More stories

  • in

    Sununu on Trump: ‘He’s Not Scaring Anyone Out of the Race’

    In a wide-ranging interview, Chris Sununu, the New Hampshire governor, called the Republican presidential primary a tossup. As for Trump? “He’s not clearing the field.”Confident and even brash, Chris Sununu is one of the most popular governors in America. In a year when many Republicans struggled, he was re-elected in New Hampshire by more than 15 percentage points. The way to win, he says, is not “ranting and raving” about cultural topics but the old-fashioned way: listening carefully to voters and talking about solutions to their most pressing problems.Sununu thinks Republicans need to relearn the “basic tenets of politics.” He’s no fan of Donald Trump, and he thinks the former president will be eminently beatable in the Republican primary. He also says it’s “insulting” of Democrats to demand that New Hampshire give up its traditional place in the presidential calendar to suit the “personal whims” of President Biden, who he predicts will eventually be pushed aside by Democratic power brokers in Washington or bow out on his own.The New Hampshire governor, who is often discussed as a possible presidential contender in 2024, had a lot to say over the course of a 40-minute interview. Here’s a transcript of our conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity:Let’s talk about what happened in the midterm elections. A lot of people are blaming Donald Trump for choosing candidates in primaries who struggled in November. Is it that simple?No, no, no, no. Look, there’s a lot of different pieces here. It’s not just about former President Trump. It’s about the candidates themselves. They were bad candidates because they had a bad message, right? Often they made Trump a part of their message. And that just isn’t what voters wanted.A lot of candidates forgot the most basic tenets of politics: I need more votes than the other side. And it isn’t just about catering to a base or firing up your base. You need to listen to independents. You need to listen to all of the voting constituencies to see what the issues are for voters.There was also a little bit of manipulation of the primary process by Democrats. We saw it right here in New Hampshire with our U.S. Senate race. You effectively had the opposing party trying to pick your party’s candidate. Democrats were good at defining our candidates for us.Some Republicans say that candidates were too focused on hot-button cultural topics like transgender athletes competing in women’s sports, or books in school libraries. Do you agree with that critique?Yes. I agree that candidates focused on the wrong issues. I don’t mind addressing cultural issues; of course we need to. But it’s how you as a candidate stand up for it — not just ranting and raving, but hopefully inspiring folks to really believe in you as the person who can be a positive agent of change for those issues.Democrats talk about how abortion was a really powerful issue for them. You supported a 24-week ban, right?Yeah, I signed that. The Legislature put it in the budget. I’m pro-choice, but it’s a provision that I think most Americans would support. It’s very late — the third trimester.The Aftermath of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsCard 1 of 6A moment of reflection. More

  • in

    Netanyahu Cabinet Choice Has Criminal Convictions, Delaying a Government

    Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing bloc won Israel’s general election last month. But several issues, including his cabinet choices, have complicated the forming of his government.JERUSALEM — Benjamin Netanyahu, struggling for more than a month to form a coalition government, on Friday was granted another 10 days to do so. But his hopes rest on a contentious quest: shepherding in a new law that would allow convicted criminals who have suspended jail terms to serve in his cabinet.The latest development shows the precariousness of the task ahead for the former Israeli prime minister — who himself faces prosecution. The proposed new law would allow Aryeh Deri — a key Netanyahu ally recently convicted of tax fraud — to hold three ministerial positions, including the important position of interior minister. That would pave the way for Mr. Netanyahu to finally form the government.With a Sunday deadline to form a new government drawing closer, Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, agreed to Mr. Netanyahu’s request for extra time to complete his coalition negotiations.Analysts still reckon Mr. Netanyahu is almost certain to return to power: He has sealed initial agreements with most of the far-right and ultra-Orthodox Jewish parties in his bloc, edging him closer to forming the most right-wing government in Israeli history.But the standoff illustrates why Mr. Netanyahu’s critics construe his return as a threat to Israel’s rule of law. His political partners have announced plans to weaken Israel’s system of checks and balances and to derail Mr. Netanyahu’s ongoing corruption trial.Mr. Netanyahu is set to miss a deadline on Sunday to form his new government.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesMr. Netanyahu has repeatedly pledged to restrain his partners and denied any plans to disrupt his prosecution in a long-running corruption case. But the context to the extension to the negotiating period, coupled with the appointments he has already made, have exacerbated fears over his attitude to the judiciary and legal norms.The extra 10 days he has been given to complete a coalition are expected to give Mr. Netanyahu’s allies enough to time to install a new speaker of Parliament — a move that would let Mr. Netanyahu control the parliamentary process without formally leading the government.This would allow his bloc to overturn legislation that makes it difficult for Mr. Deri — whom Mr. Netanyahu has agreed to appoint concurrently to the interior and health ministries, as well as to the finance ministry in two years’ time — to enter ministerial office given his criminal record.Mr. Deri, a veteran ultra-Orthodox lawmaker who has previously served in the cabinet, was recently given a suspended prison sentence for failing to declare all his income. According to a recent interpretation of the law by Israel’s attorney general, that prevents Mr. Deri from serving as a minister without special dispensation from the elections authority. He also served nearly two years in prison in the early 2000s after being convicted on charges of taking bribes during his time as interior minister, but that no longer officially disqualifies him from office.What to Know About Israel’s Latest ElectionThe country held its fifth election in less than four years on Nov. 1.Netanyahu’s Return: Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s opposition leader, is set to return to power with a new, far-right coalition that will once again make him prime minister.The Far Right’s Rise: To win the election, Mr. Netanyahu and his far-right allies harnessed perceived threats to Israel’s Jewish identity.What’s Next for the Left?: After a near wipeout, the leaders of Israel’s left-leaning parties say they need to change — but disagree on how.Worries Among Palestinians: To some Palestinians, the rise of Israel’s far right can scarcely make things worse. But many fear a surge of violence.To exempt Mr. Deri, his party has drafted legislation to remove that restriction. On Monday, Mr. Netanyahu’s bloc is expected to install a right-wing speaker who could help smooth the legislation’s passage through Parliament — alarming Mr. Netanyahu’s critics.“The goal of this entire move is to help an elected official to escape justice,” Gilad Kariv, a center-left lawmaker from the departing governing coalition, said in Parliament this week. “The future coalition is a coalition of liars who don’t believe one another,” Mr. Kariv added.Such talk has enraged Mr. Netanyahu’s allies.Mr. Netanyahu has offered so many positions to rival party leaders that he also needs more time to find suitable roles for allies in his own party, Likud. Ronen Zvulun/Reuters“These are venomous statements,” replied Yoav Kisch, a lawmaker from Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing party, Likud. The planned legislation is not aimed at any politician in particular and is instead a fair attempt “to rectify the current reality of lack of legal clarity in the appointment of ministers,” Mr. Kisch added.Before a government can be formed, the new speaker will also need to facilitate a parliamentary vote that would give another ministerial nominee greater control over Israel’s security apparatus.Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right extremist convicted of support for a terrorist group and incitement to racism, has agreed to join Mr. Netanyahu’s government on condition of being made minister for national security — a new role created specifically for Mr. Ben-Gvir that would give him expanded oversight over the police.Though Mr. Ben-Gvir also has a history of criminal convictions, his appointment does not require any change to the legislation that governs ministerial appointments because, unlike Mr. Deri, his convictions occurred more than seven years ago. Instead, the powers he seeks over the police force are so wide-ranging that his role must be ratified by Parliament before Mr. Netanyahu can complete his coalition.The far-right lawmaker Itamar Ben-Gvir after elections in November.Oren Ziv/Associated PressMr. Netanyahu has offered so many positions to rival party leaders that he also needs more time to find suitable roles for allies in his own party, Likud. Analysts say that much of the next 10 days will also be spent scrambling to stem internal dissent among senior Likud figures, some of whom are set to miss out on appointments to the remaining cabinet posts.Mr. Netanyahu’s negotiations have also been slowed by a dispute with another far-right leader, Bezalel Smotrich.A pro-settlement leader who seeks to annex the West Bank to Israel, Mr. Smotrich initially sought to head the defense ministry, a powerful role that would have given him control of the West Bank occupation. After veiled discomfort was voiced by U.S. officials, who feared such an appointment would mark a final death knell for the concept of a Palestinian state, Mr. Netanyahu declined Mr. Smotrich’s request.But following days of negotiations, Mr. Netanyahu did give Mr. Smotrich’s party control over a defense ministry department that oversees aspects of the occupation, like the process by which Israel issues work permits to Palestinians, and created a job-share mechanism in the interior and finance ministries to allow Mr. Smotrich to take on both roles in tandem with Mr. Deri.The far-right lawmaker Bezalel Smotrich during a rally with supporters in the southern Israeli city of Sderot.Gil Cohen-Magen/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Netanyahu’s willingness to slice up ministries in this way, either by creating job-shares or moving departments from one ministry to another, has prompted concerns that his government, though more ideologically homogeneous than most Israeli governments, will struggle to function coherently.“The education ministry, which is far more important than the foreign ministry, was broken down into four or five different components,” Ben Caspit, a prominent columnist, wrote in Ma’ariv, an Israeli broadsheet, on Friday.“The health ministry was given to Aryeh Deri as a side job,” Mr. Caspit said. “Several powers and sensitive positions have been wrested from the defense ministry for the first time in history. Two ministers who are diametrically opposed to one another will alternate as finance minister.”“Good luck to all of us,” Mr. Caspit added.The departing prime minister, Yair Lapid, wrote in a Facebook post on Friday that Mr. Netanyahu’s recent decisions had left him “weak, squeezed by younger and more determined partners.”Yair Lapid, the departing prime minister, said that Mr. Netanyahu’s far-right bloc is creating a “structure that will be impossible to govern.”Pool photo by Menahem KahanaMr. Lapid added: “They are creating an administrative structure that will be impossible to govern. Likud has become a junior partner in its own government, Netanyahu is at the peak of his weakness, and the extremists are pushing the system into delusional places.”Mr. Netanyahu has repeatedly batted away similar criticism in recent weeks, promising that he will personally act as a moderating force on any extreme elements in his coalition.“The main policy or the overriding policy of the government is determined by the Likud and frankly, by me,” Mr. Netanyahu said in an interview last month with Bari Weiss, an American podcaster and commentator.During his previous spells in power, critics often made “these doom projections, but none of them materialized,” he added.“I maintained Israel’s democratic nature,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “I maintained Israel’s traditions.”Jonathan Rosen and Hiba Yazbek contributed reporting. More

  • in

    After Brazil’s Shocking Defeat, Take a Close Look at What the Team Has Become

    By No IdeasSÃO PAULO, Brazil — When the moment came, Neymar was nowhere to be seen. With Brazil needing to score a penalty on Friday to stay in the World Cup, he was stood on the halfway line, eyes shut. When his teammate missed, sending Brazil out of the tournament at the quarterfinal stage, he sank to the ground in despair. The team’s talisman, the undisputed star of Brazilian football, had succumbed to defeat. News of the failure was already flashing around the globe.At least Neymar is used to making headlines. A boy wonder who became the most expensive player in the world, he had been elevated to the status of footballing icon by his louche style, dazzling skills and striking appearance. But lately, he’s become noted for something else — as an avatar of the union between the national side and the far-right politics of Jair Bolsonaro, the departing Brazilian president.Neymar hasn’t been shy about his stance. For the presidential election in October, he posted a video expressing his support for Mr. Bolsonaro and underlined it later, saying, “The values that the president carries are very similar to me.” For all his maverick energy, Neymar is very much following a trend. In 2018, several top names in Brazilian football, the legends Ronaldinho and Rivaldo among them, announced their endorsement of Mr. Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro supporters, for their part, have taken to wearing the national team’s bright yellow jersey at demonstrations, laying claim to one of the nation’s most significant symbols.Progressives have sought to rescue the shirt from Bolsonarist appropriation, wearing it at their own rallies. But the damage has been done: One in five Brazilians, according to a recent study, would not wear the shirt today for political reasons. Once the pride of the nation, the football team has become an emblem of polarization. After the side’s surprise exit in the quarterfinals, at the hands of Croatia, the chance for the country to come together as it has done before — in joy over a championship — has been missed.It’s not the first time the football team has been taken up by politics, particularly of the right. In the 1930s, for example, the dictator Getúlio Vargas built monumental stadiums to house both soccer matches and mass rallies. The two were seen as two sides of the same coin, means to draw the masses into supporting the regime.Decades later, the military dictatorship that ruled from 1964 to 1985 tried to do something similar. When the military launched its coup, Brazil’s team was one of the world’s best. Led by stars such as Pelé and Garrincha, it had won the last two World Cups, playing scintillating, dynamic football. The military spared no effort in linking itself with the squad — opening new stadiums with players and military authorities side by side, for example — in the hope that the widespread reverence in which the team was held would rub off on the regime.It meddled, too. In the run-up to the 1970 World Cup, the president reportedly secured the ouster of the coach, a leftist who had spoken openly about the political imprisonments, torture and killings carried out by the regime. That didn’t stop the side from winning the competition in Mexico that year. The triumph was a major public relations victory for the government: Pictures of the president celebrating with the players flooded the country, as did sympathetic statements from the jubilant team. The side’s success was presented as evidence that the path taken by the regime was the right one. In this atmosphere of euphoria, even left-wing militants rooted for the side.That was the high-water mark of the dictatorship’s use of the national team. In the ’80s, the country’s gradual democratization was accompanied by a transformation of the profile of the team, which included a left-leaning players such as Sócrates and Zico. With the end of the dictatorship in 1985 — followed by a new Constitution in 1988 and general elections the year after — the team was no longer reflective of the military regime, or of the political right more generally. The 1994 and 2002 World Cup victories were widely celebrated by the population. Football belonged to everyone.In 2013, though, that started to change. As popular uprisings erupted, right-wing groups sought to differentiate themselves from leftist demonstrators by draping themselves in the Brazilian flag and wearing the national team’s jersey. The “green and yellows,” as they became known, mostly protested corruption and targeted the center-left Workers Party, to which the president, Dilma Rousseff, belonged. At the Confederations Cup that year, hosted by Brazil, thousands of fans booed Ms. Rousseff.That was a sign of things to come. In the demonstrations that led to Ms. Rousseff’s impeachment and removal from office in 2016, protesters clad in the yellow jersey called for military intervention and took selfies with military police officers. By the time Mr. Bolsonaro began his campaign for president in 2018, the football team was firmly associated with a right-wing agenda.During his tenure, the two became inseparable as supporters took to the streets to demand the closure of the Supreme Court, the lifting of pandemic restrictions and the end of electronic voting. In these gatherings, the national jersey shared space with symbols of the extreme right such as neo-Nazi flags, banners bearing antidemocratic slogans and even tiki torches.What about the side itself? While a number of players actively welcomed Mr. Bolsonaro to the presidency, it wasn’t clear where the team stood politically. The Copa América in 2021 — controversially hosted by Brazil after Colombia and Argentina had refused, citing concerns about the pandemic — appeared to set things straight. After a meeting, the team decided to go ahead with the competition, stressing that it was not a “political” decision. For many, this acquiescence seemed to prove that the national team had largely fallen under Mr. Bolsonaro’s sway.That’s not entirely fair. Throughout the four years of Mr. Bolsonaro’s government, explicit support for the president from within the squad was rare. A few players, such as the Tottenham striker Richarlison, spoke out against the politicization of the team. Paulinho, a promising young forward, even declared his support for Mr. Bolsonaro’s election rival, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The majority of the players, of course, prefer to keep their heads down.But a national team, as everyone knows, is much more than the sum of the individual players involved — it is a symbol. In Brazil, the entanglement of sport and politics has produced something strange: a national side almost entirely associated with a divisive political project and now, after Mr. Lula’s narrow victory in October, a defeated politician.Things might not stay that way. In Qatar, it was Richarlison who provided the most memorable moment, with his astounding goal against Serbia; Neymar, after missing two games through injury, was unable to lift the side to triumph. At home, feelings are mixed. The team’s performance, oscillating between sublime and stodgy, flattered to deceive.In the aftermath of stinging defeat, the question of what Brazil’s team is — and who it is for — remains vexingly open.Micael Zaramella is a historian of Brazilian football and the author of a book on Palmeiras, a club in São Paulo.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

    Bangladesh Arrests Opposition Leaders as Crackdown Intensifies

    Tensions boiled over this week as opposition supporters descended on the capital ahead of a major demonstration against the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.DHAKA, Bangladesh — The authorities in Bangladesh arrested two senior opposition leaders early on Friday, capping off a week of political tensions, including a major clash between the police and opposition supporters that left at least one demonstrator dead, dozens wounded and hundreds arrested.Human rights groups say Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has intensified a crackdown against her opponents as the South Asian nation with a population of 165 million prepares for general elections next year. She has been in power for more than a decade, a tenure marked by authoritarian control and impressive economic growth that appears to be waning in the wake of the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir and Mirza Abbas, senior members of the opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, were arrested by plainclothes security personnel in a predawn raid, the wives of both men said. With Khaleda Zia, the former prime minister and leader of the B.N.P. under house arrest and barred from politics, Mr. Alamgir, the general secretary, has been the de facto leader of the opposition since Ms. Zia’s arrest in 2018.“Four men came to the apartment we live in and said they are taking him with them,” said Rahat Ara Begum, Mr. Alamgir’s wife. “When they were asked why they were doing it, they said they were ordered to detain him by the higher authority. But they did not say who the higher authority was.”The police in Dhaka, the capital, said they had taken both leaders in for questioning regarding clashes earlier in the week outside the B.N.P.’s main headquarters. Faruk Hossain, the deputy commissioner of Dhaka Metropolitan Police, said 47 police officers were wounded in those clashes when they tried to disperse a large crowd of supporters gathered outside the headquarters ahead of a rally planned by the party for Saturday.“They led their supporters, instigated them to fight against the police,” Mr. Hossain said of the arrests.The B.N.P., in return, has accused the police of “organized violence” to sabotage their rally, which they say will be a culmination of several large rallies they have held in recent weeks and is expected to draw hundreds of thousands of supporters.Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina speaking at the United Nations Headquarters in New York in September. Ms. Hasina’s government has taken a hard line against critics, arresting journalists, activists and opposition leaders.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesMs. Hasina, the daughter of Bangladesh’s founding leader after the country split from Pakistan in the 1970s, has continued Bangladesh’s long history of often brutal winner-takes-all politics, deploying the laws and law-enforcement against opponents and activists. Under her rule, Bangladesh’s special forces, the Rapid Action Battalion, have been accused of turning into a death squad. While the force’s reputation for brutality precedes Ms. Hasina taking office in 2009, it was sanctioned by the United States government during her watch, with some of its current and former leaders being accused of hundreds of extrajudicial killings.In recent years, Ms. Hasina’s government has employed a digital security law to arrest journalists, activists and opposition members, some for minor offenses such as making critical comments about her handling of Covid on Facebook. In the past two years, more than 2,000 people have been detained under the law, which the United Nations says “imposes draconian punishments for a wide range of vaguely defined acts.”As she targeted her critics, Ms. Hasina tried to emphasize her country’s economic success, with Bangladesh touted by the World Bank as an “inspiring story of growth” for managing to slash poverty and grow its G.D.P. per capita larger than neighboring India’s.But just as the economy was beginning to emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, the blowback of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine kicked in. Rising prices around the world have reduced the demand for exports, while the increase in food and oil prices have hurt citizens at home. The reduction in exports has resulted in a fall in foreign reserves, forcing Bangladesh to reach out to the International Monetary Fund for $4.5 billion in assistance.Since July, the opposition has tried to mobilize around the economic stress, organizing nearly a dozen large rallies in different parts of the country. Maruf Mallick, a lecturer and analyst of Bangladesh politics based in Germany, said the economic stress and the fact that the opposition has been able to rally large numbers of people despite government resistance has Ms. Hasina and her officials worried.“The government feels that if this situation continues, they may be in danger,” Mr. Mallick said. “And to cover this weak situation they are trying to attack political opponents.”As clashes intensify, human rights groups say Ms. Hasina’s government has responded in a one-sided manner, protecting her supporters while implicating the opposition in myriad cases where the police lists hundreds of “unidentified” people as suspects — a tactic that, rights activists say, is then used as a free hand in targeting political opponents.“Law enforcement officers have used these open cases as warrants to raid the homes of political opposition members in what appears to be overt political harassment and intimidation,” Human Rights Watch said.A street food vendor in Dhaka, Bangladesh’s capital. Rising food prices have taken a heavy toll on citizens of the South Asian country after the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.Monirul Alam/EPA, via ShutterstockThe recent tensions came to a boil on Wednesday, when thousands of B.N.P. supporters gathered outside the party’s main office in Dhaka as the government and the party remained locked in disagreement over the venue for Saturday’s rally. In the afternoon, heavily armed police officers raided the area, saying B.N.P. supporters were causing public disruption and hindering traffic.The police accused the supporters of “vandalism and obstruction of police work” and carrying Molotov cocktails, rounding up about 300 of them and calling them “terrorists.”“We gathered there like we generally do. The police suddenly came and started to beat our supporters. They exploded sound grenades, they used guns. They barred me from entering the party office and arrested our people,” Mr. Alamgir, the B.N.P.’s de facto leader told local news media before his arrest. “No doubt they are plotting something against us. I don’t know what they are doing inside our office.”Over the past week, 15 foreign embassies in Dhaka put out a joint statement emphasizing the right to peaceful protest.“As Bangladesh is coming closer to its national election next year, we remind Bangladesh of its commitments, as a U.N. member state, to free expression, media freedom, and peaceful assembly among others written in the Declaration,” said Gwyn Lewis, the U.N. resident coordinator in Bangladesh.After the U.S. ambassador to Bangladesch, Peter D. Haas, urged an investigation into the political violence this week and called for the protection of “the fundamental freedoms of expression, association, and peaceful assembly,” a senior aide to Ms. Hasnia fired back, pointing at election disputes and gun violence in the United States.“Sheikh Hasina will not bow down to anyone’s order or interference,” Obaidul Quader, a cabinet minister and the ruling party’s general secretary, told a meeting of party leaders. “She does not fear anyone except Allah.”Saif Hasnat More

  • in

    Donald Trump Is Weak. And Powerful. Now What?

    Everyone knows by now how many Trump candidates lost this year, especially the higher-profile, more hard-core ones who claimed the 2020 election was stolen. Kari Lake lost in Arizona. Doug Mastriano lost in Pennsylvania. Most of the notable pro-Trump secretary of state candidates lost. The Senate candidates, too. The Democrats even added on in Georgia on Tuesday, with the same, central animating force behind each development: that Donald Trump forced his party to run a candidate, Herschel Walker, who lost, weakening Mr. Trump and the party — a mutual descent.What everyone does not know by now is what to do with Mr. Trump’s third candidacy for president. What is this campaign? He’s a candidate without opponents, who has made less frequent public appearances since his announcement than he did before, whose party’s other notable members seem to want to move on but often still don’t really say so publicly. The 2022 incarnation of Mr. Trump is like some kind of trap: He keeps losing and forcing others to go with him, in part because of his and their nature and in part because without him, Republicans might not quite be able to win, either.Looming over every aspect of Mr. Trump’s current campaign is the simple question: Will this be like before? That has a technical, outcome-driven dimension (will he win and become president?) and a more cultural, psychological one (will he dominate American life, and will each day’s news turn on the actions and emotions of one person cascading through society?). Politics is about a lot more than just the outcomes of elections; a long time separates us from the 2024 election, and each day has the potential to influence the ones after. Something can be weak and a considerable force in politics or culture at the same time; someone can be losing and influential at the same time. These things are compatible.The country spent nearly two years hearing about voting machine conspiracies and the possibility of subversion in future elections. Voters rejected all that in many cases. What did the last two years mean for Mr. Trump and these candidates? For all of us? Nobody got anything of real value out of conspiracy theories and Trump recriminations. Not the Republicans, certainly, and that’s been the tenor of much post-election coverage and conversation — the way Mr. Trump’s choices produced certain outcomes that hurt the Republican Party.“The people that were on the crazy side, they’ve kind of been sent off to the frontier,” Tony Evers, Wisconsin’s Democratic governor, told Semafor this week. “If you’re denying the last election or any election, I think that balloon has been popped.” Even so, it’s no great gift to the country as a whole that candidates ran for two years on suspicion about normal election practices or advancing conspiracy theories, which people heard and internalized — a more intangible result with effects harder to measure.Since Mr. Trump’s announcement for president, as you have also heard by now, he’s repeatedly demanded that the 2020 election be redone, even straight up saying that there could be a “termination” of the Constitution. Two nights before Thanksgiving, he ate dinner with a white supremacist and Kanye West, who can’t stop saying antisemitic things. These events can also be viewed through this dual dynamic of weakness and influence. In the most basic horse race political sense, Mr. Trump’s actions almost certainly hurt him; more Republicans have criticized him, and we have multiple election cycles of results suggesting that people reject his choices. This weakens him. But he still has influence, and through this one dinner, for instance, many, many people heard about an extreme racist they probably never heard about before.In 2022, even when Mr. Trump seems to be fading politically, nobody has conclusively resolved the question of how to deal with him — when to step in and when to ignore, how to measure one action against another. The central issue flows from an understanding that most people in this country seem to share, however they feel about him: Mr. Trump will not be stopped from endlessly wanting things. And he will not confine himself to the ways in which a president or public person is supposed to behave, in pursuit of this endless array of wants and needs.Faced with this uncontrollability, people fall into complex emotional dynamics of how to react to Mr. Trump — to care or not care, how to demonstrate caring, to ignore him or this or that, to never ignore it, how far to go, when to walk away, when to stay, when someone else’s silence becomes unacceptable. How is a person supposed to be? What can a single person do? What are our duties and obligations? These questions animate centuries of literature and philosophy, but Mr. Trump’s chemical mix of emotion and power turns them into an hourly concern. He will not change; you can. This is an exhausting texture of American life in this era, even now.It’s almost hard to remember what the first campaign was like, though it, too, started with a weak hand. Mr. Trump defeated a splintered field with, initially, mere pluralities of votes. And you were constantly finding out how weak American institutions were: the thinness of political belief among Republican politicians, the inability of different institutions to do anything about Mr. Trump’s candidacy, the true incentives of cable news, how game people were to go along with, for instance, an attack on Mexicans or Gold Star parents. Practically overnight, Republican and conservative groups went from opposing Mr. Trump to caving in to the reality of his candidacy to emphatically supporting him. This general dynamic repeated again and again for years.Seven years in, one of the more disorienting aspects of the Trump era is the way there’s never any sense of resolution. The entire population hangs in a kind of eternal suspense, without past or future. Since the week of Jan. 6, 2021, without Mr. Trump’s ceaseless presence on the major social platforms, things have been somewhat different. But who knows where he goes from here? He might return to Twitter. He might really be fading. He might lose to Ron DeSantis, Florida’s governor. He might not accept a loss to anyone, at any point. He might be president again. Could we really revert to the full chaotic, exhausting, late-2010s immersion in Mr. Trump’s emotions?The need to know how it ends with Mr. Trump, what will happen next and how people respond to him, can obscure the current situation. And over the past year, it’s become clearer how power and weakness and influence can exist in one space and in one person. In this dark environment, Mr. Trump can lose an election and still change American life indefinitely.Katherine Miller is a staff writer and editor in Opinion.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

    Is the Supreme Court About to Upend American Election Laws?

    Here’s what to know about a court case that could change the way Americans vote — and who decides how they do.For months, my inbox has been bombarded by anxious Democrats and election experts wanting to talk about a once-obscure legal theory that could fundamentally alter the way Americans vote.Known as the independent state legislature doctrine, it holds, in its purest form, that state constitutions have little to no ability to constrain state legislatures. The doctrine emerged from a novel interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause, which grants states the authority to set the “time, places and manner” of federal elections.At the core of the dispute is whether the framers intended the word “legislature” in the document to be understood strictly, or whether they meant that other institutions — like state courts, governors and secretaries of state — also had important roles to play in setting and interpreting the rules around elections and voting.A fringe version of the doctrine entered the public discussion last year when it emerged that one of Donald Trump’s lawyers, John Eastman, had written a memo arguing that it even allowed state lawmakers to send their own slate of presidential electors to Washington.The Supreme Court has traditionally been gun-shy about encroaching on state courts, especially when they are interpreting their own constitutions.But a more mainstream conservative position, embraced by the Republican Party and rejected by Democrats, started gaining support on the right amid legal battles over the accommodations some states made for voters during the pandemic, like the expansion of mail voting.If adopted, the doctrine would, among other things, bar state courts from ensuring that state laws comply with a requirement, common in many state constitutions, that elections be “free and fair” — with potentially vast implications for rules on redistricting, citizen-led commissions and voting. Understand the U.S. Supreme Court’s New TermCard 1 of 6A race to the right. More

  • in

    Warnock’s Narrow Victory Over Walker in Georgia

    More from our inbox:Trump’s Very Bad DayThe Crypto IllusionEncourage BreastfeedingFood Buying That Reflects Our Values Nicole Craine for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Warnock Victory Hands Democrats 51st Seat in Senate” (front page, Dec. 7):Although I am relieved that Senator Raphael Warnock prevailed in the Georgia runoff, I am absolutely disgusted that this election was so close.We have lost our way as a country when we do not see that political leadership takes skill; knowledge of the law, the Constitution and history; the ability to negotiate and cooperate; and a worldview that is larger than your own.I would not be at all qualified to play professional football, and it was clear from the start that Herschel Walker did not have the knowledge or skill to be a U.S. senator.Dawn MenkenPortland, Ore.The writer is the author of “Facilitating a More Perfect Union: A Guide for Politicians and Leaders.”To the Editor:I have new respect for Herschel Walker: He gave a concession speech. He declared that he lost. He called on his supporters to respect their elected officials and to believe in America. He said he had no excuses for his loss because he put up a good fight. This probably reflects both who he is and his football heritage — you win but also lose games fair and square.He may have helped us back to the old pre-Trump norms. We may disagree with his views and abhor his scandals, but the most important thing is that he believes in democracy. Let’s hope Donald Trump watched that concession speech.When Mr. Walker said, “I want you to believe in America and continue to believe in the Constitution and believe in our elected officials most of all,” it could be the biggest takeaway of the election.James AdlerCambridge, Mass.To the Editor:Raphael Warnock was extremely lucky to win the Senate race in Georgia — lucky because he faced an opponent plagued by ignorance, myriad character flaws and an endorsement by Donald Trump. Almost certainly, a moderate Republican, Black or white, could have defeated Mr. Warnock, perhaps by a margin as large as the seven-plus percentage points that Brian Kemp scored over Stacey Abrams for the Georgia governorship just four weeks earlier.I am very happy about Mr. Warnock’s win, but it should not be interpreted as signaling a major shift in the political landscape of Georgia.Peter S. AllenProvidence, R.I.To the Editor:Every time the Republicans lose an election — most recently Tuesday in Georgia — the Times coverage predicts that the party will engage in “soul-searching,” suggesting that the G.O.P. has a desire to change course. Yet, again and again, the party persists in its pandering to far-right, anti-democratic forces of white nationalism and heteropatriarchy.The G.O.P. has made its soul abundantly clear. Perhaps some Republican voters have done their own soul-searching and decided to reject what their party has become.Pamela J. GriffithBrooklynTo the Editor:As a liberal Democrat I am very pleased with the results of the Georgia runoff and most of the rest of the 2022 U.S. Senate results in competitive races. How do we make sure that Donald Trump continues to influence the choice of Republican candidates for Senate in 2024?Michael G. RaitenBoynton Beach, Fla.Trump’s Very Bad Day Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Tuesday was a Trumpian negative hat trick: a defeat in the Senate runoff in Georgia, the conviction of the Trump Organization on tax fraud and other crimes, and a report of grand jury subpoenas from the special counsel to local officials in Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin.Of course the Republican Party has neglected to take any prior offramps to dump Donald Trump, most notably Jan. 6, so unfortunately the latest Trump failures will probably go by the wayside too. And the G.O.P. of yore — the party of Lincoln, T.R. and Ike — will continue to be the clown car it has become.Bill MutterperlBeverly Hills, Calif.The Crypto IllusionFederal authorities are trying to determine whether criminal charges should be filed against the founder of the crypto firm FTX, Sam Bankman-Fried, and others over the company’s collapse.Winnie Au for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “‘It Just Angers Me.’ Crypto Crisis Drains Small Investors’ Savings” (front page, Dec. 6):Is it too early, or far too late, to suggest that “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is” in relation to the FTX and BlockFi difficulties? Should this concern be extended to Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general?There was a time when people earned the coins in their wallets from the sweat on their brow rather than from a computer program most people can’t understand that creates imaginary coins to be stored in wallets that seem easy to rob or lose. It is, however, sad to read of people who have lost so much in such a short time.As a teacher, I wasn’t that well paid, and so I saved as much as I could to buy a house and set myself up for retirement by sensible, boring approaches. But the gains to be made from Bitcoin are in its questionable uses or in realizing the increase in its value before it drops. For me it seems to have no actual value or use, and I doubt that I am the only one who thinks that.It’s time for me to forget the world of imaginary computer profits and go back to a boring life on my unicorn farm.Dennis FitzgeraldMelbourne, AustraliaEncourage Breastfeeding Vanessa Leroy for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “What It Really Takes to Breastfeed a Baby” (news article, Dec. 6):As a pediatrician who spends many hours with new mothers and their babies discussing the challenges and difficulties that come with breastfeeding, I felt that this article was not as positive as it should have been. It focused on following mothers who were having a hard time keeping up their breastfeeding.These days, any literature or news related to breastfeeding should only be encouraging new mothers to breastfeed, not scaring them away from doing it and making it sound so hard while working and raising other children.In my practice, I share my own personal experiences of breastfeeding my three children, each for a year, while working in a busy pediatrics office. My stories are useful and effective in making the breastfeeding experience achievable to the new moms I meet.We need to reverse the steady decline of breastfeeding mothers in this country.Naomi JackmanPort Washington, N.Y.Food Buying That Reflects Our Values Pavel PopovTo the Editor:Re “Help Black Farmers This Holiday Season,” by Tressie McMillan Cottom (column, Nov. 30):New York State’s food procurement laws are an extension of the disenfranchisement of Black farmers. Provisions require that municipalities contract with farmers who sell their produce at the “lowest” cost. This often comes at the expense of small, hyperlocal farmers and bars them from entering negotiations for public contracts — meaning that opportunities to support historically marginalized food producers are currently limited in New York.The Good Food New York bill would democratize local food purchasing decisions by allowing municipalities to galvanize around racial equity, animal welfare, environmental sustainability, nutrition, local economies and workers’ rights — and contract with producers that uphold these values.It is more critical than ever to rectify the wrongs of this country’s past and prepare for a future where the strength of our food systems and supply chains will be tested by the consequences of climate change. New York State legislators, we are counting on you to make the right decision for our food futures.Ribka GetachewTaylor PateNew YorkThe writers are, respectively, director and campaign manager of the NY Good Food Purchasing Program Campaign for Community Food Advocates. More

  • in

    Walker vs. Warnock: Georgia Runoff Election Results

    Source: Election results are from The Associated Press. The Times estimates the number of remaining votes based on historic turnout data and reporting from The Associated Press. These are only estimates and they may not be informed by reports from election officials.The Times’s election results pages are produced by Michael Andre, Aliza Aufrichtig, Neil Berg, Matthew Bloch, Véronique Brossier, Irineo Cabreros, Sean Catangui, Andrew Chavez, Nate Cohn, Lindsey Rogers Cook, Alastair Coote, Annie Daniel, Saurabh Datar, Asmaa Elkeurti, Tiffany Fehr, Andrew Fischer, Martín González Gómez, Will Houp, Jon Huang, Jason Kao, Josh Katz, Aaron Krolik, Jasmine C. Lee, Vivian Li, Rebecca Lieberman, Ilana Marcus, Alicia Parlapiano, Jaymin Patel, Marcus Payadue, Rachel Shorey, Charlie Smart, Umi Syam, Jaime Tanner, James Thomas, Urvashi Uberoy, Ege Uz, Isaac White and Christine Zhang. Editing by Wilson Andrews, Kenan Davis, William P. Davis, Amy Hughes, Ben Koski and Allison McCartney. More