Democratic Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Eric Adams Has $7.7 Million to Spend, As Donations From Wealthy Pour In

      by

      With victory nearly assured, Mr. Adams has amassed a substantial war chest ahead of the general election for New York City mayor. His opponent lags far behind.Eric Adams is heavily favored to become the next mayor of New York City, but that hasn’t stopped him from amassing an intimidatingly large war chest ahead of November’s general election.Mr. Adams, the Democratic nominee, has raised another $2.4 million since late August, leaving his campaign with roughly $7.7 million to promote his message and to signal strength. Over the course of five weeks, some 700 donors gave him the legal maximum donation of $2,000, according to the latest campaign finance reports released on Friday.His Republican opponent, Curtis Sliwa, raised roughly $200,000 during the latest filing period and has $1.2 million on hand. Only two people gave him the maximum donation of $2,000.There has been no public polling, but Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly seven to one in New York City, and many are predicting a landslide for Mr. Adams. Mr. Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels, has been struggling to gain momentum and recently released his first campaign ads, which showed him scratching the chin of a rescue cat and riding the subway.Curtis Sliwa, the Republican mayoral candidate, has $1.2 million on hand.Stephanie Keith for The New York TimesMr. Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, has spent much of his summer focused on fund-raising, traveling to the Hamptons and Martha’s Vineyard and courting wealthy donors who favor his brand of centrism. His travels appeared to have paid off: He raised more than $950,000 from donors outside New York City during the latest filing period — about 40 percent of his haul.His donors ran the gamut, from billionaires to a plumber from the Bronx.The billionaires included the Mediacom Communications chief executive, Rocco Commisso; the Estée Lauder heir William Lauder; Laurie Tisch, the Loews Corporation heiress, and her brother, Steve Tisch, the chairman of the New York Giants.Mr. Adams raked in handsome donations from the hedge fund industry, too, including from John Griffin, the founder of Blue Ridge Capital; Lee Ainslie, the founder of Maverick Ventures; and the New York Mets owner, Steven A. Cohen, the chief executive of Point72, who donated $1,800 to Mr. Adams, and whose employees donated an additional $26,500.Mr. Adams has said in recent weeks that he would swing open New York’s doors to businesses big and small and use incentives when necessary to lure them here. In his rhetoric, he is drawing a sharp contrast with the outgoing mayor, Bill de Blasio, who has openly quarreled with the city’s business elite.“The support for our campaign from every corner of the city continues to be overwhelming and humbling,” Mr. Adams said in a statement on Friday.Early voting in the general election begins on Oct. 23. Mr. Adams and Mr. Sliwa are expected to participate in two debates this month on WNBC and WABC. Mr. Sliwa, who is fighting for exposure, is pushing for more debates.Mr. Sliwa recently qualified for public matching funds and has sought to capture attention with dog-and-pony media events, like crossing the George Washington Bridge to New Jersey in a showy effort to find out where Mr. Adams lives. But Mr. Sliwa’s proclivity for drama backfired last week when his campaign claimed on Twitter that he had found a gun at a crime scene on the Upper West Side when, in fact, he had not.Mr. Sliwa’s campaign released a statement on Friday trumpeting his recent fund-raising and said it believes “this will be a very competitive and close race.”But even Mr. Sliwa has acknowledged that he is facing an uphill battle. As a sign of Mr. Adams’s broad appeal, both Mr. de Blasio, a self-described progressive, and Michael R. Bloomberg, a pro-business centrist, have embraced him.Mr. Adams’s most recent campaign finance filings indicate that special interests from a cross-section of New York labor and industry are eager to make his acquaintance. Many of his donations came from landlords and developers, including William Blodgett, the co-founder of Fairstead; the Durst Organization executive Alexander Durst; Anthony Malkin, chairman of the company that owns the Empire State Building; and Joseph Sitt, chairman of Thor Equities Group.Eric Adams’s campaign has raised more than $7.7 million heading into the general election.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesThere were also donations from the philanthropists David Rockefeller Jr. and Susan Rockefeller; Jeffrey Gural, a major landlord and the owner of the Tioga Downs casino in the Southern Tier; and members of the Rudin family, who are prominent in commercial real estate.With New York gearing up to sell recreational marijuana, cannabis investors sought Mr. Adams’s good graces, too, including the LeafLink CEO, Ryan Smith, and Gregory Heyman, the managing partner of Beehouse.The Adams campaign has spent about $630,000 since late August — on consultants, polling and other expenses — and appears to saving the bulk of its money for advertising in the final weeks before Election Day. Mr. Sliwa spent $1.5 million during the latest filing period, including about $1 million on television and radio ads.Bruce Gyory, a veteran Democratic strategist, said Mr. Adams most likely plans to spend his campaign war chest “not just to promote interest in his candidacy, but to build a mandate for his approach to governing New York.”“At every turn in this mayoral race, Adams and his campaign have been strategic,” he said. “So my hunch is that Eric Adams will use this spending advantage purposefully.”Mr. Adams has already started to plan his transition ahead of Inauguration Day in January. In recent weeks, he has released a series of broad-based proposals about how he would address climate change and the affordable housing crisis.Now that Mr. Adams can devote less time to fund-raising, he is planning a trip that he hopes will benefit him as mayor: visiting the Netherlands to examine its solutions to flooding.A firm date for the trip has yet to be determined. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Is Letitia James Running for New York Governor?

      by

      Ms. James, New York’s attorney general, has embarked on a campaign-like tour of the state and is discussing her plans with donors and officials.In recent days, Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, has given every public indication that she is thinking about running for governor.Over the course of the past week, she courted business and civic leaders, delivering a much-analyzed speech in which she described a vision for the state that extended well beyond the duties of her current job, and declared that “there is no upstate or downstate way to make government work.” She schmoozed with Democratic leaders in Brooklyn and the Bronx, addressed a League of Conservation Voters gala in Manhattan and campaigned with a Westchester County legislator.But it was behind closed doors at an event on Thursday for Ulster County Democrats in Kingston, N.Y., that she offered what appears to be the most candid assessment to date of her political future: She has a big decision to make, and she intends to make it soon.“You might be wondering about my future plans — just saying,” Ms. James said, to whoops and applause, according to a recording of the event obtained by The New York Times. “The question for me really boils down to this: What is the best way that I can make transformational change in the State of New York?”“I don’t know the answer,” she continued, in remarks that were also reported by The New York Post. She added later, “That day is coming very, very soon.”Yet the public actions and private conversations of Ms. James and those around her in recent weeks leave little doubt: She is taking serious and accelerated steps toward a potential run for governor, according to interviews with more than two dozen New York Democratic officials. Her entry into a contest in which Gov. Kathy Hochul is already running would instantly elevate next year’s primary into an expensive, high-profile and closely watched intraparty battle.“I don’t think anybody would question: Would she be capable of running the state?” Donovan Richards, the Queens borough president, said of Ms. James’s deliberations. “The question is, will she run? Is she running? And I think that’s what’s on the mind of every political insider at the moment.”Behind the scenes, Ms. James and her allies have made it clear to donors, elected officials and other Democratic power brokers that she is weighing a bid and is nearing a final decision. Her team is close to making additional political hires, according to a person who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.“I have not made an ultimate — I have not made a decision,” Ms. James said in a brief interview on Thursday, quickly rephrasing in an apparent effort to avoid suggesting she had made a determination about her plans.“A number of individuals have approached me with respect to running for higher office,” she said, even as she repeatedly insisted that her focus was on her current job.But asked to characterize those conversations, Ms. James did not shy away.“That I should consider it because of my leadership, because of my ability to speak truth to power, because of my experience and because of my ability to unite the state,” she said. “I’m still focused on the office of attorney general, but I thank them for their comments.”Her comments came after she spoke briefly at a gathering of the Brooklyn Democratic Party at Junior’s, a restaurant known for cheesecake and political events.The scene there offered one of the most vivid illustrations yet of how the Democratic primary has begun to take shape in the past week, with the nascent contours of a campaign trail coming into view.Ms. Hochul, the state’s first female governor, was there as well, part of her breakneck public schedule as she also moves aggressively to try to cement a huge fund-raising advantage in advance of the primary. She spoke before both Ms. James and Jumaane D. Williams, New York City’s public advocate, who announced this week that he had formed an exploratory committee and was considering his own run. (“Great job as public advocate!” Ms. Hochul cracked wryly.)Ms. Hochul, Ms. James and Mr. Williams made the rounds through a room packed with party activists and elected leaders who clamored for selfies and hugs in between bites of scrambled eggs and sips from precariously balanced coffee cups. Mayor Bill de Blasio, who is also thought to be weighing a run, also dropped by, a day after he and the others were at a gathering of Bronx Democrats.It is possible that Ms. James may not ultimately challenge Ms. Hochul. She does not have a history as a strong fund-raiser, though her allies are hopeful that as the potential first Black female governor in America, she would attract national attention and support should she run. She would also have to give up her current job to run for governor, and she might prefer to seek another term as attorney general instead — boosted, perhaps, by the attention her recent activity has attracted.A representative for Ms. James declined to comment for this article.Each day brings fresh signs that the governor’s race is shaping up to be competitive and complicated.Ms. Hochul enjoys significant good will from many New Yorkers, ascending to the governorship after Andrew M. Cuomo resigned in disgrace after an independent investigation released by Ms. James’s office found he had sexually harassed 11 women.Ms. James with Anne Clark and Joon Kim, the two outside lawyers she hired to lead the investigation that prompted Andrew M. Cuomo, the former governor, to resign.Dave Sanders for The New York TimesSince taking over, Ms. Hochul, a native of western New York who is seen as a moderate, has forged ahead with several policies that are popular among many left-wing leaders. She has been a constant presence in New York City as she seeks to shore up her standing downstate, and she named a lieutenant governor, Brian A. Benjamin, who represented Harlem in the State Senate. She is also poised to benefit from the power of incumbency, including the ability to complete critical projects across the state, which would give her a concrete record to promote.“The people I hear from who have long waited for a woman to be governor are very clear that they are going to be supporting her,” Assemblywoman Deborah J. Glick of Manhattan said of Ms. Hochul.Ms. Glick said she had heard next year’s race described as akin to a contest for an open seat. “I wonder if that would have been a comment that would have been made if it was a man,” she said.Mr. Williams, who, like Ms. James, is from Brooklyn, is beloved by many on the left, and some officials who are close to both worry about whether one would siphon votes from the other if they were both in the race, though their political bases are hardly identical.Other Democrats, including Representative Thomas Suozzi of Long Island, have taken steps toward a possible run.Then there is the Cuomo factor: The former governor has an $18 million war chest he could deploy to meddle in the race, and he has already attacked Ms. James, despite initially backing the independent investigation himself. She used the first part of her recent speech to business leaders to sharply rebuke his attacks and to defend her own work.“You could tell, when the speech started, that everyone perked up, stopped what they were doing, were very focused on what she had to say, which is very rare in those rooms,” said Assemblywoman Nily Rozic of Queens, who praised Ms. James for having “set the record straight.” At the Ulster County event, the crowd grew rowdy as Ms. James reached her crescendo.“So just stay with me and pray with me,” she said. “And stay tuned.” More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Kathy Hochul Aims to Raise $25 Million as Likely Rivals Eye Challenges

      by

      Governor Hochul hopes to raise the sum for her primary campaign next year, but her recent — and unexpected — ascension has left her little time to hit that goal.Even for the governor of one of the nation’s largest states, it was a whirlwind few days. Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York greeted President Biden, bumped fists with the prime minister of Ireland, shook hands with Jay-Z and escorted British royalty though the World Trade Center site.But perhaps the highest-stakes meeting for the governor’s political future last week took place not at the United Nations General Assembly or the State Capitol, but inside an imposing limestone mansion near Central Park after business hours last Wednesday.Assembled inside were nearly two dozen of New York’s best-connected real estate developers, businessmen and lobbyists — the kind of deep-pocketed donors whose support has been crucial to winning statewide campaigns.There was John Catsimatidis, the Republican grocery store and oil refining magnate; Scott Rechler, whose company owns iconic New York skyscrapers; Alfonse M. D’Amato, a former Republican senator turned lobbyist; and Dennis Mehiel, a cardboard baron who played host for the evening.Mr. Catsimatidis described the fund-raising dinner, where Ms. Hochul raised some $200,000, as a “high-end business get-together to discuss not losing any more people from New York.”But for the new governor and the attendees paying between $10,000 and $25,000 to dine on chicken and salmon with her, the evening also represented something else: the beginning of a delicate courtship that could have huge consequences in next year’s race for governor.Barely a month after she unexpectedly ascended to the governor’s office after Andrew M. Cuomo’s resignation, Ms. Hochul is quietly revving up an aggressive fund-raising apparatus, seeking to build a formidable financial advantage — at least $10 million in donations by year’s end and as much as $25 million by next summer, donors and advisers say — to discourage or defeat potential rivals in what may be a fierce Democratic primary next year.The governor’s political ramp-up, which has involved hiring a campaign manager and other senior aides, has not gone unnoticed. Several of her potential opponents have begun more assertively positioning themselves in recent days, with their allies acknowledging that the longer they wait, the stronger Ms. Hochul may be.John Catsimatidis was among nearly two dozen wealthy donors who recently attended a fund-raising dinner for Governor Hochul.Jeenah Moon for The New York TimesJumaane D. Williams, the left-wing New York City public advocate, made the first public move on Tuesday, launching an exploratory committee. Mayor Bill de Blasio has had conversations with allies about the race; his longtime pollster recently conducted a survey aiming to assess his appeal beyond New York City, and on Tuesday, he told reporters, “I intend to stay in public service” after his second term concludes at the end of the year. Representative Thomas Suozzi, who represents parts of Long Island and Queens, has maintained an active fund-raising schedule, and his team has begun to think through who could staff a potential campaign should he decide to run.But for donors, political consultants and some of the possible candidates, the biggest open question is whether Attorney General Letitia James will enter the contest.Ms. James, who has deep ties across New York City and the potential to forge a diverse coalition, has sounded out party donors and elected officials about the race in recent weeks, leaving the impression that she is gauging possible support for a bid. Some of her allies have begun to sound increasingly confident about the likelihood of a run.And in New York City on Wednesday, Ms. James addressed a room of powerful civic, business and political leaders. She vigorously defended her investigation into Mr. Cuomo, which led to his resignation; she described her career trajectory and her own vision for the state, and, to laughter and applause, dodged a question about her political future.Ms. James has not historically had a reputation as a prolific fund-raiser. But people close to her argue that the nature of her potential candidacy — she could become America’s first Black female governor — would generate national interest, as Stacey Abrams’s run for governor of Georgia did in 2018.“It would be the first time in the history of the United States that we would have an African American woman as a governor — that I think would be very valuable in this country,” said Alan Rubin, a lobbyist in New York City who knows Ms. James and would back her if she ran. “The people who like her would support her a great deal in that effort. So I don’t think there would be difficulty in raising money.”Ms. James is raising money for her re-election as attorney general, including from wealthy donors, but she could transfer that money to another statewide account. She reported having $1.6 million in cash on hand in her most recent campaign filing in July; Ms. Hochul reported having $1.75 million in early August.Some allies of the state attorney general, Letitia James, have been bullish about her potential candidacy for governor.Dave Sanders for The New York TimesThe uncertainty of Ms. James’s status has many of the state’s most prolific donors sitting on the sidelines, or hedging bets with smaller checks while they wait to get a better sense of the field and Ms. Hochul herself. Though she was widely respected as lieutenant governor, Ms. Hochul — a ubiquitous presence at groundbreakings and ribbon cuttings for almost a decade — has only now begun to wield decision-making power in Albany, where she has won praise for taking decisive steps to implement vaccine mandates announced by her predecessor and extend the state’s eviction moratorium.“We are absolutely waiting and seeing,” said John Samuelsen, the international president of the Transport Workers Union, which gave close to half a million dollars to Mr. Cuomo’s campaigns, according to public election records, before a bitter falling out. “When we talk about Tish, we are talking about someone who has a solid record of supporting the trade workers unions and the labor movement,” he said. “Kathy Hochul has made promises that she is a true blue supporter of workers, but we will see if that’s true.”Carlo A. Scissura, the head of the New York Building Congress, said after a recent Zoom meeting with Ms. Hochul that many of the large construction and development firms his organization represents would be inclined to support her if she maintained her predecessor’s focus on large capital projects, like the Port Authority Bus Terminal and Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan and Kennedy Airport in Queens.“If the commitment to all of these things continues, then I think she’s got an opportunity to be a great governor,” he said. “If she chooses to remove projects or change projects, then people will start questioning where the priorities are.”Ms. Hochul is trying to force their hands, planning a fund-raising blitz in the weeks ahead, part of an intense schedule that has also been packed with public events.Invitations have gone out for an October event hosted by the state and city chapters of the building and construction trades councils, with a minimum donation of $5,000 from a “supporter” and $25,000 from a “friend.”Mercury Public Affairs, a lobbying and public relations firm that has a large political practice, is planning another fund-raiser for Ms. Hochul in October. Tickets start at $15,000, and organizers are hopeful it will net a total in the six figures, according to people familiar with the planning. Other fund-raisers are in the works.Earlier stops in August took Ms. Hochul to the Hamptons and Buffalo, where she lives and where there was so much interest in the run-up to her swearing-in that organizers had to turn one fund-raiser into two: an invitation-only cocktail hour honoring her birthday that cost $2,500 to attend and a larger party at a picnic ground that drew hundreds paying $50 and up.The strategy certainly carries risk. Many of her donors have pressing business before the state as she nears her first budget cycle as governor, including union contract negotiations, the fate of large capital projects initiated by Mr. Cuomo and the looming expiration of a common subsidy for housing developers.Ms. Hochul, who took office pledging to prioritize “changing the culture of Albany,” could quickly expose herself to the kind of unseemly alliances and potential conflicts that alienate many voters and some leaders of her own party.“For her to maximize her revenue as quickly as possible means she will be dealing with and talking with all kinds of people who want something from her,” said John Kaehny, the executive director of the good governance group Reinvent Albany. “That is a very slippery slope and the time pressure makes it much harder for her to manage that kind of relationship.”Meredith Kelly, a campaign adviser to Ms. Hochul, said that the governor had spent most of her first month in office focused on policy and governance related to Covid-19 and the destruction caused by the remnants of Hurricane Ida.“Of course, Governor Hochul is also setting up a strong, well-funded campaign to win in 2022, and she is grateful for the outpouring of support she has received thus far,” Ms. Kelly said.Ms. Hochul greeted Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, at One World Observatory last week.Roy Rochlin/Getty ImagesMr. Cuomo set an extraordinary fund-raising standard for candidates running for governor, raising more than $135 million — most of it from large donors — in three campaigns. Even now, he is sitting on an $18 million war chest, according to the most recent filings, that he could deploy to meddle in the race or try to exact revenge on Ms. James for investigating his harassment and mistreatment of women, including some who worked for him.So far, Ms. Hochul appears to be emulating Mr. Cuomo’s fund-raising approach — though certainly not his domineering style — by primarily relying on donors with large checkbooks rather than the kind of grass-roots contributors who chip in $5 or $25. But her campaign has recently hired Authentic Campaigns, a consulting firm specializing in small-donor online donations that has worked for Mr. Biden and other prominent Democrats, to try to change that.“People gave Andrew money, but nobody liked him,” said Jeffrey Gural, chairman of a large real estate company who gave Mr. Cuomo more than $150,000 over the years before an acrimonious split. “You gave him money because you were afraid of him, as simple as that.”Ms. Hochul, Mr. Gural said, was much more accessible, professional and productive.He is not the only one of Mr. Cuomo’s major backers Ms. Hochul is courting. Among the guests Wednesday night at the 10,000-square-foot home of Mr. Mehiel, himself a former Cuomo donor, were a handful of the former governor’s biggest supporters, including Mr. Rechler and Lester Petracca, another real estate developer.The governor spoke in detail about reducing crime, increasing vaccination rates and restarting the city’s economy after 18 months of being rattled by the coronavirus, attendees said.She also made clear that she intended to work closely with Eric Adams, the Democratic mayoral nominee for New York City mayor who is virtually certain to win November’s general election, in what would be a major shift after years of an extraordinarily toxic relationship between Mr. Cuomo and Mr. de Blasio.Some in the crowd appeared ready for a reset.“Let’s see her actions — she deserves a break to do the right job for all New Yorkers,” said Mr. Catsimatidis, before adding a dose of Empire State realpolitik: “You know why people do fund-raisers? When they call, they want their phone calls returned.”Dana Rubinstein More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Political Polarization May Not Be All It’s Cracked Up to Be

      by

      As Trump rose to the presidency, one explanation that swept political science was the power of polarization, specifically a phenomenon known as affective polarization, but a keen group of scholars now suggests that this approach is inadequate.It would be hard to describe the state of political competition in America more accurately than as “a poisonous cocktail of othering, aversion and moralization” — the subtitle of an article, “Political Sectarianism in America,” published by 15 important scholars in Science magazine in November 2020, including Eli Finkel, Peter Ditto, Shanto Iyengar, Lilliana Mason, Brendan Nyhan and Linda Skitka.The Science essay argues thatThe political sectarianism of the public incentivizes politicians to adopt antidemocratic tactics when pursuing electoral or political victories. A recent experiment shows that, today, a majority-party candidate in most U.S. House districts — Democrat or Republican — could get elected despite openly violating democratic principles like electoral fairness, checks and balances, or civil liberties. Voters’ decisions to support such a candidate may seem sensible if they believe the harm to democracy from any such decision is small while the consequences of having the vile opposition win the election are catastrophic.The costs, the authors argue, are substantial:Sectarianism stimulates activism, but also a willingness to inflict collateral damage in pursuit of political goals and to view copartisans who compromise as apostates.Yphtach Lelkes, a professor of communications at the University of Pennsylvania, has his own description of the state of American politics:Affective polarization is the canary in the coal mine. That is, it tells us things are dysfunctional without causing the dysfunction. Affective polarization as an indicator of dysfunction rather than a cause doesn’t diminish its importance, I think.David E. Broockman, Joshua L. Kalla and Sean J. Westwood, political scientists at Berkeley, Yale and Dartmouth, challenge the Science magazine argument. Instead, they make the case in their December 2020 paper, “Does Affective Polarization Undermine Democratic Norms or Accountability? Maybe Not,” that partisan hostility may be destructive, but attempts to moderate it will not diminish party loyalty or tolerance for anti-democratic changes in election law or the decline in political accountability.Broockman and his co-authors agree with much prior research that has found, as they describe it:Affective polarization — citizens’ more negative sentiment towards opposing political parties than their own — has been growing worldwide. Research on this trend constitutes one of the most influential literatures in contemporary social science and has sown alarm across disciplines.Where Broockman, Kalla and Westwood differ is with those who take the growing partisan hostility argument a step further, to contend that “if citizens were less affectively polarized, they would be less likely to endorse norm violations, overlook co-partisan politicians’ shortcomings, oppose compromise, adopt their party’s views, or misperceive economic conditions.”“We find no evidence that an exogenous decrease in affective polarization causes a downstream decrease in opposition to democratic norms,” Broockman and his co-authors write, adding: “We investigate the causal effects of affective polarization on a variety of downstream outcomes,” in five political domains, “electoral accountability (measured by both levels of party loyalty and how individuals react to information about their actual representatives), adopting one’s party’s policy positions, support for legislative bipartisanship, support for democratic norms, and perceptions of objective conditions.”The Broockman argument has some strong supporters. Jan G. Voelkel, a sociologist at Stanford, and eight colleagues make a very similar case to Broockman’s in their May 2021 article, “Interventions Reducing Affective Polarization Do Not Improve Anti-Democratic Attitudes.”They write:There is widespread concern that rising affective polarization — dislike for members of the opposing party — is exacerbating a range of anti-democratic attitudes, such as support for undemocratic practices, undemocratic candidates, and partisan violence. Accordingly, scholars and practitioners alike have invested great effort in developing depolarization interventions, and several promising interventions have been identified that successfully reduce affective polarization.These efforts have mixed results:We find that the depolarization interventions reliably reduce affective polarization, but this reduction does not reliably translate into reduced support for undemocratic practices, undemocratic candidates, or partisan violence.“These findings,” they add, “call into question the previously assumed causal link of affective polarization on anti-democratic attitudes.”Voelkel and his co-authors conclude, “Our findings suggest that affective polarization may not be as problematic for democratic societies as is widely assumed.”Voelkel and his colleagues specifically tested whether a reduction in affective polarization has any impact on “the more societally-consequential outcomes of support for undemocratic practices, undemocratic candidates, and partisan violence.” They found that when they used a series of techniques to successfully lower affective polarization, it did not produce “significantly less support for partisan violence,” nor “significantly less support for undemocratic inparty candidates.”In sum, their research shows thatinterventions can reduce both attitudinal and behavioral indicators of affective polarization without reducing anti-democratic attitudes. This calls into question the commonly-held assumption that anti-democratic attitudes are downstream consequences of affective polarization.Cynthia Shih-Chia Wang, a professor of management and organization at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, agreed that the Broockman and Voelkel articles suggest that analystsproceed with caution with the amount of weight we have placed on affective polarization — while disdain for the other side has risen, there certainly needs to be a deeper analysis of the downstream consequences of affective polarization.But, she added, “it may be a bit early to dismiss affective polarization as a predictor of anti-democratic attitudes and other potentially pernicious outcomes.”I asked Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth, about the Broockman and Voelkel articles, and he wrote back: “These papers are very important. Though more research is needed, I am convinced that we have potentially overstated the causal role of affective polarization in many negative phenomena in American politics.”The Broockman and Voelkel papers suggest, Nyhan continued, “that we should renew our scrutiny of the role of elites and political systems in fomenting illiberal behavior” and that the problem “is not affective polarization as such; it’s a political system that is failing to contain significant democratic erosion and illiberalism being driven by G.O.P. elites (though affective polarization may help encourage and enable such tactics).”Erik Peterson, a political scientist at Texas A&M University, elaborated in an email on the significance of the Broockman paper:Broockman, Kalla and Westwood’s paper convincingly shows a change in affective polarization does not immediately translate into some of the political repercussions researchers had previously suggested. Most importantly, they show those who move toward a more negative view of their political opponents do not become more partisan in their voting behavior or more accepting of cues from co-partisan politicians.Peterson cautioned, however, that research he and Westwood performed for an October 2020 article, “The Inseparability of Race and Partisanship in the United States,” found “that shifts in affective polarization do influence attitudes and behavior towards racial out-groups.”What this suggests, Peterson continued, is that affective polarizationcould still have plenty of indirect consequences for politics. At present, the evidence seems to point toward affective polarization as most closely related to the intrusion of partisanship into social and interpersonal settings.Asked what explains the “continued belief by Republicans in false allegations of widespread voter fraud in 2020” — if it isn’t affective polarization — Peterson emailed to say that he thinks thatthis is something that is best explained by Republicans taking cues from political leaders and partisan media expressing skepticism in election results. Even if affective polarization does not amplify this process, cues from co-partisan politicians are still an important part of how people form their opinions about politics.Mina Cikara, a professor of psychology at Harvard, replied to my inquiry by pointing out that there was reason to doubt some of the claimed consequences of affective polarization before the publication of the Broockman and Voelkel work:I’m not surprised that reducing affective polarization leaves anti-democratic preferences unaffected. The first piece of evidence is that we frequently see equivalent degrees of out-party dislike on both sides, but there’s only one party seeking to curb voting access and throw out election results. The second piece of the puzzle is that far more people dislike the other side than say they would take up arms against them. This suggests that while out-party dislike may be necessary for, for example, support for violence, it is clearly not sufficient. Other factors are doing the heavy lifting in correlating with support for and engagement in political violence, so we should be working to characterize and intervene on those.The publication in May 2019 of a seminal essay in the Annual Review of Political Science, “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States,” by Shanto Iyengar of Stanford, Lelkes, Matthew Levendusky of the University of Pennsylvania, Neil Malhotra of Stanford and Westwood, reflects the prominence of theory of affective polarization before the release of the Broockman and Voelkel papers.Iyengar and his colleagues wrote:While previously polarization was primarily seen only in issue-based terms, a new type of division has emerged in the mass public in recent years: Ordinary Americans increasingly dislike and distrust those from the other party. Democrats and Republicans both say that the other party’s members are hypocritical, selfish, and closed-minded, and they are unwilling to socialize across party lines. This phenomenon of animosity between the parties is known as affective polarization.Most recently, the issue of polarization and violence has become particularly salient. On Sept. 15, Westwood, along with Justin Grimmer of Stanford, Matthew Tyler Stanford and Clayton Nall University of California-Santa Barbara, published an essay, “American Support for Political Violence Is Low,” arguing that claims by sociologists and political science of a growing threat of political violence are exaggerated.They write:Political scientists, pundits, and citizens worry that America is entering a new period of violent partisan conflict. Provocative survey data show that up to 44 percent of the public support politically motivated violence in hypothetical scenarios.Careful examination of the data on which these claims are based, however, shows thatdepending on how the question is asked, existing estimates of support for partisan violence are 30-900 percent too large, and nearly all respondents support charging suspects who commit acts of political violence with a crime. These findings suggest that although recent acts of political violence dominate the news, they do not portend a new era of violent conflict.Insofar as there is a relatively small constituency that supports violence, the authors contend that this support is not directly linked to politics:Our results are robust to several other predicted causes of political violence. We find that several standard political measures, i.e., affective polarization and political engagement, are less predictive of support for political violence than are general measures of aggression, suggesting that tolerance for violence is a general human preference and not a specifically political preference.I asked Westwood and Broockman about what they think the cause of our political dysfunction is if, as they say, affective polarization is not the cause.Broockman wrote back:I see our paper as beginning an important conversation about rigorously measuring the political impacts of affective polarization, not representing the end of that conversation. I don’t see our paper as ruling out a possible role for affective polarization, but I do think our results should make scholars and activists pause before assuming that reducing affective polarization would automatically result in improvements to all aspects of democracy.There is, Broockman continued, “some other research out there that thinks carefully about the sources of support for democratic norms that is grounded in thinking more carefully about the theoretical mechanisms by which such reductions might occur.” He specifically cited “Biased and Inaccurate Meta-Perceptions About Out-Partisans’ Support for Democratic Principles May Erode Democratic Norms,” which argues that partisan misjudgments of their opponents exaggerates hostility.That paper, by Michael Pasek of The New School for Social Research, Lee-Or Ankori-Karlinsky of Brown, Alex Levy-Vene of the University of Bath and Samantha Moore-Berg of the University of Pennsylvania, makes the case that:Both Democrats and Republicans personally value core democratic characteristics but severely underestimate opposing party members’ support for those same characteristics. In turn, the tendency to believe that political in-group members value democratic characteristics more than political out-group members is associated with support for anti-democratic practices. Results suggest biased and inaccurate intergroup “meta-perceptions” — beliefs about what others believe — may contribute to democratic erosion in the United States.They continue:Individuals with more biased meta-perceptions — those who more strongly believed the average in-group member valued characteristics more than the average out-group member — were more willing to subvert democratic principles, in practice, to help their party.Westwood, in turn, replied to my inquiry:Affective polarization isn’t driving support for efforts to restrict democratic norms, which is reassuring insofar as affective polarization isn’t driving voters to call for limiting voter rights, but alarming because it means we don’t know what is causing the rise in support for anti-democratic legislation.In Westwood’s view,these efforts by elected officials are driven by self-interest in retaining power in a country experiencing rapid demographic change. It is also clear from opinion data that in many cases they are doing this against the wishes of voters. They seem to have calculated that the long-term strategic gains are worth short-term losses in public support. We don’t have clear evidence of this and there is much research to be done, but it is the most parsimonious answer.James Druckman, a political scientist at Northwestern and a co-author of the Voelkel paper, contended in an email that while the Broockman, Voelkel and Westwood papers may have diminished the salience of affective partisanship, at the same time the papers call for a wider-ranging search in the effort to figure out how and why American politics have gone so far off track in such a short time:The papers reveal that dynamics that may be imperiling democracy do not straightforwardly reduce to affective polarization. There are more nuanced dynamics to which we need to attend. For example, when it comes anti-democratic behaviors, other possible forces include racial/ethnic antagonism or partisan extremity. For violence, perhaps anti-establishment attitudes orientation matter. This is not to say affective polarization does not matter as I think there is sufficient evidence that it can under particular conditions. However, how it matters may be less than straightforward.Figuring out what is driving us apart and what we can do about it was never going to be easy.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Do Democrats Have the Courage of Liz Cheney?

      by

      A few months ago I had the chance to have a long conversation with Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney. While we disagreed on many policy issues, I could not have been more impressed with her unflinching argument that Donald Trump represented an unprecedented threat to American democracy. I was also struck by her commitment to risk her re-election, all the issues she cares about, and even physical harm, to not only vote for Trump’s impeachment but also help lead the House investigation of the Jan. 6 insurrection.At the end of our conversation, though, I could only shake my head and ask: Liz, how could there be only one of you?She could only shake her head back.After all, a recent avalanche of news stories and books leaves not a shred of doubt that Trump was attempting to enlist his vice president, his Justice Department and pliant Republican state legislators in a coup d’état to stay in the White House based on fabricated claims of election fraud.Nearly the entire G.O.P. caucus (save for Cheney and Representative Adam Kinzinger, who is also risking his all to join the Jan. 6 investigation, and a few other Republicans who defied Trump on impeachment) has shamelessly bowed to Trump’s will or decided to quietly retire.They are all complicit in the greatest political sin imaginable: destroying faith in our nation’s most sacred process, the peaceful and legitimate transfer of power through free and fair elections. Looking at how Trump and his cult are now laying the groundwork — with new laws, bogus audits, fraud allegations and the installation of more pliant state election officials to ensure victory in 2024 no matter what the count — there is no question that America’s 245-year experiment in democracy is in real peril.Our next presidential election could well be our last as a shining example of democracy.Just listen to Cheney. Addressing her fellow Republicans on “60 Minutes” on Sunday, she noted that when they abet Trump’s delegitimization of the last election, “in the face of rulings of the courts, in the face of recounts, in the face of everything that’s gone on to demonstrate that there was not fraud … we are contributing to the undermining of our system. And it’s a really serious and dangerous moment because of that.”This is Code Red. And that leads me to the Democrats in Congress.I have only one question for them: Are you ready to risk a lot less than Liz Cheney did to do what is necessary right now — from your side — to save our democracy?Because, when one party in our two-party system completely goes rogue, it falls on the other party to act. Democrats have to do three things at the same time: advance their agenda, protect the integrity of our elections and prevent this unprincipled Trump-cult version of the G.O.P. from ever gaining national power again.It is a tall order and a wholly unfair burden in many ways. But if Cheney is ready to risk everything to stop Trump, then Democrats — both moderates and progressives — must rise to this moment and forge the majorities needed in the Senate and House to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill (now scheduled for a Thursday vote in the House), a voting rights bill and as much of the Build Back Better legislation as moderate and progressives can agree on.If the Democrats instead form a circular firing squad, and all three of these major bills get scattered to the winds and the Biden presidency goes into a tailspin — and the Trump Republicans retake the House and Senate and propel Trump back into the White House — there will be no chance later. Later will be too late for the country as we know it.So, I repeat: Do Representative Josh Gottheimer, the leader of the centrist Democrats in the House, and Representative Pramila Jayapal, leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, have the guts to stop issuing all-or-nothing ultimatums and instead give each other ironclad assurances that they will do something hard?Yes, they will each risk the wrath of some portion of their constituencies to reach a compromise on passing infrastructure now and voting rights and the Build Back Better social spending soon after — without anyone getting all that they wanted, but both sides getting a whole lot. It’s called politics.And are centrist Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema ready to risk not being re-elected the way Liz Cheney has by forging a substantive compromise to ensure that consequential election integrity, infrastructure and Build Back Better measures go forward? Or are they just the Democratic equivalents of the careerist hacks keeping Trump afloat — people so attached to their $174,000 salaries and free parking at Reagan National Airport that they will risk nothing?And, frankly, is the Biden White House ready to forge this compromise with whatever pressures, Oval Office teas, inducements, pork and seductions are needed? It could energize the public a lot more by never referring to this F.D.R.-scale social reform package as “reconciliation” and only calling it by its actual substance: universal pre-K, home health care for the sick and elderly, lower prescription drug prices, strengthened Obamacare, cleaner energy, green jobs and easier access to college education that begins a long-overdue leveling of the playing field between the wealthy and the working class. Also, the White House needs to sell it not only to urban Democrats but to rural Republicans, who will benefit as well.The progressives need to have the courage to accept less than they want. They also could use a little more humility by acknowledging that spending trillions of dollars at once might have some unintended effects — and far more respect for the risk-takers who create jobs, whom they never have a good word for. If Biden’s presidency is propelled forward and seen as a success for everyday Americans, Democrats can hold the Senate and House and come back for more later.The moderates need to have the courage to give the progressives much more than the moderates prefer. Income and opportunity gaps in America helped to produce Trump; they will be our undoing if they persist.We’re not writing the Ten Commandments here. We’re doing horse-trading. Just do it.None of the Democratic lawmakers will be risking their careers by such a compromise, which is child’s play compared with facing the daily wrath of running for re-election in the most pro-Trump state in America, Wyoming, while denouncing Trump as the greatest threat to our democracy.But I fear common sense may not win out. As Minnesota Democratic Representative Dean Phillips (a relative) remarked to me after Tuesday’s caucus of House Democrats: “The absence of pragmatism among Democrats is as troubling as the absence of principle among Republicans.”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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Jumaane Williams Is Exploring a Run for New York Governor

      by

      Mr. Williams, the New York City public advocate, would offer Democratic voters a clear left-leaning alternative to Ms. Hochul, a centrist from western New York.Jumaane D. Williams, the left-wing New York City public advocate, announced an exploratory committee for governor on Tuesday, the most substantive sign yet that next year’s primary may become a vigorous battle over the direction of New York’s Democratic Party.Mr. Williams pledged to press an ambitious progressive agenda if he runs, and, in a nearly 40-minute interview, attempted to draw overt and implicit contrasts with Gov. Kathy Hochul — suggesting that she did not do enough to push back on Andrew M. Cuomo before his sudden resignation in August.His announcement amounts to an unofficial kickoff to the 2022 Democratic primary for governor, a race poised to be defined by both matters of competence and issues of identity, geography and ideology.Mr. Williams said he intended to make a firm decision in the next month, in consultation with an advisory committee that includes two prominent New York City progressive leaders: Brad Lander, likely the city’s next comptroller, and Antonio Reynoso, who is on track to become Brooklyn borough president.With the field of Democratic candidates still largely unsettled, Mr. Williams’s allies hope his move gives him an edge over other prominent New York Democrats looking at the race. Letitia James, the attorney general, is privately discussing the contest with party donors and officials, with her allies sounding increasingly bullish on the likelihood of a campaign to be America’s first Black female governor.Mayor Bill de Blasio is also thought to be interested, and other Democrats from across the state are in various stages of examining the race as well. Ms. Hochul, who has said she will run for a full term next year, has participated in a flurry of fund-raisers and recently expanded her senior campaign staff.Some Democrats have questioned whether Mr. Williams will ultimately pursue a bid should Ms. James, his fellow Brooklynite, jump in the race, given overlapping — but certainly not identical — bases of support. But Mr. Williams, for his part, electrified many progressive voters during his 2018 run for lieutenant governor, losing to Ms. Hochul by 6.6 percentage points. And in a rematch, Mr. Williams would benefit from better name identification than he had before and experience running statewide.But Mr. Williams, a self-identified “activist elected official” who says he is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, would also face significant skepticism from the many moderate voters who remain a force in New York Democratic politics, both in the state and, as this summer’s mayoral primary showed, in the city.And Ms. Hochul, New York’s first female governor, is now in a far more powerful position, having taken over as chief executive after Mr. Cuomo resigned in disgrace.She is poised to enjoy significant advantages of incumbency as she unveils projects across the state, seeks to build an overwhelming fund-raising advantage and experiences, for now, a sense of good will from many lawmakers who appreciate her efforts to break with the governing style — and with some of the personnel — that defined the Cuomo administration.Gov. Kathy Hochul recently named Brian Benjamin, a state senator from Harlem, as her lieutenant governor.Brittainy Newman for The New York TimesMs. Hochul, plainly aware of the need to build her profile downstate, is constantly in New York City for public events and fund-raisers alike, and she recently tapped Brian A. Benjamin, formerly a progressive state senator from Harlem, as her lieutenant governor. She has pleased left-wing lawmakers with several recent policies, including extending the eviction moratorium and releasing nearly 200 detainees from Rikers Island amid a crisis there.But Mr. Williams signaled that if he were to run, he would make the case for electing an Albany outsider who represents a total break with the capital’s culture.“We have consistently, vocally pushed back on the atmosphere that was there, and I think that’s the type of leadership we need,” Mr. Williams said.“It’s hard to renew and recover,” he said at another point, “if you have the same old systems and structure that allowed the toxicity, allowed the scandals, allowed egos and personality to get in the way of progress.”Asked if he disagreed with any of Ms. Hochul’s actions as governor, he said she should have visited Rikers Island but acknowledged “some of the low-hanging fruit that has happened, which is positive.”Still, he suggested that as Mr. Cuomo’s lieutenant governor, she could have spoken out against him more forcefully. “I just imagine if there was a lieutenant governor that pushed back a little bit harder, we may have not been in the situation we’re in,” he said, though Mr. Cuomo iced Ms. Hochul out of his inner circle. “There’s more that a lot of people could have done, but I ran very intentionally and specifically in 2018 on that message.”In 2018, Ms. Hochul, a centrist Democrat from western New York, declined to name any areas of disagreement with Mr. Cuomo during a debate with Mr. Williams, and spent her time in office traveling the state, promoting the administration’s policies.But she also backed the independent investigation into Mr. Cuomo, accurately noted that she was not close to him or part of his decision-making processes, and has promised that “no one will ever describe my administration as a toxic work environment.”“It’s a little early, given that the governor has only been in office four weeks,” Jay Jacobs, the moderate chairman of the New York Democrats, said of Mr. Williams’s move. “You have to be running for reasons that transcend ambition. There has to be a rationale that makes you believe that you would be better than this governor. So we’ll see what he has to say.”A representative for Ms. Hochul declined to comment.Mr. Williams indicated he was committed to an exploratory committee regardless of who else decides to run, and said that his efforts would include building out infrastructure for a potential campaign. But pressed on whether he would run for governor if Ms. James did so, he did not answer directly.Mr. Williams, center, has an activist background that may draw skepticism from the many moderate voters who remain a force in New York Democratic politics.Demetrius Freeman for The New York Times“The attorney general is doing an awesome, awesome job,” Mr. Williams said. “To my knowledge, she hasn’t publicly expressed interest in running. What I will say is, this exploratory committee and public service in general, I’m not doing this to run against anybody. I’m doing this to run for something.”Mr. Reynoso, a city councilman, said he spoke with Ms. James over the weekend about the governor’s race, and expressed admiration for both her and Mr. Williams.“Everybody that loves Tish loves Jumaane, and I think they’re going to have to figure out what they have to figure out,” Mr. Reynoso said, adding that Ms. James told him she intended to speak with Mr. Williams. “I care deeply about both Jumaane and Tish, but my history with Jumaane specifically in the Council has made it so that I will be with him should he run.”A representative for Ms. James declined to comment.Mr. Williams has governed as a left-wing official who is closely attuned to combating gun violence, arguing that investments in the social safety net are a vital component of public safety and central to promoting an equitable recovery from the pandemic. Mr. Williams would be competing against at least one history-making female candidate. He acknowledged that “identity is very important” and pointed to his own, as a first-generation American; as a person with Tourette Syndrome, and as someone with the potential to be the first Black New Yorker elected to the governorship. (The former Gov. David A. Paterson, the first Black governor of New York, assumed the position after former Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s resignation.)“It’s important for people to see themselves,” he said. It is also vital, he said, to ensure that “the right person is there to fight for all of the identities when the politics get hard. And we’ve seen, too often, that not happen.” More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      We Underestimated Trump Before. It Didn’t Go Well.

      by

      Sometimes, and much to our detriment, we find real events are simply too outlandish to take seriously.Many professional Republicans, for example, initially dismissed the movement to “Stop the Steal” as a ridiculous stunt.“What is the downside for humoring him for this little bit of time? No one seriously thinks the results will change,” an anonymous senior Republican official told The Washington Post a few days after Joe Biden claimed victory:He went golfing this weekend. It’s not like he’s plotting how to prevent Joe Biden from taking power on Jan. 20. He’s tweeting about filing some lawsuits, those lawsuits will fail, then he’ll tweet some more about how the election was stolen, and then he’ll leave.Republicans went ahead and humored the president, who then urged his followers to assault the Capitol and try to void the election results in his favor.Now, 10 months after the election, “Stop the Steal” is something like party orthodoxy, ideological fuel for a national effort to seize control of election administration and to purge those officials who secured the vote over Donald Trump’s demand to subvert it. Assuming that he is in good health, Trump will almost certainly run for president in 2024, and if he does, he’ll do so in a Republican Party pacified of any resistance to his will to power.The upshot is that we are on our way to another election crisis. Or, as the election law expert (and frequent New York Times contributor) Rick Hasen has written in a new paper on the risk of election subversion, “The United States faces a serious risk that the 2024 presidential election, and other future U.S. elections, will not be conducted fairly, and that the candidates taking office will not reflect the free choices made by eligible voters under previously announced election rules.”Despite the danger at hand, there doesn’t appear to be much urgency among congressional Democrats — or the remaining pro-democracy Republicans — to do anything. The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives has passed a new voting rights act aimed at the wave of restrictive new election laws from Republican state legislatures, and Democrats in the Senate have introduced a bill that would establish “protections to insulate nonpartisan state and local officials who administer federal elections from undue partisan interference or control.” But as long as the Senate filibuster is in place — and as long as key Democrats want to keep it in place — there is almost no chance that the Senate will end debate on the bill and bring it to the floor for a simple majority vote.It’s almost as if, to the people with the power to act, the prospect of a Trumpified Republican Party with the will to subvert the next presidential election and the power to do it is one of those events that just seems a little too out there. And far from provoking action, the sheer magnitude of what it would mean has induced a kind of passivity, a hope that we can solve the crisis without bringing real power to bear.It is here that I am reminded of a previous existential threat to American democracy and how one group of Americans struggled to accept the unthinkable even as it unfolded right before their eyes.On Nov. 6, 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected president. The plurality popular vote winner in a four-way race — the Northern and Southern wings of the Democratic Party fielded separate candidates, Stephen A. Douglas and John C. Breckinridge, while conservative Southern unionists coalesced behind the Tennessee Senator John Bell under the Constitutional Union party — Lincoln won a solid majority of electoral votes, 180 out of a total of 303. But his was a sectional victory; not only did Lincoln not win a single Southern electoral vote, but in 10 of the 11 states that became the Confederacy there wasn’t even a Lincoln ballot to cast.The new Republican president was also a specifically Northern president, with a coalition united by its antislavery beliefs. “The country had committed itself electorally to a party which opposed slavery, at least to the extent of agreeing with Lincoln that the institution must ‘be placed in the course of ultimate extinction,’” the historian David M. Potter explains in “The Impending Crisis: America Before the Civil War, 1848 to 1861.”South Carolina, with its heavy concentration of enslaved people and deep-seated pro-slavery sentiment, took the first steps toward leaving the Union, passing a bill that set the date for a convention where elected delegates would debate secession. The speed of South Carolina’s action, Potter notes, “accelerated the tempo of the disunion movement in a decisive way.” In short order, the legislatures of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Florida announced similar conventions.Secessionists had momentum but, as the historian Russell McClintock writes in “Lincoln and the Decision for War: The Northern Response to Secession,” “Republicans showed no anxiety about disunion before the election and remarkably little after it.” Lincoln’s first concern, after celebrating his victory, was cabinet selection and the question of patronage since, as McClintock explains, “the individuals Lincoln chose as his advisers would strongly suggest which way he was leaning in his attitude toward the gathering storm in the South and would have great influence over his policy.”Republican-aligned newspapers were nonplused by events in the South. “South Carolina may fume and fulminate, and call conventions and pass resolutions till the crack of doom,” wrote one correspondent in The Chicago Tribune, but “up to this writing nobody is scared that we know of.”Similarly, wrote a like-minded Boston editor, “Almost the only topic of political interest just now, is the rumored insane attempt of a few hotheaded fanatics, to induce the people of a few slave states to secede from the American Union. There is in this nothing new, unexpected, or alarming.”After all, pro-slavery ideologues had threatened disunion in response to policy and political defeats for decades. If the South did not act before, why would it act now?In fact, many Republicans believed the South needed the Union to maintain slavery. In “The Republic in Crisis, 1848-1861,” the historian John Ashworth summarized the Republican view. “How would slave insurrections be put down without federal forces? How could the slaveholders secure the loyalty of the nonslaveholding whites in their own localities?” And, most important, “How could the slaveholders cater to the economic ambitions of the nonslaveholding whites, who because of the inadequacies of the slave system were denied any real economic opportunity?”In short, there was no way the slaveholding South could sustain itself on its own.There was also, for Republicans, the matter of sectional pride. In the past, threats of disunion were part of a Kabuki theater of negotiations. Here’s McClintock: “Southerners demanded political advantages, Northerners balked, Southerners threatened to secede, and Northern Democrats gave in and voted with the Southerners.” The Republicans who scoffed at this latest threat of secession were saying, in essence, that the North would no longer play this game. “Since this is not the first time such cries are heard — since, indeed, they have been long-sounding in our ears, so that their exact value is perfectly understood from the very beginning — there seems no longer excuse or apology for hearkening to them,” the staunchly antislavery Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts said. “They are to be treated as threats, and nothing more.”Unfortunately for Sumner and the Republicans, their confidence was misplaced. Yes, there were Southern unionists, and yes, there were serious political tensions within the seceding states. But the secessionists had the initiative, and within 90 days of Lincoln’s election they had, as Potter writes, “won ten legislative decisions to hold elections for state conventions, held seven such elections, gained majorities in each, assembled seven conventions, voted seven ordinances of secession, and also took the first steps toward formation of a southern confederacy.”When Republicans finally turned to face the crisis, in December, there were few options at hand. Lincoln would not take office for another three months, Congress had just come back into session, and the outgoing Buchanan administration was divided and in disarray, beset by resignations as some members — like Howell Cobb, of Georgia, the secretary of the Treasury — stood with their states and others stood with the Union.There was obviously no appetite, among Republicans, for disunion. There was also no appetite for compromise, even as a few lawmakers — led by John Crittenden of Kentucky, a Whig — tried to forge one last agreement to satisfy the sections and secure the Union. His proposal, a set of constitutional amendments and congressional resolutions, would have shielded slavery from federal power and congressional interference, reinstating the Missouri Compromise by writing it into the Constitution itself.Republicans were not interested. For the past decade, the Northern lawmakers had made concessions to the South. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was one; Whig support for James Buchanan over the Republican John C. Fremont in the 1856 election was another. “From the standpoint of a sincere Unionist,” Potter writes, “there was something self-defeating about getting the Union temporarily past a crisis by making concessions which strengthened the disunionist faction and perpetuated the tendency toward periodic crises.”The only option left was confrontation, and when Lincoln finally took the reins of state on March 4, 1861, he made it clear that this was the path he would take. “I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual,” Lincoln famously said in his first inaugural address:Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people.I am not making a direct analogy between the Civil War era and current American politics. There is nothing, yet, that divides us as starkly as slavery did in the 1840s and 1850s. Nor is the crisis of democratic integrity as acute now as it was during the secession crisis. But the value of studying history is that we can see how previous generations of Americans faced the challenges of their time. No one knows, in the moment, how the story ends, and we can use that insight to try to understand the options available to our forebears as they lived through their present.Republicans had good reason to ignore threats of secession. But they also had reason to heed them. With Lincoln’s election, the slave-owning South had lost its almost total grip on federal power. Sectional tensions had never been stressed in this way before, and Southern panic was palpable. Republicans could not have stopped secession, but they might have been able to better prepare for whatever confrontation lay on the horizon.It is impossible to say where we stand in relation to our own crisis. Perhaps the worst is yet to come; perhaps we’ve already sailed through. Either way, we should secure our elections against whatever threat might materialize because if there is anything our history tells us, it’s that everything looks settled until one day it isn’t.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

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Frances T. Farenthold, Liberal Force in Texas and Beyond, Dies at 94

      by

      Known as Sissy, she was an advocate for racial parity and women’s rights, and her name was placed in nomination for the vice presidency in 1972. Tragedy trailed her.The year was 1968, the place Corpus Christi, Texas. The scene was a victory party for a Democratic candidate, elected to the Texas House of Representatives the night before.At the party, a man approached Frances T. Farenthold, a prominent local resident.“Mrs. Farenthold,” he said, “I had the pleasure of voting for your husband yesterday.”“Thank you very much,” she replied. “But I think you’ll discover that you voted for me.”“Well, hell,” the man said, “if I’d known that, I never would have voted for you.”Ms. Farenthold, a politician, feminist, lawyer and human-rights advocate who died at 94 on Sunday at her home in Houston, became quite accustomed to incredulity on her election and long afterward during her half-century on the national stage.The victory that night of Ms. Farenthold, widely known by the childhood nickname Sissy, had been no small trick. On her election, she became the only woman in the 150-member chamber and one of just two in the Texas legislature. (The other, in the State Senate, was the Democrat Barbara Jordan, the eloquent Black lawyer who went on to serve in the United States House of Representatives from 1973 to 1979.)Throughout her career, Ms. Farenthold met with casual condescension — the news media perennially described her as a mother of four — and overt discrimination: As a legislator she was shut out of committee meetings held at an all-male private club in Austin.Yet during her two terms in the Texas House, from 1969 to 1973, she helped improve legislative transparency in the wake of a government stock-fraud scandal and spearheaded the passage of a state equal rights amendment.Ms. Farenthold being applauded after she was voted the first chairwoman of the National Women’s Political Caucus in 1973. Associated PressShe would earn renown far beyond her state, becoming, The Texas Observer wrote in 2007, “a near-cult symbol of the Texas that might be.”Ms. Farenthold was a two-time candidate for the Texas governorship, the first chairwoman of the National Women’s Political Caucus, a college president and a nominee for the vice presidency of the United States a dozen years before Geraldine A. Ferraro became the first to be chosen for that office by a major party.In 1975, a Newspaper Enterprise Association panel named Ms. Farenthold one of the 50 most influential women in America, along with Coretta Scott King; Gloria Steinem; Katharine Graham, the publisher of The Washington Post; and the congresswomen Bella Abzug and Shirley Chisholm.“Even by Texas standards, she is something big,” the Washington Post columnist David S. Broder wrote in 1972.Ms. Farenthold’s characteristic self-confidence seemed born of charmed circumstance: A child of privilege, she was educated at an elite private high school and an elite college; flourished in law school, where she was one of three women in a class of 800; successfully resumed her legal career after rearing her children; and was long married to a European nobleman.But as news articles often noted, she also exuded an air of sorrow. A “melancholy rebel,” the Texas journalist Molly Ivins called her.She had reason to be. For all her advantages, Ms. Farenthold had also known repeated, almost unfathomable loss.Daughter of a ‘Southern Belle’Mary Frances Tarlton was born in Corpus Christi on Oct. 2, 1926, to an eminent Democratic family. Her paternal grandfather, Benjamin Dudley Tarlton, had been a member of the Texas House and chief justice of what was then the Second Court of Civil Appeals, in Fort Worth.Her father, Benjamin Dudley Jr., was a district attorney; her mother, the former Catherine Bluntzer, was, as Ms. Farenthold described her, a “Southern belle.”Owing to the efforts of a slightly older brother, Benjamin Dudley III, to pronounce the word “sister,” the infant Mary Frances would be known to the end of her life as Sissy.When Sissy was 2, and Benjamin 3, he died from complications of surgery to remove a swallowed coin. Her parents’ grief suffused the household ever after, she said.Sissy had her own childhood struggles: She suffered from undiagnosed dyslexia and did not learn to read until she was nearly 10. “I’ll never forget wearing the dunce cap in the corner of the classroom,” Ms. Farenthold told People magazine in 1976.But exercising the forward momentum that would be a hallmark of her adult life, she made herself into a scholar. After attending the Hockaday School, a girls’ preparatory academy in Dallas, she entered Vassar at 16.At 19, having earned a bachelor’s degree in political science there, she enrolled in law school at the University of Texas, where her eyes were opened to gender inequality.“I had never heard of differences in income between men and women for the same work, or of women having difficulty getting into grad school,” Ms. Farenthold told The Christian Science Monitor in 1973. “But there the students would make bets on how long it would be before I would be married, and whether I would make it for six weeks.”She received her law degree in 1949 and joined her father’s firm in Corpus Christi. The next year she married George Edward Farenthold, a Belgian-born baron who became a Texas oilman.She forsook the law for more than a decade to rear their five children. Her father, however, continued to pay her bar association dues: He knew she would be back.In 1960, Ms. Farenthold’s 3-year-old son Vincent bled to death after a nighttime fall that went unheeded. Like several of the Farenthold children, he suffered from von Willebrand disease, a clotting disorder.“For years after that, if I heard a child cry, it would just tear me up,” she told Texas Monthly in 1992. Yet she was determined, she said, not to reprise her parents’ perpetual mourning.She returned to work in 1965, becoming the director of legal aid for Nueces County, of which Corpus Christi is the seat. The class and racial inequities she encountered there, she said, would catalyze her political career.“In our society we believe in attacking the powerless — punishing people for being poor and dependent and having to be supported by public funds, while powerful men are embezzling public money to make themselves rich,” Ms. Farenthold told The Guardian in 1973. “I want equal justice.”Voters Sent a WomanHer first House campaign was run on the slimmest of budgets. She refused to advertise on billboards in any case, because she believed they ravaged the landscape. Instead, her supporters fashioned campaign signs from coffin lids and affixed them to the roofs of cars.An opponent’s sign, meanwhile, read “Send a man to do a man’s job.”“No race could be as difficult as the one in ’68 was,” Ms. Farenthold told The Chicago Tribune in 1973, “because I was breaking the ice. No woman had run before in the south of Texas.”Yet on the strength of her reformist populism — she decried the business interests that she felt were running state government — she wonMs. Farenthold in 2009. The Texas journalist Molly Ivins called her a “melancholy rebel.” She had reason to be.Matt Carr/Getty ImagesIn her second term, Ms. Farenthold became known as a member of the Dirty Thirty, a bipartisan reformist group of state legislators convened in response to the Sharpstown scandal of 1971-72. In that scandal, senior government officials — among them Gus F. Mutscher Jr., the Democratic speaker of the state House, and Governor Preston E. Smith, also a Democrat — were accused of being allowed to buy stock under highly favorable terms through a Houston banker, Frank Sharp, in exchange for political favors.The Dirty Thirty (the name, proudly adopted, was an epithet hurled by an opponent) helped bring about greater transparency in state government proceedings, which had often been held behind closed doors with capricious record-keeping and little formal debate.In 1971, with Ms. Jordan and a House colleague, Rex Braun, Ms. Farenthold sponsored the Texas Equal Rights Amendment. The bill, which prohibited discrimination based on “sex, race, color, creed or national origin,” passed in both chambers. It was approved by voters in 1972.Ms. Farenthold unsuccessfully sought the governorship in 1972 and again in 1974. (The first woman to hold that post in Texas was Miriam A. Ferguson, in the 1920s and ’30s; the second was Ann W. Richards, from 1991 to 1995.)Ms. Farenthold earned 28 percent of the vote in the 1972 Democratic gubernatorial primary, finishing second to Dolph Briscoe Jr., a wealthy rancher, who failed to earn a majority. He prevailed in a runoff, went on to win the governorship and was re-elected in 1974.Three days after Ms. Farenthold’s runoff defeat, the body of her 32-year-old stepson, Randy Farenthold, from her husband’s prior marriage, was found in the Gulf of Mexico near Corpus Christi. His hands were bound and a concrete block was chained round his neck.The younger Mr. Farenthold, described in the press as a millionaire playboy, had been scheduled to testify in the federal trial of four associates alleged to have defrauded him of $100,000 in a money-laundering scheme reported to involve organized crime. (One of them, Bruce Bass III, was indicted in the murder in 1976 and received a 16-year sentence in a plea agreement the next year.)Her Name in NominationIn July 1972, at the Democratic National Convention in Miami Beach, Ms. Farenthold’s name was placed in nomination for the vice presidency by Ms. Steinem. The nomination was seconded by Fannie Lou Hamer, the African-American civil-rights activist.It was not the first time that a woman had been nominated for the vice presidency by a major party: Lena Springs, a Democrat, had her name placed in nomination in 1924, as did the Democrat Nellie Tayloe Ross four years later.But Ms. Farenthold was the first to garner significant support, earning votes from more than 400 delegates, enough to finish second, ahead of notables like Birch Bayh, Jimmy Carter, Edward M. Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy.“That was the first time I was supported because I was a woman,” she later said. “I had always been supported despite the fact.”(The winner was Thomas F. Eagleton, who would step down as George S. McGovern’s running mate after it was learned that he had been treated for depression. He was replaced by R. Sargent Shriver Jr.)Ms. Farenthold left electoral politics after her 1974 gubernatorial loss.“What I discovered,” she told The Texas Observer in 2007, “was that political office was a life of constant moral compromise. And I didn’t enter politics with the purpose of compromising my morality.”In 1976 she became the first woman to serve as president of Wells College, a small liberal-arts college, then for women only, in Aurora, N.Y. During her four-year tenure, she balanced its budget, expanded student recruitment and founded the Public Leadership Education Network, a national organization that prepares women for vital public-policy roles.As if in fealty to her Texas roots, Ms. Farenthold also studied the feasibility of enriching Wells’s coffers by tapping the vast reserves of natural gas that lay beneath the campus. In late 1980, after she had left, Wells College heeded her recommendation: It drilled — and struck gas.Returning to Texas, she practiced law in Houston and taught at the University of Houston and at Texas Southern University, a historically Black institution in the city.In 1989, her youngest child, Jimmy, disappeared, at 33. Jimmy, who was Vincent’s identical twin, was said never to have gotten over his brother’s death; by the time he was a young man he was addicted to drugs and drifting around Texas. Despite extensive searches, he was never found and is presumed dead. (The family held a funeral for him in 2005.)Ms. Farenthold’s marriage ended in divorce. She is survived by her son George Farenthold II, who said the cause of death was Parkinson’s disease; another son, Dudley; a daughter, Emilie C. Farenthold; a sister, Genevieve Hearon; three grandchildren; three great-grandchildren; and a step-grandson, Blake, the son of Randy Farenthold. A younger brother, Dudley Tarlton, was killed in a helicopter crash in 2003.(Blake Farenthold is a former Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas who did not seek re-election in 2018 after it was revealed that he had paid $84,000 of taxpayers’ money to settle a sexual harassment suit against him.)Ms. Farenthold’s many laurels include a lifetime achievement award, named for Ms. Ivins, from the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.Her work in later years included agitating for gay rights and against South African apartheid, the Iraq War and the torture of detainees at the United States military prison at Guantánamo Bay. She served as chair of the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank in Washington, and as a human-rights observer in El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iraq and elsewhere.There remained much to do — enough for a lifetime, as Ms. Farenthold made plain in a 2009 public-television interview.“I’ve always said,” she declared, “on the way to my funeral, if we passed a demonstration, I’ll probably jump out.” More