Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Sunday Read: ‘The Daring Ruse That Exposed China’s Campaign to Steal American Secrets’

      by

      Adrienne Hurst and Dan Powell and Dan Farrell and Listen and follow The DailyApple Podcasts | Spotify | StitcherIn March 2017, an engineer at G.E. Aviation in Cincinnati received a request on LinkedIn. The engineer, Hua, is in his 40s, tall and athletic, with a boyish face that makes him look a decade younger. He moved to the United States from China in 2003 for graduate studies in structural engineering.The LinkedIn request came from Chen Feng, a school official at the Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, in eastern China. Days later, Chen sent him an email inviting him to the university to give a research presentation. Hua arranged to arrive in May, so he could attend a nephew’s wedding and his college reunion at Harbin Institute of Technology. There was one problem, though: Hua knew that G.E. would deny permission to give the talk if he asked, which he was supposed to do. He went to Nanjing, and flew back to the United States after the presentation. He thought that would be the end of the matter.Many scientists and engineers of Chinese origin in the United States are invited to China to give presentations about their fields. Hua couldn’t have known that his trip to Nanjing would prove to be the start of a series of events that would end up giving the U.S. government an unprecedented look inside China’s widespread and tireless campaign of economic espionage targeting the United States, culminating in the first-ever conviction of a Chinese intelligence official on American soil.There are a lot of ways to listen to ‘The Daily.’ Here’s how.We want to hear from you. Tune in, and tell us what you think. Email us at thedaily@nytimes.com. Follow Michael Barbaro on Twitter: @mikiebarb. And if you’re interested in advertising with The Daily, write to us at thedaily-ads@nytimes.com.Additional production for The Sunday Read was contributed by Emma Kehlbeck, Parin Behrooz, Anna Diamond, Sarah Diamond, Jack D’Isidoro, Elena Hecht, Desiree Ibekwe, Tanya Pérez, Marion Lozano, Naomi Noury, Krish Seenivasan, Corey Schreppel, Kate Winslett and Tiana Young. Special thanks to Mike Benoist, Sam Dolnick, Laura Kim, Julia Simon, Lisa Tobin, Blake Wilson and Ryan Wegner. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Ahead of Elections, Turkish Opposition Leader Takes on Erdogan’s Legacy

      by

      Ahead of next month’s elections, Kemal Kilicdaroglu has pledged to undo President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s legacy with a focus on tackling inflation and strengthening democracy.ISTANBUL — The main opposition candidate aiming to unseat President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in elections next month has pledged to undo the legacy of the longtime Turkish leader and focus on strengthening democracy, easing a cost of living crisis and battling corruption.The candidate, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, is aiming to attract voters who may have tired of the president’s bombastic rhetoric and tough-guy persona, campaigning not just as an anti-Erdogan, but also as his polar opposite: a calm everyman who says he plans to retire after a single five-year term.While Mr. Erdogan, 69, thrives in settings that showcase his power and put him among other world leaders, Mr. Kilicdaroglu, 74, addresses voters from his modest kitchen with a glass of tea at his elbow and dish towels hanging from the oven behind him.“Our democracy, economy, judicial system and freedoms are under heavy threat from Erdogan,” the former civil servant said in a recent kitchen campaign video. “I will put the state on its feet again and heal the wounds, and I will give back the joy of life to the people.”The presidential and parliamentary elections set for May 14 could drastically reshape Turkey, one of the world’s 20 largest economies and a NATO ally of the United States, not least because opinion polls suggest Mr. Erdogan is more vulnerable at the ballot box than at any other time in his 20 years as Turkey’s predominate politician.Chronic inflation that many economists attribute to his financial management stands at 50 percent and has eroded family budgets, angering voters. Devastating earthquakes in February, which killed more than 50,000 people in Turkey, sparked anger at the slow response and raised questions about whether the government’s failure to curb lax building practices increased the death toll.Rescue workers carried the body of a resident from a collapsed building in Antakya in February. Earthquakes that struck on Feb. 6 killed more than 50,000 people in Turkey.Emin Ozmen for The New York TimesMr. Erdogan’s years at the helm have made him the face of Turkish foreign policy, with supporters saying he has boosted Turkey’s global stature and critics accusing him of over-personalizing foreign relations, weakening the diplomatic corps. He has maintained ties with Ukraine while meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, despite the war between them. He has used Turkey’s veto to snarl the expansion of NATO, making allies question his loyalties.Mr. Kilicdaroglu has promised to to run the country differently, and is betting that many Turks are ready for a change.But first, he must face Mr. Erdogan, a deft campaigner who has tightened his control of the state and can marshal its resources for his campaign.“Kilicdaroglu is the antithesis of Erdogan,” said Asli Aydintasbas, a Turkey scholar at the Brookings Institution. “To Erdogan’s virile political aggression, he is a soft-spoken gentleman. In terms of his platform, he is not just a democrat, but is promising to be a uniter.”Recent opinion polls suggest a slight lead for Mr. Kilicdaroglu. Two other candidates are also running. One is not expected to get many votes. The other is a former member of Mr. Kilicdaroglu’s party who could siphon away opposition votes, denying Mr. Kilicdaroglu a majority in the first round and forcing a runoff with Mr. Erdogan on May 28, according to some projections.Mr. Erdogan is seeking his third five-year term. Mr. Kilicdaroglu has promised to retire after a single term so he can spend time with his grandchildren.Since 2010, Mr. Kilicdaroglu has been the leader of the Republican People’s Party, or C.H.P., the largest opposition party, which has been regularly trounced at the ballot box by Mr. Erdogan and his ruling Justice and Development Party.A meeting of the Republican People’s Party, or C.H.P., in December, with a banner with images of Mr. Kilicdaroglu, right, and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the modern Turkish state.Erdem Sahin/EPA, via ShutterstockIn 2009, Mr. Kilicdaroglu lost the race for mayor of Istanbul, Turkey’s largest city and economic engine. His party’s candidates also lost in Istanbul in 2014 and in presidential races against Mr. Erdogan in 2014 and 2018.The C.H.P. has failed to significantly increase its seats in Parliament in four elections since 2011 and twice failed to block referendums that expanded Mr. Erdogan’s powers.Mr. Erdogan took aim at Mr. Kilicdaroglu’s record before nationwide municipal elections in 2019.“You could not even herd a sheep,” he said, rhetorically addressing Mr. Kilicdaroglu. “You lost nine elections. Now you will lose the 10th.”Opposition supporters counter that the 2019 elections provide a template for victory because the opposition defeated Mr. Erdogan’s candidates in a number of cities, including Turkey’s two largest, Ankara, the capital, and Istanbul, where Mr. Erdogan launched his own political career as mayor in the 1990s.Offering perhaps another glimpse at the future, the government’s electoral commission voided the 2019 results in Istanbul, alleging irregularities and calling for a redo. The opposition won that, too.Mr. Kilicdaroglu rarely attacks Mr. Erdogan by name to avoid galvanizing the president’s loyalists. But after the devastating earthquakes in southern Turkey on Feb. 6, he accused Mr. Erdogan of pursuing policies that left the country vulnerable to such disasters. Construction has played a large role in economic policies during Mr. Erdogan’s tenure, raising questions about whether safety standards were ignored amid a push for economic growth.“There is one person fully responsible for all of this: Erdogan,” Mr. Kilicdaroglu said during a visit to the quake zone. “Whenever Erdogan brings this country down, he makes calls for unity. Spare me.”He often accuses Mr. Erdogan’s government of misusing state funds and has vowed to investigate accusations of sweetheart deals with companies close to the president.The vote on May 14 will determine if Mr. Erdogan, shown in March, who has dominated the country’s politics for 20 years, will remain in power.Adem Altan/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIf he wins, he has said, he will return the country to a parliamentary system, undoing constitutional changes that allowed Mr. Erdogan to expand his powers. He has vowed to restore the independence of the judiciary, the central bank and the foreign ministry, which he and other critics say have fallen under Mr. Erdogan’s control.Mr. Kilicdaroglu represents six opposition parties that have united against Mr. Erdogan, broadening his base. He also has the tacit support of Turkey’s largest Kurdish party, which could give him about an additional 10 percent of the electorate.Both Mr. Erdogan and Mr. Kilicdaroglu grew up poor, the first in a scrappy Istanbul neighborhood, the second in an isolated village in central Turkey.As a child, Mr. Kilicdaroglu wore the same pair of shoes for years, he has said. While studying economics in university in Ankara, he walked everywhere to save money on transport. He often writes his speeches on the backs of used sheets of paper.After university, he worked for nearly 30 years as a civil servant and ran Turkey’s social security administration.Mr. Kilicdaroglu’s conspicuous financial modesty distinguishes him from Mr. Erdogan, who exudes a flashiness and had hundreds of millions of dollars spent on a new presidential palace that is larger than the White House, the Kremlin and Buckingham Palace.After retiring from the civil service, Mr. Kilicdaroglu won a seat in Parliament and caught the nation’s eye by confronting executives and officials with corruption allegations on live TV.In 2010, after a sex tape scandal forced his predecessor to resign, Mr. Kilicdaroglu became the head of the C.H.P., the party of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who founded Turkey after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire 100 years ago this year.C.H.P. campaign posters in Diyarbakir, Turkey, last month. Recent opinion polls suggest a slight lead for Mr. Kilicdaroglu. Sedat Suna/EPA, via ShutterstockIn 2017, at age 69, he protested the arrest of a fellow parliamentarian on what he dismissed as bogus espionage charges by walking more than 250 miles from Ankara to Istanbul in 23 days holding a sign that read “justice.” The march concluded with a large rally, but the momentum he generated to challenge what he called Mr. Erdogan’s weaponization of the judiciary quickly fizzled.Critics noted that Mr. Kilicdaroglu had voted for the law that had lifted legal immunity for members of Parliament, paving the way for the arrest of his colleague and other political figures.That same year, the results of a referendum that expanded Mr. Erdogan’s powers were marred by claims of fraud, but Mr. Kilicdaroglu did not mount a significant challenge.Mr. Kilicdaroglu’s often-tepid challenges to Mr. Erdogan’s government have raised questions about his ability to stand up to maneuvers he could face from Mr. Erdogan in the election.“We are in the hands of a bureaucrat who is overcautious most of the time,” said Soli Ozel, a lecturer in international relations at Kadir Has University in Istanbul.But for now, Mr. Kilicdaroglu is the only hope for Turks seeking a change from Mr. Erdogan.“This is not the election to open the gates of heaven,” Mr. Ozel said. “It is the election to close the gates of hell.”Safak Timur More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Election Denial and Threats to Our Democracy Have Gone Local

      by

      American democracy didn’t crumble in one fell swoop under the administration of a president with disregard for rule of law or under the weight of a mob storming the Capitol or under a wave of candidates who claimed the 2020 election was rigged. Though some election deniers did win critical midterm races, the most prominent — Republicans like Kari Lake and Mark Finchem in Arizona and Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania — lost their 2022 campaigns.As a result, some voters might have concluded that the movement died beyond Donald Trump’s continued claims. That would be a serious mistake, because though it has receded from the headlines, election denialism has not died. It has just gone down ballot.In some state and local offices across the country, election denialism is still recasting how elections are conducted, in ways big and small.With far less effort than it would take on a national level, Republican officials are gumming up the mechanics of local election administration, making it harder to cast a vote, harder to tally votes and harder to get results in a timely fashion. Officials are policing elections, establishing task forces and election police units that are supposedly there to root out fraud but could have the effect of intimidating voters from exercising their civic right.Every little bit of friction that’s added to the election process makes it that much harder for it to function. Through the typical channels of government bureaucracy and under the pretense of merely asking questions, these conspiracy-theory-influenced Republicans are often creating this friction for their own voters. Their actions might seem like inconsequential outliers, but it’s there at this grass-roots level that our voting system is most vulnerable. Which means these obscure election boards aren’t where denialism goes to die; it’s where it takes root and starts to grow.Just last month, North Carolina state election officials voted to remove two local election officials. In November the pair initially refused to certify election results (though one ultimately did), as well as in a redo election this year after a bizarre circumstance in which a poll worker was accused of telling voters at one precinct that a candidate had died. The officials questioned state election practices and a 2018 federal court decision striking down strict voter ID requirements North Carolina had in place at the time. “We feel that the election was held according to the law that we have but that the law is not right,” one said.The incident is just the latest in a string of examples of the ways that election deniers’ conspiratorial distrust of elections continues to affect state and local elections. These kinds of disputes and claims cropped up again and again in local jurisdictions last year. Whether it was initially refusing to certify elections, as officials in Cochise County, Ariz., threatened or hand-counting ballots, as they moved to do in Nye County, Nev., or voting to outright get rid of voting machines and sue the secretary of state, as happened in Otero County, N.M., the long tail of the Big Lie has created disorder in local election administration.Perhaps the widest-reaching example of structural interference in elections is the growing list of states that have pulled out of the bipartisan nonprofit data consortium known as the Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC.ERIC was created to help states maintain accurate voter rolls through information sharing. It helps guard against fraud by allowing states to crosscheck for inaccurate or outdated voting records and helps identify potential new voters who haven’t yet registered. Since its founding in the 2010s, ERIC existed in relative obscurity. Over the past year, however, ERIC has become the subject of conspiracy theories and attacks, including by Mr. Trump, who has said it “pumps the rolls” for Democrats.Louisiana was the first state to announce it would pull out, in late 2022, followed by Alabama, whose incoming secretary of state did so on his first day in office this year. Since then, the Republican secretaries of state in Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio and West Virginia have announced their intention to leave.The latest wave of departures came after some Republican members tried but failed to make changes to ERIC’s leadership to guard against what they consider to be partisanship, as well as changes to the program, including a removal of the requirement that member states reach out to residents who are eligible to vote but unregistered. Some of these requested changes are debatable matters of policy, but those meetings also came after the flurry of conspiratorial attacks on ERIC over the past year.The irony, however, is that leaving ERIC could very well make their elections less secure. Just this past January, Florida’s new Office of Election Crimes and Security used ERIC data to identify more than 1,000 voters who appeared to have voted in more than one state. In February, the month before he decided to withdraw, the Iowa secretary of state told NPR that ERIC was a “godsend.” Without this crosschecking tool at their disposal in the future, it’s possible for these instances to slip through the cracks, but it’s difficult to know just what the full effect of a weakened ERIC will be.It’s also notable that the institutions being targeted by election denier conspiracy theories are often some of the most mundane — making it hard to predict what will be targeted next. After the 2020 elections, Republican legislators’ attacks on ballot drop boxes, early voting windows and other measures intended to make voting easier were somewhat to be expected. But the moves by election administrators to go after a bipartisan organization like ERIC only add to the chaos that has become election denialism’s calling card.The antidemocratic legacy that once denied the franchise to Black Americans and women is a part of the American story. Today, threats to democracy can be as varied as the states, counties and municipalities where they’re happening, thanks to the confusing patchwork of election laws and powers that change from state to state. But to the extent that they infringe on the voting rights of any part of the electorate, these moves matter to all of us, because they threaten the entire project of American democracy.Camille Squires is an editor at Bolts, a digital publication focused on voting rights and criminal justice in state and local governments.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

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Is Public Television the Israeli Government’s Next Target?

      by

      When you host one of the world’s last over-the-air radio shows in Yiddish, fans occasionally get in touch. But you hear more often from critics. They write to Avraham Zaks, the 37-year-old behind the mic of a weekly program called “We Are Here!” to nitpick about his grammar. Or to complain about his accent, which doesn’t sound sufficiently Eastern European to their ears. Some tell him the show needs more religious content.Mr. Zaks, who has flecks of gray in his beard and warm dark eyes and wears wire-rim glasses, does not mind. On some level, he is kind of tickled by the feedback.“I write and say: ‘Thank you very much, we’re doing our best. It’s nice to hear that you’re listening,’” he said on a Wednesday afternoon, just minutes before his show started. “The problem in broadcasting generally is that most of the time, you don’t get any reaction. You feel like you’re speaking to yourself.”“We Are Here!” is one of a handful of niche language radio offerings of Kan, Israel’s public media network, officially known as the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation.Avraham Zaks, the host of a weekly program called “We Are Here!” on Kan, Israel’s public media network.Avishag Shaar-Yashuv for The New York TimesMost of the company’s 1,000 employees run a highly regarded TV, radio and digital news division or oversee the production of some of the country’s most prestigious television shows, some of which air on U.S. streaming platforms. As Israel’s answer to the BBC or PBS, Kan, whose headquarters is in Jerusalem, is more interested in gravity than ratings.These days, Kan has a new focus: survival. It sits squarely in the cross hairs of Israel’s right-wing government elected in November. Through Shlomo Karhi, the minister of communications, the government has issued a number of threats against the network, starting with a vow to defund the company and shut it down.“There is no place in this day and age for a public broadcaster when there is a wide range of channels,” Mr. Karhi said during a news conference in January.In case anyone thought he was talking exclusively about saving taxpayer money — Kan receives the equivalent of $180 million a year from Israel’s coffers, about 85 percent of the company’s budget — he also accused the media more broadly of being “too biased toward the left.”A few weeks later, a spokesman for Mr. Karhi said in a statement that the closure of Kan was delayed “until further notice” so that the government could concentrate on overhauling the judiciary, a plan that has convulsed the nation.More recently, the minister said he wanted to strip Kan of three of its eight radio spectrums, which are needed for radio stations. The station broadcasting “We Are Here!” is expected to survive any cull because an Israeli regulation requires foreign language broadcasting in this nation of immigrants. The fear among Kan’s supporters is that once the government is done with the judiciary overhaul, whether its plans end with success or failure, the network is next.“If you’re looking for a textbook on how to turn a democracy into an autocracy, it includes shutting down independent media,” said Tehilla Shwartz Altshuler, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute, who drafted Kan’s journalistic code of ethics. The media market in Israel, a country of 10 million people, is small by American standards and highly competitive. There are four TV networks in total. The other three are privately held and Kan is generally in a tie for fourth place in the ratings race with Channel 14. That network, often called Israel’s version of Fox News, enthusiastically supports the Netanyahu administration. In recent months, according to the network, it has enjoyed a ratings surge.Political leaders in Israel, like those in virtually every country, try to influence and shape news coverage. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems especially eager to manage the media. Two of the three corruption trials against him involve quid pro quos for favorable coverage from powerful publishers — one the owner of a large daily newspaper and the other a telecom tycoon who operates a popular online news site. (Mr. Netanyahu denies wrongdoing.)“The coalition is not interested in the standard pushback game we’ve seen in the past,” said Shuki Tausig, chief editor of The Seventh Eye, a media watchdog publication. “They want to use regulations to weaken, or even smash, big commercial players that are not obeying them. And they want to eliminate or control Kan.”The network is the successor to the Israel Broadcasting Authority, which was closed in 2017 after critics from across the political spectrum concluded that its programming was shabby and the authority too easily buffeted by politicians, who appointed its board members and controlled its budget.Kan has been designed for imperviousness to partisanship, relatively speaking; the job of selecting board members is up to industry professionals. It’s a structure that has produced a catalog of highly compelling television, including a three-part documentary about Adolph Eichmann, “The Devil’s Confession,” available on Amazon Prime and bankrolled by a number of companies. Last month, Kan was nominated for 125 Ophir Awards, Israel’s version of the Oscars and Emmys, more than double its nearest rival.The media market in Israel, a country of 10 million people, is small by American standards and highly competitive. There are four TV networks in total. Avishag Shaar-Yashuv for The New York Times“All the other networks are trying to make a profit so they are filled with shows where people are on an island for three weeks fighting over a bag of rice,” said Tsuriel Rashi, senior lecturer at Ariel University’s School of Communication. The Eichmann documentary, he added, was “a huge undertaking.”“It’s expensive, and it won’t make money,” he said, “but it’s important.”Kan is in an office building in a generic patch in Jerusalem, not far from an ultra Orthodox neighborhood and near the Israel Tax Authority. During a recent visit, the place hummed with reporters readying an evening broadcast. In the Arab media room, a handful of employees were watching dozens of televisions broadcasting from around the Middle East.“Today is kind of quiet,” said a reporter with his eyes trained on the screens. “There was a machine gun fired into the air in Gaza, which set off sirens in Israel, but no rockets.”“I’ve seen scarier things in my professional life,” one of his colleagues said.Despite the business-as-usual vibe here, morale has sagged, as it would at any institution facing extinction.“We had a companywide meeting a few weeks ago, and I told everyone, ‘I know there are people here who go home at night and have children ask if they will have a job in the morning,’” Gil Omer, chairman of the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation, said in an interview at Kan’s offices. “And I told them that we will do everything we can to keep this place alive.”Gil Omer is the chairman of the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation, known as Kan and is Israel’s answer to the BBC or PBS.Avishag Shaar-Yashuv for The New York TimesFor now, the government appears to have scaled back its ambitions to those three radio spectrums, which it plans to make available to commercial networks.It’s not a measure Mr. Karhi could take unilaterally. Yoaz Hendel, his predecessor as minister of communications, said in an interview that Mr. Karhi did not seem to understand the job, which has nothing to do with Kan’s budget — that’s the finance ministry’s purview — and is all about building communications infrastructure, like 5G.“Karhi could announce tomorrow that all Israelis need to wear red hats, but that doesn’t mean anyone would listen to him,” Mr. Hendel said. “He should focus on what he was appointed to do, which is to make sure that Israel is well-connected.”Elad Malka, the vice director general at the Ministry of Communications, disagreed. “The minister in charge of public broadcasting is the minister of communications,” he said. “Of course, if there are changes that the minister wants, he needs to go to the Knesset,” Mr. Malka added, referring to Israel’s Parliament.Even if he lacks the authority to unplug Kan on his own, Mr. Karhi, a former member of the Knesset, has grabbed national attention in Israel because his statements appear to reflect the will of the government. And grabbing attention is one of Mr. Karhi’s specialties. In February, he denounced critics of the judicial overhaul plan as “erav rav,” an ancient term for demons who pose as Jews and must be killed. In early March, during the Jewish holiday of Purim, he tweeted a message wishing everyone well — except for reservists soldiers opposed to the judicial overhaul, who he said could “go to hell.”“He has no interest in media,” Mr. Tausig said. “His actions as minister are just political opportunism, a way to demonstrate he’s more extreme than extreme, to serve Netanyahu.”A spokesman for the Ministry of Communications declined to comment.Mr. Zaks, the host of “We Are Here!,” has closely followed the drama that has engulfed his employer, but one recent Wednesday afternoon he was more interested on his upcoming interview with the head of the Yiddish Department at Hebrew University.They discussed how to attract Israel’s ultra Orthodox to evenings of Yiddish theater and literature, a major challenge given that much of the canon is downright irreligious. Reaching the Haredi, or ultra Orthodox, community is important to Mr. Zaks, who was raised in a Lubavitcher community outside Tel Aviv. By the time he was 20, he realized that he was an atheist and left. He spent the next few years discovering popular culture that he had never encountered — television, movies, professional sports.“I knew about radio because it was on all day at home,” he said. “That was it.”The biggest group of Yiddish speakers in Israel are Haredi, but he assumes they are a tiny percent of the audience for “We Are Here!” because it’s a secular show. He knows, however, that every year a few thousand exit the ultra Orthodox community and he’s happy to offer them some connection to the world they have left behind.“It’s like being an émigré and reading a newspaper in the language you were raised in,” he said. “I don’t love the place that I left, but I love Yiddish. It’s a heritage that we have to keep.” More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      This Philosopher Wants Liberals to Take Political Power Seriously

      by

      America today faces a crisis of governance. In the face of numerous challenges — from climate change, to housing shortages, to pandemics — our institutions struggle to act quickly and decisively. Democratic processes often get captured by special interests or paralyzed by polarization. And, in response, public faith in government has reached a new low.For the political philosopher Danielle Allen, this crisis requires a complete transformation of our democratic institutions. “Representation as designed cannot work under current conditions,” she writes. “We have no choice but to undertake a significant project of democracy renovation.” Allen’s most recent book — “Justice By Means of Democracy” — puts forth a sweeping vision of what she calls “power-sharing liberalism,” which aims to place political equality, power and participation at the center of liberal thinking.[You can listen to this episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google or wherever you get your podcasts.]But Allen isn’t just a theorist of liberal governance; she’s actively applying her insights in the real world. As the director of Harvard’s Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Ethics, she’s convened interdisciplinary groups to tackle a range of challenges from building Covid-19 testing infrastructure to innovating in A.I. governance. She was co-chair of the “Our Common Purpose” commission, which put forward over 30 specific policy recommendations for reinventing American democracy. She even ran for governor of Massachusetts.So this is a conversation about what it would mean to build a better, more responsive and inclusive government — and the numerous challenges standing in the way of doing that. Along the way, we discuss liberals’ failure to take power seriously, Colorado’s experiments with “plural voting,” Seattle’s efforts to publicly finance elections through “democracy bucks,” Taiwan’s groundbreaking innovations in deliberative democracy, whether most citizens actually want deeper participation in government — or just better results from it, what it would mean to democratically govern AI development and much more.You can listen to our whole conversation by following “The Ezra Klein Show” on Apple, Spotify, Google or wherever you get your podcasts. View a list of book recommendations from our guests here.(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)Courtesy of Danielle AllenThis episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Emefa Agawu, Jeff Geld, Kristin Lin, and Roge Karma. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris. Mixing by Jeff Geld. Original music by Isaac Jones. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta. The executive producer of New York Times Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser. Special thanks to Sonia Herrero and Kristina Samulewski. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Says He’ll Still Run For President If Criminally Convicted

      by

      He made the remarks in an interview with Tucker Carlson, his first time on the program since the release of private text messages showed the Fox News anchor’s repugnance for the former president.Former President Donald J. Trump said Tuesday that he would continue campaigning for the White House even if convicted of a crime.In his first national media interview since pleading not guilty last week to 34 felony charges related to a hush-money scandal during his 2016 White House bid, Mr. Trump complimented the strongmen leaders of several other countries; attacked “sick, radical” Democrats; and indicated that not even a prison sentence would keep him from running for president.“I’d never drop out, it’s not my thing,” Mr. Trump said when asked on Fox News about a potential conviction.In addition to his criminal charges in New York, the former president is facing several other criminal investigations: One is related to his attempts to overturn election results in Georgia, another is into his efforts to hold on to power in Washington after losing re-election and a third is into his handling of classified documents at his home in South Florida.The hourlong interview was also his first with the Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson since private text messages, revealed as part of a $1.6 billion defamation against the cable channel by Dominion Voting Systems, showed Mr. Carlson’s repugnance for the former president.While Mr. Carlson referred to Mr. Trump as “a demonic force, a destroyer,” in one text message in early 2021 and added “I hate him” in another, on Tuesday he traveled to Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in South Florida for what Mr. Carlson described on his show as “a rare venture outside the studio for us.” The interview consumed his program.“For a man caricatured as an extremist,” Mr. Carlson said about Mr. Trump at the start of the show, “we think you’ll find what he has to say moderate, sensible and wise.”During the interview, most of which was spent on foreign policy, Mr. Trump said that Democratic leaders were a bigger threat to the nation than foreign dictators.Mr. Trump referred to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia as “very smart,” said that Saudi Arabia’s leaders were “great people” and called President Xi Jinping of China a “brilliant man.” He also said that “the biggest problem” for the United States wasn’t foreign actors but “these sick, radical people from within” the country.The former president said that he was able to handle Russia and China from the White House, and described an interaction with Mr. Putin in which he told the Russian leader that he couldn’t invade Ukraine. Mr. Trump didn’t mention that he had been impeached for opening a pressure campaign on Ukraine, including an internal push to withhold military aid, to investigate his political rivals.Speaking about his arraignment exactly one week earlier, Mr. Trump said he felt supported by members of the courthouse staff.“It’s a tough, tough place and they were crying,” he said. “They were actually crying. They said, ‘I’m sorry.’” More

    • 100 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Leadership of Foundation Honoring Justin Trudeau’s Father Quits

      by

      The Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation said that accusations of Chinese meddling in its affairs had made it impossible for it to function as before.A foundation honoring the father of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada announced Tuesday that its board of directors and chief executive had resigned after being swept into a political storm over leaked intelligence showing that China planned to interfere in Canadian elections.A leak, published in February in The Globe and Mail, a Toronto newspaper, accused China of being behind a 200,000 Canadian dollar donation pledge to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation in 2016, but did not accuse the foundation of being aware of China’s involvement.The foundation, which has no affiliation with the current prime minister, announced in March that it returned the portion of the donation that it actually received, saying that “we cannot keep any donation that may have been sponsored by a foreign government and would not knowingly do so.”However, returning the donation did not quell criticism from Mr. Trudeau’s political rivals that the foundation had become a tool of influence for China’s government.On Monday, the foundation said in a statement that the board and the president and chief executive, who did not hold that position when the donation was accepted, had decided to step down because “the political climate surrounding a donation received by the Foundation in 2016 has put a great deal of pressure on the foundation’s management and volunteer board of directors, as well as on our staff and our community.”It added: “The circumstances created by the politicization of the foundation have made it impossible to continue with the status quo.”There is no indication that the current prime minister was aware of the 2016 donation. The prime minister severed ties to the foundation, which largely provides scholarships in his father’s name, when he entered politics in 2008.Mr. Trudeau told reporters on Tuesday: “The Trudeau Foundation is a foundation with which I have absolutely no intersection.” He added: “It is a shame to see the level of toxicity and political polarization that is going on in our country these days. But I’m certain that the Trudeau Foundation will be able to continue to ensure that research into the social studies and humanities at the highest levels across Canadian academic institutions continues for many years to come.”In February, The Globe and Mail reported that the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation had received a 200,000 Canadian dollar pledge in 2016 which was made by two wealthy Chinese businessmen, at the behest of a Chinese diplomat. The newspaper, citing a portion of a leaked recording made by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, said that the diplomat said that the Chinese government would reimburse the two men as part of what it characterized as an attempt to influence Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.The account in the article of Chinese government involvement has never been verified.The report was one of a series based on intelligence leaks, most of which involved allegations of political meddling, that started appearing in the newspaper in mid-February, and later appeared on Global News, a Canadian broadcaster.Criticism of the foundation intensified about a month ago, when Mr. Trudeau appointed David Johnston to look into the allegations of improper meddling by China. Mr. Johnston is a former academic and was once the governor-general of Canada who acted as the country’s head of state as the representative of Queen Elizabeth. He was also once a member of the board of the Trudeau Foundation, a fact that some Conservatives argued made him unfit to lead an investigation.David Johnston, a former governor general, is looking into allegations that China meddled in Canada’s two last elections.Geoff Robins/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThree directors, the foundation said, will continue in their roles as caretakers until a new board and president are found.The donation, according to The Globe and Mail, was part of a 1 million Canadian dollar pledge supposedly underwritten by China to curry influence. The remainder included 750,000 dollars for scholarships at University of Montreal’s law school, “to honor the memory and leadership” of Pierre Trudeau, who opened diplomatic relations between Canada and China in 1970.Another 50,000 dollars was to go to the university for a statue of Mr. Trudeau, which was never erected.The elder Mr. Trudeau was a member of the law school’s faculty before entering politics.Sophie Langlois, a spokeswoman for the university, said that it received 550,000 Canadian dollars of the pledged amount.“We are indeed considering all of our options in the light of new information,” she wrote in an email.The focus of the leaked intelligence reports, according to The Globe & Mail and The Global News, is Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections. The reports suggest that the government of China wanted to ensure that Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal Party defeated the Conservative Party which it viewed as more hostile toward Beijing. Several government reviews have concluded that foreign influence did not change the outcome of either vote.The Conservative opposition has repeatedly called for a public inquiry, a move Mr. Trudeau has called unnecessary. He did, however, promise to hold one if Mr. Johnston recommends that step.On Monday, the leader of Conservative Party, Pierre Poilievre, called for an additional investigation. “We need to investigate the Beijing-funded Trudeau Foundation,” Mr. Poilievre tweeted. “We need to know who got rich; who got paid and who got privilege and power from Justin Trudeau as a result of funding to the Trudeau Foundation.” More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Mark Lamb Files to Run for Kyrsten Sinema’s Senate Seat

      by

      Mark Lamb, a sheriff and an ally of former President Donald J. Trump, will run for the seat held by Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat-turned-independent.Mark Lamb, a right-wing sheriff and an ally of former President Donald J. Trump known for his policing of elections and his defiance of a pandemic lockdown, announced Tuesday that he would run for Senate in Arizona next year, a contest that could determine control of the closely divided chamber.Mr. Lamb, 50, became the first high-profile Republican to compete for the seat, one currently held by Senator Kyrsten Sinema, who left the Democratic Party in December to become an independent. Ms. Sinema has not said whether she will run, but if she does, there is already one Democratic challenger: Representative Ruben Gallego, a progressive Democrat from Phoenix.In his announcement video, Mr. Lamb said he would “stand up to the woke left” and “secure our border and support our law enforcement.” He also called out his support for gun rights and his anti-abortion stance in the ad.Mr. Lamb, as the top law enforcement officer in Arizona’s third-most populous county, Pinal, made headlines when he refused to enforce the state’s stay-at-home order in 2020 and then when he expressed sympathy for the rioters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. He has also sown doubt over the results of the 2020 election and drawn scrutiny for his embrace of private militias and hard-line positions on immigration.The field appears likely to grow, as Republicans see an opening to retake the seat in the potential matchup between Mr. Gallego and Ms. Sinema, which could split the Democratic and independent voters who have powered victories for the left in the state.Kari Lake, a Republican who refused to accept her defeat in the governor’s race last year, has also signaled that she could jump into the race.Ms. Sinema has infuriated Democrats with her departure and opposition to key planks of their agenda in the Senate. Her split with the party came shortly after it gained an outright majority in the Senate during the midterm elections last fall.Arizona was one of the key battlegrounds in those elections, and in 2020, Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory there over Mr. Trump helped him to secure the presidency. More