Fringe Groups and Movements

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      How a Spreader of Voter Fraud Conspiracy Theories Became a Star

      by

      In 2011, Catherine Engelbrecht appeared at a Tea Party Patriots convention in Phoenix to deliver a dire warning.While volunteering at her local polls in the Houston area two years earlier, she claimed, she witnessed voter fraud so rampant that it made her heart stop. People cast ballots without proof of registration or eligibility, she said. Corrupt election judges marked votes for their preferred candidates on the ballots of unwitting citizens, she added.Local authorities found no evidence of the election tampering she described, but Ms. Engelbrecht was undeterred. “Once you see something like that, you can’t forget it,” the suburban Texas mom turned election-fraud warrior told the audience of 2,000. “You certainly can’t abide by it.”Ms. Engelbrecht was ahead of her time. Many people point to the 2020 presidential election as the beginning of a misleading belief that widespread voter fraud exists. But more than a decade before Donald J. Trump popularized those claims, Ms. Engelbrecht had started planting seeds of doubt over the electoral process, becoming one of the earliest and most enthusiastic spreaders of ballot conspiracy theories.From those roots, she created a nonprofit advocacy group, True the Vote, to advance her contentions, for which she provided little proof. She went on to build a large network of supporters, forged alliances with prominent conservatives and positioned herself as the leading campaigner of cleaning up the voting system.Now Ms. Engelbrecht, 52, who is riding a wave of electoral skepticism fueled by Mr. Trump, has seized the moment. She has become a sought-after speaker at Republican organizations, regularly appears on right-wing media and was the star of the recent film “2,000 Mules,” which claimed mass voter fraud in the 2020 election and has been debunked.She has also been active in the far-right’s battle for November’s midterm elections, rallying election officials, law enforcement and lawmakers to tighten voter restrictions and investigate the 2020 results.Ms. Engelbrecht, center, has claimed that she witnessed rampant voter fraud, while providing little evidence.Michael F. McElroy for The New York Times“We’ve got to be ready,” Ms. Engelbrecht said in an interview last month with a conservative show, GraceTimeTV, which was posted on the video-sharing site Rumble. “There have been no substantive improvements to change anything that happened in 2020 to prevent it from happening in 2022.”Her journey into the limelight illustrates how deeply embedded the idea of voter fraud has become, aided by a highly partisan climate and social media. Even though such fraud is rare, Mr. Trump and his allies have repeatedly amplified Ms. Engelbrecht’s hashtag-friendly claims of “ballot trafficking” and “ballot mules” on platforms such as Truth Social, Gab and Rumble.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.A Fierce Primary Season Ends: Democrats are entering the final sprint to November with more optimism, especially in the Senate. But Republicans are confident they can gain a House majority.Midterm Data: Could the 2020 polling miss repeat itself? Will this election cycle really be different? Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, looks at the data in his new newsletter.Republicans’ Abortion Struggles: Senator Lindsey Graham’s proposed nationwide 15-week abortion ban was intended to unite the G.O.P. before the November elections. But it has only exposed the party’s divisions.Democrats’ Dilemma: The party’s candidates have been trying to signal their independence from the White House, while not distancing themselves from President Biden’s base or agenda.Misleading memes about ballot boxes have soared. The term “ballot mules,” which refers to individuals paid to transport absentee ballots to ballot boxes, has surfaced 326,000 times on Twitter since January, up from 329 times between November 2020 and this January, according to Zignal Labs, a media insights company.In some places, suspicions of vote tampering have led people to set up stakeouts to prevent illegal stuffing of ballot boxes. Officials overseeing elections are ramping up security at polling places.Voting rights groups said they were increasingly concerned by Ms. Engelbrecht.She has “taken the power of rhetoric to a new place,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, the acting director of voting rights at the Brennan Center, a nonpartisan think tank. “It’s having a real impact on the way lawmakers and states are governing elections and on the concerns we have on what may happen in the upcoming elections.”Some of Ms. Engelbrecht’s former allies have cut ties with her. Rick Wilson, a Republican operative and Trump critic, ran public relations for Ms. Engelbrecht in 2014 but quit after a few months. He said she had declined to turn over data to back her voting fraud claims.“She never had the juice in terms of evidence,” Mr. Wilson said. “But now that doesn’t matter. She’s having her uplift moment.”Cleta Mitchell, Ms. Engelbrecht’s former attorney and now a lawyer for Mr. Trump, and John Fund, a conservative journalist, told Republican donors in August 2020 that they could no longer support Ms. Engelbrecht. They said that her early questions on voting were important but that they were confounded by her recent activities, according to a video of the donor meeting obtained by The New York Times. They did not elaborate on why.“Catherine started out and was terrific,” said Ms. Mitchell, who herself claims the 2020 election was stolen from Mr. Trump. “But she got off on other things. I don’t really know what she’s doing now.”Mr. Fund added, “I would not give her a penny.”Others said the questions that Ms. Engelbrecht raised in “2,000 Mules” about the abuse of ballot drop boxes had moved them. In July, Richard Mack, the founder of a national sheriff’s organization, appeared with her in Las Vegas to announce a partnership to scrutinize voting during the midterms.“The most important right the American people have is to choose our own public officials,” said Mr. Mack, a former sheriff of Graham County, Ariz. “Anybody trying to steal that right needs to be prosecuted and arrested.”Richard Mack, the founder of a national sheriff’s organization, has announced a partnership with Ms. Engelbrecht.Adam Amengual for The New York TimesMs. Engelbrecht, who has said she carries a Bible and a pocket Constitution as reminders of her cause, has scoffed at critics and said the only misinformation was coming from the political left. She said she had evidence of voting fraud in 2020 and had shared some of it with law enforcement.“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been through this exercise and how my words get twisted and turned,” she said in a phone interview.Ms. Engelbrecht has said she was just a P.T.A. volunteer and small-business owner with no interest in politics until the 2008 election of President Barack Obama. Concerned about the country’s direction, she volunteered at the polls. Her critique of the voting system caught the attention of the Tea Party, which disdains government bureaucracy.In 2009, Ms. Engelbrecht created the nonprofit King Street Patriots, named after the site of the 1770 Boston Massacre, which fueled colonial tensions that would erupt again with the Tea Party uprising three years later. She also formed True the Vote. The idea behind the nonprofits was to promote “freedom, capitalism, American exceptionalism,” according to a tax filing, and to train poll watchers.Conservatives embraced Ms. Engelbrecht. Mr. Fund, who wrote for The Wall Street Journal, helped her obtain grants. Steve Bannon, then chief executive of the right-wing media outlet Breitbart News, and Andrew Breitbart, the publication’s founder, spoke at her conferences.True the Vote’s volunteers scrutinized registration rolls, watched polling stations and wrote highly speculative reports. In 2010, a volunteer in San Diego reported seeing a bus offloading people at a polling station “who did not appear to be from this country.”Civil rights groups described the activities as voter suppression. In 2010, Ms. Engelbrecht told supporters that Houston Votes, a nonprofit that registered voters in diverse communities of Harris County, Texas, was connected to the “New Black Panthers.” She showed a video of an unrelated New Black Panther member in Philadelphia who called for the extermination of white people. Houston Votes was subsequently investigated by state officials, and law enforcement raided its office.“It was a lie and racist to the core,” said Fred Lewis, head of Houston Votes, who sued True the Vote for defamation. He said he had dropped the suit after reaching “an understanding” that True the Vote would stop making accusations. Ms. Engelbrecht said she didn’t recall such an agreement.“It was a lie and racist to the core,” Fred Lewis, head of Houston Votes, said of Ms. Engelbrecht’s comments of the group.Ilana Panich-Linsman for The New York TimesHer profile rose. In 2012, Politico named her one of the 50 political figures to watch. In 2014, she became a right-wing hero after revelations that the Internal Revenue Service had targeted conservative nonprofits, including True the Vote.Around that time, Ms. Engelbrecht began working with Gregg Phillips, a former Texas public official also focused on voting fraud. They remained largely outside the mainstream, known mostly in far-right circles, until the 2020 election.After Mr. Trump’s defeat, they mobilized. Ms. Engelbrecht campaigned to raise $7 million to investigate the election’s results in dozens of counties in Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Arizona, according to a lawsuit by a donor.The donor was Fred Eshelman, a North Carolina-based drug company founder, who gave True the Vote $2.5 million in late 2020. Within 12 days, he asked for a refund and sued in federal court. His lawyer said that True the Vote hadn’t provided evidence for its election fraud claims and that much of Mr. Eshelman’s money had gone to businesses connected with Ms. Engelbrecht.Mr. Eshelman, who withdrew the suit and then filed another that was dismissed in April 2021, did not respond to requests for comment. Ms. Engelbrecht has denied his claims.In mid-2021, “2,000 Mules” was hatched after Ms. Engelbrecht and Mr. Phillips met with Dinesh D’Souza, the conservative provocateur and filmmaker. They told him that they could detect cases of ballot box stuffing based on two terabytes of cellphone geolocation data that they had bought and matched with video surveillance footage of ballot drop boxes.Salem Media Group, the conservative media conglomerate, and Mr. D’Souza agreed to create and fund a film. The “2,000 Mules” title was meant to evoke the image of cartels that pay people to carry illegal drugs into the United States.In May, Mr. Trump hosted the film’s premiere at Mar-a-Lago, bringing attention to Ms. Engelbrecht. Senator Mike Lee, a Republican of Utah, said after seeing the film that it raised “significant questions” about the 2020 election results; 17 state legislators in Michigan also called for an investigation into election results there based on the film’s accusations.In Arizona, the attorney general’s office asked True the Vote between April and June for data about some of the claims in “2,000 Mules.” The contentions related to Maricopa and Yuma Counties, where Ms. Engelbrecht said people had illegally submitted ballots and had used “stash houses” to store fraudulent ballots.According to emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, a True the Vote official said Mr. Phillips had turned over a hard drive with the data. The attorney general’s office said early this month that it hadn’t received it.Last month, Ms. Engelbrecht and Mr. Phillips hosted an invitation-only gathering of about 150 supporters in Queen Creek, Ariz., which was streamed online. For weeks beforehand, they promised to reveal the addresses of ballot “stash houses” and footage of voter fraud.Ms. Engelbrecht did not divulge the data at the event. Instead, she implored the audience to look to the midterm elections, which she warned were the next great threat to voter integrity.“The past is prologue,” she said. Alexandra Berzon More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Man Who Won the Republican Party Before Trump Did

      by

      In May 1992, Pat Buchanan made his way to Smuggler’s Canyon along the U.S.-Mexico border, where migrants passed into the United States. A motley crowd had gathered for his news conference there: reporters still following his flagging campaign for president, Mexican migrants curious about the event (some of whom were running a pop-up refreshment stand to sell soda to Buchanan supporters), members of a far-right white-power group eager to hear a credible candidate make the case for sealing the border.“I am calling attention to a national disgrace,” he told the crowd. “The failure of the national government of the United States to protect the borders of the United States from an illegal invasion that involves at least a million aliens a year.” Mr. Buchanan blamed that “illegal invasion” for a host of problems, ranging from drugs to the recent riots in Los Angeles. He called for a “Buchanan fence,” a trench and a barrier that would block migration from the south and become part of the infrastructure of what critics called Fortress America: a nation bound by impregnable barriers that kept out foreign people, foreign goods and foreign ideas.By the time he arrived at Smuggler’s Canyon, it had been clear for months that Mr. Buchanan stood no chance of wresting the nomination from the sitting president, George H.W. Bush. But Mr. Buchanan was no longer aiming to win the presidency, if he ever was — he was aiming to win the party. He had long believed that “the greatest vacuum in American politics is to the right of Ronald Reagan,” that Reaganism’s days were numbered and that a new right was anxious to be born. He would be the midwife to that new right, a pessimistic, media-savvy, revolution-minded conservatism that took root in the 1990s.And while the new conservatism Mr. Buchanan hashed out in the 1992 campaign never attracted the impressive majorities that Reagan and Bush had won in the 1980s, it nonetheless dislodged Reaganism as the core of the party in the decades that followed. In the process, the right learned that unpopular populist politics could win power even when they couldn’t win majorities. The election of Donald Trump in 2016 showed that a Buchananite politician could seize the presidency; his loss in 2020 showed how tenuous that hold on power could be. The question facing Republicans now is whether, having adopted the Buchanan model, they can rework it to win elections outright, or whether they will continue to rely on its vision of democracy without majorities — or worse, no democracy at all.The notion that the Republican Party would abandon Reaganism seemed absurd in the late 1980s. The wildly popular president left office with what was then the highest approval rating of any departing president since Gallup began tracking it under Harry Truman. For conservatives, Reagan wasn’t just popular — he had redeemed the Cold War conservative movement by blending it with optimism, charisma and an emotional defense of pluralistic democracy.While that defense was often more rhetorical than real — Reagan backed authoritarian regimes as long as they were anti-Communist and dog-whistled about race throughout his presidency — it had genuine policy implications. He regularly emphasized the need for the free movement of people and goods, calling for a North American accord in his 1980 campaign that would lower the trade and migration borders between Mexico, Canada and the United States. He also spoke in stirring terms about the value of immigration and cultural pluralism. “I think it’s really closer to the truth to say that America has assimilated as much as her immigrants have,” he said at a naturalization ceremony in 1984. “It’s made for a delightful diversity, and it’s made us a stronger and a more vital nation.”Yet even as he won back-to-back landslide elections — sweeping 44 states in 1980 and 49 in 1984 as he expanded the party to include the newly designated Reagan Democrats — his broad appeal lost him the support of some on the right. In 1982, Mr. Buchanan bemoaned “the transformation of Ronald Reagan from a pivotal and revolutionary figure in American politics into a traditional, middle-of-the-road pragmatic Republican president.” In fact, Mr. Buchanan was brought in as communications director for the Reagan White House in 1985 to appease a group that called itself the New Right, Reagan-skeptical conservatives who believed the president was too pragmatic and soft, particularly on social issues.Mr. Buchanan’s skepticism remained throughout his years as communications director. He even toyed with the idea of running for president in 1988 to test his theory about the political vacuum to Reagan’s right. But he ultimately left the sideshow campaign to another Pat, the televangelist Pat Robertson. What Mr. Buchanan understood was that 1988 was too soon: Reagan’s star shone so brightly on the right that coming out against his policies, even while praising the man himself, would do little to win over conservatives.But as he watched Bush win the nomination that would end in a third straight landslide win for Republicans, Mr. Buchanan delivered a diagnosis that would shape his own presidential campaigns in the years that followed. Writing about the future of the party for National Review in 1988, Mr. Buchanan concluded, “The Republican moment slipped by, I believe, when the G.O.P. refused to take up the challenge from the Left on its chosen battleground: the politics of class, culture, religion and race.” He would return in four years to take up that fight.When Mr. Buchanan announced his campaign for president in 1991, the world looked very different than it had just a few years earlier. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union brought the Cold War to a sudden end. The geopolitical reality that had governed American politics for nearly 50 years, and defined the Cold War conservative movement that Reagan had led, disappeared overnight. Mr. Buchanan grasped that a new conservatism — or rather, an old conservatism renovated for a new age — was possible.Mr. Buchanan found a freedom in the end of the Cold War. For decades, that geopolitical battle had led to a widespread belief among Americans that the country had to actively engage with the world to halt the spread of Communism, had to embrace a more open and pluralistic society to model the righteousness of the West, had to affirmatively embrace ideas of democracy and freedom and, eventually, equality.As the Cold War came to an end, Mr. Buchanan saw a chance to slip the bonds of those commitments. At the very moment democratic triumphalism was in full force and commentators were musing about the end of history, he began questioning whether democracy really was the best form of government. “The American press is infatuated to the point of intoxication with ‘democracy,’ ” he wrote in 1991. To make his point, he compared the Marine Corps and corporations like IBM to the federal government. “Only the last is run on democratic, not autocratic, principles. Yet, who would choose the last as the superior institution?”He harkened back to pre-Cold-War foreign policy as well. While Bush’s approval ratings soared to unprecedented heights during Operation Desert Storm in Iraq (they would only be surpassed by his son’s approval rating after the Sept. 11 attacks), Mr. Buchanan denounced the invasion and Bush’s plans to construct a “new world order.” His presidential campaign even borrowed the slogan “America First” from the anti-interventionist group that had opposed U.S. involvement in World War II, a provocative move given that the group had been tainted by its ties to antisemites like the aviator Charles Lindbergh.Yet Mr. Buchanan’s retro politics was also thoroughly modern. He built his political reputation not through service but through media, a novel approach for a presidential candidate. In 1982, he debuted as a regular panelist on the new PBS series “The McLaughlin Group,” a shouty round-table show that eventually drew millions of viewers. That same year, he also became host of the show “Crossfire” on the fledgling cable news network CNN. The show pitted him against the liberal commentator Tom Braden for a weekly left-right brawl. It quickly became one of CNN’s highest-rated shows.It was that Pat Buchanan, the feisty, anti-democratic, outrageous, race-baiting figure, that Americans came to know over the course of the 1980s and early 1990s. They got to know him not in the echo chamber of right-wing media but through mainstream political programming — the place, in fact, where modern right-wing punditry would be born in the 1990s. Some of today’s most notable right-wing voices became household names not on Fox News but on cable news outlets and political comedy shows like Bill Maher’s “Politically Incorrect.” (Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson got their television start on CNN, Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter on MSNBC.)But Mr. Buchanan was not content to be a television star. He wanted to be in the arena, to vie for power in the national spotlight of a presidential campaign. Routinely trading his host chair for the campaign trail, he helped construct the revolving door between punditry and the presidency that now characterizes Republican politics in the United States.In his efforts to fill the vacuum to the right of Reagan, Mr. Buchanan also borrowed directly from the far right. The New Right had drawn inspiration from the campaigns of the Alabama segregationist George Wallace; Mr. Buchanan now drew from the candidacy of David Duke, a former imperial wizard of the Ku Klux Klan who had become a national name for his efforts to win office in Louisiana. (Mr. Buchanan would disavow him during his 1996 campaign, removing a campaign adviser with ties to Mr. Duke.) After attempting to run as a Democrat for most of the 1980s, Mr. Duke became a Republican in the late 1980s. He then ran in — and won — a special election for a seat in the Louisiana House. (He would go on to lose a campaign for U.S. Senate in 1990, running as a Republican and winning 43 percent of the vote in the general election.)Republican leaders denounced Mr. Duke during the special election campaign, which drew even Reagan out of retirement to make clear the former Klan leader did not have the party’s support. But while Republican elites scrambled to distance the party from Duke, Mr. Buchanan sought to learn from him. “David Duke walked into the political vacuum left when conservative Republicans in the Reagan years were intimidated into shucking off winning social issues so we might be able to pass moral muster with Ben Hooks and Coretta King,” he wrote, naming two Black civil rights leaders. That, he argued, was the wrong approach. Instead, the party should look at why Duke was so attractive to voters and work to appeal to his base.It was a tricky maneuver. Mr. Buchanan seemed to want to mainstream the Klan leader’s issues without the baggage of the white hood, to win the extremist vote without attracting charges of extremism. As his visit to Smuggler’s Canyon in 1992 showed, that was not an easy task.There, mixed in with the crowd at the border for Mr. Buchanan’s news conference, was a group that made clear the cost of courting the Duke vote. Tom Metzger, a former Klan grand dragon and founder of the White Aryan Resistance, gathered with other white-power activists to support Mr. Buchanan’s anti-immigrant speech. The campaign quickly clarified to reporters that the white-power activists were not part of the event. But their presence served as a warning that Mr. Buchanan had little control over how much extremism he invited into the Republican Party. He was not siphoning off extremist ideas; he was opening a floodgate.Mr. Metzger also served as a reminder of Mr. Buchanan’s own extremism. For years, Mr. Buchanan faced accusations of antisemitism: He wondered aloud whether people had really been gassed to death at the concentration camp at Treblinka, denounced efforts to round up fugitive Nazis and called Congress “Israeli-occupied territory.” In an early version of the Great Replacement Theory, he railed against nonwhite immigration as fundamentally anti-American, asking in 1990, “Does this First World nation wish to become a Third World country?”There was more than enough on Mr. Buchanan’s record for reporters to expose his extremism and make clear the roots of his candidacy. Yet it seemed to some, like the Washington Post columnist David Broder, that journalists were going easy on Mr. Buchanan. “The press has treated his campaign lightly, presuming that it is just an interlude before he goes back on CNN’s ‘Crossfire’ and the speaking circuit. That’s a mistake,” he wrote in a piece comparing Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Wallace. “Like George Wallace,” he wrote, “he has a deadly knack for finding the most divisive issues in American life, including race, and a growing skill in exploiting them.” Too many journalists, Mr. Broder feared, believed Mr. Buchanan couldn’t be a crackpot because he was a colleague.Though Mr. Buchanan lost in 1992, and again in 1996 and 2000, his ideas took root immediately. In reaction to his surprisingly strong showing in the 1992 New Hampshire primary, the Republican Party adapted its platform to call, for the first time, for “structures” on the border. California activists took note as well, and a year later, they began working on what would become Proposition 187, a harsh measure that would cut undocumented immigrants off from almost every nonemergency government service, including public education. And while Republican politicians like George W. Bush and John McCain attempted to tamp down that nativist streak in the party, it was the nativists who ultimately won.Mr. Buchanan’s style, too, became a central mode of politics, as politicians learned that headline-grabbing outrage could build a base far more easily than shoe-leather politicking could. Likewise, thinning the line between extremism and presidential politics, which had been considered a vice since the disastrous 1964 campaign of Barry Goldwater, slowly became a virtue: a way of expanding the base and injecting enthusiasm into a campaign.Those dynamics are all at play in today’s Republican Party. Once the party of Ronald Reagan, it is now in thrall to the politics of Mr. Buchanan. Yet it is also at a crossroads. Buchananism was never truly popular. Neither was Trumpism: With Donald Trump, Republicans won power but not popularity — at least, not a popularity they could translate into clear electoral majorities. The simple solution would be to return to Reaganism, to reconstruct that big, if still exclusionary, tent and win huge majorities. But recent efforts to recreate Reaganism and establish a more inclusive Republican Party, like George W. Bush’s appeals to compassionate conservatism and Senator John McCain’s insistence on immigration reform, met fierce opposition from the party’s base.So the party has instead tried to strike a tenuous balance, strengthening counter-majoritarian institutions, appealing to nonwhite men in an effort to bolster its numbers, and scouting for candidates who can speak with a Trumpian patois without the Trumpian excesses that drive more moderate voters away. It is a near-impossible balance to strike, and if it fails, it carries not only the threat of more pseudo-legal efforts to rewrite election outcomes but also the threat of escalating political violence. This is the path the party chose when it traded Reaganism for Buchananism, making Mr. Buchanan’s endless campaign for the presidency, despite its losses, one of the most consequential in American history.Nicole Hemmer (@pastpunditry) is an associate professor of history and the director of the Carolyn T. and Robert M. Rogers Center for the Study of the Presidency at Vanderbilt University and the author of “Partisans: The Conservative Revolutionaries Who Remade American Politics in the 1990s” and “Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics.”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

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      How Michigan Resisted Far Right Extremism

      by

      ANN ARBOR, Mich. — A brutal plot to abduct the governor. An armed protest in the galleries of the State Capitol. A candidate for governor who stormed the halls of Congress — only to see his popularity rise.In Michigan, you can feel extremism creeping into civic life.Michigan is far from the only state in the grip of politicians who peddle disinformation and demonize their opponents. But it may also be the one best positioned to beat back the threat of political violence.Unlike, say, Arizona and Pennsylvania, two purple states where Republicans have also embraced a toxic brew of political violence and denialism, Michigan is home to voters who, to date, have avoided succumbing to the new conservative dogma, thanks in large part to its Democratic politicians, who have remained relentlessly focused on kitchen table issues. In that sense, Michigan may hold lessons for residents of other states looking to withstand the tide of authoritarianism and violence, restoring faith in the American institutions under siege from the right.Certainly, recent history is concerning. Although a jury last month convicted two men who plotted to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer over her Covid shutdown orders, that verdict came only after a jury in an earlier trial could not reach a unanimous verdict on the charges against them and acquitted two other co-defendants, despite chilling evidence that members of a militia group known as the Wolverine Watchmen had been building homemade bombs, photographing the underside of a bridge to determine how best to destroy it to slow a police pursuit and using night-vision goggles to surveil Ms. Whitmer’s vacation home.In that first trial, the defense argued that the F.B.I.’s informants had egged on the men, and it was persuasive enough to deadlock the jury. But I doubt the jurors would have been so receptive to that line of argument without Donald Trump persistently blasting government employees as “the deep state” and calling the conduct of the F.B.I. “a disgrace.”For the upcoming November elections, the G.O.P. nominees for attorney general and secretary of state are election deniers, and the candidate for governor has also cast doubt on the results of the 2020 vote for president. And not only are Republican candidates consumed with signaling an allegiance to Mr. Trump, but we are also seeing an alarming rise in political extremism in Michigan.In spring 2020, armed protesters demonstrated against Covid shutdown orders by occupying the galleries over the Senate chamber in the State Capitol while brandishing assault rifles. After the 2020 election, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson faced a deluge of threats and harassment from election deniers, including an armed protest at her home, where a mob chanted “stop the steal” while she was inside with her 4-year-old son. Ryan Kelley, who sought the Republican nomination for governor, was charged with four misdemeanor offenses for his alleged role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. After his involvement in the attack became well known, his polling numbers actually went up.Still, there is reason for some cautious optimism. In the Republican primary, voters rejected Mr. Kelley. An independent citizens redistricting commission has been created by a voter initiative to end the gerrymandering that has led to a Republican-controlled State Legislature. Recent polling shows Ms. Whitmer, Ms. Benson and Attorney General Dana Nessel, who are all Democrats, with comfortable leads as the general election approaches, and their resilience in the face of threats has only strengthened their political stock. And the convictions in the Whitmer kidnapping case show that 12 random people can still be found who will set aside their biases and decide a case based on the law and the facts they hear in court. My hunch is that there are more fair-minded people out there who will go to the polls in November.Governor WhitmerPatrick Semansky/Associated PressPragmatic problem-solving still seems to appeal to Michigan voters. Many families’ fortunes are tied inextricably to the auto industry, the health of which can swing sharply with every economic trend. Ms. Whitmer has championed economic development legislation that has helped create 25,000 auto jobs during her administration. She recently made a pitch to leverage federal legislation to lure companies to manufacture semiconductors in Michigan.In a state sometimes referred to as the birthplace of the middle class, labor unions carry more influence with working-class voters than the MAGA movement. From the rebirth of Detroit to the expansion of tourism Up North, Michigan is also a place that has long welcomed newcomers. Whether they be laborers on the assembly lines of Henry Ford or engineers for autonomous vehicles, workers from all over the world have always been needed and accepted as part of the work force, making it more difficult to demonize outsiders as “other.” As a result, voters tend to be less susceptible to the politics of fear that are driving the culture wars. Indeed, Ms. Whitmer was elected with a slogan to “Fix the Damn Roads.”Maybe it is a Midwestern sensibility, but Michiganders seem more interested in candidates who will help advance their financial bottom lines than those who traffic in conspiracy theories. And, four years later, Ms. Whitmer has fixed a lot of the damn roads.By focusing on economic outcomes of working families, Democrats in Michigan have managed to clinch not only the top state offices, but also the state’s two U.S. Senate seats.And while every state is different, politicians in other states could learn from Michigan to ignore the bait Republicans use to demonize them and focus on the bottom line issues that matter to voters.Barbara McQuade (@BarbMcQuade) is a professor of law at the University of Michigan. She served as the U.S. attorney for Michigan’s Eastern District from 2010 to 2017.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

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      They Were at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Now They’re Running for Congress.

      by

      A handful of Republicans who heeded President Donald J. Trump’s call to march to the Capitol are now vying to return to Washington, this time as lawmakers.WASHINGTON — As rioters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Derrick Van Orden, a retired Navy SEAL, had a front-row seat to the mayhem, perching on the grounds beside a tall, intricately carved, sandstone lantern pier.J.R. Majewski, an Air Force veteran from Ohio, was also at the Capitol that day, alongside a live-streamer who frequently elevates the QAnon conspiracy theory. So was Sandy Smith, a self-described entrepreneur and farmer from North Carolina who attended former President Donald J. Trump’s speech at the Ellipse and then marched up Capitol Hill.“I still stand with President Trump and believe he won this election!” Ms. Smith wrote on Twitter the night of Jan. 6, 2021. She had posted that afternoon that she had come to Washington to “#FightForTrump.”All three are seeking to return to the Capitol next year — this time as members of Congress.Nearly two years after the deadly attack, which sent lawmakers and the vice president fleeing for their lives, people who were on hand for the riot are seeking to become members of the institution that the mob assaulted. They are running for Congress in competitive districts, in some cases with the support of Republican leaders.It is the latest sign of how the extreme beliefs that prompted the Capitol assault — which was inspired by Mr. Trump’s lies of a stolen election and fueled by a flood of disinformation — have entered the mainstream of the party. And it underscores how Republican leaders whose lives were in peril on Jan. 6 are still elevating those voices in the hopes of taking control of the House.J.R. Majewski has repeatedly maintained that he “committed no crimes” and “broke no police barriers” during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.Jon Stinchcomb/News Herald, via Imagn Content ServicesHistorically, party leaders have sought to recruit mainstream, broadly appealing candidates to run in competitive districts, wary of alienating independent and moderate voters whose support is typically needed. In many areas of the country, House Republicans have followed that model, elevating diverse candidates with compelling personal stories.But as they near the prospect of winning back the House majority, Republican leaders have also thrown their backing behind extreme right-wing candidates who are devoted to Mr. Trump and have been active in his political movement, including his efforts to overturn his 2020 defeat.A handful of them answered his call to march to the Capitol on Jan. 6, as he sought to intimidate members of Congress into rejecting the electoral votes that would confirm Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory. Should those candidates prevail in the midterm elections, they would grow the ascendant ranks of hard-right lawmakers who have reshaped the Republican Party in Mr. Trump’s image. And if the party succeed in its drive to retake the House, they would add to the extremist wing of the new majority.Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader who is in line to become House speaker if Republicans prevail, campaigned last month for Mr. Majewski in Fremont, Ohio. Mr. McCarthy criticized an ad by Representative Marcy Kaptur, the veteran Democratic incumbent, that portrayed Mr. Majewski as an extremist who broke through police barricades at the Capitol on Jan. 6.Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 HearingsCard 1 of 9Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 HearingsMaking a case against Trump. More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Doug Mastriano’s Extremely Online Rise to Republicans’ Governor Nominee in Pa.

      by

      BLOOMSBURG, Pa. — In the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, Diane Fisher, a nurse from Weatherly, Pa., was surfing through videos on Facebook when she came across a livestream from Doug Mastriano, a Pennsylvania state senator.Starting in late March 2020, Mr. Mastriano had beamed regularly into Facebook from his living room, offering his increasingly strident denunciations of the state’s quarantine policies and answering questions from his viewers, sometimes as often as six nights a week and for as long as an hour at a stretch.“People were upset, and they were fearful about things,” Ms. Fisher said. “And he would tell us what was going on.”Ms. Fisher told her family and her friends about what Mr. Mastriano billed as “fireside chats,” after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s radio broadcasts during the Depression and World War II. “The next thing you knew,” she recalled, “there was 5,000 people watching.”Mr. Mastriano’s rise from obscure and inexperienced far-right politician to Republican standard-bearer in Pennsylvania’s governor’s race was swift, stunning and powered by social media. Although he is perhaps better known for challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election and calling the separation of church and state a “myth,” Mr. Mastriano built his foundation of support on his innovative use of Facebook in the crucible of the early pandemic, connecting directly with anxious and isolated Americans who became an uncommonly loyal base for his primary campaign.He is now the G.O.P. nominee in perhaps the most closely watched race for governor in the country, in part because it would place a 2020 election denier in control of a major battleground state’s election system. Both President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump are making campaign appearances in Pennsylvania this week. As the race enters its last months, one of the central questions is whether the online mobilization that Mr. Mastriano successfully wielded against his own party establishment will prove similarly effective against Josh Shapiro, his Democratic rival — or whether a political movement nurtured in the hothouse of right-wing social media discontent will be unable or unwilling to transcend it.Mr. Mastriano has continued to run a convention-defying campaign. He employs political neophytes in key positions and has for months refused to interact with mainstream national and local reporters beyond expelling them from events. (His campaign did not respond to requests for comment for this article.)A Mastriano event this month in Pittsburgh. His base is animated, but he has not yet sought to reach the broader electorate.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesHe grants interviews almost exclusively to friendly radio and TV shows and podcasts that share Mr. Mastriano’s far-right politics, and continues to heavily rely on Facebook to reach voters directly.“It is the best-executed and most radical ‘ghost the media’ strategy in this cycle,” said Michael Caputo, a former Trump campaign adviser, who said other Republican strategists were watching Mr. Mastriano’s example closely.More Coverage of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsEvidence Against a Red Wave: Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, it’s hard to see the once-clear signs of a Republican advantage. A strong Democratic showing in a New York special election is the latest example.G.O.P.’s Dimming Hopes: Republicans are still favored in the fall House races, but former President Donald J. Trump and abortion are scrambling the picture in ways that distress party insiders.A Surprise Race: Senator Michael Bennet, a Democrat seeking re-election in Colorado, is facing an unexpected challenge from Joe O’Dea, a novice Republican emphasizing more moderate positions.Campaign Ads: In what critics say is a dangerous gamble, Democrats are elevating far-right candidates in G.O.P. primaries, believing they’ll be easier to defeat in November. We analyzed the ads they’re using to do it.“It’s never been done before. He’s on a spacewalk,” he said. “And the question we’re all asking is, does he make it back to the capsule?”Although Mr. Mastriano no longer hosts fireside chats, his campaign posts several times more often a day on Facebook than most candidates, according to Kyle Tharp, the author of the newsletter FWIW, which tracks digital politics. His campaign’s Facebook post engagements have been comparable to those of Mr. Shapiro, despite Mr. Shapiro’s spending far more on digital advertising.“He is a Facebook power user,” Mr. Tharp said.But Mr. Mastriano’s campaign has done little to expand his reach outside his loyal base, even as polls since the primary have consistently shown him trailing Mr. Shapiro, Pennsylvania’s attorney general, albeit often narrowly. And Mr. Mastriano’s efforts to add to his audience on the right through advertising on Gab, a platform favored by white nationalists, prompted a rare retreat in the face of criticism last month.A career Army officer until his retirement in 2017 and a hard-line social conservative, Mr. Mastriano won a special election for the State Senate in 2019 after campaigning on his opposition to what he described as the “barbaric holocaust” of legal abortion and his view that the United States is an inherently Christian nation whose Constitution is incompatible with other faiths. But he was known to few outside his district until he began his pandemic broadcasts in late March 2020.In the live videos, Mr. Mastriano was unguarded and at times emotional, giving friendly shout-outs to familiar names in the chat window. His fireside chats arrived at a fertile moment on the platform, when conservative and right-wing activists were using Facebook to assemble new organizations and campaigns to convert discontent into action — first with the Covid lockdowns and, later, the 2020 election outcome.Mr. Mastriano linked himself closely to these currents of activism in his home state, speaking at the groups’ demonstrations and events. A video he livestreamed from the first significant anti-lockdown rally on the steps of the State Capitol in Harrisburg in April 2020, armed with a selfie stick, eventually racked up more than 850,000 views.Mr. Mastriano on Nov. 7, 2020, the day Joseph R. Biden Jr. was elected. It was the first “Stop the Steal” rally in Harrisburg.Julio Cortez/Associated PressAfter the presidential election was called for Mr. Biden on Nov. 7, 2020, Mr. Mastriano was greeted as a star at the first “Stop the Steal” rally at the capitol in Harrisburg that afternoon. He became one of the most prominent faces of the movement to overturn the election in Pennsylvania, working with Mr. Trump’s lawyers to publicize widely debunked claims regarding election malfeasance and to send a slate of “alternate” electors to Washington, on the spurious legal theory that they could be used to overturn the outcome. (He would later be present at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, though there is no evidence that he entered the building.)When Republican colleagues in the State Senate criticized those schemes and Mr. Mastriano by name, he pointed to the size of his online army.“I have more followers on Facebook alone than all 49 other senators combined,” Mr. Mastriano told Steve Turley, a local right-wing podcast host, in an interview. “That any colleague or fellow Republican would think that it would be a good idea to throw me under the bus with that kind of reach — I mean, they’re just not very smart people.”Mr. Mastriano was eventually removed from the chairmanship of a State Senate committee overseeing an investigation he had championed into the state’s election results, and he was later expelled from the Senate’s Republican caucus — episodes that burnished his credentials with supporters suspicious of the state’s G.O.P. establishment. His campaign for governor, which he formally announced this January, has drawn on not only the base he has cultivated since 2020 but also on the right-wing grass-roots groups with whom he has made common cause on Covid and the 2020 election.“That whole movement is rock-solid behind him,” said Sam Faddis, the leader of UnitePA, a self-described Patriot group based in Susquehanna County, Pa.When UnitePA hosted a rally on Aug. 27 in a horse arena in Bloomsburg, bringing together a coalition of groups in the state dedicated to overhauling the election system they insist was used to steal the election from Mr. Trump, many of the activists who spoke offered praise for Mr. Mastriano and his candidacy. From the stage, Tabitha Valleau, the leader of the organization FreePA, gave detailed instructions for how to volunteer for Mr. Mastriano’s campaign.The crowd of about 500, most of whom stayed for all of the nearly six-hour rally, was full of Mastriano supporters, including Ms. Fisher. “He helped us through a bad time,” she said. “He stuck with his people.”Charlie Gerow, a veteran Pennsylvania Republican operative and candidate for governor who lost to Mr. Mastriano in May, said this loyal following was Mr. Mastriano’s greatest strength. “He’s leveraged that audience on every mission he’s undertaken,” he said.An anti-vaccine and anti-mask rally in Harrisburg in August 2021. Mr. Mastriano built his early support around people angry at government efforts to control the pandemic.Paul Weaver/SOPA Images/LightRocket, via Getty ImagesBut with recent polls showing Mr. Mastriano lagging between 3 and 10 points behind Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Gerow is among the strategists doubting his primary strategy will translate to a general electorate.“I think it’s going to be important for him to run a more traditional campaign, dealing with the regular media even when it’s unpalatable and unfriendly,” Mr. Gerow said.Mr. Mastriano has also drawn criticism for his efforts to expand his social-media reach beyond Facebook and Twitter into newer, fringier spaces on the right.In July, the liberal watchdog group Media Matters noted that Mr. Mastriano, according to his campaign filings, had paid $5,000 to the far-right social media platform Gab, which gained notoriety in 2018 after the suspect charged in the shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, in which 11 people were killed, used the platform to detail his racist and antisemitic views and plans for the shooting. Gab’s chief executive, Andrew Torba, who lives in Pennsylvania, has made antisemitic statements himself and appeared at a white nationalist conference this spring.Mr. Torba and Mr. Mastriano had praised each other in a podcast interview in May, after which Mr. Mastriano had spoken hopefully of Gab’s audience. “Apparently about a million of them are in Pennsylvania,” he said on his own livestream, “so we’ll have some good reach.”Campaign signs at a Pittsburgh rally. Democrats are cautioning not to underestimate Mr. Mastriano.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesMr. Torba, who did not respond to emailed requests for comment, has continued to champion Mr. Mastriano, describing the Pennsylvania governor’s race as “the most important election of the 2022 midterms, because Doug is an outspoken Christian,” in a video he posted in late July. He added, “We’re going to take this country back for the glory of God.”But after initially standing his ground, Mr. Mastriano finally bowed to sustained criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike and closed his personal account with Gab early this month, issuing a brief statement denouncing antisemitism.This month Mr. Shapiro, who is Jewish, spent $1 million on TV ads highlighting Mastriano’s connections to Gab. “We cannot allow this to become normalized — Doug Mastriano is dangerous and extreme, and we must defeat him in November,” said Will Simons, a spokesman for the Shapiro campaign.The push reflected a view that one of Mr. Mastriano’s core vulnerabilities lies in his vast online footprint, with its hours of freewheeling conversation in spaces frequented by far-right voices.Still, some Democrats who watched Mr. Mastriano’s rapid rise at close range have cautioned against counting him out. “Mastriano’s been underestimated by his own party,” said Brit Crampsie, a political consultant who was until recently the State Senate Democrats’ spokeswoman. “I fear him being underestimated by the Democrats. I wouldn’t rule him out.” More

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      La democracia está bajo amenaza en todo el mundo

      by

      EE. UU. no está solo en cuanto a la presión que sufren las normas e instituciones democráticas. Según un estudio reciente, ahora hay más democracias que decaen que en cualquier otro momento del último siglo.Estados Unidos no es el único país que enfrenta presión contra sus reglas e instituciones democráticas. De acuerdo con datos de V-Dem, un instituto de monitoreo con sede en Suecia, en la actualidad, más que en ningún otro momento del siglo pasado, hay otras democracias en deterioro, e incluso hay algunas que están muy cerca de la autocracia. Los datos demuestran que, al parecer, esta tendencia, que lleva más de una década, va en aumento y está afectando tanto a las democracias bien establecidas como a las endebles.Este es una revisión de algunos de los acontecimientos más recientes.KeniaPese a ser considerada una de las democracias más sólidas de África, Kenia ha tenido que enfrentar turbulencias continuas. En ocasiones, los políticos han aprovechado la polarización en cuestiones étnicas y geográficas, sobre todo durante las elecciones. Esto ha dado origen a una serie de crisis, violencia comunitaria y ataques a instituciones como los órganos judiciales.Las reñidas elecciones de este mes han supuesto una prueba más para la democracia keniana, ya que un asesor sénior del candidato perdedor ha insinuado que quizá su campaña impugnará los resultados por considerarlos fraudulentos.“La democracia en nuestro país, Kenia, está actualmente en un territorio muy hostil”, señaló en un evento de marzo en Washington D. C. William Ruto, el candidato ganador de las recientes elecciones.Sri LankaEsta democracia multiétnica y diversa en términos religiosos ha sido cuestionada desde que el hermano del exdictador Mahinda Rajapaksa subió al poder en las elecciones de 2019. Desde hacía mucho tiempo, la familia Rajapaksa había sido acusada de abuso de poder y de denigrar a las minorías del país, lo que incrementó el temor de que Sri Lanka pudiera volver a la autocracia.Este verano, las protestas por los problemas económicos terminaron en un asalto al palacio presidencial por parte de los manifestantes. El presidente Gotabaya Rajapaksa renunció, pero designó como su sustituto a uno de sus aliados, el cual, con la aprobación del Parlamento, más tarde se convirtió en el presidente oficial. Esto ha dejado en un punto muerto el conflicto entre los manifestantes y la influencia de la dinastía Rajapaksa.Hungría“Este nuevo Estado que estamos construyendo es en un Estado iliberal”, declaró el primer ministro Viktor Orbán en 2014.Desde entonces, Orbán, quien se presenta como la vanguardia de la derecha populista a nivel mundial, ha reconfigurado el sistema judicial, la Constitución y las normas electorales a modo de fortalecer su mandato. También ha usado los medios de comunicación, tanto estatales como privados, para atacar a sus opositores mediante la divulgación de desinformación y discursos nacionalistas.Orbán ha planteado estas medidas como algo necesario para defender a Hungría de la influencia corruptora de la diversidad racial, la migración no europea y la Unión Europea. Aunque, debido al descontento con el mandatario, los partidos de oposición han repuntado, Orbán sigue contando con una importante base de apoyo.BrasilEl presidente Jair Bolsonaro, quien elogia la figura de Donald Trump como un modelo político, desde hace mucho tiempo ha tachado de corruptas a las instituciones democráticas de Brasil. También ha expresado muy buenas opiniones de la dictadura militar de derecha que gobernó el país de 1964 a 1985.Bolsonaro ya está cuestionando la legitimidad de la contienda presidencial de Brasil que se celebrará en octubre, para la cual ha quedado rezagado en las encuestas. Incluso ha conseguido la ayuda de algunos dirigentes militares que han planteado dudas sobre la integridad de las elecciones.Aunque no se sabe si Bolsonaro en verdad intentaría impugnar o rechazar una derrota, sus provocaciones han aumentado las inquietudes del mundo por la estabilidad de la democracia más poblada de Latinoamérica.FilipinasEn los seis años de la presidencia de Rodrigo Duterte en Filipinas, atestiguamos el encarcelamiento de enemigos políticos y periodistas, la propagación generalizada de desinformación en favor de Duterte y una ola de violencia ocasionada por grupos paramilitares que dejó miles de personas muertas.Duterte, un férreo populista, se posicionó como defensor de la democracia frente a sus opositores, a quienes describía como amenazas internas para el país, y obtuvo el apoyo de sus bases a pesar de sus excesos mientras ocupó el cargo.Aunque dejó la presidencia por voluntad propia cuando terminó su mandato en mayo, los ciudadanos eligieron a un nuevo presidente, Ferdinand Marcos, hijo, que los grupos de derechos humanos temen que continuará con el mismo estilo de gobierno. El nuevo Marcos es hijo de un exdictador del país. Su vicepresidenta, Sara Duterte, es la hija de Rodrigo Duterte.IndiaBajo el mandato de Narendra Modi, el primer ministro de India desde 2014, un drástico incremento del ultranacionalismo hindú, que suelen apoyar los aliados de su gobierno, ha dividido a la sociedad del país.Los aproximadamente 200 millones de musulmanes del país han sufrido marginación política y, en muchos casos, una letal violencia religiosa, lo que ha sido ignorado en varias ocasiones por los funcionarios. Los periodistas críticos viven bajo una creciente presión del gobierno y de los medios de comunicación cada vez más nacionalistas.El gobierno de Modi reprimió con violencia la región en disputa de Cachemira y, el año pasado, respondió con dureza a una ola de protestas de los agricultores indios, lo que aumentó el temor de que su gobierno estuviera volviéndose cada vez más coercitivo.TurquíaEn sus casi 20 años en el poder, Recep Tayyip Erdogan ha reconfigurado la democracia turca para convertirla en un vehículo de su poder personal. Erdogan, quien era visto como una fuerza de liberalización, ha restringido las libertades políticas y centralizado el poder de manera tan drástica que ahora casi todos lo consideran un dictador.Después del intento de golpe de Estado en su contra en 2016, el gobierno de Erdogan arrestó a 100.000 personas y despidió a 150.000 empleados del gobierno, lo cual consolidó su poder. Sin embargo, sigue existiendo algo de democracia, puesto que en 2019 los grupos de oposición destituyeron al aliado de Erdogan de la poderosa alcaldía de Estambul y esperan lograr más triunfos.PoloniaPolonia, que solía ser la mayor historia de éxito de la era poscomunista en Europa del Este, ahora se enfrenta a una fuerte polarización política. El partido de derecha en el gobierno ha querido subordinar a su voluntad al sistema judicial y a los medios de comunicación, que siempre han sido independientes. También arremetió contra la Unión Europea, la cual ha puesto en duda que los dirigentes polacos estén defendiendo el Estado de derecho.En los últimos meses, la preocupación por la democracia polaca ha disminuido un poco. Los dirigentes polacos han querido reparar sus vínculos con la Unión Europea, incluso en los temas de la democracia, como una manera de combatir lo que ven como la amenaza de Rusia para Europa. No obstante, los grupos de derechos humanos afirman que la democracia polaca casi no ha revertido su retroceso.El SalvadorEste pequeño país de Centroamérica había establecido una democracia débil después de su dolorosa guerra civil, que terminó en 1992, pero dejó heridas sin sanar.En 2019, un joven desconocido, Nayib Bukele, ganó la presidencia con la promesa de un cambio. Sin embargo, ya en el cargo, ha restringido los derechos básicos, despedido a los jueces, encarcelado a miles de personas sin cumplir con el debido proceso y desplegado al ejército. Bukele alega que son medidas de emergencia para combatir la delincuencia.No obstante, aunque los grupos de derechos humanos y los observadores internacionales están alarmados, Bukele se ha vuelto muy popular, lo que nos recuerda que, en el mundo actual, a los futuros dictadores con frecuencia se les elogia mientras van en ascenso.VenezuelaEl país, que alguna vez fue la democracia más antigua y la economía más rica de Sudamérica, ha caído en una zona de desastre económico, en la que la mayor parte de la población padece hambre y está gobernada por lo que, en general, se considera una dictadura.Los estudiosos de la democracia a menudo sostienen que este país es representativo de la manera en que las democracias tienden a deteriorarse en la actualidad: con lentitud, socavadas desde el interior por populistas electos que tachan de ilegítimos a los opositores y a las instituciones y cuyas medidas iniciales pueden ser muy populares.El dirigente responsable de gran parte de este deterioro, Hugo Chávez, murió en 2013. Su sucesor, Nicolás Maduro, ha llevado a cabo represiones letales contra los manifestantes y ha ejercido un control férreo de los tribunales y las legislaturas.República Checa y EsloveniaCuando, en 2017, el populista y multimillonario magnate de los medios de comunicación Andrej Babis se convirtió en primer ministro de la República Checa, hubo temor de que siguiera el camino hacia el iliberalismo ultraconservador marcado por Orbán en Hungría. Cuando la vecina Eslovenia eligió a su propio populista de derecha, aumentó la preocupación de que se formara un bloque de países que acabaran con la Unión Europea desde el interior.Aunque Babis sí condujo poco a poco a su país en esa dirección, al final fue derrotado en las elecciones de 2021, ya que varios partidos de oposición se aliaron contra él, pues lo calificaban como una amenaza para la democracia checa. Al año siguiente, los electores eslovenos expulsaron a su gobierno populista. Ambos países fueron un ejemplo de que todavía, en ocasiones, se pueden disipar las dudas en torno a la democracia.Max Fisher es reportero y columnista de temas internacionales con sede en Nueva York. Ha reportado sobre conflictos, diplomacia y cambio social desde cinco continentes. Es autor de The Interpreter, una columna que explora las ideas y el contexto detrás de los principales eventos mundiales de actualidad. @Max_Fisher • Facebook More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      How Democracy Is Under Threat Across the Globe

      by

      The United States is far from alone in facing pressure on its democratic norms and institutions. According to data from V-Dem, a monitoring institute based in Sweden, more democracies are declining, and even sliding into autocracy, today than at any point in the last century. This trend, continuing for over a decade, appears to be accelerating, data shows, affecting established and fragile democracies alike across the globe.Here’s a look at some of the latest developments.KenyaThough considered one of Africa’s most robust democracies, Kenya has faced periodic turmoil. Politicians there have sometimes exploited polarization along ethnic and geographic lines, particularly during elections. This has led to succession crises, communal violence or attacks on institutions such as the courts.A razor-thin election this August has brought with it another test for Kenyan democracy, with a senior aide to the losing candidate suggesting that their campaign might challenge the results as fraudulent.“The state of democracy in our country, Kenya, is sitting in a very hostile territory,” William Ruto, the election’s winning candidate, said at a Washington, D.C., event earlier this year.Sri LankaThis multiethnic and religiously diverse democracy has been questioned since the brother of Mahinda Rajapaksa, a former strongman, took power in the 2019 elections. The Rajapaksa family had long faced accusations of abusing power and vilifying the country’s minorities, raising fears that Sri Lanka might return to autocracy.This summer, demonstrations over economic issues culminated in protesters storming the presidential palace. The president, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, resigned, but appointed an ally as his replacement; that ally later formally became president, with the Parliament’s blessing. This has left the conflict between protesters and the influence of the Rajapaksa dynasty in limbo.Hungary“The new state that we are building is an illiberal state,” Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban declared in 2014.Since then, Mr. Orban, who casts himself as a vanguard of the global populist right, has retooled the courts, the Constitution and voting rules in ways that have cemented his rule. He has also wielded state-run and private media against opponents, promoting disinformation and nationalist narratives.Mr. Orban has cast these steps as necessary to defend Hungary from the corrupting influences of racial diversity, non-European immigration and the European Union. While opposition parties have risen built on discontentment with Mr. Orban, he retains a meaningful base of support.BrazilPresident Jair Bolsonaro, who praises Donald J. Trump as a political model, has long criticized Brazil’s democratic institutions as corrupt. He has also spoken fondly of the country’s right-wing military dictatorship, which ruled from 1964 to 1985.Mr. Bolsonaro is already questioning the legitimacy of Brazil’s presidential race coming up in October, in which he has consistently trailed in the polls. He has even enlisted the help of some military leaders in raising doubts about the integrity of the vote.Though it is unclear whether Mr. Bolsonaro would actually seek to overturn or reject a loss, his rabble rousing has elevated international concern over the stability of Latin America’s largest democracy.The PhilippinesRodrigo Duterte’s six years as president in the Philippines saw political rivals and critical journalists jailed, the widespread dissemination of pro-Duterte disinformation and a wave of vigilante police violence that left thousands dead.A fiery populist, Mr. Duterte positioned himself as defending democracy from the opponents he cast as threats to the country from within, winning support from his base despite his excesses while in office.Though he left office willingly at the end of his term in May, voters elected a new president, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., that rights groups fear will continue his style of rule. The new President Marcos is the son of a former dictator of the Philippines. His vice president, Sara Duterte, is Mr. Duterte’s daughter.IndiaUnder Narendra Modi, India’s right-wing prime minister since 2014, a sharp rise in extreme Hindu nationalism, often backed by his government’s allies, has divided Indian society.The country’s roughly 200 million Muslims have faced political marginalization and, in many cases, deadly religious violence, with officials at times looking the other way. Critical journalists come under growing pressure from both the government and an increasingly nationalist media.Mr. Modi’s government clamped down fiercely on the disputed region of Kashmir and responded harshly to a wave of protests by Indian farmers last year, raising fears that his rule was growing increasingly strong-armed.TurkeyIn his nearly 20 years in power, Recep Tayyip Erdogan has remade Turkish democracy into a vessel for his personal rule. Once seen as a liberalizing force, Mr. Erdogan has curtailed political freedoms and centralized power so drastically that he is widely seen as a dictator.After a 2016 coup attempt against him, Mr. Erdogan’s administration detained 100,000 people and purged 150,000 government employees from their jobs, cementing his power. Still, there remains enough of a semblance of democracy that opposition groups unseated Mr. Erdogan’s ally from the powerful mayoralty of Istanbul in 2019 and hope for further gains.PolandOnce Eastern Europe’s great post-communist success story, Poland is now facing deep political polarization. The ruling right-wing party has sought to subordinate the traditionally independent judiciary and media to its will. It also railed against the European Union, which has questioned whether Polish leaders’ are upholding the rule of law.In recent months, fears for Poland’s democracy have ebbed slightly. Polish leaders have sought to repair ties with the European Union, including over democracy matters, as a way to fight against what they see as the Russian threat to Europe. Still, rights groups say that Polish democracy has hardly reversed its backward steps.El SalvadorThis small Central American country had established a fragile democracy in the wake of its wrenching civil war, which ended in 1992 but created wounds that are still healing.A young outsider, Nayib Bukele, won the presidency in 2019 promising change. In office, however, he has curbed basic rights, purged judges, jailed thousands with little due process and deployed the army, all in what he calls an emergency measure to fight crime.Still, even as rights groups and international monitors raise alarms, Mr. Bukele has grown wildly popular, a reminder that, in today’s world, would-be strongmen are often cheered while on the rise.VenezuelaOnce South America’s oldest democracy and wealthiest economy, Venezuela has collapsed into an economic disaster zone, with much of the population hungry and ruled under what is widely considered a dictatorship.The country is often held up by democracy scholars as representative of how democracies tend to decline today: slowly, pulled down from within by elected populists who treat opponents and institutions as illegitimate, and whose actions may initially be quite popular.The leader who oversaw much of this decline, the leftist firebrand Hugo Chávez, died in 2013. His successor, Nicolás Maduro, has overseen deadly crackdowns on protesters, as well as asserting forceful control over the courts and legislature.Czech Republic and SloveniaWhen the populist outsider and billionaire media tycoon Andrej Babis became the prime minister of the Czech Republic in 2017, there were fears he might follow the path created by Mr. Orban in Hungary toward arch-conservative illiberalism. As nearby Slovenia elected its own right-wing populist, concerns arose of a bloc of nations that might break the European Union from within.While Mr. Babis did inch his country in that direction, he was ultimately felled in the 2021 elections, when several opposition parties banded together against the leader they called a threat to Czech democracy. Slovenian voters cast out their populist government the next year. Both countries served as demonstrations that doubts around democracy can still sometimes recede. More