Elections

‘Truth matters’: Liz Cheney lambasts Trump-backed rival in Wyoming debateRepublican vice-chair of January 6 committee, trailing in primary, challenges Harriet Hageman to say 2020 election was not stolen More

Once mocked for his inexperience and perceived arrogance, Israel’s caretaker premier taught voters a lesson in political maturity and humility.JERUSALEM — Nearly a decade ago Yair Lapid, then the new leader of Israel’s political center, was asked by a television interviewer if he envisaged becoming prime minister after the next election.“I assume so,” he replied, though he had been elected to Parliament for the first time just a week earlier.It was a rookie mistake. Mr. Lapid, then better known as a popular television host, journalist, actor and songwriter, was widely ridiculed as a cocky and superficial political novice.By the time he finally stepped into the coveted office at midnight on Thursday, albeit as the prime minister of a caretaker government following the collapse of the ruling coalition, he had grown considerably in experience and public stature.As the leader of the centrist Yesh Atid, or There is a Future, party, now Israel’s second largest after Benjamin Netanyahu’s conservative Likud, Mr. Lapid, 58, has since served in government as a minister of finance, strategic affairs, foreign affairs and as an alternate prime minister, along with a stint as the leader of the opposition.“Once in politics he learned the business quite quickly,” Nahum Barnea, a veteran Israeli political columnist for the popular Yediot Ahronot newspaper, said in an interview.Mr. Lapid is expected to remain in charge until an election scheduled for Nov. 1 and for some weeks or months after it, as the parties typically require lengthy negotiations to put together a new coalition.Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, right, and Mr. Lapid, after the approval Thursday of a bill to dissolve Israel’s Parliament, making Mr. Lapid the caretaker prime minister.Ariel Schalit/Associated PressWhile many new parties in Israel have risen and fallen from fashion within one election cycle, Mr. Lapid succeeded in building a party with a strong infrastructure and an army of volunteer foot soldiers.Another positive surprise, Mr. Barnea said, was how Mr. Lapid learned to “put aside his ego” and concede to others as he played a long game in his bid for power.When Yesh Atid joined forces with other centrist parties under the banner of the Blue and White alliance in 2019, Mr. Lapid, the No. 2 on the slate, willingly gave up on an agreement he had with the No. 1, Benny Gantz, a former military chief, to rotate the premiership if they won an upcoming election.Mr. Lapid, who lacks the security credentials that have eased the paths of other Israelis into power, understood that the agreement was harming Blue and White’s chances.More striking was what happened after the March 2021 election, the fourth inconclusive ballot to be held within two years, as Mr. Netanyahu repeatedly tried to cling to power despite being on trial for corruption.Mr. Netanyahu again failed to cobble together a majority and as a result, Mr. Lapid, the runner-up, was given the opportunity to form a government. He succeeded in assembling an ideologically diverse coalition of eight parties with a razor-thin majority.Election campaign posters for Israel’s Blue and White party, featuring Benny Gantz, left, Yair Lapid, center, and Gabi Ashkenazi in Ashkelon, Israel, in 2019.Corinna Kern for The New York TimesAnd in what many viewed as a selfless act untypical of Israeli politicians, he allowed Naftali Bennett, a coalition partner who led a small, right-wing party, to take the first turn as prime minister in another rotation pact, because Mr. Bennett was seen as more acceptable to the right-wing flank of the coalition.That arrangement lasted a year. Under the terms of their coalition agreement, Mr. Lapid was supposed to take over from Mr. Bennett in August 2023. But in a reflection of the unifying and inclusive political climate they strove to create after years of toxic divisiveness, Mr. Bennett announced that he was honoring their pact and would hand over the reins to Mr. Lapid with the dissolution of Parliament.The powers of a caretaker government are limited, so Mr. Lapid is unlikely to introduce any significant policy changes, but he will have the advantage of campaigning for the next election as the incumbent. He will also have the chance to welcome President Biden in mid-July, when he makes his first trip to the Middle East since he took office.In a head-to-head election race with Mr. Netanyahu — who is leading in the polls despite his continuing legal troubles — Mr. Lapid can hold his own as a polished, articulate and telegenic communicator.The son of Yosef Lapid, an often abrasive former government minister and Holocaust survivor, and Shulamit Lapid, a novelist, Mr. Lapid was known during his television days for his amicable interviewing style. With his good looks and suave manner, his celebrity status stemmed in part from his image as a quintessential Israeli.One of his more successful songs, “Living on Sheinkin,” referring to a trendy street in Tel Aviv, became a hit for an Israeli girl band in the late 1980s.Mr. Lapid founded Yesh Atid in 2012. The party was the surprise of the election the following year, winning 19 seats in the 120-seat Parliament. Mr. Lapid became finance minister in a Netanyahu-led government.Mr. Lapid at his home in 2013, when he became the sensation of Israeli politics. Before his political career, Mr. Lapid was known as a popular television host, journalist, actor and songwriter.Rina Castelnuovo for The New York TimesHe rode in on a wave of middle-class frustration with Israel’s ever rising cost of living and housing, which had given rise to widespread social justice protests in 2011. One of his catchphrases was, “Where’s the money?”In his first years in politics, he championed popular demands for a more equal sharing of the burden, particularly an end to automatic military exemptions for thousands of ultra-Orthodox students who opt for full-time Torah study, as well as a reduction in taxes that were choking the middle class.Mainly popular in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area and secular, suburban Israel, Mr. Lapid and his party have suffered in the past from taking safe, centrist positions that were less engaging than those of more ideological parties.“At first the political center was very amorphous,” said Orit Galili-Zucker, a former strategic communications adviser to Mr. Netanyahu and a political branding expert. “It wasn’t clear what it was.”At times, when Mr. Lapid tried to appeal to soft-right voters, he was accused of blowing with the wind and saying what he thought people wanted to hear. He has denounced supporters of boycotts against Israel and its settlements in the occupied West Bank as antisemites and has harshly criticized an Israeli anti-occupation group that collects testimony from former soldiers, called Breaking the Silence.Now, Ms. Galili-Zucker said, he has established himself as being more on the center-left. He has stated his support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even if that seems unattainable right now.Mr. Lapid, then Israel’s foreign minister, with his Bahraini counterpart, Abdullatif bin Rashid al-Zayani, at a summit meeting in the Negev desert in March.Amit Elkayam for The New York TimesAt the same time, he has become more accommodating toward the ultra-Orthodox parties, which have been linchpins of most governing coalitions in recent decades.A father of three and a former amateur boxer with a black belt in karate, Mr. Lapid is married to Lihi Lapid, a successful writer. Their daughter, Yael, is on the autism spectrum, and Mr. Lapid became emotional in May when the cabinet discussed additional funding for people with disabilities, telling the ministers, “This is the most important thing you will ever do.”After his father died in 2008, at 77, Mr. Lapid wrote “Memories After My Death,” the story of his father’s life from his days in the ghetto of Budapest through his period as minister of justice in Ariel Sharon’s government.Mr. Lapid once related in a television interview that his father told him four days before he died, “Yairi, I am leaving for you a family and a state.”After Parliament was dissolved on Thursday, and hours before he formally took over as prime minister, Mr. Lapid headed straight to Yad Vashem, Israel’s official Holocaust memorial.“There,” he wrote on Twitter, “I promised my late father that I will always keep Israel strong and capable of defending itself and protecting its children.” More

The U.S. Constitution contains several idle provisions: words, phrases and clauses that have little to no bearing on our constitutional order as it currently exists.Let’s start here: Article 3 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court “original jurisdiction” in all cases affecting “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” That part is obviously in effect, although most cases between states occur in the lower federal courts established by Congress. The Constitution then states that in all other cases, “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” This, too, is in full effect.But then the Constitution tells us that the court’s appellate jurisdiction is subject to “such Exceptions” and “under such Regulations” as “the Congress shall make.”This is where it gets interesting. The court’s appellate jurisdiction accounts for virtually everything it touches. And the Constitution says that Congress can regulate the nature of that jurisdiction. Congress can strip the court of its ability to hear certain cases, or it can mandate new rules for how the court decides cases where it has appellate jurisdiction. And as I recently mentioned, it can even tell the court that it needs a supermajority of justices to declare a federal law or previous decision unconstitutional.There are real questions about the scope of congressional power to regulate the Supreme Court. If Congress has complete control over the court’s appellate jurisdiction, then there are no real limits as to what it could do to shape and structure the court, threatening the separation of powers. As James Madison said with regard to the Bank Bill of 1791, “An interpretation that destroys the very characteristic of the government cannot be just.”But this is nearly a moot point. The modern Congress has largely relinquished its power to regulate and structure the court. The final clause of Article 3, Section 2 is not quite a dead letter, but it is close.What is a dead letter (and which I’ve also written about before) is the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution, which states thatThe United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.The reason for the clause is straightforward. “The more intimate the nature of such a Union may be,” Madison wrote in Federalist No. 43, “the greater interest have the members in the political institutions of each other; and the greater right to insist that the forms of government under which the compact was entered into, should be substantially maintained.”But neither Congress nor the courts has ever said, with any precision, what it means for the United States to guarantee to every state a “republican form of government.” The most we have is Justice John Marshall Harlan’s famous dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, in which he condemns “sinister legislation” passed to “interfere with the full enjoyment of the blessings of freedom, to regulate civil rights, common to all citizens, upon the basis of race, and to place in a condition of legal inferiority a large body of American citizens, now constituting a part of the political community.”This, he writes, “is inconsistent with the guarantee given by the Constitution to each State of a republican form of government, and may be stricken down by congressional action, or by the courts in the discharge of their solemn duty to maintain the supreme law of the land.”A Congress that wanted to could, in theory, use the Guarantee Clause to defend the basic rights of citizens against overbearing and tyrannical state governments. It’s been done before. After the Civil War, Radical Republicans in Congress found their constitutional power to reconstruct the South chiefly in the Guarantee Clause, which they used to protect the rights of Black Americans from revanchist state governments.Since Reconstruction, however, no Congress has wanted to use the Guarantee Clause to protect the rights and liberties of Americans. It’s a vestigial part of our constitutional history, atrophied from disuse.The same goes for sections 2 and 3 of the 14th Amendment. Section 2 states that “representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” It then specifies that if the right to vote for federal office is “denied” or “in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion” to “any of the male inhabitants” of such a state, then “the basis of representation therein shall be reduced” in proportion to the denial in question.Section 3 also deals with representation. It states thatNo person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof.The purpose of section 2 was to invalidate the Three-Fifths clause of the Constitution and to prevent state governments from disenfranchising Black voters. And the purpose of section 3 was to prevent former Confederate leaders from holding state and federal office. But while the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce its provisions by “appropriate legislation,” Congress has never exercised its ability to deny representation to states that violate the right of citizens to vote, nor has it used its ability to disqualify those lawmakers who have engaged in acts of rebellion or insurrection. In the wake of Jan. 6, Representatives Cori Bush and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called on Congress to investigate and expel members who aided the attack, but their demands went nowhere.It’s here that you can see why I think it’s important to talk about these seemingly idle provisions. As recent events have made clear, powerful reactionaries are waging a successful war against American democracy using the counter-majoritarian institutions of the American political system, cloaking their views in a distorted version of our Constitution, where self-government means minority rule and the bugaboos of right-wing culture warriors are somehow “deeply rooted” in our “history and traditions.”But the Republic is not defenseless. The Constitution gives our elected officials the power to restrain a lawless Supreme Court, protect citizens from the “sinister legislation” of the states, punish those states for depriving their residents of the right to vote and expel insurrectionists from Congress.They are drastic measures that would break the norms of American politics. They might even spark a constitutional crisis over the power and authority of Congress.But let’s not be naïve. The norms of American politics were shattered when Donald Trump organized a conspiracy to subvert the presidential election. They were shattered again when he sent an armed mob of supporters to attack the Capitol and stop Congress from certifying the votes of the Electoral College. And they were shattered one more time in the early hours of the next day, when, even after all that, hundreds of his congressional allies voted to overturn the election.As for the constitutional crisis, it is arguably already here. Both the insurrection and the partisan lawmaking of the Supreme Court have thrown those counter-majoritarian features of the American system into sharp relief. They’ve raised hard questions about the strength and legitimacy of institutions that allow minority rule — and allow it to endure. It is a crisis when the fundamental rights of hundreds of millions of Americans are functionally overturned by an unelected tribunal whose pivotal members owe their seats to a president who won office through the mechanism of the Electoral College, having lost the majority of voters in both of his election campaigns.The ground has shifted. The game has changed. The only question left is whether our leaders have the strength, fortitude and audacity to forge a new path for American democracy — and if they don’t, whether it is finally time for us to find ones who do.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

HONG KONG — El día en que Hong Kong fue devuelto a China hace un cuarto de siglo, el fabricante de fideos de Queen’s Road trabajaba como lo había hecho durante días y décadas previas, transformando harina y agua en el sustento de una ciudad llena de refugiados del continente. Para satisfacer los diversos gustos, elaboraba tiernos fideos de Shanghái y pasta al huevo cantonesa, resbaladizos envoltorios de wonton del sur de China y gruesas masas de dumpling muy apreciadas en Pekín.Cuando la bandera de cinco estrellas de la República Popular China sustituyó a la Union Jack el 1 de julio de 1997, llovió y llovió, y el agua subió rápidamente por Queen’s Road y sus afluentes. Algunos tomaron el diluvio como un presagio del control comunista, otros como un ritual de purificación para limpiar Hong Kong del imperialismo occidental.La tormenta no tuvo mayor significado para To Wo, quien administraba la tienda de fideos con su familia. To seguía trabajando todos los días del año, introduciendo la masa en máquinas ruidosas y vaciando tantos sacos de harina que todo quedaba empolvado de blanco, incluso el santuario del dios de la cocina.“Estaba ocupado”, dijo. “No tenía mucho tiempo para el miedo”.En los 25 años transcurridos desde el traspaso, la única constante ha sido el cambio, tan definido como desafiado por los habitantes de Queen’s Road, la avenida con más historia de Hong Kong. A su alrededor, la ciudad se ha transformado: por la vertiginosa expansión económica de China continental, que amenaza con hacer innecesario esta ciudad portuaria internacional, pero también por el aplastamiento de las libertades por parte de los actuales gobernantes de Hong Kong, que han llenado las cárceles de jóvenes que ahora son presos políticos.A medio camino de 2047, fecha oficial en el que finalizará el periodo  “un país, dos sistemas”, Hong Kong ha entrado en un purgatorio incierto.Para el fabricante de fideos To Wo, la ciudad ofrecía la esperanza de una vida mejor que la que tenía cuando huyó de China.A los 20 años, To escapó de las privaciones del sur de China para instalarse en Queen’s Road, la primera vía construida por los británicos tras tomar Hong Kong como botín de la Guerra del Opio.Bautizada en honor a la reina Victoria, la carretera trazaba la línea costera de una avariciosa potencia colonial. A medida que las instituciones del imperio —bancos, casas comerciales, escuelas, lugares de culto— brotaban a lo largo de ella, Queen’s Road fue evolucionando, y cada afluencia de nuevos habitantes modificaba su carácter. A pesar de la permanencia de los hitos de la calle, sus habitantes estaban menos arraigados, con escaso control sobre el futuro de la ciudad.En 1997, el gobierno chino prometió a Hong Kong una importante autonomía durante 50 años para preservar las libertades que la convirtieron en una capital financiera mundial, por no hablar de una de las metrópolis más emocionantes del planeta.Mientras To ha vivido ahí, Queen’s Road y sus estrechos callejones han sido una encrucijada mundial. Había casas financieras construidas sobre las fortunas del comercio del opio, tiendas de oro que prometían sólidas inversiones a los sobrevivientes de la agitación política, marcas de lujo europeas y comerciantes de aletas de tiburón y hierbas utilizadas en la medicina tradicional china.Rush hour on Queen’s Road Central.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesEn los primeros años tras el traspaso, los legisladores se deleitaron con un poder del que habían carecido durante la mayor parte del gobierno británico, en un edificio diseñado por los arquitectos responsables de una parte del Palacio de Buckingham. En el Tribunal Superior, en un tramo de Queen’s Road llamado Queensway, los jueces usaban pelucas siguiendo la moda británica. La clase empresarial, procedente de la élite de Shanghái, Londres y Bombay, entre otras ciudades, se sentía segura en el imperio de la ley.Durante más de una década, Pekín respetó en gran medida este acuerdo político que rige Hong Kong, llamado “un país, dos sistemas”. La fecha límite de 2047, cuando Pekín tomaría el control político total, parecía convenientemente lejana, aunque los hongkoneses tienen la costumbre de ser prevenidos.Los últimos tres años han comprimido el tiempo. En 2019, millones de manifestantes marcharon por Queen’s Road y otras avenidas, tal y como habían hecho en el pasado para frustrar las impopulares restricciones del gobierno. Esta vez, los enfrentamientos entre la policía y los manifestantes cortaron cualquier filamento de confianza. Durante meses, el gas lacrimógeno, el gas pimienta y las balas de goma envolvieron los centros comerciales. Una ley de seguridad nacional de dos años de antigüedad ha criminalizado la disidencia, y se ha detenido a personas por aplaudir en apoyo de un activista encarcelado.Ahora, a mitad de camino hacia 2047, Hong Kong ha entrado en un purgatorio incierto. Su desaparición ya se ha proclamado antes. En todas esas ocasiones —después de las plagas y los disturbios apoyados por los comunistas, la represión británica y el nerviosismo previo a la entrega— el territorio se ha regenerado.A pesar de la permanencia de los hitos que caracterizan a la avenida, su gente está menos arraigada y tiene poco control sobre el futuro de la ciudad.Queen’s Road fue la primera vía construida por los británicos cuando llegaron, y ha sido una encrucijada mundial durante más de cien años.Una metrópolis que rivaliza con Nueva York, Tokio o Londres no desaparecerá de la noche a la mañana. Pero la promesa de Pekín de mantener la ciudad en una campana de cristal política durante 50 años se ha hecho añicos. Los pobres de Hong Kong son cada vez más pobres, y el número de personas que se apresuran a marcharse ha aumentado.Los cambios sísmicos en Hong Kong están obligando a los residentes a reflexionar sobre lo que significa ser de este lugar en constante evolución. A lo largo de Queen’s Road —la avenida más antigua de una ciudad programada para reinventarse— esta cuestión de identidad resuena de forma muy diferente para un político, un manifestante y un fabricante de fideos.“Todo ha cambiado en Hong Kong”, dijo To. “Todos tenemos destinos diferentes”.‘Enfrentar la realidad’El 30 de junio de 1997, mientras sonaba por última vez “God Save the Queen”, Eunice Yung, entonces estudiante de secundaria, estaba enfurruñada en su casa, en un apartamento de Queen’s Road. Sus decepcionantes resultados en los exámenes, que le impedían obtener un cupo universitario en Hong Kong, ocupaban su mente.“Cuando pienso en el traspaso, me quedo en blanco”, dijo Yung. “Es una pena”.Al igual que muchos niños nacidos de inmigrantes recientes, Yung comenzó a trabajar cuando tenía 4 o 5 años, sentada con su bisabuela en una mesa, haciendo estallar discos de metal en la parte posterior de imanes de juguete. Cuando caminaba a su escuela católica, pasaba por los mercados de Queen’s Road, donde se vendían mariscos secos, y por un templo al que los pescadores acudían a rendir culto en barco, antes de que las obras de recuperación empujaran la avenida tierra adentro.Eunice Yung distribuyendo regalos del Día del Padre a sus electores. “En Hong Kong tenemos que enfrentar la realidad de que somos parte de China”.Los cambios sísmicos en Hong Kong están obligando a los residentes a reflexionar sobre lo que significa ser de este lugar en constante evolución.Yung terminó por encontrar cupo universitario en Vancouver para estudiar computación. Sin saberlo, se unió a la corriente de hongkoneses que emigraban por miedo a los nuevos gobernantes del territorio.Después de cada paroxismo en China —la caída de la dinastía Qing, la toma del poder por los comunistas, la Revolución Cultural, la masacre de Tiananmen— la población de Hong Kong se llenó de refugiados. Los años que precedieron al traspaso de poderes, cuando cientos de miles de personas huyeron a Occidente en busca de seguridad, fueron el único momento, hasta ahora, en que la población disminuyó.Yung no estaba en Canadá porque tuviera miedo por Hong Kong. Regresó a su país, se licenció en Derecho y compareció en los tribunales de Queensway. En 2016, ganó un escaño en el Consejo Legislativo como miembro de una fuerza política pro-Pekín.Yung, de 45 años, ha criticado las obras de arte en los museos financiados por el gobierno que desprecian al Partido Comunista Chino. Dijo que la ridiculización pública de los líderes chinos es el resultado de que “la gente perdió la cabeza”.En el museo M+. “En vez de expresarnos sin límites, debemos defender la dignidad de nuestro país”, dijo Yung, la funcionaria.Desde 2019, la ciudad se ha dividido entre los que apoyaron a los manifestantes y los que temían que se estuviera destruyendo la reputación favorable para los negocios de Hong Kong.Sergey Ponomarev para The New York Times“Algunos de los medios de comunicación extranjeros dicen que ‘China es siempre una cosa monstruosa, y que estás bajo su control y no tienes libertad’”, dijo Yung. “Pero en Hong Kong tenemos que enfrentar la realidad de que somos parte de China”.Sin pruebas, los políticos a favor de Pekín han acusado a quienes se unieron a las protestas de estar en connivencia con la Agencia Central de Inteligencia. La temible ley de seguridad ha llevado a los sindicatos y a los periódicos a cerrar por miedo a penas de prisión perpetua. Casi 50 políticos y activistas por la democracia han sido encarcelados en virtud de las nuevas normas. Comparecerán ante el Tribunal Superior de Queensway a finales de este año.En la actualidad, no hay protestas masivas en Queen’s Road ni en ningún otro lugar de Hong Kong.Queen’s Road West in the evening.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times“Creo que Hong Kong sigue siendo una ciudad muy libre”, dijo Yung. “Este tipo de manifestaciones, si las permitimos hasta cierto punto, dañarán nuestros sentimientos hacia nuestro país”.Hong Kong se ha dividido entre los que apoyaron a los manifestantes y los que se preocuparon por la destrucción de la reputación favorable a los negocios de Hong Kong. En 2019, HSBC, el banco más venerable de Hong Kong y uno de los primeros parangones de la globalización, fue acusado de cerrar una cuenta vinculada al financiamiento participativo pro democracia. Los manifestantes salpicaron con pintura roja los leones gigantes que custodian la sede del banco en Queen’s Road.Hong Kong no desaparecerá de la noche a la mañana. Pero la promesa de Pekín de mantener a la ciudad en una campana de cristal política durante 50 años se ha hecho añicos.En la actualidad no hay protestas masivas en Queen’s Road ni en ningún otro lugar de Hong Kong.“Cuando la gente le enseña a sus hijos a faltarle el respeto a su país, a decirles que vamos a derrocar a nuestro gobierno, eso hace daño”, dijo Yung. “En vez de expresarnos sin límites, debemos defender la dignidad de nuestro país”.‘Cuestionar nuestra identidad’El 1 de julio de 2019, el aniversario del traspaso, cientos de miles de residentes de Hong Kong se reunieron para una marcha a favor de la democracia a lo largo de Queen’s Road. Había familias de clase media con termos de agua, pensionistas en camiseta y estudiantes con paraguas amarillos que simbolizaban el movimiento de protesta.Separándose de la multitud, Brian Leung se desvió por una calle lateral que llevaba al nuevo edificio del Consejo Legislativo, uniéndose a otros manifestantes que ocultaban su identidad con máscaras. Asediaron el edificio, rompieron cristales, retorcieron las puertas metálicas y garabatearon grafitis contra el partido comunista.Mientras la policía se acercaba, Leung se subió a una mesa, se quitó la máscara y pronunció un manifiesto democrático. Fue el único manifestante que dio la cara.Oficiales de policía frente al Parque Victoria en el aniversario de la masacre de la Plaza de Tiananmen. En años anteriores, grandes multitudes se reunieron en el parque para conmemorar ese día.Una imagen de teléfono celular de una vela encendida y números que conmemoran el aniversario de la masacre de la Plaza de Tiananmen, que comenzó hace 33 años el 4 de junio.Hijo de migrantes chinos que nunca terminó la secundaria, Leung, que ahora tiene 28 años, es un ejemplo de la promesa de Hong Kong. Creció en una vivienda pública y fue el primer miembro de su familia en asistir a la Universidad de Hong Kong.Era una época en la que muchos jóvenes de Hong Kong se sentían orgullosos de su doble identidad: chinos, sí, pero de un tipo especial que apreciaba el derecho consuetudinario británico y los pasteles de nata de origen portugués.Cuando Pekín celebró los Juegos Olímpicos de verano en 2008, Leung animó a los equipos de Hong Kong y de China.“Creo que todos queríamos darle una oportunidad a China, y pensamos que con la vuelta a la madre patria, en Hong Kong podríamos formar parte de aquella gran nación”, dijo.La sociedad civil de Hong Kong, impulsada por la juventud, marcó la diferencia. Un grupo de adolescentes ayudó a convencer al gobierno de que archivara un plan de estudios pro-Pekín.Las marchas del verano de 2019, al igual que un plantón estudiantil cinco años antes, tuvieron un desenlace más doloroso. La policía respondió a los manifestantes sin líderes con una fuerza cada vez mayor, deteniendo a miles de adolescentes. Para cuando la pandemia de coronavirus restringió las concentraciones en 2020, una quietud había caído sobre Hong Kong.An intersection on Queensway..En la actualidad, solamente el dos por ciento de los jóvenes de Hong Kong se consideran “chinos”, según una encuesta local. Más de tres cuartas partes se identifican como “hongkoneses”. Hay orgullo en el cantonés, el patois de Hong Kong, en lugar del mandarín del continente.“Cuando quedó claro que China ya no estaba interesada en las reformas liberales, empezamos a cuestionar nuestra identidad como chinos”, dijo Leung, que editó una colección de ensayos llamada Hong Kong Nationalism. “Empezamos a pensar: ‘somos hongkoneses’”.Para los millones de personas que huyeron de la agitación en China, Hong Kong sirvió durante más de un siglo como refugio, pero también como estación de paso hacia un lugar mejor. Con el tiempo, la transitoriedad de Hong Kong se asentó. El territorio se convirtió en el hogar de millones de chinos, muchos de los cuales adoptaron nombres occidentales para facilitar la burocracia británica: Kelvin y Fiona, Gladys y Alvin, Brian y Eunice.​​Ahora, Hong Kong se está deshaciendo de sus residentes. En un mes de este año, salieron del aeropuerto tantas personas como las que emigraron a Hong Kong en todo 2019. Las continuas restricciones por el coronavirus hacen que casi nadie venga. Muchos de los activistas que no están en prisión están en el exilio. Taxistas, contadores y profesores se han marchado a nuevas vidas en el extranjero.Después de cada paroxismo en China —la caída de la dinastía Qing, la toma del poder por los comunistas, la Revolución Cultural, la masacre de Tiananmen— la población de Hong Kong se llenó de refugiados.Ahora, la ciudad se está deshaciendo de sus residentes. En un mes de este año, salieron del aeropuerto tantas personas como las que emigraron a Hong Kong en todo 2019.Horas después de que la policía desalojara el Consejo Legislativo con gases lacrimógenos en julio de 2019, Leung abandonó Hong Kong, con el corazón acelerado mientras el avión se elevaba en el aire.“No pude contener las lágrimas”, dijo Leung, que ahora vive en Estados Unidos. “Quiero mucho a Hong Kong. Por eso luché por ella y por eso tuve que irme”.No ha vuelto desde entonces.‘Ese era mi destino’To, el fabricante de fideos, arriesgó su vida para escapar de China en 1978. Se entrenó durante más de un año, perfeccionando su natación y aumentando su volumen para la caminata a través de las colinas. Su primera tentativa fracasó. En la segunda, las lluvias llenaron de hongos los pasteles de luna empaquetados para el viaje. Finalmente, tras siete noches en los bosques, vio a Hong Kong al otro lado del agua.“Nadamos hacia la luz”, dijo.Para los millones de personas que huyeron de la agitación en China, Hong Kong sirvió durante más de un siglo como refugio, pero también como estación de paso hacia un lugar mejor.Era una época en la que muchos jóvenes de Hong Kong se sentían orgullosos de su doble identidad: chinos, sí, pero de un tipo especial que apreciaba el derecho consuetudinario británico y los pasteles de nata de origen portugués.Queen’s Road deslumbró a To con sus coloridos carteles que anunciaban todo tipo de delicias: abulón y té blanco agujas de plata, whisky escocés y pasteles de crema.La China que había dejado era desesperadamente pobre. Sólo en dos ocasiones durante su infancia se sintió completamente lleno. Cuando la hermana de su esposa visitaba a su familia en China, hacía equilibrios con cañas de bambú cargadas de jarras de aceite de cocina sobre los hombros y se ponía varias capas de ropa para repartir entre sus parientes.Hoy en día, en algunas zonas de Guangdong, la provincia del sur de China vecina de Hong Kong, el auge económico más rápido y sostenido del mundo ha elevado el nivel de vida por encima del de algunos habitantes de la antigua colonia británica. A lo largo de Queen’s Road, los alquileres abusivos y la ralentización de los negocios han hecho que las familias de artesanos tengan que abandonar sus antiguas tiendas.A market on Queen’s Road East.To ya superó la edad de jubilación en China. Su hijo, To Tak-tai, de 35 años, se hará cargo algún día de la tienda de fideos, rezando al mismo dios de la cocina cubierto de harina.A diferencia de sus padres, él nació en Hong Kong. No piensa en irse.“Hong Kong es el hogar”, dice.Por ahora, To trabaja día tras día, alimentando las máquinas de hacer fideos. Hong Kong tiene una red de seguridad social irregular. No recuerda la última vez que disfrutó de unas buenas vacaciones.To vive con su familia en un estrecho apartamento, pero ha construido una mansión de seis pisos en su pueblo natal de Guangdong. Sus hermanos, que nunca salieron de China, viven cómodamente de las pensiones estatales. Él también sueña con jubilarse allí.“En Hong Kong, si no trabajo, no tengo nada”, dijo To, con el torso desnudo y las pestañas escarchadas de harina. “Pero venir a Hong Kong, ese era mi destino”.El lema de un cartel que dice: “Celebrando la entrega. Mano a mano. Comenzando un nuevo capítulo”.Tiffany May More

New Zealand declares US far-right Proud Boys and the Base terrorist groupsProud Boys’ involvement in US Capitol attack cited in ruling outlawing organisation New Zealand’s government has declared that the American far-right groups the Proud Boys and the Base are terrorist organisations. The two groups join 18 others, including the Islamic State group, that have been given an official terrorist designation, making it illegal in New Zealand to fund, recruit or participate in the groups, and obligating authorities to take action against them. The US groups are not known to be active in New Zealand, but the South Pacific nation has become more attuned to threats from the far right after a white supremacist shot and killed 51 Muslim worshippers at two Christchurch mosques in 2019.Proud Boys leaders charged with seditious conspiracy in 6 January riotRead moreThe New Zealand massacre inspired other white supremacists around the world, including a white gunman who killed 10 Black people at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, in May.In the US, the state department only lists foreign groups as terrorist entities. But the Proud Boys were last year named a terrorist group in Canada, while the Base has previously been declared a terrorist group in Britain, Canada and Australia. In a 29-page explanation of the Proud Boys designation published Thursday, New Zealand authorities said the group’s involvement in the violent attack on the US Capitol building on 6 January 6 2021 amounted to an act of terrorism. The statement said that while several militia groups were involved, it was the Proud Boys who incited crowds, coordinated attacks on law enforcement officers and led other rioters to where they could break into the building. The statement said there were unlinked but ideologically affiliated chapters of the Proud Boys operating in Canada and Australia. New Zealand authorities argued that before the Capitol attack, the Proud Boys had a history of using street rallies and social media to intimidate opponents and recruit young men through demonstrations of violence. It said the group had put up various smoke screens to hide its extremism. Earlier this month, the former leader of the Proud Boys, Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, and four others linked to the group were charged in the US with seditious conspiracy for what federal prosecutors say was a coordinated attack on the Capitol.The decline of Proud Boys: what does the future hold for far-right group?Read moreThe indictment alleges that the Proud Boys conspired to forcibly oppose the lawful transfer of presidential power. The five are scheduled to stand trial in August in Washington DC’s federal court. Asked by media on Thursday in New Zealand if the Proud Boys weren’t better known for protest actions rather than extreme violence, the South Pacific nation’s police minister, Chris Hipkins, said: “Well, violent protests attempting to overthrow the government, clearly there is evidence of that.” In making its case against the Base, New Zealand authorities said a key goal of the group was to “train a cadre of extremists capable of accelerationist violence”. The statement said founder Rinaldo Nazzaro “has repetitively counselled members online about violence, the acquisition of weapons, and actions to accelerate the collapse of the US government and survive the consequent period of chaos and violence”.TopicsNew ZealandThe far rightUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

Mark Meadows’ associate threatened ex-White House aide before her testimonyIt was the second warning Cassidy Hutchinson had received before her deposition, cautioning her against cooperating with the panel Former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson received at least one message tacitly warning her not to cooperate with the House January 6 select committee from an associate of former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, according to two sources familiar with the matter.Ex-White House aide delivers explosive public testimony to January 6 panelRead moreThe message in question was the second of the two warnings that the select committee disclosed at the end of its special hearing when Hutchinson testified about how Donald Trump directed a crowd he knew was armed to march on the Capitol, the sources said.“[A person] let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know that he’s thinking about you. He knows you’re loyal, and you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition,” read the message. The redaction was Meadows, the sources said.The message was presented during closing remarks at the special hearing with Hutchinson by the panel’s vice-chair Liz Cheney, who characterized the missive as improper pressure on a crucial witness that could extend to illegal witness tampering or intimidation.The exact identity of the person who sent Hutchinson the message – beyond the fact that they were an associate of Meadows – could not be confirmed on Thursday, but that may be in part because the select committee may wish to interview that person, the sources said.That appears to indicate that the person who sent the message was a close associate of the former White House chief of staff who may themselves be a fact witness to what Trump and Meadows were doing and thinking ahead of the Capitol attack.Neither a spokesman for Meadows nor Hutchinson responded to a request for comment Thursday evening.The other message was also directed at Hutchinson, the sources said; the quote displayed on the slide was one of several calls from Trump allies that Hutchinson recounted to House investigators.“What they said to me is, as long as I continue to be a teamplayer, they know that I’m on the team, I’m doing the right thing, I’m protecting who I need to protect, you know, I’ll continue to stay in the good graces in Trump World,” the slide read.“And they reminded me a couple of times that Trump does read transcripts and just to keep that in mind as I proceeded through my depositions and interviews with the committee.”The identity of the people who called Hutchinson, warning her presumably not to implicate the former president, could not be established beyond the fact that they were people close to Trump, though the select committee is understood to be aware of all of the people.Politico, which first reported that the message to Hutchinson came from an associate of Meadows, also reported that it came before her second interview with the select committee. Hutchinson changed lawyers before her fourth deposition that preceded her public testimony.TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpMark MeadowsnewsReuse this content More

The Democratic Party is behaving recklessly and unpatriotically. So far, Democrats have spent tens of millions to help Trumpist candidates in Republican primaries.In Illinois alone, the Democratic Governors Association and Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker spent at least $30 million to attack a Trumpist’s moderate gubernatorial opponent. In Pennsylvania, a Democratic campaign spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on ads intended to help a Trumpist candidate win the G.O.P. gubernatorial primary. A political action committee affiliated with Nancy Pelosi worked to boost far-right Republican House candidates in California and Colorado.They are doing it because they think far-right Trumpist candidates will be easier to beat in the general elections than more moderate candidates.What the Democrats are doing is sleazy in the best of circumstances. If you love your country more than your party, you should want the best candidates to advance in either party. And in these circumstances, what they are doing is insane: The far-right candidates whom Democrats are supporting could easily wind up winning.Many Democrats, living in their own information bubble and apparently having learned nothing from 2016, do not seem to understand the horrific electoral landscape they are facing. They do not seem to understand how much their business-as-usual approach could lead to a full Republican takeover in 2025 — which as this week’s Jan. 6 insurrection hearing reminded us yet again, would be a disaster for our democracy.Many Democrats hope that the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision will mobilize their voters for the coming midterms, and that seems to have happened, at least in the short term. But I’m convinced this election will primarily be about the economy and the existential state of the country. Things look extremely grim for the ruling party.A staggering 83 percent of Americans believe the economy is poor or not so good, according to a May Wall Street Journal-NORC poll. And an equally staggering 83 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country, according to a Gallup poll.Parties get punished when they make mistakes. Recently, Democrats have made the kind of mistakes that make voters furious.Liberal economists underestimated the inflation threat, and Democratic fiscal policy, ignoring that threat, seems to have escalated it. The Democratic Party as a whole became associated with progressives who saw policing simply through a racial injustice lens. That’s an important lens, but progressives ignored the public safety lens and were unprepared for the widespread public anger over the increase in crime.Similarly, many progressives argued that cancel culture wasn’t a thing or was being severely exaggerated. Americans who are afraid to think out loud think the left has become too censorious, and the Democratic Party once again is held guilty by association. Progressives have also largely failed to address the shortcomings of their governing model. The rampant inequality, homelessness and other social ills plaguing San Francisco and other cities are there for all to see.We are living in an age of menace, an age when people feel unsafe on a variety of fronts. These are ages when voters tend to flock to conservative parties, which they associate with law and order.And then there is the underlying problem, which has gone unaddressed since Donald Trump surged to his unexpected victory in 2016, which is that while Democrats support many popular policies, progressives are associated with a series of social and cultural values that are unpopular with most Americans. According to a new More in Common survey, 69 percent of Americans believe that America is a country where if you get a good education, develop your talents and are open to innovation, you can do anything. Only 36 percent of progressive activists agree with this.That’s just a basic difference in how people see the country, and time and time again Democratic politicians have been punished for the messages that come out of progressive educational and cultural institutions.The Republican Party has grown pretty extreme over the past few years. But it’s important to remember Americans believe that the Democratic Party has grown extreme, too. According to a CNN survey, 46 percent of Americans believe the G.O.P. is “too extreme” and 48 percent believe the Democratic Party is “too extreme.” My guess is that this is not about Democratic domestic policies, many of which are popular, but about progressive cultural and social stances. It’s about people feeling alienated from metropolitan elites.I’ve had a recurring mystification over the past six years: How is it possible that Democrats are not crushing these guys? The G.O.P. has worked full time to disgrace itself over these years. And yet experts expect the Republicans to easily retake the House and perhaps the Senate. That’s kind of amazing when you stop to think about it.And this is all going to get catastrophically worse for Democrats if the economy further deteriorates and if a recession comes.In 2020 Biden was the candidate who didn’t seem to be pinioned to the coastal elites. But Democrats are still being battered because of that association. And what are they doing to fix the problem? Spending money to support Trumpists.Those crazies could be running the country in a few years.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

Alyce McFadden
June 28, 2022 More