Revisionist History Series: I've Been Writing About Presentism All This Time

 

I've written on multiple occasions about how so many people, at this site and in historical articles, have taken the position of judging the past for the impossible crime of being the past. At the time I thought I'd had a real insight, only to find out, like so many of my other great ideas, someone smarter than me had it first a long time ago.

The term is called 'presentism'. In historical analysis it’s a term for the introduction of present day ideas and perspectives in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias and believe it creates a distorting understanding of the past. It was first cited in the historiographic sense in 1916 and may have been used in this meaning since the 1870s.

The historian David Hackett Fischer identified it as a fallacy known as Nunc pro Tunc, or now for them. In British history it was used in which 18^th and 19^th century British historians wrote history in such a way to use the past to validate their believes rather than an objective historical context. In this kind of approach, which emphasizes the relevance of history to the present things that don't seem relevant receive little attention.

There has been much debate among historians about the problematic question of history and moral judgments. Among historians the orthodox view (and the one that was prevalent among traditional ones) is that reading modern notions of morality into the past is committing the error of presentism. Slavery is given an example, letting that fact influence judgment about a group of individual would be presentist. Most of the books I've cited for my column, such as Robert W. Merry's Decade of Disunion took this objective view arguing the counterpoint between the secessionist such as Barnwell Rhett and the abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison. Kai Bird's The Outlier, which I recently reviewed, was essentially a presentist version of Carter's Presidency – and its worth remembering Bird's progressive credentials make it clear that this is the kind of history he would prefer to tell.

Critics argue that avoiding presentism on issues like slavery amounts to endorsement of the views of dominant groups, in this case, slaveholders, as opposed to those who opposed who held them at the time. They also argue that to avoid moral judgments is to practice moral relativism. The problem is while one can take that argument in philosophical terms, which is abstract, it has little to do with history which is about the past.  Fischer argued that while historians might not be able to avoid the fallacy completely, they should at least try to be aware of their biases and write history in such a way that they do not create a distorted version of the past. He might very well have been giving side-eye to Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal and other revisionists who only look at America and the world through presentist views.

 

This came up  in 2022 when James H. Sweet, who once served as President of the American Historical Association wrote an article observing a 'trend towards presentism in contemporary historical scholarship. One of the major points of contention was The 1619 Project which I've written about before. The result was predictable. One historian wrote an article about 'Two Cheers for Presentism.'  Another historian wrote that "while we can take disturbing issues of students and faculty on the left seeking to censor what can be taught or even spoken, the concerted attack from the right – in the form of state laws prohibiting the teaching of so-called critical race theory the 1619 Project (italics mine) gender and sexuality and other topics – are much more dangerous to the practice of history. Keisha Blain, an African-American historian, argued 'Black historians have long recognized the role of the present in shaping our narratives of the past. We have never had the luxury of writing about the past as though it were divorced from the present concerns."

In other words, when it comes to presentism those historians who use it refuse to be objective.

John Quiggin took this to an extreme: "When academic opponents of presentism say that current moral standards are being imposed on the past, what they mean is that racist views that are now deprecated were once dominant and vice versa. The real issue isn't to do with time, it's whether any moral standards at all apply to history. Rather than saying that (for example) Pol Pot was a man of his times and exempt from contemporary judgments, they should just say that's it's not their job to decide whether genocide is good or bad, just to report the facts.

Now the idea that Pol Pot, who was a 20^th century figure, could be viewed as 'a man of his times' is perhaps the most reduction view of history you could take. I don't know of any historian whose even put that into print, I seriously doubt the most Marxist of all historians would do so. (Or if you're Noam Chomsky, you'd say too much attention was paid to his actions compared to East Timor.) And to paraphrase an old friend on the idea of the difference between the right and the left, the left is defending a presentist version of history by saying "they feel it is too important to ignore."

There's no factual reason to give a presentist version of history.  All the arguments for it fall into the version of morality which is a hodgepodge of 'this is too important to be objective' and 'why don't you focus on what the right is doing?" The former argues that you can't do two things simultaneously; the latter argues is just another version of 'never push back against the left'

Sweet said the left's argument is: 'If we don't read the past through the prism of contemporary social justice issues – race, gender, sexuality, nationalism, capitalism, are we doing history matters?  If history is only those stories from the past that confirm current political positions, all manner of political hacks can claim historical expertise. Too many Americans have become accustomed to the idea of history as an evidentiary grab bag to articulate their political positions."

That is a truth that, I can personally verify, both sides are guilty of whether it is the writings of Victor Davis Hanson or Nikole Hannah-Jones. That one is doing it as part of the holding the past in high regard and the other it by holding it in  complete contempt doesn't make their revisionism contemptible.  And it's clear the defense of Keisha Blain argues that like everything else the past can only be afforded to be held objectively if you're a white man. (Which last I checked Zinn, Chomsky and Vidal are and they sure as hell were presentists.)

But even if I were to argue that the presentist approach is the correct one and that it should be applied to historian the question I ask is: why? I want to know what the end goal is. Say we teach every American student The 1619 Project, The People's History Of the United States and Lies My Teacher Taught Me. What does that do?  The presentist view of the past isn't any different from the view of today. It just does on a bigger scope. America is as racist, sexist and homophobic today as it was in 1619 and it'll never change.

So what is the student who reads these books supposed to take away from it except a loathing of your country? Don't give me that argument it's telling people not to trust those in authority, the left basically makes that argument for everything. Healthy skepticism and questioning your country's leaders are good things; arguing that all of them are basically corrupt and untrustworthy is the view of an extremist. The arguments for presentism's counterargument hasn't really changed: it's that the right is the bigger threat and all Americans need to be focused on them. That's another kind of moral relativism, you know, the exact same thing the presentists are saying we shouldn't have in our history.

What this is based on, of course, is the left's moral superiority, the certainty that if they had lived in 1776 they would have the values they would today. But time moves in one direction and most things that were acceptable a hundred years ago aren't.

The famous saying about history was once: "Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it." The presentist doesn't want to learn from the past; he was to judge it. The presentist is incapable of realizing the only reason they have the values of today is because we learn from our mistakes and we make improvements. Since the presentist has judge a dim view of people who aren't them in the present, they don't believe people can do that either.

I'll end with a statement from Eugene O'Neill in A Moon For The Misbegotten: "There is no present or future, only the past happening again and again, now." I'm fond of it now more than ever because when it comes to how so many on the left try to bring about their vision they never learn from their mistake and as a result they keep trying to have their past happen again with no improvements. Either from an objective perspective or the presentist one, their approach keeps failing in the present so they can't realize their progressive future. No wonder they keep trying to rewrite the past.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last Night's Emmys Winners Were Historic, Surprising And Satisfying That's A Pattern Worth Celebrating

 

 

Author's Note: Because I have made it clear those who review an awards shows as if it were entertaining completely miss the point of them, this is not a review of the Emmys in that sense. With that being said, a minor point to the producers.

Considering that even with that ridiculous SVU-Taylor Swift sequence the broadcast was actually running short take the hint and put all of the awards for Limited Series you put in the Creative Arts ceremony this year back in the main broadcast.

 

If I had ever been inclined to use a hashtag about the Emmy winners during the 2010s there's one I would've used over and over.

#EmmysSoPredictable.

I'm not just talking about the fact that year after year some of the greatest shows of the decade such as Jane The Virgin or Parenthood or Billions couldn't get nominated at all or shows like Justified or Episodes never got enough respect. I'm talking that even when the Emmys were nominated shows and performers who deserved it – and to their credit the vast majority did – every year like clockwork they honored the same series and most of the same actors.

This was particularly true in comedy. 30 Rock would win year after year, then Modern Family, then Veep. Jim Parsons and Julia Louis-Dreyfus were always winning, and so were Eric Stonestreet or Julie Bowen. There was some movement in the right direction by the end of the decade, particularly with shows like Barry and Atlanta but it was the same old most of that decade.

For drama, they would coronate Mad Men or Breaking Bad and most excruciatingly for me Game of Thrones, year after year. I'll admit there was more variety in the acting awards during that decade and I was fine with the majority of them – with the exception of Peter Dinklage – but it was getting monotonous. I was relieved more than anyone that Game of Thrones came to an end, if for no other reason then I thought it would give some breathing room to other actors and actresses in drama.

(On a side note, that's probably why I increasingly engaged with the Limited Series era – and why I took it so personally that so many awards were shifted to the Creative Arts this year.)

Then this decade things began to change at the Emmys and its become more prevalent the last three years. Diversity has come. I'm not talking necessarily about the race of the winners (and yes I'm painfully aware that #EmmysSoWhite is circulating again; I'll deal with that in a separate article) but in the fact that increasingly each year there are fewer back-to-back winners in almost every category for acting and in the last several years drama or comedy. More than the Emmys increasingly have the possibility to surprise in a way they didn't five years ago.

And now when history happens – and last night's Emmys was historic – it's historic in a way that seeing Bryan Cranston or Julia Louis-Dreyfus win year after year just isn't. There's meaning and significance attached to it in a way that wasn't there before.

So let's look at how so many of last night's winners made history in a truly incredible way.

The most historic night was held by Matthew Rhys. He became the first actor in the history of the Emmys to win Best Lead Actor in two different categories on the same night. The one he got for Widow's Bay was expected; the one for The Beast in Me absolutely was not yet delighted me more. It demonstrated, as if we needed proof that Rhys is one of the greatest and most versatile actors in TV history up their with such recent 21^st century masters as Bryan Cranston, Jon Hamm and Damien Lewis. (I'll be getting to the actresses in a bit.) He became the first actor of all time to win Best Lead Actor in all three categories: Comedy, Drama and Limited Series. And I think few people could be happier for it then me, save perhaps his wife. (Next year Keri Russell has to win herself by the way.)

Widow's Bay's triumph would be more historic if we weren't seeing history made in Comedy every year. Its 14 wins were an all-time record for a comedy series breaking last year's record set by The Studio with 12, breaking last year's record set by The Bear with 11.

But let's not kid ourselves, even a rabid Hacks devotee like me was overjoyed with most of the winners. This spoke to Kate O'Flynn who deservedly triumphed for her work in 'Beach Reads' and for Katie Dippold who took two Emmys and was delightful in her acceptance speeches. For writing she made it clear that while she had planned to be humble and if she ever won an Emmy she'd keep in the garage she now intended to build a spotlight around it and a mirror that you could see it from every room in her house. I also loved how she said Matthew Rhys' Welsh accent was fake. When she took the prize for Best Comedy she went out of her way to thank her entire crew, the evil entity that allowed them to tell its story and finished her speech with 'Serve The Punch NOW". (Really if she'd been wearing antlers on her head no one would have told her.)

The other records this night were set by two of the greatest actresses in the history of TV. The first was expected as Jean Smart went five for five with her Best Actress in a Comedy for the final season of Hacks. She was humble telling all the women to sit down because "you have to be tired of this saying "She's not that good." Trust me Jean you absolutely are. Combined with her three other Emmys Smart has a total of eight wins which ties her with Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Cloris Leachman and one other actress whose victory was a shock even to her.

Alison Janney's win for The Diplomat was her eighth Emmy win and her sixth win in drama. This is also the fourth series she has won an Emmy for in her impressive career: four for The West Wing (two Supporting Actress, two lead actress) two for Mom (Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy in 2014, Best Actress in a Comedy in 2015) and Outstanding Guest Actress in a Drama for Masters of Sex (also in 2014). Combined with her superb work this year in both Palm Royale and Miss You, Love You she remains one of most versatile actresses in the history of TV.

The other historic record was one, honestly, that shouldn't have been one. Stephen Root, who managed to win Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy for his work in Widow's Bay, at 77 became the oldest actor to win in that category. And that's nearly as big a travesty as Harrison Ford losing again. Because Root has been one of the greatest actors in television for decades, no matter which genre he chooses to act it, drama, comedy, horror or animation. I was appalled to learn that this was only the second nomination in his entire career and that his first was for Barry back in 2019. I don't know who would have been more pissed if he'd lost: the Sea Hag or the Raven.

Just as significant, I'd argue, were all of the rewards for actors who've been in the business a very long time but haven't until now gotten the awards they deserve. The most deserving, of course, was Rhea Seehorn and I suspect the cheer I let out when she finally won an Emmy for her incredible work in Pluribus could have been heard from space. My admiration for her work in Better Call Saul is well documented and of course nothing new. And it was a glorious victory.

Just as deserving was Vince Gilligan's, who despite having created two of the greatest shows in TV history, somehow had not yet won an Emmy for writing. He finally did on Emmy night for the Pilot of Pluribus and continued to enhance his reputation for being one of the nicest guys in Hollywood. He thanked his fellow writers and said he was especially proud of Valerie P. Chu, who'd been nominated for The Pitt this year. I didn't know that Chu was the writer's assistant in Better Call Saul and the way she smiled made me love both her and Vince all the more.

Perhaps the most enduring win was Tom Pelphrey for his incredible work in Task. Arguably one of the great performances of 2025 Pelphrey like the show he was part of it seemed determined to be the bridesmaid. After losing to Patrick Ball in the Astras it seemed he would go home empty handed. But the split in the nominees in The Pitt worked for Pelphrey just as it almost certainly benefited Janney for Supporting Actress but you'd never know that given how Ball was more then willing to stand for one of the great actors of our time.

The wins of Seehorn and Pelphrey combined with several deserved first time winners who have short-changed despite decades of great TV. These include David Harbour and Linda Cardellini's deserved wins for DTF St. Louis which completed its sweep of the Emmys by winning Outstanding Limited Series. And the victories of Betty Gilpin and Shailene Woodley for Widow's Bay and Paradise were equally rewarded for two of the most versatile actresses in TV who've done multiple shows and gotten so few nominations for their work. All of them meant as much to me as Noah Wyle's second consecutive win for The Pitt.

With all of these wins it's now clear I'm picking up five trends looking at the Emmys over the 2020s, all of them encouraging.

1. Every year comedy's are sweeping the Emmys.

The decade began with Schitt's Creek winning all seven Emmys in competition: all four acting awards, writing, directing and best series. Since then three different years have managed to earn six out of those seven awards: Ted Lasso in 2021, The Bear in 2023 and Widow's Bay yesterday. Throw in the fact that The Studio set a record last year and you have trends were comedy has become as dominant every year in the way shows like The Sopranos and Breaking Bad could be in drama.

This might lead to dullness were it not for the fact…

2. Six different comedies have won the grand prize this decade.

Save for Ted Lasso going back-to-back in 2021 and 2022, each year this decade has brought a different winner that usually sweeps. This was proved in what was arguably one of the biggest surprises in Emmy history in the fall of 2024 when The Bear managed to win eleven Emmys but lost Best Comedy to Hacks.

And it's not like there haven't been room for surprises within these sweeps. Hacks came away with twelve Emmys during this decade, including two for writing, one for directing and one for Hannah Einbinder for Supporting Actress. We've also seen room for several individual surprises for shows like Abbott Elementary and Somebody Somewhere. And there have been room for differences. So far in the 2020s a different woman has won in Best Supporting Actress in a comedy every year.

3. Drama is becoming more balanced then it was in the 2010s.

Aside from The Crown sweeping every major award in 2021 and Succession doing close to the same thing in 2023 (I guess I can forgive Jennifer Coolidge now) there's been quite a bit more division in the Emmys that get given out in drama.

In 2022 Succession managed to win Best Drama and three other Emmys but finished behind Squid Game in total Emmys won which won six Emmys. Euphoria and Ozark have done decently during this decade (I can acknowledge that without being a fan of the show.) Last year Severance was the big winner in terms of total Emmys including acting awards for Tramell Tillman and Britt Lower but it lost Best Drama to The Pitt that won five. The Pitt actually tied for second that year with Andor which also won Best Writing in a Drama.

This year we had even more suspense when it came to drama. Both The Pitt and Pluribus had won four Emmys in the Creative Arts category. But last night it didn't win either Supporting Actor award (we'll get to that) and Rhea Seehorn and Vince Gilligan took two awards while Noah Wyle won Best Actor. So when The Pitt managed to repeat as Best Drama, I suspect Wyle and John Wells breathed a sigh of relief. The Pitt tied with Pluribus for most wins for a Drama with six apiece.

Which brings me to the next point.

 

4. As opposed to comedy, in Drama the Academy is sharing the wealth more than it used to.

In 2024 Shogun did set a record for most wins for a Drama for an Emmy with 16. But on Emmy night itself the Academy did give some credit to others. Billy Crudup took his second Emmy for The Morning Show and Elizabeth Debicki won for The Crown. And of course Slow Horses stunned everybody when it managed to win Best Dramatic Teleplay.

The slow but steady success of Slow Horses may be the biggest sign yet of the Emmys willing to give recognition to less flashy shows. For the second consecutive year it won Best Director for a Drama and its third consecutive Emmy in a major category. (Small plug: I predicted that win.) This year was saw a similar trend with Paradise and The Diplomat each winning their first Emmys in competition. Throw in Tom Pelphrey's victory and its clear the Emmys may be willing to share the love in a way in drama in a way it wasn't before.

 

5. In Limited Series, the battle between Netflix and HBO continues.

These two powerhouses have been battling for contention throughout the decade. In 2020 Watchmen managed to deservedly take all comers. In 2021, it was more of a stalemate: The Queen's Gambit took Best Drama and Best Directing from Mare of Easttown took three of the four acting awards while I May Destroy You took Best Writing. In 2022 Season 1 of The White Lotus not only took all comers but Netflix could barely field a contender as Hulu managed to get three of the four remaining nominations for Limited Series and won Best Actor and Actress for Michael Keaton and Amanda Seyfried respectively.

In 2023 the movement shifted back to Netflix when Beef took all comers and HBO wasn't even in that particular category. In 2024 Baby Reindeer managed to take most of the major awards as Night Country was basically left out in the cold. In 2025 Adolescence ran roughshod over everybody.

But this year when the second season of Beef was the heavy favorite DTF St. Louis won the hearts and votes of Emmy voters. Netflix could take solace in Matthew Rhys win for The Beast in Me and Sally Field's surprising upset for the TV film Remarkably Bright Creatures. (This would have meant more if, well, you know.)

 

I don't know if the era of Prestige TV is over. (This year I saw yet another obituary for it because The Bear had ended. Which is odd as I thought it had ended after Succession ended, and then Better Call Saul..) My feelings on that are already noted for the record and considering that many of these critics are still trying to review the Emmys as if they were binge watching the most recent season of Heated Rivalry  I'm not sure how much I trust them.

What I do know is that having seen the last three years of nominations and winners the Emmys are becoming better at both, more capable of surprise and more gratifying for me to enjoy when it comes to honoring the best in television then they may have been when we were in the Golden Age of TV.

In other words #EmmysSoPredictable is dead and I couldn't be more thrilled. Time to get ready for the fall season and see what contenders and new faces await.

 

My Reactions to the 2026 Creative Arts Emmys

 

I always watch the Creative Arts Emmys that are aired on FXX on the Saturday before the broadcast. Technically they are two nights of awards edited into one 2 and a half hour broadcast but that doesn't mean they're any less fascinating.

Sometimes they can foreshadow what will happen on Emmy night. Other times they can mislead. Last year, for example, Severance was the big winner in drama taking seven Emmys. However Andor won five and The Pitt took 2. Severance managed to win two more Emmys that were somewhat surprising – Britt Lower for Best Actress and Tramell Tillman for Supporting Actor – but of course the big winner was The Pitt.

As for comedy two years ago The Bear had an incredible night winning seven Emmys, trouncing all comers. On Emmy night it won four more but in what was the biggest upset in recent memory Hacks took Best Comedy.

The Creative Arts Emmys naturally deal with the kinds of awards that are more technically elaborate and despite noble efforts to divide the awards among genre and period pieces those are still the shows that generally do the best among them. It's rare to see that correlation play out on Emmy night. This was true in Limited Series last when The Penguin took seven Emmys in the Limited Series category to Adolescence's three but Adolescence essentially won everything in sight Emmy night. We've seen shows like The Last of Us do very well here and then Succession do big on Emmy night.

So before we go any further let's see if the actual awards may have helped clarify things.

For Comedy, perhaps not unexpectedly, the big winner was Widow's Bay which took seven Emmys: Cinematography, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Music (half-hour) Music Supervision, Casting and Best Guest Actress in a Comedy Betty Gilpin. (I will get to that one)

This would seem to give the edge of Widow's Bay but remember what I said about two years ago The Bear. Hacks only won for Picture Editing in a Comedy but this has never been a show that has a great history with creative arts. Until now it's only won two others both for Guest Actress in a Comedy: Laurie Metcalf in 2022, Julianne Nicholson, 2025. I admit odds have shifted in Widow's Bay favor but it was always going to have a good night on Emmy night regardless: it was a lock for Matthew Rhys for Best Actor in a Comedy, I was pretty sure Kate O'Flynn was going to win for Best Supporting Actress and Hiro Murai seemed certain for direction. Jean Smart is certain to win her fifth Best Actress and its still heavily favored to win Best Writing. I still think the stars are in its favor. Not that I'd be disappointed if Widow's Bay won.

For the record I was also glad to see Margo's Got Money Troubles take three Emmys for Contemporary Costume, Hairstyle and Makeup. Because honestly given what that show looked like it deserved it. And I was also thrilled to see the Emmys give Palm Royale three Emmys before it was canceled, including period costume, makeup and choreography.

It was also profoundly moving to see Rob Reiner awarded posthumously for Best Guest Actor in a Comedy for what was his final performance in The Bear.

 

For Drama this was always going to be a fight between Pluribus and The Pitt and it still is. Both won four Emmys.

For Pluribus, as you'd expect, they were all technical: Production design, picture Editing for a Drama, sound mixing for a Drama, Main Title Theme. For The Pitt, there was best Music and Lyrics (for one of their songs) best prosthetic makeup, casting and Best Guest Actor in a Drama for Ernest Harden.

The big winner among dramas, however, was the recently cancelled Spider-Noir which took five technical Emmys, including cinematography, sound effects, visual effects and stunts, a good showing.

As for the other contenders Knights of the Seven Kingdoms won for Best Episodic Stunt performance while Paradise took Best Guest Actress for Shailene Woodley.

I think both shows will divide many of the awards: The Pitt will take Best Drama and Best Actor, while Pluribus will take Best Actress and Best Directing and probably Best Writing. I'm still not ruling out the possibility that Slow Horses will pull an upset in either of those categories just like it has the last two years. I remain convinced Tom Pelphrey will win Best Supporting Actor but I still think Supporting Actress in a Drama is up for grabs. Don't rule out the possibility of either Julianne Nicholson or Karolina Wydra managing an upset over one of the performers from The Pitt.

 

Okay you know what I think about Best Limited Series and for the record I'm now doubly angry. David Harbour and Linda Cardellini's acceptance speeches for Best Supporting Actor and Actress were both in their own ways profoundly moving and they deserved to be part of the main broadcast. Again you screwed up Emmys.

Momentum has now completely shifting to DTF St. Louis which won six Emmys, including directing and writing for Steven Conrad. (He deserved to give his speech in prime time, academy!) That said, it should be noting that the award for Casting was one of the few it didn't win, going instead to Love Story.  Considering every lead in DTF was nominated and it still didn't win and how important casting has been overall, its striking.

Beef prevailed for Contemporary Costume, sound editing and sound mixing in an Anthology so it could still manage an upset. And I was glad to see one of my favorite composers for Sean Callery win another Emmy for The Beast in Me.

 

As to the ceremonies themselves I always take a certain pleasure out of them that is often equal to the prime-time broadcast. These are the unsung heroes and heroines of television, who give as much to the world as the writers, directors and on-screen talent and I have a fondness when they are recognized.

I'll confess I care more about that then some of the awards for shows that are given more coverage such as reality TV or live performances. That said it did my heart a world of good to see Jeopardy win best game show and that the most awarded Variety special even more than late night was the reimagined version of The Muppet Show which won five Emmys, including Best Variety Special. This meant a lot to a great many people, including those who worked on it. One winner brought out a VHS recording of one of the original episodes and Seth Rogen said how wild it was they were honored on the 50^th anniversary of the debut. If that's not a reason to get things started and bring it back full time, I don't know what is.

There are some series, especially those such as Widow's Bay and Beef that really are nothing without the technical masters who do their work and they deserve more credit then they got. I'll be honest, I wouldn't mind if at least a couple of these awards were added to the primetime broadcast because they deserve more than they get.

But for me one of the great rewards in the 21^st century often is the Guest Actor and Actress in either comedy or drama.  Far more often these awards give recognition to some of the best actors who never get their due and they should. I've been overjoyed to see such favorites as Jeremy Davies win for Justified and Margo Martindale for The Americans, Reg E. Cathey prevail for House of Cards, Gerald McRaney's win for This is Us and Alexis Bleidel winning for The Handmaid's Tale. Even if it didn't like the shows in some cases, these are some of the greatest actors of TV and they deserve their moment.

In recent years its been paying off for veterans who never got their due from the Emmys. I've seen such talents as Nick Offerman, Jamie Lee Curtis, Jon Bernthal and last year Shawn Hatosy finally get their due. And this year it was just as rewarding as two of my all-time favorites actresses: Shailene Woodley and Betty Gilpin, after each having been ignored by the Emmys for over a decade despite having starred in some of the greatest shows of that period (including when they  co-starred in the incredible Three Women two years ago) finally got their first Emmys for Paradise and Widow's Bay, respectively.

Gilpin's speech, the last of the night, brought the house down because it was delivered as a poem she wrote. It was both hysterically funny, incredibly moving and briefly a call to arms. It also brought me joy to know Gilpin's 'date' to the Emmys was Allison Brie. I'm so glad to know the 'GLOW-mance is still going on. (Now can we get an Emmy for Alison too?)

By the way I made some predictions going into this night. I was right that Harbour and Cardellini would win, right that DTF St. Louis would win for writing and wrong about directing. I correctly predicted Woodley would win Best Guest Actress in a Drama and I did predict that a Guest Actor in a Drama would go to someone from The Pitt – though my guess was Jeff Kober rather than Ernest Harden, Jr. Considering Gold Derby was betting on Colman Domingo, I did better on that. I was wrong about Best Guest Actor in a Comedy and a Drama. I thought Michael J. Fox and Kaitlin Olson would prevail. But I'm totally fine with Betty Gilpin winning.

How will it play out tomorrow? We'll see. Looking forward to it.

You Can't Force People To Watch An Awards Show. Whatever Decision The Emmys Makes This Year Won't Change This Fundamental Issue

 

 

I've noticed certain patterns about the awards shows I watch in regard to TV. Let me share them.

For years the Golden Globes had no hosts, then it had Ricky Gervais, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler co-host, then it had a group of late night people hosts. It has controversy over its voting members; it had to complete rebrand three years ago. It changed networks from NBC to CBS two years ago.

In all that period there were three constants. The first is subjective but in my opinion the awards they gave for TV were top-notch and frequently were superior to the Emmys. The second was that critics almost always gave the ceremonies pans most of the time and damned with faint praise the rest. The third was the ratings either went down or were essentially the same.

Around 2010 the Broadcast Critics Association started giving awards for TV. At first it had a separate ceremony in the summer, then it merged with film and now gives all of them at an end of year ceremony. It has aired on A & E, the CW and now airs on E! Again there are two constants: the nominations and awards are arguably the best in the industry and the ratings have essentially all stayed the same - which is next to non-existent. As for reviews of the ceremony this is an awards show that is so relatively small that I've rarely seen reviews of the ceremony at all.

Finally there are the SAG-AFTRA awards. For the first quarter of a century it aired on TNT. In 2022, it moved to YouTube, it's now airing on Netflix. It had no host for nearly fifteen years, it's had a few for the last three. It's format has barely changed at all in thirty years. The two constants: the reviews of the ceremony have never been that good and by and large the ratings having changed that much. The latter is more subjective then the other two awards shows as the metric for how many people watch a live event on streaming is different then the ones on cable. But given how inside baseball it is, I'm skeptical that thirty million people are tuning into Netflix on a Sunday night in March to see if Timothee Chalamet is going to win for Best Male Actor because nobody ever tuned in when it was on TNT to see if Leonardo DiCaprio was.

All of these were constants in Hollywood before streaming became the center of every aspect of our lives as well as the polarization of Hollywood's place in the universe. And that's because of the common thread between all of these groups: you can't force people to watch an awards show. As I've written before and will write again, awards show are for the nominees and the industry infinitely more than they are the viewer at home. Compared to the TV shows and films that they are commemorating they're not as entertaining or spontaneous as live events and they're not really supposed to be.

There's also the issue that I think would be the constant even if we weren't living in an era of cable and streaming. Unless you have a vested interest in the nominated shows or films as well as the actors, there really isn't a good reason to watch them. I've been doing it for more than a quarter of a century because I have both a professional and personal interest, which is different then both those who review the ceremony. And I completely get why, with so many choices before you on a night for entertainment, you might not want to spend three hours watching a bunch of celebrities giving speeches and hearing remarks about how important the work in Hollywood is.  I care about who wins or loses because I've seen many of the shows and admire much of the talent. I understand that puts me in a niche very few other people have and I completely get why others would want to do something else. I don't judge them.

On the business side, however, Hollywood seems either unwilling or unable to accept this basic fact. I honestly think the main reason viewership for awards show has dropped in the last decade has less to do with the increasing politics of the industry or even the kinds of shows the industry recognizes then the simple fact that there are now dozens, if not hundreds, of things you can be watching at any given day. There was a period in my lifetime when networks wouldn't run live programming against the Oscars or any awards show and they don't any more, in large part because cable isn't either and streaming is always there.  So naturally the ratings for awards shows would drop the exact same way ratings for everything on network and cable have dropped in the last decade. There are so many options that many people, young and old, of all races, genders and sexual orientation, are choosing to watch something else. That is their right.

The main reason ratings for awards show like the Emmys were always high during the 20^th century was because there were only three channels and nothing else was going on against them on those Sunday nights. The shows weren't necessarily better  (indeed I'd argue the shows nominated today are on average exponentially better than they were during the 1980s and 1990s) but they had been seen by more people and there were fewer alternatives. Now there are many alternatives.

On Monday night I have no doubt that millions of people will not be watching the Emmys. Indeed I'm willing to bet Monday Night Football will probably get higher ratings. The only reason this is significant is because the pattern of watching the Emmys is changing. The contract of rotating the Emmys between all four major networks is up and there's debate whether a streaming platform will take over broadcasting it, much like YouTube will be taking over the Oscars in two years' time.

The argument for shifting to a streaming service is an attempt to reach a broader audience, which means younger. This is yet another case of Hollywood missing the forest for the trees. Several awards shows, including the Astras, have been broadcasting on YouTube channels for five years and honestly I seriously doubt anybody but me has been watching them.

The problem is that no matter where you put an awards show, whether on network, cable or streaming, it's still an awards show.  As I mentioned the SAG-AFTRA did the same thing five years ago, and I'll be damned if I've noticed any change in viewership. Does Hollywood really believe that if you move the Emmys to Netflix or Amazon or any streaming service, the millions of people who have been watching other things when it was on networks or cable are going to just go to it because its now on Netflix or Amazon?

Of course not. The people that you're trying to reach will still end up watching clips of it the day after or the week after. They're not going to start caring about seeing the Emmys just because its on a streaming service that they can see on their phones now. Most of them don't have the attention span to watch shows as long as Ted Lasso anymore. You really think they'll sit through a three hour awards show because it's on TikTok?

What it will do is drive away the older audience that is still watching it on network and cable. We all know that this is part of the endless drive or television to try and reach 'a younger audience'. You know, the people who already think institutions like the Emmys and the Oscars are outdated anyway. Not to state the obvious but everybody gets old and at this point most of the people who once watched streaming are essentially starting to get tired of the model and now appreciate the way its being dropped weekly. You know, like network and cable are doing.

To be fair most seniors don't watch these shows either because most of the shows aren't on platforms they watch or can even find. But that's not the Emmys fault either – entirely. (I've had this debate about how the Emmys has been short-shrift network and cable for over a decade but this isn't the time for it.) They still have the patience to watch your ceremonies. That you're cutting off an audience you still have for one that has never been part of your bailiwick and never will be shows yet again the short-sightedness of Hollywood.

The other argument for doing this is that the Emmys must be 'relevant'. But 'relevant has always meant different things depending who you ask.

To an older viewer 'relevant' refers to a time of nostalgia when the family all gathered around the set and where we all watching the same program as a country. The bigotry is not always overt but considering that so much of television during the 20^th century was built on censorship and putting together a homogenous view of America where 'everybody knew their place' its clearer than other institutions.

To someone younger its another one of those hazy terms they just can't define but they know that it isn't something that it's older than them. This has always been the case even before the internet existed and its just as true today.

To women, people of color, members of the LGBTQ+ and other people of that level in the industry what is 'relevant' is how many of the nominated shows, performers and creatives are women, people of color, etc. They see this as a societal issue rather than simply being an industry matter. Systemic racism won't be fixed by Salli Richardson-Whitfield winning a Best Director Emmy this year any more than it would effect the patriarchy. Thinking does not make it so despite what the people in the industry believe.

And of course we've discussed what the critics need to believe in order for it to be relevant, but in this case they're more clueless than usual.

Personally much as I respect and admire the work the Emmys have done in the 21^st century I can assure the vast majority of Americans don't take it seriously or think about it much. At best they might focus on it the night it airs but that's it. I'd say at most the Emmys is like every other TV awards show: it's relevant to the industry in general and the nominees most specifically. It's never been one of those subjects that people who are invested in heavily about focus on more than the weeks leading up to it and then only a few days afterwards.

I've had my issues about shows that have been nominated and won over the years and I do hold some grudges. But there comes a point when it's not relevant to focus on it. Am I still upset that Better Call Saul never won a single Emmys while shows such as Succession, Ozark and Game of Thrones which I truly found lacking in comparison received so many? Yes. But I'm not going to spend the rest of my life holding a grudge. There's always next year, another show and in many cases the nominees will get another chance, even if it doesn't work out. But just because I think they have given the awards to the wrong shows and actors doesn't make them irrelevant. It makes it a subject for lively debate. The awards matter at most to the nominees and the shows. That's it. Putting the Emmys on a streaming service isn't going to change that nor is going to make any more people watch then it did whenever another awards show changes networks or moves to streaming. It's a niche audience and that's not going to change no matter what Hollywood does.

For what it's worth I do understand the position the industry is in right now and I get the lack of stability. But I also know that with everything else today Hollywood is forgetting the simple moral that if you try to please everybody you're not going to please anybody. And you're a business so you have to try and get as many people to come to the same place and offend the fewest number of people.

Here's my nickel's worth of advice: keep the rotation in play and show the Emmys on a streaming service every year. Will it improve the ratings? No but neither will moving it permanently to a streaming service. You're still going to be faced with the problem that people have free will and that awards shows are long and arduous. That's always going to be a feature and not a bug.

Will the industry grouse about being relevant? That is the same argument Hollywood always makes. To be clear relevance, like everything else, is on a sliding scale and the people who make the argument that something like the Emmys are irrelevant today are the same people who were making those arguments thirty years ago: young people and critics. That they're doing it on social media and the internet only means the methods have changed, not the tenor of their complaints or their logic.

And for the love of God stop holding awards shows to the same metrics as TV and movies when it comes to critical and rating responses. I don't know now many times I have to keep saying this, so I'll keep saying until somebody who actually is in the industry gets it. The awards shows are for the nominees and the industry first and foremost, the viewer and the critic a distant second at best. The former rarely gets this fact, the latter never does. If they haven't realized it after nearly 80 years of them being broadcast, they're not going to get it if you move it to a streaming service. All you're going to accomplish is make it harder for those who do care to find it and they will take it harshly. That will make your industry irrelevant far more then trying to reach the people who consider it a given.

That's all I have to say. I'll see you Monday.

 

Homicide Rewatch: Something Sacred (Conclusion)

 

Written by David Simon

Directed by Uli Edel

 

The second part begins with the perfect note of comedy. With the Guatemalans on the run and a second priest dead the Baltimore PD have become desperate and are trying and an undercover operation. Part of that involves members of Homicide dressing as men of the cloth looking to be robbed, even if that means they're walking the same avenues as ladies of the evening.

The detectives realize the humor of this in many ways (see Detective Munch for the high point) but it also argues the relative futility of where the investigation is right now. It doesn't bring them closer to solving the red ball and it just makes it very clear how depraved the underbelly of Baltimore is. Giardello knows this better than anyone when Munch comes in with the two men who tried to rob him in the teaser. They know that the MO is wrong. The shift has been dressed in clerical garb and all they have to show for it is six robbery attempts, none of which resemble the approach of the murders of Juneau and Jaeger.  As for Pedro and Luis the search is all over the wire but they're nowhere. More importantly the refugees left with only the clothes on their backs. A search of the grounds found no sign of any money and while the diocese of Jaeger was robbed they still don't know what to look for. Giardello is infuriated about being forced to release the two refugees and he makes that point very clear when he's called in to meet with Bonfather who calls him in to meet with City Hall and the archdiocese.

Kotto has always been superb at managing diplomacy when it comes to dealing with the bosses as he understands what his job is. Here he doesn't even bother with formalities, tearing into Bonfather, the mayor and the church from the moment he enters the room.  It helps matters that both representatives are the epitome of arrogance and ignorance and he has no problem being that way. Asked if this is his subtle way of telling them 'I told you so.' Al says coldly: "I don't have time to be subtle. But if you want it, I told you so." The way that both the mayor and the archdiocese seem utterly unwilling to admit error even in the fact of another dead priest makes it so frustrating that Bonfather has to play diplomat for once and Al runs right over him too. Al is called on the carpet later in the episode but he clearly has no patience for that either.

After a failed interrogation by Gharty all seem clear that the recent robber is the wrong tree Ballard finds the inventory from the archdiocese: a gold chalice taken from the altar. (There's a little humor when Ballard explains to Giardello what a chalice is and Al, whose Catholicism is never stated in this episode, gently tells her.) They put it on the pawnbroker's list and then they want every cop to visit every pawn shop in Baltimore. They make the assumption that if you're dead broke  you're gonna grab whatever you can and this leads them to Pedro and Luis stealing what they can and hocking it for money to get out of town.

This leads to a conversation between Gharty and Falsone, who haven't really talked since this season began. Gharty asked Falsone about his religion and Gharty says he still goes to Mass and how he believes. His monologue is one of the highpoints of Gerety's tenure on the show:

This mook sees what he thinks is a priest at a Frederick row bus stop and out comes his .32. Yo father, give it up?...I'm nuts, someone is robbing and killing priests and I'm up to my neck in it. But hey, there's Stu Gharty, wanting to believe. He's down on his knees, his mouth open, waiting for that little wafer.

Falsone's response is interesting. He tells him the job doesn't have to change it. "What is faith? Believing without any real evidence." Gharty thinks it's a joke but Falsone assured him he wouldn't do that. He may not be religious but he's not going to knock another man's faith. 

When Ballard and Gharty go to the morgue looking for more details and get more info on the knife, once again we see Gharty's devotion as he's upset that a Monsignor is displayed the same way as all the other corpses. "It isn't right," he says.

In the midst of the shift change when Pembleton comes in after a sleepless night, helped by his children the man who had a stroke asks for a black coffee. He never gets to drink and we don't ponder it long because the phone rings and he calls in Stivers. They've found Pedro and Luis.

Gharty and Ballard are outside St. Jermaine, taking photos to see if the killer comes back to see both priests paid respects too. Gharty actually goes inside to pay his respect and Ballard eventually follows. Sister Diane shows up and Ballard begins to question her about Pedro and Luis. Diane remains certain, despite everything that has happened, that they're not guilty. Falsone then comes in and briefs Ballard and Gharty that the refugees have been found in Frederick. Furthermore there was a hit on the chalice in Hanover this morning. Sister Diane demands to know what happened and all three detectives walk out without telling her a thing.

Pedro and Luis were found with $34 on them and receipts for fast food and motels running about $40. (This is 1998 Baltimore, remember.) Sister Diane reaches Frederick not long after Pembleton and Stivers do. That Sister Diane seems determined to put them in the custody of the archdiocese saying nothing has changed seems to speak to her naivete. She admits they have demonstrated they are a flight risk but Pembleton actually starts chuckling when he makes it very clear that he finds her position foolish now. The refugees made a statement and its clear she's unsure whether or not they'd confess. They maintain their innocence but can't explain how they were found with more than $70, nor can they give any reasonable explanation for fleeing, having signed an affidavit not to.  Sister Diane seems stunned that they didn't ask for an attorney. When asked if you still believe, Sister Diane says: "I'm willing to believe. Why does belief so appall you?"

She picked the wrong man to pose this question to. He shows her respect by waiting for her to see Pedro and Luis and then he makes it clear: "Blind faith is the crutch of the fools."  In this case, her faith is rewarded

Perhaps few scenes speak to the frustration of the local cop then the pawnshop and Ballard's outrage that a man could walk in with a church chalice and doesn't ask any questions. This leads to one of the best lines in the series and its written by Simon, so it makes sense:

Tell me something. If some 17-year old West Baltimore corner boy came in here with a full set of custom made graphite shaft golf clubs, would you wonder if he had stolen them out of someone's car trunk or would you just figure Homey had a change of heart and decided to take up tennis instead?

The pawnbroker, naturally, takes it straight and he shows them the name and address. "Whitney Houston. And guess what? She's got a place on Fayette Street." It's a burned down shop which leads Ballard to naturally say: "Bobby Brown could have done a lot better by the girl." (To be clear, 1998. No one knew how things were going to work out.)

The pawnbroker can't identify the Guatemalans and remembers a young man, possibly white and of course, he wiped the chalice down before he gave it back. However Giardello thinks the chalice is the key and he's right.  They go to the address that was left 1715 Fayette and Ballard figures out the address isn't random. The place burnt down three weeks ago and Ballard figures out maybe whoever left the address saw it burned which means he's a local – not the refugees.  She tells Gharty to go around the corner.

1517 Baltimore Street is the address of Lamar Bryce, aka Roc-Roc.  1517 Baltimore is one block over, two blocks down from 1715 Fayette. Gharty recognizes the name but says that since the pawnbroker identified a white man and Roc-Roc isn't even fair-skinned it doesn't make sense. Ballard thinks it does and they bring him in. Roc-Roc throws his vials in the sewer before he's brought in (we'll get to that) and the rest of the episode centers on his interrogation.

(Noteworthy is how neither detective gives a damn about his dealing. "A few vials here, a few vials there, we throw that back in the pond.")

It's telling that having spent the better part of two episodes with Gharty being the focus of it the resolution of the case has nothing to do with him. It starts out well enough with Gharty and Ballard pretty clear about what happened saying "They put you in." Roc-Roc goes: "They wouldn't do that", clearly giving himself away. Then Gharty grabs Roc-Roc and makes it clear he intends to beat him into next week.  Roc-Roc tells him he's been beat down by police before (that speaks volumes) Before Gharty can get started Pembleton and Stivers rush in and Gharty is told to get out by Ballard herself.

The interrogation then focuses on the two primaries Ballard and Pembleton. The two have never worked the box together once so its telling as to just how in sync they eventually become that Callie Thorne can match Andre Braugher verbal blow for verbal blow. Ballard makes it clear that she doesn't think Roc-Roc did this but that he knows the people who did and they put the murders on them.

Roc-Roc makes it clear he has a code. Pembleton instantly leans into it: "Why they call you Roc-Roc, Lamar? You give yourself that name?" Pembleton is the first one to call him Lamar, something Ballard and Gharty haven't done. "What do you think God is going to do to someone who took out two of his crew? What do you think God is going to do to someone who knew about the deed then lied about it?" Ballard points out he's protecting someone who killed a priest and tortured him; Pembleton makes it clear that they probably asked him for a meal to get in the parish and then killed him.

Roc-Roc's gospel is that of the corner boy and he mocks the idea of God being anywhere near him. Which is understandable. What's telling is that when they bring in Danvers with the vials they found and his record, the next step is to wave his charge in his face. Danvers threatens him with 3 years as a charge as an adult. (He goes in tough by the way.) But when asked whether he wants the years or a deal, he chooses the three years.

After four hours with no progress they change tactics. Ballard says that they've been arguing life is sacred and Pembleton knows that his world makes them out to be liars. This lead to two incredible sequences. First Pembleton and Ballard take Lamar to the morgue and Frank shows him the bodies. "Look at them, Lamar. You've been right all along. No God, no heaven. That's all there is. And if there was anything more, they wouldn't be so empty. You seem someone you recognize, you see someone you know." That last bit hits hard.

This is cold and hard. But it's the final bit that redeems it and makes the episode a treasure. Ballard and Pembleton drive until sunrise to Chesapeake Bay before delivering an incredible monologue about the value of life. Ballard then reminds Roc-Roc that he's 17 and might be dead or locked up six months from now. They have no illusions about how he's going to die and neither does he.  "So the only question left is this: while you were alive, while you were living and taking up space, did it count?"

Roc-Roc has this look of wonder. "Is this the ocean?" "It's the bay," Ballard says.  Pembleton and Ballard put away their guns and uncuff him. He looks out. And apparently that seems to do the trick. The two killers are two members of Roc-Roc's crew.

In the midst of this Lewis pops up looking scruffier then usual and showing up in front of Falsone. Paul admits he and Kellerman have been incredibly worried about him. He doesn't want to go into the squad and he shows a bit of shame for the jackpot he's gotten himself into. Unfortunately this is where the storyline involving the Mahoney real does take Homicide close to 'cop-a-ganda'.

Meldrick asks Falsone to do police work for him and gives him some names he wants to run to get rap sheets. This is going against the rules of his suspension and in the past Lewis has been more than willing to not just play by the book but hold those who disobey it accountable. Before Falsone agrees to it, he makes it clear that Lewis who's on suspension is risking his badge if he's caught. Meldrick says that he's tired of playing defense against 'this bitch. She's gonna come back at us, we're gonna come back at her." This is the definition of abusing your badge and breaking the law outright.

Just as troubling is that Falsone, who ever since he joined the unit has been busted everybody's chops about the Mahoney shooting being funky, doesn't even blink about doing Meldrick's dirty work for him. He has just been engaged in a conspiracy and it doesn't bother him. And it's very troubling that when Falsone actually asks Lewis what he should tell Kellerman that Meldrick doesn't even dignify it with a response.

The episode also shows the continued deterioration of Kellerman. Aside from the biggest moment (see Notes From the Board) Kellerman is angry at everybody. He harangues Bayliss for his affair with Cox and while Tim takes it in better spirits then he should, it's only because Frank shows up that it stops getting worse. When Lewis shows up and sees Falsone rather than him Kellerman takes his outrage more on Meldrick for not knowing the meaning of the word partner. Falsone tells him: "That a boy, Mikey. Burn those bridges" and despite the animus between the two it's clear he's concerned. But the climax comes when Kellerman is clearly hammered at the Waterfront and he openly mocks the relationship he and Juliana used to have about always being drunk before having sex. He kisses her clearly without her consent, then goes outside (Bayliss and Cox go after him) and then he cheerfully throws his keys in the harbor. (The next day he'll try to open his car with a  coat hanger.) In the final insult Kellerman will see Lewis in the Waterfront with Falsone across the street and by the time he gets there Meldrick has ducked out the back.

After all of this reality sets in. Pedro and Luis have broken the law and like all illegals they will be deported. There are no illusions of a sympathetic judge even in 1998. In three weeks' time they will be deported back to Guatemala. Pembleton and Stivers drop Roc-Roc off carefully. He makes it clear Sting – the white one – liked to use the knife doesn't bother him as much as Tyrell, who was his cousin. (In a montage we see the felons hugging each other once they've been locked up together. Good for you, Lamar. Roc-Roc acknowledges he was with the two of them and Father Wolcott but he couldn't do it when he saw the old man. After that he stopped hanging with the two of them. Before he says goodbye he says: "I really liked seeing the ocean." He ignores that it was the bay.

The episode ends with Gharty and Ballard returning the chalice to the rightful place. Gharty tells about how he and his brother once when they were in third grade would pretend to be priests. They didn't know the Latin so they'd blabber something. He says there's something about the Latin. "Maybe believing in God is supposed to be mysterious…It made it special. That God was coming through to us on a different signal." Ballard says Gharty would have made a good priest. Gharty responds like the cop he is: "No, I'm where I'm supposed to be. And that makes me wonder every day."

As if a higher power were there (but really the archdiocese) Father Klasky is there to accept the chalice. They assure him the killers will be punished. Klasky expresses remorse about Pedro and Luis's fate. So Gharty reassures him: "You had your doubts. We all did."

The last words of the episode is the poem we saw at the first crime scene. It didn't mean anything in regard to the crime but when Klasky says it, it sums up everything we've seen in this two-parter:

Teach us how truly to live. God of love, forgive, forgive.

 

 

NOTES FROM THE BOARD

In a minor detail while Jaeger is written as 031 in this episode in future episodes we'll see it written as 034. Presumably there were three other murders during the red ball and the other detectives followed up on them.

Detective Munch: Seeing our favorite Jewish detective dressed as a priest leads to wonderful moments. A good Samaritan passed by; he assures him he's fine with "Zei gesund." Asked by the radio car what that is Munch says: "Yiddish. Go with God." Clearly he's betting that the average Baltimorean can't tell that from Latin. Just as fun is when two stick-up artists try to rob him and he pulls his gun. "That's going to be four Hail Mary's and three Our Fathers', he says as he puts cuffs on them.

Just as entertaining is when Falsone comes into the unit and sees Munch reading 'Remembrance of Things Past' 'Deep Thoughts, dangerous thoughts." Falsone's reaction: "You scare me, Munch." If he's reading it in the original French, I'd be even more concerned.

Mahoney PTSD: The mother of all PTSD moments. Stumbling home drunk Kellerman bangs into a corner boy. He grabs him and halls him off arresting him 'for pissing him off. When the cop says he smells like whiskey  Kellerman hallucinates Luther right in front of him saying "What you gonna do detective?" (Erik Todd Dellums name appears in the end credits to hide his cameo. Kellerman reacts by beating him senseless. Only after he finds vials on him – and more importantly a squad car drives up – does he regain enough of his senses to tell the officers to 'make the collar' before stumbling off again.

On The Soundtrack: The opening montage where the detectives are playing priests we hear 'Jesus on the Main Line' by Blues Musician Mississippi Fred McDowell. In the final moments we hear 'You've Got to Dire' by Blind Willy McTell.

Decision 2026: John Sununu Is The Kind of Republican America Needs. That's Just as True Today As It Was 20 years ago

 

 

There's this belief among academics, pundits and certain people on social media that because a state or region of the country has been Democratic or Republican for the past twenty or thirty years in Presidential politics or at a Congressional level that it will always be that way. This is how many on the left have viewed the South in my lifetime and its how many on the right have viewed New England. Consequently during this period the opposing party have done little to do disturb the status quo.

But it's becoming clear in this election cycle that the Democrats are going to make some real inroads in Dixie at a Senate level and perhaps even a few governorships. And if the Republicans want to move forward in a post-Trump America they'd do well to make similar efforts in New England, which honestly has been far friendlier to them for longer.

This may seem difficult to believe considering that New England not only has by far some of the most far-left Senators and Congressman in the nation such as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders but the Republican Party has  no representatives at all in New England and only one Senator Susan Collins who is under immense fire for reelection this cycle and very well might not survive it.

And yet over the same era that Donald Trump has taken over much of the Republican Party New England has had Republican Governors win multiple elections during that same period. Charlie Baker would be elected governor of Massachusetts in 2014 and win reelection the same year that Elizabeth Warren easily won reelection to the Senate. Bernie Sanders became a hero to the left in 2016 the year that Phil Scott was elected governor of Vermont and has twice won reelection in years that Bernie was running for the Senate. (Vermont has two year terms for governor and Scott is heavily favored to win his fifth term this cycle.) And this election cycle with the Democrats looking increasingly like they may take the Senate Majority Democrats in New Hampshire are sounding the alarm that they might lose a Senate seat they've held for a while.

New Hampshire is by far more conservative then its neighbors in New England and actually had a Republican win election to the Senate as recently as 2010. Kelly Ayotte was the attorney general of New Hampshire who resigned in 2009 to explore a run for the Senate. Despite never having run for office she narrowly won the primary and the general election with nearly 60 percent of the vote. In doing so she succeeded Judd Gregg, another Republican who had served the people of New Hampshire for three terms.

Ayotte was running for reelection in 2016 against the incumbent Democratic governor Maggie Hassan. As early as February Americans For Prosperity made it clear they would not support her because  support for the Clean Power Act. When the Access Hollywood tape came out in October of that year Ayotte made it clear that as a mother and prosecutor she wouldn't vote for Trump and would write in Mike Pence for President. This almost certainly cost her reelection as Maggie Hassan would win election to the Senate by a little more than 1000 votes. In 2022 Hassan became the first Democrat to win reelection to that particular seat.

During that election Republican Chris Sununu would be elected governor. The Sununu family is a significant name in American politicians. John H. Sununu was once governor of New Hampshire from 1983 to 1989 and was George H.W. Bush's first White House Chief of Staff. John Edward Sununu, his son, would represent New Hampshire in the House from 1997 to 2003 and then be elected to the Senate in 2002. 38 at the time he was the youngest man elected to the Senate and he lost to Jeanne Shaheen for reelection in 2008.

By the standards of 1990s and 2000s politics John Sununu was one of the most conservative men in Congress, voting to impeach Bill Clinton, opposing abortion, favoring the death penalty and receiving a 100 percent rating from Citizens Against Government Waste. However he had a streak of independence, choosing to join the Democrats in filibustering the PATRIOT ACT and W's energy bill and voting against a constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage and restrictions of trade with Cuba. He was always more of a fiscal conservative then a social one while in Congress. He was also the co-sponsor of the Clean Air Planning Act. And he was always popular in New Hampshire: in 2008 he outperformed John McCain in New Hampshire at a state level

Jeanne Shaheen has served in the Senate ever since but in March of 2025 she announced that she would not seek reelection, having just become the oldest woman in the Senate. By this point Ayotte had won the governorship in New Hampshire after Chris Sununu chose not to seek a fifth term. Both Vermont and New Hampshire were one of two Republican governorships up for reelection in a state Biden had carried in 2020. While the race was close by 2024 standard  Ayotte beat the Democratic candidate by nearly 9.3 percent and running over Trump by 40,000 votes. With Harris getting 418,000 votes and Ayotte getting 436,000 it's clear that ticket-splitting is alive and well in New England.

New Hampshire Republicans had tried to recruit Chris Sununu to run for Senate against Shaheen in 2020 and Maggie Hassan in 2022. In 2026 they had better luck convincing his big brother to run for his old seat after Shaheen stepped down. This was enough to send New Hampshire Democrats to send up warning flares to the National Party.

With good reason. Ever since March Sununu has been polling close to the Democratic candidate Chris Pappas, usually within the margin of error and in some cases ahead of him by a slight margin.

Pappas has solid routes in New Hampshire, having been elected to the New Hampshire House of Representatives right out of College, serving two terms there before being elected treasurer of Hillsborough Country before being defeated in 2010, being elected to the New Hampshire Executive Council and serving three consecutive terms there. He had been floated for Congress, the Senate and the governor ship and in 2018 he ran for the 1^st district in a crowded Democratic primary, then the general in the Blue Wave of 2018. He was reelected three consecutive times (defeating Karoline Leavitt in 2022).

As John Sununu was as a Republican Pappas was ranked the most bipartisan Democrat in 2023. He was one of six democrats to vote against the legalization of Cannabis at a federal level in 2020, criticized Biden's plan to cancel student debt and in 2025 was one of 46 House Democrats to vote for the Laken Riley Act. He's also in favor of Israel's right to defend himself and while he is in favor or Palestinian self-determination, he joined 22 of his fellow Democrats in favor of censuring prominent progressive Rashida Tlaib in 2023.

So even though he would be keeping in with the spirit of bipartisanship that marks both parties in New Hampshire he faced a challenge from his left while running for the Democratic nomination from Karishma Manzur who challenged Pappas for being two centrist while in Congress. And as was the case with the overwhelming number of left-wing challengers in the Democratic primaries Pappas easily defeated the challenger with 64 .6 percent of the vote to Manzur's 33.2,

By that point John Sununu was the heavy favorite to try and win the seat he'd lost back in 2008. He faced a challenge from Scott Brown, best known for defeating Martha Coakley in a 2010 election to fill out the term of Ted Kennedy before losing to Elizabeth Warren when he ran for election in his own right. Brown would later try to run against Jeanne Shaheen in 2014. Brown narrowly lost to Shaheen in that election and served as Ambassador to Samoa and New Zealand in Trump's first term.

Its telling that the Republican primary voters, when given a choice between their more recent history and more distant one, chose to go back to a pre-Trump era when they overwhelmingly chose John E. Sununu. 154,000 voters cast their ballots in the Democratic primary and 110,000 in the Republican one but Pappas got 65.2 percent of the vote in the former and Sununu received nearly 69 percent in the latter. Small wonder the Democrats are concerned about how well Sununu will do in the general.

It might seem counterintuitive that in a post-Trump America the GOP must go backwards rather then forward. But it's really no different then the Democratic strategy in this election: in both cases the parties must head towards the center. Sununu is far more experienced at doing so then Pappas is (even though both have impressive records for bipartisanship) but there's a good argument that Sununu is more in touch with the electorate of his state then Pappas is. He will definitely be helped by the fact that Ayotte is easily favored to win reelection as governor – though, as I've noted, this is a state noting for ticket splitting.

New Hampshire, very much like the rest of New England, has a longer history of being Republican then it ever has been Democrat. It was in the GOP's camp ever since the Party was founded, didn't go for FDR in his first term and barely did in his second. It only went Democrat in 1960 because JFK was on the ballot and went right back to the Republicans in 1968. As recently as 2000 it went Republican for George W. Bush and there's an argument that the only reason it went Democrat is because New Englander John Kerry was running as a Democrat. Even then he only carried it by a little more then 1 percent. As recently as 2004 both its Senators were Republican. It wasn't until 2016 that it had two Democratic Senators for only the second time since the Civil War.

The Republican governors of New England have always had a greater independence from Trump in large part because they are able to win in states he has been unable to do so in his three runs for the White House.  While the President has done much to increase the margins of the vote for himself that has rarely worked out as well for the candidates who have run with his endorsement and while they have made some gains in swing states at a Senatorial level (most notably in Pennsylvania) that obstacle is just as much in place the decade after he became the voice of the party as it was before.  While he was in power that wasn't an issue for the Republicans. With him a lame duck, it's about to come back.

It may be impossible at this juncture to see a Republican party where its candidates are becoming more centrist rather then even further to the right.  They may be forced to do so after this midterms and the 2028 elections but that prospect is uncertain at best. If however they can do so it will be in large part if John Sununu can manage to win in New Hampshire.  As someone who has never once been associated with Trump at any time in his political career and who seems to have no interest in being associated with him as he attempts to rebuild it there's something very attractive about that in a Republican right now.

Whether he would fit in a Senate that is under Democratic control (as is increasingly likely even if he were to win) will be hard to measure. But America needs centrists and bipartisanship far more than it ever has and a man who was one of the models for it during his original tenure in the Senate would be more than willing to show the way. Both Pappas and Sununu would be invaluable in the Senate for next several years but I think we need Republicans like Sununu far more and its why I'm more than willing to endorse him to win this cycle. He was the right man for his era 24 years ago; he's just as right for it now.