South Carolina First Congressional District Primary Election Results 2022
Jennifer Medina, Reporting from Los Angeles.
June 15, 2022 More
Subterms
113 Shares129 Views
in ElectionsJennifer Medina, Reporting from Los Angeles.
June 15, 2022 More
100 Shares149 Views
in ElectionsJennifer Medina, Reporting from Los Angeles.
June 15, 2022 More
100 Shares99 Views
in ElectionsJennifer Medina, Reporting from Los Angeles.
June 15, 2022 More
138 Shares169 Views
in ElectionsBOGOTÁ — El mes pasado, una organización criminal armada paralizó casi un tercio del norte de Colombia, en buena medida sin resistencia. “A partir de esta fecha se decreta cuatro días de paro armado”, decía un panfleto del 5 de mayo que ordenaba a la gente a que permaneciera en sus casas, cerrara los negocios y vaciara las calles.El Clan del Golfo, un grupo del narcotráfico de corte paramilitar, inició el paro contra el gobierno colombiano en represalia por la captura y extradición a Estados Unidos de su líder, Dairo Antonio Úsuga, conocido como Otoniel. “No nos hacemos responsables de aquellos que no acaten las órdenes”, advertía ominosamente el grupo.Para enfatizar su mensaje, los miembros del Clan del Golfo marcaron paredes con sus iniciales en los centros urbanos, quemaron vehículos y camiones para bloquear carreteras, instalaron puestos de control ilegales y patrullaron los campos en motocicletas. Con poca policía estatal o presencia militar para proteger las zonas rurales, los colombianos en 11 de los 32 departamentos del país acataron las órdenes del grupo y se impuso una quietud fantasmal.Al final de los cuatro días, al menos ocho personas habían muerto, casi 200 vehículos habían sido incinerados y muchos de los tres millones de personas afectadas se estaban quedando sin comida y otros productos básicos.El Clan del Golfo también parece estar incidiendo en la elección presidencial. El grupo emitió amenazas por escrito a los partidarios del candidato de izquierda, Gustavo Petro, y en las zonas rurales donde el recuerdo del paro seguía presente, los líderes comunitarios dijeron que el miedo limitó la participación de los votantes.Pero tal vez porque hay mucho en juego, un porcentaje alto de votantes acudió el 29 de mayo a las urnas para la primera vuelta electoral. Petro obtuvo poco más del 40 por ciento de los 21 millones de votos totales y se enfrentará en la segunda vuelta del 19 de junio a Rodolfo Hernández, un controversial empresario inmobiliario de derecha que hizo una fuerte campaña en TikTok.Aunque ambos candidatos difieren de manera significativa en todos los temas —desde la movilidad social hasta la política exterior— comparten una debilidad: ninguno ha articulado un plan claro para detener el aumento de la amenaza armada y la violencia que afecta a la Colombia rural, como revelan las acciones del Clan del Golfo. Los números de personas desplazadas, la acumulación de asesinatos de líderes sociales y comunitarios y el reclutamiento forzoso de niños, son indicios de que la seguridad se está deteriorando con rapidez.Ni Petro ni Hernández parecen estar preparados para enfrentar los desafíos de las zonas rurales en conflicto. Además de la violencia organizada del Clan del Golfo, alrededor de una decena de otros grupos armados recorren las áreas más vulnerables del país, buscando controlar territorios para establecer rutas lucrativas de tráfico de drogas y otros mercados ilegales.El próximo presidente de Colombia debe alejarse del enfoque actual del gobierno de priorizar las capturas y extradiciones de líderes de organizaciones ilegales, como la que causó el paro armado. Esta estrategia no ha logrado desmantelar a los grupos criminales pero sí ha generado consecuencias profundas para los civiles.En cambio, el nuevo presidente debería centrarse en una política que reoriente a las fuerzas de seguridad de Colombia para proteger a los civiles de los grupos armados, que hoy ejercen una autoridad de facto en muchas partes del país. Esto, sumado a la implementación de programas sociales y una inversión sustancial en el campo, puede ayudar a cambiar el rumbo y pavimentar el camino hacia la paz.La policía colombiana escoltó a Dairo Antonio Úsuga, líder del Clan del Golfo, cuando fue extraditado a Estados Unidos en mayo.Prensa Presidencial/Agence France-Presse vía Getty ImagesEl acuerdo de paz, firmado en 2016 entre el Estado y las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), ha logrado reducir en buena medida la violencia rural. Pero algunas regiones, como Montes de María, donde los grupos armados están tomando el control de enormes territorios —incluidas grandes áreas que las FARC solían controlar—, son un buen anticipo de la situación que enfrentará el candidato que gane la elección.Cuando visité Montes de María en marzo, me quedó claro que esta región agrícola, rica en recursos, estaba en crisis. El Clan del Golfo ha expandido agresivamente su presencia desde la firma del acuerdo de paz, reclamando rutas de tráfico e imponiendo el cobro de pagos de protección a la población. Este grupo armado —como casi todos los que hoy operan en el país— evita los enfrentamientos con los militares. Su objetivo no es tomar poder en Bogotá, sino sacar ganancias de las tierras y de su gente.Se suponía que esto no debería suceder. El acuerdo de paz con las FARC eliminaría las desigualdades que habían empoderado a las guerrillas y a los narcotraficantes. Prometía ayudar a los agricultores pobres que cultivaban coca, la materia prima de la cocaína, a abandonar un medio de vida que los exponía a la violencia. Cerca de 100.000 familias se apuntaron y arrancaron voluntariamente sus cultivos de coca.No obstante, el gobierno actual, encabezado por el presidente Iván Duque, llegó al poder en 2018 argumentando que el acuerdo de paz era demasiado indulgente con las FARC, y se ha enfocado en las partes del acuerdo afines a sus intereses políticos —como la desmovilización de excombatientes y el gasto en infraestructura— mientras que otras promesas, como abordar la desigualdad en la posesión de tierras y el respaldo a la sustitución de cultivos de coca, quedaron en el olvido.Al mismo tiempo, decenas de grupos armados, como el Clan del Golfo, han mostrado ser más ágiles, tenaces y económicamente habilidosos para aprovechar las oportunidades que ofreció el desmantelamiento de las FARC.Al interior del país, hombres armados reclutan a la fuerza a niños para engrosar sus filas, sacándolos de sus hogares y escuelas. Otros adultos jóvenes se unen por su cuenta porque, sin posibilidades de educación o trabajo, el conflicto es el único empleo disponible. En el sur de Córdoba, el Clan del Golfo se promueve como “la única empresa que tiene las puertas siempre abiertas”.La élite política colombiana considera, erróneamente, que estas amenazas están desvinculadas de la desesperación social y económica que viven muchos colombianos. Es más fácil culpar de los disturbios a otros enemigos, ya sea Venezuela, las guerrillas de izquierda o los rivales políticos. Y, de hecho, en lugar de solucionar esta situación, la respuesta más común del gobierno ha sido desplegar el ejército.Los soldados enviados para acabar con la inestabilidad saben que este enfoque no está funcionando. “Aquí no hay una solución militar”, me dijo un comandante de una brigada militar en una de las zonas de conflicto más ríspidas de Colombia, sugiriendo que lo que se necesitaba era inversión social.Por ahora, muchas de las fuerzas del gobierno están enfocadas en la erradicación forzosa de la coca, eliminando los cultivos que luego se vuelven a sembrar en tasas que, se calcula, llegan al 50 y 67 por ciento. La estrategia de las fuerzas armadas de matar y capturar a miembros de los grupos armados deriva en el reemplazo inmediato de esas bajas con nuevos reclutas.En pocas palabras, la estrategia inadecuada del gobierno colombiano en las zonas remotas es parcialmente culpable del resurgimiento de la violencia. Los candidatos presidenciales tienen la oportunidad de cambiar de rumbo.Es alentador que tanto Petro como Hernández han dicho que implementarán el acuerdo de paz de 2016, que el gobierno de Duque ha descuidado en muchos puntos. Sin embargo, ninguno de los dos ha presentado un plan claro sobre cómo gestionar el deterioro de la situación de seguridad de los ciudadanos de a pie.Petro, quien en el pasado fue parte de una organización guerrillera, se comprometió a iniciar un diálogo con los grupos armados e implementar la desmovilización de grupos del crimen organizado, como el Clan del Golfo. Hernández, por su parte, ha sugerido agregar al Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN) al acuerdo firmado con las FARC.Aunque en estas ideas hay algunos elementos que podrían funcionar, la mejor manera de abordar la crisis es proteger a los colombianos que viven en el epicentro del conflicto, con mejores servicios policiales, oportunidades económicas y razones concretas que les permita confiar en el gobierno.Una presión puntual de Washington puede ayudar. La reciente declaración del gobierno de Biden que destaca al acuerdo de paz es importante pero ha sido socavada por sus acciones. Los dólares estadounidenses se gastan de manera desproporcionada en enfoques de mano dura, como la erradicación forzosa de la coca, que no contribuyen mucho a resolver el problema y exacerban la desconfianza en el gobierno.La zozobra que aún acecha en las calles del norte de Colombia está avanzando demasiado rápido y lejos como para ignorarla. Los candidatos y los votantes urbanos que ignoran estos desafíos lo hacen bajo su propio riesgo. Lo que está en juego en las elecciones se extiende al futuro de un conflicto que se suponía que había terminado pero que, más bien, se está reavivando.Colombia, que ya había empezado a acabar con un conflicto armado, no debería permitir que vuelva a estallar.Elizabeth Dickinson (@dickinsonbeth) es analista sénior del International Crisis Group para Colombia, con sede en Bogotá. Antes de unirse a la organización en 2017, trabajó durante una década como periodista. More
75 Shares149 Views
in ElectionsBOGOTÁ, Colombia — Last month a criminal armed group shut down much of the northern third of Colombia — largely uncontested. “We decree four days of Armed Strike from this moment,” read the May 5 pamphlet ordering the population to stay indoors, the shops to close and the roads to be empty. The Gulf Clan, a paramilitary-style drug trafficking group, initiated the strike against the Colombian government in retaliation for the capture and extradition of its leader, Dairo Antonio Úsuga, known as Otoniel, to the United States. “We are not responsible for what happens to those who do not comply,” the group warned ominously.To emphasize their point, Gulf Clan members tagged walls in the urban centers with their initials, burned cars and buses to block roads, set up illegal checkpoints and patrolled rural areas by motorcycle. With little state police or military presence to protect the countryside, Colombians in 11 of the country’s 32 departments (similar to U.S. states) obeyed the illegal group’s orders, and a ghostly calm descended.After four days, at least eight people had been killed, nearly 200 vehicles were burned, and many of the three million people affected were running short on food and other basic supplies. The Gulf Clan also appears to be effecting the presidential election. The group issued direct written threats to supporters of the left-wing candidate Gustavo Petro, and in rural areas where the memory of the strike lingered, community leaders said fear did suppress some voter turnout.But perhaps because the stakes are so high, voters nationwide came to the polls at high levels for the first round of elections on May 29. Mr. Petro secured just over 40 percent of the 21 million total votes and will face off with Rodolfo Hernández, an outspoken, right-leaning real estate magnate who campaigned heavily on TikTok, in the runoff on June 19.Though the winning candidates differ significantly on everything from social mobility to foreign policy, they share one weakness: Neither has articulated a clear plan to contain rising levels of conflict and armed violence in the countryside, like the Gulf Clan actions. As seen in higher levels of displacement, assassinations of social and community leaders, and child recruitment, security is deteriorating rapidly.Neither Mr. Petro nor Mr. Hernández seems prepared to address the challenges of Colombia’s rural war zones. In addition to organized criminal violence from the Gulf Clan, about a dozen other armed groups prowl the country’s most vulnerable areas, seeking to control territories that provide lucrative drug trafficking routes. Colombia’s next president must move away from the state’s current approach of narrowly prioritizing captures and extraditions like the one that sparked the armed strike — that strategy fails to dismantle criminal groups but carries deep consequences for civilians.Instead, the new president should focus on a policy that empowers Colombia’s security forces to protect civilians from the armed groups who wield de facto authority in substantial parts of the country. This, coupled with social programs and investment in the countryside, can start to turn the tide definitively toward peace.Colombian National Police escorted Dairo Antonio Úsuga, a drug lord and head of the Gulf Clan, as he was extradited to the United States in May.Prensa Presidencial/Agence France-Presse, via Getty ImagesThe signing of a 2016 peace agreement between the state and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, has greatly reduced rural violence nationwide. But regions like Montes de María, where armed groups are taking control of parts of the country’s vast hinterland, including large areas that the FARC used to control, offer a foretaste of the reality the winning candidate will face.When I visited Montes de María in March, it was clear that this resource-rich agricultural region was in a crisis. The Gulf Clan has aggressively expanded its presence since the peace accord, claiming lucrative trafficking routes and imposing protection taxes on the population. This armed group — like nearly all of those operating in the country today — avoids clashing with the military. Its goal is not to take over in Bogotá, but rather to suck rents out of the land and its people.This wasn’t supposed to happen. The 2016 peace accord with the FARC chipped away at the inequalities that had empowered guerrillas and drug traffickers alike. It promised to help poor farmers growing coca — the raw material for cocaine — leave behind a livelihood that exposed them to violence. Nearly 100,000 families signed up and voluntarily ripped up their coca crops.Yet the outgoing conservative government, led by President Iván Duque, entered office in 2018 alleging that the peace agreement was too lenient on the FARC and has focused on carrying out parts of the accord that serve its political interests — such as demobilizing the former FARC and infrastructure spending — while leaving others, like addressing land inequality and supporting coca crop substitution, to wither.At the same time, dozens of armed groups like the Gulf Clan have proved nimble, tenacious and economically adept at capturing the opportunities afforded by the FARC’s withdrawal.Across the countryside, armed men are forcibly recruiting children to their ranks, ripping them out of their homes and schools. Other young adults sign up willingly because, in the absence of education or jobs, fighting is the only employment on offer. “The only company whose doors are always open” is how the Gulf Clan describes itself in southern Córdoba.The ruling political elite erroneously views these threats as disconnected from the social and economic desperation experienced by many Colombians. It is easier to pin the blame for unrest on other enemies, whether it be Venezuela, leftist guerrillas or political rivals. And indeed, rather than redressing grievances, the government’s default response has been to deploy the military.The soldiers sent to stamp out instability know the approach isn’t working. “There is no military solution here,” a military brigade commander told me in one of Colombia’s fiercest conflict areas, suggesting that what was needed was social investment. For now, many of the government’s forces are tied down forcibly eradicating coca by ripping up the crops that are then replanted at rates estimated to reach between 50 percent and 67 percent. The military’s policy to kill and capture armed-group members only results in new recruits to immediately fill their shoes.Put simply, the Colombian government’s flawed strategy in the countryside is partly to blame for the resurgent violence. Presidential candidates have an opportunity to shift course.Encouragingly, both Mr. Petro and Mr. Hernández have said they will implement the 2016 peace accord, many parts of which the current government has neglected. However, neither has presented a clear plan for how to manage the deteriorating security situation for civilians. Mr. Petro, himself a former rebel, has pledged to begin a dialogue with armed groups and implement demobilization for organized crime groups like the Gulf Clan. Mr. Hernández has suggested adding the guerrilla group National Liberation Army, or ELN, to the existing accord with the FARC.While there are some elements of a solution here, the best way to avert conflict is to protect Colombians living at the heart of the conflict, with better policing, economic opportunities and concrete reasons to trust the government.The right kind of pressure from Washington can help. The Biden administration’s recent statement emphasizing the peace accord is important but undermined by its actions. U.S. dollars are disproportionately spent on strong-arm approaches, such as forced coca eradication, that do little to tackle the problem and exacerbate distrust of the government.The foreboding that still haunts the streets of the country’s north is spreading too fast and too far across Colombia to ignore. The candidates and urban voters ignore these challenges at their peril. The huge stakes of the elections extend to the future of a conflict that was supposed to be over but is instead reigniting. Having ended war here once, Colombia should not allow it to erupt again.Elizabeth Dickinson (@dickinsonbeth) is a Bogotá-based senior analyst for Colombia at the International Crisis Group. Before joining the organization in 2017, she worked for a decade as a journalist.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
88 Shares179 Views
in ElectionsThe stakes in Thursday’s Democratic debate for governor of New York State were relatively low for Gov. Kathy Hochul, the race’s front-runner. She had to withstand an onslaught of attacks from her rival candidates, while making no major errors. She appeared to achieve those modest aims.The stakes for her two rivals, on the other hand, were substantially higher. Early voting for the June 28 primary begins Saturday, and this was one of their last opportunities to change the trajectory of a race that appears all but certain to award her the nomination.Representative Thomas R. Suozzi, who is running to Ms. Hochul’s right as a tough-on-crime, fiscally responsible Democrat, tried his mightiest to land a punch. So did Jumaane D. Williams, the New York City public advocate, who is running to Ms. Hochul’s left.They attacked the governor’s record on crime, aid for undocumented immigrants, the environment, and affordable housing.And they frequently touched on real sore spots for the Hochul campaign.Ms. Hochul did align herself with the National Rifle Association when it was politically advantageous, before turning against it. She did use state funds to finance a new Buffalo Bills stadium in a deal that sports economists describe as flawed, and she did choose a less-than-ideal lieutenant governor in Brian A. Benjamin, who had to step down to fight federal corruption charges.But Ms. Hochul is a formidable fund-raiser wielding the powers of incumbency. She has nearly a year in office and a $220 billion budget under her belt to defend against attacks from her opponents.Here’s a recap of some of the most memorable moments of the debate.A clash over environmental policyMs. Hochul, who backs a multibillion dollar environmental bond act, faced criticism from her rivals on a number of climate-related issues.Pool photo by Craig RuttleMs. Hochul’s first days as governor were punctuated by the remnants of Hurricane Ida, which caused severe flooding that killed at least 13 New York City residents, many in their basements.On Thursday, the debate moderators asked her and her Democratic competitors what they were doing to combat climate change, which is expected to make future hurricanes more devastating.The governor pointed to her support for a $4.2 billion environmental bond act, which will go before voters in November and, if passed, will help finance climate-related infrastructure.A Guide to New York’s 2022 Primary ElectionsAs prominent Democratic officials seek to defend their records, Republicans see opportunities to make inroads in general election races.Governor’s Race: Gov. Kathy Hochul, the incumbent, will face off against Jumaane Williams and Tom Suozzi in a Democratic primary on June 28.Adams’s Endorsement: The New York City mayor gave Ms. Hochul a valuable, if belated, endorsement that could help her shore up support among Black and Latino voters.The Mapmaker: A postdoctoral fellow and former bartender redrew New York’s congressional map, reshaping several House districts and scrambling the future of the state’s political establishment.Maloney vs. Nadler: The new congressional lines have put the two stalwart Manhattan Democrats on a collision course in the Aug. 23 primary.Offensive Remarks: Carl P. Paladino, a Republican running for a House seat in Western New York, recently drew backlash for praising Adolf Hitler in an interview dating back to 2021.But Mr. Williams quickly pointed out that on some other climate-related measures, Ms. Hochul has seemed more equivocal.During a debate last week, Ms. Hochul said that the state’s long-delayed congestion pricing plan for New York City was “not going to happen over the next year under any circumstances.”The plan would demand a toll of drivers entering Manhattan’s central business district, and is expected to reduce traffic and the pollution that comes with it. Ms. Hochul blamed the federal government for the delays.Following her remarks last week, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority she controls issued a statement asserting it was moving full-speed ahead on congestion pricing, and Ms. Hochul hewed to that line on Thursday.But Mr. Williams attacked her on another climate-related front, too. Ms. Hochul has yet to sign legislation that would institute a two-year moratorium on a particularly energy-intensive form of cryptocurrency mining.A super PAC backed by a cryptocurrency billionaire is also supporting her running mate’s bid for lieutenant governor.Conflicting views on how to address the housing crisisMr. Williams, whose campaign has focused heavily on the need to increase affordable housing, criticized the real estate industry and said Ms. Hochul’s proposals were insufficient.Pool photo by Craig RuttleEach of the three candidates on the debate stage agreed that the housing crisis was a major problem facing New Yorkers — but the question of how to solve it opened the first three-way spat of the night.Ms. Hochul pointed to the steps already underway — from a recently signed bill that would convert distressed hotels into housing, to a plan to build 100,000 new affordable units, to a new funding stream for New York’s beleaguered public housing stock — as proof that she has the issue under control.Ms. Hochul also mentioned her rental assistance program, which the state contributed $800 million to in its last budget, and which she described as a “short-term solution,” to help with housing and utility costs during the pandemic.Mr. Suozzi agreed that the city’s public housing needed support, and new affordable housing ought to be built. He suggested that there should be a replacement for 421a, a section in the tax law that offered developers tax relief in exchange for creating affordable units. It has just expired; Ms. Hochul tried to replace it in the last legislative session, but lawmakers balked, calling it a giveaway to real estate.But more broadly Mr. Suozzi knocked the governor for what he described as her “irresponsible” use of federal funds. “We already have the highest taxes in the United States of America. When a downturn comes, we’re going to be in a lot of trouble because of the irresponsible spending by this governor,” he said.Mr. Williams, for his part, said that the state needed to build many times the number of affordable units suggested by Ms. Hochul, and to pass “Good Cause” eviction legislation, which would make it more difficult for landlords to remove tenants from their homes. Neither Mr. Suozzi nor Ms. Hochul said that they would support such legislation.“The real estate industry dumps millions of dollars to buy policy that has you facing eviction,” Mr. Williams said directly to the camera.Repeated interruptions from SuozziMr. Suozzi frequently sought to talk over Ms. Hochul. “Please stop interrupting me,” she said in response.NBC 4 New York — WNBCOne of the more contentious moments of the evening involved Mr. Suozzi’s attacks on Ms. Hochul’s record on gun control.After her 2011 election to Congress, where she represented an upstate district, Ms. Hochul got an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, and the organization endorsed her in 2012 against a Republican opponent.She has since become an ardent proponent of gun control. Mr. Suozzi cast her evolution as hypocrisy.When Ms. Hochul tried to respond to Mr. Suozzi’s argument, he interrupted her twice.“Please stop interrupting me,” Ms. Hochul said, with evident irritation. “People want to hear my answer.”It was not the only time Mr. Suozzi spoke over Ms. Hochul. A short while later, Ms. Hochul was trying to respond to a question about elementary school curriculums dealing with sexual orientation and gender identity.Mr. Suozzi interrogated her directly.“Excuse me, I’m giving an answer,” she said.“I’d like to hear the answer,” he said.“I will answer the moderator,” she responded.The fight over ‘Don’t Say Gay’ comes to New YorkAcross the country, parents have moved to scrub public school curriculums of the history of racism, as well as of information on gender and sexuality.Most recently, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida trumpeted a law — known to detractors as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill — that bars teachers from sharing lessons on L.G.B.T.Q. history or gender identity with children before the fourth grade.Mr. Suozzi drew controversy in April when he said that he found the law to be reasonable. Though he later recanted, he said Thursday night that he wouldn’t teach children “about sexual orientation or about genitalia or about sexuality” before the fifth grade. “I think that that’s up to parents to do that,” he said.Ms. Hochul attempted to seize on Mr. Suozzi’s comments, which she said were “discriminatory.” But when asked whether she would support a mandate for a curriculum in elementary school, Ms. Hochul demurred, saying that such a decision should be made in conjunction with teachers, school boards and parents.Mr. Williams, who has in the past drawn criticism for his own stance on L.G.B.T.Q. issues, said that he would support such a curriculum, so long as it was taught so that young people could understand it. He later suggested that such education could also help children seek help for sexual abuse.Agreement on tackling crime, but not on how to do itMr. Suozzi, a centrist who has built his campaign around fears about rising crime, described it as the “No.1 issue” facing New Yorkers.Pool photo by Craig RuttleNew York City has seen an uptick in certain violent crimes and on Thursday, Mr. Suozzi blamed neither the pandemic, nor the economy, nor Mayor Eric Adams. He blamed Ms. Hochul.“This is the No. 1 issue we face in the state and the governor has not treated it like the No. 1 issue that it is,” Mr. Suozzi said.A recent Siena poll found that 70 percent of New York City residents feel less safe today than they did before the pandemic.Mr. Suozzi has made crime central to his campaign for governor. He routinely argues that the state needs to pass laws that keep criminals in jail longer, and casts himself as a proven executive capable of doing so. He says that as governor, he would remove district attorneys who fail to enforce state law.So when the question turned to subway crime, and Ms. Hochul started explaining her joint city-state effort to combat it, Mr. Suozzi attacked.“People are not safer,” he said. “Under this administration, they are not safer. They don’t feel safe. And the governor has not made crime a priority.”Mr. Williams agreed that safety was of critical importance to the city, acknowledging that as a new father he worried about his daughter taking the subway.Instead of seeking to add police officers, however, Mr. Williams said that the state should invest in housing, mental health, and “responsible” policing to create what he has called a “holistic” approach to public safety. More
113 Shares199 Views
in ElectionsJennifer Medina, Reporting from Los Angeles.
June 15, 2022 More
88 Shares99 Views
in ElectionsMARSEILLE, France — For much of his presidency, Emmanuel Macron has focused on the far right. At every turn he sought to neutralize its threat, alternately prioritizing some of its preferred themes and presenting himself as the only possible bulwark against it.Now he has something else to worry about. After the first round of the country’s parliamentary elections on Sunday, the biggest challenge to Mr. Macron’s power comes not from the right but from the left. Over the next few years, it’s the other side of the spectrum that could in large part determine the country’s political direction.That’s the result of hard-nosed pragmatism. For the first time since 1997, France’s major left-wing parties put aside their differences and ran a single slate of candidates. The coalition, known as NUPES, for Nouvelle Union Populaire Écologique et Sociale, soared last week. By securing 26 percent of the vote, earning a virtual tie with Mr. Macron’s coalition, it has an outside chance of winning an outright majority in the National Assembly after the second round of voting this Sunday. Even if that proves out of reach, the left — under a shared banner — will become the major opposition force in Parliament.The effects will be profound. In the first place, it’s likely to reorient the terms of the national debate, bringing renewed focus to issues like funding for public services, the fight against climate change and tax justice, and put pressure on Mr. Macron. Yet the left’s advance could do more still. By striking against France’s highly personalized presidential system and the European Union’s commitment to fiscal rectitude, the coalition could shake up politics in the country and across the continent. It is, quietly, an extraordinary development.To be sure, a stronger presence in the National Assembly would be a major accomplishment on its own for the parties involved. Thanks to the agreement between them, they’re poised to expand their current share of just 60 seats, benefiting from scores of new lawmakers from Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s France Unbowed Party and the Greens while ensuring the embattled Communists and Socialists live to see another day. Shrewdness and an instinct for self-preservation are two of the biggest factors making unity possible.But as they conquer new ground in Parliament, the left parties may also deprive Mr. Macron of an absolute majority. If the president’s coalition is unable to capture at least 289 of the National Assembly’s 577 seats, it could be forced to govern with support from rival lawmakers — resulting in a fragile government whose fate would hinge on its ability to compromise. While Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally is likely to boost its parliamentary weight, France’s winner-take-all system gives an advantage to the more mainstream Republicans, who would be more natural governing partners for Mr. Macron. In any case, NUPES would be the top opposition force in Parliament.That would make for a dramatically different political landscape than today’s, where Mr. Macron’s agenda tends to breeze through a friendly National Assembly without much resistance. In a sense, the coalition would be taking the public opposition that already exists to much of the president’s agenda and bringing it into the halls of Parliament. Mr. Macron’s plans to raise the retirement age and overhaul a low-income aid program could become trickier to realize.And yet the possibility of a NUPES parliamentary majority cannot be ruled out either. For this to happen, the coalition needs its base to turn out in much greater numbers than it did in the first round — which featured historically low participation across the board — but especially among low-income voters and young people. If these groups do deliver a majority to NUPES, the effects would be truly seismic.Under pressure, Mr. Macron would be forced to nominate a prime minister backed by the left-wing majority, a situation known as “cohabitation,” which entails the sharing of executive power. The three previous times this has happened under France’s Fifth Republic — in place since 1958 — presidents have broadly controlled foreign policy, but the prime minister has overseen much of the domestic agenda. The left alliance already has their man for the job, Mr. Mélenchon.Amid tight polling and mounting anxiety, Mr. Macron and his allies have sought to tap into fears of this very scenario, reverting to red-baiting. The finance minister has likened Mr. Mélenchon to a “Gallic Chavez” who would “collectivize” the economy and bankrupt France, while a leading lawmaker from Mr. Macron’s party has warned of a “return to the Soviet era.” The chief of France’s top business lobby has said Mr. Mélenchon risks pushing the country “to the brink.”In fact, the coalition’s actual platform is far from revolutionary. It’s inspired more by the golden days of European social democracy than by the Bolsheviks. The coalition’s two signature economic policy proposals — a hike in the minimum wage to 1,500 euros, or about $1,560, a month and a cap on the prices of essential goods — are modest measures at a time of rapidly rising inflation.Plans to raise taxes on the superrich and boost investment in schools, hospitals and transport networks contrast with Mr. Macron’s embrace of the private sector, it’s true. Yet these are popular, standard-fare progressive policies in Europe. The alliance’s bold climate proposals — a five-year €200 billion, or nearly $209 billion, green investment plan driven by the principle of “ecological planning” — have led the ecology minister to accuse NUPES of “playing on young people’s fears.” But it’s hard to see the plans as anything other an attempt to tackle the climate crisis head-on. The costs of inaction would be much greater, anyhow.Jean-Luc Mélenchon at a campaign stop in Saint-Nazaire, France, in May.Sebastien Salom-Gomis/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe scaremongers are right about one thing, perhaps: An empowered left in one of the world’s most influential countries would have ripple effects abroad. It would be a source of inspiration for ideologically similar parties in Europe, which have struggled to contest for power since the heydays of Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain. What’s more, a French government willing to push back forcefully against the European Union’s restrictions on public spending and state intervention in the economy could encourage Brussels to evolve. As Europe struggles with the fallout from Russia’s war in Ukraine, that could be a significant development.Yet the election’s consequences will be more immediately visible within French borders. The coalition is calling for the creation of a Sixth Republic that would rein in presidential power and return France to a more standard parliamentary regime — and the first-round results show a big chunk of the electorate agrees. Even if a change of that scope appears unlikely for now, a failure for Mr. Macron to win a clear majority just months after re-election would be more than a personal setback. It would mark a substantial blow to the office of the presidency itself, which was initially designed for the national hero and strongman Charles de Gaulle. The very structure of the Fifth Republic could come under scrutiny.That may ultimately be one of the most powerful and lasting messages sent by French voters. In a country as complex, large and diverse as theirs, a political system designed to concentrate authority in the hands of a single head of state maybe isn’t the best way of reflecting popular will. And perhaps, after 64 years, it’s time to try something new.Cole Stangler (@ColeStangler) is a journalist based in France who writes about labor, politics and culture.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
This portal is not a newspaper as it is updated without periodicity. It cannot be considered an editorial product pursuant to law n. 62 of 7.03.2001. The author of the portal is not responsible for the content of comments to posts, the content of the linked sites. Some texts or images included in this portal are taken from the internet and, therefore, considered to be in the public domain; if their publication is violated, the copyright will be promptly communicated via e-mail. They will be immediately removed.