Elections

For generations, the Noboa family has helped shape Ecuador, overseeing a vast economic empire, including fertilizers, plastics, cardboard, the country’s largest container storage facility and, most famously, a gargantuan banana business featuring one of the world’s most recognizable fruit brands, Bonita.One notable position has escaped them, however: the presidency. On five occasions, the head of the family conglomerate, Álvaro Noboa, has run for president and lost — in one case by two percentage points.On Sunday, the Noboas may finally get their presidency. Mr. Noboa’s son, Daniel Noboa, a 35-year-old Harvard Kennedy School graduate who has used the same campaign jingle as his father, is the leading candidate in a runoff election. His opponent is Luisa González, the handpicked candidate of former President Rafael Correa, who beat the elder Noboa in 2006.The legacy of the banana company — and Daniel Noboa’s association with it — is just one aspect of an election that centers on issues of employment and security in this country of 17 million on South America’s western coast that has been jolted by the extraordinary power gained by the drug trafficking industry in the last five years.International criminal groups working with local gangs have unleashed an unprecedented surge of violence that has sent tens of thousands of Ecuadoreans fleeing to the U.S.-Mexico border, part of a migration wave that has overwhelmed the Biden administration.Mr. Noboa rose unexpectedly from the bottom of the polls to a second-place finish in the first round of presidential elections in August, helped, experts said, by a widely lauded debate performance and the upending of the race by the shocking assassination of another candidate, Fernando Villavicencio, days before the vote.Mr. Noboa has galvanized a base of frustrated voters on the back of a campaign promising change.“He has been able to say that ‘I represent renewal in Ecuador,’” said Caroline Ávila, an Ecuadorean political analyst. “And that is why people are buying his message.”Sunday’s election pits Mr. Noboa, a center-right businessman, against Ms. González, 45, a leftist establishment candidate, at a moment of deep anxiety in a country once a relatively peaceful island in a violent region.Mr. Noboa’s opponent, Luisa González, is the handpicked candidate of former President Rafael Correa.Karen Toro/ReutersMr. Noboa, who declined several requests for an interview, has had a consistent lead in multiple polls since August, though it has narrowed slightly in recent days.He has positioned himself as “the employment president,” even including a work application form on his website, and has promised to attract international investment and trade and cut taxes.His opponent, Ms. González, has pledged to tap central bank reserves to stimulate the economy and increase financing for the public health care system and public universities.On security, both candidates have talked about providing more money for the police and deploying the military to secure ports used to smuggle drugs out of the country and prisons, which are controlled by violent gangs.Ms. González’s close association with Mr. Correa has helped elevate her political profile, but also hurt her among some voters.Her first place finish in the first round was propelled by a strong base of voters nostalgic for the low homicide rates and commodities boom that lifted millions out of poverty during Mr. Correa’s administration. Ms. González’s campaign slogan in the first round was “we already did it and we will do it again.”But building on that support is a challenge. Mr. Correa’s authoritarian style and accusations of corruption deeply divided the country. He is living in exile in Belgium, fleeing a prison sentence for campaign finance violations, and many Ecuadoreans fear that a González presidency would pave the way for him to return and run for office again.Mr. Correa’s tenure was marked by low homicide rates and a commodities boom that lifted millions out of poverty. But now he is living in exile, facing a prison term on corruption chargesDaniel Berehulak for The New York TimesDaniel Noboa is part of the third generation of his family that today operates a sprawling venture, but whose roots were in agriculture.The Noboa family’s rise to prominence and wealth began with Luis Noboa, Daniel’s grandfather, who was born into poverty in 1916, but started building his business empire in the second half of the 20th century by exporting bananas and other crops.His death in 1994 set off a bitter court battle on three continents among his wife and children for control of the business that finally ended in 2002, when a judge in London awarded Álvaro Noboa a 50 percent stake in the family’s holding company.Álvaro expanded the company internationally, while also fighting multiple legal battles over back taxes and disputed payments to shipping companies.As a politician, he described himself as a “messiah of the poor,” handing out free computers and fistfuls of dollars at his rallies, while also fending off accusations of child labor, worker mistreatment and union busting at his banana business. (He has claimed that the accusations were politically motivated.)His son, Daniel, was raised in the port city of Guayaquil, where he founded an event promotion company when he was 18, before moving to the United States to study at New York University. Afterward he became commercial director for the Noboa Corporation and earned three more degrees, including a master’s in public administration from the Harvard Kennedy School.He ran successfully for Ecuador’s Congress in 2021, positioning himself as a pro-business lawmaker, until President Guillermo Lasso disbanded the legislature in May and called for early elections.Mr. Noboa, shown wearing a bullet-resistant vest, and Ms. González have vowed to rein in the violence, though neither has made security a central part of their campaign.Marcos Pin/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Noboa has promoted a more left-leaning platform, railing against the banking industry and calling for more social spending.A Harvard classmate and close friend of Mr. Noboa, Mauricio Lizcano, a senior official in Colombia, described the candidate as someone “who respects diversity and respects women, who believes in social issues” but is also “orthodox in economics and business.’’Still, Mr. Noboa has not raised social issues on the campaign trail, and his running mate, Verónica Abad, is a right-wing business coach who has spoken out against abortion, feminism and L.G.B.T.Q. rights and expressed support for Donald J. Trump and Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s former far-right president.Ms. Abad is “a really odd choice for someone like Noboa who’s trying to transcend this kind of left-right divide,” said Guillaume Long, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Ecuador’s former foreign minister under Mr. Correa.Despite his family pedigree, Mr. Noboa has tried to set himself apart, pointing out that he has his own business and that his personal wealth is valued at less than $1 million.While Álvaro frequently referred to Mr. Correa as a “communist devil,” his son has avoided directly attacking “correísmo.’’“I never voted for his father, but this guy has a different aura, new blood, a new way of thinking,’’ said Enrique Insua, a 63-year-old retiree in Guayaquil. “He is charismatic.”A campaign mural for Mr. Noboa in Duran, Ecuador, a municipality on the Pacific Coast that has been torn by violence. Rodrigo Abd/Associated PressBut like his father, Daniel has also drawn criticism from analysts who fear he could use the presidency to advance the family’s many businesses.“Whether in the manufacturing sector, in services or agriculture, everything is under their control in some way or another,” said Grace Jaramillo, a political science professor and expert on Ecuador at the University of British Columbia in Canada.“There’s no issue in economic policy that will not affect for the good or bad, any of their enterprises,” she added. “It’s a permanent conflict of interest.”Ecuador’s economy was ravaged by the coronavirus pandemic, and just 34 percent of Ecuadoreans have adequate employment, according to government data.Beyond the economy, the country heads to the polls during what has perhaps been the most violent electoral season in its history.Beside Mr. Villavicencio — who was outspoken about what he claimed were links between organized crime and the government — five other politicians have been killed this year. Last week, seven men accused of killing Mr. Villavicencio were found dead in prison.Soldiers on patrol in Guayaquil, Ecuador, the country’s largest city, which has also experienced drug-fueled violence.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesMr. Lasso, the departing president, called for early elections to avoid an impeachment trial over accusations of embezzlement and widespread voter anger with the government’s inability to stem the bloodshed.With news reports regularly featuring beheadings, car bombs and police assassinations, Mr. Noboa and Ms. González have vowed to rein in the violence, though neither has made security a central part of their campaigns.Ms. González, during a presidential debate, pointed to the arrests of several leaders of criminal gangs when she served in the Correa administration.“We will have the same iron fist with those who have declared war on the Ecuadorean state,” she said.Mr. Noboa has proposed the use of technology, like drones and satellite tracking systems, to stem drug trafficking and has suggested building prison boats to isolate the most violent inmates.But analysts say the two candidates have not done enough to prioritize combating the crime that has destabilized Ecuador and turned it into one of Latin America’s most violent countries.“Neither Luisa González, nor especially Noboa seem to have much of a plan on security or to emphasize it,” said Will Freeman, a fellow in Latin America studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, a U.S. research institute. “It’s like politics is frozen in an era before all this happened.”Thalíe Ponce More

Durante generaciones, la familia Noboa ha ayudado a forjar a Ecuador: controla un vasto imperio económico que incluye fertilizantes, plástico, cartón, la mayor instalación de almacenamiento de contenedores del país y, lo más conocido, un gigantesco negocio de banano con una de las marcas de fruta más reconocidas del mundo: Bonita.Sin embargo, se les ha escapado un cargo: la presidencia. En cinco ocasiones, el jefe del conglomerado familiar, Álvaro Noboa, ha sido candidato a la presidencia y ha perdido, una vez por dos puntos porcentuales.El domingo, los Noboa podrían al fin llegar a la presidencia. El hijo de Álvaro Noboa, Daniel Noboa, graduado de la Escuela de Gobierno John F. Kennedy de 35 años que ha usado el mismo jingle de campaña que su padre, es el principal candidato en la segunda vuelta electoral. Su oponente es Luisa González, la candidata elegida personalmente por el expresidente Rafael Correa, que venció al padre de Noboa en 2006.El legado de la empresa bananera —y su vínculo con Daniel Noboa— es solo uno de los aspectos de unas elecciones que se centran en cuestiones de empleo y seguridad en este país de 17 millones de habitantes en la costa occidental de Sudamérica, conmocionado por el extraordinario poder que el narcotráfico ha adquirido en los últimos cinco años.Grupos criminales internacionales que trabajan con pandillas locales han desatado una oleada de violencia sin precedentes que ha hecho que decenas de miles de ecuatorianos se encaminen a la frontera entre Estados Unidos y México, parte de una afluencia de migración que ha desbordado al gobierno de Joe Biden.Noboa surgió inesperadamente desde los últimos lugares de las encuestas para posicionarse en el segundo puesto en la primera ronda presidencial de agosto. Los expertos dicen que le favoreció una celebrada actuación en el debate, así como el vuelco que tomó la contienda cuando otro candidato, Fernando Villavicencio, fue asesinado sorpresivamente días antes de las votaciones.Noboa ha activado a una base de votantes inconformes con la promesa del cambio.“Ha sido capaz de decir: ‘Yo soy la renovación, yo la represento en Ecuador’”, dijo Caroline Ávila, una analista política ecuatoriana. Ese es el mensaje que “la gente le está comprando”, agregó.Las elecciones del domingo enfrentan a Noboa, un empresario de centroderecha, con González, de 45 años, candidata del establishment de izquierda, en un momento en que el país, otrora una isla relativamente pacífica en una región violenta, está sumido en una profunda inquietud.La oponente de Noboa, Luisa González, es la candidata elegida por el expresidente Rafael Correa.Karen Toro/ReutersNoboa, quien rechazó varios pedidos de entrevista, ha tenido la delantera de forma consistente en varias encuestas desde agosto, aunque en los últimos días la brecha entre ambos candidatos se ha cerrado.Se ha posicionado como “el presidente del empleo”, en su página web incluso ha incluido un formulario de búsqueda de empleo, y prometido atraer el comercio y la inversión extranjeros y recortar los impuestos.González, su oponente, ha prometido hacer uso de las reservas del banco central para estimular la economía y aumentar la financiación del sistema público de salud y las universidades públicas.En materia de seguridad, ambos candidatos han mencionado que brindarán más fondos a la policía y emplearán al ejército para resguardar los puertos, que se usan para el narcotráfico, y las prisiones, que están bajo el control de pandillas violentas.La cercanía de González con Correa ha ayudado a elevar su perfil político, pero también le ha perjudicado entre algunos votantes.Logró el primer lugar en la primera vuelta de las elecciones impulsada por una amplia base de votantes que añoran las bajas tasas de homicidios y un auge de los precios de las materias primas que logró sacar a millones de personas de la pobreza en el gobierno de Correa. El eslogan de campaña de González en la primera vuelta fue: “Ya lo hicimos y lo volveremos a hacer”.Pero ampliar ese apoyo es un desafío. El estilo autoritario de Correa y las acusaciones de corrupción en su contra dividieron profundamente al país. El expresidente vive exiliado en Bélgica, huyendo de una condena de prisión por violar las disposiciones de financiamiento de campaña. Muchos ecuatorianos temen que una eventual presidencia de González allane el camino para que regrese y vuelva a postularse.El mandato de Correa se caracterizó por unos bajos índices de homicidios y el auge de los precios de las materias primas, que sacó a millones de personas de la pobreza. Pero ahora vive en el exilio, sentenciado a prisión por corrupción.Daniel Berehulak para The New York TimesDaniel Noboa forma parte de la tercera generación de una familia que hoy opera un amplio negocio pero con raíces en la agricultura.La familia Noboa adquirió riqueza y prominencia gracias a Luis Noboa, abuelo de Daniel, quien nació en la pobreza en 1916 pero construyó un imperio en la segunda mitad del siglo XX a base de la exportación de banano y otros productos.Su muerte, en 1994, desató una encarnizada batalla judicial en tres continentes cuando su esposa e hijos se disputaron el control del negocio. Al final, en 2002, un juez en Londres le adjudicó a Álvaro Noboa una participación del 50 por ciento en el holding familiar.Álvaro expandió la empresa a nivel internacional y al mismo tiempo emprendió varias peleas judiciales por impuestos atrasados y litigio de pagos con empresas de transporte.En su carrera política se describió como “mesías” de los pobres y en sus mítines entregaba computadoras y puñados de dólares. Al mismo tiempo refutaba acusaciones de explotación infantil, maltrato laboral y represión sindical en su empresa bananera. (Ha dicho que las acusaciones tenían motivaciones políticas).Su hijo, Daniel, creció en la ciudad portuaria de Guayaquil, donde fundó una empresa de promoción de eventos a los 18 años. Luego se mudó a Estados Unidos para estudiar en la Universidad de Nueva York. Luego sería director comercial de la Corporación Noboa al tiempo que obtuvo otros tres grados académicos, entre ellos una maestría en administración pública de la Escuela Kennedy de Harvard.En 2021, Daniel se postuló al Congreso y ganó, al posicionarse como un legislador favorable al empresariado, hasta que en mayo el presidente Guillermo Lasso disolvió la legislatura y llamó a elecciones anticipadas.Noboa, en la foto con un chaleco antibalas, y González se han comprometido a frenar la violencia, aunque ninguno de los dos ha hecho de la seguridad una parte central de su campaña.Marcos Pin/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesNoboa ha promovido una plataforma más de izquierda y se ha pronunciado en contra de la banca y pedido más gasto social.Mauricio Lizcano, compañero y amigo cercano de Noboa, así como alto funcionario en Colombia, describió al candidato como alguien “que respeta la diversidad y respeta a las mujeres, que cree mucho en lo social”, pero también es “ortodoxo en la economía y en la empresa”.Sin embargo, Noboa no ha planteado temas sociales en campaña y Verónica Abad, su compañera de fórmula, es una coach de negocios de derecha que se ha pronunciado en contra del aborto, el feminismo y los derechos de la comunidad LGBTQ y también ha expresado apoyo por Donald Trump y Jair Bolsonaro, el expresidente ultraderechista de Brasil.Abad es “una elección bastante rara para alguien como Noboa, que está intentando ir más allá de esta división izquierda-derecha”, dijo Guillaume Long, analista sénior de política en el Centro de Investigación Económica y Política y quien se desempeñó como ministro de Relaciones Exteriores en el gobierno de Correa.A pesar de su pedigrí familiar, Noboa ha intentado diferenciarse al declarar que tiene su propio negocio y que su fortuna personal no asciende a 1 millón de dólares.Si bien Álvaro se refería con frecuencia a Correa como un “diablo comunista”, su hijo ha evitado atacar directamente al correísmo.“Por el padre nunca voté, pero este chico tiene un aura diferente, nueva sangre, nueva forma de pensar”, dijo Enrique Insua, un jubilado de 63 años en Guayaquil. “Es carismático”.Un mural de la campaña de Noboa en Durán, Ecuador, una ciudad de la costa del Pacífico afectada por la violencia.Rodrigo Abd/Associated PressPero, al igual que su padre, Daniel también ha atraído críticas de algunos analistas, que temen que pudiera usar el cargo presidencial para ayudar a las muchas empresas familiares.“Ya sea en el sector manufacturero, en los servicios o en la agricultura, de una forma u otra todo está bajo su control”, dijo Grace Jaramillo profesora de ciencia política y experta en Ecuador en la Universidad de British Columbia en Canadá.“No hay tema de política económica que no afectará, para bien o para mal, a alguna de sus empresas”, añadió. “Es un conflicto de interés permanente”.La economía del país fue muy afectada por la pandemia de coronavirus y solo el 34 por ciento de ecuatorianos tienen un empleo adecuado, según datos gubernamentales.Además del sector económico, el país se dirige a las urnas en la que tal vez sea la temporada electoral más violenta de la historia del país.Este año han sido asesinados cinco políticos, además de Villavicencio —quien se expresó abiertamente sobre supuestos vínculos entre el gobierno y el crimen organizado— y la semana pasada siete hombres imputados por el asesinato de Villavicencio fueron hallados muertos en prisión.Soldados patrullando en Guayaquil, la ciudad más grande de Ecuador, que también ha sufrido la violencia del narcotráfico.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesLasso, el presidente saliente, convocó a elecciones anticipadas para evitar un juicio de destitución por acusaciones malversación de fondos y una indignación generalizada de los votantes ante la incapacidad del gobierno por detener la violencia.Ante un panorama informativo en el que suelen reportarse decapitaciones, coches bomba y asesinatos de policías, tanto Noboa como González han prometido frenar la violencia, aunque ninguno de los dos ha hecho de la seguridad un tema central de campaña.En un debate presidencial González mencionó el arresto de varios líderes de bandas criminales durante su tiempo en el gobierno de Correa.“La misma mano dura tendremos con quienes le han declarado la guerra al Estado ecuatoriano”, dijo.Noboa ha propuesto emplear la tecnología, como drones y sistemas de rastreo satelital, para detener al narcotráfico; sugirió buques prisión como una forma de aislar a los reos más violentos.Pero los analistas comentan que ambos candidatos han fallado al no priorizar el combate al crimen; la delincuencia ha desestabilizado a Ecuador y lo ha convertido en uno de los países más violentos de América Latina.“Ni Luisa González ni especialmente Noboa parecen tener un plan de seguridad bien definido ni la enfatizan”, dijo Will Freeman, investigador de Estudios Latinoamericanos en el Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores. “Es como si la política estuviera congelada en una época previa”.Thalíe Ponce More

The attacks were a major focus of Mr. Trump’s remarks to a crowd of superfans in his home state, which has a significant number of Jewish voters.Former President Donald J. Trump, who frequently paints himself as the fiercest defender of Israel to ever occupy the White House, on Wednesday criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a speech in Florida just days after deadly Hamas attacks rocked the country.Speaking to a crowd of supporters in West Palm Beach, a few miles from his residence at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump related a story he said he had never told about Israel’s role in the killing of Iran’s top security and intelligence commander, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, by an American drone strike in 2020.Mr. Trump said that Israel had been working with the United States on a plan for the attack, but that he had received a call shortly beforehand to let him know that Israel would not take part. The United States proceeded anyway.“But I’ll never forget,” Mr. Trump said. “I’ll never forget that Bibi Netanyahu let us down. That was a very terrible thing.”He then criticized Israeli intelligence, pointing in part to failures to anticipate and stop Hamas, the Islamic militant group, from executing such a large-scale and devastating attack. “They’ve got to straighten it out,” Mr. Trump said.At the same time, Mr. Trump, who frequently paints himself as a staunch ally of Israel, vowed that he would “fully support” the country in its war against Hamas.The attacks were a major focus of Mr. Trump’s remarks in Florida, which is home to a significant number of Jewish voters. As he has recently, Mr. Trump attacked President Biden, blaming him for the assault and repeating a falsehood about U.S. funds to Iran, a longtime backer of Hamas. He also repeated his suggestion that the bloodshed would not have happened if he were president.But, in a new flourish, Mr. Trump then tied the current conflict to his conspiracy theories and lies about the 2020 election.“If the election wasn’t rigged,” he said, “there would be nobody even thinking about going into Israel.”Mr. Trump also appeared to blame the Biden administration for clashes on Israel’s northern border, which the former president attributed to Hezbollah, the powerful Iran-backed militant organization in Lebanon committed to the destruction of the Jewish state. He then repeatedly called Hezbollah “very smart.”Mr. Trump’s appearance in West Palm Beach marked a bit of a homecoming. He has held a flurry of campaign events in Iowa and New Hampshire, and last week, he traveled to New York to attend a civil fraud trial he faces there.In Florida, he spoke at a convention center for a meeting hosted by Club 47 USA, which describes itself as the largest pro-Trump club in America and a “corporation formed to support” the former president’s agenda.The friendly crowd, Mr. Trump said, accounted for his decision to recount the story about the strike against Mr. Suleimani. “Nobody’s heard this story before,” he said. “But I’d like to tell it to Club 47, because you’ve been so loyal.”Mr. Netanyahu commended Mr. Trump at the time. But some in Israel were more muted, wary that Iran might retaliate against Israel for the American attack.Mr. Trump has been critical of Mr. Netanyahu before, telling the Axios reporter Barak Ravid that he was particularly incensed after the prime minister congratulated Mr. Biden for his 2020 election victory.Mr. Trump also criticized Mr. Netanyahu in a Fox News Radio interview that is expected to air on Thursday. In a clip from that interview that aired on television on Wednesday, Mr. Trump said that Mr. Netanyahu “was not prepared and Israel was not prepared.”He again suggested Israeli intelligence had been deficient, saying, “Thousands of people knew about it and they let this slip by. ”Mr. Trump’s remarks in Florida drew near-immediate criticism from the state’s governor, Ron DeSantis, his closest rival in the primary.“Terrorists have murdered at least 1,200 Israelis and 22 Americans and are holding more hostage, so it is absurd that anyone, much less someone running for President, would choose now to attack our friend and ally, Israel, much less praise Hezbollah terrorists as ‘very smart.’” Mr. DeSantis said on X, formerly known as Twitter.Mr. Trump used his appearance on Wednesday to knock Mr. DeSantis, whom he leads by double-digits in most polls, in his own backyard.“He didn’t have a lot of political skill, to put it mildly,” Mr. Trump said, adding that Mr. DeSantis was “falling like a very badly injured bird from the sky.”The event in West Palm Beach began with a panel of right-wing media figures and influencers discussing their experiences with the former president.Representative Matt Gaetz, one of Mr. Trump’s closest allies in Washington, was slated to speak but instead appeared only briefly at the start of Mr. Trump’s remarks.Mr. Trump praised Mr. Gaetz, but he did not mention his role in the paralysis currently seizing Capitol Hill.Mr. Gaetz last week successfully pushed to remove Representative Kevin McCarthy of California as the House’s speaker. The body has been without a leader ever since, which has left it unable to fully conduct regular business. More

More from our inbox:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Candidacy: Demeaning the Family’s LegacyGender InequalityTrump’s Harangues Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “The Anti-Israel Left Needs to Take a Hard Look at Itself,” by Bret Stephens (column, Oct. 11):Hamas’s systematic and indiscriminate rape, torture, murder and kidnapping of children, grandmothers, ravers and peace activists are brutal enough. What compounds the despair, however, has been the response in the immediate aftermath by some of my fellow liberals.These are the people who reflexively see “microaggressions” everywhere, yet are blind to this macroaggression. The people who insist that “words are violence,” yet celebrated actual violence against innocents as a form of “resistance.” The people who are quick to accuse so many institutions of systemic racism, yet glorify an institution (Hamas) that has been publicly and unapologetically antisemitic for decades.It is possible, as I do, to support and sympathize with ordinary Palestinians, and strive for a future of peaceful coexistence, while also recognizing the unequivocal depravity of these terrorist attacks. This was not a difficult moral test. Yet liberals failed miserably.Mark BessoudoLondonTo the Editor:Bret Stephens is right to call out supporters of Palestinian rights who minimize or even celebrate the atrocities committed by Hamas, and to point to the explicit or implicit antisemitism of some anti-Zionist arguments.However, his claim that to call for a cease-fire is pro-Hamas is wrong. It is rather to call for the taking of innocent life on both sides to cease. Israeli officials made it clear that they would exercise no restraint in their bombardment of Gaza, and Israeli actions have followed through on these words.Let’s leave aside questions of “moral equivalence” between actors, and focus on actions. Deliberately killing civilians and deliberately failing to avoid killing civilians are both war crimes under international law.Stopping criminal killing on all sides and releasing hostages are not only vital for upholding the increasingly fragile and widely disregarded framework of international law, but also an essential step toward attempting to bring a just peace to the Middle East.Chris SinhaNorwich, EnglandThe writer is an honorary professor in the School of Politics, Philosophy, Language and Communication, University of East Anglia.To the Editor:Thanks to Thomas L. Friedman (“Israel Has Never Needed to Be Smarter Than Now,” column, Oct. 11) and Bret Stephens for their brilliant analyses of the situation in the Middle East. I am a secular American Jew, a proud liberal who is appalled at the authoritarian tendencies of the Netanyahu regime.There is no doubt in my mind that decades of harsh treatment of Palestinians by Israel has led to tremendous frustrations, and that Benjamin Netanyahu has exacerbated the problem, but nothing justifies the terrorist actions taken by Hamas.Israelis must boot Mr. Netanyahu and his ilk, and elect leaders who will offer Palestinians respect and some measure of hope. The Middle East powers such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan must dislodge Hamas, and blunt the influence of Iran in the area.New leadership is the only way to achieve a lasting peace. I am not holding my breath.Bill GottdenkerMountainside, N.J.To the Editor:In the last few days we have witnessed with horror and disbelief that Israeli civilians, including children, have been killed and captured by Hamas. This is the true definition of terrorists — those who try to intimidate civilians to pursue a political goal.The stated political goal of Hamas is the eradication of the state of Israel. This is what makes peace so elusive in this region. The right of Israel to exist is reality. When we see Hamas taking up arms and the cheering for the barbarous acts committed on an innocent civilian population in Israel, we too should raise our voices in unison. We should declare that this type of terror has no place in a civilized world.Deborah GitomerTampa, Fla.To the Editor:The horrors visited upon Israeli civilians ought not to be replicated in Gaza. The international community, including the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations, ought to press and support Egypt in immediately setting up refugee centers and opening the border to rescue innocent civilians in Gaza and give them shelter, food and water.Isebill V. GruhnSanta Cruz, Calif.The writer is emerita professor of politics at the University of California, Santa Cruz.Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Candidacy: Demeaning the Family’s LegacyRobert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime vaccine skeptic, has built a base of support made up of disaffected voters across the political spectrum.Matt Rourke/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Kennedy Announces He Will Run for President as an Independent” (news article, Oct. 10):Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s candidacy as an independent is an unwelcome development. It serves no purpose other than increasing the chances of a Donald Trump victory by dividing the anti-Trump votes. It is no accident that most of his financial support comes from groups aligned with the G.O.P.It is telling that no fewer than four of his siblings — Rory, Kerry, Kathleen and Joseph — have publicly condemned Mr. Kennedy’s candidacy. I hope that anyone considering supporting him listens to the warnings of his siblings.He may share the surname of a political dynasty, but Mr. Kennedy demeans the legacy of his father and uncles, and does the nation a disservice with his candidacy.Harvey M. BermanWhite Plains, N.Y.Gender InequalityElsa/Getty ImagesClaudia Goldin’s wide-ranging work has delved into the causes of the gender wage gap and the evolution of women’s participation in the labor market.Harvard University/EPA, via ShutterstockTo the Editor:Re “Travis, Don’t Fumble Taylor,” by Maureen Dowd (column, Oct. 8), and “Trailblazer in Economics Is Awarded Nobel Prize” (Business, Oct. 10):Ms. Dowd’s concern about successful men who feel intimidated by powerful women offers a striking and poignant example of one attitude that perpetuates the gender inequality and couple inequity that Claudia Goldin, the Nobel prize recipient, has analyzed in the workplace and the home.The roots of this inequality are so deeply embedded and so historically interwoven in personal behaviors and relationships as well as social and economic structures that lasting change will not result unless there is a simultaneous assault on all these fronts.Patricia AusposQueensThe writer is the author of “Breaking Conventions: Five Couples in Search of Marriage-Career Balance at the Turn of the 19th Century.”Trump’s HaranguesSupporters of former President Donald J. Trump gathered near Trump Tower the night before the first day of the fraud trial against him and his company.Dave Sanders for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump Sharpens His Remarks as His Legal Woes Escalate” (news article, Oct. 4):I was a career public defender in coastal Mississippi, representing thousands of indigent people charged with felonies. Not one of them ever stood outside a courtroom and harangued or denigrated his or her judge, and I have no doubt about what would have occurred if they had. Off to jail for contempt they’d go.The media deserves some blame for the problem, for giving Donald Trump the forum he so desires, no matter his blather. Maybe it should back off a bit.Ross Parker SimonsPascagoula, Miss. More

The fighting in Israel has become another flashpoint in the Republican presidential primary, further revealing the foreign policy divide among candidates scrambling to distinguish themselves in a race dominated by former President Donald J. Trump.“I will always condemn antisemitism, appeasement and weakness on the radical left, but I will also call out weakness or confusion among conservatives as well,” Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina said during a speech about Israel on Tuesday at the Hudson Institute in Washington.In a departure from his usually noncombative campaign style, Mr. Scott criticized both Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and the entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, who along with Mr. Trump have outlined anti-interventionist foreign policy positions. Mr. Scott highlighted Mr. Ramaswamy’s comments on Israel earlier this year (he has shifted his stance on cutting U.S. military aid to Israel), and Mr. DeSantis’s characterization of the war in Ukraine as a “territorial dispute,” which Mr. DeSantis later walked back.Former Vice President Mike Pence also attacked several candidates in remarks on Saturday in which he criticized Republicans who “embraced the language of isolationism and appeasement.” He named Mr. Trump, Mr. Ramaswamy and Mr. DeSantis as voices that have “run contrary to the tradition in our party that America is the leader of the free world.”Those three men, who have espoused anti-interventionist stances on issues like Ukraine, strongly condemned the attack on Israel. Mr. Trump has said he would “stand strongly” with Israel, claiming that the attacks “would never have happened” if he were president. Mr. DeSantis called on Israel to respond with “overwhelming force” and said the United States would stand fully behind Israel. Mr. Ramaswamy said that the U.S. should “stand ready to provide additional military supplies.” Mr. Ramaswamy hit back at Mr. Pence in a social media post Tuesday night and again criticized Nikki Haley, the former United Nations ambassador, who said over the weekend that the attacks in Israel amounted to “an attack on America because they hate us just as much.”Mr. Ramaswamy called comments from both of them “histrionics” that “are unhelpful and unserious.”Anti-interventionist positions got some support this week from the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who mocked Ms. Haley for suggesting that the attack on Israel was also an attack on America and said: “Wars beget more war. The bigger the conflict, the uglier and longer-lasting the consequences. These are not complex observations but seem lost on our leadership class.”While the Republican Party has shifted away from hawkish foreign policies over the past decade, a move that accelerated with Mr. Trump’s rise, Mr. Pence and Ms. Haley have outlined more traditional stances. But aside from Ms. Haley, who has risen in the polls and attracted increased donor attention, the other candidates expressing more hawkish views are polling in the low single digits.Maggie Astor More

The crisis of terror in Israel has made it even more urgent that the House of Representatives move past its schoolyard infighting, elect itself a speaker and demonstrate that the United States still has a functional government, one that can play a significant role in supporting democratic allies around the globe. So far, however, the Republican House majority has shown no indication it is up to the job.Only two candidates, Representatives Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Jim Jordan of Ohio, are officially running for speaker. Neither seems to have a majority of Republicans locked up yet, and both are trying to appeal to the party’s worst instincts — making it clear they would perpetuate the chaos that was unleashed during the reign of Kevin McCarthy, who was overthrown by a group of far-right rebels on Oct. 3. In several ways, Mr. Scalise and Mr. Jordan would probably be worse.Both express opposition to the Biden administration’s request for additional military aid to Ukraine. Like Mr. McCarthy, both have cast doubt on the outcome of the 2020 presidential race, and voted against certifying the election results, a permanent stain on their reputations. But for anyone who cares about basic governmental function, the most worrisome part is that they also seem to be repudiating the two moments when Mr. McCarthy defused a fiscal crisis in recent months — over the debt ceiling and the threatened government shutdown. They want the House to use more “leverage” in its battles against President Biden.“Leverage,” in case you missed the constant reference in the battle over Mr. McCarthy, is a Washington euphemism for blackmail. By holding the country’s credit hostage, or shutting down government functions, a small band of wrecking-ball ideologues can try to get a win on some unrelated matter. The anti-McCarthyites said he failed to use his speakership to rewrite the rules of government in Washington.“Many of us had begged the speaker, pleaded with the speaker repeatedly, to utilize the debt ceiling to leverage spending cuts and reforms,” Bob Good, Republican of Virginia, told the House before the big vote. “Instead, he negotiated an unlimited increase to the debt ceiling.”Of the two ways to achieve political success in a divided government, leverage is the poisoned choice. The more effective path, the one that used to be employed regularly in Washington, is to cut deals and make compromises with your opponents, even if they are occasionally painful and at odds with your principles. That’s how Lincoln operated, that’s how Lyndon Johnson pushed through his Great Society and civil rights bills, and it’s how Obamacare was created.But ever since Newt Gingrich’s era, the idea of compromising with the Democratic Party, of putting bills on the House floor that both sides can support, has been anathema to Republicans. Speakers from that party who do so tend to lose their jobs or quit under pressure, as John Boehner and Mr. McCarthy learned. The preferred method of dealing with Democrats now is to extort them, and though that usually fails, the mere act of trying brings great cheer to extremists who view centrists from both sides as the rotten core of the “uniparty.” (An exception occurred in 2011, when Barack Obama was forced to make massive spending cuts to prevent a default caused by Republicans.)Mr. McCarthy abandoned leverage to keep the government open through mid-November, and earlier to prevent a ruinous default. But both candidates to replace him have made it clear to their restive caucus that they intend to use the leverage he discarded.“If we stay united, we can preserve leverage for the House to secure tangible wins in our impending policy fights,” Mr. Scalise, the current majority leader, said in announcing his candidacy for speaker last week. Mr. Scalise, as a member of the leadership team, voted for the recent deal to prevent a shutdown, but the signal he sent to the rebels was unmistakable.Representative Steve Scalise of LouisianaMark Peterson for The New York TimesAnd Mr. Jordan didn’t even need to send a signal. He was one of a minority of House Republicans who voted against the shutdown deal, against the wishes of his putative ally, Mr. McCarthy, and his credentials as a legislative bomb-thrower are already impeccable. He has helped lead Republican shutdown efforts at least three times: over defunding the Affordable Care Act, over cutting money to Planned Parenthood and (during the Trump administration) over building a border wall. He told Punchbowl News a few days ago that he would insist on refusing to spend any additional money on processing new migrants, though that would violate U.S. asylum law.Donald Trump’s “Complete & Total Endorsement!” of Mr. Jordan — and his debasement of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which he presented to Mr. Jordan in 2021 as a reward for feverishly defending him in his impeachments and during the Russia investigation — tell you pretty much all you need to know about what kind of leader Mr. Jordan would be.Mr. Scalise is less incendiary than Mr. Jordan, but is no more likely to end his chamber’s chaos and bring any degree of bipartisanship to the House than was Mr. McCarthy. He blamed “Soros-backed elements of the Democratic Party” for committing acts of violence against Republicans. Long after the 2020 election was over, he continued to suggest the outcome was stolen, relying on a theory about the primacy of state legislatures that was shot down by the Supreme Court. He had to apologize for speaking in 2002 at a white nationalist group headed by David Duke, but also described himself, according to a columnist, as like “David Duke without the baggage,” and opposed a holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.Republicans will spend the next few days trying to determine whether they have the votes to elect any speaker, and it’s possible their internal discord could go on for weeks. You might think that the world’s desperate need for a morally persuasive American leadership would pressure them to make a responsible decision, but given the abysmal choice they are facing, that outcome is hard to imagine.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

Inspired in part by Donald Trump’s baseless rigged-election claims, the activists are trying to recruit supporters to serve as poll watchers and election workers in the state’s legislative contests.In 2021, after Republican victories in Virginia, conservative activists were so proud of their work training poll watchers, recruiting election workers and making other attempts to subtly influence the voting system that they wrote a memo called “The Virginia Model.” The memo detailed ways that other states could follow Virginia’s lead in protecting so-called election integrity.Now these activists are turning their attention back to Virginia, which is a month away from tossup elections that will decide control of the state’s closely divided legislature and offer both national parties clear evidence of their electoral strengths and weaknesses heading into 2024.Every Tuesday night, Virginia Fair Elections, the group that drafted “The Virginia Model,” holds trainings for poll watchers aligned with its mission and encourages conservative activists to register to work at the polls. The organization also hosts trainings for new members of local election boards.The trainings are permeated by an undercurrent of mistrust in the electoral system: Poll watchers are encouraged to arrive early and insist on being as close as legally possible to election workers, voters and ballot machines; to make sure to inspect those machines; and to look for any evidence of potential fraud.“All of us have eyes on,” Clara Belle Wheeler, a former member of the Virginia State Board of Elections who now leads the trainings, said at the end of an hourlong training session for poll watchers last Tuesday, according to an audio recording of the meeting obtained by The New York Times. “I’m watching.”The group, like many others across the country, is taking its cues from former President Donald J. Trump, who has continued to make baseless claims that American elections are rigged. Behind the scenes and at public events, conservative activists who share his beliefs have been working to overhaul voting laws and recruit activists and supporters to serve as poll watchers and election workers.In numerous counties and localities across Virginia, conservative activists have been appointed to local election boards, the bodies that are in charge of determining early voting hours and locations, leading some to move early polling locations or reduce voting access on the weekends. The state also withdrew from the Electronic Registration Information Center, known as ERIC, an interstate clearinghouse for voter data that helps ensure secure elections, but became a flashpoint on the right based on a widely debunked conspiracy theory.Democrats and voting rights groups say these moves could have significant consequences — that seemingly small changes and pressures on the system could add up and potentially affect the outcome of an election. They worry that overly aggressive poll watchers could intimidate voters, or that conspiracy-minded Trump supporters who insert themselves in the election process could interfere with the results.“This is sort of like a death by 1,000 cuts, and there’s no necessarily one thing that you can point to and say, ‘That’s what’s going to swing the election,’” said Aaron Mukerjee, the voter protection director for the Virginia Democratic Party. “Taken together, the goal is to disenfranchise enough voters that they can win the election.”It is often difficult to determine whether changes to election laws or other attempts to intervene in the voting process ultimately affect outcomes. Turnout alone does not determine how many voters may have been affected. In the Trump era, changes in voting patterns have scrambled the longtime presumption that higher turnout helps Democrats and lower turnout aids Republicans.And there is no evidence that Republican election activists aided victories in Virginia in 2021, nor that their policies and activities necessarily benefit either party. During that election, poll watchers at 13 voting sites were observed being disruptive, according to reports filed by elections workers.In the run-up to the 2021 election, activists trained by Virginia Fair Elections collected claims of malfeasance and filed a lawsuit challenging at least 390 ballot applications that were missing Social Security numbers. The suit was dismissed, but conservative news outlets focused on the complaint and began to argue that the coming vote in Virginia would be “stolen,” as many activists believed had happened in 2020. (Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, ended up winning, and his party made gains in the legislature.)Nonetheless, Republican-aligned groups like Virginia Fair Elections continue to try to tighten voting laws.Virginia Fair Elections is managed by the Virginia Institute for Public Policy, a conservative think tank that was formed in 1996 with moderate fund-raising in the low six figures annually. But as the think tank shifted its focus to so-called election integrity efforts after the last presidential contest, it raised over $508,000 in 2021, according to data kept by ProPublica.That money included a $125,000 grant earmarked for the “Virginia Fair Elections project” from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a major funder of groups that have proliferated myths about voter fraud. Its board includes Cleta Mitchell, a longtime conservative lawyer who played a key role in trying to overturn the 2020 election.In 2021, the “Virginia Model” executed by Virginia Fair Elections became the blueprint for the Election Integrity Network, a national coalition guided by Ms. Mitchell that quickly became one of the most influential organizations seeking to change voting laws and recruit local activists.Last year, Virginia Fair Elections hosted a two-day gathering conceptualized by Ms. Mitchell. The group boasted of having trained 4,500 poll watchers and election officials, and of covering 85 percent of polling locations in Virginia on Election Day in 2021 and during the 45 days of early voting.Cleta Mitchell has guided the Election Integrity Network, one of the most influential organizations seeking to change voting laws and recruit activists to serve as poll watchers and election workers.Matt Rourke/Associated PressIn August, Virginia Fair Elections held a similar meeting at a Sheraton hotel outside Richmond. The daylong event featured 12 discussions, including a keynote speech from Mollie Hemingway, a well-known conservative columnist. A panel discussion held just after lunch highlighted one front in which the network has made significant gains: county election boards and registrars, who serve as the chief election officials in Virginia localities.“The most important thing we do, however, is the hiring, and sometimes the firing, of the general registrar, and I think just as critical, if not more so, is the appointment, the training and potentially the dismissal of election officers,” John Ambrose, a Republican who serves as the vice chair of the electoral board of Richmond, told the audience to loud applause, according to an audio recording of the panel obtained by Documented, a liberal investigative group, and shared with The Times.Ms. Wheeler and the president of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy did not respond to text messages seeking comment. Virginia Fair Elections did not respond to multiple requests for comment.Under a peculiarity of Virginia law, the party of the most recently elected governor holds the advantage in the partisan makeup of local election boards. After Mr. Youngkin won the governor’s office in 2021, boards across the state flipped to 2-to-1 Republican control from 2-to-1 Democratic control.Groups like Virginia Fair Elections worked to place people they had trained on local election boards across the state, which meant that in many places, conservative priorities became policy.At least 10 counties in Virginia, including at least four with predominantly Black populations, have canceled Sunday voting for the coming elections. Some of the 10 counties, among them Richmond, Spotsylvania, Virginia Beach and Chesterfield, contain major population centers.Sundays are popular voting days for Black communities, where “Souls to the Polls” events led by churches have a long history of fostering community and helping protect against intimidation at the polls.“Democracy is coming under attack, whether it’s the Republican-led electoral boards throughout different localities who are cutting down on Sunday voting, or even closing early-vote locations that were in predominately Black communities,” said Joshua Cole, a pastor and a Democratic candidate for the House of Delegates in the Fredericksburg area. He pointed to the Mattaponi Baptist Association of Virginia, a local association of Black churches, several of which are no longer able to hold Souls to the Polls events.“Don’t take that right away from Christians, especially African American Christians, when it’s been a staple in the community for years,” he said.Joshua Cole, a Democratic candidate for the House of Delegates, has been critical of the push for counties to cancel Sunday voting, which are traditionally popular voting days for Black communities. Ryan M. Kelly/Associated PressSome local election officials acknowledged that the shift in partisan control was the main cause for the changes.“The reason Sunday voting is no longer an option for the City of Richmond is because the political representation from our electoral board has changed from Democratic to Republican since 2021,” said Katherin Cardozo-Robledo, the executive assistant to the electoral board in Richmond, a city whose population of about 230,000 is roughly 45 percent Black.Others, however, said there simply wasn’t enough demand.“We have elections every November in Virginia, so we did not continue it last year, either,” said Mary Lynn A. Pinkerman, who oversees elections in Chesapeake, which is roughly 30 percent Black. “Our city has approximately 176,000 voters, and when we tried it after being told there would be busloads coming, we only had 170 voters come that day. We do not have enough of a demand for it in our city.”With just a month left before polls close in Virginia, both parties are focused on the legislative elections, but the conservative activists have larger goals in mind.“What we’re doing is so critical,” Sheryl Stanworth, an attendee at the Tuesday training, said during the gathering. “We’ve got a presidential election to be looking forward to.” More

With the outcome of the 2024 elections for the president and control of the Senate very much up in the air, Democrats must make a concerted effort to fill federal judicial vacancies before next November.Republicans did this very effectively before the end of the Trump presidency, leaving few vacancies for President Biden to fill when he took office. Now the Democrats must emulate that approach. And they must do so now.At the moment, there are two vacancies without nominees on appeals courts and 37 on district courts. Because the evaluation process of nominees takes time, it is imperative that the Biden administration quickly name nominees to those and future vacancies. The Senate then must work expeditiously to confirm those deemed suitable for the lifetime appointments.Mr. Biden has nominated 186 people to Article III judgeships, which include the Supreme Court and the federal appeals and district courts, according to the White House. At this point in their tenures, George W. Bush had nominated 211, followed by Mr. Trump’s 206, according to the Heritage Foundation’s Judicial Appointment Tracker. There have been inexplicable and troubling delays in this process. For example, two years ago, Judge Diana Motz of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., announced that she would take senior status, a form of semiretirement, when a successor was confirmed. She took senior status last year, though no replacement had been named at that time. And still no one has been nominated for this important judgeship.Time may be running out for the Biden administration.It is critical for federal judges who would like to be replaced by a Democratic president to take senior status so that Mr. Biden can appoint their successors with sufficient time to allow them to be confirmed by the current Senate. A federal judge or justice may take senior status after meeting the age and service requirements of the “Rule of 80” — the judge must be at least 65 years old, and the judge’s age and years of service must add up to 80. A total of 121 federal judges are now eligible for senior status but have not announced their plans, according to the group Balls and Strikes, which tracks that information. Of those, 44 were appointed by Democratic presidents. By Jan. 20, 2025, the date of the next presidential inauguration, that number could rise to 69.There is little reason for judges not to take senior status. They can continue to hear cases, even carry a full load of cases. And taking senior status allows the president to fill that seat on the bench. The judge can condition taking senior status on the confirmation of a successor. A senior judge typically is not allowed to participate in en banc decisions, where all (or a significant number) of the judges on the court review a matter that is particularly significant or complex. But that is the main restriction on what a senior judge may do.We are long past the time when it could be said that judges appointed by Republican and by Democratic presidents were indistinguishable. This was made clear in an analysis of Supreme Court rulings published in July 2022 by the data-driven news site FiveThirtyEight, which found the partisan divide among the current justices “is deeper than it’s been in the modern era.”And this partisan divide is not confined to the Supreme Court. There are often huge differences between how judges in the lower courts who were appointed by Democratic and by Republican presidents decide cases. For example, a federal appeals court recently upheld Tennessee and Kentucky laws prohibiting gender-affirming care for transgender minors, with the two Republican-appointed judges siding with the states and a judge initially nominated by President Bill Clinton dissenting. Whether it is reproductive rights or gun rights or employee rights, or in countless other areas, the outcome often depends on which president appointed the judge or judges hearing the case.For that reason, I wrote an opinion article in The Los Angeles Times in March 2014 urging Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then 81, to retire so that President Barack Obama could replace her while there was a Democratic Senate and someone with progressive values would take her seat. She took offense at the suggestion, also raised by others, and remained on the bench until she died in September 2020, when President Trump replaced her with the conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Ginsburg gambled, and America lost.Likewise, I think of the liberal federal court of appeals judges who did not take senior status, though they were eligible during the Obama presidency. For example, Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit declined to take senior status; when he died at age 87 in 2017 President Trump replaced him with a conservative judge. By the time another liberal Ninth Circuit judge, Harry Pregerson, decided to take senior status in late 2015, he was 92, and though Mr. Obama quickly nominated a replacement, it was late in his term and got caught up in politics and President Trump ended up appointing another conservative to the seat.Creating vacancies will matter only if Mr. Biden quickly names replacements and the Senate confirms the nominees. If the president is not re-elected, the Republican president will fill any vacancies that exist upon taking office. And regardless of the outcome of the presidential election, if the Republicans take control of the Senate, the confirmation of judicial candidates nominated by a Democratic president will be far more difficult. That is why immediate action is imperative.A president’s most long-lasting legacy is arguably the judges he appoints. Many will serve for decades after the president leaves office. Republicans have tended to recognize this much more than Democrats. That needs to change, and quickly.Erwin Chemerinsky is the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley.Source photographs by John Slater and SergeyChayko/Getty ImagesThe 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