Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Tusk Chosen as Poland’s Prime Minister After Rival Is Rejected

      by

      Parliament shot down a new government proposed by the caretaker prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, whose party, Law and Justice, lost its parliamentary majority in an October election.Poland’s newly elected Parliament torpedoed a long-shot effort by right-wing forces to stay in power and chose the opposition leader Donald Tusk as the nation’s new prime minister on Monday. The decision ushers the biggest and most populous country on the European Union’s formerly communist eastern flank into a new era.Legislators, as expected, rejected a new government proposed by the caretaker prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, whose party, Law and Justice, lost its parliamentary majority in an October election.As Parliament shot down Law and Justice’s effort to keep power, opposition legislators taunted Mr. Morawiecki and his supporters over their defeat, chanting “Donald Tusk, Donald Tusk.”Later on Monday, Parliament nominated and confirmed Mr. Tusk, 66, as Poland’s new leader, drawing cheers and applause from his allies and a sour denunciation of the new prime minister as a “German agent” from Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the chairman of Law and Justice and Poland’s de facto leader since 2015. Mr. Tusk, a veteran centrist politician who led Poland from 2007 to 2014, is expected to be sworn in on Wednesday by President Andrzej Duda, an ally of Law and Justice.“This is a truly wonderful day, not only for me, but for all those who have deeply believed for many years that things will get better, that we will chase away the darkness, that we will chase away evil,” Mr. Tusk said after being confirmed as prime minister by the Sejm, the more important lower house of the Polish Parliament.The return to power of Mr. Tusk, endorsed as Poland’s new leader with 248 votes for and 201 against in the Sejm, completed an ill-tempered period of political transition that Law and Justice had sought to prolong as long as possible, despite losing its majority in the October election.Mr. Morawiecki, who led Poland’s previous right-wing government, resigned after the election but was asked by Mr. Duda to stay on in a caretaker capacity and to try to form a new government.Critics of Law and Justice denounced Mr. Duda’s move as a last-gasp attempt by the defeated party to prolong its rule and appoint allies to positions in state institutions and companies.In a final, desperate effort to keep the opposition from taking over, a commission formed by the outgoing government to investigate Russian influence recommended on Nov. 29 that Mr. Tusk and other leading opposition figures not be allowed to hold positions responsible for state security.Votes in Parliament on Monday, however, ended the defeated party’s efforts to remain in office and elevated Mr. Tusk, the leader of the main opposition party, Civic Coalition, to leadership of a new government. He is expected to announce his cabinet on Tuesday.After a day of often raucous debate, 266 legislators voted against the government proposed by Mr. Morawiecki and 190 voted for, far short of the majority it needed in the 460-member Sejm to hang on.Delegates listened as Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the leader of the Law and Justice party, addressed Parliament on Monday.Wojtek Radwanski/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesBy rejecting Mr. Morawiecki’s proposed government, doomed to fail because of Law and Justice’s electoral defeat, Parliament delivered a humiliating blow to Mr. Kaczynski, a bitter political and personal enemy of Mr. Tusk.Mr. Kaczynski warned that the vote against Mr. Morawiecki and the return to power of Mr. Tusk, whom he has repeatedly reviled as an agent for German and Russian interests, “look like the end of Polish democracy but we hope this will not be the case.”Many others, however, cheered the end of the deeply conservative party’s rule, including Lech Walesa, a former Polish president and leader in the 1980s of the anti-communist Solidarity trade union movement. A longtime foe of Mr. Kaczynski, who has accused him of collaborating with the communist-era secret police, Mr. Walesa was so eager to witness the demise of Law and Justice that, despite a recent struggle with Covid, he traveled to Warsaw from his home in the port city of Gdansk to witness the vote. He stood in the spectators’ gallery beaming with delight as Mr. Tusk was confirmed as prime minister.The installation of a new government headed by Mr. Tusk could be a drastic shift away from Poland’s direction during eight years of Law and Justice rule, a period marked by close relations between the governing party and the Roman Catholic Church and frequent quarrels with the European Union.Scope for change, however, will be crimped by the grip of Law and Justice appointees on the judiciary, powerful state bodies like the central bank, the national prosecutor’s office, the national broadcasting system and large state-controlled corporations like the energy giant PKN Orlen. Many of those appointments will be hard to reverse.Mr. Tusk’s room for maneuver will also be constrained by Mr. Duda, who is closely aligned with Law and Justice and has veto power over new legislation. Mr. Duda’s presidential term ends in 2025.The outgoing government made clear it had no intention of cutting Mr. Tusk any slack, with former ministers recycling wild election campaign smears of the man now set to govern Poland.Speaking in Parliament on Monday evening, Mariusz Blaszczak, defense minister in the previous government, responded to Mr. Tusk’s nomination as prime minister by denouncing him as a threat to national security who, “completely obedient to Brussels and Berlin,” will “weaken our security and push us to the periphery of Europe.” He also vowed to “defend” public media, drawing jeers from Mr. Tusk’s supporters.People watching a live screening showing the session of Parliament on Monday.Omar Marques/Getty ImagesThe public broadcasting system, a network of national and local radio and television stations, is stacked with Law and Justice loyalists. TVP, the main state television station, has so far clung to its role as propaganda bullhorn for Law and Justice. Its news coverage is heavily slanted in favor of the former governing party, though it has now curbed somewhat previously incessant denunciations of Mr. Tusk as a traitor. During a debate before the votes in Parliament rejecting Mr. Morawiecki and approving Mr. Tusk, opponents of Law and Justice reviled the former governing party as sore losers who had needlessly dragged out the transfer of power.“These entire two months were built on the foundation of bitterness and non-acceptance of the sovereign’s judgment, which removed Law and Justice from power,” said Wladyslaw Kosniak-Kamusz, the leader of a centrist party allied with Mr. Tusk. “This is the end of this bad stage for Poland,” he added.Law and Justice’s defeat came less than a month after a far-right party performed far better than expected in Dutch national elections. Though it fell well short of winning a majority and is having trouble forming a government, the Dutch party’s result sent shock waves across Europe since the Netherlands had long been seen as one the continent’s most liberal countries.In Poland, Mr. Tusk and his allies are divided on the issue of abortion, which was almost completely banned by the previous government, but they share a desire to restore the independence of the Polish judiciary, which was heavily politicized under Law and Justice, and to repair relations with the European Union.A long and often-vicious election campaign cast a shadow over Poland’s previously robust support for Ukraine as Law and Justice sought to avoid losing votes to a far-right party strongly opposed to helping Kyiv. A new centrist government headed by Mr. Tusk would most likely try to put relations between Warsaw and Kyiv back on track, though issues like cheap Ukrainian grain and a blockade of the border by protesting Polish truckers could obstruct a quick return to more harmonious relations.Law and Justice won more votes than any other single party in the October election and proclaimed victory. But its opponents — Mr. Tusk’s Civic Coalition; a leftist grouping, New Left; and a centrist alliance, Third Way — won a clear majority in the Sejm. The opposition also expanded a majority it had in the Senate, the upper house of Parliament.That simple arithmetic was running against Law and Justice was clear when the new Parliament convened for the first time on Nov. 13 and selected Szymon Holownia, a leader of Third Way, as speaker of the Sejm and rejected a candidate put forward by the previous governing party.The selection of Mr. Holownia, a former television celebrity, as speaker quickly boosted public interest in previously dull legislative sessions, with subscribers to the Parliament’s livestream of debates on YouTube rising 10 times to nearly half a million. “Stock up on popcorn because I suspect there will be a lot of excitement,” Mr. Holownia recommended.Anatol Magdziarz contributed reporting. More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Can an ‘Anarcho-Capitalist’ President Save Argentina’s Economy?

      by

      Carlos Prieto, Rachelle Bonja and M.J. Davis Lin and Marion Lozano and Listen and follow The DailyApple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicWarning: this episode contains strong language.With Argentina again in the midst of an economic crisis, Argentine voters turned to Javier Milei, a far-right libertarian who has drawn comparisons to Donald J. Trump.Jack Nicas, who covers South America for The New York Times, discusses Argentina’s incoming president, and his radical plan to remake the country’s economy.On today’s episodeJack Nicas, the Brazil bureau chief for The New York Times.In his first decree as president of Argentina, Javier Milei cut the number of government ministries from 18 to nine.Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesBackground readingArgentina’s incoming president is a libertarian economist whose brash style and embrace of conspiracy theories has parallels with those of Donald J. Trump.Argentina braces itself for an “anarcho-capitalist” in charge.There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.Jack Nicas More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Putin Says He Will Seek Another Term as Russia’s President

      by

      The announcement was long expected after the Constitution was amended in 2020, effectively allowing the Russian leader to stay in power until 2036.President Vladimir V. Putin said on Friday that he would seek another term as Russia’s leader at an election scheduled for March 17, setting in motion a campaign that is widely expected to result in another victory.With the war in Ukraine as a backdrop, Mr. Putin’s announcement was laden with symbolism. According to Tass, a Russian state news agency, he made it during a military awards ceremony in the Kremlin, responding to a question posed by Artyom Zhoga, a Russian military officer and official from Donetsk, a city in eastern Ukraine.“I won’t hide it, I had different thoughts at different times,” Mr. Putin said. “But now you are right, the time is such when a decision needs to be made,” he said. “I will run for president of Russia.”It was a long-expected announcement, awaited by observers at least since the Russian Constitution was amended in 2020 to effectively allow Mr. Putin to stay in power until 2036. He has led Russia as either president or prime minister since 1999.While there is little doubt about the outcome of the election, the coming vote carries more significance because it is the first presidential election since Mr. Putin, 71, ordered the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.Nikolay Petrov, an analyst with the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, said, “This is not an election, this is the re-election of the same leader.”“Mr. Putin is essentially competing with himself — with the younger Putin,” Mr. Petrov added. “It is important for him to show that he is not in a worse place than he was 25 years ago.”The invasion of Ukraine was perhaps the most consequential decision Mr. Putin had taken for Russia during his 23 years in power. He also ordered an unpopular mobilization campaign last year, in which hundreds of thousands of men were called up to fight in the war.So far, the conflict has not figured heavily in Mr. Putin’s public appearances in the months running up to the election — a strategy that observers say is intentional. More

    • 75 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Russia Sets Date for Presidential Election

      by

      The winner of the contest is widely seen as a foregone conclusion: Vladimir V. Putin.Lawmakers in Russia on Thursday set March 17 as the date for the country’s next presidential election, launching a race that few doubt will result in President Vladimir V. Putin’s re-election for another six-year term.While the vote’s outcome is widely seen as a foregone conclusion in Russia, the campaign will take place under drastically different circumstances than the previous one in 2018.It will be the first presidential election since Mr. Putin ordered the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. It also will be the first election since the passage of constitutional amendments in 2020 that allowed Mr. Putin, 71, to reset his term limit clock. (Some constitutional lawyers and experts still debate the legality of the reset.)The vote on Thursday in the Federation Council, the upper chamber of the Russian parliament, marked the formal start of the election campaign. Speaking before the vote, Valentina I. Matviyenko, the council’s speaker, gave a strong indication of who she thought would win.“Our people will confidently make the only right choice by casting their votes for Russia, victory, and a future in a strong and sovereign country,” said Ms. Matviyenko, referring to the priorities stated by Mr. Putin, even if she didn’t mention him by name.Mr. Putin is expected to announce his intention to run in the coming weeks, but some political parties rushed to endorse him on Thursday ahead of a formal declaration.Sergei M. Mironov, the leader of the Just Russia party, one of five represented in the Russian parliament, said his group was endorsing Mr. Putin, as did Vladimir A. Shamanov, a deputy from the ruling United Russia party.Ella A. Pamfilova, the head of Russia’s Central Electoral Commission, said the body would deliberate in the coming days about whether the vote would take place over a three-day period, instead of on one day — a more drawn out process that critics have said reduces transparency.The commission will also discuss whether the vote will be conducted in the areas of Ukraine occupied by Russia following the invasion, Ms. Pamfilova said.The presidential campaign got launched amid a period of intense diplomacy for Mr. Putin. On Wednesday, he made quick trips to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. On Thursday, he spoke to international investors, many of them from China and India, at a conference in Moscow. Later Thursday, he was scheduled to meet with President Ebrahim Raisi of Iran.Many parties and potential candidates have featured in previous elections, but this time, following the invasion of Ukraine, the political landscape is vastly different.Numerous outspoken critics of Mr. Putin and his policies have had to flee Russia. Aleksei A. Navalny, whose presidential bid was rejected by the Central Electoral Commission, is serving a lengthy prison term in a penal colony. On Thursday, Mr. Navalny’s political allies called on Russians to vote for any candidate other than Mr. Putin.“Putin has been terrorizing our country for 24 years,” said Ivan Y. Zhdanov, the director of Mr. Navalny’s anti-corruption foundation, in a video announcing the effort. “He plans to do it indefinitely.”So far, three Russian politicians have announced their intention to run against Mr. Putin.Boris B. Nadezhdin, a municipal deputy in a suburban town near Moscow, has said the end of the war was his top priority. Igor Girkin, a nationalist warlord and blogger currently in jail awaiting trial on extremism charges, has argued for a tougher approach in Ukraine. Yekaterina S. Duntsova, who also campaigns against the war, has garnered limited national appeal so far.In order to register as candidates, they must collect thousands of signatures from supporters, a requirement that can be a tough bar to overcome for opposition politicians in a country where opposition activity has been sharply curtailed by the state. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Venezuela Orders Arrest of Top Opposition Figures on Treason

      by

      The move is the latest of several that undercut prospects of free elections next year, despite commitments made to the Biden administration in return for sanctions relief.Venezuela’s top prosecutor accused several top opposition figures of treason and ordered their arrest on Wednesday, the latest blow to prospects for credible elections that the government has agreed to hold next year in exchange for the lifting of crippling U.S. economic sanctions.The attorney general, Tarek William Saab, said that opponents of the leftist government had accepted money from ExxonMobil to sabotage President Nicolás Maduro’s recent referendum on annexing a large, oil-rich region in Guyana. The oil company could not immediately be reached for comment.Mr. Saab did not say what, specifically, the accused had done to thwart the referendum, but he said they would be charged with treason, conspiracy, money laundering and criminal association. He announced arrest warrants for 15 people, some of them prominent opposition members, including people who live abroad and two U.S. citizens.The Biden administration has tried to coax Venezuela into holding elections, relaxing some of the damaging American sanctions. In October, the government reached an agreement with the opposition on steps toward a vote, and it agreed last week that candidates who have been barred from running for office could appeal that penalty to the country’s top tribunal.But Mr. Maduro’s government has also repeatedly undercut the opposition’s ability to mount a meaningful challenge.More than 2.4 million Venezuelans voted in October in an opposition primary election for president, held without official government support. Since then, the government has questioned the primary’s legitimacy, has taken legal aim at its organizers and has barred the winner of the primary, María Corina Machado, from running for office for 15 years, claiming that she did not complete her declaration of assets and income when she was a legislator. Three of those Mr. Saab accused on Wednesday are members of Ms. Machado’s political party who live in Venezuela.Since Mr. Maduro took power in 2013, after the death of Hugo Chávez, the combination of growing oppression, rampant corruption and sanctions has made life much harder for ordinary Venezuelans, and millions have left the country. Under Mr. Maduro, international observers have called the country’s elections illegitimate.With the allegations of treason, President Biden must decide whether to continue betting that sanctions relief will persuade Mr. Maduro to allow a real vote, said Geoff Ramsey, a senior fellow for Venezuela at the Atlantic Council.“I think Maduro is really forcing Biden’s hand here,” he said. “It’s become clear that he can’t win a free and fair election, so he needs Washington to snap back the sanctions to justify a crackdown that allows the regime to revert to the status quo.”On Sunday, Venezuela held a referendum, backed by Mr. Maduro, on whether to annex the Essequibo region in Guyana. Mr. Maduro has cast the issue as a fight with ExxonMobil, the American oil company that has a deal with the Guyanese government. His critics say the vote was no more than a bid to divert attention from his political troubles by stoking nationalist fervor.Jorge Rodriguez, president of Venezuela’s National Assembly, with a map on Wednesday showing Essequibo as part of Venezuela.Pedro Rances Mattey/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe government reported a vote of more than 95 percent in favor. Though political analysts, social media users and New York Times journalists reported sparse turnout, the government claimed that it was heavy, with 10.5 million ballots cast.“With the inflated vote numbers, they’ve just become a mockery,” said Christopher Sabatini, a senior research fellow for Latin America at Chatham House, an international affairs research group in London. “Things really do seem to be falling apart.”The Essequibo region, with immense mineral and oil wealth but few people, is almost as large as Florida, taking up nearly three-quarters of the total area administered by Guyana. Venezuela and Britain both claimed it in the 19th century, and the dispute has continued since Guyana gained independence from Britain in 1966. The question is under consideration by the International Court of Justice in The Hague.At the same time that Mr. Saab was giving his news conference, Ms. Machado, a center-right former lawmaker, was holding one of her own at her party’s headquarters in Caracas, saying that the referendum had damaged the electoral authority’s credibility.As news of the charges and arrest orders spread on social media and through the room where Ms. Machado was speaking, her assistant pulled her campaign chief off the stage and whispered in her ear. Afterward, another party leader took the stage to say they were waiting for formal notice from the attorney general.The three party members who were charged left the headquarters without giving statements. They are the international relations coordinator, Pedro Urruchurtu; the political coordinator, Henry Alviarez, and the communications coordinator, Claudia Macero.The Americans accused by Mr. Saab are Damian Merlo, a consultant who has advised the authoritarian president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele; and Savoi Jandon Wright. Mr. Saab gave no information about Mr. Wright, except that he was already imprisoned in Venezuela. More

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Says ‘I’m Not Sure I’d Be Running’ if Not for Trump

      by

      President Biden has portrayed a second term for Donald Trump as an existential threat to American democracy.President Biden suggested on Tuesday that he might have been content to serve only a single term if his predecessor, former President Donald J. Trump, were not attempting to recapture the White House.At a campaign fund-raiser in the Boston area, Mr. Biden presented his decision to run for re-election as driven largely by his determination to defeat Mr. Trump a second time and prevent him from returning to power. Mr. Biden has at times portrayed a second term for Mr. Trump as an existential threat to American democracy.“If Trump wasn’t running, I’m not sure I’d be running,” he told donors at the Weston, Mass., home of Alan Solomont, a longtime Democratic financial backer who served as ambassador to Spain. “But we cannot let him win.”The president’s remark came at a time when polls show that most Democrats would prefer someone other than Mr. Biden, who turned 81 last month, to represent the party in next year’s election. A survey by CNN in August found that 67 percent of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic wanted another nominee, and 70 percent listed Mr. Biden’s age, health, mental competence or ability to handle the job as their main concern about him.Although he described himself as “a bridge” to the next generation during his 2020 campaign, a comment that some interpreted as a hint that he would serve only one term, Mr. Biden has concluded that he is best positioned to beat Mr. Trump again, justifying a re-election campaign. He faces only long-shot challengers in the Democratic primaries in the form of Representative Dean Phillips of Minnesota and Marianne Williamson, the author.Mr. Trump, who is 77 and has demonstrated his own cognitive issues lately, has outpaced his rivals for the Republican nomination by double digits in the polls and appears poised to steamroller to his third general election. That is despite four criminal indictments on 91 felony counts of illegally trying to overthrow an election, endangering national security and other charges. Despite his political liabilities, surveys show he is either tied with Mr. Biden or leading slightly both nationally and in the battleground states that will decide the Electoral College.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Nikki Haley’s Path From Trump Critic to Defender and Back

      by

      When Nikki Haley was governor of South Carolina in 2016, she said she was appalled by Donald J. Trump’s threat to ban all Muslims from entering the United States should he become president. Ms. Haley, herself the child of Indian immigrants, called the pledge “absolutely un-American,” and part of a pattern of “unacceptable” comments and acts.Just two days after she joined Mr. Trump’s new administration in January 2017 as ambassador to the United Nations, she had to confront the issue anew. Mr. Trump barred travelers and refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States for 90 days.At a hastily called White House meeting, other senior administration officials objected, saying the prohibition would endanger refugees already en route to the United States and would hurt families of Iraqis who had long worked closely with the American military in that nation.“I don’t remember Nikki Haley saying anything,” said Kristie Kenney, then a top State Department official, who sat in on meeting. Six weeks later, in one of her first interviews as ambassador, Ms. Haley defended the ban, saying it was directed against countries with terrorist activity, not against Muslims.Now, as she tries to persuade Republican voters to cast Mr. Trump aside and hand her the mantle, Ms. Haley is reverting to her role as Trump critic. As her bid for the White House has picked up steam, she has warned voters that “we cannot have four years of chaos, vendettas and drama,” an obvious reference to his White House years. “America needs a captain who will steady the ship, not capsize it,” she added. Unlike Mr. Trump, she has said, she would not praise dictators and would “have the backs of our allies.”But when Ms. Haley had a chance to influence Mr. Trump, she chose her battles carefully. In interviews with more than a dozen former senior administration officials, most said that while Ms. Haley at times expressed her views frankly, they rarely witnessed her going to the mat, as some other senior aides did, to try to head off or moderate what they saw as Mr. Trump’s rash moves.Ms. Haley made herself a reliable defender of the president to the outside world, often trying to soften the edges of his most abrasive decisions. Privately, she carefully guarded what she later called her “amazingly good relationship” with Mr. Trump and avoided some of the internal fights that would have pitted her against him.“I don’t pick up the phone and say, ‘What are you doing?’” she said in an interview in March 2017, acknowledging that she was at times taken back by some of his public statements. “I just know that’s who he is.”Ms. Haley’s former colleagues could not recall her in the forefront of fights to keep Mr. Trump from imposing trade tariffs on American allies, or rushing into an unprecedented summit with North Korea’s dictator, or canceling America’s longstanding military exercises with South Korea, or banning Iraqis from entering the country. It fell mainly to others to defend NATO from Mr. Trump’s attacks, they said. Many spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to describe internal deliberations.“I think that Haley understood, in an almost visceral way, the importance of maintaining a good relationship with the president,” said Thomas A. Shannon Jr., who served as under secretary of state for political affairs for the first half of Ms. Haley’s tenure. “She did not take on this job to do battle with the president.”Not everyone agrees that she held her fire. “Nikki Haley never pulled any punches with Donald Trump or with anybody,” said H.R. McMaster, Mr. Trump’s national security adviser from early 2017 to early 2018 and a key ally of Ms. Haley. “Oftentimes, she told him what he didn’t want to hear.”That is the impression Ms. Haley is trying to make with voters, as she casts herself as no-nonsense, no-drama alternative to Mr. Trump, who leads in polls in Iowa by some 30 percentage points. “If he was doing something wrong, I showed up in his office or I picked up the phone and said you cannot do this,” she said last week in Wolfeboro, N.H.Both Mr. McMaster and Ms. Haley point to her stance on Russia as evidence that she stood up to Trump. In her 2019 memoir on her U.N. tenure, Ms. Haley said she phoned the president directly to complain that he was overly deferential to Russian President Vladimir V. Putin in a July 2018 meeting, telling him: “The Russians aren’t our friends.”Asked to point to other examples, her campaign did not respond. Nor did her aides answer questions about whether and how she used her influence with the president on a variety of issues that galvanized other senior administration officials.There were clear dividends to keeping Mr. Trump’s favor. The ambassadorship allowed Ms. Haley, who had never held office outside of South Carolina, to gain valuable foreign policy experience and to build the political brand that she now hopes will carry her to the White House.She also achieved a rare graceful exit from the administration, escaping the public insults the president rained on so many of his top aides. Instead, he praised her as “fantastic.”Staying on Trump’s Good SideMs. Haley has looked to cast herself as a no-drama alternative to Mr. Trump.Maansi Srivastava/The New York TimesMs. Haley’s position gave her the luxury of distance from some scorching White House debates. Other senior administration officials recalled sprinting to the Oval Office to try to forestall some of Mr. Trump’s orders. Stationed in New York, answering to a president who cared little about the United Nations, Ms. Haley was to some degree on the periphery.Nonetheless, she had unusually good access to the president. Mr. Trump had granted her wish to be seated on the National Security Council, over the objections of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, to whom she ostensibly reported. And he took her calls, which former Trump aides described as frequent.Because the Trump White House operated in an unconventional fashion, often without the customary briefing papers and deliberate discussions, senior administration officials created unusual and shifting alliances in hopes of influencing the president. They tried to rope in like-minded officials, even on issues outside their portfolio.Several former senior administration officials said they did not view Ms. Haley as a useful ally in countering Mr. Trump because they thought she was unlikely to challenge the president directly. That was the case, they said, in the effort to keep Mr. Trump from imposing steel and aluminum tariffs against American allies like Canada. Gary D. Cohn, the White House economic adviser, led that fight, backed by a group that included Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Mr. McMaster, but not Ms. Haley.Nor was she central to the endeavor by other senior foreign policy advisers to take Iraq off the list of seven Muslim-majority nations covered by Mr. Trump’s travel ban. Mr. McMaster, Mr. Tillerson, Mr. Mattis and John F. Kelly, then head of homeland security, argued that the ban would punish Iraqis who for over a decade worked with the U.S. government to fight extremists.In a series of heated White House meetings, ending up in the Oval Office, they faced off against the White House advisers Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, finally swaying the president to their side. While Mr. McMaster said Ms. Haley agreed Iraq should be dropped from the list, others who described those meetings make no mention of her.Guy Snodgrass, Mr. Mattis’s former chief speechwriter, said he knew of conversations in which the defense secretary and other senior officials discussed how best to influence the president. But he was not aware, he said, of any interaction with Ms. Haley or her staff.Ms. Haley was viewed as having shrewd political instincts — and also clear aspirations beyond the United Nations. Mr. Trump was wary of her ambitions, according to people familiar with his views. Some thought she tended carefully to her relationship with the president partly to safeguard them.“I thought she went out of the way not to take Trump on. Her objective, I thought, was to stay on his good side,” said John R. Bolton, who succeeded Mr. McMaster as national security adviser in March 2018.In her memoir, Ms. Haley recounted one instance, apparently in late 2017, when Mr. Tillerson and Mr. Kelly, then White House chief of staff, tried to enlist her support in holding the president in check. While they claimed that they needed to band together for the good of the country, she wrote, she saw them as disloyal.Ms. Haley later told Fox News that she reported the conversation to Mr. Trump and Mr. McMaster. Mr. McMaster said in an interview that she understood the importance of duty.Mr. Tillerson has denied ever trying to undermine the president. Mr. Kelly has said that he gave the president the best advice he could.Dealing With DictatorsMs. Haley called Mr. Trump to criticize his 2018 meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in Helsinki.Doug Mills/The New York TimesMs. Haley has written that she agreed with most of Mr. Trump’s major policies, including his decisions to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and abandon the Paris climate accord. His posture toward Russia, however, was a steady source of friction.One former senior official said that the only times the president would become angry with Ms. Haley were when she criticized Mr. Putin in public, and that he would order his chief of staff to tell her to stop.Still, she called Mr. Trump to complain about his 2018 summit in Helsinki, where the president had ignited a bipartisan uproar by suggesting he believed Mr. Putin’s denials of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections over the assertions of U.S. intelligence agencies. “You made it sound like we were beholden to them,” she said she told him.Later that year, she persuaded the president to toughen up the administration’s talking points after Russian forces seized three Ukrainian naval ships and threatened to turn the Sea of Azov into a Russian lake, according to Mr. Bolton’s memoir.But even as she objected to Mr. Trump’s approach toward Mr. Putin, she has excused it. In her book, she wrote that she understood why he seemed to let Mr. Putin off the hook in Helsinki. “He was trying to keep communication open with Putin, just as he had with Kim Jong-un and Chinese President Xi Jinping,” she wrote, then went on to extol his ability to disarm people.Similarly, Ms. Haley suggested that Mr. Trump meant well when he praised Mr. Kim as a “talented” leader who “loves his people” and that he just didn’t understand how his words would be received.Since starting her campaign, Ms. Haley has said Mr. Trump “was too friendly” with Mr. Kim, “a thug and a tyrant” who has been “terrible to his people.” (One of Ms. Haley’s biggest accomplishments as ambassador was garnering support from Russia and China for a series of economic sanctions against North Korea after it conducted a battery of missile tests.)Mr. Trump himself has noticed her frequent oscillations: “Every time she criticizes me, she uncriticizes me about 15 minutes later,” he told Vanity Fair in late 2021. “I guess she gets the base,” referring to his popularity with Republican voters she is now courting.‘We Shouldn’t Have Followed Him’Ms. Haley had promised in early 2021 not to run against Mr. Trump for the Republican presidential nomination.Samuel Corum for The New York TimesIn trying to explain why she is so much more critical of him now than before, Ms. Haley has said it is Mr. Trump who has changed, not her.As late as December 2020, after Mr. Trump lost the presidency to Joseph R. Biden Jr., Ms. Haley still took a forgiving stance toward him. She told Politico that although she spoke with Mr. Trump after the election, she did not urge him to concede because he sincerely believed he had won and couldn’t be convinced otherwise. It was a version of the “that’s who he is” argument she had made when she first joined his administration.Then, after his supporters ransacked the Capitol in January 2021, she told Politico there were no excuses for his behavior. “He went down a path he shouldn’t have, and we shouldn’t have followed him,” she said.After she announced this February that she would run against him for the presidential nomination — after promising not to in early 2021 — a political action committee supporting Mr. Trump’s campaign characterized her as an opportunist, “only in it for herself.”Ms. Haley addressed that kind of criticism in an essay in The Wall Street Journal in 2021. She wrote that Mr. Trump had been a good president but had gone astray, and said she could not “defend the indefensible.”“If that means I want to have it ‘both ways,’” she added, “so be it.”Reporting was contributed by More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Wild Card in Taiwan’s Election: Frustrated Young Voters

      by

      An important bloc for the governing party, the island’s youth are focusing on bread-and-butter issues and have helped propel the rise of an insurgent party.In the months leading up to a pivotal presidential election for Taiwan, candidates have focused on who can best handle the island democracy’s volatile relationship with China, with its worries about the risks of war. But at a recent forum in Taipei, younger voters instead peppered two of the candidates with questions about everyday issues like rent, telecom scams and the voting age.It was a telling distillation of the race, the outcome of which will have far-reaching implications for Taiwan. The island is a potential flashpoint between the United States and China, which claims Taiwan as its territory and has signaled that it could escalate military threats if the Democratic Progressive Party wins.But many Taiwanese voters, especially those in their 20s and 30s, say they are weary of geopolitics and yearn for a campaign more focused on their needs at home. In interviews, they spoke of rising housing costs, slow income growth and narrowing career prospects. A considerable number expressed disillusionment with Taiwan’s two dominant parties, the governing Democratic Progressive Party and the opposition Nationalist Party.That sentiment has helped propel the rise of a third: the Taiwan People’s Party, an upstart that has gained traction in the polls partly by tapping into frustration over bread-and-butter issues, especially among younger people. The two main parties have also issued policy packages promising to address these anxieties.In interviews, younger voters voiced concerns about rising housing costs, slow income growth and narrowing career prospects. An Rong Xu for The New York TimesWhom young people ultimately vote for — and how many vote at all — could be a crucial factor in deciding the presidential election on Jan. 13. About 70 percent of Taiwanese in their 20s and 30s voted in the 2020 presidential election, a lower share than among middle-aged and older voters, according to official data. People ages 20 to 34 count for a fifth of Taiwan’s population, government estimates show.“We’re tired of the divisions and wars of words between political parties,” said Shen Chih-hsiang, a biotechnology student from Kaohsiung, a city in the south that is traditionally a stronghold of the Democratic Progressive Party. He remained undecided on whom to support.“Instead of worrying about the politics of major powers that are hard to change,” said Mr. Shen, 25, “I am more concerned about whether I can get a job and afford a house after graduation.”The frustrations voiced by Taiwan’s voters have highlighted some of the issues that the next administration will be under pressure to address. Taiwan is renowned for its cutting-edge semiconductor industry. But many younger workers at smaller companies earn relatively low incomes, and inflation can eat into any small pay increases. Housing prices have risen in many cities.Vice President Lai Ching-te, the Democratic Progressive Party’s candidate, has led in the polls for months. But his lead has narrowed over Hou Yu-ih, the candidate for the Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang. Ko Wen-je, the candidate for the Taiwan People’s Party, has slipped in recent polls but could still play a decisive role by drawing youth votes that might have once gone to Mr. Lai’s party.Ko Wen-je, the candidate for the Taiwan People’s Party, at a news conference in Taipei last month. He has slipped in recent polls but could still play a decisive role by drawing youth votes.Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesTo increase the chances of an opposition victory, Mr. Hou and Mr. Ko had briefly discussed forming an alliance. But the talks fell apart in a spectacular fashion late last month.“So much of this youth support for Ko Wen-je is really driven not by actual admiration for the man and his policies, but by frustration,” said Lev Nachman, a political science professor at National Chengchi University in Taipei. He cited focus group discussions he had with Taiwanese students.“This idea that the D.P.P. and K.M.T. are both equally bad seems to have taken hold among a lot of younger voters,” Professor Nachman said, referring to the two main parties.In a recent poll by My Formosa, an online magazine, 29 percent of respondents ages 20 to 29 said they supported Mr. Ko and his running mate, a fall from the previous survey, while 36 percent backed Mr. Lai. Other polls suggested a similar pattern, thought experts stressed those results could change in the final weeks of the race.The rumble of discontent did not mean that Taiwanese were dismissive about the risks of conflict with China, said Chang Yu-meng, the president of the Taiwan Youth Association for Democracy. The group had organized the presidential forum last month, where Mr. Lai and Mr. Ko answered questions from young voters.“I think young people are still highly concerned about international topics,” Mr. Chang said in an interview after the forum, citing relations with China as an example. “But apart from that, they are really concerned about a diversity of issues.”Chang Yu-meng, the president of the Taiwan Youth Association for Democracy, said young voters were concerned about a broad range of issues in addition to relations with China.Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesWinning the election would be a watershed for the Democratic Progressive Party. Once a scrappy outsider, it was founded in 1986 as a wave of mass protests and democratic activism pushed the Nationalist Party to abandon authoritarian rule. Since Taiwan began direct presidential elections in 1996, no party has won more than two successive terms.The Democratic Progressive Party has tended to win most of the youth vote, but after two terms in power under President Tsai Ing-wen, it is no longer a fresh face. And many younger Taiwanese tend to see the opposition Nationalists as a party too caught in the past and too attached to China.“To young people in Taiwan now, the D.P.P. is the establishment,” said Shelley Rigger, a professor at Davidson College in North Carolina, who has long studied Taiwanese politics and conducted interviews with younger voters. “Whatever the D.P.P. was going to do for young people, they should have done by now. There’s a lot of youth dissatisfaction with the economy.”Mr. Ko, a surgeon and a former mayor of Taipei, has leaped into the space created by this discontent. He supported the Democratic Progressive Party earlier in his political ascent but formed the Taiwan People’s Party in 2019 as an alternative to the establishment. At rallies across the island, he has promised to solve housing and economic problems with a no-nonsense approach that he says he honed in hospital emergency wards. Mr. Ko and his supporters argue that he can also thaw relations with China.Jennifer Yo-yi Lee is one of the legislative candidates for the Taiwan People’s Party who is hoping to tap into voter frustration. “Young people are tired of the vicious battle between parties,” Ms. Lee said.Lam Yik Fei for The New York Times“Taiwan has been stagnant for too long, and it needs some changes,” said Hsieh Yu-ching, 20, who recently attended a youth rally held by Mr. Ko.Mr. Lai recently announced a series of youth policies, promising to improve the job opportunities and mitigate high housing costs. He also announced as his running mate Bi-khim Hsiao, who has been Taiwan’s representative in Washington for more than three years. Ms. Hsiao could lift enthusiasm for the Democratic Progressives, several experts said.“I also want to acknowledge the many domestic and social challenges that our young people are facing,” Ms. Hsiao said at a news conference last month. She promised to do more to address anxiety over jobs, housing and the environment.Vice President Lai Ching-te, the Democratic Progressive Party’s candidate, center left, announced as his running mate Bi-khim Hsiao, who has been Taiwan’s representative in Washington.Carlos Garcia Rawlins/ReutersThe parties all face the hurdle of coaxing voters to turn up at the ballot box. Taiwan’s minimum voting age, 20, is higher than in many other democracies, and people must vote where they are officially registered as residents. For some voters, especially younger ones, that means a long trip back to their hometowns.Millie Lin, who works at a technology company in Taipei and hails from Tainan, at the other end of the island, said she had not decided whether to go home to vote on Jan. 13.“When I see the struggles between political parties,” she said, “I sometimes feel that my vote can’t change anything.” More