Brooklyn (NYC)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      In a Democratic District, Can a Party Defector Get Elected?

      by

      A contest between two New York City councilmen, Justin Brannan and Ari Kagan, will measure how strong the rightward shift is in southern Brooklyn.At a public housing complex in Coney Island, Brooklyn, a powerful Democratic councilman sought to quickly make the case for why voters should reject his opponent.“He was elected as a Democrat,” the councilman, Justin Brannan, said to a resident. “But he sold us out and became a Trump Republican.”Until recently, that simple argument would have been persuasive enough to convince most voters in this part of New York. But times have changed, and so has the political makeup of certain swaths of the city: Even though Democrats outnumber Republicans in the district by three to one, Republicans won three competitive state legislative seats in southern Brooklyn in 2022.Mr. Brannan’s opponent is Ari Kagan, a councilman who was elected as a Democrat to represent Coney Island, but is now a Republican. Because of redistricting, Mr. Brannan and Mr. Kagan have wound up contesting the same district.Mr. Kagan, who would probably have faced long odds against Mr. Brannan in a Democratic primary, won the Republican primary in June, setting up the most competitive and contentious Council election in the city. Its outcome could be a harbinger of whether recent Republican gains in southern Brooklyn might continue.It’s an area where in the 2021 mayoral election, the Republican candidate, Curtis Sliwa, drew slightly more votes than the Democrat, Eric Adams, who won by 40 percentage points citywide.Mr. Kagan has quickly adopted the talking points of his party, criticizing Mr. Brannan, who heads the Council’s Finance Committee, for failing to rein in the city’s spending and allowing the trinity of city crises — crime, migrants and homelessness — to flourish.Justin Brannan spoke to Julia Daniely while canvassing voters in Coney Island. He left the Councl’s progressive caucus this year.Paul Frangipane for The New York Times“He voted for and advocated for $1.4 billion for migrant services for the unbelievable migrant crisis, the public safety crisis, homelessness crisis, quality of life crisis, exorbitant taxation, exorbitant cost of living,” Mr. Kagan said in an interview.“He’s the chair of the Finance Committee, and he likes to say that he’s in the room where all decisions are made,” he added. “Then he has to own his own decisions.”Mr. Brannan talked about the money he has brought back to his district to renovate parks and build new schools and said Mr. Kagan is more focused on “demagoguery” than solutions.As early voting for the Nov. 7 election begins Saturday, issues such as abortion, the influx of asylum seekers and the war between Israeli and Gaza have often overshadowed more local concerns like trash pickup, the need for new parks and the poor living conditions in public housing.The district, the 47th, includes Coney Island, Bay Ridge and part of Bath Beach, and its residents are 49 percent white and 20 percent Asian. The race there is a prime example of how the nation’s divisive political debate has seeped into more local discourse, said Andrew Gounardes, a progressive Democratic state senator who represents southern Brooklyn and who endorsed Mr. Brannan.“If we’re cutting a ribbon for a new park and you’re sitting there talking about vaccines, it’s hard to bring you back from that,” Mr. Gounardes said. “Maybe we never really had you.”Mr. Brannan has nonetheless seemed to have adjusted his political stances, perhaps in recognition of the shifts among voters in South Brooklyn. He left the Council’s Progressive Caucus earlier this year because he opposed a new statement of principles that required its members to commit to reducing “the size and scope” of the Police Department.He, like Mr. Kagan, says he opposes the placement of migrant shelters in their district — a stance that has put him at odds with fellow Democrats, including Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn, an assemblywoman who leads the Brooklyn Democratic Party. She said that predominantly white neighborhoods like Bay Ridge in Brooklyn should have migrant shelters and criticized Mr. Brannan for not being supportive.“Justin has an opportunity to contrast himself from his Republican opponent and support a Bay Ridge shelter as a true blue progressive Democrat,” Ms. Bichotte Hermelyn said.Mr. Brannan still has broad support from reliable Democratic mainstays, including several labor unions. He is also being backed by Future NYC, a pro-business super PAC supporting moderate Democrats, which is expected to spend around $100,000 on attack ads that paint Mr. Kagan as “unhinged” and a “Democrat turned Republican.”“Justin is actually a pretty good example of someone who is a center left Democrat. He’s not for defunding the police,” said Jeff Leb, the group’s treasurer. “Ari has become a complete extremist.” Mr. Brannan has attacked Mr. Kagan for refusing to fire his campaign manager, who made derogatory statements on social media about African Americans and the L.G.B.T.Q. community. He has also criticized Mr. Kagan for shifting his stance on abortion.In the Campaign Finance Board’s voter guide, Mr. Kagan wrote that “life starts at conception,” and that abortions should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest or if the life of the mother is in danger. But in July 2022, when he was a Democrat, Mr. Kagan voted in favor of a package of bills that strengthened access to abortion and reproductive health in the wake of the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.Ari Kagan, right, still has the support of Wanda Feliciano, center, even though he has switched parties.Paul Frangipane for The New York Times“I‘m still a Democrat,” Mr. Brannan said, noting Mr. Kagan’s rightward shift. “I didn’t sell my soul to keep my job.” He launched a website called the “Ari Kagan Accountability Project” to track the positions Mr. Kagan has shifted on since switching parties. Mr. Kagan said that he’s against racism and homophobia, and that his campaign manager apologized. He regrets his vote on the abortion legislation but not his shift to being a Republican — a move that may make him more attractive to the area’s Russian American voters.Gregory Davidzon, who owns Russian language media outlets where Mr. Kagan — who emigrated from Russia three decades ago — once worked, said that Mr. Kagan, like other Republican candidates in the area, would have broad support in the community.He pointed to a neighboring district encompassing Brighton Beach and Sheepshead Bay, where the sitting councilwoman, Inna Vernikov, was recently arrested after she openly displayed a gun on her hip at a pro-Palestine rally that she opposed. He said the arrest would not hurt her chances at re-election.“If it was Mickey Mouse on the ballot, it would be a vote for the Republican as well,” Mr. Davidzon said.Mr. Kagan has also won endorsements from several law enforcement unions; the Parent Party, a group that supports school choice and policing; and the conservative Asian Wave Alliance.Among the few things Mr. Brannan and Mr. Kagan agree on is that a casino shouldn’t be built in Coney Island. Each also thinks that his opponent represents his party’s more extreme positions.At a recent visit to Unity Towers, a city housing development in Coney Island, Wanda Feliciano, a former tenant leader, told Mr. Kagan that he still had her support even though he was now a Republican.“He did what he had to do for a reason,” Ms. Feliciano said, adding that she remembered how Mr. Kagan helped expedite repairs to the heating system in the buildings and brought food and supplies for residents during the pandemic.“He’s still going to do good for us no matter what party he’s in,” she added.At Carey Gardens, the public housing development that Mr. Brannan had visited, Mr. Kagan’s party switch was met with far less enthusiasm.Mr. Brannan told Star Turnage, 42, a construction worker, that her Council representative had switched parties. After she told Mr. Brannan that her bedroom wall was leaking, he informed her that Mr. Kagan had voted against the $107 billion municipal budget in June that contained funding to repair public housing.Mr. Kagan was the sole Republican to vote against the budget because he said it included “billions for migrant services” but not enough money to hire more police officers. Ms. Turnage had no doubt about her view of Republican politicians. “I would never vote for them,” she said. “They’re not for the people.” More

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Biden’s Age, and His Achievements

      by

      More from our inbox:The PGA-LIV Golf MergerSelf-Policing in Brooklyn Sarah Silbiger for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Spry Diplomat With a Stiff Gait: Aging Leader’s Complex Reality” (front page, June 4):Joe Biden on a bad day is better than 99 percent of Americans on a good one. He adroitly defeated the greatest human threat to U.S. democracy since Benedict Arnold, spearheaded a largely successful first-term legislative agenda, managed to avoid World War III with the Russians while materially supporting Ukraine’s war effort, and has kept an increasingly hegemonic China at bay.President Biden just oversaw the first truly bipartisan legislative effort in years, thus averting a world economic meltdown. He is a good and decent man who has spent the majority of his life in public service and has weathered an inordinate number of personal tragedies with a grace and dignity few could muster.While he has lost a step or two over the decades, in the crucible of real life where facts matter and outcomes are measurable, he burns as incandescently bright as any president before him.If the measure of the man is his gait, speech and memory for trivialities, then we are lost. Otherwise, let his achievements and character speak to his fitness to serve again as our president.Lawson BernsteinNew YorkTo the Editor:As an octogenarian myself who still works some and speaks in public, I know that my memory is not what it used to be, and I believe that it is crazy for President Biden to insist on asking for another term as president.At minimum, a new running mate needs to be found who is more electable on his or her own than the current vice president. For example, the governor of Michigan or the senator from Minnesota, and there are others who leap to mind. In any event, Mr. Biden should at least name someone as his running mate who could win the presidency on his or her own.Democratic leaders should speak up at this point on this issue before it’s too late.Isebill V. GruhnSanta Cruz, Calif.The writer is emerita professor of politics at the University of California Santa Cruz.To the Editor:I was an executive in several high-profile organizations and had two published novels. I am also a loyal Democrat.That was then.Now, I am 85. I am healthy and active, but I also note the minor aches and pains of old age, forgetfulness and lack of focus. I’m slower in gait, hearing and reacting.I do not worry about the regular presidential work President Biden will continue to confront. I am concerned about the emergency moment with which he may be faced. Can we really afford to take a chance that at his age, Mr. Biden can reasonably react perfectly to a crisis that may be both unexpected and disastrous?There may be no second chance!Sheila LevinNew YorkTo the Editor:While questions about President Biden’s age should not be automatically dismissed, I am far more concerned about the cognitive functions of a candidate who has spoken of Revolutionary War airports and Andrew Jackson’s Civil War presidency.I question the acuity of a candidate who thinks Frederick Douglass is still alive and suggests that ingesting bleach may be an efficacious way to treat certain serious illnesses. Additionally, declaring that it takes 10 or 15 tries to flush an average toilet suggests deficient mental capabilities.I find it even more alarming, though, that this same candidate regularly praises Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping and brags about receiving “love letters” from Kim Jong-un, but lacks respect for Volodymyr Zelensky. Given a choice between the two, I shall vote for an octogenarian President Biden.Steven FantinaPhillipsburg, N.J.To the Editor:Re “President Tripped and Fell During Air Force Graduation” (news article, June 2):I was present at this year’s Air Force Academy graduation. I ask anyone to contemplate standing onstage midday delivering a 30-minute graduation speech, followed by standing onstage another 90 minutes saluting 921 times, each salute followed by a verbal greeting and a firm handshake from an energized 20-something cadet. That is an impressive feat of stamina for a person of any age, let alone an octogenarian.The media’s focus on the nine-second “fall” video completely distorts the reality of the event as perceived by those in attendance, who were present with President Biden during those hours of midday sun, who were actually impressed with the remarkable stamina he demonstrated.The president’s fall was due to a regrettable onstage tripping hazard, a dark sandbag placed on an equally dark floor, intended to stabilize a teleprompter, but unfortunately placed right on the path Mr. Biden was directed to traverse.Both as a physician and an Air Force Academy graduate with some experience saluting, I posit that a person could not accomplish 921 salutes and 921 handshakes without considerable arm and shoulder pain. Yet Mr. Biden did not complain or boast of this feat, as he made it his priority to personally address every graduating cadet. Mr. President, for your remarkable performance at this graduation, I salute you.Stanley SaulnyAustin, TexasThe writer is the father of a member of this year’s Air Force Academy graduating class.To the Editor:Re “11 Skeptical Biden Voters on His Re-election Bid” (“America in Focus” series, Opinion, June 4):It was so dismaying to read the responses of this group. I too have some misgivings about President Biden’s age, but no misgivings about his competence, even when I disagree with him.Mr. Biden’s style is what undercuts the perception of his strength. He’s not flashy. He’s not putting on a show. He’s not a great speaker. He doesn’t have charisma.But he has stood firm with Volodymyr Zelensky and united NATO. He got infrastructure legislation through. He took the first baby steps on negotiating drug prices with Medicare. He kept most of us afloat during a terrible pandemic. He tried to address the problem of the high cost of college.I’ll vote for him gladly. Do I worry about his age? Yes. But I’ll take my chances anytime with him over any of the MAGA party candidates.P.S.: I got much better than what I was expecting when I voted for Joe in the last election.Nancy GersonSouth Dennis, Mass.The PGA-LIV Golf MergerProfessional golfers on both the PGA and LIV tours are unlikely to see changes in their schedules this year.Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Golf Gets Jolt as Rival Tours Form Alliance” (front page, June 7):When you sell your soul to the devil, you end up with a match made in hell. Dirty Saudi money wins; principle loses.This is an unfortunate huge double bogey for American golf enthusiasts who have admired the decency and integrity of the golfers who have eschewed preposterous payouts in favor of respecting the tradition of the game and the PGA Tour.In any situation where the Saudis and their favorite former president gloat, and the head of the PGA Tour abruptly changes course where billions are involved, you know it’s time to watch curling instead of golf.Ed LaFreniereGig Harbor, Wash.To the Editor:At first, I was just irritated beyond belief with the golfers who bent over and stuffed their back pockets with money from a bunch of murderers and misogynists. Now that the PGA Tour has married those people, I can just ignore professional golf for the rest of my life.David M. BehrmanHoustonSelf-Policing in Brooklyn Amir Hamja for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “How One Neighborhood in Brooklyn Policed Itself for Five Days” (front page, June 4):Self-policing is a spectacularly bad idea. Despite the failings of many professional police officers, in Brooklyn and elsewhere, they have two things that civilians do not: a core of training and discipline, and recognizable authority. Without these two elements, self-policing is the equivalent of one person trying to stop a fight between two other people.Though the list of things that could go wrong in that scenario is limitless, it definitely includes the injury or death of all three principals, as well as a threat to onlookers.We are all looking for a path to more disciplined, more compassionate and more accountable policing. This is not the way.Bart BravermanIndio, Calif. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Where Asian Neighborhoods Increased Support of New York’s Republicans

      by

      In last year’s governor’s election, voters in Asian neighborhoods across New York City sharply increased their support for Republicans. Though these areas remained blue overall, they shifted to the right by 23 percentage points, compared with 2018, after more than a decade of reliably backing Democrats. Governor’s margin of victory since 2006 Source: New York […] More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Workers at Trader Joe’s in Brooklyn Reject Union

      by

      Workers at a Trader Joe’s store in Brooklyn have voted against unionizing, handing a union its first loss at the company after two victories this year.The workers voted 94 to 66 against joining Trader Joe’s United, an independent union that represents employees at stores in Western Massachusetts and Minneapolis. Workers at a Trader Joe’s in Colorado filed for an election this summer but withdrew their petition shortly before a scheduled vote.“We are grateful that our crew members trust us to continue to do the work of listening and responding to their needs, as we always have,” Nakia Rohde, a company spokeswoman, said in a statement after the National Labor Relations Board announced the result on Thursday.The result raises questions about whether the uptick in union activity over the past year, in which unions won elections at several previously nonunion companies like Starbucks, Amazon and Apple, may be slowing.Union supporters recently lost an election at an Amazon warehouse near Albany, N.Y., and the pace of unionization at Starbucks has dropped in recent months, though the union has won elections at over 250 of the company’s 9,000 corporate-owned U.S. stores so far.Workers at a second Apple store recently won an election in Oklahoma City, however, and unions have upcoming votes at a Home Depot in Philadelphia and a studio owned by the video game maker Activision Blizzard in upstate New York.As of June, Trader Joe’s had more than 500 locations and 50,000 employees across the country and was not unionized. Early in the pandemic, the company’s chief executive sent a letter to employees complaining of a “current barrage of union activity that has been directed at Trader Joe’s” and arguing that union supporters “clearly believe that now is a moment when they can create some sort of wedge in our company.”The company has said it is prepared to negotiate contracts at its unionized stores. An employee involved in the union, Maeg Yosef, said the two sides were settling on bargaining dates.Union supporters at the Brooklyn store had said they were seeking an increase in wages, improved health care benefits and paid sick leave as well as changes that would make the company’s disciplinary process more fair.Before union supporters had a chance to talk with all their colleagues, management became aware of the campaign and announced it in a note posted in the store’s break room in late September. The company also fired a prominent union supporter a day or two later.Amy Wilson, a leader of the union campaign in the store, said organizing had become more difficult after the firing and the note from management.“The last core of people hadn’t been spoken to directly by their co-workers, and we lost them instantly,” she said, referring to the note. “It undermined the trust, the relationship. They felt excluded and offended.”Ms. Rohde, the Trader Joe’s spokeswoman, did not respond to a question about why management posted the break room note. She said that while she couldn’t comment on the firing of the union supporter, “we have never and would never fire a crew member for organizing.”Trader Joe’s is known for providing relatively good wages and benefits for the industry, though workers have complained that the company has made its health care and retirement benefits less generous over the past decade. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      What Two Primaries Reveal About the Decline of Working-Class Democrats

      by

      The results of the Democratic congressional primaries in New York City on Tuesday give us a hint of just how far the working-class liberalism once associated with city politics has declined. The winners of two races in particular, Jerrold Nadler and Daniel Goldman, who will almost surely represent much of Manhattan (and a bit of Brooklyn) in the House, emerged as the victors of complicated congressional primaries in districts that were redrawn to reflect national shifts in population.They represent different kinds of New York City Democrats — Mr. Nadler, a longtime congressman, has deep roots in the old grass-roots liberalism of the Upper West Side, while Mr. Goldman is a political newcomer whose star has risen through his association with opposition to Donald Trump — but their shared success nonetheless highlights socioeconomic divisions in Manhattan that have a long history.The primaries reflected the tensions and divisions within contemporary liberalism itself and raise the question of how (or whether) Democrats can effectively represent such radically different constituencies.The changes in the city districts were a result of math — subtraction, to be specific. New York State lost a seat in the House because its population came up short by 89 people in a census conducted in 2020, at the height of Covid in New York. Indeed, if so many New Yorkers had not died in the early months of the pandemic, these contests — particularly the one that pitted Mr. Nadler against his House colleague Carolyn Maloney — would almost certainly not have taken place.Beyond the numbers, though, the primaries were part of a continuing story of class divisions in New York City. In the mid-1930s, the Columbia University sociologist Caroline Ware wrote a study of Greenwich Village that focused on the Irish and Italian immigrants who moved there in the late 19th century and whose Catholic churches still dot the neighborhood.Some at the time saw the Village as a success story of immigrant assimilation. But Professor Ware had a different interpretation. The people of the Village, she suggested, lived side by side but had little contact with one another. They were left to navigate a complicated city as “isolated individuals rather than as part of coherent social wholes.”The national Democratic Party faces a similar class divide between highly educated urbanites and the working-class voters for whom it often claims to speak. It’s no secret that the party has moved away from the fiercely pro-union New Deal politics of the mid-20th century. For much of the 20th century, New York State’s congressional delegation included more than 40 representatives (compared with 27 today), a voting bloc that generally collaborated in support of an expansive social welfare state and working-class interests. New York representatives included many of the country’s most left-leaning politicians (like the Upper West Side’s Bella Abzug).Mr. Nadler and Mr. Goldman come from different backgrounds, politically and economically. Mr. Nadler grew up in the city and got active in politics opposing the Vietnam War. Mr. Goldman is a Washington native who attended Sidwell Friends, Yale, Stanford; he served as assistant U.S. attorney with Preet Bharara in the Southern District of New York.For Mr. Nadler, despite his victory on Tuesday night, the political world he emerged from no longer exists as a vital force. This is in part because of transformations within Democratic politics.Mr. Nadler’s political career was forged at a pivotal moment in the aftermath of New York’s fiscal crisis of the 1970s. He was first elected to the State Assembly in 1976. In the following years, Democratic city officials were forced to increase subway fares, close public hospitals, charge tuition at CUNY and cease to embrace a politically ambitious role for local government. Mr. Nadler was elected to Congress in the early 1990s, when Democratic leaders like Bill Clinton proclaimed the end of the era of big government and were most optimistic about free trade and deregulation despite its impact on cities like New York.He has supported many measures over his long career that would aid working-class people, but at the same time the Democrats have generally backed away from politics that would more forcefully address inequality and the economic divide.Meanwhile, the economic fortunes of Manhattan were also changing — as part of an effort to secure a steadier tax base in the aftermath of the collapse of manufacturing, the city under Ed Koch began to reorient its economy toward Wall Street and real estate development.As Wall Street became an engine of the city’s economy in the administration of Michael Bloomberg, Manhattan’s demographics began moving in largely the opposite direction from the city as a whole. From 2010 to 2020, the white and Asian share of the borough’s population grew, while the Black and Latino share fell.Today, the institutions that had once helped to stitch together constituencies from different ethnic and racial backgrounds, like unions, are far weaker in the city and nationally than they once were. People confront the problems of living in New York through the lens of personal ambition — as “isolated individuals,” as Professor Ware put it — rather than through collective efforts to improve the city’s life.The narrow victory of Mr. Goldman illustrates even more sharply the political crisis of working-class New York. In addition to being an heir to the Levi-Strauss fortune, Mr. Goldman is a type well known to denizens of Lower Manhattan, a successful lawyer who was able to self-fund his campaign. He is clearly a candidate whose political appeal was strongest for the new leaders of the Village and Lower Manhattan, the professional upper classes who work in law firms and investment banks, who fund their children’s schools’ parent-teacher associations and the park conservancies.This is a social world that has little meaningful overlap with the working-class population, often Asian and Latino, that still dwells here but lacks the confident political organization and alliances with the middle class that it once possessed.Mr. Goldman’s political fortunes rose with his role as lead counsel in the first impeachment suit against Mr. Trump; his path to the House was largely paved by this rather than any deep engagement with the kinds of material issues that affect the lives of working- or even middle-class New Yorkers.Mr. Goldman’s race was very close — he won by roughly 1,300 votes. The runner-up, Yuh-Line Niou, a state assemblywoman, ran a campaign whose rhetoric focused on class appeals, but unions and progressive groups proved unable to act in a coordinated way to support any single candidate in a crowded field.Despite their different backgrounds, both Mr. Goldman and Mr. Nadler embody a Manhattan that has shifted in ways that affect not only its own politics but those of the country at large. Their careers point to the divides that Professor Ware pointed out decades ago.In her account, the Village — and New York, and America as a whole — faced the problem of how to respond to the collective problems of a modern industrial society through the lens of a political culture that had been shaped by ruthless individual acquisition. The particular problems have changed, and yet Lower Manhattan remains home to a population that, as dense as it is, is intensely divided by class and ethnicity, that is characterized (as Professor Ware put it) by “an almost complete lack of community integration.”The bitter politics of the August primaries, which reveal yet again the declining power of New York’s liberalism, are the result.Kim Phillips-Fein, a historian at Columbia University, is the author, most recently, of “Fear City: New York’s Fiscal Crisis and the Rise of Austerity Politics” and “Invisible Hands: The Businessmen’s Crusade Against the New Deal.”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: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      The New York Times’s Interview With Dan Goldman

      by

      Dan Goldman, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, was the chief investigator in the first impeachment of President Donald Trump.This interview with Mr. Goldman was conducted by the editorial board of The New York Times on July 27.Read the board’s endorsement for the Democratic congressional primary for New York’s 10th District here.Kathleen Kingsbury: What would you be able to accomplish in a Republican-controlled Congress? If you could, be as specific as possible.Sure.Kathleen Kingsbury: But also, is there one big idea that you’d pursue with bipartisan support?Yeah. I think in the unlikely event that it will be a Republican Congress, I actually think that my skills and experience are going to be even more valuable to the caucus. Because we can fully expect a Biden impeachment. We can expect a select committee to investigate Hunter Biden.The Republicans are out for blood and out for revenge. And so my experience, having led the impeachment investigation and being right in the throes of that kind of complex and high-stakes investigation, will be even more valuable, I think, to the Democratic caucus than reasonably a first-year Congress person would be even in the majority without any seniority.As for what I think we can achieve in a bipartisan way, look, my approach to this is sort of twofold. I think on the one hand, we need to be really aggressive in attacking the Republicans and attacking our policy prerogatives. We need to defend our democracy, which is under attack. We need to defend and protect our fundamental rights.We are dealing with a very different Republican Party today than even 10 years ago. And so what we have to recognize is there are bad-faith actors, in my view, who are trying to sabotage anything the Democrats do in order to acquire power of their own. So the old traditional way of negotiating with them or going directly to them and begging them or having a meal with them or whatever, it’s not working. What we are going to have to do is convince them that it is in their self-interest to do something.And I think there are two ways of doing that. One is aggressively investigating, and using the investigative and oversight powers to change the hearts and minds of the public, as we’ve seen a little bit with the Jan. 6 committee, or to expose their special interests or their — the folks, the lobbyists or the other special interest group that control them. And the other way is to figure out a way of reframing an issue so that they can recognize that it is in their self-interest to do it.And I’ll give you an example of each real quick. Actually, it happened today. A few weeks ago I called for an investigation into gun manufacturers and gun dealers, so that we can know what they’re marketing and advertising, whether it is they knowingly were targeting young adults with radicalizing on social media and trying to sell a AR-15s. There’s, I think, a lot there not dissimilar to the tobacco companies or the opioid companies who knew what they were selling was addictive.There is a path there to expose the gun lobby and the gun manufacturers, which is really the only way to impact the Republicans. Because 70 percent, 80 percent of the country believes in much stricter gun legislation than we have. So that’s a way, I think, we can use investigations and oversight.[In a recent Gallup poll, 66 percent of people said gun-control laws “should be made more strict.”]On the other hand, I look at renewable energy as one thing that we might be able to figure out a creative compromise for — not dissimilar to mass incarceration, where Democrats pushed for it for a long time, Republicans resisted it because of their tough-on-crime stance. Ultimately, Republicans got onboard with decarceration because of the fiscal benefits. And so you first started seeing it in states, and then you saw it with the First Step Act.I think we can do something similar with renewable energy, which Democrats — we want for climate purposes, for job purposes. But we hear a lot from Republicans about energy independence now, with gas prices going up and with the issues in Russia and Ukraine in terms of oil and natural gas and our dependence on the Middle East. The best way to be energy independent is to invest in renewable energy that we create here. And so I think there’s an avenue that, in the minority even, I think we could pursue some sort of climate legislation that would be — we could agree on for very different reasons.Mara Gay: OK, thank you. What would you do in Congress to help build more new housing in New York so that New Yorkers can stay in the city that they love?I think we need to do two things in terms of housing. One is we need more money for NYCHA so that we can fix these dreadfully maintained buildings. I met with the tenants association at the Jacob Riis Houses a couple of weeks ago and it was really, really unacceptable conditions. So we have to figure out a way to repair that.I am open — I support the preservation trust. I am open to creative ways of providing some sort of funding streams so that we can fix NYCHA. But the bigger issue I think you’re hitting on is we need more and we need better housing. I would work very hard to increase the number of Section 8 vouchers, especially for the homeless, which are often — it’s often undesirable for some of the affordable housing or transitional housing places to take the homeless. But I think we need to be pushing for more Section 8 vouchers.I think we need to be funding nonprofits that focus on this, on homelessness and housing, much, much more. Because they’re really in the sort of nexus between some of the for-profit real estate developers and the city. And so what is starting to happen more, and I’m a big fan of, is that you have for-profit companies that are providing some capital for more housing. But they can’t really get that last 25 percent of the way.And then you have the nonprofits who are ready and expert at managing the housing and providing the services that in permanent sustained housing, that the residents and the tenants need. And then you have the city that’s often providing the land. But it’s often that last bit of money that is needed in order to push the project over the top.And so it’s not necessarily a lot of money, but it is something that the federal government can do to help provide that last bit of capital, help to provide grants to nonprofits. And, by the way, I think that providing grants to nonprofits is something I’m going to push across the board. Because what you see with nonprofits is they are expert in their area and they are closest to the community. They’re closest to the ground, and they know what the communities need.A couple of weeks ago, I went down to the Lower East Side and met with some of the settlement houses executives. And the programs they have are fantastic, but they just don’t have the scale that can serve enough people. And so, to my mind, that is an avenue that we need to fund more from Congress to provide the services that the community needs, and to provide them in a high-quality way.Mara Gay: Thank you.Jyoti Thottam: Just stepping back a minute — what do you think Democrats can do at this point to protect American democracy, which, as you sort of alluded to, is under threat from various places?Yeah. Well, this is a huge thrust of my campaign and my experience in leading the impeachment investigation and trying to protect and defend our democracy at that point, which seems somewhat quaint now, where we are now. But even before I left the House Intelligence Committee, I helped Adam Schiff draft the Protecting Our Democracy Act, which at the time, those provisions also seemed somewhat quaint, pre-Jan. 6.But I actually released a five-point plan to protect and defend democracy. Because I think it is, first of all, the No. 1 issue. We have so many policy objectives that we want to do, whether that’s protecting the right to choose, gun control legislation, as we’ve talked about, climate change, immigration, infrastructure, housing. All of these are incredibly important things that I would very much like to tackle.But our first priority has to be to protect and defend our democracy. Because Donald Trump still controls the Republican Party, he still is the front-runner to become the 2024 nominee. And he is still pushing the Big Lie, and he has his acolytes in the states around the country and some of the swing states — in Pennsylvania in particular, which is very scary — of trying to change the laws so that partisan elected officials can overturn the will of the people in a way that they failed in 2020.So this is the unprecedented existential threat that we are facing, and it frankly is why I’m running. Because I was on the front lines, I have dealt with Donald Trump before, and I am very, very concerned about our democracy. We need to do a couple of things I’ll just briefly summarize.We need to maintain free and fair elections, where not only do the voters decide but that everyone can vote and gets access to the ballot with Election Day as a holiday and other ways of making voting easier. Registration should be a lot easier. We need to make voting as easy as possible. It is the right in our Constitution from which all other rights flow.And so that is a significant thing. And there are lots of ways that we need to do that, whether it’s the John Lewis Voting Rights Act or banning gerrymandering or getting rid of the Electoral College altogether. There are a lot of ways, I think, that we can make voting free, fair and consistent with one person, one vote.The other thing that we need to do is combat disinformation. When I was on the House Intelligence Committee, that was the House committee that had the Russia investigation. And a lot of what we were focusing on — because Mueller had taken over a lot of the criminal investigation — we were focusing a lot on the disinformation. We got a tremendous amount of intelligence that was classified on this issue. And so I’m familiar with a lot of the foreign efforts to use disinformation and misinformation.But it happens here at home, too. And in fact, it affects not only our democracy and our elections. It affects climate denialism. It affected Covid. So one of the things that I have been pushing for is we need to regulate social media companies more, but we also need to expand the public broadcasting media arm to include independent online media platforms.Jyoti Thottam: OK. I’m just conscious of time. We have a lot of things to cover.I’m sorry. I go on too long.Jyoti Thottam: That’s all right. Patrick, are you going next?Patrick Healy: Yeah, thank you. Do you think Democratic elected officials are out of step with Democratic voters on immigration, on L.G.B.T.Q. rights, on any particular issue, just as you hear kind of the messaging and the Democratic Party priorities with where voters are at, as you talk to them?It’s a good question. I think the biggest disconnect is that there are a number of Democratic representatives who are very ideologically strident and uncompromising, if it gets down to it. And I think what Democratic voters — at least what I hear — what Democratic voters want more than ideological purity is results and solutions. And I think I, and others, were very frustrated in the fall that the $1.5 trillion or $1.75 trillion reconciliation package didn’t get through not because of the Republicans, but because the Democrats couldn’t come together and figure it out.[Last fall, divisions in the Democratic Party stalled the $3.5 trillion domestic agenda.]I blame Joe Manchin for a lot of it. But, at the end of the day, he did seem willing to agree to a significant package that would have provided universal child care, that would have provided climate change and renewable energy incentive legislation — many things that now, as we look back, we’re not going to get. And that’s a wasted opportunity. And I think part of it is because there were some folks in Congress who felt stuck to their sort of perfect view of what it should be and were uncompromising.[The Senate passed the climate, health and tax bill on Aug. 7 and the House on Aug. 12, both after this interview took place.]So I’m not sure, to answer your question directly, that it is that there’s a particular policy that is out of step. I think it is more what’s out of step is a little bit what the objective is. And, for me, I’m going down there to get results and to find solutions.Kathleen Kingsbury: Eleanor? We lost Eleanor.[Eleanor rejoined this interview via Google Meet after getting a stable internet connection.]Kathleen Kingsbury: OK. We have a series of questions that are yes or no questions. If you could stick to yes or no, we’d appreciate it. Do you support expanding the Supreme Court?No. It’s anti-democratic.Kathleen Kingsbury: Do you support ending the filibuster?Yes.Kathleen Kingsbury: Should there be a term limit for members of Congress?I would support a term for members of Congress. Yes.Kathleen Kingsbury: How about an age limit for members of Congress?I actually would support an age limit for every federal government employee.Kathleen Kingsbury: So that’s a yes, basically.Yes.Kathleen Kingsbury: Should Joe Biden run for a second term?Yes.Kathleen Kingsbury: Alex?Alex Kingsbury: I’d like to ask you about Ukraine. I know you support the war there. What I’d like to know is should there be an upper limit on the amount of U.S. taxpayer dollars that gets spent in that conflict? And how should we think about conditions that are attached to that money, if any?I would not put a limit on it because this, to me, is purely a fight between a democracy and an authoritarian regime. And we cannot give up on a Democratic nation that is a bulwark against an authoritarian regime. That has to be the central part of our foreign policy. It has been for a long time. And I think that in this particular case, where Ukraine became a democracy on its own, we need to support them.I think what we really need to do as well, which President Biden has done a really good job, is rally allies around the country to also pay into it, and to also help Ukraine so that the financial burden is not all on us.Nick Fox: What do you think are specific measures on climate change that Democrats should be prioritizing right now?Well, we talked about renewable energy. I strongly believe in incentives and subsidies to encourage private corporations to invest in renewable energy. I think our climate change issue is so significant that the government cannot solve it by itself. And so what the government should be doing is using its funding for incentivizing and subsidizing private corporations to also spend their own money. That’s one.Two is I think we need a lot more funding for electrification of mass transit. I support congestion pricing in New York City, and I would hope that the money that’s derived from that will go to electrifying buses and other transportation. And then, here in New York City, resiliency is a huge issue and making sure that we don’t suffer from another superstorm Sandy.Mara Gay: Yeah. I’m just going to shorten this question. Can you just name one further action that Congress can take to protect abortion rights?I have several. Now, other than repealing the Hyde Amendment and codifying Roe — which I of course support, but I think it’s not going to happen tomorrow — I’ll list them quickly for you since I know we’re trying to move. One is to pass a law preventing prosecution or other prohibition for anyone receiving medication abortion across state lines. Two is expanding funding to veterans hospitals and military bases to provide medical care, such as for miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies or even I.V.F., which some state doctors will be concerned about.And three is to lease federal lands to medical providers or others that can provide services to women in the states where abortion is banned.Mara Gay: Thank you.Kathleen Kingsbury: I’m curious, given your experience as prosecutor, what you think Congress should be doing to address the increasing threat of domestic terrorism.We need to make it very clear that domestic terrorism is terrorism. We need to redefine it as terrorism. And I know there are free speech issues on that, and I get and I understand both sides of it. But when the F.B.I. director says that domestic violent extremism is the No. 1 threat to our country, we have to take action.The other thing that I would do is — that I think in some ways is even more important — the most commonly charged international terrorism charge is material support of a terrorist organization. If we were able to declare the Oath Keepers or the Proud Boys or some of these domestic groups as domestic terrorist organizations and we prohibited material support to them, we’d avoid a lot of the free speech issues.Mara Gay: Thank you. Quick pop quiz for you — how does Plan B work?Plan B is a over-the-counter medication that you would take to sort of prevent —Kathleen Kingsbury: Do you know how it medically works? How does it work in your body, in one’s body?How does it work in one’s body? I don’t … I don’t know.Mara Gay: It prevents ovulation.OK.Mara Gay: Do you own a gun?No.Mara Gay: Have you ever fired a gun?I have — no, only at riflery at camp [chuckles].Mara Gay: OK. What is the average age of a member of Congress?Oh, man. Congress or Senate?Mara Gay: Congress.I would say the average age of a member of Congress is … 52!Mara Gay: Fifty-eight. What’s the average age of a senator?I would say that is 68.Mara Gay: Sixty-four. Please name a member of Congress, dead or alive, who you most admire and would emulate if elected to serve.Well, it’s got to be Adam Schiff, who I worked hand-in-hand with and admire tremendously.Mara Gay: Thank you. And finally, what is your favorite restaurant in the district?Well, my favorite restaurant has morphed into my kids’ favorite restaurant, which is Bubby’s in TriBeCa. Somehow the mac and cheese with extra crusty topping is the dish that they need frequently.Mara Gay: I like the biscuits.The biscuits are amazing, too.Kathleen Kingsbury: You’re a former prosecutor and have never held elected office. You live in Manhattan, but the majority of the voters in this district are in Brooklyn. Can you talk a little bit about why you think you’re the best person to represent the district, and what your path to victory is?Sure. I have lived in the district for 16 years. I’m raising my five children in the district, a couple of whom have or still do go to school both in Brooklyn Heights and others in TriBeCa. So I’m very familiar with the entire district. I also worked in the district as a prosecutor in the Southern District, protecting the communities, supporting victims’ rights, and protecting and trying to make the community safe.But ultimately, I’m running for Congress because I think I have a unique set of skills and experience that meet the moment that we’re in. And I think we’re in a really different moment than we’ve been in with these threats to democracy that, you know, even under the George W. Bush administration we would have never imagined. I long for the days when we get back to arguing about policy and we’re not actually arguing about what the facts are or whether we have a democracy.But because I have been on the front lines leading the fight in Congress against Donald Trump and his Republican Party and trying to protect and defend our democracy and our institutions and our rule of law, I think that is a set of skills and experience right now that is really needed. In addition, I think my experience as an investigator in Congress is more uncommon than some other people’s experiences. And I think that both the New York delegation — which has some wonderful firebrands that are pushing that Overton window on policy — I think we in the New York delegation, but also around the country, could use someone who’s very experienced in the investigations and oversight role. And part of it is because I think we’re going to have to be creative and use investigations and oversight in order to get results.Patrick Healy: I mean, building on that, given that background and that role, though, how would you approach the challenge that some voters may see you as kind of narrow, as essentially an investigator going after Trump yet again, or that you wouldn’t necessarily be seen as someone advocating for the policy needs or the community needs in the district? That you’d be kind of a committee person driving at another prosecution of Trump or dealing with the Biden issues?Yeah. No, I understand the question. And I think part of the reason why I was framing it a little bit more broadly than Trump is because it wasn’t by accident that we proved the case against Trump. And we used different strategies, rather than going directly at them, to get the whistle-blower complaint and to get the July 25 transcript. We went around and had applied indirect pressure through other people in the administration.And the reason I cite that is that those same kind of strategies apply to all of these policy prerogatives and priorities that we have. We need to use that same kind of creative strategy, not necessarily to go after Trump, but to get the Republicans to come to the table. And so it is an attribute that I can bring that I think will help move the conversation forward.Another quick example — I want to investigate voter fraud. It doesn’t exist. And the Republicans have claimed to investigate it, but I want to expose the fact that it doesn’t exist with hearings. Because all of these state laws are based on the fiction that voter fraud exists. So I think it’s not just that I have a narrow view of investigations as to Trump. I actually want to expand the purpose of investigations and oversight into policy areas that we want to push forward.And I will say I have been, I’ve been a public servant my whole life. I have been committed to social justice, to criminal justice reform. I worked with Michelle Alexander on her book “The New Jim Crow.” That long precedes my role as a prosecutor or my role in impeachment. These are issues that I feel very passionate about. And I am really eager to represent the district and to push them forward and get results.Nick Fox: You haven’t used your wealth to your advantage in your campaign yet. But you’ve used the wealth of other people, particularly from real estate executives, including Steve Ross, a major Trump donor. These are the type of donors who’ve had an outsized influence in New York politics, often to the detriment of New York tenants. Is there no problem with taking that much money from real estate interests?I think there would only be a problem if for some reason I catered to anyone’s special interests. I think that is anathema to me. I will not do that. And I have had conversations with real estate developers where I have told them that I support real estate development but I think that developers themselves need to give back a lot more to the community.I’ll give you an example — 5 World Trade Center. I have come out very strongly in favor of it being 100 percent affordable housing, and not because the city should pay $500 million or $900 million to subsidize it. But the real estate company should be paying their fair share for the affordable housing, that some of this money should come off of all of the profits that they made from the entire World Trade Center. We can’t just look at it as one building. It’s an entire development.And that is one of the ways that I want to increase affordable housing — provide encouragement and incentives for developers to make enough money, but also require them to give a lot back. So I can assure you — look, the campaign finance system needs dramatic overhaul. We need public financing. I fully support that.Even in this race, we’ve got someone coming from another district with a war chest running here. We’ve got someone in the City Council who’s taking money from lobbyists and special interests before the city. The whole thing needs to just be revamped, and we need public financing. But I can assure you that a $2,900 or a $5,800 donation from any one individual is not going to influence anything that I do.Eleanor Randolph: We are sort of up against our time limit. But you told a local news outlet that you would not object to a state law banning abortion after the point of fetal viability, and in cases where there was no threat to the life of the woman and the fetus is viable. You later said that you misspoke and that you do not support restrictions on abortion. Which is it? And could you clarify your personal views and how you feel you would vote on some of these issues if you were a member of Congress?Absolutely. Thank you for asking the question. I’d love to clarify. I was in an interview where I was getting a series of lengthy hypothetical questions. And, frankly, the lawyer in me felt like I was back in law school with the Socratic method, and I started focusing in my mind on the legal standard that was outlined in Roe and that has been adopted by New York State and their Reproductive Health Act, and is also the standard in the Women’s Health Protection Act in Congress.What I realized soon after I answered that question is, wait a minute, I don’t think that’s what he was actually asking me. I think he was asking a much more normative question on what my views are on abortion. And my views on choice and abortion is that it is unequivocally 100 percent a woman’s right to choose. And the decision should be made solely by a woman and her doctor, and the government should have no role in that medical room to make a determination.Before we were talking about some of the different ways that I will fight to expand access to abortion. I listed three that I don’t need to repeat again. But I have been thinking about this intensively since Dobbs, and it is not enough just to say we’ve got to codify Roe, we have to repeal the Hyde Amendment.That’s not going to happen until we elect a lot more Democrats to Congress. So that needs to be an objective. It is to try to figure out a strategy to get more Democrats elected and perhaps to use choice as a wedge in some of these races. But I’ve been thinking very seriously and aggressively about how the federal government can increase access to abortion. So not only will I fight for it, but I will be very thoughtful and creative about it as I already have been.Mara Gay: Thanks. Really quickly — did you spend more than a few weeks outside of the district during the height of Covid in 2020?Yeah.Mara Gay: And if so, where?I was in the Hamptons from — well, I got Covid on March 10, very early. We went to the Hamptons. And then we came back in August, and then we’re in the city the rest of the year.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: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More