Cruz, Ted

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Political Winds Are Blowing. And Blowing. And Blowing.

      by

      Gail Collins: Bret, I think we’ve got good fighting topics this week, but let me start with a rather mellow question.Presidential primaries already in the news! How do you feel about Joe Biden’s push to make South Carolina the first state to vote on the Democratic side? Certainly driving Iowa crazy ….Bret Stephens: It was Biden’s big win in South Carolina in the 2020 primaries that rescued his flailing campaign. I’ll take this as further evidence that the president means to run for re-election. Remember the ’90s dance tune, “Things That Make You Go Hmmmm…”? This is a “Thing That Makes You Go Oy.”Gail: Hehehe. I’ve spent a goodly amount of time in Iowa over the years and always liked talking with the folks who were so proud of their standing as first-choosers.But the last time, really, was a disaster. The Democratic Party workers just couldn’t get stuff straight. I remember one leader saying: “I don’t even know if they know what they don’t know.”So I could go for … taking turns. This time South Carolina. Next time, maybe Michigan. For the Democrats, anyhow. Do the Republicans have a consensus, or do they even care?Bret: I like your suggestion, provided there’s enough demographic and geographic variety. The point isn’t just to choose the person who appeals to the base. It’s also to test the candidates’ abilities to connect to a wide variety of voters, particularly those who are more center-leaning.Gail: Hey, the fringe has feelings, too.Bret: As for Republicans, I just hope someone other than Mr. Revoke-the-Constitution announces his or her intent to run. I also hope Republicans take their own lesson from the midterms, which is that they can win when they run with normal candidates but will lose when they nominate crazies.Gail: Ah Bret, your faith in the ability of the Republican Party to avoid crazies is touching. Notice I did not say … crazy.Bret: Question for you, Gail. Of the potential G.O.P. field besides Donald Trump — Ron DeSantis, Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Glenn Youngkin, Ted Cruz — who do you think would be the most formidable in a general election?Gail: Well, the idea of a Cruz campaign gives me the giggles. If the weather gets unpleasant, maybe he’d move the convention from Milwaukee to Cancún.Bret: Another Cruz campaign would be like a remake of “Ishtar,” only without the original’s wit, originality and box-office success.Gail: DeSantis is the non-Trumpian favorite, I guess, but I have my doubts about his talent as a presidential level campaigner. Nikki Haley always seems promising, then never really delivers ….Really, you’re the one who should be judging. Give me your opinion.Bret: Haley would be a better candidate in a general election than DeSantis, both because she has a better personal story and more human warmth. But the party’s heart right now seems to be with the Florida governor. If the two run as a ticket, they’ll be formidable contenders.Gail: Sigh.Bret: What I long for, Gail, is the return of the Republican Party I used to vote for — the one that believed in lower taxes and less regulation, free trade and the defense of free nations, law-and-order and fidelity to normal democratic principles. There were aspects of that party I never liked, especially when it came to its moralistic obsessions, but I could live with them so long as it didn’t seem to threaten the basic social compact in the country. Now, especially after the Dobbs decision and the rise of so-called national conservatism, I wonder whether that party will ever exist again. I suspect I know what you think ….Gail: Yeah, sorry Bret. I think your party has been gobbled up by the crazies.Bret: To adapt Billy Joel: You may be right. They may be crazy. And it still might be a lunatic they’re looking for.Gail: Meanwhile, alas, I don’t think mine is really going to suit you. Which reminds me: I’ve really been rooting for Biden to get around the court challenges to his student loan forgiveness program. Doesn’t look promising, and I presume that makes you happy?Bret: Yep. Federal courts have been rightly skeptical of any presidential decision, made with no input from Congress, that will cost taxpayers $400 billion or more. It’s an abuse of the separation of powers, an insult to everyone who paid off their debts and a giant moral hazard when it comes to other types of debt. I gather you see it, er, differently?Gail: Well yeah. We’ve got a generation of Americans who were encouraged to take out big federal student loans — often by scummy for-profit schools that never really delivered anything. Even those who went to good colleges were never given the proper information about their likely future earnings compared with debt.Bret: I don’t see people who get student loans as victims. I see them as beneficiaries who won’t make good on their end of a bargain.Gail: You’re talking about a multitude of earnest young people whose lives are going to be hamstrung — and a lot of them will simply never get out of the hole. I say, let’s put this behind us, and make sure borrowers of the future have a really clear idea of what they’re getting into.Bret: From what I’ve read, undergraduates who finish their degrees borrow an average of about $30,000 for a degree that will raise their lifetime incomes by at least half a million, which sounds like a good deal, and the students with the biggest loans are often those who are going to law school or getting other professional degrees, meaning they can usually expect higher lifetime earnings. This just seems like a giant giveaway to young progressives who don’t like the idea that loans are things you have to repay.Switching topics, Gail, I guess we’ll soon know the results of Georgia’s Senate runoff. Final thoughts on the contest?Gail: I’m betting on Raphael Warnock, the incumbent Democrat. As opposed to a guy who barely seems to know what the Senate does, who also appears to be a legal resident of Texas.Bret: Walker is a bottomless gift. To Democrats.Gail: Whoever wins, the Democrats will at minimum have control of the Senate with that vice-presidential vote thrown in. But if it was really, truly a matter of which party would be in charge, would you be tempted to grit your teeth and support the dreadful Republican in this case?Bret: No. Never. Ever. Just the fact that he managed to make it to a runoff is a sign of how much is wrong with the United States today. A near-majority of voters in Georgia would rather vote for a moral delinquent with no grasp of the issues at hand than someone with whom they merely disagree.Can we talk about something a little less … depressing? How about the World Cup?Gail: Sure, um … briefly. Back in the day, I remember being amazed when friends from overseas started getting worked up over this game my domestic pals and I had never heard of.Bret: Fútbol.Gail: Still never actually sat through a game, to be honest. You’re an international traveler, so tell me what you think.Bret: For all the problems, both with the host country, Qatar, and the organization that oversees the World Cup, FIFA, the whole event is a great global uniter and equalizer. Little Tunisia beats France. Cameroon beats mighty Brazil. America beats Iran — but Iranians cheer because the loss embarrasses their oppressive rulers. People become madly patriotic, but respect the patriotism of the opposing players. It’s wonderful, even if (or maybe because) it’s so ethereal.Gail: I hear you.Bret: Also, it has produced some of the very best writing I’ve seen in The Times recently. Take this gem of a sentence from Andrew Das about Brazil’s 1-0 win over Switzerland: “So with an entire nation methodically reducing its supply of fingernails, it was a sturdy veteran midfielder, Casemiro, who strolled up from his position deep in midfield and did the job himself.”Gail: That’s great.Bret: Or this beauty, from Rory Smith, about the Dutch goalkeeper Andries Noppert: “His own interpretation of his unusual career arc — the long, slow burn, followed by the sudden and unexpected ignition — is that his progress was slowed not only by a succession of injuries but by his own failure to grasp his talent.”Gail: I always love the way you quote our terrific writers.Bret: If you don’t want to watch the games, Gail, just read our coverage. It will provide relief from, well, everything.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

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Have Made It Very Clear What They Want to Do if They Win Congress

      by

      What Republicans are offering, if they win the 2022 election, is not conservatism. It is crisis. More accurately, it is crises. A debt-ceiling crisis. An election crisis. And a body blow to the government’s efforts to prepare for a slew of other crises we know are coming.That is not to say there aren’t bills House Republicans would like to pass. There are. The closest thing to an agenda that congressional Republicans have released is the House Republican Study Committee’s 122-page budget. The study committee is meant to be something akin to an internal think tank for House Republicans. It counts well over half of House Republicans as members, and includes Representatives Steve Scalise, Elise Stefanik and Gary Palmer — all the leaders save for Kevin McCarthy.After spending some time with the document, what I’d say is that it lacks even the pretense of prioritization, preferring instead the comforts of quantity. It lists bill after bill that House Republicans would like to pass. Legislation that would upend the structure and powers of the government, like the bill sponsored by Representative Byron Donalds that seeks to abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, gets exactly the same treatment as Representative Bob Good’s bill to force schools to release their correspondence with teachers’ unions about when to reopen, or Representative Michael Cloud’s resolution disapproving of vaccinating 11-year-olds in Washington, D.C. There are plans to privatize much of Medicare and repeal much of Obamacare and to raise the Social Security age and no fewer than eight bills attacking Critical Race Theory.But even if Republicans win the House and Senate, they cannot pass this agenda. It would fall to President Biden’s veto. What Republicans could do is trigger crises they hope would give them leverage to force Biden to accept this agenda or perhaps force him out of office. And even where Republican leadership does not actually believe that crisis would win them the day, they may have to trigger it anyway to prove their commitment to the cause or to avoid the wrath of Donald Trump.Start with the debt ceiling. U.S. Treasuries are the bedrock asset of the global financial system. They are the safest of safe investments, the security that countries and funds buy when they must be absolutely sure that their money is safe. Much else in the financial system is priced on this assumption of American reliability: Lenders begin with the “riskless rate of return” — that is, the interest rate on U.S. treasuries — and then add their premiums atop that. If the U.S. government defaults on its own debt, it would trigger financial chaos. (I guess that’s one way to deal with inflation: Crash the global economy!)Republicans have been perfectly clear, though: They see the debt limit as leverage in negotiations with Biden. “We’ll provide you more money, but you got to change your current behavior,” Kevin McCarthy, the Republican minority leader and potential Speaker of the House, told Punchbowl News. “We’re not just going to keep lifting your credit card limit, right?”McCarthy may sound measured, but that he would open the door to this tactic at all either shows his weakness or his recklessness. A hostage is leverage only if you’re willing to shoot. And there will be plenty of voices demanding that Republicans pull the trigger or at least prove their willingness to do so.One of those voices will be Trump’s. “It’s crazy what’s happening with this debt ceiling,” the former president recently told a conservative radio host. “Mitch McConnell keeps allowing it to happen. I mean, they ought to impeach Mitch McConnell if he allows that.”To put it gently, the record of Republican Party leaders resisting the demands of their party’s hard-liners, even when they think those demands are mad, is not inspiring. McConnell and the former Republican Speaker John Boehner didn’t have enough command of their members to reject Ted Cruz’s doomed 2013 shutdown over the Affordable Care Act, which both of them thought to be lunacy. And Cruz’s influence with the Republican base and the G.O.P.’s congressional caucus in 2013 was nothing compared with the power Trump now wields.That’s not the only looming crisis. At this point, much is known about the myriad attempts Trump and his backers made to subvert the result of the 2020 election. The country’s saving grace was that there was little preparation behind that effort, and Republicans in key positions — to say nothing of Democrats — proved hostile to the project. But as The Times reported in October, more than 370 Republicans running for office in 2022 have said they doubt the results of the last election, and “hundreds of these candidates are favored to win their races.”The 2022 election is very likely to sweep into power hundreds of Republicans committed to making sure that the 2024 election goes their way, no matter how the vote tally turns out. Hardly anything has been done to fortify the system against chicanery since Jan. 6. What if congressional Republicans refuse to certify the results in key states, as a majority of House Republicans did in 2020? What if, when Trump calls Republican Secretaries of State or governors or board of elections supervisors in 2024, demanding they find the votes he wishes he had or disqualify the votes his opponent does have, they try harder to comply? The possibilities for crisis abound.Here, too, Republican officeholders who don’t fully buy into Trumpist conspiracy theories may find themselves rationalizing compliance. This is a movie we have already watched. Most of the House Republicans who voted against certification of the 2020 election knew Trump’s claims were absurd. But they chose to hide behind Representative Mike Johnson’s bizarre, evasive rationale for voting as Trump demanded they vote without needing to embrace the things he said. Johnson’s solution was to suggest that pandemic-era changes to voting procedures were unconstitutional, thus rendering the results uncertifiable. It was nonsense, and worse than that, it was cowardice. But it’s a reminder that the problem is not merely the Republican officeholders who would force an electoral crisis. The enabling threat is the much larger mass of their colleagues who have already proven they will do nothing to object.Not all crises begin with a political showdown. Some could come from a virus mutating toward greater lethality. Some could come from a planet warming outsides the narrow band that has fostered human civilization. Some could come from the expansionary ambitions of dictators and autocrats. The past few years have brought vivid examples of all three. But particularly over the past year, the Republican Party has shown itself to be somewhere between dismissive of — and hostile toward — the preparations and responses these possible crises demand.Last week, I criticized the Biden administration for failing to find a party-line path to financing pandemic preparedness. But such a path was only necessary because the Republican Party has swung so hard against efforts to prepare for the next pandemic. The Republican Study Committee’s budget is a vivid example of where the party has gone on Covid. It is not that Republicans are pro-Covid. But the party’s energy is very much anti-anti-Covid. It includes policy after policy attacking vaccine mandates, emergency powers and vaccinations for children. But in its 100-plus pages I could find nothing proposing ways to make sure we are better prepared for the next viral threat.It is easy to imagine what such policies might be: The government was slow to authorize certain new treatments and tests, cumbersome in its efforts to dole out money for research, and not nearly as innovative as it could have been in deploying technology to monitor new and emerging diseases. This is a libertarian, not a liberal, critique of government. But the study committee’s budget offers no discussion of how deregulation might foster a better response next time.And it’s not just Covid. Republicans have long been skeptical of efforts to prepare for climate change. The study committee’s budget is thick with plans to goose fossil fuel extraction and bar federal dollars from supporting the Paris Climate Accords. Republicans have been, shall we say, divided in their affections for Vladimir Putin, but at least in the early days of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, many backed efforts to support Ukraine. But McCarthy has suggested that Republicans will cut aid to Ukraine if they win in November, and he’s far from alone in wanting to see the United States back off from the conflict.I’ll say this for Republicans. They have not hidden their intentions, nor their tactics. They have made clear what they intend to do if they win. Biden ran — and won — in 2020 promising a return to normalcy. Republicans are running in 2022 promising a return to calamity.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      With Falsehoods About Pelosi Attack, Republicans Mimic Trump

      by

      WASHINGTON — Speaking on a conservative radio talk show on Tuesday, former President Donald J. Trump amplified a conspiracy theory about the grisly attack on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi, that falsely suggested that Mr. Pelosi may not have been the victim of a genuine attack.“Weird things going on in that household in the last couple of weeks,” Mr. Trump said on the Chris Stigall show, winking at a lie that has flourished in right-wing media and is increasingly being given credence by Republicans. “The glass, it seems, was broken from the inside to the out — so it wasn’t a break-in, it was a break out.”There is no evidence to suggest that. Mr. Pelosi, 82, was attacked on Friday with a hammer by a suspect who federal prosecutors say invaded the Pelosis’ San Francisco home, bent on kidnapping the speaker and shattering her kneecaps.But Mr. Trump, a longtime trafficker in conspiracy theories who propelled his political rise with the lie that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States, has never let such facts get in his way.The reaction to the assault on Mr. Pelosi among Republicans — who have circulated conspiracy theories about it, dismissed it as an act of random violence and made the Pelosis the punchline of a dark joke — underscores how thoroughly the G.O.P. has internalized his example. It suggested that Republicans have come to conclude that, like Mr. Trump, they will pay no political price for attacks on their opponents, however meanspirited, inflammatory or false.If anything, some Republicans seem to believe they will be rewarded by their right-wing base for such coarseness — or even suffer political consequences if they do not join in and show that they are in on the joke.“LOL,” Representative Claudia Tenney, Republican of New York, who is up for re-election in a competitive district, tweeted on Friday night, circulating a photograph that showed a group of young, white men holding oversized hammers beside a gay Pride flag.On Sunday, Representative Clay Higgins, Republican of Louisiana, who is in line to helm a Homeland Security subcommittee if his party wins control of the House next week, also amplified a groundless and homophobic conspiracy theory hatched on the right about the attack. He tweeted, but later removed, a picture of Ms. Pelosi with her hands covering her eyes, with the caption: “That moment you realize the nudist hippie male prostitute LSD guy was the reason your husband didn’t make it to your fundraiser.”On Tuesday, Mr. Trump said he thought the federal complaint detailing the break-in and the attack was not telling the entire story.“I don’t know,” Mr. Trump said suggestively. “You hear the same things I do.”Mr. Pelosi, 82, remained in intensive care with a fractured skull, according to a person familiar with the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity.In Arizona, the Republican candidate for governor, Kari Lake, made the attack a punchline at a campaign event on Monday, noting that while Ms. Pelosi has security around her, “apparently her house doesn’t have a lot of protection.” She smiled as her supporters howled with laughter.Republican leaders have condemned the violence against Mr. Pelosi and have not shared the conspiracy theories or sinister memes, but they have not publicly condemned those who have done so or done anything to try to tamp down on the stream of lies. And over the past few years, they have consistently demonstrated to their colleagues in Congress that there are no consequences for making vitriolic or even violent statements.If anything, such behavior has turned those more extreme members into influencers on the right, who carry more clout in Congress.The intruder who attacked Mr. Pelosi had wanted to take Ms. Pelosi, whom he saw as “the ‘leader of the pack’ of lies told by the Democratic Party,” hostage and break her kneecaps. He entered her San Francisco home with rope, zip ties and a hammer, according to the federal complaint against him.There was a time when such an event would have led to unequivocal denunciation by the leaders of both parties, sometimes followed by a pause in the day-to-day mudslinging of a campaign — if only to ensure that no candidate would make a remark that could be construed as in any way offensive to the victim.This time, few Republicans made such moves.Former Vice President Mike Pence followed the old model, saying that the attack was an “outrage” and noting that “there can be no tolerance for violence against public officials or their families.” But what would have once been a run-of-the-mill statement stood out for being one of the few that was unqualified in its condemnation of the attacker, who Mr. Pence said should be prosecuted.“They don’t have any fear of reprisal,” said Douglas Heye, a former Republican leadership aide on Capitol Hill. “That’s because our politics have become so tribal that anything that is about owning the other side is somehow seen as a political message, even though it’s not.”It is a page out of Mr. Trump’s playbook. For years, he elevated online rumors by speculating about them, bursting onto the national political scene in 2011 with the unfounded “birther” theory about Mr. Obama. When Mr. Trump insulted Senator John McCain of Arizona for being taken captive in Vietnam, his popularity among Republicans suffered no discernible hit.The current crop of candidates and lawmakers who have grown in power through their allegiance to Mr. Trump have replicated his methods. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, tweeted that Mr. Pelosi was attacked by a “friend” and that the media was the source of disinformation. Her post has since been removed.Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, recirculated a Twitter thread stating that “none of us will ever know for sure” what happened at Ms. Pelosi’s house and complaining that the attack was being cited as an “indictment of Republicans.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Midterms Look Very Different if You’re Not a Democrat or a Republican

      by

      Ross Douthat, a Times Opinion columnist, hosted an online conversation with Liel Leibovitz, an editor at large for Tablet magazine, and Stephanie Slade, a senior editor at Reason magazine, to discuss how they and other “politically homeless” Americans are thinking about the midterm elections.Ross Douthat: Thanks to you both for serving as representatives of the important part of America that feels legitimately torn between the political parties. Liel, in December of 2021 you wrote an essay about what you called “the Turn,” meaning the feeling of no longer being at home on the political left, of being alienated from the Democratic Party by everything from Covid-era school closures to doctrinaire progressivism.Where does “the Turn” carry you when it comes to electoral politics, facing the (arguably) binary choices of the midterm elections?Liel Leibovitz: Nowhere good, I’m afraid. I’m an immigrant, so I have no real tribal or longstanding loyalties. I came to this country, like so many other immigrants, because I care deeply about two things — freedom of religion and individual liberties. And both parties are messing up when it comes to these two fundamental pillars of American life, from cheering on law enforcement spying on Muslim Americans in the wake of 9/11 to cheering on social media networks for curbing free speech. “The Turn” leads me away from both Democrats and Republicans.Douthat: Stephanie, you’re a libertarian, part of a faction that’s always been somewhat alienated from both parties, despite (usually) having a somewhat stronger connection to the right. This is not, I think it’s fair to say, a particularly libertarian moment in either coalition. What kind of Election Day outcomes are you actually rooting for?Stephanie Slade: This is tough. As someone motivated by a desire for much less government than we currently have, I’m always going to be nervous about the prospect of a Congress that’s willing to rubber-stamp the whims of a president (or vice versa). So I’m an instinctive fan of divided power. But that preference is running smack up against the almost unimaginable abhorrence I feel toward some of the Republicans who would have to win in order for the G.O.P. to retake the Senate.Douthat: Liel, as someone whose relationship to the left and the Democrats has become much more complicated in recent years, what do you see when you look at the Republican alternative?Leibovitz: Sadly, the same thing I see when I look at the Democrats. I see a party too enmeshed in very bad ideas and too interested in power rather than principle. I see a party only too happy to cheer on big government to curtail individual liberties and to let tech oligopolies govern many corners of our lives. The only point of light is how many outliers both these parties seem to be producing these days, which tells me that the left-right dichotomy is truly turning meaningless.Douthat: But political parties are always more interested in power rather than principle, right? And a lot of people look at the current landscape and say, “Sure, there are problems in both parties, but the stakes are just too high not to choose a side.” Especially among liberals, there’s a strong current of frustration with cross-pressured voters. How do you respond to people who can’t understand why you aren’t fully on their side?Slade: Those seeking power certainly want people to feel like the stakes are too high not to go along with their demands. Yes, there are militant partisans on both sides who consider it traitorous of me not to be with them 100 percent. At the same time, there’s a distinction worth keeping in mind between where party activists are and where the average Republican or Democratic voter is. Most Americans are not so wedded to their red-blue identities.Leibovitz: The most corrosive and dispiriting thing is how zero-sum our political conversation has gotten. I look at the Democratic Party and see a lot of energy I love — particularly the old Bernie Sanders spirit, before it was consumed by the apparatus. I look at the Republican Party and see people like Ted Cruz, who are very good at kicking up against some of the party’s worst ideas. There’s hope here and energy, just not if you keep on seeing this game as red versus blue.Douthat: Let me pause there, Liel. What bad ideas do you think Cruz is kicking against?Leibovitz: He represents a kind of energy that doesn’t necessarily gravitate toward the orthodoxies of giving huge corporations the freedom to do as they please. He’s rooted in an understanding of America that balks at the notion that we now have a blob of government-corporate interests dictating every aspect of our lives and that everything — from our medical system to our entertainment — is uniform.Douthat: This is a good example of the gap between how political professionals see things and how individuals see things. There’s no place for the Bernie-Cruz sympathizer in normal political typologies! But you see in polls right now not just Georgians who might back Brian Kemp for governor in Georgia and Raphael Warnock for senator but also Arizonans who might vote for Mark Kelly and Kari Lake — a stranger combination.Stephanie, what do you think about this ticket-splitting impulse?Slade: Some of this isn’t new. Political scientists and pollsters have long observed that people don’t love the idea of any one side having too much power at once. In that, I can’t blame them.Leibovitz: I agree. But it’s still so interesting to me that some of these splits seem just so outlandish, like the number of people who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 and then in 2016 for Donald Trump. That’s telling us that something truly interesting, namely that these tired labels — Democrat, Republican — don’t really mean anything anymore.Slade: We insiders always want to believe that voters are operating from a sort of consistent philosophical blueprint. But we’re seeing a lot more frustration-based voting, backlash voting. This can be fine, in the sense that there’s plenty in our world to be frustrated about, but my fear is that it can tip over into a politics thoroughly motivated by hatreds. And that is scary.Douthat: Right. For instance, in the realm of pundits, there’s an assumption that Republican candidates should be assessed based on how all-in they are for election conspiracy theories and that swing voters should recoil from the conspiracists. That seems to be happening in Pennsylvania, where the more conspiratorial Republican, Doug Mastriano, seems to be doing worse in his governor’s race than Dr. Oz is in the Senate campaign. But in Arizona, Lake is the more conspiratorial candidate, and she appears to be a stronger candidate than Blake Masters is in the Senate race.Which suggests that swing voters are often using a different compass than the political class.Leibovitz: Let me inject a very big dose of — dare I say it? — hope here. Yes, there’s a lot of hate and a lot of fear going on. But if you look at these volatile patterns you’re describing, you’re seeing something else, which is a yearning for a real vision. Voters are gravitating toward candidates who are telling them coherent stories that make sense. To the political classes, these stories sometimes sound conspiratorial or crazy or way removed from the Beltway reality. But to normal Americans, they resonate.Douthat: Or, Stephanie, are they just swinging back and forth based on the price of gas, and all larger narratives are pundit impositions on more basic pocketbook impulses?Slade: Yeah, I’m a little more split on this. Economic fundamentals matter a lot, as do structural factors (like that the president’s party usually does poorly in midterms, irrespective of everything else).Douthat: But then do you, as an unusually well-informed, cross-pressured American, feel electing Republicans in the House or Senate will help with the economic situation, with inflation?Slade: It’s a debate among libertarians whether divided government is actually a good thing. Or is the one thing the two parties can agree on that they should spend ever more money? I don’t have a ton of hope that a Republican-controlled House or Senate will do much good. On the other hand, the sheer economic insanity of the Biden years — amounting to approving more than $4 trillion of new borrowing, to say nothing of the unconstitutional eviction moratorium and student loan forgiveness — is mind-boggling to me, so almost anything that could put the brakes on some of this stuff seems worth trying.Douthat: Spoken like a swing voter. Liel, you aren’t a libertarian, but your particular profile — Jewish immigrant writer put off by progressive extremism — does resemble an earlier cross-pressured group, the original 1970s neoconservatives. Over time, a lot of neoconservatives ended up comfortably on the right (at least until recently) because they felt welcomed by the optimism of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.Do you think that the toxic side of the G.O.P. is a permanent obstacle to completing a similar move rightward for people alienated by progressivism?Leibovitz: Not to get too biblical, but I view Trump less as a person and more as a plague, a reminder from above to mend our ways, or else. And many voters mortified by the sharp left turn of the Democratic Party are feeling, like me, politically homeless right now.But politically homeless is not politically hopeless. The way out for us isn’t by focusing on which of these two broken homes is better but on which ideas we still hold dear. And here I agree with Stephanie. Stopping the economic insanity — from rampant spending to stopping oil production and driving up gas prices to giving giant corporations a free pass — is key. So is curbing the notion that it’s OK to believe that the government can decide that some categories, like race or gender or sexual orientation, make a person a member of a protected class and that it’s OK for the government to adjudicate which of these classes is more worthy of protection.Douthat: Let’s end by getting specific. Irrespective of party, is there a candidate on the ballot this fall who you are especially eager to see win and one that you are especially eager to see lose?Leibovitz: I’m a New Yorker, so anyone who helped turn this state — and my beloved hometown — into the teetering mess it is right now deserves to go. Lee Zeldin seems like the sort of out-of-left-field candidate who can be transformative, especially considering the tremendous damage done by the progressives in the state.Douthat: OK, you’ve given me a Republican candidate you want to see win, is there one you’d like to see fail?Leibovitz: I know Pennsylvania is a very important battleground state, and the Democrats have put forth a person who appears ill equipped for this responsibility, but it’s very, very hard to take a Dr. Oz candidacy seriously.Slade: I spend a lot of my time following the rising illiberal conservative movement, variously known as national conservatives, postliberals, the New Right and so on. What distinguishes them is their desire not just to acquire government power but to wield it to destroy their enemies. That goes against everything I believe and everything I believe America stands for. The person running for office right now who seems most representative of that view is J.D. Vance, who once told a reporter that “our people hate the right people.” I would like to see that sentiment lose soundly in November, wherever it’s on the ballot. (Not that I’m saying I think it actually will lose in Ohio.)Douthat: No predictions here, just preferences. Is there someone you really want to win?Slade: Like a good libertarian, can I say I wish they could all lose?Douthat: Not really, because my last question bestows on both of you a very unlibertarian power. You are each the only swing voter in America, and you get to choose the world of 2023: a Democratic-controlled Congress, a Republican-controlled Congress or the wild card, Republicans taking one house but not the other. How do you use this power?Leibovitz: Mets fan here, so wild card is an apt metaphor: Take the split, watch them both lose in comical and heartbreaking ways and pray for a better team next election.Slade: If forced to decide, I’d split the baby, then split the baby again: Republicans take the House, Democrats hold the Senate.Douthat: A Solomonic conclusion, indeed. Thanks so much to you both.Ross Douthat is a Times columnist. Liel Leibovitz is an editor at large for Tablet magazine and a host of its weekly culture podcast, “Unorthodox,” and daily Talmud podcast, “Take One.” Stephanie Slade (@sladesr) is a senior editor at Reason magazine.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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Josh Hawley’s Manhood, Mike Pompeo’s Midriff and Other 2024 Indicators

      by

      Josh Hawley has a book about manhood coming out next year. Nikki Haley has a book about womanhood coming out in two months.Mike Pompeo has lost so much weight that he’s barely recognizable. Mike Pence has grown so much spine that he’s almost a vertebrate.Don’t tell them Donald Trump is the Republican Party’s inevitable 2024 presidential nominee. If that’s foreordained, then a whole lot of literary, cardiovascular and orthopedic effort has gone to waste.The news media is lousy of late with articles about the various Democrats potentially waiting in the wings if President Biden decides against a second term, to the point where he’s sometimes treated as more of a 2024 question mark than Trump is.Maybe that’s right. In a straw poll of Republicans at the Conservative Political Action Conference last weekend, Trump was the top choice to run for president, winning 69 percent of the vote. Second place went to Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, with just 24 percent, and third went to Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, with a measly 2 percent.But Trump is no spring chicken, and by the looks of things, he pays much less heed to his health than Biden does. A year from now he could be unfit for office in more ways than he already is.He could be in handcuffs! OK, that’s probably just a happy fantasy. But maybe less of one since the F.B.I. raided Mar-a-Lago on Monday? He’s the subject of investigations civil and criminal, federal and state.Or he could finally wear out his Republican welcome. “It is a sign of weakness, not strength, that Team Trump has been reduced to touting straw-poll results from events that most Americans, and indeed the vast majority of Republicans, know nothing about,” Isaac Schorr wrote in National Review early this week, adding that CPAC had in fact “been repurposed into an appeal to the former president’s vanity.”The Republicans eager to take his place at the helm of the party know all that. And they don’t have to be quite as discreet and demure in their positioning as Democrats interested in standing in for Biden do. Trump’s not the incumbent president, at least not in the world beyond his and his supplicants’ delusions.That positioning, once you recognize it, is a hoot. Everyone’s after a kind of branding that rivals won’t copy, a moment in the spotlight that competitors can’t match, an angle, an edge.DeSantis’s action-figure approach to his role as governor of Florida is in part about the fact that Cruz, Hawley and others don’t have the executive authority that he does and can’t make things happen as unilaterally or as quickly. They’re would-be MAGA superheroes bereft of their red capes.So a week ago, DeSantis didn’t merely suspend the top Tampa Bay area prosecutor, who said that he would never consider abortion a crime. DeSantis also peacocked to that part of the state and, surrounded by a flock of law enforcement officials, crowed about his decision during a news conference.Cruz and Hawley were such hams during the confirmation hearings for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson because, as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, they had a stage that DeSantis, Pence, Pompeo and others didn’t. Might as well pig out on the opportunity.Haley’s forthcoming book, “If You Want Something Done: Leadership Lessons From Bold Women,” is one that Cruz, Hawley, Pence and Pompeo would have an awkward time pulling off, and it beats voters over the head with the fact that she’s a trailblazer in ways that they can’t be.But does she or any other Republican love the Lord with Pence’s ardor? That’s a question he obviously wants to put in voters’ minds with his memoir, “So Help Me God,” to be released about a month after “If You Want Something Done.”Pompeo is doing a prep-for-the-presidency twofer. According to The New York Post, he shed 90 pounds in six months after his stint as Trump’s secretary of state was over. And he’s apparently putting the finishing touches on a memoir of his own, “Never Give an Inch: Fighting for the America I Love,” which Broadside Books is scheduled to publish in January.Its crowded company includes not only Haley’s and Pence’s books but also one by Cruz, “Justice Corrupted: How the Left Weaponized Our Legal System,” which is due in late October, and, of course, Hawley’s testosterone treatise, “Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs,” which has surely become a more risible sell in the wake of those images of him sprinting for the Capitol exit on Jan. 6, 2021.Here, for your delectation, is a snippet of the promotional copy for Hawley’s book: “No republic has ever survived without men of character to defend what is just and true. Starting with the wisdom of the ancients, from the Greek and Roman philosophers to Jesus of Nazareth, and drawing on the lessons of American history, Hawley identifies the defining strengths of men, including responsibility, bravery, fidelity and leadership.” I have goose bumps.Lest “Manhood” fail to persuade you of Hawley’s nonpareil virility, he summoned boundless courage last week to stand up to … Finland and Sweden. He was the only senator to vote against their admission to NATO.David Von Drehle sized it up correctly in a column in The Washington Post: “In search of a position that would set him apart from his rivals among the Senate’s young conservatives, Hawley arrived at the cockeyed notion that adding two robust military powers with vibrant economies would somehow increase NATO’s burden on U.S. resources.”Cockeyed? No! Cocksure — and undoubtedly weighing which fearsome and dastardly global actor he’ll unleash the full force of his manliness on next. The citizens of New Zealand tremble. The people of Andorra quiver.For the Love of SongsTracy ChapmanClayton Call/Redferns, via Getty ImagesI’m making a slight change to the title and tilt of this feature and putting the focus on songs instead of lyrics, because you can’t have the latter without the former and I don’t know anyone who listens repeatedly to a song if only the lyrics are appealing. Besides, the most poetic, truest and funniest lyrics don’t hit their marks unless their aural trappings complement them.The hundreds of unused nominations that you’ve sent in over time remain viable — you were always praising whole songs. And I’ll keep dipping into those nominations. I’m doing that today, with two very different but magnificent compositions that never lose their luster.“Fast Car,” written and performed by Tracy Chapman, is close to perfect. Scratch that: It is perfect. Released in 1988, it’s one of those ambitious songs, like Harry Chapin’s “Cat’s in the Cradle,” that tells a decades-spanning story and captures a life’s arc in just a few minutes, its lyrics a feat of economy and deftly chosen anecdotes and imagery:See, my old man’s got a problemHe lives with a bottle, that’s the way it isHe says his body’s too old for workingHis body’s too young to look like hisIt’s a song about a poor woman’s yearning and disillusionment, about how trapped she is, and the “fast car,” mentioned over and over, becomes both incantation and multipurpose metaphor, a means of escape, a vessel of delusion, a promise, a betrayal. The music works gorgeously with the words: During the verses it communicates the grind of her existence, but then it speeds up for the chorus, which captures the exhilaration of her dreams.When I went looking online for live performances of the song, the one I found had, below it, this comment from someone identified as Avila Dauvin: “How can someone write a song that breaks your heart and lifts your soul at the same time? Absolute legend.” I can’t say it any better.And I’m not surprised that “Fast Car” has been covered many times. Here’s a compendium of versions by Khalid, Birdy, Sam Smith and more. (Thanks to Carole Randolph Jurkash of Darien, Ill., and Deirdre Godfrey of Chicopee, Mass., for drawing my attention to “Fast Car” anew.)The other song I want to celebrate isn’t as lyrically epic or eloquent, but it’s gorgeous, and it lifts my soul even higher than “Fast Car” does. Please tell me that you’re familiar with Van Morrison’s “Sweet Thing,” which was released in 1968 and became a classic over the years. Please tell me that you smile at its start, when it playfully canters, and that you’re mesmerized two minutes in, when it reaches full gallop. And please tell me that its description of love’s spell — of how love puts stars in your eyes and the wind at your back — rings true to you:And I will walk and talk in gardens all wet with rainAnd I will never, ever, ever, ever grow so old again“Sweet Thing” is a sublimely sweet thing, salted in just the right measure by Morrison’s voice. (Keith Krabbe, Princeton, N.J.)“For the Love of Songs” appears monthly(ish). To nominate a songwriter and song, please email me here, including your name and place of residence. “For the Love of Sentences” will return with the next newsletter; you can use the same link to suggest recent snippets of prose for it.What I’m ReadingMany Latino voters’ movement away from Democrats and toward Republicans is a fascinating and important political story, and Axios recently put together a broad-ranging but succinct examination of the shift.My belief that North Carolina is an instructive mirror of America, my attention to L.G.B.T.Q. issues and my worry about our ability to find common ground all fed my interest in this article by my Duke University colleague Barry Yeoman in The Assembly. It’s about a schism in the United Methodist Church, and it asks “how long the ‘United’ in their name will hold.” The question applies to the United States these days as well.Another Duke colleague of mine, David Schanzer, recently began a newsletter, Perilous Times, which provides commentary about political and policy-related news, especially developments that underscore threats to our democracy. He weighed in this week on the meaning of the Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban’s rapturous reception at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Dallas.I’m a bit late to “American Made: What Happens to People When Work Disappears,” by my Opinion colleague Farah Stockman, but I’m very glad I finally got there. Published last October, Farah’s book chronicles the closing of a factory in Indiana that made ball bearings, and it’s both epic and intimate, with big thoughts about America and poignant details about the three people at the center of her meticulously reported narrative.On a Personal NoteXose Bouzas/Hans Lucas, via ReduxIf April is the cruelest month, August is the laziest. Businesses shutter. Beaches fill. From my observation, more people take weeklong or weekslong vacations around this time of year than any other, and if you’re one of them, and you’re away right now or will be heading off soon, I’m curious:Is your destination where you really want to be? Or is it where you want to say and show you’ve been?Did you choose it based on the tug of your heart? Or based on the tyranny of expectation?These questions came to mind as I read an excellent recent column in The Times by my colleague and friend Ginia Bellafante, who reflected on the crush of tourists using the Manhattan Bridge as a backdrop for selfies. She wondered, rightly, whether the look-at-it majesty of the landmark was being lost in the look-at-me mania for proof of having brushed up against it.I in turn wonder how much joy we lose — with travel as with so many other dimensions of life — by striking certain poses, honing certain images and fussing over how the world receives us rather than simply relishing our movement through it.The way so many people choose their vacation spots is a case in point. They collect places the way a Boy Scout or Girl Scout collects badges. Or they follow the crowd. They do what they think people like them are supposed to do — maybe because they lack the confidence to call their own shots, maybe because they lack the energy, maybe because they lack the imagination.They go to a given landmark because aren’t they supposed to? Don’t they want a record of the encounter? That record used to be a traditional photograph or maybe a silly souvenir. Now it’s a selfie, which is often as much an advertisement — an act of personal branding — as it is a keepsake.But there’s a difference between memorializing a vacation and enjoying it. I saw that less clearly in the past than I do now, and I do my flawed best to stay focused on it — to realize that my least ambitious, least photographed, most private breaks from work and escapes from routine are among my favorites. I’m not a big fan of precious portmanteaus, but I’m modestly fond of “staycation” — or, rather, the message of it: You needn’t necessarily set out for any coveted locale or impress anyone, including yourself, to lighten your load, free your thoughts, lift your spirit, find your bliss. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Group Seeks Disbarment of Ted Cruz Over Efforts to Overturn 2020 Election

      by

      A group trying to hold lawyers accountable for their efforts to keep Donald Trump in power after his election loss filed a complaint against the Republican senator with the Texas bar association.A group formed in the hopes of disbarring lawyers who worked on cases in which former President Donald J. Trump tried to subvert the results of the 2020 election filed a complaint with the Texas bar association on Wednesday against Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, for his efforts to keep Mr. Trump in power.The complaint against Mr. Cruz, filed by a group called the 65 Project, focuses on baseless assertions by Mr. Cruz about widespread voting fraud in the weeks between Election Day in 2020 and Jan. 6, 2021, as well as his participation in lawsuits protesting the results in Pennsylvania.“Mr. Cruz played a leading role in the effort to overturn the 2020 elections. And while the same can be said about several other elected officials, Mr. Cruz’s involvement was manifestly different,” the complaint said, asserting that Mr. Cruz moved beyond simply working within the confines of Congress.“He chose to take on the role of lawyer and agreed to represent Mr. Trump and Pennsylvania Republicans in litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court,” the complaint said, citing his role in two cases, neither of which succeeded. “In doing so, Mr. Cruz moved beyond his position as a United States senator and sought to use more than his Twitter account and media appearances to support Mr. Trump’s anti-democratic mission.”Elsewhere, the complaint argued, Mr. Cruz continued to make statements that he knew to be false, about the election and about the state courts in Pennsylvania being partisan.“Mr. Cruz knew that the allegations he was echoing had already been reviewed and rejected by courts,” the complaint says. “And he knew that claims of voter fraud or the election being stolen were false.”A spokesman for Mr. Cruz dismissed the 65 Project as “a far-left dark money smear machine run by a who’s who of shameless Democrat hacks. They’re not a credible organization and their complaint won’t be worth the paper it’s printed on.”The 65 Project’s advisers include the Hillary Clinton ally David Brock and Paul Rosenzweig, a conservative and former Republican who worked on the Ken Starr special prosecution team investigating the Clintons. The 65 Project was formed to hold accountable lawyers involved in a series of lawsuits seeking to undermine President Biden’s victory in 2020.Its targets have included a range of lawyers who worked on the postelection lawsuits in 2020. Mr. Cruz is the first senator the group has targeted in its campaign, which is still in its early stages.The complaint cited the suspension of the law license of Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City and one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, in New York as a precedent for what could happen to Mr. Cruz.In an interview, Mr. Rosenzweig said that the purpose of the complaint was to make clear that the need for “self-regulation for false statements is a real thing,” and that “if you transgress those rules, you will at minimum suffer the public consequence of being called out for your misconduct.”Mr. Rosenzweig said that the goal was not to punish people for representing clients, regardless of how many people may disagree with their views, but rather that it was “about whether a lawyer” could “suborn criminal conduct.” More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Ron DeSantis and Other Republicans Desecrate What Their Party Long Championed

      by

      In 2010, the Supreme Court held that “political speech does not lose First Amendment protection ‘simply because its source is a corporation.’” The case was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and the conservative justices sided with a group barred by the government from airing a political documentary.Republicans used to celebrate that decision. “For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process,” said Mitch McConnell, then the majority leader. The Supreme Court, he added, “took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups.”Mr. McConnell was standing up for a principle: People have a bedrock right to form associations, including corporations, and to use them to speak their minds.In the last few years, however, as large companies have increasingly agitated for left-of-center causes, many Republicans have developed a sudden allergy to corporate political speech, one that will have vast consequences for both the party and the nation.Disney’s Magic Kingdom Park in Florida.Ted Shaffrey/Associated PressConsider the recent drama in Florida. The evident retaliation by Gov. Ron DeSantis and his Republican allies against Disney, a major corporate player in their state, is part of a larger trend: What critics once called the party of big business is now eager to lash out at large companies and even nonprofits it deems inappropriately political — which in practice means anti-Republican.Conservatives angry at technology platforms over what they see as unfair treatment of right-of-center viewpoints have found a champion in a Republican senator, Josh Hawley of Missouri, who has introduced bills to reform legal protection for certain social media platforms and offered the Bust Up Big Tech Act. J.D. Vance, running in the Ohio Republican Senate primary, has suggested that we “seize the assets” of the Ford Foundation and other progressive NGOs; he also called for raising the taxes of companies that showed concerns about state-level voting legislation favored by Republicans last year. Leading right-wing commentators, from Tucker Carlson of Fox News to Ben Shapiro of The Daily Wire, cheer the efforts on.Too many conservatives seem to have no qualms today in wielding state power to punish their political opponents and shape the economy to their whims. This is not just a departure from the Republican consensus of the last half-century. It is a wholesale rejection of free markets and the very idea of limited government. It will make America poorer and the American people more vulnerable to tyranny.Republicans’ reversal is easy enough to explain: As companies increasingly accede to activist demands to make themselves combatants in a culture war, they have alienated broad swaths of the population. Twenty years ago, according to Gallup, fewer than half of Americans said they were somewhat or very dissatisfied with “the size and influence of major corporations.” Today, that number is 74 percent. Defending economic liberty is now passé. Taking on “big business” has become an effective way to score political points on the right, at least when the businesses are also seen as “woke.”The change may be politically expedient, but it will have grave costs. Conservatives once understood that free markets are an engine that produces widespread prosperity — and that government meddling is too often a wrench in the works. Choosing winners and losers, and otherwise substituting the preferences of lawmakers and bureaucrats for the logic of supply and demand, interferes with the economy’s ability to meet people’s material needs. If Republicans continue down this path, the result will be fewer jobs, higher prices, less consumer choice and a hampering of the unforeseen innovations that make our lives better all the time.But conservatives are turning on more than markets; they may be turning on the rule of law itself. The First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging people’s ability to speak, publish, broadcast and petition for a redress of grievances, precisely because the American founders saw criticizing one’s rulers as a God-given right. Drawing attention to errors and advocating a better path forward are some of the core mechanisms by which “we, the people” hold our government to account. The use of state power to punish someone for disfavored political speech is a gross violation of that ideal.The American economy is rife with cronyism, like subsidies or regulatory exemptions, that give some businesses advantages not available to all. This too makes a mockery of free markets and rule of law, transferring wealth from taxpayers and consumers to politically connected elites. But while ending cronyism is a worthy goal, selectively revoking privileges from companies that fall out of favor with the party in power is not good-government reform.One might doubt the retaliatory nature of Republicans’ corporate speech reversal, but for their inability to quit stepping in front of cameras and stating the quiet part aloud. In the very act of signing the law that does away with Disney’s special-purpose district and several others, Mr. DeSantis said this: “You’re a corporation based in Burbank, Calif., and you’re gonna marshal your economic might to attack the parents of my state. We view that as a provocation, and we’re going to fight back against that.”But if government power can be used for brazen attacks on American companies and nonprofits, what can’t it be used for? If it is legitimate for politicians to retaliate against groups for political speech, is it also legitimate to retaliate against individuals? (As Senator Mitt Romney once said, “Corporations are people, my friend.”) And if even the right to speak out is not held sacred, what chance do the people have to resist an authoritarian turn?Conservatives, confronting these questions, once championed free markets and limited government as essential bulwarks against tyranny. Discarding those commitments is not a small concession to changing times but an abject desecration, for cheap political gain, of everything they long claimed to believe.For decades, the “fusionist” governing philosophy — which, in bringing together the values of individual freedom and traditional morality, charges government with protecting liberty so that the people will be free to pursue virtuous lives — bound conservatives together and gave the Republican Party a coherent animating force. That philosophy would reject the idea that political officials should have discretion over the positions that companies are allowed to take or the views that people are allowed to express.The G.O.P. today may be able to win elections without fusionism, but it cannot serve the interests of Americans while wrecking the economy and undermining the rule of law.Stephanie Slade (@sladesr) is a senior editor at Reason magazine.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