More stories

  • in

    Trump’s Attacks on Harris Invoke Ancient Roman Misogyny

    Anastasia KraynyukThe meddler, the schemer, the veiled power behind the throne, the poisoner, the witch. The image of sinister female power hiding in the dark permeates our cultural consciousness. It is a trope that stretches back to the ancient world, when women were excluded from politics and men sought ways to prove that their participation would be unnatural and dangerous. As ancient texts became part of the Western canon, such suspicion became ingrained into our patterns of thought, surviving long after the conditions that created them.About an hour after Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential race in July, a Trump-aligned super PAC released an attack ad. “Kamala was in on it,” a narrator says. She “knew Joe couldn’t do the job, so she did it.” Mr. Trump picked up the theme soon after. Ms. Harris had, he argued, long concealed Mr. Biden’s incapacity, to ensure her own nomination. As focus on the handover itself fades, this idea has come to underpin one of the Trump campaign’s key lines of attack: Ms. Harris has been the power behind the throne all along, and Mr. Biden simply a front. In an early August interview, JD Vance argued that Ms. Harris must have “been the one calling the shots” all along. Mr. Trump has insisted that “Day 1 for Kamala was three and a half years ago.”The accusation that Ms. Harris covered up the state of Mr. Biden’s health is not dependent on her gender. It’s doubtless that Mr. Trump would have deployed the same argument, in one form or another, against a male opponent. But leveled against Ms. Harris, it hits upon the ancient seam of rhetoric that associates women with the clandestine exercise of power, giving it a degree of consequence it would never have carried against a man.The Romans loved a conspiracy theory, and rumors of women-led cover-ups pepper their history. This motif took hold most robustly in the peculiar conditions of the early Roman Empire, as the male aristocrats who’d once ruled the Roman Republic became concerned that women were co-opting power that was rightfully male. It was said that after Augustus, Rome’s first emperor, died, his wife, Livia, continued to issue positive news about his health until she had secured the succession of her son Tiberius. A century later, people whispered that Pompeia Plotina, wife of the emperor Trajan, had concealed her husband’s death for some days, signing his letters to the Senate and forcing through the adoption of her favorite, Hadrian, as his successor.When they talk about women in politics, Roman historians paint us a world of plots designed to circumvent the will of the emperor and the Roman people — and the Trump campaign suggests something similar in its vision of Ms. Harris’s “undemocratic” nomination. It is hard to find a woman of the imperial family who is not accused of using poison — the most covert means of assassination — in pursuit of her goals, and women’s intrigues were often set under cover of night. Messalina, for example, supposedly used a series of fake nightmares to dupe her husband, Claudius, into executing one of her enemies.The rhetoric had elements of truth: The public sphere was all but exclusively accessible to men, and the strongest weapon available to women was influence exerted privately on male rulers. But it was exaggerated beyond all historical reality. The women of the imperial family were well-educated veterans of the political game, with huge public profiles. Petitioners frequently addressed missives to empresses, and some women were granted semiofficial titles that, like the vice presidency, carried the potential for (but no guarantee of) great power. Secrecy was stressed not because it reflected the truth, but because it made a point: Female power was destabilizing and the women who held it were not to be trusted.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump debería tener mucho miedo de debatir con Kamala Harris

    Es fácil encontrar ejemplos de respuestas vacuas y engañosamente reflexivas que rozan lo caricaturesco de la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris, y es sencillo concluir que esa mezcolanza retórica es lo que ha postergado encuentros con periodistas serios, porque no es ágil en situaciones sin un guion o desenvuelta con los datos necesarios. En todo caso, esos son los argumentos de los republicanos.Pero esa valoración ignora su actuación en un debate en 2020 con el vicepresidente de entonces, Mike Pence. ¿Lo recuerdan? Fue un encuentro con mucho en juego y tan arriesgado como cualquier entrevista con cualquier peso pesado de los medios, y ella lo hizo bien. Mejor que bien, de hecho. Varias encuestas posteriores al debate, entre ellas una publicada por 538 y otra por CNN, concluyeron que Harris había ganado. Es cierto que Pence se enfrentaba a la decisión de una mosca de posarse sobre su cabeza, pero aun así. Él llevaba más tiempo en la escena política nacional que ella, y ella no vaciló.Por eso, las recientes quejas y amenazas de Donald Trump de retirarse del debate previsto en ABC News el 10 de septiembre tienen todo el sentido. Debería tener dudas. De hecho, debería tener miedo.A pesar de todas sus fanfarronadas absurdas sobre sus anteriores actuaciones en debates, muchas de ellas han sido risibles: una combinación de burlas pueriles, mentiras sin paralelo, quejas, explosiones, desprecio y regodeo. ¿Se acuerdan de esos bailes caricaturescos que hacen los jugadores de fútbol cuando han llegado a la zona de anotación en el último cuarto de un partido reñido? Ese es Trump en el atril del debate, solo que no ha marcado ni un touchdown. Ni siquiera ha movido el balón ni un milímetro.Me refiero a sus trucos con sus rivales por la nominación presidencial republicana en 2016, en tres encuentros con Hillary Clinton en las elecciones generales de ese año y en dos con Joe Biden en las elecciones generales de 2020. (Se saltó los debates de las primarias republicanas de 2024, sabiamente, dada su ventaja sobre los demás aspirantes).We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump Says He’ll Vote Against Florida’s Abortion Rights Measure After Conservative Backlash

    Former President Donald J. Trump said on Friday that he would vote against a ballot measure in Florida that would expand abortion access in the state, clarifying his stance after having suggested a day earlier that he might support the measure.“I’ll be voting no,” Mr. Trump told Fox News, even as he said he disagreed with his home state’s current ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.Passage of the ballot measure, called Amendment 4, would allow patients to seek an abortion up to about 24 weeks of pregnancy.In an interview with NBC News on Thursday, Mr. Trump, who had long avoided taking a firm position on the measure, said he was “going to be voting that we need more than six weeks.” His campaign promptly sought to clean up those remarks, saying in a statement that they were not indicative of how he would vote in November.His comments were also met with backlash from social conservatives and abortion opponents. Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, a leading anti-abortion group, said Mr. Trump would be undermining a long-held opposition to abortions after five months of pregnancy if he voted for the measure.“We strongly support Florida’s current heartbeat law,” Ms. Dannenfelser said in a statement, adding that she had also spoken privately with the former president. “For anyone who believes in drawing a different line, they still must vote against Amendment 4, unless they don’t want a line at all.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump Claimed a Fake Taylor Swift Endorsement. Fans Are Not Happy.

    Nine days after former President Donald J. Trump falsely claimed to accept an endorsement from the pop superstar Taylor Swift, thousands of Swift fans, including some high-profile cultural and political figures, gathered on a video call with the goal of ensuring his defeat.They shared their favorite Swift songs. They quoted their favorite Swift lines. And then they assailed Mr. Trump’s political agenda as a threat to women.One fan, the singer Carole King, sang Ms. Swift’s song “Shake It Off.” Another, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, described Mr. Trump as a bully who was “trying to claw us back into the dark days.”Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat who attended two concerts on Ms. Swift’s Eras Tour, made a series of jokes at Mr. Trump’s expense that played on the singer’s lyrics.They all were gathered on Tuesday under the banner of Swifties for Kamala, a group that is not officially affiliated with Vice President Kamala Harris or Ms. Swift — who has not publicly endorsed a candidate in the election — but that is seeking to deploy the intensity of Ms. Swift’s vast fan base in support of Ms. Harris’s bid for the White House.“For me, Kamala is really a relaxing thought,” Emerald Medrano, 22, a founder of the group, said on the call, alluding to the singer’s lyrics in the song “Karma.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    The Best Books About Politics (According to You)

    Here’s what we’re turning to for clarity and perspective on our current political moment.The last few months have felt like a political thriller, an epic co-written by Shakespeare and Clancy with a wash of the cacophonous political jostling captured so deftly by Richard Ben Cramer.And since it is now the last day (observed) of our stranger-than-fiction summer, I want to linger for just a moment on the books you turn to to make sense of it all.Earlier this week, I asked you to tell me about your favorite books about politics. I urged you to think broadly about fiction and nonfiction — no need for lab-grown political memoir here — and nearly 1,000 of you obliged before we closed our submissions. I read every single one. You came up with new reasons to read classics and drew out the politics in romance and fantasy books.And, yes, some of you even submitted your own work for consideration.The selection that follows is not supposed to be exhaustive. It does not include my recent favorite (Muriel Spark’s “The Abbess of Crewe,” which is basically Watergate but with nuns), because no one suggested it. But it is a list of books you’re turning to for clarity and perspective on how we got to our current political moment, and what it means. Without further ado, I bring you the On Politics unofficial literary canon, as recommended by you. Let me know if you read one, and if you want to join the Robert Penn Warren book club that I will totally start after the election.“All the King’s Men,” Robert Penn Warren (1946): OK. You guys love this book, which is a fictional tale of a populist governor in the Deep South inspired by Huey Long. You love it more than “All the President’s Men.” You might even love it more than “What It Takes” and the works of Hunter S. Thompson. I’ll leave it to one reader, John Armstrong of Raleigh, N.C., to explain why:It captures the entire dynamic of politics in America. The messianic leader who comes to see himself as the embodiment of the people and then its higher self. Those who seek his favor, always jockeying for position, always ready to turn against him when they see a new vehicle for their ambition. The masses who follow anything that moves, and, among them, those few idealists. All that, and beautifully written.“The Last Hurrah,” Edwin O’Connor (1956): This book about the political machine, as told through a fictional mayor of a city that seems a little like Boston, is “a reminder that everything old is new again,” wrote Tim Shea. And it taught Sean Sweeney, a SoHo political activist, how upstarts can beat incumbents. “We had to teach ourselves to do the campaigning that the book details,” he wrote me.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Harris Says She Has ‘No Regrets’ About Defending Biden’s Capabilities

    Vice President Kamala Harris said on Thursday that she did not regret defending President Biden against claims that he had declined mentally, saying that she believes he has the “intelligence, the commitment and the judgment and disposition” Americans expect from their president.“No, not at all. Not at all,” the vice president said when asked if she regretted saying Mr. Biden was “extraordinarily strong” in the moments following the disastrous debate in June that led him to abandon his bid for re-election a month later.“He is so smart and loyal to the American people,” she said.In her first prime-time interview since Mr. Biden stepped aside and she became the new face of the Democratic Party, Ms. Harris continued to embrace the president and the record she has been a part of for almost four years. She told CNN’s Dana Bash that the administration’s efforts to help the economy recover after the pandemic and its push to secure the border are part of a record worth running on.But she talked about Mr. Biden mostly in the past tense — fondly, but with a kind of nostalgia that made it clear that he no longer represents the future of the country that she hopes to be leading in January.The challenge for her campaign over the next 67 days, top advisers say, is tricky: She must forge her own political identity separate from the president, who was pushed out amid voter concerns about his age and capacity to serve. But she can’t afford to break from his accomplishments, which remain popular, or to disrespect Mr. Biden, who remains a beloved figure among many in the party.“History is going to show,” she said, “not only has Joe Biden led an administration that has achieved those extraordinary successes, but the character of the man is one that he has been in his life and career, including as a president, quite selfless and puts the American people first.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump Floats I.V.F. Coverage Mandate While Campaigning in Michigan

    The week after Democrats spent much of their national convention attacking him over his position on abortion rights and reproductive health, former President Donald J. Trump said on Thursday that he would require insurance companies or the federal government to pay for all costs associated with in vitro fertilization treatments if he is elected in November.Mr. Trump’s announcement — made in an NBC interview, a speech in Michigan and a town hall in Wisconsin — came with little detail about his proposal or how he might address its cost. For one cycle, the treatments can cost up to $20,000 or more. But he has been trying to rebrand himself to voters on reproductive access and abortion rights, issues that have cost Republicans at the ballot box.Mr. Trump, who often on the campaign trail has bragged about his role in appointing Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, last week on social media declared that his administration “will be great for women and their reproductive rights,” a phrase used by abortion-rights advocates.The post appeared to be an effort by Mr. Trump to cast himself as more of a political moderate on abortion, an issue that could hurt him in November.On Thursday, Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign accused Mr. Trump of trying to run from his record on abortion access.“Trump lies as much if not more than he breathes, but voters aren’t stupid,” Sarafina Chitika, a spokeswoman for the Harris campaign, said in a statement. “Because Trump overturned Roe v. Wade, I.V.F. is already under attack and women’s freedoms have been ripped away in states across the country.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More