Elections

Casi el 60 por ciento de los ciudadanos dice confiar en los jurados. Un nuevo sondeo brinda un vistazo a los pensamientos de cierto tipo de personas, que podrían decidir el destino del expresidente.En un momento en que la confianza en las instituciones está en su punto más bajo, los estadounidenses parecen seguir confiando en sus conciudadanos que conforman los jurados.Según una nueva encuesta, casi el 60 por ciento de los estadounidenses afirma tener por lo menos bastante confianza en los jurados, más que en cualquier otro grupo del sistema judicial.Pero es posible que pronto esa confianza se ponga a prueba porque todo apunta a que el expresidente Donald Trump tendrá que enfrentar varios juicios el año próximo.Cuando se les preguntó en específico sobre los próximos juicios contra Trump, la mayoría de los estadounidenses —demócratas, republicanos e independientes— dijeron que no creían que los tribunales pudieran conformar jurados imparciales.Y, sin duda, esos jurados se enfrentarán a un intenso escrutinio, lo cual para muchos es razón suficiente para no querer prestar este servicio a la nación. De hecho, la mayoría de los estadounidenses dijeron no estar interesados en formar parte de un jurado en un juicio contra Trump.El estudio, realizado en julio por la empresa de encuestas Ipsos y que se centró en los estadounidenses que han formado parte de un jurado en algún momento de los últimos 10 años, proporciona un retrato del tipo de estadounidense que suele formar parte de los jurados y un raro vistazo a los pensamientos del tipo de personas que podrían decidir el destino de Donald Trump.Se reveló que quienes ya habían desempeñado esta actividad eran mucho más propensos que el público en general a confiar en quienes forman parte del sistema de justicia penal, como los jueces federales, estatales y los magistrados de la Corte Suprema, los abogados, los miembros del personal no jurídico y las autoridades policiales.Los datos demográficos de quienes han actuado como jurados también difieren bastante de los del público en general. Es más probable que sean mayores, más ricos y con un nivel educativo más alto. Dos terceras partes de quienes han formado parte de un jurado tienen más de 50 años, en comparación con menos de la mitad del público en general. Además, tienden a ser un poco más demócratas que el resto de los estadounidenses y los hombres son más propensos a formar parte de un jurado que las mujeres.Pero, al parecer, los elevados niveles de confianza en el sistema judicial que mostraron los exmiembros de jurados (la encuesta no preguntaba por grupos e instituciones no jurídicos, como el Congreso) se debían más a su experiencia dentro del sistema que a un reflejo de sus diferentes características demográficas.Quienes formaron parte de algún jurado fueron 20 puntos porcentuales más propensos que los estadounidenses en general a afirmar que confiaban en los abogados defensores y 30 puntos porcentuales más propensos a decir que confiaban en los fiscales, como los de distrito o estatales.También fueron más propensos que el público en general a decir que confiaban en los jueces, aunque surgió una brecha partidista cuando se les preguntó acerca de su confianza en los magistrados de la Corte Suprema: los republicanos expresaron más confianza que los demócratas. Sin embargo, cuando se les consultó por los jueces estatales y federales, no hubo brecha partidista entre quienes habían sido miembros de un jurado ni entre el público en general.“Luego de haber entrevistado a muchos jurados, puedo decir que su servicio les ha aportado una visión más positiva del sistema”, afirmó Stephen Adler, ex redactor jefe de Reuters y periodista jurídico que escribió un libro sobre el sistema de jurados, The Jury: Trial and Error in the American Courtroom, y colaboró con Ipsos en el estudio.“Si uno forma parte de un jurado, aunque solo sea por un día o dos, se adentra en un entorno muy serio y enfocado”, explicó Adler. “Tener ese contacto real hace que la gente, sin importar sus nociones preconcebidas, tenga una mejor opinión de cada actor del proceso, hasta llegar a los jueces”.Aunque el 58 por ciento de los estadounidenses dijo confiar en los jurados, el 71 por ciento, incluida una mayoría de demócratas y republicanos, dijo que no confiaba en que los tribunales pudieran encontrar jurados “dispuestos a dejar de lado sus opiniones previas sobre Donald Trump y decidir el caso basándose en las pruebas presentadas”.Y cuando se les preguntó sobre el trato que reciben los diferentes grupos por parte del sistema judicial, el 71 por ciento de los estadounidenses afirmó que los funcionarios electos actuales o anteriores obtienen beneficios especiales, incluidos porcentajes similares de demócratas y republicanos. Quienes habían formado parte de un jurado fueron incluso más propensos que el público en general a decir que los funcionarios reciben un trato especial.El público general fue más propenso a señalar como beneficiarios de un trato especial a los ricos.Los próximos juicios de Trump convocarán a residentes de los lugares donde se presentaron los casos para que sean parte del jurado y, dependiendo del sitio, su composición podría presentar dificultades para el expresidente. En el caso de Georgia, los posibles jurados procederán del condado de Fulton, que tiende a ser de izquierda. El caso federal sobre los sucesos del 6 de enero de 2021 se celebrará en Washington, una ciudad liberal donde ese día aún genera reacciones viscerales y el caso del pago en el que está implicada Stormy Daniels se celebrará en el distrito de Manhattan, en Nueva York, también conocido por ser muy demócrata en su composición. No obstante, es probable que el caso de los documentos clasificados se celebre en Fort Pierce, Florida, y el jurado podría provenir de los condados circundantes, en los cuales Trump ganó en 2020.Sin duda, los fiscales y los abogados defensores serán muy cuidadosos para seleccionar al jurado. En esos casos, los fiscales necesitarán un veredicto unánime para tener éxito; pero Trump solo necesita una negativa para lograr que se anule un juicio.Adler señaló que las posturas políticas no impiden formar parte de un jurado. “La ley no dice que debes desconocer el caso”, afirmó. “La ley dice que tienes que tener la capacidad de ser justo e imparcial”.Los estadounidenses se mostraron divididos en cuanto a su propio interés en formar parte de alguno de los jurados de Trump. Un poco más del 50 por ciento dijo no estar interesado en formar parte, con escasas diferencias entre los simpatizantes de los dos partidos.Haber sido miembro de un jurado no aumentó las expectativas de los estadounidenses de que Trump pueda conseguir un jurado imparcial, pero quienes ya lo hicieron se mostraron más abiertos a participar: poco más de la mitad dijo que estaría interesado en ser jurado de uno de sus juicios.Ruth Igielnik es editora de encuestas del Times, donde redacta y analiza estudios. Antes fue investigadora principal en el Centro de Investigaciones Pew. Más sobre Ruth Igielnik More

The 19 defendants in the election interference case are sparring with prosecutors over when a trial might start, and whether it will be in state or federal court.Former President Donald J. Trump pleaded not guilty on Thursday and waived his arraignment in the Georgia criminal case charging him and 18 of his allies with interfering in the 2020 election.His plea came as Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia, a fellow Republican, dismissed demands from the former president and some of his supporters to start impeachment proceedings against Fani T. Willis, the prosecutor who brought the case.Without Mr. Kemp’s help, it is all the more unlikely that Mr. Trump will be able to derail the prosecution.“In Georgia, we will not be engaging in political theater that only inflames the emotions of the moment,” Mr. Kemp said in a news conference at the State Capitol, where he also discussed the response to Hurricane Idalia. “We will do what is right, we will uphold our oath as public servants, and it’s my belief that our state will be better off for it.”It remains unclear where or when Mr. Trump will be put on trial in the case, one of four that he has been charged in this year. A number of the 19 defendants are sparring with Ms. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, over when a trial might start and whether it will be in state or federal court, leaving two judges in courtrooms only a few blocks apart in downtown Atlanta to wrangle with defense lawyers pulling in different directions.“I do hereby waive formal arraignment and enter my plea of not guilty,” Mr. Trump stated in a two-page filing on Thursday morning.He wrote that he had discussed the charges with his lawyer, Steven H. Sadow, adding: “I fully understand the nature of the offenses charged,” and that he waived his right to appear at arraignment, which had been scheduled to take place in Atlanta next Wednesday along with those of Mr. Trump’s co-defendants.Mr. Trump surrendered at the Fulton County jail in Atlanta last week and was booked on 13 felony charges for his efforts to reverse his 2020 election loss in Georgia. On social media, he has assailed and spread falsehoods about Ms. Willis, a Democrat, calling her “crooked, incompetent & highly partisan.” He has also praised State Senator Colton Moore, the most outspoken advocate for impeaching Ms. Willis. But calling a special legislative session to begin the impeachment process lacks enough support among lawmakers to move forward.Mr. Kemp has the power to unilaterally call a special session; his refusal to do so for an impeachment of Ms. Willis echoes his refusal to call a special session after the 2020 election, when Mr. Trump pressured him to make such a move to help overturn his election loss.State legislators may also call a special session. But although Republicans are in the majority of both houses of the Georgia General Assembly, doing so would require the support of three-fifths of the legislature, a threshold that could only be met with votes from some Democrats.Republican lawmakers in the state have wrestled since Mr. Trump’s indictment over whether anything can or should be done to impede Ms. Willis and her criminal case.This week, House Speaker Jon Burns said it would be “reckless” to take steps to defund Ms. Willis’s office, another move that some Republicans are considering, because it could hinder efforts to fight violent crime in Atlanta.But Mr. Moore, a first-year senator from ultraconservative northwest Georgia, has spoken in threatening terms.“I don’t want a civil war,” he said in a recent televised interview. “I don’t want to have to draw my rifle. I want to make this problem go away with my legislative means of doing so.”Mr. Kemp’s relationship with Mr. Trump fractured after the governor stood by the state’s election results in 2020, which gave Joseph R. Biden a narrow victory there.On Wednesday, he warned fellow Republicans that they could suffer politically if they focused on what he called the “distractions” posed by Ms. Willis’s case and Mr. Trump’s 2020 election loss. They should be pursuing tax cuts and teacher raises, he said, “not focusing on the past, or some grifter scam that somebody’s doing to help them raise a few dollars into their campaign account.”Mr. Trump has also been indicted this year in a criminal case in Manhattan, on state charges in a case stemming from hush money paid to a pornographic film actress. And he has been indicted in a pair of federal cases — one in Washington, related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election result nationally, and one in Florida over his handling of sensitive government documents after he left office.Should he be elected president again, he may theoretically be able to pardon himself of any federal convictions. But Mr. Trump would not be able to do so for a state conviction, even if the case was moved to federal court, as some defendants are seeking to do.Complicating the Georgia case, Mr. Trump and his co-defendants have differing legal strategies. Several of the defendants, including Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff, have filed to move the case to federal court. Late Thursday afternoon, prosecutors and lawyers for Mr. Meadows filed a new round of briefs in their battle over the removal question.Other defendants, including Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell, have moved for speedy trials in state court, as they are allowed under Georgia law. Mr. Chesebro’s trial has already been scheduled to start on Oct. 23. Ms. Willis’s office is seeking to keep all of the defendants together in a single trial starting then, but Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee has initially indicated that only Mr. Chesebro will be tried at that time.Mr. Sadow filed a motion on Thursday seeking to sever Mr. Trump’s case from Mr. Chesebro’s and those of any other defendants who invoke their right to a speedy trial. He wrote in his filing that “requiring less than two months preparation time to defend a 98-page indictment, charging 19 defendants, with 41 various charges” would “violate President Trump’s federal and state constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process of law.” More

Mr. Meijer, who lost his House primary last year, has formed an exploratory committee to run for an open Senate seat.Former Representative Peter Meijer, who lost his Republican House primary last year after voting to impeach President Donald J. Trump, has formed an exploratory committee to run for Senate in Michigan.Mr. Meijer filed paperwork with the I.R.S. this week and confirmed the creation of the committee — which allows him to raise money before formally declaring a campaign — in a text to The New York Times on Thursday. The news was previously reported by The Detroit Free Press.If he moves forward, Mr. Meijer, 35, would be the first well-known Republican to enter the race for the seat held by Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat who is not seeking re-election. But he may not be the last: Former Representative Mike Rogers, who served seven terms in the House and led the House Intelligence Committee before leaving in 2015, is widely expected to run as well.Republicans see the race, in a swing state that Mr. Trump won in 2016 but lost in 2020 to Joseph R. Biden Jr., as a major opportunity in their effort to retake control of the Senate. They need to gain either one or two seats, depending on whether they win the White House.“I am honored by the many Michigan conservatives who are encouraging me to run for Michigan’s open Senate seat,” Mr. Meijer said in a statement. “Winning in 2024 is the only way we can stop Biden’s ruinous economic policies and mass weaponization of government.”“The unserious old guard establishment that left us in this mess can’t be trusted to secure the border, restore our economic might to beat the C.C.P. or repair America’s image abroad after Biden betrayed our Afghan allies,” he added, using initials for the Chinese Communist Party. “It will take someone who can’t be bought and is willing to be bold, and I am considering running for Senate to do my part to get us out of this mess.”The reference to the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan recalled one of the non-impeachment-related headlines Mr. Meijer made in his short time in Congress: In August 2021, he and Representative Seth Moulton, Democrat of Massachusetts, flew to Kabul without authorization to assess evacuation efforts.Mr. Meijer, an heir to the Meijer supermarket empire and a veteran of the United States Army Reserve who served in Iraq, was elected to Congress in 2020. He might have been seen as a rising star in the Republican Party if it weren’t for one of his first acts in office: voting to impeach Mr. Trump for “incitement of insurrection.”A year and a half later, he narrowly lost his primary to a Trump-supporting opponent, John Gibbs. Democrats had intervened in the race on behalf of Mr. Gibbs, who they believed would be easier to defeat in the general election and whom they did ultimately defeat.Of the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump, only Representatives Dan Newhouse of Washington and David Valadao of California were re-elected in 2022. Mr. Meijer was one of four defeated in primaries, alongside Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington and Tom Rice of South Carolina. Another four — Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, John Katko of New York, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Fred Upton of Michigan — retired rather than face the Republican base again.That history suggests Mr. Meijer will face an uphill battle in the Senate primary, particularly if other prominent candidates enter the race. At the moment, though, his opponents are lesser known: Nikki Snyder, a member of the Michigan State Board of Education; Ezra Scott, a former county commissioner; Michael Hoover, an entrepreneur; and Alexandria Taylor, a lawyer.The Democratic field so far is headlined by Representative Elissa Slotkin, who was elected to Congress in the blue wave of 2018 and has won re-election twice in a swing district. Her primary opponents include Hill Harper, an actor; Nasser Beydoun, a businessman; and Pamela Pugh, the president of the State Board of Education. More

The former vice president’s time in the spotlight at the debate did not lift his position in the polls, where he continues to languish in the low-single digits.Mike Pence sat on Wednesday in a cavernous machine shop that was humming with activity as he preached old-time Republican religion: the dangers of the swelling national debt, the need to overhaul Social Security and Medicare, the perils of price controls on prescription drugs and the necessity of projecting military might across the globe.No more than two dozen Iowans had come to C & C Machining in Centerville to hear the last Republican vice president as he pursues his party’s nomination for president. And the ones who showed weren’t so sure how many G.O.P. voters still believed in a gospel that his former running mate, Donald J. Trump, has spent eight years rendering largely obsolete.“The old conservative Republicanism, those are my ideals,” Art Kirchoff, 53, an insurance agency owner, said approvingly to explain why he would vote for Mr. Pence in the Iowa caucuses this January. He had come at the behest of the machine shop’s owner, Gaylon Cowan, a friend, and, Mr. Kirchoff conceded, he wasn’t sure how many of his kind are left in the party. “That’s a good question.”“The old conservative Republicanism, those are my ideals,” said Art Kirchoff, who is supporting Mr. Pence’s bid and was in the modest crowd at an Iowa campaign stop.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesMr. Pence says often that there is no one more qualified to be the nominee — and more battle tested — than him, a former House member, former Indiana governor and former vice president. There is, of course, a former president in the race: Mr. Trump, the man Mr. Pence stood behind and supported for four tumultuous years. But when Mr. Trump asked his loyal vice president to violate his oath of office, Mr. Pence says, he stood by the Constitution.By force of will, Mr. Pence grabbed the microphone at the first Republican primary debate this month more than anyone else onstage, speaking for 12 minutes and 37 seconds, much of that time devoted to his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, the day he certified his own defeat at the hands of Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Kamala Harris after a pro-Trump mob had ransacked the Capitol and called for his death. At the debate in Milwaukee, the former vice president stretched his airtime by demanding the other seven candidates onstage to his left and right attest to his righteousness.“It was a fun night,” Mr. Pence said on Wednesday.And by dint of his time in the White House, he holds real celebrity status on the hustings. On Thursday, at the Old Threshers Reunion, a sprawling fair and farm-equipment showcase in Mount Pleasant, Iowa, he was mobbed by well-wishers.But then there was Jamison Plank, a 25-year-old pastor, who grabbed Mr. Pence’s hand and demanded to know whether he would vote for Mr. Trump if the former president was the nominee. Mr. Pence demurred, saying he was confident the question was moot, that Mr. Pence would win.Mr. Plank was not.“I’m worried that the Republican establishment is going to destroy Trump,” he said. “I appreciate Mike Pence. I appreciate his faith. I just don’t see him winning.”Mr. Pence met Jamison Plank, a 25-year-old pastor, who questioned his ability to win.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesThe former vice president’s time in the spotlight at the debate did not lift his position in the polls, where he continues to languish in the low-single digits. He is far behind Mr. Trump, but also behind Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and a political newcomer, Vivek Ramaswamy, whose position on the issues — and perhaps in national polling averages — seems to inspire Mr. Pence on the attack.“He’s wrong on foreign policy. He’s wrong on American leadership in the world. He’s wrong on how we get this economy moving again,” Mr. Pence said on Wednesday of his 38-year-old rival, adding, “I’ve been in the room in the West Wing, and I can tell you, the president doesn’t get to decide what crises he faces.”The crisis he was referring to was the debt and Mr. Ramaswamy’s refusal to grapple with the cost of Social Security and Medicare, entitlement programs groaning under the weight of the retiring Baby Boom generation. But Mr. Trump has said he too will not touch the popular social benefit programs for retirees, as has Mr. DeSantis.And those three brawlers, who have elevated their battles with “deep state” bureaucrats, “left-wing” socialists and “globalist” hawks far above the green eyeshade concerns of federal budgeting, have for now captured the allegiance of 75 percent of Republican primary voters, leaving the more traditional Republicans in the race like Mr. Pence fighting over the crumbs.“If they started listening to the message and not just the hoorah, maybe” traditional conservatism could rise again, Mr. Cowan, 53, said of Republican voters after Mr. Pence spoke at his factory.Mr. Pence likes to say he was conservative before it was cool, a low-tax, small-government Republican willing to fight his own party. Mr. Pence’s positions have the same throwback feel as his pleated khakis, blue blazers and light-blue broadcloth shirts. In Iowa this week, Mr. Pence railed against the Biden administration’s landmark legislation to allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices — the same policy Mr. Trump endorsed, though failed to achieve.In a survey late last year by KFF, a health policy research organization, 89 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans said they favored the plank of the Inflation Reduction Act that authorizes negotiations.Mr. Pence greeted a worker at a machine shop campaign stop Wednesday in Centerville, Iowa.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesHis warnings against overspending come as companies like C & C brace for a huge infusion of new work funded by Mr. Biden’s infrastructure law, another achievement that the Trump-Pence administration promised but did not secure. Mr. Cowan said once repair and replacement orders started rolling in from the companies building new roads, bridges, tunnels and rail lines, “it’s going to help our business tremendously.”On Thursday morning at Weaton Companies in Fairfield, Iowa, Cory Westphal, an executive at Dexter Laundry, an industrial washer and dryer maker, fretted that aggressive union negotiators could drive up wages and labor costs. Mr. Pence answered that he cut the corporate income tax rate to 15 percent, from 21 percent.Beyond the issues is a more existential question dogging Mr. Pence’s candidacy: If a majority — or at least a strong plurality — of Republican primary voters believe the lie that the 2020 election was stolen, how can the man who certified it secure their support? Mr. Pence has tried to turn the liability of his certification into an asset, a profile in courage on the fateful day of Jan. 6, 2021.It works for some.“Everything he went through with Trump, I just admire that he did the right thing,” Julie Vantiger Hicks, 58, said after getting her picture with Mr. Pence at Threshers Reunion. “He’s an admirable man.”But Mr. Pence was hardly outspoken among the few Republican leaders in the weeks and months before and after the attack on the Capitol who tried to dispel the conspiracy theories around the election that continue to divide the nation.“My objective — once the violence was quelled, the Congress reconvened and finished our work under the Constitution of the United States, and after the president denounced the riot and committed to a peaceful transfer of power — was to see to that orderly transition,” Mr. Pence answered when asked if he could have done more to head off the division that he now faces. More

A federal judge on Thursday sentenced two former far-right Proud Boy leaders to prison terms of 17 and 15 years after a jury convicted them of seditious conspiracy for storming the US Capitol in a failed attempt to overturn Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss.Joseph Biggs, who helped lead dozens of Proud Boys members and associates in marching to the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, was sentenced to 17 years.Prosecutors had sought a 33-year sentence.Biggs and other Proud Boys joined the mob that broke through police lines and forced lawmakers to flee, disrupting the joint session of Congress for certifying the electoral victory by Joe Biden.“I know that I messed up that day,” Biggs told the judge just before being sentenced, “but I’m not a terrorist.”Later Thursday the judge who sentenced Biggs also sentenced co-defendant former Proud Boys chapter leader Zachary Rehl to 15 years in prison.Two other Proud Boys will also be sentenced after they were convicted by a jury in May after a four-month trial in Washington, that laid bare far-right extremists’ embrace of lies by Trump that the 2020 election was stolen from him.Enrique Tarrio, a Miami resident who was the Proud Boys’ national chairman and top leader, is scheduled to be sentenced on Tuesday. His sentencing was moved from Wednesday to next week because the judge, Timothy Kelly, was sick.He picked Biggs and Proud Boys chapter president Ethan Nordean to be the group’s leaders on the ground in his absence, prosecutors said. Biggs, of Ormond Beach, Florida, was a self-described Proud Boys organizer. He served in the US army for eight years before being medically discharged in 2013. Biggs later worked as a correspondent for Infowars, the website operated by the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.Biggs, Tarrio, Nordean and Rehl were convicted of charges including seditious conspiracy, a rarely brought civil war-era offense. A fifth Proud Boys member, Dominic Pezzola, was acquitted of seditious conspiracy but was convicted of other serious charges.Prosecutors also recommended prison sentences of 33 years for Tarrio, 30 years for Rehl, 27 years for Nordean and 20 years for Pezzola. Pezzola and Nordean are scheduled to be sentenced on Friday.Defense attorneys argued that the justice department was unfairly holding their clients responsible for the violent actions of others in the crowd of Trump supporters at the Capitol.More than 1,100 people have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Over 600 of them have been convicted and sentenced. More

More from our inbox:Changing Our Election SystemReflections on the G.O.P. DebateReplicating the ‘Magic’ of CampJimmy and Rosalynn Carter in 1966. Mr. Carter is now in home hospice, surrounded by a loving family with the resources to care for him.Horace Cort/Associated PressTo the Editor:The Aug. 29 guest essay by Daniela J. Lamas, “A Fitting Final Gift From Jimmy Carter,” is a heartfelt tribute to Mr. Carter.While Dr. Lamas acknowledges hospice’s unpopularity (noting that “the very word ‘hospice’ so often conjures the idea of death and defeat”), she nevertheless makes a persuasive case for it.Hospice is not about giving up hope — it is about making the most of the time we have left. The key to a successful hospice stay is early enrollment, and the fact that Mr. Carter has already benefited from multiple months of care is a testament to this approach.Perhaps Mr. Carter’s real gift is helping us all to overcome our reservations and misguided stereotypes about hospice care. His example should make policymakers rethink current regulations so that all Americans might one day receive — and understand — the full benefits of hospice care.Michael D. ConnellyJohns Island, S.C.The writer served as the chief executive of Mercy Health (now Bon Secours Mercy Health) and is the author of “The Journey’s End: An Investigation of Death and Dying in Modern America.”To the Editor:The idealized fantasy of at-home hospice care is just that: a fantasy.Families who turn down at-home hospice care are right to do so. At-home hospice care is extremely lucrative for the hospice agencies precisely because they provide so little care while the families do all of the work. We were told not to call 911, and most of us do not have medical or nursing training and are on our own, in way over our heads, caring for a dying loved one who may well be in distress and is often frightened.My husband’s death was traumatic for the whole family. Based on my experience, I urge families faced with the heart-wrenching decisions around end-of-life care to consider the family’s needs and the patient’s needs — not the false advertising of the hospice agencies or the naïve recommendations of doctors who don’t live with the consequences.Deena EngelGreenwich, Conn.To the Editor:As a retired hospice nurse, I can totally relate to what the Carters are going through. It is hard for people to accept that the death of a loved one will be coming soon and that fighting against it in a hospital is an unnatural way to die, involving unnecessary and meaningless care at a high cost.Being at home (or sometimes in a hospice facility) surrounded by family and friends with comfort care is much better. Being awakened to be poked and prodded 24 hours a day in a fruitless and expensive effort to keep a dying person alive is just not a good way to go. Hospice can provide all the care that a dying person needs, with much less hustle and bustle.Part of the concern about hospice care is that it uses medications that are not always used in other practices. Morphine is still the best pain control available, and hospice uses it — carefully, with strict controls. Occasionally, hospice also uses ketamine, which has a very bad rap because of abuse of the drug, but is a potent pain control drug if used properly.Hospice care is well established in other parts of the world, but in the U.S. we have a hard time accepting death as being inevitable.It warms my heart that the Carters chose hospice care. It shows yet again what forward-thinking and thoughtful people they are, setting an example for others even in death. Godspeed, Jimmy!Michael OrlinDenverChanging Our Election SystemPhoto illustration by Boris Zhitkov/Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “To Improve Democracy, Get Rid of Elections,” by Adam Grant (Opinion, Aug. 23), about using lotteries to select our leaders:At first glance, Mr. Grant’s essay seems way too radical to even consider, but everyone should read and reflect on it.I, for one, am tired of constantly having to vote for the “lesser of two evils” to serve in a Congress filled with representatives who lack the basic qualifications and ethical compass to do their jobs.I am tired of the corruption in our current election system from gerrymandering, the anemic controls on campaign contributions and spending, and the infusion of shameless lying into what we call “spin” or “campaign rhetoric.”Add to that the ever-present possibility of hacks into our election systems, legislation to disenfranchise voters, and baseless allegations of voter fraud that undermine public confidence in our elections.We may not be ready to adopt Mr. Grant’s proposal, but it is an important subject for debate that should not be ignored.Bruce WilderNew OrleansTo the Editor:Adam Grant is right: Winning elections swells the egos of leaders, who imagine that they’re superior to everyone else. But so does the admission system at elite universities like the one where he and I work. The tiny fraction of applicants who get in are led to think they’re better than the vast hordes who got rejected.That’s why we should admit students using a weighted lottery, like the one Mr. Grant proposes for selecting political leaders. Students would need to demonstrate certain competencies to be considered. But their admission would also rest on luck, so they could no longer pretend that they earned their way here simply by merit.The education of our leadership class starts early. And we’re teaching all the wrong lessons.Jonathan ZimmermanPhiladelphiaThe writer teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania.Reflections on the G.O.P. DebateRepublicans watched a broadcast of the debate at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library in California.Ariana Drehsler for The New York TimesTo the Editor:“From Party Stronghold, Debate Watchers Cheered Signals From a Post-Trump Era” (news article, Aug. 25) was perceptive. However, I’d like to add two important points.First, the Republican Party is finally making headway: Its candidates for president are starting to reflect the colors of America — white, Black and Asian, with one being a woman.The second is regressive. We saw very little civility between the candidates and from the candidates to the moderators. These people are running for president of the United States, our nation’s “face” to the world. Do we want that person to be crass, rude and disruptive?Jade WuCollier County, Fla.Replicating the ‘Magic’ of CampSilvia TackTo the Editor:As a devoted former summer camper myself, I appreciate all of the joys that Sandra Fox illuminates in her guest essay “There’s No Cure for Campsickness. That’s OK.” (Opinion, Aug. 21).Summer camps offer a kind of time-bound, immersive magic that, as Dr. Fox writes, can’t be replicated at home. But it’s also worth asking why kids have such a need for “an escape, an opportunity for self-reinvention and an invitation to be messier, weirder and just more myself” in the first place.Why can’t real life be more like summer camp? It can be, and already is (at least in some respects) for young people lucky enough to attend schools that are focused on helping them grow into the best possible versions of themselves. When learning is active, immersive and meaningful, kids become fluent in addressing real-world problems. In these schools, trust, strong relationships and a healthy, respectful community are prioritized as much or more than test scores.Long live summer camp! May its magic reach and serve every child. But real life can be magical too. In fact it must be, in order for young children to grow into capable, caring adults.Andy CalkinsGloucester, Mass.The writer co-directs the nonprofit education organization Next Generation Learning Challenges. More

As our nation continues its march to 2024, a year that will feature not only a presidential election but also potentially four criminal trials of the Republican front-runner, I’ve been thinking about the political and cultural power of leadership. How much do leaders matter, really? What role does corrupt political leadership play in degrading not just a government but the culture itself?Let’s talk today about the specific way in which poor leadership transforms civic ignorance from a problem into a crisis — a crisis that can have catastrophic effects on the nation and, ultimately, the world.Civic ignorance is a very old American problem. If you spend five seconds researching what Americans know about their own history and their own government, you’ll uncover an avalanche of troubling research, much of it dating back decades. As Samuel Goldman detailed two years ago, as far back as 1943, 77 percent of Americans knew essentially nothing about the Bill of Rights, and in 1952 only 19 percent could name the three branches of government.That number rose to a still dispiriting 38 percent in 2011, a year in which almost twice as many Americans knew that Randy Jackson was a judge on “American Idol” as knew that John Roberts was the chief justice of the United States. A 2018 survey found that most Americans couldn’t pass the U.S. Citizenship Test. Among other failings, most respondents couldn’t identify which nations the United States fought in World War II and didn’t know how many justices sat on the Supreme Court.Civic ignorance isn’t confined to U.S. history or the Constitution. Voters are also wildly ignorant about one another. A 2015 survey found that Democrats believe Republicans are far older, far wealthier and more Southern than they truly are. Republicans believe Democrats are far more atheist, Black and gay than the numbers indicate.But I don’t share these statistics to write yet another story bemoaning public ignorance. Instead, I’m sharing these statistics to make a different argument: that the combination of civic ignorance, corrupt leadership and partisan animosity means that the chickens are finally coming home to roost. We’re finally truly feeling the consequences of having a public disconnected from political reality.Simply put, civic ignorance was a serious but manageable problem, as long as our leader class and key institutions still broadly, if imperfectly, cared about truth and knowledge — and as long as our citizens cared about the opinions of that leader class and those institutions.Consider, for example, one of the most consequential gaffes in presidential debate history. In October 1976, the Republican Gerald Ford, who was then the president, told a debate audience, “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration.”The statement wasn’t just wrong, it was wildly wrong. Of course there was Soviet domination of Eastern Europe — a domination that was violently reaffirmed in the 1956 crackdown in Hungary and the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. The best defense that Ford’s team could muster was the national security adviser Brent Scowcroft’s argument that “I think what the president was trying to say is that we do not recognize Soviet domination of Europe.”In a close election with Jimmy Carter, the gaffe was a big deal. As the political scientist Larry Sabato later wrote, the press “pounced” and “wrote of little else for days afterward.” As a result, “a public initially convinced that Ford had won the debate soon turned overwhelmingly against him.” Note the process: Ford made a mistake, even his own team recognized the mistake and tried to offer a plausible alternative meaning, and then press coverage of the mistake made an impression on the public.Now let’s fast-forward to the present moment. Instead of offering a plausible explanation for their mistakes — much less apologizing — all too many politicians deny that they’ve made any mistakes at all. They double down. They triple down. They claim that the fact-checking process itself is biased, the press is against them and they are the real truth tellers.I bring this up not just because of the obvious example of Donald Trump and many of his most devoted followers in Congress but also because of the surprising success of his cunning imitator Vivek Ramaswamy. If you watched the first Republican debate last week or if you’ve listened to more than five minutes of Ramaswamy’s commentary, you’ll immediately note that he is exceptionally articulate but also woefully ignorant, or feigning ignorance, about public affairs. Despite his confident delivery, a great deal of what he says makes no sense whatsoever.As The Times has documented in detail, Ramaswamy is prone to denying his own words. But his problem is greater than simple dishonesty. Take his response to the question of whether Mike Pence did the right thing when he certified the presidential election on Jan. 6, 2021. Ramaswamy claims that in exchange for certification, he would have pushed for a new federal law to mandate single-day voting, paper ballots and voter identification. Hang on. Who would write the bill? How would it pass a Democratic House and a practically tied Senate? Who would be president during the intervening weeks or months?It’s a crazy, illegal, unworkable idea on every level. But that kind of fantastical thinking is par for the course for Ramaswamy. This year, for instance, he told Don Lemon on CNN, “Black people secured their freedoms after the Civil War — it is a historical fact, Don, just study it — only after their Second Amendment rights were secured.”Wait. What?While there are certainly Black Americans who used weapons to defend themselves in isolated instances, the movement that finally ended Jim Crow rested on a philosophy of nonviolence, not the exercise of Second Amendment rights. The notion is utterly absurd. If anything, armed Black protesters such as the Black Panthers triggered cries for stronger gun control laws, not looser ones. Indeed, there is such a long record of racist gun laws that it’s far more accurate to say that Black Americans secured greater freedom in spite of a racist Second Amendment consensus, not because of gun rights.Ramaswamy’s rhetoric is littered with these moments. He’s a very smart man, blessed with superior communication skills, yet he constantly exposes his ignorance, his cynicism or both. He says he’ll “freeze” the lines of control in the Ukraine war (permitting Russia to keep the ground it’s captured), refuse to admit Ukraine to NATO and persuade Russia to end its alliance with China. He says he’ll agree to defend Taiwan only until 2028, when there is more domestic chip manufacturing capacity here in the States. He says he’ll likely fire at least half the federal work force and will get away with it because he believes civil service protections are unconstitutional.The questions almost ask themselves. How will he ensure that Russia severs its relationship with China? How will he maintain stability with a weakened Ukraine and a NATO alliance that just watched its most powerful partner capitulate to Russia? How will Taiwan respond during its countdown to inevitable invasion? And putting aside for a moment the constitutional questions, his pledge to terminate half the federal work force carries massive, obvious perils, beginning with the question of what to do with more than a million largely middle- and high-income workers who are now suddenly unemployed. How will they be taken care of? What will this gargantuan job dislocation do to the economy?Ramaswamy’s bizarre solutions angered his debate opponents in Milwaukee, leading Nikki Haley to dismantle him on live television in an exchange that would have ended previous presidential campaigns. But the modern G.O.P. deemed him one of the night’s winners. A Washington Post/FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll found that 26 percent of respondents believed Ramaswamy won, compared with just 15 percent who believed Haley won.The bottom line is this: When a political class still broadly believes in policing dishonesty, the nation can manage the negative effects of widespread civic ignorance. When the political class corrects itself, the people will tend to follow. But when key members of the political class abandon any pretense of knowledge or truth, a poorly informed public is simply unequipped to hold them to account.And when you combine ignorance with unrelenting partisan hostility, the challenge grows all the greater. After all, it’s not as though members of the political class didn’t try to challenge Trump. But since that challenge came mostly from people Trump supporters loathe, such as Democratic politicians, members of the media and a few Trump-skeptical or Never Trump writers and politicians, their minds were closed. Because of the enormous amount of public ignorance, voters often didn’t know that Trump was lying or making fantastically unrealistic promises, and they shut out every voice that could tell them the truth.In hindsight, I should have seen all this coming. I can remember feeling a sense of disquiet during the Tea Party revolution. Republican candidates were pledging to do things they simply could not do, such as repealing Obamacare without holding the presidency and Congress or, alternatively, veto-proof congressional majorities. Then, when they failed to do the thing they could never do in the first place, their voters felt betrayed.There is always a problem of politicians overpromising. Matthew Yglesias recently reminded me of the frustrating way in which the 2020 Democratic primary contest was sidetracked by a series of arguments over phenomenally ambitious and frankly unrealistic policy proposals on taxes and health care. But there is a difference between this kind of routine political overpromising and the systematic mendacity of the Trump years.A democracy needs an informed public and a basically honest political class. It can muddle through without one or the other, but when it loses both, the democratic experiment is in peril. A public that knows little except that it despises its opponents will be vulnerable to even the most bizarre conspiracy theories, as we saw after the 2020 election. And when leaders ruthlessly exploit that ignorance and animosity, the Republic can fracture. How long can we endure the consequences of millions of Americans believing the most fantastical lies?A note on reader mailI want to end this newsletter with a note of thanks. I deeply appreciate your emails. Every week I receive an avalanche of thoughtful responses, some encouraging, some critical. I want you to know that while I can’t respond to them all, I do read every single email. If you care enough to take the time to write, the least I can do is take the time to read. Thank you, truly, for your thoughts. More

It can be unsettling to see just how many people got involved in Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 race. The mania spread far and wide to encompass administration officials, party apparatchiks and random MAGA foot soldiers. We’ve broken them down into six main groups. At the dark heart of the […] More