“A Day of Gratitude to The Middle Class,” suggested by Joanne Allard. She adds:

[I would] use it to promote understanding of how fragile an institution it is, yet how profound are its benefits. The slogan might be, ‘What lifts my brothers and sisters, lifts me as well.’

“National Day of Glass-Ceiling Smashing,” suggested by Sierra Chandler

“Day of Thanks That the Donald Is No Longer President,” suggested by Bob Morrison

From Michele Gildner:

My inauguration day would be called “Inauguration Day” because it’s not my day so much as it’s the United States’ day. And for me to declare the day this or that, simply because I like a theme or slogan, or I think it might help me make my mark on the office, feels rather unseemly, especially in this unseemly time. Pathetic even.

“I’m President and You’re Not Day,” suggested by Bob Hails

Several readers went with “National Ice Cream for Everybody Day.” From Katherine Hix:

I wouldn’t have any parties or bands or parades; I would give free ice cream to whoever showed up, and it would not be soft-serve chocolate and vanilla. It would be heavy-duty high-test ice cream in lots of flavors. Fun!

“Day of Integrity and Kindness,” suggested by Kathleen Ward

“The Day Ending Inaugural Proclamations,” suggested by Ken Bate

And Bert Woodall would call his Inauguration Day simply “Martha.”

Marilyn Firth highlighted our own Ta-Nehisi Coates’s Between the World and Me:

I found that after I read it, I filtered everything I saw on the news or on Facebook through the insights I had received from reading this book. I joined my local chapters of the NAACP and SURJ (Showing Up for Racial Justice). The name of SURJ is somewhat counter to what Coates says about race being an artificial construct of oppression which originated as a child of racism rather than the other way around, as most people believe. But SURJ is a resource for positive activism in a city that is predominantly populated by people who are known as “white.”

Coates’s book—coupled with Dee Brown’s Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, about our tragically cruel treatment of this country’s Native population—are two books that will continue to inform my life by requiring me to always question the American dream, its shameful history, and the need to wake up from it, as Coates says. From these two books, I have learned to question constantly the assumptions we make about our country and our world and the roles we expect ourselves and others to play in them.

Paul Poletes also holds special appreciation for BTWAM:

Although I now live in a diverse neighborhood in Fairfax, VA, I grew up in South Dakota in the 1970s and 1980s.  I can (literally) count on one hand the number of non-white kids I went to school with.  Coates’s childhood in an all-black part of Baltimore—a neighborhood where everyone lived in fear of both street gangs and the cops—had about as much in common with my childhood as kids growing up in Karachi or Moscow.  As a child my friends and I had almost nothing to fear—especially not the police, whom we saw as kindly, well-meaning protectors.  Sioux Falls was probably more diverse in the 1980s than Coates’s childhood neighborhood, but barely (my neighborhood, on the other hand, wasn’t—it was all white).  Only after I moved to Minneapolis for college did I meet people really different from me—one of my college roommates was black, while another was Muslim.

I’ve thought a lot about Between the The World and Me since November 8, especially when I hear the ubiquitous talk of liberal elites living in their coastal and big city bubbles.  Between the World and Me reminds me that everyone lives in their own bubble—urban, poor, rural, gay, Vietnamese, black, evangelical, Jewish, white, rich, Lutheran, Baptist, etc.  How many bubbles do I live in now?  I have no idea, but at least I’m better able to understand everyone else’s bubbles too.

And lastly, Neel Lahiri picked The Book of Awesome by Neil Pasricha, writing:

For all that is wrong with society, it pays off to keep the small but important joys of life in mind. Reading a page a day is pure catharsis, and helps me remain calm even when the world is not.

1) Pay attention to local, state, and national policies and make my voice heard. As an introvert, I’m uncomfortable putting myself out there, but resolve to speak up (in person, via letters, phone calls, public meetings) on important issues.

2) Thank people. I plan to send one handwritten thank-you note/card per week all year. There are numerous things in my life, community, and world to be grateful for. This will force me to notice them and to actually let a person(s) know that what they said or did or didn’t do truly mattered. Gratitude is more important than ever.

From Mary Adolphson, 66, retired:

I resolve to become more active in a local non-profit organization that, in addition to other issues, advocates for just and  humane treatment of individuals without legal status in this country.

From reader Anna Bird:

Truthfully, I started early. A few weeks ago I realized I needed to do something about my anger so I made my resolutions. Every time Trump sends out a mean or crazy tweet, I need to do something nice for someone … He is keeping me busy! I open doors for people. I give a compliment to a stranger. I smile at old people who look like they need a friendly smile….That’s my way to win against him in 2017 and keep a smile on my face: Show kindness to others.

Richard Brenner, president of a publishing company, writes:

I resolve to listen to myself, to be conscious of my breathing, to reclaim and maintain my balance, to use my being as my tuning fork, and to learn, again, to be still and aware and to meld calmly and gently with the universe; and to not allow the acrimonious strum and drang of noxious politics and hateful tweets to corrupt my consciousness or dictate the rhythms of my life.

And from Don Brocha, 65, retired from software engineering:

My New Year’s resolution is a simple one to say, harder to put into practice: I’m going to ignore what Trump says, pay close attention to what he does, and enjoy my family, friends and community no matter what trickles down.

Money talks, I’ve heard it. It says, “Goodbye.”

Terry Nugent picked Bill McKay from the film The Candidate, “an elegant chronicle of the withering effect of electioneering on ethics.” (Speaking of Bill, another reader analyzed him and his ethical evolution as part of our “Political Theater” series earlier this year.)

Kennedy Avery suggested Josh Lyman, the Deputy Chief of Staff to President Bartlet in The West Wing:

I like how Josh is brash, compassionate, and humorous all at once. Plus, when it comes to his work and policy positions, he is unapologetic and determined.

Joan Conroy also had a West Wing-themed response:

The first one who came to mind was Toby Ziegler, played by Richard Schiff. As the sad, often morose, but brilliant liberal speech writer he refused to compromise his ideals. Nor was he seduced by power and money, as far too many are in the current political climate.

And Deb Bell wrote:

My favorite character is Chauncey Gardner, from the 1979 film Being There. It’s the story of a mentally challenged gardener whose simple-minded utterances and complete ignorance of government, diplomacy, and the outside world as a whole are mistaken for wisdom and bold thought, propelling him toward political superstardom.

1. Ken Bone. At a time of high tension between Democrats and Republicans, he gave us a couple things we could all agree on: his awesomeness and how adorable he is.

2. That the government didn't shut down this year! The little things go a long way!

3. Saturday Night Live. Larry David as Bernie Sanders and Alec Baldwin as Donald Trump have been nothing short of amazing.

4. That Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton could find something they liked about each other when prompted to do so.

The election is over! Happy Thanksgiving!

On that note, Craig K. Lehman is grateful that at least we’ve reached “the end of the Bush and Clinton dynasties.”

David Caskey, from University Park, Maryland, is thankful for California:

Governor Brown signed a law which will require farm workers to get overtime after an eight-hour day. No developed society I know of has been this committed to a decent life for those who labor for our food.

Trump was defeated in California by over 3 million votes. Big old California gives me hope for America.

And finally, Barry Tarshis wrote in to say that he’s “thankful to be a Canadian.” Thanks for that, Barry.

Thanks to David H. Lippman for suggesting the 1992 episode where Dana Carvey and Phil Hartman—portraying Ross Perot and Jim Stockdale, respectively—discuss Stockdale’s erratic behavior at the vice-presidential debate:

Jeff Harris offered up his favorite SNL presidential debate skit: a spoof on the 53rd Republican Debate in 1988:

Dan Aykroyd is fantastic as Bob Dole on the heels of a televised spar with George Bush (“I know it. You know it. The American people know it.”) Dana Carvey as George Bush is great too, but Al Franken as Pat Robertson seals the deal for me.

And while not election-related, we really enjoyed Martin Ward’s suggestion of Dan Aykroyd as President Carter accepting unscreened calls from listeners on a call-in talk show:

1. Hitler: A Career: The rise and fall of a firebrand and despot who uses pure emotion to rile the masses

2. Evita: Wife of a dictatorial president who yearns to break out on her own

The common thread?  In both cases, film and real-life, it’s all about them.

And thanks to John Donovan for offering a selection of more obscure political films based on genre:

Satire—Bulworth: A flawed film but dead-on depiction of the nihilistic political hucksters gutting our democracy. Worth a watch just for Warren Beatty rapping and romancing Halle Berry, and Oliver Platt’s brilliant portrayal of a craven Hill staffer.

Serious—Battle of Chile: Historic documentary filmed as the overthrow of Allende happened. You’ll never forget the footage of a soldier firing at and killing the cameraman filming him.

Classic—The Great McGinty by Preston Sturges. Corruption has never been funnier … until maybe Chris Christie.

Cult—Maidstone: written, directed, and starring Norman Mailer who plays a presidential candidate. Famous for scary, semi-real assassination attempt by hammer-wielding method actor Rip Torn. Pure madness.

Finally, Mark Febrizio offers up the 1974 classic Chinatown which, despite not being about politics, he writes, “offers a dark, yet realistic, depiction of the repercussions of eroded political and legal institutions.”

More from Mark:

On a basic level, the water shortage is a consequence of institutional—not just environmental—problems (I think this is something most can agree on regardless of one’s preferred solution). Furthermore, we also see the results of a government bureaucracy (the L.A. Department of Water and Power) captured by business interests, and the paralyzing effects of the distorted incentives for law enforcement officials.

Chinatown isn’t a movie that provides political solutions but instead offers substantial food for thought, especially for the many Americans who may feel that contemporary political and legal institutions have similarly eroded. Additionally, it’s worth watching just for the exceptional screenplay, gripping performances, and taut direction.

b) Prevent speakers from using personal attacks on their opponent and remain solely on the issues and questions. Any form of name calling or derogatory remarks are to be halted and called out (example: “Crooked Hillary”). The moderator must insist on respect for the person.

c) Ensure speakers stay in the time allotment and be firm in cutting them off especially if their response is not addressing the question, is attacking their opponent, or is posturing.

In my opinion, the moderator in these important presidential debates is not a simple bystander, especially with these two candidates. The issues are too great and these two have been skirting them for too long. And if the media is ever to restore any semblance of credibility, the moderators must be strong, clear journalists asking straightforward questions, not allowing the candidates to fudge or skirt an answer. The questions must be precise and to the point. They must be realistic. They must address current, complex issues in a way that allows for clear, concise, and thoughtful responses. The moderator, in my opinion, must seek responses that answer the basic journalist’s framework: 5 Ws and an H.

We need to know how the next president will govern, how he or she will make decisions, how he/she will collaborate, how he/she will reduce the influence of special interests and how he/she will stand up to special interests; how he/she will lift up the poor, improve the safety nets of Americans, and help foster a more just society.

The moderators must be more prepared than the candidates, be firm, be courageous, and be mindful of the American people and not the ratings of a broadcast company.

This next reader, Donald Haskell, also made an interesting point about the unique role of a moderator:

I don’t know enough to respond to the debate moderator choice question, but I believe that the guidelines for a moderator should be quite different from those of a news interviewer. I think that the moderator is tasked with generating a list of questions that challenge the debaters to clarify their positions on a broad range of topics, and it is the debate opponent's responsibility to challenge the response, not the moderator’s (in contrast to the responsibilities of a news interviewer).

Secondly, both, but especially the debate moderator, must exercise control over the process, even if it means using an on/off switch to cut off a debater or interviewee when they exceed the parameters of the event (similar to the minister who redirected Mr Trump at the Flint church).

And finally, props to reader Patricia Heaps for keeping it light: She suggested that Donald Duck should moderate the presidential debates because “this race is a cartoon.”