Democratic Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Two Paths on Voting Rights: Ambition or Compromise

      by

      After President Biden’s speech on voting rights, we explain the two camps in the debate about how to protect them.President Biden and congressional Democrats are making a new push to pass a voting-rights bill.As they do, it’s worth keeping in mind that there are two major categories of voting issues that sometimes get conflated. There is also a growing debate about which should be the higher priority.The first category includes the issues that have long animated voting-rights advocates, like expanded voting access — through mail ballots, for example — as well as restrictions on partisan gerrymandering and campaign donations. Advocates say these policies are particularly important because of Republican efforts to restrict voting, especially among Black, Latino and younger Americans, and draw gerrymandered districts.The second category was obscure until the 2020 presidential election. It involves new laws to prevent the subversion of an election after it happens, as Donald Trump and his supporters tried do in 2020 and have signaled they may try again.Some experts believe that both categories are vital and that viewing them separately is a mistake. Others say that while the first is important, it’s also part of a centuries-long, back-and-forth struggle to expand voting access — while the second is urgent, given the looming threat of an overturned election.Today, we walk you through the case being made by each side in the debate — as well as the latest news, including Biden’s speech yesterday, delivered at a group of historically Black colleges in Atlanta.1. Be ambitiousThe major recent voting legislation from congressional Democrats has focused more on the first category.The House last year passed a sweeping bill that would, among other things, mandate automatic voter registration, ban partisan gerrymandering and expand early voting. A compromise bill, favored by Senator Joe Manchin, would include narrower versions of many such ideas, as well as a voter-identification requirement, which is a Republican priority.Some voting-rights advocates favor an ambitious approach that combines these ideas with attempts to crack down on Trump-like subversion of vote counting. “It’s all one related attack,” Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center for Justice told us. “It’s not enough to just stop the attempt to sabotage at the very end of the process if the process is being undermined at every other phase.”One rationale: It remains unclear whether Republicans will agree to any voting-rights bill. If Democrats have to pass a bill along partisan lines, according to this view, they should pass the best, broadest bill, one that does everything possible to protect basic rights.American democracy is facing “an existential crisis,” The Washington Post’s Perry Bacon Jr. has written, “and it should be treated like one.”2. Be realisticOther voting-rights activists consider this view naïve. They say that an ambitious, partisan legislative push is doomed, given Democrats’ narrow Senate majority — and that the Trumpist threat to democracy is a true emergency.Our colleague Nate Cohn, who covers elections, calls the possibility of election subversion “the most insidious and serious threat to democracy.” Rick Hasen, an election-law expert at the University of California, Irvine, told us, “This is a house-on-fire moment, and the priority should be trying to find bipartisan paths toward compromise.” (In a recent Times Opinion article, Hasen wrote that Democrats have not focused enough on the threat.)Hasen and others have suggested rewriting the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which is now fairly vague. A strengthened version of it might raise the bar for when a state legislature could declare an election to be void. It could limit the occasions to a terrorist attack or natural disaster, rather than allowing a legislature to do so by citing (often false) claims of fraud.Recounting ballots in Georgia in 2020.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesManchin’s compromise bill includes a couple of other ideas that voting-rights experts favor: a requirement that voting machines produce a paper ballot for every vote; and limits on when election officials can be removed from office.Advocates of a narrower approach note that some Republicans appear willing to consider it. Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader, has suggested that he might be open to reforming the Electoral Count Act. Susan Collins of Maine has convened a bipartisan group to discuss electoral reform, including changes to the 1887 law. “Another issue that we’re taking a look at is how we could protect election officials from harassment,” Collins told Punchbowl News.(Yuval Levin, a conservative policy expert, has laid out what a compromise bill might look like.)What’s next?For now, Democrats appear more focused on the more ambitious option. If they had even slightly larger congressional majorities, that approach might be promising. But they do not. They cannot afford to lose even a single Democratic senator.In his speech yesterday, Biden called on the Senate to pass voting-rights legislation, even if it requires changing the filibuster. If that happened, Democrats could pass a bill without any Republican support.In doing so, Biden heeded the calls of Democratic activists who have been urging him to put more pressure on Congress. In reality, though, he does not have much leverage. He cannot force Manchin and several other senators who generally support the filibuster to change their minds.It seems to be an example of what Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College, calls “the Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency” after the superhero of the same name. Nyhan coined the phrase to describe the mistaken belief that presidents can force Congress to act by trying really, really hard.Still, there is a scenario — albeit an unlikely one — in which the new attention on the issue might lead to a new law. Perhaps a bipartisan group of senators will come up with a narrow bill that can win 60 votes and overcome a filibuster. Or perhaps the Democratic holdouts will decide that the issue is important enough to sidestep the filibuster and pass a different bill from the ones proposed so far.“Wherever the effort might end,” Nate Cohn has written, “a more realistic legislative push begins with an earnest effort to write a bill that is more responsive to the current threats to the system and is designed to win enough votes to pass.”Biden’s speech“I’ve been having these quiet conversations with members of Congress for the last two months. I’m tired of being quiet,” Biden said in Atlanta, smacking his lectern.“I believe that the threat to our democracy is so grave that we must find a way to pass these voting-rights bills,” Biden said. “Debate them. Vote. Let the majority prevail.”Senate Democrats are circulating multiple filibuster-overhaul proposals.THE LATEST NEWSThe VirusSenators criticized federal health officials for failing to anticipate the need for tests and for mangling public messaging.Testing was supposed to keep schools open. Few districts are testing enough.Novak Djokovic admitted he had lied on a travel document that he presented to Australian border officials.One place tests are easy to get? Corporate America.Other Big StoriesJerome Powell, the Fed Chair, at the Capitol.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesJerome Powell said he was prepared to raise interest rates to cool inflation.The diplomatic push to avert a Russian invasion of Ukraine is continuing in Brussels today, as Russia and NATO meet. (But Vladimir Putin’s next move is a mystery.)Medicare officials say the program should restrict coverage of Aduhelm, an Alzheimer’s drug, to patients in clinical trials.The Yankees made Rachel Balkovec the first woman to manage a minor league team affiliated with Major League Baseball.Maya Angelou has become the first Black woman on a quarter. OpinionsThe Biden administration should work with the Taliban to save lives, Laurel Miller argues.Stop talking with Russia and arm Ukraine, says Bret Stephens.A Joe Biden-Liz Cheney (or Kamala Harris-Mitt Romney) ticket in 2024 would help safeguard American democracy, Thomas Friedman argues.MORNING READSDadu ShinMelatonin: Many people are using it wrong.R.I.P.: Magawa the rat, who sniffed out land mines in Cambodia, has died.Sex after 70: Older couples are finding joy (and challenges) in intimacy.TikTok stardom: Juilliard rejected him. Then the internet stepped in.Advice from Wirecutter: Consider a sleep mask to ease restless nights.Lives Lived: Michael Lang was 24 when he and three others put on the Woodstock Music and Art Fair in 1969. They hoped for 50,000 attendees, and got more than 400,000. Lang died at 77.ARTS AND IDEAS Amy Schneider’s “Jeopardy!” winnings surpassed $1 million.Jeopardy Productions, via Associated PressWhy ‘Jeopardy!’ keeps seeing winning streaksAmy Schneider — the woman with the most consecutive “Jeopardy!” victories — won her 30th straight show last night.Schneider hasn’t been the only contestant on a roll — long winning streaks have grown more common on the program. In 2003, “Jeopardy!” abandoned a rule that limited contestants to no more than five wins in a row. Since then, a dozen players have won 10 or more games — three of them in this season alone. Matt Amodio recently achieved the second-longest run in the show’s history, winning 38 consecutive games.The excitement of the winning streaks provides ratings boosts. But as Julia Jacobs writes in The Times, many are wondering what’s causing the trend. Has the game gotten easier? “I actually think the show may be getting harder,” Michael Davies, the show’s executive producer, said. “We have massively diversified the history, cultural and pop cultural material we expect our players to compete over.”The former champion James Holzhauer thinks the trend may just be a coincidence. “People always assume everything is a paradigm shift,” he said, “when it’s actually fairly normal for results to occasionally cluster.”For more: Jennifer Finney Boylan, a transgender writer, says Schneider’s streak is a step toward “making space for trans people in ordinary American life.” — Sanam Yar, a Morning writerPLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookRikki Snyder for The New York TimesMake Three Sisters stew using corn, beans and squash.What to Watch“Parallel Mothers” is Penélope Cruz’s seventh film with the director Pedro Almodóvar. “We can read each other’s minds,” she said.What to ReadJessamine Chan’s chilling debut novel, “The School for Good Mothers,” imagines a facility where parents go through retraining.Late NightThe hosts talked about Omicron.Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was diffract. Here is today’s puzzle — or you can play online.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Flim-___ (nonsense) (four letters).If you’re in the mood to play more, find all our games here.Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. — DavidP.S. The Newswomen’s Club of New York gave Gail Collins its lifetime achievement award.Here’s today’s front page.“The Daily” is about Russia and Ukraine. On “The Argument,” can the Republican Party move past the “Big Lie”?Claire Moses, Tom Wright-Piersanti, Ashley Wu and Sanam Yar contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at themorning@nytimes.com.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

    • 50 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Steve Bannon sabe algo

      by

      En Politics Is for Power, el libro de 2020 de Eitan Hersh, politólogo de Tufts, retrató con gran nitidez (e intensidad) un día en la vida de muchos sujetos obsesionados con la política.Actualizo las historias de Twitter para mantenerme al tanto de la crisis política del momento, luego reviso Facebook para leer noticias ciberanzuelo y en YouTube veo un collage de clips impactantes de la audiencia más reciente ante el Congreso. A continuación, me quejo con mi familia de todo lo que no me gustó de eso que vi.En opinión de Hersh, eso no es política. Podría decirse que es una “afición por la política”. Lo cierto es que casi se trata del pasatiempo nacional en Estados Unidos. “Una tercera parte de los estadounidenses dicen que le dedican por lo menos dos horas al día a la política”, escribe. “De estas personas, cuatro de cada cinco afirman que ni un solo minuto de ese tiempo invertido se relaciona con algún tipo de trabajo político real. Solo son noticias televisadas, algunos pódcast, programas de radio, redes sociales y elogios, críticas y quejas compartidas con los amigos y la familia”.Hersh considera que es posible definir el trabajo político real como la acumulación intencional y estratégica de poder al servicio de un fin determinado. Es acción al servicio del cambio, no información al servicio de la indignación. Tengo esta distinción en la cabeza porque, al igual que muchas otras personas, toda la semana pasada le di muchas vueltas al golpe frustrado del 6 de enero, sumido en furia contra los republicanos que pusieron la lealtad a Donald Trump por encima de la lealtad al país y los pocos pero cruciales demócratas del Senado que demuestran a diario su convicción de que el filibusterismo —una táctica obstructiva en el Congreso— es más importante que el derecho al voto. Debo confesar que los tuits y columnas que redacté en mi mente eran muy mordaces.Por desgracia, la furia solo sirve como combustible. Necesitamos un plan B para la democracia. El plan A era aprobar los proyectos de ley H.R. 1 y de Promoción del Derecho al Voto John Lewis. En este momento, parece que ninguno de esos proyectos llegará al escritorio del presidente Biden. He constatado que si adviertes de esto provocas un enojo peculiar, como si admitir el problema fuera su causa. Temo que la negación ha dejado a muchos demócratas estancados en una estrategia nacional con pocas esperanzas de éxito a corto plazo. Si quieren proteger la democracia, los demócratas deben ganar más elecciones. Para lograrlo, necesitan asegurarse de que la derecha trumpista no corrompa la maquinaria electoral local del país.“Quienes piensan estratégicamente cómo ganar las elecciones de 2022 son quienes más están haciendo por la democracia”, dijo Daniel Ziblatt, politólogo de Harvard y uno de los autores de Cómo mueren las democracias. “He oído a algunas personas decir que los puentes no salvan a la democracia, pero el derecho al voto sí. El problema es que, para que los demócratas se encuentren en posición de proteger la democracia, necesitan mayorías más numerosas”.Algunas personas ya trabajan en el Plan B. Esta semana, casi de broma le pregunté a Ben Wikler, presidente del Partido Demócrata en Wisconsin, qué se sentía estar en las primeras líneas de defensa de la democracia estadounidense. Me respondió, con toda seriedad, cómo se sentía. Cada día lo consume una tremenda obsesión por las contiendas a las alcaldías de poblados de 20.000 habitantes, porque esos alcaldes se encargan de designar a los secretarios municipales que toman la decisión de retirar los buzones para las boletas enviadas por correo, y pequeños cambios en la administración electoral podrían ser la diferencia entre ganar el escaño del senador Ron Johnson en 2022 (y tener la posibilidad de reformar la democracia) y perder esa contienda y el Senado. Wikler está organizando a voluntarios que se encarguen de centros telefónicos para convencer a personas con fe en la democracia de convertirse en funcionarios municipales de casilla, pues la misión de Steve Bannon ha sido reclutar a personas que no creen en la democracia para que trabajen en casillas municipales.Tengo que reconocerle esto a la derecha: se fijan muy bien dónde radica el poder dentro del sistema estadounidense, algo que la izquierda a veces no hace. Esta táctica, que Bannon designa “estrategia de distrito electoral”, le está funcionando. “De la nada, personas que nunca antes habían mostrado interés alguno en la política partidista comenzaron a comunicarse a las oficinas generales del Partido Republicano local o a asistir en grandes números a las convenciones de condado, dispuestas a servir en un distrito electoral”, según informa ProPublica. “Aparecieron por igual en estados que ganó Trump y en estados que perdió, en áreas rurales profundamente republicanas, en suburbios de voto pendular y en ciudades populosas”.La diferencia entre quienes se organizan a nivel local para moldear la democracia y aquellos que hacen rabietas nada productivas en vista del retroceso democrático (entre los cuales me incluyo) me recuerdan aquel antiguo adagio sobre la guerra: los aficionados debaten sobre estrategia; los profesionales, sobre logística. En este momento, los trumpistas hablan de logística.“No tenemos elecciones federales”, dijo Amanda Litman, cofundadora de Run for Something, organización dedicada a ayudar a candidatos primerizos a identificar los cargos por los que pueden competir y que colabora con ellos para montar su campaña. “Tenemos 50 elecciones estatales y miles de elecciones de condado. Cada una de ellas cuenta para darnos resultados. Si bien el Congreso puede fijar, hasta cierto punto, reglas o límites en torno a la administración de las elecciones, las legislaturas estatales deciden quién puede votar y quién no puede hacerlo. Condados y pueblos toman decisiones como la cantidad de dinero asignada a su gasto, la tecnología que utilizan o las normas para determinar qué candidatos pueden participar”.Un análisis de NPR reveló que 15 republicanos que compiten en la elección de secretario de estado en 2022 dudan de la legitimidad de la victoria de Biden. En Georgia, el republicano Brad Raffensperger, secretario de estado en funciones, quien se mantuvo firme ante las presiones de Trump, enfrentará en las primarias a dos competidores que afirman que Trump fue el verdadero ganador en 2020. Trump expresó su respaldo a uno de ellos, el representante Jody Hice . También ha respaldado a candidatos a secretario de estado en Arizona y Michigan que lo apoyaron en 2020 y están listos para hacer lo propio en 2024. Como hizo notar NPR en tono prosaico: “Las responsabilidades de un secretario de estado varían, pero en la mayoría de los casos es el funcionario electoral de mayor rango en el estado y se encarga del cumplimiento de las leyes electorales”.Tampoco todo se reduce a los secretarios de estado. “Existe la supresión del voto en todos los niveles de gobierno en Georgia”, me dijo la representante Nikema Williams, presidenta del Partido Demócrata en Georgia. “Tenemos 159 condados y, por lo tanto, 159 maneras distintas de elegir a los consejos electorales y celebrar elecciones. Así que hay 159 líderes diferentes que controlan la administración electoral en el estado. Hemos visto a esos consejos restringir el acceso mediante cambios en el número de buzones para boletas. En general, en estos consejos hacen a un lado a nuestros miembros negros”.La frustrante estructura política de Estados Unidos crea dos disparidades que fastidian a los posibles defensores de la democracia. La primera de estas disparidades es de índole geográfica. El país ataca elecciones celebradas en Georgia y Wisconsin, y si vives en California o Nueva York, te quedas con una sensación de impotencia.Pero eso suena a ilusión y también evasión. Una queja constante entre quienes trabajan para ganar estos cargos es que los progresistas donan cientos de millones a campañas presidenciales y apuestas improbables contra los republicanos mejor posicionados, mientras que los candidatos locales de todo el país no reciben financiamiento.“A los principales donadores demócratas les gusta hacer aportaciones para las cosas ostentosas”, me explicó Litman. “Contiendas presidenciales y para el Senado, super PAC o anuncios de televisión. Amy McGrath puede recaudar 90 millones de dólares para competir contra Mitch McConnell en una contienda perdida, pero el número de candidatos al concejo municipal y el comité escolar en Kentucky que pueden recaudar lo necesario es…”. Frustrada, se detuvo.La segunda disparidad es de carácter emocional. Si temes que Estados Unidos se esté inclinando hacia el autoritarismo, deberías apoyar a candidatos, organizar campañas y hacer donaciones a causas que directamente se centren en la crisis de la democracia. Por desgracia, pocas elecciones locales se organizan como referendos sobre la gran mentira de Trump. Se concentran en la recolección de basura y regulaciones sobre la emisión de bonos para recaudar dinero, en el control del tráfico, el presupuesto y la respuesta en caso de desastre.Lina Hidalgo se postuló para el cargo de juez de condado en el condado de Harris, Texas, tras las elecciones de 2016. La campaña de Trump la dejó consternada, así que quería hacer algo. “Me enteré de este cargo al que nadie le había prestado atención en mucho tiempo”, me dijo. “Era el tipo de escaño que solo cambiaba de ocupante cuando la persona en funciones moría o era encarcelada por haber cometido un delito. No obstante, tenía control sobre el presupuesto para el condado. El Condado de Harris casi es del mismo tamaño que Colorado en términos de población, y es más grande que 28 estados. Se ocupa del presupuesto para el sistema hospitalario, los caminos, puentes, bibliotecas, la prisión. Y también incluye el financiamiento para el sistema electoral”.Hidalgo no desarrolló su campaña como una progresista instigadora deseosa de defender a Texas de Trump. Me explicó que ganó gracias a que se concentró en los problemas que más les importaban a sus vecinos: las constantes inundaciones que sufría el condado, pues una serie de tormentas violentas arrolló la infraestructura deteriorada. “Pregunté: ‘¿Quieren una comunidad que se inunde cada año?’”. Ganó y, después de su victoria, decidió con sus colegas invertir 13 millones de dólares más en la administración electoral y permitirles a los residentes votar en cualquier casilla que les resultara conveniente el día de las elecciones, aunque no fuera la que les habían asignado.La idea de proteger a la democracia respaldando a funcionarios de condado o alcaldes de pueblos pequeños, en particular aquellos que se ajustan a la política de comunidades más conservadoras, puede sonar a que nos diagnosticaron insuficiencia cardiaca y nos recomendaron que lo mejor era revisar nuestras declaraciones fiscales y las de todos nuestros vecinos.“Si alguien quiere luchar por el futuro de la democracia estadounidense, no debería pasarse todo el día hablando sobre el futuro de la democracia estadounidense”, dijo Wikler. “Estas contiendas locales que determinan los mecanismos de la democracia estadounidense son el conducto de ventilación de la estrella de la muerte republicana. Estas contiendas no reciben ninguna atención nacional. Apenas reciben atención local. En general, la participación es de menos del 20 por ciento. Eso quiere decir que las personas involucradas en realidad tienen un superpoder. Un solo voluntario dedicado podría hacer llamadas y visitar a suficientes electores para conseguir la victoria en unas elecciones locales”.O cualquiera puede simplemente ganarlas. Eso es lo que hizo Gabriella Cázares-Kelly. Cázares-Kelly, quien pertenece a la nación Tohono O’odham, aceptó encargarse de una caseta de registro de electores en el colegio universitario en el que trabajaba, en el condado de Pima, Arizona. Le asombró escuchar las historias que relataban sus estudiantes. “Culpamos una y otra vez a los estudiantes de no participar, pero en realidad es muy complicado registrarse para votar si no tienen licencia para conducir, la oficina más cercana de trámite de licencias está a una hora y media de distancia y no tienen auto”, me explicó.Cázares-Kelly se enteró de que gran parte del control sobre el registro de electores estaba en manos de una oficina de la que ni ella ni sus conocidos sabían nada: la Oficina de Registro del condado, con facultades sobre varios tipos de registros, desde escrituras hasta registros electorales. Tenía facultades que nunca había considerado siquiera. Podía colaborar con la administración de correos para colocar formularios de registro en las oficinas de correos de las tribus, o no hacerlo. Si llamaba a un votante para verificar una boleta y escuchaba un mensaje de contestadora en español, podía darle seguimiento en español, o no.“Empecé a contactar a la oficina de registros para hacerles sugerencias y preguntas”, dijo Cázares-Kelly. “Eso lo hice durante mucho tiempo, y no tenía muy contento al funcionario de registros. Hablaba con tanta frecuencia que el personal comenzó a identificarme. No tenía ningún interés en postularme, pero entonces escuché que el funcionario anterior planeaba retirarse, y lo primero que pensé fue: ‘¿Qué va a pasar si se postula un supremacista blanco?’”.Así que, en 2020, Cázares-Kelly participó en la contienda y ganó. Ahora es la funcionaria encargada de los registros en una jurisdicción con casi un millón de personas y más de 600.000 votantes registrados, en un estado bisagra. “Algo que de verdad me sorprendió cuando empecé a involucrarme en la política es cuánto poder tenemos a la mano si solo asistimos a los eventos que hay”, dijo. “Si te encantan las bibliotecas, estas tienen juntas de consejo. Asiste a la junta pública. Observa en qué gastan el dinero. Se supone que debemos participar. Si quieres involucrarte, siempre hay una manera de hacerlo”.Ezra Klein se unió a Opinión en 2021. Fue el fundador, editor jefe y luego editor general de Vox; el presentador del pódcast, The Ezra Klein Show; y el autor de Why We’re Polarized. Antes de eso, fue columnista y editor de The Washington Post, donde fundó y dirigió la vertical Wonkblog. @ezraklein More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      North Carolina Court Upholds Republican Gerrymander of Maps

      by

      The ruling set up a final battle over the maps in the state Supreme Court, where Democrats hold a slim edge.WASHINGTON — A North Carolina state court on Tuesday rejected claims by voting rights advocates that Republican gerrymanders of the state’s political maps were unconstitutional.The unanimous ruling, by a panel of two Republican judges and one Democrat, set up a final battle over the maps in the seven-member state Supreme Court, where Democratic justices hold a slim edge. Voting rights groups said they would file an appeal immediately. One, Common Cause North Carolina, said the plaintiffs had presented “overwhelming evidence” that the maps were stacked to favor Republicans.“The evidence clearly showed that Republican legislative leaders brazenly ignored legal requirements designed to protect voting rights for Black North Carolinians,” the group’s executive director, Bob Phillips, said in a statement. “If allowed to stand, these extreme gerrymanders would cause profound and lasting harm to the people of our state.”The Republican chairman of the redistricting committee in the State Senate, Warren Daniel, called the decision a sign that “the people of our state should be able to move on with the 2022 electoral process.” The state’s primary elections were pushed back from March to May to make time for legal challenges to the maps.Redistricting at a GlanceEvery 10 years, each state in the U.S is required to redraw the boundaries of their congressional and state legislative districts in a process known as redistricting.Redistricting, Explained: Answers to your most pressing questions about redistricting and gerrymandering.Breaking Down Texas’s Map: How redistricting efforts in Texas are working to make Republican districts even more red.G.O.P.’s Heavy Edge: Republicans are poised to capture enough seats to take the House in 2022, thanks to gerrymandering alone.Legal Options Dwindle: Persuading judges to undo skewed political maps was never easy. A shifting judicial landscape is making it harder.Mr. Daniel charged that any Supreme Court reversal would be suspect because one of the Democratic justices, Anita Earls, was elected with the help of a donation from a Democratic Party redistricting group. An affiliate of that group, the National Redistricting Foundation, is funding legal action by one of the plaintiffs in the gerrymander case.In their ruling, in Wake County Superior Court in Raleigh, N.C., the three judges agreed that both the legislative and congressional maps were “a result of intentional, pro-Republican partisan redistricting.” They also alluded to the political harm that caused, citing their “disdain for having to deal with issues that potentially lead to results incompatible with democratic principles and subject our state to ridicule.”But the judges dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims that the maps violated the state Constitution, that they were deliberately created to disenfranchise Black voters and that they broke longstanding rules for drawing political districts.The case involves new political districts approved in December by the Republican-dominated State Legislature that would give Republicans an overwhelming political advantage in a state balanced almost evenly between Republican and Democratic voters.The new congressional map would give Republicans control of as many as 11 of the state’s 14 House seats, compared to the party’s current eight-to-five edge. (North Carolina gained a fourteenth district as a result of population gains in the 2020 census.) The maps would also re-establish much of the lopsided advantage that Republicans enjoyed in the House and State Senate as a result of gerrymanders approved when those maps were redrawn in 2011.Understand How U.S. Redistricting WorksCard 1 of 8What is redistricting? More

    • 25 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Biden-Cheney 2024?

      by

      As I’ve noted before, one reason I pay very close attention to the Israeli-Palestinian arena is that a lot of trends get perfected there first and then go global — airline hijacking, suicide bombing, building a wall, the challenges of pluralism and lots more. It’s Off Broadway to Broadway, so what’s playing there these days that might be a harbinger for politics in the U.S.?Answer: It’s the most diverse national unity government in Israel’s history, one that stretches from Jewish settlers on the right all the way to an Israeli-Arab Islamist party and super-liberals on the left. Most important, it’s holding together, getting stuff done and muting the hyperpolarization that was making Israel ungovernable.Is that what America needs in 2024 — a ticket of Joe Biden and Liz Cheney? Or Joe Biden and Lisa Murkowski, or Kamala Harris and Mitt Romney, or Stacey Abrams and Liz Cheney, or Amy Klobuchar and Liz Cheney? Or any other such combination. Before you leap into the comments section, hear me out.In June, after an utterly wild period in which Israel held four national elections over two years and kept failing to produce a stable governing majority, the lambs there actually lay down with the lions.Key Israeli politicians swallowed their pride, softened policy edges and came together for a four-year national unity government — led by rightist Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and left-of-center Alternate Prime Minister Yair Lapid. (They are to switch places after two years.) And for the first time, an Israeli Arab party, the Islamist organization Raam played a vital role in cementing an Israeli coalition.What forced everyone’s hand? A broad agreement that Israeli politics was being held hostage by then-Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, who resisted putting together any government that he would not lead, apparently because, if he didn’t lead, he could lose his chance at some kind of immunity from prosecution on multiple corruption charges that could lead to prison.Sound familiar?Netanyahu was just a smarter Donald Trump, constantly delegitimizing the mainstream media and the Israeli justice system and vigorously exploiting social/religious/ethnic fault lines to divide and rule. He eventually stressed out the system so much that several of his former allies broke away to forge a unity coalition with Israeli center, left and Arab parties.As Hebrew University of Jerusalem religious philosopher Moshe Halbertal put it to me: “What happened here is that there is still enough civic responsibility — not everywhere, but enough — that the political class felt that the continued breakdown of the rule of law and more elections, which was leading nowhere, was an indulgence that Israel simply could not afford, given its highly diverse population and dangerous neighborhood.”This new Israeli government will neither annex the West Bank nor make final peace with the Palestinians, Halbertal noted, but it is one “that will attempt to renew the relationship with the Palestinian Authority rather than weakening it. It is one that prevented a racist anti-Arab party allied to Netanyahu from entering the cabinet.” And it is one that is counterbalancing Bibi’s strong embrace of the less-than-democratic, ultranationalist states in Europe and evangelical Christians and Trump Republicans in America “by rebuilding ties with the Democrats, liberal American Jews and liberal parties in Europe.”As Israeli leaders treat each other — and Israeli and Palestinians leaders treat each other — with a little more respect, and a little less contempt, because they are out of Facebook and into face-to-face relations again, stuff is getting done. Unity has not meant paralysis. This coalition in November passed Israel’s first national budget since 2018! So far, every attempt to topple it has failed.Mansour Abbas, the Islamist party’s leader, even recently stunned many Israeli Arabs and Jews when he publicly declared, “Israel was born a Jewish state, that was the decision of the people.” He continued: “It was born this way and it will remain this way. The question is, what is the status of the Arab citizen in the Jewish State of Israel?’’Could this play come to Broadway? I asked Steven Levitsky, a political scientist and co-author of “How Democracies Die,” after he presented some similar ideas last week to my colleague David Leonhardt.America is facing an existential moment, Levitsky told me, noting that the Republican Party has shown that it isn’t committed any longer to playing by democratic rules, leaving the United States uniquely threatened among Western democracies.That all means two things, he continued. First, this Trump-cult version of the G.O.P. must never be able to retake the White House. Since Trump has made embracing the Big Lie — that the 2020 election was a fraud — a prerequisite for being in the Trump G.O.P., his entire cabinet most likely would be people who denied, or worked to overturn, Biden’s election victory. There is no reason to believe they would cede power the next time.“In a democracy,” Levitsky said, “parties lose popularity and they lose elections. That is normal. But a democracy cannot afford for this Republican Party to win again because they have demonstrated a ton of evidence that they are no longer committed to the democratic rules of the game.”So Biden-Cheney is not such a crazy idea? I asked.“Not at all,” said Levitsky. “We should be ready to talk about Liz Cheney as part of a blow-your-mind Israeli-style fusion coalition with Democrats. It is a coalition that says: ‘There is only one overriding goal right now — that is saving our democratic system.’”That brings us to the second point. Saving a democratic system requires huge political sacrifice, added Levitsky. “It means A.O.C. campaigning for Liz Cheney” and it means Liz Cheney “putting on the shelf” many policy goals she and other Republicans cherish. “But that is what it takes, and if you don’t do it, just look back and see why democracy collapsed in countries like Germany, Spain and Chile. The democratic forces there should have done it, but they didn’t.”To put it differently, this Trump-cult version of the G.O.P. is trying to gain power through an election, but it’s trying to increase its odds of winning by gaming the system in battleground states. America’s small-d democrats need to counter those moves and increase their odds of winning. The best way to do that is by creating a broad national unity vehicle that enables more Republicans to leave the Trump cult — without having to just become big-D Democrats. We all have to be small-d democrats now, or we won’t have a system to be big-D or big-R anythings.That is what civic-minded Israeli elites did when they created a broad national unity coalition whose main mission was to make the basic functions of government work again and safeguard the integrity of Israel’s democracy.Such a vehicle in America, said Levitsky, should “be able to shave a small but decisive fraction of Republican votes away from Trump.” In a tight race, it would take only 5 or 10 percent of Republicans leaving Trump to assure victory. And that is what matters.This is the democratic way of defeating a threat to democracy. Not doing it is how democracies die. I am quite aware that it is highly unlikely; America does not have the flexibility of a parliamentary, proportional-representation system, like Israel’s, and there is no modern precedent for such a cross-party ticket. And yet, I still think it is worth raising. There is no precedent for how close we’re coming to an unraveling of our democracy, either.As Levitsky put it: “If we treat this as a normal election, our democracy stands a coin flip’s chance of survival. Those are odds that I don’t want to run. We need to communicate to the public and the establishment that this is not a normal donkeys-versus-elephants election. This is democracy versus authoritarians.”This is not for the long term, noted Levitsky: “I want to get back as quickly as possible to where I can disagree with Liz Cheney on every policy issue” — and that is the most we have to worry about — “but not until our democracy is safe.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Why Democrats Aren't Attacking Ron Johnson for His Outlandish Comments

      by

      Ron Johnson has a history of making outlandish comments. But Democrats aren’t focusing on those for now.If you don’t live in Wisconsin, you probably know Ron Johnson as the senator who has suggested gargling with mouthwash to ward off the coronavirus. Or, you might know him as the guy who has said Jan. 6 didn’t “seem like an armed insurrection.” Up until this weekend, he was also the Republican dragging his feet on whether to run for a third Senate term.On Sunday, Johnson finally jumped in. And Democrats responded immediately with a television ad that provided an early glimpse of their 2022 messaging.Noticeably absent from the ad, which was sponsored by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, are Johnson’s stances on two of the biggest issues that the country is facing: the pandemic and political violence. It doesn’t mention that he’s questioned the efficacy of vaccines, or has used his perch on the Homeland Security Committee to amplify Donald Trump’s false claims about a stolen election. In fact, it doesn’t mention any of the incendiary comments that have landed him in the national spotlight.Instead, the ad begins: “Has Ron Johnson been looking out for himself, or you?” It cites an AP headline, “​​Report: Johnson pushed for tax break benefitting megadonors.”Cut-and-paste attacksIn Washington, Democrats bash Trump and his allies for elevating conspiracy theories about the 2020 election and for sowing misinformation about the coronavirus. But if Wisconsin is an indicator of what’s to come, Democrats seem to be gravitating toward conventional candidate attack lines that have little to do with the political outrage of the moment.For the 2022 midterms, Democrats may be betting that the generic conventions that have worked in countless campaigns — attacking candidates’ voting records, elevating so-called “kitchen-table” issues — are more likely to move the voters they need to reach than righteous condemnation over fringe ideas. It’s a return to the plutocrat-bashing that was so successful for Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election against Mitt Romney, and a rejection of Terry McAuliffe’s more recent efforts to anchor Glenn Youngkin to Trump in the Virginia governor’s race.They might be hoping to reach the surprisingly large group of Wisconsin voters who haven’t formed an opinion of Johnson — just over 20 percent, according to polling data from the Marquette Law School.Ben Wikler, the chairman of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, put it this way: “It’s what affects people more than what offends people.”Top targetWisconsin is one of the country’s most fiercely contested political battlegrounds. Since Trump won the state in 2016, shattering Hillary Clinton’s “blue wall,” Democrats have crawled their way back. In 2018, Tony Evers was elected governor and Senator Tammy Baldwin won re-election, both Democrats. In 2020, Biden won the state, by barely more than 20,000 votes.That makes Johnson a top target for Democrats, who are hoping that defeating him will help them hang onto their Senate majority. Republican primaries are still sorting themselves out in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona — which means that Johnson will be the Democratic Party’s chief villain for the next few months, too.A Look Ahead to the 2022 U.S. Midterm ElectionsIn the Senate: Democrats have a razor-thin margin that could be upended with a single loss. Here are 10 races to watch.In the House: Republicans are already poised to capture enough seats to take control, thanks to redistricting and gerrymandering alone.Governors’ Races: Georgia’s race will be at the center of the political universe this year, but there are several important contests across the country.Key Issues: Both parties are preparing for abortion rights and voting rights to be defining topics.Multiple Democrats are vying to take on Johnson, though they all entered the race before they knew he was running again. Among them are Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes and State Treasurer Sarah Godlewski, along with Alex Lasry, an executive with the Milwaukee Bucks, and Tom Nelson, a county executive.Did Trump change the game?Johnson isn’t the only candidate who has repeated misinformation on the pandemic. In Pennsylvania, Mehmet Oz, a celebrity doctor who has advocated for using unproven drugs to treat Covid-19, could become the Senate nominee for Republicans. Will Democrats attack him for that, or would they go after him as a wealthy carpetbagger who has been living for years in New Jersey?In the pre-Trump world, Democrats actively rooted for opponents known for making outlandish or false statements, because they made for easier targets. Take Todd Akin, a Missouri Senate candidate who was ostracized from the Republican Party in 2012 for saying: “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Claire McCaskill, the Democrat who defeated Akin, later confessed to shotgunning a beer when Akin won the G.O.P. primary.Now, however, many Democrats doubt that comments like Akin’s would register with voters in the same way.“The difference would be that as soon as it happened, there would just be a chorus on the right that would just say, ‘Oh, yeah, yeah, that’s true. A woman’s body can just shut that down,’” said Jason Kander, a Democrat who fell short in the 2016 Missouri Senate race.Candidates, taking their cues from Trump, have also learned to recast their gaffes as bold truth-telling. As Johnson wrote in his announcement in The Wall Street Journal, “Countless people have encouraged me to run, saying they rely on me to be their voice, to speak plain and obvious truths other elected leaders shirk from expressing — truths the elite in government, mainstream media and Big Tech don’t want you to hear.”Partisanship has also deepened since the pre-Trump era. Even if some voters find certain rhetoric to be unsavory, they would rather not vote for someone who would build the opposing party’s majority. They’re voting against not just the candidate on the ballot in front of them, but also Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell.And then there’s the simple magnitude of the challenge: If Democrats are going to mention the things that they find to be the most outlandish, they then have to spend time explaining why it’s outlandish.“Democrats are going to have to come up with some new messaging, because everything they’re talking about now is old,” said Brandon Scholz, a Republican and former strategist based in Wisconsin. “They have covered everything he’s said.”It might just be easier to discredit the messenger, rather than the message. As Wikler, the Democratic state chairman, explained it, the allegations about Johnson’s self-dealing are more likely to break through to ordinary Wisconsinites than his comments about the coronavirus or the Capitol riot.“For voters that aren’t paying attention closely to politics from day to day,” he said, “that’s the stuff that feels most extreme and disappointing.”What to read tonightA New York Times analysis of climate data by Krishna Karra and Tim Wallace found that temperatures in the United States last year “set more all-time heat and cold records than any other year since 1994.”The Justice Department is forming a unit to combat domestic terrorism, Katie Benner reports.“Harry Reid lived for the Senate floor. He also lived on it,” writes Carl Hulse in a remembrance of the late Senate majority leader, who will lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda on Wednesday.BRIEFING BOOKIn his speech, President Biden pressed the Senate to alter the filibuster.Doug Mills/The New York TimesThe New York Times covered every angle of Tuesday’s appearance by President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris in Atlanta, where they delivered forceful, back-to-back addresses demanding the Senate act on federal voting rights legislation.“We’re here today to stand against the forces in America that value power over principle,” Biden said, connecting those imposing new restrictions on voter access to the rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. “The right to vote and have that vote counted is democracy’s threshold liberty.”Reacting to the speech, Spencer Overton, head of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and the author of a book on voter suppression, told us: “Biden was not silent today. He drew clear lines that you’re either for democracy or you’re against democracy.”Here are some highlights of our coverage:Biden is pressing the Senate to alter the filibuster, an institutional rule that effectively requires a 60-vote threshold for most legislation, including two voting rights bills Republicans uniformly oppose.That’s leading to an angry pushback from Senate Republicans, Carl Hulse reports. “Republicans are going to be furious over those references putting them on the side of Southern racists like George Wallace and Bull Connor,” he predicts.In Georgia, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican who stood up to Trump’s false claims of election fraud, accused Democrats of pushing for a “federal elections takeover.”Georgia has become the crucible for the national struggle over voting rights, Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Astead W. Herndon write.Nick Corasaniti explains what the battle over voter rights and elections is fundamentally about.One more thing…At a hearing Tuesday before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Dr. Anthony Fauci was caught on a hot mic muttering under his breath after an exchange with Senator Roger Marshall, a Republican from Kansas.Marshall had been pressing Fauci to share his personal financial disclosure forms, insinuating that the National Institutes of Health’s top infectious disease expert might be benefiting improperly from inside information.“Wouldn’t you agree with me that you see things before members of Congress would see them, so that there’s an air of appearance that maybe some shenanigans are going on?” Marshall said. His staff had been unable to find the forms, he added.Fauci replied that Marshall was “totally incorrect” and that his records were publicly available.“What a moron,” Fauci could be heard whispering afterward. “Jesus Christ.”Asked about the encounter, an NIH spokesperson replied, “Dr. Fauci’s public financial disclosure reports are releasable through the Ethics in Government Act.” She added: “Anyone can obtain them by submitting OGE Form 201 request, as described on the NIH FOIA portal website.”Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Clay Aiken, Former ‘American Idol’ Star, Announces Run for Congress

      by

      Mr. Aiken said he was running as a “loud and proud Democrat” for an open House seat in his native North Carolina this year.Clay Aiken, the former “American Idol” contestant, said on Monday that he was running for Congress in North Carolina, in his second attempt to represent the state where he grew up.On his new website, Mr. Aiken, 43, referred to himself as a “loud and proud Democrat” and said he would be running in a newly drawn district that includes Durham and Chapel Hill. Representative David E. Price, a Democrat who currently represents much of that area, announced his retirement in October.“I intend to use my voice to deliver real results for North Carolina families, just like David Price has done for decades,” Mr. Aiken, a native of Raleigh, wrote. “I’ll always stand up for my principles and fight for inclusion, income equality, free access to quality health care, and combating climate change.”Mr. Aiken, who placed second behind Ruben Studdard in the second season of “American Idol” in 2003, previously ran for Congress in a Republican-leaning part of the state in 2014. He won the Democratic primary but was defeated in the general election by the Republican incumbent.Last month, the North Carolina Supreme Court ordered that the state’s 2022 primary election, originally scheduled for March 8, be postponed until May 17, citing a “need for urgency” in giving critics of the state legislature’s gerrymandered political maps additional time to pursue a legal battle to redraw them. New boundaries for state legislative districts and North Carolina’s 14 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives face three lawsuits filed by Democrats and voting-rights advocates in state court in Raleigh.Mr. Aiken is joining a crowded Democratic primary field that includes two state senators and a Durham County commissioner, The News & Observer reported.Mr. Aiken said his first experience with politics came when he was in the eighth grade and asked Mr. Price to speak to his class. Mr. Price agreed.“In Congress, I’ll use my voice to advocate for common-sense policies that encourage continued job growth and healthy communities,” Mr. Aiken wrote. “Many of these political battles divide us as people, threaten our democracy, and weaken America. North Carolinians are worried about affordable health care and rapid inflation.”Mr. Aiken studied at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and taught special education in Wake County. He is a co-founder of the National Inclusion Project, which advocates for disabled children, and he worked with UNICEF as a national goodwill ambassador, according to his website. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Talking to Voters From Both Parties

      by

      More from our inbox:The Legality of a Vaccine Mandate for Businesses‘What Can Marriage Give Us?’  Mark Peterson for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “What Voters Really Think About the State of America” (Opinion, Jan. 8):The most upsetting article I’ve read recently regarding the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and its aftermath is the report on the focus groups’ comments about the state of America. I was familiar with polls showing that a majority of Republican voters believe the lies told by Donald Trump and echoed by elected officials and television activists like Tucker Carlson.But it is distressing to read that six of the eight Republicans in the focus group still believe that Mr. Trump won the election. And it is mind-blowing to read their comments about “how the Democrats invaded the White House” and were pushing Covid to keep mail-in ballots.The lies must be refuted loudly and continuously. Responsible media should give no airtime or newspaper space to anyone who does not first admit that the 2020 election was fair and the results were properly counted. Until the rank and file learn that our election was fair and honest and worked as it should, the “state of America” will remain in jeopardy.Roy GoldmanJacksonville Beach, Fla.To the Editor:I am an independent voter, and have been in my 60 years of voting. I was not too surprised at the outcomes of your two focus groups. I have many friends and family who are registered Democrats or Republicans and know their opinions all too well. I would have been interested in a third group of independent voters. Maybe in the future you can incorporate this growing and important group of voters.Linda L. HortonAlbuquerqueEditors’ Note: Times Opinion plans to convene additional focus groups; the next will be with independent voters.To the Editor:I understand the purpose of your giving an opinion page over to average (whatever that means) Democrats and Republicans, but I nonetheless believe that The Times has missed the mark in doing so.The purpose of journalism is not to be evenhanded or to give equal size megaphones to “both sides.” The purpose of journalism is to tell the truth. Clearly one side is by and large telling the truth, whereas the other side appears quite delusional. And it’s telling that I don’t have to state which is which for people to know what I mean.The Times can and should do better for its readers.Jonathan EngelNew YorkTo the Editor:If these interviews are supposed to help me understand the thinking of Republicans, you’ve failed.Reading what they think just made me angry — again! How some of them came up with their responses is totally beyond me, except I know they have unquestioningly accepted lies. That is what is frustrating, to hear those lies repeated over and over without any attempt on their part to use critical thinking.My stomach is churning and I’m sure my blood pressure has peaked. I can live, just barely, with the horrible mess the world is in, but I don’t need any help with my despair!Sara JoslinNew Cumberland, Pa.The Legality of a Vaccine Mandate for Businesses Jim Wilson/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Top Court Leans Toward Blocking Vaccine Mandate” (front page, Jan. 8):Certain Supreme Court justices appear skeptical regarding the constitutionality of the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for certain businesses. We should remember, however, that the court is not ruling on the constitutionality of that mandate, only on whether it should issue an injunction to prevent its being enforced while its constitutionality is being decided.In making a decision on whether an injunction should be issued, the justices would naturally want to consider the harm of issuing an injunction versus the harm of not issuing an injunction.Suppose they decided not to issue an injunction. What’s the worst that might happen? Well, some people who may not want to be vaccinated may get the lifesaving vaccine anyway.And if they do issue the injunction? Well, some people who do not want to be vaccinated may die.Seems pretty clear-cut to me.Stephen PolitBelmont, Mass.To the Editor:Dear Chief Justice Roberts,I respect the principle that limits on decision-making by federal agencies can be necessary and protective. This principle would be a vital response to an overly authoritarian executive branch.I urge you to uphold this principle — while making an exception for vaccine mandates.To return this national health issue to individual states and Congress — at this time of medical crisis and excessive cultural divide — will further politicize and undermine our nation’s ability to respond to this public health issue in a unified manner.Principles are vitally important. But wise and flexible leadership requires appropriate exceptions.Jared D. KassConcord, Mass.‘What Can Marriage Give Us?’  María MedemTo the Editor:Re “Divorce Doesn’t Have to Be Lonely,” by Kaitlyn Greenidge (Opinion guest essay, Sunday Review, Jan. 9):A widow of nine years after five decades of marriage, I know that you can go it alone. Not everyone needs to marry. But I ask, What can marriage give us? As an introvert and a writer, I prized private time. Marriage required compromise and working out problems instead of walking out.We had counseling several times, at which I learned that my little ego was as precious as his. Only in a relationship could I have learned how best to live in our world of rugged individualists. I assert myself more confidently, but also listen better.Diana MorleyTalent, Ore. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Covid 3.0, Biden 2.0 and Trump Number …

      by

      Bret Stephens: Happy ’22, Gail. Hope your year is off to a good start. Eager to get your thoughts on Covid 3.0, which nearly every other person I know seems to have.Gail Collins: Happy New Year, Bret. I had a nice long holiday with plane travel, visits to see family and friends, and a few other outings. No Covid interruptions whatsoever, but I have gotten warnings from friends whose friends are sick, and a neighbor who just had a really bad episode.But I remember other holidays in which the flu laid a bunch of people low. Still keep thinking that if everyone takes all the vaccine shots, wears masks in public and avoids scenes like, say, jam-packed bars, it’s still possible to live a pretty normal life.Do you disagree?Bret: I think we need to treat Omicron fundamentally differently than we did previous variants. Everyone should get triple vaxxed. But the idea that we can “stop the spread” or “flatten the curve” is unrealistic, probably unnecessary and possibly counterproductive.Boosted people can still get sick, though for the most part not too severely. More than half of the people in New York City hospitals who have Covid aren’t there because of Covid. Testing doesn’t always detect the virus, and when it does it’s often too late. Mask wearing hasn’t appreciably slowed it, at least not with the surgical or cloth masks most people prefer. And contact tracing is pointless with something that spreads this quickly. Maybe instead of trying to flatten the curve, we should accept the spike and think of Omicron as the coronavirus’s version of the old chickenpox party, the sort my mom took me to as a kid so I could get it over with and gain immunity.Gail: It’s been interesting hearing some of the anti-vaxxers also denouncing other vaccines against childhood diseases. Still haven’t heard any of them call for bringing back smallpox.Bret: A pox on them, metaphorically speaking. On a different subject, I bet you never found yourself being thankful to Dick Cheney for standing up for truth, decency and the American way.Gail: Fortunately his daughter already prepared me to cheer for people I totally disagree with. Liz Cheney is pretty far on the far right when it comes to everything from taxes to abortion to guns, but she’s a great example of how principled people can break with their party when it comes to other profound issues, like last January’s riot.Bret: Riot is too kind a word.Gail: I’ve run into the parents of childhood friends who I remembered as extremely cranky, but found them very charming at 80. So Cheney Sr.’s new look wasn’t so surprising. Although those were dads who used to yell about curfews, and that’s not quite the same as invading Iraq.But about Liz — I’ll bet a lot of Republicans in Congress agree with her deep in their little Trump-terrorized hearts. Don’t you think?Bret: I used to think that. But now I think they are in denial so deep it’s clinical. They’ve convinced themselves that the people who stormed the Capitol were misguided patriots, which is like saying that Harvey Weinstein was a clumsy romantic. They are keen to point fingers at Nancy Pelosi for not doing enough to secure the building, which amounts to indicting the victim for not doing enough to secure his possessions from thugs. They are upset that Democrats use the word “insurrection,” as if a violent attempt to overturn a democratic election ought better be described as a frat party that got a little outta hand. They fulsomely praise Mike Pence for doing his constitutional duty by refusing to interfere with the certification of the election, but say nothing of the 147 congressional Republicans who would not accept the result. They carry on about Stacey Abrams refusing to accept her loss in the 2018 Georgia governor’s race, while treating Donald Trump’s incessant, obsessive, demagogic, destructive lying about 2020 as just one of his exuberant personality quirks.Gail: It is amazing how we can come together on non-government-spending issues.Bret: There’s an old expression, from Poland I think, that goes, “Not my circus. Not my monkeys.” Unfortunately for the country, the G.O.P. has become our national circus, with Tucker Carlson as its scowling ringmaster. Now the question is whether Democrats can govern effectively to keep the clown show from coming back to power. Are you hopeful?Gail: You know, President Biden is the opposite of a crowd-rouser, but at this moment it might be OK to have a national leader who’s just … sane and normal and principled.He’s not going to lead the nation into any stupendous changes, but maybe right now the thing we’re looking for is “that good guy like my eighth-grade teacher.”Bret: Even better would be a good guy who loudly insists that eighth-grade teachers in Chicago show up to work. Sorry, you were saying ….Gail: My actual eighth-grade teacher, as I have alluded to earlier, was a nun, who told us, “Remember, the Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews.” The fact that I still recall that means it was an actual piece of information back then.Bret: I’m glad your nun cleared that up. My Hebrew forebears were far too busy controlling the Roman media, financing Roman conquests and manipulating the Roman Senate to waste their malice on an unconventional rabbi.Gail: And while we’re talking about cultural revolutions — I know this is before your time, but I remember as a teen hearing that Sidney Poitier won the Oscar for best actor and being so excited. I knew it was a big deal, and I guess the fact that the movie he won for, “Lilies of the Field,” was about this Black man helping a bunch of nuns meant a lot in our Catholic girlhood.It just reminded me of all the times when any acknowledgment of Black achievement seemed like big news to the country.Bret: A class act, as our colleague Charles Blow noted in a charming remembrance last week. For my generation, the corresponding analogy was the gay-rights movement in the 1980s, during the AIDS crisis. I remember watching the music video for a song called “Smalltown Boy” by the British band Bronski Beat, which made an impression. It was a small masterpiece of storytelling as well as a stunningly courageous and honest tale of coming out.But getting back to Biden, I don’t think sane, normal and principled will do. I’m kinda hoping for “effective” and “canny.” We’ve been a little lacking in that department ….Gail: Well, hey, I thought his speech about Jan. 6 was pretty powerful, don’t you agree?Bret: Up to a point, yes. It was eloquent. And I had no disagreement with the substance.I have a couple of worries, though. If Biden meant to commemorate an important anniversary, fine and good. But if he means for congressional Democrats to make “Remember Jan. 6” the organizing principle of their election campaigns, it’s political malpractice. It politicizes the event in a way that will diminish its significance and turn off wavering voters who feel they’re being talked down to. And it’s a distraction from the job Democrats should be doing, which is convincing the public that they’ve got their interests and concerns in mind. Elections are always about “What have you done for me, lately?” Democrats aren’t going to win on the promise of safeguarding abstract principles, important as that may be.Gail: I think you’re worried that the post-Jan. 6 ethos will include leftie opposition to the profitability obsession of big business. Like refusing to expand Medicaid, letting Big Pharma run amok on prescription drug prices and keeping a lid on Medicare.Bret: I just think Democrats need to be careful not to mix milk and meat, so to speak. The smart play is to let the Jan. 6 committee do its work and let the public draw its conclusions. In the meantime, fix the supply-chain bottlenecks. Pick a quarrel with any teachers union that tries to keep schools closed. Propose an immigration bill that funds border security in exchange for citizenship for Dreamers. Break Build Back Better into bite-size components and get its most popular parts passed with votes from Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema and even a Republican or two, like Lisa Murkowski or Susan Collins.To keep Trump and his epigones away from high office, it isn’t enough having the moral high ground. It’s like something Adlai Stevenson supposedly said once when a voter told him that every thinking person was on his side. “I’m afraid that won’t do,” he replied. “I need a majority.” Democracy needs a majority.Gail: Hey, my final mission today is clear. I want us to stop here so we can all remember the time we concluded with Adlai Stevenson.Till next week, Bret.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