More stories

  • in

    Why Iowa Turned So Red When Nearby States Went Blue

    With the Iowa caucuses six days away, politicians will be crisscrossing the state, blowing through small-town Pizza Ranches, filling high school gyms, and flipping pancakes at church breakfasts.What Iowans will not be seeing are Democrats. President Biden spoke Friday in Pennsylvania, and he and Vice President Kamala Harris both were in South Carolina over the weekend and on Monday. But Iowa, a state that once sizzled with bipartisan politics, launched Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008 and seesawed between Republican and Democratic governors, has largely been ceded to the G.O.P. as part of a remarkable sorting of voters in the Upper Midwest.There is no single reason that over the past 15 years the Upper Midwest saw Iowa turn into a beacon of Donald J. Trump’s populism, North and South Dakota shed storied histories of prairie populism for a conservatism that reflected the national G.O.P., and Illinois and Minnesota move dramatically leftward. (Sandwiched in between, Wisconsin found an uncomfortable parity between its conservative rural counties and its more industrial and academic centers in Milwaukee and Madison.)No state in the nation swung as heavily Republican between 2012 and 2020 as Iowa, which went from a six-percentage-point victory for Barack Obama to an eight-point win for Mr. Trump in the last presidential election.Deindustrialization of rural reaches and the Mississippi River regions had its impact, as did the hollowing out of institutions, from civic organizations to small-town newspapers, that had given the Upper Midwest a character separate from national politics.Susan Laehn, an Iowa State University political scientist who lives in the small town of Jefferson, Iowa, recounted how an issue that once would have been handled through discussions at church or the Rotary Club instead became infected with national politics, with her husband, the libertarian Greene County attorney, stuck in the middle: New multicolored lighting installed last summer to illuminate the town’s carillon bell tower prompted an angry debate over L.G.B.T.Q. rights, leaving much of the town soured on identity politics that they largely blamed on the national left.Another issue: Brain drain. The movement of young college graduates out of Iowa and the Dakotas to the metropolises of Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul made a mark on the politics of all five states.Michael Dabe, a 19-year-old business and marketing major at the University of Dubuque, near the western bank of the Mississippi River, has found a comfortable home in Iowa, where life is slower and simpler than in his native Illinois and politics, he said, are more aligned with his conservative inclinations.But he expressed little doubt what he will be doing with his business degree once he graduates, and most of his classmates are likely to follow suit, he said.“There are just so many more opportunities in Chicago,” he said. “Politics are important to me, but job security, being able to raise a family more securely, is more important, for sure.”Michael Dabe, a freshman at the University of Dubuque, in his room at his parents’ home on Sunday. He expects to move to Chicago after graduation.Kayla Wolf for The New York TimesAn analysis in 2022 by economists at the University of North Carolina, the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, the University of Michigan and the University of Chicago of data gleaned from LinkedIn showed how states with dynamic economic centers are luring college graduates from more rural states. Iowa loses 34.2 percent of its college graduates, worse than 40 of the 50 states, just below North Dakota, which loses 31.6 percent. Illinois, by contrast, gains 20 percent more college graduates than it produces. Minnesota has about 8 percent more than it produces.Even when young families look to move back to the rural areas they grew up in, they are often thwarted by an acute housing shortage, said Benjamin Winchester, a rural sociologist at the University of Minnesota extension in St. Cloud, Minn.; 75 percent of rural homeowners are baby boomers or older, and those older residents see boarded-up businesses and believe their communities’ best days are behind them, he said.As such older voters grow frustrated and more conservative, the trend is accelerating. Iowa, which had a congressional delegation split between two House Republicans, two House Democrats and two Republican senators in 2020, now has a government almost wholly under Republican control, which has enacted boldly conservative policies that ban almost all abortions and transition care for minors, publicly fund vouchers for private schools and pull books describing sexual acts from school libraries. (The library and abortion laws are now on hold in the courts.) The congressional delegation is now entirely Republican after a 2022 G.O.P. sweep in House races and the re-election of Senator Charles E. Grassley.Meantime on the east bank of the Mississippi, in Illinois, high-capacity semiautomatic rifles have been banned, the right to an abortion has been enshrined in law and recreational marijuana is legal. Upriver in Minnesota, pot is legal, unauthorized immigrants are getting driver’s licenses, and voting access for felons and teens is expanding.Such policy dichotomies are influencing the decisions of younger Iowans, said David Loebsack, a former Democratic House member from eastern Iowa.“These people are going, and I fear they’re going to keep going, given the policies that have been adopted,” he said.The politics of rural voters in the Upper Midwest may simply be catching up to other rural regions that turned conservative earlier, said Sam Rosenfeld, a political scientist at Colgate University and author of “The Polarizers,” a book on the architects of national polarization. Southern rural white voters turned sharply to the right in the 1960s and 1970s as Black southerners gained power with the civil rights movement and attendant legislation, he noted.But rural voters in the Upper Midwest, where few Black people lived, held on to a more diverse politics for decades longer. North Dakota, with its state bank, state grain mill and state grain elevator, has retained vestiges of a socialist past, when progressive politicians railed against rapacious businessmen from the Twin Cities. Even still, its politics have changed dramatically.“Until relatively recently, there was a Midwestern rural white voter who was distinct from a southern rural white voter,” Mr. Rosenfeld said. “There was a real progressive tradition in the Midwest uncoopted by Jim Crow and racial issues.”The rural reaches of Iowa now look politically similar to rural stretches in any state, from New York to Alabama to Oregon. And rural voters simply appreciated what Mr. Trump did for them, said Neil Shaffer, who chairs the Republican Party of Howard County, Iowa. Located along the Minnesota border, it was the only county in the nation to give both Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump 20-percentage-point victories.Iowans like outsiders, and Mr. Obama’s charisma was winning, Mr. Shaffer said. But the self-employed farmers and small-business owners of Howard County were burdened by the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration’s regulation of fresh water runoff, and depressed commodity prices.There was skepticism of Mr. Trump and his abrasive, big-city behavior, Mr. Shaffer said, “but there’s that individual spirit in the Midwest that likes the Don Quixote railing against the big bad government, And people knew what they were getting.”Kyle D. Kondik of the University of Virginia Center for Politics explains polarization as a tale of the top half versus the bottom half of the population scale. If more than half a state’s vote comes from dominant metropolitan areas, as is the case in Illinois and Minnesota, states tend to be Democratic. If smaller, rural counties dominate, states tend to move right.Of the nine largest counties in Iowa, only one, Dubuque, switched from Mr. Obama to Mr. Trump in 2016. President Biden’s margin in those counties in 2020 was only three percentage points lower than Mr. Obama’s winning 2012 margin.But Mr. Obama also carried 31 of the 90 smaller counties; Mr. Biden won none. As a group, Mr. Obama lost those rural counties by 2.5 percentage points to his Republican rival, Mitt Romney. Mr. Biden lost them to Mr. Trump by nearly 30 percentage points.Former President Barack Obama carried Iowa in 2008 and 2012, while President Biden lost it by 8 percentage points in 2020.Joshua Lott for The New York TimesMr. Kondik attributed some of that to Mr. Trump, whose anti-immigrant, protectionist policies diverged from traditional Republican positions. “He was a good fit for the Midwest,” he said.Laura Hubka, who co-chairs the Howard County Democrats, remembered high school students driving trucks around town in 2016 with large Trump flags. It felt intimidating, she said.“It was scary for a lot of people and scared a lot of Democrats inside,” Ms. Hubka said. “Trump spoke to a certain kind of people. People who felt like they were left behind.”Chased by the shifting politics, she said, at least one of her children now plans to move his family across the border to Minnesota.But the sweeping Republican victories in Iowa in 2022, when Mr. Trump was not on the ballot and the G.O.P. faltered in much of the country, point to other factors. Christopher Larimer, a political scientist at the University of Northern Iowa, again pointed to demographics. The huge groundswell of first-time 18-year-old voters who propelled Mr. Obama in 2008 were 22 and graduating college in 2012. By 2016, many of them had likely left the state, Mr. Larimer said.“I don’t know if Iowa is any different from anywhere else; it’s caught up in the nationalization of politics,” he said. “Young people are moving into the urban core, and that’s turning the outskirts more red.”If that urban core is in state, statewide results won’t change. If it is elsewhere, they will.Mr. Winchester, the rural sociologist, said the perception of rural decline is not reality; regional centers, like Bemidji, Minn., or Pella and Davenport, Iowa, are thriving, and even if small-town businesses have closed, housing in those towns is filled.But, he said, “many towns don’t know their place in the larger world. That concept of anomie, a sense of disconnection, is out there.”Gary Hillmer, a retired U.S. Agriculture Department soil conservationist in Hardin County, Iowa, has drifted away from his Republican roots and said he struggled to understand the views of his Trump-supporting neighbors in the farm country around Iowa Falls.“It’s hard to have a conversation with them to figure out why,” he said. “It’s frustrating, in that regard, because we ought to be able to talk to each other.”Charles Homans More

  • in

    Stefanik? Noem? Haley?! The Trump V.P. Chatter Has Begun.

    With presidential primaries, it ain’t over till it’s over. Still, given the Republicans’ enduring devotion to their MAGA king, it’s best to mentally prepare oneself for the likelihood that the guy who has long been the prohibitive front-runner will, in fact, win the nomination. And a particularly juicy part of that preparation is obsessing over who Donald Trump will pick as his new pain sponge — erm, running mate — and what that choice could tell us about his strategy and state of mind this time around.Will Mr. Trump go with a white man who has displayed MAGA fealty? That would be the easiest, most comfortable fit for a guy who favors unchallenging mini-mes. Many people think he should go bolder, picking a Latino or Black man — paging Tim Scott! — in an effort to deepen the inroads he has already made with these demographics.And then there is the woman option, which is the one that most intrigues me.The Trump years have not helped the G.O.P.’s longstanding lady troubles. Many suburban soccer moms and other moderate Republican women aren’t so crazy about the former president’s ultratoxic politics. And the Trump-stacked Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022 did little to improve the situation. Could a woman on the ticket help Mr. Trump win back some of these defectors, who may have soured on President Biden? Even if some women could not bring themselves to go full Trump, might they at least feel less driven to turn out to oppose him? Also, how pro-MAGA could a female V.P. pick be and still serve as a bridge to non-MAGA women? How non-MAGA could she be and still satisfy Mr. Trump?I am not the only one noodling over such matters. Steve Bannon, part of Mr. Trump’s original political brain trust, in an appearance last month on “The Sean Spicer Show,” said he thinks Mr. Trump will choose a female running mate this time and ticked through multiple boldfaced names he considered promising options: Kristi Noem, Elise Stefanik, Kari Lake, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Nancy Mace and Marsha Blackburn. He also declared Nikki Haley a nonstarter, warning that she would be “a viper” in the administration and vowing that any attempt to “force” her onto the ticket would lead to a big fight.A serpent in the Trump garden! How delicious. How biblically twisted.While obviously not the only women in the possible selection pool — in fact, I feel compelled to toss in Marjorie Taylor Greene — several of these are among the most discussed. Each brings with her a unique mix of pros and cons, in terms both of the more traditional measures by which running mates are often chosen and of the Trumpian particulars. So many factors to consider. So much to process. Here is a handy tip sheet, with an eye toward what each possible veep candidate says about Mr. Trump himself.Kari Lake. The former TV news anchor, former nominee for governor of Arizona and current Senate candidate clearly has the right stuff when it comes to MAGA zeal. It’s hard to find a Republican player with more passion or flair for promoting election-fraud claims. She is super media savvy, which Mr. Trump considers important, not to mention easy on the eyes — which we could all pretend doesn’t matter to him, but why bother? (Slamming a woman’s looks is a go-to Trump move.) She clearly knows how to throw a political punch, which is a quality generically valued in running mates and certainly one Mr. Trump fancies. She also hails from a crucial swing state, which once upon a time was considered a plus, though these days, who can say?She has no experience in public office, though, and little credibility with major donors or other establishment players. She is unlikely to hold much appeal for non-MAGA voters. And as weird as it sounds, she may be a smidge too flamboyantly Trumpy. Because the one thing you never want in a No. 2 — and which Mr. Trump in particular cannot abide — is someone who threatens to upstage the No. 1.Elise Stefanik. The chair of the House Republican conference is in no danger of ever outshining Mr. Trump. Her past as a more moderate, business-friendly Republican might offer comfort to some non-MAGA voters. Her leadership post has given her a national profile, and over the years she has worked aggressively to improve the party’s standing with female voters and to advance female candidates. She has solid relationships with the party elite, including big donors.While those establishment ties and history might raise some eyebrows in certain corners of Trump world, the congresswoman has undergone a total MAGA makeover in recent years. And there is little Mr. Trump loves more than having a former apostate grovel before him. As a bonus: Her assault on the heads of three elite universities during a December hearing on campus antisemitism, which played a role in the subsequent resignation of two of them, has given her a bit of conservative sparkle, at least for now. Mr. Trump appreciates someone who knows how to work the TV cameras.Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Mr. Trump surely considers the White House press secretary turned governor of Arkansas to be his political creation, which is one of his favorite kinds of people, as long as they don’t step out of line. (Just ask Meatball Ron DeSantis.) Ms. Sanders knows how to swim with the national media sharks. She hails from a traditional Republican (mini) dynasty and enjoys ties to the party establishment. She has proved herself willing to say pretty much whatever nonsense Mr. Trump wants, and there is zero chance she would outshine him.There is always a slight chance Ms. Sanders could have a problem with #PodiumGate, the kerfuffle over the $19,029.25 in taxpayer money she spent on … something — ostensibly a fancy lectern — that the Arkansas G.O.P. promptly reimbursed the state for after a journalist noted the purchase. But in Mr. Trump’s protective aura, she could probably just brush it off as witch hunting.Marsha Blackburn. An early, fervid Trump supporter, the Tennessee senator was buzzed about as a possible V.P. in 2016, back when she was just a lowly House member. She has decades of experience in Congress and knows how to navigate the party establishment and Washington’s corridors of power. She is plenty feisty and media savvy yet unlikely to overshadow Mr. Trump.That said, as a rock-ribbed conservative from a solidly red Southern state and (at least) a generation older than the other prime V.P. possibilities, she wouldn’t bring much in the way of balance to the table. Does Mr. Trump care anything about balance these days?Kristi Noem. The South Dakota governor has political experience both inside and outside Washington, where she served four terms in the House. She has impressive media skills and undoubtedly meets Mr. Trump’s attractiveness standards. She was one of his early endorsers this cycle, which speaks to his loyalty obsession, a move that raised her standing in the veepstakes guessing game. During the pandemic, she aggressively toed the it’s-no-big-deal, we’re-keeping-this-state-open line favored by conservative governors. And she obviously knows how to stroke the MAGA king’s ego, as so deftly captured by her gift to him of a $1,100 replica of Mount Rushmore with his face added. (I swear. That man is so basic.)Her tenure as governor has had its bumps, including a nepotism controversy. She also seems to really want the job, which isn’t always helpful to an aspiring veep. Last week she suggested Mr. Trump’s pick should be willing to tell him the truth — and that she filled the bill. Terrific! Except Mr. Trump might see this more as a bug than a feature. More generally, does he find it admirable or distasteful that she has long been seen as lobbying for the job and has even begun publicly issuing advice on the matter? She, like Mr. Bannon, recently smacked down the idea of Mr. Trump going with Ms. Haley.Nancy Mace. This may feel like a counterintuitive pick. The South Carolina congresswoman’s politics aren’t reliably MAGA, she has waffled on the loyalty thing, and she digs the limelight a little too much. Mr. Bannon nonetheless praised her “Trumpian attitude,” her “brashness,” her “set of titanium balls.”Marjorie Taylor Greene. The bomb-throwing congresswoman from Georgia is in many ways the female embodiment of Trumpism. She knows how to grab the media spotlight, and her belligerent, anti-elite, anti-expertise, anti-everything ’tude thrills the party base. Her attack-dog credentials are unimpeachable. She even voted against certifying the 2020 presidential election results. So MAGA.She may, in fact, be a smidge too in your face. She doesn’t play well with the traditional wing of the party and, more recently, even managed to alienate fellow extremists in the House. Getting herself booted from the Freedom Caucus took some doing! And talk about a woman unlikely to win over voters beyond Mr. Trump’s existing fan base. Geesh.Which brings us to Nikki Haley.Let us first tackle the potential disqualifiers. The former governor of South Carolina may have served as Mr. Trump’s U.N. ambassador, but she does not rate well on his loyalty meter. Running against him? Criticizing his presidency? Suggesting competency tests for older pols? People have been put on his enemy’s list for less. Worse still, she could very well outshine him, at least in terms of basic intellect and verbal coherence.Still, refer to Mr. Trump’s love of humiliating and subjugating his critics: Having her serve as his No. 2 could tickle the Trump id. She has leadership experience and fits in with the establishment — though without being saddled with a congressional record, with all those pesky votes that can be weaponized by opponents. As an Indian American born to immigrant parents, she could help dilute the G.O.P’s image as the party of angry white racists. She’s attractive and media savvy and has foreign policy experience.Beyond that, a Trump-Haley ticket would signal that the former president is at least vaguely interested in soothing skittish, non-MAGA women. Ms. Haley is not looking to blow up the system. She is selling a more pragmatic, coalition-minded political approach and a more old-school Republicanism than what today’s base wants. Her selection would be a clear sign that Mr. Trump isn’t worried about making his MAGA base any happier. And why should he be? He is their adored, infallible leader.Still, it’s hard to see how Mr. Trump gets past that whole disloyalty thing with her. Especially after Mike Pence turned out to be such a disappointment to him in the end. And perhaps nothing would be a greater sign of Mr. Trump’s confidence in himself and his chances in November than if he went with his heart (like a Noem) rather than with a more calculated, conventional choice (like a Haley). The MAGA king isn’t one to let too much strategic thinking spoil his fun.Source photographs by Kevin Dietsch, Anna Moneymaker, Scott Olson and Christian Monterrosa/Agence France-Presse, via Getty Images, Will Newton and Alex Brandon/Associated Press.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, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More

  • in

    How Hillsdale Got Mixed Up in the 2020 Election Plot

    A few days before Thanksgiving 2020, a half-dozen or so people gathered at the home of a Michigan lawyer named Robert E. Norton II.Listen to This ArticleOpen this article in the New York Times Audio app on iOS.Norton is the general counsel of Hillsdale College, a small, conservative Christian school in the southern part of the state. One of his guests was Ian Northon, a Hillsdale alumnus and private lawyer who did work for the college. Also in attendance were a couple of state lawmakers, Beth Griffin and Julie Alexander, who represented conservative districts north of Detroit.Northon would later describe the meeting to the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol. “Somebody at Hillsdale reached out to me, said they are going to have this little meeting,” he testified. “I went to it. There were a handful of reps there, and then Giuliani called in.” That, of course, was Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor turned personal lawyer to President Donald J. Trump.“We don’t think that the laws have been followed, but we don’t know,” Northon recalled Giuliani saying over the speakerphone, then instructing the group to let the campaign know about any signs of election fraud they discovered. “He was not on the call for very long, and I don’t know if he knew that he was speaking to a group of legislators and lawyers in Michigan,” Northon said. “I got the sense that he was making a lot of calls around that time.”Trump’s campaign to remain in power was already in full, if flailing, swing. Just hours after the final polls closed on election night, in a televised speech from the White House, the president declared the election “a fraud on the American public”; he and his allies proceeded to spread the lie of a rigged election on Fox News, on conservative talk radio and on Twitter. Giuliani had held his infamously unhinged news conference at Four Seasons Total Landscaping in Philadelphia, where he floated the idea that “ballots have been manufactured in advance” by Democrats. At a contentious Oval Office meeting several days later, Trump sidelined the campaign lawyers and instead made Giuliani the point man for the rush of ultimately futile lawsuits challenging the election. The key swing states had yet to certify the vote; for Trump and his allies, Michigan became a focus. On Nov. 17, according to The Detroit News, the president called two members of the Board of Canvassers of heavily Democratic Wayne County and pressed them not to certify. Three days later, he brought a delegation of the state’s Republican legislative leaders to the White House to hear out his fraud claims. It is unclear precisely how the Hillsdale contingent was brought into this widening conspiracy-seeking swirl. But the college was nothing if not well connected. Northon also did work for the Amistad Project, a self-described “election-integrity watchdog” that emerged as a primary partner in the Trump campaign’s election-fraud litigation. Before Norton came to Hillsdale, he was a vice president of the Bradley Foundation, a Milwaukee-based conservative philanthropy that has funded groups advancing voter-fraud conspiracy theories. And most prominent was Hillsdale’s president, Larry P. Arnn. Over two decades, Arnn had fashioned the college as an avatar of resistance to progressivism, all the while amassing relationships with many of the influencers and financiers who were transforming conservative politics in America. By the time Trump swept into the White House in 2017, Arnn had made Hillsdale an academic darling and supplier of philosophical gravitas to the new right. So prominent was Arnn that he was mentioned as a possible education secretary before losing out to Betsy DeVos, part of a wealthy Michigan family of major conservative donors and Hillsdale patrons. (Her brother, the private-security contractor Erik Prince, is an alumnus.) Hillsdale graduates became aides in the Trump administration and on Capitol Hill and clerks at the Supreme Court. (“We have hired many staff from Hillsdale,” says Marc Short, who served as chief of staff to Trump’s vice president and Arnn’s longtime friend, Mike Pence.) In the Covid years, the backlash against school closures, mask mandates and diversity programs made education perhaps the most important culture-wars battleground. Hillsdale was at the center, and nowhere more than in Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis frequently invoked Hillsdale as he sought to cleanse the state’s schools of liberal influence. “How many places other than Hillsdale are actually standing for truth?” he said at a 2022 Hillsdale-sponsored event in Naples, Fla. The 2020 election was not particularly close in Michigan — Joseph R. Biden Jr. carried the state by more than 150,000 votes. But the pre-Thanksgiving gathering at Norton’s house presaged broader efforts to thwart the will of Michigan voters, as well as the entanglement of Hillsdale’s administration in the events leading up to Jan. 6. Norton and Northon would become involved in a plan to deploy fake Trump electors in Michigan, as was done in other battleground states. Arnn would counsel Pence, as the vice president faced mounting pressure to block certification of the vote in the House of Representatives. Mike Pence after giving a lecture at Christ Chapel on the campus of Hillsdale College last March. He has called the college’s president, Larry Arnn, a mentor.David Guralnick/The Detroit News, via Associated PressLast July, the Michigan attorney general, Dana Nessel, a Democrat, brought felony charges against all 16 of the state’s bogus Trump electors; she has said that her investigation remains open, raising questions about whether more charges might be coming. And while the Michigan indictments were the first stemming from the Trump campaign’s effort to seize electoral votes, at least four other swing states are now pursuing criminal investigations. Hillsdale administrators declined to be interviewed for this article. But in response to written questions, the college said its officials had acted and spoken in a “personal capacity” regarding the 2020 election. Hillsdale also disputed aspects of testimony to the House Jan. 6 committee, saying among other things that Norton’s call with Giuliani and his meeting with legislators took place separately. “The scope of Mr. Norton’s efforts has been vastly overstated,” the college said, adding that the general counsel’s goal “was to establish clarity and truth, and not a pre-established election outcome.”Hillsdale’s part in the election story, while hardly a secret, has received little notice beyond the local press. Viewed in the context of the vast and tentacled campaign to overturn the election, it falls somewhere between sideshow and main event. Consider it a reflection of an angry, untethered era in which unlikely actors have come to have an outsize imprint on our politics. Last spring, seeking a fuller picture of the college and its role in the tumult, I planned a trip to Hillsdale. I was told I couldn’t visit campus and reminded, after I asked to interview Arnn and others, that Hillsdale was a private college — though I was eventually granted a tour after students had left for the summer. Even so, interviews with scores of people — students, alumni, current and former faculty and staff members, donors, Republican operatives and politicians, former White House officials and lawyers connected to the state elections case — offered some answers to the overarching question: How did a small college in Michigan, self-defined by the idea that the project of American democracy is the realization of millenniums of Western wisdom, get mixed up in a plot to subvert it? Larry Arnn often talks about Hillsdale as a last redoubt of the classical liberal arts, guided by a reverence for the highest, most enduring ideas. Students are required to complete a core curriculum rooted in the great books and Western tradition. Much of what is taught at Hillsdale, Arnn has said, “was written before there was a United States of America, much less a modern conservative movement.” There’s something assertively old-fashioned about the place. Alumni refer to a “Hillsdale bubble”: Dorms are single-sex and the college affords parents a degree of access to their children’s grades and instructors more commonly found in high school. Hillsdale students tend to be high academic achievers; not all are particularly political. “For the most part, students are pretty focused on their studies,” says Caleb Greene, a senior. “They’re less concerned with all the other current events that are in the news right now.” Today, many leading universities find themselves in crisis debating the limits of allowable speech, on both the left and the right. Hillsdale, many alumni say, remains largely unmuddled by ideological diversity. In a 2016 essay in the college paper, one student ventured a modest proposal: “While conservatives condemn policies that restrict the marketplace of ideas in other schools, our own school may be guilty of a similar offense,” she wrote. “It’s time Hillsdale invited a progressive to campus.”Yet if Hillsdale can seem to exist in a time before the modern culture wars, Arnn is quick to frame his college as the heroic opposition. “Most liberal colleges and universities today deny that such a thing as ‘truth’ exists and instead encourage young people to find what is true for themselves, carrying their politically correct ‘safe spaces’ wherever they go,” he said in an email to a college mailing list last year. Under Arnn’s stewardship — on Facebook, one alumnus referred to the college as “Arnn Arbor” — Hillsdale has become as much a political and ideological campaign as it is a pedagogical home for its 1,600 students. Arnn arrived at Hillsdale in 2000, after the longtime president, George C. Roche III, resigned amid revelations of an affair with his daughter-in-law, which came to light after her death by suicide. Arnn had been running the Claremont Institute, the prominent conservative think tank in California of which he was a founder. He had a reputation as a staunch ideologue in the mold of his onetime teacher, the political philosopher Harry Jaffa, author of Barry Goldwater’s lines that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” and “moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Jaffa was the leader of a school of thought known as West Coast Straussianism, which holds that the Platonic ideal that is the original American republic has become corrupted by the unelected power of an ever-expanding administrative state and the corroding rot of progressivism. Arnn was an adherent. “Larry Arnn has the heart of a liberal,” a Claremont colleague once said. “He keeps it in a glass bottle on his desk.” In Arnn’s day, Claremont was a cloistered world; few foresaw it laying the theoretical groundwork for a radical transformation of the conservative movement. For Arnn, Hillsdale presented a chance to spread the gospel on a broader canvas, closer to the political ground. Founded in 1844 by Free Will Baptist abolitionists, the college had already turned rightward under Roche. But Arnn pivoted Hillsdale away from his predecessor’s libertarianism, then dominant in conservative politics, and put it on a more overtly religious and ideological path. While the college’s mission statement once invoked the “Judeo-Christian faith,” under Arnn the “Judeo” part was ditched and the school became more explicitly Christian. A new chapel patterned after London’s Church of St. Martin-in-the-Fields and financed by a $12.5 million donation from an Oklahoma sulfur magnate became an imposing architectural presence on campus. Arnn also honed a business model that has undergirded his political project. The college has rejected federal aid for decades, rather than be compelled to track admissions by race or comply with Title IX, the law that bars sex-based discrimination; Hillsdale has called the law “a serious assault on the school’s freedom.” As a result, more than half of its revenue comes from private grants, gifts or contracts, compared with 7 percent for a typical liberal-arts college, according to a report by the Institute of Education Sciences. Its fund-raising strategy is predicated on stoking outrage, with communiqués warning of “Marxist-inspired critical race theory” and an “emerging corporate-socialist totalitarianism.” Hillsdale has amplified its messaging by enlisting a digital fund-raising company called NextAfter, directing nearly $12 million to it in the college’s most recently reported fiscal year. Hillsdale’s revenue engine supports not just on-campus operations but also the many arms of its outreach — a newsletter called Imprimis (Latin for “above all”) that the school says reaches 6.4 million readers; a series of podcasts and online courses on subjects like “The American Left: From Liberalism to Despotism”; and a curriculum and training for a network of “classical” charter schools in more than a dozen states. All of this material is free, and all of it, in its ideological fervor, fuels the college’s fund-raising. “Hillsdale has adopted the strategy of radiating what occurs on its campus as far and wide, and to as many citizens, as possible,” according to words attributed to its chairman, the game-show host Pat Sajak, in a fund-raising pitch. (A longtime Arnn friend, Sajak is among Hollywood’s most outspoken conservatives.) The school has been lucrative for Arnn, whose total annual compensation exceeds $1 million, rare territory for the leader of a college of Hillsdale’s size. And there are other benefits. NextAfter promoted Arnn’s 2015 book on Winston Churchill as part of an effort to grow the college’s email list. (Hillsdale said Arnn donated his royalties to the college.) Arnn’s daughter Kathleen O’Toole was installed in 2019 as assistant provost for the college’s charter-school efforts. (Another Hillsdale official said in a recent deposition, related to a court battle involving a Florida charter school, that nobody else had been interviewed for the job; the college said Arnn “was not involved” in the hiring.) Arnn remains Claremont’s vice chairman, and from the first, he embedded Hillsdale into the institute’s intellectual orbit. Any number of Hillsdale academics are Claremont-affiliated scholars as well. (West Coast Straussianism’s “citadels are Claremont and Hillsdale,” according to the political philosopher Paul Gottfried.) Arnn also signed on visiting scholars like Christopher Rufo, the activist most responsible for making the academic discipline of critical race theory a boogeyman of the right. Arnn’s own CV lists longstanding affiliations with a run of influential conservative organizations. He serves on the Heritage Foundation’s board and is a member of the Council for National Policy, a secretive coalition of conservative heavyweights. Like others in his intellectual camp, Arnn seemed to love Trumpism more than the man himself. (“There’s obviously a lot of things that are really great about that guy, but we don’t teach our students at Hillsdale College to act the way he does on all occasions,” he quipped during a 2017 speech.) But the inflection point, both for Hillsdale and for American conservatism, was the election and reign of Trump. Money poured in from prominent donors with names like Coors, Koch and Uihlein. S. Prestley Blake, a founder of Friendly’s restaurants, left the college a Connecticut replica of Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello that Hillsdale uses for various events. The college’s revenue more than doubled; its endowment is now nearly $1 billion. Hillsdale became a regular stopping point for leaders on the right, from the Federalist Society co-chairman Leonard Leo to the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, who received an honorary doctorate. Justice Clarence Thomas, who has called Arnn a “dear friend,” spoke at the new chapel’s dedication. (His wife, the conservative activist Virginia Thomas, had previously served on Hillsdale’s board and worked at the college’s Washington outpost.) As Hillsdale made headlines by resisting state pandemic restrictions, Arnn found a soul mate in DeSantis, whose rising national profile was powered by his own shunning of Covid strictures. In its drive to remake Florida schools, DeSantis’s administration tapped Hillsdale to help overhaul civics standards and used a Hillsdale staff member and an undergraduate as consultants to review math textbooks for perceived whiffs of leftist ideology. DeSantis has said he prefers hiring Hillsdale alumni to those of his own alma mater, Yale, and when he engineered a takeover of the quirky and traditionally liberal New College of Florida, he appointed a top Hillsdale official, Matthew Spalding, to its new board. The new New College, the governor said, would be a public, Sunshine State Hillsdale. Clarence Thomas delivering a commencement address to the 2016 Hillsdale College graduating class. He has called Arnn a “dear friend.”Todd McInturf/The Detroit News, via Associated PressAll of this is evidence of how well Arnn had succeeded in embedding his college in the ferment. “We’re in the world-conquest business,” he said in an online talk that Hillsdale posted in 2020, “and we have just one weapon — teaching.”Three days after the 2020 election, Arnn appeared on a Hillsdale podcast hosted by the conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt. Calling the electoral process “corrupt,” Arnn mused about Republican-dominated state legislatures’ bypassing the voters and taking direct control of their states’ electoral votes. “There’s a wild idea,” he said. A couple of weeks later, around the time of the Giuliani meeting, he was asked on a podcast hosted by a Michigan conservative commentator, Steve Gruber, whether he trusted the outcome of the election. “No, I don’t,” he said. By then, Ian Northon, the Hillsdale-affiliated lawyer, was publicly advancing fraud claims and moving to sue the state of Michigan on behalf of the Amistad Project.“It’s simply a matter of mathematics,” Northon said on a different episode of Gruber’s podcast, in late November. “We’ve got a Ph.D., Dr. Zhang, Jennie Zhang from Hillsdale College, who just did the math. And when you do the math, it shows not just a handful of improper votes, or a handful of illegal votes, but hundreds of thousands, well over 500,000 in the general election alone.” He was referring to Qianying Zhang, a finance and economics professor who goes by Jennie and was paid $5,000 as an expert witness by Amistad. Based on a survey by a firm run by a former Trump campaign aide, she estimated how many people had received absentee ballots they had not requested. (In an email, Zhang said that while Northon had offered a “plausible” account of her findings, calling the votes “improper” or “illegal” went “beyond the direct scope of my analysis.”) In early December, Northon took part in a conference call with an old friend of Arnn’s from Claremont circles, the lawyer John Eastman. Northon, in his testimony to the House Jan. 6 committee, said this meeting, like the first one, “was set up by some Hillsdale people.” He specifically mentioned Spalding, dean of the college’s Washington graduate school, something of a nexus in the capital for academics on the right. Northon’s lawyer, Chip Chamberlain, said in an email exchange that neither Arnn nor Spalding was on the Eastman call. Northon, he said, simply “reviewed Dr. Spalding’s research on elections and constitutionalism before various filings with the courts.” (Spalding, in a statement through Hillsdale, said he had never met Northon.) Northon told the Jan. 6 committee that the two Michigan lawmakers who attended the Giuliani meeting participated in this one too, along with a third, Daire Rendon. (Rendon was charged last year in a separate case involving voting-machine breaches orchestrated by Trump allies.) The lawmakers “were people who wanted their colleagues in the House to do more,” Northon testified, adding, “That was the impetus of the Eastman call.” Eastman was one of the legal architects of the strategy to deploy fake electors in states Trump lost, in order to press Pence to forgo certifying Biden on Jan. 6. (He was indicted last year on charges related to this effort in Georgia, where he has pleaded not guilty.) Now, on the conference call, he explained to the lawmakers that the State Legislature held the power to take action on elections. “If somebody’s going to do something about it, it’s them,” Northon recalled Eastman saying. Northon also prepared a draft resolution for the Legislature’s Republican leaders, hoping they would declare that they were investigating the election. As he composed the draft, he said, he showed it to Norton and Emily Davis, Hillsdale’s communications chief. When House investigators asked Northon about his running election-related documents by Hillsdale’s brass, he said: “Well, my — I represented Hillsdale and all this — although this wasn’t something I was doing for them, I thought they should be aware of it, that it was happening. I thought it was important for them.” Around the same time, Norton reached out to the state Republican chairwoman, Laura Cox. According to her testimony to the Jan. 6 committee, the Hillsdale general counsel explained that there was a plan afoot to swing the state toward Trump: A group of Republicans posing as electors would hide overnight in the State Capitol in Lansing and then cast votes on Dec. 14, the date the official electors were to cast Michigan’s vote. Cox was aghast. “I told him in no uncertain terms that that was insane and inappropriate,” she testified. She said she tried to impress upon him that this was a “harebrained” plan, that it “was a very, very bad idea and potentially illegal.” But Norton, she said, “didn’t care about my opinion. Just, we had words, and I believe I eventually hung up on him.”Norton had come to Hillsdale from an automotive background — his father ran auto-service shops in the Detroit area — and after spending years as a lawyer working his way through the industry. In 1997, he was reprimanded by Michigan’s Attorney Discipline Board after admitting that “while shopping at a retail store, he placed a different bar-code price tag on a package of colored pencils in order to lower the price.” That hiccup did not stall his career, and in 2002 he became assistant general counsel at Chrysler. Seven years later, he left to join the Bradley Foundation, the conservative philanthropy that has been active in election issues. “It was time to take the more mission-driven path,” he said on a college-sponsored podcast. Arnn hired him in 2014. (The next year, Arnn received one of the Bradley Foundation’s annual $250,000 prizes.) Hillsdale disputes Cox’s account of her conversation with its general counsel. “Mr. Norton spoke with Ms. Cox in the capacity of a civically engaged individual who was asking a friend” about “the election and perceived irregularities,” the college says, adding that Norton had been “an early supporter” of Cox’s husband, the former Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox. Norton, the college says, did not know where Cox “got the idea” of a “supposed plot” for an overnight in the State Capitol.But Cox held fast to her account at a pretrial hearing for the fake electors in December. And in an interview, she said, “We’re not friends, I want to make that really clear,” and pointed out that she could find no record of Norton personally donating to her husband’s campaigns. She also provided a copy of a text message from Norton that she said was sent on Dec. 13, 2020. “The electors should try to get into capital early, as we have planned,” it said, noting that she would be hearing from a lawyer for the Trump campaign.“He kept texting me all these things and trying to lobby me to do something,” she said, adding, “They think they are going to hide in the Capitol and nobody is going to see them?”After learning about the planned sleepover, Cox told the Jan. 6 committee, she called Mike Shirkey, the leader of the State Senate’s Republican majority. Shirkey had been hearing from Norton and Northon, too: For days, they had been urging him to recognize the slate of fake Trump electors. Shirkey had also heard from Phillip Kline, the former Kansas attorney general who heads the Amistad Project, which was working with Trump lawyers to bring election-fraud lawsuits across the country. Kline later spoke at a Hillsdale symposium where he called 2020 “the most lawless election in United States history.”Shirkey, who retired last year with warnings of the peril of “one-world governance, one-world religion, one-world health care, one-world currency and one-world control,” might have seemed an unlikely resister. But according to Cox, he also thought hiding electors in the Capitol was a terrible idea. “It was a pretty high-pressured process, having these gentlemen come to our offices or invite us into one of their homes,” Shirkey said of the trio in his House testimony, adding that they kept urging him to “do the right thing.”On Dec. 14, Northon joined the fake electors at the Capitol, where they were turned away by guards. Not all of the 16 designated Trump electors picked before Election Day agreed to take part in the scheme; one who bowed out, Terri Lynn Land, was a former Michigan secretary of state who has said she did not see a role to play given that the state’s vote had already been certified for Biden. The remaining electors and two replacements ended up in the basement of the state Republican headquarters, signing a document entitled “Certificate of Votes of the 2020 Electors From Michigan.” For Shirkey, the weeks since the election had been an unending ordeal. He was part of the Michigan contingent lobbied at the White House in mid-November. And Trump kept calling — four times through Dec. 14, once while Shirkey was up in a tree stand, hunting. “I was getting frustrated,” he testified. “All these allegations, all these claims, and all the damage, potential damage we’re doing to the country and confidence in elections. And I was tired of hollow claims with no action. And I just wanted to put a pin in it. I didn’t want any more calls.”Growing up in the small Arkansas city of Pocahontas, Arnn wasn’t obviously destined for a life of academe. He often describes the personally transformative effects of studying philosophy, which took hold in a political-theory course his senior year at Arkansas State.“We read Plato’s ‘Republic,’ and it was life-changing,” he once told The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. “I fell under its spell.”Alumni, with varying degrees of admiration and exasperation, describe Arnn, who is 71, as evincing a grandfatherly pop intellectualism. He keeps a longstanding routine of stopping by the cafeteria to ask students about the nature of “the good, the true and the beautiful.” Pence, who has called Arnn a mentor, began a 2018 commencement speech at Hillsdale by assuring the students that “unlike Dr. Arnn, I will not be asking you to define ‘the good.’” Arnn’s speaking style meanders — sometimes beyond the typically circumscribed utterances of college presidents. Hillsdale likes to talk about its abolitionist roots, but one thing it doesn’t talk about publicly is the racial makeup of its student body. (Students and alumni I spoke with say there is little racial diversity.) At a legislative hearing in 2013, Arnn recalled that the school had been admonished by the state because, as he put it, “we didn’t have enough dark ones.” Asked to clarify, according to press accounts, he explained that the state had sent people “with clipboards” to campus “to look at the colors of people’s faces and write down what they saw. We don’t keep records of that information. What were they looking for besides dark ones?”In 2022, a plan by Gov. Bill Lee of Tennessee to create 50 Hillsdale-affiliated charter schools faltered after the Nashville TV station WTVF obtained video of Arnn, in public comments at a Hillsdale reception with the governor, declaring that teachers “are trained in the dumbest parts of the dumbest colleges.” He later tried to explain in a Tennessean column that by “dumb” he didn’t “mean ‘unintelligent’” but “ ‘ill-conceived’ or ‘misdirected.’” Tom Griscom, who led the state’s charter-school commission, was sent the article by a colleague, and in an email uncovered by the TV station, he lamented, “That really helped, not.” In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Arnn was speaking in dire terms. “We are Americans, and have the dangerous privilege of living in a time when the whole direction of the country and the whole view of human nature it adopts is up for grabs,” he said in a Hillsdale podcast on Dec. 4 that focused on the Senate runoffs in Georgia. No evidence has emerged suggesting that Arnn was involved in the Michigan fake-electors scheme. But in a rambling speech at a Hillsdale-sponsored conference in Phoenix a month after Trump left office, he appeared to acknowledge knowing something about the activities of his general counsel. “I’ll tell you what happened in Michigan,” Arnn said. Speaking about the State Legislature and its role in the election, he said: “We know them. My general counsel has spent, his hair is gray, he’s been spending time with them. And he gives them advice for nothing.” Arnn added that he had thought all along that the Legislature should assert its power over the electors, once state leaders began altering voting rules amid the pandemic. “You’re changing it, we reserve the right to pick our own slate.”On Dec. 18, Arnn was in Washington, where he was named to lead Trump’s 1776 Commission, announced as a rejoinder to the George Floyd racial-justice upheavals, which the president called “the direct result of decades of left-wing indoctrination in our schools.” (It was also framed as a response to “The 1619 Project,” published the previous year by The New York Times Magazine.) The commission, according to Trump’s executive order, was to prepare a report on “the core principles of the American founding and how these principles may be understood to further enjoyment of ‘the blessings of liberty.’” That report, released two days before Trump left office, was widely derided by historians as a politicized, soft-focus version of American history; it took particular aim at progressivism, which it lumped in with slavery, fascism, communism, racism and identity politics as one of the “challenges to America’s principles.” Arnn’s standing in Trumpworld, though, was complicated by the fact that he was far closer to Pence than to Trump. Indeed, even as Trump was imploring the vice president to block the election certification in the House, Arnn was counseling caution. When Arnn returned to the White House on Jan. 5 for the first meeting of the 1776 Commission, he also met briefly with the vice president, according to Pence’s aide, Marc Short. And two days after the Capitol riot, Arnn told Hugh Hewitt: “You know, the vice president asked me more than once, What should he do? And I said, ‘Well, there are some boundaries.’ I said: ‘The first thing is, you probably ought to say, this is not about me and Donald Trump anymore. This is about fair elections.’” Last year, introducing Pence at a Hillsdale function, Arnn went further, saying he had agreed with the former vice president’s ultimate decision. Which is not to say that Arnn didn’t harbor deep reservations about the election. During the podcast interview, he said he had “floated the crazy idea” that Trump should’ve said, “If I vindicate this election and prove that I won it, I’ll surrender to Mike Pence in 30 days because it’s questionable.” By February, Arnn was talking about the country sinking into despotism. “I’ve been warning about all this all my life, warning that they’re going to rig the electoral system so you can’t get them out,” he said in his remarks in Phoenix. “And now it’s happened, right? Probably.” He knew “how Michigan was stolen,” he said earlier in the speech, “because I have the misfortune sometimes to live there.” In Michigan, the fight over 2020 continues. In late October, Dana Nessel, the attorney general, dropped all charges against one of the fake electors in exchange for cooperation. During an interview with the office’s investigators, the elector was asked if he could identify photos of a handful of figures involved; among them was Norton, the Hillsdale general counsel. (The elector was unsure.) In the days that followed, her investigators questioned one of the architects of the multistate fake-elector scheme, Kenneth Chesebro, according to one of his lawyers. Both developments suggest the inquiry could widen. The attorney for Northon, the Hillsdale-affiliated private lawyer, said investigators had contacted him about interviewing his client, who had declined to participate. During the recent pretrial hearing, Nessel’s office described Northon as an “uncharged member of the conspiracy.”Pointing fingers upward will clearly be a defense strategy. John Freeman, a Michigan lawyer who represents a Trump elector, told me that his client “followed the directions of persons better versed and more knowledgeable in election law” and that “we intend to establish this in court.”Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida at an appearance with Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College, in April. DeSantis has said of the college, “How many places other than Hillsdale are actually standing for truth?”Chris duMond/Getty ImagesHeading into the coming presidential election, Arnn has hedged his bets. He has called DeSantis “one of the most important people living,” but remains neutral on the Republican field — “counselor to many and endorser of none,” as Hugh Hewitt put it in October. But with Trump, at least for now, lapping the field, the election could herald the moment for the ideas so long promoted by Arnn and his Hillsdale-Claremont comrades. In a second administration, Trump and his allies are determined to engineer a sweeping transformation of American government, including a further repudiation of America as a land of immigrants and a politicization of the Justice Department and other agencies of the executive branch. This gutting of the reviled administrative state would be enabled by a legion of lawyers with an Olympian view of presidential powers — at least while a Republican sits in the White House.Arnn’s college is at the leading edge of the planning. Two fellows at Hillsdale’s Washington campus — one current and one former — are associate directors of Project 2025, a clearinghouse created by the Heritage Foundation to staff and overhaul policy in a new conservative administration; it counts Hillsdale among 80 organizations on its advisory board. One of those fellows, Troup Hemenway, previously drafted a report examining how the Presidential Personnel Office can be harnessed more aggressively. Another recent Hillsdale fellow, Saurabh Sharma, co-founded a group called American Moment, which seeks to staff the next administration and congressional offices with MAGA adherents. James Sherk, a Hillsdale alumnus at a think tank called the America First Policy Institute, has crafted a plan central to Trump’s ambitions, removing civil-service protections from thousands of career government officials and replacing them with loyalists. Hillsdale’s student body is similarly evolving, at least in the reckoning of Avery Noel, a senior from Indiana who is president of the school’s small College Democrats chapter. Applications have climbed more than 50 percent over the last decade, the college has said, including a spike of interest after the school rebuffed pandemic lockdown requirements. “You’re getting people who are more drawn to the ideological setting of the school,” said Noel, who described himself as a lapsed conservative. In an email exchange, Nathan Schlueter, a philosophy professor, explained what seemed to be a prevailing view. “Progressives currently control virtually all the levers of financial and political power in this country,” he said, adding, “They have been aggressive not only in promoting causes about which Americans reasonably disagree, but in shaming and punishing dissenting voices. In this atmosphere, the College is extremely vulnerable.”To some, though, the college is the emergent bully. A number of Hillsdale graduate students have become active in local government. In 2022, Joshua Paladino, a doctoral candidate in politics who served on the city’s public library board, proposed that the library’s children’s section exclude books “tending to corrupt the morals of youth,” including those depicting “delinquency, child abuse, underage sexual activity,” as well as “graphic violence” and “profanity.” He suggested proscribing books with any reference to political content, including the L.G.B.T.Q. movement and Black Lives Matter. In an interview, Paladino said the library wasn’t “focusing on the books that were going to have long-term, lasting value.” Soon library board meetings became more crowded and angry, and the librarian, the children’s librarian and the library board president all departed. Soon after, one of the college’s librarians took over as the library board president. “There’s always been this rift, the college elites and us townies,” says Penny Swan, a Republican who was defeated by Paladino in the 2022 City Council election. “But it’s never been as bad as it’s been in the past couple years, and the college Ph.D. students seem to want to take over the town.” On campus, a legal challenge emerged in October, when two women filed class-action litigation claiming that Hillsdale officials including Norton had sought to hide sexual assaults rather than seriously investigate them. One plaintiff, Danielle Villarreal, who transferred to another school, said in an interview that Arnn was “too busy trying to kind of promote Hillsdale’s reputation for truth and liberty and ignoring the contradictions that are already within.” (The college said the suit was based on “serious mischaracterizations” of its processes, as well as its actions.) Contradictions were on the minds of the nearly two dozen students and alumni who sought me out after hearing about my reporting on social media or from friends. Almost all expressed gratitude for their liberal-arts education and said that, despite the hard-edged pitch to donors, Hillsdale had nurtured the critical-thinking skills that led them to reject Trumpism. But many felt revulsion at the public coziness between the college and the former president. “The undergraduate college has been used as a base for the intervention into American politics,” said Will Smiley, class of 2005. Arnn, he added, “was lending the institutional credibility of Hillsdale to Donald Trump.”Anna Meckel arrived at Hillsdale in 2014 as a star student celebrated in The Omaha World-Herald with the headline “Home-Schooled Nebraska Senior Tallies Perfect SAT, ACT Scores.” She came from a conservative family but had been drawn to Hillsdale by its focus on the classics, not its politics. Yet even as she thrived academically, she found her values unmoored from the emergent brand of conservatism espoused by Arnn and his administration. In an interview, she recalled her graduation, in May 2018. She was the valedictorian. Pence delivered the commencement address, declaring that the Trump administration was “advancing the very principles that you learned here in the halls at Hillsdale.”“I was sitting there in the audience in tears, in embarrassment and frustration,” Meckel told me. “This is supposed to be the culmination of the education that I received, and instead the school is making a mockery of itself.” She added: “I was literally crying. I’m going to sound like a snowflake, I guess, but whatever. It was a travesty. Another student heard me crying and reached out to me afterward and said, ‘This isn’t the send-off we deserved.’”Meckel sent me a link to a fund-raising pitch that cited one of the college’s free online courses, on Dante. It warned that “the Biden administration is trying to force critical race theory into K-12 curricula” and offered the poet as an antidote to “the Left’s assault on American education.”“It’s not about Dante or the ‘Iliad’ or the ‘Odyssey,’” she said. “It’s about getting clicks and views from people who want to own the libs and be enraged by the Biden administration or by cancel culture. And that’s nothing like what I was taught in the classroom when we went through great books. My professors didn’t say anything about reading Dante to own the libs.”Opening photo illustration: Source photographs by Leigh Vogel for The New York Times (Arnn); Chris duMond/Getty Images (school); Scott Olson/Getty Images (Trump); Ethan Miller/Getty Images (Pence).Joan Wong is a photocollagist and a book-cover designer who frequently collaborates with The Times, The New Yorker and The Atlantic. She previously worked for Penguin Random House. More

  • in

    Donald Trump Is Connecting With a Different Type of Evangelical Voter

    They are not just the churchgoing, conservative activists who once dominated the G.O.P.Karen Johnson went to her Lutheran church so regularly as a child that she won a perfect attendance award. As an adult, she taught Sunday school. But these days, Ms. Johnson, a 67-year-old counter attendant at a slot-machine parlor, no longer goes to church.She still identifies as an evangelical Christian, but she doesn’t believe going to church is necessary to commune with God. “I have my own little thing with the Lord,” she says.Ms. Johnson’s thing includes frequent prayer, she said, as well as podcasts and YouTube channels that discuss politics and “what’s going on in the world” from a right-wing, and sometimes Christian, worldview. No one plays a more central role in her perspective than Donald J. Trump, the man she believes can defeat the Democrats who, she is certain, are destroying the country and bound for hell.“Trump is our David and our Goliath,” Ms. Johnson said recently as she waited outside a hotel in eastern Iowa to hear the former president speak.Karen Johnson went to church regularly as a child and taught Sunday school as an adult, but, despite identifying as an evangelical Christian, she does not attend church anymore.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesWhite evangelical Christian voters have lined up behind Republican candidates for decades, driving conservative cultural issues into the heart of the party’s politics and making nominees and presidents of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

  • in

    This Election Year Is Unlike Any Other

    At the outset of this election year, with Donald Trump leading the race to be the Republican presidential nominee, Americans should pause to consider what a second Trump term would mean for our country and the world and to weigh the serious responsibility this election places on their shoulders.By now, most American voters should have no illusions about who Mr. Trump is. During his many years as a real estate developer and a television personality, then as president and as a dominant figure in the Republican Party, Mr. Trump demonstrated a character and temperament that render him utterly unfit for high office.As president, he wielded power carelessly and often cruelly and put his ego and his personal needs above the interests of his country. Now, as he campaigns again, his worst impulses remain as strong as ever — encouraging violence and lawlessness, exploiting fear and hate for political gain, undermining the rule of law and the Constitution, applauding dictators — and are escalating as he tries to regain power. He plots retribution, intent on eluding the institutional, legal and bureaucratic restraints that put limits on him in his first term.Our purpose at the start of the new year, therefore, is to sound a warning.Mr. Trump does not offer voters anything resembling a normal option of Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, big government or small. He confronts America with a far more fateful choice: between the continuance of the United States as a nation dedicated to “the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” and a man who has proudly shown open disdain for the law and the protections and ideals of the Constitution.If in 2016 various factions of the electorate were prepared to look beyond Mr. Trump’s bombast in the hope that he might deliver whatever it was they wanted without too much damage to the nation, today there is no mystery about what he will do should he win, about the sorts of people he will surround himself with and the personal and political goals he will pursue. There is no mystery, either, about the consequences for the world if America re-elects a leader who openly displays his contempt for its allies.Mr. Trump’s four years in the White House did lasting damage to the presidency and to the nation. He deepened existing divisions among Americans, leaving the country dangerously polarized; he so demeaned public discourse that many Americans have become inured to lies, insults and personal attacks at the highest levels of leadership. His contempt for the rule of law raised concerns about the long-term stability of American democracy, and his absence of a moral compass threatened to corrode the ideals of national service.The Republic weathered Mr. Trump’s presidency for a variety of reasons: his lack of prepared agenda, the disruptions of the Covid-19 pandemic and the efforts of appointees who tried to temper his most dangerous or unreasonable demands. Most important, it survived because of the people and institutions in his administration and in the Republican Party who proved strong enough to stand up to his efforts to undermine the peaceful transfer of power.It is instructive in the aftermath of that administration to listen to the judgments of some of these officials on the president they served. John Kelly, a chief of staff to Mr. Trump, called him the “most flawed person I’ve ever met,” someone who could not understand why Americans admired those who sacrificed their lives in combat. Bill Barr, who served as attorney general, and Mark Esper, a former defense secretary, both said Mr. Trump repeatedly put his own interests over those of the country. Even the most loyal and conservative of them all, Vice President Mike Pence, who made the stand that helped provoke Mr. Trump and his followers to insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, saw through the man: “On that day, President Trump also demanded that I choose between him and the Constitution,” he said.There will not be people like these in the White House should Mr. Trump be re-elected. The former president has no interest in being restrained, and he has surrounded himself with people who want to institutionalize the MAGA doctrine. According to reporting by the Times reporters Maggie Haberman, Charlie Savage and Jonathan Swan, Mr. Trump and his ideological allies have been planning for a second Trump term for many months already. Under the name Project 2025, one coalition of right-wing organizations has produced a thick handbook and recruited thousands of potential appointees in preparation for an all-out assault on the structures of American government and the democratic institutions that acted as checks on Mr. Trump’s power.The project ties in with plans from Mr. Trump and his supporters to reclassify tens of thousands of federal workers so they can be fired if they do not buy fully into the Trump agenda. He also plans to strip the Justice Department of its independence in order to use it to wreak vengeance on those who, in his view, failed to concoct a victory for him in the 2020 election or otherwise didn’t support his unconstitutional demands. There is more, including threats by Mr. Trump to find ways to use federal troops against those who might protest his policies and practices. These ambitions demonstrate that the years out of office and the mounting legal challenges he faces have only sharpened his worst instincts.Mr. Trump was impeached twice as president and since leaving office has been charged in four criminal cases — two related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, one over hush money paid to a porn star and another for hoarding classified documents after he left office and impeding the government’s efforts to retrieve them. No other sitting or former president has ever been indicted on criminal charges. Not only has Mr. Trump shown no remorse for these actions, he has given no sign that he understands these indictments to be anything but a political crusade meant to undermine him. He continues to claim that the Jan. 6 insurrection has been misrepresented. “There was love and unity,” he said in an interview last August. And he has suggested that, if re-elected, he could use his presidential powers to pardon himself.Mr. Trump’s forays into foreign affairs remain dangerously misguided and incoherent. During his presidency, he displayed consistent admiration for autocratic leaders — including Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un — and contempt for our democratic allies. While in the White House, he repeatedly threatened to leave NATO, an alliance critical to the stability of Europe that he sees only as a drain on American resources; now his campaign website says, without elaborating, that he plans to “finish” the process of “fundamentally re-evaluating NATO’s purpose and NATO’s mission.”He has announced his intention to abandon Ukraine, leaving it and its neighbors vulnerable to further Russian aggression. Encouraged by an American president, leaders who rule with an iron fist in Hungary, Israel, India and elsewhere would face far less moral or democratic pressure.Mr. Trump has made clear his conviction that only “losers” accept legal, institutional or even constitutional constraints. He has promised vengeance against his political opponents, whom he has called “vermin” and threatened with execution. This is particularly disturbing at a time of heightened concern about political violence, with threats increasing against elected officials of both parties.He has repeatedly demonstrated a deep disdain for the First Amendment and the basic principles of democracy, chief among them the right to freely express peaceful dissent from those in power without fear of retaliation, and he has made no secret of his readiness to expand the powers of the presidency, including the deployment of the military and the Justice Department, to have his way.Democracy in the United States is stronger with a formidable conservative political movement to keep diversity of thought alive on important questions, such as the nation’s approaches to immigration, education, national security and fiscal responsibility. There should be room for real disagreement on any of these topics and many more — and there is a long tradition of it across the American experiment. But that is not what the former president is seeking.Re-electing Mr. Trump would present serious dangers to our Republic and to the world. This is a time not to sit out but instead to re-engage. We appeal to Americans to set aside their political differences, grievances and party affiliations and to contemplate — as families, as parishes, as councils and clubs and as individuals — the real magnitude of the choice they will make in November.Source photograph by Kozlik_Mozlik, via Getty Images.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, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More

  • in

    A Midwestern Republican Stands Up for Trans Rights

    As 2023 slouches to an ignominious end, some news came Friday that gave me an unexpected jolt of hope. I have spent much of the year watching with horror and trying to document an unrelenting legal assault on queer and trans people. Around 20 states have passed laws restricting access to gender-affirming care for trans and nonbinary people, and several have barred transgender and nonbinary people from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity.So it was shocking — in a good way, for once — to hear these words from Ohio’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, as he vetoed a bill that would have banned puberty blockers and hormones and gender-affirming surgeries for trans and nonbinary minors in Ohio and blocked transgender girls and women from participating in sports as their chosen gender:“Were House Bill 68 to become law, Ohio would be saying that the state, that the government, knows better what is medically best for a child than the two people who love that child the most — the parents,” DeWine said in prepared remarks. “Parents are making decisions about the most precious thing in their life, their child, and none of us, none of us, should underestimate the gravity and the difficulty of those decisions.”DeWine, by situating his opposition to the bill on the chosen battlefield of far-right activists — parents’ rights — was tapping into an idiom that is at once deeply familiar to me and yet has almost entirely disappeared from our national political discourse: that of a mainstream, Midwestern Republican. It is a voice I know well because it is one I heard all my life from my Midwestern Republican grandparents.I did not agree with all of their beliefs, especially as I got older. But I understood where they were coming from. My grandfather, a belly gunner in the Pacific Theater in World War II, believed a strong military was essential to American security. My grandmother was a nurse, and she believed that science, medicine and innovation made America stronger. They made sure their children and grandchildren went to college — education was a crucial element of their philosophy of self-reliance. And above all, they believed the government should be small and stay out of people’s lives as much as humanly possible. This last belief, in individual freedom and individual responsibility, was the bedrock of their politics.And so I am not surprised that defeats keep coming for anti-transgender activists. At the ballot box, hard-right candidates in swing states have tried to persuade voters with lurid messaging about children being subjected to grisly surgeries and pumped full of unnecessary medications. But in race after race, the tactic has failed.Legally, the verdict has been more mixed, which is unsurprising given how politically polarized the judiciary has become. This week a federal judge in Idaho issued a preliminary ruling that a ban on transgender care for minors could not be enforced because it violated the children’s 14th Amendment rights and that “parents should have the right to make the most fundamental decisions about how to care for their children.” The state is expected to appeal the decision.In June, a federal court blocked an Arkansas ban on gender-affirming care for minors. “The evidence showed that the prohibited medical care improves the mental health and well-being of patients,” the ruling said, “and that, by prohibiting it, the state undermined the interests it claims to be advancing” of protecting children and safeguarding medical ethics. In 2021, Asa Hutchinson, then the governor, had vetoed the ban for reasons similar to DeWine, but the Arkansas Legislature overrode his veto. (The Ohio Legislature also has a supermajority of Republicans and may decide to override DeWine’s veto.)In other states, like Texas and Missouri, courts have permitted bans to go into effect, forcing families to make very difficult decisions about whether to travel to receive care or move to a different state altogether. The issue seems destined to reach the Supreme Court soon. The A.C.L.U. has asked the Supreme Court to hear its challenge to the care ban in Tennessee on behalf of a 15-year-old transgender girl. Given how swiftly and decisively the court moved to gut abortion rights, it seems quite possible that the conservative supermajority could choose to severely restrict access to transgender health care for children or even adults.But maybe not. After all, the overturning of Roe has deeply unsettled the country, unleashing a backlash that has delivered unexpected victories to Democrats and abortion-rights advocates. Ohio voters just chose by a wide margin to enshrine the right to end a pregnancy in the state Constitution.This is why I think DeWine’s veto speaks to a much bigger truth: Americans simply do not want the government making decisions about families’ private medical care. Polling on abortion finds a wide array of views on the morality of ending a pregnancy at various points up to viability, but one thing is crystal clear: Large majorities of Americans believe that the decision to have an abortion is none of the government’s business.Rapidly changing norms around gender have many people’s heads spinning, and I understand how unsettling that can be. Gender is one of the most basic building blocks of identity, and even though gender variations of many kinds have been with us for millenniums, the way these changes are being lived out feel, to some people, like a huge disruption to their way of life. Even among people who think of themselves as liberal or progressive, there has been a sense that gender-affirming care has become too easily accessible, and that impressionable children are making life-changing decisions based on social media trends.It has become a throwaway line in some media coverage of transgender care in the United States that even liberal European countries are restricting care for transgender children. But this is a misleading notion. No democracy in Europe has banned, let alone criminalized, care, as many states have done in the United States. What has happened is that under increasing pressure from the right, politicians in some countries have begun to limit access to certain kinds of treatments for children through their socialized health systems, in which the government pays for care and has always placed limits on what types are available. In those systems, budgetary considerations have always determined how many people will be able to get access to treatments.But private care remains legal and mostly accessible to those who can afford it.Republicans are passing draconian laws in the states where they have total control, laws that could potentially lead to parents being charged with child abuse for supporting their transgender children or threaten doctors who treat transgender children with felony convictions. These statutes have no analog in free Europe, but they have strong echoes of laws in Russia, which is increasingly criminalizing every aspect of queer life. These extreme policies have no place in any democratic society.Which brings me back to my Midwestern Republican grandparents, Goldwater and Reagan partisans to their core. My grandfather died long before Donald Trump ran for president, and 2016 was the first presidential election in which my grandmother did not vote for the Republican candidate. But she did not vote for Hillary Clinton, choosing another candidate she declined to name to me. Like a lot of Republicans, she really didn’t like Clinton, and one of the big reasons was her lifelong opposition to government health care. She didn’t want government bureaucrats coming between her and her doctors, she told me.I think many, many Americans agree with that sentiment. Transgender people are no different. They don’t want government bureaucrats in their private business.“I’ve been saying for years that trans people are a priority for enemies and an afterthought to our friends,” Gillian Branstetter, a strategist who works on transgender issues at the A.C.L.U., told me. “I’ve made it my job to try and help people understand that transgender rights are human rights, not just because transgender people are human people, but because the rights we’re fighting for are grounded in really core democratic principles, like individualism and self-determination.”Those are core American values, but 2024 is an election year, and even though transphobia has proved to be a loser at the ballot box, many Republicans are sure to beat that drum anyway. Mike DeWine has me hoping that some Republicans will remember what was once a core principle of their party, and embrace the simple plain-spoken truth of my heartland forebears: Keep the government out of my life, and let me be free to live as I choose.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, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More

  • in

    Young Iowa Republicans Raise Their Voices. Will Their Party Listen?

    G.O.P. presidential candidates have not aggressively courted Gen Z, even as young voters increasingly show an openness to new candidates and a concern for new ideas.As Vivek Ramaswamy walked out of an event this month at Dordt University, a small Christian college in northwestern Iowa, the school’s football players greeted him with bro hugs and a challenge: Could he join one of them in doing 30 push-ups?Mr. Ramaswamy, the 38-year-old entrepreneur and Republican presidential candidate, did not miss a beat.“You guys are probably about half my age or so,” he said when he was done, having strained only slightly, “and I’m probably about half the age of everyone else who’s making a real dent in American politics today.”Kellen Browning/The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

  • in

    Primaries, Polls and Party Shares: It’s Time for the Mailbag.

    Readers have questions, including on switching over to another side’s primary, and a quick comment on Swift.A sign that voting is near.Geoff Stellfox/The Gazette, via Associated PressI hope everyone is enjoying the holiday season. We haven’t received many questions about the Republican primary recently, even though the Iowa Caucus is less than three weeks away. But we have gotten a few, and many on other topics, so let’s dive into the mailbox one last time in 2023.Switching parties for a primary?What if some of us former Republicans, now independents or Democrats thanks to Trump, registered as Republicans in order to vote for Nikki Haley in the primary? As a New Jersey voter, it wouldn’t really matter here, because the primaries are usually decided before they get to us. I would much rather see her on the ballot than Trump. Would a push like that do anything? — Nancy DriesMs. Haley trails by 50 points in the national polls, so realistically it’s going to take a lot more than moderate Democrats switching for the race to become competitive.But that doesn’t mean that Democrats and independents won’t play a role. Unlike New Jersey, many states have open primaries where Democrats will be able to vote in the Republican primary without changing their registration at all. It wouldn’t surprise me if Ms. Haley fares especially well in states like those, including South Carolina. She’ll also probably fare well in states where independent voters can participate, like New Hampshire.What about a one-on-one race?When I look at a recent poll of Iowa voters, I see that Trump is at 44 percent with DeSantis and Haley tied at 17 percent. Trump is clearly leading, but there are a lot of voters who are aligning themselves with DeSantis, Haley, Ramaswamy and Christie. And a small number of voters who are undecided.If the Republican field were to narrow down to one candidate who runs against Trump, where do the supporters of those other candidates go? — Steven BrownWhen we surveyed Iowa back in July, we found Donald J. Trump leading Ron DeSantis by 16 points, 55 percent to 39 percent, in a hypothetical one-on-one matchup. Mr. DeSantis won just 51 percent of the voters who didn’t back him or Mr. Trump, and I’d guess the tally is worse for him today, given the trend in the polls since then. I’d also guess it’s worse for Ms. Haley, who would need to win over relatively conservative DeSantis voters.Wrong tack for “wrong track”I’m frustrated with “right track-wrong track” polling — well, maybe more specifically, media coverage of it. It always seems to be presented as poor numbers reflecting badly on the president. But if I’m asked that question, I will say “wrong track” but because of the G.O.P. threat to democracy. Any way to fix that? — Jack CowanTo be honest, Jack, I’ve never been a big fan of the question and we don’t always ask it. That said, I do think it has its place: It’s useful to have a longstanding rough proxy for the national mood, even if it doesn’t yield any insight into the “why.” For that, we have other questions.What are they conserving?The term “conservatives” used to have a specific political meaning. But today what are they conserving? I believe the media needs to adopt more accurate terms to call them, such as right wing populists, or right wing ideologues, or right wing radicals. What they are practicing is no longer true conservatism. Am I wrong? Thank you. — Don NationsI don’t think I agree that “conservative” has always had a consistent, specific and clear political meaning. “Liberal” and “progressive” haven’t had consistent, specific and clear political meanings either.And at least to my mind, today’s conservatives are still true to the most basic definition: a political ideology aimed at conserving a traditional way of life — customs, culture, ideas, institutions, hierarchies, values, beliefs and more.Clearly, some conservatives today see tension between preserving certain traditional institutions — like a democratic republic, which risks empowering those opposed to conservatives — and other conservative aims. But this is not exactly unprecedented in the conservative tradition: Beyond “radical” or “populist” that you offered, terms like reactionary or counterrevolutionary have also been used to describe conservatives who aren’t so conservative in defense of some long-established values.But are they enthusiastic about Trump?Do the polls reflect an increasing popularity for Trump among the young, Black or Hispanic voter sets?I hear a great deal about disaffection toward Biden. But does that mean they are happy or enthusiastic about Trump? — Bryan WatsonIt does not mean they’re happy or enthusiastic about Mr. Trump. In fact, most of the voters who backed President Biden in 2020, but have backed Mr. Trump in recent New York Times/Siena College polling, do not have a favorable view of Mr. Trump at all. They’re also far less likely to say they’ll actually vote, or to have a record of doing so in the past.Who else is out there?Are there any polls that show a Democrat who could beat Trump? Gavin Newsom? — Michele SayreWell, “could” is a pretty loose term! President Biden could beat Mr. Trump, you know. There’s even a perfectly reasonable case he’s still the favorite, despite trailing in polling today.But the polls don’t show any other Democrats beating Mr. Trump, at least outside of their home states. In fairness to them, they’re not especially well known — and, relatively speaking, neither is Mr. Newsom.Hello? Cellphones?If this poll is using the tired old method of calling landline phone numbers, forget it.Especially for young, Black and Hispanic voters, if the pollsters are not using cellphone contacts, they aren’t reaching those voters. None of them has a landline anymore!And, in fact, in my age group (over 65), half or more of the ones I know no longer have a landline. — Robin C. KennedyThe Times/Siena poll is not using the tired old method of calling landline phone numbers. At this point, more than 90 percent of our respondents are reached on their cellphones, and more than 99 percent of our young respondents are reached by cellphone.Taylor Swift effect?I know very little about this person except she’s exceedingly popular with young people and encourages them to vote, apparently Democratic. Could this affect the elections in ’24? If so, is there such a precedent? — Jerry FrankelMy first instinct was to say, “No, of course not,” but …I did not expect her Eras Tour to be the tour of the century, so I’m not sure I’m the best judge of the power of her appeal — which has clearly proven to be extraordinary. I’m not sure her 40-16 favorability rating in a recent NBC/WSJ poll quite does justice her appeal, either.So I asked someone in my household who is far more knowledgeable on the matter whether Ms. Swift could be important in the election and she said: “I think she could. I think she has a ton of power.”Now, even if she does make a difference, it would only be at the margin (right?). But if she did make a marginal difference, it wouldn’t be entirely without precedent. If you have a long memory, you might remember that Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement really might have decided the 2008 Democratic primary in Barack Obama’s favor, though I don’t think a T-Swift endorsement of Mr. Biden would be nearly as symbolic or surprising, given her previous support for Democratic candidates.What are the shares by party?What’s the latest data on the breakdown of Republicans, independents and Democrats? Thanks. — Liz GeorgesIn our last poll, Democrats, Republicans and independents each represented 30 percent of the electorate. I can’t remember getting a clean, 30-30-30 break before (7 percent weren’t sure and 3 percent identified with another party). I thought there was something kind of elegant about it. More