Discrimination

Subterms

    More stories

    • 63 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Speech and Antisemitism on Campus

      by

      More from our inbox:If Joe Manchin Runs for President …Jill Stein’s CandidacyPrivate Art CollectionsPro-Israel demonstrators at Columbia University in New York in mid-October.Jeenah Moon/ReutersTo the Editor:Re “How Are Students Expected to Live Like This on Campuses?,” by Jesse Wegman (Opinion, nytimes.com, Nov. 8):Mr. Wegman is correct that universities cannot live up to their ideals as havens for unfettered debate when their Jewish students feel physically threatened. And he rightly suggests necessary limits on a culture of free speech, including prohibitions on harassment and targeting based on ethnic or religious identity.But it is time for a broader interrogation of the vaunted Chicago Principles he cites, which hold that the only appropriate role for a university is to stay silent on matters of public controversy so that its constituents may fully debate it.I believe that a more important principle for a university — arguably its fundamental principle — is to seek and articulate truth. And in this case, the truth is clear: Hamas is a terrorist organization, dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel, that is not representative of the Palestinian people as a whole.To the extent the Chicago Principles prevent universities from stating that truth, they make honest debate more difficult, stain all pro-Palestinian students with the repugnant reputation of Hamas, and undermine university administrators’ ability to isolate and combat real antisemitism on campuses.There is no doubt that free expression is a paramount value in universities. But we can aspire higher. We can build our bastions of free speech on the foundational layers of moral clarity and intellectual integrity.(Rabbi) Ari BermanNew YorkThe writer is president of Yeshiva University.To the Editor:Re “What Is Happening on College Campuses Is Not Free Speech,” by Gabriel Diamond, Talia Dror and Jillian Lederman (Opinion guest essay, Nov. 11):Protecting free speech on campus requires bravery and intellectual honesty, not partisan definitions. As Jewish students, we share in the real fear surrounding the rise of violent threats against our communities. Yet, this fear cannot be addressed with definitions that marginalize legitimate Palestinian advocacy.The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism that the authors cite, which refers to “rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism,” is opposed even by several progressive, pro-Israel and Jewish organizations. Such critiques correctly cite the definition’s potential to “suppress legitimate free speech, criticism of Israeli government actions, and advocacy for Palestinian rights.”Institutions of higher education should, of course, address antisemitism; yet, adopting this broad definition would come at the expense of students’ and professors’ fundamental rights to free expression. Regardless of how uncomfortable certain phrases may make us, disagreements surrounding terminology and definitions must not be equated with the very real dangers of death threats, hate speech and physical violence.Upholding free speech requires empathy and consistency, and we must understand that intimidation and fear on campuses are real, and they are not felt only or even primarily by Jewish students.Eliana BlumbergRita FederMichael Farrell-RosenProvidence, R.I.The writers are students at Brown University.To the Editor:Re “At College, Debating When Speech Goes Too Far” (front page, Nov. 11):A key role of higher education is to nurture students intellectually and emotionally as they develop their ethical and moral compasses. Just as alumni have threatened to pull financial support of schools that do not call out terror and take a stance on antisemitism, members of university boards must require similar action.As a member of a university board of trustees whose president has publicly spoken up for morality and truth, and as an American who is shocked to see scenes unfolding that are reminiscent of 1930s Europe, I challenge all the university boards in the country to raise their voices and make their leadership accountable for what is happening on their campuses.There is zero tolerance for racism and zero tolerance for harassment of any kind on today’s campuses, and we should not rest until there is zero tolerance for antisemitism. Colleges should be places where truth is sought and where everyone feels safe. University leaders must step up and lead by example by first speaking up and then creating an action plan to combat hate and antisemitism.Lawrence D. PlattLos AngelesThe writer is a member of the board of trustees of Touro University.To the Editor:If college students directed this sort of hate speech against Black or Asian or L.G.B.T.Q. people, they would most likely be expelled or at least suspended. The fact that they aren’t speaks to the moral cowardice of university administrators.Joshua RosenbaumBrooklynIf Joe Manchin Runs for President …“I have made one of the toughest decisions of my life,” Mr. Manchin said.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “In Blow to Senate Democrats, Manchin Will Not Run Again” (front page, Nov. 10):The concern spreading among “alarmed” Democrats that the prospective third-party presidential campaign of Senator Joe Manchin would draw more votes away from President Biden may be misplaced.Although he is a Democrat and caucuses and usually votes with the Democrats, many of Mr. Manchin’s positions are inconsistent with those in the base of the party, and he is not particularly liked by other segments of the party or left-leaning independents either.If he runs, rather than siphoning votes from the Biden-Harris ticket, he might draw as many, or more, anti-Democratic independents and disenchanted G.O.P. voters. That is especially the case if the Republican Party’s candidate is former President Donald Trump, as seems increasingly likely, and Mr. Manchin’s fusion running mate is a respectable Republican like Liz Cheney or even Nikki Haley.So, Democrats should take a page from the quarterback Aaron Rodgers, who, when a mainstay of the Green Bay Packers, periodically soothed uneasy fans with one word: “Relax.”Marshall H. TanickMinneapolisJill Stein’s CandidacyJill Stein will be running to the left of President Biden and is joining a group of third-party candidates who are making some Democrats fearful that they could siphon support from his re-election bid.Kim Raff for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Stein Plans to Seek Green Party’s Nomination for President” (news article, Nov. 11):There are two questions that all third-party candidates should ask themselves: First, do they really think they can win the presidency? If they are honest, I think they would respond, “Of course not.”Second question: Do they want Donald Trump to be president? Again, I think the answer for all of them would be, “Of course not.”Which then would reveal that ego is driving them and the desire for a larger, more public forum for their ideas. But the price of that drive could very well be catastrophic damage to our country and our democracy if Mr. Trump wins. And each third-party candidate dangerously increases the chances that could happen.Sally JorgensenSanta Cruz, Calif.Private Art CollectionsTo the Editor:Re “Will the Art World Need to Slash Its Prices?” (Arts, Nov. 4):It is auction season and masterpieces by Picasso, Monet and others will be sold, often by the descendants of dead billionaires to living billionaires for their very private collections.True lovers of art would donate these gems to museums, so the public can see them. Just another example of the greed of the wealthiest 1 percent, completely unconcerned about the rest of us.Jim DouglasOcean Grove, N.J. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Tim Scott Tackles Race and Racism in Chicago, Trying to Gain Traction

      by

      Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina gave his speech as his struggling presidential campaign said it would move most of its staff to Iowa.Senator Tim Scott, struggling to gain traction less than three months before the first Republican primary ballots are cast, came to the South Side of Chicago on Monday to rebuke the welfare state and the liberal politicians he dismissed as “drug dealers of despair.”The speech was at New Beginnings Church in the poor neighborhood of Woodlawn. It may have been delivered to Black Chicagoans, but the South Carolina senator’s broadsides — criticizing “the radical left,” the first Black female vice president, Kamala Harris, and “liberal elites” who want a “valueless, faithless, fatherless America where the government becomes God” — were aimed at an audience far away. That audience was Republican voters in the early primary and caucus states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, and the donors who have peeled away from his campaign.His political persona as the “happy warrior” gave way to a chin-out antagonism toward the Black leaders who run the nation’s third-largest city, and the Democratic Party that “would rather lower the bar for people of color than raise the bar on their own leadership.”Speaking to a largely receptive audience in a church run by a charismatic Republican pastor, Mr. Scott added: “They say they want low-income Americans and people of color to rise, but their actions take us in the opposite direction. The actions say they want us to sit down, shut up and don’t forget to vote as long as we’re voting blue.”The speech came just minutes before a Scott campaign staff call announcing that the senator’s once-flush campaign would move most of its resources and staff to Iowa, in a last-ditch effort to win the first caucus of the season and rescue the campaign.“Tim Scott is all in on Iowa,” his campaign manager, Jennifer DeCasper, said in a statement.Mr. Scott, the first Black Republican senator from the South in more than a century, launched his presidential bid in May, with a roster of prominent Republicans behind him, a $22 million war chest and a message of optimism that separated him from the crowded primary field. To many white Republicans, his message on race, delivered as a son of South Carolina, where slavery was deeply embedded and where the Civil War began, resonated, while many Black Democrats found it naïve and insulting.“If you stop at our original sin, you have not started the story of America, because the story of America is not defined by our original sin,” he said early this year as he considered a presidential run. “The story of America is defined by our redemption.”But from the beginning, even supporters wondered aloud whether optimism and uplift were what Republican voters wanted, after so many years of Donald J. Trump and the rising culture of vengeance in the G.O.P.This past weekend, Don Schmidt, 78, a retired banker from Hudson, Iowa, put it bluntly to Mr. Scott as the senator campaigned in Cedar Falls before the University of Northern Iowa beat the University of North Dakota in football. Mr. Schmidt told Mr. Scott he was thinking of supporting him or Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor.“But,” he cautioned, “I don’t know whether you can beat Trump.”Race has lately been a particularly problematic subject for Mr. Scott. He has at once maintained there is no such thing as systemic racism in the United States, but has also spoken of having a grandfather forced from school in the third grade to pick cotton in the Jim Crow South, and of his own brushes with law enforcement simply because he was driving a new car.His audience on Monday on the South Side were the grandchildren of the Black workers who left the segregated South during the Great Migration to lean their shoulders into the industrialization of the Upper Midwest. And he seemed to invite the pushback he got after the speech as part of the political theater.Rodrick Wimberly, a 54-year-old congregant at the New Beginnings Church, was incredulous that Mr. Scott really did not believe that the failings of some Black people were brought on by systemic impediments. He brought up redlining that kept Black Chicagoans out of safer neighborhoods with better schools and lending discrimination that suppressed Black entrepreneurship and homeownership.“What we see in education, in housing, the wealth gap widening, there is statistical data to show or suggest at the very least there are some issues that are systemic,” Mr. Wimberly told the senator. “It’s not just individual.”But Mr. Scott held his ground, just as he has since June, when the senator tried to stir up interest in his campaign with a clash on the television show “The View” over an assertion that he didn’t “get” American racism.When Mr. Wimberly suggested that the failing educational system was an example of the systemic racism holding Black Chicagoans back, Mr. Scott responded: “But who’s running that system? Black people are running that system.”Such sparring has largely failed to lift his campaign, however. On Saturday, his hometown newspaper, The Post and Courier of Charleston, advised Mr. Scott and other Republican candidates to drop out and endorse Ms. Haley as the candidate best positioned to challenge Mr. Trump in the primaries, which begin in fewer than three months.Last week, Mr. Scott’s super PAC, Trust in the Mission PAC, or TIM PAC, told donors it would cancel “all of our fall media inventory.”“We aren’t going to waste our money when the electorate isn’t focused or ready for a Trump alternative,” Rob Collins, a Republican strategist who is a co-chairman of the super PAC, wrote in the blunt memo. As Bill Brune, 73, a Republican and Army veteran from La Motte, Iowa, put it this weekend: “There’s a lot of good people, but they get no attention. The good guys finish last.”Republican politicians, including Mr. Trump, who has a glittering high-rise hotel on the Chicago River, have for years used the city as a stand-in for urban decay and violence, though that portrait is at best incomplete. Vivek Ramaswamy, another Republican presidential candidate, came to a different South Side neighborhood three miles from New Beginnings in May to discuss tensions among Black residents over the city’s efforts to accommodate an influx of migrants, many of whom were bused there from the border by Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas — but also to show his willingness to speak with audiences usually ignored by Republican candidates.Monday’s appearance was, in effect, Mr. Scott’s take on adopting — and amplifying — Mr. Ramaswamy’s flair for the dramatic. Shabazz Muhammad, 51, was released from prison in 2020, after serving 31 years. Since then, he said, he has struggled to find work and housing because of his record and what he called “the social booby traps” in his way. Beyond the candidate’s critique of the welfare state, Mr. Muhammad wanted to know specifically what Mr. Scott wanted to do to help people like him.Mr. Scott, though sympathetic, was unwavering in his description of social welfare policies as “colossal, crippling, continual failures.”“Are we tough enough to get better and not bitter?” he asked his audience.Neil Vigdor More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      A Legal Battle Over Political Maps in Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana

      by

      G.O.P. legislatures in Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana are contesting federal orders to redraw congressional maps that disfavor Black voters. The stakes are enormous.WASHINGTON — The Republican-led legislatures of Georgia, Louisiana and Alabama find themselves backed against courtroom walls this month in strikingly similar circumstances, defending congressional maps that federal judges have said appear to discriminate against Black voters.It is a familiar position. Last year, the same judges said that, even before full trials were held, the same maps were so likely illegal that replacements should be used for the 2022 elections. That did not happen: Thanks to a once-obscure Supreme Court rule that outlaws election-law changes close to campaign season, the disputed maps were used anyway.With an electorate so deeply split along partisan lines that few House races are competitive, the significance last November was glaring. Republicans took control of the House of Representatives by a bare five seats, three of them from districts they were poised to lose had new maps been used in the three states.Now the revived litigation is again churning through the courts — at least six of them, at last count — with the same political stakes and a sharply divided view of the likely outcomes.Each of the cases asks the same question: whether the Republican-dominated legislatures drew maps that effectively boxed Black voters out of having a chance of electing a candidate in one additional congressional district. The 1965 Voting Rights Act bars maps that have that effect.A map of a Republican proposal to redraw Alabama’s congressional districts in July at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery.Kim Chandler/Associated PressMany redistricting experts say they believe the cases against the states are so strong that the states are left to pursue a hail-Mary legal strategy, hoping that delays and repeated appeals will maintain the status quo as they did in 2022.“Republicans in these three states are trying to run out the clock as long as they can to use invalidated maps” in 2024, said Jeffrey Wice, a senior fellow at the Census and Redistricting Institute at New York Law School.Some lawyers for the states, who did not want to speak publicly while litigation is pending, take issue with that interpretation. And one veteran litigator for Republicans in voting rights cases, Michael A. Carvin, said their arguments are stronger than their opponents think.Mr. Carvin, who successfully argued a major Voting Rights Act case before the Supreme Court in 2021, said he believed the states’ opponents were seeking “a dramatic change in the current redistricting plans” that higher courts were unlikely to support.“I think all the defendants have an excellent chance of prevailing,” he said.At first blush, there is ample reason to think that the legislatures have a losing hand. One reason the Supreme Court held up the drawing of new maps last year was to await the outcome of a major challenge to the Voting Rights Act’s rules for judging bias in political maps, brought by Alabama. Alabama lost in June, when the court reaffirmed those rules by a 5-to-4 vote.People line up to cast their ballots in New Orleans in 2020. Kathleen Flynn/ReutersSince then, Alabama has mounted what amounts to a scorched-earth defense of its maps, despite telling a three-judge panel that the state needed a new House map by October, before an early November filing deadline for candidates in congressional primary elections.After the Supreme Court decision in June, the federal panel resurrected its 2022 order that the state draw a new House map that gave Black voters a significant chance of winning two of the state’s seven congressional districts, instead of one, in a state that is 26 percent Black. The Legislature first asked for extra time, then produced a map last month that again limited Black voters’ clout to a single House district.And when the federal judges rejected that map this month and handed its redrafting to an outside expert, the state again asked the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that the three judges’ map-drawing order had exceeded the bounds of the Voting Rights Act.The judges’ response, issued last Monday, was withering. They pronounced themselves “deeply troubled” by the state’s failure to draw a usable map, and “disturbed” by the resulting waste of time.“The law requires the creation of an additional district that affords Black Alabamians, like everyone else, a fair and reasonable opportunity to elect candidates of their choice,” they wrote. “Without further delay.”Some experts say they see similar tactics in Louisiana, where Black residents make up 31 percent of the state population but five of six of the state’s representatives in the House are white. A federal district judge ruled last year that the State Legislature’s map very likely violated the Voting Rights Act and ordered a new one drawn for the 2022 elections. The Supreme Court blocked that order, but lifted its stay after its June ruling in the Alabama case.Since then, the judge in Louisiana has rejected efforts by the state’s lawyers to put off drafting that replacement map, prompting the lawyers to ask a federal appeals court to allow a delay. The lawyers say there is “just enough time” to hold a trial first to determine whether the existing map is in fact illegal; the plaintiffs, including Black voters and the state chapter of the N.A.A.C.P., call it a delaying tactic.“Their strategy has consistently been to slow-walk this case, only to later announce that the time for entering relief has run out,” they wrote in a court filing last month.A lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Georgia, Louisiana and Alabama cases, Abha Khanna, said she thought the judges in those cases had made their impatience clear. She said that they had signaled that if there is relief to be had for Black voters in these states under the Voting Rights Act, “it should be in time for the 2024 elections.”Those defending the maps say that the current jockeying is a diversion from a bigger question: whether the states’ arguments for their maps are in fact persuasive. The arguments, like the cases themselves, are complex, but many of them boil down to a single assertion, that judges who have ordered new maps are using a too-broad interpretation of what makes maps illegal under the Voting Rights Act.In both Alabama and Louisiana, for example, the states’ lawyers argue that judges are ordering the states to create precisely the sorts of racial gerrymanders that the Voting Rights Act forbids — except that in these cases, the gerrymanders favor African Americans.In Louisiana, they argue, the judge is creating an additional district that could elect a Black representative by knitting together African American communities that are separated by a hundred miles or more. In Alabama, lawyers contend that federal judges are commanding above all else that the state create two congressional districts that give Black voters a voice — something they say defies the law’s decree that race cannot be the dominant factor in redrawing political maps.Both states also contend that the Supreme Court ruling in June that said affirmative action programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina discriminated on the basis of race should also apply to race-based redistricting cases.Many see that as a bid to win over Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. He provided the fifth vote that same month to uphold the Voting Rights Act, but suggested that his mind remained open to other arguments against it.The question of how much race can figure in redistricting cases has been litigated for decades, and the states’ critics say the law is not just clear, but newly upheld by a conservative Supreme Court. In the past year, Alabama has challenged it four times — and lost every time.Mr. Carvin nevertheless said the law, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in June that upheld it, are not as settled as some think.“The courts have made crystal clear that there’s no obligation to create majority-minority districts” — districts with a majority of Black voters — “or districts that will elect minority candidates,” he said. “It’s equal opportunity, not equal results.”Sheelagh McNeill More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Meet Fabian Nelson, Mississippi’s First Openly L.G.B.T.Q. Legislator

      by

      Mr. Nelson, 38, won a Democratic primary runoff on Tuesday in a blue district. He talked to The New York Times about the significance of being the first — but why he never focused on it on the trail.Only two states in the nation, Louisiana and Mississippi, have never elected an openly L.G.B.T.Q. lawmaker.Now, there will be only one.On Tuesday, Fabian Nelson won a Democratic primary runoff in Mississippi’s 66th state House district, southwest of Jackson, where Republicans have no candidate on the ballot.Mr. Nelson, 38, was raised in the Mississippi Delta by politically active parents. And while he said he believed having a gay man in the State Legislature was significant, the historic nature of his campaign was never his focus.When he campaigned in South Jackson, he talked about the city’s water crisis and about crime. When he campaigned in rural areas, he talked about broadband access and economic development.“You can’t sit in the Capitol and have the same conversations you were having before we were at the table,” Mr. Nelson said.Lucy Garrett for The New York TimesThe New York Times spoke with Mr. Nelson after his victory. The interview has been edited and condensed.Q. Tell me about yourself — your background, your family, what made you decide to run for office.A. I come from a very politically motivated family. My father is a leader in the community, and he worked with a lot of our elected officials.I remember going to the voting precinct with my mom any time she voted. I saw my parents every single day fighting to help people in the community, whether it was helping people pay their rent, helping people pay their light bills, donating food, donating clothes.When I was in fourth grade, we went to the Mississippi State Capitol, and I remember walking in the galley to look at the floor of the House. I saw these guys in suits and these big, old high-backed chairs. I remember looking down, and I told my teacher, “One of these days I am going to sit down there.”Q. This is your second time running for this seat. What was different this time?A. The first time, I ran in a special election, so I had about a month. I’ve done work in the community, but I’ve mostly done work behind the scenes, so a lot of people didn’t know who I was. Then the special election was right when Covid hit. We really couldn’t get out there, knock on doors, meet people — I wasn’t able to do anything other than social media and put signs up.I said this time I’m going to make sure I do every single thing to get in front of every single person that I possibly can get in front of. I’m going to become a household name. That’s not going to guarantee that people are going to vote for me, but everybody in this district is going to know who Fabian Nelson is.We knocked on everybody’s door five times. The first two times I went around, I was just introducing myself. The third time, that’s when I sat down and developed a platform.Q. Mississippi is one of only two states that have never elected an openly L.G.B.T.Q. legislator. Did you know that when you started your campaign?A. Honestly, I thought Mississippi was the only one. I didn’t know that it was Mississippi and Louisiana. Mississippi, we’re always the last to do the right thing. I said, So we’ve got to beat Louisiana this time so we won’t be No. 50. Now I’m happy to say we’re No. 49.Q. What does it mean to you to be the first in Mississippi?A. I have talked to so many people that say: “We are now hopeful. We feel like we’re in a new place.”What I want people to understand is Mississippi now has somebody that’s going to fight for every single person. I’m going to fight for people in District 66 — those are the people I represent. The issues I’m going to fight for are my platform issues. However, when anti-L.G.B.T.Q. legislation comes up, which I know it will, I am going to fight that every single day.I’m not only going to the Capitol to fight against anti-L.G.B.T.Q. bills. But we cannot have any group discriminated against. It’s OK to disagree with a person, it’s OK to disagree with a person’s lifestyle, but it is not OK to impose on that person’s civil liberties and civil rights. If we look back in our African American community, slavery was pushed because it’s in the Bible. That’s what was used to keep my people oppressed. And so there’s no room for oppression of any group of people.Q. Politically, this is such a complicated time in that there’s this flood of anti-L.G.B.T.Q. legislation, and at the same time we’re seeing increased representation in government and public life. How do you navigate that?A. You’ve heard the saying that when you don’t have a seat at the table, you’re what’s for lunch. We’ve been for lunch for so long. The thing is, our politicians can come out and stand on the steps of the Capitol and say, “Oh, we love the community, we’re going to do everything we can to help you, we’re going to fight for you, love, love, love,” then go in the Capitol and close the door — you don’t know what they’re saying. And then the next thing you know, we’ve got a harmful piece of legislation coming out.Now that they have someone sitting at the table, they’re not going to be able to continue along that path. It makes it so much harder. Once we started getting African Americans elected into office, that’s when we started to see things change, because you can’t sit in the Capitol and have the same conversations you were having before we were at the table.Q. Did this come up when you were campaigning? Was it something you talked to people about?A. My campaign was strictly focused on the issues of District 66, because at the end of the day, I represent District 66, and I represent the issues that are germane to District 66. My platform wasn’t, “I’m the first openly gay guy,” because that doesn’t help anybody. It doesn’t make me a better lawmaker or a worse lawmaker. People voted on someone who had experience, people voted on someone who’s going to make a positive impact within our community, and people voted for a fighter.But I come from a family of firsts — my grandmother being the first African American nurse [at a hospital in Yazoo City, Miss.], my dad being one of the first African Americans to graduate dental school from Virginia Commonwealth University.And so I said, I have to raise the bar some type of way. My children are going to have to really raise the bar. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      ‘No Place for Hate in America,’ Haley Says, Recalling 2015 Church Massacre

      by

      Nikki Haley, fresh off a strong debate performance last week, was back on the trail and took a moment to condemn the weekend shooting in Jacksonville, Fla.Breaking from her usual stump speech at a South Carolina town hall event on Monday, Nikki Haley paused to condemn a deadly weekend rampage in Jacksonville, Fla., that the authorities were investigating as a hate crime.“I am not going to lie to you, it takes me back to a dark place,” Ms. Haley told an audience of roughly 1,000 people gathered in a corporate campus auditorium in Indian Land. “There is no place for hate in America.”Ms. Haley was governor in 2015 when a white supremacist opened fire in an African American church in Charleston, S.C., and killed nine Black parishioners at a Bible study. Ms. Haley eventually called for the removal of the Confederate battle flag from the grounds of the South Carolina Capitol. She later described struggling with the beginning effects of post-traumatic stress disorder in response to the shooting, but she said that the victims’ families showed her what strength and grace looked like.Ms. Haley also toed the Republican Party line on guns and racism, suggesting that such violence and mass shootings could be prevented if Americans improved mental health services, abided by gun laws and rejected division and hate in their everyday lives.She renewed her calls for the need to reverse what she often describes as a “national self-loathing,” or the idea that “America is bad or that America is rotten or that it is racist.”“Don’t fall into the narrative that this is a racist country,” she told the mostly white and graying crowd, citing her own election in 2010 as the first woman and person of color to lead the state as progress. “It was only 60 years ago today that Martin Luther King gave that speech. Look at how far we have come.”The way Ms. Haley, a former United Nations ambassador, and other Republican presidential candidates tend to downplay structural racism and prejudice — and to focus on the nation’s racial progress — puts them at odds with most Black voters.On Monday, Ms. Haley’s home state rival in the presidential race, Senator Tim Scott, called the Florida rampage “heinous.” He said that the killings had prompted patrons at his church service to discuss “the absolute devastation” in 2015 at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston.Asked whether the Republican Party had done enough to denounce white supremacist violence, Mr. Scott argued that it was the duty of every American, regardless of party affiliation, to do their part. “The question is, Have humans done enough to talk about racism and discrimination that leads to violence and to death,” he said.Ms. Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy during the debate last week.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesOn Monday, Ms. Haley was back in her home state for a victory lap after a strong performance in the first Republican primary debate. In recent days, her polling numbers have climbed, and top donors have seen her as a standout. So many people packed into her town hall at the CrossRidge Center in Indian Land that attendees filled a balcony and an overflow room.As they return to the campaign trail, Ms. Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur and political newcomer, have continued the clashes they started on the debate stage, where they tussled over policy on China, Israel and the war in Ukraine. Mr. Ramaswamy has unveiled his foreign policy platform, and on his website, he accuses Ms. Haley of lying about his stances on Israel, and calls her by her first and maiden last name, Nimarata Randhawa. For her part, Ms. Haley did not mention Mr. Ramaswamy by name, but she elicited loud laughter from the audience on Monday when she asked voters if they had watched the debate.“Bless his heart,” she said. “I know I wear a skirt. But y’all see me at work. If you say something that is totally off the wall, I am going to call you out on it.”Leaving the town hall, Ross Payne, 62, a former managing director for Wells Fargo, said that he supported Ms. Haley, whom he called the “Iron Lady,” a reference to Margaret Thatcher and a hero of Ms. Haley. But he said he had been somewhat disappointed with her answer to his question on whether she would be willing to pull from both sides of the political aisle to regulate guns and automatic weapons.Ms. Haley said that though she worried about her own children, people should have the ability to protect themselves, and that she would improve access to mental health services and ensure that people arrested for gun violations stay behind bars.“Like with abortion, can’t we all agree that if you want an AR semiautomatic weapon, you’ve got to go through two or three weeks of training and extensive vetting before you can get your hands on a weapon like that?” Mr. Payne said, echoing Ms. Haley’s calls at the debate for consensus on abortion. “A weapon that can kill, you know, 10 people in 10 seconds.”Maya King More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      NatWest C.E.O. Resigns Amid Nigel Farage’s Feud With Coutts Bank

      by

      Nigel Farage, a political insurgent and ally of Donald J. Trump, exposed his bank for dropping him over “reputational risks.” Some analysts say he could parlay his situation into a comeback.When Nigel Farage campaigned for a fellow populist, Donald J. Trump, in 2020, he seemed like a faded star seeking the spotlight abroad after it had swung past him at home. Mr. Farage, who helped mobilize the pro-Brexit vote in 2016, was marginalized in Britain, then consumed by the pandemic.No longer: For three weeks, Mr. Farage, has been back on the front pages of British papers, with an attention-grabbing claim that his exclusive private bank, Coutts, dropped him as a customer because of his polarizing politics.Early on Wednesday, after Mr. Farage’s allegations were largely vindicated, the chief executive of his bank’s parent, NatWest Group, resigned after she admitted improperly discussing his bank account with a BBC journalist. The chief executive, Alison Rose, said she was guilty of a “serious error of judgment.”For Mr. Farage, who expertly stoked the dispute on social media and with appearances on the TV network GB News, the drama catapulted him back into the limelight. It was a striking turn of events for a political insurgent who became, for many, a reviled symbol of Brexit, and later, a culture warrior on right-wing television.Now, facing expulsion from Coutts, a bank founded in 1692 that serves members of the British royal family, Mr. Farage suddenly began getting expressions of sympathy from some improbable places.“He shouldn’t have had his personal details revealed like that,” Keir Starmer, the leader of the opposition Labour Party said on the BBC Radio 5 Live show. “It doesn’t matter who you are; that’s a general rule,” Mr. Starmer said, adding that Ms. Rose’s departure was warranted by her mishandling of the case.Among Mr. Farage’s stoutest defenders was Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who said on Twitter, “No one should be barred from using basic services for their political views. Free speech is the cornerstone of our democracy.”Pressure from Mr. Sunak and the chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, hastened Ms. Rose’s downfall after she confessed to being the source for the BBC report, which claimed, erroneously, that Mr. Farage had been dropped because he did not have enough money in his accounts. The government owns 39 percent of NatWest, which in turn owns Coutts.Alison Rose resigned her position at NatWest Group after saying she spoke to the BBC about Mr. Farage’s bank account.Simon Dawson/ReutersThe episode, analysts said, underscores the power that Mr. Farage, a former head of the U.K. Independence Party, still wields over the Conservatives. The Tories have long feared losing the votes of Brexiteers, who were critical to their electoral landslide in 2019, to whatever populist party is currently identified with Mr. Farage.Though Mr. Farage, 59, stepped down in 2021 as head of his latest party, Reform U.K., he is the host of a GB News talk show and remains an outspoken voice on issues like asylum seekers crossing the English Channel in small boats. Prodded partly by Mr. Farage’s commentary, Mr. Sunak has made curbing the influx of small boats one of the five major goals of his government.“They’re very aware they need to hold on to the Farage-friendly voters they picked up in 2019,” said Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, “They’re being driven in that direction, too, by the right-wing print media. This isn’t the first time this sort of thing has happened — and it won’t be the last.”Mr. Farage isn’t satisfied yet. He is demanding the ouster of NatWest’s chairman, Howard Davies, and the chief executive of Coutts, Peter Flavel. And he says he will fight on behalf of thousands of other people whose accounts he says have been unfairly closed.“You can’t live or survive in the modern world without a bank account — you become a nonperson,” Mr. Farage said on GB News on Wednesday. “The whole banking industry culture has gone wrong. We need big changes in the law.”What exactly Mr. Farage has in mind is not clear. But his campaign plays into a fervid political climate in Britain, which suggests that his critique might gain traction. The Conservatives, trailing Labour in opinion polls by double digits, are seizing on social and culture issues to try to galvanize their voters.Mr. Sunak asserted this week that the Labour Party was in league with criminal gangs and unscrupulous lawyers in promoting the flow of asylum seekers across the channel. He presented himself as the bulwark against this illegal immigration, the kind of claim Mr. Farage might have made when he was in politics.Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of Britain onboard Border Agency cutter HMC Seeker, last month ahead of a news conference on immigration. Pool photo by Yui Mok“If Farage is smart, he will use this as a runway to some kind of political comeback,” said Matthew Goodwin, a professor of politics at the University of Kent whose recent book, “Values, Voice and Virtue,” claims that Britain is ruled by an out-of-touch elite that is well to the left of the broader population.“This is just the tip of the iceberg,” Mr. Goodwin said. “The institutions, like the banks, are dominated by people who lean much further to the cultural left than many voters and who often do not even realize they are being political.”Such sweeping assertions are open to debate, of course. In the United States, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has had mixed results going after what he calls the “woke” policies of corporate giants like the Walt Disney Company.What makes Mr. Farage’s story striking is that he turned out to be right on the facts of the banking case — and some bastions of the British banking and media establishment turned out to be wrong.In late June, Mr. Farage said on social media that his bank told him it planned to close his account in July. Seven other banks, he said, turned him down when he tried to open a new account. He said he believed he had been flagged as a “politically exposed person,” meaning he was vulnerable to bribery by foreign governments, and therefore a risk to the bank.In early July, the BBC reported that the bank, now identified as Coutts, dropped Mr. Farage because he was not maintaining adequate account balances — and that his politics had nothing to do with it. But on July 18, Mr. Farage made public a 40-page document he obtained from the bank, which painted a different picture.A branch of Coutts Bank in London.Susannah Ireland/ReutersMr. Farage, the report said, is “considered by many to be a disingenuous grifter,” often criticized for racist or xenophobic statements. Such statements, it said, put Mr. Farage at odds with the bank’s goal of being an “inclusive organization.” The report also noted that he is an ally of Mr. Trump’s and a fan of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, though the bank’s risk committee found no evidence of “direct links” between him and the Russian government.“There are significant reputational risks to the bank in being associated with him,” the report concluded, recommending that Coutts wind down its relationship with Mr. Farage after the expiration of a mortgageThe BBC’s economics editor, Simon Jack, and the chief executive of BBC News, Deborah Turness, apologized to Mr. Farage — as did Ms. Rose, who confirmed that she was the source for its report. She expressed regret for discussing his account, as well as for “the deeply inappropriate language contained in those papers.”For Mr. Farage, who has sometimes seemed adrift since Britain left the European Union, it seemed the springboard to a new cause, if not a return to politics.“It signals a big campaign on behalf of the huge number of ordinary people who’ve been de-banked and have had no one to speak up for them,” Mr. Farage said through a spokeswoman at GB News. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Insists He Is Not Antisemitic During House Hearing

      by

      At a hearing convened by House Republicans, the Democratic presidential candidate defended himself against charges of racism and antisemitism.Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared before the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesThe Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. came to Capitol Hill on Thursday and pointedly declared that he is neither an antisemite nor a racist, while giving a fiery defense of free speech and accusing the Biden administration and his political opponents of trying to silence him.Mr. Kennedy, an environmental lawyer who turned to anti-vaccine activism and has trafficked in conspiracy theories, was referring to the storm that erupted after The New York Post published a video in which he told a private audience that Covid-19 “attacks certain races disproportionately” and may have been “ethnically targeted” to do more harm to white and Black people than to Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people.Mr. Kennedy appeared before the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government — a panel created by Republicans to conduct a wide-ranging investigation of federal law enforcement and national security agencies. He said he had “never been anti-vax” and had taken all recommended vaccines except the coronavirus vaccine.Thursday’s hearing was devoted to allegations by Mr. Kennedy and Republicans that the Biden administration is trying to censor people with differing views. It was rooted in a lawsuit, filed last year by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and known as Missouri v. Biden, that accused the administration of colluding with social media companies to suppress free speech on Covid-19, elections and other matters.The subcommittee’s chairman, Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio and an acolyte of former President Donald J. Trump, opened the hearing by citing an email that emerged in that case, in which a White House official asked Twitter to take down a tweet in which Mr. Kennedy suggested — without evidence — that the baseball legend Hank Aaron may have died from the coronavirus vaccine.The tweet, which was not taken down, said Mr. Aaron’s death was “part of a wave of suspicious deaths among elderly” following vaccination. There was no such wave of suspicious deaths. As Mr. Kennedy often does, he phrased his language carefully; he did not explicitly link the vaccine to the deaths, but rather said the deaths occurred “closely following administration of #COVID #vaccines.”Representative Jim Jordan opened the hearing by citing an email in which a White House official asked Twitter to take down a tweet by Mr. Kennedy.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesThursday’s session had all the makings of a Washington spectacle. A long line had formed outside the hearing room in the Rayburn House Office Building by the time Mr. Kennedy arrived. Kennedy supporters stood outside the building holding a Kennedy 2024 banner.Despite the theater, the hearing raised thorny questions about free speech in a democratic society: Is misinformation protected by the First Amendment? When is it appropriate for the federal government to seek to tamp down the spread of falsehoods?Democrats accused Republicans of giving Mr. Kennedy a forum for bigotry and pseudoscience. “Free speech is not an absolute,” said Delegate Stacey Plaskett of the Virgin Islands, the top Democrat on the subcommittee. “The Supreme Court has stated that. And others’ free speech that is allowed — hateful, abusive rhetoric — does not need to be promoted in the halls of the People’s House.”Even by Mr. Kennedy’s standards for stoking controversy, his recent comments about Covid-19 were shocking. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida, who is Jewish, tried unsuccessfully on Thursday to force the panel into executive session; she insisted that Mr. Kennedy had violated House rules by making “despicable antisemitic and anti-Asian comments.” She also helped organize Democrats to sign a letter calling on Republican leaders to disinvite him from the hearing.Mr. Kennedy waved the letter about during his opening remarks. “I know many of the people who wrote this letter,” he said. “I don’t believe there’s a single person who signed this letter who believes I’m antisemitic.”Mr. Kennedy has been steeped in Democratic politics for his entire life, but his campaign has drawn supporters from the fringes of both political parties. He has made common cause with Republicans and Trump supporters who accuse the federal government of conspiring with social media companies to suppress conservative content.Thursday’s hearing was billed as a session to “examine the federal government’s role in censoring Americans, the Missouri v. Biden case and Big Tech’s collusion with out-of-control government agencies to silence speech.” One of the lawyers involved in that case, D. John Sauer, also testified, as did Emma-Jo Morris, a journalist at Breitbart News, and Maya Wiley, the president and chief executive of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.Mr. Kennedy showed a flash of the old Kennedy style, invoking his uncle, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, a Democrat and legislative giant who frequently worked across the aisle. He called for kindness and respect, recalling how his uncle brought Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the Utah Republican with whom he partnered on major legislation, to the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port, Mass.And Mr. Kennedy was joined by a former member of Congress: Dennis J. Kucinich, who served in the House as a Democrat from Ohio and is Mr. Kennedy’s campaign manager.“We need to elevate the Constitution of the United States, which was written for hard times,” Mr. Kennedy declared at one point, “and that has to be the premier compass for all of our activities.”Amid the vitriol, members of both parties did come together around a lament from Representative Gerald E. Connolly, Democrat of Virginia.“I’ve been in this Congress 15 years, and I never thought we’d descend to this level of Orwellian dystopia,” Mr. Connolly said.Representatives Chip Roy, Republican of Texas, and Harriet M. Hageman, Republican of Wyoming, nodded their heads and smiled. “I agree with that,” they said in unison. More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Gut-level Hatred’ Is Consuming Our Political Life

      by

      Divisions between Democrats and Republicans have expanded far beyond the traditional fault lines based on race, education, gender, the urban-rural divide and economic ideology.Polarization now encompasses sharp disagreements over the significance of patriotism and nationalism as well as a fundamental split between those seeking to restore perceived past glories and those who embrace the future.Marc Hetherington, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina, described the situation this way in an email to me:Because political beliefs now reflect deeply held worldviews about how the world ought to be — challenging traditional ways of doing things on the one hand and putting a brake on that change on the other — partisans look across the aisle at each other and absolutely do not understand how their opponents can possibly understand the world as they do.The reason we have the levels of polarization we have today, Hetherington continued,is because of the gains non-dominant groups have made over the last 60 years. The Democrats no longer apologize for challenging traditional hierarchies and established pathways. They revel in it. Republicans see a world changing around them uncomfortably fast and they want it to slow down, maybe even take a step backward. But if you are a person of color, a woman who values gender equality, or an L.G.B.T. person, would you want to go back to 1963? I doubt it. It’s just something we are going to have to live with until a new set of issues rises to replace this set.Democrats are determined not only to block any drive to restore the America of 1963 — one year before passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act — but also to press the liberal agenda forward.Toward the end of the 20th century, Republicans moved rightward at a faster pace than Democrats moved leftward. In recent decades, however, Democrats have accelerated their shift toward more liberal positions while Republican movement to the right has slowed, in part because the party had reached the outer boundaries of conservatism.Bill McInturff, a founding partner of the Republican polling firm Public Opinion Strategies, released a study in June, “Polarization and a Deep Dive on Issues by Party,” that documents the shifting views of Democratic and Republican voters.Among the findings based on the firm’s polling for NBC News:From 2012 to 2022, the percentage of Democrats who describe themselves as “very liberal” grew to 29 percent from 19.In 2013, when asked their religion, 10 percent of Democrats said “none”; in 2023, it was 38 percent. The percentage of Republicans giving this answer was 7 percent in 2012 and 12 in 2023.The percentage of Democrats who agreed that “Government should do more to solve problems and help meet the needs of people” grew from 45 percent in 1995 to 67 percent in 2007 to 82 percent in 2021, a 37-point gain. Over the same period, Republican agreement rose from 17 to 23 percent, a six-point increase.“The most stable finding over a decade,” McInturff reports, is that “Republicans barely budge on a host of issues while Democrats’ positions on abortion, climate change, immigration, and affirmative action have fundamentally shifted.”The Democrats’ move to the left provoked an intensely hostile reaction from the right, as you may have noticed.I asked Arlie Hochschild — a sociologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of “Strangers in Their Own Land” who has been working on a new book about Eastern Kentucky — about the threatening policies conservatives believe liberals are imposing on them.She wrote back: “Regarding ‘threats felt by the right’ I’d say, all of them — especially ‘trans’ issues — evoke a sense that ‘this is the last straw.’” In their minds, “the left is now unhinged, talking to itself in front of us, while trying to put us under its cultural rule.”For example, Hochschild continued:When I asked a Pikeville, Ky., businessman why he thought the Democratic Party had become “unhinged,” Henry, as I’ll call him here, studied his cellphone, then held it for me to see a video of two transgender activists standing on the White House lawn in Pride week. One was laughingly shaking her naked prosthetic breasts, the other bare-chested, showing scars where breasts had been cut away. The clip then moved to President Biden saying, “these are the bravest people I know.”The sense of loss is acute among many Republican voters. Geoffrey Layman, a political scientist at Notre Dame, emailed me to say:They see the face of America changing, with white people set to become a minority of Americans in the not-too-distant future. They see church membership declining and some churches closing. They see interracial and same-sex couples in TV commercials. They support Trump because they think he is the last, best hope for bringing back the America they knew and loved.Republican aversion to the contemporary Democratic agenda has intensified, according to two sociologists, Rachel Wetts of Brown and Robb Willer of Stanford.In the abstract of their 2022 paper, “Antiracism and Its Discontents: The Prevalence and Political Influence of Opposition to Antiracism Among White Americans,” Wetts and Willer write:From calls to ban critical race theory to concerns about “woke culture,” American conservatives have mobilized in opposition to antiracist claims and movements. Here, we propose that this opposition has crystallized into a distinct racial ideology among white Americans, profoundly shaping contemporary racial politics.Wetts and Willer call this ideology “anti-antiracism” and argue that it “is prevalent among white Americans, particularly Republicans, is a powerful predictor of several policy positions, and is strongly associated with — though conceptually distinct from — various measures of anti-Black prejudice.”Sympathy versus opposition to antiracism, they continue, “may have cohered into a distinct axis of ideological disagreement which uniquely shapes contemporary racial views that divide partisan groups.”They propose a three-part definition of anti-antiracism:Opposition to antiracism involves (1) rejecting factual claims about the prevalence and severity of anti-Black racism, discrimination and racial inequality; (2) disagreeing with normative beliefs that racism, discrimination and racial inequality are important moral concerns that society and/or government should address; and (3) displaying affective reactions of frustration, anger and fatigue with these factual and normative claims as well as the activists and movements who make them.The degree to which the partisan divide has become still more deeply ingrained was captured by three political scientists, John Sides of Vanderbilt and Chris Tausanovitch and Lynn Vavreck, both of U.C.L.A., in their 2022 book, “The Bitter End.”Vavreck wrote by email that she and her co-authors describedthe state of American politics as “calcified.” Calcification sounds like polarization but it is more like “polarization-plus.” Calcification derives from an increased homogeneity within parties, an increased heterogeneity between the parties (on average, the parties are getting farther apart on policy ideas), the rise in importance of issues based on identity (like immigration, abortion, or transgender policies) instead of, for example, economic issues (like tax rates and trade), and finally, the near balance in the electorate between Democrats and Republicans. The last item makes every election a high-stakes election — since the other side wants to build a world that is quite different from the one your side wants to build.The Sides-Tausanovitch-Vavreck argument receives support in a new paper by the psychologists Adrian Lüders, Dino Carpentras and Michael Quayle of the University of Limerick in Ireland. The authors demonstrate not only how ingrained polarization has become, but also how attuned voters have become to signals of partisanship and how adept they now are at using cues to determine whether a stranger is a Democrat or Republican.“Learning a single attitude (e.g., one’s standpoint toward abortion rights),” they write, “allows people to estimate an interlocutor’s partisan identity with striking accuracy. Additionally, we show that people not only use attitudes to categorize others as in-group and out-group members, but also to evaluate a person more or less favorably.”The three conducted survey experiments testing whether Americans could determine the partisanship of people who agreed or disagreed with any one of the following eight statements:1) Abortion should be illegal.2) The government should take steps to make incomes more equal.3) All unauthorized immigrants should be sent back to their home country.4) The federal budget for welfare programs should be increased.5) Lesbian, gay and trans couples should be allowed to legally marry.6) The government should regulate business to protect the environment.7) The federal government should make it more difficult to buy a gun.8) The federal government should make a concerted effort to improve social and economic conditions for African Americans.The results?“Participants were able to categorize a person as Democrat or Republican based on a single attitude with remarkable accuracy (reflected by a correlation index of r = .90).”While partisan differences over racial issues have a long history, contemporary polarization has politicized virtually everything within its reach.Take patriotism.A March Wall Street Journal/NORC poll at the University of Chicago found that over the 25-year period since 1998, the percentage of adults who said patriotism was “very important” to them fell to 38 percent from 70.Much of the decline was driven by Democrats and independents, among whom 23 and 29 percent said patriotism was very important, less than half of the 59 percent of Republicans.A similar pattern emerged regarding the decline in the percentage of adults who said religion was very important to them, which fell to 39 percent from 62 percent in 1998. Democrats fell to 27 percent, independents to 38 percent and Republicans to 53 percent.Or take the question of nationalism.In their 2021 paper, “The Partisan Sorting of ‘America’: How Nationalist Cleavages Shaped the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election,” Bart Bonikowski, Yuval Feinstein and Sean Bock, sociologists at N.Y.U., the University of Haifa and Harvard, argue that the United States has become increasingly divided by disagreement over conceptions of nationalism.“Nationalist beliefs shaped respondents’ voting preferences in the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” they write. “The results suggest that competing understandings of American nationhood were effectively mobilized by candidates from the two parties.”In addition, Bonikowski, Feinstein and Bock argue, “over the past 20 years, nationalism has become sorted by party, as Republican identifiers have come to define America in more exclusionary and critical terms, and Democrats have increasingly endorsed inclusive and positive conceptions of nationhood.” These trends “suggest a potentially bleak future for U.S. politics, as nationalism becomes yet another among multiple overlapping social and cultural cleavages that serve to reinforce partisan divisions.”Bonikowski and his co-authors contend that there are four distinct types of American nationalism.The first, creedal nationalism, is the only version supported by voters who tend to back Democratic candidates:Creedal nationalists favor elective criteria of national belonging, rating subjective identification with the nation and respect for American laws and institutions as very important; they are more equivocal than others about the importance of lifelong residence and language skills and view birth in the country, having American ancestry, and being Christian as not very important.The other three types of nationalism trend right, according to Bonikowski and his colleagues.Disengaged nationalists, “characterized by an arm’s-length relationship to the nation, which for some may verge on dissatisfaction with and perhaps even animus toward it,” are drawn to “Trump’s darkly dystopian depiction of America.”Restrictive and ardent nationalists both apply “elective and ascriptive criteria of national belonging,” including the “importance of Christian faith.”Restrictive and ardent nationalists differ, according to the authors, “in their degree of attachment to the nation, pride in America’s accomplishments, and evaluation of the country’s relative standing in the world.” For example, 11 percent of restrictive nationalists voice strong “pride in the way the country’s democracy works” compared with 70 percent of ardent nationalists.These and other divisions provide William Galston, a senior fellow at Brookings who studies how well governments work, the grounds from which to paint a bleak picture of American politics.“Issues of individual and group identity — especially along the dimensions of race and gender — have moved to the center of our politics at every level of the federal system,” Galston wrote by email. “The economic axis that defined our politics from the beginning of New Deal liberalism to the end of Reagan conservatism has been displaced.”How does that affect governing?When the core political issues are matters of right and wrong rather than more and less, compromise becomes much more difficult, and disagreement becomes more intense. If I think we should spend X on farm programs and you think it should be 2X, neither of us thinks the other is immoral or evil. But if you think I’m murdering babies and I think you’re oppressing women, it’s hard for each of us not to characterize the other in morally negative terms.Despite — or perhaps because of — the changing character of politics described by Galston, interest in the outcome of elections has surged.Jon Rogowski, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, cited trends in polling data on voter interest in elections in an email:In 2000, only 45 percent of Americans said that it really matters who wins that year’s presidential election. Since then, increasing shares of Americans say that who wins presidential elections has important consequences for addressing the major issues of the day: about 63 percent of registered voters provided this response in each of the 2004, 2008 and 2012 elections, which then increased to 74 percent in 2016 and 83 percent in 2020.Why?As the parties have become increasingly differentiated over the last several decades, and as presidential candidates have offered increasingly distinct political visions, it is no surprise that greater shares of Americans perceive greater stakes in which party wins the presidential election.Where does all this leave us going into the 2024 election?Jonathan Weiler, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina, provided the following answer by email: “When partisan conflict is no longer primarily about policies, or even values, but more about people’s basic worldviews, the stakes do feel higher to partisans.”Weiler cited poll data showing:In 2016, 35 percent of Democrats said Republicans were more immoral than Democrats and 47 percent of Republicans said Democrats were more immoral. In 2022, those numbers had jumped dramatically — 63 percent of Democrats said Republicans were more immoral, and 72 percent of Republicans said Democrats were more immoral.In this context, Weiler continued:It’s not that the specific issues are unimportant. Our daily political debates still revolve around them, whether D.E.I., abortion, etc. But they become secondary, in a sense, to the gut-level hatred and mistrust that now defines our politics, so that almost whatever issue one party puts in front of its voters will rouse the strongest passions. What matters now isn’t the specific objects of scorn but the intensity with which partisans are likely to feel that those targets threaten them existentially.Perhaps Bill Galston’s assessment was not bleak enough.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