Subterms
Herzliya, Israel, Oct. 14. Friends and relatives of Maya Regev, 21, and her brother Itay Regev, 18, watching a news segment about the Israelis kidnapped by Hamas. The siblings, who were later released, had attended the Tribe of Nova festival, where gunmen massacred hundreds of young people and abducted others. Tamir Kalifa for The New York Times More
Growing political polarization is a problem that keeps me up at night. Not because I think it’s bad to have strong opinions, but because of what social scientists call affective polarization: polarization beyond political disagreement, when “ordinary Americans increasingly dislike and distrust those from the other party.” At its worst, affective polarization can lead to hate and dehumanization.When my colleague Thomas Edsall wrote about affective polarization earlier this year, he quoted Sean Westwood, an associate professor of government at Dartmouth, who said that part of what’s behind today’s intense partisan divide is that “Politicians, instead of focusing on the large list of issues where there is broad agreement in the American public, endlessly re-litigate social divides like gay rights and abortion to mobilize a base they fear will stay home if they focus on the mundane details of pragmatic governance.”I see this play out when I hear activists suggest that you can’t talk to them about climate change if you don’t agree with their stance on the Israel-Hamas war, or when I see politicians tying approval of military appointments to abortion access. The attitude seems to be: You have to agree with me about everything or you’re my enemy and we can’t work together on anything. It leads to a whole lot of nothing.Because I cover family policy, the lack of movement on areas of “pragmatic governance” where there is “broad agreement” drives me bonkers. A prime example is federal paid leave, which is popular among voters across the spectrum, yet remains in legislative purgatory, and has for decades. Though there’s a bipartisan working group in Congress on the issue, we’re still a long way from any change, leaving us out of step with most wealthy nations and creating a lot of stress and economic hardship for people just trying to make ends meet while also caring for children or sick family members.But there’s a group of people of all ideological backgrounds — social conservatives, progressive activists, budget wonks and lots of people in between — that’s been convening over the past year, and that gives me a bit of hope for family policy’s future. It also offers a road map for people who disagree vehemently on issues to have productive conversations and find points of connection. If nothing else, the group’s participants agree that too many American families are struggling, that families should be more of a political priority and that something needs to be done to help them.The convocation has the somewhat jargony name Convergence Collaborative on Supports for Working Families, and its members let me sit in on one of their guided discussions with the understanding that I would follow the Chatham House Rule — I can report on what was said during the session but not reveal “the identity nor the affiliation” of any speaker.The group consists of around 30 people and it has met monthly since April. It is directed by Abby McCloskey, who runs a research and consulting firm and was a policy adviser for Jeb Bush’s and Rick Perry’s 2016 presidential campaigns and Howard Schultz’s exploratory 2020 presidential run. The collaborative is funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. With permission, after the meeting I reached out to some of the individuals involved to see if they’d be comfortable talking in general terms about their experiences in the group.During the initial meetings, the members came up with set of family policy principles they could mostly agree on. The discussion I observed involved them delivering feedback on a draft of a report outlining those principles. At first, I feared this was going to be an absolutely mind-numbing way to spend three hours of my life and that I would have to gently pinch myself to stay awake while listening to a discussion of the budgetary implications of the earned-income tax credit.Instead, the conversation was spicy while still being respectful, and full of fundamental disagreements that did not seem completely papered over simply for the sake of congeniality. McCloskey described it to me more than once as feeling like “couples therapy,” and it did.For example, a few people objected to wording in the report about center-based child care that they felt put a thumb on the scale against stay-at-home parents. Others disagreed with that objection, and there was an impassioned back-and-forth about it. Ultimately, the moderator stepped in, restated everyone’s point of view in a neutral way and advised that everyone needn’t agree on every detail to move forward.I give a lot of credit to that moderator, the aptly named David Fairman, who is a senior mediator at the Consensus Building Institute, for the structure and tone of the discussion. When we spoke on the phone afterward, he explained that C.B.I. is one of “roughly a dozen” similar organizations that help conduct mediation on public issues. His job is to help find common ground among people with different backgrounds and belief systems.There are three main things Fairman does to facilitate these discussions. The first is to build relationships among participants, so that “they discover that there’s more to them than the battle of tweets that they’ve had or the countering publications or testimony and the identities that they carry with their businesses, with their advocacy groups or whoever.” That kind of humanizing is done partly through guided conversations in breakout groups, and some of it is done more organically through events like in-person cocktail hours.The second is by getting people to “listen openly” during discussions, which means calming down their “rebuttal minds, the hamster wheel that is almost always turning as we listen to someone with whom we disagree, coming up with the counterarguments,” Fairman explained. Instead, he urges people to ask “clarifying questions, not rhetorical questions, not debating questions.” And he gave this example: “What do you mean by saying that ‘you really feel strongly that the child tax credit should remain universal’? Is it that the most important thing about it is that it’s for everyone? Or is it that you are worried that the political support for it will not be there if it is not universal, or is it something else? I just want to know.”The third, and I would argue the most difficult component, is trying to get beyond people’s stated positions to their underlying interests, values and principles, to create space “to explore new ways of thinking about the options,” Fairman said. He referred to a disagreement over how generous a child care tax credit or other allowance could be. The group was at an impasse. While they couldn’t agree on the appropriate size of the credit, a new idea emerged: that more flexibility for parents to choose how to spend the credit “over the life cycle of their child would be a win, even if it doesn’t address the question of the absolute amount of funding.”I also interviewed several members of the group about their experiences. My takeaway was that overall, people were happy to be in conversation with one another, to meet basically agreeable people with totally different ways of framing the problems at hand and to think hard about their own biases. “I think the level of candor was surprising,” said Patrick Brown, a fellow at the right-leaning Ethics and Public Policy Center. “I think everybody committed to coming in with a willingness to critique their own side where necessary and to say frankly where their red lines were.”But the process was certainly not a cure-all. Many said that they wished they had even more time to work through the document they were creating. Some felt that some fundamental concerns — particularly with regard to race and immigration — weren’t aired thoroughly enough before moving on to the particulars of policymaking. More than one person expressed frustration that systemic racism was not more explicitly addressed and that barriers to accessing currently available benefits weren’t fully interrogated.While all the participants thought they would have a document at the end of the process that they would be willing to put their names to, some wondered if it would wind up being so watered down that it wouldn’t have “truly moved the needle,” as Lina Guzman, the chief strategy officer at Child Trends, put it, to get more people fired up about these issues.Even if they come up with something that isn’t earth-shattering, every person I spoke to felt that the process was worthwhile because of the relationships they built. “I think that having created the space to do this is valuable in and of itself, even if what we come out with falls short of what some people might have hoped,” said Katharine Stevens, the founder and chief executive of the Center on Child and Family Policy.We don’t know what unexpected alliances and priorities might arise in national politics in the coming years. But because these professionals have spent a lot of hours together talking about their deepest values, giving and getting clarity about their beliefs, they may find unexpected sources of support for specific ideas that aren’t yet mainstream.I came out of observing the discussion mostly wishing that we could all have mediators like Fairman at our holiday tables. We can’t simply wish away the profound disagreements many of us have. But I’ll certainly be trying to ask more clarifying questions of people I don’t agree with. Quieting my rebuttal mind, as a professional opinion haver, will be a rough one, but I’m going to do my best, and I’m going to try to maintain as much good faith as I can muster. We’ll need it in 2024. More
President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is all but certain to come out on top after a three-day vote, with the war in Gaza turning the country’s focus from economic calamity to security.There were four men on the ballot when Egyptians voted in this week’s presidential election, but with rare exception, only one of their faces gazed out from billboards, banners, buses and lampposts across Egypt: that of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.According to the government, Mr. el-Sisi won 97 percent of the vote in his last two electoral bids, in 2014 and 2018. “All of us are with you,” many of the pro-Sisi banners read, as if anticipating a similar result this time.At voting stations, which closed on Tuesday at the end of a three-day vote, “Oh Egypt, My Love” and other patriotic songs played at nightclub-worthy volumes, while glowing newspaper headlines told of newlyweds so dedicated to the nation that they showed up to the polls still in tuxedos and white gowns.In a country with almost no space for dissent, a tightly leashed media and a lamed opposition, Mr. el-Sisi’s victory is not a matter of great suspense. Official energy appeared to be channeled instead into boosting turnout — a measure of Mr. el-Sisi’s popularity that an economic crisis, and the deep resentment and despair it has generated, was otherwise likely to depress.The get-out-the-vote effort appeared to involve some unsubtle encouragement.Four people in Cairo, the capital, said they had received 200 Egyptian pounds each — the equivalent of about $6.67 — after voting. Several others said they had voted only because they had heard they would be fined for failing to do so or because their employers had given them time off with explicit instructions to use it to cast ballots.The thought of selecting any of the other three candidates, all unknowns, did not seem to cross anyone’s mind. A few said they had deliberately spoiled their ballots by checking all four boxes; the rest said they had voted Sisi.Diaa Rashwan, head of Egypt’s State Information Service, said in a statement that while there was a fine for not voting on the books, in practice it had never been applied. He said that providing money or goods in exchange for votes was a criminal offense, but dismissed allegations of such offers as “hearsay.”Voters who said they had taken payments explained that they needed the money. Others, disdaining the election, said they had skipped voting altogether.A Cairo street in September.Mauricio Lima for The New York Times“I used to like Sisi a lot, but now I’m fed up,” said Nadia Assran, 63, who on Sunday, rather than voting, was having coffee with her sister in the lower-middle-class Cairo neighborhood of Shubra.Such coffee breaks are increasingly expensive, and therefore increasingly rare. Then there was the problem of paying for her daughter’s marriage expenses, or of simply finding affordable sugar and onions amid soaring inflation.Ms. Assran mentioned the roads, bridges and shiny new cities Mr. el-Sisi has built around Egypt, which officials and state media have hailed as a major presidential accomplishment.“This is good for our sons and our grandsons,” said Ms. Assran, a widow who survives on the pension from her husband’s job as a police officer. “But how does it help me now?”Her sister, Hana Assran, 50, flicked a hand at some nearby Sisi banners.“Why would we vote? He’s going to make it anyway,” she said, reflecting widespread cynicism about the outcome. “And why are you spending so much on election propaganda when we’re struggling so much with the prices?”Though it dipped slightly in November, annual inflation hit record highs of nearly 40 percent this year as Egypt grapples with an economic crisis in which the currency’s value has plummeted and basic items have disappeared from grocery shelves.The 200 pounds voters said they had received for casting their ballots was worth about $12.50 in 2019, when a constitutional referendum granted Mr. el-Sisi the right to run for a third term, lengthened presidential terms to six years from four and handed him greater powers. Now it is worth about half that.Economists say Egypt’s economic implosion stemmed from mismanagement, most notably Mr. el-Sisi’s lavish spending on weapons and megaprojects such as new cities, a spree that piled unsustainable debt on what had already been a structurally unsound economy.Construction at an administrative megaproject,some 30 miles east of Cairo, in 2020.Khaled Desouki/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe country managed to dodge a reckoning until Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Egyptian officials have attributed Egypt’s problems to outside causes such as the war and the coronavirus pandemic.Egypt says it is opening up its politics, pointing to initiatives such as a much-publicized dialogue between government and opposition figures.But Mr. el-Sisi, a former general who rose to power in a 2013 military takeover, has also succeeded in persuading many Egyptians that they need a strong leader like him to fend off the war, chaos and destruction that have swallowed many of Egypt’s neighbors in recent years, including Libya, Sudan and now the Gaza Strip.“At least we’re guaranteed to have safety and security,” said Nadia Negm, 28, a housewife in Shubra al-Khaima, a working-class area northeast of Cairo, who said she had proudly voted for Mr. el-Sisi. “Yes, it’s hard, but at least we’re better off than other countries.”Ms. Negm, like other Sisi supporters interviewed, pointed out that many other countries were also staring down high inflation and shortages, a common refrain in the state-controlled media.But for others who declined to vote or said they voted only because they had heard they would be fined if they did not, the humiliation of not knowing how they would pay for next week’s meals, of having to break off a child’s engagement for lack of funds to cover marriage expenses or of being in constant debt outweighed their fear of instability.“Security and safety should be applied to food and jobs, too,” said Mahmoud Mohamed, 65, a coffeehouse waiter in Banha, a small city in Egypt’s Nile Delta region, who said he had fallen into a cycle of borrowing each month just to pay back the previous month’s debts. “He promised us so much, and none of it was achieved.”The war in next-door Gaza, however, has shifted some Egyptians’ focus back to other threats such as terrorism, which Mr. el-Sisi says he has successfully battled in northern Sinai, and what many Egyptians see as Israel’s drive to push Gazans across the border into Egypt.Yasmine Fouad, 39, who owns a cellphone accessories shop in Banha, said she had initially planned to sit out the election as a quiet protest of Mr. el-Sisi and the inflation he has presided over.The crisis in Gaza changed her mind.“At this moment, we all have to be behind the president, because anything could happen,” she said. “That makes us accept the current situation.”Hanging a campaign banner for President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Cairo this month.Khaled Desouki/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images More
George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, told The New York Times he would run against Mr. Bowman, a rising star of the Democratic left, next year.After months of public deliberation and prodding from donors aligned with Israel, George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, said on Wednesday that he would mount a Democratic primary challenge against Representative Jamaal Bowman of New York.The decision set the stage for a potentially explosive contest next year that promises to test not only the growing Democratic divide over the war in the Middle East but the durability of the party’s progressive wing.In an interview, Mr. Latimer drew sharp contrasts between himself and Mr. Bowman, one of left’s most vocal critics of Israel. He dismissed the incumbent’s calls for a cease-fire as premature and called a recent protest outside the White House, where the congressman accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, a political stunt.“It’s about results, not rhetoric,” said Mr. Latimer, who has deep ties to the Democratic establishment. “So much of politics has turned into that sort of showmanship — how you look in front of the cameras.”He was expected to officially begin his campaign with a video announcement later on Wednesday, just days after returning from a wartime visit to the region.The nascent contest echoes primary fights breaking out from Pittsburgh to Detroit since Hamas’s deadly Oct. 7 attack, as pro-Israel Democrats try to oust members of the House “Squad” pushing for a cease-fire. Like the other challengers, Mr. Latimer is expected to benefit from millions of dollars in outside spending by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, and other special interest groups.The race in the New York City suburbs, though, may be uniquely complex. It pits a charismatic Black progressive with a growing national profile against an old-school white liberal with deep local support. And it will play out in a district that is both home to one of the country’s most influential Jewish communities and also nearly half Black or Latino.Mr. Latimer said he shared many of Mr. Bowman’s progressive priorities but would avoid the incumbent’s “showmanship.”Gregg Vigliotti for The New York TimesMr. Latimer tread carefully around many of those fault lines as he outlined his candidacy this week, insisting that he was preparing for a campaign that would go well beyond the issue of Israel.Mr. Latimer, in his second term as county executive, urged voters not to judge him on his age, 70, or the color of his skin. Citing his four decades in elected office, he said would continue many of the progressive priorities on housing, climate change and transportation that Mr. Bowman has championed. And he avoided outright attacks on the incumbent beyond charging that Mr. Bowman was more interested in making his name than tending to his district.“If you ignore that turf because you’re a national figure and more interested in being on the national stage, then you are neglecting the needs of that community,” Mr. Latimer said.The challenge comes at a moment of profound political vulnerability for Mr. Bowman, 47, and not just because of his stance on the war. The congressman is still dealing with the repercussions of pleading guilty in October to pulling a false fire alarm in a House office building. And he has just $185,000 in his campaign account, according to recent filings.AIPAC, which privately offered Mr. Latimer its support months ago, could easily swamp that amount on its own. Marshall Wittmann, a spokesman for the group, declined to discuss the group’s spending plans this week but denounced Mr. Bowman as a representative of “the anti-Israel extremist fringe.”Mr. Bowman’s advisers and allies say defeating him may be far more difficult than his foes anticipate. Some of the left’s most influential figures were already lining up to fight back, determined to show the staying power of their movement three years after they first helped Mr. Bowman, a former middle school principal, topple a powerful three-decade incumbent, Eliot L. Engel.Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Mr. Bowman’s best-known ally, circulated a fund-raising appeal on his behalf. Left-leaning groups, including New York’s Working Families Party and Justice Democrats, have pledged resources. For now, each appear to see value in framing the primary as a conflict as one with pro-Israel special interests, not the county executive.“It’s not a surprise that a super PAC that routinely targets Black members of Congress with primary challenges and is funded by the same Republican megadonors who give millions to election-denying Republicans including Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and Ted Cruz have recruited a candidate for this race,” said Emma Simon, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bowman’s campaign.The primary battle is one Democrats had wished to avoid. The party already hopes to flip six Republican-held swing seats in New York next year, which is key to taking back the House majority. Some Democrats have expressed concern that a pro-Israel advertising blitz against Mr. Bowman would inadvertently tarnish the party’s candidates in competitive races in neighboring districts to the north and west.Now that the matchup is underway, though, it poses a quandary for Democratic leaders, particularly Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York.Mr. Jeffries, the top House Democrat, has said he would continue the party’s longstanding policy of supporting incumbents like Mr. Bowman, even if his own views on Israel are more conservative. But Mr. Latimer said he had not received a call from Mr. Jeffries asking him not to run, and the House leader may soon have to decide how hard to fight to protect Mr. Bowman.Mr. Bowman has refused to tone down his advocacy despite growing pressure from Jewish constituents and fellow Democrats.His allies argue that there is good reason to believe many voters agree with his views, but that for many, Israel will not be a decisive issue when they cast their primary ballots next June.About half of voters in the district, which stretches from the north Bronx through many of Westchester’s liberal suburbs, are Black and Latino, according to census data. The figure is even higher among Democratic primary voters. By comparison, about 10 percent of all voters and about 20 to 25 percent of Democratic primary voters are Jewish.Mr. Bowman has repeatedly said he is standing by his position on Israel for a simpler reason: He believes in it.Mr. Bowman has refused to tone down his advocacy despite growing pressure from Jewish constituents and fellow Democrats.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesHe summarized his views outside the White House last week, where he joined protesters calling on President Biden to support a bilateral cease-fire. He used terms that most Democrats have objected to, including “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing,” in describing Israel’s deadly bombardment of Gaza, which has killed some 15,000 people, according to the local health authorities. He accused the United States of “being complicit” in those deaths. But he also condemned those targeting Israelis or Jews and repeated his earlier denunciations of Hamas.“Calling for cease-fire does not mean we support Hamas, does not mean we support the killing of Israelis or Jews, does not mean we support antisemitism,” he said. “We are calling for cease-fire because we don’t want anyone else to die.”In the interview, Mr. Latimer said he, too, was eager to see the bloodshed in Gaza end, but only after Hamas returned the remaining Israeli hostages it abducted on Oct. 7 and agreed “to step aside from violence.” Anything short of that would amount to unilateral disarmament by Israel, he argued.Mr. Latimer said he did not “know enough” to judge whether Israel’s counteroffensive had violated international law. “I’m not a secretary of state,” he said.He also rejected Mr. Bowman’s proposal for the United States to place conditions on the billions of military aid it provides to Israel. “That is a matter that I think is best left to the presidential administration,” Mr. Latimer said.He was more pointed about attempts by Mr. Bowman and his allies to build public pressure on Mr. Biden through protests and media appearances. Mr. Latimer called Mr. Bowman’s appearance outside the White House “the classic response of somebody who has been in government a couple of years.”“If you want to influence the policy of the president, you begin with the dialogue you have with your other members of Democratic Caucus,” he said. “When you have a consensus movement, that becomes more impressive to an executive.” More
Listen and follow DealBook SummitApple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicDealBook Summit includes conversations with business and policy leaders at the heart of today’s major stories, recorded live at the annual DealBook Summit event in New York City.With the 2024 election less than a year away, the Biden-Harris administration must navigate a host of challenges at home and abroad, including inflation and partisan gridlock, and conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine. Vice President Kamala Harris defended the administration’s economic record, pointing to record low unemployment and wage growth, and deflected concerns about Biden’s age. In talking about the Israel-Hamas war, which seems to have prompted an upsurge of antisemitism, Harris emphasized that she believed social divisions based on race, religion or otherwise had long existed in the country. It was just a matter of what might trigger a flare-up.The New York TimesBackground readingIn August, Kamala Harris took on a forceful new role in the 2024 campaign.From The New York Times Magazine: after nearly three years, the vice president is still struggling to make the case for herself — and feels she shouldn’t have to.Follow DealBook’s reporting at https://nytimes.com/dealbookHosted by Andrew Ross Sorkin, a columnist and editor of DealBook, a daily business and policy report from The New York Times, DealBook Summit features interviews with the leaders at the heart of today’s major stories, recorded live onstage at the annual DealBook Summit event in New York City.The DealBook events team includes Julie Zann, Caroline Brunelle, Haley Duffy, Angela Austin, Hailey Hess, Dana Pruskowski, Matt Kaiser and Yen-Wei Liu.Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Nina Lassam, Ravi Mattu, Beth Weinstein, Kate Carrington, Isabella Anderson and Jeffrey Miranda. More
Vice President Kamala Harris, Elon Musk, Bob Iger, Jamie Dimon and Tsai Ing-wen, the president of Taiwan, are among the big names speaking.Leaders in politics, business and culture will gather in New York for the DealBook Summit today. Here, The Times’s Andrew Ross Sorkin interviews Reed Hastings of Netflix at last year’s event.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesThe lineup for DealBook Summit 2023 On Wednesday, DealBook will be live and in person at our annual summit in New York.Andrew takes the stage around 9 a.m. Eastern, and the first interview kicks off soon after. The DealBook team and reporters from The Times will be reporting live from the conference.Even if you are not with us, you can follow along here beginning at 8:30 a.m. Eastern.Here are the speakers:Vice President Kamala HarrisTsai Ing-wen, the president of TaiwanElon Musk, the chairman and C.E.O. of SpaceX, the C.E.O. of Tesla and the chairman and chief technology officer of XLina Khan, the chair of the Federal Trade CommissionJamie Dimon, the chairman and C.E.O. of JPMorgan ChaseBob Iger, the C.E.O. of DisneyRepresentative Kevin McCarthy, Republican of CaliforniaJensen Huang, the C.E.O. of NvidiaDavid Zaslav, the C.E.O. of Warner Bros. DiscoveryShonda Rhimes, the television show creator and the founder of the Shondaland production companyJay Monahan, the commissioner of the PGA TourWhat to watch: The buzz and fears swirling around artificial intelligence, the rise of hate speech and antisemitism since the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, China-U.S. relations, inflation, interest rates and the chip wars and streaming wars — these topics and more will be covered by Andrew as he interviews some of the biggest newsmakers in business, politics and culture.There will be plenty of questions about an uncertain world. Americans are down on politics, the economy and workplace conditions. College campuses are divided. What role does business play in addressing these grievances? What about the White House and Congress? Can they bring voters together? Speaking of which, can Republicans unite to keep the government from shutting down again (and again)?Elsewhere, can Beijing and Washington decrease tensions and restore more normalized trading relations? What about A.I.? Is this a technology that will unleash a new wave of productivity, or is it a force that could do irreparable harm? And what’s so special about colonizing Mars?More on what to expect later.HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett’s longtime lieutenant, dies at age 99. A former lawyer who became the vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and a billionaire in his own right, he became known for his sardonic quips. But Munger had more influence than his title suggests: Buffett credited him with devising Berkshire’s famed approach of buying well-performing businesses at low prices, turning the company into one of the most successful conglomerates in history.The Koch Network endorses Nikki Haley. Founded by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, the political network — which had raised a war chest of more than $70 million as of this summer — could give Haley’s campaign organizational strength and financial heft as she battles Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and aims to close the gap on the Republican front-runner, Donald Trump. Haley has risen in the polls since the first Republican primary debate in August, while DeSantis has slipped.Apple reportedly moves to end its credit card pact with Goldman Sachs. In the latest blow to Goldman’s consumer finance ambitions, the tech giant has proposed pulling the plug on a credit card and savings account it introduced with the bank, according to The Wall Street Journal. It’s unclear if Apple has found a new partner to issue its Apple Card, though Goldman had previously discussed a deal to offload the program to American Express.Mark Cuban makes two exits. The billionaire entrepreneur will leave “Shark Tank” after more than 10 years of assessing start-up pitches and making deals on camera. And, according to The Athletic, Cuban is selling a majority stake in the Dallas Mavericks to the casino billionaire Miriam Adelson and her family for a valuation around $3.5 billion. (He will retain full control over basketball operations.)Some things we’d like to cover Vice President Kamala HarrisWill “Bidenomics” save or sink the Biden-Harris ticket in 2024?Elon Musk, SpaceX, Tesla and XWhat did you learn from your trip this week to Israel?Lina Khan, F.T.C.What is your endgame in taking on Big Tech?Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan ChaseDoes America have too many banks?Jensen Huang, NvidiaIs investor enthusiasm around artificial intelligence justified, or is it merely inflating a bubble?We’d like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to dealbook@nytimes.com. More
More from our inbox:Expanding Advanced Placement Classes: Harmful or More Equitable?Election LessonsAmericans’ Love of Outlaws Stefani Reynolds/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “The Question of Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism,” by Charles M. Blow (column, Nov. 16):The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, adopted by dozens of countries around the world, indeed does define anti-Zionism as antisemitism. It cites as an example of antisemitism: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”That the Jewish people deserve the right of self-determination, after the Holocaust and the persecution throughout Arab lands for centuries, was resolved in 1948. To debate Zionism is precisely the problem facing the Jews today and most especially Israelis who live in an absurd world in which the nature of their birthright is called into question, as every single Israeli is born of Zionism.How ironic that in this day and age in the United States, where every minority is protected and words matter more than ever, it is somehow acceptable to define oneself as anti-Zionist, even if Jewish. It is offensive, absurd and deeply antisemitic.As an American Israeli, I cannot stress enough how toxic this concept is to Israelis and how it does nothing to help the cause of peace today.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please More
More from our inbox:Rosalynn Carter’s ‘Incredible Life’Protests at ColumbiaBidenomics Isn’t Helping Me Damon Winter/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “A Trump-Biden Rematch Is the Election We Need,” by Carlos Lozada (column, Nov. 12):When I first saw the headline on Mr. Lozada’s column, I thought, “No way!” After reading the piece and thinking about it, I have decided that this is the one election we truly need to have.There is no greater comparison than Biden vs. Trump. It is the classic confrontation of good versus evil, and the American people need to decide whether we choose to maintain a constitutional republic, or support an authoritarian, belligerent, vindictive form of government.The twice impeached, quadruple indicted former president is a clear and present danger, while Joe Biden is a staunch defender of democracy, fairness and decency. We need this election to once and for all defeat MAGA and Trumpism, and send Donald Trump packing, if he is not in prison.There is no greater threat to the American way of life than Donald Trump, and even if Joe Biden is simply a place holder for the president who is elected in 2028, that would be far more palatable than a Trump presidency.Henry A. LowensteinNew YorkTo the Editor:Carlos Lozada argues that “we have no choice but to choose” between Donald Trump and President Biden and their dueling visions for America at the ballot box in 2024. This is, for now, a false choice.In light of the alarming polling trend regarding Mr. Biden’s re-electability, the wisest course of action for the Democrats is to urgently organize, with Mr. Biden’s blessing (he would have to be persuaded), a robust Democratic presidential primary in order to discover whom Democratic voters would turn out for in the largest numbers on Election Day.But the longer that Democratic elites delay, the Trump-Biden choice will, in short order, become one that we indeed cannot escape. If this occurs, as seems likely, it will be a choice that Mr. Biden and the Democratic establishment impose on the electorate.And if Mr. Biden comes up short at the ballot box in 2024, as the recent New York Times/Siena poll suggests he will, he and the Democratic Party’s other so-called leaders will have nobody but themselves to blame.Nicholas BuxtonNew YorkTo the Editor:Carlos Lozada writes: “Joe Biden versus Donald Trump is not the choice America wants. But it is the choice we need to face.”Yes, it is the choice we need to face, but what a risk!With Mr. Trump’s high polling numbers, it certainly seems that a significant number of people support his candidacy unequivocally. What he says and does — illegal or not — makes no difference. He evokes deep emotions and the feeling that he will settle their scores and protect them from the “woke” mob. They like Mr. Trump’s moxie and flouting of authority, but don’t listen to his actual plan of governance.He plainly wants to create an authoritarian government — put his cronies in the Justice Department and jail his political “enemies,” pack the courts and rule as his whims dictate.Yes, the best way to end Mr. Trump’s reign of influence would be to decisively defeat him in this election. But we are taking the huge risk that he could win — and end our democracy as we know it.I would rather risk losing to a Nikki Haley than take the chance on beating Mr. Trump. Unfortunately, we may not have a choice.It is the job of the Democratic candidates and the media to clearly present the facts about the likely choices in this election. And keep our fingers crossed!Carol KrainesDeerfield, Ill.To the Editor:Representative Dean Phillips of Minnesota, the 54-year-old Democrat running a long-shot presidential campaign, took direct aim at President Biden and his message in a recent CNN interview.Mr. Phillips said: “I think in 2020, he was probably the only Democrat who could have beaten Donald Trump. I think in 2024, he may be among the only ones that will lose to him.”Let’s think about that, because if you do, his argument is very persuasive. Mr. Phillips is a relatively young, moderate Democrat. Millions of people are yearning for an alternative to an octogenarian Joe Biden and to an existentially dangerous to our democracy Donald Trump.In a recent poll, a “generic” Democrat matched against Mr. Trump outperformed Joe Biden by more than 10 points. We Democrats want an alternative. Just maybe we’ve found one, and his name is Dean Phillips.Ken DerowSwarthmore, Pa.Rosalynn Carter’s ‘Incredible Life’At their home in Plains, Ga., in the same place they’ve always sat.” After the presidency, Mrs. Carter joined her husband in doing work for Habitat for Humanity, co-founded a vaccine advocacy organization and continued to campaign to reduce the stigma of mental illness. Dustin Chambers for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Rosalynn Carter, 1927-2023: First Lady and Influential Partner to a President” (obituary, front page, Nov. 20):Rosalynn Carter walked her own path, inspiring a nation and the world along the way.Throughout her incredible life as first lady of Georgia and the first lady of the United States, Mrs. Carter did so much to address many of society’s greatest needs.She was a champion for equal rights and opportunities for women and girls; an advocate for mental health and wellness for every person; and a supporter of the often unseen and uncompensated caregivers of our children, aging loved ones and people with disabilities.Above all, the deep love shared between Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter is the definition of partnership, and their humble leadership is the definition of patriotism. She lived life by her faith.I send my love to Mr. Carter, the entire Carter family, and the countless people across our nation and the world whose lives are better, fuller and brighter because of the life and legacy of Rosalynn Carter.Paul BaconHallandale Beach, Fla.Protests at Columbia Bing Guan for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Columbia Students and Faculty Protest War and the University’s Reaction to It” (news article, Nov. 16):Columbia administrators cite “unauthorized” events and the necessary continuation of “core university activities” as primary reasons for silencing pro-Palestinian groups on campus.I don’t always agree with the politics of these groups, and I agree with the university’s finding that “threatening rhetoric and intimidation” exist at their protests. Still, the university’s actions raise these questions:What is a university if not a space for the free exchange of ideas? Is protest not a core university activity at an institution celebrated for its amplification of student voices?As long as they don’t incite violence or endanger members of our community, Columbia’s pro-Palestinian groups should be allowed to offend, frighten and protest whenever and wherever they’d like.Benjamin RubinNew YorkThe writer is a member of the Columbia University class of 2027.Bidenomics Isn’t Helping Me John ProvencherTo the Editor:Re “Bidenomics Has a Mortal Enemy, and It Isn’t Trump,” by Karen Petrou (Opinion guest essay, Nov. 19):Ms. Petrou is absolutely accurate. I am self-employed, work full time and cannot make ends meet.I’m constantly trying to determine whether to pay the bills or rent on my business; luckily, I have kind landlords. I pay a mortgage as well. I’m college educated. The last couple of weeks of every month I am generally broke and couldn’t pay anything if I had to. And this situation has gone on for years now.I really like President Biden, but I do agree that on this particular issue the administration is getting it wrong.Shannon TrimbleSan Francisco More
