More stories

  • in

    Kenya Inaugurates William Ruto as President

    After a bitter and close election, William Ruto took the reins of power on Tuesday. One of his team’s first moves: Limiting the access of local television outlets to the ceremony.NAIROBI, Kenya — William Ruto was sworn in as Kenya’s fifth president on Tuesday in a ceremony attended by dozens of global leaders and diplomats — a peaceful handover of power following a bitter election campaign that underscored the entrenched if troubled place of democracy in East Africa’s largest economy.The Moi International Sports Center was filled to its capacity of 60,000 people by 5 a.m., with attendees dancing and waving the Kenyan flag. Immediately after the new president was inaugurated, the crowd broke into chants of “Ruto, Ruto” as fireworks popped near the dais and confetti was scattered across the stadium.Security was tight around the premises, with security forces trying to stop hundreds more people who thronged the gates of the stadium. At least a dozen people were injured as they jostled to enter through one of the gates, a driver with the St. John ambulance service said. In a potentially ominous sign for freedom of the press, Mr. Ruto’s team limited the access of local television stations to the inauguration, handing exclusive broadcast rights for the ceremony to a local affiliate of a South African pay-TV company. (Journalists from local newspapers and radio stations could cover the proceedings in person.)During the campaign, Mr. Ruto had repeatedly accused Kenya’s media outlets of bias against him, and some analysts said that his decision to limit their access to the ceremony was a sign of his resentment.People climbing fences to get into the stadium for Mr. Ruto’s inauguration.Brian Inganga/Associated PressMutuma Mathiu, editor in chief of the Nation Media Group, which owns print and television news outlets, said in an interview that the media had a “national duty” to cover the transfer of power, and defended his organization against charges of bias.However, he said, “I don’t think we want to start a mud fight at a wedding and in the process soil the bride’s gown.”Mr. Ruto triumphed in the Aug. 9 vote with a thin margin over his rival, Raila Odinga, who rejected the result and challenged it in the Supreme Court. But the court upheld Mr. Ruto’s victory in a unanimous decision last week.Mr. Ruto, 55, who has been the country’s vice president for the last 10 years, was born to a religious family in a small village in Kenya’s Rift Valley, where he helped plant maize and went to school barefoot. He showed his initial interest in politics in the 1990s, becoming a stalwart ally of Kenya’s longtime ruler, Daniel arap Moi, winning a position in Parliament and later serving as a cabinet minister for agriculture and higher education.His extraordinary rise almost came to an end a decade ago, when the International Criminal Court charged him with crimes against humanity, accusing him of helping to orchestrate the violence that followed the 2007 elections. But the court dropped the case against him in 2016, citing “witness interference and political meddling.”Despite his dizzying wealth, with a business empire that includes luxury hotels, ranches and a huge poultry processing plant, Mr. Ruto pitched his campaign this year to Kenya’s “hustlers,” the multitude of young and ambitious strivers trying to make ends meet. During the campaign, Mr. Ruto clashed with his boss, President Uhuru Kenyatta, who had endorsed Mr. Ruto’s rival, Mr. Odinga, a former prime minister and opposition figure.Mr. Kenyatta did not congratulate Mr. Ruto until Monday evening, when he finally welcomed him to the presidential office. Mr. Kenyatta attended the inauguration, but Mr. Odinga said in a tweet that he would not.Kenya’s outgoing president, Uhuru Kenyatta, inspected a guard of honor before Mr. Ruto’s inauguration ceremony.Tony Karumba/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Ruto takes the helm of a nation facing economic, political and social challenges. Kenya’s economy is saddled with onerous debt, much of it borrowed to finance large infrastructure projects. Inflation is climbing, the currency continues to depreciate against the dollar and food and fuel prices are skyrocketing because of the war in Ukraine. Four back-to-back seasons of below-average rainfalls have left over four million Kenyans hungry and thirsty.Kenya is in a region layered with strife — in Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo — and Mr. Ruto, observers say, could play a role in promoting peace and stability in the region.But at home, he faces a divided nation after a nail-biter of an election.“The incoming administration has a full inbox,” said Dr. Karuti Kanyinga, a scholar at the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Nairobi. “There’s a lot to worry about.”One of those worries will be how Mr. Ruto’s government will treat the media. He was part of an administration that over the past decade took steps to muzzle the press by threatening journalists with arrest, shutting down broadcasters, starving media outlets of advertising revenue and warning journalists that they didn’t have full freedoms as protected by the Constitution.Mr. Ruto addressing the media at his official residence in Nairobi after the ruling last week. Mr. Ruto was part of an administration that took steps to muzzle the press in Kenya over the past decade.Brian Inganga/Associated PressThose worries were revived this weekend when Mr. Ruto’s team announced that it was giving exclusive broadcast rights to cover the inauguration to MultiChoice Kenya — an affiliate of the South African pay-TV company MultiChoice. Kenyan media will have to rely on the broadcast from the South African outlet.Dennis Itumbi, Mr. Ruto’s spokesman, justified the move by saying Multichoice Kenya was not just any private contractor but was partly owned by Kenya’s national broadcaster. Wanjohi Githae, a member of Mr. Ruto’s communications team, said in a text message that while local media could bring their broadcasting vans, there was no parking space for them “anywhere near the stadium.”On Tuesday morning, Mr. Mathiu of Nation Media said that after negotiations with Mr. Ruto’s team, they were allowed to have their vans around the stadium but that the main feed would still come from MultiChoice. The contract with the firm has not been made public but Mr. Mathiu said he expected the feed would be free to relay.Media analysts said they hoped the move did not augur an era in which the press will be further stifled.“The optics don’t look favorable given how this measure was rolled out,” said David Makali, a veteran journalist and communications strategist. “But I am ready to give the new government the benefit of doubt and hope this isn’t a deliberate move to suppress the press.” More

  • in

    Delaware Primary: How to Vote and Who’s on the Ballot

    Tuesday will be the first test of several major changes to how Delaware administers its elections. Because of a bill signed into law this July, voters in the state can now vote by mail without an excuse, vote early in person and register any time until the end of Election Day. Here’s what else to know about voting in the state:How to voteVoter registration is open until polls close Tuesday evening in Delaware. You can register online here or at your polling location. Photo identification is not required to register, though new registrants will be asked to provide proof that they live in the area where they vote.If you can’t remember whether you are registered, check online here.In-person voting is open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. across the state.Voters who have mail ballots may return them to a county office, with a list available here. If you’ve already mailed your ballot, you can track it here.Where to voteYou can find the polling place closest to you by entering your home address here.Voters who plan to submit a mail ballot can find the address of the closest drop box here.Who’s on the ballotThere is one contested primary for a statewide office in Delaware. The state auditor, Kathleen K. McGuiness, is facing a challenge by Lydia York, a lawyer, in the Democratic primary. In July, a jury found Ms. McGuiness guilty of misdemeanors related to hiring her daughter and awarding a contract to a consulting firm that worked on one of her past political campaigns. Despite the conviction, Delaware’s House of Representatives opted not to oust Ms. McGuiness this summer, leaving the choice to voters.The state Democratic Party endorsed Ms. York. The winner will face Janice Lorrah, a Republican.You can view a full sample ballot online here. More

  • in

    Your Tuesday Briefing: Ukraine’s Advance Continues

    Plus former British colonies weigh their relationship with the monarchy and Lebanon faces blackouts.Russia launched multiple missile strikes yesterday at a Ukrainian police station in Kharkiv.Nicole Tung for The New York TimesUkraine’s advance continuesUkraine reclaimed more ground yesterday and redoubled its calls for Russia to surrender in the south. In the northeast, Moscow acknowledged the loss of almost all of the Kharkiv region. Here’s a map of Russian losses.Russian officials described the retreat as a planned “regrouping operation,” and Moscow does still hold large areas of eastern and southern Ukraine. In apparent retaliation, Russian cruise missiles knocked out power to regions in the east and northeast as forces retreated, but Ukrainians in Kharkiv worked quickly to repair damaged infrastructure.Moscow’s stunning setback calls into question how much territory its once-daunting military can retain, especially amid a growing domestic backlash, which has made its way onto state television. Yesterday, municipal deputies from 18 councils in Moscow and St. Petersburg signed a petition calling on Vladimir Putin to resign. Here are live updates.Details: Ukraine has advanced faster than expected and is moving to consolidate control over the recaptured territory. Ukraine’s military said it pushed into an additional 20 towns and villages in 24 hours and claimed to have recaptured nearly 200 square miles in the southern region of Kherson.What’s next: The prosecutor general’s office in Ukraine is investigating possible war crimes in a recently liberated village near Kharkiv.Allies: Ukraine’s success has encouraged European allies ahead of what is expected to be a hard winter of rising fuel costs. It will most likely increase pressure on NATO members to supply Ukraine with heavier weaponry.In 1982, Queen Elizabeth II visited Tuvalu on a tour of the South Pacific.Tim Graham Photo Library via Getty ImagesFormer colonies mull their futureFrom the Caribbean to the Pacific, the death of Queen Elizabeth II accelerated a push to address the past in several former British colonies.Some countries are holding to the status quo. Yesterday, Jacinda Ardern, the prime minister of New Zealand, said that she thought her country would most likely become a republic in her lifetime. “But I don’t see it as a short-term measure or anything that is on the agenda anytime soon,” Ardern said.The State of the WarDramatic Gains for Ukraine: Ukraine’s lightning offensive in the country’s northeast has allowed Kyiv’s forces to score large battlefield gains against Russia and shift what had become a grinding war.Putin’s Struggles: Russia’s retreat in Ukraine may be weakening President Vladimir V. Putin’s reputation at home, and pro-war bloggers who cheered on the invasion are now openly criticizing him.Southern Counteroffensive: Military operations in the south have been a painstaking battle of river crossings, with pontoon bridges as prime targets for both sides. So far, it is Ukraine that has advanced.Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant: After United Nations inspectors visited the Russian-controlled facility last week amid shelling and fears of a looming nuclear disaster, the organization released a report calling for Russia and Ukraine to halt all military activity around the complex.Republicanism is more entrenched in Australia, which has a larger population of Irish descent. There, the queen’s death has created a political maelstrom.Australia’s government suspended Parliament for two weeks to commemorate her death, the BBC reports, a historic protocol. The move prompted blowback, The Sydney Morning Herald reports, among politicians who feared the suspension would delay or weaken integrity reforms promised by Anthony Albanese, the prime minister. Here are live updates about the queen’s death.Context: Fourteen former colonies retain the British sovereign as their head of state.Caribbean: On Saturday, the prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda announced plans to hold a referendum on becoming a republic within three years. Barbados voted to remove the queen as head of state last year.Scotland: New debates arose about the future of the independence movement.England: Anti-monarchists are treading lightly. They see King Charles III as an easier target than his revered mother — but are aware that they risk alienating people during the period of official mourning.“Sometimes I tell myself I’m not going to get sad, but I can’t help it,” said Hasmik Tutunjian, 66. “At night, I get into bed angry, I cry.”Lebanon’s grinding electricity crisisOppressive blackouts have drastically changed the rhythm of life in Lebanon.State-supplied power comes at random times, and for only an hour or two a day. Many residents have had to find coping strategies, my colleague Raja Abdulrahim reports from Beirut. Often, people do laundry and charge devices in the hours after midnight.This profound electricity crisis is a subset of Lebanon’s worst economic crisis in decades, which the World Bank said could rank among the world’s three worst since the mid-1800s in terms of its effect on living standards.The blackouts also underscore the country’s sharp socioeconomic inequalities. Lebanese inflation rose to 168 percent in the year that ended in July, and unemployment is skyrocketing. Now, only a few people can afford diesel-powered backup generators to combat the heat and darkness.Context: Lebanon has long had a dysfunctional electricity sector. But over the past year, acute fuel shortages have worsened power cuts.THE LATEST NEWSAsia and the PacificJacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s prime minister, said it was time to “turn the page” on Covid.Marty Melville/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesNew Zealand has removed most of its Covid restrictions, The Guardian reports.Japan may remove some pandemic border controls, the BBC reports.Pakistan is trying to protect a critical power station from floodwaters, Reuters reports. Millions rely on it for electricity.In Thailand, a 25-year-old activist who was said to have dressed up as Queen Suthida was sentenced to two years in prison for insulting the monarchy, Reuters reports.Around the WorldSweden is still counting votes from its Sunday elections. A coalition of right-wing parties narrowly leads the governing center-left bloc.A new analysis showed that child poverty in the U.S. fell by 59 percent from 1993 to 2019, highlighting the role of increased government aid.Wealthy countries snapped up monkeypox vaccines and treatments, leaving few for the rest of the world.What Else Is HappeningCarlos Alcaraz is the youngest man to win a Grand Slam title since Rafael Nadal in 2005.Michelle V. Agins/The New York TimesCarlos Alcaraz, a 19-year-old from Spain, won the U.S. Open men’s title.The Emmy Awards begin at 8 a.m. Hong Kong time, 10 a.m. Sydney time. Kenan Thompson of “Saturday Night Live” is hosting. Here’s how to watch.Scientists have sequenced complete fern genomes for the first time, to learn why the plants have twice as much DNA as humans.A Morning ReadSulfur-crested cockatoos, native to Australia, teach each other to open the bins. Ken Griffiths/AlamyThere’s an innovation arms race raging in the suburbs of Sydney, Australia. The front line: Garbage bins. The factions: humans and sulfur-crested cockatoos.ARTS AND IDEASStudent debt: No longer tabooIn the U.S., federal student loans are a legacy of the Cold War: They were first issued in 1958 in response to the Soviets’ launch of Sputnik. (The government was worried that Americans were falling behind in science.)Now, Americans collectively owe $1.7 trillion in federal student loans, and the cost of college has nearly tripled since 1980, even when adjusted for inflation. Last month, President Biden announced a student debt forgiveness program that could cost taxpayers $300 billion or more.Student debt has become a national dialogue, as more Americans have come to see it as a structural problem, rather than a result of poor personal decisions, and its stigma slips away.It’s even cropping up as a narrative device in contemporary fiction. In The Times, Jennifer Wilson describes the typical loan-crisis novel as “a stymied bildungsroman for a generation who have been robbed of the possibility of becoming, sold a story that would cost them everything.”PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookChristopher Testani for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Monica Pierini.Serve herb-marinated seared tofu over grains.What to WatchIn “The Fabelmans,” the director, Steven Spielberg, is the star. But Michelle Williams steals the show.What to Read“Like a Rolling Stone” is a new memoir from Jann Wenner, the co-founder of Rolling Stone magazine.Now Time to PlayPlay today’s Mini Crossword. And here’s a clue: Unattractive (four letters).Here are today’s Wordle and today’s Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. See you next time. — AmeliaP.S. The U.S. midterm elections are sure to get confusing. Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, will parse polling and politics in “The Tilt,” a new newsletter. Subscribe here.The latest episode of “The Daily” is on Serena Williams.You can reach Amelia and the team at briefing@nytimes.com. More

  • in

    Prime Minister Liz Truss’s Dizzying First Week

    Ms. Truss took over a British government facing an economic emergency. But those problems have been eclipsed by the queen’s death, an epochal event that has put politics on hold.LONDON — Last Tuesday, Prime Minister Liz Truss was moving into Downing Street and puzzling over how to help people pay their soaring gas bills. Two days later, she stepped out of her new home to pay tribute to a revered queen, Elizabeth II, and tell the country that Britain’s new king would henceforth be known as Charles III.Has any British leader had as head-spinning a first week on the job as Ms. Truss?Anointed by the queen in the last act of her 70-year reign, Ms. Truss took over a government facing an economic emergency. But those problems have been all but eclipsed by the queen’s death, an epochal event that has put Parliament on hold, moved the spotlight from the cost-of-living crisis to a monarch’s legacy, and handed Ms. Truss, 47, an unexpected new job as the government’s chief mourner.It’s a delicate assignment, one that could elevate Ms. Truss’s stature internationally but also trip her up at home. The crosscurrents were evident on Monday, when Downing Street walked back a news report that she would be joining King Charles on a mourning tour of the four nations of the United Kingdom.The report had raised eyebrows among some opposition lawmakers, who viewed her plans as presumptuous. A spokesman for Ms. Truss quickly clarified: The prime minister, he told The Guardian, would attend memorial services for the queen in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, along with Charles, but would not be “accompanying” the king on a tour.King Charles III and Prime Minister Liz Truss last week, during their first meeting at Buckingham Palace.Pool photo by Yui Mok“I don’t know what led to anyone thinking it was a good decision for either of them that she go to the capitals of the U.K. nations with Charles,” said Alastair Campbell, who was director of communications for Tony Blair when he was prime minister, and advised him on his response to the death of Princess Diana in 1997.“It’s not as though he is a novice at these kinds of visits,” Mr. Campbell said of the 73-year-old king. “She would have been far better advised getting her feet under the table in No. 10 and beginning to focus on the enormous challenges that are going to be there when the mourning is over.”Among those challenges: double-digit inflation, a looming recession, labor unrest and deteriorating public finances. On Monday, new data showed that Britain’s growth stagnated in the three months through July. Hours before the news of the queen’s death, Ms. Truss announced a sweeping plan to freeze energy rates for millions of households for two years at a probable cost of more than $100 billion in its first year.It was a startling policy response right out of the gate, underscoring the depth of the crisis. But the round-the-clock coverage of the queen has meant the plan has barely been mentioned since. Parliament has been suspended until after the queen’s state funeral on Sept. 19. Lawmakers are scheduled to go into recess again on Sept. 22 for their parties’ conferences, putting politics on hold even longer.Fears about how the government plans to finance the aid package — with huge increased borrowing rather than by imposing a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies — are wearing on the bond market and the pound, which has recently plumbed its lowest levels against the dollar since 1985.“It is a problem that there has effectively been no proper public scrutiny or political debate around a spending package of 5 to 6 percent of G.D.P.,” said Jonathan Portes, a professor of economics and public policy at King’s College London.Shoppers at a supermarket in London last month, when inflation rose to 10.1 percent.Frank Augstein/Associated Press“In principle, that could be remedied after the funeral,” he said. “But I do worry a bit that the government will get used to the lack of scrutiny of their proposals and will attempt to carry on the same vein.”A lack of scrutiny can provide a temporary respite, but over the long term it can be lethal: Jill Rutter, a former official in the Treasury, recalled that the government published details of a new poll tax in January 1986, hours before the Challenger space shuttle exploded in the United States. It was utterly lost in the news of that disaster, and when Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher later imposed the tax, it proved so unpopular that it triggered her downfall.There is no question that Ms. Truss’s role in the 10 days of national mourning will give her rare visibility for a new leader. She has become a dignified daily fixture on television, shaking hands with the king at an audience in Buckingham Palace, walking out of Westminster Hall after his address to Parliament on Monday and speaking at Downing Street about the dawn of a new Carolean age.She will get a big introduction on the global stage when dozens, or even hundreds, of leaders converge on London for the funeral, putting her at the center of one of the greatest such gatherings since the funeral of John F. Kennedy.Like Ms. Truss, Mr. Blair was quite new in the job when Princess Diana was killed in a car crash in Paris. His description of her as the “people’s princess” become one of the most memorable phrases of his decade in office. He also reaped credit for nudging a reticent queen into a more public display of sorrow over Diana’s death.How the World Reacted to the Queen’s DeathQueen Elizabeth II’s death elicited an array of reactions around the globe, from heartfelt tributes to anti-monarchist sentiment.In Britain: As Britons come to terms with the loss of the woman who embodied the country for 70 years, many are unsure of their nation’s identity and role in the world.In the U.S.: In few places outside Britain was the outpouring of grief so striking as in the faraway former British colony, which she never ruled and rarely visited.In Scotland: At a time of renewed mobilization for Scottish independence, respect for the queen could temporarily dampen the heated debate.In the Commonwealth: For nations with British colonial histories, the queen’s death is rekindling discussions about a more independent future.In Africa: Though the queen was revered by many on the continent, her death reignited conversations about the brutality the monarchy meted out there.But this time, the royal family does not seem to need public-relations advice. Prince William, Prince Harry, and their spouses appeared in a carefully managed walk outside Windsor Castle on Saturday. A day earlier, Charles stepped out of his vintage Rolls-Royce at Buckingham Palace to shake hands with well-wishers.The Prince and Princess of Wales, and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex paying their respects on Saturday to Queen Elizabeth outside Windsor Castle.Mary Turner for The New York Times“You could argue it helps her to be visible at these events,” Mr. Campbell said, “but in all honesty, the public are very focused on the royals and not the politicians.”For Ms. Truss, experts agree, the success of her economic policy will matter far more in the long run than her performance over the next week.“It’s almost impossible to predict the impact of the queen’s passing and the long period of mourning on Truss’s political fortunes, mainly because we’ve got little to compare it with,” said Timothy Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary, University of London.The last leader in this position was Winston Churchill, who was in office when Elizabeth’s father, George VI, died in 1952 and played the role of mentor to the young queen in their weekly meetings. But as Professor Bale noted, “He was already firmly entrenched in the public mind as an iconic national hero.”Based on the limited polling data available from that period, he said, the government’s approval ratings did not rise in the transition from George to Elizabeth.“Those assuming there might be some kind of rally round the flag effect for Truss and the Tories might need to think again,” Professor Bale said.Eshe Nelson More

  • in

    Pro-Putin Candidates Sweep Russia’s Local Elections

    Against a backdrop of tightening press freedom and repression amid the war in Ukraine, Russians voted overwhelmingly for pro-Kremlin candidates in regional and municipal elections over the weekend, according to results published on Monday.Candidates nominated by the ruling United Russia Party or those loyal to the Kremlin won races for heads of all of the 14 Russian regions where elections were held, according to Russia’s Central Electoral Commission. United Russia, the party of President Vladimir V. Putin, also won a majority in six regional legislatures where voting occurred, the commission said.In the city of Moscow, where lawmakers were up for election in most municipalities, more than 77 percent of seats went to pro-Kremlin candidates, according to Tass, a Russian state news agency.Many anti-government politicians have fled the country. Some have been sentenced to prison terms for publicly criticizing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.Although Mr. Putin has dominated Russian politics for more than two decades, he has long used elections that carry a veneer of competitiveness to try to legitimize his rule. And while the elections are often rife with fraud, they typically offer an opening for the political opposition to express discontent.In some instances, especially at the relatively low level of municipal councils, candidates who have been critical of the Kremlin were able to get elected. And on Monday, already-serving municipal deputies from 18 councils in Moscow and St. Petersburg signed a petition calling on Mr. Putin to resign. The petition came after a municipal council in St. Petersburg last week called on the State Duma, the lower house of parliament, to investigate Mr. Putin for treason over his decision to invade Ukraine. Those deputies have been charged by police with discrediting the Russian army, an administrative offense.Mr. Putin’s grip on Russia’s political system has held largely because of his policymakers’ ability to maintain relative economic stability. The elections this weekend were an early test of whether the economic upheaval caused by Western sanctions stemming from Mr. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has had an effect on voters.They took place in the climate of almost total censorship of the mainstream press, making it hard to gauge people’s true attitudes toward the government. Following the invasion in February, Mr. Putin tightened media laws, forcing the few remaining liberal news outlets to shut down.The campaigning and voting periods were marred by multiple violations, according to a report by Golos, a Russian elections watchdog, which cited official intimidation of election observers and unequal access to state media for opposition candidates.The report called the elections “unfree and unequal,” saying that “it is impossible to determine the real will of the voters under these conditions.”The elections were held over three days, which made them more vulnerable to fraud because election observers could not ensure the security of ballots overnight. Critics also said that online voting made it easier to falsify the results.Still, some voters appeared to use their ballots to criticize the Kremlin or its war in Ukraine. Messages including “Russia without Putin!” or “For peace” were scrawled on some ballots, according to photographs posted on social media. The photos could not be independently verified. More

  • in

    Why the U.S. Is Being Compared to Hungary and Turkey

    A conversation with Max Fisher, who covers the decline of democracy around the world.Friday’s newsletter is a discussion with Max Fisher, an international reporter and columnist for The New York Times who covers conflict, diplomacy and the sweeping sociopolitical changes taking place all over the globe.Max often delves deep into the world of ideas and where they intersect with the real world, from the rise of new social movements to the subject of today’s chat: the decline of democracy in the United States and abroad.Here’s our conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity:You recently wrote about how democracy is under threat all over the world. What did you find most worrying?That democracy is declining more or less everywhere now. Not necessarily in every country but in every region, in rich and poor countries, old and new democracies. And the decline is incremental but steady, which means that the scale of the change isn’t necessarily obvious until you start looking at the data.We tend to think of democratic decline as something that happens in big dramatic moments — a coup, a government collapsing, tanks in the streets. But that’s not typically how it happens anymore.What happens is more like what has occurred in Venezuela, say, or Turkey or Hungary. Elected leaders rise within a democracy promising to defeat some threat within, and in the process end up slowly tearing that democracy down.Each step feels dangerous but maybe not outright authoritarian — the judiciary gets politicized a little, some previously independent institution gets co-opted, election rules get changed, news outlets come under tighter government control.No individual step feels as drastic as an outright coup. And because these leaders both promote and benefit from social polarization, these little power grabs might even be seen by supporters as saving democracy.But over many years, the system tilts more and more toward autocracy.That doesn’t always end up leading to full-on dictatorship. But that pull toward elected strongmen rulers is something we see happening in dozens of countries. By the sheer numbers, according to a democracy monitoring group called V-Dem, more democracies are in decline today than at any other point in the last century.What did you find most surprising?There’s one chart I think about a lot that was put together by the political scientists Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart. They tracked every election in Europe, at every level, going back decades. And they looked at how populist candidates did, on average in those elections, over time.Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart(Political scientists typically use the word “populist” to describe politicians who champion cultural backlash and oppose establishment institutions. Here’s a definition from the book “How Democracies Die,” by two academics named Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt: “anti-establishment politicians — figures who, claiming to represent the voice of ‘the people,’ wage war on what they depict as a corrupt and conspiratorial elite.”)What Norris and Inglehart found was that, in Europe, populists have been receiving a steadily larger share of the vote, on average, basically every year since 1960. That year is important because it’s roughly when Western countries, as the colonial era ended, collectively began to embrace what we now think of as full, liberal, multiracial democracy. And that is also the moment, it turns out from this research, when populist politics began steadily rising in a backlash to that new liberal-democratic order.That discovery is really important for understanding the threat to democracy. It shows that, for all the ways that we might think of the threat as top-down, it’s also, and maybe chiefly, bottom-up.And though we might tie the rise of populist hard-liner politics to specific events like the global financial crisis of 2007-8 or the refugee crisis of the mid-2010s, this is in fact something much larger.It’s a deeper backlash against the demands of modern liberal democracy — and this is something I’ve written about a lot over the past few years — both among voters who feel that they’re being asked to soften their racial and religious identities and among leaders who are being asked to compromise their political self-interest for the sake of democratic norms.What patterns have you found abroad that you now see in the United States?The United States fits pretty cleanly into what is now a well-established global pattern of democratic backsliding.First, society polarizes, often over a backlash to social change, to demographic change, to strengthening political power by racial, ethnic or religious minorities, and generally amid rising social distrust..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-ok2gjs{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs 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;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.This leads to a bottom-up desire for populist outsiders who will promise to confront the supposed threat within, which means suppressing the other side of that social or partisan or racial divide, asserting a vision of democracy that grants special status for “my” side, and smashing the democratic institutions or norms that prevent that side from asserting what is perceived to be its rightful dominance.You also tend to see political parties and other establishment gatekeepers, who are in theory meant to keep authoritarians from rising in politics, either weaken or become co-opted. Once populist hard-liners gain enough power to begin eroding democratic checks, such as an independent judiciary or the rule of law, it’s usually a steady slide toward democratic erosion.This trend has really picked up speed, globally, only in the last 20 years or so. So it’s hard to say exactly how common it is for countries that begin on this path to end up like Hungary or Turkey. But very few democracies have begun to slide and then reversed course.You have a new book called “The Chaos Machine: The Inside Story of How Social Media Rewired Our Minds and Our World.” In your reporting and research for the book, what sorts of effects on democracy did you find social media is having? I’m old enough to remember when techno-evangelists like Clay Shirky were predicting that social media would unleash a wave of democratization in the developing world. Obviously, that hasn’t happened. Or has it?I had that same arc of initially seeing social media as a democratizing force.So did a lot of Arab Spring activists from the early 2010s, like Wael Ghonim, the Egyptian revolutionary and Google engineer. But, within a few years, Ghonim had come to conclude, he has said in a TED Talk, that “the same tool that united us to topple dictators eventually tore us apart” by “amplifying the spread of misinformation, rumors, echo chambers and hate speech.”A neutral social media really could be a democratizing force, in theory. But the major platforms are far from neutral. They are deliberately designed to manipulate you, and to manipulate your experience on the platform in ways that will change how you think and how you behave. These platforms do this not just by what they show you, but also by eliciting certain emotions and behaviors from you.All this digital manipulation, at the scale of maybe hundreds of hours per year, changes you. And not just online, but in your offline life, too. It changes your emotional makeup, the way that you approach politics, your sense of your own identity — even the way that you process right and wrong.For an individual user — and we now have hard, empirical, scientific evidence for this — the effect can be to make you angrier, more extreme and intolerant, more distrustful, more prone to divide the world between us and them, and more disposed toward hostility and even violence against people outside your social in-group.This might change you just by a matter of degree. But when you multiply this effect out by billions of users, and often among a majority of the population, the effect can change society as a whole, too, and especially its politics, in ways that can be detrimental to democracy.What do you think most people miss about the link between social media and threats to democracy?One thing that social platforms have done — and it’s hard to blame this entirely on Silicon Valley — is to displace the traditional activism that is an important part of bringing about democracy or of preventing an existing democracy from backsliding.That activism used to happen through organizing among real-world networks, like student groups during the civil rights movement in the United States, or mothers’ groups in 1970s Argentina resisting that country’s dictatorship. Now, social media allows a protest group, even a leaderless one, to skip that process and, by going viral online, to activate thousands or even millions of people overnight.That is really effective at driving huge numbers of people onto the street, but not at much else.With the advent of social media, the number of mass protest events in the world shot way up. A million people marching on a capital city became a more common occurrence. But the success rate of those movements fell from about 70 percent to only 30 percent.The Yellow Vests movement in France quickly gained momentum in 2018 before fizzling out.Mauricio Lima for The New York TimesThe Yellow Vests, the French protest movement that began in 2018, exemplifies this. It was this stunning, spontaneous, nationwide uprising for political change. And it had been organized almost entirely through Facebook and other platforms. But it was also internally incoherent. For all its force, it quickly fizzled out, having caused a lot of traffic problems but having changed very little.Partly that was because of what had been lost in the displacement of traditional organizing. But partly it was also because of the distorting effects of those platforms. Those systems, just as they do for users globally, had pulled the Yellow Vests supporters who were gathering on those platforms toward extremes: demands to bar all refugees from the country, to default on the national debt, to replace elected legislatures with fuzzily defined citizens’ councils.It’s not the only reason the Yellow Vests mostly receded, but it is, I think, a metaphor for those platforms’ effects on our societies and democracies broadly.What to read about democracyLuke Broadwater and Michael Schmidt have an update on the long-shot push, led by some members of Congress and nonprofit groups, to bar Donald Trump from running for president in 2024 by invoking the 14th Amendment to establish him as an “insurrectionist.”Writing in The New Yorker, Adam Gopnik asks a provocative question: Can’t we come up with something better than liberal democracy?The editorial board of The New York Times is reaching out to readers to ask: What concerns and confounds you about the state of American democracy? Read about the project here.Thank you for reading On Politics. — BlakeRead past editions of the newsletter here.If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here.Have feedback? Ideas for coverage? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More

  • in

    Are the Polls Wrong Again?

    Are Democrats again about to be disappointed by overly optimistic polling? The final polls in the 2020 presidential election overstated Joe Biden’s strength, especially in a handful of states.The polls reported that Biden had a small lead in North Carolina, but he lost the state to Donald Trump. The polls also showed Biden running comfortably ahead in Wisconsin, yet he won it by less than a percentage point. In Ohio, the polls pointed to a tight race; instead, Trump won it easily.In each of these states — and some others — pollsters failed to reach a representative sample of voters. One factor seems to be that Republican voters are more skeptical of mainstream institutions and are less willing to respond to a survey. If that’s true, polls will often understate Republican support, until pollsters figure out how to fix the problem. (I explained the problem in more depth in a 2020 article.)This possibility offers reason to wonder whether Democrats are really doing as well in the midterm elections as the conventional wisdom holds. Recent polls suggest that Democrats are favored to keep control of the Senate narrowly, while losing control of the House, also narrowly.But the Democrats’ strength in the Senate campaign depends partly on their strength in some of the same states where polls exaggerated Democratic support two years ago, including the three that I mentioned above: North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, calls it “a warning sign” — for both the Democratic Party and for the polls. Nate goes into more depth in one of the first editions of a newsletter that he will be writing a couple of times a week for the rest of the midterm campaign.(If you’re fascinated by politics, I encourage you to sign up. It’s available to Times subscribers, and Nate is one of the sharpest political analysts working today. He helps oversee Times polls and has a record of noticing trends before many others do. One example was in June 2016, when he wrote: “There are more white voters than people think. That’s good news for Trump.”)Or is 2022 different?Nate is also careful to acknowledge what he doesn’t know, and he emphasizes that the polls may not be wrong this year in the same way that they were wrong in 2020. It’s even possible that pollsters are understating Democratic support this year by searching too hard for Republican voters in an effort to avoid repeating recent mistakes.The unavoidable reality is that polling is both an art and a science, requiring hard judgments about which kinds of people are more or less likely to respond to a survey and more or less likely to vote in the fall. There are still some big mysteries about the polls’ recent tendency to underestimate Republican support.The pattern has not been uniform across the country, for instance. In some states — such as Georgia, Nevada and Pennsylvania — the final polls have been pretty accurate lately. This inconsistency makes the problem harder to fix because pollsters can’t simply boost the Republican share everywhere.There is also some uncertainty about whether the problem is as big when Trump is not on the ballot — and he is obviously not running for office this year. Douglas Rivers, the chief scientist of the polling firm YouGov, told me that he thought this was the case and that there is something particular about Trump that complicates polling. Similarly, Nate noted that the polls in the 2018 midterms were fairly accurate.Finally, as Nate points out, the 2022 campaign does have two dynamics that may make it different from a normal midterm and that may help Democrats. The Supreme Court, dominated by Republican appointees, issued an unpopular decision on abortion, and Trump, unlike most defeated presidents, continues to receive a large amount of attention.As a result, this year’s election may feel less like a referendum on the current president and more like a choice between two parties. Biden, for his part, is making this point explicitly. “Every election’s a choice,” he said recently. “My dad used to say, ‘Don’t compare me to the Almighty, Joey. Compare me to the alternative.’”As Nate told me:Just about every election cycle, there’s an argument for why, this time, things might be different — different from the expectations set by historical trends and key factors like the state of the economy or the president’s approval rating.The arguments are often pretty plausible. After all, every cycle is different. There’s almost always something unprecedented about a given election year. There’s always a way to spin up a rationale for why old rules won’t apply.In the end, history usually prevails. That’s a good thing to keep in mind right now as Democrats show strength that seems entirely at odds with the long history of the struggles of the president’s party in midterm elections.But this cycle, there really is something different — or at the very least, there is something different about the reasons “this cycle might be different.”More on politicsPresident Biden remembering 9/11.Al Drago for The New York TimesBiden visited the Pentagon for a Sept. 11 anniversary ceremony. “I know for all those of you who lost someone, 21 years is both a lifetime and no time at all,” he said.An Atlanta prosecutor has emerged as a consequential legal threat to Trump while presiding over the justice system in Georgia’s most populous county.THE LATEST NEWSWar in UkraineThe Kharkiv region this weekend.Juan Barreto/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesRussia acknowledged that it had lost much of Kharkiv, a military stronghold, as Ukraine’s lightning advance took back more than 1,000 square miles.Russian cruise missiles knocked out power to regions in eastern and northeastern Ukraine in apparent retaliation.Ukraine drew on U.S. intelligence to plan its counterassault. The gains in the northeast have been the most important advances of the war, American officials said.The QueenAntigua and Barbuda announced that it would hold a referendum on becoming a republic, one of several countries considering a split with the British monarchy.The queen’s beloved corgis will stay in the family.Other Big StoriesFloodwaters cover around a third of Pakistan, including its agricultural belt. The economic losses will be felt for years, officials warn.Torrential, unrelenting rains swept through Chicago, taking the city by surprise.Improved weather conditions allowed firefighters to make progress on some of California’s blazes. But the battles are far from over.A New York education board will vote on new rules to keep private schools accountable to academic standards. (Read The Times’s investigation into New York yeshivas.)Alcohol deaths rose in the pandemic. Activists in Oregon say higher taxes could save lives.OpinionsGail Collins and Bret Stephens discuss Trump and the queen.To soften its Senate candidates’ images, the G.O.P. is turning to their wives. It’s trite and insulting, Michelle Cottle writes.The killing of a Memphis kindergarten teacher is a tragedy, not a talking point, Margaret Renkl says.MORNING READSDragon Con: Redefining what nerd culture looks like.No longer taboo: For better or worse, student debt has become normalized.Still rolling: Jann Wenner, the founder of Rolling Stone, wants to reveal it all.Metropolitan Diary: The cabby and the cat food.Quiz time: The average score on our latest news quiz was 9.4. See if you can beat it.A Times classic: Don’t try to walk off a sprained ankle.Advice from Wirecutter: The best over-the-counter hearing aids.Lives Lived: Thomas Carney tended bar at Elaine’s for decades. The Times once wrote that he kept alive the traditions of saloons: “wit, tact, patience and a boundless tolerance for drunks.” He died at 82.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICA new era in men’s tennis: Teen phenom Carlos Alcaraz seized his first Grand Slam title in a four-set win over the Norwegian player Casper Ruud at the U.S. Open. The Spaniard’s stunning tournament might even have left tennis fans feeling optimistic about the post-Big Three future. Panic time for the Dallas Cowboys? Quarterback Dak Prescott exited yesterday’s 19-3 loss to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers with an injury to his throwing hand. He will undergo surgery and miss several weeks. Here are the other takeaways from Week 1 of the N.F.L. season.W.N.B.A. finals get underway: The typically high-scoring Las Vegas Aces narrowly edged the Connecticut Sun 67-64 at home in Game 1. It was the game the Sun wanted, but MVP A’ja Wilson lifted the Aces to a win. Game 2 is tomorrow at 9 p.m. Eastern.ARTS AND IDEAS Tasting menus for the peopleMore chefs are embracing tasting menus, while rejecting the grandiose conventions and price tags that usually accompany them, Brett Anderson writes in The Times.Tasting menus can be surprisingly thrifty. Because they tend to require reservations, with meals chosen in advance, chefs can purchase the precise amount of ingredients. That has allowed aspiring restaurateurs to branch off on their own, serving food to small groups without much overhead.At Southern Soigné in Jackson, Miss., Zacchaeus Golden offers a multicourse dinner for $95, a fraction of the cost of most lavish tasting-menu marathons. One way he keeps it affordable: The only other employee is his mother, Margie.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookRikki Snyder for The New York TimesThe trick to this chicken salad is the method for poaching chicken.AwardsThe Emmy Awards are tonight, with Kenan Thompson of “Saturday Night Live” hosting.What to WatchIn “The Fabelmans,” Steven Spielberg himself is the star. But Michelle Williams steals the show.Now Time to PlayNYTThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was devotion. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Unattractive (four letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. After, use our bot to get better.Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. — DavidP.S. Katie Baker is joining The Times from BuzzFeed News to cover the social and cultural conflicts dividing the U.S.Here’s today’s front page.“The Daily” is about Serena Williams.Lauren Hard, Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti and Ashley Wu contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at themorning@nytimes.com.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

  • in

    Must We Discuss the Queen and the Donald in the Same Breath?

    Gail Collins: Bret, I guess we should begin with the queen. Hey, that’s a change of pace, right?Bret Stephens: I’m trying to process the fact that I found myself tearing up while listening to the story of her life put together for the paper by Alan Cowell.Gail: Alan’s piece was perfect, but I have to admit I haven’t been tempted to break into tears over the queen’s passing. Possibly because my household has Irish roots. You can appreciate what she achieved without romanticizing the whole British Empire thing.Bret: At the risk of digital defenestration, I will say that I tend to think the British Empire wasn’t an entirely bad thing for the world.Gail: [Here Gail bops Bret on the head, hard, with a bottle of Jameson.]Bret: Ouch, Gail! OK, before I get into even deeper trouble with some of our readers, she did preside gracefully over said empire’s demise and, as Maureen Dowd pointed out in her lovely column over the weekend, won over quite a few Irish hearts.The queen also made you realize that there is nothing as compelling as something that is supposed to be anachronistic — because it endures against fashion, resistance, indifference, decay, contradiction and time. Just like Joe Biden, apparently.Gail: Heh. Let’s let domestic politics sit for a minute and stay on the queen. I love the way you put that compelling-anachronism line, but my response is that things tend to get anachronistic because they’re just out of date.Bret: Well, true.Gail: But as I said, it’s easy to appreciate the queen’s achievement in just chugging on and smiling at strangers for so very, very long. Guess one of the messages of the moment is that nobody lives forever.Bret: The Atlantic magazine sent its subscribers an email on the day she died with the accidentally funny headline, “Queen Elizabeth’s Unthinkable Death.”Gail: We’ll see what happens next with the royal family. Will tourists still be clustering around to get a glimpse of that golden coach if the person waving from inside is Charles? Who, by the way, has always seemed like a dork.Bret: I feel for him, and not just because he’s lost both his parents in less than two years. Christopher Hitchens once had a memorable take on the royals, saying the love the British have for them “takes the macabre form of demanding a regular human sacrifice whereby unexceptional people are condemned to lead wholly artificial and strained existences, and then punished or humiliated when they crack up.”Gail: Do the unexceptional people include their actual elected officials?Bret: Many of them are exceptional, although some are just exceptionally bad.Gail: I always did think the queen could have retired early so Charles would have had a chance to be the sovereign before he hit his 70s. But so it goes.On the home front, I’m getting sort of fascinated by the big Senate races coming into the homestretch. Any favorites for you?Bret: I’m trying to wrap my head around the possibility of Senator Herschel Walker, who would be to Georgia what, er, Marjorie Taylor Greene is to Georgia.The Arizona Senate race between Mark Kelly and Blake Masters is a little too close for comfort, given that every week seems to bring a new disclosure about Masters’ deep unsuitability for high office — most recently his “9/11 Truther-curious” stand in college. I try not to hold people accountable for whatever they believed in college, but I’d make an exception in this case.How about you? What races are you looking at?Gail: Well, as an Ohio native I have to be riveted by the battle between Tim Ryan, a perfectly rational Democratic congressman, and the Republican candidate, J.D. Vance, who sorta peaked when he wrote “Hillbilly Elegy.”Bret: And when he was a fervent Never-Trumper.Gail: And then there’s Wisconsin, where Mandela Barnes, the Democratic lieutenant governor, is running a very strong race against Senator Ron Johnson. A campaign high point came when Johnson told conservatives he’d only taken a moderate position on same-sex marriage to get the media “off my back.”Bret: That’s the worst of both worlds, isn’t it? His principles are lousy, and he’s not a man of principle.Gail: I have to commend you on rising above partisanship and refusing to support truly terrible Republican candidates in places like Georgia and Arizona. Would you hold firm to that even if it meant a difference in which party controlled the Senate?Bret: In some pre-2016 universe, I’d be rooting for a Republican sweep. And I’d be rooting for Republicans to take at least one chamber in this election, except that so many of the Republicans on the ballot are so unmitigatedly awful that, as the kids say, “I can’t even.”Gail: Yippee!Bret: On the other hand, I think it’s pretty hypocritical that pro-Democratic groups are spending tens of millions of dollars helping MAGA types win Republican nominations, on the theory that they’ll be easier to beat in the general election. That’s what’s happening with the G.O.P. Senate primary in New Hampshire, where the Democrats are none too subtly helping a conspiracy theorist named Don Bolduc against his more mainstream rival, Chuck Morse.I guess I’d find it a lot less loathsome if it were just a cynical electoral strategy. But it’s pretty rich coming from a party that is otherwise attacking “MAGA Republicans” as an existential threat to democracy.Gail: Totally agree about those political action committees that were plotting to get the worst possible Republicans nominated just to increase Democratic chances.But there’s a difference between that kind of scheme and simply criticizing the most likely Republican nominee just to get a start on the final campaign.Bret: In some of these cases, they aren’t the likeliest nominees. And the lesson of 2016 is: Sometimes the bad guy wins.Gail: Speaking of MAGA Republicans, you wrote a very powerful piece attacking Joe Biden for his anti-MAGA address in Philadelphia. Let’s revisit.Bret: Well, here is where I trot out that old French quote about something being “worse than a crime, a mistake.” If Biden had wanted to denounce “election-denying Republicans” or “Jan. 6 Republicans” that would have been fine by me. But calling out “MAGA Republicans” is painting with way too broad a brush, especially when he suggested that anyone who was anti-abortion or opposed to gay marriage automatically belonged in that group. The whole speech reminded me of Hillary Clinton’s deadly “basket of deplorables” remark, which might have cost her the 2016 election: It did more to alienate a lot of voters than it did to persuade them.What’s your take?Gail: We’re talking about a Joe Biden speech, and I suspect that some of the responsible citizens who tuned in because they want to keep up on current events nodded off or switched to a “Simpsons” rerun before he wandered off into the Democratic agenda.Bret: One day I’ll give you my theory on why “The Simpsons,” “South Park” and “Family Guy” represent the last best hope of mankind. Sorry …Gail: But the Democratic agenda is a winner, even when Biden’s selling it. Middle-of-the-road voters are eager to hear about ways they might get more help with medical bills, especially for drugs.And abortion! Don’t know if I’m amused or angry about all the Republican candidates who’ve suddenly scrubbed all mention of the subject off their websites.Both, I guess.Bret: It’s good to see voters energized to defend abortion rights at the state level. Not sure how winning the Democratic agenda is, except among Democrats themselves or their media allies who seem to think that inflation has been bested and the student-loan forgiveness plan is universally popular.I know Democrats are now feeling confident about the midterms, at least when it comes to holding the Senate. But if I were on your team I’d curb the enthusiasm.Gail: I do love the way you sneak references to TV shows into your comments. Tell me — just to stop talking about politics for a minute — what are your all-time favorite shows?Bret: I probably should say “Seinfeld” or “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” but I really do love my cartoons. My all-time favorite South Park episode is the one about the underpants gnomes, who go around stealing people’s underwear in the middle of the night in order to bring it to their underground lair. They have a three-phased approach to making money: Phase One, collect underpants. Phase Two, ? Phase Three, Profit.That pretty much explains most government policies, plus a big part of the start-up economy. And you?Gail: Hey, haven’t watched “South Park” for years. You’re inspiring me.My all-time favorite is “The Sopranos,” the greatest series ever made. We’ve been watching it every night lately. When it’s over I’m ready for a comedy, and my No. 1 pick is “30 Rock.” Tina Fey is a genius. And despite not being a sports enthusiast, I have a strong attachment to “Friday Night Lights.”I so hope our politics evolves again into something people want to gab about. Definitely worrisome that even at the most liberal dinner parties in town, people always wind up back at Donald Trump.Except us, of course, Bret.Bret: Us? Trump? Who?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