Elections

Gail Collins: Bret, this is our last conversation of the year. I’ve had a lot of fun disagreeing over the past 12 months. Mentioning that partly because it’s hard to imagine a whole lot of people saying, “Remember all the great times we had in 2021.”Bret Stephens: I had such high hopes for the year, Gail. Melania and Donald would slink quietly out of the White House, she in couture, he in ignominy. The vaccines would conquer the pandemic. Joe Biden would preside competently and serenely over a country looking for respite after four years of craziness. Relations with the rest of the world would improve. Republicans would wake up from their fever dreams and become a serious party again, or at least hang their heads in shame after the sacking of the Capitol on Jan. 6.Alas not. 2021 turned out to be even worse than 2020, and I’m struggling to see why 2022 will be any better. Care to cheer me up?Gail: OK, here’s a theory. Most of the things that were terrible about 2021 were reflections of a world that’s changing hyperfast because of new technology.Bret: The assault on the Capitol was more Genghis than Google. Sorry, go on ….Gail: Crazy people find it very, very easy to get in touch and swap paranoid fantasies. Mean people can gossip on sites that the targets of their ire can visit easily. (Always thinking about those teenage girls reading reviews of their clothes/figures/hair). Special events are dwindling — no point in going out to the movies if you can stream the latest attractions at home.Bret: Very true. Social media freezes us all in a kind of permanent middle school presided over by a mean girl named Veronica.Gail: None of this will go away, but I’m hoping that as we get more skilled in living with the good side of the web, things will balance out. Sane people will confer on how to make the world better. Families will automatically set places at holiday dinners for loved ones who can Zoom in from the other side of the country. And those who are consigned to their beds by illness or old age can have fantastic adventures via virtual reality headsets.Bret: That’s a bit too “Brave New World” for me, Gail. My hope for 2022 is that millions more Americans will realize that the worst thing they can do with their lives is to spend them working or socializing online. People should be dedigitizing — if that’s a word — disconnecting virtually and reconnecting physically. They should leave bigger cities in favor of places where nature is more accessible, homes are more affordable, neighbors are more approachable, careers are less cutthroat, the point of life isn’t the next promotion, weekends are actual weekends, people shop at real stores and read real books and have dinner with real people. Sitting around and doing nothing should be seen as a perfectly respectable use of time.Gail: Well, I’m not going to argue with you about the glories of doing nothing. But I can’t relate to your vision of finding meaningful life by ditching the big cities. Reminds me of growing up in an era of suburban explosion where the new neighborhoods had about as much diversity as a raft of albino waterfowl.Bret: Very insensitive to albino waterfowl, Gail.Gail: But maybe we’re both right — if the pandemic ever fades, the future could hold lots of urban-rural options and folks will get to pick.Bret: Well, that’s the meta-hope. The more specific hope is that we’ll finally lick the pandemic, Democrats will stop screwing up and the country won’t get handed back to Donald — “They’re Jewish people that run The New York Times” — Trump.Gail: I’m obviously not going to argue that the Democrats are doing a terrific job at present. But their situation — that 50-50 Senate, the pandemic-riddled economy — is pretty impossible. Don’t think any president could have delivered much in this mess. Not Reagan or Lyndon Johnson or maybe even F.D.R.Bret: Hmmm. Reagan had a Democratic-controlled House for his whole presidency. Biden could be doing better.Gail: Different kind of political parties back then. Trump’s turned the whole scene into something from “Attack of the Killer Bees.”Bret: Point taken.Gail: And oh my God, Joe Manchin. I’ll refrain from doing an hourlong rant, but this is a man whose state uses up way more government money than its people pay in taxes. Who wants to kill climate change legislation while he’s living off the millions he made in the coal business.Bret: And I’ll refrain from reminding you that I’ve been saying for months there was no way Manchin was going to vote for Biden’s legislation. I’ll also refrain from gloating.Gail: What I’d love to see is an election next year that gives Biden an actual, real, not-Manchin-dependent Democratic Congress so he could be tested on how he could deliver in a semi-sane world. Any chance, do you think?Bret: Very unlikely. Midterm elections historically go against the party holding the presidency. Republicans have the built-in advantage of being able to gerrymander more districts than Democrats. Biden’s poll numbers are terrible, and I don’t think he has the kind of political charisma to turn things around. And people are scared and angry, particularly about rising prices.Gail: Biden actually has a lot he can point to with pride, particularly in the war on the coronavirus. Still, I can’t say I disagree with you. Sigh.Bret: The only silver lining, as far as Democrats are concerned, is that Republicans always reach for the self-destruct button whenever they have control of Congress, particularly when it comes to the House. Donald’s Footstool, a.k.a. Kevin McCarthy, is not a compelling G.O.P. figurehead if he becomes speaker.Gail: If the Republicans have to rely on Kevin McCarthy’s charisma, that is certainly good news for the Democrats.Bret: Turning to another subject, Gail, Covid cases are skyrocketing again. What’s your prescription for doing things differently?Gail: The rules won’t change — get the shots, three of them, wear the damned masks and don’t patronize places that cater to crowds of people unless there’s a vaccination check at the door.Bret: Agreed. But keep schools open no matter what. It’s bad enough having a public-health crisis without having to add mental-health and learning crises on top of it.Gail: I’m fine with barring the unvaccinated from public places, including work, unless they’re prepared to start every day with a coronavirus test. And of course we’ve got to do battle against the right-wing ranters who try to get attention as anti-mask crusaders.That’s your party they’re coming from — any ideas on how to make them behave?Bret: Former party, Gail, former party. Roy Moore’s Senate candidacy was the last straw for me.Gail: Bret, weren’t you going to try to reform Republicanism from within? Not that we wouldn’t welcome you into the Democratic fold. I’ll bet Nancy Pelosi would be happy to hold a celebration, once parties are permitted again.Bret: I’m sure Madam Speaker would gladly send me a half-eaten box of crackers and a banana peel so I could slip on it.Truth is, I’m happy as an independent: It’s like getting to order à la carte, whereas everyone else is stuck with a bento box of things that don’t actually go together. Why do Republicans have to be in favor of more economic freedom but less social freedom? Why do so many Democrats favor something closer to the opposite? And why can’t ideologues of both the left and right wrap their heads around the Emerson line about a foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds?Gail: I believe we’ve marched into a major disagreement. It’s true both parties are flawed, although I’d certainly argue that one has turned into Flaw City. But going independent is the worst possible response.Bret: Say more ….Gail: The only way you make a party better is by working from within. In New York, the primaries decide who the elected officials are going to be. Voting for an independent third-party candidate is worse than a waste. Registering as an independent is like telling a charitable fund-raiser that you want to help by sending good thoughts.Bret: Totally disagree! The more independents there are, the more Democrats and Republicans need to fight for their votes rather than take entire constituencies for granted, to bend toward the political center rather than toward the fringe, to pay attention to the personal quality of their candidates rather than insisting that they pass ideological purity tests, to accept nuance and compromise. We’ve become way too partisan as a country, and reducing the hold each party has on its own side is a good thing. I’d even say “independents of the world, unite,” but that would kinda defeat the purpose.Gail: I dunno, Bret. Nothing more irritating than that plague-on-both-your-houses posing. I say pick a side and work to improve it in 2022.Bret: To which I’d reply that each side should work harder to earn a vote, not assume they already own it.A final note before we say goodbye to this lousy year. Don’t miss my favorite piece in The Times this month, which is Laurie Gwen Shapiro’s fabulous portrait of Si Spiegel, a World War II hero and Christmas tree entrepreneur who’s going strong at 97. A good reminder that mettle and moxie go a long way in a person’s life — and in a country’s, too.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

And elections in Hong Kong.Good morning. We’re covering the latest Omicron news, the Hong Kong elections and a Times investigation into civilian casualties from U.S. airstrikes.People waiting in line for AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccines in Dhaka, Bangladesh.Mohammad Ponir Hossain/ReutersOmicron outstrips many vaccinesA growing body of preliminary research suggests most Covid vaccines offer almost no defense against infection from the highly contagious Omicron variant. The only vaccines that appear to be effective against infections are those made by Pfizer and Moderna, reinforced by a booster, which are not widely available around the world.Other vaccines — including those from AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and vaccines manufactured in China and Russia — do little to nothing to stop the spread of Omicron, early research shows. Because most countries have built their inoculation programs around these vaccines, the gap could have a profound impact on the course of the pandemic.Still, most vaccines used worldwide do seem to offer significant protection against severe illness. And early Omicron data suggests South Africa’s hospitalizations are significantly lower in this wave.U.S.: A fourth wave has arrived, just days before Christmas. More than 125,000 Americans are testing positive every day, and hospitalizations have increased nearly 20 percent in two weeks. Only one in six Americans has received a booster shot.Here are the latest updates and maps of the pandemic.In other developments:Some Southeast Asian tourism spots have reopened, but few foreigners are making the trip.Two lawyers and a civil rights activist are on trial in Iran after trying to sue the country’s leaders over their disastrous handling of the pandemic.The U.K. is considering a lockdown as cases skyrocket.National security organizations vetted candidates running in Sunday’s legislative elections. Billy H.C. Kwok for The New York TimesBeijing steers Hong Kong’s voteHong Kong held legislative elections this weekend, the first since Beijing imposed a drastic “patriots only” overhaul of the political system, leaving many opposition leaders in jail or in exile.Understand the Hong Kong ElectionsHong Kong’s legislative election on Dec. 19 will be the first since Beijing imposed a drastic overhaul of the island’s political system.What to Know: New electoral rules and the crackdown on the opposition have eliminated even the slightest uncertainty of previous elections.An Unpopular Leader: Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive, appears to relish the new state of affairs.Seeking Legitimacy: The outcome is already determined, but the government is pressuring opposition parties to participate. A Waning Opposition: Fearing retaliation, pro-democracy politicians who had triumphed in the 2019 local elections have quit in droves.Under the overhaul, only 20 seats were directly elected by residents; the rest were chosen by industry groups or Beijing loyalists. The establishment’s near-total control of the legislature is now guaranteed, reports my colleague Austin Ramzy.Analysis: Even though the government has effectively determined the outcome of the elections, it is pressuring voters and opposition parties to participate in order to lend the vote legitimacy.Profile: Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive, is the territory’s most unpopular leader ever, polls show. But Lam appears reinvigorated and is poised to seek a second term — if Beijing allows it.A 2016 airstrike aimed at an Islamic State recruiter in Iraq hit Hassan Aleiwi Muhammad Sultan, now 16 and in a wheelchair.Ivor Prickett for The New York TimesA pattern of failures A five-year Times investigation found that the American air wars in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan have been plagued by deeply flawed intelligence, rushed and often imprecise targeting, thousands of civilian deaths — with scant accountability.The military’s own confidential assessments, obtained by The Times, document more than 1,300 reports of civilian casualties since 2014, many of them children. The findings are a sharp contrast to the American government’s image of war waged by all-seeing drones and precision bombs.The documents show, too, that despite the Pentagon’s highly codified system for examining civilian casualties, pledges of transparency and accountability have given way to opacity and impunity.Details: Here are key takeaways from the first part of the investigation. The second installment will be published in the coming days.Records: The Times obtained the records through Freedom of Information requests and lawsuits filed against the Defense Department and the U.S. Central Command. Click here to access the full trove.THE LATEST NEWSAsiaA child recovered belongings from his home, which was severely damaged by Super Typhoon Rai.Jay Labra/Associated PressOfficials now believe that more than 140 people died after a powerful typhoon struck the Philippines last week.Police in Japan identified a suspect in the Friday arson fire that killed 24 people in an office building in Osaka.U.S. Olympic leaders criticized China’s response to allegations of sexual assault from one of its star athletes, while trying not to jeopardize American athletes headed to Beijing.Marja, a district in Afghanistan, was once the center of the U.S. campaign against the Taliban. Now residents there are increasingly desperate for foreign humanitarian aid.“In my mind, I was dead,” said Ko Aung Kyaw, a journalist in Myanmar who said he was tortured by the military junta, adding: “I didn’t look like a human.”World NewsRussian troops participated in drills at a firing range last week.Associated PressRussia laid out demands for a Cold War-like security arrangement in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, which were immediately rejected by NATO.Chileans began voting for president on Sunday after one of the most polarizing and acrimonious election campaigns in the country’s history.Israel is threatening to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, but experts and officials say that is beyond the capabilities of its military.The Baghdad International Book Fair drew readers from across Iraq eager to connect with the outside world through literature.What Else Is HappeningLegal and military experts are considering whether to seek a ban on killer robots, which are technically called “lethal autonomous weapons systems.”Senator Joe Manchin said he would not support President Biden’s expansive social spending bill, all but dooming the Democrats’ drive to pass it as written.Asian and Black activists in the U.S. are struggling to find common ground over policing and safety.Lawyers for Britney Spears are questioning whether her manager improperly enriched herself during the conservatorship.A Morning Read“I wanted to perform rakugo the exact same way that men do,” Niyo Katsura, right, said after winning a top award.Shiho Fukada for The New York TimesRakugo, one of Japan’s oldest and raunchiest comedic arts, has long been dominated by men. But a woman artist, Niyo Katsura, is now winning acclaim for her uncanny ability to portray a range of drunks and fools — male and female alike.ARTS AND IDEAS Clockwise from top left: Reuters, The New York Times, AFP, The New York Times, AFP, ReutersThe faces of 2021The New York Times Faces Quiz offers a chance to see how well you know some of the defining personalities of 2021. We have chosen 52. When we show you each face, you need to tell us the name. (And yes, we’re lenient on spelling.)Play it here, and see how well you do compared with other Times readers.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookChristopher Simpson for The New York TimesPernil, a pork shoulder roast from Puerto Rico that is often made for holidays or special occasions, is slow-roasted on high heat to achieve a crisp skin known as chicharrón.What to ReadHere are nine new books to peruse, which include a cultural history of seven immigrant cooks, reflections on suicide and a biography of H.G. Wells.What to WatchAn experimental Canadian drama, an Egyptian weight lifting documentary and a Chilean buddy comedy are three of five international movies available to stream this month.Now Time to PlayHere’s today’s Mini Crossword.And here is today’s Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. See you next time. — AmeliaP.S. Carlos Tejada, The Times’s deputy Asia editor and a fierce advocate for our journalism, died on Friday of a heart attack. We will miss him.The latest episode of “The Daily” is about the next phase of the pandemic.You can reach Amelia and the team at [email protected]. More

American policy decisions are vital to understanding Haiti’s political instability, and why it remains the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.In September 1994, the United States was on the verge of invading Haiti.Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the country’s first democratically elected president, had been deposed in a military coup three years earlier. Haiti had descended into chaos. Gangs and paramilitaries terrorized the population — taking hostages, assassinating dissidents and burning crops. International embargoes had strangled the economy, and tens of thousands of people were trying to emigrate to America.But just days before the first U.S. troops would land in Haiti, Joseph R. Biden Jr., then a senator on the Foreign Affairs Committee, spoke against a military intervention. He argued that the United States had more pressing crises — including ethnic cleansing in Bosnia — and that Haiti was not especially important to American interests.“I think it’s probably not wise,” Mr. Biden said of the planned invasion in an interview with television host Charlie Rose.He added: “If Haiti — a God-awful thing to say — if Haiti just quietly sunk into the Caribbean or rose up 300 feet, it wouldn’t matter a whole lot in terms of our interest.”Despite Mr. Biden’s apprehension, the invasion went forward and the Haitian military junta surrendered within hours. Mr. Aristide was soon restored to power, and the Clinton administration began deporting thousands of Haitians.Nearly a decade later, Haiti’s constitutional order would collapse again, prompting another U.S. military intervention, more migrants and more deportations. As rebels threatened to invade the capital in 2004, Mr. Aristide resigned under pressure from U.S. officials. A provisional government was formed with American backing. The violence and unrest continued.That cycle of crisis and U.S. intervention in Haiti — punctuated by periods of relative calm but little improvement in the lives of most people — has persisted to this day. Since July, a presidential assassination, an earthquake and a tropical storm have deepened the turmoil.Mr. Biden, now president, is overseeing yet another intervention in Haiti’s political affairs, one that his critics say is following an old Washington playbook: backing Haitian leaders accused of authoritarian rule, either because they advance American interests or because U.S. officials fear the instability of a transition of power. Making sense of American policy in Haiti over the decades — driven at times by economic interests, Cold War strategy and migration concerns — is vital to understanding Haiti’s political instability, and why it remains the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, even after an infusion of more than $5 billion in U.S. aid in the last decade alone.A bloody history of American influence looms large, and a century of U.S. efforts to stabilize and develop the country have ultimately ended in failure.Marines in Haiti marched during the last days of occupation, which ended in 1934 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor Policy.Bettmann/Getty ImagesThe American Occupation (1915-34)The politics of slavery and racial prejudice were key factors in early American hostility to Haiti. After the Haitian Revolution, Thomas Jefferson and many in Congress feared that the newly founded Black republic would spread slave revolts in the United States.For decades, the United States refused to formally recognize Haiti’s independence from France, and at times tried to annex Haitian territory and conduct diplomacy through threats.It was against this backdrop that Haiti became increasingly unstable. The country went through seven presidents between 1911 and 1915, all either assassinated or removed from power. Haiti was heavily in debt, and Citibank — then the National City Bank of New York — and other American banks confiscated much of Haiti’s gold reserves during that period with the help of U.S. Marines.Roger L. Farnham, who managed National City Bank’s assets in Haiti, then lobbied President Woodrow Wilson for a military intervention to stabilize the country and force the Haitian government to pay its debts, convincing the president that France or Germany might invade if America did not.The military occupation that followed remains one of the darkest chapters of American policy in the Caribbean. The United States installed a puppet regime that rewrote Haiti’s constitution and gave America control over the country’s finances. Forced labor was used for construction and other work to repay debts. Thousands were killed by U.S. Marines.The occupation ended in 1934 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor Policy. As the last Marines departed Haiti, riots broke out in Port-au-Prince, the capital. Bridges were destroyed, telephone lines were cut and the new president declared martial law and suspended the constitution. The United States did not completely relinquish control of Haiti’s finances until 1947.François Duvalier, top, and his son Jean-Claude, bottom, were both dictators who presented themselves as anti-communist to gain the support of the United States.Agence France–Presse/ Getty ImagesThe Duvalier DynastyThe ruthless dictator François Duvalier took power in 1957, as Fidel Castro led a revolution in Cuba and as U.S. interests in the region were becoming increasingly focused on limiting the influence of the Soviet Union.Duvalier, like many other dictators in the Caribbean and Latin America, recognized that he could secure American support if he presented his government as anti-communist. U.S. officials privately described Duvalier as “the worst dictator in the hemisphere,” while deeming him preferable to the perceived risk of a communist Haiti.When the United States suspended aid programs because of atrocities committed soon after Duvalier took office, the Haitian leader hired public relations firms, including one run by Roosevelt’s youngest son, to repair the relationship.Duvalier — and later his son Jean-Claude — ultimately enjoyed significant American support in the form of aid (much of it embezzled by the family), training for Haitian paramilitary forces who would go on to commit atrocities and even a Marine deployment in 1959 despite the protests of American diplomats in Haiti.By 1961, the United States was sending Duvalier $13 million in aid a year — equivalent to half of Haiti’s national budget.Even after the United States had tired of Duvalier’s brutality and unstable leadership, President John F. Kennedy demurred on a plot to remove him and mandate free elections. When Duvalier died nearly a decade later, the United States supported the succession of his son. By 1986, the United States had spent an estimated $900 million supporting the Duvalier dynasty as Haiti plunged deeper into poverty and corruption.President Jovenel Moïse, who was assassinated in July, ruled Haiti by decree and turned to authoritarian tactics with the tacit approval of the Trump and Biden administrations.Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York TimesFavored CandidatesAt crucial moments in Haiti’s democratic era, the United States has intervened to pick winners and losers — fearful of political instability and surges of Haitian migration.After Mr. Aristide was ousted in 1991, the U.S. military reinstalled him. He resigned in disgrace less than a decade later, but only after American diplomats urged him to do so. According to reports from that time, the George W. Bush administration had undermined Mr. Aristide’s government in the years before his resignationFrançois Pierre-Louis is a political science professor at Queens College in New York who served in Mr. Aristide’s cabinet and advised former Prime Minister Jacques-Édouard Alexis. Haitians are often suspicious of American involvement in their affairs, he said, but still take signals from U.S. officials seriously because of the country’s long history of influence over Haitian politics.For example, after the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, American and other international diplomats pressured Haiti to hold elections that year despite the devastation. The vote was disastrously mismanaged, and international observers and many Haitians considered the results illegitimate.Responding to the allegations of voter fraud, American diplomats insisted that one candidate in the second round of the presidential election be replaced with a candidate who received fewer votes — at one point threatening to halt aid over the dispute. Hillary Clinton, then the secretary of state, confronted then-President René Préval about putting Michel Martelly, America’s preferred candidate, on the ballot. Mr. Martelly won that election in a landslide.A direct line of succession can be traced from that election to Haiti’s current crisis.Mr. Martelly endorsed Jovenel Moïse as his successor. Mr. Moïse, who was elected in 2016, ruled by decree and turned to authoritarian tactics with the tacit approval of the Trump and Biden administrations.Mr. Moïse appointed Ariel Henry as acting prime minister earlier this year. Then on July 7, Mr. Moïse was assassinated.Mr. Henry has been accused of being linked to the assassination plot, and political infighting that had quieted after international diplomats endorsed his claim to power has reignited. Mr. Martelly, who had clashed with Mr. Moïse over business interests, is considering another run for the presidency.Robert Maguire, a Haiti scholar and retired professor of international affairs at George Washington University, said the instinct in Washington to back members of Haiti’s political elite who appeared allied with U.S. interests was an old one, with a history of failure.Another approach could have more success, according to Mr. Maguire and other scholars, Democratic lawmakers and a former U.S. envoy for Haiti policy. They say the United States should support a grass-roots commission of civic leaders, who are drafting plans for a new provisional government in Haiti.That process, however, could take years. More

The presidential race is being contested by a millennial leftist who would be the nation’s youngest leader and a far-right politician who has promised to restore order and security.SANTIAGO, Chile — Chileans faced a stark choice between left and right on Sunday as they began voting in a presidential election that has the potential to make or break the effort to draft a new constitution.The race was the nation’s most polarizing and acrimonious in recent history, presenting Chileans with sharply different visions on a range of issues, including the role of the state in the economy, pension reform, the rights of historically marginalized groups and public safety.José Antonio Kast, 55, a far-right former lawmaker who has promised to crack down on crime and civil unrest, faces Gabriel Boric, 35, a leftist legislator who proposes raising taxes to combat entrenched inequality.The stakes are higher than in most recent presidential contests because Chile is at a critical political crossroads. The incoming president stands to profoundly shape the effort to replace Chile’s Constitution, imposed in 1980 when the country was under military rule. Chileans voted overwhelmingly last year to draft a new one.Mr. Boric, leader of the leftist coalition Frente Amplio, has been a staunch supporter of the push to update the charter, which was set in motion by a wave of protests in late 2019 over inequality, the cost of living and Chile’s free market economy.Gabriel Boric has promised to take bold steps to combat global warming, including the politically risky proposal to raise taxes on fuel.Martin Bernetti/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIn contrast, Mr. Kast campaigned vigorously against establishing a constitutional convention, whose members Chileans elected in May. The body is tasked with drafting a new charter that voters will approve or reject in a direct vote next September.Members of the convention see Mr. Kast’s rise as an existential threat to their work, fearing he could marshal the resources and the bully pulpit of the presidency to persuade voters to reject the revised constitution.“There’s so much at stake,” said Patricia Politzer, a member of the convention from Santiago. “The president has enormous power and he could use the full backing of the state to campaign against the new constitution.”Mr. Kast and Mr. Boric clashed forcefully during the final days of the race, each presenting the prospect of his loss as a catastrophe foretold for the South American nation of 19 million people. Recent polls have suggested Mr. Boric has a slight edge, although Mr. Kast won the most votes during the first round of voting last month.Mr. Boric has referred to his rival as a fascist and has assailed several of his plans, which include expanding the prison system and empowering the security forces to more forcefully crack down on Indigenous challenges to land rights in the south of the country.Mr. Kast has told voters a Boric presidency would destroy the foundation that has made Chile’s economy one of the best performing in the region and would likely put the nation on a path toward becoming a failed state like Venezuela.Antonio Kast has vowed to crack down on crime and civil unrest. He opposed the initiative to rewrite the constitution.Mauro Pimentel/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“This has been a campaign dominated by fear, to a degree we’ve never seen before,” said Claudia Heiss, a political science professor at the University of Chile. “That can do damage in the long run because it deteriorates the political climate.”Mr. Boric and Mr. Kast each found traction with voters who had become fed up with the center-left and center-right political factions that have traded power in Chile in recent decades. The conservative incumbent, Sebastián Piñera, has seen his approval ratings plummet below 20 percent over the past two years.Mr. Boric got his start in politics as a prominent organizer of the large student demonstrations in 2011 that persuaded the government to grant low-income students tuition-free education. He was first elected to congress in 2014.A native of Punta Arenas, Chile’s southernmost province, Mr. Boric made taking bold steps to curb global warming a core promise of his campaign. This included a politically risky proposal to raise taxes on fuel.Mr. Boric, who has tattoos and dislikes wearing ties, has spoken publicly about being diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder, a condition for which he was briefly hospitalized in 2018.In the wake of the sometimes violent street protests and political turmoil set off by a hike in subway fares in October 2019, he vowed to turn a litany of grievances that had been building over generations into an overhaul of public policy. Mr. Boric said it was necessary to raise taxes on corporations and the ultrarich in order to expand the social safety net and create a more egalitarian society.“Today, many older people are working themselves to death after backbreaking labor all their lives,” he said during the race’s final debate, promising to create a system of more generous pensions. “That is unfair.”Supporters of Mr. Boric in Santiago, Chile, on Thursday.Marcelo Hernandez/Getty ImagesMr. Kast, the son of German immigrants, served as a federal lawmaker from 2002 to 2018. A father of nine, he has been a vocal opponent of abortion and same-sex marriage. His national profile rose during the 2017 presidential race, when he won nearly 8 percent of the vote.Mr. Kast has called his rival’s proposed expansion of spending reckless, saying what Chile needs is a far leaner, more efficient state rather than an expanded support system. During his campaign’s closing speech on Thursday, Mr. Kast warned that electing his rival would deepen unrest and stoke violence.Mr. Kast invoked the “poverty that has dragged down Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba” as a cautionary tale. “People flee from there because dictatorship, narco-dictatorship, only brings poverty and misery,” he said.That message, a throwback to Cold War language, has found resonance among voters like Claudio Bruce, 55, who lost his job during the pandemic.“In Chile we can’t afford to fall into those types of political regimes because it would be very difficult to bounce back from that,” he said. “We’re at a very dangerous crossroads for our children, for our future.”Supporters of Mr. Kast in Santiago on Thursday at his closing campaign rally.Mauro Pimentel/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAntonia Vera, a recent high school graduate who has been campaigning for Mr. Boric, said she saw electing him as the only means to turn a grass-roots movement for a fairer, more prosperous nation into reality.“When he speaks about hope, he’s speaking about the long-term future, a movement that started brewing many years ago and exploded in 2019,” she said.The new president will struggle to carry out sweeping changes any time soon, said Claudio Fuentes, a political science professor at Diego Portales University in Santiago, noting the evenly divided incoming congress.“The probability of making good on their campaign plans is low,” he said. “It’s a scenario in which it will be hard to push reforms through.”Pascale Bonnefoy More

Former Senator David Perdue knows how to crash a party. When he announced that he would seek the 2022 Republican nomination for governor in Georgia, challenging the incumbent, Brian Kemp, he did more than enter a primary race. He illustrated the dangers facing the G.O.P. in the coming year.Georgia Republicans are divided over former President Donald Trump and torn between mainstream credibility and the conspiratorial fringe. Mr. Perdue — an ally of Mr. Trump — has made these divisions worse. The beneficiary? The Democrat Stacey Abrams.Republicans worry about internal strife and outlandish messages that turn off swing voters because everything else is going their way. The party did well in last month’s elections. President Biden’s low approval ratings endanger Democrats in Congress, where Republicans must net only five seats in the House and one in the Senate to seize control.Republican strength at the state level gives the party an advantage in drawing new maps of congressional districts, which will amplify their slim lead in the FiveThirtyEight estimate of the congressional generic ballot.Yet history shows how expectations can be thwarted. Republicans have experienced hopeful times before — only to have the moment pass. They believed that disapproval of President Bill Clinton’s conduct would expand their majorities in 1998. They ended up losing five House seats. They believed that Mr. Trump would rally the base to support two incumbent senators during runoffs in Georgia last January. They lost both seats and control of the Senate.Time and again, the biggest obstacle to a red wave hasn’t been the Democratic Party. It’s been the Republican Party.Republican victories in the midterms next year are far from preordained. Glenn Youngkin’s win in Virginia may be much harder to replicate elsewhere than it looked on election night. Republican leaders continue to fear Mr. Trump and his supporters, and they are divided over candidate selection, message and agenda. The result is a unique combination of external strength and internal rot: an enthusiastic and combative Republican Party that despite its best efforts may soon acquire power it has done nothing to deserve.It will be hard for the party to appeal to the suburban independents who decide elections, though Mr. Youngkin’s success suggests a path. He is the first Republican elected governor of Virginia in over a decade because of his emphasis on kitchen-table issues like rising prices and school closures. He ignored immigration, encouraged vaccination while opposing government mandates and stayed clear of Mr. Trump during the general election. He focused on parental involvement in education and planted himself firmly in the center-right of the political mainstream. When asked about a Trump rally where the Pledge of Allegiance was recited to a flag supposedly connected to the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, Mr. Youngkin called it “weird and wrong.” One Republican senator joked in private that Mr. Youngkin had figured out how to hold Mr. Trump’s hand — under the table and in the dark.Other candidates won’t be as skilled or as lucky as Mr. Youngkin. Republicans lost winnable Senate seats in 2010 and 2012 because of flawed nominees like Sharron Angle in Nevada, Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, Todd Akin in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana. Past may be prologue if Republicans nominate Trump allies whose record or rhetoric are questionable and extreme. Last month, one Trump-endorsed candidate for Senate, Sean Parnell of Pennsylvania, suspended his campaign after he lost a custody battle against his estranged wife. The Trump endorsees Kelly Tshibaka of Alaska and Herschel Walker of Georgia are untested on the campaign trail. In races where Mr. Trump hasn’t yet endorsed, Blake Masters of Arizona, Eric Greitens of Missouri and J.D. Vance of Ohio may secure the MAGA base by forfeiting viability in the general election.Mr. Trump remains the central figure in the G.O.P. Party elites try to ignore him as he spends many days fighting Republicans rather than Democrats and plotting his revenge against the 10 Republican House members who voted for his second impeachment, the seven Republican senators who voted to convict him and the 13 House Republicans who voted for the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Mr. Trump targets his enemies with primary challenges, calls for “audits” and “decertification” of the 2020 presidential results and howls at Mitch McConnell for not being “tough.” His imitators within the party are a font of endless infighting and controversy, and they undermine the authority of the House Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy. Mr. Trump would have it no other way.The former president was content to keep a distance in this year’s races for governor. He won’t be so quiet next year — especially if he concludes that a successful midterm is a key step to his restoration to power in 2024. A more visible and vocal Trump has the potential to help Republicans in solid red states but doom them in purple or blue ones. Yet control of the Senate hinges on the results in Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire — states Mr. Trump lost in 2020.Mr. Youngkin showed that a positive message attuned to middle-class priorities repels Democratic attacks. If Republicans campaign on a unified message that applies conservative principles to inflation, the border, crime, education and health care, they might be able to avoid being tagged as the party of extremism, conspiracy and loyalty to Mr. Trump. Their problem is that they have no such message.Mr. McConnell has reportedly told Senate Republicans that they won’t release an agenda before the midterms. He’s worried that specific proposals are nothing but fodder for Democratic attacks. What should worry him more are rudderless Republican candidates who allow their Democratic opponents to define them negatively — and then, if they still win, take office in January 2023 with no idea what to do.In an ideal world, more Republicans would think seriously about how best to provide individuals and families with the resources necessary to flourish in today’s America. They would spend less time attacking one another and more time offering constructive approaches to inflation and dangerous streets. They would experiment with a ranked-choice primary system that played a role in Mr. Youngkin’s nomination in Virginia and in the law-and-order Democrat Eric Adams’s win in New York City’s mayor’s race. Interested Republicans would declare today that Mr. Trump won’t deter them from seeking the presidency — reminding him that renomination is not guaranteed.But that’s not the world we live in. Republicans appear either unwilling or unable to treat the former president as a figure from the past whose behavior has done the party more harm than good. They take false comfort in the idea that midterm elections are “thermostatic,” the inevitable repudiation, climatic in nature, of the governing party. They assume they will win next year without doing anything of significance. And they may be right.Matthew Continetti is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of the forthcoming “The Right: The Hundred Year War for American Conservatism.”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

Bob’s Burgers bans actor over alleged involvement in Capitol attack – reportJay Johnston ‘blacklisted’ by Fox and no longer allowed to voice character Jimmy Pesto Sr, the Daily Beast reports While conservative Fox News hosts continue to downplay the extent of the deadly attack on the US Capitol on 6 January – and their links to the president who incited it – another part of the Fox media empire appears to have cracked down on a personality alleged to have taken part: the actor and comedian Jay Johnston.Mark Meadows was at the center of the storm on 6 January. But only Trump could call it offRead moreAccording to a report by the Daily Beast, the Bob’s Burgers cast member has been “blacklisted” by Fox over his reported presence among supporters of Donald Trump who sought to violently overturn the presidential election.Johnston, 53, has not been charged or convicted of a crime, or even admitted he was at the Capitol on 6 January.Nonetheless, the Beast cited anonymous sources close to the makers of Bob’s Burgers as saying Johnston was no longer allowed to voice the character Jimmy Pesto Sr on the long-running cartoon sitcom.Johnston has appeared in 43 episodes of Bob Burger’s since 2011 but has been missing from the 12th season that began in September, the Beast said, adding that his final appearance to date was in a season 11 episode that last aired in May.Johnston was unavailable for comment, the Beast said, while Fox and Disney, which includes the show on its Disney+ streaming service, declined the chance to do so.Internet sleuths have identified Johnston as a man seen wearing a camouflage face mask at the Capitol and wanted by the FBI for questioning.The Beast quoted a tweet identifying Johnston by Cassandra Church, an actor who worked with him on the comedy podcast Harmontown.“I’m no detective, but I do know Jay,” Church tweeted in March. “He said he was there. And that’s him in the picture. So…”From Peril to Betrayal: the year in books about Trump and other political animalsRead moreIn a tweet subsequently deleted, Spencer Crittenden, who also featured in Harmontown, wrote that Johnston was “a craven Trump supporter and was there at the time”.Tim Heidecker, a comedy writer, claimed to have “fully confirmed through reliable sources” that “it’s Jay”, although he too later deleted his messages.Johnston’s reported treatment by his employer sits in stark contrast to that of Fox News personalities including Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham who continue to push the false narrative that outside actors were involved in the insurrection.Both Hannity and Ingraham this week became entangled in the House investigation of the violence on 6 January, when it was revealed that they were among authors of text messages sent to the then White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, urging him to persuade Trump to call off the mob.TopicsAnimation on TVUS Capitol attackFoxTelevisionnewsReuse this content More

The signs and messages are everywhere: “Cast a vote for Hong Kong and yourself.” Candidates’ faces cover the pavement and walls from the city center to stalls in the wet markets on its outskirts. Government-sponsored billboards calling to “improve electoral system, ensure patriots administering Hong Kong” abound.Hong Kong and Chinese government officials have for weeks been urging the public to vote in this weekend’s legislative election. But this is not a typical free and fair election: It’s a selection process, thanks to an electoral overhaul with no meaningful participation from the opposition (not least because many are in jail).The Chinese government wants this election to appear to be successful, as Beijing needs the facade of Hong Kong becoming more “democratic.” If the citizens of Hong Kong skip the vote, it would undermine the election’s legitimacy.I know firsthand what a meaningful and contested campaign looks like. When I ran in the 2016 legislative elections and won, the atmosphere was electric. Candidates’ teams occupied street corners, and citizens debated their favorites on social media. The whole city was mobilized; citizens could feel the weight of their vote.What’s taking place now, though, is drastically different. There are no political debates, and candidates are silent about the government’s suppression of the democratic movement.That’s because this vote will take place two years into Beijing’s crackdown, during which Hong Kong’s autonomy has steadily decreased and critics have been silenced; since the 2019 pro-democracy demonstrations, Beijing has jailed large numbers of activists, protesters and political leaders. Every day, Hong Kong comes closer to resembling another mainland Chinese city.This will be the first vote to take place after two consequential new measures — part of Beijing tightening grip — that effectively eliminate the checks and balances of government.The first was Beijing’s imposition of a national security law, which was introduced last year. The law has crumpled civil society and criminalized free speech. It forced the closure of the pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily, the disbanding of the largest independent trade union and the banning of the annual vigil for Tiananmen Square victims. Recently a protester was sentenced to more than five years in jail for chanting political slogans; no violence was involved.The second was an electoral reform this year that lowered the proportion of directly elected seats in the legislature from around half to less than a quarter and introduced a vetting mechanism for candidates to ensure they qualify as “patriots” — a vague qualification that serves to eliminate voices critical of China.John Lee, the chief secretary of Hong Kong, claimed the “improvements to the electoral system” put an end to “turmoil,” yielding “good governance,” but many Hong Kongers think otherwise. Sunday’s election was initially due to take place in 2020, but it was postponed in the name of Covid-related public health concerns — though many believed that the government wanted to wait until the election overhaul was enacted.Under these measures, the pro-democracy movement is cracked, and democratic leaders have no realistic hopes of entering the legislative chamber.The few self-proclaimed nonestablishment candidates lack either track records in fighting for democracy or the support of the pro-democracy masses. And many Hong Kongers will be unable to use their votes as a voice or means of expression.Despite the ubiquitous advertisements from the government, election sentiment in the public has never felt so low.People do not want to vote for a rubber-stamp chamber and pretend everything is all right.It’s clear to me that the government of Hong Kong is concerned about a low turnout rate. The authority needs citizens at the voting booths to lend legitimacy to the legislature because only 20 out of 90 candidates are elected by popular vote.Officials have been trying to counter criticism of the election: Hong Kong’s chief executive, Carrie Lam, claimed that low turnout would reflect voters’ satisfaction with the current government. Mr. Lee defended the elections as “competitive” and free of “traitors.”These statements reflect the Hong Kong government’s efforts to better align with Beijing’s more extensive propaganda campaign redefining democracy. A new white paper issued by Beijing says China is a “whole-process people’s democracy.” If Beijing can claim itself as a democracy, the logic goes, it can halt criticism of China based on its political ideology.A “successful” election in Hong Kong helps Beijing propel that narrative: “Democracy” is taking place — despite citizens’ lack of choice in their leadership or representatives — and delivering results for the people. The more that Beijing’s narratives gain traction, the more China’s campaign to undermine traditional democratic systems and values around the world will succeed.With its legitimacy on the line, there’s little mystery why the Hong Kong government has been overreacting in its defense of the vote — to the degree that it threatened a major newspaper with legal action for calling the election a “sham.”The news media isn’t the only target. The government made it criminal to encourage others not to vote; at least 10 people have been arrested. According to Hong Kong’s security chief, I “allegedly violated the elections ordinance and possibly even the national security law” for urging citizens to sit out the vote. This essay will almost certainly garner the same response.My guess is that election turnout will be low. Not because voters are satisfied with the government but rather because they will be refusing to assist Beijing’s attempts to recoin democracy in its own authoritarian terms.Even though Hong Kong people are silenced, they persist in their passion to stand up for democracy.Nathan Law Kwun Chung (@nathanlawkc) is a pro-democracy activist and former legislator from Hong Kong living in exile in London. Named one of Time’s 100 most influential people of 2020, he also is the author of the new book “Freedom: How We Lose It and How We Fight Back.”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

Valérie Pécresse, the center-right candidate in April’s presidential election, has adopted the vocabulary of the far right when discussing immigration.PARIS — As president, the candidate said, she would “eradicate zones of non-France,” or neighborhoods with high crime, where “the little old lady is told to stay home” because there is a drug deal underway outside her apartment.She would send in the army to help in the “Republican reconquest” of these areas where, she promised, offenders would be punished more severely under the law.“We have to eradicate them,” she said during a prime-time debate, referring to the areas, “and that’s what I would do as president of the republic.”It was not Marine Le Pen, the far-right leader, who was speaking, but Valérie Pécresse, the center-right candidate in April’s presidential election.Ms. Pécresse recently won the nomination of the Republicans — the successor to parties once led by Presidents Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac — by tacking hard right. She adopted the far right’s vocabulary, with its racial and colonial undertones, while proposing harsher penalties in high-crime zones for the same offenses as elsewhere, a policy that experts said would violate France’s bedrock principle of equality before the law.But with the primary behind her, Ms. Pécresse — an otherwise moderate conservative who has often been compared to President Emmanuel Macron — now faces the difficult task of enlarging her support base. Pulled right by her own party and the far right, she must also speak to moderates and traditional conservatives less interested in the themes of immigration and national identity that have dominated the political campaign.Ms. Pécresse in 2018 with President Emmanuel Macron, to whom she has often been compared.Pool photo by Ludovic MarinStill basking in her primary victory two weeks ago, Ms. Pécresse, the current leader of the Paris region and a former national minister of the budget and then higher education, has risen to second place behind Mr. Macron in the polls among likely voters in the election. For Mr. Macron, a challenge by an establishment figure like Ms. Pécresse could prove far more formidable than one by Ms. Le Pen, whom he easily beat in 2017.The rise of Ms. Pécresse, 54, comes at an unsettled time in French politics. Until this past summer, most experts had expected a rematch of 2017, pitting Mr. Macron against Ms. Le Pen in the second round of France’s two-round voting system. But the emergence and rapid rise of Éric Zemmour, a far-right author, television pundit and now presidential candidate, has turned things upside down.By severely weakening Ms. Le Pen, Mr. Zemmour’s candidacy has created a path for Ms. Pécresse to move past the first round and face Mr. Macron.Like the president, Ms. Pécresse is a graduate of France’s top schools and is at ease speaking English in international settings. She, too, is regarded as pro-business and pro-Europe, even though she has criticized Mr. Macron for his spending and recently proposed cutting 200,000 government jobs. On social issues, though, she is considered more conservative than the president. She opposed gay marriage when it became law in 2013, though she has since changed her position.Like others on the right and far right — who have railed against a supposed invasion of France by immigrants, even as arrivals have grown less in France than in the rest of Europe or in other rich nations worldwide in the past decade — Ms. Pécresse has taken a tough stance on immigration. Describing it as “out of control,” she said there was a link between immigration and the rise of Islamism, terrorism and crime. She has proposed putting quotas on immigrants by country of origin and category, and cutting social benefits for them.Migrants warming themselves by a fire at a makeshift camp in Paris. Ms. Pécresse has taken a hard line on immigration, calling it “out of control.”Christophe Archambault/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe first woman nominated by the Republicans as a presidential candidate, Ms. Pécresse has mentioned former Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Britain in speaking about her own leadership.Alexandra Dublanche, the vice president of the Paris region, who has worked with Ms. Pécresse for a decade, said the candidate was inspired by Ms. Thatcher as a “reformer and for her courage to get things done.” In Ms. Merkel, Ms. Pécresse admired “a long-term vision and the capacity to unite people behind her,” Ms. Dublanche said.Ms. Pécresse’s victory in the primary was widely considered a surprise to political experts and to her opponents, including allies of Mr. Macron. She defeated four men, including two who had been described as clear favorites. Ms. Dublanche said Ms. Pécresse was “clearly” underestimated because of her gender.In the first days after Ms. Pécresse’s victory, Mr. Macron’s allies scrambled for a strategy to counter her candidacy, but they are now emphasizing her positions during the primary.“On issues like immigration, she is on the hard right or close enough to the extreme right,” said Sacha Houlié, a national lawmaker of Mr. Macron’s party.Ms. Pécresse’s proposal to cut 200,000 government jobs was an example of the kind of austerity that would harm an economy recovering from the pandemic, Mr. Houlié said.Ms. Pécresse at a televised debate for her party’s presidential primary last month in Paris. She defeated four men, including two who had been considered clear favorites.Thomas Samson/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesSome of Ms. Pécresse’s supporters say her gender could prove an asset against Mr. Macron, who despite emphasizing equality at the workplace during his presidency, has been criticized for governing with a small circle of men.Female candidates of other parties made it to the second round of elections in 2007 and 2017, Mr. Houlié said.“So I think it’s hype,” he said. “Yes, she’s a woman, and maybe it’s new for the right, which reflects their backward vision of French society. It’s normal for everyone else that women are in politics.”But for now, Ms. Pécresse’s greatest challenge will be to manage the divergences within her own party and potential supporters, experts say.Like the rest of French society, her party has moved further right in recent years, said Emilien Houard-Vial, an expert on the party who teaches at Sciences Po university in Paris.“She is facing a stronger pressure on the right,” Mr. Houard-Vial said, adding that she would be expected to “give pledges” on issues like immigration, crime, national identity and “cancel culture.”Traditionally, party leaders have drawn a clear line between their organization and the far right led by Ms. Le Pen’s National Rally, formerly known as the National Front.Ms. Dublanche said that for Ms. Pécresse there was a “complete barrier” between her party and the far right.Barbès, one of the poorest districts in Paris, is home to the city’s largest Muslim community. Ms. Pécresse recently linked immigration to the rise of Islamism, terrorism and crime.Andrea Mantovani for The New York TimesBut in recent years the lines separating the party from the far right have increasingly blurred. Eric Ciotti, the runner-up in the Republicans’ primary, said that in a hypothetical showdown between Mr. Macron and Mr. Zemmour, he would back the far-right television pundit and writer.In fact, Ms. Pécresse quit her party in 2019 — coming back only in October — because she said at the time that she disagreed with its orientation under its leaders at the time.“She herself quit the party because she disagreed with the growing shift to the right,” said Gaël Perdriau, a longtime Republican who was forced to step down as vice president a few days after Ms. Pécresse’s victory because of his criticism of the party’s tilt further right. “So I don’t understand why she would return to the party and promote the same kind of ideas she criticized in the past.”During a prime-time debate during the primary, Ms. Pécresse adopted a studiously ambiguous position on the “great replacement” — a conspiracy theory that was popularized by Mr. Zemmour and that argues that France’s white Christian population is being intentionally replaced by African Muslims. The expression has been cited by white supremacists in mass killings in New Zealand and the United States.“If she’s not clear on this theory of the great replacement, I can’t vote for someone who supports those ideas,” Mr. Perdriau said. He added that instead of “offering concrete solutions to social problems,” his party found a “scapegoat in the foreigner.”“We can be representatives of authority, law and justice,” he said, “without lapsing into words that flirt with racism and hatred of the other.” More