Elections

In the fourth attempt, neither Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor his opponents have a clear path to power. An Islamist party has emerged as a possible kingmaker.JERUSALEM — After a fourth Israeli election in two years appears to have ended in another stalemate, leaving many Israelis feeling trapped in an endless loop, there was at least one surprising result on Wednesday: An Arab political party has emerged as a potential kingmaker.Even more surprising, the party was Raam, an Islamist group with roots in the same religious movement as Hamas, the militant group that runs the Gaza Strip. For years, Raam was rarely interested in working with the Israeli leadership and, like most Arab parties, was ostracized by its Jewish counterparts.But according to the latest vote count, Raam’s five seats hold the balance of power between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing bloc and the motley alliance of parties that seeks to end his 12 years in power. The vote tally is not yet final, and Raam has previously suggested it would only support a government from the outside.Still, even the possibility of Raam playing a deciding role in the formation of a coalition government is making waves in Israel. An independent Arab party has never been part of an Israeli government before, although some Arab lawmakers supported Yitzhak Rabin’s government from the outside in the 1990s.Suddenly in a position of influence, Raam has promised to back any group that offers something suitable in return to Israel’s Arab minority, who are descended from the Palestinians who stayed after Israel’s creation in 1948 and who today form about 20 percent of the population.“I hope to become a key man,” Mansour Abbas, the party’s leader, said in a television interview on Wednesday. In the past, he added, mainstream parties “were excluding us and we were excluding ourselves. Today, Raam is at least challenging the political system. It is saying, ‘Friends, we exist here.’”The party is not in “anyone’s pocket,” he added. “I am not ruling out anyone but if someone rules us out, then we will of course rule him out.”Mr. Abbas, voting in the village of Maghar on Tuesday, said his party was not in “anyone’s pocket.”Ahmad Gharabli/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesEither way would make for a strange partnership.If Raam backed Mr. Netanyahu’s opponents, it would likely need to work with a right-wing opposition leader, Avigdor Liberman, who has described some Arab citizens as traitors and called for them to leave the country.If it supported the Netanyahu-led bloc, Raam would be working with a prime minister who enacted legislation that downgraded the status of the Arabic language and said that only Jews had the right to determine the nature of the Israeli state. In a previous election, Mr. Netanyahu warned of high Arab turnout as a threat to encourage his own supporters to vote.Raam would also be cooperating with an alliance that includes far-right politicians who want to expel Arab citizens of Israel they deem “disloyal” to the Israeli state. One of those politicians, Itamar Ben Gvir, until recently hung in his home a picture of a Jewish extremist who murdered 29 Palestinian Muslims in a West Bank mosque in 1994.But Mr. Abbas is prepared to consider these possible associations because he believes it is the only way for Arab citizens to secure government support in the fight against the central problems assailing the Arab community — gang violence, poverty and restrictions on their access to housing, land and planning permission.In the past, “Arab politicians have been onlookers in the political process in Israel,” he said in an interview with The New York Times in February. Today, he added, “Arabs are looking for a real role in Israeli politics.”The move would mark the culmination of a gradual process in which Arab parties and voters have grown incrementally more involved in the electoral process.Raam, a Hebrew acronym that stands for the United Arab List, is affiliated with a branch of an Islamist movement that for years did not participate in Israeli elections. Raam was founded in 1996 after some members of that movement voted by a narrow margin to run for Parliament, an event that split the movement in two. The other branch, which Israel has outlawed and whose leader it has jailed, does not participate in elections.Raam later joined the Joint List, a larger Arab political alliance that emerged as the third-largest party in three recent Israeli elections, in a sign of the Arab minority’s growing political sway.Mr. Abbas, seated, could find himself at the center of negotiations to form a government.Dan Balilty for The New York TimesRecognizing this increased importance of Arab voters, Mr. Netanyahu canvassed hard for their support during the recent election campaign.Analysts had long predicted that an Arab party would eventually end up working in or alongside the government. But few thought that an Arab party would countenance working with the Israeli right. Fewer still imagined that party would be a conservative Islamist group like Raam.The party separated from the Joint List in March, frustrated at how its parliamentary presence meant little without executive power, and declared itself ready to join a government of any color that promised political rewards to Arab citizens.On Wednesday, that gamble appeared to have been rewarded. Asked whether Mr. Netanyahu would consider a government supported by Mr. Abbas, Tzachi Hanegbi, a government minister, said if a right-wing government of Zionist parties was impossible to assemble, his party would consider “options that are currently undesirable but perhaps better than a fifth election.”Raam’s newfound relevance constitutes “a historical moment,” said Basha’er Fahoum-Jayoussi, the co-chairwoman of the board of the Abraham Initiatives, a nongovernmental group that promotes equality between Arabs and Jews. “The Arab vote is not only being legitimized but the Palestinian-Arab community in Israel is being recognized as a political power with the ability to play an active and influential part in the political arena.”The news was also greeted happily in the Negev desert, where dozens of Arab villages are threatened with demolition because they were built without authorization.Mr. Abbas, right, with Ayman Odeh, the leader of the Arab Joint List, last year. The two parted ways in this election. Ronen Zvulun/Reuters“The possibility that Abbas can pressure the government to recognize our villages stirs up emotions of optimism,” said Khalil Alamour, 55, a lawyer whose village lacks basic infrastructure like power lines and sewerage because it was built without Israeli planning permission.Within Mr. Netanyahu’s party, there is considerable dissent to the idea of relying on Mr. Abbas. Some members fear working with — and being held to ransom by — a group that is ideologically opposed, for instance, to military operations in the occupied territories.The government should not be “dependent on a radical Muslim party,” said Danny Danon, chairman of the World Likud, the international branch of Mr. Netanyahu’s party. “We should not be in that position.”Among the opposition bloc, there is also disquiet at the prospect of an alliance. Some of its right-wing members already vetoed working with Arab lawmakers during an earlier round of negotiations last year. And Raam’s social stances — it voted against a law that bans gay conversion therapy — are at odds with the vision of left-wing opposition parties like Meretz.“It’s going to be very challenging no matter how you look at it,” said Ms. Fahoum-Jayoussi. “When push comes to shove, it’s still hard to see whether Mansour Abbas’s approach is a real one that he can push through.”And some Palestinian citizens of Israel are highly skeptical of Raam’s approach. Ayman Odeh, the leader of the Joint List, has accused Mr. Abbas of assenting to a relationship with the Israeli state that frames Arabs as subjects who can be bought off, rather than as citizens with equal rights.“Mansour Abbas is capable of accepting this,” Mr. Odeh said in an interview before the election. “But I will not.”Irit Pazner Garshowitz and Gabby Sobelman contributed reporting. More

Races in Missouri and Alabama, with others to come, reflect the potential risks for a party in which loyalty to Donald Trump is the main criterion for securing nominations.The entry of two hard-right candidates this week into Senate races in Missouri and Alabama exposed the perils for Republicans of a political landscape in which former President Donald J. Trump is the only true north for grass-roots voters.Strong state parties, big donors and G.O.P. national leaders were once able to anoint a candidate, in order to avoid destructive demolition derbies in state primaries.But in the Trump era, the pursuit of his endorsement is all-consuming, and absent Mr. Trump’s blessing, there is no mechanism for clearing a cluttered primary field. With the former president focused elsewhere — on settling scores against Republicans who advanced his impeachment or showed insufficient loyalty — a combative Senate primary season is in store for the 2022 midterms, when Republicans who hope to regain the majority face a difficult map. They are fighting to hold on to five open seats after a wave of retirements of establishment figures, and even deep-red Missouri and Alabama pose potential headaches.A scandal-haunted former Missouri governor, Eric Greitens, entered the race on Monday to replace the retiring Senator Roy Blunt. His candidacy set off a four-alarm fire with state party leaders, who fear that Mr. Greitens may squeak through a crowded primary field, only to lose a winnable seat to a Democrat.In Alabama, the entry of Representative Mo Brooks, a staunch but lackluster Trump supporter, into the race for the seat being vacated by Senator Richard C. Shelby raised a different set of fears with activists: that Mr. Brooks, who badly lost a previous statewide race, would cause waves of Republican voters, especially women, to sit out the off-year election and crack open the door in a ruby red state for a Democrat.Both candidacies are likely to pose challenges for Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, who has weighed in to cull potentially flawed candidates in the past and has said he may do so again this time. Last year, a super PAC aligned with Mr. McConnell intervened in a Senate primary in Kansas against Kris Kobach, a polarizing figure whose candidacy threatened the loss of a seat that was ultimately won by the G.O.P. establishment’s favorite, Roger Marshall.Mr. Trump has so far stayed out of the potential pileups to fill the open Senate seats — the others to date are in Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Alabama and Missouri, both Republican strongholds, afford the G.O.P. a margin of error even with a flawed candidate, a cushion not available in the more competitive traditional battleground states.In announcing his candidacy on Fox News on Monday, Mr. Greitens, a former Navy SEAL, sought to appeal to Mr. Trump and Trump voters, boasting of having routed “antifa” from Missouri as governor and pledging to be a “fighter” who would be committed to “defending President Trump’s America First policies.”Mr. Greitens, who took office in 2017, resigned the next year amid accusations of physical and sexual abuse by a woman he had been involved with in an extramarital affair before his election. Still, he remains popular with a core of Republican voters. Many Republican officials fear that in a multicandidate primary, which appears likely, he could win with around 30 percent of the vote.“There is a high level of concern,” said Gregg Keller, a Republican strategist in Missouri, where Democrats have been shut out of major statewide victories for nearly a decade.Mr. Keller, who is unaligned in the race, said nominating Mr. Greitens would be “the only way Republicans stand a chance of losing this seat.” He added, “It would be an incredible self-own and would put the seat in play.”On Wednesday, a second candidate entered the race, Attorney General Eric Schmitt of Missouri, who had joined a Texas-led lawsuit by attorneys general to overturn the 2020 election results, which was rejected by the Supreme Court. At least three other Republicans have shown interest in the race, including Representative Ann Wagner, a moderate from the St. Louis suburbs.Mr. Greitens claimed while announcing his candidacy that he had been “completely exonerated” in the scandals that led to his resignation. But he elided important details. Accused by a hair stylist of binding her hands, spanking her, taking seminude pictures and threatening to release them if she disclosed their affair, Mr. Greitens was charged with felony invasion of privacy. The case fell apart, but the Republican-led Legislature moved to impeach Mr. Greitens anyway. An explosive investigation by the Missouri House concluded that the woman’s accusations were credible.Representative Mo Brooks was one of the first Republicans to announce that he would object to the Electoral College certifying President Biden’s victory.Elijah Nouvelage/ReutersSeparately, the attorney general at the time, Josh Hawley, now the state’s junior senator, turned up evidence that led to a felony count against Mr. Greitens related to political fund-raising, which Mr. Hawley described as “serious charges.”Mr. Greitens, 46, stepped down in May 2018 after reaching a deal with prosecutors that led to the campaign finance charge being dropped. A state ethics commission later found he had not engaged in wrongdoing in the finance case.“His claim to have been totally exonerated is a fraud and misrepresentation of the facts,” said Peter Kinder, a former Republican lieutenant governor. “An overwhelmingly Republican Legislature was prepared to impeach him and was within days of doing that.”Mr. Greitens has both grass-roots supporters and high-profile enemies in the Missouri G.O.P., including Mr. Kinder, who lost to him in a 2016 primary for governor, and Mr. Hawley.After Mr. Blunt this month announced his plans to retire, Mr. Trump called Mr. Hawley to ask about whom he should support, according to a person familiar with the conversation. They agreed to stay in touch as the field develops, and Mr. Hawley could be expected to steer Mr. Trump away from the former governor.In an argumentative interview on Wednesday with the conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Mr. Greitens said the Missouri House’s 24-page report about him had been “discredited,” but he would not say how. He claimed, without evidence, that his accuser, two of her friends and her former husband, all of whom testified under oath, were “lying.” “Why did you quit?” Mr. Hewitt asked Mr. Greitens, referring to his resignation. “SEALs don’t quit.”In Alabama, the fear of some Republicans about a lack of enthusiasm for Mr. Brooks, the highest-profile candidate in an emerging field, traces to the lacerating sting of 2017, when the Democrat Doug Jones won a Senate seat after G.O.P. voters failed to show up to support the party’s nominee, the scandal-plagued Roy Moore.Mr. Brooks, a six-term congressman from northern Alabama, was one of the first Republicans to announce that he would object to the Electoral College certifying President Biden’s victory. He faced calls for censure from Democrats after an incendiary speech he made at the pro-Trump rally on Jan. 6 before the riot at the Capitol. In announcing his candidacy on Monday, he aired once again his and Mr. Trump’s false accounts of the election. “In 2020, we had the worst voter fraud and election theft in history,” he said. Few individual cases and no evidence of widespread fraud have been confirmed.But in Alabama, Mr. Trump’s fraud narrative is hardly a controversial view among Republican voters. Both Mr. Brooks, 66, and the only other announced candidate to date, Lynda Blanchard — a major G.O.P. donor who was ambassador to Melania Trump’s native Slovenia — have aggressively sought Mr. Trump’s endorsement. But it is entirely possible he will withhold one in the interest of not alienating potential future allies, political observers say.The bigger danger with Mr. Brooks, in the view of some party strategists, is that he simply fails to excite Republican voters in an off-year election. He finished an unimpressive third in a 2017 primary to fill an open Senate seat, winning fewer than one in five Republican votes.“The danger becomes that there will be nothing to motivate Republicans to go to the polls,” said Angi Horn, a Republican strategist in Alabama, “which would put us at the peril that we have been in in the past, when a large majority of Republican voters did not see a candidate that motivated and inspired them to go vote.” More

With 90 percent of ballots counted, the results of the latest election point to another possible stalemate. That has prompted some soul-searching about the state of the country’s democracy.JERUSALEM — When Israelis woke on Wednesday, the day after their fourth election in two years, it felt nothing like a new dawn.With 90 percent of the votes counted, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing alliance had 52 seats, while his opponents had 56 — both sides several seats short of the 61 needed to form a coalition government with a majority in Parliament. If those counts stand, they could prolong by months the political deadlock that has paralyzed the country for two years.That prospect was already forcing Israelis to confront questions about the viability of their electoral system, the functionality of their government and whether the divisions between the country’s various polities — secular and devout, right-wing and leftist, Jewish and Arab — have made the country unmanageable.“It’s not getting any better. It’s even getting worse — and everyone is so tired,” said Rachel Azaria, a centrist former lawmaker who chairs an alliance of environment-focused civil society groups. “The entire country is going crazy.”Official final results are not expected before Friday. But the partial tallies suggested that both Mr. Netanyahu’s alliance and its opponents would need the support of a small, Islamist Arab party, Raam, to form a majority coalition.Either of those outcomes would defy conventional logic. The first option would force Islamists into a Netanyahu-led bloc that includes politicians who want to expel Arab citizens of Israel whom they deem “disloyal.” The second would unite Raam with a lawmaker who has baited Arabs and told them to leave the country.Beyond the election itself, the gridlock extends to the administrative stagnation that has left Israel without a national budget for two consecutive years in the middle of a pandemic, and with several key Civil Service posts unstaffed.A polling station in Tel Aviv on Tuesday. “It’s not getting any better. It’s even getting worse — and everyone is so tired,” said a centrist former lawmaker about the repeat elections.Sebastian Scheiner/Associated PressIt also heightens the uncertainty over the future of the judiciary and about the trial of Mr. Netanyahu himself, who is being prosecuted on corruption charges that he denies. Mr. Netanyahu has also dismissed the claim that he will use any new majority to grant himself immunity, but others likely to be in his potential coalition have said that would be up for debate.And both the prime minister and his allies have promised a sweeping overhaul that would limit the power of the Supreme Court.Shira Efron, a Tel Aviv-based analyst for the Israel Policy Forum, a New York-based research group, said, “It’s not a failed state. It’s not Lebanon. You still have institutions.”“But there is definitely an erosion,” she noted. “Not having a budget for two years — this is really dangerous.”Mr. Netanyahu has presided over a world-leading vaccine program, in an illustration of how some parts of the state still operate very smoothly. But more generally, the lack of a state budget forces ministries to work on only a short-term basis, freezing long-term infrastructure projects like road construction.For Ms. Azaria, the former lawmaker, the stasis has delayed the discussion of a multibillion-dollar program to improve the provision of renewable energy, which her green alliance proposed to the government last year.“We’re talking about taking Israel to the next stage in so many ways, and none of it can happen,” Ms. Azaria said. “There is no decision making.”“Railway tracks, highways, all of these long-term plans — we won’t have them,” she added.The lack of a state budget forces ministries to plan for just one month at a time, freezing long-term infrastructure projects like railway tracks and highways.Dan Balilty for The New York TimesIsraeli commentators and analysts were locked in debate on Wednesday about changes to the electoral system that could break the deadlock.Some argued for the need to raise the 3.25 percent threshold of votes required for parties to enter Parliament. That would make it harder for smaller factions to gain seats and wield disproportionate power in negotiations to form coalition governments.Others proposed establishing multiple voting districts in Israel, instead of the current setup of one nationwide voting district, which they say would encourage smaller parties to merge into larger ones.One columnist suggested forming a technocratic government for a few months to allow for a new budget and to get the economy moving again.And one expert suggested simply anointing the leader of the largest party as prime minister, without the need for them to win the support of a parliamentary majority — a move that would at least ensure that Israel had a government following elections.“It might manufacture a majority for one of the sides,” said Prof. Gideon Rahat, co-editor of a book called “Reforming Israel’s Political System.”But the problem might also be solved if Mr. Netanyahu simply left the political stage, Professor Rahat added.“If you look at the results, the Israeli right wing has a clear majority and it would have a stable government if it wasn’t for Netanyahu,” he said.But for others, Israel’s problems extended beyond Mr. Netanyahu or fixes to the electoral system. For some, the impasse is rooted in more profound fissures that divide various parts of society, splits that have contributed to the political fragmentation.The country has several different fault lines — between Jews and the Arab minority, who form about 20 percent of the population; between Jews of European descent, known as Ashkenazis, and Mizrahi Jews whose ancestors lived for centuries in the Middle East; between those who favor a two-state solution to the Palestinian conflict and those who want to annex the West Bank.A view of the Jewish settlement of Mitzpe Yeriho in the West Bank. One of the divides in Israel is between those who favor a two-state solution to the Palestinian conflict and those who want to annex the West Bank.Oded Balilty/Associated PressThe fact that Mr. Netanyahu is still within reach of retaining power demonstrates that he has been more effective in bridging the divide between secular and deeply devout Jews than any other rival, said Ofer Zalzberg, director of the Middle East program at the at the Herbert C. Kelman Institute, a Jerusalem-based research group.“He has reconciled better than his adversaries the liberal idea of personal and individual autonomy with conservative values like preserving Jewish identity, as defined by Orthodox interpretations of Jewish law,” Mr. Zalzberg said.While other politicians historically tried to solve this tension by “turning all Israelis into secular Zionists,” he added, “Mr. Netanyahu advanced the idea of Israel as a mosaic of different tribes.”Mr. Netanyahu has failed to win over the more liberal of those tribes — and that failure is at the heart of the current stalemate. But he and his party have been more successful than the secular left at winning over key groups like Mizrahi Jews, who were historically marginalized by the Ashkenazi elite, Ms. Azaria said.“That’s the blind spot of the left wing in Israel — they’re not really talking to Mizrahim,” she said. “This could be the game changer of Israeli politics. If the left could open the gates and say, ‘You’re welcome. We want you here.’”Supporters of Mr. Netanyahu at a rally last year in Beit Shean, a town with a large population of Mizrahi Jews. “Mr. Netanyahu advanced the idea of Israel as a mosaic of different tribes,” one analyst said.Dan Balilty for The New York TimesThe political stalemate has also been exacerbated by a reluctance by Jewish-led parties to include Arab parties within their governments, ruling the latter out of coalition negotiations and making it even harder to form a majority.Arab parties have also been traditionally opposed to joining Israeli governments that are in conflict with Arab neighbors and occupy territories claimed by the Palestinians.But for Dr. Efron, the Tel Aviv-based analyst, there were hopeful signs of a paradigm shift on Wednesday morning. With the election results on a knife edge, some politicians were forced to at least consider the possibility of a pivotal political role for an Arab party such as Raam.And such a discussion might accelerate the acceptance of Arabs within the Israeli political sphere, she said.“It brings more integration,” Dr. Efron added. “In the long run, that could be a silver lining.”Adam Rasgon and Gabby Sobelman contributed reporting. More

Does Joe Biden’s victory in 2020 represent the last gasp of an exhausted moderate tradition or does a potentially powerful center lie dormant in our embattled political system?Morris Fiorina, a political scientist at Stanford, argues in a series of essays and a book, “Unstable Majorities,” that it is the structure of the two-party system that prevents the center — the moderate majority of American voters — from asserting their dominion over national politics:Given multiple dimensions of political conflict — economic, cultural, international — it is simply impossible for two internally homogeneous parties to represent the variety of viewpoints present in a large heterogeneous democracy.Inevitably, Fiorina writes,Each party bundles issue positions in a way that conflicts with the views of many citizens — most commonly citizens who are economic conservatives and culturally liberal, or economically liberal and culturally conservative, but also internationalist or isolationist-leaning positions layered on top of other divisions.Fiorina is addressing one of the most important questions in America today: Is there a viable center and can such a center be mobilized to enact widely backed legislative goals with bipartisan support?This issue is the subject of intense dispute among strategists, scholars and pollsters.In Fiorina’s view, polarization has been concentrated among “the political class: officeseekers, party officials, donors, activists, partisan media commentators. These are the people who blabber on TV /vent on Facebook/vilify on Twitter/etc.”This process effectively leaves out “the general public (a.k.a. normal people)” who are “inattentive, uncertain, ambivalent, uninvolved politically, concerned with bread-and-butter issues.”In support of his position, Fiorina has marshaled data showing that there are large numbers of voters who say that neither party reflects their views; that many of the most polarizing issues — including gay rights, gender equality, abortion and racial equality — rank 19 to 52 points below voters’ top priorities, which are the economy, health care, jobs and Medicare; and that the share of voters who describe themselves as moderate has remained constant since 1974.In addition, Fiorina cites two studies.The first, “A Not So Divided America,” conducted by the Center on Policy Attitudes and the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland for a centrist group, Voice of the People. It found that if you compare “the views of people who live in red Congressional districts or states to those of people who live in blue Congressional districts or states,” on “only 3.6 percent of the questions — 14 out of 388 — did a majority or plurality of those living in red congressional districts/states take a position opposed to that of a majority or plurality of those living in blue districts/states.”Of those 14, according to the Voice of the People study, 11 concerned “ ‘hot-button’ topics that are famously controversial — gay and lesbian issues, abortion and Second Amendment issues relating to gun ownership.”The second study, “Hidden Tribes,” was conducted for “More In Common,” another group that supports centrist policies.According to the study,In talking to everyday Americans, we have found a large segment of the population whose voices are rarely heard above the shouts of the partisan tribes. These are people who believe that Americans have more in common than that which divides them. They believe that compromise is necessary in politics, as in other parts of life, and want to see the country come together and solve its problems.In practice, the study found that polarization is driven in large part by the left flank of the Democratic Party and the right flank of the Republican Party, which together make up roughly a third of the electorate.The remaining two thirds areconsiderably more ideologically flexible than members of other groups. While members of the ‘wing’ groups (on both the left and the right) tend to hold strong and consistent views across a range of political issues, those in the Exhausted Majority tend to deviate significantly in their views from issue to issue.Not only that,the wing groups, which often dominate the national conversation, are in fact in considerable isolation in their views on certain topics. For instance, 82 percent of Americans agree that hate speech is a problem in America today, and 80 percent also view political correctness as an issue. By contrast, only 30 percent of Progressive Activists believe political correctness is a problem.Fiorina has many allies and many critics in the academic community.Those in general agreement include Jeannie Suk Gersen, a law professor at Harvard and a contributing writer to The New Yorker, who wrote in an email:The fact that Joe Biden was the Democratic nominee and won the presidency in 2020, when there were many great candidates left of him, is evidence that a political center is not only viable but desired by the public.For a centrist candidate, Gersen argued, “the main principle is compromise rather than all or nothing.” In the case of abortion, for example, the principle of compromise recognizes thatthe majority of Americans favor keeping abortion legal, but also favor some limits on abortion. Retaining a core right of abortion that respects both autonomy of adult individuals to make reproductive decisions and the value of potential fetal life is the approach that will seem acceptable to the majority of Americans and consistent with the Constitution.John Shattuck, a professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts, notes that surveys and reports he has overseen affirm the strong presence of a middle ground in American politics:Polarization is pushed by the political extremes. The great majority of Americans, however, are not at the extremes and common ground exists among them on seemingly polarized issues.Instead, Shattuck wrote in an email, “Americans are fed up with polarization.” His data shows that71 percent believe Americans “have more in common with each other than many people think,” including 78 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of Democrats and 66 percent of Independents.There is, Shattuck argues, a powerful consensus on rights and freedoms that underpins American democracy:Bipartisan majorities consider the following to be “essential rights important to being an American today”: ‘“clean air and water” (93 percent); “a quality education” (92 percent); “affordable health care” (89 percent); and the “right to a job” (85 percent). These high levels of demand for economic and social rights are similar to the support for more traditional civil liberties and civil rights like rights of free speech (94 percent), privacy (94 percent) and equal opportunity (93 percent).There is another aspect to the debate.In most countries, Thomas Carothers and Andrew O’Donohue, both of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, write in their 2019 essay. “How Americans Were Driven to Extremes”:Polarization grows out of one primary identity division — usually either ethnic, religious, or ideological. In Kenya, for instance, polarization feeds off fierce competition between ethnic groups. In India, it reflects the divide between secular and Hindu nationalist visions of the country. But in the United States, all three kinds of division are involved.As a result:This powerful alignment of ideology, race, and religion with partisanship renders America’s divisions unusually encompassing and profound. It is hard to find another example of polarization in the world that fuses all three major types of identity divisions in a similar way.Bill McInturff, a founder of the Republican polling firm Public Opinion Strategies, cast doubt in an email on the prospects for a new centrism:I am not sanguine about a national campaign that tries to find a middle ground on major cultural issues as being viable. We are in a “no compromise” era and that’s not changing any time soon.Similarly, Richard Florida, a professor at the University of Toronto’s School of Cities, wrote in an email:Could Joe Biden end up being the last centrist Democrat in the way that George W. Bush might have turned out to be the last centrist Republican? I was never a fan of W, but looking back, you can see how the party was shifting away from the center inexorably toward the cultural and economic populism Trump catalyzed. I wonder if we look back a decade from now if Biden turns out to be the last of a kind. Is the future one where Republicans look more like Trump, and the Democrats tilt away from Biden’s center toward the more culturally progressive wing, one which might drive more centrist voters away?Surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center provide scant optimism for proponents of less divisive politics.In a postelection report, Michael Dimock, Pew’s president, and Richard Wike, its director of global research, wrote that among both Biden and Trump voters, roughly 80 percentsaid their differences with the other side were about core American values, and roughly nine-in-ten — again in both camps — worried that a victory by the other would lead to “lasting harm” to the United States.From 1994 to 2019, Pew tracked the percentage point difference between Republican and Democratic responses to 10 policy positions, including “the economic system in this country unfairly favors powerful interests,” “the growing number of newcomers from other countries threatens traditional American customs and values,” and “white people benefit from advantages in society that Black people don’t have.” More

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party took a lead in Israel’s fourth election in two years, but updated exit polls projected a stalemate that could extend Israel’s political deadlock.JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party held a lead in Israel’s fourth election in two years, exit polls projected Wednesday, but neither his right-wing alliance nor a diverse bloc of opposition parties had a clear path to a majority coalition, creating a stalemate that could extend Israel’s political deadlock for weeks if not months.Two of the three polls by Israeli broadcasters gave Mr. Netanyahu’s conservative Likud party and his wider right-wing and religious bloc 53 seats in Israel’s Parliament — 60 when adding seven seats he might get from an independent candidate. That still fell short of the 61 needed to form a majority in the 120-seat Parliament.The third poll gave the anti-Netanyahu bloc of parties an edge of 61 seats, potentially blocking Mr. Netanyahu’s path to victory and making the election too close to call.The anti-Netanyahu camp is made up of ideologically disparate parties, which will hinder their attempts to replace him. Some have already rejected the possibility of cooperating with others.The muddy result could extend the period of political uncertainty and polarization that has sent Israel reeling from election to election to election, failing each time to return a stable government.And it could lead to a fifth election.Naftali Bennett, leader of the New Right party and his wife, Gilat, outside a polling station in the city of Raanana.Gil Cohen-Magen/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“The path to power for the next prime minister is very difficult,” said Mitchell Barak, a Jerusalem-based pollster and political analyst. “It’s not just the numbers but the self-constraints that each party has placed on who they can sit with. They have painted themselves into a corner.”Final results are not expected until the end of the week, and could easily change the outcome.Addressing his supporters in a half-empty hall at 2:30 a.m. Wednesday, Mr. Netanyahu stopped short of declaring victory.“This evening we have brought a tremendous achievement,” he said. “We have made Likud the largest party in Israel by a very large margin.”Mr. Netanyahu sought re-election even as he was on trial on corruption charges, an unprecedented situation that may have dimmed his prospects.Israel’s seemingly endless political impasse is partly rooted in the nature of its election system, which allocates parliamentary seats according to each party’s share of the vote, making it easy for smaller parties to enter Parliament, and hard for larger parties to form a majority.But the stasis is also the result of Mr. Netanyahu’s refusal to resign despite standing trial over accusations of bribery, fraud and breach of trust. That decision has split the right-wing bloc that has kept Mr. Netanyahu in power for the past 12 years, and divided voters and parties less by political ideology than by their attitude toward Mr. Netanyahu himself.Mr. Netanyahu, right, with his lawyer at the Jerusalem district court last month.Pool photo by Reuven CastroSince neither Mr. Netanyahu nor his opponents could win a majority in the three previous elections, in 2019 and 2020, Mr. Netanyahu remained in power, first as a caretaker prime minister, and then at the helm of a shaky unity government with some of his fiercest critics.The election was conducted against a backdrop of profound political gridlock, with the current cabinet so dysfunctional that it could not agree on a state budget for two consecutive years, nor the appointment of key state officials, including the state attorney and the senior officials at the justice and finance ministries.Two of Mr. Netanyahu’s main challengers, Gideon Saar and Naftali Bennett, are right-wingers who once worked closely with the prime minister. But neither appeared to be in a position to try to form a government.Mr. Saar, a former Likud interior minister who broke with Mr. Netanyahu over the prime minister’s refusal to step down after being charged with corruption, won only six seats and his chances as a contender seemed to have waned.As the political horse-trading and coalition-building get underway, Mr. Netanyahu is expected to try to procure defections from other parties, including Mr. Saar’s, in a quest to tip the scales.It will be up to Reuven Rivlin, Israel’s largely ceremonial president, to invite the lawmaker he believes has the best chance of forming a coalition to begin that process.While presidents have usually assigned that duty to leader of the largest party, Mr. Rivlin could still grant it to another lawmaker who he thinks has a better route to a majority. That could be Yair Lapid, the centrist leader of the opposition, whose party was projected to win between 17 and 18 seats.Voters waiting in line to cast their ballots in Tel Aviv on Tuesday.Gil Cohen-Magen/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“At the moment, Netanyahu doesn’t have 61 seats, but the change bloc does,” Mr. Lapid said early Wednesday. He added, “I’ve started speaking to party leaders and we’ll wait for the results, but we’ll do everything to create a sane government in Israel.”Mr. Netanyahu’s fortunes depend heavily on Mr. Bennett, once his chief of staff.Throughout the campaign, Mr. Bennett refused to clarify whether he would back a coalition led by Mr. Netanyahu. But he said he would refuse to serve under Mr. Lapid, and analysts believe he could be persuaded to back Mr. Netanyahu.Speaking to his supporters early Wednesday, Mr. Bennett maintained his ambiguity, saying only that he would “wait patiently” for the final results.If he does return to power, Mr. Netanyahu has promised to enact sweeping legal reforms that would limit the power of the judiciary, and which his opponents fear would allow him to circumvent his corruption trial. Mr. Netanyahu’s colleagues have prevaricated in recent days about whether he would use his office to avoid prosecution, with one minister on Saturday refusing to rule it out.Mr. Netanyahu denies any wrongdoing and that he would try to change the law to derail the trial.Any new government will immediately face substantive challenges, including an economy bruised by the pandemic, rising violent crime in Arab communities and potential threats from Iran. Diplomatically, Israel is trying to block the resurrection of the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran, which the United States government generally favors and which Israel considers inadequate.And Israel will urgently need to adopt a new national budget for 2021, since the previous government failed to, a failure that led to its collapse.Mr. Netanyahu before casting his ballot at a polling station.Pool photo by Ronen ZvulunThe vote followed a campaign that centered on the suitability of Mr. Netanyahu himself, rather than on more existential or ideological questions like the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or how to bridge the divide between secular and religious Israelis.Mr. Netanyahu presented himself as the only candidate able to deter what many Israelis see as the threats posed by Iran. He also sought to distinguish himself as a statesman who had cemented diplomatic relations with four Arab states and brought a world-leading vaccination program to Israel, helping the country to emerge recently into something approaching normal life.It was a message that resonated with many voters.“Bibi is the only leader in this country in my eyes,” said Elad Shnezik, a 24-year-old foreign-exchange trader who voted for Likud in Tzur Hadassah, a suburb west of Jerusalem. “I have never seen anything bad in his actions. Everything he does, he does for the people.”But turnout was the lowest since 2013, about 67 percent, as some voters appeared to tire of the relentless election cycle.“The only one excited about going out to vote today is our dog, who is getting an extra walk this morning,” said Gideon Zehavi, 54, a psychologist from Rehovot in central Israel.Turnout was projected to be particularly low among the Arab minority, according to some Arab pollsters. Some said they were deflated by a split within the main Arab political alliance, which reduced the collective power of Arab lawmakers.“My honest opinion is it’s not worth wasting my time to vote for any of the parties,” said Amir Younes, 32, a restaurant worker in Jaffa. “We have been through this show many times before and the result is the same.”Mr. Netanyahu’s attempts to position himself as a diplomatic trailblazer were dampened in the final days of the campaign, after a planned photo-opportunity in Abu Dhabi with the leadership of the United Arab Emirates fell through, amid Emirati frustration about being used as a prop in Mr. Netanyahu’s re-election campaign.And Mr. Netanyahu’s pandemic leadership brought him as much criticism as praise. Though he presided over a successful vaccine rollout, he was accused of playing politics with other aspects of the pandemic response. In January, he resisted giving significantly larger fines to people who broke antivirus measures, a policy that would have disproportionately affected ultra-Orthodox Israelis. Ultra-Orthodox parties form about a quarter of Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing alliance, and he needs their support to form a coalition.Mr. Netanyahu searched for every last vote, even from ideologically incoherent sections of society. Despite previously scorning and ignoring Israel’s Arab minority, which forms about 20 percent of the population, Mr. Netanyahu pushed hard in this electoral cycle for their support, presenting himself as the only person who could end the endemic violence and inequality that affects many Arab communities.But simultaneously, he agreed to an electoral pact with a far-right alliance, whose leaders include Itamar Ben Gvir, a hard-line nationalist who until recently hung in his living room a portrait of Baruch Goldstein, an extremist who murdered 29 Palestinians in a mosque in the West Bank in 1994.Reporting was contributed by Adam Rasgon, Myra Noveck, Irit Pazner Garshowitz and Gabby Sobelman. More

Mark Zuckerberg, the head of Facebook, could be in for a rough ride on Thursday when he testifies to Congress for the first time about the 6 January insurrection at the Capitol in Washington DC and amid growing questions over his platform’s role in fuelling the violence.The testimony will come after signs that the new administration of Joe Biden is preparing to take a tougher line on the tech industry’s power, especially when it comes to the social media platforms and their role in spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories.Zuckerberg will be joined by Sundar Pichai and Jack Dorsey, the chief executives of Google and Twitter respectively, at a hearing pointedly entitled “Disinformation nation: social media’s role in promoting extremism and misinformation” by the House of Representatives’ energy and commerce committee.The scrutiny comes after a report found that Facebook allowed groups linked to the QAnon, boogaloo and militia movements to glorify violence during the 2020 election and weeks leading up to the deadly mob violence at the US Capitol.Avaaz, a non-profit advocacy group, says it identified 267 pages and groups on Facebook that spread “violence-glorifying content” in the heat of the 2020 election to a combined following of 32 million users. More than two-thirds of the groups and pages had names aligned with several domestic extremist movements.The top 100 most popular false or misleading stories on Facebook related to the elections received an estimated 162m views, the report found. Avaaz called on the White House and Congress to open an investigation into Facebook’s failures and urgently pass legislation to protect American democracy.Fadi Quran, its campaign director, said: “This report shows that American voters were pummeled with false and misleading information on Facebook every step of the 2020 election cycle. We have over a year’s worth of evidence that the platform helped drive billions of views to pages and content that confused voters, created division and chaos, and, in some instances, incited violence.“But the most worrying finding in our analysis is that Facebook had the tools and capacity to better protect voters from being targets of this content, but the platform only used them at the very last moment, after significant harm was done.”Facebook claimed that Avaaz had used flawed methodology. Andy Stone, a spokesperson, said: “We’ve done more than any other internet company to combat harmful content, having already banned nearly 900 militarized social movements and removed tens of thousands of QAnon pages, groups and accounts from our apps.”He acknowledged: “Our enforcement isn’t perfect, which is why we’re always improving it while also working with outside experts to make sure that our policies remain in the right place.”But the report is likely to prompt tough questions for Zuckerberg in what is part of a wider showdown between Washington and Silicon Valley. Another flashpoint on Thursday could be Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which shields social media companies from liability for content their users post.Repealing the law is one of the few things on which Biden and his predecessor as president, Donald Trump, agree, though for different reasons. Democrats are concerned that Section 230 allows disinformation and conspiracy theories such as QAnon to flourish, while Trump and other Republicans have argued that it protects companies from consequences for censoring conservative voices.More generally, critics say that tech companies are too big and that the coronavirus pandemic has only increased their dominance. The cosy relationship between Barack Obama’s administration and Silicon Valley is a thing of the past, while libertarian Republicans who oppose government interference are a fading force.Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google have all come under scrutiny from Congress and regulators in recent years. The justice department, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general are suing the behemoths over various alleged antitrust violations.In a letter this week to Biden and Merrick Garland, the new attorney general, a coalition of 29 progressive groups wrote: “It’s clear that the ability of Big Tech giants like Google to acquire monopoly power has been abetted by the leadership deficit at top enforcement agencies such as the FTC … We need a break from past, failed leadership, and we need it now.”There are signs that Biden is heeding such calls and spoiling for a confrontation. On Monday he nominated Lina Khan, an antitrust scholar who wants stricter regulation of internet companies, to the FTC. Earlier this month Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor among the most outspoken critics of big tech, was appointed to the national economic council.There is support in Congress from the likes of David Cicilline, chairman of the House judiciary committee’s antitrust panel, which last year released a 449-page report detailing abuses of market power by Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook.The Democratic congressman is reportedly poised to issue at least 10 legislative initiatives targeting big tech, a blitz that will make it harder for the companies and their lobbyists to focus their opposition on a single piece of legislation.Cicilline, also working on a separate bill targeting Section 230, told the Axios website: “My strategy is you’ll see a number of bills introduced, both because it’s harder for [the tech companies] to manage and oppose, you know, 10 bills as opposed to one.“It also is an opportunity for members of the committee who have expressed a real interest or enthusiasm about a particular issue, to sort of take that on and champion it.” More

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party took a lead in Israel’s fourth election in two years, but updated exit polls projected a stalemate that could extend Israel’s political deadlock.JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party held a lead in Israel’s fourth election in two years, exit polls projected Wednesday, but neither his right-wing alliance nor a diverse bloc of opposition parties had a clear path to a majority coalition, creating a stalemate that could extend Israel’s political deadlock for weeks if not months.Two of the three polls by Israeli broadcasters gave Mr. Netanyahu’s conservative Likud party and his wider right-wing and religious bloc 53 seats in Israel’s Parliament — 60 when adding seven seats he might get from an independent candidate. That still fell short of the 61 needed to form a majority in the 120-seat Parliament.The third poll gave the anti-Netanyahu bloc of parties an edge of 61 seats, potentially blocking Mr. Netanyahu’s path to victory and making the election too close to call.The anti-Netanyahu camp is made up of ideologically disparate parties, which will hinder their attempts to replace him. Some have already rejected the possibility of cooperating with others.The muddy result could extend the period of political uncertainty and polarization that has sent Israel reeling from election to election to election, failing each time to return a stable government.And it could lead to a fifth election.Naftali Bennett, leader of the New Right party and his wife, Gilat, outside a polling station in the city of Raanana.Gil Cohen-Magen/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“The path to power for the next prime minister is very difficult,” said Mitchell Barak, a Jerusalem-based pollster and political analyst. “It’s not just the numbers but the self-constraints that each party has placed on who they can sit with. They have painted themselves into a corner.”Final results are not expected until the end of the week, and could easily change the outcome.Addressing his supporters in a half-empty hall at 2:30 a.m. Wednesday, Mr. Netanyahu stopped short of declaring victory.“This evening we have brought a tremendous achievement,” he said. “We have made Likud the largest party in Israel by a very large margin.”Mr. Netanyahu sought re-election even as he was on trial on corruption charges, an unprecedented situation that may have dimmed his prospects.Israel’s seemingly endless political impasse is partly rooted in the nature of its election system, which allocates parliamentary seats according to each party’s share of the vote, making it easy for smaller parties to enter Parliament, and hard for larger parties to form a majority.But the stasis is also the result of Mr. Netanyahu’s refusal to resign despite standing trial over accusations of bribery, fraud and breach of trust. That decision has split the right-wing bloc that has kept Mr. Netanyahu in power for the past 12 years, and divided voters and parties less by political ideology than by their attitude toward Mr. Netanyahu himself.Mr. Netanyahu, right, with his lawyer at the Jerusalem district court last month.Pool photo by Reuven CastroSince neither Mr. Netanyahu nor his opponents could win a majority in the three previous elections, in 2019 and 2020, Mr. Netanyahu remained in power, first as a caretaker prime minister, and then at the helm of a shaky unity government with some of his fiercest critics.The election was conducted against a backdrop of profound political gridlock, with the current cabinet so dysfunctional that it could not agree on a state budget for two consecutive years, nor the appointment of key state officials, including the state attorney and the senior officials at the justice and finance ministries.Two of Mr. Netanyahu’s main challengers, Gideon Saar and Naftali Bennett, are right-wingers who once worked closely with the prime minister. But neither appeared to be in a position to try to form a government.Mr. Saar, a former Likud interior minister who broke with Mr. Netanyahu over the prime minister’s refusal to step down after being charged with corruption, won only six seats and his chances as a contender seemed to have waned.As the political horse-trading and coalition-building get underway, Mr. Netanyahu is expected to try to procure defections from other parties, including Mr. Saar’s, in a quest to tip the scales.It will be up to Reuven Rivlin, Israel’s largely ceremonial president, to invite the lawmaker he believes has the best chance of forming a coalition to begin that process.While presidents have usually assigned that duty to leader of the largest party, Mr. Rivlin could still grant it to another lawmaker who he thinks has a better route to a majority. That could be Yair Lapid, the centrist leader of the opposition, whose party was projected to win between 17 and 18 seats.Voters waiting in line to cast their ballots in Tel Aviv on Tuesday.Gil Cohen-Magen/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“At the moment, Netanyahu doesn’t have 61 seats, but the change bloc does,” Mr. Lapid said early Wednesday. He added, “I’ve started speaking to party leaders and we’ll wait for the results, but we’ll do everything to create a sane government in Israel.”Mr. Netanyahu’s fortunes depend heavily on Mr. Bennett, once his chief of staff.Throughout the campaign, Mr. Bennett refused to clarify whether he would back a coalition led by Mr. Netanyahu. But he said he would refuse to serve under Mr. Lapid, and analysts believe he could be persuaded to back Mr. Netanyahu.Speaking to his supporters early Wednesday, Mr. Bennett maintained his ambiguity, saying only that he would “wait patiently” for the final results.If he does return to power, Mr. Netanyahu has promised to enact sweeping legal reforms that would limit the power of the judiciary, and which his opponents fear would allow him to circumvent his corruption trial. Mr. Netanyahu’s colleagues have prevaricated in recent days about whether he would use his office to avoid prosecution, with one minister on Saturday refusing to rule it out.Mr. Netanyahu denies any wrongdoing and that he would try to change the law to derail the trial.Any new government will immediately face substantive challenges, including an economy bruised by the pandemic, rising violent crime in Arab communities and potential threats from Iran. Diplomatically, Israel is trying to block the resurrection of the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran, which the United States government generally favors and which Israel considers inadequate.And Israel will urgently need to adopt a new national budget for 2021, since the previous government failed to, a failure that led to its collapse.Mr. Netanyahu before casting his ballot at a polling station.Pool photo by Ronen ZvulunThe vote followed a campaign that centered on the suitability of Mr. Netanyahu himself, rather than on more existential or ideological questions like the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or how to bridge the divide between secular and religious Israelis.Mr. Netanyahu presented himself as the only candidate able to deter what many Israelis see as the threats posed by Iran. He also sought to distinguish himself as a statesman who had cemented diplomatic relations with four Arab states and brought a world-leading vaccination program to Israel, helping the country to emerge recently into something approaching normal life.It was a message that resonated with many voters.“Bibi is the only leader in this country in my eyes,” said Elad Shnezik, a 24-year-old foreign-exchange trader who voted for Likud in Tzur Hadassah, a suburb west of Jerusalem. “I have never seen anything bad in his actions. Everything he does, he does for the people.”But turnout was the lowest since 2013, about 67 percent, as some voters appeared to tire of the relentless election cycle.“The only one excited about going out to vote today is our dog, who is getting an extra walk this morning,” said Gideon Zehavi, 54, a psychologist from Rehovot in central Israel.Turnout was projected to be particularly low among the Arab minority, according to some Arab pollsters. Some said they were deflated by a split within the main Arab political alliance, which reduced the collective power of Arab lawmakers.“My honest opinion is it’s not worth wasting my time to vote for any of the parties,” said Amir Younes, 32, a restaurant worker in Jaffa. “We have been through this show many times before and the result is the same.”Mr. Netanyahu’s attempts to position himself as a diplomatic trailblazer were dampened in the final days of the campaign, after a planned photo-opportunity in Abu Dhabi with the leadership of the United Arab Emirates fell through, amid Emirati frustration about being used as a prop in Mr. Netanyahu’s re-election campaign.And Mr. Netanyahu’s pandemic leadership brought him as much criticism as praise. Though he presided over a successful vaccine rollout, he was accused of playing politics with other aspects of the pandemic response. In January, he resisted giving significantly larger fines to people who broke antivirus measures, a policy that would have disproportionately affected ultra-Orthodox Israelis. Ultra-Orthodox parties form about a quarter of Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing alliance, and he needs their support to form a coalition.Mr. Netanyahu searched for every last vote, even from ideologically incoherent sections of society. Despite previously scorning and ignoring Israel’s Arab minority, which forms about 20 percent of the population, Mr. Netanyahu pushed hard in this electoral cycle for their support, presenting himself as the only person who could end the endemic violence and inequality that affects many Arab communities.But simultaneously, he agreed to an electoral pact with a far-right alliance, whose leaders include Itamar Ben Gvir, a hard-line nationalist who until recently hung in his living room a portrait of Baruch Goldstein, an extremist who murdered 29 Palestinians in a mosque in the West Bank in 1994.Reporting was contributed by Adam Rasgon, Myra Noveck, Irit Pazner Garshowitz and Gabby Sobelman. More