Elections

More from our inbox:Expanding Advanced Placement Classes: Harmful or More Equitable?Election LessonsAmericans’ Love of Outlaws Stefani Reynolds/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “The Question of Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism,” by Charles M. Blow (column, Nov. 16):The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, adopted by dozens of countries around the world, indeed does define anti-Zionism as antisemitism. It cites as an example of antisemitism: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”That the Jewish people deserve the right of self-determination, after the Holocaust and the persecution throughout Arab lands for centuries, was resolved in 1948. To debate Zionism is precisely the problem facing the Jews today and most especially Israelis who live in an absurd world in which the nature of their birthright is called into question, as every single Israeli is born of Zionism.How ironic that in this day and age in the United States, where every minority is protected and words matter more than ever, it is somehow acceptable to define oneself as anti-Zionist, even if Jewish. It is offensive, absurd and deeply antisemitic.As an American Israeli, I cannot stress enough how toxic this concept is to Israelis and how it does nothing to help the cause of peace today.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please  More

Cost-conscious shifts in strategy and a changed political landscape have stoked fears about the groups’ ability to keep delivering victories for Democrats.Since 2020, Democratic strategists and activists have fixated on how to expand their gains in Georgia, once a Republican stronghold and now a true battleground.But some of the state’s most prominent grass-roots organizers — those responsible for engineering President Biden’s victory in 2020 and that of two Democratic U.S. senators in 2021 — are growing concerned that efforts and attention are waning four years later.The national money that once flowed freely from Democratic groups to help win pivotal Senate contests in Georgia has been slow in coming. Leading organizers, just over a month from the anticipated start of their initiatives to mobilize voters for the presidential election, say they are confronting a deep sense of apathy among key constituencies that will take even more resources to contend with.And small but potentially pivotal shifts in strategy — cost-conscious measures like delaying large-scale voter engagement programs to later in the cycle or relying more on volunteers than paid canvassers — have privately stoked fears among some organizers about their ability to replicate their successes. More, it has led them to question how seriously Democratic donors and party leaders will take the state in 2024, even as Mr. Biden’s campaign has indicated that a repeat victory in Georgia is part of his strategy.“What we’re hearing is, it’s not, like, first tier,” said Cliff Albright, co-founder and executive director of the Black Voters Matter Fund, which has been one of the leading organizations on the ground in Georgia since 2020. “So that’s a little disappointing but we don’t know exactly yet what that means. But some early indications are that it’s not going to get top-level prioritization.”Unlike 2020 or 2022, Georgia will not have a major statewide race in 2024, elevating the urgency for progressives in building both a robust digital operation and on-the-ground organizing.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please  More

The split over a proposed joint ticket bolsters the governing party candidate’s chances in the coming presidential election. That won’t please Beijing.For weeks, Taiwan’s two main opposition parties were edging toward a coalition, in a bid to unseat the island democracy’s governing party in the coming presidential election, an outcome that Beijing would welcome. The election, one elder statesman from Taiwan’s opposition said, was a choice between war and peace.This week, though, the two parties — which both argue that they are better able to ensure peace with China — chose in spectacular fashion to go to war against each other. An incipient deal for a joint presidential ticket between the long-established Nationalist Party and the upstart Taiwan People’s Party unraveled with the speed, melodrama and lingering vitriol of a celebrity wedding gone wrong.A meeting that was opened to journalists on Thursday seemed to have been meant as a show of good will within the opposition. But it featured sniping between rival spokesmen, a long-winded tribute to the spirit of Thanksgiving by Terry Gou — a magnate turned politician trying to cajole the opposition toward unity — and mutual accusations of bad faith between the two presidential candidates who had been trying to strike a deal: Hou Yu-ih of the Nationalist Party and Ko Wen-je, the founder of the Taiwan People’s Party.Mr. Gou tried to break the icy tensions at one point by saying that he needed a bathroom break.“I don’t want a silent ending on this Thanksgiving Day,” he later told journalists after Mr. Hou and his two allies had left the stage. “But unfortunately it looks like it will be a silent ending.”Friday was the deadline for registering for Taiwan’s election, which will be held on Jan. 13, and by noon both Mr. Hou and Mr. Ko had officially registered as presidential candidates, confirming that there would be no unity ticket. Mr. Gou, who had also thrown his hat in the ring, withdrew from the race.Taiwan’s young, vigorous democratic politics has often included some raucous drama. Yet even experienced observers of the Taiwanese scene have been agog by this week, and baffled as to why the opposition parties would stage such a public rupture over who would be the presidential candidate on a unity ticket, and who would accept the vice presidential nomination.“It really defies theories of coalition building,” Lev Nachman, a political scientist at National Chengchi University in Taipei, said of the week’s bickering. “How do you tell undecided voters ‘still vote for me’ after having a very publicly messy, willfully uninformed debate about who ought to be first and who ought to be second?”The collapse of the proposed opposition pact could have consequences rippling beyond Taiwan, affecting the tense balance between Beijing — which claims the self-governing island as its own — and Washington over the future status of the island.The situation also makes it more likely that Taiwan’s vice president, Lai Ching-te, the presidential candidate for the governing Democratic Progressive Party, or D.P.P., will win the election — a result sure to displease Chinese Communist Party leaders.Mr. Lai’s party asserts Taiwan’s distinctive identity and claims to nationhood, and has become closer to the United States. China’s leaders could respond to a victory for him by escalating menacing military activities around Taiwan, which sits roughly 100 miles off the Chinese coast.A victory for the Nationalists could reopen communication with China that mostly froze shortly after Tsai Ing-wen from the Democratic Progressive Party was elected president in 2016. And a third successive loss for the Nationalists, who favor closer ties and negotiations with Beijing, could undercut Chinese confidence that they remain a viable force.Lai Ching-te, Taiwan’s vice president, and a candidate from the Democratic Progressive Party. A split between Mr. Hou and Ko Wen-je of Taiwan People’s Party may benefit his campaign.I-Hwa Cheng/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTaiwan’s first-past-the-post system for electing its president awards victory to the candidate with the highest raw percentage of votes. Mr. Lai has led in polls for months, but his projected share of the vote has sat below 40 percent in many surveys, meaning that the opposition could claw past his lead if it coalesced behind a single candidate. Mr. Hou and Mr. Ko for months sat around the mid- to high 20s in polls, suggesting that it could be hard for either to overtake Mr. Lai unless the other candidate stepped aside.“This may scare off moderate voters who might have been into voting for a joint ticket for the sake of blocking the D.P.P.,” Mr. Nachman said of the falling out between the opposition parties. “Now those moderate voters will look at this team in a different light.”For now, many Taiwanese people seem absorbed — sometimes gleeful, sometimes anguished — by the spectacle of recent days. “Wave Makers,” a recent Netflix drama series, showed Taiwanese electoral politics as a noble, if sometimes cutthroat, affair. This week was more like the political satire “Veep.”Last weekend, the Nationalist Party and Taiwan People’s Party appeared poised to settle on a unity ticket, with each agreeing to decide on their choice of joint presidential nominee — Mr. Hou or Mr. Ko — by examining electoral polls to determine who had the strongest shot at winning.But teams of statistical experts put forward by each party could not agree on what polls to use and what to make of the results, and the parties became locked in days of bickering over the numbers and their implications. At news conferences, rival spokespeople brandished printouts of opinion poll results and struggled to explain complex statistical concepts.The real issue was which leader would claim the presidential nominee spot, and the quarrel exposed deep wariness between the Nationalists — a party with a history of over a century that is also known as the Kuomintang, or K.M.T. — and the Taiwan People’s Party, which Mr. Ko, a surgeon and former mayor of Taipei, founded in 2019.“The K.M.T., as the grand old party, could never make way for an upstart party, so structurally, it was very difficult for them to work out how to work together,” said Brian Hioe, a founding editor of New Bloom, a Taiwanese magazine that takes a critical view of mainstream politics. On the other hand, Mr. Hioe added, “Ko Wen-je’s party has the need to differentiate itself from the K.M.T. — to show that it’s independent and different — and so working with the K.M.T. would be seen by many of his party membership as a betrayal.”A supporter of Kuomintang, or the long-established Nationalist Party, holding a flag outside the Central Election Commission in Taipei on Friday.Annabelle Chih/Getty ImagesMa Ying-jeou, the Nationalist president of Taiwan from 2008 to 2016, stepped in to try to broker an agreement between his party and Mr. Ko. Hopes rose on Thursday when Mr. Hou announced that he would be waiting at Mr. Ma’s office to hold negotiations with Mr. Ko.But it quickly became clear that Mr. Ko and Mr. Hou remained divided. Mr. Ko refused to go to Mr. Ma’s office, and insisted on talks at another location. Mr. Hou stayed put in Mr. Ma’s office for hours, waiting for Mr. Ko to give way. Eventually, Mr. Hou agreed to meet at the Grand Hyatt hotel in Taipei, and party functionaries announced with solemn specificity that the talks would happen in Room 2538.Dozens of journalists converged on the hotel, waiting for a possible announcement. Expectations rose when Mr. Hou entered a conference room where the journalists and live-feed cameras waited. But he sat with a fixed smile for about 20 minutes before Mr. Ko arrived, glowering. Mr. Gou, the magnate, opened proceedings with his tribute to Thanksgiving and calls for unity, recalling his wedding ceremony in the same hotel. But it soon became clear that Mr. Hou and Mr. Ko were no closer.On Friday, Taiwanese people had shared images online and quips ridiculing the opposition’s public feuding. Photographs of Room 2538, a suite at the Grand Hyatt, circulated on the internet. Some likened the spectacle to “The Break-up Ring,” a popular Taiwanese television show that featured quarreling couples and their in-laws airing their grievances on camera.Some drew a more somber conclusion: that dysfunction on the opposition side left Taiwan’s democracy weaker.“In a healthy democracy, No. 2 and No. 3 will collaborate to challenge No. 1,” said Wu Tzu-chia, the chairman of My Formosa, an online magazine. “This should be a very rigorous process, but in Taiwan, it’s become very crude, like buying meat and vegetables in the marketplace.” More

La elección como presidente de Argentina de Javier Milei —un personaje peculiar, fanfarrón de cabello indomable, con cinco mastines clonados y una costumbre de comunión psíquica con la difunta mascota que les dio origen— ha suscitado un gran debate sobre la verdadera naturaleza del populismo de derecha en nuestra era de descontento general.En Milei hay muchas manifestaciones de una política trumpiana: la energía extravagante y poco convencional, la crítica a las élites corruptas, los ataques a la izquierda, el apoyo de los conservadores sociales y religiosos. Al mismo tiempo, en política económica es mucho más un libertario doctrinario que un mercantilista o populista al estilo Trump, es una versión más extrema de Barry Goldwater y Paul Ryan que un defensor del gasto público y los aranceles. Mientras que el movimiento al que derrotó, la formación peronista que gobernó Argentina durante la mayor parte del siglo XXI, es de hecho más nacionalista y populista en lo económico, pues llegó al poder tras la crisis financiera de 2001 que puso fin al experimento más notable de Argentina con la economía neoliberal.La divergencia entre Trump y Milei puede interpretarse de varias maneras. Una lectura es que el estilo del populismo de derecha es la esencia del asunto, que su sustancia política es negociable siempre que presente figuras que prometan el renacimiento nacional y encarnen algún tipo de rebelión bufonesca, por lo general masculina, contra las normas del progresismo cultural.Otra lectura es que, sí, la política es bastante negociable, pero en realidad hay profundas afinidades ideológicas entre el nacionalismo económico de derecha y lo que podría llamarse paleolibertarismo, a pesar de que no coinciden en cuestiones específicas. En términos estadounidenses, esto significa que el trumpismo lo anticiparon de diferentes maneras Ross Perot y Ron Paul; en términos globales, significa que cabe esperar que los partidos de la derecha populista se muevan constantemente entre tendencias de regulación y libertarias, dependiendo del contexto económico y de los vaivenes políticos.He aquí una tercera interpretación: mientras que el descontento popular debilitó el consenso neoliberal de las décadas de 1990 y 2000 en todo el mundo desarrollado, la era del populismo está creando alineamientos muy distintos en la periferia latinoamericana que en el núcleo euro-estadounidense.En Europa Occidental y Estados Unidos, ahora se ve de manera sistemática a un partido de centroizquierda de las clases profesionales enfrentarse a una coalición populista y de la clase trabajadora de derecha. Los partidos de centroizquierda se han vuelto más progresistas en política económica en comparación con la era de Bill Clinton y Tony Blair, pero se han movido mucho más a la izquierda en cuestiones culturales, sin perder su liderazgo influyente y meritocrático, su sabor neoliberal. Y, en su mayoría, han sido capaces de contener, derrotar o cooptar a aspirantes de izquierda más radicales: Joe Biden al superar a Bernie Sanders en las elecciones primarias demócratas de 2020, Keir Starmer al marginar al corbynismo en el Partido Laborista británico y Emmanuel Macron al forzar a los izquierdistas franceses a votar a su favor en la segunda vuelta contra Marine Le Pen con la estrategia del menor de los males.Por su parte, la derecha populista ha conseguido muchas veces moderar sus impulsos libertarios para apartar a los votantes de clase baja de la coalición progresista, dando lugar a una política de centroderecha que suele favorecer ciertos tipos de proteccionismo y redistribución. Eso podría significar una defensa trumpiana de los programas de prestaciones sociales, los tibios intentos de los conservadores de Boris Johnson de invertir en el desatendido norte de Inglaterra o el gasto en prestaciones familiares de Viktor Orbán en Hungría, así como la recién desbancada coalición populista en Polonia.Te puedes imaginar que el abismo entre estas dos coaliciones mantendrá a Occidente en un estado de crisis latente, en especial teniendo en cuenta la personalidad de Trump, tan propensa a las crisis. Pero también es posible imaginar un futuro en el que este orden se estabilice y normalice un poco y la gente deje de hablar de un terremoto cada vez que un populista asciende al poder o de que la democracia se salva cada vez que un partido del establishment gana unas elecciones.La situación es muy distinta en América Latina. Allí el consenso neoliberal siempre fue más endeble, el centro más frágil, y por ende la era de la rebelión populista ha creado una polarización más clara entre quien esté más a la izquierda y más a la derecha (con la izquierda culturalmente progresista, pero por lo general más expresamente socialista que Biden, Starmer o Macron y la derecha culturalmente tradicional, pero por lo general más libertaria que Trump, Orbán o Le Pen).La nueva alineación en Argentina, con su libertario revolucionario que supera a una izquierda populista-nacionalista, es un ejemplo de este patrón; la contienda entre Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva y Jair Bolsonaro en Brasil el año pasado fue otro. Pero los recientes vaivenes de la política chilena son de especial interés. A principios de la década de 2010, Chile parecía tener un entorno político más o menos estable, con un partido de centroizquierda que gobernaba a través de una Constitución favorable al mercado y una oposición de centroderecha que luchaba por distanciarse de la dictadura de Pinochet. Entonces, las protestas populares echaron por tierra este orden y crearon un giro abrupto hacia la izquierda, además de un intento de imponer una nueva Constitución de izquierda que, a su vez, provocó una reacción adversa, que dejó al país dividido entre un impopular gobierno de izquierda encabezado por un antiguo activista estudiantil y una oposición de derecha en ascenso temporal liderada por un apologista de Pinochet.En cada caso, en relación con las divisiones de Francia y Estados Unidos, se observa un centro más débil y una polarización más profunda entre extremos populistas rivales. Y ahora, si la cuestión para América Latina es qué tan estable será la propia democracia en condiciones tan polarizadas, la cuestión para Europa y Estados Unidos es si la situación argentina o chilena es un presagio de su propio futuro. Tal vez no de inmediato, pero sí después de una nueva ronda de rebeliones populistas, que podría aguardar más allá de alguna crisis o catástrofe o simplemente al otro lado del cambio demográfico.En tal futuro, figuras como Biden, Starmer y Macron ya no podrían gestionar coaliciones de gobierno y la iniciativa en la izquierda pasaría a partidos más radicales como Podemos en España o los Verdes en Alemania, a los progresistas al estilo de Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez en el Congreso de Estados Unidos, a cualquier tipo de política que surja del encuentro entre la izquierda europea y las crecientes poblaciones árabes y musulmanas del continente. Esto daría a la derecha populista la oportunidad de prometer estabilidad y reclamar el centro, pero también crearía incentivos para que la derecha se radicalice aún más, lo que produciría mayores oscilaciones ideológicas cada vez que perdiera una coalición en el poder.Esta es, en cierto modo, la lección más clara de la victoria aplastante de Milei: si no se puede alcanzar la estabilidad tras una ronda de convulsiones populistas, no hay límites inherentes a lo desenfrenado que puede llegar a ser el siguiente ciclo de rebelión.Ross Douthat es columnista de opinión del Times desde 2009. Es autor, más recientemente, de The Deep Places: A Memoir of Illness and Discovery. @DouthatNYT • Facebook More

Powerful players in the business world have gravitated toward Nikki Haley, aware that she remains an underdog but beginning to believe she has a chance.Late last month, Nikki Haley, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, got an unexpected call from Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase. Mr. Dimon said he was impressed by Ms. Haley’s knowledge of policy details and her open-minded approach to complex issues raised in the Republican presidential race, according to a person familiar with what they discussed. Keep it up, he told her.He wasn’t the only business heavyweight to say so.In recent weeks, a group of chief executives, hedge fund investors and corporate deal makers from both parties have begun gravitating toward Ms. Haley and, in some cases, digging deeper into their pockets to help her.Her ascent in the polls and strong debate performances have raised hopes among Republicans hungering to end the dominance of former President Donald J. Trump that maybe, just maybe, they have found a candidate who can do so.“I’m a long way from making my mind up — something could change — but I’m very impressed with her,” said Kenneth G. Langone, the billionaire Home Depot co-founder, who has donated to Ms. Haley’s campaign and is considering giving more. “I think she’s a viable candidate. I would certainly like her over Trump.”Kenneth G. Langone, a co-founder of Home Depot, is part of a bipartisan group of chief executives, hedge-fund investors and corporate deal makers who have shown new interest in Ms. Haley. Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesMs. Haley’s fresh appeal to the moneyed crowd is coming at a critical juncture in the race, when positive buzz and steady cash flow are vital to a candidate’s survival. With less than eight weeks before the Iowa caucuses, Ms. Haley’s campaign and allied political committees need money to pay for travel, advertising, staff and a ground game to draw out potential voters.Some business leaders say they appreciate her focus on cutting taxes and government spending. Others praise her foreign-policy chops and her search for a winning Republican message on abortion rights, on which she has sought a moderate path but recently tacked to the right by saying she would have signed a six-week ban as governor of South Carolina.Most say they see her as a welcome alternative to Mr. Trump, whom they blame for inciting the violence of Jan. 6, 2021, for costing Republicans a Senate majority in last year’s midterm elections and for being too volatile as a commander in chief. They also prefer her to President Biden, whose economic policies and age many cited as a concern.“It’s invigorating to be truly excited by a candidate again,” said Jonathan Bush, the chief executive of a health-data startup and a cousin of former President George W. Bush. He hosted a virtual fund-raiser for Ms. Haley in early November.Mr. Bush, a Republican who voted for Mr. Biden in 2020 and for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, in 2016, said he had been struck by her knowledge and poise.“The topic that everyone is on is, ‘How do you beat Donald Trump?’” Mr. Bush said, “and she was careful to say, ‘Look, people will decide about him, but this is where I am on certain issues.’ And she rattled off some issues, related to our debt, related to our role in the world. But what you picked up was an electric energy,” he added, “that I think got this crowd really excited.”But even with Ms. Haley’s momentum, halting Mr. Trump’s seemingly inexorable march to the Republican nomination promises to be a slog. With a wide edge in national and early-state polls, the former president is running effectively as an incumbent, with legions of supporters prepared to vote solely for him.Several donors and advisers described two groups taking shape among the major, top-dollar donors:First, those who have yielded to the likelihood that Mr. Trump, however they may feel about him, will probably be the nominee, and have decided to stop funding potential alternatives. Second, those who believe that with enough financial resources and a savvy field operation, Ms. Haley could unseat him.Despite the long odds, her financial supporters say they see a path to victory.“There were people that don’t like Trump at all but were very skeptical that he could be stopped,” said Eric Levine, a Republican fund-raiser who leads the bankruptcy and litigation practices at Eiseman Levine Lehrhaupt & Kakoyiannis. “They now believe he can be stopped,” he said, pointing to Ms. Haley’s steady climb in the polls.Mr. Levine, who initially backed Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, is co-hosting a Haley fund-raiser on Dec. 4. “His aura of invincibility is just peeled away completely,” he said.A spokeswoman for Ms. Haley’s campaign declined to comment.Polls show that Ms. Haley has gained traction against Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who has held the No. 2 spot in national surveys all year. In Iowa, she has pulled nearly even with Mr. DeSantis, even as he has pursued an all-in strategy for that state. In New Hampshire, where she is in second place, she has been nearing 20 percent in polling averages.Her campaign said she pulled in $1 million in the first 24 hours after the last debate on Nov. 9, where she distinguished herself for her hawkish positions on Ukraine and Gaza and for her scathing dismissal of Vivek Ramaswamy, a rival she called “scum.”And while fund-raising numbers for the fourth quarter have not yet been released, interviews with about 20 financial and corporate executives suggest that more big checks will soon arrive.Ms. Haley’s $11.6 million war chest has already been bolstered by campaign contributions from wealthy Wall Street executives, including the fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller and the private-equity investor Barry Sternlicht.“I’m supporting Nikki because I think the nation needs to move on from the divisiveness and fear-mongering of the far left and right,” Mr. Sternlicht said. “I’m also opting in for a fresh face, a younger person who more accurately reflects the nation.”Timothy Draper, a venture capitalist in California, was an early backer, pouring $1.25 million into a super PAC supporting her. In recent weeks, he said, he has fielded interest from Democrats and Republicans and, notably, many women. “I think she can unify the country,” he said.Ms. Haley has mingled with Gary D. Cohn, the onetime Goldman Sachs president who served as Mr. Trump’s top economic adviser at the same time Ms. Haley was U.N. ambassador, and the investment banker Aryeh Bourkoff, who co-hosted a fund-raiser for her in Manhattan on Nov. 14.Her team is discussing policy with representatives for Kenneth C. Griffin, the billionaire hedge fund founder, on topics running the gamut from increasing students’ access to high-quality education to how to ensure a strong national defense, according to a person briefed on their discussions.Mr. Griffin recently told Bloomberg News that he was “actively contemplating” backing her, but he has not made up his mind, this person said.Students at Emmaus Bible College in Dubuque, Iowa, listening to Ms. Haley speak at a campaign event this month. She has risen in polls in Iowa, where Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has invested heavily. Ms. Haley’s backers, as well as some Republican observers, believe that if she can inch closer to Mr. DeSantis in Iowa or even outmaneuver him for second place, she could enter the New Hampshire primary election the next week with real momentum.If she could then reel in support from the state’s independent voters, some of them add, she could have a chance of beating Mr. Trump there.“There’s a possibility in the coming months to win New Hampshire,” said Mr. Bush, who is planning to form a political action committee to promote Ms. Haley to independent voters in the Granite State, not far from where he lives in Maine.Mr. Bush also plans to repeat his virtual fund-raiser to introduce her to new donors without asking her to spend unnecessary time working a cocktail party. (He said that he invited his Bush cousins to the November event, but that none of them attended.)An upset in New Hampshire could also move the needle during the Feb. 24 primary in Ms. Haley’s home state, South Carolina, where she was governor before serving in the Trump administration. She is polling second there, trailing the former president badly.The leanness of Ms. Haley’s campaign has become an asset. In the third quarter, her campaign spent $3.5 million, about 43 cents of every dollar it took in, a far lower rate than candidates like Mr. DeSantis as well as Mr. Scott, who dropped out this month.Some Wall Street executives, many of whom are focused on government spending and debt, note approvingly that Ms. Haley largely flies commercial.For some deep-pocketed donors, the openness to Ms. Haley stems from desperation.“I would take anyone not over 76 or crazy,” said Michael Novogratz, the chief executive of the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital, a past Biden supporter who is now exploring both Ms. Haley and Representative Dean Phillips, the Minnesota Democrat who is mounting a last-ditch bid for his party’s nomination. Mr. Novogratz said that Mr. Trump was too divisive and that Mr. Biden was too old.Ms. Haley is someone he might support, he said, as is former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.“Unfortunately,” he added as a caveat, “I don’t see either beating Trump.” More

The new mayor, William Cogswell, said partisan politics took a back seat to “mutual love and respect” for the South Carolina city. The city of Charleston this week elected a Republican mayor for the first time since the mid-1870s, signifying a new chapter for the centuries-old southern city.The new mayor, William Cogswell, a former state representative and real estate developer, won a tight runoff election on Tuesday in South Carolina against Mayor John Tecklenburg, a Democrat who was seeking his third term in office.Mr. Cogswell’s election indicates a shift for Charleston, a stubbornly left-leaning city that has consistently elected Democratic mayors — including one to 10 terms — even as the state as a whole has not voted for a Democratic president since 1976.The mayor’s office in Charleston is technically nonpartisan, though mayors are often known to identify with a party. The city’s last Republican mayor served until 1877, according to city records and The Associated Press. Mr. Cogswell, 48, who had previously served as a Republican in the state’s House of Representatives, said in an interview on Thursday that he did not make much of the narrative about his political party and that he did not run on an expressly partisan platform.“I’m pretty proud to have very conservative people who supported me and very liberal people,” Mr. Cogswell said. He said he believed that attracting a broad range of support was “still possible in local politics, which is all about getting things done for the people.”During his campaign, Mr. Cogswell emphasized his experience in real estate and preservation, arguing that he would be able to prioritize development that maintains Charleston’s historic character.William Cogswell said that Charleston is short on housing but that the city government has taken too much of a hands-off approach to guiding new buildings. Cameron Wilder/Cogswell for MayorHe won after an election season in which many residents expressed frustration over the city’s rising cost of living. Mr. Cogswell argued that the city needed more help from regional governments — as well as state and federal help — to manage an influx of residents and tourists.He also addressed the pace and quality of development going on in the city.“You know good development when you see it, and you know bad development when you see it,” Mr. Cogswell said in an interview with Fox 24 in Charleston this year. “And as I’ve said time and time again, what we’re seeing too much of is bad development.”Mr. Cogswell said that Charleston, a city of just over 150,000 that has grown significantly in recent years, is short on housing but that the city government has taken too much of a hands-off approach to guiding new buildings. He vowed to do a better job, under his administration, of ensuring that new developments fit the character of the city.“We are a very special place, and the people that do business here need to respect that,” he said.Mr. Cogswell said his other top priorities, once he takes office in January, are making Charleston safer and modernizing the city’s operations to keep up with growth.Before this week, the last Republican mayor to be elected in Charleston was George I. Cunningham, who first took office in 1873 and served for four years during Reconstruction. His term was fraught, and it was reportedly marred by political melees including the Cainhoy Riot, a deadly fight between Black and white residents at a political meeting outside of Charleston in 1876.A few years before, there was another mayor with a notable last name: Col. Milton Cogswell, a distant relative of the new mayor who served as a provisional mayor for about four months.“He was maybe a third cousin or something like that,” Mr. Cogswell said on Thursday, adding that he would have to look back at his family tree to figure out the exact relation.Up until Mr. Tecklenburg took office in 2015, Charleston since 1976 had been under the supervision of Joseph P. Riley Jr., who served 10 terms over nearly four decades until his retirement.Mr. Tecklenburg, an oil company executive and businessman, conceded on election night and said he was pulling for Mr. Cogswell’s success in his term.Mr. Cogswell, for his part, reiterated his belief that it was important that the role of mayor remained nonpartisan. Far more important than political party, he said, is “mutual love and respect for our city.” More

In an election result that sent shock waves across Europe, Geert Wilders, a longtime far-right provocateur, is closer than ever to becoming prime minister.The Netherlands, long regarded as one of Europe’s most socially liberal countries, woke up to a drastically changed political landscape on Thursday after a far-right party swept national elections in a result that has reverberated throughout Europe.Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom, which advocates banning the Quran, closing Islamic schools and entirely halting the acceptance of asylum seekers, won 37 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, making it by far the biggest party, in a clear rebuke of the country’s political establishment.The results, tabulated overnight after Wednesday’s voting, give Mr. Wilders enough support to try to form a governing coalition. Centrist and center-right parties long wary of the firebrand have left the door ajar to a possible partnership, giving Mr. Wilders a chance to become the Netherlands’ first far-right prime minister.While people across the political spectrum expressed surprise at the election outcome, and the Dutch reputation of liberalism persists, experts say that Mr. Wilders succeeded by tapping into a discontent with government that dates back at least two decades.“It’s not suddenly out of nowhere,” said Janka Stoker, a professor of leadership and organizational change at the University of Groningen.Mr. Wilders’s party has previously drawn more support in opinion polls than in the voting booth. This time the trend was reversed. Peter Dejong/Associated PressMr. Wilders has been a persistent political presence in the Netherlands through those years, and now it seemed his time had come.A career politician, Mr. Wilders has served as a member of the Dutch House of Representatives since 1998. In 2004, he split from the party headed by Prime Minister Mark Rutte, forming the Party for Freedom two years later.Exceptionally, Mr. Wilders’s party is not based on a membership structure, making him the sole decision maker and synonymous with his party.He is close ideologically to Marine Le Pen of France, the far-right National Rally leader, and received hearty congratulations from Viktor Orban, the Hungarian prime minister who has become another icon of the far right.At times Mr. Wilders has also been compared to former President Donald J. Trump, for his penchant to say things in the most direct and divisive of ways. Many of Mr. Wilders’s supporters say they feel buoyed and relieved that he is willing to give voice to what they cannot say, or feel they are not supposed to say.Yet Mr. Wilders’s provocations have required him to move through life with a security detail, and he has said that days can go by during which he does not see the daylight.Because of the need for security over the apparent threats against him, not much is known about Mr. Wilders’s isolated private life. He has been married since 1992 to a Hungarian diplomat, Krisztina. His rare public appearances guarantee that every time he ventures out he attracts a media circus.Mr. Wilders told the Dutch magazine Panorama in March that as part of his security, the windows to his study are blacked out, making it impossible to see outside. He also told the magazine that he had not been able to drive in his own car since 2004, saying it was a “symbol of freedom that I crave, but that I don’t have anymore.”A protester greeting Mr. Wilders at a 2017 campaign stop with a sign reading “Don’t Give Hate And Fear a Vote.” He lives with tight security, rarely appearing in public.Peter Dejong/Associated PressMr. Wilders’s political talk has been so divisive that his own brother Paul has publicly spoken out against him.Over the years, Mr. Wilders’s comments about Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands have gotten widespread media attention. They have also landed him in court.In 2014, Mr. Wilders asked his supporters whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands, which resulted in a crowd chanting, “Fewer! Fewer!”A Dutch court convicted Mr. Wilders of insulting a group with the anti-Moroccan chant, but he avoided punishment.At a campaign event in 2017, Mr. Wilders referred to Moroccan immigrants as “scum.”During the current campaign he ran on a “Dutch First” platform, though in the final days of the race he moderated some of his anti-Islam vitriol, saying there were “more important priorities.”He also said that his proposals “would be within the law and Constitution,” in an effort to court other parties to govern with him.But while his language may have softened, his party platform did not. “The Netherlands is not an Islamic country: no Islamic schools, Qurans and mosques,” it says.“The borders are wide open and everyone who comes in wants a living space,” it adds, while advocating a “zero tolerance” policy to rein in what it calls “street terrorists” and promising funding for 10,000 extra police officers.“The police need to be in charge in the street again,” according to the platform. “Criminals have to be arrested immediately and put in prison for a long time.”An election poster for Mr. Wilders outside the Dutch Parliament building in The Hague. His standing appeared to rise in the final days of the campaign.Yves Herman/ReutersMr. Wilders — as well as other politicians, including Pieter Omtzigt, a centrist who had hoped to upend the election — had linked an increase in migrants to a shortage of housing, which was among the biggest issues for Dutch voters.But it was Mr. Wilders who ultimately spoke to a discontent that experts said could be traced back at least to the rise of Pim Fortuyn, a right-wing populist who was assassinated a week before elections in which he had led the opinion polls. Mr. Fortuyn, who hoped to become the Netherlands’ first gay prime minister, ran on a strong anti-immigrant platform more than 20 years ago.Voter dissatisfaction was also evident in more recent elections: Regional votes this year and in 2019, which decide the makeup of the Dutch Senate, saw big victories by populist newcomers.Last year, 60 percent of Dutch people said they were unhappy with how politics was done in the country, according to the Netherlands Institute for Social Research.Elections are often a reaction to what happened previously, Ms. Stoker said, referring to Mr. Rutte’s record-breaking 13-year tenure as prime minister. The Rutte government collapsed in July over disputes on immigration policy, precipitating Wednesday’s election.While Mr. Rutte has been a stalwart of Dutch politics, several scandals plagued his leadership which added to an erosion in trust in the government, according to Dutch political experts. Mr. Rutte will stay on as caretaker prime minister until a new government is formed.Prime Minister Mark Rutte of the Netherlands, who has served a record 13 years in the role, will stay on until a new government is formed.Justin Lane/EPA, via ShutterstockIn the final days of the campaign, Mr. Wilders started inching up in the polls partly helped by what many people regarded as strong performances in televised debates, a stronger media focus on him and a slight softening of some of his extreme positions on Islam.But the margin of victory was unexpected. Mr. Wilders’s party has often performed better in opinion polls than in elections. This time, the trend reversed.“These were the most volatile elections ever — never before have so many seats changed hands,” said Tom van der Meer, a professor in political science at the University of Amsterdam.Mr. Rutte had long said that he would not govern with Mr. Wilders. But Dilan Yesilgoz-Zegerius, Mr. Rutte’s successor as the lead candidate for the center-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, had left open the door to forming a coalition with Mr. Wilders.That softening appears to have bolstered Mr. Wilders’s performance — long a protest candidate with little hope of real power, this time he could present himself to Dutch voters as a strategic choice: a viable governing partner, even a potential prime minister.Still, it will be complicated for Mr. Wilders to move from the opposition into a stable coalition in a country where politics rests on the art of compromise.In 2010, he had an informal liaison with the mainstream conservative party’s coalition, but he bolted when it wanted to cut back pension benefits. More

Ah, Thanksgiving. That magical time when friends and family gather round the table to share the love, reminisce — and bicker endlessly about politics and the state of the nation. If your clan is anything like mine, the conversation bends toward the grim and angsty: President Biden’s advanced age, Donald Trump’s legal dramas, Ron DeSantis’s creepy robot smile, the price of Tom Turkey, the chaos in Congress, the government’s alien cover-up …. It can be a lot.But there is, in fact, so much to be grateful for, especially in the political realm. Don’t laugh! And please stick with me while I share several of my favorites. Because while you may need to squint to see the silver lining in the political clouds, it is important to do so. Nothing is quite as dangerous as good people despairing and disengaging from politics, ceding the field to the crooks and cranks. Our democracy is too important.Let me start with an entry that may surprise many of you. I am thankful that Kevin McCarthy, in his brief and inglorious tenure atop the House, cut a bipartisan deal to avoid a debt default. I have said many, many harsh things about the ex-speaker over the years — every one of which he earned with his hollow, slippery spinelessness. But the guy wrecked his dream job to prevent his right-wingers from wrecking the global economy. Gotta give him props.I’m thankful that elections this year earned Republicans another spanking for their efforts to curtail women’s reproductive rights. Pro tip for abortion opponents: If you want women to buy your devotion to “a culture of life,” try pushing policies aimed at supporting mothers and children after delivery rather than focusing so stringently on restrictive measures that make you seem punitive and controlling.I am thankful that Congress is getting some time off this week so that thin-skinned, overly emotional men like Mr. McCarthy and Senator Markwayne Mullin can pull it together and stop picking physical fights — or, if you believe Mr. McCarthy, accidentally thwacking a colleague in the back — in the halls of government. (Sorry, Kev. You just keep asking for it.)On a related note, I am thankful that, after challenging a Senate witness to a smackdown, Mr. Mullin helpfully elaborated: “I’ll bite 100 percent. In a fight, I’m going to bite. I’ll do anything. I’m not above it. And I don’t care where I bite, by the way.” Stay classy, my man!I’m thankful that the U.S. judicial system is not treating Donald Trump as though he is above the law.I’m thankful that it has been more than 1,050 days since Trumpists last stormed the Capitol.More earnestly, I am thankful that we have now gone three election cycles without major upheaval or violence. Kudos to all the people, from lawmakers and lawyers to election clerks and poll workers, who labor to safeguard the integrity of America’s electoral system.I am thankful we have a president who believes in democracy. It feels weird to have to say that, but here we are.I’m thankful that the fine people of New Jersey finally seem ready to kick Senator Bob Menendez to the curb. Two criminal indictments in eight years feels like enough.I’m thankful that even Jim Jordan’s Republican colleagues understood that he is too big of a jerk to be the speaker.I am thankful not to be George Santos’s lawyer.Or Hunter Biden’s.Or Rudy Giuliani’s.Or Eric Adams’s.I am thankful that Jenna Ellis is not my lawyer. Seriously. Who gave this woman a J.D.?I am thankful that inflation is easing, though I wish it would ease even faster. People are struggling. High prices — and the perception of them — influence how voters feel about the state of the nation, and an angry electorate yearning for better economic days plays into the hands of Mr. Trump’s aggrieved brand of politics and his woo-’em-with-nostalgia message.I am thankful for governors of all political persuasions. Most, though certainly not all, tend to be more solutions-oriented and open to cross-aisle compromise than members of Congress, who operate with more of a team-based mind-set.I am thankful that Mike Pence got the message that no one wants him to be president.I am thankful that Nikki Haley knows how to throw a political punch — especially at Vivek Ramaswamy.I am thankful that even many Republicans clearly get that Mr. Ramaswamy is the most obnoxious creature ever to run for president.I am thankful that Tucker Carlson no longer has a sweet prime-time platform from which to poison the minds of America’s grandparents.I would like to be thankful for the Supreme Court’s new ethics code. The court needed some boundaries after all the revelations about Justice Clarence Thomas for years accepting luxury vacations and other eye-popping gifts from rich friends (without disclosing some of them) and participating in conservative donor events (on the q.t.) and failing to recuse himself from cases related to the political shenanigans of his wife, Ginni, including her work to overthrow the 2020 presidential election. Sadly, this code is a wilted, flimsy fig leaf. Still, it suggests the justices can recognize when one of their own has crossed a line. So maybe they’ll do better after Justice Thomas gets back from his next friend-funded holiday or a buddy spots him an even bigger, shinier R.V.I’m thankful that the House Republicans’ shabby impeachment inquiry into President Biden has been almost as embarrassing for them so far as a night out with Lauren Boebert.Speaking of, I’m super thankful Ms. Boebert had the decency not to take her date to a matinee of “Beetlejuice,” where there would probably have been even more easily scarred children.I am thankful the new House speaker, Mike Johnson, brushed back his ultraconservative colleagues to spare the nation a holiday-season government shutdown. Some of these wingers already have started working to make him pay for this betrayal, but, seriously, what are they going to do — oust him?Lastly, I cannot adequately express how thankful I am to live in a country where I can poke fun at political leaders who so richly deserve it without fear of government reprisal. God bless America.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More