Crime and Criminals

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Will Abortion Turn Tide for Democrats in House Fight for NY Suburbs?

      by

      ROCKVILLE CENTRE, N.Y. — A year ago, Republicans staged an uprising in the Long Island suburbs, winning a slew of races by zeroing in on public safety and suggesting that Democrats had allowed violent crime to fester.Now, with the midterms approaching, Democratic leaders are hoping that their own singular message, focused on abortion, might have a similar effect.“Young ladies, your rights are on the line,” Laura Gillen, a Democrat running for Congress in Nassau County, said to two young women commuting toward the city on a recent weekday morning. “Please vote!”Long Island has emerged as an unlikely battleground in the bitter fight for control of the House of Representatives, with both Democrats and Republicans gearing up to pour large sums of money into the contests here.Nassau and Suffolk Counties, where nearly three million New Yorkers live, have become a powerful testing ground for the main campaign themes of each party, with Democrats hoping that their renewed focus on abortion rights — following the recent Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade — will help them retain control of the House.The New York City suburbs are at a rare political crossroads: Three of the four House seats that encompass most of Long Island are open this year after their incumbents retired or stepped aside to seek higher political office, offering both parties a unique, regionally concentrated opportunity to send new faces to Congress.The two districts that are mostly situated in Nassau County, just east of Queens, are held by Democrats, while the two districts concentrated on the eastern stretch of the island in Suffolk County are held by Republicans. Both parties are vying to gain one, if not, two seats.That prospect has injected a sense of urgency and uncertainty into the races on Long Island, once a Republican stronghold that has turned more Democratic and diverse in recent decades, becoming the type of suburban swing area that could determine control of the House in November.Republicans have almost exclusively focused on blaming Democrats for rising prices as well as on public safety: They have amplified concerns about the state’s contentious bail laws and crime in nearby New York City, where many Long Islanders commute for work.“Many Democrats feel like that they don’t have a party anymore because it’s gone so far to the left,” said Anthony D’Esposito, a former New York City police detective and local councilman running against Ms. Gillen, the former Town of Hempstead supervisor who lost her seat in 2019. He suggested that police officers, firefighters and emergency medical workers who live in Nassau County but work in the five boroughs are alarmed by crime in the city.Anthony D’Esposito, a former New York City police detective, is trying to flip a Democratic seat being vacated by Kathleen Rice.Johnny Milano for The New York TimesMr. D’Esposito and Ms. Gillen are running in a tight race to replace Representative Kathleen Rice, a Democrat who announced in February that she would not run for re-election in the Fourth District in central and southern Nassau, which she has represented since 2015.“The Dobbs decision was a wake-up call that elections have consequences,” Ms. Rice said in an interview. “But for people on Long Island, they don’t want to just hear about that. They want to hear about how we’re going to get inflation under control and public safety,” she said, adding both were politically thorny issues for Democrats in New York.Republicans are looking to replicate their success from 2021, when the party used visceral ads of assaults and break-ins to help capture a slew of races across Long Island. They ousted Laura Curran, the Democratic Nassau County executive, in November, and won control of the Nassau district attorney’s office despite running a first-time candidate against a well-known Democratic state senator.Democratic operatives are quick to caution that 2021 was an off-year election, when Republicans typically are more successful in getting voters to the polls. Indeed, there are more Democrats than Republicans registered to vote in the district, and political analysts have forecast it as more favorable for Democrats.Still, almost a quarter of voters are unaffiliated with either party. Some high-ranking Democrats have privately raised concerns that the contest is being overlooked by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which did not include it in its national “Red to Blue” slate of competitive races, a designation that provides field work and helps attract financial support from national donors.Interviews this month with more than a dozen voters in Nassau County showed that public safety, inflation and immigration remained animating issues among Republicans and swing voters who typically play an outsize role in elections here..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Joe O’Connor, a 75-year-old Vietnam veteran from Freeport on Long Island’s South Shore, is not registered with either party. He voted against Mr. Trump in 2020 but said he was still unsure how he would vote in November, noting that chief among his concerns were education, homelessness and safety in New York City.“New York has come back great, and I’m really happy with that,” said Mr. O’Connor, a former teacher who frequently visits museums and Broadway shows in the city. “But it’s got to be cleaned up, and it’s got to be safe for people.”Democrats, for their part, have homed in on abortion rights and the threat to democracy as central campaign themes, hopeful that the recent legal setbacks that have thrust former President Donald J. Trump back into the news will also boost their chances in a state where Mr. Trump remains deeply unpopular.Delis Ortiz, 20, who said she would vote for her first time in November, said that while her top concern was keeping up with rising grocery prices, she would most likely vote Democratic in part because of the party’s stance on abortion rights.“I believe that every person has a right to their own body,” said Ms. Ortiz, a barista at an upscale coffee shop in Garden City. “Nobody should have that power over anyone else, ever.”Those themes are playing out visibly in the competitive race to replace Representative Thomas R. Suozzi, a centrist Democrat who has represented the Third District, in northern parts of Nassau County and parts of eastern Queens, since 2017 but decided not to run for re-election to pursue an unsuccessful run for governor this year.Robert Zimmerman, a small-business owner and well-known Democratic activist, has repeatedly sought to cast his Republican opponent, George Santos, as too extreme to represent the district, highlighting Mr. Santos’s apparent support of abortion bans and his attendance at the pro-Trump rally in Washington on Jan. 6.Robert Zimmerman, a Democrat, is facing George Santos, a Republican, in a contest to fill an open seat vacated by Representative Thomas Suozzi.Johnny Milano for The New York Times“Long Island can very well determine who has the majority in Congress,” Mr. Zimmerman said over coffee at a diner in Great Neck this month. “And frankly, George Santos represents the greatest threat to our democracy of any candidate running for Congress in New York State. I really can’t underscore that enough.”In a statement, Charley Lovett, Mr. Santos’s campaign manager, accused Mr. Zimmerman of trying to “distract voters from the disasters that Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi’s policies have caused with Robert Zimmerman’s full support.”Their matchup also has history-making potential: The race appears to be the first time that two openly gay candidates for Congress have faced off in a general election.The governor’s election could also play a role in some House races on Long Island, which has emerged as a key battleground in the race between Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, and her Republican opponent, Representative Lee Zeldin, who has represented most of Suffolk County in Congress since 2015.Ms. Hochul has held a significant lead in most public polls, and she held a narrow five-point lead in the New York City suburbs in a Siena College poll released on Wednesday. Even so, Republicans are hoping Mr. Zeldin’s support on Long Island could help drive its voters to the polls, buoying the party’s House candidates, though Democrats are betting that their barrage of attack ads portraying Mr. Zeldin as a right-wing extremist will help the party animate Democrats and swing more moderate voters in their favor.Mr. Zeldin’s entry into the governor’s race paved the way for Democrats to try and flip his now-open congressional seat in the First District on the eastern end of the island, one of the few Republican-held seats in the country that is open and considered competitive. But Democrats face an uphill battle: The seat is projected to slightly favor Republicans, who have held the district since Mr. Zeldin wrestled it from Democratic control in 2014.The Democrat in the race, Bridget Fleming, a former assistant district attorney and current county legislator, has nonetheless outpaced her opponent in fund-raising and recently received the endorsement from the union that represents police officers in Suffolk County. She was also added to the Democrats’ Red to Blue program in June.A moderate, she has centered her campaign in the district, a mix of working-class and wealthy residents, on affordability and conserving the environment — a top issue for fishermen and farmers, as well as the tourism industry, on the island’s East End — but also on protecting women’s right to choose.“There’s no question that fundamental freedoms are under assault in our country,” said Ms. Fleming. “The exploitation of the extremes that we’ve seen recently is electrifying people who are standing up to fight for themselves.”In an interview, her opponent, Nicholas LaLota, brushed off Democrats’ almost singular focus on reproductive rights, saying that New York already had some of the strictest protections in the country.“Here in New York, nobody’s abortion rights are under attack or assault,” said Mr. LaLota, a former Navy lieutenant who works in the Suffolk County Legislature. “So those folks who want to campaign on abortion, they should run for state office, not federal office.”He added that voters in the district “who live paycheck to paycheck were more concerned about rising interests rates and prices.”Democrats are facing an even steeper climb to unseat Representative Andrew Garbarino, a well-funded Republican who represents the Second District on the South Shore that is among the most affluent in the country. Opposing Mr. Garbarino is Jackie Gordon, an Army veteran, who lost to Mr. Garbarino in 2020. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Fetterman-vs.-Oz Campaign Turns to a Focus on Criminal Justice

      by

      Lee and Dennis Horton maintained their innocence through 27 years behind bars. The brothers were convicted in a 1993 robbery and fatal shooting in Philadelphia that they say they did not commit.“We were forgotten men,” Lee Horton said. “Nobody was paying us any mind. John Fetterman reached out and pulled us up. He saved our lives because there’s no doubt we would have died in prison.”Mr. Fetterman, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania, ran for lieutenant governor in 2018 in large part to rejuvenate the Board of Pardons as a last stop for justice. One of the lieutenant governor’s few duties is to be the chair of the board, which had grown moribund.Under his leadership, the number of inmates serving life sentences who were recommended for clemency and release, including the Hortons, has greatly increased.Now that record has become a top issue for Mr. Fetterman’s opponent, Dr. Mehmet Oz, with Republicans training intense fire on the Democrat on social media, in email blasts and in $4.6 million in TV ads accusing him of “trying to get as many criminals out of prison as he can.”After the Horton brothers were released in 2021, Mr. Fetterman gave them jobs as field organizers for his campaign.“If John Fetterman cared about Pennsylvania’s crime problem, he’d prove it by firing the convicted murderers he employs on his campaign,” Brittany Yanick, a spokeswoman for Dr. Oz, said this month.Mr. Fetterman, in an interview, accused Dr. Oz of fear-mongering and twisting the facts of the Hortons’ case and those of others he championed. “Of course, these ghouls are going to do that kind of thing and distort and lie about the truth,” he said.Across the country, Republicans have taken up the issue of crime to rally midterm voters, confronting a rise in violence in most major cities that began during the coronavirus pandemic. Among them is Philadelphia, which is on pace to equal last year’s record 562 homicides.While attacking Democrats as soft on crime may be standard for Republicans in most election years, Pennsylvania’s Senate contest offers an especially pointed contrast because Mr. Fetterman has turned the pardons board into a cause célèbre over four years.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.A Focus on Crime: In the final phase of the midterm campaign, Republicans are stepping up their attacks about crime rates, but Democrats are pushing back.Pennsylvania Governor’s Race: Doug Mastriano, the G.O.P. nominee, is being heavily outspent and trails badly in polling. National Republicans are showing little desire to help him.Megastate G.O.P. Rivalry: Against the backdrop of their re-election bids, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida are locked in an increasingly high-stakes contest of one-upmanship.Rushing to Raise Money: Senate Republican nominees are taking precious time from the campaign trail to gather cash from lobbyists in Washington — and close their fund-raising gap with Democratic rivals.Rather than soft-pedaling his record, Mr. Fetterman expressed satisfaction in winning the release of inmates who served decades in prison, generally with model records.“There were some wrongs that needed to be put right, and there were a lot of people caught up in this system that were innocent or deserving” of release, he said.If Republicans “weaponize” his record and “destroy” his career over his advocacy for second chances, Mr. Fetterman added, including for the Hortons and other men he said were wrongly convicted, “then so be it.”Mr. Fetterman with the Horton brothers on Saturday at a rally in Philadelphia. Hannah Beier/ReutersIn a poll of Pennsylvania voters by The Morning Call/Muhlenberg College last week, only 3 percent named crime as the most important issue in the midterms, well behind the economy (22 percent) and abortion (20 percent). But the pollster, Chris Borick, suggested Mr. Fetterman’s 41 percent disapproval was driven by Republican portrayals of him as “too left-leaning,” which have included attacks on his pardons record. The lieutenant governor led Dr. Oz, a former heart surgeon and celebrity TV host, by 49 percent to 44 percent, within the margin of error.Barney Keller, a spokesman for Dr. Oz, said his campaign would continue to attack Mr. Fetterman on crime. “Dr. Oz has surged in the polls because John Fetterman is the most pro-murderer candidate in America,” Mr. Keller said.While individual pardon cases are complex, requiring voters to absorb details and nuance, the G.O.P. attacks on Mr. Fetterman are meant to deliver the opposite: a blunt, visceral punch.The Oz campaign created a website called Inmates for Fetterman, highlighting the crimes of convicted murderers whose release Mr. Fetterman sought, and asking for donations to Dr. Oz.The Oz campaign has singled out the Horton brothers, whose release Mr. Fetterman calls one of the pinnacles of his career in public office. The brothers share a name but are not related to the most infamous released inmate in a political attack ad, Willie Horton, whose crime spree while on a furlough program hurt the presidential candidacy of Michael Dukakis in 1988.Invoking that episode explicitly, Mr. Fetterman said he had anticipated that opponents would “Horton us” over his championing the brothers’ release.Like more than 1,100 lifers in Pennsylvania’s prisons, 70 percent of them Black, the Horton brothers were convicted of second-degree murder, a charge filed against suspects who participate in a felony — such as robbery, arson or rape — that leads to a death. It also includes accomplices not directly responsible for a fatality who drove a getaway car or acted as a lookout..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Pennsylvania is an outlier in mandating life without parole for second-degree murder, and reformers argue that it violates constitutional protections against unduly cruel punishments.With no possibility of release through the normal parole process, these inmates have been encouraged by Mr. Fetterman to seek commutations before the pardons board. The board can recommend either pardons (for inmates already released) or commutations (for those still behind bars). The five-member board, which includes Attorney General Josh Shapiro, the Democrats’ nominee for governor, must unanimously approve commutations, and the governor must sign off. Mr. Fetterman said that in each commutation case he supported, he asked the prisoner’s warden if he would want that individual as a neighbor. “And they’re like, ‘Absolutely,’” he said.Commutations — typically, a reduction of a life sentence to time served — were once common, but in the tough-on-crime era beginning in the 1990s they all but ended. Mr. Fetterman argued that “those who didn’t take a life” and had clean records over decades in prison should be “living out their lives at home.”Under his chairmanship, the board has recommended 50 commutations of life sentences, compared with just 10 in the preceding two decades.In addition to commutations, Mr. Fetterman is under fire from Republicans for opposing certain life sentences for murder and for a statement he once made that he “agreed” with a corrections official that prison populations could be cut by a third with no harm to the public.“John Fetterman wants to release one-third of prisoners and eliminate life sentences for murderers,” claimed Dr. Oz’s first TV ad of the general election. The Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, has run five ads leveling similar attacks, including its latest, which calls Mr. Fetterman “dangerously liberal on crime.”For purposes of soft-on-crime attacks, it little matters that murders rose during the pandemic in blue states and in red states alike, and in cities, suburbs and rural areas. Studies show low recidivism rates for lifers released after their sentences were commuted: about 1 percent for inmates over age 50, in a Pennsylvania study from 2005.Mr. Fetterman said he did not support releasing a third of all prisoners — about 12,000 of Pennsylvania’s 36,000 inmates. He said the official who remarked that cutting prison populations by a third would not threaten public safety was a former secretary of corrections appointed by a Republican governor. And the life sentences he seeks to end are for second-degree murder.Last week, in a visit to Philadelphia to promote safe streets, Dr. Oz criticized Mr. Fetterman’s record on the pardons board and proposed his own anticrime measures, including support for the First Step Act. That law, passed in 2018 with bipartisan support, includes sentence reductions for federal inmates with good behavior — a version of the second chances that Mr. Fetterman espouses.At a campaign event last week in Philadelphia, Dr. Mehmet Oz spoke with Sheila Armstrong, who lost her brother to gun violence.Ryan Collerd/Associated PressMalcolm Kenyatta, a Democratic state representative from Philadelphia, said that if Dr. Oz and Senate Republicans cared about high crime rates, they would support investments in poor communities such as raising the minimum wage, and gun safety measures that go beyond the limited bipartisan bill signed by President Biden in June. That law expanded background checks for gun buyers under age 21 and funds red-flag laws that let authorities take guns from people deemed dangerous.“Dr. Oz and Senate Republicans do not give a damn about people in Philadelphia and about the crime that folks are enduring,” Mr. Kenyatta said.Mr. Keller, the Oz spokesman, did not answer directly when asked whether Dr. Oz would have voted for the bipartisan gun law. “Doctor Oz is interested in how the implementation of this law will occur, and was particularly interested in the new funding for mental health,” Mr. Keller said.Mr. Fetterman was so convinced that the Horton brothers were wrongfully convicted that after the pardons board rejected their first clemency petition in 2019 — Mr. Shapiro, the attorney general, voted against it — he suggested he would run for governor if that’s what it took to get them out.“The trajectory of my career in public service will be determined by their freedom or lack thereof,” he once told The Philadelphia Inquirer.The deputy superintendent of the state corrections department endorsed the Hortons’ release. A brother of the man killed in the 1993 shooting, for which the Hortons and a third man were convicted, was opposed. “They took a human life, and they don’t deserve to be out in society,” the victim’s brother, Reinaldo Alamo, told The Inquirer. The third man in the case, who police records said was the actual gunman, was released in 2008.The brothers finally won clemency in their second try, in 2020. Mr. Fetterman set his sights on the Senate, and Mr. Shapiro ran unopposed for the Democratic nomination for governor.Since the brothers returned home to Philadelphia, the corrections department has invited them to speak monthly to cadets training to be prison guards, Lee Horton said.Their work for the Fetterman campaign includes attending ward meetings, telling their story at rallies and simply walking the streets.“On any given day we’re out talking to people about John Fetterman’s policies about minimum wage, how he would make average, everyday working people’s lives better,” Dennis Horton said.His brother added: “We’re not angry. We gave up the anger years ago but, you know, we want to be able to live our lives and to be able to feed our families. We want to be able to have jobs.”Lee Horton dropping campaign signs off at businesses in Philadelphia on Friday.Hannah Beier for The New York Times More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Intensify Attacks on Crime as Democrats Push Back

      by

      In Pennsylvania, Republicans are attacking John Fetterman, the Democratic Senate candidate, as “dangerously liberal on crime.”Outside Portland, Ore., where years of clashes between left-wing protesters and the police have captured national attention, a Republican campaign ad juxtaposes video of Jamie McLeod-Skinner, a Democratic congressional candidate, protesting with footage of rioters and looters. Ms. McLeod-Skinner, an ominous-sounding narrator warns, is “one of them.”And in New Mexico, the wife of Mark Ronchetti, the Republican nominee for governor, tells in a campaign ad of how she had once hid in a closet with her two young daughters and her gun pointed at the door because she feared an intruder was breaking in. Though the incident happened a decade ago, the ad accuses Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, Mr. Ronchetti’s Democratic opponent, of making it “easier to be a criminal than a cop.”In the final phase of the midterm campaign, Republicans are intensifying their focus on crime and public safety, hoping to shift the debate onto political terrain that many of the party’s strategists and candidates view as favorable. The strategy seeks to capitalize on some voters’ fears about safety — after a pandemic-fueled crime surge that in some cities has yet to fully recede. But it has swiftly drawn criticism as a return to sometimes deceptive or racially divisive messaging.Crime-heavy campaigns have been part of the Republican brand for decades, gaining new steam in 2020 when President Donald J. Trump tried to leverage a backlash to the Black Lives Matter movement to vilify Democrats. But two years later, left-wing calls to defund the police have given way to an effort to pump money back into departments in many Democratic-led cities, raising questions about whether Republicans’ tactics will be as effective as they were in 2020, when the party made gains in the House.Republicans are running the ads most aggressively in the suburbs of cities where worries about public safety are omnipresent, places that were upended by the 2020 protests over racial injustice or are near the country’s southwestern border. In some of the country’s most competitive Senate races — in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — Republican candidates have pivoted to a message heavily aimed at crime.“This is something that crosses party lines and everyone says, ‘Wait a minute, why isn’t this something that is dealt with?’” said Mr. Ronchetti, whose state has experienced an increase in violent crime this year. “You look at New Mexico: People used to always know someone with a crime story. Now, everyone has their own.”Polling shows that voters tend to see Republicans as stronger on public safety. By a margin of 10 percentage points, voters nationwide said they agreed more with Republicans on crime and policing, according to a New York Times/Siena College poll released this month.National Republican strategists say they always planned to use crime as a so-called kitchen-table issue, along with inflation and the economy. Now, after a summer when Democrats gained traction in races across the country, in part because of the upending of abortion rights, Republican campaigns are blanketing television and computer screens with violent imagery.Some of the advertising contains thinly disguised appeals to racist fears, like grainy footage of Black Lives Matter protesters, that sharply contrast with Republican efforts at the beginning of Mr. Trump’s term to highlight the party’s work on criminal justice overhauls, sentencing reductions and the pardoning of some petty crimes.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.A Focus on Crime: In the final phase of the midterm campaign, Republicans are stepping up their attacks about crime rates, but Democrats are pushing back.Pennsylvania Governor’s Race: Doug Mastriano, the G.O.P. nominee, is being heavily outspent and trails badly in polling. National Republicans are showing little desire to help him.Megastate G.O.P. Rivalry: Against the backdrop of their re-election bids, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida are locked in an increasingly high-stakes contest of one-upmanship.Rushing to Raise Money: Senate Republican nominees are taking precious time from the campaign trail to gather cash from lobbyists in Washington — and close their fund-raising gap with Democratic rivals.The full picture on crime rates is nuanced. Homicides soared in 2020 and 2021 before decreasing slightly this year. An analysis of crime trends in the first half of 2022 by the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan policy and research group, found that murders and gun assaults in major American cities fell slightly during the first half of 2022, but remained nearly 40 percent higher than before the pandemic. Robberies and some property offenses posted double-digit increases.Candidates on the right have tended to be vague on specific policy details: A new agenda released by House Republicans proposes offering recruiting bonuses to hire 200,000 more police officers, cracking down on district attorneys who “refuse to prosecute crimes” and opposing “all efforts to defund the police.”Still, Republicans see the issue as one that can motivate their conservative base as well as moderate, suburban independents who have shifted toward Democrats in recent weeks.Mark Ronchetti, the Republican nominee for governor of New Mexico, released an ad in which his wife recounted a possible break-in at their home years ago. Adria Malcolm for The New York TimesIn the past two weeks alone, Republican candidates and groups have spent more than $21 million on ads about crime — more than on any other policy issue — targeting areas from exurban Raleigh, N.C., to Grand Rapids, Mich., according to data collected by AdImpact, a media tracking firm.But those attacks are not going unanswered: Over the past two weeks, Democrats have spent a considerable amount — nearly $17 million — on ads on the issue, though the amount is less than half of what Democrats spent on ads about abortion rights over the same period.The political arm of the center-left think tank Third Way, Shield PAC, is starting to spend about $5 million targeting swing voters to defend at least seven Democrats who are vulnerable on the issue of crime..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.In 2020, some Democrats feared alienating liberal activists who were pushing to drastically overhaul policing. A series of defeats by progressive candidates in New York and California since the 2020 election delivered evidence of the depths of voter frustration about quality-of-life issues, prompting more in the party to embrace a moderate message. Some in the party see an opening to flip the script — or at least neutralize some of the attacks.A private memo circulated by the House Democratic campaign arm over the summer urged candidates in competitive races to rebut Republican criticisms by promoting endorsements from law enforcement and clearly articulating to voters that “Democrats stand for funding police to keep communities safe.”Many candidates have adopted that approach. “Mandela Barnes doesn’t want to defund the police,” a retired officer identified as “Rick” says in a recent ad for the Democratic nominee for Senate in Wisconsin, pushing back on a weekslong onslaught. “He’s very supportive of law enforcement.”After months of calls for legislative action from Democratic lawmakers facing difficult re-election races in conservative-leaning districts, House Democrats overcame divisions within their caucus to pass a package of legislation on Thursday awarding $60,000,000 annually for five years to local police departments. The centerpiece bill attracted support from a broad bipartisan majority but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Still, Democrats say the House passage helps their case on crime and policing.“We proved pretty clearly that we are very strong supporters of law enforcement funding — investing, not defunding — which is key to protecting our families and our communities,” said Representative Josh Gottheimer, Democrat of New Jersey and the sponsor of the legislation.Many Republicans were critical of the F.B.I. after it searched former President Donald J. Trump’s home in Florida.Marco Bello/ReutersFor its part, the White House has tried to turn the tables on Republicans, joining Democratic campaign committees in wielding Republican denunciations of the police after the Capitol siege and of the F.B.I. after the Mar-a-Lago search to argue that the G.O.P. is anti-law enforcement.“You can’t be pro-law enforcement and pro-insurrection,” Mr. Biden said late last month in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. “You can’t be a party of law and order and call the people who attacked the police on Jan. 6 ‘patriots.’”And an ad from the House Majority PAC, which is aligned with House Democratic leadership, accuses the Republican candidate in Arizona’s Fourth Congressional District of favoring “defunding the F.B.I.” and disrespecting federal law enforcement.Republicans say that attacks based on a candidate’s record will resonate most. Greg Landsman, the Democrat running against Representative Steve Chabot, a Republican, in a Cincinnati district that was redrawn to lean Democratic, has faced criticism for writing legislation as a Cincinnati councilman to redirect $200,000 from the city’s Police Department to an independent board responsible for fielding complaints against police officers.Some of the advertising has racial overtones. An ad against Mr. Barnes from the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which highlights the 2021 attack at a Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wis., ends with a picture of Mr. Barnes alongside three members of the progressive “Squad” — all women of color — and the words “different” and “dangerous.” His supporters called the ad racist.Other ads are slightly misleading: In New York, the first general-election ad from the Republican candidate for governor, Representative Lee Zeldin, is a compilation of grainy footage of shootings, looting and fistfights. “Vote like your life depends on it,” a narrator urges. “It just might.”Mr. Zeldin recently confirmed that half of the video in the ad was shot before Gov. Kathy Hochul took office, and that one clip was from Oakland, Calif.And a Republican ad campaign against Wiley Nickel, a Democratic defense lawyer running in an exurban House district near Raleigh, N.C., accuses him of representing rapists, “cop killers” and distributors of child pornography.Mr. Nickel’s campaign says he has never defended people accused of those kinds of charges; his campaign manager called the ad’s claims “patently false.” Mr. Nickel says his practice focuses on low-level offenses and misdemeanors. He has countered by proclaiming in his own ad that he would increase police funding.As for the ad in New Mexico describing a break-in at Mr. Ronchetti’s home, the incident took place in 2012 — seven years before his opponent took office.“Our point wasn’t that the governor was responsible for my particular home invasion,” Mr. Ronchetti said in an interview. “To me, this is purely an issue of, we are headed in the wrong direction.”At least a few voters say they relate to the sentiment — if not the specifics — of that Republican message.“I wouldn’t even let my kids play with guns,” said Alanna Gonzalez, a retiree in Issaquah, a Seattle suburb. “And now we’ve talked about getting one. We’ve had break-ins in our condo. There’s been shootings on the street. Never did we ever have anything like that before.”Ms. Gonzalez, a lifelong Democrat, said that crime had changed her political views, and that she and her husband, Robert, were considering voting for Republicans this year.Mr. Gonzalez said the Democratic Party had become “a hug-me, squeeze-me bunch, and we just don’t like it.”Alanna Gonzalez said that she and her husband, Robert Gonzalez, were considering voting for Republicans this year because of their worries about crime.Jovelle Tamayo for The New York TimesKirk Johnson More

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Sweden’s Far Right Is Rising

      by

      STOCKHOLM — “Helg seger.”Those two words, spoken by Rebecka Fallenkvist, a 27-year-old media figure and politician from the Sweden Democrats, the far-right party that took 20 percent in Sweden’s general election last week, sent shivers down spines throughout the country. It’s not the phrase, which is odd and means “weekend victory.” It’s the sound: one letter away from “Hell seger,” the Swedish translation of the Nazi salute “Sieg Heil,” and the war cry of Swedish Nazis for decades.Ms. Fallenkvist was quick to disavow any Nazi associations. She meant to declare the weekend a victorious one, she said, but the words came out in the wrong order. Perhaps that’s true. But the statement would be entirely in keeping with the party Ms. Fallenkvist represents which, after a steady rise, is now likely to play a major role in the next government.For Sweden, a country that trades on being a bastion of social democracy, tolerance and fairness, it’s a shock. But perhaps it shouldn’t be. Steadily rising for the past decade, the Swedish far right has profited from the country’s growing inequalities, fostering an obsession with crime and an antipathy to migrants. Its advance marks the end of Swedish exceptionalism, the idea that the country stood out both morally and materially. There’s no doubt about the party’s Nazi origins. The Sweden Democrats was created in 1988 out of a neo-Nazi group called B.S.S., or Keep Sweden Swedish, and of the party’s 30 founding fathers, 18 had Nazi affiliations, according to a historian and former party member, Tony Gustaffson. Some of the founding fathers had even served in Hitler’s Waffen SS.Step by step the party changed its image — in 1995 uniforms were forbidden — but the core ideology remained: Immigrants should be persuaded to go home, Swedish culture should be protected and neither Jews nor the Indigenous Sami people were to be considered “real Swedes.” Not even the soccer star Zlatan Ibrahimovic secured the party’s approval, although he was born in the country and is the national team’s record goal scorer. The stances of the current leadership, which has sought to sanitize the party’s reputation, are equally worrying.Take Linus Bylund, the party’s chief of staff in the Swedish Parliament. In an interview in 2020, he declared that journalists for the national public service radio and television ought to be “punished” if their reporting was biased. Such people, he stated previously, would be “enemies of the nation.” Proximity to power hasn’t softened his views. The day after the recent election, a reporter asked him what he now looked forward to. “Journalist-rugby,” he replied.Jimmie Akesson, the party’s leader, also surprised a television audience in mid-February when he refused to choose between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin. It’s of a piece with the party’s accommodating stance on Russia: The Swedish Parliament was so concerned about a journalist who used to work in the party’s office and had contact with Russian intelligence that it denied the journalist accreditation. Add in a cohort of representatives more prosecuted for crimes than any other, organized troll campaigns against opponents and even attempts to undermine faith in the electoral system, and you have the image of a deeply unsavory party.Even so, the Sweden Democrats’ rise is an impressive right-wing success story. The party entered the Parliament in 2010 with just over 5 percent of the vote — but, under the leadership of Mr. Akesson, it built an efficient, nationwide organization. It more than doubled its share of the vote in 2014 and, after Sweden admitted over 160,000 Syrian refugees, grew even more in the 2018 election. But it’s in this vote that Sweden Democrats secured a sought-after breakthrough with a stunning 20.6 percent of the votes, surpassing the conservative Moderaterna, which had been Sweden’s second-biggest party for over 40 years. Now only the Social Democratic Party, Sweden’s historic party of government, has more support.This monumental rise is thanks to the dramatic changes in Swedish life over the past three decades. Once one of the most economically equal countries in the world, Sweden has seen the privatization of hospitals, schools and care homes, leading to a notable rise in inequality and a sense of profound loss. The idea of Sweden as a land of equal opportunity, safe from the plagues of extreme left or extreme right, is gone. This obscure collective feeling was waiting for a political response — and the Sweden Democrats have been the most successful in providing it. It was better in the good old days, they say, and people believe them. Back to red cottages and apple trees, to law and order, to women being women and men being men.For opening this door, the major parties have themselves to blame. Bit by bit, the traditional parties have adopted the point of view and rhetoric on crime and immigrations of the Sweden Democrats Party — but this strategy hasn’t won back any votes. On the contrary, it seems to have helped the far right. In a little more than 12 years, Sweden Democrats has managed to compete with the Social Democrats for working-class voters, with Moderaterna for the support of entrepreneurs and with the Centre Party among the rural population.The media is culpable, too. In an attempt to protect traditional Swedish democratic values, the mainstream media has often shunned and canceled Sweden Democrats officials and supporters, especially in the party’s early years. But now it seems that this response actually might have had the opposite effect. Individuals leaning toward the Sweden Democrats for various reasons have felt stigmatized: Some haven’t been invited to family gatherings, and in a few cases have even lost their jobs. This has not only fed the party’s self-image as a martyr, but also nurtured even more loyalty among its supporters.One could argue that the traditional parties have had their part in creating the perfect storm. The Social Democratic party has named the Sweden Democrats their main enemy in the election campaign, making other alternatives almost invisible in the public debate. Us or them, was the strategy. Many, predominantly male Swedes, chose the Sweden Democrats. As for a conservative party like Moderaterna, they have seen their voters abandon them for Sweden Democrats and so Moderaterna reacted by emphasizing the similarities between the two parties until it reached a point where it became hard to distinguish any differences at all. The result is now plain to see. The Social Democrats, though the largest party, are unable to form a government. Instead, a conservative bloc, led by Ulf Kristersson from Moderaterna, will attempt to take office — as long as it has the support of the Sweden Democrats. Effectively a kingmaker, the party is now one of the most successful far-right parties in Europe since World War II.It’s a terrifying truth. But we must bear in mind that the majority of the country’s population is not among the Sweden Democrats’ ranks. These people want solutions to real problems — such as a worrying spike in gang and drug-related shootings in several cities — without recourse to ethnic blame games and the vilification of “un-Swedish” culture. As a liberal democrat I will never approve of a party that celebrates its success with references to Hitler’s Nazi ideology, no matter the claim that only by sheer coincidence was the exclamation “Helg Seger” just one letter apart from a Nazi war cry. Elisabeth Asbrink is the author of “1947: Where Now Begins,” “Made in Sweden: 25 Ideas That Created a Country” and “And in Wienerwald the Trees Remain.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Law Enforcement Funding Package Splits Democrats Ahead of Midterm Elections

      by

      A measure to provide more money for local police departments has become mired in a long-running debate among Democrats about the politics of crime, as Republicans step up attacks.WASHINGTON — Legislation to increase funding for local police departments has hit a snag on Capitol Hill amid deep Democratic divisions, as progressives balk at steering more money to law enforcement and moderates clamor for action that could blunt Republicans’ efforts to paint them as soft on crime ahead of the midterm elections.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pledged for weeks to bring up a package of bills that would provide funding for hiring more police officers, increasing salaries, investing in officer safety and training and body cameras, as well as mental health resources for officers.But the measures, championed by vulnerable Democrats from conservative-leaning districts, have become mired in a yearslong internal feud about the politics of crime, leaving the party without an answer to Republican attacks and some of its members livid.“I have heard a whole host of reasons for people wanting to excuse inaction,” said Representative Abigail Spanberger, Democrat of Virginia, who is in a difficult re-election race in a competitive district that includes the suburbs of Richmond, and is a lead proponent of the legislation. “The sort of generalized excuses — I’ve heard it a lot. Tomorrow it will be, ‘It’s raining.’”Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who pressed successfully for the package to include measures to strengthen accountability for police misconduct, have also pushed to move ahead with it.A spokesman for the caucus said that the issue remains a priority for the group.Yet a small group of progressives has so far refused to back the legislation, leaving Democrats short of the votes they would need to bring it up. House Democratic leaders do not want to put their party’s divisions on display at a time when the political map is looking more favorable for them than it did just a few months ago. So Ms. Pelosi has been holding off on announcing any vote, as lawmakers continue discussions with those withholding their support.Representative Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington and the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has positioned herself as the principal roadblock to the legislation, arguing that it would provide a blank check to police departments.“The answer is not just putting more money in,” Ms. Jayapal said. “I’m not sure that this has a chance of moving forward, given all of the challenges around it.”Because of Democrats’ slim majority in the House, the opposition of Ms. Jayapal and just three other liberals would be enough to block it from proceeding to a vote. Talks among her, moderate Democrats and party leaders were continuing on Monday, according to a person familiar with the negotiations, with some still hopeful for a potential breakthrough.Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader, has been pushing for a vote on the measure this week, a second person familiar with the talks said.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.Echoing Trump: Six G.O.P. nominees for governor and the Senate in critical midterm states, all backed by former President Donald J. Trump, would not commit to accepting this year’s election results.Times/Siena Poll: Our second survey of the 2022 election cycle found Democrats remain unexpectedly competitive in the battle for Congress, while G.O.P. dreams of a major realignment among Latino voters have failed to materialize.Ohio Senate Race: The contest between Representative Tim Ryan, a Democrat, and his Republican opponent, J.D. Vance, appears tighter than many once expected.Pennsylvania Senate Race: In one of his most extensive interviews since having a stroke, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the Democratic nominee, said he was fully capable of handling a campaign that could decide control of the Senate.Yet time is running short for Democrats to act before the midterm elections, in which Republicans have once again made crime a major point of attack. With the legislation languishing, vulnerable Democrats are losing out on a potential political boost from passing a pro-police bill. There is little time remaining before November to campaign on such a vote or to produce an advertisement attempting to claim credit.Republicans have tried for years to portray Democrats as soft on crime and bent on defunding the police — a mantra that many progressives embraced amid a series of high-profile cases of excessive violence by law enforcement, particularly against people of color.The Republican criticism has sharpened around election time, including in recent weeks, as gas prices have fallen and the party has searched for other ways to tarnish Democrats in the eyes of suburban voters, such as spotlighting the dysfunctional immigration system and the continuing toll of inflation..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Before the 2018 midterm elections, President Donald J. Trump branded Democrats the “party of crime,” even though crime rates had risen in cities with leaders of both political parties. Since 2019, murders have spiked by nearly 40 percent, and violent crimes, including shootings and other assaults, have increased overall.The drama that is playing out now is the latest chapter in a long-running fight about the issue among Democrats. After the party’s disappointing results in the 2020 midterm elections, as Democrats bickered internally about what had gone wrong, Ms. Spanberger privately vented her frustration about progressive colleagues who had embraced the “defund the police” movement, arguing that Democrats had to push back much more forcefully against Republican efforts to caricature them as anti-law enforcement.At the time, progressives including Ms. Jayapal angrily rejected the criticism, arguing that they had helped to turn out the party’s liberal base by speaking to the issues that animated core supporters, including people of color, allowing Democrats to hold the House majority.Those pressing to pass the legislation this year argue that it goes beyond politics and would make communities safer by helping police departments focus on community-oriented approaches. And they have tried to address broad concerns among Democrats about including meaningful police accountability measures.Representative Josh Gottheimer, Democrat of New Jersey, has introduced the Invest to Protect Act, which would direct the Justice Department to award grants to local or tribal governments with fewer than 200 law enforcement officers to improve recruitment, purchase body cameras and provide de-escalation training.Police officers in a school active shooter drill in Oriskany, N.Y.Juan Arredondo for The New York Times“We have to make it clear to the country that we’re a party that’s tough on crime and supports protecting our communities and those who do,” Mr. Gottheimer said.Mr. Hoyer said in a recent letter to Democrats that the House would be “ready to consider” the legislation this month.“Democrats are not for defunding the police,” Mr. Hoyer told reporters, adding that party members had voted for police funding. “We voted for it in the last budget, the budget before that, and every budget since I’ve been here to make sure that law enforcement have the resources it needed.”Civil rights groups including the N.A.A.C.P. are also pressing for passage of the legislation, making the case that additional police funding should be paired with accountability measures.“A wealth of evidence supports the fact that certain preventative measures, such as violence prevention programs and other community investments, can dramatically improve safety outcomes,” the organization wrote in a letter to Democratic leaders last month.But with the legislative calendar dwindling, many pressing for action said they remained skeptical there would be any real effort to move forward.“I keep hearing from leadership, ‘We really want to bring these bills,’ ” Ms. Spanberger said. “And yet.”Democrats had originally hoped to vote on the police funding bills over the summer and were planning to pair them with legislation to ban assault weapons that passed in July, before lawmakers left Washington for their August recess. But when disagreements emerged about accountability measures in the police bills, Ms. Pelosi chose to move ahead with just the assault weapons ban and revisit the law enforcement legislation in the fall.Now the House is back, but the police funding issue has not yet been settled.Representative Yvette D. Clarke, Democrat of New York, said she recognized the need for additional police funding, but still had reservations that the measures lacked sufficient accountability measures for law enforcement, which she described as “a tacit acceptance of abusive behaviors.”“It’s important that we have the personnel in place to make sure that our cities are safe,” Ms. Clarke said. “We also need to make sure that there’s the proper training in place, so that communities of color feel like they’re in partnership with their police departments.”Jonathan Martin More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      What’s Behind the Success of the Far-Right Sweden Democrats?

      by

      Campaigning on issues like immigration, religion, crime and the cost of environmental rules, the Sweden Democrats, a party with neo-Nazi roots, grew its support.STOCKHOLM — Magnus Karlsson, 43, works in information technology and is about to start his own company. Articulate and thoughtful, he follows the news carefully, both in Sweden and globally.But fed up with what he considers the complacency of the Swedish political establishment toward issues of immigration, crime and inflation, he voted last week for the Sweden Democrats for the first time.The party, which was founded in 1988 and has roots in the neo-Nazi movement, won 20.5 percent of the vote in Sunday’s election, giving it the second-highest number of seats in Parliament, after the center-left Social Democrats. It is the largest party in the right-leaning coalition that is expected to form the next government, gaining more votes than the more traditional center-right Moderates party, whose leader, Ulf Kristersson, is expected to become prime minister.Despite their showing, the Sweden Democrats will not take cabinet posts, in large part because another coalition partner, the smaller Liberal Party, rejected the possibility. But the Sweden Democrats and its leader, Jimmie Akesson, are expected to have a major influence over government policy. The party is stringently anti-immigrant and is also expected to demand changes in policing, criminal justice, social benefits and environmental regulations.From Mr. Karlsson’s point of view, immigration is the key issue. “We have been naïve as a country — that makes us Swedes, it’s in our DNA — and we think the best of people,” he said, referring to migrants and refugees. “But, if those people take advantage of us and our welcome, we might have to change our views.”Sweden, with a history of openness to political refugees, accepted more migrants and asylum seekers per capita than any country in Europe, including Germany, in the 2015 mass migration crisis, most of them from Muslim countries. But the center-left Social Democrats, who have governed for the last eight years, failed, in many eyes, to assimilate the newcomers, while the far right has made strides by tying the longstanding issue of gun crime to immigration.Flags strung across a road in Filipstad, Sweden. The community of 10,000 people was home to 2,000 refugees from a number of countries in 2019.Nora Lorek for The New York TimesOther European countries with similar levels of immigration have not experienced the same rise in gun violence, however, and researchers say more study is needed to determine whether there is any link.Nonetheless, Mr. Karlsson is adamant. “Swedish society is great and open, but it is eroding,” he said, citing “the gang violence, the shootings, the nonexistent integration policies and the open borders.”“We need a change,” he added, “and I think the Sweden Democrats are more aligned with my points of view.”In Staffanstorp, a suburb of Malmo, where the crime rate is higher than in any other Swedish city, Maria Celander, a 42-year-old podiatrist, also voted for the Sweden Democrats.“We have taken in too many refugees, and it’s turned things upside down here,” she said. “We can’t afford to take care of everyone.”She denied any bias against immigrants. “It’s not that we are racists, those of us who have voted for them,” she said. “We’re regular people who want law and order. I want a safer country.”She said she believed that the Sweden Democrats would push for lower energy prices and less restrictive environmental controls. “We have a good approach to the environment here, but it won’t help if we stop driving cars or cut down on things if they’re not doing it on the other side of the planet,” she said.Police officers patrolling Rinkeby Square in Stockholm in June. Gun violence was a top political issue in this year’s election.Ilvy Njiokiktjien for The New York TimesBut both Mr. Karlsson and Ms. Celander fear that the party will fail to get new policies implemented, falling into what they consider the usual pattern of coalition governments that produce bland compromise and little change. And both would prefer if the party were actually in the government, with ministerial jobs, rather than just trying to influence it.“I hope they want to stand for what they say they stand for,” Ms. Celander said. “You can’t go out and tell everyone that you’re going to do this and this, and not help to govern.”Mr. Karlsson, too, who in 2018 voted for the Moderates, wants the Sweden Democrats “to walk the walk.” He understands the coalition complications but, he said, “We have to let them into government and see what they can do — either they can manage it or they’re just another bunch of people getting together to complain about things.”Christian Sonesson knows something of what giving the Sweden Democrats a share of power might mean. He is a Moderate and has been mayor of Staffanstorp since 2012. In 2018, he created a local coalition with the far-right party, having decided that their policies on taxation, governance, school, crime and the economy were close to his own. It created a fuss in the national party, but the coalition has worked well on the local level, he said.“I noticed that these people were not the monsters the media presented them as,” he said. “They were very close to us,” he added: “Keep taxation as low as possible. Don’t let gangs get a grip.” The local coalition installed surveillance cameras and hired security guards; the result was a significant reduction in violence and disturbances, Mr. Sonesson noted, adding that citizens’ sense of safety had gone up.Also noteworthy, he said, was that local support for the Sweden Democrats had dropped a bit, while votes for his Moderates had increased.“People don’t like it when they see a party at 20 to 30 percent that has no power,” he said. “That’s unfair in people’s minds.”Pictures of confiscated guns at a police station in the Rinkeby neighborhood of Stockholm in June.Ilvy Njiokiktjien for The New York TimesLeaving the Sweden Democrats out in the cold, he suggested, would help the party grow. “They become so big that they can govern by themselves,” he said. “But if you take them in as a coalition partner and they are forced to take responsibility, then they grow or drop in popularity based on their own actions,” he said.Many worry about normalizing what has been such an extreme party, one that has played cards of fear and racism — especially through its online magazine, Samtiden, and the YouTube channel it controls. The Sweden Democrats support closing the country’s borders entirely, have urged the banning of halal meat in schools and have criticized the previous center-left government for being soft on migrants, crime and Islamist extremists.Mr. Akesson, the Sweden Democrats leader, has said in the past that Muslim migration to Sweden is “our biggest foreign threat since the Second World War.”But there is also a growing belief that ostracizing the party simply lets it play the role of critic without responsibility.Anders Falk, 64, a manager in a construction company, sees danger in the Sweden Democrats influencing from behind and would prefer them to take responsibility in government. He cited the experiences in Denmark, Finland and Norway, where far-right populist parties either moderated in government or failed and lost support.The Social Democrats, he said, deserved to lose, because “integration didn’t work,” while there seemed to be “a taboo” among established politicians about discussing problems such as crime and unemployment. “I think the rest of Europe is laughing at us,” he said, referring to the fallout from the migrant crisis, adding that other countries “were much more restrictive about immigrants, and we took full responsibility.”Counting ballots in Stockholm last week.Jonathan Nackstrand/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesErik Andersson, 25, works in television and film. He said he was frustrated with the difficulty of getting real change from coalition governments. Although he disagrees with and did not vote for the Sweden Democrats, they should be allowed to rule — and fail, he said.“People will realize that they can’t do anything,” he said, “and they will fall off a cliff.”But there is a lesson for Sweden in their rise, Mr. Andersson added. The Sweden Democrats “spoke about things that should be looked into, but because of the taboos, no one wanted to discuss them.” Now, he said, the results can be seen.“You need to be able to talk about problems openly, because if you don’t, extremism will grow,” he noted. “You have to be able to talk openly and challenge the extremists.”Steven Erlanger More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Trump Is Not Above the Law

      by

      Over the course of this summer, the nation has been transfixed by the House select committee’s hearings on the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and how or whether Donald Trump might face accountability for what happened that day. The Justice Department remained largely silent about its investigations of the former president until this month, when the F.B.I. searched his home in Palm Beach, Fla., in a case related to his handling of classified documents. The spectacle of a former president facing criminal investigation raises profound questions about American democracy, and these questions demand answers.Mr. Trump’s unprecedented assault on the integrity of American democracy requires a criminal investigation. The disturbing details of his postelection misfeasance, meticulously assembled by the Jan. 6 committee, leaves little doubt that Mr. Trump sought to subvert the Constitution and overturn the will of the American people. The president, defeated at the polls in 2020, tried to enlist federal law enforcement authorities, state officials and administrators of the nation’s electoral system in a furious effort to remain in power. When all else failed, he roused an armed mob that stormed the Capitol and threatened lawmakers.The Justice Department is reportedly examining Mr. Trump’s conduct, including his role in trying to overturn the election and in taking home classified documents. If Attorney General Merrick Garland and his staff conclude that there is sufficient evidence to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt on a serious charge in a court of law, then they must indict him, too.This board is aware that in deciding how Mr. Trump should be held accountable under the law it is necessary to consider not just whether criminal prosecution would be warranted but whether it would be wise. No American president has ever been criminally prosecuted after leaving office. When President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, he ensured that Nixon would not be prosecuted for crimes committed during the Watergate scandal; Ford explained this decision with the warning that such a prosecution posed grave risks of rousing “ugly passions” and worsening political polarization.That warning is just as salient today. Pursuing prosecution of Mr. Trump could further entrench support for him and play into the conspiracy theories he has sought to stoke. It could inflame the bitter partisan divide, even to the point of civil unrest. A trial, if it is viewed as illegitimate, could also further undermine confidence in the rule of law, whatever the eventual outcome.The risks of political escalation are obvious. The Democratic and Republican parties are already in the thick of a cycle of retribution that could last generations. There is a substantial risk that, if the Justice Department does prosecute Mr. Trump, future presidents — whether Mr. Trump himself or someone of his ilk — could misuse the precedent to punish political rivals. If their party takes a majority in the House of Representatives after the midterm elections, some Republicans have already threatened to impeach President Biden.There is an even more immediate threat of further violence, and it is a possibility that Americans should, sadly, be prepared for. In the hours after federal agents began a court-approved search of Mr. Trump’s residence in Palm Beach, based on a warrant investigating possible violations of three federal laws, including one that governs the handling of defense information under the Espionage Act, his most fervent supporters escalated their rhetoric to the language of warfare. As The Times noted, “The aggressive, widespread response was arguably the clearest outburst of violent public rhetoric since the days leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.”Mr. Garland has been deliberate, methodical and scrupulous in his leadership of the Justice Department’s investigations of the Jan. 6 attack and the transfer of documents to Mr. Trump’s home. But no matter how careful he is or how measured the prosecution might be, there is a real and significant risk from those who believe that any criticism of Mr. Trump justifies an extreme response.Yet it is a far greater risk to do nothing when action is called for. Aside from letting Mr. Trump escape punishment, doing nothing to hold him accountable for his actions in the months leading up to Jan. 6 could set an irresistible precedent for future presidents. Why not attempt to stay in power by any means necessary or use the power of the office to enrich oneself or punish one’s enemies, knowing that the law does not apply to presidents in or out of office?More important, democratic government is an ideal that must constantly be made real. America is not sustained by a set of principles; it is sustained by resolute action to defend those principles.Immediately after the Jan. 6 insurrection, cabinet members reportedly debated privately whether to remove Mr. Trump from power under the authority of the 25th Amendment. A week after the attack, the House impeached Mr. Trump for the second time. This editorial board supported his impeachment and removal from office; we also suggested that the former president and lawmakers who participated in the Jan. 6 plot could be permanently barred from holding office under a provision of the 14th Amendment that applies to any official who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or given “aid or comfort” to those who have done so. But most Republicans in the Senate refused to convict Mr. Trump, and Congress has yet to invoke that section of the 14th Amendment against him. As a result, the threat that Mr. Trump and his most ardent supporters pose to American democracy has metastasized.Even now, the former president continues to spread lies about the 2020 election and denounce his vice president, Mike Pence, for not breaking the law on his behalf. Meanwhile, dozens of people who believe Mr. Trump’s lies are running for state and national elected office. Many have already won, some of them elevated to positions that give them control over how elections are conducted. In June the Republican Party in Texas approved measures in its platform declaring that Mr. Biden’s election was illegitimate. And Mr. Trump appears prepared to start a bid for a second term as president.Mr. Trump’s actions as a public official, like no others since the Civil War, attacked the heart of our system of government. He used the power of his office to subvert the rule of law. If we hesitate to call those actions and their perpetrator criminal, then we are saying he is above the law and giving license to future presidents to do whatever they want.In addition to a federal investigation by the Justice Department, Mr. Trump is facing a swirl of civil and criminal liability in several other cases: a lawsuit by the attorney general for the District of Columbia over payments during his inauguration ceremonies; a criminal investigation in Westchester County, N.Y., over taxes on one of his golf courses; a criminal case in Fulton County, Ga., over interference in the 2020 election; a criminal case by the Manhattan district attorney over the valuation of Mr. Trump’s properties; and a civil inquiry by New York’s attorney general into Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization.The specific crimes the Justice Department could consider would likely involve Mr. Trump’s fraudulent efforts to get election officials in Georgia, Arizona and elsewhere to declare him the winner even though he lost their states; to get Mr. Pence, at the Jan. 6 congressional certification of the election, to throw out slates of electors from states he lost and replace them with electors loyal to Mr. Trump; and to enlist officials from the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Defense to persuade officials in certain states to swing the election to him and ultimately stir up a mob that attacked the Capitol. The government could also charge Mr. Trump with seditious conspiracy, a serious charge that federal prosecutors have already brought against leaders of far-right militia groups who participated in the Capitol invasion.The committee hearings make it clear: Mr. Trump must have known he was at the center of a frantic, sprawling and knowingly fraudulent effort that led directly to the Capitol siege. For hours, Mr. Trump refused to call off the mob.The testimony from hundreds of witnesses, many of them high-ranking Republican officials from his own administration, reveal Mr. Trump’s unrelenting efforts, beginning months before Election Day and continuing through Jan. 6, to sow doubt about the election, to refuse to accept the result of that election and then to pursue what he must have known were illegal and unconstitutional means to overturn it. Many participants sought pre-emptive pardons for their conduct — an indication they knew they were violating the law.Other evidence points to other crimes, like obstruction of Congress, defined as a corrupt obstruction of the “proper administration of the law.” The fake-elector scheme that Mr. Trump and his associates pushed before Jan. 6 appears to meet this definition. That may explain why at least three of Mr. Trump’s campaign lawyers were unwilling to participate in the plot. People involved in it were told it was not “legally sound” by White House lawyers, but they moved forward with it anyway.Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to Mr. Trump’s last chief of staff, Mark Meadows, provided powerful evidence that could be used to charge Mr. Trump with seditious conspiracy. In her public testimony at a Jan. 6 committee hearing, she said that Mr. Trump was informed that many in the throng of supporters waiting to hear him speak on the Ellipse that day were armed but that he demanded they be allowed to skip the metal detectors that had been installed for his security. “They’re not here to hurt me,” he said, according to Ms. Hutchinson. “Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here.”If Mr. Garland decides to pursue prosecution, a message that the Justice Department must send early and often is that even if Mr. Trump genuinely believed, as he claimed, that the election had been marred by fraud, his schemes to interfere in the certification of the vote would still be crimes. And even though Mr. Trump’s efforts failed, these efforts would still be crimes. More than 850 other Americans have already been charged with crimes for their roles in the Capitol attack. Well-meaning intentions did not shield them from the consequences of their actions. It would be unjust if Mr. Trump, the man who inspired them, faced no consequences.No one should revel in the prospect of this or any former president facing criminal prosecution. Mr. Trump’s actions have brought shame on one of the world’s oldest democracies and destabilized its future. Even justice before the law will not erase that stain. Nor will prosecuting Mr. Trump fix the structural problems that led to the greatest crisis in American democracy since the Civil War. But it is a necessary first step toward doing so.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p,
      article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p{
      text-transform: uppercase;
      font-size: 18px;
      font-weight: 600;
      letter-spacing: 0.5px;
      line-height: 26px;
      letter-spacing: 0.05em;
      }
      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p:after,
      article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p:after{
      content: “The Editorial Board”;
      display: block;
      color: white;
      }

      @media screen and (min-width: 1024px){

      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > h1:before,
      article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) h1:before{
      content: ” “;
      width: 72px;
      unicode-bidi: normal;
      display: block;
      margin: 15px 0px 20px;
      height: 1px;
      background-color: #fff;
      }

      }

      @media screen and (max-width: 1024px){

      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p a:link, article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p a:visited {
      color: #D0021B;
      letter-spacing: 0.07em;
      font-size: 15px;
      }
      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p,
      article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p{
      font-size:15px;
      color: #D0021B;
      }
      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p:after, article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) p:after {
      color: #000000;
      font-size:15px;
      margin-top: -5px;
      }

      article#story div#fullBleedHeaderContent header div:nth-of-type(2) div > h1:before,
      article.nytapp-hybrid-article div#fullBleedHeaderContent header > div:nth-of-type(2) h1:before{
      content: ” “;
      width: 72px;
      unicode-bidi: normal;
      display: block;
      margin: -5px 0px 22px;
      height: 1px;
      background-color: #e2e2e2;
      }

      } More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Adams Won’t Let Up on Bail Reform, Putting Pressure on Hochul

      by

      Mayor Eric Adams is calling forcefully for another round of changes to state bail law, putting pressure on Gov. Kathy Hochul as she runs for a full term in November.Hours before Mayor Eric Adams held a news conference on Wednesday to argue that an “insane, broken system” allowed repeat offenders to keep getting arrested and then released without bail in New York City, Gov. Kathy Hochul issued something of a pre-emptive strike.Four months ago, the governor and the State Legislature tightened New York’s bail laws for the second time in three years, making more crimes bail-eligible and giving judges additional discretion to consider both the severity of a case and a defendant’s repeat offenses when setting bail.But the mayor, dissatisfied with the city’s crime rates, was again putting the ball back in her court.At her own news conference, the governor, visibly peeved, brought up the recent bail law revisions. “I’m not sure why everybody intentionally ignores this,” she said. “But people are out there and, you know, people trying to make political calculations based on this.”She did not mention Mr. Adams, a fellow Democrat, by name, or, for that matter, her Republican opponent in November, Representative Lee Zeldin. But both Mr. Adams and Mr. Zeldin have hammered the governor on the state’s approach to bail and have made similar claims about how the bail laws have affected crime rates.Mr. Adams, who has based much of his mayoral platform on reducing crime, even made use of physical props on Wednesday to illustrate his point. He made his remarks next to poster boards detailing the crimes of individuals he said were some of the city’s worst recidivists. (Mr. Adams said his lawyers forbade him from releasing the individuals’ names.)Mayor Adams gave examples of how some repeat offenders had committed multiple crimes after being released without bail.Natalie Keyssar for The New York TimesThe mayor and his police officials also unleashed a litany of statistics they said demonstrated the severity of the problem.“Our recidivism rates have skyrocketed,” Mr. Adams said. “Let’s look at the real numbers. In 2022, 25 percent of the 1,494 people arrested for burglary committed another felony within 60 days.”He added: “In 2017, however, just 7.7 percent went on to commit another crime.”In 2019, state lawmakers rewrote bail law so that fewer people awaiting trial landed behind bars because they could not afford to post bail. Law enforcement agencies have furiously fought the law, whose implementation came at the beginning of the pandemic, during which gun crime rose in cities around the country.After a wave of criticism, lawmakers agreed upon a set of changes in 2020 that added two dozen crimes to the list of serious charges for which a judge could impose cash bail.The second revisions to bail law came earlier this year, after Mr. Adams demanded further changes, angering many lawmakers.But Mr. Adams said tougher revisions are still needed. He called on the state to allow judges to more frequently take dangerousness into account when deciding to set bail, and to have some juveniles’ cases play out in criminal court rather than family court.He insisted on Wednesday that he was not trying to target the governor, his ostensible political ally whom he endorsed less than two months ago. Ms. Hochul, likewise, chose to highlight the programs she and the mayor had worked on together, and the ways they were “in sync.”The mayor and governor have made a point of projecting political comity, a new tone after years of public feuding between their predecessors, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio.But the uptick in crime and Mr. Adams’s laserlike focus on the issue threatens to strain their relationship.Murders and shootings are down slightly this year, but major crimes including burglaries have risen more than 35 percent.Mr. Adams, a former police captain, sometimes turns to hyperbole to describe the situation. In May, he said he had never seen crime at these levels, despite serving as a police officer in the 1980s, when crime was far, far higher. Today’s murder rate, for example, is roughly on par with 2009, when Michael R. Bloomberg was mayor.But Mr. Adams ran for office on the premise that he would bring down crime, and his political imperatives threaten to collide with Ms. Hochul’s, who has every incentive to cast herself as firmly in control of the situation.Many left-leaning advocates, as well as some political leaders, have pushed the state to not undo changes made to the bail laws in recent years.Cindy Schultz for The New York TimesLegislative leaders in Albany have recoiled at Mr. Adam’s recent comments. When a reporter last week asked the mayor if he wanted a special session to address bail reform, and the mayor responded in the affirmative, Michael Gianaris, the deputy majority leader in the Senate, compared him to Republicans.“It’s sad Mayor Adams has joined the ranks of right wingers who are so grossly demagoguing this issue,” Mr. Gianaris said. “He should focus less on deflecting from his own responsibility for higher crime and more on taking steps that would actually make New York safer.”When Mr. Adams pressed for the second wave of changes to the law earlier this year, Ms. Hochul adopted the cause as her own, expending significant political power to do so. The effort met with fierce opposition in the Legislature, with one lawmaker going on a hunger strike to oppose the Hochul plan.And while Ms. Hochul was ultimately successful in winning alterations, the effort left a stain on her relationship with the Legislature.Among other things, the 2022 revisions made more crimes eligible for bail, and gave judges additional discretion to consider whether a defendant is accused of causing “serious harm” to someone, or has a history of using or possessing a gun. The new changes did not, however, impose a dangerousness standard that Mr. Adams is now pressing for, which criminal justice advocates argue is subject to racial bias.Mr. Adams’s decision to push for even more changes has created an opening for Mr. Zeldin, who last week held a news conference to voice support for Mr. Adams’s calls for a special session to address bail reform.“I believe that judges should have discretion to weigh dangerousness and flight risk and past criminal records and seriousness of the offense on far more offenses,” Mr. Zeldin said.A poll this week found that Ms. Hochul has a 14-point lead over Mr. Zeldin — “an early but certainly not insurmountable lead,” according to the pollster at Siena College.Gov. Hochul said that judges and prosecutors had the “tools they needed” to improve public safety, but had not deployed them effectively.Anna Watts for The New York TimesThe mayor on Wednesday took pains to insist that he and Mr. Zeldin were not, in fact, joined at the hip.“We must have a broken hip, because he clearly doesn’t get it,” Mr. Adams said of Mr. Zeldin. “He has voted against all of the responsible gun laws in Congress.”The Legal Aid Society, the main legal provider for poor New Yorkers, said in a statement on Wednesday that the Adams administration was trying to “cherry-pick a handful of cases to misguide New Yorkers and convince them that bail reform is responsible for all of society’s ills.”Ms. Hochul was more circumspect in her criticism, instead focusing on the recent revisions to the bail laws. She said that the changes gave judges and district attorneys “the tools they need” to improve public safety and suggested that those who failed to utilize them should answer to voters.“I believe in accountability at all levels,” she said. “And you know, people can’t just be saying that they don’t have something when they do have it.”Jonah E. Bromwich More