More stories

  • in

    Don’t Underestimate the Mobilizing Force of Abortion

    Poland recently ousted its right-wing, nationalist Law and Justice Party. In 2020, a party-appointed tribunal severely restricted the country’s abortion rights, sparking nationwide protests and an opposition movement. After a trip to Poland, the Times Opinion columnist Michelle Goldberg came to recognize that similar dynamics could prevail in the United States in 2024. In this audio essay, she argues that Joe Biden’s campaign should take note of what a “powerful mobilizing force the backlash to abortion bans can be.”(A full transcript of this audio essay will be available by Monday, and can be found in the audio player above.)Illustration by Akshita Chandra/The New York Times; Photograph by Getty ImagesThe 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, X (@NYTOpinion) and Instagram.This episode of “The Opinions” was produced by Jillian Weinberger. It was edited by Kaari Pitkin and Alison Bruzek. Engineering by Isaac Jones and Sonia Herrero. Original music by Isaac Jones, Sonia Herrero. Fact-checking by Mary Marge Locker. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. More

  • in

    Senegal Parliament Delays Elections Until December After Opposition Showdown

    President Macky Sall abruptly postponed elections scheduled for this month, and on Monday, legislators in the West African nation voted to allow him to stay in office months after his presidency is to end.Senegal’s Parliament voted late Monday to delay elections until December, after opposition lawmakers seeking to block the vote were thrown out of the National Assembly. The vote came after President Macky Sall last week postponed the upcoming ballot, a move critics condemned as an “institutional coup.”Voters had been preparing to go to the polls on Feb. 25, until Mr. Sall — who has said he is not seeking a third term — announced on Saturday that he was postponing the election. Experts and many opposition and civil society leaders called it a power grab by an unpopular president who is not certain that his chosen successor would win.But on Monday night, police officers in helmets and bulletproof vests expelled opposition members from the National Assembly, preventing them from voting after a marathon session debating the legality of Mr. Sall’s move. The bill then passed with a vote of 105 to 1. In effect, Mr. Sall will be allowed to stay on until the election is held on Dec. 15, nearly 10 months after his presidency is supposed to conclude.Anticipating an outburst of protest, the government on Monday morning cut internet access to cellphones, banned motorcycles in the capital, Dakar, and sent hundreds of security forces into the streets in a show of force. The big public protests that had been expected for Monday afternoon never materialized; Dakar’s streets emptied, as many residents chose to stay indoors.When Mr. Sall announced that he was postponing the election, he said in his address to the nation that a dispute between the national assembly and the constitutional court needed to be resolved before a vote could be held, but critics dismissed this as a “manufactured crisis.”On Sunday, isolated protests broke out across Dakar, but they were quickly put down by security forces who used tear gas and arrested several demonstrators, including former Prime Minister Aminata Touré.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Only Voters Can Truly Disqualify Trump

    Intense debate has accompanied the decision by the Supreme Court to review the decision by Colorado’s highest court to bar Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballots based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — about the precise meaning of the word “insurrection,” the extent of Mr. Trump’s culpability for the events of Jan. 6 and other legal issues.I’m not going to predict how the Supreme Court will rule, or whether its ruling will be persuasive to those with a different view of the law. But there’s a critical philosophical question that lies beneath the legal questions in this case. In a representative democracy, the people are sovereign, and they express their sovereignty through representatives of their choice. If the courts presume to pre-emptively reject the people’s choice, then who is truly sovereign?The question of sovereignty was central to the purpose of the 14th Amendment in the first place. The Civil War — unquestionably an armed insurrection — was fought because of slavery. That was the reason for the war.But its justification was a dispute over sovereignty, whether it resided primarily with the people of the individual states or with the people of the United States, who had established the Constitution.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

  • in

    Medio planeta a las urnas

    Medio planeta a las urnasDesafíos democráticos, operativo Metástasis en Ecuador y más para estar al día.Millones de votantes acudieron a las urnas a inicios de este mes. A la izquierda, en Bangladés; a la derecha, en Bután.Monirul Alam/EPA, vía Shutterstock; Money Sharma/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesEste 2024 se perfila como el año de mayor actividad electoral en el mundo: están previstos más de 80 comicios importantes, la mayor cantidad en, al menos, las siguientes dos décadas.Esto significa que, en el transcurso del año, unos 4000 millones de votantes tendrán en sus manos algún tipo de decisión para incidir en el futuro de su país, según algunos cálculos. Es casi la mitad de los habitantes del planeta.Solo en América, se prevé que electores en El Salvador, Estados Unidos, México, Panamá, República Dominicana, Uruguay y Venezuela acudan a las urnas para elegir a sus mandatarios.A pesar de que este intenso ejercicio electoral podría parecer un indicio positivo para la democracia, algunos expertos aseguran que hay motivos para preocuparse. Por todo el mundo han surgido desafíos a este sistema político: grandes migraciones, conflictos internacionales, crecientes brechas económicas, polarización.“Casi todas las democracias están bajo estrés, sin tomar en cuenta la tecnología”, dijo en un artículo reciente Darrell West, investigador del Instituto Brookings. “Cuando a eso le sumas la desinformación, simplemente se crean muchas oportunidades para causar problemas”.Entre esos problemas se encuentran los esfuerzos para “desacreditar la democracia como modelo global de gobernanza”, escribieron los reporteros Tiffany Hsu, Stuart A. Thompson y Steven Lee Myers. Además observaron que cada vez hay más actores que impulsan narrativas de fraude electoral con este fin.México es uno de los países que va a tener elecciones presidenciales este año.Las divisiones sociales, las guerras culturales y la polarización también sirven como terreno fértil para la propagación de discursos extremistas y de odio en distintas plataformas, lo que, a largo plazo, socava la capacidad de superar las diferencias y formar gobiernos de unidad.Más allá del plano de las votaciones, la institucionalidad es crucial para el buen funcionamiento democrático. En una columna reciente de The Interpreter, Amanda Taub reflexiona sobre sus virtudes y retos.Las instituciones, escribió Amanda, “existen para que los procesos complejos puedan automatizarse, para que grandes grupos de personas puedan colaborar sin tener que crear nuevos sistemas para hacerlo y para que personas como yo podamos confiar en su pericia sin poseer ni un ápice de esa experiencia”.Sin embargo, continúa, en los últimos años se ha registrado un deterioro institucional que pone en riesgo la gobernabilidad en numerosos países.Apenas este fin de semana, Guatemala vivió horas de zozobra ante la incertidumbre de si Bernardo Arévalo podría asumir la presidencia. Arévalo ganó la segunda vuelta de las elecciones con 20 puntos porcentuales de ventaja y, no obstante, enfrentó diversos esfuerzos para impedir que tomara posesión del cargo. En la madrugada del lunes, después de un retraso, Arévalo fue juramentado.El presidente de Guatemala, Bernardo Arévalo, y su vicepresidenta, Karin Herrera, saludan a los asistentes desde el balcón del Palacio Nacional para celebrar su toma de posesión el lunes.Daniele Volpe para The New York TimesSin embargo, los obstáculos que enfrentó por parte de sus opositores se generaron mayormente por la vía institucional. “En el siglo XX eran golpes de fuerza con tanques, bayonetas, con militares y duraban dos o tres días”, comentó Arévalo el año pasado en un reportaje del Times. “Los golpes del siglo XXI son dados con diputados, con abogados, en las cortes, se hacen así”, dijo. “Es más sofisticado, tarda mucho más tiempo, se hace con la pretensión de que se continúa con las instituciones”.En todo el mundo hay indicios de este tipo de erosión. En Estados Unidos, Francia e Israel, por ejemplo, se ha observado una tendencia de los distintos poderes de gobierno a desafiar los límites constitucionales. En Hungría, Viktor Orbán ha reconfigurado la Constitución a fin de concentrar el poder. En Ecuador, una investigación reciente mostró que el crimen organizado se había infiltrado en el sistema penitenciario.A pesar de las teorías conspirativas y la desinformación, es relativamente fácil seguir el hilo de las carreras electorales: hay candidatos, conteo de votos y ganadores y perdedores. Pero, como observa Amanda, también vale la pena prestar tanta atención a la salud institucional como al desempeño de las contiendas electorales.P. D.: Hablando de votaciones, Taiwán eligió presidente el fin de semana. Esto es lo que hay que saber.Si alguien te reenvió este correo, puedes hacer clic aquí para recibirlo tres veces por semana.Rincón de los lectoresGrisy Oropeza y su esposo, Dyluis Rojas. Solicitaron asilo poco después de llegar a Nueva York.José A. Alvarado Jr. para The New York TimesA continuación, una selección de diversos puntos de vista y experiencias que nuestros lectores enviaron a la sección de comentarios y a nuestro buzón de correo, editadas por extensión y claridad.“Emigrar es una opción válida para cualquier persona que crea que lo quiere o lo deba hacer, lo irregular es la actitud que desde hace mucho tiempo viene ejerciendo Estados Unidos contra infinidad de países a los que considera enemigos o contrarios a sus políticas”. —Octavio Cruz González, Cali, Colombia, respecto al reportaje sobre una familia venezolana en un limbo burocrático en Nueva York.“Me gustaría compartir con ustedes algunas recomendaciones para quienes realizan senderismo, a propósito de su artículo sobre esta actividad: 1) A menos que se trate de un parque urbano no invites a tus mascotas, se pueden extraviar o dañar la fauna y flora salvajes. Si insistes en llevarlos, usa correa y hazte cargo de sus excrementos llevándolos hasta un contenedor. 2) Hazte responsable de tu basura. No tires nada al suelo, ni siquiera lo orgánico: ese corazón de manzana que crees que se descompondrá pronto lo puede terminar comiendo un animal salvaje. 3) La gente que te rodea va a disfrutar de la naturaleza y el paisaje, queremos oír el ruido del agua y del viento, ¡no lo que sale de tus parlantes! 4) Si vas a una zona afectada por la sequía, lleva un litro adicional de agua para regar algún arbusto. Y si ya vas a terminar, usa el agua que te sobra también para regar o dejar en los bebederos de aves”. —Javiera Osorio, Santiago, Chile, respecto al senderismo y sus beneficios.“Viví una experiencia similar el pasado verano cuando cayó mi iPhone al mar. Decidí no reponer el teléfono móvil inmediatamente. Estaba cansado de tanto mensaje de WhatsApp, de Instagram y otras apps. Gané libertad, recuperé la vida próxima (la realidad que me rodeaba). También observé que me involucraba más en lo que hacía. Así aguanté hasta el iPhone 15, vuelta a la normalidad. Estoy pensando cómo reducir las horas de pantalla. Es difícil compaginar, por un lado, la vida ‘normal’, la del trabajo y las conexiones con familiares y amigos, y por otro la vida ‘desconectado’”. —Enrique López-Amor, Barcelona, España, respecto a la adicción a los teléfonos inteligentes.“La humanidad es testigo de cómo una tecnología puede ser utilizada para el bienestar o para la destrucción del otro. Leo y escucho que debe controlarse, la ética, la moral deben ser los cinturones de ajuste. La pregunta, entre otras interrogantes, es: ¿quiénes serán los ‘jueces’ que determinen cómo, dónde, con quién, para qué se hace un correcto uso de esta tecnología? El tema es que las grandes corporaciones se están arrogando el título de jueces, inclusive por encima de los gobiernos”. —Roberto Gómez Sánchez, Lima, Perú, respecto a un ensayo sobre la inteligencia artificial.— More

  • in

    The U.S. Lacks What Every Democracy Needs

    The history of voting in the United States shows the high costs of living with an old Constitution, unevenly enforced by a reluctant Supreme Court.Unlike the constitutions of many other advanced democracies, the U.S. Constitution contains no affirmative right to vote. We have nothing like Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, providing that “every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein,” or like Article 38 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, which provides that when it comes to election of the Bundestag, “any person who has attained the age of 18 shall be entitled to vote.”As we enter yet another fraught election season, it’s easy to miss that many of the problems we have with voting and elections in the United States can be traced to this fundamental constitutional defect. Our problems are only going to get worse until we get constitutional change.The framers were skeptical of universal voting. The original U.S. Constitution provided for voting only for the House of Representatives, not for the Senate or the presidency, leaving voter qualifications for House elections to the states. Later amendments framed voting protections in the negative: If there’s going to be an election, a state may not discriminate on the basis of race (15th Amendment), gender (19th Amendment) or status as an 18-to-20-year old (26th Amendment).We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

  • in

    The Appeal of an All-American Strongman

    Cheryl Sharp, a 47-year-old sales associate who was among the many Iowans turned away from a filled-to-capacity Trump rally last month, sounded pretty confident she knew why Donald Trump was so appealing to many voters. For her and many others, she said, his most important quality was strength: He had the fortitude to keep the country safe, avoid new wars and ensure the economy hummed along.“You want someone strong, globally, so that it creates mutual respect with other countries, and maybe a little bit of fear,” she told me. “Yes, it’s true, not everyone likes him. It’s good not to be liked. Being strong is better.” Sharp readily conceded that not everything Trump said was great, but she saw that as part of the right personality to be president. “You gotta be a little crazy, maybe, to make sure other countries respect and fear us,” she said. “And he can run the country like a business, and they will leave him alone.”Three days later, inside a Trump rally in New Hampshire, Scott Bobbitt and his wife, Heather, also brought up Trump’s strength. “He commands respect and fear around the world,” Scott Bobbitt told me. “Many people may be driven by fear of him because he’ll do what he says he’s going to do, and he’s not afraid to talk about it. And I think that that’s very powerful. That does protect our country, and he’ll stand up instead of rolling over.”I first began attending Trump rallies eight years ago, to try to better understand a candidate who was then being described as a joke — someone with little to no chance of winning the Republican nomination, let alone the presidency — and came away struck by his mix of charisma and powerful command of audiences.Rather than the bumbling celebrity I expected, I encountered a politician laying the groundwork for a powerful political realignment around subjects too readily brushed aside by the bipartisan establishment in Washington, such as the loss of manufacturing in the United States; those left behind by globalization and trade, especially trade with China; the legacy of the Iraq war and U.S. involvement in foreign wars in general; and, of course, immigration.I recently started going to Trump rallies and following his supporters’ online political conversations once again, to try to better understand something else: his base, and specifically the question of authoritarianism and the American voter.The authoritarian label has been attached to Trump by critics for years, especially after he sought to overturn the 2020 election results, which culminated in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. I have studied and written about authoritarianism for years, and I think it’s important to pay attention to the views and motivations of voters who support authoritarian politicians, even when these politicians are seen by many as threats to the democratic order.My curiosity isn’t merely intellectual. Around the world, these politicians are not just getting elected democratically; they are often retaining enough popular support after a term — or two or three — to get re-elected. Polls strongly suggest that Trump has a reasonable chance of winning another term in November. And he has clearly retained his hold on the Republican Party base: His Republican challengers either seem to be angling to be his vice president or are struggling to climb in the polls.What I wanted to understand was, why? Why Trump? Even if these voters were unhappy with President Biden, why not a less polarizing Republican, one without indictments and all that dictator talk? Why does Trump have so much enduring appeal?Barb Rice stands for the pledge of allegiance in Waterloo, Iowa.A Trump supporter at a rally in Waterloo, Iowa.In my talks with more than 100 voters, no one mentioned the word “authoritarian.” But that was no surprise — many everyday people don’t think in those terms. Focusing solely on these labels can miss the point.Authoritarian leaders project qualities that many voters — not just Trump voters — admire: strength, a sense of control, even an ends-justify-the-means leadership style. Our movie-hero presidents, Top Gun pilots and crusading lawyers often take matters into their own hands or break the rules in ways that we cheer. No, they are not classic authoritarians jailing opponents, but they have something in common with Trump: They are seen as having special or singular strengths, an “I alone can fix it” power.What I heard from voters drawn to Trump was that he had a special strength in making the economy work better for them than Biden has, and that he was a tough, “don’t mess with me” absolutist, which they see as helping to prevent new wars. His supporters also see him as an authentic strongman who is not a typical politician, and Trump sells that message very well to his base.In New Hampshire, Jackie Fashjian made the case to me that during Trump’s presidency, “there weren’t any active wars going on except for Afghanistan, which he did not start. He started no new wars. Our economy was great. Our gas prices were under 2 bucks a gallon. It’s just common sense to me. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”At the same rally, Debbie Finch leaped to her feet when Trump walked into the arena, and like many around us, she started filming. Finch defies stereotypes of Trump supporters: She’s Black and is concerned with racism, which she says greatly affects her life and that of her children. She doesn’t deny there are racists among Trump’s supporters, but as far as she’s concerned, that goes for Democrats, too. She told me she supports Trump because the economy was better under him. She doesn’t care about Trump’s indictments; the justice system has been derailing Black men forever, she says, and she predicts more and more minority voters will cast their ballots for him. (Trump does poll higher among minorities than past Republican presidents in the modern era and his current competitors for the nomination.)Debbie Finch.Vanessa Leroy for The New York TimesDebbie Finch shows off a photo of her and Donald Trump.Vanessa Leroy for The New York TimesTrump’s vulgar language, his penchant for insults (“Don’t call him a fat pig,” he said about Chris Christie) and his rhetoric about political opponents (promising to “root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country”) are seen as signs of authenticity and strength by his supporters. All the politicians say things like that in private, countless Trump supporters asserted to me and argued that it’s just Trump who’s strong and honest enough to say it out loud — for them, a sign that he’s honest.Voter after voter told me that they think Biden is too weak and too old to be president. They talk about him with attack lines frequently used by Trump, saying that he’s senile, falling down stairs, losing his train of thought while talking and so on. Biden, Trump grimly warned the crowd in Iowa, “can’t put two sentences together and he’s responsible for negotiations on nuclear weapons in World War III.”Nationally, polls show that voters are more concerned about Biden’s age than Trump’s. If 2024 comes down to Biden versus Trump, the politicians will be 81 and 78, respectively, the oldest matchup ever.Polls also show that voters believe that Trump would do a better job than Biden on the economy, foreign policy and immigration. It was Trump’s perceived strength, in contrast with Biden’s perceived weakness, that was the common theme that tied it all together for his supporters.Take foreign policy. Many Trump supporters told me that had Trump been president, the war in Ukraine wouldn’t have happened because he would have been strong enough to be feared by Vladimir Putin or smart enough to make a deal with him, if necessary. Neither would Hamas have dared attack Israel, a few added. Their proof was that during Trump’s presidency, these wars indeed did not happen. Of course, the more relevant question is whether these wars would have happened during a second Trump term — a counterfactual that can’t be proved or disproved.Projecting strength and being seen as authentic are common themes among other leaders whom political scientists would call “competitive authoritarians.” In their regimes, many of the basic tenets of liberal democracy are violated, but elections, largely free of widespread fraud, are regularly held. Many political scientists place Narendra Modi of India (his party recently won major victories in state elections, and a third term is possible), Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey (on his third term as president, after three stints as prime minister) and Viktor Orban of Hungary (in his fourth consecutive term) in this category.Like many of these right-wing populists, Trump leans heavily on the message that he alone is strong enough to keep America peaceful and prosperous in a scary world. Right after his recent landslide re-election, Orban said his party had won despite everyone being against them, and now he would ensure that Hungary would be “strong, rich and green.” In Iowa, Trump praised Orban himself before telling a cheering crowd: “For four straight years, I kept America safe. I kept Israel safe. I kept Ukraine safe, and I kept the entire world safe.”As he spoke such words at various rallies, the crowds often interrupted him with applause and cheering. From another politician, such claims might have sounded so implausibly grandiose as to fall flat. But from Trump, these statements often resulted in the crowds leaping to their feet (actually, some rallygoers never sat down) and interrupting him with applause and cheering.That’s charisma. Charisma is an underrated aspect of political success — and it’s not necessarily a function of political viewpoint. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama oozed it, for example, and so does Trump.Charisma is so central to politics that Max Weber, a founder of sociology, included charismatic authority (along with legal authority, as in republics and democracies; and traditional authority, as in feudalism or monarchy) as one of three types of power people see as legitimate. Charismatic leaders, Weber wrote, “have a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men,” and is sought as a leader, especially when people feel the times are troubled.So what about democracy, then? I pressed many Trump supporters about the events around Jan. 6, 2021, at the Capitol. I didn’t encounter a single outright supporter of what happened, but many people explained the events away. Increasingly separate information environments and our fractured media ecology shape the way people view that day.Some Trump supporters told me that whatever happened was carried out by a fringe faction that did not represent Trump’s base. Didn’t some Black Lives Matter protesters get carried away and even damage small businesses owned by Black people?, Jackie Fashjian said to me. Debbie Finch asked me whether Kamala Harris should be responsible for everything bad done during Black Lives Matter protests.Many also didn’t trust the government or traditional media’s telling of what happened on Jan. 6. “I’m not concerned with Jan. 6,” Finch said. “I don’t trust our government. I don’t trust anything they’re saying. They’ve been doing this to Black people for so long, railroading them, so they have zero credibility. So I don’t even care about it, and I don’t want to hear about Jan. 6.”Others, like Hunter Larkner, a young man who said he was a great fan of Elon Musk and used Twitter and YouTube for doing his research, said he was shocked when he first heard about the events of Jan. 6. But as he looked into it, he decided it must have been entrapment — that authorities deliberately allowed the rampage in the Capitol to happen.Cheryl Sharp, too, told me that she doesn’t worry about all the talk of Trump being a dictator. For her, biased mainstream media is misrepresenting him. “He was making the point that he’d use executive orders on Day 1, like the others do — executive orders bypass Congress, but that’s how it’s done these days,” she said. “He was being sarcastic, not saying he’d be a real dictator.”It’s easy to see why Trump’s political message can override concerns about the process of democracy for many. What’s a bit of due process overstepped here, a trampled emoluments clause there, when all politicians are believed to be corrupt and fractured information sources pump very different messages about reality?Politicians projecting strength at the expense of the rules of liberal democracy isn’t a new phenomenon in the United States, or the world. Thomas Jefferson worried about it. So did Plato. Perhaps acknowledging that Trump’s appeal isn’t that mysterious can help people grapple with its power.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads. More

  • in

    It’s Dangerously Cold in Iowa. What Does That Mean for Voting?

    Vishakha Darbha and Iowa is in a deep freeze. Subzero temperatures — and a blizzard — have thrown many of the weekend’s highly choreographed events into question, leaving observers wondering if the weather could alter the election results. In this audio report from the frozen Hawkeye state, Opinion writer Katherine Miller describes what it’s like to cover the historic caucus and considers how the inclement weather might affect voting.(A full transcript of this audio essay will be available within 48 hours on the Times website.)Illustration by Akshita Chandra/The New York Times; Photograph by Maksym Kapliuk/Getty ImagesThe 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, X (@NYTOpinion) and Instagram.This episode of “The Opinions” was produced by Vishakha Darbha and Jillian Weinberger. It was edited by Alison Bruzek and Annie-Rose Strasser. Mixing by Efim Shapiro. Original music by Carole Sabouraud. Fact-checking by Kate Sinclair. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta. More

  • in

    Ahead of Iowa Caucuses, Voters Fear the Prospect of Civil Unrest

    Presidential elections traditionally speak to future aspirations, offering a vision of a better tomorrow, the hope and change of Barack Obama or the compassionate conservatism of George W. Bush. Yet this year, even before a single vote has been cast, a far darker sentiment has taken hold.Across Iowa, as the first nominating contest approaches on Monday, voters plow through snowy streets to hear from candidates, mingle at campaign events and casually talk of the prospect of World War III, civil unrest and a nation coming apart at the seams.Four years ago, voters worried about a spiraling pandemic, economic uncertainty and national protests. Now, in the first presidential election since the siege on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, those anxieties have metastasized into a grimmer, more existential dread about the very foundations of the American experiment.“You get the feeling in Iowa right now that we’re sleepwalking into a nightmare and there’s nothing we can do about it,” said Doug Gross, a Republican lawyer who has been involved in Iowa politics for nearly four decades, ran for governor in 2002 and plans to support Nikki Haley in the state’s caucuses on Monday. “In Iowa, life isn’t lived in extremes, except the weather, and yet they still feel this dramatic sense of inevitable doom.”Donald J. Trump, the dominant front-runner in the Republican primary race, bounces from courtroom to campaign trail, lacing his rhetoric with ominous threats of retribution and suggestions of dictatorial tendencies. President Biden condemns political violence and argues that if he loses, democracy itself could falter.Bill Bradley, 80, who served for 18 years as a New Jersey senator, remembered when he ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2000, spending more than 75 days in Iowa during his bid. “We debated health care and taxes, which is reasonable,” he said, adding, “Civil war? No. World War III? No, no, no.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More