Conservatism (US Politics)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Mixes Grievance Politics With Bread-and-Butter G.O.P. Issues

      by

      Though the former president often draws attention for his more extreme policy proposals and rhetoric, a set of core conservative issues appear to resonate even more with his supporters.Former President Donald J. Trump has consistently generated headlines on the campaign trail for his apocalyptic, often violent rhetoric and for extreme policy proposals that would reshape long-held norms of American government.They include his vow to use the Justice Department to prosecute his foes, his statement that he would be a dictator but only on the first day of his presidency and his use of language echoing authoritarian leaders.But those comments are wrapped around more traditional political statements. A significant portion of Mr. Trump’s stump speech focuses on core conservative issues that are the bread and butter of Republican politics.Though they draw less media attention, his statements on those issues, which often push the edge of truth, appear to resonate more with his audiences. Here are some of Mr. Trump’s biggest applause lines from a speech in Reno, Nev., on Sunday, many of which have been fixtures of his appeals to voters throughout his campaign.Law and orderIn his 2024 bid, Mr. Trump is building on two safety-related messages from his previous campaigns, when he stoked fear about urban crime in Democratic-run cities and staked out a hard-line position on immigration, in part by using anti-immigrant rhetoric to paint migrants as criminals.“On my first day back in the White House, I will terminate every ‘open borders’ policy of the Biden administration.”Since leaving the White House, Mr. Trump has consistently attacked President Biden’s record on immigration, criticizing him as doing little to deter the record number of migrants crossing the border. This proposal is one of several in which Mr. Trump promises to restore and strengthen his previous immigration policies, which were hugely popular with his supporters. Mr. Biden has recently signaled a willingness to enact new restrictions on migration.“As soon as we win the election, the momentum of our great victory will immediately begin stopping the hordes of illegal-alien migrants who are charging across our border by the hundreds of thousands.”Underlying this line is Mr. Trump’s oft-repeated notion that Mr. Biden is a weak leader who has made America’s adversaries see the country as vulnerable. With statements like these, Mr. Trump suggests that he projects such an image of strength that his election alone — which he presents as an inevitability — will deter migrants from illegally crossing the border.“Safety will again be restored so that children can go outside with their parents — mother and father — and play in the park without being beat up, molested or shot.”Mr. Trump presents a dark, often dystopian, vision of an America that is ravaged by crime, building on his message in 2020 that the nation’s cities were decaying. He is again trying to present himself as a “law-and-order” candidate, vaguely alluding to crime in cities led by Democrats, for which he blames progressive politicians, activists and policies. (Mr. Trump sometimes exaggerates crime statistics to make his point.)“Drill, baby, drill” has become a rallying cry for Mr. Trump.Max Whittaker for The New York TimesEnergy and the economyPocketbook concerns are central to Mr. Trump’s campaign this year. He has recently begun using the slogan “Better Off With Trump,” telling voters that the economy was better when he was president.“I will rapidly end crooked Joe Biden’s inflation nightmare, end his war on American energy, and we will drill, baby, drill.”“Drill, baby, drill,” a mantra during the 2008 presidential campaign, has become a rallying cry for Mr. Trump, who insists that America must be less reliant on imports of oil and gas. He presents greater domestic production of fossil fuels as a solution to rising energy prices that he blames chiefly for inflation in the United States. And he is critical of environmental restrictions imposed by the Biden administration that limit drilling for oil and gas.“They’re going to make all electric cars in our country, but not when I’m in there. I’ll end that the first day.”Mr. Trump draws roars of approvals when he talks about rolling back the Biden administration’s efforts to encourage Americans to transition to electric vehicles. (The administration does not have a federal electric vehicle mandate, as Mr. Trump often claims.)He often tailors his criticism to his audience. In Nevada, he suggested that initiative would hurt automobile union workers, a criticism he has made in other speeches. But when in Iowa, Mr. Trump deems electric vehicles a threat to ethanol, a fuel that is made from corn and other crops and that is a major factor in the state’s economy.Cultural battlesOften toward the end of his stump speech, Mr. Trump turns to a set of divisive social issues that have become rallying cries for the Republican Party.“On Day 1, I will sign a new executive order to cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, transgender insanity and other inappropriate racial, sexual or political content on our children.”These vows, which encapsulate a number of issues that fire up Mr. Trump’s conservative base, consistently elicit some of the loudest responses at his events. His views largely align with his 2024 rivals for the nomination. Republicans have hoped such “parental rights” issues could help them win over suburban voters in particular.“I will not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate or mask mandate.”Mr. Trump often played down the effectiveness of masks during the coronavirus pandemic. Even as his vaccine development program, Operation Warp Speed, spurred progress, the vaccines are deeply unpopular with his Republican base, and he has railed against requiring them as an affront to personal freedom.“I will keep men out of women’s sports.”This line effectively cements the belief by many conservatives that gender is fixed at birth and based on biological sex. After saying it, Mr. Trump will often marvel that politicians even have to talk about it, a way for him to ridicule L.G.B.T. rights activists. The sentence has been criticized as offensive by L.G.B.T. rights activists for misgendering transgender women athletes.Retribution and the excesses of the leftUnderlying Mr. Trump’s campaign speeches are two key grievances: his false claim that Democrats stole the 2020 election from him and his position that the four indictments against him are politically motivated. He draws on both as he condemns his opponents and suggests he would exact vengeance if elected.“Every time the radical-left Democrats, Marxists, communists and fascists indict me, I consider it a great badge of honor. Because I am being indicted for you.”Mr. Trump faces 91 total felony counts in four criminal cases. He devotes considerable time in his stump speech accusing Mr. Biden of masterminding all four. With this line, Mr. Trump positions himself as a kind of Christlike political martyr: a victim of corrupt political enemies who is absorbing their blows to spare his conservative supporters.“Our enemies want to take away my freedom because I will never let them take away your freedom.”Mr. Trump consistently portrays himself as the last bulwark defending American democracy from an onslaught of forces, among them the political left. With this sentence, he turns his legal woes into a collective problem. He often adds, “In the end, they’re not after me, they’re after you. I just happen to be standing in the way.” More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      There Wasn’t Much to Love About 2023

      by

      Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. This is our last conversation for the year, so let me first wish you and Dan a Merry Christmas.Gail: Thanks, Bret. And the best of course to you and Corinna and your kids.Bret: As much as I’ve loved our exchanges, I can’t say I’ve loved the year. From Donald Trump’s political resurrection, to Congress failing to come together to help Ukraine, to America’s premier university presidents being unable to say that calling for the genocide of Jews violates campus policies, to this latest ludicrous impeachment inquiry, to the clown show that made Kevin McCarthy speaker of the House and then the clown show that brought him down, to Vivek Ramaswamy merely opening his mouth, it feels like the year in which America slipped into terminal decline.Gail Collins: Hey, let’s go for something a little less drastic. I admit any year in which all the most positive stories seemed to involve Taylor Swift wasn’t exactly great for politics. But looking back I see some bright spots.Bret: I’m all ears.Gail: Even though people can’t wrap their heads around it, the economy’s really improved. Lots of jobs available. The unemployment rate is, gee, nearly the lowest since I was in grad school. Biden’s battle against global warming has been showing signs of progress. Electric car sales, for example, are up. Solar is energy booming.Bret: Much of it lining the pockets of Elon Musk, 2023’s third-biggest blowhard.Gail: Representative George Santos is gone — so deeply gone he’s joined Rudy Giuliani in the world of cameo video sales. And while it’s hard for America to find issues on which a strong majority can get together, I’ll bet one is the conviction that Vivek Ramaswamy is the most irritating presidential candidate in recent world history.Bret: Your point about the remarkable resilience of the American economy is a good one, and maybe it will even help Joe Biden politically as inflation finally cools off and interest rates start to fall. He’ll need that, since right now more than 60 percent of Americans disapprove of his handling of the economy.Biden might just get another political assist if the Supreme Court, in its supreme unwisdom, fails to overturn a lower court decision to sharply restrict the distribution of abortion pills, which will almost surely energize a lot of independent voters to stick with him. There’s a bitter sort of irony in thinking that the only thing that might save abortion rights in America for the long term is their restriction in the short term.Gail: The struggle over abortion rights is one of the most fascinating political stories of our era. It seems to be getting a very strong, very positive response from a wide swath of the public. Not just limited to liberals or Democrats.Bret: Even conservatives like me shudder to think of what happens in this country if we turn the clock back 60 years on reproductive rights.Gail: The most recent controversies are going to bring even more voters into the abortion-rights camp. We had the story of the Texas Supreme Court blocking an abortion for a young woman who wanted to have a baby, then learned the fetus she was carrying would almost certainly not survive — and that following through with the delivery might make it impossible for her to have children in the future. Hard to get a more sympathetic saga.Bret: Remarkable how people who claim to believe in the sanctity of life are willing to wreck lives to get what they want.Gail: And the abortion pills work so early in a pregnancy … opposition is pretty much limited to people with a religious conviction against ending pregnancy at all.I’m very sure a majority of the Supreme Court justices don’t want to have to deal with this issue. They’re conservative, but not totally crazy.Bret: Very sure? I can see John Roberts, the chief justice, and Neil Gorsuch, the most libertarian of the justices, joining the three liberals in overturning the appeals court. But it’s going to be uncomfortably close.Gail: Fingers crossed.Bret: Returning to my preferred tale of woe, Gail, homelessness in America just rose to its highest recorded rate. Levels of illegal immigration continued to rise this year to stratospheric levels, despite Biden’s repeated promises to get the border under control. Both problems contribute to a palpable sense that things are not under control. And I don’t quite understand why Democrats don’t want to move more aggressively on these fronts, since they are big liabilities for the party.You’re in charge of the Dems: What’s up with that?Gail: Hmmph. I clearly remember recently that when something strange was going on in the House, I mentioned that you were in charge of Republicans and you protested. So don’t stick all the Democrats on me.Bret: Turnabout is fair play!Gail: OK, we’re talking about two issues here. I blame much of the housing crisis on suburban zoning laws that make it hard to build a lot of affordable homes for working families. Not that it’s all that easy to get large apartment complexes for the non-rich built in cities, either.To really tackle housing on a national scale, we’d need new programs coming from Congress, where the Republican House majority is hard pressed to work efficiently enough to brew coffee.Bret: The question isn’t whether House Republicans can brew coffee, Gail. It’s about what the president knew about Hunter’s coffee brewing — and when he knew it.Gail: Oh please, let’s skip the nonissue of Hunter Biden today.Bret: About the coffee: I was kidding. About housing: I don’t pretend to be an expert, but my impression is that the homelessness crisis has a lot to do with the opioid, meth and mental-health crises. I’m all for easing zoning laws, but I doubt we’ll make much headway until we find a way to address our catastrophic drug and mental-health problems, which often reinforce each other. Reversing misbegotten efforts to decriminalize hard drugs in places like Oregon, as well as a terrible Ninth Circuit ruling that made it difficult for cities to enforce ordinances against public camping, would do some good.Gail: Too bad we’re not doing the negotiations. I can envision possible trade-offs.The border is definitely a huge problem, but the Republicans are just using it as an excuse not to do anything the Biden administration proposes on any issue. While there have been some modest administration reforms, really getting the border situation under control requires bipartisan agreement that these House Republicans will never, ever allow.Bret: I’ve always been in favor of comprehensive and liberal immigration reform, but we didn’t have this scale of crisis when any of Biden’s recent predecessors were in office. The problem started when the administration came to office determined to be the un-Trump — and doing so at precisely the moment when much of Latin America was falling apart. Biden then spent two years in denial about the crisis until Democratic mayors in cities like New York and the governor of Massachusetts started crying foul. And the solution, I’m afraid, is to effectively militarize the border until would-be migrants get the message that the only way into the United States is through legal channels.Gail: Have a feeling we’ll be arguing about this throughout 2024. Meantime, give me some thoughts on Republican presidential politics. (Not that you’re in charge of the Republicans or anything.)Bret: If only!Gail: Next time we converse, the Iowa Republican caucus will be right around the corner, followed by the New Hampshire primary.The only candidate who seems to have a sliver of a chance of embarrassing Trump is Nikki Haley. She’s been picking up steam in New Hampshire and some people think she might actually be able to win there if Chris Christie dropped out of the race. Think you could talk him into it?Bret: Well, hope springs eternal — or at least until Super Tuesday. If Christie dropped out of the race tomorrow and threw his political weight behind Haley, she might have a chance of edging out Ron DeSantis for second place in Iowa, behind Trump, which would at least give her a symbolic victory. Ditto for New Hampshire, where the combined Haley-Christie vote, according to polls, stands at about 32 percent compared with Trump’s 44 — almost a contest! But the biggest problem Haley faces is that while she would probably trounce Biden in a general election, it now looks like Trump will win, too, which defeats the argument among Republicans that the 45th president is unelectable as the 47th.Gail: Awful but electable, the Donald Trump story.Bret: In short, the only thing that can turn things around for Republicans is Biden stepping down. Which, as you’ve correctly been telling me these past months, ain’t likely to happen. How very, very depressing.Gail: Yeah, we’ve been wishing for ages that Biden would make the smart, generous move and announce he’s not running for re-election. Now, with the primaries right around the corner, it’s almost too late for him to change his mind anyway. Sigh.Bret: Gnash teeth. Beat breast. Wail.Gail: Well, the one thing I think we can count on is a non-boring new year. It’s true the Republican presidential primaries could be really dreary, but I refuse to believe that a man who’s under indictment for a jillion different offenses is just going to coast to victory.And we’ll have lots of House and Senate races to argue about. For instance, did you see that in Arizona — no, I’m gonna stop and hold that thought for the new year. This one’s been hard enough.Bret, one of my favorite things is waiting, every week, for you to end the conversation with some great piece of prose or poetry. Let’s have one more for the holidays.Bret: Well, the most delightful piece of prose that I’ve read in The Times in the last few days is Jonathan Kandell’s obituary for Sanche Charles Armand Gabriel de Gramont, better known in this country as the journalist Ted Morgan (an anagram for “de Gramont”). The son of a French aristocrat, Morgan chose to become an American, led a life of adventure as a soldier and journalist, and even won a Pulitzer Prize for local reporting when he covered the death of the opera baritone Leonard Warren, who died at the Met in 1960 while singing Verdi’s aria “Urna fatale del mio destino” — “the fatal urn of my destiny.”“There was an awesome moment as the singer fell,” Morgan reported. “The rest of the cast remained paralyzed. Finally someone in the capacity audience called out, ‘For God’s sake, bring down the curtain!’”And that’s my wish, Gail, for 2023.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

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      The Secret to Trump’s Success Isn’t Authoritarianism

      by

      If the presidential election were held today, Donald Trump could very well win it. Polling from several organizations shows him gaining ground on Joe Biden, winning five of six swing states and drawing the support of about 20 percent of Black and roughly 40 percent of Hispanic voters in those states.For some liberal observers, Mr. Trump’s resilience confirms that many Americans aren’t wedded to democracy and are tempted by extreme ideologies. Hillary Clinton has described Mr. Trump as a “threat” to democracy, and Mr. Biden has called him “one of the most racist presidents we’ve had in modern history.”In a different spirit, some on the right also take Mr. Trump’s success as a sign that Americans are open to more radical forms of politics. After Mr. Trump’s win in 2016, the Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin crowed that the American people had “started the revolution” against political liberalism itself. Richard Spencer declared himself and his fellow white nationalists “the new Trumpian vanguard.”But both sides consistently misread Mr. Trump’s success. He isn’t edging ahead of Mr. Biden in swing states because Americans are eager to submit to authoritarianism, and he isn’t attracting the backing of significant numbers of Black and Hispanic voters because they support white supremacy. His success is not a sign that America is prepared to embrace the ideas of the extreme right. Mr. Trump enjoys enduring support because he is perceived by many voters — often with good reason — as a pragmatic if unpredictable kind of moderate.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

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Florida Sex Scandal Shakes Moms for Liberty, as Group’s Influence Wanes

      by

      The conservative group led the charge on the Covid-era education battles. But scandals and losses are threatening its power.Moms for Liberty, a national right-wing advocacy group, was born in Florida as a response to Covid-19 school closures and mask mandates. But it quickly became just as well known for pushing policies branded as anti-L.G.B.T.Q. by opponents.So when one of its founders, Bridget Ziegler, recently told the police that she and her husband, who is under criminal investigation for sexual assault, had a consensual sexual encounter with another woman, the perceived disconnect between her public stances and private life fueled intense pressure for her to resign from the Sarasota County School Board.“Most of our community could not care less what you do in the privacy of your own home, but your hypocrisy takes center stage,” said Sally Sells, a Sarasota resident and the mother of a fifth-grader, told Ms. Ziegler during a tense school board meeting this week. Ms. Ziegler, whose husband has denied wrongdoing, said little and did not resign.Ms. Sells was one of dozens of speakers who criticized Ms. Ziegler — and Moms for Liberty — at the meeting, an outcry that underscored the group’s prominence in the most contentious debates of the pandemic era.Perhaps no group gained so much influence so quickly, transforming education issues from a sleepy political backwater to a rallying cry for Republican politicians. The organization quickly became a conservative powerhouse, a coveted endorsement and a mandatory stop on the G.O.P. presidential primary campaign trail.Yet, as Moms for Liberty reels from the scandal surrounding the Zieglers, the group’s power seems to be fading. Candidates endorsed by the group lost a series of key school board races in 2023. The losses have prompted questions about the future of education issues as an animating force in Republican politics.Donald J. Trump, the dominant front-runner for the party’s nomination, makes only passing reference in his stump speeches to preserving “parental rights” — the catchphrase of the group’s cause. Issues like school curriculums, transgender students’ rights and teaching about race were far less prominent in the three Republican primary debates than abortion rights, foreign policy and the economy. And the most prominent champion of conservative views on education — Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida — has yet to unite conservatives behind his struggling presidential bid.John Fredericks, a Trump ally in Virginia, said the causes that Moms for Liberty became most known for supporting — policies banning books it deemed pornographic, curtailing the teaching of L.G.B.T.Q. issues and policing how race is taught in schools — had fallen far from many voters’ top concerns.“You closed schools, and people were upset about that. Schools are open now,” he said. “The Moms for Liberty really have to aim their fire on math and science and reading, versus focusing on critical race theory and drag queen story hours.”He added: “It’s nonsense, all of it.”The two other founders of Moms for Liberty, Tina Descovich and Tiffany Justice, have distanced themselves from Ms. Ziegler, saying she has not been an officer in the national organization since early 2021. Ms. Ziegler did not respond to a request for comment.In a statement, Ms. Descovich and Ms. Justice dismissed criticism that the group was hypocritical. They argue that it is not opposed to racial justice or L.G.B.T.Q. rights, but that it wants to restore control to parents over their children’s education.“To our opponents who have spewed hateful vitriol over the last several days: We reject your attacks,” Ms. Descovich and Ms. Justice said. “We are laser-focused on fundamental parental rights, and that mission is and always will be bigger than one person.”Ms. Justice declined to answer questions about the continued influence of their organization or their electoral losses.Tina Descovich, left, and Tiffany Justice, the two other founders of Moms for Liberty, distanced themselves from Ms. Ziegler.Matt Rourke/Associated PressNearly 60 percent of the 198 school board candidates endorsed by Moms for Liberty in contested races across 10 states were defeated in 2023, according to an analysis by the website Ballotpedia, which tracks elections.The organization claims to operate 300 chapters in 48 states and to have about 130,000 members.Jon Valant, the director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, a left-leaning think tank, found in a recent study that the group had an outsize presence in battleground and liberal counties. Yet in those areas, the policies championed by Moms For Liberty are broadly unpopular.“The politics have flipped on the Moms for Liberty, and they’re turning more people to vote against them than for them,” Mr. Valant said.In November, the group announced that it had removed the chairwomen of two Kentucky chapters after they had posed in photos with members of the Proud Boys, a far-right group with a history of violence. That came several months after a chapter of Moms for Liberty in Indiana quoted Adolf Hitler in its inaugural newsletter. The year before, Ms. Ziegler publicly denied links to the Proud Boys after she had posed for a photo with a member of the group at her election night victory party.The episodes have transformed the group’s image and alienated it from the voters it once claimed to represent. The group was at one time particularly strong in the suburbs of Northern Virginia, where education issues helped spur Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, to victory in the 2021 governor’s race. (This year, Mr. Youngkin failed in his high-profile attempt at a Republican takeover of the Virginia Statehouse.)Anne Pogue Donohue, who ran for a school board seat in Loudoun County, Va., against a candidate endorsed by the group, said she saw a disconnect between the cause of Moms for Liberty and the current concerns of voters.On social media, Ms. Donohue, a former government lawyer and mother of two young children, faced a barrage of personal insults, death threats and accusations that she was trying to “groom” children to become transgender, she said. But during her in-person interactions with voters, she added, a vast majority of parents seemed more concerned with practical issues like math and reading scores, support for special education and expanding vocational and technical programs.Ms. Donohue won her seat by nearly seven percentage points.“There is a pushback now,” she said. “Moms for Liberty focuses heavily on culture-war-type issues, and I think most voters see that, to the extent that we have problems in our educational system that we have to fix, the focus on culture-war issues isn’t doing that.”One place where Moms for Liberty maintains a stronger hold is the state where the group has had perhaps the most influence: Florida.Since forming in 2020, the group has aligned itself with Mr. DeSantis, backing his parental-rights-in-education law that critics nicknamed “Don’t Say Gay.” The law prohibits classroom instruction on L.G.B.T.Q. topics.Mr. DeSantis then campaigned for conservative candidates for local school boards, turning nonpartisan races into ones heavily influenced by politics. Several school boards with newly conservative majorities ousted their superintendents.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has been aligned with Moms for Liberty, with the group backing his controversial parental-rights-in-education law.Rachel Mummey for The New York TimesIn Brevard County, the school board is now entirely conservative except for Jennifer Jenkins, whom Mr. DeSantis has already listed as someone he would like to help defeat in 2024.Ms. Jenkins, an outspoken Moms for Liberty critic who wrested Ms. Descovich’s school board seat from her in 2020, said the organization, while small, had remained a vocal fixture in school board meetings, with about 10 regulars who sometimes bring along people from Indian River and other nearby counties.“Their members are definitely more extreme than they ever were before,” said Ms. Jenkins, who has been a frequent target of the group. They have picketed outside her house, sent her threatening mail and, she said, taken photos of her in the grocery store as recently as a couple of weeks ago.On Tuesday, some Moms for Liberty members from Brevard and Indian River Counties attended a Brevard County School Board meeting to protest books that they say should be pulled from schools. Most of the books they named had already been formally challenged.Still, one by one, group members stood behind the lectern and read explicit scenes from the books until the board’s chairwoman — whom Moms for Liberty and Mr. DeSantis endorsed last year — warned them to stop.It was what the speakers wanted: Under a Florida law enacted this year, if a school board denies a parent the right to read passages deemed “pornographic,” then the school district “shall discontinue the use of the material.” In other words, cutting off the reading would effectively result in pulling the book from schools, board members said.“I highly encourage all of you to look at this statute,” Julie Bywater, a member of the Brevard County chapter of Moms for Liberty, told the school board.Such tactics have become typical for Moms for Liberty members. In response, opponents have started showing up to school board meetings in force, trying to counter the group’s message — including in Sarasota, where Ms. Ziegler’s critics turned out to try to push her out.The school board, which includes several conservatives who have aligned with Ms. Ziegler before, voted 4 to 1 on Tuesday for a nonbinding resolution urging her to resign; Ms. Ziegler was the only one on the board to vote against it. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Why Biden Should Make an Immigration Deal With Republicans

      by

      Over the last few months, the incredulous question — How can Donald Trump possibly be leading the polls; there must be some mistake — has given way to the clear reality: Something in American life would need to change for Joe Biden to be favored for re-election in November 2024.The good news for Biden is that it’s easy to imagine developments that would help his re-election bid. Notwithstanding a fashionable liberal despair about how bad vibes are deceiving Americans about the state of the economy, there’s plenty of room for improvements — in inflation-adjusted wages, interest rates, the stock market — that could sweeten the country’s economic mood. (Just sustaining the economic trajectory of the last few months through next summer would almost certainly boost Biden’s approval ratings.)The looming Trump trials, meanwhile, promise to refocus the country’s persuadable voters on what they dislike about the former president; that, too, has to be worth something in the swing states where Biden is currently struggling.In both those cases, though, the president doesn’t have much control over events. No major economic package is likely to pass Congress, and whatever influence you think his White House did or didn’t exert over Trump’s indictments, Biden staffers won’t be supervising jury selection.There is an issue that’s hurting Biden, however, where the Republican Party is (officially, at least) quite open to working with the president, provided that he’s willing to break with his own party’s interest groups: the security of the southern border, where Border Patrol apprehensions remain stubbornly high even as the president’s approval ratings on immigration sit about 30 points underwater.There is a commonplace interpretation of the immigration debate that treats the unpopularity of an uncontrolled border primarily as an optics problem: People are happy enough to have immigrants in their own communities, but they see border disorder on their television screens and it makes them fearful about government incompetence. Sometimes this interpretation comes packaged with the suggestion that the people who worry most about immigration are rural voters who rarely see a migrant in real life, as opposed to liberal urbanites who both experience and appreciate diversity.The last year or so of blue-city immigration anxiety has revealed the limits of this interpretation: Place enough stress on New York or Chicago, and you will get demands for immigration control in even the most liberal parts of the country.But really, there’s never been good reason to think that immigration anxiety only manifests itself telescopically, among people whose main exposure to the trend is alarmist Fox News chyrons.Consider a new paper from Ernesto Tiburcio and Kara Ross Camarena, respectively a Tufts University economics Ph.D and a Defense Department analyst, which uses Mexican-government ID data to track the flow of Mexican migrants into counties in the United States, and finds that exposure to immigrants increases conservatism among natives. As the migrant flow goes up, so does the vote for Republicans in House elections: “A mean inflow of migrants (0.4 percent of the county population) boosts the Republican Party vote share in midterm House elections by 3.9 percentage points.” And the inflow also shifts local policy rightward, reducing public spending and shifting money toward law enforcement as opposed to education.This suggests that a pro-immigration liberalism inevitably faces a balancing act: High rates of immigration make native voters more conservative, so a policy that’s too radically open is a good way to elect politicians who prefer the border closed.You can see this pattern in U.S. politics writ large. The foreign-born population in the United States climbed through the Obama presidency, to 44 million from 38 million, and as a share of the overall population it was nearing the highs of the late 19th and early 20th century — a fact that almost certainly helped Donald Trump ride anti-immigration sentiment to the Republican nomination and the presidency.Then under Trump there was some stabilization — the foreign-born population was about the same just before Covid-19 hit as it had been in 2016 — which probably help defuse the issue for Democrats, increase American sympathy for migrants, and make Biden’s victory possible. But since 2020 the numbers are rising sharply once again, and the estimated foreign-born share of the American population now exceeds the highs of the last great age of immigration. Which, again unsurprisingly, has pushed some number of Biden voters back toward Trump.Border control in an age of easy global movement is not a simple policy problem, even for conservative governments. But policy does matter, and while the measures that the White House is reportedly floating as potential concessions to Republicans — raising the standard for asylum claims, fast-tracking deportation procedures — aren’t quite a pledge to finish the border wall (maybe that’s next summer’s pivot), they should have some effect on the flow of migrants north.Which makes them a distinctive sort of policy concession: A “sacrifice” that this White House has every political reason to offer, because Biden’s re-election becomes more likely if Republicans accept.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

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Nikki Haley’s South Carolina Strategy Has a Donald Trump Problem

      by

      Ms. Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, has won tough races in her home state. But as she vies for the 2024 Republican nomination, her state and party look different.In 2016, as Donald J. Trump was romping to victory in her home state, Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina backed Senator Marco Rubio as the fresh face of a “new conservative movement that’s going to change the country.”Now, Ms. Haley insists, she is that new generational leader, but even in her own state, she is finding Mr. Trump still standing in her way. If she is to make a real play for the Republican presidential nomination, South Carolina is where Ms. Haley needs to prove that the party’s voters want to turn the page on the Trump era — and where she has predicted that she will face him one-on-one after strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire.“Then you’ll have me and Trump going into my home state of South Carolina — that’s how we win,” she told a crowd gathered inside a rustic banquet hall during a recent campaign stop in rural Wolfeboro, N.H.But Ms. Haley’s road to victory on her home turf will be steep. Ever since the state set Mr. Trump on a glide path to the G.O.P. nomination seven years ago, he has solidified a loyal base. The candidate who upended the state’s politics from outside the political system now has a tight hold on most of the Republican establishment, appearing recently with both Gov. Henry McMaster and Senator Lindsey Graham and boasting more than 80 endorsements from current and former officials across the state.“It is still clearly Trump’s party,” said Scott H. Huffmon, the director of the statewide Winthrop Poll, one of the few regular surveys of voter attitudes in the state. “That makes many Republican voters Trump supporters first. She has to remind them the party is bigger than one man.”Ms. Haley attempted to make that case on Wednesday on the national debate stage, where rivals intent on blunting her rise made her a target and put her on defense. She promised her approach would be different from Mr. Trump’s. “No drama, no vendettas, no whining,” she said. While Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has staked his bid on Iowa and former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey has gone all in on New Hampshire, Ms. Haley’s campaign officials say they have sought to spend equitable time and resources in all three early-voting states.Her campaign has its headquarters in Charleston, and is bolstered by what the campaign said was hundreds of volunteers. (The campaign declined to give specifics on staffing and volunteer efforts across all three states.)But Ms. Haley’s efforts have so far been less pronounced in South Carolina. She has spent 58 days campaigning almost evenly between Iowa and New Hampshire, but only 12 in her own backyard. Her campaign has not yet released a full list of endorsements within the state, though several key state legislators and donors are expected to back Ms. Haley in the coming days, according to her campaign. A $10 million advertising effort, more than $4 million of which has been reserved on television so far, is expected only in Iowa and New Hampshire.Ms. Haley’s campaign officials and allies argue she still has time to make up ground, even as Mr. Trump remains dominant nationwide and in all the early states, where surveys indicate he leads his nearest opponent by double digits. Former Vice President Mike Pence and Senator Tim Scott, a fellow South Carolinian, have dropped out of the race, which has helped Ms. Haley with money and momentum and tightened the fight with Mr. DeSantis for second place.At an energetic town-hall event last week in Bluffton, S.C., Katon Dawson, an adviser for the Haley campaign in South Carolina and a former chairman of the state Republican Party, pointed to the audience of more than 2,500 people — her largest crowd yet in her home state — and said the mailing lists generated from such events would help elevate her ground game.“When South Carolina jumps into focus, it’s going to jump in the gutter, and we’ll be ready for it,” Mr. Dawson said, suggesting he expected the attacks on Ms. Haley to become uglier closer to the January contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.Plenty of the attendees at the Bluffton event were former Trump supporters. Michelle Handfield, 80, a volunteer at a correctional institute, and her husband, John, 81, a retired photographer, said they had been some of Mr. Trump’s most enthusiastic admirers. Ms. Handfield, a former Democrat, said he was the first Republican she had ever voted for in 2016.Now, however, they were planning to vote for Ms. Haley for reasons similar to what the former South Carolina governor has articulated: “Chaos follows him.”“I think he was a great president, but they were after him from the beginning — the Democrats — and then he didn’t help by what he says and does,” Ms. Handfield said. “I really wish he had won a second term, but I think now he would do more harm for the country than good.”Former President Donald J. Trump has solidified a loyal base in South Carolina, appearing recently with Gov. Henry McMaster at a University of South Carolina football game.Chris Carlson/Associated PressStill, many of the state’s Republican primary voters remain ardent supporters of Mr. Trump, even as he has so far kept a light campaign schedule.“It is fascinating that we see all of these campaigns in the various stages of grief as President Trump continues to dominate the primary field,” said Alex Latcham, Mr. Trump’s early states director. “Right now, Haley is in the bargaining stage.”Ms. Haley’s political base in the state remains the same as it was when she was governor: the affluent — and more moderate — Republicans along the coast and in Charleston.But her grip on the Midlands, honed by her years in government, has loosened with time, and whatever support she had in the much more conservative Upstate around Greenville has dissipated sharply. To prevail, she must win back some of those conservatives and soften enthusiasm for Mr. Trump, all while fending off attacks from other opponents.On the debate stage Wednesday, Mr. DeSantis took aim at her conservative record as governor, saying he had signed a bill criminalizing transgender people for using bathrooms in public buildings that do not correspond to their sex at birth and argued she had not supported a similar measure. Ms. Haley countered that such legislation wasn’t necessary at the time, adding that she had not wanted to bring government into the issue. The South Carolina bill did not advance past its introduction in the State House.Last week, Mr. DeSantis also ripped into Ms. Haley as he campaigned in South Carolina. On Friday, he appeared with Tara Servatius, a popular radio broadcaster on the Greenville station WORD, who has been using her show for weeks to blast Ms. Haley as an untrustworthy moderate.“For the last 10 years, I have tried to get Nikki Haley to come answer unscripted questions,” Ms. Servatius said, to which Mr. DeSantis quipped, “Good luck with that.”Some Republican primary voters seem to be looking for a figure who embodies more drastic conservative change. Tim Branham, 73, of Columbia, could not recall much that Ms. Haley accomplished as governor. “In my opinion, the best thing you can say about Nikki was she’s a Republican,” he said.Still, Ms. Haley continues to pull in key endorsements along with a fresh wave of big-money donors looking for a Trump alternative, strengthening her finances as well as her field operations.Within a week of endorsing her campaign, Americans for Prosperity Action, the political network founded by the billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch, had already poured $3.5 million into hiring door knockers, placing digital ads and producing door hangers and media in Iowa and South Carolina, according to federal spending filings. Within a day of its announcement, Americans for Prosperity Action had more than 140 volunteers and staffers already out in nearly half of South Carolina’s 46 counties spreading her message.Kyle Kondik, an elections analyst at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said Ms. Haley’s appeal, which appears greater among college-educated Republicans who do not think of themselves as particularly religious, better positioned her for success among Republican primary voters in New Hampshire.But he added that a more telling test of how her message might fare among Republican primary voters in South Carolina would be Iowa and its largely white and Christian evangelical Republican base — a group that is closely aligned with Mr. Trump.“If Haley loses South Carolina, that very well may be curtains,” Mr. Kondik said.Shane Goldmacher More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Por qué un segundo mandato de Trump sería más radical

      by

      En la primavera de 1989, el Partido Comunista de China usó tanques y soldados para reprimir una protesta a favor de la democracia en la plaza de Tiananmén de Pekín. La mayor parte de Occidente, más allá de las líneas partidistas tradicionales, se horrorizó ante la represión que mató a cientos de estudiantes activistas. Pero un conocido estadounidense quedó impresionado.“Cuando los estudiantes se congregaron en la plaza de Tiananmén, el gobierno chino casi lo arruina”, dijo Donald Trump en una entrevista con la revista Playboy el año después de la masacre. “Después, se ensañaron, fueron horribles, pero los suprimieron con fuerza. Eso demuestra el poder de la fuerza. En este momento, nuestro país es percibido como débil”.Fue una frase sin importancia en una amplia entrevista, concedida a un periodista que escribía el perfil de un famoso hombre de negocios de 43 años que por entonces no era un actor en la política nacional ni en los asuntos mundiales. Pero a la luz de lo que Trump ha llegado a ser, su apología de la represión despiadada de los manifestantes democráticos está impregnada de presagios.La retórica violenta y autoritaria en la campaña hacia 2024 de Trump ha ocasionado una alarma creciente y comparaciones con dictadores fascistas de la historia así como con caudillos populistas contemporáneos. En semanas recientes ha deshumanizado a sus adversarios al llamarlos “plagas” que deben ser “erradicadas”, ha declarado que los inmigrantes “envenenan la sangre de nuestro país”, ha alentado disparar contra los ladrones e insinuado que el expresidente del Estado Mayor Conjunto, Mark Milley, merecía ser ejecutado por traición.Ahora que se postula de nuevo a la presidencia al tiempo que enfrenta cuatro procesos penales, Trump puede parecer más enfadado, desesperado y peligroso para la democracia al estilo estadounidense que en su primer mandato. Pero la línea directa que emerge es anterior: lleva décadas glorificando la violencia política y elogiando a los autócratas.Fani Willis, fiscala del condado de Fulton, Georgia, presentó una de las acusaciones a las que se enfrenta TrumpKenny Holston/The New York TimesComo candidato presidencial en julio de 2016, elogió al exdictador iraquí Sadam Huseín por haber sido “tan bueno” matando terroristas. Meses después de su investidura, dijo al líder autócrata de Filipinas, Rodrigo Duterte, que su brutal campaña de miles de ejecuciones extrajudiciales en nombre de la lucha contra las drogas era “un trabajo increíble”. Y a lo largo de sus cuatro años en el Despacho Oval, Trump traspasó los límites y violó las normas democráticas.Un segundo mandato de Trump sería distinto no tanto por su carácter sino por su entorno. Todas las fuerzas que en cierto modo contuvieron sus tendencias autócratas en su primera presidencia (miembros del personal que consideraban que su trabajo era a veces contenerlo, los pocos republicanos del Congreso dispuestos por momentos a criticarlo u oponerse a él, un equilibrio partidista en la Corte Suprema que a veces fallaba en su contra) serían más débiles.En consecuencia, los planes políticos y las ideas más extremas de Trump y sus asesores para un segundo mandato tendrían más posibilidades de hacerse realidad.Una agenda radicalSin duda, parte de lo que Trump y sus aliados están planeando está en línea con lo que un presidente republicano cualquiera podría hacer. Por ejemplo, es muy probable que Trump dé marcha atrás a muchas de las políticas del presidente Joe Biden diseñadas para frenar las emisiones de carbono y acelerar la transición a los vehículos eléctricos. Tal retroceso de varias normas y políticas debilitaría significativamente las protecciones al medioambiente, pero gran parte de los cambios reflejan el escepticismo conservador habitual y de larga data e torno las regulaciones medioambientales.Sin embargo, hay otros aspectos de la agenda de Trump que tienden a la aberración. Ningún otro presidente estadounidense había contemplado la posibilidad de retirarse de la OTAN, la alianza militar de Estados Unidos con las democracias occidentales. Trump dijo que reevaluaría a fondo “el propósito y la misión de la OTAN” en un segundo mandato.También dijo que le ordenaría al Ejército atacar a los cárteles de la droga en México, algo que violaría el derecho internacional a menos que el gobierno mexicano diera su consentimiento. Lo más probable es que no lo haga.Del mismo modo, afirmó que desplegaría al Ejército en el territorio estadounidense. Aunque en general es ilegal utilizar soldados para hacer cumplir las leyes nacionales, la Ley de Insurrección permite excepciones. Después de que algunas manifestaciones contra la violencia policial en 2020 se convirtieron en disturbios, Trump hizo redactar una orden para emplear tropas a fin de reprimir a los manifestantes en Washington, D. C., pero no la firmó. Este año, en un mitin en Iowa, dio a entender que tiene la intención de enviar unilateralmente tropas a ciudades gobernadas por demócratas para que se respete el orden público en general.“Miras a cualquier estado gobernado por demócratas, y simplemente no es lo mismo, no funciona”, dijo Trump a la multitud, llamando a ciudades como Nueva York, Chicago, Los Ángeles y San Francisco guaridas del crimen. “No podemos permitirlo por más tiempo. Y una de las otras cosas que voy a hacer —porque no se supone que uno participe en eso, solo puede solicitarlo el gobernador o el alcalde que uno vaya— la próxima vez, no voy a esperar”.Los planes de Trump de expulsar a los inmigrantes que se encuentran en el país de manera ilegal incluyen hacer redadas masivas, instalar enormes campos de detención, deportar a millones de personas al año, poner fin al asilo, acabar con la ciudadanía por derecho de nacimiento para los bebés nacidos en suelo estadounidense de padres que viven en el país ilegalmente e invocar la Ley de Insurrección cerca de la frontera sur para que los soldados también actúen como agentes de inmigración.Trump tiene planes radicales para hacer frente a los inmigrantes indocumentados.Verónica G. Cárdenas para The New York TimesTrump buscaría expandir las facultades presidenciales de muchas maneras, entre ellas al concentrar una mayor autoridad del poder ejecutivo en la Casa Blanca, acabar con la independencia de las agencias creadas por el Congreso para operar al margen del control presidencial y reducir las protecciones a la función pública para facilitar el despido y contratación de decenas de miles de empleados gubernamentales.Más que cualquier otra cosa, la promesa de Trump de utilizar el Departamento de Justicia para vengarse de sus adversarios es un franco desafío a los valores democráticos. Teniendo en cuenta cómo trató de conseguir que los fiscales persiguieran a sus enemigos cuando estaba en el cargo, pondría fin a la norma de independencia investigadora del control político de la Casa Blanca que surgió después de Watergate.En todos estos esfuerzos, Trump estaría respaldado en un segundo mandato por una infraestructura externa bien financiada. En 2016, los laboratorios de ideas conservadores eran bastiones del republicanismo al estilo de George W. Bush. Pero han surgido otros nuevos dirigidos por veteranos del gobierno de Trump, y la venerada Heritage Foundation se ha remodelado para mantenerse en sintonía con el trumpismo.Una coalición ha estado elaborando planes políticos al estilo de “Estados Unidos Primero” (America First) apodados Proyecto 2025. (La campaña de Trump ha expresado su aprecio, pero ha dicho que solo cuentan los planes anunciados por él o por su campaña). Mientras que algunas de las propuestas que se están desarrollando en esos lugares impulsarían los objetivos tradicionales de los megadonantes republicanos —como frenar las regulaciones a las empresas— otras están más en sintonía con los intereses personales de Trump.El Center for Renewing America, por ejemplo, ha publicado un documento titulado “El Departamento de Justicia de Estados Unidos no es independiente”. El documento fue escrito por Jeffrey Clark, a quien Trump casi nombró fiscal general en funciones para ayudar a su intento de subvertir las elecciones y quien enfrenta a cargos penales en Georgia en relación con ese esfuerzo.Cuando se le pidió un comentario al respecto, un vocero de Trump no entró en detalles, pero sí criticó a The New York Times y afirmó que Trump era “estricto con la delincuencia”.Protecciones debilitadasYa desde que se postuló en 2016, Trump incumplió las normas democráticas.Calificó de fraude su derrota en los caucus de Iowa sin tener pruebas e insinuó que solo consideraría legítimos los resultados de las elecciones generales si ganaba. Amenazó con encarcelar a Hillary Rodham Clinton, tachó de violadores a los inmigrantes mexicanos y prometió prohibir la entrada de los musulmanes a Estados Unidos. Se ofreció a pagarle abogados defensores a los simpatizantes que en sus mítines golpearan a manifestantes y azuzó el odio contra los periodistas que cubrían sus eventos.Ya en la presidencia, Trump se negó a dejar de lado sus negocios, y quienes querían congraciarse con él reservaban costosos bloques de habitaciones en sus hoteles. A pesar de la existencia de una ley contra el nepotismo, dio puestos en la Casa Blanca a su hija y a su yerno. Utilizó poderes de emergencia para destinar al muro fronterizo más fondos de los autorizados por el Congreso. Sus abogados propusieron indultar a su presidente de campaña, a quien Trump elogió por no “voltearse” cuando los fiscales intentaron (infructuosamente) que cooperara como testigo en la investigación sobre Rusia; Trump al final lo indultaría.La hija de Trump, Ivanka Trump, y su yerno, Jared Kushner, recibieron puestos en la Casa Blanca a pesar de una ley contra el nepotismoAl Drago para The New York TimesSin embargo, algunas de sus infracciones a las normas que podían ser más graves no se llegaron a realizar.Trump presionó al Departamento de Justicia para que procesara a sus adversarios. El Departamento de Justicia abrió varias investigaciones penales, desde la inspección al exsecretario de Estado John Kerry y el exdirector del FBI James Comey, hasta el intento de un fiscal especial, John Durham, por encontrar fundamentos para acusar a funcionarios de seguridad nacional de la era de Barack Obama, o a Hillary Clinton de delitos relacionados con los orígenes de la investigación sobre Rusia. Pero, para enojo de Trump, los fiscales decidieron no presentar tales cargos.Y fueron infructuosas las acciones que motivaron que se le realizaran juicios políticos. Trump intentó coaccionar a Ucrania para que abriera una investigación penal contra Biden al retener ayuda militar, pero no funcionó. También trató de revertir su derrota electoral en 2020 y alentó el ataque al Capitolio, pero el vicepresidente Mike Pence y las mayorías del Congreso rechazaron su intento de mantenerse en el poder.Existen motivos para creer que varios obstáculos y baluartes que limitaron a Trump en su primer mandato estarían ausentes en un segundo.Parte de lo que Trump intentó hacer se vio frustrado por la incompetencia y la disfunción de su equipo inicial. Pero a lo largo de cuatro años, quienes se quedaron con él aprendieron a ejercer el poder con mayor eficacia. Por ejemplo, después de que los tribunales bloquearon su primera prohibición de ingreso a ciertos viajeros internacionales, que se había elaborado de manera descuidada, su equipo desarrolló una versión que la Corte Suprema permitió que entrara en vigor.Los nombramientos que realizó durante cuatro años crearon una supermayoría republicana atrincherada en la Corte Suprema que con toda seguridad ahora se pondría de su lado en algunos casos que perdió, como la decisión de 5 contra 4 votos que en junio de 2020 le impidió poner fin a un programa que protege de la deportación a ciertas personas que viven ilegalmente en el país y que fueron traídas de niños y crecieron como estadounidenses.Los republicanos del Congreso fueron a menudo sus socios y facilitadores, colaborando con él para ratificar jueces y recortar impuestos a las empresas, al tiempo que ejercían una escasa supervisión. Pero algunos republicanos clave del Congreso denunciaron ocasionalmente su retórica o frenaron sus propuestas más perturbadoras.En 2017, el entonces senador Bob Corker reprendió a Trump por hacer amenazas imprudentes a Corea del Norte en Twitter, y el entonces senador John McCain proporcionó el voto decisivo contra la presión de Trump para rescindir, sin un plan de reemplazo, una ley que hace que la cobertura de seguro de salud esté ampliamente disponible.Es probable que los republicanos en el Congreso sean aún más flexibles en un segundo mandato de Trump. El partido se ha acostumbrado más e incluso se ha entusiasmado con la voluntad de Trump de pasarse de la raya. Y Trump ha desgastado, superado, intimidado hasta la sumisión o expulsado a destacados legisladores republicanos que tienen una posición independiente y han demostrado una disposición ocasional de oponerse a él.McCain, que fue el candidato presidencial del Partido Republicano en 2008, murió en 2018. La excongresista Liz Cheney, que votó a favor de la destitución de Trump por incitar a los disturbios del 6 de enero de 2021 y ayudó a dirigir el comité que investigó esos acontecimientos, perdió su escaño ante un aspirante favorable a Trump. El senador Mitt Romney, candidato presidencial republicano en 2012 y único senador del Partido Republicano que votó a favor de la condena de Trump en su primer juicio político, se está jubilando.La congresista Liz Cheney, en el centro a la derecha, ayudó a dirigir la investigación del ataque del 6 de enero de 2021 en el Capitolio y más tarde perdió en las primarias contra un candidato favorable a Trump.Doug Mills/The New York TimesEl miedo a la violencia de los partidarios de Trump también refuerza el control. En libros recientes, tanto Romney como Cheney escribieron que algunos colegas republicanos, a quienes no nombraron, les dijeron que querían votar contra Trump en los procedimientos de destitución relacionados con el 6 de enero, pero que no lo hicieron por temor a su seguridad y la de sus familias.El personal hace políticasQuizá el contrapeso más importante a la presidencia de Trump fue la resistencia interna de su gobierno a algunas de sus demandas más extremas. Una seguidilla de personas a las que nombró en altos cargos y despidió ha advertido desde entonces que no está capacitado para ser presidente, entre ellos John Kelly, quien fungió como jefe de personal de la Casa Blanca; los exsecretarios de Defensa Jim Mattis y Mark Esper; el exasesor de seguridad nacional John Bolton, así como el exfiscal general William Barr, entre otros.Por su parte, Trump ha calificado a todos ellos de débiles, estúpidos y desleales. En privado, ha dicho a sus allegados que sus mayores errores tuvieron que ver con las personas que nombró, en particular a su elegido para fiscal general. Los asesores que se han quedado con él están decididos a que, si gana un nuevo mandato, no habrá funcionarios que obstaculicen su agenda de manera intencional.Además de elaborar documentos de formulación de políticas, la coalición de laboratorios de ideas dirigidos por personas afines a Trump también recopiló una base de datos de miles de posibles reclutas que ya cuentan con el visto bueno para formar parte del equipo de transición en caso de que Trump gane las elecciones. Quienes fueron altos funcionarios del gobierno de Trump realizan esfuerzos similares para prepararse a fin de abastecer al gobierno de abogados que podrían encontrar maneras de lograr que se aprueben las ideas radicales de la Casa Blanca en lugar de plantear objeciones legales.Estos esfuerzos de dotación de personal estarían fundamentados en un cambio ocurrido en su último año como presidente. En 2020, Trump sustituyó a asesores que habían intentado controlarlo e instaló a un joven ayudante, John McEntee, para eliminar a otros funcionarios considerados poco leales.Dependiendo de las elecciones al Senado, la confirmación de nominados particularmente polémicos para puestos importantes podría ser un desafío. Pero otra violación de las normas que Trump fue desarrollando gradualmente fue hacer un uso agresivo de su poder para cubrir temporalmente vacantes con jefes “en funciones” para puestos que se supone que deben someterse a la confirmación del Senado.En 2020, por ejemplo, Trump nombró a Richard Grenell —un combativo aliado de Trump y exembajador en Alemania— como director interino de inteligencia nacional. Dos líderes de inteligencia anteriores de la era Trump habían enojado al presidente al defender una evaluación de que Rusia había intentado encubiertamente ayudar a su campaña de 2016 y al informar a los líderes demócratas que lo estaba haciendo de nuevo en 2020. Grenell, en cambio, se ganó los elogios de Trump al utilizar el puesto para desclasificar materiales sensibles que los republicanos utilizaron para caracterizar la investigación de Rusia como sospechosa.Richard Grenell fue uno de los jefes en funciones nombrados por Trump para puestos que deben pasar por la confirmación del Senado. Se convirtió en director en funciones de la inteligencia nacional.Pete Marovich para The New York TimesDespués de que Trump dejó el cargo, hubo muchas propuestas para codificar en leyes las normas democráticas que había infringido. Entre las ideas propuestas estaban imponer límites más estrictos al uso de los poderes presidenciales de emergencia, exigir la divulgación de sus declaraciones de impuestos, dar fuerza a la prohibición constitucional a recibir pagos externos y dificultar el abuso al poder de indulto y su autoridad sobre los fiscales.En diciembre de 2021, cuando los demócratas aún controlaban la Cámara de Representantes, esta aprobó muchas de estas propuestas como la Ley de Protección de Nuestra Democracia. Todos los republicanos menos uno —el entonces representante Adam Kinzinger, que se jubilaba tras haber votado a favor de la destitución de Trump después de los disturbios del 6 de enero— votaron en contra del proyecto de ley, que fracasó en el Senado.El debate en la Cámara se desarrolló en gran medida sobre una premisa que reducía su urgencia: Trump ya no estaba. Los demócratas abogaron por considerar que las reformas se referían a futuros presidentes, mientras que los republicanos las rechazaron como un golpe innecesario a Trump.“Donald Trump —por desgracia— ya no es presidente”, dijo el representante Rick Crawford, republicano por Arkansas. “Es hora de dejar de vivir en el pasado”.Charlie Savage escribe sobre seguridad nacional y política legal. Ganador del premio Pulitzer por sus reportajes sobre el poder presidencial, es también autor de los libros Takeover y Power Wars. Más de Charlie SavageJonathan Swan es periodista de política que cubre las elecciones presidenciales de 2024 y la campaña de Donald Trump. Más de Jonathan SwanMaggie Haberman es corresponsal política sénior y autora de Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America. Formó parte del equipo que ganó un premio Pulitzer en 2018 por informar sobre los asesores del presidente Trump y sus conexiones con Rusia. Más de Maggie Haberman More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      There Are Politicians Who Lie More Than Is Strictly Necessary

      by

      Gail Collins: Bret, this may sound a bit strange, but I’ve decided to be grateful for all the political debates going on around us. While the real world can get kinda depressing, the debate world is always ready to just chatter away.I want to hear your predictions on the Republican set-to coming this week. But first, did you watch the governors go at it? Gavin Newsom versus Ron DeSantis? What did you think?Bret Stephens: The idea for the governors’ debate was first mooted when it looked like DeSantis could be the Republican presidential nominee. Now he seems slightly less relevant than the moderator, Sean Hannity, as well as slightly more obnoxious. Which is … saying something.But I still think DeSantis got the better of Newsom on the substance of their arguments. What did you think?Gail: Thought DeSantis won in the sense that he sounded somewhat less dim than many of us expected.Bret: I never thought of DeSantis as a dummy. Just a jerk.Gail: Although having Sean Hannity continually tossing him softball questions helped.Bret: True.Gail: Newsom was quicker, and his answers were smarter. As to which state works better, Californians do have to spend a lot to live there, when it comes to housing, food, gas, etc., but Florida ranks 14th on those basics and that’s a whole lot closer to the top than DeSantis seemed to be claiming.Florida’s taxes are lower but way more regressive — heavy on sales and property taxes that burden the middle and working classes with very little of the social services California dedicates to the poor.Bret: Since Newsom became governor in 2019, roughly 2.3 million Californians have left the state, but fewer than 1.4 million have arrived, a net loss of close to a million people. This is a phrase that gets tossed around a lot, but in this case it’s literally true: People are voting with their feet. And they are going to red states like Florida and Texas, in part because California ranks last in the country in terms of affordability, violent crime rates are way above the national average and the state has the largest homeless population in the country.I’m no fan of DeSantis when it comes to his views about abortion or his petty battles with Disney. But as blue states go, the Golden State ain’t exactly a role model for Democratic governance.Gail: One thing I was thinking while watching the two of them have at it was that the whole scene was a good promotion for your version of conservatism. Whenever the conversation turned to social issues like abortion, DeSantis was toast. When the questions were about public spending, Newsom had to work a whole lot harder.Bret: It would have been better to have a Democrat from a purple state, like Kentucky’s Andy Beshear or North Carolina’s Roy Cooper, provide the Democratic counter to DeSantis’s extremism.Gail: Well, I’ll bet a whole bunch of other governors are out there waving their arms to volunteer if Fox News wants to go down this road again.Bret: I hope someone smart and sane like Chris Wallace can moderate the next one. And speaking of smart and sane, we lost Sandra Day O’Connor last week. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was often treated like a feminist saint, but as a pioneer for women and a legal powerhouse, O’Connor deserves more of the accolades.Gail: Super happy to applaud Sandra Day O’Connor, but Bret, I think she’d prefer if you celebrate her without dissing another female pioneer.Bret: Sorry, that came out wrong. Point taken.Gail: One of my favorite O’Connor stories was when William French Smith, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general at the time, called to interview her for the Supreme Court post. She cheerfully reminded him that she’d applied to his law firm when she graduated from Stanford Law, and the only job she was offered was secretary.O’Connor then served Smith and her other visitors a salmon mousse she prepared and answered all their questions brilliantly without mentioning that she was recovering from a hysterectomy at the time they dropped by.Bret: I’ll raise a toast to both O’Connor and Ginsburg for helping ensure that my daughters’ generation won’t have to put up with much of the sexism my mother’s generation had to suffer.Gail: Amen!Bret: And, more specifically to O’Connor, to salute her for helping save abortion rights for a generation with her vote in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, as well as for her impassioned and correct dissent in Kelo v. New London, in which she denounced the use of eminent domain to suit the needs of private developers over poorer private homeowners. She was a conservative who could speak up for the vulnerable. Also, a good reminder that it was a conservative president, Reagan, who nominated her to the court. History will remember them both well.Another historic figure we lost last week was Henry Kissinger. I’m guessing you weren’t a big fan?Gail: Well, Bret, I was a student during the Vietnam War era, and I can’t say I was ever a fan. I realize Kissinger’s approach to the war was much more complicated than we gave him credit for at the time. But still not feeling any compulsion to mourn.Bret: I knew Kissinger personally and once had a spectacularly, almost hilariously, unfriendly interview with him on the subject of China, in which he refused to answer most of my questions. I also disagreed with him about many things, though my criticisms were from the right, not the left. Arms control deals with the Kremlin, for instance, were always a mistake, since the Soviets could never be trusted to keep their word.Yet I couldn’t help but admire him. His books, especially “Diplomacy,” are guideposts for my thinking about foreign policy. He came to this country as a refugee, served it as a soldier, rose to the pinnacle of influence and had a concept about husbanding American power through what he called our “disastrous oscillations between overcommitment and isolation.” I think it’s better to learn from him than just to castigate him.Gail: Almost always a smart approach.Bret: Let’s talk about someone less controversial. How about Elon Musk telling the companies that won’t advertise on Twitter — sorry, X — to, er, go do something or other with themselves?Gail: Never claimed to be an expert on any twittery issues, but I do have a strong impression that Musk is one of those guys who had one great moment, capitalism-and-market-wise. But it turned out that was absolutely all he had, and once he took his billions down other paths, it was a disaster.Sorta scary he’s one of the richest guys on the planet. Your thoughts?Bret: I once called Musk “the Donald Trump of Silicon Valley,” because I thought he was basically a BS artist making a living off misdirected government subsidies for electric vehicles. That was unfair, especially considering the achievements of Tesla and SpaceX. He’s more like the Howard Hughes of Boca Chica — a technological and entrepreneurial visionary whose increasingly self-destructive behavior suggests he should probably lay off the drugs or whatever else he’s on.And then there’s his efforts to meddle in foreign policy and his endorsement of antisemitic conspiracy theories — which may make him more comparable to Henry Ford. Maybe I’ve been too soft on opinionated billionaires.Gail: Yeah, maybe what we need to do more of this holiday season is forget about Musk and Take a Lonely Billionaire Out to Lunch.Bret: Unless you’d prefer to take lonely George Santos out to lunch.Gail: Think anybody would give us a reservation? Can’t remember when a politician collected so many enemies for stuff that stupid. He’s going to spend the rest of his life known as the Campaign Contributions for Botox guy.Bret: Or as the Politician Who Lied More Than Is Strictly Necessary.Gail: Onward and upward. Bret, I promised we’d come back to this, so here goes: There’s another Republican debate coming up on Wednesday night. Might only be three people in it — your fave Nikki Haley, our friend DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy the, um, entrepreneur.I’m hoping Chris Christie might somehow manage to qualify. If we have to watch a quarreling batch of Republicans who will not get the presidential nomination, I’d at least like it to be diverting.Any predictions?Bret: Gary Lineker once described soccer as a game in which “22 men chase a ball for 90 minutes and at the end, the Germans win.” That feels a bit like this Republican debate: Three or four adults chase the political football across the stage and at the end, Trump wins.I hope I’m wrong. But with Trump’s primary lead looking increasingly insurmountable, isn’t it time for you Democrats to, uh, panic?Gail: Joe Biden is the inevitable nominee, if he wants to run for another four years. No way you can dump a guy who’s done a really good overall job as president, who has a fine character and no scandals more pressing than the thing with his son, which many American voters find totally boring.Of course, we want someone younger than 81, but there’s no non-insulting way to rip the nomination away from him. And he’ll almost certainly be running against Trump, who we note every single week is almost as old and in way worse shape. And while Biden is certainly given to garbling his messages, he seldom comes up with total misstatements and lies.Plus we’re going to have a campaign in which one of the candidates is facing more felony indictments than most of America’s Most Wanted. Call me sad, but not panicked.Bret: Gail? I’m panicked.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