Elections

A stronger-than-expected midterm showing has quieted the party’s public hand-wringing about a re-election campaign for President Biden. But it hasn’t put those worries to rest.Expecting a cataclysmic midterm election, many Democrats had been bracing for an end-of-year reckoning with whether President Biden, who once declared himself a “bridge” to a new generation, should give way to a new 2024 standard-bearer.But the stronger-than-expected Democratic showing has taken the pressure off.And Donald J. Trump’s decision to announce a run for president again, and the Republican backlash against him, have abruptly quieted Democrats’ public expressions of anxiety over Mr. Biden’s poor approval ratings, while reminding them of Mr. Biden’s past success over Mr. Trump.Now, as Mr. Biden mulls a decision over whether to seek a second term, interviews with more than two dozen Democratic elected officials and strategists suggest that, whatever misgivings some Democrats may harbor about another Biden candidacy, his party is more inclined for now to defer to him than to try to force a frontal clash with a sitting president.In recent days, officials ranging from Representative Henry Cuellar, one of the most conservative House Democrats, to Representative Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, have said they would support another Biden bid.In private conversations, younger Democratic operatives have shifted from discussing potential job opportunities in a competitive presidential primary to gaming out what a Biden re-election campaign might look like. And a variety of lawmakers have lauded Mr. Biden for the party’s history-defying midterm performance, crediting him with the major legislative accomplishments they were able to run on and with pressing a message that cast Republican candidates as extremists who threatened democracy.Supporters at a Nov. 1 speech by Mr. Biden in Miami Gardens, Fla. Some Democrats say that challenges facing the president and his party should not be glossed over just because of the election results.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesAlready, Mr. Biden appears to be improving Democrats’ confidence in him: A recent USA Today/Ipsos poll found that 71 percent of Democrats surveyed believe he could win in 2024, up from 60 percent who said the same in August, though they were evenly divided on whether he should be the 2024 nominee.The concerns about Mr. Biden’s overall weak standing in public opinion polls — which was a burden for many Democratic candidates — have not dissipated entirely. And some Democrats say that the challenges confronting the 80-year-old president and his party should not be glossed over in the party’s relief over the outcome of the elections.Stanley B. Greenberg, the veteran Democratic pollster, pointed to a postelection survey that highlighted Democratic vulnerabilities. The poll, conducted by the organization Mr. Greenberg helped found, warned of “the continuing risk of a Republican challenge centered on borders and crime.” It determined that “Trump may have been weakened in this election, but another leader with that message” poses “an accelerated risk.”In an interview, Mr. Greenberg said he came away from the survey “believing Democrats have huge issues to address.” While “President Biden has done remarkable things,” he added, “I think we need a new voice to address huge challenges but also huge opportunities.”The Biden PresidencyHere’s where the president stands after the midterm elections.Beating the Odds: President Biden had the best midterms of any president in 20 years, but he still faces the sobering reality of a Republican-controlled House.2024 Questions: Mr. Biden feels buoyant after the better-than-expected midterms, but as he turns 80, he confronts a decision on whether to run again that has some Democrats uncomfortable.The ‘Trump Project’: With Donald J. Trump’s announcement that he is officially running for president again, Mr. Biden and his advisers are planning to go on the offensive.Legislative Agenda: The Times analyzed every detail of Mr. Biden’s major legislative victories and his foiled ambitions. Here’s what we found.Surveys of voters leaving the polls found that two-thirds, including nearly a third of Democrats, said they did not want Mr. Biden to run for president again — though Mr. Biden’s allies have noted those numbers are not predictive of how voters would respond when presented with a choice between the president and a Republican candidate. At a postelection news conference, Mr. Biden insisted that those poll ratings would not affect his decision. He has said that he intends to run but planned to discuss the race with his family over the holidays and could announce a decision early next year.David Axelrod, who served as chief strategist for President Barack Obama, said the midterm elections had given Mr. Biden “a little giddyup in his step.” As for a run for a second term, Mr. Axelrod said, “If he were 60 and not 80, there would be absolutely no doubt.”Democrats eager for Mr. Biden to make way for a new cohort of presidential aspirants pointed to the decision by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 82, to step down as the House Democratic leader.Former President Donald J. Trump announced he would seek the presidency again in 2024. Jonathan Ernst/ReutersShelia Huggins of North Carolina, a member of the Democratic National Committee, said the country was “looking at what the future looks like, especially with the speaker deciding that now is the time for her to step away and to give other people an opportunity.”Ms. Huggins, who has been open about her reservations regarding Mr. Biden, praised the president’s record but added, “I just still have some concerns about him running again. Part of it does have to do with his age.”Quinton Lucas, the mayor of Kansas City, Mo., said he wanted Mr. Biden to run again and was unbothered by his age. But he also said that the next Democratic nominee should be ready to run against candidates other than Mr. Trump, who is 76, as Republicans weigh an array of younger potential contenders.“The party needs to be prepared for a Ron DeSantis, next-generation Republican,” Mr. Lucas said. “President Biden, in his record of experience, and really his more recent successes, is able to handle that. But I think that’s what the American people will be looking at.”Republicans have long made issues of Mr. Biden’s age and verbal missteps, and polls show that plenty of Democrats, too, have reservations about Mr. Biden’s age.“Most people in this country don’t know many 80-year-olds that can run the entire country,” said Tyler Jones, a Democratic strategist in South Carolina. “That’s not to say that they don’t exist, and it’s not to say that he can’t do it, but it is a very rare thing. And so the burden, unlike most presidents, the burden is on Biden to show the country that he can not just win in ’24, but lead for the next four years.”Mr. Jones said it would be “foolish and counterproductive” not to have a serious conversation in the party about the strengths and weaknesses of a Biden candidacy.But there is no doubt that Mr. Biden would have a significant edge should he run again, the kind of advantage that a man who sought the presidency for decades might resist giving up. It is rare for an incumbent president to lose re-election — or, in recent years, to face a major primary threat — and the Democratic National Committee has already laid groundwork to support Mr. Biden in 2024, preparing to take on a variety of Republican candidates. Mr. Biden’s political advisers have also been ramping up outreach to his early backers, and his team has scheduled a gathering for major supporters and key party figures to discuss the administration’s agenda on Dec. 15 at the White House.Asked about concerns some Americans have about Mr. Biden’s age, Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman, said Mr. Biden had the “most successful legislative record of any president since Lyndon Johnson,” citing achievements on infrastructure and gun policy. He extolled Mr. Biden’s record on the world stage and his political strengths.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, at a rally in Hialeah, is widely seen as the strongest Republican alternative to Mr. Trump so far. Scott McIntyre for The New York Times“The same coalition President Biden built to expand the map for Democrats in 2020 powered our historic midterm wins, including unprecedented youth turnout,” Mr. Bates said. “The president galvanized independent voters with a message widely adopted across the party, highlighting the differences between his values and ultra-MAGA Republicans’ agenda.”Regardless of the next Republican nominee’s age, some Democrats suggest the G.O.P. is vulnerable to the same challenges that drove major defeats this year.“Republicans failed in a year when they should have been hugely successful,” said Gov. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois. “People have rejected the anti-little ‘d’ democratic values that they have run on.”Others argue that it would be possible to support Mr. Biden if he runs while also backing generational change in the party.Jane Kleeb, the chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, stressed her hope that, overall, “batons are beginning to be passed.” But she also said she would support another Biden campaign.“It doesn’t have to be all or nothing,” she said.While a left-leaning advocacy group has already launched a “Don’t Run Joe” campaign to urge Mr. Biden to step aside, few Democrats expect, at this point, that he would draw a major primary challenge. But if he does not run, some Democrats think the size of the field could resemble that of 2020, which swelled to nearly 30 candidates.Some of them, including Vice President Kamala Harris, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, are often mentioned in political circles as potential contenders if Mr. Biden does not run. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, 81, who maintains a devoted following on the left, has not ruled out a bid if Mr. Biden opts out. Several of them campaigned for candidates in battleground states this year, fostering relationships that could prove useful in the future.California Gov. Gavin Newsom touring the U.S. Capitol in July.T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York TimesThere is also a crop of Democratic governors, many of whom have stressed their support for Mr. Biden, who have raised their national profiles this year, including Mr. Pritzker, Gavin Newsom of California and Phil Murphy of New Jersey, the chairman of the National Governors Association. Gov. Roy Cooper of North Carolina has also attracted attention as chairman of the Democratic Governors Association.Other Democratic governors, including Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Jared Polis of Colorado, earned national notice as they won re-election by commanding margins.“There are some great prospects who are considering running in the next election in which there is not an incumbent,” said Mr. Pritzker, a longtime Democratic donor who has supported many Democratic governors. “I think the president is running for re-election. So I think you’ll see Democrats supporting the president.”Mr. Newsom recently made precisely that commitment to the White House, Politico reported, and said that he would not run even if Mr. Biden did not seek a second term.Mr. Biden at a rally in Philadelphia before the elections. Several Democratic governors have raised their profiles recently while also stressing their support for the president.Kriston Jae Bethel for The New York TimesMr. Pritzker, for his part, said he intended to support Mr. Biden. He also noted that Chicago was vying to host the 2024 Democratic National Convention and said that he had “every intention of being governor of Illinois for the next four years.”Other Democrats, including Representative Ro Khanna of California, have worked to introduce themselves around the country. And some who won challenging races are already being discussed in “future of the party” conversations, a list that Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia could join if he wins re-election in his runoff next month.“There’s too much talent and too much ambition in our party to think it’s going to be a coronation,” Mr. Jones said of the 2024 presidential election.Still, he added, “Ultimately, they’re waiting to see what the president is going to do.” More

January 6 report expected to focus on Trump’s role and potential culpabilityFinal report by House select committee is scheduled for release in December – but fixation on Trump has opened a rift on the panel The House January 6 select committee’s final report into its investigation is expected to focus heavily on Donald Trump’s involvement in the Capitol attack and his potential culpability, opening a rift on the panel weeks before its scheduled release in the middle of December.Justice department asks Pence to testify in Trump investigationRead moreThe nature of the final report – alongside criminal referrals to the justice department – is expected to be the defining legacy of the investigation that brought into sharp relief Trump’s efforts to stop the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s election win and return to the White House for a second term.As the final report is currently drafted, an overwhelming focus is on the findings of the “gold team” that has been examining Trump and White House advisers’ roles in orchestrating a multi-part strategy to overturn the 2020 election, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.The move to home in on Trump, principally driven by the select committee’s vice-chair, Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney, was in part because the actions of the former president – which a federal judge has said probably violated several criminal statutes – were particularly compelling, multiple sources said.But that fixation on Trump has exposed in recent weeks a deepening rift on the panel, with the since-departed lawyers on the other teams, including the “blue team” examining issues like intelligence failures by the FBI, angered that their findings were set to be relegated to appendices.The simmering discontent from some of the current and former staff has since reached the panel’s members, and an NBC News story earlier this month has since prompted discussions about changing some of the eight chapters in the final report, though they were already broadly complete.‘Trump should be held accountable’: Guardian readers on the Capitol attack hearingsRead moreThe members, one of the sources said, have discussed inserting some of the findings of the non-gold team investigators in the January 6 narrative. But the members have been reluctant to highlight conduct by Trump’s allies that might have been unsavory but probably not criminal.The final report is still scheduled to be released in the middle of December, and after the Senate runoff election in Georgia, where the Trump-backed candidate Herschel Walker trailed the Democratic incumbent Raphael Warnock in the general election in a disappointing midterms for the GOP.At the same time, the select committee is weighing what potential criminal and civil referrals to the justice department might involve; the panel was scheduled on Tuesday to receive a briefing from a special subcommittee led by congressman Jamie Raskin examining the matter.The subcommittee, which also involves Cheney, Adam Schiff and Zoe Lofgren – members with a legal background, or, in the case of Schiff, prosecutorial experience – has also been tasked with resolving other outstanding issues including how to respond to Trump’s lawsuit against his subpoena.A spokesman for the panel could not immediately be reached for comment.The question of whether and what referrals to make to the justice department has hovered over the investigation for months since the select committee’s lawyers came to believe that Trump was involved in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruct Congress over January 6.‘Devoid of shame’: January 6 cop Michael Fanone on Trump’s Republican partyRead moreThe select committee won a substantial victory in March when the US district court judge David Carter ruled that Trump “likely” committed multiple felonies in his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and stop the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s election win.But some members on the panel in recent months have questioned the need for referrals to the justice department, which has ramped up its investigation into the Capitol attack and issued subpoenas to Trump’s allies demanding appearances before at least two grand juries in Washington.The attorney general, Merrick Garland, last week appointed Jack Smith to serve as special counsel overseeing the probe into whether Trump mishandled national security materials and obstructed justice, as well as key elements of the criminal inquiry into the Capitol attack.And even before the appointment of Smith as special counsel, the department asked former vice-president Mike Pence whether he might voluntarily testify to a grand jury hearing evidence about efforts to stop the certification on January 6, the New York Times earlier reported.TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpJanuary 6 hearingsUS politicsLiz CheneynewsReuse this content More

Republicans used doomsday-style ads to prey on suburban voters’ fear of crime in New York, helping to flip enough seats to capture the House.GREAT NECK PLAZA, N.Y. — Lynn Frankel still has bouts of nostalgia for her old life, the one before the coronavirus pandemic brought New York City to a standstill and fears about crime began to bubble across this well-to-do suburb. There were dinners in the city with friends, Broadway shows, outings with her children — all an easy train ride away.But these days if she can help it, Ms. Frankel, 58, does not set foot in the city. She’s seen too many headlines about “a lot of crazy stuff”: flagrant shoplifting, seemingly random acts of violence and hate crimes, which triggered concern about the safety of her daughters, who are Asian American.Something else has changed, too. Ms. Frankel, a political independent who reviled Donald J. Trump, gladly voted Republican in this month’s midterm elections to endorse the party’s tough-on-crime platform, and punish the “seeming indifference” she ascribes to Democrats like Gov. Kathy Hochul.“If you don’t feel safe, than it doesn’t matter what all the other issues are,” she said the other day in Great Neck Plaza’s tidy commercial area.New York and its suburbs may remain among the safest large communities in the country. Yet amid a torrent of doomsday-style advertising and constant media headlines about rising crime and deteriorating public safety, suburban swing voters like Ms. Frankel helped drive a Republican rout that played a decisive role in tipping control of the House.The attempt to capitalize on upticks in crime may have fallen short for Republicans elsewhere across the nation. But from Long Island to the Lower Hudson Valley, Republicans running predominantly on crime swept five of six suburban congressional seats, including three that President Biden won handily that encompass some of the nation’s most affluent, well-educated commuter towns.Even in places like Westchester County, where Democrats outnumber Republicans, Mr. Zeldin and other Republican candidates found pockets of support.Brittainy Newman for The New York TimesThe numbers were stark. New York’s major suburban counties around the city — Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester and Rockland — all shifted between 14 and 20 points to the right, thanks to a surge in Republican turnout and crucial crossover votes from independents and Democrats. Even parts of the city followed the trend, though it remained overwhelmingly blue.Take the Third Congressional District, a predominately white and Asian American seat connecting northeast Queens with the North Shore of Long Island that flipped to a Republican, George Santos. Turnout data suggests that Republican enthusiasm almost completely erased Democrats’ large voter registration advantage and flipped some voters, helping Lee Zeldin, the Republican nominee for governor, turn a long-shot bid into the state’s closest race for governor in 30 years.Other factors accounted for Democrats’ suburban struggles here. Threats to abortion access drove some liberal voters to the polls, but many reliably Democratic Black, Latino and white voters stayed home. Swing voters blamed the party for painful increases in gas and grocery bills. Orthodox Jews furious over local education issues voted for Republicans at unusually high rates. Tactical decisions by Ms. Hochul appear to have hurt her party, too.The Aftermath of New York’s Midterms ElectionsWho’s at Fault?: As New York Democrats sought to spread blame for their dismal performance in the elections, a fair share was directed toward Mayor Eric Adams of New York City.Hochul’s New Challenges: Gov. Kathy Hochul managed to repel late momentum by Representative Lee Zeldin. Now she must govern over a fractured New York electorate.How Maloney Lost: Democrats won tough races across the country. But Sean Patrick Maloney, a party leader and a five-term congressman, lost his Hudson Valley seat. What happened?A Weak Link: If Democrats lose the House, they may have New York to blame. Republicans flipped four seats in the state, the most of any state in the country.But in interviews with strategists from both parties, candidates, and more than three dozen voters across Long Island and Westchester County, it appeared that New York was uniquely primed over the last two years for a suburban revolt over crime and quality of life.“Elections move dramatically when they become about a singular topic, and the election in New York was not about extremism on the left or right, about abortion or about Kathy Hochul,” said Isaac Goldberg, a Democratic political strategist on the losing side of several marquee races. “The election in New York was about crime.”Long Island and Rockland County in particular have large populations of active and retired law enforcement, and a history of sensitivity to crime and costs. Growing Asian American and Orthodox Jewish populations were especially motivated this year by a string of high-profile hate crimes.Many Orthodox Jews who voted for Republican candidates like Mr. Zeldin were especially motivated by a string of high-profile hate crimes.Andrew Seng for The New York TimesThen there is the coronavirus pandemic. Arguably no metropolitan area was hit harder than New York, where the economy and old patterns of life have also been slower to return. Remote work remains popular here, leaving Midtown office towers, commuter trains and subways below capacity — and many suburbanites increasingly reliant on media accounts saturated with images and videos of brutal acts of violence to shape their perceptions.Commuters recently boarding trains into Manhattan from Nassau and Westchester said they were uneasy navigating Pennsylvania Station, some of which has been under construction; unnerved by the apparent proliferation of homeless encampments and open drug usage in Midtown; and now looked over their shoulder on the subway for people who appear to be mentally disturbed.Several, including Ms. Frankel, said they frequently read The New York Post, which made Mr. Zeldin’s candidacy for governor and the repeal of the state’s 2019 bail law a crusade for more than a year, splashing violent crimes across its front page, however rare they may still be. Many asked not to be identified by their full names out of fear of backlash from friends, colleagues or even strangers who could identify them online.“I wouldn’t go into the city even if they paid me,” a retired dental hygienist said as she mailed a letter in Oyster Bay. A 41-year-old lawyer from Rockville Centre said she sometimes wondered if she would make it home at night alive. A financial adviser from North Salem in Westchester County said it felt like the worst days of the 1980s and 1990s had returned, despite the fact that crime rates remain a fraction of what they were then.“I have kids who live in Manhattan, and I am every day scared,” Lisa Greco, an empty nester who voted all Republican, said as she waited at a nail salon in Pleasantville, in Westchester.“I don’t want them taking the subways but of course they do,” she continued. “I actually track them because I have to know every day that they’re back home. Like, I don’t want to keep texting them like, ‘Are you at work? Are you here?’”Republicans, led by Mr. Zeldin, a Long Islander himself, relentlessly fanned those fears, blaming Democrats for the small rises in crime while accusing them of coddling criminals. A deluge of conservative advertising only amplified the approach, which blamed the new bail law and a Democratic Party that has complete control over both New York City and Albany.Crime statistics tell a more complicated story. Incidents of major crimes are higher in New York City and Nassau County than before the pandemic, though they remain well below levels seen in recent decades. In Westchester, Suffolk and Rockland counties, major crime has been flatter, though in the first six months of this year, property and violent crimes were up compared with the same period in 2021.Despite the Republican Party narrative, major crime has not increased in most suburban areas like Suffolk County, where Mr. Zeldin greeted voters from his district on Election Day. Johnny Milano for The New York TimesMs. Hochul had taken actions as governor to help combat crime and address the mental health crisis among the city’s homeless. And in the race’s final weeks, she pivoted to stress that she would do more. But voters and Democratic officials alike agreed the more nuanced approach was too little, too late.“She’s not wrong, but it came across to a lot of the people I spoke to on Long Island as dismissive and tone deaf,” said Laura Curran, the former Democratic Nassau County executive who was swept out of office last fall by similar currents. “I don’t think it can be overstated how visceral people on Long Island feel about it.”Ms. Hochul and other Democratic candidates spent more of the campaign focused on economic issues and protecting abortion rights. But unlike other states, some voters in New York said they were satisfied that abortion was already safely protected under state law.“The mayor of New York City got elected last year running on this issue. Nothing got better; it got worse,” said Mike Lawler, a Republican who unseated Representative Sean Patrick Maloney in a district that Mr. Biden won by 10 points in Westchester and Rockland Counties. “So I don’t know why any of them are so surprised that this was top of mind to voters.”Representative-elect Mike Lawler, left, was able to upset Sean Patrick Maloney, a powerful Democrat, in a district that President Biden won easily two years ago.Jeenah Moon for The New York TimesMany New York City residents are baffled by what they view as the irrational fear of those in communities that are objectively far safer. But so are some suburbanites.Back on the South Shore of Long Island, a woman waiting for the Long Island Railroad one morning last week said that since relocating from Brooklyn earlier this year, she had noticed a “hypersensitivity to strangeness” and “hysteria” around crime. It included fliers claiming only Republicans could keep the area safe and a drumbeat of messages in a neighborhood watch group about suspicious looking strangers wandering through well-appointed streets.“There’s a lot of community fear around this town and Nassau becoming more unsafe or changing,” said the woman, a Black lawyer in her mid-40s who only agreed to be identified by her initials K.V. “Maybe it has to do with a wave of people moving from urban communities since the pandemic.”Commuting into the city two to three times a week for work from Rockville Centre, she said she felt no less safe than before, recalling stories of people getting pushed onto subway tracks when she was a child. She voted for Democrats to ensure the protection of abortion access.Republican George Santos won an upset victory in New York’s 3rd Congressional District.Mary Altaffer/Associated PressOther voters who supported Democrats said they did have concerns about increases in crime, but could not justify backing any Republican associated with Mr. Trump and opposed to abortion rights.“Abortion was definitely the biggest reason I voted Democrat,” said Susie Park, 41, who recently moved to Nassau County from Manhattan. “I don’t feel like a party should ever tell you what you should or should not do.”At the ballot box, though, they were clearly outnumbered on Long Island this year by voters like Gregory Gatti, a 61-year-old insurance broker.A political independent, he said he and most of his friends had voted for Republicans “because they want something done” about crime, inflation and illegal immigration.As he read a fresh New York Post — its front-page headline, “Children of War,” once again devoted to New York City crime — Mr. Gatti said changes to the state’s bail law were “definitely” driving increases in crime, and he was now worried about possible upticks in the suburbs. But he had noted other reasons for concern, as well, as he commutes a couple of days each week through Penn Station to Lower Manhattan.“I have noticed more homeless encampments. We never used to have those,” he said. “You have encampments, then you have drugs, you have crime.”Timmy Facciola contributed reporting from Pleasantville, N.Y. More

A year and a half ago, I made a difficult decision: to break from my political base and form a government with people I couldn’t have imagined working with in my wildest dreams.Israel was at one of its lowest moments, polarized and paralyzed: four rounds of elections in two years, massive riots in Arab and mixed towns, and killings of Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs, plus hundreds injured. The Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas had just shot rockets into Jerusalem after the annual Flag Parade in the Old City.We had near-record unemployment and an unprecedented deficit. We hadn’t passed a budget for three years. Benjamin Netanyahu had failed to form a government, and we were just days away from another round of elections and full-blown chaos.I vividly recall the moment, a Sabbath morning, when I made the decision. I asked my four children to join my wife, Gilat, and me in the kitchen. I told my family, “Your abba is about to attempt something, and I don’t even know if I’ll succeed. A lot of people — including friends — will say a lot of bad stuff about your abba. So I want you to know that I’m doing it for Israel’s sake.”An unrelenting propaganda campaign run by the opposition over social and traditional media tried to break me and my party, Yamina. The pressure worked. Just days before the critical vote, a member of my party bolted. As a result, we were down to the bare minimum necessary to form a new government.On June 13, 2021, the Knesset voted to establish the new government with a majority of 60 votes, with 59 opposing votes and one abstention. At that moment, I became the prime minister of the most diverse government in Israel’s history. Right and left, religious and secular, Jews and Arabs, all working together.We passed a reform-packed budget, brought hundreds of thousands of Israelis back to work and reduced the ballooning deficit to nearly zero. We delivered the quietest year in decades to rocket-battered southern communities close to the Gaza Strip. We blocked a dangerous nuclear agreement with Iran that would have, according to our calculations, poured over $200 billion into the terrorist regime’s coffers while barely restraining its nuclear enrichment abilities. We achieved this while maintaining strong bipartisan support in the United States. And we became the first nation to distribute the third Covid booster shot, paving the way for the rest of the world.How did we do it?I established the 70/70 rule.About 70 percent of Israelis agree on 70 percent of the issues. We all agree that we need better trains and roads, better education, more security and a lower cost of living. However, we disagree on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, religion and state and the desired nature of our legal system.So my government focused on getting the 70 percent done, as opposed to endlessly wrangling over the issues we didn’t agree on. We all agreed that this government will neither insist on Israeli sovereignty for territories nor hand them over to Palestinians. Similarly, we decided we would not legislate on any disputed religious or legal matters.When you neutralize the most politically sensitive issues, ministers from left and right saw each other as decent people working for the good of Israel and not as the demons we had been calling each other.We called ourselves a good-will government. We proved to ourselves and to those outside our coalition that people with radically different political opinions can work incredibly well together. The world is more polarized than ever. The model we presented was one of cooperation and unity. Of transcending your tribe for the good of your nation.Take Mansour Abbas, the leader of the Arab Raam party. The first time I met him was during the weeks before we formed the government.Mr. Netanyahu had been secretly meeting Mr. Abbas in his attempts to form a coalition. Before I met Mr. Abbas, I had a negative opinion of him. I thought he supported terrorism. I heard from many that this wasn’t true. They told me he was genuinely trying to create a pragmatic model for Israeli Arabs.I called him and invited him to a meeting.“Which secret apartment should we meet at?” Mr. Abbas asked me. He was used to huddling with people in secret, as they didn’t want their discussions to be discovered.“We’re going to meet openly at my Knesset office,” I replied. “You are not second-class. I am not ashamed to meet you.”I discovered a brave leader just about my age who turned out to be something of a mensch. We are both men of faith and quickly agreed that whatever theological disagreements may exist between Judaism and Islam, we will let God handle those. We will work together here and now to provide better education, better jobs and safer streets for Israelis and Arabs.After a year of progress, my government collapsed amid nonstop pressure from public protests and on social networks. Arab parliamentarians who joined my coalition in order to improve the socioeconomic future of Israeli Arabs were called traitors in their hometowns, as were members of Yamina in their communities.Organized groups set up tents just meters from the homes of these members of Knesset, relentlessly harassing their families for months, calling them terrorist lovers. One of my party members reported that her husband’s job was at risk and her children were being threatened at school.At the same time, Israel incurred a series of Palestinian terrorist attacks in Tel Aviv and other major cities, taking the lives of about 20 people. The opposition claimed that this was a result of the government’s hands being tied by the Raam Arab party. This is false, given that we’ve seen terrorist attacks in the land for over 100 years and my government was actually tougher than usual on the terrorists.As a consequence, the Raam Arab party suspended its membership in the government. An Arab member of the Knesset from the Meretz party temporarily quit as well. A few members of my party, too, stopped supporting the coalition.My government did a poor job fending off the enormous amount of misinformation that was being spread across Israel and blind sectarianism. This campaign succeeded and brought my government to its end.A new government is now being formed in Israel, and I hope its leaders understand that the single biggest challenge for Israel is keeping all parts of Israeli society together.The State of Israel is the third instance of a Jewish political entity in the Holy Land. During the time of the First and Second Temples, we managed to keep our nation together for only about 80 years, after which internal divisions tore us apart and we ultimately lost our independence. Israel is now in its 75th year. This is our third chance, and we’re determined that this time, we succeed.Though my government operated for only a year, I believe we imprinted a unique image and model of how a highly polarized society can cooperate.That beautiful image, once engraved in hearts and minds, cannot be easily erased.Naftali Bennett was the 13th prime minister of Israel.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

Now that the dust has (nearly) settled on the 2022 midterm elections and Republicans are preparing to take control of the House while Democrats will hold onto the Senate, I wanted to check in with some family policy advocates to see what a split Congress might mean for investments in caregiving.To recap: The initial formulation of the Biden administration’s Build Back Better plan offered the prospect of “the most transformative investment in children and caregiving in generations,” including large investments in child care, elder care and expanded child tax credits. Permanently funded federal paid family leave was also on the table.None of that happened in the current Congress, with Democrats narrowly holding both houses, despite the fact that child care and leave are extremely popular. According to a new national online survey of over 1,000 voters from the First Five Years Fund: “65 percent of voters say they are disappointed (45 percent) or even angry (20 percent) that Congress failed to act” on child care this year. “Suburban women are even more dismayed — 71 percent describe themselves as angry or disappointed.”Further, 81 percent of respondents say that their member of Congress should work with the Biden administration to expand affordable child care options; 65 percent of Republicans agree. According to a Morning Consult-Politico poll from about a year ago, paid family and medical leave is even more popular; only 5 percent of registered voters said it should not be available.When I asked some of my readers in the sandwich generation about what would make their lives easier, many of them echoed the sentiments of Liza Clay Yu, who has two kids under 4 and is also caring for several older family members: “I think the most helpful thing we could hope for would be affordable, reliable, high-quality child care.”So do we have any hope that these very necessary care infrastructure policies will move forward now?Let’s remember that we still have a brief period before the 118th Congress takes over in January. Sarah Rittling, the executive director of the First Five Years Fund, said “a lot gets done potentially at the last minute,” and while she doesn’t expect any child care plans as generous as those in the original B.B.B. framework, something could be squeezed in before the end of 2022.There’s also the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (P.W.F.A.), which would require employers to make reasonable accommodations for pregnant and postpartum and nursing workers, which already passed the House with bipartisan support. Reasonable accommodations could include a designated space for pumping breast milk, a chair to sit in for a supermarket cashier or temporary relief from certain workplace duties if they are dangerous, said Dina Bakst, the co-founder and co-president of the advocacy group A Better Balance.The bill’s proponents believe it could pass the Senate, it just needs to be put to a vote. “Leader Schumer should bring P.W.F.A. up immediately,” Bakst said. “Working women have been the backbone of our economy, and we need our leaders to stand up and give pregnant and postpartum workers the respect they deserve.” Bakst is not optimistic that P.W.F.A. would pass the House again under its new Republican leadership. “We’re literally at the end,” she said.Bakst is probably right. Christine Matthews, a pollster who’s worked with Republican clients in the past, pointed me to the Congressional Republican Study Committee Family Policy Agenda, and said “that is broadcasting what they are focused on in terms of family and children policies.” She was not surprised to see that the document listed, as its No. 1 agenda item, the statement: “We support the protection of children from far-left ideologies inside and outside the classroom.”There is child care legislation on that agenda, but it mostly concerns deregulating the industry so that it might become less expensive rather than using federal money to raise pay for care workers. That doesn’t appear to fix one of the most critical child care problems we currently have, which stems from a worker shortage owing to low pay in the industry.Similarly, the current Republican Study Committee agenda doesn’t propose a traditional paid family leave plan like those in many of our peer nations. Rather, it offers suggestions about how workers could transfer overtime pay into more paid days off and allowing states to extend Medicaid coverage for postpartum women to last more than 60 days.Even though things don’t look particularly rosy for family policy at the federal level, there are small wins happening at the state level. Vicki Shabo, a senior fellow for paid leave policy and strategy at New America, a left-leaning think tank, said, of paid family leave, “on balance, I’m excited about the possibility of state progress in places like Maine, where there’s a legislative effort and a potential ballot for 2023.” She also mentioned movement toward paid leave happening in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and New Mexico.Jocelyn Frye, the president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, who calls herself an “eternal optimist” about policy at the federal level, said she believes the conversation has moved forward in recent years. “The path is complicated, but the urgency is real” and “the support for the policies is real.” Going forward, she added, “the conversation will be less about whether there’s a value in paid leave, and increasingly a conversation about what paid leave should look like.”After a few of these conversations, I had a measure of guarded optimism about the prospects for some of these policies. I think the pandemic changed the national calculus around the issue of care. I believe more people of all political stripes are beginning to realize that many Americans need robust governmental support to continue working while raising our families.Shabo co-wrote a report for New America that found rural Americans — who do not tend to vote for Democrats — are in particular need of paid leave, because they tend to live much farther from care options. “Without access to paid sick time and paid leave for serious family and medical needs, workers are often forced to manage taking care of themselves or loved ones without pay while struggling to make ends meet, potentially jeopardizing their health, job or economic security,” the report notes. Matthews said that in focus groups she conducted among Americans from rural areas, “men were just as interested in paid family leave as the women, because they had much more rigid jobs,” and they could get fired for taking time off to care for a sick relative or wife who was having health issues postpartum.These aren’t women’s issues. They aren’t urban issues and they aren’t mom issues. They are everybody issues. The incoming Congress should remember that.Want More?In October, The Times’s Dana Goldstein reported, “Why You Can’t Find Child Care: 100,000 Workers Are Missing.” The question: “Where did they go?” The answer: “To better-paying jobs stocking shelves, cleaning offices or doing anything that pays more than $15 an hour.” In the clichéd parlance of the internet: The math is not mathing.Another congressional battle is shaping up over expanded child tax credits, which lapsed at the end of 2021, reports The Times’s Jason DeParle: “Some Democrats hope to revive payments to small groups of parents as part of a year-end tax deal, and despite Republicans taking control of the House in January, restoring the full program remains a long-term Democratic goal.”Some anti-abortion advocates are now arguing for more generous family policies. “Fighting state-level battles at the ballot box requires a greater willingness to find compromise and credible commitment to supporting women and children, rather than the legal strategy that, by necessity, took center stage from 1973 until this year,” wrote Patrick T. Brown in America magazine. He made a similar argument in a guest essay for Opinion in May.American rail workers may go on strike over the issue of paid sick leave. According to reporting in October by The Times’s Peter S. Goodman:“More than anything, workers expressed outrage over their lack of paid sick leave. Most spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing the risk of being disciplined or fired.”“‘You had guys that just didn’t want to share that they had Covid because they couldn’t afford to take off,’ said a former member of a traveling maintenance gang for a major railroad based in Alabama. ‘I believe it added to the spread on the road.’”Tiny VictoriesParenting can be a grind. Let’s celebrate the tiny victories.I designated an old pair of sweatpants as my mealtime pants. Since I frequently have a child sitting in my lap at a meal, I don’t care when those pants get covered in food.— Lisa Leininger, Ann Arbor, Mich.If you want a chance to get your Tiny Victory published, find us on Instagram @NYTparenting and use the hashtag #tinyvictories, email us or enter your Tiny Victory at the bottom of this page. Include your full name and location. Tiny Victories may be edited for clarity and style. Your name, location and comments may be published, but your contact information will not. By submitting to us, you agree that you have read, understand and accept the Reader Submission Terms in relation to all of the content and other information you send to us. More

.g-seriestitle-wrapper {
width: 600px;
margin: 0px auto;
max-width: 100%;
font-family: nyt-imperial;
font-size: 16px;
color: #696969;
font-weight: 100;
font-style: italic;
line-height: 23px;
border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc;
padding-bottom: 15px;
}

section#violentextremism-seriestext {
margin: 0px auto 15px;
}

.g-seriestitle-wrapper a:link, .g-seriestitle-wrapper a:visited {
color: inherit;
text-decoration: underline;
text-decoration-thickness: 1px;
text-underline-offset: 2px;
text-decoration-color: #bbb;
}

This editorial is the fourth in a series, The Danger Within, urging readers to understand the danger of extremist violence — and offering possible solutions. Read more about the series in a note from Kathleen Kingsbury, the Times Opinion editor.

On Oct. 12, 2018, a crowd of Proud Boys arrived at the Metropolitan Republican Club in Manhattan. They had come to the Upper East Side club from around the country for a speech by the group’s founder, Gavin McInnes. It was a high point for the Proud Boys — which until that point had been known best as an all-male right-wing street-fighting group — in their embrace by mainstream politics.The Metropolitan Republican Club is an emblem of the Republican establishment. It was founded in 1902 by supporters of Theodore Roosevelt, and it’s where New York City Republicans such as Fiorello La Guardia and Rudy Giuliani announced their campaigns. But the presidency of Donald Trump whipped a faction of the Metropolitan Republican Club into “an ecstatic frenzy,” said John William Schiffbauer, a Republican consultant who used to work for the state G.O.P. on the second floor of the club.The McInnes invitation was controversial, even before a group of Proud Boys left the building and violently confronted protesters who had gathered outside. Two of the Proud Boys were later convicted of attempted assault and riot and given four years in prison. The judge who sentenced them explained the relatively long prison term: “I know enough about history to know what happened in Europe in the ’30s when political street brawls were allowed to go ahead without any type of check from the criminal justice system,” he said. Seven others pleaded guilty in the episode.And yet Republicans at the New York club have not distanced themselves from the Proud Boys. Soon after the incident, a candidate named Ian Reilly, who, former club members say, had a lead role in planning the speech, won the next club presidency. He did so in part by recruiting followers of far-right figures, such as Milo Yiannopoulos, to pack the club’s ranks at the last minute. A similar group of men repeated the strategy at the New York Young Republicans Club, filling it with far-right members, too.Many moderate Republicans have quit the clubs in disgust. Looking back, Mr. Schiffbauer said, Oct. 12, 2018, was a “proto” Jan. 6.In conflicts like this one —  not all of them played out so publicly — there is a fight underway for the soul of the Republican Party. On one side are Mr. Trump and his followers, including extremist groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. On the other side stand those in the party who remain committed to the principle that politics, even the most contentious politics, must operate within the constraints of peaceful democracy. It is vital that this pro-democracy faction win out over the extremists and push the fringes back to the fringes.It has happened before. The Republican Party successfully drove the paranoid extremists of the John Birch Society out of public life in the 1960s. Party leaders could do so again for the current crop of conspiracy peddlers. Voters may do it for them, as they did in so many races in this year’s midterm elections. But this internal Republican Party struggle is important for reasons far greater than the tally in a win/loss column. A healthy democracy requires both political parties to be fully committed to the rule of law and not to entertain or even tacitly encourage violence or violent speech. A large faction of one party in our country fails that test, and that has consequences for all of us.Extremist violence is the country’s top domestic terrorist threat, according to a three-year investigation by the Democratic staff members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which reported its findings last week. “Over the past two decades, acts of domestic terrorism have dramatically increased,” the committee said in its report. “National security agencies now identify domestic terrorism as the most persistent and lethal terrorist threat to the homeland. This increase in domestic terror attacks has been predominantly perpetrated by white supremacist and anti-government extremist individuals and groups.” While there have been recent episodes of violent left-wing extremism, for the past few years, political violence has come primarily from the right.This year has been marked by several high-profile acts of political violence: an attempted break-in at an F.B.I. office in Ohio; the attack on Paul Pelosi, the husband of the speaker of the House; the mass shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo by a white supremacist; an armed threat against Justice Brett Kavanaugh; a foiled plan to attack a synagogue in New York. More

This Thanksgiving, for the first time in years, my brother Kevin and I could both say we’ve had enough of Donald Trump. But that’s not to say he and I agree on much else. Once again, here’s Kevin with his annual view from the starboard side of the Dowd family:The midterms are over, and the results are disappointing. A red wave did not materialize, and the Democrats and President Biden were not made to pay for their actions of the past 22 months.These include the Afghanistan debacle; cashless bail, which favors criminals over victims; 40-year-high inflation; a two-year invasion at our southern border; record gas prices; a dangerous drawdown of the strategic petroleum reserve; the further decline of our education system; the weakening of our military; and the total embrace of wokeness to divide the country. All of that, with the president’s approval rating deep underwater and 81 percent of Americans believing that the country is headed in the wrong direction, should have produced the anticipated Republican surge. But the president emerged from the elections thinking that Democrats’ relatively good fortune was due to his policies, not in spite of them.Republicans must take a large share of the blame. Their messaging was late or nonexistent, letting Democrats persuade swing voters to believe the only issues that mattered were Trump, abortion and the supposed threat to our democracy.Candidates must fit their district. Don’t pick a conservative for a moderate district. Intrusions by Rick Scott and Lindsey Graham on hot-button issues hurt. The Republicans must persuade supporters to vote early, not wait for Election Day. Democrats often amass large leads from early voting, forcing Republicans to come from behind.Donald Trump is radioactive. His insistence on picking candidates based on their loyalty to him cost Republicans control of the Senate in consecutive elections, and his attacks on other Republicans are despicable. Historians will judge his presidency in more generous terms than the media does now, and we will be forever in his debt for saving the country and the Supreme Court from Hillary Clinton, but his effectiveness has passed.His announcement that he will run again was greeted with resounding silence from Republicans the next day. Rupert Murdoch stripped Trump of the formidable Fox defenses. Trump’s isolation was made plain at his announcement party, where the only member of Congress in sight was Madison Cawthorn, who lost his own primary.A third Trump run will simply settle old scores with political enemies and the press and ignore the repair work that the G.O.P. needs to be done.The Democrats’ better-than-expected results emboldened Mr. Biden, to the nation’s detriment. He will likely run again (he’d be 82 at his second inauguration) and said after the midterms that he intends to change “nothing.” “The more they know about what we’re doing, the more support there is,” he said, as if his policies were a luscious bœuf bourguignon simmering over the heat of roiling inflation.There are some bright spots. Republicans have won the House and ended the torturous reign of Nancy Pelosi. With that victory come the purse strings, which should put Democratic profligacy on the skids.Republicans’ first order of business should be impeaching the odious Alejandro Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary, who has presided over the disgraceful situation at the border, wearing incompetence like a badge of honor. In just the last fiscal year under his watch, over 2.4 million migrants have been encountered at the border, over 500,000 have evaded capture, and over 850 deaths have occurred.Republican hopes for 2024 must rest with their new superstar, Ron DeSantis, who won almost 60 percent of the vote in his race to be re-elected governor of Florida, paving the way for four new G.O.P. House members. His handling of Hurricane Ian was only his latest feat, building on his popular defense of parental rights in education, his support of the police and his fight against wokeism.The pandemic lockdowns, spurred by teachers’ unions, resulted in a disastrous drop in the nation’s test scores and pulled back the curtain to what children were being taught. I do not want my elementary school grandchildren hearing about sexuality from a stranger or being labeled an “oppressor.” Stick to math and reading; there is enormous room for improvement.Republicans must now wait two more years for redemption. The Senate field in 2024 has Democrats defending 23 seats. With two more years of Biden’s mistaken policies, rising crime in our major cities, bone-crushing inflation and an impending recession, Republicans should have another golden opportunity. Carpe diem.Here’s hoping for the new year,Kevin.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

Negotiations between the Venezuelan government and opposition could lead to an easing of the country’s protracted crisis.BOGOTÁ, Colombia — A rare meeting between leaders of Venezuela’s bitterly divided government and opposition is expected to result in two major agreements meant to ease the country’s complex political and humanitarian crisis.The meeting partly reflects the economic ripple effects of Russia’s Ukraine invasion, which has reduced global oil supplies and pushed the United States to reconsider its restrictions on energy companies operating in Venezuela.If all goes as planned, the talks, scheduled for Saturday, will lead to an agreement to transfer up to $3 billion in Venezuelan government funds frozen overseas into a humanitarian program administered by the United Nations — a concession by President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, who has long denied the scope of the suffering that has unfolded under his tenure. At the same time, the United States is expected to approve a license request by Chevron Corp. to expand operations in Venezuela, according to three people familiar with the deal. The agreement could represent an important step toward allowing Venezuela to re-enter the international oil market, something Mr. Maduro desperately needs to improve the economy.U.S. State Department officials have publicly applauded the return to negotiations between the two parties, after an earlier effort was cut off by the Maduro government last year. But a Biden administration official familiar with the talks said that any action related to Chevron in Venezuela “is contingent on if the parties actually announce specific commitments to support the people of Venezuela.”The official requested anonymity to be able to speak freely about the matter.For years, Chevron and other oil companies have been prevented from large-scale operations in Venezuela by U.S. sanctions designed to starve Mr. Maduro’s government.President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela speaking in Caracas earlier this month.Federico Parra/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesFollowing the expected accord, other companies are likely to press the United States to further lift Venezuela-related restrictions, including sanctions that ban entities in India and elsewhere from importing Venezuelan oil, said Francisco Monaldi, director of Rice University’s Latin America Energy Program.The United States is likely to tie such actions to further concessions by Mr. Maduro. But if it does lift the sanctions, that would be an economic “game changer” for Venezuela’s authoritarian leader, Mr. Monaldi added.“My concern,” he said of the expected Chevron license, “is that the U.S. seems to be giving a lot for very little.”A Chevron spokesman would not comment on the expected agreement.The meeting between the Venezuelan government and opposition leaders, held in Mexico, is the outcome of more than a year of conversations between the two sides about how to address the country’s economic, political and humanitarian crisis, which dates to at least 2014.But the talks also are part of a larger softening of U.S. policy toward Venezuela, which many analysts say is related to a growing global need for non-Russian oil sources. Venezuela is believed to hold the largest oil reserves of any country.The United States is a supporter of the Venezuela dialogue, not a participant.The Biden administration official said that any action related to Chevron in Venezuela was not a response to energy prices. “This is about the regime taking the steps needed to support the restoration of democracy in Venezuela,” the person said.Any new license would be time-limited and would prevent Venezuela from receiving profits from the oil sales by Chevron, the official added, explaining that the Biden administration “would retain the authority to amend or revoke authorizations should the Maduro regime fail to negotiate in good faith.”For years, the Trump administration tried to weaken Mr. Maduro through sanctions and isolation, recognizing the opposition leader Juan Guaidó as president and pulling Washington’s top diplomats out of Caracas.The Biden administration has opted for more engagement.In June, the American ambassador to Venezuela, James Story, who is now based in neighboring Colombia, flew to Caracas to meet with government and opposition leaders. In October, the United States granted clemency to two nephews of Mr. Maduro’s wife in exchange for seven Americans held captive in Venezuela. The nephews had been sentenced to 18 years in prison for conspiring to smuggle cocaine.The Venezuelan opposition leader, Juan Guaidó, speaking in Caracas on Monday.Miguel Gutierrez/EPA, via ShutterstockIt would take years for Venezuela’s neglected oil infrastructure to have an impact on the global market. But with no sign that tensions between Russia and the West could ease soon, some leaders believe the wait could be worth it.“I think energy was one of the things that made it possible, perhaps politically, for Biden to take the rather bold step of communicating directly” with Mr. Maduro’s government, said Phil Gunson, an analyst with the International Crisis Group who has lived in Venezuela for more than two decades.But he cautioned that the American softening on Venezuela predated the war in Ukraine.“Energy is a factor” in the strategy shift, he said, but “it’s not the only factor.”Venezuela was once among the most affluent countries in Latin America, its economy buoyed by oil. But mismanagement and corruption by leaders claiming socialist ideals plunged the economy into disarray, while Mr. Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chávez, gutted its democratic institutions.The situation has prompted the largest cross-border migration crisis in the Western Hemisphere, with more than 7 million Venezuelans — a quarter of the population — fleeing, according to the United Nations. Recently, a record number of Venezuelans have arrived at the U.S. border, most of them trekking through a harrowing jungle called the Darién Gap to get there.The talks in Mexico are supposed to be part of a series of meetings between the Venezuelan government and opposition. Much of the opposition hopes that political concessions will be next on the agenda.Mr. Maduro is focused on getting American sanctions lifted, which would help him improve the economy — and perhaps win a presidential election already slated for 2024.The Venezuelan opposition has long said its goal is to push Mr. Maduro to set free and fair conditions that would give them the opportunity to oust in him in that election.Mr. Guaidó recently called that vote “the door to democracy, freedom and the reunion of the family.”Lining up to vote during regional elections in Caracas last November.Adriana Loureiro Fernandez for The New York TimesIn the past, Mr. Maduro has controlled the vote by banning many opposition figures from political participation, jailing others and co-opting many political parties. He holds elections to project a veneer of legitimacy.Speaking on state television about the Mexico talks this week, Mr. Maduro said he wanted to make it clear: “Nobody is going to impose anything on us, not today, not tomorrow, not ever.”The United States still recognizes Mr. Guaidó as the country’s president, though his global influence has fallen significantly after a bid to support him failed to oust Mr. Maduro.Mr. Monaldi, the energy expert, said the Chevron deal was not merely symbolic — within two years, the company could be pumping more than 200,000 barrels a day in Venezuela, adding to the approximately 765,000 barrels pumped daily today, according to Argus, an industry monitor.For the United States and for the opposition, the talks are a gamble.On the one hand, simply getting Mr. Maduro to negotiate is a victory, and the $3 billion humanitarian deal could be a major step toward alleviating suffering.On the other hand, said Mr. Gunson, the aid and the Chevron deal could improve economic conditions, lifting Mr. Maduro’s popularity.Still, he hasn’t given an inch on the political front.“That’s why there’s so much nail biting for the people in the administration who are pushing this policy,” said Mr. Gunson. “Because if Maduro essentially says, ‘Thank you very much,’ and doesn’t offer any concessions, then they’re going to look pretty foolish.”Isayen Herrera contributed reporting from Caracas, Venezuela, and Clifford Krauss from Houston. More