More stories

  • in

    South Africa’s President, Cyril Ramaphosa, Wins Battle to Lead A.N.C.

    Despite a high-profile scandal, Cyril Ramaphosa was able to secure enough support to stay in control, almost assuring him a second term as the country’s leader after elections scheduled for 2024.JOHANNESBURG — President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa prevailed on Monday in his bid to win a second term as leader of the governing African National Congress, overcoming attacks from within his highly factionalized party and an embarrassing scandal involving the theft of what he said was more than half a million dollars in cash stuffed in a sofa on his farm.Mr. Ramaphosa’s victory, announced during the A.N.C.’s national conference, almost assures him a second term as South Africa’s president after elections scheduled for 2024. The chosen leader of the A.N.C., the party with the most seats in Parliament, has become the nation’s president in every election since 1994.Mr. Ramaphosa received 2,476 votes, while his challenger, Zweli Mkhize, the country’s former health minister, finished far behind with 1,897.While the results were a relief for Mr. Ramaphosa, 70, and his allies after a bruising battle, he will have little time to breathe easy.Lynsey ChutelHe confronts a mountain of challenges, from a government that can barely keep the lights on or protect its residents against crime to a party that has plummeted in popularity from its days as the heroic liberator that unseated the apartheid regime.The A.N.C. is as divided as ever, analysts and even some of its members have said. Some of the conflicts are ideological — like differences over how aggressively the government should move to seize and redistribute land. Yet most of the fights have little to do with policy, A.N.C. officials concede. Rather, they are more about personality, regional and ethnic alliances, and winning positions in government in order to control how public money is spent.“Our experience of recent years is that disunity does not arise from ideological, political or strategic differences amongst us,” Mr. Ramaphosa told delegates during his opening address at the conference on Friday. “But it arises from a contest over positions in the state, and resources that are attached to them.”It remains to be seen whether the party’s leader can hold together the fragile coalition, heal lingering wounds and help the A.N.C. maintain more than 50 percent of the national vote in 2024.“It’s at a crossroads of some sort,” said Mmamoloko Kubayi, a member of the party’s executive committee. She added that this year’s leadership battle was about the survival of the A.N.C. “It should be a watershed in terms of, it changes the posture of the organization and where it’s going.”What to Know About Cyril Ramaphosa and ‘Farmgate’Card 1 of 3Who is Cyril Ramaphosa? More

  • in

    How About Some Predictions for the New Year?

    Gail Collins: How about some predictions for the new year, Bret?I’ll start: House Republicans will flunk all their deficit-decreasing promises. The skyrocketing sales of those Trump digital trading cards will collapse and plunge streaking back to earth.Bret Stephens: C’mon, Gail — those are safe bets!Gail: OK, how about a pre-new year prediction? This week, the Jan. 6 committee will recommend criminal prosecution of Donald Trump, but the man’s never going to jail.Bret: Another pretty safe bet, I’m afraid.Gail: Sigh. Back to the future: What do you have in the way of thoughts about what’s going to happen in 2023?Bret: I’ll go bold, or semi-bold, so long as you promise not to hold these predictions against me in a year.Gail: Well, OK … maybe.Bret: First, the crypto collapse will continue and the whole crypto phenomenon will be exposed as the tulip bulb mania of our day.Second, President Biden will announce, after considerable holiday reflection, that he will not run for re-election, especially since he’s increasingly unlikely to face a rematch with the former guy.And third, Kevin McCarthy will not be the next speaker of the House.Gail: Well, I’ll give you number one — would never want to be known as a crypto collaborator. Sure hope you’re right on two: As I’ve said before, I’d love to see Biden follow Nancy Pelosi’s lead and give up the top leadership job for some other useful-but-not-in-charge-of-the-world gig.And on three: Fine, but who exactly are the Republicans going to pick? Any faves?Bret: Well, nobody in the current House Republican leadership. All of them are election deniers. And Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, gets special awfulness points because her ethics are purely situational. Also, nearly every House Republican who voted to impeach Trump after Jan. 6 is gone, so that further reduces my options.Gail: The woes of rational Republicans …Bret: I guess the House has the option of electing a speaker who is not a member. In that case, I’d probably look to a Republican I could respect, like Rob Portman, the outgoing senator from Ohio whose seat is being taken by J.D. Vance. Though, really, I doubt Portman would want the job. Today’s definition of a sane Republican is a retired Republican, a former Republican, or both.Gail, let’s look back on the old year, too. What do you rank as the best moment? And what was the worst?Gail: As a political person I’d have to say the elections were the best. Not just that the Democrats did much better than expected, but that many of the loathsome Trumpian Republicans were rejected in races a rational member of their party would have won.Bret: We are in total accord in the politics department. But I’d expand the categories a bit. The best moment, in terms of statesmanship, was President Volodomyr Zelensky’s Churchillian riposte to the American offer to get him out of Ukraine in the face of Russia’s invasion: “I need ammunition, not a ride.”Gail: I agree — that’s a keeper.Bret: The best moment in terms of courage has come from the magnificent women of Iran, leading a revolution against their misogynistic rulers. The best moment, cosmically, were the images of deep space and distant time taken by the Webb telescope. And probably the best moment, as far as future generations are concerned, was the fusion breakthrough by the brilliant scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It gave me faith not only that human ingenuity will ultimately solve our long-term energy and climate challenges, but also that the United States can continue at the frontiers of discovery.Gail: Super choices. Now we’ve got to tackle the worst. And I’m sorry to say that pretty much every year it’s a story about mass shooting. Actually, many stories about mass shootings: innocent citizens mowed down when they’re shopping, or going to school, or working at extremely nonviolent jobs or just out having a good time. Who can ever forget that student slaughter at Uvalde? And it was just a month ago that a gunman in Colorado killed five people and injured at least 18 others at an L.G.B.T.Q. nightclub.Bret: Not to mention the everyday gun violence that barely gets reported because it’s so ubiquitous.Gail: And unlike some of our other political crises — say, the Supreme Court ruling on abortion — the gun situation just doesn’t seem to get the political push it needs to get better. Will try to block the memory of Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s recent quote-unquote joke about how it would have been so much better if the folks attacking the Capitol on Jan. 6 had been better armed.You?Bret: Agree again. I’d add that repulsive dinner between Donald Trump, Kanye West and the Holocaust-denier Nick Fuentes.Gail: Hmm. Mixed feelings on that one. True, Trump’s guest list was remarkably repulsive, even for him. But that kind of behavior shows he’s dreadful in ways even some of his previous supporters can appreciate. Which is kinda useful, given his already announced candidacy for a return to the White House.Bret: As in, “the worse, the better”? Not sure I agree: I think it was yet another case of “defining deviancy down,” as Pat Moynihan famously put it.Switching topics, Gail, we’ve got a huge migration crisis at the southern border, and it looks like it might get a lot worse as soon as the Title 42 policy permitting immediate deportations ends this week. Democrats seem … pretty nonchalant about this. Your thoughts?Gail: Bret, since the Republicans’ big new idea seems to be impeaching the secretary of Homeland Security, I don’t think you’ll win with a partisan critique.Bret: Impeachment is a dumb idea, but it wouldn’t hurt Biden to consider new management in that department. How about Bill Bratton, the former police commissioner of New York City and Los Angeles?Gail: I don’t have a good solution, but my immediate action plan would be to radically increase staffing at the border, raise the salaries of border patrol agents, expand and improve detention facilities and, on our side, get the Dreamers a clear and simple path to citizenship.Now, I’m very interested in your thoughts — except you already know we’re going to fight about anything involving the building of a wall.Bret: Like John Cleese’s Basil Fawlty, I promise not to mention the wall.Gail: A gift for the holidays!Bret: The administration and the courts have a point that Title 42, as a public-health measure, is an awkward legal tool to control the border. Problem is, it’s what we’ve got. And we already have a crisis as far north as New York City as officials deal with a migration crisis on a scale we’ve never seen before. If we don’t control it — not over the coming years, but right now — we’re going to have a full-scale humanitarian crisis here in the United States, along with a cudgel that nativists will use for a generation against those of us who support a generous but controlled immigration policy.Gail: I guess we’re at least in agreement that something must be done.Bret: The other thing to worry about for next year is a possible recession. The housing and manufacturing sectors are already in a big slump. Job cuts in our own industry, too. Even Goldman Sachs is laying off thousands of employees, which can’t be a good sign. Your advice?Gail: Well, a good time for the government to create some more jobs — including maybe some in border security, as I was saying. And a very bad time to dillydally about funding basic operations in the new year.Bret: You know, I wouldn’t be against restarting something like the New Deal’s Civilian Conservation Corps.Gail: I can understand the Republicans wanting to flex their muscles — even itty-bitty muscles — when they take control of the House. But they’re going to be so distracted by showboating over crime, immigration and Hunter Biden that they’d be well advised to let the Democrats do as much as they can on budgetary matters now.How about you?Bret: Gail, what else? Cut government red tape when it comes to permitting and other barriers to doing business in America. Cut taxes to offset the effects of rising interest rates. Increase the number of EB-5 visas tenfold, to 100,000 a year, to attract job creators to the United States. Allow large infrastructure projects like the Keystone XL pipeline to create thousands of blue-collar jobs and enhance our energy security in North America.I know these suggestions must come as a total surprise to you ….Gail: I’m shocked! Guess we’ll be going into the new year continuing to disagree about what’s red tape and what’s critical protection of the consumer, the environment and —Well, we’ve got all of 2023 to argue about that. But there’ll be no more World Cup debates! Before we go, tell me your thoughts about Argentina’s big win.Bret: Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooool!Greatest. Game. Ever.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

  • in

    How Will History Remember Jan. 6?

    Far-right groups stockpiling guns and explosives, preparing for a violent overthrow of a government they deem illegitimate. Open antisemitism on the airwaves, expressed by mainstream media figures. Leading politicians openly embracing bigoted, authoritarian leaders abroad who disdain democracy and the rule of law.This might sound like a recap of the last few years in America, but it is actually the forgotten story told in a remarkable new podcast, Ultra, that recounts the shocking tale of how during World War II, Nazi propagandists infiltrated far-right American groups and the America First movement, wormed into the offices of senators and representatives and fomented a plot to overthrow the United States government.“This is a story about politics at the edge,” said the show’s creator and host, Rachel Maddow, in the opening episode. “And a criminal justice system trying, trying, but ill-suited to thwart this kind of danger.”Maddow is, of course, a master storyteller, and never lets the comparisons to today’s troubles get too on the nose. But as I hung on each episode, I couldn’t help think about Jan. 6 and wonder: Will that day and its aftermath be a hinge point in our country’s history? Or a forgotten episode to be plumbed by some podcaster decades from now?When asked about the meaning of contemporary events, historians like to jokingly reply, “Ask me in 100 years.” This week, the committee in the House of Representatives investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot will drop its doorstop-size report, a critical early installment in the historical record. Journalists, historians and activists have already generated much, much more material, and more is still to come.In January, a Republican majority will take over the House and many of its members have pledged to begin their own battery of investigations, including an investigation into the Jan. 6 investigation. What will come from this ouroboros of an inquiry one cannot say, but it cannot help but detract from the quest for accountability for the events of that day.Beyond that, polling ahead of this year’s midterm elections indicated that Americans have other things on their minds, perhaps even more so now that the threat of election deniers winning control over voting in key swing states has receded. But what it means for the story America tells itself about itself is an open question. And in the long run, that might mean more accountability than our current political moment permits.Why do we remember the things we remember, and why do we forget the things we forget? This is not a small question in a time divided by fights over history. We all know the old saying: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. But there is another truism that to my mind often countervails: We are always fighting the last war.The story that Maddow’s podcast tells is a doozy. It centers on a German American named George Sylvester Viereck, who was an agent for the Nazi government. Viereck was the focus of a Justice Department investigation into Nazi influence in America in the 1930s. For good reason: Lawmakers helped him in a variety of ways. One senator ran pro-German propaganda articles in magazines under his name that had actually been written by Viereck and would deliver pro-German speeches on the floor of Congress written by officials of the Nazi government. Others would reproduce these speeches and mail them to millions of Americans at taxpayer expense.Viereck also provided moral and financial support to a range of virulently antisemitic and racist organizations across the United States, along with paramilitary groups called the Silver Shirts and the Christian Front. Members of these groups sought to violently overthrow the government of the United States and replace it with a Nazi-style dictatorship.This was front-page news at the time. Investigative reporters dug up scoop after scoop about the politicians involved. Prosecutors brought criminal charges. Big trials were held. But today they are all but forgotten. One leading historian of Congress who was interviewed in the podcast, Nancy Beck Young, said she doubts that more than one or two people in her history department at the University of Houston knew about this scandal.Why was this episode consigned to oblivion? Selective amnesia has always been a critical component of the American experience. Americans are reared on myths that elide the genocide of Indigenous Americans, the central role of slavery in our history, America’s imperial adventures and more. As Susan Sontag put it, “What is called collective memory is not a remembering but a stipulating: that this is important, and this is the story about how it happened.”Our favorite stories are sealed narrative boxes with a clear arc — a heroic journey in which America is the hero. And it’s hard to imagine a narrative more cherished than the one wrought by the countless books, movies and prestige television that remember World War II as a story of American righteousness in the face of a death cult. There was some truth to that story. But that death cult also had adherents here at home who had the ear and the mouthpiece of some of the most powerful senators and representatives.It also had significant support from a broad swath of the American people, most of whom were at best indifferent to the fate of European Jewry, as “The U.S. and the Holocaust,” a documentary series by the filmmakers Ken Burns, Lynn Novick and Sarah Botstein that came out in September, does the painful work of showing. A virulent antisemite, Rev. Charles E. Coughlin, hosted by far the biggest radio show in the country. At his peak in the 1930s about 90 million people a week tuned in to hear his diatribes against Jews and communism.In some ways, it is understandable that this moment was treated as an aberration. The America First movement, which provided mainstream cover for extremist groups, evaporated almost instantly after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Maybe it was even necessary to forget. When the war was over there was so much to do: rebuild Europe, integrate American servicemen back into society, confront the existential threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Who had the time to litigate who had been wrong about Germany in the 1930s?Even professional historians shied away from this period. Bradley Hart, a historian whose 2018 book “Hitler’s American Friends” unearthed a great deal of this saga, said that despite the wealth of documentary material there was little written about the subject. “This is a really uncomfortable chapter in American history because we want to believe the Second World War was this great moment when America was on the side of democracy and human rights,” Hart told me. “There is this sense that you have to forget certain parts of history in order to move on.”As anyone who has been married for a long time knows, sometimes forgetting is essential to peace. Even countries that have engaged in extensive post-conflict reconciliation processes, like South Africa and Argentina, were inevitably limited by the need to move on. After all, you make peace with your enemies, not your friends.The aftermath of Jan. 6 is unfolding almost like a photo negative of the scandal Maddow’s podcast unfurls. With very few exceptions almost everyone involved in the pro-Nazi movement escaped prosecution. A sedition trial devolved into a total debacle that ended with a mistrial. President Harry Truman, a former senator, ultimately helped out his old friend Senator Burton K. Wheeler, a figure in the plot to disseminate Nazi propaganda, by telling the Justice Department to fire the prosecutor who was investigating it.But the major political figures involved paid the ultimate political price: they were turfed out of office by voters.Many of the perpetrators of the Jan. 6 riot, on the other hand, have been brought to justice successfully: Roughly 900 people have been arrested; approximately 470 have pleaded guilty to a variety of federal charges; around 335 of those charged federally have been convicted and sentenced; more than 250 have been sentenced to prison or home confinement. Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers, was convicted of seditious conspiracy, the most serious charge brought in any of these cases. In their report to be released this week, the Jan. 6 committee is expected to recommend further criminal indictments. One big question looming over it all is whether former President Donald Trump will be criminally charged for his role in whipping up the frenzy that led to the assault on the Capitol.A broader political reckoning seems much more distant. Election deniers and defenders of the Jan. 6 mob lost just about every major race in swing states in the 2022 midterms. But roughly 200 Republicans who supported the lie about the 2020 election being stolen won office across the country, The New York Times reported.What larger narrative about America might require us to remember Jan. 6? And what might require us to file it away as an aberration? The historian’s dodge — “ask me in 100 years” — is the only truly safe answer. But if the past is any guide, short-term political expediency may require it to be the latter.After all, it is only now that decades of work by scholars, activists and journalists has placed chattel slavery at the center of the American story rather than its periphery. What are the current battles about critical race theory but an attempt to repackage the sprawling, unfinished fight for civil rights into a tidy story about how Black people got their rights by appealing to the fundamental decency of white people and by simply asking nicely? In this telling, systematic racism ended when Rosa Parks could sit in the front of the bus. Anything that even lightly challenges finality of racial progress is at best an unwelcome rupture in the narrative matrix; at worst it is seen as a treasonous hatred of America.History, after all, is not just what happened. It is the meaning we make out of what happened and the story we tell with that meaning. If we included everything there would be no story. We cannot and will not remember things that have not been fashioned into a story we tell about ourselves, and because we are human, and because change is life, that story will evolve and change as we do.There is no better sign that our interpretation of history is in for revision than the Hollywood treatment. Last week it was reported that Steven Spielberg, our foremost chronicler of heroic World War II tales, plans to collaborate with Maddow to make Ultra into a movie. Perhaps this marks the beginning of a pop culture reconsideration of America’s role in the war, adding nuance that perturbs the accepted heroic narrative.And so I am not so worried about Jan. 6 fading from our consciousness for now. One day, maybe decades, maybe a century, some future Rachel Maddow will pick up the story and weave it more fully into the American fabric, not as an aberration but a continuous thread that runs through our imperfect tapestry. Maybe some future Steven Spielberg will even make it into a movie. I bet it’ll be a blockbuster.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

  • in

    Your Monday Briefing: Argentina Triumphs

    Plus: A Times analysis of how Russia bungled the invasion.Lionel Messi lifted the World Cup trophy after leading Argentina to victory.Dan Mullan/Getty ImagesArgentina wins the World CupIt was the most extraordinary World Cup final in history. And Lionel Messi, who played a career-defining game, is at the center of Argentina’s victory.Messi, 35, cemented his claim to be the greatest player to have ever played the game. In what he has said would be his last World Cup game — and his first-ever World Cup victory — Messi scored two of the team’s three goals as well as the first goal in the team’s penalty shootouts.Argentina scored two goals in the first half, as France seemed slack and uncertain. Then, Kylian Mbappé surged forward. In the space of under two minutes, he scored back-to-back second-half goals, tying the game.In extra time, Messi scored his second goal of the game: 3-2, Argentina. Then, Mbappé scored on a penalty kick to tie the game at 3-3. The teams went to a shootout. Argentina won on penalties, 4-2, as the stadium crowd burst into tears of joy and grief.Highlights: Watch all 12 goals.Mbappé: The 23-year-old French superstar is the first man since 1966 to score three goals in a World Cup final. He won the Golden Boot, which goes to the tournament’s top scorer.Messi: He left Argentina at 13 and has lived in the shadow of Diego Maradona, who last hoisted the World Cup trophy for Argentina 36 years ago. Now, the country has unequivocally embraced its native son. He won the Golden Ball, as the tournament’s best player.Russia’s invasion plans showed that it was expecting to overrun Kyiv within hours of invading Ukraine.operativnoZSU, via TelegramHow Russia fumbled the warMy colleagues have published a sweeping account of how Russia mismanaged its invasion of Ukraine, based on battle plans, intercepts and interviews with Russian soldiers and Kremlin confidants. Here are some major points:Wounded Russian soldiers said they had little training, food or supplies. Some turned to Wikipedia to learn how to use their weapons.President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle fed his suspicions and magnified his grievances. The war was planned in such secrecy that his spokesman and chief of staff learned of it only after it began.One NATO member is warning allies that Putin may accept the death or injury of as many as 300,000 Russian troops, roughly three times his estimated losses so far.Invading Russian troops used their cellphones to call home, revealing their positions to Ukraine’s military.Read the piece in full.For more: “It was a cascade of failures, and at the top is Putin’s own misguidedness, his own isolation and his own conviction that he knew what was best,” Anton Troianovski, the Moscow bureau chief, told The Morning newsletter.Other updates:Ukraine said that Russia may sharply escalate the war in a winter offensive.Ukrainians raced to restore critical services after Russia fired dozens of missiles at Ukrainian power stations over the weekend.Putin made a rare visit to his war headquarters, signaling a shift to his more active involvement.Russian data journalists and volunteers are trying to count the country’s dead soldiers.Yesterday’s launches were North Korea’s first missile tests since it fired an ICBM a month ago.Shin Jun-Hee/YONHAP, via Associated PressNorth Korea tests more weaponsNorth Korea fired two medium-range ballistic missiles yesterday, which could potentially reach Japan. The missiles fell into the waters between the two countries.The launches came just days after Japan vowed to ​double its military spending to help guard against the growing threats from China and North Korea. Future conflicts ​over the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan could involve ​Japan.The State of the WarA Botched Invasion: Secret battle plans, intercepts and interviews with soldiers and Kremlin confidants offer new insight into the stunning failures of Russia’s military in Ukraine.The War in the Skies: As Ukrainian officials warn that Russia might be preparing for a new ground offensive this winter, waves of Russian missiles continue to batter Ukraine’s infrastructure. The attacks are leaving a trail of destruction and grief.Russian Draft: A Times reporter spoke to Russians at a draft office in Moscow to gauge how they felt about going to war.The Next Front? Using missiles and saboteurs, Ukraine is focusing on the strategically important city of Melitopol, ahead of an expected Ukrainian offensive to drive Russian forces from southern Ukraine.The new plans called for Japan, which has long been officially pacifist, to acquire​ counterstrike abilities, including​ missiles that could be used to target bases in enemy territory in response to an attack.Context: North Korea fired missiles that flew over Japan in 2017 and again in October.Background: Last week, North Korea tested​ a ​powerful new engine for an intercontinental ballistic missile​, as part of its effort to switch from liquid to solid fuel, which could make missiles easier to transport and faster to launch​.Markets: The growing consensus about the emergence of a new era of superpower confrontation is boosting arms makers.THE LATEST NEWSAsia PacificFiji’s election pitted two former coup leaders against each other.Saeed Khan/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesFiji finished counting its votes. There is no clear winner, The Associated Press reports, and parties are negotiating to form a coalition government.Crematories and funeral homes in Beijing are busy, Reuters reports. China reversed its pandemic restrictions earlier this month.At least 19 people died yesterday near Kabul, Afghanistan, when a fuel tanker exploded, CNN reports.A landslide in Malaysia killed at least 24 people, Reuters reports.Around the WorldTaraneh Alidoosti, an Iranian actress, is one of the highest-profile people to be arrested after expressing support for the antigovernment protests.Tunisia held its first parliamentary elections since a presidential power grab last year. Some see the overhauled process as key to fighting corruption. Others think it is a charade.Twitter suspended and reinstated the accounts of several journalists. Some had written critically about Elon Musk.U.S. NewsSam Bankman-Fried, the FTX founder who is in jail in the Bahamas, is expected to agree to be extradited to the U.S.The T.S.A. intercepted a record number of guns at airport security checkpoints this year.P-22, the celebrity mountain lion in Los Angeles, was euthanized.A Morning ReadGetty ImagesWe may be in a new epoch in Earth’s history: the Anthropocene, the age of humans.“If you were around in 1920, your attitude would have been, ‘Nature’s too big for humans to influence,’ ” said the chair of a panel of scientists, which has spent more than a decade deliberating whether we are in a new epoch.The past century has upended that thinking, he said. “It’s been a shock event, a bit like an asteroid hitting the planet.”ARTS AND IDEASIndia’s embattled love languagePradeep Sahil, a poet and lyricist, drew an appreciative crowd with his recitation.Saumya Khandelwal for The New York TimesFor centuries, Urdu was a prominent language of culture and poetry in India. Its literature and journalism — often advanced by writers who rebelled against religious dogma — played important roles in the country’s independence struggle against British colonial rule and in the spread of socialist fervor later in the 20th century.But in more recent decades, the language has faced dual threats from politics and the quest for economic prosperity. Urdu — a language spoken widely in Pakistan, India’s archrival — is now stigmatized as foreign. Parents increasingly enroll their children in schools that teach English or other Indian languages better suited for the job market.Still, more than 300,000 people celebrated Urdu verse during a three-day festival in New Delhi this month. The gathering, the Jashn-e-Rekhta poetry festival, was a testament to Urdu’s staying power as the key language of romantic expression in India’s songs and films, which draw heavily on Urdu poetry.For more: Mujib Mashal, my colleague, shared videos of one of his favorite moments from the festival on Twitter.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookArmando Rafael for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Cyd Raftus McDowell.For a holiday main, check out this rosy, crusted roasted beef tenderloin.What to ReadFor some last-minute holiday shopping, here are nine new books our editors recommend, with stories from Iceland and Nigeria to Tokyo and outer space.What to Watch“The Super 8 Years” collects the memories of Annie Ernaux, the French writer who won the Nobel Prize in Literature this year.Modern LoveHe was married. She was looking for adventure. It somehow all worked out.The Faces QuizCan you recognize these newsmakers of 2022?Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and a clue: Large in scope (five letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. Have a lovely week! See you tomorrow. — AmeliaP.S. The movie “Titanic” premiered 25 years ago today.Start your week with this narrated long read about two Chinese immigrants in New York City. And here’s Friday’s edition of “The Daily,” on A.I. Or check out “Hard Fork,” where our hosts make their tech predictions for 2023.Email us at briefing@nytimes.com with any questions or concerns. More

  • in

    Should Iowa or South Carolina Go First?

    More from our inbox:Humans and Wildlife: The Messages Are MixedThe Decades-Long Struggle for Affordable Child Care Antonio Giovanni PinnaTo the Editor:Re “Democrats to Iowa: Get Lost!,” by Art Cullen (Opinion guest essay, Dec. 12):Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Cullen is revealing more about the problem with Iowa than anything about the Democratic Party when he complains that the Democrats’ proposed new primary schedule is set up to “dump the Iowa caucuses into the ditch.”It does no such thing, of course; it merely deprives the Hawkeye State of its guaranteed gatekeeper status at the head of the line. Mr. Cullen’s self-righteous huffing that “discarding Iowa is not a great way to mend fences in rural America” seems to suggest that he feels that somehow his state is read out of the Union if it isn’t allowed to speak first when presidential primary season rolls around.New Hampshire, which holds the first actual primaries, has a similar attitude. Neither state’s position on the electoral calendar was inscribed in stone, but you’d never know it from their champions’ zealotry on this issue.Personally, I’d prefer to see the order of the primaries and caucuses reshuffled before every presidential election. That way, at least Iowa would be at or near the front at least some of the time, but one of the smaller, whitest states in the nation wouldn’t get to fire the race’s starting gun every time. Surely Iowans can find something else about their state to be proud of.Eric B. LippsStaten IslandTo the Editor:Art Cullen’s critique of the Democratic National Committee’s proposal to put South Carolina ahead of Iowa on the nominating calendar is misguided. Democrats haven’t dumped “the Iowa caucuses into a ditch.” Rather, they’re considering leading with a state with voter rolls that better represent Democratic voters and the country as a whole.Mr. Cullen argues that diversity has a chance in Iowa, citing Barack Obama’s victory over Hillary Clinton at the caucus. But an overwhelmingly white electorate choosing a diverse candidate is not the same as a diverse electorate having its say in the process.Rural states like Iowa have challenges, but they don’t need symbolic support like keeping the Iowa caucus first. Instead, they need real solutions, such as the Inflation Reduction Act, which provides subsidies for renewable energy projects that will bring economic vitality to rural areas.John HorschOakland, Calif.To the Editor:Art Cullen’s essay was remarkably self-serving. Iowa goes first by tradition, which gives a rural, largely white state outsized importance.I get that Iowans want to hold onto their position, but why should the rest of the nation take cues from this one state? It is time to hold national primaries, all on the same day. Let everyone in the nation vote, at the same time. This has the side benefit of shortening the ridiculously long primary season.Katherine Jo GlavesSeattleHumans and Wildlife: The Messages Are Mixed Tom KrawczykTo the Editor:Re “My Mother Has Two Sons: Me and a Squirrel” (Op-Doc, nytimes.com, Dec. 5):What a joy to wake up to such a tender video of a woman responding to an abandoned newborn creature in her yard. Her son, Tom Krawczyk, is a gifted videographer whose obvious professionalism captured both his mother’s humanity and her concern for a wild animal’s future.At this time of year, especially this year, it is a balm to witness such a poignant gem as this, reminding me of all that is fresh and good in the world and that this sort of intimate connection, wherever we find it, is the ultimate healing.Marjorie HermanHamilton, N.J.To the Editor:I was frustrated by the mixed messaging in The Times about how to best care for wildlife. The Dec. 5 Op-Doc about a woman raising a newborn squirrel as a family member is heartwarming, but unfortunately has the potential to seriously mislead viewers.It counters the excellent advice found in a piece by Margaret Renkl (“Wildlife Rescue Heals the Human Heart,” Opinion guest essay, Dec. 7) about the importance of wildlife rehabilitation centers.The responsible — and legal — thing to do when encountering orphaned or injured wildlife is to place the animal with a certified wildlife rehabilitator.Home-raised animals can suffer from nutritional deficiencies or simply may not survive a well-meaning amateur’s aid. Animals that become acclimated to humans have been known to attack their caregivers or strangers who don’t understand their natural behaviors.Their instinctual response to potential predators might also be compromised. (In this video, the squirrel was friends with a cat.) The most compassionate response is to put an animal’s care into the hands of someone who has the educational training to best support their survival.Kim BaileyNashvilleThe writer is a retired metro parks naturalist.To the Editor:Re “Wildlife Rescue Heals the Human Heart”:Although it was heartwarming to read about the often heroic efforts of wildlife rehabilitators in helping injured and orphaned animals, I can’t help thinking about all the ways that other, less compassionate humans deliberately inflict harm and torture on our wildlife.The indiscriminate trapping and snaring of wolves, the barbaric wildlife-killing contests that still take place in many states and all forms of recreational trophy hunting reflect an indifference to the suffering of our nonhuman kinfolk, who like us value their lives, strive to take care of their families and have every right to share this earth with us.Mary Anne EricsonPortland, Ore.The Decades-Long Struggle for Affordable Child Care Eleanor DavisTo the Editor:Re “The Child Care Crisis Has Been ‘Urgent’ Since ’86. Just Ask Cosmo,” by Jessica Grose (Opinion, nytimes.com, Dec. 7):I read Ms. Grose’s excellent article with a sense of déjà vu — the more things change, the more they stay the same.In 1982, a group of friends and I started a day care center on the Upper West Side because there were few options for full-time working parents.We managed to receive support from a private foundation to help us set up the little center, secured space in a rundown synagogue, and founded one of the first Jewish all-day child care centers in New York City. We named it Yaldaynu, Hebrew for “our children.” (I am pleased to say it is still operating.)It is sad that 40 years later, my daughter, one of those first children, and now a mother, still does not have quality, affordable day care options for her daughter.When will the U.S. do what most of the rest of the West does and provide quality affordable child care for their citizens? Why is this not even on the agenda of urgent our country is facing?Now is the time for Cosmo, which ran a cover story on this issue in 1986, to put it back on the cover, and for politicians, corporations and nonprofits to take action.Jeanne B. KesAlbuquerque More

  • in

    The End of the Trump Era Will Be Unsatisfying

    Since the 2022 midterm elections, the end of the Trump era in American politics has become, at least, a 50-50 proposition. While Ron DeSantis surges in multiple national polls, the former president has busied himself shilling $99 digital trading cards to his most devoted fans. The promised battle royale, in which Trump emerges from Mar-a-Lago to smite his challenger and reclaim his throne, may yet be in the offing. But it’s also possible that Trump 2024 will end up where many people expected Trump 2016 to go, diminishing into an act of self-indulgence that holds on to his true loyalists but can’t win primary-season majorities.If that’s how Trump goes out, doing a slow fade while DeSantis claims his mantle, the people who have opposed Trump most fiercely, both the Resistance liberals and the Never Trump Republicans, will probably find the ending deeply unsatisfying.There will be no perp walk where Trump exits the White House in handcuffs (though he could still face indictment; that hope lives), no revelations of Putinist treason forcing the Trumps into a Middle Eastern exile, no Aaron Sorkin-scripted denunciation driving him, in shame, from the public square.Nor will there be a dramatic repudiation of the Trumpist style. If DeSantis defeats Trump, it will be as an imitator of his pugilism and populism, as a politician who promises to fight Trump’s battles with more effectiveness and guile.Nor, finally, will there be any accountability for Trump’s soft enablers within the Republican Party. There was a certain political accountability when the “Stop the Steal” devotees lost so many winnable elections last month. But the men and women who held their noses and went along with Trump at every stage except the very worst will continue to lead the Republican Party if he fades away; there will be no Liz Cheney presidential campaign to deliver them all a coup de grâce.These realities are already yielding some righteous anger, a spirit evident in the headline of a recent essay by Bill Lueders at The Bulwark: “You’re Only Leaving Trump Now?” Never forget, Lueders urges, that if Republicans abandon Trump it won’t be because of his long list of offenses against decency and constitutional government; it will be only because, at last, they’re sure he cannot win.As an original Never Trumper, I don’t begrudge anyone this reaction. If Trump fades, it will be a victory for places like The Bulwark, but people naturally want something more than a quiet, limited victory after a long existential-seeming campaign. They want vindication. They want to feel as if everyone finally agrees: Never again.But an unsatisfying absence of repudiation or vindication is a normal feature of democratic life. The act of winning an election creates an alchemy of loyalty — vox populi, vox Dei — that in most circumstances only losing can de-catalyze. The time it takes for parties to repudiate their most dismaying leaders can extend for decades or centuries (as in the case of the Democratic Party’s slow divorce from Andrew Jackson). And voters don’t usually impose permanent penalties on parties, preferring to take each election as it comes.The Democratic Party’s Southern wing was a literal party of insurrection in the 1860s and the Northern wing was tainted by the attachment, but they simply reunited as a normal opposition party after the Civil War. The next Republican president elected after Richard Nixon’s resignation, Ronald Reagan, paid no price for having been one of Nixon’s stalwart defenders throughout most of the Watergate affair. The public voted in droves against the perceived dangerous radicalism of Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, then turned around and voted for the parties that nominated them a few years later.Or, to pick an international example, in the brief window when Russia was a semi-functional democracy, its leading opposition party was, of course, the successor to the Communist Party, whose dictatorial rule had recently been overthrown.In current politics, it isn’t just anti-Trumpers who find themselves frustrated by voters’ refusal to look backward. Consider the hope among conservatives that Democratic overreach on Covid restrictions, especially school closures, would play a decisive role in the 2022 elections. It did play a crucial role in the 2021 elections, when those policies were still in place or up for debate. But once they were lifted, the public largely moved on, leaving conservative activists depressed because there was no lasting punishment.This desire for vindication is completely understandable. How else can you ensure that serious mistakes won’t be repeated, or that an awful demagogue won’t just slip into sheep’s clothing and return?The answer, however (and this is tough medicine), is that the way to avert that kind of repetition is to make certain you have a strategy for winning the next election, and the ones after that — on the public’s terms rather than your own.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

  • in

    The Ideal of Democracy in a Jewish State Is in Jeopardy

    Israeli elections can be dramatic, and its five elections within four years have been full of political surprises and firsts, including the first time an independent Israeli Arab party joined a governing coalition. This series of new governments and the sometimes tumultuous process of forming them are part of Israel’s proud tradition as a boisterous and pluralistic democracy.Yet the far-right government that will soon take power, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, marks a qualitative and alarming break with all the other governments in Israel’s 75-year history. While Mr. Netanyahu clearly has the support of the Israeli electorate, his coalition’s victory was narrow and cannot be seen as a broad mandate to make concessions to ultrareligious and ultranationalist parties that are putting the ideal of a democratic Jewish state in jeopardy.This board has been a strong supporter of Israel and a two-state solution for many years, and we remain committed to that support. Antisemitism is on the rise around the globe, and at least some of the criticism of Israel is the result of such hatred.Mr. Netanyahu’s government, however, is a significant threat to the future of Israel — its direction, its security and even the idea of a Jewish homeland. For one, the government’s posture could make it militarily and politically impossible for a two-state solution to ever emerge. Rather than accept this outcome, the Biden administration should do everything it can to express its support for a society governed by equal rights and the rule of law in Israel, as it does in countries all over the world. That would be an act of friendship, consistent with the deep bond between the two nations.Mr. Netanyahu’s comeback as prime minister, a year and a half after he was ousted from office, can’t be divorced from the corruption allegations that have followed him. He is now doing everything he can to stay in power, by catering to the demands of the most extreme elements of Israeli politics. The new cabinet he is forming includes radical far-right parties that have called for, among other things, expanding and legalizing settlements in a way that would effectively render a Palestinian state in the West Bank impossible; changing the status quo on the Temple Mount, an action that risks provoking a new round of Arab-Israeli violence; and undermining the authority of the Israeli Supreme Court, thus freeing the Knesset, the Israeli legislature, to do whatever it wants, with little judicial restraint.Ministers in the new government are set to include figures such as Itamar Ben-Gvir, who was convicted in Israel in 2007 for incitement to racism and supporting a Jewish terrorist organization. He will probably be minister of national security. Bezalel Smotrich, who has long supported outright annexation of the West Bank, is expected to be named the next finance minister, with additional authority over the administration of the West Bank. For the deputy in the prime minister’s office in charge of Jewish identity, Mr. Netanyahu is expected to name Avi Maoz, who once described himself as a “proud homophobe.”These moves are troubling, and America’s leaders should say so. The Biden administration’s main response so far has been a cautious speech by Secretary of State Antony Blinken to the liberal advocacy group J Street on Dec. 4, in which he declared that the United States would deal with Israeli policies, not individuals. The new government has yet to be formed, so it is not surprising that the State Department does not yet have a well-defined position, but the administration has already discussed, according to a report in Axios, how to manage its meetings with the most extreme members of the new cabinet and which core interests to focus on.This approach understates the potential consequences of the shift in Israeli politics that this government represents. The cabinet about to take charge is not simply another iteration of the unstable, shifting alliances that followed the past four inconclusive elections. Those coalitions, like many before them, often included fringe religious or nationalist parties, but they were usually kept in check by more moderate political parties or even by Mr. Netanyahu over the 15 years he served as prime minister.All that is now threatened. Right-wing parties have an absolute majority in the Knesset, and Mr. Netanyahu, hoping that the new government will save him from prosecution and potential prison time, is in their power. Among the targets of the new leaders is the Israeli Supreme Court, which, in the absence of a national constitution, has served to weigh government actions against international law and the Israeli state’s own traditions and values. The nationalists would diminish this authority by voting to give themselves the power to override Supreme Court decisions. Not incidentally, they have also proposed eliminating the law under which Mr. Netanyahu faces a possible prison term.As Thomas L. Friedman, a Times columnist who has closely followed Israeli affairs for four decades, wrote shortly after the election results were known, “We are truly entering a dark tunnel.” While Mr. Netanyahu in the past used the “energy of this illiberal Israeli constituency to win office,” Mr. Friedman wrote, until now, he had never given them this kind of ministerial authority over critical defense and economic portfolios.This is not simply a disappointing turn in an old ally. The relationship between Israel and the United States has long been one that transcends traditional definitions of a military alliance or of diplomatic friendship. A body of deeply shared values has forged powerful and complex bonds. A commitment to Israel, both in its security and in its treatment by the world, has been an unquestioned principle of American foreign and domestic policy for decades, even when Mr. Netanyahu openly defied Barack Obama or embraced Donald Trump. As Mr. Blinken said in his speech, the United States will hold Israel “to the mutual standards we have established in our relationship over the past seven decades.”Israel has been moving steadily rightward in recent years. That is, in part, due to genuine concerns about crime and security, especially after violence between Israeli Arabs and Jews last year. Many Israelis also express fear that the peace process has failed because of a lack of interest in peace among Palestinian leaders, a fear heightened by Hamas control in Gaza since 2007 and a sense that Mahmoud Abbas’s grip on the Palestinian Authority is coming to an end without a clear succession plan.Demographic change in Israel has also shifted the country’s politics. Religious families in Israel tend to have large families and to vote with the right. A recent analysis by the Israel Democracy Institute found that about 60 percent of Jewish Israelis identify as right wing today; among people ages 18 to 24, the number rises to 70 percent. In the Nov. 1 election, the old Labor Party, once the liberal face of Israel’s founders, won only four seats, and the left-wing Meretz won none.Moderating forces in Israeli politics and civil society are already planning energetic resistance to legislation that would curtail the powers of the Israeli Supreme Court or the rights of the Arab minority or the L.G.B.T.Q. community. They deserve support from the American public and from the Biden administration.Whatever the contours of the new Israeli government, the United States will continue to be engaged with it on many issues of shared concern. Negotiations on a new nuclear deal with Iran are all but dead, a situation that poses a threat to security across the region. The Abraham Accords, while not a substitute for peace with the Palestinians, normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations. That is welcome progress, and the United States could play an important role in helping to expand them to include other countries, such as Saudi Arabia.While Palestinian-Israeli negotiations have long been moribund, the principle of someday achieving two states remains the bedrock of American and Israeli cooperation. Hopes for a Palestinian state have dimmed under the combined pressure of Israeli resistance and Palestinian corruption, ineptitude and internal divisions. Anything that undermines Israel’s democratic ideals — whether outright annexation of Jewish settlements or legalization of illegal settlements and outposts — would undermine the possibility of a two-state solution.America’s support for Israel reflects our two countries’ respect for democratic ideals. President Biden and Mr. Netanyahu should do everything they can to reaffirm that commitment.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

  • in

    John Fetterman’s TikTok Whisperer

    Newt Gingrich was not happy. It was the night of Dec. 6, minutes before the U.S. Senate race in Georgia was called for Raphael Warnock, and over on the Fox News show “Hannity,” the finger-pointing for Herschel Walker’s imminent loss had begun. One major culprit: TikTok.TikTok? The Chinese-owned social media platform, which hadn’t even existed at the beginning of Donald J. Trump’s presidency, should be banned “for national security reasons,” Mr. Gingrich said. “But as long as it’s legal,” he continued, “we have to learn to compete in a place like that, because that’s where Generation Z gets such a high percent of their information.” “We have to learn how to be competitive within it,” he added.That is one — and likely the only — point on which Mr. Gingrich and Annie Wu Henry would agree. At 26, Ms. Henry — or @Annie_Wu_22, as she’s known on Twitter, Instagram and TikTok — had been a relatively low-level staffer since July on Senator-elect John Fetterman’s campaign against Dr. Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate race, when she took over Mr. Fetterman’s TikTok account. “John already had this amazing comms team working for him, and he himself had been a Twitter guy for years,” Ms. Henry, said on a video call from her apartment in the Fishtown neighborhood of Philadelphia. She was wearing sweats and a hoodie (“very on-brand today,” she said with laugh). “But we were able to move his voice and his message to other platforms,” she said.And those other platforms were even “more important than it might have been normally,” Ms. Henry said, because Mr. Fetterman couldn’t be out on the trail after his stroke in May.Ms. Henry quickly became, according to Mr. Fetterman’s director of communications, Joe Calvello, their “TikTok Queen.” The account accrued more than 240,000 followers in three months, with three million likes and tens of millions of views. Ms. Henry’s was able to make the fun serious, and the serious fun; and her motto — in life and on TikTok — is “embrace the cringe.” That is, let the world see you as your messy, authentic self. ‘Trust Young People’Of course you need to have a candidate who’s willing to let you do this. “John isn’t an Instagram dude” — polished, carefully curated — “and it also wouldn’t be him to put him on TikTok dancing around,” she said. “But if we can use a kind of a weird, quirky sound and edit our messages to be a little, well, not messy, but not superrefined, it aligns with who he is, who this campaign is.” Some of her hits: the video of Dr. Oz boasting about growing up “south of Philadelphia” followed by a map showing that on the other side of the water is … New Jersey, overlaid with Smash Mouth’s “All Star” (“Somebody once told me the world is going to roll me/I ain’t the sharpest tool in the shed”). Another one of her more cutting examples: a trippy TikTok duet of the heavy metal puppets in Psychostick’s “Numbers (I Can Only Count to Four)” with Dr. Oz being unable to count the number of houses he owns.After Mr. Fetterman’s stroke in May, communicating using social media was even “more important than it might have been normally,” Ms. Henry said.Michelle Gustafson for The New York TimesWhile she did not create Mr. Fetterman’s response to Dr. Oz’s infamous crudités video, in which he complains about the price of “crudités” and conflates the Philly grocery stores Wegmans and Redner’s, she did have a eureka fund-raising moment. For any donation above $5, donors would receive a sticker that read: “Wegners: Let Them Eat Crudité.” Very quickly, the money rolled in.“Annie is like this generational force,” said a young political operative known as Memes. He runs a Twitter account called @OrganizerMemes, an aggregator for clever political images and texts, which also serves as a place where harried young staffers can vent without being outed to their bosses. (Memes is 25, works in politics and would like to keep his job, hence the anonymity.) He considers Ms. Henry a close friend, though they just met non-virtually for the first time in Georgia, when Ms. Henry made a last-minute decision to fly to Georgia and help get out the Asian vote for Senator Warnock during the runoff. “Young people are often not trusted on campaigns to do stuff,” Memes said. “Annie is what happens when you trust young people to do what they’re good at.” Political tchotchkes and pop culture references fill Ms. Henry’s apartment in Philadelphia. Taylor Swift merch is mixed in with signed copies of books by Jimmy Carter and Gloria Steinem.Michelle Gustafson for The New York Times‘She Will Get What She Wants’Ms. Henry grew up in a rural, deeply conservative town in York County, Pa., the only child of Tom and Beth Henry, both special education teachers. She was adopted in China at 13 months. When her exhausted and thrilled parents were handed their new daughter, Mr. Henry said, the nurse told them, “This one is very proud, she will get what she wants in life.” From a very early age, her parents said, injustice would make her head explode. Her liberal but devoutly Methodist parents despaired when they could not get their daughter to go to church with them once she learned what gay marriage was, and that their church wouldn’t allow it. “I think because she was adopted in China and we had very few other ethnic races in our town, she might have felt like an underdog herself,” her father said. “Sometimes she was picked on. But when she saw someone else being picked on, she was furious.” She got her first smartphone in high school and was tweeting about the 2012 election before she could vote. Four years ago, she led the Black Lives Matter protests in her mostly white hometown.And it was her father who first told her about Mr. Fetterman. “When he was mayor of Braddock, I admired him for really helping people who were down and out, for standing up for the common person,” Mr. Henry said. “When he announced he was thinking about running for Senate, I told Annie, ‘This is a man you need to think about. This is someone you can support.’”She graduated from Lehigh University in 2018 — her honors thesis was about the intersection of identity and social media — and then worked a series of jobs: organizing for a couple of local Philadelphia politicians and doing social media for a bridal company to pay the bills. At the beginning of the pandemic, she wrote an essay that got attention about dealing with her ethnicity for the first time and feeling truly afraid as an Asian American in a country where the president was calling Covid-19 “the China Flu.” Wearing a mask in public, she would remind herself to “look friendly” and not sneeze or cough. Last year, she made her first viral tweet with a friend: a Stop Asian Hate meme that got millions of views, helped along by reposts from celebrities including Chrissy Teigen and Ellen Pompeo. Sophie Ota, Mr. Fetterman’s digital director, hired her at the end of July. The next few months, Ms. Henry said, were a blur. There were no days off. There was no time to check out what pundits were saying about the predicted “red wave,” and Ms. Henry and other staff members assiduously tuned out the news.Ms. Henry was also one of the only people on the campaign who had a car, which meant she was driving co-workers from one part of the state to the other, logging about 1,000 miles a week; the joke was that she had memorized the Pennsylvania turnpike, and knew all the best rest stops and coffee joints. (At one point the compliance officer, who checks on staffers’ expenses, looked at how many lattes she was buying and wanted to know who she was buying coffee for every day. They were just for her.)While she and Mr. Fetterman were often in different places, she would turn up at events early so she could shoot and post photos of the crowds, the lines, the people. At most events there was a tracker: a guy from the Oz team who monitored the goings-on. “That’s really common,” Ms. Henry said, “but this guy was there mostly to see if he could record John messing up words so they could make fun of John’s health. He recorded John’s kids too. There are ways to do this where you’re not rude and disrespectful.” Ms. Henry had a final word of contempt: “And he was using a camcorder.”Ms Henry has a fairly high online profile apart from her Fetterman connection. Her personal Instagram account (which has more than 80,000 followers) alternates information on how to get involved fighting racism and protecting abortion rights with selfies with rally pals like Senators Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker or the actress Kerry Washington. And Ms. Henry is not shy about supporting low-paying political work with a side hustle or two. She has teamed up not only with nonprofits that promote reproductive rights or protect democracy, but also with the occasional skin cream or vibrator manufacturer.Political tchotchkes and pop culture references — “just little references to people I look up to — fill her apartment. Her doormat reads, “In this house, we understand that basic human rights are not political issues and that science is a matter of fact not opinion. Welcome.” Taylor Swift merch is scattered around, and signed copies of books by Jimmy Carter and Gloria Steinem lie on the coffee table. Next to her door is a tote bag that reads: “Friends Don’t Let Friends Miss Elections.”She is trying to catch up on her real life after the blur of the past few months — answering emails, paying a speeding ticket and, perhaps most important, snagging tickets to the upcoming Taylor Swift concert. (She and Mr. Fetterman’s wife, Giselle, have “text bonded” over Taylor Swift, she said.) She is single and jobless, but like many of her ‌peers, not panicked.“I don’t know how this is going to play out, and I don’t necessarily want to know,” she said. “I don’t think I’ll have this, like, one big dream job forever.” She said she doesn’t think she wants to work on the Hill, though a recent Instagram post features her looking very Jackie O, mysteriously visiting the White House.And she is enjoying that first taste of celebrity. She said that she had recently been walking down the street and a man rolled down his window and yelled, “Are you Annie?” “I said ‘Yes,’ but kinda surprised/confused,” she texted to me. Then he shouted, “Thanks for all you did,” and sped off. More