Elections

Donald Trump is no longer center stage. But many conservative activists are finding that the best way to raise money and keep voters engaged is to make his biggest fabrication their top priority.For more than a decade, the Susan B. Anthony List and the American Principles Project have pursued cultural and policy priorities from the social conservative playbook, one backing laws to ban abortion once a fetal heartbeat could be detected and the other opposing civil rights protections for L.G.B.T.Q. people. From their shared offices in suburban Virginia, they and their affiliated committees spent more than $20 million on elections last year.But after Donald J. Trump lost his bid for a second term and convinced millions of Americans that nonexistent fraud was to blame, the two groups found that many of their donors were thinking of throwing in the towel. Why, donors argued, should they give any money if Democrats were going to game the system to their advantage, recalled Frank Cannon, the senior strategist for both groups.“‘Before I give you any money for anything at all, tell me how this is going to be solved,’” Mr. Cannon said, summarizing his conversations. He and other conservative activists — many with no background in election law — didn’t take long to come up with an answer, which was to make rolling back access to voting the “center of gravity in the party,” as he put it.Passing new restrictions on voting — in particular, tougher limits on early voting and vote-by-mail — is now at the heart of the right’s strategy to keep donors and voters engaged as Mr. Trump fades from public view and leaves a void in the Republican Party that no other figure or issue has filled. In recent weeks, many of the most prominent and well-organized groups that power the G.O.P.’s vast voter turnout efforts have directed their resources toward a campaign to restrict when and how people can vote, with a focus on the emergency policies that states enacted last year to make casting a ballot during a pandemic easier. The groups believe it could be their best shot at regaining a purchase on power in Washington.Their efforts are intensifying over the objections of some Republicans who say the strategy is cynical and shortsighted, arguing that it further commits their party to legitimizing a lie. It also sends a message, they say, that Republicans think they lost mostly because the other side cheated, which prevents them from grappling honestly with what went wrong and why they might lose again.Some also argue that setting new restrictions on voting could undercut the party just as it was making important gains with Black and Latino voters, who are more likely to be impeded by such laws.“Restricting voting is only a short-term rush. It’s not a strategy for future strength,” said Benjamin Ginsberg, one of the Republican Party’s most prominent election lawyers, who has criticized Mr. Trump and other members of the party for attacking the integrity of the voting process.Former President Donald J. Trump speaking in 2018 at a Susan B. Anthony List gala in Washington.  Many conservative groups have raised money off his baseless claims of election fraud, and supported the Republican push to roll back voting rights.Doug Mills/The New York Times“Look at what it really means,” Mr. Ginsberg added. “A party that’s increasingly old and white whose base is a diminishing share of the population is conjuring up charges of fraud to erect barriers to voting for people it fears won’t support its candidates.”Just as notable as the brand-name conservative groups that are raising money off Mr. Trump’s revisionism — Susan B. Anthony List, the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, Tea Party Patriots — are some of the heavy hitters that are sitting this fight out. Americans for Prosperity, the political organization funded by the Koch fortune, is not supporting the efforts to pass more ballot access laws, nor are other groups in the multimillion-dollar Koch political network.The debate over voting laws is also part of the bigger fight over the future of the Republican Party, and whether it should continue being so focused on making Mr. Trump and his hard-core voters happy.For now, many conservative groups are choosing to side with the former president, even at the risk of feeding corrosive falsehoods about the prevalence of voter fraud.It is certainly the more financially secure path and, some say, the one where they will encounter the least resistance. With polls showing that at least two-thirds of Republicans harbor doubts about President Biden’s legitimacy or believe that Mr. Trump somehow won more votes despite receiving seven million fewer than his opponent, Republican consultants said they were following their party.Some expressed a certain resignation about the situation: Mr. Trump created a perception that is now their party’s reality.“I’m not someone who thinks that China hacked the voting machines,” said Terry Schilling, the president of the American Principles Project. But at the same time, he said, “if you’re a conservative organization and you have small-dollar donors, you’re hearing this from everywhere: ‘Well, what’s the point in voting?’”One major focus for conservatives is rolling back the Covid-related changes that states enacted to make absentee voting easier last year. Mr. Schilling said his group’s intention was to “restore lost faith” in the process with policies that don’t allow those emergency procedures to become permanent. The American Principles Project, like other groups on the right, supports making states verify signatures on absentee ballots with signatures they have in their voter databases, and wants ballots sent only to people who request them.Shortly after Election Day, Trump supporters protested the results at the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta.Audra Melton for The New York TimesVoters in Georgia who were disillusioned after Mr. Trump’s defeat — many of whom believed his far-fetched and debunked claims of voting by pets, dead people and other irregularities — helped cost Republicans control of the Senate. Georgia Republicans are now pushing a raft of new voting restrictions that Democrats have called political payback under the guise of “election integrity.” Many of the conservative organizations jumping in have a large network of activists in churches and anti-abortion groups across the country.The Susan B. Anthony List and the American Principles Project recently announced a joint “election transparency” campaign and set a fund-raising goal of $5 million. They hired a top conservative activist who is a former Trump administration official to lead it. They have organized conference calls for activists with other social conservative groups across the country, and say they have found participants to be enthusiastic about getting involved even if election law is entirely new to them.The Family Research Council, which advised the Trump administration on policies like ending military eligibility for transgender people and expanding the definition of religious freedom, recently dedicated one of its regular online organizing sessions, the “Pray Vote Stand Townhall,” to encouraging people to lobby their state legislators.Tony Perkins, the group’s president, expressed optimism about the number of voting bills that were moving along and suggested that last year’s election results were tainted. “We’ve got 106 election-related bills that are in 28 states right now,” he said to the audience. “So here’s the good news: There is action taking place to go back and correct what was uncovered in this last election.”Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, suggested that the results of the 2020 election couldn’t be trusted.Mark J. Terrill/Associated PressJoining Mr. Perkins on the stage was Michael P. Farris, the president of the deep-pocketed and powerful Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom. He chimed in approvingly: “Let me just say, ‘Amen,’” he said.Also throwing its weight behind the campaign is the influential Heritage Foundation and its political arm, Heritage Action for America, which recently announced that it planned to spend millions of dollars to support voting policies that are popular with conservatives. Those include laws that would require identification for voters and limit the availability of absentee ballots, as well as other policies that Heritage said would “secure and strengthen state election systems.”Several Republican strategists said that while the “stolen” election canard was accepted widely among rank-and-file Republican voters, they were surprised to find how deeply it had taken hold with major donors, who seem the most convinced of its truth and eager to act.Groups that are fighting these attempts to restrict ballot access said that the organizing on the right was so new that its impact had been hard to gauge. Michael Waldman, the president of the Brennan Center for Justice, said Republican legislatures seemed to understand the power of this issue on their own and didn’t need much persuasion to act.“Are we seeing a lot of new lawsuits, new lobbying, other things on the ground?” he said. “The answer is mostly no. We’re seeing a lot of fund-raising.” Still, the number of groups involved and the salience of the issue was striking, he said.“There’s massive organizational infrastructure behind it,” Mr. Waldman said. “It’s hard to identify too many unifying issues right now in the Republican Party. But this seems to be one of them.”As contentious as some of the past conservative-led campaigns to restrict voting were, this time is even more emotionally and politically charged given how closely associated it is with Mr. Trump and the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol that he incited. Some conservatives said the association with that day complicated what could be relatively uncontroversial changes to regulate how absentee ballots are sent out, collected and counted now that so many more people are likely to request them in the future.“We also took a look at the election results, and we don’t believe that it was stolen. But that doesn’t mean we don’t think there aren’t things that can be improved,” said Jason Snead, the executive director of the Honest Elections Project. The group supports a range of changes: Some would regulate mail-in voting at the margins, like requiring that ballots are mailed out no earlier than three weeks before the election and received by the time polls close on the day of.Others would no doubt be more controversial, like banning the organized, third-party collection of ballots that conservative critics call ballot harvesting.Mr. Snead said it was problematic that the 2020 election and its aftermath had cast a shadow over the entire issue. “There’s definitely a recognition that we don’t want this to be something that is tied to the last election,” he said. But as someone who started his work on election law before Mr. Trump was elected and shares the broader goal of establishing more conditions on voting, he acknowledged that the environment had never been riper.“It has risen to a degree of prominence it probably has never enjoyed,” Mr. Snead said. More

Las vacunaciones en América Latina han sido un desastre, producto de problemas de infraestructura y una dirigencia demasiado ocupada en su subsistencia. ¿Pedimos demasiado si reclamamos hacer lo correcto?Hace unos días escuché conversar a dos mujeres en Barcelona mientras esperaban por su vacuna contra la covid. Una se quejaba del manejo de la pandemia con una amargura ecuménica: no importa si eres catalanista o estás a favor del gobierno central, decía, necesitas dar señales claras. Debe haber un mando único, aseguraba. La amiga asentía y al final soltó la perla: “Así debe ser, pero no puedes derramar vino de un cazo vacío”.Europa aun tienen dificultades para probar que la vacunación puede ser veloz cuando poco más del 4 por ciento de la población continental ha recibido un pinchazo en el brazo. Pensaba en eso —y en las señoras del cazo vacío— cuando revisaba las cifras de vacunación en América Latina. Excluido Chile —donde aproximadamente el 20 por ciento de la población está vacunada y se anuncia inmunidad de rebaño tan temprano como en junio—, el resto de la región no ha inyectado, en promedio, ni al uno por ciento de sus ciudadanos.América Latina no ha sido inmune a la degradación creciente de la política, con dirigencias obsesivamente ocupadas en la próxima elección —o en la perpetuidad— y en peleas menores entre gobiernos y oposiciones mientras pobreza, corrupción, atraso y, ahora, miles de muertes parecen suceder en un universo paralelo. Es ciertamente enervante que la escala de prioridades parezca al revés o, peor, inexistente.Estos son momentos de alta política, y alta política ahora es vacunar pronto a todo el mundo. Los míos, los tuyos, los ajenos. Ricos, pobres. Tener que escribir esto es increíble, porque es evidente, pero vamos: no hay mejor política de Estado que superar la facción y trabajar para todos. Cuando se trata de salud pública en una pandemia, la ideología es una: socializas beneficios.Y, sin embargo, muchos mandatarios y gobiernos parecen más preocupados en ganar las próximas elecciones. El ciclo electoral inició en 2021 con Ecuador y en los últimos meses votaron El Salvador y Bolivia. Este año habrá presidenciales en Perú, Nicaragua, Chile, Honduras, legislativas en México y Argentina y municipales en Paraguay. Toda la región parece en campaña electoral y la pandemia ha resultado una magnífica oportunidad propagandística. Pero las contiendas y las disputas políticas debieran ser secundarias cuando es preciso detener las muertes actuales y evitar la expansión del virus con vacunas. Pronto, sin improvisar y sin opacidad.Es imperdonable que los políticos privilegien sus disputas por encima de las necesidades de las mayorías. Y no es que no deban defender sus intereses sino que la escala de prioridades no admite discusión: la demanda de la facción no puede moralmente anteponerse a la necesidad general. No puede ser votos o muertos.Los problemas son mayores. En toda la región, el déficit de insumos y equipamiento ha sido democráticamente lamentable. Y las imágenes son desastrosas: hospitales desbordados de Perú y Ecuador, falta de información y hasta represión en Nicaragua y Venezuela, un colapso anunciado en Brasil y México es el tercer país con mayor número de muertes del mundo.A los errores de la gestión de la pandemia, se suman décadas de mala gobernanza. Mientras los gobiernos de Corea, Taiwán y Japón implementaron un rastreo minucioso de casos; en muchas ciudades principales de América Latina no hay siquiera padrones digitalizados de la ciudadanía ni bases de datos centralizadas. Unos 34 millones de latinoamericanos no tienen documentos de identificación, lo que significa que ni siquiera figuran en un registro civil. El sistema tiene ineficiencias que preceden a casi todos los gobiernos actuales. Por eso cuando llega una crisis, encuentras enfermeras malpagadas y agotadas atendiendo enfermos envueltas en bolsas de basura pues carecen de equipos. Y observas que algunos gobiernos no se agenciaron suficientes vacunas por incapacidades burocráticas e imprevisión administrativa.De acuerdo, todo esto podría ser achacable al desguace estructural de la salud pública, pero estamos en otro juego cuando episodios de abuso y amiguismo o las agendas políticas de quienes ahora están al mando se interponen entre la vida y la muerte de la población. Si nuestros dirigentes se emplean más en sus guerritas de baja intensidad para acumular poder mientras sus ciudadanos mueren, son miserables.La inversión de prioridades sucede en casi toda la región. Jair Bolsonaro —que cambió cuatro veces de ministro de Salud— entiende la pandemia como un problema personal: entorpeció su deseo de manejar Brasil a placer. Andrés Manuel López Obrador pasa más tiempo empeñado en defender la Cuarta Transformación rumbo a las elecciones legislativas que podrían darle una mayoría absoluta en el Congreso que creando planes de rescate económico a los habitantes de México. En Argentina, el proceso de vacunación está sembrado de dudas: ¿sería tan veloz si el gobierno de Alberto Fernández no tuviera una elección intermedia por ganar? Tampoco en El Salvador, Nicaragua o Venezuela ha habido la integridad de separar el rol funcionarial de la propaganda.En el fondo, la manera en que vacunamos habla de lo que creemos y somos capaces. En Argentina, por ejemplo, una líder opositora sugirió que debiera permitirse a los privados vender dosis y enviar a quien no tiene dinero a la seguridad social o a pedir subsidios. La idea es un absurdo cuando la mayoría de los procesos exitosos de vacunación —y de gestión de la pandemia en las fases críticas— son públicos y centralizados. La evidencia sugiere que una campaña veloz y masiva requiere del Estado a cargo con apoyo de voluntarios de la sociedad civil.El Estado es un elefante —fofo o hambreado— y precisa gimnasia. Por eso es relevante el factor humano para moverlo. Esto es, aun cuando hay infraestructura y enfrentas una crisis de salud pública, la inteligencia de gestión y la capacidad burocrática son capitales. Pero si quienes dirigen lanzan señales equívocas o son cínicos incapaces de hacer alta política, los resultados no pueden ser más que letales. América Latina es ya la región del mundo con más muertos por habitante.Si la opinión pública sabe que las infraestructuras son buenas y sus dirigentes dan el ejemplo, no tendrá una repentina crisis de desconfianza. Las infraestructuras deben soportar; los funcionarios, funcionar.¿Hay sustancia, entonces, o deberemos convencernos de que pedimos vino a una clase política que es un cazo vacío?Diego Fonseca (@DiegoFonsecaDF) es colaborador regular de The New York Times y director del Seminario Iberoamericano de Periodismo Emprendedor en CIDE-México y del Institute for Socratic Dialogue de Barcelona. Voyeur es su último libro. More

When she took her oath of office, the first Native American cabinet secretary also took a stance for self-expression.Forget pantsuit nation. The Washington dress code is changing, one swearing-in at a time.On Thursday, Deb Haaland made history when she began her job as Secretary of the Interior, becoming the first Native American member of the cabinet. And she did so not in the recent uniform of many female politirati — the fruit bowl-colored trouser suit — but rather in traditional Indigenous dress.Standing in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to Vice President Kamala Harris to take the oath of office, Ms. Haaland wore a dark jacket over a sky blue, rainbow-trimmed ribbon skirt embroidered with imagery of butterflies, stars and corn; moccasin boots; a turquoise and silver belt and necklace; and dragonfly earrings.Against the flags and dark wood, the former Democratic congresswoman from New Mexico stood out, her clothes telegraphing a statement of celebration and of self at a ceremonial moment that will be preserved for the record. It was symbolic in more ways than one.According to an Instagram post from Reecreeations, that company that made the skirt for Ms. Haaland’s swearing-in, the ribbon skirt is a reminder of “matriarchal power”: “Wearing it in this day and age is an act of self empowerment and reclamation of who we are and that gives us the opportunity to proudly make bold statements in front of others who sometimes refuse to see us. It allows us to be our authentic selves unapologetically.”This is yet another break from the four years of the Trump administration, when the West Wing aesthetic could best be described as “Fox wardrobe department, the D.C. version.” Think primary-colored sheath or wrap dress, high heels, Breck hair and lots of false eyelashes.And more broadly, it’s a break from the prevailing wisdom regarding female dress in the corridors of power, which dictated safety in a dark suit — with maybe the occasional red jacket for pop. The point being to look like the (male) majority that ruled; to be a company woman and play the part of the institution. Not any more.In 2019, when Ms. Haaland was sworn in as a congresswoman representing New Mexico, she also chose native dress, including a red woven belt more than a century old. Joshua Roberts/ReutersWearing traditional dress has become something of a signature for Ms. Haaland during big public moments. In 2016, she wore a classic Pueblo dress and jewelry to the Democratic National Convention; in 2019, when she was sworn in as one of the first Native American members of Congress, she did the same, including a red woven belt that was more than a century old. And in January, at President Biden’s inauguration, she also wore a ribbon skirt, one in sunshine yellow, with a burgundy top and boots.As she told Emily’s List on her first day in Congress: “I just felt like I should represent my people. I thought it would just make some folks proud out there.”Indeed, when Ms. Haaland posted a photo of herself at the inauguration on her Instagram feed (she has 124,000 followers), it was liked more than 45,000 times, with many comments applauding her attire. Not in order to diminish her achievements, the charge often leveled at commentary on a female politician’s wardrobe choices, but to underscore them.Similarly, after a video taken by her daughter of Ms. Haaland getting ready for her swearing-in began to circulate online Thursday, users cheered. “Ribbon skirt, moccasins, hair down — Deb Haaland inviting all the ancestors to her swearing in ceremony,” tweeted one user.Sherrilyn Ifill, the president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, called it “my spiritual lift for the day.”Ms. Haaland is not the first or only female politician to use dress to express identity at moments of guaranteed public scrutiny, but she is part of a new generation of women in Washington that is increasingly, and intentionally, individual in their choices.Rashida Tlaib, the Democratic congresswoman from Michigan, for example, wore a traditional Palestinian thobe to her swearing-in, and Ilhan Omar, the Democratic representative from Minnesota, became the first woman to wear a hijab in Congress when she was elected in 2019.And though Vice President Harris has largely adopted what seems like a sea of dark trouser suits for her everyday work life, the fashion choices she made during the inauguration, focused on the work of young, independent designers of color, suggest that she is more than aware of the way carefully calibrated imagery can resonate with viewer — and is more than ready to deploy that tool with calculated precision.As Ms. Harris said after Ms. Haaland was sworn in, “History is being made yet again.” It’s only fitting to dress for it. More

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is banking on voters crediting him for beating the pandemic. But many worry that the country’s reopening may be premature and politically driven.JERUSALEM — Vaccinated Israelis are working out in gyms and dining in restaurants. By this weekend they will be partying at nightclubs and cheering at soccer matches by the thousands.Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is taking credit for bringing Israel “back to life” and banking on the country’s giddy, post-pandemic mood of liberation to put him over the top in a close election on Tuesday.But nothing is quite that simple in Israeli politics.While most Israelis appreciate the government’s impressive, world-leading vaccination campaign, many worry that the grand social and economic reopening may prove premature and suspect that the timing is political.Instead of public health professionals making transparent decisions about reopening, “decisions are made at the last minute, at night, by the cabinet,” complained Prof. Hagai Levine, an epidemiologist at the Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health in Jerusalem. “The timing, right before the election, is intended to declare mission accomplished.”The parliamentary election on Tuesday will be the country’s fourth in two years. For Mr. Netanyahu, who is on trial on corruption charges, his best chance of avoiding conviction lies in heading a new right-wing government, analysts say, and he has staked everything on his handling of the coronavirus crisis.He takes personal credit for the vaccination campaign, which has seen about half the country’s 9 million people receive a second Pfizer shot, outpacing the rest of the world, and has declared victory over the virus.“Israel is the world champion in vaccinations, the first country in the world to exit from the health corona and the economic corona,” he said at a pre-election conference this week.A vaccination site at a mall in Givatayim, Israel. Half of the country’s 9 million people have received a second shot of the Pfizer vaccine, outpacing the rest of the world.Oded Balilty/Associated PressHe has presented himself as the only candidate who could have pulled off the deal with Pfizer to secure the early delivery of millions of vaccines, boasting of his personal appeals to Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, who, as a son of Holocaust survivors, had great affinity for Israel.Mr. Netanyahu even posted a clip from South Park, the American animated sitcom, acknowledging Israel’s vaccination supremacy.But experts said his claim that the virus was in the rearview mirror was overly optimistic.Just months ago, Israel’s daily infection rates and death rates were among the worst in the world. By February, Israel was also leading the world in the number of lockdown days. About two million Israelis under 16 are so far unable to get vaccinated and about a million eligible citizens have so far chosen not to.With much of the adult population now vaccinated, weekly infection rates have been dropping dramatically. But there are still more than a thousand new cases a day, an infection rate that, adjusted for population, remains higher than those of the United States, Canada, Britain, Germany, Spain and others.Health officials approved the reopening of businesses and leisure activities. But they sharply criticized a High Court decision this week lifting the quotas on airport arrivals, in part to allow Israeli citizens abroad to get back and vote.“The High Court is taking responsibility for the risk of mutations entering Israel,” Yoav Kish, the deputy health minister, wrote on Twitter. “Good luck to us all.”Critics blame the government for having failed to establish a reliable system to enforce quarantine for people entering the country, and health experts warn that they could bring in dangerous variants of the virus that are more resistant to the vaccine.The dizzying mix of health policy and electioneering has left many Israelis in a state of confusion, out celebrating but also fearing that the rapid reopening may be reckless.“I believe after the elections things will close again,” said Eran Avishai, the part-owner of a popular Mediterranean restaurant in Jerusalem. “It’s political and not logical that I can open a restaurant while my son, who’s in 10th grade, can only go to school for a few hours twice a week. There are hidden agendas.”Israelis are celebrating new freedoms, like eating in restaurants, but many fear the country’s rapid reopening may be reckless.Atef Safadi/EPA, via ShutterstockBut as a businessman, he added, “I thank Bibi every morning when I wake up,” referring to Mr. Netanyahu by his nickname.The reopening did not lead to an immediate boost for Mr. Netanyahu’s conservative Likud party in pre-election opinion polls, suggesting that his claim of vanquishing the virus may not be enough to persuade those who voted against him in the last three elections to change their minds.For at least two years, Israel has been stuck in political gridlock, roughly divided between pro- and anti-Netanyahu voters. A stalemate in the last three elections prevented either side from securing a majority in Parliament that would allow it to form a stable coalition government.Mr. Netanyahu’s critics accuse him of having mismanaged the health crisis over much of the last year by putting politics and personal interests ahead of the public’s, for example by going easy on those members of the ultra-Orthodox community who flouted lockdown rules in order to maintain the loyalty of his ultra-Orthodox coalition allies.“It’s a mixed bag,” said Gadi Wolfsfeld, a professor of political communication at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya. “On the one hand Netanyahu gets credit for bringing the vaccines quickly and making Israel the most vaccinated society. On the other hand, a lot of people are angry at the way the ultra-Orthodox got away with everything, and he is identified with that. And people are mad about the lockdowns.”The hasty reopening was a “cynical strategy,” he said, because any resulting increase in infection would only become apparent after the election.Even as many businesses have reopened, other storefronts across the country were displaying “For Sale” or “To Let” signs after the pandemic left them permanently shuttered.Mr. Netanyahu’s political rivals have homed in on his failures in handling the pandemic, which has taken the lives of more than 6,000 Israelis.“6,000 victims of the government’s failed management will not be coming ‘Back to Life,’” Yair Lapid, leader of the centrist opposition to Mr. Netanyahu, wrote on Twitter. “Israel needs a sane government.”Mr. Netanyahu has been criticized by his rivals for his failures in handling the pandemic, which has killed more than 6,000 Israelis.Menahem Kahana/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesA rival from the right, Naftali Bennett, brought out a booklet late last year titled, “How to Beat an Epidemic,” suggesting that he could have done a better job. But it’s impossible to know if he would have fared better than Mr. Netanyahu.“Even if his opponents’ criticism is very harsh, they don’t have the deeds to prove they could have done any better in combating the virus,” said Gayil Talshir, a political scientist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.For once, she said, Mr. Netanyahu was running a positive campaign largely based on his achievements, rather than a divisive one that pitted different segments of the population against each other.The logistics of holding an election during a pandemic, however, could skew the projections. The Central Elections Committee has decided to place ballot boxes inside nursing homes, a measure that may increase voter turnout among the older population. There will also be polling stations at the airport.There will be more ballot boxes than usual, as well as 50 mobile voting stations to reduce overcrowding. There will be special transportation and separate polling stations for people infected with the virus or in quarantine.But Israel does not offer voting by mail or absentee voting except for diplomats or other officials serving abroad, and some people may still be anxious about coming out to vote.Whether the vaccination campaign and the reopening of the economy can break Israel’s political impasse remains unclear.“It is too soon to judge,” said Ayelet Frish, a strategic consultant, days before the election. The electorate and the politicians remained split, she said, between what she called the pro-Netanyahu “I brought the vaccines” camp and the anti-Netanyahu “Because of you we have 6,000 dead” camp.So far, she said, “It’s a draw.” More

The Asian American lawmaker Grace Meng called out the violence and discrimination against her community at a hearing on Capitol Hill on Thursday. ‘Our community is bleeding. We are in pain. And for the last year, we’ve been screaming out for help,’ she  said. She told a panel the rising tide of anti-Asian bigotry was fuelled in part by rhetoric from Donald Trump and his allies, who have referred to Covid-19 as the ‘China virus’ and ‘kung flu’ 

Asian American lawmakers say violence has reached ‘crisis point’
‘That hit home for me’: Atlanta reeling after spa shootings of Asian Americans More

Senator Raphael Warnock’s first speech on the Senate floor brought the past into the present. More

Former President George W. Bush said he was “disturbed” and “disgusted” by the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol in an interview streamed online Thursday.“I was sick to my stomach” to see “hostile forces” storm the Capitol, Mr. Bush said in an interview with The Texas Tribune’s chief executive, Evan Smith. “And it really disturbed me to the point where I did put out a statement, and I’m still disturbed when I think about it.”Mr. Bush added that the insurrection was not a peaceful expression of grievances. “It undermines rule of law and the ability to express yourself in peaceful ways in the public square,” he said.Asked if he thought the 2020 presidential election was stolen, Mr. Bush responded, “No.” Former President Donald J. Trump has repeatedly asserted that the election was rigged, even though there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud.Still, Mr. Bush said he did not believe the Trump administration had put democracy at risk by rejecting the election outcome.“What’s putting democracy at risk is the capacity to get on the internet to spread” false information, Mr. Bush said. “But checks and balances work.”Mr. Bush also said that he was optimistic about America’s future and that he had had a “good conversation” with President Biden.“He’s off to a good start, it looks like,” Mr. Bush said. “Hopefully, this anger will work its way out of the system.”He also said he was pleased to see high voter turnout in the 2018 and 2020 elections, which he said “shows the vibrancy of democracy.”Mr. Bush was speaking at this year’s SXSW online festival in a pretaped interview recorded on Feb. 24 to promote his new book, “Out of Many, One: Portraits of America’s Immigrants.”Mr. Bush previously called the insurrection, which left five people dead, “sickening” and “heartbreaking” in a Jan. 6 statement.“I am appalled by the reckless behavior of some political leaders since the election and by the lack of respect shown today for our institutions, our traditions and our law enforcement,” he said, then adding, “The violent assault on the Capitol — and disruption of a constitutionally mandated meeting of Congress — was undertaken by people whose passions have been inflamed by falsehoods and false hopes.”In early November, Mr. Bush was one of the first prominent Republicans to congratulate Mr. Biden on his election win, even as Mr. Trump and many of his supporters defied the results and Republican leaders refused to publicly acknowledge Mr. Biden’s victory.Mr. Bush attended Mr. Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, alongside former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. More

The Green party mayor of Lyon, a gastronomic capital, introduced no-meat menus in schools. Let the anguish begin.LYON — Grégory Doucet, the mild-mannered Green party mayor of Lyon, hardly seems a revolutionary. But he has upended France by announcing last month that elementary school lunch menus for 29,000 Lyonnais children would no longer include meat.An outrage! An ecological diktat that could signal the end of French gastronomy, even French culture! Ministers in President Emmanuel Macron’s government clashed. If Lyon, the city of beef snouts and pigs’ ears, of saucisson and kidneys, could do such a thing, the apocalypse was surely imminent.“The reaction has been quite astonishing,” Mr. Doucet, 47, said.He is a slight man whose mischievous mien and goatee gives him the air of one of Dumas’s three musketeers. A political neophyte elected last year, he clearly finds it a little ludicrous that he, an apostle of less, should end up with more, sitting beneath a 25-foot ceiling in a cavernous mayor’s office adorned with brocade and busts of his forbears. That tweaking a local school menu has split the nation leaves him incredulous.“My decision was purely pragmatic,” he insisted, eyes twinkling — a means to speed up lunches in socially distanced times by offering a single menu rather than the traditional choice of two dishes.“My decision was purely pragmatic,” said the mayor of Lyon, Grégory Doucet.Andrea Mantovani for The New York TimesNot so, thundered Gérald Darmanin, the interior minister. He tweeted that dropping meat was an “unacceptable insult to French farmers and butchers” that betrays “an elitist and moralist” attitude. Julien Denormandie, the agriculture minister, called the mayor’s embrace of the meatless lunch “shameful from a social point of view” and “aberrational from a nutritional point of view.”All of which prompted Barbara Pompili, the minister of ecological transition, to speak of the “prehistoric” views, full of “hackneyed clichés,” of these men, in effect calling two of her cabinet colleagues Neanderthals.This heated exchange over little illustrated several things. Mr. Macron’s government and party, La République en Marche, remain an uneasy marriage of right and left. The rising popularity of the Greens, who run not only Lyon but also Bordeaux and Grenoble, has sharpened a cultural clash between urban environmental crusaders and the defenders of French tradition in the countryside.Not least, nothing gets the French quite as dyspeptic as disagreement over food.The mayor, it must be said, made his move in a city with an intense gastronomic tradition. At the Boucherie François on the banks of the Rhône, a centennial establishment, Lyon’s culture of meat is on ample display. The veal liver and kidneys glistened; cuts of roast beef wrapped in pork fat abounded; the heads of yellow and white chickens lolled on a counter; the saucissons, some with pistachio, took every cylindrical form; the pastry-wrapped pâté showed off a core of foie gras; and pigs’ trotters and ears betrayed this city’s carnivorous inclinations.“The mayor made a mistake,” said François Teixeira, a butcher who has worked at François for 19 years. “This is not good for Lyon’s image.”François Teixeira at his butcher shop in Lyon. “The mayor made a mistake,” he said.Andrea Mantovani for The New York TimesCertainly, the mayor’s decision came at a sensitive moment. The right in France has expressed indignation that the country is being force-marched, through politically correct environmental dogmatism, toward a future of bicycles, electric cars, veganism, locavores, negative planet-saving growth and general joylessness — something at a very far cry from stuffing goose livers for personal delectation.Last year, Pierre Hurmic, the Green party mayor of Bordeaux, touched a nerve when he rejected the city’s traditional Christmas tree because it’s “a dead tree.” Mr. Doucet’s culinary move was part of “an ideological agenda,” the right-wing weekly Valeurs Actuelles proclaimed in a cover story. “The canteens of Lyon were just a pretext.”Mr. Doucet, who describes himself as a “flexitarian,” or someone who favors vegetables but also eats a little meat, argues that the Education Ministry forced his hand. By doubling social distancing at schools to two meters, or more than six feet, it obliged the mayor to accelerate lunch by offering just one dish.“There’s a mathematical equation,” he said. “You have the same number of tables, but you have to put fewer children at them, and you can’t start the lunch break at 10 a.m.”But why nix meat? The mayor, who has a 7-year-old in elementary school, rolled his eyes. “We have not gone to a vegetarian menu! Every day, the children can eat fish or eggs.” Because a significant number of students already did not eat meat, he said, “we just took the lowest common denominator.”It was not, Mr. Doucet said, an ideological decision, even if he aims over his six-year term to adjust school menus toward “a greater share of vegetable proteins.”The mayor continued: “Most of the time these days there’s not much choice. You don’t have the choice to go to a museum, or to the theater, or to the cinema. It’s indecent for the right-wing opposition to say that I am trampling on our liberties in the context of a state of emergency.”A portrait of Paul Bocuse, one of France’s most celebrated chefs, in Lyon.Andrea Mantovani for The New York TimesMr. Macron has adopted a balancing act between his embrace of a Green future and, as he put it last year, his rejection of “the Amish model” for France. The president tries to differentiate rational from punitive or extreme environmentalism.The president, casting his net wide as usual ahead of regional elections in June, wants to appeal to conservative farmers while attracting some of the Green vote. During a recent visit to a farm, he attacked attempts to forge a new agriculture based on “invective, bans and demagoguery.” In an apparent allusion to the Lyon fiasco, he has said “good sense” should prevail in balanced children’s diets and noted that, “We lose a lot of time in idiotic divisions.”His government has proposed a Constitutional amendment, the first since 2008, that, if approved in a referendum, would add a sentence to the effect that France “guarantees the preservation of the environment and biological diversity and fights against climate change.”The right has expressed opposition to the change. It still has to be reviewed by the right-leaning Senate. Another bill sets out possible reforms for a greener future that include banning advertisements for fossil fuels and eliminating some short-haul domestic flights.Mr. Doucet is unimpressed. “Macron is not an ecologist. He is a modern conservative. He knows there’s a problem, so he is ready to make some changes, but he does not measure the size of the problem. Can you tell me one strong step he has taken?”For now, the meatless Lyon school lunches are still being served. Children seem just fine. Last week, a Lyon administrative court rejected an attempt by some parents, agricultural unions and local conservative politicians to overturn the mayor’s decision, ruling that the “temporary simplification” of school menus did not pose a health risk to children.Mr. Doucet says that when the health crisis eases, but not before, he will be able to offer a choice of school menus again, including meat. Meanwhile, Mr. Denormandie, the agriculture minister, has asked the prefect in the Lyon area to look into the legality of dropping meat.Eggs and fish are still being served in school canteens in Lyon.Andrea Mantovani for The New York Times“Mr. Denormandie’s accusation that we are antisocial is a lie,” Mr. Doucet told me. “He said we were denying meat to the poorest people with the most precarious existences, which is false. He should have been fired at once.”Boris Charetiers, a member of a parents’ association, said the mayor was being closely watched. “We are vigilant,” he said. “We don’t want this to be a definitive decision. Our children cannot be hostages to ecological political conviction.”As for Mr. Teixeira, the butcher, he cast his eye appreciatively over the vast selection of meat. “We have canine teeth for a reason,” he said.Gaëlle Fournier contributed reporting from Paris. More