internal-sub-only-nl

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Love Can Win Trump the Nomination. It Will Take Hate to Win Back the White House.

      by

      A few weeks ago, I was talking to a local pastor here in Tennessee, and he started the conversation by asking a question I hear all the time: “Can anybody beat Trump?” He was desperate for someone else, anyone else, to claim the Republican nomination. He ticked through the names — DeSantis, Haley, Scott, Pence (he was still in the race then) — and they were all better. Why can’t they gain traction? “It’s not a binary choice anymore,” he said. “It’s not Trump or Biden.”“But,” he quickly added, “if it is Trump or Biden, then I’m voting Trump. It’s just who I am.”It’s just who I am. I thought of that conversation when I saw last weekend’s headlines. Donald Trump is now leading President Biden in five swing states, and if the race goes the way the poll suggests, Trump could win the presidency with more than 300 electoral votes. At the same time, we know from previous Times/Siena College polling that the hard-core MAGA base is 37 percent of the Republican Party. Another 37 percent can be persuaded to oppose Trump, while 25 percent are completely opposed to his nomination.How is it possible that a person whose true base is only 37 percent of his party, who faces four separate criminal indictments and who already lost once to Biden might sit in the electoral driver’s seat?I’ve written quite a bit on the enduring bond between Trump and his base. There’s the strange combination of rage and joy that marks the MAGA community. They’re somehow both furious about the direction of the country and having the time of their lives supporting Trump. There’s also the power of prophecy. Millions of Christians are influenced by claims that Trump is divinely ordained to save the United States. But the MAGA millions aren’t enough to put him back in the White House.To understand his general election prospects, we have to go beyond Trump’s MAGA core. He needs millions more votes — including from my pastor friend, a man who’s desperate to see Trump leave American politics.Trump’s viability in the Republican Party depends on the loyalty of his base, but his viability in the general election depends on a dark combination of negative partisanship and civic ignorance. “Negative partisanship” is the term political scientists use to describe partisan loyalty that exists not because a voter loves his party or its ideas but because he loathes the opposing party and the people in it. And why do voters loathe the opposition so darn much? That’s where civic ignorance plays its diabolical role. Partisan Americans are wrong about each other in a particularly dangerous way: Each side thinks the other is more extreme than it really is.This hostility is what permits Trump to convert his primary plurality into a potential electoral majority. This hostility both predated Trump and powered his election. In previous American political generations, nominating a person perceived to be an extremist or a crank was the kiss of electoral death. You wouldn’t merely expect to lose. You would expect to lose in a landslide.When Republicans nominated far-right Barry Goldwater in 1964, for example, he won six states and lost the popular vote by 23 points. Eight years later, when Democrats nominated far-left George McGovern, they won one state and also lost the popular vote by 23 points. There was enough partisan mobility in the electorate to decisively reject two different candidates, from opposing edges of the political spectrum.But now? It is unthinkable for many millions of partisans — or even for those independents who lean right or left and maybe secretly don’t want to admit to themselves that they’re truly partisan — to either vote third party or cross the aisle and vote for a candidate of the opposing party. They simply hate the other side too much. The result is that virtually any Republican or Democratic nominee begins the race with both a high floor and a low ceiling and no one has much margin for error. Every nominee is going to be fragile, and every national presidential race is going to be close. The margin in the last two races has been agonizingly slim. A few thousand votes cast differently in key swing states, and Hillary Clinton wins, or Joe Biden loses.To understand the power of negative partisanship, it’s important to understand the sheer scale of the mutual partisan hatred. Dating back to June 2014 — a full year before Trump came down that escalator — the Pew Research Center reported an extraordinary increase in polarization. Between 1994 and 2014, the percentage of Democrats and Republicans who expressed “very unfavorable” views of their opponents more than doubled, to 38 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of Republicans. Overall, 82 percent of Republicans and 79 percent of Democrats had either unfavorable or very unfavorable views of their political opponents.During the Trump era, this mutual contempt and loathing only grew. A June 2019 report by More in Common found that 86 percent of Republicans believed Democrats were brainwashed, 84 percent believed Democrats were hateful and 71 percent believed Democrats were racist. Democrats also expressed withering disgust for Republicans: 88 percent believed Republicans were brainwashed, 87 percent believed Republicans were hateful and 89 percent believed Republicans were racist.There is an interesting additional wrinkle to the More in Common report. Yes, it found that the two sides hated each other, but it also discovered that both sides were wrong about their political opponents. Both Democrats and Republicans believed their opponents were more politically extreme than they really were. The findings are startling: “Overall, Democrats and Republicans imagine almost twice as many of their political opponents … hold views they consider ‘extreme’ ” than is actually the case.The media compounds the problem. More in Common found that consuming news media (with the exception of broadcast news on ABC, NBC and CBS) actually increased the perception gap. As a practical matter, this means that parties are almost always defined by their ideological extremes and each party uses the existence of those extremes to generate fear and increase turnout. Even if a party does try to moderate to appeal to the middle, partisan media still highlights the radicals that remain, and the perception gap persists. The fear persists.We can start to see why Trump is viable beyond his base. When you ask right-leaning voters to abandon Trump, you’re asking them to empower a political party they view as brainwashed, hateful and racist. You’re asking them to empower a political party they view as extreme. That’s the source of Trump’s strength in a general election. He’s surfing on top of a huge wave of fear and animosity, a wave he did not create but one that he’s making bigger through his malignant, destructive influence.That’s not to say that we face a political stalemate. After all, we’ve seen MAGA candidates perform poorly in multiple swing state elections, but many of those elections — even against plainly incompetent or corrupt candidates — have been extraordinarily close. Trump’s loss in 2020 was extraordinarily close. In a narrowly divided country, it becomes difficult for one party to deliver the kind of decisive blows that Republicans suffered in 1964 or Democrats suffered in 1972.When the Trump Republican Party is forced to take three steps back, it often consoles itself with two steps forward. It lost the House in 2018, but it gained seats in the Senate. It lost the presidency and the Senate in 2020, but it gained seats in the House. It lost ground in the Senate in 2022, but it did (barely) win back control of the House. There weren’t many bright spots for Republicans in the 2023 elections, either, but there weren’t many races, and MAGA will still believe that Biden is weak even if other Democrats have proved stronger than expected.Already Trump and his allies are blaming electoral setbacks on the Republican establishment. The radio host Mark Levin claimed that the Republican nominee for governor in Kentucky, Daniel Cameron, lost to the Democrat, Andy Beshear, because Cameron is a “Mitch McConnell protégé.” Trump echoed the same theme, declaring on Truth Social that Cameron “couldn’t alleviate the stench of Mitch McConnell.” MAGA’s solution to electoral setbacks is always the same: more MAGA.There are two potential paths past this Republican dynamic. One is slow, difficult and dangerous. That’s the path of the Democratic Party defeating Trump and other MAGA candidates, race by race, year by year, with the full knowledge that the margin of victory can be razor thin and that there’s always the risk of a close loss that brings catastrophic consequences for our Republic. One negative news cycle — like Anthony Weiner’s laptop surfacing in the closing days of the 2016 election — can be the difference between victory and defeat.The other path — the better path — requires the Republican Party to reform itself, to reject Trump now. A two-party nation needs two healthy parties. Any republic that depends on one party defeating the other to preserve democracy and the rule of law is a republic that teeters on the edge of destruction. A Nikki Haley nomination, for example, might make Biden’s defeat more likely, but farsighted Democrats should welcome a potential return to normalcy in the Republican Party. It would mean that politics will perhaps return to a world of manageable differences, rather than a series of existential threats to democracy itself.As of now, however, internal Republican reform is a pipe dream. Ron DeSantis is falling, and while Haley is rising, she hasn’t even hit 10 percent support in the RealClearPolitics polling average. Trump leads by a staggering spread of 43.7 points. Perhaps a criminal conviction could reverse Trump’s primary momentum, but after watching Trump’s Republican approval rating survive every single scandal of his presidency and political career, the idea that anything will shake his Republican support is far more of a hope than an expectation.Until that unlikely moment, we’re stuck with the current dynamic. Love for Trump fuels his support in the Republican primary contest. Hatred of Democrats makes him viable in the general election. American animosity gave Trump the White House once, and as long as that animosity remains, it threatens to give him the White House once again. More

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Mike Pence’s Hell Is Ours Too

      by

      It’s one thing to disparage Donald Trump. It’s quite another to throw your body between him and his efforts to steal the presidency. Mike Pence, God love him, did the latter, and that sealed his doom. To the hard-core MAGA corps, tyranny is the meaty breakfast of champions. Virtue and democracy are a wimp’s veggie canapés.But that’s not the only moral of Pence’s miserable polling and early exit from the contest for the Republican presidential nomination, which is, incredibly, even less appetizing for his departure. He did something else that was just as dissonant with the mood of his party — with the mood of America, really. He talked about goodness. He privileged upbeat over downbeat. While others maniacally fanned the flames of anger, Pence mellowly stoked the embers of hope.That’s not going to cut it in 2024. Pence’s fate validated that.I’m braced for the campaign season from hell, for a race for the White House that’s a rhetorically violent duel of dystopias, a test of who can sound the shriller death knell for America. It could be all Armageddon all the time.An exchange involving Pence and Vivek Ramaswamy in the Republican presidential debate last August in Milwaukee foreshadowed that. Pence took aim at his much younger rival’s perversely exuberant negativity, schooling him: “We’re not looking for a new national identity. The American people are the most faith-filled, freedom-loving, idealistic, hard-working people the world has ever known.” They just needed better leaders and a more responsive and responsible government.Ramaswamy practically snorted in performative disbelief. “It is not morning in America,” he countered, summoning the ghost of Ronald Reagan only to flog it. “We live in a dark moment. And we have to confront the fact that we’re in an internal sort of cold, cultural civil war.”Well, the “dark moment” purveyor has crossed the polling and fund-raising thresholds to appear on the stage of the next debate, which is in Miami next week. He rolls on. The pitchman for “freedom-loving, idealistic” Americans doesn’t. His bid for the presidency is history, much as good old-fashioned American optimism sometimes seems to be.That’s the context for the intensifying presidential campaign, in which the smartest strategy for spiteful times may be convincing voters that your opponent’s victory won’t merely jeopardize the health of the country. It will endanger the future of civilization. It will turn a “dark moment” pitch black. With a new war in the Middle East, a grinding war in Ukraine and China eyeing Taiwan like a great white sizing up a baby seal, that’s not a tough sell.And if President Biden, 80, is the Democratic nominee and Donald Trump, 77, is the Republican one, the conditions for extreme ugliness are optimal. (Or is that pessimal?) Assuming no major swerves from the present, each of these men would stagger agedly into the general election amid questions about his cognitive zest — and with anemic favorability ratings — that all but compel him to savage his opponent as the direr of two evils. That’s what wounded politicians do. They make the other candidate bleed.Biden, I feel certain, would prefer to play the happy warrior — it’s a better fit for his earnestness and goofiness. But those aren’t the cards he has been dealt. That’s not the casino he’s in.The world roils, and here at home, to his and his aides’ understandable bafflement and frustration, voters seem to be much more focused on the bad in the economy than the good (low unemployment, increased wages, annualized G.D.P. growth of 4.9 percent for the most recent quarter). In polls, Americans express more confidence in Trump’s ability to manage the economy than in Biden’s.On top of which, a majority of Democrats say that they’d prefer someone other (and younger) than Biden to be the party’s nominee, and the war between Israel and Hamas is sharpening intraparty divisions that have largely been avoided over the past few years.One solution is obvious: Divert attention to the MAGA menace. That tactic is as warranted as the menace is real. And Biden has practice at it, having given a big speech about a country “at an inflection point” before the midterms last year and having since issued stern warnings about “MAGA extremists.” Trump and other Republicans have even more thoroughly rehearsed their lines about America’s descent under Democrats into a lawless, borderless, “woke” abyss. Watch almost any hour of Fox News for florid depictions of this lurid hellscape, or listen to Ramaswamy and Ron DeSantis, a merchant of vengeance who defines himself almost entirely in terms of whom (and what) he’s against and how mercilessly he’ll punish them.“Much of the rhetoric from the declared and potential Republican candidates so far is remarkable for its dystopian tone,” Ashley Parker wrote in The Washington Post in March, noting the “apocalyptic themes” as prominent Republicans “portray the nation as locked in an existential battle, where the stark combat lines denote not just policy disagreements but warring camps of saviors vs. villains, and where political opponents are regularly demonized.”That was before Trump’s four indictments on 91 felony counts and the extra rage into which they whipped him. Before he mused publicly about whether Gen. Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should be executed for treason. If Trump was apocalyptic in March, he’s in an even more desperate realm now. I don’t think there’s a word — or, in presidential politics, a precedent — for it.What that bodes for the next year, and especially for the months just before Election Day, is a furious effort to fill Americans with even more fear and more anger than they already feel. Tell me how our country is governable on the far side of that.And say goodbye to Pence, not just as a candidate but as an emblem and ambassador of an attitude and era that are long gone.For the Love of SentencesHarrison Ford in “Raiders of the Lost Ark”CBS, via Getty ImagesIn The Times, Jason Horowitz and Elisabetta Povoledo appraised the art collection of Silvio Berlusconi, the flamboyant former prime minister of Italy, who died earlier this year: “The paintings are now stashed in an enormous hangar that critics have characterized as a sort of Raiders of the Lousy Art warehouse.” (Thanks to Rob Hisnay of Cleveland Heights, Ohio, and Miriam Bulmer of Mercer Island, Wash., for nominating this.)Also in The Times, Erin Thompson reflected on the fate of statues memorializing the Confederacy: “We never reached any consensus about what should become of these artifacts. Some were reinstalled with additional historical context or placed in private hands, but many simply disappeared into storage. I like to think of them as America’s strategic racism reserve.” (Susan Davy, Kingwood, Texas, and Mike Stirniman, Fremont, Calif.)And Patti Davis, in a tribute to the actor Matthew Perry’s candor about addiction, wrote: “That’s the best we can do in life — be truthful and hope those truths become lanterns for others as they wander through the dark.” (Eric Sharps, Campbell, Calif.) In The New Yorker, David Remnick analyzed the raw, warring interpretations of the massacre in Israel on Oct. 7: “There were, of course, facts — many of them unknown — but the narratives came first, all infused with histories and counter-histories, grievances and fifty varieties of fury, all rushing in at the speed of social media. People were going to believe what they needed to believe.” (Anne Palmer, Oberlin, Ohio)In The Chronicle of Higher Education, Emma Pettit experienced cognitive dissonance as she examined the academic bona fides of a “Real Housewives of Potomac” cast member: “It’s unusual for any professor to star on any reality show, let alone for a Johns Hopkins professor to star on a Bravo series. The university’s image is closely aligned with world-class research, public health, and Covid-19 tracking. The Real Housewives’ image is closely aligned with promotional alcohol, plastic surgery, and sequins.” (Mitch Gerber, Rockville, Md.)In Grub Street, Mark Byrne took issue with a friend’s comment that the Greenwich Village restaurant Cafe Cluny is “too expensive for what it is.” “This is Manhattan: ‘Too expensive for what it is’ is written in rat’s blood on the stoops of our walk-ups,” he riffed. (Todd P. Lowe, Louisville, Ky.)In The Washington Post, Alexandra Petri responded to House Speaker Mike Johnson’s insistence that “the human heart,” not easy access to deadly firearms, is the problem behind mass shootings: “Why don’t we have alien hearts with extra ventricles, splendidly green and impervious to pain; or efficient, 3D-printed e-hearts; or anatomically inaccurate paper hearts? So many better kinds of hearts to have! It isn’t the guns. The problem is the human heart. Weak, feeble, pitiful heart. Put it up against a gun, and it loses every time.” (David Sherman, Arlington, Va.)Also in The Post, Rick Reilly put Mike McDaniel, the sunny head coach of the Miami Dolphins, and Bill Belichick, the gloomy head coach of the New England Patriots, side by side: “One is as open as a new Safeway, and the other is as closed up as an old submarine. One will tell you anything you want; the other will hand out information on a need-to-go-screw-yourself basis. One looks like a nerd who got lost on a stadium tour and wound up as head coach. The other looks like an Easter Island statue nursing a grudge.” (Mary Fran McShea, Frederick, Md.)And in The Athletic, Jason Lloyd described how Kevin Stefanski, the head coach of the Cleveland Browns, almost — but not quite — continued that pro football team’s magic streak of improbable victories in a game last weekend against the Seattle Seahawks: “He nearly had the lady sawed in half when he hit an artery.” (Jason Keesecker, Durham, N.C.)To nominate favorite bits of recent writing from The Times or other publications to be mentioned in “For the Love of Sentences,” please email me here and include your name and place of residence.What I’m Reading, Listening to and DoingErin Schaff for The New York TimesCount me among those people who are terrified that third-party candidates might throw the 2024 presidential election to Donald Trump, and consider me horrified, in that context, at the selfishness of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West and the recklessness of the No Labels folks. The stakes of — and case against — what they’re doing are beautifully illustrated by Matt Bennett, one of the leaders of the group Third Way, in an especially fine episode of the podcast of the CNN political director, David Chalian, that was released Friday.The feedback that I received about my assertion in last week’s newsletter that college students should be challenged, not coddled, included recommendations for other writing on the topic, some of it from a decade or more ago, showing that the problem is hardly new. I found this eloquent, 21-year-old speech by P. F. Kluge about Kenyon College especially fascinating.My Times colleague Adam Nagourney did an impressive amount of research and got extraordinary access to key players to produce his recently published book “The Times,” which chronicles this news organization’s challenges, changes, resilience and growth over much of the past half century. If you’re an admirer of The Times and curious about its inner workings, you’ll find much to savor.Speaking of Times colleagues, David Leonhardt, a Pulitzer winner whose superb reflections and analysis in the Times newsletter The Morning are probably familiar to you, has just released an important new book, “Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream.” It’s on the top of my night table stack, metaphorically speaking, and might well appeal to you as well.On the evening of Mon., Nov. 20, I’ll be talking with the brilliant Times critic and two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Wesley Morris at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University. Wesley is a delight to listen to, so if you’re in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area, please join us. Details about the event, which is open to the public, are here.On a Personal NoteRegan during a past autumn in Central Park Frank Bruni/The New York TimesThe view of the midtown Manhattan skyscrapers from the north curve of the Great Lawn last weekend was as breathtaking as ever, but something wasn’t right.My amble through the Ramble was richly scored with bird song — and the trees wore their best autumn finery — but the magic wasn’t complete. I felt an absence.Regan wasn’t by my side. She and her dog sitter were back at our new home in North Carolina. And Central Park without her wasn’t Central Park at all.Since she and I moved away from New York City in the summer of 2021, my return trips to our former stamping grounds have been rare. I’ve been busy. I prefer looking forward to looking back. My new home is so easy, and the city is so tough. I have reasons aplenty and excuses galore.But I did return on Saturday, ever so briefly, for two friends’ big joint birthday party, and I found time for a two-hour walk though Central Park, which Regan and I used to visit multiple times daily. She’s how I know it so well. She’s why I love it so much.She tugged me into it, motivated me to explore it and forced me to look at it in fresh and more expansive ways, as I described extensively in my most recent book, “The Beauty of Dusk.” That’s part of what dogs do for us — they widen our worlds, in terms of both our movements and perceptions.Watching her romp across and rummage through Central Park’s lawns, arbors and woods, I imagined all of that through her eyes, ears and nose, and I tuned into details that I wouldn’t have spotted and savored otherwise.Being in the park without her was like being there with my gait impeded, my senses dulled, my emotions muffled. The park’s grandeur was intact. But my heart felt a little smaller. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Why Less Engaged Voters Are Biden’s Biggest Problem

      by

      His weakness is concentrated among those who stayed home in the midterms but who may show up in 2024.Higher turnout is not necessarily positive for Democrats. Adria Malcolm for The New York TimesIf you’re looking to reconcile the surprisingly strong Democratic showing in the midterm elections with President Biden’s weakness in the polls today, consider the political attitudes of two groups of respondents from New York Times/Siena College polls over the last year.First, let’s consider the 2,775 respondents from Group A:It’s relatively old: 31 percent are 65 or older; 9 percent are under 30.It’s split politically: 33 percent identify as Republicans compared with 31 percent who consider themselves Democrats. About 72 percent are white. Black and Hispanic respondents are at 9 percent each.It’s relatively well educated: 41 percent have a college degree. Next, let’s look at the 1,534 respondents from Group B:It’s relatively young: 26 percent are 18 to 29; 17 percent are 65 or older.It’s relatively Democratic: 26 percent identify as Democrats, compared with 19 percent who identify as Republicans. Only 54 percent are white; 13 percent are Black and 19 percent are Hispanic.Just 28 percent have a college degree.Mr. Biden probably won Group B by a comfortable margin in the 2020 presidential election, whether based on fancy statistical models or based on what those respondents told us themselves.But it’s actually Group B that backs Donald J. Trump in Times/Siena polling over the last year. Mr. Trump leads Mr. Biden, 41-39, among Group B respondents, while Group A backs Mr. Biden, 47-43.OK, now the reveal:“Group A” is people who voted in the 2022 midterm elections.“Group B” is people who did not vote in the 2022 midterms.Is this a surprising finding? Yes. But it also makes sense of a lot of what’s going on in the polling today.Mr. Biden may be weak among young, Black and Hispanic voters today, but that weakness is almost entirely concentrated among the voters who stayed home last November. As a consequence, Democrats paid little to no price for it in the midterms, even as polls of all registered voters or adults show Mr. Biden struggling mightily among these same groups against Mr. Trump.These less engaged voters might just be the single biggest problem facing Mr. Biden in his pursuit of re-election, the Times/Siena data suggests. If there’s any good news for Mr. Biden, it’s that his challenge is concentrated among voters who still consider themselves Democrats — a group that, in theory, ought to be open to returning to the president’s side.Whom Voters Say They’ll Support in 2024 More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      In Argentina, the U.S. Dollar Could Soon Become King

      by

      Americans complain that inflation has eroded the value of their money, but the U.S. dollar looks lovely to the people of Argentina, where consumer prices rose 124 percent in August from a year earlier. The threat of hyperinflation has become a central issue in the presidential election on Oct. 22, which The Times has described as “a new test of the strength of the far right around the world.” The leading candidate in the race, which could go to a November runoff, is a radical libertarian who promises to bring rising prices under control by getting rid of the peso and fully dollarizing the Argentine economy.Buena idea, o mala?I’ll get to the pros and cons of dollarization in a minute, but first a few words on why Argentines would even consider such a drastic step. Argentina is blessed with abundant natural resources. Early in the 20th century, it was richer than Germany or France. “Until the 1930s, the French used the phrase ‘riche comme un Argentin’ to describe the foolishly rich,” the economists Edward L. Glaeser, Rafael Di Tella and Lucas Llach wrote in the Latin American Economic Review in 2018.But Argentina’s economy has been stunted by disastrous economic policies and chronic political instability. There were periods of military rule, hyperinflation, defaults on external debt, protectionism and under-industrialization. Argentina has been a democracy since 1983 but successive governments, whether left- or right-leaning, haven’t managed to match neighbors such as Chile, Uruguay and Brazil in bringing down inflation and stabilizing finances.That record of failure is written on the currency. Since 1970, Argentina has burned through several currencies: the peso ley, the peso argentino, the austral and now the peso convertible. Today there is no single exchange rate with the dollar that all residents can use. As colorfully explained recently in The Buenos Aires Herald, there is the official, or “wholesale,” exchange rate, for international trade; the savers’ exchange rate, which is supposedly for savers but is not widely accessible; and the “blue” dollar, which is essentially the black-market rate. Foreign tourists can buy pesos at yet another rate, the M.E.P., short for Mercado Electrónico de Pagos. There are even temporary exchange rates, such as the Vaca Muerta rate, which is named after where it was announced last month (not because it’s for buying or selling dead cows).Javier Milei, who leads the polls in the presidential race, wants to chuck the whole rickety system, abolish the central bank and adopt the U.S. dollar, as three smaller Latin American countries — Ecuador, El Salvador and Panama — have already done.Milei, it’s important to say, has extreme and I would argue insupportable stands on a number of issues. He wants to drastically cut taxes and spending, as The Times wrote, “including by charging people to use the public health care system; closing or privatizing all state-owned enterprises; and eliminating the health, education and environment ministries.” He is an economist and a member of the legislature who has large dogs named Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas and Murray Rothbard.But let’s separate the message from the messenger and look at the dollarization proposal on its merits. The biggest plus is that it would most likely get rid of Argentina’s high inflation overnight. The money available for spending inside Argentina would be only the dollars that the country already has in reserves or manages to acquire by, say, running trade surpluses with the United States or borrowing. The general price level can’t rise if there is no increase in the supply of dollars, unless the velocity of circulation increases. As Milton Friedman (the economist, not the dog) once said, “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.”Dollarizing the economy is like locking oneself in handcuffs and then throwing away the key. It’s an act of desperation when nothing else works.And like most acts of desperation, dollarization has big drawbacks. By switching to dollars, Argentina would effectively adopt the monetary policy of the United States, thus losing the ability to raise or lower interest rates to suit local conditions. It would lose the profit known as seigniorage that comes from printing money. And dollarization wouldn’t solve the structural problems that have caused high inflation, such as government overspending, as Guillermo Ortiz, a former governor of Mexico’s central bank, told reporters in September.This week I interviewed Iván Werning, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who grew up in Argentina and earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees there before getting a doctorate at the University of Chicago. With two graduate students who are fellow Argentines, he has written two recent papers about dollarization, which he calls a “dangerous delusion,” and has wrestled with opponents on X, formerly Twitter.Werning isn’t persuaded that dollarization really would tie the government’s hands. In an email to me, he pointed out that Argentina tried once before to link to the dollar, through currency board “convertibility,” but abandoned the program in 2002. “Argentina could reissue the peso in short order, in a manner similar to how its provinces have issued government pesos in the past to pay for bills,” he wrote. Ecuador, he said, has found “creative accounting ways” to loosen the constraint of its dollarization, such as having the central bank finance the treasury.The Argentine government doesn’t have enough dollars to replace all of its pesos at current exchange rates, even at the unofficial “blue” rate, Werning told me by phone. There are rich people with lots of dollars squirreled away abroad, but that doesn’t help the ordinary Argentine, he said. So in his view, if the conversion were done today, there could be an extreme shortage of money in the economy, which would most likely cause a deep recession because prices and wages would not adjust smoothly to the dollar scarcity. Postponing the conversion could make matters worse, by triggering an anticipatory burst of inflation, he added.The problem could be solved if Argentina were able to raise more dollars, but in that case it probably wouldn’t need to dollarize in the first place, he said.Understandably frustrated by years of dysfunction, the Argentine people are looking for a quick fix for inflation, Werning told me. But the quick fix would have bad consequences in the long term, he said. He prefers more conventional solutions such as bringing government budgets closer into balance. On that score, he is slightly hopeful.“Today there’s a lot more consensus” about the need to reduce spending, Werning said. The message is coming not just from Milei, the extreme libertarian, but also from Patricia Bullrich, a center-right candidate who served in the cabinet of Mauricio Macri. Even Sergio Massa, a candidate who is the economy minister in the current, center-left government of Albert Fernandez, has talked about cutting spending, although “his actions do not match his words,” Werning said. Whether any of the candidates would be as resolute in office, when anti-austerity protests begin, is another question. But Werning said, “If ever there was a chance” for righting Argentina’s finances, “it might be now.”The Readers WriteDonald Trump and his lawyers persist in re-arguing points and generally annoying the judge because they hope to elicit an intemperate response that could be read as bias. I am a trial lawyer, and I have seen this happen. Because this is a bench trial, a mistrial would take a real circus breaking out. But they may be able to argue on appeal that Trump was denied a fair trial.James M. MillerSarasota, Fla.Your opinion on the “fix” for our budget problem is spot on, but lawmakers’ concern about job security exceeds their willingness to do the best job for the country. And so we languish with incidental actions that appear helpful but don’t make the real change we need.Kathy CrosbyGrand Rapids, Mich.Quote of the Day“America is ungovernable; those who have served the revolution have plowed the sea.”— Simón Bolívar, South American revolutionary leader, in 1830, as quoted by Sheldon Liss and Peggy Liss in “Man, State, and Society in Latin American History” (1972) More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Power of Older Women? Extinct G.O.P. Moderates? It’s Time for the Mailbag.

      by

      We’re answering reader questions on polling and elections, including the underexplored area of longevity.Women live longer than men on average, meaning they can vote more often on average. Arin Yoon for The New York TimesWatch out: Women outlive menI’m 79, and women my age remember when abortion was illegal. Many of us either had a back-alley abortion, or had friends who had one. We are determined that neither our daughters nor our granddaughters have to experience this. Many of the elderly men I know still vote for Republicans. But watch out: We outlive you! — Mary LeonhardtYou may be partly joking, Mary, but this is probably a minor reason Democrats do a bit better among older voters than people might guess!Why? American women, who tend to support Democrats, live almost six years longer on average than men. Women make up 55 percent of registered voters over age 65 — including 58 percent of those over age 80 — according to data from L2, a political data firm. In comparison, women are 52 percent of registered voters under 65.I know all of this is a little morbid, but longevity strikes me as an underexplored dimension of electoral trends nowadays. We know higher life expectancy is correlated with socioeconomic status and tends to be higher in Democratic-leaning areas. Could this be a factor in why Democrats are performing better among older voters than usually thought? I think so.Are you sure these people exist?“You refer to ‘relatively moderate, highly educated Republicans.’ You could have listed all of them … it wouldn’t have been a long list. — Jeff DavisIt would be a longer list than you might think. More than 20 million people with a college degree voted for Donald J. Trump in 2020. In our last New York Times/Siena College poll, 13 percent of likely Republican primary voters were self-identified moderates or liberals with a college degree.There’s a bigger lesson here: A small percentage of a huge group can still yield a large number of people. To take another example: There are more Republicans in California than in any other state. There are more Republicans in Brooklyn than in Wyoming, the state where Mr. Trump fared best.If not Biden, who?Pundits keep saying people don’t want Biden. Who do they want? — R. GribbonWell, they’re not sure. In an open-ended survey question, no alternative candidate earns any meaningful amount of support from Democratic voters. And I don’t think that’s entirely unreasonable, given there aren’t any mainstream Democrats running against President Biden.To me, the interesting question is whether many of these voters would wind up preferring Mr. Biden if alternatives like Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan or Gov. Gavin Newsom of California actually ran. It seems quite possible.Just forget about national polling?I find national polling to be particularly misleading. Please focus on state-by-state polling. I’ll be watching PA, WI, MN, GA, AZ, VA, and NV. — Tim OliverI’m sympathetic to the general sentiment here, Tim. Over the years, we’ve done many more Times/Siena polls in the battleground states than nationwide.But I wouldn’t go so far as to say that national polling is misleading. The difference between the national vote and the battleground states isn’t that large — and might even be shrinking.There are advantages to national polling as well. There are more historical questions for comparison. It’s much less expensive than battleground polling: It might take six state polls to get a decent picture. And there are plenty of cases — say, a Republican presidential primary or a battle for control of the House — where the national picture is much more relevant than the core battlegrounds.Polling and nonbinary peopleI was wondering about the inclusivity of the demographic charts. I noticed that the gender category was very binary, with someone only being able to select male or female. Were there any nonbinary people interviewed in this poll, or did someone have to select male or female? As a nonbinary person, I would love to advocate for queer folx to be able to fully participate in these polls. Thank you so much. — Melissa DaileyIt’s worth adding some historical context. First, most pollsters typically asked whether someone was male or female — which is to say someone’s “sex,” not gender. That’s what the Census Bureau does as well, and pollsters generally find it advantageous to have their questions align with the census for comparison or even statistical adjustment. And as someone who loves historical data, I’m also always loath to lose a consistent measurement of something over time.Second, you might be surprised to learn that many telephone pollsters haven’t actually been asking about the sex or gender of respondents. Instead, many have relied on the interviewer to record the respondent’s sex or gender based on voice. That might seem strange, but many respondents find it strange or even offensive to be asked if they’re a man or a woman.Nonetheless, this is an area where survey research is evolving. In the last decade or so, many pollsters have started asking about gender. A smaller number of pollsters have offered respondents options beyond “male” or “female” or “man” or “woman,” though this is complicated in its own right. Respondents could identify in any number of ways, whether as transgender, non-cisgender, nonbinary, gender fluid, queer or something else. They could identify as a “man” or a “woman” to reflect a gender that does not align with the sex they were assigned at birth.There’s another issue with adding small categories: measurement error. If one in every 300 respondents is trolling, or if one in 300 interviewers mistakenly clicks the wrong gender button, this mismeasured 0.3 percent of the sample will have no discernible effect on our results among men and women. But it could make up a huge share of the tiny number of transgender respondents.In our most recent Times/Siena poll, “male” and “female” were the only explicitly listed options when we asked about gender. But if respondents said they identified in some other way, the interviewer would record it. In the end, we had three respondents who said they were transgender or nonbinary. This sample was too small for us to report. I’m not sure whether we — or anyone else — is handling this exactly right; I expect the industry to continue to experiment and evolve.Woe WisconsinI am a Wisconsin voter who is a Democrat. However, we do not have to declare a party. How did you fit that into your analysis? — Nancy EschenburgIf you’re looking for a niche explanation for recent polling errors in Wisconsin, this is an interesting place to start.Unlike with most states, pollsters have very little data on the partisanship of Wisconsin respondents, making it much harder to ensure an unbiased sample.The absence of party registration is the best example, but the issue runs deeper. We don’t have data on whether our respondents participated in a partisan primary (like voting in a Republican presidential race). In most of the states without party registration, this primary participation data is a decent alternative.The results by precinct aren’t very helpful, either. Outside of Madison and Milwaukee, very few voters live in overwhelmingly blue or red precincts. Even the most Republican counties in Wisconsin aren’t so Republican that we can be especially confident that an individual respondent will be a Trump supporter.One of our major goals in recently collecting more data in Wisconsin was to improve our ability to estimate whether someone was a Democrat or a Republican, based on the relatively limited data at our disposal. I wouldn’t say we’ve found anything revolutionary: There’s just no substitute for knowing whether someone is registered as a Democrat or a Republican.Don’t forget ArizonaHere in very hot Arizona we will have some very “hot” political races. Of course we are a critical presidential swing state. Biden vs. Trump (or another Republican) will be very close again.And our U.S. Senate race (with Senator Sinema now an independent) will be fascinating. Ruben Gallego & Kari Lake & perhaps Sinema — that will be very entertaining. And the race will be critical regarding Senate control.So I plead with you to increase your polling in Arizona. We are just as important as other swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. — Chris HerstamChris, I think we deserve a little bit of credit! In 2020, Arizona was one of our core six battleground states in Times/Siena polling. We surveyed it five times during the cycle, tied for the most of any state. We surveyed it in 2018 and 2022 as well, something that can be said only of Arizona and Nevada.Heading into 2024, Arizona remains in the top tier. We’ll poll it just as much as Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia.Six kinds of Democrats?Loved your “Six Kinds of Republicans.” Please do the same with Dems. — Walter B. ShurdenI’d like to see the same article written about Democrats … We all know there is a big difference between a conservative Democrat and someone like A.O.C. — Craig WilsonYou’ll most likely have to wait until 2028! In the meantime, consider reading our breakdown of Democratic voters from 2019. There were five types of Democrats in that analysis, based on data from the Hidden Tribes project: progressive activists, traditional liberals, passive liberals, moderates and the politically disengaged.Another option to get you through until the next Democratic primary: Pew Research’s 2021 typology, which identified four Democratic-leaning groups: progressive left, establishment liberals, Democratic mainstays and the outsider left. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      None of the Republicans on the Debate Stage Are Going to Topple Trump

      by

      Donald Trump won’t be defeated with sound bites. He won’t be bested with wordplay. Ron DeSantis carped repeatedly that Trump was “missing in action” at the Republican presidential debate on Wednesday night, while Chris Christie called Trump a coward and christened him “Donald Duck.” How very clever.And how totally futile. They were throwing darts at the absent front-runner when missiles are in order.Trump has a mammoth lead over all of them, and there’s no sign that it’s shrinking. He’s skating to the party’s presidential nomination. Along the way, he’s doing quadruple axels of madness, triple toe loops of provocation. He’s fantasizing about executing a respected general, and he’s fetishizing firearms, his words coming close to incitements of violence. He’s not sorry for the Jan. 6 riots. To my ears, he’d like more where that came from.But did any of the seven candidates onstage at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., talk about that? Nope. Mike Pence criticized Trump for wanting to consolidate too much power in Washington, D.C. DeSantis argued that Trump, if elected president again, could serve only one term, while DeSantis, a newcomer to the White House, could serve two.Christie, the bravest of a timid bunch, gave eloquent voice to how profoundly Trump had divided the country, pitting friend against friend and relative against relative, and while that’s sadly true, that’s also beside the point.The point is that Trump has zero respect for democracy and has aspirations for autocracy. The point is that he keeps scaling new pinnacles of unhinged. The point is that he needs to win the presidency so that he doesn’t have to worry about living out his days where he belongs: behind bars.And perhaps the only shot that any of those seven candidates have to stop him and prevent the irreversible damage he’d do to the United States with four more years is to call a tyrant a tyrant, a liar a liar, an arsonist an arsonist. None of them did.They’re too frightened of his and his followers’ wrath. So forgive me if I chortled every time they talked about leadership, which they talked about often on Wednesday night. They’re not leaders. They’re opportunists who are letting an opportunity slip away from them.The hopelessness of their quest for the presidency and their deepening awareness of that were reflected in all the shouting and cross-talk. Dear Lord, what a din — overlapping voices, operatic voices. It was like some misbegotten a cappella competition or the trailer for a movie I hope never to see: “Pitch Imperfect.” My ears will be ringing until the next Republican debate, scheduled for early November in Miami. Those poor Floridians. With DeSantis as their governor, haven’t they suffered enough?Instead of taking Trump sufficiently to task, instead of explaining in full why just about any one of them would be preferable to the madman of Mar-a-Loco, Nikki Haley and Tim Scott quarreled about drapes. Yes, drapes. He said she squandered $50,000 of federal money on them when she was the United Nations ambassador, she said she didn’t, and they both grew very exercised about it. Where was that passion on the subject of Trump?Instead of savaging him, the seven candidates tore into one another, seemingly vying not to catch up to Trump but to be declared the No. 1 alternative, like a beauty pageant runner-up poised to fulfill the winner’s duties and wear the winner’s tiara should the need arise.DeSantis was more aggressive than ever, a contender of faded promise making a last stand. He crammed in his entire biography: working-class upbringing, Ivy League but held his nose, volitional military service, father of three.Haley tussled with him, with Scott and especially with Vivek Ramaswamy, who was yet again the political equivalent of a jack-in-the-box, popping up every time you hoped that he’d finally been squished down. Haley called nonsense on his nonsense, telling him: “Every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber.” It wasn’t very kind, but it was wholly relatable.Ramaswamy tried humility on for size (“I’m here to tell you, no, I don’t know it all”), but it didn’t really fit. He’s too frenetic and too splenetic, and he had the wrong hair for it, a kind of cartoon pompadour that puzzled me.But not as much as Pence’s demeanor did. He kept trying for jokes in a voice that wasn’t remotely jokey, and he reached for conviction in a manner that lacked any trace of it. It’s not more support from voters that he most needs. It’s a transfusion.“You hear the fire in all of our voices,” he said at one point, but I couldn’t detect so much as a flickering Bic disposable lighter in his. I suspect that he won’t be in the hunt for much longer. Try hard not to miss him.From the others, there was plenty of heat, and there were even important exchanges that delineated significant fault lines in the Republican Party. DeSantis and Ramaswamy objected to the continued flow of enormous aid to Ukraine; Haley deemed that reckless. DeSantis defended his extreme efforts to restrict abortion; Christie advocated something a tad closer to moderation.But what will that matter if none of them chip away at Trump’s lead? There have now been two Republican presidential debates. Trump has proudly skipped and obnoxiously counterprogrammed both of them. And his punishment from his supposed rivals has been a dainty slap on the wrist.The moderators on Wednesday night were just as gentle on him, never posing a question as pointed as one during the first debate, when the candidates were asked whether they’d support Trump as the party’s nominee even if he became a felon.Instead, one of the moderators, Dana Perino, wondered which of the seven people onstage “should be voted off the island” to winnow the field of Trump alternatives. That was hugely revealing: She was suggesting that one of them had to go, when the candidate who needs exiling is the one who didn’t bother to take the stage.At least Christie recognized and remedied that, saying, “I vote Donald Trump off the island.” It was the right choice, rendered in the wrong words and wrong tone. This isn’t a reality show. It’s no episode of “Survivor.” It’s a matter of our country’s survival. But from the way seven candidates danced around the danger of Trump, you’d never know it.For the Love of SentencesLucinda WilliamsRahav Segev for The New York TimesIn a sublime reflection in The Bitter Southerner about what Lucinda Wiliams’s music means to him, Wyatt Williams (no relation) wrote: “The songs we hear as children end up being a lot like our fathers; we go on hearing them in our heads even when they’re not around.” (Thanks to Eileen Van Schaik of Shoreline, Wash., for flagging this.)In The New Yorker, Rachel Syme pondered the sartorial oddity of a leading fashion designer: “The Thom Browne look has often been compared to Pee-wee Herman’s archly nerdy costume or to Don Draper’s office wear after a few rounds through the dryer, but it calls to my mind, too, some mischievous scamp out of a Roald Dahl book who is always conspiring to put a dead hamster in the headmistress’s bed.” (Joanne Strongin, Port Washington, N.Y.)Also in The New Yorker, Judith Thurman distilled the conflict from which the plot of “The Iliad” proceeds: “And with that puerile quarrel between stubborn warlords over the right to own and to rape a girl, Western literature begins.” (Joyce Erickson, Seattle)And Anthony Lane reflected on the liberties that the director Kenneth Branagh and the screenwriter Michael Green took in adapting Agatha Christie’s “Hallowe’en Party,” set outside London, into the new movie “A Haunting in Venice,” set amid canals. “I’m already looking forward to their next reworking of Christie: ‘The Body in the Library,’ perhaps, relocated to the freezer aisle of a Walmart,” Lane wrote. (Abigail Smith, Downingtown, Pa.)In The Washington Post, Petula Dvorak characterized the brief window in which pawpaws are available and ripe enough to eat: “They are like some of D.C.’s other ephemeral delights — cherry blossoms or the optimism and innocence of freshman members of Congress.” (Joan Tindell, Tucson, Ariz.)In Esquire, Charles P. Pierce explained Attorney General Merrick Garland’s bind during his recent clash with Republicans at a House Judiciary Committee hearing: “Garland rope-a-doped as best he could, but there were too many dopes for him to rope.” (Peter Braverman, Bethesda, Md.)In Vanity Fair, Carl Hiaasen put Trump and DeSantis side by side: “Some claim Trump has a better sense of humor, but it was DeSantis who appointed a Jan. 6 rioter to the state board that oversees massage parlors.” (Sue Jares, Los Angeles)In The Times, Pamela Paul examined the embattled House speaker: “As Kevin McCarthy announced the impeachment inquiry, you could almost see his wispy soul sucked out Dementor-style, joining whatever ghostly remains of Paul Ryan’s abandoned integrity still wander the halls of Congress.” (Jeff Merkel, Fairbanks, Alaska, and Michael Berk, San Diego, among many others)Also in The Times, Bret Stephens previewed the Republican debate in Seussian style: “I expect Ramaswamy to irritate, DeSantis to infuriate, Christie to needle, Pence to remind me of a beetle, Scott to smile and Haley to win by a mile. But I doubt it will move the dial.” (Nancy Breeding, Raleigh, N.C., and Andrew Robinson, Syracuse, N.Y., among others) Bret also noted: “Politics used to be debating ideas. Now it’s about diagnosing psychosis.” (Pierre Mullie, Orléans, Ontario, and Margaret Velarde, Denver, among others)David French analyzed Trump’s recent shadings of his position on abortion, saying: “He is not convictionally pro-life. He is conveniently pro-life.” (Paul Dobbs, Relanges, France)And Tim Kreider, in a lovely essay about aging and vulnerability, inventoried the infirmities (“arthritic hips, ovarian cysts, herniated discs, breast cancer”) that set in as we move from middle to old age: “It’s as if we were all devices made by some big tech company, designed to start falling apart the instant the warranty expires and to be ingeniously difficult to repair, with zero support for older models.” (Mike Rogers, Wilmington, N.C., and Maureen Burke, Sausalito, Calif., among others)To nominate favorite bits of recent writing from The Times or other publications to be mentioned in “For the Love of Sentences,” please email me here and include your name and place of residence.On a Personal NoteJohn TurturroCole Barash for The New York TimesOur lives are accidents of a sort. We have only so much control over them. We get no say in the genes that we inherit, and while they’re not the whole of our destinies, they’re big parts of them — seeds that are certain to flower, bombs that are sure to detonate. We’re born into circumstances that liberate or limit us. We’re the beneficiaries of good timing, or we’re the victims of the opposite.John Turturro knows that well. The actor, director and writer had a mentally ill brother, Ralph, who spent many of his 70 years at the Creedmoor Psychiatric Center in Queens. John visited him there frequently, got to know the place well and shared those memories in a moving 2015 presentation for the storytelling forum the Moth that you can find here. It’s funny, it’s soulful, and it builds to a poignant metaphor whose elegance takes you by surprise.I had students in a class of mine at Duke watch it in advance of a recent Zoom visit from John, who’d agreed to talk with them about a book they were reading, “Is There No Place on Earth for Me?” by Susan Sheehan. It’s a classic of meticulous journalism, chronicling the odyssey of a woman with schizophrenia and her parents as they struggle, often in vain, to calm her turmoil — to bring nothing more and nothing less than a steady peace and baseline contentment to her days. For several years, John has been working to adapt it into a mini-series.He wants people to understand that mental illness doesn’t have the tidy arc that movies tend to give it. That it’s not a problem reliably solved by extra heaps of love. That it’s sometimes an endless road.And the patients and families traveling it? They could be us. They’re just like us: They’re pushing through hardships that, yes, may be more daunting than other people’s, but they’re pushing nonetheless, with merciful instances of levity and cherished moments of grace. Such instances and moments flicker throughout “Is There No Place on Earth for Me?,” and John’s Moth presentation brims with them.The book and the talk are lessons in the randomness of our lives. They’re also exhortations to meet it with whatever dignity and tenacity we can muster. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      What Polling After the First Debate Tells Us About Round 2

      by

      Nikki Haley received a small lift, but another good performance Wednesday may simply splinter the opposition to Donald Trump.Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley had a debate within the debate. Kenny Holston/The New York TimesWith the benefit of hindsight, there was one big winner of the first Republican presidential debate: Donald J. Trump.He has gained more support in the post-debate polls than any other candidate, even though he didn’t appear onstage last month. He’s up 3.5 percentage points in a direct comparison between polls taken before and after the debate by the same pollsters. Only Nikki Haley — up 1.5 points across the seven national pollsters — can also claim to have gained a discernible amount of ground.This basic lesson from the first debate might just be the most important thing to keep in mind heading into the second Republican debate Wednesday night. Candidates might be flashy. They might be broadly appealing. They might hit MAGA notes. But after the last debate, there’s that much less reason to think this one will make a big difference in the race. It might even add up to helping Mr. Trump, by splintering his potential opposition.Here are some lessons from the last debate — and what they mean for the next one.Being center stage isn’t enoughNo one seemed to command more attention during the debate than Vivek Ramaswamy. Perhaps no one ought to be more disappointed in the post-debate polls.Despite gaining a fair share of the headlines, Mr. Ramaswamy failed to earn additional support. He has even lost ground in the FiveThirtyEight Republican polling average since the debate.Why didn’t he surge? Is it because he was “annoying,” as the Times Opinion columnist Michelle Goldberg put it? Or maybe it’s because he mostly appealed to Trump supporters, who weren’t going to flip to the young upstart?Either way, his failure to turn a breakout performance into a polling breakthrough raises questions about his upside. It could also raise doubts about everyone else’s upside — at least as long as voters remain loyal to Mr. Trump.Standing up for a faction still paysIf any of the actual debaters “won” the debate, the polls say it was Ms. Haley.Her gains have been fairly modest nationwide, but they have been clearer in the early states. She has re-established herself as a relevant candidate by leapfrogging Ron DeSantis in New Hampshire and overtaking a fellow South Carolinian, Tim Scott, to move into third place in Iowa.Ms. Haley won the old-fashioned way: She vigorously defended the traditional, neoconservative foreign policy views of the Republican Party in a high-profile showdown with Mr. Ramaswamy. And she was modestly rewarded by the party’s moderate establishment voters — a group that is distinct for its committed opposition to Mr. Trump.It’s hard to see a moderate-establishment-type like Ms. Haley seriously contending for the Republican nomination in a populist-conservative party, let alone with a juggernaut like Mr. Trump in the race. But it is quite easy to imagine her adding to the challenges facing Mr. DeSantis or other mainstream conservatives, by winning over many moderate voters who might otherwise represent the natural base of a broad anti-Trump coalition.Her re-emergence as a relevant factional player was probably the most important thing that came out of the debate, and, at least for now, it helped Mr. Trump’s chances by further splitting his opposition. If she builds on her last performance in the next debate, Mr. Trump might count as the winner yet again.Broad appeal isn’t enoughThere’s a fairly strong case that Mr. DeSantis had a decent debate. He promoted a conservative message with fairly broad appeal throughout the party and stayed out of the fray. In the end, a plurality of Republican voters, as well as plenty of pundits, said he performed the best.Nonetheless, he has slipped another two points since then. Of course, he has been sliding in the polls for months, so there’s not necessarily any reason to assume that his debate performance was the cause. But at best, he failed to capitalize on a rare opportunity to regain his footing. At worst, the emergence of Ms. Haley created an additional threat to his left flank.There’s a lesson in Mr. DeSantis’s failure to turn a reasonable performance into gains in the polls: It’s hard to be a broadly appealing candidate in primary politics. Broad appeal, of course, is necessary to win the nomination. But it’s often easiest to build support by catering to the wishes of an important faction, as Ms. Haley did when she blasted Mr. Ramaswamy’s anti-interventionist foreign policy.Usually, broadly appealing candidates overcome this problem with brute force: superior name recognition, resources, media attention and so on. If Mr. Trump weren’t in the race, perhaps Mr. DeSantis would run a broadly conservative campaign and win the nomination by relying on many of these attributes. But right now, it’s Mr. Trump, not Mr. DeSantis, who has the traits of a winning conservative with broad appeal. Not only could Mr. Trump skate by with broadly appealing platitudes if he wanted — but he doesn’t even need to show up.Trump isn’t beating himselfIn August, someone could have plausibly wondered whether Mr. Trump might lose support because of the first debate. Maybe voters would have held his nonparticipation against him. Maybe his opponents would have gone after him. Maybe some voters might have decided they liked one of the other candidates after seeing that person for the first time.Maybe not. In the end, Mr. Trump emerged unscathed. No one really landed a punch on him, whether on the issues or for being too “chicken” to debate. More important, the candidates didn’t draw support away from the former president.After the last debate, we can probably cross “some voters might decide they liked one of the other candidates” off the list of “maybe this will hurt Trump” possibilities. But there’s still an opportunity for the candidates to try something new by attacking him vigorously on his recent abortion comments or for failing to show up. There’s no reason to expect either tactic to yield a huge shift in the race, but it would at least give some reason to wonder whether maybe, just maybe, Wednesday night’s debate will have a different outcome than the first. More

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Trump Tests Pro-Life America

      by

      On Sunday, Donald Trump sent shock waves through the Republican primary when an interview with NBC’s Kristen Welker on “Meet the Press” aired in which he said that Ron DeSantis did a “terrible thing” and made a “terrible mistake” when he signed Florida’s six-week abortion ban. It’s the kind of statement that could end virtually any other Republican presidential campaign. Opposition to abortion rights, after all, is every bit as fundamental to Republican identity as support for abortion rights is to Democratic identity. Breaking with the party on that issue is the kind of heresy that no national politician can survive.Or is it? When it comes to Republican identity, is support for Trump, the person, now more central than any other issue, including abortion?My colleague Michelle Goldberg speaks often of the distinction between movements that seek converts and movements that hunt heretics. It’s an extremely helpful one. Cultural and political projects centered around winning converts tend to be healthier. They’re outward-facing and bridge-building. Heretic hunters, by contrast, tend to be angrier. They turn movements inward. They believe in addition by subtraction.The G.O.P. under Trump hunts heretics. Oddly enough, it has grown more intolerant even as it has become less ideological. The reason is simple: Trump is ideologically erratic but personally relentless. He demands absolute loyalty and support. He relishes driving dissenters out of the party or, ideally, into political retirement.Trump presents the pro-life movement with multiple heresy-hunting problems. First, and most obviously, if support for Trump is the central plank of the new G.O.P. orthodoxy, then the pro-life movement will find its cause subordinated to Trump’s ambitions as long as he reigns. If he believes the pro-life movement helps him, the movement will enjoy the substantial benefits of his largess — for example, the nomination of pro-life judges, including the Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade. But if he perceives the movement to be hurting his political ambitions — as his comments to Welker suggest he feels now — then its members will be cast as the heretics and will stand outside, in the cold, complaining about their lost influence to a Republican public that will not care.Second, as long as the Trumpian right shapes the pro-life movement more than the other way around, the movement will adopt many of the same tactics. It won’t merely serve Trump, it will also imitate Trump. Every movement adopts the character of its leaders, and if Trump is the leader of the G.O.P. and by extension the pro-life movement, then his manners and methods will dominate the discourse.Finally, and more important, if the backlash to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision teaches us anything, it’s that the pro-life movement cannot be hunting heretics. As a strategy, heretic hunting is far less costly to the side with the more popular position, which can afford its purity, at least for a time. The same impulse can be utterly destructive to those in the minority, as the pro-life movement clearly is now.As I discussed in a Times Opinion Audio short last week, the Guttmacher Institute published new research suggesting that the number of legal abortions has actually increased after Dobbs. Even though abortion is illegal or sharply restricted in 14 states, there were roughly 10 percent more abortions in the remaining 36 states and Washington, D.C., in the first six months of 2023 than there were when abortion was legal across the country in 2020.At the same time that abortion numbers rise, the electoral results for the pro-life movement have been exceedingly grim. When abortion referendums have been placed on statewide ballots, the pro-choice movement has won. Every time. Even in states as red as Kentucky, Kansas and Montana.The general polling numbers, moreover, are disastrous. There has been a marked increase in support for abortion rights positions, and there’s evidence that the pro-life movement began its sharp decline during the Trump administration. After years of stability in abortion polling, support for the pro-life cause is at an extraordinarily low ebb.In this context, heretic hunting is disastrous. The pro-life movement has to seek converts. Its first three priorities should be to persuade, persuade and, yes, persuade. Donald Trump is not the man for that job, not only because he’s a bully and a heretic hunter but also because it is quite clear that he is not convictionally pro-life. He is conveniently pro-life, and the moment it stops being convenient, he stops having a meaningful opinion either way.How would someone who is convictionally pro-life and also eager to persuade have responded to Kristen Welker’s questions? Such a person wouldn’t condemn pro-life laws unless those laws were poorly written or had glaring flaws. Instead, he or she would use a challenging question from Welker as an opportunity to persuade, in terms that even skeptics could understand.For example, when speaking of so-called heartbeat bills that ban abortion after around six weeks of pregnancy, one could connect the concept to one of the happiest moments in parents’ lives — the first moment they heard their child’s heartbeat. Parents feel that joy because it is tangible evidence of life and health. Even for a parent who is anxious, or financially stressed, or caught in a terrible relationship, that heartbeat still signals a life that is precious.If a politician is challenged to describe the kind of pro-life legislation he’d seek in a nation or state that increasingly favors abortion rights, he could emphasize how a holistic pro-life movement can work with pro-choice allies on legislation that would improve the lives of mothers and children. It turns out that our nation can reduce abortions without banning abortions, and it did so for decades before the abortion rate rose under Trump.To take one example, in 2021, Mitt Romney advanced a child allowance proposal that would provide families with $4,200 per year per child for each child up to age 6, and $3,000 per year per child between the ages of 6 and 17. Crucially, benefits would begin before birth, helping financially distressed families to prepare to care for their new children.Not only would the plan cut childhood poverty (while paying for itself through cuts elsewhere), it would almost certainly also reduce the number of abortions. Writing in Public Discourse, the Institute for Family Studies fellow Lyman Stone analyzed the impact of financial support for mothers on abortion rates and found that not only does financial support decrease abortion, that decrease is also most pronounced in jurisdictions with the fewest restrictions on abortion.That’s what persuasion can look like — defending the source of your convictions by explaining and demonstrating love for kids and moms while also looking for areas of agreement and common purpose. But does any of that sound like Donald Trump to you?Despite generating interest from conservatives and progressives, Romney’s proposal went nowhere. An astute analysis by Peter Nicholas in The Atlantic noted that the Biden administration had a competing child tax credit plan and Romney himself was an “isolated figure” in his party. While some Republicans reject direct cash transfers, it’s also true that working with Romney meant crossing Trump, and that, of course, would be heresy.In the days after the Dobbs decision, I wrote a piece arguing that when Roe was reversed, the right wasn’t ready. A Trump movement animated by rage and fear wasn’t prepared to embrace life and love. And now the pro-life movement is forced to ponder: Is Donald Trump more important to the G.O.P. than even the cause of life itself? Is he under any circumstances the best ambassador for a cause that’s already losing ground?For a generation, the pro-life movement was powerful enough to hunt heretics right out of the Republican Party. Now, if it clashes with Trump, it might find itself the heretic. And if the movement is that weak — if it is that beholden to such a corrupt and cruel man — then we might look back at the Dobbs decision not as a great victory for the pro-life cause, but rather as the beginning of a long defeat, one of a movement that forgot how to persuade. More