Cruz, Ted

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      How the Trump Era Broke the Sunday-Morning News Show

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyHow the Trump Era Broke the Sunday-Morning News ShowAny number of hallowed political and media institutions fell apart. So why should the most hallowed political-media institution of them all escape unscathed? Credit…Photo illustration by Mike McQuadeFeb. 11, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETOn the Sunday after Joe Biden’s inauguration, Rand Paul appeared on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” to make baseless claims of election fraud and to lecture the host on how to do his job. “Hey, George, George, George!” the Republican senator from Kentucky sputtered at Stephanopoulos, who had repeatedly tried — and failed — to get Paul to acknowledge that Biden had not “stolen” November’s election. “Where you make a mistake,” Paul continued, “is that people coming from the liberal side like you, you immediately say everything’s a lie instead of saying there are two sides to everything. Historically what would happen is if I said that I thought that there was fraud, you would interview someone else who said there wasn’t. But now you insert yourself in the middle and say that the absolute fact is that everything that I’m saying is a lie.”Paul was not necessarily wrong in his criticism. Ever since Tim Russert became the host of NBC’s “Meet the Press” in 1991 and began subjecting Democrats and Republicans to his “tough but fair” questions, the contemporary Sunday-​morning public-affairs show anchors have cast themselves as facilitators of a point-counterpoint format. “It’s not my job to express my opinions,” Stephanopoulos told The Hartford Courant upon being handed the reins of “This Week” in 2002. “It’s my job to ask the right questions, to make sure that people learn something from the program, to present all sides of the story and let people make up their own minds.”But nearly two decades later, Stephanopoulos’s approach was untenable. “Senator Paul, let me begin with a threshold question for you,” he said at the interview’s outset. “This election was not stolen, do you accept that fact?” Paul dodged the question to claim that there were “people who voted twice” and “dead people who voted” and “illegal aliens who voted.” Stephanopoulos repeated, “Can’t you just say the words ‘The election was not stolen’?” Paul could not; instead he gave Stephanopoulos his history lesson about Sunday shows. “You’re forgetting who you are as a journalist if you think there’s only one side,” Paul taunted.The interview was barely an hour old before Paul posted a link on Twitter. “Partisan Democrats in the media think they can get away with just calling Republicans liars because they don’t agree with us,” he wrote. “Watch me stand up to one here.” Three days later, The Federalist ran a story headlined: “Rand Paul’s Cage Match With George Stephanopoulos Is a Pattern Everyone on the Right Should Follow.”The Donald Trump years have broken any number of hallowed political and media institutions, so why should the most hallowed political-media institution of them all, the Sunday show, escape unscathed? Yes, those self-important shows with their self-important anchors have never been as crucial to our constitutional system as they like to imagine. But they have at least provided a refuge from the soft-focused fecklessness of the networks’ evening news and the shrieking of the prime-time carnival barkers on cable. That changed during Trump’s presidency. In some instances, the shows were less about educating the viewing audience than flattering an audience of one. “The reality is that the president is a political genius,” Stephen Miller told Jake Tapper on CNN’s “State of the Union” during a contentious interview in 2018. “I’m sure he’s watching and is happy you said that,” Tapper told Miller. (Trump soon tweeted a link to the segment, praising Miller.)Even worse, the shows became platforms for disinformation. In October 2019, Chuck Todd invited Ron Johnson, a Republican senator from Wisconsin, on “Meet the Press” to discuss the revelation that Trump had withheld military aid to Ukraine unless the country’s president agreed to investigate the business dealings of Hunter Biden. Johnson previously told The Wall Street Journal that he “winced” when he learned those two issues were connected. But when Todd asked about that report — “What made you wince?” — Johnson launched into a conspiracy theory about the origins of Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. “I have no idea why we’re going here,” Todd complained. Two months later, Ted Cruz, a Republican senator from Texas, reached out to “Meet the Press” to discuss the Ukraine scandal. As Todd later told Rolling Stone, he assumed that Cruz, an avowed Russia hawk, wanted to push back against a Russian disinformation campaign. But when Todd asked Cruz whether he thought Ukraine tried to sway the 2016 elections, Cruz replied, “I do.” “You do?” Todd asked in disbelief. “Here’s the game the media is playing,” Cruz said. “Because Russia interfered, the media pretends nobody else did.” Looking back on the interview, Todd told Rolling Stone: “He wants to use this for some sort of appeasement of the right. I didn’t know what else to think.”Todd appears to have done a good deal of thinking about the plight of the Sunday show. In 2018, he wrote a cri de coeur for The Atlantic about “a nearly 50-year campaign to delegitimize the press,” imploring his colleagues to fight back: “It means not allowing ourselves to be spun, and not giving guests or sources a platform to spin our readers and viewers, even if that angers them.” A few months later, Todd hosted an episode of “Meet the Press” dedicated to climate change and made a point of not inviting any climate-change deniers. But should climate denialism be the only verboten point of view on Sunday shows? Last month, more than three dozen progressive groups wrote an open letter to members of the media calling on them to interview only those elected officials who “publicly concede that the 2020 presidential election was free and fair, and that claims to the contrary are false.” In other words, the groups wanted journalists to give Republicans who lie about election fraud the same treatment Twitter and Facebook gave Trump: deplatforming them. It’s hard to imagine, however, the Sunday shows ever taking such a step. There are, of course, the financial incentives: The trade associations and defense contractors that sponsor the Sunday shows presumably expect bipartisan bang for their advertising bucks. But the bigger impediment is the shows’ self-conception. If “This Week” and “Meet the Press” were to deplatform Republicans who won’t acknowledge, without caveats, that Biden won, then their guests would consist almost entirely of Democrats — and the Sunday shows would resemble prime-time programs on MSNBC and CNN. No self-respecting Sunday show wants that. In January, Todd beseeched what he called “sober-minded” Republicans to appear on his show. “Stop helping to reinforce the incorrect notion that the mainstream news media isn’t interested in your side of the debate,” he wrote in Politico.In the meantime, the Sunday shows are making do with those Republicans who will show up. Earlier that same month, Todd again hosted Ron Johnson, who again used the opportunity to spew nonsense, boasting about a recent hearing he had held to look into allegations of voter fraud. “The fact of the matter is that we have an unsustainable state of affairs in this country where we have tens of millions of people that do not view this election result as legitimate,” Johnson said at one point.“Then why don’t you hold hearings about the 9/11 truthers?” Todd asked. “How about the moon landing? Are you going to hold hearings on that?” It was a good line, and Todd seemed pleased with himself. It did not occur to Todd, however, that the same question could be asked of him. If “Meet the Press” is going to have guests like Johnson, why doesn’t it host 9/11 truthers and moon-landing conspiracists as well?Source photographs by Joshua Roberts/Getty Images; Andrew Toth/FilmMagic, via Getty Images. AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 38 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Next Trump

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyThe Next TrumpThere is no one quite like him in the Republican Party. So where should we look for the president’s inheritors?Opinion ColumnistJan. 19, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETCredit…Doug Mills/The New York TimesMost Americans want Donald Trump out of sight and out of mind after he leaves office on Wednesday. Most Americans except Republicans, that is.In every recent poll on Trump, Republicans stand apart. Ask whether Trump should remain a “major national figure for years to come,” as the Pew Research Center did in a survey taken just after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, and 68 percent of Americans say no, whereas 57 percent of Republicans say yes.Or ask whether Trump should be disqualified from future office. A majority of adults — 56 percent, according to a recent poll conducted for ABC News and The Washington Post — also say yes, whereas 85 percent of Republicans say no.Of course, the reason the Republican rank and file doesn’t think Trump should slink away is because they think he won the election. Among his voters, 75 percent say he received enough votes in enough states to claim victory. For them, there’s no reason Trump should leave the field as a pariah or relinquish his claim on the party itself. It’s no surprise, then, that most Republican officeholders are sticking with the president and that the most loyal among them hope to harness the pro-Trump energy of the base for their own personal ambitions.This dynamic is part of what spurred Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley to amplify the lie that the election was tainted. It’s what kept Mike Pence from turning on the president that made him the target of a deadly mob, and it’s what led Mike Pompeo to turn on his former administration colleague Nikki Haley, for criticizing Trump’s rhetoric since the election.Each of them (to say nothing of the party’s other presidential contenders) all hope to be, in one way or another, the next Trump. The problem for each of them is that this may be impossible.In 2015 and 2016, Donald Trump wasn’t just an unconventional politician with a direct appeal to the prejudiced attitudes of the Republican base, and he wasn’t just a fixture of conservative media and entertainment. He was a bona fide celebrity and household name, with 30 years on the public stage as the embodiment of wealth and luxury. And for more than 10 of those years, he was star of “The Apprentice,” a popular reality television series in which he played the most successful businessman in America, whose approval could turn an ordinary nobody into an extraordinary somebody. His was a persona that rested on the valorization of entrepreneurship and the worship of success.This wasn’t a dour or self-serious performance. Trump wasn’t Ebenezer Scrooge. He was a winking, cheerful vulgarian who knew the show was an act and played along with the viewers. From his cameos on the big screen in films like “Home Alone 2” to his parodic appearances in professional wrestling, he was affable, even charming.It’s hard to overstate how important this was for Trump’s first campaign. If modern American politics is entertainment as much as civics, then Trump was its star performer. And his audience, his supporters, could join in the performance. This is crucial. Trump could say whatever they wanted to hear, and they could take it in as part of the act, something — as one sympathetic observer wrote — to be taken seriously, not literally. Words that might have doomed any other Republican candidate, and which have in the past, meant nothing to the strength of Trump’s campaign.When he finally ran against Hillary Clinton, celebrity helped him appeal to those voters who hated politicians — who sat at the margins of politics, if they participated at all — but could get behind an irreverent figure like Trump. Did he lie? Sure. But the shamelessness of his lies, and his indifference to decorum, was its own kind of truth. Celebrity was his shield and his sword, and his life as a reality television star primed his supporters to see his presidency as a show that would never end.Since the 1990s, the Republican Party has struggled to win a majority of voters nationwide in a presidential election. They’ve done it exactly once, in 2004, with the re-election of George W. Bush. Trump’s path to victory — a minority-vote Electoral College win with high turnout in rural and exurban areas — may be the only one the party has left. As one group of House Republicans said ahead (and in support) of the vote to confirm the results of the 2020 election,If we perpetuate the notion that Congress may disregard certified electoral votes — based solely on its own assessment that one or more states mishandled the presidential election — we will be delegitimizing the very system that led Donald Trump to victory in 2016, and that could provide the only path to victory in 2024.The big question is whether it took a Trump to make 2016 happen in the first place. Given the Republican Party’s struggle to build a national majority, was he the only candidate that could pull off a win? And if so, was his celebrity the X factor that made it possible? The fact that Republicans lost when Trump was not on the ballot is evidence in favor of the case.If celebrity is what it takes, then there’s no Republican politician who can carry Trump’s mantle. No one with his or her hat obviously in the ring — neither Cruz nor Hawley, neither Tom Cotton nor Haley — has the juice. There are the Trump children, of course. But the Trump name doesn’t actually stand for success, and there’s no evidence yet that any of them can make the leap to winning votes for themselves.Perhaps the next Trump, if there is one, will be another celebrity. Someone with a powerful and compelling persona, who traffics in fear and anger and hate. Someone who “triggers the libs” and puts on a show. Someone who already has an audience, who speaks for the Republican base as much as he speaks to them. Republican voters have already put a Fox News viewer into the White House. From there it’s just a short step to electing an actual Fox News personality.What are your hopes for the next four years?It could be a better economy, a personal milestone or an ambitious policy. Tell us what you’re hoping will happen during the Biden administration. We may include your responses in a special feature publishing on Inauguration Day.

      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.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Regnery Publishing Picks Up Senator Hawley's Book

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Capitol Riot FalloutLatest UpdatesInside the SiegeVisual TimelineNotable ArrestsCapitol Police in CrisisAdvertisementContinue reading the main storyAs Biden’s Inauguration Approaches Pressure Mounts on Some Trump AppointeesRegnery Publishing picks up Senator Hawley’s book after it was dropped by Simon & Schuster.Jan. 18, 2021, 11:47 a.m. ETJan. 18, 2021, 11:47 a.m. ETSenator Josh Hawley of Missouri sitting in the House Chamber before a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6.Credit…Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesRegnery Publishing, a conservative publishing house, said Monday that it had picked up a book by Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, after Simon & Schuster ended its contract to publish it in the wake of the assault on the Capitol.Mr. Hawley had come under criticism for challenging the results of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory and was accused of helping incite the mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6. His book, “The Tyranny of Big Tech,” is scheduled to be published this spring, Regnery said.Thomas Spence, the president and publisher of Regnery, said in a statement that the publishing house was proud to stand with Mr. Hawley. “The warning in his book about censorship obviously couldn’t be more urgent,” Mr. Spence said. His company’s statement said that Simon & Schuster had made Mr. Hawley a victim of cancel culture.Most major publishers, including Simon & Schuster, one of the “Big Five” book publishers in the United States, publish books across the political spectrum. But Simon & Schuster said it called off its plan to publish Mr. Hawley’s book after the Capitol attack.“As a publisher it will always be our mission to amplify a variety of voices and viewpoints: At the same time we take seriously our larger public responsibility as citizens, and cannot support Senator Hawley after his role in what became a dangerous threat,” Simon & Schuster said in a statement. The company declined to comment on Regnery’s accusations.After his book was dropped, Mr. Hawley described it as “Orwellian.”“Simon & Schuster is canceling my contract because I was representing my constituents, leading a debate on the Senate floor on voter integrity, which they have now decided to redefine as sedition,” he wrote in a post.In recent years, Regnery’s best-selling authors have included Ann Coulter, the conservative pundit, and Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas. Mr. Hawley’s book is about technology corporations like Google, Facebook and Amazon and their political influence.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 38 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      El abismo estadounidense

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Capitol Riot FalloutInside the SiegeVisual TimelineNotable ArrestsCapitol Police in CrisisThe police forced the crowd out of the Capitol building after facing off in the Rotunda, Jan. 6, 3:40 p.m.Credit…Ashley Gilbertson/VII, for The New York TimesEl abismo estadounidenseTrump, la turba y lo que viene después: observaciones de un historiador del fascismo y la atrocidad política.The police forced the crowd out of the Capitol building after facing off in the Rotunda, Jan. 6, 3:40 p.m.Credit…Ashley Gilbertson/VII, for The New York TimesSupported byContinue reading the main story15 de enero de 2021Actualizado 08:30 ETRead in EnglishLire en françaisCuando Donald Trump se paró frente a sus seguidores el 6 de enero y los instó a marchar hacia el Capitolio de Estados Unidos, estaba haciendo lo que siempre había hecho. Nunca tomó en serio la democracia electoral ni aceptó la legitimidad de su versión estadounidense.Incluso cuando ganó, en 2016, insistió en que la elección fue fraudulenta, que se emitieron millones de votos falsos para su oponente. En 2020, sabiendo que iba detrás de Joe Biden en las encuestas, pasó meses afirmando que la elección presidencial estaba amañada y señalando que no aceptaría los resultados si no le favorecían. El día de las elecciones afirmó erróneamente que había ganado y luego endureció su retórica: con el tiempo, su victoria se convirtió en una avalancha histórica y las diversas conspiraciones que la negaban cada vez eran más sofisticadas e inverosímiles.La gente le creyó, lo que no es para nada sorprendente. Se necesita una gran cantidad de trabajo para educar a los ciudadanos a resistir la poderosa atracción de creer lo que ya creen, o lo que otros a su alrededor creen, o lo que le daría sentido a sus propias decisiones anteriores. Platón advirtió de un riesgo particular sobre los tiranos: que al final se verían rodeados de gente que siempre les dice que sí y de facilitadores. A Aristóteles le preocupaba que, en una democracia, un demagogo rico y talentoso pudiera dominar fácilmente las mentes de la población. Conscientes de estos y otros riesgos, los creadores de la Constitución de Estados Unidos instituyeron un sistema de pesos y contrapesos. No se trataba simplemente de asegurar que ninguna rama del gobierno dominase a las demás, sino también de anclar en las instituciones diferentes puntos de vista.Listen to This ArticleAudio Recording by AudmEn este sentido, la responsabilidad de la presión de Trump para anular una elección debe ser compartida por un gran número de miembros republicanos del Congreso. En vez de contradecir a Trump desde el principio, permitieron que su ficción electoral floreciera. Tenían motivos para hacerlo. Un grupo de integrantes del Partido Republicano se preocupa sobre todo por jugar con el sistema para mantener el poder, aprovechando al máximo las imprecisiones constitucionales, las manipulaciones y el dinero sucio para ganar las elecciones con una minoría de votantes motivados. No les interesa que colapse la peculiar forma de representación que permite a su partido minoritario un control desproporcionado del gobierno. El más importante de ellos, Mitch McConnell, permitió la mentira de Trump sin hacer ningún comentario sobre sus consecuencias.Sin embargo, otros republicanos vieron la situación de manera diferente: podrían realmente romper el sistema y tener el poder sin democracia. La división entre estos dos grupos, los que participan en el juego y los que quieren patear el tablero, se hizo muy evidente el 30 de diciembre, cuando el senador Josh Hawley anunció que apoyaría la impugnación de Trump al cuestionar la validez de los votos electorales el 6 de enero. En ese momento, Ted Cruz prometió su propio apoyo, junto con otros diez senadores. Más de un centenar de representantes republicanos asumieron la misma postura. Para muchos, esto lucía como un espectáculo más: las impugnaciones a los votos electorales de los estados forzarían retrasos y votos en el pleno pero no afectarían al resultado.Los extremistas pro-Trump intentan escalar las paredes del edificio del Capitolio en Washington para pasar las barreras y entrar, 2:09 p. m.Credit…Ashley Gilbertson/VII para The New York TimesSin embargo, que el Congreso obviara sus funciones básicas tenía un precio. Una institución elegida que se opone a las elecciones está invitando a su propio derrocamiento. Los miembros del Congreso que sostuvieron la mentira del presidente, a pesar de la evidencia disponible y sin ambigüedades, traicionaron su misión constitucional. Hacer de sus ficciones la base de la acción del Congreso les dio vigor. Ahora Trump podría exigir que los senadores y congresistas se sometan a su voluntad. Podía poner la responsabilidad personal sobre Mike Pence, a cargo de los procedimientos formales, para pervertirlos. Y el 6 de enero, ordenó a sus seguidores que ejercieran presión sobre estos representantes elegidos, lo que procedieron a hacer: asaltaron el edificio del Capitolio, buscaron gente para castigar y saquearon el lugar.Por supuesto que esto tenía sentido de cierto modo: si la elección realmente había sido robada, como los senadores y congresistas insinuaban, entonces ¿cómo se podía permitir que el Congreso siguiera adelante? Para algunos republicanos, la invasión del Capitolio debe haber sido una sorpresa, o incluso una lección. Sin embargo, para quienes buscaban una ruptura, puede haber sido un atisbo del futuro. Luego, ocho senadores y más de 100 representantes votaron a favor de la mentira que les obligó a huir de sus cámaras.Los insurrectos amenazaron y persiguieron al agente Eugene Goodman dentro del Capitolio, a las 2:13 p. m.Credit…Ashley Gilbertson/VII para The New York TimesLa posverdad es prefascismo, y Trump ha sido nuestro presidente de la posverdad. Cuando renunciamos a la verdad, concedemos el poder a aquellos con la riqueza y el carisma para crear un espectáculo en su lugar. Sin un acuerdo sobre algunos hechos básicos, los ciudadanos no pueden formar una sociedad civil que les permita defenderse. Si perdemos las instituciones que producen hechos que nos conciernen, entonces tendemos a revolcarnos en atractivas abstracciones y ficciones. La verdad se defiende particularmente mal cuando no queda mucho de ella, y la era de Trump —como la era de Vladimir Putin en Rusia— es una de decadencia de las noticias locales. Las redes sociales no son un sustituto: sobrecargan los hábitos mentales por los que buscamos estímulo emocional y comodidad, lo que significa perder la distinción entre lo que se siente verdadero y lo que realmente es verdadero.La posverdad desgasta el Estado de derecho e invita a un régimen de mitos. Estos últimos cuatro años, los estudiosos han discutido la legitimidad y el valor de invocar el fascismo en referencia a la propaganda trumpista. Una posición cómoda ha sido etiquetar cualquier esfuerzo como una comparación directa y luego tratar esas comparaciones como tabú. De manera más productiva, el filósofo Jason Stanley ha tratado el fascismo como un fenómeno, como una serie de patrones que pueden observarse no solo en la Europa de entreguerras sino más allá de esa época.Mi propia opinión es que un mayor conocimiento del pasado, fascista o no, nos permite notar y conceptualizar elementos del presente que de otra manera podríamos ignorar, y pensar más ampliamente sobre las posibilidades futuras. En octubre me quedó claro que el comportamiento de Trump presagiaba un golpe de Estado, y lo dije por escrito; esto no es porque el presente repita el pasado, sino porque el pasado ilumina el presente.Una turba furiosa se enfrentó a la policía mientras intentaba entrar en el Capitolio, a las 2:00 p. m.Credit…Ashley Gilbertson/VII para The New York TimesComo los líderes fascistas históricos, Trump se ha presentado como la única fuente de la verdad. Su uso del término fake news (“noticias falsas”) se hizo eco de la difamación nazi Lügenpresse (“prensa mentirosa”); como los nazis, se refirió a los reporteros como “enemigos del pueblo”. Como Adolf Hitler, llegó al poder en un momento en que la prensa convencional había recibido una paliza; la crisis financiera de 2008 hizo a los periódicos estadounidenses lo que la Gran Depresión le hizo a los diarios alemanes. Los nazis pensaron que podían usar la radio para remplazar el viejo pluralismo del periódico; Trump trató de hacer lo mismo con Twitter.Gracias a la capacidad tecnológica y al talento personal, Donald Trump mintió a un ritmo tal vez inigualado por ningún otro líder de la historia. En su mayor parte eran pequeñas mentiras, y su principal efecto era acumulativo. Creer en todas ellas era aceptar la autoridad de un solo hombre, porque creer en ellas era descreer en todo lo demás. Una vez establecida esa autoridad personal, el mandatario podía tratar a todos los demás como mentirosos; incluso tenía el poder de convertir a alguien de un consejero de confianza en un deshonesto sinvergüenza con un solo tuit. Sin embargo, mientras no pudiera imponer una mentira verdaderamente grande, una fantasía que crease una realidad alternativa en la que la gente pudiera vivir y morir, su prefascismo se quedó corto.Un busto de George Washington, con una gorra de Trump, mientras los intrusos recorrían el edificio, a las 2:34 p. m.Credit…Ashley Gilbertson para The New York TimesAlgunas de sus mentiras fueron, sin duda, de tamaño mediano: que era un hombre de negocios exitoso; que Rusia no lo apoyó en 2016; que Barack Obama nació en Kenia. Esas mentiras de tamaño medio eran la norma de los aspirantes a autoritaristas en el siglo XXI. En Polonia el partido de la derecha construyó un culto al martirio que giraba en torno a responsabilizar a los rivales políticos por el accidente de avión que mató al presidente de la nación. El húngaro Viktor Orban culpa a un número cada vez más reducido de refugiados musulmanes de los problemas de su país. Pero esas afirmaciones no eran grandes mentiras; se extendían pero no rompían lo que Hannah Arendt llamaba “el tejido de la realidad”.Una gran mentira histórica discutida por Arendt es la explicación de Joseph Stalin de la hambruna en la Ucrania soviética en 1932-33. El Estado había colectivizado la agricultura, y luego aplicó una serie de medidas punitivas contra Ucrania que provocaron la muerte de millones de personas. Sin embargo, la versión oficial era que los hambrientos eran provocadores, agentes de las potencias occidentales que odiaban tanto el socialismo que se estaban matando a sí mismos. Una ficción aún más grande, en el relato de Arendt, es el antisemitismo hitleriano: las afirmaciones de que los judíos dirigían el mundo, los judíos eran responsables de las ideas que envenenaban las mentes alemanas, los judíos apuñalaron a Alemania por la espalda durante la Primera Guerra Mundial. Curiosamente, Arendt pensaba que las grandes mentiras solo funcionan en las mentes solitarias; su coherencia sustituye a la experiencia y al compañerismo.En noviembre de 2020, al llegar a millones de mentes solitarias a través de las redes sociales, Trump dijo una mentira peligrosamente ambiciosa: que había ganado unas elecciones que, de hecho, había perdido. Esta mentira era grande en todos los aspectos pertinentes: no tan grande como “los judíos dirigen el mundo”, pero lo suficientemente grande. La importancia del asunto en cuestión era grande: el derecho a gobernar el país más poderoso del mundo y la eficacia y fiabilidad de sus procedimientos de sucesión. El nivel de mendacidad era profundo. La afirmación no solo era errónea, sino que también se hizo de mala fe, en medio de fuentes poco fiables. Cuestionaba no solo las pruebas sino también la lógica: ¿Cómo podría (y por qué debería) una elección haber sido amañada contra un presidente republicano pero no contra senadores y representantes republicanos? Trump tuvo que hablar, absurdamente, de una “Elección (para Presidente) amañada”.Afuera del Capitolio, la multitud aplaudía mientras los asaltantes entraban en el edificio a las 2:10 p. m.Credit…Ashley Gilbertson/VII para The New York TimesLa fuerza de una gran mentira reside en su demanda de que muchas otras cosas deben ser creídas o no creídas. Para dar sentido a un mundo en el que las elecciones presidenciales de 2020 fueron robadas se requiere desconfiar no solo de los reporteros y de los expertos, sino también de las instituciones gubernamentales locales, estatales y federales, desde los trabajadores electorales hasta los funcionarios electos, la Seguridad Nacional y hasta la Corte Suprema. Esto trae consigo, por necesidad, una teoría de la conspiración: imagina a toda la gente que debe haber estado en ese complot y a toda la gente que habría tenido que trabajar en el encubrimiento.La ficción electoral de Trump flota libre de la realidad verificable. Está defendida no tanto por hechos como por afirmaciones de que alguien más ha hecho algunas afirmaciones. La sensibilidad es que algo debe estar mal porque siento que está mal, y sé que otros sienten lo mismo. Cuando líderes políticos como Ted Cruz o Jim Jordan hablaban así, lo que querían decir era: crees mis mentiras, lo que me obliga a repetirlas. Las redes sociales proporcionan una infinidad de pruebas aparentes para cualquier condena, especialmente una aparentemente sostenida por un presidente.En la superficie, una teoría de la conspiración hace que su víctima parezca fuerte: ve a Trump como resistiendo a los demócratas, los republicanos, el Estado Profundo, los pedófilos, los satanistas. Sin embargo, más profundamente, invierte la posición de los fuertes y los débiles. El enfoque de Trump en las supuestas “irregularidades” y “estados disputados” se reduce a las ciudades donde los negros viven y votan. En el fondo, la fantasía del fraude es la de un crimen cometido por los negros contra los blancos.No es solo que el fraude electoral de los afroestadounidenses contra Donald Trump nunca haya ocurrido. Es que es todo lo contrario de lo que sucedió, en 2020 y en todas las elecciones estadounidenses. Como siempre, los negros esperaron más tiempo que los demás para votar y era más probable que sus votos fuesen impugnados. Era más probable que estuvieran sufriendo o muriendo a causa de la COVID-19, y menos probable que pudieran tomarse un tiempo fuera del trabajo. La protección histórica de su derecho al voto fue eliminada por el fallo de 2013 de la Corte Suprema en el caso del Condado de Shelby contra Holder, y los estados se han apresurado a aprobar medidas del tipo que históricamente reducen el voto de los pobres y las comunidades de color.La afirmación de que a Trump se le negó una victoria por fraude es una gran mentira, no solo porque atenta contra la lógica, describe mal el presente y exige creer en una conspiración. Es una gran mentira, fundamentalmente, porque invierte el campo moral de la política estadounidense y la estructura básica de la historia estadounidense.Cuando el senador Ted Cruz anunció su intención de impugnar el voto del Colegio Electoral, invocó el Compromiso de 1877, que resolvió la elección presidencial de 1876. Los comentaristas señalaron que esto no era un precedente relevante, ya que en ese entonces realmente habían graves irregularidades de los votantes y se produjo un impasse en el Congreso. Para los afroestadounidenses, sin embargo, la referencia aparentemente gratuita llevaba a otra parte. El Compromiso de 1877 —por el que Rutherford B. Hayes tendría la presidencia, siempre que retirara el poder federal del Sur— fue el mismo acuerdo por el que los afroestadounidenses fueron expulsados de las casillas de votación durante la mayor parte del siglo. Fue el fin de la Reconstrucción, el comienzo de la segregación, la discriminación legal y Jim Crow. Es el pecado original de la historia afroestadounidenses en la era posesclavitud, nuestro más cercano roce con el fascismo hasta ahora.Si la referencia parecía distante cuando Ted Cruz y 10 colegas senadores dieron a conocer su declaración el 2 de enero, se acercó mucho cuatro días después, cuando las banderas confederadas desfilaron por el Capitolio.Un camarógrafo de The Daily Caller, un sitio web de derecha, después de ser rociado con gas pimienta durante el caos en el Capitolio, a las 3:45 p. m.Credit…Ashley Gilbertson/VII para The New York TimesAlgunas cosas han cambiado desde 1877, por supuesto. En ese entonces, eran los republicanos, o muchos de ellos, los que apoyaban la igualdad racial; eran los demócratas, el partido del sur, los que querían el apartheid. Fueron los demócratas, en ese entonces, quienes llamaron fraudulentos los votos de los afroestadounidenses, y los republicanos quienes querían que fueran contados. Esto se ha invertido ahora. En el último medio siglo, desde la Ley de Derechos Civiles, los republicanos se han convertido en un partido predominantemente blanco interesado —como Trump declaró abiertamente— en mantener el número de votantes, y en particular el número de votantes negros, lo más bajo posible. Sin embargo, el hilo conductor sigue siendo el mismo. Al ver a los supremacistas blancos entre la gente que asaltaba el Capitolio, era fácil ceder a la sensación de que algo puro había sido violado. Sería mejor ver el episodio como parte de una larga discusión estadounidense sobre quién merece ser representado.Los demócratas se han convertido en una coalición, una que lo hace mejor que los republicanos entre los votantes femeninos y no blancos y consigue votos tanto de los sindicatos como de los universitarios. Sin embargo, no es del todo correcto contrastar esta coalición con un Partido Republicano monolítico. En este momento, el Partido Republicano es una coalición de dos tipos de personas: aquellos que jugarían con el sistema (la mayoría de los políticos, algunos de los votantes) y aquellos que sueñan con romperlo (algunos de los políticos, muchos de los votantes). En enero de 2021, esto fue visible como la diferencia entre los republicanos que defendían el sistema actual con el argumento de que les favorecía y los que trataban de derribarlo.En las cuatro décadas desde la elección de Ronald Reagan, los republicanos han superado la tensión entre los jugadores y los rupturistas gobernando en oposición al gobierno, o llamando a las elecciones una revolución (el Tea Party), o afirmando que se oponen a las élites. Los rupturistas, en este arreglo, proporcionan una cobertura a los jugadores, al presentar una ideología que distrae de la realidad básica de que el gobierno bajo los republicanos no se hace más pequeño sino que simplemente se desvía para servir a una serie de intereses..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-c7gg1r{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:0.875rem;margin-bottom:15px;color:#121212 !important;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-c7gg1r{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-rqynmc{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc strong{font-weight:600;}.css-rqynmc em{font-style:italic;}.css-yoay6m{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1cs27wo{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1cs27wo{padding:20px;}}.css-1cs27wo:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-k9atqk{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-k9atqk strong{font-weight:700;}.css-k9atqk em{font-style:italic;}.css-k9atqk a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ccd9e3;}.css-k9atqk a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ddd;}.css-k9atqk a:hover{border-bottom:none;}Capitol Riot FalloutFrom Riot to ImpeachmentThe riot inside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, followed a rally at which President Trump made an inflammatory speech to his supporters, questioning the results of the election. Here’s a look at what happened and the ongoing fallout:As this video shows, poor planning and a restive crowd encouraged by President Trump set the stage for the riot.A two hour period was crucial to turning the rally into the riot.Several Trump administration officials, including cabinet members Betsy DeVos and Elaine Chao, announced that they were stepping down as a result of the riot.Federal prosecutors have charged more than 70 people, including some who appeared in viral photos and videos of the riot. Officials expect to eventually charge hundreds of others.The House voted to impeach the president on charges of “inciting an insurrection” that led to the rampage by his supporters.Al principio, Trump parecía una amenaza para ese equilibrio. Su falta de experiencia en política y su racismo abierto lo hicieron una figura muy incómoda para el partido; al principio, republicanos prominentes consideraban que su hábito de mentir continuamente era grosero. Sin embargo, después de ganar la presidencia, sus particulares habilidades como rupturista parecían crear una tremenda oportunidad para los jugadores. Liderados por el jugador en jefe, McConnell, consiguieron cientos de jueces federales y recortes de impuestos para los ricos.Trump no se parecía a otros rupturistas porque parecía no tener ninguna ideología. Su objeción a las instituciones radicaba en que podían limitarlo personalmente. Tenía la intención de romper el sistema para servirse a sí mismo y, en parte, ha fracasado por eso. Trump es un político carismático e inspira devoción no solo entre los votantes sino también entre un sorprendente número de legisladores, pero no tiene una visión más grande que la suya o la que sus admiradores proyectan sobre él. En este sentido, su prefascismo no estuvo a la altura del fascismo: su visión nunca fue más allá de un espejo. Llegó a una mentira verdaderamente grande no desde cualquier visión del mundo sino desde la realidad de que podría perder algo.Sin embargo, Trump nunca preparó un golpe decisivo. Carecía del apoyo de los militares, algunos de cuyos líderes había alienado. (Ningún verdadero fascista habría cometido el error que cometió allí, que fue amar abiertamente a dictadores extranjeros; a los partidarios convencidos de que el enemigo estaba en casa podría no importarles, pero a los que juraron proteger de los enemigos en el extranjero sí les importó). La fuerza de policía secreta de Trump, los hombres que realizaban operaciones de secuestro en Portland, era violenta pero también pequeña y ridícula. Las redes sociales demostraron ser un arma contundente: Trump podía anunciar sus intenciones en Twitter, y los supremacistas blancos podían planear su invasión del Capitolio en Facebook o en Gab. Pero el presidente, a pesar de todas sus demandas, ruegos y amenazas a los funcionarios públicos, no podía maquinar una situación que terminase con las personas correctas haciendo lo incorrecto. Trump pudo hacer creer a algunos votantes que había ganado las elecciones de 2020, pero no pudo hacer que las instituciones se alinearan con su gran mentira. Y pudo traer a sus partidarios a Washington y enviarlos al Capitolio, pero ninguno parecía tener una idea muy clara de cómo funcionaría esto o de lo que su presencia lograría. Es difícil pensar en un momento insurreccional comparable —con la toma de un edificio de gran importancia— que implicó tanto trabajo.Una mujer que había sido rociada con gas pimienta se apoyó en la puerta este de la rotonda del Capitolio, a las 3:47 p. m.Credit…Ashley Gilbertson/VII para The New York TimesLa mentira dura más que el mentiroso. La idea de que Alemania perdió la Primera Guerra Mundial en 1918 por una “puñalada por la espalda” judía tenía 15 años cuando Hitler llegó al poder. ¿Cómo funcionará el mito de la victimización de Trump en la vida estadounidense dentro de 15 años? ¿Y en beneficio de quién?El 7 de enero, Trump pidió una transición pacífica del poder, admitiendo implícitamente que su golpe de Estado había fracasado. Sin embargo, volvió a repetir e incluso amplió su ficción electoral: ahora era una causa sagrada por la que la gente se había sacrificado. La puñalada por la espalda imaginaria de Trump vivirá principalmente gracias a su respaldo por los miembros del Congreso. En noviembre y diciembre de 2020, los republicanos lo repitieron, dándole una vida que de otra manera no hubiera tenido. En retrospectiva, ahora parece como si el último compromiso tambaleante entre los jugadores y los rupturistas fuera la idea de que Trump debería tener todas las oportunidades de probar que se le había hecho mal. Esa posición apoyaba implícitamente la gran mentira de los partidarios de Trump que se inclinaban a creerla. No pudo contener a Trump, cuya gran mentira solo se hizo más grande.En ese momento, los rupturistas y los jugadores vieron un mundo diferente por delante, donde la gran mentira era un tesoro que había que tener o un peligro que había que evitar. Los rupturistas no tuvieron más remedio que apresurarse a ser los primeros en afirmar que creían en ella. Debido a que los rupturistas Josh Hawley y Ted Cruz deben competir para reclamar el azufre y la bilis, los jugadores se vieron obligados a revelar su propia mano, y la división dentro de la coalición republicana se hizo visible el 6 de enero. La invasión del Capitolio solo reforzó esta división. Por supuesto, algunos senadores retiraron sus objeciones, pero Cruz y Hawley siguieron adelante de todos modos, junto con otros seis senadores. Más de 100 representantes doblaron su apuesta en la gran mentira. Algunos, como Matt Gaetz, incluso añadieron sus propias florituras, como la afirmación de que la turba no estaba liderada por los partidarios de Trump sino por sus oponentes.Trump es, por ahora, el mártir en jefe, el sumo sacerdote de la gran mentira. Él es el líder de los rupturistas, al menos en la mente de sus partidarios. Por ahora, los jugadores no quieren a Trump cerca. Desacreditado en sus últimas semanas, es inútil; despojado de las obligaciones de la presidencia, volverá a ser embarazoso, como lo fue en 2015. Incapaz de proporcionar una cobertura para jugar astutamente, será irrelevante para sus propósitos diarios. Pero los rupturistas tienen una razón aún más fuerte para buscar la desaparición de Trump: es imposible heredar de alguien que todavía está por aquí. Aprovechar la gran mentira de Trump podría parecer un gesto de apoyo. De hecho, expresa un deseo de su muerte política. Transformar el mito de uno sobre Trump a uno sobre la nación será más fácil cuando esté fuera del camino.Como Cruz y Hawley pueden aprender, decir la gran mentira es ser propiedad de ella. Solo porque hayas vendido tu alma no significa que hayas hecho un buen negocio. Hawley no tiene ningún nivel de hipocresía; hijo de un banquero, educado en la Universidad de Stanford y en la Escuela de Derecho de Yale, denuncia a las élites. En la medida en que se pensaba que Cruz se apegaba a un principio, el de los derechos de los estados, que los llamados a la acción de Trump violaban descaradamente. Una declaración conjunta que Cruz emitió sobre la impugnación de los senadores al voto captó muy bien el aspecto posverdadero del conjunto: nunca alegó que hubiera fraude, solo que había alegaciones de fraude. Alegaciones de alegaciones, alegaciones hasta el final.Una mezcla de gas lacrimógeno lanzado por la policía y residuos de extintores de incendios descargados por extremistas pro-Trump flotaba en el aire de la Rotonda mientras la multitud merodeaba alrededor, a las 2:38 p. m.Credit…Ashley Gilbertson/VII para The New York TimesLa gran mentira requiere compromiso. Cuando los jugadores republicanos no se arriesgan lo suficiente, los rupturistas republicanos los llaman “RINO”, que en inglés es la sigla de “republicanos solo de nombre”. Este término alguna vez sugirió una falta de compromiso ideológico. Ahora significa una falta de voluntad para echar abajo una elección. Los jugadores, en respuesta, cierran filas en torno a la Constitución y hablan de principios y tradiciones. Todos los rupturistas deben saber (con la posible excepción del senador por Alabama Tommy Tuberville) que están participando en una farsa, pero tendrán una audiencia de decenas de millones que no lo saben.Si Trump sigue presente en la vida política estadounidense, seguramente repetirá su gran mentira incesantemente. Hawley, Cruz y los otros rupturistas comparten la responsabilidad de lo que eso desencadenará. Cruz y Hawley parecen estar postulándose para la presidencia. ¿Pero qué significa ser candidato a la presidencia y denunciar el voto? Si afirmas que el otro lado ha hecho trampa, y tus partidarios te creen, esperarán que te engañes a ti mismo. Al defender la gran mentira de Trump el 6 de enero, ellos sentaron un precedente: un candidato presidencial republicano que pierde una elección debe ser nombrado de todos modos por el Congreso. Los republicanos en el futuro, por lo menos los candidatos a presidente de la ruptura, presumiblemente tendrán un Plan A, para ganar y ganar, y un Plan B, para perder y ganar. No es necesario el fraude; solo las alegaciones de que hay alegaciones de fraude. La verdad debe ser remplazada por el espectáculo, los hechos por la fe.El intento de golpe de Trump de 2020-21, como otros intentos fallidos de golpe, es una advertencia para quienes se preocupan por el Estado de derecho y una lección para aquellos que no lo hacen. Su prefascismo reveló una posibilidad para la política estadounidense. Para que un golpe de Estado funcione en 2024, los rupturistas necesitarán algo que Trump nunca tuvo: una minoría furiosa, organizada para la violencia nacional, dispuesta a añadir intimidación a las elecciones. Cuatro años de amplificación de una gran mentira podría darles eso. Afirmar que el otro lado robó una elección es prometer que tú también robarás una. También es afirmar que el otro bando merece ser castigado.Observadores informados dentro y fuera del gobierno están de acuerdo en que la supremacía blanca de la derecha es la mayor amenaza terrorista para Estados Unidos. La venta de armas en 2020 alcanzó un nivel asombroso. La historia muestra que la violencia política ocurre luego de que los líderes prominentes de los principales partidos políticos abrazan abiertamente la paranoia.Nuestra gran mentira es típicamente estadounidense, envuelta en nuestro extraño sistema electoral, y depende de nuestras particulares tradiciones de racismo. Sin embargo, nuestra gran mentira también es estructuralmente fascista, con su extrema mendacidad, su pensamiento conspirativo, su inversión de los perpetradores y las víctimas y su implicación de que el mundo está dividido entre nosotros y ellos. Para mantenerlo en marcha durante cuatro años hay que cortejar el terrorismo y el asesinato.Cuando esa violencia llegue, los rupturistas tendrán que reaccionar. Si la aceptan, se convierten en la facción fascista. El Partido Republicano estará dividido, al menos por un tiempo. Uno puede, por supuesto, imaginar una funesta reunificación: un candidato de la ruptura pierde una estrecha elección presidencial en noviembre de 2024 y grita fraude, los republicanos ganan ambas cámaras del Congreso y los alborotadores en la calle, educados por cuatro años de la gran mentira, exigen lo que ven como justicia. ¿Se mantendrían los jugadores con los principios si esas fueran las circunstancias del 6 de enero de 2025?Sin embargo, este momento también es una oportunidad. Es posible que un Partido Republicano dividido sirva mejor a la democracia estadounidense; que los jugadores, separados de los rupturistas, empiecen a pensar en la política como una forma de ganar elecciones. Es muy probable que el gobierno de Biden-Harris tenga unos primeros meses más fáciles de lo esperado; tal vez se suspenda el obstruccionismo, al menos entre unos pocos republicanos y por poco tiempo, para vivir un momento de cuestionamientos. Los políticos que quieren que el trumpismo termine tienen un camino sencillo: decir la verdad sobre las elecciones.Estados Unidos no sobrevivirá a la gran mentira solo porque un mentiroso esté separado del poder. Necesitará una reflexiva repluralización de los medios y un compromiso con los hechos como un bien público. El racismo estructurado en cada aspecto del intento de golpe es un llamado a prestar atención a nuestra propia historia. La atención seria al pasado nos ayuda a ver los riesgos pero también sugiere la posibilidad de futuro. No podemos ser una república democrática si decimos mentiras sobre la raza, grandes o pequeñas. La democracia no consiste en minimizar el voto ni en ignorarlo, ni en jugar ni en romper un sistema, sino en aceptar la igualdad de los demás, escuchar sus voces y contar sus votos.Timothy Snyder es el profesor de la cátedra Levin de historia en la Universidad de Yale y el autor de historias de atrocidades políticas como Tierras de sangre y Tierra negra, así como del libro Sobre la tiranía, sobre el giro de Estados Unidos hacia el autoritarismo. Su libro más reciente es Nuestra enfermedad, unas memorias de su propia enfermedad casi mortal que refleja la relación entre la salud y la libertad. Ashley Gilbertson es una fotoperiodista australiana de la VII Photo Agency que vive en Nueva York. Gilbertson ha cubierto la migración y los conflictos a nivel internacional durante más de veinte años.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Why Are There So Few Courageous Senators?

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyWhy Are There So Few Courageous Senators?Here’s what we need to do if we want more Mitt Romneys and fewer Josh Hawleys.Mr. Beinart is a contributing opinion writer who focuses on American politics and foreign policy.Jan. 15, 2021, 5:04 a.m. ETTwo of the few Republican senators willing to defy President Trump: Mitt Romney, left, and John McCain.Credit…Brooks Kraft/Corbis, via Getty ImagesNow that Donald Trump has been defanged, leading Republicans are rushing to denounce him. It’s a little late. The circumstances were different then, but a year ago, only one Republican senator, Mitt Romney, backed impeachment. In a party that has been largely servile, Mr. Romney’s courage stands out.Why, in the face of immense pressure, did Mr. Romney defend the rule of law? And what would it take to produce more senators like him? These questions are crucial if America’s constitutional system, which has been exposed as shockingly fragile, is to survive. The answer may be surprising: To get more courageous senators, Americans should elect more who are near the end of their political careers.This doesn’t just mean old politicians — today’s average senator is, after all, over 60. It means senators with the stature to stand alone.As a septuagenarian who entered the Senate after serving as his party’s presidential nominee, Mr. Romney contrasts sharply with up-and-comers like Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz, who seem to view the institution as little more than a steppingstone to the White House. But historically, senators like Mr. Romney who have reached a stage of life where popularity matters less and legacy matters more have often proved better able to defy public pressure.In 1956, Senator John F. Kennedy — despite himself skipping a vote two years earlier on censuring the demagogue Joseph McCarthy — chronicled senators who represented “profiles in courage.” Among his examples were two legendary Southerners, Thomas Hart Benton and Sam Houston, who a century earlier had become pariahs for opposing the drive toward secession.Benton, who had joined the Senate when Missouri became a state, had by 1851 been serving in that role for an unprecedented 30 years. Benton’s commitment to the Union led him to be repudiated by his state party, stripped of most of his committee assignments, defeated for re-election and almost assassinated. In his last statement to his constituents, he wrote, “I despise the bubble popularity that is won without merit and lost without crime.”Houston enjoyed similar renown in his home state, Texas. He had served as commander in chief of the army that won independence from Mexico, and as the first president of the Republic of Texas. In 1854, he became the only Southern Democratic senator to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which he feared might break the country apart over the expansion of slavery. He did so “in spite of all the intimidations, or threats, or discountenances that may be thrown upon me,” which included being denounced by his state’s legislature, and later almost shot. Houston called it “the most unpopular vote I ever gave” but also “the wisest and most patriotic.”It’s easy to see the parallels with Mr. Romney. Asked in 2019 why he was behaving differently from other Republican senators, he responded, “Because I’m old and have done other things.” His Democratic colleague Chris Murphy noted that Mr. Romney was no longer “hoping to be president someday.”Nor was John McCain, one of the few other Republican senators to meaningfully challenge President Trump. By contrast, Mr. Hawley and Mr. Cruz — desperate to curry favor with Mr. Trump’s base — led the effort to challenge the results of last fall’s election.Not every Republican senator nearing retirement exhibited Mr. Romney or Mr. McCain’s bravery. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, an octogenarian former presidential candidate himself, voted not only against impeaching Mr. Trump last January, but against even subpoenaing witnesses.Courage cannot be explained by a single variable. Politicians whose communities have suffered disproportionately from government tyranny may show disproportionate bravery in opposing it. Mr. Romney, like the Arizona Republican Jeff Flake — whose opposition to Mr. Trump likely ended his senatorial career — belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was once persecuted on American soil. In the fevered days after Sept. 11, the only member of Congress to oppose authorizing the “war on terror” was a Black woman, Barbara Lee.But during that era, too, ambition undermined political courage, and stature fortified it. Virtually every Democratic senator who went on to run for president in 2004 — John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman — voted for the Iraq war.By contrast, Mr. Kerry’s Massachusetts colleague, Ted Kennedy, who had been elected to the Senate in 1962, voted against it. The most dogged opposition came from a man who had entered the Senate three years before that, Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Despite hailing from a state George W. Bush had won, and seeing his junior colleague support the war, the 84-year-old Mr. Byrd, a former majority leader, tried to prevent the Senate from voting during the heat of a midterm campaign. His effort failed by a vote of 95 to 1.If Americans want our constitutional system to withstand the next authoritarian attack, we should look for men and women like Senators Romney, Benton and Byrd, who worry more about how they will be judged by history than by their peers. George W. Bush was a terrible president — but might have proved a useful post-presidential senator because he would have been less cowed than his colleagues by Mr. Trump. John Quincy Adams served in Congress for 17 years after leaving the White House. Given how vulnerable America’s governing institutions are, maybe Barack Obama could be convinced to do something similar.Like most people, I’d prefer senators who do what I think is right. But I’d take comfort if more at least did what they think is right. That’s more likely when you’ve reached a phase of life when the prospect of losing an election — or being screamed at in an airport — no longer seems so important. America needs more senators who can say — as Daniel Webster did to his constituents in Massachusetts — “I should indeed like to please you; but I prefer to save you, whatever be your attitude toward me.”Peter Beinart (@PeterBeinart) is professor of journalism and political science at the Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at the City University of New York. He is also editor at large of Jewish Currents and writes The Beinart Notebook, a weekly newsletter.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.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Is Blowing Apart the G.O.P. God Bless Him.

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyTrump Is Blowing Apart the G.O.P. God Bless Him.There still will be a place for principled Republicans.Opinion ColumnistJan. 12, 2021Credit…Oliver Contreras for The New York TimesWhen all the facts come out about the treasonous attack on the U.S. Capitol inspired by President Trump, impeaching him three times won’t feel sufficient. Consider this Washington Post headline from Monday: “Video Shows Capitol Mob Dragging Police Officer Down Stairs. One Rioter Beat the Officer With a Pole Flying the U.S. Flag.”That said, while I want Trump out — and I don’t mind him being silenced at such a tense time — I’m not sure I want him permanently off Twitter and Facebook. There’s important work that I need Trump to perform in his post-presidency, and I need him to have proper megaphones to do it. It’s to blow apart this Republican Party.My No. 1 wish for America today is for this Republican Party to fracture, splitting off the principled Republicans from the unprincipled Republicans and Trump cultists. That would be a blessing for America for two reasons.First, because it could actually end the gridlock in Congress and enable us to do some big things on infrastructure, education and health care that would help ALL Americans — not the least those in Trump’s camp, who are there precisely because they feel ignored, humiliated and left behind.If just a few principled center-right Republicans, like Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski, abandoned this G.O.P. or were simply willing to work with a center-left Biden team, the Problem Solvers Caucus in the House and like-minded members in the Senate — the people who got the recent stimulus bill passed — would become stronger than ever. That’s how we start to dial down the madness coursing through our nation and get us back to seeing each other as fellow citizens, not enemies.Second, if the principled Republicans split from the Trump cult, the rump pro-Trump G.O.P. would have a very hard time winning a national election anytime soon. And given what we’ve just seen, these Trumpers absolutely cannot be trusted with power again.Think about what they’ve done. All these Trump-cult lawmakers willingly promoted Trump’s Big Lie. And think how big it was: Trump took the most heroic election in American history — an election in which more Americans voted than ever before, freely and fairly in the midst of a deadly pandemic — and claimed it was all a fraud, because he didn’t win. And then, on the basis of that Big Lie, eight Republican senators and 139 House members voted to nullify Joe Biden’s electoral victory. That is sick.That is why I hope the party splits. And here is why a still noisy Trump could be so helpful in breaking it.What is it that Senators Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz were dreaming of when they went full treason and tried to get Congress to reverse Biden’s win on the basis of the Big Lie? They were dreaming of a world of Trumpism without Trump. They thought that if they cravenly did Trump’s bidding now, once he was gone his base would be theirs.Hawley and Cruz are so power hungry, they would burn America to the ground if they thought they could be president of its ashes.But they’re fools. As Trump and his kids made clear at the rally that inspired some of his supporters to ransack the Capitol, the Trumps are interested only in Trumpism with Trumps.Or as Donald Trump Jr. explained to the soon-to-be rioters (whom Ivanka called “patriots”), the G.O.P. needed a wake-up. All those Republicans in Congress, said Don Jr., “did nothing to stop the steal. This gathering should send a message to them: This isn’t their Republican Party anymore. This is Donald Trump’s Republican Party.”You tell ’em, Donny. The more you insist on that, the more principled Republicans will have to leave. And since a recent Quinnipiac survey showed that more than 70 percent of Republicans still support Trump, you can be sure he will keep insisting it is his party and keep saying vile things that will constitute daily loyalty tests for all Republican lawmakers, forcing them to answer if they are with him or not. That stress will be enormous.Check out the video of what happened when some Trump cultists ran into Senator Lindsey Graham at Reagan National Airport after last week’s riot. They mercilessly cursed him out as a “traitor” because for weeks he was telling them that Biden’s victory was not legitimate and then, after the sacking of the Capitol, he declared it was legitimate. Graham needed police protection from the Trumpers just to get to his plane.As Don Jr. might have told Graham: “Didn’t you get the memo? The Trump family puts its name on EVERYTHING we own. It’s no longer the G.O.P. — it’s the T.R.P.: The Trump Republican Party. You sold us your soul. You can’t reclaim it now from a pawnbroker. We still own the base, which means we still own YOU.”Or not. This is a time for choosing for Republicans. The old straddle — “I would never let Trump coach my kid’s Little League team, but I love his tax cuts, Israel policies, judges or abortion position” — won’t work anymore. Trump has gone too far, and the base is still with him. So it really is his party. Every Republican is going to have to ask himself and herself: Is it still mine, too?If you look closely, there are actually four different Republican factions today: principled conservatives, cynically tactical conservatives, unprincipled conservatives and Trump cultists. In the principled conservatives camp, I’d put Romney and Murkowski. They are the true America firsters. While animated by conservative ideas about small government and free markets, they put country and Constitution before party and ideology. They are rule-abiders.In the cynically tactical conservative camp, which you could call the Mitch McConnell camp, I’d put all of those who tried to humor Trump for a while — going along with his refusal to acknowledge the election results until “all the legal votes were counted” — but once the Electoral College votes were cast by each state, slid into the reality-based world and confirmed Biden’s victory, some sooner than others.“I call them the ‘rule-benders,’” explained pollster Craig Charney. “They are ready to bend the rules but not break them.”The unprincipled Republicans — the “rule-breakers” in Charney’s lingo — are led by Hawley and Cruz, along with the other seditious senators and representatives who tried to get Congress to block its ceremonial confirmation of Biden’s election.Finally, there are the hard-core Trump cultists and QAnon conspiracy types, true believers in and purveyors of the Big Lie.I just don’t see how these four camps stay together. And for America’s sake, I hope they don’t.But Democrats will have a say in this, too. This is their best opportunity in years to get some support from center-right Republicans. Be smart: Ban the phrase “defund the police.” Talk instead about “better policing,” which everyone can get behind. Instead of “democratic socialism,” talk about “more just and inclusive capitalism.” And tone down the politically correct cancel culture on college campuses and in newsrooms. While it’s not remotely in the league of those trying to cancel a whole election, it’s still corrosive.I know, it looks real dark right now. But if you look at the diverse, high-quality center-left cabinet that Biden has assembled and the principled, center-right Republicans who are looking to be problem solvers, not Trump soldiers, maybe that light in the tunnel isn’t a train coming at us after all.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.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Seeks Respite in Texas, Where G.O.P. Allies Face Pressure

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyTrump Seeks Respite in Texas, Where G.O.P. Allies Face PressureIn visiting the border, Mr. Trump hoped to change the focus from a mob attack on the U.S. Capitol. But Texas is also reeling from the turmoil in Washington.President Trump touring a portion of the border wall near Alamo, Texas, on Tuesday.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York TimesJames Dobbins and Jan. 12, 2021, 6:28 p.m. ETALAMO, Texas — President Trump’s choice of Texas for his first public appearance since the Capitol mob attack was not accidental: The state not only showcases the border wall, which Mr. Trump is celebrating in his presidency’s chaotic last days, but the Republican Party’s success in limiting the game-changing Democratic gains that flipped states such as Arizona and Georgia.Democrats do not hold a single statewide office in Texas, though the party has made big inroads in large cities around the state. Mr. Trump handily carried the state while eroding the Democratic Party’s dominance in counties along the border with Mexico, winning over many Hispanic voters who had not come out to support Republicans in the past.“Anyone who thinks Trump has lost support in Texas should stop listening to mainstream media,” said Julie McCarty, chief executive of the True Texas Project, a statewide conservative group. “If anything, recent events have only solidified support for him.”In visiting the border, Mr. Trump perhaps hoped to change the focus of public attention from the U.S. Capitol rampage by his loyalists last week to the wall he built along portions of the Mexican border, one of his signature projects.But in choosing to take a farewell lap in one of the most Trump-friendly states in the country, the president may have underestimated the degree to which Texas has been roiled by the political turbulence that followed the Nov. 3 election and the president’s attempts to upset the country with baseless claims of electoral fraud.As his plane touched down in the Rio Grande Valley on Tuesday, the local McAllen Monitor printed a full-page ad from critics of the president, using the Spanish term that roughly translates as “get out of here”: “You are not welcome here,” it said. “Fuera!”In Alamo, a South Texas town of about 20,000 that was the focus of Mr. Trump’s visit, several people expressed confusion as to why the president had chosen to visit at such an unsettling time. Authorities in the town, which has no affiliation to the Alamo Mission site in San Antonio or the 1836 battle in the war to create a slaveholder Texas republic, said they had “no details” about the presidential visit because the Trump administration had not informed them ahead of the trip.At the Aztek Barber Shop in Alamo, Alejandro Silva, 27, said he held nothing against Mr. Trump and did not have an opinion about the border wall.“But he shouldn’t be visiting now,” said Mr. Silva, a mechanic. “He should leave office and leave everyone alone.”The Republican Party and its politicians in Texas have been called on by donors and constituents to answer for the chaos in Washington in which hundreds of the president’s supporters rioted in the Capitol, leaving five people dead.AT&T, the telecommunications and entertainment colossus based in Dallas, said it was suspending contributions to members of Congress who voted last week to object to certified Electoral College votes for President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. Lawmakers targeted by the move included 17 Texas Republicans.The Houston Chronicle, the hometown newspaper of Senator Ted Cruz, called on Mr. Cruz to resign over his amplification of Mr. Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud. Revealing fissures among Republicans in the state, criticism of Mr. Cruz is also coming from some elected conservatives, including State Representative Lyle Larson of San Antonio.Upset with Mr. Cruz’s public pronouncements in recent days, Mr. Larson said on Twitter that the junior senator from Texas “needs to be quiet and stop embarrassing himself, his family and our state. A few others from Texas should join him.”Mr. Trump used the visit Tuesday to promote his aim of curbing immigration from Latin America. Mr. Trump advanced the border wall over the objections of tribal nations, local landowners and environmental groups, waiving dozens of laws, including measures protecting endangered species and Native American burial sites.The Rio Grande Valley is the busiest transit point for unauthorized immigration into the United States. The Trump administration made the region a focus of its enforcement efforts, including construction of new sections of wall, though it encountered resistance from many private landowners along the border.“One of the big elements of the wall that makes it so successful is we can have far fewer people working now, they can be working on other things, other things related to crime and drug prevention,” said Mr. Trump, sounding somewhat subdued, during a brief speech on Tuesday afternoon in front of a section of the wall.Despite the criticism over Mr. Trump’s visit from Democrats and immigrant-rights groups, dozens of the president’s supporters turned out in the Rio Grande Valley to voice support for the president as his motorcade made its way through the area.Elsewhere in Texas, signs of backing for Mr. Trump were also on display outside the State Capitol in Austin, where several dozen protesters, some clad in tactical gear and armed with multiple handguns, hunting knives and other weaponry, gathered to express support for the president on the first day of the Texas legislative session.Samuel Hall, the leader of the right-wing protest, said Mr. Trump’s border visit highlighted what Mr. Hall described as the president’s accomplishments on border security.“He had some problems building the wall,” Mr. Hall admitted, “but that’s because there was opposition in Congress.” He said he believes that Mr. Trump won the election, and spoke of the upcoming inauguration of Mr. Biden as a possibility, not a certainty.“If President Biden is inaugurated, I will pray for him and for our country,” Mr. Hall said. “We’re going to be in a lot of trouble.”Samuel Hall, founder of Patriots for America, speaking to a rally at the Texas State Capitol on Tuesday as officers of the Texas State Police stood by.Credit…Ilana Panich-Linsman for The New York TimesMatt Long, who identified himself as head of the Fredericksburg, Texas, Tea Party, shouted through a bullhorn in an apparent attempt to influence Republican legislators inside. “The magic R is going to lose if you don’t grow a spine!” he shouted. “You have nothing to fear except the next election!”Garry Mauro, a Democrat and former Texas state land commissioner, said Texas has continued to provide a reservoir of support for the increasingly isolated president, partly because of a massive hiring spree in recent years by immigration agencies along the border that have served as the tip of the spear for Mr. Trump’s anti-immigration drive.“He’s looking for whatever small victory he can claim,” Mr. Mauro said of the president’s visit. “There’s no statewide elected officials in Texas that are going to take him on for coming here, and there aren’t many states where you can say that.”In South Texas, Zak Borja, 21, a student and food service worker, arrived at 6 a.m. to secure his spot along the president’s motorcade route for himself and other supporters of Mr. Biden. Only six showed up to join Mr. Borja; they were soon overwhelmed by dozens of Trump supporters shouting conspiracy theories and chanting, “We are the media.”“He is coming to Texas to put on a show that he has done something, when in reality he has only incited violence and divided our community,” Mr. Borja said. “He’s only here to stroke his ego, a charade, to make it look like he’s done something.”James Dobbins More

    • 63 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Ted Cruz’s Communications Director Resigns

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Capitol Riot FalloutliveLatest UpdatesInside the SiegeVisual TimelineNotable ArrestsIncitement to Riot?AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyCapitol Riot Fallout: F.B.I. Warned of Violence Before Siege; More Arrests MadeSenator Cruz’s communications director resigns.Jan. 12, 2021, 2:43 p.m. ETJan. 12, 2021, 2:43 p.m. ETMaggie Astor, Catie Edmondson and Senator Ted Cruz last week formally challenged President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victories in Arizona and Pennsylvania.Credit…Jonathan Ernst/ReutersSenator Ted Cruz’s communications director, Lauren Blair Bianchi, has resigned in response to Mr. Cruz’s efforts to overturn the results of the presidential election.Mr. Cruz’s office confirmed Ms. Bianchi’s resignation, which was first reported by Punchbowl News.“Senator Cruz and Lauren agreed that it would be best to part ways,” the office said in a statement. “He thanks her for her service and wishes her the best.”A person familiar with Ms. Bianchi’s decision said she had made it because of Mr. Cruz’s actions last week, when he and Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri formally challenged President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victories in Arizona and Pennsylvania, promoting false claims of election fraud even as a pro-Trump mob motivated by those claims stormed the Capitol.Ms. Bianchi, who did not respond to an email seeking comment on Tuesday, “was unhappy with the direction the office had taken,” the person familiar with her decision said.The events of last week sent a shudder through Mr. Cruz’s and Mr. Hawley’s offices, with many staff members, especially junior aides, discussing whether their bosses’ behavior should compel them to quit, according to several aides close to both offices.So far, Mr. Hawley, who has sought to reassure his aides, has not suffered any defections. The atmosphere is more tense in the office of Mr. Cruz, who is known to cycle through staffers even during calmer times.At least one prominent former supporter of Mr. Cruz — the chairman of his 2016 presidential campaign, Chad Sweet — has also broken with him since the attack on the Capitol, and he and Mr. Hawley have become increasingly isolated even within the Senate Republican caucus.“Donald Trump and those who aided and abetted him in his relentless undermining of our democracy — including Senators Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz — must be denounced,” Mr. Sweet wrote in a statement on Friday. “In particular, I made it clear to Senator Cruz, whom I have known for years, before the joint session of Congress, that if he proceeded to object to the electoral count of the legitimate slates of delegates certified by the states, I could no longer support him.”In the House, a senior Republican aide on the Armed Services Committee also resigned, calling out lawmakers on the panel who had voted to overturn the election on Wednesday hours after the rioters stormed the Capitol.“Anyone who watched those horrible hours unfold should have been galvanized to rebuke these insurrectionists in the strongest terms,” the aide, Jason Schmid, wrote in a searing resignation letter. “Instead, some members whom I believed to be leaders in the defense of the nation chose to put political theater ahead of the defense of the Constitution and the Republic.”He called the Republicans who objected to the election results “congressional enablers of this mob” who had “made future foreign conflict more likely, not less.” The letter, sent to committee staff members and obtained by The New York Times, was first reported by Politico.Mr. Schmid reported to Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama, the highest-ranking Republican on the committee, who voted to reject the election results. He had also worked closely with Representative Elise Stefanik of New York, a rising Republican star who also voted to overturn the results and was removed on Tuesday from a Harvard political advisory committee.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More