Elections

I believe America needs high-quality education that’s available to all children as an engine of economic mobility and as a building block for preparing the next generation of engaged citizens. I also know that in general, public school parents — like me — are satisfied with their children’s education, even if they aren’t exceedingly confident in the system. As I wrote in March: “It’s a bit like the adage about Congress: People tend to like their own representatives (that’s why they keep sending them back year after year) but tend to have a dim view of Congress overall.”That said, I’m concerned about what seems to be a creeping loss of faith in public schools. As Anya Kamenetz put it recently, “Extended school closures during the coronavirus pandemic effectively broke the social compact of universal, compulsory schooling.” For some, that contract has not been repaired, and they still fear that public schools can’t meet an acceptable standard — not just for their children but for everyone.And I’m worried that some proponents of public schooling, and some politicians, have given short shrift to this breakdown. At times, they’ve seemed to wave away parental fears about kids falling behind by characterizing the concept of learning loss as a “hoax” or suggesting that parents shouldn’t have a say in what schools teach. But if, for example, your third grader is now struggling to read because remote first grade was a disaster, that’s very real and could have long-term ramifications.As the midterms rapidly approach, and both houses of Congress have the potential to flip to Republican control, I wonder if Democrats have paid enough attention to disenchanted parents. In July, The 74, a news site that covers education issues, ran a story with the headline: “Rash of New Polls Raises Red Flags for Democrats on Education.” The gist of it is that voters used to trust Democrats more than they trusted Republicans on education, and that trust has eroded significantly over the past few years. Perhaps that’s not fair, but voters get to have the final say.Other polls show that education is a more salient issue than it was before the pandemic. In an overview of issues from the 2018 midterms, Pew Research didn’t include education when surveying voters about what they considered “very big” problems; the closest one mentioned was “affordability of a college education.” In Pew’s 2022 midterm overview, however, education ranked sixth, with 58 percent of registered voters saying it’s a matter that’s “very important” to them. This election year, according to Pew, voters care more about education than abortion, immigration and climate change. (Notably, this poll was conducted during the first two weeks of August, after Roe v. Wade was overturned.)All of this dovetails with what the longtime pollster and communications analyst Frank Luntz, known for his work with Republican candidates and campaigns, has been hearing in focus groups over the past couple of years: Many children are still reeling from the challenges of the pandemic, and not all parents have faith that the public school system can help their kids recover. “I’ve done work with so many education reform efforts, and parents just felt forgotten,” he said.Luntz added that some parents say: “It’s my number one issue, my major source of frustration. I’m furious at the Democrats for turning it into an ideological issue and at the Republicans for dropping it, and for turning to other things.” Even if they don’t change their votes, they are moving with their feet: A recent survey cited by The 74 found: “Between spring 2021 and spring 2022, there was a 9 percent drop in families saying their children are enrolled in traditional public schools.”While most children are still educated in the traditional public school system and many parents either can’t afford to pull their kids or have limited options if they do so, I wanted to hear directly from parents about why their children had left traditional public schools for charters, private schools and home schooling in the past few years. I put a call out for these families in one of my newsletters earlier this month and so far 143 readers have responded. Obviously, this wasn’t a scientific poll — there are about 90,000 traditional public schools in the United States. But I read every email and I had follow-up phone conversations with 17 parents.Among the parents who emailed, there was a good deal of racial, religious and geographic diversity. There was less diversity, however, when it came to socioeconomic status and levels of formal education.Nearly every parent I spoke to acknowledged, unprompted, how privileged they were to be able to move their children to a new situation, and lamented that this wasn’t an option for all families. Most described themselves as Democrats, supportive of public schools in general and supportive of teachers in particular. Some described their own experiences as students, and how attending quality public schools had changed their lives for the better.Their reasons for taking their kids out of public schools varied, but I noticed some recurring themes:Parents feel alienated by school board politicization. Parents expressed upset about the heated rhetoric they observed over masking, debates about the perceived influence of critical race theory (C.R.T.) and other hot-button topics, and about school systems they felt no longer shared their values. For instance, some parents, typically in more liberal areas, said they felt their districts were prioritizing things like social and emotional learning over the basics of reading, writing and math. Others, who tended to live in more conservative parts of the country, were offended by book banning and anti-C.R.T. frenzy.Rose Berg, who lives in Bee Cave, Texas, moved her two children to private school for this year. She had moved to an Austin suburb because its public schools were said to be excellent, but after conservative PAC-backed candidates were elected to the school board and “the threat of book banning loomed,” she had no doubt that switching to private school was the right decision. She also said gun violence was a major concern, and her move away from public school was “a direct reaction to Uvalde.”Parents whose children have learning differences feel abandoned. Getting your children’s needs met when they don’t fit the public school mold has always been hard, and the pandemic made it harder. Several parents I spoke to have moved their kids into specialized schools because they felt their children weren’t getting what they needed in public schools, despite the fact that they are legally entitled to appropriate support through the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, which in the 2020-21 academic year covered 15 percent of all public school students, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.Some of these parents were happier now that their children were in specialized schools. Others expressed that even though their kids were doing well at new schools, cordoning off children with learning differences from everybody else is bad for society as a whole.Jenna Gibilaro’s family moved from Brooklyn to Orlando, Fla., to find schooling that she felt met the needs of her older son, who has autism. She told me over the phone that from her perspective, district officials “set up roadblocks” to getting appropriate services. This has the effect of discouraging families of children with learning differences from staying in the system. “That’s the sense I got,” she said.Parents who are essential workers had to choose between their jobs and public schools. Elizabeth Bell, a nurse who lives in Tulsa and was the director of operations at a hospital group during the pandemic, moved her daughter to private school because neither she nor her husband could work from home for a prolonged period of time to support their child’s remote schooling. Unlike local public schools in her area, she said, private schools were back open with Covid risk mitigation strategies in place. Part of what’s keeping her kid in private school is that public school aftercare options aren’t as available as they were before the pandemic, and their jobs don’t end at 2:30.Private school tuition is a strain on her family and they’ve had to reorganize their finances. She says she still believes in public schools, but worries their mission has been compromised.Of those who identified as Democrats, a handful said they wouldn’t vote for progressive candidates, were less inclined this year to vote at all or would even consider voting for Republicans on the local level who were committed to strengthening schools. There’s still time for politicians up and down the ballot to highlight their plans for and commitment to improving public education, and to make sure parents know their concerns are being heard.But we’re only weeks from Election Day.While I think the leaching of trust in public education may not be so dire that it determines something like control of Congress, Luntz isn’t so sure. “It’s not slow. It’s fast,” he said. “That is the difference between you writing the story three years ago and you writing the story today. They were losing faith in 2020, 2019; they lost faith in 2022. That is a very important distinction.”Want More?This month, Opinion talked to 12 teachers about their experiences over the past few years. One teacher said she resented politicians who’ve never been teachers driving educational policy, “Because we know what happens in our classroom on a day-to-day basis, and others don’t.”The Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat discusses “Who’s doing the ‘quiet leaving’ from the Seattle public schools.”In The New York Times Magazine, Charley Locke investigates what school districts are doing (or not doing) with their pandemic money in “American Schools Got a $190 Billion Covid Windfall. Where Is It Going?”Tiny VictoriesParenting can be a grind. Let’s celebrate the tiny victories.My 2-year-old son temporarily forgot the word “yes.” It was “NO” to everything. So we told him when kids said “YES,” great things happened: A special parade came out and music started playing and everybody cheered. Well, wouldn’t you know it … a few days later an unannounced real parade actually went down our street, with marching bands and everything. My son was so proud. He thought he’d brought the “Yes Parade” on himself!— Beth Gazley, Bloomington, Ind.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

Sin el poder de la presidencia, el exmandatario enfrenta a una multitud de fiscales y abogados que lo investigan a él y a sus asociados.WASHINGTON — La oficina que el expresidente Donald Trump instaló en el segundo piso de su propiedad de Mar-a-Lago, en Florida, en parte es una réplica del Despacho Oval y también es un homenaje a su paso por la verdadera Casa Blanca.Durante una visita el año pasado, sobre la pared se veían seis de sus fotografías favoritas, incluidas aquellas donde aparece con la reina Isabel II y Kim Jong-un. También se podían ver algunas monedas de membresía, una placa conmemorativa de su muro fronterizo y un retrato del expresidente hecho con casquillos de bala, regalo de Jair Bolsonaro, a quien llaman el Trump de Brasil.Esa oficina se ha convertido en la fortaleza de Trump en el exilio y en su sala de guerra, el cuartel general del extenso conflicto con las investigaciones que ha llegado a consumir la etapa posterior a su presidencia. Se trata de una guerra en varios frentes, con campos de batalla en Nueva York, Georgia y la capital del país, con una lista cambiante de abogados y una ventisca de acusaciones de irregularidades que son difíciles de seguir.Nunca antes un expresidente se había enfrentado a un conjunto de investigaciones federales, estatales y del Congreso tan amplio como el de Trump, quizá son las consecuencias de una carrera empresarial y, al final, política que ha vivido al límite o tal vez por encima de cualquier límite. Ya sea en relación con sus prácticas empresariales engañosas, sus esfuerzos por anular unas elecciones democráticas o su negativa a entregar documentos gubernamentales confidenciales que no le pertenecían, los diversos problemas jurídicos de Trump se derivan de la misma sensación de que las normas que los demás deben cumplir no aplican para él.El relato de cómo llegó a este punto es único en la historia y bastante predecible. Desde hace medio siglo, Trump ha evadido investigaciones y problemas legales, desde que el Departamento de Justicia demandó a su empresa familiar por discriminación racial y a través de las innumerables investigaciones que le siguieron a lo largo de los años. Cuenta con un notable historial de esquivar los peores resultados, pero es posible que ahora esté enfrentando tantas investigaciones que la salida sea incierta.Su visión del sistema legal siempre ha sido transaccional: es un arma para ser utilizada, ya sea por él o en su contra, y rara vez se ha sentido intimidado por las citaciones y declaraciones juradas que conmocionarían a cualquier persona menos acostumbrada a los litigios. En el aspecto civil, ha estado involucrado en miles de juicios con socios comerciales, proveedores y otros, muchos de los cuales lo demandaron porque se negó a pagar sus cuentas.Mientras era presidente, una vez explicó su visión del sistema legal a algunos colaboradores, diciendo que acudiría a los tribunales para intimidar a los adversarios porque solo amenazar con demandar no era suficiente.“Cuando amenazas con demandar, no hacen nada”, le dijo Trump a sus asistentes. “Dicen: ‘¡Psshh!’. Y siguen haciendo lo que quieren”, afirmó mientras agitaba su mano en el aire. “Pero, cuando los demandas, dicen: ‘¡Oooh!’, y se conforman. Es tan fácil como eso”, dijo con una mueca.Cuando, siendo presidente, comenzó a perder batallas jurídicas con regularidad arremetió contra el sistema de justicia. En un momento dado, cuando el Tribunal de Apelaciones del 9º Circuito, un tribunal liberal por tradición con sede en California, falló en contra de una de sus políticas, exigió a sus asesores que se deshicieran del tribunal. “Cancelémoslo”, dijo, como si se tratara de un acto de campaña y no de un sistema judicial establecido por ley. Si para ello es necesario redactar una legislación, que se haga un proyecto de ley para “deshacernos” de los jueces, dijo, utilizando un improperio.Pero sus asistentes lo ignoraron y ahora que no tiene el poder de la presidencia debe enfrentarse a una serie de fiscales y abogados que lo tienen a él, y a sus socios, en la mira. Algunas de las cuestiones son añejas, pero muchas de las semillas de su actual peligro jurídico se plantaron en los frenéticos últimos días que pasó en el cargo, cuando trató de anular la voluntad de los electores y aferrarse al poder mediante una serie de mentiras sobre un fraude electoral inexistente.Es bastante comprensible que muchos estadounidenses hayan perdido el hilo de todas las investigaciones en medio del torbellino de mociones, audiencias y sentencias de las últimas semanas. Pero, en esencia, son estas.Estado de Nueva YorkMucho antes de llegar a la presidencia, se puede decir que Trump, en muchos sentidos, se tomaba a la ligera sus negocios. La pregunta es si violó la ley de alguna manera. Durante años, según sus propios socios, infló el valor de varias propiedades para obtener préstamos.Durante más de tres años, Letitia James, la fiscala general del estado de Nueva York, ha analizado sus prácticas comerciales para determinar si constituyeron fraude. Cuando citó a Trump para que testificara, él invocó más de 400 veces el derecho que otorga la Quinta Enmienda para no responder preguntas con base en que sus respuestas podrían incriminarlo.Trump ha atacado a James con el argumento de que es una demócrata partidista que lo persigue por motivos políticos. Durante su candidatura de 2018, ella criticó a Trump sin rodeos, dijo que era un “presidente ilegítimo” y sugirió que los gobiernos extranjeros canalizaron dinero a las propiedades inmobiliarias de su familia, lo que caracterizó como un “patrón y práctica de lavado de dinero”.Hace poco, los abogados de Trump trataron de llegar a un acuerdo en el caso, lo que podría indicar la preocupación que sienten por su riesgo jurídico, pero James rechazó su oferta. Debido a que su investigación es civil, y no penal, ella tendría que decidir si sus hallazgos justifican una demanda en la que se acuse de fraude al expresidente.ManhattanLa fiscalía de distrito de Manhattan, ahora a cargo de Alvin L. Bragg, se ha ocupado de algunos de esos asuntos como parte de una investigación penal y está a punto de llevar a juicio a partir del 24 de octubre a la Organización Trump, la empresa familiar del expresidente, por cargos de fraude y evasión fiscal.Allen H. Weisselberg, el director de finanzas de toda la vida de la Organización Trump, se declaró culpable de 15 delitos graves y admitió que se asoció ilegalmente con la empresa para implementar un plan con la finalidad de evadir impuestos sobre lujosas prebendas. Como parte de su acuerdo de culpabilidad, Weisselberg está obligado a testificar en el próximo juicio. Pero Trump no es acusado en ese juicio y Weisselberg se negó a cooperar con la investigación más extensa.Allen Weisselberg, quien durante mucho tiempo fue el director financiero de la Organización Trump, se declaró culpable de 15 delitos graves relacionados con su trabajo en la empresa.Jefferson Siegel para The New York TimesPero después de que Bragg asumió el cargo en enero, le dijo al equipo que trabajaba en la investigación que estaba escéptico ante la posibilidad de que tuvieran pruebas suficientes para condenar al propio Trump. Eso hizo que los dos fiscales que dirigían la investigación renunciaran, y uno dijo en su carta de renuncia que el expresidente era “culpable de numerosos delitos graves” y que era “una grave falta de justicia” no hacerlo responsable.GeorgiaEl 2 de enero de 2021, Trump se puso en un posible riesgo jurídico en el estado de Georgia cuando llamó a Brad Raffensperger, el secretario de Estado, y le exigió “encontrar 11.780 votos”, los suficientes para cambiar el resultado y arrebatarle el estado a Joe Biden. Durante la llamada, Trump le advirtió a Raffensperger, quien es republicano, que enfrentaba un “gran riesgo” si no lograba encontrar esos votos, una amenaza implícita que el georgiano desafió.Los aliados de Trump también intentaron presionar a los funcionarios estatales para que cambiaran los resultados y, como hicieron en otros estados clave que ganó su opositor, trataron de armar una lista de electores falsos para enviarlos a Washington para que votaran en el Colegio Electoral a favor del presidente derrotado en lugar de Biden, que ganó el voto popular en Georgia.Fani T. Willis, la fiscala de distrito del condado de Fulton, inició una amplia investigación y presionó para obtener la declaración del senador republicano de Carolina del Sur Lindsey Graham e informó a Rudy Giuliani, el abogado del expresidente, que también es parte de su investigación.Willis parece estar construyendo un posible caso de asociación delictiva para cometer fraude electoral o chantaje mediante un esfuerzo coordinado para socavar las elecciones. Además de Giuliani, se ha informado a múltiples aliados del expresidente que también se les investiga, incluido el presidente del partido estatal y los miembros de la lista de electores falsos.Trump ha subestimado a Willis, una demócrata que fue elegida en la misma votación de 2020 en la que él perdió, diciendo que su investigación es, en palabras de un portavoz el año pasado, “simplemente el último intento de los demócratas para sumar puntos políticos al continuar con su cacería de brujas contra el presidente Trump”.CongresoLa Comisión de la Cámara de Representantes que investiga el ataque al Capitolio del 6 de enero de 2021, compuesta por siete demócratas y dos republicanos, ha hecho más por exponer un posible caso penal contra Trump en el espacio público que cualquiera de las personas que investigan al expresidente.En su serie de audiencias celebradas a lo largo del verano, que podrían reanudarse el 28 de septiembre, los asesores de Trump rindieron testimonio e indicaron que se le informó en varias ocasiones que las elecciones de 2020 no habían sido robadas, que lo que estaba diciendo a la opinión pública no era cierto, que no había fundamentos para impugnar el resultado e incluso que la multitud que convocó el 6 de enero incluía a algunas personas armadas.La comisión documentó los amplios esfuerzos de Trump para aferrarse al poder: cómo presionó no solo a Raffensperger, sino a funcionarios en varios estados para que cambiaran los resultados, cómo contempló declarar la ley marcial y apoderarse de máquinas electorales, cómo trató de obligar al Departamento de Justicia para que interviniera aun cuando se le dijo que no había motivos, cómo conspiró con aliados del Congreso para llevar electores falsos a la votación del Colegio Electoral y en última instancia cómo trató de obligar a su propio vicepresidente a bloquear la victoria de Biden.La comisión no tiene facultades para iniciar un proceso judicial, pero acudió a los tribunales para hacer cumplir citatorios para testificar e hizo que el Departamento de Justicia emitiera cargos por desacato al Congreso en contra de Steve Bannon y Peter Navarro, dos exaliados de Trump. Bannon fue condenado y espera su sentencia; Navarro solicitó al tribunal que desestimara su caso.Sin embargo, aunque los legisladores no pueden acusar a Trump, están debatiendo si deben recomendar al Departamento de Justicia que lo haga. Eso tiene poco significado sustantivo, pero incrementaría la importancia del fiscal general Merrick Garland.Fani T. Willis, la fiscala de distrito del condado de Fulton, ha hecho una amplia investigación.Nicole Craine para The New York TimesStephen Bannon, exasesor de Trump, fue declarado culpable de desacato al Congreso.Jefferson Siegel para The New York TimesEl 6 de eneroEn muchos sentidos, Garland sigue siendo el mayor misterio a medida que Trump busca obstaculizar a los investigadores. Garland, un exfiscal y juez de apelación ecuánime y bastante respetado, no ha dicho mucho para dar pistas, pero es evidente que su departamento está siguiendo múltiples líneas en su investigación sobre lo que ocurrió antes del 6 de enero y ese día.El departamento ha entrevistado o llevado ante un gran jurado a exasistentes de la Casa Blanca, como Pat A. Cipollone y Marc Short; también incautó los teléfonos o dispositivos electrónicos de aliados de Trump como John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark y Mike Lindell y hasta de un miembro del Congreso y en fechas recientes envió cerca de 40 citatorios a exasesores de la Casa Blanca, entre los cuales se encuentran Stephen Miller y Dan Scavino, además de otros personajes cercanos al expresidente.Tras pasar buena parte de los últimos 18 meses procesando a cientos de seguidores de Trump que ingresaron por la fuerza al Capitolio, parece que el equipo de Garland está analizando varios ángulos, incluido el plan de los electores falsos, la operación de recaudación de fondos de Trump mientras promovía afirmaciones falsas sobre el fraude electoral y la intervención del presidente mismo para tratar de anular las elecciones.Lo que no está claro es si Garland ya tiene una teoría del caso. Si bien las citaciones indicaban que los investigadores estaban analizando, entre otras cosas, los intentos de “obstruir, influir, impedir o retrasar” la certificación de las elecciones presidenciales, el departamento aún tiene que acusar a las personas cercanas a Trump y, por lo tanto, no ha presentado ninguna conclusión legal sobre las acciones tomadas por su oficina.Una persona que aún no sabe si será citada es el mismo Trump, pero sigue siendo una posibilidad. Con el fin de prepararse para el día en que los investigadores se presenten en su puerta, Trump ha estado buscando abogados que lo representen, ya que muchos de sus abogados anteriores ya no quieren involucrarse con él o tienen que enfrentar sus propios problemas legales.Los documentos clasificadosComo si Trump ya no estuviese expuesto a suficientes problemas jurídicos por los sucesos acaecidos durante sus últimos días en el cargo, al irse de la Casa Blanca tomó decisiones que también le han causado problemas.La última amenaza para el expresidente se deriva de su insistencia en llevarse a casa miles de documentos propiedad del gobierno, incluidos cientos que están marcados con varias designaciones de clasificado, además no los devolvió todos cuando se lo pidieron.El equipo de Garland ha indicado en documentos judiciales que no solo está analizando los cargos penales relacionados con el mal manejo de documentos clasificados, sino, además, la obstrucción de la justicia. Un abogado de Trump firmó un documento que afirmaba que su cliente había devuelto todos los documentos clasificados en su poder, lo cual se comprobó que era falso cuando los agentes del FBI allanaron Mar-a-Lago y encontraron cajas de esos documentos. Los investigadores indicaron que los archivos tal vez fueron escondidos y los cambiaron de ubicación en vez de entregarlos.En el caso de los documentos, la estrategia jurídica de Trump se parece al método que ha empleado a lo largo de los años: encontrar maneras de retrasar y despistar a sus adversarios. Al convencer a una jueza federal, a la que confirmó en el puesto durante los últimos días de su presidencia, para que impidiera que los investigadores usaran los documentos recuperados mientras los analiza un inspector especial, les ató las manos a los fiscales por el momento.Pero eso puede no durar para siempre. La semana pasada dijo que “no me puedo imaginar ser acusado”, pero admitió que “siempre es una posibilidad” porque los fiscales están “simplemente enfermos y trastornados”. Y afirmó que desclasificó los papeles que tomó, aunque no hay registro de eso.Pero su estrategia real es clara: esta es una batalla tanto política como legal, y advirtió sombríamente que habría “grandes problemas” si lo acusaban porque sus partidarios, “simplemente no lo soportarían”.Cuando el locutor de radio Hugh Hewitt le dijo que sus críticos interpretarían eso como incitar a la violencia, Trump dijo: “Eso no es incitar. Solo digo mi opinión. No creo que la gente de este país lo toleraría”.Peter Baker es el corresponsal jefe de la Casa Blanca y ha cubierto a los últimos cinco presidentes para el Times y The Washington Post. Es autor de siete libros, el más reciente The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021, coescrito con Susan Glasser, que se publicará en septiembre. @peterbakernyt • Facebook More

Democrats lost ground with Hispanic voters in 2020. It doesn’t seem to have been a blip.In Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, he won the Hispanic vote over Mitt Romney by 40 percentage points — 70 percent to 30 percent, according to Catalist, a political research firm. Four years later, Hillary Clinton did even better, beating Donald Trump by 42 percentage points among Hispanic voters.But then something changed.The economy became even stronger at the start of Trump’s presidency than it had been during Obama’s. The Democratic Party moved further to the left than it had been under Obama. Trump turned out to have a macho appeal, especially to some Hispanic men. And some Hispanic voters became frustrated with the long Covid shutdowns.Whatever the full explanation, Hispanic voters have moved to the right over the past several years. As a group, they still prefer Democrats, but the margin has narrowed significantly. In 2020, Joe Biden won the group by only 26 percentage points. And in this year’s midterms, the Democratic lead is nearly identical to Biden’s 2020 margin, according to the latest New York Times/Siena College poll — a sign that the shift was not just a one-election blip:Which party’s candidate are you more likely to vote for in this year’s election for Congress? More

Giorgia Meloni, the nationalist politician who is the front-runner to become prime minister, sees “The Lord of the Rings” as not just a series of novels, but also a sacred text.ROME — Giorgia Meloni, the hard-right leader who is likely to be the next prime minister of Italy, used to dress up as a hobbit.As a youth activist in the post-Fascist Italian Social Movement, she and her fellowship of militants, with nicknames like Frodo and Hobbit, revered “The Lord of the Rings” and other works by the British writer J.R.R. Tolkien. They visited schools in character. They gathered at the “sounding of the horn of Boromir” for cultural chats. She attended “Hobbit Camp” and sang along with the extremist folk band Compagnia dell’Anello, or Fellowship of the Ring.All of that might seem some youthful infatuation with a work usually associated with fantasy-fiction and big-budget epics rather than political militancy. But in Italy, “The Lord of the Rings” has for a half-century been a central pillar upon which descendants of post-Fascism reconstructed a hard-right identity, looking to a traditionalist mythic age for symbols, heroes and creation myths free of Fascist taboos.“I think that Tolkien could say better than us what conservatives believe in,” said Ms. Meloni, 45. More than just her favorite book series, “The Lord of the Rings” was also a sacred text. “I don’t consider ‘The Lord of the Rings’ fantasy,” she said.Tolkien’s agrarian universe, full of virtuous good guys defending their idyllic, wooded kingdoms from hordes of dark and violent orcs, has for decades prompted scholarly, and convention center, debate over the author’s racial and ideological biases, his view of modernity and globalization. More recently, his works have also provided a fertile shire for nationalists who see themselves in his heroic archetypes.But in Italy, the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the maps of Mordor have informed generations of post-Fascist youths, including Ms. Meloni, who, the latest polls strongly suggest, will emerge from the election on Sunday as Italy’s first female prime minister — and the first descended from post-Fascist roots.Ms. Meloni, who leads the hard-right Brothers of Italy party, and who has called for a naval blockade against illegal migrants and warns her supporters about the dark, conspiratorial forces of internationalist bankers, first read Tolkien, a conservative who once called Hitler a “ruddy little ignoramus,” at age 11. She became a fantasy fanatic.In her early 20s, she surfaced in chat rooms under the nickname Khy-ri, calling herself the “little dragon of the Italian undernet.” More recently, she named her political conference Atreju, an Italian rendering of the name of the hero of “The NeverEnding Story,” best known as a 1980s cult film featuring a flying animatronic character that appeared to be half dragon, half Labrador retriever.As a government minister in 2008, Ms. Meloni posed for a magazine profile next to a statue of the wizard Gandalf. In 2019, she honored a manga character, Captain Harlock, the “space pirate,” as a “symbol of a generation that challenged the apathy and indifference of people.” Last month, she lamented that her busy campaign schedule had kept her from mainlining Amazon’s new “Rings of Power” series.But Ms. Meloni’s otherworldly interests have as much to do with politics as personal taste.“The genre of fantasy in Italy has always been cultivated by the right,” said Umberto Croppi, a former member of the Italian Social Movement who is now the director of a national association of public and private agencies in Italy’s culture industry. He said that the two worlds shared a “vision of spirituality against materialism, a metaphysical vision of life against the forms of the modern world.”A supporter of Ms. Meloni wearing a hobbit T-shirt at one of her rallies this month in Cagliari. Gianni Cipriano for The New York TimesThe modern world did not work out so well for the die-hard Fascists who stayed loyal to Hitler and Mussolini after the official Italian government switched sides to join the Allies during World War II.After the war, many of those Fascists flocked to the Italian Social Movement, but the party’s efforts to reintegrate into Italy’s institutions eventually hit a wall. Its younger members, feeling excluded from civil society, seized on an Italian edition of “The Lord of the Rings,” prefaced by Elémire Zolla, a philosopher who was a point of reference on the hard right and who argued that Tolkien was “talking about everything we confront every day.”That resonated with a small group of the party’s Youth Front, already bristling at the cultural dominance of the left. They saw themselves, as one of their leaders, Generoso Simeone, put it, as “inhabitants of the mythical Middle-earth, also struggling with dragons, orcs, and other creatures.” Seeking a more palatable alternative to quoting Mussolini’s speeches and spray-painting Swastikas, which, Mr. Croppi pointed out, “was easy to reproduce on walls,” in 1977, they created the first Camp Hobbit festival.“The idea to call it Camp Hobbit came from a real strategy,” said Mr. Croppi, one of the founders. The thinking was to move beyond the old symbols and to capitalize on the party’s isolation, smallness and victimization by violent leftist enemies to make their hero “not the warrior Aragorn, but the little hobbit — we wanted to get out of this militarist, heroic idea.”The party’s old guard was perplexed. But, with the support of hard-liners, Camp Hobbit festivals emerged as formative touchstones for the young activists. Celtic cross flags that meshed perfectly with the Tolkien aesthetic waved. The band Fellowship of the Ring played songs about European identity, including what became the anthem of the party’s Youth Front, “Tomorrow Belongs to Us.”The song echoed a ballad “Tomorrow Belongs to Me,” sung by a member of the Hitler Youth in a chilling scene in the movie “Cabaret.” Mr. Croppi acknowledged that the camps had their fair share of Fascist salutes, but argued they were “ironic.”When Ms. Meloni entered the picture as a teenage activist in the Youth Front in Rome in the 1990s, the far right — especially in the capital — was still in a trenchlike mentality, struggling to break with the previous generation.Francesco Lollobrigida, a leader in Ms. Meloni’s party, Brothers of Italy (as well as her brother-in-law), said that he and others had a desire starting in the 1980s “to break with the patterns of a party that still had inside of it people who had been in the Social Republic, who had done fascism.”Ms. Meloni, seated across from him, agreed.“There was a desire to get out of that,” she said.Ms. Meloni attended a new iteration of Camp Hobbit in 1993, which she called a “political laboratory” and where she sang along with Fellowship of the Ring and discussed culture and books.“We read everything,” Ms. Meloni said.The bookstore of choice for the hard right in Rome was Europa, just outside the Vatican walls. On a recent visit, it displayed titles like “Mussolini Boys” and “The Occult Origins of Nazism.” A picture of Hitler stood watch above the register next to a cup of pens.Europa has a section dedicated to Julius Evola, an esoteric, deeply taboo, Nazi-affiliated Italian philosopher who became a favorite of Italy’s post-Fascist terrorists and bourgeoisie-loathing nostalgists. Evola argued that progress and equality were poisonous illusions.“A bit boring,” Mr. Lollobrigida said of Evola’s work.Ms. Meloni said that instead a more influential writer at the time was the more mainstream Ernst Jünger, a German former soldier, who sought to make sense of war but also glorified combat.But for Ms. Meloni, all of those took a back shelf to “The Lord of the Rings.” She said she had learned from dwarves and elves and hobbits the “value of specificity” with “each indispensable for the fact of being particular.” She extrapolated that as a lesson about protecting Europe’s sovereign nations and unique identities.In the 1990s, after becoming the leader of the youth wing of the National Alliance, the party that succeeded the Italian Social Movement, Ms. Meloni started her own political festival, which she called “similar” to Camp Hobbit. But this time, she named it Atreju. “It was the symbol of a boy in battle against nihilism, against the Nothing that advances,” she said.She joked that Italians could hardly pronounce Atreju, but she said that the annual conventions, including the first one, in 1998, which was about the dangers of globalization, had reach.“We wanted to say that globalization, you have to govern it,” she said. “If you look around, we weren’t wrong, were we?” she added.At the Atreju convention in 2018, the guest of honor, Stephen K. Bannon, walked by patriotic posters of “Italy’s heroes” and desks selling Evola-themed T-shirts and works by Evola. Ms. Meloni’s supporters have interpreted her calls to defend Italy from mass migration — and the replacement of native Italians by invaders — as a battle cry to protect Middle-earth. This month, at a rally in Sardinia, Davide Anedda, 21, the leader of the local youth wing of the Brothers of Italy, wore a T-shirt reading “Hobbit.”“If you’re not from our world, it’s very hard to understand,” Mr. Anedda said, explaining that Hobbit was a post-Fascist far-right rock band and that Tolkien had written “a fundamental part of our history.”And for Italy, maybe a part of its future.Ms. Meloni, who seems poised to grab her own brass ring after decades in the political trenches, said that her understanding of power and its ability to corrupt and isolate a person was “closely tied to Tolkien’s reading.”“I consider power very dangerous,” she said. “I consider it an enemy and not a friend.” More

The political winds that once favored Republicans in the coming midterm elections appear to have shifted in the Democrats’ favor, but in the quest for the House, geography may be destiny. Many congressional district lines were redrawn this year to favor one party or the other so much that even a hurricane-force gale cannot overcome […] More

.fallbackimg:before { content: “”; position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; background-image: url(”); opacity: 0.5; background-size: cover; background-position: center; } #bgvideo{ opacity: 0.5; } .mobile-only{ display:block; } .desktop-only{ display:none; } h1.headline.mobile-only{ margin-bottom: 10px; } @media screen and (min-width: 740px){ .fallbackimg:before{ background-image: url(”); opacity: 0.5; } #bgvideo{ opacity: 0.5; } .mobile-only{ display:none; } […] More

People close to the groups, which had a big infusion of money in 2020, fear they might have to begin scaling back their programs.Several nonprofit groups that work to register voters are privately sounding the alarm about their finances, warning donors that they will have to begin scaling back their programs just as the country enters the homestretch of the midterm elections.It is a critical time. Today is National Voter Registration Day, and deadlines to register are fast approaching. In four states — Minnesota, South Dakota, Virginia and Wyoming — early voting begins at the end of this week.More established groups that have worked on voter registration for years have anticipated the cutbacks, knowing the traditional rhythms of lower-stakes midterm elections, and have planned accordingly. But other, newer organizations that sprung up amid a flood of donor interest during the 2020 election cycle have struggled to adapt to the changing circumstances.“To the extent that any organizations working on voter registration anywhere in the country are having issues getting fully funded for this cycle, I find that extremely concerning,” said Bruce Cohen, a Democratic donor and activist. “I would ask other potential donors — if not now, when?”The main targets of complaints among voter registration groups are the Democracy Fund, a foundation bankrolled by Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire founder of eBay; and the Open Society Foundations, the global philanthropy organization founded by the billionaire investor George Soros.Donor advisers said in interviews that the Democracy Fund and O.S.F. created the expectation that millions of dollars would be forthcoming for democracy-related programs in 2022, only to disappoint many of the would-be recipients months later.According to an email shared with The New York Times, branches of the two groups invited potential donors to the introduction of “the Roadmap for American Democracy” in June.“We will need to mobilize more than a billion dollars to uphold the integrity of our election process and ensure diverse, equitable participation,” the email read. The Open Society Foundations is going through a tumultuous transition period. As Soros has entered his 90s, he has handed over authority to his son Alex. Last year, my colleague Nicholas Kulish reported that the group had abruptly scaled back its giving worldwide as part of a “restructuring plan.”Press officers for O.S.F. denied that the organization had made promises it had not kept.“Our thought was that we were talking to donors over a longer period of time,” said Laleh Ispahani, a co-director of the Open Society Foundations’ U.S.-focused programs who has worked to enlist other donors. “We were always clear that you’re not saving democracy in a single election. That is a longer-term project.”The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.Inflation Concerns Persist: In the six-month primary season that has just ended, several issues have risen and fallen, but nothing has dislodged inflation and the economy from the top of voters’ minds.Times/Siena Poll: Our second survey of the 2022 election cycle found Democrats remain unexpectedly competitive in the battle for Congress, while G.O.P. dreams of a major realignment among Latino voters have failed to materialize.Echoing Trump: Six G.O.P. nominees for governor and the Senate in critical midterm states, all backed by former President Donald J. Trump, would not commit to accepting this year’s election results.Ohio Senate Race: The contest between Representative Tim Ryan, a Democrat, and his Republican opponent, J.D. Vance, appears tighter than many once expected.She said O.S.F. had already invested $40 million to $75 million in 2022 for programs related to democracy and voting rights. “We will never retreat from this space,” she said. “This is our bread and butter.”A representative for the Democracy Fund did not respond to a request for comment.“O.S.F. came through for us in a big way,” said Nse Ufot, the chief executive of the New Georgia Project, which was instrumental in registering tens of thousands of voters of color before Democrats’ victories in 2020 and early 2021.But, she added: “What we are seeing is an overall dip in fund-raising” to the broader coalition of groups that helped her group turn Georgia into a blue state through grass-roots community organizing and voter registration. “Folks who think Georgia is competitive do not understand what made Georgia competitive.”One reason for the funding difficulties is the hangover from 2020, when foundations and private donors poured millions into democracy-related projects, including voter registration. The Senate elections in Georgia in early 2021, along with Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential results, poured jet fuel on those efforts.“Donors got energized by the threat to democracy,” said a person who advises wealthy people on their political contributions and who insisted on anonymity. The person described a feeling of exhaustion among the donor class: “People left it all on the field.”At times, those efforts have blurred the line between neutral, nonprofit work and partisan advantage. An analysis by Ken Vogel and Shane Goldmacher of The New York Times, for instance, found that “15 of the most politically active nonprofit organizations that generally align with the Democratic Party spent more than $1.5 billion in 2020.”At the time, they reported, Democrats were “warning major donors not to give in to the financial complacency that often afflicts the party in power.”.css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}What we consider before using anonymous sources. Do the sources know the information? What’s their motivation for telling us? Have they proved reliable in the past? Can we corroborate the information? Even with these questions satisfied, The Times uses anonymous sources as a last resort. The reporter and at least one editor know the identity of the source.Learn more about our process.It’s not fully clear whether the complacency they feared has now arrived, or whether only certain groups have been disproportionally affected. Several people closely involved with the Democratic Party’s voter-registration plans said they were not aware of a systemic crisis.Among the groups affected, people familiar with their internal finances said, were the Voter Formation Project, which describes its mission as “increasing participation in local, state and national elections through digital communication, experimentation and knowledge sharing.” Tatenda Musapatike, the head of the Voter Formation Project, did not respond to an email seeking comment.But another reason for the budget shortfalls, people familiar with the situation said, was the sour state of the economy, which has led to belt-tightening across corporate America and in the world of institutional investors — including ones that regularly fund efforts like voter registration that are considered nonpartisan and politically safe.The wider contextAs On Politics reported in January, Republicans have begun to close the gap with Democrats in voter registration in major battleground states, including Florida, Pennsylvania and North Carolina.In Pennsylvania, for instance, the Democrats’ advantage in registrations shrank to 540,000 as of today, from 685,000 as of November 2020, according to an analysis by Politico.In 2020, the pandemic disrupted the party’s two main pathways for bringing in new voters: sign-ups at the Department of Motor Vehicles and face-to-face field work. Democratic candidates and party committees cut sharply back on door-knocking campaigns, while Republicans largely maintained their in-person canvassing programs.An analysis shared with The New York Times by Catalist, a Democratic data firm, showed that in 2020, the Democrats’ traditional edge in voter registration shrank to nine percentage points across 29 states — down from a 19-point advantage over Republicans in 2008.This year, as the pandemic has waned, groups aligned with Democrats, including unions and the League of Conservation Voters, have revived their field programs. And a surge of anger on the left and among young people over the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion has led to an accompanying rise in new registrations for Democrats.But top Democrats have quietly discussed for months how to address what some officials see as a broader problem with the way the party handles voter registration.Traditionally, Democrats have relied on a mix of official, partisan voter registration drives conducted by state parties and candidates as well as outreach by nonprofit groups that are legally prohibited from targeting communities by their expected party affiliation.As Republicans have made gains, however — most notably in Florida, where the G.O.P. now has a registration edge of around 200,000 voters — senior Democrats have begun to question whether the party ought to bring more of those officially nonpartisan voter-registration campaigns in-house.For the 2022 cycle, the Democratic National Committee is spending nearly $25 million on its “I Will Vote” initiative, which includes voter protection, legal challenges and voter registration in battleground states, focused on communities of color and college campuses. The voter registration component of the program began with an initial investment of nearly $5 million, but has since expanded.The D.N.C. also began a blitz of publicity this week around National Voter Registration Day, featuring digital ads aimed at college students on Instagram, YouTube and other platforms. The committee also plans to fly banners during college football games nudging students to register.“This is the D.N.C.’s largest voter registration investment in a midterm cycle and marks a return to an aspect of party building that the D.N.C. has not engaged in for several cycles,” said Ammar Moussa, a spokesman for the committee.What to readA federal judge expressed skepticism about an attempt by Donald Trump’s lawyers to again skirt the issue of whether Trump had declassified some of the highly sensitive records seized from his Florida home by the F.B.I., Alan Feuer and Charlie Savage report.Newly released videos show allies of Trump and contractors who were working on his behalf handling sensitive voting equipment in a rural Georgia county weeks after the 2020 election, Danny Hakim, Richard Fausset and Nick Corasaniti report.A sleeper race in this year’s contests for Senate is also one of the sleepiest, Jonathan Weisman writes, as Ted Budd and Cheri Beasley face off in North Carolina, a state known for breaking Democrats’ hearts.Where in America is it easiest and hardest to vote? The state at the bottom of the rankings in a new academic study called the Cost of Voting Index might surprise you. Nick Corasaniti and Allison McCann lay out the details.Nate Cohn, The Times’s top polling expert, asks a perfectly reasonable question: Can we trust the polls?Thank you for reading On Politics, and for being a subscriber to The New York Times. — BlakeRead past editions of the newsletter here.If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here.Have feedback? Ideas for coverage? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at [email protected]. More

After going dark during Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, the Clinton Global Initiative is back.After a six-year hiatus, the Clinton Global Initiative returned to New York City this week, bringing together leaders from the worlds of nonprofit, government and business, with a few celebrities sprinkled in for good measure. It has been an eventful few years since they last gathered in 2016.“The challenges we face are steep, but they pretty much have been steep for a long time now,” former President Bill Clinton said in his opening remarks at the Hilton in Midtown Manhattan on Monday. “And CGI is always and has always been about what we can do and not what we can’t do.”The Clinton Global Initiative began in 2005 and quickly became something akin to a Davos-on-the-Hudson event, but one with a greater focus on philanthropy, nonprofits and corporate do-gooding. The way it differed from most conferences is that it required participants to make commitments, sometimes in dollars, other times in targets — such as for creating jobs or delivering clean water.Up to the hiatus in 2016, attendees announced more than 3,700 commitments, which by the organization’s own tally had helped more than 435 million people in over 180 countries.In many ways the early days were the high-water mark of the philanthrocapitalism era, when trust in the wealthy and celebrities to save the world ran high. In turn, many significant organizations modeled themselves after the Clintons’ endeavor.Then in 2016, in the heat of the general election campaign fight between Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump, with reporters asking a lot of questions about the foundation and its donors, Mr. Clinton announced that the 2016 meeting would be the final version of the initiative.Now, as world leaders gathered in New York for the first fully in-person United Nations General Assembly in three years, the goal is to recapture that old Clinton magic, and to see if there is still room in a field of thought-leading, pledge-making symposia crowding the city this week.Advisers to Mr. Clinton said that in the years since, he had longed to restart the event. “He would tell me regularly when we were just talking before a board meeting, ‘I was just out last night and someone was saying when are you going to start CGI again?’” said Robert Harrison, former chief executive of the Clinton Global Initiative, from 2007 to 2016, and a board member of the Clinton Foundation.“A year ago, 10 months ago, we looked at each other and said, ‘Let’s try,’” Mr. Harrison recalled.The Clintons’ return to the world stage was heralded in March with a letter from Mr. Clinton that doubled as a call to arms. With the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the challenges to democracy at home and abroad, the world needed CGI back, according to Mr. Clinton.Judging from the names at the event, many old friends and allies answered the call, including the philanthropists Laurene Powell Jobs and Melinda French Gates, Secretary Xavier Becerra of the Department of Health and Human Services, state governors, corporate chief executives, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the director-general of the World Health Organization.This year the initiative tallied 144 commitments, which will result in more than 1.6 million jobs and the reduction of 3.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.Commitments ranged from a program to build soccer fields in underserved communities to one making bricks out of volcanic ash. Nine members committed to providing humanitarian assistance to Ukraine. Mr. Clinton interviewed President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine via videoconference on Tuesday, with Mr. Zelensky in his trademark form-fitting T-shirt.From left, the CNN host Fareed Zakaria with Mia Mottley, the prime minister of Barbados; the philanthropist Laurene Powell Jobs; and the chef José Andrés at the Clinton Global Initiative event on Monday.Julia Nikhinson/Associated PressMilling in the halls at the event, Terry McAuliffe, the former Virginia governor and longtime denizen of Clinton world, brushed past, smartphone pressed to his face. Petra Nemcova, the Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover model who survived the deadly 2004 tsunami in Thailand and now works in philanthropy, chatted with a Ukrainian official by the coffee urns, where the milk was all plant-based — soy, oat, almond — in a nod to Mr. Clinton’s veganism as well as the climate impact of cows. The meals were all plant-based, too.The mood between sessions was like that at a college reunion, with people embracing after years apart and speaking warmly and with nostalgia — convivial but not, perhaps, the most forward looking.“Why did they leave in the first place?” said Paloma Raggo, a philanthropy expert and professor at the School of Public Policy and Administration at Carleton University in Ottawa. “It wasn’t the right political climate for them to be at the forefront of things.”The Clintons shut down the initiative because of scrutiny during the campaign. And they kept it on ice for six years for a variety of reasons. First there was the recovery from Mrs. Clinton’s defeat in the presidential election. Then the #MeToo movement brought a harsh spotlight on past Clinton ties to Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein. Later, people close to Bill and Hillary say, Covid protocols kept them away from large crowds.Still, to critical observers, the timing does not seem clear. “Is it because now there are issues that make it necessary, them coming here, or is it because at this point the political consequences or bad juju has dissolved a bit and they reappeared?” Ms. Raggo asked.Some former advisers say the Clinton Global Initiative’s moment has passed and the event should not be revived. Memberships, which cost $15,000 and $20,000 in past years, were just $5,000 for this year’s event, according to Mr. Harrison, the former chief executive. In addition to Mr. Clinton’s desire to return to the spotlight, some see the former first daughter as a motivating force.Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Clinton this month debuted a documentary series on AppleTV+ called “Gutsy,” in which mother and daughter talk to famous women and activists. Mrs. Clinton, who has also written or co-written four books, two with Chelsea, since the 2016 election, took the stage Monday afternoon to a standing ovation.“I don’t know about you, but when people ask me how I am these days, I often say: ‘Well, personally I’m great. I’m just worried about everything,’” Mrs. Clinton told the crowd.Shortly thereafter, on the same stage, Ms. French Gates announced a $50 million donation from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to fund scholarships at a health sciences university in Rwanda in the name of Dr. Paul Farmer, who died unexpectedly in February.“Someone else has stepped up who also appreciates, respects and understands the value of this work,” Mrs. Clinton then said. “One of Paul’s friend’s here in our CGI community has just told us about making a gift of $10 million more dollars.”The foundation started in 1997 as the charitable vehicle to pay for the design and construction of Mr. Clinton’s presidential library. It had its share of controversy pretty quickly, with the Marc Rich pardon and donations an issue as he left the White House. In 2002, the Clintons started the Clinton H.I.V./AIDS Initiative, with the goal of saving the lives of millions of people around the world living with the disease. Today it continues as the Clinton Health Access Initiative, though it spun off from the foundation in 2010.When the Clinton Global Initiative debuted in 2005, George W. Bush was president. Hillary Clinton was a New York senator and a likely presidential contender herself. Bill Clinton was a recent two-term president. Chelsea seemed poised to follow in her parents’ footsteps.Chelsea Clinton with her parents at the conference.Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesThe first version of the Clinton Global Initiative, in 2005, was timed to the 60th anniversary of the United Nations. The currency of the initiative was the “commitment.” Attendees were encouraged to make commitments that were then tallied at $2.5 billion in pledges from 300 people, to a variety of causes including global poverty, conflict resolution and climate change.The September traffic jam of motorcades zipping between events during the United Nations General Assembly were the moment to extract these pledges.“I think CGI was the rocket fuel on all of this,” said John Prendergast, co-founder of the Sentry, who has appeared on several panels with heads of state there over the years. “He has this real nose for pulling these various communities together,” he said of Mr. Clinton.Now there are numerous other events competing for attention and attendance, including the Concordia Summit and the Gates Foundation’s Goalkeepers event.Donna Shalala, the former health and human services secretary and former president of the Clinton Foundation, said in an interview that they had ended the Clinton Global Initiative to avoid any potential conflict of interest with Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.“It was painful,” she said. “Let me assure you the president loves CGI and the rest of us did. And the foundation was defined by CGI, it’s what everyone knew us for.”When the election ended and Mrs. Clinton lost, it was not a simple matter of cranking up the annual meeting again.“This is not just hitting pause on a song; it’s like shutting down a nuclear reactor, you don’t just keep flipping the switch on and off,” said Philippe Reines, a longtime adviser to Mrs. Clinton. “Once you turn it off, there’s an energy and a ramp-up that’s involved and time consuming.”Even after a dormant period for the initiative, the foundation’s signature event, tax filings show that the foundation had net assets of over $300 million as of the 2020 tax year, the most recent available.For nonprofits, CGI can be a powerful place to raise funds and make connections.Gary White, the chief executive and a co-founder of Water.org, said he had met some of his most important donors at CGI, including the PepsiCo Foundation, the Mastercard Foundation and the Ikea Foundation.“Where the rubber meets the road is at CGI, where they are there to make commitments not just as a side show,” Mr. White said.He also met the actor Matt Damon at CGI, in 2008, when his organization was called Water Partners. Mr. Damon had his own group, known as H2O Africa. The next year they announced that they had merged their groups. This year, they made a commitment to deliver clean water and sanitation to 100 million people in need, a goal the group says it is nearly halfway to meeting.Mr. Clinton’s opening remarks at the conference came out a little quiet, a hint raspier than usual, a tiny bit slow.He made a reference to “someone who had no dog in the hunt,” and then quipped, “You must forgive me if I sometimes slip off into my colloquial past.” The audience laughed, relief palpable, as the old charm emerged.Toward the end of his first panel, Mr. Clinton told the participants, “I wish I could keep you here the rest of the day.”After that panel, Mr. Clinton leaned down from the stage to grasp hands, smile, pose for photographs and talk to the crowd. He beamed, campaign-trail muscle memory seeming to kick in. As the Secret Service tried to move him along, one had the distinct impression that the former president never wanted to leave the stage. More