Elections

WASHINGTON — El presidente necesitaba al senador de Virginia Occidental de su lado, pero no estaba seguro de necesitar a su vicepresidenta para conseguirlo.Era verano, y el presidente de Estados Unidos, Joe Biden, estaba bajo una inmensa presión para ganarse el apoyo del senador Joe Manchin, cuyo voto decisivo en una Cámara dividida en partes iguales lo convertía en el socio negociador más delicado del mandatario. Biden había invitado a Manchin al Despacho Oval para exponer en privado los argumentos a favor de su legislación de política interior más importante. Justo antes de que Manchin llegara, se dirigió a la vicepresidenta, Kamala Harris.Lo que necesitaba de ella no era una estrategia ni un consejo. Solo necesitaba que diera un saludo rápido, lo que ella hizo antes de dar media vuelta y abandonar la sala para ir a otra reunión.El momento, descrito como un intercambio de “breves cumplidos” por un alto funcionario de la Casa Blanca y confirmado por otras dos personas que fueron informadas al respecto, fue un vívido recordatorio de la complejidad del cargo que ocupa Harris: aunque la mayoría de los presidentes les prometen a sus vicepresidentes acceso e influencia, al final el poder y la responsabilidad no se reparten por igual, y Biden no siempre siente la necesidad de contar con la opinión de Harris a la hora de sortear algunas de sus relaciones más importantes.En el caso de Harris, ella llegó al puesto sin fuertes lazos con senadores clave; una persona informada sobre la reunión en el Despacho Oval dijo que sería más productivo que la charla entre Biden y Manchin se mantuviera en privado. Tampoco está claro que el presidente tuviera mucha influencia por sí solo, dada la decisión que tomó el senador la semana pasada de romper con la Casa Blanca en materia del proyecto de ley de política interior.Sin embargo, sin un papel protagónico en algunas de las decisiones más críticas que enfrenta la Casa Blanca, la vicepresidenta está atrapada entre las críticas de que se está quedando corta y el resentimiento entre los partidarios que sienten que está perdiendo terreno en el gobierno del que forma parte. Y a sus aliados les preocupa cada vez más que, aunque Biden se apoyó en ella para que le ayudara a ganar la Casa Blanca, no la necesita para gobernar.“Creo que fue una gran ayuda para la campaña”, dijo Mark Buell, uno de los primeros recaudadores de fondos de Harris desde su primera carrera para fiscala de distrito en San Francisco. “Me gustaría verla empleada de la misma manera, ahora que están implementando sus objetivos o metas”.La urgencia que rodea su posición está ligada a si el presidente, que a sus 79 años es la persona de mayor edad en ocupar el cargo, se presentará a la reelección en 2024. El miércoles de la semana pasada dijo a ABC News que se presentaría de nuevo si gozaba de buena salud. Pero las preguntas sobre la preparación de Harris para el puesto más alto están comenzando mucho antes de lo que es habitual para un gobierno en su primer año.Harris se negó a dar una entrevista, pero los funcionarios de la Casa Blanca dijeron que su relación con Biden es una asociación.“La vicepresidenta ha trabajado con diligencia junto al presidente, coordinándose con socios, aliados y miembros demócratas de la Cámara de Representantes y el Senado para promover los objetivos de este gobierno”, dijo Sabrina Singh, vicesecretaria de prensa de Harris.Harris, una de las primeras candidatas favoritas cuyas ambiciones presidenciales se desvanecieron en medio de una campaña disfuncional en 2020, se incorporó a la candidatura de Biden debido a sus prioridades políticas, que reflejaban en gran medida las de él, y a su capacidad, como mujer negra, de reforzar el apoyo de las coaliciones de votantes que él necesitaba para ganar la presidencia. Sin embargo, según las entrevistas realizadas a más de dos decenas de funcionarios de la Casa Blanca, aliados políticos y funcionarios públicos electos actuales y anteriores, Harris sigue luchando para definirse en la Casa Blanca de Biden o para corregir de forma significativa lo que ella y sus asesores consideran una percepción injusta de que está a la deriva en el puesto.Harris se incorporó a la candidatura de Biden por sus prioridades políticas, que reflejan en gran medida las de él, y después de que su campaña presidencial se truncara.Maddie McGarvey para The New York TimesAnte la caída de sus índices de aprobación, una notoria rotación de personal y las constantes críticas de los republicanos y los medios de comunicación conservadores, ha recurrido a confidentes poderosos, entre ellos Hillary Clinton, para que le ayuden a trazar un camino a seguir.Harris ha dicho en privado a sus aliados que la cobertura informativa sobre ella sería diferente si fuera cualquiera de sus 48 predecesores, a los que ha descrito como todos blancos y varones (Charles Curtis, quien fue vicepresidente con Hoover, habló con orgullo de su ascendencia indígena). También les ha confiado las dificultades a las que se enfrenta con los temas inextricables de su cartera, como el derecho al voto y las causas profundas de la migración. La Casa Blanca ha respondido a las críticas mordaces en ambos frentes, por lo que, según los activistas, es una falta de atención.“Creo que no es ningún secreto que las diferentes cosas que se le han pedido son increíblemente exigentes, no siempre bien entendidas públicamente y requieren mucho trabajo, así como mucha habilidad”, dijo el secretario de Transporte, Pete Buttigieg, en una entrevista. “Hay que hacer todo menos una cosa, que es atribuirse el mérito”.Incluso en los mejores tiempos, las limitaciones de ese trabajo hacen que el cargo vicepresidencial sea a menudo una idea de última hora, y no a todas las personas a las que se les pide, aceptan. (“No me propongo ser enterrado hasta que esté realmente muerto y en mi ataúd”, dijo en la década de 1840 Daniel Webster, antiguo secretario de Estado, al rechazar el cargo).A decir de todos, Harris y el presidente Biden tienen una relación cálida.Al Drago para The New York TimesSin embargo, la complejidad de los temas que se le han asignado y las soluciones a largo plazo que requieren, deberían haber impulsado al ala oeste de la Casa Blanca a defender a Harris de una manera más agresiva ante el público, señaló la representante demócrata por California Karen Bass, expresidenta del caucus de congresistas negros.“La Casa Blanca podría haber sido más clara en cuanto a las expectativas de lo que se suponía que iba a ocurrir bajo la supervisión de Harris”, dijo.Otros demócratas señalan que sus frustraciones son más profundas.Harris, quien pasó gran parte de sus cuatro años en el Senado como candidata a la presidencia, se enemistó con Manchin después de que ella concedió una serie de entrevistas en Virginia Occidental que él interpretó como una infracción no deseada en su territorio. Cuando se le preguntó sobre el encuentro en el Despacho Oval durante el verano, una vocera de Manchin dijo que el senador goza de “una relación de trabajo amistosa y respetuosa” con la vicepresidenta.Harris, quien pasó gran parte de sus cuatro años en el Senado postulando a la presidencia, no llegó a Washington con fuertes lazos con los legisladores, particularmente con los senadores cuyos votos han sido críticos para la agenda de política interior de Biden.Doug Mills/The New York TimesEl representante por Texas Henry Cuellar, moderado y una de las voces más destacadas del Partido Demócrata en cuestiones fronterizas, dijo que sus experiencias con el equipo de Harris habían sido decepcionantes. Cuando Cuellar se enteró de que Harris iba a viajar a la frontera en junio, hizo que su personal llamara a la oficina de la vicepresidenta para ofrecerle ayuda y asesoramiento para su visita. Nadie le regresó la llamada.“Digo esto con mucho respeto hacia ella: ya está olvidado”, dijo Cuellar. “A ella se le encargó ese trabajo, no parece que esté muy interesada en esto, así que vamos a ir con otros que trabajen en este tema”, agregó.En el futuro, Cuellar dijo que iría directamente al ala oeste con sus preocupaciones sobre la migración en lugar de a la oficina de la vicepresidenta.De la Casa Blanca, Cuellar dijo: “Al menos hablan contigo”.Los colaboradores de Harris han señalado su labor de presión sobre otros países y empresas para que se unan a Estados Unidos en un compromiso de inversión de unos 1200 millones de dólares para ampliar el acceso digital, la resiliencia climática y las oportunidades económicas en Centroamérica. Sin embargo, se ha avanzado poco en la lucha contra la corrupción en la región.En lo que respecta al derecho al voto, Harris, quien le pidió a Biden que le permitiera encabezar los esfuerzos de su gobierno en este tema, invitó a activistas a la Casa Blanca y pronunció discursos. Pero su oficina no ha desarrollado planes detallados para trabajar con los legisladores a fin de asegurarse de que dos proyectos de ley que reformarían el sistema sean aprobados por el Congreso, según un alto funcionario de su oficina.Desde que llegó a Washington, Harris ha buscado el consejo de otras mujeres —incluida Clinton, la primera candidata demócrata a la presidencia— que han logrado un éxito político histórico para que la ayuden a encontrar un camino.“Existe una doble moral; por desgracia, eso sigue presente y se hace notar”, dijo Clinton en una entrevista. “En realidad, influye en mucho de lo que se está utilizando para juzgarla, al igual que lo que se usó para juzgarme a mí, a las mujeres que se postularon en 2020 o a todas las demás”.Las dos hablan cada pocos meses por teléfono; en noviembre, Clinton visitó a Harris en su oficina del ala oeste.Harris y Biden tras ganar las elecciones del 7 de noviembre de 2020.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesBass señaló que el doble rasero va más allá del género de Harris.“Sé, y todos lo sabíamos, que lo pasaría mal porque siempre que se es ‘la primera’, lo pasas mal”, dijo Bass. “Y ser la primera mujer vicepresidenta, ser la primera mujer negra y asiática, es un triple. Así que sabíamos que iba a ser duro, pero ha sido implacable, y creo que extremadamente injusto”.Antes de su viaje a Vietnam y Singapur en agosto, Harris llamó a Clinton y a varias ex secretarias de Estado, como Condoleezza Rice y Madeleine Albright. Ha mantenido varias conversaciones privadas con Angela Merkel, quien ha relatado los retos a los que se enfrentó como primera mujer canciller de Alemania.Para este artículo, la oficina de Harris proporcionó decenas de ejemplos de su trabajo. Fue enviada a Francia para seguir reparando las frías relaciones tras un embarazoso desencuentro diplomático, y la Casa Blanca consideró el viaje un éxito. Ha asistido a más de 30 eventos centrados en la promoción de la agenda doméstica del presidente, y su huella está en el proyecto final de la ley de infraestructuras en temas como la política de agua limpia, el acceso a la banda ancha y las inversiones para combatir los incendios forestales (el derecho al voto es otro).El presidente de Francia, Emmanuel Macron, recibió a Harris en el Palacio del Elíseo de París en noviembre.Sarahbeth Maney/The New York TimesEl presidente también reconoció el interés de Harris en aliviar la deuda de los préstamos estudiantiles cuando acordó el 22 de diciembre la ampliación de una moratoria en los reembolsos de los préstamos federales hasta el 1 de mayo, una decisión que fue aclamada por activistas y legisladores demócratas que le han pedido al gobierno que haga más al respecto.Sin embargo, mientras la Casa Blanca se esfuerza por sacar adelante una legislación importante, Biden se ha apoyado en su propia experiencia —36 años en el Senado y ocho años en la vicepresidencia— para conseguir que Estados Unidos supere la pandemia de coronavirus y cumplir una serie de promesas económicas de gran importancia. Mientras tanto, Harris se enfrenta a preguntas sobre cómo encaja en las principales prioridades de la Casa Blanca.A decir de todos, ella y el presidente mantienen una relación cálida. En las reuniones, los dos suelen intercambiar opiniones y Biden le permite intervenir y hacer preguntas que van más allá de lo que él ha pedido; un asesor lo comparó con el juego del “policía bueno y el policía malo”. Al lado del presidente, Harris, exfiscala, ha interrogado a expertos en economía y funcionarios de inmigración, a veces pidiéndoles que expliquen mejor su razonamiento.Sin embargo, a sus aliados les preocupa que a la vicepresidenta en ocasiones se le dé un trato secundario.Cuando el presidente trabajó hasta altas horas de la noche de un viernes del mes pasado para conseguir la aprobación de los legisladores para su plan bipartidista de infraestructuras, un comunicado de la Casa Blanca solo decía que estaba trabajando con un grupo de asesores políticos y legislativos.El equipo de la vicepresidenta, sorprendido por la omisión de su nombre, informó a los medios de comunicación de que ella también había estado allí, realizando llamadas a los legisladores. Preguntado por la exclusión, un portavoz de la Casa Blanca dijo que el comunicado inicial emitido al público se basaba en la información recopilada antes de que la vicepresidenta llegara para reunirse con Biden y su personal de alto nivel. La Casa Blanca emitió un comunicado horas más tarde en el que señalaba la presencia de Harris.En las últimas semanas, ella ha visto una serie de salidas de la oficina de comunicaciones; otros funcionarios se marcharon a principios de este año.La urgencia que rodea a la posición de Harris está ligada a si el presidente, que a sus 79 años es la persona de más edad en ocupar el cargo, se presentará a la reelección en 2024.Tom Brenner para The New York TimesGil Duran, quien trabajó para Harris cuando era fiscala general de California en 2013, dijo que podía ser ofensiva y poco profesional. Duran dijo que renunció después de cinco meses en el trabajo cuando Harris se negó a asistir a una sesión informativa antes de una conferencia de prensa, pero luego reprendió a un miembro del personal hasta el punto de las lágrimas cuando sintió que no estaba preparada.“Muchos de nosotros seguiríamos con ella si fuera la Kamala Harris que pensamos que sería”, dijo Duran.La Casa Blanca no hizo ningún comentario cuando se le preguntó por el episodio.Consciente de las críticas que recibe, Harris se ha centrado en promover su propia agenda en una serie de entrevistas y apariciones.Pero Bass dijo que el desafío inmediato eran las elecciones intermedias del próximo año, cuando los republicanos podrían recuperar el control de la Cámara. ¿Y las ambiciones presidenciales de Harris?“Creo que es la favorita”, dijo Bass. “Creo que será la favorita”.Katie Rogers es corresponsal de la Casa Blanca y cubre la vida en la gestión de Joe Biden, la cultura de Washington y la política nacional. Se unió al Times en 2014. @katierogersZolan Kanno-Youngs es corresponsal de la Casa Blanca que cubre una variedad de temas nacionales e internacionales durante la gestión de Biden, incluida la seguridad nacional y el extremismo. Se unió al Times en 2019 como corresponsal de seguridad nacional. @KannoYoungs More

Since the 2020 election, Republicans have pursued a host of new voting restrictions across the country. Here’s where things stand.The current battle over voting rights — who gets to vote, how votes are cast and counted, who oversees the process — has turned what was once the humdrum machine room of United States democracy into a central partisan battlefield with enormous stakes for the future of American democracy.Since the 2020 election, and spurred in large part by former President Donald J. Trump’s oft-repeated lie that a second term was stolen from him, the Republican Party has made a concerted new effort to restrict voting and give itself more power over the mechanics of casting and counting ballots.In 2021, Republican-led legislatures in dozens of states enacted wide-ranging laws overhauling their election systems, and G.O.P. lawmakers are planning a new wave of such laws in 2022.Here is a quick rundown of those efforts, Democratic pushback and why it all matters.Why are voting rights an issue now?The 2020 election saw a sea change in voting habits. Driven largely by the pandemic, millions of Americans embraced voting early in person and voting by mail.Forty-three percent of voters cast ballots by mail in 2020, making it the most popular method, and 26 percent voted early in person, according to the Census Bureau. Just 21 percent voted on Election Day.Democrats in particular flocked to the two forms of early voting, far outpacing Republicans in some states — a trend that raised alarms among Republicans.Mr. Trump denounced voting by mail for months during the campaign. Once defeated, he attacked mailed-in ballots in hopes of overturning the election’s result.Since then, Republican-led legislatures have justified new restrictions on voting by citing a lack of public confidence in elections.What are Republicans trying to do?Broadly, the party is taking a two-pronged approach: Imposing additional restrictions on voting (especially mail voting), and giving Republican-controlled state legislatures greater control over the administration of elections.Republicans have often sought to limit absentee-ballot drop boxes by claiming without evidence that they are susceptible to fraud. Other new laws tighten identification requirements for voting by mail, bar election officials from proactively sending out ballot applications or shorten the time frame during which absentee ballots can be requested.Some legislatures have also taken aim at how elections are overseen, stripping election officials like secretaries of state of some of their powers, exerting more authority over county and local election officials or pursuing partisan reviews of election results.In the 2020 presidential election, Georgia was decided by fewer than 13,000 votes.Elijah Nouvelage/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesWhy are these legislative efforts important?They have fueled widespread doubts about the integrity of American elections and brought intense partisan gamesmanship to parts of the democratic process that once relied largely on orderly routine and good faith.Some are also likely to affect voters of color disproportionately, echoing the country’s long history of racial discrimination at the polls, where Black citizens once faced barriers to voting including poll taxes, literacy tests, intimidation and impossible hurdles, like guessing the number of butter beans in a jar.The newest restrictions are not so draconian, but could have outsize effects in racially diverse, densely populated areas. In Georgia, the four big counties at the core of metropolitan Atlanta — Fulton, Cobb, DeKalb and Gwinnett — will have no more than 23 drop boxes in future elections, down from the 94 available in 2020.The stakes are enormous: In battleground states like Georgia and Arizona, where the 2020 presidential margins were less than 13,000 votes, even a slight curtailment of turnout could tilt the outcome.Are there more extreme efforts?Yes. In Arkansas, Republicans enacted new legislation that allows a state board of election commissioners — composed of six Republicans and one Democrat — to investigate and “institute corrective action” when issues arise at any stage of the voting process, from registration to the casting and counting of ballots to the certification of elections.In Texas, Republicans tried to make it easier for the Legislature to overturn an election, but were held up when Democratic lawmakers staged a last-second walkout, and later dropped the effort.Many of the most extreme bills have not made it past state legislatures, with Republicans often choosing to dial back their farthest-reaching proposals.How are Democrats pushing back?Through Congress and the courts, but with limited success.In Congress, Democrats have focused their efforts on two sweeping bills, the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. But Republicans in the 50-50 Senate have blocked both. That leaves many Democrats pressing for a change to the Senate’s filibuster rules, but some moderates, including Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, are opposed.The Justice Department has filed lawsuits challenging Republican voting laws in Georgia and Texas, and has also doubled the size of its civil rights division, which oversees voting litigation.Still, any major judicial ruling on a recently enacted voting law is unlikely to arrive before the 2022 elections.Can the courts do anything about voting laws?Yes — but far less than they once could.The Supreme Court has greatly weakened the Voting Rights Act over the last decade, deeply cutting into the Justice Department’s authority over voting and giving states new latitude to impose restrictions. Voting-rights advocates can still challenge voting laws in federal court on other grounds, including under the 14th and 15th Amendments. They can also cite state constitutional protections in state courts.Democrats, civil-rights groups and voting-rights organizations have filed more than 30 lawsuits opposing new voting laws. But the legal process can sometimes take years.Democrats in Congress have proposed the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to defend voting rights.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesWait, back up. What is the Voting Rights Act?Passed in 1965, it was one of the most important legacies of the civil rights movement. It contained several provisions protecting the right to vote; required states with a history of discrimination at the polls to obtain clearance from the Justice Department before changing their voting laws, and banned racial gerrymandering and any voting measures that would target minority groups.The Voting Rights Act set off a wave of enfranchisement of Black citizens, with more than 250,000 registering to vote before the end of 1965.But the law was hollowed out by a 2013 Supreme Court decision that lifted the requirement for preclearance, paving the way for many of the restrictions enacted in 2021.Where does President Biden stand?He did not mince words, warning in July that “there is an unfolding assault taking place in America today — an attempt to suppress and subvert the right to vote in fair and free elections.” He called it “the most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War.”But in his first year, he did not make voting rights a top priority. As his administration battled to pass infrastructure and economic-relief programs, voting rights groups have grown frustrated, calling for a more aggressive White House push on federal voting legislation.Which states have changed their voting laws?Nineteen states passed 34 laws restricting voting in 2021, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Some of the most significant legislation was enacted in battleground states.Texas forbade balloting methods introduced in 2020 to make voting easier during the pandemic, including drive-through polling places and 24-hour voting. It also barred election officials from sending voters unsolicited absentee-ballot applications and from promoting the use of vote by mail; greatly empowered partisan poll watchers; created new criminal and civil penalties for poll workers, and erected new barriers for those looking to help voters who need assistance.Georgia limited drop boxes, stripped the secretary of state of some of his authority, imposed new oversight of county election boards, restricted who can vote with provisional ballots and made it a crime to offer food or water to voters waiting in lines. It also required runoff elections to be held four weeks after the original vote, down from nine weeks.Florida limited the use of drop boxes; added to the identification requirements for people requesting absentee ballots; required voters to request an absentee ballot for each election, rather than receive them automatically through an absentee-voter list; limited who can collect and drop off ballots; and bolstered the powers of partisan observers in the ballot-counting process.Some states, however, have expanded voting access. New Jersey and Kentucky added more early-voting days and an online registration portal. Virginia created a state-level preclearance requirement and made Election Day a holiday, and New York restored voting rights for some felons.So, will these new voting laws swing elections?Maybe. Maybe not. Some laws will make voting more difficult for certain groups, cause confusion or create longer wait times at polling places, any of which could deter voters from casting ballots.In some places, the new restrictions could backfire: Many Republicans, especially in far-flung rural areas, once preferred to vote by mail, and making it more difficult to do so could inconvenience them more than people in cities and suburbs.The laws have met an impassioned response from voting rights groups, which are working to inform voters about the new restrictions while also hiring lawyers to challenge them.Democrats hope that their voters will be impassioned enough in response to the new restrictions that they turn out in large numbers to defeat Republicans in November. More

We pay too little attention to delivering effective government as a critical democratic value. We are familiar with the threats posed by democratic backsliding and the rise of illiberal forces in several democracies, including the United States. But the most pervasive and perhaps deepest challenge facing virtually all Western democracies today is the political fragmentation of democratic politics.Political fragmentation is the dispersion of political power into so many different hands and centers of power that it becomes difficult for democratic governments to function effectively.President Biden has recognized this historic challenge, calling the defining mission of his presidency to be winning the “battle between the utility of democracies in the 21st century and autocracies.”Yet even with unified control of government, the internal divisions of the Democratic Party postponed passage of his bipartisan infrastructure bill for several months and have made it uncertain which parts, if any, of the Build Back Better proposal will be enacted.When democratic governments seem incapable of delivering on their promises, this failure can lead to alienation, resignation, distrust and withdrawal among many citizens. It can also trigger demands for authoritarian leaders who promise to cut through messy politics. At an even greater extreme, it can lead people to question democracy itself and become open to anti-democratic systems of government.The struggle of the Biden administration to deliver on its policy agenda offers a good example of the political fragmentation of politics taking place throughout Western democracies. It takes different forms in the multiparty systems of Europe and the two-party system of the United States. The European democracies are experiencing the unraveling of the traditionally dominant center-left and center-right major parties and coalitions that have governed since World War II. Support for these parties has splintered into new parties of the right and left, along with others with less-easily defined ideological elements. From 2015 to 2017, over 30 new political parties entered European parliaments. Across European democracies, the percentage of people who identify strongly with a political party or are members of one has declined precipitously.The effects on the ability to govern have been dramatic. In Germany, the stable anchor of Europe since the 1950s, the two major parties regularly used to receive over 90 percent of the vote combined; in this fall’s elections, that plummeted to less than 50 percent. Support has hemorrhaged to green, anti-immigrant, free-market and other parties. After its 2017 elections, with support fragmented among many parties, it took Germany six months to cobble together a governing coalition, the longest time in the country’s history. The Netherlands, after its 2017 elections, needed a record 225 days to form a government.The coalitional governments assembled amid this cacophony of parties are also more fragile. Spain, for example, was forced to hold four national elections between 2015 and 2019 to find a stable governing coalition. Spain had effectively been a two-party democracy until 2015, but mass protest movements spawned a proliferation of new parties that made forging stable governments difficult. In Sweden, the prime minister lost a vote of no confidence this summer — a first in the country’s modern political history. Digital pop-up parties, including anti-party parties, arise out of nowhere and radically disrupt politics, as the Brexit Party did in Britain and the Five Star Movement did in Italy.The same forces driving fragmentation in other democracies are also roiling the United States, though our election structures make effective third parties highly unlikely. Here the forces of fragmentation get channeled within the two major parties. The most dramatic example on the Republican side is that when the party controlled the House from 2011 to 2019, it devoured two of its own speakers, John Boehner and Paul Ryan. Mr. Boehner’s memoir portrays a party caucus so internally fragmented as to be ungovernable.Similarly, the central story of the Biden administration is whether the Democratic Party can overcome its internal conflicts to deliver effective policies. Remarkably, Speaker Nancy Pelosi scheduled floor votes on the infrastructure bill, only to pull it because she could not deliver enough Democratic votes — extraordinary evidence of how difficult it is for a speaker to unite her caucus amid the forces of fragmentation. It took a disastrous election night for progressives to bury their concerns and support the bill — and several now regret having done so.The recent collapse of Build Back Better, at least for now, led to a remarkable public bloodletting between different elements within the party.Large structural forces have driven the fragmentation of politics throughout the West. On the economic front, the forces include globalization’s contribution to the stagnation of middle- and working-class incomes, rising inequality and outrage over the 2008 financial crisis. On the cultural side: conflicts over immigration, nationalism and other issues.Since the New Deal in the United States and World War II in Europe, the parties of the left had represented less affluent, less educated voters. Now those voters are becoming the base of parties on the right, with more affluent, more educated voters shifting to parties on the left. Major parties are struggling to figure out how to patch together winning coalitions in the midst of this shattering transformation.The communications revolution is also a major force generating the disabling fragmentation of politics. Across Europe, it has given rise to loosely organized, leaderless protest movements that disrupt politics and give birth to other parties — but make effective government harder to achieve.In the United States, the new communications era has enabled the rise of free-agent politicians. A Congress with more free agents is more difficult to govern. Even in their first years in office, individual members of Congress (like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Ted Cruz) no longer need to work their way up through the party or serve on major committees to attract national visibility and influence.Through cable television and social media, they can find and construct their own national constituencies. Through internet fund-raising (particularly small donations), politicians (particularly from the extremes) can become effective fund-raising machines on their own. In this era, party leaders lack the leverage they once had to force party members to accept the party line. That is why speakers of the House resign or reschedule votes on which they cannot deliver.The political fragmentation that now characterizes nearly all Western democracies reflects deep dissatisfaction with the ability of traditional parties and governments to deliver effective policies. Yet perversely, this fragmentation makes it all the more difficult for governments to do so. Mr. Biden is right: Democracies must figure out how to overcome the forces of fragmentation to show they once again can deliver effective government.Richard H. Pildes, a professor at New York University’s School of Law, is the author of the casebook “The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process.”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

More from our inbox:A Student Awed by bell hooksTrump Calling the Shots From the ShadowsTammy Bowman and her husband. Ms. Bowman’s sister died in an Indiana nursing home that did not isolate residents suspected of having Covid-19.Johnathon Kelso for The New York TimesTo the Editor: “How Nursing Homes Hide Their Most Serious Lapses” (front page, Dec. 10) exposes conditions in nursing homes, issues with their regulation and the underlying problems with the care of our seniors. The examples cited are believable, but might it have been more balanced to include the good work done in these settings?If it were easy to care for elderly people with significant health, memory and behavior problems, more of us would be keeping our frail parents at home with us. If it’s not possible for us to do it, it’s certainly not simple for nursing homes to care for many such people.It’s even more of a problem that their overworked staff are paid so little. Other than spending more to increase staffing at these places, what else could we do? Might we pay staff members based on the quality of care they give? Could each of us volunteer to help at our local senior facilities four hours a week?Might some seniors do well in smaller “group home” settings? Could society better support families that keep their elderly relatives in their homes? Could we admit more immigrants specifically to help care for our parents?I don’t excuse egregious lapses in care, but do we expect perfection from nursing homes? Think it’ll be better when you’re 90?Jesse SamuelsWest Hartford, Conn.The writer is a retired family physician.To the Editor:I strongly commend “How Nursing Homes Hide Their Most Serious Lapses.” This is not a new issue. I testified before the Senate Finance Committee in July 2019 and noted that according to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General, skilled nursing facilities failed to report an estimated 6,600 instances of potential abuse or neglect to state agencies in 2016 alone.One contributing factor is staffing shortages. A strong reason for the Senate to pass the House version of the Build Back Better Act is the act’s provisions that would provide funding for increased wages, tuition assistance and other incentives to attract qualified staff.One of the hardest decisions for any individual or family to make is to determine that a loved one requires nursing home care. The federal government must provide these consumers with reliable information on nursing home quality. Further, only facilities that are free from abuse and neglect should be permitted to participate in either Medicare or Medicaid.Bob BlancatoWashingtonThe writer is national coordinator for the Elder Justice Coalition.To the Editor:My wife and I are 86 and currently live in a nonprofit continuing care residential community in Tallahassee, Fla. Your article comes across as a generalized indictment of nursing homes. We observe interactions of staff and residents regularly. The management and staff have an incredibly difficult agenda to manage these days.Resident care and solvency are necessarily at the top of their agendas. Failure on one can lead to failure on the other. The most difficult problem they have is attracting, training and retaining high-quality staff. Constant interaction with often unruly residents continuously tests the limits of the staff’s physical and mental endurance. Adding to the woes is the seemingly unrelenting public and official scrutiny of the business.Peter D. HunterTallahassee, Fla.To the Editor:Your investigation revealing that more than 2,700 dangerous incidents in nursing homes identified by state inspectors were never publicly disclosed was timely and needed.I had a friend who worked as an administrator in a nursing home and regularly reported to us how corrupt and dishonest the place was. To maximize profits, it operated with too few staff members at all levels, which impaired services and quality of care. His protests and that of the head nurse went unheeded by the owners/operators, leading to his resignation. The state had its usual level of inspection and monitoring, which allowed deficiencies of care to go on.I have had aged relatives in a facility in another state. There, too, apparently, there are ongoing staff shortages and diminishing quality of food and other services — plus, during Covid, way too many violations of masking, vaccination and testing standards.I hope and pray I never am subjected to this sorry end-of-life situation.Lynn MeansHuntington, N.Y.A Student Awed by bell hooksClaire Merchlinsky/The New York Times; photograph by Karjean Levine/Getty ImagesTo the Editor:I first discovered the works of bell hooks as a middle schooler looking to fill my spare time with feminist literature. The book “Feminist Theory” (1984), criticizing white feminism, immediately stood out to me for its direct writing style. It didn’t take long for me to obtain dog-eared copies of her other books, all of which left me in awe, and established bell hooks as one of my favorite authors.Reading Kovie Biakolo’s Opinion guest essay “It Was bell hooks Who Taught Me How to ‘Talk Back’” (Dec. 27) helped me realize the influence that bell hooks has had on me in light of her recent death. Ms. hooks has encouraged generations of young women to speak out against oppression. I am now a high school freshman, and I am confident that the strength of Ms. hooks is something that I will remember as a staple of my girlhood.Sriya TallapragadaNew Providence, N.J. Trump Calling the Shots From the ShadowsFormer U.S. President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort is seen in Palm Beach, Fla.Marco Bello/ReutersTo the Editor: Why would Donald Trump run in 2024? He already controls the Republican Party from the shadows with less transparency than if he were president.As a private citizen he is free to do what he likes with his money and to advance his agenda through congressional surrogates without taking an oath to defend the Constitution. It seems to me that he can do more damage from Mar-a-Lago than he could from the White House.Lawrence WeismanWestport, Conn. More

Georgia debunks Trump claim that 5,000 dead people voted in 2020State officials confirm four cases, and all involved family members submitting votes for the deceased

Robert Reich: 6 January shows we must answer neofascism
Donald Trump has claimed 5,000 dead people voted in 2020 in Georgia, a key state he lost to Joe Biden on his way to national defeat.Capitol panel to investigate Trump call to Willard hotel in hours before attackRead moreHe was off by 4,996.As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported on Monday, state officials have confirmed four cases of dead people voting.All involved family members submitting votes for the deceased, cases in which the state has the power to levy fines.In one case detailed by the paper, a widow submitted an absentee ballot for her husband after he died in September, two months before polling day.An attorney for the 74-year-old woman reportedly told officials her husband “was going to vote Republican, and she said, ‘Well, I’m going to cancel your ballot because I’m voting Democrat.’ It was kind of a joke between them. She received the absentee ballot and carried out his wishes.“She now realises that was not the thing to do.”Even if Trump’s claim about dead voters were true, it would not have saved him from being the first Republican to lose Georgia since 1992. Biden won the state by nearly 12,000 votes. Nor could Georgia alone have overturned Trump’s electoral college defeat, by 306-232.But Trump included his claim in a notorious call in which he pushed the Georgia secretary of state, Republican Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to give him victory.“Dead people,” Trump said. “So dead people voted, and I think the number is close to 5,000 people. And they went to obituaries. They went to all sorts of methods to come up with an accurate number, and a minimum is close to about 5,000 voters.”He also claimed that “a tremendous number of dead people” voted in Michigan, adding: “I think it was … 18,000. Some unbelievably high number, much higher than yours, you were in the 4-5,000 category.”Referring to a claim of “upward of 5,000” dead voters he said was presented to Georgia officials, Raffensperger, said: “The actual number were two. Two. Two people that were dead that voted. So that’s wrong.”Trump insisted: “In one state, we have a tremendous amount of dead people. So I don’t know – I’m sure we do in Georgia, too. I’m sure we do in Georgia, too.”Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, told Raffensperger: “You say they were only two dead people who would vote. I can promise you there are more than that.”The View seeks conservative to replace McCain – and angers ‘Never Trumpers’Read moreRaffensperger refused to help Trump, prompting threats to his safety. But the call also placed Trump in legal jeopardy, as a district attorney investigates whether he broke electoral law.The call was part of scattershot attempts to overturn a defeat Trump insists in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary was the result of electoral fraud.A few days after the call, on 6 January, Trump told supporters in Washington to “fight like hell” in his cause. Rioters then attacked the US Capitol, seeking to stop certification of Biden’s win, in some cases seeking to capture or kill officials including Trump’s vice-president, Mike Pence.Five people died.TopicsDonald TrumpGeorgiaUS elections 2020US politicsnewsReuse this content More

A court certified October’s parliamentary vote that gave Muqtada al-Sadr’s party a plurality of seats, clearing a path for a government to be formed.Iraq’s Federal Supreme Court on Monday upheld the results of the country’s October parliamentary elections, resolving a dispute that had stalled the formation of a new government as Iran-backed Shiite Muslim militias contested gains by a rival Shiite political bloc.The court certified the victory of Muqtada al-Sadr, the influential Shiite cleric who is regarded as a possible ally, if a wary one, for the United States in Iraq. His party won 73 of the 329 seats in Parliament, more than any other and up from 54 in 2018. It handily beat an alliance of Iran-aligned militias led by the Fatah coalition.For Fatah and its allies, Mr. al-Sadr’s victory upset the traditional balance of the Shiite powers that have dominated Iraqi politics since the fall of Saddam Hussein almost 20 years ago and threatened to dent Iranian influence in Parliament. Mr. al-Sadr — an Iraqi nationalist whose forces once battled the Americans but who is now viewed as more hostile to Iran — is poised to play a strong role not only in Parliament but also in choosing the next prime minister.Mr. al-Sadr thanked the court, the election commission and the Iraqi people in a Twitter post on Monday and called for “the formation of a government of national majority that is neither Eastern nor Western.” Earlier he visited the shrine of Imam Ali in the city of Najaf, one of the holiest sites in Shiite Islam, to offer thanks.Fatah filed the lawsuit challenging the results and alleging election fraud after it won 17 seats, little more than a third of its previous total. But on Monday, it accepted the court’s ruling.“We abide by the decision of the Federal Court despite our deep and firm belief that the electoral process was marred by a lot of fraud and manipulation,” said Hadi al-Amiri, the leader of Fatah, citing “concern for Iraq’s security and political stability and our belief in the political process and its democratic path.”Tension had clouded the legal process, delaying the announcement of the ruling, which was originally set for earlier this month. The dispute had raised the possibility that Fatah and its allies would unleash violence to force a result they wanted, and militia members gathered outside the court on Monday morning ahead of the ruling, chanting against the current prime minister, Mustafa al-Kadhimi.But they withdrew by early afternoon, and there were no reports of violence.Supporters of Iraqi Shiite parties that disputed the election results gathered outside Iraq’s Supreme Court on Monday in Baghdad before it ratified the results.Ahmed Saad/ReutersMr. al-Kadhimi survived a drone strike on his home early last month after Iraqi security forces clashed with militia members who were protesting the election results outside the Green Zone, where the American embassy is. A deputy commander of one Iran-backed militia was killed.In a speech addressed to the losing political parties on Nov. 18, Mr. al-Sadr warned them against the “ruin of the democratic process in Iraq” and called on them to dissolve their militias and hand over their weapons to the Iraqi national army.With his huge popular following and powerful militia, which he deployed to entrap American forces in brutal street fighting in the mid-2000s, Mr. al-Sadr was once such an opponent of the Americans in Iraq that the United States ordered him killed. It later decided not to do so.But Mr. al-Sadr has come to oppose Iranian meddling in Iraq, and he signaled in a speech after the election that foreign embassies were welcome so long as they did not interfere in Iraq’s affairs.Now that the election results have been certified, factions representing Iraq’s Kurdish and Sunni Muslim minorities, which have been waiting for the outcome to negotiate or form alliances that could be part of the new government, can plunge into the fray. A majority of Iraqis are Shiite.Iraqi military forces were deployed following a drone attack on Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi’s residence in Baghdad on Nov. 7.Thaier Al-Sudani/ReutersPolitical analysts said they believe the Sadrists won big partly by taking advantage of a new electoral law that limited the traditional power of larger parties and made room for new faces by increasing the number of electoral districts. The Sadrist organization studied the electoral map closely, making sure to field candidates that would not end up running against each other.But they were not the only beneficiaries: Independent candidates coming out of Iraq’s anti-government protest movement, which flooded the streets in late 2019 as Iraqis mobilized against their deeply corrupt and sectarian political system, also won a handful of seats.Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, the United Nations envoy to Iraq, praised the parliamentary elections as “generally peaceful” and well-run.“Elections and their outcomes can provoke strong feelings,” she said. “If such feelings and debates give way to undemocratic impulses — such as disinformation, baseless accusations, intimidation, threats of violence or worse — then sooner or later, the door is opened to acts that are simply intolerable.”Despite the affirmation, the elections, the fifth since Saddam Hussein’s fall in 2003, saw a record-low turnout of 41 percent that reflected Iraqis’ intense frustration with their leaders. More

The premier, Mohamed Hussein Roble, defied the order to step down as tensions continue over long-delayed elections.NAIROBI, Kenya — Somalia’s president suspended the country’s prime minister and marine forces commander on Monday, a sharp escalation in a political dispute that threatens to further destabilize the troubled nation on the Horn of Africa.President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed suspended Prime Minister Mohamed Hussein Roble over allegations of corruption and misuse of public land. Mr. Mohamed’s office had earlier accused Mr. Roble of “posing a serious threat to the electoral process” and carrying out activities that were in violation of his mandate.Mr. Roble refused to accept the order and accused Mr. Mohamed of deploying troops to attack his office and those of the cabinet in order to prevent them from carrying out their duties. The moves, he said in a televised address, were “a blatant attempt to overthrow the government, the Constitution and the laws of the land.”On Monday, foreign governments and international observers expressed concern that the dispute could set off yet another cycle of violence in a nation battered by decades of fighting.The simmering political impasse blew into open violence in the streets in April, after Mr. Mohamed signed a law extending his term in office by two years. Opponents of Mr. Mohamed, a former American citizen and bureaucrat, along with his Western allies denounced the move, with many Somalis worrying that it could reverse the modest democratic gains the country has achieved after decades of civil war.The showdown eventually led Mr. Mohamed to ask Parliament to nullify the extension and request that Mr. Roble help organize the delayed elections.Calling Mr. Mohamed “the former president,” the premier on Monday instructed armed forces to report directly to his office and promised to take action against anyone that defied those orders. He also said Mr. Mohamed, whose mandate technically lapsed in February of this year, intended to disrupt the elections so “he can illegally remain in office.”Somali military forces supporting opposition leaders in Mogadishu in May after clashes between rival factions.Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe process of organizing the elections has not been smooth, with legislative elections facing delays, irregularities and multiple corruption allegations from candidates and observers. So far, only 26 of the 275 lawmakers for the lower house of Parliament have been elected, with 53 of 54 seats in the upper house filled.Somalia’s electoral process is decidedly complex, with traditional elders choosing special delegates who select lawmakers, who then choose the country’s president. Mr. Mohamed has said he wants to move to a more traditional one-person, one-vote process, but his critics say he is driven by a desire to hold onto power.While the Somali Constitution gives the president the power to appoint a premier, the power to dismiss or give a vote of no confidence in the prime minister and his cabinet lies with Parliament.Abdirahman Yusuf Omar, a deputy minister of information loyal to the prime minister, called the president’s decision an “indirect coup.”Writing on Facebook, Mr. Omar said the deployment of security forces around the prime minister’s office would not prevent Mr. Roble from carrying out his duties.The political battle comes as more than 90 percent of the country faces drought conditions, according to the United Nations, with almost four million people estimated to be at risk of acute food insecurity.Somalia is also confronting increasing threats from the Shabab terrorist group, the negative economic impact of Covid-19, and clashes between rival forces in various parts of the country that have left dozens dead and thousands displaced from their homes.On Monday, Mogadishu residents said there was a heavy presence of troops in the streets, with many worrying that the political feud could turn bloody yet again.Abdimalik Abdullahi, an independent analyst in Mogadishu, said the latest suspension “spirals Somalia into another rocky political crisis.”The international community, Mr. Abdullahi said, should “put pressure on the political actors in Somalia to comply with existing election agreements, provide stern notice to spoilers with possible repercussions and support the prime minister to deliver his mandate regarding the management of the electoral process.”On Sunday, the United States, Britain and other Western countries said they were concerned about the delay in the elections and urged political leaders to attend a Monday meeting convened by the prime minister to resolve disputes and speed up the electoral process.But ahead of the meeting, President Mohamed’s office on Sunday accused the prime minister of “posing a serious threat to the electoral process” and for carrying out activities that were in violation of his mandate.Armored vehicles in the distance as Somali military forces secured the streets near the presidential palace in Mogadishu, Somalia, on Monday.Feisal Omar/ReutersThe prime minister is also facing an investigation on corruption charges.The commander of the Somali Navy, Brigadier General Abdihamid Mohamed Dirir, recently publicly accused top government officials, including Mr. Roble, of planning to grab public land belonging to the Coast Guard near Mogadishu’s port.In a statement released by the presidency, Mr. Mohamed accused Mr. Roble of not only misappropriating the land owned but also exerting pressure on the defense minister “which amounts to tampering” with the investigation.Pending the conclusion of the inquiry, “the duty and powers of the Prime Minister remain suspended,” Mr. Mohamed said. The president also suspended General Dirir, saying the move was crucial for completing the investigation against the prime minister.As the political turmoil mounted on Monday, Somali political leaders, along with the embassies of Britain and the United States, entreated officials to take urgent steps to de-escalate the situation.“I am deeply saddened by the horrific actions that threaten the stability and existence of this nation,” Fawzia Yusuf H. Adam, a former foreign minister and the lone female presidential candidate, said in a post shared on Twitter. “The leaders of this country must stop inciting violence and abide by the law and agreements.” More

Capitol panel to investigate Trump call to Willard hotel in hours before attack Committee to request contents of the call seeking to stop Biden’s certification and may subpoena Rudy Giuliani Congressman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack, has said the panel will open an inquiry into Donald Trump’s phone call seeking to stop Joe Biden’s certification from taking place on 6 January hours before the insurrection.The chairman said the select committee intended to scrutinize the phone call – revealed last month by the Guardian – should they prevail in their legal effort to obtain Trump White House records over the former president’s objections of executive privilege.“That’s right,” Thompson said when asked by the Guardian whether the select committee would look into Trump’s phone call, and suggested House investigators had already started to consider ways to investigate Trump’s demand that Biden not be certified as president on 6 January.Thompson said the select committee could not ask the National Archives for records about specific calls, but noted “if we say we want all White House calls made on January 5 and 6, if he made it on a White House phone, then obviously we would look at it there.”The Guardian reported last month that Trump, according to multiple sources, called lieutenants based at the Willard hotel in Washington DC from the White House in the late hours of 5 January and sought ways to stop Biden’s certification from taking place on 6 January.Trump first told the lieutenants his vice-president, Mike Pence, was reluctant to go along with the plan to commandeer his ceremonial role at the joint session of Congress in a way that would allow Trump to retain the presidency for a second term, the sources said.But as Trump relayed to them the situation with Pence, the sources said, on at least one call, he pressed his lieutenants about how to stop Biden’s certification from taking place on 6 January in a scheme to get alternate slates of electors for Trump sent to Congress.The former president’s remarks came as part of wider discussions he had with the lieutenants at the Willard – a team led by Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn and Trump strategist Steve Bannon – about delaying the certification, the sources said.House investigators in recent months have pursued an initial investigation into Trump’s contacts with lieutenants at the Willard, issuing a flurry of subpoenas compelling documents and testimony to crucial witnesses, including Bannon and Eastman.But Thompson said that the select committee would now also investigate both the contents of Trump’s phone calls to the Willard and the White House’s potential involvement, in a move certain to intensify the pressure on the former president’s inner circle.“If we get the information that we requested,” Thompson said of the select committee’s demands for records from the Trump White House and Trump aides, “those calls potentially will be reflected to the Willard hotel and whomever.”A spokesperson for the select committee declined to comment about what else such a line of inquiry might involve. But a subpoena to Giuliani, the lead Trump lawyer at the Willard, is understood to be in the offing, according to a source familiar with the matter.The Guardian reported that the night before the Capitol attack, Trump called the lawyers and non-lawyers at the Willard separately, because Giuliani did not want to have non-lawyers participate on sensitive calls and jeopardize claims to attorney-client privilege.It was not clear whether Giulaini might invoke attorney-client privilege as a way to escape cooperating with the investigation in the event of a subpoena, but Congressman Jamie Raskin, a member of the select committee, noted the protection does not confer broad immunity.“The attorney-client privilege does not operate to shield participants in a crime from an investigation into a crime,” Raskin said. “If it did, then all you would have to do to rob a bank is bring a lawyer with you, and be asking for advice along the way.”The Guardian also reported Trump made several calls the day before the Capitol attack from both the White House residence, his preferred place to work, as well as the West Wing, but it was not certain from which location he phoned his top lieutenants at the Willard.The distinction is significant as phone calls placed from the White House residence, even from a landline desk phone, are not automatically memorialized in records sent to the National Archives after the end of an administration.That means even if the select committee succeeds in its litigation to pry free Trump’s call detail records from the National Archives, without testimony from people with knowledge of what was said, House investigators might only learn the target and time of the calls.TopicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpUS politicsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More