Elections

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpiniónSupported byContinue reading the main storyPeriscopio electoralEl ‘sálvese quien pueda’ electoral no sacará a Ecuador de la crisisLa campaña electoral en Ecuador ha revelado el estado actual del país: se vive un espíritu de resignación y apatía.Una mujer ve una pancarta de la campaña de Guillermo Lasso en Quito, la capital de Ecuador, el 11 de enero de 2021Credit…Jose Jacome/EPA vía ShutterstockEs escritor ecuatoriano.15 de enero de 2021QUITO — Ecuador está ya adentrado en el ciclo electoral. El 7 de febrero serán las elecciones generales —en las que se elegirá al nuevo presidente y a los miembros de la Asamblea Nacional— y el camino para llegar a ellas ha sido revelador. Nos ha mostrado el estado actual del país: con las elecciones a la puerta, y en medio de un panorama económico y de salud desolador, en Ecuador se vive un espíritu de resignación.El año pasado se filtró un video donde uno de los candidatos a la presidencia, el conservador Guillermo Lasso, hablaba sobre sus rivales y se presentaba como la única alternativa libre de las taras de los partidos tradicionales. Al referirse al posible voto por Álvaro Noboa, un empresario millonario que ha sido seis veces candidato a la presidencia, Lasso soltó una mala palabra: “Tampoco podemos decir […]: ‘Vota por Álvaro, ya, qué chuchas’”. Ese “ya, qué chuchas” significa “ya nada importa”. Sin alternativas políticas con plataformas claras en medio de una sobreoferta de opciones en la boleta, la frase accidentalmente condensa el espíritu de la democracia en Ecuador rumbo a las elecciones: apatía, escepticismo y desgaste.Pero los ecuatorianos no debemos permitir que líderes con propuestas disparatadas (o sin plataformas realistas) guíen nuestro destino. Debemos hacer a un lado el voto de “ya nada importa” y adoptar una actitud proactiva y ciudadana frente a los grandes desafíos de nuestro futuro inmediato.Para finales de diciembre se habían inscrito 16 binomios —el mayor número desde el retorno del Ecuador a la democracia— de los cuales solo tres tienen posibilidades numéricas de llegar a la presidencia o, al menos, a una segunda vuelta: la fórmula del conservador Guillermo Lasso, la del correísta Andrés Arauz y la de Yaku Pérez Guartambel, por Pachakutik —el brazo político del movimiento indígena ecuatoriano—. Las otras candidaturas no superan el 2 por ciento de la intención del voto y, sin embargo, no lucen dispuestas a formar frentes unidos o alianzas estratégicas ni a deponer sus campañas. Le hacen la vista gorda a la opinión popular: algunas encuestas indican que hasta un 37 por ciento de los electores planea anular su voto o votar en blanco.Aunque finalmente Noboa —quien se había convertido desde hace años en un chiste nacional — no logró ser candidato, llegó a disputarse los primeros lugares en intención de voto después de su anuncio. Sus propuestas ingenuas y su extravagancia para muchos lucían menos desalentadoras que las otras candidaturas. Lo suficiente, al menos, para convencerlo de intentar lanzarse.Pese a que hay 16 candidaturas, en Ecuador no existen 16 visiones de país. Tampoco hay una contienda de ideas y proyectos, sino la “ley del sálvese quien pueda” entre la clase política y la indiferencia de una parte de la población (aunque el 90 por ciento de los encuestados en un sondeo opina que el rumbo del país está equivocado). El voto “ya, qué chuchas” es una advertencia de lo que sucede cuando la democracia y sus instituciones pierden credibilidad. Una cultura democrática débil cede terreno, voz y legitimidad a las propuestas más estridentes y demagógicas. Es un peligro real ante el que estamos ahora los ecuatorianos.La falta de alternativas se puede traducir en una democracia frágil en medio de un escenario poco favorable: con el desafío sanitario de la pandemia y la economía profundamente golpeada en 2020. Según el Banco Mundial, la ecuatoriana fue la tercera economía que más decreció de Sudamérica el año pasado.La frase que le endilgó Lasso al voto por Noboa se convirtió en un espejo para Ecuador. Por un lado, refleja una disputa entre las fuerzas políticas dominantes de los últimos diez años y, por otro, el caos. Y, entre los ciudadanos, un cierto aire de apatía reflejado en el voto nulo y el escepticismo.¿Cómo votarán, entonces, los ecuatorianos? La opción de la alternativa menos mala ha sido una constante en los últimos años, con políticos que se aprovechan de cuán baja está la barra de expectativas: incluso hay un candidato rechazado por su propio partido. Por una parte nuestros políticos tienen que profesionalizarse, y, por otra, los ciudadanos tendríamos que reclamar mejores opciones políticas. Para ambos casos, debemos librarnos del “ya qué chuchas”.En estos meses de campaña, hemos visto que las tres candidaturas más viables caen en la demagogia. Los correístas se han centrado en la promesa mesiánica —y sin sustento económico alguno— de regalar mil dólares a un millón de personas. Lasso, miembro del Opus Dei, en los últimos meses ofreció legalizar el porte de armas en el sector rural. Y el tercer candidato, Yaku Pérez, ha prometido un gobierno ambientalista que, al mismo tiempo, recuperaría el subsidio a los combustibles.Hay mucho en juego como para aceptar estas propuestas desarticuladas: Ecuador deberá navegar los siguientes años en la realidad pospandémica con una región en crisis y con desafíos de vacunación enormes. También tendrá que sentar las bases para resolver nuestros grandes problemas históricos, de la consolidación de nuestra democracia (recordemos que hace solo unos años dominó en el país un gobierno con espíritu caudillista) y la erradicación de la corrupción (no con promesas al aire, sino con cambios estructurales, transparencia y ejercicios independientes de rendición de cuentas).Los partidos son, en teoría, herramientas de participación ciudadana pero se convierten en obstáculos cuando están así de desconectados con la realidad nacional. De modo que hay un reto doble para la nación: por un parte, los partidos políticos deben replantear sus agendas y plataformas y conectarse de nuevo con la complicada realidad del país (y de la región). Y, por otra parte, los ciudadanos debemos eliminar el queimportismo y la apatía para reclamar una clase política profesional que haga a un lado la improvisación y opte por el compromiso democrático.Cuando el futuro de un país y su estabilidad democrática (después de años de atropellos institucionales) está en la línea, a todos debe importarnos quién llega al Palacio del Carondelet.Iván Ulchur-Rota es escritor y comediante en Ecuador.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyWhy Are There So Few Courageous Senators?Here’s what we need to do if we want more Mitt Romneys and fewer Josh Hawleys.Mr. Beinart is a contributing opinion writer who focuses on American politics and foreign policy.Jan. 15, 2021, 5:04 a.m. ETTwo of the few Republican senators willing to defy President Trump: Mitt Romney, left, and John McCain.Credit…Brooks Kraft/Corbis, via Getty ImagesNow that Donald Trump has been defanged, leading Republicans are rushing to denounce him. It’s a little late. The circumstances were different then, but a year ago, only one Republican senator, Mitt Romney, backed impeachment. In a party that has been largely servile, Mr. Romney’s courage stands out.Why, in the face of immense pressure, did Mr. Romney defend the rule of law? And what would it take to produce more senators like him? These questions are crucial if America’s constitutional system, which has been exposed as shockingly fragile, is to survive. The answer may be surprising: To get more courageous senators, Americans should elect more who are near the end of their political careers.This doesn’t just mean old politicians — today’s average senator is, after all, over 60. It means senators with the stature to stand alone.As a septuagenarian who entered the Senate after serving as his party’s presidential nominee, Mr. Romney contrasts sharply with up-and-comers like Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz, who seem to view the institution as little more than a steppingstone to the White House. But historically, senators like Mr. Romney who have reached a stage of life where popularity matters less and legacy matters more have often proved better able to defy public pressure.In 1956, Senator John F. Kennedy — despite himself skipping a vote two years earlier on censuring the demagogue Joseph McCarthy — chronicled senators who represented “profiles in courage.” Among his examples were two legendary Southerners, Thomas Hart Benton and Sam Houston, who a century earlier had become pariahs for opposing the drive toward secession.Benton, who had joined the Senate when Missouri became a state, had by 1851 been serving in that role for an unprecedented 30 years. Benton’s commitment to the Union led him to be repudiated by his state party, stripped of most of his committee assignments, defeated for re-election and almost assassinated. In his last statement to his constituents, he wrote, “I despise the bubble popularity that is won without merit and lost without crime.”Houston enjoyed similar renown in his home state, Texas. He had served as commander in chief of the army that won independence from Mexico, and as the first president of the Republic of Texas. In 1854, he became the only Southern Democratic senator to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which he feared might break the country apart over the expansion of slavery. He did so “in spite of all the intimidations, or threats, or discountenances that may be thrown upon me,” which included being denounced by his state’s legislature, and later almost shot. Houston called it “the most unpopular vote I ever gave” but also “the wisest and most patriotic.”It’s easy to see the parallels with Mr. Romney. Asked in 2019 why he was behaving differently from other Republican senators, he responded, “Because I’m old and have done other things.” His Democratic colleague Chris Murphy noted that Mr. Romney was no longer “hoping to be president someday.”Nor was John McCain, one of the few other Republican senators to meaningfully challenge President Trump. By contrast, Mr. Hawley and Mr. Cruz — desperate to curry favor with Mr. Trump’s base — led the effort to challenge the results of last fall’s election.Not every Republican senator nearing retirement exhibited Mr. Romney or Mr. McCain’s bravery. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, an octogenarian former presidential candidate himself, voted not only against impeaching Mr. Trump last January, but against even subpoenaing witnesses.Courage cannot be explained by a single variable. Politicians whose communities have suffered disproportionately from government tyranny may show disproportionate bravery in opposing it. Mr. Romney, like the Arizona Republican Jeff Flake — whose opposition to Mr. Trump likely ended his senatorial career — belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was once persecuted on American soil. In the fevered days after Sept. 11, the only member of Congress to oppose authorizing the “war on terror” was a Black woman, Barbara Lee.But during that era, too, ambition undermined political courage, and stature fortified it. Virtually every Democratic senator who went on to run for president in 2004 — John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman — voted for the Iraq war.By contrast, Mr. Kerry’s Massachusetts colleague, Ted Kennedy, who had been elected to the Senate in 1962, voted against it. The most dogged opposition came from a man who had entered the Senate three years before that, Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Despite hailing from a state George W. Bush had won, and seeing his junior colleague support the war, the 84-year-old Mr. Byrd, a former majority leader, tried to prevent the Senate from voting during the heat of a midterm campaign. His effort failed by a vote of 95 to 1.If Americans want our constitutional system to withstand the next authoritarian attack, we should look for men and women like Senators Romney, Benton and Byrd, who worry more about how they will be judged by history than by their peers. George W. Bush was a terrible president — but might have proved a useful post-presidential senator because he would have been less cowed than his colleagues by Mr. Trump. John Quincy Adams served in Congress for 17 years after leaving the White House. Given how vulnerable America’s governing institutions are, maybe Barack Obama could be convinced to do something similar.Like most people, I’d prefer senators who do what I think is right. But I’d take comfort if more at least did what they think is right. That’s more likely when you’ve reached a phase of life when the prospect of losing an election — or being screamed at in an airport — no longer seems so important. America needs more senators who can say — as Daniel Webster did to his constituents in Massachusetts — “I should indeed like to please you; but I prefer to save you, whatever be your attitude toward me.”Peter Beinart (@PeterBeinart) is professor of journalism and political science at the Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at the City University of New York. He is also editor at large of Jewish Currents and writes The Beinart Notebook, a weekly newsletter.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentliveLatest UpdatesTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedRepublican SupportKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyAnálisis de noticiasLa conclusión predestinada de una presidenciaEl segundo proceso de destitución al presidente Trump —en un Capitolio rodeado de tropas— parecía la culminación inevitable de cuatro años que dejan a una nación fracturada, molesta y sin sentido claro de identidad.Integrantes de la Guardia Nacional durante un descanso en el Capitolio cuando resguardaban por turnos la Cámara de Representantes, que se preparaba para votar una moción para someter al presidente Trump a un proceso de destitución.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York Times15 de enero de 2021 a las 05:00 ETRead in EnglishWASHINGTON — Desde los lóbregos días de la Guerra de Secesión y sus repercusiones no se había visto en Estados Unidos un día como el del miércoles.En un Capitolio lleno de soldados fuertemente armados y de detectores de metal recién instalados, tras haber despejado el desastre físico del ataque de la semana pasada, pero con el desastre político y emocional aún a la vista, el presidente de Estados Unidos fue sometido a un proceso de destitución por intentar destruir la democracia estadounidense.De algún modo, parecía el colofón predestinado de una presidencia que en repetidas ocasiones rebasó todos los límites y tensó las relaciones de la clase política. A menos de una semana de que finalice, el periodo del presidente Donald Trump está llegando a su fin con una sacudida de violencia y recriminaciones en un momento en que el país se ha fracturado de manera profunda y ha perdido el sentido de identidad. Los conceptos de verdad y realidad se han pulverizado. La confianza en el sistema se ha erosionado. La ira es el común denominador.Como si no fuera suficiente que Trump es ahora el único presidente que ha sido sometido en dos ocasiones a un proceso de destitución o que los legisladores intentaran retirarlo del cargo a solo una semana del fin de su mandato, Washington se transformó en una miasma de suspicacia y conflicto. Un congresista demócrata acusó a sus colegas republicanos de ayudar a que integrantes de la turba la semana pasada exploraran de antemano el edificio. Algunos congresistas republicanos evadieron los magnetómetros de seguridad utilizados para vigilar que no entren armas al recinto o siguieron avanzando incluso después de activarlos.Todo esto estaba ocurriendo en el contexto de una pandemia que, aunque concita menos atención, ha aumentado de una manera catastrófica en las últimas semanas de la presidencia de Trump.Más de 4400 personas en Estados Unidos fallecieron por el coronavirus el día anterior a las votaciones de la Cámara de Representantes, más personas murieron en un solo día que todas las que fallecierno en Pearl Harbor, el 11 de septiembre de 2001 o durante la batalla de Antietam. Solo después de que varios congresistas se contagiaron durante el ataque al Capitolio y se implementaron nuevas reglas, finalmente usaron cubrebocas de manera constante durante el debate del miércoles.Los historiadores no han podido definir este momento. Lo comparan con otros periodos de enormes desafíos como la Gran Depresión, la Segunda Guerra Mundial, la Guerra de Secesión, la era de McCarthy y Watergate. Rememoran la paliza a Charles Sumner en el pleno del Senado y la maniobra para, por temor a un ataque, introducir furtivamente a Abraham Lincoln a Washington para su toma de posesión.Hacen referencia al espantoso año de 1968 en que el pastor Martin Luther King Jr. y Robert F. Kennedy fueron asesinados mientras que había alborotos en los recintos de las universidades y los centros de las ciudades por la guerra de Vietnam y los derechos civiles. Y piensan en las secuelas de los ataques del 11-S, cuando parecían inevitables más muertes violentas a gran escala. Sin embargo, nada es como estos acontecimientos.“Quisiera poder brindarles una analogía inteligente, pero sinceramente no creo que nada como esto haya sucedido antes”, dijo Geoffrey C. Ward, uno de los historiadores más respetados del país. “Si me hubieran dicho que un presidente de Estados Unidos iba a alentar a una turba delirante a marchar hacia nuestro Capitolio en busca de sangre, yo les habría dicho que estaban equivocados”.De igual manera, Jay Winik, un cronista destacado de la Guerra de Secesión y de otros periodos de conflicto, señaló que no había nada equivalente. “Es un momento insólito, prácticamente sin paralelo en la historia”, comentó. “Es difícil encontrar otro momento en el que la estructura que nos mantiene unidos se viniera abajo de la manera en que lo está haciendo ahora”.Todo esto deja por los suelos la reputación de Estados Unidos dentro de la escena mundial y convierte lo que al presidente Ronald Reagan le gustaba llamar “la ciudad brillante sobre la colina” en un apaleado caso de estudio de los desafíos a los que se puede enfrentar incluso una potencia demócrata madura.“Prácticamente se ha terminado el momento histórico en que éramos un ejemplo”, afirmó Timothy Snyder, historiador especialista en autoritarismo de la Universidad de Yale. “Ahora tenemos que volver a ganarnos nuestra credibilidad, lo cual quizás no sea algo tan malo”.Las escenas del miércoles en el Capitolio nos recordaron a la Zona Verde de Bagdad durante la Guerra de Irak. Por primera vez desde que los confederados amenazaron con cruzar el río Potomac, los soldados tuvieron que acampar por la noche en el Capitolio al aire libre.El debate para decidir el destino de Trump tuvo lugar en la misma sala de la Cámara Baja donde tan solo una semana antes los oficiales de seguridad desenfundaron sus armas y pusieron barricadas en las puertas al tiempo que los legisladores se lanzaban al suelo o escapaban por la puerta trasera para huir de la turba transgresora partidaria de Trump. Todavía flotaba en el aire la indignación por el asalto. También el miedo.No obstante, hasta cierto punto la conmoción ya había pasado y a veces el debate se sentía tan soporífero como de costumbre. La mayoría de los legisladores pronto se retiraron a sus esquinas partidarias.Cuando los demócratas exigieron rendición de cuentas, muchos republicanos se opusieron y los acusaron de precipitarse a una resolución sin audiencias ni pruebas y sin ni siquiera debatir lo suficiente. Los adversarios de Trump hicieron referencia a su discurso provocador durante un mitin justo antes del asalto. Sus defensores citaron las palabras provocadoras de la presidenta de la Cámara Baja, Nancy Pelosi; de la representante Maxine Waters, e incluso de Robert De Niro y de Madonna para argumentar que había un doble rasero.Daba igual que se comparan peras con manzanas. Importaba más la perspectiva. Trump buscó anular una elección democrática que perdió denunciando falsamente un fraude generalizado, presionando a otros republicanos e incluso a su vicepresidente a apoyarlo y envió a una multitud de seguidores revoltosos al Capitolio a “luchar como el demonio”. Sus aliados, no obstante, dijeron que Trump hacía tiempo era blanco de lo que consideraban ataques e investigaciones injustas y partidistas.“Donald Trump es el hombre más peligroso en ocupar el Despacho Oval”, declaró el congresista Joaquin Castro, demócrata por Texas.“La izquierda en Estados Unidos hasta ahora ha incitado más violencia política que la derecha”, declaró Matt Gaetz, congresista republicano por Florida.En la era de Trump, los puntos de vista radicalmente distintos encapsularon a Estados Unidos. En algún momento, el representante por Maryland Steny Hoyer, líder de la mayoría demócrata, se mostró irritado por la descripción de los hechos del partido contrario. “Ustedes no viven en el mismo país que yo”, exclamó. Y, al menos en eso, todos pudieron estar de acuerdo.Después de alentar a una multitud de sus partidarios a marchar hacia el Capitolio la semana pasada, Trump no ha mostrado arrepentimiento por su papel al incitar los disturbios.Credit…Oliver Contreras para The New York TimesTrump no se defendió y optó por dejar de lado los acontecimientos históricos. Después de las votaciones, publicó un mensaje en video de cinco minutos en el que censuró de manera más amplia la violencia de la semana pasada y repudió a quienes la perpetraron. “Cuando hacen algo así, no están apoyando nuestro movimiento, lo están atacando”, afirmó.Sin embargo, no manifestó pesar ni mostró darse cuenta de que hubiera tenido alguna responsabilidad por nada de esto cuando favoreció la política de la división no solo la semana pasada, sino durante cuatro años. Y aunque no mencionó de manera explícita el proceso de destitución, se quejó de “el ataque sin precedentes a la libertad de expresión” al referirse, al parecer, a la suspensión indefinida de su cuenta de Twitter y a las acciones contra sus aliados que trataron de ayudarle a impedir la certificación de los resultados de las elecciones.A diferencia del primer proceso de destitución de Trump, motivado por presionar a Ucrania para que le ayudara a desprestigiar a los demócratas, esta vez lo abandonaron algunas personas de su partido. Al final, diez republicanos de la Cámara de Representantes se unieron a todos los demócratas para aprobar el único artículo de juicio político, liderados por la representante por Wyoming, Liz Cheney, la tercera republicana en jerarquía. El hecho de que la familia Cheney, quienes solían considerarse provocadores ideológicos, aparecieran en este momento como defensores del republicanismo tradicional fue una prueba de cuánto ha cambiado el partido bajo el mandato de Trump..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-c7gg1r{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:0.875rem;margin-bottom:15px;color:#121212 !important;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-c7gg1r{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;}}.css-1sjr751{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-1sjr751 a:hover{border-bottom:1px solid #dcdcdc;}.css-rqynmc{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-rqynmc{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc strong{font-weight:600;}.css-rqynmc em{font-style:italic;}.css-yoay6m{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1cs27wo{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1cs27wo{padding:20px;}}.css-1cs27wo:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-k9atqk{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-k9atqk strong{font-weight:700;}.css-k9atqk em{font-style:italic;}.css-k9atqk a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ccd9e3;}.css-k9atqk a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ddd;}.css-k9atqk a:hover{border-bottom:none;}The Trump Impeachment ›From Riot to ImpeachmentThe riot inside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, followed a rally at which President Trump made an inflammatory speech to his supporters, questioning the results of the election. Here’s a look at what happened and at the ongoing fallout:As this video shows, poor planning and a restive crowd encouraged by Mr. Trump set the stage for the riot.A two hour period was crucial to turning the rally into the riot.Several Trump administration officials, including cabinet members Betsy DeVos and Elaine Chao, announced that they were stepping down as a result of the riot.Federal prosecutors have charged more than 70 people, including some who appeared in viral photos and videos of the riot. Officials expect to eventually charge hundreds of others.The House voted to impeach the president on charges of “inciting an insurrection” that led to the rampage by his supporters.Los diez republicanos disidentes no fueron tantos en comparación con los 197 miembros del partido que votaron contra el proceso de destitución. Por otro lado, fueron diez más de los que votaron para destituir a Trump en diciembre de 2019. También fueron el mayor número de miembros del propio partido del presidente en apoyar un proceso de destitución en la historia de Estados Unidos.Otros republicanos intentaron ser más sutiles al aceptar que Trump tenía responsabilidad por haber incitado a la muchedumbre y al mismo tiempo sostuvieron que eso no representaba un delito que amerita iniciar un proceso de destitución, o que resultaba insensato, innecesario y divisorio justo días antes de que Joe Biden, el presidente electo, tomara posesión del cargo.“Eso no significa que el presidente esté libre de culpa”, señaló el representante por California, Kevin McCarthy, líder de la minoría republicana y uno de los aliados más fieles de Trump, cuando se pronunció contra el juicio político. “El presidente tiene responsabilidad por el ataque del miércoles al Congreso por parte de los alborotadores. Debió haber reprendido de inmediato a la turba cuando vio lo que estaba sucediendo”.No obstante, era asombrosa la fidelidad que tantos republicanos de la Cámara Baja mostraron por un presidente que perdió su reelección y que ha hecho tanto daño a su propio partido. “Si la abrumadora mayoría de los representantes electos de uno de los dos partidos estadounidenses no puede rechazar la influencia de un demagogo ni siquiera después de que abiertamente conspiró para anular unas elecciones y al hacerlo amenazara sus vidas mismas, pues entonces tenemos un largo camino por delante”, señaló Frank Bowman, especialista en procesos de destitución de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Misuri.Brenda Wineapple, autora de The Impeachers, un libro sobre el juicio al presidente Andrew Johnson en 1868, dijo que identificó en el debate del miércoles algunos de los argumentos que se hicieron en aquel entonces en contra de la convicción: que sería un mal precedente, que solo dividiría aún más al país.También encontró otro eco, un deseo de superar al polarizante Johnson en favor de su esperado sucesor, Ulysses S. Grant, quien, como Biden, era visto como una figura conciliadora. “Me da esperanza”, dijo. “Debemos tener esperanza”.Pero la extensión de la reconciliación que necesita Estados Unidos es un proyecto que podría resultar abrumador para cualquier presidente sin un consenso bipartidista más amplio. Es posible que a Trump se le someta al proceso de destitución pero casi con certeza terminará la última semana de su mandato y no tiene planes de marcharse discretamente con vergüenza o en la ignominia como otros presidentes que perdieron la reelección han hecho, lo que lo convertiría en una fuerza residual de la vida nacional, incluso desmejorada.Lo que es más, las personas que ven su derrota como un llamado a las armas siguen siendo una fuerza. Los funcionarios de seguridad refuerzan las tropas en Washington para la toma de mando de Biden de la próxima semana, preocupados de que se repita la invasión al Capitolio. Luego de que Trump le dijo falsamente a sus seguidores una y otra vez que la elección había sido robada, las encuestas sugieren que millones de estadounidenses le creen.“La víspera de la elección de 1940, Franklin Delano Roosevelt dijo que la democracia es más que una palabra: ‘Es una cosa viva —una cosa humana—de cerebros y músculos y alma y corazón’”, dijo Susan Dunn, historiadora de Williams College y biógrafa del presidente Franklin D. Roosevelt.Ahora, dijo, tras los eventos de los últimos días y años, “sabemos que las democracias son frágiles y que los cerebros y el alma de nuestra democracia corren un grave riesgo”.Peter Baker es el corresponsal principal de la Casa Blanca y ha cubierto las gestiones de los últimos cuatro presidentes para el Times y The Washington Post. También es autor de seis libros, el más reciente de ellos se titula The Man Who Ran Washington: The Life and Times of James A. Baker III. @peterbakernyt • FacebookAdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main story‘Stop the Steal’ Didn’t Start With TrumpMainstream Republicans and conservative commentators have been pushing the idea that Democrats can only win through fraud for decades.Opinion ColumnistJan. 15, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETJan. 6, 2021.Credit…John Minchillo/Associated PressTo explain the attack on the Capitol, you can’t just turn your focus to Donald Trump and his enablers. You must also look at the individuals and institutions that fanned fears of “voter fraud” to the point of hysteria among conservative voters, long before Trump. Put another way, the difference between a riot seeking to overturn an election and an effort to suppress opposing votes is one of legality, not intent. And it doesn’t take many steps to get from one to the other.Conservative belief in pervasive Democratic Party voter fraud goes back decades — and rests on racist and nativist tropes that date back to Reconstruction in the South and Tammany Hall in the North — but the modern obsession with fraud dates back to the 2000 election. That year, Republicans blamed Democratic fraud for narrow defeats in New Mexico, which George W. Bush lost by just a few hundred votes, and Missouri, where the incumbent senator, John Ashcroft, lost his re-election battle to a dead man.Ashcroft’s opponent, Mel Carnahan, was killed three weeks earlier in a plane crash, but his name was still on the ballot, with his wife running in his stead. Shocked Republicans blamed Ashcroft’s defeat on fraud. At Ashcroft’s election-night party, the state’s senior Republican senator, Kit Bond, said, “Democrats in the city of St. Louis are trying to steal this election.”In 2001, as the newly minted attorney general under President George W. Bush, Ashcroft announced a crackdown on voter fraud. “America has failed too often to uphold the right of every citizen’s vote, once cast, to be counted fairly and equally,” he said at a news conference that March:Votes have been bought, voters intimidated and ballot boxes stuffed. The polling process has been disrupted or not completed. Voters have been duped into signing absentee ballots believing they were applications for public relief. And the residents of cemeteries have infamously shown up at the polls on Election Day.The Republican National Committee supported this push, claiming to have evidence that thousands of voters had cast more than one ballot in the same election.Over the ensuing years, under pressure from the White House ahead of the presidential election in 2004, the Justice Department ramped up its crusade against voter fraud. Of particular interest was ACORN, a now-defunct advocacy organization that was working — as the presidential election got underway — to register hundreds of thousands of low-income voters. Swing-state Republicans accused the group of “manufacturing voters,” and federal prosecutors looked, unsuccessfully, for evidence of wrongdoing. Later, Karl Rove would press President Bush’s second attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, to fire a number of U.S. attorneys for failure to investigate voter fraud allegations, leading to a scandal that eventually led to Gonzales’s resignation in 2007.ACORN and voter fraud would remain a bête noire for Republicans for the rest of the decade. Conservative advocacy groups and media organizations produced a steady stream of anti-ACORN material and, as the 2008 election campaign heated up, did everything they could to tie Democratic candidates, and Barack Obama in particular, to a group they portrayed as radical and dangerous. ACORN, Rush Limbaugh said in one characteristic segment, has “been training young Black kids to hate, hate, hate this country.”During his second debate with Obama, a few weeks before the election, the Republican nominee, John McCain, charged that ACORN “is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.” And his campaign materials similarly accused Obama, Joe Biden and the Democratic Party of orchestrating a vast conspiracy of fraud. “We’ve always known the Obama-Biden Democrats will do anything to win this November, but we didn’t know how far their allies would go,” read one mailer. “The Obama-supported, far-left group, ACORN, has been accused of voter-registration fraud in a number of battleground states.”McCain and the Republican Party devoted much of the last weeks of the election to a voter fraud scare campaign with ACORN as the villain. And while, in the wake of the election, these allegations of illegal voting never panned out, the conservative fixation with voter fraud would continue into the Obama years and beyond.Not that this was a shock. As an accusation, “voter fraud” has been used historically to disparage the participation of Black voters and immigrants — to cast their votes as illegitimate. And Obama came to office on the strength of historic turnout among Black Americans and other nonwhite groups. To the conservative grass roots, Obama’s very presence in the White House was, on its face, evidence that fraud had overtaken American elections.In 2011, Republicans in Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin capitalized on their legislative gains to pass new voter restrictions under the guise of election protection. Other states slashed early voting and made it more difficult to run registration drives. One 2013 study found that in states with “unencumbered Republican majorities” and large Black populations, lawmakers were especially likely to pass new voter identification laws and other restrictions on the franchise.The 2012 election saw more of the same accusations of voter fraud. Donald Trump, who had flirted with running for president that year, called the election a “total sham and a travesty” and claimed that Obama had “lost the popular vote by a lot.” According to one survey taken after the election, 49 percent of Republican voters said they thought ACORN had stolen the election for the president.ACORN, however, no longer existed. It closed its doors in 2010 after Congress stripped it of federal funding in the aftermath of a scandal stoked by right-wing provocateurs, whose accusations have since been discredited.The absence of any evidence for voter fraud was not, for Republicans, evidence of its absence. Freed by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which ended federal “preclearance” of election laws in much of the South, Republican lawmakers passed still more voter restrictions, each justified as necessary measures in the war against fraud.Prominent Republican voices continued to spread the myth. “I’ve always thought in this state, close elections, presidential elections, it means you probably have to win with at least 53 percent of the vote to account for fraud,” Scott Walker, then the governor of Wisconsin, said in a 2014 interview with The Weekly Standard. “One or two points, potentially.”Rank-and-file Republicans had already been marinating in 16 years of concentrated propaganda about the prevalence of voter fraud by the time Donald Trump claimed, in 2016, that Hillary Clinton had won the popular vote with millions of illegal ballots. If Republican voters today are quick to believe baroque conspiracy theories about fabricated and stolen votes, then it has quite a lot to do with the words and actions of a generation of mainstream Republican politicians who refused to accept that a Democratic majority was a legitimate majority.The narrative of fraud and election theft that spurred the mob that stormed the Capitol would be unintelligible without the work of the Republican Party, which inculcated this idée fixe in its voters. “Stop the Steal” wasn’t a Trump innovation as much as it was a new spin on an old product line that, even after the violence on Jan. 6, Republicans are still selling.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesThe Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

An anti-tax group funded primarily by billionaires has emerged as one of the biggest backers of the Republican lawmakers who sought to overturn the US election results, according to an analysis by the Guardian.The Club for Growth has supported the campaigns of 42 of the rightwing Republicans senators and members of Congress who voted last week to challenge US election results, doling out an estimated $20m to directly and indirectly support their campaigns in 2018 and 2020, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.About 30 of the Republican hardliners received more than $100,000 in indirect and direct support from the group.The Club for Growth’s biggest beneficiaries include Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz, the two Republican senators who led the effort to invalidate Joe Biden’s electoral victory, and the newly elected far-right gun-rights activist Lauren Boebert, a QAnon conspiracy theorist. Boebert was criticised last week for tweeting about the House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s location during the attack on the Capitol, even after lawmakers were told not to do so by police.Public records show the Club for Growth’s largest funders are the billionaire Richard Uihlein, the Republican co-founder of the Uline shipping supply company in Wisconsin, and Jeffrey Yass, the co-founder of Susquehanna International Group, an options trading group based in Philadelphia that also owns a sports betting company in Dublin.While Uihlein and Yass have kept a lower profile than other billionaire donors such as Michael Bloomberg and the late Sheldon Adelson, their backing of the Club for Growth has helped to transform the organization from one traditionally known as an anti-regulatory and anti-tax pro-business pressure group to one that backs some of the most radical and anti-democratic Republican lawmakers in Congress.Here’s the thing about the hyper wealthy. They believe that their hyper-wealth grants them the ability to not be accountable“Here’s the thing about the hyper wealthy. They believe that their hyper-wealth grants them the ability to not be accountable. And that is not the case. If you’ve made billions of dollars, good on you. But that doesn’t make you any less accountable for funding anti-democratic or authoritarian candidates and movements,” said Reed Galen, a former Republican strategist who co-founded the Lincoln Project, the anti-Trump campaigners.Galen said he believed groups such as the Club for Growth now served to cater to Republican donors’ own personal agenda, and not what used to be considered “conservative principles”.The Lincoln Project has said it would devote resources to putting pressure not just on Hawley, which the group accused of committing sedition, but also on his donors.The Club for Growth has so far escaped scrutiny for its role supporting the anti-democratic Republicans because it does not primarily make direct contributions to candidates. Instead, it uses its funds to make “outside” spending decisions, like attacking a candidate’s opponents.In 2018, Club for Growth spent nearly $3m attacking the Democratic senator Claire McCaskill in Missouri, a race that was ultimately won by Hawley, the 41-year-old Yale law graduate with presidential ambitions who has amplified Donald Trump’s baseless lies about election fraud.That year, it also spent $1.2m to attack the Texas Democrat Beto O’Rourke, who challenged – and then narrowly lost – against Cruz.Other legislators supported by Club for Growth include Matt Rosendale, who this week called for the resignation of fellow Republican Liz Cheney after she said she would support impeachment of the president, and Lance Gooden, who accused Pelosi of being just as responsible for last week’s riot as Trump.Dozens of the Republicans supported by Club for Growth voted to challenge the election results even after insurrectionist stormed the Capitol, which led to five deaths, including the murder of a police officer.The Club for Growth has changed markedly as the group’s leadership has changed hands. The Republican senator Pat Toomey, who used to lead the group, has recently suggested he was open to considering voting for Trump’s impeachment, and criticised colleagues for disputing election results. Its current head, David McIntosh, is a former Republican member of Congress who accompanied Trump on a final trip to Georgia last week, the night before Republican candidates David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, both heavily supported by the Club for Growth, lost runoff elections to their Democratic opponents.Neither the Club for Growth nor McIntosh responded to requests for comment.Public records show that Richard Uihlein, whose family founded Schlitz beer, donated $27m to the Club for Growth in 2020, and $6.7m in 2018. Uihlein and his wife, Liz, have been called “the most powerful conservative couple you’ve never heard of” by the New York Times. Richard Uihlein, the New York Times said, was known for underwriting “firebrand anti-establishment” candidates like Roy Moore, who Uihlein supported in a Senate race even after it was alleged he had sexually abused underage girls. Moore denied the allegations.A spokesman for the Uihleins declined to comment.Yass of Susquehanna International, who is listed on public documents as having donated $20.7m to the Club for Growth in 2020 and $3.8m in 2018, also declined to comment. Yass is one of six founders of Susquehanna, called a “crucial engine of the $5tn global exchange-traded fund market” in a 2018 Bloomberg News profile. The company was grounded on the basis of the six founders mutual love of poker and the notion that training for “probability-based” decisions could be useful in trading markets. Susquehanna’s Dublin-based company, Nellie Analytics, wages on sports.In a 2020 conference on the business of sports betting, Yass said sports betting was a $250bn industry globally, but that with “help” from legislators, it could become a trillion-dollar industry.A 2009 profile of Yass in Philadelphia magazine described how secrecy pervades Susquehanna, and that people who know the company say “stealth” is a word often used to describe its modus operandi. The article suggested Yass was largely silent about his company because he does not like to share what he does and how, and that those who know him believe he is “very nervous” about his own security.Yass, who is described in some media accounts as a libertarian, also donated to the Protect America Pac, an organisation affiliated with Republican senator Rand Paul. The Pac’s website falsely claims that Democrats stole the 2020 election. More

With the Democrats’ stunning sweep of Georgia’s two Senate run-off elections giving them control of both houses of Congress as of 20 January, the idea of $2,000 stimulus cheques for every household is sure to be back on the agenda in the US. But although targeted relief for the unemployed should unquestionably be a priority, it is not clear that $2,000 cheques for all would in fact help to sustain the US economic recovery.One post-pandemic scenario is a vigorous demand-driven recovery as people gorge on restaurant meals and other pleasures they’ve missed for the past year. Many Americans have ample funds to finance a splurge. Personal savings rates soared following the disbursement of $1,200 cheques last spring. Many recipients now expect to save their recent $600 relief payments, either because they have been spared the worst of the recession or because spending opportunities remain locked down.So, when it’s safe to go out again, the spending floodgates will open, supercharging the recovery. The Fed has already promised to “look through” – that is, to disregard – any temporary inflation resulting from this euphoria.But we shouldn’t dismiss the possibility of an alternative scenario in which consumers instead display continued restraint, causing last year’s high savings rates to persist. Prior to the Covid-19 crisis, some two-thirds of US households lacked the savings to replace six weeks of take-home pay. Having reminded Americans of the precariousness of their world, the pandemic is precisely the type of searing experience that induces fundamental changes in behaviour.We know that living through a large economic shock, especially in young adulthood, can have an enduring impact on people’s beliefs, including those about the prevalence of future shocks. Such changes in outlook are consistent with psychological research showing that people rely on “availability heuristics” – intellectual shortcuts based on recalled experience – when assessing the likelihood of an event. For those parents unable to put food on the table during the pandemic, the experience will establish a heuristic that will be hard to forget.Moreover, neurological research shows that economic stress, including from large shocks, increases anabolic steroid hormone levels in the blood, which renders individuals more risk-averse. Neuroscientists have also documented that traumatic stress can cause permanent synaptic changes in the brain that further shape attitudes and behaviour, in this case plausibly in the direction of greater risk aversion.Though the pandemic is in some ways more akin to a natural disaster than an economic shock, natural disasters also can affect saving patterns: savings rates tend to be higher in countries with a greater incidence of earthquakes and hurricanes.This behavioural response is largest in developing countries, where weak construction standards amplify the impact of such disasters. One study of Indonesia, for example, found large increases in both the perceived risk of a future disaster and risk-averse behaviour among people who had recently experienced an earthquake or flood. While the response to natural disasters may be more moderate in advanced economies – where individuals expect that their government will compensate them – some lasting impact will almost certainly remain.The upshot is that we can’t count on a burst of US consumer spending to fuel the recovery once the rollout of Covid-19 vaccines is complete. And if private spending remains subdued, continued support from public spending will be necessary to sustain the recovery.But putting $2,000 cheques in people’s bank accounts won’t solve this problem because unspent money doesn’t stimulate demand. With interest rates already near zero, the availability of additional funding won’t even encourage investment. Sending out $2,000 cheques to everyone thus would be the fiscal equivalent of pushing on a string.Fortunately, there is an alternative: the president-elect Joe Biden’s $2tn infrastructure plan would mean additional jobs and spending, which is what the post-pandemic economy really needs. Better still, under the prevailing low interest rates, this option would stimulate job creation without crowding out private investment.Guardian business email sign-upAlthough Biden’s plan will require more government borrowing, infrastructure spending that has a rate of return of 2% will more than pay for itself when the yield on 10-year US treasury bonds is 1.15%. By raising output, such expenditure reduces rather than increases the burden on future generations. The International Monetary Fund estimates that, under current circumstances, well-targeted infrastructure investment pays for itself in just two years.Obviously, the “well targeted” part is important. President Donald Trump was right that the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act was loaded with pork, not least his own “three-martini lunch” tax deduction for businesses. There’s every reason to question whether Congress can do better when crafting an infrastructure bill.In response to this problem, countries such as New Zealand have established independent commissions to design and monitor infrastructure spending initiatives. If Covid-19 changes everything, then maybe it can change the way the US government organises infrastructure spending. Creating an independent infrastructure commission with real powers would go a long way toward reassuring the sceptics and insuring the recovery against the risks posed by the pandemic’s lingering behavioural effects. More

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }N.Y.C. Mayoral RaceA Look at the RaceAndrew Yang’s Candidacy5 TakeawaysWho’s Running?AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyYang’s Rivals in the Mayoral Race Co-opt His Signature IdeaAndrew Yang favors a modified version of universal basic income that would provide payments of about $2,000 to a half million of the poorest New Yorkers. Andrew Yang officially announced his bid for mayor of New York City on Wednesday.Credit…James Estrin/The New York TimesJan. 14, 2021Updated 9:50 p.m. ETUniversal basic income was Andrew Yang’s signature issue in his 2020 presidential run, and it will be a centerpiece of his New York City mayoral campaign, which he officially began Wednesday night with a launch video.But during the months Mr. Yang spent contemplating a run for mayor, his competitors preemptively made his issue their own.Carlos Menchaca, a progressive city councilman, is planning to introduce legislation that would create a targeted universal basic income program in New York City. Eric Adams, Brooklyn’s more centrist borough president, wants to explore universal basic income, too. So does Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive running to the far left.In a race of more than a dozen Democratic candidates, with many trying to out-progressive one another, pushing for a guaranteed income program could be viewed as a form of virtue signaling to the left.But it also shows how an issue that was Mr. Yang’s signature talking point on the 2020 campaign trail has gained enough acceptance to be co-opted by other candidates — a development that threatens to undermine Mr. Yang’s central argument for running.The candidates’ embrace of guaranteed income doesn’t mean that a broad-based program is a particularly viable idea for New York City, given the battering its economy has taken in the pandemic, its yawning budgetary needs and the amount of money needed to guarantee income to the city’s adult population of roughly 6.6 million.Mr. Yang acknowledged as much in his campaign rollout. His proposal for the “largest basic income program in the country” is by no means universal. He would target annual cash payments of about $2,000 to a half million of the poorest New Yorkers, in a city of 8.4 million.Mr. Yang said his proposal would cost the city $1 billion a year — a daunting sum given that the city faces budget deficits in the billions of dollars in coming years. He says further expansion of the program would be dependent upon “more funding from public and philanthropic organizations, with the vision of eventually ending poverty in New York City altogether.”His plan for the country was more far-reaching: He had envisioned giving every American citizen over 18 years of age $1,000 a month in guaranteed federal income, or $12,000 a year, a no-strings-attached dispensation he said was made necessary by the increasingly widespread automation of jobs.“I’m identified with universal basic income for a reason,” he said in a recent interview. “I think it’s the most direct and effective thing we could do to improve the lives of tens of millions of Americans who are struggling right now, and anything I do in public life will be advancing the goal of eradicating poverty in our society.”In the interview, Mr. Yang swatted away the notion that his future opponents were trying to steal his signature issue from him. He adopted a more-the-merrier posture.“Frankly, any mayoral candidate who is not making it part of their platform is missing the boat,” Mr. Yang said.Critics argue that a guaranteed income could discourage people from working. Still, the fact that several of the candidates vying to run the economic and cultural capital of the United States are exploring the notion of a guaranteed income does suggest that the concept has gained some momentum.There are now guaranteed income demonstration projects underway in Jackson, Miss.; Santa Clara County, Calif.; and St. Paul, Minn. The terms “universal basic income” and “guaranteed income” are sometimes used interchangeably, but they differ. Many pilot programs are not universal but, like Mr. Yang’s proposal, instead would supply income only to the poorest members of society. Unlike many existing social assistance programs, they would not dictate how recipients spend the money.Natalie Foster, a co-chair of the Economic Security Project, which advocates a guaranteed income, said she has had conversations with more than one New York City mayoral candidate on the topic.“It’s exciting to see it being an issue in the race and not surprising at all, given the momentum across the country,” Ms. Foster said.As a presidential candidate, Mr. Yang advocated giving people a guaranteed basic income of $1,000 a month.Credit…Pete Marovich for The New York TimesThe other candidates touting universal basic income in the mayoral race are largely doing so in less specific terms.Mr. Menchaca said he hopes to include a pilot program in this year’s budget that targets cash grants to low-income New Yorkers. The details of that program have yet to be hammered out.In a recent radio interview, Ms. Morales called for a “universal basic income for people who need it,” and like Mr. Menchaca, suggested the question of how to fund it was something of a red herring, one that often gets asked “when we start talking about prioritizing the needs of the neediest New Yorkers.”She said she would take a look at some of the city’s budgetary “bloating,” including at the New York Police Department, and expressed hope for state aid. In a subsequent email, her spokesman said Ms. Morales thinks a “local basic income” should be funded through a wealth and luxury tax on the “superrich that phases out and does not sacrifice the safety net.”At a recent mayoral forum, Mr. Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, said universal basic income could be an important tool “to get people over this very difficult time, particularly low-income New Yorkers.”Asked for specifics, a spokesman declined to provide further details.Other candidates, including Scott M. Stringer, the city’s comptroller, and Kathryn Garcia, its former sanitation commissioner, said they would prefer to see some version of the idea implemented at the federal level instead.Mr. Yang quit the presidential race in February after failing to gain ground in the New Hampshire primary, but he succeeded in making himself a political celebrity — and casting a klieg light on universal basic income. In various forms, the concept has been implemented in small pilot programs around the country, one of which his nonprofit organization, Humanity Forward, is helping to fund in the Columbia County city of Hudson, N.Y.The general idea of a guaranteed income goes back centuries. Martin Luther King Jr. was a prominent, and early, proponent of the idea in the 20th century, and his son, Martin Luther King III, has continued pushing for it in his father’s stead.“It’s really immoral for us to have people living on the streets in the United States,” said Mr. King, the co-chair of Mr. Yang’s campaign.A new group, Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, is pushing for a federal guaranteed income and counts more than two dozen mayors as members, including Ras Baraka of Newark, N.J., Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles and Keisha Lance Bottoms of Atlanta.By Ms. Foster’s count, there are more than 10 pieces of legislation in Congress that would guarantee an income for families until the current economic crisis is over.“And that is political warp speed,” she said.One of the most prominent universal basic income pilots in the United States — the first program spearheaded by a mayor — is now wrapping up in Stockton, Calif. Since February 2019, the privately funded program has given 125 Stockton residents $500 a month. Recipients like Tomas Vargas Jr. will receive their last payments on Jan. 15.Before he joined the program, Mr. Vargas was working as a U.P.S. supervisor. The monthly checks gave him enough financial security and confidence to start looking for a better job. Now he works as a case manager at a Stockton nonprofit. Instead of living paycheck to paycheck and constantly looking for additional ways to make ends meet, he has time to read stories to his young children at bedtime.The no-strings-attached approach is “the beauty” of the program, he said. “It treats you like a human.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentliveLatest UpdatesTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedRepublican SupportKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyAfter 2 Impeachments, Giuliani Vows to Continue His Fervor for TrumpWhite House officials are universally angry with Rudolph W. Giuliani and blame him for both of President Trump’s impeachments. But he remains one of few people still willing to join Mr. Trump in the foxhole.Rudolph W. Giuliani spoke at the Trump rally on Jan. 6, before a mob stormed the Capitol. Credit…Brendan Smialowski/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesKatie Rogers and Jan. 14, 2021Updated 8:47 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — When Rudolph W. Giuliani was treating his efforts to carry out President Trump’s wishes to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election as a payment opportunity — he proposed a daily retainer of $20,000 for his legal services from the burgeoning Trump campaign legal fund — the president dismissed it and responded by demanding to personally approve each expense.Nine weeks and another impeachment later, Mr. Trump began the day on Thursday by asking aides to erase any sign of a rift. Stripped of his Twitter account, Mr. Trump conveyed his praise through an adviser, Jason Miller, who tweeted: “Just spoke with President Trump, and he told me that @RudyGiuliani is a great guy and a Patriot who devoted his services to the country! We all love America’s Mayor!”White House officials are universally angry with Mr. Giuliani and blame him for both of Mr. Trump’s impeachments. But the president is another story.Even as he complains about Mr. Giuliani’s latest efforts as fruitless, the president remains unusually deferential to him in public and in private. “Don’t underestimate him,” Mr. Trump has told advisers.But only up to a point. While Mr. Trump and his advisers balked at the $20,000 request weeks ago, it is unclear whether the president will sign off on Mr. Giuliani being paid anything other than expenses.The on-again, off-again tensions are a feature of a decades-long, mutually beneficial relationship between the former New York City mayor from Brooklyn and the former real estate developer from Queens. Although the two were never particularly close in New York, Mr. Trump enjoyed having the former mayor as his personal legal pit bull during the special counsel investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia.In return, Mr. Giuliani, who failed at his own bid for the presidency in 2008, got to hang out with the president in the Oval Office and used his new connections to pursue lucrative contracts.Mr. Trump deployed Mr. Giuliani on politically ruinous missions that led to his impeachment — twice. Now, isolated and stripped of his usual political megaphones, the president faces the devastation of his business and political affairs for his part in encouraging a pro-Trump mob that went on to attack the Capitol on Jan. 6.Mr. Giuliani — who, for his part, encouraged a group of the president’s supporters that day to carry out “trial by combat” — is one of few people still willing and eager to join Mr. Trump in the foxhole. While most lawyers are reluctant to represent the president in a second Senate impeachment trial, Trump advisers said Mr. Giuliani remained the likeliest to be involved. Despite President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s certification as the winner, Mr. Giuliani has continued to push unproven theories about the election results and falsely attributed the violence to anarchists on the left.A podcast hosted by Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s former chief strategist, was taken down on Thursday because of an interview in which Mr. Giuliani repeated false claims about the election. During the interview, Mr. Bannon pleaded with Mr. Giuliani to move on to a new topic.“I don’t mind being shut down for my craziness,” Mr. Bannon told Mr. Giuliani, according to Alexander Panetta, a reporter for CBC News who listened to the podcast before it was removed. “I’m not going to be shut down for yours.”Mr. Trump has always had an abundance of yes men and women around him, but Mr. Giuliani occupies a unique space in his orbit. Few people have had such durability with the president, and few have been so willing to say and do things for him that others will not.“Your typical role as legal counselor is to tell your client the hard truth and walk them away from risk,” Matthew Sanderson, a Republican political lawyer based in Washington, said in an interview. “Rudy instead seems to tell his client exactly what he wants to hear and walk him toward risk like they’re both moths to a flame.”That journey has left him looking worse for wear. Days after the election, Mr. Giuliani hit the road, challenging the results in a much maligned news conference in front of a Pennsylvania landscaping company. In another appearance that month, Mr. Giuliani was on camera with black liquid, apparently hair dye, streaming down his face as he railed against the election outcome.Few have been so willing to defend the president, and, paradoxically, few have been so damaging to his legacy..css-c7gg1r{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:0.875rem;margin-bottom:15px;color:#121212 !important;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-c7gg1r{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;}}.css-1sjr751{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-1sjr751 a:hover{border-bottom:1px solid #dcdcdc;}.css-rqynmc{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-rqynmc{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc strong{font-weight:600;}.css-rqynmc em{font-style:italic;}.css-yoay6m{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1cs27wo{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1cs27wo{padding:20px;}}.css-1cs27wo:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-k9atqk{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-k9atqk strong{font-weight:700;}.css-k9atqk em{font-style:italic;}.css-k9atqk a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ccd9e3;}.css-k9atqk a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ddd;}.css-k9atqk a:hover{border-bottom:none;}The Trump Impeachment ›Answers to your questions about the impeachment process:The current impeachment proceedings are testing the bounds of the process, raising questions never contemplated before. Here’s what we know.How does the impeachment process work? Members of the House consider whether to impeach the president — the equivalent of an indictment in a criminal case — and members of the Senate consider whether to remove him, holding a trial in which senators act as the jury. The test, as set by the Constitution, is whether the president has committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The House vote required only a simple majority of lawmakers to agree that the president has, in fact, committed high crimes and misdemeanors; the Senate vote requires a two-thirds majority.Does impeaching Trump disqualify him from holding office again? Conviction in an impeachment trial does not automatically disqualify Mr. Trump from future public office. But if the Senate were to convict him, the Constitution allows a subsequent vote to bar an official from holding “any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” That vote would require only a simple majority of senators. There is no precedent, however, for disqualifying a president from future office, and the issue could end up before the Supreme Court.Can the Senate hold a trial after Biden becomes president? The Senate could hold a trial for Mr. Trump even after he has left office, though there is no precedent for it. Democrats who control the House can choose when to send their article of impeachment to the Senate, at which point that chamber would have to immediately move to begin the trial. But even if the House immediately transmitted the charge to the other side of the Capitol, an agreement between Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate would be needed to take it up before Jan. 19, a day before Mr. Biden is inaugurated. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said on Wednesday that he would not agree to such an agreement. Given that timetable, the trial probably will not start until after Mr. Biden is president.Mr. Giuliani stepped into the president’s legal affairs in April 2018. His eagerness to attack Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, impressed Mr. Trump, who was constantly making changes to his legal team. Most Trump advisers came to see Mr. Giuliani’s efforts with Mr. Mueller as a success.“There was never a moment when Rudy wasn’t willing to go lower, and that’s what Trump requires,” the Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio said. “He proved that actually delivering for Donald was not as important as continuing to try.”In addition to his work with Mr. Trump, Mr. Giuliani pursued side projects with the added cachet of being the president’s personal lawyer. Free of ethics laws that restrict government employees, Mr. Giuliani pursued lucrative deals even in the midst of the special counsel investigation.And then came the impeachments. When the history of the Trump presidency is written, Mr. Giuliani will be a central figure, first by pursuing a pressure campaign against the Ukrainian government to investigate Mr. Biden’s family members, and then by traveling the country in efforts to overturn Mr. Biden’s victory.Mr. Giuliani’s own legal problems have mounted alongside those of the president. As Mr. Giuliani pursued separate business opportunities in Ukraine, intelligence agencies warned that he could have been used by Russian intelligence officers seeking to spread disinformation about the election — reports that Mr. Trump shrugged off. Mr. Giuliani’s work in Ukraine continues to be a matter of interest in a continuing investigation by federal prosecutors in New York. And his remarks to Trump supporters before the Capitol riot are now the subject of an effort by the New York State Bar Association to expel him.Mr. Giuliani appears undeterred.In a 37-minute video published Wednesday evening, Mr. Giuliani tried to rewrite the history of the Capitol riot. Although Mr. Trump incited his supporters to march to the building and “show strength,” Mr. Giuliani suggested in the video that antifa activists had been involved, a repeatedly debunked theory that has proliferated in pro-Trump circles online.“The rally ended up to some extent being used as a fulcrum in order to create something else totally different that the president had nothing to do with,” Mr. Giuliani said.Now his calls to the president are sometimes blocked at the orders of White House officials. Advisers say that Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, holds Mr. Giuliani partly responsible for the mess currently embroiling the White House.But Mr. Giuliani hangs on in the shrinking circle around Mr. Trump.“He’s not alone,” Alan Marcus, a former Trump Organization consultant, said of the president. “He’s abandoned. Rudy’s just the last in a whole group of people.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More