Elections

A Treasury Department document shed more light on links between the campaign and Russian spies.WASHINGTON — The Biden administration revealed on Thursday that a business associate of Trump campaign officials in 2016 provided campaign polling data to Russian intelligence services, the strongest evidence to date that Russian spies had penetrated the inner workings of the Trump campaign.The revelation, made public in a Treasury Department document announcing new sanctions against Russia, established for the first time that private meetings and communications between the campaign officials, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and their business associate were a direct pipeline from the campaign to Russian spies at a time when the Kremlin was engaged in a covert effort to sabotage the 2016 presidential election.Previous government investigations have identified the Trump aides’ associate, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, as a Russian intelligence operative, and Mr. Manafort’s decision to provide him with internal polling data was one of the mysteries that the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, sought to unravel during his two-year investigation into Russia’s election meddling.“During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, Kilimnik provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy,” the Treasury Department said in a news release. “Additionally, Kilimnik sought to promote the narrative that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”The Biden administration provided no supporting evidence to bolster the assessment that the Russian intelligence services obtained the polling data and campaign information. And the release shed no light on why Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates gave polling data to Mr. Kilimnik, although previous government reports have indicated that Mr. Manafort thought Trump campaign strategy information could be a valuable commodity for future business deals with Kremlin-connected oligarchs.Having the polling data would have allowed Russia to better understand the Trump campaign strategy — including where the campaign was focusing resources — at a time when the Russian government was carrying out its own efforts to undermine Donald J. Trump’s opponent.Mr. Gates said in a statement on Thursday that the Treasury Department had failed to provide any evidence to back up its claim, adding that “the polling data passed periodically to Kilimnik at Paul Manafort’s direction was simplistic and outdated, never in real time.”“It was from both public and internal sources,” Mr. Gates said. “It was not massive binders full of demographics or deep research. It was ‘topline’ numbers and did not contain any strategic plans.”The new sanctions against Russia are in response to the Kremlin’s election interference, efforts to hack American government agencies and companies, and other acts of aggression against the United States.The sanctions now make it extremely difficult for Mr. Kilimnik, who was indicted by the Justice Department in 2018 on charges of obstruction of justice, to engage in financial transactions that may involve the United States.It is unclear how long American spy agencies have held the conclusion about Mr. Kilimnik. Senior Trump administration officials, fearing Mr. Trump’s wrath, repeatedly tried to keep from the public any information that seemed to show Mr. Trump’s affinity for Russia or its president, Vladimir V. Putin.Mr. Kilimnik had been a longtime business partner during Mr. Manafort’s time as a political consultant in Ukraine. In 2018, prosecutors for Mr. Mueller’s office announced that Mr. Kilimnik had “ties to Russian intelligence” and that Mr. Manafort had instructed Mr. Gates to pass the polling and campaign information to Mr. Kilimnik.The Senate Intelligence Committee went further last August in its bipartisan report that scrutinized the links between the Trump campaign and Russia — calling Mr. Kilimnik a “Russian intelligence officer.”The report contained several significant redactions that appeared related to Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kilimnik but said that Mr. Manafort’s willingness to share the information with him “represented a grave counterintelligence threat.”The report called the relationship between Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kilimnik “the single most direct tie between senior Trump campaign officials and the Russian intelligence services.”The Senate report portrayed a Trump campaign stacked with businessmen and other advisers who had little government experience and “presented attractive targets for foreign influence, creating notable counterintelligence vulnerabilities.”A New York Times article in 2017 said that there had been numerous interactions between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the year before the election. F.B.I. officials had disputed the report, but both the Senate report and the Treasury Department document confirm the article’s findings.The assertion that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that sought to disrupt the 2016 election has long been both a Kremlin talking point and a claim by Mr. Trump that foreign actors tried to help his opponent, Hillary Clinton, rather than him.Mr. Trump’s obsession over Ukraine’s supposed role in the election was the impetus for a 2019 phone call with the Ukrainian president that was central to the first impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump.Mr. Manafort was brought into the Trump campaign in March 2016, at a time when Mr. Trump had largely sewn up the Republican presidential nomination.Mr. Manafort and his longtime business associate, Mr. Gates, joined the Trump campaign after years of doing political consulting work in Ukraine, where they met Mr. Kilimnik, a Russian Army-trained linguist.The two men met with Mr. Kilimnik several times after joining the campaign, and in June 2016, Mr. Manafort became the Trump campaign chairman.Details about Mr. Manafort’s relationship with Mr. Kilimnik were revealed in 2018 as the government prosecuted Mr. Manafort and charged Mr. Kilimnik with obstruction of justice for trying to coach potential witnesses in the investigation.Mr. Kilimnik never came to the United States to face charges. He is wanted by the F.B.I., and the bureau is offering $250,000 for information that could lead to his arrest. More

Was his economic story too good to check? More

For the first time since the Supreme Court allowed unlimited spending in elections, candidate super PACs are flooding money into a New York mayoral election.New York City’s pivotal mayor’s race has unleashed an army of super PACs the likes of which the city has never seen.Raymond J. McGuire, the former Citigroup executive, has one. So, too, does Shaun Donovan, President Barack Obama’s former housing secretary, and Scott Stringer, New York City’s comptroller. Andrew Yang, the former presidential candidate, has one and soon may get another.The proliferation of super PACs supporting individual candidates in the race — a familiar theme in presidential races, but unheard of in a New York City mayoral contest — points to the gravity of this year’s election in the midst of a pandemic.But it also raises the question of whether the super PACs are simply a way to get around campaign finance limits and may lead to scrutiny of possible coordination between the outside funds and political campaigns, a practice that would violate campaign finance rules.The issue came into sharp focus on Thursday, when New York City’s Campaign Finance Board withheld the release of public matching funds to Mr. Donovan’s campaign. The board said it wanted to ensure there had been no coordination between the campaign and the super PAC supporting him, which is largely funded by his father.In a statement he read during the Thursday meeting, board chairman Frederick Schaffer said the board required further information from the Donovan campaign and New Start N.Y.C., the super PAC created to support Mr. Donovan’s campaign.The board first reached out to New Start N.Y.C. for more information on March 25, following a New York Times article on the super PAC, according to its treasurer, Brittany Wise. The super PAC responded the very next day.Michael Donovan, Mr. Donovan’s father, said there has been absolutely no coordination between him and his son. They talk “about the grandchildren” and other personal matters, he said.“I’m very dis-involved, and my son is very very careful that we don’t talk about anything involving the PAC,” said Mr. Donovan, an ad tech executive, when reached by phone.Ms. Wise said there had been no coordination with the campaign. Jeremy Edwards, a spokesman for Mr. Donovan, said, “We follow the law.”The questions surrounding Mr. Donovan illustrate the continued repercussions of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which allowed unlimited outside spending in elections.Coordination between super PACs and political campaigns is notoriously hard to prove. And the penalties, when there are any, are often slaps on the wrist.The stakes are particularly high in New York City, which is deploying its new, more generous matching funds program — designed to reward candidates who raise small-dollar donations from New York City residents — for the first time in a mayor’s race. On Thursday, the board doled out another $10 million to six qualifying candidates in the race, including Mr. Stringer and Mr. Yang.The board gave out $2.3 million to Kathryn Garcia, the former sanitation commissioner; $2.2 million to Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit head; $900,000 to Maya Wiley, the MSNBC analyst and former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio; and $300,000 to the Brooklyn borough president, Eric Adams — candidates who so far have no apparent super PAC support.Critics argue that the rise of super PACs threatens the efficacy of the new system by allowing candidates to effectively have it both ways. Mr. Donovan, Mr. Stringer and Mr. Yang are participating in the matching funds program. Mr. McGuire is not.“Right now, independent expenditures are a monster that’s getting bigger and bigger, and the good guys have not figured out a way to slay it yet,” said John Kaehny, executive director of Reinvent Albany, a good-government group. “It’s like patching one part of your roof and the water finds another way in.”There were no super PACs explicitly supporting individual candidates in the 2013 mayoral primary, officials said.This mayoral election is different. Mr. McGuire’s super PAC has raised more than $4 million dollars from donors like Kenneth Langone, the billionaire co-founder of Home Depot; the art world philanthropist Agnes Gund; and the real estate developer Aby J. Rosen.Mr. Donovan’s has raised more than $2 million, nearly all of it from his father. The super PAC for Mr. Stringer, a collaboration between Food and Water Action and New York Communities for Change, a social justice group, was just formed on Monday. It aims to raise a modest $50,000 to $100,000, using those resources to mobilize a pre-existing volunteer network, according to its treasurer, Sam Bernhardt.Mr. Yang’s super PAC, Future Forward NYC, has only raised $35,000 so far, according to state records, though its founder, the entrepreneur and investor David Rose, said he aims to raise more than $7 million.Mr. Rose suggested that the existing spending limit for campaigns that participate in the matching funds system — $7.3 million — was not enough to win a New York City mayor’s race.“New York City is the single biggest market around, and to try to do a big campaign on quote-un-quote that kind of money is challenging in this media market,” he said in an interview. “My goal is to see if we can double that.”Lis Smith, a former adviser to the presidential campaign of Pete Buttigieg, said she was also in the process of organizing a super PAC supporting Mr. Yang’s candidacy, aiming to counteract the bombardment of negative advertising that the presumptive front-runner is expected to face in the coming weeks.The goal is to raise $6 million, Ms. Smith said, so that Mr. Yang’s message was not “drowned out by millions of dollars in negativity.”The PAC, reported by Politico, is partnering with veteran ad makers and political operatives who have worked on behalf of Mr. Obama and Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand.“Every day Andrew’s opponents wake up, get out of bed, attack Andrew, and then go to sleep,” Ms. Smith said. “We need to make sure their negativity doesn’t drown out Andrew’s message.”Kimberly Peeler-Allen, the treasurer of New York for Ray, the super PAC supporting Mr. McGuire’s candidacy, said the spending allows Mr. McGuire to compete. The PAC has spent more than $2 million on ads to introduce the candidate to the general public.Ms. Peeler-Allen acknowledged that super PACs are problematic. But she and Ms. Smith also argued that it makes no sense to unilaterally disengage in a race with so much at stake.“Until there is significant campaign finance reform in this country, we have to use the tools that we have to create the change that we want to have,” Ms. Peeler-Allen said.Mayor de Blasio, who has himself engaged in creative fund-raising efforts that have drawn legal scrutiny, agreed.“We need a reset in this whole country on campaign finance,” he said on Thursday. “We need a constitutional amendment to overcome the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, and we need to reset the whole equation to get money out of politics across the board.” More

Vernon Jones, a Democrat-turned-Republican and former state representative who has called Georgia’s presidential election “fixed,” will oppose Gov. Brian Kemp, one of Donald Trump’s top targets.ATLANTA — Gov. Brian Kemp, the Georgia Republican who ranks high on former President Donald J. Trump’s list of enemies, will face a high-profile pro-Trump challenger in next year’s Republican primary: Vernon Jones, a former Democrat who, echoing the false claims of Mr. Trump, has called Georgia’s November presidential election “fixed” and “tainted.”Mr. Jones, a former state representative and head of government in DeKalb County, tweeted on Thursday that he would formally introduce his candidacy at a news conference the next day, saying that “we need a fighter for Georgia.”Mr. Trump has not endorsed a primary challenger to Mr. Kemp, who is seeking a second term in office. But the former president has vowed to return to Georgia to campaign against the governor, a former ally, to punish him for rebuffing Mr. Trump’s entreaties late last year that he work to overturn Georgia’s election results.Mr. Trump lost the Georgia race by roughly 12,000 votes, a result that was certified by Republican state election officials after two recounts. But he remains popular among members of the party’s base, and their willingness to punish his Republican enemies in 2022 may be an important early sign of his sway over the party heading into the next presidential cycle.Mr. Jones, 60, has a complex and controversial history in Georgia politics, and it is unclear if his entry into the race will turn out to be a serious threat to Mr. Kemp. But his candidacy guarantees that Georgia Republican voters will be forced to reckon with the ugly fight between Mr. Kemp and Mr. Trump as they choose a standard-bearer for the November 2022 general election.Mr. Jones seems eager to emphasize the feud. “If it weren’t for Brian Kemp, Donald Trump would still be President of these United States,” he tweeted in March, saying he was “looking closely” at a primary challenge. “We need courageous conservatives leading our state, not those afraid to stand up to the Radical Left.”Gov. Brian Kemp at a news conference in Marietta, Ga. He has emerged as one of Mr. Trump’s top political targets.Megan Varner/Getty ImagesIf Mr. Jones can earn an endorsement from Mr. Trump, his campaign will most likely force Mr. Kemp to expend precious money and energy in the G.O.P. primary. And that could benefit Democrats, many of whom are expecting another run by Stacey Abrams, the former state House minority leader who narrowly lost to Mr. Kemp in 2018. Ms. Abrams’s stature has only grown since then; as a leading voting rights advocate in Georgia and nationwide, she helped engineer upset victories for Democrats in the presidential election and Georgia’s two Senate races early this year.Mr. Jones is a native of North Carolina who formerly worked as a telecommunications executive. He served for eight years, starting in 2001, as chief executive of DeKalb County, a populous suburb of Atlanta, where he oversaw significant economic development initiatives and capital improvements, and often commanded the local political spotlight with a mix of folksy charisma and domineering style.He was also trailed by controversies, some of which were detailed in an article last summer in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that recapped his career. These included an accusation of rape (which Mr. Jones denied, and was never charged with); an allegation in a lawsuit that he had tried to replace white managers of the county parks department with Black ones; and claims of lavish spending on his security detail.The newspaper reported that a special grand jury looking into corruption in DeKalb County government had found “incompetence, patronage, fraud and cronyism,” and recommended investigations of Mr. Jones and other county officials. But prosecutors eventually said they found no evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Jones.Mr. Jones’s time as the powerful leader of DeKalb County was book-ended by stints in the state legislature. He also ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. House and Senate, and for DeKalb County sheriff.Mr. Jones, a longtime Democrat, announced he was joining the Republican Party in a Jan. 6 tweet. But he has exhibited a streak of political heterodoxy throughout much of his career. At various times, Mr. Jones supported both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. He has kept a picture of the Confederate general Robert E. Lee in his office, and has also sought to remove the Confederate battle flag symbol that once adorned the Georgia state flag.Mr. Jones spoke in November at a “Stop the Steal” rally at the Georgia State Capitol, where Trump supporters protested the results of the presidential election. Elijah Nouvelage/Getty ImagesHe has championed the “flat tax” concept championed by many conservatives — but as a state representative, he also voted against a Republican-backed abortion bill in 2019 that effectively banned the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy.The so-called fetal heartbeat law was struck down by a federal district court and is currently on appeal. But Mr. Jones’s opposition to it could prove to be a dealbreaker for evangelical Christians who are a key component of the Georgia Republican base.On Monday, Mr. Jones, apparently anticipating attacks on the vote, staked out an unequivocal anti-abortion position, tweeting: “Life begins at conception – period. And it should be protected from that point and that point forward.”Mr. Kemp has also been working to improve his standing among conservatives. Last month, he signed a major bill restricting voting in the state. Democrats said the law would adversely affect many Black voters, calling it “Jim Crow 2.0,” an assertion Mr. Kemp has denied. A recent Morning Consult tracking poll showed that Mr. Kemp’s approval among Georgia Republicans had increased from 62 percent on March 25 — the day he signed the voting bill — to 74 percent on April 6.For his part, Mr. Trump has endorsed another loyalist for statewide office in Georgia, Representative Jody Hice, who is challenging Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, in the Republican primary. Like Mr. Kemp, Mr. Raffensperger is a Republican who infuriated the former president when he declined to bend to Mr. Trump’s pressure to overturn the state’s election results. More

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany will exit the world stage in less than six months, and the fight for her seat is pitting the leaders of two sister parties against one another.BERLIN — With less than six months to go before Germans cast their ballots for a new chancellor, the political vacuum Angela Merkel leaves behind after 16 years of consensus-oriented leadership is coming more sharply into focus.A rare and rancorous power struggle has gripped Germany’s conservatives this week as two rivals vie to replace her, threatening to further hobble her Christian Democratic Union, which is already sliding in the polls.Normally, Armin Laschet, 60, who was elected in January to lead the party, would almost assuredly be the heir apparent to Ms. Merkel. Instead, he finds himself unexpectedly pitted against his biggest rival, Markus Söder, the more popular head of a smaller, Bavaria-only party, the Christian Social Union, in a kind of conservative family feud.Experts and party members alike are calling for the dispute to be resolved within the coming days, as it risks damaging the reputation of the two conservative parties, jointly referred to as the Union. Because the two parties operate as one on the national stage, they must choose one candidate for chancellor.“Armin Laschet and Markus Söder must finally understand their responsibility toward the Union,” Tilman Kuban, head of the Young Union, told the Bild daily on Thursday. “If they continue to tear one another apart as they have in the past few days, together they will ensure that there won’t be much left of the Christian Democrats or the Christian Socialists in the future.”Leading Ms. Merkel’s party would have once been seen as an advantage for Mr. Laschet, but it has recently become a drag. With a botched vaccine rollout and a confusing response to the pandemic, support for the conservatives has plunged by 10 percentage points since the start of the year.After a series of personal gaffes, Mr. Laschet’s popularity has been dropping. In his home state of North Rhine-Westphalia more than half of the population have said they are not happy with his performance, and a poll this week showed only 4 percent of Germans nationwide see him as “a strong leader.”For Armin Laschet, leading Ms. Merkel’s party was once an asset, but may now be seen as a liability. Sean Gallup/Getty ImagesAt the same time, Mr. Söder, 54, who is also governor of Bavaria, has artfully used several appearances alongside Ms. Merkel after pandemic-related meetings to burnish his image as a man in charge, capable of tackling tough issues and getting things done.A full 57 percent of Germans said Mr. Söder displayed the qualities of “a strong leader.”Keenly aware of his popularity, Mr. Söder began openly pushing for the candidacy earlier this week, citing his strong, stable showing in the polls over Mr. Laschet, despite warnings from senior conservatives that public opinion could be fickle.“At the end of the day, the conservative parties have to make an offer that will be acceptable to voters and the people, and not just a few party functionaries,” Mr. Söder told Bavarian public television. “Of course polls are not everything, but if after several months a clear trend emerges, it cannot just be ignored.”After leading conservative lawmakers discussed the issue on Sunday, Mr. Söder said he was willing to run, if the Christian Democrats would support him. If not, he added, he would cooperate, “without any grudges.”But on Monday, after the boards of each party had backed their own leader, Mr. Söder suddenly changed his position. He continued to push for his right to run for chancellor during a closed-door meeting of conservative lawmakers on Tuesday. After four hours of discussions, nearly two-thirds of those present expressed their support for the Bavarian leader — including members of Mr. Laschet’s party.Markus Söder is leading Mr. Laschet in polling and has the support of nearly two-thirds of conservative leaders. Clemens Bilan/EPA, via ShutterstockIn a country that views the art of compromise as a valuable skill for a leader, the public game of political chicken could come at a high price. At a time when the environmentalist Greens have rapidly risen in popularity and are now nipping at the conservatives’ heels, they can ill afford such a public display of disharmony.“At the end of the day, both have to decide between themselves. There is no set procedure that clearly defines how this will end,” said Prof. Thorsten Fass, a political scientist at Berlin’s Free University. Regardless of who runs as the candidate, the damage of the fight will still have to be repaired, Professor Fass said. “It is not a good way to start an election year.”Both contenders have said they would like the matter to be decided by the end of the week, and pressure from inside both parties is growing for a quick resolution.Four other political parties are vying to win the most votes on Sept. 26 and seize power by forming a government and naming a chancellor.The center-left Social Democrats, who have been the junior party in Ms. Merkel’s government coalition since 2017, have already named the finance minister and vice-chancellor, Olaf Scholz, as their choice for chancellor. The Greens, currently polling as the second-strongest party ahead of the Social Democrats and close behind the conservatives, are scheduled to announce their candidate on Monday. Not everyone is ready to count out Mr. Laschet yet. He is a politician whose recent successes, winning the governorship of North Rhine-Westphalia over a well-liked incumbent and the monthslong race for the Christian Democrat leadership in January, both saw him grasping victory after coming from behind.Mr. Laschet also has the backing of some of the most senior and influential members of his party, including the former finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble, who has been around since the first time the conservatives split over a chancellor candidate in 1979.“If Laschet has the nerve and still has his party’s leadership behind him, then Söder could say that he accepts this, then use his position to negotiate a strong minister post for his party in a potential future government,” said Ursula Münch, director of the Academy for Political Education in Tutzing.On the other hand, if enough pressure from within the party builds on Mr. Laschet, he could concede to Mr. Söder for the sake of the party and the need to move ahead. That would hand the Bavarian leader a victory that would serve to enforce his reputation as a sharp-witted maverick who will change his policies to fit the public mood. As public favor in Bavaria shifted from the far-right Alternative for Germany party to the environmentalist Greens, he abandoned an anti-immigrant stance and embraced a push to save honey bees, to the ire of farmers who have long formed the grass roots of his party.“He is intelligent, quick and rhetorically strong,” Ms. Münch said of Mr. Söder. “He is able to push people into a corner while keeping a back door open for himself, and in that sense, Laschet can’t hold a candle to him.” More

Following years of wrist slaps under President Donald J. Trump, the new measures are designed to have a noticeable impact on the Russian economy. More

Pedro Castillo y Keiko Fujimori competirán en la segunda vuelta electoral por la presidencia. Ambos son conservadores y con credenciales democráticas dudosas. ¿Qué soluciones hay ante este panorama desolador?Los resultados de la primera vuelta electoral en el Perú muestran un panorama desolador.Luego de una campaña marcada por lo que podríamos denominar una fragmentación sin emoción, se ha confirmado que el izquierdista Pedro Castillo (Perú Libre) y la derechista Keiko Fujimori (Fuerza Popular) competirán en la segunda vuelta electoral del 6 de junio. Ambos son extremistas, de perfil conservador y sus credenciales democráticas son dudosas. A este país acostumbrado a votar por el “mal menor” parece haberle llegado el momento de elegir entre dos males a secas.Castillo, por su parte, tiene propuestas como desactivar el Tribunal Constitucional y reemplazarlo por “los verdaderos tribunos del pueblo” o cerrar el Congreso si el pueblo se lo pide. Mientras tanto, Fujimori es hija y heredera política del expresidente autoritario Alberto Fujimori y una de las principales responsables de la crisis política de 2016 en adelante.Sin importar quién gane, las tendencias autoritarias no son la única problemática que se avecina. El Congreso estará compuesto por varios partidos y se prevé más precariedad institucional. Viene a la mente el último quinquenio: un interminable conflicto entre poderes del Estado que tuvo como saldo que contáramos con cuatro presidentes y dos congresos. En este contexto, se tendrán que buscar salidas a la que ha sido una de las peores gestiones de la pandemia a nivel mundial.Tal situación es el punto culminante de dos décadas en donde se ha priorizado la continuidad del modelo económico neoliberal y se ha descuidado el fortalecimiento institucional y la satisfacción ciudadana.Las élites de empresariales, tecnocráticas, políticas y mediáticas responsables de esta continuidad terminaron abrazando una suerte de mito alrededor del modelo. Se creyeron que este modelo debía permanecer a toda costa, mientras que la política podía ser relegada o incluso desterrada de la toma de decisiones. Este mito ya es insostenible y debemos crear, pronto, una mirada más realista que recupere la importancia de tener una política saludable para la democracia.Pero ni Castillo ni Fujimori parecen ser aptos para reimaginar una democracia en donde las instituciones y la ciudadanía tengan un rol primordial y que deje de atrás el drama constante de cambios de presidentes, disoluciones del Congreso y tendencias autoritarias.Para superar el mito alrededor del modelo económico, debemos empezar por reconocer su lado positivo.El neoliberalismo ha sido uno de los proyectos políticos más estable de nuestra historia. En la víspera del bicentenario de la Independencia, haríamos mal en no reconocer que nuestro pasado remoto y reciente se parece, a ratos, a un homenaje al filósofo Heráclito: lo único constante era el cambio. Todos los proyectos políticos que emprendimos antes se descalabraron. En cambio, el neoliberalismo llegó y se atrincheró en la vida nacional, incluso mientras muchos países de América Latina giraban hacia diferentes tipos de modelos de izquierda.Los logros económicos del neoliberalismo son innegables. Cuando uno contrasta la debacle económica que se vivía hacia 1989, no cabe duda de que las cosas mejoraron. Particularmente, en la democracia del nuevo milenio, entramos en un periodo de crecimiento acelerado del PBI que, a su vez, resultó en que los índices oficiales de pobreza se redujeran sustancialmente. Todo esto bajo una macroeconomía muy bien manejada.Pero, detrás del triunfalismo económico, había muchas problemáticas que seguían sin ser resueltas. Deberíamos empezar por notar las deficiencias de nuestro modelo, principalmente en lo referido al aparato productivo, como ha escrito el economista Piero Ghezzi en un reciente libro. Como ha evidenciado la pandemia, dice Ghezzi, este modelo no cuenta con las condiciones para sostener un desarrollo a largo plazo. Entonces, la continuidad que plantea cierta derecha podría ser tan peligrosa como los cambios que se proponen desde cierta izquierda.A esto habría que añadir todo aquello que ha sido descuidado como consecuencia del énfasis en la continuidad del modelo económico. Primero, la ciudadanía ha brindado importantes contingentes de votos y hasta ha elegido candidaturas que prometieron cambiar, en diferente medida, el modelo económico (Alan García en 2006 y Ollanta Humala en 2011). Es decir, a pesar de las mejoras económicas, la población no tiene el mismo fervor que las élites por la continuidad del modelo.En segundo lugar, tenemos uno de los Estados más débiles de América Latina. Esta característica no solo está detrás de la incapacidad para responder adecuadamente a la pandemia. También se manifiesta en la persistente conflictividad social alrededor de proyectos mineros y la expansión de economías ilegales. Y está presente en las elecciones. Es posible que gran parte de los votos para Castillo y Keiko sea resultado de una población que viene exiguiendo, elección tras elección, tener una ciudadanía más plena.No solo eso. La crisis política que vivimos tiene relación con una profunda insatisfacción con las instituciones políticas y autoridades, escándalos de corrupción y con la debilidad de los partidos políticos que participan en elecciones. La irresponsabilidad de los políticos en los últimos cinco años y la distancia con la ciudadanía al momento de tomar decisiones tiene parte de su origen en esta combinación de condiciones.Con el mito claramente superado, ahora podemos ver su peor resultado: un país donde las elecciones nos dejan en la encrucijada de tener que elegir entre dos males, con posibles presidentes que han mostrado señales autoritarias, conflictos institucionales, insatisfacción ciudadana y dificultades para lidiar una profunda crisis sanitaria y económica.Por todo lo visto, sería desastroso que en esta segunda vuelta el Perú no reconociera que tanto Castillo como Keiko son sumamente peligros en términos políticos: no garantizan plenamente ni la estabilidad ni la democracia. Si nos llegáramos a enfocar únicamente en la dimensión económica que los separa, repetiremos el mismo guion que nos ha traído a esta tragedia en primer lugar.Los riesgos económicos de la continuidad de Keiko y el cambio de Castillo no deberían subestimarse. Pero no nos quedemos en esto.En vez de dar tumbos alrededor del mito viene siendo tiempo de invertir su fórmula: a nuestra democracia le podría ir bien con diferentes modelos económicos, pero jamás le irá bien de espaldas a la institucionalidad y la ciudadanía. Debemos exigir a los candidatos que ofrezcan respuestas que garanticen que entienden mínimamente ese problema.Además de decirnos por qué su programa económico es supuestamente mejor que el de su rival, tendrían que hablar de sus estrategias para evitar vacancias y disoluciones, coaliciones que no supongan repartijas, compromiso con el Estado de derecho, no atrincherarse al poder y respeto de los derechos políticos de sus rivales y libertades civiles de la población. Recordemos que el desprecio por la política genera una política despreciable.Daniel Encinas (@danencinasz) es politólogo y candidato a doctor en Ciencia Política por la Universidad de Northwestern. More

Listen and follow The Improvement Association.Apple Podcasts | Spotify | StitcherFrom the makers of Serial: The Improvement Association. In this five-part audio series, join the reporter Zoe Chace as she travels to Bladen County, N.C., to investigate the power of election fraud allegations — even when they’re not substantiated.In this episode: Zoe talks to people in North Carolina who believe the Bladen Improvement PAC has been cheating for years. She tries to get beyond the rumors and into specifics; in the process, she comes face to face with the intense suspicion and scrutiny leveled against the organization. In the middle of another election, Zoe follows members of the PAC to watch how they operate and tries to make sense of all these allegations against them.In this series, the reporter Zoe Chace describes Bladen County’s notorious case of election fraud from 2018 as “individual people, in a tight-knit place, using their relationships to either make money or take revenge. Or both.”Jeremy M. Lange for The New York TimesBehind this series:Zoe Chace, the reporter for this series, has been a producer at This American Life since 2015. Before that, she was a reporter for NPR’s Planet Money team, as well as an NPR producer.Nancy Updike, the producer for this series, is a senior editor at This American Life and one of the founding producers of the show.Transcripts of each episode of The Improvement Association will be available by the next workday after an episode publishes.The Improvement Association was reported by Zoe Chace; produced by Nancy Updike, with help from Amy Pedulla; edited by Julie Snyder, Sarah Koenig, Neil Drumming and Ira Glass; editorial consulting by R.L. Nave and Tim Tyson; fact-checking and research by Ben Phelan; and sound design and mix by Phoebe Wang.The original score for The Improvement Association was written and performed by Kwame Brandt-Pierce.Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Julie Whitaker, Seth Lind, Julia Simon, Nora Keller, Emanuele Berry, Ndeye Thioubou, Alena Cerro and Lauren Jackson. More