump is losing emotional and mental control. Look again at the message above, the one he posted to social media. (Z) has written something like this before, and now will write it again: If he got a message like that, written in that way, from his department chair, he would immediately forward it to the dean with the note: "I'm worried that something is very wrong here." The tone, the rambling, the factual claims, the strange bits like the random quotations and the "Thank you for your attention to this matter!" at the end... none of this reads as the work of a mind that is healthy and is functioning properly (even if one allows for Trump being not the most literate of people). If Trump is indeed losing his marbles, then that is a frightening prospect, indeed. (Z)

Saturday Q&A

Last week, for the headline game, we wondered if we should use a bookkeeper. This week, we wondered if we should use judges.

Current Events

K.I. in Sacramento, CA, asks: Has any other president of the U.S. ever fired the Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner, or is Trump the first to have done that?

(V) & (Z) answer: It is yet another way in which Trump is a trailblazer. There are no other known instances of this happening.

That does come with the caveat that sometimes, particularly in politics, a person is given the opportunity to resign "voluntarily" to avoid the ignominy of a termination. We really only mention that for the sake of being thorough, however. It is unlikely that caveat is germane here, because historically the position was regarded as non-political, and was filled by a series of highly qualified technocrats.

---

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: When you wrote about Donald Trump's latest "Trade Deal" with South Korea, you mentioned an agreement to purchase $100 billion in liquified natural gas (LNG). I couldn't help but remember that when you were discussing Trump's "Trade Deal" with the European Union, that $650 billion in LNG purchases were also in that deal as well. (See, we are paying attention in class!) To quote, "Well, even if the U.S. could produce that much LNG, and even if Europe could purchase that much, E.U. nations don't have the necessary infrastructure to store and distribute LNG at that scale."

Am I safe to assume the same holds for South Korea? And this causes me to wonder: Why does Trump have this new found obsession about LNG? I know there's a natural affinity for hot, incendiary gas but there has to be more to the story. Since Trump is always going to be grifting, do we know who is greasing his greasy hands? What's the point of over promising, or is this just his usual conman/salesman pitter patter of always over, over inflating?

(V) & (Z) answer: It's not entirely clear why Trump has become so gung-ho about LNG, but among the likely factors are: (1) The Biden administation halted LNG permits, and Trump always does the opposite of Biden, when he can; (2) Conventional oil is a mature industry, whereas LNG is young, and so Trump may think there is more potential for him to put his "stamp" on it; (3) Much of the LNG in Europe comes from Russia, and so the supply has been currently cut off, and (4) There is much lobbying for LNG investment, both from private lobbyists, but also from LNG-producing-state senators, like Dan Sullivan (R-AK).

There are definitely problems with both Asia and Europe as markets for American LNG. It is indeed the case that, in both places, the infrastructure isn't there yet. Further, even if the infrastructure could be completed on a very expedited timeline (it can't), the leaders of those nations are leery of investing too much right now. It is very possible that LNG, which presents numerous challenges as a fuel source, is headed to the same place coal is at, namely "not a cost-efficient alternative." South Korea, for example, has recently backed off of four planned LNG projects. For that matter, numerous American LNG projects are also sitting in dry dock right now, for much the same reason.

Another problem with making committments to American LNG is that Russian LNG is cheaper, because the transport costs are much less. Leaders in both Europe and Asia believe that one day soon (certainly, sooner than large-scale LNG storage facilities can be built), the Russian pipeline will be open again. In fact, they believe it could literally be ANY day, given Trump's mercurial nature, and his willingness to make hasty "trade deals" and "peace deals."

---

A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: Do you think there's more than a slim chance that Trump would try to start a nuclear exchange if it was certain he was going to be convicted as a child rapist?

(V) & (Z) answer: You were smart to write "try to start." Because if he did order a strike under such circumstances, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs would say: "Uh, no."

That said, we don't think he'd try to start a nuclear war. Trump is clearly a narcissist. And narcissists rarely commit suicide, because they cannot imagine a world without them in it. Along those same lines, Trump would not take steps that could very easily result in his own death.

---

F.F. in Royal Oak, MI, asks: I don't understand why Donald Trump's followers are upset that he might have been involved in coerced sex with girls under 18. Why do they mind; Aren't they into that? Sure seems like they are. They obviously want to restore women to their traditional place as temporarily useful flesh vessels with few rights, whose deaths don't matter. ('Scuse my bitterness!) Why aren't they saying "yeah, you go, guy"?

(V) & (Z) answer: Quite a few Trump followers are stuck in a sexual mindset characteristic of the 1950s: (1) Women exist as sexual vessels for men; (2) While marriage is expected for men, "boys will be boys," and so wives must tolerate extramarital dalliances; (3) However, men can pursue ONLY adult women. Other men, along with anyone who is underage, are verboten.

Keep in mind, for example, what happened with Roy Moore in Alabama, when it came to light that he had pursued teenagers while he was an adult. The red, red voters of the Yellowhammer state were so purple with rage they actually elected a member of the blue team, Doug Jones, to the Senate.

That said, the thing the MAGA crowd is upset about right now is not Trump's sexual history. It's that he promised to blow the lid off the deep state, and he's backtracking on that promise.

---

S.S. in Lucerne, Switzerland, asks: Is it at all possible that Jeffrey Epstein's sweetheart plea deal might protect Donald Trump, if Trump can show he's a co-conspirator? Not that I can imagine his pride allowing it...

(V) & (Z) answer: It certainly could, if the courts uphold Ghislaine Maxwell's interpretation of the agreement. However, that would protect Trump only from a criminal indictment, not an impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.

---

B.H. in Greenbelt, MD, asks: You mentioned one possible outcome in the Epsteinpot Dome situation is that Ghislaine Maxwell might spill the beans in exchange for a signed pardon from Donald Trump postdated January 20, 2029. It seems to me that making a deal involving such a pardon is a bad idea. What happens if Trump dies, or is removed from office some other way, before the effective date of the pardon?

(V) & (Z) answer: Because the fellows who wrote the Constitution did not expect the pardon power to be used as a bargaining chip in this way, and because the other 44 men who served as president honored that expectation, these kinds of questions are not addressed in the Constitution, and largely have not been addressed by the courts.

The issue you raise is just one gray area. Another is: If a pardon can be post-dated like this, can it also be withdrawn before that date arrives? The Supreme Court has already made clear that pardons cannot be revoked, because you don't want, say, someone like Donald Trump going back and overturning pardons granted by Joe Biden. However, that case dealt with pardons that had already been conferred, not "future" pardons.

There are other issues that Maxwell needs to be wary about. For example, let's imagine she gives Trump what he wants in 2025, in exchange for a pardon that takes effect in 2027 or 2029. How can she be confident that, at some point before the pardon "vests," she doesn't end up in a hellhole prison in Central America, so as to "eliminate" her as a problem? This administration already does that, and there's no particular reason to think she would be off-limits.

---

D.D. in Hollywood, FL, asks: What is so illegal with pro-Palestinian protests, and how is it that Donald Trump has been able to cause so many universities to give up their moral compasses and their values and capitulate to him?

(V) & (Z) answer: There is nothing illegal about the pro-Palestinian protests. Trump's use of the phrase "illegal protests" is nonsensical propaganda.

An assembly can become illegal, if law enforcement deems that assembly to be a threat to public order. However, that applies to all assemblies, not just protests. It is also the case that some people at the various protests committed illegal acts, often assault. But it's the assault that's illegal, not the protest.

---

D.P. in Oakland, CA, asks: Why is Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) against a ban on congressional stock trading?

(V) & (Z) answer: We do not discount the possibility that she is motivated by her own self-interest, inasmuch as she and her husband have done very well in the stock market over the past 40 years.

That said, it's entirely possible that her opposition is based on principle, and not on self-interest. To start, consider West Point and other schools where there is no test proctoring, and students are on the honor system. The leadership of those schools does not fool itself that ZERO cheating takes place. But they have decided that when students are asked to honor the spirit of fair behavior, most of them will self-police very effectively. If these schools instituted proctors or rules or other measures, they would not only put things on an adversarial basis, but would also invite students to think along the lines of "What can I do that is within the letter of the law, even if it violates its spirit?" In short, the leadership has concluded that the amount of problematic behavior that occurs under the honor system is less than the amount that would occur under a system with strict rules and policing.

Currently, Congress is (largely) on the honor system, and the vast majority of members fly straight. Pelosi might well take the view that if you abandon that, you could lose more than you gain. She also knows there are significant problems with enforcement, since the job of overseeing members' blind trusts would fall to the Oversight Committee, which basically never disciplines any member, ever. There would also be some issues with fairness. For example, can Congress stop members' spouses (like, say, Paul Pelosi) from stock trading? Probably not, and if so, then the rules would discriminate against unmarried members. Another observation she has made publicly is that any such legislation should be extended to the employees executive branch, and not limited to just the members of Congress.

All of this said, whatever Pelosi's concerns were, she has come out in favor of the act that bars stock trading by members of Congress (and most members of the executive branch) and that is currently being considered in the Senate.

---

G.M. in Boston, MA, asks: I was intrigued by your statement about Emil Bove, that he was "as ethically compromised as any judicial nominee since, perhaps, Abe Fortas."

That made me go read the Wikipedia article about Justice Fortas, who indeed seems to have had some ethical challenges. The Wikipedia article notes, however that: (1) Justice William Douglas had similar challenges, having also received payment from a wealthy private individual while sitting on the Court, for reasons unclear and mysterious; and (2) the American Bar Association subsequently altered their guidelines for sitting judges about accepting outside income -- suggesting that perhaps Justice Fortas wasn't exactly coloring outside the lines, as they existed at the time (I say that not to excuse him but to remind us all of the larger context in which this happened). I also can't help but compare these shenanigans to the misdeeds Justice Clarence Thomas.

It's easy to wish a plague on all their houses, but can you instead please say more about why you think Fortas was more ethically compromised than Thomas? Bonus points if you can also shed some light on the general trend in ethics standards as applied to Supreme Court Justices.

(V) & (Z) answer: Many justices have had sources of income that were at least semi-shady. What sets Fortas and Bove apart is that, in addition to their finances, they both live/lived in the pockets of the president who appointed them. Fortas was a very close friend and staunch supporter of Lyndon B. Johnson, to the point that Fortas sometimes wrote Johnson's speeches for him. And Bove, of course, is so far up Trump's rear that it's not necessary to perform colonoscopies on the President; all they have to so is say, "How's it lookin' back there, Emil?" Clarence Thomas did not have that sort of relationship with George H.W. Bush.

Oh, and the Supreme Court has always been hit and miss when it comes to ethics. They have lifetime appointments, and are basically impossible to remove. So, they are basically 100% on their honor, with little oversight, beyond perhaps a little peer pressure from the other justices. Some current justices take advantage, just like some past justices did.

---

D.H. in Boston, MA, asks: OK, I'll bite. Who were the top ten "most godawful judicial nominee[s] in the last century" nominated by the Georges Bush and Trump?

(V) & (Z) answer: Here are some of the worst (based solely on the circumstances in place at the point of their confirmation, and not based on post hoc assessments of their work as jurists after being confirmed to their posts):

• Clarence Thomas: When Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court by George H.W. Bush, he not only had a track record of questionable decisions, he was also clearly guilty of sexual harassment (or worse).
  
  
• Brett Kavanaugh: Undoubtedly, readers recall the circumstances of his nomination to the Supreme Court by Donald Trump. Like Thomas, he is also very likely guilty of sexual misconduct (very possibly rape or other sexual assault), and there are also other questions about him (for example, his magically improved finances) that did not get answered when Senate Republicans rammed his nomination through.
  
  
• Justin R. Walker: Appointed by Donald Trump at the age of 37, he clerked for Kavanaugh and also for Anthony Kennedy, practiced law for a couple of years, and taught legal writing at the University of Louisville for a couple more years. He had no judicial experience, and little courtroom experience, and was tapped primarily because he did well over 100 interviews defending his old boss (Kavanaugh) during those confirmation hearings.
  
  
• Samuel Kent: Appointed by George H.W. Bush, there were many whispers that he had been inappropriate with female staffers during his time as a private-practice attorney. It would seem the whispers were on the mark, because he eventually had to resign his judgeship, and he ended up doing almost 3 years in prison for lying to investigators about his abuse of two women employees.
  
  
• Sarah Pitlyk: Appointed by Trump, she had never tried a single case, even as a lawyer. Her career was dedicated primarily to working on anti-choice litigation.
  
  
• Roger Benitez: Appointed by George W. Bush, he had the résumé to be a judge, but not the temperament. The ABA's investigator testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that "Interviewees repeatedly told me that Judge Benitez displays inappropriate judicial temperament with lawyers, litigants, and judicial colleagues; that all too frequently, while on the bench, Judge Benitez is arrogant, pompous, condescending, impatient, short-tempered, rude, insulting, bullying, unnecessarily mean, and altogether lacking in people skills."
  
  
• L. Steven Grasz: Grasz also came to the job with a problematic temperament, and with a long history of unethical behavior as Chief Deputy Attorney General of Nebraska. Nominated by Trump to the federal bench, Grasz is the only person in the last half-century to receive a unanimous vote of "not qualified" from the ABA's 11-person vetting panel, and to nonetheless be confirmed to a federal judgeship.

That's only seven because we did not mean to suggest that ALL of the worst judges of the last century came from these three presidents, just a disproportionate share. If you want a misstep by a Democrat, Thomas Porteous had some history of shady financial maneuvering when Bill Clinton nominated him to the federal bench in 1994. The Judge lasted 16 years, but eventually his bad behavior caught up with him, and he was impeached and removed.

Politics

J.H. in Flint, MI, asks: It seems to me like there's a lot of attention (at least from news sources) being paid to President Trump's approval rating. Why? He doesn't need public approval to exercise the powers of his office. He can't be elected to the presidency again, so he has no reason to care about public opinion. His ability to influence down-ballot races with endorsements is questionable at best. So why does his approval rating matter?

(V) & (Z) answer: First, because the weaker he gets in terms of public support, the more possibility of Republicans in Congress rebelling against him (as is happening right now with the Epstein scandal, to take one example).

Second, at this point in the cycle, Trump's approval is the single best predictor we have for how the next 18 months' worth of elections will go, including this year's gubernatorial elections, and next year's gubernatorial and congressional elections.

---

M.S. in New York City, NY, asks: The California electoral map you published had me noticing that large inland districts (e g. CA-01, CA-03, CA-05, CA-23) are heavily Republican while their western neighboring districts, which Jon Stewart labeled "people with boats" (e g. CA-02, CA-04, CA-19, CA-24) are just as heavily Democratic. This is taken for granted, but I can't easily explain why to my teenager.

From a statistician's perspective, and a Californian's, what generalities about people and geography can you share which lead to these outcomes?

And on a more inside note, can you explain why, on the Mexican border, inland CA-25 is D+3 while its Western neighbor, Issa's CA-48, is 10 points redder at R+7?

(V) & (Z) answer: The vast majority of the people in California, including most of the educated people, and most of the non-white people, live in the coastal regions. That is why they are blue.

Inland California is very much dominated by middle- to working-class white people, many of whom moved inland for blue-collar jobs (particularly in agriculture or extractive industries), or for much cheaper housing, or both. The population of educated people is smaller, and the population of certain minority groups is much smaller. In particular, a place like Bakersfield or Barstow has very few Black people and very few Jews. Those are key Democratic constituencies, of course.

CA-25 covers an area that is heavily agricultural, and that has a lot of Latino immigrants, who came there for jobs as pickers, packers, etc. CA-48 is a wealthier and much more urbanized area, and has a lot of well-off white people descended from long-time Republican families (that part of California was predominantly Republican for a very long time, long after Los Angeles and San Francisco flipped to blue). In addition, CA-48 is home to a lot of military.

---

G.B.M. in Laurence Harbor, NJ, asks: Are there any studies that confirm, that in households where the viewers always have Trump on their TVs experience higher blood pressure rates?

(V) & (Z) answer: Not exactly.

However, there are studies (see here for an overview) that make clear that news, especially negative, emotion-driven news, has deleterious health effects, including higher blood pressure. There are also studies (see here for an example, or here for an overview) that find that Fox is particularly prone to appeal to negative emotions. Take those two facts together, and they support your supposition.

Civics

E.M. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: Regarding the issue of gerrymandering, what do other democracies do about redistricting?

(V) & (Z) answer: There are many options. Here are the three most common:

• Nonpartisan Redistricting: Many nations put the job of drawing legislative districts in the hands of non-partisan commissions, or of election officials whose job is to make the process fair and impartial.
  
  
• Fixed Districts: Some nations just stay with the same district maps forever, with the idea being that things will work out fairly over time. The United States is among those nations, actually, since the U.S. Senate is apportioned based on state borders, which are the same (or nearly so) from the moment that state joined the union.
  
  
• Multimember Districts: Many nations have each political party submit a list of their candidates for the legislature, ranked from 1 to whatever. Then, if that party gets 40% of the vote in their district (which may be the entire nation, or some smaller division), they get 40% of the seats. If that works out to, say, 10 seats, then the top 10 people from that party's list are elected.
  
  The other way to do it is to have a jungle-style primary, where [X] seats are awarded, and the top [X] finishers are therefore elected. This really only works with smaller political divisions, like a county, or a city, or part of a city. There are currently 10 U.S. states that use this kind of multimember election to elect at least some portion of their state legislatures.

The list gets much longer if we include theoretical approaches that have been proposed, but these three are the ones in actual, wide use.

---

J.R. in Orlando, FL, asks: With all this talk of gerrymandering districts, it seems in my head the best solution would be to ditch districts and fill a states seats proportionally like many foreign democracies. Could a federal law be passed to require states to do that or would it require a constitutional amendment?

(V) & (Z) answer: It is doable with just a law, and would not require a constitutional amendment. That is because Article I of the Constitution very clearly states: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators (emphasis ours).

In fact, a few years ago, a group of legal scholars and political scientists published an open letter calling on Congress to adopt such a law. It is true that multi-member House districts are currently illegal under American law. But the law in question is the Uniform Congressional District Act, passed by Congress in 1967. And what Congress passeth. Congress can repealeth.

---

P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, asks: What would the text of an amendment ending gerrymandering look like?

(V) & (Z) answer: We assume you mean without changing over to some new system, like the ones described above.

If so, then how about something like this: Section 1. All district maps, state and federal, must be presented to a five-judge panel drawn at random from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Section 2. For a map to be valid, it must be approved by at least three of the five judges, consistent with principles of equal representation under the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 3. If a map is rejected, the state may try again. If the map is rejected a second time, the judges will appoint an impartial special master to handle the task. Once the special master's map is approved by the judges, it will remain in effect until the next census.

---

M.C. in Drogheda, Ireland, asks: Given the extreme politicization/corruption of the Supreme Court and other courts in the U.S., could you say, hand on heart, that one would get a fair trial in the United States under all circumstances?

(V) & (Z) answer: No. There are many people who get unfair trials in the U.S., on the basis of their race, their gender, their socioeconomic status, their sexual orientation, their education level, and a whole host of factors. This is not because of Donald Trump, however; it's the nature of the American judicial system, and of any judicial system.

History

E.S. in Providence, RI, asks: Since polling has only been around since around the 1930's, where do you think Trump would rank for the title of Most Unpopular President Ever? Is anyone even close? Who would be your top (bottom?) 5?

(V) & (Z) answer: Trump would do pretty badly, and might well be among the bottom 5.

The other candidates for the bottom 5 fall into four general categories. The first of those is incompetent buffoons, the presidents who grossly mismanaged the nation, particularly in times of criss. James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson, who botched things on either side of Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, would be the most obvious examples here.

The second is corrupt bastards. Richard Nixon, who served during the era of polling, dropped pretty far during the Watergate scandal. Warren Harding was popular when he died, but might have experienced a similar decline had he lived (Teapot Dome didn't really become big news until what would have been the final year of his term).

The third category is men without a party. There have been a number of cases where the VP was not really of the same party as the president, and then ascended to the big chair when the president died, and then basically governed as a member of their original (actual) party. Such presidents are hated by the party that elected them (since they effectively turned traitor on becoming president) and are hated by the party that they actually identify with (since they abandoned that party and ran on the other party's ticket). These folks are thus left with no real base of support. There are three obvious ones in American history: John Tyler, who was elected as a Whig but was really a Democrat; Millard Fillmore, who was the same situation as Tyler; and Johnson, who was elected as a Republican (technically, National Union) but was really a Democrat.

The fourth is meltdown men, the presidents who had the ill fortune to be in office when the U.S. economy sank into a severe recession, or a depression. The most obvious victims here are Martin Van Buren (the Panic of 1837), James Buchanan (the Panic of 1857), Ulysses S. Grant (the Panic of 1873), Grover Cleveland (the Panic of 1893) and Herbert Hoover (the Great Depression).

Note that Buchanan and Johnson, usually ranked as the worst presidents in history, make two lists. So, they would almost certainly be in the bottom 5. Probably Tyler, too, since he not only angered partisans on both sides of the aisle, he eventually betrayed the United States by joining the Confederacy. The other two slots are open for discussion, but it's worth noting that Trump has not exactly cloaked himself in glory, certainly has corruption issues, isn't REALLY a Republican, and has one economic downturn on his ledger and is setting up for a second. So, at least according to this exercise, there's a pretty good argument that he's as weak a president as Buchanan/Johnson, and that all three would be among the most unpopular presidents ever, probably alongside Tyler. Oh, and if you really want us to pick a fifth, as opposed to leaving it open for discussion, then... Hoover.

---

G.C. in San Diego, CA, asks: I am in a book club where the focus is presidential biographies. Could you recommend a site that offers good critical reviews by historians of historical works?

(V) & (Z) answer: Here is the problem. Among the things that bring glory to scholars, book reviews are way down the list. So, for most of them, it has to be a pretty high-tier publication to make it worthwhile. That means that you want to look at the top journals for U.S. historians and political scientists: The Journal of American History, The American Historical Review, Reviews in American History, The American Political Science Review, The American Journal of Political Science and The Journal of Politics. All of them have book reviews, usually at the back of each issue.

The problem here is that you probably don't want to subscribe to six scholarly journals. Or even one scholarly journal. The solution, if it's available, is to use JSTOR, which is a massive database of articles and reviews from thousands of scholarly journals. If you happen to be employed by a university, you can get access that way. Otherwise, some big public libraries have JSTOR subscriptions, or you can wander into a university library and use a public terminal.

The alternative to JSTOR is that some major newspapers recruit high-profile scholars to review high-profile books. Most obviously, The New York Times' book review section does this. However, they are trying to reach a broad audience, so their coverage of history in general, or of any particular area of history, is less substantial than the scholarly journals. That said, you're interested in presidential biographies, which is a big area of interest for the Times' readership. So, the paper is likely to cover most or all of the biggies, particularly if a Doris Kearns Goodwin, or a Robert Caro, or a T.J Stiles, or a Ronald C. White comes out with something new.

---

W.V. in Andover, MN, asks: I've been seeing ads every day the past two weeks, with a solemn Pete Hegseth introducing Hillsdale College's "Story of America" online course. Of course, though proclaimed as "unbiased," it is said to represent "intellectual patriotism" and its description immediately refutes its unbiased status by attacking the 1619 Project's view of American history. Has the history professor had any awareness of his "colleagues" efforts from the Great Lakes region?

(V) & (Z) answer: One of the first things (Z) does when teaching a new history class is ask students to guess what historical source is regarded by historians as completely unbiased. Usually, after a few guesses like "photographs," "newspapers," and "diaries," a student correctly guesses "there is none." (Z) points out that is exactly correct, and there is no such thing as a bias-free source, including (Z) himself. Some sources are better, and some are worse, but none are bias-free. So, anyone who proclaims their history course to be "unbiased" is lying. Not a great start.

(Z) is aware of this course, yes. It is promoted by Pete Hegseth, and is offered by a school that does not accept federal funding, so that it can ignore federal mandates about things like the equal treatment of students. The primary instructor is Wilfred M. McClay, who is trained, and appears to be a capable lecturer, but has spent his entire career producing right-leaning scholarship, and is affiliated with many right-wing organizations, some of them educational, some of them political. The university president, Larry Arnn, acts as something of a co-instructor, and has a similar background to McClay. One of the ads for the course includes footage from a John Wayne film.

So, it's not much of a secret what you're going to get from McClay, et al. It's going to be the rah-rah version of events, focused on triumph and American exceptionalism. There may be some attention paid to various setbacks, including things like labor unrest and racial strife, but Americans will conquer them all over the course of the semester, and none of those problems will still exist today.

There is some value in seeing the story through that lens, as long as a person understands what they are getting. It becomes more useful, we would suggest, if paired with a narrative that takes the extreme opposite point of view. For example, a person could listen to the first lecture in the course, and then read the first chapter of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, and then continue to alternate in that way.

---

D.M. in Santa Rosa, CA, asks: Thank you for answering my question about Profiles In Courage by John F. Kennedy on July 19. I read the book (as an audio book) based on your recommendation. There were some crackin' stories and interesting political analysis, as you promised. I was struck, however, by how much some of the senators have not fared well since 1956 when it was published. In particular the senators who took stands to preserve the Union and slavery in the run up to the Civil War (Daniel Webster and Thomas Benton) seem unlikely to get the same positive treatment today. Same for Senator Edmund Ross, who saved the Andrew Johnson presidency and ushered in the Jim Crow era. And Senator Robert Taft's opposition to the Nuremberg Trials just seems odd to me.

Two questions based on the idea of reissue/rewrite of the book almost 70 years later in 2025. First: which of the senators that Kennedy included would be dropped from the reissue based on reassessments. Second: Which senators who served since 1956 deserve a Profile in Courage?

(V) & (Z) answer: Maybe this is a cop out, but it is very unlikely that anyone would be dropped from a revised version of the book. The work is a cohesive whole, with different senators chosen to illustrate different facets of "courage." The two primary authors, John F. Kennedy and Ted Sorensen, are no longer alive to oversee or approve changes. Under these circumstances, it would be wildly inappropriate to, in effect, censor the original work. Considerably more likely would be a new introduction or foreword, in which some politician or scholar said a few useful words about how things change over the years, and sometimes the values of a past era are very different from ours, and that is reflected in the book.

And if we were asked to submit candidates for a new edition of the book, here are five that we'd list:

• Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME, 1949-73): She was, first of all, the first woman to be elected to the U.S. Senate in her own right, as opposed to being appointed. She also stood tall and told Joseph McCarthy he was full of sh** at a time when virtually no other member of Congress, of either party, was willing to do so.
  
  
• Barry Goldwater (R-AZ, 1953-65; 1969-87): He said some very impolitic things, and held some strange positions on some issues. But it all came from deeply held, predominantly libertarian principles. He opposed most of the various civil rights acts, because he thought those were unlawful overreaches of federal power. However, he also supported the enlistment of gay troops at a time when virtually nobody else in public life did, observing that: "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar" and "You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight." He pushed back against the religious right, and said they had done more harm to the GOP than any Democrat. Oh, and Goldwater was the one who broke the news to Richard Nixon that the game was up, and that he better resign or else impeachment and removal were inevitable.
  
  
• Mike Gravel (D-AK, 1969-81): One of the greatest iconoclasts in Senate history, and a fellow who definitely marched to the beat of his own drum. He was the leader of the anti-Vietnam War faction in Congress, even when that faction was in the small minority, and famously read the entire Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record.
  
  
• John McCain (R-AZ, 1987-2018): There's his military career, of course, and his choice to remain imprisoned in the horrific "Hanoi Hilton" rather than leverage his status as an admiral's son in order to get out. And while he was more "politic" than his Arizona colleague Goldwater, and sometimes allowed that to override his judgment (ahem, Sarah Palin), the maverick thing wasn't just an act. Most obviously, his vote to save Obamacare took a lot of fortitude.
  
  
• Cory Booker (D-NJ, 2013-) : We could not accept that courage is completely gone from the Senate, and so thought that at least one current member should make the list. Given their kowtowing to Donald Trump and some of his terrible nominees, the 53 Republicans are out (Lisa Murkowski comes closest, but the show she put on after voting for the BBB disqualifies her). And of the 47 members remaining, we went with Booker, for three primary reasons: (1) He comes off as a man of principle, (2) He's often been willing to push back against leaders of his own party, when he thought it necessary and (3) the filibuster earlier this year.
  
  Note that it was a tough call between Booker and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) for this last slot. The tiebreaker was that, as with the original book, Booker adds a different dimension to the list not covered by the other four people we picked. On the other hand, Sanders is largely just the modern Mike Gravel (or, Gravel is just the Vietnam-era Bernie Sanders).

---

M.A. in Knoxville, TN, asks: A lot of people think that the Smoot-Hawley tariffs caused the Great Depression, but I've learned that's not true. The Great Depression had already started before the tariffs were put into place. What role did they play, exactly?

(V) & (Z) answer: Ultimately, depressions and recessions are slowdowns—times when lots of people stop spending money, and so the amount of capital flowing through the system is greatly reduced. The Great Depression, in particular, was substantially caused by gross overproduction of inventory, which meant that (industrial) producers were not employing people/buying raw materials as much, because they had all kinds of stock to work through as spending slowed down.

Smoot-Hawley was meant to allow producers to unload their backlogged inventories, by reducing foreign competition for American consumers. The problem is that Americans weren't buying anyhow, while foreign nations responded with retaliatory tariffs, thus shutting down additional markets for the backlogged goods. So, the tariff did not achieve its primary goal. Meanwhile, it DID further slow the amount of money circulating in the economy, thus aggravating the already existing slowdown.

Fun Stuff

E.T. in Montpellier, France, asks: Which movie from the last 10 years do you think was the most deserving of an Oscar but didn't win, and which Oscar-winning movie from the last 10 years do you think was the least deserving?

(V) & (Z) answer: Well, after the "Oscars so White" thing, the Academy tried to do better, but mostly did so by honoring what are basically "white savior" films, like Green Book. It would have been much more on point to honor either Get Out or Black Panther, which are also better films than Green Book.

That said—and keeping in mind that (Z) handles the film questions—(Z)'s least favorite Best Picture winner of the last decade is actually Parasite. It was a very interesting film until about halfway through, when there is a plot twist (we'll keep it vague to avoid spoilers). After the plot twist, the film went off the rails, and the final scene was so ham-fisted and over-the-top, it really ruined things. This is, of course, an unpopular opinion. Still, if it was up to (Z), the Oscar that year would have gone to 1917 or Jojo Rabbit.

Meanwhile, beyond Get Out or Black Panther, (Z) would also have liked to see Barbie and Top Gun: Maverick win Oscars (though it would be unfortunate that Barbie's win would mean no Oscar for Oppenheimer). Also, if we were going to revert to the days when the Best Picture award sometimes went to well-made films that told a great story, without too much concern for artistic or social impact, then (Z) would like an Oscar to go to Stan & Ollie.

---

J.J. in West Hollywood, CA, asks: (Z) wrote that he has seen a half dozen films by Ang Lee, and didn't like any of them. Has he seen Brokeback Mountain? It's a landmark masterpiece, and Lee pulled out amazing performances from cast members Jake Gyllenhall, and Heath Ledger, and won the Academy award for Best Director in 2005.

(V) & (Z) answer: Get ready for another unpopular opinion. (Z) did see that film, and did not like it. The whole point of the movie was the tension between the hypermasculine, straight "role" that society would have these two men play, versus the gay identity that was who they truly were. Walking out of that film, (Z) said almost these exact words: "That movie hit every single obvious beat. If you told me to write a movie about cowboys trying to deal with their gayness, and you gave me just one day to do it, that's the screenplay I would have cranked out."

There was another movie (and a Best Picture winner) just a few years earlier that dealt with that same tension and, in (Z)'s view, did it in a much more interesting way. That movie was American Beauty, where the U.S. Marine played by Chris Cooper ultimately commits murder because of his inability to juggle expectations and his inner reality.

---

K.C. in West Islip, NY, asks: Without trying to defend The Convicted Felon (TCF) in any way shape or form, I'm curious as to the opinion of my favorite political website writers about Trump demanding the Guardians and Commanders return to the Indians and Redskins? For me it's an issue I really haven't kept up with, so I don't fully grasp the level of outrage from the Native American community. If the Indians and Redskins, why not the Braves and the Chiefs and perhaps the Golden State Warriors? My opinion of it, as a non-Native American, is that I'd be honored that a pro sports team of, shall we say athletic warriors, wanted to associate themselves with Native American terminology. No one owns a team and wants them to be named after pushovers like the Silly Nannies. Maybe I misunderstand the whole thing, or maybe I've gravitated more towards the center as I've aged, and maybe I don't fully understand the outrage but was renaming the teams in the first place a solution looking for a problem?

(V) & (Z) answer: The strongest case for a change is/was the Redskins, because that term is a racial slur. The weakest case for a change are the Chiefs and the Warriors. The Warriors' name is not derived from Native Americans (it's a little complicated, but it was initially chosen by some nice Jewish boys in Philadelphia to honor figures from the Jewish Bible). In addition, the team does not use Native American iconography. The Chiefs, while they do have Native elements in their uniform and branding, are not named after Native Americans, either. They are named after Kansas City Mayor Harold Roe "Chief" Bartle, who helped bring the team to his hometown.

The tougher cases, among the ones you name, are the Indians and Braves. On one hand, their names are not slurs. On the other hand, the teams' names and mascots have led to various customs and behaviors that are rather insulting to Native Americans. For example, in addition to Chief Wahoo (who is a stereotype, not unlike Aunt Jemima or Speedy Gonzalez), fans would show up to games in redface paint. Eventually, the team decided that the problematic aspects were too much, and switched to "Guardians."

For the Braves, the most problematic thing is the Tomahawk Chop, which is what you think it is, and is performed at pretty much every game by fans, as part of trying to rally the team. The Braves' management knows it's problematic, as they agreed not to let fans do it while St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Ryan Helsley, a member of the Cherokee Nation, was on the mound (as a member of the visiting team, obviously). But that did not cause the Braves to put a stop to the gesture altogether, nor to change their name or livery.

There have been many polls taken among people who identify as Native American, and they consistently make clear that while some of them do not care, a sizable chunk (anywhere from 25% to 60%) find these teams' names, or mascots, or uniforms, or whatever, to be disrespectful or offensive. The numbers were always highest with the Redskins, and are lowest with the Chiefs. In general, in American society, if something bothers a double-digit percentage of the population that is being referenced, that's enough to force a change. The Washington football team, and the Cleveland baseball team decided, as private businesses, that a change was better for their bottom lines. The Kansas City football team, and the Atlanta baseball team, did not make that decision. In all four cases, it was capitalism at work, and was also none of Donald Trump's damn business.

Gallimaufry

S.N, Ithaca, NY, asks: SCACO? HACO?

Are we supposed to know what these acronyms stand for? You didn't define them and your posts make a lot less sense as a result.

(V) & (Z) answer: Those are all puns on TACO—Trump Always Chickens Out—adjusted to be appropriate for the items in which they appear. And so, "Supreme Court Always Chickens Out" and "Harvard Always Chickens Out."

---

M.W. in Northbrook, IL, asks: I'm curious on your source for: "For example, since DNI Tulsi Gabbard released her 'report' on the 2016 election. Fox has mentioned Barack Obama more than three times as frequently as it has mentioned Epstein."

Does the staff statistician have to watch and count (seems like the worst job in the world)? Do you use AI?

(V) & (Z) answer: We never use AI, and we don't often have time to collect our own data. That comes from the article we linked to.

---

K.R. in Austin, TX, asks: R.P. in Kāneʻohe talked about about how your site is a first rough draft of history. I've thought that about your site many times as well.

I often wonder how much of our massive amount of electronic information will survive for future historians. A hard drive may not mean much to a historian 200 years from now, especially if we have a major disaster, war, or fascist government takeover.

Do you have any physical, non-electronic backup of your content?

(V) & (Z) answer: This would be a non-trivial undertaking. First, the job of making printouts on some regular basis is no small thing. Second, we have produced enough words over the years that a complete printout would occupy a small closet. Third, there's no particular reason to think that a printout would do much better against Father Time than some other medium. Try to find a computer printout from 1980, and see how readable the ink is.

If we really, really wanted to maximize our chances of the work living on for generations or centuries, we'd find a way to put it on microfilm. That's compact, long-lasting, and low-tech enough that it should be accessible no matter how much technology changes. We would also donate the microfilms to a library, since the library is in a position to handle long-term custodial duties.

It is unlikely we will do that, however. We are much more likely to cross our fingers, and hope that something like the Internet Archive will remain a going concern into the distant future.

Reader Question of the Week: The Better Angels

Here is the question we put before readers last week:

S.B. in Winslow, ME, asks: What one aspect about humanity, if changed, would bring the greatest benefit to society and the natural world as a whole?

And here some of the answers we got in response:

K.H. in Scotch Plains, NJ: The ability to think long-term. Too few people have it.

---

J.N. in Durham, NC: An increase in humanity's curiosity would go a long way to improving life on Earth. Curiosity about how things work, which is the basis of the scientific method. This would lead to an understanding that science does not produce laws, but instead provides descriptions of our best understanding of how the world around us works. And that we update that understanding when we encounter new evidence. Denying reality is not a good long term way to live. Reality does not have a liberal bias; reality is just truth.

---

D.K. in Chicago, IL: In the spirit of a doctor who needs to get all the health information before making a diagnosis and prescribing a cure, I would say getting one's facts straight before opening our mouths. That would lead to less misunderstanding and misinformation, knee-jerk reactions and judgments. From there, we can debate the morality of solutions.

---

N.M. in Hudson Valley, NY: Although I was going to highlight the cause of conversion to non-combustion power generation, recalling something I saw on a recent trip to New York City came to mind.

It was about some research into a vaccine for pancreatic cancer (which killed Ruth Bader-Ginsburg for that matter, among millions of others) that was ongoing. Apparently they are very close to success.

The common thread between the two is the absolute necessity of research funding, which, of late, this current bunch is decimating. Stopping them and restoring the research ASAP (in hopes of not losing progress already made) is the best first step to improving humanity and planetary health. The only way we improve the world is by working towards that very goal.

---

J.A. in Monterey, CA: The Dunning-Kruger Effect. If we fixed this in humans, so that they didn't think they were experts in things they actually knew little about (and had some intellectual humility), they would likely make better decisions, including electing better leaders.

---

J.L. in Chicago, IL: I am going to go with the disappearance of cognitive biases. It is not going to happen, at least not on anything shorter than an evolutionary timeline, but I took the question to be theoretical, not necessarily achievable.

And for anyone whose mind quickly jumped to, "Yes, it would help so much if those MAGA folks (or whoever) could break free of their biases," you are not agreeing. You are demonstrating.

---

J.L. in Albany, NY: I'd change "tribalism," specifically the view that "my tribe deserves more than your tribe" or "my tribe deserves all the power and will label your tribe as dangerous."

Way back in the early days of humanity, this probably made sense. People from rival tribes could be a legitimate threat. Unfortunately, this has persisted into the modern day, when the legitimate threat is claimed, but is entirely imaginary. For example, some people claim "trans people are a threat," but most trans people just want to live their lives in peace. They aren't looking to attack or threaten cisgender folks like myself. Yet, they are labeled a threat because some see them as "part of a different tribe and therefore dangerous."

If we could get rid of tribalism, the world would be a more accepting and peaceful place.

---

B.B. in St. Louis, MO: The greatest benefit to humanity would be if individuals became unable to recognize "the other." Our civilization will not advance long as humans continue to divide the species into "we" and "they."

---

A.L. In Santa Cruz, CA: When humans stop seeing one another as competitors or enemies and truly learn cooperation and collaboration, all our problems are resolvable. There are no "others" on this delicate spaceship Earth that we call home, only "us."

---

C.V. in Chadron, NE: The one thing that I think would make the world a better place is if people were naturally more apologetic. The power of apology would go a long way in reducing conflict and bringing people together instead of conflict.

---

M.N. in Lake Ann, MI: What one aspect about humanity, if changed, would bring the greatest benefit to society and the world as a whole? That would have to be empathy. I sit here tonight stunned that my sleepy little corner of the world isn't so sleepy anymore, and is splashed across the world news because of a mass casualty event. One that saw one random person deliberately harm 11 other random people, with the up-close-and-personal method of stabbing. For what? When did our fellow human beings become invisible to us? It feels like humanity has looked around and decided that others are expendable, like "non-playable characters" from the gaming world. Our ability to put ourselves in others shoes and try to understand where they are coming from has disappeared.

I read with horror reports that so-called Christians are using phrases like "toxic empathy". "What Would Jesus Do?" has left the building, apparently. If we could all see ourselves in our fellow man and fellow creatures, the world would improve in so many ways. The current regime appears to DELIGHT in others suffering... that is the toxic thing. Not empathy. I'm going to cry myself to sleep tonight, for 11 people I don't even know. And probably even for the perpetrator, because you have to be pretty messed up to do this, and that is as sad as it is horrifying.

---

G.K. in Blue Island, IL: Empathy. Greater empathy. More than better "candidate quality", more than having a better information ecosystem, more than even fostering better education and critical thinking, if humanity could just turn away from a binary "Us" vs. "Them" framing of every political or sociological topic—or at least learn to distrust those who would frame things in such a manner—humanity in general would not only be better off but (probably) be pointed toward a brighter future.

I haven't the foggiest idea how to accomplish this. Religion used to be able to address this somewhat, but the dominant faith in the U.S. has been co-opted by those who openly despise empathy. Public education used to at least provide a level playing field of sorts, where basic people skills and commonly-accepted virtues (like tolerance) were taught along with the three Rs, but that is actively be tarred now with the "woke" brush.

---

B.T.M. in Arlington, MA: I would ask the gods to reduce the level of testosterone in all humans just a smidge. I think it would calm everybody down without fatally losing our aspirations for creativity and prosperity.

---

M.D.H. in Coralville, IA: A cure for "testosterone poisoning," the tendency for offended male ego to create conflict and block cognition.

---

J.M. in Portland, OR : It's very simple, really: Put women in charge of everything. Sure, some women can be as bad as any man but on the whole the world would be a much better place.

---

S.S. in Toronto, ON, Canada: I think the ONE aspect that needs to be developed—not only to benefit society and the natural world, but to ensure our very survival—is trustworthiness. I think there has been a severe loss of trustworthiness in today's world, and without that, absolutely nothing can function effectively. It is, as the Baha'i teachings say, the "foundation of all human virtues."

---

A.G. in Plano, TX: I'm going to get a lot of blowback for this, I'm sure, but humanity worldwide would benefit exponentially if religion ceased to exist. Religion to this day—ALL of them—seeks nothing but control and offers nothing but vengeful judgment. Religion actively dehumanizes anyone who dares to question it and is used as the justification for countless acts of cruelty, suffering and murder. As George Carlin aptly observed, more people have been killed in the name of God in human history than for any other reason.

Humanity is long overdue to move past the need for religion.

---

D.D. in Hollywood, FL: To quote John Lennon: "...and no religion, too." Religion, in many forms, has long served as a catalyst for division, conflict, and irrational decision-making, often rooted in superstition rather than logic or the common good.

Much like in Star Trek's "A Taste of Armageddon," where Captain Kirk ends a senseless, sanitized war by destroying the simulation and forcing people to face the reality of their actions, humanity would benefit from dismantling the "fig leaf" that religion so often provides to justify our worst behavior. For centuries, it has served as a convenient excuse—justifying war, oppression, and policy decisions based not on reason or collective benefit, but on obedience to a so-called "higher power," often interpreted to suit individual or political agendas.

I include all religions, past and present, across all cultures. Despite their moral claims, I see little enduring good that outweighs the harm. Religion has certainly not made America—or the world—any greater.

---

M.P. in Scotts Valley, CA: The elimination of every person in the world with more than $1B in assets.

---

M.M. in Leonardtown, MD: The obvious "big picture" answers (bigotry, exploitation, greed, hypocrisy, war, etc.) all seem to stem from the notion that all success is zero-sum, that someone else must lose in order for us to win. So let's get rid of that notion.

(Partial credit for this idea goes to the YouTube channel Veritasium, which I highly recommend for anyone needing an algorithm cleanse. The particular video that I immediately thought of when reading this question, having watched it about 3 days before, dealt with game theory. Spoiler alert, the video proves that cooperation/collaboration produces superior long-term outcomes, despite rational self-interest being the optimal choice for each individual decision.)

---

J.D. in Greensboro NC: It is too easy to give greed as an answer, so I'm going to give an example instead.

Many years ago I watched a movie called The Gods Must Be Crazy. One part of the plot (there are two) involves a remote African village where the residents are busy with their everyday lives of simple existence, basically living from day to day without luxuries. Then a man in a small plane throws his coke bottle out his window and it falls to the village where it is retrieved by a child and shown to the village members. They wonder why the gods have sent them this "thing." But soon they see the utility of it, using it to grind grain or playing it like a musical instrument and eventually they become obsessed with possessing it. The thing has turned them against each other. One incident finally brings them to their senses and a certain villager is tasked with traveling to the end of the world to throw it away.

Of course, this is just a story and life is more complicated. But we all could benefit by the insight this story and others give us and be open to their lessons.

Here is the question for next week:

N.M.D. in Duluth, MN, asks: What are some good places to visit in Europe that have historical connections to World War II and the Holocaust?

Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "We Shall Return"!

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger