Elections
Subterms
More stories
- in Elections
Biden and Netanyahu Gear Up for a Complicated New Era
The two leaders have forged a relationship over four decades that vacillates between warmth and combat.When President Biden took office last year, he held the advantage in a tumultuous, four-decade relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu, the longtime Israeli prime minister.Mr. Biden had vanquished former President Donald J. Trump, who was a close ally of Mr. Netanyahu, and the new American president made clear that one of his first foreign policy initiatives would be to restart the Iran nuclear deal that the Israeli prime minister hated, and consistently sought to undermine.Meanwhile, in Israel, Mr. Netanyahu faced charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust. Within months, he would be ousted from office after more than a dozen years as the leader of the Jewish state.Now, the tables have turned.Mr. Biden’s hopes for a nuclear deal with Iran have all but collapsed, and Iran has begun supplying missiles and drones to Russia for use in Ukraine. Polls suggest the president faces a stinging rebuke in midterm elections next week that may end his domestic legislative agenda. Mr. Trump remains a potent force in American politics, likely to run again in 2024.And on Thursday, Mr. Netanyahu secured his own return to power with a new, far-right coalition that will once again make him prime minister — an endorsement of the aggressive, in-your-face style that has been at the heart of his clashes with Mr. Biden and other American presidents over the years.The two leaders will find themselves in the position of sparring anew over issues that have long strained their relationship.It is the most complicated of relationships, vacillating between warmth and combat, sometimes on the same day. But Dennis Ross, the former Mideast negotiator who used to accompany Mr. Biden, when he was vice president, on trips to see Mr. Netanyahu, noted in an interview on Thursday that the relationship was better than the one between Mr. Netanyahu and President Barack Obama.“Bibi’s view of Biden is different than Bibi’s view of Obama,” Mr. Ross said, using the common nickname for Mr. Netanyahu. “Bibi was convinced that Obama was trying to undercut him, and Obama was convinced that Bibi was working with the Republicans to undercut him.”“He viewed Biden as someone who he would disagree with, but that Biden’s heart and emotions were all with Israel,” said Dennis Ross, who oversaw Mideast diplomacy at the National Security Council in Mr. Obama’s presidency.Disagreements remain. The president favors a Palestinian state to resolve the decades-long clash with Israel. Mr. Netanyahu does not. The Israeli prime minister called the 2015 Iran nuclear deal a disaster for Israel and the region. Mr. Biden said it was the best way to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons. And the two men have been at odds for years over the construction of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.The State of the WarGrain Deal: Russia rejoined an agreement allowing the shipment of Ukrainian grain through the Black Sea, one of the few areas of cooperation amid the war, easing uncertainty over the fate of a deal seen as crucial to preventing famine in other parts of the world.Nuclear Rhetoric: As President Vladimir V. Putin makes public threats and Russian generals hold private discussions, U.S. officials say they do not believe that Moscow has decided to detonate a tactical nuclear device in Ukraine, but concerns are rising.Turning the Tables: With powerful Western weapons and deadly homemade drones, Ukraine now has an artillery advantage in the Kherson region. The work of reconnaissance teams penetrating enemy lines has also proven key in breaking Russia’s hold in the territory.Sea Drone Attack: The apparent use of remote-controlled boats to attack the Russian naval fleet off the Crimean port city of Sevastopol suggests an expansion in Ukraine’s battlefield capabilities after months of military aid from Western nations.But in the 16 months since Mr. Netanyahu was ousted and then returned to power, the world has changed. Iranian leaders, preoccupied by protests at home, seem uninterested in returning to the nuclear deal from which Mr. Trump — to the delight of Mr. Netanyahu — withdrew in 2018.Meanwhile, Iran is supporting President Vladimir V. Putin’s war in Ukraine, selling drones and missiles to Russia for use on the battlefield. And the frequent source of tension, the future of a Palestinian state, is barely on the agenda these days, in part because of divisions within the Palestinian leadership.During Mr. Trump’s four years in office, Mr. Netanyahu faced little pressure from the United States to bend to the will of an American president. Mr. Trump never challenged Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign of sabotage and assassination in Iran, or his refusal to pursue a two-state solution with the Palestinians. The relationship between the two leaders did not seem to fray until Mr. Netanyahu congratulated Mr. Biden for his victory in 2020, leading the former president to accuse his Israeli counterpart of disloyalty.President Donald J. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu supported each other on key policies, but Mr. Trump eventually accused the Israeli leader of disloyalty.Doug Mills/The New York TimesMr. Netanyahu had held off calling to congratulate Mr. Biden for several hours, worried about angering Mr. Trump, the candidate he openly preferred. But the delay did little good in the end. Mr. Biden returned the favor, taking weeks to hold a first phone call with Mr. Netanyahu. And, partly because of Covid-19 lockdowns, the two men did not meet in person before Mr. Netanyahu lost office.As vice president, Mr. Biden often found himself at odds with Mr. Netanyahu or his government.More than a decade ago, according to former officials, it was Mr. Biden who complained during a Situation Room meeting that Israel, under Mr. Netanyahu’s leadership, had been too hasty in updating secret computer code to sabotage Iran’s Natanz nuclear enrichment plant. The malware spread around the world, its revelation leading to the unraveling of the story of a covert program, code-named Olympic Games, run by both countries.At other times, Mr. Biden voiced concerns that Israel’s assassination of nuclear scientists was undercutting the effort to reach a diplomatic deal to limit its production of nuclear material.The disagreements over policy between Mr. Biden and Mr. Netanyahu sometimes seemed to stoke personal animosities.On a visit to Israel in March 2010, Mr. Netanyahu’s government announced the construction of new settlement projects in East Jerusalem, territory that would have been up for negotiation over the boundaries of a Palestinian state. Mr. Biden, who had just hours earlier gushed effusively about the security relationship between the two nations, was surprised by the announcement — and angry.That night, Mr. Biden delayed his arrival at a dinner with Mr. Netanyahu and his wife for more than 90 minutes, a diplomatic rebuke intended to make his displeasure clear. (Mr. Netanyahu maintained he was not involved in the decision on settlements or the timing of the announcement during Mr. Biden’s visit.)After Mr. Netanyahu was ousted by his party in 2021, he lashed out at the Biden administration in his final speech, comparing the hesitance to confront Iran’s nuclear program to the failure by a past American president to more quickly confront Hitler during World War II.“In 1944, at the height of the Holocaust, U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt refused to bomb the railway leading to the extermination camps, and refused to bomb the gas chambers, which could have saved millions of our people,” Mr. Netanyahu said.The relationship between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Biden goes back decades, to when Mr. Biden was a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Mr. Netanyahu was the deputy Israeli ambassador in Washington.Mr. Biden has often spoken fondly of Mr. Netanyahu since then, despite their political differences, and once described giving him a photograph with a warm caption: “Bibi, I don’t agree with a damn thing you say, but I love you.”“Biden has this instinctive attachment to Israel,” Mr. Ross said. The belief that Israelis feel “existentially threatened” by their adversaries, Mr. Ross said, led Mr. Biden to be more inclined to understand Mr. Netanyahu’s point of view.After Mr. Netanyahu became prime minister in 1996 and then lost the position three years later, Mr. Biden was the only American politician to write him a letter after his election defeat, Mr. Ross said. During moments of heightened friction between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Obama, it fell to Mr. Biden to play peacemaker.But there have been sharp moments when the differences came into open view.In 2015, Mr. Biden declined to attend an address that Mr. Netanyahu delivered in Congress after the Israeli leader accepted an invitation from the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a Republican, without notifying the White House. The speech was devoted to opposing the Iran nuclear deal, and Mr. Biden’s absence exacerbated the dispute between Mr. Netanyahu and the Obama administration about the wisdom of the deal.That deal did freeze Iran’s activity for several years, until it was unwound by Mr. Trump, and the Iranians resumed nuclear fuel production.As president, Mr. Biden used his early political capital to seek a return to the deal that Mr. Trump trashed. He pushed forward at a time when Mr. Netanyahu was politically weak. But even during those moments, Mr. Biden vowed to stand with Israel, whoever its leaders might be.That was on display during Mr. Biden’s visit to Israel in mid-July, when he met with the government of Yair Lapid.Mr. Biden was clearly relaxed and enjoyed the trip, especially in comparison to his next stop, in Saudi Arabia. He went to see Mr. Netanyahu, in what was described as a warm but brief meeting. Later, Mr. Netanyahu said he had told Mr. Biden that the United States needed to threaten Iran with more than economic sanctions or a defensive military partnership between Middle Eastern states.“We need one thing,” he said. “A credible offensive military option is needed.”Mr. Netanyahu will undoubtedly press that point as prime minister, now that negotiations on re-entering the nuclear deal are stalled. With Iran producing more and more uranium enriched at near bomb-grade levels, he will surely call for more sanctions and more threats of military action. And with little prospect of a diplomatic solution, Mr. Biden may have less room to push back.Mr. Biden, for his part, will likely press Israel to declare itself on the side of containing Russia, a step Israel has refused to take, saying it needs to work with Moscow in Syria.Each of these problems has a different shape than when Mr. Biden came to office. History suggests that the inevitable tensions with Mr. Netanyahu, born of different national interests, are nonetheless bound to emerge quickly. More
- in Elections
Netanyahu’s Corruption Charges in Israel: What to Know
Benjamin Netanyahu is on track to once again lead Israel as prime minister — while facing a corruption trial.Benjamin Netanyahu will make a remarkable comeback as Israel’s prime minister after general elections, and the concession on Thursday of the current leader, Yair Lapid, put his right-wing bloc on a glide path to victory. But looming over his return is the unfinished business of the State of Israel v. Benjamin Netanyahu, a long-delayed felony corruption case.Mr. Netanyahu, who faces a litany of bribery, fraud and breach of trust charges, has denied all accusations, vociferously attacking those who seek to prosecute him. The trial put Israel into uncharted territory, dominating political life and fueling a debate about the state of Israeli democracy and the country’s legal system.Now, with his comeback as prime minister apparently assured, Mr. Netanyahu has said that he will not use his authority to upend the legal process in his corruption trial. But some of his coalition partners have signaled a different plan.Here’s where the case stands.Mr. Netanyahu in his office in 2016.Uriel Sinai for The New York TimesWhen did the corruption case start?The investigations into Mr. Netanyahu’s conduct began in 2016, when the authorities pursued claims that the prime minister had a habit of performing official favors for wealthy businessmen in exchange for gifts both material and intangible.Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, was accused of grabbing up cigars and Champagne, and bracelets, bags and luxury clothes for his wife; disrupting investigative and judicial proceedings; and even demanding fawning coverage by two leading Israeli news outlets.In February 2018, the police formally recommended that he be prosecuted. In November 2019, he was indicted, and the trial began in May 2020. The Jerusalem District Court made its way through a list of more than 300 witnesses. But the trial, originally expected to last a year or more, has been delayed several times for various reasons, including once when a central witness cited “personal reasons” in 2021, another time because of coronavirus restrictions, and again in February this year, when the judge in the case tested positive for Covid.Mr. Netanyahu, center, leaving the courtroom during a hearing at his corruption trial in Jerusalem last year.Pool photo by Abir SultanWhat are the charges?The corruption trial combines three separate cases, known as Cases 1000, 2000 and 4000. (Mr. Netanyahu was cleared in a fourth case, Case 3000, which concerned the government’s procurement of German-made submarines.) Mr. Netanyahu’s wife, Sara, is also said to have received gifts but is not a defendant in the trial.One court is hearing all three cases at once, instead of one after the other, slowing down the prospect of a verdict any time soon.In Case 1000, Mr. Netanyahu is accused of accepting nearly $300,000 in gifts from 2007 to 2016 from the Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan and the Australian billionaire James Packer. In return, prosecutors say, the prime minister acted on Mr. Milchan’s behalf, including pressuring the Finance Ministry to double the duration of a tax exemption for expatriate Israelis like the producer after they return to the country from abroad. The indictment also accuses Mr. Netanyahu of lobbying the U.S. government to help Mr. Milchan renew his American visa and assisting with a merger deal involving a TV channel partly owned by Mr. Milchan.Mr. Packer is not accused of receiving anything in return for his gifts, and he and Mr. Milchan — who are not on trial — have denied wrongdoing.In Case 2000, Mr. Netanyahu allegedly discussed a quid pro quo arrangement in 2014 with Arnon Mozes, the publisher of Yediot Aharonot, one of Israel’s leading newspapers. Under the deal, the indictment says, Mr. Netanyahu was to receive supportive coverage from the paper. In exchange, he is accused of agreeing to consider enacting legislation that would curb the strength of Israel Hayom, a rival newspaper owned by Sheldon Adelson, a supporter of Mr. Netanyahu. But Mr. Netanyahu is not accused of following through on that promise. Mr. Mozes, also on trial, has denied any wrongdoing.In Case 4000, prosecutors claim that from 2012 to 2017, a telecom mogul named Shaul Elovitch and his wife granted favors to Mr. Netanyahu and his family in the hope that Mr. Netanyahu would not obstruct the Elovitches’ business interests. Mr. Elovitch is alleged to have repeatedly allowed Mr. Netanyahu and his family to shape the coverage of his news website, Walla. The Elovitches, who are on trial, deny wrongdoing.A protest against Mr. Netanyahu in 2020.Dan Balilty for The New York TimesWhy didn’t Netanyahu resign?Few sitting national leaders have stood trial on criminal charges over their official acts. Mr. Netanyahu was Israel’s first. But he was not legally obliged to step down: Israeli prime ministers can remain in office until they are convicted of a crime.Mr. Netanyahu addressed the nation live on television in 2018, shortly before the police released their findings, saying, “I feel a deep obligation to continue to lead Israel in a way that will ensure our future.”He continued: “You know I do everything with only one thing in mind — the good of the country. Not for cigars from a friend, not for media coverage, not for anything. Only for the good of the state. Nothing has made me deviate, or will make me deviate, from this sacred mission.”To some, his decision not to resign was evidence of a dangerous selfishness. Other analysts said that Mr. Netanyahu’s decision not to step aside when indicted, as his predecessors Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Olmert had done when under investigation, was a national badge of shame and exposed a grave weakness that could become more critical the longer the trial lasted.But to Mr. Netanyahu’s supporters, the trial was proof of a deep conspiracy against him.Mr. Netanyahu during his 2020 campaign.Dan Balilty for The New York TimesHow much time could he face — if any?If convicted, Mr. Netanyahu could be sentenced to several years in prison. But some of his far-right coalition partners, who were celebrating the electoral victory even before Mr. Lapid conceded, may offer crucial assistance in keeping him out of jail.They have said they will push to legalize one of the crimes he is accused of committing — or even to end the trial entirely.The man who long ago earned the nickname the Magician for his uncommon knack for political endurance has proved his ability to sidle out of harm’s way — or at least delay severe consequences.When he arrived at the courthouse in East Jerusalem on a Sunday in 2021, Mr. Netanyahu pleaded not guilty, but not before delivering a fiery speech denouncing the case against him.He called the trial “an attempt to thwart the will of the people, an attempt to bring me and the right down.” He accused the police, the prosecution and “left-wing newspapers” of colluding against him but said he would not be cowed.“They don’t mind if some sort of obedient right-wing poodle comes instead, but I am not a poodle,” he declared.David M. Halbfinger More
- in Elections
Netanyahu Set to Win Israel’s Election and Return to Power Within Weeks
After five elections in less than four years, Israel will have a stable government for the first time since 2019. But Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition could test the constitutional framework and social fabric.JERUSALEM — Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s opposition leader, was set on Thursday to seal victory in Israel’s general election, putting him on track to return as prime minister at the helm of one of the most right-wing governments in Israeli history.Vote counting was expected to finish on Thursday afternoon, and Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing bloc is almost guaranteed to score a clear victory, according to near final results published by the electoral authority. That would ensure that Israel, after five elections in less than four years, will have a cohesive government with a steady majority for the first time since 2019.The far right’s strong showing was linked to fears among right-wing Jews about perceived threats to Israel’s Jewish identity and to their personal safety. A wave of interethnic riots in May 2021 unsettled their sense of security, a feeling that was compounded months later by the inclusion — for the first time in Israeli history — of an Arab party in the coalition government.Those dual concerns drove some right-wing Israelis to more extreme parties in the most recent election.Although the coalition led by Mr. Netanyahu would provide a stable government, it would nevertheless unsettle Israel’s constitutional framework and social fabric.Supporters of the far-right politician Itamar Ben-Gvir in the Israeli city of Beit Shemesh last month.Avishag Shaar-Yashuv for The New York TimesCurrently standing trial on corruption charges, Mr. Netanyahu says that he will not use his authority to upend that process. But some of his coalition partners have said they will push to legalize one of the crimes he is accused of committing, or even to end the trial entirely.His return would also test some of Israel’s diplomatic relations, most notably with the United States and with the Persian Gulf states with which Israel recently formed alliances.Mr. Netanyahu himself oversaw the creation of those alliances during his last spell in office. But his new coalition allies’ priorities are likely to heighten tensions with the Palestinians, which could embarrass Israel’s Arab and American partners.These tensions underscore the complexity of Mr. Netanyahu’s return: As Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, he is a known quantity who has defined contemporary Israeli society perhaps more than any other politician. But his decision to ally with the far right, untrammeled by any centrist or leftist forces, takes Israel into the unknown.Mr. Netanyahu’s far-right allies want to weaken and overhaul Israel’s justice system, giving politicians more control of judicial appointments and loosening the Supreme Court’s oversight of parliamentary process. Those allies could make such policies a condition of their joining his coalition.They also want to end Palestinian autonomy in parts of the occupied West Bank and have a history of antagonizing the Palestinian minority within Israel itself, a track record that has raised fears that the new government could exacerbate Jewish-Arab tensions in Israel and curb any remaining hope of an end to the occupation.A separation barrier in the West Bank city of Bethlehem in April. Mr. Netanyahu’s far-right allies want to end Palestinian autonomy in parts of the occupied West Bank.Samar Hazboun for The New York TimesMr. Netanyahu may not formally return to power until the second half of November. State protocols mean that the Israeli president, Isaac Herzog, has until Nov. 16 to invite Mr. Netanyahu to assemble a government, and Mr. Netanyahu’s own coalition negotiations might take even longer.Foreign-policy experts predict that Mr. Netanyahu, once back in office, will be forced to tread an awkward path between mollifying hard-line allies at home while avoiding confrontations with international partners that support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.The State Department has already hinted that the Biden administration has reservations about Mr. Netanyahu’s likely coalition partners.“We hope that all Israeli government officials will continue to share the values of an open, democratic society, including tolerance and respect for all in civil society, particularly for minority groups,” said the department’s spokesman, Ned Price, when asked about the election result on Wednesday.Aaron David Miller, a former senior official at the State Department, said that Mr. Biden and Mr. Netanyahu would try to avoid conflict because they have other, more pressing priorities.But, Mr. Miller said, “At a minimum, Biden and Netanyahu will likely annoy the hell out of one another.”“The unprecedented character of the new Israeli government, the most right-wing in Israel’s history, will — to say the least — sharpen the differences,” he added.Mr. Netanyahu was the primary architect of the landmark diplomatic relationships that Israel forged in 2020 with Bahrain, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates, and re-election is not expected to upend those new ties, even if it presents them with new challenges.Mr. Netanyahu, seated second from left, with President Donald J. Trump and officials from Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates at the signing of a breakthrough accord at the White House in 2020.Doug Mills/The New York TimesThough none of Israel’s new partners have renounced the Palestinian cause, analysts say that Persian Gulf leaders now consider their own national interests to be a greater immediate priority.“From the perspective of any of the Gulf states, normalization is tied to their long-term strategic plans and has little to do with the day-to-day of Israeli politics,” said Elham Fakhro, a research fellow at the Center for Gulf Studies at Exeter University in England. “The same way as U.S. presidents come and go, they see any relationship with Israel as transcending short-term political dynamics,” she added.Just as he went along with the Oslo accords in the 1990s, after criticizing them while in opposition, Mr. Netanyahu is also expected to stick to a recent maritime deal with Lebanon that he condemned when it was negotiated.But his election may make it harder to formalize ties between Israel and the most influential Arab country, Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government recently made small diplomatic gestures to Israel, like allowing Israeli planes to fly through its airspace, but said it would not agree to full diplomatic relations until the creation of a Palestinian state.“It is unlikely that there will be traction on the Saudi-Israeli diplomatic relationship,” Dr. Fakhro said. In exchange for normalizing ties, she added, Saudi Arabia “would expect something major in return. Netanyahu’s approach — by definition — rejects the possibility of major concessions.”In Israel, Mr. Netanyahu’s opponents fear that his return will empower the more extreme figures in his coalition. One of them, Bezalel Smotrich, wants to be defense minister; another, Itamar Ben-Gvir, wants to oversee the police force.Itamar Ben-Gvir, left, and Bezalel Smotrich taking part in a march near Jerusalem’s Old City in 2021. They are among the more extreme figures in Mr. Netanyahu’s likely coalition.Emmanuel Dunand/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesUntil 2020, Mr. Ben-Gvir hung a portrait in his home of an Israeli settler who shot dead 29 Palestinians in a West Bank mosque in 1994. As a teenager, Mr. Ben-Gvir was barred from army service because he was considered too extremist. He also describes a hard-line rabbi who wanted to strip Arab Israelis of their citizenship as his “hero.”Mr. Netanyahu attempted to calm fears about his return this week, promising in a speech on Wednesday morning that he would lead “a national government that will look after everyone.”He also pledged to heal the divisions within Israeli society, adding that the country “respects all its citizens.”But many in Israel’s Palestinian minority, which forms roughly a fifth of the population, remained unconvinced and afraid.“These are difficult days,” said Aida Touma-Suleiman, a Palestinian lawmaker in the Israeli Parliament. “This isn’t the ordinary, classic right that we know. This is a change — in which a racist, violent right-wing threatens to turn into fascism.”Myra Noveck More
- in Elections
How Does Early Voting Work?
Election Day isn’t until next week, but the voting has already begun in much of the country.Most states allow early voting, also known as pre-election voting, which surged in popularity during the 2020 election in response to the coronavirus pandemic. And interest remains high: As of Wednesday afternoon, nearly 30 million early ballots had been cast nationwide, according to data from the United States Elections Project. In Georgia, in-person turnout was up 70 percent in the first five days of early voting compared with the 2018 midterm elections, according to the secretary of state’s office.The rules vary by state, but there are a few different ways to vote early: Head to a polling place to fill out a ballot in person; drop off a completed ballot at a secure drop box, usually by a polling site or government building; or vote by mail before Election Day.Drop off a completed ballot at a drop box in Mesa, Ariz. on Friday.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesCheck your secretary of state’s website for details on your state’s early voting policies.Alabama, Connecticut, Mississippi, and New Hampshire do not offer pre-election voting, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.As widespread as early voting is, it has recently come under attack by critics who complain about the potential for voter fraud, which is exceedingly rare. On Tuesday, a federal judge in Arizona cracked down on an election-monitoring group staking out ballot boxes in Maricopa County. Members of the group, who cast themselves as “mule watchers” preventing fraud, were issued a temporary restraining order after complaints that they were intimidating and harassing voters. The individuals, some of whom were armed, had gathered around outdoor ballot boxes to take pictures of voters and, in some cases, posted the images online.The A.C.L.U. said on Tuesday that it was investigating at least three separate reports of people monitoring ballot drop boxes in Chester County, Pa., which includes the Main Line suburbs west of Philadelphia. None appeared armed, the group said. More
- in Elections
Extremism Is on the Rise … Again
After all this country has been through — from Donald Trump and his election denial, to the insurrection, to what prosecutors call the “politically motivated” attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband — it still appears poised to elect candidates next Tuesday who deny the results of the 2020 election. There are 291 election deniers on the ballot. And Trump — the greatest threat to democracy — may make a comeback in 2024.It’s hard to believe even though it’s happening right in front of our eyes.In a major speech Wednesday night, President Biden described election denial as “the path to chaos in America.” “It’s unprecedented,” he said. “It’s unlawful. And it’s un-American.” But in truth, the extremism, racism and white nationalism are neither un-American nor unfamiliar.I am personally fascinated by precedents and historical corollaries, the ways that events find a way of repeating themselves, not because of some strange glitch in the cosmos but because human beings are fundamentally the same, unchanged, stuck in rotation of our failings and frailties.The presidential election of 1912 offers a few lessons for our current political moment.William Howard Taft had been elected president in 1908, succeeding the gregarious Theodore Roosevelt, the undisputed leader of the progressive movement of the age, who endorsed Taft’s presidential bid. But Taft was no Teddy. Taft was, as University of Notre Dame professor Peri E. Arnold has written, “a warmhearted and kind man who wanted to be loved as a person and to be respected for his judicial temperament.”I hear echoes there of the differences between Presidents Barack Obama and Biden.Progressives at first seemed satisfied with Taft’s election, as they expected him to simply carry Roosevelt’s legacy forward. But they soon grew disaffected, as did Roosevelt.It wasn’t that Taft was ineffective; he just didn’t do all of what those progressives wanted, much like Biden hasn’t checked the box on all progressive priorities. Riding a wave of progressive anger, Roosevelt challenged Taft in 1912, and when Roosevelt didn’t secure the nomination, he ran as a third-party candidate, taking many of the progressives with him.That split all but guaranteed that their opponent, Woodrow Wilson, would win, becoming the first president from the South since the Civil War.Wilson had not been a favorite to win the nomination of his own party — he only secured it on the 46th ballot after quite a bit of deal-making. But once he reached the general election, he sailed to victory over the quarreling liberals. He would go on to campaign on an “America First” platform, which for him was primarily about maintaining America’s neutrality in World War I. But as Sarah Churchwell, author of “Behold, America,” told Vox in 2018, it soon became associated not just with isolationism, but also with the Ku Klux Klan, xenophobia and fascism.In Wilson’s case, extremists took his language and twisted its meaning into something more sinister. When Trump glommed onto that language over a century later, he started with the sinister and tried to pass it off as benign.Of course, Wilson was no Trump. Trump is one of the worst presidents — if not the worst — that this country has ever had. Wilson at least, as the University of Virginia’s Miller Center points out, supported “limits on corporate campaign contributions, tariff reductions, new and stronger antitrust laws, banking and currency reform, a federal income tax, direct election of senators, a single term presidency.” He was a progressive Southern Democrat. The newly formed N.A.A.C.P. actually endorsed him.But there are eerie similarities between him and Trump. Wilson was a racist. He brought the segregationist sensibility of the South, where he had grown up and where Jim Crow was ascendant, into the White House. He allowed segregation to flourish in the federal government on his watch.And while Wilson didn’t support shutting down all immigration, as long as the immigrants were from Europe, he did embrace ardently xenophobic beliefs. In 1912, he released a statement, saying:“In the matter of Chinese and Japanese coolie immigration I stand for the national policy of exclusion (or restricted immigration). The whole question is one of assimilation of diverse races. We cannot make a homogeneous population out of people who do not blend with the Caucasian race.”It was Wilson who screened “The Birth of a Nation” at the White House, a film that pushed the “Lost Cause” narrative and fueled the rebirth of the Klan.Trump hosted a screening of “2,000 Mules” — a fact-checker-debunked documentary that purported to show widespread voter fraud carried out by “mules” who stuffed ballot boxes with harvested ballots during the last presidential election — at Mar-a-Lago, which Trump has called the Southern White House. That film has helped boost his followers’ belief in his lie about the 2020 election.Allow me a quick aside to dissect the dehumanizing language of the “mule.” Mules were synonymous with captivity and servitude, and as such, a comparison between them and the enslaved — and later, oppressed — Black people was routine. In fact, in “Their Eyes Were Watching God,” Zora Neale Hurston famously wrote that the Black woman is the mule of the world.Then came the invention of the “drug mule,” a phrase that first appeared in this newspaper in 1993. Later, the media would often use it to describe Hispanic women.Now we have ballot mules, an extensive cabal of liberal actors bent on stealing elections.Once you animalize people, you have, by definition, dehumanized them, and that person is no longer worthy of being treated humanely.I say all this to demonstrate that we have been here before. We have seen extremism rise before in this country, multiple times, and it often follows a familiar pattern: One party loses steam, focus and cohesion; liberals become exhausted, disillusioned or fractured, allowing racists and nativist conservatives to rise. Those leaders then tap into a darkness in the public, one that periodically goes dormant until it erupts once more.I fear that too many liberals are once again caught up in the cycle, embracing apathy. My message to all of them going into Election Day: Wake up!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 and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and Instagram. More
- in Elections
Angry Bolsonaro Supporters Protest in the Streets
Tens of thousands of people demonstrated in cities across Brazil, many of them demanding that the military stop the transfer of power to President-elect Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.BRASÍLIA — They arrived by the tens of thousands on Wednesday, angry and draped in Brazilian flags, massing outside military bases across the country. They were there, they said, to save Brazil’s democracy from a rigged election, and there was only one way to do so: The armed forces needed to take control of the government.It was an alarming demand in a country that suffered under a two-decade military dictatorship until 1985 — and yet another bizarre twist in the aftermath of Brazil’s polarizing elections.A day earlier, the far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, reluctantly agreed to a transfer of power after 45 hours of silence following his loss to a leftist former leader, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. But after Mr. Bolsonaro’s years of unfounded attacks on Brazil’s election systems, his supporters appeared far from accepting defeat.Andrea Vaz, a supporter of President Jair Bolsonaro, holds a sign claiming fraud in the presidential election outside the army headquarters on Wednesday.Dado Galdieri for The New York Times“I don’t understand it that well, but they have to intervene and hold new elections,” said Andrea Vaz, 51, a computer-hardware seller holding a sign that said, “Fraud in the voting machines!” at a large protest outside the Brazilian Army’s national headquarters in Brasília. “We saw various videos. People giving out money, buying votes,” she added. “There’s proof.”But some protesters had clearer, more drastic demands, which were circulating on WhatsApp and Telegram groups: The military should take control of the streets, the Congress and the Supreme Court should be disbanded, and the president should remain in power, at least until new elections could be held.The widespread protests and calls for the armed forces were an escalation of the Brazilian far-right’s refusal to accept the election of Mr. da Silva, a former president whom many on the right view as a criminal because of his past corruption scandal.Mr. Bolsonaro, in a two-minute speech on Tuesday in which he did not acknowledge his loss, said he supported peaceful protests inspired by “feelings of injustice in the electoral process.”Many of his followers saw that as a stamp of approval. “What he said yesterday, that gave me more energy to come,” said Larissa Oliveira da Silva, 22, who was sitting on a beach chair in the protest in São Paulo, propping up her broken foot. “After his comments, I saw that he is on our side.”But other protesters said that Mr. Bolsonaro had effectively given up with his agreement to transfer power to Mr. da Silva on Tuesday, so they were turning to the armed forces instead.In a statement, Brazil’s Ministry of Defense said that “the demonstrations, provided they are orderly and peaceful, are the exercise of freedom of expression, of thought, and of assembly, in accordance with constitutional principles and current laws.”The military has not considered intervening in the transfer of power and, if the protests expand, it may urge the president to ask his supporters to go home, according to a senior military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private talks. The military, which helped oversee the election, found no signs of fraud, the official said.The Ministry of Defense said that it would soon deliver its report on the vote’s integrity to election officials.In interviews with more than 60 protesters across Brazil since Sunday, almost none believed the election was clean. Those beliefs were rooted in the same circumstantial evidence, unattributed reports and inaccuracies that Mr. Bolsonaro has promoted for years to claim that Brazil’s elections are rife with fraud. They had seen videos of the voting machines malfunctioning, read that patterns in the vote returns were suspicious and, they said, they simply did not trust election officials.Most of all, however, they said that Mr. Bolsonaro had drawn much bigger crowds than Mr. da Silva — and almost everyone they knew voted for the president — so how could it be that he lost?The movement was loosely organized. There appeared to be no formal protest leaders, and prominent public figures, including conservative politicians, did not echo similar calls for intervention. Yet it quickly grew into the largest demonstration since Mr. Bolsonaro lost the vote on Sunday..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}What we consider before using anonymous sources. Do the sources know the information? What’s their motivation for telling us? Have they proved reliable in the past? Can we corroborate the information? Even with these questions satisfied, The Times uses anonymous sources as a last resort. The reporter and at least one editor know the identity of the source.Learn more about our process.With a collective turnout of well over 100,000 people, protesters gathered in at least 75 cities, including in all of Brazil’s 27 state capitals, often around military bases.Police clashed with pro-Bolsonaro protesters blocking the Castelo Branco highway in São Paulo on Wednesday.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesElsewhere across the country, protesters continued to set up highway blockades, creating miles-long backups and disrupting transportation and freight. Those blockades began immediately after the election results on Sunday as part of what protesters said was an effort to “paralyze” Brazil and force the military to intervene. As of Wednesday afternoon, 146 blockades were still active, according to the federal highway police.Around São Paulo, the blockades caused multiple backups totaling more than 60 miles of traffic jams on Wednesday, according to the local traffic agency, and led to the cancellation of 1,400 buses. The disruptions also caused fuel shortages in at least four states.Mr. Bolsonaro released a video late Tuesday, pleading with his supporters to stop blocking the roads, saying it was disrupting lives and hurting the economy. “I am as upset and sad as you are, but we have to put our heads in the right place,” he said. “Other demonstrations that are taking place across Brazil in public squares are part of the democratic game.”“Let’s do what has to be done,” he added. “I’m with you.” He did not directly address the calls for military intervention.The protests were largely nonviolent. The most notable incident was an attack against protesters in Mirassol, a midsize city north of São Paulo, when a car drove into the crowd, injuring 11 people, according to local police. One man was arrested on attempted murder charges, police said.Beyond their insistence that the vote was stolen, the protesters were also driven by their disdain for Mr. da Silva, who has been the most dominant political figure in the 34 years of Brazil’s modern democracy. Universally known as Lula, he has been a top candidate in six of the nine presidential elections over that stretch, winning three.But after his last administration, he also served 17 months in prison on corruption charges, which were later thrown out when the Supreme Court ruled the judge in his cases was biased.He was never cleared of any wrongdoing, however, fueling a belief that he is not to be trusted and making him perhaps a more polarizing force for many Brazilians than Mr. Bolsonaro.Danielle Mota holds a banner calling for intervention in the election outside army headquarters on Wednesday.Dado Galdieri for The New York Times“We don’t want a thug president who robbed, who was arrested, who had various people in his government who looted Brazil,” said Danielle Mota, 43, a hairdresser holding a sign that said “Federal Intervention.”“We do want a military intervention.” she added. “Just like in 1964.”That was the year that the armed forces, with U.S. support, overthrew the government, instituting a military dictatorship for 21 years that killed or tortured thousands of political opponents. Most protesters interviewed on Wednesday at demonstrations in three of the country’s largest cities, Brasília, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, said they wanted Brazil to remain a democracy. But others, faced with Mr. da Silva as president, said it was time for a military government.“Permanently,” said Kenya Oliveira, 38, holding her 4-year-old son.Camila Rocha, a Brazilian political scientist who wrote a book on the radicalization of Brazil’s right, said the calls for the military were the product of years of absorbing Mr. Bolsonaro’s claims that the elections were rigged, combined with fears of a da Silva administration.Mr. da Silva’s leftist Workers’ Party was at the center of a sprawling government kickback scheme that was revealed after he left office in 2010, leading to the imprisonment of many of the party’s top officials. Mr. Bolsonaro and his allies have long called the party corrupt, but they have also falsely framed it as communist.Many on the right view Mr. da Silva “not as an adversary, but as an enemy that needs to be contained,” Ms. Rocha said. “In this sense, there is a strong parallel with the 1964 coup, which was justified precisely to halt the advance of what was thought to be the rise of communism in Brazil.”Many of the protesters said their demands for intervention were supported by Article 142 of the Brazilian Constitution, which says that the military has the role of “guaranteeing constitutional powers” under the “supreme authority of the president.”According to constitutional lawyers and past court rulings, the article does not allow the military to take control of the government.Marco Aurélio Mello, a retired Supreme Court Justice and an outspoken supporter of Mr. Bolsonaro, said the protesters’ interpretation is merely “nostalgia for the authoritarian regime.”He added that instead the protesters had “the losers’ right to whine.”Laís Martins contributed reporting from São Paulo, Flávia Milhorance, Ana Ionova and Leonardo Coelho from Rio de Janeiro, and André Spigariol and Gustavo Freitas from Brasília. More
- in Elections
Denmark’s Center-Left Coalition Wins Election Majority
An unpredictable race ultimately gave the governing Social Democratic Party its best showing in two decades, though analysts said it looked set to form a more centrist government.COPENHAGEN — Denmark’s center-left coalition emerged with a majority of parliamentary seats early Wednesday, after a tight overnight count in an unpredictable general election gave the governing Social Democratic Party its best showing in two decades.The Scandinavian kingdom is still headed for some uncertainty, with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen saying she would formally disband the government and resign her position, setting the stage for a cross-party negotiation that analysts have said is likely to result in a more centrist administration.In a speech in the early hours of Wednesday celebrating the result, she said that her party had been elected to form a “broad government,” and expressed a desire to work with parties across the political spectrum.But Ms. Frederiksen, who called early elections in response to anger over a mink cull during the coronavirus pandemic, acknowledged that she was compelled to form a new government because, “It is clear that there is no longer a majority behind the government in its current form.”With 100 percent of the votes in Denmark counted, the center-left Social Democrats had 50 seats, the most for any party, with the center-right Venstre in second place. With left-leaning seats from the autonomous nations of Greenland and Faroe Islands, the current center-left coalition snagged a majority of one in the 179-seat Parliament.A new party, the Moderates, led by the former Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, came in third with 16 seats, returning Mr. Rasmussen to the Parliament. It was a strong showing, and analysts had said Mr. Rasmussen could play a kingmaker role if left and right were evenly balanced, but the Social Democrats’ success will significantly diminish his influence.Instead, according to Kasper M. Hansen, a professor of political science at the University of Copenhagen, the focus would be back on Ms. Frederiksen.“The whole discussion will now be: How will she negotiate with the other parties?” he said, adding that Ms. Frederiksen had promised to bridge divides across the political spectrum. “We will see a prime minister that will be working across the middle.”Another new party, the right-wing Denmark Democrats — founded by Inger Stojberg, a former immigration minister who was sentenced to two months in jail for illegally ordering the separation of some asylum-seeking couples — also gained 14 seats.Jasmina Nielsen More
