I knew I forgot to do something this year, what with my move from San Francisco to Las Vegas…it’s time for my annual Time Person of the Year thread.
I was about to claim that “nobody really stood out” - then I did a little research on what happened this year, and now the choice seems obvious to me: His Holiness, Pope Leo XIV.
If we stick by the criteria of “who had the greatest impact on world events, whether for better or worse,” it’s hard to argue against Trump or Putin.
Leo would be my choice as well.
My Humble O would be Ozzy.
On the other hand both have previously had that honor: Trump in 2016 and 2024 and Putin in 2007
First of all, Trump won it last year.
Second, Time has a habit of not naming people like Putin that it thinks would result in a serious backlash. There’s a reason Rudy Giuliani won in 2001 instead of Osama bin Laden.
Pope Leo seems more likely than AI.
Giving the nod to “AI” just as the bubble is getting ready to burst would be a blunder on the scale of giving it to Hitler in 1938.
Zohran Mamdani might be an outside possibility. He went from polling in the single digits, to winning the Democratic primary against moneyed interests, to winning the general by the largest margin NYC has seen in decades, and he represents the potential future of American liberalism.
Mark Kelly?
I think he’s great, an inspiring individual.
And I’m not even Catholic.
I don’t know what impact the new pope had on the news.
About 1.4 billion people care what he has to say, give or take.
Time Magazine says,
The criterion is “the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or ill, and embodied what was important about the year.”
I don’t see that he affected the news.
“New Pope elected” tends to be pretty big news when it happens. Francis was POTY in 2013.
How about a joint cover with Putin and Trump?
I can’t see a whole lot of impact Pope Leo has actually had.
I can’t think of a person likely to win who isn’t completely, irredeemably terrible.
If not Leo, Zohran is the only other person I can see getting it. They’re not gonna pick Trump for the third time in a decade or give it to Putin or Musk (again), and they like to go with “safe” choices that are mostly uncontroversial.
Well, 1938 was a tiny bit controversial I think.
But maybe that’s why they decided to be a bit more careful afterward.
They’re definitely a lot safer in who they pick. The winner of the presidential election has gotten it every election year since 1992 (with the exception of ‘96), for instance, even when there were clearly better choices (2020 should’ve been Fauci or “the essential workers” but they gave it to Biden instead).