Democratic Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The New York Times’s Interview With Carlina Rivera

      by

      Carlina Rivera has served as a Manhattan councilwoman since 2018.This interview with Ms. Rivera was conducted by the editorial board of The New York Times on July 27.Read the board’s endorsement for the Democratic congressional primary for New York’s 10th District here.Kathleen Kingsbury: We’re just going to jump in. I hoped we could talk a little bit about — and I understand you have to reject the premise of this question — what you would be able to accomplish in a Republican-controlled Congress. And it’s good to be as specific as possible. But also, if there’s one big idea that you have that you’d pursue on a bipartisan basis.I would love to focus on what we would actually get done, absolutely. I think I’m the type of person that’s been very effective and very collaborative. I think you are going to have many of us who want to end the Jim Crow relic of the filibuster. Are we walking into a Congress that’s going to allow that? Maybe not.So, being rooted in realism, one of the things that I’m actually going to focus on: as tangible results as possible. So that will be serving on a great committee. I realize I’ll also be a junior congressperson, so I’ll have to serve sort of, you know, where they think my service would be best needed.But I also know that we are going to be losing leadership just in N.Y.12 alone. Our chairship will be lost. And I feel the delegation is at its strongest when we have leadership amongst many committees. So I would love to have my New York congressional delegation help advocate for me to get a good committee. I’d love something like transportation and infrastructure.We have the biggest subway system in the world that floods even with a little bit of rain. And we have a B.Q.E. that’s falling down. Again, energy and commerce would also be nice, because in there, there are discussions on climate and health care. And I do feel like, even though discussions over what we can do to address the effects of climate change haven’t been particularly successful, it’s going to be an important conversation going forward.I also think, going in, something that I could focus on are earmarks, $9 billion recently for earmarks, about approximately 4,900, 5,000 earmarks, having someone — there’s no pun intended — with their ear to the ground I think is something that I’m especially good at. I know this district very, very well. I know the issues facing every neighborhood, and that is something that I will go in and fight for, to bring those resources back to my district.And then the last thing I’ll say is, in terms of the infrastructure bill, I know that many people might say that money is already at the city and state level. My relationships and how I’ve come up through the community and through the ranks, they’re very strong. So working with people at every level of government to ensure that we know where those dollars and resources are going is something that I think I’ll be very effective at.Mara Gay: Councilwoman, inflation is hitting Americans hard. But as you know, in this district, the primary driving factor for cost of living is housing. What would you do as a member of Congress to address the cost of housing in New York?Well, housing is one of my signature issues. I am someone who I feel has maybe taken unpopular stances on housing, because I feel a few things are incredibly important. Stable housing is what has brought me right before you here today, growing up in Section 8 and having a roof over my head — again, something stable.I think there are good pieces of legislation to explore in Congress. The Home[s] Act, looking at linking federal dollars to maybe how we can change some zoning laws that have been quite restrictive. I took a local position on that that I thought was important. And trying to bring housing to a transit-rich area, which hadn’t really been done in rezonings before. But bringing those federal dollars in building housing — because right now, our supply does not meet our demand — to me is one of the most important things that we should be doing as representatives.And I’ll add to that something like the Green New Deal for public housing is something I’m also very passionate about, because just in the council, I represent the third highest concentration of public housing families. But there will also be even more developments and more families in N.Y.10 who will need representation — good, strong representation. And my story of my mom growing up in Farragut Houses and my dad growing up in Seward Park Extension, this is where I’ve spent the majority of my time. And this is certainly something that I’ll be looking to do.Mara Gay: And what tough vote that you took on housing — could you name one for us, since you said it was something that you could get tough votes on?Well, I’ll tell you, the SoHo, NoHo rezoning maybe didn’t make me the most popular, but I think it was the right thing to do. I’m glad that we saw it through. I’m someone that digs in deep, fights, negotiates and comes to a compromise. And I thought that ultimately, that was the right decision to make.Mara Gay: You voted for it?Absolutely.Mara Gay: For the record. Thanks.Jyoti Thottam: Hi, Councilwoman. So, just moving big picture for a minute to the threats to our democracy, what do you think Democrats in Congress could do, should be doing, to protect democracy and secure voting rights, et cetera?I think for many people — people are losing faith in their government. I think that that is maybe at an all-time high right now. I think how we restore people’s faith or trust in government is to deliver on the things that we’re fighting for.And so that is, again, those tangible things that you can see. I also think — well, we must try to expand voting rights in every which way possible, clearly making sure that, again, those people that have been historically disenfranchised, whether it’s same-day registration, automatic registration, being engaged, civically engaged, with people and starting that very, very young. Civics and education, I think, is also really important. So fighting for that, while also understanding that I think we should be looking to achieve progress wherever and however possible. And that’s something that I’m looking forward to doing and working with my colleagues.Patrick Healy: Councilwoman, do you think that Democratic elected officials are out of step at all with Democratic voters on immigration, on L.G.B.T.Q. rights, on any issue out there? As you talk to voters and hear the conversation, how does that compare with how elected officials talk about some of these things?I do feel there are almost two schools of Democrats. And there are very ideological representatives. And then there are sort of these individuals that are more kind of like old school, let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.I would say that what I think would make me a successful congresswoman is that I feel like I have my foot in both. I’m going to go for the big fights, the Green New Deal and the Medicare for All. But I’m also going to do my best to deliver as much as I can. I don’t think “incremental” is a bad word, but however and wherever possible we can achieve progress. And I’m excited because I’ll be going into the delegation with relationships with some of the reps that will be there. And I’ll be working hard to deliver.Eleanor Randolph: So we have a couple of yes-or-no questions. And you’ve touched on one. But if you don’t mind, we’ll just go through them. One, would you favor expanding the Supreme Court?Yes, I can expand it —Mara Gay: One-word answers would be great.Yes!Eleanor Randolph: What about ending the filibuster?Yes.Eleanor Randolph: What about term limits for members of Congress?Yes. Oh, wait a minute. Hold on. You said term limits for members of Congress?Eleanor Randolph: Yes.No.Eleanor Randolph: No. OK, what about an age limit for members of Congress?No.Eleanor Randolph: And should President Biden run again?Yes.Eleanor Randolph: OK. Thank you.I was thinking about it. I just answer [inaudible].Alex Kingsbury: I’d like to ask you about Ukraine. I’m wondering if there should be an upper limit on the amount of taxpayer dollars that we spend on that conflict, and if we should attach any sort of conditions to the money that we’re sending to Ukraine.I have been unapologetic about my support for Ukraine. I represent Little Ukraine in the East Village. And that situation is felt abroad and here at home. I have tried in my capacity in the city to ensure that people understand that they have someone who knows this is a very comprehensive issue in terms of what people’s needs are and how we are open to accepting refugees and families that will be coming here because of that relationship between Ukrainians and New York City and in Ukraine. We are providing the appropriate amount of funding right now, and I do not see any conditions at the moment to attach to that.Nick Fox: What do you think are the specific climate policies and plans that the Democrats should prioritize now?[The Senate passed the climate, health and tax bill on Aug. 7 and the House on Aug. 12, both after this interview took place.]Specific climate policies and plans. Before I ever decided to run for public office, I was in New York City for Hurricane Sandy. That was eight feet of water on Avenue C, where I have spent my life. This is an issue not for tomorrow. It is for today.And I’m going to — hopefully, as the next congresswoman for New York 10 — represent low-lying communities that are the majority disproportionately Black, brown families that live in public housing. I feel we need a full-court press on climate. I realize that it is going to be incredibly difficult when environmental policies and protections are pulled from legislation, and there was an actual weakening of the E.P.A. I realize the challenges that are in front of us.I do feel that where we should focus our federal resources is on resilient infrastructure and the creation of very good green jobs. That is something I think can be a bipartisan effort and that I can be effective in advocating for, because of the nature of the district that I’ll be representing and because of my personal and professional experience in addressing this issue.Mara Gay: Thank you. What further action can Congress take on gun violence?Gun violence is clearly — I think it’s a public health crisis. What we have seen happen in my district and even in my own community where I grew up, even previous to the SCOTUS decision, some of the strongest gun control laws in the country in New York State, still these guns were reaching our communities, and people are dying.What I think we can do is a few things. One is try to move forward, even on some of what was just accomplished very, very recently by Congress. And utmost respect to how we were able to move that. But right now it is such an urgent crisis that I felt that it was overdue. But I’m glad that it happened.What I’m seeing in my own district and in my time in the city is being able to identify what is working. So we have to invest: mental health programs, housing, education, work force development, ensuring that young people know that we are supporting them. And we also should be investing in programs that I’ve seen as the chair of the Committee on Hospitals in my last term, in programs like Stand Up to Violence, at Jacobi and Lincoln Hospital, that are using credible messengers and people from the community to go meet gun violence victims where they’re at in the emergency rooms and have really tough conversations about what is transpiring locally.I think that is a successful program. It should be expanded, as well as comprehensive and complementary strategies to law enforcement, and trying to ensure that we are establishing what should be a mutually respectful relationship between community and police.Mara Gay: And could you just name one action that you would take as a member of Congress on abortion rights, to protect abortion rights?As a member of Congress to protect abortion rights. Well, we have to end the filibuster to codify Roe. I would say we should work to expand access to medication abortion. I’ve passed that bill. I think it could be an example, a model, for other places across the country, and we should be providing funding to provide those services.Especially, we’ve done that here in New York, establishing the nation’s first abortion access fund, which has become a model already for other cities. I think that that should continue in terms of funding to places, especially those states that are adjacent to and nearby the states with outright restrictions or bans.[Abortion activists believe that New York’s abortion access fund marked the first time cities directed money to abortions specifically.]Mara Gay: Thank you.Kathleen Kingsbury: What should Congress do to address the increasing threat of domestic terrorism?Well, I feel we have a very sort of unique opportunity right now to put members of Congress in who understand that domestic terrorism, white supremacy, are issues right now that are destroying our communities. And we have to have a very, very serious conversation at every level of government, explore legislation, and really try to address that there are many things that I think are fueling domestic terrorism and white supremacy, antisemitism, gun violence, hateful and bigoted rhetoric, and using our platforms to really also speak out against a lot of the things that are transpiring in our communities that are divisive and that are violent.Mara Gay: We have a lightning round, a little pop quiz for you.OK.Mara Gay: How does Plan B work?Plan B is, you could actually buy it over the counter when you walk into the CVS.Mara Gay: How does the medication work in the body?The Plan B?Mara Gay: Mm-hmm.Orally? It, it …Mara Gay: What does it do?It expends the pregnancy — I mean, I’m sorry. I’m thinking of medication abortion. Let me clear that. Plan B is a preventive medicine that you take within three to five days of having sex. You take it orally, and it prevents … it prevents the pregnancy.Mara Gay: It prevents ovulation.Yes.Mara Gay: Do you own a gun?No.Mara Gay: Have you ever shot a gun?No.Mara Gay: Please name the average member of Congress the best you can.Please name the what?Mara Gay: The average — I’m sorry. Excuse me. Sorry. What is the average age of a member of Congress?Ooh, that’s a great question. I think it’s fairly high, maybe in the 60s?Mara Gay: Fifty-eight. What about for senators?I was going to say 61. Say that again, sorry.Mara Gay: Sorry. For senators?For senators — 59?Mara Gay: Sixty-four. Sorry. Now back to what I was misreading. Please name a member of Congress, dead or living, whom you most admire and may emulate yourself after, if elected to serve.Dead or living? I’m very pleased to [inaudible] Nydia Velázquez. I also think [Pramila] Jayapal is someone I’m very much looking forward to working with.Mara Gay: Thank you. And what is your favorite restaurant in the district?My favorite restaurant in the district is El Castillo de Jagua, which is on Rivington Street.Mara Gay: Thank you.I have a lot of favorite restaurants. I hate this question. I grew up in New York City. Oh my gosh.It is just like the most outstanding, diverse buffet of cuisine and food. And the pizza alone, right? The pizza alone. Anyway, I really love going out to eat. But you’ve got to keep it healthy. I’m also a farmer’s market person, and I really believe in funding our local farmers and farmer’s market.And maybe we’re not going to get into regulating big agriculture and regenerative farming. But I just think we have such a great city. Going out to eat, arts and culture, nightlife. I want to be the candidate for the people that love New York City.Mara Gay: Your objection is noted.Kathleen Kingsbury: In the council, you’ve pushed hard for deep cuts to the N.Y.P.D. Do you support the defund movement? And what do you say to voters who are concerned about public safety right now?Public safety is actually a topic that does come up very, very frequently on the streets when I’m talking to voters. I believe that we need to have these sort of complementary strategies to law enforcement. And what I mean by that is I do believe that the safest communities are the ones that are invested in.And so I can tell you, as someone who is from New York — though I want to build a future for anyone coming to this city, a future that people can see themselves in — but being from New York, I can tell you that the East Village is very different from the West Village and that Park Slope is very different from Sunset Park.The resources there, the presence of police, and I feel that sort of relationship can sometimes fall a little different. And so for me, I believe that we need equitable funding to all of our agencies and that we really have to fund what I call the four basics, first and foremost, which are housing, education, health care and food. That is what I convey over and over again to people.And as an elected official, I do my very best to have good relationships with my local precincts and try to work as respectfully and as collaboratively as possible.Kathleen Kingsbury: Jyoti?Nick Fox: Yeah, you’ve spoken out —Jyoti Thottam: Nick, yeah, go ahead.Nick Fox: Spoken out extensively on the need to support public housing. The region doesn’t have enough housing supply in general. What can Congress do to help? And do you think, like others in this race, that the residential tower at 130 Liberty Street in Lower Manhattan should be 100 percent affordable?Some call that 5 World Trade Center. So, all right, so there’s two questions there. One is, what do we think Congress can do? Yes, I’ve spoken extensively on public housing, because I feel it is that important. Just in New York City, it is a $40 billion challenge that is not even looking at the rest of the public housing across the country. I’m speaking exclusively to New York City.I also know that, again, we do not have enough supply to meet the demand. And right now, when you need 5,000 there — the average median rent is $5,000 — you need a six-figure job to keep up with monthly expenses. That is becoming increasingly difficult for people to be able to see their future in New York City.What we can do, I mentioned a few pieces of legislation that I thought were important. I mentioned the Green New Deal for public housing. I mentioned the Home Act. There is also another piece of legislation called Yes in My Backyard.There are a few pieces there that I feel, in terms of linking — some things that we should explore — linking federal resources to perhaps looking at how we make zoning less restrictive. In the case of 5 World Trade or Liberty Street, what they’re describing right now is that everyone wants 100 percent affordable housing everywhere. I feel mixed-income housing — and again, affordable housing has different levels, and so we need low and moderate and middle.I think that is really, really important to have that integration, and it’s also had proven outcomes for people who live in these mixed communities. To put $500 million into one tower for 900 — for lottery units that we’re not even sure how deep the [area median income] will be, to me, could be a decision that is not reflective of being equitable at where we’re putting resources to build affordable housing.Mara Gay: Thank you. Let’s talk about your path to victory a little bit. It’s obviously an exceptionally crowded race. The two-part question was, what is your path to victory? And the second part of the question is, what will be the determining factor in who emerges victorious in this primary? Is it a union? Is it a ground game? Is it how much money you have in the bank? What is it?I think to win this race — and I feel like I am uniquely positioned to do it because of my roots, because of the relationships that I have, and that people know me in the community, and they know me in this district — to win, you certainly need to be funded, and you need a good ground game. So you need a combination.For me, having the validators that I do have is the coalition I’m building in terms of supporters, including an early endorsement from Nydia Velázquez, was really important. Over 45 percent of her old district is in the new N.Y.10. And people know her. She’s a fighter. And so having that was critical.Having good support, whether it’s council members, labor, I think just for me, I have community leaders, P.T.A. presidents, disability advocates, and NYCHA tenant association leaders, district leaders, state committee people. I think that group of people — who understand the issues, who know who I am, who know my drive — that is what’s going to get me to the finish line. Ultimately, I would say it is having a fully funded campaign and a good ground game. And I think I’m the only candidate that has both.Mara Gay: Thank you.Patrick Healy: You live in Manhattan, but the majority of voters in the district live in Brooklyn. Why are you the best person to represent this district?Well, I’ve had all my most, I would say, my most important memories and milestones in this district. So my mom grew up in Brooklyn. My dad grew up in the L.E.S. And I like to say I’m the best of both boroughs.And I grew up going to the matinee at Cobble Hill. It was $2 on Sunday. It was like the best memory with me, my mom and my sister. I grew up bowling at Melody Lanes in Sunset Park, and I am the kid that grew up swimming in Carmine Pool and Ham Fish and playing ball at the Cage.So, for me, this district was built for me. It was made for me. And I think the responses that I’m getting from the people that live there are a testament to that.Kathleen Kingsbury: Great. I think we’re all —Thank you so much.Jyoti Thottam: We have a couple of minutes.[Laughs.]Jyoti Thottam: I just have one question. You’ve mentioned a lot of legislation you’ve sponsored —Yeah.Jyoti Thottam: Or that you’ve supported. Can you just name one that’s actually been passed and implemented, that has helped people in this district? Just one.Just one?Jyoti Thottam: The one you’re most proud of.Can I name three? Please, I’ll be so fast.Kathleen Kingsbury: We have four minutes.OK, OK. OK, so, all right. So one of the first bills I passed was to regulate illegal hotels, which were taking on Airbnb when they were — it’s pretty much removing units from the affordable housing stock. That has actually been enforced, and the mayor just did a press conference just a couple of weeks ago on how the Office of Special Enforcement was actually putting it into action, and it was working. One other bill I’d like to mention is my first bill, which is actually to codify sexual harassment as a form of discrimination. That was incredibly important.And the last bill I’ll mention was the most recent, which was to make medication abortion available at city-run health clinics. And just one bonus is bicycle — to actually provide a detour when there is on-site street work or construction — to provide a detour for bicycle lanes. I feel like that was really important, because if we’re trying to promote greener infrastructure and prioritize pedestrians and cyclists, that and my bill to make Open Streets a permanent program, I thought, were significant.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Fetterman Returns to Senate Campaign Trail in Pennsylvania

      by

      ERIE, Pa. — Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania, returned to the campaign trail on Friday evening for his first major public event since he suffered a stroke in mid-May.Mr. Fetterman was by turns emotional and brash as he addressed an exuberant crowd, acknowledging the gravity of the health scare he faced while also slamming his Republican opponent, Dr. Mehmet Oz, the celebrity physician, and pledging to fight for “every county, every vote.” “Tomorrow is three months ago — three months ago, my life could have ended,” said Mr. Fetterman, who spoke for around 11 minutes and then greeted some attendees. At another point, his voice appeared to break as he added: “I just got so grateful — and I’m so lucky. So thank you for being here.”Supporters of Mr. Fetterman at his rally on Friday. In recent weeks, he has started to emerge, but this was his first major public event of the general election.Jeff Swensen for The New York TimesThe rally in Erie — in a swing county in what is perhaps the nation’s ultimate swing state — was an important moment in a race that could determine control of the Senate. It was Mr. Fetterman’s first official in-person campaign event of the general election as he runs against Dr. Oz, who squeaked through the Republican primary with the endorsement of former President Donald J. Trump. Mr. Fetterman’s stroke occurred days before the Democratic primary in May, and in early June, his doctor said he also had a serious heart condition. His wife, Gisele Barreto Fetterman, introduced him on Friday as a “stroke survivor.”In recent weeks, Mr. Fetterman has started to emerge, greeting volunteers, granting a few local interviews and attending fund-raisers and events, including with senators and other Senate hopefuls. Several people who have spoken with him or heard him speak at private events described him as eager to return to the campaign trail, though some have also said it was evident when he was reaching for a word. He has acknowledged that challenge, and it was at times apparent on Friday when he started a sentence over or spoke haltingly.“I’ll miss a word sometimes, or I might mush two words together sometimes in a conversation, but that’s really the only issue, and it’s getting better and better every day,” Mr. Fetterman recently told KDKA-TV, the CBS station in Pittsburgh.But onstage on Friday, Mr. Fetterman also came across as high-energy, and his remarks sometimes took on the feel of a stand-up routine, fueled by a supportive crowd of 1,355 people, according to an organizer whose information was provided by the campaign. More Coverage of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsAug. 9 Primaries: In Wisconsin and a handful of other states, Trump endorsements resonated. Here’s what else we learned and a rundown of some notable wins and losses.Arizona Governor’s Race: Like other hard-right candidates this year, Kari Lake won her G.O.P. primary by running on election lies. But her polished delivery, honed through decades as a TV news anchor, have landed her in a category all her own.Climate, Health and Tax Bill: The Senate’s passage of the legislation has Democrats sprinting to sell the package by November and experiencing a flicker of an unfamiliar feeling: hope.Disputed Maps: New congressional maps drawn by Republicans in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Ohio were ruled illegal gerrymanders. They’re being used this fall anyway.“There’s a lot of differences between me and Dr. Oz,” Mr. Fetterman said to laughter, as he wondered how many mansions his opponent owned. Before the event, the line to get into the convention center snaked deep into the parking lot, drawing both older voters — including at least two who said they had voted for Mr. Trump in 2016 — and a young woman in a glittering sash, who said she had chosen to spend her 19th birthday at his campaign rally. Several attendees of varying ages cited abortion rights when discussing their votes in the Senate race, after the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.“To watch, at my age, to have it taken away from my great-granddaughters, my granddaughters, my daughters, is just so upsetting to my heart, that I’m here for Roe v. Wade,” said Judy Pasold, 80, who thought Mr. Fetterman sounded “very well.” “That’s why it’s going to be Democrat all the way through. Probably. Because most of the Republicans have gone the other way, so far the other way.” More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Why Wisconsin Is the Most Fascinating State in American Politics

      by

      What happens there in November will offer a preview of the political brawls to come.Wisconsin has long been a crucible of American politics. It remains so now.It’s where two once-powerful senators, Joseph McCarthy and Robert La Follette, defined two of the major themes we still see playing out today — what the historian Richard Hofstadter called the “paranoid style,” in McCarthy’s case, and progressivism in La Follette’s.It’s a place that has also proved time and again that elections have consequences. McCarthy won his Senate seat in the 1946 midterms amid a backlash against President Harry Truman, who was struggling to control the soaring price of meat as the country adjusted to a peacetime economy. He ousted Robert La Follette Jr., who had essentially inherited his father’s Senate seat.Four years later, McCarthy used his new platform to begin his infamous anti-communist crusade — persecuting supposed communists inside the federal government, Hollywood and the liberal intelligentsia across the country. His rise came to an end after a lawyer for one of his targets, Joseph Welch, rounded on him with one of the most famous lines ever delivered during a congressional hearing: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”The state’s modern political geography, which is rooted in this history, as well as deep-seated patterns of ethnic migration and economic development, is as fascinating as it is complex.A voter casting her ballot this week in Madison, Wisconsin’s capital and a liberal island among the state’s rural conservative areas.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesLa Follette’s old base in Madison, the capital and a teeming college town, dominates the middle south of the state like a kind of Midwestern Berkeley. But unlike in periwinkle-blue coastal California, Madison and Milwaukee — the state’s largest city, which is about 90 minutes to the east along the shores of Lake Michigan — are surrounded by a vast ocean of scarlet.Much of the state remains rural and conservative — McCarthy and Trump country.And as in much of the United States, even smaller Wisconsin cities like Green Bay (the home of the Packers), Eau Claire (a fiercely contested political battleground), Janesville (the home of Paul Ryan, the former House speaker), Kenosha (the hometown of Reince Priebus, the sometime ally and former aide to Donald Trump) and Oshkosh (the home and political base of Senator Ron Johnson) have gone blue in recent decades.The so-called W.O.W. counties around Milwaukee — Waukesha, Ozaukee and Washington — are the historical strongholds of suburban G.O.P. power, and political pundits and forecasters watch election trends there closely to tease out any potential national implications. Other portions of the northwestern area of the state are essentially suburbs of Minneapolis, and tend to toggle between the parties from election to election.The Republican Party’s origins can be traced to Ripon, Wis., where disaffected members of the Whig Party met in 1854 as they planned a new party with an anti-slavery platform. The party’s early leaders were also disgusted by what they called the “tyranny” of Andrew Jackson, a populist Democrat who built a political machine that ran roughshod over the traditional ways politics was done in America.On Tuesday, the state held its primaries, and the results were classic Wisconsin: Republicans chose Tim Michels, a Trump-aligned “Stop-the-Steal” guy, as their nominee to face Gov. Tony Evers, the Democratic incumbent, over Rebecca Kleefisch, the establishment favorite. Robin Vos, the Assembly speaker who has tilted to the right on election issues but who refused to help Trump overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, barely held on to his seat.To understand what’s happening, I badgered Reid Epstein, my colleague on the politics team. Reid has forgotten more Wisconsin political lore than most of us have ever absorbed, and here, he gives us some perspective on why the state has become such a bitterly contested ground zero for American democracy.Our conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity:You started your journalism career in Milwaukee, if I’m not mistaken. Give us a sense of what’s changed about Wisconsin politics in the years you’ve been covering the state.In Waukesha, actually. Back in 2002, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel still had bureaus covering the Milwaukee suburbs, and that’s where I had my first job, covering a handful of municipalities and school districts in Waukesha County.A lot of the same characters I wrote about as a cub reporter are still around. The then-village president of Menomonee Falls is now leading the effort to decertify Wisconsin’s 2020 election results, which of course can’t be done. The seeds of the polarization and zero-sum politics you see now in Wisconsin were just beginning to sprout 20 years ago.Republican voters chose to keep Robin Vos, yet nominated Tim Michels. Help us understand the mixed signals we’re getting here.Well, it helped that Michels had more than $10 million of his own cash to invest in his race, and Adam Steen, the Trump-backed challenger to Vos, didn’t have enough money for even one paid staff member.Vos, whose first legislative race I was there for in 2004, nearly lost to a guy with no money and no name recognition in a district where the Vos family has lived for generations. He won, but it was very close. More

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Progressive Groups Push Democrats on ‘Freedom’ for Midterm Election Message

      by

      For much of the midterm campaign, Democrats have grappled with how to define their message, weighing slogans like “Democrats deliver” and “Build back better,” and issuing warnings against “ultra-MAGA” Republicans.Now, a coalition of progressive organizations has settled on what its leaders hope will be a unified pitch from the left. This November, they plan to argue, Americans must vote to protect the fundamental freedoms that “Trump Republicans” are trying to take away.That pitch is the product of a monthslong midterms messaging project called the “Protect Our Freedoms” initiative, fueled by polling and ad testing.The move is the latest evidence that Democrats at every level of the party and of varying ideological stripes — including President Biden, abortion rights activists in Kansas and, now, a constellation of left-leaning groups — are increasingly seeking to reclaim language about freedom and personal liberty from Republicans. It is a dynamic that grew out of the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June, and one that is intensifying as more states navigate abortion bans while Republicans nominate election deniers for high office.The messaging project is a sprawling effort from progressive groups, activists and strategists aimed at getting Democrats on the same page, as they seek to crystallize the choice between the two parties and emphasize the consequential nature of the midterm elections.“Freedom is a powerful frame for this election, to make clear what the stakes are,” said Jenifer Fernandez Ancona, an architect of the messaging project as well as a co-founder and vice president of Way to Win, a collective of left-leaning Democratic donors and political strategists.What is most striking about the initiative is not the initial size of the investment — there is a $5 million national paid-media component associated with the campaign, a relatively modest sum — but the fact that left-wing organizations are now embracing language that has been more closely associated with small-government-minded conservatives.“For far too long, we’ve witnessed how the right wing has masterfully sort of owned and captured the language of freedom,” said Maurice Mitchell, the national director of the Working Families Party, one of the organizations involved in the “Protect Our Freedoms” effort. Such language has never been limited to the right: former President Franklin D. Roosevelt famously promoted the “Four Freedoms,” for instance, and a major campaign for marriage equality was framed as Freedom to Marry. But Republicans have long cast their party as the bastion of freedom — whether as the defender of free markets or more recently, in opposition to coronavirus-related mandates.In a statement, Emma Vaughn, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, highlighted the effort to paint Democrats as anti-freedom over pandemic measures, calling them the party of “shuttered businesses, school lockdowns, masks on toddlers and forced vaccines.”Ads that draw from the “Protect Our Freedoms” messaging argue that core American values — such as free elections in which the will of the people is upheld, or freedom for individuals to make decisions for their families — are now uniquely jeopardized. Just last week, a group of academics issued stark warnings to Mr. Biden about the state of democracy, The Washington Post reported.An ad produced by Way To Win Action Fund suggests that Americans must vote to protect the fundamental freedoms that “Trump Republicans” are trying to take away.Way To Win Action Fund“We’ve seen what happens when Trump Republicans have claimed to be for freedom, only to take it away and impose their will,” says an ad paid for by Way to Win Action Fund, as images from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol flash across the screen. “This November, remember: You’re a part of the fight for freedom.”Ms. Fernandez Ancona said the national ad campaign offers “the example of the message that we’re trying to put forward,” one that leaders of the initiative hope will be echoed in grass-roots efforts and advertising from individual organizations.MoveOn Political Action is planning a television and digital ad buy for later this month, aimed at statewide races in Arizona and Pennsylvania, that will incorporate “Protect Our Freedoms” messaging, said Rahna Epting, the executive director of MoveOn. And officials with several organizations said the messaging lessons will mold how they engage voters at their doors or on the phone.Ten organizations were involved in the “Protect Our Freedoms” messaging initiative, including Indivisible and Future Forward.Within the broader Democratic ecosystem, candidates and party institutions are still pursuing a broad range of messaging tactics.But in an interview last week after Kansas voters defeated an anti-abortion measure, Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, the chair of the House Democratic campaign arm, also reached for the “freedom” language as he described the choice between the two political parties.“The MAGA movement will take away your rights, your benefits, your freedoms, and you have to vote Democratic if you care about those things,” he said.Research assembled by the “Protect Our Freedoms” campaign helps explain why Democrats see such messaging as potent: A data point cited in a campaign presentation said that 42 percent of individuals, when asked in a survey to identify the values that mattered most to them as Americans, picked “freedom and liberty,” far outpacing other options like equality and and patriotism.The presentation also said that the overturning of Roe v. Wade had opened a “persuasion window,” putting more voters into play. Anat Shenker-Osorio, a progressive consultant involved in the messaging project, said there was a powerful opening to tie “actions on Roe and on abortion to this broader framework of taking away our freedoms.”Ms. Fernandez Ancona said that “the idea of ‘freedom’ really pops.”“People need to understand that they’re going to lose things if this Republican Party wins,” she added. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Should Merrick Garland Reveal More About the Mar-a-Lago Search?

      by

      More from our inbox:Democrats’ TacticsThe Robot TherapistFamily PlanningFormer President Donald J. Trump could oppose the motion to release the warrant and inventory of items taken from his home, and some of his aides were said to be leaning toward doing so.Emil Lippe for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Attorney General Stays Quiet, as Critics Raise the Volume” (news article, Aug. 10):The Justice Department really needs to explain to the American people why the F.B.I. searched former President Donald Trump’s home, given the precedent-shattering nature of what happened. It should do so for three reasons.First, given that such an act has never occurred before in American history, the public deserves to know why a former president was sufficiently suspect that the F.B.I. felt it had no choice but to conduct a search of his living quarters.Second, the silence will be interpreted and misinterpreted on the basis of partisan biases. Already right-wing leaders have deemed this an act of war, while liberals perceive it as justified, given the president’s predilection to illegally hold onto classified materials. To correct misperceptions, the D.O.J. needs to explain its rationale.Third, there is precedent for this. In 2016, James Comey, then the F.B.I. director, sent a letter to Congress to explain why the bureau was investigating Anthony Weiner’s email messages, which bore on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.If a Justice Department official went public in a case like that, surely it should offer an explanation for a case this precedent-breaking and important.Richard M. PerloffClevelandThe writer is a professor of communication and political science at Cleveland State University.To the Editor:Like many other Americans, I’m curious to know more about the Justice Department’s investigation of Donald Trump. But I think Attorney General Merrick Garland is right to keep silent about the details at this point. Mr. Khardori cites “exceptions” to the prosecutorial rule about not commenting on ongoing investigations, but none of them apply particularly well here.We already know what it’s appropriate for us to know at this point, such as that the search of Mar-a-Lago had to have happened only after a federal judge agreed that evidence of a serious crime was likely to be found there.In due time, I suspect, we’ll know a lot more. For now, let’s be patient and let the Justice Department do its job. The list of reasons for it to avoid public comment at this stage is longer than the list of reasons for it to do the opposite.Jeff BurgerRidgewood, N.J.To the Editor:“He Wielded a Sword. Now He Claims a Shield” (news analysis, front page, Aug. 11) certainly gets it right when it notes that the current outrage of the former president and his supporters over the F.B.I.’s execution of a search warrant at his Mar-a-Lago estate brings up echoes of his past behavior.After all, for Donald Trump, if he loses an election, someone else rigged it.If the U.S. Capitol is attacked, someone else incited it.Taking the Fifth Amendment is bad, as long as someone else does it.And, now, if the F.B.I. finds incriminating evidence at Mar-a-Lago, someone else planted it.So, as Donald Trump sees it, life is simply never, ever having to say you’re sorry.Chuck CutoloWestbury, N.Y.To the Editor:Representative Kevin McCarthy has said that should the Republicans take over the House in January, the Democrats should be prepared for a slew of investigations of just about everything and everyone including Hunter Biden (does anyone care?), Attorney General Merrick Garland and, most recently, the F.B.I.Such a threat is understandable, and Mr. Garland and the Democrats should be prepared to, quoting Mr. McCarthy, “preserve your documents and clear your calendar.”They should also be prepared to ignore invitations to testify, ignore subpoenas, claim victimhood, scream harassment, and overall thank the current cohort of Republicans for having created the template for avoidance, misdirection and dishonesty that have made a travesty of justice.David I. SommersKensington, Md.To the Editor:Donald Trump himself could not have better timed the raid on Mar-a-Lago. The Senate just passed a historic bill to save the environment, reduce inflation and get the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes. And all we hear about is … Donald Trump.Let’s hear about the good that the Biden administration is doing. That is the news the country needs to focus on. Let’s stop giving Donald Trump the spotlight.Laurel DurstChilmark, Mass.Democrats’ Tactics Ben KotheTo the Editor:Re “Why Are Democrats Helping the Far Right?,” by Brian Beutler (Sunday Opinion, July 24):I am not as sanguine as Mr. Beutler that all will be well if Democrats fight “from the high grounds of truth, ethics and fair play.” As the old saw says, “All politics is local.”Many issues facing voters such as inflation, Covid policies, abortion and gun control are largely out of direct control of the president, but false or misdirected blame will resonate locally when tagged to the Democrats or President Biden.Sadly, I don’t trust the electorate in general to recognize abstract ideas about threats to democracy and mortal dangers to our nation, when a costly gallon of gas is made out to be the Democrats’ fault. I hope I’m wrong.Gene ResnickNew YorkThe Robot TherapistDesdemona, a robot who performs in a band (but is probably not aware of that fact).Ian Allen for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “A.I. Does Not Have Thoughts, No Matter What You Think” (Sunday Business, Aug. 7):In the mid-1980s, my daughters and I loved talking with the therapy chatbot Eliza on our Commodore 64. She often seemed to respond with understanding and compassion, and at times she got it hilariously wrong.We knew that Eliza was not a therapist, or even a human, but I see now that “she” was programmed to do something many humans have not mastered: to actively listen and reflect on what she heard so that the human in the conversation could dig deep and find his or her own answers. In the healing circles I’ve facilitated for women, we call that holding space.We would all do well to learn Eliza’s simple skills.This blackout poem that I created from the accompanying article, “A Conversation With Eliza,” encapsulates the process of digging deep, whether with a chatbot or a human:“Eliza”I thinkI am depressed.I needmy mother.Mary SchanuelWentzville, Mo.Family Planning Lauren DeCicca for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Promoting Condom Use in Thailand With Spectacle and Humor” (The Saturday Profile, Aug. 6):Many thanks for your piece about Mechai Viravaidya, Thailand’s “Captain Condom.” Mr. Mechai saw that there was an urgent population growth problem in Thailand, causing suffering for people and harm to the environment, and set about to solve it with humor, creativity and persistence.His vision of voluntary, free family planning as a powerful tool to advance gender equity, protect the environment and improve human well-being is one that we at Population Balance wish more world leaders would embrace. We hope that his story will inspire others to make family planning accessible and affordable to all, and to embrace condoms as a ticket to love with responsibility, freedom and joy.Kirsten StadeSilver Spring, Md.The writer is communications manager for Population Balance. More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Policing Divide Hurt Rep. Ilhan Omar, Who Edged Out a Narrow Primary Win

      by

      Two years ago, Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota easily survived her Democratic primary by beating back a fellow progressive. Even though she had become a national lightning rod for attacks from the right and faced staunch opposition from pro-Israel groups that spent millions of dollars in hopes of defeating her, she won her 2020 race by more than 35,000 votes.But on Tuesday, Ms. Omar edged out only a narrow primary victory against a centrist Democrat, coming within 2,500 votes of losing her seat. “Tonight’s victory is a testament to how much our district believes in the collective values we are fighting for and how much they’re willing to do to help us overcome defeat,” Ms. Omar posted on Twitter. To her supporters and her critics, the tight race was a sign that her strong support of a progressive push to overhaul the Minneapolis Police Department had cost her votes. That push, which took the shape of a ballot measure last year, followed the 2020 killing of George Floyd in police custody in Minneapolis, which set off protests and nationwide calls for racial justice and police reform. More than two years later, the issue of policing and accountability continues to deeply divide Democrats.“Most voters, when they call 9-11, they want the police to come right away,” said Michael Meehan, a Democratic strategist, adding that Ms. Omar’s narrow win showed the “punitive power” of the backlash against calls to “defund the police” across the country.For many in Minneapolis, the clashes over policing between Ms. Omar and her main Democratic rival in the primary, Don Samuels, a former Minneapolis city councilman and school board member, were a continuation of last year’s battle over the ballot measure to replace the Minneapolis Police Department with a new Department of Public Safety.Ms. Omar supported the measure, which grew out of the outrage over Mr. Floyd’s murder, when Minneapolis became the center of a push to defund or abolish the police. But moderate Democrats, including Mayor Jacob Frey, called for improving the current department, as an increase in homicides sparked concern.In the end, Minneapolis voters struck the amendment down. Mr. Samuels, who campaigned to defeat the ballot measure and who had the backing of Mr. Frey in the primary, had criticized Ms. Omar for her support of the “defund police” movement. After he conceded his race, Mr. Samuels contended that his opponent was beatable. “If this was the general election, no doubt that we would have won this race,” he said.This time, pro-Israel groups declined to get involved. The political action committee affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee did not respond to requests for comment. They and other groups have opposed Ms. Omar in the past after she made comments about the influence of pro-Israel donors on lawmakers. Her fierce and persistent criticism of Israel has exposed broader tensions between younger Democrats who accuse the Jewish state of human rights abuses and older Democrats who stand behind it.On Wednesday, Ms. Omar’s progressive supporters were feeling relieved, yet also dispirited. “I feel like it shouldn’t have been that close,” said D.A. Bullock, a filmmaker and Minneapolis community activist who supported her campaign. “It was almost like trying to bring her to heel rather than push for better policy.”Sabrina Mauritz, a field director with TakeAction Minnesota, said Ms. Omar won despite the broader backlash because she has been an effective local leader. “The constant fear mongering — it is meant to scare people,” Ms. Mauritz said, referring to the attacks on Ms. Omar and efforts at police reform. More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Are Democrats Bungling Their Outreach to Voters?

      by

      More from our inbox:Republican Outrage Over the Raid at Mar-a-Lago‘Willful Ignorance’ and the Alex Jones Case Seb AgrestiTo the Editor:Re “Fed Up With Democratic Emails? You’re Not the Only One,” by Lara Putnam and Micah L. Sifry (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Aug. 1):The on-the-ground organizing the writers favor is admirable. But in deriding letters to voters, they are far off the mark. The science is clear: Large-scale randomized controlled trials over multiple election cycles have shown that Vote Forward’s partially handwritten letters significantly boost voter turnout.A peer-reviewed research study of our 2020 program “The Big Send” found that it was among the highest impact voter turnout programs ever measured in a presidential election. Vote Forward rigorously vets volunteers and encourages personal, heartfelt messages that reach beyond their bubbles — an authentic approach that works.Letter writing is a scalable, accessible activity doable year round from anywhere. It is an enjoyable entry point to electoral activism for many volunteers who later engage in deeper community organizing. And letters can be stockpiled to send at the optimal time, leaving space for other voter contact activities like canvassing and phone banking.Letters to voters are the kind of thoughtful, sustainable approach to volunteer engagement in elections that should be encouraged if we hope to build a strong civic fabric.Scott FormanOakland, Calif.The writer is the founder and executive director of Vote Forward, a nonprofit that encourages citizens to vote.To the Editor:Lara Putnam and Micah L. Sifry nailed it in their guest essay on the serious shortcomings of Democratic Party reliance on “churn and burn” email fund-raising with apocalyptic messaging. My inbox has been swamped this year with emails from Democratic PACs and candidates around the country desperately begging for money to salvage the party’s chances in the coming election. Nancy Pelosi was sending me more than an email a day, many of which had that dispiriting tone.On May 19, I finally unsubscribed to her Nancy Pelosi for Congress PAC, and sent her an email setting forth my reasons: Too much hyperbole (for example, “I critically need 3,372 gifts before midnight” was a constant refrain; there didn’t seem to be a midnight that went by that wasn’t a crucial financing deadline); too much emotion (she was shocked, disgusted, devastated); and, most troubling, too desperate.As I explained in my email, that sense of desperation “signals likely failure and has discouraged me from devoting my time and financial resources in the Democratic midterm election effort.”By contrast, the fund-raising emails I have received from President Biden have been more upbeat, and I have responded by making contributions to the Democratic National Committee. Democrats need to shift quickly from their current desperation-tinged tone to a more confident approach, with emphasis on the president’s and the party’s positive accomplishments.Allan HubbardEverett, Wash.To the Editor:The grass isn’t any greener on the other side of the aisle. My spam folder is full of similarly apocalyptic visions of what the “Biden/Pelosi/Schumer” troika will inflict on America should Republicans not sweep to congressional power in November. It’s easy enough to just hit “delete.”What is more concerning (for both red and blue voters) is that none of these desperate and destructive pleas are for anything other than money. No information on how to get more involved in the process. No links to more dispassionate discussions of the issues. Just unwarranted demonization of some of our fellow citizens via bolded adjectives and lots of exclamation marks. We can do better.Peter J. PittsNew YorkTo the Editor:Buried in the unfortunate tone of the guest essay are many points that we can agree on. Locally led conversations about elections are extremely powerful and strengthen our democracy. It is, however, a false dichotomy to say we must choose between these important local efforts and the participation of other activists in remote voter mobilization techniques. We can and must do both.Lara Putnam and Micah L. Sifry cherry-pick a study reporting a negative impact of sending postcards to voters. However, many more studies show a positive impact of between 0.4 and 2 percent. While these are small impacts, they are sufficient to make a difference in close elections.Campaigns generally do not have the capacity to knock on every door, especially in rural areas. Not all voters will be home when a canvasser shows up, and not all will answer a phone call. An all-of-the-above approach helps ensure that as many people as possible participate in our democracy.Ronnie CohenBerkeley, Calif.The writer is executive director of Activate America.Republican Outrage Over the Raid at Mar-a-LagoF.B.I. agents reportedly searched former President Donald J. Trump’s residence and office, as a well as a storage unit, at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla.Saul Martinez for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “A Simmering Feud Peaks in a Search of Trump’s Home” (front page, Aug. 10):Surely if former President Barack Obama had left the White House and taken with him government documents, some of which may have been classified and all of which should have been delivered to the National Archives, the Republicans would have raised holy hell. But, of course, when a Republican former president does the same they sing a different tune.As that former president often says, “so sad.”Samuel A. OppenheimFranklin, Mass.To the Editor:Republican politicians and Fox News are outraged over the Justice Department raid of Donald Trump’s home and are demanding that the department explain why it did this. What they fail to mention is that Mr. Trump received a copy of the search warrant and an inventory of what was taken. If this was an outrageous intrusion, Mr. Trump could disclose the purpose of the search warrant and what was taken.Mr. Trump has already turned over 15 boxes that were wrongfully removed from the White House, implicitly indicating that this was all he originally removed. If the dozen or so boxes that were seized on Monday should have been turned over earlier, this is a clear indication that Mr. Trump knowingly broke the law.Charles W. MurdockChicagoThe writer is a professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law.‘Willful Ignorance’ and the Alex Jones Case Pool photo by Briana SanchezTo the Editor:As a longtime Newtown resident and the husband of a retired Sandy Hook Elementary School teacher, I followed the defamation suit against Alex Jones closely. I largely agree with the sentiments expressed in “Jones Got His Comeuppance, but Don’t Expect an End to the Lies” (front page, Aug. 7).Throughout history, groups have proved their allegiance to a political/cultural movement by adhering to bizarre and clearly false claims of their leaders. Blood libels. AIDS as a bioweapon. Pizzagate.Individuals adhering to the ideology of a political/cultural/fringe group will knowingly embrace outright falsehoods to further prove their allegiance. The wilder the conspiracy, the greater the sense of belonging. Willful ignorance: the team jersey of today.Steven TenenbaumNewtown, Conn. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      How We Think About Politics Changes What We Think About Politics

      by

      When so many voters — a majority, in fact — say that they prefer consensus to conflict, why does polarization continue to intensify?In a paper that came out in June, “Explanations for Inequality and Partisan Polarization in the U.S., 1980 — 2020,” Elizabeth Suhay and Mark Tenenbaum, political scientists at American University, and Austin Bartola, of Quadrant Strategies, provide insight into why so much discord permeates American politics:Scholars who research polarization have almost exclusively focused on the relationship between Americans’ policy opinions and their partisanship. In this article, we discuss a different type of partisan polarization underappreciated by scholars: “belief polarization,” or disagreements over what people perceive to be true.The concept of belief polarization has been defined in a number of ways.In their May 2021 paper, “Belief polarization in a complex world,” Alan Jern, Kai-min Kevin Chang and Charles Kemp — of the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Carnegie Mellon and the University of Melbourne — write: “Belief polarization occurs when two people with opposing prior beliefs both strengthen their beliefs after observing the same data.”There is, they continue, “ample evidence that people sustain different beliefs even when faced with the same information, and they interpret that information differently.” They also note that “stark differences in beliefs can arise and endure due to human limitations in interpreting complex information.”Kristoffer Nimark, an economist at Cornell, and Savitar Sundaresan, of Imperial College London, describe belief polarization this way: “The beliefs of ex ante identical agents over time can cluster in two distinct groups at opposite ends of the belief space.”Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse, professors of philosophy at Vanderbilt, argue in their 2019 paper, “How Does Belief Polarization Work”:Part of what makes belief polarization so disconcerting is its ubiquity. It has been extensively studied for more than 50 years and found to be operative within groups of all kinds, formal and informal. Furthermore, belief polarization does not discriminate between different kinds of belief. Like-minded groups polarize regardless of whether they are discussing banal matters of fact, matters of personal taste, or questions about value. What’s more, the phenomenon operates regardless of the explicit point of the group’s discussion. Like-minded groups polarize when they are trying to decide an action that the group will take; and they polarize also when there is no specific decision to be reached. Finally, the phenomenon is prevalent regardless of group members’ nationality, race, gender, religion, economic status, and level of education.Talisse, writing separately, observes:The social environment itself can trigger extremity shifts. These prompts need not be verbal, explicit, or literal; they can be merely implicit signals to group members that some belief is prevalent among them — hats, pins, campaign signs, logos, and gestures are all potential initiators of belief polarization. Further, as corroboration is really a matter of numbers, those with the power to present the appearance of widespread acceptance among a particular social group of some idea thereby have the power to induce extremity shifts among those who identify with that group.Perhaps the most salient recent illustration of belief polarization is the diametrically opposed views of Trump loyalists and of their Democratic adversaries over the legitimacy of the 2020 election: Trump supporters are convinced it was stolen; Democrats and independents are certain that Joe Biden is the legitimate president.Similarly, politicians on the right — and Fox News — are treating the F.B.I. raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago on Monday as a corrupt politicization of federal investigative authority, while liberals — and CNN — counter that the raid demonstrates that no one, no matter how powerful, is above the law.Suhay and her colleagues expand the scope of belief polarization to look at the differences between Republicans and Democrats over the causes of inequality:We illustrate large, and increasing, partisan divides in beliefs regarding whether an unequal society, or unequal behavior, is the cause of socioeconomic inequality. Republican politicians and citizens are optimistic about the American dream and pessimistic about poor people’s behavior; Democratic politicians and citizens are pessimistic about the dream and optimistic about poor people’s ability to succeed if given the chance.These patterns, Suhay and her collaborators continue,hold for beliefs about economic inequality along both class and race lines. Variation in societal versus individual blame is consistently associated with views on social welfare, taxation, and affirmative action. We conclude that Americans’ beliefs about the fairness of the economy represent a crucial component of a redistributive versus anti-redistributive ideology that is increasingly associated with the two political parties.Suhay writes:The Democratic Party has long justified its left-leaning economic policies with two central claims: significant economic inequality exists between individuals and social groups, and these great inequalities are unfair because society, not individuals, are to blame for them. The latter proposition is especially important. It is difficult to deny that many harsh inequalities exist in the United States. Exorbitant wealth as well as homelessness are plain to see. However, such inequalities might be tolerated if they are viewed as the outcome of a meritocratic system. Democrats argue instead that “the American dream” — success via hard work — is not a reality for many. Thus, low-income people deserve government assistance.Conversely, Suhay continues, Republicans emphasizeaggregate economic growth and downplay the extent of inequality. Second, Republicans argue that existing inequalities are fair — successful people have achieved success via hard work or ingenuity, and those facing difficult economic circumstances are to blame for them. Third, in response to Democrats’ instinct to use government to combat inequality, Republicans argue government efforts to intervene in business affairs, redistribute wealth, and assist those in need often do more harm than good, depressing the economic output of both firms and individuals. These narratives justify Republicans’ conservative economic agenda by insisting that the status quo is fine: inequality is minimal; inequalities that do exist are “just deserts”; and, even if one wished to help, government intervention in fact undermines individual and aggregate prosperity.Suhay, Tenenbaum and Bartola cite data from American National Election Studies and the Pew Research Center to track the increasing polarization between Republicans and Democrats on various questions, which require respondents to agree or disagree with statements like these: “one of the big problems in this country is that we don’t give everyone an equal chance”; “most people who want to get ahead can make it if they’re willing to work hard”; and “poor people today have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return.”In 1997, 68 percent of Republican and 43 percent of Democratic survey respondents chose “have it easy,” a 25-point difference. By 2017, 73 percent of Republicans said the poor “have it easy,” while 19 percent of Democrats shared that view, a 54-point difference.In an email, Suhay noted thatmany social scientists today are focused on misinformed and extreme beliefs in the Republican Party, including Republicans’ greater likelihood of rejecting climate science and Covid-19 vaccination and their embrace of Trump’s “big lie” about the 2020 election.But, Suhay wrote, many of those same scholars “are missing growing extremity on the political left. It may be more benign or even beneficial in some cases, but it is still a phenomenon worth study.” In addition to “a surge of claims on the left that the economy is extremely unequal and that this is because our country does not provide equal opportunity to all of its inhabitants,” there has been a parallel surge among liberals on the issue of “racial justice — in both the economic and criminal justice arena.”A third development on the left, Suhay added, and onewhere we have seen the most rapid change, is around gender identity. Democrats increasingly say society ought to protect the rights of transgender people and the expression of transgender identity because gender fluidity is a natural part of the human condition and trying to curb its expression causes people harm. The popularity of each of these views has surged on the left recently.There is further evidence that even people who are knowledgeable about complex issues are sharply polarized along partisan lines.Nathan Lee at the Rochester Institute of Technology, Brendan Nyhan at Dartmouth, Jason Reifler at the University of Exeter and D.J. Flynn at IE University in Madrid argue in their paper “More Accurate, but No Less Polarized: Comparing the Factual Beliefs of Government Officials and the Public” that while “political elites are consistently more accurately informed than the public,” the “increase in accuracy does not translate into reduced factual belief polarization. These findings demonstrate that a more informed political elite does not necessarily mitigate partisan factual disagreement in policymaking.”Lee, Nyhan, Reifler and Flynn assessed the views of elites through a survey in 2017 of 743 “elected policymakers, legislative staffers, and top administrative positions in local and state government in the United States.” Three-quarters of the sample held elective office. The survey tested belief accuracy by partisanship and elite status on eight issues including health care, the share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent, climate change and voter fraud.Their conclusions run counter to assumptions that elites are less polarized than the general public because “they tend to be more knowledgeable, which is associated with greater belief accuracy” and because they “possess domain expertise in politics and public policy that could reduce the influence of cognitive biases.”In fact, Lee and colleagues counter, “belief polarization can be unchanged or widen when belief accuracy increases.”I asked Nyhan about the consequences of the findings and he wrote back by email:The most important contribution of our study is to challenge the assumption that we will disagree less about the facts if we know more. Elites are better informed than the public on average but Democrats and Republicans still are still deeply divided in their beliefs about those facts. In some ways, the conclusion of our study is optimistic — government officials are better informed than the public. That’s what most of us would hope to be true. But the findings do suggest we should avoid thinking that people becoming more informed will make the factual divides in our society go away. Belief polarization is a reality that is not easily overcome.One theme that emerges repeatedly in looking at belief polarization is the role race plays as a central factor:Peter K. Enns and Ashley Jardina, political scientists at Cornell and Duke, make the case in their October 2021 paper, “Complicating the role of White racial attitudes and anti-immigrant sentiment in the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” thatMost of the research on the relationship between white racial attitudes and Trump support is part of a tradition that assumes that racial attitudes are fairly stable predispositions that form early in life and then later become important for political reasoning. Implied in this line of research is that politicians or political campaigns do not change levels of prejudice, but they can prime these attitudes, or make them more or less salient and therefore more or less politically relevant.Enns and Jardina write that in contrast to this view, over the course of the 2016 presidential campaign “many whites shifted their survey responses on questions related to race and immigration to align with their support for Trump or Clinton.”To test their argument, the authors used “a unique panel data set from surveys conducted by YouGov of more than 5,000 respondents interviewed at multiple points during the 2016 presidential election campaign.” From that study, they found:The strong link between white attitudes toward Black Americans and Trump support observed in prior studies is likely due as much to white Trump supporters updating their survey responses to report opinions more consistent with Trump’s as it is to Trump drawing support from more racially antagonistic white voters. Similar results emerge with respect to whites’ immigration opinions.They found, for example, that from January 2016 to August 2016, the percentage of Trump supporters voicing strong opposition to Black Lives Matter grew by roughly 15 percentage points.In an email, Enns contended thatregardless of the precise underlying mechanisms (and multiple mechanisms could be at work), the evidence suggests that Trump’s rhetoric had a meaningful effect on the views his supporters expressed about these issues. We are definitely arguing that the attitudes individuals express can be changed by what candidates they support say and do. Although we cannot observe actual beliefs, to the extent that expressing previously unexpressed beliefs has a reinforcing effect, that would also provide evidence of a deepening or potential changing of racial attitudes.The strong association between Trump support and whites’ views on racial issues, Enns and Jardina argue in their paper,was not merely a result of Trump attracting racist whites by way of his own racist rhetoric or a reflection of partisan racial sorting that had already occurred; it was also a result of white Trump supporters changing their views to be more in line with Trump’s over the course of his presidential campaign. In other words, Trump not only attracted whites with more conservative views on race; he also made his white supporters more likely to espouse increasingly extreme views on issues related to immigration and on issues like the Black Lives Matter movement and police killings of African Americans.Andrew M. Engelhardt, a professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, developed a similar line of analysis in his January 2020 paper, “Racial Attitudes Through a Partisan Lens.”In an email, Engelhardt wrote:Part of the reason White Democrats and White Republicans hold increasingly different views about Black Americans is due to their partisanship. It’s not just that Democrats with negative views became Republicans, or Republicans with more positive views became Democrats. Rather, people are changing their attitudes, and part of this, I argue, is due to how politicians talk about Black Americans. Republicans, for instance, could have internalized Trump’s negative rhetoric, and increasingly held more negative views. Democrats, similarly, hear Trump say these negative things and they move opposite, holding more positive views.In his paper, Engelhardt wrote that undergirding past studies of the role of race in politics and policymakingis an assumption that racial animus feeds political conflict. I turn this conventional wisdom on its head by arguing that political conflict can shape racial attitudes — people’s views and beliefs about groups understood to be racial. Political scientists have failed to examine this possibility, perhaps because racial attitudes are seen as persistent and influential predispositions that form during childhood, long before most Americans become political animals. According to this line of reasoning, individuals use these early formed attitudes to make sense of politics; racial attitudes lead to partisanship.The ever-growing divide between left and right extends well beyond racial issues and attitudes. In his email, Engelhardt wrote that his results are “suggestive of partisanship motivating changes in other orientations which we might presumably see as more stable and core to individuals.” He cited research showing that “partisanship influences religiosity and religious affiliation” and other studies linking “political concerns to changes in racial self-identification.” Engelhardt added that he has “some unpublished results where I find partisanship leads Democrats to hold more positive views of gay men and lesbians, transgender individuals, and feminists, over time, with Republicans holding more negative views of these groups in the same period (data range 2016-2020).”In their January 2022 paper, “The Origins and Consequences of Racialized Schemas about U.S. Parties,” Kirill Zhirkov and Nicholas Valentino, political scientists at the Universities of Virginia and Michigan, make an interesting argument that, in effect, “Two parallel processes structure American politics in the current moment: partisan polarization and the increasing linkage between racial attitudes and issue preferences of all sorts.”Zhirkov and Valentino continue:Beginning in the 1970s, Democratic candidates in presidential elections started to attract large shares of nonwhite voters whereas Republicans increasingly relied on votes of racially conservative whites. Over the same period, voters’ positions on seemingly nonracial political issues have gradually become more intertwined with racial resentment.Overall, the two scholars write,the growing racial gap between the Democratic and Republican support bases leads to formation of racialized stereotypes about the two parties. Specifically, a non-trivial share of American electorate currently views the Democratic Party as nonwhite and the Republican Party as white, though in reality whites continue to be a majority of both parties.This “imagined racial coalition of each party,” in the view of Zhirkov and Valentino,carries profound implications for the ongoing discussion in the discipline about affective polarization in American politics: whites feel colder toward the Democratic Party when they imagine its coalition to be more heavily made up on nonwhites and feel warmer toward the Republican Party when they perceive it to be dominated by their racial group. As a consequence, rather than a cause, they may then come to accept a more conservative issue package advocated by the modern Republican Party.Racial attitudes, the authors argue persuasively, “are now important predictors of opinions about electoral fairness, gun control, policing, international trade and health care.”There are, Zhirkov and Valentino note, long-range implications for the future of democracy here:As soon as ethnic parties start to compete for political power, winning — rather than implementing a certain policy — becomes the goal in and of itself due to associated boost in group status and self-esteem of its members. Moreover, comparative evidence suggests that U.S. plurality-based electoral system contributes to politicization of ethnic cleavages rather than mitigates them. Therefore, the racialization of American parties is likely to continue, and the intensity of political conflict in the United States is likely to grow.I asked the authors how they would characterize the importance of race in contemporary American politics. In a jointly written email, they replied that in research to be published in the future, “we show that race is at least as strong, and often stronger, than cleavages such as religion, ideology, and class.”The pessimistic outlook for the prospect of a return to less divisive politics revealed in many of the papers cited here, and the key role of racial conflict in driving polarization, suggest that the ability of the United States to come to terms with its increasingly multiracial, multiethnic population remains in question. This country has been a full-fledged democracy for less than 60 years — since passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the changes wrought by three additional revolutions: in civil rights, women’s rights and gay rights. These developments — or upheavals — and especially the reaction to them have tested the viability of our democracy and suggest, at the very least, an uphill climb ahead.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More